The status of the proposed luxury apartment complex at 2525 Main St., in Santa Ana, will finally be resolved on Tuesday, Feb. 19, at this week’s Santa Ana City Council meeting, which will start at 5:45 p.m. This meeting will include a continuance of the public hearing that was held at the last City Council meeting, on Feb. 5. Click here to read the meeting agenda.
Those opposing this apartment development have devolved into an angry mob. They keep insisting that the project is too big and too dense however those arguments are not based in facts as the project’s Environmental Impact Report was very positive and the City of Santa Ana Planning Agency has recommended approval of this development.
What the NIMBYs are forgetting is that the project involves LUXURY APARTMENTS, not affordable housing. This is a great project that would fit right in down in Irvine or in Mission Viejo. We are very fortunate the developer is not pushing to put affordable housing on this site! He is however contributing to the city’s affordable housing fund.
The developer has already made a ton of concessions. If the City Council reduces the density of this project any further they will only be hurting their own tax revenues.
There is the rub – the City of Santa Ana absolutely needs the millions of dollars in development fees and taxes that this project will generate. Every single Councilman who voted for the new MOU with the SAPD better vote to approve this project.
Rejecting this project will send a terrible message to developers, who will in the future steer clear of our city altogether.
As for the naysayers who insist we don’t need luxury apartments, the fact is a major tech company is in negotiations to move into the One Broadway Plaza tower – which will allow the developer of that project to finally break ground. That means there will indeed be a vast demand for upscale apartments for the flock of millennials who will move here to work for that company.
Santa Ana needs more educated millennials. Remember that our local voters just voted to increase our sales and property taxes last November. Educated voters won’t do that!
As our kids finish school they will surely take their talents elsewhere if we don’t provide them with the type of apartments millennials are looking for.
As for the NIMBY’s traffic concerns I have to wonder why so many retired people are freaking out over traffic when they are retired – most of them barely drive any more.
What I expect is that the traffic and parking concerns, as reflected in the EIR, will not be an issue. The developer has already agreed to provide two parking spaces per unit plus extra guest parking. And the project won’t have an entrance on Edgewood, so the apartment residents will only enter and exit the project from Main St.
The trends here work in our favor. More and more millennials are working from home and are opting to walk, bike and use public transit.
Remember that this project will also be a boon to local businesses, such as the MainPlace Mall and the CityPlace Shopping Center. The money they spend will also contribute sales taxes to the City’s coffers.
And this project will at last settle the real problem in the Santiago Park neighborhood – the homeless riffraff that live in Santiago Creek and in Santiago Park. The developer has agreed to provide around the clock security to keep the park, the neighborhood and the apartments safe.
I cannot understand at this point why anyone would oppose this project. Finally, tomorrow night, we will find out if the City Council has the common sense to do the right thing and approve it.
Dear Art Pedrosa,
Why do you have to use derogatory names to refer to those of us that have opposed this project from the start?
From the first Sunshine Meeting,neighborhood concerns regarding the 500 apartments in the 6 to 7 story development have remained the same. The developer has not made changes, it is still a 476 unit development. No other development has been proposed, this large, next to a 1,200 single family residential neighborhood.
As the staff report points out, it is not in character with the 100 year old neighborhood, and nothing has been done to correct this.
The development should not be supported. The Park Santiago neighborhood should be protected and preserved.
Why do you report that the Planning Commission voted for this project? They voted AGAINST
it because of traffic concerns and reduction of air quality!! If you are going to report on this,
at least do it correctly or are you also on the developers “payroll” as were many of the
speakers, such as college students who will not even be able to afford these apartments.
The Planning AGENCY approved it. Read the post again.
As a “supposed” educator, I find most of your commentary on this issue extremely uneducated.
I guess the results of last night’s council meeting confirms this.
The EIR which you used as a catch all answer to all the concerns about the project was absolutely flawed and thankfully the Council agreed with this.
The “angry mob” as you called the Park Santiago residents provided clear, concise arguments all night long, while almost every speaker in favor of the project was a union worker or uninformed paid Santa Ana resident. So painful to watch and hear their feeble arguments for the project.
You mention this project would “fit right in down in Irvine and Mission Viejo.”
You must not know anyone who lives in Mission Viejo. I lived in Ladera Ranch for 8 years before I bought our home in Park Santiago. The majority of South Orange County residents also opposed large scale development like this. The majority of the developments went ahead and now traffic is absolutely horrible. I Experienced this first hand and lived through it.
You say rejecting this project ” would send a terrible message to Developers”. Wrong again. I find it hard to believe that this would be the first ever Project rejected in Santa Ana. I still see numerous projects in the pipeline as we speak. And if it is, then let it serve as a warning to other developers that Santa Ana residents will no longer tolerate irresponsible development.
I won’t even address your ageist comment about traffic. Horrible, and shame on you to say things about our retired residents.
I could go on and on but no need, the City Council did the talking for me last night.
Hopefully now you, in your own words, “understand at this point why anyone would oppose this project”.
I, by the way, live on Spurgeon, right behind the proposed Development. I also met with the Developers for discussion and also read the EIR. I would be more than happy to discuss with you also. But maybe you should do more research so you can speak intelligently on this subject first. I am for development, responsible development.
We have devolved into an angry mob? You are deluded, I’m afraid. Those who were hired to speak in favor of rezoning are the angry, tattoo-necked, HOSTILE mob. The young woman who sat next to me at the first City Council meeting kept threatening to hit me because I am opposed to the rezoning. She must have reconsidered because I told her that if she did, I would have her arrested. A woman last night, in line to get in, was quite hostile when I asked her if she were in line (she was on the phone, and it wasn’t apparent that she was in line). She got nasty. She then didn’t move up when the line moved, and I asked her to move up. She again got nasty and called me names to the person on the phone. A former City Council member wanted to fight one of my neighbors. The police had to escort him away. Yes, dear Art, WE are the thugs. We who just don’t want our neighborhood to degrade. It makes me wonder WHY you are SO much in favor of having high density apartments build. Curious, to say the least!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of you warned me last night to “watch where you walk” in our neighborhood and a “lady” hollered “scum” at me as I left the meeting…
Maybe the nice lady is concerned for your health–our old, beautiful established trees’ roots are raising the sidewalk. As for you being called scum, it could have been worse, and more accurate. Have a lovely day.
The people of Park Santiago do have a right to oppose this project. Many of you statements are not correct and as far as the project at one Broadway, that lot has Ben vacant for years and the council voted to have 50% occupancy before starting building that is unless they have change the rules. The city council has also been part of SA’s short fall of $’s. Making SA a sanctuary city and the loss of the ICE contract did not help. If you continue to make disgraceful comments about the elderly. Citizens please be factual, our neighborhood is made up of old,young and mixed cultures and races.