HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - APP-0533-14 - PART 2 EXHIBIT C FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ERRATA MITIGATION MONITORING f-i---t'�;'";- "-ft�y'jf«:J'!t �
r ,c.,�`_.�.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR
PURCHASE&DELIVERY OF LODGE POLE FENCING
LODGE POLE FENCING:
All wood posts and rails shall be Chromated Copper Arsenate treated lodge pole pine.
All wood to be pressure treated lodge pole.
POSTS:
Posts are to be buried 2' deep with a remainder of 4' above ground.At the least 6"of gravel base
will be placed over 90% compacted subgrade to allow proper drainage. The post will be set over
the gravel and tamped in to cause a solid, sturdy post to which the railing can be attached. Use
concrete if necessary to achieve Proper support. A blend of both techniques can be used.
RAILINGS: POSTS:
Railings are to be bolted to the post using carriage bolts as per the drawing. The railings will be
attached so that the protrusion of the railing is facing the trail user side.
HARDWARE:
The carriage bolts shall be installed so that the smooth end will face the trail user side.
The carriage bolts may be as Iong as needed due to variance on this type of lumber(%z"dia by 9
'/Z").
C3-1
SAMPLE
STANDARD TRAIL FENCE
7� ��2� c�. c.
5"d�a by 6'
0
Garr�a Bok a
� �I J2" d ia by 9'"
0
3 �!2"dia by 8'
�
�
1 �
�...
ALL WOOD TO BE PRESSURE TREATED LODGE POLE:
CS-2
� �
� ,. ..c. � "�, �'` '� 't �•q� � r �_ �` l .�'r�` �� ,, = ♦ # �� � � .
a � � I � I�S�`ir j '�`ry� �- �'4 'gj��•:' � a d'� �.�.� ,`F. �1_� y�' r �} ,r 4_.
�{ ,��'�+' �� . a*�{i�S"I�� + �,f T '�� ��t ti�� ���'��':��i ' ���"�� ��:� r
�r. � t
.!.' r. , � � .
,
��� , L�— �r� � � i ,, y� �a •f+ 1,i��i � YF4 '�•�..
M" � i
_ �� �,� t`. �+ :t ?d J .t- ��� �.r �r JC/�
"'••�5.,.,.'"L�s�"�7`�"'f . �� ;-k� ,y�•� F » �K. ,x � .�� -'�'a. S�'�
, . y,;k �a y��'a� , . �.. f,.�'�x .�jj� �W ' y. . ���
•�� �. ' :. a �` '� ,`e �` ., '{ " • ►i . ti�' ;
.¢F' M
� � �,. �� t r.� 1t�4� �1-�;.'� �'~ .?4
. j 4 3° :'!F� . � ny�`.,�
`4.7 ' t .6^ �, Y4 �,`{. x , ' ._ '� �vj� 'a �Y� .
. .
. !
: �
.,
� r
�
`f�`' ` t� '� `"' «_ ' ��� - �,:•
.
,,
; . .,. �;
. � ,�
.
� �
��y � ; � d'.�., .."' �� � '-: -- i ., �'q-i„.
�a�,,�
_ :_
� , ,
.
. j . >,
w _.,
� � , �;-. -,_ - - ,,;..
, -.:� ' � �_
, ,
� �
�� -
�� - _`'r"_ -_'.� ,,�—•= �� "' - ` , . .� �` "_,�s. ,._
' 'r 4... ��� ..,�?'"."^�"�'��. A1 q E�:�- i�r *�.,� ,.
(
� ��� i
:� � '��
_ � 4, t�.
�
r
�. - �
' k
3
. �
'
�
PURCHASE &DELIVERY OF LODGE POLE FENCING
BID SHEET
ITEM QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT TOTAL
COST COST
O1 994 Each Posts $ $
02 1,989 Each Railing $ $
03 3,978 Each Bolts $ �
04 3,978 Each Washers $ $
05 3,978 Each Nuts $ $
06 t Each Delivery $
TOTAL COST $
For This Quotation To Be Valid This Sheet
Must Be Signed
Company Name
BID SHEET 1 OF 1
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 3
Date: June 24, 2013
Prolin Modanlou,Manager
Strategic Land Planning
OC Public Works/OC Planning Services
Response to Comment 3.1
The Commenter's statements related to not describing a Class I Bikeway as a"trail" are noted. According
to the County letter — trails have dirt or decomposed granite surface. For the purposes of this EIR both
City and County standards have been used. The terminology in the EIR related to trails and trail surfaces
reflects the Rio Santiago Specific Plan. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation,
Subsection 2.7.2, Trails and Bikeways, Figure 5.15-3, Trails and Bikeways and Table 5.15-7, Trails and
Bikeways that have been added to the EIR to clarify the location of each trail; type of trail or connection
(including trail surface composition); timing of construction; and, responsibility for management and
maintenance. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.2
The Commenter's statements related to referring to trails and bikeway separately are noted. For the
purposes of this EIR both City and County standards have been used. The terminology in the EIR reflects
the Rio Santiago Specific Plan. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection
2.7.2, Trails and Bikeways, Figure 5.15-3, Trails and Bikeways and Table 5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways
that have been added to the EIR to clarify the location of each trail; type of trail or connection; timing of
construction; and,responsibility for management and maintenance. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.3
The Commenter's statements related to the name of the Class I(paved, off-road) Bikeway proposed along
Santiago Creek being Santiago Creek Regional Class I Bikeway are noted. No further responses are
necessary.
Response to Comment 3.4
The Commenter's statements related to Santiago Creek Regional Riding and Hiking trail are noted. The
terminology in the EIR reflects the Rio Santiago Specific Plan. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails and Bikeways, Figure 5.15-3, Trails and Bikeways and Table
5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways that have been added to the EIR to clarify the location of each trail; type of
trail or connection; timing of construction; and, responsibility for management and maintenance. The
proposed project would not construct a trail crossing of Santiago Creek. Future trail locations are general;
however, trails may be located on the project site including a potential connection across Santiago Creek.
The proposed project would not preclude the implementation of the future trails. No further responses are
necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-29
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 3.5
The Commenter's Attachments 1 and 2 are noted. The Commenter's statements related to sources
(Attachment 1) for Section 5.15, Recreation have not been included in the EIR. These sources were not
utilized in the preparation of the EIR. The Commenter's statements related to specifications (Attachment
2) for purchase and delivery of lodge pole fencing, sample standard trail fence, sample pictures, and
purchase and delivery of lodge pole fencing costs are included in Section 3.0, Comments and Responses
for review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Additionally,please refer to
Section 4.0, Errata to Draft EIR to reflect changes requested within Attachment 1 of this letter. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.6
The Commenter's statements related to flow rates are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4,
Hydrology and Flooding for further discussion of the related to potential impacts to hydrology and water
quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The High Confidence
(HC) method was used in place of the Expected Value (EV) method. This is because the HC method
application generally tends to result in slightly higher values for storm runoff peak flow and storm runoff
volume. In this case, the slightly higher values have been used as a factor of safety applied during the
preliminary entitlement design phase of the storm drain system in TTM 17344,before all the final design
parameters are known and applied during in the future final design phase. This approach is warranted at
this time because the factor of safety will tend to ensure that the future final design values would not be
higher than the values currently being used in the entitlement design phase. In this manner, entitlement
storm drain system size and locations is more apt to be sufficiently designed such that the future final
design would not lead to a significant expansion of the TTM storm drain system. No further responses are
necessary.
Response to Comment 3.7
The Commenter's statements related to Expected Value (EV) analysis are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.4,Hydrology and Flooding far further discussion of the related to potential impacts to
hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. As
explained in above Response to Comment 3.6, it has been decided to use the HC method to analyze the
existing versus developed conditions for this project. The HC method hydraulic calculations have been
performed only for the 2-year recurrence interval event and for the 100-year recurrence interval event.
The 2-year event has been selected because of the need to treat first-flush low-flow storm water runoff.
The 100-year event has been selected because the proposed storm drain system will be designed to
discharge the 100-year peak flow runoff. The intermediate recurrence interval calculations (for the 5-
year, the 10-year, the 25-year and the 50-year events) are not needed for either of these two purposes in
the entitlement engineering design phase of TTM 17344. Note that the intermediate intervals may still
need to be used in certain circumstances during the final engineering design phase of the project, after the
Page 3-30 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
EIR is certified. If this is the case, future results for those intervals would be expected to fall between the
present results calculated for the 2-year event and the 100-year event. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.8
The Commenter's statements related to the hydrologic models of the report and the land use designation
are noted. This change will be resolved during final design. The Curve Number (CN) for "barren" land
use in Soil Group B is 86. The CN number for "park" (tur� land use in Soil Group B is 74 or less.
Because of this favorable relationship, the results produced by the hydrologic models would tend to be
conservative for the existing condition. So, for the entitlement approval of TTM 17344, the results would
allow for the adjustment in the future during final design and would not be expected to result in a
significant increase in peak flow runoff or volume. Or, if there is an increase, it would be relatively small
and could be easily wark with by the methods currently proposed in the EIR. Deferring the change until
the final design will be a manageable solution. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.9
The Commenter's statements related to low loss rate fractions are noted.
The recommendation is noted regarding the low loss rate fractions. The commenter is asking to check the
calculations and revise as appropriate. The methodology is correct and not in question. The calculations
have been checked and the fractions are correct for the existing land use designation used in Appendix J,
Hydrology Study Report. Please note that the commenter is not incorrect; however the calculations are
also correct. The commenter is asking for the calculations to be re-done for a land use that differs only
very slightly from the proposed land use in the report. In doing so,the low loss fraction difference would
have an insignificant influence in the overall volumetric result.
This change will be resolved during final design. The CN number for"barren" land use in Soil Group B
is 86. The CN number for"park" (tur fl land use in Soil Group B is 74 or less. Because of this favorable
relationship,the results produced by the hydrologic models would tend to be conservative for the existing
condition. So, far the entitlement approval of TTM 17344, the results would allow for the adjustment in
the future during final design and would not be expected to result in a significant increase in peak flow
runoff or volume. Or, if there is an increase, it would be relatively small and could be easily mitigated by
the methods currently proposed in the EIR. Deferring the change until the final design will be a
manageable solution. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.10
The Commenter's statements related to the City review and approval of 100-year flood protection and all
features that do not worsen the existing conditions are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.4, Hydrology and Flooding for further discussion of the related to potential impacts to hydrology and
water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
Please note that the Draft EIR is a City document and the City has reviewed Appendix J, Hydrology
Report and Appendix K, Water Quality Technical Studies. This information does not change the analysis
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-31
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.11
The Commenter's statements related to the proposed drainage facilities of the proposed project must be
accomplished concurrently with regulatory permits are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.4, Hydrology and Flooding for further discussion related to potential impacts to hydrology and water
quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
Please note that the project applicant has submitted for regulatory permits showing proposed drainage
facilities. However, please also note that regulatory permits do not get issued until CEQA documents
have been reviewed and certified. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the
Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.12
The Commenter's statements related to proposed buried riprap training wall located on flood control
property are noted.
The County and the project applicant are in discussions related to Planning Area A and the location of
buried riprap on County (OCFCD) property. It should be noted that as of the writing of this document,
there has been no conclusion and the discussions are on-going. The County and Resource Agencies
would need to approve the location of the flood control protection (buried riprap) and any fuel
modification zones on County property before the project could proceed in any Planning Area affected by
the omission of rip-rap on County property. Commenter's expressed concern related to the proposed
buried riprap retraining wall located beyond the proposed project boundary on the east side. They noted
that the riprap would be encroaching into Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) right-of-way.
They noted that any improvement should be within the proponent's property.
It is acknowledged that all work within OCFCD right-of-way would require encroachment permits from
OCPW/County Property Permit Section. It is acknowledged that that all needed regulatory permits
required by regulatory agencies would need to obtain by the developer. It is acknowledged that any
engineered improvements to Santiago Creek planned to be turned over to OCFCD and need to meet
OCFCD criteria and standards, and pass OCFCD inspection. It is acknowledged that an agreement
between OCFCD and project developer that delineates each party's responsibilities would need to be
prepared before design plans are finalized and permits are obtained from the County.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-32 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 3.13
The Commenter's statements related to work within OCFCD right-of-way required encroachment permits
are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does
not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.14A
The Commenter's statement that the proposed drainage facilities of the proposed project need to be
accomplished concurrently with regulatory permits is noted. Please note that the project applicant has
submitted for regulatory permits showing proposed drainage facilities. However, please also note that
regulatory permits do not get issued until CEQA documents have been reviewed and certified. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.14B
The Commenter's statements related to engineered improvements to Santiago Creek reach in OCFCD
ownership are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR
because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the
Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.15
The Commenter's statements related to Draft EIR page 5.9-38 are noted. Section 4.0,Errata to the Draft
EIR has the following change to the EIR.
Page 5.39-38:
Page 5.9-38 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below to include:
Changes in the on-site 100-year event durations (Tc's) will have little effect to Santiago Creek
flows as the 100-year hydrograph presented in"Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Report for Rio
Santiago" indicates, peak flows in Santiago Creek arrive at the project site 53 hours into the 100-
year storm event which far exceeds the 100-year duration of project site flow delivery to Santiago
Creek. w�,;�o�, .a,. �.� o ,.. „ ;�.,�.�o F„ D � � �..c,.,,+: „ r,.00�. ,.,: �
J �bY�Y ,/
�
�e����spe�-�see���Ee�e��e�Ees e� ��e-�e��—����err�s�����er=��Te}eE�
0
;a„ oa ,..
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-33
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.16
The Commenter's statements related to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment are noted. Please
refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. This information does not
change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the
adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are
necessary.
Response to Comment 3.17
The Commenter's statements related to closure underground storage tank (UST) determination are noted.
The referenced UST's are no longer on the project site ((Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment).
Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Appendix I,
Environmental Site Assessment, Page 2 of the Tait 2010 response to City of Orange comments on the
Phase I ESA did not indicate that the City of Orange was reevaluating "closure determination for eight
former USTs due to proposed land use changes." The report stated that The Planning Center (consultant
to the City), in a memorandum dated January 18, 2010, had reviewed a Michael Brandman Associates
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report dated August 6, 2009, and had provided comments to the
City.
In these comments, it is noted that the Michael Brandman Associates Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment report dated August 6, 2009 expressed concern regarding, "closure of 8 of the former LISTs
that indicate when land use changes the closure needs to be reevaluated." The Commenter has
incorrectly interpreted the analysis in Appendix I,Environmental Site Assessment. There is no indication
that the City or the Regional Board was reevaluating the closure determination. No further responses are
necessary.
Response to Comment 3.18
The Commenter's statements related to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials. This information does not change the analysis
or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.19
The Commenter's statements related to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB) conclusion that no further action on the contaminated soils in 1998 are noted. It would be
speculative to assume the basis for the SARWQCB statements. Please refer to Master Response Section
Page 3-34 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports (Tait May
16, 2011) established the baseline and determined that there was no contaminated soil on the project site.
Related to the potential for future discovery of contaminated materials on the project site, all on-site
grading would occur in accordance with the Ciry of Orange Grading Manuel (Manuel of Grading). This
Manual of Grading sets forth the rules and regulations to control excavation, grading and earthwork
construction, including cuts and fills. It establishes the administrative procedure for issuance of permits,
sets requirements for approval of plans and inspection of grading construction, and provides guidelines
for enforcement of grading violations. The Manuel of Grading provides for the inspection of all grading
within the City, requires inspection of work, and supervision. If any hazardous materials were to be
uncovered during the grading operations, existing Federal, State, and local protocols would be anticipated
to address the materials if discovered.
Response to Comment 3.20
The Commenter's statements related to environmental screening levels are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 23, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. It is true that the Environmental Screening
Levels are used to assess potential human health risks from contact with soil impacted by specified
contaminants at or above stipulated concentrations (specified in units of micrograms per kilogram of soil).
They were developed to be conservative and protective of human health, water resources, and the
environment. The Environmental Screening Levels specified in this comment are estuarine aquatic
habitat goals, with specified units in micrograms per liter of water. There is no direct correlation between
the soil Environmental Screening Levels specified in the Tait report and these goals.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.21
The Commenter's statements related to the protection of aquatic habitat are noted. Please refer to
Response to Comment 320.
This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.22
The Commenter's statements related to consultation with the SARWQCB are noted. The City will
condition any approval for the proposed project to acquire any rec�uired permits for the RWQCB.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-35
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.23
The Commenter's statements related to the references are noted. The EIR references have not been
changed. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does
not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.24
The Commenter's statements related to the EIR discussion of trails and bikeways are noted. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails and Bikeways, Figure 5.15-3, Trails
and Bikeways and Table 5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways that have been added to the EIR to clarify the
location of each trail; type of trail or connection; timing of construction; and, responsibility for
management and maintenance. No further responses are necessary. Refer to Response to Comment 3.1
above.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.25
The Commenter's statements related to connectivity of trails and bikeways are noted. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails and Bikeways, Figure 5.15-3, Trails
and Bikeways and Table 5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways that have been added to the EIR to clarify the
location of each trail; type of trail or connection; timing of construction; and, responsibility for
management and maintenance. No further responses are necessary. Refer to Response to Comment 3.1
above.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council far consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.26
The Commenter's statements related to permits for improvements associated with the OCFCD Handy
Creek Storm Channel (E08S06) are noted.
Page 3-36 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.27
The Commenter's statements related to working with the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA)
for remediation of total petroleum hydrocarbons are noted. The Draft EIR notes that on page 5.8-11,
Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project could potentially create a short-term significant
hazard impact to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment during ground-clearing and
site grading activities.
