Laserfiche WebLink
-=_c ? <br />ORANGE COUNTY <br />hUSINESS C?)UNCII. <br />October 1 - 201 2 <br />Honorable Miguel Pulido <br />Mayor <br />City of Santa Ana <br />20 Civic Center Plai.a <br />Santa Ana CA 92701 <br />Rcc Sunshine Ordinance: OPI'OS[? Unless Amended <br />L?car Mayor Pulido: <br />On babel)-of the Orange County Business Council <OCBC) and the Building Industry Association of <br />Southern Calilornia, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC)- we offer die business community's perspective <br />on the proposed sunshine ordinance: <br />As a matter of principle, OCBC and BIA/OC support the spirit and intent of public policy that encourages <br />openness and transparency in government attairs. To that end, we applaud the eflbrts of SACRe[7 and <br />city statetoward policy supporting this principle- However- we urge the City Council Co avoid adopting <br />regressive regulations that will add unnecessary burdens to the private sector. We contend that the <br />"Sunshine" ordinance, as iL is currently proposed, contains provisions that will harm potential investors in <br />the Santa Ana community, trying to maintain or create-jobs in a tough economy. <br />OCBC and RlA/OC arc opposed to the "Sunshine" ordinance unless it is amended. "Thercforc? we <br />respect)-ally urge the Council to continue the haarinr*, and adoption of Lhe "Sunshine" ordinance to a [inure <br />Council meeting to allow for incorporation of the following amendments: <br />Section 6- Item 2: 'T'he project threshold be amended from 25 or more residential units to lU0 <br />or more units. Setting the project threshold Icss than 100 units will create undue burdens on <br />small projects that era less likely to be able to absorb additional cost and/or time delays. <br />Section C- Item 5 (c?: Meeting notice shall be provided to al I property owners, and occupants <br />having a valid United States Postal Service address within a 500 foot radius of the subject <br />property- "I?his provision be amended to read: "Notice shall be provided to all property owners, <br />and at Icast one oceupant per dwellin<_ unit having a valid United States Postal Service <br />address within a SOO fool radius of the subject property." We contend that the Ibrmer version <br />is too vague and can be interpreted to intend that all occupants of-a dwelling unit be noticed <br />individually. <br />CCM: 10/01 /2012 <br />50A