Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

all the time, right?

to print. you Thank you. you do do you

Recording in progress.

No, sir. We're just getting prepared to start the meeting. You're all set? Can I go? Okay. All right. I'd like to call the adjourned regular meeting of August meeting from last week. And this will be on August 31st. 2026. Secretary, will you please take a roll?

Commissioner Guzman?

Here.

Commissioner Leo?

Here.

Commissioner Oliva?

Here.

Commissioner Pham?

Here.

Commissioner Wu?

I'm also here.

Vice Chair Benninger? Present. Chair Ramos? Chair, Vice Chair, quorum has been reached at 5.33 p.m.

Very good. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like to ask Commissioner Guzman to lead us in the pledge, please. Thank you, Commissioner. Before we begin, I'd like to remind my fellow commissioners to turn your microphones on when speaking and off when you're not. And when you're speaking, please hold the mic about four inches away from you. Will the members of public join us this evening? Spanish and Vietnamese language interpreters are available. If you'd like to listen to the meeting or provide public comment in Spanish or Vietnamese, please see staff in the lobby to pick up your headsets if you haven't done so already.

Para los miembros del público que nos acompañan esta noche, hay intérpretes disponibles en español y vietnamita. Si desea escuchar la reunión o proporcionar comentarios públicos en español o vietnamita, por favor comuníquese con el personal en el vestíbulo para recoger audífonos.

Members of the public may attend the Planning Commission meeting either in person or via Zoom.

I'm sorry to interrupt, Vice Chair Benninger. We're going to have the Vietnamese interpreter go ahead and relate some information.

Okay, members of the public may attend the Planning Commission meeting either in person or via Zoom. I will now invite the Commission Secretary to describe how the public can access and participate in this meeting.

This meeting is being live streamed via our portal at www.santa-ana.primegov.com slash public slash portal and on YouTube at www.youtube.com slash cityofsantaanavideos. If you would like to provide public comment, you may do so in the following ways. Join the meeting via Zoom. Enter the meeting ID number 86191226409. When the item you wish to comment on is being discussed, please select the hand icon to indicate that you would like to speak. Once called upon, remember to unmute yourself and state your name for the record. You can also join the meeting by calling 669-900-6833. Enter meeting ID number 86191226409. When the item that you would like to comment on is being discussed, press nine to let us know you would like to speak. You will be called upon by the last three digits of your phone number. After you are called upon, you may press six to unmute yourself. For those who are attending this meeting in person and would like to provide public comment, please fill out a request to speak form and turn it in into the recording secretary. All speakers will have three minutes to speak. I will alert you when your time is up.

Just a quick clarification for the public and also for the commission. This is, we are conducting a regular, adjourned regular meeting today, and it's continued from Monday, August 24th. So we're not taking any additional non-public, non-agenda public comment today, and we're just resuming from the point at which we stopped at the last meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. We are now resuming the public hearing for item one. Last Monday, we received public comments from all members of the public who are present in the council chamber. However, due to the planned Edison Power outage, we did not have sufficient time to receive comments from those participating via Zoom or calling in. We had members of the public speak in person, and many did express that they did not have enough time to review the materials. Therefore, rather than limiting public testimony to those that joined us virtually last Monday. There has been, and we're not able to provide public comment. Since there has been an additional week and certain materials were also now available in Spanish and Vietnamese, I would like to provide all members of the public joining us in person or virtually tonight an opportunity to provide additional public testimony. We will start with in-person testimony. Recording Secretary, is there a member of the public that would like to comment on this item?

If you are attending this meeting in person and would like to comment on this item, please fill out a request to speak form and turn it in into the secretary. If you are participating via Zoom and would like to comment on this item, please select the hand icon to indicate that you would like to speak. If you are calling in and would like to comment on this item, please dial nine and then six to unmute yourself. I will wait a few seconds. Chair, we have 10 speakers in-house with the possibility of additional public comment cards being provided in a few minutes. And then we have one speaker via Zoom.

Thank you. I will take those 10 along with any that we receive. Then I will go to Zoom, and I will then come back to see if there's any additional in-person. So with that, I will now call speakers up. You will have three minutes to give your comment. First off is Samuel Ingardia, and I apologize if I mispronounce any names.

Good evening, can you hear me okay? My name's Sam Ingardia. The business is Ingardia Brothers Produce here in Santa Ana for the last 18 years. Prior to that, we were in Costa Mesa. The last time I was here, I was getting a plaque for 50 years in business, but we're now 53 years. And we're a food distribution company to the five counties here in Southern California. My concern is the hours of operation on this new zoning which were a 24-7. We employed 250 employees full-time. I have never laid off one person in 53 years, not even during COVID. We kept everyone working, employed with full salaries. My brother and I started the business in 1973. We made it basically the American dream because I wasn't born in this wonderful country, but I'm also a veteran of the United States Navy. Going on is basically as you're changing some of the rules, I believe, maybe I don't understand them completely, on this new zoning. And my business, which consists of three buildings here within that area, And that's what we need. It's about 80,000 square foot building. When we started in 53 years ago, it was 2,400 square feet with two employees and now with 250 employees. Just a little reminder, what we brought in is basically $213,000 in property taxes and Licenses for the city of Santa Ana, $57,000. I used to pay $300 in Costa Mesa. Between the IRS and the FTB, I paid over $2 million in federal and state taxes. So 250 employees that I need for them to work 24-7. And they're not working over 24 hours a day, but... It's an operation that we need. We supply restaurants, schools, hospitals, and it is very important that we have, continue on to start, keep the 24-7 operation. Hey, I got 30 seconds. I can keep going on for the next probably couple hours, and you don't want to hear that. but it is a very important business here in Santa Ana. I love the city of Santa Ana. We've done fantastically. We put up some beautiful buildings in our area, all by every inch and recommendation of the Planning Department of the city of Santa Ana. That's about it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we will have Sandra Rodriguez, followed by Tom Stier.

Sorry, before you begin, I would like to state that public speaker has distributed copies for the commission. We will make it part of the public record.

You can begin.

Okay. Just for clarity purposes, so you know where I'm specifically talking about, I'm also a neighbor to Sam Ingardia. We're in the same side of the street that's affected by the zoning change proposed to be. Sam also owns buildings on each side of the street that are proposed to be M1 on one side and M1 with the residential industrial overlay. And so I am also in the service industry. We have a plumbing and liquid waste hauling company that primarily services for the restaurants. Part of that program was set forth by City of Santa Ana 15 years ago. It's the FOG program, which requires grease interceptors at every food facility. Those grease interceptors need to be maintained so they could prevent sewer blockages and sanitary overflows that often happen and occurred on a regular basis before this program occurred. Now that this program is in fact in operation, I think they have reduced the amounts of sewer overflows that are happening. So good job to OC Public Works for working on that. But yes, so our services need to be done prior to the business opening. So that issue with the 24-hour response time is also an issue for us. And also I wanted to note that particularly where we are located, you'll note we're in between the Union Pacific Railroad and the Metrolink. and then you can also see on one side of the street that's separated by us we measured it it's like 30 feet away um they would not be imposed by the on your time is that correct thank you thank you translation to english please good afternoon i have several

that I wanted to make sure that were heard this evening, and most of them include the fact that the representatives of the Cornerstone Village Neighborhood Association in the city of Santa Ana and a community research associate at the University of California's ECHO GovLab. First of all, I am here to demand zoning justice and accountability regarding the general plan. The first of these is that I want to point out that the city staff proposed two meetings with the Cornerstone neighborhood. I will speak first about the revisions to the July 2026 zoning code update proposed by city staff last week. We need more time to study and comment on the proposed land uses for the interface zone because residential and industrial areas Some items like data centers and hazardous waste storage were removed from the table showing permitted land uses in the area around Cornerstone. We want them clearly listed as non-conforming or not permitted. There are many others that should also be clearly listed as not permitted, such as plastic manufacturing and metal plating. We need time to present a more complete list. Second, the zone... The zoning code update must also be proactive in creating spaces for land uses that benefit the community. For example, libraries, parks, and community gardens. Did you know that Santa Ana has fewer parks and libraries than other cities in Orange County? This should embarrass you, and you should take advantage of the zoning code update to fix it. Third, at a minimum, the cornerstone area should have the protections offered by the flex zoning granted to a much wealthier community to the south. Given that cornerstone is an exceptionally environmentally disadvantaged community, protection even greater than flex zoning is required. Fourth, we also need special protection for Century High School and Kennedy. The current draft leaves them exposed to industrial pollution on one side and there's also a freeway on the other side. That is unacceptable. Fifth, the Corner Store Neighborhood Association also wants all current industrial operations in the residential industrial interface to be classified as non-conforming uses so they cannot expand and can be replaced more quickly by green businesses. Six, the Cornerstone Neighborhood Association also requests a public information process demonstrating the proactive use of the municipal public nuisance ordinance to revoke business licenses when companies violate their operating permits. Seventh, we also want regulations that address cumulative pollution. Norwood and Chicago have these types of ordinances which establish that businesses or that business license should not be granted in zones with exceptionally high levels of pollution. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Luis Gomez, followed by Chris Soldon, followed by Mehran Atamajan.

Good evening, Louis Gomez, Rexford Industrial. Thank you for having me here tonight. First of all, I want to thank the city staff for working with our team as well as the NAOP team. Rexford Industrial is a real estate investment trust. We're based out of Southern California and we focus exclusively on industrial real estate. We currently own about 615,000 square feet here in the city of Santa Ana, so we are an active owner and investor in the community. I'm here to support the NAOP letter. NAOP has worked extensively with planning department. I think there's just two items that we'd like to have as part of the approval. Number one is to restore contractor yards as a permitted use in the flex and M1 zones. We think that's important. Having to do a CUP is an extensive process and can prevent projects from happening. Number two, we also would like to restore freight, bus, truck terminals as a CUP allowed use in the M1 zone. Again, very important. I think the gentleman spoke earlier on the idea that you may not be able to have a truck zone in a perfectly suited site because it's no longer allowed, and I think that's an important use to keep. With that, again, we are in support of the zone changes and, again, want to thank staff for their time and opportunity to work with them. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Chris Soldon, followed by Mehran Tomajan, followed by Jennifer Salas.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioner. My name is Chris Solden. I was born and raised here in Santa Ana, the Santa Ana Gardens, on Occidental Street. When I was growing up, there was nothing but lima bean fields behind me, all the way to Baker Street in Costa Mesa. I attended Diamond Elementary School and Old Smedley Junior High School and graduated from Santa Ana Valley. My wife, Joy, and I are property owners at 302-308 and 402 North Sullivan Street here in Santa Ana. My connections of Santa Ana business community goes back even further. My grandfather operated a plumbing shop on 4th Street in Santa Ana here. Over the years, some of the businesses that have operated from our property include Pacific Telephone, Starving Students, landscape companies such as LandPro, EarthCo, and currently Durham School Bus Services are operating out of one of our properties. Durham School Bus operates for the schools. They have their buses on our property and they operate been there for 12 years for us, doing good. I'm here tonight to support the recommendations submitted by NAIOP Southern California and the members of Santa Ana business community. We respectfully ask the commission to make two final changes to the proposed zoning codes. First, restore the contractor's yard. That's what We have a contractor of the yard used in the flex. Requiring a conditional use permit adds additional time, costs, uncertainty. Those additional costs ultimately get passed along through higher rents, operating costs that goes to the tenants. Contractors' Yards are a resource for hiring and employing people who want to work, provide themselves and do better for themselves and their family. We need to give these people the opportunity to receive these goals. Santiana has a lot of resource and there are people who are good resources for Contractors' Yards. We ask for the freight bus and truck terminals to be restored to a CUP. I believe these two changes strike a reasonable approach to businesses. My wife and I appreciate the city planning, zoning staff, and commission for listening to us tonight, thank you.

