CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)

Home Browse Search

https://outlook.live.com/niail/seiititeins/id/AQMkADAwATEO... steward of tax dollars? We all have opinions on this of course. If you believe the City has been a good shepherd of tax dollars in terms of how it prioritizes City investments, then this argument will be compelling to you. I have concerns and the prior City Manager verified these concerns in the last budget. Please read his cover letter to the City Council found at this link: https://www.santa-ana.or�/sites/default/files/f Hance/budget/2018-2019/FY18-19 adopted budget.pdf Second, projections of tax revenue are just that ---projections. I could just as easily project that the City's investment in beautification projects coupled with aggressive code enforcement would lead to a City wide increase in property values that would exceed the economic impact of a single multi -family project. Third, why should the City settle? What seems to be missing is a big -picture strategic focus. CHOC has been growing by leaps and bounds. After years, there is now a dedicated pediatric ER. This property was zoned for office for a reason—to create or enhance a vibrant commercial corridor that complimented both the adjacent community and takes advantage of being situated at or near multiple highways. This truly is a marquis property that could easily serve any number of business interests to the extent the City in partnership with the ownership (not this ownership of course) actively tried to market the property. Tim may be correct that even then, the property may not generate as much in direct property tax revenue as a multi -family development. However, consider the indirect economic impact of having various businesses operating in proximity to a struggling mall and restaurants. Again, where is the strategic vision? Why do we not want to encourage businesses to operate here? Eliminating a marquis parcel of property from the office market doesn't strike me as showing particularly good vision. I also do not follow Tim's reasoning regarding "underutilized assets." While the City may have sufficient water, Santa Ana has one of the lowest/worst ratios of park to resident, library to resident in Orange County. Any developer (office/residential) will be required to pay impact fees commensurate with their respective impacts and property taxes. Tim next makes the affordable housing argument and I appreciate Tim's recognition that the project itself is not designed to be affordable housing. Of course, times change (see discussion above). Tim mentions the developer impact fees that need to be paid and the developer's mandatory contribution then goes to the City for use in providing low income housing. Please see my discussion above regarding stewardship of public funds. The Santa Ana Code does require that the funds be earmarked for projects, but the money can be used in a multitude of different ways. Section 41-1909 of the Code states in pertinent part: "Monies deposited in accordance with this section shall be used in accordance with the city's housing element, consolidated plan, or subsequent plan adopted by the city council to construct, rehabilitate, or subsidize affordable housing or assist other government entities, private organizations, or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, pre -home ownership co -investment, pre -development loan funds, participation leases, or other public- private partnership arrangements. The inclusionary housing fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner -occupied housing." Also consider, once those funds are spent ... they are spent. Finally, I again encourage you to take a look at the City's 2018 budget. Of particular note, the comments of the City Manager were both troubling and telling, "There is a lack of clarity as to the City's financial position. This is due to changes in administration and varied budget philosophies." Further note the City Manager's recognition of mixed use projects and non-residential development. The report indicates 1,396,350 of non residential development and the City Manager expresses optimism given the property tax revenue that would be generated. Again, high end commercial does not foreclose a considerable uptick in property taxes. The indirect yet positive economic impacts associated with a strong office and/or retail sector cannot be overstated as well. The budget can be found at this link. 3 of 6 2/11/2019, 3:25 PM