Laserfiche WebLink
a blank check with respect to height and density? Would any reasonable parent give their teenage son or <br />daughter a credit card and tell them they can spend as much as they want, unlimited spending? <br />2. At the request of the Developer, the project management staff made an attempt to rush this project's approval <br />through the Planning Commission by scheduling a vote on it the Monday (November 26) after the long <br />Thanksgiving weekend even though the Final EIR had not been released. This was done for two reasons, one to <br />limit the amount of time that the Planning Commissioners would have to review the EIR and the associated public <br />comments and more specifically to get this project to the City Council for a vote prior to the seating of three newly <br />elected City Council members in mid-December. Thankfully the Planning Commission saw through this rushed <br />attempt to appease the Developer's wishes and rejected the project management team's attempt with the <br />instructions to bring the project back on January 14th. <br />3. The current project plan includes Option 3 which utilizes an entrance to the complex from Edgewood Road. Park <br />Santiago residents have voiced their concerns with including this option since it would facilitate cutthrough traffic <br />through the neighborhood and also encourage parking of vehicles along Bush and Spurgeon. While eliminating <br />an entrance on Edgewood Road will have a tendency to reduce cut through traffic and parking of excess vehicles <br />in the neighborhood, it will not eliminate this from occurring. In the Request for Planning Commission Action the <br />project management team notes that in the latest version of the project the Developer has eliminated the <br />entrance on Edgewood Road, however the project management team failed to stipulate in their recommended <br />modifications the prohibition of an entrance on Edgewood Road should the Developer fail to obtain the approval <br />fortheir Walkie Way entrance which leaves the possibility of a revision in the future to include an Edgewood Road <br />entrance. The project management team also refused requests by the residents of Park Santiago to remove <br />Option C from the EIR and the project plan altogether. One would have to believe that the Developer has future <br />plans to add an entrance on Edgewood Road citing rationale of failure to obtain the Walkie Way entrance as well <br />as public safety and traffic concerns. Without a hard fast restriction on any entrance to the complex from <br />Edgewood Road it leaves open the possibility of a late change to the project's design. <br />4. The project management team wants to give the City Council the appearance that they are listening to the <br />concerns of the Park Santiago residents with respect to the problem with the planned density of the project by <br />making a minimal reduction in the number of units from 517 units to 476 units. However they fail to note that <br />the Developer had originally reduced the total number of units from 517 to 496, so the project management <br />team's response to the Park Santiago residents concern on density was a reduction from 496 units to 476 <br />units. They also fail to make mention that this was accomplished by reducing the number of studio and 1 <br />bedroom units and creating additional 2 and 3 bedroom units. Even at 476 units this represents a density of 81 <br />units per acre significantly dwarfing the neighborhood in which it resides which has a density of 7 units per acre. <br />5. The project management team makes an attempt to persuade the City Council into accepting their premise that <br />a multi-family apartment density of 81 units per acre adjacent to single family residences is well within what has <br />been approved and in existence in the City of Santa Ana. They do this by citing 7 projects with relatively similar <br />densities: <br />a. The Nineteen0l: 49 units per acre <br />b. The Line: 58 units per acre <br />c. The Heritage: 65 units per acre <br />d. The Marke: 74 units per acre <br />e. Prisma: 91 units per acre <br />f. The Madison: 94 units per acre <br />g. Elan: 94 units per acre <br />What they fail to mention is the fact that none of their examples are developments that abut single family <br />residential communities. Google Earth views of all 7 of these projects and as you can see all are located in more <br />commercial areas of the city. For comparison, a Google Earth view of the proposed project site will show you how <br />it overwhelms the single family home community. As you can see the project management team is providing <br />evidence that supports the Developer's recommendations instead of providing examples of multi-family projects <br />located within a single family residential area in an effort to sway the City Councilmember's views on the project's <br />density in favor of the Developer and away from the residents of Santa Ana. The lowest density development at <br />49 units per acre, significantly less than the project's 81 units per acre, is located in an industrial area with the <br />closest single family homes located on the other side of the 5 and the 55 freeways! If the project management <br />2 <br />