CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (GENERAL COMMENTS)

Home Browse Search

EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 11 at a higher density than the nearby single-family residential uses. However, multi -family uses are often used in planning and zoning practice to buffer higher intensity uses like commercial or industrial uses from single- family residential uses and multi -family and single-family uses are more compatible in natureto each other. �he Specific Development No. 93 (SD -93) is established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents. [this new zoning designation for the - Commented [DH32]: you've got to be site is crafted to be consistent with the proposed project. If the zone change is approved, a series of site- kidding mel specific objectives, policies and development standards will be used to guide the development of the project. Specifically, the SD -93 document includes a menu of development standards which �pecify setbacks, barking, height and landscape_ requirements and includes provisions for construction and Commented[DH33]: setbacks at tegado maintenance to allow the exclusive entitlement of the residential project. The SD -93 document has been are 30 feeJim., emeet framed to include staff recommended changes to the project and prohibits future modifications to enlarge the size of the project. Approval of the proposal would allow for the construction of a high density residential development in an urbanized setting that is within close proximity to neighborhood services and amenities. �f approved, the zone change would need to be approved in conjunction with the proposed general plan amendment. �his would result in a project that is consistent with the goals and objectives of City's General -- Commented [DH34]: NSAPA does not _ Plan land use designation of District Cen ter. �fhe project will promote an urban development where office, recommend this zone change and General retail and residential activities would coexist in close proximity and in a mixed-use setting. Further, the Plan amendment change. projectwill contribute towards the improvement ofthe characterof the northern section of the City, Finally, Commented[DH357: This is not nor should the development, through the construction of the proposed public improvements and site amenities, will It be a District center for the purpose of 1 contribute to the enhancement of the area and serve as a buffer between commercial and high intensity raising the density of park Santiago by uses and the lower density residential area. 27 percent. Public Comments significant number of public comments have been received on this project, mainly voicing concerns or opposition to the project. bverthe last year emails(approximately 400 emailsare on file), letters and phone ,- Commented[DH367: The applicant calls were received and small group meetings and study sessions have been conducted. A list of the major counters with his presentation of a few comments received are summarized in the sections below. people that support the project. The 400 emails should out -way the few the applicant Community Meetings presents. On November 15, 2017, 27 calendar days after the application was submitted, the developer held a Sunshine Meeting at the Discovery Cube of Orange County and overviewed plans for a 517 -unit development, 5 -stories in height, with 910 parking spaces and access from Edgewood Road. �ignin sheets indicate 263 people attended. Minutes of the meeting including community comments made at the meeting _ and the applicant's responses were prepared by the applicant (Exhibit 5). ---- - - - -- �n early 2018 (January 30, 2018 and February 15, 2018), Manning staff coordinated meetings with the developer and the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance representatives. Approximately 20 people attended the small group meetings, including the developer, members of the North Santa Preservation Alliance, nearby neighborhood representatives and planning staff. The applicant shared a revised plan that included 505 units, a revised unit mix, the removal of the parking structure access from Edgewood Road, and modifications to the architectural style. 7SE-11 Commented [DH37]: Not everyone signed In since the doors were opened late and only 2 tables were used to get everyone signed -in. Over 450 people attended. Commented [DH381:1 have provided my response to Exhibit S. Commented [DH39]: The January 30, 2018 was a total bust. The applicant representative committed to a comprehensive update to the plan and they failed. At the February IV meeting the applicant said they fired the representative. We didn't believe them and as you know, Ms. Sapetto is still employed by the applicant and is under Investigation.