Thank you. We have Mehran Tomajan, I apologize if I mispronounced that, Jennifer Salas, followed by Mohammed Karashi.

Good evening, Chair Ramos and commissioners. I'm Iran Tumajan, Government Relations Manager at NAOP SoCal, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association. We represent the entire commercial real estate ecosystem in Orange and Los Angeles counties, including property owners and investors, commercial brokers, general contractors, architects and engineers, finance and title professionals, and other service providers within commercial real estate. NAEP SoCal and our members take this opportunity to express our gratitude to city planning division staff with whom we've engaged honestly yet forthrightly over the past two years during several community workshops on the city's proposed zoning code update. I'd like to especially highlight the professionalism of CERE champion and Ricardo Soto who have communicated on several occasions with NAEP SoCal members member companies expressing concern about potential zoning changes and allowed uses in the areas of the city where they own properties since the draft zoning map and comprehensive zoning code update were released to the public in july nap socal submitted five distinct letters several with recommended changes to the zoning code update addressed to the Santa Ana Planning Commission and to city planning staff. I'm here tonight to emphasize two recommendations submitted by NAVSOCAL on behalf of our members in Santa Ana's business community. Generally, you heard it already, we respectfully ask the Commission to make the following final changes to the proposed zoning code. Restore contractors' yards as a permitted use in the flex and M1RII. and to restore freight bus and truck terminal under a conditional use permit requirement in the M1RII as well. If these two changes are incorporated, NAEP SoCal can and will support the city's proposed zoning map and zoning code update. We appreciate the city's work throughout this process and respectfully ask for your support of these final two recommendations. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We now have Jennifer Salas, followed by Mohammed Karashi, followed by Raquel Cruz.

Good evening, my name is Jennifer Salas with UCI EcoGovLab, here supporting the Cornerstone Neighborhood Association's call for zoning justice and general plan accountability. I want to address the claims that Santa Ana needs traditional industry to provide jobs and tax revenue to the city, pointing instead to many cities that have successfully greened while also creating new jobs, city revenue, and overall prosperity. I first want to point to Minneapolis, which has reported more than 1,000 completed pollution reduction projects and proactively supports green enterprises. The City of Minneapolis has operated its Green Cost Share Program since 2013. Beginning with pollution reduction and dry cleaning businesses, the program later expanded to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other improvements for commercial, industrial, multifamily, and residential properties. THE PROGRAM'S ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOCUS BECAME EVEN STRONGER AFTER MINNEAPOLIS FORMERLY ESTABLISHED ITS GREEN ZONES IN 2017. BY 2025, THE CITY REPORTED MORE THAN 1,000 COMPLETED PROJECTS AND A FOURFOLD INCREASE IN PARTICIPATION. There are several parts of the Minneapolis approach that Santa Ana can and should consider. First, prepare green career pathways for Minneapolis residents. Second, support green businesses and expand startup financing. Third, help underemployed and first-time workers enter green careers through community-based partners, Four, provide grants for cleaner buildings, solar installations, and pollution reductions in business processes. And last, give higher priority and support to green zones, low income housing, and low income serving non-profits. I encourage the city of Santa Ana to study and follow Minneapolis' example. I also want to point you to the City of Cincinnati and its 2023 Green Cincinnati Plan and Green Jobs Program. Cincinnati's 2025 Green Workforce Landscape Analysis estimates that full investment could generate up to 44,000 jobs and approximately 11 to 15 billion in regional economic impact. Those figures are projections, not realized outcomes, but still an example to learn from and build on. Cincinnati also has a brownfields map and project tracker to guide conversion of contaminated areas into properties with community benefit. There's so much to learn from this too. EcoGovLab has prepared a report documenting how many different cities have implemented green zoning and initiatives to address environmental injustice. We will submit this to the city for their consideration. Tonight, as you deliberate and vote, I hope you will envision what is possible in Santa Ana, making zoning justice a core commitment. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We now have Mohammed Karashi followed by Raquel Cruz.

good evening councillors good evening staff my name is muhammad karashi i own a property business at 7 11 north fairview street owner of civic center and fairview pretty busy street this property has been used as commercial for the last 70 years. I've occupied it for 40 years. The zone has changed to UN-20. I don't know if it benefits me or it doesn't benefit me, but I do know that today was the first day they operated the railroad. from my property up and down, up and down, eight hours or 10 hours today. I got the full, you know, the noise and all the bad things that go with it, the traffic. I felt it today. Now the UN-20, allows you residential as well as commercial in the bottom. I would request everybody here, please do not make it residential. The children, it's such a busy street, I feel like there's gonna be a lot of accidents happening if you have residents right there. I don't know, they made the train stop right at my property. and a lot of noise for train moving up and down. So I request that this property be made commercial rather than UN20 so there's no residents involved. It's for the safety of the residents. Thank you.

Thank you. We now have Raquel Cruz.

Hello. I ask for your patience when speaking because I have a little bit of a speech impediment, but I'll try to be as clear as possible. My family home, the property that we own, is located near the bike trail that used to be the Pacific... I originally came here because I was just concerned about zoning residential area to potentially commercial area. But it seems like while I was here, I learned about what was happening with Kona Stone and the pollution there. And hearing some of the stories of the speakers, I realized that my story growing up is very similar to some of the children who they were speaking of. I personally have asthma and I have allergies and these things affected me growing up in a way that I wasn't able to run for a good portion of my time as a child and I would get sick very often, including like I have speech difficulty that I personally have worked through And I want to say that I would like it if we can support a future that is healthy for the residents that are here, because thinking back at my story, I went to Santa Ana College, and then I went to Cal State Fullerton, and my goal is to work in cybersecurity so that I can help our government defend ourselves and our communities from the potential of our utilities being attacked and taken down. And I think that by protecting the people here, you're also protecting the future. You're helping these students and people who are like me in the neighborhood eventually become, I'm sorry, eventually work their way to being an integral part of our world, you're working towards making an intelligent and strong future generation that can be more than helpful in the future. And I just want to say that we should focus on protecting our future generations. And thank you so much for your time and your patience. Thank you.

Thank you. Recording secretary, do we have any public speakers online via Zoom?

Chair, we have three speakers via Zoom. The first speaker is gonna be Tracy Rosaweski. I'm so sorry if I mispronounced your name. If you can please unmute yourself.

Okay, I think that finally worked. I was waiting to be unmuted. Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair Ramos and commissioners. My name is Tracy Razewski, and I oversee development and entitlements for Prologis in Southern California. I just wanted to confirm you can hear me? Thank you.

If you can speak a little louder, please.

I appreciate the opportunity. Is this better?

Yes, thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, particularly after hearing the important perspectives shared by members of the community. As a long-term owner, operator and investor in our communities, Prologis continues to invest in EV charging, renewable energy and workforce development here in Southern California, including training that helps prepare local workers for careers in emerging green energy technologies. Prologis has been part of the Santa Ana business community for more than a decade with properties south of Ettinger. We continue to invest in these properties and support the businesses that operate within them. I'm here tonight in support of the recommendations submitted by NAOP SoCal and members of Santa Ana's business community, and specifically to reinforce two final requests. First, as previously mentioned, restore contractors' yards as permitted use in flex and M1R2. These uses are appropriate in industrial areas and requiring a CUP adds unnecessary time, cost, and uncertainty for businesses. Second, Restore freight, bus, and truck terminal as a CUP use in M1R2. A CUP gives the city the ability to evaluate these uses individually and impose appropriate conditions rather than prohibiting them altogether. With these two changes, Prologis can support the proposed zoning map and zoning code update. We appreciate the city's work on this process and respectfully ask for your support of these final changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Tracy. Next speaker is Erika Gonzalez. If you can please unmute yourself.

Okay, can you hear me now? Sorry, I was having trouble on mute. Hi, everyone. Good evening. My name is Erica Gonzalez, and I'm a lifelong Delhi resident. and I'm also the Community Initiatives and Finance Director for Orange County Environmental Justice. I would like to uplift the comments and lived experiences of the Cornerstone Village residents. And as a Santa Ana resident, I echo the ask for a moratorium on zoning changes until more research on environmental impacts can be properly investigated and deemed safe for the existing community. Their stories are just a few of many, and they, along with all of Santana residents, deserve ample time to develop a general plan that truly redefines our current lived experiences. While there have been many strides towards a more inclusive process and transparency, we are still a long way from having a general plan that truly captures what residents are asking for. Job creation through climate resilience should be a focal point and we need to work with the business owners to begin a just transition towards a greener and regenerative economy. Together we can create a vision for Santana that not only begins to heal the environmental damage that polluting industries have caused for generations, but we can create an environmentally friendly economy that benefits everyone involved. The residents of Cornerstone, Pacific Park, Madison, Evergreen, and Delhi deserve to raise their families without the fear or guilt of negative impacts to their health because of their zip codes. To business owners who are unhappy with the proposed changes supporting the quality of life of residents, I ask you, would you allow known polluters to continue operating in your neighborhood, in your backyard? without advocating for your quality of life. I really doubt that because you're here trying to advocate for your quality of business. So that leads me to believe that you would do the same in your city and in your neighborhood. So I ask you for some empathy and understanding and we need to work together because the way that we're working right now isn't helping anyone involved and it's only prolonging this process which ultimately is only hurting the residents that are living here day in and day out so many of the industries around santana have been required to perform some type of cleanup or remediation on more than one occasion not to mention the contamination of our groundwater almost 20 years ago that is still affecting our residents who along the border of their parking lot over in cherry aerospace There's a long history of mistrust between the residents who live alongside youth industries and the current accountability process or lack thereof. Special protections for Kennedy and Century are most definitely a must. So what we're asking for today is simply more time so that we can have a general plan that truly captures what we're all trying to achieve here. We want to have more green spaces, we want to have healthier environments, and we want to raise our families in safe places. I don't think that that's too much for Santa Ana residents to ask for. Thank you.

