HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 21 Zuniga, Diana
From: W.Y. Manufacturing, Inc. <wymfginc@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:10 PM
To: eComment
Subject: City Council Public Hearing re. SD-84 Transit Zoning Code - Tuesday May 6, 5:30 pm
Attachments: Esteemed members of the City Council.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
To whom if may concern:
Please find the attached file to be presented at the City Council Public Hearing re. SD-84 Transit
Zoning Code - Tuesday May 6, 5:30 pm.
Thank you,
Walter W. Yaeger
President
W.Y. Manufacturing, Inc.
1037 Fuller Street
Santa Ana, CA. 92701
"Esteemed members of the City Council, thank you for allowing me to address you today
regarding the moratorium and proposed re-zoning of our industrial areas.
My name is Walter Yaeger, I purchased the industrial building at 1037 Fuller Street in1987,
since then it is the location of the manufacturing company I founded in 1978. My daughter
just celebrated her 35th year with me, and my son-in-law is in his 30th year and my
grandson is also currently working at this location. I come from a long line of Tool and Die
makers and machinists, including my grandfather, my father and three of my uncles.
I stand before you as a concerned business owner and resident, deeply troubled by the
implications of this proposed zoning change.
We all understand the fundamental pillars upon which any nation's prosperity rests: mining,
agriculture, and manufacturing. While our city, admittedly, doesn't engage in mining or large-
scale agriculture, it does possess a vital, albeit small, manufacturing sector. This sector is
not a relic of the past; it is the cornerstone of our future.
Let's be clear: modern manufacturing is not the smokestack industry of yesteryear. It's a
high-tech, innovative field that provides high-paying jobs and drives technological
advancement. It's the engine that produces the tools and equipment necessary for mining
and agriculture—the very foundations of our society. Without manufacturing, our ability to
sustain ourselves and innovate diminishes.
The proposed rezoning threatens to eliminate this crucial element of our local economy. By
converting M1 and M2 zones to residential, we are not simply changing land use; we are
dismantling a vital component of our city's resilience and future prosperity. We are telling
future generations that high-paying, technical jobs are not welcome here.
We must also consider the strategic implications. Our nation's current economic challenges,
including our staggering national debt, are directly linked to the offshoring of manufacturing.
We've learned the hard lesson that outsourcing critical production leaves us vulnerable and
dependent. History reminds us that our manufacturing might was instrumental in winning
World War 11. In a rapidly changing global landscape, we cannot afford to repeat the
mistakes of the past and further erode our industrial base.
Furthermore, preserving manufacturing zones ensures that our residents have access to
local employment opportunities, reducing commute times and fostering a stronger sense of
community. This is not just about economics; it's about the quality of life for our citizens.
I urge you to reconsider this rezoning. Let us not sacrifice our industrial future for short-term
residential gains. Instead, let us embrace the potential of modern manufacturing and build a
resilient, prosperous community for generations to come. Let us not forget the three pillars of
a nation and let us not remove one of the most important pillars of our city. Thank you."
Regards,
Walter W. Yaeger
Zuniga, Diana
From: Kim Riker <kriker@ricedw.com>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2025 10:53 AM
To:Bacerra, Phil; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD); Penaloza, David; Hernandez,
Johnathan; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai
Cc:eComment
Subject: Comments re: SD-84 Industrial Rezoning for 5/6/25 Meeting
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
To the Honorable Mayor Amezcua and Santa Ana City Council,
As a business owner affected daily by the "bad actors" we can all agree need to be dealt with, I implore you to
not destroy the businesses like mine who support the City and its residents with job opportunities and tax
revenue. The meetings of residents and businesses show that neither group supports devastating good
businesses, and their employees, for the benefit of gentrifying developers who will build high density,
unaffordable, luxury, multi-story units and thousands of additional residents - and traffic - right between 2
historic single-family neighborhoods. This is exactly what the proposed rezoning does— it shuts down clean
industrial businesses and eliminates jobs.
