CORRESPONDENCE - 75E - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

project based upon community feedback during council meetings, neighborhood meetings, direct discussions, etc... Some of these changes may be considered minor while others are quite extensive and likely changed the economics of the project for the Developer. For example: • There is no longer an egress on Edgewood which will significantly reduce cut through traffic. This looks to have been in response to the community concern about cut through traffic in PS. Now for a resident of 2525 to leave through PS, it will not be an easy way to go but requiring at least one U -Turn and a left turn and the traffic lights associated with such. • They increased the set back against the back wall. This is not required by code by the way. This was in response to the community being concerned about the project being too close to residential back yards. • They are doing a "stair step" on the levels in the back of the project- from 3 to 4 to 5 stories. Again, this appears to have been in response to the community being concerned about the project looking into their backyards. • They changed the look of the project. This was in response to folks not liking the original concept drawings. They also offered to meet with NSAPA members if the current look of the project was not acceptable. It is my belief that this type of meeting did not take place. • They have reduced the density. • They have increased the parking ratio above industry norms and increased the ratio as they have decreased density. They have also removed general pedestrian access on Edgewood I believe. These are in direct response to concerns of overflow parking into PS especially the no pedestrian access. Most folks will not want to park in PS because of the distance they will need to walk to get to their apartment because there is no access on Edgewood. • They are providing security patrol for PSNA. This appears to have been in response to concerns about crime in the area. • They are trying to be a good neighbor by sharing. They are providing an Amazon Locker area solely for PSNA. They are also allowing PS residents to utilize the amenities of the project. • They are providing significant funding to the park (Park Santiago)... this is huge in my opinion. It is something that Building Usage Unfortunately, I think that a lot of folks do not realize that the project site is currently zoned for a 3 story office project with 3 stories of parking (likely 4 with one sub-terranean). The reality of the situation is that the site should not remain underutilized. It will not remain a small footprint 2 story building with a massive amount of surface parking- that is not feasible nor should the city want it. I personally believe that a 3 -story building, which likely will be around 387K square feet, can have even more of a detrimental effect when compared to the current alternative for 2525. I believe that most folks who are opposed to the development and using items such as traffic, parking, visual look, etc ... as reasons to be opposed are comparing it to the existing state for that parcel which is a small underutilized (or even unutilized) office space with a vast amount of surface parking. It is not good for the fiscal impact to the city. It is not good for the surrounding businesses and it very well may not be the best for the surrounding residents. The No Project/No Build alternative in the EIR, although an alternative, simply is not a realistic alternative and it will also deprive the city of some benefits. By not developing the property to its highest and best use, the city will lose out on valuable property taxes. The amount of money that this project could provide to the city will be substantial in both recurring property taxes and also one-time fees. The funds will not only help with annual general fund obligations but also with our housing crisis in the city- both low income and market rate. The low income fees that they will have to pay is tremendous and can certainly be put to good use by the city. Although the project cannot and should not be viewed in an economic bubble, the revenue side certainly has to be of high importance especially considering the fiscal crisis we are in at a time when the economy is supposedly doing relatively well. The amount of money that a developer would need to invest in rehabbing the current property simply is not a realistic use of their capital when compared to the annual cash flow potentially provided. A reasonable investor will strive to increase cash flow and the current building would not provide that return. The North end of Santa Ana is a great community. We desire strong businesses to be located here. We desire to have a nice grocery store like a Trader Joe's. If we desire those things, unfortunately, it can be said that additional high income