HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 19EOrozco, Norma
From:
Diane Fradkin <dianefradkin@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, July 06, 2020 6:49 PM
To:
Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil; Villegas, Juan;
Mendoza, Nelida; Solorio, Jose
Cc:
Ridge, Kristine; Thai, Minh; eComment
Subject:
July 7th Agenda Item 19E - General Plan Update Land Uses
Importance: High
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers:
I am happy to see that the Planning Department is working on updating the City's General Plan.
I personally contributed my input by way of the online survey as well as attending 2 community
meetings..... one last year and one in early 2020. 1 also provided direct feedback to the Planners regarding
specific comments to the area located north of 17th Street & west of Grand Ave (Medical Arts and adjacent
Shopping Center).
1 have to say, 1 am rather disappointed at the resulting land use designation of "District Center" for that area.
There has been an overwhelming response from the citizens of Santa Ana about not desiring any more high
density for our City (medium density is more acceptable). Again, as you know, we are one of the densest
Cities in US based on our population and size. I believe that the Planning Department, during this General Plan
Update, has already predetermined the land uses and then does the "check the box ....... meet with the
community in order to satisfy the requirements. They never have any intent to incorporate any of the
community's ideas or alternatives for their land use vision. It really is a disingenuous process!
The specific area located at 17th & Grand Ave (Medical Arts) is a very physically constricted property. It is
bound on the west with NO access due to the rail road tracks. There is limited access directly onto 17th Street
and traffic can only turn right out as 17th Street has a risen divider and therefore, is limited to u-turns at
Lincoln. The other outstanding issue is the proposed grade separation at 17th Street and Lincoln for the rail
road ..... this will further constrain the access onto 17th Street from the Medical Arts property and therefore
cause a burdening to other over congested areas along Grand Ave.
Also, there is certainly a need for a specific called out use for a "Park/Open Space" component at the 17th &
Grand properties. I had mentioned this on numerous occasions, but it apparently fell on deaf ears.
There is a culture within the Planning Department which is one direction..... in my experience, they are not at
all willing to listen to the community. They continue to solicit community input, but flat out refuse to include
any input from the community and do what they have set out to do from the beginning. Its time to take a
stand .... there needs to be some change to the Planning Department culture and way of thinking. If you want
community input and solicit community input, then it should be seriously considered, otherwise, don't waste
our time and make a big deal that "you've gone out to the community for their input"!
I would recommend that the General Plan Update Land Uses be further reviewed and studied and that the
actual "community input" be dove -tailed into the land use categories.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
28 year resident of Santa Ana
Orozco, Norma
From: Dale Helvig <helvig_denny@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 9:04 AM
To: eComment, Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil;
Villegas, Juan; Mendoza, Nelida
Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Thai, Minh; Fregoso, Vince; McLoughlin, Mark
Subject: 2020-07-07 Letter to City Council
Attachments: 2020-07-07 Letter to City Council -Item 19E.pdf
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com
July 7, 2020
Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor
Santa Ana CA 92702
Subject: July 7thAgenda Item 19E, RECEIVE AND FILE A STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE
UPDATE TO THE GENERAL PLAN
I was taken aback when I read agenda item 19E, even if it is listed as a General Plan status update. As the staff
report states, "Over 300 participants were in attendance at the focus area workshops and the survey tool
produced over 650 responses citywide." However, it appears these comments were not taken into
consideration as nothing has changed since presented to the public last year. The five focus areas do nothing
but replace General Commercial and Professional /Administrative Office zoning with District Centers. I think
it is safe to say this is one step closer to adding high -density housing to the focus areas. For a vision of the City
it lacks any consideration for open space/parks that are desperately needed.
These proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Element do not agree with the General Plan Core
Values listed in the staff report for the five focus areas that are discussed. From the staff report:
"The five focus areas were selected based on input from the General Plan Advisory Group (GPAG); the
presence of existing and new high - quality transit areas such as the OC Streetcar line; opportunities to
connect key development areas; and, consistency with the following principles that align with General Plan
Core Values:
• Protect and enhance our cultural and community assets
• Create a land use pattern that promotes healthy and active lifestyles
• Ensure equitable outcomes and land use distributions
• Create a sustainable and livable city
• Promote lifelong education and prosperity"
For the most part the changes will convert existing zoning from General Commercial and Professional /
Administrative Office to District Centers, thus making it easier for developers to purchase these newly
rezoned areas and convert the area from commercial property to high -density housing at a density of 90
dwelling units per acre. This is a windfall to developers and a huge loss to the identity of the City. Santa Ana
will no longer be known as education first, the Golden City or any other positive catch phrase the City comes
up with to put a positive spin on the City. What it will be known for is the City of high -density living. One will
know when they enter the City by the height of the apartments. Look at where the City is
headed: high -density housing at many entrances to the City.
