Correspondence- Item #22 — Santa Ana City Council, April 1, 2025

Flores, Dora
From: W.Y. Manufacturing, Inc. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March24, 2025
To: eComment
Subject: April1, 2025MeetingZOA #2024-02, RemovalofM1 & M2propertiesfromSD-84 ZoningDistrict
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

Towhomit mayconcern:

Esteemedmembersof theCityCouncil, thankyouforallowingmetoaddressyoutodayregardingthe moratoriumandproposedrezoningof ourindustrialareas.

Mynameis WalterYaeger, I purchasedtheindustrialbuildingat 1037FullerStreetin1987, sincethenit is thelocationof themanufacturingcompanyI foundedin 1978. Mydaughterjustcelebratedher35thyear withme, myson-in-lawis in his30thyearandmygrandsonis alsocurrentlyworkingat thislocation. I comefroma longlineof toolanddiemakersandmachinists, includingmygrandfather, myfatherand threeof myuncles.

I standbeforeyouasa concernedbusinessownerandresident, deeplytroubledbytheimplicationsof this proposedzoningchange.

Weallunderstandthefundamentalpillarsuponwhichanynation's prosperityrests: mining, agriculture, andmanufacturing. Whileourcity, admittedly, doesn't engagein miningor large-scaleagriculture, it does possessa vital, albeitsmall, manufacturingsector. Thissectoris nota relicof thepast; it is thecornerstone of ourfuture.

Let's beclear: modernmanufacturingis notthesmokestackindustryof yesteryear. It's a high-tech, innovativefieldthatprovideshigh-payingjobsanddrivestechnologicaladvancement. It's theenginethat producesthetoolsandequipmentnecessaryforminingandagriculture – theveryfoundationsofour society. Withoutmanufacturing, ourabilityto sustainourselvesandinnovatediminishes.

Theproposedrezoningthreatenstoeliminatethiscrucialelementof ourlocaleconomy. ByconvertingM1 andM2zonesto residential, wearenotsimplychanginglanduse; wearedismantlinga vitalcomponentof ourcity's resilienceandfutureprosperity. Wearetellingfuturegenerationsthathigh-paying, technicaljobs arenotwelcomehere.

Wemustalsoconsiderthestrategicimplications. Ournation's currenteconomicchallenges, includingour staggeringnationaldebt, aredirectlylinkedtotheoffshoringof manufacturing. We'velearnedthehard lessonthatoutsourcingcriticalproductionleavesusvulnerableanddependent. Historyremindsusthatour manufacturingmightwasinstrumentalin winningWorldWarII. Ina rapidlychanginggloballandscape, we cannotaffordto repeatthemistakesof thepastandfurthererodeourindustrialbase.

Furthermore, preservingmanufacturingzonesensuresthatourresidentshaveaccesstolocal employmentopportunities, reducingcommutetimesandfosteringa strongersenseof community. Thisis notjustabouteconomics; it's aboutthequalityof lifeforourcitizens. 1 I urgeyouto reconsiderthisrezoning. Letusnotsacrificeourindustrialfutureforshort-termresidential gains. Instead, letusembracethepotentialofmodernmanufacturingandbuilda resilient, prosperous communityforgenerationsto come. Letusnotforgetthethreepillarsofa nation, andletusnotremove oneof themostimportantpillarsof ourcity. Thankyou."
Regards,
WalterW. Yaeger
2 Zuniga, Diana
From: Susan Backer < SBacker@santaanachamber. com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 9:25 AM
To: Amezcua, Valerie
Cc: Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jorge ( SAPD); Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; Nunez, Alvaro; !City Clerk; 'Tim Jemal tim@jemalpublicaffairs. com)'; Mindy Andrews; [email protected]; Dave Elliott Subject: FW: Letter of Concern from Santa Ana Chamber -- RE: Transit Zoning Code ordinance Logan and Lacyneighborhoods
Attachments: Letter of Concern for Santa Ana Chamber -- Transit Zoning Code ordinance Logan and Lacyneighborhoods. docx.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Good morning Madam Mayor and City of Santa Ana Councilmembers, Please see attached a Letter of Concern regarding Transit Zoning Code Ordinance in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods.

Regards,
Susan Backer
Executive Assistant to Mr. David Elliott, President/ CEO of The Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce 714) 541- 5353 ext. 116 www. santaanachamber. com
Do not fear failure but please be terrified of regret" Deshouna Barber 1 i
i
March 24, 2025
The Honorable Valerie Amezcua
Mayor, City of Santa Ana - vamezcua@santa- ana.org
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Mayor Amezcua,
Re: Opposition to proposed Specific Development No. 84 Transit Zoning Code rezoning Logan and Lacy neighborhoods)
On behalf of the Board and Members of the SantaAna Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the City of Santa Ana' s proposed Transit Zoning Code, Specific Development Number 84 ordinance in its Logan and Lacy neighborhoods. Specifically, we are concerned about the proposed removal of the existing light( M- 1) and heavy ( M- 2) industrial overlays in theseneighborhoods, which we believe would have a profoundly adverseimpact on long- established businesses many of which are owner/ operator small and medium- sized enterprisesvital to our local economy.