Next speaker is Shivani Chadra. If you can please unmute yourself.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Shivani Chadra. I'm an intern researcher here with UCI EcoGov Lab, planning a career in nursing or public health. I'm here to tell you what I've learned about environmental justice and what it would look like in Santa Ana, working in partnership with the Cornerstone Neighborhood Association. environmental injustice occurs when some communities face more pollution than other communities while also facing other stresses like poverty low education educational attainment high levels of asthma and high levels of babies born early or low weight environmental injustice is also a result of racism and discrimination many communities many communities in santa ana over half of your neighborhoods face environmental injustice something should be done about this to protect your city's public health I've learned, for example, that PM 2.5 air pollution can lead to heart attacks and reduce cognitive function, as well as high levels of asthma. Because of this, there should be a buffer between polluting industries and schools and homes. Your most recent zoning code draft does not include these. I've also learned that Santa Ana has extensive PFAS contaminations, especially in the southeastern quadrant of the city. PFAS cause cancer and is very difficult to clean up. The southeastern quadrant of the city does not need new pollution sources. Like PFAs, hexavalent chromium causes cancer. Santa Ana likely has extensive hexachromed polluters because of the many metal plating companies in the city. especially in the southeastern quadrant this is another reason this area should not have more pollution sources santa ana also has multiple sources of lead contamination high blood lead levels lead to lower iq increased antisocial behavior and poor academic performance All this pollution and the cumulative effect on people's health over time puts Santa Ana communities at serious risk for developing lifelong health problems. People in Santa Ana deserve better. Your priority should be public health. Your draft zoning code doesn't protect it. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. The next speaker is Rocky Shin. If you can please unmute yourself.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.

Hello, staff and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rocky Shen, speaking on behalf of New Song Church, located at 1010 West 17th Street. I'd like to thank Siri Campion for meeting with us a few times to discuss our concerns regarding the proposed new zoning on the property. We at New Song respectfully ask for more time for us to consider how the aspects of the new zoning might impact the work that we do in Santa Ana moving forward. Thank you.

Chair, we no longer have any speakers in-house or via Zoom.

Thank you. With that, the public testimony portion of the public hearing is now closed. Before we get into commission comments and questions, staff would like to make a few points of clarification related to questions and comments received last week.

Thank you, Chair. I'm bringing up the presentation now. Very well. Good evening, Chair. Good evening, Vice Chair, Commissioners, community members. I appreciate all the time and attention that's been given tonight to this important subject. As we already know, the item tonight is the zoning code update and general plan cleanup. The item involves three applications. First is the zoning ordinance amendment number 2026-03, zone change number 260004, and general plan amendment number 2026-02. These involve adoption of a new zoning code, a new zoning map, and a cleanup of several properties in the city in the general plan land use map. The location of the project is citywide, and I already described the projects, which involves the repeal and replacement of Chapter 41, the new zoning map, and the new land use designations for the general plan. Staff's recommendation tonight is that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council adoption of a resolution to make findings pursuant to the Public Resources Code to adopt an addendum to the General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. And to adopt an ordinance to approve zoning ordinance amendment number 2026-03 to repeal and replace chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. And to approve zone change number 2026-0004, which is the new zoning map. And lastly, to adopt a resolution for the general plan amendment number 2026-02 for the cleanup of properties throughout the city. First, we wanted to provide some clarifying information about the residential industrial interface, which is a very important topic to many stakeholders as we've heard tonight. First, we wanted to answer questions about the methodology that was used to develop the location of the residential industrial interface on the zoning map. The first step in the process was to identify areas where residential uses abutted or were separated from industrial uses by a railroad or a public right of way. From there, we looked at the selection of parcels based on a target depth of 300 to 600 feet, roughly, This was in order to create a buffer between those industrial uses and the residential neighborhoods. And also we recognize that the noxious uses ordinance would continue to be in effect, which would apply within 1,000 feet. So in those areas within 1,000 feet of residential, the conditional use permit application would be required for noxious uses. We also looked for opportunities to apply the residential industrial interface to whole blocks or to use natural breaks where possible with the goal of avoiding splitting properties or splitting blocks because that is standard practice for land use planning. Here are a couple examples of the methodology in action. On the left-hand side, you can see one of the areas discussed tonight, which is North Santiago near Penway and Washington Avenue. In this location, we can see residential and SD84 immediately abutting the currently M2 zoning district, which is proposed to become M1 residential industrial interface. And to the west, we see a school that is the institutional zoning on the left-hand side of the screen. On the right-hand side we see an example from South Standard near Edinger. We can see the M1, our residential industrial interface area which is located between these areas in yellow. I'll use the cursor here. These areas in yellow which are close to across the railroad right away from these areas here which are proposed to be M1 residential industrial interface. We also have the school which influences the location of that interface and then the Century High School down here. Next we wanted to call to your attention the changing proposed uses. So this slide shows you both the change involving existing to proposed allowed uses. So there are three different categories here. One is uses that have been added to the residential industrial interface. The second in center column is uses that have been streamlined. And the third is more restrictive use regulations. In the far left, you can see that there have been several uses that have been added, which can be allowed with either by right or a conditional use permit or a minor conditional use permit. Among the uses streamlined, they include uses that are currently allowed with a conditional use permit, and they've been transitioned in this draft of the zoning code to be permitted by right or ancillary to an existing business. At the bottom center, you can see there's a handful of uses that have been changed from a conditional use permit in the existing code to a minor conditional use permit. One that I'd like to point out that is very relevant to the conversation we've heard tonight is the vocational or trade school opportunity, which is one of those ways that we can be training our future leaders in the community. In the far right we see uses that have been restricted by going from permitted to a conditional use permit, and those include impound yards with storage only and no office or dispatching operations, equipment sales and rental heavy, public utility structures, and contractors' yards. And under the uses removed, this has been in response to feedback that we've received from community members. Those uses removed from the existing include outdoor storage of class one or class two liquids, petroleum and gas storage, freight bus and truck terminals, data centers, recycling facilities, both large and small collection, as well as recycling processing facilities, which should also be on this list. Next, we have storage and distribution of hazardous materials and then laundry and dry cleaning plants, which are all uses that have been removed in the residential industrial interface. Next, we wanted to clarify information about nonconforming provisions and noxious uses. First of all, we want to be clear that for uses that would become non-conforming, they may continue to operate. And first they may restore uses or structures after calamity. And so if there is a fire, if there is an earthquake, if there's another force of nature, those properties, both the uses and structures may be restored. Nonconforming structures may be maintained and rehabilitated. Structures may be expanded as part of rehabilitation provided that the expansion is limited to 25% of the gross floor area. Lastly, non-conforming status is lost if a use is discontinued or if a building is vacant for 12 months. This is in the current zoning code and is proposed to be retained in the draft zoning code. However, an important note is that this non-conforming status loss would not apply to individual tenant spaces in a multi-tenant unit or where there's multiple structures on a site. So the entirety of the property would need to be vacated for a period of 12 months in order for the nonconforming status to be discontinued. So the next question would be how that applies to nonconforming noxious uses. There's a bit of a restriction here compared to nonconforming noxious uses. So a loss of nonconforming status is triggered by a new certificate of occupancy for any reason other than a change in business name with no change in ownership. So if they want to come in for a new water heater, a change of ownership from one entity to another entity, they want to make improvements to the property, all of those would trigger a new certificate of occupancy and they would need to come into conformance with the zoning code. There would be three options for a noxious use to do this. Option 1 would be to change operations so that they no longer are emitting, discharging, storing, handling, etc., hazardous materials. The second option would be to obtain a conditional use permit. And the third option would be to change the use from one that's noxious to a non-noxious use. In other words, there are pathways forward for non-conforming noxious uses. Another important thing to clarify is the proposed change in definition to noxious use. So currently on the left, you can see that any use that requires a permit from a regional state or federal agency to handle, store, emit, or discharge particulate materials, exhaust emissions, or handle, store, emit, or discharge regulated compounds, hazardous materials, chemicals, or substances that are located within 1,000 linear feet of a park or school or residential use must obtain a conditional use permit. In this current regulation, this current ordinance, the following uses would fall under the category of obnoxious use. Auto maintenance, including oil change facilities or places that change belts and fluids, those oftentimes appear in a more commercial zone. These would fall under the category of obnoxious use under the existing code. A second example of a noxious use would be an auto body spray booth that's emitting spray, emitting noxious fumes while they spray vehicles. And then the third is a vehicle fueling station. Under the proposed public draft of the zoning code update, the definition is proposed to be changed be applicable to primary business operations only and not the entirety of a use. So this would not apply to ancillary uses such as a barrel of oil that's stored on site for a plumbing operator that needs oil to lubricate components of their parts. So the primary business operation would involve any two or more of the following would be at noxious use. The list of emitting, generating or discharging and so forth are the same as they are in the current code. And then operations that are regulated by and require a permit from federal, state or regional agency are also consistent with the current code. The third option for criteria to meet the noxious uses definition is storing, processing or disposing of listed or hazardous waste. Or finally, operations that are not contained within a fully enclosed building. And all of this only applies when located within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or residential facility. With this new proposed definition, auto body spray booths that do emit into the atmosphere would be considered a noxious use. If they were to transition their operations to maintain their fumes on site and to process their fumes on site and not emit them into the air, they would no longer be considered a noxious use. And then another example would be vehicle fueling station. In contrast, auto maintenance facilities like a Jiffy Lube, for example, would no longer be considered a noxious use. Next, we wanted to go over a few different uses of interest that we've heard about this evening. First, contractors' yards is a topic that's come up many times this evening. Currently, in the proposed public draft of the zoning code update, a conditional use permit would be required in the residential industrial interface. And this is because staff believes that a conditional use permit is necessary to ensure that the conditions applied to the discretionary permit are appropriate for the type of contractor in the subject location. So some contractor yards would produce emissions, would cause dust, vibrations, and so forth that might be different from other types of contractors' yards. And so staff recommends a conditional use permit so that we can appropriately condition those different types of contractors' yards. For equipment sales and rental, light equipment sales or rental is defined in the draft code as an indoor only use. This type of equipment is handheld equipment and it's not the kind of equipment that would be moved on and off the site with a trailer on wheels. These would be permitted by right in all industrial districts. And the light equipment sales and rental is in comparison to heavy equipment sales and rental where operations take place both indoors and outdoors. As proposed, they would be permitted by right in the light industrial and the heavy industrial zones and permitted with a conditional use permit in both the flex and the M1 with the residential industrial interface. And similar to contractors' yards, this is to ensure that conditions are appropriate to that outdoor use where it's close to a residential school or park facility. Tonight we've heard, and at the meeting last week, we heard about printing and publishing facilities. So I just wanted to make sure it's clear that printing and publishing facilities are permitted with the CUP and two of our professional office zones. It's permitted with a minor conditional use permit and the two of our other professional office zones. And then in the commercial C2 zone, the light industrial and the heavy industrial, they would be permitted by right. In contrast, they would be permitted by right with some restrictions in the Flex 1.5 and Flex 3 zones. The reason for the 10,000 square feet limitation is that when you go beyond 10,000 square feet, you run into a situation where you have a higher intensity, more industrial type of printing facility. So when you get to 25,000 square feet and higher, that's where those kick in as compared to a more small scale commercial type printing facility like Kinko's or a FedEx facility, not FedEx, a Kinko's or can't think of the name of another example. But I think you understand what I'm trying to say. So these types of uses tend to have a smaller footprint, less than 10,000 square feet. And then we heard tonight about data centers, or we heard last week about data centers, and just wanted to clarify that they would not be permitted, they are not included in the list of proposed uses. And in the draft code, as well as in the current code, the director, any use that is not specifically listed within the allowed uses tables are not permitted in any, in this case, industrial district, or for that matter, any district within the city, unless the director determines whether a proposed use is similar to any use listed in the table and is appropriate for the district based on general plan land use policies and general health, safety, and welfare considerations. In this case of data centers, there really is no similar use, and so if it's not permitted, the director would not be able to approve a data center. Before moving on, I just wanted to address one other use that we heard a lot about tonight, which is the freight, bus, and truck terminals. And staff has recommended that they not be included with the conditional use permit in close proximity to the residential uses because of the heavy impact that freight, bus, and truck terminals can have on residential uses. However, they are permitted with a conditional use permit in the other three industrial districts. In the last meeting we had some confusion about map changes and we just wanted to clarify tonight that a few of these different map changes for the benefit of the audience. First of all there was confusion about there being only one residential district and there are in fact four different residential districts. The single-family residential is shown in yellow in the bottom right-hand side of the screen. The R2 low-medium residential is shown in the middle of the screen. R3 medium residential is shown in a neighborhood in the top left of the screen. And the R4 is shown in the top right of the screen. And I just chose this area of the city because it's a place where you can see all four districts together in one area. We heard questions from community members last week about the transition from multiple to single family zoning in this particular area of the city, in the Meredith Park neighborhood. And here you can see on the left, we have the existing zoning map, and you can see that these are all in the R4 zoning district. On the right hand side, you can see that those are proposed to become R1. And this is based on the general plan land use map. So the general plan land use map, as of the previous, not just the 2022 general plan land use map, but our previous map that was adopted previously included all of those as single family residential. And it's important to note that for those areas where there's a density greater than the general plan, those residential districts or residential uses would be allowed to continue and they would not be considered non-conforming. And then one of the main concerns that we heard in talking with stakeholders after the meeting last week had to do with on-street parking. And we just wanted to underline the fact that zoning does not regulate on-street parking, and instead the city does have a permit parking program that's intended to help with our parking issues on-street. And we wanted to clarify that a change in the zone will not impact permit parking, which is associated with the use and not with the zone of a property. We've also heard tonight and last week from New Song Church. And New Song Church is proposed to be changed from a split zoning designation of C1 and R1 to an entirely R1 property. This, again, is based on the general plan land use map, which shows the entirety of the property as being single family residential. And then St. Ann's Church came up in our previous discussions at the public hearing. St. Ann's Church is the subject of one of the General Plan Amendment cleanup sites. On the left-hand side of the screen, you can see the existing General Plan land use designation, which is split between LR7, single-family residential, and the urban neighborhood in the purple. And the proposed general plan cleanup would make the entirety of the St. Anne's Church and school site urban neighborhood, which would allow for them to continue their operations. And then lastly, we wanted to cover some key text changes in the public hearing draft. These are the text changes that were distributed previously with the last planning commissioner's packet and was posted online, both in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. There are copies of those changes in a summary document both in the front of the room as well as in the foyer if anyone would like to take a look at them. One of the key changes that has been proposed is to include some additional landscaping requirements to serve as a carbon sink in industrial areas. I won't go into details here, but essentially the requirement would be to incorporate more greenery and different types of greenery in order to be capturing that carbon in the vicinity of the residential industrial interface. Next, the draft proposes residential standards as well that would be changed in places that are close to the residential industrial interface. And the goal here would be to address legacy pollution issues and not address the new industrial uses which we expect to be cleaner uses. So for new residential or for residential that is being expanded or modified, they would need to address some requirements pertaining to the site layout and traffic circulation, building orientation, enhanced landscaping, the incorporation of walls, air filtration, and standards that address noise vibration and attenuation. And then we wanted to look at enclosed operations. This is something that's been somewhat confusing for stakeholders. And we actually are recommending some alternative language to further clarify what is meant by enclosed operations with respect to outdoor business activity. So in the current code, it reads, for businesses that require closed operations, such restriction does not apply to the storage and parking of vehicles, the movement of vehicles and goods off-site, and the temporary staging of materials and goods awaiting pickup, delivery, or transportation. And we're recommending clarifying language so that it's clearer to our stakeholders and our staff. and that would be enclosed operation restrictions shall not apply to the storage and parking of vehicles and equipment, the movement of vehicles, equipment, and goods on and off the site, and the temporary staging of materials and goods awaiting pickup and delivery or transportation. There are a few other concerns that have come up that we wanted to address and clarify. Again, the zoning code update does not mean that the city will take property through eminent domain, the city will not close businesses, and the city will not displace tenants through the zoning code update. Noise regulations was a question that arose last week as well as this evening. And the proposed operational standards for the residential industrial interface requires that no business activity that generates exterior noise or vibration shall be conducted between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. in the Flex 1.5, Flex 3, or the residential industrial interface districts. Based on our city's noise ordinance, between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., noise or vibration may be generated, provided that it does not exceed the 50 decimals maximum level established in the noise control ordinance of the health and sanitation chapter of the municipal code. In other words, it is possible to operate a business during these hours. It's just that the exterior noise cannot exceed these maximum levels. And 24-hour businesses would be acceptable provided that they aren't causing a noise impact or a vibration impact to the surrounding properties. So to return to the recommendation by staff, tonight's recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council adoption of a resolution to make findings pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 21166 and to adopt the addendum to the General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report Adopt an ordinance to approve zoning ordinance amendment number 2026-03, which is the new chapter of the new zoning code, Chapter 41. And approve zone change number 2026-0004, which would be the new zoning map. And lastly, to adopt a resolution to approve general plan amendment number 2026-02. And before the zoning code update, we're to move on to the city council for their consideration. There are two clarifications staff recommends in addition to those that we've covered so far. Well, one in addition to the ones that we've covered so far, and then the second being the recommended language for outdoor storage and parking. So first, so we request that the Planning Commission's recommendation includes these two revisions, which are to adopt the enclosed operation restrictions, saying that they shall not apply to storage and parking of vehicles and equipment, the movement of vehicle equipment and goods on and off the site, and the temporary staging of materials and goods awaiting pickup, delivery, or transportation. And then the second clarifying change that staff recommends is that library museums and art galleries in the institutional district, which are currently proposed to be allowed by right, be changed to a CUP. And this was an oversight on the part of staff. A library, museum or art gallery is considered an assembly use and all assembly uses including churches, community centers and so forth are required to be approved by a CUP. And that concludes staff's presentation and we're available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. We will now take comments and questions from the Commission. I will give everybody four minutes for the first round, and then we'll go and do a second. Who would like to begin? Commissioner Pham, go ahead.

