Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Walmart not planning to fill the Food for Less vacancy in NE Santa Ana


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Walmart is opening two new stores in Orange County, in Irvine and in Huntington Beach, according to the O.C. Register.  Walmart also recently opened a new superstore in Anaheim.  But there is no truth to the rumor that they are planning to open a store at the vacancy created when Food for Less closed their store in northeast Santa Ana, on Grand and 17th, according to Karen Haluza, a Planning Manager at the City of Santa Ana.

Haluza confirmed via email that there are in fact no current applications to fill that vacancy.

The Santa Ana City Council effectively banned big box superstores in 2007.  ”Under the new regulations, big-box retailers must apply for a conditional-use permit and identify the benefits and costs to existing stores within a three-mile area,” according to the L.A. Times.

The City Council could make an exception to that ban, but that isn’t likely, and Haluza noted that it is tough to find new tenants given the current economic conditions.

I would love to see a new Walmart open up at this shopping center.  It just doesn’t seem likely.


You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

4 Responses to “Walmart not planning to fill the Food for Less vacancy in NE Santa Ana”

  1. “Walmart not planning to fill the Food for Less vacancy in NE Santa Ana”…… Hmmmmm

    Good for them!

    Who wants to be harassed by Santa Ana’s anti-business Planing Commissioners, Code Enforcers and Pulido/ Walters regime.

  2. cook says:

    Sometimes the little people know more on what is going on.

    I asked a clerk the reason why their inventory was so low and was told the store is moving because a Wal-Mart was going to take the entire building. I have no way to confirm what the clerk said is true or correct.

    Transparency in local governments is nothing to brag about. So who are you going to believe?

  3. ocgrrl says:

    There is no ban on superstores. The council did not vote for it. It was tabled for good due to union influences.

  4. Admin says:

    Why would the unions want it tabled? They were the ones advocating for the ban.

    I will check with planning and see what happened but the Times reported it was a done deal.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress