HomeMy WebLinkAbout75A - LETTER REGARDING ITEM 75A
November 15, 2009
Attn: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Cc: City Clerk
The purpose of this letter is regarding Item No. 75 A. on the 11/16 City Council agenda. Please
make this part of the record for this item.
The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission were wrong to have denied a proposed subdivision
at 1013 South Elliott Place per the recommendation of the City Planning Department. Please do not
Please do not deny the property rights of the applicant
make the same mistake. simply because a
The proposed
handful of NIMBYs influenced the Planning Department’s recommendation for denial.
subdivision meets the legal requirements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s own
Zoning and General Plan land use regulations.
If the City Council does not believe that the design
of the homes is characteristic of the neighborhood, then at the very least direct staff to work with the
applicant in achieving a design that would be acceptable to the City. The City Council does not have to
accept the design of the homes in conjunction with approval of the subdivision of the property.
As a City planner having worked in various cities over the course of my career I have not seen such a
lack of customer service. The applicant first brought a proposal to subdivide the property to the
2 years ago
Planning Department !! The Planning Department asked for plans (which are not required
for a simple subdivision) and then rejected the plans of the proposed homes and asked the applicant to
re-design the homes. The applicant submitted a re-design of the homes and again was rejected. Two
years and a lot of wasted money later, the Planning Department recommended denial of the subdivision.
If the Planning Department was going to recommend denial of the subdivision (based on public health
and incompatibility of the lots), then why did they waste the applicant’s time and money in asking for
WORKwith the applicant
plans for the homes in the first place?? Why not on the design of the
homes?? Instead, the Planning Department cites public health and environmental concerns the
subdivision would have. Why didn’t the Planning Department initially relate these concerns to the
applicant?? Could it be that these are not legitimate concerns and that the Planning Department just
does not want to allow the applicant to build the proposed homes, which, by the way, are similar to other
recently constructed homes in the tract??
?
The staff report states that “there are both environmental and public health impacts
associated with this subdivision.” However, the staff report fails to indicate anywhere what
the environmental impacts are. In fact, the staff report conflicts with the findings in the
will not cause any substantial
resolution that state that the proposed subdivision “
environmental damage.”
This again conflicts with a statement in the staff report that
indicates that further environmental review may be required pursuant to CEQA if the
In one staff report, on just one of several issues, there are 3
subdivision is approved.
conflicting statements!!!
It should be noted that CEQA guidelines allow for a project of
this scope to be categorically exempt. As you can see, as evidenced by this one issue alone,
the analysis is flawed and inconsistent. This should be reason enough for the Council to
question staff’s recommendation for denial and direct staff to go back to the drawing board
on this one.
?
The staff report states that there are health and safety impacts from increased runoff that
This is not true.
would increase the number of pollutants entering the storm drain system.
There are elements of design that could be utilized such that the amount of post-
development runoff is the same as pre-development runoff. In fact, it is quite common for
this to be a requirement of the Public Works Department. Other elements such as unique
drainage systems and the use of pervious surfaces can easily be imposed on the project so
that this is a non-issue. In addition, the capacity of the infrastructure, while so-called
“rural”, was built for single-family residences and associated livestock uses (i.e. – stables,
sheds, etc.) The proposal of one additional home (keeping in mind that one home was
previously existing) in the neighborhood will not cause an exceedence in capacity of
available infrastructure.
?
The findings state several policies of the General plan in which the project is incompatible
for the surrounding area. However, there are many policies that the project does comply
with. These policies (Land Use Element 1.4, 3.1 and 4.1) were pointed out to the Zoning
Administrator and can be cited by the Council to approve the subdivision.
One of the policies the Planning Department cites states that the neighborhoods should be
protected from “intrusive development”. How is the addition of one single-family residence
considered “intrusive development” in an area where the zoning and General Plan land use
designations allow single-family residential and the applicant is not requesting any
variances or deviations from the City’s codes?? Especially when considering the fact that
the property owner could construct 2 single-family residences on the property without
subdividing. Would this all of a sudden not be considered “intrusive development”? It
doesn’t make sense. The other General Plan policies the Planning Department cites are
working with the applicant
design-related and could easily be achieved by on the design of
the homes rather than denying the subdivision.
?
The Planning Department staff report states that the lot sizes are not compatible with the
existing neighborhood and that the parcels would be 3,000 square feet smaller than the next
This is not true.There are 4 lots in the tract that are
smallest lot in the neighborhood.
smaller than the proposed parcels and 8 lots that are similarly sized.
The Planning
Department gets around this by loosely using the term “neighborhood” to disguise this
inaccuracy and later in the staff report indicates that these 8 lots are “technically” within the
they are, in fact, within the tractThey
tract. They are not “technically” within the tract; .
are part of the neighborhood; and they should be part of the analysis!!
?
The Planning Department, in the staff report, indicates that the subdivision would cause
“adverse public health impacts” due to the proximity of livestock to humans. “Negative
health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated
with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request
would further a non-conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot size and
street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to
maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties.”
What is “practically impossible”…either something is impossible or it’s not. In this case, it
is NOT! Do not be swayed by this language. This doesn’t even make sense!! The Planning
Department is stating that the project would further a non-conformity of close proximity of
humans to livestock. Yet, the Planning Department itself, in the findings, is furthering a non-
conformity by stating that the unique nature of the neighborhood be preserved. The code
language exempts the 100-foot requirement from the actual residence on the property. In
addition, if a property owner were to have a house and livestock on their property they
somehow would be immune to the communicable diseases and noxious odors from being in
close proximity to livestock?? This analysis is weak and contradictory.
?
The Planning Dept. also cites concerns that allowing the property to be subdivided would
set a precedent for other surrounding properties. However, of the nearly 40 properties in the
tract, only 16 qualify to be subdivided. In addition, a precedent is already set with the
approval of 3 previous subdivisions for this tract. The Planning Dept. indicates that these
subdivisions were approved many years ago. I’m not sure how this “time lapse” somehow
negates that a precedent has already been set. Is the Planning Dept. saying that the City was
wrong to have approved these subdivisions years ago?? What has changed during this time?
If anything, the area in the vicinity of this neighborhood has become increasingly urbanized
such that turnover of these older, obsolete, so-called “rural” lots/area should be encouraged.
fatal flaws
There are more in the analysis that raise questions with the Planning Department’s
recommendation. The City Council should not only raise these questions, but show that the City of
Santa Ana does have a willingness to work with the people; that there is a standard of customer service
afforded to all people in the City. The City Council should not deny the substantial property rights of
The City Council should approve the subdivision and direct staff to work with the
the applicant.
applicant in addressing the concerns of the Planning Department and neighbors so that an
acceptable design can be achieved and the neighborhood will be improved by the proposed
subdivision.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Villasenor
Resident of Santa Ana
714-262-5260
jennifersvillasenor@gmail.com