The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About FULL PACKET_2014-03-04MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2014 CLOSED SESSION MEETING CALLED TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBER 22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SANTA ANA, CA 5:08 P.M. ATTENDANCE COUNCILMEMBERS Present: MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor ANGELICA AMEZCUA (5:10 p. m.) P. DAVID BENAVIDES MICHELE MARTINEZ ROMAN A. REYNA VINCENT F. SARMIENTO (5:10 p.m.) COUNCILMEMBERS Absent: SAL TINAJERO, Mayor Pro Tern STAFF Present: DAVID CAVAZOS, City Manager SONIA R. CARVALHO, City Attorney MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council PUBLIC COMMENTS — None COUNCIL RECESSED to Room 147 for Closed Session discussion at 5:09 p.m. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: • JOINT ITEM — City of Santa Ana, Successor Agency and Housing Authority: Peebler vs. State of California Superior Court Case No. 34- 2012 - 80001172; Court of Appeal Case No. C073698 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -1 • JOINT ITEM — City of Santa Ana, Successor Agency and Housing Authority: Cuenca vs. State • JOINT ITEM — City of Santa Ana, Successor Agency and Housing Authority: City of Santa Ana vs. Ana Matosantos (DOF) Case No. 34- 2013 - 80001477 • Jose Arceo v. City of Santa Ana Orange County Superior Court Case No. 2013 - 00640199 • City of Santa Ana v. Gallegos Brothers (Grande Bakery) Orange County Superior Case No. 30- 2013 - 00630810 CLOSED SESSION REPORT — See Item 19A. for reportable actions. ADJOURNED THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING AT 5:44 P.M. AND CONVENED TO THE REGULAR OPEN MEETING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -2 REGULAR OPEN SESSION CALLED TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBER 22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SANTA ANA, CA 5:45 P.M. ATTENDANCE COUNCILMEMBERS Present: MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor ANGELICA AMEZCUA P. DAVID BENAVIDES MICHELE MARTINEZ ROMAN A. REYNA VINCENT F. SARMIENTO COUNCILMEMBERS Absent: SAL TINAJERO, Mayor Pro Tern STAFF Present: DAVID CAVAZOS, City Manager SONIA R. CARVALHO, City Attorney MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADRIAN HERNANDEZ, SIERRA PREPARATORY ACADEMY INVOCATION JANE HETHERINGTON RAUTH, POLICE CHAPLAIN PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION presented by COUNCILMEMBER BENAVIDES recognizing Black History Month. Proclamation will be accepted by Pastor Gale Oliver, Greater Light Missionary Baptist Church. CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION presented by COUNCILMEMBER REYNA to the El Sol Playground Build Planning Committee for volunteering their time on this valuable project. Committee Members: Adelina Ardelean Raquel Campos Julie Castro CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 1 0A -3 Laurel Laidlaw Benjamin Lopez Sylvia May FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Monique Davis Annel Del Toro Sara Flores Marcus Gallagher Yeny Guido Cinthia Guido Kelly Mendoza Candice Morales Morgan Ordaz Rafael Orozco Clare Petrotta Bertha Picasso CLOSED SESSION REPORT - Nothing reported out of Closed Session. PUBLIC COMMENT • Steve Rocco, indicated that he would be candidate for Orange County Public Administrator and commented on other matters; • Armando Felix Cardenas, expressed interest in building homeless facility at former YMCA facility. • David Exline, recently elected President of the Santa Ana Friends of the Zoo, presented new Board; noted grant and donations have allowed for expanded services at the Zoo; invited all to attend. • Peter Katz, commented on parking validation system; urged City to coordinate efforts with County. • Steve McGuigan, representing America Cancer Society, invited all to participate in Santa Ana's Relay for Life event to be held on April 12; important to honor Cancer survivors; outreach to survivors. • Barbara Lamere, commented on Centennial Park matter; concerned with Pacific Electric area; establish an Ethics Committee. • Nick Spain, representing Old Orchard Conservancy, spoke in opposition of proposed Sexlinger project; concerned with Environmental Impact Report. • Jeannie Gillett, representing Old Orchard Conservancy, noted that there was no timeline set to approve Sexlinger project; • Steve Ray, representing Old Orchard Conservancy, read definition of "orchard" and if proposed development approved then would be orchard yard. • Theodore Hirsch, spoke on Strategic Plan and police force; restore justice. MATTER TAKEN OUT OF ORDER CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION presented by COUNCILMEMBER SARMIENTO to the following organizations that collaborated on the Vista Del Rio Project. Recognitions will be accepted by: AMCAL A Community of Friends Foundation for Affordable Housing Dayle McIntosh Center CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -4 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont.) • Madeleine Spencer, thanked staff for efforts on Strategic Plan. • Guadalupe Mata, invited all to attend event scheduled for April 17th to honor former Santa Ana Police Officer Jose Vargas; presented copy of biography. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Approve Consent Calendar Items 10A through 31B as recommended by staff with the following modifications: • Councilmember Martinez pulled Agenda Item 25C and 251 (Agenda Items 25B and 25G approved as part of Consent Calendar). MOTION: Martinez VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: MINUTES SECOND: Sarmiento Amezcua, Benavides, Sarmiento (6) None (0) None (0) Tinajero (1) ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Martinez, Pulido, Reyna, 10A. MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2014 - Clerk of the Council Office MOTION: Approve Minutes. BOARDS / COMMISSIONS / COMMITTEES 13A. REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE SANTA ANA WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD - Community Development Agency CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -5 MOTION; Reappoint Patricia Carter, John Didion, Willia Edmonds, Bob Fischer, Beatriz Gonzalez, Ana Jimenez -Hami, Gregory Lewis, and Darren Rutledge to the Santa Ana Workforce Investment Board for four -year terms expiring March 31, 2018. 13B. NOMINATED BY MAYOR PULIDO AS THE CITYWIDE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION FOR A FULL TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 9, 2014 — Clerk of the Council Office MOTION; Appoint Don Cribb to the Arts and Culture Commission for a full term expiring December 9, 2014 (Ward 3 resident). 13C. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency MOTION: Receive and file Parks, Recreation, Education and Youth minutes of October 28, 2013. MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATION 19A. CONFIRMATION OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION(S) — None 19B. EXCUSED ABSENCES - Clerk of the Council Office MOTION: Excuse the absence of Mayor Pro Tern Tinajero from the February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting. 19C. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROVIDING CUSTODIAL SERVICES AT CITY PARK RESTROOMS - Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency MOTION: Authorize the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency to issue a Request for Proposals to qualified companies to provide custodial services at city park restrooms. BUDGETARY MATTERS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS 20A. AGREEMENT WITH THE CAL HUMANITIES AND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT FOR LIBRARY SERVICES ENHANCEMENT (GRANT FUNDED) - Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -6 MOTION: 1. AGMT NO. 2014 -047 - Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Cal Humanities in the amount of $7,500, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. 2. Approve an appropriation adjustment. (Requires five affirmative votes) APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 2014 -066 - Recognizing grant revenue in an amount of $7,500 in the Library Services Grant revenue account and appropriating funds to the Library Services Grant expenditure accounts. 20B. AGREEMENT, SALES ORDER AND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF A USED TRAILER AT THE SANTA ANA ZOO AT PRENTICE PARK - Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency MOTION: 1. AGMT NO. 2014 -048 - Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Friends of Santa Ana Zoo, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. 2. Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute a Sales Order with Golden Office Trailers, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. 3. Approve an appropriation adjustment. (Requires five affirmative votes) APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 2014 -065 - Approve an appropriation adjustment recognizing donation revenue in the amount of $29,975 in PRCSA Fees and Donations revenue account and appropriating funds to the PRCSA Fees and Donations expenditure account. SPECIFICATIONS — PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES 22A. SPEC. NO. 14 -004 - AMMUNITION - (Police Department) - Finance & Management Services MOTION: Award contracts for the purchase of ammunition for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $141,300 with the following vendors, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -7 Vendor: Location: Adamson Police Products Los Alamitos, CA Dooley Enterprises, Inc Anaheim, CA Proforce Marketing, Inc Prescott, AZ San Diego Police Equipment San Diego, CA AGREEMENTS 25A. AGMT NO. 2014 -049 - URBAN AREA HOMELAND SECURITY (UASI) MULTI- YEAR TRAINING AND EXERCISE PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES (GRANT FUNDED) - Police Department MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an amendment with Willdan Homeland Solutions to add $500,000 making the total agreement not to exceed $1.5 million, expiring September 30, 2015. 25B. AGMT NO. 2014 -050 - THE NEXT GENERATION 800 MHZ COUNTYWIDE COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM — Police Department MOTION: Authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of agreement committing the City to participate in the first phase of the new 800 MHz project and direct staff to identify funding in the FY 14 -15 budget in an amount of $143,399 for replacement radios. Councilmember Martinez concerned with amendment of contract although the City Council has not received the Plan for original request; asked staff to work closely with Water and Sanitary District representatives to address regional and state matters of concern. Acting Public Works Director Galvez noted that information outdated since Plan needs to be update financial model. Councilmember Benavides requested Plan as they pertain to the Sanitation District. MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute a second amendment with Black & Veatch Corporation, subject to nonsubstantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney in an amount not to exceed $100,000 and expiring December 31, 2014. MOTION: Amezcua SECOND: Pulido CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -8 VOTE: AYES: Amezcua, Benavides Reyna, Sarmiento (6) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Tinajero (1) Martinez, Pulido, 25D. AGMT NO. 2014 -052- WATER SYSTEM COMPUTER MODELING SERVICES - Public Works Agency MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with IDModeling, Inc., subject to nonsubstantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for a one -year period expiring on December 31, 2014 with provisions for three one -year renewals, in an amount not to exceed $300,000. 25E. AGMT NO. 2014 -053 - DIGITAL WATER MAPPING SERVICES - Public Works Agency MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with iWater, Inc., subject to nonsubstantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for a one -year period expiring on December 31, 2014, in an amount not to exceed $150,000. 25F. AGMT NO. 2014 -054 ON -CALL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONSULTING SERVICES - Public Works Agency and Community Development Agency MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute a first amendment with Tatsumi and Partners, Inc., subject to nonsubstantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, in an amount of $67,349, for a total not -to- exceed amount of $367,349 expiring June 30, 2015. 25G. AGMT NO. 2014 -055 - TEMPORARY ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES - Public Works Agency MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Project Partners, subject to nonsubstantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for a 15 -month period expiring on June 30, 2015, in an amount not to exceed of $300,000. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 LLl m ' 25H. AGMT NO. 2014 -056 - RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT TO INSTALL FIBER OPTIC CABLE IN AUTO MALL DRIVE - Public Works Agency MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with PAG West, LLC, to grant a revocable encroachment permit to install a fiber optic cable at a second location across Auto Mail Drive. Councilmember Martinez request staff evaluates illumination levels of LEDs. Acting Public Works Director Galvez explained that only one -side of block installed, thus causing inconsistency. Staff to follow up and explain to residents affected. MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to amend the agreement with Powerlux Corporation to increase compensation by $22,000, in an amount not to exceed $147,000, expiring on June 30, 2014, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. MOTION: Sarmiento VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SECOND: Benavides Amezcua, Benavides, Reyna, Sarmiento (6) None (0) None (0) Tinajero (1) Martinez, Pulido, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -10 LAND USE MATTERS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITIVARIANCES 31 A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013 -49 TO ALLOW A TYPE 21 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE FOR A SMART & FINAL EXTRA STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 1308 WEST EDINGER AVENUE - JOHN LE, APPLICANT - Planning and Building Agency Planning Commission approved recommended action on January 27, 2014, by a vote of 6 -0 (Yrarrazaval absent). MOTION: Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2013 -49 as conditioned. 31 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2013 -52 TO ALLOW A DOG KENNEL AT 3203 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD - CHRISTY THOM, APPLICANT - Planning and Building Agency Planning Commission approved recommended action on January 27, 2014, by a vote of 6 -0 (Yrarrazaval absent). Councilmember Martinez commented on matter; asked staff to consider open spaces for walking dogs and future open space planning. MOTION: Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2013 -52 as conditioned. MOTION: Martinez VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SECOND: Benavides Amezcua, Benavides, Reyna, Sarmiento (6) None (0) `I MUE Tinajero (1) * *END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ** Martinez, Pulido, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -11 BUSINESS CALENDAR RESOLUTIONS 55A. NOMINATE AND APPOINT NEW REPRESENTATIVE (ROMAN REYNA) AND AN ALTERNATE (ANGELICA AMEZCUA) TO THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (OCFA) BOARD - Clerk of the Council Office MOTION: Adopt a resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -007 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -001 AND DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING A NEW REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS MOTION: Martinez VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SECOND: Amezcua Amezcua, Benavides, Reyna, Sarmiento (6) None (0) None (0) Tinajero (1) COMMENTS 90A. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS Martinez, Pulido, Thanked and recognized the service of Interim Executive Director of Community Development, Nancy Fong. 90B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilmember Amezcua: • Invited all to attend Plaza Primavera event in Downtown Santa Ana that will take place on March 22nd from 4 -8 p.m. and • Requested a quarterly progress report on contract expenses. Councilmember Reyna: Recognized El Sol Committee and parents involved in bringing project to fruition; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1OA -12 • Commented on SACReD's clean -up day held over the weekend; • Invited all to the Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park's 62nd Anniversary celebration taking place on March 1 -2; • Concurred with Councilmember Amezcua to prepare report on consultants /contracts expenses and project status; and • Encouraged all to shop in Santa Ana. Councilmember Benavides: • Adjourn in Memory of Alex Serrano, Jr., who was a victim of gang violence; spoke of former Early Prevention and Intervention Commission that was disestablished a few years ago; Strategic Plan should include re -entry programs. Councilmember Martinez: • Wished Interim Executive Director of Community Development Agency, Nancy Fong, a happy retirement and thanked her for her service to the City; • Commented that the intersection of 3'd and Broadway crosswalk is dark; pedestrian and bicycling safety important; requested update on project with enhanced lighting; • Concerned with parking validation and ticketing policy; staff to review process; • Opined that City has obligation to address homeless issue; partner with County of Orange and 20/20 Homeless Commission; Public Safety Council Committee to consider matter; • PREY Committee to review Park's permit process; need to create a balance for all users; important to build healthier community and inclusive of all stakeholders; • Request City use award - winning tap water rather than bottled water; • Invited all to attend the Bicycle Safety Forum on Saturday, February 22nd at the Santa Ana Main Library from 3 -5 p.m.; • Thanked staff for continued hard work and dedication; and • Encouraged all to attend the Strategic Plan Work Study Session on February 22, 2014 at the Southwest Senior Center at 10 a.m. Councilmember Sarmiento: • Thanked staff for hard work; • Reported that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez hosted 'Countdown to Enroll OC' rally; Obama Care sign -up deadline is March 31St; community in need of medical care; reach out to and encourage all to sign -up; preventive care important; and • Opined that water rates expected to rise due to State drought; mitigate impact and continue to conserve water. Councilmember Reyna: • PREY Council Committee to consider field reservation policy; and • Suggest staff appreciation events be reconsidered. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 0A -13 Mayor Pulido: • Adjourned in Memory of Alex Serrano Jr. ADJOURNMENT- 7:45 p.m. - Special meeting for a work study session on the Strategic Plan is scheduled for Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the Southwest Senior Center, 2201 W. McFadden Avenue, Santa Ana, California. Adjourn in Memory of Alex Serrano, Jr. Maria D. Huizar, Clerk of the Council FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Street Car Project Locally Preferred Alignment Harbor Blvd. Mixed -Use Plan Public Hearing on Sexlinger Property Adoption of Strategic Plan General Plan Housing Element Annual Progress Report Solar Permit Fee Waiver Dangerous and Abandoned Buildings Proactive Rental Enforcement Program Renewal CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1 OA -14 CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT MINUTES November 26, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Santa Ana Police Department 60 Civic Center Drive, Police Community Room Santa Ana, California 5:38 PM ATTENDANCE: Council Committee members: David Benavides Michele Martinez Roman Reyna STAFF PRESENT: Carlos Rojas, PD Scott Brown, OCFA Laura Rossini, CAO Tammy Franks, PD Tracy Rinauro, OCDA PUBLIC SIGN -INS: Albert Castillo America Najera Gabriela Hernandez, Chicanas Unidos Carolyn Torres, Chicanas Unidos Vanessa Corda, resident Abraham Medina, Boys & Men of Color Tony Ortuno, Boys & Men of Color Pablo Avila, Boys & Men of Color Maria Esquivel, ACLU Beatriz Negrete, resident Madeleine Spencer, OSA, Sacred Ignacio Rios, Jr., Boys & Men of Color Rafael Solorzano, resident 13B -1 PUBLIC COMMENTS Albert Castillo asks if a gang injunction is planned for Townsend Street. Castillo read from a statement regarding the OVC gang injunction. Orange PD used inconsistent standards; OCDA did not provide information on what determines an active participant. These were young people who had no record. America Najera: 23 -year resident. She states the law criminalizes people because of generalizing who is a gang member. Dividing and destroying our community. Consider better ways to help the community, the gang injunction does not. Get the perspective of the people affected by it. Gabriela Hernandez: part of a local and state -wide foundation that fights against criminalization of community and youth. She identifies herself as a former gang member who turned her life around due to the programs that were available. She now works as a therapist with at -risk youth. She believes gang injunctions do not help, they have no statute of limitations; they only hurt young people. She says probation and parole already deal with these problems. The net is so wide, the injunction can affect anybody. The DA is going to pay over 3.3 million for attorney fees to the ACLU, does not include the civil law firm that they have to hire to represent them in the state and federal court system. Carolyn Torres: gang injunctions violate a basic constitutional right for freedom of association, movement, speech, and due process. Don't have faith in the OCDA to discern appropriate procedure to put people on a gang injunction list and which activities are considered gang activities. She expressed concern with the SAPD and the City's policy and procedures. Torres had several questions: who the lead detective is and what Chief Rojas thinks of the injunction, how long the DA collected evidence to prove the need for an injunction, was it submitted to a judge, was it approved, who from the City Council is okay with the injunction and who is the City Attorney? The mentality behind the Santa Nita injunction is not for safety. It was supported by former council members Solorio and Claudia Alvarez. Torres states the need for programs for the youth. Vanessa Cerda: current resident on Townsend. They get "harassed" by the gang unit without the gang injunction. Her partner is a former gang member who has been working and paying taxes for the last five years. Trying to be successful and move on. No one asks the members of the community how they feel about a gang injunction. She heard it from a community organization. Need more resources. Abraham Medina: here on behalf of Boys and Men of Color. Speaks about family members in the area where they are proposing this injunction. He states there have been reports of police 13B -2 harassment and police brutality in this area. Medina asks for more programs, job opportunities, educational opportunities, things that will better lives. He does not believe the gang injunction is the answer. Tony Ortuno: here on behalf of Boys and Men of Color. California detains 43% of youth subject to ICE holds, high level of mistrust in Orange County with the police and law enforcement in general, continuing this type of enforcement with the gang injunction only increases the distance between what could be between communities and law enforcement. Continue to criminalize communities through policies like this, and families will continue to be broken up because they are incarcerated or because of their immigration status. Pablo Avila: here on behalf of Boys and Men of Color. City has been trying to be transparent as to its decision on creating policies here. However, he not seen the transparency to implement the gang injunction and one of the requirements of the gang injunction is to have community input. Many of the people in the area were not aware of the SAPD and the OCDA's intentions. Avila would like to see the crime data in the Townsend area. Maria Esquivel: paralegal for the ACLU Foundation in southern California. Esquivel offers the ACLU office and its attorneys as a resource to members of the community. Beatriz Negrete: social worker with LA County and also a resident in the city of Orange where a gang injunction was initiated. Negrete speaks about the impact on families including her personal experience. Her brother was listed on the injunction and her whole family was stigmatized although he had no active participation. She said preventative programs are more effective when dealing with gangs than punitive as is evident by the overcrowded jail system. Madeleine Spencer: resident of the city of Santa Ana; came in support of SACRED. Specifically referred to the Townsend injunction and the issue of transparency, she said there is no dialog with the community. Spencer said that after the LA riots, when communities felt like they were under a double threat, both from the police and gangs, it created a huge problem. She recommends that instead of an adversarial process, look at a dynamic and educated process, instead of looking at people as individual cases, start looking at the pattern analysis of whole communities, including having liquor licenses in the downtown and the crime rate going up. Ignacio Rios, Jr.: here on behalf of Boys and Men of Color. Rios believes the gang injunction will not only affect those on the list, but entire families. He states that gang injunctions are for life so children in the elementary schools can be put on the injunction by being in the safety zones and by simply knowing people. He stresses the need for prevention strategies, not just punishment. Rios reads from an essay by Dr. Victor Rios, a Professor of Sociology at Cal State - Santa Barbara, who has studied gang injunctions. 13B -3 Rafael Solorzano provides the Committee with two handouts. The first one is from Boys and Men of Color, entitled: "Toward a Restorative Constitution: A Restorative Justice Answer to Gang Injunctions." The second handout is a policy brief from The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, entitled: "The Consequences Of Structural Racism, Concentrated Poverty And Violence On Young Men And Boys of Color." Solorzano states that the solution is not to criminalize and lock up these young men and women, but begin a process of building a sense of community within the neighborhoods. Public safety officials do need to do their job and deal with individuals who commit violence without demonizing an entire generation of youth whose only crime is living in the wrong place at the wrong time. Create collaborative efforts between law enforcement and our youth. AGENDAITEMS 1. Approval of Minutes of 9 -24 -13 Meeting Motion: Approve the Minutes of 9 -24 -13 meeting. MOTION: Martinez SECOND: Reyna VOTE: AYES: Benavides, Martinez, Reyna NOES: None (0) ABSENT: None (0) Motion carries. 2. Equity JPA Update An update on the JPA Equity agreement was given by OCFA Division Chief Scott Brown. This was approved by the City Council at their last meeting. Agreement ensures the long term stability of the Orange County Fire Authority and fire services: the fire department, paramedics, and EMS services in this city as well as throughout the county. Chief Brown thanks the Committee Members for supporting the OCFA as a regional fire service. In the spirit of transparency, the OCFA website features a monthly report where people can get detailed information on fire services, events, etc. that happen within the city and for the city. Chief Brown provides his phone number if anyone has a question for him. Finally, there is a customer satisfaction survey that is on the web and also sent out to those who request services. This is a unique tool used by the OCFA and the City Council to hear about not only the good things being done, but also any areas that need to be addressed for growth. 13B -4 3. Gang Injunction Discussion Committee Chairman Benavides introduces Chief Rojas. Chief Rojas thanks members of the community for coming out to express their opinions. Chief Rojas states that community- oriented policing is at the forefront of the Police Department, and invites anyone who has any questions relating to any matter of law enforcement to contact him directly. He introduces Commander Tammy Franks. Commander Tammy Franks, Crimes - Against - Persons Division, opens up the discussion regarding the gang injunction. Cmdr. Franks has two handouts: a graph titled "Crime in Santa Ana's Safety Zone" which shows the numbers of crime types (battery /assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, weapons violations, narcotic violations, probation/parole violations, SAMC violations, auto theft, disturbing the peace, malicious mischief, and trespassing) prior to and following injunctions. There is also a narrative titled "Operation Safe Neighborhoods, Santa Nita Gang Injunction." Commander Franks gives an update on the Santa Nita gang injunction and injunctions in general. The definition of an injunction is that it is a civil lawsuit against a criminal street gang and its members based on a legal theory of a public nuisance. The allegation is that the conduct and activities of the gang within a defined area interfere with a community. There are 12 gang injunctions in Orange County; Santa Ana has one, the Santa Nita injunction which was established in 2006. Commander Franks gave an overview of the Santa Nita injunction by describing the safety zone, the square mileage it covers, the boundaries, the grids. She further explains how the gang injunction works after it has been signed by a judge in court. The injunction now becomes a court order. The injunction will name certain individuals who will be served with the paperwork and describes prohibited behavior which must occur within the safety zone, a public place, in order for police to enforce it. Commander Franks explains that since the Santa Nita gang injunction's implementation in 2006, it has effectively reduced gang - related part I serious crimes by 24 percent. This was compared to one year before the injunction was implemented and two years after. It has reduced these Part I crimes by 60 percent when compared to current crime trends. There have been 155 arrests to date and 82 criminal cases filed the OCDA. The injunction has been effective in reducing crime and is just one tool that the Police Department uses. It is a collaborative effort between the Police Department, the Orange County District Attorney's Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Assistant District Attorney Tracy Rinauro, the lead district attorney who worked on the Santa Nita gang injunction, speaks to the audience. She states that there is no simple solution to the gang problem, but she is excited to see that there are so many people who have come out to speak. ADA Rinauro states that gang violence has to stop and that the young people, children, and residents of Santa Ana should not be killed because of it. She reads sealed depositions that 13B -5 residents of Santa Ana have written to the Court. ADA Rinauro explains that when there are violent crimes committed, such as murder, carjackings, and /or rapes, the injunction charges are not filed. She touches briefly on the Vasquez lawsuit case against Orange County and explains it was about service. Those named on the Santa Nita injunction were given notice three times. She further explains that gang injunctions are effective, they work, and that the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of California and the federal courts have declared them legal. ADA Rinauro explains how individuals are put on the injunction, as well as how someone can try to be removed from it. ADA Rinauro introduces the GRIP program, a gang prevention program offered at the schools. She invites members of the audience to become involved in the program as mentors. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Michele Martinez thanked Chief Brown and the work the OCFA is doing. She mentioned how the OCFA tools over fire services for the city of Santa Ana a year ago, and that is was a seamless transition. Committee Chairman Benavides also thanked Chief Brown for always making himself available, and was also very pleased with the customer satisfaction survey created on the website. Committee members Benavides and Reyna have questions for ADA Rinauro on the gang injunction related to being put on or taken off, programs to help young members in re- entering the community, statistics to show how these programs have worked. Committee Member Martinez thanks Police Chief Rojas for using transparency and building relationships with the community. She mentions the work that Pastor Kevin Brown is doing in Santa Ana. ADJOURNMENT — /7:30 P.M. d CARLOSROJAS Acting Chief of Police 13B -6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: DESTRUCTION OF OBSOLETE CITY RECORDS CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: _2•:• _61 ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1" Reading ❑ Ordinance on Z' Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For- CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Approve the requests for the destruction of obsolete records from City departments in accordance with the retention schedule outlined in City Council Resolution 2013 -014. DISCUSSION On April 1, 2013, the City Council approved a Resolution outlining the records retention schedule for the agencies, departments, and offices of the City. City records are governed by the Public Records Act which provides the period in which records need to be retained. The Citywide Records Team compiled the Citywide Records Retention Schedule which sets forth the retention period for a particular record. The Municipal Code requires that the destruction of a City record be approved by the City Attorney. In accordance with Section 513 of the Citywide Records Retention Schedule Resolution, the City Attorney has approved the list of records proposed for destruction from the departments as outlined in the attached documents. The Citywide Records Retention Schedule has specific retention periods for many City documents. The Schedule is modeled after the California Secretary of State's sample for local government and incorporates other statutory periods applicable to Santa Ana. These are minimum retention periods. Each department makes discretionary decisions on whether to retain records past the minimum requirements. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Attachment 19C -1 19C -2 MEMORANDUM To: Joseph Straka, Chief Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office From: Ed Raya, Executive Director Personnel Services Agency Date: February 21, 2014 Re: REQUEST FOR DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS The Personnel Services Department requests your consent to destroy city records on the attached list, in accordance with the retention schedule outlined in City Council Resolution 2013 -014. Thank you. 19C -3 CITY OF SANTA ANA OBSOLETE RECORDS DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE PERSONNEL SERVICES DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECORD RECORD RECORD RECORD CATEGORY SERIES DESCRIPTION DATES ENROLLMENT Dental Insurance Employee dental insurance enrollment forms ** EE Separated June FORMS 2008 and prior (OFFICIAL) Flexible Spending, Enrollment forms for flexible spending program ** EE Separated June Section 125 2008 and prior Life Insurance Employee life insurance enrollment forms ** EE Separated June 2008 and prior Long -Term Employee Long -Term Disability Insurance EE Separated June Disability enrollment forms ** 2008 and prior Insurance Medical Insurance Employee medical insurance enrollment forms ** EE Separated June 2008 and prior EQUAL Employment and Personnel and employment records, including EE Separated June EMPLOYMENT personnel records application forms *, records pertaining to 2008 and prior OPPORTUNITY promotions * *, layoffs * *, terminations * *, salaries ** COMMISSION and training* (EEOC) Involuntary Personnel records of terminated employee ** EE Separated June termination 2008 and prior OFFICIAL Certification/ Request for Certification and /or reassignment EE Separated June PERSONNEL Reassignment forms which document and authorize hiring, 2008 and prior FILES Forms reassignment, or other employee actions. ** Certificates of Certificates issued to EE which show completion EE Separated June Training date of training class(es).* 2008 and prior Commendation Letters of commendation and /or other EE Separated June Letters congratulatory documents received by and /or 2008 and prior issued to EE.* Disciplinary Memorandums, letters, or other records of EE Separated June Actions proposed and /or implemented disciplinary 2008 and prior action(s). ** Doctor's Notes/ Notes /medical release forms, etc., submitted EE Separated June Medical Releases regarding employee's medical condition. ** 2008 and prior Drug Screen Test Pre - placement and drug screening authorization EE Separated June and acknowledgement form(s) and results of 2008 and prior drug screening. ** 19C -4 PERSONNEL SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECORD RECORD RECORD RECORD CATEGORY SERIES DESCRIPTION DATES OFFICIAL Family and Basic employee data (name, address, class title, EE Separated June PERSONNEL Medical Leave pay rate, hours worked per pay period; additions 2008 and prior FILES (FML) to or deductions from wages). Dates (or hours) FML designated/ taken; FML notices given to employer by employee; documents from employer describing FML policies; records of premium payments of employee benefits; records of any disputed confidential files: records /documents relating to medical certifications. ** Job Application Applications for employment and resumes (if any) EE Separated June for hired employees.* 2008 and prior Medical Leave of Leave of Absence forms used in the EE Separated June Absences *" documentation of medical leave (including 2008 and prior pregnancy leave and Family and Medical Leave). *" Miscellaneous Documents not specifically mentioned but kept in EE Separated June Documents official personnel file. * ** 2008 and prior Notice of Form completed by employee and /or department EE Separated June Separation indicating effective date of separation, last day on 2008 and prior the job, reason for separation, etc. ** Oath of Office Form completed and signed by employee EE Separated June affirming allegiance to the Constitution of the 2008 and prior United States and the Constitution of the State of California.* Outside Form submitted by employee for approval for EE Separated June Employment employee to be engaged in outside employment.* 2008 and prior Performance Employee performance evaluation forms EE Separated June Evaluations completed by supervisory personnel re 2008 and prior employees' accomplishment of their assigned duties and responsibilities, etc.* PERS Enrollment Forms to enroll employees in the Public EE Separated June Employees' Retirement System (PERS) ** 2008 and prior Pre - Employment Forms completed by employee and medical clinic EE Separated June Medical to assess physical capability of employee prior to 2008 and prior hiring. ** Security Check Form completed by Personnel Svcs to request EE Separated June Form Police Dept to conduct security check on 2008 and prior employee prior to hiring.* Special Licenses Special licenses issued to employees from DMV, EE Separated June accredited schools, etc., verifying employee 2008 and prior meets certain job - related requirements.* 19C -5 PERSONNEL SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECORD RECORD I RECORD RECORD CATEGORY SERIES DESCRIPTION DATES Tuition Copies of applications for training and EE Separated June Reimbursement educational assistance which show EE request, 2008 and prior Request department head approval, and final disposition of request.* OFFICIAL Union Bank Form signed by employee authorizing leave hours EE Separated June PERSONNEL Donation Form be donated to the Union Business Leave Bank to 2008 and prior FILES be used by union leaders for Union Business.* W -4 form Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate EE Separated June completed by EE authorizing employer to withhold 2008 and prior Federal income tax from employee's pay and /or for indicating exemption. ** Please see attached spreadsheet listing employee personnel files to be purged /digitally imaged. * Will be purged ** Will be digitally imaged * ** If non - medical records, PREPARED BY: will be purged; if medical records, will be digitally imaged. Rosa Flores for Date Edward Raya Executive Director of Personnel Services RECORDS DESTROYED: Number of Boxes 19C -6 CONSENT BY: EMrd Raya Date Executive Director of Personnel Services Assistant City Attorney a Obsolete Records Destruction Schedule Listing Attachment to City Attorney Memo dated February 21, 2014 To be Purged after July 31, 2013 EMPLOYEE NAME EE NUMBER CLASSIFICATION FT PT PTCS SEPARATION DATE Agredano, Wendy 105179 Police Services Dispatcher FT 03/30/08 Aguilar, Carlos A. 103762 Senior Program Leader PT 02/27/08 Alexander, Nina 02435 Program Leader I PT 01/31/08 Amezquita, Saulo 104720 Housing Specialist I FT 04/25/08 Bernier, Hildebrand 03410 Clerical Aide PT 04/18/08 Campos, Sally 101198 Senior Office Specialist FT 01/31/08 Carbine, Julie 105313 Senior Office Assistant FT 06/20/08 Cardoso, Sonia 105172 Engineering Intern PT 02/07/08 Choe, Nak W. 01881 Police Officer FT 04/15/08 Cisneros, David S. 104980 Police Services Dispatcher FT 01/28/08 Contreras, Seth D. 104942 Engineering Intern PT 06/27/08 Cormier, Teara 105347 Program Leader H PT 04/26/08 Coviello, Alison 104252 Recreation Program Coordinator FT 04/29/08 Davis, Fred C. 00766 Firefighter FT 05/01/08 De La Riva, Olivia A. 102795 Program Leader II PT 02/22/08 Delgado, Brenda A. 104528 Senior Clerical Aide PT 02/04/08 Do, Justin 104657 Program Leader II PT 02/27/08 Duran, Nydia Y. 101727 Senior Program Leader PT 04/26/08 Fernandez, Christopher L. 103834 Engineering Intern PT 01/07/08 Gallegos, Anthony J. 100348 Senior Program Leader PT 01/03/08 Garcia, Jonathan I. 104384 Permit Parking Aide PT 03/28/08 Gifford, Zachary T. 101562 Liability Claims Coordinator (UC) FT 04/17/08 Gonzalez, Luis A. 104203 Park Maintenance Assistant PT 06/28/08 Gregart, Charles 104768 Engineering Intern PT 04/11/08 Griswold, Maria E. 08762 Senior Detention Records Specialist FT 03/30/08 Hart, Daniel 105325 Police Recruit FT 03/27/08 Hernandez, Jessica 104379 Senior Program Leader PT 01/24/08 Hickman, Alexis J. 104963 Senior Administrative Intern PT 06/30/08 Hosan, Marimas 101913 Senior Administrative Intern PT 06/25/08 Jurado, Rogelio L. Jr. 101186 Senior Maintenance Worker PT 04/17/08 Klingaman, Kenneth R. 104755 Engineering Intern PT 04/11/08 Lang, Linda 104482 Library Clerk I PT 06/25/08 Lara, Yajaira 105154 Senior Administrative Intern PT 01/08/08 Lee, Albert 105138 Senior Program Leader PT 02/27/08 Lies, Ami J. 05806 Payroll Technician (UC) FT 04/04/08 Lighthiser, Marissa 104971 Librarian PT 01/10/08 Lopez, Rigo 1104271 jPolice Cadet PT 05/20/08 Love, Alicia 1103188 1 Program Coordinator PT 02/27/08 19 e7of 2 Obsolete Records Destruction Schedule Listing Attachment to City Attorney Memo dated February 21, 2014 To be Purged after July 31, 2013 EMPLOYEE NAME EE NUMBER CLASSIFICATION FT PT PTCS SEPARATION DATE Loya - Nauertz, Ruby 102666 Police Services Dispatcher FT 05/13/08 Luviano, Ivan 105049 Program Leader I PT 06/30/08 Luviano, Priscilla 104414 Senior Program Leader PT 06/30/08 Mantych, Travis 105205 IMail Clerk/Messenger FT 05/30/08 Mendoza, Francisco J. 08142 Maintenance Aide II PT 06/10/08 Mendoza, Miguel A. 103191 Senior Program Leader PT 04/29/08 Minion, Ralph D. 104430 Senior Program Leader PT 06/30708 Montano, Daniel 104972 Library Assistant PT 06/25/08 Morales, Belen 105181 Police Services Dispatcher FT 05/13/08 Moreno, Irvin S. 103935 Senior Program Leader PT 03/12/08 Navarrete, Joe 104969 Maintenance Worker I FT 01/22/08 Nellesen, James P. 102612 Program Coordinator PT 02/08/08 Newton, Arlene 105041 Program Leader H PT 01/04/08 Nguyen, Kelly T. 105241 Housing Specialist TI FT 02/28/08 Nguyen, Vy H. 104803 Engineering Intern PT 01/04/08 Nieves, Gabriela 105176 Senior Clerical Aide PT 06/13/08 Padilla, Elvin A. 105268 Redevelopment Project Coordinator PT 02/21/08 Palacios, Mouslly 101979 Program Coordinator PT 02/08/08 Penaloza, Lorena C. 103276 Assistant City Attorney FT 01/04/08 Peralta, Roger 07254 Program Leader II PT 01/13/08 Perez - Melgar, Griselda P. 07236 Customer Service Representative PT 06/18/08 Purcell, Benjamin T. 104935 Senior Administrative Intern PT 04/11/08 Ramirez, Janette 104543 Senior Clerical Aide PT 03/28/08 Reed, Aron K. 101364 Zoo Keeper FT 02/29/08 Rico, Alejandro 101509 Park Maintenance Assistant PT 03/25/08 Rosas, Clara 104984 Program Leader II PT 06/25/08 Ruiz, Gabriela 103811 Maintenance Aide II PT 05/03/08 Salazar, Jesus 104845 Fire Prevention Assistant PT 04/26/08 Sepulveda, Erika L. 102740 Senior Program Leader PT 05/19/08 Solorio, Graciela 105340 Senior Office Assistant FT 04/21/08 Sophabmixay, John L. 104156 Senior Program Leader PT 06/10/08 Sugahara, Sayaka 105298 Administrative Intern PT 06/14/08 Torres, Amalia 103339 Program Leader I PT 04/23/08 Truong, Vivian 100420 Library Clerk I PT 06/25/08 Urtez, Alex 108474 Detention Officer FT 05/20/08 Valencia, Erika A. 106516 Senior Clerical Aide PT 04/29/08 Valencia, Margarita 1105345 Student Intern PT 06/25/08 .�i ea. Memo To: Laura Rossini, Assistant City Attorney From: Chris Revere, Commander Date: 1/28/14 Re: Request for Destruction of Records 20111 FEQ 211 P11 3: 09 The Professional Standards Division /Police Department requests your consent to destroy city records on the attached listing, in accordance with the retention schedule outlined in City Council Resolution 2013 -014. Thank you. Chris Revere, Commander Professional Standards 19C -9 CITY OF SANTA ANA OBSOLETE RECORDS DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE POLICE DEPARTMENT Division Name: PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DIVISION Record Category Record Series Record Description Record Dates ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE ACCIDENTS INVOLVING ON- 1/1/08 to INVESTIGATIONS ACCIDENTS DUTY DEPARTMENTAL 12/31/08 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE K -9 REPORTS INVESTIGATIONS OF K -9 BITE 1/1/08 to INVESTIGATIONS INCIDENTS 12/31/08 ADMINISTRATIVE USE OF IN- CUSTODY INJURIES AND 1/1/08 to INVESTIGATIONS FORCE USE OF FORCE 12/31/08 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER INVESTIGATIONS OF OFFICER 1/1/08 to INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVED INVOLVED SHOOTINGS 12/31/08 SHOOTINGS CITIZEN /INTERNAL BY INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED 1/1/08 to COMPLAINTS EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT 12/31/08 NAME Prepared by: Name: C. DuQuin Title: Sr. Legal Secretary Date: January 27, 2014 Number of boxes to be destroyed : 25 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- CONSENT BY: Carlos Rs, Chief of Police Date Police Department W d r1:Z�2� /� 40V�w k, � j q i q Laura Rossini ate cjf. Assistant City Attorney Page 1 46C -1 0 CITY OF SANTA ANA OBSOLETE RECORDS DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE POLICE DEPARTMENT Division Name: PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DIVISION Records destroyed by: Print Name & Badge # Signature Date of destruction: Once your records have been destroyed return this form to the Records Manager and keep a copy of this form for your files. Page 21f4C_1 1 19C -12 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: QUARTERLY REPORT FOR HOUSING DIVISION PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 CITY dAG RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file. DISCUSSION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 18t Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For__ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER This status report for the quarter ending on December 31, 2013, provides statistics for the day -to- day affordable housing activities of the City and the Community Development Agency. The report is divided into three sections: Loan Activity, Loan Portfolio Management and Monitoring, and Development Projects. Loan Activity Applications The Housing Division offers several 45 different programs including homebuyer 40 down payment assistance and 35 rehabilitation loans for historic single - family, single - family and mobile homes. 30 Mobile home loans are offered as 25 forgivable grants and are used to cover the cost of essential repairs. 20 Applications are mailed out and 15 received for these programs on a continuing basis. Chart 1 shows the 10 number of applications sent out by type 5 for the quarter. Of the applications 0 sent, six been returned and are being processed. Chart 1: Applications Mailed During the Quarter 19D -1 Single Family Rehab Mobile Home Hardship Quarterly Report Housing Division Projects and Activities (Oct - Dec 2013) Page 2 Loan Underwriting and Approval Process In this process, staff reviews applicant eligibility, verifies income and assets, and oversees underwriting to determine eligibility per program guidelines. In addition, staff conducts an inspection of the unit, prepares a work write up to determine rehabilitation work to be performed, and develops a budget for the work. Due to the complex funding requirements, applicants may be in underwriting several months. The length of time in underwriting is largely determined by the applicant's timely submittal of the necessary paperwork. Once approved, staff prepares all necessary loan documents, makes arrangements for execution, and reserves the required loan funds. There were five loans approved during this quarter; three rehabilitation applications are pending and one homebuyer application was denied due to program eligibility. Construction Process During this phase, homeowners receiving rehabilitation loans are guided through an open selection of contractors to complete the work on their homes. Each homeowner is given a list of contractors that have been screened by staff for license and insurance requirements. However, homeowners are allowed to select any contractor that meets these same requirements. Staff assists the homeowners in selection of a contractor, monitors the construction work, approves payments to contractors, and tracks expenditures to ensure they do not exceed available funds. At the end of this quarter there were four rehab projects out to bid and three under construction. Loan Portfolio Management and Monitoring The Housing Division is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the residential loan portfolio. As of the end of this quarter, the principal balance was $109,260,586. This is comprised of 474 loans of which 441 are deferred or residual receipt payment loans. As shown in Table 2, the loan portfolio generated $522,824 in payments of principal and interest during the quarter: Table 2: Portfolio Revenue As part of the requirements for these funds, staff must monitor the owner- occupancy for single family homes that have received loans, and the code compliance of units in rental projects with long -term affordability covenants. During this quarter, 32 owner occupancy recertification letters were mailed; 25 were returned and processed. 19D-2 Second Quarter FY 13 -14 Loan Payoffs $366,796 $407,260 Residual Receipts Payments $116,183 $116,183 Amortized Loan Payments $39,845 $98,084 Total $522,824 $621,527 As part of the requirements for these funds, staff must monitor the owner- occupancy for single family homes that have received loans, and the code compliance of units in rental projects with long -term affordability covenants. During this quarter, 32 owner occupancy recertification letters were mailed; 25 were returned and processed. 19D-2 Quarterly Report Housing Division Projects and Activities (Oct - Dec 2013) Page 3 Staff also audited files for 61 projects and conducted code compliance inspections for 33 units in three projects. Regulations require that only a sample be selected for inspection. Staff also inspects the grounds and common areas such as laundry rooms to insure they also meet City code requirements. The majority of the inspected units as well as the grounds and common areas were found to be in compliance at the time of initial inspection. Some of the units had minor deficiencies including loose toilets, faulty GFCI outlets and inoperative smoke alarms. All of the deficiencies were repaired and the units were found to be in compliance at the time of the subsequent re- inspection. Subordinations Mortgage interest rates have increased resulting in a decline in the number of requests for subordination. During the last fiscal year there were a total of two requests for subordination received. One was approved and one was denied because the applicant did not qualify. Subordination requests are reviewed for conformance with City policy and granted to homeowners that were refinancing their existing first mortgage to a more favorable interest rate. Per the subordination policy, no cash is allowed to be taken. Development Projects NSP 2 Program The City's second award (NSP 2) for $10 million was received through a highly competitive process in which only 15 local government agencies were successful. Most awards were made to nonprofit consortiums. Under the terms of this award, there is no obligation deadline to meet; however, there is an expenditure deadline. In the first quarter, HUD approved a technical amendment to allow the City to close the DPAP activity and move the remaining $336,860 to the Single - Family Acquisition - Rehabilitation activity. There were no properties acquired or sold during this quarter. NSP 3 Program The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has allocated the amount of $1,464,113 in NSP 3 funds to the City of Santa Ana. To receive these funds the City adopted a substantial amendment to its Annual Action Plan, and submitted it to HUD on February 28, 2011. The amendment was approved, and the City signed a grant agreement with HUD on March 10, 2011. The grant activities are: • Acquisition /Rehab /Resale -50 Percent of Area Median Income • Acquisition /Rehab /Resale -120 Percent of Area Median Income • Administration The City's intermediary ANR has been actively seeking foreclosed properties in the NSP 3 target area. During this quarter, the property located at 1223 Baker Street was sold to a qualified homebuyer. 19D-3 Quarterly Report Housing Division Projects and Activities (Oct - Dec 2013) Page 4 In -Fill Development Protects The construction of Vista Del Rio, a 41 -unit handicapped - accessible affordable rental housing project located at 1600 Memory Lane was completed and 70% of the units are leased. Habitat for Humanity of Orange County completed the construction and sold two single - family dwellings located at 160 E. McFadden Avenue and 1114 S. Cypress. The construction of a single - family dwelling located at 1121 S. Cypress was also completed and will close escrow next quarter. Four other single - family dwellings located at 1314 N. Eastwood, 793, 797 and 812 Concord are currently under construction and are expected to be completed in June 2014 The Depot at Santiago, LP is working through planning entitlements for the development of a mixed use, affordable housing project, consisting of approximately 70 units, located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Blvd. and Santiago Street. 815 N. Harbor, LP is also working through planning entitlements for the development of an affordable housing project, consisting of approximately 70 units, located at the southeast corner of Harbor Blvd. and Hazard Avenue. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. V Shelly Lay dry-Bayle Housing Manager Community Development Agency SLB /kg 19D-4 me N ` NOW CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: AGREEMENT WITH AMERICA ON TRACK AND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT ACCEPTING DONATION FOR EXERCISE EQUIPMENT AND SHADE STRUCTURE CITY MANAGER Ia*01!]mI1 I *LJI] =1bm% IccgI CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: /e1»¢Z60=1�] ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 15` Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with America On Track, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. 2. Approve an appropriation adjustment recognizing donation revenue in the amount of $45,000 in the PRCSA Fees and Donations revenue account (no. 02213002 57081) and appropriating funds to the PRCSA Fees and Donations expenditure account (no. 02213200 66220) for the Memorial Park Exercise Zone. DISCUSSION In October 2012, the Pacific Electric Bike Trail Exercise Zone on Maple and Occidental was opened. It has been a great success and well received by the public. This exercise outdoor gym is used every day by residents of all ages. This project was made possible by a competitive trail grant. In October 2014, we opened the Birch Park Exercise Zone. This project is also very successful with seniors, and residents of all ages using this outside gym on a daily basis. This project was completed very economically through the Adopt -A -Park method. With city staff, donated funds from city employees, and volunteers coming together this project was able to become a reality. At this time, through a federal grant, the Garfield Exercise Park is being constructed and will offer the City's third outside gym. The City is fortunate to partner with America On Track who is providing a generous donation of $45,000 that will be used to purchase high - quality outdoor fitness gym equipment and a shade structure at Memorial Park. This project will be accomplished through the Adopt -A -Park method, where city staff, donated monies, and volunteers will be used to add the City's fourth outside gym. America On Track, is an award - winning 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a track record of providing great mentoring, fitness and nutrition, and youth leadership development to the community. The America On Track donation is made possible by their Carol M. White Physical Education Program grant. 20A -1 Agreement with America On Track Accepting Donation for Exercise Equipment and Shade Structure March 4, 2014 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The appropriation adjustment will recognize donation revenue in the amount of $45,000 in the PRCSA Fees and Donations revenue account (no. 02213002 57081) and appropriate funds to the PRCSA Fees and Donations expenditure account (no. 02213200 66220) for the Memorial Park Exercise Zone Gerardo Mouet, Executive Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency Exhibit 1: America On Track Agreement APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNT: Francisco Gutierrez,G� Executive Director Finance and Management Services Agency 20A -2 FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR FITNESS STATIONS AT MEMORIAL PARK This Funding Agreement (the "Agreement ") made and entered into this _day of March 2014•, by and between the City of Santa Ana, a chatter City and municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the state of California (the "City "), and America On Track, a 501(c)(3) non- profit corporation (the "Donor"), RECITALS A. The Donor, a non - profit corporation, is generating donations for the City to improve the health and fitness of the Santa Ana community. B. City and Donor desire to develop a shade structure to house high - quality outdoor fitness gym equipment at Memorial Park (hereafter "the Project "). C. This project will be accomplished through the Adopt -A -Park method, where city staff, donated monies, and volunteers will be used to add the City's fourth outside gym, D. The America On Track donation is made possible by their Carol M. White Physical Education Program grant. NOW, THERE, in consideration of mutual promises, covenants and agreements herein set forth, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1, Scope of Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for funding of the shade structure and nine (9) fitness stations at Memorial Park (the "Project "). The Donor will donate Forty Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000.00), which will be granted to the City for design and installation of the Project. 