HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Public CommentsFrom:Peter Abrishami
To:PBAeComments; Peter A
Subject:Meeting /Public Hearing
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 8:37:00 PM
Dear Sir Or Madam
Unfortunately I was not able to participate the Meeting .
I am in favor of such Projects but not in our Costa Mesa or Santa
Ana area .California has enough empty Land and Space for such
Projects .let's reduce crowed and Crime by expanding somewhere
else .Overall is not fair to us in Costa Mesa or Santa Ana to bring Low income and stability
low income Projects . Nevada ,Arizona
still Empty and lots of Empty Lands available .
I am completely object to This Project and My Vote is NO .
If you all decided to Proceed this Project you have to enforce OC Tax To cut Our Property
Tax by 50% all the way .
Best Regards
Peter M. Abrishami
3443 Meadow Brook 71
Costa Mesa , CA. 92626
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Received after 4:00 P.M. deadline
From:Milton Allione
To:PBAeComments
Subject:does LU 54 completely supersede SD-8
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 2:52:28 PM
does LU 54,55 fwy and Dyer Rdcompletely supersede SD-8(amendment application 757, NS-1360, dtd 11/14/1977) if yes, is there a document confirming?if not, how are the documents reconciled? ref: pgs 60-65https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general-plan/documents/Draft%20General%20Plan%208.6.21/Vol3_LU_20210806.pdf
From:Ron Beard
To:Soto, Ricardo; eComment
Cc:Ron Beard
Subject:Dyer / 55 - Motel 6 site
Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 11:41:05 AM
Importance:High
To the Planning Commission:
I’ve reviewed the draft General Plan. Please note that limiting the current Motel 6 site
to only 2 stories and a 1.5 FAR dramatically affects any ability to ever tear down this
hotel and rebuild a nicer project. New hotels are almost all at least 4-5 stories. Same
applies for the horrible and run down office building on the site. Limiting
redevelopment to 2 stories will only serve to keep the old, crummy product there, as it
will make new development far less feasible versus living with what is there. It’s a
simple truth.
I strongly suggest you reconsider this zoning to allow for at least 4-5 story development
as well as provide a much higher FAR.
Thanks,
Ron Beard, property owner
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 ● P: (714) 573-3100 ● F: (714) 573-3113 ● www.tustinca.org
November 8, 2021
Melanie McCann, Principal Planner (MMcCann@santa-ana.org)
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Re: Request for Continuance of November 8, 2021 Santa Ana Planning Commission Item No. 3 –
Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 and General Plan
Amendment No. 2020-06 for the Santa Ana General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse Number
2020029087)
Dear Ms. McCann:
On behalf of the City of Tustin, the purpose of this letter is to formally request a continuance of the
Santa Ana Planning Commission hearing on the above referenced matter, currently set for November
8, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. until January 10th or 24th, 2022, to allow the City of Tustin adequate time to
review the City of Santa Ana’s Response to Comments.
On November 3, 2021, the City of Tustin received notification via email of the City of Santa Ana’s
Response to Comments. The email also provided notification that the Planning Commission will be
considering a recommended action on the Draft General Plan Update and Recirculated PEIR at its
regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, November 8, 2021. As summarized in the email
correspondence, the City of Santa Ana has indicated that the City of Santa Ana addressed Tustin’s
comments with the following:
• Refinements to General Plan Policy Framework and new Recreation Mitigation Measure (REC-1)
that has been added to the August 2021 General Plan Update Recirculated PEIR.
• In addition, page 2 of the Clarifications to August 2021 General Plan identifies refinements to the
Draft Open Space Element.
The City of Tustin’s 13-page comment letter, dated September 16, 2021, contained four (4) significant
areas of concern and the three (3) business days provided to review the City of Santa Ana’s Response
to Comments does not provide the City of Tustin adequate time to conduct its due diligence on behalf
of Tustin residents.
Given the limited time to review the revised documents, Tustin is only able to provide partial comments
as listed below. This shall not preclude the City of Tustin from providing comprehensive comments
at a future date.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E312557-DEE2-49F4-9B92-27083828F0B2
City of Santa Ana
November 8, 2021
Page 2
• Comment 1: MM REC-01 should be revised as follows (add text in italicized red):
The City shall monitor new residential development within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road focus area.
Development proposals for projects including 100 or more residential units shall be required to
prepare a public park utilization study to evaluate the project’s potential impacts on existing City of
Santa Ana, City of Tustin, and City of Irvine public parks within a one half (1/2) mile radius to the focus
area. The evaluation shall include the population increase due to the project and the potential for the
new resident population to impact existing and/or future public parks within the radius. Each study
shall also consider the cumulative development as in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road area and the
potential for a cumulative impact on existing public parks within the radius. If the park utilization study
determines significant impacts, mitigation required such as land dedication, and fair-share contribution
to the impacted city(ies) shall be required of the project.
• Comment 2:
While it is recognized that transportation impacts under CEQA are no longer based on a Level of
Service (LOS) analysis, the City of Santa Ana has adopted the use of the LOS analysis as part of
their impact guidelines in addition to an analysis with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The results of
which are the basis of our traffic concerns.
It is our understanding via a phone message on November 5, 2021, from City of Santa Ana Senior
Civil Engineer, Zed Kekula, that Tustin’s concerns regarding the results of the LOS-based traffic
analysis as it relates to impacts in Tustin and mitigation responsibilities will be addressed at a later
date.
We would greatly appreciate written confirmation once this matter is continued. Please feel free to
contact me at jwillkom@tustinca.org with any questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
Justina L. Willkom
Community Development Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E312557-DEE2-49F4-9B92-27083828F0B2
From:Maria de los angeles Diaz
To:eComment
Cc:Leonel Flores
Subject:Retrasar Plan General
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 2:55:35 PM
Buenas tardes mi nombre es Angeles Diaz y formo parte del comite CUAL y me dirijo a
ustedes para pedirles que se retrase el Plan General ya que todavia le faltan muchas politicas
muy importantes que deveria contener el Plan General en cuanto a Justicia Ambiental y no es
suficiente para proteger la salud de nuestra comunidad que merece tener aire limpio para el
bienestar de nuestras familias asi que por favor les pido que retrasen el Plan General, Espero
una respuesta favorable a mi peticion, Gracias por su atencion.
From:CRAIG FROMM
To:PBAeComments
Subject:Agenda # GPA No. 2020-06
Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:49:15 AM
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing to comment on the proposed changes you want to make in the Grand Ave/17th Street Focus Area.
There is already a lot of traffic on Grand Avenue based on the access points to Insterstate 5 and CA 22 as well as
close proximity to CA 55. There are already a number of large apartments complexes on and adjacent to Grand
Avenue north of 17th Street. As well as a number of duplexes on Jacaranda. An increase in the number of dwellings
will only make things more congested and reduce the quality of life in this area.
While there are wide open spaces in the area, these are cemeteries and not parks. There is only one park that is in the
immediate area, Portola Park. Instead of building more apartment complexes, please consider creating more safe
open spaces. The park that is north of CA 22 isn't the safest area and attracts criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and
other nefarious activities.
Please do not ruin the Grand Ave/17th Street Focus Area by building more apartment complexes which will
increase traffic and noise and more and more people.
Respectfully,
Craig Fromm
2518 Old Grand St.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Ph. (714) 955-3368
From:Rica Garcia
To:PBAeComments
Subject:Public Comments Submission - Santa Ana General Plan Update
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 3:23:15 PM
To whom it may concern:
Our Office understands that disadvantaged communities in Santa Ana are significantly
impacted by lead contamination. As outlined in our October 16, 2020 letter to the City of
Santa Ana regarding the General Plan Update, we recommended the City consider adding
additional measures to address lead contamination.
(https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/sb1000-letter-santa-ana.pdf). We
also recommended that the City consult with disadvantaged communities in its jurisdiction to
solicit ideas on how to address the pollution burdens related to lead contamination.
According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, lead
concentrations of at least 80 parts per million (ppm) are considered hazardous to human
health and safety. A recent research study from the University of California has revealed that
56 different census tracts in the City of Santa Ana have maximum lead concentrations that
exceed 80ppm.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720342881). The majority
of these census tracts are in disadvantaged communities.
Given the magnitude of the soil lead contamination issue in Santa Ana, has the City considered
adopting policies that would (1) require property owners to test for soil lead toxicity prior to
approving new land uses or granting development approvals; (2) require adequate
remediation before new development; (3) adopt standards to require soil testing at
development sites where contamination is suspected; and/or (4) require soil testing of
property adjacent to property with hazardous soil lead levels.
Thank you,
Rica
Rica V. Garcia
Deputy Attorney General
Bureau of Environmental Justice
California Attorney General’s Office
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel. (cell): 408-398-4278
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended
recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate
applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
September 15, 2021
Via Email
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
c/o Commission Secretary Sarah Bernal
SBernal@santa-ana.org.
Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update Open Space Element
Dear Commissioners:
Rise Up Willowick appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana’s
August 2021 draft General Plan Update (“the Update”). A memo to the Planning Commission on
the Update’s Open Space Element is attached as Exhibit A.1 We previously submitted comments
on an earlier draft of the Update in an October 6, 2020 letter to City planning staff, attached as
Exhibit B, and a November 9, 2020 letter to the Planning Commission, attached as Exhibit C.
Those earlier comments remain relevant to the draft Update and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
The policies and implementation actions in the Update’s Open Space Element seek to
avoid loss of parkland and create new public parkland, prioritizing currently underserved areas
and requiring private developments to create public open space. We commend the City for
revising these measures in response to public comments received on the previous draft Update.
However, the Open Space Element still falls short in several respects.
Most importantly, the City’s standard of two acres of parks per 1,000 residents is not
sufficient to meet the needs of City residents and is much less than the ratio of parkland to
residents in other comparable jurisdictions. The City should increase its park standard from two
to three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City does not meet its current, low standard,
and under the Update the total “parkland deficiency” is projected to increase further, from 118.14
acres to 299.48 acres at build-out unless the City develops new parks. RDPEIR at 5.15-28. In
1 These comments do not discuss the adequacy of the Update’s accompanying Recirculated Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report (“RDPEIR”) under the California Environmental Quality
Act, which is addressed in a separate letter to City planning staff submitted on behalf of Rise Up
Willowick by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP.
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 2
order to address this parkland deficiency and meet the needs of City residents, the City needs
more ambitious policies to facilitate parkland creation.
The City should increase the Open Space Element’s park standard to a ratio of three acres
per 1,000 residents, and should amend the Municipal Code to reflect this standard. In addition, as
outlined in the attached memo, we urge the City to revise the Open Space Element to:
(1) define the terms “parks,” “parkland,” “open space,” “park deficient area” and
“environmental justice area,”
(2) apply the “no net loss” policy to open space as well as to parkland and strengthen
provisions on replacement of lost open space,
(3) increase parkland dedication requirements for new development projects in order to
meet the City’s enhanced park standard,
(4) extend parkland dedication requirements to a broader range of market-rate
development projects,
(5) require that parkland created by dedication be located within a half-mile walking
distance of the associated development, and
(6) include more specific incentive mechanisms to create new parkland, especially within
park deficient and environmental justice areas.
The attached memo suggests language for General Plan policies and implementation
actions that would address each of these issues. We respectfully request that the City revise the
Open Space Element to reflect these proposals. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Rise Up Willowick
Cynthia Guerra
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 3
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Rise Up Willowick, Comments to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission re:
Proposed Changes to Open Space Element of City of Santa Ana General Plan Update, September
15, 2021.
Exhibit B: Letter from Rise Up Willowick to Verny Carvajal re: Comments on Santa Ana
General Plan Update DPEIR, October 6, 2020.
Exhibit C: Letter from Rise Up Willowick to the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission re:
Santa Ana General Plan Update EIR, November 9, 2020.
cc: General Plan Email: newgeneralplan@santa-ana.org
Public Comment Email: ecomments@santa-ana.org
Planning Dept. Director Minh Tai: mthai@santa-ana.org
Principal Planner Melanie McCann: mmccann@santa-ana.org
Planning Commissioners: mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org; tmorrissey@santa-ana.org;
ealderete@santa-ana.org; mcalderon@santa-ana.org; bpham@santa-ana.org;
iramos@santa-ana.org; awoo@santa-ana.org
1412866.7
EXHIBIT A
TO: City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
FROM: Rise Up Willowick
DATE: September 15, 2021
RE: Proposed Changes to Open Space Element of City of Santa Ana General
Plan Update
Rise Up Willowick proposes the following changes and additions to the Open
Space Element of the City of Santa Ana’s August 2021 draft General Plan Update.
1. Definitions of Key Terms
The Open Space Element lacks definitions for key terms used in several policies
and implementation actions involving parks and open space. These definitions are needed
to clarify the scope and effects of those policies and actions. We propose modifying the
Open Space Element to define “parks” and “parkland” with reference to the Municipal
Code’s existing definition of “parks”:
As used in the Open Space Element, “parks” and “parkland” have the same
meaning as “parks” as defined in Municipal Code Section 31-1 (4).
We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define “open space” as
follows:
As used in the Open Space Element, “open space” means “any publicly-accessible
parcel or area of land or water, whether publicly or privately-owned, that is
reserved for the purpose of preserving natural resources, for the protection of
valuable environmental features, or for providing outdoor recreation or
education.”
We propose amending the Municipal Code to include this definition of “open
space,” which is not currently defined in the code.
We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define “park deficient area” as
follows:
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 2
As used in the Open Space Element, “park deficient area” means “a geographic
area which is located more than 0.25 miles from the nearest public park of 5 acres
or less and more than 0.5 miles from the nearest public park larger than 5 acres as
measured along the shortest available pedestrian route.”
This is a modified version of the definition used in the August 2021 Recirculated
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDPEIR) for the General Plan Update.
RDPEIR at 5.15-12, 5.15-13.1
We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define “environmental justice
area” as follows:
As used in the Open Space Element, “environmental justice area” means “a
disadvantaged community as defined by Government Code Section
65302(h)(4)(A), i.e. a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by
environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects,
exposure, or environmental degradation, or an area identified by the California
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and
Safety Code.”
This definition of “environmental justice area” is consistent with the RDPEIR,
which references SB 1000’s definition of “disadvantaged community.” Gov. Code §
65302(h)(4)(A); RDPEIR at 4.15-4.16, 5.15-12, 5.15-15. The California Environmental
Protection Agency has identified 23 census tracts in Santa Ana as environmental justice
communities because they have received a California Communities Environmental
Health Screening (CalEnviroScreen) composite score greater than 75 percent. RDPEIR
at 2-19, 4-15.
2. Proposed Addition of “No Net Loss of Open Space” Policy in General Plan Update
We propose the addition of a “no net loss of open space” policy in the Open Space
Element:
Policy OS-1.14: No Net Loss of Open Space. There shall be no net loss of Open
Space in the city, excluding any acreage of a golf course that is redeveloped
solely for 100% below-market rate housing. Any Open Space lost due to
development shall be replaced at a ratio of at least 1:1.
1 The RDPEIR maps park deficient areas using aerial linear distances to the closest park,
rather than actual on-the-ground walking distances, which are typically longer due to a
lack of direct routes. We propose using on-the-ground walking distances.
