Read the November 19 meeting.

And please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here

Thank you.

And please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here please come here

If you could all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

If you can remain standing, we have our invocation this evening by Rupert Vega, our police chaplain.

If you could please bow your heads. Gracious Heavenly Father, we come before you today giving you honor, glory, and praise. Lord, you are the source of all that is good, and we are grateful for all the blessings you have bestowed upon us. We thank you for our wonderful city of Santa Ana, our honorable mayor, city council, chief of police, and staff. Lord, we thank you for our freedom and the opportunity to unite and gather together this day. We ask for your hand of blessing to be upon tonight's meeting and proceedings. We thank you for your grace, unending love, and wisdom.

And we ask that you would guide and direct our meeting, and that it be of sound wisdom, that it be productive, with integrity, accountability, and with respect towards one another. Thank you, Lord, for helping us to accomplish our work and our goals this day. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Thank you. You may be seated.

As we begin our meeting today, I just want to announce that item 75C, that's a public hearing on Mariscos Hector located at 1801 South Main Street units D&E. That item will not be heard today. It's going to be continued at request, I believe, of the applicant, concurrence with staff. So do we need a motion to do that or does the announcement suffice? Announcement suffices? Okay. So with that...

David PenalozaItem —

Is this discontinued for the next meeting or 30 days?

I don't know what the request was. Next meeting?

Next meeting, sir.

Next meeting. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, it is my intent to go quickly, hopefully quickly, through the consent counter item. Then I know we have 2525 North Main, which a lot of you are here for, so I will suspend the rest of the agenda and go to that item just as soon as we're done with the consent calendar. So, Madam City Attorney, anything to report out of closed session?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

We had several closed session discussions this evening, but I do not have any reportable action.

Thank you for that. Do we have any items by Council Members on the consent calendar? Anybody want to pull anything? Council Member Iglesias.

I'm going to pull 20D.

20D. 20D, okay.

I think that's it.

All right. I'd entertain a motion on the ballots.

Motion to approve. Second.

Those in favor, please press green.

Motion no. Carry, I'm certain. So let's go on to item 20D.

20D. Councilor Iglesias, please.

Okay. So this item says approve an appropriation adjustment and approve a memorandum of understanding with a full-time employees unit, which is a Service Employees International Union Local

721.

The reason I'm pulling this is because, as you all know, my way of, I believe that we should be compensating our employees is not across the board raises what I believe is in merit pay and performance based. and taking this into consideration and just my opinion is something that we're just giving across the board without really acknowledging what the employees are doing. So that's why I wanted to poll it so we can vote on it separately.

All right. I move the item. Second.

Those in favor, please press green.

so that passes

now I want to Madam City Manager is there anything very urgent on any of the other items or can I start into the public hearing

no, Honor Malbert you can continue with the public hearing

public hearing, okay So I'm going to call folks to come up and speak on 2525 North Main. Madam City Clerk.

Okay, that is item 75D. So I will now open the public hearing. This is the final environmental impact report, number 2018-1, development agreement, 2018-1, general plan amendment, an amendment application for proposed multifamily development located at 2525 North Main Street. So I'm just going to call on folks. Everybody's going to get the same amount of time. It's going to be three minutes. You can't yield time to other people. You can't, you know, dance or do anything to get more time.

You just have to speak, and then when you're done, you're done, and then we'll call on the next person. And we're going to start with a resident by the name of Lisa Mills. I'll note she's a former council member. And welcome, Lisa. Also, after that, it's going to be Carl Benninger, followed by Jeff Cavs.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. I got here at 4.15, so I could speak early in the program.

Start the lights, please.

Yes. I won't take very long, because I did send a letter to the City Council. I was co-signed by Mayor Dan Grissett, Rob Richardson, Tom Lutz, Brett Franklin, about Alberta Christie, and myself. You know, I've lived in town for over 30 years, and I've never seen a development like this before. You know, usually when a neighborhood speaks up and says we have an issue with it, and time and time again, the council listens and they try to protect our neighborhoods. In this case, I don't understand why we need more luxury apartments in the north end of town.

You know, this would be a perfect opportunity to do something with the Discovery Science Center, maybe buy the property from the developer with the $10 million grant that the Discovery Science Center has received, get maybe a $5 million state grant, and put some money on our own, and then develop a really nice museum district, park district program for this area. I'm opposed to rezoning 2525, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Carl, followed by Jeff, followed by Ellen, Colton, Edwin.

Good evening, Council and Mayor. I'll make this very simple because we've heard the issues for the last two years. And very simple, think what it does to the neighborhood. I agree with Lisa in the past. This council has defended neighborhoods. But just think what this development would do in that area for that neighborhood that is there. So I oppose changing the 425-25. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff.

Jeff Cavs, K-A-V-Z, I believe it is. If not, Ellen, you would be next.

And after Ellen, Michael Plantamura.

Thank you, Your Honor, the Mayor and Council. I'm Mrs. Ellen Calderway. I'm one of your constituents. I'm a Santa Ana voter. I'm here to ask you to vote against the development schedule to be built at 2525 North Main Street. Changes in this project since the last time the Council considered are just not substantial. Traffic safety, parking availability, negative impacts still unacceptable or unknown, particularly with the anticipated sale of the acreage to the Discovery Center and the modifications on Main Street between Walkie Way and Edgewood.

The city's genuine need for new housing. People of Santa Ana don't need to settle for this misplaced, high-density, outsized project. It's not necessary or helpful to your constituents, including those who need affordable housing, to crowd this space with too many apartment units. 2525 North Main apartments will be priced too high to alleviate overcrowding in Santa Ana, so the project will only increase the density of our city's housing.

There's no rezoning needed here. I'd like to seek a project for this property that's in sync with the current cultural uses of the property's neighbors on North Main Street Museum Corridor, the revitalized Main Street Mall, Bowers Museum, restored Santiago Park green spaces. This stretch of North Main Street should be developed as a premier business location that's part of an exciting and inviting entry to our city that's already underway and that can be used and enjoyed by all of us in our city. But the worst mistake is thoughtlessly abandoning our city's general plan,

which I heard our planning and building agency executive director recently aptly call our city's constitution. We're haphazardly dismantling our general plan piecemeal based on the wants of an individual developer rather than a coherent appraisal of what's in the best interest of Santa Ana. Now, I would like to acknowledge the good that the developer has done by building the Link Homeless Shelter and to say that I greatly appreciate and strongly support the need to attract new development to our city to bring in new revenue. But a good project there doesn't make a good project here. And it's just not worth it.

The current record supporting 2525 North Main Street shows that the financial benefit to the city from this development in terms of new general fund revenue will be a lot less than originally anticipated and will not justify the very real harm that this particular development will do to our city. Please, don't settle for the incomplete and unsound answers in the record to the many important questions you and your constituents have asked about this project. As one of your constituents, a Santa Ana voter, I've been blessed to live in a home for over 20 years, less than a mile away from this proposed development.

I've learned from reading the record and listening that my neighborhood could be severely and irreversibly damaged by the decision to rezone and overbuild this parcel of land. So will other neighborhoods, Ward 3, and our city. I ask you to think of our city's future when you vote. Together we can do better. Please vote against this development. Thank you for your service.

Let me call on staff for a brief presentation. And the applicant, if there is one in terms of presentation.

Thank you, Mayor. Executive Director Min Tai of the Planning Department.

He's not going to go through that whole thing, is he?

That's not his entire presentation.

Speak into the mic, please.

Thank you, Mayor and Member of the City Council. The project before you is a request for approval of a general plan amendment and zone change for 2525. we have a presentation the project site is located on the northeast corner of Maine and Edgewood as you can see on the map there the surrounding neighborhood include the single-family residential an office building to the north and to the west is the discovery cube the project was considered by the Planning Commission

in early January and was a recommendation that resulted in denial the project to the City Council it was heard in February at a couple public hearings the City Council remanded the project back the Commission with direction for the applicant to work with the community to discuss options for the project and come back to the City Council with another option the applicant met with the community several meetings and resubmitted the application in June of this year and was heard by the Planning Commission the Commission review the

project was was a revision of 347 units reduction from 496 the Planning Commission considered the project voted to on the project and resulting in an impasse basically a denial of the project the project was in process to go to City Council the applicant come back and provided additional changes based on some of the feedback they heard during the public hearing process and further reduce the the project they met again with the community the feedback that we received was that while the the project was further reduced to 256 unit it still

didn't meet the concerns may have put forth by the residents in the area regarding density regarding compatibility and the project that the community would support which would include either the existing office development building out the existing zoning as an office development or a lower density housing development project so based on that the planning Commission heard the project in on October 28th and as a result of that meeting the Planning Commission again voted 3 to 2 to deny the project and recommend that City Council consider the same as I mentioned the current project is 256

residential unit has a density about 58 units to the acre and an far 1.43 the project proposed approximately 511 parking spaces resulting in 2.0 parking spaces per unit the unit mix stays about the same in terms of the bedrooms and studio size it's been further reduced in terms of height and massing it's now about between two to four stories in terms of residential and with a parking structure in the center in the center of the project the setback of the project has been increased both at the back of the building as well as the side of the

building I'll share with you a site plan that shows the changes there's additional surface parking lot one will be used for the residential project which is located on the south side of the site and then 180 spaces to the I'm sorry to the east side of the site and 180 spaces the south will be used potentially by a user right now it's being considered by the discovery cube as a parking lot for their museum across the street the site plan right here shows the the project site as currently redesigned north is to my left and the project as

you can see 180 spaces the setback to the back is about 90 feet the setback of the building originally was 15 feet from the property line from Edgewood now is about 134 feet and is the width of the parking lot and that parking lot is the section that's being proposed to be used as a satellite parking lot for Discovery Cube the applicant is in process of negotiating that the entrance to the project is now no longer proposed to be a part or a land exchange with the Park

Santiago the park of Santiago Park it is all on-site however it does require a modification of the intersection which I'll explain a little bit later as you can see here in purple the project has parking of about 511 parking spaces physically on-site this results in a 2.0 parking spaces for the project for 407 of which will be in a parking structure and 104 which will be a surface parking lot at the rear of the project site the hundred space 80 spaces to the south of

the project site this is proposed to be on a separate lot it will be considered to be by by the discovery cube as their satellite parking for their facility on the west side of the street this also provide an opportunity for the applicant to enter into an agreement with with the user for a share use which works out in terms of after hours between 6 and 6 a.m. and potentially even some hours on the weekend however that is not a proposal in terms of the project parking requirements it is 2.0 on site with this additional potential share parking they

would go to 2.7 parking spaces per unit this is just to illustrate the height of the building as you can see the tallest portion of the building is towards the center which is the parking structure as well as the amenity deck and also include elevator shaft the tallest part of the building will be approximately 240 feet away from the property line visibility has been it has been designed to do visit increase privacy as well as reducing visibility to the adjacent property as you can see the line of sight to the project is blocked by the

two and four stories rear units to the rear in addition to that the units along the rear side of the building has been designed so that wherever there are required openings those will be designed in opaque manner to obscure visibility looking to the neighbors towards the east and wherever feasible and possible window will be removed completely in addition to that landscaping will be provided at the rear of the site and that's part of the project design with the goal of reducing or enhancing privacy for the adjacent property owners this is a elevation of

the project on top there you see is the previous project with its five stories and below is the reduction for a four-story project this is an elevation along Edgewood you can see that the previous project on top has greater mass and taller buildings the building now has been further set back as well as we done reducing in height the project entry the as I mentioned the entrance of the project is going to be on Main Street the project as part of the proposal will be redesigning the walkie way intersection

currently the intersection of walk away at Main Street provide access to discovery cube on the west and to San Diego Park on the east the entrance for this discovery cube will remain as is today the curb and sidewalk on the east side of the property for San Diego Park will be removed and the entrance will be relocated approximately 90 feet to the south providing access to the site in addition to that because of the removal of the curb and sidewalk the applicant will be providing a perpetual easement that will provide

public access for the city to be able to use to gain access to the park again there is no proposal of land swap it is a an easement for public access being provided on site will have to be maintained by the applicant for public use as you can see on the elevation up there the right the left turn lane movement will continue to be the same and be used currently as it does it will simply extend to the south providing access to the site the three traveling

continue to exist the intersection has been extended and a signal light will be install and the signal light as it is currently will be modified so that it will also be extended to provide the turning movements for the basically a five-way intersection design type in addition to that there is a proposal to put in a raised median to allow for regulating of turning movements this will also be allowing for queuing along the north side northbound to provide

queuing into the discovery cube and on the south both sign this queuing area has been designed so that it will allow for stacking vehicle for southbound lane turning on edgeward the project entitlements as is being considered includes an environmental impact report and a statement of overriding considerations that would need to be adopted for the project a general plan amendment a zone change which is an amendment application and a development agreement as previously mentioned the environmental impact report was completed for the project the first time was heard with the revision to the

project and the several iteration the project further reduce its impact essentially from the original project that was considered back in February by the City Council this represent about a 49% reduction in terms of units and that 49% reduction essentially is applied throughout the project in terms of impact so the associated impact has also been to reduce approximately 40 for you one percent in terms of the I'm sorry 49% but however in terms of the the finding relating to the impact that is cannot be mitigated which is aesthetics that

aesthetic impact identify that because of the building and the height of the master of the building it will continue to be visible and have a negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood therefore that impact is still there that has not been reduced as part of this process a clarification to the IR was completed in order to assess the reduction in the size of the project which I provide a summary of a few minutes a few seconds back general plan amendment is proposing to be changed from office professional to district center as shown on the map in pink here the amendment application is going from

professional office to us SD which is a specific development the SD designation is going to be specifically for this development project outlining all of the details of the project as part of the zoning code application of the regulations

the development agreement this was where there was also a change in the development agreement the project development agreement will be for four years with a two one-year extension at the options of the City Council there's a public art component that will be required the project at a half percent the area significant change since the last time you considered this was there was a contribution to a city project for improvement of Santa go park the original project was going to contribute 1.4 million dollars toward the construction and the remodeling rehabilitation of a portion of Santiago

Park adjacent to the project with the reduction of the project the applicant originally proposed eliminating the entire 1.4 million dollars however through discussion with our Parks and Recreation Department and working out the issues of the park there was an agreement that the applicant would contribute seven hundred thousand dollars towards that project the remaining balance of the project will continue to be the city's responsibility in addition to that the applicant is modifying the benefit improvement project to for a

parking neighborhood also traffic calming in the neighborhood the streetlights all of those elements Amazon lockers those also being removed as well because of the project reduction in terms of the number of units they also eliminate the historical district application which was a part of the original project development proposal they would have funded towards the the historical designation study at this point that is also been removed from the development agreement simple project comparison previous project 476 units it

is now 256 the 40 76 what was recommended at the time the 496 was the proposal so I just want to make that clarification density 81 drawing unit to the acre compared to 58 so as you can see the project basically have been reduced what's significant here is that parking which is a major concern has been increased to two point two parking spaces per unit fiscal economic analysis you know the project obviously has been reduced in number of units that also been reduction in terms of economic benefits that the project or revenue the project

would generate the forecasted over 25 years in terms of the general fund revenue of his approximately sixteen point six million dollars over 25 years with five million dollars in terms of expenditure resulting in a net benefit approximately 11.6 million dollars in net present value that's about six point seven million dollars over 25 years or approximately 200 plus thousand dollars annually again the Planning Commission heard this on October 28th after hearing and taking public testimony which was about 50 speakers with 100 written

comments by vote of two they recommended that the same council deny the 250 units project at this point the City Council option is to affirm the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the project as proposed or the other option is to adopt a resolution certifying the environmental documents adopt an ordinance approving the development agreement as well as the amendment plan and also approving the general plan so those are the options that this council may consider tonight. Thank you.

Okay, with that, what I would request is you just stand by. We may have questions, but right now we've got a ton of speakers, so there's no objection.

Do you want to speak? Go ahead. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have handouts that we would like to pass out to you. I had some slides, but I'm not sure if you were, I was outside, so I didn't hear if you said that those were presentable tonight or not.

basically they're the same slides that you that you have received yes it's approximately 10 10 illustrations that are not duplicates of what you just saw from staff so i would be it's up to you if you would like me to present them to the public or not

Mr. Mayor, the only thing I would mention is that if we're going to allow the applicant to go ahead and show some sort of PowerPoint or slides, we do the same thing if we have those speaking against.

The problem is I told those speaking against that they couldn't do that.

Okay, then we're good.

So let's just take with ease. Yes, sir. Thank you. I don't want to double standard.

Yes, sir. That makes sense. Okay. That's what I wanted to ask you. All right. Thank you, sir. Well, good evening. My name is R.C. Alley. I'm a partner at AO Architects. I've been a multifamily architect for 30 years. We've spent the last two years designing and redesigning this project to be a good neighbor and react to the community concerns. The 11 families on Spurgeon and two adjacent homeowners on Edgewood asked for items, and all were incorporated. That would be the first, I believe, the first slide in your, the first document in your deck.

These include block walls, additional landscaping, increased setbacks, obscured windows that face east, construction mitigation plans, amenities were located away from the homes, trash collection was moved away from the homes as well. The project will be non-smoking, and there will be a $10,000 stipend per family that fronts the project. In all my years of designing and processing projects in Southern California, I've never witnessed as much misinformation as I have seen on this project. and our intent tonight is to talk about those items and try to clarify them and make an accurate record.

Tonight, so Joe Adams from The Cube, Jim Simon, Waukie Ray and I will be here. We're going to be dispelling any myths and provide you the facts. We provided each of you with a laminated chart. That was the first thing on top. So you can just follow them very easily. I'm going to start now. Myth number one. the apartments will create a traffic impact you can see there's a there's a slide in your in your deck that shows the traffic numbers as verified by the city traffic engineers the 256 proposed units will result in 92 morning trips

113 evening trips peak trips and total trips of 1393 at full occupancy importantly at rush hour this is not as this is not significant traffic it equates to about one car every 90 seconds. On the other hand, if a new office building were developed pursuant to the current zoning, it would produce 450 morning trips, 446 evening trips, and 3,775 average daily trips. The trips are about four times the quantity of a residential project.

now let's discuss the overall area all 16 nearby intersections were extensively studied it was determined that there are no significant traffic impacts from this project at any of these intersections on top of that we also that we also removed our driveway on Edgewood and all traffic is directed to put right on Main Street on the other hand the traffic studies prove that several of these intersections would be impacted if an office project were developed on the site for the existing zoning it was also suggested that a retail center may be a great idea for the site but that generates about 7,000 daily trips about

five times as many as the residential you've been given the factual information developed by the professionals and the city staff and it shows that the project would not create significant impacts to traffic the neighborhood has said traffic is a major concern to them the facts show that the Addington is the least impactful option for the site now let's talk about it cut through traffic from the Addington cut through traffic has been studied by professional traffic engineers and city engineering staff in great detail for more than two years I have diagrams that are included in there that show how traffic works and

how traffic would really not be going through the Park Santiago neighborhood as it would be very circuitous to get either to the freeway, which is adjacent to the site, or to the north and south of the site. It's much, much more convenient to use Main Street than to exit the project, try to go and do a U on Main Street, and then go back into Park Santiago. If you could continue with your

comments you've got like another five minutes to present and I'm going to give you five minutes to rebut the previous presentation if you like please

continue yes sir I'll go quickly then I'll just I'll just hit my subject lines palm trees on Edgewood there has been great discussion about two palm trees we have redesigned the project to leave those the entry for the parking queue queue parking is close to Edgewood it's within it's it's much further than city standards requires minimum distances at 132 feet versus the 90 feet that the city requires.

Pedestrian access to the queue parking lot is one of the myths is it's unsafe. In reality, it's very safe. We have a protected crosswalk. Myth number six, the developer purchased the site. Actually, I'm going to let Joe talk about this one.

Joe Adams are you here turn this over to Joe

hello mayor and council members thank you for considering our project so the cube I'm the CEO of the cube this is a very important project to us we're passionate about it it's been something that dealing with parking has been something since our inception that we've had to figure out it's been a problem we will currently work on our parking management plan we have to find a 180 parking spaces across the city, and yet the city's growing and taking away the opportunities for us to fulfill those parking spaces so we can continue to serve all those kids and families that come to the Cube.

There's two solutions for the Cube that this project happens to provide, long-term parking and safety and security for the area. So as we know, and it was mentioned earlier, we have $10 million grant that the Cube was given recently for parking, and so we're looking around. The thing is, and you see in the sheet, there's no options for $10 million. It sounds like a lot of money, but we can't still buy anything nearby. The mall is being redeveloped, so that was our overflow. It's great. It's great for the city, but that took out our spot. The Red Roof Inn, it's more than $10 million to buy the Red Roof Inn

and make a parking lot out of that. So our options nearby, it really has dwindled now until we have a great option with Addington. They've offered us an opportunity to fulfill all 100% of our parking management plan needs for our daily attendance for 180 spaces is what this will provide so it takes care of this issue that is disappearing all around us as the city's growing in the area it's great it's growing but we're going to miss out on this opportunity if we can't be able to capture this this one moment in time the improvements that is going to happen uh we're

going to get it's going to be the same parking lot we need parking it's going to be a parking lot just like it is today, which is what I think is a great part about this. I hear the residents, they don't want change. We're going to keep that entrance the same way. The trees are the same. It's going to be better. It's going to have lighting. It's going to be all brand new. It's not going to flood anymore that's over there. The place is starting to get into disrepair. With this, we'll be able to provide a brand new. It's going to mimic the fencing that we have at the Cube. So it'll look really great along that side as well.

And we're providing an entry that we can queue seven cars in. So we can get cars off Main Street and into that parking lot quickly. And the other thing is we're going to provide gates. And we want to gate the whole place. At nighttime, the place gets gated up. No one's coming in. You can't get out from a pedestrian thing. So from, like, security for the neighborhood that's there, I think that's a great piece of that.

If you want Wachie to speak, you've got two minutes left.

All right. You got it, Mayor. Here we go. Wachie, I'll let him. Let me just one more thing. The last thing for me is safety. We all are concerned about safety. I do believe that if we add the investment into the park, we have 24-hour security, and we obviously have a great relationship with the city, that that combined can help move the unwanted entity that's kind of happening in that neighborhood. So we really have to do that.

Your five minutes can come at the end after everybody has spoken, and you can rebut whatever you want to rebut. Go ahead, Joaquin.

Would you prefer I not speak?

No, you have a minute and 30 seconds. Do whatever you want.

Thank you for allowing me to make a few comments. Regardless, I'd like to say of the outcome here, this hearing is at the very heart of American democracy, and I have the utmost respect for our neighbors and for you. I support the project because it affords us the opportunity to own, in fee, 180 parking spaces and to have a shared interest in another 90. We need these parking spaces both to fulfill our obligations to the city for parking requirements, but also to fulfill our destiny as a world-class, hands-on science learning center.

Options have been discussed. We've looked at options. We've talked with everybody. Everybody. Nobody is out there willing to make a deal for parking. Today I received a call from a group that represents the ownership of the time and date building on the main place grounds. Their offer is for us to be able to use the parking spaces on weekends and evenings. This doesn't work. We need parking spaces during the daytime just like everybody else. In any event, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Joaquin. Madam City Attorney and Manager, I am obliged to give them five minutes at the end, correct? Rebut any comments?

That is correct. After public comments.

Okay. So you can be around. We've got a few more speakers, and I'd be happy to hear your rebut and additional comments.

Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much.

Thank you. So with that, Michael Bentamura, followed by Karen Iger.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. Speak right into the mic, please. Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. I'm here to... My name is Mike Pantamira. I live on Oakmont Avenue in Park Santiago. I'm here to oppose this project. Yes, the developer did reduce the number of units, but it's still too dense for our community. But what is really more important to me is the safety aspect. And I know they're trying to say it's not a safety condition, but the change of the traffic patterns on the street really make it a safety issue. Moving the entrance to that shared parking lot close to Edgewood Avenue

and having the five freeway off-ramp right there, people turning from Edgewood, You've got children that are going to be parking in there. They're going to be excited to get to the Discovery Center. All it takes is one fatal accident, God forbid, and a lawsuit against the city for approving such an unsafe condition in the parking, I mean in the traffic conditions at the site, to wipe out any funds that they're going to get from it.

The expanded entrance at Walkie Way is another unsafe condition, too. You've got people crossing the street there. Anyway, for me, the safety first is really what you need to consider here. And despite everything that they say, this is not a safe condition as far as what they're doing to Main Street. As far as parking, parking violates the Santa Ana Municipal Code. The Municipal Code requires 652 dedicated spaces, 521 for the residents. they have 407 dedicated to the residents it also requires 131 for guests they have 104 for guests

and and to say they're gonna have shared parking with the discovery cube well what happens on weekends or special events those people are going to park in our in our neighborhood so to say that 2.0 is a workable solution just go see the Prisma which is also 2.0 it's count the number of cars that are parked on the streets around Prisma there those are residents for Prisma and it doesn't it It means that 2.0 does not meet the requirements. The municipal code does.

The one thing that they keep saying is the aesthetics can't be mitigated. I guarantee you if it was a medium density condo complex where people owned it, people from Park San Diego welcomed it, it would eliminate the aesthetics thing. So to say there's no projects available for that site that would mitigate aesthetics is absolutely wrong. and with that I will just wish that you vote think about the residents first and vote your conscience for that don't let special interest money dictate your vote look at what Los Angeles is doing developers are taking over there they're

already starting to push back against developer money so please consider the

residents first thank you thank you Jeff Jeff Katz I believe you might be back followed by Carolyn Iger Carolyn come on up and then Jeff you go after her good

evening my name is Karen Igar and I live on Oakmont in Park Santiago neighborhood I'm here to ask you to please vote with the Planning Commission who saw right through what this project was and voted against it because they understood that a dense multi-family residents such as this right up against a beautiful single-family neighborhood is just poor planning and makes no sense at all so I hope that you vote with the Planning Commission who made a really good decision a couple of weeks ago I also want to echo what the previous speaker

said about the safety of that revised intersection on Main Street with the crosswalk in that strange location to get either to the Discovery Center or to the new development as you're coming off the five freeway just south of Edgewood You stop at Edgewood and then you're going to immediately come up upon this intersection. But you remember as you're coming to the Discovery Cube, it has very interesting architecture. It has dinosaurs. It has a rocket. It has so many things to distract a driver.

And then you're going to come up to an intersection, a crosswalk, with children going to the museum. I am stunned to hear the discovery people saying that that's safe and that's a good thing to do. I can't see that as being safe. I can see it as being very dangerous. And I hope that you will vote against this project. Thank you.

Jeffrey Katz, San Ana.