There have not been any environmental studies in this area and the pollution from the 5 freeway, constant
trains and congested city streets seem to be completely ignored.
Instead of destroying the businesses you lured here with the Enterprise Zone and other tax advantages, any
proposals should focus on those who are actually "noxious" in nature. 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.
Please consider amending the proposal to remove just the M-2 overlay-- allowing the M-1 Light Industrial to
remain - and converting current M-2 properties to M-1. I understand this approach was taken in Los Angeles
County in its "Green" rezoning. Something similar here would at least preserve some of the long-standing,
multi-generational businesses that have supported this City's infrastructure and revenue for over 70 years.
Thank you,
Kim Riker
Rice Drywall, Inc.
919 E. 61"Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Ph: (714) 543-5400
1
Zuniga, Diana
From:
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2025 10:17 AM
To: Bacerra, Phil; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD); Penaloza, David; Hernandez,
Johnathan; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai
Cc: eComment; 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; dianef8923@twc.com;
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;
jadec@ctatravel.com;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; kenhsu714@gmail.com; Kevin
Tranter; Kim Riker; Kyle Snailum; Lee Jakobs; legacyteinc@gmail.com;
LianeH@austinhardwoods.net; Linda Tobin; Marc Saltzer; Mario Gutierrez; Mark &
Diana Forsyth; Mark Force; Mark Law; Mark McCandless; Matt@pacific-strategies.com;
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; Susan
Shelley; Rush, Tim GMAIL; Toan Nguyen; Tony Richard; Travis Beigle; Walt Yaeger; Will
Paul Akrawi
Subject: May 6th Council Meeting Public Hearing SD-84 Industrial Rezoning
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Honorable Mayor Amezcua and City Council,
The March Train Station meeting brought together residents and businesses and made clear that residents do
not support an unjustified land grab which will devastate good businesses, and their employees, for the benefit
of gentrifying developers.
Developers will bring high density luxury multi-story units and thousands of additional residents - and traffic -
right between 2 historic single-family neighborhoods.
Residents don't want to unnecessarily shut down clean industrial businesses and eliminate jobs.
The City hasn't done any environmental studies in this area—yet they put forward claims of pollution—
seemingly blaming this little business area as responsible for pollution which incurs throughout Southern
California- and without considering nearby significant pollution contributors, like the 5 freeway, busy city
streets and the train tracks.
i
Critical details need to be addressed - such as the inaccurate and subjective classification of"noxious"
businesses. There are devastating consequences in the regulations for labeling a business as "noxious"—as the
City has already done without justification to many businesses. These regulations would deny continued use of
a clean business property for a small box of hoses or a pail of machine lubricant - while not requiring the same
of a"noxious" gas station property with many thousands of gallons of hazardous fuel. That is simply not
equitable or fair.
We need a balanced approach that targets"bad actor"businesses. You know who they are -they degrade both
business and residential neighborhoods.
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.
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.
Consider removing the M-2 overlay -- allowing the M-1 Light Industrial to remain - and converting current
M-2 properties to M-1 ... as was done in the County of Los Angeles "Green" rezoning.
Thank you,
Mike Tardif
z
Zuniga, Diana
From: notify=proudcity.com@getproudcity.com on behalf of Peter Loamkin
<notify@proudcity.com>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2025 11:35 AM
To: !City Clerk
Subject: New submission from City Clerk's Office
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Name
Peter Loamkin
Email
Message
Please see the attached letter below regarding the proposed SD-84 Area-Transit Zoning Code Rezoning that is coming before
the city council at the May 6th meeting. I have already sent this to each of the council members and the Mayor using the
document up load feature located on the"Contact" city council webpage.
I am sending this to you so that it would be entered/recorded as received in the meeting minutes. Since there is no document
upload feature on this page, I pasted the letter below.
Thank you.