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 3
Although the Open Space Element already includes a “no net loss of parkland”
implementation action (discussed below), the “no net loss” concept is so important and
fundamental that it should be articulated as a policy as well. Moreover, given the shortage
of both parks and open space in the City, this policy should apply to all open space, not
merely to parkland. The City already has a “parkland deficiency” of 118.14 acres, which
is expected to increase to 299.48 acres under the Update unless new parks are built.
RDPEIR at 5.15-28. Non-park open space provides an important supplemental
recreational resource, and can potentially be developed into parkland in the future. The
City cannot afford to lose any of its existing parkland or open space acreage.
3. Proposed Changes to the Update’s “No Net Loss” Implementation Action
The draft Open Space Element currently includes this provision:
Implementation Action [OS-]1.4: No-net-loss of parkland. Establish land use
provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of public parkland in the
city. Require at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due
to public or private development.
City of Santa Ana Draft General Plan Update, Open Space Element, at 16. The City
proposes to enact the no-net-loss ordinance in 2022; the City’s Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Agency (PRCSA) would be responsible.
We commend the City for including this “no net loss” implementation action in
the Update. However, as explained above, this provision should apply to all open space,
not only to parkland. The implementation action should specify that net loss of open
space will be avoided by prohibiting development that causes such a net loss. Moreover,
the provision should clarify that replacement parks and open space must be located
within 0.5 miles of the lost parks and open space, to ensure that the replacements serve
the same communities. Finally, the implementation action should require that
development of replacement parks and open space occur before the closure of the lost
parks or open space. This will ensure that there is not a lag or “gap” in time where
communities lose park or open space access if the replacement process is delayed.
We propose modifying Open Space Element Implementation Action OS-1.4 to
read as follows:
Implementation Action OS-1.4: No Net Loss of parkland Open Space. Establish
land use provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent prohibit development that
causes a net loss of public parkland Open Space in the city, including City parks as
well as other public and private land designated as Open Space under the General
Plan or the zoning code, but excluding any acreage of a golf course that is
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 4
redeveloped solely for 100% below-market rate housing. Require that any loss of
Open Space be replaced at a ratio of at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss
of public parkland due to public or private development., that loss of public parks
be replaced by new public parks, and that replacement Open Space (including
public parks) be located within 0.5 miles walking distance from the lost Open
Space. Require that a plan for replacement, including specific location of
replacement land, be approved before or as part of approval of any project that
would change the use of existing parks or Open Space. Require that development
of replacement parks or Open Space occur prior to the closure or redevelopment of
the lost parks or Open Space.
4. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s “Park Standard”
The draft Open Space Element currently includes this “park standard” policy:
Policy OS-1.3: Park Standard. Establish and maintain public open space and
recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to
provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Strive to
attain a minimum of two acres of park land per 1,000 residents in the City.
City of Santa Ana Draft General Plan Update, Open Space Element, at 5. This parkland-
to-resident standard is already reflected in Municipal Code Section 35-108(a), which
provides that “[d]evelopment of parks within the city will require the construction of park
and recreation facilities sufficient to provide two (2) acres of such facilities per one
thousand (1,000) population in the city.”
The August 2021 RDPEIR for the General Plan Update acknowledges that the
City currently does not meet this per-resident standard, and under the Update the total
“parkland deficiency” is projected to increase further, from 118.14 acres to 299.48 acres
at build-out unless additional parks are provided. RDPEIR at 5.15-28.
The City’s standard of two acres of parks per 1,000 residents is not sufficient to
meet the needs of City residents and is much less than the ratio of parkland to residents in
other jurisdictions. According to the National Recreation and Park Association, the
typical jurisdiction has a median of 9.9 of acres of parkland for every 1,0000 residents,
while jurisdictions of more than 250,000 people (like Santa Ana) have a median of 10.9
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.2 Nationally, the bottom quartile of jurisdictions
over 250,000 people have a median of 5.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
2 National Recreation and Park Association, NRPA Agency Performance Review 8
(2020), https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/nrpa-agency-performance-review.pdf
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 5
The City’s parkland standard is also less than the standard set out in the Quimby
Act, Government Code section 66477, which allows cities to require that subdivisions
dedicate parkland sufficient to provide up to three acres of park area per 1,000
subdivision residents.
Moreover, Policy OS-1.3 has been weakened from the version included in the
2020 draft Update. While the previous draft policy called for the City to “achieve” a park
ratio of two acres per 1,000 people (2020 Draft Open Space Element at 5; Final
Environmental Impact Report at 2-17), the new draft merely says the City will “strive to
attain” that standard. Open Space Element at 5. Given the importance of addressing the
City’s park deficiency, the policy’s language should be mandatory.
We therefore propose revising Policy OS-1.3 to read as follows:
Policy OS-1.3: Park Standard. Establish and maintain public open space and
recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to
provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Strive to
attain The City shall achieve a minimum citywide park ratio of two three acres of
park land per 1,000 residents in the City. For new residential development in
Focus Areas, the City shall prioritize the creation and dedication of new public
parkland over the collection of impact fees.
We also propose that the Update include an additional implementation action
calling for the City to amend the Municipal Code to reflect this standard:
Implementation Action OS-1.16. Park Standard. Amend Municipal Code Chapter
35, Article IV to require that the City achieve a minimum citywide park ratio of
three acres per 1,000 residents.
5. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Policies on Parkland Creation and
Distribution
The Open Space Element currently includes the following policies relating to
parkland creation and distribution:
Policy OS-1.4. Park Distribution. Ensure the City residents have access to public
or private parks, recreation facilities, or trails within a 10 minute walking and
biking distance of home. Prioritize park provision, programs, and partnerships in
park deficient an[d] environmental justice areas.
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 6
RDPEIR at 5.15-20.3
Policy OS-1.8. Land Acquisition and Equitable Distribution. Explore options for
the acquisition of available lands for parks, open space, greenways and trail
corridors, with priority given to sites that are within park deficient or
environmental justice areas.
Open Space Element at 6.
Rise Up Willowick supports the Policy’s stated goal of more equitable park
distribution in park deficient and environmental justice areas. We commend the City for
including Policy OS-1.4 and Policy OS-1.8. However, Policy OS-1.4 should use a 0.5
mile walking distance to measure park proximity, a more objective metric than a 10-
minute walking distance, which varies depending on a pedestrian’s physical capabilities.
Policy OS-1.8 should direct the City to acquire new parkland, not merely to “explore
options” for doing so.
We propose strengthening and clarifying these policies as follows:
Policy OS-1.4. Park Distribution. Ensure the that all City residents have access to
public or private parks, recreation facilities, or and trails within a 10 minute0.5
mile walking and biking distance of home their homes. Prioritize park provision,
programs, and partnerships in park deficient and environmental justice areas.
Policy OS-1.8. Land Acquisition and Equitable Distribution. Explore options for
the acquisition of Acquire available lands for parks, open space, greenways and
trail corridors, with priority given to sites that are within park deficient or and
environmental justice areas.
The Open Space Element includes the following provision regarding park-deficient areas:
Policy OS-1.10. Creative Solutions for Deficiencies. Develop creative and flexible
solutions to provide greenspace and recreation activities in neighborhoods where
3 There is an error in the draft General Plan Update, which replaces Policy OS-1.4 with
language identical to Policy OS-1.5 (“Provide a mix of community, neighborhood, and
special use parks, along with greenway corridors, natural areas, and landscape areas, to
meet community needs for greenspace, recreation space, social space, and trail
connectivity”), thus repeating the same policy twice. We assume that the version of
Policy OS-1.4 provided in the RDPEIR (quoted above) contains the correct language.
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 7
traditional parks are not feasible. Encourage public, private, and commercial
recreational facilities in areas that are park deficient.
Open Space Element at 6.
While we support the use of “creative solutions” to address park deficiencies,
Policy OS-1.10 requires clarification. We are concerned by the suggestion that there are
neighborhoods where “traditional parks are not feasible.” The City’s long term goal
should be to provide public parkland in all park-deficient areas. Moreover, this policy
should be revised to make clear that while private or commercial recreational facilities
can be a valuable community resource, they are never a substitute for public parkland.
The City should not abandon efforts to create public parks in park-deficient areas merely
because those areas contain private or commercial recreational facilities. Such private
facilities do not always serve the communities in which they are located and do not
provide the spectrum of activities that public parks do. For example, some private
recreational facilities (such as golf courses) can exclude lower-income people, and thus
could fail to serve residents in surrounding neighborhoods.
We propose modifying Policy OS-1.10 as follows:
Policy OS-1.10. Creative Solutions for Deficiencies. Develop creative and flexible
solutions to provide greenspace and recreation activities in park-deficient
neighborhoods where traditional parks are not feasible. Prioritize public parks and
recreational facilities in park-deficient areas. Encourage public, private, and
commercial recreational facilities in areas that are park deficient. that are open to
the public, are physically accessible and affordable to residents of surrounding
neighborhoods, and serve community needs.
The Open Space Element also includes the following implementation action regarding
new parkland:
Implementation Action 1.10: New parkland. Coordinate with property owners to
explore options to provide public access and programming in park deficient areas,
including options to acquire land through purchase, land dedication, easements,
and land leases that would allow for permanent or temporary use of land for
recreational opportunities.
Open Space Element at 17.
Like Policy OS-1.8, Implementation Action 1.10 should direct the City to acquire
new parkland. It should prioritize creation of new permanent public parkland. Other
temporary mechanisms can be a helpful supplement. However, these mechanisms will
not provide the same level of permanent public benefits or allow the same range of public
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 8
uses. They are therefore not a substitute for permanent public parkland. The City should
not rely on privately-owned open space to increase recreational opportunities in park-
deficient areas.
We propose revising this provision as follows:
Implementation Action 1.10: New parkland. Create new public parkland in park-
deficient areas via purchase or land dedication. In addition, Ccoordinate with
property owners to explore options to provide public access and programming on
privately-owned open space in park deficient areas, including options to acquire
land through purchase, land dedication, and obtain easements, and or land leases
that would allow for permanent or temporary public use of land such open space
for recreational opportunities.
6. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Policy on New Development
The Open Space Element currently includes the following policy on new
development:
Policy OS-1.9: New Development. Ensure all new development effectively
integrates parks, open space, and pedestrian and multi-modal travelways to
promote a quality living environment. For new development within park deficient
and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and dedication of new
public parkland over the collection of impact fees.
Open Space Element at 6.
We propose revising this policy to clarify that new developments must create
public parkland via the mechanisms described in Implementation Actions OS-1.6 and
OS-1.7 in order to meet the citywide park standard set in Policy OS-1.3:
Policy OS-1.9: New Development. Require that Ensure all new development
effectively integrates parks, open space, and provide adequate parks and open
space, including via parkland dedication or development fees, in order to meet the
City’s park standard. Ensure that new development includes pedestrian and multi-
modal travelways to promote a quality living environment. For new development
within park deficient and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and
dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees.
7. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Development Fee Requirements
The draft Open Space Element currently includes the following provision:
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 9
Implementation Action [OS-]1.6. Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by
the City’s Acquisition and Development Ordinance and adjust them to better
reflect current costs and needs. Update requirements regarding where fees are
spent.
Open Space Element at 16. The City proposes to implement the action in 2022.
Implementation Action 1.6 has been modified from the version in the previous
2020 draft Update, and is now much less specific than before. That earlier version
(previously Implementation Action 1.8) called for the City to
[c]onsider updating the City’s Acquisition and Development Ordinance to better
reflect current costs and needs by increasing the parkland dedication requirement,
and require that fees collected in place of parkland dedication for specific
development projects be utilized to acquire, expand, or improve facilities within
the same quadrant or geographic subarea (as defined in the Parks Master Plan) as
the project for which the fee was collected.
2020 Draft Open Space Element at 15. The more specific language in the earlier version
of the implementation action should be retained in order to strengthen the City’s
development fee program. In particular, development fees should be used to provide new
parkland in the same neighborhood impacted by the development. That geographic
limitation should be based on walking distance from the development project (the same
approach used for the park dedication requirements in Implementation Action OS-1.7),
rather than “quadrant or geographic subarea.”
We propose revising Implementation Action OS-1.6 as follows:
Implementation Action OS-1.6. Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by
Update the City’s Acquisition and Development Ordinance and adjust them to
better reflect current costs and needs. Update to increase the parkland dedication
requirements regarding where fees are spent for new development projects
consistent with the dedication requirements specified in Implementation Action
OS-1.7. Require that fees collected in place of parkland dedication for specific
development projects be utilized to acquire, expand, or improve facilities within
0.5 miles walking distance from the project for which the fee was collected.
8. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Parkland Dedication Requirement
The Open Space Element currently includes the following provision:
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 10
Implementation Action [OS-]1.7. Public parkland requirements for larger
residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for
Larger Residential Projects to require public parkland within a 10-minute walking
distance of the new residential projects. Consider allowing developers a reduction
in on-site open space by giving credits for park development or the provision of
private park land. Incentivize the creation of public parks that exceed City
requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas.
Establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential projects (of
any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space, such as
exploring housing density bonus options for the provision of open space as a
public benefit and leverage Residential Development fee to partner with
developers to create public open space.
Open Space Element at 17. The City proposes to implement the action in 2022.
Implementation Action 1.7 has been modified extensively from the version
included in the previous 2020 draft Update, with many of the specifics have been deleted.
The earlier version (formerly Implementation Action 1.15) provided:
Implementation Action 1.15. Public parkland requirements for larger residential
projects. Amend the Residential Development Fee in the Municipal Code (Chapter
35, Article IV) to reflect requirements for Larger Residential Projects (100+ units,
residential only or mixed-use) to facilitate the creation two acres of new public
parkland within a 10-minute walking radius of the new residential project.
Establish provisions that allow the Larger Residential Projects to reduce all onsite
private and common open space requirements by 50 percent if new public
parkland is provided within a 10 minute walking radius and by 80 percent if the
new public parkland is immediately adjacent to or on the residential project
property. Work with property owners and new development projects within the
Focus Areas to identify options (e.g., 100 percent reduction of onsite private and
public open space requirements) that would incentivize the creation of public park
areas that are more than the minimum and/or if a location can expand park access
for an adjoining underserved neighborhood and/or environmental justice area.
Establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential projects (of
any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space.
2020 Draft Open Space Element at 16. The new draft weakens the Update by replacing
much of the action’s detail with general statements. The more detailed version should be
restored, with further changes as outlined below.
The Santa Ana Municipal Code already requires that subdivision map approvals
for residential subdivisions of more than 50 parcels dedicate parkland sufficient to
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 11
provide two acres of park area per 1,000 people residing in the subdivision. The Quimby
Act, Government Code section 66477, authorizes more than that, allowing cities to
require that subdivisions dedicate parkland sufficient to provide up to three acres of park
area per 1,000 subdivision residents.
We propose modifying Implementation Action OS-1.7 to use all the authority the
Quimby Act gives the City. It should require that subdivision dedications of parkland be
sufficient to achieve a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In addition,
we suggest modifying Action OS-1.7 to require that new ≥ 80% market-rate, non-
subdivision developments of 100 or more units dedicate three acres of new public
parkland, and that ≥ 80% market-rate non-subdivision developments of 50 to 99 units
dedicate two acres of public parkland. These changes will help to address the City’s
parkland deficit, meet the General Plan’s parkland standard, and promote equitable park
access.