Thank you for taking me. I did want to follow Min and the architect from the project because I was treated to a nice, our community was treated to a nice program by Min Tran where he went through all the projects that are on slate in our district here. And let me tell you, it was extremely unimaginative. It was a series of buildings that seemed to have been designed by computers and accountants and not by real good architects. and this this property stands at the entrance to our community. Floral Park

itself is in the midst of applying for historical district because we want to preserve the past. We're a city that is celebrating our 150th birthday. We do celebrate the past. Architecture is a socially engaged art. It should and it could inspire. Projects should be poetic. They should be human. This spot, amongst all other spots, which stands at the head of the corridor to Museum Row, should engage our imagination. It should inspire us. This is not the project that's doing it. It's completely not within

harmony of Park Santiago. It's not in harmony with Floral Park. And this is not the project that's going to do it. To my council member, I say as you prepare for the last year of your office and as you prepare to run for mayor, you have a chance to set your legacy. As it stands right now, this is what it looks like to me. We've become a ward of car washes. There's a new one on 17th, there's a new one on Main, and there's projected ones on Grand, where the Marie calendar was, and another one right next to, they're on Main Street.

This is your shot. We're not Irvine where we have large swaths of land that we can plop down a park. We get to reclaim our history one plot at a time. They only come up once in a great time. And now we've got it here. We've got a chance at Buffalo and Maine. And what are we putting up there? A Hampton Inn. we do have serious problems right now but it calls for serious solutions that are comprehensive let's not find the cheap way out let's dig down, find a good solution because this is not going to solve the problem that we're having with housing the housing problem we have is with the overcrowding

which is in the midst of the city, this is not going to address it stop this project, let's figure something out which is good for everybody for the constituents that are here tonight they're not the ones that got campaign contributions. They're not the ones that are getting paid. I read an editorial by Art Pedroza where he projected that tonight there would be a series of NIMBYs that would come and blather. These are not NIMBYs that don't care about their community. They're here because they care about the present but they also care about the 20 year olds that are here against the project

who will someday be living in this neighborhood. Care about us. And do the right thing. Thank you very much.

Tim Rush, followed by Adam Wood.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council.

I'm here to echo the comments of all many of the previous speakers speaking in opposition to this project I earlier today we sent you an item called a declaration of disgust signed by people neighborhood leaders from all over this city not just the north end the opposition to this project in some quarters is characterized as only people from the north end. That's untrue. Neighborhood leaders from all over this city see it for what it is. It is a project

where the developer bought a piece of property that was unentitled and then he proceeded to try to buy four votes on the council. How insulting that is for you. And how disappointing that is for the entire city.

I want to share with you some of the verbiage that was in this declaration. It says, remember these neighborhoods, Willard, Eastside, Henninger Park, Historic French Park, and I could go on. These were all once glorious, beautiful neighborhoods filled with period homes, Victorian craftsmen, colonial revival, Spanish colonial revival. all of them have been destroyed by the introduction of one thing high density apartments so if you think that's going to cure any problem it will not

it is only going to be the seed of many more problems and you're going to destroy a great neighborhood in the process so I encourage you think carefully deliberate carefully and vote against this project

Evening, Mayor, Council, and Staff. Adam Wood with the Building Industry Association. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. It's no secret that we've got a housing crisis in California. There's a serious lack of available housing units across all income levels, and it's preventing new and growing families from ascending the rungs of the housing ladder. As a result, many of these talented workers are forced to relocate out of the area where housing needs can be met. I think it was two or three meetings back we heard from someone at this very podium that was talking about that. This is an all-too-real and growing problem.

Today, the Register ran an article that U.S. housing permits hit a 12-year high, but in California we have only seen production numbers decrease over the last year. That speaks to the crushing challenge of home building in our state. and the decision to approve home building rests with city councils we have seen Sacramento impinge on that authority in the last year RENA and legislation have eroded look the local control narrative and now more than ever cities face a critical decision on what can be done to increase housing supply in action only leads to further Sacramento intervention hard decisions

must be made to increase supply on our terms or else other means will be implemented from the top down with that in mind the drastic unit reductions and the concessions made on this project are significant and acknowledgement of local input this project now stands as a compromise opportunity with local input waiting to see what new legislation arrives next year could eliminate that option for the city and further complicate and bring back a project that will look radically different than from the one that's before you tonight so So with that in mind, I hope you'll be able to move forward expeditiously in support. Thank you.

Art Pedroza. And clerk, if you could do the lights, you forgot with his last speaker. And after Art, Janelle Hardy.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, Council Member Bacero. I was thrilled to hear you're sworn in tonight. Congratulations again. I live right down the street from this project. I walk by it every night. and I can't help but think about the fact that over 20 years ago, Mayor Polito, you helped bring the Discovery Cube to this community and what a success it's been. It's a regional attraction. And now we have a chance as a council to finally solve the number one problem that the cube has had, which has been a distinct lack of parking. So I was thrilled to find out that the developer of 2525

had come up with a novel way to fix that and had also addressed the concerns of the residents cutting the density substantially. This is a very different project from what you last heard the last go around. But it reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon, where every time Charlie Brown tries to kick the football, Lucy pulls it away. This developer has time and again addressed the concerns, and they keep pulling the football away. It's ridiculous. I'm saddened to see a businessman put through such things. and really all you hear up here is misinformation and lies. You heard from

your own city staff today talking about the changes to this project. It's not high density at all. It doesn't affect the traffic and as you heard earlier about the traffic engineering, the worst thing for this plot of land would be a retail or office use. That's why I support this project. We do need good housing in this community. We need to provide housing for our youngsters. Those youngsters that are educated and starting their careers well why would we want them to leave Santa Ana we need them to stay here and help build this into a great city so I support this project and I encourage you to do so as

well don't listen to these knees there's especially they come up here and blatantly lie about the project let's talk about this reasonably it is a good project it is going to contribute to the economy and we need that we need the development dollars we need the tax dollars in this community so I urge you to please set aside these ridiculous notions. Let's do the right thing and let's get started building 2525. Thank you.

Thank you, Art. Janelle, followed by Garn Thomas.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Janelle Hardy and I live in Henninger Park neighborhood. I'm asking you to vote to stop the 2525 North Main Street project. Please listen to your neighbors and historically sensitive neighborhoods. No rezoning, no apartments, no general plan amendment. Thank you for your time.

Garn Thomas followed by Alex Samora. Mr. Mayor, it's Gary. Sorry, Gary. That's all right. First, you were Lynn Zwicky twice.

Go ahead, Gary. Your Y looks like an N. That's all right. Did you get an A in penmanship? No, I failed. Got it. Sorry, give them more time on that.

No, I seem to be rather offensive, it seems like, Mr. Mayor and council members.

this project I've opposed at the very beginning not so much because of what it's doing to the neighborhood it's just first photographs I saw of the building they showed all this criminal activity going on that wasn't taken there I felt that we were lied to and then just on and on and on and then that night I met our council member Mr. Solario I spoke with him and he was in the back and I asked him if he would speak to the neighbors to see what we wanted. And he just sat there and looked at me. And I said, isn't that your job? And he just looked at me and I said, isn't that your job?

You all got a letter. I said, we the people. You know, the whole city will be impacted by this. And if this goes through, it's the tip of the iceberg. From Lincoln to Grand, we have a huge area that could explode. You know, I feel like if this gets voted on, approved, Santa Ana is going to be like the lemmings running into the sea. Waukee came to our neighborhood and asked for our support with the Cube. We supported him. I'd love our neighborhood to support him more and then our neighborhood to reach out to the rest of the neighborhoods in Santa Ana to support the Cube. That it becomes a

city vested interest, the Cube, because it's a great thing. Waukee has done a great job and I offended Waukee and I apologize and ask for his forgiveness thank you for letting me speak tonight and God bless you

Alex followed by a Patty my ease

good evening mayor council members welcome phil i'm a proud member of la una laborers international union in north america i'm also a proud homeowner in the city of santa anna my wife and i own a property in the fair haven park area off of cambridge and fair haven my parents own a property off Fairhaven my sister owns property in Santa Ana my mother and father-in-law own a property in Floral Park my sister-in-law owns a property in Floral Park us as a whole family have been here for a very long time we're very proud to live in Santa Ana we spend our money in Santa Ana we

send our children to school in Santa Ana obviously as a member of the laborers Union first and foremost we want to put our members to work there's a lot of guys out there looking for work this is a great opportunity for them not only that but the local guys to go to work in the city of Santa Ana spend their money in Santa Ana we've talked about this a lot of times I wanted to touch on just one basic thing I'm a member of what's called the like the ring video doorbell community, the neighborhood thing. We get alerts all the time from the neighborhood of Park Santiago

with all the people coming through there, drug use and other stuff. It's very sad. I see it firsthand. I come from Floral Park picking up my children. I drive through that neighborhood. I see some of the unpleasant people in there. The developers have offered to help with security patrol there. I think that that should be a huge, huge tipping point for especially this neighborhood, but not only that, but the city of Santa Ana. So I strongly support these people who are going to laugh, but I know if these people were in my neighborhood, I'd want something to have our

back also. So I support this. So do my family and my fellow members of Labor's International Union in North America, especially the ones that live in this area. Thank you.

Patty, followed by Paul.

Okay, Patty Mays, 2331 Poinsettia Street. We've been residents of Santa Ana for over 30 years, actually 31 years. And we have been coming to meetings, starting in the Sunshine meeting in 2017, coming to a lot of city council meetings, planning meetings, sometimes until midnight. and I won't go through the whole litany of issues that we've talked about but the one thing I want to talk about is the general plan is the highest level document and it should not be changed for the benefit of this developer

and someone mentioned that the developer has spent so much money on this project but what about all of our neighbors and each one of us who have spent a lot of money on our homes to keep the value of our homes up And as everybody, you know, Phil Schaefer's come and other realtors have said, when you put an apartment complex next to single-family homes, the value of those homes go down. We don't want that.

So what I'm going to try to do is, I'm not going to review everything that everyone said. But since the Sunshine meeting, this is the wrong project for this corner. And that's what I've been saying. No rezoning, no apartments. the traffic I know they said they had the traffic engineers but let me tell you I lived there when there was Wells Fargo was there the call center we didn't see a lot of traffic I go to 24-hour fitness when I come back from main place to come to Edgewood I have to sit through two three traffic cycles because there's so

much traffic coming from north on Main Street to try to get to the five freeway that intersections a disaster this project benefits the developer and discovery science center which I love my kids I took my kids there now my grandkids but the who loses the neighborhood loses for this project to go through so I beg you please vote no on this project

After Paul, we have Ed Moushashi from Floral Park. Go ahead.

well council members i'm a resident of park santiago and i've been looking at the proposal of this intersection that they want to do at i believe it's wiki and main street at discovery Center and what a mess you got to be kidding me they are moving the intersection back 90 feet to accommodate entrance into this apartment building if you make a left like you're going into Santiago Park you've got to go 90 feet

plus to make this left-hand turn this is an intersection waiting for a disaster waiting for accidents to happen. I heard earlier a comment made about traffic studies. Well, you know, you can make all the traffic studies you want for the next 100 years, but look at reality. Main Street is a mess as it is.

You don't want to add any more to it, and this project will add more traffic. We have great neighborhoods in Santa Ana. We have Floral Park, French Park, Park Santiago, and more great neighborhoods. This project will ruin Park Santiago. Please vote against this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Ed, followed by Janelle Johnson.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, and staff. I'm Ed Marashi, President of the Floral Park Neighborhood Association. Live in Santa Ana. I'm here tonight as the authorized representative of the Floral Park neighborhood, who serves over 670 homes. The neighborhood is bounded by Broadway, 17th Street, both sides of Flower, and Riverside. Council members please know that this is the first time in 21 years that the

Association has taken a unified stance on this issue to be clear tonight we ask you to vote to oppose and stop the project stop it tonight do not approve spot rezoning wait for the master plan and make the master plan happen before the elections

the 4,000 apartments that are within six blocks of the 2525 development were not incorporated in the EIR traffic is a real issue and it needs to be studied I'll end with a true story there was a city leader who loves Santa Ana neighborhoods. One neighborhood was having issues with a hateful, offensive, insulting symbol that was cast in the concrete sidewalk, which brought

down the morale and respect of that neighborhood.

With nowhere to turn, the neighbors contacted this city leader. And the city leader did the right thing. They called the city. The city came out and they sandblasted the symbol, which actually highlighted it.

Desperate, the leader used a pickaxe himself to eradicate the symbol and restore the respect and integrity of that neighborhood. Doing right and following the rules is one thing, but doing the right thing makes a true leader vote down this project inside with the surrounding neighborhoods thank you

hello council my name is Janelle Johnson I live in Park Santiago and have for quite a long time it is not the responsibility of the neighborhood or of the council to find a solution to the developer purchasing a property for use that it is not zoned for the planning Commission that you appoint has voted this down not once not twice but three times I urge you to go with your planning Commission and vote no on this project the intersection at walkie way currently is a is dangerous every intersection for somebody walking in

this city is dangerous drivers do not pay attention I don't even cross the street until I have their eye looking at me knowing I'm going to be crossing that street I've almost been hit several times if you reduce the left turn lane onto Edgewood going south on Main Street by 90 feet it's already backing up trying to turn left onto Edgewood I have to wait there sometimes two or three traffic signals so I can turn left. This is not going to improve that situation. Plus, you will now have an additional traffic going on that left to do a U-turn to get into the parking

of the proposed Discovery Science Center lot.

The moved crosswalk, I believe, is dangerous because it puts the pedestrians further away from where the cars are stopped, and so they are not as close to their vision.

There are already lots and lots and lots of apartments within just a few blocks of this area. And there's more being built all the time. The time and date building has apartments they want to put in. Lane Place does, which is great because that's a great spot for apartments. There's plenty of parking. It's not next to residential housing, single-family housing. park has grants already to address the redevelopment of the parks I think that density that was highlighted may not be correct because if they sell that acreage to the Discovery Science Center it's going to increase the density of

what is left what about the Science Discovery Center if they get that lot will they then want to put a parking garage on that and will we be here again speaking before the city council opposing that the 24-hour security is not a plus the supposedly the developer already has 24-hour security on that property I urge you to walk around it it's it's horrible what has been allowed to happen to that property the vandals break in constantly they've graffitied the whole back of that property that faces the park they've broken windows and the

glass is left there lying for a long time. I've seen one security guard there in the last three weeks, and I walk that area almost daily. I urge you to please vote against this project. It's the right thing to do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is number eight, Janelle Johnson, followed by Sue McDonald, number nine, and Kelly Medina, number 10. They're asking me to do numbers because there's people outside, and this way we'll know when they come in. But I'm wondering, Madam Clerk, can I just tell you when we're at 50, do we need to do every single number? You just need to know where we are so we can call more people in.

It just takes more time, and I don't see the purpose. Go ahead, please.

Okay, Janelle Johnson already spoke. So I'm Sue McDonald. Yes, Sue, go ahead. Oh, I am just really pleased with all of the important voices that showed up here tonight to speak for our neighborhood. It's very, very helpful. It's just not our neighborhood that's against it. It's more than that. But my family's lived on French Street since the 1930s. I've been there all my life, and I've seen a lot of things happen. And the agencies in the city have protected us from so many things. They've put speed bumps on Santiago to slow the traffic when we had a problem there.

Santiago Bridge and of Linches Street were closed to stop cut-through traffic when Orange was developing their business area out. And Edgewood was temporarily closed during the five-freeway widening. and the overpass over the five freeway was halted when it was being built to replace the underpass to keep people from wandering into the center of our neighborhood and several projects were turned down for the mother's market center there by us until just the right project came around and it what the mother's market is the right fit and then two there was an apartment

development that was proposed and probably most of you maybe haven't been around as long as I have but over by guarantee Chevrolet they were gonna put in multi housing units and some of our neighbors one of them Herb Scott who lives in my street who just died this last year in 98 he said boy if I was around to fight this project like I thought that housing one you know he said I would tell those young people how to do it and here we are he's no longer with us and I wish he had told us how to make this clear to you guys that this is not what we need in our neighborhood and he stopped that project and they put in

60s homes and blocks of them and they are a fit to our neighborhood so you know what's a big project to stop but that council stood up to it and that planning Commission and they stopped it with the help of some of these really good neighbors that have lived here forever but you know I just want you to look at the legacy of all these past committees that have put these things and protected our neighborhood and just let that be your legacy you'll be remembered you know in this year of 2019 that you stopped that apartment complex that everybody would look at in the future and say wow whoever let that happen

there so anyway so please vote no on this and then you know find us a project find us a project that fits and it is our museum district so please there's got to be a better fit than this one of the planning commissioners said it was like putting a round peg in a square hole and when they said that I go bingo that's exactly what's happening here we're trying to force this into an area where it does not fit so I really ask you to please vote against this project And you know who I'm looking at. Okay? Thank you.

Kelly Medina, your number 10.

Honorable Council Members, I'm Kelly Medina, and I live in Park Santiago. And I have lived in Santa Ana for 59 years and seen a great deal of change over those years. I can remember always driving to get onto the Santa Ana Freeway along Santa Clara and shopping in downtown Santa Ana for our clothes and so forth and watching how things deteriorated as they built those high-rise apartments in the areas around French Park and so forth, just north of 17th and east of Main Street, for instance.

And we don't need that same kind of eventual deterioration for our neighborhood. We have a very special neighborhood. When I first moved out of my parents' home, I moved into a garage apartment there because my sister already lived in the neighborhood, and I loved riding bikes there with her. It was a great, great place to live, and it still is. When my husband and I had this chance to buy a house, and we moved out of a condo, we wanted to live here we raised our children there when we had a chance to

move to Tustin we decided no we have a very special neighborhood a special group of neighbors there is something that will change drastically if there are apartment buildings put in there my own daughter is 21 and from that generation, she says she would much rather have our kinds of homes than ever live in one of those kinds of high-density apartment buildings like that. So once again you've heard it all, all of the arguments, just vote no please.

phil a Schaefer followed by Lisa Gantz

good evening mayor and council members thank you for listening to all the neighbors tonight my name is Phil Schaefer I live in West Floral Park so I'm not in Park Santiago and what you know there are people outside of Park Santiago opposed to this project I'm here to speak to you about the value of what's going the price is going to be paid by the Park Santiago neighborhood when it comes to property value a lot of you are looking at all the developers giving us two million dollars up front we're getting this we're getting that what no one's

discussed or no study that i'm aware of has been done what happens on the back end i sent a letter to all of you if the values in the neighborhood only go down 15 let's be conservative in that neighborhood you're gonna lose a lot of property tax times a thousand people that's just in park santiago what about floral park what about other neighbors that are nearby this project is not needed there are over 5,000 apartments within walking distance of this project let's look at what we could do to make Santa Ana really amazing to make it

better to lift it up this is the entry to the neighborhood from the north or the entry to the city from the north it is the museum district there's got to be a better project that we could do at this location

what we desperately need in Santa Ana is not more apartments we're building apartments all over 4th Street and 1st Street and all over the city and more will come San Ana is already one of the densest cities in America what we desperately need is some housing that's owner occupied that people can buy that young people can afford to buy to start out when I bought my first place it was a two-bedroom condo with a carport and I was thrilled to do that to get my foot in the door of Orange County and and own something my family's been in this city

for generations I have lived here for 35 years I work here I know Park San Santiago intimately it's a wonderful neighborhood there is not one example I could find a building an apartment building next to single-family homes that raised their property values in every case they lose it lowers their property values we don't have to look outside of Santa Ana to see that French Park other neighborhoods we've destroyed the essence of those neighborhoods let's not do that to one of the finest neighborhoods in the city thank you please vote this project down

good evening mayor and council members my name is Lisa Ganz and I'm a resident of Park Santiago and I'm I'm happy to have followed Phil because he echoes a lot of what I'm trying to say here. So I'm here with the community in a united position in opposition of this project. We've addressed numerous reasons why it's not a fit for the neighborhood and taken the time out of our days to attend dozens of meetings to get the city to hear us. I know there are several factors that will go into your decision today. As of today, on apartments.com, there are

2,900 apartments available just in the cities of Santa Ana and Orange. You hear the gentleman from the building Association and he's telling you information that is a little bit more one-sided in because he has a special interest more stack and pack living to an already overly dense city is not needed housing supply shouldn't be a factor in your decision today but overcrowding congestion overflow parking reduced services in the community and reduced quality of life should be the factor the total revenue to the city from the project has now been reduced to $464,000 a year, which I think the applicant said, or the city staff said,

that was roughly around $200,000 plus a year. Surely the city can find another revenue source that won't negatively impact our quality of life. The financial benefit should not be a factor in today's decision. Even with the reduction in units, the Project EIR still has significant and unavoidable negative impacts. The unattended consequences of this project should be a factor. I know some of you have had some meetings with the folks on Spurgeon, and you may think that that was enough, but they aren't the only ones impacted by this project. I live on Santiago

Street, and I guarantee I will see increased traffic with the over 1,500 cars from that project. Don't tell me that there isn't going to be any cut-through traffic. That and the real congestion that's been addressed already on Main Street should be the significant factor. As elected officials, there should be no more important factor going into your decision today than the will of the people that you represent. After tonight's public comments, when you are contemplating your decision, I just ask you to publicly answer this question.

If you vote in support of this project, please tell me what is that one factor that is more important than the will of the people. The Planning Commission denied this project three times. I urge you to vote now. Thank you.

Mark Angle, number 15, and Sharon Gullickson, number 16, followed by Clay Henderson, number 17. Please go ahead, Mark.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. So normally you'd hear me talk about the water issues that I usually do, but I'm going to forego those except for one factor. Mr. Sarmiento made it clear to me that Santa Ana is doing a great job. We recycle 100% of our wastewater and reuse it again. But we don't have 110%.

Okay, so what I was going to speak about tonight is I found this right on the homepage of the city manager's page on the internet. It shows the purpose, vision, and goals of the city. I'm going to skip a few things, but first on the vision of the city of Santa Ana, the dynamic urban center of Orange County, a claim for our first investment in children. Second, neighborhood pride. Third, enriching cultural experiences. Under the goals, be a catalyst for the positive development of young people.

Foster neighborhood pride and community understanding. Provide and maintain first-rate infrastructure and community facilities. And create an environment that stimulates the growth of arts and cultural opportunities. So I have an occasion to many times in the summer, especially, I leave my neighborhood and go up Main Street to Home Depot in Orange. And a lot of times it's when the Science Center is open, and I see many, many families with lots of children going to and fro. And I kind of had an epiphany about how wonderful and inspiring that was,

that people would spend what's a considerable amount of money, because it's almost $80 for a family of four, to take their children and go to that educational event. So I think that if we voted no on this project, which doesn't really do the children and grandchildren any good right now, and concentrate on something cultural, like it says in your paper here, I think that it would provide benefit for the children and the grandchildren and many more to come.

And I think that's what we need more than we need apartments. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mark. Sharon?

Hi, Sharon Gullickson, and I've lived in Park Santiago for 23 years. The mission, the goal of the city council is to make the neighborhoods and the city better. Rezoning this property will not make our neighborhood or the surrounding area better. It will make our historic neighborhood worse. You know it, we know it, and the developer knows it, if they're honest with themselves. if our neighborhood is allowed to become more dense this would become it would be much let's see sorry our neighbors will will can will move if they if it becomes

too dense I know we're considering it I'm sure that it will become more of a rental neighborhood which never makes a neighborhood better it always makes it worse and you know this also and the developer knows it so an apartment complex will make it worse and so please do the right thing don't rezone this property please don't listen to the lies from the developer side if an apartment complex were no impact like you heard from them we would prefer it but we don't we're pretty smart the cubes parking issues are not our problem we

should not be the ones to sacrifice for that. They'll need to be able to figure out something else. If that spot were not available, they'd have to figure it out. They can figure it out. Many years ago, I tried to get the city to put in a green arrow turn signal at the intersection of Edgewood and Main Street. The city did a study, an extensive study, and they said it was totally safe. I know that's not true because cars almost crash very, very frequently. So these are the same people who have done this study saying that it's a safe area. It's not. It's not safe to

anybody, people walking or driving. So please do the right thing. We beg of you. Thank you.

Clay Henderson after Clay Cathy Estafani, I believe it is. Please go ahead, Clay.

Thank you, Mayor, and welcome to the City Council. I have a few comments to make. I live on Oakmont, and we've lived there 22 years, and we moved here from Fullerton from a very similar community in Fullerton. We found Park Santiago and we decided that we wanted to live there. So we bought a home in Park Santiago 22 years ago. We've enjoyed every minute of it and our neighbors. I live next door to Francis Cresset, one of the colorful most people you ever want to meet. He's no longer with us. And I live next door to the second most colorful people, who is Rob Richardson.

So that's a little bit of my background and my enjoyment of the community. And my wife and I are totally against this building of this high-rise apartment building. There's no way that that can have anything but a negative precedent that you guys are setting for other properties within the city of Santa Ana. It's just a precedent that we're going to suffer. and so are a lot of other people by the time this developing begins and ends. I drive down Catella and I see all of those apartments all the way past Disneyland and it's just amazing where those people park their cars, where do they go to work?

And they're not parking on the streets in Anaheim, but I'm concerned about the number of cars that are going to park in our neighborhood.

I agree with Phil Schaefer 100% that if we were to build six to seven homes per acre on that property, the developer might recoup some of his investment. And that would enhance the neighborhood with 40 or 50 new neighbors in our neighborhood that could enjoy the rest of Park Santiago like the rest of us that currently live there do. So I would encourage you to follow the Planning Commission's vote several times, leave the zoning to where it's not going to accommodate 200 or 300 new residents that just rent.

They don't live in our neighborhood, they're renting. They're not doing anything in our neighborhood but driving in and out, going to work or going over to some place to work out. So I'm not against the neighbors moving in, but let's just keep it where it has a little bit of flavor like Park San Diego currently has. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Clay.

Kathy, followed by Suzanne Blow, I believe, B-L-A-U.

Good evening. I'm Kathy Esfahani. I've worked in downtown Santa Ana for 27 years. For many years I've served on the board of two Santa Ana-based nonprofits. I feel very connected to the Santa Ana community, though I don't live here. I live next door in Costa Mesa. But our two cities share the same housing crisis. And it's a reality that both Costa Mesa and Santa Ana need to deal with and to deal with in a forward-thinking manner. The crisis of affordability, it's touching all segments of the community.

Families pay too much for rent. There's overcrowding. There's tremendous homelessness caused to a significant extent by the lack of affordable housing. The fastest growing segment of the homeless in Orange County is single elderly women. Our young people feel hopeless about the opportunity to live in the communities they grew up in. The only answer is to build more housing.

