2 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS_2525 N MAIN STREET

Home Browse Search

2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 12 development in an urbanized setting that is within close proximity to neighborhood services and amenities. If approved, the zone change would need to be approved in conjunction with the proposed general plan amendment. This would result in a project that is consistent with the goals and objectives of City's General Plan land use designation of District Center. The project will promote an urban development where office, retail and residential activities would coexist in close proximity and in a mixed‐use setting. Further, the project will contribute towards the improvement of the character of the northern section of the City. Finally, the development, through the construction of the proposed public improvements and site amenities, will contribute to the enhancement of the area and serve as a buffer between commercial and high intensity uses and the lower density residential area. Public Comments A significant number of public comments have been received on this project, mainly voicing concerns or opposition to the project. Over the last year emails (approximately 400 emails are on file), letters and phone calls were received and small group meetings and study sessions have been conducted. A list of the major comments received are summarized in the sections below. Community Meetings 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. Signin 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). In early 2018 (January 30, 2018 and February 15, 2018), planning 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. A Planning Commission study session was conducted on August 27, 2018 where staff presented information on the project description, the draft environmental impact report, entitlements, vicinity, building heights, access options, unit mix, parking, and areas of consideration. The applicant also provided a presentation that overviewed the project, amenities, community benefits, concerns and support, traffic, changes made by the applicant to the project, and project benefits. Thirty‐two (32) verbal comments were received (three in support and 29 in opposition) and nine written comments were received (one in support and eight in opposition). On September 5, 2018, the developer, members of North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, and City planning staff met to discuss the proposed project. A list of questions, comments and Commented [DH34]: NSAPA does not recommend this zone change and General Plan Amendment change. Commented [DH35]: This is not nor should it be a District Center for the purpose of raising the density of Park Santiago by 27 percent. Commented [DH36]: The applicant counters with his presentation of a few people that support the project. The 400 emails should out‐way the few the applicant presents. 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 [DH38]: I have provided my response to Exhibit 5. 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 15th 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 . Commented [DH40]: This meeting was scheduled 20 days into a 45 day review period for the DEIR. The review period was even extended due to the comments that needed to be made. It is no wonder only 32 people expressed verbal comments.