Correspondence #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wojaczynski, Brittany From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City Council Members, CA4Rent <ca4rent@yahoo.com> Tuesday, December 20, 2022 3:01 PM eComment MI -Law 2022-01 & 2022-02 The property located directly to the east of the proposed unspecified industrial development is a professional office condominium. I own eight (8) units within the Garry Plaza Office Park Association ("GPOPA"), and represent 44 units through management contracts. Additionally, I am the President of the GPOPA. Members of the GPOPA are concerned with negative impacts the proposed development would likely have on the existing professional businesses which operate here, including traffic congestion, noise, vibration, NOX, SOX & particulate pollution. GPOPA objects to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Exemption Checklist, which seems to be hastily prepared. The EIR Exemption Checklist relies on the General Plan EIR in which Flex3 land uses occupy adjacent parcels. In this case the developer is not proposing such compatible uses, rather the developer proposes to amend the zoning to permit an industrial use adjacent to an existing professional use. City staff have stated that there is no such existing combination of industrial warehouse distribution use directly adjacent to a professional use anywhere within the City of Santa Ana. The fact that this combination has never been tested before in the city indicates that an EIR is warranted. Furthermore, the Members of GPOPA own an easement which criss-crosses approximately 40% of the developer's buildable area. The location of the GPOPA easement upon the developer's property is specifically fixed in the easement language, and may not be relocated without the consent of GPOPA Members and sale of their easement interest. The developer's building plans rely on the release of the GPOPA easement interest. Such release or agreement has not been approved by the GPOPA Members at this time, and consequently developer's application is premature until the parties can reach a firm agreement. The parties are working to possibly make such an agreement; however GPOPA has been obstructed from obtaining the FULL application of the developer. The City Council agenda is missing pages from the developer's application including the affidavit, and written authority of Mr. Rob Mitchell to act on behalf of whomever the true legal property owner is - either GreenLaw Partners, or Garry Owners; title is unclear. City staff has stated that "sufficient" information has been provide to GPOPA, which indicates that not ALL information has been provided. GPOPA is reasonably wary of signing any agreement without the legal ownership being fully identified. The portions of the applications which have been obtained contain several misstatements: Section 41-638 (a)(1)(i) (necessary and desirable) - The developer states their project would bring jobs to the area; however their project would cause the loss of approximately 126 small professional business from the area. Section 41-638 (a)(1)(ii) (health, safety, and general welfare) - The developer states the use is consistent with existing uses & would not be detrimental to existing businesses. This is utterly false, the neighboring businesses are used for professional offices, and the truck traffic will have negative commuting, noise, vibration, NOX, SUX and particulate pollution impacts.