HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 26 Becerra, Alexis
From:
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 12:55 PM
To: Abby Hashemi; Al Saia; Andy Schmitt; Bob Adams; Bryan Zatica; Carl Tobin; Charlie
Winn; Christy Taylor; Cindy Greiwe; Congressman Lou Correa; Darrell Garland; Dave
Elliott; David Firestone; David Roche; David Zech; Dick Stewart;
Dylan Shershenovich; Elvis Arellano; Eoin Kreditor; F R Stewart; Fernando Mora;
Francisco Gonzalez; George Hansen; George Toubbeh; Graydon Greiwe; Harold
Seaton; Harvey Beigle; Henry Bedolla; Herb Niermann;Jack Haley;Jack Hogan;
Jeff Cosby;Jeff Potter;Jenna Zech;Jim Tobin;Jimmy Villaverde;
Jodie;Joe Castro;Joe Kunz;Joe Pfeiffer;John Moore;John Nettel;Joseph Lomax;
Judith Lomax;Judy & Dave Wislocki;Julie Carmody; Katie Cawelti; kenhsu714
Kevin Tranter; Kim Riker; Kyle Snailum; Lee Jakobs;
legacyteinc@gmail. Linda Tobin; Marc Saltzer;
Mario Gutierrez; Mark & Diana Forsyth; Mark Force; Mark Law; Mark McCandless;
Matthew Nichols; Mayra Ruiz; Mike Feeley; Mike
Freedman; Mike Saia; Mike Tardif; Mo Sanchez; Nathan Hittle; Neil Buttermoore; Omar
Reynaga; Peter Lomakin; R. Chiarini; Rachel Freedman; Ray Hashemi; Richard Chiarini;
Rick Kagasoff; Robert Thatcher; Roger Simon; Ron Jakobs; Russell Johnson; Ryan
Moore; Sammy Montoya; Scott Connelly; Sean Connelly; Shawna Smith; Stacy Stell;
Steven Greenhut; Rush, Tim GMAIL; Toan Nguyen; Tony Richard; Travis Beigle; Walt
Yaeger; Will Paul Akrawi
Cc: eComment; Bacerra, Phil; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD); Penaloza, David;
Hernandez, Johnathan; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai
Subject: City of Santa Ana Nuisance Lawsuit Approach, SD-84 Moratorium Extension, Public
Hearing Agenda Item 26
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
The City of Santa ana could use this same "nuisance" lawsuit approach against the 3 or 4 bad actor businesses
in the SD-84 Transit Zoning Code area and clear up more than 90% of the problems which residents have
rightfully complained about. The City should do this rather than force the closure of more than 100 clean
industrial businesses, for which they have received nearly zero complaints. When they close these businesses,
they will eliminate over 1,000 good paying jobs, many of those jobs belonging to Santa Ana residents.
Santa Ana City Council to consider taking legal action against First St. businesses for being
nuisance
https://www.ocregister.com/2025/04/14/santa-ana-city-council-to-consider-taking-legal-action-aRainst-
businesses-for-being-nuisance/
The Santa Ana City Council is set to consider on Tuesday, April 15, whether the city attorney should ask a
court to declare three businesses a nuisance, complaining about unchecked illegal drug activity at their
properties.
i
The Police Department has repeatedly responded to calls in the last few years at the two motels and a
restaurant in the same one-block stretch of First Street east of Grand Avenue, city staffers say in a report to
the City Council.
The motels, the Royal Roman Motel and the Royal Grand Inn, are across the street from each other and the
restaurant space, which officials identified as Mariscos El Tapatio y Antojitos, according to city records, is
next to one of the motels.
"Over the past three years, these properties have been the source of a staggering number of calls for service
by the Santa Ana Police Department. Since 2022, there have been 765 calls for service at the Royal Roman
Motel, 584 calls for service at the Royal Grand Motel, and 92 calls for service at El Tapatio," the staff report
said. "Many of the calls for service involve the investigation and enforcement of narcotics violations that
have taxed police resources."
Owners the city listed for the properties and businesses could either not be located or reached for
comment.
Santa Ana Councilmember David Penaloza said the "blight" on First Street has existed and impacted
residents for years, with complaints of open drug use, prostitution, vandalism and battery.
"We've accumulated hard evidence we can now present to a court and say, 'Help us here,"' Penaloza said,
alleging the property owners have been absentee landlords. "The only way that we could eventually get
them to address the nuisance that their properties bring is by going this route with the court."
While opening new parks, expanding libraries and installing new bus benches should excite residents,
Penaloza said he often hears frustration instead.
"I've heard it in every language. Why are you opening a new park? Look at how First Street looks. We just
want the mess on First Street cleaned up," he said. "So we're going full steam ahead, hoping to get it done."
To "preserve public safety," the city attorney's office wants to seek the authority to potentially get a
temporary restraining order, a closure order for up to one year, civil penalties up to $25,000 per defendant
and the appointment of a receiver to take control of the properties and possibly sell the properties to
responsible owners.