MM HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works and
Community Development that remedial actions in accordance with
adopted State standards have been taken on-site, or that the excavation
and off-site disposal has occurred.
Any potential remedial actions for total petroleum hydrocarbons would be accomplished in accordance
with State standards that include coordination with all appropriate local agencies (i.e., OCHCA). This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 3.28
The Commenter's statements related to the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency are noted. Refer to
responses to Letter 2 for specific responses to comment and related to the County of Orange Health Care
Agency. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does
not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-37
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 4
C}ylcn Wright,lnterim Dirertor
a a a N G e c o u �a x r 3{IQ N.fiower$treet,Suite 400
• Santa Ana,CA 42703
www.ociandfilis com
� 6 u r C a m m u rt i t y. 6 e r t a m m'r t m e n L Te�eRfyOnQ: �7���83�{-�}��4
Fax: (714)$34-4183
3une 26, 2C�13
C�iad Ortlieb
City c�f Ora�ge
C'om�nunity Development Department
3Q0 East Chaprnan Av��ue
Orange, CA 92�C�6
Gomments on the Notice 4f Preparatio�n of a Draft EIR far the Rio Santiaga Project in the
Cily o€Orange
Dear Mr. Qrtlieb:
OC�'aste & l��cycling has t��e ft�llowing cc�mments on tl�e Draft EIR for the Rio Santia�o
Prc�ject. 4C ��Jaste & Recyclin� submitted thes� same colnments on the Revised Notice af
Preparatian (NUP} of a Draft EIR for the Ric� Santiaga Praject on Apri126� 2011. These
cc�mments liave not been inc4rpc�rated infa the Draft EIR project descriptic�n, air quality analysis,
health risk analysis, hydrolo�;y analysis,land use atlalysis and alterna�i�des (i.e.,project desi�).
If the Draft EIR is reuised and recirculated for any reasc�n, then these cc��nments should be
carefully considered and included in any of the additic�nal anal}�s�s perfc�nned far the project. If 4.1
the I)raft EIR i�nc�t recrised and reeirculated, ther�the City of 4ra�age{�City) should pravide a
detailed exptanatit�n in t11e responses to comm�r�ts document�tic�zl, as ta the reasons why the Cit��
did not incorporate C1C Waste & Recycling's comments it�to the EIR analyses, cansiderin�that
a11 af the comments relate to si��ificanf�ublic health and safety issues assaeiated r�vith locating
occupied structures assaciated with the propc�sed prc�ject in very close proximity ta the former
Vi11a Park Landfill.
Camnients on Re�rised NOP for the R�o Santiago Pro,�ect(incorparated by reference}:
HazardstLaz�dfill Gas-Fc�rrner Villa Park Lar�d�ill
� The�ra��ser� Rio Santiagc� Project w�r�uld be lc�cated directly�ast of the 1`7-acr� former
Villa Park Landfill. The fc�rrner Villa Park Landfitl is owned by the Caunty of Orange
and was c��erated by tl�e Courity�f�r��n 1�62-19fi6. OC Waste �. Recycling cantin�es tc�
maintain a�ld meanitt�r the site iz�c�rder tc� ensure t�le pub�ic's healt�� an� safety.
Envirc�nmental cc���trc�] and rncsnitari�g syste��s at the site include a landfill �as callection
and flaring s�rste�n, landfill �as �nr�nitorin�probes, �;rou�ldwater��anitcarin���vells, and 4.2
peri�eter surface water cc�llecti�n channels. In additieri�, C7C Waste& Recycling
z��aintains the landfill ec�t�er to prevent panding, erosion and differential settlement. State
az�c� Ic�c�l agencies that monitor tte site include the Calif�rnia Regional Wa#er Quality
Cc�ntrol Baard—Santa Ax�a Re�ic�it�RWQCF3), Sc�uth Coast Air QuaIity Mana�ement
P'age �
District {SCAQMD) and the Couniy af Orange Health Gare AgencylLacal Enforcement
Agenc�r{LEA).
� The Draft EIR sh€�u1d include a quantitative health risk assessment(HRA) to determine
whether it is safe far the City to site a.x� autism center, or any ather patentially sensiti�.�e 4.3
occupied strueture, directly adjacent to a farmer refuse dispc�sal station.
• OC Waste& Recycling recc�rnmends that far all acc�zpied structures located within 1,000
feet of the former Villa Park Refuse Dispc�sal Static�n, t}7at these occupied structures be
equipped wit� structural mitigatic��� ta prevent landfill �as accumulation undemeath �nd
inside the accupied structures. This would include the prc�posec� autism center, �,MCA
and any other occupied structure urithin the 1,Q00 fant radius. Ft�r al1 occupied �tructures
located ufrthin the 1,000 foot radius, this miti�ation `�rould incl�ade the fallawing
structural mitigatian controls for each new sfructure: (I) a �ec�membrane between the slab
and the subgade, {2) a per��eable layer with �rentin�pipe between the geomembrane, and 4.4
(3} automatic rnethat�e gas sensors with audible alarms in the perrneab�e layer and inside
the structures. The Draft ETR should mandate that the praject applieant wiil cc�mmit tc�
these structural cc�ntrol features and that this will be a Ct���ditic�n af Approval for tl�e
proposed prc�ject. In addition, the Mitigatian Monitc�ring and Reporting Program should
also mandate that design ��ans far any occupied structures witllin l Ot�O feet afthe refuse
limit, and structural systems tc�pree=ent gas-related hazards, are rec�uired tc�be retTiewed
and apprc�tJed by the LEA. In addition to the abave me�sures, a reast�nable buffer znne
between#he farnzer refuse dispasai station waste pris�n an�l any oeeupied structures
shoutd �e established ta allc�u� fc�r fu�ure remediatinn af any pc�tential LFG migation.
Water Quality
• The Draft EIR should indicate haw surface water runaff and irri�ation water, �,enerated in
t}�e westen� pc�rtion of th�praject site, will l�e controtled and cc�i�veyed in such a way sa 4.5
that there are nc� significant impacts ta the landfill final cover or to the existin�
�raundwater monitoring v��ells.
Disclosure Statement—Prc�ximit�of New Hames tc�Fonner Vil�a Park Refuse Dispc�sal Station
• The ct�nceptual land use plan far the prc�ject shc�ws future homes Iocated appraximately
1,C}00 feet frc�m the fc�rmer ViIIa Park Refuse Disposat StatiQn, C}C ��aste &: Recycli�l�
recoinm�;nd� ihat a verbal disilc�sure c�f�lle praximrty oftt�e fot�ner Villa Park R�fuse �
Disposa3 Station be mad�d�ring the earliest phase c�f shc�w�ing 1lomes to prospectiEre
buyers. This verbal disclt�sure��rould be in �ddition to t}ie written disclosure pravided to
the holnea��rner when purchasin�;the hcrme. OC Waste&�ecycling staff have found that
de�pite ihe u�ritten disc�c�sure statements requir�d by la�r, new lxamet�uyers c�ften don't
realize that a former landfil� is nearby_ By��erbally inft�rming p�tential buyers �arly in 4.6 �
ihe prc�cess, the 6uyer� are more apt tc� read the c�isclos�re state�ne�lt and inake an
inforn7ed purcl�ase. The Draft EIR sh€�u1ci manc�ate that the prc�ject applic�nt commit to
this disc]osure as a mitigati�n 7neasure for the project anci tl�at this sl7ouid alsc� bect�me a
Condition c�fAppraval fc�r the pz-c�posed prc�ject. In addition, tl�� I��itigation ivlc�nitorin�
Page 2
and Reportin�;Program should �iso mandate future t�isclosure by the hc�mebuilders for
the project. Ea�l�property deed should alsa require verbal as wetl as written disclosure ta
future bu�ers t�r r�nters of the hame's Iacation near the forrner landfill.
In addifiic�n, OC V�Iaste&: Recycling has the following ne��� comments on the Draft EIR:
Errors on Landfill Name
4.7
• Table 5.9-1 mentions "Y�rba Landfill''. Th� 1and�ll adjacent tc�the propc�sed project is
�illa Park Landfill. This shauld be cc�rrected. In the event that the landfiil referred tc� is
actuaily Yorba Landfill,then piease include the data frc�m Villa Park Landfill.
• Figure 5.9-8 mistakenly lab�els Villa Park Landfill as Yc�rba Landfill. This siYauld be 4 $
corrected.
Qn-Site Well
4.9
� Please i��dicate tl�e location and type ofwell.
• Gra�undwater manitoring vvell MW-1, which belan�;s tc� OC Waste&Recycling, is
located along the western boundary of Plannin,�Area B and the eastern boundary of the
�illa Park Landfill. Please state hc�uT this�raundwater monitc�rin�well will be pratecteci 4.10
during and after canstt-uetion and provide assurance that OC �aste&Rec}rcling will
ha�re conti�aued access to this well,
Planned Stora�,e Facil�ty
• The planned storage faciiity as sha��vn on Figure 5.�-8 is adjacent to the Villa Park
Landfill. Please specif�, in detaila the follawi�7g:
o The depth of the stc�rage faciiity
o How the facility���ill impact �ouudwater c�uality 4.11
o Hc�w trenching and st�c�ring will be handled
o What measures will be taken tr� ensure t�a# Best Managem��lt Practices(BMPs),
or any other v�ork, do not cause in�iltratic�n of«ater into tlle refuse mass a# Villa
Park
a What tneasures will be taken tc� ensure that la�Idfill gas migration daes nc�t occur,
�iven that utility trenclzes could be a cc�nduit for land�ill gas
Water Qualit�• �additiflnal comments)
• Page 5.9-�0 states ���a� the prc�ject wc�uld�ic�t� �i�Iate any�t�ter quality standards c�r�raste
discharge requiremet�ts. The EIR s}�ould specifically state tl3e fc�llc�v��in�:
c� VJl�en tl�e Vttt�MP and revised S��PPP' will be c�ritten 4.12
Page 3
a Specifics as to v�rhether any surface/stc�rmurater(and the accampanying pollutants)
wauld mi�rate to Viila Park Landfill
o VJl�at speci�ic measures wt�uld be taken ta prevent this
c� The specifics ofl�c�th the final grading and the�-adzng during construction
o Hnu�=any potential runoff cant� Villa Park Lat�dfill wi]l be miti�;ated
Installatiotl c�f I��Iunic�pal Se�Yer Svs�em and Drainage Lines
+� T`he fc�llc�win�sl�auld be included:
o The depth of the sew�r and draina�e lines
c� Measures to be taket� in the(highJyr unlikely) event that refuse is encountered
o Measures to be taken te� ensure that BMPs or other wc�rk does �Zc�t �aus� 4.13
infiltratian c�fu�ater ii�ta the refuse mass at Villa Park �,andfill
o Iv�easures to be taken te� ensure that l�ndfill gas mi�-�tic�n dc�es not oecur, gi��en
that�tilit}�trel�ches coulc� be a cc�nduit for Iandtill �;as
o A�c�re specific drainage features in Fi�ure 5.9-I for I3rainage Area B
Potential Encraachment on Villa P�rk Landfill Properiv
� Fi�ure 3-1� of the Master Circula�aat�Plan shows twc� sectic�ns of t�e Future F'ublic
Re�reation Trail Connectie�n c�u �illa Park Larldfll property. Ctarify whether OC t�aste
& Recyclii���jas consulted an�ilor a�}�r�ved c�f`this plan and if nc�t, why��c�t.
� �igur� 5.9-1 she�ws an off-sifie run-on nti the border c�f Villa Par� Landfill. Thi�r�eeds tt� 4.14
�e claritied as tcs whether there is, i�7 f�ct,ar�encroachment c�ntr�Iand�ill prt�perty�.
c� If there is an enc�roachment, the EIR needs to be rev�ised so tl�at there is��c�
encr�achment.
o If there is nc� en�raachanent, there needs to be clarifzcation as to l�c�w close to tP�e
prc�perty line the run-ar� is and what specific measures will be taken ta ensure that
run-on will nc�t affect the �riila Park Landfill.
Ct�inmunicatian with 4C t�aste &Rec� c1i���
� Ir� sections 10.(� �nd 11.� there is n� me��ti�si� �f�ith�r�C Wast� �:, I�ecyelir�g c��-its
emplc�yees being const�lted andl�r resourcec� for this report. Please note that�illa P�rk 4.15
Landfll fa11s Under tl�e purvie�7 c�f OC Waste & Recycling a�nd, since t��e Iandfill is
�cijacent tc� anc� doti��n�;radi�;nt fi�c��n tl�e�rUjecfi, in�ut shc�uid bc sc�]icitec3 f'ro�1 t�C V4'aste
� Re�y�cling.
Page 4�
Sincer�Iy,
t`�•��`�I`^' �', ��-���.�-�..,
Kevin H. Kondru, �'.E., T3eputy L}irector
Gc�ver�unent � Cormnunity Relations
cc: Cindy Li, RWQCB—�anta Ana Re�ion
I�avid Jones, SCAQMD
Anthony Martinez, LEA
Kathy Crt�ss, LEA
Page 5
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 4
Date: June 26, 2013
Kevin H. Kondru, P.E., Deputy Director
Government& Community Relations
OC Waste&Recycling
Response to Comment 4.1
The Commenter's statements are noted. Please refer to Section 1.0, Introduction Subsection 1.2,
Recirculation Consideration related to the need to recirculate the EIR. Additionally, please refer to the
Draft EIR Appendix A, Public Participation Process that indicates the receipt of the response to the NOP
from OC Waste & Recycling and the locations within the Draft EIR where their issues are addressed. A
City response to the comments now reiterated by OC Waste & Recycling in their NOP comments are as
stated in the remaining responses to this letter.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.2
The Commenter's statements related to the proposed project being directly east of the former Villa Park
Landfill are noted. The Commenter's statements related to environmental control and monitoring systems
at the site include a landfill gas collection and faring system, landfill gas monitoring probes, groundwater
monitoring wells, and perimeter surface water collection channels are noted. The Commenter's statement
related to maintaining the landfill cover to prevent ponding, erosion and different settlement are
noted. The Commenter's statements related to state and local agencies that monitor the site include the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the County of Orange Health Care Agency/Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials regarding the potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project
implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. Additionally, please refer to Section 5.8,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR describes existing hazards and hazardous materials
and potential effects from the project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. This
section of the Draft EIR also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant hazards
and hazardous materials impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the
mitigation.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-43
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.3
The Commenter's statements related to the Draft EIR including a quantitative health risk assessment
(HRA) to determine whether it is safe for the City to site an autism center, or any other potentially
sensitive occupied structure, directly adjacent to the former Villa Park Landfill are noted. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials regarding the potential hazards and
hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area.
Additionally, please refer to Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR which
describes existing hazards and hazardous materials and potential effects from the project implementation
on the project site and its surrounding area.
Please note that neither CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, nor Local CEQA policy require the
preparation of a quantitative health risk assessment. This information does not change the analysis or
conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental
analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.4
The Commenter's statements related to recommending that for all occupied structures located within
1,000 feet of the former Villa Park Landfill should be equipped with structural mitigation to prevent
landfill gas accumulation underneath and inside the occupied structures are noted. The Commenter's
statements related to structural controls within 1,000 feet are noted. The Commenter's statements related
to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are noted. The Commenter's statements related to a
reasonable buffer zone between the former refuse disposal station waste prism and any occupied
structures are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 23, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Subsection 2.3.1,Relationship to Former Counry Landfill related to these issues.
It is important to note that Title 27 does not give LEA the authority to impose a 1,000 foot buffer
requirement on the proposed project. Under Section 20005(c) of Title 27, responsibility for enforcing the
regulatory standards of the California lntegrated Waste Management Board was given to the LEA. The
regulatory standards are found in Chapters 1 (Genera�, 2 (Definitions) and 3 (Criteria for All Waste
Management Units, Facilities and Disposal Sites) and applicable portions of Chapter 4 (Documentation
and Reporting for Regulatory 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 active, inactive, closed or abandoned . . .
Page 3-44 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
."Nowhere in Section 20005(c) does it state that the standards also apply to non-disposal
sites. Therefore, Section 21190 does not apply to the project site because no portion of the proposed
project site lies within the boundaries or constituted a part of a disposal site.
Please note that this is consistent with the wording of Section 21190. Subsection (d) of Section 21190
states that all proposed postclosure land uses on sites implementing closure or on closed sites shall be
submitted to the LEA. Additionally, please note that there are other references in Subsection (d) and
Subsection (g) of Section 21190 that use the phrases, "[c]onstruction on site" and"on site construction",
respectively, which further demonstrates that Section 21190 was intended to apply only to proposed
development on a disposal site or part of it. Land outside of a disposal site is outside the reach and
applicability of Title 2Ts regulatory standards, including Section 21190.
Also,based on Subsection(c) of Section 2ll 90, LEA has no statutory right to even review or approve the
proposed project. The only projects LEA reviews are on-site postclosure land uses, i.e., land uses within
the boundaries of the disposal site. Because the proposed project does not involve on-site postclosure
land uses,the LEA neither has the right to review nor approve the Rio project.
Methane Protection Safeguards
Potential Impact HAZ-2 was identified in the Draft EIR related to Planning Area C and the potential need
for methane protection safeguards. The proposed project could potentially pose a long-term significant
human health risk from TCE-impacted soils and/or methane to users of residential buildings located in
Planning Area C (Impact HAZ-2); however, with the incorporation of identified mitigation measures (see
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2), impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Based on the information provided in comments on the Draft EIR, no new impact has been identified in
Planning Area B related to the need for additional methane protection safeguards. However, the project
applicant has indicated that all development in Planning Area B will be in accordance with a new project
design feature (PDF) to address the expressed concerns of OCW&R and LEA. In order to clarify this
addition would be implemented; it has been incorparated into the EIR below.