The removal of the industrial overlays would disrupt a vital part of our community that has supported a wide range of downstream businesses for decades. Many of the impacted enterprises serveaskey employers, providing jobs and contributing to the diverse characterand history of the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods. By removing these industrial designations, the City risks displacing thesebusinessesand undermining the livelihoods andretirement plans of owner/ operators who have invested time, effort and resources in both neighborhoods.

Instead of effectively punishing existing businesses in the two industrial overlay zones, the City should strictly target" bad actors" in the M- 2 heavy industrial zone that areproducing noxious emissions.

Here are a few specific concerns that we would like to highlight for your attention:

1.) Impact on Small Businesses: Many of the businesses in the affected areas rely on industrial zoning andits inherent industrial usesto operateeffectively. The removal of the two industrial overlays could force these businesses to either close or relocate, disrupting long- standing operationsand the local economy. This will disproportionately affect owner/ operator businesses that have become an integral part of the community. In addition, becausethe ordinancerestricts the expansionor modification of existing industrial facilities, growing businesses that require greater space will not be able to expand the physical size of their buildings.

2.) Economic Stability: Thesebusinessescontribute significantly to the local economy through employment, servicesand tax revenues. The potential displacementof thesebusinessescould lead to job lossesand createa ripple effect in other industrial zonesacrossSantaAna, which harms the overall economic health of the area, especially for those who rely on these businesses for employment and services.

3.) Lack of Transition or Support: The City' sproposedrezoning lacks a clear plan for providing support or transition for enterprises affected by the removal of the industrial overlays. Businessesin the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods should be given a reasonable period to adjust, or be offered incentives or exemptions that would allow them to continue operating in the neighborhood.

4.) Community Character: The Logan and Lacy neighborhoods have a unique characterthat is shaped, in part, by businesses that have been operating for several decades. The proposed rezoning, if enactedwithout proper consideration, will erodethe existing community fabric and replace long- standing enterprises with multifamily or mixed- use residential development, which is already prevalent in both neighborhoods.

On behalf of the SantaAna Chamber, I urge you and City Councilmembers to reconsiderthe removal of the two industrial overlays and engage in a more thoughtful and collaborative process that includes the voices of industrial property owners, enterpriseowner/operatorsand employees who will be directly affected. Amore balanced approach that considers both the goals of transit- oriented development and the preservation of local businessesis essentialfor the long-term well- being of the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will take our concerns into account and work towards a solution that supportsboth the development goals of the City andthe interests of its residents and business owner/ operators.

Sincerely,
David Elliott
President& CEO
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
CC: Mayor Pro Tem, Thai Phan - tphan@santa- ana. org Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez - [email protected] Councilmember Jessie Lopez - jlopez@santa- ana.org
Councilmember Phil Bacerra - pbacerra@santa- ana. org
Councilmember Johnathan Hernandez - jryanhernandez@santa- ana.org Councilmember David Penaloza - [email protected]
City Manager Alvaro Nunez - ANunez@santa- ana.org
City Clerk- cityclerk@santa- ana. org
Zuniga, Diana
From: Kim Riker < kriker@ricedw. com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 10:29 AM
To: eComment
Subject: SD-84 TZC Rezoning
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Members of the Santa Ana City Council,
I appreciate your taking time to read my concerns about completely zoning out M- 1 & M- 2 Industrial uses from SD- 84 Transit Zoning Codearea. I am a 3rdgeneration businessowner who moved our office to SantaAna in 2010 at the encouragement of the then- in- place City Council and its making our area an " Enterprise Zone" to better enable businesses to relocate here. Now we are being phased out due to the gentrification of this area, despite our proximity to a massive transit station and major freeway, both of which are contrary to healthful residential living.

My concerns:

1. The draft regulations treat similar activities differently in various sections. For example, my property is to be zoned " Urban Center." We are an administrative office of 5 people that operates from 8 am to 5 pm and we sit inside all day and type on computers. I believe this should put us in the " Business Support Service" Land Use Type ( page 19), and we would simply need a " P" Permit( meaning we could simply carry on our business as we are now). However, because we provide business support service to a construction company, our administrative services may put us in to the " Professional" category( page 20), thereby requiring a " P( 1)" Permit type. This means we could only perform our administrative services " only on second or upper floors, or behind retail or service ground floor use." So, though we perform the exact same type of administrative work as Business Support Service, but service a construction company, we would then be required to add a retail space in front of our office? Or build a second story and allow a retailer to move in downstairs? This would increase vehicle and foot traffic, make more noise, and increase our business footprint in what seems to be contrary to the purpose of these regulations. The categorization of services in these Land Use Type charts is arbitrary and illogical in many cases, and this specific one makes no sense in our case. We make zero noise and only have 5 people in our office, but your regulations may require that we increase this, impacting the community.

