1 Date:
October 1, 2024
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Ali Pezeshkpour, [email protected]
Site: Related Bristol Specific Plan Project
Subject: Late Comment Letter s on the Supplemental EIR for the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project Received before October 1, 2024 (SCH No. 2020029087)
Dear Mr. Pezeshkpour,
The 45-day public comment period for the Supplemental EIR of the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project began July 6, 2023, and ended on August 21, 2023, as documented on the City’s website, the Orange County Clerk’s website, and State Clearinghouse.
Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the D raft SEIR and to prepare written responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.) When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c)(“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”).) Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments , it may choose to do so. (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens)).
The letters were received by the City of Santa Ana after the 45-day public comment period for the D raft Supplemental EIR ended on August 21, 2023. However, the City of Santa Ana has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed the letter s and provided responses for the Lead Agency’s consideration in review of the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project at the October 1, 2024 City Council Hearing. As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstan ces requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 . No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Draft and Final SEIR are not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
Please find the letters and responses to comments attached.
Respectfully,
Meaghan Truman
2 Letter LCC1: Support Comment Letters (2 pages) Late Comment letter
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
Response to Letter LCC1: Support Comment Letters, dated September 29, 2024 These comment letters were received after the public review and comment period ended ( July 6, 2023, through August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following response has been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Comment LCC1.1: These comment letters express support for the proposed Project and urges the City Council to approve it at the October 1 hearing date due to the benefits of the Project such as job growth and increased tax revenue.
Response LCC1.1: These comment letters express support for the Project and do not raise any specific environmental concerns with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required o r provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project. 95 Letter LCC2: Jason Poulson on behalf of South Coast Plaza (1 Page) Late Comment Letter
96 Response to Letter LCC2: Jason Poulson on behalf of South Coast Plaza dated September 30, 2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (July 6, 2023, through August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the notic ed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Comment LCC2.1: This comment states that South Coast Plaza suggests revisions to Condition of Approval
13.g of the draft resolution to state that suggested traffic improvements would be subject to the improvements of the South Coast Plaza driveway and in coordination with the City of Cost Mesa.
Response to Comment L CC2.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project.
97 Letter LCC3: Katie Perez (1 page) Late Comment letter
98 Response to Letter LCC3: Katie Perez, dated September 27, 2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (July 6, 2023, through August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the notic ed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Comment LCC3.1: This comment states that the commenter opposes the proposed Project due to the increase in congestion around nearby roadways and the lack of affordable housing within the proposed Project. The comment also states that residents in the Project site would continue commuting elsewhere for work.
Response LCC3.1: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Draft Supplemental EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guide lines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Publ ic Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to th e City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the Supplemental EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website. This comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.
In regard to the affordability of the residential units within the proposed Project site, CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aestheti c significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sec tions 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects. Because no environmental impacts related to the affordability of the residential units would occur, mitigation measures are not required.
Comment LCC3.2: This comment states that the proposed Project would not be useful in addressing the City’s homeless problem as there are no affordable housing units proposed.
Response LCC3.2: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The Project site has been designated as a District Center by the City of Santa Ana General Plan where intense mixed-use development is encouraged. As discussed in Sec tion 5.8 Land Use and Planning , of the Draft SEIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with its General Plan designation. The proposed Project would provide housing proximate to local employment centers, commercial retail services and restaurants for onsite residents and employees working nearby. In addition, the proposed Project would provide onsite open space and recreation activities that would integrate into the existing communities around the site. Thus, the redevelopment of the site and change to the area has been planned for by the City.
In regard to the provision of affordable units by the Project, the proposed Specific Plan does not include specific requirements for affordable units. However, the proposed Project would result in a residential density of 91 du/ac, which would allow the po tential for each proposed residential or mixed -use development to include affordable residential units. Section 3.6 of the proposed Specific Plan describes that the City of Santa Ana has established an Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO) to 99 encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels. The Ordinance is applicable to new residential projects within the Specific Plan area that meet certain criteria. As implementing projects in the Specific Plan area are submitted to the City for review, they would be required to comply with the City’s AHOCO or the Project’s Development Agreement when approved. In addition, affordable housing is an economic and social issue. CEQA is an environmental p rotection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Pro ject’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects. Because no environmental impacts related to affordable housing would occur, mitigation measures are not required.
100
Letter LCC4: Pete (2 pages) Late Comment letter
101
102
Response to Letter LCC4: Pete, dated September 24, 2024 Comment LCC4.1: This comment letter is a copy of a previous letter sent to the City on September 17, 2024 prior to the City Council Hearing on September 17, 2024.
