Save the Memorial Park! Vote No on Measure B ballot June 5th
- Thread starter Burn That Belly
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
You being up a great point. I too was wondering where it said that homes would be built there. I was under the same impression you were. That?d be a decent location for a retail center, as it?d serve GP, PS, and Altair, while also giving the HS students at Beacon a place to hang out, too.
This is from the text of the * ballot measure* and describes the use of the land in question to be swapped with the cemetery:
Development District 2: Employment center dedicated to low- to mid-rise buildings housing a variety of uses including, among other uses, high-tech, manufacturing, research and development, and office-style businesses. A FAR range from 0.25?1.5 allows for both a low-level campus-like setting as well as higher-density, multi-story buildings. The land uses will be similar in nature to the nearby Spectrum Planning Areas. District-serving accessory retail is encouraged to serve employees
It doesn't sound very retail-y or fun to hang out at...
I guess it's as zubs says, 5P will have to lobby to get the swapped land re-zoned.
If I'm reading that correctly...
a "No" would leave the ARDA site unchanged. It's currently zoned "8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development", it's not part of the GP, not within a Development District, and the city has the option to develop the site with two hotels, restaurants, small retail, up to 250 houses, but the city has yet to entitle it for that use. Is this also the "original proposed" site of the veterans cemetery, or is that somewhere else?
a "Yes" would swap ARDA site with District 2 (zoned for 812,000 sqft of R&D use) and immediately convert the "new ARDA site" to a veterans cemetery.
Great work, this is helpful to learn.
Is district 7 in this map Altair?
Burn That Belly
New member
x
someguy
Active member
It's still bizarre to me that
1) citizens are being given the option to override the original plan, which the city paid millions for and was created by 'experts' (i.e. civil engineers and the like... people who've studied this stuff and practice it as a profession)
2) citizens are voting "yes", as if they know better than the 'experts'
Unrelated, but does anyone have a source that says if the swapped is approved, more houses will be built at the original cemetery location? When I read the text of the law it seems to say nothing of changing the swapped development plans to housing. It's 812,000 sqft of R&D/commercial/office space, which I'm assuming is just like the buildings along Barrancca near the train station. Irvine Blvd/Modjeska ish area seems like a weird place to build that kind of office space.
Full text of thelaw ballot measure: https://www.ocvote.com/fileadmin/user_upload/elections/pri2018/measures/parts/Irvine_B_-_Complete_LAYOUT.pdf
1) citizens are being given the option to override the original plan, which the city paid millions for and was created by 'experts' (i.e. civil engineers and the like... people who've studied this stuff and practice it as a profession)
2) citizens are voting "yes", as if they know better than the 'experts'
Unrelated, but does anyone have a source that says if the swapped is approved, more houses will be built at the original cemetery location? When I read the text of the law it seems to say nothing of changing the swapped development plans to housing. It's 812,000 sqft of R&D/commercial/office space, which I'm assuming is just like the buildings along Barrancca near the train station. Irvine Blvd/Modjeska ish area seems like a weird place to build that kind of office space.
Full text of the
someguy said:
You being up a great point. I too was wondering where it said that homes would be built there. I was under the same impression you were. That?d be a decent location for a retail center, as it?d serve GP, PS, and Altair, while also giving the HS students at Beacon a place to hang out, too.
someguy
Active member
Jantoven said:
This is from the text of the * ballot measure* and describes the use of the land in question to be swapped with the cemetery:
Development District 2: Employment center dedicated to low- to mid-rise buildings housing a variety of uses including, among other uses, high-tech, manufacturing, research and development, and office-style businesses. A FAR range from 0.25?1.5 allows for both a low-level campus-like setting as well as higher-density, multi-story buildings. The land uses will be similar in nature to the nearby Spectrum Planning Areas. District-serving accessory retail is encouraged to serve employees
It doesn't sound very retail-y or fun to hang out at...
I guess it's as zubs says, 5P will have to lobby to get the swapped land re-zoned.
someguy
Active member
lnc said:someguy said:
Might be some residential housing (up to 250) at the original cemetery site according to this city document. The original cemetery site are now called District 9 and here's insert from the city's document.
