My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Packet 3.6.25
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Planning Commission (2002-Present)
>
2025
>
Packet 3.6.25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2025 9:28:40 AM
Creation date
9/2/2025 9:26:19 AM
Metadata
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.
/
249
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
1 <br />Ocampo, Nuvia <br />From:Mark Law <mlaw92626@gmail.com> <br />Sent:Monday, February 24, 2025 2:29 PM <br />To:eComments, PBA <br />Subject:Planning Commission Meeting 02/24/2025 written comments <br />Follow Up Flag:Follow up <br />Flag Status:Flagged <br /> Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. <br />February 24, 2025 <br /> <br />My name is Mark Law. I am one of 3 members of FLP Investments LLC, the owner of the <br />building and property at 911 N. Poinsettia St. We bought the building in 2001 after a year-long <br />search and were pleased with the location and architecture that Burke developed for the 8 <br />buildings they built in the project, working closely with the city of Santa Ana. Imagine our <br />surprise in 2010, 8 short years after our building was first occupied, when the City of Santa Ana <br />presented the Renaissance Plan in which they would take away our entitled zoning and rezone <br />our property residential and open space with no compensation to us, the existing property <br />owner. Needless to say, there was outrage among the property and business owners, many <br />meetings, and the result was the industrial overlay on the underlying residential zoning. While <br />not satisfied, the property and business owners finally concluded they could live with this <br />zoning structure. <br /> <br /> Fast forward 15 years, now the city feels, in the words of the executive director of the city <br />planning committee, that change has not happened fast enough. Their solution is to remove the <br />overlay and subject the business and property owners to a steep devaluation of their property <br />and huge financial and human cost to the existing businesses to relocate. The rationale was <br />presented to us at the train station by Margarita saying that this decision was based on <br />‘environmental justice’ because the surrounding neighborhoods were being subjected to some <br />of the highest levels of air pollution in the state. There were no studies presented that took into <br />account all of the pollution factors surrounding these neighborhoods. There was only an <br />example of a homeowner who was getting ash deposits on his BBQ from the ‘industrial <br />area’. Margarita said there was a recent fire that highlighted the potential dangers coming from <br />the ‘industrial area’. After the audience questioned her about the fire, and was asked if it <br />involved the crematorium, she finally acquiesced and said it was. When she was asked if there <br />had been any other fires, she responded that she hadn’t heard of any others. It was subsequently <br />made obvious that the ash on the BBQ had emanated from the crematorium as well. One <br />Planning Commission 1 – 229 3/6/2025 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.