We also suggest changing the limit on the location of dedicated parkland from a
“10-minute walking radius” of the development, a subjective measure that varies
depending on a pedestrian’s physical capabilities, to a 0.5-mile walking radius, a more
objective metric. The revised Implementation Action would read as follows:
Implementation Action OS-1.7. Public parklands requirements for larger
residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for
Larger Residential Projects to require public parkland within a 10-minute walking
distance of the new residential projects. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 34,
Article VIII to require that subdivision map approvals for residential subdivisions
of more than 50 parcels dedicate parkland sufficient to provide three acres of park
area per 1,000 people residing in the subdivision, consistent with Policy OS-1.3.
Amend Municipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV to require that projects including
100+ residential units that are 80 percent market-rate or more and do not require a
subdivision dedicate three acres of new public parkland concurrent with the
completion of and within a 0.5-mile walking radius of the new residential project,
and to require non-subdivision projects of 50 to 99 residential units that are 80
percent market-rate or more to dedicate two acres of public parkland concurrent
with the completion of and within a 0.5 mile walking radius of the project.
Consider allowing developers a reduction in on-site open space by giving credits
for park development or the provision of private park land. Establish provisions
that allow these projects to reduce all onsite private and common open space
requirements by 50 percent if new public parkland is provided within a 0.5-mile
walking radius and by 80 percent if the new public parkland is immediately
adjacent to or on the residential project property. To the greatest extent possible,
parkland created via this dedication process shall be located in park-deficient
neighborhoods and environmental justice areas. Incentivize the creation of public
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 12
parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and
environmental justice areas. Establish incentives for coordination between two or
more residential project (of any size) to create larger and/or more centralized
public park space, such as a housing density bonus for the provision of open space
as a public benefit and leveraging of Residential Development fees to partner with
developers to create public open space.
9. Clarification of the Open Space Element’s Incentives for Parkland Creation
The new draft Open Space Element deletes an implementation action included in
the previous 2020 draft (Implementation Action OS-1.16), which indicated that the City
should “[d]evelop an incentives program that encourages private development and public
agencies to provide park and recreation facilities beyond the minimum requirements.”
Similarly, Implementation Action OS-1.7 now calls for the City to “[i]ncentivize
the creation of public parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park
deficient and environmental justice areas” and to “[e]stablish incentives for coordination
between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create larger and/or more
centralized public park space, such as exploring housing density bonus options for the
provision of open space as a public benefit and leverag[ing] Residential Development
fee[s] to partner with developers to create public open space.” The Open Space Element
should describe these incentives in greater detail.
As suggested by Action OS-1.7, the City could provide a density bonus to
development projects that exceed public parkland dedication requirements. This would be
similar to the density bonuses provided to projects containing below-market-rate units
under Government Code section 65915 (codified in Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter
41, Article XVI.I). The density bonus could be provided on a sliding scale: development
projects which exceed minimum parkland dedication by a greater amount would receive a
larger bonus. The size of the maximum density bonus for additional parkland dedication
should be no greater than the 25% maximum density bonus for below-market-rate units
under the City’s existing density bonus ordinance. Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-
1604(a). However, development projects which include below-market-rate units and
dedicate more parkland than required should be eligible to receive both the parkland
density bonus and the affordable housing density bonus. Use of one bonus should not
preclude or limit the use of the other.
In the previous draft of the Open Space Element, Implementation Action 1.15
suggested a “100 percent reduction of onsite private and public open space requirements”
if a development dedicates public park areas that exceed the minimum dedication
requirement. 2020 Draft Open Space Element at 16. The City should consider a revised
version of this incentive: reductions of onsite open space should reflect the amount by
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 13
which parkland dedication exceeds minimum requirements. For example, a development
would receive a 90% reduction in the onsite open space requirement if it dedicates 0.5
acres more than the required amount of parkland and a 100% reduction if it dedicates 1
acre more parkland than required.
10. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Funding Policies
The Open Space Element currently includes the following policy:
Policy OS-1.11: Funding Sources: Explore and pursue all available funding,
including nontraditional funding sources, for park acquisition, facility
development, programming, and maintenance of existing and new parks. Set aside
park funding to have monies on hand to acquire and develop parkland when
opportunities arise and to leverage grant options.
Open Space Element at 6.
We commend the City’s commitment to pursue all available funding
sources for parks. Given the current park deficiency in the City, the City should set an
explicit goal to obtain enough funding for new park development to meet a park standard
of three acres per 1,000 residents (see proposed changes to Policy OS-1.3 above). We
propose modifying Policy OS-1.11 as follows:
Policy OS-1.11: Funding Sources: Explore and pursue all available funding,
including nontraditional funding sources, for park acquisition, facility
development, programming, and maintenance of existing and new parks, in order
to increase park investment per resident and meet the City’s Park Standard of three
acres per 1,000 residents (Policy OS-1.3). Set aside park funding to have monies
on hand to acquire and develop parkland when opportunities arise and to leverage
grant options.
In addition, the City should aim to increase per-resident investment in parks,
including maintenance and improvement of existing parks as well as new park
development. We propose the addition of an “increased per-resident parks investment”
policy in the Open Space Element:
Policy OS-1.15: Park Investment Per Resident. Increase per-resident investment in
park maintenance and upgrades in order to ensure equitable access to well-
maintained neighborhood parks for all City residents, and increase per-resident
investment on new park acquisition and development to a level sufficient to
achieve the City’s Park Standard of three acres per 1,000 residents (Policy OS-
1.3).
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 14
1371416.37
EXHIBIT B
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552 -7272 F: (415) 552 -5816
www.smwlaw.com
GABRIEL M.B. ROSS
Attorney
Ross@smwlaw.com
October 6, 2020
Verny Carvajal
Principal Planner
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building
Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
Santa Ana, CA 92702
vcarvajal@santa-ana.org
Re: Comments on Santa Ana General Plan Update DPEIR,
Clearinghouse No. 2020020987
Dear Mr. Carvajal:
On behalf of Rise Up Willowick, I write to provide comments on the proposed
Santa Ana General Plan Update (“the Update”) and its accompanying Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (“the DPEIR”). The Update will guide the development of
Santa Ana, including the Willowick Golf Course site, for many years, and the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires
that the DPEIR thoroughly assess the Update and its environmental impacts. As set forth
in the following comments, we urge the City to (1) continue to designate the Willowick
site as open space, (2) provide for more affordable housing under the Update and avoid
undermining the Housing Element and the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance (the
“HOO”), and (3) revise the DPEIR to fully analyze the Update’s environmental impacts,
especially those related to displacement and environmental justice.
I. The bulk of the Willowick site should continue to be designated as open space.
The Willowick Golf Course site lies within the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus
Area, one of the focus areas slated for new development under the Update. DPEIR at 4-6.
The Willowick site is currently designated as open space, and the Update proposes to
maintain that designation. DPEIR at D-6 to D-8. Rise Up Willowick supports this
designation until and unless there is a proposal for developing part of the site with
affordable housing. The Trust for Public Land, the California Coastal Conservancy, and
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 2
Clifford Beers Housing have submitted a proposal to the City of Garden Grove pursuant
to the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq., to develop the
majority of the site into a community park, with affordable housing on the remainder. See
Willowick Community Park Proposal, attached as Exhibit A. This public green space will
further the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Open Space Element, which call for
the preservation of existing open space areas and the creation of new public parks.
DPEIR at 5.15-13, 5.15-14 (Open Space Element, Goals 1-3).
Designation of the majority of the Willowick site as public open space will help
meet the growing demand for parks in the City. The Update’s proposed increase in
residential density in many areas of the City would lead to increased demand for parks
and open space. DPEIR at 5.15-15, 5.15-17. The DPEIR projects that the proposed land
use changes would result in construction of an estimated 36,261 dwelling units across the
City (DPEIR at H-b-5), and a population increase of 96,855 people (DPEIR at 5.15-16).
However, park acreage under the Update would increase by only 1.84 acres. Id.
Open Space Element Policy 1.3 calls for the City to achieve a minimum park
standard of two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City currently does not meet
this per-resident standard, and under the Update the shortfall is projected to increase
further: the total “parkland deficiency” would increase from 107.56 acres to 299.48 acres
at build-out unless additional parks are provided. DPEIR at 5.15-16. The DPEIR
calculates that the City currently has 561.94 acres of parkland, but it includes other kinds
of open space in this total, such as sports facilities and school recreational facilities.
DPEIR at 5.15-10. Although the DPEIR does not fully explain the basis for this parkland
calculation, it appears that it may inappropriately count golf courses and cemeteries
towards the parkland total. Golf courses, including the Willowick golf course, are
classified as “open space.” DPEIR at 5.15-10. A golf course, only usable by a small
segment of the population and even then for a fee, is not the kind of public space that
meets the community’s needs. Cemeteries are also classified as “open space,” although
they are not available for recreational uses. DPEIR at 3-15. Thus, if the DPEIR counts
these areas as parkland, the current park deficit is actually greater than the City claims.
Despite the admitted deficit, the DPEIR concludes that the Update will have less
than significant impacts related to park demand. DPEIR at 5.15-15 to 5.15-17 (Impact
5.15-1). It reasons that “[p]rovision of parks under implementation of the GPU, which
will occur over time, is expected to keep pace with the increase in population growth
related to the plan and would not result in a significant impact.” Id. at 5.15-16. The
DPEIR assumes that the City will develop significantly more open space than the 1.84
acres of future parks designated in the Update, funded via in-lieu impact fees collected
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 3
from private developers, among other sources. Id. However, the DPEIR fails to provide
any evidence that funding will be sufficient to reduce the City’s parkland deficiency such
that impacts would be less than significant. The DPEIR also asserts that the City’s park
shortage would be reduced by “private parks and recreational facilities owned and
maintained by homeowner associations.” Id. The DPEIR fails to note that many private
recreational facilities, like rooftop parks, are not open to the public and will do nothing to
improve park access for most of the City, especially lower-income residents. The
DPEIR’s unsupported conclusions and its failure to identify mitigation measures are
invalid under CEQA.
In order to achieve the City’s park standard and accommodate the needs of tens of
thousands of new City residents, additional park space is urgently needed, and the 102-
acre Willowick site can help meet this need. The Willowick Community Park proposal
calls for 90 acres to be set aside for public parkland, with the remaining 12 acres to be
developed as affordable housing. See Willowick Community Park Proposal at 17, 30. In
addition to serving growing citywide demand for parks, real recreational open space at
the Willowick site will also help meet the existing needs of nearby residents who
currently lack adequate access to green spaces in their neighborhoods. There are an
estimated 8,500 people living within a 10-minute walk of the Willowick site who
currently lack access to a nearby public park. See Willowick Community Park Proposal at
26.
Preserving most of the Willowick site as open space will also help to mitigate
environmental impacts associated with other aspects of the Update. The DPEIR indicates
that the proposed increases in intensity of development and population growth under the
Update are projected to generate significant impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions. DPEIR at 1-13, 1-25 (Table 1-4). Urban green spaces improve air quality and
mitigate climate change, as trees remove air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the air.
See David J. Nowak and Gordon M. Heisler, National Recreation and Parks Association,
Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks (2010), attached as Exhibit B; Erica Gies,
The Trust for Public Land, The Health Benefits of Parks (2006), attached as Exhibit C, at
13. Thus, maintaining Willowick as green space can mitigate air quality and climate
impacts.
Willowick’s role in air quality mitigation is especially important because
neighborhoods adjacent to the site have high levels of certain air pollutants, including PM
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 4
2.5.1 Urban green spaces like Willowick also help mitigate the urban heat island effect,
significantly reducing temperatures in surrounding neighborhoods. See The Trust for
Public Land, The Heat Is On (2020), attached as Exhibit D.
Open space at the Willowick site may also help mitigate impacts on water quality
and hydrology resulting from the Update, such as stormwater runoff impacts associated
with new development. The DPEIR concludes that the Update’s water quality and
hydrology impacts would be less than significant and that no mitigation is needed.
DPEIR at 5.9-29, 5.9-32. However, this conclusion improperly relies on asserted
compliance with applicable state, regional, and local regulatory requirements. DPEIR at
5.9-30 to 5.9-32. Regulatory compliance does not determine the significance of impacts
and cannot be used to bypass the City’s obligation to analyze and mitigate those impacts.
See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005)
136 Cal.App.4th 1, 15-17; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water
Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-09.
II. The Update does not provide for sufficient affordable housing and would
undermine the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance.
Santa Ana faces a growing shortage of affordable housing, especially of deeply
affordable units. Since 2014, the City’s below market rate housing construction has been
heavily skewed towards above-moderate income units, which have far outnumbered
production of low and very-low income units. City of Santa Ana, Request for Council
Action: General Plan Housing Element Annual Progress Report (March 17, 2020),
attached as Exhibit E, at 3. The City’s estimated Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period is 3,086 housing units, including 360 low-
income and 583 very-low-income units. DPEIR at 5-13-13; Southern California
Association of Governments, Precertified Local Housing Data for the City of Santa Ana
(August 2020), attached as Exhibit F, at 18. The DPEIR acknowledges that the Update
“would directly induce substantial unplanned population growth” as well as employment
growth, a significant impact which would further increase housing demand. DPEIR at
5.13-12 to 5.13-14 (Impact 5.13-1). The Willowick Community Park Proposal would
help to address the City’s affordable housing shortage, as it calls for 12 acres of the
1 Several census tracts adjacent to or near the Willowick site are designated as
disadvantaged communities that experience a high pollution burden, including high
concentrations of PM 2.5 and high occurrences of asthma and cardiovascular diseases.
See CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30.
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 5
Willowick site to be developed into approximately 270 affordable housing units. See
Willowick Community Park Proposal at 30.
The Willowick development by itself would not be sufficient to meet the City’s
affordable housing needs—the Update must provide for increased affordable housing
development citywide. However, the Update fails to provide for sufficient housing at the
affordability levels the City needs, and its upzonings would instead undermine the
effectiveness of the city’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance. The Update would increase
residential density limits in many areas of Santa Ana. It would modify land use
designations in five Focus Areas (South Main Street Focus Area, Grand Avenue & 17th
Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway & Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street),
re-designating portions of those areas for more intensive development and increasing the
allowable dwellings per acre and floor-area ratio for residential construction in those
areas. DPEIR at 1-6, 1-7, H-a-7. The Update would also add a “Corridor Residential”
land use designation, which would allow higher density residential development in
additional areas. DPEIR at 3-52. These upzonings will facilitate increased housing
construction, but would also undermine the HOO’s inclusionary housing requirements.
The HOO requires developers to construct affordable units or pay a fee when the
number of residential units in a new development exceeds the density permitted by
applicable zoning. Santa Ana Muni. Code § 41-1902. Development projects are not
subject to the HOO’s inclusionary requirements if they do not exceed established density
limits under the zoning for the site. Id.
Because the Update would increase density limits in many areas of the City and
allow more by-right development, fewer developments will need to seek City approval
for additional density. In many, if not most, cases the HOO’s inclusionary requirements
will be triggered less often. As a result, the HOO will apply to fewer projects. Developers
will build fewer affordable units and pay less into the City’s inclusionary housing fund.
