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:Christy Taylor <Christy@christy-taylor.com> <br />Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:04 PM <br />To:eComments, PBA <br />Cc:Christy Taylor <br />Subject:City of Santa Ana’s planned removal of Industrial uses in SD-84 TZC area <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 />Dear Commissioners, <br /> <br />Good aŌernoon. I am wriƟng about the proposed removal of industrial <br />uses in SD‐84 TZC area. I aƩended the last meeƟng and it was clear that <br />we have 4 major offenders that are causing the issues: the trash handling, <br />scrap metal & recycle, and crematorium faciliƟes, not the remaining 160 <br />businesses that employ individuals, pay taxes and put money back into <br />the city of Santa Ana. <br /> <br />While I understand there are concerns from the residents, wouldn’t it be <br />beƩer to find a soluƟon that deals with these businesses rather than <br />destroying businesses who contribute tax dollars and dollars into the <br />local economy? Is there a reason why we can’t work on a soluƟon that <br />focuses on the offenders and not disrupt businesses that don’t pollute? <br /> <br />I have consulted an aƩorney about the proposed plans. Here are the <br />issues he has raised from a legal perspecƟve: <br /> <br /> ViolaƟon of California’s AmorƟzaƟon Doctrine <br />o In effect the proposal appears to consƟtute unconsƟtuƟonal <br />taking under both state and federal law. <br />o I believe that Commission Leo raised this during the <br />Commissioner’s session at the last meeƟng. <br />Planning Commission 1 – 192 3/6/2025 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.