Dyer & Redhill: The Heritage; isT and Tustin: Metro East Senior Park and the AMG Family Affordable
Apartments; Harbor and Westminster: The Charlie; 5th Street: The Willowick area; Harbor Blvd. And now you want to
include South Main St., North Grand Ave., 171" Street, South Bristol, Santa Ana Blvd., and Santa Ana east of the 55
freeway. When does it stop? Where is the open space for the densest City in Orange County?
While I agree the City needs revenue, we cannot continue down this path of constantly increasing the density
of the City. The COVID pandemic highlights the negative effect high density has on the spreading of
viruses. Where do you want the City to be when the next pandemic occurs?
Furthermore, exhibits listed in the staff report have been omitted:
Exhibit 2. Environmental Justice Flyer and
Exhibit 3. General Plan Document Outline
Request: Receive and File with the caveat that you do not accept this draft.
On another note, I would like to correct a discrepancy on the Staff Report presentation for the Shelter that
was unanimously approved by City Council on on June 16th. The Illumination Foundation Proposal at 1815
Carnegie incorrectly stated, "No residential within one-half mile of location". This is wrong as the Heritage is
within 0.25 miles and if approved, the Bowery would be within 0.25 miles. This is based on the same
rationale the City uses when public notifications are required for residents within 500 feet: you take the
property and draw a radius. Using a driving distance is not acceptable.
Thank you for your time. Stay safe, stay healthy.
Respectfully,
n A. It
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
cc: Kristine Ridge
City Manager, Santa Ana
Sonia Carvalho
City Attorney, Santa Ana
Minh Thai,
Executive Director, Planning
Vince Fregoso,
Manager, Planning
Mark McLoughlin
Chairman, Planning Commission
Orozco, Norma
From: Adolfo Sierra <adolfosierra2019@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 12:46 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Fwd: Update to General Plan -Environmental Justice SB 1000
Attachments: EJ SPAjpg; Letter to City for more info on EJ.pdf, MAP EJ.docx
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Adolfo Sierra <adolfosierra2019(a gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Update to General Plan -Environmental Justice SB 1000
To: Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento(a Santa-ana.org>, <dpenaloza cgsanta-ana.org>, Houston, Nicole
<nhoustongsanta-ana.org>, <mpulidogsanta-ana.org>, <JSoloriogsanta-ana.org>, <pbacerragsanta-
ana.org>, <jvillegasnn Santa-ana.org>, <nmendozagsanta-ana.org>, <kridgegsanta-ana.org>,
<scarvalhogsanta-ana.org>, <strategicplangsanta-ana.org>, <mthaigsanta-ana.org>, <vcarvaiaigsanta-
ana.org>,<econnectgsanta-ana.org>
Cc: Jose Rea <ioseireaggmail.com>, Abigail Alvarez <aalvarl223AgmaiLcom>, Leonel Flores
<mpnacorgggmail.com>, Frank Zaldivar <fpzaldivguci.edu>, Zaldivar, Frank <fpzaldivghs.uci.edu>
Dear City Officials,
My name is Adolfo Sierra, and I represent Madison Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) as Interim
President. Enclosed is a letter The University of California Irvine, School of Law wrote and sent for your
consideration for the General Plan changes, and I am doing a follow up.
The reason of my message is to request to include the south-east area (maps included for your information) for
changes not only to the land use but to start face out and cap out the industries that discharged particulate matter
(PM 2.5 to PM 10), specially the ones with higher amounts of discharges, and a history of code violations, and
we are call for to include it on the General Plan.
I am citing you from the report Mr. Minh Thai, Executive Director- Planning and Building Agency, prepared
for the July 7, 2020 council meeting, agenda item 19E.
" General Plan Core Values: Protect and enhance our cultural and community assets Create a land use pattern
that promotes healthy and active lifestyles Ensure equitable outcomes and land use distributions. Create a
sustainable and livable city Promote lifelong education and prosperity"
And the general mandate from SB 1000 also cited on the report.
"In addition, SIB 1000 requires cities' General Plans to include EJ elements, goals and policies in other
elements that facilitate transparency and public engagement in the planning and decision - making processes,
reduce harmful pollutants and the associated health risks in environmental justice communities, and
promote equitable access to health - inducing benefits such as healthy food options, housing, public facilities,
and recreation. Throughout the process, EJ specific goals, policies, and implementation actions will be
included throughout all elements of the new General Plan."
The five focus areas you are proposing only to change land use, but no mitigation to reduce harmful pollutants
are even considered. Example is South Main map (19E-11 and 19E-12) the report contains a change of name
from General Commercial to Urban Neighborhood, with no real impact on the previous city' s statement.
Adolfo Sierra
Interim President MPNA
LA JUSTICIA AMBIENTAL
En el plan general de la ciudad de Santa Ana
I� a .i..•
golden city lltQ rnnd
A SHARED VISION FOR SANTA ANA
Estamos actualizando nuestro Plan General y queremos escuchar sus pensamientos sobre como
abordar mejor los problemas de justicia ambiental que afectan a su comunidad. Muchos de
nuestros vecindarios tienen la experiencia con condiciones ambientales que son preocupantes.
gQUE ES LA JUSTICIA AMBIENTAL?