Additional Project Design Features (PDFs)
Page 5.8-9 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted blow to include the additional PDF the applicant
has agreed to implement:
PDF-HAZ-9 Prior to the issuance of any gr�ading permit in Planning Area B the project
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works
and Community Development that remedial actions, in accordance with adopted
State standards, have been taken on-site or that buildings will include vapor
barriers or passive/active venting systems.
PDF-HAZ-10 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in Planning Area B the project
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-45
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
and Community Development that three on-site LFG monitoring probes on the
north and east perimeter of the former villa Park Lan�ll site will be protected.
PDF-HAZ-11 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in Planning Area B the project
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works
and Community Development that utilities that trench immediately adjacent to
the former villa ParkLandfill, will include vapor barriers.
PDF-HAZ-12 Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit, the project applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and
Community Development that methane monitors will be installed.
Buffer Zone
California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 21190 Postclosure Land Use address land use
requirements on landfill sites. Additionally, LEA Advisory #51, July 1998, discusses disposal site post
closure land use issues. It states:
"Disposal site" or "site" includes the place, location, tract of land, area, ar premises in use,
intended to be used, or which has been used for the landfill disposal of solid wastes (PRC Section
40122). In practice, this definition means that any property located outside the parcel containing
the solid waste is not subject to the postclosure land use requirements of 27 CCR 21190, even if
the outside properry is within 1,000 feet of the waste footprint (27 CCR 21190(c)). This can be
problematic for the CIWMB and LEA because parcel boundaries can be split from the disposal
site, allowing development close to the waste footprint without triggering postclosure land use
controls and approvals.
Local building codes and ordinances can provide enforceable buffer zones controlling land use
development adjacent to disposal sites (e.g., Los Angeles County building codes). Another way
for the LEA to influence the control of postclosure land use development adjacent to disposal site
parcels is to participate as early as possible in the local planning process when rezoning and
building permits come up far issuance. It is also important to note that where the Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has jurisdiction over postclosure land use pursuant to
California Health and Safety Code Section 25221 (i.e., hazardous waste sites), it has broad
authority over adjacent land use activities on property outside the disposal area."
A review of the location of the LFG monitoring probes on the north and east perimeter of the former
disposal site indicated that four probes are located outside the former Villa Park Landfill site and on the
project site. Additionally, two probes are located adjacent to the project site on the former Villa Park
Landfill site. The ownership of the probes on the project site is presently unknown. A review of the
Preliminary Title Report for the project site has been accomplished. The Preliminary Title Report does
not discuss the probes on the project site. However, the OCW&R has indicated that they maintain and
monitor probes related to the adjacent landfill site. PDF 10 (see above) allows for the probes under the
ownership of OCW&R to remain on-site. The project applicant does not have a responsibility to allow
Page 3-46 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
the continued use or to protect probes constructed on the project site without their consent. Additionally,
should any landfill material be found on the project site, it would be the responsibility of the LEA to
remove such material.
The City is required to consult with the LEA related to land uses adjacent to a landfill site. This has been
accomplished via related to the proposed project with issuance of the Notice of Preparation(NOP),Notice
of Completion (NOC), and the preparation of this Response to Comments/Final EIR. Additionally, the
LEA was notified of project scoping meeting and will be notified of all public hearings related to the
proposed project.
The proposed project does not establish specific PDF's to provide a buffer adjacent to the former landfill.
However, land uses of the proposed project to the north of the landfill in Planning Area A are Open Space
—Natural and in Planning Area B are Open Space—Park. These two land uses provide a buffering of the
proposed project from the former landfill. The proposed open space in Planning Area A is described as:
Planning Area A is approximately 50 acres in size (approximately 45 percent of the project site)
and would be retained in its current condition except for infrastructure improvements and native
habitat restoration.
Infrastructure improvements would occur in Planning Area A adjacent to Planning Areas B, C,
and D along the southern edge. These infrastructure improvements include: drainage, flood
control, and multi-purpose trail (including an equestrian fence). These infrastructure
improvements will occur along the south side of the Santiago Creek as stated in Figure 3-4,
Tentative Tract Map. No infrastructure improvements are proposed to occur to the north of
Santiago Creek. Planning Area A will be conveyed to either the City, Orange County Parks, the
Homeowner's Association (HOA), or Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) as a
habitat restoration project for the Measure M2 Freeway Environmental Mitigation Program for
permanent public open space preservation. The proposed project within Planning Area A
provides for re-vegetation in the fuel modification zone and for infrastructure improvements.
(Page 3-28, Draft EIR)
Proposed land use to the east in Planning Area B would be Open Space-Park. This is described as,
"...would allow a variety of fee based recreational and community uses including `pay for play' uses."
(Page 3-28, Draft EIR). The Draft EIR further describes future land uses in Planning Area B as:
... Planning Area B would include a multi-purpose facility with a maximum of 81,000 square feet
that may include a combination of the uses (listed below) and shall not exceed two stories in
height. Ancillary uses in support of the above uses are also allowed (including but not limited to
parking lots, bicycle parking, restrooms, and support services such as sandwich shop,juice bar,
coffee, pro shop, etc.). Freestanding commercial uses would not be permitted. (Page 3-29, Draft
EIR)
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-47
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
The proposed project does not establish specific PDF's to provide a buffer adjacent to the former landfill.
The area immediately adjacent to the former landfill would be landscaped in Zone 2: Community
Streetscape/Trails/Edges (Figure 3-16, Plant Zones Draft EIR). A community view fence constructed of
tubular steel/solid wood/combo low block wall and tubular steel would be located on the property line
(Figure 3-17, Wall and Fence Plan Draft EIR). The City and the project applicant are not required to
adhere to the recommendations of the LEA related to buffers on private property.
This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.5
The Commenter's statements related to surface water runoff and irrigation water are noted. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding for further discussion related to potential impacts
to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
Page 1 of TTM 17344 shows the proposed grading and ground surface runoff controls in Planning Area B
adj oining the landfill lot line boundaries. They include a proposed roadway in Lot U, a proposed berm in
lot 155 and a proposed graded swale in lot 155. Page 2 of TTM 17344 contains section A-A which shows
a section of the proposed roadway in Lot U. This roadway redirects storm water runoff and irrigation
runoff away from the landfill lot line. Page 2 of TTM 17344 contains section B-B. This section shows
the proposed graded swale. This swale redirects storm water runoff and irrigation runoff away from the
landfill lot line. These BMP's will intercept surface waters originating on TTM 17344 and prevent them
from flowing across the westerly property boundary of TTM 17344 and onto the landfill ground surface.
Therefore, the proposed project improvements are expected to have no impact on the landfill cover. TTM
17344 proposes no grading beyond the tract lot line boundary shared in common with the landfill. Any
ground monitoring well located within the landfill property will not be impacted by any grading proposed
by the project or by any surface ground water discharge originating on the project site.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.6
The Commenter's statement related to future homes located approximately 1,000 feet from the former
Villa Park Refuse Disposal Station is noted. The Commenter's recommendation that a verbal disclosure
of the proximity of the former Villa Park Refuse Disposal Station be added during the earliest phase of
showing homes to prospective buyers is noted. It is noted that the Commenter's opinion is that verbal
disclosure of the landfill is needed in addition to a written disclosure to the homeowner when purchasing
the home because, despite the written disclosure statements required by law, new homebuyers often don't
Page 3-48 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
realize that a former landfill is nearby. It is noted that the Commenter's opinion is that, by verbally
informing potential buyers early in the process, buyers are more apt to read the disclosure statement and
make an informed purchase. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Subsection 2.3.1, Relationship to Former County Landfill, Exposure to Methane Gas related to
these issues.
The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR should mandate that the project applicant commit to this
disclosure as a mitigation measure for the proposed project and that this should also become a Condition
of Approval for the proposed project is noted. Please note that mitigation measures must minimize a
significant adverse effect on the environment of an activity. Further, mitigation measures suggested by a
Responsible or Trustee Agency shall:
(c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or
mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over
natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and
detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant
effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction
over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily
available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency
by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the
project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the
statutory authority of and definitions applicable to,that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by
a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project
with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having
jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to
approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.
�cEQa § 21osi.6 (o��
(d) Prior to the close of the public review period, a responsible agency or trustee agency which
has identified what that agency considers to be significant environmental effects shall advise the
lead agency of those effects. As to those effects relevant to its decision, if any, on the project, the
responsible or trustee agency shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed
performance objectives for mitigation measures addressing those effects or refer the lead agency
to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents concerning mitigation
measures. If the responsible or trustee agency is not aware of mitigation measures that address
identified effects, the responsible or trustee agency shall so state. [State CEQA Guidelines §
15086 (d)]
No verbal disclosure to potential buyers is proposed by the project applicant. The project applicant agrees
to meet State required disclosures at the time of development.
The Commenter's statements related to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program should also
mandate future disclosure by the homebuilders for the project is noted. The Commenter's opinion that
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-49
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
each property deed should also require verbal as well as written disclosure to future buyers or renters of
the home's location near the former landfill is noted. Please note that should the City approve the
proposed project a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would be prepared and adopted in
accordance with CEQA,the State CEQA Guidelines, and City policy.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.7
The Commenter's statements related to Table 5.9-1 typos of Yorba Park Landfill are noted. Section 4.0,
Errata to the Draft EIR has the following change to the EIR:
Page 5.9-9:
Page 5.9-9 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below:
Table 5.9-1: Watershed Area Statistics
Existing Existing On- Proposed Proposed On-
Tributary Site Property Tributary Site Property
Description Watershed Not Tributary Watershed Area Not Tributary
Area acres to Watershed acres to Watershed
On- Off-Site Study On- Off- Study
Site Site Site
Planning Areas B, C, D, 69.36 - - 68.87 - -
and A ortion)
Santia o Oaks Park - 0.55 - - 0.75 -
Run-on from"The Reserve" 2'gl - - 2.81 -
Santiago Creek(PA A-
portion) - - 39.48 - - 39.90
East Santiago Canyon Road
R/W Dedication - - 0.98 - - 0.98
�a Villa Park Landfill - 0.05 - - - -
Sub-Total 69.36 3.41 40.46 68.87 3.56 40.88
Total 72.77 72.43
Source:Appendix J,Hydrology Study Report
Response to Comment 4.8
The Commenter's statements related to Figure 5.9-8 typos of Yorba Park Landfill are noted. Figure 5.9-8,
Proposed Drainage Design Features Map has been updated based on the correction. Section 4.0, Errata
to the Draft EIR has the modified Figure 5.9-8, Proposed Drainage Design Features Map to Figure 5.9-
8B,Proposed Drainage Design Features Map.
Page 3-50 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.9
The Commenter's statements related to the location and type of the well(s) are noted. There are two
existing onsite water wells. Both water wells are located in Planning Area D. One well is currently
inactive. The other well is currently active. The active well is OCWD facility number 93-28-8-A. Please
see Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and F'looding, Figure 5.9-8A Existing and Proposed Water
Well Locations, far the proposed locations.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.10
The Commenter's statements related to groundwater well MW-1 are noted. The results of a recent field
survey confirm that MW-1, MP-17, MP-18R and MP-19R are all located on the Rio Santiago property in
Planning Area B. The project applicant has indicated that through review of title report(s) that there are
no existing easements for this to be located on the project site. The project applicant is working with
Orange County Waste & Recycling to have the wells removed from the project site and placed correctly
on the landfill location.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.11
The Commenter's statements related to planning storage facility are noted.
Depth of the storage facility
The Draft EIR indicates that a storage facility will be needed and that its storage capacity will need to be
approximately 0.8 acre feet (� 35,000 cubic feet). The facility will be either a ground surface detention
basin or buried detention basin or a combination of both. The basin will be designed in the future as part
of the final engineering design of TTM 17344, after the EIR is certified. At that time, the exact
dimensions and depths would be determined. As a preliminary estimate of the basin configuration prior
to final design, it would be reasonable to use a size of 3' deep by 100' long by 116' wide. If buried, the
typical depth of cover would be 3'. For this configuration, the bottom of the buried basin would be at a
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-51
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
depth of 6' below grade. In either case, the detention system will be lined with an impermeable liner to
prevent infiltration.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Groundwater Quality
The proposed storage facility is to function as a detention basin with an impermeable liner, not as an
infiltration basin. Since there will be no infiltration to groundwater from the detention basin,there will be
no impact on groundwater quality.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Trenching and Shoring
Trenching and shoring are construction issues that will be addressed in the future by the contractor to the
satisfaction of the City of Orange building inspector and in conformance with the approved construction
plans.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Best Management Practices
Page 1 of TTM 17344 shows the proposed grading and ground surface runoff controls in planning area B
adjoining the landfill lot line boundaries. They include a proposed roadway in Lot U, a proposed berm in
lot 155 and a proposed graded swale in lot 155. Page 2 of TTM 17344 contains section A-A which shows
a section of the proposed roadway in Lot U. This roadway redirects storm water runoff and irrigation
runoff away from the landfill lot line. Page 2 of TTM 17344 contains section B-B. This section shows
the proposed graded swale. This swale redirects storm water runoff and irrigation runoff away from the
landfill lot line. These BMP's will intercept surface waters originating on TTM 17344 and prevent them
from flowing across the westerly property boundary of TTM 17344 and onto the landfill ground surface.
Therefore,the proposed project improvements are expected to have no impact on the landfill surface.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
Page 3-52 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council far consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Landfill Gas Migration
Utility trenches that may be vulnerable to landfill gas migration shall have trench dams installed. The
trench dams prevent gas permeation into the utility conduit. Bentonite or slurry is typically used in trench
dam applications. Actual material composition is to be specified in the future during final engineering
design of the project, after certification of the EIR.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.12
The Commenter's statements related to water quality page 5.9-30 are noted.
WQMP
A Preliminary WQMP consistent with the EIR phase has already been written and is part of the EIR. See
Appendix K1, Preliminary WQMP. The SWPPP is a construction ready document that is prepared after
the final construction documents and contractor phasing schedule is complete. Sufficient details
including minimum BMPs and water quality thresholds are provided in the Water Quality Technical
Report (See Appendix K2). The SWPPP will be prepared at a future date as part of the final design of
TTM 17344, after the EIR is certified.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council far consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Surface/Stormwater Migration
Specifics related to surface/stormwater and the accompanying pollutants migration are addressed in the
Drat EIR Appendix K, Water Quality Technical Report, Section 5.2.4, Low Impact Development BMP's,
Infiltration BMP's. This section states that infiltration within 250 feet of the existing landfill should be
avoided to protect groundwater quality. The proposed project will avoid the use of any infiltration BMP
in Planning Area B and C that are within 250 feet of the landfill.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environinental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-53
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Specific Measures -Migration
Specific measure to prevent migration of surface/stormwater are addressed in the Draft EIR Appendix K,
Water Quality Technical Report, Section 5.2.4, Low Impact Development BMP's, Infiltration BMP's.
This section states that infiltration within 250 feet of the existing landfill should be avoided to protect
groundwater quality. The project will avoid the use of any infiltration bmp in Planning Areas B and C
that are within 250 feet of the landfill.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Construction and Final Grading
Specifics related to construction and final grading are addressed in the Draft EIR at Section 3.0, Project
Description, Bac�lling Operation; Section 3.4.4, TTM 17344 and City Project Number TTM 0025-09;
Section 3.8.2, Grading Concept and Section 53.5,Evaluation of Potential Project Impacts.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Runoff onto Villa Park Landfill
Page 1 of TTM 17344 shows the proposed grading and ground surface runoff controls in Planning Area B
adjoining the landfill lot line boundaries. They include a proposed roadway in Lot U, a proposed berm in
lot 155 and a proposed graded swale in lot 155. Page 2 of TTM 17344 contains section A-A which shows
a section of the proposed roadway in Lot U. This roadway redirects storm water runoff and irrigation
runoff away from the landfill lot line. Page 2 of TTM 17344 contains section B-B. This section shows
the proposed graded swale. This swale redirects storm water runoff and irrigation runoff away from the
landfill lot line. These BMP's will intercept surface waters originating on TTM 17344 and prevent them
from flowing across the westerly property boundary of TTM 17344 and onto the landfill ground surface.
Therefore,the proposed project improvements are expected to have no impact on the landfill surface.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.13
The Commenter's statements related to installation of municipal sewer system and drainage lines are
noted.
Page 3-54 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Depth of Sewer and Drainage Lines
Sewers will be placed at the standard depth which is T to 8' of cover over the pipe. Drainage lines will
be placed at the standard depth which is 3' to 4' of cover over the pipe.
This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Refuse
If refuse (highly unlikely) is encountered on the Rio Santiago project site in the proximity of the former
Villa Park Landfill the OCWR will be notified. A written request will be forwarded to the OCWR to
remove the refuse from the project site as all of the trash belongs to the County.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Infiltration of Water— refuse at Villa Park Landfill
The Draft EIR indicates that a storage facility will be needed and that its storage capacity will need to be
approximately 0.8 acre feet (� 35,000 cubic feet). The facility will be either a ground surface detention
basin or buried detention basin or a combination of both. The basin will be designed in the future as part
of the final engineering design of TTM 17344, after the EIR is certified. At that time, the exact
dimensions and depths would be determined. As a preliminary estimate of the basin configuration prior
to final design, it would be reasonable to use a size of 3' deep by 100' long by 116' wide. If buried, the
typical depth of cover would be 3'. For this configuration, the bottom of the buried basin would be at a
depth of 6' below grade. In either case, the detention system will be lined with an impermeable liner to
prevent infiltration.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Landfill Gas Migration -Trenches
Utility trenches that may be vulnerable to landfill gas migration shall have trench dams installed. The
trench dams prevent gas permeation into the utility conduit. Bentonite or slurry is typically used in trench
dam applications. Actual material composition is to be specified in the future during final engineering
design of the project, after certification of the EIR.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-55
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Figure 5.9-1
Draft EIR Figure 5.9-1, Existing Drainage Condition Map is a figure representing existing conditions for
the entire project site including Planning Area B [thereon denoted as "PA B(e)"]. There are no more
specific drainage features for the existing conditions. In Planning Area B, the existing topographic
contours are presented along with a flow path adjacent Santiago creek. Note that the orange colored
dashed line between "PA B(e)" and "PA C(e)" is defined in the Legend as the "Existing Sub-Watershed
Boundary". The lot line separating Planning Area B from Planning Area C is not shown.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.14
The Commenter's statements related to potential encroachment on former Villa Park Landfill property are
noted.
