CORRESPONDANCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

manaft Santa Ana City Council Janaury 17, 2020 Page 3 Ms. Ilelvig selected page 75E-323, a copy of which is attached, from the section of the report titled, "Supply/Demand Outlook." This section presents information about the competitive market area in which the proposed Project is located, the demographics of the area (i.e., the potential renters who may be interested in living at the Project), what the occupancy rate is for other rental projects in the market area, and what other projects are in the development pipeline. On the prior page (75E-322), the report includes a map of other projects that are in the pipeline for development and which would compete with the Project for renters within the market area. By sheer coincidence, one of the projects that is being developed in the City of Irvine at the intersection of Main Street and Von Karman, is also called "2525 Main" in the Concord Group report. This project is labeled "6" on the map, in an area designated on the map as the Irvine Business Complex, and according to the map legend, consists of 272 market rate units. The location of the 2525 Main project in Santa Ana is designated with a big, yellow star on the map. A copy of the report cover page (page 75E-307), the map and table depicting and listing the Development Pipeline projects from the Concord Group report which was at pages 75E-322 and 323 of the February 19, 2019 Staff Report are attached. Ms. Helvig only discussed the table at page 75E-323 with the Council. The table provided more information about the projects shown on the map on the prior page. Included in the table is the 2525 Main project in Irvine which was estimated to enter the market in 2018, with 272 market rate units. In short, the 272 units that Ms. Helvig claimed were the Applicant's original intention to build was in fact another developer's project in Irvine. At no time during this Project's entitlement history was the Applicant "hiding" a 272 unit project that it really wanted to build. The Applicant filed 4 submittals with the City; none of which proposed 272 units. Those 4 submittals proposed: 517 units, 496 units, 347 units and the current one for 256 units. The reductions made by the Applicant have all been done to address the concerns of the community, and not part of a secret plan to build a 272 unit project. Conclusion From the inception, there has been a pattern and practice of misrepresentation of the Project details by the Project opponents. So much so, that the Applicants have been forced to present a "Myths and Facts" matrix at the prior Council hearing where the Project was approved. The delays and damages attributed to this calculating and deliberate path of deceit are significant.