Laserfiche WebLink
Dale Helvig <br />2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 <br />714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com IF <br />ITEM 10 <br />Table OS-3. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION <br />There should be at least a one-to-one correlation between a policy and an implementation action. This <br />should be clearly identified in Table OS-3. Example: POLICY OS-1.6 PARK ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY <br />says it will "Create a Safe Routes to Parks program that establishes and enhances access to existing and <br />new parks and recreation facilities through safe walking, bicycling, and transit routes." This has nothing <br />to do with implementation item 1.6. which is listed as "Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by <br />the City's Residential Development Fee Ordinance and adjust them to better reflect current costs and <br />needs. Update requirements regarding where fees are spent. I consider this a fatal flaw in the process <br />that needs to be fixed in all elements. <br />ITEM 11 <br />Table OS-2. RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES <br />OS-3: Park Maintenance, Stewardship, and Sustainability lacks any input/link to the Land Use Element. <br />ITEM 12 <br />OS-1.4 Implementation Action [page OS-16] <br />Is Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency really the correct agency to make this <br />happen? Action 1.4 states: "No -net -loss of parkland. Establish land use provisions in the <br />Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of public parkland in the city." Require at least a 1:1 <br />replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due to public or private development." <br />ITEM 13 <br />OS-1.7 Implementation Action [page OS-17] <br />"...Consider allowing developers a reduction in on -site open space by giving credits for park <br />development or the provision of private park land. Incentivize the creation of public parks that <br />exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas. <br />This is written for developer's consideration rather than the residents of Santa Ana. <br />GENERAL COMMENTS <br />ITEM 14 <br />1. Why were areas north of the 1-5 Freeway excluded from the environmental justice consideration? <br />Homes next to the freeway in the communities of Mabury Park, Grand Sunrise and Park Santiago are <br />inedited with black particulate and noise as much as other areas that are impacted by the freeway. <br />ITEM 15 <br />2. Having words like consider, strive and in policy statements leaves a lot of wiggle room in trying to <br />meet the objectives. <br />ITEM 16 <br />3. A small sampling of these changes revealed that errors exist between the PEIR and the General Plan <br />Update. For me personally, I don't know which document to believe. This must be corrected so the <br />Planning Commission, the public and eventually the City Council understand what is correct: <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Open Space Element <br />