Figure 3-14
Draft EIR Figure 3-14, Master Circulation Plan, does show that there is a future public recreation trail
connection off-site of the proposed project. This trail section is proposed by the County of Orange
(County), specifically on their Master Plan, Master Plan of Regional Recreational Riding and Hiking
Trails within the County's Recreation Element of the General Plan. This connection is not part of the
proposed project; however, the project applicant has indicated it would help the County with this trail
connection.
This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Figure 5.9-1
There is no physical encroachment from the Rio Santiago site onto the former Villa Park Landfill
property. Figure 5.9-1, Existing Drainage Condition Map shows the orange colored dashed line which is
the hydrologic boundary for PA C. As shown in Figure 5.9-1, Existing Drainage Condition Map
topography, a small mound is present on the former Villa Park Landfill site in the vicinity of the property
line. This is a small offsite area that is evident from the topographic base map contours. At the mound,
Page 3-56 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
the hydrologic boundary position indicates that the former Villa Park Landfill property drains water
across the property line and onto the Rio Santiago project site, not the other way around. However, it is a
very small mound area that is insignificant in comparison to the overall site area. Hence, it can be
ignored. However, there is no encroachment, so the Draft EIR does not need to be revised for this
purpose. Also note that a recent site visit has confirmed that the mound has been graded away and no
longer exists. Therefore, cross lot run-on drainage would not be expected. Therefore, cross-drainage is
not an issue. Since, there is no run-on condition for drainage from the Rio Santiago site to the former
Villa Park Landfill site, the Draft EIR need not be revised to propose specific measures to be taken to
ensure that run-on will not affect the Villa Park Landfill.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 4.15
The Commenter's statements related to no mention of either OC Waste & Recycling or its employees are
noted. Please refer to the Draft EIR Appendix A, Public Participation Process that indicates the receipt of
the response to the NOP from OC Waste & Recycling and the locations within the Draft EIR where their
issues are addressed. A City response to the comments now reiterated by OC Waste & Recycling in their
NOP comments are as stated in the remaining responses to this letter. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-57
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
Lti I �K �
DIAECTOFS OFFlCERS
PkILIP L.ANfH�NY President
KATHRYN l.BARR SHAWN DEWANE
DENIS k.BILUpEAU,P.E. � �'' � ,''��
SHAWt!DEWANE ���
;�.?� First Vice President
CATHY 6REEN � y�� ' CATNY 6REEN
VINCEHT F.SARMIENTO,ESQ.
' � Second Yice President
TTEPHEW R,SNELUON ���-� �;;� RO&ER C,YOH,P.E.
HARRY 5.SIDHll,P.E. �,� � -���7 y��
BRUCE WNITAKER General Manager
R06ER C.YOH,P.E. ���� � ��� � MICHAEL R.MARKUS,P.E.,U.WRE
��.;�E(`�E ,,. £'�x..d'..�E`-�'`i° � k�..�s`i.P'..3 .P.F';.t.iL'i�., ',.._'s��'3^SL..*i�v6iY ..4 � �_r�'.
� i j t _
.r'� — ^L 'S.
I',
�
` e _
� � g�
�^ i �.',t?-y
p�•-._..: . ,s
June 26, 2013 � � ��
n�
� � � � t. � - �
Chad Orlieb �p�
City of Orange
� :� ,
�c�n��uilit� aev�loprr�en� [3epar�ment
30t3 E. Chapman Avenue � -� � �
Orange, CA 92866
Subject: Rio Santiago Specific Plan Draft Enviranmental Impact Report,
SCH # 2009051072
Dear Mr. Orlieb:
The Qrange County Water District (OCWD) appreciates the opportunity to review
and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR}for the Ria 5.1
Santiago Specific Plan.
Water quality data for Santiago Creek in the vicinity of the proposed praject are
included in the Draft EIR. Enclosed please find an attachment that provides TDS 5 2
data from surface water samples collected by 4CWD from Santiago Creelc below
the Villa Park Dam autFall from 1994-2004.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
r
Marsha Westropp
Senior Planner
Attachment: Santiago Creek Water Quality Data
�e �� t� �� . a �a�
w � �
m � �t , . �:
Santiago Creek, Below Villa Park Dam Outfall
CK-SANTlAGO-01
Sample Collection
Date TDS (mg/L)
9/20/1994 117Q
2/1/1995 538
2/8/1995 526
2/9/1995 550
2/10/1995 �74 5.3
4/16/1998 628
4/23/1998 622
7/1/199$ 49$
5/20/1999 984
1/14/2004 1510
1/19/2004 1640
1/21/2004 1630
Source: Orange County Water District
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 5
Date: June 26,2013
Marsha Westropp
Senior Planner
Orange County Water District
Response to Comment 5.1
The Commenter's statements related to review of the Draft EIR are noted. This information does not
change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the
adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are
necessary.
Response to Comment 5.2
The Commenter's statements related to TDS data are noted. Appendix K, Water Quality Technical
Report, Page 18 contains Table 4—Channel Monitoring Data Summary. This table contains TDS data at
Station 38 for the period 1967 to 1974. The updated TDS data for Station CK-Santiago-01 for the years
1994-2004 will be included in the final Water Quality Management Plan. The additional data does not
change the water quality analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. No further responses are necessary.
Page 3-60 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 6
1919 S.State Collage Blvd.
Mahelm,CA 92806-6114
The
Gas
Company
A�Sempra Energy utuity�'
July 17,2013
City of Orange
Community Development Dept.
300 E. Chapman Ave
Orange, CA 92866
Atm: Chad O�tlieb
Subject: Environmental Impact Report for the Rio Santiago Project,City of Orange
Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R.Document. We are pleased to mform you
that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is
proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various 6 . 1
locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
the Califomia Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made.
This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an
informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and
regulatory agencies. As a Public Urility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the 6 .2
California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal
regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action,which affect gas supply or the conditions under
which service is available,gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. ,
This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non-utility laws and regulations(such as
environmental regulations),which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension(i.e., if 6 . 3
hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be
determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construcrion has begun.
Estimates of gas usage for residential and non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and
are obtained from the Commercial-TndustriaUResidential Market Services Staff by calling (800)427-2000
(CommerciaUIndustrial Customers) (800)427-2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several
programs, whic are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy ef�"icient 6 .4
appliances or s stems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy
conservation pro ams,please contact this office for assistance.
' cerely,
`
Arman o
Technical Services S ervis
Orange Coast Region Anaheim
AT/ps
ElRdoc
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 6
Date: July 17, 2013
Armando Torrez
Technical Services Supervisor
Orange Coast Region—Anaheim
The Gas Company
Response to Comment 6.1
The Commenter's statements related to being able to provide gas service for the proposed project are
noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not
raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However,
it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No
further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 6.2
The Commenter's statements related to the comment letter not being a contractual commitment are noted.
This infonnation does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 6.3
The Commenter's statements related to regulations and laws that are not determined until contractual
arrangements are made and construction has begun are noted. This information does not change the
analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 6.4
The Commenter's statements related to contact information for The Gas Company are noted. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-62 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 7
�#��t1�8
��1°rfarni� °
�� �� ���`
� �: �S�g pr� ���r�}�:���ny
�W.�
;
June 24, 2013 �`� �
Soulhem Califamia
Gas ComPanY
City of Orange �aono��r�,���,�u�
Attn: Ghad Orfilieb ch�.���o,���c.�
3Q0 E. Chapman Avenue 913r1
Urange, CA 92866
,�lailingActclress:
P.0.f3ur23(1I1
Cd�ats�vorllt C�t
91 3 73 23110
SUbjBCt: DIR Ria Santiago Canyon Rd Project at Cannon St -Anah�im n1t.v.3i�
� re7 81�4-701-�546
� fczr 878-701-.{S54
Southern California Gas Company Transmission Department does not
aperate facilities within your proposed improvement. However, aur Pacific
Coast Distributian Region may have same distribution facilities within your � . 1
construction area. To assure no conflict with the iacal distribution's
pipeline system, please contact them at (310) 687-ZQ11.
Sincereiy,
�
Rosalyn Sq ir
Planning As i ant
Transmissio' epartment
(818) 701-4546
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 7
Date: June 24, 2013
Rosalyn Squires
Planning Assistant
Transmission Department
Southern California Gas Company
Response to Comment 7.1
The Commenter's statements related to not operating facilities within the proposed project improvement
are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does
not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Page 3-64 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 8
�;��'.)
t� ��
��
IRVI;VE RANCA
�kTEB QiS�IiICT
�l`���� 1�'��'!1 ���iU Di�l��l�i� 15600 Sand Canyon Ave„ P.O.Box 57000,Irvine, CA 92699-7000 (g49}453-53Q0
J��� i z, zo 13
Chad Ortlieb
Senior Planner, Planning Divisian
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR} for the Rio Santiago Praject (State
Clearinghouse No. 2009051072)
Dear Mr. t)rtlieb:
Irvine Ranch Water District {�RWD)has received and reviewed the draft environmentaI impact
report for the Rio Santiaga Praject. IRWD offers the foilowin� comment:
While not specifically within IRWD jurisdiction, �portion of this project is
within the former Carpenter Irrigatio� District area which was annexed by
IRWD. As successor water district to Carpenter Irrigatic�n District, a thorough
review of any IRVVD rights over the Rio Santiago project area should be 8 1
conducted by the project praponent before a final map is processed. The
appropriate actions as to the disposition of a�ly IRWI?rights should be
coardinated thraugh IRWD's Pianning and Technical Services Division, Please
contact Ray Thatcher at �949) 453-453-5602 ta address this issu�.
IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review and camment on the DEIR. If you have any
quesrions or re�uire additional infarmation, please call me at (949) 453-53`?6.
Sincerely,
�� ��� �,
,� � �
� `�
�-� .__ �'Ann Corey
Engineerinb Technician III
cc: Mik� Hoolihan, IRV�D
Ray Thatcher, IRWD
O:\Water RcsourccslEnvironmenta]CompliaocelCEQA Comment Reviews(Outside Agencies}�Cit}�af OrangelRio Sandagn
ProjectlComm�ntslRio Santiago I7EIR Comnient L,etter 061213
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 8
Date: June 12, 2013
Jo Ann Corey
Engineering Technician III
Irvine Ranch Water District
Response to Comment 8.1
The Commenter's statements related to being within IRWD jurisdiction and request of review of water
rights are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it
does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration
as a potential condition of approval prior to issuance of final map. No further responses are necessary.
Page 3-66 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 9
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
_ _. 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
" � ' (909) 396-2000 • ww��,�.ac�n�d.�c��,
E-Mailed: July 3, 2013 July 3, 2013
cortlieb@cityoforange.org
Mr. Chad Ortlieb
City of Orange, Planning Division
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Renort(Draft EIR)
for the Rio Santia�o Proiect
The South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments
are meant as guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated into the final
environmental impact report(Final EIR) as appropriate.
Si�nificant Construction Related Air Qualit�pacts
The proposed project requires a substantial amount of grading activity during
construction, specifically, the project ca11s for over 3.3 million cubic yards of material to
be blended during project site grading (including the backfilling operation and mass
grading). As a result, the lead agency determined that the project will exceed g , 1
SCAQMD's regional and localized CEQA significance thresholds during construction.
Based on Table 5.3-8 of the Draft EIR the project will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA
regional construction significance threshold for NOx emissions. Further, based on Table
5.3-11 the proposed project will exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds
for PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions. These significant localized emissions impacts could
disproportionately affect residents surrounding the project site. Therefore, the lead
agency should consider additional mitigation to minimize the project's air quality impacts
to local residents and the region. Pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines
the SCAQMD staff recommends that the lead agency require the following mitigation
measures in addition to the measures identified in the Draft EIR.
Construction EQuipment Miti�ation (Re�ional NOx and Localized PM Emissions�
a) Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks
and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or
newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet
EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.
9 . 2
Mr. Chad Ortlieb 2 July 3, 2013
b) Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region(including Port of
Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Metro and City of Los Angeles)I have enacted,
require all on-site construction equipment to meet EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions
standards according to the following:
✓ Project start, to December 31, 2014: All offroad diesel-powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 offroad emissions standards. In
addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices
certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined
by CARB regulations.
✓ Post-January l, 2015: All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In 9 .2 cont .
addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices
certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined
by CARB regulations.
✓ A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and
CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of
mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
✓ Encourage construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds.
Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for
SCAQMD "SOON" funds. The "SOON"program provides funds to accelerate
clean up of off-road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment.
More information on this program can be found at the following website:
http•/%www a�mc� �ov/t�3��implem�ntation/SQONPru�ram.htm
For additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment, refer to the
mitigation measure tables located at the following website:
www ac�nd �oviceq�,�`liandbool�hl�iti�ationiMM intro.htnll.
Fu��tive Dust Mitigation (PM 10 Emissions)
a) Consistent with Table 4 of SCAQMD Rule 4032 require unpaved roads (e.g.,
scraper roads) to comply with conservation management practices (4b) and (4c).
b) Require frequent street sweeping surrounding the project site to minimize fugitive 9 . 3
dust emissions from track-out. All street sweeping shall use alternatively fueled
� For example see the Metro Green Construction Policy at
htt� �%�ti��es� �n�ti��n�i� rojeet5 5t��die�',ustaii�abilitv�im���.7�,�%Cireen C-�u,tructi�>n Puli�v.t�df
�htt���ht�v,�t��aqmd �ovirules're�'re<�04;r403.�df
Mr. Chad Ortlieb 3 July 3, 2013
sweepers that are equivalent to those specified in SCAQMD Rules 1186 and
1186.1.
Applicable SCAQMD Rules and Re�ulations
As a reminder, if onsite crushing ar screening of oversized materials is performed,
permits may be needed. In addition to the rules mentioned in Section 5.3 (Air Quality) of
the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the lead agency review the final
project and ensure that it complies with all SCAQMD rules and regulations. The project 9 .4
proponent should call Mr. Rodney Millican at (909) 396-2591 to discuss potential permit
requirements for this project. Finally, the lead agency should provide SCAQMD with a
copy of the final project conditions required to ensure enforcement of the project's
proposed mitigation measures (e.g., mitigation and monitoring report, development
agreement and other requirements).
SCAOMD Contact Information
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests that the
lead agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained
herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. Further, staff is available to work with the 9 . 5
lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact
Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3304, if you have any
questions regarding the enclosed comments.
Sincerely,
,..�w.� f f.�' J� ����
Ian MacMillan
Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter-Governmental Review
Planning, Rule Development &Area Sources
IM:DG
ORC 130514-03
Control Number
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 9
Date: July 3, 2013
Ian MacMillan
Program Supervisor,CEQA Inter-Governmental Review
Planning,Rule Development&Area Sources
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Response to Comment 9.1
The Commenter's statements related to request additional mitigation based on significant localized
emissions are noted. Please reference the additional mitigation measures noted below in Response to
Comment 9.2. The added mitigation measures do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR
because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the
Draft EIR. However, the comment has been noted, acted on and will be provided to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 9.2
The Commenter's statements related to request additional mitigation based on construction equipment
mitigation (NOx and Localized PM emissions) are noted. Section 4.0, Errata to the Draft EIR has the
following change to the EIR:
Page 5.3-16:
Page 5.3-16 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below to include the additional mitigation
measures:
MM AQ-4A: The project applicant shall reyuire that the construction contractor limit the
architectural coatings used on the project site to 45 grams of VOC per liter or
less. On days that architectural coatings are being applied, the project applicant
shall restrict the concurrent operation of diesel powered equipment on the project
site that is not directly associated with the application of architectural coating.
AQ-4B Prior to implementation of grading activities, the grading contractor shall
reguire the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery
trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model
year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks
that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.
AQ-4C Prior to implementation of grading activities, the grading contractor shall
require all on-site constr�uction equipment to meet EPA Tier 3 or higher
emissions standards according to the following:
Page 3-70 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
• If the proposed project shall start prior to December 31, 2014: All off-road
diesel powered construction equipment greater than SO hp shall meet Tier 3
off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall
be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control
device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no
less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control
strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
• If the proposed project shall start post January 1, 201 S: All off-road diesel-
powered construction equipment greater than SO hp shall meet the Tier 4
emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment
shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions
control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that
are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control
strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
� A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and
CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of
mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
• The proposed applicant shall encourage construction contractors to apply
for SCAQMD "SOON" funds. Incentives could be provided for those
construction contractors who apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds. The
"SOON"program provides funds to accelerate clean up of off-road diesel
vehicles, such as heavy dury construction equipment. More information on
this program can be found at the following website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/Implementation/SOONProgram.htm
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, the
additional mitigation will be added pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 9.3
The Commenter's statements related to requesting additional mitigation based on fugitive dust (PM 10
emissions) are noted. Section 4.0,Errata to the Draft EIR has the following change to the EIR:
Page 5.3-19
Page 5.3-19 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below to include the additional mitigation
measures:
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-71
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
AQ-20 The proposed project shall be consistent with Table 4 of SCAQMD Rule 4032 to
require unpaved roads (e.g., scraper roads) to comply with conservation
management practices (4b) and(4c).
