CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (GENERAL COMMENTS)

Home Browse Search

Dale Helvig EIR AREAS OF CONCERN (continued) 7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. The revenue numbers in the EIR should be looked closely. The analysis is for a development of 517 units. We know this isn't the case. The values presented are nominal and real value (2017$). The real net income in 2017$ over 25 years is $13.59 million (See Page 314 of the Exhibit File). This is $544K per year (2017$) over 25 years which is substantially less than the reported $1.226 million per year being advertised by the applicant. The fiscal Impact analysis in Exhibit 8 is an analysis prepared by The Concord Group (RSG was retained by The Concord Group). You should look at Exhibit 8 for the full story. The economic analysis in the staffing report quotes a FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS done in Dec. 2017. These number have yet to be revised to reflect the reduced scope of the project. S. ACCESS TO THE PROJECT SITE. This is still undetermined. One of the staff recommendations is to remove access on Edgewood Road to reduce the potential for cut -through traffic into the Park Santiago neighborhood (Option C). However, the applicant is proposing to provide a secondary access/egress point at the Santiago Park Drive/Walkie Way and Main Street intersection (Option B). They state it's not a required element of the project, but would allow for an additional point of access to the development. However, approval would be required from the Parks and Recreation Department, the State Office of Grants and Local Services and the National Park Service. To my knowledge this communication channel has not even been exercised. Approving the project with this unknown sets it up for failure as the use of the park for vehicular access would require the replacement of lost park square footage. The building plan should be based on the implementation of Exhibit "F" no matter what approval is granted. Page 5 of 27