My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CORRESPONDENCE
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Planning Commission (2002-Present)
>
2018
>
08-27-2018
>
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2019 4:38:53 PM
Creation date
4/8/2019 4:36:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PBA
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Page 1 of 3 <br /> <br />Dale A. Helvig <br />2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 <br />714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com <br /> <br /> <br />Tuesday, March 06, 2018 <br /> <br />Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers <br />City of Santa Ana <br />20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor <br />Santa Ana CA 92702 <br /> <br />Subject: 2525 Main Residential Development <br />Dear Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers, <br />I read that a city’s General Plan is considered its constitution for all land‐use decisions. As such we <br />should not be willing to change the General Plan when a developer shows up and waves a <br />promises prosperity to the city if their project is approved. We have a Housing Plan so let’s follow <br />it. The Housing plan is to ensure we the maintain the vision, goals, policies, and programs of the <br />city. The purpose for using specific development is for “protecting the health safety and general <br />welfare of the people of the city”. <br />I recently attended a meeting of the PSNA board and the developers. And, I must say the <br />developer was able to make it thru his entire presentation. Progress on his part. The downside <br />was despite all the great amenities the new development would have it is still not a reasonable <br />use of the land. The size went from 517 units to 505 units. This is a move in the right direction, <br />but a 2.3% drop is unacceptable. This developer does not take us seriously. <br />The General Plan should be taken seriously by all of you. Granting amendment changes and <br />rezoning should be and exception to the plan not a course of normal business. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.