Thank you, Siri, for the presentation. That answers a lot of questions I jotted down. So I'll go with a different approach to this. Can you clarify for us and everyone that is here, in division five, the zoning code map amendment procedural? Because to me it sounds like the stakeholders are present today and the community members, there seems to be an impression that once this zoning code update is in effect, that it's done. that everything that's written down on pen on paper is solidified and there's no chance to amend or there's no chance to evaluate whether or not the zoning code update was successful. And if it wasn't successful in certain areas of the city, that there is an avenue to adjust our zoning code update. So division five to me is interesting that it, creates an avenue for either the city or stakeholders representing the individual properties to appeal what has been zoned or the restriction that has been zoned on their specific property. I just want to clarify if that's correct.

Absolutely. Thank you for that, Commissioner Pham. There are two things that I want to underline in that comment. First is relative to the process that is underway right now. Once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council, there are still opportunities for the public to make comments and for refinements to be made to the draft zoning code. Secondly, after it goes to City Council for their consideration and final review, assuming that the City Council adopts the zoning code update as is proposed, there would still be pathways through the zoning code that would allow for changes to be made in the future. It's a living document. And so over the course of the years following the adoption of the zoning code, we would be evaluating the success of the zoning code and looking at whether or not there are opportunities to make improvements on it.

Thank you for clarifying. I think that's the reasoning for me to want to ask about Division 5 is the fact that, you know, The zoning code does lay out a chain of escalation from uses being permitted by right, uses that are done by CUP, and to me, The zoning code is aspirational, just like the general plan. It's painting the guidelines of the state in a broad brush. The mechanism of a CUP, the mechanism of a minor CUP is the ability for stakeholders to be able to appeal for their individual property and make cases for why maybe the broad brush treatment doesn't serve the highest and best use. And so I get that individual owners or stakeholders want us to deliberate and either postpone or elongate this review process to address their own specific needs, but I think that this might not be the best avenue for it, and I want to be able to highlight that there is a mechanism in Division V for us to retroactively look back at certain zoning decisions, and that the public should understand that they do have a mechanism to either appeal or address certain zoning decisions that might not have serve the community the best currently. So that's one thing. Another thing is, you know, there seems to be some confusion about the R1 zoning for residential. I get it, it seems weird to have a property that is R4 and now zone R1. My question is, the mechanics of it would be if a property is R4 and it has, let's say, condos or kind of multi-units within a larger lot, and if it's now zone R1, if it's currently in use, then nothing changes, right? Because it's not non-conforming, it's just nothing changes. But down the road, if the property owner decides to sell that property, and redevelop it, then it would be redeveloped in accordance to an R1 standard for single family. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. So essentially, the way I see it as an R4 zone typically would be very dense, and so if, the public is concerned about the impact of parking, the impact of just a higher density within R1 area. In theory, the city's making a pathway, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, the city's putting a pathway so that in eventuality, these higher density areas property can be zoned down as the market sees fit, and that would probably decrease the demand on parking. That's my interpretation of it. So I just want to give some input on that. If I interpret it incorrectly, let me know. That's how I see it.

Thank you, Commissioner Pham. I apologize. You're at five minutes, so we're not going to give everybody five minutes. If you have anything else in your second round, you can bring those up. Thank you.

Commissioner Wu. As I was driving through the city, I noticed some observation regarding mobile truck and outdoor businesses. The businesses that have an address or lease a property, it is covered, their outdoor activity on Roman numeral I, IV 39, and it spells out what they got to do with the vehicles, signage, you know, outdoor dining and so forth. But on page 33, for mobile truck, I think we have a jurisdiction problem, because I was driving around Bank of America on Main Street, and I got because there was a long line at the Versatel where you drive through. I took a turn down the street and there was a whole street in that neighborhood that was sort of like Woolworth. They were serving food and they were selling products anywhere from perfume to underwear to other stuff. It's like three or four vendors. serving food and retail and I was curious do they have a license and who would where would the jurisdiction lie in term of regulating that and following up on that And then across from some of the parks in Bristol near Mater Dei, there was a whole food fair going on with multiple trucks there. And I think they probably have more regulated things. But in addition to that, we have a lot of illegal food. operations going on in the city, that even though we have zoning, it's going to be up to the neighborhood residents and people with the My Santa Ana app to kind of look, is this legal or what? i i think that's the problem we have one hand that cannot be addressed uh unless you you show me somewhere it does address that in terms of the the jurisdictional enforcement and and all that now you also have a slide there you said that you're not going to use eminent domain we do not have right a redevelopment agency. We don't use them in the domain and we're not going to go take away someone's property just because they're not conforming. If you're non-conforming, it seems to say, if I'm correct, if you're non-conforming, you could stay non-conforming until you wish to make some changes to your property. Or you go to sell it and the next owner wants to have a different use. So that comes back to us, again, and we have language here to kind of deal with it. Am I writing correctly on that assumption?

