Laserfiche WebLink
· They changed the look of the project. This was in response to folks not liking the <br />original concept drawings. They also offered to meet with NSAPA members if the current <br />look of the project was not acceptable. It is my belief that this type of meeting did not take <br />place. <br />· They reduced the density. The focus should be on the number of bedrooms, not units. <br />They significantly dropped the number of bedrooms which is how density is often <br />measured. <br />· They have increased the parking ratio above industry norms and increased the ratio as <br />they have decreased density. They have also removed general pedestrian access on <br />Edgewood I believe. These are in direct response to concerns of overflow parking into PS <br />(especially the no pedestrian access...no one is going to want to pay these rent rates and <br />half to walk a fair distance to their apartment). <br />· They are providing security patrol for PS neighborhood. This appears to have been in <br />response to concerns about crime in the area. <br />· They are trying to be a good neighbor by sharing. They are providing an Amazon <br />Locker area for Park Santiago residents. They are also allowing Park Santiago residents to <br />utilize the amenities of the project which is more than most neighbors do! <br /> <br />Building Usage <br />Unfortunately, I think that a lot of folks do not realize that the project site is currently zoned for a 3 <br />story office project with 3 stories of parking (likely 4 with one sub-terranean). The reality of the <br />situation is that the site should not remain underutilized. It will not remain a small footprint 2 story <br />building with a massive amount of surface parking- that is not feasible nor should the city want it. I <br />personally believe that a 3-story building, which likely will be around 387K square feet, can have <br />even more of a detrimental effect when compared to the current alternative for 2525. <br /> <br />I believe that most folks who are opposed to the development and using items such as traffic, <br />parking, visual look, etc…as reasons to be opposed are comparing it to the existing state for that <br />parcel which is a small underutilized (or even un-utilized) office space with a vast amount of <br />parking. It is not good for the fiscal impact to the city. It is not good for the surrounding businesses <br />and it very well may not be the best for the surrounding residents. <br /> <br />The No Project/No Build alternative in the EIR, although an alternative, simply is not a realistic <br />alternative and it will also deprive the city of some benefits. By not developing the property to its <br />highest and best use, the city will lose out on valuable property taxes and development fees. The <br />amount of money that this project could provide to the city will be substantial in both recurring <br />property taxes and also one-time fees. Although the project cannot and should not be viewed in an <br />economic bubble, the revenue side certainly has to be of high importance especially considering <br />the fiscal crisis we are in at a time when the economy is supposedly doing relatively well. The <br />amount of money that a developer would need to invest in rehabbing the current property simply <br />is not a realistic use of their capital when compared to the annual cash flow potentially provided. A