2. The result of these regulations would be a taking of our property by the government. My mother owns the property next door, at Brown and Poinsettia, which is zoned UN- 2. It is a building purpose- built in reliance on the location being made an " Enterprise Zone" by the City of Santa Ana years ago when it wanted to encourage businesses to move to this area. These regulations would render this property useless, as building " mixed use" residences would be required. The property is not large enough to do this. Therefore, as mentioned by a speaker last night, this would constitute a taking under the 5t" Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are many instances of California case law that support this.

3. 1understand the need to make changes to improve the area we are in, but forcing businesses out of the city and taking away local jobs from the 100 employees affected by my business and the one next door is not the way.

My building is at the corner of 6t" and Poinsettia, a corner the police and code enforcement know well, aswe are across from Bruce Metals and I report on graffiti to our building and trash dumped on our sidewalk almost daily.

I would love to have Bruce Metals and the recycling center gone as well— why don' t you just focus on phasing out heavy industry instead of also capturing small, non- harmful businesses also? Thank you,
Kim
1 Kim Riker
Rice Drywall, Inc.
919 E. 61" Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Ph: ( 714) 543- 5400
2 Zuniga, Diana
From: Nate Paladino <
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 12:17 PM
To: eComment; [email protected]; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Theseamendmentsare a long-overdue fix to the decadesof incompatible land usesin the Lacy and Logan neighborhood.

I appreciatethat the proposed amendmentswill not force out any existing businessescurrently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will createflexibility for businessowners to sell their businessand for property owners to re- tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, suchasthe dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and businessowners alike.

I encouragethe City Council to approvetheseamendmentsfor the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Nathan Paladino
Ward 6
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Kelly Kraus- Lee <
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 12:46 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; [email protected]; eComment Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re-tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Kelly Kraus- Lee
Ward 6
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Ryan Madden <
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:13 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a resident of Santa Ana to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD- 84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay.

These amendments are a long- overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re-tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Ryan Madden
Ward 3 Resident
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Ryan Friesen <
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:04 PM
To: eComment; [email protected]; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a property owner in the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD- 84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long- overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re-tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Ryan Friesen
703 N. Poinsettia St. ( owner of rental property)
Ward 6
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Garrett Gee <
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:54 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas.

Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re-tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Garrett Gee
Ward 6
1 Zuniga, Diana
From: Sarah Rinelli < sarah@rinellilawgroup. com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 3:19 PM
To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie
Subject: Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

These amendments are a long- overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re-tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Sarah Rinelli
Resident of 92701
Sarah M. Rinelli, Esq.

Rinelli Law Group, P.C.

P. O. Box 10298
Santa Ana, CA 92711- 0298
949) 674- 6591
saraW,, rinellilaw2roup. com
CONFIDENTIALITY:

The information contained in this e-Mail message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from the Rinelli Law Group, P. C. and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this messageis strictly prohibited. If you have received this messagein error, please notify us by telephoning Sarah M.

Rinelli at( 949) 674- 6591, return the e-Mail message, and destroy( delete) the original. 1 Zuniga, Diana
From: Liberty Dickinson <
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 4:18 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re-tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Liberty Dickinson
Ward 6
Liberty Fine Arts
921 E. Santa Ana Blvd.

Santa Ana, CA 92701
714- 507- 6330
Inspiration existsbut it hasto find you working.

Instagram. com/ libertydickinsonart
i
z
Zuniga, Diana
From: Robin La Casse <
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 5:20 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support for Councilmember Penaloza' s Resolution Opposing SCAQMD Rules 1111 and 1121
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Clerk, Mayor, and members of the Council:

This email is in support of Councilmember David Penaloza's resolution to oppose SCAQMD' s proposedrules 1111 and 1121. The burdens on property owners and tenantsalike will be detrimental to the quality of life in Santa Ana.

Should these rules be adopted, countless Santa Ana residents would be displaced in order to replace these units - as many older buildings would need to be retrofitted and redesigned in order to accommodate the new appliances. Additionally these burdensome costs - typically over $ 10, 000 per installation - would be born by already constricted property owners - and already burdened tenants.

Further, the assumedbenefits for installing theseunits is marginal, and lessreliable. Leaving countless Santa Ana residentsto rely on an electric grid that hasnot beenasdependablein recent years.

Theseimpacts arenot worth the perceived benefits, andwe urge you to support Councilmember Penaloza's resolution to opposeSCAQMD' s proposedrules 1111 and 1121.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Robin S. La Casse
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Barney Richer <
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 10:54 AM
To: eComment; [email protected]; Amezcua, Valerie; Ramirez, Frida Subject: Support for Item 22 - Transit Zoning Code ( SD-84) Amendments Attachments: 20250226_ 112608. heic; 20250226_ 112620. heic; 20250226_ 134334. heic; 6171766880068526500 ( 1). heic; - 6464989058942883764 ( 1). heic; 6648894922711158278 ( 1). heic
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD- 84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long- overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood. am especially concerned with Madison Disposal next door to the Train Station as they are in my opinion the largest of the offenders. They are in constant violation of the AQMD requirements by allowing dust and debris to leave their facility on a daily basis blanketing the area for miles. This disposal center is no longer a community dump for local contractors and landscapers but rather a shortcut for Ware Disposals full sized trash trucks. Madison Ware has been abusing this neighborhood for over 20 years and has done nothing to improve the infrastructure of the site that could mitigate the bad air quality as proven by a recent UCI study putting the area in the top 90% of bad air quality. Madison Ware has had their opportunities to add professional misting systems and undercarriage wash systems to control the dust and particulate matter but the time for those upgrades has long passed. Worse than the dust is the long term health issues that local long time residents have expressed everytime this topic comes up. Our hope is that this amendment will help force out this facility before the costly ( for all parties including taxpayers) process of having to get Attorneys and Law Firms involved to expedite their removal.

