CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)

Home Browse Search

team really wanted to provide an apples -to -apples comparison with this proposed project instead of making an attempt to support the Developer's proposal, then they should have selected multi -family developments located within similar single family residential areas. 6. This project violates Policy 2.10 of the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan: "Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area." I submitted a comment to address the Draft EIR noting that the EIR fails to reflect the nature and character of the Park Santiago neighborhood of which it is contained. However the project management team's response to this comment was "The project site is not contained within the Park Santiago neighborhood.... The Park Santiago neighborhood does not exist along N. Main Street. Thus it is appropriate that the EIR does not provide greater weight to the residential neighborhood...." A check of the neighborhood maps provided by the City of Santa Ana makes the claim by the project management team the project site is not part of the Park Santiago neighborhood as a false claim (https://www.santa-ana.org/neighborhood-initiatives/community-engagement-and-volunteer- opportunities). In making this false claim the project management team again indicates that it sides more closely with the Developer than with the residents of Park Santiago. Again it should be reiterated, the six parcels identified for use in this development, contrary to what the project management team is claiming, are part of the Park Santiago neighborhood and any justification using an argument that the parcels are not is totally false and should be rejected by the City Council. 7. The number of proposed parking spaces planned for the project has always been a major concern with the residents of Park Santiago. With insufficient parking made available for the residents there will be renters who will park their vehicles along Bush Street and Spurgeon Street. As evidence of this one only needs to view the excessive number of vehicles from a nearby apartment complex parked along Santiago near 17th Street. The Developer has planned for 904 spaces of which 150 (17%) are identified as tandem parking for the 496 units or a rate of 1.80 parking spots per unit. The Request for Planning Commission Action in Table 9: Parking Per SAMC Section 41-1322 Multi -family Dwellings notes that for a project of this size the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires 1,420 spaces or a ratio of 2.86 spaces per unit. However, the project management team has elected to disregard the SAMC requirements and allow the Developer to provide significantly less. However they again side with the Developer by saying that the SAMC is outdated and the parking requirements were established in 1997. To assume that the number of vehicles per household unit has decreased in number since 1997 is a naive statement, in fact the opposite is true. The project management team again has sided with the Developer and will allow significantly less than the SAMC mandated 1,420 parking spots. An attempt is made to address the Park Santiago residents' concerns regarding inadequate parking by making it a requirement to have a minimum of 952 spaces or 2.0 spaces per unit. Compounding this decision the project management team has agreed with the Developer's assertion that the 2.0 parking spots per unit can be obtained through the use of valet services. Valet services for apartment dwellers is illogical. The project management team admitted during the January 14th Planning Commission meeting that the use of valet parking to address a shortage of parking spaces had never been used for a multi -family apartment complex in Santa Ana before. Besides, who will be waiting for a valet to bring them their car so that they can run to the store for groceries? Where will the valet park these extra cars, in the Park Santiago neighborhood? The City Council should not allow this project to violate the SAMC parking requirements of 2.86 spaces per unit. Nor should the project be allowed to use valet services to meet the requirement. 8. As noted in the Request For Planning Commission Action Table 6: Professional Zone Comparison, the project will reduce the current set back from the east property line nearest to the existing homes on Spurgeon Street from 50 feet minimum to 40 feet 7 inches minimum. It also reduces the existing requirement of 25 feet maximum height within approximately 240 feet of the east property line to 40 to 66 feet. Both of these changes will significantly impact the home owners who reside on Spurgeon Street adjacent to the project and contributes to the negative aesthetic impact which the EIR noted as being significant. By allowing these changes that the Developer has requested, it once again shows that the project management team has placed the Developer's needs over the concerns of the residents of Park Santiago. 9. The EIR identifies one "significant and unavoidable" impact associated with this project, which pertains to aesthetics. CEQA guidelines Section 15126.6 (c) requires that "an EIR analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly avoid or reduce any significant unavoidable impacts of the 3