By reducing the effectiveness of the HOO, the Update would also undermine General
Plan Housing Element Policy 2.6, which provides that “pursuant to the Housing
Opportunity Ordinance,” the City must “require eligible rental and ownership housing
projects to include at least 15 percent of the housing units as affordable for lower and
moderate-income households.” DPEIR at 5.10-17.
The Update will thus create an internal inconsistency within the General Plan, as
the increased by-right densities will impede achievement of the Housing Element’s goal.
To avoid this illegal inconsistency, the City must, within or simultaneous with the
Update, revise the HOO to ensure sufficient affordable housing production. Gov. Code §
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 6
65300.5 (requiring “internally consistent” General Plan); Sierra Club v. Kern County
Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. Such revisions could provide that
the HOO continues to apply to projects above the pre-Update density, even if that density
is allowed by right under the Update. Alternatively, the City could increase the
ordinance’s inclusionary requirements, so that sufficient affordable housing is built even
if the HOO applies to fewer projects.
The Update’s upzoning and its obstruction of the HOO will combine to displace
present community members. Much of the housing development in the upzoned areas is
likely to consist of market-rate housing unaffordable to lower-income residents. This is
likely to increase prices of existing lower-cost housing in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Rising rents and costs of living will displace people, potentially necessitating housing
construction elsewhere. As the DPEIR acknowledges, such construction is potentially a
significant environmental impact under CEQA. DPEIR at 5.13-10; 14 Cal. Code Regs.
Appendix G, § XIV(b).
The DPEIR, however, reasons that the proposed Update “would provide more
housing opportunities than currently exist” and concludes that “implementation of the
[Update] would not displace people and/or housing,” leading to “no impact.” DPEIR at
5.13-14 (Impact 5.13-2). This analysis fails to take any account of the mismatch between
the affordability of housing under the Update and the means of the City’s present
residents. The DPEIR must reconsider its analysis of these impacts in light of the
Update’s failure to provide sufficient affordable housing.
III. The DPEIR does not sufficiently analyze the Update’s environmental justice
impacts.
The DPEIR also fails to adequately consider the Update’s environmental justice
impacts. S.B. 1000 requires local governments to include an environmental justice
element in their general plan (or integrate environmental justice goals and policies into
other elements). Gov. Code § 65302(h). This discussion must identify “disadvantaged
communities” in the jurisdiction and identify ways to reduce health risks and other
impacts on those communities, as well as improvements and programs that address their
needs. Id. Government Code section 65302(h)(1)(A) requires general plans to “[i]dentify
objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged
communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution
exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities,
food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.” The Update does not include
a stand-alone environmental justice element, instead asserting that environmental justice
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 7
issues will be incorporated throughout the Update. DPEIR at 3-17. The Update includes
several draft goals and policies which refer to equity and environmental justice (See
DPEIR at B-a-2, B-a-5, B-a-19, B-a-20, B-a-25, B-a-39, B-a-41, B-a-43, B-a-44).
Despite the Update’s inclusion of these policies, the DPEIR makes no attempt to
analyze the Update’s environmental justice impacts on disadvantaged communities.
CEQA requires an evaluation of the Update’s significant environmental effects and
consistency with applicable General Plan policies. 14 Cal. Code Regs §§15126.2(a),
15125(d). The Update includes goals and policies that seek to promote environmental
justice by addressing air pollution, hazardous waste exposure, and other impacts on
disadvantaged communities. See, e.g., DPEIR at B-a-25 (Policy CN-1.5; air pollution and
environmental justice), B-a-39 (Policy S-2.6; hazardous materials and environmental
justice), B-a-43 (Policy LU-3.9; polluting land uses and environmental justice). The
DPEIR should consider whether other aspects of the Update would have significant
environmental impacts on disadvantaged communities,2 and whether those elements
would impede the Update’s environmental justice goals and policies, creating an internal
inconsistency within the General Plan. See Gov. Code § 65300.5 (requiring “internally
consistent” General Plan); Sierra Club v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (1981) 126
Cal.App.3d 698, 704. The DPEIR should comprehensively analyze environmental justice
impacts, including air quality and pollution exposure in disadvantaged communities as
well as access to public facilities such as parks and access to healthy food.
As part of its environmental justice analysis, the DPEIR should consider whether
the Update may result in conflicts between industrial or commercial uses and proposed
housing in corridors that the Update has designated for upzoning. It should particularly
analyze any resulting impacts on disadvantaged communities. For example, air pollutant
emissions from light industrial uses may affect air quality in the areas designated for
increased residential density, potentially increasing residents’ exposure to air pollution.
Notably, four of the five “focus areas” designated for residential upzoning under the
Update also include land designated for industrial uses. DPEIR at 1-6. This would
potentially cause an disproportionate adverse impact on disadvantaged communities.
Moreover, the effect of the Update policies promoting such development would cause
harms contrary to Update policies on environmental justice- an internal inconsistency.
2 The CEQA guidelines make clear that “economic and social effects of a physical
change may be used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the
environment” and that “[i]f the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects
on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the
physical change is significant.” 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(e); see also id. §15382.
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 8
Similarly, he Update proposes a new “Industrial/Flex” land use designation in these
areas, which will promote “large-scale office industrial flex spaces, multi-level corporate
offices, and research and development uses.” DPEIR at 3-18. The DPEIR must consider
the potential impacts of these newly-designated industrial areas on existing residents in
nearby housing.
IV. Conclusion
As currently proposed, the Update does not provide for sufficient open space or
affordable housing, and would undermine the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance. As
set forth above, Rise Up Willowick urges the City to (1) continue to designate the
Willowick site as open space until and unless there is a proposal for developing part of it
with affordable housing, (2) provide for more affordable housing in order to avoid
undermining the HOO and causing an internal inconsistency within the General Plan, and
(3) revise the DPEIR to fully analyze the Update’s impacts on displacement and
environmental justice. Rise Up Willowick respectfully requests that the City revise the
Update to address these issues, revise the DPEIR, and recirculate both for public
comment.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Gabriel M.B. Ross
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Trust for Public Land, Coastal Conservancy, and Clifford Beers Housing,
Willowick Community Park Proposal (August 2020)
Exhibit B: David J. Nowak and Gordon M. Heisler, National Recreation and Parks
Association, Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks (2010)
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 9
Exhibit C: Erica Gies, The Trust for Public Land, The Health Benefits of Parks (2006)
Exhibit D: The Trust for Public Land, The Heat Is On (2020)
Exhibit E: City of Santa Ana, Request for Council Action: General Plan Housing Element
Annual Progress Report (March 17, 2020)
Exhibit F: Southern California Association of Governments, Precertified Local Housing
Data for the City of Santa Ana (August 2020)
1286679.21
EXHIBIT C
November 9, 2020
Via Email
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
c/o Commission Secretary Sarah Bernal
SBernal@santa-ana.org.
Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update EIR, Clearinghouse No.
2020020987
Dear Chair McLoughlin and Commissioners:
On behalf of Rise Up Willowick, I write to comment on the proposed Santa
Ana General Plan Update (“the Update”) and its accompanying Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”).
In the Final EIR the City has proposed changes and additions to the
Update’s Open Space Element that seek to create new parkland and avoid loss of
parkland. We commend the City for including these measures in response to feedback
received on the Draft EIR. However, these General Plan measures are insufficient: they
do not fully explain how increased creation of parkland will work, and are ambiguous as
to what lands are included in a proposed prohibition on net loss of parkland. Moreover,
the Open Space Element calls for several Municipal Code amendments to put these
General Plan polices into effect, but would defer them until 2022. This will create a
period of uncertainty until the measures are fully implemented. We urge the City to
revise the Open Space Element to clarify these ambiguities, and to defer the Update so
that it can be adopted concurrently with these code amendments. Moreover, the City
should defer the Update so that it can be aligned with the City’s new Housing Element
and code amendments to strengthen the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO).
The revised Open Space Element Policy 1.3 indicates that the City should
“prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of
impact fees” for new residential development in Focus Areas. Rise Up Willowick
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
November 9, 2020
Page 2
supports the prioritization of parkland dedication over parkland impact fee collection.
However, the Open Space Element does not fully explain how prioritization would occur
for projects of fewer than 100 residential units. Implementation Action OS-1.16 indicates
that the City should “[d]evelop an incentives program that encourages private
development and public agencies to provide park and recreation facilities beyond the
minimum requirements.” Rise Up Willowick supports the creation of such incentives.
However, the Open Space Element does not explain how the incentives program might
operate or provide criteria to guide its implementation. The Open Space Element should
be revised to further clarify these measures.
Implementation Action OS-1.6 calls for the City to “[e]stablish land use
provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of parkland in the city” and
“[r]equire at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due to
development.” We support the City’s adoption of a “no net loss of parkland” requirement
in the Municipal Code. However, we urge the City to clearly define what constitutes
“parkland” for purposes of this requirement. The “no net loss of parkland” requirement
should not impede the redevelopment of golf courses to include a mix of public parkland
and affordable housing. As outlined in our October 6 letter to the City, The Trust for
Public Land, the California Coastal Conservancy, and Clifford Beers Housing have
submitted a proposal to the City of Garden Grove to develop most of the Willowick Golf
Course site into a public park and to construct affordable housing on the remainder. The
“no net loss of parkland” policy should not create barriers to projects such as the
Willowick proposal that would create affordable housing and other community benefits
in addition to public parkland.
Implementation Action OS-1.151 calls for the City to “[a]mend the
Residential Development Fee in the Municipal Code (Chapter 35, Article IV) to reflect
requirements for Larger Residential Projects (100+ units, residential only or mixed-use)
to provide two acres of new public parkland concurrent with the completion of and within
a 10-minute walking radius of the new residential project.” It also calls for the City to
work with “new development projects within the Focus Areas” to encourage developers
to provide more parkland than the Code requires. Similarly, Implementation Action OS-
1.8 calls for the City to update the Acquisition and Development Ordinance to increase
dedication and fee requirements and ensure that parkland is acquired near projects
creating demand. Rise Up Willowick supports these changes, and urges the City to ensure
1 The City’s responses to comments in the Final EIR label this action as OS-1.14, but the
Open Space Element of the revised Update identifies this action as OS-1.15.
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
November 9, 2020
Page 3
their effectiveness by applying these parkland dedication requirements to all new market-
rate projects, including those smaller than 100 units.
Most importantly, we urge the City to take up these Code revisions now.
Implementation Actions OS-1.6 and OS-1.15 both defer the amendments until 2022, two
years after the City’s planned Update adoption. By deferring implementation for two
years, the City would create an extended period of legal uncertainty for developers, City
residents and other stakeholders. During this period, the “no net loss of parkland” and
expanded parkland dedication requirements for large developments would constitute
City policy but would not yet be reflected in the Municipal Code. Projects will need to be
consistent with the General Plan policies, but without Code revisions, developers will not
know how to comply.
The General Plan serves as a “constitution” for the regulation of future
development in the City. DeVita v County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772. The City’s
land use regulations must be consistent with the General Plan. Lesher Communications,
Inc. v City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. To avoid an extended period of
inconsistency between the General Plan and the Code and the resultant uncertainty, the
City should adopt the Update concurrently with the Municipal Code amendments
implementing Actions OS-1.6 and OS-1.15. The City should not take action on the
Update until those code amendments are also ready for adoption.
By adopting the Update on a rushed timeline, the City also risks creating
unintended consequences inconsistent with the City’s affordable housing goals. In our
October 6, 2020 letter to the City, which is hereby incorporated by reference, we urged
the City to provide for more affordable housing under the Update and avoid undermining
the Housing Element and the City’s HOO. As we explained in that letter, the Update
would cause substantial population growth, but fails to provide for sufficient deeply
affordable housing, increasing the risk of displacement. Moreover, the Update’s
upzonings would reduce the HOO’s effectiveness because the HOO’s inclusionary
requirements would apply to fewer projects. The Update would therefore impede General
Plan Housing Element Policy 2.6, which calls for the inclusion of affordable units in new
residential developments via the HOO. The City should avoid this inconsistency by
deferring the Update until next year so that it can be adopted concurrently with the City’s
new Housing Element, and should simultaneously amend the HOO to ensure sufficient
affordable housing production, as discussed in our October 6 letter.
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
November 9, 2020
Page 4
In closing, we urge the City to revise the Update to (1) further elaborate on
how the City proposes to incentivize increased creation of new parkland, (2) clarify what
open spaces are covered by the “no net loss of parkland” policy , (3) extend the enhanced
parkland dedication requirements to new market-rate residential developments smaller
than 100 units, and (4) postpone the Update until it can be adopted concurrently with the
corresponding changes to the Municipal Code and aligned with the City’s new Housing
Element. The Planning Commission should not recommend adoption of the Update until
these issues have been addressed.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Gabriel M.B. Ross
cc: General Plan Email: newgeneralplan@santa-ana.org
Public Comment Email: ecomments@santa-ana.org
Planning Dept. Director Minh Tai: mthai@santa-ana.org
Principal Planner Verny Carvajal: vcarvajal@santa-ana.org
Planning Commissioners: vphan@santa-ana.org; mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org;
ngarcia10@santa-ana.org; knguyen20@snata-ana.org; frivera@santa-ana.org;
ccontreras-leo@santa-ana.org; [no email available for Commissioner Thomas
Morrissey]
1307224.10
From:Dale Helvig
To:Chairman PC - Tom Morrissey; Alderete, Eric; Pham, Bao; Calderon, Miguel; Ramos, Isuri; McLoughlin, Mark;
Woo, Alan; eComment; eComment
Cc:Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Thai, Minh; Zelaya Melicher, Fabiola; Rudloff, Lisa; McCann, Melanie
Subject:2021-11-08 Planning Commission - COMMENTS ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 3:07:58 PM
Attachments:2021-09-20 GP Comments - 06 Open Space Element.pdf
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
helvig_denny@msn.com
November 8, 2021
Planning Commissioners
City of Santa Ana
Although a tremendous amount of effort has been spent on this
project, I see the General Plan as a blueprint for development rather
than a vision for the City of Santa Ana. The vision of the city to strive
to maintain the parkland space is not met by this plan. With the
buildout population increase of over 96,000 people, just to maintain
the current deficient ratio of 1 acre per 1000 residents we need to
have a vision of 192 of additional parkland space. Notice the 2045
vision (this General Plan) has an increase in parkland space is ZERO
acres.
The introduction to the Open Space Element states:
“Open space is so important that its presence (or absence)
can profoundly shape the physical, social, mental, and
economic health and well-being of our communities.”
Let’s live by those words. The new General Plan should reflect the
vision of the community and not read so much as a developer’s
handbook. We deserve the “Shared Vision” for Santa Ana.
State Sen. Dave Min (D- Irvine) was quoted as saying[1],
”Open space preservation is smart policy, which not only
supports our sustainability efforts but also improves the quality
of life for our residents and brings our community together.”
Irvine has the right idea and we can benefit if we copy them. Too
much emphasis is being placed on the focus areas and not enough on
the rest of the City.
I just don’t see how we can have a vision for development and have
zero vision for any new park space. Rooftop areas are NOT public
open space or parkland space that existing and future residents
deserve. Don’t let this happen. Reject the plan until it is balanced
with residents’ health and wellbeing requirements met.
I have attached a previous email I sent in September regarding the
Open Space Element.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Stay safe, stay healthy.