Elimination of Madison/ Ware would also greatly decrease the traffic in the area. This would allow easier accessto the Train Station for all, allowing it to become the Urban Transportation Hub that many people believe it could be. Currently there is a constant line of trucks blocking the roadway and new bike paths for anyone entering the area from the 4th street side. What other businessesare allowed to cue their customers on city streets? These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the other bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we 1 can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1 ,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Barney Richer
Ward 6
z
4 f
E
i (
F
v *•
i
t
w '
r.
1 1
l
i
r '
f,
I
J
r
r{"
r•
r:
7r•
T
n
Ke
I
a°
rl.

Yl
r •#
s
4• .
7 t
f
4 i
r
log.
71 y i
t
4 E

7. ilk
F
i
e
w
ILLIP-
r
MA.

A
IMF
Y
r
off
r
3 Zuniga, Diana
From: Rachel Kraus- Lee <
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 3:22 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; [email protected]; eComment Subject: Support for Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re-tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Rachel Kraus- Lee
Ward 6
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Jenna Zech < Jennaz@ppsocal. com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:40 PM
To: Phan, Thai
Cc: eComment
Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Councilmember Phan,
I' m writing to you today regarding the SD- 84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you' ve heard from many stakeholders— both residents and business owners— and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow' s meeting will be guided by level- headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome.

I am a fourth- generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of Santa Ana. Our company has proudly served this community since 1929, and with a deepappreciation for our long-standing relationship with SantaAna, I am fully committed to building a prosperous and sustainable future here. That said, some of the vague language in the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seemtailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short- term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswomanwith a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial areawould not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the businessto better serveour community. I understandwhy someshort-term concessionshave leanedtowards their concerns—they have beenthe most vocal— but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future- focused perspective.

I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD- 84. I am asking for the chance to collaborate with the city on a path forward onethat supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of SantaAna' s business community.

I appreciateyour time and the work you do. I look forward to seeingyou at tomorrow' s meeting.

Respectfully,
Jenna Zech
SINCE 10rt Jenna Zech

PACIFIC
Pacific Plumbing of Southern California
P 714- 547- 6967 x210
PLUMBINGE jennaz ppsocal. com
OF SOUTHERN CA41FORKIA W www. pacificplumbingsocal. com 1 Becerra, Alexis
From: JamieGlazer <
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10:24 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item # 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear City of Santa Ana,
My family has owned the industrial property at 1101 E. 6th Street for years, and I am demanding that you halt your reckless rezoning plans. Stripping our property of its current zoning is nothing short of an attack on our livelihood. This property generates income that supports my family— your proposed changes would literally take food off our table.

Beyond devastating us personally, your decision would be a financial disaster for the City of Santa Ana. The business on our site contributes over$ 2,000, 000 annually in sales tax. Choking out businesses like ours will erode the city' s financial foundation, making your decision not just unethical but also economically reckless.

If you strip our zoning rights and prevent new permits, you will intentionally devalue our property, making it impossible to rent, which seems to be your goal. This is government- sanctioned theft, plain and simple. If you' re so determined to take our property, then pay us full market value upfront— don' t bleed us dry until we' re forced to sell for pennies on the dollar.

Your actions are unjust, and we will not stand by while you destroy what we' ve worked for. Do the right thing— leave our zoning alone.

Jamie Glazer
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: LMFTGonzalez <
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 9:46 PM
To: eComment; Penaloza, David; Amezcua, Valerie
Subject: Support For Item 22
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Support for Item 22
Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD- 84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long- overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods.

I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re- tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings.

These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike.

I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.

Sincerely,
Martha Gonzalez
Ward 6
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Jenna Zech <
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:41 PM
To: Vazquez, Benjamin
Cc: eComment
Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Councilmember Vazquez,
I' m writing to you today regarding the SD- 84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you' ve heard from many stakeholders— both residents and business owners— and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow' s meeting will be guided by level- headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome.

I appreciateyour time and the work you do. I look forward to seeingyou at tomorrow' s meeting.

Respectfully,
Jenna Zech
SINCE 19219 Jenna Zech

PACIFIC
Pacific Plumbing of Southern California
P 714- 547- 6967 x210
PLUMBINGE jennaz(a ppsocal.com
a
CW souMVIN CAUfOANra W www. pacificplumbingsocal. com
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Mark Law <
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 9:22 PM
To: eComment
Cc: mlaw92626@gmail. com
Subject: Written comments regarding Agenda Item 22, April 1, 2025 SantaAna City Council Meeting
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

March 31, 2025
My name is Mark Law. I am one of 3 members of FLP Investments LLC, the owner of the building and property at 911 N. Poinsettia St. We bought the building in 2001 after a year- long search and were pleased with the location and architecture that Burke developed for the 8 buildings they built in the project, working closely with the city of Santa Ana. Imagine our surprise in 2010, 8 short years after our building was first occupied, when the City of Santa Ana presented the Renaissance Plan in which they would take away our entitled zoning and rezone our property residential and open space with no compensation to us, the existing property owner. There was outrage among the property and business owners, many meetings, and the result was the industrial overlay on the underlying residential zoning. While not satisfied, the property and business owners finally concluded they could live with this zoning structure.

Fast forward 15 years, now the city feels, in the words of the executive director of the city planning committee, that change has not happened fast enough. Their solution is to remove the overlay and subject the business and property owners to a steep devaluation of their property and huge financial and human cost to the existing businesses to relocate. The rationale was presented to us at the train station by Margarita saying that this decision was based on ' environmental justice'. If ' environmental justice' is driving this effort why hasn' t the city gone after the handful of businesses who the entire community knows are the bad actors? Instead, this effort to remove the overlay in the transit district is targeting all 120+ industrial property owners/ business owners in the district. A number of the local residents agree that the bad actors must go, not all the industrial businesses that have been good neighbors over the years.

The business which has occupied our building at 911 Poinsettia is an industrial distributor, selling hose, fittings, valves, and the like to customers who are repairing their hydraulic and pneumatic equipment. The business gets one UPSand FEDEXdelivery in the morning, and one 1 pickup in the late afternoon. That is less UPS, FEDEX, and Amazon traffic than any Orange County residential neighborhood these days. The business is quiet and clean and has never had a complaint from the surrounding neighborhoods. I know that many of the businesses in the Transit District are just as quiet and clean.

We feel that the city is acting in bad faith here, threatening our constitutional rights as property owners. The reason change has not occurred in the last 15 years since the Renaissance Plan is that buying up property in the transit district for a residential project does not pencil at current market values for the property. If the city thinks that artificially driving down the value of the existing properties so that residential developers may consider developments in the transit district is fair to the existing property owners, they are missing current realities. One glaring example of this transpired in Irvine recently when the city council was considering a large warehouse taking up a city block in the Irvine Business Center IBC). The city denied approval but negotiated with the owners that if they built a residential project, they could keep their industrial zoning for the property. The city did this to avoid litigation for devaluing the property. The City of Santa Ana may want to consider things from this perspective as well.

The city has an opportunity here to extend the moratorium and table any action on the zoning changes until a solution acceptable to all stakeholders can be found and implemented. The compressed window of time given to the stakeholders was not adequate for them to digest the proposed changes and research potential solutions in partnership with the city.

Mark Law
FLP Investments LLC
z
Zuniga, Diana
From: Jenna Zech < Jennaz@ppsocal. com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:42 PM
To: Lopez, Jessie
Cc: eComment
Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Councilmember Lopez,
I' m writing to you today regarding the SD- 84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you' ve heard from many stakeholders— both residents and business owners— and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow' s meeting will be guided by level- headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome.

I appreciateyour time and the work you do. I look forward to seeingyou at tomorrow' s meeting.

Respectfully,
Jenna Zech
SINCE 19219 Jenna Zech

PACIFIC
Pacific Plumbing of Southern California
P 714- 547- 6967 x210
PLUMBINGE jennaz(a ppsocal.com
a
CW souMVIN CAUfOANra W www. pacificplumbingsocal. com
1 Zuniga, Diana
From: Jenna Zech < Jennaz@ppsocal. com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:45 PM
To: Bacerra, Phil
Cc: eComment
Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Councilmember Bacerra,
It was great to meet you last week at the meeting with the planning commission regarding the SD- 84 rezoning proposal. I really appreciatethe time you took speaking with us afterwards.

With that on the mind, I' m writing to you today regarding the SD- 84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you' ve heard from many stakeholders— both residents and business owners— and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow' s meeting will be guided by level- headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome.

I am a fourth-generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of SantaAna. Our company hasproudly servedthis community since 1929, andwith a deepappreciation for our long-standing relationship with SantaAna, I am fully committed to building a prosperousand sustainablefuture here. That said, some of the vague languagein the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seemtailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short- term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswomanwith a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial areawould not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the businessto better serveour community. I understand why some short- term concessions have leaned towards their concerns— they have been the most vocal—but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future-focused perspective.

I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD-84. I am asking for the chanceto collaborate with the city on a path forward onethat supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of SantaAna' s business community.

I appreciate your time and the work you do. I look forward to seeing you at tomorrow' s meeting.