The RHNA numbers that every city in Southern California is facing gives you a sense of the scale of the challenge. I know my city, Costa Mesa, is supposed to build 11,000 new houses in the next eight years. I'm not sure what Santa Ana's number is, but I'm sure it's very substantial as well. And the only way to build the sort of housing that young people need, that families need, is to build apartments. I hear a lot from the owners of single-family homes that they only want single-family homes.

There's a sense that people who are just renters don't care about their community and aren't good neighbors. And I have to say that's not true. That's not true. Not everyone can afford a single-family home. And given the lack of housing, the only way to meet the need is to have more density and to have it near jobs and near public transit, the sort of project that is being proposed tonight. So, I mean, I urge you as a – I'm an advocate for affordable housing in Costa Mesa. I've been pushing my city for years to build affordable units and we're finally

getting to the place that we're going to start doing that Santa Ana is much better at meeting those sorts of needs but when you have a project like this which will create housing for many many households it will it will it will I I know that it's not affordable housing, but it will meet the...

But by increasing the availability of housing, you are bringing down the cost. And then with the in-lieu fees, that will be paid of over $4 million that will go into the housing.

Thank you. The light is red.

I'm sorry?

Your light is red.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see that. Okay. So anyway, I support the project and encourage you to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne Blue, followed by Dimitri Lujan.

good evening mayor and council members my name is Suzanne Blau and I've lived in Park Santiago for over 17 years there's been a lot discussed tonight and even by the last speaker I would just reiterate the fact that this is not low-income housing that we're offering this developer is offering I would probably be up here supporting it if it were as opposed to perhaps some of my neighbors I have long spent my lifetime working for disadvantaged individuals I have worked here in Santa Ana for the Public Law Center I have represented many low

income individuals here and in Los Angeles one of the things that has sort of propelled me to do the type of legal work that I have dedicated my life to while I was still able to work was the fact of sort of basic fairness. And I think I mentioned this last year before you, Mr. Becero, are sitting here, is that I just, it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth to see people trying to get things that are undeserved or to use sneaky tactics to get there.

in my opinion the developer in this situation has used very objectionable tactics i think in my letter to you all hopefully you read it and understand just through your experience what some of those objectionable tactics are i will name a few that i am aware of from the inception they came forward and indicated that they had Park Santiago support for this project and had worked with the community and that's just simply not true we were not approached we were not consulted there was a sunshine meeting telling us that

we were about to be the proud neighbors of a you know almost 500 unit ginormous apartment complex they at the most recent Planning Commission meeting they gave incorrect high-density valuations and were sort of called out by the head of the Commission who pushed them on the what was the correct dwelling units per acre and they conceded that in fact they had not given the correct information now had the Commission or not put this together it would have been stated on

the record as as an incorrect number and we've just seen this kind of tactic again and again you directed the developer when you last were here and sent this back to be re negotiated with staff and with the community the developer never met with the community they claim that they have they claim that they have the support but they never actually sat down and had a conversation or approach with us they came in they said this is how we've reduced it you know sort of take it it is true we I had asked you to please ensure that the some core members of our community were included in any

discussions there were never discussions there was never a sit-down we even came forward and said we would accept a sort of a medium density it's not something that the neighborhood wanted but we in an effort to find a solution came forward and the developer said no the developer has shown the city this committee the commissioners the neighborhood that they just have no respect and regard for our

concerns this project is not good for Santa Ana it's not necessary many people have spoken and probably will so I will just ask you to please lay soup legal I beg of you to please consider what they're proposing what the damage is going to cause to this community and to Santa Ana at large we are better than this. We can be better. We can think visionary. This is just not the right project for this site at this time. Thank you very much and have a good evening.

After Dimitri, Laura Guzman. Hi, my name is Dimitri Lujan. I live in Santiago Park. I'm opposed to this project. Right now we live in a residential area. It is now an extreme change. They stated before, just a couple gentlemen, that we're within a half a mile. We are within 10-plus apartment complexes, over 4,000 units, including 2525, the Prism, 1110, Windsor, the Aspen, the Arbors,

Main Place, which is 1,900 units, 99 plus 702, town and country, 1,000 units. That's about a half a block, maybe three-quarters a block from my home.

That's going to be a lot of impact traffic. Right now, Main Place can't even build their allotted apartments due to traffic congestion, too much traffic due to the apartments. We have those are not even in the area or whatever that is. They didn't include, although we knew those apartments were going up, they were not included. Do we really need, I mean, 4,000 units? Do we really need 2525 Main Street? I can walk a half a mile to rent an apartment. Currently, there's 4,000 units to pick from. This is a difficult job. That was stated by Vincent Ceramento.

So something has to be done in this neighborhood. Property cannot be left alone. It can become a blight, something that has to be done. That was about a year and a half ago. It cannot be left dormant. So what has the city done? What have we done other than we opened up a wish list, and this was stated in the Planning Commission. We put a wish list out. That's how our developer was able to get with our planners. And they, you know, what would you do with this site? Well, you took one idea, 595 apartments, and you ran with it. You removed the wish list from the board before any other people's ideas could come forward.

So that was, and I just don't know why we did that.

That's basically the impact on traffic. It's going to be crazy. We haven't even seen the impact of these apartments that are coming up, not even half a mile up the street. I think Orange is, City of Orange is, I'm pretty upset with them. They're putting out apartments on our, I mean, it's our borderline, which is about three-quarters of a mile. And they're just, there's about six apartment complexes that they just put right on the borderline. We're going to feel that traffic. They're just building them now. But it's like we have enough apartments. I keep hearing, we don't have, but I don't hear them come up with any addresses.

as I just gave you 10 apartment complexes. Plus, what's going on in the city? This is just within a walking distance from my home. I think it's enough.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Lujan.

Laura Guzman, followed by Drew Leonhardt.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Councilmembers. My name is Laura Guzman. I'm here I'm here to echo pretty much what everybody else is saying I do not support the project it is not a responsible project we need something for our community we need something to enhance the community traffic will be an issue two cars per unit is not the answer I guarantee that they will have visitors they will have two families per unit and it's not affordable housing who are we kidding so let's vote the right way let's vote for the community let's

represent your constituents thank you after drew Irma how to gain Irma your

number 23 thank you mr. mayor and city council members my name is drew Lenhart my wife and I have lived on North Spurgeon for 27 years I've just a quick observation recent scientific studies have shown that car emissions from freeways can easily travel 1,000 feet. These emissions, namely the heavy metals and tiny particles, are extremely hazardous to human health. If the zoning continues unchanged at 25-25, eventually adults will be risking their health five

days a week, eight hours a day. If the zoning is changed and apartments are built children who are much more susceptible to car emissions will be risking their health 24-7 I think with what we know now as far as pollution and that car mission from freeways we we need to stop building apartments next to freeways thank you

hello mayor council members welcome Phil it's so nice to see everybody full I'm I'm going to, I'm standing here as a Wilshire Square resident, also representing the Santa Ana Healthy Neighborhood Alliance, which is the leadership of all six neighborhoods in the south main corridor. We support our neighbors in the north. We want good planning, intelligent design, sticking to the master plan that has an excellent, it's our constitution.

Point number one, the minute you compromise and you change and make one exemption, you are opening a Pandora's box for other developers to now ask or maybe even sue if you don't give in to changing the plan. So we would be exposed to other people's points and opinions. Number two, if we are going to have close to 4,000 units in that area, once it's built, you don't look at it as an individual unit.

I'm a planner financial. You look at the totality and end effect of that plan. What is the best and highest use for that building? Let's go to the other side. Let's say we don't have apartments. We have, that is the key point building entrance to our city, our gorgeous city, either a museum. Also, who's going to service the 4,000 units of the new dwellers that's going to be in main place and orange and the 400 at the hotel? Wouldn't that be a fabulous place to have either a business center or something that services them?

Because they're going to need services so that maybe single-family homes, true, it would lower the density, but we need something else other than higher density. I would love to see the infill of the big empty lots we have elsewhere in the city on Cabrera and Forth on 17th. Make really good, intelligent design. We design our future, not outside investments. Thank you. Thank you.

Mario Tovar, followed by Gil Wilkson.

And Gil is number 25 for the record.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Mario. I grew up in Santa Ana most of my life. Went to Santa Ana College and I've seen many great changes in the last 25 years. I grew up by El Salvador Park, then moved to Floral Park, and now in a home in Santiago Park. I also actually worked at the 2525 North Main when it was Wells Fargo for four years. I met my wife there. So I've seen it kind of change a lot, you know. I'm a newer resident of Santiago Park and I live on Spurgeon right behind the project. So as soon as I moved in, you know, neighbors approached me and I heard a lot of the cons, and that's pretty much it.

After doing my own research, because that's the kind of person I am, I do my own research and finding out more about the type of development this was, I kind of felt more comfortable. I have two kids, a boy and a girl, they're little. Two things that always stood out to me about Fisher Park and Sontagel Park is the riverbed access. It's very dangerous, and in my opinion, it needs to be improved. I've had people approach my house, break into my wife's car, try to open the doors of my car, and so on and so forth. So I always have to kind of do that. I'm a pretty big guy, so when I go jog in the morning or night,

even I have to kind of watch my back, it's on Targo Park. So I don't trust my wife taking my kids to play there. So their proposal to basically inject some cash in it and put 24-7 security and secure that area, to me is amazing. That's what we need. That's the type of future I want for my kids. I want them to grow up there and that's what I would feel was best. As far as the property values going down, I don't really agree with that. I actually overpaid for my house just because I want to be there so bad, and I'm hoping that increases the property value as well. So I hope that you approve this project, and that's it.

Gil Wilkson, followed by Steve Stiegel, followed by Miguel Ortiz.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gil Wilkson. I'm a Park Santa Cruz resident. Several years ago, the government of the City of Santa Ana, including the City Council, Planning Commission, and Department of Planning, made a wise and deliberate decision to approve a general plan destination of professional and administrative office at 2525 North Main Street. The reason that this was the highest and best use for this property because of its frontage on Main Street, which is desirable for commercial use and its compatibility with the adjacent residential homes.

This property fronts on Main Street, which is the main corridor for commercial development. There are no apartments fronting on Main Street for several miles, both north and south of this property, either in the city of Santa Ana or in the city of Orange. Nothing has changed in the past several years at 2525 North Main Street to allow high-density apartments which is neither beneficial to the City of Santa Ana or the homeowners in Park Santiago. Please consider the wise and deliberate decision that was previously approved and do not change the general plan or the zoning at 2525 North Main Street. Thank you.

Steve, sir, you have the floor.

Thank you. Mayor, council members, thank you very much. My name is Steve Stagel. My wife and I have lived on Poinsettia Street for the past 40 years. Forty years ago, we were just going to stay here temporarily. We were just going to move on to another city. It was a temporary stop. We fell in love with our neighbors. We fell in love with the neighborhood. We fell in love with the community. 40 years later, we're still there. We love our neighbors.

My wife and I are totally against this project. I wanted to say something to Mr. Solorio before he leaves. That's okay, just right there. I had a couple of my neighbors tell me that you were against this project, so I just wanted to say thank you very much. I really appreciate that. So, I don't know why. I'm being honest. I'm being honest. I had a couple neighbors. So I wanted to say thank you, thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for supporting us. I really appreciate that.

And no to this invasive apartment complex at the entrance to our neighborhood. He's got a great personality. I love him.

From my perspective, it comes down to two things. You know, we've been doing this for two years, and I like to make things really simple. Just compress them down into simplicity. over here's the two main issues that I'm that I see that you should focus on tonight number one is the Planning Commission they've already said no to this project three times why do we need a Planning Commission if they vote no and you vote yes why do we need them it's kind of like the best the best quote at

the last planning commission meeting was from Mark Laughlin, the chairman. And he said to us, he goes, this is a good project. He said, it's the wrong location. It's the wrong location. It just came down to that. It was just so simple. It's like, okay, good project. It needs to go somewhere else. This is the wrong location. So the number two is we've got close to 1,200 residences that's in Parks, Antioch, that are saying the same thing. They're saying it's the wrong location. So at the decision time, later tonight, when you make the decision, you've got the planning commission in one ear saying, wrong location, wrong location.

And then you've got 1,200 residents, close to 1,200, saying, wrong location. When they're talking in both ears, I would just say to you, thank you for listening to them. Wrong location. Wrong location, no to this apartment project. and I just want to thank all of you for listening to us and appreciate the fact that you're all going to vote no on this project. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Tell you what, I'm going to call on Miguel Ortiz and then we're going to take like a five-minute bathroom break because we're all taking breaks up here. Some of you can't. You're sitting right in the middle of a whole bunch of folks. So, Miguel, as soon as you're done speaking, five-minute break. Please go ahead.

We'll make it quick then. So thank you for having me, Mayor Pulido, City Council. I oppose this project because it just doesn't make sense. I've lived in Parks and Tarot for ten years, so I've lived in Santa Ana my whole life. It doesn't make sense that the developers are asking us to change the general plan for the benefit of them. They bought the property as an office commercial, and they should use it as such. Why do we have to help them to build something else there? Two, they're asking us to change the zoning,

re-zoning for them. Why? The planning commission had to find a special code just to be able to allow them to build the huge development that they want to. Why are we helping them to do that? Three, they're trying to change our streets. Why are we gonna allow them to add new lights, change our sidewalks, add new entries, who does that benefit? The developer. Four, they were going to give us the 1.25 million dollars to enhance the part. Now they're only going to say they're going to pay half of it and

they're asking us to pay $750,000 for that. However, we just got a 1.25 $25 million grant to do just that. So why are we gonna pay money to do something that we're already getting a grant for?

So for apartment.com, there's about 1700

available apartments right now, and the 4,000 that everybody's already talked about with the main place and everything else. So if somebody really wanted to come live in Santa Ana, there's plenty of available opportunities now. Five, it's still too big, it's too dense, it's out of place, it doesn't belong in a single residence neighborhood.

Seven, developers saying that we've been given misinformation, however, I'd argue that since the Sunshine meeting to today, they're the ones that are giving the incorrect information, as many of the previous speakers have already mentioned, so I won't go over that. Eight, the Planning Commission has denied this project twice. Some of you have denied the project already, and hopefully the ones that haven't will deny the project today. And lastly, I'd say put yourself in our shoes, and I guarantee you that you would also say that this project doesn't make sense. So please vote no today. Thank you.

Thank you, Miguel. So we'll take a small recess, and Madam Clerk, if you can go outside. I know there's people out there. There's a few empty seats. Let's get them out of the cold if we can.

All right, we're going to call the meeting back to order. Everybody can come back, find their seats. If there's people outside, have them come back.

And Kathy Moorhead. Kathy, if Kathy is here, you're going to be the first speaker, Kathy.

All right, let's get everybody to sit down. Just a second, Kathy.

Sure.

Go ahead, Kathy.

Good evening. My name is Kathy Moorhead, and I'm a resident of Park San Diego for over 30 years.

And I'm here to speak about the 2525 project. And these meetings have now gone on for two years, and they've become much more than just about the 2525.

You can speak if you want. We're taking testimony, but you want to get another council member? We'll get another council member.

Pardon?

Just hold on a minute until we get another council. There you go. Keep talking. We've got four.

Okay, I'm going to start again. These meetings that have now gone on for two years are about much more than should 2525 be rezoned to accommodate the developers project. It is about the community and a greater vision for this city. elected representatives of the city it is your duty to rent to represent its residents the residents of multiple neighborhoods have consistently voiced opposition to this project please support the planning Commission's three times rejection of this decision and deny this project and support your

residents thank you

After Kathy, it's going to be Richard Bailey, please.

And then Gary Hendricks.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'm Rick Bailey. I've been a Discovery Cube board member for over 14 years, currently serving as the board chairman. I want to communicate to the council the board's priorities, reinforcing two benefits that Joe Adams brought up during his presentation for the queue and also for the surrounding community. First, as a family-oriented, science-education-based nonprofit, nothing is more important to us than the safety of our visitors.

This proposal will improve safety of the adjacent park through improved safety features, more presence, and consistent use, and enhance 24-hour security with a lot more eyes to help them out. This is a positive safety benefit for Discovery Cube and likewise benefits the safety of the adjacent community. Similarly, though we actually have not had any significant safety issues using the existing parking lot across Main Street, the new pedestrian crossing safety and warning features are actually going to be an improvement from the current crosswalk.

Second, to maintain and advance our mission in science education, we need to make it easy for people to come and access the cube. Parking has been a challenge for us the entire decade plus that I've been involved, and we really have tried. There are not sufficient local resources or donors to solve the parking problem, so we had to go to the state. This proposal enables Discovery Cube to permanently own its parking destiny, so to speak, with purchase of the parking lot we are currently using. Discovery Cube will own the title for the parking lot property.

With upgrades to enhance safety, utility, and appearance, it dramatically helps Discovery Cube advance our mission. It also provides a controlled buffer to the Edgewood entrance to the adjacent neighborhood, and that benefits the entire community as well. We believe the Addington project, as proposed, provides benefits to both Discovery Cube and the local community, so the Discovery Cube board supports the project. Thank you.

Gary Hendricks, followed by David Pocket.

Mr. Mayor and Council Members, my name is Gary Hendricks. I live on Spurgeon Street adjacent to the 2525 property. I am in favor of the current plan for 2525 main development. And I want you to know that not all 4,000 Park San Diego residents oppose this project. some choose not to express their views because the long neighborhood relationships or seeing how people who aren't who aren't opposed to this have been treated I'm a recent example as you guys know myself those who would tell you that all of us in

Park Santiago are united against this project are wrong and do not speak for everyone in Park Santiago. Some Park Santiago residents say that they aren't opposed to the future main place development and other projects in the area that will be substantially larger in scope and density than this project. But when expressing opposition to the 2525 project, they cite increased traffic as a main reason for that objection. How can the traffic of 256 units be more significant in the traffic that would be generated with the main place project the logic

does not make sense and is not a valid argument there are several office buildings across Main Street within walking distance of our neighborhood that have four lease signs up all the time if a commercial developer considered this parcel to be a viable location for a profitable office building or other P-zone business, there was more than ample opportunity for them to purchase the property. The same was said for the Cube. They had plenty of opportunity to purchase this property. It's time to approve the proposed project to 2525

and get rid of this eyesore that I look at every day. The current building has become and is becoming worse. Please vote in favor of the project. Thank you.

David Pocket, followed by Loretta Bolt, I believe it is.

Hi, my name is Dave Pocket. I live on Spurgeon also. And I oppose the project, and I oppose what I'd like you to consider is when you think about redoing the general plan, is to not have a giant, there has to be a buffer in the zoning, and that's what zoning has always been. And you don't put industrial right next to a nursery school. And you don't put high density right next to the lowest density. So there has to be some kind of, there has to be a compromise. And I agree with Phil Schaefer about getting the opportunity to have people to live in the community. Maybe it gets zoned to, like, condos or something.

Something that's a compromise. and it gives people the ability, younger people, to get an affordable place and have the experience of San Diego Park. I've lived here for 20 years now, and I always wanted to live in Floral Park, and I couldn't afford Floral Park. And I would drive through there every day of my life, hoping to be there, and you talk about the affordability. I couldn't afford it. And one day, a friend of mine who lived in Floral Park told me about San Diego Park. I had never even seen it. I never went down Edgewood in all my life of living in Santa Ana for 35 years.

And that day I drove down, I turned right on my street, and I bought that house the next day. And I moved into a great neighborhood that had young people and had people that aged in place. And had Bob and Betty Hill down the street from me who lived there. And Bob knew everything about everything. and he knew about Santa Ana where the freeway wasn't even a freeway and my first experience was as a young man mowing my lawn and Bob Hill came up and stood and stared at me and then told me I was doing it wrong. So, it's those kind of experiences I'd like younger people to experience.

I've had three kids. I'm an architect. I work for a different architect than Architects Orange and I understand that SFD is probably the end here in the tight place of California just because of the cost of dirt, but there are alternatives in between. And I appreciate it. If you think about that when you look to redo the general plan rather than spot changing places specifically for one specific developer. Thank you. Thank you.

mr. mayor city council members my name is Loretta bolt and I live on the west side of North Spurgeon right behind the proposed project for background information I've lived there for about 20 years as a resident and as a resident of Santa Ana for 80 years my in fact my great grandfather was one of the first residents in Santa Ana but in the beginning of all this project planning that we've been doing and and the meetings we've been going to about the development we also yard signs proclaiming no rezoning I had one

and because I did at that time I didn't want the project but now we see this our yard sign stating we support responsible development of 2525 North Main Street as As I've watched this project evolve and have struggled with the decision, I have come to the realization that Addington would be a valued addition to the community, not only in appearance but by providing needed upscale housing for Santa Ana and also for obvious safety improvements. In my opinion, the developer has implemented numerous positive modifications from the original

plan, which demonstrate, as current signs read, a responsible development. I do fully support this project. Also, in the beginning, from residents, we heard some say, and this is what they said, many of the residents in the Park Santiago neighborhood are elderly, and they probably won't live to see the area develop them. Well, I challenge that idea and I think with your help, I'll stick around to see the Addington development come to completion. Please vote yes for this project. Thank you very much.

Vincent Flynn, please. Followed by Claudia Tanega.

Good evening. My name is Vince Flynn. I've been a Park Santiago resident for seven years. I'm probably the only millennial who's spoken so far because I'm the only one reading off my cell phone. It's frustrating being back here two years after this all began when the Park Santiago community came out in force against this project. Sorry it went dim. Give me a sec. We've been pleading for the City of Santa Ana to simply do one thing, and that's to not change how one property is already zoned. That's it. We're not asking for anyone to make or remove any laws.

We're not asking you to saturate our community with more law enforcement or other resources. All we want is for you to vote against this project that your planning commission has already voted against three times. Since this project came to our attention, I promise you that I've driven through our community more times than any member of this council or any members of the people who are trying to put this project in today. And that's because I live there and I'm affected by everything that happens there.

While driving through this, I've seen dozens of signs posted in all yards across our community asking for the council to vote no. I haven't seen a single one from a single member of our community asking for you to put this project in. I can tell you as a police officer that this project is not as safe as it has been presented. As a police officer, I hate having to respond to these kinds of complexes, and have done so many times in my junior career. I can tell you the response time to get to someone's door is exponentially longer if someone is in need of immediate help.

First responders have to struggle to navigate through these places, even with the posted maps that these places typically do have inside of them. I would never have anyone that I love or care about live in one of these places, just because of how long it takes that once we go on scene, how long it takes to get from being at the front of the complex to someone who might be on the fourth level of this complex. Not to mention the amount of calls for service that are going to increase based on this complex. You're going to get a lot more vehicle burglaries.

You're going to get all kinds of suspicious subjects, people pulling on door handles, and even more noise complaints of our 256 new neighbors. or sorry, probably much more than that because that's only 256 new residences that are in there. These places, their parking garages are a haven for burglars because they're so easy to target, even with gates and a roaming security guard. I easily bypassed a similar gate using a stick when I had to respond to one of these residences. Imagine someone who's motivated to commit a crime. That gate won't and has not stopped them. I responded to a different similar high-density apartment complex

where the guard had asked three subjects to leave the area because they weren't residents. Great, and they took off at first, but then they come back, and the reason why the police had to show up is because they ended up choking that guard out. These security guards don't intimidate criminals because all they can do is call the police. Well, we can all call the cops too, but unless it's a priority one call, we're not going to get a response time that's exactly immediate. The bottom line is the people in this room who matter, the ones who live in the community that could be impacted, do not want this.

As the representatives of our voice, I implore you to vote now. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, Council Members, I'm Claudia Tenega, June Tenega's wife, and a resident on Spurgeon, whose house is adjacent to the proposed development. It's behind my backyard. I am in favor of the Addington Project. My husband and I debated for months the pros and cons of development. As June led the research role and poured over documents for hours a week, we discussed his findings and we finally came to support the project. June also drove around Santa Ana to see the local businesses backed against the residential areas.

This has included Floral Park as well. And on Google Maps, he shared with me images of commercial buildings very close to the homes, even blocking out the natural light. The Addington right now doesn't pose that threat to me. I just want to make that clear. It doesn't pose that threat to me right now as it stands. My concern is if the project isn't approved now and the market turns, the city will need to make a quick decision and make many, many more sacrifices. I don't want to live near a homeless shelter, low-income housing. I don't want to live near a rehab clinic, a gas station, or a mini-mart.

I have several co-workers, professionals at my company that actually live in the local apartments in the area. I know these people. I work with them. They chose Santa Ana because it's diverse. It's near family. It's close to work. The Addington is going to attract professionals like my co-workers who will also seek the same things we do. Safe parks and safe local streets. June and I feel a part of the community here and we feel a responsibility to that community. It's why he spent several months studying the proposal to provide information he and I can consider.

And we spent thousands of dollars improving our yard and several hours a week maintaining it, ourselves, our own hands. We feel we're taking care of our largest investment, and that investment actually continues to grow. Agents have come to the area and actually do want to buy our house and our neighbors' houses. We know Santa Ana is changing. We continue to support the NSAPA and the work that they do to improve the community and the work that they did to actually improve the development as it is today. We also support the development of the Addington. Thank you.

As I call the next speaker, I don't know if this is relevant, but I know some folks were offered $35,000 at Live Along Spurgeon. if you wish to say that when you come up to speak or if you refuse the money I think that would be appreciated

yes after Claudia and Wilson I just all do respect I think that's very

inappropriate if they choose to I think it's very

It is to give $35,000. I agree.

Ann Wilson, followed by Glenda Newcomer.

Hi, my name is Ann Wilson. Thank you for listening to us. My family and I have lived on Poinsettia Street in Park Santiago for 30 years. And it has been our choice, and we have felt very lucky to live in a wonderful part of Santa Ana. and we can see all through Santa Ana different choices that have been made in development and

we think that the 2525 development would be too dense and the traffic would be a problem many many times we've seen people come off the freeway and ignore all the signs that say no right turn on red and they just come through the signal at the wrong time and that's a dangerous intersection already. And then to add the density of this apartment building, plus all the families crossing for the Discovery Science Center, it's kind of an accident waiting to happen. And there are so many

great choices that you can make in the development of this property. You don't need to listen to just the one developer who wants to change the zoning just to benefit his business proposal. So please listen to us, and we appreciate your time. Thank you.

Linda, newcomer, followed by June Tanega.

Mr. Mayor, City Council, I'm not sure. I've lived in Park, Santiago for 56 years. I was born and raised in Santa Ana, so I've seen a lot of change. But I really am wondering where this traffic report was made. I think maybe about 3 in the morning.

