Seoff-laws

Dear Editor:
Thank you for Gloria Sefton’s wonderfully written guest commentary entitled “County supervisors pave way for commercialization of rural canyons.” I had followed this issue closely, and I had written three letters to the board asking them to follow the law. The attempt to use a private residence for commercial activity, which will likely involve drinking before driving, on a very dangerous stretch of the two-lane Santiago Canyon Road had wisely been denied more than once by the county. But times have changed and, when it suits the supervisors, the board no longer feels constrained by laws governing land use. The only thing I found lacking in the article was the fact that she missed the wonderful irony that Spitzer is running for Orange County District Attorney, a job that would put him in charge of prosecuting those charged with violating state or local laws!

What kind of fool would vote for someone unable to adhere to, in his own words, “legally enforceable policies and guidelines” contained in the Sil-Mod Specific Plan, which prohibits commercial facilities in any residential category? Of course such guidelines could be changed through a legal process of amendment, but that would require democratic debate and time. Perhaps if the voters make the mistake of putting Spitzer in as district attorney he could go after his friends on the board for refusing to enforce zoning laws.  

Jim Mamer
Modjeska Canyon

Dear Editor:
Want to do something with your property that violates the general plan, specific plan or zoning plan? Just buy a county supervisor.

I have to wonder just why we spent all that time and taxpayers’ money to create general plans and specific plans, only to have them ignored at the whim of the County Planning Commission and a county supervisor. This particular supervisor also ignored the recommendations of the Orange County Traffic Engineering Dept. and put stop signs at whatever location he felt like.

We should save the taxpayers a lot of money by eliminating all of the county agencies and just let the supervisors do it all, as they work cheaper than hundreds of licensed professionals on the county payroll.

W. T. Foster
North Tustin

Best interests

Dear Editor:
I promised to fight to protect the integrity of the North Tustin community. Through my work in mediating the conflict between the Foothill Communities Association (FCA) and Steve Sheldon, and thanks to the patience and willingness to cooperate by both parties, FCA and Sheldon have reached a settlement on the proposed development on unincorporated county property in Cowan Heights.

 This compromise plan came after months of negotiation, and ensures the project will better fit in the existing neighborhood. The compromise plan reduces the number of homes to be built from 22 to 16, and requires screening the properties from view along Newport Blvd. to preserve the scenic view. Due to concerns about accessibility of fire trucks to get in and out of the development, the previous hammerhead turnarounds will be replaced with cul-de-sacs at both ends of the internal street.  Finally, the plan addresses concerns of limited parking spaces by increasing garage space to accommodate three cars.

This compromise plan is just that—a compromise.  But at every point, I fought to ensure that the safety and integrity of the North Tustin community is upheld, and with the concurrence and vote of the FCA.

Todd Spitzer
Supervisor, Third District