Correspondence - Item 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This kind of financial damage brought on by the taking of property, property value, and or limiting the property's' use after that property has been established and in use as previously determined and agreed upon by the City of Santa Ana, directly or indirectly, is unconstitutional. The City Planning Dept. has told the public that the rezoning effort as being required due to some California legislative regulation demanding it to be done. That the city has no choice but to conform to it. As convenient of an excuse as this may be, none the less, an area re-zoning change of this monumental scope and size has been rushed for approval at an alarming rate. Because of this haste, there has been an inadequate amount of time for the affected parties to study and provide input on the proposed code changes. Further, the city has not produced a current environmental impact, air quality, traffic impact or similar normally required reports for review. One of the main causes of concern by the many residences I have spoken with is the amount of traffic and parking issues that this zoning change will bring with it when all the business are coerced/forced to vacate the area and the population thereby inevitably increases. At the city/resident meeting in February,when asked by a resident about the additional traffic and parking the additional population will bring, (which is an overcrowded problem now),the city official said, that this has not been reviewed as part of the planning departments concern at that time and that the main focus was to remove the businesses from the area first. Page 1 of 2 The city produced the first draft to the public in the middle of January and the council is set to vote to approve it on May 6th. This amount of time for inquiry and review is inadequate. Given this, how can the city objectively say that this has been a thorough, fair and equitable outcome for all parties that this zoning change will affect.As I understand it, subsequent to the last Planning Commission meeting where the code changes were approved, there have been additional or new changes and or additions made to the proposed new rezoning code. This is not an example of fairness or transparency. It should be noted that this current Planning Commission approved zoning change is simply nothing more than fundamentally, a regulatory takeover. It should also be noted that the two dissenting votes on the Planning Commission rightly were concerned that this was an illegal taking of uncompensated value from the owners of these properties and businesses.Without fair and just compensation for the industrial zoned property owners and the businesses represented, this zoning change will subvert the Constitutional eminent domain laws and protections. It would be reasonable to understand that the city could expect the industrial property owners to seek a legal remedy to return and protect their property rights provided in the constitution under the eminent domain provision if the city council votes to approve the rezoning change in its current form. I strongly urge the City Council to vote against the passage of the Proposed SD-84 Area-Transit Zoning Code Rezoning so that we all can engage in a more collaborative process that protects the concerns and interests of the residents,the industrial property owners and businesses. Thank you, Peter Lomakin Cc: All Santa Ana City council members. 2