En todas nuestras comunidades, algunas soportan
una carga desproporcionada de contaminacion y
Jos riesgos de salud asociados. La justicia ambiental
busca corregir esta inequidad mediante la reduccion
de la contaminacion y el aumento de las inversiones
publicas en estas comunidades, al mismo tiempo
que se garantiza que su aporte sea considerado en
las decisiones que les afectan.
La ley estatal reciente (SB 1000) requiere que todas
las ciudades y condados actualicen las politicas
publicas para abordar la justicia ambiental. En Santa
Ana, buscamos usar de base el importante trabajo
que nuestros residentes ya han comenzado para
mejorar las condiciones para residencias, centros
de cuidado infantil, escuelas, instalaciones medicas,
centros de atencion para personas de la tercer
edad, y parques a instalaciones recreativas an estas
comunidades.
gQUE ES UNA COMUNIDAD JUSTICIA
AMBIENTAL (EJ)?
Una comunidad de justicia ambiental es un area de
la ciudad donde los residentes tienen el mayor riesgo
de exposicion a la contaminacion del aire, el agua y
el suelo. Esta contaminacion puede ser causada por
el paso de vehiculos (automoviles y camiones) o por
las actividades diarias de empresas a instituciones.
Los residentes en estas areas tambien tienden a
estar cargados por problemas socioeconomicos y
de salud, como las tasas mas altas de barreras del
idioma, la pobreza y el asma.
Dichas areas tambien tienden a experimentar las
tasas mas bajas de inversion y mejoras de individuos,
empresas privadas y agencias publicas. Todos estos
factores pueden causar oportunidades desiguales
para Ilevar una vida saludable y prospera.
LAS COMUNIDADES DE JUSTICIA AMBIENTAL EN SANTA ANA
El siguiente mapa muestra los limites combinados de las 17 secciones censales en Santa Ana que se
consideran comunidades de justicia ambiental.
■Comunidades de Justicia
Ambiental
WESTMINSTER AVE
ROM AVE
W MCfADDEN AVE
STATER AVE 3
WSEGERSTRDM AVE
TALBERT AVE "O WALMN AVE
W MACAWHUR BLVD
W IAVEEAAVE '- I
AVEN
SANTA CURA AVE
F
E 17TH ST
32
O
n
I pE
e
Las prioridades para abordar en
nuestras comunidades incluyen:
l: 1 0
(i)
Emisiones La Calidad La contaminad6n
de Diesel del Aire de las Aguas
Subterraneas
LOs Sitlos
de Limpieza
t 40
El Aislamiento
Ling6istico
Los Bebes de Bajo
Peso al Nacer
4
La Carga
de Vivienda
La Pobreza
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE - SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCOtjjh SANTA EARRARA• SANTA C0.UZ
Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
April 29, 2020
Sent Via Electronic Mail: strategicplan@santa-ana.org
City of Santa Ana
City Council & Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
PO Box 5479
Irvine, CA 92616-5479
(949)824-9660
Re: Environmental Justice and Santa Ana's General Plan Update
Dear City Planners:
The University of California, Irvine School of Law, Environmental Law Clinic represents the
Madison Park Neighborhood Association ("MPNA"). MPNA is a resident -driven, non-profit
organization that strives to promote education, health, fitness, and community for the
approximately 8,000 residents that live in the Madison Park neighborhood of Santa Ana. Many
of MPNA's members are disproportionately affected by toxic pollution near their homes, schools,
and parks;l and they have a strong interest in how the City will deliver environmental justice
through its future planning efforts.
SB 1000 requires cities and counties with disadvantaged communities to address environmental
justice in General Plans updated after January 1, 20IS. 2 The law makes environmental justice a
vital part of the planning process by requiring local governments to identify environmental
justice issues in their communities and address those issues through tailored policies. The City
has neither identified those issues nor made public how it plans to address them through the New
General Plan. It is our understanding that no public workshops have shared information with or
sought input from the public on the subject of environmental justice or on proposed amendments
to the General Plan that are meant to address SB 1000's requirements.
Santa Ana previously has recognized the importance of providing residents timely access to
information and opportunities to provide input to government officials to guide their decision -
making and actions.3 Such transparency ensures that residents remain in control of the
f California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (June
2018), https:Hoehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenvirosereen-30.
2 Cal. Gov. Code § 65302.
3 Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-2838 § 1(B).
1/4
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE - SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCOtYh. SANTA EARRARA• SANTA C0.UZ
government that they have created a Yet that transparency is lacking with respect to
environmental justice and the General Plan Update process. Without knowing how the City plans
to respond to SB 1000, Santa Ana's residents cannot meaningfully participate in and contribute
to the process of determining how Santa Ana will address and incorporate environmental justice
policies into the General Plan.