That is correct.

Okay, so that leads me to, again, say that we made a commitment to residential area. We made a commitment for jobs by supporting businesses and industry. And we made a commitment to allowing for bed and breakfast places. We also made a commitment for community institutions like the churches. And New Song is a good example. It came into Santa Ana to work with the neighborhood there and has been a good fixture. And to have a big, big... event every Wednesday where you get food. You could take martial arts lessons and cooking lessons and how to take care of your kids and how to prevent asthma by cleaning your house. They have all sorts of activity there. but they also have a lot of traffic, but they also try to regulate it and be a good neighbor to the neighborhoods. But currently it doesn't fit off the zone there, but I understand that staff is working on it and talking to the church, right? Okay, so we have a way of remedying those concern for specific properties out there, and I want to encourage the staff to not just make, I mean, not staff, the community, to not just make speeches about what is wrong in general, but to look at how we can make this plan work together. And as we going to have to make a decision to pass this on to the city council to finalize it, the speeches doesn't really illuminate what are the particulars on each one of the pages that spells out what can be there. The other thing I think.

Commissioner Wu, you're at your time.

Okay, really quickly.

We'll go back to you in the next round, thank you.

We're going to go with.

Thank you, Commissioner Wu. We're going to go with Commissioner Guzman.

Thank you, Chair Ramos. I have more of a question, or not a question, or comment. I'm fairly new on this commission, so I've been doing a lot of listening. And for the three-ish meetings that we've had on the zoning code, we've had people from the various parts of our Santa Ana community come in and express their preferences. And I do appreciate that because it's allowed me at least to understand the issues facing the city and how active we all are in this city. And I really appreciate that. That being said, you know, and that was a wonderful example of democracy in action. That being said, democracy sometimes takes a lot of compromises, and I think that the zoning code makes a lot of really good compromises. It's a very comprehensive, cohesive vision of the city. It has evolved since its initial draft to address a lot of the concerns, particularly with the very of interest residential industrial interface. Because I've been doing concurrent looking up, I know that they've taken a lot of the comments into consideration when it comes to carbon sinks, when it comes to redirecting traffic. That's the Placentia SB1000 letter from the AG. Those are the things that were put into effect by the City of Placentia. I think it's a really good balance, and not everybody's going to be happy 100% of the time, but as Commissioners Pham and Commissioner Wu have said, and Siri has confirmed, this is an evolving document. This is the first stab in a really long time to have a comprehensive vision for the city. And so I really applaud staff for being open to recommendations from the community, recommendations from the Commission, answering questions from this Commission. But I think this is a great evolution from what we had, which was a lot of piecemeal and which was being requested during all the meetings that we had. this is a vision. And not everybody is going to be happy, but it's a step forward. And I think that this is a great start. We're going to make recommendations or not today to the City Council. Hopefully we will. And then the City Council is going to get to hear it twice or going to consider it twice for the ordinance to be effectuated. You know, I really encourage, as Commissioner Pham stated, that if you have something specific to your property, you know, come back to us. Come talk to staff. You know, go through the process. But honestly, this document is great. It has a great vision for the future. even off Santiago, which we heard a lot about. You know, Blinky Nell is just down the street, which is a great, I mean, it's not closed, but when it was open, it was a great example of commercial within that area. And so I'm, great job, staff, and thank you, the public, for coming and enlightening me and educating me on all the issues.

Thank you, Commissioner Guzman. You had time to spare as well. We're going to go with Commissioner Leo.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank everybody who came out tonight. I kind of wanted to start with a, there's kind of a chicken and an egg discussion that went on. So we've heard a lot from the Cornerstone Village community. The businesses are correct, they were there before the community was there. Those apartments were not built until the late 50s, early 60s. Century High School didn't come into effect until 1989. Who made that decision? School district did. City didn't make that decision. School district put the students in that location. 1990, they put Kennedy Elementary School, they put the students in that location. There's no school district people here tonight. They put your children in harm's way. The businesses were already there. They didn't go looking for the students. So there has to be some realization that there's another entity in this community that made decisions that are impacting the people of this community. Let's go further. Pio Pico and Lowell schools are going to be combined. They don't have students. There's a park. Somebody asked me about parks. Somebody recommended parks. There's a place for a park, isn't it? In addition to that, Monroe Elementary has less than 250 students. Could be another park, could be housing. That entity is not in this room tonight. And unfortunately, they put residents and children in harm's way. The businesses were already there. So when we think about what we're gonna do in certain areas of the city, We need to think about the other entities that have affected the city. Somebody put the 5 freeway through the city. The city didn't make that decision. So all of this compounds and goes through. I heard someone mention Delhi today. The beet factory was there before the barrio was there. Let's start to think about the history of the city. It's a rich history, but it caused problems for people. I heard today, I also heard about Conservation Corps. Orange County has a Conservation Corps, a big one. So hopefully somebody can connect folks to the Conservation Corps. But my feeling is at this point in time, there's a lot of services that the residents are asking for. The only people that pay for that, in addition to the residents, are a successful economic community. If the businesses are not generating sales tax revenue for the city, the city doesn't have services. Let's be honest. We have a lot of renters, 45% of the community is about renters, 55% are homeowners and landowners. You can't tax people to get everything that you want. So I agree with my fellow commissioners about a compromise. I think there's been a lot of compromises. I think when you talk about data centers, are we talking about AI data centers or are we talking about digital co-located data centers? We already have digital co-located centers in the city for regular folks, AT&T, the phone company, everything else. This conversation about data centers, has anybody actually gone and seen a data center? It takes up a lot of space, a street block. Where is that land in Santa Ana to put a data center? Tell me. We had an individual here last week talking about Grand and 17th. Does anybody know that the property on Grand and 17th is owned by a REIT in New Jersey who refuses to work with the city to develop that property? What's left for the city to do if they want to economically develop that property? So there are lots of things that we're dealing with, but from my perspective at this point in time, if we do not continue down the road that we're going, along with a few more changes, we will be stuck asking the residents for more taxes to pay for the services that they want. So we need to really think about the businesses we want in this city. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Leo. Commissioner Oliva.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, staff, for all the edits that have gone into this zoning code. I do want to say that the conversations that we've heard today have been profit over people, people over profit, however we want to phrase it. But I think we need to have a futuristic mindset about what we want the city to look like, what we hope the city to look like, and provide recommendations based on that. I think having a building up to code is not a bad thing. I don't think that's something that we should be upset over that the city wants us to be good neighbors to the neighborhoods that we exist in. One of the things that I kept hearing was that CUPs are really hard to get here at the city, so I'm wondering if city staff could develop anything like a resource guide of how to prepare for a CUP, something that would make the process not easier, but support people that want to have a CUP and believe that their businesses or their establishments deserve one. I'm wondering if we create something that can be supportive, if that could be a solution. But I think what the code is sharing now, I think is something that we could vote on and move forward with. And that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Commissioner Oliva. Vice Chair Benninger.

Thank you, and I want to thank staff for all the time that they've given to us. I've had a number of meetings with them, and I appreciate the amount of time. I couldn't agree with Commissioner Leo more, the fact that with a healthy industrial base, you do have the taxes to do things. I also pull on my heartstrings when I hear the emotions that we hear here tonight. I have an oldest daughter who has a learning defect, birth defect. And when I lived in Midland, Michigan, I was part of the Midland JC's, And we got together, because we had a number of connections, Michigan Health Department, local Midland Health Agency, the local hospital, to investigate the number of birth defects and miscarriages. One of our members thought for sure it was because of that large chemical plant that was three miles by two miles. It was at the end of the city. And emotionally, there was a lot of mothers very upset that they thought that was true. Upon completing the investigation, gathering data, we found out that our number of birth defects and miscarriages in the city of Midland was below the state average. In fact, we were one of the lowest in the state because the families could afford prenatal care, and that was a major key in that area. So I caution about emotions. I really would like to see data. If you have a problem in your area, let's get out there and do the sampling, the air sampling. The medicine group did a good job in their area, And they showed wonderful what happens with illegal fireworks in the city. Let's look at some data in your area. Put together. The young lady who said she had speech defect, you did very well. You made a very well presentation on it. And I understand your concern. Because we've had two miscarriages being out here in California. So I know what the feeling's like. But let's get data together. And there is a problem in Cornerstone. I'll be the first one there to support you because with data, I'm sorry, my engineering comes out, I need data in order to proceed. The only thing I would like to add, I agree with also Commissioner Pham that this is only the first step and this is a living document and this will grow and change as we see it necessary. But I give credit to the staff for putting this together. When I first heard about the border areas, especially in Lacey neighborhood, I'll be honest with you, I said no way. Now I look into, I look at the possibilities, look at that, and I say yes. How can we make that happen in support? I will be, when the time comes, making the proposals that we do adopt, the two recommendations that we heard about the contractor's yard and the freight and the bus terminals, but that will be my second round. I'll make that proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go next. So one, I want to start off by thanking everybody that is here. Thank you to residents largely from the Cornerstone Village neighborhood. Thank you to all the business owners, the property owners. This is the fourth meeting on the zoning code update, and many of you have joined us for every single one. So really thank you for being a part of this process. And like it was stated earlier, this is not the final decision. Whatever decision this body makes today is simply a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then have the ability to accept whatever recommendation we make or to completely change it. So just please be aware of that, that you are not done here. Whether you have the requests that you have made honored or not, please also continue to be a part of this process as it moves to the City Council. So with that, I'm also just gonna, well, also thank you, staff. Thank you for all the clarifications that you made today in your brief presentation. It was very brief and concise, but very direct to the point. So thank you, I appreciate that. And then I also have a few things that I wanted to bring up, some that I brought up last week. So one on data centers, thank you for clarifying that they are not in allowed use right now in our zoning code. I am still not comfortable with the fact that there is the ability for a director at a future time to state that that is a similar use to another allowed use and then a data center would be allowed. So I will, I continue to request that we explicitly ban them and that is what the zoning code is aiming to do right now since they are not allowed. It is essentially a ban, but I would like to see explicit language that states that data centers are banned. I don't want for there to be any room left for interpretation. So that is language that I am requesting tonight and that I will also be asking be a part of any motion that we consider to approve the zoning code update. I also have two other recommendations that I would like to make. And one of them I mentioned last week. So when we were talking about the residential industrial interface, we've heard from a lot of the businesses specifically concerns around the operating standards and the operating standards that would not allow them to create noise before 6 a.m., previously 7, now before 6 a.m. And I mentioned two very specific areas in the city that are zoned as M1 with the residential industrial interface, so specifically by Washington and Santiago, and then between Standard and Grand off Chestnut. So in those areas, we have sections that are zoned as M1 with the residential industrial interface. And in the case of Washington and Santiago, it's directly adjacent to the five freeway. In the case of Chestnut between Standard and Grand, it's directly adjacent to the railroad. So because of the unique circumstances that exist in those areas, because those areas are facing noise in a way that many others are not throughout the city, and after conversation with staff and trying to think through what it might look like to keep the residential-industrial interface but change the operating standards a bit and being told that that might be more difficult. My recommendation would be that for those two areas in the city, we remove the residential-industrial interface while still understanding that the city would uphold operating standards that currently exist, monitor and ensure that those businesses are doing as expected and not negatively impacting the quality of life in any residential that may be nearby. But in those specific areas, it is largely industrial and again, the unique circumstances of the railroad and the five freeway. When I looked at the map, I tried to identify any other areas with these very specific circumstances and I did not. spoke briefly about it with staff and they did not see any additional ones either. But if anybody can think of others, please name them today because I would like to consider the same change for them. And then lastly, we also heard last week that the residents from Cornerstone Village asked questions around why the area directly adjacent to them, so between Standard and Grand, McFerrin and Edinger, was zoned as M1 with some areas including the residential industrial interface, why it was zoned that way versus flex as they saw in another part of the city that also abutted residential. So I also brought this up to staff and was told that it was zoned as M1 with the RII and not flex because of the general plan. So to change that to flex would require a general plan amendment. So my additional request would be to recommend to the city an additional project where they consider that general plan amendment to change the zoning there from M1RII to flex. So those are all my recommendations for tonight. We'll do our second round and see where we are. Thank you. So with that, I'll just go in the order we started. Commissioner Wu, sorry, Commissioner Pham.

