My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - #32
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
01/18/2022 Regular & Special SA
>
CORRESPONDENCE - #32
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2022 5:23:32 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 11:43:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
1/18/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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
given that the uses are being updated so it makes sense to incorporate the Park <br /> Space as well. (See attached Exhibits for specifics). <br /> 1 have attached a few exhibits from a Power Point presentation made by <br /> Planningy Staff....the map shows how deficient the park land is within the City <br /> limits...sUmetimps a picture is worth a thousand words...it states "Recreation as <br /> Significant Environmental Impact". This absolutely needs to be rectified and <br /> actual Park land identified, dedicated and built out in this General Plan Update. <br /> Please direct Staff to include this specific language. <br /> The Park Land Ratio Exhibit downgrades the amount of park land from 1.03 <br /> acres per 1,000 people to .08 acres per 1,000.....how does this help?? Please <br /> direct Staff to keep the amount of park space at 1.03 acres per 1,000. <br /> The "Potential Policies & Actions" for the ©pen Space Element Exhibit is a good <br /> start. I would recommend that you direct Staff to incorporate this in the General <br /> Plan Update and make sure that these Policies are being followed and <br /> implemented across the board so that Park land is actually identified, dedicated <br /> and built out. <br /> • Lastly, Roof Top Amenities on multi-family buildings are not open space for the <br /> public but an amenity for the residents who live in the buildings and should not be <br /> counted as open space/park space (as part of the City`s deficit of open <br /> space) ..its an amenity to the tenants only, not the public. I would recommend <br /> that there is clarification in the General Plan Update about this in order to <br /> alleviate confusion and protect the actual need for Park land dedication. <br /> would be happy to further discuss my recommendations which I believe, will help <br /> shape the future of Santa Ana and in general, are good basic planning principles. I trust <br /> that you will guide Planning Staff to incorporate the above comments in order to fulfill <br /> the destiny of the General Plan Update. <br /> Thank you for your service and attention to my suggestions.. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Diane kin <br /> 29-year resident of Santa Ana <br /> 714-914-8047 <br /> Enclosures <br /> cc: Kristine Ridge <br /> Minh Thai <br /> L <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.