The traffic is terrible. It's terrible now. So you can imagine with 4,000 other apartments plus this is going to cause you have an off-ramp, you have an on-ramp, and the driveway that they've proposed for the Discovery Center is very close to Edgewood. So you've got someone coming off the freeway from a signal. Then you go a little bit farther, then you've got another signal. It's going to block streets. Just recently, I have driven around.

Santa Clara is backed up. I've seen where maybe two cars can get through the intersection just to get on the freeway. The freeway is backed up. They've got lines off Main Street. They've got lines down Broadway all trying to get on the freeway. I urge you to not vote for this project. It's not the right place. It's dangerous, and the traffic situation is going to be impossible. Thank you. Thank you.

Mayor and Council members, my name is June Tenega and I live on Spurgeon Street with my wife Claudia adjacent to 2525 Main Street. I'm in favor of the 2525 Main Street project. We purchased our home knowing that some form of luxury apartment development could be built behind our backyard. That still did not deter us from buying our home right next to the site. In fact, we were more concerned about the existing vacant office building attracting the homeless. Unfortunately, we were right about that. After multiple discussions with the Oglenicks for months, we were satisfied with the revised plan.

The Oglenicks have been in constant contact with us throughout this process. They properly address all our concerns, including mass reduction of unit count, increased tenant parking, decreased building height, increased setback distance from the east wall, relocation of the swimming pool, preservation of existing trees, opaque east-facing windows, construction of a new eight-foot block wall on the eastern border in interior trash locations and off-street construction parking during the same period only one person from the entire park neighborhood came to discuss the

project with us that person being Dale Helbig not one resident even though we had we have opposing opinions Dale has always been gracious to us we greatly appreciate his efforts to get the project down to an acceptable level. Claudia and I have never spoken publicly about her support of this project for fear of being ostracized, simply because we have a different view. This was obvious at the last council meeting, where Gary was verbally harassed by someone opposed to the project. There are quite a few silent supporters for this project in this neighborhood, and I don't blame them for staying quiet.

I was one of them, but I felt the need to support my fellow neighbor because that's what neighbors do for each other. We have never been opposed to this project. We just wanted it to be developed responsibly. Please vote for the 25-25 million project.

Alicia Burghorn followed by Deborah Hendricks.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Alicia Burhound. I'm the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for the Orange County Business Council. OCBC is here tonight in support of the Addington Project on 2525 North Main. As the region's leading voice for business and economic issues, OCBC has invested they have a vested interest in this project's significant fiscal benefits for the city and its positive impact on a strained housing workforce. California faces a huge critical housing shortage. OCBC believes that a diverse housing market is critical to a long-term success of Orange County

including a broad spectrum of rental for sale and affordable choices. This project fits that vision. In the absence of housing many members of our talented diverse workforce will be forced to live or work in neighboring counties. Projects like Addington are critical for sustaining and driving local economic success. OCBC urges you to focus on the facts of the project. It has been significantly redesigned to create much less of an impact to the neighborhood and a by-right project. Therefore, on behalf of OCBC, we respectfully request to approve the Addington project

and consider the positive economic impact on the local workforce for the years to come. We'd like to go ahead and submit this letter for you to look at, and we really thank you for your time and your consideration.

Deborah Hendricks followed by Michael Oveil.

mr. mayor and council members my name is deborah hendricks my husband gary and i live on the west side of north spurgeon street adjacent to the proposed project previously gary and i were opposed to this project and expressed that opposition in a letter to the city council and in many meetings but we have done a lot of research and evaluation and we've changed our position the professional designation or no rezoning does not necessarily mean an office building would be built on that site city documents include two pages full of the types of professional businesses and buildings that could be

built many without any variances required such as print and copy services childcare facilities nursing home hospital trade school health club ambulance and emergency response services a club or a lodge none of these are current use but they also do not require rezoning none of these uses are poetic or historically compatible they are not cultural if no rezoning succeeds and an office building were to be built it would be empty one half of every 24-hour cycle and all weekend this is a magnet for crime

homelessness vandalism depending on how an office building was situated the side of the building could run along the property line five feet from our backyard walls this has been confirmed by the city planning department if this apartment complex isn't built there will be no higher wall no opaque windows no additional trees no 90-foot setback or 136 foot setback along Edgewood no privacy none of the accommodations committed to by vineyards would be there there would be no park improvement no parking for the cube the 2525 developers

have worked with the Westside Spurgeon homeowners to address and accommodate our concerns they have also attempted to work with the and SAP leadership and have been unable to engage them in any true negotiations at one time when pressed a prominent member of the opposition leadership stated what an acceptable number of units would be this project has now been reduced to that size he no longer stands by that number and there is still no resolution enough is enough please vote in favor of the 2525 main project and mr. mayor I'd like

to just comment that the comment you made came from an uneducated ill-informed position, and it was inappropriate.

Michael Oveil.

Dear Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Michael Valle, and I'm the President of Park San Diego. It's been a long two years of opposition to a bad project, and our voice has only gotten louder. We have taken this fight beyond the limits of our neighborhood, our ward, and our city. Santa Ana is in opposition of this project. This project clashes with the aesthetics of our neighborhood. The traffic, the poor design of the new intersections will only make travel along the Main Street corridor even worse. The financial benefit of this project has been diminished to pennies on the dollar,

a small portion of what was dangled in front of you previously. The Planning Commission has continuously denied this project. Vote no on this project. We implore you to listen to the voice of a unified Santa Ana, the constituents you promised to represent and the constituents you don't. Mr. Solorio, put the honorable back in your title, sir. Support your award.

Councilman Inglacia, I thank you for your efforts and all the hard work you've done with meeting with us in the neighborhoods. And I please implore you to put the residents first. It was only at the last Planning Commission meeting where the developer couldn't keep his DUA straight. If they can't get the basics right, how can we trust they can do the math on the bigger projects? I mean, was it 48 or was it 58? 46? I don't know. I think it was something around there, but I think it's 58. The loss of another office building and professional location will only force our residents to travel outside of Santa Ana for work.

Vote no and save Santa Ana. Thank you.

That was Michael Bill Bonnet, followed by Brenda Call, followed by David Slayton.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council Members. My name is Bill Bonnette. I'd like to give a brief summary about my background because I think it's pertinent. For the last seven years, I've been on the executive board of the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association. That's right, seven years. Seven years as their treasurer. For the last 15 years, I've been a resident and homeowner of Park Santiago. My wife and two children live there. For the last 20 years, I've been directly employed and engaged in commercial real estate development. My family is an active real estate developer.

We have office holdings, retail holdings, medical holdings, light industrial holdings. It's on the internet. It's there. We started out in residential. How many do in the early 70s and 80s? We bought duplexes, fourplexes, eightplexes. It didn't take us long to realize that was not a business that we wanted to be in very long. We could see what happened to the community that we owned property in. The parking, the noise, the decay of the surrounding areas because of the high density that is often permitted in these units.

We upgraded out of those and have never looked back. Now, 2525 is on our main business corridor. It is a beautiful business location. It has been a successful location for Wells Fargo Bank, a Fortune 25 company since the 1980s. They chose to move their mortgage operations to Chandler, Arizona. They have the power to do that. It's not a location problem. Now, we need to put residents first. We need to provide local jobs.

We cannot tell our residents, too bad you got a 40-minute commute to Irvine to get into a new building with a reputable employer. That is inappropriate. we're a very large, proud city. And to turn our backs on our local workers and require them to go so far to find a new, appropriately built office building is simply wrong. Now let's talk about this development. It is 58 DUA, dwelling units per acre. Make no mistake. The similar, identically zoned project

abutting R1, the largest one in our city, is 38 DUA. What is being asked is a 52% increase over the highest density project that is identically zoned abutting R1. And that 38 DUA is only three stories. We have four levels of residential proposed. That's, in their calculation, 50 feet. You know what 50 feet really is? Five stories. They'll tell you four, it's really five. This cannot be the new precedent. Please vote no

on 2525. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Brenda Call, and every time I have to talk, I get terrified, but I'm not going to back down, because I feel like this is way too important. I have lived in Park San Diego for 30 years. I've owned a house for 22, and that wasn't easy either. You have to move your way up, right? I'm a 28 year teacher in Santa Ana and I'm very dedicated to the city so I go to work three miles from my house already it's taking me way longer to get there all those apartments that have gone up at first I go towards the train station I go Santiago the four-way stop nobody can even decide what to do

anymore you got a backlog going on to Santa Ana Boulevard I'm just trying to go straight. You have people turning on to Civic Center. It's already a mess over there just from what's gone up. I wonder if anyone has considered just overall, forget about Santa Ana, what is all around us? I mean we've got Anaheim Stadium ones, we have Orange, we have all the ones going up over there. Tom's truck got demolished. I'm sure stuff's going there. The Elks Lodge got demolished. Is stuff going there also i mean it's all adding up to way too much stuff you know the problem

in here is not lack of housing problem is is it's ridiculously expensive to live in orange county so if you want to live here you have to do what i did and you have to work your way up and you have to hope that you can get in and and work hard you know my husband and i have two incomes and we struggle still here so it's not easy the traffic that there's talking about again didn't take it to account main place town and country and all these others that are going up it's only going to get even more horrific for sure at the Sunstein meeting my my suit neighbor asked developer how

many times he asked for his own change and he said six and then he asked him how many times were you successful and he also said six. So I feel like maybe it's time to say no to him in this case. I love Park San Diego and I don't want to feel like a hostage in my beautiful historic neighborhood that I work very hard to keep my stuff. I just want you guys to say no. We're all very tired. You guys are tired of coming, but I'm going to keep coming because it matters to me that much. Thank you.

David followed by Carol Slayton.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. Why are we here again? Had your vote on this matter the last time gone against the citizens of North Santa Ana, would we be getting another bite at the apple? The Planning Commission voted no two or three times. You voted no last time, but here we are again. The general plan should not be whittled away in a piecemeal fashion. And in your hands is placed the responsibility to safeguard the quality of life of your city, of our city.

You've heard and you will hear ad nauseum why this project will be detrimental to North Santa Ana. And we, your neighbors and your constituents, ask that you rise to the stature we know you're capable of and deny this project. It's the wrong project and it's in the wrong location.

I'm Carol Slayton. I'm a resident of Park Santiago, and I'm just getting tired of being here, too. I don't care if this apartment complex reduced its size again. We all know that the monstrosity originally proposed was never going to happen. It was just a ploy for the developer to get any high-density apartment approved because that's what he does. It looks like he's listening to the input from the community when in fact he is cramming the zone change down our throats with the help of city staff and I just don't understand why that's happening. Shame on you city staff for

not pushing for what is right for Santa Ana even though you don't live in Santa Anna and the long-term effects are not a concern for you someone else mentioned this point but it's worth repeating on the city of Santa Anna website it has you know goals and purposes for the city does this foster neighborhood pride no does it attract and rain main and retain a prosperous business community no does it create an environment that stimulates the growth of art and cultural

opportunities no I ask you to vote no on the proposed development and zone change at 2525 listen to the overwhelming denial by Santa Ana residents and more importantly Santa Ana voters there was a the architect mentioned a myth of traffic well traffic no traffic that's a myth intersections no impact that's a myth cut through traffic not happening that's a myth in reality the traffic engineer at one of the first meetings he had a hard time even explaining how the

traffic report came up or how it was devised and in the end it was rated a level F the worst traffic level F so adding any amount of traffic is still an F that means there's no effect that's just crazy now add 1900 units on main at the main place mall and there will be an effect and I'm confused as to why the cube should have any say in whether this development is approved or not it

shouldn't have any impact or say about our neighborhood of course they want high-density apartments it's called a bribe a bribe as far as parking that's just not right Santa Ana is the densest city in Orange County and I've heard even California. Build apartments, we are not responsible for building all these new apartments of the so-called housing crisis. There's already 4,000 within a half a mile of this project. And someone questioned Mr. Pedrosa, said this isn't even high density. Well, it is high density.

There's an actual formula and it's 58 dwelling units. That's called high density.

And we should not approve high-density apartments. Carol, your light is red, if you could conclude.

Okay, I just wanted to just...

Oh, your husband didn't speak much, but I'm kidding. I'm just going to conclude.

Well, it's his birthday, so he's here for his birthday. I'm just confused as to why. I've heard various reasons for this approval for the apartments, but none are because the high-density apartments are a good use for this land. It's because, oh, we can get parking, so build the apartments. We can have security in the park. Let's get apartments. Let's get park improvements. Let's build apartments. Let's give cash to the residents. Apartments. That's just wrong.

Jonathan.

Jonathan Obest, followed by Jeanette Wood.

followed by Lewis would mr. mayor city council members thank you for this opportunity there were two things that the representative from the developer mentioned that I do want to point out that was from the EIR that there was no way to mitigate the impact from their own mouth no way to mitigate the impact to our neighborhood that is is substantial and excuse me for a moment one of the

things that I really enjoy about Park Santiago is is the neighbors that we have and my family moved there here just three years ago and just so that you understand how important this is that this not go through this evening I I missed bedtime for my two-year-old that is the impact that this is having we are here you all have put in place a Planning Commission and I believe one of the tenants of good leadership is putting the right people in the right position the people that you have placed in that position have said this is a bad

idea I urge you listen to the folks that you have in these positions they're there for a reason turn down this zoning change thank you

thank you a Jonathan Jeanette I am Jeanette would I've lived in Santa Ana for 32 years I've raised two children here I'm a teacher in Santa Ana actually a retired teacher taught here for 20 years at Jefferson Elementary School Sanana is a wonderful diverse city and I just want to encourage you that you should build these apartments because we need to be a city of that's welcoming inclusive and we'll provide homes and just it will continue to build set the city of Sanana the place where others can come and be a part of and and learn and grow. So I encourage you to vote for the project. Thank you.

Lewis Wood, followed by Sylvia Posada.

Mayor, council people. Now with my wife.

Main Street's stuck in neutral. It should be vibrant right now. It should be a destination now. But Main Street's been stuck in neutral from the City of Orange all the way down to MacArthur.

Buildings get built depending on what building types are economically viable, what the market says is viable.

Developers built Park Santiago. It used to be orchards. Santa Ana Freeway was a two-lane highway. It's getting widened now. Lots more cars, a lot more pollution, a lot more people passing through.

Every type of city, rural, suburban, urban, has its problems. Problems in cities always exist. Successful communities do not get vibrant due to their problems. They become destinations, they become successful in spite of their problems. Your glass should be half full.

Main Street is stuck in neutral. You need to build. You build what is currently viable, what the market says is viable. That is how true cities grow.

You are responsible to make this city grow. You grow it for tomorrow's children, not for me.

Cities that do not grow die.

It's time to build success. Being in neutral goes nowhere. General plans and zoning are tools cities use to grow or to die. These tools are not absolute. They are made to be changed.

wise stewards of cities use these tools and know how to grow cities. Get out of neutral. Start by building this project.

Thank you.

Sylvia Posada, please.

Good evening. I'm here. I live in 20th Street and I'm here and be I speak on behalf of my neighbors and my seniors neighbor they cannot be here today on 20th Street we are a street when we have veterans we have immigrants we have members of the LGT community and they are all have the same message for all of you guys and is they has been working really hard all her life to trying to build a house a home in part Santiago with the place when they can stay there until the last moment and

they want to make sure that you all understand that they want to be in part Santiago and preserve the community and it's your responsibility to preserve the community for them and it's your responsibility to preserve the community for the other families that are growing now new kids on that community and on behalf of me please stop being influenced for money or for politicians or for whatever is being involved in all this situation and vote from your heart and take the wrong decision tonight and vote against the project thank you

Mr. Solorio probably you are posting on next door about the dog park it's better that you stand up for your community.

Frank Lopez, followed by Elizabeth Hansberg.

And then Cassius Rutherford after that. Please go ahead, Frank.

Good evening, guys.

I've been here I don't know how many times now and I have the same feeling that many of us here and I know you guys feel the same but look the Planning Commission and for the third time has given exactly what is wrong and has said no. Now, Ty gave a presentation here. Planning commissions, they brought up many situations

with this developer where there was transparency that was not true. It wasn't there. And the reason why they voted it down was because of this transparency of numbers. They play with numbers, but the numbers aren't true. And Ty was, the staff was supposed to look at these numbers. In this presentation he gave, I saw no answer to those numbers. Nothing was put clear. You know, how can we put our trust in a developer who isn't honest?

Okay, I've lived in Santa Ana over 40 years, and I know a few of you that are up here personally. Okay, but look, I had a business one-hour photo lab in downtown Santa Ana in the 70s. I lost it. I lost it because the city of Santa Ana, Caltrans, and everything shut down Main Street. for two years, so they can rebuild that monster mess that they have there on Main Street. Now, it's the same problem that they created that's causing this problem. We're talking about safety.

We're talking about, I don't know where staff gets their traffic control, because you know what? They don't live there. They do not see the problems. But there is a big safety hazard there. And this project, with those crosswalks and the changes they're making there, is ready for a disaster. Every day you turn on the TV, somebody is killed in a crosswalk. Some innocent person gets killed. children get killed because sometimes their parents can't control their own

children crossing the street and this confused signal and left turn right turn and everything is causing a lot of confusion and the city is going to be liable when something does happen but another thing I just wanted to say you know since we don't have a true plan or a charter with new ideas you're going to bypass that. But at one time when I had my shop, we had banks. There were plenty of banks on Main Street. You must know that. First Interstate Bank, Bank of America, first home savings and loan,

Great Western, and I can't remember the other, Crocker Bank, and what happened? It looked like we had a little financial district in downtown Santa Ana. And we are the hub of Orange County. Why is it we can't get businesses in banking or home savings and loans like we used to have? That's all I have to say. But I am against this project. Thank you.

Elizabeth Hansberg, followed by Cassius Rutherford, followed by Ken Stahl.

my apologies i was in the lobby my name is elizabeth hansberg i am from the non-profit housing advocacy organization people for housing orange county i'm here to just bear witness to the fact that we have a housing shortage we will continue to have a housing shortage until we build sufficient supply right now single-family housing on infill sites in built-out communities is not feasible the cost of land and the nature of infill makes density the only way to make a project pencil apartments play a critical role in meeting the need for housing and I would argue to you that

given Skaggs recent decision to assign the majority of the RHNA housing need to Orange County and Los Angeles County apartments will continue to be part of Orange County's landscape you can listen to people who have single-family homes tell you that they don't want anything but single-family homes but that doesn't mean that that's feasible to build so I would just urge you there are going be more people moving here but where better to put them than on a major transit corridor this project does that it is apartments and it's on a major

transit corridor it's also on a major thoroughfare so we're not building apartments in the middle of a single-family neighborhood we're building them on a major thoroughfare so I would just urge you to resist the NIMBY disinformation apartments are not hazardous to their health they will not injure your children and there is no evidence that a development reduces property values when it's built on a major arterial that is not on the interior of a single-family neighborhood. So I would urge you to vote yes on this project. Thank you.

Cassius Rutherford, followed by Ken Stahl. Those folks were members of my organization

and they're not going to make it tonight.

So Ken won't make it. What about, okay, Stephen Swytek, Judy Swytek, and then Esther Lopez.

Good evening. Thank you for listening to us. I think the Planning Commission went through the same thing, heard the same things, Even more, I like being able to assign my time to somebody who can summarize everything. I'm sorry we can't do that, but I oppose the project for what has been said by many other people. It's a great project. It's just in a wrong spot, and unfortunately it's at a pinch point of traffic.

And there's that added issue with the crosswalk or crossing from the proposed parking to the Discovery Center. I think you really need to look at that. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Judy Switek, the other half.

I would like to remind Santa Ana that you are the densest city in the County of Orange, and we do need more housing in Orange County. But is that Santa Ana's job? I think you got saddled with the homeless, too. And it wasn't Santa Ana's job, was it? And I'm going to just divert a little bit here. because today I got up and I said the Pledge of Allegiance with you. And it kind of took me back to my schoolgirl thinking. And as a teacher, I had, and I've taught even in China,

we taught about democracy is of the people and for the people. And, you know, I'm not talking about just the people of Park Santiago. you've heard from several people and we have the power of vote I'm naive I think that you will listen to us because we are your people so please vote no on this project

good evening and blessings to everybody here because we've been here so many times heard the same stories so often that I'm bored I'm depressed I'm angry I don't have a speech nobody gave me a speech, my husband gave a great one, I think. Don't you agree? Yes. So we have discussed the city of Santa Ana. I've been in Santa Ana since 1936. 83, almost 84 years, and I did live outside of Santa Ana in Hawaii back when it was really wonderful. Not skyscrapers. But now I'm in Parks on Taogo, and that's my little Hawaii.

And I don't look at myself as being part of Parks on Taogo. I feel myself as being part of everybody who wants to live peacefully and gracefully and honestly. We want, I don't want to see the children hurt. And I know that I don't like driving anymore because of the crazy drivers, the people who are distracted and I don't and I see those children crossing the street with their parents from the Discovery Science Center and all and that's my fear but I'll tell you it's up to

you to make the decision you've heard Dale give I don't know how many incredible presentations here you've heard the Planning Commission making decisions and if you can't make a decision in favor of the community that you are part of and not part of someone who comes and invests their money here. You all have invested time, money, energy, your heart.

As representatives of the people of Santa Ana, the civil duty, as I mentioned to the Planning Commission, is to vote no.

Thomas Kartner, I believe it is, or Contents, followed by John Gavin, followed by Jeff Dresser.

Hi, hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Thomas Kartner, and I am a 20-year resident of Park Santiago. I consider myself to be an extremely fortunate person to live in Park Santiago. And I've owned two different houses there. At one time, my partner and I had thoughts of leaving. And after we shopped around Long Beach for months and months and months, and we discovered, you know, we're out in the evenings, encountering other residents, people walking dogs, and saying hello and like, hi, and how are you? and getting no responses.

Park Santiago is kind of a Mayberry, you know, kind of neighborhood, I have to admit. It's an extremely diverse neighborhood also. But I wanted to, I kept thinking, what can I add to this conversation?

And I've been an unfortunate person in many regards. my partner and I got to witness a pedestrian being killed instantly at an offset intersection in Los Angeles about 15 or 16 years ago since I have lived in Park Santiago and come in and out of Edgewood frequently I have witnessed two bicycle and pedestrian accidents people come off of the North freeway ramp and run the red lights there are four no right on red signs it's run

constantly the OCTA took away the bus stop that was right at the corner because when you make that right on red you know the bus backs things up now we're talking about two entryways and then creating a 90-foot you know coming southward offset intersection. So many people, as you well know, when it comes to left turn arrows, you know, it turned yellow. I'm just going to gun it. Two cars can get through in addition to that. Now, when that's a pedestrian crosswalk, well marked and such, you know, those pedestrians,

you know, are far away from where the cars are starting out. They're probably already stepping into the intersection while that's happening. So I do have concerns about the safety and those issues. And for many, many other reasons, I urge all of you to please take the advice of your planning commissioners and to vote no on this project. Thank you very much. Thank you.

John Gavin, followed by Jeff Dresser, followed by Bia Tretuli, I believe it is.

John, are you here?

John, are you here?

Then Jeff Dresser.

Good evening. My name is Jeff Dresser. I live in Park Santiago, and I'm opposed to this project. Once I learned about the new shared parking lot agreement with the Discovery Science Center, and knowing how dangerous the intersection is at the 5 Freeway and Main Street in Edgewood, I took it upon myself to get a little informed about actual facts. I was able to obtain a report from the statewide integrated traffic reporting system, which is information that's compiled by California Highway Patrol.

And I ran a query on collisions occurring on every on and off ramp associated with the 5 freeway in Orange County. So from San Clemente to Buena Park, I looked at all those intersections to see how many collisions occurred at each of those on and off ramps. And what I found was that at the intersection in question, there's 28% more traffic collisions at that intersection than any other intersection on or off-ramp along the 5 Freeway in Orange County.

So for the City of Santa Ana staff to come up here and state that their traffic analysis showed that there's no new impacts regarding that new shared parking lot is ludicrous. Don't be the council member who approves this project without safety mitigation steps in place and a child gets killed at that intersection. That's totally foreseeable. don't be that council member and we're all here you you know how we feel we've all empowered you

to advocate on our behalf and we expect you to do that in fact miss iglesias you ran on the platform of residents first i have a little flyer at home that says that residents first well here we are in front of you, telling you how we feel, giving you the opportunity to show us that what you said during your campaign is true, and that you really are putting the residents first. And for those of you who are contemplating future political aspirations in Santa Ana,

here's another fact. During this most recent November special election, 28% of the total votes from Santa Ana came from Ward 3, north of 17th Street. So it's a pretty big majority. It's one-third of all the voters who turned out in Santa Ana live in Ward 3 and north of 17th Street. So you might want to break out your political calculators and start doing some math. Thank you. Thank you.

B. T-R-I-T-I.

Veriteli, come on down. And then Julie Humphries.

I thought there was somebody ahead of me. Sorry, I would have been up here sooner. Okay, for almost, I'm sorry, let me start over. For a look at poor planning, take a walk around the periphery of downtown Santa Ana, which is a jigsaw puzzle of historic homes, businesses, high-rises, and apartments. These create a visual blight and frustrating traffic delays. Our city has thousands of apartments going in currently, or already in, within about a half mile of the site of this project.

What 2525 and the surrounding neighborhoods need, And I know we need apartments. Many people have stated the need for housing, the need for housing, the need for housing. I get it. Orange County does need housing, but Santa Ana does not have to provide all the housing. We are already the densest populated city in the county and one of the densest populated cities in all of America. But what we need is smart planning with input from existing neighbors. If rezoning happens, it needs to happen with the input of neighbors.

Rezoning should not happen at the behest of piecemeal jigsaw requests from developers. Rezoning needs to happen because the people want rezoning. This site would be ideal for single-family homes or townhomes. And in fact, our neighborhood association has backed a compromise plan that would possibly include townhomes. However, the site is also located in a tourist corridor. We have three museums literally within a stone's throw of the property. And we have the most famous theme park in the world, just three exits from this site, three freeway exits.

So think about that when we decide whether to rezone. and rezone with prescience in mind, rezone with the future in mind, and really, really put some thought into it before we rezone. We don't have to rezone, but if we rezone, it should be with the input of the community and not just with the input of a developer. All right, thank you. Thank you.

Hello, Julie.

