CORRESPONDENCE - 65B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From:Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 03, 2020 2:56 PM To:eComment; Villegas, Juan Subject:PUBLIC COMMENT: Agenda Item 65B - July 7th Santa Ana City Council Meeting Dear City Council, I am opposed to 65B. I am concerned that this proposal from the HRC does very little to benefit areas of high population density in Santa Ana. It would seem to purely benefit neighborhoods where property owners have been privileged to not be displaced and maintain their "Historic" homes and neighborhoods. This also would create additional barriers for new development to take place in the city as well as hindering new architectural styles to arise and redefine the look and feel of the future of Santa Ana. This proposal aims to create new requirements on buildings older than 50 years old. With 75% of all buildings in Santa Ana being over 50 years old, this is simply absurd to proceed with this proposal given the shortage of housing supply in the City both new and old. This proposal will ruin any prospects of increasing the housing supply in Santa Ana which many pundits argue is one (possibly the biggest) missing factor in creating affordable and attainable housing. Historic Resources Committees are becoming a California de facto form of maintaining neighborhoods which historically excluded black people and people of color (much akin to committees of the American South who desire to maintain monuments and statues of Confederate leaders). The proposed Historically Sensitive Areas (HSA) of Pacific Park, Floral Park, West Floral Park, Jack Fisher Park, Wilshire Square, Park Santiago, Morrison Park, Washington Square and Heninger Park are all of a specific demographic which does not represent the majority of residents in Santa Ana. The notion that only certain neighborhoods can benefit from protection in the name of "historical preservation" - while poor neighborhoods contain incentives for outside developers to practice their runaway capitalism (AKA "opportunity zones") - is a shame. If the idea of maintaining historic properties was a bona fide desire of all of Santa Ana residents, I don’t believe for one second that only specific neighborhoods would be considered for HSA status. Giving more power to an already state empowered Historical Resources Commission does not ensure that all residents of our City have a say in the “cultural” integrity and appearance of our City. Regarding the arguments in support of an ordinance for the protection and preservation of trees in Santa Ana – it is indeed a noble notion which would serve towards the Environmental Justice aspect of the General Plan (which is currently in the process of getting updated). However, it is interesting to note that while the HRC’s recommendation cites that "oaks, sycamores and/or mature trees on private property" increase neighborhood charm and appeal and therefore need protection, there is no mention at the fact that poor areas of Santa Ana lack trees whatsoever at times. The protective status should apply to all trees, not just to trees on homeowner properties in more affluent neighborhoods. There needs to be incentives to plant and maintain native tree species in areas which are comprised of high-density (non-public) housing for mainly low-income and undocumented residents. I know a few trees which could use such protective status along North Ross Street adjacent to Willard Elementary. Best regards, Nathaniel Greensides Ward 5 resident 1