Respectfully,
Jenna Zech
SINCE 102P Jenna Zech

PACIFIC
Pacific Plumbing of Southern California
P 714- 547- 6967 x210
PLUMBING E jennaz gppsocal. com
Of SOUTMEAN[ AU" AKIA W www. pacificplumbingsocal. com
1 z
Zuniga, Diana
From: Jenna Zech < Jennaz@ppsocal. com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:46 PM
To: Hernandez, Johnathan
Cc: eComment
Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Councilmember Hernandez,
I' m writing to you today regarding the SD- 84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you' ve heard from many stakeholders— both residents and business owners— and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow' s meeting will be guided by level- headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome.

I appreciateyour time and the work you do. I look forward to seeingyou at tomorrow' s meeting.

Respectfully,
Jenna Zech
SINCE 19219 Jenna Zech

PACIFIC
Pacific Plumbing of Southern California
P 714- 547- 6967 x210
PLUMBINGE jennaz(a ppsocal.com
a
CW souMVIN CAUfOANra W www. pacificplumbingsocal. com
1 Zuniga, Diana
From: Jenna Zech < Jennaz@ppsocal. com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:47 PM
To: Penaloza, David
Cc: eComment
Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Councilmember Penaloza,
I' m writing to you today regarding the SD- 84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you' ve heard from many stakeholders— both residents and business owners— and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow' s meeting will be guided by level- headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome.

I appreciateyour time and the work you do. I look forward to seeingyou at tomorrow' s meeting.

Respectfully,
Jenna Zech
SINCE 10rt Jenna Zech

PACIFIC
Pacific Plumbing of Southern California
P 714- 547- 6967 x210
PLUMBINGE jennaz ppsocal. com
OF SOUTHERN CA41FORKIA W www. pacificplumbingsocal. com 1 Zuniga, Diana
From: mike@tardifsheetmetal. com
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2025 11:02 AM
To: Harvey Beigle
Cc: Bob Adams; eComment
Subject: FW: SantaAna Council SD-84 Public Hearing...4- 1-2025;; ReedThoams Company Attachments: Letter 4.01.25 city of sanra ana.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

GREAT letter Harvey!
Also send your letter here before the meeting: eCommentksanta- ana.org From: Harvey Beigle< harveyb@reedthomas. com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10: 53 AM
To: Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez< bvazquez@santa- ana. org>; Councilmember Bacerra < pbacerra@santa- ana. org>; Mayor Amezcua < vamezcua@santa- ana. org>; Mayor Pro Tem Phan < tphan@santa- ana. org>; Councilmember Jessie Lopez< jlopez@santa- ana. org>; jryanhernandez@santa- ana. org Cc: Councilmember Penaloza < dpenaloza@santa- ana. org> Subject: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Public Hearing... 4- 1-2025;; Reed Thoams Company Dear Mayor Amezcua and Council members,
Attached please find a letter about Reed Thomas Company and the impacts the proposal would have in unfairly punishing our business.

You are all invited to reach out to me.

Kind Regards,
Harvey Beigle
Reed Thomas company
Cell 714 325- 2808
i
To: City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members
Date: March 25, 2025
Re: SD-84 Transit Zoning Code
Dear City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members:

I am writing to expressseriousconcernsregarding the proposedregulation, which would significantly hinder our ability to continue operating in a sustainable manner.

Reed Thomas Company, is located at 1025 N. Santiago Street in SantaAna. We are a general engineering contractor performing work across four counties on various construction projects.

Our facility is situatedwithin an M2- zoned industrial areaand servesasa critical service center for our field operations. Our businessoperatesapproximately 12 to 16 hours per day, with servicetrucks, material trucks, and mechanicsdeparting the yard normally around 5:30 AM and returning between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM, up to six days a week. It is important to note that during the day, our yard and shopremain relatively quiet sincethe majority of our work takes place off- site at construction projects throughout the region.

The proposed ordinanceincludes the following regulations that will severelydisrupt our operations:

The proposed hours of operation: Restricting activities to 7: 00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays and 10: 00 AM to 8: 00 PM on Saturdays— are incompatible with the operational realities of our industry. Adherence to these proposed hours is not possible, as it would severelyimpair our ability to meet contractual obligations andmaintain project schedules.

All work to be done indoors: The proposedregulation would require all work to be done indoors. We perform routine maintenance and moderate repairs on our large Trucks, trailers and sometractors outside, asmany of them do not fit inside our building.

Also, the proposedregulation prohibits us from increasing the size of our building under this proposedregulation.

Noise levels: The proposedregulation limits of noise level to 60 decibels. A normal conversation between two people is about 65 decibels. The ambient noise level in our yard, at 5am, before we operate, is between 67 and 73 decibels. This noise is from the 5 freeway and SantiagoStreet.

Noxious use: We are concernedthat the proposedregulation could classify a businessas a noxious use. Once classified as noxious, this proposed regulation would eliminate legal nonconforming status on that property, and does not allow a less intensified industrial business to occupy that building or property.

It is important to highlight that for the past 36 years, Reed Thomas Company has operated at this location without a single complaint from neighboring businesses or residents. While we fully support the City' s efforts to address businesses that are truly creating nuisances, it is both unfair and unjust to apply such sweeping regulations to responsible operators like ourselves, who arecompliant andhave demonstrateda longstanding commitment to operating in a lawful and respectful manner.

