CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sherrilyn Arnold Santiago Street Lofts Resident 16 June 2014 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California Re: June 17, 2014 Vote on The Depot at Santiago Mayor Pulido; Councllmembers Sarmiento, Martinez, Amezcuo, Benavides, Reyno and Tinajero; Manager Cavazos and Mr. Lawrence, Planning Exec. Dir. Haluza, and City Staff: I must say, it took us by surprise. Of all the possible uses floated by sales agents and dreamed of by loft owners for that precious corner plot of land across the street, high - density, large- family, 100% low - income rental units was never even imagined. Our bad, I suppose, but ... To those of us who bought into the Santiago Street Loft development it seemed so obvious that at this time of upward trending transit orientation and sustainability, this city with its fading industrial zone flanking a regional rail station would cerlainly recognize and highly value this place- specific opportunity for transformative renewal. And indeed, when I made this my home and place of business in 2007 all indications were that the City Officials of Santa Ana were on top of it. SARTC visions, Renaissance plans, Enterprise Zones, the Santiago Street Lofts themselves ... all evidenced the enthusiasm of revitalization. But the economy tumbled and the momentum stalled. It happens. The City's efforts in recent years to rebuild, preserve and protect the essential affordable housing stock in our neighborhood have served us well and will safeguard against the displacement of community that too often accompanies redevelopment growth. While this affordable -heavy development in our district has been viewed, for the most part, as beneficial, this Depot apartment project strikes an entirely different chord. With this project the City and developer have co -acted to co -opt a premium site in this unencumbered industrial area - a key, perhaps pivotal parcel in the recession - stalled evolution of our transit community vision. And you are using it, not to promote the economic growth needed to make this place a "place" - with shops and services and commerce and jobs, and the spending power to support them, but to actually prevent profitability within the community by excluding and precluding the customers and businesses needed to make a transit oriented district (T.O.D.) viable. I absolutely object to the exclusionary nature of this housing project and the deliberate condemnation of this precious, high - potential, gem of a site to economic stagnation and underachievement for the district. When I look at the sea of blue on the Housing Element map of our district that identifies sites for potential future housing I feel sick. I fear that all of these properties are now being watched by those who may view this area as a repository for all future low- income housing. I pray that this is not the case, What this area needs is mixed - income, market rate, and for -sale housing in mixed -use developments, We have enough rent - restricted complexes for the time being. With what I have recently discovered through reading the City's RFP end learning the recommendation and loan approval process, I can see that there is not much hope that you would reject this project that you have already subsidized. The deal was sealed with the Loan Agreement long before the community got wind of its existence, and neighborhood involvement is solely for the purpose of minor adjustments and getting the folks on board. It appears that public dissention on these City subsidized projects is really quite irrelevant. But I will ask anyway, because I believe it's essential to vibrant growth of our transit community, that you do not approve this project at this time. Instead, I would urge the City and the developer to re- negotiate and re- conceive the plan for this property and to modify it to include a variety of income levels, including the market -rate renters this