CORRESPONDENCE - 75D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

has since been developed with a smaller office building and retail uses. Put simply, the opportunity of blending the subject site in with an established mixed activity center consisting of a monorail link, convention center, and various other uses (including single family) is no longer possible. At a minimum, the City should consider refraining from placing reliance on this provision of the General Plan until the next update. Even assuming it was appropriate to reference the Main Street Concourse node designation (it is not), the City's Urban Design Guidelines require a meaningful analysis of how a project protects existing/established neighborhoods. The FIR casually dismisses the project's impact either because it is of a comparable or lower height than an office building located beyond the heavily forested Santiago Creek or developments on the opposite side of Main Street. The EIR's casual treatment of the impacts associated with the development (notably the discussion regarding project impacts associated with Urban Design Element Goals 2 and 4) should be revisited and neither rely on development in accordance with the Main Street concourse node or the office building located a significant distance from the project site. This is so because the office building (again being on the other side of the Santiago Creek) is not located immediately adjacent to an established single-family neighborhood. The project site of course is. D. Underparked/Aesthetic Design. In my opinion as a resident of Floral Park and having represented developers before, it is clear that the City's parking requirements and the project proponent's assessments are invalid and require further assessment. Residents of Floral Park have the privilege of paying for parking permits. The parking permit program was established due to a number of adjacent apartment projects lacking sufficient parking. Given the housing concerns identified by the proponent, a number of apartment buildings in the area are over -utilized. This means that a one bedroom may house more than one family. It would also be disengenous to dismiss these concerns as being appropriate subjects for code enforcement. Housing violations are routinely ignored or as a practical matter, difficult to enforce given the unwillingness of tenants and guests to cooperate. Aesthetically, the project is uninteresting. The project consists of a series of monoliths representing an attempt at a "modern" design that results in a project entirely out of scale with its neighbors. There are also no meaningful contours or other softening architectural features that would seamlessly integrate the project with historic homes situated within the Park Santiago neighborhood. Candidly, this type of design is often selected by developers because it is significantly less expensive to build in contrast to a building containing a diverse mix of aesthetic features and curvature designed to be complimentary with existing uses. E. Traffic. As a resident of Santa Ana, who drives north and south on Main Street every day in the area immediately adjacent to the site, I offer the lollowing observations: My average commute time from the immediate area utilizing Main Street to the 5 to the 55