Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM NO. 10 - REVIEW OF DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA September 16, 2020 Mr.Verny Carvajal Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency PO BOX 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Dear Mr. Carvajal: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update and the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse #2020029087). According to the DPEIR, the proposed General Plan will guide the City of Santa Ana's development for the next 25 years and will provide options to increase development potential in several areas of the City of Santa Ana while bringing the City of Santa Ana into compliance with recent state laws and reflecting community input and updates to current conditions. The proposed General Plan envisions up to 36,261 additional housing units, 5,849,220 square feet of additional nonresidential space, and 11,436 new jobs between 2020 and 2045. (DPEIR, p. 3-57.) As proposed, 13,438 of these housing units and 3,604,556 square feet of the commercial space could be built in close proximity to Tustin within the Metro East Overlay Zone and the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. The City of Tustin offers the following comments at this time: 1. Implementation Actions — The Draft General Plan Update states that the Implementation Actions will be provided in a future draft. (DPEIR, p. 1-5.) These Implementation Actions are a critical component of the General Plan Update and must be identified for the public to adequately review the impact of the General Plan Update on the community. The Implementation Actions are also related to measures identified in the DPEIR to mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan Update. Without the disclosure of these Implementation Actions, a complete and accurate review of the General Plan Update's environmental impacts cannot be achieved. Therefore, the DPEIR and Draft General Plan Update should be recirculated for public review once the Implementation Actions have been identified. 2. Impacts to Surrounding Jurisdictions — The DPEIR must analyze all direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of the General Plan Update. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a).) These include impacts caused by induced changes in the pattern of land use or population density. (CEQA Guidelines § 15358(a).) Additionally, the DPEIR must address and mitigate impacts outside of Santa Ana. (See City of Marina v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State University (2006) 39 Cal.41" 341, 359-60 [agency not excused from analysis or mitigation of impacts outside of its jurisdiction]; see also Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.41" 342, 369 [CEQA's 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 2 purpose would be undermined if agencies could proceed "without an awareness of the effects a project will have on areas outside the boundaries of the project area."].) Here, the DPEIR readily acknowledges that the General Plan Update concentrates growth in the General Plan Updates' Focus Areas, resulting in more residents and development in those Focus Areas. (See, e.g., DPEIR p. 5.1-31, 32.) Table 5.13-8 clearly shows that the General Plan Update's largest gross (8,731 residential units) and percentage population growth (244%) will occur on the boundary of Santa Ana and Tustin in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. (See, e.g., DPEIR, p. 5.13-12.) In other words, the General Plan Update induces changes in Santa Ana's land use pattern and population density directly adjacent to Tustin. As a result, the DPEIR must analyze the direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts to Tustin that will be caused by concentrating growth and population density on Tustin's border. As explained in detail below, the DPEIR fails to do so. The DPEIR acknowledges the likelihood of these impacts, but provides no analysis or mitigation for those impacts. The DPEIR's conclusions are thus unsupported by substantial evidence. This omission must be corrected, and the DPEIR must be recirculated. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 (a)(4).) 3. Land Use Intensification—The City of Tustin is concerned with the significant changes in land uses (i.e., from commercial and industrial buildings to residential mixed use) along Red Hill Avenue and Dyer Road that are proposed by the Santa Ana General Plan Update, the Bowery-Red Hill/Warner project, or that have occurred recently with the approval and construction of The Heritage project at 2001 East Dyer Road. (DPEIR, p. 5.1-7.) These land use changes could result in significant traffic and park impacts in addition to undermining the effectiveness of planned roadway improvements in Tustin which were designed to mitigate the impacts of other development projects. In particular, the recently constructed fourth northbound through lane improvement to Red Hill Avenue was to address impacts from the Irvine Business Complex as well as accommodate future Tustin Legacy development and traffic diversion from SR-55 Freeway. The effectiveness of this improvement will now be burdened by the induced land use change in the General Plan Update in addition to Santa Ana's approval of the Bowery and Heritage projects. The cumulative impacts of Santa Ana's projects to traffic and parks are likely to be substantial. Although the DPEIR acknowledges these concerns, the cumulative impacts related to traffic and parks have not been adequately addressed, studied, or mitigated in the DPEIR as described in the comments below. 4. Land Use and Planning (RTP/SCS Consistency Goal 6) — RTP/SCS Goal 6 requires an equitable distribution of resources. (DPEIR, p. 5.10-23.) Despite adding 8,731 residential units in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area in the General Plan Update, there are no recreation or open spaces planned in this area. (DPEIR, p. 3-57; 5.15-6.) The General Plan Update is therefore inconsistent with the RTP/SCS Goal 6. This inconsistency results in reasonably foreseeable impacts to recreation facilities in Tustin, as explained in detail below. S. Land Use and Planning (Compatibility of Uses) — Land Use Element Policy 1.1: Compatible Uses aims to enhance livability and promote healthy lifestyles. Land Use Element Policy 3.8 seeks to "Avoid the development of sensitive receptors in close proximity to land uses that pose a hazard to human health and safety, due to the quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics of the hazardous materials that they utilize, or the hazardous waste that they generate or emit." (See, e.g., DPEIR p. 5.2-25.) The General Plan Update, however, introduces residential uses alongside light industrial and commercial uses within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. It is unclear how land uses such as industrial and residential will co-exist directly adjacent to one another given that normal industrial operations typically generate noise, safety, hazards and air quality impacts 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 3 that are not compatible with residential uses. The General Plan Update is thus internally inconsistent and must be revised. (Government Code §§ 65300.5, 65700; Denham, LLC v. City of Richmond(2019)41 Cal.App.Sth 340, 344.) 6. Land Use and Planning (Mobility) — Land Use Element Policies 1.7 and 1.9 require Active Transportation Infrastructure while Circulation Element Policies 1.6 and 3.7 require Complete Streets. (DPEIR, p. 5.10-15; Volume II, Appendix B.) A significant portion of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area, however, does not have sidewalks. This creates a mobility issue for future residents. No plan to address the lack of pedestrian facilities is identified or required in the General Plan Update or the DPEIR, nor thresholds requiring public right-of-way enhancements within the area, to facilitate the projected population growth concentrated in the Focus Area. Project-by-project adjacent improvements are not likely to be adequate in addressing the demands associated with the significant population growth identified in the General Plan Update. The lack of a mobility plan for the Focus Area is inconsistent with the General Plan Update policies listed above. (Government Code §§ 65300.5, 65700; Denham, LLC v. City of Richmond (2019) 41 Cal.App.Sth 340, 344.) The DPEIR and General Plan Update should be revised to address this issue. 7. Population and Housing (Impact 5.13-1) — The DPEIR readily acknowledges that the General Plan Update will result in more residents and development in the focus areas, including the 55 Freeway/ Dyer Road Focus Area. (See, e.g., 5.1-32.) Table 5.13-8 identifies that the largest gross and percentage population growth (244%) among the proposed focus areas will occur on the boundary of Santa Ana and Tustin in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. (See, e.g., DPEIR, p. 5.13-12.) This growth projection may be understated, because it appears that the existing population (9,034) count within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area is overstated given that the Heritage project appears to be the only existing residential land use within the Focus Area. Please confirm the accuracy of the existing population in the Focus Area.' As noted on Page 5.13-14 of the DPEIR, "the purpose of general plan updates is to accommodate increased growth in a responsible manner. The GPU accommodates future growth in the City by providing for infrastructure and public services to accommodate the projected growth." Unfortunately, when identifying the relevant infrastructure and public services to accommodate future population growth, Open Space Element Policies are notably absent. The General Plan Update's reasonably foreseeable impacts to Tustin have not been addressed. No mitigation is offered to accommodate potential future growth and the DPEIR simply notes this impact as significant and unavoidable. This approach does not accommodate future growth in a responsible manner. Mitigation measures should be identified in the DPEIR to address the impacts of future population growth, particularly in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. These mitigation measures should require the development of a vision plan or master plan for the Focus Area within a reasonable timeframe that identifies minimum requirements for parks and open space, sidewalks, and other infrastructure to adequately support the population growth and serve the residents within the Focus Area. Santa Ana should commit to implementing this mitigation in the DPEIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 8. Population and Housing (Impact 5.13-2) — Table 5.13-10 is misleading because it says that there are zero existing and proposed residential acres within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus I Some of the existing population may reside at the Heritage project on Dyer Road which introduced residential development into the predominately industrial and commercial area through what could be considered spot zoning, and does not constitute a pattern of existing residential use. 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 4 area. (DPEIR, p. 5.13-14.) The bulk of the General Plan Update's population growth, however, occurs within this Focus Area including the addition of 8,731 additional residential units beyond the 1,221 units recently introduced at the Heritage project on Dyer Road. Further, the District Center Land Use Designation clearly allows for and encourages residential uses. Table 5.13-10 should be revised accordingly. 9. Recreation — Resident feedback within the Community Outreach — The First Conversation Executive Summary noted the lack of open space, need for better park maintenance, lack of community centers, and unsafe parks within Santa Ana. The DPEIR and Draft General Plan Update, however, do not require or identify any park land to be provided within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. (DPEIR, p. 5.15-6.) The Santa Ana General Plan Update should require land for park and recreational purposes to meet the City of Santa Ana's minimum standard of "two (2) acres of property devoted to parks and recreational purposes for each thousand (1,000) persons residing within the City of Santa Ana." (Santa Ana Municipal Code § 35-108(a).) There is an average 2018 household size of 4.5 persons in the City of Santa Ana per the Southern California Association of Government's 2019 Profile of the City of Santa Ana. (https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/SantaAna.pdf). This equates to a minimum of approximately 89.6 acres of new parkland needed to serve the 9,952 housing units projected at build- out for the Focus Area, as there are no park facilities currently existing in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code requires residential projects to pay park acquisition and development fees or dedicate land for park and recreational purposes. (Santa Ana Municipal Code § 35- 108(b).) Private open space and perimeter open space is not equivalent to park land. The Bowery project is a recent example where Santa Ana erroneously counted balconies and walkways within the private development towards "parkland." This approach should be discontinued immediately. It is also notable that the Santa Ana goal of two (2) acres per 1,000 residents falls short of the widely held minimum standard of three (3) acres per 1,000 residents as established under the Quimby Act. (Government Code § 66477). As shown in the table below, the minimum General Plan park acreage goals of many surrounding jurisdictions are higher than that of Santa Ana. City General Plan Minimum Parkland Acreage Goal Costa Mesa 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents Fountain Valley 13.2 acres per 1,000 residents (existing); 3-5 acre goal Garden Grove 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents for parkland; 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents for open space Irvine 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents Orange 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents Santa Ana 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents Tustin 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents Westminster 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents Nonetheless, Policy 1.4— Park Connectivity of the Open Space Element from the Santa Ana General Plan Update Policy Framework (GPPF) proposes to establish and enhance options for residents to access existing and new park facilities through safe walking, bicycling, and transit routes. (DPEIR, p. 5.15-13.) Within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area, there is a fragmented and otherwise absent sidewalk 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 5 network. Further, the SR-55 Freeway creates a physical barrier to pedestrian and bicycle linkages with other Santa Ana neighborhoods for those properties in the Focus Area currently proposed for residential uses. In addition, there are no planned or existing parkland facilities within that Focus Area. As noted on page OS-03 of the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update, Community outreach received during all stages of the General Plan Update preparation identified Santa Ana residents' need for additional and better park facilities. Based on the resident feedback, residents within the Focus Area will use Tustin Legacy park facilities due to their close proximity, convenience, safety, and likely enhanced level of maintenance compared to Santa Ana park facilities. Thus, it is reasonably foreseeable that the 8,731 additional residential units allocated to the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area in the General Plan Update will increase park demand in Tustin. The closest park facilities are across Red Hill Avenue within Tustin Legacy. These park facilities are within both biking and walking distance of the Focus Area. This will place an unplanned and undue burden on Tustin Legacy facilities. In addition to proximity, the analysis in the DPEIR should consider the quality, amenities, and attractiveness of nearby parks when estimating park usage. For example, the proposed Veterans Sports Park at Tustin Legacy will be three times larger and about half the distance from the Focus Area than the closest park in Santa Ana, and will offer new, state of the art facilities that will be attractive to park users. If additional, sufficient parkland is not identified in the General Plan Update, residents of future Santa Ana projects will overburden parkland facilities in adjacent jurisdictions, including Tustin, resulting in the physical deterioration of those facilities. These reasonably foreseeable, significant impacts must be identified and mitigated in the DPEIR. They are not. The analysis in the DPEIR of the proposed compliance with the City of Santa Ana's park standards should be revised to focus on the potential to physically deteriorate existing and future recreational facilities in the City of Tustin. At best, the DPEIR recognizes the potential for impacts "onto adjacent communities with regards to parks and open space utilization." (DPEIR, p. 5.15-17.) The DPEIR, however, fails to acknowledge that these impacts will be significant and further fails to provide enforceable and feasible mitigation for those impacts. The DPEIR states that "the City(of Santa Ana) is committed to working closely with cities located adjacent to General Plan Focus Areas when preparing the City of Santa Ana's Parks and Recreation Master Plan to ensure that the Dyer/55 Focus Area and other growth areas of the City provide additional recreation, parks, and core services essential in making complete communities." (DPEIR, p. 5.15-17.) While Tustin appreciates this sentiment, this vague and unenforceable statement does not mitigate the reasonably foreseeable, significant impacts to recreational facilities in Tustin. The DPEIR should include a mitigation measure that requires the City of Santa Ana to prepare a Parks and Recreation Master Plan and to require that park land be secured or provided in conjunction with future residential or residential mixed use projects within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area prior to the approval of any additional residential units within the Focus Area. (See City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University (2015), 242 Cal.App.41" 833 [analysis of recreational facility impacts found deficient because it failed to meaningfully inform or analyze the extent of impacts on neighboring park lands where only 130 acres were provided on campus by 4,763 acres were provided in neighboring parkland]; see also The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-By-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4`" 603 [EIR inadequate because failed to address unmitigated significant environmental impact on recreational activities].) 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 6 10. Parks and Open Space Studies - A comprehensive study of parkland demand should be conducted to evaluate the extent of the impacts of the General Plan Update on Tustin facilities. It is recommended that the minimum park facilities as required by the General Plan be accommodated within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. Thresholds tied to the development and upzoning of any properties requiring a minimum amount of park land per residential unit should be required to ensure the development of the minimum parkland facilities within the Focus Area. The PEIR should also include a study that analyzes how far residents in a suburban community are willing to travel, by foot and by vehicle, to reach a community park. 11. Recreation — (55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area) — It is noted in the DPEIR that there are no parks in this Focus Area and existing open space consists of railroad lines and a concrete channel, which should not be considered as useable open space. (DPEIR, p. 5.15-6.) Table 3-5 of the DPEIR identifies that Open Space will occupy only 1.1 acres or 0.3% of the Proposed Land Use within the Focus Area. (DPEIR, p. 3-29.) This is especially troubling given the following statement in the DPEIR, "Little current or future potential exists for the acquisition of additional park lands and open spaces, both because the city is almost fully developed and because demands on capital funds are highly competitive." (DPEIR, p. 5.15-2.) This clearly shows that the City of Santa Ana does not plan to develop public parkland within the Focus Area. It further brings into question how the City of Santa Ana intends to use in-lieu park fees collected from development if they are not going to be used for the acquisition of park land within the Focus Area. Without a commitment to provide park space within the Focus Area, the proposed General Plan Update is not in compliance with Land Use Element Policy 1.3: Equitable Distribution of Open Space nor is it in compliance with Community Element Policy 1.5: Equitable Recreation Spaces. These statements within the DPEIR only further demonstrate that the burden of required recreation space to support the proposed residential growth within the Focus Area will be borne by adjacent cities such as Tustin. 