Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 22Flores, Dora From: W.Y. Manufacturing, Inc. < Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 12:31 PM To: eComment Subject: April 1, 2025 Meeting ZOA #2024-02, Removal of M1 & M2 properties from SD-84 Zoning District Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To whom it may concern: "Esteemed members of the City Council, thank you for allowing me to address you today regarding the moratorium and proposed rezoning 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, 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: Susan Backer <SBacker@santaanachamber.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 9:25 AM To: Amezcua, Valerie Cc: Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD); Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; Nunez, Alvaro; !City Clerk; 'Tim Jemal (tim@jemalpublicaffairs.com)'; Mindy Andrews; bihrke@rutan.com; Dave Elliott Subject: FW: Letter of Concern from Santa Ana Chamber -- RE: Transit Zoning Code ordinance Logan and Lacy neighborhoods Attachments: Letter of Concern for Santa Ana Chamber -- Transit Zoning Code ordinance Logan and Lacy neighborhoods.docx.pdf ,Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Good morning Madam Mayor and City of Santa Ana Councilmembers, Please see attached a Letter of Concern regarding Transit Zoning Code Ordinance in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods. Regards, Susan Backer Executive Assistant to Mr. David Elliott, President/CEO of The Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce (714) 541-5353 ext. 116 www.santaanachamber.com "Do not fear failure but please be terrified of regret" Deshauna Barber March 24, 2025 The Honorable Valerie Amezcua Mayor, City of Santa Ana - vamezcua@santa-ana.org 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mayor Amezcua, Re: Opposition to proposed Specific Development No. 84 Transit Zoning Code rezoning (Logan and Lacy neighborhoods) On behalf of the Board and Members of the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the City of Santa Ana's proposed Transit Zoning Code, Specific Development Number 84 ordinance in its Logan and Lacy neighborhoods. Specifically, we are concerned about the proposed removal of the existing light (M-1) and heavy (M-2) industrial overlays in these neighborhoods, which we believe would have a profoundly adverse impact on long-established businesses many of which are owner/operator small and medium-sized enterprises vital to our local economy. The removal of the industrial overlays would disrupt a vital part of our community that has supported a wide range of downstream businesses for decades. Many of the impacted enterprises serve as key employers, providing jobs and contributing to the diverse character and history of the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods. By removing these industrial designations, the City risks displacing these businesses and undermining the livelihoods and retirement plans of owner/operators who have invested time, effort and resources in both neighborhoods. Instead of effectively punishing existing businesses in the two industrial overlay zones, the City should strictly target "bad actors" in the M-2 heavy industrial zone that are producing noxious emissions. Here are a few specific concerns that we would like to highlight for your attention: 1.) Impact on Small Businesses: Many of the businesses in the affected areas rely on industrial zoning and its inherent industrial uses to operate effectively. The removal of the two industrial overlays could force these businesses to either close or relocate, disrupting long- standing operations and the local economy. This will disproportionately affect owner/operator businesses that have become an integral part of the community. In addition, because the ordinance restricts the expansion or modification of existing industrial facilities, growing businesses that require greater space will not be able to expand the physical size of their buildings. 2.) Economic Stability: These businesses contribute significantly to the local economy through employment, services and tax revenues. The potential displacement of these businesses could lead to job losses and create a ripple effect in other industrial zones across Santa Ana, which harms the overall economic health of the area, especially for those who rely on these businesses for employment and services. 3.) Lack of Transition or Support: The City's proposed rezoning lacks a clear plan for providing support or transition for enterprises affected by the removal of the industrial overlays. Businesses in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods should be given a reasonable period to adjust, or be offered incentives or exemptions that would allow them to continue operating in the neighborhood. 4.) Community Character: The Logan and Lacy neighborhoods have a unique character that is shaped, in part, by businesses that have been operating for several decades. The proposed rezoning, if enacted without proper consideration, will erode the existing community fabric and replace long-standing enterprises with multifamily or mixed -use residential development, which is already prevalent in both neighborhoods. On behalf of the Santa Ana Chamber, I urge you and City Councilmembers to reconsider the removal of the two industrial overlays and engage in a more thoughtful and collaborative process that includes the voices of industrial property owners, enterprise owner/operators and employees who will be directly affected. Amore balanced approach that considers both the goals of transit - oriented development and the preservation of local businesses is essential for the long-term well- being of the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will take our concerns into account and work towards a solution that supports both the development goals of the City and the interests of its residents and business owner/operators. Sincerely, David Elliott President & CEO Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce 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 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 Kim Riker Rice Drywall, Inc. 919 E. 61" Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Ph: (714) 543-5400 Zuniga, Diana From: Nate Paladino < Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 12:17 PM To: eComment; depenaloza@santa-ana.org; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Nathan Paladino Ward 6 Zuniga, Diana From: Kelly Kraus -Lee < Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 12:46 PM To: Amezcua, Valerie; depenaloza@santa-ana.org; eComment Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Kelly Kraus -Lee Ward 6 Zuniga, Diana From: Ryan Madden < Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:13 AM To: eComment Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of Santa Ana to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Ryan Madden Ward 3 Resident Zuniga, Diana From: Ryan Friesen < Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:04 PM To: eComment; depenaloza@santa-ana.org; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a property owner in the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Ryan Friesen 703 N. Poinsettia St. (owner of rental property) Ward 6 Zuniga, Diana From: Garrett Gee < Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:54 PM To: eComment Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long - overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Garrett Gee Ward 6 Zuniga, Diana From: Sarah Rinelli <sarah@rinellilawgroup.com> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 3:19 PM To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of Santa Ana