Santa Ana study session probes plan to remove industrial overlay in SD‑84; businesses and residents clash over amortization and health risks

City of Santa Ana planning staff on Feb. 10 presented draft amendments to the SD‑84 Transit Zoning Code that would remove the M1 and M2 industrial overlay zones, add operating standards for existing nonconforming industrial uses and create a new amortization process to phase out specified high‑impact businesses, staff and public commenters said.

The presentation by Principal Planner Margarita Macedonio outlined four draft components — a map change removing the industrial overlays, nonconforming‑use operating standards, updates to permitted uses, and the amortization tool — and explained that the ordinance is intended to address long‑running land‑use conflicts and repeated calls for service from neighborhoods adjacent to industrial sites. “The goal of the proposed regulations is to protect the health and safety and welfare of the existing and future residents of the transit zoning code,” Macedonio told the commission.

Why it matters: The SD‑84 area includes the Logan and Lacey neighborhoods and parts of downtown and civic center near transit. Staff said roughly 30 industrial businesses remain inside the overlay and that the moratorium adopted by the city council in April 2024 and extended in May 2024 expires April 15, 2025. Residents and community groups say some industrial activities near homes and schools create persistent noise, idling truck traffic, dust and other pollution; business owners say the changes would force relocations, cost jobs and wipe out property value.

Public comment split sharply. Several business owners said the draft would lead to economic displacement. Garrett (president of Supreme Bracivs) said his company employs 20 people and could be forced to leave Santa Ana if the area is rezoned. “If the zoning change proceeds, we will be forced to leave, taking jobs, revenue, and economic stability with us,” Garrett said. Mike Tardiff, a longtime property and business owner, told the commission that the proposed changes would affect “200 businesses” and “over $1,000,000,000 of value,” comments he urged staff to quantify.

Opposing commenters and environmental justice advocates urged stronger action. Erica Gonzalez, a longtime neighborhood organizer and leader with Orange County Environmental Justice, said the area is an EPA‑identified environmental justice cluster and pointed to local cleanup sites and community air‑quality monitoring as justification to phase out heavy industrial uses. “Residents in these areas also tend to be burdened by socioeconomic and health issues, such as higher rates of language barriers, poverty, and asthma,” Gonzalez said.

How the draft would work: Staff described operational limits for legally established nonconforming industrial uses — standards for enclosed operations, air emissions and dust control, light and glare, vibration, outdoor storage and screening, hazardous materials, waste, truck parking and hours of operation. The draft also proposes prohibiting expansion of structures occupied by nonconforming industrial uses and clarifies triggers that could make a use subject to amortization, including repeated code violations or transfer of ownership for certain noxious uses.

On amortization, Macedonio said the ordinance would create an enabling process rather than immediately identifying individual businesses for removal. A neutral third‑party hearing officer would review evidence and recommend a reasonable amortization period for any business the city sought to phase out; the hearing officer and the amortization mechanism would be used only after other remedies failed, she said.

Commissioners and staff questions highlighted gaps that many in the room also noted. Commissioners asked staff to return with a more detailed inventory of affected businesses (types of use, size, number of employees), the permits those businesses hold with outside regulators, an estimate of sales‑tax and fiscal impacts, the legal exposure tied to amortization and examples of amortization used successfully elsewhere. Commissioner Leo said, “Start with the agreed upon issues. Pull the regulatory bodies together,” and asked staff to seek records from permitting agencies so the commission could identify bad actors versus compliant businesses.

Staff timeline and next steps: Macedonio said the draft zoning ordinance, a staff report and a CEQA addendum to the SD‑84 final EIR will be published the week of Feb. 18 and that the planning commission public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Feb. 24. Staff also said an updated FAQ will be posted before the hearing; the presentation and materials were already available on the moratorium project web page and the draft regulations have been on the page since Jan. 15.

Other meeting business: The commission approved the consent calendar — minutes from Jan. 27 and excused absences — in a roll‑call vote (motion by Commissioner Benninger; second by Commissioner Escamilla). Vice Chair Ramos announced a recusal from the SD‑84 item because of residency.

What remained unsettled: Commenters and commissioners repeatedly requested additional data before any final action: a business‑by‑business inventory, records of outside permits and enforcement, defensible estimates of fiscal impacts and a clearer legal framework for amortization and owner transfers. Several commissioners urged more joint convenings of residents, business owners and the city before the public hearing so stakeholders could better identify specific conflicts, potential mitigations and sites where cleanup or code enforcement might resolve neighborhood concerns.

The commission heard more than two hours of public testimony and a study‑session presentation but took no regulatory action; any formal ordinance change would require subsequent public hearings and city‑council action.