Item 26 - Public Hearing Regarding Bristol Project

Home Browse Search

Response to Letter L12: Linda Genis, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L12.1: This comment states that there are too many units for the site and there could easily be more than 8,000 residents. Response L12.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. As discussed on page 5.10-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in approximately 9,238 residents based on the Santa Ana GPU FEIR person per household generation rate. While the Draft EIR's analysis relies on the person per household generation rate of 2.41 from the GPU FEIR, due to the potential unit type which would be developed within the Related Bristol Specific Plan, the applicant has commissioned a study that suggests buildout could result in a lower generation rate of 1.74 persons per household (Concord, 2023). Based on 1.74 PPH, buildout of the Project would result in 6,725 residents inclusive of senior units. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project. Comment L12.2: This comment states that the open space should be 3 to 5 acres per 1,000 people and the Project would result in open space at 1.6 acres per 1,000 people. The comment states that Santa Ana is already short of open space compared to neighboring cities and questions how open space was calculated. Response L12.2: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. As discussed on page 5.1 2-8 of the Draft SEIR, while the proposed Project would provide approximately 17.21 acres of public and private open space, inclusive of 13.1 acres of publicly accessible open space and recreational facilities onsite, per the requirements of the Related Bristol Specific Plan, the proposed Project's provision of parkland would not meet the City of Santa Ana's GPU performance standard of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, either on the site or cumulatively. As the existing ratio of acreage of parks and recreational facilities to existing City population results in a parkland deficiency of approximately 154.44 acres, development of the proposed Project would continue to result in a deficiency in parkland throughout the City of Santa Ana. The Project proposes to provide approximately 1.4 acres of publicly accessible open space per 1,000 residents, which exceeds the approximately 1.2 acres per 1,000 residents currently existing within the City. In order to comply with the GPU policy of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed Project would require 27.7 acres of parkland or the dedication of approximately 67.3 percent of the Project site. While the proposed Project would provide approximately 17.21 acres of public and private open space onsite, inclusive of 13.1 acres of publicly accessible open space and facilities, and would comply with applicable Municipal Code requirements, the proposed Project would not provide 27.7 acres of parkland and recreation facilities onsite and would not meet the City of Santa Ana's performance standard for parkland, either on the site or cumulatively through the availability of parks and recreation facilities citywide. As discussed in the GPU FEIR, the City of Santa Ana is essentially fully built out and there is a lack of available vacant land to develop substantial new parks or expand existing facilities. Therefore, there would be no feasible mitigation measures that would be able to reduce the proposed Project's contribution to significant impacts related to the City's unsatisfactory level of resident to parkland ratio. As such, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, which is consistent with the findings of the GPU FEIR. Comment L12.3: This comment states that too many mitigations are required. Response L12.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and presents the commenter's opinion. No further response is warranted, and this comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Project's staff report. Comment L12.4: This comment states that although State law has relaxed parking requirements for near transportation lines, the City's parking requirements are too low and ignore the fact that most people use 26