2
Becerra, Alexis
From: Kelly Kraus-Lee <
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 7:19 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support for Item 26
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Santa Ana City Council,
As a resident of the Transit Zoning Code, I support item 26. While I am disappointed that the council requires yet
another extension (I recall City Manager Nunez re-assuring Mayor Amezcua in May of last year that the city would be
ready for a vote by the April 15, 2025 expiration), I appreciate the council members who are seeking FPPC letters to
ensure they are able to participate in the discussion and hope that on the May 6th hearing the council will vote in the
best interest of the residents.
Kelly Kraus-Lee
Ward 6
1
NA10P LEGISLATIVE
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AFFAIRS
SoCAL CHAPTER
April 15, 2025
The Honorable Valerie Amezcua
Mayor,City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re:Agenda Item #26—Opposition to a final extension of a moratorium on the approval,commencement,
establishment,relocation,or expansion of industrial uses in Specific Development No.84 for up to one year.
Honorable Mayor Amezcua and Councilmembers:
My name is Mihran Toumajan, and I serve as Government Relations Manager for NAIOP SoCal,headquartered in the City
of Santa Ana's historic Lacy neighborhood. Representing over 1,300 Members across Orange and Los Angeles counties,
NAIOP SoCal is the leading nonprofit association for professionals in commercial real estate,including developers,owners,
general contractors, architects, engineers, finance professionals, and other service providers focused on the development
and redevelopment of office, industrial, retail,mixed-use residential, data center, and hospitality asset classes.
We value our solid, working relationship with City staff and have actively participated in discussions around the Transit
Zoning Code update for Specific Development No. 84.
While we support thoughtful planning,we respectfully oppose the proposed urgency ordinance to extend the industrial use
moratorium in SD-84 for up to one year.
Under Government Code § 65858, such an extension requires new and specific findings of a current and immediate threat
to public health, safety, or welfare. Unfortunately, the City's report offers no substantial new evidence - only repeated
concerns previously cited. Generalized data on emergency calls and administrative compliance issues lack a direct, causal
link to existing industrial uses and are therefore speculative.
The proposed moratorium's economic impact is significant: It affects over 100 responsible businesses and potentially
jeopardizes more than 1,000 local jobs.In its staff report,the City has not presented evidence showing that SD-84 businesses
are directly causing immediate harm to public health, safety, or welfare.
Rather than extending a broad and indiscriminate moratorium, we urge the City to pursue targeted code enforcement, while
simultaneously focusing on the Transit Zoning Code update, scheduled for Council consideration on May 6. Such an
approach will allow responsible businesses to continue operating while addressing specific concerns through existing
regulations. Given that the zoning code update is imminent, an additional year-long moratorium is unnecessary and
unjustified.
In conclusion,the proposed extension lacks legal justification and risks harming our local economy.NAIOP SoCal supports
balanced land use policies,but these must be grounded in current facts, economic realities, and compliance with State law.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
-Vrhran Toumajan Submitted at the City Council Meeting
Mihran Toumajan Of 5 Item No.
Manager of Government Relations,NAIOP SoCal By .(1_1 �( -
`�-�
Zuniga, Diana
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 2:59 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Public Hearing SD-84 Moratorium Extension
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
The March 3rd Train Station meeting brought together residents and businesses ... and made clear that many
residents do not support an unjustified land grab which will benefit gentrifying developers -- and will harm
many good businesses and their employees.
Developers will bring in thousands of additional residents - and traffic - into high density multi-story units ...
right between 2 historic single-family neighborhoods.
We need a balanced approach that targets"bad actor"businesses which degrade both business and residential
neighborhoods. -- Residents don't want to unnecessarily shut down clean industrial businesses and eliminate
jobs.
The draft regulations only came out in mid-January-- Leaving little time and opportunity for stakeholders to
understand, discuss and collaborate on such a complicated and consequential set of regulations
... regulations which will encompass hundreds of businesses, properties and over 1,000 jobs.
Critical details need to be addressed - such as the inaccurate and subjective classification of"noxious"
businesses. There are devastating consequences for labeling a business as "noxious"—as the City has already
done without sufficient justification.
The City should focus on:
Addressing the primary nuisance and "noxious" businesses -- 90% of the businesses do not cause any
problems for the City or neighborhoods—yet they are being lumped in with the problem causing operators.
Clarification of regulations --This re-zoning is every bit as significant to this area as the re-zoning is in the
ongoing General Plan Update --but it has not received equivalent outreach, community input, and
collaboration.
Consider removing the M-2 overlay -- but allowing the M-1 Light Industrial to remain ... as was done in the
County of Los Angeles "Green"rezoning.
At the Train Station meeting and at the Planning Commission -- residents recommended that the M-1 zone
remain and that the M-2 zone designation be eliminated.
We strongly urge the Council to extend the moratorium, as allowed by California law, and to engage in a
process which seeks greater community understanding and collaboration, and which protects both
neighborhoods and businesses.
i