to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Sarah Rinelli Resident of 92701 Sarah M. Rinelli, Esq. Rinelli Law Group, P.C. P.O. Box 10298 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0298 (949) 674-6591 saraW,,rinellilaw2roup.com CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this e-Mail message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from the Rinelli Law Group, P.C. and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by telephoning Sarah M. Rinelli at (949) 674-6591, return the e-Mail message, and destroy (delete) the original. Zuniga, Diana From: Liberty Dickinson < Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 4:18 AM To: eComment Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Liberty Dickinson Ward 6 Liberty Fine Arts 921 E.Santa Ana Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-507-6330 Inspiration exists but it has to find you working. Instagram.com/libertydickinsonart Zuniga, Diana From: Robin La Casse < Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 5:20 PM To: !City Clerk Subject: Support for Councilmember Penaloza's Resolution Opposing SCAQMD Rules 1111 and 1121 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Clerk, Mayor, and members of the Council: This email is in support of Councilmember David Penaloza's resolution to oppose SCAQMD's proposed rules 1111 and 1121. The burdens on property owners and tenants alike will be detrimental to the quality of life in Santa Ana. Should these rules be adopted, countless Santa Ana residents would be displaced in order to replace these units - as many older buildings would need to be retrofitted and redesigned in order to accommodate the new appliances. Additionally these burdensome costs - typically over $10,000 per installation - would be born by already constricted property owners - and already burdened tenants. Further, the assumed benefits for installing these units is marginal, and less reliable. Leaving countless Santa Ana residents to rely on an electric grid that has not been as dependable in recent years. These impacts are not worth the perceived benefits, and we urge you to support Councilmember Penaloza's resolution to oppose SCAQMD's proposed rules 1111 and 1121. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robin S. La Casse Zuniga, Diana From: Barney Richer < Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 10:54 AM To: eComment; depenaloza@santa-ana.org; Amezcua, Valerie; Ramirez, Frida Subject: Support for Item 22 - Transit Zoning Code (SD-84) Amendments Attachments: 20250226_112608.heic; 20250226_112620.heic; 20250226_134334.heic; 6171766880068526500 (1).heic;-6464989058942883764 (1).heic; -6648894922711158278 (1).heic 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood. am especially concerned with Madison Disposal next door to the Train Station as they are in my opinion the largest of the offenders. They are in constant violation of the AQMD requirements by allowing dust and debris to leave their facility on a daily basis blanketing the area for miles. This disposal center is no longer a community dump for local contractors and landscapers but rather a shortcut for Ware Disposals full sized trash trucks. Madison Ware has been abusing this neighborhood for over 20 years and has done nothing to improve the infrastructure of the site that could mitigate the bad air quality as proven by a recent UCI study putting the area in the top 90% of bad air quality. Madison Ware has had their opportunities to add professional misting systems and undercarriage wash systems to control the dust and particulate matter but the time for those upgrades has long passed. Worse than the dust is the long term health issues that local long time residents have expressed everytime this topic comes up. Our hope is that this amendment will help force out this facility before the costly (for all parties including taxpayers) process of having to get Attorneys and Law Firms involved to expedite their removal. Elimination of Madison/Ware would also greatly decrease the traffic in the area. This would allow easier access to the Train Station for all, allowing it to become the Urban Transportation Hub that many people believe it could be. Currently there is a constant line of trucks blocking the roadway and new bike paths for anyone entering the area from the 4th street side. What other businesses are allowed to cue their customers on city streets? These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the other bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we 1 can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Barney Richer Ward 6 N - Ad..��'. i1 T 1 •_. f �I rji *.y y n�. i r +6 r ' _ al y m , F ,F WNW— '�i"� .. +!�f '»IAA--•�v r; • .� i vr"�4 r r f � ► � tis doe s '` s dp 01 N.• # 40 M • i " 41 S • ` �' �Ido�. ap Zuniga, Diana From: Rachel Kraus -Lee < Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 3:22 PM To: Amezcua, Valerie; depenaloza@santa-ana.org; eComment Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Rachel Kraus -Lee Ward 6 Zuniga, Diana From: Jenna Zech <Jennaz@ppsocal.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:40 PM To: Phan, Thai Cc: eComment Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Councilmember Phan, I'm writing to you today regarding the SD-84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you've heard from many stakeholders —both residents and business owners —and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow's meeting will be guided by level-headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome. I am a fourth -generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of Santa Ana. Our company has proudly served this community since 1929, and with a deep appreciation for our long-standing relationship with Santa Ana, I am fully committed to building a prosperous and sustainable future here. That said, some of the vague language in the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seem tailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short-term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswoman with a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial area would not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the business to better serve our community. I understand why some short-term concessions have leaned towards their concerns —they have been the most vocal —but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future -focused perspective. I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD-84. I am asking for the chance to collaborate with the city on a path forward — one that supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of Santa Ana's business community. I appreciate your time and the work you do. I look forward to seeing you at tomorrow's meeting. Respectfully, Jenna Zech SINCE 1frt PACIFIC PLUMBING OF SOUTHERN CA41FORNIA Jenna Zech Pacific Plumbing of Southern California P 714-547-6967 x210 E jennaz ppsocal.com W www.pacificplumbingsocal.com Becerra, Alexis From: Jamie Glazer < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10:24 AM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear City of Santa Ana, My family has owned the industrial property at 1101 E. 6th Street for years, and I am demanding that you halt your reckless rezoning plans. Stripping our property of its current zoning is nothing short of an attack on our livelihood. This property generates income that supports my family —your proposed changes would literally take food off our table. Beyond devastating us personally, your decision would be a financial disaster for the City of Santa Ana. The business on our site contributes over $2,000,000 annually in sales tax. Choking out businesses like ours will erode the city's financial foundation, making your decision not just unethical but also economically reckless If you strip our zoning rights and prevent new permits, you will intentionally devalue our property, making it impossible to rent, which seems to be your goal. This is government -sanctioned theft, plain and simple. If you're so determined to take our property, then pay us full market value upfront —don't bleed us dry until we're forced to sell for pennies on the dollar. Your actions are unjust, and we will not stand by while you destroy what we've worked for. Do the right thing —leave our zoning alone. Jamie Glazer ( Becerra, Alexis From: LMFTGonzalez < Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 9:46 PM To: eComment; Penaloza, David; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Support For Item 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Support for Item 22 Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, Martha Gonzalez Ward 6 Zuniga, Diana From: Jenna Zech <Jennaz@ppsocal.