2. City Duties A. City shall take the lead to prepare plans and specifications for the design and installation of the Project. Said plans and specifications shall be in con£onnity with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. B, City shall use the funds to purchase and install high - quality outdoor fitness equipment (9 fitness stations and 1 announcement board) as well as a sturdy canvas and shade structure. Donor's company logo will be placed on the announcement board, along with text acknowledging the donation from America On Track. Donor will review the text and layout of such announcement board before it is finalized. C. The installation of the equipment and shade structure will be taking place as an "adopt -a- park" project with resources from the city, city staff, and community volunteers. 20A -3 Donor Duties A. Donor shall provide funding for the Project upfront and will be able to provide input and comments to the City regarding the design of the Project. B. Donor shall continue to fundraise on behalf of the Project as necessary, and to transfer grants and contributions to the City during construction, as they are raised by the Donor. C. A representative selected by the Donor shall provide input pertaining to the design and installation of the project. 4. Time for Performance All work required pursuant to this Agreement shall commence upon the City's approval of the Project, Funds must be spent no later than July 15, 2014. A ribbon cutting ceremony is scheduled to take place in October, 2014. 5. Ownershin and Maintenance The shade structure and fitness stations shall, at all times, be the property of City, and City shall have maintenance responsibilities thereof. 6. Preparation and Ownership of Docurnents It is hereby understood that any and all documents pertaining to the Project design and construction, including applicable "as- built" drawings, will be created in accordance with the highest professional quality. All development documents and drawings shall remain the property of the City. Financial Requirements The City shall account for all funds requested by and released pursuant to this Agreement and the disbursement thereof. The City shall maintain a full set of books on a double entry basis in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, procedures, and regulations as deemed necessary by the City. Such records shall be maintained by qualified personnel and may be accessed in a timely manner. All financial reports and schedules shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and City reporting requirements. 8. Indemnification City agrees to save, indemnify, defend and hold harmless, Donor, its board members, directors, officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, losses, liens, expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) or liability, including bat not limited to claims of damage of property or injury to or death of persons accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, material men, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in comiection with the performance of this Agreement by the City and from any and all elairns and losses 20A -4 accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the City in the perfonnance of this Agreement. Conflict of Interest The following protections against conflict of interest will be upheld: A. City and Donor certify that no member, officer, or employee of the City and /or Donor or its designees or agents, and no other public official of City and/or Donor who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the programs or projects covered by this Agreement, shall have any interest, direct or indirect in this Agreement, or in its proceeds during his/her tenure or for at least one (1) year thereafter. B. City and Donor certify that no one who has any financial interest in this Agreement or receives compensation for services from City or Donor, is related by blood or marriage within the third degree to the Mayor or any one or more of the members of the City Council, City Manager, or the head of the department and /or Donor's Board to which these services are to be provided pursuant to this Agreement. 10. Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California with venue in Orange County, 11. Notices If either party shall desire or be required to give notice to the other, such notice shall be given in writing, by prepaid US. certified or registered postage, addressed, to recipient as follows: CITY: City of Santa. Ana Clerk of the Council 20 Civic Center Plaza (M -30) Santa Ana, CA 92701 With a copy to: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency 26 Civic Center Plaza (M -75) Santa Ana, CA 92701 ATTN': Executive Director DONOR: America On Track 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 7 1. 0 Santa Ana, CA 92701 ATTN: Terry Thompson, President 20A -5 12. Modifications This Agreement may be modified only by written Agreement of all the parties. 11 S' as and I,tea re 've Aids At commencement of development of the Project, at least one temporary sign aolmowledging Donor's assistance shall be located on or near the Project site. Project signs shall remain installed until completion of the Project. Donor and City shall cooperate in the design and placement of permanent donor recognition signage for the Project. Such sign shall read as follows: "Funds donated by America On Track are made possible by a Carol M. White Physical Education Program grant "' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Funding Agreement the date and year first above written. CITY OF SANTA ANA A'T'TEST: Maria D. Huizar David Cavazos Cleric of Council City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: SONIA City Fyt? DONOR America On Track Terry Thompson President 20A -6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION [a fI rz.Ti19�f�il_�Pil ��1�[rl •Lys MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: AGREEMENT WITH CHRISTIANSEN AMUSEMENT, INC. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1s' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Christiansen Amusement, Inc., subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. 2. Revenues in the amount of $84,000 will be deposited into the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency revenue account (no. 01113002 53331) for the 2014 Cinco de Mayo and Fiestas Patrias carnivals. DISCUSSION The Cinco de Mayo and September Fiesta events have been positive events for the downtown businesses and surrounding neighborhoods. This event not only attracts thousands of Santa Ana residents but also visitors from all over Orange County. The purpose of these events is to celebrate Cinco De Mayo & Fiestas Patrias through a safe family friendly event to include: live entertainment, food booths, informational /resource booths, merchandise /service booths, cultural exhibits and carnival rides /games over these three -day weekends. The 15th Annual Cinco De Mayo Festival will take place on May 2 — May 4, 2014 and the 36th Annual Fiestas Patrias will take place on September 12 — September 14, 2014. The City of Santa Ana is contracting Christiansen Amusement to provide a three -day carnival at both the Cinco de Mayo and Fiestas Patrias downtown event. This is a continuation of a long history of these two events that provide great family entertainment in the downtown area. Christiansen Amusement will be responsible for providing all the equipment, cleanup, notification, security, electricity, carnival rides and games, vendor booths, and insurance for the event. In consideration for providing these exclusive rights to Christiansen Amusement, Inc., the City will receive $42,000 for each of the two events (Cinco and Fiestas). Christiansen Amusement, Inc. will be obligated to obtain all necessary licenses, permits, approvals, and waivers. 25A -1 Agreement with Christiansen Amusement, Inc. March 4, 2014 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Revenues in the amount of $84,000 will be deposited into the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency revenue account (no. 01113002 53331) for the 2014 Cinco de Mayo and Fiestas Patrias carnivals. Gerardo Mouet, Executive Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNT: Francisco Gutierrez, Executive Director Finance and Management Services Agenc 25A -2 AGREEMENT WITH CHRISTIANSEN AMUSEMENTS, INC. FOR EVENT PRODUCTION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of February, 2014 by and between Christiansen Amusements, hie., a California corporation (hereinafter "Promoter "), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing trader the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City "). RECITALS A. The City will be hosting two annual events, Cinco de Mayo and Fiestas Patrias, for the enjoyment of its community and residents, B. Promoter represents that Promoter is able and willing to provide event production services to the City for these two events. C, In undertaking the performance of this Agreement, Promoter represents that it is knowledgeable in its field and that any services performed by Promoter under this Agreement will be performed in compliance with such standards astray reasonably be expected from a professional carnival operator in the field. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and respective promises set forth herein, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES Promoter shall provide event production for the Cinco de Mayo festival on May 2- May 4, 2014, and the Fiestas Patrias event on September 12 -14, 2014, ( "Events ") complete with the rides, games, ticket booths and sellers, food concessions, equipment and services as set forth in detail in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Hours for the Events shall be: Friday 5 PM -11PM, Saturday 12 PM - 12 AM, and Sunday 12 PM -10 PM. All mechanical carnival rides must be State Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ROSH) Certified. 2. FEES /DEPOSITS/PERMITS/i,ICE.NSES Promoter agrees to pay the City and City agrees to accept train Promoter a guaranteed fee of Forty Two Thousand Dollars ($42,000.00) per event for providing Promoter with the right to produce the Events as set forth in Exhibit A. Fifteen (15) days prior to each event, Promoter shall pay City Twenty One Thousand Dollars ($21,000,00), and Promoter shall pay City another Twenty One Thousand Dollars ($21,000.00) on the day of the start of each event. 'Total payment to the City from Promoter shall be Eighty Four Thousand Dollars ($$4,000.00). 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Promoter shall deposit with City the additional sum of $5,000.00 as a security deposit. The deposit shall be held by City, without liability for interest, as security for the faithful performance by Promoter of all the teens, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement to be kept and performed by Promoter during the Term of this Agreement, or any extension thereof, and including the removal of Promoter's facilities as set forth herein, Assuming successful completion of all terms and conditions of this Agreement, including those within Exhibit A, the security deposit, or any remaining portion thereof, shall be returned within 60 clays of the final Event. 25A -3 4. TERM This Agreement shall commence on the date first written above and terminate on December 31, 2014, unless terminated earlier in accordance with this Agreement, 5. NON - POSSESSORY INTEREST City retains full possession of its property and Promoter will not acquire any interest, temporary, permanent, irrevocable, possessory or otherwise, by reason of this Agreement, or by the exercise of the permission given herein. Promoter will make no claim to any such interest. Any violation of this provision will immediately void and terminate this Agreement. 6. NON - RECORDING Neither party shall record this Agreement. 7. RECORD KEEPING AND AUDIT A. Promoter shall establish and maintain separate accounting records for each Event. Promoter's accounting system shall conform to generally- accepted accounting principles and all records shall provide a breakdown of total costs and revenues associated with the Events. B. All Promoter's records of revenues and repairs pertaining to the Events referenced herein shall be kept for the duration of this Agreement and made available at all times for audit by City upon request. 81 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Promoter shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. This Agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed to create an employer- employee relationship, a joint venture relationship, or to allow the City to exercise discretion or control over the professional manner in which Promoter performs the services which are the subject matter of this Agreement; however, the services to be provided by Promoter shall be provided in a manner consistent with all applicable standards and regulations governing such services. Promoter shall pay all salaries and wages, employer's social security taxes, unemployment insurance and similar taxes relating to employees and shall be responsible for all applicable withholding taxes. 9, INSURANCE Prior to undertaking performance of any work relative to the Events under this Agreement, Promoter shall maintain and shall require its subcontractors, if any, to obtain and maintain insurance as described below: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Promoter and each of its operators and subcontractors shall maintain commercial general liability insurance which shall. include, but not be limited to protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom and damage to property, resulting from any act or occurrence arising out of the operations or performance of this Agreement by Promoter, its operators or subcontractors, including, without limitation, acts involving vehicles, The amounts of insurance shall be not less than the following: single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and property damage, in the total amount of $5,000,000 per occurrence, Such insurance shall (a) name the City, its 25A -4 officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives as additional insured(s); (b) be primary and not contributory with respect to insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by the City; and (c) contain standard separation of insureds provisions. Promoter shall supply City with a fully executed additional insured endorsement in substantially the form attached as Exhibit B, upon execution of this Agreement and shall be approved in form by the City Attorney. B. Business automobile liability insurance, or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. C. Worker's Compensation Insurance. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3300 of the Labor Code, Promoter, if Promoter has any employees, is required to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance. Prior to commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement, Promoter agrees to obtain and maintain any employer's liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per accident. D. The following requirements apply to the insurance to be provided by Promoter pursuant to this section: i. Promoter shall maintain all insurance required above in full force and effect for the entire period covered by this Agreement, ii, Certificates of insurance shall be furnished to the City upon execution of this Agreement and shall be approved in form by the City Attorney, iii. Certificates and policies shall state that the policies shall not be canceled or reduced in coverage or changed in any other material aspect without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Cfty; and shall state as follows: "The above detailed coverage is not subject to any deductible or self - insured retention, or any other,form of similar type limitation," iv. A complete and signed certificate of insurance with all endorsements required by this Section shall be 'filed with City prior to the execution of this Agreement. At least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, a signed and complete certification of insurance showing that coverage has been renewed, shall be filed with the City. V. If the certificate of insurance is in the name of the carnival Promoter it shall include the name of the carnival promoter as additionally insured. B. If Promoter fails or refuses to produce or maintain the insurance required by this section or fails or refuses to furnish the City with required proof that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, the City shall have the right, at the City's election, to forthwith terminate this Agreement. Promoter agrees to indemnify the City for any work performed prior to approval of insurance by the City. 1.0, INDEMNIFICATION Promoter agrees to and shall protect, defend, indemnify and save and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, special counsel, and representatives from liability, loss, damage, expense or cost: (1) for personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief arising out of claims for personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage, which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Promoter or its operators, contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees, or other persons acting on their behalf which relates to the services described in Section land 25A -5 Exhibit A of this Agmemont; and (2) from any claim that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief is due by reason of the terms of or effects arising from this Agreement. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement applies to all claims for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the events referred to in this Agreement or by reason of the terms of, or effects, arising from this Agreement. The Promoter further agrees to defend, indemnify, hold harmless, and pay all costs for the defense of the City, including fees and costs for special counsel to be selected by the City, regarding any action by a third party challenging the validity of tivs Agreement, or asserting that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief due to personal or property rights arises by reason of the terms of, or effects arising from this Agreement. City may make all reasonable decisions with respect to its representation in any legal proceeding. Promoter shall protect, defend, indemnify and save and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation of any nature) arising out of or in connection with Promoter's performance of this Agreement or any failure to comply with any of Promoter's obligations contained in this Agreement by Promoter, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. 11. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Promoter represents and warrants that its Event production will not generate any hazardous substance, and Promoter will not store or dispose, nor transport any hazardous substance. Promoter further agrees to clean -up and remediate any hazardous substance from the Event production, and hold City harmless frorn and indemnify City against any release of any such hazardous substance and any damage, loss, or expense or liability resulting from such release including all attorneys' fees, costs and penalties incurred as a result thereof except any release caused by the negligence of City, its employees or agents. "Hazardous substance" shall be interpreted broadly to mean any substance or material defined or designated as hazardous or toxic waste, hazardous or toxic material, hazardous or toxic or radioactive substance, or other similar term by any federal, state or local environmental law, regulation or rule presently in effect or promulgated in the future, as such laws, regulations or rules may be amended from time to time; and it shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any substance which after release into the erviroinient will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause siclmess, death or disease. 12. NUISANCE Promoter shall not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance as defined in Section 3479 and /or Section 3480 of the California Civil Code on the Park or Carnival Areas; and Promoter shall not rise or permit any unlawful purpose in the Event production, 13. PUBLIC NECESSITY City may immediately temporarily suspend operation of this Agreement and the Event production in the event of public necessity or emergency, as may be determined by the City Manager. Such suspension will terminate when the public necessity or emergency no longer exists. 14. LIENS Promoter will not permit any mechanics' or materialmens' or other liens to stand against the City by reason of any use or occupancy by Promoter, or any person claiming under Promoter. 25A -6 15. TERMINATION IN THE EVENT OF CASUALTY OR CONDEMNATION hi the event of any damage, destruction or condemnation of the property on which the Events shall be held ( "Property "), which renders the Property unusable or inoperable in Promoter's judgment, Promoter shall have the right, but not the obligation, to terminate the Agreement with respect to the subj ect Event by giving written notice to the City within thirty (30) days after such damage, destruction or condemnation. If by virtue of such damage, destruction or condemnation, City determines that the Property is no longer adequate for Promoter to continue its operations, or any repairs to the Property to remedy such damage, destruction or condemnation have not been completed or cannot reasonably be completed outside of forty five (4.5) days from the date of the upcoming scheduled Event, City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to Promoter. In the event of condemnation, unless Promoter is allowed by the condemning authority to continue its operations, this Agreement shall terminate as of the date title to the Property vests in the condemning authority or Promoter is required to cease its operations, whichever is earlier. If any Property described herein or hereinafter added hereto is taken in enunent domain, the entire monetary award shall be paid to City. 16. TERMINATION This Agreement may be ternunated by the City without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice of termination. City may terminate this Agreement for cause upon three (3) days written notice for any violation of the terms contained herein. 17. DEFAULT BY PROMOTER Should Promoter default in the performance of any of the terms, conditions, or obligations contained in this Agreement, City may, in addition to the remedies specified elsewhere in this Agreement, terminate this Agreement and contract with another entity for production of the remaining Events. 18. INSOLVENCY OF PROMOTER The insolvency of Promoter as evidenced by a receiver being appointed to take possession of all or substantially all of the property of Promoter, or the malting of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors by Promoter, or the filing of a petition in bankruptcy shall terminate this Agreement. 19. CUMULATIVE REMEDIES The remedies given to City in this Agreement shall not be exclusive, but shall be cumulative and in addition to all remedies now and hereafter allowed by law or elsewhere provided in this Agreement. 20. WAIVER OF BREACH The waiver by City of any breach by Promoter of any of the provisions of this Agreement. shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach by Promoter either of the same or another provision of this Agreement. 25A -7 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE Promoter covenants that it presently has no interests and shall not have interests, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with performance of services specified under this Agreement. 22, NOTICE Any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered in person or mailed by first class or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party concerned as follows: To City: Clerk of the City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M -30) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 -1988 Fax 714 -647 -6956 Courtesy copies to: and Executive Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M -23) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 City Attorney City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M -29) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 Fax 714 -647 -6515 To Promoter: Christiansen Amusements 1725 S. Escondido Blvd., Ste, E Escondido, CA 92025 Phone(760)735 -8542 Fax (760)735 -8543 A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter, any communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address, If sent by mail, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been deposited in the United States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth above. For purposes of calculating these time frames, weekends, federal, state, County or City holidays shall be excluded. 23. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR The Executive Director of Parks Recreation and Community Services Agency, or his/her designee, shall be City's Contract Administrator for this Agreement and all approval and notices required . to be given herein shall be so directed and addressed. 6 25A -8 24. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS Promoter shall obtain and maintain a permit issued by the Division of Industrial Safety of the Department of hrdustrial Relations of the State of California. In addition, Promoter shall, at Promoter's own cost and expense, comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations, and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal and state, county and municipal, relating to Promoter's use and occupancy of the Park and Carnival Area and Promoter's facilities whether such statute, ordinances, regulations, and requirements be now hr force or hereinafter enacted, The judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, or the admission by Promoter in a proceeding brought against Promoter by any government entity, that Promoter has violated any such statute, ordinance, regulation, or requirement shall be conclusive as between City and Promoter and shall be considered grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Promoter will obtain all permits and other governmental approvals, required in connection with Promoter's activities hereunder, and update such permits /approvals as necessary. 25. EXCLUSIVITY AND AMENDMENT This Agreement represents the complete and exclusive statement between the City and Promoter, and supersedes any slid all other agreements, oral or written, between the parties. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any attachments hereto, including Exhibit A, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail, This Agreement may not be modified except by written instrument signed by the City and by an authorized representative of Promoter, Each party to this Agreement aclmowledges tlrlt no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any parties, which are not embodied herein. 26. ASSIGNMENT Inasmuch as this Agreement is intended to secure the specialized services of Promoter, Promoter may not assign, transfer, delegate, or subcontract any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City and an y such assignment, transfer, delegation or subcontract without the City's prior written consent shall be considered null and void. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the City's ability to have auy of the services which are the subject to this Agreement performed by City personnel or by other operators retained by City. 27. NON - DISCRIMINATION Promoter shall not discriminate because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability, as defined and prohibited by applicable law, in the recruitment, selection, training, utilization, promotion, termination or other employment related activities. Promoter affirms that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 28. JURISDICTION - VENUE This Agreement has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, interpretation, performance, and enforcement of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of California, Both parties further agree that Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in cormeetion with or by reason of this Agreement. 25A -9 29. ATTORNEY'S FEES Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, in the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. 30. PROFESSIONAL LICENSES Promoter shall, throughout the term of this Agreement, maintain all necessary licenses, permits, approvals, waivers, and exemptions necessary for the provision of the services hereunder and required by the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, the City of Santa Ana and all other governmental agencies. Promoter shall notify the City immediately acid in writing of her inability to obtain or maintain such permits, licenses, approvals, waivers, and exemptions. Said inability shall be cause for termination of this Agreement. 31. BINDING ON HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. The provisions of this Section shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any of the conditions against assignment set forth herein. 32. SURVIVAL Terms and conditions of this Agreement, which by their sense and context survive the termination, or expiration of this Agreement, shall so survive. 33. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Each undersigned represents and warrants that its signature hereinbelow has the power, authority and right to bind their respective parties to each of the terms of this Agreement, and shall indemnify City fully, including reasonable costs and attorney's fees, for any injuries or damages to City in the event that such authority or power is not, in fact, held by the signatory or is withdrawn. B. All Exhibit s referenced herein and attached hereto shall be incorporated as if fully set forth in the body of this Agreement. 25A -10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAIi Clerk of Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID CAVAZOS City Manager CHRISTIANSEN AMUSEMENTS By: Title: Tax ID <## 9 25A -11 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK PROMOTER shall be responsible for the following: 1. PERMITS. PROMOTER shall secure all required permits for the carnival area no later than 30 days prior to each event unless otherwise indicated, including but not limited to: a. Electrical permits for booths and rides. b. Tents and canopies larger than 10 feet by 10 feet as required by the City's Planning and Building Department, c. Health Department permits, d. Orange County Fire Authority Permits including Fire Department approval for booths and rides that may block an entire street thereby eliminating the 20 foot clearance requirement shall be secured two weeks prior to each Event. II. CLEAN UP. PROMOTER will maintain continuous litter control during the entirety of each Event: a. Provide a professional cleaning crew to ensure that trash does not accumulate on streets and sidewalks at any time during Events. b. Impose adequate mitigation measures to ensure removal and disposal of grease from food and /or cooking booths if utilized, including but not limited to the use of grease barrels. c. Provide and pay for contractor approved, by City to steam clean sidewalks in front of Lofts on Third Street and provide Loft owners 24 hour notice prior to such sidewalk steam cleaning. III. EQUIPMENT. PROMOTER shall provide kill necessary equipment, resources and manpower to develop and produce the carnival. a. Equipment shall include lighting for all vendor booths which is to be maintained and fully illuminated until all attendees have vacated the festival and carnival grounds each day. b. All equipment, including Po'rta Potties shall be positioned and serviced so as to prevent noise and odor disturbances to Loft residents and downtown merchants. e. PROMOTER shall inspect all equipment prior to its use to ensure safety and repair on site as needed. IV. LOFTS. PROMOTER shall exercise caution and special mcasures to ensure minimal disruption to owners and tenants of the live -work lofts located on blocks bounded by Main Street, 3'd Street, Spurgeon Street and 1 e0 Street (the "Lofts ") , including: a. Blocking off the sidewalks on 3`d Street in front of Lofts with chain link fencing with screening to create a private walkway for loft residents, b, Assume responsibility for any damage done to the Lofts during the course of the Event, including assembly and disassembly. PROMOTER shall photograph the Lofts prior to each Event in order to document their condition prior to each Event and to identify whether or not damage occurred during each Event. c. Compensate Loft owners with pets who choose to board their pets from Thursday through Monday. 10 25A -12 d. Compensate those Loft owners who choose to stay at a hotel on Saturday and Sunday, during the Event, at a maximum of $100 /per day. c. PROMOTER shall schedule equipment set tip and tear down, trash removal, and carry out other logistical activities in such a manner that will minimize late night noise and other disturbances and disruption to Loft residents. V. QUIET HOURS. Specific to 3r3 Street: There shall be designated quiet times with no construction set up or tear down as follows: Thursday and Friday from 10:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m., Saturday from 12:00 a.m. through 7:00 a.m., and Sunday from 11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m. PROMOTER shall ensure that quiet hours are strictly adhered to by all carnival employees and sub - contractors. VI. EVENT SET UP. Each Event shall include a carnival as follows: a. PROMOTER must secure land use permit for carnival no later than two weeks prior to each event if the carnival will utilize private property for any reason. b. Carnival rides and booths may be set up on Third Street from Sycamore to French, on Bush from Fourth to Third, on the Third and Bush surface parking lot, and on Main Street from Fourth to just north of Second Street or an alternate location approved by SAPD. Clear access must be maintained on Main Street between the properties located at 308 and 309 S. Main Street to ensure safe and clear street crossing between those properties. Final location for carnival rides and booths to be mutually agreed between City and PROMOTER. c. PROMOTER shall be responsible for securing temporary storage locations for all carnival equipment needs and must secure approval from City of any outdoor off -site accommodations within City limits no later than two weeks prior to each Event. d. PROMOTER may not store equipment on City owned property or City right of way prior to the set up time, without prior city approval. Such approval must be requested no later than two weeks prior to each Event if needed. e. PROMOTER staff will not be allowed to sleep inside the Event boundaries. f. PROMOTER must supply restroom facilities for its staff during set up. g, Tall rides, exceeding 20 feet, may not be placed adjacent to residential units. h. PROMOTER may begin set up of rides at 9:00 a.m. Thursday prior to each Event on all streets, except Main Street, VII. SECURITY, a. In order to operate the carnival on Friday the PROMOTER shall provide chain link fencing to secure the entrance to the carnival at Bush and Fourth (curb to curb) and at the entrance to the East End Promenade at Spurgeon. The fencing is to be in place by 7 p.m. Friday evening and may be removed when the carnival closes that night. b. PROMOTER shall provide one(1) State licensed uniformed security officer at each of the following locations commencing at 6 p.m. and continuing at least until 12 :30 a.m. on Friday night: Bush and Fourth; Fourth and the north entrance to the East End Promenade; French and Third; Third and Bush; and Main and Third. The officers will follow the direction of the Police Officers assigned to the event. 11. 25A -13 c. PROMOTER shall provide two (2) state licensed uniformed guards in the carnival area overnight each day of the festival, Additional provisions for State licensed uniformed guards hired by PROMOTER: i. A minimum of 50% of the Security staff must be bilingual, English/Spanish speaking. ii. Security personnel must wear uniforms distinct from local law enforcement agency, iii. PROMOTER /Security Company shall ensure that all security guards are equipped with radios for internal communications and that the Security Supervisors are equipped with one radio each for communications with SAPD and City staff, iv. PROMOTER /Security Company shall ensure that there is one Security Supervisor on site at all times during each Event. V. The security staff shall take final direction and instruction from the City Police Department supervisor in charge of the event and will meet with the SAPD supervisor in charge and other staff as needed at the beginning of each Event. vi. Security guards shall not carry weapons, batons, or tear gas. vii. Security guards shall report only to the Santa Ana Police Department Sgt, in charge of the event or the Recreation and Parks Department Supervisor. viii. Security staff shall contact Santa Ana Police for any criminal activity but may intervene for non - criminal activity such as illegal vendors, rule violations, crowd control, etc. ix, Security personnel shall assist with the following: 1. Ensuring that no vehicles park on streets within the carnival boundaries each day. 2. Preventing vehicles from stopping to drop off equipment. 3, Monitoring specific problem areas identified by Santa Ana Police Department. 4. Monitoring Lofts to ensure that no illegal activity is taking place. 5. Watching for gang members and ether criminal activity. G, Assisting Police Department with closing down the carnival nightly, 12 25A -14 EXHIBIT B ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT Insurance Company This endorsement modifies such insurance as is afforded by the provisions of Policy # relating to the following: The City of Santa. Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701; its officers, employees, agents and representatives are named as additional insureds ( "additional insureds ") with regard to liability and defense of suits arising from the operations and uses performed by or on behalf of the named insured, 2. With respect to claims arising out of the operations and uses performed by or on behalf of the name insured, such insurance as is afforded by this policy is primary and is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of the additional insureds. 3. This insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the company's limits of liability. The inclusion of any person or organization as an insured shall not affect any right which such person or organization would have as a claimant if not so included. 4. With respect to the additional insureds, this insurance shall not be cancelled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits except after thirty (30) days written notice has been given to the City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. (Completion of the following, including countersignature, is required to make this endorsement effective.) Effective the endorsement form as part of Policy # Issued to Name Insured Countersigned by 13 25A -15 25A -16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH WESTBOUND COMMUNICATIONS FOR READY OC & "IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING®" CAMPAIGNS l CITY MANAGE RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: F-1 000 _ ra ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 15' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of Council to execute an agreement amendment with Westbound Communications, Inc. to provide the Ready OC Emergency Preparedness Campaign and the "If You See Something, Say Something®" Campaign, in the amount of $385,000, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. DISCUSSION The United States Department of Homeland Security has developed the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) funding program. UASI provides funds to local emergency first responders to enhance security and overall preparedness against acts of terrorism. The City of Santa Ana has fiscal responsibility for the FY13 UASI grant for the Anaheim /Santa Ana Urban Area which encompasses the 34 jurisdictions in Orange County. With oversight by the Santa Ana Police Department Homeland Security Division, Westbound Communications, Inc. will continue to expand and update the current ReadyOC website. Westbound Communications will plan and execute several multi -media events, expand outreach into social media venues, and continue to support the core advisory and business partnership group. The goal of this agreement is to continue encouraging Orange County residents to become prepared, aware, pro- active and involved in their personal and community safety plans. Additionally, Westbound Communications will continue efforts to expand a parallel campaign using the branding and consistent messaging of the State of New York Metropolitan Transit Authority's "If You See Something, Say Something®" campaign. This will include enhancing the breadth of resources on the micro -site, social media venues, public event outreach, and materials. In addition, the scope of services will be amended to provide that the final determination of services provided by Westbound may be adjusted in writing by mutual agreement and executed by the City Manager or Chief of Police. This will provide the flexibility needed as priority communication needs arise. 25B -1 Westbound Communications Agreement Amendment March 4, 2014 Page 2 The total sum to be expended under this agreement shall be increased by $385,000, as reflected in Exhibits A -1 and B -1 which includes a 10 percent contingency, for a total not to exceed $1,155,000. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the FY 2013 UASI Grant Program fund account (no. 12514407 - 62300). Carlos Rojas Acting Chief of Police Police Department Exhibits: Amendment APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency 25B -2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT is entered into on March 4, 2014 by and between Westbound Communications, Lie„ a California corporation (hereinafter "Consultant "), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City"), RECITAL ALS A. The parties entered into Agreement # A- 2013 -032, dated February 19, 2013, (hereinafter "said Agreement ") by which Consultant has provided web site enhancement and hosting services, as well as, promotional services, expansion and updating of the Ready (ROC) Emergency Preparedness Campaign also known as Ready OC. In addition, creation and implementation of a public service campaign using the branding and consistent messaging of the State ofNew York Metropolitan Transit Authority's "If You See Something Say Somethingg" campaign. B. The parties entered into a First Amendment of the Agreement #A -2013- 032 -001 dated October 1, 2013 wherein the scope of services was amended to change the deliverables which were provided in certain tasks, authorize the expenditure of contingency funds in relation to specific tasks, and adopt the certifications that are required as a condition of Urban Areas Security Initiative ( "UASI ") grant funding. C. The grant funds for fiscal year 2011 and 2012 have been used and the City has received additional funding by way of the fiscal year 2013 UASI grant. As a result of the now funding source and pursuant to the terms of the Agreornont, the City as co -lead agency (sharing responsibility with the City of Anaheim) for Anaheim/Santa Ana Urban Area needs to modify the Agreement to reflect additional funding in the amount of $385,000 for the remainder of the Agreement and to expand and update the scope of services. The $385,000 includes $200,000 for the OC Ready campaign, $150,000 for the "If You See Something Say Something;W campaign and a 10% contingency. The expanded scope of services will include maintaining the current Ready OC website, planning and executing several multi -media events, expanding outreach into social media venues and continued support of core advisory and business partnership groups. It will also include expansion of the "if You See Soinothing Say Something©" campaign. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained in said Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreenieiit, except those amended in this Second Amendment to Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1, Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES, the original scope of services for the OC Ready campaign referenced as Exhibit "A" shall be deleted and replaced with the attached Exhibit "A -P" incorporated herein by reference. The original scope of services for the "If You See Something Say Something®" campaign referenced as Exhibit "A" (FYI l) and Exhibit B `B" (FY 12) will be deleted and replaced with Exhibit "B -l." In addition, the scope of services will be amended to provide that the final determination of services provided by Consultant may be adjusted in writing by mutual agreement of the parties and executed by the City Manager or the Chief of Police. 25B -3 2. Section 2(a), COMPENSATION, shall be amended to provide that the total sum to be expended under the Agreement shall be increased by $385,000 as reflected in Exhibits A -1 and 13.1 and including a l0% contingency for a total not to exceed $1,085,000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Agreement on the date and year first written above ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAR Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: SONIA R. CARVALHO City Attorney Laura A. Rossini - Senior Assistant City Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: CARLOS RO)AS" W Acting Chief of Police CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID CAVAZOS City Manager WESTBOUND COMMUNICATIONS Scott Smith President and CEO 25B -4 EXHIBIT A -1 25B -5 FY13 READYOC STATEMENT OF WORK General Information: The following Statement of Work (SOW) defines the principle activities and responsibilities of all parties for public outreach services to support the ReadyOC (ROC) Emergency Preparedness Campaign. This scope of work shall stand as an agreement between the City of Santa Ana (herein after Santa Ana) and Westbound Communications (herein after WBC) for the contracted period of April 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. WBC will supply the following services: o ROC Website Management • Site content updating • Social media content updating • Site optimization • Site maintenance a ROC Advertising and Promotional Communications o Paid advertising o Social media outreach • Broadcast news promotions • Media /corporate promotions • Publicity services o Public Information Outreach Support for ROC Program • Multimedia production and outreach • Citizen and faith -based outreach o Project Administration Services No deviation of this SOW will be allowed without written consent from the Santa Ana Project Manager. Nevertheless, Santa Ana recognizes that projects of this magnitude will likely encounter various unforeseeable events that may cause tasks to overlap or change, and such change will be permissible with the written approval of the Santa Ana Project Manager. This SOW is contingent upon both WBC and Santa Ana fulfilling their respective responsibilities as defined in the Agreement and within this document. Contents The following are included with this SOW: • Task Descriptions Project Change Order • Project Schedule • Milestone Payment Schedule r General Project Management Responsibilities Project management occurs throughout the project and is involved in every task. The overall project management activities are listed here for reference. Westbound Responsibilities: a. Maintain project communications with Santa Ana's Project Manager, b. Manage the efforts of the WBC staff and coordinate WBC activities with the Santa Ana Project Manager. c. Conduct on -site status meetings with Santa Ana's Project Manager on a monthly basis or when reasonably required at the discretion of Santa Ana to discuss project status. d. Provide timely responses, within ten (10) business days, to issues raised by Santa Ana's Project Manager. e. Prepare and submit, no later than the fifth business day of each month, a status activity report that includes: the accomplishments of the previous month, activities planned for the current month and any update to the project schedule. f. Prepare and submit project Change Proposals to Santa Ana's Project Manager as necessary. g. Prepare and submit Task Completion Letter(s) with appropriate invoices to Santa Ana's Project Manager. Santa Ana Responsibilities: a. Maintain project communications with the WBC Project Manager. b. Manage the efforts of ROC involved staff and coordinate ROC activities with the WBC Project Manager. c. The Project Manager must ensure that personnel have ample time, resources, and expertise to carry out their respective tasks and responsibilities. d. The Project Manager or his designee will participate in status meetings with the WBC Project Manager on a monthly basis or as may otherwise be reasonably required to discuss project status. e. Provide timely responses, within ten (10) business days, to issues raised by the WBC Project Manager. f. Liaison with all Santa Ana - provided third -party vendors and associated systems, g. Ensure acceptable Change Orders are approved by authorized signature(s). h. Ensure acceptable Task Completion Letter(s) are approved by the Project Manager or his designee. i. Ensure timely payment of invoices. j. Ensure WBC access to server and network equipment and work areas on a 24x7 basis, with pre - authorization for off- hours. k. Provide workspace for WBC personnel as reasonably requested. 25B -7 SOW Format: Each task includes the following: Title, Objective, Task Description, Responsibilities and Completion Criteria. The tasks are depicted on the project schedule. All parties recognize that the SOW is not formatted chronologically with contractual obligations defaulting to Project Schedule unless otherwise noted. Task 1: 2014 ReadyOC Marketing Road Map Objective: Create and establish a formal marketing plan and road map to best promote and provide outreach for ROC in 2014. The road map will include project schedules, management procedures and proposed activities. Task Description: Develop, refine, review and approve plan for all 2014 initiatives, including the marketing plan and project schedule. This also includes bridging activities from FYI to maintain campaign momentum, integrity and continuity. Activities include: a. 2014 Launch Meetings — conduct meetings with Santa Ana Project Manager and ROC Steering Committee to outline strategies and recommendations for 2014 and to get approval to proceed with 2014 Road Map. b. 2014 Marketing Road Map — develop comprehensive marketing communications and promotions plan detailing strategies, objectives, tasks, schedules and metrics for all ROC and Promise to Prepare (P2P) activities during the contracted period. This includes delivery of a 50 -60 slide PowerPoint deck plan that details all strategic goals and programming. c. Project Schedule — develop and complete a comprehensive project schedule that details timing for all activities. d. Project Management & Control Procedures — review and update, as needed, all control and administrative procedures (change orders, approval processes, etc.) and documents. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the initiative and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee b. Execute the promotion in accordance with the approved plan Santa Ana shall: a. Approve plan and promotion elements Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the deliverables detailed in the task description above and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Planned completion and invoicing will be in Q2/2014, r Task 2: ReadvOC Stakeholder Meetings & Promotions Objective: Manage campaign updates, administration and promotions to the Steering Committee and Santa Ana Project Manager through activities including, but not limited to, meetings, monthly activity reporting, programming documentation, regular communications and presentations to Steering Committee and corresponding agency partners (ex: OCEMO). Task Description: Provide campaign and promotion updates to the Santa Ana Project Manager through daily and weekly phone calls, emails and meetings (as needed). Manage the ongoing reporting and measurement of campaign data including event impressions, media coverage, social media impressions and website traffic, among others. Maintain weekly and monthly communication with the Steering Committee, including at least one in- person meeting a quarter. Conduct up to six presentations or meetings with agency and campaign partners. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a, Coordinate, manage and participate in at least one Steering Committee meeting per quarter b. Provide daily, weekly and monthly campaign and promotion updates to the Santa Ana Project Manager c. Manage the weekly and monthly reporting of campaign measurement d. Manage ongoing expense tracker, budget and campaign schedule e. Submit task completion letters with task invoices to the Santa Ana Project Manager Santa Ana shall: - a. Approve campaign progress, updates and promotions b. Support and facilitate partnering and sponsorship efforts with Steering Committee Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon completion of administrative deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter, by Q4/2014. Task 3: Promise to Prepare W213) Promotion Objective: Extend and maintain the momentum of the P2P program. The emphasis will be on strong public outreach presence, programming, media and marketplace exposure through the end of Q4f2014 (December 31, 2014). Task Description: The promotion includes the ongoing public pronouncement that ROC will achieve tangible steps towards preparedness, Promises to Prepare, from Orange County residents, businesses and community members through public outreach and media promotions including, but not limited to, the ROC Preparedness Bucket List campaign, radio promotion, video public service announcement (PSA) creation, smartphone app management and enhancements and publicity outreach. 25B -9 Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Task 3 -A: ROC Emergencv Preparedness Bucket List Objective: Plan, develop and implement concept, distributing a minimum of 1,500 branded five - gallon ROC emergency preparedness buckets to Orange County community members by Q4 2014. (Note: WBC in collaboration with the Santa Ana Project Manager will seek to expand the number of distributed buckets through partnering /sponsorship efforts with the Corporate Advisory Council and other community stakeholder groups.) Task Description: Expand and enhance the existing Preparedness Bucket List program momentum that encourages Orange County residents to add preparedness to their "bucket list" — i.e. making sure residents receive a bucket and begin gathering emergency kit items. The ROC- branded buckets will be selectively promoted and distributed to OC community members as a demonstration of a simple preparedness step with suggestions included of what key emergency kit items to place within it. Along with serving as a tangible action step toward preparedness, the bucket concept offers numerous promotional opportunities via publicity, the website, social media and other ROC communication channels. An initial quantity of 1,500 branded buckets will be produced. WBC and the ROC team will also seek to expand the program and amount of buckets to be distributed via corporate and business partnerships and sponsorships. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Plan and develop the program with approvals from the ROC Steering Committee b. Execute the program in accordance with approved plans Santa Ana shall: c. Approve initiative concepts and materials d. Support and facilitate partnering and sponsorship efforts Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the distribution of a minimum of 1,500 buckets and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Planned completion and implementation will be by Q412014. 25B -10 Task 3 -B: Media Promotions Objective: Develop and implement media promotions and concentrated publicity outreach to local print, online and broadcast outlets to promote ROC programming elements, the Promise to Prepare initiatives and our calendar of activities. Task Description: Develop and implement media promotions including, but not limited to, management and enhancement of the ROC smartphone app, Clear Channel or other radio promotion campaign packages, video PSA creation and media outreach to local outlets to direct OC residents to commit to preparedness steps. Task includes ongoing measurement and tracking of promotional elements. Activities will include: Manage and Enhance ROC Smartphone App — track downloads weekly, send monthly push notifications, update technical features and enhance smartphone app for Apple and Android mobile and tablet products with a new feature such as a children's game. i. App Promotion Plan & Program — develop and implement plan to promote and drive app downloads. This will include a mix of publicity, advertising, video, website, social media and other offline and online marketing elements. Clear Channel Advertising and Online Promotion — working with Clear Channel, a plan will be developed and implemented for a promotional period to take place during Q3 2014. The plan will consist of both on -air and online outreach components. i. Work directly with radio partner on the management of the promotional period, developing copy for advertising spots, public service announcements, completing air checks, securing data from the online components, and reporting results to the ROC Steering Committee. Publicity Outreach — create media lists, press releases, media alerts and conduct outreach to targeted local media outlets to achieve five feature editorial hits between Q2 and Q4 2014, Manage and edit submissions for columns to the south and north county community paper editors for placement. Video PSA — create one updated and engaging video public service announcement to increase exposure of ROC in OC community; to be placed on public access channels, ROC YouTube channel and local city websites. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the initiative and seek plan and program approval from the ROC Steering Committee b. Execute the promotions in accordance with the approved plan Santa Ana shall: a. Approve plan and promotion elements Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion or booking and scheduling of the deliverables, given media requirements in some instances for upfront payment and when the 25B -11 Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Planned completion and implementation will be by Q4/2014. Task 4; Education -Based Outreach Objective: Expand and execute activities with OC education organizations, schools and after- school programs to support ROC emergency preparedness efforts and the Promise to Prepare initiative. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety. Task 4 -A: Education -Based Outreach (Spring /Summer 2014 Objective: Expand and execute activities with OC education organizations, schools and after - school programs to support ROC emergency preparedness efforts and the Promise to Prepare initiative for the 2014 spring semester and summer programs. Task Description: Handle all aspects of programming, materials development and distribution, school assemblies and other activities /events based on the 2014 spring and summer semesters. This task includes working with schools across OC to promote the P2P initiatives including communications to the region's 180 -plus schools and nearly 200,000 student -base, as well as direct outreach to 10,000 -plus elementary-aged children. Broadly, activities are anticipated to include; a. Elementary School Assembly Program - extend and implement elementary school assembly program and promotion throughout Orange County, seeking to conduct approximately 20 total assemblies during the contracted period, or an average of five assemblies per month. i. This encompasses scheduling, supporting and promoting assemblies leveraging Officer John Reed with elementary schools throughout Orange County. ii. Officer John Reed is responsible for conducting assemblies on his own, with the exception of 4 -6 assemblies which will be additionally staffed for formal research and feedback as well as for quality control. iii. Tasks include booking assemblies, managing the annual calendar, promoting events through OCDE, school districts and individual school sites, capturing, posting and distributing video, photos and other content, creating and distributing 7 25B -12 information kits (with kit assembly assistance from Officer Reed), post -event school follow -up and more. b. OCDE & School Districts Communication Program - develop and disseminate regular quarterly communications that promote ROC and P2P emergency preparedness initiatives to and through the county (OCDE) and school districts. