PigueeThank youfortheopportunity tocomment ontheSALT Development project. WeliveinDistrict 6at
Generally, wesupport theconcept asitisagreat addition foradjacent retail and willprovide
additional housing options in Anaheim Hills. When thisiscombined with theproject attheFestival
Center, webelieve there could beexciting days ahead for theAnaheim Hills area. Belowaremore
specific comments ontheproject for consideration.
1. Affordability
This project provides norental units forlowincome, very lowincome, orextremely low
income individuals. The Developer andCityaremissingoutonopportunities tocreatenew
housing foravariety ofincomelevels (thereby meeting City RHNArequirements) while
continuing tomake the project economically feasiblefortheDeveloper.
New Statelaws allowfor astandard 50% densitybonus ifcertain affordability levels aremet
previously 35%) within theproject. Anadditional stackable density bonus ontopofthe
standard density bonus isavailable ifvery-lowincome ormoderate incomelevels aremet
within theproject. Also, items likeparkingrequirements would deviate tothestate standard
instead oftheCitystandard. The Developer isnottaking advantage of anyofthese items, nor
does itseem that theCityisrequiring or encouraging theDeveloper todoso.
Wefully recognize thisisnotaHousing Elementsitesonorequirement exists, however itis
puzzling why anew multifamily project would nottake advantage of theabundant benefits
fortheproject byincorporating some level ofaffordability.
2. Land Uses
In addition tothemultifamily units, theproject also incorporates six largesingle family estate
lots and80,000SF ofcommercial. TheDeveloper haslittle tonoexperience witheither type
ofland use. TheCityshould notexpectthese land uses tocome online anytime soon, and
should actually expect theland usetochange inthefuture after theDeveloper hassold itoff
toother developers.
Anaheim andOrange Countyneed housing, butcertainly not1acre lots. Additional rental
units orsmaller for-sale units would bemuch more beneficial tomeet RHNA requirements
andprovide attainable housing (not necessarily affordable). Some opponents ofthisproject
have called wateruseinto question, which wewould agree withwhen itcomes tolarge single
family home lots. Therearenumerous studies thatshow multifamily buildings usemuch less
water than large single family lots.
TheCityshould require allland uses tobebuilt concurrently, orhave theDeveloper stick to
theportion oftheproject they areactually going toconstruct whichisseemingly the
multifamily portion oftheproject. Additionally, theDeveloper should consider actually
providing more multifamily units onthesiteinstead ofthesingle familylotsandcommercial
areas.
3. Open Space
The proposed project provides substantial open space, trailimprovements, and
preservation. This project improves Deer Canyon andmakes itmore accessible forresidents
while maintaining areas forhabitats.
The project also includes improvements toSanta Ana Canyon Road, increasing safety for
those thatwalk, runorbike onthatunimproved stretch ofroad. We would actually encourage
theCity torequire theDeveloper toextend thetrailimprovements west, as thecurrent
terminus does notmake muchsense since there isnoexisting trailorsidewalk onthesouth
side ofSanta Ana Canyon from ElRancho Charter School totheproject site. TheEIRstates
thattheCity is “already workingonaroadway improvement projectalong SantaAna Canyon
Road from west ofLakeview Avenuetoeast ofWeirCanyon Road thatwillprovide sidewalks
at thislocation” however notiming was included.
4. Traffic
This project generates additional residents, thereby increasing vehicle counts. TheEIR
accurately states that therearenoreliable public transit options and notmanyjobcenters
within walking ordriving distance from theproject site.
While wedo nothave solutions topropose, wefind themitigation measures forincreased
traffic wholly insufficient. Three ofthefivemitigation measures relate tomarketing or
information. Wesincerely doubt that flyers and pamphlets willdoanything to encourage
these residents tobikeorusepublictransit, especially given thelackofoptions. Itwould be
better justtonotinclude those mitigation measures altogether.
Ifaffordable units were incorporated intothisproject, we might actually believe thatsome
traffic isbeing mitigated onSR-91, assuming that publictransit options become more
accessible. Ifthisproject contained lowincome, very lowincome orextremely lowincome
units, more than likely thatwould provide opportunities forsome individuals tolivecloser to
where they work, thereby reducing freeway traffic. However, thisproject contains zero
affordable units sowecannot seeanyway tojustify trafficreduction.
We arevery concerned about theincrease intraffic along Santa AnaCanyon, especially given
that this road tends to beaback-upfortraffic heading East onthe91inthe late
afternoon/evening, regularly causing significant backup.
5. FireRisk
Theproject islocated inawildfire riskzone. We think theproposed mitigation measures are
reasonable to mitigate theriskof fire, however theemergency response and evacuation
during afire would beimpacted bythisproject. 500-1,000more cars trying toescape onto
Santa Ana Canyon orSR-91would nodoubt increase evacuation time and emergency
response time.
While there isnoeffective way tomitigate this, theCityshouldbegin evaluating additional
impact fees forthesefireriskareasandevacuation routes. Wecould envision specific funds
foritems likehelicopters to inform residents, orevacuation route infrastructure toturn all
signals green/redorhave onewaytraffic forexample. IftheCityis going toallowdevelopment
inthese areas (andwebelieve they should), weshould closely examine how we canupgrade
theevacuation routes andinformation dissemination.
Thank youagain for theopportunity tocomment. Ifyou haveanyquestions please feelfreetoemail
orcontact usat