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:41 PM To: Vazquez, Benjamin Cc: eComment Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Councilmember Vazquez, I'm writing to you today regarding the SD-84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you've heard from many stakeholders —both residents and business owners —and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow's meeting will be guided by level-headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome. I am a fourth -generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of Santa Ana. Our company has proudly served this community since 1929, and with a deep appreciation for our long-standing relationship with Santa Ana, I am fully committed to building a prosperous and sustainable future here. That said, some of the vague language in the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seem tailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short-term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswoman with a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial area would not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the business to better serve our community. I understand why some short-term concessions have leaned towards their concerns —they have been the most vocal —but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future -focused perspective. I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD-84. I am asking for the chance to collaborate with the city on a path forward — one that supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of Santa Ana's business community. I appreciate your time and the work you do. I look forward to seeing you at tomorrow's meeting. Respectfully, Jenna Zech SINCE 19219 PACIFIC PLUMBING - - Of s0uMVIA1 CAW0000#1 Jenna Zech Pacific Plumbing of Southern California P 714-547-6967 x210 E jennaz(a ppsocal.com W www.pacificplumbingsocal.com Becerra, Alexis From: Mark Law < Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 9:22 PM To: eComment Cc: mlaw92626@gmail.com Subject: Written comments regarding Agenda Item 22, April 1, 2025 Santa Ana City Council Meeting Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. March 31, 2025 My name is Mark Law. I am one of 3 members of FLP Investments LLC, the owner of the building and property at 911 N. Poinsettia St. We bought the building in 2001 after a year -long search and were pleased with the location and architecture that Burke developed for the 8 buildings they built in the project, working closely with the city of Santa Ana. Imagine our surprise in 2010, 8 short years after our building was first occupied, when the City of Santa Ana presented the Renaissance Plan in which they would take away our entitled zoning and rezone our property residential and open space with no compensation to us, the existing property owner. There was outrage among the property and business owners, many meetings, and the result was the industrial overlay on the underlying residential zoning. While not satisfied, the property and business owners finally concluded they could live with this zoning structure. Fast forward 15 years, now the city feels, in the words of the executive director of the city planning committee, that change has not happened fast enough. Their solution is to remove the overlay and subject the business and property owners to a steep devaluation of their property and huge financial and human cost to the existing businesses to relocate. The rationale was presented to us at the train station by Margarita saying that this decision was based on 'environmental justice'. If 'environmental justice' is driving this effort why hasn't the city gone after the handful of businesses who the entire community knows are the bad actors? Instead, this effort to remove the overlay in the transit district is targeting all 120+ industrial property owners/business owners in the district. A number of the local residents agree that the bad actors must go, not all the industrial businesses that have been good neighbors over the years. The business which has occupied our building at 911 Poinsettia is an industrial distributor, selling hose, fittings, valves, and the like to customers who are repairing their hydraulic and pneumatic equipment. The business gets one UPS and FEDEX delivery in the morning, and one 1 pickup in the late afternoon. That is less UPS, FEDEX, and Amazon traffic than any Orange County residential neighborhood these days. The business is quiet and clean and has never had a complaint from the surrounding neighborhoods. I know that many of the businesses in the Transit District are just as quiet and clean. We feel that the city is acting in bad faith here, threatening our constitutional rights as property owners. The reason change has not occurred in the last 15 years since the Renaissance Plan is that buying up property in the transit district for a residential project does not pencil at current market values for the property. If the city thinks that artificially driving down the value of the existing properties so that residential developers may consider developments in the transit district is fair to the existing property owners, they are missing current realities. One glaring example of this transpired in Irvine recently when the city council was considering a large warehouse taking up a city block in the Irvine Business Center (IBC). The city denied approval but negotiated with the owners that if they built a residential project, they could keep their industrial zoning for the property. The city did this to avoid litigation for devaluing the property. The City of Santa Ana may want to consider things from this perspective as well. The city has an opportunity here to extend the moratorium and table any action on the zoning changes until a solution acceptable to all stakeholders can be found and implemented. The compressed window of time given to the stakeholders was not adequate for them to digest the proposed changes and research potential solutions in partnership with the city. Mark Law FLP Investments LLC N Zuniga, Diana From: Jenna Zech <Jennaz@ppsocal.