Hi. Good evening, Mayor, Council members. My name is Julie Humphreys. I live on North Ross Street in Floral Park. As a 32-year resident of Santa Ana, I care deeply about my city and its issues. While I thoroughly understand and support the need for additional housing units and am in favor of responsible development, I am strongly opposed to the proposed spot rezoning of this parcel from commercial to residential, which is directly contrary to the current general plan and would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the museum district. Moreover, as others have and will point out in more detail,

the proposal suffers from a number of legal deficiencies that make it vulnerable to legal challenges, which have doomed prior proposed development projects in the city. Additionally, a project of this nature en masse does not belong adjacent to an established neighborhood like Park Santiago. Just because prior city councils have permitted massive apartment complexes to encroach upon, disrupt, and diminish some of our other vintage neighborhoods does not mean you have to repeat such past mistakes. You should know and do better.

I am not a NIMBY, and I fully support the proposed development of the many thousands of residential units planned for the Northwest Memory Lane and Main Place Mall area, which are about as close to my home as the 2525 project. because these are good examples of more responsible development which would provide additional multifamily housing units, hopefully also to include some low-income housing, but which do not directly abut and have a buffer from established single-family home neighborhoods. I urge you to defer action on this to address the many legal deficiencies

or better yet deny the application outright and reject the rezoning. Thank you.

Christy Candy, followed by Eric Skandret.

Good evening. My name is Kristen Candy, and I live on Oakmont, and I am opposed to this project. My husband and I are fairly new to the neighborhood compared to some of the neighbors you've heard speak tonight. I, we bought our home only about seven years ago, but we've been residents of Santa Ana for almost 20 years as we lived in the apartments on Fairhaven and Grand in the Aspens. When my husband and I were in a financial situation to be able to purchase a home, we very specifically looked for homes in Santa Ana and the lovely residential areas that this city has, and we were thrilled

when we were able to purchase our historic home in Park Santiago, which was built in 1923 and is on the historic registry for the city. This new proposal has not resolved my concerns regarding the height, the traffic, the parking issues associated with a project of this height and density at the entrance to our single family residence. In addition, the proposed changes to an already very confusing intersection raise new safety concerns. After hearing some of my neighbors speak in favor of this project tonight, it appears to me the developer is trying to make the argument in creating fears that a denial of his

project will automatically result in something more disruptive to this neighborhood you control this decision this is not a choice tonight between his development and an unknown scary future you can both deny this project and in the future continue to deny development that is not appropriate to the neighborhood your decision tonight is regarding this project and while I understand and appreciate the state mandates to develop more housing the city of Santa Ana shows that our housing data that the project of this size is not needed at this location I believe that an appropriate development is still possible at this site

they'll be less disruptive to the homeowners on Spursion something that fits appropriately with our neighborhood and benefits the overall city deny this proposal tonight and empower city staff to find appropriate development for this location I urge you to please vote against this project and maintain the integrity and property values of our unique residential neighborhood. Thank you.

Eric followed by Rory Kirk followed by Isabel Koontz.

Hello, Mayor and City Council, and thank you for taking all of this time to hear from the residents of Santa Ana and all of the other people that have spoken. I have been living in Santa Ana for 34 years, and I live over in Morrison Park, and I am opposed to this project. I think that it is way too big, even though it has been adjusted. And the traffic situation at that intersection already is a nightmare. And the one thing that has not been pointed out is there's a new hotel, as I understand it,

that will be going in on the other side of the freeway. So now to add to the traffic congestion, we'll have people coming out of the hotel, possibly driving cars they're not familiar with and then they will be in a traffic situation that they are unfamiliar with and they will be thinking, how could Santa Ana possibly have done this? Please vote no.

Yes, Rory, you're next. Go ahead, please.

I sent this or emailed this to you folks the only one I didn't email it to was Vassera because Phil was not on the thing so if you want to give that to Phil I'm not gonna I'm not gonna even talk about it the last part about it last paragraph was these two developers these people that are doing this they do not live in the neighborhood so that was what I sent all you folks and Tim Rush Rob Richardson Phil Schaefer I'm not going to expound that those people can explain a lot better than I can but I do want to hit a few points number one the traffic study this is a

joke I went to LAX last week and I found out what an extensive traffic study and model did it messed it all up so whatever they said worked it didn't it's a disaster so next time you go to LAX check out what they've done second of all this developer I before I say that I understand that out of 1200 homes there's gonna be people that have a different view and I understand that but the majority over 90% of our neighborhood are against this and I respect the opinions of those that don't want that do want this I understand there's gonna be difference opinion but the overwhelming majority doesn't want this it is not good I can't

trust this developer either because last time we were here you sent him back to work with us his way of working with us was going to nine neighbors on Spurgeon and and mayor Pluto that was not inappropriate we found out that he offered them money if the project went through and they would and they would support him so this is this is nothing new we knew this and this is very unfair the way you come to a neighborhood is to come to the neighborhood not just the homes abutting your project so he never came to us and tried to work with us Oglenicks have made this toxic between him and the neighborhood right from the

get-go because they never listened to us again thank you folks for listening I I oppose the project. So Larry, are you still on that phone? Yeah, you are. I watched you. Please support us. Thank you.

Honorable Mayor, Council, you might realize I'm not Isabel Kuntz. I'm Leland Kuntz. She traded with me, if that's all right with you.

Go ahead.

So we were blessed to buy a home in Park San Diego. My wife said, hey, you need to talk to those people, knock on their door. And I said, well, the real estate sign's taken down. And my wife, bless her heart, she said, no, go talk to them because maybe they still want to sell. And we paid about $300,000 for a house. That gives you an idea how long we've been in the neighborhood. And you might think of us as NIMBYs, like people have thrown around, but I think we're more like a typical Santa Ana family. My wife is born in Mexico. All my children went to Santa Ana schools, and they went to bilingual schools.

and they not only speak Spanish, but they speak English and several other languages too. And we're really committed to the diversity of the city. We love the city. And if you look at this neighborhood, I think it's really unfair to stereotype it as a bunch of NIMBYs. I have some French wallpaper on my wall. It's called Brunswick et Fee. I had to learn how to pronounce it. But I bought it at a garage sale from the neighbor. We put in a driveway. We put in electrical wiring. We ridded the roof. I painted the windows. We've done so much work I can't even remember all the work, the blood, sweat, and tears we put into our house.

Now, when you put in a project like this and take equity out of my pocket, it's not benefiting anybody. It's only hurting us, and it hurts the city. It lowers the property tax. So, you know, I'm not against people having decent housing, okay? For someone who owns an above-raverage house, when I was in my 20s, I lived in a place in San Pedro. the walls shook when the foghorns from the cruise ships blasted. There were cockroaches. The water pipes in the ceiling burst and made everything wet. And one day I looked out of my window from the second floor and I saw a girl put her leg into a car to get shot up with heroin.

Okay, so I've lived in crappy places and I know that the city has to have good housing and we all have to come up together. But trying to depress the values of Park Santiago by putting in this monstrosity makes no sense. When we bought our house, there were rules, and I read the paperwork. It said that I was required by the CC&Rs. I couldn't believe there were CC&Rs for a private home. I thought that was only for condo owners. My CC&Rs say that we have to have a first-class home. That was for the people who built it originally. Okay, so I can't put in a microbrewery in my neighborhood.

I can't go around my neighbors and offer them money to go to the planning commission and see if I can push through a microbrewery. So there's rules on my house. I can't put in a granny flat. All my neighbors have granny flats. Why can't I put one in? Because it probably costs $30,000 in building permits. Now, the state of California doesn't agree. The state of California says every city in California has to allow granny flats. So Santa Ana reluctantly allows it. Do you know how expensive it would be for me to create a granny flat for my wife and I to move into to rent out the house in our retirement?

It's prohibitively expensive. I'm subject to rules. The CCNRs, the zoning, the permitting. But wait, if you're a developer, I mean, this guy has got game. Put a down payment on a property, maybe an option, and then ask for so many units you know it's never going to be approved. make it ugly, make it tall, make it have too much traffic, and then when people complain, pull out your revised plan that you already had ready that's half as big. Why can't I do that? Why can't I have a microbrewery on my Oakmont house? Why can't I start a car repair facility? Because if the rules apply to me, why don't they apply to everybody?

Billy Lay, followed by Lynette Wardensky.

And then Nathaniel Morocco, I believe it is.

Mr. Mayor.

Please go ahead. Lee. Billy Lee.

We've been here before. God bless you. I'll get it next time. I know you will. And God bless you, guys. Mr. Bersari, congratulations. We are proud to have you on the city council, and we expect great things from you.

Blessings to the council.

The amount of time that has been spent presenting facts to you people. Mr. Massario, don't get mad at me just because I wrote you. The amount of time that has been spent presenting factual stuff to you people, you especially, monsieur, if we were going for a PhD and we all came along the point system like it does in college, you'd all have PhDs. you'd be the smartest people in the world because the facts have been well thought out well researched and now I'm going to keep this simple

and you're going to say in the back of your mind the guy's a nutcase why does he bring up this kind of a thing but it'll try if you, Mr. Broussaint you, Mr. Mayer If you were to vision yourselves in Park Santiago, or that you wanted that home that you've been looking at for years,

would you vote yes on this project? You don't have to answer that. You don't have to answer that. The answer is no, no, no, no, because you would then put yourself in our shoes and you would feel what we are feeling, what we're trying to say to you and try to convey so that you'll do the right thing. All the facts have spoken. Everything is above board. Everything is where it needs to be. I think the facts are good. There's a few crazy stuff that goes on like right now. But put yourself in our shoes. Put yourself in our shoes. and say, if I lived in Park Santiago

or if I wanted to buy a home in Park Santiago, would I vote yes? And God willing, you would say no. So please, pretend for just this little period of time, pretend that you are going to live in Park Santiago until after this matter is resolved. God bless you guys. I pray wisdom, and I pray you'll do the thing that is right for the citizens. You, buddy. You do what is right for your ward. Do it. Try it. Once you'll like it.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Lynette Wardinsky. I'm an almost 20-year resident of Park Santiago. so the master plan of a city is the general plan as I understand it and it's the highest level city document it's what guides all decisions about zoning and planning piecemeal zoning simply because your plan document because your general plan is out of date let's say piecemeal zoning the result of that is bad zoning it's just bad planning it's irresponsible it's

thoughtless and it's actually reckless so when you think of Orange County and you think about the most successful master plan community not just in Orange County but in the whole United States Irvine right so I happen to find a sales brochure from 1971 for the city of Irvine for a development and these are pretty interesting statements this is what they were trying to sell to residents and and who wouldn't want this so this pig this big chunk of land is filled with fresh full living with people enjoying life more because

someone is taking the time to make good land better by making large-scale long range plans by sticking with those plans the master plan and by building with care and quality you know this is critical you know before you buy what's planned for that vacant lot across the way and you know that the hard-earned money that you put into your home is protected because unlike

other places, Irvine is designed to get better as it gets older. Sit with that one for a bit. Get better while it's older. I love Santa Ana. I moved from South Orange County here. It took me two years to find a home because no one sells in our neighborhood. I almost broke up with my husband when we were dating because I didn't think he'd want to live here. And thank God he wants to live here because he loves it anyway I just just because the general plan is outdated does not

mean we should we should sacrifice and not make good decisions use our brains use our talents and make the best choice with what you have it's not this plan it's not this project please vote no I'm

against it. Nathaniel, followed by Mike, I believe, Furr, F-U-H-R, and Nathaniel, last name M-A-R-R-O, I believe CCO, then Mike, and then Doug McLea.

If Nathaniel is not here, let's go to Mike, then Doug, and then Giles Candy.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. My name is Mike Fior. I am a resident of Santa Ana and I've worked for the Discovery Cube for 17 years. I hold a memorandum that I've kept in my office since I got there that talks about parking is an issue for the Science Center. You've heard some of my colleagues and some of the folks talk about it, but we have tried everything. We used to have our guests walk from the main place for almost a mile and a half with their strollers. That got taken up. We tried with the Red Roof Inn. Obviously, that became more expensive than we could afford.

We were fortunate that we had good partners with Wells Fargo and now with the Olgunlooks. But it's at that point now where we don't have any other choices. So I understand that the residents feel this is the wrong project. But for us, it provides the parking that we'll need to succeed for science education for kids. And then the safety part, I know personally I have to walk our guests and sometimes our staff out to the parking lot because of the danger with the homeland homelessness and the lack of security and we've talked about things we can do for that so

for me I just wanted to make sure that you knew from somebody who lives in Santa Ana who also works in Santa Ana and is proud of the work that we do at the Science Center that this really is our only choice at this point and we vote I I would like you to vote yes for the project.

Thank you.

Doug

Maclay

followed by Giles Candy followed by Rob Richardson.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Giles Candy, resident of Oakmont Avenue. I'd like to pick up on something that was said earlier. You were told this project of 250 or so apartments, 500 and some odd residents I expect, will create 40 traffic movements an hour. How do 500 people go to work and school between 7 and 9 in the morning with 80 car movements in and out of the apartments. That's a farcical number.

But you were asked to accept that. This sort of presentation of information has been fairly consistent, unfortunately, throughout. Excuse me. It started out as a high-density project, and And I'm not lying and I'm not moving the football again by telling you it's still a high-density project inside a historic R1 neighborhood. It's still not appropriate.

You've heard many residents say, give us an appropriate project and we will embrace it. the current state of that land is certainly nowhere near as good as it could be. It's not constructive for us and it's not constructive for you. But to put high density, higher density than anywhere, as was said earlier, in Santa Ana, into that parcel is not appropriate.

Ryan Oglenick has presented several academic reports or snippets of them to council and Planning Commission.

He provided most of them to me. I think I read them. I don't think he did.

With respect to value, he suggested that values may increase. The largest number, consistent number I can find in those reports is an increase of 0.3%, which on a half a million dollar home is one and a half thousand dollars. Those same reports cite a decrease in value, or cite research showing decrease in value of 20%, which is a hundred thousand dollars a home, if it's a half a million dollar home. Are you willing to take that value from this neighborhood? Are you willing to underwrite that loss? This is not an appropriate development for this neighborhood.

Please uphold the Planning Commission's repeated vote of no. Thank you very much.

Giles Candy, now Rob Richardson, followed by Christine Danny Helvig.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Rob Richardson. I'm very happy to be here, thinking I could get home before 10 o'clock tonight. I'm not so sure. And I'd like to compliment and congratulate Mr. Becerra on his election to the City Council.

we've been here a number of times and I know many of you believe it's all been said and it's all been said again you're all old enough as I look at you to remember that movie with Bill Murray called Groundhog Day you all remember that movie every day Bill Murray wakes up and he's got to go there to see if Puxatani Pete is going to see a shadow every day In Santa Ana, for the last two years, every few days when we wake up, 2525 is back for approval again.

And I certainly hope that we're not here in February at Groundhog Day next year to see this again. The residents have spoken very clearly and have been very consistent from the very beginning of this project. It was oversized and too dense and in the wrong location from the very beginning. That has not changed throughout this process. And while the developer has made some concessions, the fact is that the amount of housing that is authorized by right at this location is zero.

There are no units that are allowed by the zoning that is in place today. And so the hard part for me to understand, having sat where you have sat, and you know we sent a letter, several of us retired city council members, you can all look forward to that day when you're retired as well, and you can step back and offer your sage wisdom. The thing that is really hard to understand is how it is possible that for two years, hundreds of people would come to dozens of meetings and give you the same information over and over and over again, and you haven't listened.

That's what we don't understand. That's what the residents don't understand. And for me, there's only one explanation for why this has not gotten through. It's because the residents who come down here, like my next-door neighbor, Clay, I was really worried what he was going to say about me. I feel better now. But Clay Henderson doesn't come down here with the ability to lubricate anybody's campaign accounts.

But Mr. Ogolnick does. He has the promise of putting tens of thousands of dollars from a variety of different sources into campaigns for one office or another that you might pursue. We all know the score. We all know the score here. and the issue before the council tonight is no longer just 2525. The issue before the council is whether or not the dollars of developers are going to outweigh the interests of the residents. And only you, seven, can answer that question.

And I submit to you that it would be a sad day when the residents of other neighborhoods who didn't have the wherewithal to keep up a fight for two years like Park Santiago and Floral Park have on this stupid project, who's going to defend Logan? Who's going to defend the Memorial Park neighborhood? Who's standing up for Saddleback View or Henninger? There isn't anybody that's going to stand up for them when the developers have all the resources.

to win the day. And it's hard for me to say this to you, but it has to be said, because there is no other explanation that makes sense. You had a chance a year ago to stop this? You need to stop it tonight, because the two-year battle is now kind of getting neighbors kind of pitted against each other. Why should that be the case? We all want the same thing. We want acceptable projects that we can be proud of, that aren't a burden to our neighborhood, and these projects that Mr. Ogolnick has pursued don't fit the bill. So I urge you tonight, vote no, vote for the residents' interests,

and say no to the excessive interests of the out-of-town developers. I, for one, am sick of out-of-town people coming down here from Costa Mesa or from wherever else these damn people live, telling us how we ought to run our city.

Mr. Mayor, please run.

And please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please

come please come please come please come please come please come please come please

come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please come please

for the last 30 years. We've raised our children there, and it's a great neighborhood. I want to talk a little bit about the general plan. I mean, I know this general plan is old, but old does not mean defunct. Old does not mean that it has no place here, that it has no value. It's not a disposable plan. Planning, it's all about planning for future growth and creating communities.

it's all about mitigating for that future growth. So we have a lot of population growth in that area. If you, you know, everybody talks about the 3,600 and the 4,000 units, et cetera, et cetera. So I took the Oglenix numbers in terms of unit mix and their capacity, and those developments that have already been approved are over, they could house over 10,000 people right in that area.

So that's fine. That's fine. But we don't need to have more housing right in that area. What we need, and somebody said it earlier, we need jobs for those people that are now going to be moving into that area to mitigate the effects of population growth. The additional vehicle traffic and pollution impacts infrastructure, health, and safety. There'll be roughly 8,000 more cars in that area from those over 10,000 people. And I think that's being pretty generous.

Take the cars off the road, at least some of them. Put a place there where people can work and walk to work. It removes part of the pollution. It removes part of the traffic. It activates the area.

It makes sense. Without a reason to consistently mix together, newly added and existing residents run the risk of building separate worlds rather than one community. Create opportunities to join new and existing residents in one community by providing a local walk-to-work workplace. It makes sense. Just because you add people doesn't mean you improve local business. You can't improve the local lunch crowd or the banquet crowd when people are leaving to go work someplace else.

else create opportunities to improve the local business climate by providing a local walk to workplace it makes sense overall the people responsible for the existing general plan got it right for 2525 all you have to do is acknowledge their wisdom and foresight. Put old and new residents first. Vote no on 2525 because it makes sense, Mr. Solario.

Leland Kuntz.

Leland Kuntz. I already spoke. Patricia. I'm not speaking if you guys vote yes. We're not done.

Wenuskias, Patricia Diane Franklin, Larry Haynes.

Come on down, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Diane Fradkin, 27-year resident of Park Santiago. I want to extend my thanks to Councilmember Sarmiento for speaking with us about this project. He was kind enough to spend some time in doing so, and I truly appreciate that. Tonight, you've heard so many things. I don't want to pour you with the same information, but one of the things I wanted to mention is that planning and development is all about a balance. and you have to look at things that way. You can't just be blinders on,

just thinking perhaps that it's all about the Spurgeon people, it's really one neighborhood, you can't just put it into a box like that. So you have to sort of take a bigger viewpoint. The things that you should be concerned with about this project has to do with density, the aesthetic impact, the general plan which has been talked about as nauseam tonight the district center zoning which is flat-out inappropriate because it is not a mixed use development the public safety issue I gave you a handout that gave you gives

a visual of how that intersection is going to work the curb cut the proximity to Edgewood. It's just a lot going on there. Basically, this project appears to be a new project. There's a lot of new information here. The parking, which I know the Discovery Cube says they need, that's great, but that's a new element of the project that has not been studied. the new curb cut there was not a curb cut in the original project the staggered intersection so you're really looking at a new project and the supporting

documents that are before you for approval tonight don't include that I hope the planning chairman allows me to go ahead and quote him from the meeting not on October 28th. I hope he doesn't mind. In his words, which I thought was very poignant, he stated, from the beginning, this has been a good project, but in the wrong location. And when you look at everything going on in the north end of the city, there is a lot of good construction because it's well thought through construction.

Some of the changes to the project brings up new and more questions that have not been properly vetted. These neighborhoods are the fabric of Santa Ana, and approving this project would be a complete disservice to Park Santiago and other historic neighborhoods in the future. I just want to end on, don't just settle for less because it's easy. That's what's before you right now. demand the best for our city. Thank you and vote now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Larry Haynes. I'm the Executive Director of Mercy House.

This is difficult public commentary for me, as some of you can well imagine. Most of my friends in this room are adamantly opposed to the project, and a lot of these relationships go back 30 years. A lot of them have just recently spoken, and far more powerfully than I can and will. And they've been loyal to me for decades.

I do not easily dismiss their words or disagree with them, and I certainly don't on the merits of them at all. I do so with great reluctance. And I do think that when the Planning Commission speaks, that's something that we have to take very carefully. And if, in fact, we are going to overturn what the Planning Commission says, it must be for some very thoughtful reasons. It cannot simply be done lightly. And so it is with a lot of humility and a lot of nervousness that I would say anything that would contradict what a lot of my friends have said here, because I have so very much respect for them. But I would suggest two things.

just from my own experience as an advocate for the poor as one who wants to end homelessness two things there have been a lot of disparaging comments personal comments regarding the developers guys i have no idea what's true or not true but i can tell you what my personal experience is and it's because of their support there are hundreds of people that were on the streets that are off the streets tonight it's because of their support there are hundreds of people that are actually in permanent housing that earlier as recently as a few months were

living in our parks. And it would be dishonorable for me not to at least acknowledge that.

I can't speak to everything that's been said. I don't have that knowledge, and I'm certainly not a firebrand. But that's meaningful to me, and I think that deserves at least something. Santa Ana, in my experience, and I've been doing this for over 30 years, and this is my professional home, has been the leader in ending homelessness in all of Orange County. It has been the most progressive, the most thoughtful, the most generous towards creating the housing that's needed for its poorest residents. And if this is voted, if this loses tonight, and I understand that, that's reasonable, but if it does,

I pray to God that this is not the marking of a new anti-housing movement, a new anti-density movement. Because if it is, if it is, we will have bigger problems ahead. I think you have a very difficult decision, and I pray for your wisdom this evening. Best of luck.

John Fradkin, please, followed by Dave Everett.

Good evening. My name is John Fradkin. I'm a 27-year resident of Santa Ana, and I oppose this project. I'd like to speak to you tonight about something you probably haven't heard before. I'd like to speak to you tonight about the current economic climate as it relates to high-density apartment buildings of the type proposed at 2525 North Main Street. I've spent some time researching this, and it's really pretty fascinating. I'd like to pass on what I've learned to the Council, because I think it's important background information, not only for your decision on this project, but on projects going forward.

I think I'm relatively qualified to speak on this. I've been a small owner-operator of apartments for most of my adult life, and I follow apartment valuations. I have a couple of friends who are developers, and I've picked their brains. My wife is an entitlement consultant to the development industry, and I've been invited to participate as an investor in a similarly-sized new apartment building in another part of the country, which allowed me to ask a bunch of probing questions about construction costs. This is what I've learned. These things are insanely profitable. And that's why they're going up all over the place.

Not only here in Southern California, but all over the country. I applaud the applicant for being in a really profitable business. If I had to do my life over again, I'd be an apartment developer. By my calculations in Southern California, developers are making about $150,000 per door in profits on these projects. I'd like that number to stick with you. $150,000 per door. On a mall project where they already own the land, it's substantially more. Probably $200,000 per door. On these mall projects, which I'm okay with,

you know they have all these great plans to transform them all but before they do that they want to build 2,000 apartments in the parking lot because that's a 300 million dollar profit so what has caused this why are these things so profitable well it's somewhat of a perfect storm of events low interest rates have caused investors to give their money to REITs and those REITs have a ton of money to invest. Apartment valuations are very high, and the political climate favors building more housing of any type. But probably the main driver is the reduced cost of construction.

Several years ago, treated wood was reclassified as a fire-retardant material, and that was a very significant moment, as it allowed residential builders to build up to six stories high, plus a mezzanine, using much cheaper wood frame construction, as opposed to concrete and steel. Previously to this, residential construction was limited to three stories because of perceived fire risk. The result of this is a gold rush to build these things. Now, my point is that these buildings are common. They are going to be proposed all over the place. You guys have seen many such proposals in the past and will continue to see many more.

In almost every case, the developers will be asking for a zone change. And I want you to think about that. In every case, it's a zone change because the high-density stuff's been built out already. When going from an industrial zone to a high-density residential zoning, nobody cares. When going from a commercial zoning to high-density residential, nobody cares. Or if they care, they're probably for it because surrounding businesses such as restaurants are supportive.

It's red if you can conclude.

Okay, I'll conclude. However, when going from any zoning that is adjacent to low-density single-family neighborhoods, residents are going to care as well they should. There's nothing special about this proposed building. However, there is something special about the site because it is adjacent to single-family homes. I'm going to close with my favorite quote from the U.S. Supreme Court. The desirability of a neighborhood is, in this court's opinion, greatly diminished by apartment houses. This court found that apartment houses were a nuisance to single-family houses.

Do the right thing, uphold the general plan and your Planning Commission's decision, and vote to deny this project. Thank you.

Well, Dave Everett, I'm an Orange County resident, And I sympathize with some of the other speakers who were here earlier who were saying that they're concerned with what could possibly be on the site. Because recently we found out that we're going to have one of these government-approved homeless shelters within a mile of our residence. And so we're not tremendously excited about that. My wife's been a teacher in Santa Ana for 13 years. And I do support the project. And I have three reasons why.

I hear a lot of people talking about traffic, but when I look through the traffic study, from what I understand, according to the existing building traffic versus this project, there's about 1,051 less trips. And if they put up a three-story building there, there's almost 2,000 less trips, 1,887 less trips. I mean, that sounds like exactly what I want from my neighborhood is a bunch of less trips for all the traffic. I don't know if everybody drove here today or if we all walked, but it took me like an hour and a half to get here in, you know, about four or five miles. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but not too much.

The increased safety and security in the area I think is really important, too. That's something I've heard. I've seen the letters. I hear it from other folks up here that are talking. The street lighting enhancements, private security, patrol. and honestly the idea that a private developer is putting 1.4 million into park improvements seems like something that I support very strongly.