------------------
5/5/25
City of Santa Ana
Re: Proposed SD-84 Area-Transit Zoning Code Rezoning
Dear Council Member,
I am opposed to and ask that you vote against the approval of the proposed SD-84 Area-Transit Zoning Code Rezoning that is
to come up before the city council on May 6th.
Having both a residence and an industrial zoned property in the Logan district, I am opposed to the rezoning effort being made
in the area. After discussing the rezoning changes the city intends to make with numerous neighbors around my home and
industrial property, it has become clear to me that there is no desire let alone push for these changes by most of the Logan
Street residence owners. It is clear that there is a push for this only by a few outspoken,well-connected and rewarded
neighborhood activists who reside in and outside of the neighborhood. These activists have spoken to my neighbors and made
it known that they hate the existence of the industrial properties located in the neighborhood and intend to rid "their"
neighborhood of all the businesses.As I mentioned, most neighbors around me are quite content living and interacting with the
presence of business properties near them and have done so for many decades. My family and I have spent 50 years of our
lives living and working in the Logan neighborhood. As I stated at the Planning Commission meetings in the past, I consider my
neighbors on Logan Street near my home and business as good friends, many as part of our extended family.
This rezoning change being made by the city is simply a means of accomplishing a city desire/goal of changing the
neighborhood into something in line with the long-term beautification of the train station to downtown areas. I understand that
desire to beautify the area. However, forcing a change to the zoning will only negatively harm the property values and
businesses of all industrial properties located within the proposed zone. Properties that have been owned by families for
generations. Further, passage of this rezoning code will also cause great damage to the finances and resource capital of the
ongoing businesses, impacting the livelihoods of many people who live in Santa Ana and are dependent on those businesses.
1
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
Zuniga, Diana
From: Kelly Kraus-Lee <
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2025 5:27 PM
To: Amezcua,Valerie; Penaloza, David; Hernandez,Johnathan; Bacerra, Phil; Lopez,Jessie;
Vazquez, Benjamin; Phan, Thai
Cc: eComment
Subject: Item 21 - TZC amendments
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 Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to urge the City Council to adopt a balanced and thoughtful approach to the Transit Zoning Code
(TZC) amendments in order to resolve the longstanding issue of incompatible land uses, while honoring the
code's original vision for transit-oriented development.
The purpose of the TZC is to foster a walkable, mixed-use, and transit-connected urban environment that
encourages public transportation, biking, and a higher quality of life. However, in its current state,the southern
portion of the zone falls far short of this vision. Heavy industrial uses—many of which are incompatible with a
residential, transit-oriented framework—have effectively walled off residents on 4th St such as Lacy Crossing
from the nearby train station and newly constructed bike lanes. These uses generate noise, pollution, traffic, and
safety hazards, and they discourage the use of active transportation, undermining the very goals the TZC was
meant to achieve.
Furthermore, industrial uses have been especially harmful to the Logan neighborhood, one of Santa Ana's most
historic and culturally significant communities. Logan residents deserve the same environmental protections,
connectivity, and investment in livability as those in other parts of the city. Instead, they bear the burden of
nearby industrial operations that degrade their health, property values, and overall quality of life.
I respectfully advocate for a compromise approach which I believe the proposed amendments mostly achieve:
- Provide the city with the necessary legal and regulatory tools to remove bad actors—those businesses whose
operations significantly impact public health, safety, or the environment, including the crematorium, the dump,
and metal recyclers open to the public.
- Ensure that responsible, low-impact businesses that contribute positively to the community, like Austin
Hardwood and McCandless Tile, are not unfairly penalized or displaced.
- Establish clear zoning restrictions that prevent future incompatible uses—such as metal recyclers,
crematoriums, or waste transfer stations—from opening within the TZC.
- Prioritize pedestrian infrastructure, green spaces, and clean air for the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods and
ensure it benefits from the full promise of transit-oriented development.