In general, I agree with what you've said. I caution making specific exceptions for certain property owners and not others. I think that we are where we're at today is because spot zoning. that the city did not have a unified vision of where they want to organize industry, organize residents, and so it makes sense to accommodate certain property owners because of the very specific circumstances, but then I think that it puts the onus and responsibility on the city to monitor good neighbor practices, right, whereas those property owners do have an avenue to appeal this zoning overlay if they deem that, I'm assuming there's economic impact and they're not locked into the RII zone designation. They have an avenue to make that adjustment. That's where I would caution or that's where I would kind of add my two cents in is that I would stay away from spot zoning and have the zoning map be the guideline and have the property owners take the responsibility of appealing it rather than putting on more work on staff to deliberate who's operating in good faith and who's not operating in good faith, because it opens up quite a bit of subjectiveness that I think might be an issue down the road. Yeah, that's all, yeah.

Thank you. Commissioner Wu.

There's a whole chapter 41 that deals with administration of the zoning update and procedure and jurisdictions from the state and all that. I am concerned that the state will be making new legislation that may affect what we do. So you brought up several specific item, Chair, that we have not discussed as a group. So we have a resolution today that spells out what our charge is to do. To add that to that, I don't feel comfortable doing that unless we have some specific meeting to discuss it, particularly with data center, because I used to work at one when I was back in America. One floor, we canceled your checks and posted it so that it could go to your account. But then below us was the data center for processing all those checks. So that's the data center. But when you talk about data center, I think the impression we get is those big... ten-block buildings that consume a lot of energy and water. And while I would agree with you, I wouldn't want to see that, but we don't have anything specifically on paper here that has been proposed to do anything about that. The other part of your discussion were discussions that you have gone out to speak to groups, okay? And I'm sorry to say, you're running for office, too. And I'm not accusing you of anything, but I want to point out that the two, and responding to it, we haven't had a chance to speak to it. And I don't know how to, I may have put it indelicately, and I apologize for that, I don't mean to do that. I just don't know how else to address it, that we need... another time to do it, and I don't want to postpone our decision today, but I do want the city council to do their job in studying this thing, because we've been living with it and reading and hearing from the community. So I don't know what to do about your motion. I'd like to focus on the motion today that we have to do the resolution and get it to city council.

Thank you, and point of clarification, I have not made a motion yet. These are all recommendations that I would like to see included in the motion, and everything that I brought up today, I brought up last week, with the exception of the flex.

I thought it was something you're discussing for us.

Yeah, no, everything I mentioned today, I mentioned last week in my comments. Okay, thank you, I'm sorry. Thank you, we'll go with Commissioner Guzman.

Thank you, Chair Ramos. I concur with Commissioner Pham in trying to avoid the spot zoning that got us into the hodgepodge of zoning that we have throughout the city and what this update is trying to address. So to the extent that... I would probably leave it up to the individual business owners to come in and explain why they need a conditional use permit or for a different use that is permitted under the residential interface, industrial interface zone. I would not be very supportive of doing more spot zoning in our city.

Thank you, Commissioner Guzman. Commissioner Leo.

Yeah, so there were three cities referenced in some testimony. One was the city of Oakland, one was the city of Long Beach, one was the city of L.A. Does anybody go to Oakland? I go to Oakland once a month. Who wants to be Oakland? Santa Ana doesn't want to be Oakland. Have you gotten off the plane at the airport, driven a little bit, homeless all over the place? It's a mess. Nobody wants to be Oakland. No policies from Oakland work here, and it won't work here. Long Beach has more industrial mess than we do. They have a port, one of the largest ports in the world. And yes, you can adopt that if you have revenue from the port. We can adopt those policies and set those aside. And I'm not even going to mention L.A. Not even going to mention L.A. Who goes downtown L.A.? Have you been downtown L.A. lately? The policies that those three cities have adopted... would turn Santa Ana into what it's not, does not want to be. Has anybody been to San Francisco? They changed their policies, they cleaned it up downtown. So let's just kinda stick to what we got. Santa Ana's got lots of tree-lined streets. We can approve housing developments that have more trees if that's what people want. I referenced possible parks from the schools. There's a way to go about it, but there's not a way to go about it to demand that we go about changing our code to create more park space. I appreciate the gentleman who spoke earlier who's been here his whole life. He's seen a lot of change. And the Segerstrom's put a lot of time into this city. There's still a couple fields left, but that's called progress. And so we have to live with some of the mess that was created. Spot zoning got this city in a lot of trouble. And we're gonna deal with some of it later, right here in downtown, that's more spot zoning. So I agree with you, Commissioner Pham, Commissioner Wu, Commissioner Guzman, spot zoning is not good. It's really not good. Because you know why? Because businesses can't rely upon what we're doing. They can change their minds. and do something else that we don't approve, but if they get the right number of people to vote for it, they get it, against the will of the public. I listened to Commissioner Oliva about the CUP, it is a difficult process. And if we can figure out a way to make it a little easier, I noticed we had an MCUP, maybe that's a little easier process. That's something we need to figure out. But I really appreciate people who got noticed coming out and speaking tonight. Because we don't know what we don't know. So I'm kind of torn on some of the issues, but I'll let the rest of the discussion go before I say anything else. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Oliva. Thank you. Point of clarification, I don't want the CUP process to be easier. I want the CUP process to be more clear before people come to the city for, you know, to submit their application, maybe how to prepare or information of that sort. I don't think the process should be easier. I'm probably not phrasing that correctly, but point of clarification. I'm wondering if city staff can tell us if the commission has the authority or power to make a recommendation to ban something, because it might be something to consider, but if the commission does have that authority or that power, because if we don't, I would rather leave that to the city council, because they would probably be the ones that would have the authority to do that, and we could all talk to our respective council members on that, but if we can get that clarification. And I agree with my fellow commissioners that spot zoning might not be our best approach, but something to keep in mind that some areas are a little more difficult and split, doing the split parcels didn't work either, so something to consider.

Thank you, Commissioner Oliva. Vice Chair Benninger?

It's been a long three meetings and a long night. I think we should make beginnings making our list of recommendations and vote on it and pass it on. Again, I think staff has done a great job of putting it together. I again reemphasize the fact of gathering data. It's with data, with facts, that you make the right decision. And one of my famous ones, I'm very much involved or know well, the whole incident with Dow Corning and implants and the whole thing. And would you believe that product is back out in the market today? Because the emotions that was, put a lot of them through hell. A lot of it was not based on fact, it was based on emotions. And because of that, the end result is that the amount of silicone leaked did not cause the cancers described. 1% of women with them developed soft tissue disease, just like 1% of women without, and 1% men. The problem is the lawyer caught Dow Corning in a lie, and that's what led to that whole emotional thing. Again, get facts, not emotions, and there are many opportunities to go out and to sample the error, sample different chemicals that you are saying is coming from industry. And let's take a look at it. And then let's make decisions based on facts on it. So with that, again, I want to thank staff for this is a long haul. This is unique and this has put us in the right position. I agree with my other commissioners. Let's not change the zoning. Let's go with them as being proposed. And let's go from there. So with that, I'll turn it over to the chair. and then we can talk about what we recommend to council. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm gonna start off with a question for our legal counsel. Can you please remind us what our role as commissioners is in regards to the zoning code update, what authority we do and do not have, and whether we can add specific explicit language that bans data centers. So three questions, all related.

Thank you, Chair. Your duty today is to make recommendations to the City Council. The recommendations have been laid out by staff. It has to do with the comprehensive zoning code update, text changes, the map, and some general plan cleanup. in addition to that recommendation regarding CEQA. So what you would be doing is making recommendations, staff identified a couple of changes that they also wanted to be part of your recommendations, and then if you have other recommendations, you can include that in your motion. Part of those recommendations could be to recommend to staff to make explicit, for example, to prohibit data centers. That could be part of your recommendation. Again, it's only a recommendation. The city council will take it and then determine what they would like to do with that. And there was one other question that you asked, and I missed one. Your authority is to make recommendations. Council's the ultimate decision-making body on this matter. And there are some recommendations from staff, and you can make others, including but not limited to making explicit that data centers are to be prohibited in the city.

Thank you for that. I just wanted to remind all of us that we were appointed as planning commissioners to review the zoning code update and everything else that comes for us very thoughtfully, very thoroughly, and that we have the opportunity to act proactively. We should not just say, oh, we can expect the businesses to come back and appeal if it doesn't work, if we cannot identify a potential problem. issue and solution now. That is something that we can do. We can make those recommendations and see whether or not there is a majority support. And that's how I've shown up tonight in an attempt to do that. I also want to clarify that when I shared about removing the residential and district interface in certain areas and that the city would be then just responsible for ensuring that the operating standards and expectations are being upheld, That is something that the city will have to do regardless throughout the entire city, including in the areas where there is a residential industrial interface. So it wouldn't add an additional load onto the city, but I would like to ask city staff if my interpretation is correct. Do you have the responsibility to generally ensure that businesses are operating within the standards that the city has set throughout the year?

Absolutely, the city has one of the state's if not nation's most preeminent code enforcement programs. It's award winning, we have a large code enforcement division, we have staff that specialize in a whole realm of topics ranging from commercial cannabis all the way to historic preservation. We're very proud of that division's work.