AQ-21 The proposed project shall be Require frequent street sweeping surrounding the
project site to minimize fugitive dust emissions from track-out. All street
sweeping shall use alternatively fueled sweepers that are equivalent to those
specified in SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, the
additional mitigation will be added pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 9.4
The Commenter's statements related to on-site crushing or screening of oversize materials are noted. At
this time, the project applicant does not intend to utilize on-site crushing or screening of oversize
materials. The proposed project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. It has
been recommended that the project applicant contact Mr. Rodney Millican related to permits. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 9.5
The Commenter's statements related to request for written response are noted and are provided to the
SCAQMD. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it
does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Page 3-72 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
�`��-�-,�..����
LL��:"'��
,
Hugh �Iguy�a
: �� - , �.
�1���€-Reeard�r
; ; '.. : F:11ra��ge�ounf.y
'' : ��ei�l€��.e�or€l�r's U�C�e
���i�����r��r�������m:T�'(�6, P".C�:Sax�38,Santa Ana,;CA 92702
; ... , ,
� . _ . ~ �velii�-wr�w � �
.Qc.�a.gn�fr�corder!
T���)N��71��.8�4-���$4 FA�' �714�834-25Uf}
cIT�aF aRarr�E :
�NIC CENTER 3qQ E CHAPMAN AVE
ORANGE CA 92666
Office of the Orange Counry Clerk-Recorder
Memorandum
SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE
The attached notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on QS/14/2013
It remained posted for 30(thirty)days.
Hugh Nguyen
Clerk-Recorder
In and for the County of Orange
By: Trejo,Ernesto Deputy '
Public Resource Code 21092.3
The notice required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21042 for an environmenta( impact report
shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county *** in which the project will be
located and shail remain posted for a period af 3�days. Th�notice re�uired pursuant to Section
2I Q92 for a neeative declaration shall be so posteci for a period of 20 days�uniess otherwise
required bv law to be posted for 30 days The Coun Clerk shall post notices within 24 hars of
recei t.
Public Resource Code 21152
10 . 1 '
All notices filed pursuant to this section shatl be available for public inspection,and shall be
posted ***within 24 honrs of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shatl remain
posted for a period of 30 days.
*** Thereafter,the clerk shall return the notice to the local tead agency *** within a notation of
the period it was posted. The (ocat lead agency shall retain the notice for not tess than nine
months.
Additions or changes by underliae; deletions by ***
�;,
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NUA)
& NOTICE OF COMPLETION (NOC) 4F A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE RIO SANTIAGO PR�JECT
� (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2049051072)
45 DA Y REVIEW PERIOD
May 16, 2013
LEGAL NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW C�MMITTEE
PUBLIC MEETING
TO: i�iterested Parties
DATE: May 16, 2013 '
SUBJECT: The City of Orange (City)has prepared a Draft Enviromnental Impact Report(DEIR) for the Rio
Santiago project. The DEIR has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental effects '
attributable to the proposed Rio Santiago project,generally described and located as follows:
Project Locafion: The Rio Santiago project is located in the City of Orange (City), Orange
Cownty, CA. The proposed Rio Santiago project is located east of State Route 55,to the west of
State Route 261, approximately two miles to the north of Chapman Avenue, on the norkh side of
Santiago Canyon Road, between Orange Park Blvd. on the east and Cannon Street on the west,
and south of Mabury Avenue. The site designated address is currently 6118 East Santiago
Canyon Road.
Project Description: This Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Rio
Santiago project proposed for development by JMI Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC. The
proposed project co�itains approximately I10 acres on-site and 02.01 acres off-site. Project
approval would result in:
General Plan: The pxoject would result in changing the City's General P1an Designation far the
site iram Resource I3rea (Rtij to Low I'iensity Fcesidential (i.Dt�Z 1.I-6 i7ulAc), Medium Deasity
Residential (NIDR 15-24 DulAc), Open Space Park(OS-P) and Open Space (OS); and from, Low
Density Residential {LDR 2.1-6 Du/Ac)to Open Space (OS). The project would also change tY�e
changing City's General Plan to remove portions of the project site from 1975 East Orange
General Plan (approximately 56.45 acres} and Orange Park Acres Plan (approximately 40.3
� acres).
�
I . Zoning: The project would result in a Zone Change {ZC 1254-09) to re-designate the site
g � designation from Sand and Gravel {S-G) and Single-family Residential 8,000 sf (R-1-8} to
� 3 � Planned Community{P-C).
� �
—. � Present Land Use: The site is pxesently being utilized for a material recycling operation (i.e.,
-�" �...� asphalt and concrete crushing) and backfilling operation.
N
,. a 1 '�
w Public Natural Open Space Ar^ea (Planning Area A): The proposed project would estabiish
' {-� natural open space on approximately 50 gross acres lacated on both sides of Santiago Creek.
� � y Planning Area A would be bordered on the narth by Mabury Avenue, west by Cannon Street,
� � south by Planning Areas B,C,and D. and east by Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Planning Area A
� �
includes the Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve, the flood channel uicludul� Santiago cr
multi-purpose trail next to the Reserve/Creek, and provides for potential trail connections.
Private Recreation Area (Planning Area B): The proposed project vvould implernent privat.
recreational uses tlaat are open to the public on approximately 10 gross acres on a fee basis. This
couid include permitted uses such as: a 81,000 square foot buiIding with a ma�imum two-stoay
height that the Specific Plan allows to house a community facility such as a YMCA facility wluch
could consist of uses such as a wellness center, �ymnasium, pool, multi-purpose rooms, a child
care center, locker rooms, and administrative offices. Outdoor sport fields az�d courts are allowed
in association with: the facility. Educational facilities and a resource center, such as an Autism
Center, could also be part of the l0 gross acres site, in association witl7 the 81,000 square foot
building.
Age-Qualified Residential Community (Planning AYea C): The proposed project would estaUlish
an age-qualified{55 and older) community of no more than 265 units on approximately 16 gross
acres of the projec# site. The community would be comprised of a combination of individual
units composed of ane and two-stories flats (referred to as "villas" in the Specific Plan),
independent living, and assisted living. UniY sizes would range from 400 to 2,400 square feet in
area. There would be a height limit of two-stories along the perimeter and three-stories in the
center of the area. The proposed project includes a minimum 50 foot setback for three-story
structures from all edges of Planning Area C. Accessary amenities such as community dining
areas with a lcitchen, community room, reading room, support services such as coffee and juice
service with minor accessory food sales for the senior community, exercise rooms, pool and spa
facilities, ou#door gardens, trails, scenic view corridors, and recreation facilities are all identified
as likely components of the age targeted commw�ity.
Single-Family Residential Community (Planning Area D): The proposed project would establi�
no more than 130 single-family residences on approximately 34 gross acres of the project sit�
This coramunity would include residential lots with a minimum lot size of approximately 6,000
square feet, with some Iots as large as 20,000 square feet. Approximately 2.01 acres of grading
activity will occur off-site in the County of Orange owned property.
Project Note: Subsequent to the publication of the Notice of Preparation for public review for
the project(which had a public comment period ending May 9, 2011),the project descrip#ion was
revised to clarify that the proposed project includes 2.01 acres of off-site grading. Additionally,
minor adjushnents have been made to of the acreages of the planning areas.
Project APN: 093-280-07, 093-280-27, 093-280-29, 093-280-30, 093-280-31, 370-011-08, 370-
011-18, 370-011-2i, 370-011-22,370-041-12, 370-041-25, & 370-141-19
Project Case Numbers: The City has assigned the following case nutnbers to the proposed Rio
Santiago project: General Plan Amendment (GPA 2009-002), Zone Change (ZC 1254-09);
Specific Plan {SP 001-09), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 025-09), Major Site Plan Review (MJSP
0595-09), Design Review Committee (DRC 4413-09), Development Agreement (DA 5825 , and
Environmental Impact Report(EIR 1818-09). �n�T�n
OWNER/ � f.���
APPLICANT: JMI Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC '
MaY t a aot� ,
LEAD Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, Planning Division o�wr,�cou�Tv c►.eHltt•' R p�p�r��
AGENCY City of Orange, 3Q0 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA. 92866 , �_`
CONTACT: Phone{714) 744-7237,FAX(714) 744-7222, Email: cortlie�cLcit oY - B�""'*Y
�
��W PER10D: This DEIR is hereby made available for public review and comment. The public review period
for said document has a State-mandated 45-day public review period. The public review period :
begins on May 16, 2013, and ends on July l, 2013. Written comments are invited on the DEIR
and should be submitted in writing to the Lead Agency Contact identified above no later than
5:00 PM on July i, 2013. Any written comments received after this deadline are not required to '
he accepted and would be accepted at the discretion of the City.
MEETINGS: A meeting date is scheduled for the Design Review Comm�ittee of the City of Orange to review
and make recammendations on the project for the subsequent consideration by the Pianning
Commission and City Council of the City of Orange. You are welcome to attend the meetings to
provide testimony either in favor or in opposition to the praject. The Committee will only be able '
to consider public testimony directly relating to the Committee purview. Meeting dates are as
follows:
DESIGN REVIEW CONIMITTEE MEETING:
DATE: Wednesday, June 5, 2013
TIME: 5:30 P.M. (or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard)
LOCATION: City of Orange Conference Room C, 300 East Chapman Avenue
If you challenge crny decision to appYove this request in court, you fztay be linzited to r�aising only those
rssues you or someone else raised prior to or at any publrc hearing fo� the project, or in written
corres ondence or verbally at a ublic hearing.
'3AZARDOUS The project site is not identified on any of the lists enumerated pursuant to the '
dVASTE SITE: requirements of California Government Code Section 65962.5.
SIGNIFICANT The DEIR analyzed the following #opical environxnental issue areas: Aesthetics,
ENVIRONMENTAL Agricuitural/Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resouxces, Cultural Resources,
EFFECTS Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology
ANTICIPATED: and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Minerals,Noise, Population and Housing, Public
Services�Recreation;Transportation and Traffic,Utilities and Service Systems. ,
� After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that the following
t:,pical envira�u���ntai issue arzas are less tnan sigrxi�Zcarri: Agriculturai and Farestxy
Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use/Plavning, Mineral Resources,
Population/Housing,Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities/Service Systems.
� � After implementation of tl�e proposed project, it has been determined that the following
m topical environmental issue areas can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level:
� � Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials,
� n O and Noise.
r �
� �, � After unplementation of t�ae proposed project, including project design features and mitigation
� -a- measures, it has been determined that,in part,the following topical environxnental issue areas
o � would reinain significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water
- �. . � .t� � Quality,Transportation/Traffic, and Cumulative(Aesthetics,Air QuaIity, and Traffic).
m *�
• $
�
a
� �
AVAILABILITY: Copies of the DEIR are available for review at the following locations during the T
business hours:
City of Orange City of Orange
Coinmunity Development Department,Planning Division* City Clerlc*
300 E. Chapman Avenue 300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange,CA 928b6 Orange, CA 92866
Orange Public Library&History Center El Modena Branch Librar,y
407 East Chapinan Avenue 380 S. Hewes Street
Orange,CA 92866 Orange, CA 92866
Charles P. Taft Branch Library
740 E. Taft Avenue
Orange, GA 92866
*The DEIIZ is available for purchase on a compact disk for $10.00 at these locations.
The DEIR is available far review on the City website at ��ww.cit oforan�e.or�by navitgating to
City Departments in the header menu, selecting"Community Development"from the drop down
menu, and then selecting "Project Notices and Related Environmental Documents" from the
subsequent drop down menu.
Authority cited: Secrion 21083, Public Resources Code, Reference: Sections 21092, 21152, and 21153,Public Resource�
Code.
�` �� 6 � LJ
MAY � 4 2013
orralloe couNn c�.��c•REC R qEPARTMEN7
BY: DEPtJ77
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 22
Date: May 15,2013
Tom Davidson
Response to Comment 22.1
The Commenter's statements related to Design Review Committee (DRC) review prior to the end of the
45 day review period are noted. The close of the comment period for the Draft EIR was July 1, 2012.
The proposed project was scheduled for DRC prior to the close of the review period; however, it was
continued and re-noticed. The DRC held a public hearing on August 7, 2013. The City has allowed the
DRC to review projects in the past while the Draft EIR is out for circulation. Further, nothing precludes
the City's ability to have the DRC review project design without public comments on the Draft EIR.
Therefore, the comment period for the Draft EIR was closed and the comments made on the Draft EIR
were available. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it
does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-209
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
�;�`���'���.�, LETTER 2 3
�. � ,<�
.��;�k 4 , �
� June 28, 2013
�„
,���
��`,�
FH��eo��f=�������o�� Mr. Chad Ortlieb,Senior Planner
��:�-;�h,rratt,��;:_..�,� City of Orange
r��"F'� ��`='s ' �`P �:d��c 300 East Chapman Avenue E-MAIL• cartlieb@cityoForan�e.or�
ti'if�s��r;a�si, . ��s�_�r
���b�>'"���`�=���`������a�'� Orange, California 92866 FAX: (714) 744-7222
creplt:,r.ie;3a ,
°"""}��`"" RE: Comments on the Rio Santia o Draft EIR
��,,,carr g
hlic`Fe:[It�Clau�l-C':€7entr=
Jac�c EitC
�;n�,��;r�,,�., Dear Mr. Ortlieb:
Bob aosepr;
flrtrv"LiC�en
T�,R,�.;u,,;;�y� Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks("FHBP"), an organization dedicated to the
�"'`""s�'�t'�'� preservation, acquisition, protection, and long-term management of public wilderness,
r3�,�, rr,���,:�:,;�
r��:..n�;Y�ii����r�, open space, and recreational lands in Orange County, appreciates the opportunity to
������E������������p�s comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR")for the Rio Santiago Project
=�����?�4�E ��=7Cj������ ("Project").These comments follow the information that has been provided to date and
Aud+ibo=�,�eta�Sage Cha��rer
�;,15�;:,;;t�,��;;,��,,,,�„�y are based on the environmental checklist form contained in the California Environmental
�°`��'��`��'���"��``�rk Quality Act Guidelines.
v;t��,�,����5
Ea�th R�saurce F�und�,tion 2 3 . 1
F�;�esr���n ccar�,o�����_c. On June 25, 2013,the Board of Directors of FHBP voted to oppose the Rio Santia o
Enti�ircr;rental t�a:u.,e Cent;r g
�rP��park�t1�>��r��t7�r�i project that is proposed in the Orange Park Acres community in the City of Orange. FHBP
Coa�iticn
r��,�,c;,�:to„:,�=3�;n�r,�er;�naG is concerned about the conflict between the long-term planning vision stated in approved
c��,SY���3',�=,'��"y`i���ft planning documents for the City of Orange, and the proposed Project.The Sully-Miller
r:�3.�c�r�t�-
��3�u,����r�aG�,c���s��w.�,E,��� parcel, site of the proposed Project, is partially within the Orange Park Acres("OPA")
���""a c�"}'""�°""a�t'°" Specific Plan, a residential-equestrian community with important connection to Santiago
�.<�au��cr�{��,i,�it.T.,�.
r���•:--�,>�������o�,y�,��an�v Oaks and Irvine Regional Parks, as well as the Cleveland National Forest.The proposed
$�e�.�'�z;I.IU:i,�l"u'i�;c�.OUlll'y'
�;�,,f�,�a�,;��,,,a�,c;o�,, Project would significantly transform and urbanize the rural character of this highly visible
�„,ry;�o:;�E�;>.cn��t�:= area of the community.
stop Poa�t=n�C7ur(V��ti��por`
St Mark�reg;3�✓te•ian�t�u�ck�
�C�'�'f"'"`�� Both the East Orange General Plan and OPA Specific Plan are overdue for updating to
a�v�s�ry a���� establish a comprehensive vision for the site and the community area before the City of
�ar`a`°``"`�'s�" Oran e acts on a develo ment ro osal for such a ke arcel.The Cit 's General Plan
Coi�nl���g�rd��ran b I� f� P Y I� Y
r��3r��vF,���:,����<=r update process presents a special opportunity to set a vision for open space management
Ro;&Ilse By;nes
��u��t;e�,�;, in the City and to comprehensively establish an approach to meeting the City's long term 23 . 2
���`'�"�'�°°'� recreational open space needs. A premature decision on this specific development
7oe ct�rin
s��,aY G�,�s application may therefore sabotage the City's chances of achieving its open space goals.
T0�'"�"''�" The language in the DEIR regarding extracting the proposed project from the OPA Specific
Eve€vn Hart
��=�_��Ke����� Plan in favor of a significant, new non-conforming land use,would be an irreversible
�{` �`''`�" � im act to the cultural character of OPA and should have been thorou hl addressed in
steph�:,,3e t acheco p g Y
Bev�err}' the DEIR.
(�€�tt itayl
C:(airc.,ehlnfit�Yl}eck
�'`'"5'�``�`��`'°, Moreover, Santiago Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Ana River and part of the Santa
�aek Skin^:e-,'�t.C�.
�=��,�r�4v����F��� Ana Mountains watershed, runs through the site. Planning studies for the Santiago Creek
°i�7""�'�� Vision Plan have not been completed, and implementation of a management plan is
��5to����Qx�zs� necessaryto protect these precious riparian resources.The proposed Project would 23 . 3
"�w�Q������r�A9���� urbanize and develop one of the last remaining open spaces in the watershed and
���-sss-sss�
represents a significant and irreversible impact to watershed viability and sustainability
wcvw.F'tss�.s�rg
and should have been thoroughly examined in the DEIR..