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:42 PM To: Lopez, Jessie Cc: eComment Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Councilmember Lopez, I'm writing to you today regarding the SD-84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you've heard from many stakeholders —both residents and business owners —and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow's meeting will be guided by level-headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome. I am a fourth -generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of Santa Ana. Our company has proudly served this community since 1929, and with a deep appreciation for our long-standing relationship with Santa Ana, I am fully committed to building a prosperous and sustainable future here. That said, some of the vague language in the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seem tailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short-term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswoman with a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial area would not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the business to better serve our community. I understand why some short-term concessions have leaned towards their concerns —they have been the most vocal —but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future -focused perspective. I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD-84. I am asking for the chance to collaborate with the city on a path forward — one that supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of Santa Ana's business community. I appreciate your time and the work you do. I look forward to seeing you at tomorrow's meeting. Respectfully, Jenna Zech SINCE 19219 PACIFIC PLUMBING - - Of s0uMVIA1 CAW0000#1 Jenna Zech Pacific Plumbing of Southern California P 714-547-6967 x210 E jennaz(a ppsocal.com W www.pacificplumbingsocal.com Zuniga, Diana From: Jenna Zech <Jennaz@ppsocal.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:45 PM To: Bacerra, Phil Cc: eComment Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Councilmember Bacerra, It was great to meet you last week at the meeting with the planning commission regarding the SD-84 rezoning proposal. I really appreciate the time you took speaking with us afterwards. With that on the mind, I'm writing to you today regarding the SD-84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you've heard from many stakeholders —both residents and business owners —and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow's meeting will be guided by level-headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome. I am a fourth -generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of Santa Ana. Our company has proudly served this community since 1929, and with a deep appreciation for our long-standing relationship with Santa Ana, I am fully committed to building a prosperous and sustainable future here. That said, some of the vague language in the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seem tailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short-term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswoman with a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial area would not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the business to better serve our community. I understand why some short-term concessions have leaned towards their concerns —they have been the most vocal —but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future -focused perspective. I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD-84. I am asking for the chance to collaborate with the city on a path forward — one that supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of Santa Ana's business community. I appreciate your time and the work you do. I look forward to seeing you at tomorrow's meeting. Respectfully, Jenna Zech SINCE 102V PACIFIC PLUMBING 001 SOUTMaax CAU"0191a Jenna Zech Pacific Plumbing of Southern California P 714-547-6967 x210 E jennaz gppsocal.com W www.pacificplumbingsocal.com Zuniga, Diana From: Jenna Zech <Jennaz@ppsocal.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:46 PM To: Hernandez, Johnathan Cc: eComment Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Councilmember Hernandez, I'm writing to you today regarding the SD-84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you've heard from many stakeholders —both residents and business owners —and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow's meeting will be guided by level-headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome. I am a fourth -generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of Santa Ana. Our company has proudly served this community since 1929, and with a deep appreciation for our long-standing relationship with Santa Ana, I am fully committed to building a prosperous and sustainable future here. That said, some of the vague language in the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seem tailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short-term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswoman with a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial area would not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the business to better serve our community. I understand why some short-term concessions have leaned towards their concerns —they have been the most vocal —but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future -focused perspective. I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD-84. I am asking for the chance to collaborate with the city on a path forward — one that supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of Santa Ana's business community. I appreciate your time and the work you do. I look forward to seeing you at tomorrow's meeting. Respectfully, Jenna Zech SINCE 19219 PACIFIC PLUMBING - - Of s0uMVIA1 CAW0000#1 Jenna Zech Pacific Plumbing of Southern California P 714-547-6967 x210 E jennaz(a ppsocal.com W www.pacificplumbingsocal.com Zuniga, Diana From: Jenna Zech <Jennaz@ppsocal.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 6:47 PM To: Penaloza, David Cc: eComment Subject: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 - Agenda item no. 22 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Councilmember Penaloza, I'm writing to you today regarding the SD-84 TZC Rezoning proposal. I recognize that you've heard from many stakeholders —both residents and business owners —and while the discussion has grown somewhat tense, I remain hopeful that tomorrow's meeting will be guided by level-headed deliberation and a shared desire for a mutually beneficial outcome. I am a fourth -generation owner of Pacific Plumbing of Santa Ana. Our company has proudly served this community since 1929, and with a deep appreciation for our long-standing relationship with Santa Ana, I am fully committed to building a prosperous and sustainable future here. That said, some of the vague language in the rezoning proposal being brought forward puts my future in jeopardy. Many of the current proposed compromises seem tailored to long-time business owners nearing retirement. While I deeply respect their contributions, these short-term allowances simply do not work for a younger businesswoman with a bright vision for the future. The truth is that if the initiative were to be approved, it would directly impact property values to the point where I could not reinvest in Santa Ana. Relocating to an industrial area would not be financially feasible, nor would I be able to improve the building or grow the business to better serve our community. I understand why some short-term concessions have leaned towards their concerns —they have been the most vocal —but I am speaking up now to ask for a broader, future -focused perspective. I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on SD-84. I am asking for the chance to collaborate with the city on a path forward — one that supports economic vitality, honors our history, and empowers the next generation of Santa Ana's business community. I appreciate your time and the work you do. I look forward to seeing you at tomorrow's meeting. Respectfully, Jenna Zech SINCE 1frt PACIFIC PLUMBING OF SOUTHERN CA41FORNIA Jenna Zech Pacific Plumbing of Southern California P 714-547-6967 x210 E jennaz ppsocal.com W www.pacificplumbingsocal.com Zuniga, Diana From: mike@tardifsheetmetal.com Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2025 11:02 AM To: Harvey Beigle Cc: Bob Adams; eComment Subject: FW: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Public Hearing ... 