Information about Santa Ana's plans with respect to environmental justice is essential for
MPNA's members and other residents in Santa Ana so that they can evaluate those proposals and
provide input in time for their comments to be heard and incorporated in the General Plan
Update. To foreclose their participation undermines the very principles of environmental justice,
which can only be sustained through meaningful participation of environmental justice
communities in government decision -making. Lack of input from communities on environmental
justice also contravenes the intent of SB 1000, which has at its core a requirement that
environmental justice policies promote public engagement in the decisions that affect
environmental justice communities.
In soliciting input on the subject of environmental justice, the City should employ a wide variety
of actions to ensure that residents — including those located in environmental justice communities
— have adequate notice and sufficient opportunities to engage in an open dialogue with the City
about its environmental justice -related amendments to the General Plan.5 Among other actions,
the City should:
1) Make the proposed General Plan Update, any supporting documents, and all drafts easily
accessible on the City of Santa Ana's website, including information about how and when
community members can raise concerns or comments.
2) Hold public workshops or meetings to discuss environmental justice policies and draft
amendments with interested community members. Santa Ana should ensure that these meetings
are held at convenient places and times for community members located in environmental justice
communities. In addition, the City should engage in other outreach techniques, such as the use of
social media, flyers, surveys, and (virtual or, when feasible, in -person) focus groups.
3) As long as virtual participation is necessary, the City should also ensure that the meetings are
meaningfully accessible, including giving sufficient notice, and providing adequate
accommodations for public participation from individuals without access to virtual conferences.
The City should partner with local community groups, such as MPNA, to advertise these
meetings.
4 Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-2838 § 1(F)&(G).
' See, e.g., California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of California General
Plan Guidelines 35-37 (2017).
2/4
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE - SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA BARBARA• SANTACRUZ
4) Offer information about environmental justice -related amendments, including information
prepared for meetings to discuss those amendments, in English and Spanish, through appropriate
interpretation or translation services.
5) Provide public responses to the comments and concerns raised by community members
throughout the public input process, including those concerns raised in comment letters and
during any future public meetings.
6) Revise the General Plan as necessary to address community concerns.
MPNA looks forward to hearing from Santa Ana regarding its plans to comply with S13 1000, to
providing input on those plans, and to working with the City to strengthen environmental justice
in the General Plan Update and for all residents.
Sincerely,
Albert Yang
Duncan Justice
Certified Law Students
Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
cc. Jose J. Rea
Treasurer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association
Leonel Flores
MPNA GREEN Community Organizer
Verny Carvajal
Principal Planner, City of Santa Ana
3/4
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
BERKELEY - DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
Abigail Blodgett
Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Environmental Justice
California Environmental Justice Alliance (Sponsor of SB 1000)
Michael Robinson -Dorn
Clinical Professor of Law, Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
Alyse Bertenthal
Mysun Clinical Fellow, Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
Brett Korte
Clinical Fellow, Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
4/4
SANTA BARBARA• SANTACRUZ
Pollution concentration areas on lilac.
„1,Ah7.3
AA
Land Use oeagnatans
Land Use Plan
QQ
Noise pollution from JWA
Orozco, Norma
From: Adolfo Sierra <adolfosierra2019@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 12:59 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvajal, Verny; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza,
David; Solorio, Jose; Mendoza, Nelida; Bacerra, Phil; Thai, Minh
Subject: Tonight Council agenda items
Attachments: COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEMS 7-7-2020.docx
Please accept my comments on the item for tonight's council meeting agenda.
19E. Update to General Plan: Include southeastern section of the City on the focus areas to phase out and cap
out light and heavy product manufacturing and assembly companies that pollute particulate matter (PM 2.5-
PM10), and comply with SB 1000 State mandate. Include in Vol Il: Natural Environment the Clean and Safe
element. Immediate release of DEIR to the public.
As per City report prepared by Minh Thai, Executive Director -Planning and Building Agency: SIB 1000
requires cities' General Plans to include EJ elements, goals and policies in other elements that facilitate
transparency and public engagement in the planning and decision -making processes, reduce harmful pollutants
and the associated health risks in environmental justice communities, and promote equitable access to health.
65C. SEC 401: Qualifications of members. To be eligible the candidate must demonstrate that he/she has both
1) 120-day registered voter and 2) 120-day residency of ward from which the candidate is nominated at the time
nomination papers are issued.
65C. SEC. 401.01: Term limits. Council members after their 3 consecutive terms of 4 years shall be Not
allowed to serve in any position as council or mayor.
Mayor after serving 4 consecutives 2-year terms shall Not be considered to serve as council member ever.
65D. City budget: advocating to keep funding Investing in the Artists Grants.
Adolfo Sierra
Interim President Madison Park Neighborhood Association
Orozco, Norma
From:John Hanna <jhanna@swcarpenters.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 07, 2020 3:00 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Gomez, Daisy
Subject:July 7, 2020 Santa Ana City Council /Public Comment on Agenda Item 19E General
Plan Update
My name is John Hanna and my comments are on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters including the
many who are Santa Ana residents.
Santa Ana’s General Plan should reflect the communities goals and policies which the Council and the Planning
Commission will utilize to make their land use decisions. If Santa Ana, for example, wants to create a sustainable and
livable city, then it needs to look at land use decisions as opportunities to ensure that the people who are constructing
the building that are permitted are also people who are not victimized by unscrupulous contractors who fail to comply
with basic California wage and hour and workers compensation laws are complied with. The general Plan should
maximize, not minimize, the opportunity for construction workers to be part of a skilled and trained workforce as set
forth in California’s Public Contracts Code. The General Plan should also provide direction to prioritize the hiring for
construction workers who are Santa Ana residents and veterans, further ensuring a sustainable and living city and
economic prosperity.
Finally, safety, a mandatory topic in general plans, would be enhanced if the general plan required at a minimum that all
construction workers in the City have a minimum of 10 CAL-OSHA training hours and any foreman or superintendent
have at least a 30 hour CAL-OSHA training program, both from state certified training centers. Finally, developers should
utilize apprentices who come out of training programs from the Rancho Santiago Community College District and Santa
Ana unified School District.
John R. Hanna
Governmental Affairs/Special Counsel
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
7111 Firestone Blvd.
Buena Park, CA 90621
Office- (714)766-7140
Cell---- (213)999-6190
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
1
Dear City Officials,
In case it is helpful, I wanted to provide a summary of the main demands regarding the
community outreach process that were expressed by the (30+?) youth and adult CUAL
committee members from MPNA during the meetings a couple weeks ago, several of which echo
what ELC has sent.
1. The City's General Plan outreach should be designed to collect community input that
will be incorporated into the plan, not just provide updates.
2. The community needs advance notice of all meetings, and sufficient time to provide
public comment.
3. Meetings and events should be held at convenient times for working families, and have
remote options for participation and comment.
4. Planners and city officials should visit the community to see the needs firsthand and
hear residents' input in community forums.
5. The City, rather than the residents, is responsible for initiating public outreach and
research on community needs.
6. All outreach needs to be bilingual/multilingual so all community members can
participate.
7. Community outreach for the General Plan process should be multi-pronged, including
outreach to residents on radio, social media, publicly posted fliers, email, and mailers.
8. There is a widespread lack of trust in the City because of its record of excluding
community voices through insufficient or inadequate opportunities for public comment.
There are other key themes from these meetings that may also be relevant to mention:
1. SE Santa Ana is uniquely and directly impacted by EJ issues in the General Plan, because
the industrial zone abuts the residential zone and several schools.
2. Every member of the community has a neighbor or family member with asthma, and SE
Santa Ana has the highest rates of asthma ER visits in the city.
3. Residents' health and wellbeing are widely impacted by the cumulative effects of
multiple forms of pollution, including foul odors, noise pollution, air pollution, and soil
and groundwater pollution (including lead).
4. The lack of transparency about the planning, zoning, and permitting processes has
stymied the community's concerted efforts to monitor air pollution and its effects on their
neighborhoods.
5. Previously scheduled community outreach activities related to the General Plan update
process have been delayed, and the community has been given minimal notice, context,
or additional information regarding opportunities to engage in the process.
th
6. Today’s July 7 Council meeting had insufficient notice, and offers inadequate means for
the public to engage and comment.
7. The city’s idea of “Community Outreach” seems to be merely providing information
about EJ to community members, not the robust engagement envisioned by SB 1000 and
required by OPR guidance. In fact, community outreach is about listening to the
community, not talking at it. Given that community participation is a key tenant of
Environmental Justice, the City’s efforts to date are wholly inadequate.
8. The choice by Santa Ana not to incorporate Environmental Justice as a standalone
element to the General Plan update is disappointing, and the city should at least include
an EJ Appendix to the GP.
Adolfo Sierra
MPNA Interim President
Orozco, Norma
From:Katie Cox <kecox@uci.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, July 07, 2020 3:59 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Jose J Rea; Leonel Flores; Adolfo Sierra
Subject:Public comment regarding EJ in the General Plan for July 7 City Council Meeting
Dear Santa Ana City Council members,
I am a volunteer at the Madison Park Neighborhood Association, as well as a UC Irvine PhD Candidate
researching environmental justice issues in Santa Ana and southern California. All of the statements below
come from Comunidad Unida, Aire Limpio (CUAL), a group of over 30 active youth and adult residents in
Southeast Santa Ana engaged in environmental justice advocacy and community air monitoring funded by the
California Air Resources Board. I am sending these statements on behalf of CUAL because the last-minute
notice that the General Plan would be on tonight's agenda has not permitted most members to prepare and
submit public comment. All of these statements directly reflect resident input provided at community meetings
in June 2020.
1. Southeast Santa Ana is uniquely and directly impacted by EJ issues in the General Plan, because the
industrial zone abuts the residential zone and several schools.