Thank you. And I also wanted to share that this is the time for discussion. We shouldn't say we haven't had discussion or we don't have the opportunity for it. The opportunity is now. And if we need more time, we can take that as well. So I say all that. And just to, again, remind us why we're here as planning commissioners, the role and responsibilities that we have, the authority that we have tonight, and then also to say that as I made some recommendations today, we also heard recommendations from Vice Chair Benninger, recommendations that came from the audience, recommendations regarding certain businesses now requiring a CUP and potentially removing that requirement, and also recommendations on the contractor's yard not being allowed and now allowing them through a CEP. So I want just all of us to, one, consider all of the recommendations that have been made tonight. I have made a few. Vice Chair Benninger has made a few. Staff has also made a few because, again, their initial recommendation that they brought us was not perfect. And they, too, realized that there was some oversight on certain things, so... I want to remind us all of that role. And, you know, we're going to support what we would like to support, and then the council will ultimately decide.

Can you organize it?

So I'm not done speaking yet, Commissioner Wu. Thank you. So with that, I, well, one, if there's additional discussion that is needed, we can have it. The five-minute limit was just a way to organize this, but we can be here as long as we need. So would anyone else like to share comments or questions? Commissioner?

There's a number of things you brought up. Can we take one at a time? You know, otherwise you could say, let's take them all. That's rubber stamping. What are we taking?

Yeah, thank you. And again, I made a few recommendations. Vice Chair Benninger made a few recommendations. To potentially save us the time of having to make multiple motions, we can put an item on the floor and just have a straw poll seeing whether or not there's support for it. And then in the final motion, whoever chooses to make that can include those that seem to have majority support. So... I will start off. So one of the things that I have requested is explicit language that would ban data centers. Again, as of now, in the zoning code that the city has presented us, that staff has presented, that they would like us to recommend to the council, that is not an allowed use. and a director would be able to potentially approve in the future if they could find a similar use, but staff does not believe that that would be possible. So this would just be really solidifying what staff is already doing in practice.

Can you define data center?

Staff, would you like to define data centers for us as you envisioned when not allowing them in the zoning code?

We may already have a draft definition in the code. We'll double check.

I'd like to just clarify one thing as we look up the definition, as we pull up the definition. Currently in the zoning code, data centers are allowed.

What changed from last week when I asked if they were allowed and was told that they were not?

I believe there may have been confusion about what was proposed versus what is existing. Currently in the existing code, they are allowed. Okay.

Thank you. But in the proposed code that we are considering tonight, staff is saying that they would not be allowed? Correct. Okay. So we are considering a code that does not allow data centers. And just asking that we explicitly state that so that there is zero need for clarification in the future. Understood.

And chair section 41904 data center is defined. It's defined as a use whose primary purpose is to house computer servers or telecommunication switching facilities or internet nodes for entities including but not limited to web hosting organizations, large enterprises or any other internet service organizations. A server farm, telecom hotel, carrier hotel, darkened data center, co-location center, or any other term applicable to facilities which are used for these specific purposes shall be deemed to be a data center.

Thank you for providing the definition.

That definition would apply to those businesses in the loft and through the other business. I wouldn't want to put those out of business.

So since here we're, I'd like to consider, let's do one clarifying question on the data center specifically if we have it for staff and then we'll, so Commissioner, will you have a direct question that you'd like to ask the staff on the data center?

I could see us banning big ass, for lack of word, data center that would take blocks, you know. but where you find a definition for that. I mean, I'm not the one trying to come up with a suggestion. I think what we have will cover what we have, okay, for allowing certain data center to operate, but not, you know, the other one. We need something for that. Thank you, Commissioner. You came up with it. You used one word that applied for both.

So I did not come up with the term. This was a term that is being used in the zoning code that staff is presenting to us to approve tonight, and that was their definition that we heard tonight.

There's a big difference between, Elon must, I didn't want to bring up his name, but, you know, something going on in the desert in Arizona that's taking up the whole desert, and something that is in the second floor of a building here, yeah.

I think we need to be careful here because near my house we have a four-story AT&T building, big air conditioning, big power lines coming in, and If I look at that definition read there by Mr. Soto, I'd say that building's a data center because what is a house? Computer components, switch gear to switch phones, and gosh knows what else.

So I'll ask a clarifying question for staff. Staff, as you were coming up with this zoning code update and deciding that

data centers would not be in allowed use is there anything in the city that you would currently classify as a data center that you feel would be negatively impacted by this ban there is one known data center that is in the middle of the park and paseo development at the corner of dyer and red hill when that project was proposed the site contained a data center that was surrounded by surface parking and the developer could not reach a compromise with the owner of that building, so the residential mixed-use development was entirely built around that data center. Currently, also to add, data centers require a CUP under today's code and may not be located within 500 feet of an arterial roadway, so you can't have them on Grand Avenue, you can't have them on your primary business corridors, and you can't have them within 1,000 feet of a freeway interchange. Again, the mindset being these are non-revenue generating, non-jobs producing uses because even in the current code, the restrictions on location and the need for a CUP stem from the belief even back when that code section was written, these are uses that genuinely don't contribute to the city's economic base. That was the philosophy embedded into the current code. I wanted to share that for context and background. Also, Vice Chair Beninger, the building types that you're describing, very familiar with them. Those are more like public utility structures. There's even one here in downtown off of Fifth Street right behind the Native Son Ale House and all that good stuff. They're very nondescript, but they're not data centers. They're telecom equipment for public utilities.

Thank you.

Housing computers.

So just to speed us along, as I know there are several recommendations for us to consider whether or not we would include in a motion on the question of, again, the data centers, which in the zoning code that we are considering today are not allowed, just explicitly making that very clear so there's no room for confusion. If we could just do a quick straw poll.

Data center, because that seems to be such a trigger word.

So, Commissioner Wu, I would just like to call the informal question on this question of data center.

What you're forcing me to do is vote against something that I made before. But there are different types of data center. You know, first you've got to admit that there are different types of data center.

So, Commissioner Wu, we are going based off the definition that city staff has provided to us in the zoning code update that we are considering today.

I didn't hear that, I hear you still continuing to use data center, okay, and their definition of data center, you don't have that much land to put the big ones on, but you have buildings here, schools, jails that can be converted to data centers, you know, given that definition, right?

Thank you, Commissioner. So we just heard staff, if we can ask you one more time to share the definition for data centers and whether or not we have any in the city, and then we're going to just take a straw poll on this specific question.

Thank you, Chair. So currently the proposed zoning code does not include data center as a permitted land use. So that means it's prohibited. and in section 41-1904D, data center is defined.

So I think the real question right now is do we want to proceed with the ban on data centers or allow the existing wording that's in the present code? That's really what the question is. That's what we should be voting on.

Can you say that?

I'm sorry. What I'm saying is what we're really being asked to do is do we go with the present recommendation of no data centers or do we allow the current code which allows data centers defined by Mr. Soto.

Thank you, Vice Chair Benninger. So we will go recommendation by recommendation. If that is one that you would like to make, we can add it to the queue. So our first straw poll will be on whether we would like to add explicit language that would ban data centers. I'll just go one by one. We'll see whether or not we might have majority support and then go from there. Commissioner Guzman.

I would support that language.

Thank you. Commissioner Leo.

No.

Thank you. Commissioner Oliva.

I would support.

Thank you. I, Chair, would also support. Vice Chair Benninger?

No.

Thank you. Commissioner Pham?

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Wu?

I abstain because I don't know what you're voting for. Thank you.

We, on the recommendation to explicitly ban data centers via explicit language, we would have majority support.

Can I ask a question?

Can I ask a question?

Sure, go ahead. What happens to the two locations on Grand Street that are data centers? Do they get closed down? Do they get notified if we explicitly ban them? What happens to them? There's two on Grand Street now, 1400 Grand Street and 1900 Grand Street. Are they closed? So what happens to them?

So any, if they're on grant as you're describing.

There's two, there's two on grant, which is fascinating that nobody knows, but that they throw around this word data center like that.

If they're on grant, then by virtue of the parameters I listed off earlier under the current code, they are already legal non-conforming. Because they're too close to an arterial. So if the code were to be changed to have an express ban on them, then they become legal non-conforming. Because you're not adopting amortization that would say ban them and shut them down in 12 months. That's not what I'm hearing tonight. All I'm hearing is ban them, which means just like any other use that would no longer be contemplated by the code. Another example, hazardous waste storage and disposal. That's another use that's being deleted from the table. Again, if there's one, I know of one, then we're not gonna go amortize them, right? Because you're not enacting that in the code. It just simply becomes legal nonconforming. And then it's subject to all the parameters that we discussed about legal nonconforming that Siri went over earlier this evening.

Thank you. Commissioner Leo, does that answer your question?

When you use the word ban, how can you not say that you're going to go down there and shut them up, send the police there right now, today, or when the city council approves it?

Staff, if you'd like to respond briefly, and then we'll move on to the next item.

It's just simply not within the police powers of the city under the current draft zoning code to go and shut down a business by virtue of it being rendered legal nonconforming. So that's the difference is that because you're not adopting an amortization provision with data centers, like you're not saying ban them and amortize them all within 12 months, the city doesn't have the land use powers to go shut them down.

So what did we accomplish by using this broad term? And, you know, we're going to ban data centers. What did we accomplish? Did we put a signal out there to the right people? And they're not looking at our city to do it, okay?

What it does is signal to the potential applicants for data centers that they're just simply not allowed. No new facilities would be allowed. I do want to highlight for the Commission that about over the weekend, the New York Times featured Luton County, Virginia, which has the nation's highest proportion of data centers. And they charge a user utility tax and they're making a ton of revenue on it. Under their current zoning code, the executive director of their planning and building was enabled to treat data centers as the same use as a business and office park. And so under that mindset, they approved many, many data centers to the point where the community reached their breaking point and the city's or the county's zoning board took away the director's sort of abilities to have that interpretation that a data center is no different than an office park. So you can see how the conversations at the community level are shifting in that regard. Whereas under one mindset, it was like, yeah, it's analogous to another use. It's fine. You can see how these things evolve. So what I'm hearing from some members of the commission is that to prevent that instability in the future, this ban would apply to new applications moving forward. But anything that's existing in the city today, including the ones that Commissioner Leo and the one that I highlighted, would become legal nonconforming.

Thank you. I'll now go to my next recommendation, and I think I know where we are, but I'm just gonna go ahead and ask.

We just politicized a charge that we were supposed to study the situation to make a recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner. We're going to move on to the next recommendation.

What?

We're going to move on to the next recommendation where we are right now gauging whether there is support or not, and then we will see what motion gets made ultimately.

A vote on something that, yes, the city may not want a big, big thing that other cities and other residents do not want. But you also have existing businesses that would be good for the city that operates with these kids that are learning and going through vocational school and coding and all that.

Thank you, Commissioner. As shared by staff, existing businesses that may fall within the definition are not going to be impacted the same way that any other businesses that are labeled legally nonconforming by the zoning code update would not be impacted.

The newspaper's gonna say city of Santa Ana banned data center.