4-1-2025;; Reed Thoams Company Attachments: Letter 4.01.25 city of sanra ana.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. GREAT letter Harvey! Also send your letter here before the meeting: eCommentksanta-ana.org From: Harvey Beigle <harveyb@reedthomas.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10:53 AM To: Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez <bvazquez@santa-ana.org>; Councilmember Bacerra <pbacerra@santa-ana.org>; Mayor Amezcua <vamezcua@santa-ana.org>; Mayor Pro Tem Phan <tphan@santa-ana.org>; Councilmember Jessie Lopez <jlopez@santa-ana.org>; jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org Cc: Councilmember Penaloza <dpenaloza@santa-ana.org> Subject: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Public Hearing ... 4-1-2025;; Reed Thoams Company Dear Mayor Amezcua and Council members, Attached please find a letter about Reed Thomas Company and the impacts the proposal would have in unfairly punishing our business. You are all invited to reach out to me. Kind Regards, Harvey Beigle Reed Thomas company Cell 714 325-2808 To: City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members Date: March 25, 2025 Re: SD-84 Transit Zoning Code Dear City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members: I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed regulation, which would significantly hinder our ability to continue operating in a sustainable manner. Reed Thomas Company, is located at 1025 N. Santiago Street in Santa Ana. We are a general engineering contractor performing work across four counties on various construction projects. Our facility is situated within an M2-zoned industrial area and serves as a critical service center for our field operations. Our business operates approximately 12 to 16 hours per day, with service trucks, material trucks, and mechanics departing the yard normally around 5:30 AM and returning between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM, up to six days a week. It is important to note that during the day, our yard and shop remain relatively quiet since the majority of our work takes place off -site at construction projects throughout the region. The proposed ordinance includes the following regulations that will severely disrupt our operations: • The proposed hours of operation: Restricting activities to 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays and 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays —are incompatible with the operational realities of our industry. Adherence to these proposed hours is not possible, as it would severely impair our ability to meet contractual obligations and maintain project schedules. All work to be done indoors: The proposed regulation would require all work to be done indoors. We perform routine maintenance and moderate repairs on our large Trucks, trailers and some tractors outside, as many of them do not fit inside our building. Also, the proposed regulation prohibits us from increasing the size of our building under this proposed regulation. Noise levels: The proposed regulation limits of noise level to 60 decibels. A normal conversation between two people is about 65 decibels. The ambient noise level in our yard, at 5am, before we operate, is between 67 and 73 decibels. This noise is from the 5 freeway and Santiago Street. Noxious use: We are concerned that the proposed regulation could classify a business as a noxious use. Once classified as noxious, this proposed regulation would eliminate legal nonconforming status on that property, and does not allow a less intensified industrial business to occupy that building or property. It is important to highlight that for the past 36 years, Reed Thomas Company has operated at this location without a single complaint from neighboring businesses or residents. While we fully support the City's efforts to address businesses that are truly creating nuisances, it is both unfair and unjust to apply such sweeping regulations to responsible operators like ourselves, who are compliant and have demonstrated a longstanding commitment to operating in a lawful and respectful manner. In conclusion, I urge the Council to extend the moratorium. We believe it requires substantial revision before being brought forward for approval. Most importantly, the City should conduct site -specific assessments to gain a clear understanding of the nature of businesses affected and their essential role in supporting the region's economy and infrastructure. I respectfully ask the Council to recognize that one -size -fits -all regulations are neither fair nor effective and that responsible operators should not be penalized for the actions of a small number of bad actors. We invite you all to visit our site and learn more about our business. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Harvey Beigle Reed Thomas Company, Inc. 714-325-2808 Becerra, Alexis From: Harvey Beigle < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:22 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Public Hearing ... 4-1-2025;; Reed Thoams Company Attachments: Letter 4.01.25 city of sanra ana.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. From: Harvey Beigle <harveyb@reedthomas.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10:53 AM To:'Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez' <bvazquez@santa-ana.org>;'Councilmember Bacerra' <pbacerra@santa- ana.org>; 'Mayor Amezcua' <vamezcua@santa-ana.org>; 'Mayor Pro Tern Phan' <tphan@santa-ana.org>; 'CouncilmemberJessie Lopez' <ilopez@santa-ana.org>;'iryanhernandez@santa-ana.org' <iryanhernandez@santa- ana.org> Cc:'Councilmember Penaloza' <dPena loza@santa-ana.org> Subject: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Public Hearing ... 4-1-2025;; Reed Thoams Company Dear Mayor Amezcua and Council members, Attached please find a letter about Reed Thomas Company and the impacts the proposal would have in unfairly punishing our business. You are all invited to reach out to me. �7 Kind Regards, Harvey Beigle Reed Thomas company Cell To: City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members Date: March 25, 2025 Re: SD-84 Transit Zoning Code Dear City of Santa Ana Mayor and Council members: I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed regulation, which would significantly hinder our ability to continue operating in a sustainable manner. Reed Thomas Company, is located at 1025 N. Santiago Street in Santa Ana. We are a general engineering contractor performing work across four counties on various construction projects. Our facility is situated within an M2-zoned industrial area and serves as a critical service center for our field operations. Our business operates approximately 12 to 16 hours per day, with service trucks, material trucks, and mechanics departing the yard normally around 5:30 AM and returning between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM, up to six days a week. It is important to note that during the day, our yard and shop remain relatively quiet since the majority of our work takes place off -site at construction projects throughout the region. The proposed ordinance includes the following regulations that will severely disrupt our operations: • The proposed hours of operation: Restricting activities to 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays and 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays —are incompatible with the operational realities of our industry. Adherence to these proposed hours is not