1
FHBP EIR Comment Letter on the Proposed
Rio Santiago Project 06-28-13
FHBP has a strong interest in the Sully-Miller parcel as do those who worked on the Santa Ana
River/Santiago Greenbelt Plan that was adopted by the County of Orange in 1973. That plan designated
the 110 acre parcel as permanent passive open space. Residential and commercial development options
were not recommended, only open space and park uses.This is consistent with the OPA Specific Plan
and the East Orange General Plan. The Sully-Miller site is also identified on FHBP's first Green Vision 23 .4
Map (since year 2000)which illustrates sites for possible long-term preservation of open space,
recreational, and wilderness habitat resources. All three of the above referenced land use plans were
adopted by the City of Orange and should have been acknowledged and thoroughly discussed in the
DEIR.
FHBP notes that the DEIR inadequately describes the proposed project and its potential impacts on the
local and regional environment. These deficiencies demonstrate the lack of adequacy of the DEIR 2 3 . 5
document. Without adequate coordination and detail,the public is unable to fully understand the scope
of the proposal and its alternatives, and therefore will be less able to participate in an active dialogue to
protect their interests from such a non-conforming and inappropriate development proposal.
The DEIR should have examined in more detail the following areas:
A. Project Description and Setting Information
One of the California Environmental quality Act's("CEQA")fundamental requirements is that an EIR
contain an accurate and complete project description.The DEIR circulated by the City lacks sufficient
specificity and clarity to allow the public to understand the full scope of what the applicant 23 . 6
contemplates for the site.
The DEIR is inadequate in that it fails to describe the specific type and number of uses and activities
proposed,their timing,their size, or their exact location. Indeed, because the description of this Project
is so vague, FHBP questions the value in releasing the DEIR.
B. Alternatives
Given the unique community in which the proposed Project is located,together with City's diminishing
opportunities for recreational open space,there is a need for an open space-passive recreational 23 . 7
alternative compatible with the Santiago Creek Greenbelt plan of 1971,which deals with public
equestrian and human trails, and need to protect the watershed and its habitat value.The City should
have also considered alternatives that preserve the character of the surrounding area by exploring a
land use plan that is compatible with the rural residential land use densities of the surrounding
community.
C. Land Use and Planning
As discussed above,the City is presented with a unique opportunity to evaluate one of the last
remaining pieces of undeveloped land in this part of Orange. At the same time,the current proposal 23 . g
would likely irreparably harm the rural ambiance of Orange Park Acres and adjacent communities. The
historical heritage of Orange Park Acres has been to preserve this history with design features such as
rural residential densities, lack of sidewalks and street lights, and the abundance of fenced horse trails.
2
FHBP EfR Comment Letter on the Proposed
Rio Santiago Project 06-28-13
The DEIR should have carefully analyzed the effects the proposed Project would have on the
community's unique character and identify a less intense project with mitigation measures capable of
reducing impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with City and CEQA criteria. Such a
proposal should have included retaining the land use plans and designations to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding community and a more substantial dedication of permanent open space lands
adjacent to Santiago Creek to adequately offset the impacts of a proposed development.
In addition,the DEIR proposes that the Project would remove the project site from the East Orange
General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan that jointly overlay most of the Rio Santiago site.
Such actions, proposed for a single project are an example of"spot zoning" and a clear violation of state
law. The DEIR provides no justification as to the purpose or the specific need for such amendments.
These issues should have been comprehensively addressed in the DEIR in order to understand the
implications for the City and the Orange Park Acres community. FHBP contends that these actions also
violate the intent of the community plans and should have involved numerous community meetings and
City-resident coordination discussions prior to the DEIR publication.
The DEIR proposes to amend the City's General Plan to expand the definition of"Open Space- Park"to 23 • 8
include privately held properties that would restrict public access. FHBP contends that such a broad CONT.
change to the General Plan is inappropriate in that parks are, by their nature, public facilities and should
not have blanket restrictions to public access-or offer benefits to landowners who desire "Park Credits"
from a public agency when they propose to fence off the property.
The DEIR proposes to utilize a Development Agreement for the proposed project. Development
agreements are authorized under state law for local jurisdictions and contemplate unique and
extraordinary public benefits that are outside of the typical "nexus"for development proposals. FHBP
observes that the proposed agreement is not included in the City's project document list,that there are
no such public benefits proposed for the community that are referenced in the DEIR, and that the
applicant has failed to justify the use of a development agreement.
D. Biological Resources
The Draft EIR for the Rio Santiago Project should have fully assessed whether the proposed
development would adversely impact special status species or their habitat, and whether the proposed
Project would harm Santiago Creek and its riparian resources. In addition,the DEIR should have
assessed whether the proposed Project would conflict with federal,state and local policies protecting
biological resources. Instead,the DEIR simply asserts that the Project will impact biological resources
while failing to fully identify the extent of existing resources,the range of species and habitats that could 2 3 . 9
be affected,the thresholds of significance, and effective and implementable potential mitigation
measures. Independent studies should have been included that analyze all impacts to habitat, species
and water quality. All agency approvals and permits must be obtained before any local approvals are
considered.
The City of Orange, County of Orange, and the resource agencies have signed and support the Habitat
Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. The DEIR states that although the project
would have significant impacts to wetland and riparian habitats,they are less than significant with 23 . 10
mitigation. What is also not fully explained are the benefits to the City and the local community of
effectively eliminating these local resources through an urban development that proposes to mitigate
the impacts elsewhere. The proponent then adds salt to the wound of this proposed loss of designated
3
FHBP EIR Comment Letter on the Proposed
Rio Santiago Project 06-28-13
open space by proposing absurd mitigation ratios of between 0.5 to 1 and 2 to 1 rather than the
industry standard of 3 to 1. The 3 to 1 ratio is to assure that the losses of biological resources are fully
mitigated despite the challenges of restoration sites being devastated by drought,flood,failed plantings
or incompetent maintenance.
As the project site is just downstream and adjacent to Santiago Oaks Regional Park, we have grave 2 3 . 11
concerns for the Project's urban impacts to the continued existence of the species that have utilized the
riparian corridor between the Park and the OCWD groundwater recharge pits downstream. The DEIR
appears to have not addressed this corridor relationship. This deficiency reinforces the lack of adequacy
of the DEIR document.
E. Water Resources and Hydrology
The DEIR should have analyzed whether development of the proposed Project would result in the
violation of any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge, alter existing drainage patterns, result in substantial new amounts of polluted runoff, or
increase the risk of flooding. Significant impacts to the hydrologic regime and water quality could result
from the proposed Project because the Project may require extensive grading, discharge pollutants from
a newly urbanized area,and leach additional pollutants as a result of the site having been utilized as a
land fill, an asphalt batch plant, and an industrial sand and gravel operation. Water quality and water
resource impacts must be evaluated from both construction activities and Project operation.
The DEIR should also have clearly identified that the project site has historically been the streambed for
Santiago Creek. It is not just near the Creek, or adjacent to the Creek, in fact,the Creek has flowed - in
various courses and meanders-throughout the project site. Specifically,the high rainfall events in both
1969 and 1997 resulted in the project site being flooded. No matter what creative grading/compacting 23 . 12
operations are currently on the site, and no matter the virtues of the proposed "rip-rap slope wall,"the
flood flows will return to the site. Attempts at constraining these flows with channel walls and such
structures will only serve to increase velocities and erosive conditions. We are gravely concerned for
the safety of the residential uses proposed to be constructed on the site, as well as those downstream
who would be threatened by the constriction proposed for this floodway.A more appropriate use for
the property would be for the long-standing open space-passive recreation designation to be
implemented as a flood-able component of Santiago Creek as partial mitigation for the years of
discharges, noise, dust and pollution caused by the industrial uses of the site.
The DEIR should have included specific locations and descriptions of the stormwater treatment facilities
to manage water quality discharge from the project site—both for the construction phases as well as
the post-construction build-out condition. The use of phrasing such as "Locations to be determined
based on final building and planning design." in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)exhibit 3-
21 is inappropriate. The WQMP specific design details should have been included in the DEIR for
decision makers to fully understand how the project applicant proposes to comply with state and
federal regulations. Failure to do so creates a liability for the City as it is responsible for assuring
compliance with the state and federal regulations. This deficiency reinforces the lack of adequacy of the
DEIR document.
Section 5.9 of the DEIR(Hydrology and Water Quality)states that "Santiago Creek flows are not a part of
this analysis." It is incredulous that flow data and analysis of Santiago Creek where houses have been
swept away in large storm events during the past 50 years is not being considered in a DEIR proposing
4
FHBP EIR Comment Letter on the Proposed
Rio Santiago Project 06-28-13
houses adjacent to the creek. The DEIR does note that the proposed residential development will be
located in Zone X "Other Flood Zones" and combined with the history of Santiago Creek, should concern
decision makers. While the DEIR includes a quantity of information on the potential failure of upstream
dams, FHBP suggests that the DEIR is seriously deficient in examining the more common flooding and
streambed erosion hazards on Santiago Creek. This deficiency reinforces the lack of adequacy of the
DEIR document.
F. Air Quality
The DEIR for the Rio Santiago Project should have contained a more thorough analysis of Project related
and cumulative impacts to air quality. Additional attention should have been paid to both construction-
related and build-out increases in air emissions. The DEIR should have also addressed climate change
impacts and specifically analyze how the Project would comply with AB 32 (The Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006), which requires the State of California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels no later than 2020.
In addition, and as you are likely aware,the state has passed two important laws related to greenhouse 23 . 13
gas emissions-AB 32 (The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and SB 375 (The Sustainable
Community Act of 2008). Even more recently the Orange County Council of Governments and Southern
California Association of Governments have both adopted a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS)for
Orange County and the region, respectively. Approval of the proposed development in a long-
designated open space area is in conflict with the legislation and the SCS programs, and will increase,
not reduce vehicle miles traveled and related emissions.
The DEIR had only minimal (and inadequate) information on cumulative impacts, SB 375 and AB 32
compliance, and infrastructure issues that typically are provided in great detail for a project with the
wide-ranging impacts expected due to substantial alterations to the City's General Plan and zoning. This
deficiency again reinforces the lack of adequacy of the DEIR document.
G. Transportation and Circulation
The DEIR for the proposed Project should include a thorough analysis of transportation and circulation
impacts.As described in the NOP,the proposed Project has potential uses that could result in a
substantial increase in traffic and could,therefore, overwhelm the community's local street network.
Moreover, any substantive increase in traffic could pose a risk to pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians
who routinely rely on the currently uncongested roadways and paths. A thorough traffic analysis must
include cumulative impacts from past, present and planned projects. We are especially concerned that 23 . 14
the Wanda Road—Santiago/Katella to Villa Park link mitigation measure is not adequate. Re-striping to
create three narrow lanes in each direction increases hazards to bicyclists,which is a specific goal to
reduce traffic congestion in the City. FHBP is also concerned that the DEIR did not incorporate traffic
increases stemming from planned new developments to the east on Santiago Canyon Road and how
those additional trips will alter intersection capacities for the proposed project as well as for nearby
communities. This deficiency in incorporating inclusive cumulative impact analysis and the effects on
the community again reinforces the lack of adequacy in the DEIR document.
5
FHBP EIR Comment Letter on the Proposed
Rio Santiago Project 06-28-13
H. Aesthetics
The DEIR failed to adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed Project on aesthetics. The
substantial raising of the site by(an estimated) 10 feet for building pads with subsequent development
towering above will eliminate scenic vistas from Santiago Canyon Road and nearby viewpoints. The
rural, low-intensity community of Orange Park Acres will be forever impacted by lost scenic resources 23 . 15
and increased light and glare from the proposed project. The DEIR analysis should have included clear
exhibits showing pre and post-Project visual conditions. This deficiency again reinforces the lack of
adequacy of the DEIR document.
I. Recreation
Impacts to adjacent regional parks and recreation systems are not identified and need to be evaluated.
The proposed private recreational facilities will also have impacts on habitat, water quality and wildlife 23 . 16
and need to be analyzed in the DEIR as well. These deficiencies again reinforce the lack of adequacy of
the DEIR document.
J. Unavoidable Impacts
The DEIR identifies a number of impacts from the proposed application that are listed in Section 8.1 as
"Not to be Significant". FHBP contests a number of these determinations including the impacts from
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use/Planning, Population/ Housing, Public Services, Recreation and
Utility/Service Systems. We have determined that these impacts are indeed significant and that the
DEIR is deficient in its analysis to mitigate them. 23 . 17
The DEIR identifies a number of impacts from the proposed application that are listed in Section 8.2 as
"Less than Significant with Mitigation." FHBP contests a number of these determinations including the
impacts from Biological Resources, Geology/Soils and Hazards/Hazardous Materials. We have
determined that these impacts remain as significant as the DEIR's proposed mitigation measures are
inadequate to responsibly reduce the impacts. This deficiency again reinforces the lack of adequacy of
the DEIR document.
K. Document Errata
Page 3-26 incorrectly references the County of Orange "Resources and Development Management
Department"for trail and park issues. The department was re-named some years ago as the "OC Public
Works Department" and it continues to manage trail systems. However,the park program is now
known as "OC Parks" and was relocated some years to the County's Community Resources Department. 23 . 18
It is suggested that prior to any public hearings,that staff from both departments be involved in
reviewing and commenting on the project proposal.
Page 3-26 also incorrectly references the "Orange Sanitation District" when the agency is actually titled
the "Orange County Sanitation District".
6
FHBP EIR Comment Letter on the Proposed
Rio Santiago Project 06-28-13
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please keep FHBP informed of all
notices, hearings, staff reports, briefings, meetings, and other events related to the proposed Project.
Sin�erely, �� /`��
r ��'
Jean H. Watt
President
7
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 23
Date: May 15, 2013
Jean H. Watt
President
Friends of Harbors, Beaches, &Parks
Response to Comment 23.1
The Commenter's statements related to opposition of the proposed project, concern about the long-term
planning vision, transform and urbanize the rural character of the community are noted. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to approved planning documents over the
proposed project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics, related to the community
character of the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the
Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.2
The Commenter's statements related to the East Orange General Plan and the OPA Plan needing updating
are noted. It is not the responsibility of the project applicant to update and prepare a comprehensive
update of the two plans. It is the right or the applicant to propose land use changes through the
application process. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection
5.2.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to approved planning documents
over the proposed project site and the General Plan Amendment. This information does not change the
analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.3
The Commenter's statements related to Santiago Creek Santiago Creek Vision Plan, open space, and
urbanization are noted. Any future studies related to the Santiago Creek Santiago Creek Vision Plan
would be for that plan and independent of the project. The project DEIR adequately analyzes, discloses,
and mitigates, to the extent necessary and/or available, the project impacts to Santiago Geek. The
comment does not provide any substantive specifics as to how examination of watershed viability and
sustainability is lacking in the DEIR.
Response to Comment 23.4
The Commenter's statements related to Santa Ana River/Santiago Greenbelt Plan, OPA Plan, and EO
General Plan are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, Subsection
2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to approved planning documents
over the proposed project site. Please note that the Commenter is a private citizen group not a regulatory
authority. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-217
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.5
The Commenter's statements related to inadequately describing the proposed project and its potential
impacts on the local and regiona] environment are noted. This information does not change the analysis
or conclusions of the Draft EIR because the comment cites no specific examples of project description
inadequacies. As required by CEQA, Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR provides a
comprehensive description of the proposed project. Section 4, Environmental Setting, describes the
regional and local setting. Additionally, within each environmental topic (i.e., 5.1.2 Aesthetics) the
existing environmental setting is thoroughly described. The Commenter's statements are therefore, not
correct in suggesting that the project description and environmental setting are incomplete. Each of the
Commenter's assertions regarding the project description are addressed elsewhere in these Responses to
Letter 23.
Response to Comment 23.6
The Commenter's statements related to fundamental requirements of an EIR are accurate. The
Commenter's statements related to project description and setting are noted. Please refer to Response to
Comment 23.5 related to the project description and setting. The Specific Plan specifies future land uses
for the project site; however, it does not guarantee a specific plan use because the plan is intended to
allow for a range of options.
Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10, Alternatives related to specifics for each alternative
analyzed in the Draft EIR. Each alternative presented in the Draft EIR provides statistics related to the
Planning Areas and a figure is presented for each alternative. The figure depicts generally the location of
potential uses identified in the alternative. All alternatives are located on the project site, except for
Alternative 9, Off-Site Development Alternative. As noted in the Draft EIR, an off-site location was
considered pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a), which requires description of a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project. For the purposes of this Draft EIR
only, the existing City Yorba Park site, adjacent properties owned by the Orange Unified School District
(OUSD) and YMCA, and the adjacent Santiago Creek area were selected as the off-site location. This
alternative is located generally to the east of Interstate-55 (I-55),to the south of East Chapman Avenue, to
the west of South Yorba Avenue, and to the north of Palmyra Avenue in the City. Alternative 9, Off-Site
Development Alternative additionally notes the under this alternative, the project site would be developed
for uses permitted under the City's existing General Plan and Zoning.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-218 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 23.7
The Commenter's statements related to a greenbelt alternative are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.10, Alternatives related to this issue. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,
Land Use and Planning for further discussion of the proposed project and City General Plan consistency.
A specific SARSCGP alternative is not presented in the EIR. However, the concept of an open space-
passive recreational alternative compatible with the SARSCGP was evaluated by the proposed project and
included in multiple alternatives. Table 2.10-6, Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and
Alternative Comparison provides the components of the SARSCGP and an analysis of where these
components are provided and considered in the proposed project and project alternatives. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.8
The Commenter's statements related to land use and planning are noted. Please refer to Master Response
Section 2.2,Aesthetics for further discussion of potential impacts to aesthetic issues.
