Public Comment for Agenda Item No. 75A - Santa Ana City Council Meeting, April 21, 5:45 PM
Jeff Dickman
Public Comment for Agenda Item No. # 75A
Santa Ana City Council Meeting, April 21, 2020
The One Broadway Plaza office tower is planned at the northeast corner of Broadway and Tenth Street, and is situated between six neighborhoods, which include:
French Court
Willard
Logan
Lacy
Downtown, and
French Park
The Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council is to allow the Developer to convert 50%+ of the 37-story project to 402 market-rate apartments without key community benefits. This raised concerns for the public who participated in the Commission's March 30, and April 2, meetings where One Broadway Plaza was discussed. The following is a summary of some of those concerns and requests for City Council's consideration.
Concern #1. Community want One Broadway Plaza to include Affordable Housing
The PC agreed to allow the Developer to pay a fee instead of building the required affordable apartment units. Apartment units, which would have been available to those in need, will now become market-rate apartments. The burden to construct OBP's affordable apartments would become the responsibility of the City. The PC's action insures that affordable-rate apartment units, and the people who would have lived in those units, are removed, and effectively segregated from the OBP project.
Request #1: Developer to construct his affordable apartment units on-site, to insure the project is not income-segregated.
Concern #2. Community want One Broadway Plaza to prepare a new Development Agreement (DA)
The PC did not recommend the project prepare a new DA. Development Agreements protect parties, specifically concerning duties, performance and timing. DA's may include project-contributed community benefits like insuring a developer construct on-site affordable housing, provides park land, and expands traffic mitigations.
Request #2: Developer to prepare a new DA to include, but not be limited to, community benefits, roles and responsibilities to fund, design and/or implement those benefits, including performance timing, remedies, and fines if either party does not meet specific goals and or deadlines.
Concern #3. Community want One Broadway Plaza to prepare a new Environmental Impact Report (an EIR), and to conduct additional Traffic Studies.
The PC did not recommend OBP prepare a new EIR, or prepare new traffic studies. Instead the PC was satisfied that traffic assumptions in the 2003 EIR were sufficient. Because the 2003 EIR does not address traffic impacts from over a dozen newly-approved or anticipated apartment projects near OBP, this all but insures Main Street, Broadway, Washington, Civic Center, Seventeenth, and streets in at least six adjoining neighborhoods, will be negatively impacted for decades into the future.
Request #3: Developer to prepare a new Environmental Impact Report, to address traffic impacts from other recently approved, and anticipated development projects, which surround One Broadway Plaza.
Concern #4. Community sought Additional Traffic Protections for the Logan, Lacy, Downtown, and Willard Neighborhoods
The PC recommended only the Logan neighborhood receive traffic protections, leaving Lacy, Downtown, and Willard neighborhoods without these benefits.
Request #4: Developer to include Lacy, Downtown, and Willard to the list of neighborhoods to receive traffic mitigation protections as part of his project.
Concern #5. Community requested an Increase in Traffic Mitigation Fees for neighborhoods previously identified to receive these benefits as described in the expired 2003 Development Agreement.
The PC agreed with Staff's recommendation to increase the original traffic mitigation fee (approved in 2003) from $200,000 per neighborhood to $300,000 per neighborhood. Although the increase appears substantial, the extra $100,000 may not even account for inflation, and would not significantly contribute to the design or construction of much-needed neighborhood traffic mitigations. The PC also failed to address a timeline to plan, design and construct these improvements.
Request #5: Developer to:
* Increase individual neighborhood traffic mitigation fees from $200,000 to at least $500,000
* Create a timeline when the Developer will plan, design and build these improvements
* Include Traffic Mitigation Fees as part of a new Development Agreement
* Developer and City will work directly with each of the impacted neighborhoods separately, and together, to prepare an inter-related Traffic Mitigation Plan
Concern #6. Community asked that Park Development Fees for OBP remain within the impacted neighborhoods.
The PC agreed, and recommended that park development fees be available for use in the impacted neighborhoods. Unfortunately the PC did not address where and how these dollars will be spent.
Request #6: Development Agreement to include the required park fees, and also discuss where and how these park fees are used. This insures the Developer pays the required park fees, and also that City and Developer work with the affected neighborhoods to identify important community-sought park projects.
While listening to the April 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, I heard several of its members, including Commissioner Ken Nguyen, offer enthusiastic support for One Broadway Plaza. Except for Commissioner Norma Garcia, I did not notice any of the other Commissioners express substantive concern about the 3,000 plus vehicles trips entering the adjoining neighborhoods to use already over-crowded city streets. Perhaps Commissioner Nguyen should walk through the impacted neighborhoods, to remind him that these are places where working-class families already live, and already suffer from excessive traffic.
Quite differently Commissioner Garcia was thoughtful in her persistent effort to discuss the pressures of traffic on the community, despite staff's lax presentation, and their downplaying of OBP's impacts. Mr. Nguyen and the Commission's enthusiasm for increased traffic impacts on working class neighborhoods, where traffic is worsening, and where public's health and safety is at risk, reflect the vast disconnect between the Planning Commission, the Santa Ana City Council, staff, and the community.
City Council's lack of care for its downtown-adjacent residents is also evident by its recent approval of 2525 N. Main Street apartment project. Although Councilpersons Sarmiento and Penaloza have since stated they now oppose 2525 N. Main (for which your constituents are grateful), the PC, and City Council continue to assert that the City of Santa Ana cannot exist, let alone thrive, without an iconic project. The PC and City Council continue to replay this tired excuse about the City's downtrodden self-image as a way to justify its actions. This beggarly image was manufactured and vigorously sold by past Councils, and is perpetuated by several Council members, including the Mayor. Their argument is that we must remake the City, often at the expense of neighborhoods, to remain viable. This is thoughtless and insensitive, and reflects some of the antiquated reasoning for decision-making by our elected leaders, especially Mayor Pulido, and Council-members Jose Solorio and Cecilia Iglesias.
The PC and Council City want the community to believe that Santa Ana has no other means to improve itself, except to rely on out-of-scale projects which often result in permanent negative impacts, and few if any benefits. Out-of-scale projects invite undue outside influence, and the often aggressive tactics used by these developers, and which undermine and destroy our beloved neighborhoods.
In closing, I ask the City Council delay the public hearing on this project, in consideration of the above community concerns, until:
* After the November General Election, when a new City Council is seated
* The
project is evaluated in light of the Comprehensive Update of the
City's General Plan, and
* In recognition of the likely repeal of 2525 N. Main Street, a similar, but much smaller project
Thank you,
Jeff Dickman, French Park
714 240 0883