It is frustrating to see some business owners claim they care about the community, while at the same time
demonstrating a striking ignorance of the city's planning efforts—many have admitted they were unaware that
this zoning code update has been in progress for over a year and also did not even know the name of the council
members making these decisions. Genuine community-mindedness requires active engagement, not just lip
1
service. The residents of Santa Ana—especially those in impacted areas like Logan and Lacy—deserve more
than indifference wrapped in platitudes.
Santa Ana has a real opportunity to lead with equity, vision, and responsibility. A compromise that removes
harmful industrial uses while supporting community-centered growth will not only uphold the spirit of the
Transit Zoning Code, but will also protect the integrity of the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods and elevate the
quality of life for all nearby residents.
Thank you for your time and your commitment to making Santa Ana a more livable city.
Sincerely,
Kelly Kraus-Lee
Ward 6
z
Zuniga, Diana
From: Jeff Potter <jpotter@comoso.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2025 6:08 AM
To: mike@tardifsheetmetal.com; Bacerra, Phil; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD);
Penaloza, David; Hernandez, Johnathan; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai
Cc: eComment; 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; dianef8923@twc.com;
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;
jadec@ctatravel.com;Jeff Cosby;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; kenhsu714@gmail.com; Kevin Tranter; Kim
Riker; Kyle Snailum; Lee Jakobs; legacyteinc@gmail.com;
LianeH@austinhardwoods.net; Linda Tobin; Marc Saltzer; Mario Gutierrez; Mark &
Diana Forsyth; MForcel; mlaw92626; Mark McCandless; Matt@pacific-strategies.com;
Matthew Nichols; Mayra Ruiz; Mike Feeley; Mike Freedman; Mike Saia; 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; Susan Shelley; Rush, Tim
GMAIL; Toan Nguyen; Tony Richard; Travis Beigle; Walt Yaeger; Will Paul Akrawi
Subject: May 6th Council Meeting Public Hearing SD-84 Industrial Rezoning
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Mayor Amezcua and City Council,
The SD-84 potential rezoning doesn't seem to be welcome to anyone other than gentrifying developers. From sitting in
most of the meetings it appears the solution, if one is being strived for, is clear. Residents and long-standing businesses
do not support the rezoning. The proposed"solution"is only going to make traffic and congestion issues worse, not
improve the neighborhood. If industrial/commercial and residential cannot coexist, where does that leave the future of the
city and Orange County in general?
If pollution is the issue there's going to be far more traffic as we are already surrounded by four major freeways (clogged
at one part of the day or another), a train station and Civic and Santa Ana, which are raceways many mornings and
afternoons. Noise is not going to improve either. Developers will bring high density luxury multi-story units and
thousands of additional residents - and traffic -right between 2 historic single-family neighborhoods. Most of them will
leave for the day for other jobs as the "work from home" era dies a slow death.
It would be best if the city managed the exceptions. Manage the bad actors and truly noxious businesses, like other cities
do and have done. We ask that you remove the M-2 overlay-- allowing the M-1 Light Industrial to remain - and
converting current M-2 properties to M-1. This was done successfully in LA County. Not doing so sets a bad precedent
for potential future business investment in your city.
Shutting down long-standing businesses is not the popular answer. Hopefully you will consider your constituents over
developers.
Regards,
1
Jeff Potter
FLP
911 Poinsettia Street
JEFF POTTER
10 s
Executive Vice President
911 N.Poinsettia Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701
o: (714)743-2268 c:(714)743-2268
Mona vv&ftow jpotter@comoso.com I www.mfcp.com
CONTncrr PrxUDVCrs'Mr. MFCP Technologies
Confidentiality Notice:
This email communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and privileged information that is intended only for
the recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please do not review, disclose, disseminate, distribute, or copy this email or
its'contents. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and
deleting this email from your computer. Recommendations on application design and material selection are based on available
technical data and are offered as suggestions only. Each user should perform their own tests to determine the product suitability for
a particular use. Motion &Flow Control Products, inc. offers no express or implied warranties concerning the form, fit, or function of a
product in any application.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in
Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in;
Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.