Several Commenters have expressed opinions that the proposed project would substantially improve ar
degrade the existing quality of the project site and its surroundings. The Draft EIR notes that the natural
and manmade physical features of a community form an overall impression of an area. This impression is
referred to as "visual character." The Draft EIR studied the visual character as a point of reference to
assess whether the proposed project would appear compatible with the established features of the
setting/project area or would contrast noticeably and be deemed unfavorably with them. Based on the
commenters to the Draft EIR, it would appear that some agreed and some disagreed with the findings of
the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR found that the proposed project does not propose changes to the existing visual character
or quality of the surrounding community (Page 5.1-34 of the Draft EIR). Figure 5.1-13, Communiry
Character Summary has been added to the EIR to provide additional clarity related to the discussion of
the character analysis. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary provides the local names, land
use, relative age of construction, density, and other similar characteristics of surrounding areas. Based on
information provided the lots range from 4,500 square feet to over an acre. The neighborhood includes
duplexes to estate lots. The earliest construction occurred in 1925 and has continued until the present.
Entry monumentation ranges from none to elaborate monumentation projects. Street widths range from
22 feet wide to 60 feet wide, with over 10 different paving widths including parking on one or both sides.
Curb styles are either none, rolled and/or square. Sidewalks range from none to both sides. Lighting
ranges from none to tall metal poles. The majority of the community lighting is tall metal poles. The
buildings are both one and two-story. Based on the above information it is responsible to state that there
is no one singular community character in the vicinity of the project site. The community character
within the area is established by its eclectic nature.
Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion related to specific off-site
changes in visual character. The proposed project would change the visual character of two off-site areas.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-219
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
The proposed project would provide off-site improvements to East Santiago Canyon Road and a 2.01 area
in Santiago Oaks Regional Park.
Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with
Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to approved planning documents over the proposed
project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3,
Physically Divide an Existing Community, related to spot zoning. Please refer to Master Response
Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.1, Parks, related to the General Plan text amendment. Please
refer to the Section 3.0, Project Description, related to the Development Agreement. The Commenter's
opinions related to public benefit of the project are noted. The Development Agreement was submitted to
the City Staff for their review and consideration in January 2013.
Changes to East Santiago Canyon Road would be noticeable to persons traveling to and from the City of
Villa Park. The East Santiago Canyon Road off-site improvements are identified in the Rio Santiago
Specific Plan, on the Tentative Tract Map, and as PDF's in the Draft EIR. They are described in detail in
Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR. Figure 5.1-14, Rio Santiago Entrance Improvements
provides an illustrative of the off-site improvements at the project entrance. Figure 5.1-14, Rio Santiago
Entrance Improvements shows the signalization, lighting, trail crossing, and landscape median on East
Santiago Canyon Road.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.9
The Commenter's statements related to fully assessing whether the proposed development would
adversely impact special species ar their habitat are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.12, Biological Resources and Response to Comment 21.12 for detailed information related to the
proposed project and impacts to biological resources. The comment implies that the Draft EIR did not
fully assess the potential impacts of the proposed project on special-status species or riparian resources
within Santiago Creek. In fact, the Draft EIR fully discloses the presence or potential occurrence of 40
special-status plant species and 59 special-status wildlife species (see Pages 5.4-14 to 5.4-18, Tables 5.4-3
Sensitive Plant Species Pages 5.4-23 to 5.4-29, and Tables 5.4-4 Sensitive Wildlife Species Pages 5.4-30
to 5.4-40 of the Draft EIR). Two sensitive plants species, Southern California black walnut and southern
tarplant, were documented as occurring on the project site. Six sensitive wildlife species,white-tailed kite,
yellow-breasted chat, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, willow flycatcher and coyote,
were observed on the project site.
The biological resource thresholds of significance are described in Section 5.4.4 Significance Thresholds
(Page 5.4-44 of the Draft EIR). Project impacts to southern tarplant are considered to be less than
significant through the voluntary PDF BIO-10, which salvaged seed of this species currently being stored
Page 3-220 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, to be relocated and transplanted. The potential impacts to
sensitive species resulting from project implementation are analyzed beginning on Page 5.4-50 of the
Draft EIR. The Draft EIR concludes that the project would have potentially significant impacts to least
Bell's vireo, for which mitigation is proposed,MM BIO-lA to 1C.
Analysis of project impacts on sensitive riparian habitat is provided in the Draft EIR beginning on Page
5.4-66. The conclusion is that potentially significant impacts would occur to sensitive riparian
communities. Mitigation measure, MM BIO-2, requires replacement for loss of sensitive riparian habitat
at a minimum ratio of 0.5:1. Similarly, potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional waters would be
mitigated with application of MM BIO-3.
The Commenter also recommends that agency approvals and permits from responsible agencies be
obtained before local approvals are considered. This recommendation is not practical because regulatory
agencies typically do not process permit applications without the lead agency granting entitlement
approvals first in compliance with CEQA. The environmental analysis will be completed prior to
granting project entitlements.
Independent studies were completed between 2008 and 2012, the details of which are contained in
Appendix C, Biological Resources Assessment.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.10
The Commenter's statements related to what are the benefits to the City that will result from project
implementation after project impacts are noted. Some of the benefits are described in Section 5.10,Land
Use and Planning of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12, Biological Resources
and Response to Comment 21.12 for detailed information related to the proposed project and impacts to
biological resources. The proposed project does not propose to eliminate wetland and riparian resources.
Rather, the proposed project has been designed to avoid the majority of wetland and riparian habitat
within Santiago Creek. Only some impacts to fringe wetland and riparian habitat will occur, and for those
impacts, mitigation will include on-site enhancement, which is intended to improve the quality of on-site
riparian habitat within Santiago Creek, as well as on- and/or off-site mitigation. Off-site mitigation
allows for restoration opportunities within a much larger ecological system within the same watershed as
the project site, which will benefit wetland and riparian resources by contributing to increased biological
function and value based on a regional watershed based approach. Resource agencies have demonstrated
a preference for regional mitigation over fragmented patches of mitigation on individual project sites.
The mitigation ratios proposed are based on the quality of the habitat/resources and the nature of the
impact proposed. Mitigation is also based on agency guidelines and is subject to their approval.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-221
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.11
The Commenter's statements related to potential impacts to the corridor between the Santiago Oaks
Regional Park and downstream groundwater recharge pits are noted. Project impacts to wildlife
movement and wildlife corridors are addressed in the Draft EIR under Significance Threshold D
discussion (Page 5.4-76 of the Draft EIR). The habitat associated with Santiago Creek within the northern
portion of the project site supports live-in and movement habitat for species on a local scale and likely
functions to facilitate regional wildlife movement for a number of species on a regional scale. The
proposed project was designed to avoid Santiago Creek and associated native habitat that is best suited to
support local and regional wildlife movement along the creek as demonstrated in PDF BIO-1 through
PDF BIO-9. No impediment to wildlife movement through this area is expected, including to or from the
adjacent Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Additionally, to minimize the indirect impacts of edge effects by
the proposed project, a 100-foot limited use setback area (PDF BIO-4) will provide a buffer between the
development and the wildlife movement corridor.
Mitigation Measure, MM BIO-4, is included to reduce potentially significant impacts to migratory and
nesting bird species to less than significance (Page 5.4-78 of the Draft EIR). This will be achieved by
avoidance of impacts to nesting habitats during the breeding season where nesting birds may occur.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.12
The Commenter's statements related to water resources and hydrology are noted. The Commenter's
opinions that the proposed project would violate water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere with groundwater recharged, or increase the risk of flooding are noted. These comments are not
supported by any information provided by the Commenter. Please note that the former Villa Park
Landfill is not on the project site. Please note that the project site has not been used as a landfill,
therefore, the Commenter's opinions related to leaching additional pollutants are not valid. Please note
that the Preliminary Water Quality Master Plan(PWQMP) was provided as Appendix K to the Draft EIR.
Additional detailed information would be provided in a Final WQMP in accordance with State and local
standards. Please refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality in the Draft EIR for related to
potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the
surrounding area. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant
hydrology and water quality impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the
mitigation. Section 5.9,Hydrology and Water Qualiry in the Draft EIR is based on the following sources:
Page 3-222 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
• Forecasting California's Earthquakes — What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years, prepared by
US Geological Survey, 2008. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/)
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP), City of Orange, by Fuscoe
Engineering, Inc., September 20, 2012 as provided in Technical Appendix K, Water Quality
Technical Report,to this Draft EIR.
• Rio Santiago, Hydrological Assessment Report, City of Orange, by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.,
December 16, 2011, as provided in Technical Appendix J, Hydrology Study Report, to this Draft
EIR.
• Rio Santiago Water Qualiry Technical Report, City of Orange, by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., May
1, 2013, as provided in Technical Appendix K, Water Quality Technical Report, to this Draft
EIR.
• Table of Dam Failures:
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/dams/Dam_History_Page/Failures.htm
• Villa Park Dam information:
http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy3/newsletters/pdfNilla_Park Dam_emails.pdf.
• Comments received during the public review period and at the scoping meetings. These
comments are contained in Appendix A, Public Participation Process.
Related to groundwater, the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant
impact related to groundwater supplies/recharge and no mitigation measures would be required. Related
to water quality standards, the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact relating to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and
no mitigation measures would be required. Related to flooding, the Draft EIR found that the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact related to alteration of existing drainage patterns of the
project site,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site and no
mitigation measures would be required. Related to water quality, the Draft EIR found that the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact related to degrading water quality and no mitigation
measures would be required. Related to the potential to impede or redirect flood flow the Draft EIR
found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows, and no mitigation measures would be required. Related to
flooding, the Draft EIR found that the with the inclusion of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2,
the proposed project impact remains a significant unavoidable impact related to being in the path of
inundation were a dam break to occur.
Additionally, it should be noted that paragraph starting Section 5.9: The commenter has misquoted the
EIR document text. The commenter claims that the EIR text states: "Santiago Creek Flows are not a part
of this analysis". However, at page 5.9-14, the EIR text actually states: "The Santiago Creek Study
Analysis is not a part of this on-site drainage report but is included in the separate report `Hydraulic and
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-223
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Sediment Transport Report for Santiago Creek (June 28, 2011)' ". The EIR then follows this statement
with a detailed description of the contents of the June 28,2011 report.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.13
The Commenter's opinions that the Draft EIR should have contained a more thorough analysis of project-
related and cumulative impacts to air quality are noted and that the Draft EIR should have contained
additional attention should have been paid to both construction related and build-out increases in air
emissions are noted. The Commenter's opinions that the Draft EIR should have addressed climate change
impacts and specifically analyze how the Project would comply with AB 32 (The Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006),which requires the State of California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels no later than 2020, are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to AB 32 are noted. The
Commenter's opinions that the Draft EIR provides only minimal (and inadequate) information on
cumulative impacts, SB 375 and AB 32 are noted.
These comments are not supported by any information provided by the Commenter. Please refer to
Section 5.3 Air Quality in the Draft EIR, which describes the existing regional and local air quality setting
and analyzes the proposed project's potential contribution to changes in regional and local air quality. It
addresses whether the proposed project would have the potential to create a significant adverse impact on
air quality. Where applicable, this section identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts and describes
the residual impact after imposition of the mitigation. Section 5.3,Air Quality in the Draft EIR is based
on the following sources:
• Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Rio Santiago Specific Plan, City of Orange,prepared by Vista
Environmental, December 28, 2012, as provided in Technical Appendix B,Air Quality Analysis,
to the Draft EIR.
• Comments received during the public review period and at the scoping meetings. These
comments are contained in Appendix A,Public Participation Process to the Draft EIR.
The Commenter's opinions that the Draft EIR should have also addressed climate change impacts and
specifically analyze how the proposed project would comply with AB 32 (The Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006),which requires the State of California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 19901evels no
later than 2020 are noted. The Commenter's statements that the State has passed two important laws
related to greenhouse gas emissions - AB 32 (The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and SB 375
(The Sustainable Community Act of 2008) are noted. The Commenter's statement that the Orange
County Council of Governments and Southern California Association of Governments have both adopted
a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) for Orange County and the region, respectively are noted. The
Commenter's opinions that approval of the proposed development in a long designated open space area is
Page 3-224 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
in conflict with the legislation and the SCS programs, and will increase,not reduce vehicle miles traveled
and related emissions are noted.
These four opinions of the Commenter are not supported by any information provided by the
Commenter. Further, The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on
reducing greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluaride) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements
in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB Scoping Plan) in 2008, which
outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan calls for an "ambitious but
achievable" reduction in California's greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from
business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today's levels. On a per-
capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman
and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.
The Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State's emissions. As shown in Table 3-2,
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan Reduction Measures the strategies are not
applicable to the proposed project. Therefore,the proposed project is consistent with the CARB Scoping
Plan and AB32.
Table 3-2: California Ai�Resources Board (CARB)Scoping Plan Reduction Measures
Scoping Plan Reduction Measure Reason Why Not Applicable
1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western When this cap-and-trade system begins, products or
Climate Initiative. Implement a broad-based California services (such as electricity) would be covered and
Cap-and-Trade program to provide a firm limit on the cost of the cap-and-trade system would be
emissions. Link the California cap—and-trade program transferred to the consumers.
with other Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to
create a regional market system to achieve greater
environmental and economic benefits for California.
Ensure California's program meets all applicable AB 32
requirements for market-based mechanisms.
2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas This is a statewide measure that cannot be
Standards. Implement adopted standards and planned implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.
second phase of the program. Align zero-emission When this measwe is initiated, the standards would
vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle be applicable to the light-duty vehicles that would
technology programs with long-term climate change goals. access the project site.
3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency This is a measure for the State to increase its energy
building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency standards. However, the project would
efficiency including new technologies, policy, and increase its energy efficiency through existing
implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable regulations. PDF GHG-2 requires the proposed
investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of project to exceed Title 24 Part 6 energy efficiency
electricity in California. standards.
4. Renewable Portfolio Standard. Achieve 33 percent Southern California Edison, which would provide
renewable energy mix statewide. Renewable energy power to the project, is in the process of increasing
sources include (but are not limited to) wind, solar, the percent of renewable energy in its portfolio. It is
geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic required to increase this percentage by the year 2020
digestion,and landfill gas. pursuant to various regulations.
5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low This is a statewide measure that cannot be
Carbon Fuel Standard. implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.
When this measure is initiated,the standard would be
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-225
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Table 3-2: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan Reduction Measures
Scoping Plan Reduction Measure Reason Why Not Applicable
applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would
access the project site.
6. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas The project is not related to developing greenhouse
Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions gas emission reduction targets.
reduction targets for passenger vehicles. This measure
refers to SB 375.
7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty When this measure is initiated, the standards would
vehicle efficiency measures. be applicable to the light-duty vehicles that would
access the project site.
8. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for The project does not propose any changes to
the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities ar forms of
efficiency in goods movement activities. transportation.
9. Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 MW of This measure is to increase solar throughout
solar-electric capacity under California's existing solar California, which is being done by various electricity
programs. providers and existing solar programs.
10. Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium and This is a statewide measure that cannot be
heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures. implemented by a project applicant ar lead agency.
When this measure is initiated, the standards would
be applicable to the vehicles that access the project
site.
11. Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large The project is not an industrial land use.
industrial sources to determine whether individual sources
within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-
benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive
emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas
transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control
fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries.
12. High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high- This is a statewide measure that cannot be
speed rail system. implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.
13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green The State is to increase the use of green building
building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of practices. The project would implement some green
California's new and existing inventory of buildings. building strategies through existing regulation.
14. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt When this measure is initiated, it would be applicable
measures to reduce high global warming potential gases. to the high global warming potential gases that would
be used by the project (such as in air conditioning
and refrigerators).
15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at The project would not contain a landfill. The State is
landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, and to help increase waste diversion. The project would
commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste. reduce waste with implementation of AB 939 and SB
1374,which requires all jurisdictions to divert at least
50 percent of their waste away from landfills.
16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and The project site is in an urban area. No forested
encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy lands exist onsite.
generation.
17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner This is a measure for state and local agencies.
energy sources to move and treat water.
18. A riculture. In the near-term, encoura e investment in The roject site is in an urban,built-u condition. No
Page 3-226 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Table 3-2: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan Reduction Measures
5coping Plan Reduction Measure Reason Why Not Applicable
manure digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural activities that
determine if the program should be made mandatory by generate manure occur onsite ar are proposed to be
2020. implemented by the project.
Source:California Air Resources Board, 2008.
The Commenter's opinions that the Draft EIR had only minimal (and inadequate) information on
cumulative impacts, SB 375 and AB 32 compliance, and infrastructure issues that typically are provided
in great detail for a project with the wide-ranging impacts expected due to substantial alterations to the
City's General Plan and zoning are noted. This opinion of the Commenter is not supported by any
information provided by the Commenter. Refer to previous responses related to SB 375 and AB 32 above
related to the Commenter's opinions.
