One Broadway Plaza Summary from the April 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting
Jeff Dickman
Good day Everyone,
On April 2, 2020, the Santa Ana Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend conversion of over 50% of One Broadway Plaza office space to 402 market rate apartments. The Planning Commission's recommendation will appear on the Santa Ana City Council agenda for April 21, 2020.
Staff's presentation at the April 2, meeting was minimal, and only addressed the developer's request to replace 19 floors of office with 19 floors of apartments, without much attention to the project's impacts.
Below are key points I heard, or read on-line, and what Commissioners agreed to recommend to the City Council. I have also attempted to collect these comments into recommendations for the City Council to consider.
* Community wanted 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. Apartments, which would have been available to those in need, will not be constructed as part of the project. The burden to construct these affordable apartments is now the responsibility of the City. The PC's action insures affordable apartment units, and the people who would have lived in those units, are income-segregated out of the OBP project, and likely income-segregated outside the Midtown Specific Plan area of the city.
Recommend to City Council that One Broadway Plaza include all required on-site affordable apartment units, instead of in-lieu fees, to insure the project is not income-segregated.
NOTE: The Developer's request is to convert 19 floors of planned office space to 19 floors of apartments is necessary for One Broadway Plaza to remain viable (so says the Developer.) The original project approval is for a 37-story office building, and City Council is not required to approve the conversation to apartments.
* Community wanted One Broadway Plaza to prepare a new Development Agreement (DA)
The PC did not recommend the project include a new DA. The original OBP project included a DA. Development Agreements protect agreeing parties, specifically regarding duties, performance and timing. DA's may, for example, include project-contributed community benefits, like insuring a developer constructs on-site affordable housing, provides park land, or expands traffic mitigations over and beyond what is required for the project.
To insure community needs are addressed, request the City Council work with the 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. If the City Council fails to enter into a DA with the Developer, it is possible that these much-needed community benefits may disappear later in the development process, and/or become substantially delayed.
* Community wants 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 fails to address traffic impacts from over a dozen approved or anticipated apartment projects near OBP, insures Main Street, Broadway, Washington, Civic Center, Seventeenth and streets in at least six adjoining neighborhoods will be negatively impacted.
Request City Council work with the 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.
* Community sought Additional Traffic Protections for the Logan, Lacy and Downtown Neighborhoods
The PC recommended only the Logan neighborhood receive new traffic protections, leaving Lacy and the Downtown neighborhoods without these benefits.
Request City Council add the Lacy and Downtown to the list of neighborhoods to receive traffic mitigation protections as part of the OBP project.
* Community requested an Increase in Traffic Mitigation Fees for neighborhoods previously identified to receive such 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 the City Council work with the 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 the 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
* Community asked that Park Development Fees for OBP remain within the impacted neighborhoods.
The PC agreed, and requested 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.
Ask the City Council to include a requirement, in the requested Development Agreement, to insure the Developer pays the required park fees, and also that the City work with the affected neighborhoods to identify community-sought park projects.
While listening to the April 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, I noticed several of its members, including Commissioner Ken Nguyen, offer their 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, and using already over-crowded city streets. Perhaps Commissioner Nguyen should walk through the impacted neighborhoods he serves, 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 efforts to discuss the pressures of traffic on the community, despite staff's lax presentation, and their downplaying of OBP's impacts. Mr. Nguyen's portrayal of the City's need for OBP, at the expense of neighborhoods is not true, is unacceptable and disturbing. Mr. Nguyen and the Commission's enthusiasm for increased traffic impacts on working class neighborhoods, where traffic is already 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 indeed 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.
The PC and Council City want the community to believe that the City 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. These projects invite undue outside influence, and the blunt tool these developers employ can easily undermine and destroy our beloved neighborhoods.
As November approaches, consider whether your neighborhood will be safer and quieter with these poorly located projects. If your neighborhood will not be safer, and will not be quieter, then find candidates who will commit to protecting our neighborhoods first.