CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)

Home Browse Search

https://outlook.live.com/mail/seiititems/id/AQMkADAwATEO... received an award for its use of certain types of ceramic tiles from the Southern California Ceramic Tile Institute. Tim then spends a good deal of time discussing traffic impacts. Tim contends that traffic will increase regardless and the vacant lot should not be used as a base line for measuring traffic impact. Tim concludes that the baseline for looking at traffic should not be the vacant building (I agree) and that the multi -family development is preferable given that the development is anticipated to result in less traffic. There are a number of problems with Tim's argument. Allow me to explain: When a traffic engineer evaluates a site, they make certain assumptions by consulting a multi -volume handbook prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (the ITE). Every year or so, teams of traffic counters go to various businesses, movie theaters, office buildings, residential buildings, etc. and they count the number of cars coming in and out of the site in the mornings and afternoons. You may have seen them sitting in a lawn chair and clicking a counter when cars enter or exit or you may have driven over a counting machine set out in the road. From this data, the engineers can extrapolate a composite average. Therefore, the ITE will say that a certain type of apartment complex will generate on average X number of cars in the morning and afternoon during the week. Although this is anecdotal, the usage patters for apartments in northern Orange County appear to be different than many other areas of the country. A number of folks spoke at the hearings and complained about other apartment complexes and faulty traffic and parking calculations given the intensification of use. Put simply, a studio apartment (much like in NYC) may be shared by multiple individuals. Let's put the issue of ITE accuracy aside for a moment. I happen to agree with Tim in that the base line should not be a vacant lot. However, the Park Santiago and adjacent communities tolerated the Wells Fargo service center quite well. I believe the neighborhood tolerated Wells Fargo's traffic flow because the traffic use patterns of an office are very different from multi -family residential. An office building generates the bulk of its traffic in the morning (as people enter), lunch (as people leave), and the afternoon when people leave for the day. There is virtually no traffic on the weekends. By contrast, a residential project generates traffic 24/7. Of course, all of the residents are not clamoring to get out at the same time (though large numbers do leave at the same time). However, the flows in and out for an office on the site appear to be complimentary with the single family neighbors (in the morning, folks from Park Santiago are leaving for work whereas workers at 2525 are arriving). By contrast, residents of the 2525 apartments would be leaving for their respective jobs/schools along with all of the other existing traffic leaving Park Santiago and other neighborhoods. I also respectfully disagree with my friend Tim about the nature of the tenants. You can never say with certainty what the tenant mix will do in terms of home professions. However, the developer picked this site for a very good reason—proximity to the 5, 22, 55, and 57. One could just as easily say that the folks who will live onsite selected it given the need to commute to LA, or various other sites in Orange County. Tim next asserts that the developer's agreement to eliminate access on Edgewood channels traffic away or outside of Park Santiago. However, as Tim next notes, it makes sense for individuals to get off on 17th, drive through Park Santiago and simply make a right hand turn on Main from Edgewood. Although Tim is correct that an office developer would likely not need to go through a conditional use approval process or require a re -zoning, it would still have to submit a site plan for approval. It is entirely reasonable for City staff to make an office developer forego access on Edgewood as well. Tim next advocates for the project based on tax revenue. Candidly, I have made this argument many times in support of projects I have worked on. For a good project, this has merit. However, I do not share Tim's view that multi -family development is the highest and best use of the site. But - let's assume Tim is correct, here are the problems with making the revenue argument when attempting to justify this kind of project. First: has the City proven itself to be a responsible 2 of 6 2/11/2019, 3:25 PM