Appreciate everyone being respectful. Packages left at the front doors, you know, increased crime. I've had actually that happen several times in my house until I, you know, it's a small thing, but certainly something that's positive. All the bike trail enhancements, the bike safety, street lighting, the things that are, I think, generally positive. And one of the things that hasn't been brought up here today, and my line's still green, is all of the revenue this brings into the city. I mean, the cities are constantly struggling with pensions and all of our, you usually saw the union support, and you saw OCBC support, and you saw

affordable housing support, but a lot of those union pensions are starting to catch up with a lot of different cities, and this helps, you know, keep the city solvent, frankly. There's 5.2 million in fees going to the city, 1.2 million a year going in taxes. There's, you know, so in closing, I guess I'd just say, the increased safety, the park improvements, the 5.2 million dollars going to the city, the over 30 million in revenue over the 30 years, and then most importantly, a thousand trips off the road every day from the existing property sounds great to me, so support the project. Thanks.

Patricia Coleman, followed by Angel Barnes.

Followed by Steve Gargoni.

I think she's waiting for these to be passed out.

in a moment if you can start the green light please madam clerk hi I'm mayor and

and City Council I'm Patricia Coleman and I live on Santiago Street I've been a neighborhood for 30 years, one place or another. I gave you a view because you have views of the project. This is a view I walked out and stood where a car would be leaving the Discovery Science Center. And it shows, this shows looking down the street, the view that I would have of the new

crosswalk so turning right on let red out of there I'd in shot I'd be looking at check down is but you can't see anybody there and then I would inch out and I would check what do you do when you turn right on red you look left so I'm just showing you that you should know what the view is there's risk and And what you're putting in is less safe than what's there now. It's just that simple.

I would like to support a project there. This place is run down.

Unfortunately, it wasn't run down when they bought it.

And I would hate to think that anybody could buy a place in San An and let it go, and then you'd be desperate to have it, and you'd give them the chance to do anything they want with it.

there's been a lot of talk about in your backyard and the people who live back to it the park to me is my backyard city parks are the backyard for the people of Santa Ana and that has not been advocated for I was hoping to meet with Councilwoman Iglesias about the park I'd be happy to meet with you afterwards but what this does to the park is not right and every other place park in our city that is up against a development is at risk too

you are giving away public access to a park you are lowering the value you are not being good stewards you're allowing 50 feet of right there 10 feet away, zero lot line coming in. You are taking away the citizens' right to have their park. You are trading away their valuable asset and you haven't had it appraised. It's lowering the land value by losing access to a street. Any property

that doesn't have access to a street is worth less. So consider that and be good stewards. Be good stewards of the safety on the street and be good stewards of your park assets and please don't set a bad precedent for the city of Santa Ana. Thank you.

Angel Barnes, Steve Gargoni, followed by Lisa Winter.

Good evening. I'm a 20-year resident of Floral Park. Today I acquired the Real Estate Board's public listings of all the homes sold in Park Santiago in the past 12 months. It shows that 30 homes were sold. Their median price was just under $700,000. dollars three highly respected long term long time Santa Ana Realtors informed the Planning

Commission in these chambers and several tonight that Park Santiago homes will depreciate in value between 12% and 15% if 25-25 is rezoned. This equates to $84,000 per house. This is not based on the Realtors' speculation, but on the public sales data from the Santa Ana neighborhoods,

which have already suffered from the implanting of a big apartment house in their midst the two planning commissioners who claimed that the denial of this project will discourage developers and curb Santa Ana's economic growth, failed to consider that the average $84,000 property value loss in these 1,300

homes represents over a $100 million loss in property value with a commensurate loss in property taxes to our city. Fortunately, for 50 years, homeowners have had one of the nation's strongest environmental laws, the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA.

It fosters transparency and integrity in public decision-making to ensure that land use decisions consider the full impact of a development on our natural and human environments. probably incompatible with CEQA, is the shameful allegation that this developer intends to reward those of you who vote yes with huge contributions to your campaign coffers. It matters nothing to

him if voting yes spells political suicide for you. That's your prerogative. But if you vote yes, be prepared to show under CEQA that there is a compelling public policy that justifies carving out this spot use in an area where the only use has been commercial and single-family residents under the general plan. Let me close by saying that I am a retired Santa Ana judge, and I would

hate taking an adversarial position against you in litigation. Instead, next Thursday, I want to be able to declare at my Thanksgiving table, bless our planning commission and our city council who saved our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Steve Grigoni. I live in the beautiful neighborhood of Park Santiago. And I want to tell you that I really appreciate all your attention. I know it's getting late. I know all of us are tired, so thank you for hearing us out. It's a shame that we have to do this. But nonetheless, I am against this development. I'm going to repeat what you've heard over and over again about this project because this project is simply the wrong project. It's in the wrong space, and unfortunately, I feel that you need to hear it again and again.

It's wrong because it's too close to already heavy traffic areas, as you've heard. It's too close to areas of travel that are already overloaded. I can tell traffic is already a nightmare on those streets in the morning, coming home at night. And ladies and gentlemen, this is a recipe for disaster. This is just not safe. This is wrong because it doesn't take into account the uniqueness of Park Santiago. There's nothing like it around it, and as a responsible community member, as I know you all are too, we must protect our communities and keep our sense of community in our city.

I urge you to follow your Planning Commission's recommendations and help them plan this city in order to continue its positive movement to the highest and greatest, most beautiful city that we can become. And my last point, this is wrong because this developer is trying to tell us, us, how to develop our city, how to change our zoning rules, and how to change our city. Do we want outside developers making decisions like that for us?

Do we want a city where money is allowed to be thrown around in an effort to supersede the will of the people? That's not what this type of city I know Santa Ana should be. This is not the Senena that I know you want it to be. Now, democracy respects the majority. The mass majority of this neighborhood is against this project. A large swath of the city is here, and they're against the project. I urge you not to make decisions based solely on money or on the minority opinions. Decisions like those make money more important than the real heartbeat of this city, its community members.

Please make sure you're on the right side of history tonight. The decision you all make tonight will have long-term consequences and will not soon be forgotten. Thank you for your time and understanding, and I hope representative democracy can prevail tonight and not out-of-town big business interests. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lisa Winter, and thank you, Council Members and Mayor, for hearing us out and also for the opportunity to speak. I wasn't going to speak, that's why I'm number 85, but I thought I wanted to say a few things because I feel really strongly about that neighborhood. I live in Park Santiago. I live on Santa Clara Avenue. And I bought my home about 21 years ago. When I bought it, I was concerned about the noise from the train track. And that isn't an issue, but that used to be a super quiet, nice little street. And the traffic and the noise on that street has increased exponentially over the last several years.

I kind of look around with fresh eyes at all the building that's going on around here. St. Joseph's and all their medical buildings, the memory care center on Memory Lane, the new apartment complex on Town and Country. And all these developments are going to continue to contribute to the high volume of traffic that I see on 17th Street, Grand, and Main Street, really all hours of the day. I notice now people use Park Santiago arteries as cut-throughs. Edgewood, Santa Clara, Santiago, and Lincoln,

for hours in the morning and the evening, you can stand on those streets. And I see the cars going through. They're not going necessarily to the neighborhood, so I know it's a cut-through. the building on Main Street I think is only going to compound that problem I also I moved from Northern California and I'm very big on open space and I really wish that Santa Ana would make open space or priority rather than increasing density in this area with more building lastly I believe it's important to keep the quality of life in mind with dealing with development so quality of the

people that already live in Park San Diego, as well as the quality of life of people that would be going into that apartment complex. So thank you, and I definitely am voting no on that.

Susie Purrington, followed by Karen Eaton, followed by Adeline Allen.

So Susie Purrington, Karen Eaton, Adeline Allen.

And Chaka Krawanski after that.

All right. I'm Susie Parrington. I live at 2526 North Spurgeon, which shares a property line with the 2525 main project. My husband and I bought our home from the original owners over 10 years ago. And at that time, we made house offers in Orange and Tustin as well. but when the time came to decide, everyone told us to pick the house in Park Santiago. And this was coming from our friends who lived in Tustin and Orange themselves. Everyone told us that Park Santiago was a gem of a neighborhood in Santa Ana. We immediately fell in love with our neighborhood community,

and it was not long before neighbors felt like family sharing holiday meals and celebrations together. We have three young children now, and we cannot think of a more loving community for our children to grow up in. At this point, you have heard of endless accounts about the wonderful community of Park Santiago. you've also heard significant opposition to the proposed 2525 main project and how a high-density apartment building will negatively impact North Santa Ana neighborhoods some planning Commission and council members have expressed a favorable opinion that the applicant has reduced the number of

units and I wanted to speak to this excuse me I'm a little nervous thank you I'm the only North Spurgeon resident who's speaking in favor of the project so So I really, so I, I mean, sorry, against the project.

I'm sorry to the person that clapped.

All right. All right, my time's running. Okay, but seven North Spurgeon residents did email letters of opposition to this project. Okay, so I earned a master's and a doctorate in clinical psychology and have been teaching at the university or graduate level for 12 years. As a professor of psychology, I have had the opportunity to teach on a range of psychological research. I've often taught about research regarding the door-in-the-face technique. Researchers found that if someone presents an excessively large request that is expected to get rejected, they can follow up with a smaller request that is more likely to be accepted.

Therefore, research found that to increase the likelihood of a request being accepted, an unreasonable initial request should be presented first. The door-in-the-face technique is also referred to as a compliance method because subjects are more likely to comply with the second request after first being presented with the unreasonable request. It's called the door-in-the-face because they expect you to slam the door in the face and say no and then accept those smaller requests. This persuasion tactic can be used in various situations such as used car dealerships or in larger operations

like a rezoning request for high-density apartments. The applicant was cunning to initially request over 500 units, therefore creating the appearance that concessions occurred to get to 256. But please do not be swayed by this persuasion technique. Okay. This next part, I'm going to address the money. And before I say it, I want to say that I don't want this to reflect negatively on anyone who is in favor of the project. Go fast because it's yellow. All right. Okay.

this reflects on the developers and my disagreement with their offering of the 35,000 originally they offered the money to everybody they called it mitigation all 11 homes I met with him several times I had a higher sitter for my crazy three children every time and every time he told me it's for everybody then when we started to email he said only if you support the project everybody who signed the agreement supported the project and got the money I said no he said be neutral don't speak out against it I said no he said take down your rezoning sign I'll

give you the 35,000 and I said no so to those neighbors so to those neighbors who paid $25 for that sign that sign cost me 35,000 so whatever you feel on the project

so whatever you feel in the project my question to the Santa Ana City Council is what message do you want to send? Do you want to represent your residents? Or, and do you want to, I ask that you vote no and send a loud message that developers cannot use their money to push their agenda on your voters. Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Karen Eaton, and I oppose the project as well. I have lived in Park Santiago for nine years with my husband and four children. In fact, we sold our house on one street and bought a house on another street three years ago because we believe that this is a rare and beautiful neighborhood, not only in Santa Ana, but in all of Orange County, and wanted our children to grow up in this special neighborhood. And this whole process has proved that this is indeed an amazing neighborhood.

Look at these people with neighbors from various generations, ethnicities, political views, and backgrounds come together to fight for a cause like this. And I'm honestly so proud and so glad that we stayed in this neighborhood. I wonder if the developers were actually from Santa Ana and those who are investing money in this property were from Santa Ana. if they would have bought the property with the mindset of doing something that is best for the city and its residents? I would think so. The main purpose of these developers is to make profit, which I don't blame them because that's their job.

But their main motive is not to enhance the city of Santa Ana or to make its residents happy. Yes, I am concerned about the safety of our children at the park, like another resident mentioned. but I believe there is a way to resolve this issue without the help of the developers and their money. I am also disturbed and saddened to see how much stress this has caused on my dear friends on Spursion, like Susie. Just like it took courage for some of the Spursion residents to support the project, it takes courage for other Spursion residents to oppose it because of the tension that this has caused between the neighbors on the street.

I would like for you to be aware and take into consideration that some of the residents who are supporting the development bought their home more recently knowing that there was a potential of an apartment being built there. If I had purchased a house on Spurgeon knowing this, I think I would have been okay with it because that was part of the deal. We have many special people here who have lived in the neighborhood for decades, even 40 to 50 years, who come out to the meetings because they care so much. you should be proud to be representing this community be our voice and please vote no thank you

good evening mr. mayor council members thank you my name is Adeline Allen my husband Brian and I have lived in the neighborhood for six years and I work here in Santa Ana for seven years I work in education please vote no on the development tonight and please don't rezone the space a lot of people have mentioned so many different things just two points for me some say that the city council may dismiss Park Santiago's opposition as owing to can tankersness as a result of the neighborhood in the neighborhood's demographics I should say perceived demographics white old conservative rich and NIMBYs let me

submit to you that even if the demographics were accurate and were in fact related to the opposition they are irrelevant to the validity of the opposition in other words why should Park Santiago's concerns be invalidated due to the citizens race ethnicity age and household income group such disparate treatments such disparate treatment would be unjust and dare I say un-american it It may be surprising to some that I am in fact a millennial, a woman, a mother of two young children, and first generation immigrant from a poor Southeast Asian country. I am a persecuted minority in that country.

I got political asylum here in the US. And yet I live here in Park Santiago, I'm on Virginia. Not that my background should matter though, because the residents' concerns should be considered on their merits. and on their merits, you should find what my neighbors have said persuasive. Our concerns are valid because we live here and would be the ones most affected by this development. Some people have mentioned the money. I think for you, as it is for me, hearing directly from some Spurgeon residents who are now saying that they're in favor of the development, that's very weighty.

But please, I think you should consider the weightiness against the offer on the table of at least $35,000 to speak out in favor of it. Please vote no. Thank you.

Chuck, followed by Marka Rothenberg, followed by Hannah Heidrowenke, followed by James Waters.

good evening mayor members of city council my name is Chuck Krolikowski I'm legal counsel to the Park Santiago neighborhood association

I submitted a letter yesterday, a lengthy letter yesterday, regarding the association's objections to the project. And I'll highlight those just a little bit before I get to the additional letter which I'm submitting tonight, which deals with the inadequacies in the FEIR under CEQA. We have rules. We have general plans. We have zoning regulations. We have municipal code sections. But behind the rules, and even more important than the rules themselves, are the policies and goals that make up those rules.

In my letter, I outlined yesterday many of the city's policies and goals. And I want you to listen to these words, because this is what underpins the rules and regulations that you have to decide exist, don't exist. modified or changed or be changed in the land use element it's supposed to promote development which supports a high a high quality of life throughout the community one of the goals and policies land use goal preserve and improve the character and integrity of neighborhoods

another land use goal reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety Your laws are riddled with policies and goals which promote...

Let me just stop the clock for a moment. Okay, sure. I need to get the city attorney a copy of the letter. All right, continue the clock.

Go ahead. One of the final goals and policies in your general plan is to protect and to stabilize residential neighborhoods. These are the rules. These are the underpinnings of the rules in which you are required to uphold.

Now, rules can be changed. We all know that. General plans can be changed. Zoning can be changed. There are consequences to that. When legislative actions are taken to change rules, the people have an additional voice. they can pursue referendums they can pursue initiatives and when those things are pursued the costs to hold a special election the cost to put those on the ballot those are expensive items that the city bears that the taxpayers have to bear because you've decided to change the rules and that's what you're doing you're changing the rules is what this developer is asking you to do

And so in my letter, the first letter is about 12 pages. It details all my objections. The second letter I submitted is a CEQA letter. The CEQA letter highlights two issues with the current FEIR. First is project changes. One of the principal guidelines of CEQA was to have a definite project. When you change it multiple times over and over again, changing parking, changing density, it makes the initial project description improper and inadequate. And the analysis related to that is the same. And the second and last point I'd like to make on the CEQA analysis, which I provided a letter to you,

is that in the FEIR, we're now receiving new reports. For example, an Arborist Report, which discusses removing additional trees, which is habitat for sensitive species. This was not analyzed before. This requires recirculation under the CEQA guidelines and the public resources code. It requires people to have a chance to review it and to have a voice in telling you, hey, if you're going to impact these trees, if you're going to impact this habitat, how is it going to impact sensitive species? So with that, as counsel for the association, I do request that you vote no on the project and affirm the Planning Commission's decision.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, members of council, good evening. My name is Mark Rothenberg. I only represent myself, but I am also a land use lawyer who happens to live in Floral Park. I've been a land use lawyer for nearly 20 years. Councilman Solorio, I'd appreciate it if you could pay attention. Thank you. I've been a land use lawyer for 20 years. I've also represented cities as a contract city attorney, and I have modified and I have written land development codes.

I have submitted written objections both to the EIR, and I submitted written objections with regard to this proceeding in terms of both problems with the notice as well as problems with the EIR. One of the problems, just to give you a quick and dirty, is you've now changed the way that this project is going to work by tying together this project with the cube in terms of parking. So there are now impacts on two different sides of Main Street, and it was not properly noticed, nor was it properly analyzed in your environmental report, which is a requirement under CEQA. I've made a host of other arguments, but I will just say this.

As I teach my land use students at Chapman Law School, and I have worked with a number of cities, what is good government? Your general plan is in the process of being amended and updated so that you can comprehensively plan for development in the city. It's kind of like you're preparing a family budget, and before you finish preparing the family budget, you go out and you buy a car. You are undermining your ability to effectively plan for development. Now, I know how the sausage is made. Normally, I'd be representing someone like the Oglenicks in a hearing like this. I know how the sausage is made.

I have taken traffic reports, and frankly, I understand how traffic engineers contort the analysis. The reality that you need to understand, under CEQA, California courts have held repeatedly that citizen testimony is to be given as much weight, if not more so, than the traffic reports. So I would encourage you to consider that, and I will leave you with this. I also looked at the development agreement from, put my city attorney hat on, and I read through the development agreement. There is a host of ambiguities in the development agreement, a host of problems.

For example, this is a four-year project. You're giving him four years to build this project. He then gets two one-year extensions. It's not clear if he has to pay $50,000 per year or $50,000 for the two years. Now, the staff report says that that $50,000 was to compensate the city for lost revenue if he doesn't build in time, but he's told you that he's going to generate over $400,000 per year. So why aren't you charging him $400,000? And that's one point.

The second point with regard to the development agreement is it requires the developer to provide you with a method by which he's going to police the overuse of apartments. What that suggests is that the city does not have the resources or the code strength to tackle that problem. And so you're essentially delegating that issue to him. Ultimately, staff will have to approve that. But it creates this issue. Wouldn't it make more sense to finish your general plan first, then adopt some ordinances that can tackle the problems associated with high-density residential and put them in other places?

I might be against my neighbors if there was a project like this in downtown, because I think that's where this would be appropriate, but not at this property. Thank you for your consideration.

Hannah Hierwenke, followed by James Waters, followed by Ted Moreno.

Is Hannah here?

2010 North Victoria Drive, Hannah.

James Waters

evening almost good morning mr. mayor city council congratulations on your win

reason why I'm here I'm actually from you know Anaheim but I'm running for an election and I've been kind of walking some of your city streets and knocking on some doors. Talking to some of the people around here I've had a few conversations about what you're talking about tonight. Under the high density, look at it this way. Just this little silly example but an elevator, you know, it does have capacity so much and then it'll go down. Well you put too many in one small area and it's going to hurt the quality of the people are you going

to stop and look at the value the family values that you could be corrupting by putting too many people in one area to where that they don't you know that it takes so much longer to get home so much longer to get to work they're gone even more and more from the home that hurts the family values because they're not there with their own kids things like that in the the science center that's there could you think maybe looking at maybe adding something to that and really making that something that would really draw more of the people that live in Santa Ana there to study and learn just a small option being it is the

gateway to Santa Ana it could be a you know a nice way to introduce them into the city. I look at a lot of the people here and I see so much, you know, people with such great positive attitudes. I hope that my little comments here will help to open your eyes to one other little thing and that is that this big beautiful apartment complex. Okay, how many people really just live, you know, one or two people in an apartment around here? A lot of people, there's three and four in there because they kind of help share the rent and survive.

Well, that means three and four vehicles per apartment. Those 90 extra spaces that you're talking about for parking, that's gone. Them three and four people are taking up everything. There isn't any extra parking spaces. So I don't see the benefit.

I thank you for your time and your consideration and my thoughts.

Thank you. Ted Moreno, followed by Peter Katz, followed by Sandy Stiasani.

Welcome, Ted.

Welcome, Mr. Mayor, for inviting me here. I'm just kidding. Actually, I had no plans of coming here tonight, but my son is like, no, we've got to go. we've got to go over there and speak on this issue. And first of all, I want to say congratulations to Phil on winning this election. You're sitting in one of the wisest seats there in that corner. So a lot of wisdom came out of that seat. And I think actually help must have frozen over today because Tim Rush and I actually agree on the same issue. So something must have happened where we actually agree on something.

My main concern is not, I mean, I live in in what do you call Fisher Park, near Floral Park and West Floral Park. So the project is close to me, but not close enough that it's probably going to affect me. But my main concern of coming here is the gentleman earlier saying, well, I'm hoping this is not going to cause something to kind of rail in high development or high density units being built in this city. And you know what I'm hoping tonight? It does. Because when I was first elected to the council, one thing I always remember is liquor license were bad and high-density apartments were bad because I saw the results of what it did

in the 70s and what it did growing up here in Santa Ana all my life. And I always remember the city manager always telling me, he goes, it's not that the person that's building it or the developer that's creating it is necessarily a bad person. It's who's going to be there 10 years, 20 years from now when that place gets sold to the next person that doesn't have integrity or doesn't have the decency to not want to bleed every single penny out of that unit. And the economy is cyclical. Eventually, there's going to be a downfall. And when that downfall happens, and you have a greedy apartment owner there,

what he's going to do, he's going to compromise. He's going to start letting more people live in the units in order to be able to occupy those units to full capacity. And that's what happened when these apartments that were built in the 70s. They thought, hey, they were a great idea. We're going to be able to help out our residents, create more housing. but they ended up being they ended up creating a lot more problems in Santa Ana than they'd ever helped out and a lot of these neighborhoods ended up being torn apart and destroyed the only thing I'm sad about I commend the neighbors coming out and fighting this

but if the same neighborhoods would have come out in the 70s and fought these type of apartments all over Santa Ana we wouldn't have the issues today and one thing you guys keep saying it's a great project but not in this area. If it's not good here, it shouldn't technically be good anywhere in Santa Ana. And keep that in mind. And one thing I would challenge you on, this is not the first project that's happened, it seems like, when it comes to high density. I challenge you to go to 17th and Harbor. Go to 1st and Tustin and look at those that have been built. And I don't know who voted on the council to build those things,

but those things would never have been built on the eight years that I served on the council. And it's sad. And it's, like I said, 10, 20 years from now. They might look nice now, but in the future, no. And just keep that in mind when you guys are voting. Think of your future of Santa Ana. You guys are great people. I'm sorry that you guys are being beat up over here. I know what it feels like to be up there and be beat up and staying quiet the whole time.

But don't think of your wards. Think of the city as a whole. Don't think of where you live, but think of the whole city when you're making decisions tonight. So thank you very much. Thank you, Ted.

Peter, followed by Sandy, followed by Theodore Moreno.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor. I have two members of my board from Comlink standing beside me, and it's nice to see seven full seats. It's been a long time filling up this council chamber, so we now have seven intelligent people to make a decision. What I want to say tonight is we represent all 64 neighborhoods, in the city of Santa Ana, not just this one neighborhood, but all 64 neighborhoods. And we're concerned about the quality of life in this city. I've lived in this city for 55 years. We are the fourth densest city in the nation, over 300,000 people. Only Chicago, New York, and Houston have more people per square mile.

Just think about that. Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, D.C. all have less people per square mile than we have. So let's talk about density. What are the consequences of development and the dynamics of change? Market rate projects increase density, but they do not increase affordability in our city. We face increasing problems with traffic, parking, school attendance, safety, calls for service, open space, homelessness, goes on and on. We need to draw a line in the sand.

And what we need is a general plan that establishes a density guideline in the city for all neighborhoods. How it affects the entire city. Look at the disaster you put in across from the zoo. 600-unit project. There was never any parking around that zoo in the first place. You handicapped that zoo and its attendance. And so let's take a look at another city that we all have heard about tonight, Irvine. The city of Irvine has the fourth longest intercity commute in the nation. Why is that? because all its high density has been put along its major street corridors,

and it is choking the traffic and killing the neighborhoods in the city of Irvine, despite all its open space. So please think long and hard about this project tonight. The Discovery Science Center, they can build a parking garage on the lot that they have. That's a very simple solution to that project. They don't want to spend the money. That's the reason. So let's use our common sense and think about the density in the city and what's good for all the neighborhoods in the city. And in the long run, you'll build a better city. And you heard people that have lived here like myself for 30, 40, 50 years.

We like it here. Let's not change it. Let's make it a better place to live. Thank you. Thank you.

good evening mayor council congratulations to our newest council member for the record I do not I repeat I do not live in Santa Ana I'm a real estate developer apartment manager what I can tell you is as an orange county resident i see santa anna as the key to all of our future success hence my visit here what i thought i'd do rather than express my opinions is simply encapsulate some of the comments that i've heard from the 94 people who preceded me

the first is great neighborhoods santa anna is a community of great neighborhoods over the last two decades on behalf of different candidates and initiatives I've walked each of those neighborhoods Santa Ana has great neighborhoods declining property values sneaky developer tactics mythical traffic mythic parking developer never met with the community developer did meet with the community

setting a bad precedent a Pandora's box lower density I have heard a few comments about higher density planning Commission question mark question mark question mark bottom line vote for the community in closing rather than tell you as a outside real estate developer who to vote for I'd ask each council member in their own way as they vote to consider the following put your neighborhoods first your city's neighborhoods their Santa Ana's most

valuable financial asset. Put your residents first and put Santa Ana first. Thank you.

Theodore followed by Tim Bassoloni and then Carlo Bonanini.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is Theodore Moreno. I'm the student trustee of the Rancho Santiago Community College District. However I am not here representing my district. I'm here representing the existing neighborhoods of which the students that I serve come out of. and I'm here to ask this council to vote against this resolution. I've lived in Santa Ana since the moment of my birth, after leaving the hospital in Anaheim. I've lived throughout the city throughout my 20 years, so hopefully I can give a more youthful perspective.