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the initiative and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee Santa Ana shall: b. Approve plan and activities Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon delivery of presentations to the required schools and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned to occur by Q3/2014. Task 4 -13: Education -Based Outreach (FatUWinter 2014) Objective: Expand and execute activities with OC education organizations, schools and after- school programs to support ROC emergency preparedness efforts and the Promise to Prepare initiative for the 2014 late summer and fall semester, Task Description: Handle all aspects of programming, materials development and distribution, school assemblies and other activities /events based on the 2014 late summer and fall semester. This task includes working with schools across OC to promote the P21P initiatives including communications to the region's 180 -plus schools and nearly 200,000 student -base, as well as direct outreach to 10,000 -plus elementary-aged children. Broadly, activities are anticipated to include: c. Elementary School Assembly Program - extend and implement elementary school assembly program and promotion throughout Orange County, seeking to conduct approximately 20 total assemblies during the contracted period, or an average of five assemblies per month. i. This encompasses scheduling, supporting and promoting assemblies leveraging Officer John Reed with elementary schools throughout Orange County. ii. Officer John Reed is responsible for conducting assemblies on his own, with the exception of 4 -6 assemblies which will be additionally staffed for formal research and feedback as well as for quality control. ill. Tasks include booking assemblies, managing the annual calendar, promoting events through OCDE, school districts and individual school sites, capturing, posting and distributing video, photos and other content, creating and distributing information kits (with kit assembly assistance from Officer Reed), post -event school follow -up and more. 25B -13 d. OCDE & School Districts Communication Program - develop and disseminate regular quarterly communications that promote ROC and P2P emergency preparedness initiatives to and through the county (OCDE) and school districts. Responsibilities: WBC shall: b. Develop the initiative and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee Santa Ara shall: c. Approve plan and activities Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon delivery of presentations to the required schools and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned to occur by end of Q4/2014. TASK 5: Community & Citizens Outreach Objective: Develop and implement ongoing community and citizens' outreach at targeted community, emergency preparedness, faith -based and other designated events and /or presentation venues, seeking to reach and engage with hundreds of thousands of citizens and community members. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety. Task S -A: Community & Citizens Outreach (Spring 2014) Objective: Develop and implement ongoing community and citizens' outreach at targeted community, emergency preparedness, faith -based and other designated events and /or presentation venues, seeking to reach and engage with hundreds of thousands of citizens and community members. Task Description: Calendar, staff and manage up to 10 community (ex. Rossmoor Community Festival) and emergency preparedness (ex. SMWD Water Awareness Day) events as well as presentations and faith -based Ready Sunday events to targeted community organizations /groups. Activities include: 25B -14 a. Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar - create and manage a master annual calendar for all milestone events that ROC will participate in and /or staff in support of emergency preparedness outreach efforts and the P21? initiative for Q2/2014. b. Event Promotion & Staffing - promote and staff (as appropriate) up to 10 community events throughout Orange County that are aligned with the Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar. Event activities may include table displays, team presentations, ROC /P2P materials and giveaway distribution and more. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the outreach and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee b. Execute the outreach in accordance with the approved plan Santa Ana shall: a. Approve plan and promotional elements Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the calendared event outreach and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned for the end of 02/2014. Task 5 -B: Community & Citizens Outreach (Summer 2014) Objective: Develop and implement ongoing community and citizens' outreach at targeted community, emergency preparedness, faith -based and other designated events and /or presentation venues, seeking to reach and engage with hundreds of thousands of citizens and community members. Task Description: Calendar, staff and manage up to 10 community (ex. Cypress Community Festival) and emergency preparedness (ex. Dana Point Preparedness Expo) events as well as presentations and faith -based Ready Sunday events to targeted community organizations /groups. Manage and implement leveraged P2P drives to include a micro campaign partnership event with Angels Baseball. Activities include: a. Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar - create and manage a master annual calendar for all milestone events that ROC will participate in and /or staff in support of emergency preparedness outreach efforts and the P2P initiative for Q3 /2014. b. Event Promotion & Staffing - promote and staff (as appropriate) up to 10 community events throughout Orange County that are aligned with the Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar. Event activities may include table displays, team presentations, ROCIP2P materials and giveaway distribution and more. c. ROC Angel's Night 2014 -- book, manage, staff and implement promotional partnership event at Angel's Baseball home game to include in -game and pre -game promotional elements. 10 25B -15 Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the outreach and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee b. Execute the outreach in accordance with the approved plan Santa Ana shall: a. Approve plan and promotional elements Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the calendared event outreach and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned for the end of Q3/2014. Task S -C: Community & Citizens Outreach (Fall 2014] Objective: Develop and implement ongoing community and citizens' outreach at targeted community, emergency preparedness, faith -based and other designated events and /or presentation venues, seeking to reach and engage with hundreds of thousands of citizens and community members. Task Description: Calendar, staff and manage up to 10 community (ex. Placentia Heritage Festival) and emergency preparedness (ex. Red Cross Disaster Preparedness Academy) events as well as presentations and faith -based Ready Sunday events to targeted community organizationslgroups. Activities include: a. Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar - create and manage a master annual calendar for all milestone events that ROC will participate in and /or staff in support of emergency preparedness outreach efforts and the P2P initiative for Q412014. b. Event Promotion & Staffing - promote and staff (as appropriate) up to 10 community events throughout Orange County that are aligned with the Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar. Event activities may include table displays, team presentations, ROC /P2P materials and giveaway distribution and more. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the outreach and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee b. Execute the outreach in accordance with the approved plan Santa Ana shall: a. Approve plan and promotional elements 1i 25B -16 Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the calendared event outreach and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned for the end of Q4/2014. Task 6: 2014 Corporate Advisory Council (CAC) & Partnerin Objective: Continue managing current CAC group with emphasis on enhancing participation benefits, retaining current active members for 2014, and expanding successes in leveraging CAC resources, connections and contributions to the overall ROC initiative during the year. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety, Task 6 -A: Corporate Advisory Council (CAC) & Partnering (Spring /Summer 2014) Objective: Continue managing current CAC group with emphasis on enhancing participation benefits, retaining current active members for 2014, and expanding successes in leveraging CAC resources, connections and contributions to the overall ROC initiative during the year. Task Description: Continue momentum to expand the success of the council to help provide opportunities, extensions, and ongoing support for ROC. Activities include: a. CAC Designated Ambassador— continue to leverage and refine the designated CAC ambassadors to facilitate and deepen relationship efforts. b. One -on -One Outreach Tour -- continue successful strategy to outreach to CAC members in a high- touch, one -to -one manner to generate customized opportunities for promotional investment and support of the ROC campaign. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop and implement the program with approval from the ROC Steering Committee Santa Ana shall: a. Approve the program and promotional efforts Completion Criteria: This task will be implemented throughout the performance period and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned to occur by Q3/2014. 12 25B -17 Task 6•13: Corporate Advisory Council (CAC) & Partnerina (Falf/Winter 2014) Objective: Continue managing current CAC group with emphasis on enhancing participation benefits, retaining current active members for 2014, and expanding successes in leveraging CAC resources, connections and contributions to the overall ROC initiative during the year. Task Description: - Continue momentum to expand the success of the council to help provide opportunities, extensions, and ongoing support for ROC. Activities include: a. CAC Designated Ambassador— continue to leverage and refine the designated CAC ambassadors to facilitate and deepen relationship efforts. b. One -on -One Outreach Tour — continue successful new strategy to outreach to CAC members in a high - touch, one -to -one manner to generate customized opportunities for promotional investment and support of the ROC campaign. c. CAC Recognition Program — formalize development and implementation of recognition program for CAC members that elevates the prestige for and expands the interest in promoting ROC and emergency preparedness. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop and implement the program with approval from the ROC Steering Committee Santa Ana shall: a. Approve the program and promotional efforts Completion Criteria: This task will be implemented throughout the performance period and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned for the end of Q4/2014. Task 7: Website, Social Media & Online Outreach and Maintenance Objective: Update, manage and maintain the ReadyOC.org website and provide recommendations for updates to improve the user experience and functionality. Also update, manage and maintain campaign social media channels 24/7 during the contract term. Website and social media will be leveraged to continue to support the campaign's public awareness and engagement activities. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: 25B -18 13 This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety. Task 7•A: Website, Social Media & Online Outreach and Maintenance (Spring 2014) Objective: Update, manage and maintain the ReadyOC.org website and provide recommendations for updates to improve the user experience and functionality. Also update, manage and maintain campaign social media channels, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, 24/7 during Q2/2014. Task Description: Handle all aspects of website and social media updates, optimization, maintenance, management and metrics /reporting needs in accordance with ROC approved processes and protocols. a. Interactive Web Elements - create and implement three Animoto presentations (online video /photo presentations) and three new focus area updates for the website homepage per month b. Quality Check — implement a quality check of all links, content and verbiage of the ReadyOC.org website to ensure content is up -to -date for visitors c. Social Media Content - create and share engaging photo, video and relevant preparedness content via social media channels daily, tracking the impressions weekly Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the initiative, elements and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee Santa Ana shall: a. Approve web elements, collateral materials and social media plan Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the support period and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned for the end of Q2/2014. Task 7 -13: Website Social Media & Online Outreach and Maintenance (Summer 2014) Objective: Update, manage and maintain the ReadyOC.org website and provide recommendations for updates to improve the user experience and functionality. Also update, manage and maintain campaign social media channels, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, 24/7 during Q3/2014. Task Description: 25B -19 14 Handle all aspects of website and social media updates, optimization, maintenance, management and metrics /reporting needs in accordance with ROC approved processes and protocols. a. Interactive Web Elements - create and implement three Animoto presentations (online video /photo presentations) and three new focus area updates for the website homepage per month b. Quality Check — implement a quality check of all links, content and verbiage of the ReadyOC.org website to ensure content is up -to -date for visitors c. Social Media Content - create and share engaging photo, video and relevant preparedness content via social media channels daily, tracking the impressions weekly Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the initiative, elements and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee Santa Ana shall: a. Approve web elements, collateral materials and social media plan Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the support period and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned for the end of Q3/2014. Task 7 -C: Website, Social Media & Online Outreach and Maintenance (Fall 2014) Objective: Update, manage and maintain the ReadyOC.org website and provide recommendations for updates to improve the user experience and functionality. Also update, manage and maintain campaign social media channels, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, 24/7 during Q4/2014. Task Description: Handle all aspects of website and social media updates, optimization, maintenance, management and metrics /reporting needs in accordance with ROC approved processes and protocols. a. Interactive Web Elements - create and implement three Animoto presentations (online video /photo presentations) and three new focus area updates for the website homepage per month b. Quality Check — implement a quality check of all links, content and verbiage of the ReadyOC.org website to ensure content is up -to -date for visitors c. Social Media Content - create and share engaging photo, video and relevant preparedness content via social media channels daily, tracking the impressions weekly Responsibilities: WBC shall: 25B -20 is a. Develop the initiative, elements and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee Santa Ana shall; a. Approve web elements, collateral materials and social media plan Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the support period and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned for the end of Q4/2014. TASK 8: Collateral & Promotional Materials Objective: Develop, produce and update ROC and P2P collateral materials and promotional materials for use in all programming as appropriate. Task Description: Handle design, writing, production and distribution of all materials supporting ROC and P2P initiatives. a. Collateral Materials L ROC Preparedness Bucket List Flyers, 2,000 total quantity ii. ROC Family Emergency Plans, 20,000 total quantity iii. P2P Fact Sheets, 20,000 total quantity b. Promotional Materials i. ROC /P2P Wristbands, 20,000 total quantity ii. ROC /P2P Emergency Document Bags, 20,000 total quantity iii. ROC /P2P Hand -Crank Flashlights, 1,500 total quantity Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop all materials and seek approvals from the ROC Steering Committee b. Produce materials in accordance with Steering Committee approvals Santa Ana shall: a. Approve materials Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the order or delivery of the promotional materials, given requirements in some instances for upfront payment, and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned to occur by the end of Q3/2014. 16 25B -21 r 0 N r Ct �a V 75 "a C Qf E A tlP 2 O O O O O h� Efl O O O O O G7 PR O O O C 0 N E4 O O O 0 C M U9 0 0 Q O 0 _N 69 0 0 O O 0 N EA O O O O 0 _N 69 0 O O O 0 N_ H! 0 O 47 O 0 tV EH 0 0 C7 C O 0) EH 0 0 b O C 0) K} 0 0 b O 63 0 0 C7 O V? 0 0 C) O ER 0 0 C7 oO ER C Q N t9• V a a O N C N W C) E N E - zVz Z cn ( v N U U U N Z G G C z z d r. c Z Z z O N �.. V a o N � O. 2 N N N O J EN L a � U�pp UVI �mOZ� N N N N 0 N N v E U y cn e �n n Es � a m "a r 00 C7w 0 z 2= s ,y M m m I^ a z O N a m Q m m Z O w H N N U oY �f J c c c 2 W kVQ( m ro O Q O c= O �S 0 0 0 W 2 =o) N N y O O O aiS g @ @ Q 2 2 M 4 O O U U e( N N N w fA N N N 9.. O Y c Q -O v W (J <J CJ p N is N z O c.°a o m ro N ot$ uS xS (� 'y ,0 � � Q S C. W� N O W M 0. YwY °) E GY1 0? �j ;Z'` ;` d '¢ <C a fn t� t� c a E m o o�p °� N F (n o w cL @ Z �^ E E E w F- �° o m® V) U i p U U E E E 0 o ` O CO LU D Q W W M U U U CJ O F yd„ w w (L w U c) ca M Q 07 d m U <p F- tL h: e` N M N t� V ti N N N� • N N� N N N� N N u9 u� h Lo � ai i F U) F y F I y � � - U Id- N 14- I4- F IQ- O 25B -22 EXHIBIT B -1 25B -23 If You See Something, Say Something (S4) — OC initiative FYI S4 STATEMENT OF WORK General Information: The following Statement of Work (SOW) defines the principle activities and responsibilities of all parties for public outreach services to support the "If You See Something, Say Something" (S4) initiative for Orange County from April 1, 2014 — December 31, 2014. This scope of work shall stand as an agreement between the City of Santa Ana (hereinafter Santa Ana) and Westbound Communications (hereinafter WBC). WBC will supply the following services during a 9 -month term: o S4 Microsite and Social Media Platform Management • Site maintenance management • Social media content development and outreach • Social media maintenance management o S4 Media Promotions o Paid advertising o Earned media o Public Service Announcements (PSAs) o Marketing Support for S4 Program • 2014 marketing road map • Citizen and community outreach • Promotional partnering • Staged promotions • Event marketing c Project Administration Services No deviation of this SOW will be allowed without written consent from the Santa Ana Project Manager. Nevertheless, Santa Ana recognizes that projects of this magnitude will likely encounter various unforeseeable events that may cause tasks to overlap or change, and such change will be permissible with the approval of Santa Ana Project Manager. This SOW is contingent upon both WBC and Santa Ana fulfilling their respective responsibilities as defined in the Agreement and within this document. Contents The following are included with this SOW: • Task Descriptions • Project Change Order • Project Schedule • Milestone Payment Schedule 25B -24 General Project Management Responsibilities Project management occurs throughout the project and is involved in every task. The overall project management activities are listed here for reference. Westbound Responsibilities: a. Maintain project communications with Santa Ana's Project Manager. b. Manage the efforts of the WBC staff and coordinate WBC activities with the Santa Ana Project Manager. c. Conduct on -site status meetings with Santa Ana's Project Manager on a monthly basis or when reasonably required at the discretion of Santa Ana to discuss project status. d, Provide timely responses, within ten (10) business days, to issues raised by Santa Ana's Project Manager. e. Prepare and submit, no later than the fifth business day of each month, a status report that includes: the accomplishments of the previous month, activities planned for the current month and any update to the project schedule, f. Prepare and submit project Change Proposals to Santa Ana's Project Manager as necessary. g. Prepare and submit Task Completion Letters) to Santa Ana's Project Manager as necessary. Santa Ana Responsibilities: a. Maintain project communications with the WBC Project Manager. b. Manage the efforts of S4 involved staff and coordinate S4 activities with the WBC Project Manager. c. The Project Manager must ensure that their personnel have ample time, resources, and expertise to carry out their respective tasks and responsibilities. d. The Project Manager or his designee will participate in the status meeting with the WBC Project Manager on a monthly basis or as may otherwise be reasonably required to discuss project status. e. Provide timely responses, within ten (10) business days, to issues raised by the WBC Project Manager. f. Liaison with all Santa Ana - provided third -party vendors and associated systems. g. Ensure acceptable Change Orders are approved by authorized signature(s). h. Ensure acceptable Task Completion Letter(s) are approved by the Project Manager or his designee. i. Ensure timely payment of invoices. j. Ensure WBC access to server and network equipment and work areas on a 24x7 basis, with pre- authorization for off - hours. k. Provide workspace for WBC personnel as reasonably requested. 25B -25 SOW Format: Each task includes the following: Title, Objective, Task Description, Responsibilities and Completion Criteria. The tasks are depicted on the project schedule. All parties recognize that the SOW is not formatted chronologically with contractual obligations defaulting to Project Schedule unless otherwise noted. Task 1: S4 2014 Marketing Roadmap Objective: Develop and present a 20 -30 page Power Point plan that details all 2014 objectives, target audiences, strategies, tactics and timelines for outreach from April 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, Task Description: This task includes creating, presenting and implementing a marketing road map that guides all marketing and promotional activities for the contract period. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the plan (road map) and seek approvals from the Steering Committee. b. Execute the road map in accordance with approved plans. Santa Ana shall: a. Approve the plan. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Planned completion and invoicing will be in 02/2014. Task 2: S4 Stakeholder Meetings and Promotions Objective: Update and manage campaign updates, administration and promotions to the steering committee and Santa Ana Project Manager through activities including, but not limited to, meetings, monthly activity reporting, regular communication and presentations to the Steering Committee. Task Description: Provide campaign and promotion updates to the Santa Ana Project Manager through daily and weekly phone calls, emails and meetings (as needed). Manage the ongoing reporting and measurement of campaign data including event impressions, media coverage, social media impressions and microsite traffic, among others. Maintain weekly and monthly communication with the Steering Committee, including at least one in- person meeting a quarter. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Coordinate and participate in at least one Steering Committee meeting a quarter, 25B -26 b. Provide daily, weekly and monthly campaign and promotion updates to the Santa Ana Project Manager. c. Manage the weekly and monthly reporting of campaign measurement. d. Manage ongoing expense tracker, budget and campaign schedule. e. Submit task completion letters with invoices to the Santa Ana Project Manager. Santa Ana shall: a. Approve campaign progress, updates and promotions. Completion Criteria: This Task is considered complete upon completion of the administrative deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter, by Q4/2014. Task 3: S4 Social Media and Microsite Management and Maintenance Objective: Update, manage and maintain the campaign social media channels and the KeepOCSafe.org microsite technical and content platforms 24/7 during the contract term. Both platforms will continue to support the campaign's public awareness and engagement activities. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety, Task 3 -A: S4 Social Media and Microsite Management and Maintenance (Spring /Summer 2014 Objective: Update, manage and maintain the campaign's social media channels technical and content platforms 2417, all in accordance with the approved processes and protocols for each medium. In addition, update, manage and maintain the KeepOCSafe.org microsite technical and content platforms. The microsite will continue to support the campaign's public awareness and engagement activities. Task Description: Maintain the campaign's Twitter, Instagram and YouTube social media platforms through daily and weekly content updates, management, maintenance and measurement. This includes, but is not limited to, content research and updates, social media plan and protocol and tracking. Create and implement at least one Animoto presentation (online video /photo presentation). 25B -27 Host and maintain the KeepOCSafe.org microsite through weekly and monthly technical and content platform updates. These include, and are not limited to, event and backpack display schedules, photos, media coverage, link updates and more. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Share content including, but not limited to, videos, graphics, links and photos, via the campaign's Twitter, Instagram and Youtube platforms a minimum of 10 times a week — b. Develop and produce one Animoto with approval from the Steering Committee. c. Host the KeepOCSafe.org microsite. d. Manage one technical and content microsite platform update a month. Santa Ana shall: a. Approve microsite updates and management activities, along with social media platform elements. Completion Criteria: The task is considered complete upon the completion of deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter in Q3/2014. Task 3 -113: S4 Microsite and Social Media Management and Maintenance (Fall/Winter 2014 Objective: Update, manage and maintain the campaign's social media channels technical and content platforms 24/7, all in accordance with the approved processes and protocols for each medium. In addition, update, manage and maintain the KeepOCSafe.org microsite technical and content platforms. The microsite will continue to support the campaign's public awareness and engagement activities. Task Description: Maintain the campaign's Twitter, Instagram and YouTube social media platforms through daily and weekly content updates, management, maintenance and measurement. This includes, but is not limited to, content research and updates, social media plan and protocol and tracking. Create and implement at least one Animoto presentation (online video /photo presentation), Host and maintain the KeepOCSafe.org microsite through weekly and monthly technical anc content platform updates. These include, and are not limited to, event and backpack display schedules, photos, media coverage, link updates and more. Responsibilities: WBC shall: e. Share content including, but not limited to, videos, graphics, links and photos, via the campaign's Twitter, Instagram and Youtube platforms a minimum of 10 times a week f. Develop and produce one Animoto with approval from the Steering Committee. g, Host the KeepOCSafe.org microsite. h. Manage one technical and content microsite platform update a month. 25B -28 Santa Ana shall: b. Approve microsite updates and management activities, along with social media platform elements. Completion Criteria: The task is considered complete upon the completion of deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter in Q4/2014. Task 4: 54 Materials and Resources Objective: Develop, produce and update campaign collateral and resource materials for use in all programming as appropriate. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -flasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety. Task 4 -A: S4 Collateral Materials Objective: Develop, produce and update campaign collateral materials for use in all programming as appropriate. Task Description: Manage the design, drafting, production and distribution of collateral materials in support of the S4 campaign initiatives. The materials that will be produced are: a. Updated S4 Consumer Handout, 2,000 total quantity b. S4 Color Sheets, 2,000 total quantity Responsibilities: WBC shall: c, Develop all materials and seek approvals from the Steering Committee d. Produce materials in accordance with Steering Committee approvals Santa Ana shall: a. Approve the collateral material elements. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon delivery of the collateral materials and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned to occur by the end of Q2/2014. 25B -29 Task 4 -B: S4 Resource Materials Objective: Develop, produce and update campaign resource materials for use in all programming as appropriate. Task Description: Manage the design, drafting, production and distribution of resource materials in support of the -- S4 campaign initiatives. The resource materials that will be produced are: a. S4 Ribbon Magnets, 1,000 total quantity. b. S4 Additional Promotional Item (e.g. additional Ribbon Magnets, Rico the dog stickers), 1,000 total quantity. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop all materials and seek approvals from the Steering Committee. b. Produce materials in accordance with Steering Committee approvals. Santa Ana shall: a. Approve the resource material elements. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon delivery of the collateral materials and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Completion is planned to occur by the end of Q3/2014. Task 5: S4 Citizens & Community Outreach Objective: Continue to conduct community and citizens' outreach to secure the campaign's presence at events and or display of the giant red backpack at venues through the development and extension of promotional partners to build on the existing awareness of the campaign. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete when all budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety. Task 5 -A: S4 Citizens & Community Outreach (SpringISummer 2014) Objective: Continue to conduct community and citizens' outreach to secure the campaign's presence at events and or display of the giant red backpack at venues through the development and extension of promotional partners to build on the existing awareness of the campaign. 25B -30 Task Description: Manage and staff (where appropriate) continued participation at least 10 community outreach festivals (e.g. Irvine Korean Festival) or giant red backpack staged promotion displays at notable Orange County venues or events (e.g. Orange County Fair). Activities include: a. Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar - create and manage a master annual calendar for all milestone events, festivals and /or venues that S4 will participate in and/or staff in support of the campaign's messaging during Q2 2014. b. Event Promotion & Staffing - promote and staff (as appropriate) up to 10 community events, festivals and /or giant red backpack venue displays throughout Orange County that are aligned with the Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar. Event activities may include display of the giant red backpack, distribution of campaign materials promotional items and more. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the outreach and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee. b. Execute the outreach in accordance with the approved plan. Santa Ana shall: a. Approve plan and promotional elements Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the calendared event outreach and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the flask completion letter. Formal calendaring of upcoming events will incur upfront logistics and event fees. Completion is planned for the end of Q212014. Task 5 -113: S4 Citizens & Community Outreach (FallMlinter 2014) Objective: Continue to conduct community and citizens' outreach to secure the campaign's presence at events and or display of the giant red backpack at venues through the development and extension of promotional partners to build on the existing awareness of the campaign. Task Description: Manage and staff (where appropriate) continued participation at least 10 community outreach festivals (e.g. Cypress Community Festival) or giant red backpack staged promotion displays at notable Orange County venues or events (e.g. John Wayne Airport). Activities include: a. Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar- create and manage a master annual calendar for all milestone events, festivals and /or venues that S4 will participate in and /or staff in support of the campaign's messaging during Q3 2014. b. Event Promotion & Staffing - promote and staff (as appropriate) up to 10 community events, festivals and /or giant red backpack venue displays throughout Orange County that are aligned with the Master Community & Citizen Events Calendar. Event activities 25B -31 may include display of the giant red backpack, distribution of campaign materials promotional items and more. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Develop the outreach and seek plan approval from the ROC Steering Committee b. Execute the outreach in accordance with the approved plan Santa Ana shall: a. Approve plan and promotional elements Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the calendared event outreach and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Formal calendaring of upcoming events will incur upfront logistics and event fees. Completion is planned for the end of Q3(2014. Task 6: S4 Media Promotions Objective: Continue to conduct publicity outreach to maximize exposure of the S4 campaign through earned or paid coverage in local print, online and broadcast media. Task Description: See sub -tasks for specifics. Responsibilities: See sub -tasks for specifics. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete with add budgeted sub -tasks have been completed in their respective entirety. Task 6 -A: 54 Media Promotions (Sprina 2014) Objective: Continue to conduct publicity outreach to maximize exposure of the S4 campaign through earned or paid coverage in local print, online and broadcast media. Task Description: Secure placement of existing and any new PSAs on at least 10 local public access channels (e.g. Garden Grove Channel 3, PBS SoCal, Buena Park Channel 3) and city websites (e.g. Santa Ana, Anaheim, Cypress) to continue to extend the S4 message throughout the county. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Secure the placement of PSAs on at least 10 local public access channels or city websites. 25B -32 Santa Ana shall: a. Approve the PSA placement opportunities Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Planned completion is Q2/2014. - -- Task 6 -13: S4 Media Promotions (Summer 2014) Objective: Continue to conduct publicity outreach to maximize exposure of the S4 campaign through earned coverage in local print, online and broadcast media. Task Description: Continue to pursue earned media opportunities through the placement of at least two earned news articles to build upon the S4 messaging. Responsibilities: WBC shall: a. Secure at least four earned or sponsored news articles. Santa Ana shall: a. Approve earned publicity opportunities. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Planned completion is Q3/2014. Task 6 -C: S4 Media Promotions (Fall 2014) Objective: Continue to conduct publicity outreach to maximize exposure of the S4 campaign through advertising or additional promotions in local print, online, broadcast or outdoor media. Task Description: Further extend the campaign's message through at least one paid advertising or media sponsorship opportunity (e.g. Clear Channel, OCTA bus ads). Responsibilities: WBC shall: b. Secure at least one paid advertising or media sponsorship opportunity. Santa Ana shall: a. Approve on paid advertising opportunity. Completion Criteria: This task is considered complete upon the completion of the deliverables and when the Santa Ana Project Manager signs the task completion letter. Planned completion is Q4/2014. ro 25B -33 7 Q9 .0 U d W v/ M r✓ L}l. 0 O I`- V} 0 C Cn E9' 0 O 6 fPr 0 G O O 1 ER ° O O 4 O r 4i a O O O O r� EH Q O O O O co 63' o O . O.. O O Cl) Efi o 0 Q O O fl) S O O O I 69 S 0 O O O H3 0 O C r b4 W � 7 O N QU Z � c H Z a U) u F- c 0 w 0 a m L W e Fu c w r 4 aS ot$ a d z N d E O N r a (C06 N co C N N N O M E � U LT v ® a a 0 W U Q N a (J O 0 E N a W W U e7 U 0 U 0 W N m m Z E = E N N c 0 c 0 c C9 z n c m m °c ro o z 4 a> ro v m D E U E U O Q 0 E 0 E 0 E o W a) CD Q U atl w o Q a o a 0 C. 0 T N Qtr ca en z N N n' ro m m m a0.° �N F U � N U U aa) C) W Q m d m 4 cin m LO Q m m co U co N r� rJ1 N 4 N y N N N N r N M d' 47 to J 25B -34 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 04, 2014 TITLE AGREEMENTS FOR TEMPORARY CONSULTING SERVICES FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CITY MANAGER • • CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: •C• s, ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on1�Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Approve and authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute the attached amendment to the agreements for temporary consulting services for information technology increasing compensation by $1,700,000 and extending the term for a six month term or until the funds are expended, with an option for an additional six month term under the same terms and conditions including compensation, exercisable by the City Manager, with the following vendors: Concorde Consulting, Inc. SoftMaster, Inc. The Comdyn Group, Inc. Telfords DISCUSSION The use of temporary information technology contractors and consultants continues to be an essential approach to the support of City operations. Contract technology personnel provide software application development and support; business application and project consulting; telecommunications services; and computer and networking services. The use of these services maximizes the effectiveness of staff resources in the Information Services Division (ISD). This approach also ensures the timely completion of City information projects and reduces interruptions to the computer infrastructure system. The City adopted the practice of utilizing temporary information technology contractors and consultants as it prepared its computer systems and infrastructure for impact of the Year 2000. During the following years, the use of computer systems and other technologies in support of City operations rapidly expanded throughout all Agencies and Departments in the City. At the same 25C -1 Agreements For Temporary Consulting Services For Information Technology March 04, 2014 Page 2 time the rate of the complexity and innovation of information technology greatly increased while the lifecycle of technology products and systems continued to shrink. All these pressures created the need for skilled and experienced technology staff faster than the organic technical staff could train or gain know -how. Temporary information technology contractors and consultants served as critical assets to bridge the technology knowledge gap. Temporary information technology contractors and consultants support over 1,750 fulltime, part time, contract end -users and public visitors; three each Enterprise client /server -based and web - based business systems; the City's wide area network including the connection to the Internet; ten department local area networks; 200 servers in two data centers (the City Hall data center and the SAPID data center) with over 100 terabytes of data capacity; and 200 managed network switch es/fi rewa I Is/ro uters and over 50 high speed data circuits supporting 39 City operating locations. Software applications developed and /or supported by these contractors include the Financial Enterprise Resource Planning System, Santa Ana Property Information Network (SAPIN), the Business License/Tax System, Municipal Utility System, and several other revenue related systems. The City's Mobility Technology Initiative is being lead, designed, engineered, and implemented by information technology contractors with experience in these leading edge technologies. For the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) and Santa Ana Jail (SAJ), contractors support mission - critical systems such as the Computer Aided Dispatch, the Jail Management System, Arrest and Booking system, Inmate Search and Reporting system, Case Management system, Police Intranet system, wireless data communications for 150 patrol vehicles, California Law Enforcement Telecommunication system (CLETS) access, PD and Jail Email system, Evidence wireless systems, Daily Roll -call system, and 100 other systems which are critical to the daily operations of the Police and Jail departments. Homeland Security technologies such as the PD Emergency Department Operations Center (DOC), Web based Emergency Operations Center (WebEOC), and Mobile Command Post network systems are supported and maintained by technical contractors. Contractors also help support two additional PD substations by managing network systems which provide all field officers and investigators access to systems located at the main station. SAPID is using several technology contractors to enhance the Police field reporting system under grant funding. Additionally, technical contracts are instrumental in the implementation of new technologies such as In -Field Fingerprint systems, Patrol wireless ad -hoc wireless system, Homeland Security Mobile Command Post satellite communications system, SAPD /SAJ enterprise Wiki system, Crime Analysis "CrimeView" Web system, "Citizen Observer" community notification system, and more into the organization. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Temporary Technical Contract Service and Consulting Services was issued by ISD in March, 2007. Twelve proposals were evaluated and the top four vendors were identified. On June 18, 2007, Council approved agreements with these four vendors for a one -year period or until the approved funds were expended —which ever was later. Approval also included 25C -2 Agreements For Temporary Consulting Services For Information Technology March 04, 2014 Page 3 the option of renewal periods under the same terms. During the period of these agreement terms, these vendors have provided excellent service, support and value to the City. The City is in the midst of its comprehensive process to develop a City strategic plan. This will include a separate information technology strategic plan. This plan will be based on a comprehensive assessment and analysis of exiting City technology systems and capabilities, organizational roles and responsibilities for technology services, and governance. Recommendations will rely heavily on how best to achieve the goals and objectives of the City strategic plan. In order to avoid long term contractual obligations for technology services which may not be in alignment with the recommendations of the coming information technology strategic plan, staff recommends the agreements for temporary consulting services for information technology be renewed with increasing compensation $1,700,000 for an additional period of six months or until the funds are expended with the four vendors. An option to extend an additional six month term under the same terms and conditions, including compensation, up to an additional $1,700,000, exercisable by the City Manager is also recommended to ensure adequate time to implement any staffing recommendations in the information technology strategic plan. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in various Technology Plan, Other Contractual Services accounts (accounts 10910142 - 62300, 10910143 - 62300, 10910144 - 62300, 10910147 - 62300) in FY 2013 -14. Funds for the duration of the agreement are also included in the adopted FY 2014 -2015 budget. APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: Ir nsnZ4l51 r-" Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Management Services Agency 5P 25C -3 25C -4 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, is entered into on March 4, 2014, by and between CONCORDE CONSULTING, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter "Consultant "), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City"). RECITALS: A. The parties entered into Agreement # A -2007 -144, dated June 18, 2007, (hereinafter "said Agreement ") by which Consultant has provided temporary technical personnel to assist the City's Information Technology department with various projects and on a consulting basis. B. The parties executed Amendments dated October 6, 2008, September 8, 2009, December 20, 2010, and September 4, 2012, by which the term was extended and compensation added to pay for services during the extended term. C. In accordance with the terms and conditions of said Agreement, the parties wish to again extend the term of said Agreement and provide compensation to pay for services during the extended term. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained in said Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreement, except those amended in this Fifth Amendment to Agreement, the parties agree as follows: /// 1. Section 3, TERM, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "The teen of said Agreement shall commence July 1, 2007 and terminate on the later of September 30, 2014, or the expenditure of allocated funds, unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 13, below. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of said Agreement for one additional six -month period. Said extension shall be on the terms and conditions set forth in said Agreement, and may provide for additional compensation as set forth below." 2. Section 4, "COMPENSATION ", shall be amended to increase total compensation by $1,700,000.00, to pay for additional services provided during the extended term of said Agreement. Said total compensation shall be allocated among all Consultants selected by the City, at the City's sole discretion. The City Manager, in exercising the option to extend the term as set forth above, may increase compensation by up to an additional $1,700,000.00." 3, Except as hereinabove modified, all terms and conditions of said Agreement shalt remain in full force and effect. 25C -5 IN WITNESS WI-IFREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fifth Amendment to Agreement on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: MARIA D. IIUIZAR Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: sy ) o a Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID CAVAZOS City Manager CONCORDE CONSULTING, INC. (NAME) (Title) 25C -6 FTT TH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, is entered into on March 4, 2014, by and between SOFTMASTER, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter "Consultant "), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City "). RECITALS: A. The parties entered into Agreement # A- 2007 -145, dated June 18, 2007, (hereinafter "said Agreement ") by which Consultant has provided temporary technical personnel to assist the City's Information Technology department with various projects and on a consulting basis. B. The parties executed Amendments dated October 6, 2008, September 8, 2009, December 20, 2010, and September 4, 2012, by which the term was extended and compensation added to pay for services during the extended term. C. In accordance with the terms and conditions of said Agreement, the parties wish to again extend the term of said Agreement and provide compensation to pay for services during the extended term. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained in said Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreement, except those amended in this Fifth Amendment to Agreement, the parties agree as follows: I!I 1. Section 3, TERM, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "The term of said Agreement shall commence July 1, 2007 and terminate on the later of September 30, 2014, or the expenditure of allocated funds, unless earlier term mated in accordance with Section 13, below. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of said Agreement for one additional six -month period. Said extension shalt be on the terms and conditions set forth in said Agreement, and may provide for additional compensation as set forth below." 1 Section 4, "COMPENSATION ", shall be amended to increase total compensation by $1,700,000.00, to pay for additional services provided during the extended term of said Agreement. Said total compensation shall be allocated among all Consultants selected by the City, at the City's sole discretion. The City Manager, in exercising the option to extend the terns as set forth above, may increase compensation by up to an additional $1,700,000.00." 3. Except as hereinabove modified, all terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 25C -7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fifth Amendment to Agreement on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAR Cleric of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID CAVAZOS City Manager SOFTMASTER (NAME) (Title) 25C -8 I IFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, is entered into on March 4, 2014, by and between THE COMDYN GROUP, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter "Consultant "), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City "). RECITALS: A. The parties entered into Agreement # A -2007 -147, dated June 18, 2007, (hereinafter "said Agreement ") by which Consultant has provided temporary technical personnel to assist the City's Information Technology department with various projects and on a consulting basis. B. The parties executed Amendments dated October 6, 2008, September 8, 2009, December 20, 2010, and September 4, 2012, by which the term was extended and compensation added to pay for services during the extended term. C. In accordance with the terns and conditions of said Agreement, the parties wish to again extend the term of said Agreement and provide compensation to pay for services during the extended term. VTHEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained in said Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreement, except those amended in this Fifth Amendment to Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 3, TERM, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "The term of said Agreement shall commence July 1, 2007 and terminate on the later of September 30, 2014, or the expenditure of allocated funds, unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 13, below. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of said Agreement for one additional six -month period. Said extension shall be on the terms and conditions set forth in said Agreement, and may provide for additional compensation as set forth below." Section 4, "COMPENSATION ", shall be amended to increase total compensation by $1,700,000.00, to pay for additional services provided during the extended term of said Agreement. Said total compensation shall be allocated among all Consultants selected by the City, at the City's sole discretion. The City Manager, in exercising the option to extend the term as set forth above, may increase compensation by up to an additional $1,700,000.00. 3. Except as hereinabove modified, all terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 25C -9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fifth Amendment to Agreement on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: MARIA D. IIUIZAR Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM'. Lai La a Sheedy Assistant City Attorney CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID CAVAZOS City Manager THE COMDYN GROUP (NAME) ('Title) 25C -10 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, is entered into on March 4, 2014, by and between TELFORDS, a partnership (hereinafter "Consultant "), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City "). RECITALS: A. The parties entered into Agreement # A- 2007 -146, dated June 18, 2007, (hereinafter "said Agreement ") by which Consultant has provided temporary technical personnel to assist the City's Information Technology department with various projects and on a consulting basis. B. The parties executed Amendments dated October 6, 2008, September 8, 2009, December 20, 2010, and September 4, 2012, by which the term was extended and compensation added to pay for services during the extended term. C. In accordance with the terms and conditions of said Agreement, the parties wish to again extend the term of said Agreement and provide compensation to pay for services during the extended term. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained in said Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreement, except those amended in this Fifth Amendment to Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 3, TERM, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "The term of said Agreement shall commence July 1, 2007 and terminate on the later of September 30, 2014, or the expenditure of allocated funds, unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 13, below. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of said Agreement for one additional six -month period. Said extension shall be on the terms and conditions set forth in said Agreement, and may provide for additional compensation as set forth below." 2. Section 4, "COMPENSATION ", shall be amended to increase total compensation by $1,700,000.00, to pay for additional services provided during the extended term of said Agreement. Said total compensation shall be allocated among all Consultants selected by the City, at the City's sole discretion. The City Manager, in exercising the option to extend the term as set forth above, may increase compensation by up to an additional $1,700,000.00." 3. Except as hereinabove modified, all terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 25C -11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fifth Amendment to Agreement on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAR Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7 By: Cutts. 1 Laufa Sheedy Assistant City Attorney CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID CAVAZOS City Manager TELFORDS (NAME) (Title) 25C -12 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES CITY MANAG RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: _--:• ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on I" Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2ntl Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute a second amendment to the agreement with MDG Associates, Inc. to add an additional $25,000 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $50,000, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. DISCUSSION The City of Santa Ana is an entitlement grantee and receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The funds must be used to benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blights, or meet an urgent need. Compliance with all CDBG regulations and requirements is essential to the continued success of the CDBG program. In October 2013, the full -time position responsible for the daily administration and implementation of the CDBG program became vacant and the Community Development Agency was left without the primary staff to administer the program. Staff solicited proposals from consultants with expertise in HUD programs to assist with the administration of CDBG until a replacement was found. Interviews were conducted and MDG Associates, Inc. was selected to best meet the needs at the most reasonable hourly rates. The City entered into an initial $25,000 agreement under the City Manager's authority (as reported on the Quarterly Report of Contracts for the period of October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013). A first amendment was executed to extend the term through June 30, 2014. Due to delays in filling the vacancy, there is a need to continue with the technical consulting services provided by MDG Associates as existing staff do not currently have the expertise to 25D -1 Amendment to MDG Associates, Inc. March 4, 2014 Page 2 administer the program appropriately recommended action. FISCAL IMPACT Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Funds are available in the CDBG Contract Services- Professional account (no. 13518780 - 62300). Scott Kutner District Manager Community Development Agency SK/SG /kg Exhibit: 1. Amendment APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: 'A 1, 5��'rj--p Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Management Services Agency 25D -2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT INCORPORATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REQUIREMENTS THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is entered into on the 4 °' day of March 2014, by and between MDG Associates, Inc., a California corporation ( "Consultant ") and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California ("City"), RECITALS: A. The parties entered into that certain Consultant Agreement Incorporating Community Development Block Grant Requirements, dated November 26, 2013 (Agreement # N -2013- 152, hereinafter referred to as "said Agreement ") by which Consultant has provided technical consulting services for federal grant programs. E. In accordance with the terms and conditions of said Agreement, the parties wish to add compensation to ensure sufficient funds are available through the end of the term. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained in said Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreement, except those amended in this Second Amendment, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 2.a., COMPENSATION, shall be amended to increase compensation by $25,000 for total compensation not to exceed $50,000 during the term of said Agreement. 2. Except as hereinabove amended, all terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Agreement on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: Maria D. Huizar Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bys Lau a Sheedy Assistant City Attorney RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL: Scott Kutner Community Development Agency CITY OF SANTA ANA David Cavazos City Manager MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. Rudy Munoz President 25D -3 25D -4 • 111110LI11111 •' CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES CITY MANAAR RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1" Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2n' Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Flearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute the attached Amendment to Consultant Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates to increase the compensation by an additional amount of $25,000, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $95,000, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the Executive Director and City Attorney. DISCUSSION On October 21, 2013, the City approved a second amendment to a Consultant Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, a firm having specialized skills and knowledge in the field of financial consultation and development. The current funding and scope are targeted specifically for financial consulting associated with downtown development sites including the reuse of the former YMCA building. Given the recent loss of staff expertise in development and project management, staff is requesting City Council approval to temporarily extend the consulting services and project management agreement with respect to various City projects and activities, and to increase the contract amount by $25,000. As the City continues to move forward with the reuse of the former YMCA building, it is critical that staffing for this key project be available. Keyser Marston has played a valuable role over the years in assisting the city with financial consultation and also has the staff expertise to support project and program management services. The amended agreement incorporates changes to the scope, and an increase in the total contract amount. The Scope of Work is being modified to add project management, as well as financial and reuse analysis of the former YMCA building. Keyser Marston staff has the requisite specialized skills and expertise in the area of project /program management and implementation, particularly with respect to the unique 25E -1 Amendment to Keyser Marston March 4, 2014 Page 2 structure and requirements of municipalities. It is recommended that Keyser Marston's contract be amended to provide a means to supplement the Community Development Agency's efforts to continue creating, pursuing and /or implementing economic /development opportunities and programs. In addition, staff anticipates being able to offset costs associated with this contract amendment, by negotiating a cost recovery requirement for staffing costs, into any agreement with a developer for the reuse of the former YMCA building. