Laserfiche WebLink
Dale Helvig <br />2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 <br />714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com <br /> <br /> <br />January 14, 2019 <br /> <br />Chairman McLoughlin and Planning Commissioners <br />City of Santa Ana <br />Santa Ana CA 92702 <br /> <br />Subject: January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting <br />I would like to address these points tonight at the meeting but believe I can’t fit them in my <br />2 minutes along with all that other information I want to provide. <br />1) This is NOT moderate density apartments. It is high-density apartments. <br />2) The Envision map should not be used a reference point by the applicant. It is a clearly identified <br />draft document <br />3) These are market rate apartments with rents projected to be between $2000 for a studio to <br />over $3800 for a three bedroom. <br />4) This property is listed in City documents as being part of Park Santiago. <br />5) It has been mentioned several times that there are over 3700 housing units scheduled to be <br />built within 0.5 miles of the 2525 site. We are only opposed to the additional 496 units this <br />applicant wants. <br />6) Where is the accident report that was requested by a commissioner at the November 26th <br />meeting? <br />7) The property at 2525 is not currently zoned for residential. It is correctly zoned Professional, <br />Administrative Office. Build on it accordingly. <br />8) This project is a round peg is square hole. Not every project deserves to be built just because of <br />a perceived financial windfall. Look at the dollars closely. The net new General Fund revenue <br />in real value (2017$) is projected to be approximately $13.6 million, or $544K per year. Not the <br />reported nominal value of $23. 5million, or $940K per year. This also assumes a vacant lot for <br />the next 25 years. <br />9) According to the EIR, fifteen freeway segments analyzed have a failing Level of Service (LOS) in <br />25 of the 30 data points measured. The EIR says traffic is not significant. <br />10) The EIR for Main Place, competed in the 1990’s, did not address the 2525 project; the EIR for <br />2525 did not address the Main Place projects. The EIR for 2525 did not look at cumulative <br />affects by ignoring the Main Place project. <br />11) The listed population of 955 is not as the EIR states “conservative”. The “extensive” leasing <br />agreement they reference allows up to 1252 residents without being is violation of the lease.