HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - APP-0533-14 - EXHIBIT J PUBLIC & AGENCY COMMENTS PROVIDED DURING THE COMMISSION REVIEW Jackie Bateman
From: Chad Ortlieb
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:26 PM
To: 'Jakki Tonkovich'; 'Megan Penn'; 'Fred Talarico'; Jackie Bateman
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago Project
FYI...
Sent:.Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:22 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: RE: Rio Santiago Project
Hello Chad,
I am a resident of Orange and live in the Serrano Heights community. I am in favor and support the Rio
Santiago project as long as Cannon and Santiago is widen to accommodate the project at build-out.
The intersection of Cannon and Santiago Canyon is an eyesore and needs a high quality project to improve the
City in general. In addition, as a family with children, I welcome new recreational amenities and housing
opportunities for our senior residents.
A City needs to be dynamic to meet the future needs of the residents, which demography indicates is aging.
The investment into the community should applauded as long as the impacts of the development are
mitigated to the maximum extent possible by the developer.
Please put me on the project interest list if one is available. I would like to be informed and support the
project at public hearings when possible when discretionary approval is required.
Thank You,
Darrell Chin
EXHIBIT J
PUBLIC&AGENCY COMMENTS
PROVIDED DU REVIEW COMMISSION
RIO SANTIAGO
1 MAY 13,2014 CC MTG.
Jackie Bateman
From: Chad Ortlieb
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 7:49 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago
Please forward this e-mail to the Planning Commission.
Thank You
From: Tom Rapport [mailto:trapportCa�gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:27 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago
A Senior Living Community at this location would be extremely dangerous for the residents who drive as well as other
drivers along Santiago Canyon Road. Santiago Canyon Road is heavily traveled and has a high speed limit. It would be
dangerous for drivers making a left turn out of the new location and impossible to do at prime-time driving hours.
The proposed addition of 130 single family homes will result in at least 250 more prime-time drivers who will need to
access Santiago Canyon Road at it's most heavily traveled times.
The addition of a signal light is not practical due to the Orange Park Blvd. light being so close.
A left turn would have to be prohibited adding traffic to the left hand turn lane at Orange Park Bivd which is already
congested in the morning and afternoon due to children being dropped off at Salem School.
Thanks, Tom Rapport
1
Jackie Bateman
From: armstrongscottw@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:47 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Development
My name is Scott Armstrong. I'm a resident in the community known as The Colony at 1347 N. Catalina Street.
Currently, I'm leaning towards rejection of this project for the following reasons.
1) Pay to play YMCA is not at all what the community needs. We need a Community Park that is within walking distance
for our kids that we don't have to pay to use. A park that has Baseball fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, Playgrounds,
bathroom facilities, barbeque areas, possibly a jogging track. A pay to play on these fields is just one more way for the
builder to stick it to us and take more money from us.
2) I'm ok with the Senior housing but no ok with the type of zoning change necessary. The zoning must be Senior housing
specific and not allow for apartments etc. If this builder leaves and selis to another builder, who is to say the new builder
will stick to the Senior housing?Apartments would significantly increase traffic and pressure on the schools. Zoning
MUST be made specific to Senior Housing.
3)Several parcels in the Residential Section are below the R-1-8 (8000sf)zoning for Mabury Ranch and the Colony, and
significantly below The Reserve and nearby areas of OPA. Minimum lot size MUST be 8000sf to conform to the
surrounding community.
4)The builder must have an access plan for the surrounding neighborhoods. An underpass from the Colony
neighborhood under Santiago Canyon Road and one under Cannon Street for the bike bath are a MUST have for the
safety of our kids and MUST be incorporated into their cost expenses.
5) I'm not familiar with the former landfill site but why has the city not incorporated this area into the planning of Rio
Santiago? Seems to me Methane gas can be properly vented and this area could be used as fields, parking lots,
greenbelt areas etc.
Respectfully Submitted,
Scott W Armstrong
Resident Colony Area
Certified Residential Appraiser
714 771 5466 work
949 279 4451 cell
ArmstronqScottW(a�aol.com
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Charles Leffler [charlesleffler@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Planning Commission/Rio Santiago Project
I ask the Orange Planning Committee to Vote Noe on the Rio Santiago
The majority of the SFR and Multi-Family Units are in the Orange Park Acres
sphere of influence. They, if and when developed are slated to be no less than 1 Acre
lots. Taking that property from the OPA Specific Plan results in a degradation long
standing agreed and accepted planning. This results in a breaking of faith of
agreements with The City of Orange and the Residents of Orange Park Acres as well
as all of the Communities surrounding the area who have trusted the Planning model
on the General Plans, Maps and in the OPA Specific Plan. To grant such a change
results in SPOT ZONING.
There are also 3 other County and City agreed Plans for the Development that
go back 40 years. The Greenway and other plans designate massive OPEN °
SPACE/RECREATION that allowed for the Development that exists in East Orange
today. Homes were built and bought with the promise that one day the Mining
Operation wold go away and the Property would be restored. The Creek's course was
changed many years ago to accommodate the mining operation. It is noticeable in the
Creek's dog leg in the Eastern portion of the property. Water has a tendency to correct
its flow over time. This creates a potential subsidence issue for structures in that area.
It is a disaster waiting to happen and needs to be avoided.
If the People of Orange cannot rely on the stability created by Planning
which foresaw Development and allowed for future Open Space to create a balance in
the City what can be counted on? The fact of hazards like subsidence, dam inundation,
toxic waste migration and methane poisoning from the abandoned Villa Park dump
should be enough reason to Vote Noe on Rio. Add the obscene Density, Traffic and
Pollution to those broken agreements and what is left? Is Orange so out of contact with
its Heritage and Communities that it would allow self interested developer dollars to
corrupt long standing Plans, Neighborhoods and Promises to its People? Please, Vote
NOE on RIO.
CHARLES LEFFLER
Address on file
�
Jackie Bateman
From: John Cox [cox2@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:57 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago
Attachments: planning commissionJanuary 4.doc
Please read and consider
John R. Cox
1
January 4, 2014
To the members of the Orange City Planning Commission,
As the Orange Park Acres Historian for 18 years, I have collected and coalated
thousands of documents and talked to hundreds of people. I understand. I get it.
The residence of Orange Park Acres have been planning and fighting for 54 years to
protect the community and surrounding area against over development.
For these developers to come in to our community and say that the OPA spesific plan
(1973), the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan(1971), the East Orange Community Plan
(1975), and the Santiago Creek Implementation Plan(1976) don't matter is ludicrous.
Many of the people that created those plans still live in this community. Their children
now live in this and surrounding communities. Their lives matter.
If the developers are successful in creating a new general plan and changing the
zoning for the Rio Santiago property, they will sell the property, cash out and move on.
They have no interest in the future of this land. We the people will be left to deal with
what comes next.
We want to be heard. We want to continue to be a part of the planning process. We
have submitted a couple of plans that we could live with, but our voices have been
ignored.
Please vote NO.
Send the developers back to the people. We will help them to plan appropriately.
Sincerely,
John R. Cox
Jackie Bateman
From: Steve Baringer(stevo1957@att.net]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 7:52 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully miller site
To Orange City Planning Department,
This is a letter opposing the Sully Miller development proposal. This proposal is way too
this property they I<new it was not zoned for this usage. Please deny the zone change.
Steve Baringer
5145 e Valencia Dr
Orange, Ca 92869 �
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Sue Vaurs [suevaurs@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:32 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller site- opposed to rezoning
I am opposed to rezoning this site!
Sue Vaurs
. am ri ge treet
Orange, CA 92866
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Peter Piferi [piferi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:53 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller
I am very opposed to the developers plan and proposed zoning changes to the Sully Miller site. The traffic and noise from
that area is already bad, it would be intolerable with the current proposal. Please make our opinion known to the planing
board and city counsel as we cannot make the meeting.
Sincerely,
Peter and Alice Piferi
6026 E. Teton Ave.
Orange
1
Jackie Bateman
From: John Buck sr. [rogerthat75@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:58 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: sully miller plan
count me in against the sully miller proposal. the peralta is another bad , bad idea. John Buck(orange
resident 30 years)
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Patricia Ricci [ppshore@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:38 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller site
The general plan is the development plan for all of Orange and it was years in the development phase. It was
not written and approved by council to have developers come in and try to change it for personal gain. It is the
responsi i ity o t e amm�g ommission an t e ity ounci to vote w a is es or t e citizens o range
not an out of the area developer.
Another consideration is the fact that we are entering the 2nd year of a drought. Where is the water for all of
these front lawns going to come from? Patty Ricci Old Towne
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Kribel, Ken [KenKribel@SOUTHERNWINE.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 2:39 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller/Rio Santiago
Attachments: Ken-traffic pictures.docx
T0: Orange Planning Commission
RE: Sully Miller/Rio Santiago development
Orange Planning Commission,
My wife and I have enjoyed living in Orange Park Acres for 14 years and plan to
stay for a long time.
A developer has no right to purchase property zoned open space and expect to get
it rezoned for his benefit at the expense of an entire community. He stands to
make $10's of millions and the community will lose open space for ever. Open
space that was carefully protected in the general plan of East of Orange and OPA.
It is the community's rights to have these general plans remain intact and be
protected by our city officials.
We drive our children to school on Santiago Canyon Road which is a 2 mile trip and
can take 20 minutes because of the traffic. I sent pictures to the commission and
attached then in this email. They were taken during a 2 week period in October
that demonstrates the already traffic problem weather it is morning or evening.
Additionally they are proposing 2 new stop lights which will make 4 stop lights in
7/10 of a mile. Where in a rural area can you find that density of stop lights? Our
20 minute trip to school with take even more time.
If this development is approved the quality of life will deteriorate for everyone
who travels Santiago Canyon Rd on a regular basis.
I urge the commission to reject the proposed rezoning.
�
Ken and Maria Kribel
1277 Morada Dr. Orange, Ca.
Tl�i,s nzess�r�rc� i.` llzc���i-opei�h� of�Soi.�t/iern blJine c�. Sprrils or ils �ffliates. Il is interrrled only for- the z�sc of the
it�cli>>idzlcr./or� e�r�iti� lo �v/�ic/1� it is acldr-essecl�rr�cl r��acr,}� corttaira i��for�tnatiorz tlt�at� is nor7.��.�blic,Proprietai���,
j�i-i.vilegecl, cort��dential, cir�d e�-en��pt fr•o�rz disclost-ire i��racler•crj�pliccrble Icr��v or� r��ra.y co�t�stitiate r�s attor•��c��tivorlc
���'ocluct. T�:yc��r.� crr��� n�o/ lhc� ir��tei�r�leil r�eci/�ierrt. �ou crrc h��rch��� n��lified tl��crt c�rtv use, �Iisse»�.irrr.r/inrt. �lr.���rrhr-��/�rorr,
of�copying o��lhi.�� co�l��tri�ztruCurion� is s•trr-cll��/�r�oli��bile�l. 1���or-� l�t�i>>e r�eceived l�Itrs� c�ir�arrtr.rnic�ziior�i ii� �i�r-��r�, rtr�li�i�
l.rs irnrne�lirr��elv h�� �cic��ltorie art�l (�;) clesCr�o��/�hrs rr�esscr�rc i�f�r J�ics•in�zile or� (ii) c/elete Cltr-s nressrr��c� riii�iie<licrle/��� r�
this t�s crr� elc�clrv�Tic co�nnr�.�izicatior�.
Tlaa���ik yoz.�.
z
�. . .
' �_�
,�
.
. � � � �;:
�s �`•K�_�1 7m^T - �
�. �
�
!���1 , �� �` 'b��f, ' ,. • �
' ��.. . " , �'�� �
Oct. 23, 5:45pm
��,�..,
{ ! �,S
+
'„ . � . . � �#,'z,
� 4 j�
_%3..
�
A -
�
> "��"��,
� '* � , ,`, ... .
f �
;� ��- Oct 2$,,$.25am
�, ,�
� .
�;� � ` ����-� �� � .� ��:�.
;�, � ,.� °�*r' ' � ,t . e A .
. � ��,� k•t ���� � ���� �*.'
���j ��. �� +€� d�� � � 1 � � �. ,
'a��y x 4� � � 'w � *,�*� tr a a.� �(.
�� ���� �� `b,� �, ����nR�}��a,« �R'�` ��f� T�f%`��k� 3 ����k�� y i���+� ��. .�
r,x
� t �� y ..bk .� 9 Y* �?�,Y`��H.
Y .`..
� � ��� iP"�Y` { +SDti�S °����'n �b�t �9�� .. t��!Y+ri�� ' fy�„��.1�"v"A�rM�'
' y . � , . . . #74..oF x
. � �i, i �4D`t'� r�,ffi�. .�'M �� . .
r � �y
� f `�f �„k a .,; il: � ` � �fi �}� ��� -�,
x'
����� . . . ,,.
.
��tir4 :�� � '�
- ,
�r � �. .,� �
�
+ ::5 `.;l�:y� . � ��.� ,,. ^-r,-�•..� � . . . ' . ;.-�3
, > C , _ � `k) � +' t 'cw.9
,
�� �� �`
z
�� �'� . ' � � �� �� ^� � ��� �<'��� ��� � � �
�� «�� p �'x` � , � � � ' '��'� : �. ` ;� � �a
� `?t . fzg " R. 3�^ . . - ' . .
� ,t � s - > � i,��' ,d t .£, . �7"�a��"'
- , �y-, .._ � ,
,
� . �. > , x
_
� - �i �`'>'. " � ��,
.h. ;� � , .
�. �.
�. �� ' i;`.<'.�I!_Agaw ��..c..r, �_�. ��.a_� �.... °9 ,q; � , �
- > r�.
.
. t' � .F.�..,�y . �... `" { � �.,�
_ •
. >. .-. - ,.' .'."'� �}, : r �," r ,` � *,. �C� a......t._.P, - � ' .�
i
o L, ,
As, ' x � ( s,.� e�,
.,� � ,. , E�s- .l t`� �g.� (,., � ;*'.' „a....«. . � . .
c;#{,� e' �. r t,, � � �,
,�i �� eb i.. #� � �� � *���' a�..��.� �'�' :a, , �� � .
f � ,
...a.,_..� .. � _. {:�. � e�' ��{ .��. : . .
........ . ' � t "" . , . . _� .. . ,
.R .,at., _ ,��.i^Fa#� • � 1
- � , • ♦
..F.... ..�.. ' , „-� .
g,...� ' �� -� .m�'��' �S� i..�....: .` , '� :
,, ,
' -__. . .,
.� .,.w:_._. .., �. �
, ` � f
z
�#; '��'S;�`�s*t .,��� r � g:� � �rz^.: ' .:w*�a ,� .., , .. . ,•��
� � t� � .. , � � „���� �..
�,
.. ... . � . ,r. .
�.,ai�:.� . . � ..
�x.���. , i, ,._s
.... .. . '1 . -'
r� �
q�...>. ' . ' , ,
. k'y"., .y . �� � ,
�4�`�� � �,.�, , .
� , � ;r��.{�'+v.ri s. . ,s+.. . a
.� 9 � � �� �� '�
��* ���,� Oct. 31, 8:15am
� � , �P� ��. � �'' " .,� ` �
�.,, �'���` ... , > . P, �. � � ` �
� ��
, ,
� � �.,3, �; �
�.�, #'�►
.
.
. � y�.,
�,� � `. � ��,. � ��", isir - �s ;� "� ��" ,�-�g �''���� .'9�" P"�,
�e �,�,� �� � a } 3�y w,1,�br. e�
� x
. . . .at = '� 6 � ,.. .. - a a ..- '
«
0» ' 5 �...,�{ '� ,-' ,}.y. : . 'r.e .. �
. . •
�. � �x �a,���. ,g� E� ��` � � ? ,
4'� >a' g��4� . �v �"`',°{�� $.; � a.fi .
` % " ��e %� d , ' ,�.t 5e" F4a , .
� , �
F, x � , . �a %�,
s -r
x
� ;,
�a�8`..� � , "�y' . _ � iy _ *F„ � .
,.� � � �� .a.� .�s ' � #� �
$;w�, � '�t � . .' �, `+A.» .. a?� . . .. §
'���j�k `�l�• . x � � . f�, .� ,
�'
� f . .t� E j� �
� .;C;
� e *�t�°��;'� xa�
qrtly* . s.v. a..A. :-
��� p;,�,�...3*.:. ... .b .:... ,.��.
.ro �� �
� xq
x y
w. tryy��'3� . , s* � � �
� 4 �k 'e � � . . »
� • ; "
{ ' � • •.e re+vey a.in aw r
r S .✓.
e 4e Z +.
� � 4 � � n-� �� � ` . .. .
' w'"e�.z � # �zt 1'w .t ,.tt�:ira„�v '� ..M. ��s�.{-�.} ....� .
�. � � .- ��� ; .
`
., .�.. � .M ., .. "� �
, � .. P . .n,�...�� �,.. 'U
{t: °�.
* � � � �
,e"ve.s Ya.�* . ��' . . � �a'.
< • «,. w.,�u
.... « r�� '�� r ` '
r'
`�� � ',
.
" � ., � ` �
�af
�II . x Y� ,. ,.x � .
. .�a.*..r,. ....„ . ��
��� ���R� ' ;' ��� _ '�
'� ., �' � ��� � �s �°#� �' �,, + , � t "
�, � ��- ' � ,
��r .���g. , . . �,�� � � `.. -
`a � � . � `. �
� y ��r,� ,p.t,�t+'�' . " ��
�, t��' g� y��r,`'�� ���� ��, ''.� s �<<��,��� � � � ��
� `,� .�. � ";�, � ��;�,�'��r' ` ���' �: * �
�,,'��';�"��+ s , ,�. . � ���,�"S. '�#x:�,�� � . . ;,
�, � 4, ' � � � , O�t.21,8:15am
�.:: }. ��' {� `.; � �,
� � � � ��_ �,� � - � �� � � �
,�; ` �`` `�
� � � � , �'� � � �. �
� � � � �
� °;�,� ,�,��
� :�� �.
���� ���
. � � '��'�
_
� � > �;�
�. . � �:
�.,� � s�
`�,
���` ��
� �`���� �
� � ��� � �
��
, F„�,r� ��° ��.���' :;
� � ��
� � �� � ` ��� d z
� .,. ,.,
. r� ,4
� : � e, , �:. �, q,,�
� � �� � �°` }�;
������ t
` f�, �{��
' �£ � ��. ���
� � � � �
' �; � r�
c �
�
,�� . . � � ,, � . . �.
m �4, � .. . � �� �.
�f�`�tEr�r' �, � � m z �
. .
E;
,�•, �, �„ � �
��r � 4� �� ��,'
s
� r
#,� � .�d, . j ��-��"
r�
.�.Y
s.;P
s
� � ii���� ��� �
� �� �� #
���ry �_ "
.�' r e�^ °�'�,�zc �
"1� ��, t= I';rv. � ' � � � ��
`�� � , ,'T{�S � ,�� � I
} t
. . .. . . _ ._e�. ._�'�� �. £i. 1� . .
��,, � ' �*� s't^t �� �, �4:m�>�z.`
,��i�"s�`�f� ' a g�,�, �' " �+,����- �.
� �: ' �` xb'.§ay�.�' � � 'Z��'�z�
�� � _ . .# k: f,,s. �,�� "�''�,x°,a
� � �,�£� {�,��A,� y��� . ,fi� ���"`r�„��`-� �r .
t
{� .. . �f �� �.��'� .
�^ � :�� ,�'�"x;�,
ra�; >*� � � �€`�..g-�',` .
z $ � i .��.''2 � >�'
���= Y
� .�.-,.e_... - �
. i
� °` :,-, . �s' � .
i�'s.f � `�' � �..:.. � d fr �� �,��'d q t.,
�
# � . � `u` d d ��.
^�.s°� � a 3EA_ k�. �,, �
� � L
_ � . �`
, � ?- �? gr�' �
Pv�`,. "' � � .t �� �
st g B
� 7 ' ,r� �a3r�3� %$&`�.
' � �e� � + � .. s'�° ¢a�Z.
i;; �
§ 1��
�,� ��� ` � . � �x�� � .
r. .
,. � � '�i: ; .� � .:
� � g ,
'�*�' �' b">. 4 'r
� x,�4� �"� �'�i :' .
,s:' � ��'� .
t
� �, ,
w �� �
�J ''
Y'
k��di
�i ��
f
+} � . � {
+
n, . b �a' " � 4
" ddR°��w ` .. .. t �_.�_
� �
$ '_' �....� 5�
Y� °� $. . . { _;� � .
�•y ���_�'�' . �-i, 'S ?. .
�`�,� � ��a'�
�;Y���€z �f . ��,». .
�� ��
rs� �$ �
�� � �„�.� �+"
"` a't .>v
' ,
� �� ����t��� s .�
'��+,' � � � .
� � �
<c,'x
.n
t
•�. _ ,�. , - � t
•
�. , ,�<�. ; , � � `.
.
w r.
t ,
.. . .. . : . . ls ... �
Jackie Bateman
From: Sharon [swmule@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 3:40 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Address to Planning Commission
Dear Jackie Bateman, Commission Ass't:
When we bought our property 34 years ago in Orange Park Acres we were aware of
zoning around us that could adversely impact us and we were also assured that there
was zoning that would protect us. What the Martin and Milan team brings to the table
is a violation of the trust we had in what would be protected. How can rezoning be
approved against the consensus of the community in which that zoning lies?
I am certain the developer and their investors considered consensus as an obstacle
when they apparently set about to get community support by making the Sully Miller
operation so obnoxious that the people affected by it are willing to settle for anything
to get rid of it. I noticed that one of the first things these folks did after acquiring the
property was to remove the trees and screening of the site, which I understand is in
violation of Municode 17.32.060G requiring a screen around an extracting and
processing site to protect the public from viewing the operations. What I do not
understand, however, is why the City was eager to file a lawsuit against a family in
2010 for replacing grass with drought resistant plants in their front lawn to reduce water
consumption (citing them as non-compliant to codes and creating an eyesore), and yet
has not held Martin/Milan liable for the code that I think is being violated at the Sully
Miller site with its far greater adverse consequences to the community at large. One
has to wonder if the City has been complicit in helping the Martin/Milan team
orchestrate their egregious project.
While some adjacent residents might be willing to cry, "uncle" and
comply with the ill-conceived Rio Santiago proposal (just as some did when
Ridgeline was allowed to fall into disgraceful disrepair), I think the history of
support to stop the Ridgeline development will undoubtedly repeat itself at
Rio Santiago. It is time to stop the bleeding and start the healing.
Therefore, it is my hope that the planning commission will restore my faith in our
local city officials by stopping this project. Should something replace the quarry?
Preferably yes, but certainly not this.
Sharon Mule
7401 E Saddlehill Trail
Orange, CA 92869
i
Jackie Bateman
From: csamhammer@att.net
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 4:24 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller proposed Rio Santiago development
Dear jbateman@cityoforan�e.org
,
of that plan. I would like to offer some comments relative to the Sully Miller proposal and their Rio Santiago
development plan.
I had not expected to hear again that Sully Miller has again taken a self-serving and most likely highly
profitable approach to being our neighbor.
The only way I have of knowing of that plan is through word-of-mouth —neighbors who are impacted for a
variety of reasons. Just when we thought that the property values were moving again upward, certainly a
favorable direction, Sully Miller decides that their interests come first. Am I mistaken in believing that the
property they plan to develop has been listed as Open Space by the City of Orange? If so, why then has the
City not informed me of this challenge to Sully Miller's responsibility to maintain designated Open Space as
Open Space?
I have recently watched fully loaded dirt-hauling trucks entering an open gate in the west end of the Sully
Miller gravel handling facility on the north side of Santiago Canyon. When I say "fully loaded" the trucks in
question have a set of wheels that are lowered to share the load when it exceeds certain weight limits for the
sake of the survivability of our tax-payer and tax-maintained roads. I saw merely two trucks, but how many
trucks and earth-stabilizing major earth moving and compacting equipment will be required to accomplish the
latest Sully Miller projects?
I remember when the "100 year" flood caused by Santiago Creek took out a just completed bridge that
seemed to be an extension of Linda Vista Street to the Villa Park side. Is there a solution to erosion from
infrequent Santiago Creek floods? The Army engineers would channel the creek—line the Creek shores with
reinforced concrete as the Creek flows into the now low water level in the old gravel pit?
Do you remember the flood of the city parkland along Santiago Creek-the flood of the 1960s? My teenaged
son loved the opportunity to shove old cars into the raging stream to minimize the erosion downtown.
A neighborhood friend is the father of a trustee of the Orange County Astronomers (OCA) which has been
active in opposing the the vast decrease in our ability to enjoy the peace of a truly dark sky. The OCA has
been increasingly active in opposing the additions of night time parkland (open space) ball field and
commercial illumination that is a visual problem, for example, for neighbors of the new park along Prospect
between Bond and Chapman. Such illumination is visible and an immense problem for Palomar and Mount
Wilson Observatory astronomers. This had been a dark sky area in the 1950—2000 era, but dark skies—dark
enough to see most of the stars and the Milky Way- has long disappeared from too much of our California
skies.
i
There seems to be a tradition in the Real Estate profession to ignore issues that conflict with the sale of real
estate properties. Would you want to have night time stadium type lighting and athletic activity established
in your neighborhood?
What about traffic and multiple traffic control lights along the Sully Miller (open space) property along
Santiago Canyon Road? So much of the Sully Miller plan is iffy at best, but requires favoritism to accomplish
their profitable plans, regardless.
It would be wise for our city leaders to Listen to that portion of Orange citizens who believe, as I do, that the
`Sully Millers' in the Orange, East Orange and Villa Park communities will gain Oran�e Leadership support and
prevail against all opposition —as it has in the past. Will we again be ignored?
Respectfully,
Clair Samhammer
z
Jackie Bateman
From: Richard Ross [richross87@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 4:49 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Please Deny Rezoning of Sully Miller Area
Hello,
Key Reasons to DenyRezoning:
-Not zoned for any of the proposed uses
- Violates East Orange and OPA Specific Plans
- Inconsistent with other adopted plans
- Sets a dangerous precedent - spot zoning
- Inappropriate location-more traffic
� - Major impacts forced on residential/rural neighborhoods
-Natural hazards associated with the site: Dam Inundation area, next to landfill, methane gas, liquefaction
- The Draft Environmental Impact Report is defective
One of the only things Orange has going for it is it's open/recreational space. Keep our city unique, clean,
and true to its original values!
Sincerely,
Richard Ross
7261 E. Lewis Dr.
Orange, CA 92869
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Martz, Patricia [pmartz@calstatela.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago development
Attachments: Rio Santiago Itr to Planning Commissioners.doc
Please see the attached letter in opposition to the project. .
Thank you,
Patricia Martz, Ph.D. '
Professor Emerita
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology
California State University, Los Angeles
i
C� �A California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, in�.
P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
�rvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
January 12, 2014
Planning Corrirriissioners
ity o range
Re:The Rio Santiago Project
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing to ask you to deny the proposal to change the City's General Plan and zoning of the 96-acres of the 110-acre Sully
Miller sand and gravel property from Permanent Open Space to allow the development of the Rio Santiago project. We are
concerned that, in addition to impacts to natural resources,traffic, and the loss of precious open space,the project has the
potential to impact CA-ORA-369 and possibly buried portions of CA-ORA-1172. The sites which,are situated along Santiago
Creek,are part of a Native American traditional cultural landscape. Given the cumulative losses of archaeological sites,sacred
sites,and traditional cultural landscapes in Orange County,these cultural resources are of significant value to the
Juaneno/Acjachemen tribal community.
We understand that based on archaeological testing,CA-ORA-369 does not appear to be significant. This determination is
based on the outdated idea that the only value of an archaeological site lies in the scientific information it may contain.
Retrieve that and it is ok to destroy the site. This thinking does not take into consideration the fact that archaeological sites
have cultural and religious values for Native Americans and these values can only be mitigated by avoidance and preservation.
While it appears that CA-ORA-369 will be preserved within the portion of the project site proposed as open space,the
determination of low significance based on scientific data may cause protection of the site to be overlooked. The proposed
housing development presents the potential for vandalism and looting. There is also the possibility that buried portions of CA-
ORA-1172 extend within the project area, as well as other buried cultural deposits.
Archaeological sites are being lost or damaged at an alarming rate: over 2000 in California every year. In 1973 it was estimated
that 50%of all the sites in California were already destroyed. Development in Orange County has accelerated since then. In
the not so distant past,the state legislature reimbursed bands of white militia for ammunition and supplies used to exterminate
California Natives because they were in the way of"progress". Since that time local governments have caused the destruction
of Native American cemeteries and cultural sites for the same reason. Archaeological sites are all that California Native
American descendants have left of their cultural heritage. These sites are also important as part of our state and national
heritage. Please vote to preserve the cultural and natural resources in open space as wisely designated in the OPA and East
Orange County Community Plans.
Sincerely,
,M . �;_
� � ��
y jr� �'�zI✓',r�,}r���... �,v�f�t`�'t�'�:,%�
V, ` "" ��.,,.
#...
Patricia Martz, Ph.D., President
Jackie Bateman
From: Bill Reinking [reinking@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:10 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: The Rio Santiago Project
Members of the Planning Commission:
My name is Bill Reinking and I reside at 5806 East Crest De Ville Avenue, Orange, California 92867-3338. This is part of
errano eig s an over oo s e io an iago proper y.
I appreciate this opportunity to make a public comment regarding Rio Santiago and its plans to replace the recycling and
materials dump site with homes, park and open space.
When friends and family at my home, overlooking the site, see the rubble comprising this dump-recycling site, they are a
little surprised at the stark contrast between it and the homes around it.
The good news is that whaYs proposed to replace this eyesore is something of beauty, something compatible with the
neighborhood.
As we understand it, acres of open space, a large, new public park, detached family homes, and play fields for our
children are planned. All are welcome amenities and enhancements in our neighborhood.
So, please, as you review the components of Rio Santiago, -- please know that this is a plan which is an excellent fit for
our community. It replaces a nuisance that negatively impacts the area. It creates housing, open space, trails and a new
public park. It complements the community.
Please vote to approve the Rio Santiago plan. And thank you for this opportunity to share with you my support for this
project.
William L. (Bill) Reinking
P.s. i would have made a personal appearance but a nagging cough and congestion prevented it.
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Diane kelley[drkmagician@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:46 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Santiago development
I am opposed to the Santiago development. The project is ill-conceived. This project is not
zone for any of the proposed usages and violates the orange and OPA specific plans. The
project is inconsistent with other adopted plans. Please do not pass this proposal.
Orangeparl< acres Resident,
Diane Kelley
Sent from my iPad Diane Kelley
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Chad Ortlieb
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:52 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: Leslie Roseberry; Gary Sheatz; 'Megan Penn; 'Jakki Tonkovich'; 'Fred Talarico'
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago Project
Attachments: IMG.pdf
Jackie,
Please forward the attached to the Planning Commission.
Thanks
From: OdleAssociatesCa�aol.com [mailto:OdleAssociatesCa�aol.com]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 7:34 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Please see attached letter from Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association.
1
Mabury Ranch Nomeawners Asspciatian
cf o Accel{Property Management
230A6 Aveni�a De La Carlota
Suiie 7(l0 y
lagt�na Nklis,GA 92653
January 1C1, 201�
Mayar&City Cauneii Planning Cammission
City of Orange City of Orange
P.O. Sts:�449 P.O. Box 449
Orar�ge,GA 928�6-1591 C3range,CA 92866-1591
Subject: Rio 5antiago Praject
Dear Mayor&City Councii and Members o#the Planning Cornmission:
At the regular meeting of the Board of�irectors c�f the Mabury Ranch Hom�awners Assaciation
(MRHC3A}, held on lanuary 9,2�14,the 8oard unanimousiy aecepted the recommendatians of the
MRHOA Enviranmental Committee regarding the subject project. The 6oard directed that 1,as
President,forward these recommendations to you. (vlabury Ranch is a cammunity of 384 single family
homes,focated on the narth side�f S�ntiago Creek,bardering the proposed project. The p�sitions af
the MRNOA Board of Directors are listed below:
1, We suppvrt tt�e eliminativn af the Sand and Grauel flperation and rep{a�ing it with a Planned
Residential Gon�munity,such as the Rio Santiago prvject•
2, We support the elimination of the residentia!land use designation on the property north of the creek
and the permanent designatic�n of this property as Permanent Natural Open Space.
3. perfiaining to Pianning At'ea B,YMCAJRecreation Facility,we do nat support a"Pay to Play" use of the
praposed s�e�rts fielcls and have conc�rns regarding adequate light�nd sound mitigation af these fi�lds
as wel3 as adequate parking for particspants and guests.
4. We support a comprehensive mitigation plan pertaining to the patential dam failure and subsequent
inundation of the entire project as well as adjacent properties.
5. We support the planting af rnature trees along the entire Creek frantage as wel(as throughout the
entire project.
6. We supp�rt a gc�od quality pe�manent fence adjacent to the Mabury Trail to prevent the accidental
encroachm2nt of humans and tuildlife.
7. Pertaining to Planning Area C,A$e-Qualified Residentiai Corrtmurtity,we support a building height
of two-stories(32 feefi maximumJ.
Mabury Ranch has a contiguQus�oundary with this project. We appreciate your consideration af the
above seven positions.
Sincerely,
���ir�;�b�`�
Roberk H. fldle
President, Board af D+rectors
___
__ _... .. ..._._..
_... .... _
_ _ ..........__._
_ .. _.. _._. . _ _._....
Jackie Bateman
From: Mary McMullin [marymcmullin@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 9:01 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: In opposition to Rio Santiago's Project
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in opposition to the proposed plan for the Sully Miller property. I am a
omeowner in ay ury anc an e curren ra ic pa erns on errano, annon an an iago
Canyon Road are extremely dangerous. Adding 130 single family homes and a Senior Assisted
and Skilled Nursing facility plus a private sports club will only make a congested and
dangerous situation much worse.
Do not change the City's General Plan to accommodate a high impact project.
Sincerely,
Mary McMullin
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Julie Maurer[maurer@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 9:22 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Development
Dear Jackie Bateman,
As a resident in the City of Orange, I would like to go on record that I and my family are opposed to
the rezoning of the property associated with the Rio Santiago development intended for the Sully
Miller site in east Orange. I stand with my community in opposition to this development, as it is
currently planned.
I hope that the Planning Commission will oppose the rezoning of the Sully Miller property and
recommend that the City Council do the same.
Sincerely,
Julie Maurer
7544 E. Saddlehill Trail, Orange 92869
i
Jackie Bateman
From: roger underwood [rnunderwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Development
My name is Roger Underwood. I have lived at 6719 Waterton Avenue since 1985, when I bought my property
in the Autumn Ridge Development at the east end of Mabury Ranch, north of Santiago Creek. When I
Santiago development was zoned as open space and would never be developed for such high density
purposes as are being proposed.
Traffic in this area is already at maximum limits during certain times of the day. Additional development will
further overload the roads and other city and county infrastructure in this area.
To allow this property to be rezoned in the manner proposed would be contrary to the interests of residents in
the area and to the City of Orange in general. The open space zoning on these properties should be protected
by the Zoning Commission and the City Council for future development possibilities that would more
appropriately protect the existing zoning requirements. The people of Orange Would be better served by
protecting this property for development compatible with existing zoning requirements. As our city grows, we
need more open spaces that could be developed for parks and other recreational developments, not less.
I am unable to attend the public hearing on January 13th, Please insure that my concerns are shared with
Planning Commission members.
Very Truly Yours,
Roger Underwood
rnunderwood@hotmail.com
714/7977099
�
Jackie Bateman
From: Lynn Liddle [Lynn@tripla.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:42 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller- Orange, CA
City of Orange Planning Commission,
Unfortunately we cannot attend the meeting tonight to discuss this property but we would like to voice our opinion to
you. We are residents of Orange Park Acres and so enjoy the hiking, horseback riding, mountain back riding, and overall
natural beauty of our surroundings.This area is a special place and needs to be kept serene. With Santiago Creek
running through it and its adjacent alignment with Santiago Oaks Park,this property screams to be kept recreational
open space with new trails connecting OPA to park land. It should not be rezoned for multilevel senior housing and high
density homes. Corporations, utilities, and other entities are always on the hunt to purchase mitigation property and
this would be a prime location.The investment group connected to this project is notorious for reselling their properties
after they attain rezoning.
Please respectfully listen to those that are able to attend the meeting and care about the beauty of Orange.
Thank you,
Lynn and James Liddle
697 N Ranch Wood Trail
Orange, CA
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Paul Larson [pnlarson1@me.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:59 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Development
Hello,
Our names are Paul & Samara Larson and we live at 1108 N. Granada Drive which is near
Santiago Canyon Rd. where the Rio Santiago eve opment is propose .
We believe the proposed Rio Santiago development would fit in well on that property and in
our East Orange neighborhood. The age-qualified housing portion of the development with
assisted living components seems very appropriate and the concept will probably become even
more prevalent in the future as the Baby Boomer generation continues to age.
We also appreciate the amount of open space proposed by the developer. Assuming the
Environmental Impact Report properly addresses flood control issues related to Santiago Creek
and any necessary remediation regarding the old landfill (methane gas, etc...) we look forward
to Rio Santiago replacing the rock crushing operation at the old sand and gravel pit. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Paul & Samara Larson
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Stuart Newman [snewman@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 12:42 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: 'Erin Newman'
Subject: proposed Rio Santiago development http://opacommunityaction.org/issues/sully-miller.html
Pis register my strong objections to the expansion of the subject development
Stu Newman
5516 E.Valencia Dr.,Orange
1
Jackie Bateman
From: RistigM@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 12:51 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: No High-Density Re-Zoning of Sully Miller Site
To Whom It May Concern,
We are adamantly opposed to any rezoning of the Sully Miller Site and are very much opposed to the proposed Rio
Santiago development. Our reasons include:
* Not zoned for any of the proposed uses;
*Violates East Orange and OPA Specific Plans;
* Inconsistent with other adopted plans
*Sets a dangerous precedent-spot zoning
* Inappropriate location - more traffic
* Major impacts forced on residential/rural neighborhoods
* Natural hazards associated with the site: Dam Inundation area, next to landfill, methane gas, liquefaction
*The Draft Environmental Impact Report is Defective
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael &Andrea Ristig
Orange, CA
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Janet Wilson [janetwilson66@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:17 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: City Council; Todd.Spitzer@ocgov.com; Theresa Sears; Laura Thomas; tdcdnd@aol.com
Subject: Vote no on Sully-Miller high density project(Rio Santiago)
T0: City of Orange Planning Commission
c/o Jackie Bateman
Dear Commissioners,
Please vote no on the Rio Santiago project, which would allow a developer to ignore decades-old,
carefully crafted general plan language and specific plans for one project, a clear case of illegal spot
zoning. This project is inconsistent with the OPA and East Orange Community Plans, which mandate
that this land be designated as permanent open space. As an Orange County Superior Court judge
ruled last fall in the Rutter SaddleCrest case, rewriting specific plans for a single project is blatantly
illegal. As the California Environmental Quality Act states, all general plans and specific plans must be
followed by local jurisdictions.
In addition, I have major concerns about the siting of these projects because of potential flooding
(do you really want to approve senior housing in or near a dam and floodplain?) and impacts on
water quality, aesthetics, biological resources and other issues.
Please enter these comments into the public record.
Thank you,
]anet Wilson
17311 Wilkinson Rd.
Modjeska, CA
janetwilson66@amail.com
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Ejandbob@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:23 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller
I have lived on Windes Drive for nearly forty years and have seen what all the development has done to the traffic on
Santiago Canyon Road. Late afternoon the traffic gets backed from Canyon to Windes Drive. Rio Santiago development
will only make traffic that much worse! The area is not zoned for this type of development. I hope you will listen to the
�
Elaine Hardman
1666 W indes Drive
Orange, CA 92869
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Bartez@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 2:47 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Development
To: Planning Commission of Orange
Date: January 13, 2014
I am a resident of Orange for the last 36 years. I moved to this community because I loved the rural environment.
Residents of this area, before I came here, implemented plans to protect this environment and had visions for the future.
The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan (1973), the East Orange Community Plan (1975) and the Santa Ana River/Santiago
Creek Greenbelt Plan (1971)were put in place to achieve these goals. The developer of this land wants to throw out
these plans and create their own plan that suits their needs. They need to develop a more comprehensive plan that is
compatible with the surrounding area. Rezoning multi-family, high density or commercial uses is lincompatible "spot
zoning"that transforms a single family residence and rural neighborhood to a mixed use. I urge you to reject this current
plan and direct the developer to come up with something more suitable to the area.
Respectfully,
Cynthia Nelson
11072 Meads Ave.
Orange, CA
bartez(a�aol.com .
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Steve Eimers [seimers@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 2:55 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Development
Dear Planning Commission,
We have lived for 40 Vears plus in the City of Oran�e within the Oran�e Park Acres. We are requestin�that vou denv anv
rezoning for the Rio Santiago Development. Instead turn this into a park which the citizens of all of Orange can enjoy.
Thank you for your time,
Steve &lane Eimers
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Sandra Herbold [herbold.family@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:41 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: RE: public hearing on Rio Santiago
To whom it may concern:
This email is to inform you of our opposition to the proposed Rio Santiago development
project. We are unable to attend the�ublic hearin�this evening.
Herbold Family
983 RIdgeline Road
Orange, CA
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Rtgomez@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 6:11 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: gloriasefton@gmail.com
Subject: Rio Santiago comments
Attachments: OPAComments 011314.docx
Greetings,
Please include.our comments in tonight's discussion of the project.
Thank you,
Rich Gomez
949-888-1684 office
714-504-7001 mobile
Sadd/eback Canyons Conservancy
http://saddlebackcanvons.orct
i
Sodd/eback Cvnyons Conservancy �� ��° ��-�"`�`� ��
.,�� � �.
P.O. BOX 1022 �pDDLEBp�i-�CANYON��
TRABUC�CANY�N,CALIF�RNIA 92678 TRpBUCO . nr�oo�ES� ,s���ER�.00
-Preserving Our Canyons-
January 13, 2013
City of Orange—Planning Commission
�e�czcvu�@�,�vxixxiris uivirrzsst`'r�c'�ii�
Via Email Attachment: jbateman@cityoforange.org
RE: Proposed Rio Santiago Development(Sully Miller property)
Dear Ms. Bateman:
The Saddleback Canyons Conservancy is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the environment and
quality of life in the rural canyon areas of southeastern Orange County, which includes the
Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan (FTSP) area, the Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan area, and all the
foothill communities. Our efforts include environmental advocacy and active involvement in land-use
decisions for projects in these areas.
The Rio Santiago project(the Project)will have a direct impact on these areas by ignoring current zoning
plans and making changes to the area plans and the County's General Plan.
There is a long history to ensure this property is kept open space based on actions by the City of Orange;
specifically:
• The OPA Specific Plan
• The East Orange Community Plan
• The Santa Ana River/Santiago Creelc Greenbelt Plan
• The Santiago Creek Implementation Plan
In addition there are traffic,biological and air quality impacts to all the surrounding communities.
In conclusion, we oppose the Project and urge the Planning Commission not to rezone the property for the
purpose of this single developer.
Please incorporate these comments in the public record for the Project and keep us informed of all
progress and actions regarding the Project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gloria Sefton
Rich Gomez Co-founders
Jackie Bateman
From: Arthur Bass, VMD [ArtBass@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 6:31 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller Public hearing
Dear City Planning Commission Members,
Since it is not possible for me to attend tonight's meeting, I am sending this email.
I am writing as a ong time resi ent o Orange since an pas presi en o e o ony
Community Association of East Orange.
I, along with so many other long term residents of Orange, oppose any Zoning Change to permit
the execution of the Rio Santiago development as
it is currently planned. I would not be opposed to the construction of
homes on the 12 acre parcel that is currently zoned for this.
It has become obvious to the community that the impact of such a development would be
detrimental to our beautiful residential neighborhood.
Aside f rom the dangerous precedent which would be set by any such approval - ie. a dramatic
change in zoning would be necessary - it does not fall in line with the Specific Plans for
our area.
The increase in traffic can only have a dramatic negative impact on our community which is
already struggling with traffic issues on Santiago Canyon Road.
If the builder had been interested in beautification of the property rather than trying to
turn around an unwise investment, we would not be lool<ing at a series of ugly mountains of
earth through the chain link fencing.