In conclusion, I urge the Council to extend the moratorium. We believe it requires substantial revision before being brought forward for approval. Most importantly, the City should conduct site-specific assessmentsto gain a clear understanding of the nature of businessesaffected and their essential role in supporting the region' s economy and infrastructure.

I respectfully ask the Council to recognize that one-size-fits- all regulations areneither fair nor effective and that responsible operators should not be penalized for the actions of a small number of bad actors.

We invite you all to visit our site andlearn more about our business. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,
Harvey Beigle
Reed Thomas Company, Inc.
714- 325- 2808
Becerra, Alexis
From: Harvey Beigle <
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:22 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Public Hearing... 4- 1-2025;; Reed Thoams Company Attachments: Letter 4.01.25 city of sanra ana.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

From: Harvey Beigle< harvevb@reedthomas. com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10: 53 AM
To: ' Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez' < bvazquez@santa- ana. org>; ' Councilmember Bacerra' < pbacerra@santa- ana. org>; ' Mayor Amezcua' < vamezcua@santa- ana. org>; ' Mayor Pro Tern Phan'< tphan@santa- ana. org>; CouncilmemberJessie Lopez' < ilopez@santa- ana. org>; ' iryanhernandez@santa- ana. org' < iryanhernandez@santa- ana. org>
Cc: ' Councilmember Penaloza' < d Pena loza@santa- ana. org> Subject: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Public Hearing... 4- 1-2025;; Reed Thoams Company Dear Mayor Amezcua and Council members,
Attached please find a letter about Reed Thomas Company and the impacts the proposal would have in unfairly punishing our business.

You are all invited to reach out to me.
7 Kind Regards,
Harvey Beigle
Reed Thomas company
i
To: City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members
Date: March 25, 2025
Re: SD-84 Transit Zoning Code
Dear City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members:

I am writing to expressseriousconcernsregarding the proposedregulation, which would significantly hinder our ability to continue operating in a sustainable manner.

Reed Thomas Company, is located at 1025 N. Santiago Street in SantaAna. We are a general engineering contractor performing work across four counties on various construction projects.

The proposed ordinanceincludes the following regulations that will severelydisrupt our operations:

Also, the proposedregulation prohibits us from increasing the size of our building under this proposedregulation.

We invite you all to visit our site andlearn more about our business. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,
Harvey Beigle
Reed Thomas Company, Inc.

Becerra, Alexis
From: Ian MacMillan <
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:31 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: ZOA No 2024- 02, AA No 2024- 3
Attachments: Letter to the City of SantaAna 4- 1-2025.docx Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

To whom it may concern
Enclosed are my comments in reference to the City Council hearing April 15Y2025 Have a great Day,
Ian MacMillan
1 Ian MacMillan
April 1, 2025
City Council of Santa Ana
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
Subject: Transit Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The considered Zoning changes in my opinion are going to create an extreme hardship to many local businesses in the area.

We' ve been in the Santa Ana community since 2081 and remain committed to servicing the community respectfully.

The importance of a heathy environment for the community is of our utmost concern, we do everything possible to be a good neighbor and have never had a complaint.

I feel that some changes being proposed will have a detrimental effect not only business but also the community, many local businesses have numerous employees that live in local community, their jobs may be in jeopardy if forced to move.

I believe the local business are very valuable of the city of Santa Ana and the economic support of the community.

There are a number of business that are causing a lot of issues in the community, which changes are understandably and necessary, the city has responsibility to address these issues, but to make the changes to the entire area crates a huge financial burden on a majority of the good operators.

For example, the proposed change, no loading or unloading and of trucks on the city streets, there' s several family owned markets that will be adversity effected by this change including 711 on the corner of Grand and 41", there' s no way for the delivery trucks to park in the small parking lot.

Please reconsider some the zoning changes that are being proposed to take into consideration the financial and operating burdens on most business.

Thank you for your attention to these concerns.

Respectfully,
Ian MacMillan
Flores, Dora
From: RogerSimon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April
To: eComment
Subject: tonight'smeetingandmyemailtothecouncil
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

DearMayorandColuncilmembers,
I grewupinSantaAna, receivedafineeducationinSantaAnaandworkedatourfamilybusinessin SantaAna for almost50years. Ourfamilystillownsandleasesindustrialpropertyin SantaAna.

WhileourpropertyisoutsideSD-84, I'd liketo addresstheproposedZoningOrdinanceAmendment (ZOA) No. 2024-02andAmendmentApplication (AA) No. 2024-03AmendingCertainSectionsof ArticleXIX (The TransitZoningCode, SpecificDevelopmentNo. 84) of Chapter41 (Zoning) of theSantaAnaMunicipalCode thatwill belookedatbytheCounciltonight.

Thisproposedordinanceisabadideafor manyreasons. Thereasonsthesechangesareclaimedto beneeded arecontradictoryto reality.