2. Every member of the CUAL committee has a neighbor or family member with asthma, or is impacted
themselves, and SE Santa Ana has the highest rates of asthma ER visits in the city.
3. Residents' health and wellbeing are widely impacted by the cumulative effects of multiple forms of toxic
industrial pollution in their neighborhoods, including foul odors, noise pollution, air pollution, and soil
and groundwater pollution (including lead).
4. The lack of transparency about the planning, zoning, and permitting processes has stymied the
community's concerted efforts to monitor air pollution and its effects on their neighborhoods.
5. The City's General Plan outreach should be designed to collect community input that will be
incorporated into the plan, not just provide updates.
6. The community needs advance notice of all meetings, and sufficient time to provide public
comment.
7. Meetings and events should be held at convenient times for working families, and have remote
options for participation and comment.
8. Planners and city officials should visit the community to see the needs firsthand and hear residents'
input in community forums.
9. The City, rather than the residents, is responsible for initiating public outreach and research on
community needs.
10. All outreach needs to be bilingual/multilingual so all community members can participate.
11. Community outreach for the General Plan process should be multi-pronged, including outreach to
residents on radio, social media, publicly posted fliers, email, and mailers.
12. There is a widespread lack of trust in the City because of its record of excluding community voices
through insufficient or inadequate opportunities for public comment. The City must take immediate
measures to redress these through proactive public outreach and a General Plan that reflects the needs
and input of Santa Ana residents most impacted by environmental justice issues.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Cox
1
kecox@uci.edu
Anthropology PhD Candidate
University of California, Irvine
2
Orozco, Norma
From:Brett Korte (clinic) <bkorte.clinic@law.uci.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, July 07, 2020 4:00 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Carvajal, Verny; New General Plan; Adolfo Sierra; Leonel Flores; Jose Rea; Abigail
Alvarez; Katie Cox; Michael Robinson-Dorn
Subject:MPNA Public Comment (Agenda Item 19E - July 7, 2020)
The University of California, Irvine Environmental Law Clinic submits this message on behalf of the
Madison Park Neighborhood Association to provide comment on Agenda Item 19E, a Status Report on the
City’s General Plan Update. MPNA is a resident-driven, non-profit organization that strives to promote
education, health, fitness, and community for the approximately 8,000 residents that live in Madison Park.
Advocating for environmental justice is a critical aspect of MPNA’s mission, and MPNA has several points to
raise regarding the General Plan’s Environmental Justice components.
First, MPNA is disappointed with the City's outreach efforts to date, which have been delayed, lack
important context and necessary additional information, and are not being provided with adequate notice. For
example, in its Environmental Justice Flyer, posted on May 28, the City promised to create a video for the
public to “review the latest draft goals and policies related to environmental justice.” This video was scheduled
for release in “June 2020.” As of July 7th, the city’s website still says that said materials are “Coming Soon.”
Also, two “Virtual Outreach Meetings” regarding environmental justice were scheduled to take place in June
and July 2020. During the first week of July, the city updated its website to note that these meetings will now
take place on Friday, July 31 and the very next day, Saturday, August 1.
Second, the City provided insufficient notice for this agenda item regarding the General Plan Status
Report, and offers inadequate means for the public to engage and comment. The agenda for tonight’s council
meeting, noting the inclusion of a General Plan item, was released on Thursday, July 2, just before the holiday
weekend, which left very little time for interested members of the community to note the item, or prepare
responses. This is even more troubling considering this is the first public meeting addressing the General Plan
since March 5, 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
At the same time, this Council meeting is the first to return to in-person attendance since the COVID-19
shutdowns, however, the option for community members to provide comment over the phone has been
inexplicably eliminated. This decision creates a substantial barrier for any citizen wishing to comment on
agenda items. State guidance still recommends residents minimize their time outside their homes and avoiding
unnecessary outings whenever possible, and there does not appear to be any reason the City could not have
offered the option to provide remote comment.
Third, the “community outreach” efforts referenced by City documents regarding the General Plan
Update and Environmental Justice are, and have been, wholly inadequate. The Staff Report’s summary of the
entire outreach program can be reduced to: an informational flyer, a yet to be released video presentation, and
two 90-minute virtual meetings, both of which were delayed and have yet to occur. The only public meeting on
the General Plan update in 2020 was the public scoping meeting for the EIR NOP on March 5, a meeting
required by CEQA.