12. Recreation — (Environmental Impacts) — Table 5.15-4 identifies the buildout potential of an additional 96,885 residents by 2045. (DPEIR, p. 5.15-16.) The parkland acreage at buildout to accommodate these additional residents is only projected to increase by 1.84 acres, whereas, by the City of Santa Ana's standards, 193.77 acres of new parkland would be required. The approach to meeting this required parkland acreage is unclear. No strategy for future public parkland is identified. If the assumption is that future development will provide all required parkland on-site as private property, then that concept should be stated as an absolute requirement in the General Plan Update and in-lieu fees should not be an available mitigation. Pushing off the parkland requirements to each individual development project and allowing payment of in-lieu fees ignores the cumulative impacts of delayed implementation and is not a sustainable approach to accommodating future growth. This approach simply ignores the lack of open space and recreational facilities needed within Santa Ana. This clear exacerbation of the parkland deficiency to well-below the existing deficiency cannot simply be disregarded as a less than significant impact. Further, the General Plan Update is not in compliance with Land Use Element Policy 1.9: Public Facilities and Infrastructure, as new developments will clearly compound existing public facility and service deficiencies as identified in the DPEIR. 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 7 13. Recreation—(Quimby Act)—The DPEIR identifies the Quimby Act's standards and notes that "Cities and counties with a lower ratio can require the provision of up to three acres of park space per 1,000 people;" however, the City of Santa Ana chooses to impose a lower threshold of two acres per 1,000 persons. (DPEIR, p. 5.15-16.) The DPEIR continually references the existing Municipal Code requirements for parkland as if the Santa Ana Municipal Code somehow supersedes the General Plan as a guiding document. The park land requirements of the Santa Ana Municipal Code do not adequately address the park land deficiencies and goals for additional park land that are identified in the City of Santa General Plan Update. Santa Ana residents have said that the lack of open space and recreational opportunities within the City are a problem. Yet, there is little identifiable aspiration to provide the minimum standard of parkland that is provided in adjacent jurisdictions. Based on the intense allocation of residential units, and the lack of planned new open space to accommodate those residential units, it is reasonably foreseeable that the recreation facilities in adjacent jurisdictions such as Tustin will be overburdened and will physically deteriorate as a result. It should also be noted that the Quimby Act is applicable to subdivisions whereas the majority of proposed residential units are presumed to be apartments which may not require subdivision. Santa Ana's heavy reliance on privately provided parkland dedication utilizes a standard which is below that identified in the Quimby Act. This leads to inequities for Santa Ana residents when compared to neighboring jurisdictions and will likely force Santa Ana residents into neighboring cities to meet their recreation and open space needs. Without a public parkland plan in place, it is at best unclear how the recreation standards will be met. 14. Recreation (Regulatory Requirements) — Mandatory fees as a substitute for providing parkland for new residential development will likely do little to address the significant impacts caused by the increase in residential units and the parkland deficiency in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. Chapter 35, Article IV of the Santa Municipal Code does not require that Park Acquisition and Development Funds be spent within the Focus Area to benefit new residents even though no current recreation facilities exist. It is noted in the DPEIR that "At the General Plan level of analysis, it is speculative and infeasible to evaluate project-specific environmental impacts associated with the specific construction of future park and recreational facilities since specific sites and time frames for development are unknown. When specific projects are necessitated and subsequently undertaken to meet the growth demands from buildout of the General Plan update, the appropriate level of analysis required under CEQA would be conducted by the City's Park, Recreation, and Community Services Agency." (DPEIR p. 5.15-16, 17.) While the General Plan Update has a clear vision for land use development that induces changes in Santa Ana's land use patterns and population density, there is no clear vision for additional parkland as should be required in the General Plan Update. Designation of property for Open Space within the Focus Area is an appropriate General Plan Level activity. The City of Santa Ana continues to approve projects in the Focus Area, such as the Heritage and Bowery-Red Hill/Warner projects, without evaluating the cumulative impacts of additional residential units and the deficiency/non-existence of recreation facilities. The DPEIR and General Plan Update should identify and commit to the development of new park facilities in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area to meet the demand created by new residents and to mitigate the potential impacts to parks in neighboring jurisdictions. If park in-lieu fees are not eliminated in their entirety, the General Plan Update and PEIR should be revised to state that they will be used to acquire property for park uses east of the SR-55 where the 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 8 General Plan Update already contemplates the conversion of existing land uses in order to mitigate recreation impacts in both Santa Ana and Tustin. 