I've lived 10 years in the Jack Fisher Park neighborhood. and so when I've always found it very interesting when I invite friends over when I invite student leaders over for Friendsgiving or for just conferences to talk about our agenda items they always ask me you know Teddy you know I never knew you were rich or Teddy I never knew you lived in such a nice neighborhood and so what they don't know is that my family were fortunate to actually come into the neighborhood in Jack Fisher Park when the market tanked in during the Great Recession we're lower middle class we can't afford a

home in today's value and so now that I realize there's a great misconception between wealth and common sense urban planning because they recognize how clean the streets are they recognize how quiet the neighborhoods are they recognize that there's parking throughout the street there's parking on both sides of the street these are students who are coming from high density neighborhoods by Santa Ana high school by Godina's by John F Kennedy by different corners of the city I have lived my life going to different

aspects of the city, cutting through Santa Clara to attend Northeast Santa Little League, attending all the fundamentals on the southern side of town. And so when I do so, it's almost impossible to cut through a neighborhood that has high density units. And it's very, very unfortunate. And so I'm just here asking for you to truly invest in the youth. If you even jump into that misguided mindset that only the rich could benefit from clean streets and open streets, then you have to wonder why can't individuals who are not as wealthy could enjoy such neighborhoods? Why are people in poor conditions subjugated to high

density units? Why is it not fair for them to live in neighborhoods that are not as united, that are not as organized, and so they are subjugated to misguided policies from this council to subjugate themselves more with high-density units and so my last statement is in regards to it's also gonna affect the city as a whole in regards to our terrible response rate on behalf of the Santa Police Department already around the city the response rate to 911 calls are very low and so if

you I recognize that my lights red I one would one would understand that the more units you place that are higher density then there'll be a greater demand of police officers to be in that specific area due to the increase in population and so one one one was also wonder if then if we need more police officers in that area what is keeping the police officers from asking more funding to help in that area and so all I ask is to look as a whole city perspective how it's going to affect the economy how it's going to affect the budget how it's going to affect police associations from asking more money from our

taxpayers and how it's going to affect the youth thank you for your time and take care

Tim, followed by Carlo, followed by Dale Helvig.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. Are we getting close to the end? Okay, good, because I have 147 reasons why I opposed the project, and I'm going to go over them now. Just kidding, Mayor. I could tell you're a little worried about that. My name's Tim Bassel and I live on Spurgeon Street, about 150 yards from the proposed development, and I oppose the project.

I think really there's really only one thing to think about. You guys are going to be voting on a spot zoning change tonight, and I would think that to vote yes on that, there are two things that you'd probably need. You would need the support of the community, and you would need approval from your planning commission. Well, the planning commission voted this thing down three times. And you clearly don't have the support of the community. So I'll make my statement really short. I urge you to vote with the community and vote no on this project. Thank you.

Mayor and Council, I would like to know if any of you guys were around back in 1983. Any of you guys were around here in Santa Ana in 1983? Or even born? Or lived here? Okay. Even before, how about we go back to 1970? To know what used to be on that property right there. Half of it was in the street of Main Street and half was on Caltrans. I'm sure you guys didn't. but I've told somebody around here that I guarantee you this city is going to be in a big major lawsuit because they're using a 1983 study, okay? Everything's changed.

Even on a bad day, trying to go up main place to get to the mall or get to Barnes & Noble is a pain in the rear end, okay? What happened to Laguna Hills Mall? You all should study that. Laguna Hills Mall. Study that. See what those people at Laguna Woods did. They thought they were going to get the greatest project, and the only ones that got affected were all the retiree people down there.

Okay. Main place, let's say if I'm still here in 10 years, I guarantee that's going to be another lost cause in the city of Santa Ana. Hopefully they'll find another place in Santa Ana to put another mall up. I heard the city of Orange has already noticed they made a big mistake by building all those apartment units around Main Street. People are complaining. People can't get out of there. The freeways are overjammed. Okay? And it's going to get worse. But remember, the study of 1983, 1983, okay, that allowing this project to go forth, it's going to get this city in trouble.

And like I told Ted Marino, I should have been like Sean Mills. Remember those old days, Mayor? How Sean Mills was? You city council members up here are barely enjoying life. But think about it. Because what I heard right now where the rail line is supposed to go over on 17th Street and Harbor, I feel sorry for those poor people that have got to live in that building hearing that rail line going back and forth. Whoever put that development in made a big, big mistake. And in the second place of another big development that's going in, where the old Taft property is, right there on Flower and Sunflower.

because a lot of the people in Sandpoint, South Sandpoint, North Sandpoint, off of Ramona, off of MacArthur, are really, really pissed off because none of you are all around there when the traffic gets bad in the morning. Extremely bad in the morning. 500 units, really, down in that area? Not even the people across the street in Costa Mesa knew what was going on. The developer didn't notify the city of Costa Mesa. And the last thing is, I hope you people up here on the board find out who these developers are because the only one that's putting a lot of money in this city to buy up as much property as they can is the Irvine company

and the city of Irvine the 55 is a dividing line they don't want a lot of our people here moving over there so think about it think about it Sean Mills always told me a long time ago that he wanted a city council his way and develop the city his way Let's not make it a city where it's going to start closing up, because you can't drive anywhere anymore in the city.

Thank you. Dale.

Followed by Michelle Del Valle.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilman. Congratulations, Councilman Becerra. I'm here with nine of my friends, by the way.

The Planning Commission voted three times, as you've heard, no. But before I get going, I would like to say I appreciate the comments made by June. You know, I've tried to treat people with respect throughout this process, and I'm glad he recognized that. I'd also like to thank the guy from Mercy House. I think that's important that we do get the homeless off the street. But that's not about this project. This project is, as people have said, the wrong place for this project.

We've had multiple neighborhoods show up all across the city to support the effort to get responsible development put in there.

The EIR has its problems, as we've heard. There are some more problems that are with it. We have a traffic report here that we'd like to submit.

And it omitted, the EIR omitted southbound traffic study for the intersection between Walkie Way and Edgewood. And it could be an innocent oversight, but our traffic engineer determined that traffic will back up through the intersection at Walkie Way, and those areas need to be analyzed, and it wasn't.

So, you know, looking at the EIR through this study being identifying a fault and other items that have been brought to you, I don't see how the EIR can be certified tonight at all. As far as this thing that they presented early on, the myth and reality, I've taken a look at it, and the reality on it is there's a lot of mistakes on it. They say that they're giving $1.4 million for a park on this.

They're giving up to $700,000 for the park, depending on the cost of the improvements. And so that's not really going to happen. They also talk about this is next, or this project, item number 13, this is the first project with SD of this density next to single family. And they reference the property on Sunflower. That was first denied back in 1987. It's a two-story apartment complex. It's not even next to single family homes. we've been asking them to prove that data point since this project started

they've never been able to do it because all you have to do is look at the 93 specific development projects that are on the website see where they're located are they next to single-family homes or not this is by far the highest density project next to single-family homes it just doesn't belong there so in closing we can still be business friendly. We don't have to approve this project. They have other projects that they can go on to and develop. They just don't need to develop this one. It's not appropriate. Thank you.

Michelle Del Valle, followed by Jim Simon.

Hi, my name is Michelle Del Valle. I'm the secretary for Parks and Iago Neighborhood Association and been the secretary for about two or three years thank you so much Dale for all your hard work and I've been as a secretary for about three years and my job is has been to represent our community not only my community but the rest of Santa Ana to as they influence us so I was thinking really hard because the developers have

gone down in over the past three years two years so I thought you know they've they've definitely changed the numbers but I have to look at this from also an outside perspective I grew up in community where I shared a room with my whole family and what would I want I have a twin sister she pays $2,500 in rent for her apartment and she's she's struggling you know what would I want for her you know I live in a house I have my own bedroom I have an extra

bedroom but what would I want best for my family or somebody that is also growing up in that same situation so I'd want the best thing for the neighborhood I know she would want the same thing she would want I'm not looking for I'm not an MB I just want responsible development there's going to be 4,000 apartments built okay so I want the best thing for our community I'm not saying I wouldn't want her to live on my corner okay because I know that there's

gonna be plenty of apartments out there for her okay so and I know she would want the best for our community as well so what I'm asking for is quality development and something that would be sustainable for the future again I am not for this development thank you Jim I believe you're the last speaker

good evening mayor members of the City Council my name is Jim Simon I'm president and principal of RSG we were the fiscal consultant that prepared the feasible at the fiscal impact study for the project I'll first talk about the just kind of findings because there's been some mention of some of those figures I'll briefly recap that again we did say that the project would generate about four hundred eighty six thousand dollars annually and general fund revenues to the city offsetting that would be about a hundred and thirty thirty six thousand dollars annually of costs that would be cost for law enforcement you wouldn't

need a police officer here on this one project but that would be a pro rata share for you know public safety and and other fire protection as in leaving the city a net impact of three hundred eighty thousand dollars annually over 25 years that's about eleven it's about eleven million dollars cumulatively to the city general fund you know in terms of other benefits that obviously that that's over and above what the property is currently generating today which is virtually nothing there's also been some mention about property values and I I

come from a unique situation because I actually owned a house back in 2017 on the corner of Edgewood and French I own the blue house with a large tree in front that probably a lot of folks see and fly by as they drive through the neighborhood and and you know when we put that house in the market you know we got over asking price for that as did a house on the corner of Spurgeon and Edgewood as well as 2502 as Spurgeon and both of those are represented by Phil Schaefer who spoke earlier tonight talked about you know the impact values

you know we certainly disclosed to the folks that were there as they were coming into the neighborhood you know that there was a proposal for apartments one can't help but notice obviously that proposals very much alive if you drove around the neighborhood today and yet home prices are still very much 99% or more of asking price that they're coming in at the neighborhood's a very resilient neighborhood it's one of the highest on a per square foot basis in the entire city it's but you know it's faced issues with homelessness it's faced issues with high crime it's you know encroachment of density and other things

from buzz both population and traffic along their neighborhood and it's still held up quite well this this project of 256 units while maybe dense on a on a site basis for an apartment building is one of the smaller of the apartment buildings that's getting built in today's age the most homes departments these days are getting 300 500 units a thousand units in them I know there's a lot of appreciation there's been a lot of mention of you know the history of Santa Ana and the ugly history of apartments that have been built in single-family areas where they didn't belong that we can go all over south of

17th Street and see evidence of that where there's virtually no setbacks and virtually no parking that were provided poorly managed poorly designed this project is nothing of that sort it's much larger setback a different completely different design when we look at that type of a project throughout California 400 apartment projects have been built in California majority of them look a lot like what's getting built in this area today because of the cost of housing and we found that the impact of those were were fairly strong it's read you got to conclude okay so in short we're we're confident that the you

know our findings based on looking at these projects in Fullerton and Los Angeles Woodland Hills and the like we won't see that impact on this type of a

neighborhood despite the concerns thank you okay I'm gonna ask the applicant do you want to do a rebuttal to you know five-minute rebuttal yes sir thank you

again RC alley a architects a lot of items were talked about tonight I think I will address the big ones I think I'll start with the general plan amendment and the change of zone there's nothing unusual or unprecedented about this in Santa Ana almost every development project in the city requires a general plan amendment or a change of zone if not both the city would have virtually no significant development without a general without general plan amendments or zone changes general plan was last updated in 1982 37 years ago the city

produced a vision plan in 2015 to start the general plan update and designated potential sites to be rezoned as residential and this site was one of them we confirmed with planning staff that since 2010 there have been 24 project applications for general plan amendments including sitting city generated ones. Density of multifamily adjacent to low density. I have projects that I handed out earlier. One of them was 651 sunflower which is 63 DU per

acre adjacent to low density. I also handed out a slide that showed the line which is at Westminster and Harbor. That's 60 DU per acre, 20 feet away from single-family homes, not the 90 feet or the 135 feet that we have proposed. The depot at Santiago, it's at Santiago and East Santa Ana Boulevard, right down the street, 52 DU per acre, right next to single-family homes. The point is that there are other high-density multifamily projects that are adjacent to low-density projects. It's not unusual.

It's a very common way to plan projects and to insulate neighborhoods from commercial and retail uses.

One thing that's very interesting about the projects, I do apartments. That's what I do. And a lot of the apartments that I build are adjacent to single-family homes. And what happens a lot of times is as they get built, the neighbors who want to move out of their homes because they don't want to maintain their yards or they want to downsize, they ultimately move to these communities or their children who grew up in these neighborhoods and can't afford to buy there. They want to stay in the area, and this gives them that opportunity to do that.

Crime. There was a lot of discussion about crime. Crime exists in Santiago Park and is spread into the vacant neighborhood and the existing neighborhood and Park Santiago. Our project will be placing eyes on the street, an important concept that has proven to reduce crime. We will also be putting eyes directly onto the park. This level of scrutiny will deter crime, which generally occurs where people are not looking. A security service will provide patrols on site and in the Park Santiago neighborhood per the development agreement.

The Santa Ana Citywide Design Guidelines have a section titled Public Safety Through Design. We have diligently adhered to these requirements.

Lastly, an office development makes more sense at 2525 Main. That's not correct. currently there's 14.2 million square feet of vacant office space in Orange County of that about 2.1 million square feet of it of vacant office space are in Santa Ana itself which means about 14% of the vacant office space in Orange County is in Santa Ana current absorption rates with current absorption rates it will take years to have a stabilized occupancy rate in the office sector virtually no new office space in Orange County is under construction today.

Are there other items you wanted to discuss?

The only other comment that I had heard was that with the cube and the pedestrians walking across Main Street, we've actually been in that site for over six years now when Wells Fargo's at it they've let us have this 175 spaces so but that our our traffic our resident our community the kids and them and the parents are coming there have been walking across Main Street for six years and we had there's had not been one incident that I know of that's involved with an accident with them so we feel that this is going to improve

that intersection even more with improvements we're going to make your time is up thank you i was just going to say i'm here to answer any questions you may have thank you

i want to bring it back to council now i'm going to close the public hearing bring it

to council for consideration mayor pro tembilegas thank you mr mayor i want to thank all the residents that came out this evening and waited the long hours. It really shows your commitment. I also want to thank the former elected officials that came out to speak. Thank you very much. And also the community leaders from all the different neighborhood associations. Your voice is heard, especially Park Santiago. Yes, we have a housing shortage, But Santa Ana shouldn't be the solution for the whole county.

We have 8,100 units in the pipeline.

And, you know, we need to be careful about all of this. Now, yes, the city's general plan is outdated by 30 years. I'm proud to say that the staff has been working on it. And since I've been here, I remember Michelle Martinez telling me, the plan needs to be updated, the plan needs to be updated. And we've been working on it. I think we're there, right, Madam City Manager? So, you know, we are working on that. It does take time. It's a lot of work. And thank you, Mr. Min, for working on that. I will say one thing.

I don't appreciate the folks from outside of town that come here and try to tell us how to live or what to do in this city. They should worry about their own city. Unless they're supporting what we want. As long as you want what we want, I'm good with it.

Mr. Ryan Oglenick has been a gentleman with me. I've known him three years. He's been a gentleman with me the entire time, and I appreciate it, sir. But he also knows that I'm loyal to the people. He knows that, you know, your voice means a lot to me.

And, you know, these situations are tough because, you know, I try to hear both sides. But I remember the last meeting we had, and that went two days long. I mean, that was worse than the Sanctuary City vote. I mean, that was tough. But your voice is loud and clear.

And, you know, you voted me in the office, and I answer to you. I know there's ward elections next year. You know, this is why I was against ward elections, by the way, because a couple of us up here, a few of us can vote something into someone's ward and got nothing, you know, they don't answer to anyone. And my belief, and I remember saying this from the beginning, if I have a say over you, the public, the residents of Santa Ana, you should have a say over me. That way there's balance. But, you know, there's a long story behind that. And this is one of the examples right here. You never know.

Because folks here could vote on it. They don't care. I'm in war elections next year. It doesn't matter. I'm your mayor, Port-au-Tem. I'm loyal to you. And I listen to you. And I still believe in that. That if I have a say over you, you should have a say over me. Even though I do have war elections. Those are my comments. I want to thank everyone for coming out. And Mr. Mayor, I'll leave it open for the rest of the council members.

Thank you. Who else would like to comment?

These are the first official comments from Councilmember Phil Becerra. Go ahead, Phil.

Phil BacerraItem —

I appreciate the no pressure there. Well, first I want to echo some of the Mayor Pro Tems' comments. I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight. Not only is it just informative to know what's going on in your community, but it's inspiring.

Phil BacerraItem —

The fact that you've come out in such strength and not just Park Santiago, but I look out in the audience. I see Wilshire Square. I see Memorial Park. I see so many neighborhoods of Santa Ana coming together on this issue. And I appreciate that. I also want to express appreciation to the developer for trying to stick this out, trying to work with the community, trying to, you know, I've worked with different projects in my professional career. And I know that nobody wants to lose a unit, let alone as many as he's been working with. So I do want to say I appreciate your efforts with that.

Phil BacerraItem —

With that being said, one thing that's always kind of stuck in my craw about this whole thing is I keep hearing the vision map. The vision map is the reason that we're going down this path. The vision map, I was on the General Plan Advisory Committee. It was practically the back of napkin. It was something that we all kind of took Sharpies to and said, this is where we'd like to see certain things. Nobody on this dais voted for it. It's not a plan. It's a map. And it was something that probably should have never seen the light of day on a website. It was meant for community input, and it was shown to the community, and that was it.

Phil BacerraItem —

So I'm really discouraged when I keep hearing that being referred to because, as many of you talked about tonight, the general plan is the framework of what we do as far as development in the city and infrastructure and so on. Another thing that bothers me is speaking of the general plan, the applicant is looking for a change to the district center. And I think a couple of you brought this up tonight where we're talking about residential developments within some district centers are allowed at a density of up to 90 units when developed as a part of a master plan mixed use project. This is not a mixed-use project.

Phil BacerraItem —

I don't know, and I don't want to throw staff under here, but it just frustrates me that we've gotten this far, and it seems pretty clear as day. It's right here in the general plan. It's right here.

Phil BacerraItem —

And just one more point to that. you know in the staff report on page 11 it makes reference to that portion of the general plan and it stops at the words up to 90 acres it leaves out the part about mixed use this project needed to be mixed use if it was going to apply under the district center getting a little more into the weeds of the general plan goals because most of you know that my backgrounds in planning and that's just what I'm gonna do goal number three of the general plan talks about preserving and improving the characters the character and integrity

Phil BacerraItem —

of existing neighborhoods. And, you know, while we do need to add housing, while we are going to see new types of housing come in, I don't feel that this complies with that. I feel like just under that goal three, it says under policy 3.5 to encourage new development that is compatible and scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood. Again, I can't say that it does that. I just can't. I hear people say that this project would work in another part of the city. I believe it could. I believe it really could because there are other

Phil BacerraItem —

parts of the city where the size and the character are far different from what we're seeing on Spurgeon and East into Park Santiago. One last thing I'll throw out for consumption for my colleagues is, you know, Mr. Krolikowski, I apologize if I mispronounced that, in his letter talks about how the FEIR should be recirculated. And one of my concerns when the project went to planning commission back in August, and then all of a sudden the project changed, it's one thing to watch the evolution of the project, and it went from so many units here to so many units here, and you're kind of playing with height and tweaking it.

Phil BacerraItem —

But all of a sudden the site plan changed. All of a sudden we saw half the lot repurpose a proposed use for a parking lot, which is fine. But it didn't seem like, again, and I'll defer to staff to comment on that, but I don't feel like they should have come back to commission that quickly, let alone counsel. Now, granted, I don't want to extend this any further. I'm not saying we should. But all I'm saying is, if we're going to follow the spirit and intent of the law, I feel like maybe we kind of skipped a few steps there. Those are my comments at this point. I'm eager to hear what my colleagues have to say.

Thank you. Any comments from other? Counselor Solario. I just have some questions right now. I don't have my comments.

But for Steph, just to clarify, because there are a lot of back and forth on certain facts and figures. Can someone speak to the general plan, and would this be unique that we would do a general plan change, or how many do we typically do a year in Santa Ana?

Council Member Solario asked Mintai to come up and answer the question.

great thank you so your question is how many general plan amendment do we do in

a year yeah because I think there's an understanding that we like never do this because it is a you know an important change but is it pretty often given that

we have an old general plan in terms of the number of application or the amount of time that would change a year and on the land use designation I would say probably it's going to limit it to a handful, four to five applications annually.

Pretty much every year, right? And that's been my experience.

Traffic, I know there was a little bit of discussion from staff about the comparison of these alternatives and what generates what levels of traffic. Maybe there's a chart that you could show, or maybe you can just verbally walk us through the various options, because we know what it is now and the alternatives could be you know more office under the current standards and zoning restrictions and then obviously the first project and then now this revised project so the initial 496 unit

that was considered back in February would have produced daily trip average daily trip about 2,600 traffic trips. The current 256-unit project is forecasted at 1,393 trips, average daily trips. The build-out under the existing professional zone, which is approximately 380,000 square feet is forecast to be about 3,700 trips and under the existing development at 81,000 square feet it's forecasted about 791 so so here we here we see that

residential creates less traffic than the office is that something that we commonly see throughout the city and just statewide is that a pretty typical

situations? The trip generation rate is based on the ITE manual. It is a rate that is used by the industry standard to help forecast trips for different types of land use. But typically it's yes.

And then finally, there was talk about whether we need to build more units or not. We know the numbers aren't final, final, but the new kind of mandates under the state and Southern California how many do we need to build more housing over the next

ten years due to that so the next arena cycle is upcoming in 2021 currently the projected number for the city of Santa in total is about 3087 units of that a little bit less than half is going to be affordable housing development right

about 3100 units though we need to do over the next approximately eight years given that it hasn't started. Those are my questions for now. Thank you, Mayor.

Who wants to go next? Council Member Sarmiento or Peñalosa or Iglesias? Go ahead, please.

David PenalozaItem —

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And I just wanted, Mr. Mayor, you would think that with a lifetime on this city Council, he would know how to run that clock a little better. Just food for thought. But with that said, you know, I heard a lot from the residents today, so I want to thank you all for coming out, the applicant and members of the public. And, you know, it's a lot of information to process and a lot of different opinions. I heard a lot about, you know, we should uphold the Planning Commission's decision and because you know it's what's right I

David PenalozaItem —

heard what you know that the the chair of the Planning Commission was quoted as saying you know this project is great just not in the just in the wrong location you know I I wish you would have had that same sentiment when you approve that parking structure that towers over my neighborhood in Memorial Park. That's, you know, pretty evident for the world to see. Former Council Member Morano came in here and said, you know, liquor licenses are bad, yet the chair of the Planning Commission gives liquor licenses to anybody who walks through that door. And, you know, it's interesting to see

David PenalozaItem —

just where, you know, where the opinion moves depending on what and where these projects are at. So some of the things I agree with with the residents, some things I don't. I don't believe that these luxury apartments would bring crime. You know, I don't see how somebody spending two thousand plus dollars a month on rent would would want to wander into the neighborhood to break into cars or whatnot. I feel like that would get reduced if the project is in. I do have issues with the possible parking that would affect the parking problems that could possibly come with

David PenalozaItem —

this. I do see that as a problem. So I'm not sure if throughout the last year that we've been approved, but we've been looking at this. I know that the permit parking was brought into the conversation at one point, and I never saw more information talked about. Can anybody, was permit parking ever discussed with the proxy Santiago neighborhood if I if

my members are correct that was broach but I think the neighborhood sentiment was we don't have it now white you know why implement it and why implement because of the project sorry sad again why implement it for the simple reason of the project so basically the neighborhood said we don't want permit neighborhood my intubation of that is that we don't want the project so why have a permit that's that's my interpretation is that they don't want the neighborhood do not want

David PenalozaItem —

permit the changes is not welcome yeah and I don't appreciate any comments of saying that the city of Santa Ana or the city council doesn't care about the neighborhoods and whatnot because you know if we if that was the case we would have approved 500 plus units a year ago and whether the developer had this in his back pocket the whole time whatnot again the city could have just approved the 500 plus units a year ago so I appreciate that there's been conversations had and that there's there's been reduction in this project but I do think that

David PenalozaItem —

that parking will be an issue. And if the neighborhood were to entertain the idea of permit parking, I would hope that it would be at the cost 100% of the developer, you know, if that to be an option on the table for as long as possible. With that said, those are my comments.

Thank you. Councilmember Iglesias, are you able? She wants you to go first because she's got something in her throat. That makes two of us.

So, yeah, I think the councilmember woman and I, I think, are under the weather. So I'll keep my comments light. But I do want to say I appreciate some of the conversations I had with folks. And obviously I appreciate the comments that were made tonight. but I did have some comments just for disclosure. I met with Dale Helvig on a couple of occasions, and he showed me a video that he had prepared for the night. And I met with Ellen Caldeway, and I believe Jeff and Angel as well, on a conference call with the Fratkins and Lisa Mills

and with Mark and Janelle McLaughlin. So thank you all for taking the time to be here, but taking the time to also advise me of your thoughts. And some of those comments that I received from you and I heard were very thoughtful. And I think that they were helpful, that they certainly made me think about your concerns. But some of the comments weren't. And I think some of the folks who did speak tonight, some of the folks who did send emails and text messages, weren't helpful, and they hurt your cause. because when people start talking about money, when people start talking about undue influence,

when people start talking about us making decisions based upon money that we receive, you're really missing the point. You're doing your neighborhood a disservice because you're not talking about the merits. You're not talking about the substance, and that's what we should be discussing tonight because I think there were some compelling arguments that were made, but there were some that really diminished your arguments. So for me, I tried to look at this as thoughtfully as I could. I do land use policy for other cities as well. And we have some differing opinions, obviously.

But one of the things I know that we spoke about with Ms. Caldeway was just consistency. And the precedential value of what we do. And a lot of you spoke about the slippery slope that if we approve tonight's project, what it will do to other projects that come before us later. And my question is, is that haven't we done this before? And do we have the legislative authority to do this? My understanding is that we've done this on several occasions, and I haven't heard people complain at all. When folks were looking at the Wormers project on First Street, where the old Elks Lodge

was, that's 600 units that were approved. When people talk about traffic and parking, think about what that does to folks trying to get on the five freeway. And somebody mentioned the Sandpoint neighborhood, the legacy that's going on there on sunflower and flower. That's right up against a neighborhood. That was another 500 units. Both of those were higher density than this. Why wasn't anybody here for that? And why wasn't anybody moaning and complaining? You were here, I think. You did speak but the problem is is that i think what we want to do is if we're concerned about this then

it should be an issue that we should talk about not just in this neighborhood but citywide we're going to have a hundred acre site we're going to have a hundred acre site that we're going to be dealing with once garden grove sells it off and it becomes our issue are we going to have the same arguments that we make tonight to say we don't want residential neighborhoods impacting what is already an existing neighborhood in Santa Anita. Are we going to be as concerned with that as we are tonight? Are you going to stay up till 11 o'clock midnight coming and speaking on that? I hope we will. I hope we will

because we have neighborhoods right now like Logan. They have a crematorium right next to their neighborhood. They have a waste ware disposal right next to them. Madison Park, the neighborhood that I represent, has chrome plating plants, air quality problems, all kinds of incompatible uses there. The Delhi neighborhood, years back, Edison wanted to put a peaker plant there. I don't remember anybody coming here and saying, that's a horrible idea. I stopped it because I met with the folks there and said, you can't do that there. But I guess my point is, is that if we're going to be consistent, let's be genuine about it.

Let's not just be selective about one neighborhood. Let's be consistent with all neighborhoods. If this is a city, if this is going to impact the entire city and not just Park Santiago, then let's do that. And then, you know, let's get a pledge from all of the colleagues up here and say we're not going to build any more high-density development. No more zone change.

If everybody's prepared to do that, then we can talk about this project in a different context, because right now we're just dealing with it in a vacuum. So let's get that commitment. Let's see if everybody wants to go ahead and restart the clock and do it based upon the parameters that

we're going to set for this neighborhood. What happened to the old policy was that if you want to build apartment complexes. You were supposed to build houses, affordable houses.

Let's not get into this debate. Let's just keep comments from the council. Thank you. Councilor Iglesias.

Thank you. I'm so sorry. I'm a little bit under the weather, but I'm glad that we're finally here. It's been a long, I would say a long 12 months for me. I remember the first thing that came to me when I got elected in November of 2018 was the no building and stopping 2525. That's why, as you all recall, when it came before us, I believe it was in February, one of the things that really concerned me, because I was out there walking and talking,

to the neighborhood i was out there and talking to individuals are going to be affected by this development and as you may recall this um this project was what 496 or 498 units i remember and when when i walked over there you know the the neighborhood on spurgeon and the reason i did that because i wanted to see you know like who are going to be the most impacted it just seemed like a um very dense, a monster of a project. That's when it came before us in February. My goal was to, you know, yeah, we have to put residents first, and we have to talk to the neighbors.

We have to talk to the residents and have the developer have that conversation, that genuine conversation with the neighbors. And I know that we directed staff to meet with you all, and unfortunately it just didn't happen. I don't know what happened. I don't know who dropped the ball, but I was very disappointed that a conversation hadn't been had and it was like August. I remember it was late August. I mean early August and then I was like what's going on? I was talking to men and I'm like what's going on? It's like no they haven't met. I was like okay so I took

it on myself and I take it very personal once we know some of the comments that I've heard that you know that there has been no community conversations. I was part of that meeting that we had at the Cube in September. I think it was September 6th. We had about 70 members of the community that showed up and we had the developer. We had him there and it was I think was down to about 347 or something like that. So we had to come down significantly. But my goal was in that that meeting for us to have these conversations how can we how can we make

it work for everyone because you know I am of the thought that okay it is his land he bought it he purchased it they could really do he could really build what he you know by right build and it is it's true they could build a huge retail place they could even build a homeless shelter and as you all know I I wish you guys could have been there this morning at the Board of Supervisors meeting. You know, they're building that Yale shelter. And it's on my side of town over there on the 6th Ward. And there was only about 10 of us from the community. And this is something that affects us all.

So like what Council Member Sarmiento was saying, I wish that when we have projects like this, that we all stand together. And that was the reason why I felt we had to have this conversation. So I remember making it clear. go back to the community, go talk to them. And I even, I've met with many of you guys. I've met with the developer. And what I, you know, and I just wanted to understand what is it that, all I heard was responsible development, responsible development. What does that look like? And, you know, and then I went back with my planning commissioner, Angie Kano, and I believe she voted yes for this project.

We went back and we walked. We didn't only walk Spurgeon. We walked Valencia. We walked the other, because we wanted to hear from different residents. And to my surprise, there were some residents that didn't even know about the project. They're like, it's like a 525. It's like, no, I said, it's gone down to 500. I mean, 256. They're like, really? That's not what, you know, that's what I've heard. So I think there was a lot of misinformation. So after I was talking to them, you know, a lot of them just said, well, you know, there's a lot of things that have come down and then they, you know, concessions have been made.

And for me, I've been so involved with this project, so I take it personal when community members say that no one cares and no one's listening. And I'm going to say this, and he was one of my colleagues on the school board, Mr. Richardson. You know, I take offense when you say that I take money from people. I don't. I if you as you see my all of my all of my I take money from people that are one want the best for the city I don't sell out I don't because I don't think I think that is wrong and you know it's like for you to say that it really

affected me and I just I just feel that you don't you don't know me so um one of the things that I would want to say is you know this is a for me it's come down it's been a work it I know it's been a project in the making and it's something that I believe is to the point that I could say, you know what, if this was in my backyard, would I be able to live with it? I believe I can, because this is something that it's going to help that area. I've walked Park Santiago, and Park Santiago is not safe to walk around there.

There's homeless issues. The park is not safe. Have you guys walked that park? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So see, this is what I mean. It's like, you know, if you're doing this to me, I can totally see the people that, you know, wanted to support this project that are not here because they don't want to be bullied. so I just I just I just don't agree I just I just don't agree and so um one of the things that I would like to say you know I it's a hard decision for me I prayed about it you know but it's something

that I feel that it's it's going to be benefit and I know talking to you know the cube it's it is it It's in a place that is going to help our students, too. Because, you know, our students visit the Cube and our students are safe. And they can't even visit the park anymore because they're not safe. They don't feel safe to go over there. So with that said, I want to say a lot more. But, you know, I know I'm running out of time. But what I want to say is thank you for everyone being here, for those who expressed your concerns. You know, I feel that we've moved a long way. We went from 496 to 256.

So one of my questions would be to be able to talk about how the dwelling units that are facing the backyard of the 11 homes. I know we have a project here. I would just ask, I don't know if this is possible, is instead of being just one terrace of two-story levels, is that something that could be, if, say, I would ask, or is that something the city council would approve or go with? If it wanted to go less units,

is that something that would have to come back before the city council?

Min, I'm looking at you.

because I think right now they have one terrace of two then you have three then you have four so I'm thinking not to respect the privacy of those that are you know along Spurgeon if it could be you know shaved off another one is that something that if it if they agree to would that be something that would have to come back to the City Council or the Planning Commission so the Council is

actually acting as the reviewing body of the project tonight the recommendation from the Planning Commission is just that a recommendation you are tonight acting as the zoning body and the river the review of the project so you would have the authority to make any changes you feel that would make the project either compatible consistent as long as they are changes that has been review and study in terms of the specific question you asked the reduction of number units the units obviously as a reduction is being reduced so the impacts will be reduced and would be considered happen study you can make that recommendation

tonight if that's part of your consideration so once we take a vote then

it's something that it could be brought up it won't necessarily have to come

back to the planning Commission or the City Council unless you direct that to be the case

uh councilor salori i know you had comments earlier any additional comments if not all comments go ahead all right thank you i believe that uh there's a good project but in the wrong place it just doesn't work well no matter what we try to do it's a round peg and we're trying to put it into a square when i look at this parking and and this driveway you look at how close it is to the intersection clearly we're trying to just squeeze and force and you know

every inch matters because we're again trying to do a lot with that that site and i think it's going to be problematic. When I hear things like, you know, can the neighborhood, because I think Councilman Peña-Losa makes an excellent point about the parking. You know, should the neighborhood have, you know, permit parking? Well, that right there is an admission that you don't have enough parking and that they're going to have to park in the neighborhood potentially. In order to keep them out of the neighborhood, now you're going to have to have a battle. You're going to have to

have permit parking and you're just going back and forth, back and forth. I went around Parks on Tiago recently and I saw that along Santa Clara, they have apartments. In a portion of the street they have apartments and guess what? All along the southern edge of the street there's cars and those cars come from apartments that are a few blocks away and they take up the whole street for parking and that that happens now and then they have to do carpools and shuttles and people are going back and forth again just to try

to you know deal with with the reality of what what apartments do because I believe even at 2.0 unless you have a light rail or a streetcar or some other form of transportation it isn't sufficient parking and it is going to have an impact. I believe that when they were trying to negotiate a lower density, some of the neighborhood leaders tried to get, I think it was a 15 units to the acre, something like that. And I see some thumbs up and confirmation. And that was just flat out turned down. So

it's not that they didn't try to compromise, it's just that it was not acceptable to the applicant. Also, I believe that the Science Center does have other options. I remember when it was going to go to Irvine, way before all the folks that are here except for Waukee. Waukee was on the board at the time, and it was going to go to Irvine, and I fought very hard to bring it to Santa Ana because I think it's a jewel for the city. I think it's a wonderful center. I think it brings so much joy and education to children from all over Orange County. It's a wonderful,

wonderful center. But we do have an alternative. In 2012, the city council approved a parking structure on the existing lot that's already owned by the Science Center. And that approval was for 253 spaces, about what we're talking about here. And that land, the Science Center doesn't have to buy. They could just take part of that $10 million, I say part of it, because at $30,000 a parking space they could build a structure. On the other end, the one where they've got the rocket and all that, that area, it's already approved. I'll text it to Waukee.

I've got the drawings right here that the Science Center submitted and that we approved. So I do think they have another immediate, viable option that does not impact the neighborhood and doesn't make people cross Main Street at all. At all. I also believe that we have close to 10,000 units going on in the city right now. And we do have to be careful. And I've told that to my colleagues. I had a lot

of problems with that project on first street the jamboree project that that we finally approved it was way down the line we said you know they're vested we really you know can't put it in reverse but i'm telling you that there's a lot of apartments that are being built and we have to be careful as to what it's going to do to the city long term it's not just the density density is one thing and 58 units to the acre is dense, but it's the magnitude and the impact that they have. Now, can certain parts of the city handle it? I believe so. Look at Maine and MacArthur.

We have some apartments there that are in units that are 20-plus stories high, and that handled, it works relatively well, and that's higher density than this, but it is pushed back. It's not right next to Sandpoint neighborhood. We do have gradual buffer areas, let's say, and I believe that it is able to work. We also have to look at what we're doing as it relates to a lot of these warehouses, because now what's happening is people are buying warehouses, industrial areas,

saying let's convert them to residential units. And if we're not careful, everybody's going to want to do that because you do it for one, now you do it for another. Now the guy says, well, that's right next door to my property. How come I can't do the same thing? And if we're not careful, we're going to lose an entire area of the city to industrial. I mean, from industrial to residential. And maybe we want to consider that, but it's got to be really considered thought. We have to have good economic analysis. We have to understand what it is that we're doing. Otherwise, it's very, very dangerous to walk down that path.

So I just want to ask a couple questions and I'll be done. To the city clerk, you received a lot of emails. Do you have any idea how many and what were the sentiments of people? Did you keep tabs?

Not exact amounts, but they're all online. I mean, a lot of them are recommendations. It's just it kind of goes along. We're most against.

Well, if you don't know, you don't know. I thought you might know. Yeah. Okay. If you don't know, that's okay.

The other thing I want to mention is just that, you know, some things were said today about, you know, documents that were submitted that bring into question the validity of the EIR. are. And those attorneys and the judge and others that spoke, I believe, know what they're talking about. So should this pass today, I fully expect that they're going to challenge those matters because to me it seems like we kind of rushed it and that we didn't really do our homework well and that that's going to make us susceptible on this project. So

But with that, those are my comments. I'm against the project. Councilman Solorio.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, just to add a little bit more on the parking, I think too what's changed from last time to this time is the additional lots for the Discovery that have that joint use capability in the evenings. So I think that'll be helpful. And then there's a parking management plan. and now that we've done that for other projects, that's incorporated as well, so that'll be helpful.

I think the situation here is, you know, infill housing is tough. You know, we know we need to add more housing, you know, in this city, county, state, but many cities like to say, you know, they're built out, so what does that mean? You know, that makes it very difficult, and we're seeing that challenge here today. I spent probably two, three weekends walking numerous streets and parks in Santiago, and the things that the folks there are caring about is the homeless.

The lack of safety is concerning to me, what's going on in the creek. The big efforts that we'll do, not just with ourselves, but CHP and others to make a big difference, and three days later, much of that is back. We slowly are staffing up our PD. We're down to only about five or so vacancies, but we need to add more forces quicker. That's really what I implore my colleagues and city managers, I even did earlier today, that's the number one thing that we need to be focused on I think a lot of the anxiety in town and frustration at a deeper level we're tired what's going on out there and we need to address it

and I'll talk more about why I think this project helps not hurts I also heard about housing costs and concern for where their children may be able to live and afford and yes I did hear about 25 25 and you know we had back and forth with several. Unfortunately too often some key things like traffic, there's a lot of misinformation being put out and it's very unfortunate because it's hard to have a conversation when we can't even agree that one plus one is equal to two. So that makes it hard. You know but we know that we continue to need housing

here and you know not long ago, you know not many generations ago, you know Park Santiago wasn't there. You know the city leaders back then said hey we have more rivals coming in, we have jobs being created, we have children, we want our children to live close. Someone was talking about family values. If we don't build new housing here and now, do we really want our children to be leaving counties or states over? It's not right. I have two children and I think about that. And we now need to do that in Santa Ana and we don't take this vote lightly. You'll remember that when this was last considered I didn't vote for it. I said

take it back. You know I wanted staff and the neighborhood leaders and the developers to bring something stronger package that we could support with more consensus. A lot of progress was made but obviously you know I am disappointed that we didn't get farther along but the project now is about half the size it generates about a third less traffic than than other options it's going to fill up of you know you know a bad area it's going to add 24 7 patrol security to the neighborhood that is much needed it's going to add you know market rate

and also help pay for affordable housing that may end up being about you know 30 to 50 units. We also have now a strong partnership with Discovery Science Center that everybody seems supportive of and there's a big need. But really at the end of the day, this project's going to help clean up the area and it's going to be the start, hopefully, what is smart development and not original proposals. We all worked hard on it. It's not perfect, but it's going to be nice. The quality of these type of apartments now, you will be shocked and pleased how nice they can turn out.

Finally, I do have something that I would like my colleagues to consider to add into the development and agreement, and something that I've been struggling with is, you know, really, can we close down Santiago Creek? Can we do some other major structural thing to address it? We've been doing a lot of different things, including the fence at Fisher Park and bringing in CHP and Caltrans. But we've also come to realize that there is, under the overpass of the five and Broadway,

that we have had staff design a fence to seal that off in two points. It's not going to eliminate all the folks coming into the creek and going ultimately to Santiago Park, but it's going to help. and I'd like to ask if appropriate the applicant or representative of the applicant whether they'd be willing to consider something. We, I think, generally estimate that between the materials, construction, etc., we're talking in the ballpark about $150,000, but something that would be

much appreciated by all the neighborhoods hoods up there because again whether just parks on table and the rest the number one issue there and citywide is the homelessness and because of the issues in Santiago Creek it's a big mess and we do need a step up and help so can we have a we have way see a thumbs up I city attorney well what what might we need to do to add that into the development agreement just as part of

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

the motion well when you get when you get to that level I think you would at least want an acknowledgement on the record that that's acceptable if it is an emotion that would include that amendment to the development agreement

okay we have one more time we did hear some acceptance on if you need more let me know councilmember Phil Lucera thank you mr. mayor look the reality and you

Phil BacerraItem —

know I appreciate all my colleagues comments but I'm gonna bring it way back to what I said earlier there's a lot of flaws in this project I'm not talking about just the built environment I'm talking about procedurally we're talking about liability. All of us are charged with the duties of protecting the city from liability. We're charged with trying to make sure that when projects are approved, they're done the correct way. And bluntly, this is not it. It's not whether the project's in the right area or not. I'm talking purely technical. And I can't in good conscience go home tonight without at least

Phil BacerraItem —

throwing the ball down the field. So, Mr. Mayor, if I may, my first official motion. Go ahead. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we adopt a resolution denying the final EIR impact report number 2018-01. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Give me a chance, give me a chance. And then I'd also like to add that we adopt a resolution affirming the recommendations of the Planning Commission and deny the following applications. Development agreement number 2018-01, general plan amendment number 2018-06, and amendment application number 2018-10 regarding the SD number 93. I'll second that motion.

Mr. Mayor, can I make a substitute motion? Yes. I'd like to move with option two just so that for discussion purposes we can discuss the mitigation measures that Councilwoman Iglesias and I have proposed. So option two would certify this final EIR, adopt the ordinance, adopt the resolution, and the application amendment. And for discussion purposes of our mitigations, we think the residents expect some better services from us.

David PenalozaItem —

I'll second that motion.

Okay, let's speak to the substitute motion.

Really, obviously one is denying the project, the other one is approving, but I believe Council Member Becerra's motion talked about some of the inadequacies that you see in the process. Do you want to speak to the substitute motion?

Phil BacerraItem —

Not this time. I'm just going to stick to mine. Thank you.

All right. Well, look, what I want to say is that I think that there's other alternatives for this site. If this project were to go down, somebody else will come in there. It could be part of the museum district. It could be that we work with a science center and they buy more of it. We bring somebody else to operate the existing property more or less the way it is. It would not be the end of the world. And if this gets tied up for years in litigation, and it may, and if the science center can't move quickly enough with the $10 million, and they may not be able to, it could be that other things are going to become viable.

and I think we all should be thinking about that. So for those reasons, I'm opposed to your substitute motion.

Any other comment? If not, I'll call for the vote.

Phil BacerraItem —

Mr. Mayor, this is on the substitute motion?

On the substitute motion.

So we want to vote on the substitute motion so we can continue the dialogue about mitigations for the neighborhood. The neighborhoods need help.

Phil BacerraItem —

Okay. I'm sorry. May I ask Councilman Solora, so you're saying to continue the item?

No, no, no. We need to continue to have the dialogue about the mitigations that Councilwoman Iglesias mentioned. No, but your motion is to approve the project.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

I'd just like to clarify for the conversation, and this is very important. We have legal counsel in the audience. We need to make sure our record is extremely clear. The motion, the substitute motion that's on the table does not include, as I've heard it, the exception to the development agreement or other mitigation measures.

That's why we need to discuss that.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

But the motion, if you're going to go in that direction, needs to be clear. So once you approve that, you can't go back and then amend it. Do you understand what I'm saying? So if you're going to make that motion. Amend it now.

So let's have the conversation now. So my amendment as part of it would be an addition to the development agreement that would commit the developer at his, you know, that he would be subject to paying for fencing under the five and the Broadway overpasses in the Santiago Creek to help address the homeless situation that impacts that entire area including Park Santiago and this new development area

it's gonna help but so if I may get councilman Iglesias did you have yeah so we can include it into the motion yeah if you can include this and this is

something that I you know hopefully I was able to express it but um one I'm looking at the plan here and it's considering the the residents who live or you know the homeowners who live you know it's not Spurgeon yeah thank you

right now I believe we have like just one one terrorist of two so I would like to just you know for privacy purposes i wouldn't want like the the third one you know third terrace to be so close so in a way it's kind of like moving the the third terrace back a little bit more so that would mean like giving two sets of the terraces of two and then one three and then one four so i don't know if that's something that um could be done mean if you could step forward i

got to make sure we understand what she's saying is this a minor redesign is it there does it require a reduction in unit count because of no you've got to be specific right

and yeah and the applicant could comment as well because I you know it needs to be acceptable to and that's why I want to ask guys can understand if I may yeah

Phil BacerraItem —

I don't I mean I feel like this is like you know to quote former Councilman Richardson this is like Groundhog Day are we going to start redesigning the

project at midnight no no it's an amendment to this motion

Good evening. I'm getting the cold too, so I apologize. I believe, Councilman Iglesias, in the back of the property, terraces from two stories to three to four. And I think what I'm hearing you say is on the third level, you want that cut back further, so the expanse of the second level is longer. The current dimension is 20 feet. So do you know what dimension you're referring to?

When I say referring to, the dimension you would like to expand it.

So what I would like to expand or reduce would be the, you know how the third, you have one set of like the set two-story buildings then you have the three then you have the four so and this is just if we can accommodate if not I

am okay so well when you when you say accommodate can we make the revision yes

yeah it is as a is it something that you could

Councilmember Iglesias, can I interrupt for just one second?

Yes, go ahead, City Manager.

I have some concerns about you changing the project to that level, since that was not as the project was described. Certainly adding additional items to the developer agreement, which would enhance something, is appropriate to do so. But the other one is actually changing the project.

I'm not even going to go there because I don't want it to be groundhouse state again.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

I'd just like to make clarification with respect to the development agreement. You're asking that you've done, but I think we're going to need some more specificity and acknowledgement by the applicant as to the dollar amounts. The development agreement is an agreement that provides consideration for the entitlement, and so I would like to at least have clarification that that expense could be as high as, or you say that he will pay for whatever it costs. That may be the preference, because if you put a number on it and it's more, then you're going to lose out and you're going to have to fund it.

With the city manager and I spoke earlier today, we thought maybe about $150,000. Maybe that's appropriate. Maybe we add a little bit more, so it's up to that amount for clarity.

Yes, Council Member Solario. We had Public Works design the fence and cost it out. We were attempting to get Caltrans to install the project for us, so we have all of the design plans. And it wouldn't exceed $150,000.

Very good. So for an amount up to that, and again, we're talking about high-security quality fencing under the five and the Broadway overpasses in Santiago Creek. That's my motion. I think we're ready for a vote.

Phil BacerraItem —

Mr. Mayor, if I may ask, just for absolute clarity from staff, so we're all voting on the same thing. In my understanding that we're going with option two, with Council Member Soloria's addition for fencing under the five freeway, and that's the only additional mitigation, and you said up to $150,000. That's correct. So is that what's on the table? That's it. Okay. Thank you.

Is that clear, Ms. City Attorney? Yes. So those in favor of the substitute motion, vote green. Those against it, vote red. I acknowledge and accept Councilman's addition.

Phil BacerraItem —

Do we have a call to vote?

Yeah. If you're in favor of the substitute motion, vote green. If you're against it, vote red.

Motion passes 4-3.

Next item.

I believe we're going to lose a couple council members, so let's just take a five-minute recess.

Thank you.

What are you going to keep going?

Entendeme, I'm going to give you love And fight for a life that is worth the price That's love, I'm going to give you love And I'm going to give you love And And And And And And And And And And And And And And

And

And And And And And And And And

And I come to come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come come

Is el alma que me dice, que me dice que te siga Is el alma que me dice, que me dice que te siga

And so I come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come here to come

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, for the folks watching on TV or those that are still here, I just spoke to the city manager. we're only going to do item 55A and 75A and everything else we're going to continue to the next meeting I mean we're just not going to act on anything other than that

so Mayor 55A that's before you it's really an administrative manner and it's a recommended

it's a recommended action that would authorize the city manager to request OCTA to carry over federally funded projects. All right.

I would entertain a motion on 55A. Motion to approve. I'll second. Those in favor, please press green.

Councilman Solario is walking, Madam Clerk, but he will press green, I believe. Was it green, Hosea?

Yeah.

It was green. Next item, was that 75A?

Correct.

Okay, this is time and place for a public hearing for adjusting city water rates and sewer rates. Do we have any written speakers? We do, so I'm going to open up the public hearing. Janelle Johnson, followed by Dimitri Lujan. They may have gone home. If they did, we don't blame them. followed by Gisela Contreras and Ed Muranski. Murashi. See none of those speakers. Ed, sorry about that. Come on down, sir.

Again tonight, I'm here representing the Floral Park Neighborhood Association. And we urge you to postpone this measure because we don't believe that there's been enough outreach. We've heard every number from $4, like you said, per month to $40 per month. And so what we want to do is we want to actually have a call, a meeting, bring the neighbors in with their water bills and everything else, actually bring in the officials, and so we could really go over these numbers. Obviously, we've been busy with the 25-25, and so we just request a little more time.

Let me see if we can possibly do both. I'm wondering if the city manager can go out there with, because they want to meet you last time you were in Philadelphia. If you can go out to Floral Park, bring somebody from the water department, explain exactly what's happening. I know I told them the average bill would go up by something like $4.58, something around there. Could you speak to that?

Certainly. So this is part of we engaged in the Prop 218, so it's been duly noticed, and this is the part of the public hearing. So everyone that was impacted by this did receive an actual mailer to their homes. The average single-family residential customer, it would be approximately $492 increase per month.

$492?

I'm sorry, did I say that?

Yes.

$4.92. And you said it with a straight face.

It must be 12.30 a.m.

You did it. Only $492. $4.92, and we have our water manager.

$4.92.

$4.92.

Dollars.

Dollars. And we have the consultant that did the study, and then we also have our water manager.

And what I'm requesting is if you could go out, because there's a request here from a neighborhood president, where I spoke to them last time. You were out of town. if you can go to the next meeting bring the water guy they'll bring their water bills show them that it's not four hundred ninety two dollars but it is four dollars and ninety two cents so with that let me close the public hearing and bring it back to council councilor Peña Losa please thank you mr. mayor I was

David PenalozaItem —

gonna say that if that's gonna happen I would expect the city manager to do a neighborhood tour yeah and throughout anybody that wants to hear about this the water guys to go over this because it wouldn't be fair to the central part of the city and southern part of the city to, you know, again, you know. Yes, sir.

I would be happy to set up Rancho Santiago and invite anybody in the city to come to this.

Invite all the neighborhood associations.

David PenalozaItem —

Talk water. Perfect. That way we can.

Thank you. That way everybody's got access to the same info.

David PenalozaItem —

I mean, I was going to entertain a motion to deny it, but.

By now you're going to approve it. All right. Motion approved. Second. I'll second it. Those in favor, please press green.

David PenalozaItem —

Wait, this is 75A.

75A.

David PenalozaItem —

Oh, okay.

We've already closed the public hearing, and we're now voting on it. And part of the motion, the city manager is going to meet. No, no, that was just a request. All right, so it passes four to one.

So you don't have to go to Peña Loza's neighborhood anymore. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. So with that, we're just going to call it a night. It's after midnight.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving to everybody.

What are we doing with item 16A?

We're not going to take action on it.

Phil BacerraItem —

Mr. Mayor, do we need a motion to continue it, or are we okay?

I think we can just take a motion to basically the city manager said that she was okay from a city staff standpoint.

Correct, Mayor. Those two items were the ones that were time sensitive.

Those were the ones that were time sensitive.

You should make a motion to continue the balance to the next meeting.

I'll make a motion to continue the balance. Second.

I'll second.

Those in favor, please press green.

Motion passes unanimously. So now, are we going to continue council comments?

Good evening. Good evening. All right. So we'll continue council comments.

David PenalozaItem —

Good morning, St. Anna.

Good night, everybody. It's after midnight.

Good night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so please come to come to come come come come come come come come come come come come