Correspondence - Item 23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Becerra, Alexis From: Jeff Dickman < Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 3:44 PM To: Amezcua, Valerie; Penaloza, David; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; jhernandez@santa-ana.org; Bacerra, Phil; eComment Cc: Ginelle Gmail Hardy; Phil Chinn; sandy welch; Duane Rohrbacher; Rush, Tim GMAIL Subject: Santa Ana City Council Agenda for June 2, 2026, ITEM #23 - Public Comment -Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links. To: Mayor Valerie Amezcua and Members of the Santa Ana City Council Date: June 2, 2026 Re: Opposition to Sunset/Dissolution of the Historic Resources Commission Dear Mayor Amezcua and Councilmembers, My name is Jeffrey Dickman. I am a past long-time resident of Santa Ana and a continuing property owner there. I now live in the City of Desert Hot Springs but maintain deep ties to Orange County preservation communities. I write to urge you to vote NO on any action to sunset, dissolve, or defund the Historic Resources Commission at tonight's meeting. 1. The HRC is not a luxury—it is mandated infrastructure. Since 1998, the HRC has been charged with recognizing and preserving structures vital to Santa Ana's historic heritage. By ordinance, the Commission advises Council on historic properties, recommends policies for protection and reuse, manages incentive programs like the Mills Act, and fosters public awareness. No other body in the City has this charter or expertise. Sunsetting the HRC would leave Santa Ana without the legal and procedural framework required by Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code. 2. Dissolution will cost more than it saves. Budget pressures are real, but eliminating the HRC is a false economy. The Commission vets projects on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties and guides Mills Act contracts— programs that generate tax revenue and private investment in neighborhoods like Heninger Park, Floral Park, and others. Without HRC review, project delays, CEQA challenges, and litigation risk increase. Staff alone cannot replace nine appointed residents with technical and community expertise. 3. The impact on residents and trust will be immediate. Volunteers like Ginelle Hardy and many others have served on and worked with the HRC for years. They are your bridge to neighborhoods that care deeply about character, housing quality, and accountability. Dissolving the Commission severs that bridge. It tells residents that preservation—and their voices—are expendable when budgets tighten. That disturbance between residents, staff, and the City's stated preservation goals will widen, not close. 4. Preservation is economic development. Santa Ana's historic districts and landmarks are economic assets. They stabilize property values, attract small business, and qualify the City for Certified Local Government grants and state preservation funding. The HRC is the gatekeeper for those programs. Lose the Commission, lose eligibility. Further, dissolving the HRC would forfeit Santa Ana's Certified Local Government status,jeopardize active Mills Act contracts, and remove the only public forum where residents and staff jointly review projects affecting historic neighborhoods. The fiscal and legal costs of that loss far exceed any short-term savings. Respectfully, I ask Council to reject Item#23 as written and instead: 1. Keep the HRC intact as a standing commission with its current powers and duties. 2. If budget cuts are required, direct staff to identify administrative savings that do not eliminate the Commission's function or resident representation. 1