Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zuniga, Diana From: pjl < Sent: Monday, March 02, 2026 2:55 PM To: eComment Subject: One Broadway Plaza Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links. This project is simply too ambitious for the location and footprint. The sun shadow alone will have a tremendous negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.The reflection from the building to existing structures and traffic must be mitigated. The traffic will make an already difficult transit horrendous. There is no way to accommodate the increase in vehicle trips. Commercial rideshare is not a solution, it makes the problem worse. The Trolley is too far off-line to offer any mitigation; and goes nowhere (Harbor Blvd)to the West. It is not"walkable" in the (questionable) sense of the RELATED project. Both RELATED and SEGERSTROM projects have significant retail and other services close by. Any such project must contain a provision for a building supplied shuttle type service to mitigate traffic and promote fewer personal cars in the area. To develop appropriate retail and other services would be very inflationary and expensive. For all practical purposes, it will drive people out of their family homes. It will alter and homogenize the surrounding culture. $4.7M in lieu (v. 19 affordable units) is a pittance. Per unit, $247,368.00. By the time this money is received,there is no way that the City can build 19 affordable units that would compare to units in this proposed building. There simply is no space available,without displacing others. This would defeat the purpose. Class segregation at its worst. For comparison: contemplated project in Santa Ana cost is$27,463,388.00 for 40 units... or$686,158.00 each. This project height would dwarf any other in the City, or even the County. RELATED, by comparison will be 20-22 stories, on a much larger footprint,with parking/open space to the South and East,with much better access and egress (405 and 55). This is an area where traffic is already a "D." Any"public benefit"funds MUST stay in this area to mitigate the huge impact. Let's not dilute the capacity to make up for the impact by reallocating funds for Council pet projects that do not make up for the negative results to the area. Given the history of delays, changes, overreach, and planning missteps,what guarantees would we have that this will not turn into (another) 20 years of disruption and crisis? Have we forgotten the delays and overruns of the Trolley? Lost businesses and livelihoods?The graffiti towers in Los Angeles? Santa Ana is already park poor. What arrangements will be made to not make the problem worse? The impact to area schools (which will be borne by the public,while the developer pockets the profit)? Mitigation efforts should be prior or concurrent with construction. (e.g. traffic, lessens impact of construction, has new options open before/with move-in, helps habituate drivers to new options, avoids bottlenecks while new options are constructed etc.). NO construction traffic in neighborhoods. (this has happened in the past... dump trucks, back hoes/trailers, streets parked out with pickups, etc.) Streets with accelerated depreciation caused by construction MUST be made whole by the developer, Why is anyone even contemplating yet another variance to the General Plan/Zoning? The "new' plan is already being exploited; and now we make it worse with even more tangential approvements? This developer has been torturing the neighborhood for years with this project, and now changes it yet again. When is enough enough? The tail is wagging the dog. Any accommodation needs a reciprocal accommodation. COMMUNITY ROOM WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS. 1