A High Density mixed use community along with lighted sports fields and courts will detract
substantially from the beauty of our community which has been protected since 1973 with the
provision of Permanent Open Space. How will security be provided for the local residents in
the event of a tremendous influx of visitors to such sports fields and
courts? By then, the developer will have long since counted his money
and moved back to his home outside of Orange.
The Planning Commission is not obligated in any way to change the Zoning for this development
and I would strongly suggest that changing the zoning would be a huge mistake.
Thank you,
Arthur Bass, VMD 6003 Yorktown Circle Orange,CA 92869
714-633-6289
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Robert Wagner [bobw@rw-esure.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:50 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Opposition to Rio Santiago Project
As a longtime resident of Mabury Ranch i believe that it unwise and dangerous to develop this site for the following
reasons:
• The area is susceptible to flooding by Santiago Creek. I remember looking out at the area virtually submerged
from the winter storms of the early 80's because of the overflow by the upstream dam.This was also
accompanied by bridges being washed out on both Villa Park Road and Cannon.
• The proposed high density units will further add to the daily gridlock on Cannon and Santiago Canyon.
Robert Wagner
5637 E Mountain Ave
Orange, CA 92867
714-637-7036
877-903-6496 Fax
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Sue Obermayer [sueobermayer@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:13 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Attachments: Rio Santiago Planning Commission letter.docx
Hello Jackie,
As we discussed this afternoon, attached you'll find my comments and concerns regarding the Rio Santiago
project. Please forward it to the Planning commission.
Thank you very much.
Sue Obermayer
714 974 9234
�
Susan Obermayer
6219 E. Shenandoah Ave.
Orange,CA 92867
714 974 9234
sueobermaver@att.net
January 15, 2014
City of Orange
Planning Commissioners;
Pat Buttress,
Adrienne Gladson
Daniel Correa
Re: Item 3.1 an the Planning Commission's January 13, 2014 Agenda
Rio Santiago Project
Dear Commissioners,
I submitted a speaker's card at last Monday's meeting but am unable to attend the rescheduled meeting
on January 20, 2014. Therefore this letter will express my support and concerns.
The Rio Santiago proposed project offers many positive features for the City of Orange.
• The Parcel on the north side of the creek adjacent to Mabury Ranch, as it will be
donated to the County or another suitable entity and it provides for the necessary
parcel to complete Santiago Oaks Regional Park.
• It preserves this area's portion of Santiago Creek—a valuable asset to the City.
• The project offers a variety of recreational opportunities beyond the usual team sports
that many can participate in—walking, running, biking, equestrian,etc.
• Should the "Y" be financially feasible,they offer a unique synergy working with the
proposed assisted living facility in addition to a benefit to residents in surrounding
neighborhoods.
• The proposed assisted living facility fulfills a growing need in our community.
• Adjacent neighborhoods will finally see an end to the current sand and gravel
operations that pollute the area with noise, air particulates and now increasingly
obstructs the community's views.
• The project leaves the Mabury Trail unchanged and provides for broader use on the new
trail to be built on the south side of Santiago Creek.
As a member of the "Coalition", I have expressed my concerns to the developer regarding safety, sound,
lighting and density.
Placing residents in a dam inundation zone concerns me deeply. While the situation cannot be
mitigated beyond a serious nature, it is my understanding that the developer has made plans for
emergency exists and early warning notification systems. I also understand that insurance, apart from
FEMA's flood insurance,will be available, not just for common areas, but for initial and subsequent
residents to purchase should they choose. I've never seen such protective measures offered before.
Lights and sound are concern as well. This is wildlife area, used to being quiet and dark at night. The
north side of the creek is a sound magnification tunnel. Others, I'm sure will be discussing these
concerns as well.There are mitigation measures to address these concerns—mature trees, appropriate
low,yet safe lighting, an indoor swimming pool at the" Y", etc.
I would also like to bring to your attention that the developer has met several times with concerned
Mabury Ranch residents, listened to our concerns and suggestions and made several adjustments to
the project based on those meetings,
While not perfect, I support the proposed development and would like to see it move forward with
appropriate mitigation measures included in the conditions of approval.
Thank you for your time,
Sue Obermayer
Jackie Bateman �
From: jermarg@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:28 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Development in our city
Dear Planning Commisioners,
Thank you for serving our city by being on the Planning Commission. You have a very difficult job becasue you are
entrusted to protect and preserve out citv from outside interests whn wn�����estrc>;�it
We live in the Peralta neighborhood and have educated ourselves about what has been going on in our city with
developers. It was very disappointing to learn about all of the behind the scenes negotiations that could have put a 380
unit apartment complex on the old Peralta School site.
We feel very strongly that current zoning is correct and should remain in place and we should not overdevelop our city.
When we found out from those that live in OPA that the same developer that was threatening our neighborhood is trying
to overdevelop their neighborhood, we wanted to support our neighbors and our city.
Do not change zoning on the properties near Orange Park Acres (or on the Peralta property if it gets sold and gets to
you). Do not let developers who want to destroy our city win in their fights against neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Margy and Jerry Costello
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Arjun Mehta [amm10008@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:24 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller Site Hearings—Monday, January 20th &January 27th
WE URGE YOU TO NOT RUIN THE CITY BY ALLOWING
DEVELOPERS TO MAKE MONEY AT OUR COST. BETTER YET,
PUT THIS PROJECT ON REFERENDUM.
THANKS,
MEHTA.
�
Jackie Bateman
From: jpauli@pauliranch.com
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:15 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: rkm@snowcrest.net; pafzimmerman@att.net; billtroop733@gmail.com; pinitram84
@yahoo.com
Subject: Comments in protest of the proposed Rio Santiago development on East Santiago Canyon
Road
,
Our family has owned land and lived in the Orange Park Acres area since 1963.We have seen many changes over the past 50 years.
There have been devasating fires such as the Paseo Grande,horrible floods and more than one period of drought such as we now
face.We have also seen a change from farnung orange and lemon groves,and chicken ranches,to rural residential homes. Over the
years we have supported the efforts of many dedicated citizens, and the adoption of many plans by the City of Orange,to protect open
space in this area. These plans have included the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt plan in 1971,Orange Park Acres
Specific Plan in 1973,East Orange Community Plan in 1975 and the Santiago Creek Implementation Plan in 1976.
The reason for these plans were to protect our rural way of life,provide wildlife corridors,prevent building in areas prone to flooding,
relieve traffic congestion and generally protect our quality of life. For the most part these plans have been successful. And,most
importantly,the reasons for all of these plans have not ceased to e�st.In fact,they are even more relevant today than in the 1970's.
Because of this we are at a loss to understand why all of the well thought out plans are now being revisited and potentially opened to
change. The proposed Rio Santiago development envisions 395 housing units on 60 acres of land,much of which is within the 98
acres that had been designated Permanent Open Space. To us"permanent"has a simple meaning. Unless the reasons for
the implementation of the original plans have changed the plans should remain in place permanentiv.
It is for these reasons that our combined families oppose the proposed Rio Santiago development.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marguerite Friend Martin and Family,Janet Friend Pauli and Family,Kathie Friend Matthews and Family,PeggyAnne
Friend Zimmerman and Family,
Bill C.Friend and Family
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Chad Ortlieb
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:11 AM
To: Jackie Bateman; Gregory Hastings; Leslie Roseberry; 'Megan Penn'; 'Jakki Tonkovich'; 'Fred
Talarico'
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago
FYI...
From: Dan Graupensperger [mailto:yonka �acbell.net] �
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 6:14 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Cc: Jennifer Le
Subject: Rio Santiago
Chad,
I am sending you this e mail with the hope that it will still meet the deadline for
correspondence concerning the Rio Santiago project. At some point I anticipate the idea of
senior living used to gain some concessions will be used by the developer. I understand this
concept and in fact think it has merit when used in the proper place. If you look at just this one
issue at least a few things come to mind. The property is located a long distance from any kind
of inedical facility, offices or definitive care. Traffic during the peak times, which are getting
longer and longer, is very difficult. This problem is going to get worse in the future when the
east end is built out. Imagine your grandmother negotiating the traffic during these times. The
developer has proposed mitigating this issue with additional traffic signals. Have you
experienced the traffic now ? Imagine what two more traffic signals will do to the situation.
Libraries, senior centers, any kind of entertainment are many miles away.
At the risk of putting you on the spot which I really do not want to do, it seems the
current owner has not followed Orange municipal code concerning screening and runoff.
To a layperson the lack of trees, fencing, or shrubbery looks like a deliberate attempt to
disregard the municipal code while making the site as much of an eyesore as possible.
Furthermore, it is my understanding there is long established drainage in the center of the
recycle area that drains into the storm drain or sewer system. This will be hard to investigate
as a citizen but there is local knowledge that indicates the drain installed many years ago has
not been removed. The point here is the current owner has not acted as a " good neighbor"
up to this point. There is no reason to think this will change in future.
I suspect that if the zoning and general plan are changed or even a new specific plan is
established they will never be changed back. The developer is under no obligation to follow
through with the development proposed. He may in fact get new entitlements and then sell
the property. The city will then be dealing with a new development that meets the new
zoning but looks nothing like what was originally proposed.
I urge the planning staff to keep in mind the affect of changes like those proposed by
the Rio Santiago developer will have on long established neighborhoods. The people living
in the immediate area have set down roots based on what the city has said will happen, in
�
writing, as per the zoning , specific plans and general plan. These are the people you work
. for and represent, not the developer proposing the changes. Please preserve the wishes of
the local citizens.
On a personal note, it looks like there will be a lot of pressure put on staff concerning
this project. Please know I appreciate the professionalism you have shown so far.
Dan Graupensperger
2029 N. Shaffer
��r��
z
Jackie Bateman
From: Chad Ortlieb
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:52 PM
To: Jackie Bateman; Leslie Roseberry; Gary Sheatz; 'Jakki Tonkovich'; 'Megan Penn; 'Fred
Talarico'
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago
FYI...
From: Charles Leffler [mailto:charlesiefflerCc�Jrmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January Z0, 2014 12:36 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago
The OPA Specific PLan was adopted as part of the Orange General Plan per the
legal rhetoric of the last couple years. That does not change the fact that it is a
County/City area that has made promises and agreements with the Residents. People
who bought homes in the area whether in OPA proper or in surrounding areas should
be able to rely on the City to uphold the OPA Plan agreements and maintain the OPA
Specific Plan which requires 1 acre minimum lots on the OPA sphere of influence
which represents essentially all the homes and multi-family homes planned for Rio. To
do anything else violates the trust of the people and the OPA Plan. It results in Spot
Zoning. The Rio proposal is a non starter from this perspective and I ask that No
General Plan Change and No Zone Change be given on the application.
There are 3 other City/County Plans that are in place on the Rio property. The
Staff Report wrongly states that the 1976 Plan was not adopted by the City. This
fallacy in the report is one of a number that have been noted. These Plans were factors
for approvals of other planning and developments over the last 40 years. Now that
every other inch of land has been slated for development, to wipe out these 3 Plans
for a spot zoned mega development that has no equal in the City of Orange is not just
wrong but based on recent County cases may also be illegal.
Why the City of Orange fails to do proper due diligence and hire competent
experts when they are called for is a serious question. Does the City have expertise in
the Mining activities and contaminants on the site? Were proper methods to clean and
dispose of such waste carried out under correct supervision? According to State,
Federal Mining when I contacted them they were not on site and the City did not
involve them. The willy nilly efforts to dispose of or hide problems was shrouded
behind a mountain of dirt and called continuance of a mining operation. From water
quality to proper screening of the site (per City codes) there has been a seeming air of
neglect and leaving the applicant on the 'honor system' to do what is right. The lack of
oversight and real expert knowledge in handling the demands of this potentially toxic,
flood risk and dam inundation potential area is startling. Is it a matter of ignorance or
does it not really matter that life and property are at risk with this proposal?
Like the Developer answers to the EIR questions there seems to be a
�
tenancy to negate all opposition with just a contrary statement when Facts are what
would be correct and required.
When and what was toxic material removed from the site? Where did it go?
What State or Federal agency did the oversight? Where is the verification?
When was the Villa Park Dam and or the Irvine Lake Dam last certified?
What would be the effect of a 9.0 quake centered in the area? Would existing homes
be affected? What would be the effect on the Rio property? Does the City of Orange
take full responsibility for any property damage or loss of limb or life for what occurs on
the Rio property if approved?
What part of the Rio plan falls under the OPA Sphere of Influence. As a
City/County adopted plan with an active Community that opposes the current
development, legal decisions striking down 'spot development' and changing of specific
plans...why would the City not stand behind its citizens and uphold the existing plans?
The developers knew when they purchased the property what the constraints, pitfalls
and hazards were. They could have put together a Plan agreeable with the
surrounding Communities, befitting the existing greenbelt expectations and done what
is needed to rehabilitate the actual pre- 1950's line of the Creek. Instead they seek a
Gift from the City that strips more that was already taken from the mine so that the
surrounding communities are cheated, over crowded, diminished and become polluted '
with traffic and noise.
� I ask again, No General Plan Amendment, No Zone Change on
Rio/Sully Miller.
Charles Leffler
z
Jackie Bateman
From: donna crandall [d_crandall@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:48 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago
Mr/Ms Bateman,
I have been a resident of Orange Park Acres for 12 years and truly cherish our rural
Sully-Miller property. The property is currently an eyesore and something needs to be
done with it, however, whatever that something is should enhance the environment
and the surrounding residential areas rather than detract from them.
The proposed development would require not only zoning changes, but changes to
both General and Specific Plans of long standing. The developer is not automatically
entitled to these changes simply based on his investment of money in the property.
These Plans and the zoning were created for the purpose of protecting the current
environment of the Orange Park Acres area and nothing which the developer has
presented is sufficient to justify making the necessary changes.
In addition, the housing density would create significant traffic increase along Santiago
Canyon Road, and anyone who has driven that street between 4:00 and 6:30 PM on a
weekday knows the traffic is already horrendous. The proposed "senior" housing
would also increase the risk of seniors with slower reflexes and potentially diminished
vision and hearing pulling out into that traffic and causing accidents. I can say this with
impunity because I AM a senior.
The area in question lies within a flood plain as well. Although we are currently
experiencing drought conditions in Southern California there is a very real possibility of
flooding in that area, which, if built out as the developer proposes, could create
significant property damage and potentially loss of life.
I could continue with myriad additional reasons why this development is a bad idea, but
I realize that you are busy with other things. Suffice it to say, I strongly oppose this
development in its current form and urge the Planning Committee to vote "No" to it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Donna Crandall
�
Jackie Bateman
From: bevtoy@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:18 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller Public Hearing
We have lived in Orange since 1976, and we see no reason that the City should change its zoning to accommodate a
developer who can come in and change the City's plan because he can afford it. We are very skeptical to say the least
about what is going on. BUT-- No zoning changes. Ernest and Beverly Toy, 1074 North Granada Drive, Orange, CA
1
� Jackie Bateman
From: Nick Lall [n16262@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:30 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiogo
Dear Sir,
I am unable to attend the meetinq this eveninq, but wish for the followinq remarks to be entered
into the official record.
First I am opposed to this development as proposed for the following reasons:
1. The mass and size of the assisted living facility does not fit into the surrounding communities.
The three story component is way out of character with surrounding communities and the closest
building of that size is at least 1.5 miles away. Buildings of this size and scope would block the
views from Santiago Canyon Road of the scenic ridges and hills that make East Orange so
unique.
2. The density of the assisted living facility is not compatible with the surrounding communities.
The closest development with this type of density is more than 1 mile away. The existing
neighborhoods closest to the proposed development have zoning for R1 6000 or greater. The
proposed zoning is way out of character with these existing communities and would harm the
quality of life to the residents of these communities.
3. Allowing for a commercial venture (the assisted living facility) even if it is called a residential
facility, is out of character with the surrounding communities. Again, the closest commercial or
institutional facility is at least 1.5 miles away. It would harm the quality of life in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
4. All of the complaints that stopped the Fieldstone development are still present and pose a
threat to the proposed development.
A. Flood inundation zone, should there be a catastrophic failure of upstream dams or flooding
from heavy rains that have already plagued this property..
B. Methane field adjacent and intruding into the proposed project area.
C. Lack of public recreation areas.
5. This developer has proven to be a bad neighbor. They have increased by 10 fold the
operations of the dirt storage and concrete crushing. They have taken an area that is admittedly
an eyesore and turned it into an eyesore that is also a nusance with dust and noise pollution.
There is no reason to believe that their development processes and end results would be any
kinder to the surrounding communities.
6. The developer has had years to find an operator for the assisted living facility but has as of yet
to identify one. If the zoning is changed, even with restrictions, the developer could come back
and request restrictions be removed and other uses ie. apartments or condominiums, could be
substituted.
i
7. The best use for this property is for single family homes no more than 2 stories and minimum
density of R1 6000. It fits the existing uses and would preserve existing views and lifestyles.
Best Regards,
Nick Lall
6231 E. Mabury Ave
Orange Ca. 92867
714-282-7219
z
Jackie Bateman
From: Chad Ortlieb
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:47 AM
To: Jackie Bateman; Leslie Roseberry; Gregory Hastings; Gary Sheatz
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago opposition
Attachments: Attachments_2014121.zip; 20140121113535685.pdf; 20140121113547636.pdf
FYI
From: Charles Leffler [maiito:charleslefflerCc�ymail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago opposition
Good morning, Mr Ortleib
Attached are documents that are copies of or in addition to those I delivered to the
Planning Commission @ last nites meeting.
The maps that indicate the Acreage of the OPA sphere of influence and the East
Orange Plan sphere of influence on the proposed site that were reversed in the City's
Staff Report. This is important because the the OPA 56+ acres while currently
Resource with a Open Space overlay is part of Orange Park's 1 acre minimum lot size
restriction. As the 'OPA plan' is part of the General Plan and OPA is a joint City/County
neighborhood with many people who stand behind the Plan and its proper �
implementation. We do not see any reason to 'gift' a developer with a carve out of our
Community Plan for their financial gain while devaluing our neighborhood. We as
property owners, voters and informed citizens ask that the City honor our 'Specific
Plan' as adopted as part of the City's GEneral Plan and not approve the Rio project by
refusing to grant a General Plan Amendment and Zone Changes that violate the
agreements made in 1973 between Citizens, City and County Officials. We stand by
those agreements.
Please update the Staff Report to correct the facts.
Likewise, the East Orange Plan of 1975 made covenants between Citizens and
City as to the density and zoning in the area. The build out of Orange from the 55 to
Jamboree being a fait accompli does not leave a former 'Resource/Open Space', fair
game for development. Those Plans were meant to guide the future of this area of the
City's development. The population increases over the last 40 years since those plans
inception means number of acres of Parks/Open Space needed have grown. Uzoning
the subject property forever removes it from its rightful potential. That upzoning is a
Taking from the Citizens of Orange to give a gift to an Small Investor Group. There is
no Merit to the Project that could or would justify that 'taking', then building in the fire,
flood, quake toxic hazard area and environmentally sensitive Creek area.
Additional documents attached show the minutes of and or timing of approvals of
and or adoption of the Greenbelt and Greenbelt Implementation Plans. Additionally,
for the record, the Greenbelt Plan was approved as Item #3434 on May 4 1971 .
�
These Plans are also part of the Social Contract between Citizens and City. The
expectation of future Open Space in the Community was created by Citizen and
City/County efforts and that potential would be destroyed by the upzoning of the last
cohesive low zoned 100 acre properties in East Orange. I hope you see through the
smoke and mirrors that the 'gift' of the Creek and area around it. This is loss of a
liability for the Developer. County Flood Control, Federal Fish and Game to the Army
Corps as well as various Waterway Agencies have strict codes and restrictions on that
section of the property. In addition, FEMA updated Waterway Restrictions and
Regulations after Hurricane Sandy. That should be part of the input on the project site.
I strongly suggest the City check with FEMA about compliance with new Federal
Regulations concerning development along Waterways.
It is really great to see someone on the Antiques Roadshow come in with an old
beat up item they bought for $5 that turns out to be a rare and priceless treasure. More
often, the gilded, freshly finished, shiny item is a fake where the buyer overpaid and is
holding a worthless white elephant unless he can deceive some rube. In this case all
the GREEN we are seeing is flashed in images before our eyes to distract us while the
real GREEN, our potential Open Spaces, Safe and Healthy Communities and
Promises kept between Citizens and City along with the Gift of Millions of Dollars for
Upzoned Spot Zoning disappear in the night. Keep Orange's integrity and
commitments to its citizens. Reject the Rio Plan. Vote No on the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Changes asked for on the Rio Santiago project.
Please include my comments and all documentation attached in the Rio record.
Please contact FEMA about the new regulations for building in Flood Potential
Zones.
Again, I ask that you update the Staff Report to correct inconsistencies and errors
in the facts on Acreage on the site for OPA and the East Orange Plan, the fact of the
Greenbelt and Greenbelt Implementation Plan approvals and adoptions by the City.
These Plans including The OPA Plan and The East Orange Plan are social contracts
that deserve honor and commitment by the City of Orange.
Thank you,
CHARLES LEFFLER
10693 ORANGE PARK BLVD.
ORANGE, CA. 92869
2
v
Jarivary I:'�, 2O1�i�
Pa�e 8
5<zntiagc� �'anyqn Rc��c�, ��n��ijor azterial. A signiiicani num�ier of lr�ts in Qz�an�e P��rk Aeres
have horse-boarclin�facilities a��ci tk�e ar�a is InteLfiwi�ed witfz ari e�:tensive trftil iieti�orlc.
F'art of. the ea5tei�.l3T section of the site is cuilently in tile (?ra:nge i'ark Actes Pla.n and paz�t of
tlle weste�•ly section of tlie site is cturently ia tIie Fast Orange Gener�l Ptan. Tl�e projeat
�xopc�ses rerr�oval af ttze sitz frozn both ptans and re.placen�ent wiill the s�ibject S��eci�ic Pl�i�
(D�IR,Fibures 3-8 a�icl 3-9}. The�,ast tUl•ange Cicll�ral Plan c3esigr�ates its rEsl�ective praject
portions as "Santiago Ci•ecl� C'rreei�belt �id 'Regional Park." The C}ra��ge Park Acr�;s Plan '
ciesi�nafes its�•espective prt�ject,hc�z�ions as"Santia�o CreekGreen Belt T'lan."
Greenvelt Plans
Se�veral corrimcnts were received regard'nig the �elief tl�at tlie following doe�.miei�ts
summarized I�e�,nruuzib an pa�;e 2.5-� of t11e FFIR {Respozise to Comn�ezits) are Cifiy-
approved;
� Sanfia Ana River,Sa�atza�ca Ci•ee�C G��eenbeX#PZata(SARSCGP)- I97� ,
� Saa�ta Ana T2iverfSantiago Creek Crreenl�elt 7�nplemelitatiot�Plan{SA itSCGIP� - l 97fi
� Santiago Creeic Vision Plat1-20��
Tl�e F�IR st�tas ihat tlibse documents were nevei-�ido�ted by tl�e City wzth tl�e:exceptiati of ;
' �oi�tions of tl�e SARSCG� as impiemented as paz'k �f #he OPt� Plan, Evei� thoiigh tIie
clocuinents were not all ado��t�c� in entirety, the cio�uuleilts xern�in as colniiiunify efforts to
;' guic�e the Futtu�s use of t�a praperties ineludecl witf�ir� #hem, including the pY•oject sit�. ;?
I}evelUpmeni of the project wou2d r•educe frl� C�UGUIIi�ilt's visionS fa�• th� praject site l�y
replacing greenbelt areas wl�.�re clevel�}�mairt is 1��•oposed. '
,<
Well.Parcel
C7ix the tract map just south of Lot 18 in Plaruiina A�•ea D is �s�paxate sinall�arcel tlizt is not
o«nect Uy tl�e applicalit. The t�ntative traet tnap lists the parcel as "not a�art". An inactive
bxit z�ot abandoned well exists on tlie "not a part" wel� paxcel. The applicanfi }�rc��oses to '
pl�ce a zoad t�ver this �arcel al��iougl� the a��lieant does �l�t ctn-��e,ntly owu or have
devzIopment x•igfzts over it. The parc�el is laca.ted be�eath oz�e of the project streets shown on
the tract map. Ptarsnant tc� ti�e Subdivision Ma� Aet, the City .nlay not px�eti�ent access o��
�itilities tc� tlle parcel. Since tl�e paxeel is bei�zg ct�vered by a�roject streef, ap��roval of the
project woulci include a condition that tlie a���licanC tilt�st obtaiu owz�erslup of tha pareel sc�
the roac�can be built. If ownersl�ip c�uuiot 3�e obtaiued,tl�e tract map rel�tec�to 1'lanriiilg Area
I�«jould lje void a�zd a reviscd tract x��ap and associated Pla�ii�i�Area U�3rojaet addressii�.�
tl�e weil�arcei woulcl need to be a}��roved. y
��2
Page 3 CITY CDUNCII.T4INUT[iS pfay 1£3, 1976
IN RL T'EE6 �D2 CAP.NIVAt,S AND SPECIAL EVENTS;
The Ciey Munager remarked tliat the 3aycees woatd I.i.ke to he presenc
nt the di scuaaion nn c�ernival and �ppcial Pvent� Fnas_ r�r,,,nr;imr,rt _ __
PeYez nnnounced the PresEdeit[ of the Jaycees had requested q con-
Cinuance so they may off-er oGher alternatives.
, tfoved by Councflman Perez, seconded by Counciln�nn llerrera� and duly y,�� �
adopted, consideration of fees far carnivals and special events i•Tas '�
continued to elie meetitx� aY June 8, 197b, per request af Che Jayeees.
IN R4� SCk4�DUL�' OF PU6LIC }[�ARlNG 4N PRQPOSED pRELIMINA1tY BUDGET - FY 1976-77:
The City Pfanager explained to the new Councilmen the procadures and
schedales whlch are .Eu11oV�ed fn the preparaCfon of the annual 6udget,
He suggested tha� che public tiear�ng commence et 4:00 p.m, on ,7una 2.
Council di.scuesio�t eiisued relative to the m�st appropriate time foc
the public hearing� with a concensus that it shonld be heerft in the
evening foc citizen participation.
�J�
Fioved by Coun=3lmxn Pezez, seconded by Counr.ilman Beam, and duly ��
adoptEd, to set £or publ3c hearing at ):0� p.tn. Suae 1, 1976 con- �i��
sfdeeation af the Proposed Preliminaty $udget for Fiscal Year 197b-77,
vith the understxndin� that chould hudget consideration noe be com-
pleted at tbat tinie, Council may have [o cnr.ry ehis runt�er over L°o
�dednesday night. ;
IN RB APPRWAL OF S21NTA ANA 1tIV�R/SANTIAGO CItEEK GREP�NSELT PLAN:
Aasociate Planner Norvin Lanz presented a status report on the progress
to-date o£ the Greenbelt ttnd Zmplementation Pl,an. He itidicated on a
Greenbeit Status rtap the projeet-ed devslnpments und on a Development
Scheduie Map the est3.mated time for development of Che vari.ous phases.
He further iterated that ovr etaff had developed the overall pinn
for the C1tg of 4range, C1ty nf Villa Park, and the County of Qrange
And that thera tiael beecf no remuneration given the Ciky for this work.
Thare c�ias Cocmcil discussion whether or not a policy had been con-
sidered by the Greenbelt Convnission as ev maintenance; and the concept
o� an executive �o1f eourse aC Uie Bixby borrow sitE witti the deter-
mination that the city canoot assisC financintiy fn suoh a plan and
it would have to be doae hy private investora. In response ea a
qaesCion from Councll on wbether tt�ere was an nrea large enaugh for
a golf course under fee titla� Mr. Lanz remarked that there were
approximateiy 10� acres in the aortheast section of ehe Graenbeit urea.
Moved by Councilman Perez, seconded by Councilman Bakxexa� and duly
adopke�l, Clie report on the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt
Pian �ras accepted, and Councii upheld Ghe recomruendations of the
Yarks, Recteation and Cultural Arts Advis4ry C9mmission thut the
Cfty projects be adopted da part af the Greenbelt F�an and that they.
be placed in tite highasC yxiority as follow�: �"
1. El Camino Rea1 Pstk Development �`.•�'�
2. Secondary Bike Txai2s
3. tlsrt Pnek Extensian
4. tiitching Post at tlz�rt Park
5. Cerro Villa Park
G. 13itching Post in the Upper Trail ak Yarba Yark.
IN R� £Ii2I? TRUCK IN EL 24f7DENA PA2K - TO BL [tEMOVED: '"'
Pioved by Cauncj.lman Har.rera, �econdad hy Councilman iioqt, and duly .�h`�•.
adopted, authorizatfon was given tn sell to the highest bi.dder, Che",;
strfpped surplus fixe truck presently located in E1 Idodena Parlc.
IN RL' DIC�NfENN1AL Ctk•fMZSSi02d ANNUAL REPORT - Tb BE CO2lTINUL�D:
The Cil-y Clezk ennounced that Mr. Gene peyer, Chairman of the
�, - , , ,_ _._ _ :
:�
� ���,�„�;,
�� >�
�
�c�
„•1
�.lclnnt��C 1 ' „ 3 �
i � ?;z�'�-ilb�l.t. 1 ��.�_7.�:i�txe� , L'hc� , � �t�a t tli. c,r.•ih� i:.��r. 1.ii�t:.i.tut�1,�:�e.
�
!�,� :lt i.�>n ���� t:�r il J.s � Lt���g Ch� c� ���1;, ��r�ic:l i u�l�i_c�a(.:��:� t l� �i ��nt��'il �����`�.�
<<�.t.� u;�t �a �I��vt�7.c,f���ta1�t c>� ttae �;sec:nl>� .I.t_ c:�.�t t'i.G��>7� r>c f u��s;, tl��c: � l
,�� ���_�l�>FaE�iiez�t �1: .i�i izl�:c��ri.r�z lr��i.1 sy.,t'e��t .al��n���l.�l l>c� ..�ct���'vc:�.y �Sur.�u�cl. { >��
�i��;t? 7'C'}:��).CL �'���:1lil'c1CL'S ��1��1: 11�L".11lli'it:('. CC�lll�:)� Ct�:l{�71 t')f� 1.E1�,' f;t:f'GJ7E)�.�,�;° ''
. , . .. .
� k�.-"�;
. , ;
,. ,. . v.... , � u .> �. .._ _. � . . . � ,
i
��?) (�i- itl�,�. `I�� r.i_�:y� s �,ax t,�.ot� ��f.' Cl�e� .a�i��L'3 fina� �
!;i.rk�x-/;�:���tt i_ri,�,�� {'rz�k Cxt-��r�kae�.t. �Cnr�:,tc.�niei�ll.�:a�t�3_ori I'7.�i�� v�<�s ra�j�����'Uvet3 r.,.��, ,
t»> i_f�i�. t��i.��' C��tirz7cil an 1�3 1'•�zay 1.976. T�ri �tclri�it;;i.t��r� k:r.> c.�1t��r.�i�.t:�r , � '�
�i:��,�, ,{.�i_�, �.t�ti �.he �,�r.��r�l�c T t GE���X���a.:;��i.c,ri, t:hF� c � t;y I�U�:� �:7.r����id�c7 �
t t:«�ly ,�����! 4t:ri1�� r.l<��il-�l�lc7u�:� :i.n s��j�por-�t o:f t:l�ie �cairi�t. �.�t.`u��ty �Gr� �,��
�itai��t.7�:> �t�c� :l.:arrci �.:se �lec:.isivn irincic7 Ec��- tlY� .;�iii�::i.r3�;r' �;re�lc ar�cl �
3
` Etzi:�� 1i7�� C -�tt�'c>a�. 'Iiic� r.�.ty's t':iti�c:`�� C=r�=�nbc>li. C:t�i7-�lnitL�.�: lia5
h���t� ��.:z�E�t.ic�na3.��.y }� }� f'. ��
ti«�ti.�4� i.Y�� �,la� �z��r�l»�.t: � �� ,rrtn�, a��d ��s � :�
5 ��z-�<�,c( �1c�s�l�� �:-itl, tl-�e conrmi.ttees aL t�c�i�;htanx-znf; Jurisdx.ctions �
��i�c� �},�a_� ��a::t=:±:;; iz-� th� c��veln��tiz��7t c7f �;�r-e�e�t��bc7_�C: �r>1s,iris, t�f�m�ber;� � � '�
, . ' .� f;s c,�:i.t1� c:l�velc�pc.r.s E
c�I ?�:r� c��t��x� t�e� hav� ��z�te��clPci �i�i���cr�iis tnec.��s_�i
c ��aa-� zi�� ��I������ric�ri z1Ptix�;t.�pi�e��ts G�Lon�; L}�� �;r.ee;r��1-�e:l�t corYido��• � P�.,,!
t � �•:�..��t:�Ezci ����3 t��x:c����iciecl c;canln�enls ane] x-ecomi7ienc�r�l_ior�js to �t1zeir
ci.t:�>' -; ��?,3n:n�.r��r comi:ii.ss�.an a��i:i counca.l �:ibouL t:hc• cc�mp�tiba..lity � !
c�;• r�:1 �n� t• �_t;� t-li� �:,r�r-_�iil�el_t�, ��nd in �;ei�ez-al l�,<�1�e heen � fc�r.ceful, � .;
c.���sti t c��-i��e :i.�7fluex�ce orl tfiaii�taini.zzg L-11e inGrti41 ��ncl civality
t,.
��� t:a��� is�'�:t�.?�zt�?� p-;c��;r�tn,
(,:_� S�t�1ra �zi,��. 7"Ize ju�-isc�ictior� o� the �i'�� o:E � �`�' '��
� ;
:� 1 �L'1 � i ; c XiE�Tlt.i9 1.11CC) rF1� 5$:1�.1z't��{: �.T��1�. S(yf�T11P_llt� c1T1Cl ].tS
�,? :'�::i-t ��: t�ic":Tl I.t]C',Z.LI'i.�(.'S '.iC'VE.�Zi3.�. �?]"C7jL�(��S 111 ��li�l; S£'.�CRE'71� . �
��:•::1
;`�) t°'i.I7.4� �'��rl�, 'I'1-�e c:i.1.y' ;, pc.�r�3.t3n of the Satlta � ; '
:�;��; ::����.�;'�>,.it.t.7.���;c� CrLek C>rc�enbelt ImplGment�zt:;i.c�ia l'1ar� ��a�s
;'� ���?� ��c ;�� cr� , uirc�nt�l�y c�:•it�7 t}��c� C_is:y= c�� 0�~a11�;C ' � �E�o�rCiz�ra , anct � j
":} � �,�, t � C;.it� C'oL�nGil c�r� 2� AIr_�v :1..)7�. The C:i[:ir�n ��
t:'<1[i 3 )t :,i.,„ i� .�� � . .
(; -e�>�?���:i4 C t�r�::�t_*�ec:� l��zs T;rc�rlcecl �l.nse.l}> xai.t�li ��i�rl s;enerall.y �
,1'-a?."Z" [C I:i;;ii:rSC� i_>I �:�it' j�t'C'GTIf]f?� �: �Y'C)2;1'�:1Tll lY2 �`t �.:L�CE? [iifiTlT1£?�' , 1.11
� ,_. �:":r' �, . �; Y-� ' � ��;s
..� �=:i'.E i ai_t.t'E.� 3... , �lf? C.:0J72Ill:l.�.t:L�Ca {).� L)1I211�'��'. ��
L.,,�
� � [ E'� [i�t�:�T ( n�'Y](;�C)'I" <titt� �til)�IZ r 1�T'['1. � ,
i `l}ze t�Ut.tndari�,s ;
��� � Is� ��i : ,E �' s eenhc.l2: c��� z.i.�tc�i• ;�z7�c1 ,i.rn��.:�ct. �.��-�� t:ar t71e Sarit�agt� '
C;+ t s�' ,c, ,�::e � tt�i� ��r:�����e����' �a��� 2 }�� �I�'lir�:L: 7 �i7��a�� ��rov�.c3�c1 xn �rI�I7�L�� � �;
�f,
.�(.7 i. �{?:�C'. �}t.�lli.11(x17 J (.':) G7C'Y't' Cjt?�.(�I I:l,ll'1C'l� h� ilI1C� 2'C?��_f?Ct,t:C� 1.11 t�'1� :p
�C l'.?!'i?�.i.. `. �.c2[7 r {73 �-t (:' C'1..�...1,L'.S l,)� t)?�' r .� �'•: �`,
i 4l71�L 3 .at.11l��".cl L�Tlil � c1TIC1 ��1�.�.c'1-
'a�?:,I� .
�
�
�� } � ��;E �_���rs, i:rld��r C,cai�;�tr_�����t.-i.i��ns ��t��� PS.ann�� �Pro_ject�s . � � �
: I.114 � .. �.�:.a14 {at: � �r;}�� �7xr�jc�c,t� :is� GI�F� �;41rztiac;� Cr.eelc se�ment i.s �
�a��' ���� �,7� r :� `�' ��`� >�� � � ��:����1 �2i 1�'1t��111�t1�: ;�1. . 1'h� numl:�er.in�, sys�:em is ���
:z �, �. � ,.�_�r,� �:t ��1�;z�. ���,e �1 �,i.z� t.l�t�� t,�11�a:- c��-riclox• se�me�y�s an�l � �
cl. � �� ..!�c ��l :t"_�� ��.�f;(+�il: �i,
a �
(1) � ca��ic ��t�r�.az� �'�-�zi:1e (I l.annecl. SCO--604) : 'I�h�is
� ��{� � t � � �r, � � ��i.7. a� ��1.ar�n�t� alc�n� tlz� �n�:i�-e let�gtlz oi t�he L�za�r
:;�+7.� �.,��;,,,� ';���-c�t.l;, �'x•c���� t.l�� S�nt�� A�t� �Rive�- up �:o the Vill� Parlc Dam.��� �
�-£31_
��
F
'; ,,: ;
i
�
i
�
�
` �,+ r� ������`�,�. ""',,? .�.��������^�� !
rR- ✓ � � � r �r r'� T.�f�'.�'
�� i � Y-�'a i ��4 a.�i `.- t. v� ��Sa�` .2*t Yv �+l" .
,r�'y,�"y.��G� u'7 a;,�„Y� F r+S �xa� -��� h' }'' � k,t��r*.rt� . ,�'- ;
/'�rs"`'�� t'�'� �'E'�".��`� p� �� � �r � ��y��������k}i������ -
����� ��'i!� �� �a �+ r F ��Y ��a Ty .
,��y�z����„�da �r.'s� � �r�� � i� �77 �� � 'xi+i I
,� a N. rf - �� �' r��
:.:-'�i�ks�` 'T�r�,�.. t :_�^„ .:;-i - — � .� Y�','!1��;.�""��
h���.�}�'x, F�� ��c� ����= �u����� �c��er�m�e�.��� ����-��.����� '
r ''�h.rf t i
�.e<.�t� � :� . � ..�� � .. . ,.�• „ �- , �` '.y�. �; �� ;
:��+* L��'tJ�l1��.�'i ` ' �� � �,
1���. �� � � i
�: P err�an+� ��r e��i�rc��rn�r���� -���"��� ��� ,
�� � •� r `"�*�����''i i
. . � . � .�. . . : �.�-. .::. . _ , . .. ... .
' ' '.. � ' . :: - '� ,;, : -. . ': ,.' S �„r � �
': ., ' . ... .::, .. . . 2jfF'�� i
. �h� San�t a �,na R�ver/San�iago Creek �re�en��l� P�:�� - ;� ,�t����Y�,
- ;
_ :
.
. _ : -
._:
_
� :}
� y�arn �
�� r�ngl y recommends gr een b�l t �and r�c�:ea��c��a� ,������li i
� �
i
.... . . � -" '.. . ... � ' '�:
ar��s i.n �he ��t ur e deve 1�p��ent c�f �r�n+�e ���n��_ : ' :
�
,
, , ?
�i sic��i f�.can� par ta,on o� •C�range Park Acres i� ��-� � � I
' ` ' i
compa�sed iri thE Cr�enbel �t Plar� for upper Sant ia�g� ; i
- ;
Creek . Fage 3�'d �� fi��.� pl an� vv�hi ch i nc� udes t�+� �
�
.�, ,.� �� � ,
�rang� �'ai-k �c°r�;� �.��L,�=� s, �.<r ����c�c���ed on the �
;
,
�a�.�owing pag�; e � I
�
" F [- �A. �� .i���"f� �. � I
The San� � .���t� ��._,.,� ,: � 3�,���, �.�c�c� �r�ek Green ` i
:
bel � Plan, d�� ���. :��a�` �-���s 1���'� , h�� recei ved �nan�. an�us :: ;
. , ,; ;; ;
i
gover nmen�a 1 s u�a�or � s �t �r;r�s �dop� ed by t�e �Qr�r��� : ;
��.��r Cauncil on 1V�ay 4 , 1�'�1 , in Re sol u� ion No . 3�3� , ;
� �
' i
a�nd by the �ran�e C�.ty Cocanc�. 1 on May 4 , 19�� , i� , �
`�� r
i I
�e so tut ion N'o, 3 43 4 , a�d �y �he �range �oun�y 7�5�i ;
. ' y�--"'� �Gi'S �
1 . ' . ' .'.�{F�
� p �una 2 3 � 1�7.]� �n ��� '
: �3o�r`d o� Su er vi s�or s on r � ���,��� �
3
� E , �.�r �
t �� u����5��� i
,�4�.� �fJ�. ��:�fl3'� ' ��C3. ��. �-��� .
F-i�h rF�.��r . . . .._. �i+cn���f �
f�t
�Yr'y.L� 1 h �-. . ...: 42n�{�j,.'•"� I
���f�..�r%`A ., � '. F 1 F�y'1�'v � _
} 1
n� �y � -�` '^.. ���
F �'J�"��'���. r�- +"3;�r F..'�4�a�
_ 's`"'�"�,�� : t. „{�.. �
��#� n c �.�'�'�7--.� �.�'.n+,
w�r �P .x" ��
z��.�s4 r 5��'�3t S�'f.S'����y I�
�
�r "� = �„t�r��'"y3�w���� � �
r -� .'� �' ' . � �^.'�5�� r.
.. .����3:.�::s r_ -:,:. ,.`.:t ..;: ._....':� . . .. . '�: ... ...1 ::: .....:; ...'t ..-., . ..<'u..�.c �'1;+.a.�`�,�_ . .
�
G � �``��, ,
,�
3.0 Praject Uescrintiorr
Law pensity Residential
The Losv Density Resiclential desi.�aatian i-csidential clensities rat��e from 2.1 to t.0 uilits peT•nei acr�.
The Lo�v�e�isiryResidei�fial designatio�includes:
Ca�tuer�tional si�agte fermily i•e,sider7tial clei�e�lopr�len� efzarereter�iaecl �ip inclr`i�idual a�irtgle-fr�rr�ilv '
homes e<nrsU•a�cled irr a�ubdivisio»s, or�bp ctrstam �irrtil.i� builr o�� ir7divid�tal lots. {Ciry ot�ranga
General Plan;Table LU-I) ,
Land uses witl�it�this designatic�n 1rc dcscribed as E'ollows:
Tfae Low Ue�7sily Residentbnl desigrtutinn p1•cvicles fai� typical si�7�Je_far�iily reszden�i�(
�aeig176of•froUda�. Loiv Defisity/�e,sider�tic�l�rse,r ma'Ire z�p.tlre r»c�j��r-ity o�la�td z�ses ii� Ol•arrge, ancl
ai�e fotuad Ihroughaui the CiiJ�in both olcler; estublisl�ed ar•ens, strc.lt as Olcl'loivne, a�ar1 nerver '
develo'�amertt areus,includirtg Fasl Orrrng>e. �City oi'�range General Plau,Page LU-16}
Tl�ere a��e na proposed chauaes ka tf�e General Pfan t�xt faa•Loti��Dez�sity Residential.
East Oran e General Plan Amendment � U z i -,
g ��.. ��� � ����-�,��'�l�-���, ��,�?�� �'
The proposed project would also a�nend the 1975 East Ora�ige(EO)Gencral Plan by renioving the��rojeci
�,� �J�'�����. site fron�tlie plan voundaries. The ex.isti��g�;Q General Plan desi�nates these areas as"Regional P<uk."
� r� � 'I'he applicant is reyuesting an atnendmenY to the map and texE of the EO Gencral Piau to removs tl�e
���'� ��,��� � ,
prvject site fi�om the LO Gener�d Pl�n boundaries. I�i the EO Cienerai Ptan, appt-oxSm2tely 40.3 acres - � ;
t'i� �,t�(}��- �.�^' wocilc( be rcmoved fi•am t11c �ipproximate 1,900 t�tal aeres �vitl�in Yhc :EI' bou��daries. (Elecfronic
y�'�`�� V`�-"`������ communication, C. QYtlieb, Februaiy 1l, 2Q10}. `I'I�is is appra;cin�at�ly two percenE of the overall �,O
,,( f General Plan. Figure 3-8,Enst t�ra»gc Gener�ul Plan, depicts the portion of€iie project sitc withu�the
�������n•�''')�� East Qt'ange General P(an and the�rea propos�ci foe cle(etion.frn�11 tFie EO Gener311?lan, T'I�e deletion of
---��---� the p�-oject site from t1�e EO General Plan allows development ro oecur as proposcd in the Rio Santiago
Specific E'lan. Tlje deietion Uf the��raject sife from tlre �;O(3eneral Plan luault( ii�clude i•en�oving the
pr�ject site throughaut th�docutneat's grlphics. Text changes would include any reference ta Elic pi�ojcct
site and changes to statistics based oti the removal of thc project site.These changes are ouflined above
and pz•ot�ided iit defail ii� Appendix P, East faetmge Genar�at PJnra and Ch�artge Pcn�k A�re� Plat�
.4nae�adirzerris.
Orange Park Acres€'lan Amendment
The proposed praject tivould also amend tlie Orange Yarlc Acres Plan (OPA f'lan)by i'e�noving the pi•ajcct .
site frc�m the plan baun<iaries. Thc existing OPA Plan dcsignates these areas us "Santiago CzreenUelt
Pian." The applieant is requesting an anzendinet�t to the.u�aF� a3id text of tl�e�Pf1 Plan to remove t[ie
�roject site frc�n3 fhc O�'A Plac� t�ound�cic;s. In t(ie OPA :Plan, apprc�ximately 5�.45 sacres wot�ld be
rein�ve�i of ihe �ppz�oxiinate 1,734 total lcres within the C1PA P�an. (Elech�onic: cov�i��unication, C;.
Ortlieb,February 11,2010). This is approxitnately t}u�ee percent of tIie averall OYA Plan a�reage.Fi�iu�e
3-J, Ornnge Par�k Acr�es Ptara, depicts the portion of the pr•ojeet site within khe OPA P1an tind the;
City oi Oranr�e•Draft F1R—May 2013 Pac�e 3-17
kio Santiaga Projeci SCN No.2QO�J051072 '
3.0 ProJect Qescription '
proposed deledan fi•a��� fl�e OPA Pla��. Tha deletion of th.e p�r�ject site fio��i� Cli� OPA I'lan allows
tlevcla��uxerrt to occur as pro}�osed.in the Rio Santia�o Specific Plan.Tl�e cleletic�n of the prajecY site fi-c�m
the QPA Plan would inc(ude removing Qte project sitetlu�oug(iout il�e ciocirrrtent's�r-aPhics. Texk ehanges
��ould i�iclude an.y refere�ice to t1�e project site �nd cl�attges ia statistias Uasecl on the ren�ovai af tlze
pa�Ujzct aite.These c[i�nges arc outlined aboue arld provicled in dctail in A��pendix P,Eas[Or��nge Gerrer•trl
I'Jun crrr�l Oru»ge Prn�1c�er•es Plail fimencl�rreJats.
3.4.2 �one Chanc�e(ZC 1254-O�J) :
The prqposed}�roject woulcl cl�ange the existing zc7ning c}istc•ict classilications on tt�e.luojecY site.from S-
CT (S�nd and Gravel Fxtractic�n) antl .R-1-8 (Single-T'amily ltesidenlial 8,000 s.f.) to P-t; {1?laimecf
Cou��nunity District), T'Ite proposed chatiges are depicted in I�'rgttre 3-10,Existittg and Pr�o��oserl2o�airrg
Distr•icls. The Znning Gode of the City Municipal Ce�de dcscrit�es Tl�e P-C tlisteict�s follows:
The Pldtv�e�!C`ont�ntrrrit�District is irrtendec�In prcn�ide for cr nlor•e e�cie�t trse oJ'1ut�r1 nrttl a
Getdet�contrntn�it�� ern%it•nrtr�teril fiy z+tllizirrg�rrnr•e rnragi��titive arad irlraovative�lat�nin�r cotice�ts•
llacin l��oarld lie pnssil�le arrrcJer cor�ventiorral zoning controls, {OMC Se�tion 17.26, .Planned ;i
Cummunity District,Section 1726.010,Puipose and lnt�;nt).
3.4.3 {�io Santiago S.�ecific Plan(5P 001-U9)
The Fn•o�aosed pi�ojeet would include the adoptiozi of the Rio Santi��o S.pecific Plan f'or the en€ire site.
TI1e Rio Sanfiag�Specifie Plan describes tUe land uses and circtilacion patterns proposed Por t[ic project
site, as well as the in.#i�astructtu•e impr�vements necessa��y i� implei�ient ttie �t•opnscd pi�aject. Tl�e
purE�ose of ihe Rio Santiago 3pecific Plan is the systemaiic in�pleme�itation of t.he Gity's Ge��eral P1an,as
�uncticlec3.Figure 3-11,P/a�rni�rg Areas,<iepicts ttic pl�nniiig areas for tht Rici Santia�o Specific Plar.�.
Page 3•18 City of Orange-Dralt EIR—May 20 i3
SCN No.200905?072 Rio Santrago Projec!
i
���.�..,.. ,� .,r �� ;
\ �:� " :,',�: .
� �,,,
f i
* L� t�y� § j.E�i+ �.
1
_ 5i:� E
i�,t}/ � ���? � �:
7 'S ����q ������� 1',' � }
t i �
��', �<,a5;� ,_
F 7 ��� t t
).
y i ,.
. l } ��s, '.�.
� :
��� . �� � sF.
'�` � � �.�r �i ` -
""� j `r �
. ;R: 1�
1 . '�� . . �� tt'.� ..
,� k. .-S ��.a _...,�
r.
5 . �. / 'y `;�.
�,'��4 a. `i, '4 f�: '. . .:. .
�
t}�'S'. �.� �.� .-t'r � ✓i-' _.�.
{i;;`' .t s � ��i��`} ,' t'�.� ... `=�.'
{ ,��"f .
c 4� : �1 ; Y !, . . ,.
/' y� 4
r_f )�� '�� i� ��'67�� .: . �... �.
'�Y+y&, �
.'q ;Q,.' l:t ,
. �� , �. . . . . ' '��. , ��.
);i,' _
U n �r!':�:t��.. :1:?�':. , . . .. . . ... . .. . .... �.
I..ut� 1 r a!r' . .
{�:1 i�it:.. . , � c .. .
I'Ll:
Portion of projeet ar�a remov�d frt�tn�7PA Plan '
« �.,,�� I
_...s._.......
�=�a��,ro�a��,�n�.s,����,�
r,�,.: ,.�..-• -,��_. �
�:,.x. ,
� �� i
;.:�6vrr �'-,^.. �
-'--
�.,-......_.� ------- ,
r'
, : > ,,
�,,. , .:: _
:. _ ,..
..��-_,_._..__.........._..._.................:::�
. ..__.._�
. ,.__...__._____.__..__._......_..—.
{ __..�
- --- ---�
,� s , -- _^;
.:. ,/ �range.Park Acres ,...--�-` _.,_.
.,J,.• __.. _
�.� ..,,_._ b ,�.._... /^ . ._' .
._.._�.....v ...
, � -•fE1}'1....,_.....,..._......_...�
, �
�" '
._.. . ......"� ._T
��..,......� _ .... - ''.
i-._..._._ -..:...,.-.-r
�•-�-�..� '��
�� `i" �N� :.Tf� �'�:� �J
sa 1 �,,; ,
� ��� T.
�t
`-,
�;
tIJ
Portion �f project ar�c�removed fr�rn t7PA Pian
SOLTftCE:IC'I'Gl'.
VISTA N '
ORANGE PARK ACRES PL,1�N N�- S� A
RIO SANTIAGO PROJECT- �ZTY 0� ORANGE FIGURE 3-9
. ' . . .� � •..��� �i,� '�� �.
;. '�'..,,,,C .. �.
. - � .� �: �` .
�:
� t
. .. � t�..,:� .
,' ��,... . , . , :
, • . . .f .. - .
,
h t'z ,�
}1. .
. � ,. '. �� . .
r z
, 'r,�i .�
. - / k 1� ..•`
1 `
y !
� :� ... t ' `"4 ��a'-
, -i., i ,''r`. �,'A t...
�,,` �,
- -_._.._............._..._....�_
P�irtian c�f proj�ct ar�a r�mQv�d fr+am ��,7 G�neral Pian
i���•��a �
:� �:.irrtina�r F.;ts��a,c«I�+s:civPY�u.� . .
,�. t•,� ..� J'r.��"'..r.....,. ..,v,ti__'"_.._..�... •,,
+�.
� ',
`, ,,
+ � . �
r: � ":_ �:: '.� i' :
�. .�IiS�IIs2 �:y ,..�••+✓ ;
�,,.,_._..••� ��;,�etnriu���.a�s�.� `r.. ,.
I. . .. _. J
1 ;j, � ��
� . -
; `���';�,..._�r ;:,� .."`„�,....,�� `�;.
ie
soUxc.E:xTc;Y. Pr�r�ic�n c�f prc�ject ar�a remoued frorn Et�G�neral Plan
VISTA N '
EA.S'T ORANGE C�'.�rENERAL PLAN �o-S-rI:E A .,
RIO SANTIAGC?PROJECT- CITY OF O�ANGE FICrLTRE 3-�
Jackie Bateman
From: Chad Ortlieb
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:35 AM
To: Jackie Bateman; Leslie Roseberry; Gary Sheatz; 'Megan Penn'; 'Jakki Tonkovich; 'Fred
Talarico'
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago
From: ionesvictCa�aol.com [mailto:jonesvict@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:27 AM
To: Chad Ortiieb
Subject: Rio Santiago
Good Morning Mr. Ortlieb:
I understand that you are the Senior Planner at our City and for the Rio Santiago Project.I want you to know that I am
extremely
opposed to this project on so many levels.
This site is a toxic landfill that you are well aware of. Developing this land is hazardous to the workers as well as the
community and
ultimately a death trap for its occupants.We mustn't forget that this project is downstream from two very old earthen
dams!The traffic,pollution,the density issues that go along with this terrible project is a big looser in anyone's
book.
Along with that,Milan/JMI are asking for preferential treatment or in other words, Spot Zoning for their investment.I
experienced first hand the abusive treatment that they dished out in the last go round on the Ridgeline projeCt on
the citizens of Orange. These are not people who deserve or have earned any preferential treatment of
any kind. They don't care about anything but their bottom line in profits. They will have a big bag full
of money if this project is approved and will pass it off to someone else to develop and change again. It
will be the City of Orange that will suffer the heartache and the financial ruin if this project is
approved.
It doesn't matter how pretty their visual aids are for this project.It doesn't matter that the City funds will
increase with this project.It doesn't matter that this proposed project will"beautify"the environment.It really doesn't
matter what Milan/JMI say or do.
This project is deadly and needs to be denied.There shouldn't be any discussion or contemplation,it's a bad project for
EVERYONE.It was denied
before and should be now.
Help protect the City you have sworn to uphold and just say NO to Rio! I appreciate you taking the time to read my email!
Thank you so much.
Michelle Gregory
349 North Renee Street
Orange,Ca.92869
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Chay Peterson [sprockethead@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:38 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Please say NO to Rio Santiago Plan!
Dear Orange Planning Commissioners,
I am asking you to kindly reject(say"NO")to the Rio Santiago development proposal as it is inconsistent with
OPA and East Orange Community Plans. There are inconsistent zoning issues and you simply don't put
housing units in a floodplain let alone a dam inundation zone next to a methane Qas landfill!
The current zoning as "Resource" - meaning 'Sand & Gravel with a designation as Permanent Open
Space for 40 years' is not consistent with a housing project.
Let's think ahead for others' safety and welfare...let's think ahead for more open space for our
families to enjoy...let's not allow a developer to change the City's General Plan.
Thank you,
Chay Peterson
local resident & agency director
environmental organizer
mother
Chay Peterson P.O. Box 613 Silverado, CA 92676 714-649-2820
i
Jackie Bateman �
From: Jennifer DeRosa [jennderosa@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:27 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Oppose Sully Miller rezoning
Please put us on the record as opposed to the rezoning request for the Sully Miller site.
We are long time residents of East Orange. and a�preciate the semi rural nature of the area. That is the
reason we choose to live here. The proposed development does not fit with the area, or the site.
Thank you,
Jennifer DeRosa
Christopher DeRosa
714-998-7466
7216 E Magdalena Dr
Orange, CA 92867
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Carol LaBounty[oc92869@ymail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:50 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: "No"to Rio Santiago Project
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I urge you to vote "NO" on the Rio Santiago Project. This plan is wrong for the City of Orange. It is
wrong to build such a project on land containing methane gas. It is wrong to build such a project on
land that will flood. It is wrong to build such a project on land zoned as open space. Please think
about what is right for the residence of the City of Orange and vote "No" on the Rio Santiago Project.
Thank you,
Carol LaBounty
8245 E. Ironwood Ave.
Orange, CA 92869
oc92869(a�vmail.com
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Sybil Leffler[sybilleffler@ymail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:02 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: I am opposed to proposed Rio Santiago development
It is wrong on so many levels. I request that the Planning Commission do its job and reject it outright.
Sybil Leffler
10693 Oranqe Park Blvd.
Orange, CA 92869
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Marius van der Watt [marius.vanderwatt@teradek.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: No to the Rio Santiago project
Attachments: Rio Santiago.pdf; ATT2888640.htm
Dear Jackie,
ease m a written version o my o �ection to t e io antiago pro�ect, t at voice at t e meetmg on
Monday night 1/20/2014 at the planning commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Marius van der Watt
10941 Meads Ave
Orange, CA 92869
m: +1 .714.813.6200
�
Good evening Commissioners. My name is Marius van der Watt. I have lived in Orange for 16
years.
Dam failure and ensuing dam inundation cannot be mitigated. Period. It will have a significant
and unavoidable impact.
y i ur .
Inundation means to overwhelm. It means destruction. You don't allow housing to be built in the
path of two earthen dams in a known seismically active region. We get earthquakes. Things may
be fine today, as we're in a drought, but history has indicated differently.
Santiago Creek has a history of flooding. Many times in the last century floods and heavy rains
have washed away homes near Santiago Creek. Floods in 1810, 1889, 1916, 1927 and 1938
created damage.
In 1969, all hell broke loose during some of the worst local storms of that century, swelling the
creek into a raging river 125 feet across. So much debris backed up water at the old Santiago
Creek Bridge that county flood-control officials blew it up. Homes washed away until the U.S.
Marine Corps flew in helicopters to shore up the bank with junk cars. A flood of that magnitude
will wash out the entire Rio Santiago project.
The county never rebuilt the Santiago Creek Bridge, instead adding a new bridge at Katella
Avenue, which forms the Sully-Miller site's we5tern boundary. Successive storms wiped out that
bridge twice; engineers finally erected the current bridge.
The sudden release of water, in the event the Villa Park dam failed would be phenomenal. The
water would blast and scour everything. Rocks and boulders,trees and buildings, cars and
people,would all be swept away in the disaster. It would be a matter of minutes, not the hour
and 45-minutes the developer's consultant state it would be in Table 5.9 -14. Add in an
earthquake and you have a real mess.
The project concludes that a dam break east of the project could cause loss of property and/or
life BUT that the project merits should override that risk.
This is an outrageous request and puts seniors, especially those in the nursing facility at risk. This
is a tremendous liability for the city to take on. No one should be exposed to this kind of risk not
to mention the potential property damage.
These are real dangers. This project should not be allowed. Nowhere in the Orange General Plan
do we encourage projects that put life and property at risk as does this project. This is not
consistent with good planning.
I urge you to deny this project.
A better use of this property is one that minimizes the risk to private property and to exposure by
the City.
No change in the General Plan.
Marius van der Watt
10941 Meads Ave
Orange, CA 92869
Jackie Bateman
From: Barbara Hillman [hillmanbarbara@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:46 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago
Dear Commissioners,
building of houses and senior living apartments. Please do not amend the Orange City General
Plan.
I have lived in the city of Orange for fifty years, I hope you will listen to me.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Hillman
4317 Fairhaven Ave
Orange, CA
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Eric Noble [eric@thecarlab.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:42 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: VOTE NO on Rio Santiago
dear planing commissioners and city staff,
zoning and previously approved plans matter. Rio is inconsistent with the OPA and East Orange Community
Plans.
our city can to better.
�����������;
..f.�...r.�,.��r.����.�._r��.f.�.,,.
Eric Noble
eric(a)thecarlab.com
217 e. chapman, orange ca 92866 usa
ph 714 532 0192 mobile 714 813 6799 web thecarlab.com
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Hi1110457@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 7:28 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: No to the Rio Santiago Proposal
Planning commission,
This life-long resident of Orange urges you to reject the Rio Santiago proposal put forth by
river. It will happen again. The Santiago Creek is too precious a natural resource for the
City of Orange to endanger. We need more open space! Please reject this ill-advised
proposal.
Doug and Arlene Hillman
766 N. Shaffer St.
Orange, CA. 92867
1
r
Jackie Bateman
From: Sue Vaurs [suevaurs@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:30 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: I am opposed to changing the zoning in Orange Park Acres to accommodate the developers
of the Rio Santiago project. or any other subsequent applicant
I am OPPOSED to changing the zoning in Orange Park Acres to accommodate the developers of the Rio Santiago project
or any other subsequent applicant.
Sue Vaurs
251 N. Cambridge Street
Orange, Ca 92866
1
Jackie Bateman
From: B. Korb [barbara@inmccloud.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:06 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller rezoning -oppose
Attn: Orange Planning Commission
Numerous highly valid reasons have been presented by concerned citizens opposing rezoning.
When considering the facts accurately and responsibly, I don't see how the Planning Commission
can even begin to consider rezoning.
I cannot attend the 1/27/14 meeting. Please vote NO.
Thank you,
Barbara Korb
10881 5 Meads Ave
Orange, CA 92869
714-538-3328
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Lind, Casey[casey.lind@alcon.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: cl.lind712@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Rio Santiago development in OPA
Importance: High
Bea,�s:-B��e ,
I am emailing you as a resident of Orange Park Acres,to let you know I strongly oppose the proposed Rio Santiago
development. As a now 5 year resident of Orange Park Acres,we are fairly new to the area. As part of our decision to
move from Irvine (Turtlerock)to Orange Park Acres, we carefully assessed density, planning development, and
equestrian trails before purchasing our home in the Saddlehill development.
I work in Lake Forest, CA and commute from Orange Park Acres. It would be just as easy to have moved to Coto de Caza,
where we did seriously consider equestrian estates, but felt connected to the OPA community and tight equestrian
community. We also enjoy the Circle area in downtown Orange and have been very happy thus far with our decision to
live in Orange.
My husband and I believe the Rio Santiago development is inconsistent with the Orange Park Acres and East Orange
Community Plans and ask that the Planning Commission representing the City of Orange recognize this inconsistency
and support our community request to disapprove this development.
We oppose the Rio Santiago proposed development. If you have any questions or would like to reach me directly,
please contact me either via email or at the number noted below.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Casey and Larry Lind
664 N Ranch Wood Trl
Orange, CA 92869
949.505.6332
Casey Lind
Surgical R&D
20511 Lake Forest Dr, Lake Forest, CA, 92630 USA
T +1 949.505.6332 � F +1 949.505.6439
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Jason Webster (jasonwebster75@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:50 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: East Orange Development/Rio Santiago
Dear Mrs Bateman
Please consider the following current issues when reviewing the plans for East Orange
1. Traffic is already horrible in this area. Traffic backs up at Cannon to the north all
the way into Anaheim in the morning and traffic backs up for miles up Serrano. Traffic
studies need to be completed to improve current traffic issues and correct them before adding
additional traffic with development. Case in point, an evacuation due to fire from Serrano
Heights would be impossible given the traffic congestion at Cannon risking the lives of
residents.
2. Dust and pollution from Sully Miller gravel operations. This plant needs to be shut
down. When they increased activities 4-5 years ago the dust and pollution in our area has
increased to horrible levels. Causing asthma and allergies. They have even built a huge
hill out of no where. This land should be built on or replaced with parks which do not
pollute.
Thank you for reading my email
Thanks -
Jason Webster
Serrano Heights Resident
1
Jackie Bateman
From: David Swoish [dswoish@greatpac.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 9:02 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: 'Linda Swoish'
Subject: Rio Santiago
HiJackie,
I would just like to chime in on the zoning change request for the Rio Santiago development. I am a mountain biker and
an equestrian, and I think the entire feel of east Orange would be changed by building a high-density development on
the Sully Miller property.
Please deny the request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave and Linda Swoish
Orange Resident
David T. Swoish
CEO
Great Pacific Securities
151 Kalmus Drive Suite H-S
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 619-3000
daves@�reatpac.com
www. r� eatpac.com
1
Jackie Bateman
From: David Hillman [giddyap@att.net]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:38 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: I oppose Rio Santiago
Dear Planning Commission,
i an is ea ing e communi y o in a e u y i er minin y
operation has got to go because it is an eyesore, and that the only solution is to approve
the Rio Santiago development. The truth is, there is no mining operation, right now all the
activity on the site is ordered by Milan. They are backfilling the site in preparation of
building houses. And doing this before the plan has been approved, because they have a mining
grading permit.
Milan portrays it self as a benevolent developer of a wonderful planned community, but
they have never built a housing development, nor a senior living development, or a sports
center. They are NOT a developer, they are a land acquisition and investment company. They
buy land that is under valued because of it's zoning, rezone it, and sell it.
I am OPPOSED to the Rio Santiago development.
Sincerely,
David Hillman
4317 E. Fairhaven Ave
Orange, Ca. 92869
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Bob Rooney[rcrooney4@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
We are very much in favor of a development that would improve the Sully Miller sand and gravel property.
We have lived in the immediate area for 35 years and not at any time has the property been anything but a
hlioht to thP Eact nrangP rnmmunitv_ ThP "C�nPn Snara" rIP��Dnat�r,r, ha� nr,t heen nf henefit tn.�n�one whn
lives there. It has been unusable and unaccessible to the community.
A Senior facility is not only a use that is in demand in the City of Orange, but an excellent alternative to higher
density single family residential homes.
The development of a limited number of single family homes would likely increase the value of the existing
homes in the community.
Wouldn't we love to have open space that we can access and appreciate?
A Private Sports Club? I don't recall that an 81,000 sq.ft. facility has been proposed. But fields and a managed
recreational facility is a considerably more desirable prospect than a sand & gravel pit.
The proposed setback and landscape along Santiago Road would certainly provide a more pleasing entrance
to any of the communities on the south side of Santiago.
Sincerely,
RC& U Rooney
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Alice Sorenson [ASorenson@Ires.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 12:52 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: Alice Sorenson
Subject: Submission for Planning Commission meeting dated January 27, 2014
Attachments: Alice Sorenson -email version.docx
Dear Ms. Bateman,
Please find attached comments regarding the Rio Santiago project,which I would like read into the minutes of tonight's
Planning Commission meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend due to personal commitments previously
made but I do want my thoughts and comments publicly recognized.
Thank you for helping me to get this accomplished.
Alice Sorenson
Chief Investment Officer
LRES Corp.
Corporate Headquarters
765 The City Drive South,Suite 300
Orange, CA 92868
O 714.520.5737 x125 � F 714.520.5499
asorenson(a�lrescorp.com � www.lrescorp.com
� „-
' ��-��
S�- .r:,� . a', ,:a�E,> . •.:�i = .w_
�.,-.r-.f�w�����
�t��ri��t� �•�<r.�t e s;:. x, z .
1
_ _
Planning Commissioners:
I currently serve as Chairman of the Orange Park Arenas, Equestrians, and Trails Corporation,
also known as OPA-ETC. We are a 501C3 non-profit organization and our objectives are:
• To promote the use of Orange Park Acres' equestrian arenas and the multi-purpose trail
systems that support them,
primarily for equestrian purposes, and
• To provide equestrian educational and recreational opportunities for the benefit of the
community.
Our major responsibility is one that is very important to the vitality of the equestrian
community in East Orange. We are the stewards of the Mara Brandman Horse Arena. In the
two years that we've been at the helm, we've installed a Class "A" size show arena, warm-up
arena, round pens, fencing, grandstands with shade coverings,jumps and other equipment and
even we`ve even installed night lighting in the show arena. This was accomplished through the
dedication of the Arena's property owner, who is also the owner of the Rio Santiago property,
as well as the hard work of the OPA-ETC board and staff and our incredible volunteers who
rebuilt and re-energized the Arena. If you haven't been by to see the new Arena, it really is a
facility of pride for the entire City of Orange.
Last year we brought new programs to the Arena, including English and western shows,
gymkhana shows, cow sorting, clinics, and summer equestrian kids camps. I'm proud to report
that the Mara Brandman Horse Arena is THRIVING.
Now, with Rio Santiago, we have an incredible opportunity to expand the Arena. Upon
approval of Rio Santiago, an additional 3.7 acres of land adjacent to the Arena will b� donated
by the landowner so that the Mara Brandman Horse Arena site can be permanently expanded
to encompass a full 7.6 acres.
The prospect of expanding the Arena is very exciting as it will allow us to grow our
programming to provide additional community, educational and volunteer opportunities. And,
it will allow this beloved jewel of Orange to forever remain an Arena.
On behalf of OPA-ETC and all of our community partners and volunteers, we urge you to
support the Mara Brandman Arena by voting to approve the plan for Rio Santiago.
Thank you.
Alice Sorenson
Chairman
Orange Park Arenas, Equestrians, Trails Corporation
Jackie Bateman
From: tdcdnd@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:20 PM
To: Jackie Bateman; tdcdnd@aol.com
Subject: Planning Commission
Attachments: Letter to the Planning Comm1-27-14.docx; OPA DeBerry_42210_Itr copy.jpg;
Position_Statement71108.pdf
Jackie,
I hope all is well with you. If you would please print this email and the attachments included for the commissioners this
evening.
Thank you so much.
Warm regards,
Tom Davidson
1
Tom Davidson
6122 E.Santiago Canyon Road
Orange,CA 92869
January 27, 2014
City of Orange
Planning Commissioners
e: io an iago
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I would like to clear the air on a few items that the developer seems to continue using that paints OPA leadership
in a bad way.
First of all Milan representatives continue to say that City Attorney David DeBerry removed the OPA Board as an
advisory committee to the city of Orange because of misdeeds committed by the board.This is not the case at all-I
have attached the letter that Mr. DeBerry sent to me. It states that there is mutual animosity that exists between
both groups and therefore it would not be right for OPA to review the development(s)they have in the City of
Orange.
The second item that continues to be dragged through the dirt is the"win win" proposal.This proposal was done
IN AGREEMENT with The City of Orange and the developer.OPA leadership asked if it would be possible to have a
third party mediator-The City Council agreed,the city Attorney agreed,the developer agreed as did OPA
leadership.OPA put up money and so did the developer and we went to work. Hogle Ireland was hired by BOTH
parties to mediate the process.After many hours of work OPA came up with what we called the"win-win" Plan
and submitted it through the city.Within minutes of submitting that plan as a starting point an all our blitz and
assault on OPA leadership was launched and the developer has never been back to the table since.That was July
11, 2008. •
This developer refuses to take ownership for the problems they have caused.Their negative tactics continue to
skew most everything they present.Just like the Vice-President of Sully Miller pointed out in the flier that
Milan/JMI sent to the entire City of Orange. If one reads that mailer you would think Sully Miller has made that site
such a blight-NO NO NO it's the developer that has done that just to get neighbors to say that anything is better
than the blight that is there.Sully Miller was a great neighbor,citizen and friend to the City of Orange.They kept
their site clean,well planted and screened from neighbors-AS city code calls for.The first thing the developer did
was ignore city code and remove all screening to expose the blight they were creating!
As many have testified to last week,this developer has a long-standing reputation of bullying, heavy-handed and
deceptive tactics.They have tried for the last six years to vilify, blame and discredit the OPA leadership.OPA has
operated in good faith,stood firm and is committed to protecting and preserving our community.Witness by the
successful referendum and 2012 ballot measure to save open space.OPA has strong support in the City of Orange.
So, please understand that what this developer does is to drive a wedge between the community and create
animosity.When they use a document,such as they have presented,to the Planning Commission that accuses OPA
of bad behavior l do not feel that I can just let it go.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tom Davidson
� n T �il"O >,y i, C '� T � p � .
� C ,�" .✓ � N '� �� P" � O .cv
n .J v � . ..0 3 '� T, � c... c«: � ' rn
� � � � c�d Q
5U � v
� Y '�.n., � '� .�„�p m v y O .� •�.�, v' ''�'�` ..D . � U
v c�. .D ~ "' O. � � CS � av-� bq 3 � � ^ '
i. �
—n- p ai `� '�ca' '� � � � � pj � v�i :iy •C b O > C7
LL U O � '� � a a�i � fi �,.0 cJ p � O U . ,�0 p Q
'v � ,�'. . s.. Q � � �S t�., U f C ��„ � 4-� ¢
Cs O N 'G P. G bA O
c, •c � �d � o c�i 'a � . y co � � ,° ,o �
� o m � ...
N °�_„'^ � �� > s '�- •� � 3 v °' -o m ^ rQ.n
QO � C � ,+; � ^ k • a> >.. `n 4.
.� �.� U a� � � �,a' � .. � � � Q � �.�. 0 C
r�� � N � i,� L � �� �^ � H W � GYl � O �v j,
"�"_'+� ' � � :fl 3 C y " ` � � >,Q c � � °�
v � �°-•-c o -� � � r �o c R, a�i � `� O �h, �+ " � \� u;
� � � � a' � z v � � � ^ +�o � o a, � � �'' � y � 'a
� 3 u � CQ �� O 2.�„ -� ' i-, ."� ,.�-' .�, Y U � ..._...., `. ` °' � Z
� � r _c � � �z U �z .4 � �'� � i �o � � �� � c �
o ~bo w � O � � � �m � � v �� � �a ^ ,.c�', �' ,� a
O nl � 0 `n c.-� ^'3 U U � cl N,"\'i="C7 � a
N �' . � s'�-. � �''y � L �V � ,� .� Q� � v� F� � 'n � \. > .� U
G N � Q C ^J',-� Y 3 O � " O � � c�d `� �, N T� " '3 ^ J W
O �. .� ? > a� . c> v J � � `��° �+ % � o
'� c� � cy =� v C ~ cJ ,.T, ' v � o
V � tU cG t-. c) ,� y " s: �
... Y C � � � +�.~�. ,~? N v U +�+ � cv'S� y;, �" i,
� ,�^ . ;� iJ. . 'l7 ti�,.� uy„ � � �
C � � +-. N � .y G O '� C � ,B .^ "'' 'J �G a3i Q � ��
C�1 •� � �o o . � � � � cs 4, � � N '> � -� a.
U~ G `� coc' � N' ;;^ .� o ,� � � � � o U •� 'vro :o
o `� � � ov�- � � '� �1 ,� Y � c .�o,, o, e� � ¢
O C � � N GD'_' � O G �' W
c0 j r/1
� a. cJ ¢' Q, �, O ;� O � >,U
o �Ni, � o c.a` •GC.� v, � m �' � o `' y 3 �Y a' � � �'
o d •�, m > � • � � ':.. 4, ia G v o � 'o w
,^^p N ti Q� > � '�,, � .� � ''�" v� � � .J d •C � � U .C�, � . . p„ U
^ v Ry � � � � 'C � � � ,C. N. ... '.. �` '� '�y +�'. G�' i� w_-�..v... � .^� .. ....... V
_.. ... . .. .. . . .`.. . " N . .
� d' G' r� � .� U .�' V 'b vi ...u O '� F P.•�C„ � pp� � 4. � '
� yG�'��y���'p,� W r�-. "`�6— N C. ��� .� C T�' N � b .�^.. � � � .,�r, 4-+ � = bU �n Y U �
� � ' -.�� Z � , N �j r �, cd G ':� ^`vi C '� q O C �
r.;c
a,o - '+'.- o a, > x �' � � F- w o "� > r �=. �U�, F- a. �:. ��� d •,; W �
,','s - e f- '' r� 0.'G1 �� - � � � � � y 'U � .� •� c a _
U
��'•:b �r'� Q C c .-C N y � ~ 1-. T. r r�-� :CI �„'.� ;J � ¢
. .
�
r��, ;� r � � O .s � y �;. ca c c ,a' � m� a. ° � �
. . . .�- _.._0 f"'� C4..Q . ...... . Q � C x . ' «' . O i
....__ . ___. ........... .V.. ..._........ _...._ --'.. .. ........" .:.:. __.......... .
On May 9, 2008, at the request of OPA, the City retained Hogle-Ireland, a land use consulting firm
to act as a facilitator between OPA and John Martin. Both Martin and OPA agreed to use the
services of Paul Ireland, signed the agreement prepared by the City and shared in the cost of these
services. The City was supportive of this process as it has an interest in processing a project that
has a basis of support in OPA-the community in which it is proposed. After several meetings, the
OPA Board and the Real Estate Committee reached a consensus and on July 11, 2008 forwarded
their Position Statement to the City and Mr. Martin.
ORANGE PARK ACRES
POSITION STATEMENT
For Alternative One and Alternative Two
JOHN MARTIN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Orange Park Association Real Estate Committee and Board of Directors have
considered a development proposal(s), prepared/presented by the developer, for several
parcels of property controlled by JMI Properties. The Orange Park Association Real
Estate Committee and Board of Directors have, additionally, considered alternative
options for these parcels that did not originate with JMI Properties.
Immediately below is Alternative One of two alternative position statements prepared by
the Orange Park Association Real Estate Committee and Board of Directors. Each
alternative addresses a development option for properties of extreme interest to Orange
Park Acres. The alternatives are mutually exclusive, i.e., either one or the other may be
selected. Alternative Two is also presented below following Alteniative One.
ALTERNATIVE ONE
Six parcels have been considered and a preferred development option was selected by the
� Real Estate Committee for each. The six parcels (each with a stated preferred
development option) are as follows:
1. Ridgeline Property—52 Acres:
The approval of thirty-nine one-acre minimum equestrian lots will be supported but only
if items 2-5 below are concurrently cominitted to and, where appropriate, improvements
funded.
2. Arena Site (Site H)—7.6 Acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing 39 one-
acre ininiinum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, the Arena Site (with
iinprovements yet to be determined by OPA, and funded by JMI Properties) will be
irrevocably dedicated to the Orange Park Association or another entity established by the
Orange Park Association.
3. Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve(Site B)—43 Acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing 39 one-
acre minimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, JMI Properties will
dedicate to the County of Orange, or to the County of Orange and the City of Orange
andlar a non-profit public interest land steward, the Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve.
The dedicated Reserve shall be fully improved to the standards similar to the concepts in
the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and consistent with the requirements of the
regulatory/resource agencies with jurisdictional oversight.
4. Recreation Parcel (Site C)—30 acres (+/-):
Concurrent with or in advance of the approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning
allowing 39 one-acre miniinum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, JMI
Properties shall provide for the developinent of recreation opportunities on Site C.
Minimum facilities that must be assured include several sports fields, tennis facilities, a
swimming pool, and golf related opportunities. Assurances that development will
providers, agreements with a non-profit organization such as the YMCA, or the
reservation of sufficient cash or other funding instrument assuring recreation
development.
5. Equestrian Parcel(Site D)— 15 acres (+/-):
Concurrent with or in advance of the approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning
allowing 39 one-acre minimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project initiate
construction of an equestrian facility on Site D. Parking area shall be limited to that
necessary to serve the equestrian facilities.
6. Residential Site (Site A)—25 acres(+/-):
The approval of the zoning to perinit one-acre minimum equestrian lots (R1-40) is
supported.
ALTERNATIVE TWO
Only two parcels have been considered as a second option. These are the Ridgeline
Property and the Arena(Site H).
1. Ridgeline Property—52 Acres:
The approval of approxiinately twenty (one-acre miniinum) equestrian lots, with the
inclusion of a ride in arena, will be supported but only if items 1(a) and 2 below are
concurrently committed to and improvements funded.
1(a). Recreational facilities on the Ridgeline Property to include (at a minimum) the
tennis courts, swimming pool, and clubhouse/restaurant, shall be retained and improved
with no "down time" during construction of the approved residential homes.
2. Arena Site(Site H)—7.6 acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing
minimum one-acre equestrian lots on a portion of the Ridgeline Property
(approximately 20), the Arena Site (with improvements to be determined and funded
by JMI Properties) will be irrevocably dedicated to the Orange Park Association or
another entity established by the Orange Park Association.
Jackie Bateman
From: grtsmom@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:22 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rezoning of East Orange Property
Dear Jackie Bateman,
I am a resident of Santiago Hills and I am not in agreement with the possible rezoning of the 96 acres on the previous
�i" Aill�r Prn�art� f�;��nr.Prn i�thP high density and traffic. I am also opposed to the making of anv chanqes to the
the four existing plans adopted by the City of Orange that were agreed upon years ago.
I do not feel that his developer has any intention of developing this property and if the City does go against it's
community,just watch, this developer will be laughing all the way to the bank once he flips the property.
One of his many lies, that has been bothering me, is his offer of Dam Insurance. I Googled this and no there is no such
thing as Dam Insurance for a private homeowner. Now there is such a thing as Flood Insurance.
Thank you for your time and I hope you will support your community with a no vote.
Charlene Rus
Orange Resident
8316 East Woodwind Ave.
Orange 92869.
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Brian Stewart[brian@castlecrags.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: brian@castlecrags.com
Subject: Comment for tonighYs PC meeting
Attachments: 140127 C of Orange Plan Com Sully-Miller comment.pdf
Please find as an attachment my comment letter.
PIPa�P �nn�ic�Pr
Thank you.
Brian Stewart
i
January 27, 2014
City of Orange Planning Commission
City Council Chambers
300 East Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Cont vin am�il• ihatomannrit�mfnranoa nra
RE: Special Meeting,January 27, 2014, Item 1.4"Pubic Participation", Proposed Sully-Miller Project
Dear Commission membership,
Please consider this letter as a written public comment regarding the proposed project currently under
review by the Commission. Please also cause this letter to be incorporated into the public record of this
meeting.
Having attended the previous two Planning Commission meetings regarding this project and having
observed presentations by both Planning staff and project applicant I wish to comment the Commission
on its orderly and civil proceeding in reviewing this project.
Additionally,the proposed project applicant's architectural firm warrants a high commendation for their
preliminary efforts over a great deal of time and the quality of design controls being proposed within
the current conceptual plans and displays.Their presentation has been useful and effective at conveying
the scope and nature of the proposed development.
However,there is one rather important element of the applicant's project to consider:They propose to
build the project on the wrong piece of dirt. As you are aware of and as the applicant and public is well
aware of,the subject parcels of land making up the proposed development are designated"Open
Space"within the General Plan.That planning designation had been established by virtue of existing and �
organized processes for land use planning efforts that have been and currently are in good standing.
So then,there is that question "Why is the Commission even considering this project?"(After all,the
proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan).A member of the public had asked this very
question at last week's public hearing.That question still appears to remain unanswered.She had
further commented that she felt it a waste of the Commissions and public's time to even proceed.That
said, I have to agree with her statements and fully support a motion to deny this particular project
application.
Having personally spent over twe�ve years occupied as a Vice President and contracting officer for a
medium sized development corporation here in California,one would think I would support the project
or any project for that matter. Our firm designed and built homes on a for sale basis (typically,averaging
approximately one hundred units per year). We built whole communities that are a part of today's
cities. However,we would never consider a site with the designation, physical exposures and history of
1
opposition this site offers and represents. if I were to bring my bosses or current associates a deal like
this today,they would likely think I was drunk or hallucinating. Regardless,the applicant's project makes
no practical sense in the scope of expected land use planning that is of record at this city. These
applicants are big boys and if they take a loss or experience any short comings with their efforts they
need to accept such.They should have known better.After all,they have experience in commercial
development and may need to learn that the residential industry is just a different breed of cat to deal
�nrit�.
I have also had direct experience in specific land planning and wider area plan processing(an additional
twelve years committee and Board memberships,etc.) I have respect for that process and would expect
this Planning Commissions and the elected Officials or Orange to honor the time and effort that has
made up any rational planning effort.To do otherwise is rude and disrespectful to the overall General
Plan processes and to the public being served by those individual efforts making up a plan.
I truly look forward to a time when our local planning efforts are respected and enforceable.A time
when community means just that: common unity. I look forward to a time when local land use planning
is decided here,at city hall and not some far away courthouse.
Please do the right thing and merely deny this project application.
Very Truly Yours,
��`�'`�'�'�''' �.._�.
ff ���� ..
�':.,�:s , �,,''
f�
Brian Stewart
10881 Meads Ave.
Orange,CA 92869
2
Jackie Bateman
From: David Sonneborn [drsonneb@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 5:29 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago plan
To: Planning Commission members
transparently what in the E1R, within " topical environmental issue areas" after implementation the proposed
project," ... would remain significant and unavoidable.."
The areas are: " Aesthetics, Air quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation/Traffic, and Cumulative
(Aesthetics, Air Quality and Traffic)."
I wish to amplify and clarify my concern, here. ( i cannot attend this Monday's meeting.)
First, on the topic of significant,but hopefully avoidable - I posed these questions to Mr Ken Ryan at a small
meeting of Jamestown residents shortly before the first scheduled meeting: What does significant and
unavoidable mean? What specific items does the EIR claim to be significant and unavoidable? Who wrote these
claims into the EIR?
His answers were that the significant and unavoidable claims shocked him also,that the owner would need to be
asked, but that the claims were written in by(or in consultation with?) Attorneys, in his mind as a safeguard
against law suits.He also offered the opinion that many, if not all, significant items would likely be reduce
below significant levels during implementation, in direct contrast to the language reported in the planning
commissions invitation.
So,the above provides an important, if not critical,basis for my request that the planning commission request
that the owner+/-Attorneys specify overtly and transparently just what he/they claim are air quality, water
quality and transportation/traffic issues that remain significant and unavoidable, as well as why (on what basis).
We all have seen that "boiler plate "phrase "significant but unavoidable" in EIIZs, with little to no provision of
specifics. I- and I hope you-want to now what the OWNER claims is significant and unavoidable. I am in solid
agreement with salient "vote no" concerns expressed by others - e.g., about methane, flood dangers and traffic
flow. We need to know explicitly what the Owner claims.
Also, there is another sense of "cumulative" which I, and others, touched upon-i.e., the sense of"cumulative
over time". This surely needs to be evaluated by the commission.
Thank you for your attention. David Sonneborn, 1183 Navarro Pl, Orange, CA 92869, Cell: 714 390 4329
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Rich Dobson [rdobson@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 5:41 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago- Please vote"NO"on this proposed development
To: City of Orange, CA Planning Commissioners
From: Rich Dobson
Subject: Proposed Zoning Changes for the Rio Santiago Development
Dear Ms. Buttress, Mr. Correa, and Ms. Gladson,
I apologize for not being able to personally attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting. For your
information, I did show up for the cancelled January 13th meeting and attended the complete January 20th
meeting. I found the January 20th meeting very informative and compliment you on the conduct of the
meeting.
My name is Rich Dobson. I live at 1510 N. Stallion St. in the City of Orange. My family and I relocated to the
East Orange area 30-years ago, in 1984. We live one block from Santiago Canyon Road and 1/2 mile from the
proposed Rio Santiago development
The purpose of my email is to write in opposition to the Rio Santiago development and its proposed zoning
changes.
My major concerns include:
• The increased traffic and congestion this type of development will bring to Santiago Canyon Road, its
surrounding streets and neighborhoods.
• The location of commercial enterprises on the property including the proposed 2-3 story senior citizen
housing and private sports complex.
• The unsuitability of the property for any development due to the presence of inethane gas and the
property's location on a flood plain.
• The loss of open space in East Orange and its replacement with high density housing and commercial
development.
• How the proposed development will detract from the more rural nature of the East Orange area.
I am against any type rezoning or"up-zoning" for the Rio Santiago project. Please maintain the
site's current zoning status.
Help East Orange preserve its more rural character. It's what makes the area unique in the City of Orange and
so special for current residents and visitors.
