CORRESPONDENCE - #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana December 7, 20�21 P a g e � 3 Third, the study area of Mitigation Measure REC-1 is too narrow and, as a result, will not ensure that impacts are sufficiently mitigated. As its currently written, the measure calls for preparing a utilization study to evaluate projects' impacts within a one-half mile radius of the 55 Freeway/Dyer focus area. While there is one park, Legacy Park, within one-half mile of the focus area, another park, Victory Park, is about 2,,7010 feet from, the border, just outside the one-half mile radius. Tustin also plans to develop another park, a linear park within Tustin Legacy. For this reason, Mitigation Measure REC- 1 should be revised so that the utilization study is undertaken for projects within a two-mile radius of the focus area. To rectify these problems, Santa Ana must revise Mitigation Measure REC-1 to ensure that it provides an enforceable binding commitment to mitigate the GPU's recreation impacts on the City of Tustin. To this end, Tustin requests that Santa Ana adopt a GPU Condition of Approval calling for a Parks and Recreation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Tustin and Santa Ana. This MOU would commit Santa Ana to work in good faith with Tustin;, to develop an approach for the utilization study (that would include, at a minimum, thresholds of significance, a methodology for determining the extent of impacts on Tustin's parks, and an expanded geographic bouindary). The MOU would also provide,that, should the utilization study determine significant impacts caused by the GPU, Tustin is financially compensated, either with land dedication or with, a mutually agreed upon fair-share contribution. While we appreciate that Santa Ana has committed to working closely with adjacent cities when it eventually prepares its Parks and Recreation Master Plan (see FEIR pp. 5.15-29), a mere a commitment to consult during the Master Plan process is not sufficient. Because the EIR's language regarding the Master Plan process is vague and non-binding, the EIR, offers no assurance that the GPU's impacts on Tustin would be adequately mitigated. Santa Ana, Should Enter into a MOU With Tustin Regarding the GPU's Traffic Impacts. Tustin appreciates that Santa Ana updated its GPU traffic study to include additional intersection locations. The Updated Traffic Analysis acknowledges that the GPU would cause significant impacts at the following locations in year 2045; (1) Red Hill AvenueNVarner Avenue; (2) Tustin Ranch Road/Warner Avenue; and (3)Tustin Ranch Road/Walnut Avenue, (FEIR (October 2020)1, Appendix K, pp. K-1; K-97;K-1 362-1364), The Updated Traffic Analysis states that Santa Ana will contribute its fair share toward the necessary improvement measures, Id. Tustin has ongoing concerns regarding Santa Ana's approach to compensating Tustin for impacts to the City's three intersections caused by the GP,U. As an initial matter, the language regarding the payment of the fair share contributions is vague. To rectify this, Santa Ana must explicitly commit to making its fair share contribution to the City of Tustin for the necessary improvements, Historically, Tustin has paid the City of Santa Ana millions of dollars towards mitigation obligations related to the .Tustin Legacy Specific Plani"s traffic impacts. The dollar amount was based on fair share for improvements at locations where the Specific Plan further contributed to an already deficient intersection and:100 percent share for improvements at intersections where the Specific P,lan caused the intersection to exceed Santa Ana's performance criteria. In turn, Santa Ana should accept responsibility for addressing impacts caused by its GPU as identified in the Updated Traffic Analysis. Specifically, Santa Ana should commit to paying 100 percent of the costs of improving the intersections of Red Hill Avenue/Warner Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road/Warner Avenue North. It,