HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - PUBLIC COMMENT_Helvig Page 1 of 3
2020‐09‐14 Letter to Planning Commission ‐ DPEIR on GP
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
September 14, 2020
Chairman McLoughlin and Planning Commissioners
City of Santa Ana
Santa Ana CA 92702
Subject: Public and Agency Review of Draft Program Environmental Impact Report [DPEIR]
(45 days) August 3, 2020 to September 16, 2020
Once again, the City of Santa Ana is requesting a commission to vote on an issue prior the end of the
public review period. Why? And more importantly, is this even legal? The General Plan Elements
lack an implementation plan in over 91 percent of the areas to be discussed. Again, making it difficult
for the public to evaluate. Even though the City states that “no changes are being proposed to the
Housing Element, which is adopted under a separate process regulated by State housing law”, it
should still be included as a document for the comprehensive update. There are too many issues in
the housing element that will conflict with the comprehensive update to ignore.
Any movement by the Planning Commission to move this item forward for City Council
review/approval should be delayed until the public has been given their right to voice their
concerns and the City in given time to produce all required documents prior to taking any action
towards approval.
Given all this, I would like to address a few issues. I already know for the most, the answer will be
either “that is not an environmental issue” or “its significant and unavoidable”. It is also interesting
to note traffic and congestion are no longer a CEQA issue but is one of the major concerns of most
residents since it impacts quality of life not only for current residents, but future residents as well.
This can be addressed indirectly by limiting the population growth in the second densest city in the
state of California.
The Executive Summary says a lot about the lack of concern for public comments. It states, “There
are no specific areas of known controversy concerning the GPU”.
The Notice of Preparation review cycle occurred in the Feb/March timeframe and the scoping
meeting occurred on March 5, 2020. A timeframe when people were first realizing the threats of
COVID‐19. I realize business must move forward but the City is marching down the path as if
COVID‐19 was not changing anything.
Ten out of 64 impact areas are considered significant and unavoidable.
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
Page 2 of 3
2020‐09‐14 Letter to Planning Commission ‐ DPEIR on GP
The DPEIR states on page 2‐18:
“The City will work closely with cities adjacent to [sic] General Plan Focus Areas when
preparing the City of Santa Ana’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan to ensure that
the Dyer/55 Focus Area and other growth areas of the City provide additional
recreation, parks, and core services essential in making complete communities.
Yet the Bowery Project, which is almost approved, does not provide any park space and the
concerns of the City of Tustin were ignored.
The Parks Master Plan will hopefully define and guide the City’s strategies and investments in the
coming years. But where is it? Shouldn’t this be completed in conjunction with the “comprehensive”
update to the General Plan and be included in the DPEIR? Without it we are just setting the City up
for a piecemeal product.
5.15 RECREATION
There is a significant disconnect in open space analysis.
Table 5‐15.2: Total Existing And Planned Parkland Acreage
Required Acreage Existing Acreage
from Table 5‐15.2
Existing Deficiency Acres per 1000 Residents
669.5 acres 354.36 acres 315.14 1.058
Table 5‐15.3: Existing vs. Required Parkland Acreage
Required Acreage Existing Acreage
from Table 5‐15.2
Existing Deficiency Acres per 1000 Residents
669.5 acres 561.94 acres 107.56 1.68
Using the 116 acres of open space area in the Santa Ana River corridor, the 42.64 acres of SAUSD
joint‐use school park and the 36.89 acres of hiking trails and bike trails, and the 13.89 acres of sports
facilities, to arrive at a total of 561.94 is cooking the books. You may as well include the 2.57 acres of
publicly accessible open space listed in the Bowery project and any other future developments.
I believe the information in provided in Table 5‐15.2 is correct when it addresses Total Existing And
Planned Parkland Acreage. We are park poor and nothing is being done about it. Analysis needs to
be redone to reflect how poorly Santa Ana is addressing this issue. The author put this information in
the DPEIR so do not say it’s not relevant to the DPEIR. Why isn’t there a significant reference to
increasing open space over the next 25 years?
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
Page 3 of 3
2020‐09‐14 Letter to Planning Commission ‐ DPEIR on GP
5.16 TRANSPORTATION
Section 5.16: Figure 5.16‐4 ‐The Master Plan of Bikeways includes paths that travel thru private
property. No analysis supports this.
I am also concerned about adding more high‐density housing in the City and how the General Plan
“Shared Vision” only addresses development versus quality of life initiatives. Housing element should
be a part of this analysis whether that element is being revised or not. I realize this is not EIR stuff.
Too much emphasis is being placed on the focus areas and not enough on the rest of the City.
While I agree the City needs revenue, but we cannot continue down this path of constantly increasing
the density of the City. The COVID pandemic highlights the negative effect high density has on the
spreading of viruses. Where do you want the City to be when the next pandemic occurs?
In summary, the DPEIR is a document for development in Focus Areas. It is a document based on an
incomplete General Plan, which in turn, does not reflect a “Shared Vision for the Future”.
Thank you for your time. Stay safe, stay healthy.
Respectfully,
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
cc: Kristine Ridge
City Manager, Santa Ana
Sonia Carvalho
City Attorney, Santa Ana
Minh Thai,
Executive Director, Planning
Vince Fregoso,
Manager, Planning