Santa Ana’s “Golden City Beyond: A Shared Vision” General
Plan is a policy document that will guide the City’s development
and conservation for the next 25 years through 2045. Keep this
is mind when you vote tonight.
Respectfully,
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
Page 1 of 5
2021‐09‐20 GP Comments ‐ 06 Open Space Element
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
September 20, 2021
Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
PO Box 1988
Santa Ana CA 92702
Santa Ana’s “Golden City Beyond: A Shared Vision” General Plan is a policy document that will guide the City’s
development and conservation for the next 25 years through 2045.
KEEP THIS IS MIND
Subject: COMMENTS ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE – OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
The purpose of the Open Space Element is to identify and preserve open space areas that provide value
to the community and enrich the quality of life. [page OS‐1].
GOAL OS‐1: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation
ITEM 1
POLICY OS‐1.3 PARK STANDARD
If you compare the previous General Plan and even the draft that was circulated in 2020, you will see
that the vision for the next 25 years has been diluted. We are moving backwards by saying “Strive to
attain a minimum of two acres of park land per 1,000 residents in the City” versus the old language of
“Achieve a minimum park standard of two acres per 1,000 residents in the city.” The 25‐year plan will
not be effective if we start off with weak language.
ITEM 2
POLICY OS‐1.4 PARK DISTRIBUTION and POLICY OS‐1.5 PARK AND OPEN SPACE TYPES
These two policies have the same exact text. This appears to be a block and copy error and it should be
corrected.
ITEM 3
POLICY OS‐1.8 LAND ACQUISITION AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
Proposed policy statement reads in part: “Explore options for the acquisition of available lands…”.
I suggest the city add language so the existing parks, open space, greenways and trail corridors areas are
preserved. The city can’t move forward if they don’t protect these already limited resources. While
reference to “No‐net‐loss of parkland” can be found in the implementation it also be a part of the policy.
Concerning Willowick, where will the city acquire land to ensure no‐net‐loss of parkland should it be
sold?
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
Page 2 of 5
2021‐09‐20 GP Comments ‐ 06 Open Space Element
ITEM 4
POLICY OS‐1.11 FUNDING SOURCES
“Set aside park funding to have monies on hand to acquire and develop parkland when opportunities
arise and to leverage grant options.” The city should take a proactive step and identify areas within the
city that can be earmarked for parkland areas. Saying this will be covered by the Park Master Plan is not
the same as having something in the General Plan. One can have vast amounts of funds but it means
nothing if we allow commercial and residential development to buy up all available space.
ITEM 5
Table OS‐1. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES [page OS‐8]
The Note at the bottom of the table states: “The list of parks and acreage figures are accurate as of
August 2020. All figures are subject to rounding.” I recommend you take another look at the numbers.
All areas are shown with two significant digits yet the subtotals are shown with either one or two
significant digits. Check your math, the total parks/rec facilities acreage adds up to 409.65 acres versus
the 409.2 acres shown, not much of a difference but every bit is important for a park deficient city.
ITEM 6
Figure OS‐2 WALKING DISTANCE TO PARK FACILITIES
The key at the bottom of the page says: “Walking Distance From Existing or Proposed Park”. Where are
the proposed parks? Additionally, the area depicting the ¼ mile around parks is inaccurate [look at
Portola Park and Santiago Park].
ITEM 7
GOAL OS‐2: Healthy, Safe and Inclusive Opportunities
POLICY OS‐2.4 URBAN AGRICULTURE AND HEALTHY FOODS
“Expand urban agriculture opportunities in private development and public spaces.” Language could be added
to establish community gardens, or other public benefit use, on vacant/abandoned city property.
ITEM 8
GOAL OS‐3: Park Maintenance, Stewardship, and Sustainability
POLICY OS‐3.8 NATURALIZING THE SANTA ANA RIVER
Request this be expanded to include the Santiago Creek.
ITEM 9
Table OS‐2. RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES [page OS‐15]
TYPO. “Goal OS‐1, for example, is supported not only by the policies listed in this element (OS‐1.1
through OS‐3.6)”. Should be “…through OS‐3.8)”
TYPO. Open Space Goal OS‐1 is not accurate, it has the words found in the 2020 draft versus what is
listed in the 2021 draft. It should say. “Provide an integrated system of accessible parks, recreation
facilities, trails, and open space to serve the City of Santa Ana.”
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
Page 3 of 5
2021‐09‐20 GP Comments ‐ 06 Open Space Element
ITEM 10
Table OS‐3. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
There should be at least a one‐to‐one correlation between a policy and an implementation action. This
should be clearly identified in Table OS‐3. Example: POLICY OS‐1.6 PARK ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY
says it will “Create a Safe Routes to Parks program that establishes and enhances access to existing and
new parks and recreation facilities through safe walking, bicycling, and transit routes.” This has nothing
to do with implementation item 1.6. which is listed as “Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by
the City’s Residential Development Fee Ordinance and adjust them to better reflect current costs and
needs. Update requirements regarding where fees are spent. I consider this a fatal flaw in the process
that needs to be fixed in all elements.
ITEM 11
Table OS‐2. RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
OS‐3: Park Maintenance, Stewardship, and Sustainability lacks any input/link to the Land Use Element.
ITEM 12
OS‐1.4 Implementation Action [page OS‐16]
Is Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency really the correct agency to make this
happen? Action 1.4 states: “No‐net‐loss of parkland. Establish land use provisions in the
Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of public parkland in the city. Require at least a 1:1
replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due to public or private development.”
ITEM 13
OS‐1.7 Implementation Action [page OS‐17]
“…Consider allowing developers a reduction in on‐site open space by giving credits for park
development or the provision of private park land. Incentivize the creation of public parks that
exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas.
This is written for developer’s consideration rather than the residents of Santa Ana.
GENERAL COMMENTS
ITEM 14
1. Why were areas north of the I‐5 Freeway excluded from the environmental justice consideration?
Homes next to the freeway in the communities of Mabury Park, Grand Sunrise and Park Santiago are
inedited with black particulate and noise as much as other areas that are impacted by the freeway.
ITEM 15
2. Having words like consider, strive and in policy statements leaves a lot of wiggle room in trying to
meet the objectives.
ITEM 16
3. A small sampling of these changes revealed that errors exist between the PEIR and the General Plan
Update. For me personally, I don’t know which document to believe. This must be corrected so the
Planning Commission, the public and eventually the City Council understand what is correct:
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
Page 4 of 5
2021‐09‐20 GP Comments ‐ 06 Open Space Element
In summary, I see don’t see much meat in General Plan. Although a tremendous amount of effort has
been spent on this project, I see the General Plan as a blueprint for development rather than a vision
for the City of Santa Ana. The draft vision of the city to strive to maintain the parkland space is not
even met. With the buildout population increase of over 96,000 people, just to maintain the current
deficient ratio of 1 acre per 1000 residents we need to have a vision of 192 of additional parkland
space. Notice the 2045 vision for increased parkland space is ZERO.
The introduction to the Open Space Element states:
“Open space is so important that its presence (or absence) can profoundly shape the physical,
social, mental, and economic health and well‐being of our communities.”
Let’s live by those words. The General Plan Update should reflect the vision of the community and not
read so much as a developer’s handbook. We deserve the “Shared Vision” for Santa Ana.
State Sen. Dave Min (D‐ Irvine) was quoted as saying1,
”Open space preservation is smart policy, which not only supports our sustainability efforts but also
improves the quality of life for our residents and brings our community together.”
Irvine has the right idea and we can benefit if we copy them.
1 SUNDAY, AUGUST 15, 2021, Times OC
Does not match
SAME; 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714‐541‐7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
Page 5 of 5
2021‐09‐20 GP Comments ‐ 06 Open Space Element
Too much emphasis is being placed on the focus areas and not enough on the rest of the City.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Stay safe, stay healthy.
Respectfully,
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
cc: Kristine Ridge
City Manager, Santa Ana
Sonia Carvalho
City Attorney, Santa Ana
Fabiola Melicher
Manager, Planning
Lisa Rudloff
Executive Director, Parks, Recreation & Community Services
Melanie McCann,
Principal Planner
Santa Ana City Council
Santa Ana Planning Commissioners
From: tom kaboly <tkaboly@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:20 PM
To: PBAeComments <PBAEComments@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Public Hearing Commenting for Monday Nov 8
hello,
I received the written notice for the meeting, on nov 8 at 5:30pm. I am in canada, and
cant attend.
Please pass on this message and vote , that I am opposed to any type of more
residential growth mainly because it will simply add to the ridiculous traffic we have in all
five areas ear-marked for expansion and development.
My bet is, either the person spear heading this idea is either getting payed by
developers, under the table, or he /she is a retired or unemployed person who doesnt
drive during morning, noon or evening to see the traffic.
Thanks
tom kaboly
From:Bernal, Sarah
To:Bernal, Sarah
Subject:FW: New GPA (No. 2020-06) (attached)
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 6:41:12 PM
Attachments:NewGPA.pdf
From: jermarcil@aol.com <jermarcil@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:22 PM
To: vfregoso@santa-ana.org; PlanningDepartment <PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org>; !City
Clerk <CityClerk@santa-ana.org>; Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David
<DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Bacerra, Phil
<pbacerra@santa-ana.org>; Hernandez, Johnathan <JRyanHernandez@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza,
Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Re: New GPA (No. 2020-06) (attached)
Dear City Planners, Planning Commission, and City Council:
I own the property at 2833 N. Bristol (248 units) known as “Waterstone Park Apts.” I don’t have one
tenant who wants more cars on the road, more kids in a classroom, or more people in a public park.
When is enough… enough? I understand the need for jobs, but I don’t understand the need for more
residents. Does the quality of life of our current residents count? We hope so.
Sincerely, Jerry Marcil
310-569-8996 cell
From:Ivann Muniz
To:eComment
Subject:General Plan Comment
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 3:53:29 PM
Hello , my name is Jhoel Muniz and I am a memeber of the CUAL committee. I am here
asking you to delay the General Plan since it still lacks many policies that many of our
residents in our community deem extremely important. Policies which we believe should
be included in the General Plan include those of Environmental Justice. As it stands,
those policies are not enough to protect the health of our community memebers that
deserve to have clean air. I urge you to please delay the General Plan and take time to
implement policies in favor of Environmental Justice.
Thank you for your attention.
September 15, 2021
Via Email
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
c/o Commission Secretary Sarah Bernal
SBernal@santa-ana.org.
Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update Open Space Element
Dear Commissioners:
Rise Up Willowick appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana’s
August 2021 draft General Plan Update (“the Update”). A memo to the Planning Commission on
the Update’s Open Space Element is attached as Exhibit A.1 We previously submitted comments
on an earlier draft of the Update in an October 6, 2020 letter to City planning staff, attached as
Exhibit B, and a November 9, 2020 letter to the Planning Commission, attached as Exhibit C.
Those earlier comments remain relevant to the draft Update and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
The policies and implementation actions in the Update’s Open Space Element seek to
avoid loss of parkland and create new public parkland, prioritizing currently underserved areas
and requiring private developments to create public open space. We commend the City for
revising these measures in response to public comments received on the previous draft Update.
However, the Open Space Element still falls short in several respects.
Most importantly, the City’s standard of two acres of parks per 1,000 residents is not
sufficient to meet the needs of City residents and is much less than the ratio of parkland to
residents in other comparable jurisdictions. The City should increase its park standard from two
to three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City does not meet its current, low standard,
and under the Update the total “parkland deficiency” is projected to increase further, from 118.14
acres to 299.48 acres at build-out unless the City develops new parks. RDPEIR at 5.15-28. In
1 These comments do not discuss the adequacy of the Update’s accompanying Recirculated Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report (“RDPEIR”) under the California Environmental Quality
Act, which is addressed in a separate letter to City planning staff submitted on behalf of Rise Up
Willowick by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP.
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 2
order to address this parkland deficiency and meet the needs of City residents, the City needs
more ambitious policies to facilitate parkland creation.
The City should increase the Open Space Element’s park standard to a ratio of three acres
per 1,000 residents, and should amend the Municipal Code to reflect this standard. In addition, as
outlined in the attached memo, we urge the City to revise the Open Space Element to:
(1) define the terms “parks,” “parkland,” “open space,” “park deficient area” and
“environmental justice area,”
(2) apply the “no net loss” policy to open space as well as to parkland and strengthen
provisions on replacement of lost open space,
(3) increase parkland dedication requirements for new development projects in order to
meet the City’s enhanced park standard,
(4) extend parkland dedication requirements to a broader range of market-rate
development projects,
(5) require that parkland created by dedication be located within a half-mile walking
distance of the associated development, and
(6) include more specific incentive mechanisms to create new parkland, especially within
park deficient and environmental justice areas.
The attached memo suggests language for General Plan policies and implementation
actions that would address each of these issues. We respectfully request that the City revise the
Open Space Element to reflect these proposals. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Rise Up Willowick
Cynthia Guerra
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 3
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Rise Up Willowick, Comments to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission re:
Proposed Changes to Open Space Element of City of Santa Ana General Plan Update, September
15, 2021.
Exhibit B: Letter from Rise Up Willowick to Verny Carvajal re: Comments on Santa Ana
General Plan Update DPEIR, October 6, 2020.
Exhibit C: Letter from Rise Up Willowick to the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission re:
Santa Ana General Plan Update EIR, November 9, 2020.
cc: General Plan Email: newgeneralplan@santa-ana.org
Public Comment Email: ecomments@santa-ana.org
Planning Dept. Director Minh Tai: mthai@santa-ana.org
Principal Planner Melanie McCann: mmccann@santa-ana.org
Planning Commissioners: mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org; tmorrissey@santa-ana.org;
ealderete@santa-ana.org; mcalderon@santa-ana.org; bpham@santa-ana.org;
iramos@santa-ana.org; awoo@santa-ana.org
1412866.7
EXHIBIT A
TO: City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
FROM: Rise Up Willowick
DATE: September 15, 2021
RE: Proposed Changes to Open Space Element of City of Santa Ana General
Plan Update
Rise Up Willowick proposes the following changes and additions to the Open
Space Element of the City of Santa Ana’s August 2021 draft General Plan Update.
1. Definitions of Key Terms
The Open Space Element lacks definitions for key terms used in several policies
and implementation actions involving parks and open space. These definitions are needed
to clarify the scope and effects of those policies and actions. We propose modifying the
Open Space Element to define “parks” and “parkland” with reference to the Municipal
Code’s existing definition of “parks”:
As used in the Open Space Element, “parks” and “parkland” have the same
meaning as “parks” as defined in Municipal Code Section 31-1 (4).
We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define “open space” as
follows:
As used in the Open Space Element, “open space” means “any publicly-accessible
parcel or area of land or water, whether publicly or privately-owned, that is
reserved for the purpose of preserving natural resources, for the protection of
valuable environmental features, or for providing outdoor recreation or
education.”
We propose amending the Municipal Code to include this definition of “open
space,” which is not currently defined in the code.
We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define “park deficient area” as
follows:
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 2
As used in the Open Space Element, “park deficient area” means “a geographic
area which is located more than 0.25 miles from the nearest public park of 5 acres
or less and more than 0.5 miles from the nearest public park larger than 5 acres as
measured along the shortest available pedestrian route.”
This is a modified version of the definition used in the August 2021 Recirculated
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDPEIR) for the General Plan Update.