Furthermore, the City’s efforts seem aimed at simply providing information, instead of engaging in a
collaborative dialogue. Community outreach, a key tenant of environmental justice, is about listening to the
community, not talking at it. The process Santa Ana has followed does not reflect the robust engagement
1
envisioned by SB 1000 and required by Office of Planning and Research guidance. For example, the recently
updated OPR General Plan Guidelines note:
“Partnership is encouraged with organizations that have strong relationships with local community
members,” because SB-1000 requirements “touch on health-related topics not traditionally covered in
planning.” (OPR Guidance Document pg.13-14)
“Community engagement during the policy development and vetting process is critical to ensuring that
the policies or programs intended to address the specific issues and needs of disadvantaged communities
have community buy-in and support.” (OPR Guidance Document pg. 14)
“Jurisdictions should identify potential external barriers such as time conflicts, access to transportation
and childcare, as well as internal barriers such as use of jargon, meeting format, power dynamics, and
level of prior knowledge regarding planning process. All engagement should be conducted in a way that
is accessible, transparent, and inclusive to meet the unique needs of people living within disadvantaged
areas.” (OPR Guidance Document pg. 34-35)
Finally, because Santa Ana has already stated its intention to not incorporate environmental justice as a
standalone element of the updated General Plan, the City should include an Appendix which will explain in
detail where specifically environmental justice is incorporated into the other General Plan elements.
Sincerely,
Brett Korte
Brett M. Korte, Esq.
Fellow | Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr. | Irvine, CA 92697
e: bkorte.clinic@law.uci.edu
2
July 14, 2020
ATTN: City Manager Kristine Ridge
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Santa Ana General Plan-- Environmental Justice Element
Dear City Manager Kristine Ridge,
On behalf of Santa Ana residents, parents, and youth, we would like to express our
support for the Environmental Justice portion of the new General Plan, as well as include some
recommendations that we believe to be invaluable to the approval and adoption of this new
plan.
Reducing Pollution Exposure / Increase Air Quality
On reducing exposure to pollution, we believe that issues regarding air pollution and dangerous
chemicals reduction need to be addressed by:
● Increasing access and affordability to non-motorized modes of transportation for all
ages and abilities, including ADA compliant sidewalks and accessible pedestrian signals
for the visually impaired
● Increasing access and affordability to free, reliable public transit for all ages and abilities
● Adopt street safety infrastructure improvements without the displacement of residents
that has been found to occur in areas with increased investment
● Reduction of particulate matter exposure from waste recycling facilities such as sites on
Lyon & Edinger and 6th & Santiago
● Free tap water testing to indicate lead, calcium, and arsenic levels
● Offer comprehensive lead testing in soil and/or persons and remediation of soil. Inform
residents of testing and testing results.
● Reduce exposure of underserved neighborhoods to car exhaust and heavy traffic. This
includes, but is not limited to, mitigation of particulate matter caused by heavily
trafficked corridors, and reducing street sizes and redesigning them for pedestrians and
bicyclists
● Economic opportunities for local micro-business owners and worker cooperatives to
grow and sell locally through residents initiatives such as micro-farms and community
gardens to increase farm-to-table as to reduce vehicular transportation of produce
● Prohibiting new sources of (air) pollution within disadvantaged communities
● Avoid impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action
● Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring, the impacted environment.
Public Facilities
On improving public facilities, we believe that concerns regarding community health facilities,
park safety, community centers, and other public services in underserved areas need to be
addressed by:
● Increasing park safety by installing LED lighting and security cameras, trimming of low-
hanging tree branches and overgrown bushes, mowing overgrown grass
● Closely monitor and remove vandalism of bathrooms in parks as well as upkeep their
maintenance and cleanliness, install new drinking fountains, increase number of trash
cans
● Create a community safety program led by residents and supported with resources,
materials, and trainings by the city to increase public safety around schools and parks
and safeguard children and youth from exposure to drugs, violence, and safety threats
by homeless transients around those neighborhood areas
● Increase funding for public libraries and recreation centers for community-oriented
programming that provides an array of free classes for youth and seniors
● Increase support and restoration of culturally relevant art and murals of artists in low-
income neighborhoods
● Culturally relevant community spaces for youth, families, and seniors; and spaces for
community events and gatherings are all urgently needed in low-income neighborhoods
● Increasing the total amount of quality green space and parks in the City given that only
4% of City land is dedicated to green and open space. Living in close proximity to parks
has been shown to positively affect the physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing of
residents
● Community land trusts are an effective platform for resident participation in long-term
land stewardship and decisions around development, as well as retention of public and
private investments towards community benefits, to benefit future generations.
Promoting Food Access
On promoting healthy food, we believe that improving the health and wellness of all residents
through policies, regulations, and programs that foster healthier food options need to be
addressed by:
● Access and affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables by increasing micro-farms and
community gardens to promote locally-sourced food
● Incentive programs for small local stores and food trucks to increase the availability of
fresh healthy produce
● Allow the construction of small neighborhood grocery stores, especially in areas lacking
stores with products
● Reduction of number of fast-food restaurants and liquor stores per neighborhood
● Replace liquor and tobacco shops with local small business owned grocery stores,
microfarms, and community gardens to increase availability of fresh produce in local
neighborhoods
● Increase restrictions and reduce access to tobacco and vape shops by implementing at
least a mile radius proximity to nearby schools, community centers, and parks.