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Community Activities Non- Departmental Contract Services - Professional account (no. 01105810 - 62300). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: - X7 . 5colf Kutner Francisco Gutierrez District Manager Community Development Agency SK/kg Exhibit: 1. Amendment Executive Director , Finance & Management Services Agency 4 25E -2 EXHIBIT 1 THMD AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this 4th day of March; 2014, by and between Keyser Marston Associates (hereinafter "Consultant ") and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "). REC[TALS A. The City of Santa Ana { "City ") and Consultant entered into a Consultant Agreement #N -2012- 132, dated October 1, 2012 (referred to as "said Agreement"), to provide financial consultation services with respect to development projects, The parties amended said Agreement on January 7, 2013 and October 21, 2013, B. The parties desire to amend said Agreement to broaden the Scope of Work and increase the Compensation available for those services. NOW THE, REFORE, in consideration of the mutual and respective promises, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section I of the Agreement, "Scope of Work", Consultant shall continue to provide general project and program advisory services for various City projects and activities, in addition to providing project management and financial consulting services related to the reuse of the former YMCA building. 2, Section 3 of the Agreement, "Compensation", shall be amended to increase Compensation by Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) fora total not to exceed amount of Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($95;000) for professional services rendered to the City. The hourly billing rate schedule for services rendered hereunder are as follows: Managing Principals $280, Senior Principals $270, Senior Associates $187,50, Project Manager $85, and Administrative Staff $80. 3. All other terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remahr in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment the date and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA ANA Maria D, Huizar Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: SONIA R. CARVALHO City. Attorney Assistant David Cavazos City Manager KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. Kathleen Head Managing: Principal 25E -3 25E -4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AT 202 -218 GRAND AVENUE FOR GRAND AVENUE WIDENING (PROJECT NO. 081732 NON� - GENERAL FUND) CITY MANAGE RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1" Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2ntl Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Approve acquisition of real property at 202 -218 Grand Avenue and authorize City Attorney to implement Stipulated Judgment to transfer title and effectuate settlement of all acquisition issues. DISCUSSION Grand Avenue is a north -south transportation facility which is designated as a major arterial highway and carries in excess of 35,000 vehicles per day. The widening of Grand Avenue between First and Seventeenth Streets has been a long -term priority project that will be constructed in several phases. Improvements include widening the roadway from two to three lanes in each direction; construction of raised landscape medians; new curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and bike lanes. The Public Works Agency is acquiring property for development of Phase I, bounded by First and Fourth Streets, and expects to complete the acquisition process by early 2014. Construction is anticipated to begin by Summer 2014. To accommodate the widening for Phase I, full acquisition of the property located at 202 -218 North Grand Avenue is required (Exhibit 1). The City Council approved a Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition and the City Attorney filed an eminent domain complaint. Beginning in December 2013, City staff and the property owners began discussions in the hope of reaching a negotiated settlement to the acquisition of the property. An agreement was reached as described below: 1. Goodwill $1,170,000 2. Land Value (1221 East First Street) $1,612,600 3. Land Value (Gallegos Propert) $3,992,000 29A -1 Settlement for Grand Avenue Widening March 4, 2014 Page 2 The Goodwill, plus the real property land value less the land value, of 1221 East First Street represents a total proposed settlement of $3,549,400. Since the City has previously deposited $3,200,000 for the property land value and $91,500 for fixtures and equipment, the remaining settlement amount would be $257,900. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There is no environmental impact associated with this action. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Regional Surface Transportation Program (Account 05917660 - 66220), Transportation System Improvement Area Fund (Account 99117950 - 66220) and Measure M2 Street Construction Fund (Account 03217662 - 66220). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: r dwin "Willia alvez, P.E. Francisco Gutierrez Interim Executive Director Executive Director Public Works Agency Finance & Management Services Agency EWG /KN Exhibit: 1. Location Map 29A -2 4 (NITS) 39030304 390- ?03 -00 m M i i 390 - 38313 m i m � V v 1 m i _rrJ I�I II o ¢mrr 1 v 1221 E FIRST 1 o m ai m m LEGEND: CITY ACODIRED AS PART OF SETTLEMENT SOLD AS PART OF SETTLEMENT Lij m 9 Q z Z Q FOURTH STREET _r,'.m rrlxm r,�nm s I m t O i m m 1 i 11 P Y M r m fgp1p 0 Ln.m m M I - mM �m l „! ! 1 I M M m t 1 r.: .r THI_. ..rrJ1 i n nLn.n m M ro . RDr.i 1 1 1 1 STREET m a 1 v t a 1 M ° � m m o m ¢p m m ! v ! I v ! m 1_ M fP'1 I 1� M m P „_ r.. r.. r. P SEC_ OND STREET € e.rr.rr*rr_ —i m i m i ! M i i i M M i n i M i i M rr r_ °n_rr r 1 t0 � �r r..n 1 ��•1 i 1 1 1 c ! c ! v 1 v ! r1 1 1 m —aI •rr_,mr_n.ri_,.sn_n_u_i�n_nY U_rr_✓_u_n_n_ii_ „_„ FIRST STREET SANTA ANA Tr —E: � ENUE�A a GRAND AVENUE AGREEMENT MARCH A 2m (PROJECT NO: 081732 NON - GENERAL RIND) FD9L IC .01.4 Ap(Ilcv 29A -3 29A -4 • A CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR WATER SUPPLY ALERT CITY MA AGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1" Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Adopt a resolution calling for a Water Supply Alert urging Santa Ana residents and business owners to take extraordinary water conservation measures. DISCUSSION On January 17, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., declared a state of emergency and directed State officials to take necessary actions to prepare for drought conditions. In addition to calling for an aggressive water conservation public awareness campaign, the governor issued a proclamation urging Californians to reduce their water use by 20 percent. As California's record dry conditions persist, it is imperative that the City of Santa Ana increase awareness of this critical issue and inform its residents and business owners of the new mandate to conserve water. It is equally imperative they understand the value of water conservation as a life -long endeavor to ensure environmental sustainability and quality of life. Adopting this resolution will be a significant step in encouraging efficient water use and conservation practices. In support of these endeavors, City staff will intensify ongoing public education efforts on drought awareness and water conservation practices. The City's Public Works Agency Water Enterprise annually budgets $40,000 for Water Conservation Program activities, which include organizing and attending public outreach events and offering water conservation rebates. There is no environmental impact associated with this action. 55A -1 Water Supply Alert Resolution March 4, 2014 Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. win "William vez, P.E. Interim Executive Director Public Works Agency EWG /NS Exhibits: 1. Resolution 55A -2 Iss2/13/2014 RESOLUTION NO.2014 -XXX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CALLING FOR WATER SUPPLY ALERT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The State of California continues to experience water shortages and now faces what is projected to become the driest year on record; and B. A state of emergency was declared by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., effective January 17, 2014, setting the stage for new state and federal efforts to prepare for these drought conditions; and C. The City of Santa Ana has two main sources of water supply: (1) groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and (2) treated surface water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; and D. For more than 80 years, the primary responsibility and core function of the Orange County Water District, in collaboration with the City of Santa Ana, is to continuously plan, design, build and operate cost - effective water infrastructure projects. This investment in water infrastructure is fundamental to help the Orange County Groundwater Basin sustain drought conditions such as the current one; and E. The Metropolitan Water District Of Southern California has made significant investment in storage, conservation and local supply development; managing water demand; and preserving supplies which will enable it to meet demands in 2014; and F. The City of Santa Ana views water resource management to be a core matter of stewardship of the environment in California; and G. The City of Santa Ana has in place an enforceable Water Conservation Ordinance with water conservation requirements that are permanent and effective at all times. Violation of the Ordinance is considered waste and an unreasonable use of water; and Resolution No. 2014 -xxx Page 1 of 3 �X i TI 'I Section 2. The City Council declares that the City's water supply is in a Water Supply Shortage condition, and: A. Advises all City water consumers to the serious nature of the current situation and need to preserve our precious resource; and B. Urges customers to reduce water usage by following water conservation practices inside and outside the home; and C. Encourages business owners to take steps to improve their water use processes; and D. Supports infrastructure upgrades to the water system involving (1) technology which provides up -to -date water use information and trends to residents and business owners through a web -based customer engagement system, and (2) leak detection systems which allow early detection of water leaks to minimize waste and conserve water. Section 3. The City Council agrees to support actions which deal with the current drought conditions and calls for increased awareness and extraordinary conservation of our precious resource. ADOPTED this _day of 2014. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney in Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 55A -4 Resolution No. 2014 -xxx Page 2 of 3 AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2114 -XXX to be an original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: 55A -5 Maria D. Huizar Clerk of Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2014 -xxx Page 3 of 3 'P�PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01, VARIANCE NO. 2012 -04 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 TO ALLOW A 23 -UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE — CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY AND LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL OF ORANGE COUNTY, APPLICANTS d- CITY MANAGER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 18' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On February 10, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned; and adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned by a vote of 6:1 (Yrarrazaval opposed) to allow the construction of a new 23 -unit single family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue located in the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The Planning Commission added three conditions of approval that require landscaped parkways along the new streets, that requires the exterior rehabilitation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage meet the Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards, and that a minimum of 16 orange trees be maintained and /or planted on the Sexlinger Farmhouse parcel (Exhibit A). 75A -1 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 and VTTM No. 2012 -02 March 4, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION At the February 10, 2014 Planning Commission hearing, one of the primary topics raised by both the public and the Commission pertained to the alternatives analysis of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). More specifically, several speakers expressed concerns with the lack of a preservation alternative that consisted of 50 percent development and 50 percent preservation (50/50 alternative). Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines requires an EIR to consider and discuss a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. To comply with this guideline, the EIR considered a total of eight different alternatives. Of the alternatives considered, the 50/50 alternative was not studied for several reasons. First, the EIR complied with the CEQA guidelines as it studied a wide range of alternatives that had different environmental impacts. The eight alternatives that were studied included a No Build alternative, a lower density alternative, a hybrid alternative and an alternative that consisted of the demolition of the farmhouse, garage and orange trees. Second, it was determined that the 50/50 alternative could not feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives, including provide for the current and future move -up housing needs of the City and provide land uses that are similar to surrounding uses in character. Finally, since the original project of 24 units and no preservation of the historically designated site represents the environmentally "worst case" scenario, and the full preservation of the site as agriculture represents the alternative with the fewest environmental impacts, no other alternatives that consider different proportions of housing and orchard preservation is needed. The "worst case project" was found, with mitigation, to not have any significant impacts except for cultural resources, based on the demolition of the residence. The new Historic Preservation alternative was found to comply with Secretary of Interior standards, and therefore mitigates cultural resource impacts to a level of less than significance. All variations with less than 24 -units and some protection of the Sexlinger site have similar or lesser impacts than the original 24 -unit project analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR is adequate for any combination of the Sexlinger residence and some orchard preservation in conjunction with less than 24 new houses. As a result of the public review process, a Historic Preservation alternative was developed. This alternative consists of a 23 -unit development, including the preservation of the Sexlinger residence and garage and a small portion of the orchard while allowing for development of the site with 22 new single family residences. This new alternative would protect and renovate the existing residence and garage in their current location along with 16 existing and /or new orange trees, evoking the historic setting, topography and context consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Due to its preservation of the historic resources and reduction of environmental impacts to less than significant, this alternative has evolved into the proposed project for the site. 75A -2 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 and VTTM No. 2012 -02 March 4, 2014 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Karen Haluza Interim Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VF:rb vATava EIMSexlinger Project.cc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report B. Environmental Documents (city web addresses) C. Correspondence 75A -3 75A -4 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2014 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FILED BY CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY AND LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01, VARIANCE NO. 2012 -04 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012.02 TO ALLOW A 23 -UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE Prepared by Vince Fregoso Interim Executive Di ctor RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED • As Recommended • As Amended • Set Public Hearing For DENIED • Applicant's Request • Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Acting PI nning, anager Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of the Applicant Mr, Bob Odle, representing the property owners, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, is requesting approval of a final environmental impact report (FEIR), a variance and a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow a 23 -unit single - family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the certification of the final environmental impact report and approval of the mitigation monitoring program; variances from Section 41 -234, Section 41- 239(8) and Section 41- 1320(b) to allow the Sexlinger farmhouse to remain in its current location; from SAMC Section 41- 237(b) to allow one of the new lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage; and a vesting tentative tract map to allow the subdivision of the five acre parcel into 23 lots for the residential project. EXHIBIT A 75A -5 Final El No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No, 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 2 Proiect Location and Site Description The subject property is a five -acre, rectangular shaped parcel of land located on East Santa Clara Avenue, between Grand and Tustin Avenues. The property contains a single - family residence and detached garage structure that was built in 1914. The site has been unoccupied since about 2006 when the final member of the Sexlinger Family moved from the property. In addition, there are approximately 250 Valencia orange trees on the parcel that have been unharvested for several years. The site Is surrounded by both single- family residential uses and Fairhaven Memorial Park to the north, single - family residences to the south and west, and Portola Park to the east (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Proiect Description Concordia University and Lutheran High School of Orange County, the property owner of the subject parcel, are requesting approval of several entitlements in order to allow the development of the existing five -acre parcel of land, The proposed development consists of the rehabilitation of the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse in its current location and the construction of 22 new single - family residences. A total of 23 lots will be created for the project, with the smallest lot consisting of 6,000 square feet and the largest 10,044 square feet. An average lot size of approximately 6,650 square feet is proposed for the project (Exhibit 4). Three different floor plans are proposed, ranging in size from approximately 2,340 square feet to 2,813 square feet. Each residence will be a two -story, three- bedroom (with an optional fourth bedroom in lieu of a den), two and one -half bathroom home with a two or three -car garage. All units have an additional two uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. Three different architectural styles are proposed for the project; Craftsman, Spanish and Traditional. Each style will incorporate unique elements, finishes and materials commonly found within each architectural style. For example, the Spanish style residence will Incorporate Spanish style roof tiles and a sand stucco finish, while the Craftsman and Traditional models will incorporate flat roof tiles, sand stucco finishes and decorative wood trim and similar elements unique to each architectural style. Finally, front yard landscaping will be installed prior to occupancy of each unit (Exhibits 5, 6 and 7). Numerous improvements will be made to the site. Eight feet of property along the Santa Clara Avenue frontage will be dedicated to the City to allow the street to be widened to be consistent with the improvements on either site of the parcel, Additionally, Santa Clara Avenue will be enhanced with a 10 -foot wide landscaped setback that will be maintained by the homeowners association. Further, a six -foot high block wall will be constructed around the project perimeter. Traffic calming devices, including curvilinear streets and bulb outs at the north and south end of the Lyon Street project entries will be incorporated into the street design to reduce the speed of traffic and to discourage cut though traffic. Finally, access to Portola Park will be provided via a pedestrian opening at the east end of the new cul -de -sac street. 75A -6 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No, 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 3 Project Backaround The subject site, known as the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard, was occupied around 1914 when the Sexlinger Family first located to the property. The Sexlingers used this site as their residence and as a small ranch for oranges until approximately 1980. In 2006, the last of the Sexlinger Family vacated the property. In September 2007, the City received a proposal from Empire Homes to construct a 24 -unit, single - family residential project on the property. A draft environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for this project; however, due to a major shift in the economy, the EIR was never released and the applicant withdrew their proposal in May 2008. In 2010, Tava Development submitted a new proposal for a 24 -unit single- family residential development similar to the Empire Homes project. In response, the consultant that prepared the previous EIR was selected to review and update the EIR document and make modifications as necessary, In October 2011, the draft EIR for the Tava Development was released for public review and comment. Due to significant concerns from the public regarding the document, specifically the Cultural Resources section, the document was revised to identify the property as potentially historically significant and eligible for listing on the City's historical register. In June 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to list the property on the City's Register of Historical Properties as a Key property. In response, the property owners filed a Nonce of Intent to Demolish on June 11, 2012, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of the structures and orange grove. Further, it required the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) to investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition. On June 24, 2012, the HRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate feasible alternatives. The Ad Hoc Committee considered various alternatives to demolition, including seeking private financial sources to purchase the site, publicizing the availability of the site and structure, exploring possible sites for the relocation of the building, suggesting that the City purchase the site, and a hybrid alternative that included the construction of 21 units along with the preservation of the Sexlinger residence and some orange trees. On January 24, 2013, the HRC received and filed the final report on the alternatives to the demolition of the site and adopted a resolution urging the City Council to purchase the Sexlinger site. The 240 -day waiting period ended on February 7, 2013, but a demolition permit was unable to be issued as the City Council had yet to certify the EIR and the appeal period had not commenced. This is not expected to occur until April 2014 at the earliest (Exhibits 8 and 9). On February 10, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. After receiving public testimony and holding extensive deliberations, the Commission's vote was 3;3, which resulted in an impasse. Per the Commissions by -laws, the Commission gave the applicant the option to either continue the item to a future meeting or move forward to the City Council with a recommendation of denial, The applicant elected to move the project forward to the City Council. 75A -7 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 4 Prior to the City Council public hearing, the City offered to hire an independent mediator so that the applicant and the opposing The Old Orchard Conservancy (TOOC) could meet and hopefully identify a development proposal that would satisfy both parties. Although the groups declined the City's mediation offer, the two parties met on three occasions throughout the summer. At the conclusion of these meetings, it was determined that they were unable to agree on an alternative acceptable to both parties. As a result, the property owner requested to move forward with the entitlements to the City Council. In fall 2013, the City reanalyzed the numerous responses to comment letters received for the development. After careful consideration of these letters, the City decided to prepare a "Response to the Response to Comments" that included an additional alternative that addressed concerns related to the preservation of the historically designated site. This new alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative, slightly differed from the other alternatives in that it studied the preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse at its current location, the rehabilitation of the house to the Secretary of Interior standards, the preservation of existing orange trees on the Sexlinger parcel along with the planting of new trees where dead or missing trees exist, and the construction of 22 new residences. Areas of Controversy During the review of the project, release of the draft EIR and public hearings held for the project, three areas of controversy were identified: The eligibility of the site as a historic resource, the preservation of the property as an orange grove, and cut through traffic. The first area of controversy pertains to the property's designation as a historic resource. The initial release of the draft EIR in 2011 contained a Cultural Resources section that evaluated the property as not eligible for listing on the State or City's Historical Registers. The determination was based on the analysis that, while the property was associated with the development of the citrus industry in the early twentieth century, small citrus operations did not play a significant role in the development of Santa Ana. During the public review period, comments were received from the public requesting a reevaluation of the non - historic determination. In response,. the City hired a new consultant to take another look at the project's historic status, In March 2012, the new study also concluded that the property was not eligible for the State register; however, the study noted that the property did appear to be eligible on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties (SARHP). On April 5, 2012, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) considered placing the property on the SARHP but denied the listing after taking testimony from the property owner and public. However, on June 4; 2012, the City Council overturned the HRC and designated the site as "Key." As a result, the property is considered to be a City historic resource. The second area of controversy is related to the preservation of the site as an orange grove. The property owners, in conjunction with a local homebuilder, originally submitted a proposal to demolish the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse and orange orchard and construct a 24 -unit residential 75A -8 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 5 development on a site that has a general plan and zoning designation consistent with the proposed project. In an effort to preserve one of the last remaining original orange groves in the City, The Old Orchard Conversancy (TOOC), in conjunction with several members of the public, have banded together and are attempting to preserve the Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard. While the property owners and TOOL have had discussions on the potential sale of the property for preservation purposes, no proposal has been formally submitted to the property owner. While the owners intend to build on the site in compliance with the General Plan and zoning designations, the preservation groups remain interested in preserving the last small scale orange grove in the City. The final area of controversy involves the potential for vehicular cut through traffic through the existing neighborhood. During the Initial public review of the project, the adjacent neighbors submitted a petition against the proposed north -south connection of Lyon Street to Santa Clara Avenue due to congestion and safety concerns. In response to the comments, the project's traffic study analyzed potential cut through traffic through the existing neighborhood. The study identified approximately 15 percent of the total traffic generated from the project, or 35 daily trips, could be expected, To minimize potential for cut through traffic, the streets were designed in a curvilinear pattern and "bulb outs" are proposed at the project entries to reduce the amount of cut through traffic and slow the speeds of vehicles that do utilize the Lyon Street extension. General Plan and Zoning Analysis The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential (LR -7), which allows single - family development at a maximum density of seven units per acre. Development in a Low Density Residential area of the City is characterized primarily by one and two -story single - family homes. The proposed project is consistent with this General Plan land use designation as the proposed density is five units per acre. The subject site is located in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. The R -1 zoning designation allows uses such as one - family dwellings, private greenhouses and horticultural collections for domestic non - commercial use, child care facilities and churches. The project site is consistent with the zoning designation. ProiectAnalvsis Environmental Impact Report The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required the preparation and approval of an environmental impact report (EIR) for this project. The environmental issues analyzed in the EIR included aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and 75A -9 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 6 traffic, and utilities and service systems, In accordance with CEQA, a draft EIR was first circulated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties on July 27, 2011 for a 45 -day review period, On August 22, 2011 a public hearing was held on the document in order to obtain input from interested members of the public. By the close of the 45 -day review period, a total 28 written comment letters and eight verbal comments on the document were received. A significant issue identified in several of the responses pertained to the potential eligibility of the property for listing on the City's historical register. After analyzing the comment letters, staff directed the EIR consultant to revise the Cultural Resources section of the document to reflect the eligibility of the site as a historic resource. On December 1, 2011, the revised Cultural Resources section was circulated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties for a 45 -day review period. At the end of this comment period, an additional 11 comment letters were received, On June 4, 2012, the City Council listed the site as a "Key" property on the City's Register of Historical Properties. In response, the draft EIR was revised to reflect this designation as well as to add a "Hybrid" alternative to the Alternatives section of the document. The draft EIR was recirculated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties on November 1, 2012 for a 45 -day review period. On November 13, 2012 a public hearing was held on the document in order to obtain input from interested members of the public. At the close of the 45 -day review period, a total of 15 written and verbal comments on the document were received. The City has evaluated the comments received from persons or agencies that reviewed the EIR. In accordance with CEQA, each public agency that commented on the draft EIR will be provided with a response to its comments at least 10 days prior to the certification of the EIR. The Responses to Comments document, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR, was originally distributed at the January 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. In addition; the Findings of Fact have been prepared for the project. The EIR identified one unavoidable adverse impact associated with this project, which pertains to cultural resources. The unavoidable cultural resource impact involves the demolition of the existing residential structure and adjacent outbuilding and the removal of the approximately 250 orange trees as this demolition would result in a significant adverse change due to the loss of a listed resource of the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. As a result of the impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the original 24 -unit project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is the process through which decision makers balance the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. However, the Historic Preservation Alternative, which was prepared in December 2013 in response to the Responses to Comments, would result in a project that is environmentally superior to the proposed 24 -unit development and would not require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations since the loss of a historically designated resource would not occur (Exhibit 10), 75A -10 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 7 Selection of Environmentallv Preferred Alternative As previously mentioned the Historic Preservation Alternative is similar to the originally proposed project except that it would preserve In place the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse and detached garage on a 10,044 square foot parcel at the northwest corner of the five -acre site. The exterior of the structure and garage would be rehabilitated to Secretary of Interior historic preservation standards, and the house and garage would be returned to a single - family residential use and sold as one of the project units. Additionally, existing orange trees on this portion of the property would remain, with new trees planted to replace any dead or missing trees. A total of 22 new single family residences would be constructed on the remainder of the property. The impacts associated with this alternative have been found to be similar to the originally proposed 24 -unit project. For example, impacts related to air quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities would be similar to or less than the original project as one fewer unit is proposed. However, impacts to Cultural Resources would be significantly different as this alternative will prevent the demolition of the residence and garage and preserve them in place. This alternative will result in the rehabilitation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage in its current location and the preservation of orange trees on a new 10,044 square foot lot. The five -acre project site would be changed from an unused residence and agricultural lot into a suburban development with a small orchard and 22 new single- family residences. The property would retain many of its major elements and convey the significance of a property type that was once common but now rare in the City. Through its rehabilitation, the property would receive a compatible new use that would protect and retain the property's character defining features, historic integrity and primary building and accessory structure. Surrounding the Sexlinger residence and garage with historic and in -kind replaced trees would also contribute to the property's ability to convey a specific period, time and agricultural past important to the community. Further, this alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative as it will result in the preservation and rehabilitation of a historically designated structure and a portion of the orchard and will reduce the impacts to a cultural resource to a less than significant impact to the historic resource. As a result, staff is recommending the Historic Preservation Alternative as the preferred project. Variances Variance requests are governed by Section 41 -638 of the SAMC. Variance requests may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established • That there exists a special circumstance related to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. • That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 75A -11 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 8 • That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property. • That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the variance. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. Variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse The applicant is requesting a variance that will allow the Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain at its current location. Specifically, a variance from Section 41 -234 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), which requires a front yard setback of 20 feet, from Section 41- 239(g), which requires the garage to be a minimum of five feet from the residence, and from Section 41- 41- 1320(b), which requires the residence to provide a two -car garage, are needed. Staff is supportive of the request as the variances will allow the historically designated Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain in its historic setting and context, which are critical components of historic preservation. The property will be allowed to be used as it was historically, with the historic character of the property retained and preserved. Further, by leaving the residence and garage in place, the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. In analyzing the variance request, staff must be able to show that findings can be made that support the criteria listed above. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The approval of the variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse will result in the residence and garage retaining and preserving the historic character of the property. Further, the approval of the variance will avoid the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the setback, separation and parking standards would result in the loss of a resource that is listed on the City's Register of Historical Properties as the structure would have to be relocated. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. 75A -12 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 9 The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the residence and garage are proposed to be used as it was historically, with little or no changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project has been designed in compliance with all other applicable development standards for an R -1 project. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single- family residence that will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Further, the variance is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, including Land Use Element Goal 4 to protect and enhance development sites which are unique community assets, Land Use Element Policy 4.2 to encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites, and Housing Element Policy HE -1.7 to support preservation and enhancement of residential structures and properties that are considered local historic or cultural resources. Variance from Lot Frontage Standard The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 41- 237(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), which requires lots in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district to have at least 50 feet of street frontage, as measured from the back of the setback. The applicant's proposal is to have one new lot in the development (Lot No. 12) have 41 feet of lot frontage, which is less than the minimum 50 feet of lot frontage. During the review of the street design for the project, staff determined that the City did not have a "knuckle" standard for curvilinear streets, with the original design insufficient to adequately accommodate turning movements for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles. To address this concern, staff used the County's standard for curvilinear streets, which uses a larger "knuckle" design at street curves. The application of the County's standard impacted the width of the lot fronting the "knuckle." Due to the application of this standard, Lot No. 12 cannot meet the 50 -foot street frontage standard, The lot will be in compliance with all other applicable development standards in the R -1 zone, including lot size and setbacks. In analyzing the variance requests, staff must be able to show that findings can be made that support the criteria listed above. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The subject site is a five -acre rectangular shaped parcel that will be constrained by the application of a County street standard to the project. In order to provide a larger street area for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to maneuver, the County's standard for the design of "knuckles" was imposed on this project. The County standard required the taking of more land than proposed, which impacted the applicant's ability to meet the minimum lot width standard for an R -1 project. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the 75A -13 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 10 subject property of a use that is otherwise allowed by right in the zone and would deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the Intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the street frontage standard could result in the loss of residential units, which would reduce the feasibility of the proposed use of the property, which impacts the property rights of the owner's. Further, the granting of the street frontage variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. • The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project and individual residential lots is proposed to be in compliance with all applicable development standards for an R -1 project except for the street frontage requirement. Further, the street design will allow trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to safely maneuver on the public streets. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single- family development that will accommodate move up housing in the City. Further, the variance is consistent with several policies of the general plan, including Policy 1 A to support development of single- family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet, Policy 1.9 to coordinate street and parkway designs that are attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development, Policy 3.5 which encourages new development that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood, and Policy 5.10 to support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Vesting maps are governed by Chapter 34 of the SAMC and by Section 66498.1 through 66498.9 of the Subdivision Map Act. Vesting map requests may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established: • That the proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Low Density Residential designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. • The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. 75A -14 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 11 • The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. • The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. • The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the vesting map. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. The applicant is proposing a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow the subdivision of the five - acre parcel of land into single - family lots. In order to subdivide the parcel, the proposed subdivision needs to comply with all applicable development standards such as lot size, lot coverage and all appropriate Public Works Agency standards. Based on a review of the vesting tentative tract map, the applicant has submitted a 23 lot project that has been designed to be in compliance with the applicable development standards found in Chapters 34 (Subdivision) and 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Additionally, the proposed streets will be public streets that have been designed to the City's public street standards as well as County standards for the design of the street "knuckle" As designed, the streets will be public streets that will accommodate safety vehicles as well as street parking. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element promotes a balance of land uses to address basic community needs, encourages a variety of residential land uses in the City and development . that provides a positive contribution to the neighborhood character (Exhibit 11). Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is consistent with the single - family residential land use designation and density (seven units per acre) prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. The development is consistent with the single - family residences surrounding the project on three sides. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is in keeping with the provisions of site plan review (DP No, 2010 -47) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site, Although one lot will not meet the street frontage standard, a variance (Variance No. 2012- 04) is proposed for the project due to the unique design of the street. 75A -15 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 12 • The vesting tentative tract map is proposed for a five -acre parcel of land within an area that is zoned for single - family residences (R -1). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project as the proposed density of five units per acre is less than the allowed seven units per acre. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact associated with this project. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Also, a County standard applicable to a "knuckle" design, which exceeds the City's standard, will be implemented on this project to ensure trash trucks and similar sized vehicles safely travel the streets. Additionally, traffic calming devises are proposed at the north and south end of Lyon Street, which will reduce speed along the streets and improve the safety of the residences. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious problem resulting from this project. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site through the site as the street will be public streets. Public Notification The project site is located within the Portola Park and adjacent to the Meredith Parkwood Neighborhood Associations, There have been several public meetings regarding the project since its submittal to the City in 2010. Staff attended three neighborhood meeting on the project, including two general association meetings on December 9, 2010 and March 17, 2011 to provide the associations with a project update, and a scoping meeting for the EIR on June 1, 2011. Public notification was provided for several Historic Resources Commission meetings for the project, including June 4, 2012, June 28, 2012, October 4, 2012 and January 24, 2013. Finally, the Planning Commission held public meetings on August 22, 2011 and November 13, 2012 to receive public comments on the draft EIR during the public review period of the document as well as held a public hearing on the project on February 11, 2011 From December 19, 2013 through January 17, 2014, the additional analysis to the response to public comments that clarified, amplified or made minor modifications to the Draft EIR after it was circulated for public comment was made available for public review. A total of four comments were received, and a final version of the Additional Analysis, which includes comments and their responses, were provided in a document entitled Attachment to the Environmental Impact Report. 75A -16 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 13 The project site itself was posted with a notice advertising this public hearing, a notice was published in the Orange County Register and mailed notices were sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project site. In addition, the Neighborhood Association contacts, as well as all individuals on the City's Permanent Notification List, were notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing. A notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was posted to the City's website and Facebook page. On January 17, 2014, the City received correspondence from Jeannie Gillette, President of The Old Orchard Conservancy, commenting on the additional analysis for the development of the Sexlinger site, a letter from Deborah Rosenthal outlining a related court case, and a letter from the Conservancy outlining a preservation alternative for the site (Exhibit 12). Additionally, correspondence was received from Rutan & Tucker, LLP, a law firm engaged to assist the property owners with their development applications. Their correspondence included a memorandum in response to comments received on the proposed development, a shade and shadow study of the proposed development, an arbodcultural evaluation of the orange trees, and a memorandum that analyzed the potential closure of the south entrance of the project to public access (Exhibit 13). At the time of this printing, no other contact or correspondence regarding the project had been received. CEQA Anatysis As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an environmental impact report, EIR No. 2011 -01. Sections 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 7) guide the process for the preparation of an environmental impact report. The EIR, as required by CEQA, contains 1) an initial study; 2) a project description; 3) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 4) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this EIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. The scope of the EIR evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics; aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The City prepared a draft EIR and published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Orange County Register as well as posted the NOA at the Orange County Clerk's office on October 30, 2012. The City circulated the draft EIR for a 45 -day public review between November 1, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The draft EIR was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, the City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the City's website. 75A -17 Final EIR No, 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 14 This EIR is intended to provide a forum to air and address comments pertaining to the analysis contained in the draft EIR and to provide an opportunity for clarification, corrections, or minor revisions to the EIR as needed. Comments were received during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency for the project, has reviewed all comments received on the document. As a result of the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been provided to address potential environmental impacts. A list of these mitigation measures are found within the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary. Mitigation measures have been outlined to address potential impacts on geology, hazardous materials, water quality, noise, transportation and circulation, cultural resources, air quality and biological resources (Exhibit 14). Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard; adopt a resolution approving Variance No, 2012 -04(a) and (b) as conditioned; and adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. Vince Fregoso, Ai.OP' Acting Planning Manager VF;jm of Tava EIMSeAnger ProjeGL021014.po Attachments: Exhibit 1 — General Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 — Land Use Map Exhibit 3 —Site Photo Exhibit 4 — Site Plan Exhibit 5— Floor Plan Exhibit 6 — Building Elevations Exhibit 7 — Conceptual Landscape Plans Exhibit 8 — HRC Intent to Demolish Final Report Exhibit 9 — HRC Resolution Exhibit 10 — Environmental Impact Report with Additional Analysis Exhibit 11 — Vesting Tract Map Exhibit 12 — Correspondence from The Old Orchard Conservancy Exhibit 13 — Correspondence from Rutan & Tucker, LLP Exhibit 14 — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 75A -18 FAIRHAVEN AVE Y a`- i. RA YRI: Enil . 31� II jl �I � -,v- j MIX II it i II 4 R4 �ioluss�n R1 y ui III p IN II II it - ar,rvn S 11 jl 1111 CS M 9^Rt ; ji I� II ii 60-A7 -7200 W .t 11 F.:ra ..RI R1 _ .,Ri__ a`I s 60-AI -1200 e ` •Rl n. 3 CS RI JR1 81 VA RI Iti £ Rl Al � RI 8 R1 p� z ao-nl � A I CS v [[ 3 zmo wnt a I R4 _ I Al A 1 AI k R, P E SITE Al Ig- Rl g �-" Rl mui�InmA d vo g 5 j`R�lµ , o -- d nunMnm 0 $ Rl ?1 AI B RI Rl 3 Ri !g Rle § RI-nW � � : RM1 n RI Cis Z .r —us— .a R �vR1 AI Rl n1.R nl -0 +,r jai cs v c5 n x At �C5 C7 .t2 P D >Q R CS CS SEVENTEENTH ST. Al GW. LAGjQJLRUPAlt OR CCMMHa7AL�ORMAL RI SNGE FAMILY�DDMAL .0 RARRNGMOCInmTION CC COAVB-0VM� lm w I FAMILYFYNMI E aW OCMMMALS MMAIN M, UGFRINCUSTRAL W MLL'RREOIN3lYMUL1IF Ci DWMUNI,Y07MMUUAL M2 HFAWINCUS L FAMILYfd.T,D9 CI -MO WMM =AAMffuAUMUMMOISIPoCf MO MIUTAWORIIATIONS Rl WWlI3A.NAR\ M[NM O2 GHJ LLCMMEFOAL 0 OPEN slk @ PL PIBOB IlALL AM m cu,41MMSN� P MOFESCN m FkmmOOOlw NFM C A C14,MLW9NE3�414nUrIALIAGE KO Fl NNMOQMMUNWDO19.OPR1C 9r lTsOnc N CA RANNID8- iNGC,M FFO MANN ®p6909JNIAL0E413.IXAABJf CS ARrERAL03MMMIAL ` EI R 2011 -1 /VA2012- 4 /VTTM 2012 -2 SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARDS — =500 n3-7 1 " =1000FE-7 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE P L A N N I N G A N D 8 U I L 0 1 N G A G E N C Y EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAP 75A -19 I I I I I IW BEECH WOOD STREET a w 5 1 N G w W CC 4J zoo R E N C E w �w ASPEN STREET z w O } J CHURCH i l7 5 . F 'R. i SANTA CLARA AVEN El R 2011 -1 /VA, 2012- 4 /VTTM 2012 -2 WiGN SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARD A 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE ew _ P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L p N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 75A -20 FINAL EIR NO. 2011 -01 /VARIANCE N0. 2012 -04 /VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 2012 -02 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE EXHIBIT 3 75A -21 a e�i'sg r N s ccy q 4 3 T z s`�' �g i. z ~W 1 � Oy� unms rvan _. I� n >� 3 LY�W h� # a V_ LW - a c cc U ¢� ti ~ )Rftld M'I4(HOd dLYI FJNV"i OAZ VW ,YJ UL/T.t1F "LVN/ 'pxoo NbWd bH9 P N 9 LD'i _HOcVf3f bYl l0 N0.4HDd U75 C . IM, 1 -MIDI O AIN AVWAI IOM-d '� fi$LY1i aVfJNYi -3d(L MLYWLNOJ — - nrsan amTwin. kti <vl 3 M 1 4i4 s LOU W W - c G�! xs p N kti <vl 3 M 1 4i4 s � s � Ix q p °uI AIR .1 '"T MID Flats 9Z0107 10, ;z a �g J e d,�.lg F5U $g M EXHIBIT 5 SAa-23 0 aw ay L v i a -- G1�C4 � v d con EXHIBIT 5 SAa-23 0 aw ay L v �I a _�1 .„ 4 �� Page 2 of 3 75A -24 0 0 � w by %y ummus =U AP 9- a 5 —s3 a� u�p a nub n a nay N Cd m a � � � ro H CAS � \ � m , /\ M` �-11—T \�k\ _ � \ i� i� � /± Page a! 75A-25 )2 \i $ � t( � \( w@ {( «w ; Aft a= � « E / t \ QOn )/ _e y, „ \[ �$ MIA \ ] } } ,. `zQ !) .wJ aa� 9 / \gQa }/gQ9222 � )) �)$ § ! A ®° \} � } ,. `zQ !) .wJ aa� 9 / \gQa }/gQ9222 � )) ,r,_ $ £J � \§ � ER t[ 7 5A� le, )/ ; �$7 a �R4 A� )/ / . � �� 75A-29 y, {[ 5 j( . ® {\ K@ %[ A]$ ; ƒ {)ƒ §\ �\\ � ,w _. §& E# � \\ !I |, £[ !) 21. / \A d/ MUM Iy6 \d2! � }) �)Q ) TOM ) » / /an - )) ,9'9Z N N to c'u '"P MMISi0 IN z0 & uz A w� yJC d`� C N QI 4r O RY, 7WINUo`9 N d w s.. cis cz b C cd RE Ya�O q�q Y+1 C�J A v, N d w s.. ) \ ,e,_ 2§ < M \( to 3 75Aa I^ ) ) ƒ\ e \\ ® 73/ ) ) ! !/ /\ q! E` \ \( \9 � $ . - |. \# v, �}) r7 �)f 7}/ }§ 7 \ � \\ :Q �\) . -�. \4 G_ /$ �@\ �® J)A /$ f ƒ .a _, §§ � \\ §t v, Page r, 75A-34 N 2 }§ cis w§ & #¥ /� d ! �]a 2 }§ .! , \ N | } � � ! �© : ® % 1�1-- , � , j < d�\ ¥�� 3� k� 7� AlO }} 75X392' 1; -i LU� 0 § \ ui �\ & § U � k j Ir § { � \ ! | �® q §§!; § `( } ( m 31 I 0 8 I It M a Hill ro € a e § 9 e 44"3 0 �41 s I. . . 7661 2A J w Q. cl Q Z J U CL D P M CJ h c~i r► A N a g y� 0 g Q 6 Rf QUEST W A R Historic Resources Commission Action I STORK: RI SOURCC�3' Gl (VIMMS 7RH EU- NO DATE: JANUARY 24, 2013 I HISTORIC RESOURCES COMML98ION SECRETARY_ TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL REPORT ON THE INTENT TO DEMOLISH THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD LOCATED AT 1604 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE — HRD No.2012.01 Prepared by I tally Soboleske _ APPROVED Cf As Recommended fD As Amended FI Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO Executive director !Ma n er Receive and file the final report on the intent to demolish the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Consider a resolution suggesting that the City Council purchase the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Prefect Location and Site Description The Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is a five -acre property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, between Grand and Tustin Avenues. The property is currently owned by the Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (Exhibit 1), Protect Background At the June 4, 2012 public hearing, the City Council voted to list the properly on the City's historic register (Exhibit 2). Subsequently on June 11, 2012, the property owners applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard (Exhibit 3). Pursuant to Section 30 -7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), the Historic Resources Commission must review all applications for demolition permits for historic properties. Section 30 -7 states that the Commission shall investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition. To meet this requirement, on June 213, 2012 at a duly noticed public hearing, the hIRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to study potential alternatives to demolition. The Ad Hoc Committee members included Blair O'Callaghan, Patrick Yrarraxaval and Alberta Christy. The Ad Hoc Committee met on August 7, 2012 to discuss resources that could be used to preserve the site. The Ad Vice Committee also met with concerned members of the community (Exhibit 4) on September 26, 2012 to discuss their progress and to obtain input from the community members. A briefing was also held before the HRC at its October 4, 2012 meeting to provide an update on the status of the investigation and gave the public another opportunity to bring forward new information and resources. EXHIBIT 8 75A -37 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 2 Analysis of the Issues Whenever an application to demolish a historic property is filed, Section 30.7 requires the HRC to Investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition, which include; but are not limited to: 1) Seeking private citizens, local trusts, and other financial sources who may be willing to purchase the structure for relocation or restoration; 2) Publicizing the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes; 3) Exploring possible sites for relocation of the historic building if on -site preservation is not possible, and, 4) Suggesting to the City Council that the city purchase the structure when private preservation or relocation is not feasible. The following provides a summary of the actions taken to date as a result of the HRC's direction and helpful suggestions from the community. The Intent of Section 30 -7(1) is to find alternate funding sources in an attempt to preserve the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard site. As a result, upon receipt of the Intent to demolish the structure and with the input of the Ad Hoc Committee and community input, staff identified numerous organizations and funding sources that may be willing to purchase the structure for restoration or relocation. After reviewing the requirements of these organizations, which are identified in the table below, they were found to be either unable to provide funding for the relocation or restoration of the Sexlinger site or the site was ineligible per their standards. Resource Funding Certified Local Government _ Outcorne Does not fund rehabilitation or ac uisition of property National Trust for Historic Preservation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of p ro ert Save America's Treasures Program currently unfunded Preserve America _ ,Prograrn currently unfunded California Cultural & Historic Endowment No funds currently available National Center for Preservation Technology & Training Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Humanities __. Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition ofproperty„ The Getty Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Preservation Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition ofproperty California Grant Watch I Subscription only 75A -38 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2016 Page 3 California State Parks Foundation Maximum grant available is $6,000 which is too small _ for its intended purpose California State Land & Water Conservation Total grant funding is too small for intended purpose and requires dollar-for-dollar match Southern California Edison — Energy Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Efficiency Strategic Plan Grant American Recovery and Investment Act of Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property 2009 Department of Energy,_Sunshot Initiative Does not fund rehabilitation or ac uisition of property Air Quality Management District Does not fund rehabilitation or ac uisition of property California Energy Commission Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Orange County Transportation Authority Funds only public ri htt -of -way related projects United States Department of Transportation Funds only ublic right-of-way related projects State of California, Bicycle Transportation Funds only public right -of -way related projects Account Federal Highway Administration Transportation related projects only American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Transportation related projects only of 2009, Transportation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act _ Funds only agriculture relief, trade adjustment of of 2009, Agriculture _ _ existing farmers, and a uaculture California Department of Transportation, Transportation related projects only Transportation Enhancement Program State of California Rivers and Parkwa s R elated to ublic water systems only State of California Recreational Trails Related to public recreational trails only Program State of California Habitat Conservation Funds wetlands, wildlife, public trails, and natural Fund habitat conservation only Southern California Association of Regional funding — transportation only Governments Compass Blueprint Planning State funding — Urban greening up to $75,000 Program maximum which is too small for intended purposes Federal funding — Walkable communities development only related to urban landscape and does not fund acquisition of property_ Solid Waste grants Recycling efforts only _ The intent of this section is to publicize the availability of the structure to organizations that have an interest in historic preservation. To meet this standard, staff, in coordination with the property owner, created a single -page flyer that notified the public of the availability of the property and identified a 75A -39 HRD No. 2012.01 January 24, 2013 Page d staff member and the property owner's representative as contact persons, The flyer (Exhibit 5), which was distributed in September 2012, was sent and /or posted to the following entities and individuals with the additional input from members of the community that attended the Ad Hoc Committee meeting: * Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society (who subsequently posted on their website) Orange County Historical Society • City of Santa Ana Webslte City of Santa Ana Facebook Account i City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Facebook Account • OC History Roundup Blog (who subsequently posted on their wobsite) + The Orange County Community Foundation • The Nature Conservancy The Wildlands Conservancy • The Conservation Fund (Laguna Beach field office) Old Orchard Conservancy • "Inside the Outdoors ", Orange County Department of Education Rancho Santiago College Irvine Valley College California State Polytechnic University, Pomona California State University, Fullerton Discovery Science Center + Historic French Park (Debbie McEwen, President) • All Ad Hoc Committee attendees Whenever possible, parties were also notified by phone. Follow -up outreach was also made to each of these groups prior to this HRC public hearing. As of January 15, 2013, staff received no calls and /or smalls regarding the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes. Further, the property owner's representative received one phone call related to the flyer, which was from a real estate broker seeking land for potential development, This code section involves identifying potential sites for relocation of the structure. To date, no private Individuals or organizations have contacted the City or the property owner with sites that could be used for relocation of the building. In addition, staff from the Planning Division and Community Development Agency identified eight pieces of property owned by the Successor Agency that could accommodate a house move -on. However, the lots are unavailable due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and unresolved issues with the State Department of Finance, 75A -40 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 5 This section considers the City purchase of the Sexlinger site as a means to preserve it as a historic resource. Although It is not required, the HRC may suggest to the City Council that the Sexlinger site be purchased by the City. Should the HRC wish to suggest this course of action, a sample resolution is attached for your consideration (Exhibit 6). Assuming the current processing schedule for the project, if the HRC adopts the attached resolution, the City Council would then need to consider taking action on the potential purchase either prior to or concurrent with, the regularly scheduled Council meeting of March 4, 2013. At this meeting, the Council is scheduled to consider the tentative tract map and lot width variances associated with the proposed development of the site, as well as the certification of the Draft EIR. Summary and Next Steos: Once the requirements of SAMC Section 30.7 are complete within the required 240 days from the date of application submittal, or at the conclusion of the environmental review period, whichever is longer, a demolition permit must be issued. Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall provide, to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission, and at the applicant's sole cost, complete photo - documentation of archival quality and historical profile of the structure to be demolished, prior to the scheduling of the demolition. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR), tract map and variance necessary for the residential project to be approved will be considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on February 11, 2013. The Planning Commission's recommendation for the project, along with the discretionary application, will go to public hearing with the City Council for consideration on March 4, 2013, Public Notification The subject site is located within the Portola. Park neighborhood. The president of this Neighborhood Association was notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing, and a notice was published in the Orange County Reporter. A notice was posted on the subject site, and public notification was provided to all those property owners and tenants with in a 500 foot radius, as well as those who requested to be placed on the permanent notification list for the project, At the time of this printing, no correspondence, either written or electronic, had been received from any members of the public. 75A -41 HRD No, 2012.01 January 24, 2013 Page 6 CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended actions are exempt from further review under Section 16331. This Class 31 exemption is applicable as these actions are designed to preserve historic resources, A Categorical Exemption will be filed for this project. ' 7 Hally SobgJ ke Associate P annex HS:jm hs$lstodo bNoOI2412HRCUvd 12.09 IntentToDemollelfln it r Vince Fregos, Principal Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1 — 500 Foot Radius Map Exhibit 2 — Department of Parks and Recreation Form Exhibit 3 — Notice of Intent to Demolish Exhibit 4 - Members of the community present at the HRC Ad Hoc Committee meeting Exhibit 5 — Notice of Availability Flyer Exhibit 6 — Resolution 75A -42 HRD- 2012 -01 15814 Cast Santa Clara Avenue PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY 75A -43 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92706 NAME Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard REF. NO. ADDRESS 1584 E. Santa Clara Ave. CITY Santa Ana ZIP 92705 ORANGE COUNTY YEAR BUILT 1913 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Key HISTORIC DISTRICT NIA NEIGHBORHOOD I Portola Park CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 1 5 CALIFORNIA REGISTER STATUS CODE 551 Location: Q Not for Publication ® Unrestricted ❑ Prehistoric [9 Historic ❑ Both ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Craftsman Bungalow Closely related to the English Ads and Crafts Movement, American BungalowlCraBemon arohfteclure was popularized by The Craftsman magazine and architects such as Charles and Henry Greene of Pasadena. It drew from the wood building traditions of Japan and Switzerland as well as the medieval themes favored by the Ads and Crafts philosophers. Craftsman architecture stressed honesty of form, materials, and workmanship, eschewing applied decoration In favor of the straightforward expression of structure. A new appreciation of nature was evident In horizontal lines that reached out to embrace the landscape and the Incorporation of capacious porches into building plans. Primarily a residential style, Craftsman architecture can be Identified by low pitched gable and hipped roofs v with exposed rafters and beams in deep overhangs; wood lap or shingle siding and an occasional use of stucco; extensive use of stone or brick as a secondary malarial; horizontal emphasis apparent in roof lines, headers, and battered porch supports; and broadly proportioned wood framed windows, often clustered in bands. Craftsman homes were built from circa 1902 unill the early 1920s (McAlester, 453 453). The Sexitnger Farmhouse and Orchard Is substantially intact as a rurallagricuiturat landscape with a Craftsman Bungalow and Valencia orchard In proximity. The site as a whole portrays a significant period in Santa Ana's history, and is associated with a business and use that was once common, but Is now rare. The site is eligible for the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties as Key under Criterion G. EXPLANATION OF CODES: California Register Criteria for Evaluation: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series # 7,. 'How to Nominate Resources to the California Register of Historical Resources,' September 4, 2001.) 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. + California Register Status Code: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, December 8, 2003.) 651: Individual property that Is listed or designated locally, 75A -44 State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Primarylf P -30. 179000 Trinomial NRI1P Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 17 "Resource Name or th (Assigned by recorder) 1584 E. Santa Clara Avenue P1., Otherldontifior: $exlingerOrchard "P2. Location; ❑ Not for Publication 0Unrestricted 'a; county: Oran a and (P20, Pte, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) •b. USG$ 70 Quad Oran a Date 1974 T 5S; R 9W; NIA '/4 of NIA A of Sec fl; D.M. MD c, Address 1594 E Santa Clara Ave City ajig a Zip fl2706 d. UTM: (Give more than one for fares and /or Ilnearresources) Zone 11.4m ME/ 3736673 mN e. Other L=rfljm al Dola: (e.g., parcel ii, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APNs: 396052.43 and 396.062.44. The specific project location Is bounded roughly by East Santa Clara Avenue to the north, Portola Park on (he east, East Avalon Avenue on the scull), and Concord Street on the west. "P3a. Description: (Desedbe resource and Its major elements. include design, materials, candilion, ofteradons, size, selling, and boundaries) This properly was previously recorded In 2008, and assigned P- 30.179880. The 5•acre properly Is an historic -age orchard landscape of which the major features Include the remnants of a Valencia orange orchard, a resdence, and a garage (McClelland at at. 1989, Revised 1999:1048; Dolan 2009160). The land has been historically used as an orange orchard since c. 1913, when it was likely planted by Perry Grout, and as the Sextinger family's residence and orchard from 1914 to 2086. The boundary of the landscape is demarcated by the boundaries of the 5 -acre parcel occupied by the Sextinger family for 90 years. The landscape's spatial organization is very simple with only two clusters of land uses: ro ildonllal (f ui residence and garage) at the northwest corner of the parcel adjacent to a main thoroughfare, Santa Clara Avenue, and the orchard that fills the remaining northeast portion of the parcel, SEE CONTINUATION SHEET "119. Data Recordorl; December 2011 rib. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) )rchard Landscape — HP 33 H.Resources Present:®Bullding ❑ Structure :)Object Mile []District Mement of District MOlilor (isolates, otm) Orchard Landscape 761). Description of Photo: (view, date, accession A) View of Xchard November 2011 `Pa, Dato Constructo(IfAge and Saurce: IMI- lateric 71Prehistaric ❑Goth s 10131orahartl);1914 ( reaidonce) (port)eumann and Flowell- Mile 2007 and Padon and Marvin 2008) 1137. Owner and Address; Private "Pa. Rocorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) URS Corporation 4226 Executive Sguare Suite 1600 San Diego CA. 022.037 "P10. Survey Typo: (aoscrthe) Deskto nvesil atioo "P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or stile( "none.") SupalcmentalTechnicalMomorendum— CullumlRasonrces ElinlhililyAssessmentof 1584E Santa Clara Ave Santa Ana Cailfomia TAVA 7avelopmenl Comnanv Protect. becembor 2011. "Attactunonts: ONONE ❑Localian Map 11flContinuonon Sheat ®DUllding, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Rocord ODislrict Record 131-inear Feature Record Willing Station Record ORock Ad Record OArlifact Record UlPholograph Record ❑Other (List): DPR 623A (1196) "Roqulrod Information 75A -45 DPR 6"A (1198) 75A -46 'Requirod Information 1 u3 5 % a � R b � O' 4 i a� a 75A -47 s� o BG in a N h L7 Lu }t t Qf� afrt" 11�1141 [t1uP o < <u � t [} IA Hill 75A -47 s� o BG in a N h L7 Lo o'. 9�l,: P i 75A -47 s� o BG in a N h L7 75A -48 C O .ngg C "9 tl' N e+ Q a a a �, •1- I June 11, 2012 Ms. Karen Haluza, AICP Planning Manager Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana P.O. Sox 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Application of Intent to Demolish Historic Property RE: Sexlinger property, 1504 East Santa Clara Avenue Dear Ms, Halula: The purpose of this letter Is to fonually notify the City of Santa Ann that It Is the intent of the legal property owners to demolish the residential structure and to remove the existing trees, This application notice Is provided In accordance with Section 307 (a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Cade, Also Included with the letter are a completed Building permit Worksheet and a check In the amount of $462,60, payable to the City of Santa Ana, This amount was provided by Principal PlannerVlncent C. Fregosm Your attention to this letter is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact our consultant, Robert Odle, at 714.401.9281 or ndleassociatesao! cam. Sincerely, u� Kevin Tilden Concordia University Executive Vice President for Finance Chief Financial Officer Enclosures I n >dnydnn wlw, I lulu,btlili, ,110 Cnlnval"I Cni: our 6tL Emmalea Noble Lutheran High School of orange County Chief Flnanelal Officer 75A -49 �15f0e y1unldu•C6 +A „ull }RdII� >:•.. lnut, l.. Id411r „•:C'f 1:1111 VIeC •910, 47 w 2 U � xz t-0 0 0: Z. 0 U O 0 0 U G J 8 y C9 � E 0 P[CC�E 0 ps Y�z _ � W MMry naN�. M Qj� sM-N Pf t0 N N of h PPPfff r�.�m uo q �� c �E n. n h: lnn nt=n tinrh- $nt'it'i ro '�cCg C�f�UU � E L ry m ro m ro = 0.10 N i� roQQQ QQ '0 0 0 e a 0000ro�ro . Ef>�v:2 RR2. to 8<00000000046 co> m v va91 ,E`b'Ao o vrQ- gFf�hhd vuGiS c o w � N E.l2 oo E,E._`m� =a� �p.E � � c� m C3 L) C) 1- o ma5NrBss =a m a a w �° ((opp''� N$�j11 �'s O (J U g o a p� z� move, awz LCa x o � U a`i c a rn ro UI �/3y NN 'per 0. N O. Z p O` 6 g lW t1 6 N G �aU> vs°�a2)i�� v o (.l c ar p F � t E. Ci ccfu c o o 8z O q ,u6romro�;�NG0. S ° Nm roM 75A -50 ( ' 7", ,1 Notice of Availability of Historic property END5eAn er Orange Orchard and f=armhouse ' 6 The Sexiinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse Is a 5 -acre piece of property located at 1584 E. Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. The orchard and farmhouse were recently placed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties by the City Council. The owners of the property, Lutheran Iligh School of Orange County and Concordia University, were donated the property by Martha Sexiinger with her Intent that It be sold for housing development and that the proceeds be distributed to these Christian schools to benefit their ministry. As such, these recipient owners disagreed with the historical listing of the property and have submitted a Notice of Intent to demolish the orchard and farmhouse In order to clear the property for future development. Pursuant to Section 30.7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the City of Santa Ana must explore ways to preserve the property including publicizing the availability of the property, in whole or in part, for safe or, In the case of the house, for safe and relocation. The City of Santa Ana does not own this property and does not have any discretion or right to participate in negotiations pertaining to the sale of either the farmhouse or the orchard. Should the orchard or farmhouse be sold, the City would work with subsequent owners to ensure that the historic preservation of the property Is upheld. The deadline to submit offers to the property owner Is January 15, 2013. For more Information about the property go to: nttpd/www.santa- ana.oru /pba /2lt annint>L exlingerranmhouseandOrchar cl.asn. For more information please contact: Owners Representative Mr. Robert H. Odle Odle & Associates LLC (714) 401 -8231 odlea -Ss nciate-5 @aoLcoIn City Representative Mr, Vince Fregoso, Principal planner City of Santa Ana (714) 667 -2713 vfre .oso . santa -ana org 75A -51 Date published: September 5, 2012 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 ROH — 01/24/13 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA SUGGESTING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY PURCHASE THE S[XLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE, SANTA ANA BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Sexlinger Property is rectangular in shape, approximately five acres in size, and includes a 1,350 square foot Craftsman -style farmhouse and a Valencia orange grove of approximately 250 trees. The residence was constructed in 1914 by Perry V. Grout, but was sold shortly thereafter to George and Sophia Sexlinger. Members of the Sexlinger family resided in the home until 2006. B. The legal description for the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. C. On June 4, 2012, the City Council placed the Sexlinger property, located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, Santa Ana, on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. D. On June 11, 2012, the owners of the Sexlinger property, the Concordia University Foundation and the Lutheran High School of Orange County, applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard on the property. E. Section 30 -7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires that the Historical Resources Commission review all applications for demolition permits for historical properties, and investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition. F. SAMC Section 30- 7(a)(4) presents the alternative that the Historic Resource Commission suggests to the City Council that the city purchase the property when private preservation or relocation is not feasible. EXHIBIT 9 Resolution No, 2013 -01 75A -52 Page 1 of 4 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 8103 Section 2: The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana after i conducting the public hearing hereby urges the City Council that the city purchase the Sexlinger Property. After consideration by the Historic Resources Commission Ad Hoc Committee, it was determined that neither private preservation nor relocation is a feasible alternative to demolition given the limited timeline available. Our urging is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Staff report and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony and correspondences, particularly the letter from Steve Ray dated January 24, 2013, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 24� day of January 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney 10 BI 0 "Callag(7an Vice Chairman AYES: Commission members: Bustamante Christy Hitterdale Morfin O'Callaghan, Yrarrazaval (6) NOES: Commission members: None (0) ABSTAIN: Commission members: None (0) NOT PRESENT: Commission members: Schaefer (1) Resolution No, 2013.01 75A -53 Page 2 of 4 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No, 2013 -01 to be the original resolution adopted by Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 24, 2013 Date: 1 om Isslon Secretary City of Santa Ana f,J Resolution No, 2013 -01 75A -54 Page 3 of EXEMPT FROM FEES PURUSANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN Address Owner Names Legal Description 396- 052 -14 1684 East Santa Clara Concordia CHAPMAN TR LOT BLK A Avenue University E1/2 N 10 AC W 50 AC S Foundation and 210,27 Lutheran High School of Orange County Exhibit A Resolution No. 2013-01 Page 4 of 4 75A -55 January 24, 2013 City of Santa Ana Historic Resources Commission Re; The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana is tasked with the responsibility to identify, investigate and suggest alternatives to the proposed demolition of the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse, The property has been designated as historic by the Santa Ana City Council. The hearing before the Historic Resources Commission will be held on January 24, 2013, The Staff Report for the HRC hearing recommends that the commission suggest that the City buy the property to preserve it. The Old Orchard Conservancy supports this recommendation, In support of the recommendation the Conservancy offers five potential scenarios through which the City may engage in the purchase and preservation of the property. This list of scenarios is certainly not exhaustive but should provide formative discussion on the potential methodologies to acquire the property. 1) City Purchase and Preservation. The City could purchase the property and through appropriate city agencies /departments plan and execute a preservation plan for the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. The Old Orchard Conservancy and other community groups could support and assist in the preservation process. 2) City Purchase and Private Restoration and Alan agemcut Under this public /private partnership, the City would purchase the property and contract with a private non - profit entity (the primary candidate being The Old Orchard Conservancy) to restore and manage the property. The contract partner would create a vision plan and a master plan to be approved by the City, perform restoration of the orchard and relrabititation/renovation of the farmhouse, develop community and education programs, manage and maintain the site and acquire necessary funding for all these activities. A successful model for this scenario is the Shipley Nature Center in Huntington Beach, a public- private partnership Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Friends of Shipley Nature Center. 3) City Purchase with Private Buyout This scenario would closely mirror the scenario in Scenario 2 above with the additional provision that the City would, after the purchase of the property, contract with the private non- profit entity to acquire funds and purchase the property from the City at some fitture time specified in the agreement between the parties. 75A -56 4) City Loan to Private Entity for Purchase Given the relative brevity of time to purchase and preserve the property, the City could make a loan to a private non - profit partner for purchase of the property by the private entity with a lien held by the City until the loan is repaid. Restoration and management of the property will follow the same outlines discussed in Scenario 2 above. 5) Private Entity Purchase with City Loan Guarantee This scenario would enable the private non - profit partner to acquire the property tlu-ough traditional mortgage financing with the City guaranteeing the loan to the lending institution. The private partner would acquire funds to repay the loan per the terms of the financing agreement, Restoration and management of the property will follow the same outlines discussed in Scenario 2 above. Other possible variations on any of the above scenarios and additional unenumerated scenarios may also be explored and discussed between the City and the private non -profit partner. As timing is of the essence, discussions should begin forthwith. The Old Orchard Conservancy is committed to preserving, restoring and managing the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse, and if possible, to acquire it. This last remaining intact family -owned orange orchard in Orange County needs to be preserved and used to benefit the public, This old orchard is not only a valuable historic asset for the City of Santa Ana, but it can also be a valuable economic and educational benefit to the community. The Old Orchard Conservancy requests that the Historic Resources Commission strongly suggests that the City purchase the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse and also propose that the City Council consider the above scenarios as the means to achieve the realization of this valuable historic asset. Thank you. Steve Ray Board Member The Old Orchard Conservancy 75A -57 The complete Environmental Impact Report is available at the Planning Division public counter and on the City's webpage at http://www.santa- ana.orq /pba /planninq /documents /sexiinger /Sexlinger Orchard Final EIR.pdf Also, the addition analysis that was prepared in December 2013, the response letters and the responses to the letters from January 2014 is also available at the Planning Division public counter and at http: / /santa- ana.orq/ pba /planninq /documents /SexlingerOrchard AAforRTConDEIR 0130 14. pd 75A -58 YIA 5 t5 Ell- gp Nt ON CON- Lu rg cc u IE lAM1i N01} GF rm Vw aX,F Wndiflo a v ik" II <�9, is PfJR PR bvN,l Iii._._. fat Id I yeti � Ml- LU V. ON CON- Lu rg cc u IE lAM1i N01} GF rm Vw aX,F Wndiflo a v ik" II <�9, is PfJR PR bvN,l Iii._._. fat Id I yeti � !y> :1k 1%.F T6 Owlwd ! i,' Cnxnssrvancy www.0idOrchardConservancy.org 1,J January 17, 2014 Dff_1Q=: Mr. Vince Fregoso, AICP Jeannie President Principal Planner Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency Ryan sensiey Vice-President 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex PO Box 1988, M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 E -Mail( vfregoso@santa -ana org RE: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Board M .me hers < = Project, Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on the Patrick Mitchell Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008041172) Moises Plascencia Steve Ray Dear Mr. Fregoso, Nick Spain After reviewing the Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue dated December 19, 2013, The Old Qyrc Miscinn, Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) continues to oppose the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project (formerly "To preserve, known as the TAVA Development Company Project, SCH# 2008041172) acquire, restore and manage the as it continues to propose inadequate alternatives for preservation. The Old Orange Orchard following outlines our concerns with regard to the AdditionalAnalysis. located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, Cultural, The staff's latest alternative to be included in the EIR is referred to as agricultural and the "Historic Preservation Alternative "(HPA). Let's first review what the educational resource foralf° historic designation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is. The June 4, 2012 historic property designation by the City Council, which overturned an earlier decision by the Historic Resources Commission, defined the historic property as the intact family residence and flue -acre orchard. Q n act The distinction between an orchard- residence designation and a (7 14) 296.4642 residence -only determination has all along been a crucial element of the understanding among the Conservancy and city staff. Including the full P. ox landscape of the Sexlinger Orchard Complex as a "Key" historical Sant0. Santa Ana, California 92711 -003II www.0idOrchardConservancy.org 1,J Page 2 property establishes a precedent for the city of Santa Ana. This understanding is reaffirmed in the Technical Memorandum describing the HPA when it states, "... the Sexlinaer orchard [emphasis ours] is considered a historic resource under the SARHP for the purposes of CEQA." The consultant's understanding and use of various National Park Service publications and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary's Standards) is the basis for their arguments that reduce the designated historic property from five acres to 10,044 square feet. That their proposals of the restoration of the structures and the retention of a few orange trees can be considered adequate mitigation of recognized adverse impacts "to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource" is without merit. The HPA lists a series of the rehabilitation standards put forth by the Secretary's Standards, some of which the Conservancy believes do nothing to address the impacts of the essential demolition and destruction of the orchard itself and others which, based on the description of how this alternative will be implemented, will not occur at all. Example: "A property will be used as it was historically." Based on the detailed description of this alternative, the use of the property will be as a standard residential property without any reference to use in it's true historical context, that of a family farm complex. Remember, this property is an original five acre, family owned, commercial orchard, not a remnant. The HPA invokes CEQA guidelines from the standpoint of defining substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. They sight "substantial adverse change" as the "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities that would impair the significance of the historic resource." Examples of adverse impacts acknowledged in the HPA include "... a large portion of the [orchard] network would be lost" and that under the HPA the "natural systems and features" of the land would not be "recognizable as what exists currently." Additionally, the "overall setting and relationship with the landscape would be impaired by the construction of additional residences." It is acknowledged that the HPA would result in the loss of the spatial organization of the historic site and the "extant landscape would undergo significant change as the vast majority of the orange trees of the project site would be removed." Given these expected impacts of the proposed project we see no way that the HPA can retain the historical integrity, significance and overall character of the historic resource. The remaining 10,000 square feet will, in our view, not adequately convey the scope of the historical Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Furthermore, the Conservancy cannot, in anyway, consider this proposed alternative as being a mitigation plan which will reduce adverse impacts to a "level less than significant." We feel that our proposed 50/50 development /preservation alternative is much more in keeping with the true intent of the Secretary's Standards by allowing enough acreage to retain the historical integrity of the "property's location, feeling, and overall character." www.01dOrchardConservancy.or 75A -61 Conservancy Page 3 An alternative, very similar to ours, is now recognized by the State of California as "standard mitigation" in issues involving development proposals where historical, cultural, agricultural or environmentally sensitive landscapes are involved. ( Masonite v County of Mendocino et al., DJDAR 9784). You will also find letters attached that you have received in the past from, both, our attorney and the Conservancy, outlining the Masonite case and our proposal for a true preservation alternative. We appreciate the opportunity to have this letter and attachments included in the staff report for the February 4, 2014 City Council meeting. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 2014_ 0107_ EIR_Rasponse_pdf Enclosures cc: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Miguel Pulido, Mayor Sal Tinalero, Mayor Pro Tern Vince Sarmfento Michele Martinez Angelica Amezcua David Senavides Roman Reyna www.0idOrchardConservancy.org 75A -62 r August 21, 2013 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Vincent C. Fregoso, AICP, Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency P.O. Box 1988 M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Email: vfregoso @santa- ana,org Re: Sexlinger Orchard Project Dear Mr. Fregoso: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714.513.5100 main 714.513.5130 main tax www.s heppa rd mull In.com 714.424.2821 direct drosenth al @sheppard m ul lin.ccm File Number: 0010-174415 In prior correspondence with the City Planning Commission, the Old Orchard Conservancy objected to the failure of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sexlinger Project to consider any preservation alternatives. Since submitting comments, the Conservancy has identified two potential alternatives that would preserve the historic Farmhouse in situ, as well as a substantial portion of the Orchard. Both of these alternatives allow for economically feasible residential development of the property, although at a reduced number of units from that proposed by the landowner, The alternatives also call for single -story homes, which are more compatible with the character of the Orchard and address some of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The Conservancy would also like to bring to your attention the recent decision in Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 DdDAR 9784. Copy attached. This case holds that a requirement to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement is a legally feasible mitigation for impacts to prime farmland under CEQA. P. 9780. The decision also notes that acquisition of agricultural conservation easements "over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is 'standard for California communities. "' P. 9791. Finally, the Court of Appeal reaffirms that "the preservation of agricultural land is an important public policy" that CEQA is intended to effectuate. P. 9791. Section 815 of the Civic Code recognizes that "the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open -space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California." P. 9791. The Sexlinger El R determined that no mitigation was required for impacts to agricultural resources because the Orchard is located in an urbanized area. However, in areas where lands have riot been surveyed, CEQA Section 21060.1(a) defines "agricultural land" as land meeting the requirements of "prime agricultural land" under Section 51201 of the Government Code. 75A -63 a . + • t City of Santa Ana Planning Department August 21, 2013 Page 2 Section 51201 defines "prime agricultural land" to include land with prime soils and orchards that normally produce more than $200 per acre. Although the Sexlinger Orchard was removed from production by its current owners, it contains unusually high- quality soils and produced citrus at economic levels for more than a century. See Section 51201 (copy attached) and Slivers Report (previously, submitted). Under Masonite, "standard" mitigation for loss of the highly productive Sexlinger Orchard would be an agricultural conservation easement over 2.5 acres on -site or 5 acres off -site. The remaining 2.5 acres of the Orchard would be available for compatible residential development, as proposed in 1 of the alternatives identified by the Conservancy, Evidence collected by the Conservancy demonstrates that continued use of the Sexlinger Orchard for citrus production is possible due to its high - quality soils, making agricultural use both legally and economically feasible Masonite also clarifies the City's obligation to adopt conditions that avoid or reduce impacts to the Farmhouse and Orchard as mitigation for impacts to these historic resources, Preservation of the designated resources in their original configuration is legaily feasible and must be required of the developer, unless it is shown to be economically infeasible. In this case, the property has significant economic value with retention of both the Farmhouse and the Orchard, requiring their preservation under CEQA. The Conservancy looks forward to meeting with you to outline the alternatives they have identified and to discuss any other questions you may have about their commitment to preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Very truly yours, /fin Borah M. Rosenthal AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP SMRH:409959505,1 Enclosures cc; Ms. Jeannie Gillett Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Ryan Hodge, Esq. Mr. Robert Odle Mr. Steve Ray Mr. Nick Spain 75A -64 9784 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 28, 2013 . ENVIRONMENTAL LAW The County failed to adopt adequate measures to mitigate sigaificant impacts from truck traffic - along a private road associated with the Project. Environmental impact report And finally, that the EIR failed to adequately :fr quarry project should plot evaluate Project alternatives. hgve been appproved because it did not mitigate loss ofprime We agree with Masomte's contentions involvng: recrculation for comment on possible . farmland§ on proferN mitigation measures that can protect the Frog; the hafeasiblity of agricultural conservation - easements and in -lieu fees; discussion - of cumulative Impacts on f tanland; and mitigation Cite as 2013 DJDAR 9784 measures for truck traffic, Accordingly, we: reversa the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate, with directions that the County set aside its certification of the EIR, and prepare and circulate a supplemental EIR that addresses MASONITECORPORATION, the errors weldentity. Petitioner and Appellant, I. BACKGROUND V. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO at al., Defendants and Respondents; The Project is a sand and gravel quarry to , GRANITE CONSPRUCT'ION be developed on 65.3 acres approximately one mile north of Ukiah, The site is bordered on the i COMPANY, north by Ackerman Creek, on the east by the Real Party in Interest and Respondent, Russian River, on the south by property owned by Masonite, end on the west by Knnzler Ranell Road. Most of the site is' culdvated as a vineyard, No, A134896 with an opeas ace poMan in the northeast and a , (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK CVPT 1056883) truck maintenance shop at the northwest corner. Forty-five acres of the site's 65 acres are classified ', California courts of Appeal as' prime farmland," but fire site has been zoned for use 1982, it is surrounded by First Appellate District Division Three industrial since aglnamber mill to the north of Ackerman Creek, , i Fded July25, 2tl13 to tproperty Riverul Masomante's industrial to the south. {described as "vacant" on area maps), and i CERTIFIEDFORPARTiALPUBLICATION* Industrial and commercial properties to the west Granite plans to extract 3,37 million tons Of - aggregate from 30.3 acres of the site over 25- ' Pursuant to California Rues of Court, :rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publiczfion witli the year perlod, The mine Is designed to operate yea raund, six days a week, 14 hours a days ' 1 exception of parts Q.B., ir.rl , tt.E., and 11Y The mining will be done in phases to allow for , concurrent site reclamation, and five years j of reclamation are planned after the mining Masomte Corporation (Masonite) appeals operations are complete; Following reclamation; r? from a judgment denying its petition for writ of the northwestern portion of the property will be mandate to set aside approvals by Mendocino try ailabl eforfuturemdustrial uses, aadtherestof County (County) of die Kunzler Terrace Mine tha.site wdl be "open apace (ponds).." -, Projeat (Project) to be developed by Granite Construction Company (Granite; Granite and the Gran'to .submitted an appli cation County for approval of a conditional to the use County are hereafter referred to colleedvely as permit and red atlon plan for the Project in re spaadents),andthefm ale nvI onmantalimPact February 2008. The County determined that report (EIR) for Its Project, far failure to comply an anvkanmennll impact report was required, with the Cabfornia EnvkoomellW duality Act solicited comments from government eguncles (CE 4A) (Pub. Rasourcas Code, § 21000 at seq.), in..Aprit 2008, and noticed preparation of a dratt Masonfte argues the approval process and the EIIi were deficient in several wava. 7lie environl imp act Yep art (Draft) in October, menta 'Inhe. Draft was released for public and agency t .. t County was required to recirculate the EIR because the Project as approved had significantly review in September 2000. Among those who commented critically on the Draft and the Project greater impacts §Ian the fine originally proposed. were SCS Engineers on behalf of Masorete, and Recircula'on was also required because the Russian Riverkeeper, an organization dedicated ' EIR disclosed a new significant impact. on the Tailed Frog (Frog) that was not to protection of the Russian RwAr environment The EIR was released for review on May Foothill YaRow adequately mitigated, The County erroneously 3, 2010, The EIR identified two significant and deterramed that conservation easements and in- unavoidable Project impacts, the permanent 'l lieu fees were not feasible ways to mitigate the loss of prune farmland, and traffic problems that loss of prime farmland.due to the Project. The would develop by the year 2030. The EIR came �`. EIR did not adequately analyze the Project's before the County Planning Commission on May cumulative impacts or, agricultural resources. 20, 2010, After considering public comments, i 75A -65 Monday;. duly 29, 2013 Dally Appellate Report 9785 including tbose on behalf of Masonite, the Pla uming Commission certified the ERt and. as Guidelines]; Pub.: Resources Code, § 210921.) ' Mile addition of new Information to an EIR approved the use permit and reclamation plan, 7'he Planniig'Commission adopted a statement after the close of the public comment period Is nut'significane unless the EIR is in of overriding considerations noting, among other things, that the Project would provide "a ratable changed a way that deprives the public of a, meaningful . 20 -year supply of constiuction aggregate in the Mendocino County area," opPort unitytocommentuponasubatantio ladverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible Masoimta, and Russian Riverkeeper appealed the way to midgets, or avoid such an effect." (Laurel Her US ImprooementAssn. a Regeno o(Luuuenity Pla lmli gsommission decislOns to the County Board of Supervisors, The appeals wore heurdby o}Caldfornia (1908) 6 Cal.4th 1112,1129 (Laurel the board a.n4uly27 ,20I0.Thedayofthe fie arIng, H411ts fn; see also Vineyard, supra 40 Cal 4th atp ,417, quoting LaurelHeightslL,). Signiflcatt Masonite filed a 49 -page letter brief challengin g die EIR on approximately 20groonda. Thebnazd new information" includes a disclosure showing that '[a] new significant environmental impact denied both 4ppeals. -.Mas inito,�.and Russian Riverkeeper filed would result from the project. 7" (Guidelines,. § 15088,5, subd. (a) (1),} - petitions for writ of mandate seelchig to overturn the ComiVs approval of the Project due to (2) ProjectAlteri tions violations of CEQA T11e Petitions were denied, and Masonite and Russian Riverkeeper appealed front the judgments. Russian Riverkeepees The Project was changed in two respects from tie one originally envisioned, ' !' Appeal was dismissed after settlement (a Pond-River Cannecdon -; �! .. _ H. DISCUSSION in Lieu of a Weir and )fuse A. Scope of Review Gran'ite's application for die use permit and "In reviewing agency's compliance with reclamation plan recograed that, "because of its proximity to die Russian River and Ackerman c ou -.the courts' inquiry 'shall - extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse 'Creek, the project site has valuable aquatic and riparian habitats adjacent to it., The aquatic of discretion.' [Citation.] Such. an abuse is established. if the agency has not proceeded in a habitat supports Chinook salmon and steelltead, both listed as threatened species under the ` mannerrequired bylawor if the determination or decision isnotsupported by substantial evidence," Endangered species Act 7b'e piimary concern for these species relative to the proposed project j [Citations,] ' Aiiappellatecouresrcviewpftlteadnnirdstrative is the potential for hall entrapment in. the pit during floods high enough to Inundate the + record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case , , , is the same as die trial court's: site." The application noted with respect to hydrology and drainage that, "as an alluvial terrace adjacent t 71ie appellate court reviews the agency's action, not, the trial courts decision; In that sense to the Russian River and Ackerman Creak," the Project site "is subject to perigl is inindatign.. appellate judicial review under CEQA Is de nova, [Citations.) We therefore resolve the substantive , ; Extensive hydrologicniodelingwas conducted to designan overflow structure diatwould CEQA issues ... by Independently determining whether die administrative record demonstrates nnnhlli5e the Potential for fish r4 became entrapped n the any legal error by the Comity and whether it pit, and prevent erosion of pit flanks and walls during a104yearflood event" contains substantial evidence to support the County's :factual determinations," (Vineyard Granite's application, proposed. •to 'address the potential for flooding and trapped fish with Area Citizens for,ReV /onslble Crowell, file, it City afRaucho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4di 412, 426.427, construction ofaf loodomitol.weir.,andfaneplug, ' "the armared�overflow weir gives.the creek and -_ Ik! in. omitted (Vlnayard)) river a controlled access and drainage point for t E. Recirculadon of the EIR flood waters without eroding the riling buffer," while the erodable ISM fuse plug limbs potential ..(1) Atguinents and Standards fish entrapmenu" fix May 2008, comments oil the Project the National Marine Fisheries Service . Masonite contends that the EIR should have ( NMFS, ) oftheNationalOceanicandAtmospheric Administration stated that "reconnecting die pit r been recirculated fnr public review because the Project as approved was "different inarkeW, to the stream" would provide better. long-term protection for endangered salmonids than the t, from lac one analyzed In die Draft and had more severe environmental impacts, . and because the . proposed weir and fuse plug, Granite's study of the NMFS proposal, attached as.Appendix F to EIR identified a new significant Impact on the Frog, the Draft, concluded thatitwouildbe preferable to t; Alead agency is required to recirculate an EIR use .a connection channel betweenthe mine Pond ` and the Russian River in lieu of the weir and fase when significant new information 1s added to the plug. . EII;, atter public notice is given of the availabifity of lice draft Ell: for public review but before ",(Cal. The Project as proposed in the Drat provided for use.of the weir and fuse plugo but he pond. • �l`l cerBfication Code Pegs., tit 14, §15088.5, subd. (a) [the- CEQA Guidelines In Dal, Code river connection - bhanneldesignwal.presented as "Alternative 3" .It.replaced,the,weir and fuse fn €I 1 Reis, ht 14., §d5000, or seq. are hereafter cited plug with 'a culvert (or culverts). suitable for the 5..�'wC'itcsxlzYC -^�1"2 75A -66 _..._.,... 978Q. Dally Appellate Report Monday, Iuly:29i'.43� project life (rather than as a permanent structure, w will increase annual winter juvenile% chid as muter the proposed project)," and eliminated s survivability in the project yici*.." •"" s the need for ongoing maintenance of the weir and " "floodplain benching' was inwiltoi•dted,ln'td' the - i fuseplug,'the Drandetermined that "stranding or D Draft, along with mitigation measured for its entrapment ofspeciat- sta tussalmonida would be i impact onsalmoWds and riparian habitat a potentially sigrilflcant hnpaet if the Projectwere I In its comments on the Draft SCS Engineers - constructed wlththeweir fuse plug; However, f for Masonito criticized the floodplain benching. F ntigation measures that included salmond S SCS wrote;. "Artificial and unwarranted rescue and relocation programs Implemented in ' 'improvements' such as those pprotosed by, consultation with NMFS and the Department of G Granite serve to upset the b' litliduirl'iof trig` Fish and Game (Fish & Gaine), would make this f fluvial s system for the financial beQefit `�o# •one impact "[1jessthan significant" TlieDraftfurther l landowner, T Ttils proposed at 'do , is stated that if Alternative 9 was implemented, it n not only unneeded under`current'hcbuditious" would " such channel manipulations have'the,'patent12; capture and sabnonld entrapment" and "eliminate t to destabilize downstream banks and to'shift'the� the need for the rescue. plan:" - p position of the channet thalweg vdtli potentially: .In November A,. 2009, comments on the n negativeimpactstodownstreamlanddwners 'Stich; Draft, NMFS expressed concern that when pit n negative impacts may include mcrea9edtoteq"dalI - ininhhg operations resulted in ponds of standing f for flooding or other unanticipated " groundwater more than 35 feet deep, sonar obic r response's that may occur : as7 a 'result of'f de ' conditions would threaten the vitallty'of any p proposed unwarranted mechanical maid elation' salmonhds trapped in the ponds, mid the depths of o of tine channel.... (I] ... ITlhere is tittle ' the reclaimed ponds would need to b no geomorphic or other sclemiHc justi t The County determined in the EIR that T The Mendocino County Neater' Agency' also - Alternative 3 was "environmentally superior" to e expressed concerns that erosion would decor in the weir and fuse plug, aril the NMFS supported t the floodplain bench area. in response to these• Alternative 3 in comments "submitted prior to c comments, Alternative 3 was rovised in theTIR' PI m C r ann g at as on approva e, a e approved, die Project included the pond -river The EIR sls connection in lieu of the weir and fuse plug . benching "t reflected intherevisedreclamaticuptan appended relative toil to the EIR. I After cic Although the Draft stated that the pond -. on the Di river connection would' et ati ate the need for - Conservatic a salmonid rescue program, the EIR retained a letter'to a rescue program during the mining phase of benching -v die Project. The Draft set forth two options for moatrecert the reclamation phase. Option A provided for Departmen construction of the pond- river - connection unless that floodpl NMFS and great benel Fish & Game staff determined tlhat the "potential along the ai adverse quality within the pit" would floodcoatr+ t twelgh the connection's expected 'benefits floodplain t to salmonid habitat. optic, B required Granite the reclaim to continue the salmonid rescue program until for removk construction of the pond-river connection, Tlie benefir " ant ' deference to NMFS and Fish & Game concerns potential envi ' over water quality In the pit was replaced in the Countysta EIR by more detailed mitigation regWrements, was "not de sot forth ffi newmidgadon measure 3AA-AET 3, mitigation fei to address concerns raised InNMFS'sNovember the issue as a 20(191otter.9 oe"> ficatly,theElRstatedthntGranite "m'" of the won" limit the depth''a the reclaimed ponds to iDrahj - regm 35 feet list stated would be acceptable, ar habitats woul } deeper if acceptable pursuant to a future . waits the'floodplah qualilyassrssmenta since the on benching we (b) Floodplain Benching position and I ' to - determim 'rhe term "loodplam benching" refers to a benching in proposal by Grimd.e in'the Project,applleation, Commisslon ' to widen the Ackerman Creek and Russian &Game had �;. River channels to hnprave channel hydraulic would adver capacity and winter resting habitat for salmoWds habitat of the above what is curre»�Iyavailable which, in turn, discussing th { no was nme that to whether' to' ri the Project neeting, staff a micerns that flo =ly affect water Frog. After uddt matter, Uie'Plan 75A -6 ever;, r plain: ' 3sloq plain nog,> Fish Ifm i i 'flit t addh = asnono a construction of the pond-river connection, Tlie benefir " ant ' deference to NMFS and Fish & Game concerns potential envi ' over water quality In the pit was replaced in the Countysta EIR by more detailed mitigation regWrements, was "not de sot forth ffi newmidgadon measure 3AA-AET 3, mitigation fei to address concerns raised InNMFS'sNovember the issue as a 20(191otter.9 oe"> ficatly,theElRstatedthntGranite "m'" of the won" limit the depth''a the reclaimed ponds to iDrahj - regm 35 feet list stated would be acceptable, ar habitats woul } deeper if acceptable pursuant to a future . waits the'floodplah qualilyassrssmenta since the on benching we (b) Floodplain Benching position and I ' to - determim 'rhe term "loodplam benching" refers to a benching in proposal by Grimd.e in'the Project,applleation, Commisslon ' to widen the Ackerman Creek and Russian &Game had �;. River channels to hnprave channel hydraulic would adver capacity and winter resting habitat for salmoWds habitat of the above what is curre»�Iyavailable which, in turn, discussing th { no was nme that to whether' to' ri the Project neeting, staff a micerns that flo =ly affect water Frog. After uddt matter, Uie'Plan 75A -6 ever;, r plain: ' 3sloq plain nog,> Fish Ifm i i 'flit t addh = asnono a no was nme that to whether' to' ri the Project neeting, staff a micerns that flo =ly affect water Frog. After uddt matter, Uie'Plan 75A -6 ever;, r plain: ' 3sloq plain nog,> Fish Ifm i i 'flit t addh = asnono a bgVqted nohi a fea vetheProlecCwithouttheHoadp4'- na'(ed,whhen ii board�ofa of t a t feature IV appeals of the Planning Commission's decision (c) Analysis f "An accurate Project description isnecessar or an lntellikent.,,evaluation of the poomth Nit.onineiand'effects of a nrnnnoa.t mra1i and an can 'rNeieArt If, ....Ln_ =„,umg was ] are an :there" in the EIIL 94t,h at:p, "2,1111format bUe and decision mailer no Indication nt'tlid reel Y other interesi'ad par i nature of fleodnlaln hb its.role as aspect to I the uie project," (3) 7lieFrag..; Be It discussed Main benching (a). Record. : et alternative, was an open Protectedepeciasot' . In the Prate Project anhnalspotendal(yi nadan. about Status s esr �erelistedonatableof Old'shara,do the Poolmial for occurrenceatttthesiittleBe :: te e: and o uro nlikl' "l 1-, fora u w.pol ,eiasomte ar Wed about or whether the Project. g IM the leterized as to , "° 41G Thera i en weigh cmml elevat parch, IMeProjectdescrptioa hattheProjectchan Poteni to be es ,een"'Onmentaleff ct" precl t a of the EI2.. (Inure! 2d� at p, .1129, italics and R u Masonite asserts that mitigat r,. a oo species wide a "medium" for occurrence, and provided "a designed, to reduce those :ance, $tile status species inch od' , stated that tiia Frog 1 strewn Habitats W th lock, . isually Below G,0(i0 feet in inhequentwhommh'oducod f table estimated the curren0ein the Projeotarea a. Ackerman Groek may el (slow /low slowportions). ant{n both Ackerman Creek :� Thus, the Draft specified no or die Frog the DraC,Fish & Game said 1 I 1 9788 Dally Appall that recent surveys had documented the presence of Frogs at abridge crossing the Russian River bridge approximately three miles southeastof the Project site, Accordingly, Fliih &, Game believed that F1Iogs were "likely to exist along. riparian areas of Ackerman Creels and the Russian Rivet," and recommended that the special status species table be amended to list the potential for Frog occurrence at the site as "high ' not "low." The table was amended- 'u}.the EIR.. A discussion of table, significant impacts to the Frog was added; and mitigation measures were proposed that reduced the .'Impacts to insignificance.. The impacts would arise from Qoodplain benching, and'conatrucurm and mining operations that would Impact potentially suitable upland habitat adjacent to the Russian River and Ache n an Creels; Mitigation measures Included retention of current riparian vegetation to the extent possible; biological monitoring of the effecIs of construction on the Frog, and halting of construction if impacts to the Frog became evident. (b) Review Masonits argues that the EIR. should have been recirculated for public continent because it contained significant new informatt regarding die Frog. Masonite submit$ the';rTk disclosed "[aj new significant environri ental'bnpact on the Frog (Guidelines, r § 16088.5, in that the situatiou here is the samo as thirst Sn Sierra CIuA u Cilroy Cfly Council (1990) 222 cal. ate Report Monday, July 294013' was required because newinfo emotion ahowed that an endangered species was present at the project site. We acknowledge, as respondents argue, that Guidelines section 15088.5; subdivision (a)(2) could possibly apply here. The Draft stated that the Frogs potential occurrence was' low" rather than `unlikely;" could thus be construed to discl oseappo�ssible minor impact on the .Frog, and s when the rkelihood of the Frogg+s presence )vas changed from "low" to "high," Kle, EIR ci sclosed a "substantial increase In the .severity of [that) Impact' (Guidelines, § 15088.5, solid. '(a) (2)). .. But regardless of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(2), recirculation was. required. under Guidelines section 16088.5, =. subdivision (a) (1). We disagree with respondents 'suggestion that recirculation can be avoided simply because the Draft disclosed some possible impact on the . Frog: The Draft did not suggest that the' Project would have any potentially significant impact on ` that species. Such an impact was disclosed for theftrst time in the EIR, mid was both "new" and "significant" within the meaning of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1) `. r '? A contrary conclusion, would contravene J Vineyard, supra, 40 Ca1.4th at page 447 and Laurel Heights A,, supra, .:6 CaUth at page 1129, by depriving the public of an opportunity to.. - comment on mitigation measures for apotentially, significant effect that were first Identified In the EIR (See also Silaerado Mo4faka.Recreation & .. Park Dist. it County of Orange (2011):197 ;Cal. AppAth 282, 308 [new information that materially, - impficates, the public's rightto parlicipatelustiQes Forty -five acres of the Project site are prime - Larmland, meaning they are "designated by the - Department of Conservation FMMP.[Farmland _ Mapping and Monitoring Pre j`as prime '. farmland; farmland of state de'Importance,.=-.