If I'm reading that correctly...
a "No" would leave the ARDA site unchanged. It's currently zoned "8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development", it's not part of the GP, not within a Development District, and the city has the option to develop the site with two hotels, restaurants, small retail, up to 250 houses, but the city has yet to entitle it for that use. Is this also the "original proposed" site of the veterans cemetery, or is that somewhere else?
a "Yes" would swap ARDA site with District 2 (zoned for 812,000 sqft of R&D use) and immediately convert the "new ARDA site" to a veterans cemetery.
someguy said:lnc said:someguy said:
Might be some residential housing (up to 250) at the original cemetery site according to this city document. The original cemetery site are now called District 9 and here's insert from the city's document.
If I'm reading that correctly...
a "No" would leave the ARDA site unchanged. It's currently zoned "8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development", it's not part of the GP, not within a Development District, and the city has the option to develop the site with two hotels, restaurants, small retail, up to 250 houses, but the city has yet to entitle it for that use. Is this also the "original proposed" site of the veterans cemetery, or is that somewhere else?
a "Yes" would swap ARDA site with District 2 (zoned for 812,000 sqft of R&D use) and immediately convert the "new ARDA site" to a veterans cemetery.
Great work, this is helpful to learn.
Is district 7 in this map Altair?
RangerWright
New member
No on Measure B!
B swaps the large commercial development approved to go in where the strawberry fields are along the 5 & 405 Y split and moves it to where the veterans cemetery is supposed to go in contiguous with the Great Park.
B reduces the effective size of the Great Park by turning the planned contiguous veterans cemetery into a large commercial development.
B will bring all the traffic for the large commercial development that would have been next to the freeway and brings it into internal residential Irvine.
B takes the planned veterans cemetery away from being contiguous with the Great Park and relegates it to where the strawberry fields currently are along the 5 & 405 Y freeways.
As a combat veteran, I would prefer to be part of the Great Park. As an Irvine resident, I don?t want the effective size of the Great Park reduced and I don?t want to have more internal residential traffic.
No on B!
B swaps the large commercial development approved to go in where the strawberry fields are along the 5 & 405 Y split and moves it to where the veterans cemetery is supposed to go in contiguous with the Great Park.
B reduces the effective size of the Great Park by turning the planned contiguous veterans cemetery into a large commercial development.
B will bring all the traffic for the large commercial development that would have been next to the freeway and brings it into internal residential Irvine.
B takes the planned veterans cemetery away from being contiguous with the Great Park and relegates it to where the strawberry fields currently are along the 5 & 405 Y freeways.
As a combat veteran, I would prefer to be part of the Great Park. As an Irvine resident, I don?t want the effective size of the Great Park reduced and I don?t want to have more internal residential traffic.
No on B!
Our Gang
Active member
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/06/01/vote-yes-on-irvines-measure-b/
OC Register: ... opponents of the landswap say that they?re saving the cemetery. Voting no does no such thing.... So what exactly are opponents of the landswap saving? It?s hard to tell. They?ve called it a giveaway and say the move will create traffic. But trading one similarly sized piece of land for another hardly seems a giveaway and the developer is going to build on one site or the other, so the traffic argument doesn?t seem to hold much weight.
In reality, and as we?ve previously noted, this seems par for the course in Irvine where creating a political wedge issue and riding it to the election seems torn right out of the pages of former Irvine Mayor and Councilman Larry Agran?s playbook.
OC Register: ... opponents of the landswap say that they?re saving the cemetery. Voting no does no such thing.... So what exactly are opponents of the landswap saving? It?s hard to tell. They?ve called it a giveaway and say the move will create traffic. But trading one similarly sized piece of land for another hardly seems a giveaway and the developer is going to build on one site or the other, so the traffic argument doesn?t seem to hold much weight.
In reality, and as we?ve previously noted, this seems par for the course in Irvine where creating a political wedge issue and riding it to the election seems torn right out of the pages of former Irvine Mayor and Councilman Larry Agran?s playbook.
someguy
Active member
If the "Yes" votes out there had any idea how much developer money is behind this ballot measure I wonder if they would second guess their "yes" vote. I couldn't be the only one who received literally dozens of "Yes on B" mailers and repeated "Yes on B" Facebook ads... Have you noticed the multiple "Yes on B" banners with professionally shot pictures around the great park? You all think that stuff is free? But what's the point... people have made up their mind and seem to only point to data that supports their conclusions.
Burn That Belly
New member
x