Response LCC4.1: Please refer to Responses CC7.1 through CC7.4, as included in the Staff Report for the September 17, 2024 City Council Hearing.
103
Letter LCC5: Beverly and Gary Voechting (2 pages) Late Comment letter
104
105
Response to Letter LCC5: Beverly and Gary Voechting, dated October 1, 2024 Comment LCC5.1: This comment begins the letter by explaining that the commenter opposes the proposed Project. The comment states that the Project would generate more than 30,000 vehicle trips and would result in unbearable traffic.
Response LCC5.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. The commenter incorrectly claims that the Project would result in 30,000 additional vehicle trips. As shown on Table 5.13-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, buildout of the proposed Project would result in an increase of 7,328 vehicle trips. In addition, Draft Supplemental EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the Supplemental EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website.
This comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.
Comment LCC5.2: This comment states that the proposed Project does not include enough commercial space to serve the surrounding community including space for a grocery store.
Response LCC5.2: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft S upplemental EIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft SEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include discussion of the type of commercial uses that would be included in the Project.
Comment LCC5.3: This comment states that the Project’s proposed open spaces are not sufficient to serve the surrounding community as there are no wide open green spaces . The comment also wishes to see the landscape plan for the proposed Project as well as the size of the residential units.
Response LCC5.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. As discussed on page 5.12-8 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project would provide approximately 17.21 acres of total open space, with 13.1 acres being available to the public. While there are designated private open space areas proposed for the Project site, those areas are not included in the 13.1 acres of public open space that would be available to anyone in the community to access. As discussed on page 5.12-5 of the Draft EIR, the 13.1 acres of public open space will include a central park, two plaza spaces, a green link/paseo, and other open s paces such as landscaped parkways and programmable roads that could be used for public recreational areas. While the proposed open space areas may not be able to accommodate organized sport activities such as soccer or baseball, parks and open space come in a variety of forms, and the open space provided by the proposed Project would be consistent with Policy OS-1.5 of the Santa Ana General Plan Open Space Element to “provide a mix of community, neighborhood, and special-use parks, along with greenway corri dors, natural areas, and landscape areas, to meet community needs for greenspace, 106
recreation space, social space, and trail connectivity.” This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as a part of the Staff Report for the Project.
Regarding the landscape plan and residential unit sizes, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes the proposed Open Space Plan in Figure 3-11. In addition, Section 5.0 of the Specific Plan sets forth design guidelines for landscaping for future developme nts within the Specific Plan. The exact size of the residential units is not known at this time as the proposed Project is a Specific Plan that delineates the maximum buildout of the Specific Plan area. Future residential development projects may not include the maximum allowable number of residential units and would be reviewed through the City’s development review and permitti ng process.
Further, it should be noted that the existing General Plan District Center High (DC -5) land use designation has an allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), and the proposed d evelopment would result in a maximum density of 91 du/ac, which is 34 du/ac below the maximum allowed by DC-5.
Comment LCC5.4: This comment questions how many low -income units would be available as part of the proposed Project. The comment also explains that the increase in population will require increased security as well as areas for pets that would live within the development.
Response LCC5.4: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan does not include specific requirements for affordable units. However, the proposed Project would result in a residential density of 91 du/ac, which would allow the potential for each proposed residential or mixed-use development to include affordable residential units. Section 3.6 of the proposed Specific Plan describes that the City of Santa Ana has established an Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO) to encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels. The Ordinance is applicable to new residential projects within the Specific Plan area that meet certain criteria. As implementing projects in the Specific Plan area are submitted to the City for review, they would be required to comply with the City’s AHOCO or the Project’s Development Agreement when approved. In addition, affordable housing is an economic and social issue. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guid elines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects. Because no environmental impacts related to affordable housing would occur, mitigation measures are not required.
In regard to security, as noted on page 5.11 -12 of the Draft S upplemental EIR, the Project would include development of an administrative Police Department substation within the commercial use area. In addition, the Project would include low -intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to residential buildings, and onsite security personnel. Therefore, adequate security for public patrons would be included within the Project.
CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aestheti c significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft SEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of pet access to open spaces.
Comment LCC5.5: This comment states that this would be one of the largest projects in Orange County history and that the developer should be held responsible t o develop what is approved by the City. The 107
comment concludes in stating that this Project is not what the City needs and the City should move away from high-density developments that block views.
Response LCC5.5: The comment does not provide any specific concerns regarding the environmental impacts or analysis associated with the proposed Project and merely provides their opinion that they oppose the Project. As such, no further response is warranted. This comment and responses will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Project’s staff report for their review and consideration.