HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - PUBLIC COMMENTS_200 N MAIN STREETFrom:Yvonne Flores, ARM
To:eComment
Cc:
Subject:200 N. Main Street - Application No. 2018-18
Date:Thursday, April 04, 2019 12:40:58 PM
Dear Historical Commission,
As a Board Member for Downtown Inc., a resident, and business owner of Santa Ana, I am
truly proud of the Downtown area and all that it offers to businesses, residents, and guests
alike and I'm so happy to know that Swinerton is moving their offices to Santa Ana as it shows
that our Downtown area is growing and changing in order to attract such large companies as
Swinerton to the area. I'm especially thrilled they are moving from Irvine to Santa Ana - that's
a true win for Santa Ana and for us all. I want to personally welcome Swinerton to the area
and as neighbors, because that's what we are, we are both business and residential neighbors
now.
Swinerton is a huge company and I anticipate upwards of 60 employees will be working at this
site, and with that understanding, I have several concerns as to the lot that is granted in
perpetuity to both the Builders Exchange Building and the Santa Ana Lofts as the right of
easement. I would like to gently ask that Swinerton take extra measures to ensure the parking
lot is regularly cleaned as we have new problems now that they are the owners and the parking
lot is left unattended and people have been partying at all hours of the night in the parking lot.
I know this is a temporary problem, but it is a problem with broken glass, and other
undesirable items being discarded in the parking area because it is being left unattended.
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
E
W http://YvonneFloresRealtor.com
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.
Respectfully,
YVONNE FLORES, ARM
PROPERTY MANAGER | BROKER #01221486
A
From:Allen Moon
To:eComment; Castro-Cardenas, Julie; Penaloza, David
Subject:Fwd: 200 N. Main Street - Application No. 2018-18
Date:Thursday, April 04, 2019 1:40:51 PM
Dear Historical Commission, Julie, and Councilmember Penaloza,
As an owner and Board Member of the Santa Ana Lofts, I am writing to echo Yvonne Flores'
comments below. As you well know, due to the design of the building, parking is scarce for
us in the Santa Ana Lofts. We have managed our way through the situation for the past 8
years and I encourage you to receive Yvonne's comments below regarding access, cleanliness
and safety to craft a solution that works for all parties.
We welcome Swinerton to the neighborhood - it's fantastic such a large group will be amongst
us. But, we just want to make sure our residents have access to parking and safety.
Thank you,
Allen Moon
Dear Historical Commission,
As a Board Member for Downtown Inc., a resident, and business owner of Santa Ana, I am
truly proud of the Downtown area and all that it offers to businesses, residents, and guests
alike and I'm so happy to know that Swinerton is moving their offices to Santa Ana as it shows
that our Downtown area is growing and changing in order to attract such large companies as
Swinerton to the area. I'm especially thrilled they are moving from Irvine to Santa Ana - that's
a true win for Santa Ana and for us all. I want to personally welcome Swinerton to the area
and as neighbors, because that's what we are, we are both business and residential neighbors
now.
Swinerton is a huge company and I anticipate upwards of 60 employees will be working at this
site, and with that understanding, I have several concerns as to the lot that is granted in
perpetuity to both the Builders Exchange Building and the Santa Ana Lofts as the right of
easement. I would like to gently ask that Swinerton take extra measures to ensure the parking
lot is regularly cleaned as we have new problems now that they are the owners and the parking
lot is left unattended and people have been partying at all hours of the night in the parking lot.
I know this is a temporary problem, but it is a problem with broken glass, and other
undesirable items being discarded in the parking area because it is being left unattended.
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
E YvonneFloresRealtor@gmail.com
W http://YvonneFloresRealtor.com
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.
Respectfully,
YVONNE FLORES, ARM
PROPERTY MANAGER | BROKER #01221486
A 211 N. Sycamore St., Santa Ana, CA 92701
M 714-215-7421
--
-Allen
From:Oliver Stahel
To:eComment
Subject:Historical Commission Re: 200 N Main St.
Date:Thursday, April 04, 2019 2:39:38 PM
Attachments:Limited Parking Space Option Agreement.pdf
Mitigated Negative Declaration.pdf
Mitigated Negative Declaration public comments.pdf
Dear Members,
I am an owner and resident in the Santa Ana lofts adjacent to 200 N Main.
I object to any development or changes in relation to the parking lot due to the fact that this is were
the owners, residents, employees and guests of the 86 lofts based on CUP 2001-28 currently park.
Additionally the owners, guests and tenants of the adjacent studios/ lofts on 2nd St also park in this
lot.
CUP 2001- 28 allowed for the construction of 86 lofts in 3 phases and included the parking lot in
question as part of construction in 2001.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (attached) states on pg 54 section F that the 86 units were to be
studios and thus 1.5 parking spaces per unit were sufficient (some units have 1 car garages, some 2
car garages)
CUP 2001-28 further goes on to allow for no more than 2 “sleeping areas” to be built (bed rooms) in
direct contradiction to the environmental impact report Re; parking impacts
Additionally and specifically mentioned in the Mitigated Negative Declaration public comments
(attached) pages 6-7 were the understanding that each of the 86 units in the development would
have the right (entitlement) to lease one parking space in the City owned structure on the corner of
3rd and Broadway. The city council directed that a parking option agreement be put into place,
however what was actually put into place was the (attached) doc, “Limited Parking Space Option
Agreement” which expired Jan 1 2005, more than 5 years prior to the development/ construction of
phase 3.
Currently the structure prohibits overnight parking in its monthly contract and there was a waiting
list of 40 people to get a monthly pass in said structure as of two weeks ago. Also the city plans to
demolish the structure and redevelop it with less parking.
By the time phase 3 of the development is built in 2010/2011 the builder has now made and sold 3
bedroom units. So what we have now is a situation where we have 3 bedroom 2,200 square foot
townhouses/ lofts with 1 parking space.
What I find interesting is according that the City charter Sec. 41-647. - Utilizing conditional use
permits, variances, minor exceptions; time limits, extensions. Conditional use permits expire after 2
years unless extended by the city council for no more than an additional 3 years, which means phase
3 was built illegally using a bogus environmental impact report and a conditional use permit that
expired at least five years prior.
Based on conversations with City staff the parking lot in question was to be a part of the Santa Ana
lofts, however clearly something went wrong.
So I ask you Ladies and Gentlemen, were do the owners, residents, employees and guests of the 86
lofts based on CUP 2001-28 that are allegedly “studios” but are actually 1-3 bedroom lofts/
townhouses park? Were do the 2nd street studios park?
Thank You,
Santa Ana, CA 92701
NOTICE: THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, INTENDED FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION
THAT IS (I) PROPRIETARY TO THE SENDER, AND/OR, (II) PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM
DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PRIVACY STANDARDS
IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996 ("HIPAA"). IF
YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE
TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF
THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE AT (657) 900-8777, AND DESTROY THE ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION
AND ITS ATTACHMENTS WITHOUT READING OR SAVING THEM TO DISK. THANK YOU.
From:Jason Brandi
To:eComment
Cc:Yvonne Flores, ARM
Subject:FW: [EXT] 200 N. Main Street - Application No. 2018-18
Date:Thursday, April 04, 2019 2:19:10 PM
Importance:High
Hello- I am the President of Santa Ana Lofts HOA and I echo Yvonne’s comments below. Please
ensure our concerns are addressed at the hearing tonight. Unfortunately I am out of town and will
not be able to attend.
Thanks,
Mobile: +
From: Yvonne Flores, ARM
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 12:40 PM
To: eComments@santa-ana.org
Cc:
>
Subject: [EXT] 200 N. Main Street - Application No. 2018-18
Dear Historical Commission,
As a Board Member for Downtown Inc., a resident, and business owner of Santa Ana, I am truly
proud of the Downtown area and all that it offers to businesses, residents, and guests alike and I'm
so happy to know that Swinerton is moving their offices to Santa Ana as it shows that our Downtown
area is growing and changing in order to attract such large companies as Swinerton to the area. I'm
especially thrilled they are moving from Irvine to Santa Ana - that's a true win for Santa Ana and for
us all. I want to personally welcome Swinerton to the area and as neighbors, because that's what we
are, we are both business and residential neighbors now.
Swinerton is a huge company and I anticipate upwards of 60 employees will be working at this site,
and with that understanding, I have several concerns as to the lot that is granted in perpetuity to
both the Builders Exchange Building and the Santa Ana Lofts as the right of easement. I would like to
gently ask that Swinerton take extra measures to ensure the parking lot is regularly cleaned as we
have new problems now that they are the owners and the parking lot is left unattended and people
have been partying at all hours of the night in the parking lot. I know this is a temporary problem,
but it is a problem with broken glass, and other undesirable items being discarded in the parking
area because it is being left unattended.
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.
E Y
W http://YvonneFloresRealtor.com
Respectfully,
YVONNE FLORES, ARM
PROPERTY MANAGER | BROKER #01221486
A
M