2 - PUBLIC COMMENTS_200 N MAIN STREET

Home Browse Search

I own, work, and live in the my loft located at and am concerned that we will lose our parking adjacent to our building as each of the 16 units here in the Santa Ana Lofts have regularly used the curbside parking for the past 8 to 9 years and should be 'grand-fathered into these plans." I had read in the CUP that the builder of the Santa Ana Lofts was to provide 1.5 parking spaces for every 1 (one) bedroom built in the Santa Ana Lofts and if we lost access to this parking, the Santa Ana Lofts would not meet the CUP set forth by the city. I noticed the Swinerton renderings do not accurately reflect the use of parking at this curb and do not show parked cars at all in the rendering and this concerns me, as the calculations for ingress and egress should include vehicles parked at the curb. I do see that there are certain parking spaces that are specially marked but is not legible because the rendering is reduced to a PDF size. Can you tell me what the special markings are for those parking stalls designated as #34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 and if they are reserved for the residents of the Santa Ana Lofts as part of the CUP for the SA Lofts? I noticed these spots are outside of the proposed controlled access gate and I question as to why only the parking stalls closest to the Santa Ana Lofts are designated this way - are these the electric vehicle charging stations, and if so, how will that affect residential living just steps away, if any. Additionally, in the renderings, Swinerton is creating a new entrance in order to be ADA compliant, which I love and is fantastic, but they are leaving the handicap spaces in their existing location rather than actually serving the public by relocating the handicap spaces closest to the entrance so that it would be easier to gain entry. I would recommend that the handicap accessible parking be relocated to stalls # 6, 7, and 8 and as close to the front entrance of the building as possible in order to best serve that community instead of leaving those stalls closest to the entrance for the general public or VIPS of the company. Let's think about really serving our community by doing what's best for those who are handicapped and put them closest to the entrance. In the renderings, you can see the 'controlled access gate" location. My concern is if this is approved, and only a portion of the parking lot is partitioned, it will leave the easement area prone to 'dark spots' or areas that we the residents would be left vulnerable to be accosted, or our vehicles vandalized as it would leave pockets of areas where a person could be cornered by someone wanting to do harm as there would only be one way in and one way out. It's going to make our parking dangerous, and it will limit our use of easement as the parking lot is so small, we often have to drive through the parking lot in order to park as it is difficult to back up in larger vehicles such as our SUV. It will also pose a problem for the easement as so many people are accustomed to parking in this area, they are automatically going to drive down a no exit area and have to back up in a limited space. We currently have problems with people backing up, blocking our right of easement, and the proposed controlled access area will exasperate this problem. Instead, I would propose that Swinerton close off the entire parking lot at the 2nd Street entrance, and make both their parking and our easement a gated entry and restrict the use to the public. Thank you for reviewing my concerns regarding application No. 2018-18 and I hope the Historical Commission will take my concerns into consideration.