RDPEIR at 5.15-12, 5.15-13.1
We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define “environmental justice
area” as follows:
As used in the Open Space Element, “environmental justice area” means “a
disadvantaged community as defined by Government Code Section
65302(h)(4)(A), i.e. a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by
environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects,
exposure, or environmental degradation, or an area identified by the California
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and
Safety Code.”
This definition of “environmental justice area” is consistent with the RDPEIR,
which references SB 1000’s definition of “disadvantaged community.” Gov. Code §
65302(h)(4)(A); RDPEIR at 4.15-4.16, 5.15-12, 5.15-15. The California Environmental
Protection Agency has identified 23 census tracts in Santa Ana as environmental justice
communities because they have received a California Communities Environmental
Health Screening (CalEnviroScreen) composite score greater than 75 percent. RDPEIR
at 2-19, 4-15.
2. Proposed Addition of “No Net Loss of Open Space” Policy in General Plan Update
We propose the addition of a “no net loss of open space” policy in the Open Space
Element:
Policy OS-1.14: No Net Loss of Open Space. There shall be no net loss of Open
Space in the city, excluding any acreage of a golf course that is redeveloped
solely for 100% below-market rate housing. Any Open Space lost due to
development shall be replaced at a ratio of at least 1:1.
1 The RDPEIR maps park deficient areas using aerial linear distances to the closest park,
rather than actual on-the-ground walking distances, which are typically longer due to a
lack of direct routes. We propose using on-the-ground walking distances.
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 3
Although the Open Space Element already includes a “no net loss of parkland”
implementation action (discussed below), the “no net loss” concept is so important and
fundamental that it should be articulated as a policy as well. Moreover, given the shortage
of both parks and open space in the City, this policy should apply to all open space, not
merely to parkland. The City already has a “parkland deficiency” of 118.14 acres, which
is expected to increase to 299.48 acres under the Update unless new parks are built.
RDPEIR at 5.15-28. Non-park open space provides an important supplemental
recreational resource, and can potentially be developed into parkland in the future. The
City cannot afford to lose any of its existing parkland or open space acreage.
3. Proposed Changes to the Update’s “No Net Loss” Implementation Action
The draft Open Space Element currently includes this provision:
Implementation Action [OS-]1.4: No-net-loss of parkland. Establish land use
provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of public parkland in the
city. Require at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due
to public or private development.
City of Santa Ana Draft General Plan Update, Open Space Element, at 16. The City
proposes to enact the no-net-loss ordinance in 2022; the City’s Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Agency (PRCSA) would be responsible.
We commend the City for including this “no net loss” implementation action in
the Update. However, as explained above, this provision should apply to all open space,
not only to parkland. The implementation action should specify that net loss of open
space will be avoided by prohibiting development that causes such a net loss. Moreover,
the provision should clarify that replacement parks and open space must be located
within 0.5 miles of the lost parks and open space, to ensure that the replacements serve
the same communities. Finally, the implementation action should require that
development of replacement parks and open space occur before the closure of the lost
parks or open space. This will ensure that there is not a lag or “gap” in time where
communities lose park or open space access if the replacement process is delayed.
We propose modifying Open Space Element Implementation Action OS-1.4 to
read as follows:
Implementation Action OS-1.4: No Net Loss of parkland Open Space. Establish
land use provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent prohibit development that
causes a net loss of public parkland Open Space in the city, including City parks as
well as other public and private land designated as Open Space under the General
Plan or the zoning code, but excluding any acreage of a golf course that is
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 4
redeveloped solely for 100% below-market rate housing. Require that any loss of
Open Space be replaced at a ratio of at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss
of public parkland due to public or private development., that loss of public parks
be replaced by new public parks, and that replacement Open Space (including
public parks) be located within 0.5 miles walking distance from the lost Open
Space. Require that a plan for replacement, including specific location of
replacement land, be approved before or as part of approval of any project that
would change the use of existing parks or Open Space. Require that development
of replacement parks or Open Space occur prior to the closure or redevelopment of
the lost parks or Open Space.
4. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s “Park Standard”
The draft Open Space Element currently includes this “park standard” policy:
Policy OS-1.3: Park Standard. Establish and maintain public open space and
recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to
provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Strive to
attain a minimum of two acres of park land per 1,000 residents in the City.
City of Santa Ana Draft General Plan Update, Open Space Element, at 5. This parkland-
to-resident standard is already reflected in Municipal Code Section 35-108(a), which
provides that “[d]evelopment of parks within the city will require the construction of park
and recreation facilities sufficient to provide two (2) acres of such facilities per one
thousand (1,000) population in the city.”
The August 2021 RDPEIR for the General Plan Update acknowledges that the
City currently does not meet this per-resident standard, and under the Update the total
“parkland deficiency” is projected to increase further, from 118.14 acres to 299.48 acres
at build-out unless additional parks are provided. RDPEIR at 5.15-28.
The City’s standard of two acres of parks per 1,000 residents is not sufficient to
meet the needs of City residents and is much less than the ratio of parkland to residents in
other jurisdictions. According to the National Recreation and Park Association, the
typical jurisdiction has a median of 9.9 of acres of parkland for every 1,0000 residents,
while jurisdictions of more than 250,000 people (like Santa Ana) have a median of 10.9
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.2 Nationally, the bottom quartile of jurisdictions
over 250,000 people have a median of 5.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
2 National Recreation and Park Association, NRPA Agency Performance Review 8
(2020), https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/nrpa-agency-performance-review.pdf
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 5
The City’s parkland standard is also less than the standard set out in the Quimby
Act, Government Code section 66477, which allows cities to require that subdivisions
dedicate parkland sufficient to provide up to three acres of park area per 1,000
subdivision residents.
Moreover, Policy OS-1.3 has been weakened from the version included in the
2020 draft Update. While the previous draft policy called for the City to “achieve” a park
ratio of two acres per 1,000 people (2020 Draft Open Space Element at 5; Final
Environmental Impact Report at 2-17), the new draft merely says the City will “strive to
attain” that standard. Open Space Element at 5. Given the importance of addressing the
City’s park deficiency, the policy’s language should be mandatory.
We therefore propose revising Policy OS-1.3 to read as follows:
Policy OS-1.3: Park Standard. Establish and maintain public open space and
recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to
provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Strive to
attain The City shall achieve a minimum citywide park ratio of two three acres of
park land per 1,000 residents in the City. For new residential development in
Focus Areas, the City shall prioritize the creation and dedication of new public
parkland over the collection of impact fees.
We also propose that the Update include an additional implementation action
calling for the City to amend the Municipal Code to reflect this standard:
Implementation Action OS-1.16. Park Standard. Amend Municipal Code Chapter
35, Article IV to require that the City achieve a minimum citywide park ratio of
three acres per 1,000 residents.
5. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Policies on Parkland Creation and
Distribution
The Open Space Element currently includes the following policies relating to
parkland creation and distribution:
Policy OS-1.4. Park Distribution. Ensure the City residents have access to public
or private parks, recreation facilities, or trails within a 10 minute walking and
biking distance of home. Prioritize park provision, programs, and partnerships in
park deficient an[d] environmental justice areas.
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 6
RDPEIR at 5.15-20.3
Policy OS-1.8. Land Acquisition and Equitable Distribution. Explore options for
the acquisition of available lands for parks, open space, greenways and trail
corridors, with priority given to sites that are within park deficient or
environmental justice areas.
Open Space Element at 6.
Rise Up Willowick supports the Policy’s stated goal of more equitable park
distribution in park deficient and environmental justice areas. We commend the City for
including Policy OS-1.4 and Policy OS-1.8. However, Policy OS-1.4 should use a 0.5
mile walking distance to measure park proximity, a more objective metric than a 10-
minute walking distance, which varies depending on a pedestrian’s physical capabilities.
Policy OS-1.8 should direct the City to acquire new parkland, not merely to “explore
options” for doing so.
We propose strengthening and clarifying these policies as follows:
Policy OS-1.4. Park Distribution. Ensure the that all City residents have access to
public or private parks, recreation facilities, or and trails within a 10 minute0.5
mile walking and biking distance of home their homes. Prioritize park provision,
programs, and partnerships in park deficient and environmental justice areas.
Policy OS-1.8. Land Acquisition and Equitable Distribution. Explore options for
the acquisition of Acquire available lands for parks, open space, greenways and
trail corridors, with priority given to sites that are within park deficient or and
environmental justice areas.
The Open Space Element includes the following provision regarding park-deficient areas:
Policy OS-1.10. Creative Solutions for Deficiencies. Develop creative and flexible
solutions to provide greenspace and recreation activities in neighborhoods where
3 There is an error in the draft General Plan Update, which replaces Policy OS-1.4 with
language identical to Policy OS-1.5 (“Provide a mix of community, neighborhood, and
special use parks, along with greenway corridors, natural areas, and landscape areas, to
meet community needs for greenspace, recreation space, social space, and trail
connectivity”), thus repeating the same policy twice. We assume that the version of
Policy OS-1.4 provided in the RDPEIR (quoted above) contains the correct language.
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 7
traditional parks are not feasible. Encourage public, private, and commercial
recreational facilities in areas that are park deficient.
Open Space Element at 6.
While we support the use of “creative solutions” to address park deficiencies,
Policy OS-1.10 requires clarification. We are concerned by the suggestion that there are
neighborhoods where “traditional parks are not feasible.” The City’s long term goal
should be to provide public parkland in all park-deficient areas. Moreover, this policy
should be revised to make clear that while private or commercial recreational facilities
can be a valuable community resource, they are never a substitute for public parkland.
The City should not abandon efforts to create public parks in park-deficient areas merely
because those areas contain private or commercial recreational facilities. Such private
facilities do not always serve the communities in which they are located and do not
provide the spectrum of activities that public parks do. For example, some private
recreational facilities (such as golf courses) can exclude lower-income people, and thus
could fail to serve residents in surrounding neighborhoods.
We propose modifying Policy OS-1.10 as follows:
Policy OS-1.10. Creative Solutions for Deficiencies. Develop creative and flexible
solutions to provide greenspace and recreation activities in park-deficient
neighborhoods where traditional parks are not feasible. Prioritize public parks and
recreational facilities in park-deficient areas. Encourage public, private, and
commercial recreational facilities in areas that are park deficient. that are open to
the public, are physically accessible and affordable to residents of surrounding
neighborhoods, and serve community needs.
The Open Space Element also includes the following implementation action regarding
new parkland:
Implementation Action 1.10: New parkland. Coordinate with property owners to
explore options to provide public access and programming in park deficient areas,
including options to acquire land through purchase, land dedication, easements,
and land leases that would allow for permanent or temporary use of land for
recreational opportunities.
Open Space Element at 17.
Like Policy OS-1.8, Implementation Action 1.10 should direct the City to acquire
new parkland. It should prioritize creation of new permanent public parkland. Other
temporary mechanisms can be a helpful supplement. However, these mechanisms will
not provide the same level of permanent public benefits or allow the same range of public
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 8
uses. They are therefore not a substitute for permanent public parkland. The City should
not rely on privately-owned open space to increase recreational opportunities in park-
deficient areas.
We propose revising this provision as follows:
Implementation Action 1.10: New parkland. Create new public parkland in park-
deficient areas via purchase or land dedication. In addition, Ccoordinate with
property owners to explore options to provide public access and programming on
privately-owned open space in park deficient areas, including options to acquire
land through purchase, land dedication, and obtain easements, and or land leases
that would allow for permanent or temporary public use of land such open space
for recreational opportunities.
6. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Policy on New Development
The Open Space Element currently includes the following policy on new
development:
Policy OS-1.9: New Development. Ensure all new development effectively
integrates parks, open space, and pedestrian and multi-modal travelways to
promote a quality living environment. For new development within park deficient
and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and dedication of new
public parkland over the collection of impact fees.
Open Space Element at 6.
We propose revising this policy to clarify that new developments must create
public parkland via the mechanisms described in Implementation Actions OS-1.6 and
OS-1.7 in order to meet the citywide park standard set in Policy OS-1.3:
Policy OS-1.9: New Development. Require that Ensure all new development
effectively integrates parks, open space, and provide adequate parks and open
space, including via parkland dedication or development fees, in order to meet the
City’s park standard. Ensure that new development includes pedestrian and multi-
modal travelways to promote a quality living environment. For new development
within park deficient and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and
dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees.
7. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Development Fee Requirements
The draft Open Space Element currently includes the following provision:
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 9
Implementation Action [OS-]1.6. Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by
the City’s Acquisition and Development Ordinance and adjust them to better
reflect current costs and needs. Update requirements regarding where fees are
spent.
Open Space Element at 16. The City proposes to implement the action in 2022.
Implementation Action 1.6 has been modified from the version in the previous
2020 draft Update, and is now much less specific than before. That earlier version
(previously Implementation Action 1.8) called for the City to
[c]onsider updating the City’s Acquisition and Development Ordinance to better
reflect current costs and needs by increasing the parkland dedication requirement,
and require that fees collected in place of parkland dedication for specific
development projects be utilized to acquire, expand, or improve facilities within
the same quadrant or geographic subarea (as defined in the Parks Master Plan) as
the project for which the fee was collected.
2020 Draft Open Space Element at 15. The more specific language in the earlier version
of the implementation action should be retained in order to strengthen the City’s
development fee program. In particular, development fees should be used to provide new
parkland in the same neighborhood impacted by the development. That geographic
limitation should be based on walking distance from the development project (the same
approach used for the park dedication requirements in Implementation Action OS-1.7),
rather than “quadrant or geographic subarea.”
We propose revising Implementation Action OS-1.6 as follows:
Implementation Action OS-1.6. Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by
Update the City’s Acquisition and Development Ordinance and adjust them to
better reflect current costs and needs. Update to increase the parkland dedication
requirements regarding where fees are spent for new development projects
consistent with the dedication requirements specified in Implementation Action
OS-1.7. Require that fees collected in place of parkland dedication for specific
development projects be utilized to acquire, expand, or improve facilities within
0.5 miles walking distance from the project for which the fee was collected.
8. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Parkland Dedication Requirement
The Open Space Element currently includes the following provision:
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 10
Implementation Action [OS-]1.7. Public parkland requirements for larger
residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for
Larger Residential Projects to require public parkland within a 10-minute walking
distance of the new residential projects. Consider allowing developers a reduction
in on-site open space by giving credits for park development or the provision of
private park land. Incentivize the creation of public parks that exceed City
requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas.
Establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential projects (of
any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space, such as
exploring housing density bonus options for the provision of open space as a
public benefit and leverage Residential Development fee to partner with
developers to create public open space.
Open Space Element at 17. The City proposes to implement the action in 2022.
Implementation Action 1.7 has been modified extensively from the version
included in the previous 2020 draft Update, with many of the specifics have been deleted.
The earlier version (formerly Implementation Action 1.15) provided:
Implementation Action 1.15. Public parkland requirements for larger residential
projects. Amend the Residential Development Fee in the Municipal Code (Chapter
35, Article IV) to reflect requirements for Larger Residential Projects (100+ units,
residential only or mixed-use) to facilitate the creation two acres of new public
parkland within a 10-minute walking radius of the new residential project.