Promoting Safe and Sanitary Housing
On creating safe and sanitary housing, we believe that reducing health and environmental
hazards in housing need to be addressed by:
● Encourage property owners/landlords to take action to ensure that homes where
smoking is a concern have access to purifiers to keep the air clean and circulating
● Have routine code enforcement inspections for multi-unit housing
● Develop and strengthen a process and program where tenants can call in to the city to
report housing issues such as pests and maintenance repairs when landlords do not
listen to their requests. Provide protections against landlord retaliation
● Create a Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (LPPP) that provides services to the
community to increase awareness regarding the sources of lead, to reduce lead
exposures by providing aid to homeowners and landlords to address lead paint in old
homes, and to increase the number of children assessed and tested for lead poisoning
● Increase the amount of affordable housing, accessible to low income residents at or
below 50% AMI (area median income) with an emphasis on housing available at the
extremely low income level, regardless of documentation status, criminal records, or
other considerations
● Create a process to implement the state required duty to affirmatively further Fair
Housing (AFFH, AB 686) by identifying and removing barriers to affordable housing
development in the City
● Work with the State to create localized Area Median Income to more accurately
determine housing affordability levels for Santa Ana residents whose median income is
lower than the County’s median income. Encourage adoption of the Small Area Fair
Market Rent Model to diversify housing choice and opportunity for the City’s residents
who reside in low income communities
● Implement, enforce, and monitor of AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial and
Multifamily/Apartment Recycling Reporting Form)
Promoting Physical Activity
On increasing physical activity, we believe that creating a network of safe outdoor and indoor
spaces and facilities, with a focus on underserved areas need to be addressed by:
● In addition to increasing total park space, increase safe spaces for physical recreation
such as walking, skating, bicycling, and other outdoor activities that are not traditionally
seen in parks
● Installing and maintaining equipment for exercise at recreation centers and
neighborhood parks
● Create safe connectivity between bike lanes to parks, schools, community centers, and
other spaces of recreation
● Create street types that aim to reduce bicycle and pedestrian fatalities, e.g. road diets,
complete streets
● Decriminalize bicycle and pedestrian mobility by shifting law enforcement involvement
in traffic and public space enforcement by adding public space and transit ambassadors,
social workers, and mental health professionals
● Create a resident ambassador program that pays residents to organize other residents
in maintaining safety in their neighborhoods
● Addition of trees and bus shelters to increase shading and promote walking, and
improve air quality
● Accessibility and affordability of fitness and recreation classes for youth, adults, and
seniors
● Culturally relevant activities and events for youth, families, and senior spaces urgently
needed in Santa Ana's low-income neighborhoods
● Need for more exercise and social programs (especially free ones) for all residents but
particularly for children and seniors.
Increasing Public Engagement
On enhancing civic engagement, we believe that improving and increasing the involvement of
community residents, especially of those residing in underserved areas, can be addressed by:
● The lack of consultation of low-income residents of color is at the root of environmental
injustice as residents must be involved in decision making around land use in their
neighborhoods and in their city; this becomes especially true in the disposition of public
land, though can apply to privately owned land as well, since land-use decisions affect
all those who live in the area
● Prioritizing procedural justice which calls for transparency, unbiased and objective
consulting, legitimate community representation and ability to influence decision
making, recognition of power dynamics, and conflict resolution
● Land use zoning changes should be extensively discussed with impacted residents,
especially when the changes will have negative environmental effects in the community,
and a transparent and meaningful discussion must be facilitated with residents
concerned over such changes
● Hosting programs specifically designed for disadvantaged community residents to
amplify their voices
● Live Streaming City Council, Neighborhood Association, and other community outreach
meetings through social media platforms such as youtube, instagram, facebook, and city
website in order to provide accessibility and reach more residents; and create a way to
for residents to formally submit public comments and voice their concerns via these
platforms
● Increase communication to residents of city and neighborhood meetings and events via
mailed flyers, posters, social media, and automated calls reminding them of such events
● Diversify the time & locations of city events throughout other hard-to-reach areas of the
city-- do not have all events in downtown, but spread them throughout various zip
codes and neighborhoods in order to reach a variety of residents especially in
underserved areas
● Prioritize working and paying community based organizations to collaborate with City on
civic engagement activities; allow payment to residents who participate in planning
activities; accommodate non-English speakers with translation services at all meetings
by hiring a translator or providing translator headsets
● Make all relevant documents public and easily available (and copies in different
languages) on websites/social media platforms.
The city’s general plan should address current issues and needs that residents are
experiencing, and be reflective of the values and morals of which the community knows to be
true and desires to uphold. The impact that this general plan will have on future generations
for the next 30 years needs to address current struggles that residents are facing through a
preventative manner in order to create a stronger and more promising city for our young
children now. As community organizations that have a direct connection to residents and are
constantly listening to their concerns, the above listed recommendations are all in the best
interest of improving the health, safety, environmental, and living conditions of Santa Ana and
its residents.
Sincerely,