My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS_2525 N MAIN STREET
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Planning Commission (2002-Present)
>
2019
>
01-14-19
>
2 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS_2525 N MAIN STREET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2019 4:09:36 PM
Creation date
8/16/2019 4:04:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PBA
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
379
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Dale Helvig <br />2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 <br />714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com <br /> <br /> <br /> Page 5 of 17 <br /> <br />EIR AREAS OF CONCERN (continued) <br />7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. The revenue numbers in the EIR should be looked closely. The analysis is <br />for a development of 517 units. We know this isn’t the case. The values presented are nominal <br />and real value (2017$). The real net income in 2017$ over 25 years is $13.59 million (See Page <br />314 of the Exhibit File). This is $544K per year (2017$) over 25 years which is substantially less <br />than the reported $1.226 million per year being advertised by the applicant. The fiscal Impact <br />analysis in Exhibit 8 is an analysis prepared by The Concord Group (RSG was retained by The <br />Concord Group). You should look at Exhibit 8 for the full story. The economic analysis in the <br />staffing report quotes a FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS done in Dec. 2017. These number have yet to <br />be revised to reflect the reduced scope of the project. <br />8. ACCESS TO THE PROJECT SITE. This is still undetermined. One of the staff recommendations is <br />to remove access on Edgewood Road to reduce the potential for cut‐through traffic into the Park <br />Santiago neighborhood (Option C). However, the applicant is proposing to provide a secondary <br />access/egress point at the Santiago Park Drive/Walkie Way and Main Street intersection <br />(Option B). They state it’s not a required element of the project, but would allow for an <br />additional point of access to the development. However, approval would be required from the <br />Parks and Recreation Department, the State Office of Grants and Local Services and the National <br />Park Service. To my knowledge this communication channel has not even been exercised. <br />Approving the project with this unknown sets it up for failure as the use of the park for vehicular <br />access would require the replacement of lost park square footage. The building plan should be <br />based on the implementation of Exhibit "F” no matter what approval is granted.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.