possible, as it would severely impair our ability to meet contractual obligations and maintain project schedules. All work to be done indoors: The proposed regulation would require all work to be done indoors. We perform routine maintenance and moderate repairs on our large Trucks, trailers and some tractors outside, as many of them do not fit inside our building. Also, the proposed regulation prohibits us from increasing the size of our building under this proposed regulation. Noise levels: The proposed regulation limits of noise level to 60 decibels. A normal conversation between two people is about 65 decibels. The ambient noise level in our yard, at 5am, before we operate, is between 67 and 73 decibels. This noise is from the 5 freeway and Santiago Street. Noxious use: We are concerned that the proposed regulation could classify a business as a noxious use. Once classified as noxious, this proposed regulation would eliminate legal nonconforming status on that property, and does not allow a less intensified industrial business to occupy that building or property. It is important to highlight that for the past 36 years, Reed Thomas Company has operated at this location without a single complaint from neighboring businesses or residents. While we fully support the City's efforts to address businesses that are truly creating nuisances, it is both unfair and unjust to apply such sweeping regulations to responsible operators like ourselves, who are compliant and have demonstrated a longstanding commitment to operating in a lawful and respectful manner. In conclusion, I urge the Council to extend the moratorium. We believe it requires substantial revision before being brought forward for approval. Most importantly, the City should conduct site -specific assessments to gain a clear understanding of the nature of businesses affected and their essential role in supporting the region's economy and infrastructure. I respectfully ask the Council to recognize that one -size -fits -all regulations are neither fair nor effective and that responsible operators should not be penalized for the actions of a small number of bad actors. We invite you all to visit our site and learn more about our business. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Harvey Beigle Reed Thomas Company, Inc. Becerra, Alexis From: Ian MacMillan < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:31 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: ZOA No 2024-02, AA No 2024-3 Attachments: Letter to the City of Santa Ana 4-1-2025.docx Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To whom it may concern Enclosed are my comments in reference to the City Council hearing April 15Y 2025 Have a great Day, Ian MacMillan Ian MacMillan April 1, 2025 City Council of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana Planning Commission Subject: Transit Zoning Ordinance Amendment The considered Zoning changes in my opinion are going to create an extreme hardship to many local businesses in the area. We've been in the Santa Ana community since 2081 and remain committed to servicing the community respectfully. The importance of a heathy environment for the community is of our utmost concern, we do everything possible to be a good neighbor and have never had a complaint. I feel that some changes being proposed will have a detrimental effect not only business but also the community, many local businesses have numerous employees that live in local community, their jobs may be in jeopardy if forced to move. I believe the local business are very valuable of the city of Santa Ana and the economic support of the community. There are a number of business that are causing a lot of issues in the community, which changes are understandably and necessary, the city has responsibility to address these issues, but to make the changes to the entire area crates a huge financial burden on a majority of the good operators. For example, the proposed change, no loading or unloading and of trucks on the city streets, there's several family owned markets that will be adversity effected by this change including 711 on the corner of Grand and 41", there's no way for the delivery trucks to park in the small parking lot. Please reconsider some the zoning changes that are being proposed to take into consideration the financial and operating burdens on most business. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Respectfully, Ian MacMillan Flores, Dora From: Roger Simon < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 1:32 PM To: eComment Subject: tonight's meeting and my email to the council Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Mayor and Coluncilmembers, I grew up in Santa Ana, received a fine education in Santa Ana and worked at our family business in Santa Ana for almost 50 years. Our family still owns and leases industrial property in Santa Ana. While our property is outside SD-84, I'd like to address the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) No. 2024-02 and Amendment Application (AA) No. 2024-03 Amending Certain Sections of Article XIX (The Transit Zoning Code, Specific Development No. 84) of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code that will be looked at by the Council tonight. This proposed ordinance is a bad idea for many reasons. The reasons these changes are claimed to be needed are contradictory to reality. A claim is made that this will reduce air pollution. This claim is false because the largest polluters in SD-48 are the thousands of automobiles operating through the area on Interstate 5, 17th Street, Grand Avenue and other streets and the dozens of trains operating daily on the tracks running north and south. A claim is made that this will reduce traffic. This claim is false because as industrial uses decline and residential conversions increase massive heavy vehicle traffic will occur for years as multistory high density housing is built out which will be followed by hundreds more automobiles on streets that are no wider than they are now. A claim is made that this will reduce the area's drug and homeless problems. This claim is false because existing residential areas in SD-84 and the rest of Santa Ana have drug and homeless problems. Changing the demographics in SD-84 will not eliminate the drug and homeless problems. Santa Ana's Vision as stated at the beginning of the agenda for tonight's meeting includes "Neighborhood pride • Thriving economic climate." Businesses„ like residents, have pride in the SD-84 neighborhood and are an important part of the economic climate. This will be harmed if the proposed changes are enacted. Santa Ana's Mission as stated at the beginning of the agenda for tonight's meeting includes "To deliver efficient public services in partnership with our community which ensures public safety, a prosperous economic environment, opportunities for our youth..." Eliminating businesses reduces the prosperous economic environment and eliminates opportunities (jobs) for youth. Santa Ana's Guiding Principles as stated at the beginning of the agenda for tonight's meeting includes Collaboration, Equity, Fiscal Responsibility and Transparency. From a business person's point of view, there has not been much collaboration, equity to all parties, or transparency in this process. Fiscal responsibility will be overlooked. Instead of the City using resources and existing ordinances to pursue admitted issues in SD-84 it will be using those resources to combat the lawsuits you are assured will filed opposing the amended ordinance. It was stated in one of the meetings on this subject that about half of the neighborhoods in Santa Ana were mixed use like Logan and Lacey. This used to be a matter of pride. If it is now a matter of contention SD-84 will be a warning signal to businesses throughout the City of what will be coming to their neighborhoods. It will be a warning signal to businesses considering locating in Santa Ana to seek their opportunity elsewhere. Thanks for listening. Instead of enacting this proposed amendment, please work collaboratively with businesses and residents to find satisfactory solutions for all parties. Sincerely - Roger Flores, Dora From: Lauren Medina < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 1:32 PM To: eComment; Penaloza, David; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Support for Item 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods. appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. 