Thank you, Commissioner Wu. My next recommendation was to remove the residential industrial interface from two specific areas, specifically the Washington, Santiago, Penn, Chestnut between Grand and Standard. I think I know where we are here, but I'll just go ahead and do this for the, just so it's clear. Commissioner Guzman, would you support this?

No.

Thank you. Commissioner Leo.

No.

Thank you. Commissioner Oliva?

No.

Thank you. Ayesuri was my recommendation, so I would support it. Vice Chair Benninger?

No.

Thank you. Commissioner Pham? Thank you. Commissioner Wu?

What are we voting on?

This is whether you would support removing the residential-industrial interface from two areas within the city.

Speak up.

This is on whether or not you would support removing the residential industrial interface from two areas in the city? No. Thank you. So that does not have the support that would be required. My last recommendation was to direct the city council to begin a separate project to change the Cornerstone Village area from M1 to Flex. So this is not something that would happen via the zoning code update. It would require a general plan amendment. So this would be to recommend the city council to consider that. Commissioner Guzman. Thank you. Commissioner Leo? No. Thank you. Commissioner Oliva? No. Thank you. I myself, yes. Vice Chair Benninger? No. Thank you. Commissioner Pham?

No.

Thank you. Commissioner Wu?

No.

Thank you. That does not have a majority support. Vice Chair Benninger, would you like to move on to your recommendation?

Yes, I'd like to recommend that we restore the, we recommend that the contractor's yard is moved to as permanent as used and flexed in M1R11. So it's moving it back to by permit.

And staff, can you just quickly remind us what is or is not included in the zoning code update when it comes to contractor's yards?

Contractors' yards are currently proposed to be permitted with a CUP in each of the industrial districts.

Thank you. So, Vice Chair Benninger, you are recommending that we remove the CUP requirement?

Correct. It's turning the code back to what it is presently, which is by permit.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and do again.

Chair, if I could just provide some clarification. Go ahead. Contractors' yards are permitted subject to a CUP in the flex. in the M1, permitted by right, in the M1, RII, subject to a conditional use permit, and in the M2, permitted by right.

Thank you. So Vice Chair Benninger is asking that we remove the conditional use permit requirement so that it would be permitted by right everywhere, correct? Can you please clarify, staff?

Yeah, permitted or by right or interchangeable. It just means instead of coming to the commission, it's processed at the staff level.

Thank you. With that, I'll go ahead and do this again. Commissioner Guzman?

No.

Thank you. Commissioner Leo?

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Oliva?

No.

Thank you. Aye. Suti? No. Vice Chair Benninger?

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Pham?

Can I ask a clarification? Yes. Why did we choose a CUP rather than a minor CUP for the decision-making body for the individual areas that are not outright?

Staff's approach was to pursue the maximal option, which is CUP. and then give the commission, just like with any other use, you have the ability to say, okay, if not CUP, then minor CUP, if not minor CUP, then permissible by right. So under CUP, it's a public process, there's a maximum range of imposing conditions of approval, and then it's the full planning commission as a body, as opposed to the executive director. So the minor CUP is the executive director? Correct.

I wouldn't support, removing it, I would support a minor CUP, but that's another issue.

Yes, thank you. So for the current consideration, Commissioner Pham is a no. Commissioner Wu.

Yes.

Thank you. So that does not have majority support. Vice Chair Benninger, would you like to bring up your second recommendation?

Second recommendation is to restore in the freight bus trucking terminals, As a CPU, it's being proposed that they be not allowed. I'd like to return it back to the CPUs would put it in, put it same as flex M1 and M2 also.

Would you like any, would you like staff to share why they recommended what they recommended?

That's fine.

Staff, would you like to share why your recommendation is what it is?

So these are logistics facilities that we're seeing pop up across the region that are often very large, have lots of truck traffic, secondary impacts from noise, vibrations, truck idling, et cetera. So while there's no, staff has no concerns about these issues with a CUP in the traditional M1, M2, and the flex, because these are more business areas in the residential industrial interface area, these are properties that are simply very close to residential properties. And so what that means is that these trucks would not just be on the property, they would be traveling through residential neighborhoods to get to the nearest arterials and then get to the nearest freeway interchange. And that's where staff's recommendation was based on.

My only concern is the fact that having CUP, this body would have the right to discuss what they are able to do and what they couldn't do. And I'll point to Amazon in my area, I don't know how they work it, but it's phenomenal what they move out of there without disturbing neighborhoods, without causing traffic congestions in that area. Unlike FedEx, if they were, I could see the reason for FedEx, which you know when they leave their area, that there's a group of 15, 20 trucks at the same time that causes commotions. So I think the fact that we return it back to a CPU, It means this body, whoever we are, in the future we'll be able to review what that is and make the determination at that time whether it's going to be congestion to the neighborhood or not. That's my point. Thank you.

We had a speaker here, a produce company. The agency I worked for for 25 years, had the Orange County food bank. We had trucks that had to go out from here to Riverside to the edge of Los Angeles County and south. And we had to get our drivers in there on time because of the freeway and traffic. to get there. So, this protest company may be providing some immediate thing that was ordered overnight to get to the Monarch Beach Hotel or down to a little café that will be opening at 6 o'clock for breakfast. Okay. So, the problem They're not trying to intentionally make the noise, but they gotta move before the freeway gets backed up. And I tell you from having to drive my daughter down to Irvine for her job four days a week, the freeway, depending on the time you go, because sometimes she has to be there by seven, sometimes she's there by six. I like the six because that's before everyone gets on the road. By seven o'clock, you're just going bumper to bumper, you know, so, especially around Santa Ana, you know, you're already, you know, in a gridlock. So I think we need to take consideration that those trucks don't intentionally try to make noise, but they got to get their produce out there. The other thing, I was a co-chair to the downtown strategic plan for the city of Los Angeles, which included creating the zone for produce, fashion industry, and studios, and different things. Thank you, Commissioner. We're going to take the vote on this. But they had property and land that you could have these trusts going out. Garden Grove had those lands. Thank you, Commissioner.

I'm going to take the straw poll vote on whether we would like to allow bus, freight, and truck terminals with the CUB. Correct, Vice Chair Beninger? Yes.

Okay.

And as of now, in the zoning code update, they are not allowed, correct?

In the residential industrial interface, they are not currently allowed. So that's what... That's right.

So as drafted tonight, the code would allow a CUP for these types of uses in the M1, in the M2, in the flex, that's it. In the residential industrial interface area, you would not even be allowed to apply for a CUP. The use would just be banned.

So Vice Chair Benninger's recommendation is that in the residential and district interface they also be allowed to seek a CUP for that use. So that's what we're taking, what we're gauging support on right now. Commissioner Guzman?

No.

Thank you, Commissioner Leo?

Aye.

Thank you, Commissioner Oliva? No. Thank you, aye, aye, no. Vice Chair Benninger?

Aye.

Thank you, Commissioner Pham?

Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner Wu?

Aye.

Thank you. That one does have majority support. So as of now, based off the five recommendations that were made by myself and Vice Chair Benninger, there are two that have majority support. So one, the explicit language to ban data centers. so that there is no confusion as our zoning code that we are considering tonight already does not allow them. And then two, to allow bus, freight, and truck terminals in the residential industrial interface layers with ACUP. So those are the recommendations that we should add to our motion tonight seeing that there is support. And then staff, would you like to remind us of the recommendations that you would also like us to consider?

yes we have two additional recommendations one pertains to outdoor storage and parking and it seeks to clarify that enclosed operation restrictions shall not apply to the storage and parking of vehicles and equipment the movement of vehicles equipment and goods on and off the site and the temporary staging of materials and goods awaiting pickup delivery or transportation that is one recommendation the second recommendation is to allow libraries museums and art galleries with a CUP, a conditional use permit in the institutional district to be consistent with all other parts of the zoning code where they are allowed with approval of a CUP rather than by right.

Thank you. And I'll just follow the same process and do a quick straw poll on the recommendations that staff would like us to add to our motion. Commissioner Guzman?

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Leo?

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Oliva? Yes. Thank you. I, myself, yes. Commissioner Benninger? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Pham?

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Wu?

Aye.

Thank you. So with that, it looks like we can consider a motion today that includes staff's recommendations, along with the explicit language banning data centers, and along with allowing for contractors' yards in the residential industry interface. with the CUP, so I will go ahead and move a motion to approve the zoning code that we have been recommended tonight by staff along with the additional changes. So one, explicit language that bans data centers, two, THREE, ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF ASKED US TO INCLUDE TONIGHT. I SECOND THAT. DO WE NEED TO READ THE ENTIRE? I KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL PARTS.

My only thing that I was just going to bring up for the, I know I stepped out for a minute, but for the sake of the commission was there was a question about the MCUP for the contractor's yards, and I wasn't sure if the commission wanted to explore that or be ready. It's all right. No, it's okay. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Do I need to restate everything I stated, or is that enough? Did you? Okay, thank you. So with that, we have a motion by myself. We have a second from Vice Chair Benninger. Secretary, can you please call for a roll call vote?

Commissioner Guzman? Aye. Commissioner Leo?

No.

Commissioner Oliva? Aye. Commissioner Pham?

Aye.

Commissioner Wu?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benninger? Aye. Chair Ramos? Aye. Motion approved by majority vote with Commissioner Leo's name.

Thank you. That concludes the business calendar. We'll now move on to staff comments.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank everyone in the audience who partook in this process. We, in fact, held a couple of study sessions on the zoning code update even before the ones this summer, if anyone remembers. So this has truly been the culmination of many years of work, and I want to thank the team as well and the Commission for everyone's hard work on it. Just for everyone's benefit in the audience as well and the Commission, the City Council did request a study session on the zoning code update as well. So the topics that were brought up tonight, we will still highlight them for the city council for their awareness so that they know what the conversations were like. And then from there, we are anticipating going to city council for decision making October through November of this year. So please do remain in touch with the case planner, Siri Champion. We're always happy to continue taking meetings even after tonight's recommendation vote. But congratulations to the commission.

Thank you. I'll now take any closing comments from the Commission or questions for staff. Vice Chair Benninger.

Yes, again, let's thank everyone who came in, commented, both in writing or come to various meetings we have. Your input is very important. And as mentioned, this now goes to Council, in which your input would be, again, welcomed by them. So if you have any concern, please let them know. And I'd like to reiterate, this is a living document And so if the changes are needed in the future, they will be made in the future. But it puts us in a path in the right direction. So I wanna thank staff for all their hard work. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional closing comments?

Yeah, I do.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

I hope there's gonna be some definition of what a data center is because there's a lot of students that are creating their own website and businesses that gonna have a lot of computers and things. you know, if they can't open up their business in entrepreneurial, you only have to go visit, you know, Vocational Inc. and see, you know.

Thank you, Commissioner Wu. And I'll just say again, thank you to everybody that is here. Thank you for those of you that have stayed this long and have joined us on this long journey. And like staff said, it's not ending here today. It will go to the city council on October 3rd, and it will be heard there twice before it becomes final. So with that, thank you all. We are adjourning this meeting now at 8.51 p.m. Our next regular meeting is scheduled for September 14th, 2026 at 5.30. Thank you.

Thank you.