2
Zuniga, Diana
From: Nichols, Matthew <mnichols@allenmatkins.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2025 3:03 PM
To: eComment
Cc: mike@f reed prop.com; Shardlow, Jonathan
Subject: Opposition Letter—Agenda Item No. 21 (Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
for SD-84) (Michael A. Freedman Trust)
Attachments: Letter of Opposition re Agenda Item No. 21 (Miachael A Freedman Trust).pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
On behalf of the Michael A. Freedman Trust,which owns the properties located at 1008 and 1012 N. Fuller Street,please
find attached a written comment letter from Michael A. Freedman concerning Agenda Item No. 21 on tonight's City
Council agenda.
We respectfully request that this letter be included in the administrative record.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matthew Nichols I Associate
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor,Irvine,CA 92614-7214
Direct(949) 851-5576 1 Main(949)553-1313
mnicholsg,allenmatkins.com
Allen Matkins
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying
attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is
strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately
notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
1
Michael A. Freedman
1008 & 1012 N. Fuller Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
May 6,2025
City Council
City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Written Comment—Opposition to Agenda Item No. 21 (Proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments for SD-84 Area)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
I submit this letter in strong opposition to Agenda Item No. 21, which proposes permanent
zoning ordinance changes to the SD-84 area that will significantly affect long-standing industrial
properties like mine. Through my family trust, I own two industrial buildings at 1008 and 1012
N. Fuller Street. These buildings were constructed in 1980 and have been used continuously for
warehouse and storage purposes ever since.
My properties are M2-zoned, low-impact industrial sites with no history of code enforcement
issues,violations, or complaints. We are not high-impact users and have operated responsibly for
decades. Yet the City's actions have repeatedly impacted our ability to use and lease these
properties.
I am very concerned that the proposed zoning amendments effectively make permanent a
moratorium that the Council itself declined to extend just three weeks ago. On April 15, 2025,
the Council allowed the industrial moratorium to expire, implicitly recognizing that it could not
lawfully make the findings required under Government Code Section 65858. If the City cannot
justify a temporary moratorium under state law, it should not attempt to codify those same
restrictions through permanent zoning legislation.
In addition to these legal concerns, the proposed ordinance raises serious questions under the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). These zoning changes represent a significant
shift in land use policy across a large portion of the City's industrial base. CEQA requires that
cities evaluate the full environmental consequences of such policy decisions before adoption,
particularly where the new regulations may lead to the displacement of industrial uses,
intensification of other uses, or substantial changes in traffic, air quality, or land use patterns. It
is not clear that the City has prepared or certified adequate environmental documentation for this
action.
I am also concerned about the fairness and consistency of the City's process. Throughout the
moratorium period, City staff applied the restrictions so broadly that even business license
applications for new tenants—proposing no change in use whatsoever—were delayed or denied.
That experience has made it nearly impossible to lease my buildings. This kind of overreach is
not only disruptive; it raises serious due process concerns for property owners who have relied in
good faith on existing zoning regulations.
Finally, I must note how disjointed the process has become. The Council's lack of quorum at the
last scheduled hearing delayed this vote, adding more uncertainty to an already confusing
situation. Responsible property owners like myself deserve clear, predictable rules and an open
and transparent process.
I respectfully request that the Council reject the ordinance as currently drafted. At a minimum,
the City should incorporate an exemption or clear path to relief for longstanding, low-impact
industrial properties with no history of violations and allow low-impact M2 businesses to
continue operating. There is no justification for treating clean, compliant operations the same as
bad actors, and no legal basis for moving forward with this ordinance without proper CEQA
analysis and meaningful procedural safeguards.
