My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75A - LETTER REGARDING ITEM 75A
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2009
>
11/16/2009
>
75A - LETTER REGARDING ITEM 75A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 4:13:49 PM
Creation date
11/17/2009 7:54:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Date
11/16/2009
Destruction Year
2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
What is “practically impossible”…either something is impossible or it’s not. In this case, it <br />is NOT! Do not be swayed by this language. This doesn’t even make sense!! The Planning <br />Department is stating that the project would further a non-conformity of close proximity of <br />humans to livestock. Yet, the Planning Department itself, in the findings, is furthering a non- <br />conformity by stating that the unique nature of the neighborhood be preserved. The code <br />language exempts the 100-foot requirement from the actual residence on the property. In <br />addition, if a property owner were to have a house and livestock on their property they <br />somehow would be immune to the communicable diseases and noxious odors from being in <br />close proximity to livestock?? This analysis is weak and contradictory. <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />The Planning Dept. also cites concerns that allowing the property to be subdivided would <br />set a precedent for other surrounding properties. However, of the nearly 40 properties in the <br />tract, only 16 qualify to be subdivided. In addition, a precedent is already set with the <br />approval of 3 previous subdivisions for this tract. The Planning Dept. indicates that these <br />subdivisions were approved many years ago. I’m not sure how this “time lapse” somehow <br />negates that a precedent has already been set. Is the Planning Dept. saying that the City was <br />wrong to have approved these subdivisions years ago?? What has changed during this time? <br />If anything, the area in the vicinity of this neighborhood has become increasingly urbanized <br />such that turnover of these older, obsolete, so-called “rural” lots/area should be encouraged. <br /> <br />fatal flaws <br />There are more in the analysis that raise questions with the Planning Department’s <br />recommendation. The City Council should not only raise these questions, but show that the City of <br />Santa Ana does have a willingness to work with the people; that there is a standard of customer service <br />afforded to all people in the City. The City Council should not deny the substantial property rights of <br />The City Council should approve the subdivision and direct staff to work with the <br />the applicant. <br />applicant in addressing the concerns of the Planning Department and neighbors so that an <br />acceptable design can be achieved and the neighborhood will be improved by the proposed <br />subdivision. <br /> <br /> <br />Thank you for your time. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Jennifer Villasenor <br />Resident of Santa Ana <br />714-262-5260 <br />jennifersvillasenor@gmail.com <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.