75E - ONE BROADWAY PLAZA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 experiences severe and frustrating congestion. The draft EIR recognizes that further impacts to the major streets and intersections near the project will not only reduce the level of service of roadways and intersections to unacceptable levels, but that "mitigation measures to reduce potential traffic. . . to a level considered less than significant have been determined to be not feasible." In other words, it's already bad, this project will make it even worse, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Is this any way to plan for the future growth of the city? Who will want to come back to the downtown area when they won't be able to move due to all the congestion? ProfessionaVupscale tenants have moved to newer parts of the county not just because new buildings provide technological advancements; the surrounding public infrastructure and transportation corridors have been specifically planned for such large-scale development. It is inconceivable that the city of Santa Ana would consider moving forward on this project when it the EIR states that significant and substantial adverse impacts will result for which there is no feasible mitigation. Councilmember Alvarez Should Abstain: The Santa Ana Municipal Code provides: "Sec. 425. Disqualification due to campaign contributions. A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the city council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor. As used herein, "recent major campaign contributor" means a person who has made campaign contributions totalling two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) or more to the councilmember or to any campaign committee controlled by the councilmember in the twelve-month period immediately preceding the date of the decision. The mayor is a councilmember for purposes of this section." At the March 15, 2004 City Council meeting, Councilmember Alvarez cast a vote on the One Broadway Plaza project despite the fact that she admittedly had accepted a campaign contribution in excess of $250 from developer Mike Harrah with the 12 months preceding that vote. She purported to justify this act on advice from the city attorney that the municipal code applied only to city council races, and not to her campaign for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. This is a blatant distortion of both the clear letter and intent of the municipal code which on its face specifically refers to anv camoaien committee controlled by the councilmember, and is not in any way limited to city council races. Ms Alvarez campaigned for the supervisor position utilizing her credentials as a city council member. Moreover, as an attorney, and an assistant district attorney to boot, she is legally and ethically obligated to uphold both the spirit and the letter of the law. As a public servant, she is further obligated to both avoid the appearance of impropriety and refrain from violating the public trust. Her past conduct in voting on this project is reprehensible and should be publicly condemned, if not criminally prosecuted. Under no circumstances should she cast any further vote on this project. 75E-60