A claimismadethatthiswill reduceairpollution. ThisclaimisfalsebecausethelargestpollutersinSD-48are thethousandsof automobilesoperatingthroughtheareaonInterstate5, 17thStreet, GrandAvenueandother streetsandthedozensof trainsoperatingdailyonthetracksrunningnorthandsouth.

A claimismadethatthiswill reducetraffic. Thisclaimisfalsebecauseasindustrialusesdeclineand residentialconversionsincreasemassiveheavyvehicletrafficwill occurfor yearsasmultistoryhighdensity housingisbuiltoutwhichwill befollowedbyhundredsmoreautomobilesonstreetsthatarenowiderthanthey arenow.

A claimismadethatthiswill reducethearea'sdrugandhomelessproblems. Thisclaimisfalsebecause existingresidentialareasin SD-84andtherestof SantaAnahavedrugandhomelessproblems. Changingthe demographicsinSD-84will noteliminatethedrugandhomelessproblems.

SantaAna'sVisionasstatedatthebeginningof theagendafor tonight'smeetingincludes "Neighborhoodpride Thrivingeconomicclimate." Businesses,, likeresidents, haveprideintheSD-84neighborhoodandarean importantpartof theeconomicclimate. Thiswill beharmedif theproposedchangesareenacted.

SantaAna'sMissionasstatedatthebeginningof theagendafor tonight'smeetingincludes "Todeliverefficient publicservicesinpartnershipwithourcommunitywhichensurespublicsafety, aprosperouseconomic environment, opportunitiesfor ouryouth..." Eliminatingbusinessesreducestheprosperouseconomic environmentandeliminatesopportunities (jobs) for youth. 1 SantaAna'sGuidingPrinciplesasstatedatthebeginningof theagendafor tonight'smeetingincludes Collaboration, Equity, FiscalResponsibilityandTransparency. Fromabusinessperson'spointof view, there hasnotbeenmuchcollaboration, equityto allparties, or transparencyin thisprocess. Fiscalresponsibilitywill beoverlooked. Insteadof theCityusingresourcesandexistingordinancesto pursueadmittedissuesinSD-84 it will beusingthoseresourcesto combatthelawsuitsyouareassuredwill filedopposingtheamended ordinance.

It wasstatedinoneof themeetingsonthissubjectthatabouthalfof theneighborhoodsinSantaAnawere mixeduselikeLoganandLacey. Thisusedto beamatterof pride. If it isnowamatterof contentionSD-84 will beawarningsignalto businessesthroughouttheCityof whatwill becomingto theirneighborhoods. It will beawarningsignalto businessesconsideringlocatingin SantaAnato seektheiropportunityelsewhere.

Thanksfor listening. Insteadof enactingthisproposedamendment, pleaseworkcollaborativelywithbusinesses andresidentsto findsatisfactorysolutionsfor allparties.

Sincerely - Roger
2 Flores, Dora
From: LaurenMedina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April1,
To: eComment; Penaloza, David; Amezcua, Valerie
Subject: SupportforItem
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

I appreciatethat the proposedamendmentswill not forceout any existingbusinessescurrentlyoperatingwithinthe affectedareas.

Rather, they will createflexibilityfor businessownersto sell their businessand for propertyownersto re-tenettheirbuildingswitha broadrangeof businesses. Thiswill allowfor responsiblebusiness ownersto continueto positivelycontributeto the neighborhoodand preventvacantbuildings.

Theseamendmentsalso providethe city withan essentialtool to addressthe bad actorswhoare negativelyaffectingthe qualityof life in the neighborhood, suchas the dumpand metalrecycling facilitiesnextto GarfieldElementarySchool. With these
amendments, we can betterencourageresponsiblebusiness
ownership, ultimatelyimprovingthe qualityof life for residentsand businessownersalike.

I encouragethe City Councilto approvetheseamendmentsfor the benefitof the 1,500 familiesin the historicLoganand Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole.
3 Sincerely,
LaurenHale
Ward 6
4 Flores, Dora
From: johnhale <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: eComment; Penaloza, David; Amezcua, Valerie
Subject: SupportforItem22
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

I
appreciatethatthe proposedamendmentswill not forceout anyexistingbusinessescurrently operatingwithinthe affectedareas. Rather, theywill createflexibilityfor businessownersto sell their businessandfor propertyownersto re-tenettheirbuildings
witha broadrangeof businesses. Thiswill allowfor responsiblebusinessownersto continueto positivelycontributeto the neighborhoodandpreventvacantbuildings.

These
amendmentsalsoprovidethe citywithan essentialtool to addressthe badactorswhoare negatively affectingthe qualityof life in the neighborhood, suchas the dumpandmetalrecyclingfacilitiesnextto GarfieldElementarySchool. With theseamendments,
wecanbetterencourageresponsiblebusinessownership, ultimatelyimprovingthe qualityof life for residentsand businessownersalike.

I
encouragethe CityCouncilto approvetheseamendmentsfor the benefitof the1,500familiesin the historicLoganandLacyneighborhoods, andthe city as a whole.

Sincerely,
John
Hale
Ward
6 5

Santa Ana City CouncilApril 1, 2025

Santa Ana City Council
April 1, 2025