Laserfiche WebLink
I am glad that the developer has made changes to the project. The Planning Department's suggested changes, which I <br />presume the developer finds acceptable, seems to also be moves in the right direction which hopefully will help garner <br />support although I doubt that it will to the "no apartment" supporters. The changes that I have seen, which I find <br />substantial, from the time that I attended the Sunshine Ordinance (at which time I was originally opposed to the project) <br />through now include: <br />• Decreased number of units (density and bulk) <br />• Change of entrance away from Edgewood <br />• Terraced structure on the backside of the property adjacent to Park Santiago neighborhood (2 stories at the <br />back) <br />• Providing of security patrol for the surrounding neighbors and park <br />• Funding for improvements at Santiago Park <br />• Increased parking ratios <br />• Raising the height of the wall to adjacent single family neighbors <br />• Inclusion of a Public Art project <br />• Providing of $1.4M to improve Santiago Park <br />• Inclusion of Amazon Lockers for the surrounding neighbors <br />• Providing funds for Park Santiago neighbors to apply for historic district designation <br />The alternative use of the property which presumably would be to remain a professional office building designation <br />likely with a 3 story building (dropped down to 2 sotry in the back although the way the parcels are drawn this may not <br />be 100% required by a savy developer) will bring more traffic to our area of the city and likely will not provide the <br />additional community benefits (public art, Edgewood entrance or lack therof, neighborhood security, park <br />improvements, etc...). Overall, I believe that this project may be better off than the reasonable alternative. <br />Lastly, the city's own planning department who are trained in these matters support the project. There are also other <br />neighbors in the community who support it but will not speak up because they believe that their neighbors will not look <br />kindly upon them which is unfortunate in our great community. Again, I support this project and hope that after <br />listening to all stakeholders in the community, reviewing the EIR, reviewing the staff reports, and also considering the <br />city as a whole and not just one area, that you will support it also. <br />Thank you for your service to the residents of Santa Ana. <br />Here is my prior email from November 26th: <br />Dear Planning Commission through ecomments, Councilmembers, Mayor, Selena Kelaher, Candida Neal and Minh <br />Neal ... I am writing you this email to express my thoughts on the 2525 N. Main development. I am unable to attend the <br />Planning Commission's meeting on November 26th but I am hopeful that you will have an opportunity to read this email <br />and consider it as part of your planning session tonight. I also hope that you closely consider the thoughts, needs, and <br />desires of the surrounding community, EIR, the Planning Department Staff, and the Developer as well as the needs of <br />the City of Santa Ana as whole. <br />As you know, there is a fair amount of public opposition to this project. I for one was previously very opposed to this <br />project. However, the more that I learn about it and also the needs of our city, the more I become in favor it. I am not <br />alone in this thought process. Even though the most vocal crowd will be opposed, rest assured that there are a fair <br />number of residents in the area who are in favor of this type of development for a variety of reasons. There are some <br />that are even afraid to speak up because they do not want to be viewed as not being neighborly or they once opposed it <br />and now are neutral or even in support of it when weighing the alternatives. The North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance <br />(NSAPA) does not speak for everyone in our end of town. <br />would like to address what I believe to be the main opposition: <br />The Developer Is Not Listening to Us! <br />You will likely hear folks say that the Developer is not listening to NSAPA. This is simply not true. Yes, it is still a <br />residential development, which they are opposed to, however the Developer has made significant changes to the <br />