Laserfiche WebLink
The City Planning Dept. has told the public that the rezoning effort as being required due to some California legislative <br />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, <br />none the less, an area re -zoning change of this monumental scope and size has been rushed for approval at an alarming rate. <br />Because of this haste, there has been an inadequate amount of time for the affected parties to study and provide input on the <br />proposed code changes. Further, the city has not produced a current environmental impact, air quality, traffic impact or similar <br />normally required reports for review. <br />One of the main causes of concern by the many residences I have spoken with is the amount of traffic and parking issues that <br />this zoning change will bring with it when all the business are coerced/forced to vacate the area and the population thereby <br />inevitably increases. At the city/resident meeting in February, when asked by a resident about the additional traffic and parking <br />the additional population will bring, (which is an overcrowded problem now), the city official said, that this has not been reviewed <br />as part of the planning departments concern at that time and that the main focus was to remove the businesses from the area <br />fi rst. <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />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 <br />amount of time for inquiry and review is inadequate. Given this, how can the city objectively say that this has been a thorough, <br />fair and equitable outcome for all parties that this zoning change will affect. As I understand it, subsequent to the last Planning <br />Commission meeting where the code changes were approved, there have been additional or new changes and or additions <br />made to the proposed new rezoning code. This is not an example of fairness or transparency. <br />It should be noted that this current Planning Commission approved zoning change is simply nothing more than fundamentally, a <br />regulatory takeover. It should also be noted that the two dissenting votes on the Planning Commission rightly were concerned <br />that this was an illegal taking of uncompensated value from the owners of these properties and businesses. Without fair and just <br />compensation for the industrial zoned property owners and the businesses represented, this zoning change will subvert the <br />Constitutional eminent domain laws and protections. It would be reasonable to understand that the city could expect the <br />industrial property owners to seek a legal remedy to return and protect their property rights provided in the constitution under the <br />eminent domain provision if the city council votes to approve the rezoning change in its current form. <br />I strongly urge the City Council to vote against the passage of the Proposed SD-84 Area - Transit Zoning Code Rezoning so that <br />we all can engage in a more collaborative process that protects the concerns and interests of the residents, the industrial <br />property owners and businesses. <br />Thank you, <br />Peter Lomakin <br />Cc: All Santa Ana City council members. <br />