07/23/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . " :. .' consternati on regardi ng the proposed sales pri ce of Agency property. Mr. Romero based his opposition upon anticipated traffic circulation and parking problems, as well as a noise level which he expects to be unacceptable. Mr. Kirby cited the issue of land price as one of the criterion of his opposition, and went on to include the others - proposed density, location, and police and fire protection in the proposed parking structure and the closure of French Street. Mr. Pena expressed concern with the cost of subterranean parki ng, unhappi ness wi th the 1 and write-down in thi s project, and oppositi on to what he perceived to be an interruption of the Fourth Street retail corridor. Ms. 0' Campo opposed the proposed hi gh density and forecast parki ng and traffic problems. Mr. Thompson opposed the proposed development on the grounds that the site would be better used for a parking structure. He further expressed his opinion that the Downtown does not offer a family environment, and advocated closer adherance to the suggestions put forth in the UU/UIG study regarding infill housing east of Main Street and east of French Street. Mr. Ramos' opposition was based upon financial objections and due to his perception that "the community is not yet ready for something like this". Mr. Major stated that this development would attract residents from outside of Santa Ana and that this represents a failure on the part of the City to live up to the existing housing element. Mr. De La Cruz based his opposition on educational concerns. citing those schools which he believedwould be impacted by any increase in enrollment. LaDale Dunbar, of the Feedback Foundation. expressed frustration that the City was pursuing new residential development rather than devoting itself entirely to the resettlement of those resi dents di spl aced by code enforcement acti vi ti es. Mr. Leach opposed the proposed development due to the type of resi dents whi ch would be attracted to this development and made reference to his percei ved compari son between the Ci ty Council acti ons and the USSR i nvasi on of Afghani stan. Mr. Pul i do felt that the development would cause traffic problems on First, Fourth. and French Streets and further felt that this development would not be compatible with the proposed A-8 and A-10 developments. Ms. Phibbs, using a plethora of visual aid materials, attempted to involve the issues of displaced and relocated residents in the grounds for opposition. At 9:10 PM, the City Council and the Community Redevelopment Agency recessed, reconvening at 9:20 PM with the same members present. Mr. 5picks incorporated comments regarding code enforcement into the discussion. Mr. Melindez, of the David Coalition, stated that his opposition was based on what the proposed development would not do for low income residents. At the conclusion of the final speaker's comments, Rex Swanson, Deputy City Manager /Devel opment, answered questi ons rai sed duri ng the pub 1 i c testimony At 9:55 PM, the Joint Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Griset. and carried (5:2) that the Agency adopt Resolution No. 85-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND URBAN VENTURES CORPORATION; and approve the conceptual development pl ans proposed by Urban Ventures Development Corporation for the A-9 Site, with Mr. Acosta and Mr. Luxembourger voting against the action. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Johnson. and carried (5:2) that City Council adopt Resolution No. 85-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE