Correspondence #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 41-638 (a)(1)(iii) (economic stability) - The developer states the architecture and landscaping will benefit the city & improve the city's economic stability; however it will cost the loss of 126 businesses which may relocate to other cities, and after a few years the proposed warehouse will look like a dirty warehouse with a lot of trucks and storage located in the public view. Section 41-638 (a)(1)(iv) (compliance with other regulations and conditions): The development is not in compliance with city regulation, which is why the developer is seeking a zoning amendment & conditional use permit (Their proposed land use does not comply with the existing land use nor the new General Plan use - Flex3). Section 41-638 (a)(1)(v) (effect on the General Plan): The developer states that the property is under-utilized; however, GPOPA was built by the same builder with the same floor plans, and GPOPA is 100% occupied. The developer's property & GPOPA's property were built by the same builder and share infrastructure for drainage, power, telecommunications and ingress/egress. The developer was initially unaware of some of these commonalities, and hastily moves ahead with their building plans without appropriately investigating/surveying the potential impacts on the operating businesses at GPOPA. It is seems not to be of concern to developer that GPOPA utilities may be disrupted by their abandonment of common infrastructure; however, GPOPA Members will not enter into any agreement to release/sell the easement without developer working with GPOPA's civil engineers and construction consultants to prevent any unintentional utilities disruption during developer's demolition. Access to utilities is not a private matter, and the city should postpone approval until the developer & GPOPA can formulate a plan to separate any common infrastructures. Per Santa Ana Municipal Code 41-667, the Planning Commission inappropriately approved a Conditional Use Permit without a finalized zoning change. Moreover, the Conditions of Use issued with the illegal CUP approval have been changed without the developer consulting with GPOPA. The Conditions of Use published in the City Council's agenda are substantially different than those issued by the Planning Commission. The Commission's Conditions of Use did not permit outside storage, while the Conditions of Use before the City Counsil allow for outside storage with a solid screen. Such a solid screen would obstruct the open space provisions which GPOPA has been negotiating with the developer. Trusting a developer that neglects to bring such changes to our attention is difficult. GPOPA's difficulty obtaining documents has limited our time & resources to discover other modifications made to the building plans & Conditions of Use which the developer neglects to disclose. When GPOPA's attorney tried to file the appeal to the Planning Commissions zoning amendment & CUP approvals, the city refused to tell her how much the filing fee was. After the attorney found the information on-line, the City's Principal Planner attempted to refuse the payment and the appeal. On another occassion, the Principal Planner stated staff would recommend the Planning Commission indefinitely postpone their hearing to allow more time for GPOPA & the developer to negotiate; however, at the Commission hearing there was no staff recommendation and the Commission chairperson placed the matter on the agenda for the next hearing two weeks later without any public or Commissioner comments or discussions whatsoever. GPOPA hereby requests that the Santa Ana City Council take the Zoning Amendment & Conditional Use Permit off calendar until the developer has actually obtained the written right to develop the land from the parties which currently own the access rights to the land. Unfortunately due to statues of limitation, approval at this time would inevitably result in a lawsuit to preserve GPOPA Member's rights, whereas postponement would allow the parties to continue negotiating the terms of a negative easement buffer zone keeping truck operations away from the front doors of several professional business. Thank you & stay safe, William Stevens, President Garry Plaza Office Park Association (949) 852-9892