My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75E - ONE BROADWAY PLAZA
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2004
>
07/06/2004
>
75E - ONE BROADWAY PLAZA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 5:02:08 PM
Creation date
7/2/2004 3:14:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
75E
Date
7/6/2004
Destruction Year
2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />02/27/2017 11:27 FAX <br /> <br />~002 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />Roberta Reed <br />1205 South Parton Street <br />Santa Ana, CalifornIa 92707 <br /> <br />Plannin9 Commission <br />City of Santa Ana <br />Planning and Building Agency <br />20 Civic Center Plaza <br />SanbJ Ana, California 92701 <br /> <br />June 14, 2004 <br /> <br />Members of the Planning Comml$sion: <br /> <br />Tonight. YOu have before you fOr Consideration the One Broadway Plaza Development <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />On February 24, 2004, by majority vote the Planning Commission recommended the One <br />Broadway Plaza project for approval. While I realize that the actual merits of the project <br />are not up for consideration tonight, feel first compelled 10 again reiterate my belief that <br />this project. in its proposed location, is not goOd for the City of Santa Ana and its citizens. <br /> <br />One clarification is in order: Page 3 of the Request for Planning Commission Action st~tes <br />that "This agreement has incorporated tile major issues raiséd at the March City Council <br />hearing as well as those issues raised by the Ad Hoc Committee.' This statement is false. <br />While the Development Agreement addresses some of the issues raised at the March <br />Public Hearing, in no way does it address the majority of the concerns stated that night. <br />The majority of concerns addressed the inadequacies of the êlR document and the <br />Statement of Overriding Considerations, as well as the number of significant environmental <br />impacts that were not mitigated in the EIR As such, these issues have not been <br />addressed by the Development Agreement, and it is no way ìncorporatés anything close to <br />all of the major issues rsised at the Public Hearing. <br /> <br />While I believe that the members of the Ad Hoc Committee and City Staff made an honest <br />effort to draft an agreement that protects the interests of the city and Its citizens, no <br />development agreement will be able to protect us from the fact that the EIR does not <br />provide mitigations for many of the significant environmental impacts identified for this <br />project. Because there are no mitigations proposed for many of these significant Impacts, <br />the Development Agreement does not contain any provisions for these significant impacts. <br />For this reason, the Development Agreement is not adequate, and not supportable as a <br />tool of good planning. <br /> <br />Specific to the Development Agreement. I have the following comments: <br /> <br />Improvement #4 in Exhibit C calls for installing a new traffic signal at Broadway and the <br />parking structure, as previously described in the EIR- On pa9~ 12 of the One Broadway <br />Plaza Specific Development District document, Point (n) requires the Developer to "install <br /> <br />75E-65 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.