CORRESPONDENCE - #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana Decernber 7, 2021 park and recreation facilities. Instead of providing the impact analysis we requested, the FEIR adds a mitigation measure, asserting that the measure would addresses Tustin's concerns. (See FEIR, Response to Comments, Response A2-2, pp. 2-25, p. 2-27). Unfortunately, this mitigation measure does not address Tustin's concerns. Nor, as we explain below, does the measure comply with CEQA's clear standards. Mitigation Measure REC-1 calls for Santa Ana to monitor future residential development projects within the 55 Freeway/Dyer focus area and to prepare a public park utilization study to evaluate those projects' potential impacts on existing public parks within a one-half mile radius of the focus area. (FEIR, Response to Comments, Response A2-2, pp. 2-25, 2-26). If'the utilization study determines a project would result in a significant impact, the mitigation measure calls for Santa Ana to mitigate the impact by implementing measures such as land dedication and making a fair-share contribution to acquiring new or enhancing existing public parks within the one-half mile radius. Id. There are several flaws with this mitigation measure. First, we query the nature of the utilization study. If, as the EIR alleges, Santa Ana could not evaluate the increase in park demand during this EIR process, how would it be able to evaluate the increase in demand once a particular development project is proposed? Santa Ana already knows precisely how much residential development is proposed by the GPU within the 55 Freeway/Dyer focus area. The EIR clearly could have made some attempt to identify the increase in demand on Tuistin's parks and evaluated how this increase in demand would affect Tustin's facilities. Setting, aside the fact that this impact analysis should have been undertaken during the DEIR stage, in order for this new mitigation measure to comply with CEQA, it must outline the methodological approach to the utilization study. Specifically, how will Santa Ana measure the level of deterioration to Tustin's park facilities and what criteria or thresholds will Santa Ana rely upon to determine whether an individual project,would cause a significant impact? Second, CEQA allows a lead agency to defer mitigation (i.e., the preparation of the utilization study) only when: (a) an EIR contains criteria, or performance standards, to govern future actions implementing the mitigation; (b) practical considerations preclude development of the measures at the time of initial project approval; and (c)the agency has assurances that the future mitigation will be both "feasUeand efficacious." Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App,.4th '70, 94-95 ("CBE"); San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced(2007) 149 Cal.AppAth 645, 669-71; Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(13). Here, the EIR meets none of these requirements. The EIR contains no rationale for why it is necessary to defer preparation of the utilization study. Nor does the mitigation measure contain, the necessary performance standards CEQA requires. Finally, the ElR makes no attempt to explain how land dedication and/or a fair share, contribution will work. Would Santa Ana dedicate land to Tustin? If so, how will the acreage of land be determined? Would Santa Ana make the fair share contribution to Tustin? If so, how would the fair share percentage be calculated? As it is currently written, this mitigation measure is vague and unenforceable and offers no assurance that it will reduce the GIPUs park and recreation impacts. Consequently, Mitigation -Measure REC-1 does not meet CEQA's requirements. (See CEQA Guidelines §,15126 .4 (a) (2) (mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through, permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments).