80A - TRANSIT ZONING CODE - FEIR - SUPPLEMENTAL - REPONSE TO COMMENTS

Home Browse Search

Letter OCPW ^ r 3 ~ -r u, O R A N G E C O U N T Y ~ N., i _ M t ~ ' r i ~E ~(4 dur Cammunfty. Our Commitment. dd 1 r.. June 3, 2010 Ms. Lucy Linnaus, Senior Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaaa, M20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report 2006-02, General Plan Amendment No. 2010-1 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2006-09 for the Transit Zoning Code Dear Ms. Linnaus: The County of Orange has reviewed the documents referenced above that are related to the proposed Transit Zoning Code located in the City of Santa Ana. We applaud the City of Santa OCPw-~ Ana for this planning effort and the goal of facilitating new development activity in this area. We offer the following comments for your consideration: County Owned Properties Within the boundary of the Transit Village Zone are County-owned properties along Santa Ana Boulevard. These include the "Fruit Street" maintenance yard and a vacant parcel across the street on the northerly side of Santa Ana Boulevard. In the EIR prepared for this project, the land use for the Fruit Street property is described as "institutional" and the vacant property as "industrial." The zoning far these properties is "Open Space," which includes "government buildings" as a permitted use. Adoption of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Cade amendment would result in the rezoning of the County properties from "Open Space (OS)" to `Transit Village (TV)." This would OCPw-2 also result in a change of permitted uses and development standards to encourage the development of "compact transit-supportive mixed use/residential development." We understand that in general these types of land use changes enhance surrounding areas and would therefore have no negative impact on the value of the County owned properties affected. There is a discussion in the proposed Transit Zoning Code regarding existing, non-conforming uses. The document states that "lawfully established" uses may continue to operate but may be altered only in compliance with the Cade. As you know, the City and the County are exempt from each other's zoning and building regulations as long as the property in question is used far governmental purposes. It is the County's intention to continue to operate, maintain and possibly expand the Fruit St. facility consistent with its current use. Strictly speaking, therefore, the County property and its uses would not be considered non-conforming since it is public property. The County anticipates that this continuing use will not interfere with the goals and objectives of the proposed Transit Village Zoning. We suggest that this be noted in the record.