Put simply, the entire ordinance is unnecessary; the City already has ample tools through its code
enforcement authority to address problem operators without resorting to a blanket ban that
penalizes longstanding, compliant businesses—businesses that have consistently contributed to
Santa Ana's employment base,tax revenues, and industrial economy for decades.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Freedman
1008 & 1012 N. Fuller Street
Santa Ana, CA
-2-
Zuniga, Diana
From: Mihran Toumajan <mtoumajan@naiopsocal.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2025 4:16 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 05-06-2025 NAIOP SoCal Opposition Letter to City of Santa Ana - Agenda Item #21
at 05-06-2025 Santa Ana City Council meeting
Attachments: 05-06-2025 NAIOP SoCal Opposition Letter - City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code
SD-84.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Ms. Hall and Ms. Alcala,
Attached to this note is an updated letter of opposition from NAIOP SoCal Re: Agenda Item 421 at the Santa
Ana City Council meeting on 05-06-2025.
Very Respectfully,
Mihran Toumajan
NAIOP SoCal
Manager of Government Relations
Office: (714) 550-0309 1 Cell: (818) 817-1714
Email: mtoumajan@naiopsocal.org
918 E. Santa Ana Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA 92701
www.naiopsocal.org
6 C3 0
i
NA10P
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
SoCAL CHAPTER
NAIOP 2
May 6, 2025 BOARD OFzDIRECTORSS AND
PRESIDENT
The Honorable Valerie Amezcua Mark Mattis,Avison Young
Mayor, City of Santa Ana-vamezcua�santa-ana.org PRESIDENT-ELECT
20 Civic Center Plaza Stephane Wandel,The Orden Company
Santa Ana, CA 92701 VICE PRESIDENT
Brooke Gustafson,Birtcher Development
TREASURER
Re: 05-06-2025 Santa Ana City Council Meeting Agenda Item #21,Opposition to Brian Baker,JP Morgan Chase
Recommended Actions 2 and 3 Unless Amended SECRETARY
Greg Brown,JLL
Dear Mayor Amezcua PROGRAMS&EDUCATION LIAISON
Fran Inman,Majestic Realty Go.
PAST PRESIDENT
With over 1,200 Members,NAIOP SoCal is the leading nonprofit organization representing Eric Paulsen, Kidder Mathews
the commercial real estate industry in Orange and Los Angeles counties. NAIOP SoCal
Members are professionals in industrial, office, retail, hospitality and mixed-use real estate, Bob Andrews,CenterPoint Properties
and include developers, owners,investors,brokers, architects, engineers,general contractors, TJ Bard,surf Management,Ino.
finance professionals and other service providers involved in the commercial real estate Andy Bratt,Gantry
Erin Crum,Alere Property Group
industry. Unless amended, NAIOP SoCal strongly opposes the City of Santa Ana Planning Nick DlPaolo,Newmark
and Building Agency's (PBA) recommended action to adopt an ordinance to approve Zoning Amanda Donson,Allen Matkins
Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 amending certain sections of Article XIX (The Transit Chris Drzyzga,Voit Real Estate Services
Zoning Code, Specific Development No. 84, SD-84), as well as PBA's recommended action Parker Hutchison,Prologis
to adopt an ordinance to approve Amendment Application No. 2024-03 amending the zoning Bassam Jurdi,Washington Capital
Arnold Lebrilla,Bank of America
by removing the M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Heavy Industrial) suffixes from certain Emily Mandrup,ECM Management
properties within the SD-84 zoning district boundary as designated on the City of Santa Ana Thomas McAndrews,Tlarna Real Estate services
Zoning Map (see agenda item 422,April 1, 2025 Santa Ana City Council Meeting Agenda). Parke Miller,Lincoln Property Company
Scott Morehouse,Sheppard Mullin
NAIOP SoCal's headquarters is located in the City's historic Lacy neighborhood,within SD- David Nazaryk,Trammell Crow Company
Bob O'Neill,CapRock Partners
84's Urban Neighborhood (UN-2) zone. Our office is currently surrounded by a Well- Lindsey Ensign Olson,Bixby Land Company
proportioned balance of residential, industrial and commercial properties. Several NAIOP Michael Page,Irvine Company
SoCal Members are long-term, institutional stakeholders across the City of Santa Ana, while Jodie Poirier,Colliers International