Establish provisions that allow the Larger Residential Projects to reduce all onsite
private and common open space requirements by 50 percent if new public
parkland is provided within a 10 minute walking radius and by 80 percent if the
new public parkland is immediately adjacent to or on the residential project
property. Work with property owners and new development projects within the
Focus Areas to identify options (e.g., 100 percent reduction of onsite private and
public open space requirements) that would incentivize the creation of public park
areas that are more than the minimum and/or if a location can expand park access
for an adjoining underserved neighborhood and/or environmental justice area.
Establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential projects (of
any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space.
2020 Draft Open Space Element at 16. The new draft weakens the Update by replacing
much of the action’s detail with general statements. The more detailed version should be
restored, with further changes as outlined below.
The Santa Ana Municipal Code already requires that subdivision map approvals
for residential subdivisions of more than 50 parcels dedicate parkland sufficient to
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 11
provide two acres of park area per 1,000 people residing in the subdivision. The Quimby
Act, Government Code section 66477, authorizes more than that, allowing cities to
require that subdivisions dedicate parkland sufficient to provide up to three acres of park
area per 1,000 subdivision residents.
We propose modifying Implementation Action OS-1.7 to use all the authority the
Quimby Act gives the City. It should require that subdivision dedications of parkland be
sufficient to achieve a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In addition,
we suggest modifying Action OS-1.7 to require that new ≥ 80% market-rate, non-
subdivision developments of 100 or more units dedicate three acres of new public
parkland, and that ≥ 80% market-rate non-subdivision developments of 50 to 99 units
dedicate two acres of public parkland. These changes will help to address the City’s
parkland deficit, meet the General Plan’s parkland standard, and promote equitable park
access.
We also suggest changing the limit on the location of dedicated parkland from a
“10-minute walking radius” of the development, a subjective measure that varies
depending on a pedestrian’s physical capabilities, to a 0.5-mile walking radius, a more
objective metric. The revised Implementation Action would read as follows:
Implementation Action OS-1.7. Public parklands requirements for larger
residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for
Larger Residential Projects to require public parkland within a 10-minute walking
distance of the new residential projects. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 34,
Article VIII to require that subdivision map approvals for residential subdivisions
of more than 50 parcels dedicate parkland sufficient to provide three acres of park
area per 1,000 people residing in the subdivision, consistent with Policy OS-1.3.
Amend Municipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV to require that projects including
100+ residential units that are 80 percent market-rate or more and do not require a
subdivision dedicate three acres of new public parkland concurrent with the
completion of and within a 0.5-mile walking radius of the new residential project,
and to require non-subdivision projects of 50 to 99 residential units that are 80
percent market-rate or more to dedicate two acres of public parkland concurrent
with the completion of and within a 0.5 mile walking radius of the project.
Consider allowing developers a reduction in on-site open space by giving credits
for park development or the provision of private park land. Establish provisions
that allow these projects to reduce all onsite private and common open space
requirements by 50 percent if new public parkland is provided within a 0.5-mile
walking radius and by 80 percent if the new public parkland is immediately
adjacent to or on the residential project property. To the greatest extent possible,
parkland created via this dedication process shall be located in park-deficient
neighborhoods and environmental justice areas. Incentivize the creation of public
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 12
parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and
environmental justice areas. Establish incentives for coordination between two or
more residential project (of any size) to create larger and/or more centralized
public park space, such as a housing density bonus for the provision of open space
as a public benefit and leveraging of Residential Development fees to partner with
developers to create public open space.
9. Clarification of the Open Space Element’s Incentives for Parkland Creation
The new draft Open Space Element deletes an implementation action included in
the previous 2020 draft (Implementation Action OS-1.16), which indicated that the City
should “[d]evelop an incentives program that encourages private development and public
agencies to provide park and recreation facilities beyond the minimum requirements.”
Similarly, Implementation Action OS-1.7 now calls for the City to “[i]ncentivize
the creation of public parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park
deficient and environmental justice areas” and to “[e]stablish incentives for coordination
between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create larger and/or more
centralized public park space, such as exploring housing density bonus options for the
provision of open space as a public benefit and leverag[ing] Residential Development
fee[s] to partner with developers to create public open space.” The Open Space Element
should describe these incentives in greater detail.
As suggested by Action OS-1.7, the City could provide a density bonus to
development projects that exceed public parkland dedication requirements. This would be
similar to the density bonuses provided to projects containing below-market-rate units
under Government Code section 65915 (codified in Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter
41, Article XVI.I). The density bonus could be provided on a sliding scale: development
projects which exceed minimum parkland dedication by a greater amount would receive a
larger bonus. The size of the maximum density bonus for additional parkland dedication
should be no greater than the 25% maximum density bonus for below-market-rate units
under the City’s existing density bonus ordinance. Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-
1604(a). However, development projects which include below-market-rate units and
dedicate more parkland than required should be eligible to receive both the parkland
density bonus and the affordable housing density bonus. Use of one bonus should not
preclude or limit the use of the other.
In the previous draft of the Open Space Element, Implementation Action 1.15
suggested a “100 percent reduction of onsite private and public open space requirements”
if a development dedicates public park areas that exceed the minimum dedication
requirement. 2020 Draft Open Space Element at 16. The City should consider a revised
version of this incentive: reductions of onsite open space should reflect the amount by
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 13
which parkland dedication exceeds minimum requirements. For example, a development
would receive a 90% reduction in the onsite open space requirement if it dedicates 0.5
acres more than the required amount of parkland and a 100% reduction if it dedicates 1
acre more parkland than required.
10. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element’s Funding Policies
The Open Space Element currently includes the following policy:
Policy OS-1.11: Funding Sources: Explore and pursue all available funding,
including nontraditional funding sources, for park acquisition, facility
development, programming, and maintenance of existing and new parks. Set aside
park funding to have monies on hand to acquire and develop parkland when
opportunities arise and to leverage grant options.
Open Space Element at 6.
We commend the City’s commitment to pursue all available funding
sources for parks. Given the current park deficiency in the City, the City should set an
explicit goal to obtain enough funding for new park development to meet a park standard
of three acres per 1,000 residents (see proposed changes to Policy OS-1.3 above). We
propose modifying Policy OS-1.11 as follows:
Policy OS-1.11: Funding Sources: Explore and pursue all available funding,
including nontraditional funding sources, for park acquisition, facility
development, programming, and maintenance of existing and new parks, in order
to increase park investment per resident and meet the City’s Park Standard of three
acres per 1,000 residents (Policy OS-1.3). Set aside park funding to have monies
on hand to acquire and develop parkland when opportunities arise and to leverage
grant options.
In addition, the City should aim to increase per-resident investment in parks,
including maintenance and improvement of existing parks as well as new park
development. We propose the addition of an “increased per-resident parks investment”
policy in the Open Space Element:
Policy OS-1.15: Park Investment Per Resident. Increase per-resident investment in
park maintenance and upgrades in order to ensure equitable access to well-
maintained neighborhood parks for all City residents, and increase per-resident
investment on new park acquisition and development to a level sufficient to
achieve the City’s Park Standard of three acres per 1,000 residents (Policy OS-
1.3).
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
September 15, 2021
Page 14
1371416.37
EXHIBIT B
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552 -7272 F: (415) 552 -5816
www.smwlaw.com
GABRIEL M.B. ROSS
Attorney
Ross@smwlaw.com
October 6, 2020
Verny Carvajal
Principal Planner
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building
Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
Santa Ana, CA 92702
vcarvajal@santa-ana.org
Re: Comments on Santa Ana General Plan Update DPEIR,
Clearinghouse No. 2020020987
Dear Mr. Carvajal:
On behalf of Rise Up Willowick, I write to provide comments on the proposed
Santa Ana General Plan Update (“the Update”) and its accompanying Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (“the DPEIR”). The Update will guide the development of
Santa Ana, including the Willowick Golf Course site, for many years, and the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires
that the DPEIR thoroughly assess the Update and its environmental impacts. As set forth
in the following comments, we urge the City to (1) continue to designate the Willowick
site as open space, (2) provide for more affordable housing under the Update and avoid
undermining the Housing Element and the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance (the
“HOO”), and (3) revise the DPEIR to fully analyze the Update’s environmental impacts,
especially those related to displacement and environmental justice.
I. The bulk of the Willowick site should continue to be designated as open space.
The Willowick Golf Course site lies within the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus
Area, one of the focus areas slated for new development under the Update. DPEIR at 4-6.
The Willowick site is currently designated as open space, and the Update proposes to
maintain that designation. DPEIR at D-6 to D-8. Rise Up Willowick supports this
designation until and unless there is a proposal for developing part of the site with
affordable housing. The Trust for Public Land, the California Coastal Conservancy, and
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 2
Clifford Beers Housing have submitted a proposal to the City of Garden Grove pursuant
to the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq., to develop the
majority of the site into a community park, with affordable housing on the remainder. See
Willowick Community Park Proposal, attached as Exhibit A. This public green space will
further the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Open Space Element, which call for
the preservation of existing open space areas and the creation of new public parks.
DPEIR at 5.15-13, 5.15-14 (Open Space Element, Goals 1-3).
Designation of the majority of the Willowick site as public open space will help
meet the growing demand for parks in the City. The Update’s proposed increase in
residential density in many areas of the City would lead to increased demand for parks
and open space. DPEIR at 5.15-15, 5.15-17. The DPEIR projects that the proposed land
use changes would result in construction of an estimated 36,261 dwelling units across the
City (DPEIR at H-b-5), and a population increase of 96,855 people (DPEIR at 5.15-16).
However, park acreage under the Update would increase by only 1.84 acres. Id.
Open Space Element Policy 1.3 calls for the City to achieve a minimum park
standard of two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City currently does not meet
this per-resident standard, and under the Update the shortfall is projected to increase
further: the total “parkland deficiency” would increase from 107.56 acres to 299.48 acres
at build-out unless additional parks are provided. DPEIR at 5.15-16. The DPEIR
calculates that the City currently has 561.94 acres of parkland, but it includes other kinds
of open space in this total, such as sports facilities and school recreational facilities.
DPEIR at 5.15-10. Although the DPEIR does not fully explain the basis for this parkland
calculation, it appears that it may inappropriately count golf courses and cemeteries
towards the parkland total. Golf courses, including the Willowick golf course, are
classified as “open space.” DPEIR at 5.15-10. A golf course, only usable by a small
segment of the population and even then for a fee, is not the kind of public space that
meets the community’s needs. Cemeteries are also classified as “open space,” although
they are not available for recreational uses. DPEIR at 3-15. Thus, if the DPEIR counts
these areas as parkland, the current park deficit is actually greater than the City claims.
Despite the admitted deficit, the DPEIR concludes that the Update will have less
than significant impacts related to park demand. DPEIR at 5.15-15 to 5.15-17 (Impact
5.15-1). It reasons that “[p]rovision of parks under implementation of the GPU, which
will occur over time, is expected to keep pace with the increase in population growth
related to the plan and would not result in a significant impact.” Id. at 5.15-16. The
DPEIR assumes that the City will develop significantly more open space than the 1.84
acres of future parks designated in the Update, funded via in-lieu impact fees collected
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 3
from private developers, among other sources. Id. However, the DPEIR fails to provide
any evidence that funding will be sufficient to reduce the City’s parkland deficiency such
that impacts would be less than significant. The DPEIR also asserts that the City’s park
shortage would be reduced by “private parks and recreational facilities owned and
maintained by homeowner associations.” Id. The DPEIR fails to note that many private
recreational facilities, like rooftop parks, are not open to the public and will do nothing to
improve park access for most of the City, especially lower-income residents. The
DPEIR’s unsupported conclusions and its failure to identify mitigation measures are
invalid under CEQA.
In order to achieve the City’s park standard and accommodate the needs of tens of
thousands of new City residents, additional park space is urgently needed, and the 102-
acre Willowick site can help meet this need. The Willowick Community Park proposal
calls for 90 acres to be set aside for public parkland, with the remaining 12 acres to be
developed as affordable housing. See Willowick Community Park Proposal at 17, 30. In
addition to serving growing citywide demand for parks, real recreational open space at
the Willowick site will also help meet the existing needs of nearby residents who
currently lack adequate access to green spaces in their neighborhoods. There are an
estimated 8,500 people living within a 10-minute walk of the Willowick site who
currently lack access to a nearby public park. See Willowick Community Park Proposal at
26.
Preserving most of the Willowick site as open space will also help to mitigate
environmental impacts associated with other aspects of the Update. The DPEIR indicates
that the proposed increases in intensity of development and population growth under the
Update are projected to generate significant impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions. DPEIR at 1-13, 1-25 (Table 1-4). Urban green spaces improve air quality and
mitigate climate change, as trees remove air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the air.
See David J. Nowak and Gordon M. Heisler, National Recreation and Parks Association,
Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks (2010), attached as Exhibit B; Erica Gies,
The Trust for Public Land, The Health Benefits of Parks (2006), attached as Exhibit C, at
13. Thus, maintaining Willowick as green space can mitigate air quality and climate
impacts.
Willowick’s role in air quality mitigation is especially important because
neighborhoods adjacent to the site have high levels of certain air pollutants, including PM
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 4
2.5.1 Urban green spaces like Willowick also help mitigate the urban heat island effect,
significantly reducing temperatures in surrounding neighborhoods. See The Trust for
Public Land, The Heat Is On (2020), attached as Exhibit D.
Open space at the Willowick site may also help mitigate impacts on water quality
and hydrology resulting from the Update, such as stormwater runoff impacts associated
with new development. The DPEIR concludes that the Update’s water quality and
hydrology impacts would be less than significant and that no mitigation is needed.
DPEIR at 5.9-29, 5.9-32. However, this conclusion improperly relies on asserted
compliance with applicable state, regional, and local regulatory requirements. DPEIR at
5.9-30 to 5.9-32. Regulatory compliance does not determine the significance of impacts
and cannot be used to bypass the City’s obligation to analyze and mitigate those impacts.
See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005)
136 Cal.App.4th 1, 15-17; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water
Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-09.
II. The Update does not provide for sufficient affordable housing and would
undermine the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance.
Santa Ana faces a growing shortage of affordable housing, especially of deeply
affordable units. Since 2014, the City’s below market rate housing construction has been
heavily skewed towards above-moderate income units, which have far outnumbered
production of low and very-low income units. City of Santa Ana, Request for Council
Action: General Plan Housing Element Annual Progress Report (March 17, 2020),
attached as Exhibit E, at 3. The City’s estimated Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period is 3,086 housing units, including 360 low-
income and 583 very-low-income units. DPEIR at 5-13-13; Southern California
Association of Governments, Precertified Local Housing Data for the City of Santa Ana
(August 2020), attached as Exhibit F, at 18. The DPEIR acknowledges that the Update
“would directly induce substantial unplanned population growth” as well as employment
growth, a significant impact which would further increase housing demand. DPEIR at
5.13-12 to 5.13-14 (Impact 5.13-1). The Willowick Community Park Proposal would
help to address the City’s affordable housing shortage, as it calls for 12 acres of the
1 Several census tracts adjacent to or near the Willowick site are designated as
disadvantaged communities that experience a high pollution burden, including high
concentrations of PM 2.5 and high occurrences of asthma and cardiovascular diseases.
See CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30.
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 5
Willowick site to be developed into approximately 270 affordable housing units. See
Willowick Community Park Proposal at 30.