Please recommend to the Orange City Council disapproval of the proposed Rio Santiago development and any
zoning changes.
i
_ _ -
Jackie Bateman
From: Greg Cygan [gcygan@HERITAGEOAK1.ORG]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 5:44 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Meeting tonight on Rio Santiago
I am a resident of Orange living at 747 N. Rodeo Circle. I support the project at Rio Santiago as I believe that not only
would the project beautify our area and get rid of an eye sore, but would also provide some great resources for our
community. I am very, very bothered by residents who believe that they can dictate what a land owner is allowed to do
who stands up and opposes this project on the grounds that the city should turn the whole thing into a park be asked to
pay for it and propose that to the commission. You must establish a process that a project which has merit and meets
all technical guidelines is allowed to move forward. I am so frustrated with the fact that the OPA association (in which I
live) believes that the can control the entire city and not allow any opposed projects to move forward.
I hope the commission is successful in green lighting this project!
Cheers and Regards,
Greg Cygan �
President, Heritage Oak Private School
(714)401-2636
�cv�an@herita�eoakl.or�
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:This communication contains information belonging to Heritage Oak Private Education which is confidential and/or legally privileged.
The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any
disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information is strictly prohibited.If you have received this
communication by error,please delete it from your computer and notify us immediately.
1
_.
Jackie Bateman
From: Melissa MacDowall [mmacdowall@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 6:34 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Importance: High
As a long time resident of Orange and one who will most defiantly be impacted by the Rio Santiago project I
being proposed. Rezoning open space to high density housing is so against the plan of our community. I can't
imagine staying in the Orange Park Acres area with that dense of a housing project right around the corner.
Pleas do not allow this to happen. We count on people like you to listed to the voices of the people. Please do
so.
Warmest regards,
Melissa MacDowall
IMPORTANT: Privacy Notice--This message and any accompanying documents are intended oniy for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged,confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicabie law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or
copying of this transaction is strictly prohibited.If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and destroy the original transmission.
1
Jackie Bateman
From: ArtBassVMD [ArtBassVMD@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:06 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago discussion
Good Evening,
I will try to attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting but it looks as if that may not be
possible.
,
the Rio Santiago project could ever be permitted.
The Rio Santiago plan does not fit with any prior OPA or Community Plans for the East Orange
Area and will have a dramatic negative impact on our community. . . and, I fear, will
negatively impact property values.
Approval of such a poorly conceived plan would constitute a slap to the face of all of the
residents who have clearly stated their opposition to this project.
It is certainly clear that the developer planned all along that it would be possible to
influence City officials in a manner that would bail them out. It is also very clear that it
is not the responsibility of the City, nor that of the Residents, to help a developer turn a
bad investment into a money making venture.
If the developer ever had the notion of making the prior Sully Miller site into an
aesthetically pleasant area, then we would not have the current appearance which is an insult
to the entire community. They would have left the trees along the fence which had previously
provided a green, attractive appearance.
Why would any responsible developer want to build homes next to a landfill area that is still
producing methane. . . . let alone build in a flood plain area?
A private sports club will bring in an great influx of non-local residents and the lighted
fields and courts will be a noise and lighting nuisance.
Please listen to the long term residents of this community and Do Not approve of any zoning
changes that would permit this ill conceived Rio Santiago project to move forward.
Thank you,
Arthur Bass, VMD
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Carol Thon [forcat@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:39 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Against Rio Santiago Project
The proposed Rio Santiago Project is inconsistent and is in violation of the OPA Specific
Plan. The residents of OPA are overwhelmingly against this proposed project. It is time for
the Orange Planning Commission and City Council to listen to the will of the people here in
improving the flood control area.The developer would like to gift this burden and liability
to the Orange taxpayers. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ron & Carol Thon, 1161 N.
Coyote Ln. Orange Park Acres, Calif. 92869.
i
Jackie Bateman
From: tdcdnd@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:55 AM
To: Jackie Bateman; tdcdnd@aol.com
Subject: Rio Santiago
Dear Ms. Bateman
Please forward this to all the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you,
Tom Davidson
City of Orange Planning Commission �
Re: Rio Santiago
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this in order to clear the air. Please don't take me as a whining citizen, you can take me as a mad
citizen, but I feel that it is important to clear the air from last night's performance by Mr. Ken Ryan.
I cannot thank you enough for allowing him only ten minutes for rebuttal. You were able to witness Mr. Ryan
at his finest. I, as well as many volunteers in OPA, have had to deal with this for over six years. The developer's
finely choreographed response was no surprise at all. I hope you noticed that instead of taking blame for their
despicable slick mailer that depicts Sully Miller of the cause of the blighted look of the Sully Miller site-they
showed OPA's email ad calling the site "Sully Miller"-why? I think I know why!
But, here's what really got my blood boiling last night. Many speakers had come forward to say that the
developers 60 plus community meetings, as they have stated, were hand-crafted, hand-picked residents that
all agreed with their proposed project. When Mr. Ryan turned and pointed his finger at me and said, "I called
Tom Davidson to meet with representatives of OPA and he wouldn't meet with me" I did all I could to keep
myself from standing up and scream LIAR!
About a year ago Mr. Ryan did call me and he left me a message. Being the opportunists that they are, they
called when all OPA representatives were under a huge time constraint preparing our legal brief and response
for filing our appeal to the California State Court of Appeal concerning Ridgeline. The developer knew this
because they were under the same time constraints. The only difference is OPA volunteers perform a huge
amount of the work for our attorneys in order to keep costs at an absolute minimum. The developer has a
fleet of attorneys, and can afford them to do their work. I returned Mr. Ryan's call, I explained to Mr. Ryan
that we were very busy at that time, but I would call him to set up a time so that we could discuss Rio
Santiago. I did that a few weeks later, but never heard back from Mr. Ryan.
i
Now his job is to reach out to the community for comments and they do not have to do that except through
the EIR. I guess it can be said that they have reached out to the community-to the select chosen people who
agree with what they are proposing, but what he did last night by saying he reached out to me and that I
would not meet with them is a twisted, sickening way of reaching out!
I know this has no bearing on how you will view the project, but I hope you are able see what OPA has had to
deal with for over 6 years.
Good luck in your deliberations. Please honor what generations of citizens before us realized what the Sully
Miller site should be destined for. Thank you for volunteering to keep Orange a great city.
Sincerely,
Tom Davidson
z
Jackie Bateman
From: JRTDeIMar@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:25 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Dear Mr. Bateman: I just received a flier on my door last night notifying of the Jan. 27, hearing.
My wife and I have lived in the City of Orange for 8 years. We live across the street from the proposed Rio Santiago
a long distance from the present operation. It is noisy and ugly. My wife and I have read over the plans of the developer
and believer that this new project is in the best interests and most of its sane citizens.
I worked for Sempra for a number of years before starting my own company. I still remember a hearing where a
Professor from a local college noted that he did not want any development because it would interfere with Bambi's habitat.
That is still, unfortunately, the attitude of a lot of good hearted but impractical individuals who fear the worst of anything in
their neighborhood.
My wife and I would like the city to approve the project and get it built as soon as possible. I am doing a lot of business in
China at the moment. I see more concern for people and jobs in China than I do in the United States. I hope the city
shows some concern for the neighbors of the present operation and do what can be done to make the new development
happen.
Thank you for your consideration
John and Hazel Taylor
6033 E. Valley Forge Dr.
Orange, CA 92869
858-205-3096
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Mike Forkert [mikef@forkertengineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:08 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Letter to all Planning Commissioners
Attachments: Rio Snatiago.rtf
Ms. Bateman,
pl���o �Anrl�j.jc rnrracnnnrianra tn aII Planrlifla C�nrY1t711CCIf1f1PYC 111 YPg�I'CIS YCl tllP Rlll S�tlYlag(� PCn�Pft fPV12W This my
outline of comments from Monday Nights Planning Commission Meeting. I was unable to complete my comments in
the time limit but want to get them put into the record.
Sincerly
Michael A. Forkert
P.L.S. 5662
Forkert Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
22311 Brooklrurst St. Ste 203 �
Huntington Be�ch, CA 92646
714-963-6793
mikef�a forkerten ing eerin�.com
1
Michael Forkert
10541 Randall St.
Orange, CA 92869
January 27, 2014
City of Orange Planning Commission
RE: Planning Commission Meeting for the Rio Santiago Project
I feel Staff has done a good job summarizing the EIR for the Rio Santiago Project. As I read
through the Staff Report I understand that the Planning Commission can only act in an advisory
capacity to the City Council due to the amount of legislative actions the project requires. I
appreciate the Commission taking the time to hear the Public Comments.
I missed last Mondays Planning Commission Meeting but I was able to watch it on TV.
I thought the speakers brought up some good points.
One was the potential flooding of the site caused by a failure of the Villa Park Dam causing Flood
Inundation. On page 25 and 26 the Staff Report states this is a significant and unavoidable impact
despite listed Mitigation Measures. In other words the project concludes that a dam break east of the
project could cause loss of property and/or life but the project merits override the risk. Staff has
concerns that the project places two and three story, 265 unit senior complex at a 16.5 unit per acre
density in the path of potential Dam Inundation. '
If Staff has concerns I now the Citizens of Orange have concerns and reservations.
The fact that this has to be disclosed as part of the purchase into this facility I think stating that the
implementation of emergency evacuation drills would be very unsettling for most seniors with all
levels of health concerns. Also asking our first responders, fire and rescue to perform extraction of
seniors in hospital beds and wheel chairs would stress the city's assets.
A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY 1N THIS LOCATION IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
Another comment was stated that the Sand and Gravel Mining operation stopped some 16 years ago.
What takes place now is recycling operation involving the crushing of building debris such as
concrete, asphalt, rocks and dirt and stockpiling that material.
A permitted use under G-S zoning.
It is stated in the EIR document that over 1,100,000 cubic yards of this material will be used as
import backfill.
That would look like a building the size of a football field 515 ft. high, 40 Story building.
In my opinion this material is not clean backfill material for who knows what foreign material it
contains such as lead paint--petroleum based oils used in asphalt production--noxious weeds JUST
to name a few. These contaminants could leach into the water table. Also the document states that
the processing of this material will continue on site during all the grading activities, lasting over 4
years, even though the zoning will have been changed and the recycling activity not allowed under
the new zoning designation.
Another Speaker stated that this is the best offer we have and should just take it.
I don't think the Commission or the Council would make recommendations or decisions based on a
poorly contrived offer as this.
As stated in the Staff report if the Planning Department recommends against either the proposed
General Plan Amendment or Zone Change the decision would be final unless the applicant would
appeal to the City Council. Whatever you do or recommend will send a message to the Council on
the validity of the project.
The Responses to Comments seem to have a reacquiring theme stated by the Applicant
"THE APPICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE CITY'S GENERAL
PLAN, OPA PLAN AND THE EAST ORANGE PLAN AND CREATE THEIR OWN SPECIFIC
PLAN". THIS IS TRUE.
THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO REJECT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
I AM ASKING THE COMMISSION TO DO JUST THAT
Mike Forkert
Jackie Bateman
From: Go Tee [twg869@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:53 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Keep Sully Miller Open Space
Keep Suliy Miller area permanent open space!
My name is Bobbie (Baldwin) Grayson. My dad was Doc Baldwin and was one of the original
volunteer firemen for Villa Park station #23. I live on East Frank Lane and Handy Creek runs
through our property. We have owned the property since 1946 before there was much an
anything here. Even before the orange groves.
In 1969 the Sully-Miller pits were full to the brim, a sea of water that filled this whole Rio
Santiago proposed development area as well as the ponds. The beautiful picture of this
planned community would have been totally under water in 1969. It looked much like the
Hart Park parking area when it is flooded from brim to brim seasonally and the parking area is
unusable.
The old gravel pits were the location of the county dump area in 1955. From this flood in
1969, the water that sat there for quite some time was allowed to percolate into the dump
area. We wondered about the contamination of the water supply in the ponds at that time.
The cement bridge that used to cross Santiago Creek behind Oakridge Private School was
washed out in 1968 in another high water flood and was never replaced. Katella/Villa Park
Rd/Santiago Canyon Road was created to carry the volume of vehicles and it washed out
several times also and traffic had to be diverted to Chapman Avenue.
There is a reason why all that gravel was deposited there over the years. It's the natural flood
retainment basin, a deep spot in the flood zone for the drainage system of the mountains east
of Orange, just above the city. Hello, who of you on the planning commission think this is a
good idea to allow fill in a natural flood water retainment basin? What is normally built in
flood zones? Something that nobody minds if it gets destroyed by flood waters.
Because we are in a time of weather change it does not make good planning sense to put so
many people in jeopardy and for the City of Orange to incur such liability to allow these
natural retainment basins to be filled in. There's a reason why it's a natural sand and gravel
pit. �t needs to remain as uninhabited open space.
Over the years I have watched Handy Creek change. It used to be peaceful meandering
stream. Today when it rains because of all the runoff from the hardscape upstream, Handy
Creek turns into a raging torrent that sounds like a freight train and is now ten feet deep
through our property.
i
In the history of the City of Orange on the internet (http://www.cityoforan�e.or�/
about/history.asp) the last paragraph on page three talks about in the "next decades, Orange
will continue to expand to the east, where it has a 60 square mile sphere of influence extending
to the county line. Preliminary plans call for a variety of developments in the area around
Irvine Lake." Where is the water from those projects with more hardscape going to go? Do
you think that Santiago Creek will remain within its normal boundaries if we get lots of rain
again? If it overflows its banks, all the homes in the flood plain will again be in danger.
Keep the area around the Santiago Creek as an uninhabited open space!
Bobbie (Baldwin) Grayson
East Frank Lane Resident
z
Jackie Bateman
From: Dan Graupensperger[yonka@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:39 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago
Commissioners,
First, I apologize for not staying until the end of the meeting but I had a 6:30AM meeting
It became apparent last night that there is a lot of missing information about this
project. The developer representative stated more than once that someone else is going to
build their proposed project. The lack of specific information and the fact that Milan is not
actually going to build the proposed project should be grounds for concern. As I stated in
my presentation the developer is asking you to take property rights from the neighborhood
surrounding the project and give them to him with no guarantee of what he will do with
them. Commissioner Gladson correctly expressed concern about the lack of information and
detail the developer has provided in the EIR. A reasonable person might think this has been
done on purpose by the developer to allow as much leeway as possible when selling this
project. While this may be good business practice it is probably not good for city planning
purposes.
I was not surprised the developer had supporters of the project introduce the need for
senior housing into the mix, I was surprised how long it took. There are valid arguments for
and against this kind of development at this location. Again a reasonable person could think
the developer wants entitlements for this type of development so that he has the option to
build the project presented or any other medium density housing that will generate the most
money for him. Again no guarantees.
Multiple times the developer has represented the Santiago Creek as some kind of gift
to the community. I think a reasonable person could view this as a misrepresentation of the
facts. I have talked to the Army Corps of Engineers and OCFC. Both stated the City of
Orange would be making a mistake if it were to accept this land as a gift. OCFC told me
they will probably accept it but only because it is an integral part of the entire Seven Oaks
Dam to the ocean flood control system. You may also want to have your staff check to see
if the City of Orange is still considered the lead agency by the State of California if/when
OCFC or someone else accepts the property.
Dan Graupensperger
1
Jackie Bateman
From: paul andrews [kgoopa@aoi.com] �
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:17 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago questions
I was very impressed with the line of questioning being directed at Ken ? by the planning commission. I wasn't surprised
when he responded that he didn't think the 22 areas of concern were actually a concern.
according to the Orange City plan. The project is in a flood zone. Santiago road was washed out and never
rebuilt because of the
recommendation of the Army Corps of Engineers that it will be flooded out again. Your maps show this under the Orange
safety plan.Santiago dam was built in the 1930's and so was the dam in LA that failed. The county of Orange, according
to Representative Todd Spitzer shows no interest in acquiring those acres around the creek, why? It is a multi million
dollar project that will incur great liability for whoever takes it over. Santiago creek is a sleeping giant.lt cannot be
controlled
as evidenced by past flooding. Putting rip rap next to it will do absolutely nothing. It will overflow, it will flood, it will cause
chaos.
They are showing a park/open area next to the methane gas?Why? Because methane travels through the water table.
A simple valve malfunction in Los Angeles and methane traveled 300 yards underground and filled a school gymnasium
full of the
highly explosive gas. By their admission the developer is going to install methane monitors in the homes.
The city knows this is a high risk area, you posted it on your website. To approve a project after warning the citizens of the
dangers would be beyond irresponsible. Do not approve this project. You owe nothing to the property owner.
During the gathering of signatures they employed paid thugs to harass and threaten residents at the malis and shopping
areas in our city. This had divided our community. Milan PAYS speakers to present positive views.
You get the picture, decline the project. Lets get back to enjoying our lives.
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Charles Leffler[charlesleffler@ymail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 10:03 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago
nAnAral Plan AmAnrlmAnt nr 7nna (:hannP fnr Rin
Considering the low and medium density term used by the Milan representative,
Mr Ryan, I discussed and analyzed those concepts with a number of friends and
acquaintances. No one I spoke with found 16 units per acre to be anything but High
Density. I continued my own evaluation and looked up planning information online.
What it came down to in Reality is, Average or Area Standards. If you put 26 units per
acre in an area which is normally 16 units per acre the effect while still great is not the
same as putting 16 units per acre in a community comprised of 4 units per acre. The
problem @ Rio is the surrounding properties on the North, West and South West are
more at 4 to 5 per acre while the bulk of the actual site is currently expected to be 1
unit per acre in the Orange Park Plan as adopted by the City of Orange back in 1973.
The shift from 1 unit p[er acre to 16 units per acre is extreme and by any definition
High Density for the Area Norm.
On another note, perhaps you recall the hoopla over 'subliminal messaging'
when theaters flashed food and beverage messages to drive up sales eons ago.
Subliminal messages were outlawed in theaters and on TV....but we experience them
everyday. Note how Milan frames their project ...in glowing terms, idyllic scenes with
pastoral panoramas....a virtual heaven on earth...notice all the green T shirts, Badges
and green in the presentation....and counterpoint that with the hell on earth that
currently exists at the site. A HELL, Milan created. Five years ago it was a much
greener, quieter and less offensive site. It is part of the message, like seating their
people in the Right side of the Chamber, speaking in glowing terms, green, Green,
GREEN, all around the conversation, exhibits and presentation....but remember it is
only subliminal messaging, an attempt to lull You into Buying the Project. The 'bringers
of green' are also the creator of of the 'Hell on Earth' that they in their own words
threaten to cast Us down into if We do not give them the Green (dollars) they are
requesting.
Threats, twisted messages, manipulative ads and coercion have oft been sited
in the way Milan has dealt with this project. The hooligans hired to run the streets and
block petition gatherers efforts were also part of the JMI/Milan bullying. And yet, We
prevailed. We and 10's of thousands of Orange have spoken on 4 recent petitions that
the development of the former Sully Miller site and the Development of Ridgeline are
�
not what the People of Orange want. Isn't it time the Electeds of Orange heard and
acted in the best interest of the People of Orange?
Vote No on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on Rio Santiago.
Thank you,
Charles Leffler
Address on File
z
Jackie Bateman
From: MICHELE BROWN [mb-dewan@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:21 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: No on Rio Santiago project!
Hello, Please do not put this project through. It will effect our welfare and safety in so many ways. Thank you
The Brown Family
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Bipper1000@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Re:Sully Miller Hearing
Dear Sirs: We are residents of 19 years in Mabury Rancy and are deeply concerned to hear that our assoc. has approved
the plans to develop the property in the proposed rio Santiago project We oppose this ill-conceived project in a big way.
We think it will bring too much traffic too much noise(something we already have). It will negatively . impact our city
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Peg Bauer[peg819@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15,2014 5:25 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago project
We would like to take this opportunity to voice our opinion on the Rio Santiago potential development project.
Sully-Miller was a good neighbor. While the current owner/operator of that property is not a good neighbor, we
,
current proposed plan. This is a semi-rural, equestrian community. Although we are not horse owners, we
moved to this area specifically because of the ambiance of quieter, country living, with its respect for the
environment and open spaces.
We are absolutely not against this property being developed, and in fact view future development as inevitable.
We are completely supportive of a development plan that is cognizant of the surrounding area and seeks to fit
in, as well as protecting open space and the creek. That development plan doesn't currently exist, but with the
right developer, it could.
We recognize that money generally talks and often has the last word. We sincerely hope that money isn't the
only voice heard.
Respectfully,
Fred & Peggy Bauer
1492 N. Portsmouth Circle
Orange, 92869 '
�
Jackie Bateman
From: Stephanie Lesinski [slesinski@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:38 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Mabury Ranch Opposes Rio Santiago Project
Attachments: Mabury_Opposes_Rio_Santiago1.pdf; Mabury_Opposes_Rio_Santiago2.pdf
Please provide a proof of receipt of this email.
DPar Planning CommiccionPrc•
As a resident of Mabury Ranch, I along with my neighbors oppose the Rio Santiago Project.
Over the weekend I collected more than two dozen signatures of homeowners that oppose this
project and the list continues to grow. (see attached. )
Many of us would rather keep the gravel pit than approve re-zoning that goes against the
City's charter regarding open space. In fact, voting AGAINST this project would please BOTH
the land owner (Milan Capital/7MI) and the majority of Orange residents. At your 7anuary 27th
meeting, JMI's representative stated that the gravel operation is "profitable and
sustainable." My count jives with the Foothills Sentry's account - ". .about 70 people
spoke. .with about three quarters opposed.)
Commissioner Correa: you are correct. We all know what a park is and the Rio Santiago
project is no park.
Commissioner Gladson: You are correct in expressiong concern that you are being asked to
approve a measure that has 22 unresolved issues and 8 areas that City Planner, Chad Ortlieb
says will have "significant and unavoidable" impacts.
The comments during the public session were terrifying:
- Engineers urge against building in a flood plain
- Concerns over building on a landfill - methane gas
- Videos of gridlock on Santiago with the prospect of 2 more stop lights
- Realtors predict a 15% decrease in neighboring home values
- High-density .senior living will require service vehicles - more traffic
- City staff report predicts negative impact on wildlife and the environment
I urge you to consider these comments and City Planner, Chad Ortlieb's 45-page report. Many
of the Mabury Ranch residents join OPA in opposing this project. We urge Milan Capital/7MI to
go back to the drawing board to find a solution that works for the entire community or leave
things as they are - undeveloped.
Thank you,
Stephanie Lesinski
6618 E. Waterton Ave.
Orange, CA 92867
slesinski�ayahoo.com
1
, yi I, , , , � ; : � i
�,�t O� CT �? W N I' 1� '� Oo IJ � .Ut I.A 'W �N � !N 'N �N �� tQ �� Ip��I 6) CTi .A W�N
� t.A �W iN i
, , , i r= 1-�— ; I ; � ��@ 1� , � ,�.Q ; � , � 4���
j � � � f � i � i �¢ �
; I i j � ' � � cS' � � ' � = _ �
� { ' ' � � � f 1��. �(r�--� ;-�a � � ��Z� ;i ��S^,' I � -�a
� � I , �
� � I I 1 y �{ ir��(;� � i� f �� �{,.� I�� � N
1 I � i � � i � � , � � I-�!�,'iy},�s,�° i ;� �;�i�� ,, j i 6 t ���-�.� E`�°
' � ' i I l � j ! � � i� ,r. i � � j ;j--���; ,�''`�,- � � � '� �,-�-� �
' ` I � I i { � � 1 ' ����I� i ,��p � ;�� �' � � � �
j � � ' i I. j ; � � L: j�`-,r„�`-( � � ��'.i� 5�'' � _;, � i$ �
I i I I I � _ � f � ;._ � i�}� 1� � � � l i j J` �.,,�,_ ��(b �(!J .
� I � � i � ��-9 � �N � ' v P ���� � �-^4 ��
i � � j i i �3 j 's�' � t ; � r ,
� � � l � � i ; �' I� � I i �Ai !-� � � � if� ! c� i �y�
, j E � � I i � ; � � ' � �'� � �o � :� I3 � ���_�`��R � a
,
1 3 � ' � ; � I � � ; '�° i i� i- �; � ! �'� � `� `� �`� �
;
� � ' � i I ; � r I I�
;
,
;
,
_i._ � { �. ; � � . �--=- � - - - 'Qj _..__i ' '- � _ —; � o
_�- _�- �_ � �� , ; � `� �;�
__ , , � t- � -�� � �� . ' � �
� I-..I---�--�- i ; , � ��y� ;� P a i:- iE'�'�;�-:- ' ��-��� - ss-'a �.
�: �
s ; � ! ; I I , I � ! � �� ���IN j ����?� i ' -!c,� 4��� o.��
, i � � ; � �.� � ��� �� �-�-j �; �, .� �' �" �
� � � i 1 I ! ���� � ' � � I
; � I �.— �----i L----�-- � `
-- -� ` �--i-;- , � ; �-i---�--r-i_-; �o� - �- i � �
i � � � ' ! i I I ; � � ��.�� � � � ' { ����`��':� !�� � ��
� I � � � � j I �— .io I ; i �
� � �� � ; ; � ; � ; , � �� 1 � j � � ; i ( j � ; � 1
��--�--�- '�-�--�—�---�—�..._--;---� i ��� �tn �cn 'cn 'cn �-4�!o o fl o o �o o a �j
� I 4 � ; ' cn �ko im m �cn ��n Icn m ��n �N � �
� � � � � � � �—�� � ��'T�� j 3 �3 �3 �� i3 Im :�- � �- � �- � �' �� m � .
1 � � � I � - � ��.� � � �- � j� ;� � �.= = = �= 4� � � �
� � . .� � � � � v � � �
; � ; ; I � j �; i � �;� � � �� � ,� � !�� � -� -�I� -� -� '� -+i
'' � I i � � � � � i i�, i { _� j � ; � im .ro � �m m 'm m m m I
i1 �, , � r i tm m cD �N m N �m N 1
1 � { I � � � I 1 I � ! 1 ` �_i, � ' i
-1--�-' � �' �` � i � � J a�o�o 0 0 0 0 'o �
D O O O O O O (O �O O O O CO O iO o�0 ;� Q p p_.�i O �O �� #� � � � � � �_ {
:-; `-, -,�� � � I I� N �� i SU Sll i N �SU 'G;
;S V �117 m At iU t�N N i N 41 A1 9� S17 �� �-c � � � .
�� � � � � (c�o c�o cn � �c�n �t0 t0 c0 cfl � '� i� ��� ' ` 3 � � �� , � m m m tD m m N ro
'`� z,�cv ro ,c�o '�co �cu m cn m ca j cu�cu�cn co ro �m ,m i m 1 ; cQ � Icn ,cfl Ica !�n � � � � -
� �� I� {� (� t��IC��C� �C� C� In lC� 1C�;n lc�n� m jm m �m �rn Im y�Yt� C�!n C3 n n IC) [n
r}; � ,-� ,��--?y FD iD�D D D ID �D �I
D ;D D D D A D D D .D �D�D �D ;DID ;DID ;➢ ;� I
, l � � I� ; D �D iD �D �� !D ; : i
-=s— —j-�j'-- — E � s�, j N � � i ` ' 4 N
� —_T' �" (
� Icfl f0 CO �tD CO �c0 I � i ?Cfl f}1[O `[4? CO �CO f� tD CO
.::.(:?�CO SD CD�(9 [fl ICD � N�N N N N�N !N�N N N t('� � i ..�..—'i� E� �W��L.�b � W � �� Q'
�..CJ �N N N tV N t N N � p� I W O� W i O� I��� �� I n,I CO 1 CO CL.) t0 �tfl �.CO {
�;0�=m oo � � � �rn �6�i �O�i rn I6� 1� ,� �� :6� `p> �Q� i6) t�p 1 N N�N iN N N s43 tp7�t13 40� 6) 63 � 4S (D 4
�,Li7 i CD � � � -
�! i�1 �I ��l i'J i-J I-�I -.t ��l I V i�1 i..1 �I i V'i'J ! f � �o�i �� I�� • �� I� �-�:.� � f�s �e y � �t
� -•i`-� �i._i t._�—t----r—�--1--;; ; ��{�i � �� �� .� IJ i i + i � ��
� � ' , ; , ; � I � j � � � ' � � '-� � �E
; i � ; , � l ; � � � � ���� ; � i � ' t ' ,�° 1 i
� �
i � ! I ' l � � � � � � i � � 1 � � : � � �� I :
( ' ' � � I � � � � , � �'i, ' � ��.� ;
� ` � I � i # �� ; , � �
i � i ,
i ( j � i j i ' � i f ` � l �. � � ? � ,y i ,: i I
1 i � I � � j � � � � �I �� �� i '° r 1 �
, ; � ; � : C� � j
+ j { � I i � ! � r I i � i ; ! i �G i 4 � s ;� t '��
I 1 II I ( � ,� � � � � � �l� I '�`s� 't+ � i
�� � Ir � I � � ► , � . � � . � I
� � � � ; I � ! �I � i � � j ; ` � 1 ; ; ���` I � ; �
j � � �_ !. ' i L�i_.., � -�--�o I { i { ; - �; ��: �� `�"�-'��`;
� ' �
I � � ! � � � j i i i^�i � ��' � 1 �; r � i �""�� s #C` �LD 4
� -'� � .�, , � .�
, �
� � � I � � � ' j ��� i � �� � � V ���`�:� � i _
�
� ;
----1--- � � _1__, � �.--�--- -;�.—,�-- .� : �;�I -- ,�
� � � f-_i 1 I I �—, , � �� 1 �� �
' i f � i I j � � 4 i � �
j � � � j i � � � � i I { 10. !
' a.
� t � � � � � � i ! � { i I I N �, .
� , � i ; � ; ! ; i , ; I� ;
i i i � ! � i � i I f i � � �
� � � , � � f
� � � ' ' ' � � ' '
, � i � � � ; � i � i ! i �
� ; 1 I � ; ! � � � � i
�� i � � � � � � � � yi �
� I � ; � � � ; jl
i � � �
; I � � I I , , I I
_ __ � __ _ _ _ ___ _______-_----.... __
___ _,._
WININ�N�N,NjNiN�NiN N�.> > �1. �_. � I� .�i��� .�� i i � 1 ' �
i i i j i
O CO'ODI�.I�d� CJt�AIW�N ���O ,Cfl 00 �i �� U1 �� W+N -s O �tOIWI� I� ICn .P ;W N � :
_ � I _._..-.-. -- �— —�—�-
i 1 � � ; I I � � ` � ���� ��j\ � i�� 1�;'� !�
� , I I I i i ' . � � L+y 'v +^' �
� � � � I 1 ' �� �� ;�" �`' i ��'C� i ;i� � I 0
� � � ;C'm I � � G, �, i- : �'a
� I ; � � � I
, I ' I i ��� � � 'a,�- � � 1�F � ��d� � �t!�
� ' j I ! I i ; i ��, c� � ��� �'�� ;�.. � �'��i ��D
� �' j��' �,,�� i ' �
` i i i i � � I j i � �� ��� � �c '�r�„ � V I :.�i.y �'S
' � � i � j . I � --�'��. � � ��
i � � � � i ; � �i � -,' I ''_�,ti ,� j� i �', i
��� �` �� r � � ; �
' ,
I ;, • 't> "F (~�, !i' � i ' S_ j O
,� ( i j I � ��=• �" 5 � �� r �r� '}�tt'i ,N
I I � � I i i , � � � �� ��i �� ; �{ �� i�
� . i ! ! .�� } 1�1 , ;> .:.� :e�.
� I � ' I i � i._ �,-�`�--'�' ��` ! ;�'s�'.'� 'At
I i � ; � � i%=E� t
; i I I � , ; � '�i ���.�N r ; j�: i I�`"' ;o
� I i I I �:� I � i �;r�V � i i GJ � '� i�'
�
� ' �
� : : � � C�
' � I � i I i I i I i I � � � � � ��. � v � li �` �
t � ' ' � �� � �� L—
'.... I ..f__....1 _.1_ � -{ - F-� .-i-.___i .. _ ....__ . ...;,,_. _ . ..�— r.._... . .
� � { I � ' � � �`�' r ��'�� �� Q O•
; � ���
' i i � I ,. � ... i . . � �i "' ` � ' �-->O:� � !Q. �
� i� � � 1� � I� C�i.-, rr
. � ' ., ' , I i .("� '� ; IF-`- � ��� I n.l :� � i�
� � - I � i' : � � � �� ��� �.
i
� i i ; f i l � ' � i�j 'ht"3 � I�;�� �� � i�;3�N !
� � ' � i I ' � � � i I�`y� "� j i I � �1 � i�- j. �
I � I � i I I � i � � i �;��"�„^�,���) �i I��, ��`1 � I �' �, � I
� �
� I � ; ; ; ; � ; � ; ; ,�.. � ;� � �� ' � ;� ' i i
� � _
; � � j � � � ��,��i�� ' ��� ��� � -. ,
; , I ; � , � , , � � � � i �; - � � ;� , !
j � ; ; � � ��, ,��� i i�'y��iS��� � ! �
' ' � f I ; ; i ;� ;� r� �,I���� i � � ' �
�
� i � ; I i� �` �� � V.,� � � ! � ��,
' � � 1 ': i � �--� i � fn , in ; �
1 i I �� �.,7 ;/ ij li� � '� �' j li
� i ; i I '� ` i i � i . " � �`�� �
I , i � I IN !�r��-�� � � '`� ~ � I
I i i ; ' � I�jj t.� c",�"�\,��,.�. y- ; i;('j � ; S � �
I � I I I I�� `�J h �r� 1" :'�'��J.• i
i, � � I� 4 1
� �' i I� t �r1 ��^;I � � .r:: I
i i � P ; �� �� �
i , �I �r, '� ; �,IR r,� l fi� �.� �
i . ! ' i � � '� i � �} +h �
i i i I : I � T. }-� �`�_`�r? i � �h T
� , ; ) ''� �J � ! i+, i t �.'
' ; i � � i '(�,=I y �S� I� � 1
' I � � i I � � i � i � i.�� �� !�� I�� I ��j ��.� �
� I � � �. � i � i i � � I i� iS����V 7/'�7 I ��"��i I �R!�\, !� �
' I � I � I� � Y" 1 Ih I�.J� I I`v I I
� t � i � 1 i��� � � I 1
! i � I ; , `� ...� (S `�� ;� �� ( �I� ''.
� � i ''� `c�' � � : Tr . ��. v ;
� i�•� i�. t-� ���
� � j � ' � � �: _' � i�� '�;
I � � ' � ;
� i , I � i ��; h^ �---� ;� ; ; �
� � , I�. � , ;
; � , � ; E� � �,�� ; ' ;
� � ' � � � I � '� ! _�._
, i � -._
_ 1 .. ; _ , . . _ �_ �--
__..�. _.i ._..i. t ' , ' ' I � � � t��_Ti_ `Q�_n �(''C �i �(f1 I
� i i I i i ���: �-�..,I- jZ � 1'� ;(O �
� � I �i � I �� � ! ,��'�ir""-' ' �`.� }�,, �� ( i� �I
( i . i . I . II � ..l-� � �s'� ' J �'�� �
, j i I I � I , i 1- I \g l.0
� �� ;� �� � Iv C � ��
�I � i ' - ! r�: � �� � � (�
,i i � � ��' � q� �i i�
i ` �
I ; I � �r� , ��
I � I I . � I, Lt" ` � :� � t�\;�.�.
� ; � � , � � r"� � �` I
( , � `� ��<;�
� � � ' � i � ' ` ;� �� � � I{
, I ; �
I � � � ' ! I � '� f ! 'l �t � ,��—a� �CZ I
( ' I I I I I � i � ��. I I • y;i. ! 1 \ I
{ I � I
i I I i I 1 i i I ' J� I ....' � �� \i
i 1 ' ! I
� �
i I � � 1 � ! �' ` f�.. � I I . I I
� � �
�i � � � � i � � ' � � � � ! � I I I i � (
�
_ I f � I � i i
,
� ..I.... � �� I �� . ... � __ __1.__ ._ ... ...
..._._... _ : �...
�
' i ; i j I i� '� I� j�
, ;
, , , �� �
i ; ' : � �
i ' �
� �
; i i � i I � i � ' �\� ;��1'•`I... I\I��
, , , ; � �
i I i : I �„ ��\,`�--�..,o.. �� ��,.. . 1 ���``: �.CD
, , i � j � � i� ,�I ��'� ` � � �
, I ; ; i � ;� i'�; �_�I ..'�' i �,.� ;-�`C�
ii ' �i ! '� i I ,.. `°-�''� �� I � � + ' ,. I
Jackie Bateman
From: Marilyn [mjwmusic@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 11:35 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Attachments: Rio Santiago Project.docx
Planning Commission Members and Staff:
Please consider the attached paragraph stating my opposition to the proposed Rio Santiago Project.
Also, pleace accept my gratitude for the unbelievable amount of time you have devoted to this proposal and the above
and beyond adjournment of public hearings at 11:00 PM.
Marilyn Wright
7235 East Grovewood Lane
Orange, CA 92869
(714)997-4233
1
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: MARILYN J.WRIGHT
7235 East Grovewood Lane
Orange, CA 92869
(714)997-4233
RE: RIO SANTIAGO
DATE: February 17, 2014
I am sending this e-mail to register my opposition to the proposed "Rio Santiago" project. I understand
the time for public comment is closed. However, I hope these brief comments will be noted. After
attending each of the public hearings, I chose not to take more of your very generous time since many
objections had been articulately stated and presented. After some reflection though, it occurred to me
that one of my concerns had, in fact, been overlooked. Many have commented on the"incompatibility"
of the project's multi-story and higher density residences with the existing community. My concern is
also the "incompatibility"within the project components themselves. There is no rational compatibility
of a 'night lighted youth sports field complex' with an `assisted living, senior housing complex' as
proposed. I have a 97 year old father currently residing in an apartment in a similar sized assisted living
residence in Laguna Woods, and there is no way that he or any of the other senior residents would
choose to live in an area linked so closely to a youth sports facility. The impact of noise, cars, parking,
practice and game traffic(visitors as well as vehicles) as well as night lighting would be totally
unacceptable. We have two grandsons very active in Little League and Lacrosse,so can speak from first-
hand experience about the impact these activities have on the surrounding neighborhoods. Consider
the influx of a conservative estimate of 15 players per team, plus coaches, referees, and cheering
families, with chairs, snacks, and drinks for multiple games each weekend. These facts are the reason
most of the games, practices, and tournaments are held at existing school facilities rather than a
neighborhood park. Since Orange has many existing school facilities with fields available for this
purpose,there does not appear to be a practical justification for including this in the project plans other
than profit for investors. For example, a more `compatible' plan might have designed a 'Par 3 golf
course' and community center linking the residential homes and senior complex. Please consider the
very real negative implications of this proposal on the existing community as well as future residents,
and deny the zoning change necessary for the Rio Santiago Project.
Jackie Bateman
From: Annette Feliciani [afeliciani@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Mlller Hearing
Dear Mr Bateman:
I am unable to attend the third Sully Miller Hearing this Wednesday and wanted to express my concerns over
this project.
I am a 25 year resident of the City of Orange, 18 of those on Hidden Oaks Lane, the street that borders the area
under discussion. We have been impacted over the years by the development of Serrano -the line of cars that
exist to leave our neighborhood is unbelievable. In prime time (roughly 7 am until 8:30 am)I must leave 30
minutes early to be able to leave my neighborhood and make a meeting in downtown Orange. It takes 45
minutes! And 15-20 minutes is trying to leave via Serrano to Canyon. I encourage you to visit my
neighborhood at 7:30 am and see for yourself what additional houses would do to our neighborhood.
Please do not approve a change in zoning for this property.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Annette Feliciani Fitzpatrick
7009 E Hidden Oaks Lane
Orange
1
Jackie Bateman
From: bevtoy@aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:54 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Fwd: Sully Miller Public Hearing
Upon reading more about the City Planning Commission and its efforts to understand the Sully Miller Project, we wonder
that it would even be considered in view of the emergency in the state regarding the drought. We would like to hear what
the OCWD has to say on the subject. Have they been asked? The Toys
-----Original Message-----
From: bevtoy<bevtoy(a)aol.com>
To:jbateman <Ibateman(c�cityoforanqe.orq>
Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 6:17 pm
Subject: Sully Miller Public Hearing
We have lived in Orange since 1976, and we see no reason that the City should change its zoning to accommodate a
developer who can come in and change the City's plan because he can afford it. We are very skeptical to say the least
about what is going on. BUT-- No zoning changes. Ernest and Beverly Toy, 1074 North Granada Drive, Orange, CA
92869. 714 639-6954.
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Denise Fiolmes [dgholmesful@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:53 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Proposed Development
Please know this development project is not in favor with the public. I oppose the attempts by City councils to
disregard existing zoning laws and zoning classifications. The only potion available to residential should be that
12 acres currently zoned for residential construction. A buyer who willing purchases industrial, and or
designated property for open space needs to understand that is what they are buying. They are not entitled to
zoning changes which robs the citizens of approved and protected existing open space.
Please note my opposition to the city council on any development in the Rio Santiago parcels.
Denise Holmes
714 726 2553
1918 Berkshire Drive
Fullerton Ca 92833
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Laura Thomas 714.264.4242 [laurathomas_opa@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:29 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Planning Commissioners RE: Sully Miller SitelRio Santiago
Attachments: OPA 021814 PC letter.pdf; Impacts of Rio Santiago (3).pdf; Milan's Statements - Corrections
and Clarifications (1).pdf
Hello Jackie
Please forward to Planning Commissioners.
Thank you
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am sending you a letter and 2 attachments with very important information regarding the Sully Miller
Site/Rio Santiago project for your review.
Thankyou
Please confirm your receipt. �
See you on the trail,
Laura Thomas, President
Orange Park Association
714-264-4242
2014 Imporant Dates
Feb 19 Weds 7•OOPM Plannin� Commission Meetin�, Citv of Oran�e - SULLY
MILLER/RIO SANTIAGO
Feb. 19 Weds. **CANCELLED** OPA Trails &Town Hall Meeting
Mar. 11 Tues. 6:OOPM City of Orange Council Monthly Meeting
Facebook: Orange Park Acres � OPA info: www.oran�eparkacres.or�
OPA Hotline: 714.900.20PA � Report Trail issues:opatrailrepair@�mail.com
Orange Park Acres N Established 2928 � Celebrating
our 86th Year
�
�,�, � ,r
.
. :�� ,
s
QY�t�C�� ���"��SSC�Ca��iC?h
PO Box 2293�range,CR 92£359
�-;t';�71"k.lk?!'�' 1ii, 7{)��1
�.)Ct?114�?f; ��.�Gitl.tl2[1;T�<)Illi?7ISS2C3I7E;1`S
��1IL t1��)l'£�li��
�(��} �:. ��?.��t�ll?1�3I7
�..f2'<1i1Lt:;', {,�_� ��c���l
I�:�.:�: ��.t�s''t;.��,i I'��)`� ic� til�;h..ic� S�}rF�ia;�� ��i:e-cl����t���:t�t
������� f'i�+r;��i���� ��orr.it�is,i�r�er;�:
r�t ti.-��: :las�uar} '?0.'U1=�,�;s �'resi�L;r��;c7f ti��;Or.arl�� Ps3rik:1ssc�ci�.tio.��I s�ai��.�izx
<�p;.�c�siti�>�� <�f�tl�e ��.�li���<til:(e�•�.i:te'��io `���i��ia�v i'rc?,jG�t.
,�..h�� (3�•G��7�� 1�rz►�k :�i;s�cr��i��� c���=�.��e.��t��R 1e�;�f �i���� t�f'�lt��t�, I��iilt�ly-��t�rt� ��=�it�l,�i+���°t�k
?i.;`i�::'rc��1�: �Jtt.i�l �::,�1415[)11.11?ti.3'ltil� IiJ:�ii�� ��.t.�?4?lI ��t:3t'1}aa:��f�Cl(7l',`+E;it �31[),r`�'lJY}1J�.1yf) }?i<3�i.��'..
��.�'. :f�,�i� S'i`41"t�� 3�"1��C)t"�'i.�11�1C3 {_'1)'.?�I`.�(,£\�7E'.1�a> i31 �<ii�%j.E15E: I:tl �)C��'l:i{:('}C,iY`(;C?�13Ti'iL1tl('1 1'�^_',�12'C�lI:;?
lli:�`l'.�;3Si:CjLl�tl�{���ISSs;�'•Ii�l.lt���.\\-1��:,.l�l"t"'. �)i(?�t;Ll. ��S�1(7U.}�.9.1C.)Sl`'C�1�T€%?�c14'� b:)ti;;c,ll.1?li.i.�lt,ll�tt,S
71�',I�1�<t.;iiT?C Il:kl�.:twll;t5 1CIl:()Il�1Ntl :�l'el�, l;%3:Tlil()� �3�', 1?"llltti.;�f'.C�. �il iiC�C�i�:tL).1.1'{llt;i'i;iil.c;l�l£?Iil E�SLd£;i
��tit i\-3�� <lt;�'t'.Ttil',��' 11]7�)i.lt'.i C)ll?'C.{}!"1'l:Il�11Tl.itli;'�.
