Laserfiche WebLink
reduced the total number of units from 517 to 496, so the project management team's <br />response to the Park Santiago residents concern on density was a reduction from 496 units <br />to 476 units. They also fail to make mention that this was accomplished by reducing the <br />number of studio and 1 bedroom units and creating additional 2 and 3 bedroom units. <br />Even at 476 units this represents a density of 81 units per acre significantly dwarfing the <br />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 <br />accepting their premise that a multi -family apartment density of 81 units per acre adjacent <br />to single family residences is well within what has been approved and in existence in the <br />City of Santa Ana. They do this by citing 7 projects with relatively similar 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 />c. 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 <br />abut single family residential communities. I've attached Google Earth views of all 7 of <br />these projects and as you can see all are located in more commercial areas of the city. For <br />comparison, I've also included a Google Earth view of the proposed project site. As you can <br />see the project management team is providing evidence that supports the Developer's <br />recommendations instead of providing examples of multi -family projects located within a <br />single family residential area in an effort to sway the City Councilmember's views on the <br />project's density in favor of the Developer and away from the residents of Santa Ana. The <br />lowest density development at 49 units per acre, significantly less than the project's 81 <br />units per acre, is located in an industrial area with the closest single family homes located <br />on the other side of the 5 and the 55 freeways! If the project management team really <br />wanted to provide an apples -to -apples comparison with this proposed project instead of <br />making an attempt to support the Developer's proposal, then they should have selected <br />multi -family developments located within similar single family residential areas. <br />6. This project violates Policy 2.10 of the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Ana General <br />Plan: "Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with <br />existing development in the area." I submitted a comment to address the Draft EIR noting <br />that the EIR fails to reflect the nature and character of the Park Santiago neighborhood of <br />which it is contained. Howeverthe project management team's response to this comment <br />was "The project site is not contained within the Park Santiago neighborhood.... The Park <br />Santiago neighborhood does not exist along N. Main Street. Thus it is appropriate that the <br />EIR does not provide greater weight to the residential neighborhood...." A check of the <br />neighborhood maps provided by the City of Santa Ana makes the claim by the project <br />management team the project site is not part of the Park Santiago neighborhood as a false <br />claim (htt_pLLwww.santa-ana.ore/nei&hborhood-initiatives1community-enea�ement- <br />and_v_olunteer-_)portunities). In making this false claim the project management team <br />