The Willowick development by itself would not be sufficient to meet the City’s
affordable housing needs—the Update must provide for increased affordable housing
development citywide. However, the Update fails to provide for sufficient housing at the
affordability levels the City needs, and its upzonings would instead undermine the
effectiveness of the city’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance. The Update would increase
residential density limits in many areas of Santa Ana. It would modify land use
designations in five Focus Areas (South Main Street Focus Area, Grand Avenue & 17th
Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway & Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street),
re-designating portions of those areas for more intensive development and increasing the
allowable dwellings per acre and floor-area ratio for residential construction in those
areas. DPEIR at 1-6, 1-7, H-a-7. The Update would also add a “Corridor Residential”
land use designation, which would allow higher density residential development in
additional areas. DPEIR at 3-52. These upzonings will facilitate increased housing
construction, but would also undermine the HOO’s inclusionary housing requirements.
The HOO requires developers to construct affordable units or pay a fee when the
number of residential units in a new development exceeds the density permitted by
applicable zoning. Santa Ana Muni. Code § 41-1902. Development projects are not
subject to the HOO’s inclusionary requirements if they do not exceed established density
limits under the zoning for the site. Id.
Because the Update would increase density limits in many areas of the City and
allow more by-right development, fewer developments will need to seek City approval
for additional density. In many, if not most, cases the HOO’s inclusionary requirements
will be triggered less often. As a result, the HOO will apply to fewer projects. Developers
will build fewer affordable units and pay less into the City’s inclusionary housing fund.
By reducing the effectiveness of the HOO, the Update would also undermine General
Plan Housing Element Policy 2.6, which provides that “pursuant to the Housing
Opportunity Ordinance,” the City must “require eligible rental and ownership housing
projects to include at least 15 percent of the housing units as affordable for lower and
moderate-income households.” DPEIR at 5.10-17.
The Update will thus create an internal inconsistency within the General Plan, as
the increased by-right densities will impede achievement of the Housing Element’s goal.
To avoid this illegal inconsistency, the City must, within or simultaneous with the
Update, revise the HOO to ensure sufficient affordable housing production. Gov. Code §
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 6
65300.5 (requiring “internally consistent” General Plan); Sierra Club v. Kern County
Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. Such revisions could provide that
the HOO continues to apply to projects above the pre-Update density, even if that density
is allowed by right under the Update. Alternatively, the City could increase the
ordinance’s inclusionary requirements, so that sufficient affordable housing is built even
if the HOO applies to fewer projects.
The Update’s upzoning and its obstruction of the HOO will combine to displace
present community members. Much of the housing development in the upzoned areas is
likely to consist of market-rate housing unaffordable to lower-income residents. This is
likely to increase prices of existing lower-cost housing in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Rising rents and costs of living will displace people, potentially necessitating housing
construction elsewhere. As the DPEIR acknowledges, such construction is potentially a
significant environmental impact under CEQA. DPEIR at 5.13-10; 14 Cal. Code Regs.
Appendix G, § XIV(b).
The DPEIR, however, reasons that the proposed Update “would provide more
housing opportunities than currently exist” and concludes that “implementation of the
[Update] would not displace people and/or housing,” leading to “no impact.” DPEIR at
5.13-14 (Impact 5.13-2). This analysis fails to take any account of the mismatch between
the affordability of housing under the Update and the means of the City’s present
residents. The DPEIR must reconsider its analysis of these impacts in light of the
Update’s failure to provide sufficient affordable housing.
III. The DPEIR does not sufficiently analyze the Update’s environmental justice
impacts.
The DPEIR also fails to adequately consider the Update’s environmental justice
impacts. S.B. 1000 requires local governments to include an environmental justice
element in their general plan (or integrate environmental justice goals and policies into
other elements). Gov. Code § 65302(h). This discussion must identify “disadvantaged
communities” in the jurisdiction and identify ways to reduce health risks and other
impacts on those communities, as well as improvements and programs that address their
needs. Id. Government Code section 65302(h)(1)(A) requires general plans to “[i]dentify
objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged
communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution
exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities,
food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.” The Update does not include
a stand-alone environmental justice element, instead asserting that environmental justice
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 7
issues will be incorporated throughout the Update. DPEIR at 3-17. The Update includes
several draft goals and policies which refer to equity and environmental justice (See
DPEIR at B-a-2, B-a-5, B-a-19, B-a-20, B-a-25, B-a-39, B-a-41, B-a-43, B-a-44).
Despite the Update’s inclusion of these policies, the DPEIR makes no attempt to
analyze the Update’s environmental justice impacts on disadvantaged communities.
CEQA requires an evaluation of the Update’s significant environmental effects and
consistency with applicable General Plan policies. 14 Cal. Code Regs §§15126.2(a),
15125(d). The Update includes goals and policies that seek to promote environmental
justice by addressing air pollution, hazardous waste exposure, and other impacts on
disadvantaged communities. See, e.g., DPEIR at B-a-25 (Policy CN-1.5; air pollution and
environmental justice), B-a-39 (Policy S-2.6; hazardous materials and environmental
justice), B-a-43 (Policy LU-3.9; polluting land uses and environmental justice). The
DPEIR should consider whether other aspects of the Update would have significant
environmental impacts on disadvantaged communities,2 and whether those elements
would impede the Update’s environmental justice goals and policies, creating an internal
inconsistency within the General Plan. See Gov. Code § 65300.5 (requiring “internally
consistent” General Plan); Sierra Club v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (1981) 126
Cal.App.3d 698, 704. The DPEIR should comprehensively analyze environmental justice
impacts, including air quality and pollution exposure in disadvantaged communities as
well as access to public facilities such as parks and access to healthy food.
As part of its environmental justice analysis, the DPEIR should consider whether
the Update may result in conflicts between industrial or commercial uses and proposed
housing in corridors that the Update has designated for upzoning. It should particularly
analyze any resulting impacts on disadvantaged communities. For example, air pollutant
emissions from light industrial uses may affect air quality in the areas designated for
increased residential density, potentially increasing residents’ exposure to air pollution.
Notably, four of the five “focus areas” designated for residential upzoning under the
Update also include land designated for industrial uses. DPEIR at 1-6. This would
potentially cause an disproportionate adverse impact on disadvantaged communities.
Moreover, the effect of the Update policies promoting such development would cause
harms contrary to Update policies on environmental justice- an internal inconsistency.
2 The CEQA guidelines make clear that “economic and social effects of a physical
change may be used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the
environment” and that “[i]f the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects
on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the
physical change is significant.” 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(e); see also id. §15382.
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 8
Similarly, he Update proposes a new “Industrial/Flex” land use designation in these
areas, which will promote “large-scale office industrial flex spaces, multi-level corporate
offices, and research and development uses.” DPEIR at 3-18. The DPEIR must consider
the potential impacts of these newly-designated industrial areas on existing residents in
nearby housing.
IV. Conclusion
As currently proposed, the Update does not provide for sufficient open space or
affordable housing, and would undermine the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance. As
set forth above, Rise Up Willowick urges the City to (1) continue to designate the
Willowick site as open space until and unless there is a proposal for developing part of it
with affordable housing, (2) provide for more affordable housing in order to avoid
undermining the HOO and causing an internal inconsistency within the General Plan, and
(3) revise the DPEIR to fully analyze the Update’s impacts on displacement and
environmental justice. Rise Up Willowick respectfully requests that the City revise the
Update to address these issues, revise the DPEIR, and recirculate both for public
comment.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Gabriel M.B. Ross
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Trust for Public Land, Coastal Conservancy, and Clifford Beers Housing,
Willowick Community Park Proposal (August 2020)
Exhibit B: David J. Nowak and Gordon M. Heisler, National Recreation and Parks
Association, Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks (2010)
Verny Carvajal
October 6, 2020
Page 9
Exhibit C: Erica Gies, The Trust for Public Land, The Health Benefits of Parks (2006)
Exhibit D: The Trust for Public Land, The Heat Is On (2020)
Exhibit E: City of Santa Ana, Request for Council Action: General Plan Housing Element
Annual Progress Report (March 17, 2020)
Exhibit F: Southern California Association of Governments, Precertified Local Housing
Data for the City of Santa Ana (August 2020)
1286679.21
EXHIBIT C
November 9, 2020
Via Email
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
c/o Commission Secretary Sarah Bernal
SBernal@santa-ana.org.
Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update EIR, Clearinghouse No.
2020020987
Dear Chair McLoughlin and Commissioners:
On behalf of Rise Up Willowick, I write to comment on the proposed Santa
Ana General Plan Update (“the Update”) and its accompanying Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”).
In the Final EIR the City has proposed changes and additions to the
Update’s Open Space Element that seek to create new parkland and avoid loss of
parkland. We commend the City for including these measures in response to feedback
received on the Draft EIR. However, these General Plan measures are insufficient: they
do not fully explain how increased creation of parkland will work, and are ambiguous as
to what lands are included in a proposed prohibition on net loss of parkland. Moreover,
the Open Space Element calls for several Municipal Code amendments to put these
General Plan polices into effect, but would defer them until 2022. This will create a
period of uncertainty until the measures are fully implemented. We urge the City to
revise the Open Space Element to clarify these ambiguities, and to defer the Update so
that it can be adopted concurrently with these code amendments. Moreover, the City
should defer the Update so that it can be aligned with the City’s new Housing Element
and code amendments to strengthen the City’s Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO).
The revised Open Space Element Policy 1.3 indicates that the City should
“prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of
impact fees” for new residential development in Focus Areas. Rise Up Willowick
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
November 9, 2020
Page 2
supports the prioritization of parkland dedication over parkland impact fee collection.
However, the Open Space Element does not fully explain how prioritization would occur
for projects of fewer than 100 residential units. Implementation Action OS-1.16 indicates
that the City should “[d]evelop an incentives program that encourages private
development and public agencies to provide park and recreation facilities beyond the
minimum requirements.” Rise Up Willowick supports the creation of such incentives.
However, the Open Space Element does not explain how the incentives program might
operate or provide criteria to guide its implementation. The Open Space Element should
be revised to further clarify these measures.
Implementation Action OS-1.6 calls for the City to “[e]stablish land use
provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of parkland in the city” and
“[r]equire at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due to
development.” We support the City’s adoption of a “no net loss of parkland” requirement
in the Municipal Code. However, we urge the City to clearly define what constitutes
“parkland” for purposes of this requirement. The “no net loss of parkland” requirement
should not impede the redevelopment of golf courses to include a mix of public parkland
and affordable housing. As outlined in our October 6 letter to the City, The Trust for
Public Land, the California Coastal Conservancy, and Clifford Beers Housing have
submitted a proposal to the City of Garden Grove to develop most of the Willowick Golf
Course site into a public park and to construct affordable housing on the remainder. The
“no net loss of parkland” policy should not create barriers to projects such as the
Willowick proposal that would create affordable housing and other community benefits
in addition to public parkland.
Implementation Action OS-1.151 calls for the City to “[a]mend the
Residential Development Fee in the Municipal Code (Chapter 35, Article IV) to reflect
requirements for Larger Residential Projects (100+ units, residential only or mixed-use)
to provide two acres of new public parkland concurrent with the completion of and within
a 10-minute walking radius of the new residential project.” It also calls for the City to
work with “new development projects within the Focus Areas” to encourage developers
to provide more parkland than the Code requires. Similarly, Implementation Action OS-
1.8 calls for the City to update the Acquisition and Development Ordinance to increase
dedication and fee requirements and ensure that parkland is acquired near projects
creating demand. Rise Up Willowick supports these changes, and urges the City to ensure
1 The City’s responses to comments in the Final EIR label this action as OS-1.14, but the
Open Space Element of the revised Update identifies this action as OS-1.15.
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
November 9, 2020
Page 3
their effectiveness by applying these parkland dedication requirements to all new market-
rate projects, including those smaller than 100 units.
Most importantly, we urge the City to take up these Code revisions now.
Implementation Actions OS-1.6 and OS-1.15 both defer the amendments until 2022, two
years after the City’s planned Update adoption. By deferring implementation for two
years, the City would create an extended period of legal uncertainty for developers, City
residents and other stakeholders. During this period, the “no net loss of parkland” and
expanded parkland dedication requirements for large developments would constitute
City policy but would not yet be reflected in the Municipal Code. Projects will need to be
consistent with the General Plan policies, but without Code revisions, developers will not
know how to comply.
The General Plan serves as a “constitution” for the regulation of future
development in the City. DeVita v County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772. The City’s
land use regulations must be consistent with the General Plan. Lesher Communications,
Inc. v City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. To avoid an extended period of
inconsistency between the General Plan and the Code and the resultant uncertainty, the
City should adopt the Update concurrently with the Municipal Code amendments
implementing Actions OS-1.6 and OS-1.15. The City should not take action on the
Update until those code amendments are also ready for adoption.
By adopting the Update on a rushed timeline, the City also risks creating
unintended consequences inconsistent with the City’s affordable housing goals. In our
October 6, 2020 letter to the City, which is hereby incorporated by reference, we urged
the City to provide for more affordable housing under the Update and avoid undermining
the Housing Element and the City’s HOO. As we explained in that letter, the Update
would cause substantial population growth, but fails to provide for sufficient deeply
affordable housing, increasing the risk of displacement. Moreover, the Update’s
upzonings would reduce the HOO’s effectiveness because the HOO’s inclusionary
requirements would apply to fewer projects. The Update would therefore impede General
Plan Housing Element Policy 2.6, which calls for the inclusion of affordable units in new
residential developments via the HOO. The City should avoid this inconsistency by
deferring the Update until next year so that it can be adopted concurrently with the City’s
new Housing Element, and should simultaneously amend the HOO to ensure sufficient
affordable housing production, as discussed in our October 6 letter.
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
November 9, 2020
Page 4
In closing, we urge the City to revise the Update to (1) further elaborate on
how the City proposes to incentivize increased creation of new parkland, (2) clarify what
open spaces are covered by the “no net loss of parkland” policy , (3) extend the enhanced
parkland dedication requirements to new market-rate residential developments smaller
than 100 units, and (4) postpone the Update until it can be adopted concurrently with the
corresponding changes to the Municipal Code and aligned with the City’s new Housing
Element. The Planning Commission should not recommend adoption of the Update until
these issues have been addressed.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Gabriel M.B. Ross
cc: General Plan Email: newgeneralplan@santa-ana.org
Public Comment Email: ecomments@santa-ana.org
Planning Dept. Director Minh Tai: mthai@santa-ana.org
Principal Planner Verny Carvajal: vcarvajal@santa-ana.org
Planning Commissioners: vphan@santa-ana.org; mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org;
ngarcia10@santa-ana.org; knguyen20@snata-ana.org; frivera@santa-ana.org;
ccontreras-leo@santa-ana.org; [no email available for Commissioner Thomas
Morrissey]
1307224.10
From:Lianne R. Oakes
To:PBAeComments
Subject:Nov 8 Agenda Item 3. Final Recirculated Program and General Plan Amendment No 2020-06
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 10:15:25 AM
To Whom It May Concern:
As a homeowner in the section of Santa Ana Blvd. between Pacific and Forest, my question is
whether the map indicates leaving existing properties as they are, or if new residential units are
planned. In short, will my home be bulldozed?
Respectfully submitted,
Lianne R. Oakes
1513 W. Santa Ana Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA 92703
714.785.9262