��?t`. {�I'�111�E:�_�iil'�ti .t\SSC7Cli��:1C>::1.ft�3�?f)S'�:.'S [�7E:.�S'143:�'L177�It7�;t)��T'ESJc;4;�. 1�.1Li:1t;�lG(� 15£i Stli12t12�21"�
:7'S� Tk;c`1S�}YIS�`£.11'i)li:�'t1�g�:�C)S111Cti2�.
t�i :.dt:titif�y�l, cl��;a���-s(i�,��a�t liG�.��?s�ic�w:��vt,.��:il ial��-sti:t::a���:.t��s t.i�E��, ic��•tl�c,rc.:cc���cl, ;��i:ist I?e
t;!.)1':'E,;.l.',1�. ��.li«C}li'i� lL;u �'1��t)� �fl(?��il'IISiF,:'(1d'�Sti17�ili'+:)I14. ��'£ �21�1"lt.,li1't�:�C`!'1�'c1.11C� 11(�'iti.;i1�".
_. ... _ _ .__.
i�Fl�:.�:1; �7,
�;i s } :; t t' i � (,t 3� i ) +�.�
+_ 3i:`t<s.'. �K:',. tl,, 1iI7i)1'v �1 '1'titl zl,i'l�r.".`<�ll�'i�L:E:.:i�li1�I5. 1.'� ?11�k', �Y{)1,l�i) ?f::`�(:t.T Il��:�.1�C�GG',� I.I1 f
i;�i{I.I��-�j'. �� i"liAllli.i'C�ii.
���S�L.Ci.I"l!�.�1', /
��,�
`� ���-„q.....w°'�
'`�;.�*.�'_"'"o<_.,. . �,.,�""
��G:LIiii���li)�?�i:1.7
,. .'_'Sl�,�;�i �
i�:1,f iI{:�':.1.1.1t:11�'c�.
=� T_i,i;:rr�.c;is i�#�I�.i�� �a��ii=:���t�
3
�? �%�FI�t1'I�S �ifid1L"'.J�"�c:371:;. (_,£}tix>GTIE?11S 4111��� lzll'P�1G�l.i()i?�:
February 18, 2014
For: Orange Planning Commission
From: Orange Park Association �
Re: Opposition to the proposed Rio Santiago development
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
RECOMMEND: THE FEIR SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED
• Mitigation actions are insufficient
• Presentations of the Statement of Facts to the residents are incomplete and
misleading.
• The EIR in many aspects is significantly flawed.
■ Impacts to parks and recreation
■ Inconsistent with General Plan policies
■ Noise impacts added to neighborhood
• Reasonable alternatives were not considered
■ Dam inundation risk are minimized
• Review of the EIR led us to the conclusion that its environmental analyses
are incomplete, the recommended mitigation actions are insufficient, and
any Statement of Overriding Conditions not reasonable.
Statements of Overriding Consideration (SOC)for the Rio Santiago project cannot
excuse the unmitigatable negative impacts. The project does NOT bring benefit to
the city but adds unnecessary risks. The community should not have to absorb the
detrimental impacts.
• This project sets an extremely bad precedent for Orange.
• It is sweetheart deal for the developer. The City would be bailing out a bad
business investment. If the parcel is "up zoned" the property value increases
dramatically for Rio Santiago investors.
• The City is not obligated to approve bad projects.
• The City should not expose taxpayers to unnecessary liabilities.
• Any development proposal should require that existing Plans are honored and that
the property rights of the people are protected.
Staff has identified some of the Significant and Unavoidable impacts
• Grading and Construction Aesthetic Impacts
• Long-Term Aesthetic Visual Impacts
• Light and Glare Impacts
• Air Quality Impacts
• Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts(Dam Inundation)
• Traffic—Transportation Impacts
• Cumulative Impacts (Aesthetics, Air Quality and Traffic) Impacts
1
Land Use Considerations/Recommendations the
Planning Commission will make to the City Council
2. General Plan Amendment (legislative action - discretion of City Council)
RECOMMEND: NO CHANGE OF THE GENERAL PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE
THE PROJECT SITE FROM THE EAST ORANGE AND ORANGE PARK
ACRES PLANS.
The developer has no existing right to develop the Sully Miller site in the
intensive manner that is being proposed.
The City's general plan does not allow for this type of de�elopment. The
developer has no legitimate expectation that these approvals would be granted.
The developer is seeking to enhance his entitlements at the Sully Miller site to
help bail out the investors that bought at the top of the market.
• Project should stop at the General Plan Amendment
• Should not amend the General Plan on concepts and promises
• Four Plans designate this site Open Space
• Not a single plan ever identified this property for residential use
• The Orange General Plan does not promote changing Open Space to
Residential
• The vision of the Santiago Greenbelt Plan for the entire site would be forfeited only
to be replaced with mixed used, high density units
3. ZOne Change (legislative action - discretion of the City Council)
RECOMMEND: NO ZONE CHANGES
For this development to move forward, the landowner needs to have their
property rights enhanced, through "up-planning" and "up- zoning."
The City has full discretion under the law to deny this request for enhancement.
The City's zoning does not allow for this type of development.
The developer has no legitimate expectation that these approvals would be
granted.
4. SpeCifiC P11ns (legislative action - discretion of the City Council)
RECOMMEND: DENY. DESIGN CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING PLANS.
• The Design Criteria and Development Standards of the 395-unit
development are not consistent with the open space/regional park �
designation outlined in the East Orange General Plan or the open
space/Santiago Creek Greenbelt designation outlined in the Orange Park
Acres Specific Plan.
• The removal of the East Orange and OPA Specific Plan is considered
significant.
2
5. The Parcel and Tentative Tract Maps for the Project
RECOMMEND: NO ACTION. PROJECT STOPS AT THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT.
6. The overall design of the project
RECOMMEND: NO ACTION. PROJECT STOPS AT THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS.
7. Development Agreement (legislative action - discretion of City Council)
RECOMMEND: DO NOT APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
• Not consistent with General Plan
• Not compatible with the planning area
• Does not conform with public necessity, convenience and general welfare
• Is NOT good land use practices
• Serious health and safety hazards
OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN
Health and Safety
Because of the natural hazards associated with this site, we believe the City of
Orange is unnecessarily risking the safety and health of future residents.
• Fire Fuel Modification
Falls to taxpayers via other agencies. Public lands should not be used.
• Hazardous materials—on site
• Admits to previous hazards but now they don't exist. It is unclear how
this has been remedied and if credible oversight is in place.
• City has been negligent in its code enforcement responsibilities over the
years with this site.
• There has been limited oversight of the imported dirt and grading of site.
• Villa Park Landfill
This property is next door to the Villa Park landfill —an old problem trash
dump because of the methane gas that migrates underground to bordering
properties. Methane is an explosive gas that can cause fires in structures.
Methane migration is a serious issue. OC Environmental Health requires a
1000-foot buffer from the edge of the landfill. Legally it applies only to landfill
parcels not a project next door. Public health protection legally is a very low
standard. There is absolutely no assurance that methane will not escape
and migrate to this site.
3
• Dam inundation zone
The property is also within the Dam Inundation area of two upstream
earthen dams —Villa Park Dam and Irvine Lake Dam. In the event of either
dam failing (usually caused by an earthquake), a 20-foot wave of water
would be released, destroying everything in its path. If there were a dam
failure it would destroy most of the structures on this site. (There have
been 45 earthen dam failures in California with a loss of 462 lives). THERE
IS NO WAY TO PROTECT THIS PROJECT FROM A DAM FAILURE
• Liquefaction
A major portion of this site is subject to liquefaction in the event of an
earthquake. Liquefaction causes homes to sink into the ground. Santiago
Creek flows underground through the central portion of this site, causing a
high water table that in turn causes liquefaction during an earthquake.
■ Creek issues
Santiago Creek normally flowed through the middle of this site (before the
sand and gravel operators filled in the creek bed and diverted the stream).
In the 1969 storms (a 25-year storm event), the creek became a raging river
and flooded virtually the entire site. Santiago Creek is also highly erosive
due to the porous gravelly soil that makes up its banks. Storm damage is
caused not just by flooding, but also by erosion destroying the banks and
washing out from under homes built along the creek. (In 1969 several
homes fell into the creek between Chapman and Villa Park Dam due to
bank erosion.)
Major Site Plan
• Not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods
• Must extinguish historical plans and replace it with their plan to achieve
goals
Context
• Two and Three story assisted living building are not compatible with
neighborhoods
• 81,000 square foot building is not compatible with surrounding area
• The project does not blend into the neighborhood
Density
Considered high-density by the standards of the OPA Specific Plan
• Area C- 16.5 units per acres
• Area D-4 units per acres
Massing
The size of buildings, their boxy appearance is totally out of character for the
area.
4
Planning Area A—Public Entity Dedication
The City, County or OCTA have NOT agreed to take the creek conveyance.
Neither Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park District or Trail4All have the
capability or experience to take on such a liability. An HOA is not reliable.
Parks, Trails and Open Space, Trails
"Parkland Dedication Fees Project provides over 58% to 63% of the entire site
to be dedicated to open space/recreation uses."
• As per four plans (East Orange, OPA Specific Plan, Santiago Greenbelt
Plan and Santa Ana River/Santiago Greenbelt Implementation Plan) 90%
of the site (98 acres) should be open space.
Parking
Parking Code Deviations and preferences given to the Senior Nursing Facility.
Traffic
The real traffic impacts are unknown due to the vagueness of the project
description especially in Area A (senior nursing facility) and Area B
(recreational sector). The cumulative impacts of future development in East
Orange are not adequately addressed. The public has no idea of the true
traffic impacts of this proposal.
5
CORRECTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS
Many statements made by the Rio Santiago applicant(prepared by ktgy—December
2013) and Power Point Presentations shown at the two Planning Commission hearings
are not accurate. The following statements are important to correct for the record.
1. The Sully-Miller Contracting Coinpany letter(attached) and testiinony from Scott
Bottoinley have corrected the "Historiccrl Mining, Quarry, and Agricultural
Operations".
2. "Sully Miller/Fieldstone Communities Plan"—The"controversial"Fieldstone Plan
was approved for 177 homes on a 3-2 vote. The Planning Commission did NOT
approve the project. The successful referendum was in 2003 not 2005. The City
Council rescinded approvals in November 2003.
3. "Extensive Community Outreach and Public Meetings" (Aug 2008 to Dec 2013)
The 49 public meetings held by the developer were selective and limited to "support
groups"that embraced their project early on. Those that opposed their project including
local leaders and neighborhoods were identified and not included in their meeting
strategy.
2008— 12 meetings 2009— 17 meetings 2010— 1 meeting
2011 —4 meetings 2012 - 6 meetings 2013 - 9 meetings
Mabury Ranch "Coalition" The Reserve Jamestown/Colony YMCA
08/23/08 10/15/08 09/17/08 09/10/08 06/03/09
08/27/08 10/19/08 02/26/09 03/12/09 02/29/12
09/06/08 11/19/08 OS/31/11 09/18/12 11/14/13
12/03/08 12/09/OS 04/24/13 11/20/13
12/06/08 02/10/10 OS/28/13
12/02/09 02/21/12
04/14/11
06/O1/11
04/02/12
06/06/12
06/18/12
06/10/13
Creekside Coffee Rotary NOP meetin�s OPA
12/02/09 11/12/08 07/14/09 OS/29/09 O1/31/09
OS/03/11 08/OS/09 OS/29/09 Attended the
OS/21/13 Chamber 10/29/13 OPA Annual
Meeting
OS/21/09
Broadmoor 07/10/09 Girl Scouts
02/23/09
OS/21/09 08/06/09 OPA Board
BIA Meeting
08/06/09 Orange Lions
08/28/09 09/18/13
Kiwanis
09/26/13
1
4. The "OPA Board of Directors Alternative (aka Wild Heritage Plan)". There
was no "Deal"but rather a"Position Statement"was submitted from the OPA
Board of Directors. The diagram was entitled"Sully-Miller Site OPA Conceptual
Plan".
The background was as follows:
"On May 9, 2008, at the request of OPA, the City retained Hogle-Ireland, a land
Lcse consulting firm to act as a faci.litator between OPA and John Martin.Both
Martin and OPA agreed to use the services of Paccl Ireland, signed the agreement
pre�ared by the City and shared in the cost of these services. The City was
supportive of this process as it has an interest in processing a project that has a
basis of support in OPA- the community in which it is proposed.After several
�neetings, the OPA Board and the Real Estate Comrnittee reached a consensus
and on Jaaly 11, 2008 forwarded their Position Statement to the Ciry and Mr.
Marti.n." (Position Statement attached)
From the OPA Position Statement the"Sully Miller Site— OPA Conceptual Plan"
graphic was created to illustrate the OPA conceptual plan,a starting point in
� which OPA could engage the developer. It was a scaled-down version of the
2008 Phase One plan the developer had proposed:
• OPA accepted the proposed equestrian center on the developer's plans
• The houses were scaled down in area D to one-acre lots,and
• The 13 pay-to-play soccer fields were reduced to include tennis,golf and
swim. We wanted the recreational opportunities on Ridgeline to remain in the
community if homes were built there.
At no time did the OPA Board ever represent the"consensus plan"was created by
the City,the OPA Board or the property owner. See above statement: "the OPA
Board and the Real Estate Committee reached a consensus".
This is an untrue statement: "In response,Orange City Attorney stripped the
OPA Board of its function as a local land use review committee for the Rio
Santiago plan."
The City Attorney did not strip the OPA Board of its function as a local land use
review committee for the Rio Santiago plan for reasons the developer claims. The
City attorney did not blame OPA for doing anything underhanded as suggested by
the developer,quite the opposite. "The City concluded that animosity exits and at
least from a due process and administrative process perspective, is irreparable."
OPA was released from the administrative process.
Note that the developer would try to insinuate the OPA conceptual plan would be
a"financial failure". The OPA Conceptual Plan was fashioned after the
developer's 2008 Phase One Plan,just a scaled down version.
2
5. "Past Plans Overlay[Ylap"is not accurate. It should read as follows:
• The Orange City Council adopted the 1971 Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek
Greenbelt Plan on May 4, 1971.
• The Orange City Council adopted the 1976 Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek
Greenbelt Iinpleinentation Plan on May 18, 1976.
• The 2008 DRAFT Santiago Creek Vision Plan has not been adopted by the
Orange City Council and is lacking in many respects. (See attached letters)
6. "Design Principles Complenzent Spirit and Intent ofHistoric Plans': Please
refer to the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan and the Santa Ana River/Santiago
Creek Greenbelt Plan for guidance. The Spirit and Intent of these guiding plans
has been completely ignored. In fact both must be extinguished to move the
developer's project and agenda forward
7. "Specific Plan Map-Proposed Land Use Designation-Low and Medium
Density,NOT High". As per the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan dwelling unit
densities are defined as follows:
• Low Density—1 acre (IDU/ac max.)
• Low Densit��— %z acre (2 DU/ac max.)
• Med—Low— '/z ac(3 DU/ac max.)
• Mediunz—(4 DU/ac max.)
• High Density is not defined in the OPA Plan—265 units on 16 acres is
ULTRA HIGH DENSITY by OPA standards.
The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan does not allow for commercial operations
such as the proposed Rio Santiago Senior Assisted& Skilled Nursing 24-hour
Facility. "The guiding principal for the inclusion of commercial is whether or not
it could it be supported solely by the residents of Orange Park Acres. Another
equally important consideration is compatibility with the rural environment."
8. "Open Space and Parks Plan". Approximately 50 acres conveyed to the County
for the creation of the public Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve. The County has
not agreed to take this responsibility. The creek is riddled with constraints and is
viewed as a liability. It is not a gift or dedication of open space but rather a
conveyance of a hazard. It should Ue portrayed for what it is: "a white elephanY'.
The project exposes taxpayers to unnecessary risks.
9. The "Mara Brandman Horse Arena': This is not a true statement: "Site stripped
of all amenities in December 2011 by pYevious management entity." After nearly
20 years of operating the Sully-Miller Arena John Martin cancelled the Orange
Park Association lease with a 30-day Notice to Vacate. OPA offered to sell the
amenities to Martin but the offer was refused. After negotiations failed OPA
relocated the amenities that volunteers had contributed over the years throughout
the community.
Orange Park Association understood early on the developer was using the OPA
Horse Arena as a wedge issue to gain their approvals for Ridgeline and Sully
Miller. OPA was not swayed by this "carrot"approach.
3
10. "50 acres for permanent open space(currently,zoned Sand and Gravel and
Residential)." Actually more than half (26.4 acres) has been zoned open-space
far many years.
11."4Vhile many public Resources,opportunities for land acquisition and private
recreational resources were identified as existing in the Corridor and Greenbelt
plans,some no longer exist as undeveloped lands or properties that would
otherwise be available for consideration."There is 12.6 acres of development
opportunity at this site. The balance of the site should adhere to existing plans.
12. "OPA Proposed Plan-Proposed Residential 20I0". The applicant
mischaracterizes this. Please see#4 above. OPA Position Statement the"Sully
Miller Site—OPA Conceptual Plan" occurred in 2008 not 2010 for reasons
previously mentioned.
13. `7n 2003 OPA Sicpports Removal of 56 Acres of Project from OPA Plan': Not
everyone in OPA supported removing 56 acres from the OPA Plan. In fact
several OPA residents were key to the successful referendum against the
Fieldstone project. In 2008,the OPA leadership came to understand the
importance of comprehensive land use planning thanks to the help of land use
consultant,Hogle-Ireland. OPA,with the guidance of Paul Ireland,was able to
rectify past mistakes and chart a plan that would provide long term protection for
Orange Park Acres.
14. "Dam Failure Statistics-Catastrophic events(extremely low risk)".
• Every Dam Failure is unexpected and people were always assured before hand
that they were in good condition.
"No active faults in the area".
• EL MODENO FAULT is a southwest-dipping,north/south trending,normal
fault that ex-tends from the Peralta Hills area south into Santiago Creek in the
Peters Canyon Wash.This fault may be capable of an earth- quake of
magnitude 6.0 on the Richter scale (SCEDC,2000).
• PERALTA HILLS FAULT is an approximately easdwest trending,north-
dipping,thrust fault that is located west of the site. It is believed that this fault
may be capable of generating an earthquake of a magnitude in the range of 6.0
to 7.0 on the Richter scale. (SCEDC, 2000).
"Emergency Evacuation Plan in place prior to occupancy"
• Fire and flood evacuations involve thousands of people in a confined space
all-vying for emergency help. In crisis situations most are left to help
themselves. The hundreds of seniors residing in the Assisted& Skilled
Nursing 24-hour Facility will be at a serious disadvantage. Most likely help
will not reach them easily due to the crisis at hand.
"S Deaths in California clue to Dam Failures in the last 50 years"
• No mention of property damage and injury.
4
I5. "INCORRECT Public Distribution". The public distribution flyers are accurate.
There are several inaccurate statements under this heading that need correcting:
• "63 AcYes (of the total 110 Acres)Acres purchased from Sully Miller Land
Co., LLC(4 parcels) and Sully Miller Contracting Co. (2 parcels)-2008"
Public records show that 67 acres were purchased on August 31, 2007 not
2008 for$10,000,000. The balance of 49.5 acres,not 47 acres were purchased
on April 1, 2008 for$5,154,185.
• "Project site is zoned Sand and Gravel and R-1-8,NOT Open Space".
Actually 26.4 acres are zoned OPEN SPACE.96.4 acres are designated in 4
plans adopted by the City of Orange as Open Space/Regional Park and Open j
Prepared by Orange Park Association
For Orange Planning Commissioners
Regarding the proposed Rio Santiago project
February 18,2014
Attachments:
- Sully-Miller Contracting Co., Scott Bottomley January 22, 20141etter
- OPA Position Stateinent—July 11, 2008
- Letters regarding Santiago Creek Vision Plan—January 28/30, 2009
5
�I_;LLY-1��1I��.ER. CC�I�I'l`�.��C'�'�i��G CC�.
�<<:e,;�.�,,,:o,».
135 S. STATE COLLEGL BLt�t7., SCiI���100 � ERc,;, C,^, 92�2 i � PF?QNL I i�1-�`18-960�
January 22,Z014
Dear Members of the City of t�ran�e �lannin�Comrr�ission,
Pursuant to you�•ree�uest,tPris letzer shal!serve ta memorialize rny comrr�ents afi tE;e Pl�rr�ing Com�r�Ession meeting held
on Januaryl20,201.�regarding agend� itet�� 3.1.
IV1y narne is Scott 8ottarnl�y,I am a 30 year resident�af the Gity af flrang�,anci 1 am Vice President and Ger7era) Manager
of S�ilfy-Miiler Cr�ntracfiing. 1 ha�e Iaeen employecf by Sully-Millei' for over 35 years, and startecl �-ny career tivith the
Company�t tf�e Orange sitc in 1978.
1 receiueci � mailPr during the weel< previous to this tneeting fron� P,io 5antiago regarding the patential deuelc��ri�er�t�i
the forrrrer Sully��Miller site. i wanted #o gn o��r notice arid set ti�e recard straight regarding thn misrepresentations ai�d
misleading statemenis cor�t�rined in this rnailer.
Fii�sfi,this site is�lQT an aciive lVi1NE site. It is a perr��it[�d SG"Lane.Sully-MiNer cnased all mining activity on tl�is site over
2 decades aga after depleting a!1 of the comir�erc"sally uiable permittecl aggr�gaze reserves.The mining a#the P�rmitted
reserves actuaify tac>I< place in the pit about%z €nile west of the proposed deve(o�ment site. The mining pit no��r serves
the community far water r�eteniion�nd groundw�ter re�(er�ishment.The �roposed development site setved as a site for
al1 of the anciliary uses ta tt�e rnining o�eration such as aggr�gate processing and screening, aspha(t rnanufacturing, and
construciion equipment storage.
Secand, Sully-Milier RtEitER operat�d a DUiVIP on this site. G1/e di�i operate a wel( managed concrel-e and asph�lt
recycling o�eration, r7othing Iif<e tivhat is on the site toclay.
Lastly,due to Company ov�rz�e��ship ch�nges,Sully-�Nlilier has had no affiliatiGn witf�tl�is properly far t�ver 15 years.
The dece�tive mailpr indicates that "7"oda;�.:,�h� perrnitted, exp�rndi�rg at�d very profifable com�nercicrl a�a�ratiot�
er�cc,mpasses ihe fQ1/owing...Rack�rushrng, Br�ckfillin�,.Str�ckpilin�(Dum}�fny oj inert matericrt. lVeighfiors beliewe thrrt
�l�es� uses nr� na langer cvmpatiF�le with �he.scarraunding pesidential areas�ha�ht�va�levefoped arveand Sul/y-Midter
over tin�e".
Rebardless of this evident acknowlec�gment af incornpatibility,ail currertt activity on fihis sit�e,let alo�ie ai�y exf�ansion of
this activity is�eing done by the current prc,pe�ty owner......_.. By 17is hand, ai his direction.
Tl�is owner toolc#h�Sully-Miller name off of ttie Equestrian Arena fihat we lielped the cornmunity to build.ihis arer��
was something positive thafi f�as served this community welC for several decacl�s. Now he is aiten�pting to dr�g our name
through tt�e m��d regarding the c�arrent activities and blighted visu�l state that he has created on the proposed properiy,
trying#o falsely attach us ta son�ething»egative.!oppose�f�ese misleading tactics.
Sincerefy,
1��f,�y :��
��
�`�' . �''
,
scott W. Botto��ley `'"}
Vice Presiclent,General a ager
��~
On May 9, 2008, at the request of OPA, the City retained Hogle-Ireland, a land use consulting firm
to act as a facilitator between OPA and John Martin. Both Martin and OPA agreed to use the
services of Paul Ireland, signed the agreement prepared by the City and shared in the cost of these
services. The City was supportive of this process as it has an interest in processing a project that
has a basis of support in OPA-the community in which it is proposed. After several meetings, the
OPA Board and the Real Estate Committee reached a consensus and on July 11, 2008 forwarded
their Position Statement to the City and Mr. Martin.
ORANGE PARK ACRES
POSITION STATEMENT
For Alternative One and Alternative Two
JOHN MARTIN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Orange Park Association Real Estate Cominittee and Board of Directors have
considered a development proposal(s), prepared/presented by the developer, for several
parcels of property controlled by JMI Properties. The Orange Park Association Real
Estate Committee and Board of Directors have, additionally, considered alternative
options for these parcels that did not originate with JMI Properties.
Immediately below is Alternative One of two alternative position statements prepared by
the Orange Park Association Real Estate Committee and Board of Directors. Each
alternative addresses a development option for properties of extreme interest to Orange
Park Acres. The alternatives are mutually exclusive, i.e., either one or the other may be
selected. Alternative Two is also presented below following Alternative One.
ALTERNATIVE ONE
Six parcels have been considered and a preferred development option was selected by the
Real Estate Committee for each. The six parcels (each with a stated preferred
development option) are as follows:
1. Ridgeline Property—52 Acres:
The approval of thirty-nine one-acre minimum equestrian lots will be supported but only
if items 2-5 below are concurrently committed to and, where appropriate, improvements
funded.
2. Arena Site (Site H)—7.6 Acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing 39 one-
acre ininimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, the Arena Site (with
improvements yet to be determined by OPA, and funded by JMI Properties) will be
irrevocably dedicated to the Orange Park Association or another entity established by the
Orange Park Association.
3. Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve (Site B)—43 Acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing 39 one-
acre minimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, JMI Properties will
dedicate to the County of Orange, or to the County of Orange and the City of Orange
and/or a non-profit public interest land steward, the Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve.
The dedicated Reserve shall be fully improved to the standards similar to the concepts in
the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and consistent with the requirements of the
regulatory/resource agencies with jurisdictional oversight.
4. Recreation Parcel(Site C)—30 acres (+/-):
Concurrent with or in advance of the approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning
allowing 39 one-acre ininimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, JMI
Properties shall provide for the development of recreation opportunities on Site C.
Minimum facilities that must be assured include several sports fields, tennis facilities, a
swimming pool, and golf related opportunities. Assurances that development will
actually occur must include bona-fied agreement(s) with commercial recreation
providers, agreements with a non-profit organization such as the YMCA, or the
reservation of sufficient cash or other funding instrument assuring recreation
development.
5. Equestrian Parcel(Site D)— 15 acres (+/-):
Concurrent with or in advance of the approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning
allowing 39 one-acre ininimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project initiate
construction of an equestrian facility on Site D. Parking area shall be limited to that
necessary to serve the equestrian facilities.
6. Residential Site (Site A)—25 acres(+/-):
The approval of the zoning to permit on�-acre minimum equestrian lots (R1-40) is
supported.
ALTERNATIVE TWO
Only two parcels have been considered as a second option. These are the Ridgeline
Property and the Areiia(Site H).
1. Ridgeline Property—52 Acres:
The approval of approximately twenty (one-acre minimum) equestrian lots, with the
inclusion of a ride in arena, will be supported but only if items 1(a) and 2 below are
concurrently committed to and improvements funded.
1(a). Recreational facilities on the Ridgeline Property to include (at a minimum) the
tennis courts, swimming pool, and clubhouse/restaurant, shall be retained and improved
with no"down time" during consri�uction of the approved residential homes.
2. Arena Site(Site H)—7.6 acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing
minimum one-acre equestrian lots on a portion of the Ridgeline Property
(approxiinately 20), the Arena Site (with improvements to be determined and funded
by JMI Properties) will be irrevocably dedicated to the Orange Park Association or
another entity established by the Orange Park Association.
Submitted by Paul Ireland (Hogle-Ireland)on behalf of Orange Park Association on July 11, 2008
7heresa Sears
7733 Santiago Cyn 12,c1.
Orange, C1`�92869
714.288.0520
SENT VIA E-MAIL
mknight@cityoforange.org
and FAX 714-744-7264
��
January 30, 2009
Marie Knight
Director of Community Services
City of Orange
230 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Re: Draft: Santiago Creek Vision Plan
Dear Ms. Knight,
I appreciate the opportunity to review the "draft" of the Santiago Creek Vision Plan
(SCVP). Over the years, I have been involved in various conservation efforts in the
region and I am an active recreational user. I serve on the board of Friends of Harbors,
Beaches and Parks (FHBP) and the Equestrian Coalition of Orange County (ECOC).
I am a docent for the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, Co-chair of the Save Barham Ranch
effort and member of the Orange Park Associa#ion Real Estate Committee. My home
borders on Santiago Oaks Park over looking Santiago Creek, so I use the park and
interact with the creek on a regular basis. The creek is part of my daily life!
I noticed that much of the SCVP information has been taken from the 1971 Santa Ana
River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan or the 1976 Implementation Plan (with the focus
only on Santiago Creek in the City of Orange). When you read the nearly 40-year-old
plan, you recognize the incredible community effort and foresight that went into the
original version. The 1976 Implementation Plan is well documented, straightforward
and very easy to read. It is apparent that it serves as the basis for the new SCVP "draft"
vision; so much so that in fact, the new draft document should be an amendment to the
adopted plan of 1976. It would be very helpful to delineate what portions of this report
are from past planning documents and what are truly new ideas. Also, define what has
been achieved and what opportunities were lost, as it is from successes and failures
that we learn for future reference.
Page 2
Theresa Sears
Draft: Santiago Creek Vision Plan
Moreover, it is important to provide an accurate history of what has occurred on
Santiago Creek in recent years. One glaring inaccuracy is the explanation given
regarding the disposal of the Strawberry Field park site. This should be corrected.
Also, there is no discussion of the construction of the controversial runoff facility by the
Irvine Company (private developer) into Irvine Regional Park. This facility is just yards
away from Santiago Oaks Park and will forever have an impact on Santiago Creek. To
ignore this encroachment is to not take the new vision plan seriously.
The Inventory of Public Lands, May 1972, called for the need of recreation/open-space
areas, together with conservation and ecological considerations. A detailed inventory of
public lands near the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Corridor was carefully identified. The
inventory within the 9 miles distance of the creek indicated there were 925 acres lying
within the greenbelt corridor. One of those parcels was the 526 acres owned by the
Carpenter and Serrano Irrigation District, known as Barham Ranch, later sold to Orange
Unified School District. This parcel was slated as a top priority open-space acquisition
because of its high quality habitat. The County acquired Barham Ranch (now a part of
Santiago Oaks Park) in 2003 after a 5-year citizen effort. This important acquisition
serves as one of the major successes of the Greenbelt Plan, yet it is barely mentioned
in the draft.
While the SCVP draft plan seems to concentrate heavily on trail connectivity and the
bikeway plan through the city of Orange (of which many of the trails described already
exist), many components of the comprehensive 1971 Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek
Greenbelt Plan are conspicuously missing, such as a clearly identified watershed vision
plan. The SCVP plan misses important components. No mention is made of developer
impacts, the Arundo removal program, the existing tours and educational programs
offered on the watershed, various clean up efforts, affects of the wildfires and fire
prevention programs. Further if the draft is to represent the "vision for the future of
Santiago Creek" it should include the perspective and expertise of a larger range of
local advocacy and interest groups, such as Santa Ana River Watershed Alliance
(SARWA), the Santiago Creek Watershed Preservation & Restoration Project, the
Wetlands Recovery Project and Orange Park Association to mention a few. We need to
get this right for future generations.
Both SARWA and the Santiago Creek Watershed Preservation & Restoration Project
have been working on a Santiago Creek Watershed Plan for a number of years. Their
members have expertise in recreational trails, environmental, habitat restoration, water
quality, land use and have extensive experience in dealing with the agencies. Orange
Park Association has years of experience with trails and open space issues and must
be included especially when a portion of the creek is in the OPA Specific Plan.
Page 3
Theresa Sears
Draft: Santiago Creek Vision Plan
I am certain other individuals and groups that would like their voices heard and their
vision incorporated in the plan as well. When anyone who desires to participate in the
process is excluded, the plan is flawed and lacks credibility. In the 1971 Greenbelt
Plan, citizens provided valuable comments and input that were incorporated in the plan,
or at minimum acknowledged in the report. I would suggest going back to the drawing
board to open up the process and allow for a broader and more meaningful range of
input so that the draft is more inclusive and truly useful.
In closing, I would appreciate proper credit for the Barham Ranch photos used in the
document; but more importantly, as an interested stakeholder I would like to directly
participate in the refinement of this document.
Thank you for your consideration and will look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Theresa Sears
�� �
�
�� � �� ��� Santiago Creek Watershed
� k���
� � � � k���$ Preservation & Restoration Project
��
January 28, 2009
Marie Knight, Director of Community Services
City of Orange
230 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Santiago Creek Vision Plan Comments
Dear Marie Knight:
On behalf of Santiago Creek Watershed Preservation&Restoration Project(SCWPRP), I have reviewed the
Santiago Creek Vision Plan and offer the following comments:
1. SCWPRP and Santa Ana River Watershed Alliance(SARWA)are not included in the vision document. We
have been involved in vision planning for the Santiago Creek Watershed for a few years and some of our
ideas are partially in the City of Orange vision document. Why did we not receive credit or reference to our
organizations?
2. Section 2.1 does not include details on potential modification of the parking lot through Hart Park to allow
for groundwater recharge of Santiago Creek between Hart Park and Santa Ana River. Water District has
offered many ideas (cut ditch with metal grate, box culvert,etc)to allow for perennial flow through Hart
Park for recharge, habitat restoration, and visual quality of the creek. Our vision plan recommends the
partial or complete removal of the Hart Park parking lot, so it can be restored to a natural state. Small
footbridges could be added for pedestrian connectivity. The parking lot is a major obstruction for
groundwater recharge,wildlife movement, and water quality. The traditional landscape within the park is
also a hindrance to wildlife movement between Cambridge Restoration Site and Santiago Park. Low-use
and passive-use areas of the park can be enhanced with habitat gardens.The natural state of Santiago
Creek predates the history of the park and should be celebrated and restored within the park boundaries.
3. Section 22 should include the removal of soilcrete from the slopes of the creek channel, so the stream
bank can be restored with scrub and riparian vegetation. The existing bikeway between Cambridge and
Tustin should be re-landscaped with native plants versus non-native, high-maintenance plant species.
Pathway lights need to be removed. This stands as a major gap for wildlife connectivity because of its lack
of habitat in contrast to the restoration site between Hart Park and Cambridge.
4. Remove concrete from Handy Creek channel between Jamestown and Bond Pits (Water District
Reservoirs)and restore native habitat with a neighborhood trail to connect residents to the OCWD
recharge basins and Santiago Creek.
5. Convert Yorba Park to passive use area. Restore stream terrace/alluvial sage scrub/grassland plant
community(shallow rooting, drought tolerant, bird and butterfly attractors). Include decomposed granite
multi-use loop trail. The TCA and habitat restoration experts successfully restored Coyote Canyon Landfill
to Coastal Sage Scrub. Since the restoration,CA gnatcatcher populations have increased dramatically at
the site. Please read below articles on restoration of landfilis (great opportunity for Yorba Park!):
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/IeaCentral/Closure/Restoration/CaseStudies/CoyoteCanyon.htm
6. Convert abandoned medical center building/parking lot into gymnasium instead of using open space
(proposed gymnasium site)adjacent to Grijalva Park. Or, remove abandoned medical center
building/parking lot and restore native habitat as mitigation for lost open space(proposed gymnasium site)
adjacent to Grijalva Park.
7. Existing open space along Santiago Creek between Chapman and Collins has the potential to be the
largest inner-city nature reserve in the City of Orange. it features an interconnected trail system, riparian
forest and coastal sage scrub, bird viewing areas, potential primitive group camp sites for inner-city youth,
and opportunities for habitat restoration, including wetland and woodland enhancement.
8. Partner with OCWD to remove barriers around recharge basins at Bond/Hewes/Prospect and create multi-
use trail with native landscaping, interpretive signs,and low, rustic fence between trail and dropoff.
9. Acquire triangle-shaped property at intersection of Hewes and Santiago Canyon Road (next to fire
station)and/or parcel adjacent to Handy Creek and Hewes (across from nursery). Reproduce the Grijalva
Adobe to be used as a historic museum, OCWD Recharge Basin interpretive exhibit, and gathering place
for the community. Landscape with native plants. Include decomposed granite trail with outdoor seating
and interpretive signs.
10. Section 2.7 only includes the landfill as parking lot versus potential restoration site or park space.
Considering the trail is an alternate form of transportation,why do we need another parking lot? Restore
landfill at the corner of Cannon and Santiago Canyon Road back to native habitat. Local residents can
walk to location. Visitors can ride their bikes to location.
11. Section 2.7 should have a non-development alternative for the Sulley-Miller site. It is a busy wildlife
corridor. We have found that it is an important foraging and breeding site for large and small mammals,
raptors, sensitive song birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Not only is the soft bottom and riparian forest of the
stream channel important, but the historic flood-plain and stream terrace(agricultural area and sand and
gravei area)allow for much of these wildlife activities to take place. It is a refuge where there is very little
disturbance from people. Now that much of the upstream habitat has burned, it is supporting even more
species than usual. Expansive meadows and vernal pools are hard to come by in North Orange County,
yet they are both represented on the property. Exposed sand and gravel deposits are crucial nesting
grounds for Poorwills and Lesser Nighthawks. The riparian woodland and mixed-use agricultural areas
also support declining bat species. Least Bell's Vireo,Western Spadefoot Toad, Western Meadow Larks,
Roadrunner, Northern Harrier,American Kestrel, Horned Lark, Lark Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Red-
sided Garter Snake, and Dusky-footed Woodrats require specialized habitats found on the property. In
some ways, it offers more privacy and a different terrain that is unavailable in Santiago Oaks. It also
stands as the missing puzzle piece between the EI Modena Open Space and Santiago Oaks Regional
Park.
12. The Irvine Ranch 4000-home development proposal next to Irvine Park, Foothill Transportation Corridor,
and Irvine Lake happens to be within the Santiago Creek Watershed. Why is it not included in the vision
plan? The development proposal site is one of the most extensive unburned foothill ecosystems in the
watershed,which features Coastal Cactus Wren habitat. it also features panoramic views of Santiago
Canyon, Irvine Lake, and the Santa Ana Mountains. It is historically where Grizzly Bears and Wolves
occurred on a regular basis. It is a major foraging ground for raptors,deer,coyotes, bobcats, and mountain
lions. It already has an intact trail system (former truck trail)and nearby staging area for passive recreation
(bird viewing, hiking, etc.).
13. There are many streets that are interconnected to Santiago�reek. Many of them can be narrowed or
modified to accommodate bicycle traffic.
12. The Tustin Branch Rail Trail has the potential to be a major connector between Tustin and Irvine to
Orange,Villa Park, and Anaheim. A section between Fairhaven and La Veta is still for sale and available
for extension of the bikeway. A maintenance access road along a V-ditch connects La Veta to Chapman.
From Chapman, a trail easement could go next to EI Modena High School/nature center to Spring Street.
From Spring Street, a bikeway can be incorporated along Hewes all the way to the OCWD recharge
basins.
13. The document should be renamed Santiago Creek Bikeway Plan through Orange. It is vague and leaves
many details in the hands of SCGA and developers without including SCWPRP, SARWA, and other
community representatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Santiago Creek Vision Plan. If you have any questions, please contact
me at 714-639-8480 orjrobinson@santiagocreek.org.
Sincerely,
�
� �
Joel Robinson
Director/Coordinator
5907 Valley Forge Dr.
Orange, CA 92869
Jackie Bateman
From: roger underwood [rnunderwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:09 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: rio santiago project hearing feb. 19th
this email is to register my continuing opposition to the rio santiago project.
Particularly in light of recent court action, moving forward on this project seems inadvisable, and contrary to
the interest of Orange and its residents.
The city and developer appear to be asking the residents of Orange to move ahead and lose approximately
100 acres of some of the last open space in the city, while options to retain this space for the future are clearly
affirmed by recent court action.
I am a resident of Maybury Ranch since 1985. I reside at 6719 Waterton Avenue. Recent discussions with
neighbors support the premiss that although the Maybury Ranch HOA appear to be in support of the rio
santiago project, or some minor modification of the proposal, our residents do not support the HOA in that
opinion. I feel Maybury Ranch HOA has failed to adequately inform HOA residents on all of the options related
to rio santiago, including recent court decisions.
In comparing the growing negative aspects of this project with the few benefits of it, I find it difficult to
understand why the city planning commission and council seem intent on moving it forward, despite the
tentative legal status, pending further court action.
please insure that my comments are passed on to the Council members and Planning Commission.
roger n. underwood
rnunderwood@hotmail.com
714/797-7099
�
Jackie Bateman
From: johnnyo500@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:21 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: east orange development
VEHEMENTLY opposed to allowing the developer to build on this land.
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Joe Jimenez[joe@csisinsurance.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Letter of Opposition. - Proposed Rio Santiago project at the Sully Miller site. -
Good morning,
My name is Joe Jimenez and my address is 10501 S. Woodview Circle, Orange, CA 92869
My wife and I raised our 5 children in Orange Park Acres. We love this rural community
and we are OPPOSED to this proposal. We are afraid the high-density housing project will
negatively affect our community forever.
The way I understand it, this proposal does not meet Orange Park Acres specific plan and is
inconsistent with other adopted plans.
What worries us the most is that it sets a dangerous precedent for spot zoning, not to mention
the increase in noise and traffic, in an already busy traffic area.
We hope and pray the planning department will not cave to greedy investors who only care about
their profits, and not our families and our communities.
Thank you,
]oe]imenez
714-222-0128
Joe Jimenez CSIS Inc
President 13211 Garden Grove Blvd.
Suite 100
Garden Grove, CA 92843
joe(a�csisinsurance.com tel: 714-534-0072
www.csisinsurance.com fax: 714-534-043 8
.. ,
Offices throughout Southern California:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garden Grove Orange Anaheim Costa Mesa Santa Ana Temecula Upland
714-534-0072 714-516-1140 714-236-1700 949-722-4022 714-263-2141 951-693-4700 909-954-1130
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Pete Piferi [ppiferi@mriinterventions.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:52 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Cc: info@opacommunityaction.org
Subject: opposition to Rio Santiago
We have many reasons for objecting to the proposed project. My main 2 are:
Traffic—already the traffic can be backed up for%Z a mile from Orange Park Rd/Salem Lutheran to Cannon on weekday
mornings. It is the same in reverse during the evening commute.The added traffic plus 2 more lights would
exponentially make this worse. Cannon traffic will divert past Linda Vista Elementary school putting our children at
more risk. Never mind increasing my already long commute to work.
Sports facility run by the YMCA—besides the potential of lights and added noise affecting my neighborhood of Mabury
Ranch,the YMCA neither has the funds or competency to run anything, especially not a sports complex. My son has BMX
raced at the Orange YMCA track for many years and my daughter and I have belonged to the Indian Princess program
for 7 years.We know how the Y operates. If not for the operator who operates the track for the Y, it would be a
complete catastrophe. Our Indian Princess group of well over several hundred left the Y and formed our own
organization due to the mismanagement at the Y.The YMCA is broke and has absolutely zero credibility when it comes
to running anything.
Please pass this on to the planning commission.
Sincerely,
The Piferi Family
6026 E.Teton Ave.
Ora nge
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Mike Walker[mwalker17@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully Miller site
Hello,
I wish to convey my position on the proposed re-zoning of the former Suliy Miller site.
Please DENY the rezoning.The project is completely out of character for this area.
Consider using eminent domain to acquire the property and convert it into some much needed parkland for Orange
residents.
Thank you,
Mike Walker
5735 E,Valencia Dr.
Orange, CA 92869
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Gloria Sefton [gloriasefton@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:30 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Project- Letter of Opposition
Attachments: 2014-02-19 Rio Santiago letter.pdf; ATT872733.txt
Dear Ms. Bateman,
Would you please transmit the attached two-page document to each of the Planning
Commissioners and include it in the official record of proceedings for this project.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
1
Suddlebuck Cunyons Conservuncy
P.O.BOX 1022
TRABUCO CANYON,CALIFORNIA 92678 '���'�""''_""""'�
-Preserving Our Canyons-
February 19,2014
City of Orange—Planning Commission
Jackie Bateman, Commission Assistant
Via Email Attachment: jbateman�u�cit��oforange.org
RE: OPPOSITION to Proposed Rio Santiago Development(Sully Miller property)
Dear Ms. Bateman:
Please distribute this letter to the Planning Commission in advance of tonight's hearing
and include it in the official record of proceedings for this matter.
This letter follows our letter of January 13, 2014. By way of re-introduction; the
Saddleback Canyons Conservancy, b"ased in Trabuco Canyon, is dedicated to protecting and
enhancing the environment and quality of life in the rural canyon areas of southeastern Orange
County, specifically the Foothill-Trabuco Specific Plan area and the Silverado-Modjeska
Specific Plan area. Our efforts include environmental advocacy and active involvement in land-
use decisions for projects in these unique and biologically rich areas. We are currently in
litigation(with four other plaintiffs) against the County of Orange and developer Rutter Santiago
LP over the "Saddle Crest" development proposal, which, among other things, attempted to
rewrite the rules for development in the Foothill-Trabuco Specific Plan area in order to
legitimize Rutter's incompatible and unlawful development. We prevailed in Orange County
Superior Court last year. The developer has appealed the decision;the County did not appeal.
In response to numerous and repeated assaults on longstanding local land-use plans, our
group has recently formed a coalition with leaders in the communities of Orange Park Acres,
North Tustin, East Orange, and other areas governed by specific plans. A primary purpose of
our coalition is to stand united in our position that elected officials (and their appointees on
planning commissions) have a duty to uphold the integrity of these detailed plans that serve to
keep our areas special. These plans also enhance the quality of life not only for the residents of
these areas,but for all of Orange County's citizens.
Although it would seem ludicrous that a single developer could have the power to trump
zoning or violate established land-use plans, this apparently is the present modus operandi. Rio
Santiago is just one more in a series of ill-conceived projects that contravene local land-use
regulations. This site has been designated as permanent open space for decades, on four plans,
and should remain so. No compelling reason exists now to change that designation.
Rio Santiago Development-Comments-2
We strongly oppose the Rio Santiago project and urge the Planning Commission to heed
the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan, the East Orange Plan,the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek
Greenbelt Plan, and the Santiago Creek Implementation Plan and simply reject this proposal.
'The Planning Commission is under no obligation to rezone the property to fit the developer's
wishes. Rather, the Planning Commission should concern itself with adhering to long-
established plans that serve the broader community.
Please keep us informed of all progress and actions regarding this project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
��G��� �
Gloria Sefton
Rich Gomez
Co-founders
Jackie Bateman
From: Iwolfsandoval@netscape.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:56 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago Development
As a 18 year resident of OPA, I do not support the Rio Santiago development being discussed. A 265 unit"senior" unit
complex is not consistent with the community.Where is the need/demand for 265"senior" units in this area?We have
senior housing on the corner of Newport and Chapman and they constantly have vacancies. A sports park and high
density will cause further congestion on Santiago Canyon road. I would support equestrian single family housing.
Laurie Wolf Sandoval
7343 East Grovewood Lane
Orange, CA 92869
�
Jackie Bateman
From: Theresa Sears [theresasears@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:48 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Opposition to Rio Santiago
Attachments: PC Rio Santiago 02.19.14 TS Itr.pdf
Dear Jackie,
Would you please forward my letter to the Planning Commissioners and include in the public record.
Please confirm receipt.
Thank you,
Theresa Sears
Orange
i
�ieresaSears o 0 0 _
7733Santiago Cyiz�oa�f
Orange, Cf�92869
(�la)2ss-os2o�
t(teresasears@�otmaiC.com
SENT E-MAIL: jbateman(a�cityoforange.org
and cortlieb(a�cityoforange.org
February 19,2014
Jackie Bateman
City of Orange
Planning Coinmission Assistant
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange,CA 92866
Re: Opposition to the Rio Santiago proposal on the Sully Milier site
Dear Ms.Bateman,
I have been actively involved in the land use issues on the Sully Miller site since 1998. I opposed
the Fieldstone project in 2003 and was involved in the referendum effort that caused the city to
rescind their 3—2 vote. I am also strongly opposed to the Rio Santiago proposal.
Any development proposals for this parcel requiring General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone
changes should be consistent with the city-adopted OPA Specific Plan and the East Orange
General Plan designating the site for Open Space or Recreational/Open Space zoning. There are
12 acres of development opportunity on this site. The balance of the 98 acres do not allow for
development.Both GPA and zone changes are discretionary actions thus I oppose this proposed
development and all associated legislative actions requested.
The Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)additional analysis/mitigation does not cure the
deficiencies: iinpacts to parks and recreation,consistency with General Plan policies,noise
iinpacts,altematives and the health and safety concerns. I oppose certification of the FEIR.
Stating that these issues have been cured does not inake it so. The FEIR is clearing lacking in its
analysis of Green House Gas (GHGs),Hazards and Hazardous Waste,Recreation and Traffic and
Transportation impacts.
The Environmental Impact Report(EIR)transportation section appears to underestimate traffic
for the proposed project and does not properly address cumulative traffic impacts.The vague
project description leaves numerous questions concerning key aspects of the project regarding
real traffic impacts.
The project is not properly defined. The EIR inust analyze the maximum development, "worst
case"scenario, so that the public inay be properly informed. These issues are not adequately
disclosed for the public to understand the real environmental impacts this massive project will
have on neighborhoods for generations to come.
Page 2
Opposition to the Rio Santiago proposal
Febniary 19,2014
The E1R fails to identify the type and amount of uses in each planning area and fails to provide
details concerning:
o The types of commercial uses,
o The number of employees,
o The daily visitor estimates,
o The daily einergency service needs,
o Outside service providers that will be needed,
o What types of sports facilities will occupy the site
How will the 81,000 square foot building be used? There is no structure
of this magnitude in the surrounding neighborhood.
o Size and capacity of parking lots
o Size and capacity of sports fields, stadium and/or swimming facility
o Size and capacity of educational facility,
o Size and capacity of storage.
The EIR fails to identify key details of the massive proposed installation of the 265-unit Senior
Assisted&Skilled Nursing facility: kitchens, coinmunity rooms, exercise rooms,pool/spa,
parking,parking lots,medical services,RV storage and other uses.
The EIR fails to adequately disclose the proposed and potential ancillary uses. The deferral of
project details results in an underestimation of project impacts including traffic impacts especially
Planning Areas A(senior)and B (private rec area).
The traffic analysis does not evaluate the cumulative impacts of the projects in the area coupled
with an analysis of the permanent proposed project. This would include: permanent residents,
daily visitor counts,professional and seivice employees needed,outside services required,daily
recreational users,emergency personal and any others that might frequent this development.
It underestimates the Irvine Company 4,000 unit approved development to the East,the
expansion of Santiago College and the projects proposed and entitled in the Canyons.
In addition,facilities that support alternative transportation must be considered: bus turnouts,
bike trails and racks,horse crossings, staging areas,hitching posts,bus parking,RV parking,
overflow parking,emergency ground vehicle access and an emergency helicopter landing to
evacuate critically ill clients in the event of a road closure or other emergencies.
Cumulative traffic impacts have not been adequately analyzed. The EIR must provide this
information.
A backup plan must be designed in the event that Santiago Canyon Road is not accessible due to
historical closures such as fires,power outages and fatal accidents in the area. What is the
realistic evacuation plan in the event of fires and or even worse dam failure? Unless you have
personal experience with these types of emergency evacuation issues"best guesses"will not
work. Those of us that live in these rural areas know we are"on our own". We have great
respect for police,fire arid the other emergency responders but we also know they have limited
personnel and resources.
The EIR proposes no alternative transportation measures,despite locating new residential
development at an urban fringe location. Such planning would reduce travel options for the new
residents and demonstrates a conflict with the County's Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS)
Page 3
Opposition to the Rio Santiago proposal
February 19,2014
to pursue reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT). It must detail more appropriate options
for its future residents.
Cumulative traffic impacts are created as a result of a combination of the proposed Project
together with other future developments contributing to the overall traffic impacts,requiring
additional improveinents to maintain acceptable LOS operations with or without the Project.
The state has passed two important laws related to greenhouse gas emissions—AB 32(The
Global Wanning Solutions Act of 2006) and SB 375 (The Sustainable Coinmunities Planning Act
of 2008). AB 32 requires that we reduce our greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions to 1990 levels by
2020. SB 375 requires each region to create a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS)that
reduces vehicle miles travelled(VMT)and meets the target of an 8%reduction in those VMT by
2020 and 13%reduction by 2035.
Currently,the site is sequestering carbon through vegetation and soil. If the development is
approved it will generate carbon and GHG emissions as well as VMT. Because so much of the
project is unknown the amount of inetric tons generated per year of COZE cannot be calculated.
In June of 2011 the Orange County Council of Governments(OCCOG) adopted a sub-regional
Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS). This document was incorporated into the Southern
California Association of Governments(SCAG) SCS in Apri12012. To actually ineet the
aforementioned targets,decision makers can no longer approve developments in the"business as
usual"model.Instead they must consider how proposed developments,on the urban edge
especially,will increase the number of VMT due to their distance from major roadways,
freeways,transit opportunities,and amenities(grocery stores,office stores, cleaners,etc.);
increase the need for and maintenance of new services(water,trash, sewer,roads, etc.); increase
the risk of loss of life and property due to wildland fires by siting a mix-use senior facility in a
fire prone area and a dam inundation zone of Orange County;and decrease the quality of life for
the existing coinmunity members due to increased traffic.
Consequently,this project is in direct conflict with the SCS approved by the OCCOG and SCAG,
and adds to the regional VMT instead of reducing them.
Further,OCCOG adopted the state's first carbon avoidance and sequestration strategy in the SCS,
we believe there is a remarkable and timely opportunity to have Orange County launch a pilot
program that would conserve Santiago Green Greenbelt identi�ed properties such as the Sully
Miller property,and transfer the rights to develop the property to a site located in a more urban
setting adjacent to transportation corridors and transit. This would have inultiple benefits,
including: reducing VMT,reducing the requisite additional,ongoing and permanent services the
development proposal would have required.
Development of a site designated for open space in a flood plain does not align with the
legislation or either SCS (OCCOG and SCAG)and clearly does not meet the regional targets set
to reduce VMT by the California Air Resources Board. This project misses the inark on so inany
levels.
I strongly oppose this development.
Sincerely,
7heresa Sears
Theresa Sears
Jackie Bateman
From: Steve Ducolon (steve@lund-iorio.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:04 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Sully miller
To the city of Orange,
As a home owner in Mabury Ranch I oppose any development of the Sully Miller/Rio Santiago project.
We already have traffic problems with out adding more traffic to the area.
There are already too many accidents on this stretch of road.
This is an inappropriate area for a project like this.
This area is not zoned for the proposed use.
There is no good reason to rezone this area except for the profit of the developer.
Not to mention it is a flood zone and the fact that it violates the specific plan.
You are not obligated to make the developer happy.
If you should it will negatively impact our area and city forever.
This is a brainer please do not rezone this area.
Thank you, Steve Ducolon
Lund-Iorio Inc.
Sent from my iPhone
i
Jackie Bateman
From: Charles Leffler[charlesleffler@ymail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:54 AM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago
Dear Planning Commissioners
I want to thank you for the detail of your inquiries and the depth of your questions
on Rio. This is one huge mess of a potential project that will cost Orange in Services,
Park usage, Traffic, Flood Risks and ill effects on surrounding neighbors that there is
really NO over-ridding consideration in favor of it but Milan's hope to profit hugely.
When you Commissioners were asking for detail and answers on the potential for
the 'Senior' units being modified to Condos or Apartments and what the implications
would be for changes to the Plans....The Milan mouthpiece, Mr Ryan was quick to
jump up to the podium, again....and state that their Specific Plan is their BIBLE.
THERE IS ALREADY A SPECIFIC PLAN IN PLACE. IT IS OUR BIBLE IN ORANGE
PARK ACRES. We are an 85+ year old Community that has a SPECIFIC PLAN,
adopted as part of the General Plan bak in 1973. Either our Plan is sacred or nothing
they offer in their 'Specific Plan' hold weight.
Please, honor the Plan that we in East Orange and Orange park Acres have
bought our properties under and have lived by. Recognize the Rights of the Citizens
who are a huge majority to not only Milan interests but those potential future owners of
the project's units. We are many thousands of homeowners who have agreed to a way
of life and have a Specific Plan, A BIBLE, as Mr Ryan says and ask that you honor
OUR PLAN.
Thank you,
Charles Leffler
address on file
�
Jackie Bateman
From: Charles Leffler[charlesleffler@ymail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:30 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio with a short fuse
I was just reading the LEA, County Heaith Agency letter.
Despite the Milan mouthpieces many objections to the fact that Methane is a
deadly and explosive gas which migrates , accumulates and may explode. That it's
dangers are not mitigated by any actions offered and may not be mitigate able. He
raise objections that 10 years ago this danger got by because it was either not
understood or ignorance prevailed....We now know that Methane migration,
accumulation, asphyxiation, explosion, dismemberment and death are not only
possible they are plausible or even likely.
Now second hand cigarette smoke may with prolonged contact and a genetic
disposition harm the health or cause cancer in humans. It does not accumulate, kill
within minutes to hours, or EXPLODE!! Compare that with what people will be
subjected to if the Rio project is passed. What about the innocent kids at the YMCA
who are closest to the Methane? Would the Y really spend all that money on a kill zone
for their kids? Schools would not be permitted on such tainted ground. Some have
been built in the past only to be shut down. Taxpayer dollars in the dirt, blown away
with time.
Last year a new law went into effect mandating EVERY HOME IN THE U.S. to
add Co2 monitors at halls or in sleeping areas. This is not if you sell, or remodel or
think it is a good idea...Every household in the U.S. is supposed to update and install
Co2 Alarms. Compare the stats for death by Co2 .....CDC<Jul 23, 2013 - People
who are sleeping or intoxicated can die from CO poisoning before ever ... Each year,
more than 400 Americans die from unintentional CO2.... USA.gov: The U.S.
Government's Official Web Portal Department of Health ...
Here is the link to the CDC info on Co2
http://www.cdc.gov/co/faas.htm
To the potential risk from Methane @ the Rio site. How about 400 dead seniors
and 200 dead kids as a public relations piece for some future Orange City
government? Is that the legacy the Planning Commission and City Council wants to
offer the Future of Orange?
Mr Ryan disagrees with the flood potential, the dam inundation potential, the
traffic issues, the lack of real Parks issue, the damage to the surrounding
neighborhoods considerations, the impacts on Fire Services, that the gift the County
does not want is actually a LIABILITY, that OPA's Specific Plan is as or more pertinent
�
and viable than Milan's Plan ,,,...and he wants you to trust him that METHANE is not a
deadly risk.
So where will the Investors and Principals of the mighty Milan be when
catastrophe strikes? Good question, they are not tied to any long term liability. The
builder who actually builds will have California's 10 year Construction Defects Laws to
deal with. Orange will be stuck with the mess and liability, but Milan, money in the
bank...having dissolved all LLC's involved and with 'new' partnerships/LLCs, looking
for another roadkill property to dress up and sell for a maximum profit.
Deney the General Plan Ammendment and Zone Change asked for on Rio Santiago.
-Charles Leffler
z
Jackie Bateman
From: Charles Leffler[charlesleffler@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 5:02 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: We respectfully disagree
I respectfully object to Mr Ryan's continual interruptions to 'respectfully disagree'
with discussion between the Commissioners and Staff. It is not respectful of the
Commissioners, the Staff or the Public. Mr Ryan stated Milan's case with Power Point
and endless disagreements to staff perspective with all the time he desired to disagree,
misdirect and proselytize on Milan's project. He was given time to rebut ad nauseum all
Public Comments. He has been called to answer questions when appropriate. If I or
any other Public person were to interrupt the meeting as Mr Ryan has, they would be
removed from the Chambers. I have seen it threatened and am aware of it happening
in those Chambers. Mr Ryan' ringmaster act and razzle dazzle pontifications are
getting in the way of the factual responses of Staff who have not only done their jobs
but are doing extra duty, staying late for the serious problems that Rio Santiago
presents the City.
My Ryan in his objections has in effect whined that Fieldstone was given a pass
on this property a number of times. First, the Planning Commission did not Pass,
Fieldstone. Fieldstone had to get it pushed up to the Council which was 3 to 2 on it.
When it was refer-ended...less than 185 SFR units on reasonable sized lots.... the
Council yanked the Approval. Hence, the property later came available to Milan who
wants more than twice the density.
As for Fieldstone and the Methane issue, it is time to see the truth and realize
that it was once OK to put a Dump next to a creek in unincorporated Orange County.
That would not happen today. Neither should Milan's Rio as a bad decision 60 years
ago followed by an il informed or bad decision 10 years ago is not rectified by a really
bad decision to place property and life in a high risk unmitigateable methane belching
site. It would take the Federal Landfill Super Fund to get involved and clean up the old
Villa Park Dump. Unless and until that is done why place lives at risk? (Love Canal ring
any bells?) There are entitlements a plenty on the yet to be built 4000 homes in East
Orange. There is no housing shortage. And I can assure that if Senior Units was The
Future of Development, the Irvine Company would flip as many of its entitlements to
Senior Units as they could. Truthfully, high density units with significantly higher traffic
impacts and parking required should have been part of the studies done. The EIR
� should have considered alternatives that it mentions and those potentials, since they
are very real, should have been addressed with real studies done.
There is no over ridding need for the Senior Housing.
There is no benefit for Orange. Fieldstone on the other hand was going to BUILD real
units and stand behind them under California construction Defects law for 10 years
After Construction. Milan on the other hand has admitted there is no one interested in
buying and building Rio, hence the future return to the Ciity when a buyer wants to
�
build a Real Project in place of the Fantasy lite impact Rio. This is little more than a
shell game. In fact you most likely will hand them millions if dollars in zoning upgrades
only to see a new buyer back to ask to put condos or apartments on the site. That is
not a second bite, that is a rotten apple.
Put a gag on Mr Ryan. He should speak when spoken to at this point.
Errors of the past do not mean we have to continue down the same misguided
path.
Vote Noe on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change asked for by
Milan on Rio Santiago.
Thank you,
Charles Leffler
z
Jackie Bateman
From: Yahoo [abforbes@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:14 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: Rio Santiago
We want you to know that we are opposed to the Rio Santiago project.
#1 It is not zoned for of the proposed ideas.
#2 It will cause more traffic than our area can handle, we're no doing well with the traffic now.
#3 We would rather have the sand and gravel, than more traffic.
#4 What about the animals that live in the area, where do they go.
There are so many more reasons---but you've stopped reading and listening.
Ann and Bob Forbes
6518 E Yosemite Ave
Orange, 92867
abforbes(a�att.net
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Carolyn Aliotta [carolynaliotta@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:51 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Stop the Rio Santiago Project.
We are under zoned for "open recreational space" in Orange.
We do not need high rise Sr. Living on Santiago Canyon Rd.
Traffic is already bad enough.
Car accidents happen too often!
Last weekend's rain brought down land, mud and rock behind my house which backs up to Santiago on dead
man's curve. Crews were out cleaning the mess until 2am!
Too much high density in East Orange.
We want to remain a small enclave of Equestrian homes in the country.
Santiago Canyon Rd has become a freeway from 241 toll road to the 55 frwy.
This developer wants to put Seniors on the Road? That's an accident waiting to happen!
PLease do the right thing and put an end to Rio Santiago, an ill planned project!
Thank you.
Regards,
Carolyn Aliotta
7229 East Clydesdale Ave.
Orange, CA 92869
1
Jackie Bateman
From: Jennifer Pirt [jpirt@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 1:12 PM
To: Jackie Bateman
Subject: SULLY MILLER HEARING
City of Orange Planning Commisssion:
I am a resident of Maybury Ranch and I oppose the Rio Santiago project! Allowing this project to
proceed would negatively impact our beautifut and peaceful neighborhood and the area surrounding
it. Allowing this project is unfair to the residential communities that border the property. People such
as myself bought their homes in this area for the natural beauty surrounding them. This project would
forever change our environment. The population density and additional traffic and noise could also
negatively impact our property values.
Please, do not allow the Rio Santiago project to proceed!!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Pirt
(714) 912-4350
jpirt(a�sbcqlobal.net
1
COUNTY OF ORANGE MARK A. D REOCTOR
���:� � � HEALTH CARE AGENCY RICHARD SANCHEZ, MPH
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DAVID M.SOULELES, MPH
� DEPUTY AGENCY DIRECTOR
DENISE FENNESSY, REHS
Excellence DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
��n�Q""� MAILING ADDRESS:
5�/'V1Ce 1241 E.DYER RD.,SUITE 120
SANTA ANA,CA 92705-5611
TELEPHONE:(714)433-6000
FAX:(714)754-1732
- E-MAIL:ehealth@ochca.com
January 9,2014 � __
Chad Ortlieb, Seniar Planner
City of Orange
Planning Division
300 East Chapman,4venue
Orange, CA 92866
Sent via email to cortlieb(c�cit oy forange.org on January 9,2014
Subject: Final Environmental Impact Report 1818-09 Response to Comments, Errata to Draft EIR and Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the Proposed Rio Santiago Project
Dear Mr. Ortlieb:
The Orange County Local Enforcement Agency(LEA)regulates solid waste facilities and operations for all cities
and unincorporated areas of Orange County and is a responsible agency reviewing the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Proposed Rio Santiago Project. The LEA wishes to make the following corrections and
clarifications to the subject document:
1. In the Section 2.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Additional Project Design Features (PDFs), PDF-
HAZ-12,"Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Director ofPublic Works and Community Development that methane monitors will
be installed."
LEA Response: The LEA has no objection to this project design feature (PDF), however, we have the
following concerns. Methane monitors, once installed, must be calibrated regularly,replaced periodically
and monitored to ensure they are functioning properly. Residents and businesses which have methane
monitors installed must be informed on how these monitors operate and what to do if a methane alarm is
activated. Methane monitors are a protection safeguard for structures near landfills,however planning and
implementation of standard operating procedures are required to ensure the maintenance, monitoring,
calibration and replacement of the methane monitors to protect public health; otherwise the installation of
methane monitors may provide only a false sense of security. The EIR does not address long term
maintenance,monitoring, calibration and replacement of the methane monitors.
2. In the Section 2.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Subsection Buffer Zone, Page 2.3-5,"PDF-10 allows
for the probes under the ownership of OCW&R to remain on-site."
Mr.Ortlieb/City of Orange
Letter Response to Final EIR for Rio Santiago Project
January 9,2014
Page 2
LEA Response: The probes are the first line of defense for detecting methane migrating to adjacent
properties. These probes must be protected and if destroyed during development construction activities
must be replaced. It is important to note that these probes are on the adjacent property due to the fact that
buried waste material was encountered at the landfill property boundary (abutting the Rio Santiago
property) and had to be placed in native soil to be considered a compliance probe capable of detecting
methane migration; the exact boundary of the waste between the former landfill and the Rio Santiago
property is unclear. Therefore,these probes must be protected.
3. In the Section 2.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Subsection Buffer Zone, Page 2.3-5, `Additionally,
should any landfzll material be found on the project site, it would be the responsibility of the LEA to remove
szich material. 27 CCR 20005(c); 27 CCR 20180."
LEA Res op nse: The above statement is incorrect.
27 CCR 20005(c) states, "The standards promulgated by the CIWMB in Chapters 1, 2, 3, and applicable
portions of Chapter 4 shall apply to all disposal sites meaning active, inactive closed or abandoned, as
defined in section 40122 of the Public Resources Code includingfacilities or equipment used at the disposal
sites.Responsibility for enforcing state minimum standards as defined by the CIWMB shall be administered
by the EA in consultation as deemed appropriate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board oY other
oversight agency."
27 CCR 20180 states,"Responsibility for compliance with the standards in this chapter shall rest with both
the owner and the operator. If specifically designated, the operator is considered to have prime
responsibility for compliance; however, this does not relieve the owner of�the duty to take all reasonable
steps to assuYe compliance with these standards and any assigned conditions."
If landfill material is found on the project site,the landowner becomes the responsible party as well as the
operator; the LEA is the Enforcement Agency (EA) with regulatory authority. Additionally, the project
site would be considered part of the landfill and all applicable laws and regulations would apply. If there
is a request for removal of buried waste, the property would be subject to clean closure solid waste
regulations.
Please ensure that any incorrect statements are corrected before fmalizing the EIR. If you have any questions,
please feel free to call us.
Sincerely
C��o�
Kathryn Cro s,PG,REHS
Supervising Hazardous Waste Specialist
Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
Orange County Environmental Health
Cc: Dianne Ohiosumua, CalRecycle(Riverside)
Virginia Rosales, CalRecycle(Sacramento)
Keith Person, SARWQCB
Cindy Li, SARWQCB
David Jones, SCAQMD
Jeff Arbour, OC Waste&Recycling
Polin Modanlou, OC Public Work/OC Planning Services
Anthony Martinez, Environmental Health
Chad Ortlieb
From: Megan Penn [mpenn@ktgy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:40 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Cc: 'Jakki Tonkovich'; 'Fred Talarico'
Subject: LEA Has No Jurisdiction Over the Rio Site
Categories: Red Category
Chad-
Consistent with what David has pointed out in his e-mail below, the applicant asked us to also mention that no such
assessment has been put on the other existing developments surrounding the project, ie, Mabury and Jamestown.
;-:;�zz �� ... �
�. . , _�.,_�-�
, , .. �� .,..,,..
. , , . .�`,:
A ... ��, t ..
From: Watson, David E. [mailto:DEWatsonCa�duanemorris.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:39 AM
Subject: LEA Has No Jurisdiction Over the Rio Site
Per}�o�ir request; ���e have revie���ed the a�plicable re�t�laiions regardin�LEA jurisdictic�n. Belo��� is c}ur
stu�zmary o£the applicable regulati��ns.
Title 27 does not give LEA the authority to impose a 1,000 foot buffer requirement on the Rio project.
Under Section 20005(c� of Title 27, responsibility for enforcing the regulatary standards of the California lntegrated
Waste Management Board was given to the LEA. The regulatory standards are found in Chapters 1 (General}, 2
(Definitions)and 3 (Criteria forAll Waste Management Units, Facitities and Disposal Sites) and applicable portions of
Chapter 4(Docurnentation and Reporting for Regulatary Tiers, Permits, WDRs, and Plans) of Title 27. Section 21190 of
Title 27 is found in Chapter 3.
Section 20005(c) states"[t]he standards promulgated by the CIWMB in Chapters 1, 2, 3, and applicable portions of
Chapter 4 shall apply to all disposal sites meaning aetive, inactive, closed or abandoned . . . ."
Nowhere in 5ection 20005{c) does it state that the standards also apply to non-disposal sites. This means that Section
2119d daes nat apply to fihe Rio project site because r�o portian of the Rio project sifie lies within the boundaries or
constifiuted a part of a disposal site.
This interpretation is consistent with the warding of Sectian 2119C3. Subsection {d) af Section 21190 sfiafies that all
propased postclosure land uses an sites imp#ementing closure or on closed sites shaN be submitted to the LEA. There
1
are other references iri Subsection (d} and Subsection (gj of Sectian 21190 that use the phrases, "jc]onstruction on site"
and "on site construction", respectively,which further demonstrate that Section 2119Q was intended to apply onlV to
proposed development an a disposal site or part af it. Land outside of a disposal site is outside the reach and
applicability ofTitle 27's regulatory standards, induding Section 21190.
A1sa, k�ased on Subsection (c)of Section 21190, LEA has no statutory right to even review or approve our praject. The
only projects LEA reviews are on site postclosure land uses, i.e., land uses within the boundaries of the disposal site.
Beca�ase the Rio project does not involve on site postclosure land uses, the LEA neither has the right ta review nar
approve the Rio project.
Piease !et us Icnow if yau have any further questions.
David
�"����` ` �,�>+��� �� '= i� ��'���" v ':�, ��
S �{�..�q..�¢���'* .�$ �� �Yy, . �+is5
::..., x}eh
� �
� i ' &0
n3ViCf E.�dtS0t1 �
Partner
Duane Morris LLP P:+1 619 744 2289 ';
750 B Street,Suite 2900 F:+1 619 923 25Q8 :
San Diego,CA 92101-4681 C:+1 Ei19 922 3�r08 `
_ _ _. _ ._._:
. . `:a�:... i�i:�z�.v� .'l tit.,.E.;�;...:i.,:'v"i;�'3€a,C?EC�:«:,e.,d.hl:http://WVJW.�U3118MOf(IS.COfTI
, � *
,. ;•r� . , '•l;,. . .f�?;a �f;.,�.i.':ti,°"i:i€!if;u�1:>fi.,.r..�i ?€iv iC.);.0 .::.� �_���.a,.."i:. �Y':�f,S','11�.,�.�E.:� ? 1'f:1":�lc, F.� .f;;.:}�°`ln,'s�l-� ?-�..�'l.�.Yi 3 t:`._�.i, .._ , ..,
. .,.„,,,v,,....€��.,> ., ....?9,..4�i J�:: �'1,.si�.FluC t€Y3 it:;Q'£l3.C�f'"J:�S'1'�l��t7',rlv,`-,:�l..t:1.l..fT7��Y:il£.t^,.'�1.k te€'S"ri3.`>it+31"1 511;�i"It3i:;3?..�I�iltv. �-a- =:I 3�f�`�:;.`P�JCI , �_i.,ii..i _
.,.i"!Ei!"(�;�..r.i;yE;.
2
Chad Ortlieb
From: Cross, Kathryn [KCross@ochca.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:29 AM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Hello Mr. Ortlieb,
As one of the responsible parties of this project, we would like to get an update on the
status. For your information, several firms associated with this project requested a meeting
with the Orange County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) part of the Health Care Agency on
September 18, 2013. The parties present at this meeting were: KTGY, Vista, Milan/Santiago
Partners, Fuscoe Engineering, Orange County Waste & Recycling (OCWR) and the LEA. KTGY
representatives contacted the LEA and OCWR and requested the meeting to discuss landfill gas
migration and mitigation associated with the proposed project.
One of the key issues that was address was a 1000 feet requirements of developments f rom the
landfill, Title 27, Section 21190. Another very important issue discussed was the placement
of a bioswale near the landfill. Al1 parties agreed that the current placement of the
bioswale would cause water infiltration to be towards the landfill. Water infiltration to
the landfill would cause increase in methane production, hence the need for a buffer between
the landfill and development.
The LEA has recently had meetings with other planning department's to discuss development
near landfills and we would be willing to have such a meeting with the City of Orange since a
majority of our closed landfill sites are located within the city boundaries. Please let me
know if you would be open to such a meeting.
For now, I would like to request a status update on this project. Reviewing the city's
website, it states that the planning commission will review this project this winter. Please
let me know if there is additional information and status update on this project.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Cross
Supervising Hazardous Waste Specialist
Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
County of Orange Environmental Health
714-433-6270
1
j .� EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
� Jf�e GOVERNOR
a t .
�Water Boards � M�qETAA OqOR10UEZ
ENVIFONMENTAL VHUTEGTIUN
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
January 31, 2014
Chad Ortlieb
Planning Division
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue `
Orange, CA :
RIO SANTIAGO PROJECT:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOF�T FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 2009-002, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1254-09, SPECIFIC PLAN 001-09, TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 2012-101, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 0025-09, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 5825, MAJOR SITE PLAN NO. 0595-09M AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4413-09
Dear Mr. Ortlieb;
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) staff would like to take this opportunity to
provide comments on the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR and
EIR) for the Rio Santiago project and the general plan amendments and zone changes
associated with the project. Our office has not previously commented on this project and
realizes that the project is very close to being approved. We appreciate this opportunity
to comment.
The Rio Santiago project site is located in the city of Orange, north of East Santiago
Canyon Road and east of Cannon Street. The site consists of approximately 110 acres
and is historically known as the Sully-Miller/Fieldstone site, a former sand and gravel
mining operation. Sand and gravel mining occurred on the site from 1919 to 1995, and
from 1993 to 2004, the area was used for agricultural purposes such as strawberry
production. Santiago Creek flows through the project site. The purposed project will be
divided into Planning Areas A, B, C, and D. Planning Area A would consist of 50 acres
of open space located mostly north of Santiago Creek and development will occur in
Planning Areas B, C, and D, all located to the south of the Creek. Planning Areas B, C,
and D would consist of a YMCA complex on 10 acres, 265 residential units Qri 16 acres, �
and 130 single family homes on 34 acres, respectively. " _ _�
Listed below are brief comments concerning the proposed project. Our comments are
submitted so measures can be incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to water
quality standards, that is, beneficial uses of waters and the chemical, physical and
biological water quality objective needed to support these uses. The Water Quality
Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) considers that waters not specifically identified in the plan have the same
CAROLE H. BESWICK, CHAIR � KURT V. BERCHTOLU, E%ECUTIVE OFFICER
. __._ ....___, _ .._____ ..__. . .__._.____. ._.__ ... _.____. .....__ ... ...
3737 Main St.,Suite 500,Riverside,CA 92501 � www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana �
. ��REGYGLE�PAPER
Chad Ortlieb - 2 - January 31, 2014
City of Orange
beneficial uses as the waters to which they are tributary. Therefore, all waters tributary
to and including Santiago Creek have the same beneficial uses shown in the Basin Plan
for Santiago Reach 1. Applying this "tributary rule" to the project site, beneficial uses of
the drainages on or adjacent to the project site include: MUN (municipal supply), REC1
(contact recreational use of water), REC (non-contact recreational use), WARM (warm
water aquatic habitat), WILD (wildlife habitat), GWR (groundwater recharge), and AGR
(agricultural supply).
1. The project must comply with the requirements of the State Water Resources
Control Board's (SWRCB) general construction permit for Stormwater, Order No.
2009-009-DWQ, as amended. Santiago Creek is an important source of water
for groundwater recharge. To protect this use, runoff from this project be treated
properly to reduce pollutants that could potentially impact underlying groundwater
quality and groundwater recharge facilities in Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana
River.
2. Regional Board staff believes that development of the project will cause a
significant reduction in existing and potential groundwater recharge capacity. The
proposed high density of residential units will cover most of the former sand and
gravel pits with impermeable surfaces and significantly reduce the potential
infiltration of rainfall or overflowing stream flows. The draft EIR states that the
project will create a pervious area loss rate that is in the moderate range.
In its current condition, the site appears to be well suited for use as a
groundwater recharge facility. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has
acquired several sites in Orange and Anaheim and converted them into recharge
facilities, in recognition of the need to maintain a sustainable water source in the
watershed. This project will erase any potential that the former borrow pits could
be converted to groundwater recharge facilities to augment OCWD recharge
facilities located downstream'.
3. The project includes excavating the remaining borrow pits, which currently
contain deposited silts from the former sand and gravel operations and from
creek fiooa filows. The project caiis for impo�ting materials such as concrete,
asphalt, and rock that will be crushed on-site, mixed with the existing excavated
soils and used to backfill the pits. This backfill will likely be less permeable than
the native material that was excavated from the pits. The project also includes
the construction of berms to protect the project from flood flows, and to use fill to
raise the site by up to 12 feet. Filling the borrow pits, constructing flood control
berms, and raising the elevation of land along the creek, will permanently narrow
the creek's flood plain and restrict the active channel of the creek into a narrower
bed.
' However, it is not known if OCWD has any interest in this site as a recharge facility.
Chad Ortlieb - 3 - January 31, 2014
City of Orange
These permanent modifications to the creek's structure, coupling with the
expected increase in runoff from the built- out project, will likely increase flow
velocity in the creek in the vicinity of the project. Unless appropriate measures
are taken to mitigate the expected increased flow volume and velocity, the creek
will be subject to undesirable hydro-modification, including excessive erosion of
the channel and downstream sedimentation, adversely affecting the beneficial
uses of downstream waters. Beneficial uses at risk are WILD, WARM, REC1
and REC. The hydromodification could also place OCWD's downsteam recharge
areas at risk.
In addition, with the loss of flood plain, the site no longer will be able to
temporarily store flood flows. This could exacerbate downstream flooding. The
site might be of more importance to the city and region as an area where
groundwater recharge, habitat, recreation, and flood flow retention are preserved.
Board staff is concerned that materials used to backfill the borrow pits may
contain substances that could adversely affect the quality of underlying
groundwater, or the quality of groundwater that is affected by the backfill in the
future. The project must incorporate rigorous controls to ensure that the
materials used for this backfill do not contain undesirable constituents.
4. SWRCB General Construction Order No. 2009-009-DWQ requires that the
project must consider the use of best management practices (BMPs) and low
impact development (LID) strategies to reduce its impacts to water quality
standards. BMPs and LID strategies such as capturing and infiltrating runoff,
preserving open space areas, and use of detention basins should be
incorporated into the project. Subsequent projects that are built on this project's
site should be required by the City to include LID BMPs suitable to the scale of
the projects. To comply with Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, on-site hydrology
controls must be implemented that do not allow increases in runoff as a result of
the project. The proponent should�be required to implement drainage facilities
that allow for groundwater recharge.
5. The DEIR states that the applicant shall consult with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
RWQCB to establish the need for permits (e.g., Clean Water Act Section 401
water quality standards certification) for project impacts to jurisdictional waters.
The proponent should consider project configurations that avoid and minimize
impacts to all on-site and downstream waters, whether or not those waters are
subject to USACE jurisdiction.
6. This office has received a CWA section 401 certification application for the project
and we will be issuing a Section 401 Certification for it. We will be coordinating
with the USACE and CDFW to develop appropriate certification conditions for the
project, including mitigation measures that assure discharges from the project do
not violate or conflict with water quality standards. The project proponent will be
Chad Ortlieb - 4 - January 31, 2014
City of Orange
expected to incorporate BMPs and LID strategies into the project that reduce its
effect on water quality standards to insignificant levels. Implementation of these
measures will then be conditioned for the project by the 401 Certification.
7. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for this project was
submitted with the 401 certification application package. The Preliminary WQMP
reports that infiltration tests have not been conducted at this time to evaluate the
feasibility of infiltration BMPs for the site. As you know, the Orange County
NPDES Stormwater permit requires that infiltration BMPs be considered on the
basis of site-specific infiltration tests. The preliminary WQMP cannot be
approved before these tests are completed and proper consideration is given to
BMPs that are based on the findings of#he tests. An approved preliminary
WQMP must be developed prior to the City's approval of the project. We
recommend that the city discusses this issue with Adam Fischer
(adam.fischerCa�waterboards.ca.gov or 951 320-6363), Board staff's project
manager for Orange County Stormwater permit.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Woelfel at (951) 782-7960 or
dwoelfel(c�waterboards.ca.gov or me at 951 782- 3234 or
madelsonCa�waterboards.ca.yov.
Sincerely,
������� � �
Mark G. Adelson
Senior Environmental Scientist
Chief, Regional Planning Section
cc: California Department of Fish and Wildlife — Kevin Haupt
'���� Cr���p�nsPef� e.�
��,�--�1 it,� , 5��s 1�" � -�:
Orc,�,se G� ���5
Good evening planning commission. Tonight I wish to address what is
becoming a land development trend in Orange. Over the last few years
developers have proposed projects in different parts of Orange that do not
comply with existing zoning or the general plan. These projects are
advertised as providing major advantages for the city and should therefore
be allowed. New specific plans or zoning overlays are proposed as legal
means to circumvent the wishes of the local residents as demonstrated in
the plans currently established by city staff with input from the community.
The project before you, Rio Santiago is another in a series of proposed
projects that ask you to disregard current, relevant zoning and specific
plans created by the city and the people who live in the surrounding area.
These plans were carefully crafted by the city staff and local residents to
preserve lifestyle, property values, local environment, and a way of life.
The residents in the area surrounding Sully Miller purchased homes based
on published legal zoning and general plan documents with no reasonable
expectation that they would change. The zoning, general plan and specific
plans for this area have been in place for many years, have been revisited
many times, the last time as recent as 2010 and found to be sound. The
Rio Santiago proposal asks you to disregard the previous plans and adopt
a new specific plan and zoning. This requested change will benefit the
developer but not the residents who have already invested in and set down
roots in the neighborhood. The developer also asks you to trust that he will
in fact actually build the proposed project and not just get the zoning
changed to increase the value of the land which he can then sell at a profit.
The developer purchased this land with property rights that entitle him to a
sand and gravel operation. He is asking that you take the property rights of
the local residents as out lined in the long established Orange Park Acres
Specific Plan and East Orange General Plan and give those rights to him. I
ask that the Planning Commission protect the property rights of the local
residents currently living in the area. I also ask that the Planning
Commission reject the proposed Rio Santiago project and allow the
developer and local residents to work together to come up with a plan that
will be acceptable to both parties.
Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association
c/o Accell Property Management
23046 Avenida De La Carlota
Suite 700
Laguna Hills,CA 92653
lanuary 10,2014
Mayor&City Council ✓Planning Commission
City of Orange City of Orange
P.O. Box 449 P.O. Box 449
Orange,CA 92866-1591 Orange,CA 92866-1591
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Dear Mayor&City Council and Members of the Planning Commission:
At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association
(MRHOA), held on lanuary 9,2014,the Board unanimously azcepted the recommendations of the
MRHOA Environmental Committee regarding the subject praject. The Board directed that 1,as
President,forward these recommendations to you. Mabury Ranch is a community of 384 single family
homes, located on the north side of Santiago Creek,bordering the proposed project. The positions of
the MRHOA Board of Directors are listed befow:
1. We support the elimination of the Sand and Grave!operation and replacing it with a Planned
Residential Community,such as the Rio Santiago project.
2. We support the elimination af the residential land use designation on the property north of the creek
and the permanent designation of this property as Permanent Natural Open Space.
3. Pertaining to Planning Area B,YMCA/Recreation Facility,we do not support a"Pay to Play"use of the
proposed sports fields and have concerns regarding adequate light and sound mitigation of these fields
as wefl as adequate parking for participants and guests.
4. We support a comprehensive mitigation plan pertaining to the potentia)dam failure and subsequent
inundation of the entire project as welf as adjacent properties.
5. We support the planting of mature trees alang the entire creek frontage as well as throughout the
entire project.
6. We support a good quality permanent fence adjacent to the Mabury Trail to prevent the accidental
encroachment of humans and wildlife.
7. Pertaining to Planning Area C,Age-Qualified Residential Community,we support a building height
of two-stories(32 feet maximum).
Mabury Ranch has a contiguous boundary with this project. We appreciate your consideration of the
above seven positions.
Sincerely,
^�������
Robert H. Odle
President, Board of Directors
March 17, 2014
City of Orange, City Hall
300 E. Chapman Ave
Orange Planning Commission ,
Orange, CA 92866
Dear commissioners,
We are writing in reference to the "Rio Santiago" development project and your decision
at the March 3rd meeting to reject the developer's proposal.
We are residents of East Orange and frequently use Orange Park Blvd & Santiago Can-
yon Road. We 100% agree with your decision.
I know that you have received many letters supporting your decision, based on the Zon-
ing details article outlined in the March 11 , 2014 issue of Foothills Sentry news. (copy
enclosed).
It is unbelievable that Milan Capital/JMI Properties is asking the city of Orange to amend
the long standing General Plan to benefit their real estate investment profits. The Foot-
hills article clearly outlines the real reasons for your rejection. Thank you.
The main reason for writing is to point out who Milan Capital/JMI Properties really are.
They are not just "local" developers looking to develop their properties. I have won-
dered why there has not been more information in the news about who they are.
I have enclosed detailed information about both companies from the Web. Milan Capi-
tal management is a huge international investment real estate companv with headquar-
ters in Anaheim, with many investments in Southern California. (Orange Financial Ctr.)
JMI Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC is an affiliate of Milan Capital, not just a small lo-
cal home owner in OPA, as he tries to portray.
We appreciate your due diligence in this very important issue facing the city of Orange.
Sincerely,
Robert &Amy Stumpf
7230 E. Pony Ct, Orange, CA 92869
714-997-8412
bobstumpf@outlook.com
�� �� �
Oran e Plannin C ommissioners
_ �_ g g - .
3 r �� it � t�
sa no t� E��t �Jr�n � �: , .r� �ct _ _
y � � �--
By Tina Richards compatibility,safety and feasibil- for tiie property, which itself is hons going back have preserved
ity issues, unheard of in hearings fraug�it with roadblocks to devel- the community. To arbitrarily
By unanimous vote,the Orange conducted by previous planning opment. It houses Santiago Creek dismiss it now isn't right. We
Plannina Commission rejected commissions. — part of the federal watershed need to consider the residents'
the proposed Rio Santiago devel- and home to protected wildlife; �,ell-being,safety and comfort."
opment slated for a 110-acre par- On-the-fly planning it is downstream of two earthen °°East Orange is semi-rural,"
cel in East Orange. The landowner,Milan CapitaU dams and is therefore considered Gladson added. "Everybody
The March 3 vote capped a JMI Properties, was asking the ' an inundation zone; it is subject �o�,s that."
