My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 24 - Public Hearing - Amendments to the Transit Zoning Code
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2025
>
06/03/2025 Regular
>
Item 24 - Public Hearing - Amendments to the Transit Zoning Code
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2025 5:16:07 PM
Creation date
5/28/2025 4:48:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
24
Date
6/3/2025
Destruction Year
P
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
705
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
pickup in the late afternoon. That is less UPS, FEDEX, and Amazon traffic than any Orange <br />County residential neighborhood these days. The business is quiet and clean and has never <br />had a complaint from the surrounding neighborhoods. I know that many of the businesses in <br />the Transit District are just as quiet and clean. <br />We feel that the city is acting in bad faith here, threatening our constitutional rights as <br />property owners. The reason change has not occurred in the last 15 years since the <br />Renaissance Plan is that buying up property in the transit district for a residential project does <br />not pencil at current market values for the property. If the city thinks that artificially driving <br />down the value of the existing properties so that residential developers may consider <br />developments in the transit district is fair to the existing property owners, they are missing <br />current realities. One glaring example of this transpired in Irvine recently when the city <br />council was considering a large warehouse taking up a city block in the Irvine Business Center <br />(IBC). The city denied approval but negotiated with the owners that if they built a residential <br />project, they could keep their industrial zoning for the property. The city did this to avoid <br />litigation for devaluing the property. The City of Santa Ana may want to consider things from <br />this perspective as well. <br />The city has an opportunity here to extend the moratorium and table any action on the zoning <br />changes until a solution acceptable to all stakeholders can be found and implemented. The <br />compressed window of time given to the stakeholders was not adequate for them to digest <br />the proposed changes and research potential solutions in partnership with the city. <br />Mark Law <br />FLP Investments LLC <br />714-812-2014 <br />mlaw92626@gmail.com <br />z <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.