15. Affordable Housing—Although there are policies, goals, and objectives in the Santa Ana General Plan Update that encourage the provision of affordable housing, there is no commitment for affordable housing to be provided in conjunction with the proposed upzoning of properties in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. (See, e.g., DPEIR § 5-13.) As noted on Page 2-10 of the DPEIR, the lack of affordable housing within Santa Ana has also been recognized as a concern to Santa Ana residents, but has been inadequately addressed. It is stated on page 5.13-3 of the DPEIR that "The Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) establishes standards and procedures to encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels. The purpose of the ordinance is to encourage the development and availability of affordable housing by requiring the inclusion of affordable housing units within new developments or the conversion of rental units to condominium ownership when the number of units exceed the densities permitted under the General Plan." The requirements of the HOO should be applied to all new residential development proposed within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. 16. Noise -The 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area lies within the John Wayne Airport (JWA) flightpath, with a substantial portion of the area included within the 65 dB(A) and 60 dB(A) CNEL contours (2016 Baseline). Policy 3.1 of the Noise Element does not support residential development within the 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contour. (DPEIR, p. 5.12-27.) To be internally consistent, the General Plan Update should expressly prohibit all residential development in the 65 dB(A) CNEL contour. To avoid environmental justice concerns, the General Plan Update must expressly prohibit lower income / affordable housing in these areas. Policy 2.2, Stationary Related Noise, of the Noise Element acknowledges the conflicts between commercial/ industrial facilities adjacent to residential development. (DPEIR, p. 5.12-27.) As a result, the policy seeks to "minimize" noise impacts from commercial and industrial facilities adjacent to residential uses, but it provides no explanation as to how this will be accomplished. The General Plan Update should provide direction to achieve this goal, specifically in light of the introduction of residential uses in areas such as the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area which currently consist of predominately office and industrial uses. 17. Traffic/Circulation (Traffic Impact Study Area) — As noted in Section 2.2 of the Traffic Impact Study, the City of Tustin was asked to participate in the City of Santa Ana's efforts to update their General Plan Circulation Element and request for a Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) amendment from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The requested MPAH amendment includes the reclassification of two Santa Ana streets that could potentially impact the City of Tustin: First Street and Chestnut Avenue (Chestnut Avenue becomes Main Street in Tustin). However, at the time that the City of Tustin provided comments, none of the proposed General Plan Update land use changes were shared with the City of Tustin. As a result, the City of Tustin's comments were focused on the inclusion of certain intersections in Tustin for the purposes of analyzing the MPAH Amendment. The current Traffic Impact Study analyzes the additional intersections as requested by the City of Tustin. However, to adequately assess any impacts to Tustin streets due to the proposed General Plan Update land use changes, particularly in Focus Area 4 (55 Freeway/Dyer Road), the Study area needs to be 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 9 extended. The City of Tustin made this request in its March 26, 2020, NOP comment letter. The impacts of the traffic increases along Red Hill Avenue due to the upzoning in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area at the following intersections should be included in the traffic analysis: Red Hill Avenue/EI Camino Real Red Hill Avenue/1-5 Southbound and Northbound Ramps Red Hill Avenue/Nisson Road Red Hill Avenue/Walnut Avenue Red Hill Avenue/Valencia Avenue Tustin Ranch Road/Warner Avenue North Tustin Ranch Road/Walnut Avenue 18. Traffic/Circulation (Red Hill Avenue) - The newly installed landscaped median on Red Hill Avenue between Warner Avenue and Carnegie Avenue currently prevents left turn ingress and egress at driveways along the westerly side of Red Hill Avenue for the frontage of contemplated development. Due to the high speeds and traffic volume on Red Hill Avenue that will affect traffic flow and cause delays, the City is not supportive of an additional traffic signal to serve proposed development, nor the installation of median breaks to provide turning movements across the median which can create unsafe conditions. Any driveways on Red Hill Avenue to serve proposed development will need to only allow right-turn in and right-turn out movements. 