Correspondence - Item 22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 Code area. I am a 3rd generation business owner who moved our office to Santa Ana 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. 1 understand 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, as we 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