- or,unique farmland." One of the significant unavoidable effects of the project identified -in - - 145 the Draft is the loss of those acres of prime agricultural.. land. Masonite` Contends that.. ? ' - i'tIP. r'PIIM1iV 4YYUti Wt"an il'tta(nvani�n.�'41a1n... . .. Ion .easements an•offsite it of "in -lleu" fees to fund - - 75A -69 +41) Alford easements. The conversion of agricultural ]t 1 y should be deemed an impact of at least regio ��'he j]e gated: why atis unpact could not significance, Hence Ole search for repiaCem, essmly6, u Mefor nfor agricultural lands should be conductod iegionan re0latem, ,psquices mit�y'. Cake. the form of avoidance, }7h!imlzadon,',',fiestoia(on, Preservation, or sud not li itedrea ctlytolandwfthintheproje, ;ompensntion '(providing substitute resources �ff�ite) These forms Ofmitigntloneorres lid 'be County didnotrespondtotheseconrmoc ? , �CFr�Air Cuide ines Section 15370.8 Ford did except to note that no Williamson Acts contra( Rp,Q¢�,jl pS4 ept avoidance Is not possible, ae would be affected by die Project and cite to H e' locdgopotlthomineralreaourcescorresponda DraftRSif7teprpf i�GU for lost farmland it, e P e fartmland a9 identified in the WIVIR of such im(gahon was like a m land i 1 O tkijjmraat�pon is incorporated into the project to an {Apra ell lntq'dte)r] ��tpnf as't]ie project is phased, slid agricultural withoutchange,., - Ise9tu , ndnueonaphase'untll.Itlsmined, Commis�3ondasiuns 'todiBoard'of5usiiei•vison usekt €ndmgagriculturalactivit du' pp e pl`n the Ppr41 ct_: However, this will no eiduce orichs ion th that i was no fo ogical basis for th At easible,�`,vo 11Yhe9niming will residt Insnofinished a�County r�epres,st�tap'�ve responded that theta "Lt]b, 8 sgncultGralland Cool irids' Instance, e Is similar ell Preservation basic. w se of an" qt th]s the is similar son voidance, and is eaale Purpose of an he aeCUpdaryi6neerstha easiUle for thn. same mason. Compensation easemeni is to void theressecondary la lint land lieraliy takes die form of off -site ac;quisitian of You know, sometimes considered the so callet e -Men, typically an Agricultural Conservation domino effect As you extinguish temeit (ACE): ACquisiOOn of an ACE is you're putting developmen essupe on them now siilered infeasiblefor the proposed projectfor termer and you're causing nuisance n the next re' ACE,scu es not aregoingtomakatifedif (cu[tforhfmassues that An ACE, _ rises not replace the on•site tunes, but'rather, it addresses Elie Indirect more likely that that operationlsgofngtowaritto bcnOffs is effects of farmland conversion. you' renotteplacing eresom•ces;'Wecanputan rock e' Offsets include the pressure created to easement somnwhere else abut It(,,'] a can ut to >urageaess th alconvarsione,asdeve'lopment recreate (rose few acres of pt9me;S'llot farmland ing to su {a raises the speaulaOve value of theland are present on that sitenaw, 'Sa: "that',s }row we to fire econom c costs 0f farrnng approach that analysis and you.hamto look e to land use Incompatibilities (limitations on cide nCr. ,des..,. __ the C.iPrumc +�....,... _s.e.. Wa east; but they wersepgratadi 6 y die natural bail -neref the Russian Riven ]n addition, the end age of the property is open space (Including habitat, rather than urban developments. Open . otCnmldevelopment se n'reate dreet Presure on agricultural lands, are not vailableeaanbd this impact would be significant and unavoidable." .(Italics and bold type dejetedJ of a ''ultural lauds as Can una- about the )P the I'rojeit in ifs comments on the Draft, �4COrtipg'to the UDC; the loss should have lennmhiit]dzed through the acquisition ofACEs n comps aU]a Isud of at least equal size,. The >DC 4onsidererl this means of mitieation,m ho easements care be 1111 1 etttedrby at least a altefgdOve appreaches;;. the outright purehase 4ref slnents'or the dona n of miOgation fees to a local; 'regional , or st a te wide'organizafion or agency whose purpose Includes the acgldsidan and stewardship of agriCUlhu•al' conservation • " " +r�� uieapproprhflmy sponselnjtiig case y (2) Review w r Wfiigriculturalconsei vsOop);asaments . CEQAprovides that "public agencies should notapprode,pcionM asproposed:ifitareare ,. feaslblomlflU O ninebsuiesavaitaliiewhichwould affects of such lesion projects,&i (ub. Resources ce Code 921002; see also id at 921002:1, subd:. (U) [agencies must mI F.Me significant. effects Of projects they approv'e,'whealMr itisfeasibleto do so "j.} _CEQA defines feasible "to mean "capable of being accomplished jn,a au@ceeean caumer widen t eaaanable `Period, oft 'a Asking into account, economlc envifonlicis 1, sego], social ; andteChno]oglealfactors.. (Guidell",i .8 15'xaai. PasrAeres &Nei i o — �C,' e•g•, G'herry Yallei 190 Cal ¢ a. City 01Roauinorir (2010) ApA.se'. 916, 350351 (Reaumont)) But not in (1119 naBC " Here,, di , detet 1'a mitigation was feasib(e for jt p qss *df'r� Ii]0'reated On a conclusron'tiiTt'of(site agf901t1t(t}ai conaervation easaments,.(ACE�S) ,canndt'udOgakelYortho. land 75A -70 is I 9790 Daily Appellate Report Monday,.JUly, 2g, Qa1yS,.rr1 lost at the Project . site because they would ,not replace the on-site resources." Tlie County Presumed that ACEs were useful only to address "the Indirect and cumulative effects of farmland conversion, "" and were not needed here because the Pro ecG would. have no such effects, Thus, the tinting of infeasibility In Use EIR rested on the legal conclusion that while ACES can be used to mitigate .a pro�99eces.Indirect and cumulative effects on agricultural resource's, they do not mitigate its .direct effect on those resources. As respondents put it in the trial court: "Given the lack of indirect or cumulative agricultural Impacts, the Draft EIR properly conclude[d] that agricultural conservation easements are legally infeasible," The legal feasibllity of a mitigation measure is not a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence but rather is an Issue of law- that we review de novo. We disagree with respondents. We conclude that ACES may appropriately mitigate for the direct loss of farmland when a project converts aggcultural land to a nonagricultural use, even III ugh an ACE does not replace the onsite resources. Our conclusion is reinforced by the CEQA Guidelines, case law on offsite midgation fortoss of biological. resources,. case law onins, prevailing practice, and die public policy of this state. ACES preserve land: for agricultural use 'n perpetuity. (See Civ Code, §§ 815,1, s15,2 iserves in an amicus for the conclusion we t it no longer exists. , , , if lernsaneatly protected off. a 1:1 reolarement shin. than _-__. (Guidelines §153 0, subd. (e) (mitiga°tion includes 'Tclompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments' l) Tbere is no good reason to distingu sh the use of offsite AMP to miHo.fp rhd 1— „£ on of s by V. C 794 1:1 , I 75A -71 - - -- § kY I al or are th MPermian �,Es on farmland of equal quality in the ' 4, 1:1 ratio or pay "an inlleu mitigation Environmental. Quality Act plays an important at p.588.5 The court concluded that ligation requirements were role is the preservation of agricultural lands,"],) To categorically exclude ACES as a. means to reasonably 3 the adverse public Impact of such and floe an authorized use the mitigate the conversion of farmland would be contrary to one of CGQA's important purposes. of wllceletw would tbeapprved"uhaY ial not be approved We agree with the CFBF that ACEs should not "be removed from ageneies'toolboxes as available r provides p aper provides permanent protection of on of mitigation" for this environmental Impact For these of farmland for every acre. of farmland �'to residential use. Agricultural reasons, the EIE's determinaNOn that ACES are legally infeasible cannot be ion . easements granted in Perpetuity rimary means of accomplishing this sustained, The eeouomio feasibility of affairs ACES to mitigate the Project's hupact on the loss t protection requirement of 45 acres of prime farndand must be explored, Ithough the developed farmland is ed, an equivalent area of comparable (b) In•Llcurees ;Permaneatlyprotectedfrom a shnilar np.592) Stanisfaas reaches thatACEs As an alternative to the outright purchase of ACES; the tnable means to mitigate the impactofa repl DOC comment letter recommended "the donation of mitigation fees to a'local, acesagriculturalland, ppearsdiatACEsareaanmonly regional or statewide organization or agency whose 'purpose Includes the acquisition and � P [ d] and a e[djbylead s an appropriate nadgation as of i t argues esenta"ace the EIR w defc ntbecause it did not measure )A.' and the administrative record ddence that ACES are so employed this suggestion. The County responds, saying it was legally precluded frmn accepting nrlieu w of cities and counftes. The EIR at stated that acquisition of ACES fees because it does not have a comprehensive farmland mitigation program, - Is to equal to the agricultural acreage "'standard We agree with Masointe, -hat the EIE should have addressed the DOC a project is for California s.'" saps, Cit addition to the City Lodi, comment and given reasons for rejecting the DCC`s' proposal. (Guidelines, § 15088, subds, (a) & (c) [responses of of Lodi, the is the ;elleieS Ira rile surroua*g area apply with reasoned analysis are required:) Again, we are not n rrc..nrla:l I.., w.:...:,._:..._.._, _ our thtul and nuttii `this state and 10201, subd, (c) areas that are total use are stature has also declared th to effectuate this public poi 812, § 1, p. 4428 ["(a) Agrict ding Industry..,: [Tj,,, [ n ofogriculturaUanda to non. Ytens (he long-term health o ad'industim [I] (d) The D. Cumulative fmpac(s on Tara drard' a �.. Of ke to Elects in Its a is le, 75A -72 9782 Daily Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013„ insufficient to support the determination that the Project's cumulative effect on farmland would be ius[grdficant For reasons we shall discuss, we agree with Masonite on both points. Respondents asserttbat "[c]umuladve impacts In the agricultural context are more properly defined as the Project's potential to result in indirect Impacts to surrounding agricultural resources and as such, cause subsequent conversions inIsfuture, Based on this premise, respondents reason that because the Draft shows that the Project !'wili not cause the conversion of other prime farmland," it also shows that the Project "will not result in a cumulative impact" But indirect and cumulative impacts are not the same and they entail separate analysis. (Compare Guidelines, § §'15094, subd. (d)(2) & 15358, subd. (a) (2) [defining indirect effects] with Guidelines, §§ 15065, an d. (a) (3) & 15355 (describing cumulative effects], see also Santee, supra, 210 Cal.AppAth'at p. 278.Edistinguisbing along -term indirect 'impact from a cumulative hnpactj,) The Draft's analysis of cumulative, as opposed to ;indirect impacts consists of a single sentence that states: "Cumulative conversion of important farmland was determined to be less then significant in the General Plan RIR," "A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the previsions for deiingg and. program EIRs." (Guidelines,.. § 15130, subd. (d)) However, an EIR that uses incorporation by reference or tiering must do so expressly; (Vineyard supra, 40 CaI4th at p, 440.) It must Indicate where the earller document is available for Inspection, briefly summarize or describe the pertinentparts of earlier document, and describe how they relate to the currentiproject, (Guidelines, §15150, subds (b) &(c),§ 16152, subd,jg),Xostha; supra; § 10.11 p. 501, •Thep information is requires to give the reader a , .. road neap to the Information [the EIR1 intends to convey," (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal4th at p. 443,). The EIR here was deficient because 3t provides no such road map, Respondents'.brlef Indicates that the :EIR was relying on the following discussion of cumulative impacts of.the draft EIR46r the 2009 update of the County's general'plan. (2009 - Update Draft), Although implementation of the General' -Plan would change land use designations, the result would be a minor loss of designated agricultural lands. , .thatwouldnotbe.considered asubstan0al loss ofagriculturallandin the county. Additionally, policies in the proposed General Plan Update support the preservation of agricultural lands and farming oporadous in the county — Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a cumulative loss of agricultural lands." Respondents argguue that neither tiering nor incorporation by,re*ence was required here because the County was merely relying on the general plan EIR as evidence to support the determination in the EIR that the Project would not substantially contribute to the loss of farmland. Surelyi respondents cannot be saying that because tho, general plan EIR{ determned that changing land use designations mould not cause a substandallass -of agricultural land within the county, no particular project consistent with the general plan could cause such a loss. There is avast dit£erencebetween land use designations thatpertnitseveral alternative uses of property; in a geographic area, and the approval of a specific Project that chargges the characterof a particular property. Nor do we understand the general plan EIR to mean tint no substantial loss to the County's agricultural resources would occur if all the agricultural land in the county, rleatgnated for other possible uses were to-be so converted, or that no such other conversion v1puld be. approved. The general plan EIR acknowledges the Importance of preserving prime agricultural land and while there may be no projects in the plpejine that will similarly convert agricultural land, the EIR does not attempt to quantify the future of the County's agricultural repources,.in, onymeaningfidway . We recognize that "standards of pmcflealat` and reasonableness" govern cumulative Impacts analysis, and that such impacts need not be discussed in as much detail as the direct impacts of a project (Guidelines, § 15180, subd, (b).) But,, wearenotpersuadedthediscussionofcumuladie; " LUpacts m the EIR is. suftioient Under the, Guidelines, "an adequate discussion of sigriiflcant cumulative impacts' requires 'either .[a] at of past; present, .and probable fuhire,trojects producing relatedare a ve impacts, or' 3] , summary of projections (ln,.pnilong other things, a certified EIR for an adopfed local plaij' that describes or evaluates con lion contributing to the cumulative effect° ' (Gulrlelloes § 15 0, subds. (b) (1) (A) & (b) (1) (B).7 The �rscua , on .. In the 2009 Up to Draft includes neither of, ` these "necessary. olements. (Rialto Gitr`zetu fqr Res"powiWe Growth v. City offttta_ (201"0 208 Gal. APP.4tlr 899, 928.) Because. the general plan. amendnnents were concerned only with zoning,.chaages, the amendments did not conpider,projeets like, the one under review that 'convert farnijanii to another use without any such Since the 2009 Update Draft does not address,'._ such conversions, die 2008 Update.cannot be , retied upon as a comprehensive, "summary ,of projections" of cumulatve impacts on agrkul(u .aj lands, Despite ,the ,Coup ty pdlicks that favor; preservation of agriculuual Land, the 2009 Update Draft acknowledges: that "thepropossd General Plan Uppdate would not explicitly preclude the i -- co iversicn of farmlands of concern under CEQA ' [Prime Farmland of Statewide Imppoortance, and, - `r- Unique Farmlaadl to otheruses [ngeolyuore ";sad . that "[slubsequent land use activities associated, ... with implementation of the "proposed General. Plan Update, in. combination - with existing, _ approved, proposed, and reasduably Foreseeable development in the region, would contribufe;to, the additional conversion of important farm lands, toother .uses and may increase agriculture /urban, e interface conflicts. ". The County's more general. [ agricultural preservation policies do not salvage, the cumulative Impacts analysis. _ Thus, the discussion of cumulative impsptS- g,. on "agricultural, resources 'suffers froig,]ioth; procedural and factual flaws." a wle2loyard...ff4ra4, 40 CalAth at p, 447.) 75A -73 Monday; July 29, 2013 Dally Appel E. Roadway Mitigation (1) Record The plan is for aggregate mined in the Project to be removed from the site by trucks travelling on Kunzler Ranch Road to North State Street There appears to be no dispute that Kunzler Ranch Road is the 'only point of ingress and egress to the Project site. The Draft estimated that the mining as Kumner-Ranch Road and North State Street .. are genermjy not :designed to accommodate heavy vehicles, and truck travel. on these roads would have the potential to adversely affect the pavement condition. Roadway damage can include conditions such as loose asphalt and potholes that have the potential to make driving conditions less safe. Roadways significantly impaoted.from project truck traffic would have to be upgraded to support vehicle weights up to 25 tons, IT] ... 1911, .. Mile project would have a significant impact on Kunzler Ranch Road and aless than significant impact on North State Street, M ... [911 The project applicant has recently prepared an assessment of Kunzler Ranch Road, Kunzler Ranch Road •Pavg »cent Evaluation and Rehabilitation Strategies, April 28, 20W. This report was submitted to the County and provides a detailed assessment of current roadway conditions and a comprehensive plan to i rehabilitate and maintain the roadway over a 30 yearperiod. The report identified Kunzler Ranch I Ron as being in serious condition and identifies - various alternatives for addressing the condition of the road. "s To mitigate this significant impact, the Draft' �'recanunended that Kunzler Ranch Road be improved as needed (e.g., overlays or reconstruction) per the April 28, 2009 Kunzler Ranch Road study and the Caltrans Design Manual standards.. The project applicant would pay the full cost of road improvements, including design and construction. [col Prior to operations the projei:t'applicant shall enter into a Roadway Maintenance Agreement with Mendocino County providing their proportionate share of the responsibility to maintain the proposed haul roads." (talicsomitted) - - When it commented on the Draft, die County Department of Transportation (MDOT) - . clarified that "Kunzler Ranch Road is not 'a County maintained road and that MDOT has no involvement in its operation, maintenance, or upkeep.... IT) ... [911... Therefore there is no need for the applicant to enter into a Road Maintenance Agreement with the County for maintenance of Kunzler Rauch 'Road" The MDOT further stated; "Arriving at a cost sharing arrangement is the responsibility of the applicant, the mad's owner(s) and those property owners having rights to its use.. ITT IT] ... Ideally, ail the users of Kunzler Ranch Road would voluntarily form :'a Road Maintenance Organization for the improvement and. maintenance -of the road. [However;] no party can unilaterally make this ate Report 9793 happen,..." The MDOT proposed an alternative means to mitigate the significant impact to Kunzler Ranch Road, and it was adopted nearly verbatim in the EIR The EIR states: 'Traffic-related repairs on Minzler Ranch Road shall be initiated when the owners of the road and users of the casement reach a decision that such repairs are necessary. Granite's fair share shall be calculated based on the proportion of applicanCs heavy truck trips to the total numherof heavy truck trips on the road the cost and expense incurred for traffic-relate� repairs of Kunzler Ranch Road." - (2) Review Masonfte argues dtat the mitigation measure; for the Project's imnact on Kneader Ranch Rea, =a Won u• Cil of Anderson (2005) h` -1173, 1188 [discussing fee-b: 'Programs for cumulative ttr of, - Masonite's' •arguments Ing. "IMleasuros to mitigate orn they wit be made or funded. The EIR to be made when: decide they are r of an agreement; M RAGm 11._ 75A -74 to construed to include to accommodate the sere is'no reason to ment to enforce the - valid point when it measures have been t mitigation measures air share payments rovenields must be it the payments are :sted private parties 9794 Dally Appellate Report Mannay, July 29, 201; 1' nddgadon will be effective, ]sere, as In Mader, the proposed mitigations are not so vague as to be unenforceable, but sufftcden fly Mile as to'vnpict [the] analysis of (heir viability and effectiveness," (Madera, stepra, 187 Cal,App.4th at p, 1116.) The Mader court "[g]enerally agreafell that CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically detailing mitigation. measures as long as the lead agency commits itself to specific nerformance, here, had not made that commitment, and the midgadou measures were found to be inadequate trader CEQA. '(Id at pp, 1119,.1120; see also Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 280.282 [without performance standards or guidelines mitgadon was Improperly deferredL) The County emphasizes that the mitgation measures were changed only after it discovered that it had no jurisdiction over the road. But while that discovery main obviated the need for a. roadway in .agreement between respondents, it did not justify deletion of criteria for the roadway improvements such as those specified in the Draft. If " "'practical considerations pprohlbit devising [mitigation] measures, early W the planning process ... the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria, .. ;" ". (Oakland flerltageAtlianre it City of Oakland (2011) 195 CAAppdth 884, 906.) But this Is not such a case. According to the Draft, Granite had .completed a. study that included a. for die improvements there is no'substandal evidence to support the EIR's finding that the impact of the Project on Kunzler Ranch Road will be mitigated to insignificance. (Vineyard, supra, 40 Ca1.4th at p. 427 (scope of review of factual determinationol.) R Discussion ofAlterna4ves . Masonite contends that the EIR did not adequately evaluate offaite or onslte alternatives to the Project. (1) OffsiteAlternatioes The Draft's analysis of ofaske alternatives, incorporated without change in the EIR, considered nine alternative mining sites in the Ukiah area, discussed one of them as an offaite alternative, and rejected the ,other eight as infeasible. Masontte says there was no reason for linritinps consideration of alternative sites to those within die Russian River corridor In the immediate area of Ukiah, and suggests that a county-wide range of alternative sites should have been explored. "CEQA establishes no categorical legal Imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR Each case must be evaluated on its facts," and an EIR must only consider "a range of reasonable alternatives to tiie project" (Citizens of Goleta Valley a Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca13d 553, 566, italics omitted.) "Ibere Is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason," (Guidelines, 915126.6, subd.. (a) ) In February 2009 correspondence, Granite Identified various factors to be considered in selecfinn and as an industrial sees; like Kunzle; would blcely compatible with its surroundings)," and leathetics (e.g. not in the direct view shed the AMM TA,b r A " _ Hie botendnf for sivnAcnnk . to those in the Utdaharea was and unduly restrictive. (2) OnsltaAlternadve Maannite argues that theonsite. alternative evaluated in . the EIR— Alternatve. 3 -was inadequate because it did not offer stibstandal: environmental advantages over the project as proposed.. (See. Citizens of Goleta _Valley a Board of pro " Supra; 52 Cal.3d at p. 5661131R. must consider a, reasons bIs range. of feasible alternatives that "offer'substantlal anvli 'o nmantal advantages' over is project as'propo,S d "]) Masomte reasons that Alternative 3 offered no substanti al anvironmental advanis e,,over the weir and fuse plug o l}y contemplated because its pond -river eonnneA a wnuldh.". 3 was and its 183 have even the 1 to ca than the that such protection was a i mmental Issue for the Project asOulte asserts that "Alternative -3 d any change In operations or the size a would reduce the mount of aggregate y 10 to 15 perceaL - Thus, Alternative 3 t 75A -75 h i Monday, Jury 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report 9795 as finally approved did in fact reduce the scale o die Project. Masonite's challenges to Alternat(vs 3 are.without metiL M. DISPOSITION The judgment denying the petition for wri of mandate Is reversed, With directions to issust a writ requiring die County to set aside its certiflcattoli of the,ElR, set aside its. approvals of the cWiditional use permit an d reclamatior plan for flip Project, and prepare and chreulmt a supplemental EIR, which includes the EIR's Provisions pertaining to the Frog, and addresses the deficiencies we have Identiiled In the EIR concerning:' the feasibility of ACES and in -lieu fees as mitigation for the Projects conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use; the discussion of Biggins, J, We concur: McGuiness, RJ, Pollak, J. Trial Court: Superior Court of Mendocino County Trial Judge: Hon, John A. Behnke Counsel for Petitioner and Appellant:. Masombe Corporation 'Christian. Lucier Marsh DOWNEY BRAND David Ivester BRISCO, NES'T'ER & BAZEL Counsel fur Defendant and Respondent: Mendocino County et el. Jeanine B. Nadel Terry Nan Gross OFFICE OFTT-LE COUNTTCOUNSEL Counsel for Real Party in Interest and Respondent .Granite Construction Company - Mark David Harrison HARRISONTEMBLADOR HUNGERFORD &JOHNSON r Granite advised at the County board at supervisors hearing on the Project tat, in reap.... to romman[s from the Regional Water Board, it agreed to suspend. mfnhng during the wet season between November and March. ° the Draft stated: 'Measure 3.4.4: pp1... [11 Reclona0on Phase (1) Option A. Prior to completion of reclamation, Granite shall, In coordination with NMFS and (Fish & Game] , evaluate the results of the biological feasibility, and design and construct an alternative reclamation design consistent with the. extended hydrologicconnecnon concept discussed above during the 5ycar reclamation phase (see also Chapter 4, PrafeotAltenm9ves). If, daing,cordlnanoa With NNIn and (Fish & Game), regtdamry, agency staff determine that the potential adverse water quality effects within the pit would outweigh due expected benefits to salmonid ha blta4 Granite shall no t implemen t this mitigation measure, (1) Opdmn S,,;•Gmabaa yhall,maintain asahnodid rescue sad relocation program in. consultation with N1,1M and Mail & Gamel until it is determined by Bose mention, that such a program le nolaneer necessary" 'Mining to agreaterdepth of 65 feet had been contemplated in the projectapplieanon tad tile noun. ' Sloan Chu, Was disapproved on another ground In RSstarn States Petwlea nAmn. a Superior Court (1095) 9 Cd,4th 559, 576, fa, 6. ,.. ,, ' TI s Guideline provides: '^M(tlgatlon' Includes: i'J] (a) Avoiding the Impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an notion. III (b) Minimising impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its ° "A Williamson Act contract obligates tlie' landowner I. maintain the land as agricultural for 10 or morn years, with resuidng tax benefits, (IGov, Code,l §§ 5124451244:) Absent conhnry action, each year the eonhnct renewe for on additionalyenr, no that the use restrictions as always in place for the next nine to loyears. (ld., §51244,)° (Friends of East Wlllm Palley it Cmmty afAfen fedna (2002) 101 Cal, . App.4th 191,195.) r Tice amentlmenfs' omited�fncup and hichtidl'urgto account tarthe Rojemare shownbv lhedidcusafbn of brinAnf d.J.a u" lend use clu agriculture, to another I the county vacant hand in 92.10 acres of of land within the county, Out of the 82.10 acres otvacant agricultural lands associated with the proposed land use changes, only 1,82 acres are prime agricultural land, which equals Only 0.02 percent of potential .prime agricnhuml Ind lost with the proposed land use changes..., III, I'll ... pat of the''1446 Vacant acres proposed for land use changes in the proposed Central plan. Update, there era approximately 0.94 acres of Prime Farmland and 10.68 acres of Unique Farmland." ' ° ltiispave dent reportis not hncluded in (he`. Draft or LrIPw u This statute such easement is attached Corte, If 845, solid, (a),) If hey wig share the costs 'each on in die absence e. heir use of dvy easement. srovidee 'for cou4 tedul ibilgatiart. (Gf atsu,l(d. (c) of say casement tit the f any land to which any italn It in repair." '(Ciu, muddple . such owners, to any agreement they imem,,`in proportion to eng; of flint proportionate 75A -76 CA Codes(gov:51200- 5]207) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51200 -51207 51200. This chapter shall be known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or as the Williamson Act. 51201.. As used in this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Agricultural commodity" means any and all plant and animal. products produced in this state for commercial purposes, including, but not limited to, plant products used for producing biofuels. (b) "Agricultural use" means use of land, including but not limited to greenhouses, for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes, (c) "Prime agricultural land" means any of the following. (1) All land that qualifies for rating as class T or class I1 in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classificati-ons. (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Store Index Bating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. (4) Land planted with fruit- or nut - bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. (d) "Agricultural preserve" means an area devoted to either agricultural. use, as defined in subdivision (b), recreational use as defined in subdivision (n), or open -space use as defined in subdivision (o), or any combination of those uses and which is established in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (e) "Compatible use" is any use determined by the county or city administering the preserve pursuant to Section 512311 51238, or 51238,1 or by this act to be compatible with the agricultural, recreational, or open -space use of land within the preserve and subject to contract. "Compatible use" includes agricultural use, recreational use or open -space use unless the board or council finds after notice and hearing that the use is not compatible with the agricultural, recreational or open -space use to which the land is restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. (f) "Board" means the board of supervisors of a county which establishes or proposes to establish an agricultural preserve or which enters or proposes to enter into a contract on land within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. (g) "Council." means the city council of a city which establishes or proposes to establish an agricultural preserve or which enters or proposes to enter into a contract on land within an agricultural Page I of 6 hfln: / /www.lecinfo.ca. ov/ cei- bin /dishlaYCO "dfitl —r7-1 v &group =51001 -52000 &file =5... 8/14/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) preserve pursuant to this chapter. (h) Except where it is otherwise apparent from the context, "county" or "city" means the county or city having jurisdiction over the land. (i) A "scenic highway corridor" is an area adjacent to; and within view of, the right -of -way of: (1) An existing or proposed state scenic highway in the state scenic highway system established by the Legislature pursuant to Article 2..5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code and which has been officially designated by the Department of Transportation as an official state scenic highway; or (2) A county scenic highway established pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division l of the Streets and Highways code, if each of the following conditions have been met: (A) The scenic highway is included in an adopted general plan of the county or city; and (3) The scenic highway corridor is included in an adopted specific plan of the county or city; and (C) Specific proposals for implementing the plan, including regulation of land use, have been approved by the Advisory Committee on a Master Plan for Scenic Highways, and the county or city highway has been officially designated by the Department of Transportation as an official county scenic highway.. (j) A "wildlife habitat area" is a land or water area designated by a board or council, after consulting with and considering the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game, as an area of importance for the protection or enhancement of the wildlife resources of the state. (k) A "saltpond" is an area which, for at least three consecutive years immediately prior to being placed within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter, has been used for the solar evaporation of seawater in the course of .salt production for commercial purposes. (1) A "managed wetland area" is an area, which may be an area diked off from the ocean or any bay, river or stream to which water is occasionally admitted, and which, for at least three consecutive years immediately prior to being placed within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter, was used and maintained as a waterfowl hunting preserve or game refuge or for agricultural purposes. (m) A "submerged area" is any land determined by the board or council to be submerged or subject to tidal action and found by the board or council to be of great value to the state as open space. (n) "Recreational use" is the use of land in its agricultural or natural state by the public, with or without charge, for any of the following: walking, hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, or other outdoor games or sports for which . f.acili: ties are provided for public participation. Any fee charged for the recreational use of land as defined in this subdivision shall be in a reasonable amount and shall not have the affect of unduly limiting its use by the public. Any ancillary structures necessary for a recreational use shall comply with the provisions of Section 5123 &.1. (o) "Open -space use" is the use or maintenance of land in a manner that preserves its natural. characteristics, beauty, or openness for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, to provide habitat for wildlife, or for the solar evaporation of seawater in the course of salt production for commercial purposes, if the land is within: Page 2 of 6 tittp : / /www.leginfo.ca.gov /cgi- bin /clisplayc d eitiot� ov&group= 51001- 52000&file =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) (1) A scenic highway corridor, as defined in subdivision (i). (2) A wildlife habitat area, as defined in subdivision (j). (3) A sal.tpond, as defined in subdivision (k). (4) A managed wetland area, as defined in subdivision (1). (5) A submerged area, as defined in subdivision (m). (6) An area enrolled in the United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. (p) "Development" means, as used in Section 51223, the construction of buildings or the use of the restricted property if the buildings or use are unrelated to the agricultural use, the open -space use, or uses compatible with either agricultural or open -space uses of the property, or substantially impair the agricultural, open- space, or a combination of the agricultural. and open -space uses of the property. Agricultural use, open -space use, uses compatible with either agricultural or open -space uses, or the acquisition of land or an interest in land are not development, 51203. (a) The assessor shall determine the current fair market value of the land as if it were free of the contractual restriction pursuant to Section 51.283, The Department of Conservation or the landowner, also referred to in this section as "parties," may provide information to assist the assessor to determine the value. Any information provided to the assessor shall be served on the other party, unless the information was provided at the request of the assessor_, and would be confidential under law if required of an assesses. (b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessor's notice pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 51283 or Section 51.283.4, if the Department. of Conservation or the landowner believes that the current fair market valuation certified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 53.283 or Section 51203.4 is not accurate, the department or the landowner may request formal review from the county assessor in the county considering the petition to cancel the contract. The department or the landowner shall submit to the assessor and the other party the reasons for believing the valuation is riot accurate and the additional information the requesting party believes may substantiate a recalculation of the property valuation. The assessor may recover his or her reasonable costs of the formal review from the party requesting the review, and may provide an estimate of those costs to the requesting party. The recovery of these costs from the department may be deducted by the city or county from cancellation fees received pursuant to this chapter prior to transmittal to the Controller for deposit in the Soil Conservation Fund. The assessor may require a deposit from the landowner to cover the contingency that payment of a cancellation fee will not necessarily result from the completion of a formal review. This subdivision shall.. not be construed as a limitation on the authority provided in Section 51287 for cities or counties to recover their costs in the cancellation process, except that the assessor's costs of conducting a. formal review shall riot be borne by the nonrequesting party. (1) if no request is made within 45 days of receiving notice by certified mail of the valuation, the assessor's valuation shall be used to calculate the fee. (2) Upon receiving a request for formal review, the assessor shall formally review his or her valuation :if, based on L'he determination of the assessor, the information may have a material effect on valuation of the property. The assessor shall notify the parties that Page 3 of 6 htfn / /w,,vw.lecinfo.ca.Lyov /cEi- bin /diso[ayc1 egGo� v &Rroup= 51001- .52000&file =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes (gov:51200- 51207) the formal review is being undertaken and that information to aid the assessor's review shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of the notice to the parties. Any information submitted to the assessor shall be served on the other party who shall have 30 days to respond to that information to the assessor. If the response to the assessor contains new information, the party receiving that response shall have 20 days to respond to the assessor as to the new information. All submittals and responses to the assessor shall be served on the other party by personal service or an affidavit of maill..ng. The assessor shall avoid ex parts contacts during the formal review and shall report any such contacts to the department and the landowner at the same time the review is complete. The assessor shall complete the review no later than 120 days of receiving the request, (3) At the conclusion of the formal review, the assessor shall either revise the cancellation valuation or determine that the original cancellation valuation is accurate, The assessor shall send the revised valuation or notice of the determination that the valuation is accurate to the department, the landowner, and the board or council considering the petition to cancel the contract, The assessor shall include a brief narrative of what consideration was given to the items of information and responses directly relating to the cancellation value submitted by the parties, The assessor shall give no consideration to a party's information or response that was not served on the other party. If the assessor denies a formal review, a brief narrative shall be provided to the parties indicating the basis for the denial, if requested. (c) For purposes of this section, the valuation date of any revised valuation pursuant to formal review or following judicial challenge shall remain the date of the assessor's initial valuation, or his or her initial recomputation pursuant to Section 51283.4. For purposes of cancella_ ion fee calculation in a tentative cancellation as provided in Section 51283., or in a recomputation for final cancellation as provided in Section 51283.4, a cancellation value shall be considered current for one year after its determination and certification by the assessor. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the department and the landowner may agree on a cancellation valuation of the land. The agreed valuation shall serve as the cancellation . valuation pursuant to Section. 51283 or Section 51 283,.9: The agreement shall be transmitted to the board or council considering the petition to cancel the contract. te) This section represents the exclusive administrative procedure for appealing a cancellation valuation calculated pursuant to this section. The Department of Conservation shall represent the interests of the state in the administrative and judicial remedies for challenging the determination of a cancellation valuation or cancellation fee. 51205. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter to the contrary, land devoted to recreational use or land within a scenic highway corridor, a. wildlife habitat area, a salt-pond; a managed wetland area, or a submerged area may be included within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter, when such land is included within an agricultural preserve, the city cr county within which it is situated may contract with the owner for the purpose of restricting the land to recreational or open space use and uses compatible therewith in the same manner as provided in this chapter for land devoted to agricultural use. For purposes of this section, Page 4 of 6 http : / /www.leginfo . ca,gov /cgi- bin /displayc � �iol6nv &group= 51001 - 52000 &filc�--5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes (gov:512OO- 51207) where the term "agricultural land" is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed to include land devoted to recreational use and land within a scenic highway corridor, a wildlife habitat area, a saltpond, a managed wetland area, or a submergedarea, and where the term "agricultural use" is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed to include recreational, and open space use. 51205.1. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter to the contrary, land within a scenic highway corridor, as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 51201, shall, upon the .request of the owner, be included in an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. When such land is included within an agricultural preserve, the city or county within which it is situated shall contract with the owner for the purpose of restricting the land to agricultural use as defined in subdivision (b), recreational. use as defined in subdivision (n), open -space use as defined in subdivision (o), compatible use as defined in subdivision (e), or any combination of such uses. 51206. The Department of Conservation may meet with and assist local, regional, state, and federal agencies, organizations, landowners, or any other person or entity in the interpretation of this chapter. The department may research, publish, and disseminate information regarding the policies, purposes, procedures, administration, and .implementation of this chapter. This section . shall be liberally construed to permit the department, to advise any interested person or entity regarding this chapter. 51207. (a) On or before May 1 of every other year, the Department of Conservation shall report to the Legislature regarding the implementation of this chapter by cities and counties. (b) The report shall. contain, but not be limited to, the number of acres of land under contract in each category and the number of acres of land which were removed from contract through cancellation, eminent domain, annexation, or nonrenewal. (c� The report shall also contain the following specific infornation relating to not less than one - third of all cities and counties participating in the Williamson Act program: (1) The number of contract cancellation requests for which notices of hearings were mailed to the Director of Conservation pursuant to Section 51284 which were approved by boards or councils during the prior two years or for which approval is still pending . by boards or councils. (2; The amount of cancellation fees payable to the county treasurer as deferred taxes and which are required to be transmitted . to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 51283 which have not been collected or which remain unpaid. (3) The total number of acres covered by certificates of cancellation of contracts during the previous two years. (A) The number of nonrenewal and withdrawal of renewal notices received pursuant to Section 51245 and the number of expiration notices received pursuant to Section 51246 during the previous two years. (5} The number of acres covered by nonrenewal notices that were Page 5 of 6 h,nn• /(nnznv Irc.infn ra nnv /rai- hin /di.¢nlavcc)tt ,,,v &LTiollU= 51001,- 52C)00&FIle =5... 8/19/2012 CA Codes (gov:5 1 200- 5 1 2 07) not withdrawn and expiration notices during the previous two years. (d) The department may recommend changes to this chapter which would further promote its purposes. (e) The Legislature may, upon request of the department, appropriate funds from the deferred taxes deposited in the General Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section :51263 in an amount sufficient to prepare the report required by this section. Page 6 of 6 littp://w �Nw. leginfo .ca.gov /cn,i- biti/displaycode ?section-- ov&group= 5'1001- 52000MUce 5... 8/19/2013 75A -8i %,+ N1 A,Y )j//��, r .wy t g l C fire Jeannie Gillett President Ryan Bens1ey Vice - President Treasurer uT- Patrick Mitchell Moises Plascancia Steve Ray Nick Spain "To preserve, acquire, restore andrnanage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultutat, agricultural and educational rosour'oe for all (714) 296 -4642 P. G. Box 10088 Santa Ana, California 92711 -0038 November 6, 2013 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Members of the Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Ana City Council: As you know, members of The Old Orchard Conservancy have been working tirelessly for more than two years toward the preservation of the historic Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. It is the official position of The Conservancy to preserve the entire five- acre property; however, we are now open to considering a preservation alternative acceptable under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would allow up to half of the property to be developed and the remainder preserved. One of our principal objections to the environmental review process has been, and continues to be, that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed development project has never included a feasible preservation alternative. The EIR currently includes an alternative that would provide for the development of 21 single family houses on the Sexlinger property, which would result in the destruction of more than 90 percent of the orchard and the Irreparable loss of the integrity of the historic resource. Lack of a preservation alternative was one of the reasons the Planning Commission voted not to recommend approval of the project. Earlier this year, we met several times with representatives of Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University of Irvine in an effort to reach an agreement for the purchase of the property by The Conservancy. When It became clear that our discussions were not going to lead to a successful resolution, The Conservancy began to think more broadly about other preservation options which could include a limited amount of residential development. We have come to the position that the development of up to 50 percent of the orchard could take place while still maintaining a significant portion of the original historic integrity of the resource. Acceptable development would Include single -story architecture consistent with the historic character, period and style of the property with transitional landscaping that would seamlessly blend Into the orchard. This approach would respect the City's decision to add this last example of our agricultural past to the historic register and preserve this Irreplaceable landscape creating a community resource with a huge potential for educational and health and wellness programming, www.0Id0rchardConservancy.org 75A -83 Page 2 while also allowing the current owners to realize a substantial economic benefit from this generous gift bequeathed to them by Martha Sexlinger. The recent California appellate case, Masonite Corporation v County of Mendocino, 2013 DJDAR 9784, as summarized in the attached letter from our legal counsel, Deborah Rosenthal, to Vincent Fregoso, dated August 21, 2013, would seem especially relevant to the above proposed alternative. In her letter, Ms. Rosenthal outlines that "[17his case holds that a requirement to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement is a legally feasible mitigation for impacts to prime farmland under CEQA. P. 9780. The decision also notes that acquisition of agricultural conservation easements "over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is 'standard for California communities. "' P. 9791. Finally, the Court of Appeal reaffirms that "the preservation of agricultural land is an important public policy" that CEQA is intended to effectuate. R 9791:' "Under Masonite, "standard" mitigation for loss of the highly productive Sexlinger Orchard would be an agricultural conservation easement over 2.5 acres on -site or 5 acres off -site. The remaining 2,5 acres of the Orchard would be available for compatible residential development, as proposed In" the option outlined above. Depending on design, The Conservancy believes that such an alternative for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard could comply with CEQA. We respectfully request that you consider directing staff to revise the EIR prepared for the project to include a preservation option such as the one presented above that could truly assure long -term preservation of the historic Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard in accordance with CEQA. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillett President The Old Orchard Conservancy Enclosure cc: Ryan Bensley, TOOC Vice President Patrick Mitchell, TOOC Director Moises Plascencia, TOOC Director Steve Ray, TOOC Director Nick Spain. TOOL Director Deborah Rosenthal, AICP, Esq. Matthew Holbrook, Esq. Sonia Carvalho, Esq. www.0Id0rchaidConservaiicy.org 75A -84 RUTAN RUTAN &-I'UCKER. LLP January 24, 2014 VIA E -MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Vince C.Fregoso Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Drive, M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 ,Ieffrey'I'. Melching Direct Dial (714) 641 -9422 pip Re; Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed At 1584 East Santa. Clara Avenue Dear Mr. Fregosw This office has been engaged to assist Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (collectively, die "Schools "), in connection with their development applications for the property located at 1.584 East Strata Clara Avenue. The City recently distributed for public comment a document entitled "ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE" (the "Additional Analysis"). Among other things, the Additional Analysis analyzed a "Historic Preservation Alternative " to the development originally proposed by the Schools, which would call for the permanent preservation in sitit of the Sexlinger Farmhouse, the restoration of the farmhouse to Secretary of the Interior standards, the partial preservation of the associated orchard trees, and the planting of additional like -kind orange trees. To accomplish these improvements, the total number of for -sale homes on the property would be reduced from 24 to 23 (22 plus the farmhouse). After careful study, the Additional Analysis concludes that the Historic Preservation Alternative would not have a significant impact on cultural resources. The Schools appreciate the City's hard work and creativity in suggesting and causing the study of the 1istoric Preservation Alternative. And, after carefully considering the results of the Additional Analysis, the Schools have submitted revised applications to the City so that the proposed development will be consistent with that alternative. It is our understanding that those revised applications will be presented to the City's Planting Commission on February 1.0, 2014. R LItan & Tucker, LLP I 011 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1950 ( 714 -F41 -5100 I Fax 714.54E -9035 Orange County i Palo Alto i emw.rutan.eom EXHIBIT 13 75A -85 680701181AW9d0 6602}84.1 „0117.1114 RUTAN r�o.nn emeucn. ury Vince C.Fregoso January 24, 2014 Page 2 The Schools have prepared the Response Memorandum attached to this letter as Exhibit A, which surveys community member comments on the originally- proposed project, and explains in how the :historic Preservation Alternative addresses those concerns. The Response Memorandum also suggests modifications to the Draft EIR, so that the record of the City's exhaustive efforts at historic preservation on the project site are more fully documented. In :addition to the Response Memorandum, we attach the following supplemental materials to this letter to assist the City in evaluating the project: Shade and Shadow )renderings: At the January 2013 Planting Commission meeting on this matter, questions were raised concerning the shade and shadow effects of the proposed development. In response to those inquires, the Schools commissioned a shade and shadow analysis, which is attached to this letter as Exhibit B. As the renderings show, the shade and shadow effects on adjoining development are minimal, with no shadows oast on structures and only minor shadows cast oil back yards during the late fall and winter morning hours. Arborist Study: Throughout the entitlement process, the Schools and the City have heard various claims concerning the health of the trees on the property. The Schools retained an expert arborist to study this issue. The arborist's report is attached as Exhibit C. In short, the arborist concluded that only 24 of the trees are healthy, that the property is not currently a viable orchard, and that restoration and operation of the entire property as an orchard is economically infeasible, Traffic Aualvsis. Through the public review and outreach process, community members inquired as to whether the installation of a "mash gate" at the south end of Lyon Avenue on the project site would cause any additional traffic hnpacts beyond those analyzed in the EIR for the project. The additional traffic analysis is attached as Exhibit D. That analysis concludes that, with or without a crash gate, the impacts of the project will be identical. All of the materials attached to this letter have been provided in an effort to ensure that the City has the information it needs to make a fully informed decision. To that end, please do not 6801048179 -0940 66023(4.10112111-1 75A -86 RILITAN Vince C.Fregoso January 24, 2014 Page 3 hesitate to contact inc, or any of the School's project representatives, if there is any additional information or explanation that we may provide. JTM 6601040170-0940 6602364,101/21114 Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Melching RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 75A -87 b30/ . 0.0 �Moowoo 1 75A -88 1. Introduction. During the public comment and hearing process on this project, the Planning Commission and City staff have received comments from the public that addressed the sufficiency of (1) the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the proposed variance findings for Lots 7 and 13 of the proposed project, and (3) the General. Plan consistency findings for the proposed tentative tract map. City staff has responded to these issues by commissioning an additional environmental analysis ( "Additional Analysis ") that, among other things, examines the viability of a new Historical Preservation. Alternative. Based on the Additional Analysis' conclusions, Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University (collectively, the "applicant") have proposed significant revisions to its development proposal that effectively seek to implement the Historic Preservation Alternative. This memorandum explains how those revisions respond to and meaningfully address the most frequently recurring issues and concerns raised during the public review process. 2. The City Has Complied With .Its General Plan Policy To "Encourage the Retention and Reuse of Historical Buildinss." In comment letters the City received on December 17, 2012 and on February 11, 2013, . The Old Orchard Conservancy asserted that the EIR found a "clear conflict" with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.2, which states that the City should "Encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites." This asserted conflict was raised as a challenge to both the sufficiency of the land use analysis in the EIR and the General Plan consistency findings for the tentative tract map. As discussed below, the project does not conflict with the General Plan because (1) the City has actively and thoroughly encouraged the retention and reuse of the historic resources on the project site, (2) the proposed project has been revised to include preservation of the farrrnhouse building, together with orchard trees, on- site, and (3) based on the foregoing, the City's draft EIR concludes that development in the manner now proposed by the applicant will not result in significant impacts to historic resources. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the following land use goal: "Protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life." To advance that goal, the City established Land Use Element Policy 4.2 as follows: "Encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites," Consistent with both Land Use Element Goal 4 and Land Use Policy 4.2, the City created a comprehensive Historic Preservation. Ordinance that defines the processes and means by which the City encourages the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites. (Santa Ana Nlun. Code ( "SAMC ") Ch. 30 [ "Historic Preservation Ordinance "].) Those regulations have been applied to the Sexiinger Property. 75A -89 Specifically, on June 4, 2012, the City Council placed the Sexlinger Property on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties. The property owners thereafter applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard on the property. Under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, that application triggered the Historic Resources Commission's obligation to evaluate "all feasible alternatives to demolition," and to hold a public hearing on the demolition proposal within two hundred and forty (240) days. To meet the requirements of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Resources Commission appointed an ad hoe committee to study potential alternatives to demolition, The committee consisted of two Historic Resources Commission members, two members of City staff, five representatives from The Old Orchard. Conservancy, and two representatives of the property owners. The committee met in August of 2012 to discuss resources that could be used to preserve the site. It also met with concerned members of the community in September of 2012 to discuss private preservation options, and to obtain community input. In addition to those meetings and community outreach activities, City staff investigated whether a number of organizations would be willing to purchase, restore, and/or relocate the historic resources on site. Those organizations included: (1) Certified Local Government; (2) National. Trust for Historic Preservation; (3) Save America's Treasures; (4) Preserve America; (5) California Cultural & Historic Endowment; (6) National Center for Preservation Technology; (7) California Humanities; (8) the Getty Foundation; (9) California Preservation Foundation; ('10) California Grant Watch; (11) California State Parks Foundation; (12) California State Land & Water Conservation; (13) Southern California Edison — Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan Grant; (14) American. Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; (15) Department of Energy; Sunshot Initiative; (16) South Coast Air Quality Management District; (17) Orange County Transportation Authority; (18) United States Department of Transportation; (19) State of California, Bicycle Transportation Account; (20) Federal Highway Administration; (21) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Agriculture; (22) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Transportation; (23) California Department of Transportation, Transportation Enhancement Program; (24) State of California Rivers and Parkways; (25) State of California Recreational Trails Program; (26) State of California Habitat Conservation Fund; (27) Southern California Association of Governments Compass Blueprint Planning Program; and (28) Solid Waste Grants. None of these organizations were in a position to provide funding for the relocation or restoration of the Sexlinger Property. City staff also oversaw the creation of a notice that publicized the availability of the Sexlinger Property for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes. The notice was distributed in September of 2012, and was sent and /or posted to the following entities and individuals: (1) Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society (which subsequently posted the notice on its website); (2) Orange County Historical Society; (3) City of Santa Ana website; (4) City of Santa Ana Facebook page; (5) City of Santa Ana Planning and Building. Agency Facebook page; (6) OC History Roundup Blog (which subsequently posted the notice on its website); (7) The Orange County Community Foundation; (8) The Nature Conservancy; (9) The Witdlands Conservancy; (10) The Conservation Fund; (11) The Old Orchard Conservancy; (12) "Inside The Outdoors," Orange County Department of Education; (13) Rancho Santiago College; (14) Irvine Valley College; (15) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; (16) California State, University, Fullerton; (17) Discovery Science Center; ('l8) Historic French Park (Debbie -2- 75A -90 McEwen, President); and (19) all Historic Resources Commission ad hoe committee meeting attendees. Whenever possible, each of these organizations was also contacted by phone. Despite these extensive public outreach efforts, the City received no calls and/or emaiis expressing interest in purchasing the Sexlinger Property for restoration or relocation proposes. In a third attempt at preservation, City staff explored possible sites for the relocation of the historic building to an off-site location. No private individuals or organizations contacted the City or the property owners with sites that could be used for relocation purposes. Nor did the City's independent examination of potentially available sites yield any solutions. In October 2012, the Historic Resources Commission received an update from the ad hoc committee on the status of the investigation, and the public was provided another opportunity to bring forward new information and resources for restoration or relocation of the Sexlinger Property. No significant new information or resources were presented. The foregoing comprehensive efforts to encourage preservation of the historic resources on the Sexlinger Property were reported to the Historic Resources Commission, and were the subject of a duly noticed public hearing before that body on January 24, 2013, The Historic Resources Commission, after hearing all of the evidence, and considering all of the correspondence and public testimony, expressly "determined that neither private preservation nor relocation is a feasible alternative to demolition given the limited timeframe available,"' The Historic Resources Commission's determination was appealable to the City Council, but no appeal was filed. Therefore, the Historic Resources Commission's determination regarding the feasibility of preservation became final and conclusive. The applicant responded to the City's efforts to encourage preservation of the property through the sale to an entity seeking to re- establish an orchard there. To that end, in August of 2012, representatives of the property owners sent The Old Orchard Conservancy a letter outlining the terms under which the religious institutions would consider a sale of the Sexlinger Property on or before December 31, 2042. The ,property owners and The Old Orchard. Conservancy participated in a series of subsequent conversations and correspondence in late 2012, through which the deadline to enter into a letter of intent to purchase the property was extended to February 15, 2013, and the deadline to enter into a purchase agreement For the property was extended to March 15, 7013. Both of those, dates were beyond the 240 -day time period for investigating the feasibility of preservation as set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The February t5, 2013 and March 15, 2013 dates passed without any significant progress by the Old Orchard Conservancy towards a purchase of the Sexlinger Property for preservation purposes. In fact, in a January 7, 2013 letter to the Historic Resources Commission, The Old Orchard Conservancy confirmed that it had, to that point, not raised sufficient funds to enter into a purchase agreement with the owners.2 1 The `limited thncframe" is a reference to the 240 days (i.e., eight months) within which the Historic Resources Commission must complete its feasibility evaluation for demolition permits. '' As of the date of this submittal. —fully 17 months after the August 2012 letter — The Old Orchard Conservancy still has not made any meaningful progress toward a purchase agreement -3_ 75A -91 In an attempt to further encourage these discussions, the City convened a meeting among City staff (including the Interim City Manager, Planning Director, and City Attorney), The Old Orchard Conservancy, and the property owners on May 13, 2013. At the meeting, the City offered to facilitate a mediation between the property owners and The Old Orchard Conservancy. After carefully considering that offer, The Old Orchard Conservancy and the property owners jointly declined the offer to mediate, but indicated they would continue discussing among themselves the potential sale of the property. Those discussions have continued, but no tangible progress toward amutually satisfactory resolution has been achieved. On August 29, 2013, the City received an email from a representative of Tire Old Orchard Conservancy, requesting that an additional preservation alternative be considered. Tile City had previously considered a "Hybrid Development Alternative" that involved the relocation of the existing residential structure and the rectangular outbuilding to the northeast caner of the property, and the retention of approximately 20 to 30 trees in the northeast portion of the property as an orchard area. To accomplish this design configuration, the number of homes under the Hybrid Development Alternative would be reduced from 24 to 21. The EIR concluded that the Hybrid Development Alternative would not reduce impacts to historic resources to below a level of significance because the relationship of the residence to the orchard would be Substantially altered. An important factor in that deterrnination was the fact that the relocation of the farmhouse, and changing its orientation, could create a false sense of historic development. In an attempt to address the August 29, 2013 request, and to devise a better preservation alternative, in November, 2013, the City commissioned the "Additional Analysis for Response to Comments oil the Draft Environmental Impact Report That analysis includes a description and discussion of a "Historic Preservation Alternative" that would (1) keep in place the existing farmhouse and garage, (2) require that those buildings be rehabilitated to Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards, (3) maintain the home as a single family residential use that would be available for sale, (4) retain those orange trees that are currently located on the 1.0,044 square foot lot, and (5) provide for the planting of additional orange trees. To achieve this design, the number of homes would be reduced from 24 to 23 (the restored farmhouse plus 22 new homes). The Supplemental Analysis applied The National Park Service (NPS)National Register Bulletin 30: GuidOines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes (McLelland et a1, 1999:15 -17) rubric for purposes of analyzing impacts to cultural resources associated with the Historic Preservation Alternative. That analysis considered thirteen different landscape characteristics that can apply to orchards, including: (1) Natural. Systems and Features; (2) Spatial Organization; (3) Land Use; (4) Cultural Traditions; (5) Circulation; (G) Topography; (7) Vegetation; (8) Buildings and Structures; (9) Cluster Arrangements; (10) Small Scale Features; (1'1) Constructed Water Features; (12) Views and Vistas; and (13)Archaeology Sites. In the context of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard, small scale features (criterion 10), constructed water features (criterion 11), and archeology sites (criterion 13), are either not applicable or mininial'ly applicable, and are therefore not discussed in the Additional Analysis. As to the retraining ten factors, the Additional Analysis acknowledges that natural systems and for the property. -4- 75A -92 features (criterion 1), land use (criterion 3), cultural traditions (criterion 4), topography (criterion 6), and buildings and structures (criterion 4) are all characteristics that are retained in (lie Historic Preservation Alternative, Of the remaining five factors, the Additional Analysis concludes that circulation (criterion 5), Cluster arrangements (criterion 9), wound be partially retained. As to the remaining three factors — spatial organization, vegetation, and views and vistas — the Additional Analysis concludes as follows: • Spatial Organization: "The spatial relationship between the residence and garage, orientation of the property, and the property's visual narrative of a small scale orchard would also be retained." • Vegetation: "There would be substantially fewer trees than what historically existed; however, new trees would be planted in -kind to fill out the parcel and to replace any dead or decaying trees. The new trees would match the existing type (Valencia, grafted to lemon rootstock) ...... Views and Vistas; "Lastly, the views and vistas would transition from that of a pastoral and historic small orange grove to that of new residential buildings and roadways," In sutra, the Additional Analysis concludes that 9 of the 10 applicable criteria are at least partially satisfied. We respectfully submit that the tenth factor — views -and vistas —is also at least partially satisfied, inasmuch as the farmhouse will not be relocated, will be rehabilitated; per Secretary of Interior standards, and will remain visible from the street, Orange trees near the house will also remain visible. In this regard, the property "would retain many of its major elements and still convey the significance of a property type that was once common and is now a rare surviving example in the City." (Additional Analysis, p. 7.) Based on the above, the Additional Analysis both (a) concludes that the Historic Preservation Alternative will mitigate impacts to cultural resources to a less- than - significant level, and (b) finds that the alternative is the environmentally superior alternative for CEQA analysis purposes. Importantly, as compared to the Hybrid Development Alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative better locals the City's objectives — particularly the goal of adding to the City's stock of moue -up housing— because it would allow for the development of 23 of the originally proposed 24 homes on the site. The foregoing illustrates the extraordinary steps the City has taken in an effort to minimize impacts to historic resources. These steps show, in compelling fashion, that the City has proactively and thoroughly encouraged the retention and reuse of historic buildings and sites, and the complied with both Land Use Element Goal 4 and Land Use Policy 42. To highlight this conclusion, we respectfully request that the language in the Final EIR that could be construed to suggest a conflict with Land Use Element Goal 4 and /or Land Use Element Policy 4.2 be revised as follows. • The text of Final EIR Section 9.3 (Page 56, first full paragraph) should be modified as follows; -5- 75A -93 The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sextinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on June 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "I {ey" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)c. Following that designation, the rt o ertV o_wi er_s runlia ut(elo led in preserving the site and representatives ok the lmo-IJertu_ owners. The committee and City staff ...cx, >Jotied =accts from no less Chan 19 gd ate gr9lus r 7 Inttions,.Ait d ^r hjg that there are no feasible preservation alternatiM�Lfst the site Despite that conclusion Cif staff ncverthdess - ip re&Wnse to a comment on the F_IR _ eonnnissioned an additional trees on site (together w I HIP planting of additional like -kind trees). The additional analysis found th, t the I[ivtp -ic Preservation tyuSt- zeviewing the additional analysis. the _annlicant has agree to modify its development proposal to reflect the Historic Preservadon Alternative By these actions it is clear th u'the City as nnactively encouraged the retention and reuse of histo tea buildings and sites as re m ed by the A;s- „ucI+ w- propo%d-p"eet would- eery €I -ie-t wi -th -City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element Goal 4 trod - Policy 4.2vl iceettn ;ems tt r teafi m «, n' ��nst�rri €trl- htriidirags- -tHtt� site„- This- e- on-f -l-ict tca- tke -GiEy ota- Atia��tal- P-kut- Land- T�,yc-- E- letaten t- Et��i- A -I'•ol i ey-4� ,o ,,. �' �'- rc�ettE-; }�- tkae- ptc�ju�:��t�litiorr- the-- c�r4tstt -irtc re iide+gfd sEet tore outiui rlijsg and -oraj e tr Howe e-a sankprl n- the i of Santa £ e aeral Pl n��i- Use -Vent - 46= t1�1- fl�5E�- �le-- �vit. t# 8i@ El- thi�Otik' �-7-- thf°,-{•.'- Ftj� ';r- F(�'2�@i*J- j-JfflC- l;fi4't;r, - 4+dH�tk Fespec- t- to- Ehc� -gettl s- Gnstl- petit- it�tJS- tares- C- it}'trCc�tcxrl- I- ttn�- T�artd {use -I�IeI trient: The text of Section 7.3.2, under the heading "Land Use and Planning” (Pages 7 -4 to 7 -5) is modified as follows: -6- 75A -94 This alternative would not be consistent with the existing single family land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR -7) or zoning designation of Single Family Residential (R -1). This alternative would require a zone change and land use designation change to Open Space (0). €•'afthei-mmr�t a °�„- adopted Ehe- "�AI�k- oR�nne 4, 291'?. T- lie- z�t+an- d€signat�d- the - site -aS M lied -k —I--- - crT:ty— ccicztt(?N- 9- G. Ji-1 f ifttl-Vk: would -resin t- in- tlae��r�v�l- ef- tlFe- F�:i�lenti,�l- sty =uettate;- ad�ac -eaG eaN�r%lding; and- c�rfr,, -- ttees- ettnitel- ilae4naertt- w+t#- a- ptt�- sett+ng: = F1tis�Fti -v • «�, «', n « C�tzrA��r- C- �nc�tl �tulEl -et-tn llt -el -4 � .��y- of -�`ia Pktrr- Liu R'� ;n- rlet�ent- t�attl -4; - P- P- Fi:� =; .?- o;�treoaa�g+�- Nre reterrt i�nr-- a3td -re<;s � t- ltis4oric- al- build- rtsg✓;- and -siRas —fives ; as Itrt pl€ a�ntrtt- isn- lalttn- tl�i5-- �tnd -�rlr l --Ise r.- a-- i:�+e%pr��errt�'e'IeeF� Weald- be- st�jeeeteel- to- prrijec- �;-ie or- Ehretrb r- Elte- CCirty- s- r�.v�v -iestx pCf nest;- anE l- l�enefate- e�ar..�t�l- thxsrigh- the- Etty- s- re��w- lvrac -e�.. The City of Santa Ana Land Use Element Goals and policies also includes promoting land uses which enhance the City's economic and financial viability (Goal 2,_Land Use Element), Land -Flue 0evnent- supporting development of single - family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet (Policy 1.4, Land Use Element) -, and encouraging new development and/or additions to existing development that are compatible in scale, and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood (Policy 3.5, Land Use Element). As such, this alternative would conflict with portions of the City of Santa Ana General. Plan Land Use Element goals and policies and existing land use and zoning designations. The text of Section 7.5.2, under the heading "Land Use and Planning" (Page 7 -1.1) should be modified as follows: The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on Jute 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section feasible preservation alternatives were thoroueh(v evalulted An AC-1-110c committee was formed, which hincludeA members of the pl•Unerty owners The committee—and City slaff expl red pi-e, er ` on- ontions by examining 28 different entWI public -7- 75A -95 determined that there are np i=e3isible preservation alternatives s fgr 11'e —site. Despite that conclusion. City staff nevertheless - jj and garage iyt�2lace. and call for the R'eLy3lSion of some of the mo- ify its development liropnsal to reflect the Historic Preservation Alternativr, By these actions it is clear that the City t+ld cax €lit w tl City �F Santa Ana General Pl m Lancl Use E e -n ittl - Pltui— Laxd —U -a leiare tt Goal 4, I;ey 4.2, will A es ti nierrh n n Cri for cztl tau lelixgtrtl s -tes Revfte� d -ir"+e C - of -&antes -Ante Gene n, Rat3 -L-and Use le Went- lxakensertfiatsn Flit -n- this aeE titheiect r are s tf3}eEt ta-Prer}e- et-ve- vteroy4hrettb h the City's w -ff—e mind -a 13rej eel;;- Iaene�tta- t�ti- N- xl�o- l�2- evattxttet{- thr�gh- tl�- C -i -t�° s- re -aieav Ix wi 'Rrres}�ect to Nxa tls aoliea{ the City S CJetaeral enie+tt. The text of Section 7.6.1, under the heading "Land. Use and Planning (Page 7 -14) should be modified as follows: The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on Jane 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)c. Following that designation, the property owners pJ)osed demolition of the on -site structures which trigger_, 1 open, up b1iG and comprehensive uroeess thronah which Ll feasible pre. em,,L& alternatives were thoroughly evaluated. An ad hoc committee was formed. which included members of the j2rpjgrtv owners The committee and City staff exglQj�ul preservation options by examining 23 different potential pu1,c fundin: som•c_e� tt actively soliciting interest in i tnchashz the operty from no Less than 19Lrivate groups nnci grganizaxQns. At the conclusion Of N& process. the City's I-Ii�storic Resources -8- 75A -96 Commission held a public hearing at which it conclusively Preservation Alternative would preserve the existing farmhouse trees), The additional a tat alvsis found that the Historic Preseration Preservation Alternative. By these actions, it is clear that the City has proactively encouraged Ate retention and reuge Plii5t4r caI buildings and sites as required by the woalil- e-r °`F' ^* ` "°^ City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Uce Elet t7_ent Gnal 4 and - Policy 4 2- 4 sue]this ante t+alivs'tcttidaa { H-- t{- it'- t5E6p6ti2E1- j3F8&IE'�E- V.'HMId- C'(3r} €(- }fit - Vi-ih -L,u,t F ta All �i$+ lek'- a%-- 1•? ifH- n�ai6-- o.- s�-, e+ ttet;i;--- t�3tTEkl— Li;— �41:18j^ .�, 'yrrrtL'tt eneetw-agea4fie-felen ld FeL[se e h+sttai ital b i kEli+ b urd tes �Hwe-1 ..r- ainiki@Ei- FC`r -�inu- vii' y- 6z- �tHlii %A+kR-1•.iP.n@rai- 1= 1tHi —, L-anii Usc�len3ont� - Irx}rlei�nfat ion. P- la+ t- tiffs- �rtiti- oEier- g+o-jr."c:ts --sere snijeeFto-projeet rtti- env - through- Nt�Git3�- reyievw pra;�t project ktn�rke �e- evak+ate 4 EhrecrgirtiErEy s rem taraeesss- witFra�G- tc�- t #e- ge�tl�- arid- ps�ic- ies- o�:he� -iz °y "- �- .r'- etet�1 P- kan- ban,;�„e E�tenC: • The text of Section 7.6.2 (page 7 -15) should be modified as follows: The Lower Density Alternatives would result in decreased impacts to air quality, noise, population and housing_; =This alternative would result in significant impacts to cultural resources_ -afid sotrfl;it =t- with- t} ie- tvit�j- o-F- 6enc3r-al- [?la +r6and- Lase- F;1 €irte+tt -Goal -4; P-oldc e= 4al +ieh- eac,^,a�a- ate,- Ehe- reteu+t =ien- acrd - reuse -tt 1= l+irieirl {suntletings -aitd- lies— Fwthermare, because of the significant reduction in residential units and larger estate -type lots, the Low Density Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected. 3. Commercial Orchards and Museum Uses are Not Permitted or Conditionally Permitted on the Prgiect Site. Some of the written and oral continents on the Draft and Final EIR focused on proposals that would reinstate orchard operations on the project site. For example, in continents on the proposed Final EIR, The Old Orchard Conservancy proposed a "Citrus Orchard Alternative" that would 'involve the "operation of a commercial citrus operation on the site." (See also December -9- 75A -97 17, 2012 letter from The Old Orchard Conservancy, p. S ["The 2012 RDEIR does not consider the feasibility of utilizing the Orchard for commercial citrus production, either in its entirety or as a part of a broader mitigation effort. Further study may demonstrate citrus growing operation on the Property to be feasible, revenue- neutral, or even profitable, endeavor that could support a private, a non - profit Urban Garden or similar education project. The pro Fits of a, citrus - growing operation could be used to fund ongoing maintenance and repair of the Farmhouse or the construction of a small -state museum. "]; January 7, 2013 letter from the Old Orchard Conservancy [ "The Conservancy is prepared to argue an economically viable and self - sustaining commercial citrus operation is possible at the Sexlinger Site which could be cost - neutral to the land owners.. "],) A fundamental problem with those proposals is that a commercial orchard use is currently illegal on the site, as is a museum use. The property is in a Single - Family Residence (R-1) district. R -I districts do not permit or conditionally permit commercial agricultural uses and/or museums (other than museums owned and operated by a university). (See SAMC 41 -232 [permitted uses], 4'1 -232.5 [conditionally permitted uses].) The former agricultural use on the property was a grandfathered legal non- conforluing use. However, the commercial orchard operations (indeed, all operations on the site) have been discontinued for several years, and the City Code deems a non - conforming use to be abandoned if the use is suspended for a period of twelve (1.2) consecutive months, any subsequent use must conform in every respect to the provisions of the Santa Ana Zoning Code. (SAMC 41 -683.) Thus, while the proposed project requires no zone change and is consistent with existing City laws, the proposed eommaercial operation of the Sexlinger Property would violate City zoning laws under the zoning designation that governs the ,site. 4. The Selection and Application of Project Objectives. The project objectives selected by the City have been criticized in the public comment process as having been (1) drawn too narrowly, and (2) misstated and misapplied to the project's alternatives. Those claims are addressed in turn below. The following four project objectives were carefully chosen by City staff to: (1) provide for tine current and future "move up" (rousing needs for the City; (2) provide land uses that are consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Element designation and zoning designation of LR -7 and R -1, respectively; (3) provide land uses that are similar to surrounding uses in character and visually cohesive with the area, and (4) prevent farther dilapidation of the site, discourage vandalism; break -ins, and unauthorized use of the site. These objectives all flow from either critical. City -wide or super- regional policy documents and directives, or from common sense land use planning and management concepts. For example, the "move up" housing objective is grounded in an analysts completed by the Southern California Association of Governments. That analysis indicates that the City needs to add 3,393 residential units for the period between 2006 and 2014 to meet the regional need assigned to the City for new housing construction. The need for additional housing is driven, in part, by a projected 10,500 job increase in Santa Ana during that same time period. The to- 75A -98 development of a five -acre vacant parcel with new housing will simultaneously increase the City's housing stock and provide "move up" opportunities for existing Santa Ana residents as additional, higher paying, jobs come to the City over tithe. In this respect, the provision of it significant [lumber of new homes on the project site will help the City fulfill its regionally recognized housing goals. On a more local level, the City's General Plan acts as the "constitution for till future development" within the City, and the City's Zoning Code acts to implement the General 'Plan on a district- by- dishrict basis. Because the General Plan and Zoning Code are an expression of the City's land use policies, it was entirely appropriate for the City to include, as one of the project objectives, the pursuit of development that is consistent with those policies. The third objective — achieving land use compatibility — is important, but not unique. With all development proposals, the City respects the interests of neighboring landowners and communities by ensuring that proposed new development is consistent with its surroundings. In this instance, the proposed project meets that objective by providing a single family residential development with approximately 6,000 square foot lots in an area that it bounded to the east and the south by developments with similar sized residential lots. It is appropriate, but not exceptional, to expect equivalent compatibility from any alternative to the proposed project. Fourth, the City recognized that the current condition of the property must be remedied. In its current dilapidated condition, the property is a potential Target of vandalism, break -ins, and unauthorized uses. To protect the public health and safety, and to improve the character of the overall community, it is important to remedy those conditions. The Old Orchard Conservancy conceded that "the Project Objectives were properly drawn" but claims that they were "misstated and misapplied in selecting alternatives for the ]•rift." Specifically, The Old Orchard. Conservancy claimed that the EIR unlawfully constrained its evaluation of alternatives in the EIR by defining the Project Objective as the construction of exactly 24 single- family housing units, rather than the provision of some level of "nnove -up" housing. That statement is not accurate. While 24 single family units would achieve the "move - tip" housing objective to the greatest extent possible, the EIR recognized that the Alternative Design /Cul de Sac Alternative (providing 23 houses) and the Hybrid Development Alternative (providing 21 houses) would also achieve the "move -up" housing objective. At it point where it significant reduction in housing was proposed — for example in the Lower Density Alternative — the EIR acknowledges that the objective of providing "move -up" housing is no longer fully achieved. This determination is reasonable. While providing I or 3 fewer homes than the proposed project can fairly be construed as meeting the project's "move -up" housing objective, a significant reduction in the number of houses does not meet that objective, Thus, the MR's analysis was not tied to the construction of "exactly 24 single - family housing units," and the project objectives were fairly applied to the project, This conclusion is reinforced and bolstered by the City's election to study, and the applicant's decision to pursue, it Historic Preservation Alternative that reduces the number of proposed homes from 24 to 23. Thus, the assertion that the City (or the applicant) were intransigent in their pursuit of the move - up housing objective is simply wrong. -Il- 75A -99 5. The Preservation Alternative. The Old Orchard Conservancy proposed in its comments on the Draft EIR that the City evaluate a "preservation alternative" that would "preserve the Orchard and Farhouse in situ, require maintenance and security as a condition of project approval, and design a smaller residential subdivision compatible with the existing historic resources." This alternative, according to The Old Orchard Conservancy "would allow the minimum of new construction determined to be feasible, and would require a street pattern that respects the existing 'Farmhouse and the surrounding neighborhood," The Historic Preservation Alternative effectively addresses The Old Orchard Conservancy's assertions. It preserves the farmhouse in situ and also calls for the preservation of some of the orchard trees in situ. As specified in the Additional Analysis, these preservation efforts avoid impacts to cultural resources while still maximizing achievement of the project's objectives. In contrast, the "preservation alternative" alternative posited by The Old Orchard Conservancy would not meet most of the project's basic objectives. Given that the existing orchard and farmhouse currently cover the vast majority of the Sexlinger Property, the amount of residential development in The Old Orchard Conservancy's proposal would be reduced to less than 1.0 homes. Indeed, even that number of homes would require the removal of significant portions of the orchard. That level of development would ,provide significantly less housing, as compared to the project, and therefore cannot be fairly characterized as satisfying the project objective of providing for the City's current and future move -up housing needs, A preservation alternative also would not meet the City's objective of providing for uses that are consistent with the R -1 zoning designation insofar as the conversion of the residential structure to a community center (as suggested by The Old Orchard Conservancy) would require a zone change. Nor world a preservation alternative be similar in character to surrounding uses. Over the years, tine surrounding neighborhood has become predominantly residential. The proposed project continues that trend, while a preservation alternative would result in a use that is not consistent with the surrounding properties. The City studied a reasonable range of alternatives, and, through that process, has identified an alternative that wilt avoid environmental impacts while also achieving most of the project's objectives. In contrast, because the Old Orchard Conservancy's "preservation alternative" would not meet the project's basic objectives, there was no need for a more detailed analysis of that alternative in the EIR. 6. The City Council May Make the Findings Necessary to Grant a Variance. In this case, tile, applicant is proposing that Lot No. 12 have a street frontage that is less than what in otherwise currently required by City code. The Old Orchard Conservancy previously objected to this request (and another similar request which is now unnecessary, due to project revisions to accommodate the Historic Preservation Alterantive). As explained below, The Old Orchard Conservancy's objections are misplaced. -12- 75A -100 The reduced street frontage for ;Lot 12 is a product of requests made by community members, and endorsed by City staff, to create a curve to discourage cut - through traffic in the proposed extension of Lyon Street througli the project site. After the applicant agreed to this modification, City staff further determined that it "knuckle" needed to be included in the newly - created curve in Lyon Street in order to accommodate the turning movement for trash trucks and similarly sized vehicles. The applicant agreed to that modification as well. As a result of these two modifications, Lot '12 will have all irregular shape. It will be particularly narrow in the front, and substantially wider toward the rear of the lot. Under SAMC section 41 -638, variance requests may be granted. when (1) there are special circumstances related to the property, such as size, shape; topography, location or surroundings, (2) the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, (3) the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property, and (4) the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan, In this case; all four of the required criteria are satisfied. First, the modifications to Lyon Street caused an irregular shape and configuration to Lot No. 12, While 50 feet of street frontage is a standard that makes sense in the context of typical rectangular lots, the insertion of roadway curves tends to encourage generally "pie shaped" parcels, i.e., parcels that are narrow in the front and wider in the back. This is a special circumstance relating to the size, shape, location, and surroundings of the two parcels. Second, granting the variance will allow for the development of Lot '12, whereas denying the variance would deny that lot from being developed to its planned, and highest and best, use. In this regard, the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property owners' substantial property rights. Third, the variance- will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. Lot 12 is part of an overall planned development, and will be compliant with all other applicable development standards, Fourth, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General. Phu and zoning designations for the property, will support move -tip housing, and will advance each of the following General Plan policies: Policy 1.4 — support development of single - family residential lots; Policy '1.9 — result in a coordinated street and parkway design that is attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on, site development; Policy 3.5 — encourage new developmentt that is compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style of the neighborhood; and Policy 5.10 — support a circulation system that is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Comments the City received on February 11, 2013 assert that there are no circumstances justifying the grant of a variance here because the overall Sexlinger property is a 5 acre rectangular parcel, and because there is nothing unique about its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. The focus on the overall 'five acre property is misplaced. The variance is sought for the irregular shaped Lot 12 that will result from a subdivision of the property in the manner necessary to accommodate staff and community concerns. In addition, -13- 75A -101 even if one were to focus on the overall five acre parcel, the expressed interest to avoid "cut through" traffic on Lyon Street is a unique circumstance that necessitated subdividing the parcel in a manner that made compliance with the street frontage standards impossible for Lot 12. -14- 75A -102 i 680!- a 0, nOOlO(HOO 75A -103 75A -105 A JUN_L A 344 h may F �u� C� 0 CJJ [d ✓a b @ Q }. O f� O 'mod H cd v C UJ ti O b O "y O O � �, o 75A -106 TV 9R n� 3¢�a u `L G x v a 3 a d x �d 3 m a� U � � � A E r. ^d � o v m cC �, 0 0 0 N o' � N O d' �, o � M L gp l i f I f, i - i s k f' pr Fr- M, MEN 110 IFFIF. r sy 680x- 0.0 n00 /00700 I m 1 75A -110 May 22, 2013 INC. Mr, Robert Odle Odle & Associates 6007 E. Mabury Ave Orange, CA 92867 Re: Se:riiriger Orange Grove Dear Mr. Odle: Thank you for asking me to provide an arboricu'lturai evaluation of the orange 'trees' health and condition, professional opinions regarding its viability as an orellard, requirements to maintain an orchard, and report as appropriate, Observations On May 8, 2013 we met on site and walked the orchard. I took photographs from ground level and ordered an aerial infrared photo to be flown by Focal Flight.com. See attached the aerial infrared photograph. Healthy plants show up the reddest. There are about 24 healthy trees at this time. Of about 480 spaces 256 are empty, i.e. they died and were removed, 226 are alive, and 24 of those are healthy. Color infrared technology is most useful when comparing trees of the same species in the same setting at the same time, as in this case. You will notice what was evident when we walked the site, i.e. that other than the trees closest to the front and several along the very edge, nearly all the other trees are in severe decline. It is easy to drive by the site on Santa Clara and get the impression that the trees are healthy. The trees along the snail get runoff from the street and may be getting hose water from Off the house. People that can take the time to wallc it, as we did, get quite different impression of how healthy they are. The .aerial infrared photograph is included for those who for one reason or another cannot or will not see it first - hand. Several of the larger trees in the aerial photograph are actually weed trees. There are a couple holly oasts and a large pecan in the middle. Most of the citrus trees have lost most of their leaves and many are wilted, The weed trees need less water. The foliage color of the orange trees is not healthy green. A large amount of the fine branches are dead or dying. The disking of the soil to control weeds has damaged mots. There is almost no part of the trees south of the third row down that is healthy or capable of prnducflhg edible 'fruit, ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horuculttire St Atboiicultme 1131 Lucia& Way, Tushin, CA 92780, 13h.714.731.62,10, Cell: 714.292:7184, Fiis 714.73'1.6138 75A -111 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 2 Photographs health of the trees along the top edge compared to the others, especially at the two north corners.. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I-lmdailmre & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.2923184, Fax 714.731.6138 75A -112 5/22/2013 Seslinger Orange Grove Page 3 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture & Arboriculture 11311 ucinda Wo-iq, Tustin, CA 92780, P11.714.731.6240, Cell: 714.2917184; Five 7'14.75'1.6138 75A -113 . . .. -wg - � � � « - 2 � � \� .. .,� wo � k6l J. 3j 1 .. P � x Ytil W UM W.Mx, , 0-i \ v A I Al V4, Of, ILI A�l V1•1 711 w all, A96; "I -Wr w all, A96; "I 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 9 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Flom culture & tlrboriculhue 11.31 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph.. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714,731.67.38 75A -119 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 10 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I lor6culture & Arboriculhire 1131 Lucinda Way, Tns6n, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 75A -120 / \ ` go � Kk d:. ? AA ANN m <m� 5/22/20 t3 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 12 Analysis Considering the price of water in Orange County, the value of land, the tax rate, and the ever - increasing number of citrus pests and diseases, there is no way to snake a Valencia orange grove even pay for itself. The only similar size grove in this area is, according to one family member, "an expensive hobby', and they have a roadside stand so they are malting more money per pound, Consider that packing houses are paying about $0,.05 per pound'and one healthy average Valencia orange; produces about 200 pounds, Ten- dollars, per year per tree might cover the cost of water in a wet year. If healthy trees filled all the availablc spaces (480) on this site, (only 226 now are filled and 24 of which are healthy), the crop might be worth $4,800, assuming you picked them yourself and shipping was free. However, there are many other expenses. In speaking to Nick Nissen tit the Agriculture Commissioner's office, whose family has the last, or one of the Mast, "commercial" orchards in Orange County; I learned that there is no way to make a go of it at any size unless you have your own well and a larger property trader the Williamson Act. At five cents a pound, maybe not even then would, it pay for itself. At the'Sexiinger orchard 456 new trees would be needed to refill the property with healthy trees that would have a chance of growing into a orchard capable of producing $4,800 worth offruit per year. Another expense would be the cost of buying and planting those trees, and then taking .care of them for the next five to seven years until they can produce a'worthwhile crop of fruit. Replanting should he with 5 gallon container size trees. Each tree will cost approximately $15 wholesale. Planting will also cost about $15. The total cost to install them for installation and materials will then be $13,680. Removal of the 202 old unhealthy trees will cost about $100 per free, or $20,200. Fruit trees in general tend to have more pests because they produce more sugar that insects like to feed on. Citrus are often infested by scale, psyllids, fruit flies, and finites, Typical commercial and cost effective spraying methods would not be acceptable to the neighbors and local community. Now we have the Asian psyllid, which brings the threat of Huanglongbing, a deadly bacterial' disease. Huanglongbing is one of the most devastating citrus diseases in the world and incurable. Infected trees must be removed and destroyed quickly to avoid infecting other citrus. As privately held ,property by Concordia and Lutheran High; expecting them to m_ ake money growing citrus is unreasonable. Now that this property is almost surrounded by residential properties and parks, and zoned RI, the highest and best use of the property is RI residential use. The Guy Stivers report is in error expecting any significant root growth to five feet deep. If there are any toots at five feet it will be less than 1 percent ofthe root system. The amount of roots growing to four feet deep is also extremely small Over 90 percent of the roots will be in the top 30 inches of soil. Considering the current decline and death of the trees, the report is a extreme exaggeration of the amount of roots and their depth. Growing an orchard as a carbon bank does not make sense in this area. Conclusions This property is not some sort of carbonn. bank, Orange m11Se11111 or one species botanic garden. At onetime it may have been a viable orchard, or part of one. That time has long pasted. There is a nice public part, next door and two cemeteries that can serve as "carbon banks ". Few if any people would spend time to visit ail orange museum. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Hocticuttiue & Arbodculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tus6u, Cif 92780, PI1. 714.731,6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fns 714.731:6138 75A -122 5/22/2013 SexlingerOrmige (Trove Page 13 The neighbors would not want to breathe the £uytes of the pesticides used to control the pests and keep an orange orchard healthy. This property would require replanting, an experienced caretaker, water, fertilize_ r; pest co_ ntrol, harvesting, and shipping, at considerable cost, but for no significant benefit. Please call me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, Arborg to Consulting, Inc. Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA Registered ConsultingArboristU365 Enclosures ARBORGAT E CONSULTING, INC. Horticultam & Arboricuklire 1131 Lueiuda V1iy, Tnsay, Cry 92780; Ph. 714.73'1.0240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 744.731.6'133 75A -123 fiHa. 0.0000!00/00 Immullamoll 75A -124 FF KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: July 18; 2013 To: Mr. Robert Odle Odle Associates From: Min Zhou,'P,E., Vice President - KQA'Corporation Subject: Traffic Engineering Services for the TAVA Homes Project in the City of Santa Ana Introduction KOA Corporation (KOA) is pleased to submit this traffic analysis of a proposed site plan change for the TAVA Horns project in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the expected effect of closing the south entrance of the project to public access. The south entrance would have a "crash gate" only, allowing only emergency vehicle access. The analysis will consider the effect this change may have on Santa Clara Avenue and Wright Street, and reconsider recommendations for improvements to the Santa Clara Avenue /Wright Street Intersection, Background A traffic impact study was completed for the TAVA Homes ,project by KOA in 2011: This study analyzed the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed 24 -unit residential project as well as their expected impacts to the surrounding roadway network. Access to the development was provided on Santa Clara Avenue on the north side of the project site and at Avalon Avenue on the south side of the project site. Eighty -five percent of project traffic was presumed to access the site via the north entrance, and fifteen percent was presumed to access the site via the south entrance, The 2011 study determined that the project would generate 230 net daily trips, including I8 AM peak hour trips and 24 PM peak hour trips. The study also determined that added traffic from the proposed project would result In .a significant Impact to one intersection, Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street. Mitigation :measures designed to mitigate this impact were recommended. The recommended measures were a traffic signal, roundabout, or wide 2 -way left -turn lane. Additional background information can be found in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", March 14, 2011, by 1KOA Corporation. Project Description The proposed project description based on the revised site plan Includes 24 single - family dwelling units on an approximately 5 -acre site. The project site is located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, east of Wight Street, and 75A -125 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING R ENGINE @RING currently is occupied by one dwelling unit and an orange grove. The project would be accessed via a single entrance on the north side of the project site, an extension of Lyon Street, There would be a "crash gate" on the south side of the development for emergency vehicle access only. There would be no public access to the development from Avalon Avenue on the south side. The project is expected to generate atotal of 230 net daily trips, Including 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 24 trips during the PM peak hour, Figure I shows the revised project site plan. Analysis The following presents an analysis of traffic volumes and intersection operating conditions with the change In project site plan (closure of the south entrance to public access). This change affects the project trip distribution, resulting In more project trips entering /exittngthe site via the north entrance on Santa Clara Avenue. The change in trip distribution affects the following intersections for the "With Project:' scenarios only (Year 2013 and Year 2035): • East Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street • EastSanta. Clara Avenue at Project Access (Lyon Street) • Avalon Avenue at Wright Street Average daily traffic on the following street segments is also affected by change in project trip distribution: • East Santa Clara Avenue between Wright Street and Project Access (Lyon Street) • Wright Street south of Santa Clara Avenue • Avalon Avenue east of Wright Street Trip Distribution The anticipated trip distribution for the revised project is presented in Figures 2 and 3 for the intersections affected by the change in project access. These figures indicate.the proportion (percent) of project traffic that will use the street segments and turning movements indicated. Forecast intersection Traffic Volumes Near-Term Future and Long -Range 8uildout (2035) AM and PM peak hour project - related traffic volumes increases, and peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project for intersections affected by the change in trip distribution are shown in Figure 4. Future traffic levels in the project vicinity are expected to be changed by the amounts shown on this figure. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -126 12 r 13 r 0 84' t 6 '°-rte ..720 r - � - II sz' E e' � a - -r_ J�R m H 9 's- 3 N M x8 J r. III N LEGEND POTENTIAL CRASH GATE LOCATION iACIcr n wAmVoAOn 5bTAVn>mm<s51ti Not[a Scale KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure I " nAmmp,c s. erUcu•rreuuoc TAVA MomesT atflc Impact Study- South Entrance Closure Site Plan KOA CORPORATION FIGURE 2— INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Y N C 0 60% Santa. Clara Ave 25% 40% Avalon Ave V) 15% 4 �L FIGURE 3 - OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 1 B; 2013 75A -128 r- -3t2 2i6 1 j 1 In c (I!2 J Santa Clara Ave Project 6nly PealcHour TrafftoVa lumes N s/u )4719 -. J a/t \\ 14/19 LOI3 ee 1 -- 293/ }IL 79/1007 ,f AO /37' 45/193 1 (44139 / 0/1 z:vll3s I 125 !4p 25/13 } f s(a 1 I' /4' 197/182 BuildoutWith Project Peak HourTraffic Volumes 0LLI Lam 3511377 2761 : V9 5/3� r,5 b16 29/1 10 /R LO%4 2781514 -- 3481371 9711317 49/44 ss /i4eS] I x54145 0/i a Future With Project Peale HourTraffic Volumes 000i t 0/0 3/554 —e -3 2/61 �C-3/9 5/3� F9 /5 LEGENb EM P roject Site• U34112r,� Study Intersection XX /XX AMiPM Peale HourValumes NOT TO SCALE J:AQWS.e A,AMI0]] SA.TAVA H.,, m. N[ A,aty,MCE— W]0772a —.m K-OA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 4 atANNJNG 4 eNGUaeE a!bicv TAVA Homes Trafilc Impact Study. -South Entrance Closure AM /PM Peak Hour TrafficVOlumes 15 14 KOA CORPORATION :PLANNING & ENGINEERING Forecast Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service The future "WITH Project intersection level of service in the AM and PM peak hours for intersections affected by the change in trip distribution is summarized in Table I below. The buildout "WITH Project" intersection level of service for the "WITH Project" conditions is summarized in Table 2. Table I AMIPMPeak Hour Intersection Performance I Future WITH Project Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay 2 LOS 2 Delay2 LOS 2 Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street 14:5 B 34.3 D Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access 11.3 B 13.9 B Wright Street at Avalon Avenue 9.9 A 9.6 A Note It For intersections affected by change In project trip distribution Note 2: LOS = Level of Service; Delay In Seconds /Vehicle Average Table 2 AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance I BuildoutWITH Project Conditions Intersection I AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay 2 LOS 2 Delay? LOS 2 Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street 18.0 C 84.9 F Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access 11.7 B 14.8 B Wright Street at Avalon Avenue 10.3 B 9.8 A Note I: For intersections affected by change in project trip distribution Note 2: LOS = Level of Service; Delay in Seconds /Vehicle Average Forecast Street Segment Conditions Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the Future With Project and Buildout With Project average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, respectively, for the roadways affected by the change In project trip distribution. Tables 3 and 4 present the daily traffic volume segment analysis for these street segments. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -130 KOA CORPORATION t PLANNING E ENGINEERING FIGURES - FUTURE WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) FIGURE 6- BUILDOUT WITH PROJEcTAVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -131 KOA +CORPORATION ,.K PLANNING& ENGINEERING Table 3 Roadway Segment Future With Project Level of Service Table 4 Roadway Segment Buildout With Project Level of Service Future LOS "D" Future Street Between And ADT Capacity Level of Volume Capacity. Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 9,370 1 1,300 C Wright Street Santa Clara Ave 17 "' Street 2;962 5;000 A Avalon Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 423 2,000 A Table 4 Roadway Segment Buildout With Project Level of Service Significant Impacts Table 5 presents a comparison of existing and future study scenarios for intersections affected by the change in project trip distribution, Table 6 presents a comparison of existing and buildout study scenarios for these intersections. Traffic impacts created by the project can be calculated by comparing the "Future. With Project" conditions to the "Future Without Project' conditions, or the " Buildout With Project" conditions to the " Buildout Without Project" conditions. Significant traffic impacts are determined using the criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -132 Future LOS "D" 'Future Street Between And ADT Level of Volume Capacity. Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 12,493 11,300 E Wright Street: Santa Clara Ave 17`h Street 3,335 5,000 B.. Avalon Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 415 2,000 A Significant Impacts Table 5 presents a comparison of existing and future study scenarios for intersections affected by the change in project trip distribution, Table 6 presents a comparison of existing and buildout study scenarios for these intersections. Traffic impacts created by the project can be calculated by comparing the "Future. With Project" conditions to the "Future Without Project' conditions, or the " Buildout With Project" conditions to the " Buildout Without Project" conditions. Significant traffic impacts are determined using the criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -132 KOA CORl L911NFIO1V PLANNING & ENGINEERING Table 5 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Near Term Future Project Conditions Note I: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: 1-05 =1-evel of Scivice TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -133 Existing I Future Future Increase/ Significant intersection Without Projeet With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peak Hour Delay I LOS Z Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS z Santa Clara Ave/ 13.9 B 14.4 B 14.5 B 0.1 No Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ NA N/A NA NIA 11.3 B N/A No Project Access Wright Street/ 9.8 A 9.8 A 9.9 A 0.1 No Avalon Avenue PM Peak Hour Delay I LOS z Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS z Santa Clara Ave/ 30.0 D 33.5 D 34,3 D 0.8 No Wright Street Santa Clara Project Accessss . NA N/A NA N/A 13.9 B N/A No Wright Street/ 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.6 A 0.0 No Avalon Avenue Note I: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: 1-05 =1-evel of Scivice TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -133 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINKRING Table 6 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Buildout Project Conditions Note n oway in seconds per venicie avenge; Note Z: WS =Level of Service Based on the intersection levels of service shown in Tables 5 and 6, for the "With Project" and `Without Project" conditions, and using the significant impact criteria presented in the report 'Traffic Impact. Study for the TAVA Hornes project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", there is expected to be a significant impact to one of the study Intersections as a result of the project. The intersection of Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street is expected to be impacted In the PM peak hour for the buildout condition as a result of the proposed project. This Is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (201 1) traffic study. Project Recommendations Based on the results of the intersection and street segment analysis, the proposed project has a significant impact and is subject to mitigation measures at the following location: • Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -134 Existing Future Future Increase/ Significant Intersection Without Project. With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peak Hour Delay! LOS 2 Delay'' LOS 2 Delay' LOS x Santa Clara Avel 13.9 B 17.9 C 18,0 C 0.1 No Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ NA N/A N/A N /A. 11.7 B N/A No Project Access Wright Street( Avalon Avenue 9.8 A 10.3 B 103 B 0.0 No PM Peak Hour Delay I LOS 7 Delay i LOS 7 Delay l LOS a Santa Clara Ave/ Wr i ght Street 30.0 D 81:3 F 849 f 3,6 Yes Santa Clara Ave( ProjectAccess NA N/A N/A N/A 14.8 - B N/A No Wright Street/ 9.5 A 93 A 9:8 A 0.0 No Avalon Avenue Note n oway in seconds per venicie avenge; Note Z: WS =Level of Service Based on the intersection levels of service shown in Tables 5 and 6, for the "With Project" and `Without Project" conditions, and using the significant impact criteria presented in the report 'Traffic Impact. Study for the TAVA Hornes project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", there is expected to be a significant impact to one of the study Intersections as a result of the project. The intersection of Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street is expected to be impacted In the PM peak hour for the buildout condition as a result of the proposed project. This Is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (201 1) traffic study. Project Recommendations Based on the results of the intersection and street segment analysis, the proposed project has a significant impact and is subject to mitigation measures at the following location: • Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -134 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING a ENGINEERING Stop delay on Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street is expected to increase by 3,6 seconds in the PM peak hour under buildout conditions due to the proposed' project. Level of Service is at LOS F under these conditions. The proposed project contributes 9 trips to the Intersection in the PM peak hour, The poor level of service reported for Santa Clara Avenue/Wright Street is due to the northbound left movement of vehicles turning -from the minor leg (Wright Street) onto the major street (Santa Clara Avenue). Mitigation measures are recommended at this location to maintain an adequate Intersection level of service. Possible measures include installation of a traffic . signal or by construction of a roundabout or wide (14 -foot) 2-way left-turn lane. These measures are the same as recommended in the previous (2011) traffic study. Traffic signal warrants were tested for the Intersection of Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street. Under near -term traffic conditions, the 8 -hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant was met. Under buildout with project traffic conditions, the Pealc Hour Warrant and the 8-hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant were both met. Conclusions The intersection level of service analysis conducted for the proposed site plan change and revised project trip distribution determined that there is :a significant impact to one intersection, Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street, as a result of the project. This is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (201 1) traffic study: Mitigation measures will be required at this intersection. Recommended measures include a traffic signal, roundabout, or wide (14 -foot) 2 -way left -turn lane. Again, the recommended mitigation measures are the same as recommended in the previous (201 1) traffic study.. Expected street segment level of service on Santa Clara Avenue between Grand Avenue and Tustin Avenue conducted for the revised project trip distribution under Buildout With Project conditions is poor (Level E). The expected LOS E conditions are due to a combination of existing traffic volumes and ambient traffic growth, not as a result of added traffic volumes from the project. KOA Corporation hopes that the review and recommendations conducted for the revised site plan and trip distribution for the TAVA Homes ,project will assist the City in evaluating the potential traffic impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project. KOA is ,available to assist the City in any further traffic analysis of the project area as needed. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -135 X 4-1cc cc G RoL .r. i. O i.. 0 0 .F� EXHIBIT 14 75A -136 Co m� m Q tu N N L � �cU oUto UU N� t!5 N G N u N O } U � s o b ' a e m CL s m O � O W O O �g C a0 UM C N ti p c a s R v C H 75A -137 L 4F A N 'O m C O s. L � 7 a m a e Q O wa Q C O C u tp w z C } W � O A m F CL m m m m c CL 0 0 Q O ¢ 0 ¢ 0 c m ,v m. _ six o w avr c .E > a ;� 'in. 'a C =. 'in:..� N 'O v vi' � Q a. 01 'ta .E m v tl E c cif' w" 'c aoi•uN'- m: c m nmu�t a o o B m ci o v p i 4 w w m ro E f- a> 'u v c v e. 'L a N u N ro O O N a O .°ia 'a C %3 O n ca [V, c !op m e olaT =o" c ro K'� ua*w6G .'_^ ? to m 8'C u. .n C 2 1� C ry D C C �N o E G io v� L'� C ,�..+ w a m o u L°. cap Lam°.. a c L° 0 33 o Q a C 'i� Co N a �a,.. Q tp 4 ro V N V m 'C 4, m n fJ .0 to N. u ° 'io pr i'n m m. °CA R '� ;: m o w .S 'm CL •O- 'u c o c C O d v N °a m E��'' j tl C' .�0. 'O t+ N ��'' C V. E. E C pl 4 id L Vi ap f0 N E O 41 s+ N V m a o — ,tl. c c ui .o 0 N pl � tl 'i. 'np ro h0 CL c •.m a w w c ro c o l7 cu an m u 4 v a� v o ro 2 .o. ra °� u E. ,c v c �+. 0 40 4 7 c x c a. m it u �' ¢ 0 U z= a N 75A -137 Z ti B w o 'i n m � q O ° fi m O U9 ` a a C a a o �o a w 4 N w m a b C a c F' p m as y G O C 9 •Cj � v V ? y a re v CL v a n o E a 4 O ¢ b 4 P a v w v 3 -o m c o . m W v w m 6 d$ c` > n m o ti a c E M a s a a � 'NJ a ❑ fl, ii .c n:. °` c � v �c o > c� Z a- B s j aaa ¢aC O C N 2 E u E m a ° c •m E m i CL ° v d O m C W O E a U N n.+�s 'a v c v,�' a :C c V a C "'. u. m m O m 'C ` c 'a^ v y a°43ow3v °c.O,5.�"?m�ca°m'�N L wyH a � a cC a am m = m u ¢ro tr s c o 0 cf �c 3- . ¢ v 2 w m a ro 3 o° E a a a a c n a A m 'a ca c m a Y° n a 2 m 'i u v w ti° c m v m c c 0 3 m 4 m o a m s v w ° c m a° e 3 E c y L a° m a o a o° a w �: E-. 