12-hour-plus review process city to amend.its gener�l plan to to.periodic flooding; and it bor-
consisting of developer presen- allow for a senior living facil- ders a former landfill that emits Looks aren't everything
tations, city staff reports, public ity, 130 houses and a privately methane gas. While the commissioners con-
comments and detailed delibera- held sports facility. The 1and is The property is also siivated `ceded that the project's interior
tions that took place over three currently zoned for a sand and in "rural" -East Orange, where design was attractive and — lo-
separate commission meetings gravel,operation and is go��erned equestrians, large 1ots, minimal cated somewhere else — would
commencing in Febniary. by the city's general plan, the street lighting and few commer- be a welcome addition to the
The usual five-person commis- Orange Park Acres Speeific Plan cial enterprises are the, norm. city,they found it lacking in ev-
sion was reduced to three as Bill and four additional community- Area`residents, accustomed to ery other way.
Cathcart and Bill Steiner recused based"vision plans'.'that call for past planriing commissions that �eyrejectedtheEnviromnen-
tl�emselves fi�om the proceedings. open space zoning; a greenbelt routinely rubberstamped devel- tal Impact Report(EIR),noting it
Commissioners Pat Buttress, and parkland. Twelve acres are, opment proposals with little re- raised mare questions than it an-
Adrienne Gladson and Daniel however, cunently zoned for gard for the public,were stunned
Correa made up for their reduced low-residential housing. when Correa remarked that "we , � , � ,
nu►nbers with an in-depth analy- Open space/recreation has long " cannot ignore the 86-year history . • •
sis ofthe development's land-use, been the preferred designation of Orange Park Acres. Genera-
� N � a� a� ' v' " ^ ' p v'
i � i �+ y � p 'O ' G: �.:. «� f��" � O .s.' V c�C� � ...V+ b�Jtr,.� ,�"..' y,�_, • `�yi O U '"� y" v N +' •.-
^c7 N O -d cd �. r. +-' a� k O +� cC ,� a> Q +� 5�., 'O
y o � oo .�� oy °' '3 �' � °' � � Q., >, � a�i � w �,� o � � � a`�i c�"�iy � � c�i 3yY o �'
� �•� �
� '° � co 0 " fn o �� o �' 0 o p" �n y � °s,,,' `� a� a�i .� � v,
� 4-+ �' �' � � �'^ � 3 � a) � �� V � y � v� 6J ��„ y ¢,'d � � � � � � '"' � ccl 'Cj .-•
�= a�v. �, � °° Q � o= � � � o � � 3 � � • � �, � � � a � � .� � � � � 3 ., � � � �-c �
� ,� w ;s?, � � o �Y � '� o � a' a� .> � � a� � -o �' • v,
�°' � ,�U .' „ � b 3n�o � U � � � � a�i � � .� 00 � � � � � W -� o `~ � :bQ i:�-' ^ a� o
a� > � � � oo � 'b � � o�n �; •> � � �. � oa� > � ..a �, a� ._ .� � .b . � v
� _" � .3 � �.3 .� � � � 'a � � � � � � � � :� � u, c�i � �� ° i � � ~ J .°� � i � � °
� �. �- � }. �, a � .� on�oo � yU .� 0 � •03 � ro � -d �. �. � „
O .G •� .'' ^' ",� N � c� " C � c� � � bD.`� � '� v� �n � T y .� �.� �Y .A w � Y � t], O O Q.0 ^d
r�''h � N O � �"' � N 'C � Ri y � t-� Q+ � N L�r. S�'' U � �� � W � � � � C � O N � N � �"" 'O cC N O
�.� }-' � ¢" � � .� � o � b � `° ,.�ba�i o p 3 `° .� ,0 �'va�i a��i a.� �' � ��s � �Y '� � •� � � o �b
o -v �° w o -C3 +r � " y � a�i °�'' -G -C $ .�'�' -�s o � � y b o � .� y-� c� � � j �� � p � a� � p v
U .�i V] � � O .ri� � i-i S]y Y Q � O � � � � C� � � "'� Y �y' � fA �1 � /1 Y :..{ � � � Q � � F � � �],
� �^ �.1 ��'`! �-�!
� S�.'•� � � � •�F .� �d }„ •� � ��•O.� 3 Y O S 4-+ `/ y W N cd 'y ��..� .fl 'D cJ � S�' i+� '� � � 'Y .S-i +�+ N
� �-+ v� cn �.� �
� � .. � p � -U � �' U � � � � � � vi•:+ 'd �.' � x � � N
� � o ° '° �; "" � �° � �''' 3 �� � �a, � o � o`� � � �' � � ; b ° a/� ��}.y.I � ,��, � �a..i � o �
(� � � .�. a� .�c � �: a� �, ... a� o � � � .., v� a� ... o
.'�.,�' (H V � � � � Y+ �.'!.+ � O Y i-� 1-1 3 ¢ Q� Y � �y � � � � i�}WyI1 i-+ � � 7� �y � �
� Q� � b .�I � •� �-�I Q� �+ � � � �r �
� � �i., �, � � �y �, or��G c� H � a� � U r-I � � cd C7 � � ,.-� • �1 � 'N
N cC bA a� ,D N v, N 'f�' N it V] > k bA «3 � � v� � � O � � � .
;'G y .� Y O ^ � O N N O � � v, � � O >,� � «S ,� �, y � 'O � ,Y� � � H O v, p � pL
,,� C bA � � 'G ��. � O y .�,C �.,� ai � O � 'C � p''�"' �' � cd � N � b�D i U a� 'b �'"' �
y',,, � C: � O � O a.+ rri ,L" U �i.� • y L+ £» O j'„i N OA bA cd •�,,,• „ v' '+,
y U eC m .� '_' � � ++ y ce3 +� N . 'd � � p 4) � O 'b +.+'� b�U O � �. � ., � � cd cG U j
��'i �' p 'G bD � .O � cd �, W .'p S: � V ,.L" ¢, N � � �6 3 � � � p vi
� a� cC3 'a) N y y t' 't7 � � � +' C�C �+� �..D � }. vi Vi � •� �' yV„� � GJ
Gq V bA 'C3 � s.. a�.� 4-i �, � � c0 O � � � pp,�,, � y cd U � y O� y .� � L
o C7 �3 > � � a� � 3 � ... 0 � � ,� o > � _, •
p •y cd � � � pp O o � �±
N O � Y '� � � � � � � � O I�+ � `�n "d O S].� N O "" � t).Y y � U �: � U � r� q � G
�,� O a.+ �C � 'y �' �' U� cn 'C *� � v� cC cn � N � ca >
� � ~ y ~ � O � � O � U � ~ �y � � � � y � ��.r � � U O � � � U . � O O O ~ V
� � � O O � �+ � �y � VI V Y (� � ,�'y � � �1-+ ^ � � � � � �i �+ .-.�. � V .H � .�
� _., o .�' � �. '� � �, a� � ..., a� 3 � �' � ;.o �o ... .. � �s �, a� � ao -v >
-C � � y °' �v � '" � � �° a-c � ,� �' :� Q,'p� � -v � .�''�'�? " � �;.., y °' � °
� � � � � p v�i p � J, �' a> «i 6� � � � � �i� > v � � �� � ,� �, � bD� y � � 'G
� -�" � �"i � � L�". .f. � U �, �•C� � v �n G�"r y C� '��' O O O � � ' � � � c� �' H � .� � '3 �
on ° �s � a� � ,� � Q. � � E'�-� i�y � U � a� � o3s�,� o..� 3 .: o �
3 'a� � � '�d � � o �
-- - �. ?i
The Company � Milan Capital Management Page 1 of 1
ABCIU7 U5 � INVESTMENT MANAGEMEN7 � PROPERTY MANAGEMENT j PORTFOLId � CASE STUDIES e CONTAC7 US
The Campany
Milan Capital Management is an investment real
estate company that speciaiizes in the
acquisition, development, and management of
commercial and multi-family assets. Founded � r��' ��
on the principles of value-oriented, research-
based investing, the company provides asset
and property management services to its
investors and clients. �
For years Milan has proven its expertise as an
investment real estate owner and operator and
has leveraged this knowledge to provide
strategic guidance to its outside clients and partners. With experience through 4 decades, Milan
has proven its understanding of real estate cycles and has successfully capitalized on
opportunities in both rising and falling markets.
Headquartered in Anaheim, California, Milan focuses primarily on the Southern California
market for its investment, asset, and property management services. With its local focus, Milan
brings considerable market knowledge across all major real estate product types.
S:S 5. Disrtey!ar�d Driva e$i11YY.1OI •Rnaii�irn,f::A 92802 � 'C�: 7La.687.00Q0• }�: 7i4.6;;'T.2;�Cr;} � �r:rcC-�rnilanca;!.cc;r:�!
Catifibrnia UkE License Idumber f1841681
f'�3
http://www.milancap.com/the-company/ 2/25/2014
Acquistion Criteria � Milan Capital Management Page 1 of 2
ABOUT US � INVESTMEN7 MANAGEMENT � PROPER7Y MANAGEMENT { PORTFOLIO � CA5E STUDIES � CONTACT US
Acquistion Criteria
Over time, Milan's acquisitions have varied
from REO apartments to distressed retail
centers and office buifdings to land
purchases for development.
� � ����
As market conditions change for different
product types and asset classes, Milan's
focus shifts to capitalize on the most -
profitable opportunities. Generally, Milan is
a "value-add" buyer and has the following
acquisition criteria:
Location:
• Southern Caiifornia
Property Type:
• Retail
■ Office
• Non-performing notes for all property types
Project Size:
• $SM+
Deai Specs:
Milan prefers value-add and repositioning projects, such as:
• Renovation of poorly performing retail or office properties with vacancy issues
• Reconfiguration of an incorrectly designed, multiple building site
• Low rents with the capacity to increase rents within the next 2-3 years
• Other development or redevelopment opportunities that provide attractive stabilized
returns
Milan has been quite successful at purchasing , a �, �� ����y�,,�, p�=yer � � a� �,,��
otherwise difficult to finance deals, then 1�4 ; �
turning those projects around within a short � ' �
� ;
period of time. Milan moves very quickly and w �'�`� ?
has a 10 year track record of ciosing over � � ;'
90% of the escrows it enters. r `�"'�"'� i
�.*� �,�,
,
��M
:i
SS�S S. pisrzeylarsd Drive•SiiiTe 101 •Ariati2irn,i:A 9�802 � !: /:v.68%.0000• F: lI4.fi57.1)6; ! in e'��sni ar�crp.cor:r
Califernia Dk[License Pd��Enbz� G1�'4IOII1
�� �
http://www.milancap.com/acquistion-criteria/ 2/25/2014
Portfolio � Milan Capital Management Page 1 of 1
pBQUT US � INVES7MENT MANAGEMENT � P120PERTY MANAGEMENT � P6RTPOLZO � CpSES7UDIE5 � CONTACT US
Partfolia
._,.
.� �k e�ornie .�
Teha�chapv � C�i�y �
�,�l;,
t�,l �
_ �..u, _> .._
� � �} Barsiow
�-0 R�*s�mo�i�+ {
� � F
s,„
� -�
. � _. ... _...... ' �. :� � `;_. .
��. . �..�I1GsSSf�f ' ' � _'
.�, ..�..,:.J -:..
0 3�S �
��'�� P��md�de I � �taCt�t`vil9€
�
j�i � . �S�nta ,�;� ia1� � ����q �� ��APPIeVal.ley
s� � Y��� � � � �
S�nta��eda� ;Hesperia � �aAt�
tur�- Sim�Va3ie ar '���
�
i v ei�ty�?ti�ie
h , .
��Tf�q�1S�t�i�� �; , � � t1� � �i�e ` a � . . �p � Y�tiev��aalley 1 sl�s
C�aks�".�,�. �
� �� D�ta �
� , �- �"" ��Redlanda�
South Los�' ,.- -'� ,roshu
aln e�e ����ma�' +�f�iverside � , � � �
� .P�thn Ma[rana
�^�C�ona� . ....� st�Jngs $
� � ��� e�m �, � _
� .. He�net .4ndio
San 4�edtq�w � i � � � ° P�:rn iJ� ert< �,..
�_ ��3unC�ty. ' �La4uinta�CciecheAa
p �
HUI7tjrsgtC7Yt��,,. � ,�
�each `��l'le�tt� Temycula �
� �iasis
� �
�",� "1 � � �
�
� = 'SYak� �
Oceansid`
�
Car , `�Escnndido _
,�.
� �� � af�amrana �� A��aa-F3vrreg�
�4F� s P+�cm�y �eserc SGase F'ark
� ��MiraNle����� '�uc�tl��.�tu� ��
La.J4lfao�°'Santee����[Is�.�,��;,:,.y;,
S�n Il"Iegd� E�Cajan � .. , ,...,:,�
<, �`Ch�[a Vist� �.�-�-- .:.
jy �,....-,—.���z.�--;^-�""�a(a��'�2ea�tef3ca�g�i'i�a��
_ ,.,>
888 S. DI<neyland�%rive+5uit�i.ql •Anat�eim,CA�L?t02 (T; 7tA.6E;7.13prin. r: 73.4.687.tU00 I infci_c,rnilanca�.cci 3
California UT:E License tJurnber Gi$�1081
l'�3�
http://www.milancap.com/portfolio/ 2/25/2014
Landowner � Rio Santiago Page 1 of 1
LANDOWNER
_ _ __
__ _ _ _ __.
JMI Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC is an affiliate of Milan Capital Management,which is a pri-
vately held real estate acquisition, development and management company based in Anaheim,
CA.
Within the City of Orange, Milan and its investment entities own approximately 168 acres of un-
developed property including the Rio Santiago site, as well as a vacant and former 9-hole golf
course site and the Mara Brandman Horse Arena in the Orange Park Acres community. Milan
also owns the 310,000-sq.ft. (7.56-acre)Orange Financial Center, located off Hwy. 22. Pur-
chased by Milan in 2008, the Orange Financial Center was updated during the recent
Great Recession at the cost of$8 million in an effort to both retain existing tenants and
attract new businesses to Orange. Currently,the Center is nearly 100%occupied and pro-
vides space for 22 companies employing 1,200 people in Orange.
Family-owned Milan Capital Management is a proud supporter and community partner of the
following organizations:
���:;. � ��
�
�,'�� � #i3li�Y�tIY6tDF:if{�€p�+ik:1N't
tQp}4[�4fi9'���
raas��ta�.��w�r�c�,• Ctt��,���t+.�#Ei�t
p�IN��
� � �r��r����
� � '������
#�xd�r�rizt}Er�t�d4?-�'
�� ��, � �: F� # fl; 1!
���
http://riosantiago.com/landowner/ 2/25/2014
Jmi Properties, LLC in Orange CA- Company Profile Page 1 of 3
carporationuriki'c��
Companies(/companies/) People(/people/) Locations(/BusinessDirectory.aspx)
.�1'lll PrOpel"tl@S� LLC 4 Search �C Share
Active Refreshed�/23/2014=This p�ofile"created using data from
California Secretary of State. Edit This Profile
P' Industry: Property Management (lprofiles/ediU46508729)
0 Orange(/California/Orange/BusinessDirectory.aspx),CA
(/California/BusinessDirectory.aspx)
Follow This Profile
�D&B Company Report(/Iink/dnb/46508729)
__
__ __
__ _ . _ _
__. _ _ _ _ __ __
�w':
DUfI Ht BraClStreEt �OverviewofJmi Properties,LLC in Orange,CA
O Re po rts
_ _ --••••Jmi Properties, LLC filed as a Domestic in the State of California on
DUCI Sl Brc�ClStreet Monday,June 23, 2003 and is approximately eleven years old,as
recorded in documents filed with California Secretary of State.The filing
QQ R2 p0 rtS ' is currently active as of the last data refresh which occured on Sunday,
February 23,2014.
San Diego Property
M g m t Key People
sandiegopropertymanager.com .1ohn Martin(/California/Orangefjohn-r-martin/44561443.aspx)serves as
the Member and has interests in other corporate entities including Jmi
Full Service - Home, Apt, Condo JD - : Real Estate(/Califomia/Orangefjmi-real-estate/44561441.aspx), Jmi
Accredited Residential Manager ' Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC(/California/Orange/jmi-properties-
santiago-partners-Ilc/47248644.aspx) .John's past corporate affiliations
' include Jmi Capital Partners, Ina (/California/Orange/jmi-capital-partners-
inc/45152147.aspx),Jlm Partners, LLC(/California/Orange/jlm-partners-
Ilc/46514959.aspx) .
John R. Martin is also the registered agent for the company.Also known
as a statutory or resident agent,the registered agent is responsible for
receiving legal notifications regarding court summons,lawsuits,and other
legal actions involving the corporate entity.
� Key People & Organizations for Jmi Properties, LLC
Jmi Properties,LLC
(http:l/www.corporationwiki.comlCalifornialOrange/jmi-
properties-IIc146508729.as px)
Jmi Real Estate(/CalifomiaA
0 Orange Active
(/Califomia/Orange/BusinessDirectory.aspx),
_
CA _..�_.
(/California/BusinessDirectory.aspx) �mi Properties,LLC(/Califomia/Orangefjmi-properties-llc/4650$729.aspx) Jmi Capital Pa
�D&B Company Report(/Iink/dnbf46508729)
�P�/
http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Orange/jmi-properties-llc/46508729.aspx 2/25/2014
Jmi Properties, LLC in Orange CA - Company Profile Page 2 of 3
c$a 1 Active Members Found '
' John R.Marti
Jmi Properties/Santiago Par "
p Key roles for Jmi '
Properties,LLC
- - - -- Jlm Partners,LLC(/Californi
1 John R. Martin
(/California/Orange/john-r-
mattin/44561443.aspx) Active
MEMBER
.. .....__......._ ____..
........ ...__................__._
d Corporate Records , O7A Locations
__ __ � � �y� Y4!'�d�92869
...... ...... .... ,-. . . k4^iF �. k
Cal�fornia Secretary of State �-� ��t : � £ " `
___ , �_ �...__� _ �_ � '��� ;�tller�r�, Pla�en�� ,�,� i i� �o"�� ��` ���
� Filing Type: Domestic �� � ` �� ` {��� � �� �
�
.__. ....... »�w> i:�z t�+. -�af j r . -
f371Q2- _ �
_...._ � ., a� ,.,. � .�"�u a2d675459.aspx)
Status: Active ' � � �
�
_. _.... :� ��(1d�1�1fT7 � �
State: California � � �l ,��
�
� � � �� � � � 3ti
_ _� ..�,...
_.... ..... , _.� ._..._.�_�_.__...�......,,�.. .,_.�., __.. . ,
State I D 200317610022 � ��;,;,��,�,� "``"' 4;s j �
_.� .. .. ,.._.. .�. .
. ,.,.... �._ . ,.,,,.,.._. . ....._ � :�� � � � . �., � �
Date Filed: Monday,June 23,2003 � a � , �. �; °..� ' ��«„�'�',��"��°`�'
�.< ,��(�range ,
__ ,� � , �
Registered Agent John R.Martin �����:�rQ��,� >�' �.s�'�� ??�� � �,,���
� � ,v �,�,, �' s : �� �
��a .� .�� ��. � >, ^`�` ,a�
e , �.
�
_. _ _... *�,'
, � �'� ' �,._�_
� ��f1td,�Fl�� � � , 1���_ •�
Leaflet{http IAeafletys c:am}4�U1apv�at's f312 OpenStree��lap •
� ,
cori��kiutors � .,� , , '.�. a� ��, .�
__ _ _._. _.__ __ _ __ __
10632 Meads Orange, CA 92869
; (/California/Orange/10632-Meads-Orange-CA-92869-
' a20675459.aspx)
_ . _ __._ _ _ __
__ __ _ __ __ __
_ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _
(dj Records Similar to Jmi Properties,LLC m Business Reports for Jmi Properties, LLC
_ ._ _ __ _
__ _ _ __
_ _ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ :
; Jmi Properties, Ina Comprehensive Insight Plus * Learn More
� (/California/Claytonlmi- Report (/link/dnb/46508729)
properties- ' '
inC/45810488.aspx) ' The D&B Comprehensive Insight Plus Report for Jmi
Clayton,California ' Properties,LLC combines D&B's proprietary statistical scoring
__...._.. __ ..�� .__ ���..� _�..._ _.._..�_� . ___._.. . . _._�_. .... �� � '� with business,payment and financial information all in one
"�.
Jmi Properties Corporation Fi1ed:Articles report.
'�' (/California/Claytonfjmi- or Incorporation -
properties- officers:.lim,1. US Company Profile Report rt �earn nnore
corporation/40970246.aspx) MOItB (Amk/dnb/46508729)
Clayton,Califomia (le/40970248) '
�� v
http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Orange/jmi-properties-llc/46508729.aspx 2/25/2014
Jmi Properties, LLC in Orange CA - Company Profile Page 3 of 3
Jmy Properties III, LLC Filed: The D&B U.S.Company Profle contains basic information
�� (/California/Rolling-Hills- Domestic ; such as address and telephone number,executive names and
Estates/jmy-pfope�ties-iii- Officers:Jason titles,line of business and SIC codes,D-U-N-S Numbers,
IIC/46530518.aspx) Yamada ' organization status,and year and location of incorporetion for
Rolling Hills Estates,California (/e/44984069), , Jmi Properties,LLC.
ChisatoJanice __ _ _ __ _ _ _ . . .
_ _ _ __._ _
Matsuyama
Yamada
, (/e/46530528)
and 1 other
Search for additional records for Jmi
Properties, LLC (/researchljmi-properties-Ilc)
Birth Records
www.myheritage.cam/Birth-Recnrds
Find Millions of BMD Records on The Strongest Historical Research Tool
o Source
California Secretary of State refreshed 2/23/2014
Terms of Use(/terms-of-use) Privacy(/privacy-policy) Follow us on
Contact Us(http://support.corporationwiki.com/anonymous_requests/new)S+Google+
(https://pl us.goog le.com/102482929934812236764)
f Facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/co rporati onw i ki)
lI Twitter(https://twitter.com/corporationwiki)
COPYRIGHT �O 2014 CORPORATION WIKI BY SAGEWIRE RESEARCH LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
All Trademarks and Copyrights are owned by their respective companies and/or entities.The
companies and people profiled on Corporation Wiki are displayed for research purposes oniy and
do not imply an endorsement from or for the profiled companies and people.Data inaccuracies
may exist.No warranties,expressed or implied,are provided for the business data on this site,its
use,or its interpretation.
Q�9 9-9
http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Orange/jmi-properties-llc/46508729.aspx 2/25/2014
� EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
)ii'�..'� GOVEanOP
f F:'
cWater Boards � MCRETnRv q�DRIOUEZ
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIUN
�---�..
_.'____'._____—_'.-- _—___— _—_..____—__---_.__.'_ ___ __ _.t' t_.S_....�—
,,�'`� '��s + �f��,,,,
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board .r', ��� � � ��
,`
���; �' .��
,j �� '
. ,��J �r�,� , �y �
April 7, 2014 �-��-� �„ � �A , �',
��`"� ��`'t� +�a` � �'��_�; _�;
� ,'�` �:tt a C> U?;.�'��i; _ ' ,
Gregory Hastings, Ghastings@cityoforange.org l�'�. , ��,�,��,���s;Y �'e'
City of Orange �'� ��-�=���c��-�,°���;���s `
300 East Chapman Avenue � . ,����
Orange, CA 92866 �'`
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RIO SANTIAGO
DE�lE!QPI'�llFNT PRQJ�CT A_��I,ACENT TO VILLA PARlK LANDFII_L, QRANGE
COUNTY
We have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact (FEIR) Report for the above-
referenced project, which we received from Orange County Waste and Recycling on
February 20, 2014. The proposed project consists of a 110-acre planned community
that will border the Villa Park Landfill.
Our comments on the project are as follows:
Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, Page 5.9-33, Fourth Paragraph states
the following:
As discussed in above, infiltration of runoff will be restricted throughout the majority of the
project site due fo the extensive excavation &replacement with compacted engineered fill to
depths ranging 20 to 50 feet below ground surface. Since groundwater depths are
approximately 34 to 52 feet below ground surface, BMPs placed below the engineered fill will
not be able to meet the margin of safety required to implement infiltration type BMPs. In
addition, infiltration will be restricted within 250 feet and upgradient of the existing Villa Park
landfill site to protect groundwater quality. In addition, biotreatment BMPs within these areas will
be lined fo restrict infiltration. Therefore, a/ess than significant impact related to violation of any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements wouic�occur�ncf►���;�it;gatian
measures would be required.
It is unclear to Board staff whether stormwater management areas upgradient of the .
landfill will be lined or unlined. The third sentence in the paragraph states that
stormwater infiltration will be introduced at a distance no less than 250 feet upgradient
of the Villa Park Landfill. However, the very next sentence states that the infiltration
areas will be lined. It appears that the project proponent is proposing to infiltrate
stormwater through a lined pond, which is not possible. If stormwater is infiltrated
upgradient of the landfill, this infiltrated liquid could potentially mix with the waste within
the landfill, increase the production volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
contaminate groundwater below. This is of major concern to the Regional Board;
therefore, this concern needs clarification.
WILLIAM RUH,CHAIR � KURT V.BERCHTOLD,EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3737 Main St.,Suite 500,Riverside,CA 92501 � www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana
i�i RECYCLED PAPER
Gregory Hastings - 2 - April 7, 2014
Furthermore, please be advised that Regional Board staff must review and approve any
parts of the project which could potentially impact the integrity of the landfill resulting in
water quality degradation either through stormwater infiltration or erosion of the landfill
cover.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact me at (951) 782-4997
keith.person(a�waterboards.ca.gov or Cindy Li at (951) 782-4906
(Cindy.li(a�waterboards.ca.gov).
Sin�erely,
�
Keith Person, WRCE
Land Disposal and DoD Section
Cc: Sam Abu-Shaban, OAbu-Shaban@ochca.com, Orange Co. LEA
Warisa Nizawa, OCWR (warisa.niizawaCa)ocwr.ocqov.com)
�����- '`f' � �
� �� ,���'���e� � �' � �
i{��i iy�k1�'+ �
��� ��ill� ��'� � �
ii, �
�I � ' �
�.,�,:
Orahge P�rk Associ�tion
PO Box 2293 Orange,CA 92859
February 18, 2014
Orange Planning Commissioners
City of Orange
300 E. Chapman
Orange, CA 92866
RE: OPPOSITION to the Rio Santiago development
Dear Planning Commissioners;
At the January 20, 2014, as President of the Orange Park Association I spoke in
opposition of the Sully Miller Site/Rio Santiago Project.
The Orange Park Association engaged the legal firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger to
review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Rio Santiago project.
� We felt it was important to engage experts in land use to advise our community regarding
the consequences associated with the project. As you know there have been numerous
significant impacts identified that cannot be mitigated. In addition there are many issues
that will adversely impact our communities.
The Orange Park Association opposes the Rio Santiago project. Attached is a summary
of reasons for our opposition.
In addition,the applicant has made several false statements that, far the record, must.be
corrected. Attached is a list of those misrepresentations. We value integrity and honesty.
Page 2.
Please let us know if you have any questions. We urge you to reject the project in its
entirety. Thank you.
Respectfully,'
�,�-�'` f� �r'.`
. aura Thomas
President
Attachments:
• Impacts of Rio Santiago
• Milan's Statements: Corrections and Clarifications
Chad Ortlieb
From: Joe Forkert[at&t-inquiries@forkertengineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:55 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: No. 2009051072. Rio Santiago Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Orange, CA
Attachments: NC No. 2009051072. Rio Santiago Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Orange, CA...
5-23-13.doc
Chad...
Attached is the AT&T Long Distance No Conflict Letter for this project.
Joseph Forkert
AT&T(Long Distance)
Forkert Engineering&Surveying, Inc.
22311 Brookhurst Street,Suite 203
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Phone: 714-963-7964
1
i•� ��� �`I� L+I�Vl�
`�-- � NO CONFLICT
22311 Brookhurst Street Suite203
Huntington Beach Ca 92646
May 23, 2013
City of Orange
Planning Division
Attn: Chad Ortlieb �
300 E. Chapman Ave.
Orange, CA 92866
Re: No. 2009051072... Rio Santiago Project Draft Environmentai Impact Report... Orange, CA
Dear Mr. Ortlieb,
This is in response to your Inquiry Letter dated May 16, 2013, regarding the above referenced project.
After reviewing your location maps, please be advised that AT&T Network Services (long distance) has
no active facilities (Transcontinental Fiber Optics Lines) within the vicinity of this project.
Thank you for notifying AT&T of the pending project referenced above. Notification of future proposed
work, performed in this vicinity should be directed to:
AT&T INQUIRIES
22311 Brookhurst Street, Suite 203
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
AT&T-Inquiries(c�forkertenqineerinq.com
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact Mr. Joseph Forkert
at (714)963-7964 or me at your earliest convenience.
Please Note
AT&T Drawings are Proprietary Information Pursuant to Company instructions—This Office does not
distribute drawings for Pre—Planning and Design Engineering purposes.
Please contact your local City, County, Utility Notification Center or AT&T on Site Plant Protection
Workforce to identify AT&T facilities prior to contacting AT&T Engineering. If you are referred to our
office because of a possible conflict with AT&T lines, we will confirm and provide you with the
appropriate drawings and pertinent information required to avoid a conflict with AT&T lines prior to the
start of your construction project.
Sincerely,
Joseph Forkert for
Tanya Hernandez
OSP Maintenance Engineer
(619) 200-7896
Chad Ortlieb
From: Patricia Martz(p.martz@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:59 AM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago project
Attachments: Rio Santiago DEIR.doc
Dear Mr. Ortlieb,
I have attached a letter from the California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance (CCRPA) regarding the Rio Santiago
Project.
We would like to be informed of any future environmental documents.
Thank you,
Patricia Martz, Ph.D.
President
�
C� �A California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, in�.
P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
June 17,2013
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
City of Orange,Planning Division
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rio Santiago Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project. We are concerned that,in addition to impacts to
natural resources,the project has the potential to impact CA-ORA-369 and possibly buried portions of CA-ORA-1172. The
sites which,are situated along Santiago Creek,are part of a Native American traditional cultural landscape. Given the
cumulative losses of archaeological sites,sacred sites,and traditional cultural landscapes in Orange County,these cultural
resources are of significant value to the Juaneno/Acjachemen tribal community.
We understand that based on archaeological testing,CA-ORA-369 does not appear to be significant. This determination is
based on the outdated idea that the only value of an archaeological site lies in the scientific information it may contain.
Retrieve that and it is ok to destroy the site. This thinking does not take into consideration the fact that archaeological sites
have cultural and religious values for Native Americans and these values can only be mitigated by avoidance and preservation.
While it appears that CA-ORA-369 will be preserved within the portion of the project site proposed as open space,the
determination of low significance based on scientific data may cause protection of the site to be overlooked. The proposed
housing development presents the potential for vandalism and looting and a site protection management plan should be
included as a mitigation measure. There is also the possibility that buried portions of CA-ORA-1172 extend within the project
area,as well as other buried cultural deposits. We request that you keep us informed about the Project. We look forward to the
results of archaeological and cultural investigations and to further participation in the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
, ; -� _ �---�- ;r'�7� ��,'- --
--;• !�.�,��=�.<_ ,.�i' .�'�����,L--
� � Y � ��
f
Patricia Martz,Ph.D.
President
C l� �A California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, in�.
P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
June 17,2013
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
City of Orange,Planning Division
Re:Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rio Santiago Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project. We are concerned that,in addition to impacts ta
natural resources,the project has the potential to impact CA-ORA-369 and possibly buried portions of CA-ORA-1172. The
sites which,are situated along Santiago Creek,are part of a Native American traditional cultural landscape. Given the
cumulative losses of archaeological sites,sacred sites,and traditional cultural landscapes in Orange County,these cultural
resources are of significant value to the Juaneno/Acjachemen tribal community.
We understand that based on archaeological testing,CA-ORA-369 does not appear to be significant. This determination is
based on the outdated idea that the only value of an archaeological site lies in the scientific information it may contain.
Retrieve that and it is ok to destroy the site. This thinking does not take into consideration the fact that archaeological sites
have cultural and religious values for Native Americans and these values can only be mitigated by avoidance and preservation.
While it appears that CA-ORA-369 will be preserved within the portion of the project site proposed as open space,the
determination of low significance based on scientific data may cause protection of the site to be overlooked. The proposed
housing development presents the potential for vandalism and looting and a site protection management plan should be
included as a mitigation measure. There is also the possibility that buried portions of CA-ORA-1172 extend within the project
area,as well as other buried cultural deposits. We request that you keep us informed about the Project. We look forward to the
results of archaeological and cultural investigations and to further participation in the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
. �/� / _
... � � '��- �
(_. �J i'r �(i'�'"�`(-�.
l � ��`!��..��.�i� ! � t J�'.
f `
� /y\\
1
I y'�
Patricia Martz,Ph.D.
President
Chad Ortlieb
From: Dan Graupensperger[yonka@pacbell.net)
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:28 AM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Re: Rio Santiago
Chad, You must get all the fun projects. When I drove the area yesterday it seemed to me that
the area zoned Rl-8 is in an area that will be prone to flooding when we have those occasional
bad years. Furthermore, the area on the west end is on or near a methane prone area that
currently has burn off wells. My concern is that if a project is built there with city approval and
lcnowledge of these problems the city could be liable for damages when a problem occurs. A
customer who I did some cabinet work for in south county recently lost their house due to a
landslide. The agency that approved and was responsible for inspecting that site spent a few
hundred thousand dollars defending their actions. Some pieces of land just should not have
houses on them. Anyway, as this project goes along be careful not to let the titans of
development and politics put you in a bad spot.
Dan
From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@ciryoforange.org>
To: Xonka@pacbell.net
Sent: Mon, June 17, 2013 8:30:01 AM
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago
Hi Dan,
I'm the case planner for the subject project. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Part of the area north
of the creek is currently zoned R-1-8. The applicanYs proposal is to zone the whole site as Specific Plan (SP) and the
Specific Plan will have Planning Areas C and D south of the creek designated for low and high density residential uses.
The R-1-8 area north of the creek would be designated as Open Space.
Regards,
Chad Ortlieb
714.744.7237
cortlieb@cityoforange.or�
From: Jennifer Le
Sent: Monday,June 17, 2013 8:23 AM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: FW: Rio Santiago
Hi Chad:
See below. Please introduce yourseif to Mr. Graupensperger.Thanks, -J
From: Dan Graupensperger [mailto:yonka pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:36 PM
1
To: Jennifer Le
Subject: Rio Santiago
Jennifer, I have been aslced to started loolcing at the Rio Santiago project. Is there a lead
planner for this that will accept e- mail input? I noticed that part of the flood plain/ creek is
zoned R1-8 which does not seem like a good idea.
Dan
z
Chad Ortlieb
From: tdcdnd@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:09 AM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago
Chad,
Good morning. I am in receipt of the DEIR for Rio Santiago. After reading the legal notice of the Design Review
Committee it seems to me, and others, that the cart is before the horse. The Design Review for this project, or any other,
should be done after the 45 day comment period, and after all those comments have been published. Then and only then
should the review process begin.
I know that the DRC only looks at certain things, but there will be comments that DRC should take into account- not
before comments are submitted, but after.
Thank you,
Tom Davidson
1
��
a.��J
IIlVINE RANCH
WAfBBD19TRICt
IRVI�E R�1CR �ATER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave.,P.O.Box 57000,lrvine,CA 92619-7000 (949)453-5300
June 12, 2013
Chad Ortlieb
Senior Planner, Planning Division
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the Rio Santiago Project (State
Clearinghouse No. 2009051072)
Dear Mr. Ortlieb:
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the draft environmental impact
report for the Rio Santiago Project. IRWD offers the following comment:
While not specifically within IRWD jurisdiction, a portion of this project is
within the former Carpenter Irrigation District area which was annexed by
IRWD. As successor water district to Carpenter Irrigation District, a thorough
review of any IRWD rights over the Rio Santiago project area should be
conducted by the project proponent before a final map is processed. The
appropriate actions as to the disposition of any IRWD rights should be
coordinated through IRWD's Planning and Technical Services Division. Please
contact Ray Thatcher at (949)453-453-5602 to address this issue.
IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. If you have any
questions or require a�lditional information, pl�ase call me at (949) 453-5326.
Sincerely,
n
.-?� -, �
- - o Ann Carey
Engineering Technician III
cc: Mike Hoolihan, IRWD
Ray Thatcher, IRWD
O:\Water Resources�Environmental Compliance\CEQA Comment Reviews(Outside Agencies)\City of Orange�Rio Santiago
Project\Comments�Rio Santiago DEIR Comment Letter 061213
MARK A. REFOWITZ
COUNTY OF ORANGE DIRECTOR
�`� � HEALTH CARE AGENCY DAVID M.SOULELES, MPH
�"�`� ' �v-,� DEPUTY AGENCY DIRECTOR
��
•
REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES RICHARD SANCHEZ, DERECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
MAILING ADDRESS:
��'L�E'llt'j?(�f SANTA ANA,CA 9 205 56�1�
i'"��' rl"�tt�l If�1 TELEPHONE:(714)433-6000
^ � _,- E-MAIL:e�Ith(a)och a1 o3m
SPII ICP
{:;' •;;`, ' ;;; _
<� .;\
June 3, 2013 �`� `�"�
�- _ . � _�'�
- _� i
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner � �f�
City of Orange � :�: �f��
Planning Division � `- �� � '
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866 ` � '
Subject: Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Rio Santiago
Project(SCH No. 2009051072), Orange, CA
Dear Mr. Ortlieb,
The Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health Division is the Solid Waste
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for all cities and unincorporated areas of Orange County.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 43020, 43021, and 44002, and the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14 and Title 27. It is the intent of the LEA to protect public
health, safety, and the environment through the enforcement of State regulations applicable to
open and closed solid waste facilities.
The LEA has a concern that some of the proposed development structures and utilities (sewer
lines, water lines, etc.) in Planning Area B will be situated in close proximity fo the former Villa
Park Disposal Station. This former disposal sit� encompasses approximately 17 acres and is
located at the north east corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Street. Landfill gas (LFG)
is currently extracted from extraction wells and discharged through a flaring system with
approval from the South Coast Air Management District. LFG monitoring probes are installed
around the perimeter of the former landfill, three of which, along the north and east perimeter,
are located on the proposed Rio Santiago project property. The LEA's concern is that LFG
migation offsite (of which methane may range from 45%-60%) is possible, due to the very high
porosity of the soil in this area. State regulations permit some migration of LFG offsite, as long
as the methane concentrations remain below the 5%regulatory limit by volume in air.
The draft EIR has essentially concluded that no methane protection measures are necessary for
the proposed YMCA building and utilities due to the absence of detectable methane in soil vapor
samples collected in Planning Area B. Conversely, the draft EIR recommends methane
Mr. Chad Ortlieb
June 3, 2013
Page 2 of 2
protection measures in Planning Area C, due to low levels of inethane found in soil vapor
samples in this area. Planning Area C is located farther away from the former disposal site than
Planning Area B. Generally, the potential risk of inethane migration becomes lower the farther
away you are from a disposal site. In addition, the lack of detectable methane in soil vapor
samples collected from Planning Area B does not rule out the potential for changes to the current
or future offsite methane migration due to the heterogeneity of subsurface soils or variations in
migration pathways that may occur.
The LEA recommends that all appropriate methane protection safeguards be taken in Planning
Area B to mitigate any potential risks associated with the project in regards to the adjacent
former disposal site. Please refer to the attached California Code of Regulations, Title 27,
Section 21190, Postclosure Land Use, which requires certain safeguards be taken if structures are
built within a disposal site's boundary. The proposed Rio Santiago Project should consider the
following precautions: a geomembrane between the concrete floor slab and subgrade; utility
trench dams, periodic methane gas monitoring inside all buildings and underground utilities;
subsurface venting systems beneath each building; and automatic methane sensors beneath and
inside each building, etc.
The LEA also recommends protecting the three offsite LFG monitoring probes on the north and
east perimeter of the former disposal site, and establishing a buffer zone to allow for the
installation of additional probes or future remediation as necessary.
The LEA is available to participate in future meetings with the developer to discuss the landfill
gas migration issue or to review and comment on any proposed plans which implement
mitigation measures for the development project.
Finally, the LEA requests to be included on all future notices regarding this proposed
development.
If you have any questions, or if we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(714) 433-6270, or James Strozier at(714) 433-6273.
Sincerely, �
C���--
K t Cro , REHS
Supervising Hazardous Waste Specialist
Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
Environmental Health
cc: Dianne Ohiosumua, CalRecycle(Riverside)
Virginia Rosales, CalRecycle(Sacramento)
John Arnau, OC Waste &Recycling
Cindy Li, SARWQCB
David Jones, AQMD
Anthony Martinez, Environmental Health
21190. CIWMB- Postclosure Land Use. (T14:Section 17796)
(a) Proposed postclosure land uses shall be designed and maintained to:
(1)protect public health and safety and prevent damage to structures, roads, utilities and gas
monitoring and control systems;
(2)prevent public contact with waste, landfill gas and leachate; and
(3)prevent landfill gas explosions.
(b) The site design shall consider one or more proposed uses of the site toward which the
operator will direct its efforts, or shall show development as open space, graded to harmonize
with the setting and landscaped with native shrubbery or low maintenance ground cover.
(c) All proposed postclosure land uses, other than non-irrigated open space, on sites
implementing closure or on closed sites shall be submitted to the EA, RWQCB, local air district
and local land use agency. The EA shall review and approve proposed postclosure land uses if
the project involves structures within 1,000 feet of the disposal area, structures on top of waste,
modification of the low permeability layer, or irrigation over waste.
(d) Construction on the site shall maintain the integrity of the final cover, drainage and erosion
control systems, and gas monitoring an3 contral systems. The owner or operator shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the EA that the activities will not pose a threat to public health
and safety and the environment. Any proposed modification or replacement of the low
permeability layer of the final cover shall begin upon approval by the EA, and the RWQCB.
(e) Construction of structural improvements on top of landfilled areas during the postclosure
period shall meet the following conditions:
(1) automatic methane gas sensors, designed to trigger an audible alarm when methane
concentrations are detected, shall be installed in all buildings;
(2) enclosed basement construction is prohibited;
(3)buildings shall be constructed to mitigate the effects of gas accumulation, which may include
an active gas collection or passive vent systems;
(4)buildings and utilities shall be constructed to mitigate the effects of differential settlement.
All utility connections shall be designed with flexible connections and utility collars;
(5)utilities shall not be installed in or below any low permeability layer of final cover;
(6)pilings shall not be installed in or through any bottom liner unless approved by the RWQCB;
(7) if pilings are installed in or through the low permeability layer of final cover, then the low
permeability layer must be replaced or repaired; and
(8)periodic methane gas monitoring shall be conducted inside all buildings and underground
utilities in accordance with section 20933 of Article 6, of Subchapter 4 of this Chapter:
(�The EA may require that an additional soil layer or building pad be placed on the final cover
prior to construction to protect the integrity and function of the various layers of final cover.
(g)All on site construction within 1,000 feet of the boundary of any disposal area shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the following, or in accordance with an equivalent
design which will prevent gas migration into the building, unless an exemption has been issued:
(1) a geomembrane or equivalent system with low permeability to landfill gas shall be installed
between the concrete floor slab of the building and subgrade;
(2) a permeable layer of open graded material of clean aggregate with a minimum thickness of
12 inches shall be installed between the geomembrane and the subgrade or slab;
(3) a geotextile filter shall be utilized to prevent the introduction of fines into the permeable
layer;
(4)perforated venting pipes shall be installed within the permeable layer, and shall be designed
to operate without clogging;
(5)the venting pipe shall be constructed with the ability to be connected to an induced draft
exhaust system;
(6) automatic methane gas sensors shall be installed within the permeable gas layer, and inside
the building to trigger an audible alarm when methane gas concentrations are detected; and
(7)periodic methane gas monitoring shall be conducted inside all buildings and underground
utilities in accordance with Article 6, of Subchapter 4 of this chapter(section 20920 et seq.).
� C7SPRT�tior�2 Support?
���""����94���f 3���5 Is�s�zstirstiox�s
�.4U�7 A7orth�1=n�slla
�ichardson,T"X ?;JS�
-_ -� _�.