dozens of law-abiding,taxpaying property owners/operators of industrial-oriented uses in the Rob Gual Walker&Dunlap
Logan and Lacy neighborhoods —many of which have been operating over multiple decades Alison Ramsey,JP Morgan Chase
Lisa Reddy,Prologis
— are our neighbors and provide valuable goods and services for key segments of our local David Salisbury,U.S.Bank
and regional economy as manufacturers, distributors, warehousing and logistics centers, Patrick Schlehuber,Rexford Industrial
product fulfillment and transportation facilities, metal fabricators and welders, and retailers. Knit Strasmann,CBRE
The owner/operators of industrial-oriented uses in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods are Richard Sung,Newmark
Ware Malcomb
,ay Tadisco
closely engaged in providing substantial community benefits at no cost to taxpayers. Such J David disco,Wensley,cox,castle&Nicholson
benefits include upgrading streets, sidewalks, and other community infrastructure, funding Courtney Wing,Newcastle Partners
local schools and parks, and boosting the City's property and sales tax revenues. Further,the YPG Liaison:Nico Napalitano,Cushman&Wakefield
property owners and operators of industrial uses in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods employ
National Board
hundreds of Santa Ana residents and those of neighboring communities. Hence,the commute rci.Liaisons:TJ Bard,serf Management,Inn.
Justin McCuske,C.J.
to work and home for many Santa Ana and neighboring residents is relatively short, thus Segerstrom&Sons
limiting the amount of vehicle miles traveled and tailpipe emissions. NAIGP SoCal EXECUTIVE STAFF
Timothy Jemal,Chief Executive Officer
While NAIOP SoCal and its Members are proponents of"Good Neighbor" policies, which Jose Cornejo,senior Director of Government
aim to balance the interests of the City, its residents and property owners and operators, we Relations
Mihran Toumajan,Government Relations
encourage the City Council to be mindful of its industrial stakeholders and refrain from Manager
removing existing Industrial Overlays M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Heavy Industrial) from Becky Ezell, Director of Administration
the Transit ZoningCode SD No. 84 zoning district. Shelby Donine,Marketing&Communications
g Manager
Dianna Xochitiotzi,Coordinator,Programs
and Events
Chapter Office: 918 E. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701 Tel: (714) 550-0309
NAIOP SoCal recommends that the City Council be inclusive and allow the M1 and M2 overlays to continue to
exist alongside other Zones Established (see Section 41-2006 of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code)
within the plan area set by the Regulating Plan. The removal of the two existing industrial overlays would suggest
poor land use policy and create unnecessary problems between residents and industrial property owners and
operators where none exist today. In fact, during recent City Planning Commission hearings and stakeholder
engagement sessions regarding the Transit Zoning Code SD-84, several residents articulated their desire to find
common ground with neighboring industrial owners and operators by maintaining the M1 overlay zone,in addition
to redirecting the City's attention towards improved code enforcement relative to three "bad actors" in the Logan
and Lacy neighborhoods.NAIOP SoCal agrees with such residents'appeals to seek solutions that will not harm the
long-term viability of dozens of industrial property owners and operators in both affected neighborhoods.
NAIOP SoCal is committed to working with the Santa Ana City Council and staff to look for areas of commonality
in the Transit Zoning Code Specific Development No. 84,which would benefit the City,its residents and industrial
property owners and operators alike.
Sincerely,
Timothy Jemal
CEO
NAIOP SoCal
CC: Mayor Pro Tem, Thai Phan -tphan@santa-ana.org
Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez -bvazquez@santa-ana.org
Councilmember Jessie Lopez -jlopez@santa-ana.org
Councilmember Phil Bacerra - pbacerra@santa-ana.org
Councilmember Johnathan Hernandez -jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org
Councilmember David Penaloza - dpenaloza@santa-ana.org
City Manager Alvaro Nunez -ANunez@santa-ana.org
City Clerk- cityclerk@santa-ana.org