3 Sincerely, Lauren Hale Ward 6 Flores, Dora From: john hale < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 1:36 PM To: eComment; Penaloza, David; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, am writing as a resident of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, and specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhoods. appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for responsible business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the 1,500 families in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. Sincerely, John Hale Ward 6 Flores, Dora From: Stephanie Wells < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Support for Item 22 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 City Council, I am writing as a resident and future business owner of the Transit Zoning Code to express my strong support for the proposed amendments to the SD-84 zoning code, specifically the removal of the M1 and M2 industrial use overlay with one change: Storage units are industrial uses. They do not belong in a transit zone nor do these facilities address our housing shortage or promote a healthy street -business interface. I ask that you Remove the CUP exemption for storage units that was lobbied for by Extra Space Storage from this plan. These amendments are a long -overdue fix to the decades of incompatible land uses in the Lacy and Logan neighborhood and are needed even more now that the neighborhoods are changing and bringing in more residential at higher price. I appreciate that the proposed amendments will not force out any existing businesses currently operating within the affected areas. Rather, they will create flexibility for business owners to sell their business and for property owners to re -tenet their buildings with a broad range of businesses. This will allow for business owners to continue to positively contribute to the neighborhood and prevent vacant buildings. These amendments also provide the city with an essential tool to address the bad actors who are negatively affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, such as the dump and metal recycling facilities next to Garfield Elementary School. With these amendments, we can better encourage responsible business ownership, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents and business owners alike. Furthermore, the health and safety of our community, especially our children and families, should remain a top priority, and the industrial uses in the zone are eroding the quality of life for us residents. I feel unsafe to walk alone. There are smells, loud machinery noises, and debrees on the streets that can hurt our pets, children, elders, and even our cars as we drive over it. I am disappointed. I invested in Santa Ana by purchasing a home in 2021, 1 am the process of planning for a new small business in Santa Ana and I constantly rally and try to give Santa Ana positive market exposure but I need the city's help to make this neighborhood better. Metal recyclers and waste dumps have no place 200 feet away from an elementary school, and a crematorium has no place around the corner from homes and a 1 neighborhood park. These types of industries bring noise, air pollution, and health risks that are incompatible with the residential and transit -oriented development we are working to build. The City Council has twice agreed unanimously that industrial uses in this zone have placed an inequitable environmental and health burden on those of us in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods. The General Plan adopted by the City Council in 2022 compels you to address these inequities by approving the proposed amendments. I encourage the City Council to approve these amendments for the benefit of the approximate 10,000 residents in the historic Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. I would love to see a revitalization in Santa Ana, with responsible business ownership, market value housing, and premium grocery and retail that this growing and changing community needs to access quality food, goods, servies, and quality of life. Sincerely, Stephanie Wells Ward 6 N Flores, Dora From: Mihran Toumajan <mtoumajan@naiopsocal.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:56 PM To: Amezcua, Valerie Cc: Nunez, Alvaro; Thai, Minh; !City Clerk; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD); Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David Subject: NAIOP SoCal Letter of Opposition - City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code SD-84 Attachments: 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 Mayor Amezcua, Attached to this note is a letter of opposition, unless amended, Re: Agenda Item 422 (and Recommended Actions 2 and 3 relative to the proposed Transit Zoning Code, SD-84) during this evening's Santa Ana City Council meeting from NAIOP SoCal and our over 1,300 dues -paying Members, some of whom are long-term, industrial property owners in the City of Santa Ana. We request that the attached letter by included in the public record. We look forward to seeing you, Councilmembers and City staff this evening. Very Respectfully, Mihran Toumajan NAIOP SoCal Manager of Government Relations Office: (714) 550-0309 1 Cell: (818) 817-1714 Email: mtoumajan(c�r�,naiopsocal.org 918 E. Santa Ana Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92701 www.naiopsocal.org NAIOP COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION SoCAL CHAPTER April 1, 2025 The Honorable Valerie Amezcua Mayor, City of Santa Ana - vamezcua@santa-ana.org 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: 04-01-2025 Santa Ana City Council Meeting Agenda Item #22, Opposition to Recommended Actions 2 and 3 Unless Amended Dear Mayor Amezcua, With over 1,300 Members, NAIOP SoCal is the leading nonprofit organization representing 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, and include developers, owners, investors, brokers, architects, engineers, general contractors, finance professionals and other service providers involved in the commercial real estate industry. Unless amended, NAIOP SoCal strongly opposes the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency's (PBA) recommended action to adopt an ordinance to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-02 amending certain sections of Article XIX (The Transit Zoning Code, Specific Development No. 84, SD-84), as well as PBA's recommended action to adopt an ordinance to approve Amendment Application No. 2024-03 amending the zoning by removing the M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Heavy Industrial) suffixes from certain properties within the SD-84 zoning district boundary as designated on the City of Santa Ana Zoning Map (see agenda item #22, April 1, 2025 Santa Ana City Council Meeting Agenda). NAIOP SoCal's headquarters is located in the City's historic Lacy neighborhood, within SD- 84's Urban Neighborhood (UN-2) zone. Our office is currently surrounded by a well- proportioned balance of