� ,
_ � ��
MCI Communications Services,Inc. ' �
yf
OS/20/2013 ' - ,
CITY OF ORANGE � ,
CHAD ORTIEB
300 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE �
ORANGE, CA 92866 ° ` . ; ` `�.
RE: STATE CLEA�ING�-IOUSE NO. 2009051072
—RIO SANTIAGO PROJECT (DEIR)—UTILITY INFORMATION
—AREA OF E. SANTIAHO CANYON ROAD, CANNON STREET
AND E. MABURY AVENUE—ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY, CA.
Verizon Business ID: 20869-2013
Dear Sir or Madam:
MCI has been notified by your office regarding the above referenced project.
For your records, in reviewing the area in question, it has been determined that MCI does
not have facilities within your project area. However, it will still be necessary for you to
contact the local One Call System at least 48 hours prior to any construction.
You should address correspondence concerning any future projects to the attention of
OSP Nation�l 5upport/Investigations at the above address.
If you need� u-ther assistance with this project,please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
JOHN B LDER
OSP Natio al Support/Investigations
972-729-632
No Facilities.doc
, , �
�!, �. e ,. , � �e � k
• . ��P�L � ' �.. �a� ` . : ! �y �A. r ,.e^ _> _
n . �.�0 i;. , � . �r �. ��.
�� �� ,�� , �� ,�S��RandaN 5t �� .��� � , �� � ��: �
,
, a o
�� LL � ':..� . � ♦ ' ' �t #�iTPFsai ...�.
r_ P
'�Sr � °*^ N.. (�+.. � a+. ,c . . . �w:tl;.
• � • ,
e , •
' - ' � S
•
.
� __ s �-' . � N�`.- ` , �. "� � - � !�t�-
� �s 1 �' . , �" � , l`J . �' Y ' . . .�'� " x�
.. �` � Y.. . t*'.: O,� � � : +- C �.� �. �`
�, M
. -a , � ,b� ' ,
v �:� �°.�#` �; � � ' ;: � �' ; ��'`������' � �~Ck�g��d ,�~. �`o
: �„��.��. ��,. - � . �. � �e.P>� ,. � t ..�.
;;E �,.,.� • * ,:prtarg � . �
° ,y , s .�. ' s _
,.'p, �` .C. , a "> . . . " �.. � ,ro .. �.�5 :I
? ' �.. j 'Q� � �C „ . ,€ ...,Z
� ; � w� �, �°. � a t
� ,� � � � _. w � : �
x .
.� , .
, �,
' � , � � � � -� , �i. r � �;
.
, � � .
_ � 4
_ � � �- � � _ � �^ lvo= ���
, � ,�- � `� ,, � ri.�, �, �
;� n�a..._,� "'� - ����* rb ��r� '. �{rx � .
�+�' � • z q ..,�.- .. s° !. _
� ,• � �. _
6 �r - ''
� :c � f;� NtNicky`Way �
��<� R^„19 atiolcen�If�A * ; . . �
"' .A
i'�, �= 4 ` ry* . ,t:��
, C � � ..,� . , . �'
0 �.--_�� � . � p� ` , ' .
� � v
�:x �
,i W � � �� "O }rn N:Jacne�O`Nn WaY ,
e'l N� ' . � .�� � ��w< � ,L `� � r �. t � � .
�
�� a¢ a �o '
Y r� y�,A��44 �A���,�' .§ '� �c� �Ga�ati�n35� .
ti� tPr '� �.J,Ay .�e i�N � � .
y�'° �� e U � G,c ^
, y' � ,��°, ��' p , � .. , �. �a at
. � r��� ..., �y � �,rNr1
g:15 uoiZ N� ` a:; J��' _ a, ;-� c .
� ti.
�r` 'Y J> . `
,� x�N'^� � , �,`g`�,,o,�,3 ' § � �,,o- k y� ar1.P a,
. ...
# �_ ,
,
'.- .�� -o , �. ' � • : '� ..
_ �. �. � ,.. ' ..� �w C-~ ��� , �t �Yf �j.
� Z$.PPQi��P�N. � ' �3,. ,�i::x~ �t" .. . �.
*,
µ j .
'S
2
. ^
� > �,t�, . �'annon�Stx a. - �' w
� , �
•t�ta�S't . _ ,.� `o ..
� � $$4 ' � �t I' A. � �# c. ^A
4
- � �•,s a` , 1 � � �, r
i: ,y Lt 454ecnurs4lyM1 t ..� � ,: � �.
.. �j ¢` r�'`� �� f ',�' ,.
• � � �` � ». _. , f3 .
j . 4� ' , �. 7 .
� � � �.J y„ `l:� _ IS'1anA ry w .,+..� e,d. : �,�4: y�' ��►A.\rY
' t J � 1 �d P P° � m �S y �. `�^' .. �+',,.
' � � `�.s �r � � �` � �,'� � �``. � �sag0����� � p�,�t-��� �"
• ��i � ; 15,aop�Wt� j.. �. ` � �� - C'1,San .+ .¢ k ��; :��.'{.-.
_ , ,
q..��`� Q - '� "L °,� �� � OG' � . �.
� 3 _ �d t . a c ���d; e4 � ;. �..
�' � ''d h 1♦ �
�+C �y •y� C �Q • yw "°�♦
Y
{� .
� �
C
� •
-Q
Q ?` •
t�
I�y ��
� �i �
C. �
•
February 18, 2014
For: Orange Planning Commission
From: Orange Park Association
Re: Opposition to the proposed Rio Santiago development
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
RECOMMEND: THE FEIR SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED
• Mitigation actions are insufficient
• Presentations of the Statement of Facts to the residents are incomplete and
misleading.
• The EIR in many aspects is significantly flawed.
■ Impacts to parks and recreation
■ Inconsistent with General Plan policies
■ Noise impacts added to neighborhood
■ Reasonable alternatives were not considered
■ Dam inundation risk are minimized
• Review of the EIR led us to the conclusion that its environmental analyses
are incomplete, the recommended mitigation actions are insufficient, and
any Statement of Overriding Conditions not reasonable.
Statements of Overriding Consideration (SOC)for the Rio Santiago project cannot
excuse the unmitigatable negative impacts. The project does NOT bring benefit to
the city but adds unnecessary risks. The community should not have to absorb the
detrimental impacts.
• This project sets an extremely bad precedent for Orange.
• It is sweetheart deal for the developer. The City would be bailing out a bad
business investment: If the parcel is "up zoned" the property value increases
dramatically for Rio Santiago investors.
• The City is not obligated to approve bad projects.
• The City should not expose taxpayers to unnecessary liabilities.
• Any development proposal should require that existing Plans are honored and that
the property rights of the people are protected.
Staff has identified some of the Significant and Unavoidable impacts
• Grading and Construction Aesthetic Impacts
• Long-Term Aesthetic Visual Impacts
• Light and Glare Impacts
• Air Quality Impacts
• Hydrology and Water Qualiiy Impacts (Dam Inundation)
• Traffic—Transportation Impacts
• Cumulative Impacts (Aesthetics,Air Quality and Traffic) Impacts
1
Land Use Considerations/Recommendations the
Planning Commission will make to the City Council
2. Gener�t Plan Amendment (fegisfative action - discretion of City Council)
RECOMMEND: NO CHANGE OF THE GENERAL PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE
THE PROJECT SITE FROM THE EAST ORANGE AND ORANGE PARK
ACRES PLANS.
The developer has no existing right to develop the Sulfy Miller site in the
intensive manner that is being proposed.
The City's general plan does not allow for this type of development. The
developer has no legitimate expectation that these approvals would be granted.
�The developer is seeking to enhance his entitlements at the Sully Miller site to�
help bail cut the investors that bought at the top of the market.
• Project should stop at the General Plan Amendment
• Should not amend the General Plan on concepts and promises
• Four Plans designate this site Open Space
• Not a single plan ever identified this property for residential use
• The Orange General Plan does not promote changing Open Space to
Residential
• The vision of the Santiago Greenbelt Plan for the entire site would be forfeited only
to be replaced with mixed used, high density units
3. Zone Change (legislative action - discretion of the City Council)
RECOMMEND: NO ZONE CHANGES
For this development to move forward, the landowner needs to have their
property rights enhanced, through "up-planning" and "up- zoning."
The City has full discretion under the law to deny this request for enhancement.
The City's zoning does not allow for this type of development.
The developer has no legitimate expectation that these approvals would be
granted.
4. SpecifiC Plans (legislative action - discretion of the City Council)
RECOMMEND: DENY. DESIGN CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING PLANS.
• The Design Criteria and Development Standards of the 395-unit
development are not consistent with the open space/regional park
designation outlined in the East Orange General Plan or the open
space/Santiago Creek Greenbelt designation outlined in the Orange Park
Acres Specific Plan.
• The removal of the East Orange and OPA Specific Plan is considered
significant.
2
5. The Parcel and Tentative Tract Maps for the Project
RECOMMEND: NO ACTION. PROJECT STOPS AT THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT.
6. The overall design of the project
RECOMMEND: NO ACTION. PROJECT STOPS AT THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS.
7. Development Agreement (legis�ative action - discretion of City Counci�)
RECOMMEND: DO NOT APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
• Not consistent with General Plan
• Not compatible with the planning area
• Does not conform with public necessity, convenience and general welfare
• Is NOT good land use practices
• Serious health and safety hazards
OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN
Health and Safety
Because of the natural hazards associated with this site, we believe the City of
Orange is unnecessarily risking the safety and health of future residents.
• Fire Fuel Modification �
Falls to taxpayers via other agencies_ Public lands should not be used.
• Hazardous materials—on site
• Admits to previous hazards but now they don't exist. It is unclear how
this has been remedied and if credible oversight is in place.
• City has been negligent in its code enforcement responsibilities over the
years with this site.
• There has been limited oversight of the imported dirt and grading of site.
• Villa Park Landfill
This property is next door to the Villa Park landfill — an old problem trash
dump because of the methane gas that migrates underground to bordering
properties. Methane is an explosive gas that can cause fires in structures.
Methane migration is a serious issue. OC Environmental Health requires a
1000-foot buffer from the edge of the landfill. Legally it applies only to landfill
parcels not a project next door. Public health protection legally is a very low
standard. There is absolutely no assurance that.methane will not escape
and migrate to this site.
3
• Dam inundation zone
The property is aiso within the Dam Inundation area of two upstream
earthen dams—Villa Park Dam and Irvine Lake Dam. In the event of either
dam failing (usually caused by an earthquake), a 20-foot wave of water
would be released, destroying everything in its path. If there were a dam
failure it would destroy most of the structures on this site. (There have
been 45 earthen dam failures in California with a loss of 462 lives). THERE
IS NO WAY TO PROTECT THIS PROJECT FROM A DAM FAILURE
• Liquefaction
A major portion of this site is subject to liquefaction in the event of an
earthquake. Liquefaction causes homes to sink into the ground. Santiago
Creek flows underground through the central portion of this site, causing a
� high water table that in turn causes liquefaction during an eartfiquake.
■ Creek issues
Santiago Creek normally flowed through the middle of this site (before the
sand and gravel operators filled in the creek bed and diverted the stream).
In the 1969 storms (a 25-year storm event), the creek became a raging river
and flooded virtually the entire site. Santiago Creek is also highly erosive
due to the porous gravelly soil that makes up its banks. Storm damage is
caused not just by flooding, but also by erosion destroying tlie banks and
washing out from under homes built along the creek. (In 1969 several
homes fell into the creek between Chapman and Villa Park Dam due to
bank erosion.)
Major Site Plan
• Not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods
• Must extinguish historical plans and replace it with their plan to achieve
goals
Context
• Two and Three story assisted living building are not compatible with
neighborhoods
• 81,000 square foot building is not compatible with surrounding area
• The project does not blend into the neighborhood
Density
Considered high-density by the standards of the OPA Specific Plan
• Area C- 16.5 units per acres
• Area D-4 units per acres
Massing
The size of buildings, their boxy appearance is totally out of character for the
area.
4
Planning Area A—Public Entity Dedication
The City, County or OCTA have NOT agreed to take the creek conveyance.
Neither Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park District or Trail4All have the
capability or experience to take on such a liability. An HOA is not reliable.
Parks, Trails and Open Space, Trails
"Parkland Dedication Fees Project provides over 58% to 63% of the entire site
to be dedicated to open space/recreation uses."
• As per four plans (East Orange, OPA Specific Plan, Santiago Greenbelt
Plan and Santa Ana River/Santiago Greenbelt Implemenfation Plan) 90%
of the site (98 acres) should be open space.
Parking
• Parking Code Deviations and preferences given to the Senior Nursing Facility.
Traffic
The real traffic impacts are unknown due to the vagueness of the project
description especially in Area A (senior nursing facility) and Area B
(recreational sector). The cumulative impacts of future development in East
Orange are not adequately addressed. The public has no idea of the true
traffic impacts of this proposal.
5
CORRECTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS
Many statements made by the Rio Santiago applicant(prepaxed by ktgy—December
2013) and Power Point Presentations shown at the two Planning Commission hearings
are not accurate. The following statements are important to correct for the record. .
1. The Sully-Miller Contracting Company letter (attached)and testimony from Scott
Bottomley have corrected the "Historical Mining, Quarry, and Agricultural
Operations".
2. "Sully Miller/Fieldstone Communities Plan"—The "controversial"Fieldstone Plan
was approved for 177 homes on a 3-2 vote. The Planning Commission did NOT
approve the project. The successful referendum was in 2003 not 2005. The City
Council rescinded approvals in November 2003.
3. "Extensive Community Outreach and Public Meetings" (Aug 2008 to Dec 2013)
The 49 public meetings held by the developer were selective and limited to"support
groups"that embraced their project early on. Those that opposed their project including
local leaders and neighborhoods were identified and not included in their meeting
strategy.
2008— 12 meetings 2009— 17 meetings 2010— 1 meeting
2011 —4 rneetings 2012 - 6 meetings 2013 - 9 meetings
Mabury Ranch "Coalition" The Reserve Jamestown/Colony YMCA
08/23/08 10/15/08 09/17/08 09/10/08 06/03/09
08/27/08 10/19/08 02/26/09 03/12/09 02/29/12
09/06/08 11/19/08 OS/31/11 09/18/12 11/14/13
12/03/08 12/09/08 04/24/13 11/20/13
12/06/08 02/10/10 OS/28/13
i2/02/09 02/21/12
04/14/11
06/Ol/11
04/02/12
06/06/12
06/18/12
06/10/13
Creelcside Coffee Rotary NOP meetin�s OPA
12/02/09 11/12/08 07/14/09 OS/29/09 O1/31/09.
OS/03/11 08/OS/09 OS/29/09 /attended the
OS/21/13 Chamber 10/29/13 oPA annua�
OS/21/09 Meeting
Broadmoor 07/10/09 Girl Scouts
02/23/09
OS/21/09 08/06/09 OPA Board
BIA Meeting
08/06/09 Oran�e Lions
08/28/09 09/18/13
Kiwanis
09/26/13
1
4. The "OPA Board of Directors Alternative (aka Wild Heritage Plan)". There
was no "Deal"but rather a"Position Statement"was submitted from the OFA
Board of Directors. The diagram was entitled"Sully-Miller Site OPA Conceptual
Plan".
Tl�e��aackground was as follows:
"On May 9,2008,at the request of OPA, the City retazned Hogle-Ireland, a land
use consulting firm to act as a facilitator between OPA and John Martin.Both
MaYtin and OPA agreed to use the ser-vices of Paul Ireland, signed the agpeement
prepared by the City and shared in the cost of these services. The City was
supportive of this process as it has an interest in processing a project that has a
basis of support in OPA - the community in which it is proposed.After several
rrieetings, the OPA Board and the Real Estate Committee reached a consensus
and on July II,2008 forwarded their Position Statement to the City and Mr.
Martzn." .(Position Statement attached)
From the OPA Position Statement the"Sully Miller Site—OPA Conceptual Plan"
graphic was created to illustrate the OPA conceptual plan,a starting point in
which OPA could engage the developer. It was a scaled-down version of the
2008 Phase One plan the developer had proposed:
• OPA accepted the proposed equestrian center on the developer's plans
• The houses were scaled down in area D to one-acre lots,and
• The 13 pay-to-play soccer fields were reduced to include tennis,golf and
swim. We wanted the recreational opportunities on Ridgeline to remain in the
community if homes were built there.
At no time did the OPA Board ever represent the"consensus plan"was created by
the City,the OPA Board or the property owner. See above statement: "the OPA
Board and the l�eal Estate�ominittee reached a consensus".
This is an untrue statement: "In response,Orange City Attorney stripped the
OPA Board of its function as a local land use review committee for the Rio
Santiago plan."
The City A�torney did not strip the OPA Board of its funcfion as a local7and use
review coimnittee for the Rio Santiago plan for reasons the developer claims. The
City attorney did not blame OPA for doing anything underhanded as suggested by
the developer,quite the opposite. "The City concluded that animosity exits and at
Zeastfrom a due process and administrative process perspective, is irreparable."
OPA was released from the administrative process.
Note that the developer would try to insinuate the OPA conceptual plan would be
a"financial failure". The OPA Conceptual Plan was fashioned after the
developer's 2008 Phase One Plan,just a scaled down version.
2
S. "Past Plans Overlay Map"is not accurate. It should read as follows: -
• The Orange City Council adopted the 1971 Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek
Greenbelt Plan on May 4, 1971.
• The Orange City Council adopted the 1976 Santa Ana River/Santiago Creelc
Greenbelt Implementation Plan on May 18, 1976.
• The 2008 DRt�FT Santiago Creek Vision Plan has not been adopted by the
Orange City Council and is lacking in many respects. (See attached letters)
6. "Design Principles Complernent Spirit and Intent of Historic Plans': Please
refer to the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan and the Santa Ana River/Santiago
Creek Greenbelt Plan for guidance. The Spirit and Intent of these guiding plans
has been completely ignored. In fact both must be extinguished to move the
� developer's project and agenda forward
7. "Specific Plan Map-Proposed Land Use Designation-Low and Medium
Density,NOT High". As per the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan dwelling unit
densities are defined as follows:
• Low Density—1 acre (IDU/ac max.)
• Low Density— '/_� acre (2 DU/ac ma.x.)
• Med—Low—'/_� ac (3 DU/ac mc�.)
• Medium—(4 DU/ac max.)
• High Density is not defined in the OPA Plan—265 units on 16 acres is
ULTRA HIGH DENSITY by OPA standards.
T'he Orange Park Acres Specific Plan does not allow for commercial operations
such as the proposed Rio Santiago Senior Assisted& Skilled Nursing 24-hour
Facility. "The guiding principal for the inclusion of commercial is whether or not
it could it be supported solely by the residents of Orange Park Acres. Another
equally important consideration is compatibility with the rural environment:'
8. "Open Space and Parks Plan". Approximately 50 acres conveyed to the County
for the creation of the public Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve. The County has
not agreed to take this responsibility_ The creek is riddled with constraints and is
viewed as a liability. It is not a gift or dedication of open space but rather a
conveyance of a hazard. It should be portrayed for what it is: "a white elephant".
The project exposes taxpayers to unnecessary risks.
9. The "Mara BYandman Horse Arena': This is not a true statement: "Site stripped
of all amenities in December 2011 by previous manage�nent entity. " After nearly
20 years of operating the Sully-Miller Arena John Martin cancelled the Orange
Park Association lease with a 30-day Notice to Vacate. OPA offered to sell the
amenities to Martin but the offer was refused. After negotiations failed OPA
relocated the amenities that volunteers had contributed over the years throughout
the community.
Orange Park Association understood early on the developer was using the OPA
Horse Arena as a wedge issue to gain their approvals for Ridgeline and Sully
Miller. OPA was not swayed by this "carrot" approach.
3
10. "50 acres for permanent open space (currently.zoned Sand.and Gravel and
Residential)." Actually more than half (26.4 acres) has been zoned open-space
for many years.
11. "While many pubtic Resources,opportunities for land acquisition and private
recreational resources were identified as existing in the Corridor and Greenbelt
plans,some no longer exist as undeveloped lands or properties that would
otherwise be available for consideration:'There is 12.6 acres of development
opportunity at this site. The balance of the site should adhere to existing plans.
12. "OPA Proposed Plan-Proposed Residential 20I0". The applicant
mischaracterizes this. Please see#4 above. OPA Position Statement the"Sully
Miller Site—OPA Conceptual Plan" occurred in 2008 not 2010 for reasons
previously mentioned.
13. "In 2003 OPA Supports Removal of 56 Acres ofProject from OPA Plan': Not
everyone in OPA supported removing 56 acres from the OPA Plan. In fact
several OPA residents were key to the successful referendum against the
Fieldstone project. In 2008,the OPA leadership came to understand the
importance of comprehensive land use planning thanks to the help of land use
consultant,Hogle-Ireland. OPA,with the guidance of Pau1 Ireland,was able to
rectify past mistakes and chart a plan that would provide long term protection for
Orange Park Acres.
l4. "Dam Failure Statistics-Catastrophic events(extremely Zow risk)".
• Every Dam Failure is unexpected and people were always assured before hand
that they were in good condition.
"No active faults in the area".
• EL MODENO FALTLT is a southwest-dipping,north/south trending,normal
fault that ex-tends from the Peralta Hi11s area south into Santiago Creek in the
Peters Canyon Wash.This fault may be capable of an earth-quake of
magnitude 6.0 on the Richter scale (SCEDC,2000).
• PERALTA HILLS FAiJLT is an approximately east/west trending, north-
dipping, thrust fault that is located west of the site. It is believed that this fault
may be capable of generating an earthquake of a magnitude in the range of 6.0
to 7.0 on the Richter scale. (SCEDC,2000).
"Emergency Evacuation Plan in place prior to occupancy"
• Fire and flood evacuations involve thousands of people in a confined space
all-vying for emergency help. In crisis situations most are Ieft to help
themselves. The hundreds of seniors residing in the Assisted& Skilled
Nursing 24-hour Facility will be at a serious disadvantage. Most likely help
will not reach them easily due to the crisis at hand.
"5 Deaths in California due to Dam Failures in the last 50 years"
• No mention of property damage and injury.
4
I5. "INC0�2RECT Public Distribution". The public distribution flyers are accurate.
There are several inaccurate statements under this heading that need correcting:
• "63 Acres (of the total�10 Acres)Acres purchased firom Sully Miller Land
Co_,LLC(4 parcels) and Sully Mzller Contracting Co. (2 parcels)-2008"
Public records show that 67 acres were purchased on Au�ust 31, 2007 not
2008 for$10,000,000. The balance of 49_5 acres,not 47 acres were purchased
on April l,2008 for$5,154,185.
• "Project site is.zoned Sand and Gravel and R-1-8,NOT Open Space".
Actually 26.4 acres are zoned OPEN SPACE.96.4 acres are designated in 4
pTans adopted by the City of Orange as Open Space/Regional Park and(Jpen j
Prepared by Orange Park Association
For Orange Planning Commissioners
Regarding the proposed Rio Santiago project .
February 18,2014
Attachments:
- Sully-Miller Contracting Co., Scott Bottomley January 22,20141etter
- OPA Position Statement—July 11, 2008
- Letters regarding Sanriago Creek Vision Plan—January 28/30,2009
5
� �
. __ �����--�
��.��L��VII�.L�R CO1�TR1-��1�1�TG ��. �
r.:cu._�:t7or2a.
13b S. STATE COLLFC�E BL!/D:, SUlT� YQO � BRE�, CA 92827 � PHOrVE 714-578-9600
January22, 2014
Dear�embers of the City cf Orange Planning Commission,
Pursuant to your request,this letter shall serve.�o rnemorialize my comments at the Planning Comrnission meeiing held
on lanuary 20,2014 regaeding agenda item 3:1.
1`!iy name is Scott 8oitomley,I am a 30 year resid�nr oi the City of Orange, and I am Vice Presiden�and 6eneral Manager
of Sul(y-Nlilter Con�tracting. i have �een employed hy 5ully-Milfer ior over 35 years, anc[ sfarted my career with ihe
Cornpany at the Orange site in 1978.
1 received a mailer during the �veefc pre�ious to ihis meeting from Rio Santiago regarding the potentiaf deve(opment at
the iormer Sully-Miller site. i wanted to go on r,otice and set tt�e record siraiglit regarding iFie misrepresentaiions and
misleading statements containe�{ in tnis mailer.
First,this siie is Pd(3 i an aciive 'tl/ii��site. It is a permitted�SG Zone.Sully-�il[er ceasec[all mining activity on�his sifie over
2 decades ago aiter depleting all of the commerciallyviabl� permitted aggregate reserves.The mining ofjhe perrr�itted
resetves acivally tool< piace in the pit about% r,�i(e west of rhe proposed deveiopment site. The mining pit now serves
�the cammuniiy far water re�entian and graund�vater replen�shmeni.The proposed devefopment siie served as a site;or
al( of th2 anciliary uses to zhe mining o�eration suct� as aggregate �rocessing and screening, aspha�t manuiaciuring, and
constructiofi equipment stor�ge.
Second, Sulfy-Miller NEt1�Ci operated a �UNIP on this site. We did operate a �nrelf managed concrete and asphalt
recyc}ing operation,nothing like what is on the site zaday.
Lastly, due to Cornpany ownershi�changes,5ully-Miller has hacl no affiliation with this property�or over 15 years.
i he deceptive mailer indicates ihat "dcelcry..._�� �errniif�s�, ex�an�i,�� e�nc� �eYy pr�cficabEa co�s.�ne�-c�al rs�eratiQr7
eneo,�npasses�he falla�ving...Roc��r!rshing, Bn��1iJt:na,St�CICj311%f?��L'�ZlYfJ�l1�(,�Oj 91]e1""i t7I�'d�Ef`ILII. P�EiC�I1�JDY5��IPLVG'%�A'�'
¢��s� uses are no longet- eornpa�ibfe wi�h the surr�>undin�YesidPn�ial�r�as�r�;cx�.hcrve dev�toped srro�snd Suffy-Melfev�
�ver iim�".
Regarc�iess oi this evident ackno�viedgment of incoinpai.ibiiity,a!1 c�;rrent aciivity ar�this site, let alone ai�y expansion of
this activi�y is being done by the current properr_yo uwner_.._..... By riis hand,at his�irection.
This owner tool<the Sulfy-Mii[er name off of-che Equestrian Arena that we hel�ed the community to bui(cl.This areiia
�vas something positive'that has served ihis cammui�iiy v�tell for severaf d�cades. Now he is attempting to ds-ag our name
through the mud regarding the curren�activities and blighted visual siate thai he has created on the proposed property,
t�-ying to falsely attach us to sorr,ething negative. 1 oppose ihese►�isleading tactics.
Sincere(��,
r^
'�}' %.� ,��� ��
�i j �
��,..;-�--���'.;-�.'�% � .-
Scott W. Botto'�mley �� �
Vice President,General �ager
�� �
.. .
,, .;
j.,
On May 9, 2008, at the request of OPA, the City retained Hogle-Ireland, a land use consulting firm
to act as a facilitator between OPA and John Martin. Both Martin and OPA agreed to use the
se�vices of Paul Ireland, signed the agreement prepared by the City and shared in the cost of these
services. The City was supportive of this process as it has an interest in processing a project that
has a basis of support in OPA- the community in which it is proposed. After several meetings, the
OPA Board and the Real Estate Committee reached a consensus and on July 11, 2008 forwarded
their Position Statement to the City and Mr. Martin.
ORANGE PARK ACRES
POSITION STATEMENT
For Alternative One and Alternative Two
' JOHN MARTIN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Orange Park Association Real Estate Committee and Board of Directors have
considered a development proposal(s), prepared/presented by the developer, for several
parcels of property controlled by J1VII Properties. The Orange Park Association Real
Estate Committee and Board of Directors have, additionally, considered alternative
options for these parcels that did not originate with JNII Properties.
Immediately belo�� is Alternative One of two alternative position statements prepared by
the Orange Park Association Real Estate Committee and Board of Directors. Each
alternative addresses a development option for properties of extreme interest to Orange
Parlc Acres. The alternatives are mutually exclusive, i.e., either one or the other may be
selected. Alternative Two is also presented below following Alternative One_
ALTERNATIVE ONE
Six parcels have been considered and a preferred development option was selected by the
Real Estate Committee for each. The six parcels (each with a stated preferred
development option) are as follows:
1. Ridgeline Property—52 Acres:
The approval of thirty-nine one-acre minimum equestrian lots will be supported but only
if items 2-5 below are concurrently committed to and, where appropriate, improvements
funded_
2. Arena Site (Site H)—7.6 Acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing 39 one-
acre minimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, the Arena Site (with
improverrients yet to be determined by OPA, and funded by JNB Properties) will be
irrevocably dedicated to the Orange Park Association or another entity established by the
Orange Park Association.
3. Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve (Site B)—43 Acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing 39 one-
acre minimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, JMI Properties will
dedicate to the County of Orange, or to the County of Orange and the City of Orange
and/or a non-profit public interest land steward, the Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve.
The dedicated Reserve shall be fully improved to the standards similar to the concepts in
the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and consistent with the requirements of the
regulatory/resource agencies with jurisdictional oversight.
4. Recreation Parcel (Site C)—30 acres (+/-):
Conciu�ent with or in advance of the approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning
allowing 39 one-acre minimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project, JNII
Properties sha11 provide for the development of recreation opportunities on Site C.
Minimum facilities that must be assured include several sports fields, tennis facilities, a
swimming pool, and golf related opportunities. Assurances that development will
actually occur must include bona-fied agreement(s) with commercial recreation
providers, agreements with a non-profit organization such as the YMCA, or the
reservation of sufficient cash or other funding instrument assuring recreation
development.
5. Equestrian Parcel(Site D)— 15 acres (+/-):
Concurrent with or in advance of the approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning
allowing 39 one-acre minimum equestrian lots for the Ridgeline Estates project initiate
construction of an equestrian facility on Site D. Parking area shall be Iimited to that
necessary to serve the equestrian facilities.
6. Residential Site (Site A)—25 acres(+/-):
The approval of the zoning to permit one-acre minimum equestrian lots (R1-40) is
supported. �
AL�TERNATIVE TWO
Only two parcels have been considered as a second option. These are the Ridgeline
Property and the Arena(Site H).
1. Ridgeline Property—52 Acres:
The approval of approximately twenty (one-acre minimum) equestrian lots, with the
inclusion of a ride in arena, will be supported but only if items 1(a) and 2 below are
concurrently committed to and improvements funded.
1(a). Recreational facilities on the Ridgeline Property to include (at a minimum) the
tennis courts, swimming pool, and clubhouse/restaurant, shall be retained and improved
with no"down time"during construction of the approved residential homes.
2. Arena Site (Site H)—7.6 acres:
Concurrent with approval by the City of Orange of residential zoning allowing
minimum one-acre equestrian lots on a portion of the Ridgeline Property
(approximately 20), the Arena Site (with improvements to be determined and funded
by JNII Properties) will be irrevocably dedicated to the Orange Park Association or
another entity established by the Orange Park Association.
Submitted by Paul Ireland (Hogle-Ireland)on behalf of Orange Park Association on July 11, 2008
7�ieresa Sears
7733 Santiago C'yn 12,d.
Orange, C'A 92869
714.288.OS20
SENT VIA E-MAIL
' mknighfi@cityoforange.org
and FAX 714-744-7264
�.�L
��nw�,��-y �a, �009
Marie Knight ,
Direcfar of Community Services
City of Orange
230 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
�e: Dra�'i: San�iac�o Greek Vision Plan
De��- fUis. Knight,
f appreciafie ihs oppoi-tunity to review the "draft" of the Santiago Creek Vision Plan
(SCVP). Over the years, I have been involved in various conservation efforts in the
region and I am an acfiive recreational user. I serve on the board of Friends of Harbors,
Beaches and Parks (FHBP) and the Equestrian Coalition of Orange Counfiy (ECOC).
I am a docent for the 6rvine Ranch Conservancy, Co-chair ofi fihe Save Barham Ranch
effort and member of the Orange Park Association Real Estate Committee. My home
bo�-der-s on Santi�go Oaks Park over looking Santiago Cre�k, so I use the parl< and
i�te�-�ct with the creek on a regular basis. The creek is part o�f my daily life!
! no�icAd that much o�ihe SCVP infoi�m�tion has been faken from the 1971 Santa Ana
River, Santiago �reek Greenbeft Plan ar the 1976 lmpl�rnentation Plan (with the focus
only on Santiago Creek in the Cit}� of Orange). When you r�zd the nearly 40-year-old
plan, you recognize the incredible community eifort and foresight thafi went into the
original version. The 1976 Implem�ntation Plan is well dacumented, straightiorv�ard
and very easy to read. !fi is apparent that it serves as the basis for the new SCVP "ciraf�t"
vision; so much so that in fGct, �he new draft documenf should be an amendment fio fihe
adopieci plan of 1976. !t wauld be very hefpful to delineate what portions of this repor�
are from p�st planning dac+�menis �anc1 what are trul� new ideas. Also, define vuhat has
been ac�iieved and what apportunifies r�rer� lost, as it is from successes and failures
fih�� v.+e I��rn fior future referen�e.
Page 2
Theresa Sears
Drafz: Saniiac�o Creek Vision P(an
Moreover, it is imporiant to provide an accurats history of what has occurred on
Santi�go Cree'k in recent years. One c�iaring inaccuracy is the explanation given
regarding the disposal of fihe Strawf�erry Field park site. This should be correcfied.
Also, there is no discussion of�he construction of the controversi�l runoif facility by the
Irvine Company (private develaper} info Irvine Regional Pad-ic. This facility is just yag-ds
aw�y from Santiago Oaks Par�< and wiil farever have an i►��pact on Santiago Creek. i o
ignoi-e this encroachrnent is to not fiake the new vision pfan seriously.
The Inventor}� of Public Lands, May 1972, called ror fihe need of recreation/ope�-space
areas, togefiher with conservation and ecofogical considerations. A detailed inventory ofi
�ublic lands near th� Santiago C�-eek Greenbelt Corridor was carefully identified. ►he
inventary within the 9 miles distance afi the creek indicated there were 925 acres lying
witi�in the greenbelt corridor. �ne ofi�hose parcels was the 526 acres owned by the
Carpenter and Serrano Irrigation District, known as Barham Ranch, later sold to (Jrange
Uni�fied School District. i his parcel was slated as a tap priority apen-space acquisition
because of its high quality habitat. The County �cquired Barham Ranch (now a part of
Santiago Oaks Park) in 2003 afiter � 5-year citizen effort. This important acquisi#ion
serves as one ofi the m�jof- successes of the Greenbelt Plan, yet it is barely mentioned
in the draft.
Vtff�ile fihe SCVP draft plan seems to concentrate heavily on trail connecfivity and the
bikeway plan through the city of Orange (of which many of the trails described already
exist), many components of the comprehensive 1971 Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek
Greenbelt Plan are conspicuously missing, such as a clearly identified watershed visian
plan. The SCVP plan misses important components. No mention is made ofi developer
impacts, the Arundo remavaf progr�am, ihe existing tours and educational pragrams
offered an the watershed, various clean up efforts, affects of the wildfiires and fire
prevention programs: Furth�r if the draft is to represent the "vision for the fufure ofi
Santiaga Creek" it should include the pe�spective and experzis� of a I�rger range of
local advocacy and interest groups, such as Santa Ana River Vlfatershed Alli�nce
(SARWA), the Santiago Creek Watershed Preservation � Restorafion P�-oject, the
Wefilands Recovery Project and Orange Park/�ssociaiian to mention a few. We need to
g�t ihis righf for fufiure generazions.
Qofiii SARWA and the Saniiago Creek W�tershed Preservation « Restot-ation Proj�ct
have been working on a Santiago Creek Watershed Plan for a numbe�- of years. Theia�
members have expertise in recreationa! frails, environmental, habitat resfiordtion, water
qualiiy, land use and have extensive experience in dealing with fhe agencies. Orange
Park Association has ye�rs of experience with trails and open sp�ce issues and musfi .
be included �specialfy�vhen a portion of ihe c4-e�k is in the OPA Specific P1an.
Page 3
i heresa Sears
Draft: iantiag� Creek Vision Plan
I am certain other in�ividuais and groups that vvouid like their voices heard and their
visior� incorpor�tec! in the plan as �,rell. �iUhen anyor►e v+rha desires ia par�icipate in the
�roeess is excluded, the pfan is flawed and la�ks credibiiit�. In �he 1971 Greenbelt
Plan, citizer�s �rov;ded valuabfe comments �nc( input that were incarparated in the pi�n,
or at ��inirnum �cknow{ec{geci in the report. 1 would sugges�t going bacK to fihe drawing
�oard fia open u� fhe process and a{{ow for a bra�de3� and more mear�ingfu( range of
inpufi so ihat t�e draft is m��-e inc(usive and ir�iy useful.
In closing, I �r,�ou(d a�preciate proper credit far fhe Barham ►-Zanch photos useci ir� the
dacumenf; b�:t mor� i±�ripor�anfily, as an in�eresied staE<ehoide� ! woulcf like �o directly
par�icipare in 'the refinement oi�his document.
Th�,nk you for your consi�le�atian and wifi �oQk�orwa�-d io hearing �rom you.
Sincerzly, "
'Theresa Sears
-i*�4�'�r _.,.���.�
's .,
fQ �r t.i
� L � Santia o Creek Watershed
. �� J
��i� � ��� Preservation & Restoration Project
�
January 28,2009
Marie Knight, Direcfor of Community Services
City of Orange
230 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866 .
Santiago Creek Vision Plan Comments
Dear Marie Knight:
On behalf of Santiago Creek Watershed Preservation &Restoration Project(SCWPRP), I have reviewed the
Santiago Creek Vision Plan and offer the following comments:
1_ SCWPRP and Santa Ana River Watershed Alliance(SARWA)are not included in the vision document. We
have been invofved in vision pfanning for the Sanfiago Creek Watershed for a fiew years and some of our
ideas are partially in the City of Orange vision document. Why did we not receive credit or reference to our
organizations?
2. Section 2.1 does not include details on potential modification of the parking (ot through Hart Park to allow
for groundwater recharge of Santiago Creek between Hart Park and Santa Ana River. Water District has
offered many ideas(cut ditch with metal grate, box culvert,etc)to a(low for perennial flow through Hart
Park for recharge, habitat restoration, and visual quality of the creek. Our vision plan recommends the
partial or complete removal of the Hart Park parking lot,so it can be restored to a natural state. Small
footbridges could be added for pedestrian connectivity. The parking lot is a major obstruction for
groundwater recharge,wildlife movement, and water qualify. The traditional landscape within the park is
also a hindrance to wildlife movement between Cambridge Restoration Site and Santiago Park. Low-use
� and passive-use areas of the park can be enhanced with habitat gardens_The natural state of Santiago
Creek predates the history of the park and should be celebrated and restored within the park boundaries.
3. Section 2.2 should include the removal of soilcrete from the slopes of the creek channel, so the stream
bank can be restored with scrub and riparian vegetation. The existing bikeway between Cambridge and
Tustin should be re-landscaped with riative plants versus non-native,high-maintenance plant species.
Pathway lights need to be removed. This stands as a major gap for wildlife connectivity because of its lack
of habitat in cont�ast to the restoration site between Hart Park and Cambridge.
4. Remove concrete from Handy Creek channel between Jamestown and Bond Pits (Water District
Reservoirs}and restore native habitat with a neighborhood trail to connect residents to the OCWD
recharge basins and Santiago Creek.
5. Convert Yorba Park to passive use area_ Restore stream terrace/alluvial sage scrub/grassland plant
community(shallow rooting, drought tolerant, bird and butterfly attractors)_ Include decomposed granite
multi-use loop.trail_ The TCA and habitat restoration experts successfully restored Coyote Canyon Landfill
to Coastaf Sage Scrub. Since the restoration,CA gnatcatcher poputations have increased dramatically at
the site. Please read below articles on restoration of landfills(great opportunity for Yorba Park!):
http://www.ciwmb_ca.gov/IeaCentrallClosure/Restoration/CaseStud i es/CoyoteCanyon.htm
6. Convert abandoned medical center building/parking lot into gymnasium instead of using open space
(proposed gymnasium site)adjacent to Grijalva Park. Or, remove abandoned medical center
building/parking lot and restore native habitat as mitigation fior lost open space(proposed gymnasium site)
adjacent to Grijalva Park. �
7. Existing open space along Santiago Creek between Chapman and Collins has the potential to be the
largest inner-city nafure reserve in the City of Orange. It features an interconnected trail system, riparian
forest and coastal sage scrub, bird viewing areas, potential primitive group camp sites for inner-city youth,
and opportunities for habitat restoration,inciuding wetland and woodland enhancement.
8. Partner with OCWD to remove barriers around recharge basins at Bond/Hewes/Prospect and create multi-
use trail with native landscaping, interpretive signs, and low, rustic fence between trail and dropoff.
9. Acquire triangle-shaped property at intersection of Hewes and Santiago Can'yon Road (next to fire
station)and/or parcel adjacent to Handy Creek and Hewes (across from nursery). Reproduce the Grijalva
Adobe to be used as a historic museum, OCWD Recharge Basin interpretive exhibit, and gathering place
for the community. Landscape with native plants. Include decomposed granite trail with outdoor seating
and interpretive signs.
10. Section 2.7 only includes the landfill as parking lot versus potential restoration site or park space.
Considering the trail is an alternate form of transportation,why do we need another parking lot? Restore
landfill at the corner of Cannon and Santiago Canyon Road back to native habitat. Local residents can
walk to location. Visitors can ride their bikes to location.
11. Section 2.7 should have a non-development alternative for the Sulley-Miller site. It is a busy wildlife
corridor_ We have found that it is an important foraging and breeding site for large and small mammals,
raptors, sensitive song birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Not only is the soft bottom and riparian forest of the
stream channel important, but the historic flood-plain and stream terrace (agricultural area and sand and
gravel area)allow for much of these wildlife activities to take place. It is a refuge where there is very little
disturbance from people. Now that much of the upstream habitat has burned, it is supporting even more
species than usual. Expansive meadows and vernal pools are hard to come by in North Orange County,
yet they are both represented on the property. Exposed sand and gravel deposits are crucial nesting
grounds for Poorwills and Lesser Nighthawks. The riparian woodland and mixed-use agricultural areas
also support declining bat species. Least Bell's Vireo,Western Spadefoot Toad,Western Meadow Larks,
Roadrunner, Northern Harrier,American Kestrel, Horned Lark, Lark Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Red-
sided Garter Snake, and Dusky-footed Woodrats require specialized habitats found on the property. In
some ways, it offers more privacy and a different terrain that is unavailable in Santiago Oaks. It also
stands as the missing puzzle piece between the EI Modena Open Space and Santiago Oaks Regional
Park.
12. The Irvine Ranch 4000-home development proposal next to Irvine Park, Foothill Transportation Corridor,
and Irvine Lake happens to be within the Santiago Creek Watershed. Why is it not included in the vision
plan? The development proposal site is one of the most extensive unburned foothill ecosystems in the
watershed,which features Coastal Cactus Wren habitat. It also features panoramic views of Santiago
Canyon, Irvine Lake, and the Santa Ana Mountains. It is historically where Grizzly Bears and Wolves
occurred on a regular basis. It is a major foraging ground for raptors, deer, coyotes, bobcats,and mountain
lions. It already has an intact trail system (former truck trail)and nearby staging area for passive recreation
(bird viewing, hiking, etc.). '
13. There are many streets that are interconnected to Santiago Creek. Many of them can be narrowed or
modified to accommodate bicycle traffic.
12. The Tustin Branch Rail Trail has the potential to be a major connector between Tustin and Irvine to
Orange,Villa Park, and Anaheim. A section between Fairhaven and La Veta is still for sale and available
for extension of the bikeway. A maintenance access road along a V-ditch connects La Veta to Chapman.
From Chapman,a trail.easement could go next to EI Modena High School/nature center to Spring Street.
From Spring Street, a bikeway can be incorporated along Hewes all the way to the OCWD recharge
basins.
13. The document should be renamed Santiago Creek Bikeway Plan through Orange. It is vague and leaves
many details in the hands of SCGA and developers without including SCWPRP, SARWA, and other
community representatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Santiago Creek Vision Plan. If you have any questions, please contact
me at 714-639-8480 or jrobinson@santiagocreek.org.
Sincerely,
Joel Robinson
D i re cto r/C o o rd i n ato r
5907 Valley Forge Dr.
Orange, CA 92869