19. Traffic/Circulation (Red Hill Avenue Improvements) — Due to existing conditions, any significant development or land use intensification in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area will require improvements along southbound Red Hill Avenue i.e., dedicated right-turn lanes on eastbound Warner Avenue and Carnegie Avenue at Red Hill Avenue or right-turn lanes on southbound Red Hill Avenue at Warner Avenue and Carnegie Avenue. 20. Traffic/Circulation (Land Use and Trip Generation Comparison) —To facilitate review, a land use and trip generation summary and a map of all focus areas comparing current conditions and those under the proposed General Plan should be provided in the PEIR. 21. Traffic/Circulation (Newport Avenue/SR-55 Northbound Ramps-Del Amo Avenue) — The General Plan Update also contributes to the intersection deficiency at Newport Avenue/SR-55 Northbound Ramps-Del Amo Avenue. The mitigation identified is a second southbound right-turn lane on Newport Avenue to northbound SR-55 ramp. Funding and implementation of the improvements should be worked out between Santa Ana and Caltrans, because Santa Ana projects would contribute to the deficiency, and Caltrans is responsible for maintenance of the intersection. 22. Traffic/Circulation (Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue Impacts)—As noted in previous comment letters to the City of Santa Ana, the City of Tustin is concerned about the lack of consistency of the peak hour traffic forecasts for the Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue intersection in the following studies: 1. Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (2017), City of Tustin, Stantec 2. Heritage Mixed Use Project (2015), City of Santa Ana, LLG 3. Santa Ana General Plan Update (2020), City of Santa Ana, IBI 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 10 4. Bowery Mixed-Use Project (2020), City of Santa Ana, EPD As mentioned in the City of Tustin's comment letter to the City of Santa Ana dated August 14, 2020 regarding the proposed MPAH amendment, the impact at Red Hill Avenue/Warner Avenue has been understated by leaving out the "Lost Time" input of 5 seconds (or .05) in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation. The "Lost Time" input is required by both the Tustin and Santa Ana level of service analysis (LOS) guidelines. When corrected with the lost time reflected in the ICU calculation, the General Plan Update would adversely impact the intersection of Red Hill Avenue/Warner to an unacceptable level (i.e., ICU > 0.90) during the PM peak hour. This impact must be mitigated. 23. Traffic/Circulation (MPAH Reclassifications) — The following comments pertain to the proposed MPAH Reclassifications. • Newport Avenue/SR-55 Northbound Ramps-Del Amo Avenue —The project contributes to the projected intersection deficiency and identifies a second southbound right-turn lane on Newport Avenue to northbound SR-55 ramp as mitigation. The DPEIR, however, does not commit to funding for this improvement in the traffic study. Instead it states that Santa Ana will pursue the development of a Transportation System Improvement Assessment (TSIA) for funding the improvements. Santa Ana should collaborate with Caltrans to implement this improvement, because Santa Ana projects would contribute to the deficiency, and Caltrans is responsible for maintenance of the intersection2045 With-Project AM ICU worksheets were missing in the appendix, and thus precluded a complete review of the DPEIR's supporting evidence and conclusions. • A "Lost Time" input of 5 seconds (or .05) has been erroneously left out in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation as required by Tustin and Santa Ana level of service analysis (LOS) guidelines. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update and DPEIR. The City of Tustin would appreciate receiving early responses to our comments as well as a copy of the Final PEIR when it becomes available in addition to all future public hearing notices with respect to this project. Please provide all future CEQA notices regarding this project to the undersigned pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.2. If you have any questions regarding the City's comments, please call Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner, at (714) 573-3016 or Krys Saldivar, Public Works Manager, at(714) 573-3172. Sincerely, Justina L. Willkom Acting Community Development Director cc: Minh Thai, Executive Director, Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Phil Johnson, Fire Chief, Orange County Fire Authority Matthew S. West, City Manager Nicole Bernard,Assistant City Manager David Kendig, City Attorney 1521493.1 Mr.Verny Carvajal Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR September 16, 2020 Page 11 Stu Greenberg, Police Chief Jason AI-Imam, Director of Finance Chris Koster, Director of Economic Development Douglas S. Stack, Public Works Director Chad Clanton, Parks and Recreation Director Ken Nishikawa, Deputy Director of Public Works/Engineering Krys Saldivar, Public Works Manager Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner Ryan Swiontek, Senior Management Analyst S:\Cdd\SCOTT\Environmental etc\Santa Ana General Plan DPEIR Letter.DOC 1521493.1