12 k� a eO T con 3 m b Y-' C3C _ t� o o •a ° � G. (-�' > W CO .w ;i3. w. n, m o n. Q .�. a c m c ` �' 3. m e '- 0 0 E v° '. Yn .°'c b- o- °`' 4" Cl a Q :° a E a :-i ro o c n E y o v` +� ° o a°. °P .. ;�•. C7 a u p a w d= .v. � m c❑ c LL c a o— a m a s w-a h w m `o Cy E ti M 3 �} �$ a 2 c me a ?° W 4� h a m cs a= m c rG z ac E 3 ._ a+ w ++ h m o. vi ❑ m :h +, a+ U O vi 75A -138 v a O re CL . w O a N q O C N .0 ti amp m m m m m 0 G O c L z ` m ~ a ¢ a CL o, m m R C v no 01 a s c c a v a +v. v a .o 3 wx .c roR a O E c cvn ro h u ro ,'.}-u d o u m m :c. as .ae ro L o; c .o O 0....0 O. cc w m c:.o. _° °° = ° v `w v .ro ?.= `v m .ac ,`o. E .S a L^ N' E o. as E ��. > A m ar a ao °.° n m E ;c +'= a ;ro;d� ' m •3 `m W a a a u r a bb E n c m• m.E v u a u �� •�-. E v a N N 'E 'c` c a w a m v m p m o 43 m ;ro o .� � ry..a �oIQ�. Qom• U C UI ro N °. •] °" j lCl N of C "' NEvvm�°a+ c ❑roF °c�ro.2Emro pia > >n w o c .- a '❑' o° N E .c `° cm u v. c L° E o ro v 'o m i- °o. E 3 E u m o. 'o o. o- ° v d a c �. 'G m qua a too ° e c a o a c° o al x'% o a o E o ro N v h. n m m tW L , N o ao ro v ,� c •p C N '� �� a i 0 U _tU9 'e C 7E C 4+ ro C m C° O fl: O O C E p. Q Ic bb cti E' v c�,;i a"m °.viti `gym o.o.E a .o �"° •a � o E o d 'E . m s w, !-� coYu ° d v. Tn 4a U Q o. 'a 'O rt a o 3 o _ m m Q v m 1 �. v m <C u 75A -139 IT ti � W 'a 0. O W vui .Q o d Q v c fi 0l ti W � 75A -140 c Q U 4� CL j5 0 CL E o 8 a U a 4 O aC c o e O y 'C ql u O a m ro u_ CL ao e am ¢ O 4 O¢ O < O 4 b V m' Q wo° m° °c v E m o a y m N m y '� E °c �' b° a> a m o" cC c IOU .n (mu a w o t c v m m o o E tl E 0 Y Y y C 0 � N. C E w a �$" v v m „°. 9.0 o w..M o. a u O ro ] 'C �. u �% w N c m v v c ti . o v E u o o °o 'c u w '= v N u .> ,E 'CI -C N , C m .� a o O t E ,'U b0 .0 bbb C 0 .Yt i :L' ,G V. = 'm `' H. 'CVI C 2 N. 'O O C Ea 'o C'a m ro= pp ut N �O v.� 0 N i C �o !C C C O y� bO N C N u N O F^ C b�0 N 's `m c .L ° C. E off] ti w ar.a v Er b4 #e nO ov''� , ° 0- ,., c. v °•°`°.`�° p B c m a O a C? E E ' o a. c c a ..,. Q.. a o c o ,:2 w cz ,O m .c. ,0 c O +-' c °> 2 w E m t; E a c .'�'. 0 3 c o L° b�_ -' 2 , m y in ,C Y C v E m m m E o`a °u G C O m w °� m E m m m 5 d P u o, 75A -140 c Q U -°c a a h 0 LZ v c v h ^ 4 q Q 0 �w N 'O C m .� D 4 O u° ° W 'y � C vS Q a H a a P� qaq CL .s O CL '4 ¢ O ¢ O q. w 3 Lu n u o ro` Yw GGy ° .ae `a m j+n 'C] N C oa a C a°+ c m �'o E c v° w m v a:m to w o E m w a o E c° c `ro x a 1' .a m= m .�2 w a 0c s E u E 3 a E w" u w a° g y ro ,Q v °° v w m Z ° v w m ,°- a m E m t S bp .. ° w o '`^ o 3 m w ,y w v �= o H c N v ,c c ° 2 Id m + 1p u o° s a° a ++ y c e 3 w° rs'm N. a o q9 a" �= ++ `C7 Q c w y m 3} 't1 j o E t a J CM1O w p o O v o m o � a a m o g N a ��} v "o 0, L° o s° ``w EC� qm- m w e d �� N O n u i o E y o W' La° m° m a E° E •E u m a w E w V E s w 0 m m o v a anti n +- 6 E li Em ty qEi O +'�. E a. a 6 u, .G w W w O °' .c l° a "" m >. to m ^3 O u L b o ro a. w 2 u w? c G o. '� in..m q c c M m m o. v ':. 'o o *'...:` aoi @ a c r uz �": m o u`•c �. a M o a. a u E` w u m vii ^6 a m m° m .wc V 3� 75A -141 v a U Q c a N 0 r e m ro a` CL Q 9 0 M @ 9 C ti a m¢ O t? o ¢ m u z m a� ov m N st G LM m m W ' c b a •o m 6. A. O q a CL +. O ¢ O d O Q d q IE A O 'e m jJ-' ❑ G m C G C V! .O O U ,qN D„ .E W °oroF �`c�o° To 'a, . �� Eon= bn oc m a= v o m m a ¢ y E m c � 'a 0) y c% o n e r-- n 2 '� o T a E p o q o t m a) m a m q v e' h E m o `E �° wl � o cc +`cm. a w m GD C iJ G G) Ctl O. L Y."+ G m m ^..0 U C. �VI p U •G Cc 'O E m cmi +m. •y w m o' m N b sj .G t m ro v m o �.cNm+..E °o ?cUcv= u;m�t'�'.Ou,cc�m°`` �0`':c q a c a w: E m o c N !6 A :' N 'wa G E c c �v >cQ�wNvcmm m o o ccc a m c .q q n$ u e 'C u a E a c a m o a a c ;•; o, cs ti q' .c u m 'c u a ro m �.n=m m�o, > y a 2 3 0 4 a 4 utic yc- 3 'm m ro 3° d c j o n p iri o a%, 0 0 v a.a a c o 4. m..S. c'n'� •` o v �° mG m na U F�4 C m O G m a sm E E `v 3 a 3 °z a z 1E °u a° v :c ¢° u�° 75A -142 h 0 U zo \ § } \ \ ) { \) /\ k *$ � \/ \ %± k!1 §f / ) %t � « . \$ /} f� e 0 \ \ \� \(\ ) / §i � \/\ i 5 {u <= / $ x¥46 \ //« {m\ /< . 75A.142 75A -144 ROH — 03/04/14 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01 AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; APPROVING VARIANCE NOS. 2012 -04(A) AND 2012 -04(B) AS CONDITIONED; AND, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 (COUNTY MAP NO. 17231) AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Mr. Bob Odle, representing the property owners, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, is requesting approval of a final environmental impact report (FEIR), two variances, and a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow a 23 -unit single- family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. B. In June 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to list the property on the City's Register of Historical Properties as a Key property. In response, the property owners filed a Notice of Intent to Demolish on June 11, 2012, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of the structures and orange grove. Further, it required the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) to investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition. On June 24, 2012, the HRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate feasible alternatives. On January 24, 2013, the HRC received and filed the final report on the alternatives to the demolition of the site and adopted a resolution urging the City Council to purchase the Sexlinger site. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2014, and voted to recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -145 Page 1 of 15 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012- 02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. D. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2014, and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. E. As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an environmental impact report, EIR No. 2011 -01. Sections 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 7) guide the process for the preparation of an environmental impact report. 1. The EIR, as required by CEQA, contains 1) an initial study; 2) a project description; 3) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 4) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this EIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. The scope of the EIR evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. 2. The City prepared a draft EIR and published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Orange County Register as well as posted the NOA at the Orange County Clerk's office on October 30, 2012. The City circulated the draft EIR for a 45 -day public review between November 1, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The draft EIR was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, the City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the City's website. 3. Comments were received during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency for the project, has reviewed all comments received on the document. 4. As a result of the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been provided to address potential environmental impacts. A list of these mitigation measures are found within the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary. Mitigation measures Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -146 Page 2 of 15 have been outlined to address potential impacts on geology, hazardous materials, water quality, noise, transportation and circulation, cultural resources, air quality and biological resources. 5. At its regular meeting of February 10, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, following a duly noticed public hearing, voted to recommend to the City Council that it adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011- 01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 6. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana has fully considered this matter, and all public testimony, at a duly noticed public hearing held at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 4, 2014. F. Applicant has also requested approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(a) to allow the Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain at its current location in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. 1. Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) section 41 -234 requires a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet. SAMC section 41- 239(g) requires the garage to be a minimum of five feet from the residence. SAMC section 41- 1320(b) requires the residence to provide a two -car garage. The applicant requires reductions in each of these standards to keep the historic Farmhouse in its current location. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 638 in order to grant a variance, have been established: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The approval of the variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse will result in the residence and garage retaining and preserving the historic character of the property. Further, the approval of the variance will avoid the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -147 Page 3 of 15 variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the setback, separation and parking standards would result in the loss of a resource that is listed on the City's Register of Historical Properties as the structure would have to be relocated. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the residence and garage are proposed to be used as it was historically, with little or no changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project has been designed in compliance with all other applicable development standards for an R -1 project. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family residence that will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Further, the variance is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, including Land Use Element Goal 4 to protect and enhance development sites which are unique community assets, Land Use Element Policy 4.2 to encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites, and Housing Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -148 Page 4 of 15 Element Policy HE -1.7 to support preservation and enhancement of residential structures and properties that are considered local historic or cultural resources. G. Applicant has also requested approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow one new lot in the development with less than 50 feet of street frontage in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. 1. Section 41- 237(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires lots in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district to have at least 50 feet of street frontage, as measured from the back of the setback, while the applicant is proposing to reduce the street frontage to 41 feet for Lot No. 12. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings which must be established, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 638, in order to grant a variance, have been established: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The subject site is a five - acre rectangular shaped parcel that will be constrained by the application of a County street standard to the project. In order to provide a larger street area for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to maneuver, a County's standard for the design of "knuckles" was imposed on this project. The County standard required the taking of more land than proposed, which impacted the applicant's ability to meet the minimum street standard for an R -1 project. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of a use that is otherwise allowed by right in the zone and would deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -149 Page 5 of 15 The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the street frontage standard could result in the loss of residential units, which would reduce the feasibility of the proposed use of the property, which impacts the property rights of the owners. Further, the granting of the street frontage variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owners right to develop their property. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project and individual residential lots is proposed to be in compliance with all applicable development standards for an R -1 project except for the street frontage requirement. Further, the street design will allow trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to safely maneuver on the public streets. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of a vacant parcel from the property into a single - family development that will accommodate move up housing in the City. Further, the variance is consistent with several policies of the general plan, including Policy 1.4 to support development of single - family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet, Policy 1.9 to coordinate street and parkway designs that are attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development, Policy 3.5 which encourages new development that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood, and Policy 5.10 to support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -150 Page 6 of 15 H. Applicant has further requested approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) to allow the subdivision of the five (5) acre parcel into 23 lots for the residential project. 1. To adopt a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, California Government Code Section 66474 requires the following findings: The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the District Center designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is consistent with the low density residential land use designation and density (seven units per acre) prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. The development is consistent with the single - family residences surrounding the project on three sides. ii. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is in keeping with the provisions of site plan review (DP No. 2010 -47) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site. Although two lots will not meet the street frontage standard, a variance (Variance No. 2012 -04) is proposed for the project due to the unique design of the street. iii. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The vesting tentative tract map is proposed for a five - acre parcel of land within an area that is zoned for single - family residences (R -1). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project as the proposed density of five units per acre is less than the allowed seven units per acre. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -151 Page 7 of 15 iv. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact to fish or wildlife that may be associated with this project. V. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Also, a County standard applicable to a "knuckle" design, which exceeds the City's standard, will be implemented on this project to ensure trash trucks and similar sized vehicles safely travel the streets. Additionally, traffic calming devises are proposed at the north and south end of Lyon Street, which will reduce speed along the streets and improve the safety of the residences. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious impacts resulting from this project. vi. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site as the streets will be public streets. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any CEQA review or approval, except to the extent caused by the negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -152 Page 8 of 15 Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 meets all requirements of CEQA, including, but not limited to: finding that Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 adequately addresses the impacts of the project; that it identifies and through the mitigation monitoring program imposes all feasible mitigation measures which will reduce all of the significant environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance; discusses a reasonable range of alternatives to the project; identifies the environmentally superior alternative; and based upon all of which and the record as a whole the City Council chooses to approve the project. The City Council hereby certifies and approves Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and the mitigation monitoring program attached herewith and incorporated herein by this reference, and directs that a Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Section 3. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby: A. Certifies Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approves the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. B. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(a) as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. C. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(b) as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. D. Approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned in Exhibit "C attached hereto and incorporated herein. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated March 4, 2014, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -153 Page 9 of 15 Section 5. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decision and these findings. ADOPTED this day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers 2014 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -154 Page 10 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council Resolution No. 2014 -XXX to be the original City of Santa Ana on Date: do hereby attest to and certify the attached resolution adopted by the City Council of the Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -155 Page 11 of 15 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -04(a) Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(a), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. 75A4`66 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -04(b) Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(b), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. Conditions for Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) Should the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this vesting tentative tract map. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the vesting tentative tract map. A. Planning Division 1. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 2. Any amendment to the vesting tentative tract map must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the map must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. This requirement shall also be incorporated into the CC &R's for the project. 4. The CC &R's must include language that requires all required landscaping must be installed within a specified time period. 5. A solid block wall not less than six feet in height must be provided around the project perimeter. In the event the applicant is unable to secure approval from the adjacent property owners, a revised fence plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 6. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. 75A'b' �8 March 4, 2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 8. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. 9. The project must be in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan Review (DP No. 2010 -47). 10. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC &R's shall be submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Authority, Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. 11. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 12. The interior of the Sexlinger Farmhouse shall be rehabilitated to building code standards in order to return the structure to a habitable condition. 13. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, a covenant shall be recorded that requires the existing and replacement oranges trees be maintained on the Sexlinger Farmhouse site. 14. Landscaped parkways, designed to conform to the City's residential street standards, shall be provided on the prolect's streets. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) 15. The exterior of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage shall be rehabilitated in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) 16. A minimum of 16 orange trees shall be maintained and /or planted on the Sexlinger Farmhouse parcel at all times. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) 75A -160 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Response to Comments on Additional Alternatives and Green House Gas Anal (January 2014) Additional Alternatives and Green House Gas Analysis (December 2013) Sexlinger Orchard Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Appendix A - Initial Study Appendix B - Technical Reports Air Quality Memo with References Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, 06/2011 Cultural Technical Memo /Hybrid Development Alternative, FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Stormwater Hydrology Study Noise Analysis Memo with Table Phase I Update Memo Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation TAVA Supplemental Cultural Technical Memo (December, 2011) Traffic Technical Memorandum Sexlinger Orchard Hybrid Alternative Traffic Appendix C Sexlinger Revised Cultural Report: Comments and Responses - January 2012 Sexlinger Draft EIR: Comments and Responses - October 2011 EXHIBIT B 75A -161 75A -162 CORRESPONDENCE Exhibit C 75A -163 75A -164 Dwight and Lowell Schroeder 2332 Old Grand Street Santa Ana, CA 9275 -6963. 714 -547 -3104 February 26, 2013 City Council of the City of Santa Ana. City Hall Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard EIR No. 2011 -01; Variance No. 2012 -04; Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02. Dear Councilmembers. 791R 2.6 Rtl 2: 56 Our family has had a long term association with the City of Santa Ana beginning in 1880 when our grandfather first bought farmland in and adjacent to the city. Ultimately, the family farm of 25 acres has been incorporated into the city. We have lived all of our 87 and 88 years on portions of this farm and still maintain a small acreage of orange and avocado trees at our homes along Old Grand Street. We feel that we have a perspective on development within the city that may be of some value in evaluating the subject development. Our family has known and been friends of the Sexlinger family since their arrival to their site in 1914. In her later years, we helped Martha Sexlinger with some of the work of maintaining her grove. Based upon this background, we would like to make various observations that are intended to assist you in evaluating the issues that you are to decide. 1. Martha Sexlinger's intent. During the various previous discussions, some have questioned what Martha's intent was in donating her property to the two Lutheran schools. Her intent can best be described in a generational perspective. It was a common practice among her generation to be very loyal to and supportive of their church. Starting in the 1950's and later, she witnessed her neighbors selling the orange groves for replacement with housing. She knew that many of her friends gave generously to their church and she would be of the same mind. That is, she felt that by donating the land to two of her church's schools, she could avoid the complication of selling to a developer and then donating funds to her church. There is no doubt that she envisioned that her property would be developed as had her neighbor's property, but that the schools would be the beneficiary of the sale. It seems only proper that her wished be respected. 2. Effect of designating the property as "Historic ". When the City Council adopted the designation of "historic" to this property, several consequences resulted. The most significant effect was that the land owner would be required to maintain and preserve the property, without modification, in its prior use as a commercial enterprise for the production and sale of oranges. The historic production of oranges involved many adjuncts to the individual groves. These include the SAVI system for delivering irrigation water and farm cooperatives such as Santiago Orange Growers Association to harvest, process and sell the fruit. There are no such agencies still available in the Santa Ana area. In fact the property today does not have a means of irrigation. It is amazing that the trees have survived so far. To be truly historic, the property would need a flood irrigation system, a means to cultivate the soil for weed control and to provide access for harvest processes and also to provide irrigation furrows. It has been noted that the property today has only about half of the trees that once filled the property. The fact that the trees have been identified as being grafted onto sour or lemon rootstock 75A -165 may explain why so many of the trees were removed in the period of 1950 to 1970. The deadly citrus virus, known as quick decline, spread though orchards in that time frame and devastated some groves with total removal of orange trees with sour rootstock. This means that the trees remaining in this grove are still susceptible to this disease. The historic use of the property was as a commercial endeavor to produce a crop that could be harvested and processed for the market. This can be viable only if the income exceeds the costs of operation. If it were possible to earn a profit, there undoubtedly would be other such operations remaining in this area. It should be obvious that you do not have the power to require a property owner to continue an unsustainable enterprise. 3. Alternative uses that have been proposed. The adoption of the "Historic" status for this property precludes other uses, no matter how desirable they may be. You have an option to rescind the historic designation and then to consider other uses for the property. These other uses could be undertaken by the city or some private company or association. One possible desirable use for the property would be as an agricultural or farming exhibition and learning center. Proponents of this plan have developed proposals for the reconfiguration of the house and trees for various learning activities. They have made major attempts to find an organization that would be willing to finance the purchase of the property and support for the proposed learning activity. It appears that after several months they have not found any group or organization willing to provide the required funds. This leaves the city of Santa Ana as a possible purchaser of the property. 4. If you councilmembers decide that the city should provide funds to purchase, develop and operate the site as an exhibit and learning center, you must have available to you, reliable and in -depth studies of the initial and annual operating costs. You should have a plan of operation for which the possible benefits can be evaluated as to their appeal to the citizens of Santa Ana. Have such studies been made? Sincerely, Dwight and Lowell Schroeder. 75A -166 July 16, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: EIR 2011 -01 and VTTM No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 1723 1) Sexlin eg r Property Ladies & Gentlemen: I am a resident of the City of Santa Ana and familiar with the above referenced property. The property is located adjacent to existing housing and a park as well as the Fairhaven Cemetery, which provides plenty of open space to support the 24 lots. The highest and best use for the property is to be developed into residential lots, which is what the property owner, well within their rights, has chosen to do. At this time, I am in support of the City's approval of this project as long as CEQA and corresponding mitigation measures have been addressed accordingly. Sincerely, A /kin �� iane Fr 2402 N. Oakmont Ave Santa Ana, CA 92706 75A -167 75A -168 February 19, 2014 Mr. Vince C. Fregoso, AICP Principal Planner Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20 Post Office Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 E -Mail: vfregoso(@santa- ana.org Re: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008041172) Additional Analysis Dated December 19, 2013 Dear Mr. Fregoso: On behalf of California Preservation Foundation (CPF), I am writing to express our continued concern over the proposed Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project. CPF is the only statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation of California's diverse cultural and architectural heritage. Established in 1977, CPF works with its extensive network to provide statewide leadership, advocacy and education to ensure the protection of California's diverse cultural heritage and historic places. We are pleased that the original home and garage will be retained and restored as described in the Additional Analysis of the Historic Preservation Alternative. However, we do not agree with the conclusion that this Alternative will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The original 5 acre orchard was the major character defining feature of the property, yet only ten trees are proposed for retention in the Alternative. Ten trees are insufficient to convey the significance of this historic family citrus ranch, that was "once common and is now a rare surviving example in the City ". A small parcel does not convey the "historic context and historical information" of the importance of citrus farming to Santa Ana's history. The parcel size must be larger. Precedent set by Mosonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 suggests that 50 %, or 2.5 acres, is an acceptable size of land to convey the historic significance of this property. 5 3RD STREET, SUITE 424 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 -3205 415.495.0349 PHONE 415.495.0265 FAX CPF ®CA LIFOR N IAP R ESERVATION.O RG WWW CALIFORNIAPRESERVATIONORG BOARD OF TRUSTEES Charles Chase, AIA, San Francisco PRESIDENT VICE - PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS Diane Kane, PhD, To Jolla VICE - PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT Thomas Neary, Santa Monica TREASURER David Wilkinson, Woodland SECRETARY Kelly Sutherlin- McLeod, FAIA, Long Beach Ray Adamyk, Pomona Andrea Galvin, El Segundo Robert lmber, Palm Springs David Marshall, AIA, San Diego Amy Mlnteer, Esq., Los Angeles Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., Costa Mesa Kurt Schindler, AIA, Berkeley Carolyn Sears, PE, San Francisco Julianne Polanco, San Francisco Richard Sucre, San Francisco Sally Zornowitz, AIA, Berkeley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cindy L. Holtzman Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at cheitzman @californiapreservation.org or by phone at 415- 495 -0349. Sincerely, Cindy Heitzman Executive Director cc: Save Our Orchard Coalition State Historic Preservation Office 75A -169 IE P E S R VV A T 1 0 N F O U N D A T 1 O N February 19, 2014 Mr. Vince C. Fregoso, AICP Principal Planner Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20 Post Office Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 E -Mail: vfregoso(@santa- ana.org Re: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008041172) Additional Analysis Dated December 19, 2013 Dear Mr. Fregoso: On behalf of California Preservation Foundation (CPF), I am writing to express our continued concern over the proposed Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project. CPF is the only statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation of California's diverse cultural and architectural heritage. Established in 1977, CPF works with its extensive network to provide statewide leadership, advocacy and education to ensure the protection of California's diverse cultural heritage and historic places. We are pleased that the original home and garage will be retained and restored as described in the Additional Analysis of the Historic Preservation Alternative. However, we do not agree with the conclusion that this Alternative will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The original 5 acre orchard was the major character defining feature of the property, yet only ten trees are proposed for retention in the Alternative. Ten trees are insufficient to convey the significance of this historic family citrus ranch, that was "once common and is now a rare surviving example in the City ". A small parcel does not convey the "historic context and historical information" of the importance of citrus farming to Santa Ana's history. The parcel size must be larger. Precedent set by Mosonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 suggests that 50 %, or 2.5 acres, is an acceptable size of land to convey the historic significance of this property. 5 3RD STREET, SUITE 424 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 -3205 415.495.0349 PHONE 415.495.0265 FAX CPF ®CA LIFOR N IAP R ESERVATION.O RG WWW CALIFORNIAPRESERVATIONORG BOARD OF TRUSTEES Charles Chase, AIA, San Francisco PRESIDENT VICE - PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS Diane Kane, PhD, To Jolla VICE - PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT Thomas Neary, Santa Monica TREASURER David Wilkinson, Woodland SECRETARY Kelly Sutherlin- McLeod, FAIA, Long Beach Ray Adamyk, Pomona Andrea Galvin, El Segundo Robert lmber, Palm Springs David Marshall, AIA, San Diego Amy Mlnteer, Esq., Los Angeles Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., Costa Mesa Kurt Schindler, AIA, Berkeley Carolyn Sears, PE, San Francisco Julianne Polanco, San Francisco Richard Sucre, San Francisco Sally Zornowitz, AIA, Berkeley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cindy L. Holtzman Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at cheitzman @californiapreservation.org or by phone at 415- 495 -0349. Sincerely, Cindy Heitzman Executive Director cc: Save Our Orchard Coalition State Historic Preservation Office 75A -169 75A -170 ♦. • • Via` `§ February 27, 2014 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council City of Santa Ana Post Office Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Proiect EIR Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714.513.5100 main 714.513.5130 main fax www.sheppardmullin.com 714,424.2821 direct drosentlial@sheppardmullin.com File Number: 0010- 174415 This letter is submitted on behalf of the Old Orchard Conservancy ( "Conservancy') in opposition to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the Sexlinger Orchard Project ( "Project "). The Conservancy has participated actively in hearings on the Project since demolition of the historic Orchard was originally proposed. In accordance with the last City Council hearing on this matter, the Conservancy made a multi - million dollar offer ( "Conservancy Offer ") to purchase the property in 2013. The Project proponents summarily rejected the Conservancy Offer. The Project currently proposes to retain the historic Farmhouse on site, but to demolish more than 95 percent of the equally historic Orchard. Except for approximately 10 trees, the Orchard will be replaced by 22 new homes with new landscaping. This letter summarizes and explains the continued defects in the proposed Project and the EIR, which require them to be returned to staff for analysis of a true preservation alternative like the 50 -50 Alternative proposed by the Conservancy. 1. The Proiect Has A Significant Unmitigated Impact On The Historic Orchard. The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse are designated together as a "Key" historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. Demolition of more than 95% of the Orchard clearly has a significant and unmitigated impact under CEQA. The Project does not address whether the handful of trees in the yard of an under quarter -acre lot will be enough to self - pollinate (they will not), or whether it will function as an Orchard. A single row of trees does not preserve either the Orchard or the agricultural setting of the Farmhouse. The conclusion that retention of 10 trees maintains the "character" of the Orchard is patently unreasonable historically, biologically and visually, as well as being contradicted by the EIR itself. Put another way, a single row of trees on a 10,000 acre lot would never be eligible for designation as an historic resource under the City Code or CEQA. 2. The EIR Must Evaluate An Orchard Preservation Alternative. The EIR tries to avoid the need for a true Orchard Preservation Alternative by inaccurately concluding the 10 -tree 75A -171 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council February 27, 2014 Page 2 alternative will avoid significant impacts. This conclusion is clearly inconsistent with the conclusion elsewhere in the same EIR that preserving 20 -30 trees on larger acreage would have significant adverse impacts on the Orchard. In fact, before the Project proponents agreed to retain any portion of the Orchard, the EIR concluded that preserving double the number of trees would fail to preserve the historic character of the Orchard, based on the identical list of characteristics. To date, the EIR has never considered an alternative that preserves more than 5 to 10 percent of the Orchard (2 to 6 percent of the trees) in an otherwise totally developed urban landscape, The Conservancy has proposed an alternative that provides ample return to the Project proponent, and preserves 50 percent of the Orchard as a biologically and visually intact historic landscape. 3. The 50 -50 Alternative Is Environmentally Superior Under CEQA. The 50 -50 Preservation Alternative proposed by the Conservancy would preserve the Farmhouse and 50 percent of the Orchard, with the remaining 2.5 acres devoted to residential use. This Alternative would avoid or mitigate impacts to the historic Orchard by preserving a large enough portion of the Orchard to be biologically sustainable, and to convey visually the important history of small - scale citrus orchards in the City of Santa Ana. It would avoid impacts to the Farmhouse and would preserve an adequate setting under the Secretary of the interior's Standards. It will also avoid or mitigate the loss of prime agricultural soils on the site, a significant impact which has not been acknowledged or studied in the EIR, The Project meets the requirements for prime agricultural soils under CEQA, with a Storie Rating of 90 and Class I capability, and it is not classified under the State Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program. The loss of prime agricultural soil is a significant impact, which must be mitigated, if feasible — not simply ignored or disregarded because the property is not appropriate for a Williamson Act contract. The 50 -50 Alternative also complies with the current R -1 Zoning of the property, which allows "fruit trees and any agricultural crop." Additional information about the importance of this prime agricultural soil and its soil sequestration value has been provided in a previously submitted letter by soils expert, Guy Stivers, dated May 10, 2013, 4. The 50 -50 Alternative Provides The Owner With Substantial Returns And Is Not A Taking. The 50 -50 Alternative does not require the property owners to operate a citrus orchard. It allows the owners to sell the property to a single developer or multiple purchasers, for its full market value. The only difference between the proposed project and the 50 -50 Alternative is that the owner will sell half of the property for small -lot residential development and the remaining half will be sold as an historic Farmhouse and Orchard. The owners have already received a multi- million dollar offer from the Conservancy for a Preservation Alternative. The fact that the owners might be able to make a larger return from demolishing a "Key" city landmark does not make the 50 -50 Alternative a taking. In fact, under all U.S. and California precedent, a property owner must have no beneficial economic use of the property for a taking to occur. The Project proponent has submitted no economic information at all, much less data supporting a claim for taking. Where a property owner can receive more than two million dollars in compensation for property received as a gift, while also respecting the community's heritage, it is a win -win situation, not a taking. 75A -172 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council February 27, 2014 Page 3 5, The Current Condition Of The Orchard Is Not Relevant Under CEQA. The Project proponents have argued that the Orchard is not in good condition, and therefore does not qualify for preservation. Under CEQA, the relevant baseline for the Orchard is the date of the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") in 2011. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid exactly what has occurred here — destruction of valuable environmental resources by neglect or deliberate indifference. The letter from Arborgate Consulting ( "Letter ") was based on a 2013 site visit that, apparently, confirmed the age of the Orchard and the lack of watering and care for a number of years. It provided no useful information about the health of the Orchard in 2011 when the NOP was issued. The Letter is full of opinions which the author was not qualified to give, including opinions on the highest and best use of the property, public interest in citrus history and future objections to potential pesticide use. The letter also suggested the property could not "make a go" as an orchard unless it was enlisted in the Williamson Act, without acknowledging the property is likely eligible for participation in the parallel Urban Agriculture Incentives Zone Act for smaller urban properties. Although the Letter offered Arborgate's opinion that it was "unreasonable" to expect the property owners to make money growing citrus, the Letter gave no opinion on the value of the property for sale as part of the 50 -50 Alternative, or any other preservation alternative. It is therefore irrelevant to any of the issues under CEQA. 6. The Project Is Not Needed To Meet RHNA Housing Goals. The City's RHNA housing goals have recently been revised to reduce the total number of required units in all categories to 204 between 2014 and 2021. The number of "above moderate" or "move up" homes required over the next seven years is only 90. The City Planning Department advised the Planning Commission that the goal of 90 new "above moderate" units could easily be met without this Project. Reducing the number of units to 10 or 12, while preserving the Orchard, would have no effect on the City's ability to meet RHNA housing goals, and would also achieve the Project Objective of providing "move up" housing. 7. The Proiect Does Not Qualify For A Variance. The Project has applied for a variance in street frontage of almost 20 percent for one of the interior Lots. The need for a variance could be avoided by redesigning the lot layout or reducing the number of lots. The City attempts to justify the variance by arguing that the City's street standards are "a special circumstance applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings." There is absolutely no evidence of any "special circumstance" involved in applying the City's street standards to a flat rectangular five -acre lot. The findings for the variance do not identify any privileges or property rights that would be affected by strict compliance with the City's standards, except the potential loss of residential units. There is no evidence in the record that constructing the number of residential units proposed by the Project proponents is a property right or privilege, or that the City's standards cannot be accommodated by redesign. 8. The City's Findings Mitigation Monitoring Plan And Conditions Must Reflect The Actual Approvals. The documents presented to the City Planning Commission did not require preservation of the Farmhouse, did not identify timing or responsibility for restoration of the Farmhouse, and incorrectly described a number of factual items. These defects were described at the hearing, and should be corrected before any final approvals. 75A -173 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council February 27, 2014 Page 4 9. The Conservancy Has Been Frustrated By The City's Delay In Processing The Project. The Conservancy has asked the City to consider a true preservation alternative since the first hearings on the Project. The DEIR issued in 2011 failed to acknowledge that the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse was an historic resource, although documentation was submitted in support of this finding. After the City Council designated the Orchard and Farmhouse as a "Key" historic resource in 2012, the DEIR was revised to consider and reject preservation of one -half acre of the Orchard and relocation of the Farmhouse. The DEIR was continued to allow discussion of purchase, culminating in the owners' rejection of the Conservancy's multi- million dollar offer in mid -2013. Between July and December 2013, the DEIR was revised again at the owners' request to reduce the proposed preservation area to less than one - quarter acre with no Farmhouse relocation. At no point during this entire multi -year process was any alternative considered that preserved any significant part of the Orchard, even though the 50 -50 Alternative was proposed by the Conservancy, to both the owners and City staff, well in advance of the 2013 DEIR revisions. The Project has been delayed because the property owners refused to acknowledge the significance of the historic resource, refused to consider preservation once it was designated, and then refused to consider preservation of more than 5 percent of the Orchard. For more than three years, the Conservancy has had one simple request: for the City to add an alternative to the EIR that preserves a substantial portion of the Orchard (with its prime soils) and the Farmhouse in place. If this alternative is economically feasible and environmentally superior, then it must be approved. If this alternative is not economically or environmentally feasible, then it can be rejected. It is a question of evidence to support the City's findings — has the City considered an alternative that minimizes impacts to the historic resource, serves the interests of the community and provides adequate returns to the property owners. Despite having circulated the EIR three times, the City has refused to conduct this basic analysis, which is at the heart of CEQA. Very truly yours, Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON Ll_P cc: Ms. Jeannie Gillett SMRH:418131688.1 75A -174 �T Tk ' ° `'a w4 Conservancy Jeannie Gillett President Ryan Bensley Vice - President Patrick Mitchell Moises Plascencia Steve Ray Nick Spain "To preserve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural and educational resource for all." (714) 296 -4642 P. O. Box 10038 Santa Ana, California 92711 -0038 February 27, 2014 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council City of Santa Ana Post Office Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Project EIR Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: The Old Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) remains committed to its preservation efforts of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orange Orchard in Santa Ana. The time has finally come when you, the Santa Ana City Council, will hold the public hearing that will decide the fate of our city's last intact example of our citrus and agricultural history and heritage. Your decision can ensure that the designation you granted this important community resource in June of 2012 will remain intact, so that this unique listing on our Historic Register can be enjoyed for generations to come. There are several points to remember as you hear arguments on both sides of the proposed development project. These include property rights, the process, fairness, and most importantly, the definition of the historic resource and how significance and integrity are related to historic resources. Property Rights- I want to remind you that the only rightthat a property owner can count on, with a development proposal such as this, is the right to the process, not the right to any guaranteed or expected outcome. Fairness- It is also inappropriate to even consider the concept of fairness for the property owner. Any development proposal must be approved based on: its merits; whether it is a positive development for the city or not; does it follow the constraints of City Code and any number of laws that apply to that particular development project? Process- Comments about `how long this has gone on "or "this has gone on long enough and we need to move it forward" have no place in the process of proposed project approval or denial. The process does not have any time constraints or a specific deadline; unless, and until, council approves said project. No one can predict what information or detail will come to light that must be addressed or considered, or how that information may change the course of events. The process takes as long as the process takes. 75A -175 l •` iN ' •i Page 2 Definition of the Historic Resource Having a clear understanding of what the historic resource includes is essential to understanding the documents related to this project. I have, repeatedly, heard staff and city officials mistakenly characterize the historic resource as the Sexlinger family home. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The newly proposed 5% Alternative seems to have been developed with just this definition in mind. The resource is the five -acre orchard which includes the Sexlinger family home. Both the orchard and home have historic value and that value is all the more important because they coexist, together as one. Take away one or the other, the orchard or the house, and the resource loses its significance and integrity. In order for a property to be worthy of listing on a local, state or federal historic register as an historic resource, it must have both "significance" and "integrity" Significance has been established as the Sexlinger property meets the requirement of being "fifty (50) or more years old and it is" a site that was "connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare." (Santa Ana Municipal Code: Sec 30 -2) The consultants used the National Park System (NPS) publications when discussing both the Hybrid Development Alternative (10% Alternative) and the Historic Preservation Alternative (5% Alternative), so I will refer to NIPS definitions here. "The historic integrity of an orchard ... is a measure of physical authenticity, conveyed by extant characteristics or features that were present during the period of significance." (Dolan: 178) In other words, if things still exist at the property that were in existence when the property was a significant part of our history, then the property has integrity. Integrity includes seven aspects as defined by the NIPS. Collectively, these seven aspects provide a measure of authenticity and include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. In addition, there are "13 possible landscape characteristics that can be found in any cultural landscape, including orchards. Not all 13 landscape characteristics are found in every cultural landscape, and the characteristics are not mutually exclusive." (Dolan: 181) 1 do not want to appear to be belaboring the point, but the concepts of significance and integrity are extremely important to understand as you consider the information you have been provided for this project and it's relevance for the approval or denial of the proposed Alternatives. Next I would like to bring your attention to the EIR itself, specifically the requirement for a "range of alternatives "as specified under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). "Range of alternatives" refers to different types of alternatives: i.e. a no -build option, the proposed project, and another alternative that falls somewhere in between. Including additional alternatives that accomplish the same outcome, no matter how many you have, does not provide a range of alternatives. That could be defined as a /istof alternatives. Currently, the EIR includes two types of alternatives, in other words, two lists. I will call them the "do- not - build- anything" list and the " destroy- the - historic- resource - beyond- recognition" list. On the one hand, four of the Alternatives call for no housing development, whatsoever, at the site; and, on the other hand, the five remaining Alternatives call for most, if not all, of the destruction of this listed historic resource. For example, the newest addition to the EIR, the 5% Alternative, can be added to the " destroy- the - historic - resource - beyond- recognition" Alternatives list. Neither the "do- not- build- anything" Alternatives nor the " destroy- the - historic - resource - beyond- recognition" Alternatives satisfy the project objectives and retain the historic resource. It is a requirement of CEQA that the EIR contain a "range of alternatives." Adding an Alternative that would retain enough of the resource so that its significance and integrity remain intact, would satisfy the CEQA requirement for a "range of alternatives." That is not to say that an Alternative that allows for development • � r � is + 75A -176 �s g Page 3 and retains an adequate amount of the historic resource must be the approved Alternative; it simply must be in the EIR document. Lastly, there have been two Technical Memoranda prepared by URS, Inc. for this EIR. One was prepared on October 10, 2012 for the Hybrid Development Alternative (10% Alternative) and the other on November 22, 2013 for the Historic Preservation Alternative (5% Alternative). If you read the findings of these two memos side -by -side you will see the apparent logical inconsistencies in the "analysis" of the 5% Alternative. These inconsistencies lead me to believe that there is a lack of understanding, or knowledge, regarding the importance of significance and integrity as they relate to historic resources and an equal lack of understanding, or knowledge, as to how to follow CEQA guidelines where preservation and mitigation are concerned. As you read through the opening paragraphs of each of these documents and the Background, Description of the Historical Resource, and Significance of the Historical Resource sections, you will find that most of the wording is exactly the same. The Impacts sections for each Alternative are somewhat different. Using NIPS publications, including Fruitful Legacy, the consultants refer to the 13 landscape characteristics that specifically apply to orchards as historical resources. Of the thirteen characteristics: one is not applicable to this resource; one is not currently retained at this resource; in the 10% Alternative, three of the landscape characteristics will be "retained" and six will be "lost "; in the 5% Alternative, seven will be "retained" and three will be "impaired." It is easy to see the contradictory issues when the Alternatives are compared in the table below: Landsca e r< sr o 10 fo Alternative � �� Y r a �, � x rmrr o x, , 5 /o Alte(natroe ,,� , �r, � u se„ �2 Charact ristic : k ,r a a a�ybaa��, on), Historc Prsa {ion)r kk rp; with..10 Natural Systems & Retained: Retained: Features ".., the Natural Systems and Features of "... the Natural Systems and Features of the the land itself would not be lost, ..." it land itself would not be lost, ... it would not would not "likely be recognizable as what "likely be recognizable as what exists exists currently." currently." Spatial Lost: Impaired: Organization "As most of the trees would be `... Spatial Organization would be lost." demolished, and the house moved ..., the Spatial Organization would be lost." Land Use Lost: Retained: "The Land Use would transition from a "The property would retain its Land Use as historic single- family residence with a small -scale orchard and residence, agricultural improvements to a suburban although the orchard space would be much development ..., with very few of the smaller." extant orange trees to remain." Cultural Traditions Lost: Retained: "The Cultural Traditions of the orchard "The Cultural Tradition of growing ... would be completely lost." orange trees ... will be retained; ..., fewer trees would be in the orchard." Circulation Lost: Retained: "... Also changed would be the "Some of the Circulation network located Circulation of the lot." between the existing trees would be retained; however, a large portion of the network would be lost by the new develo meat ..." 75A -177 Page 4 tMGLandscape „ , 10 %Alternatrvke < g rµ5 %AlternatNVU11M tr Characteristic "/ �HistortcrPreserVation)� W,, Topography Retained: Retained: "Topography" itself would not be lost, it "Topography" itself would not be lost, it would not "likely be recognizable as what would not "likely be recognizable as what exists currently." exists currently." Vegetation Lost: Impaired: "The Vegetation the currently exists "The Vegetation that currently exists would would be lost..." be lost." Buildings & Retained: Retained: Structures "The Buildings and Structures -- "The Buildings and Structures - specifically, specifically, the residence - will remain the residence and garage would remain on- on- site; however, its location and site." orientation will be significantly different." Cluster Not addressed Retained: Arrangement `... the residence and garage would remain on -site preserving their Cluster Arrangement; however, their overall setting and relationship with the landscape would be impaired by the construction of additional residences." Views & Vistas Lost: Impaired: ... the Views and VisEwould ansition ".., the Views and Vistas would transition om that of a pastoric small from that of a pastoral and historic small orange grove to that ential orange grove to that of new residential buildin s and roadw uildin s and roadwa s." URS consultant, Jeremy Hollins, concluded that the "... the Hybrid Development Alternative will not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby causing a significant adverse change to the SARHP- listed resource, which is considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA." Then, thirteen months later, the same consultant concluded "that the Historic Preservation Alternative will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby causing impacts to the SARHP- listed resource as being mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact to the historical resource." Given the comparisons listed above how is that possible? Neither of these Alternatives meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historical Properties. The EIR is correct in its findings that the 10% Alternative would result in significant impacts to the historic resource and is appropriately rejected. However, the finding that the 5% Alternative is somehow superior, with half of the land and a third of the trees remaining, which leaves the historic resource even more compromised, is, in a word, bizarre. This misnomer, called the "historic preservation alternative" does nothing to retain the overall character and integrity of the historic property. In addition, even though the 5% Alternative intimates that the family home will be restored, there are no guidelines, a timeline, or any analysis specifically detailing how this "restoration project" will be accomplished. There is simply 75A -178 Page S a restating of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The regurgitation of a list can not be considered an adequate plan for the actual preservation of an historic property. The Conservancy urges the City Council to add another alternative to this EIR that will meet the Secretary of Interior Standards and meet the objectives of the project -- An alternative that respects the resource and retains enough of it to be recognized as what it once was; a small - scale family citrus orchard. The Conservancy has proposed a fifty percent development/ preservation plan to both the property owners and to City staff. We have a development firm that is willing to work with us on this proposal. In light of these facts, we would like to be included in the development of a meaningful and feasible preservation plan for the EIR. Small family farms were not only quite common in our region, they were an integral part of our social & economic fabric and our agricultural heritage & history. It would be a shame if the Santa Ana City Council reduced this valuable community resource to a house with some trees in the yard; and, the fact of the matter is, you don't have to. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 714 - 296 -4642 cc: Vince Fregoso, AICP Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., AICP Matthew Holbrook, Esq. Patrick Mitchell, Board Member Moises Plascencia, Board Member Steve Ray, Board Member Nick Spain, Board Member 75A -179 75A -180