residential, industrial and commercial properties. Several NAIOP SoCal Members are long-term, institutional stakeholders across the City of Santa Ana, while dozens of law-abiding, taxpaying property owners/operators of industrial -oriented uses in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods — many of which have been operating over multiple decades — are our neighbors and provide valuable goods and services for key segments of our local and regional economy as manufacturers, distributors, warehousing and logistics centers, product fulfillment and transportation facilities, metal fabricators and welders, and retailers. The owner/operators of industrial -oriented uses in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods are closely engaged in providing substantial community benefits at no cost to taxpayers. Such benefits include upgrading streets, sidewalks, and other community infrastructure, funding local schools and parks, and boosting the City's property and sales tax revenues. Further, the property owners and operators of industrial uses in the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods employ hundreds of Santa Ana residents and those of neighboring communities. Hence, the commute to work and home for many Santa Ana and neighboring residents is relatively short, thus limiting the amount of vehicle miles traveled and tailpipe emissions. While NAIOP SoCal and its Members are proponents of "Good Neighbor" policies, which aim to balance the interests of the City, its residents and property owners and operators, we encourage the City Council to be mindful of its industrial stakeholders and refrain from removing existing Industrial Overlays M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Heavy Industrial) from the Transit Zoning Code SD No. 84 zoning district. NAIOP 2025 OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Mark Mattis, Avison Young PRESIDENT-ELECT Stephane Wandel, The Orden Company VICE PRESIDENT Brooke Gustafson, Birtcher Development TREASURER Brian Baker, JP Morgan Chase SECRETARY Greg Brown, JLL PROGRAMS & EDUCATION LIAISON Fran Inman, Majestic Realty Co. PAST PRESIDENT Eric Paulsen, Kidder Mathews Bob Andrews, CenterPcint Properties Tl Bard, Surf Management, Inc. Andy Bratt, Gantry Erin Crum, Alere Property Group Nick DlPaolo, Newmark Amanda Donsan, Allen Matkins Chris Drzyzga, Voit Real Estate Services Parker Hutchison, Prologis Bassam Jurdi, Washington Capital Arnold Lebrilla, Bank of America Emily Mandrup, ECM Management Thomas McAndrews, Tiarna Real Estate Services Parke Miller, Lincoln Property Company Scott Morehouse, Sheppard Mullin David Nazaryk, Trammell Crow Company Bob O'Neill, CapRock Partners Lindsey Ensign Olson, Bixby Land Company Michael Page, Irvine Company Jodie Poirier, Colliers International Rob Quarton, Walker & Dunlop Alison Ramsey, JP Morgan Chase Lisa Reddy, Prologis David Salisbury, U.S. Bank Patrick Schlehuber, Rexford Industrial Kurt Strasmann, CBRE Richard Sung, Newmark Jay Todisco, Ware Malcomh David Wensley, Cox, Castle & Nicholson Courtney Wing, Newcastle Partners YPG Liaison: Nico Napclitano, Cushman & Wakefield National Board Liaisons: Tl Bard, Surf Management, Inc. Justin McCusker, C.J. Segerstrom & Sons NAIOP SoCal EXECUTIVE STAFF Timothy Jemal, Chief Executive Officer Jose Cornejo, Senior Director of Government Relations Mihran Toumajan, Government Relations Manager Becky Ezell, Director of Administration Shelby Donine, Marketing & Communications 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 MI 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, <��r�k Timothy Jemal CEO NAIOP SoCal CC: Mayor Pro Tern, 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 Flores, Dora From: Erika Villalobos < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 4:00 PM To: eComment Subject: Rezoning Proposed Project Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear City Council, I live in the area within the Transit Zoning development No. 84 Zoning District. I would like my neighborhood to look like a residential area and not a business area. The majority of the properties in my neighborhood are businesses. The problem with this our children can not enjoy the streets as a residential community. We are the only house on the side on our side of the street. Most properties are businesses or empty lots. For this reason I believe our neighborhood can become the residential neighborhood it used to be. I'm asking for you to take my concerns into consideration. A transit zone has its positives and negatives. If the transit zone is planned with more housing I am for it. If it's going to take away from homes I would rather not have it. Thank you for time, Rosemary Flores Erika Villalobos Sent from my iPhone Flores, Dora From: Patricia de Santos < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 4:23 PM To: eComment Subject: I would like to make a comment at tonight's City Council Meeting Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Please put me on the list for comment at tonight's city council meeting April 1, 2025. Thanks Patricia de Santos Flores, Dora From: Wendy tv. molina < Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 5:00 PM To: eComment Subject: #16 No Paring NO Meters Parking Enterprise Fund Updates for Meters and Structures Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. item 16nDOGE look into City of Santa Ana,CA ASAP!nNo to or Remove Parking! No to! or Reduce Structure Parking by the People for the People n "Folks, this is a TOTAL DISASTER! The city sneaks in a last-minute agenda item —zero transparency! Downtown businesses will be crushed, jobs lost, and the community hurt. The people weren't toldMISLEADING! But we won't let it happen. This should, and WILL, be sent back to the residents. FIGHT BACK!" Flores, Dora From: Jack Haley <jhaley@lee-associates.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 5:02 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Council SD-84 Rezoning April 1st Public Hearing Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear City Councilmen and women: I am strongly against the abolishing of the industrial zone near the train station and the 5 freeway. The real concerns I have are over companies being allowed to operate their businesses as they do today and how difficult SA will make it to lease or sell an industrial property to another industrial user (non -conforming per the Ordinance). There is some definition of "intensification of use" in the transit zone code which is good but ultimately it will be up to the planning dept director to approve that incoming business. A business owner walking into the planning dept may be told that they will not be allowed a Certificate of Occupancy because they are a non -conforming business. Value is partially based on risk and certainty that future usage of business properties can continue. What if the City told the residences that they cannot have more people live in the home or park I more car there in the future then the residence has now?? You would think today that the government would not be taking away people's property rights. This ordinance negatively affects property values because the entire mission is to gentrify the Zone area to residential and supportive commercial. The current M1 zoning today provides the largest pool of potential tenants and buyers for transit zone industrial properties. Jack Haley, CCIM Principal Lee & Associates I Orange D 714.564.7172 O 714.647-9100 jhaleyCa�lee-associates.com ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE vt F Corporate ID 01011260 1004 W. Taft Avenue I Suite 150 Orange, California 92865 Uk": in f 0,5 $• 8 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. 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.