Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Ana council approves amended Transit Zoning Code changes for SD‑84 after months of debate
Summary
The City Council voted 6–0 (one recusal) to approve first‑reading amendments to the Transit Zoning Code (SD‑84), removing certain industrial overlays and adding new standards, nonconforming‑use rules and an amortization process; councilmember amendments narrowed enforcement to "noxious" uses and adjusted technical language.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Santa Ana City Council on Tuesday approved first reading of amendments to the Transit Zoning Code for the SD‑84 district, including removal of M‑1 and M‑2 industrial overlays in parts of the Logan/Lacey area and new rules for nonconforming and "noxious" industrial uses.
Councilmembers adopted the ordinance amendment after a lengthy public hearing that included dozens of speakers — residents who urged stronger protections for neighborhood health and safety and business and property owners who warned of major property‑value losses and job impacts. The motion passed 6 ayes, no nays; Councilmember Fan recused herself and did not participate in the vote. The ordinance will return for second reading at a subsequent meeting.
The approved package includes a map amendment removing M‑1 (light industrial) and M‑2 (heavy industrial) overlays from specified parcels in SD‑84, new operational standards for permitted and nonconforming uses, and an amortization process intended to phase out certain uses over time. Councilmember Miguel Becerra offered five specific amendments that council accepted: narrow removal of the word "nonconforming" to target "noxious" uses in certain provisions, add a clearer "determined to be in violation" trigger, remove UN‑2 from a conversion prohibition, reorder one municipal code section, and delete language tying loss of nonconforming status to lapses in business license renewal.
Planning staff summarized the ordinance evolution as the city’s response to a moratorium on industrial expansions adopted April 16, 2024, followed by stakeholder meetings, a train‑station workshop, and Planning Commission hearings. Assistant/Acting Planning Director Ali (surname in transcript) described how staff refined the draft after more than 20 stakeholder meetings and field visits. He explained the working definition of a "noxious use" in the ordinance: a legal nonconforming industrial use within 1,000 linear feet of a school, park or residential property that meets at least two of four criteria (emits or handles regulated pollutants, requires outside‑agency permits such as AQMD, stores/handles hazardous waste, or operates outside a fully enclosed building).
Residents and neighborhood leaders urged the council to adopt the amendments to address recurring dust, odors, truck traffic, noise and public‑health concerns. "Do not let fractionally personal financial impacts supersede the overwhelming health and safety priority of the people who actually live here," said one resident (comment recorded in the hearing).
Several business owners and commercial real‑estate representatives — including operators who described long family histories in Logan and Lacey — asked council to preserve M‑1 or otherwise provide pathways that would allow many existing light industrial businesses to continue, noting potential dramatic reductions in property value and impacts to local employment if many buildings became restricted or reclassified.
City Attorney's office advised council that any ordinance including amortization and other restrictions could raise legal risk of takings or litigation, and provided a confidential memorandum outlining potential exposures; the city attorney told council that recent drafting changes, including Becerra’s amendments, materially reduced the city’s legal risk but that some risk remained. Councilmembers and staff emphasized that adoption begins a process, not immediate closures — enforcement actions would require due process and follow the new code’s procedures.
The council’s action tonight directs staff to prepare the ordinance for second reading and to implement the new permitting, operational‑standard and amortization procedures consistent with the amendments approved at first reading.
Ending: The ordinance returns for second reading at a future meeting; staff and legal counsel said next steps will include notification to affected property owners, enforcement planning, and continued engagement with residents and businesses.