Based on the information supported by the data noted above, the Draft EIR contained a thorough analysis
of the proposed project-related and cumulative impacts to air quality. Please note that the cumulative
Impacts to Air Qualiry are analyzed in Section 5.3, Air Quality Threshold AQ-C, which answers if the
project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal ar state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) and Section
6.0, Cumulative Impacts Subsection 6.3.3, Air Quality, which looks at the proposed project and the
surrounding projects cumulative impacts. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of
the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.14
The Commenter's statements related to transportation and circulation impacts are noted. Appendix N,
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)for Rio Santiago analyzed, addressed, and mitigated (if required) project
traffic impacts along a comprehensive study area that includes transportation facilities in the Cities of
Orange and Villa Park, and Caltrans facilities. Table J on page 35 of TIA lists all of the cumulative
projects that were assumed in the Opening Year 2017 traffic analyses, while the General Plan 2030
analysis was based on the build-out of all land uses within the modeled area. Pages 47 to 49 of the TIA
discuss the 2030 traffic model assumptions used in the TIA. Therefore, the future scenarios of the TIA
include traffic from new developments in the area. In addition,the mitigation measure for Wanda Road—
Santiago Road/Katella Avenue would be constructed per the City's design standards which account for
vehicle,bicycle, and pedestrian modes of traveL No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-227
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 23.15
The Commenter's opinions related to the proposed projects impacts on aesthetics are noted. Please refer
to Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR related to project site grading. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics for further discussion of potential impacts to aesthetic issues.
Aesthetics -Community Character
Several Commenters have expressed opinions that the proposed project would substantially improve or
degrade the existing quality of the project site and its surroundings. The Draft EIR notes that the natural
and manmade physical features of a community form an overall impression of an area. This impression is
referred to as "visual character." The Draft EIR studied the visual character as a point of reference to
assess whether the proposed project would appear compatible with the established features of the
setting/project area ar would contrast noticeably and be deemed unfavorably with them. Based on the
comments on the Draft EIR, it would appear that some agreed and some disagreed with the findings of the
Draft EIR. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project does not propose changes to the existing visual
character or quality of the surrounding community. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary has
been added to the EIR to provide additional clarity related to the discussion of the character analysis.
Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary provides the local names, land use, relative age of
construction, density, and other similar characteristics of surrounding areas. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion related to specific off-site changes in visual
character.
Light and Glare
Related to short-term construction light and glare, the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would
alter the visual character of the project site during the short-term site preparation phase of the project by
the addition of light and glare. Impacts would be related to construction vehicles located on the project
site, along East Santiago Canyon Road related to installing or modifying public utilities and water lines,
construction materials stored on the project site, and project site preparation activities that would create
daytime glare from vehicles and materials. These activities are short-term in nature, similar to the
existing material recycling and backfilling operations, and would cease at the completion of the project
site preparation. The Draft EIR found that due to the short-term nature of this activity, impacts are less
than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.1-41 of the Draft EIR)
Related to long-term light and glare the Draft EIR found that in Planning Area B active recreational uses
such as ball fields/parks and other similar uses would potentially introduce new sources of light and glare.
This new source of light and glare will create a night hue in the area where no lights currently exist. The
Draft EIR found that the potential light and glare impacts (Impact AES-6) would be reduced with PDF
AES-7, the requirements of the Specific Plan, and Mitigation Measure AES-6, however not to a less than
significant level. Related to Planning Areas C and D new sources of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, would be anticipated to occur. This is an
unavoidable impact of the proposed proj ect. (Page 5.1-45 of the Draft EIR)
Page 3-228 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Existing and Proposed Photo Simulations
Figures 5.1-2, Photograph Location Map, and Figure 5.1-3, Project Site Photographs in the Draft EIR
provide a location map and existing conditions site photograph. Figure 5.1-4, View Analysis through
Figure 5.1-12, View Analysis in the Draft EIR provide existing and photo simulations of the proposed
project. Photo simulations are provided for the same views as existing conditions as indicated on Figures
5.1-2 and Figures 5.1-3,Project Site Photographs.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and Ciry Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.16
The Commenter's opinion related to project impacts on adjacent regional parks and recreation systems are
noted. Additionally, the Commenter's opinion that the private recreational facilities of the proposed
project will have an impact on habitat, water quality and wildlife are noted. These comments are not
supported by any information provided by the Commenter.
Regional Parks and Recreation System
Related to the Commenter's opinions related to regional parks and recreation systems please refer to
Response to Comments 23.15 and 23.18 above.
Biological Resources
Related to the Commenter's opinions related to biological resources please refer to Response to
Comments 23.9, 23.10 and 23.11 above.
Water Quality
Related to the Commenter's opinions related to water quality please refer to Response to Comment 23.12
above.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.17
The Commenter's statements related to unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are noted. The
Commenter's statements related to the Draft EIR being deficient in its analysis to mitigate unavoidable
impacts are noted. These comments are not supported by any information provided by the Commenter.
The City has determined that the EIR has accomplished a good faith effort to identify all reasonable and
feasible mitigation measures. The EIR has described all reasonable and feasible measures which could
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-229
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
minimize significant adverse impacts the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. In accordance with
the State CEQA Guidelines, the mitigation measures in the EIR are:
1. Feasible measures that could minimize significant impacts;
2. Fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments;
3. Fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments. In
the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures
can be incorporated into the plan,policy,regulation, or project design;
4. Provided only for effects which are not found to be significant; and,
5. Consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements, including there is an essential nexus
(i.e. connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest and they
are "roughly proportional"to the impacts of the project.
Further, CEQA provides that if the lead agency(i.e., City) determines that a mitigation measure cannot be
legally imposed,the measure need not be proposed or analyzed.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 23.18
The Commenter's statements related to the County of Orange "Resources and Development Management
Department" far trail and park issues are noted. The Commenter's statements that the department was re-
named some years ago as the "OC Public Warks Department" and it continues to manage trail systems
are noted. However,the park program is now known is "OC Parks" and was relocated some years to the
County's Community Resources Department are noted. The Commenter's suggested that prior to any
public hearings, that County Staff from both Departments be involved in reviewing and commenting on
the project proposal. Please note that the County was routed the Draft EIR for review and comment.
Please also note that comprehensive comments were received from the County.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-230 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER�24 s� �
� ��> > ��� ��. �� �s
� � �
�
� ,
��� ��, �
E � � �
� :�� „� �¢E�., � m �
^ �� .
� , � ���,
�� „ �,� � � V
,
w � s
�� f � M1 �l,'� i u �u����i��l� . '_, ` < `
n
, < ,..,
��q.. ;�EE<{
, .; � "
�a:
. �
� �t�
�
Respon�e ta I)raft EIR—Rio Satzti�gfl Project
otticers and State Ciearinghouse No. 2009051072
Directors June 2013
John i: Moore,
President
Kirfc�nterrr�th, To: Chad Ortlieb, Sr. Planner, Commurli�y Development Dept.
Vice-P�sident
David Piper, Fram: Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance
SecretaryTreasurer.
Introduction
Jeanne Carter, �e Santia o Creek Greenwa Alliance is a member af The Coalition Grou re resentin
Director g y p p �
surrounding neighborhoods and organizations that have an interest in the Rio Santiago
Pameta�a�era, project, The Coalition Graup has met repeatedly with the applicant and his consultants
Director
throughout the design af�his project, The Greenway Alliance'�interest has been
prirnarily those issues that affect Santiago Creek including the proposed Open Space and
Advisory Board recreational uses.
24.1
Jim Donovan, Comments
^'-'�ona!Parks
ce 1. W�believe the�ity af Orange and the applicant should jQintly undertake tbe
connection af the existing bike trail that terrninates on t11e west side of the Cannon
Shir�ey Grindle, St. Brid e with the trail to b�eonstructed on the Rio Santia � ro ect site. The
Campaign Fteform g � p �
a�t�v�sr ideal time to construct this underpass cannection is during grading and
Peter wetze�, canstruction of the trail on the praject site. While this may not be an EIR issue,
Regional vve recomniend this joint undertaking be included in the Development Agreement.
Recreational Traiis
Advisory Committee
2. Is it possible to include a discussion in the EIR regarding the possibility of future
Marrlyn Moore, use ofthe lanc�fill(at the southeast corner of Santiago Canyan Road and Cannon) 24.2
7reasurer, OC �, � �� lat to serve the recreational uses on Plannin Area B?
Frie»ds of Music p g �
3. The EIR sta.tes that the�roject may be perceived as substantially degrading the
long-term visual character of the site (Impact AES-3). VVe disa�ree wifih this
assessrnent. The existing appearance of the site—the recycling operation—is
likely ta continue for years if the Rio Santiaga project is not approved. We 24.3
therefare believe the proje�t as propased shauld realistically be campared to its
current and likely to continue use instead of being compared ta a future"utopian"
condition. We canclude that the proposed project represents an aesthetically
p�sitive impact.
4. It is our suggestion that the mitigatian measures that are incorporated into the
project for the conveyance and storage of water run-off into Santiago Creek 24.4
should be summarized in the Executive Summary on p. 2-5, Section 2.3.3. The
impact of this project on Santiago Creek is of major importance and should be
summarized in the Executive Summary.
5. The EIR should address the possibility of connecting the muiti-use trail on the Rio
Santiaga project with the Mabury Ranch Trail on the north side of the creek
which then connects to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. A possible connection 24.5
could be made on the east side of the Cannon Street Bridge at the same time as
the trail connection with the bike tra.il on the west side of the Cannon Street
bridge. (See No. 1 above}.
6. We particularly appreciate the 50 acres of Open Space on both sides of Santiago
Creek and the additionai 1 Q acres of Open Space-Park, 3+acres of public trails 24.6
and 1+acre of public linear park,that are inciuded as part of this praject.
7. This site was once used for sand and gravel mining. Have the hazardous
materials and waste left over from the mining operations been removed 'zn
accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act? If so, this should be 24•7
stated in the EIR.
9. There does not appear to be a discussion in the EIR regarding the Diemer water
line which crosses the project area and which has an access shaft near the creek.
The EIR should describe what measures are being taken to prevent illegal access
to this water line via this access shaft. 24.$
The Officers and Directors of the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance have autharized
submittal of these comments for your consideratioxa.
Submitted By
Johr�T. Moore, President
Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance
2707 E. Killingsworth
Orange, Ca 92869
714 997-8886
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 24
Date: June 2013
John T. Moore
President
Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance
Response to Comment 24.1
The Commenter's statements related to connection of the existing bike trail that terminates on the west
side of the Cannon Street bridge and the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Master Response
Section 2.7, Recreation related to the proposed project trails. This information does not change the
analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 24.2
The Commenter's statements related to the EIR including a discussion of the future use of the landfill as a
parking lot for Planning Area B are noted. Please note that the landfill site is not under the ownership of
the proposed project. Furthermore, as specified in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description the
proposed project shall meet standards as detailed within the Rio Santiago Specific Plan for parking on-site
within each Planning Area. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft
EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in
the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 24.3
The Commenter's statements related to disagreeing with the Draft EIR regarding degrading long-term
visual character are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related
to approved planning documents over the proposed project site. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.2, Aesthetics, related to the community character of the proposed project. No further responses are
necessary.
Response to Comment 24.4
The Commenter's statements related to Santiago Creek mitigation measures being summarized in the
Executive Summary Section 2.3.3 are noted. The comment of the impact of this project on Santiago
Creek being of majar importance is noted. The Draft EIR provides a summary of the mitigation measures
of all environmental topics in Section 2.6, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features,
Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance after Mitigation. Additional, Section 5.0, Mitigation
Monitoring and Compliance Program, of these EIR also lists out the Mitigation Measures.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-233
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 24.5
The Commenter's statements related to connection proposed project trails and the existing Mabury Ranch
trail are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation related to the proposed project
trails. Please note that the property that the Commenter is requesting the connection upon is off the
project site and that the applicant does not have ownership authority to assure improvements on property
that they do not own.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 24.6
The Commenter's statements related to appreciating the 50 acres of Open Space, 10 acres of Open Space-
Park, and other features are noted.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 24.7
The Commenter's statements related to hazardous materials from sand and gravel mining are noted.
Please refer to Master Response Section 23, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Draft EIR Section
5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Material.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 24.8
The Commenter's statements related to Diemer Water line are noted. As stated on Draft EIR Section 5.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Page 5.9-8, the Allen McCulloch Pipeline (Diemer Transmission) trunk
water distribution line, operated by the MWD, traverses the easterly portion of the site and is located
entirely below grade. Please note that the proposed project has been designed such that minimal
instruction intrusion over the Diemer Water line occurs, including designing the proposed project so that
parks and open space are located above the line. Please note that the access shaft will be enclosed with a
chain link fence and gate. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR
because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the
Page 3-234 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-235
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 25
� ��.�� C����
� � � ,°' t David Mains
U
� �10E �r f��IIl�II
:� - ;�,�y
. �� R. �ynn Canton
.� � ���I��flt�;,�'8�5fi�t
� - tVt��lle Pettit Williarns
. ,�•
,
� �i�� � �t�� � � i����1 �� i���� �1�0G#Ol�
Lo;s wia�y
3419 E Chapman Ave,Suite 480,Clrange CA 92869 Alice Sorenson
June 2�, 2013
Chad t�r�li�b, aenior Planner
City af�ran�e
3{}0 F,ast C'-�apman A�enue _ _
aran�e, C'A 92866
I�ear Mr, Clrtli�t�:
As you may b�awar�, the Orange Park Arenas Lqu�trians Trails Corporatic�n(OPA-ETC)is a non-prc�fit
organizatian that 1z�anages the Mara Brandman I-�orse Aren� located along Santia�o Canyt�n Road in the C}range
Park A�res nei�kibc>nc��od of East�ran�e, The t�bjectives of aur organization are to:
• 1'rc�mc�t�the use ot t7range Park Acres' equestraan arenas and the multi-purpas�trails systems that
suppc�rt them
• I'rote�t and main#ain equestrian resourc�s so they are used eantinuously a�d pritnna:t�ily for�qt�estrian
purposes
• Provicie�uestrian educational artd recreatic�nal c�pportunities for the be�efzt af the cc��rununity
In sect,i�n 5.15.2 of the RiQ Santi�go draft Environmental Tmpact Report{EIR}, T�ie Mara�randman Arena is 25.1
listeci as c>ne of several existin�open space/p�rk�/�renas rYear the propased prt�ject. Due t�this close proximity}
aur ar�;at�izatioti has a great interest in the pl�z�s for devel�ping t1�is praperty as they pertazn ta t�i�objectiv�s of
C7PA-�7'C'.
In pa�'ticula�r, C}F�-ETC is su�pcartive nf Rin Sa�tiagc�'s thre�new public,multi-P�c�se trails.These new
re,creational amenities ��ctude a cr�ek-sicle tr��l, a�ew� Santi�gQ Canyc�n R4ad trail��ith equ�sCria�fencing, and a
tr�il c�nnecting the c�ree�-side trail tc�the Santia�t�Canyc�n Roac�trail. The taCal mil�a�c r�f tl�ese newt tails is
apprc�ximately l.3 miles and each will allc�w ft�r equestriai�use as well as use by hikers,jc����`s,and bikers.
OPA-�T�al.sc�reviewed#he Draft EIlZ to under�Cand h�w and where equestria�s wcauld b�abie kt�access these
ne�trails, and��ras pleased ta learn that e�uestrian a�ces�vvil�be afforded at t�e exi�t�ng�i�;n�lized ligt�t a[t1�e
t}rang�I'�r�Boulevard arad Santiago Ca�yon Raad int�rsectiQn.
� Fres��ri�g t�� �gne�trsa� 1�crita�� and Tra�itia�s �f Or��gc �ar� �cr�s �
Additionaily, our organization wauld like tic�r�quest from the City af C}range informa#ic�n related ta the following
Rio Santiaga concerns: 25.2
Whc�t enntity will be tasked x�ith n�erinta����zg the thr�ee new pt�I�lic, multi�zcrperse trc�i�s?
In afir�'itzon ta the�x�,�t�r�g equ�striur��rassing at t�rang�Pcrrk Br�ule�.=arc�c���l Sur�tiugo Ganyort Rc�ad,
will the ne�°sig�z�lized txght prvp�.���for th�ar���r.s��fiican c�J'tVfch;� i��f�nd Sanzirtgv Car�y�tz Raad 25.3
�ravidc.>far�c�n equestr�ar�cr-��s.z�i��c�s��e1�7 -
It is�:id�lv und�rstoc�d that a»o,�her���rabl�c b���ef�t t�f Rio S�rataagr� is that�he 3.7 acr�extensian of the
�ara Brand►nczrr Horse tlrenr� w�Xl be�lc�nated by the Ianc��x��er-us pctrt af the a�prr�i=al af the Pr-��jcct.
4lthough titis donc�t�on is n�t�lis�uss�cl ir� th�Dru�`t ET�, coulet,��r�u cQrz�rrra thr�t this r�vrznt�c�t� is iracfc�ed 25.4
s�till part nrtt�e Ric7 Sarxfiagv Dei�elo�»��rxt�4�i�e�mc�lzt?
OPA-ETC appreeiates the City af Oran�e�s wc�rk thus far in prepariz�g and distribu�in�;this infc�nnation far the
public to review. We laok forward to y�ur an�oin�oversight and respanses tc�these questions.
Si��cerely,
�
_ �
�lice Sorenson
I�irectc�r
Oran�e Park Arenas, Equestrians,Trails Cc�rparation
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 25
Date: May 15, 2013
Alice Sorenson
Director
Orange Park Arenas, Equestrians, Trails Corporation
Response to Comment 25.1
The Commenter's statements related to trails and access for equestrians are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.7,Recreation related to the proposed project trails.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 25.2
The Commenter's statements related to maintenance of the public trails are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to the proposed project trails
management and maintenance.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 25.3
The Commenter's statements related to signalized equestrian crossing are noted. The proposed project as
stated in PDF TRA-15, shall be providing a signalized trail crossing at the main entrance to the project
site on East Santiago Canyon Road. The signalized trail crossing will provide connectivity for to/from
recreational trails and the Mara Bradman Arena facilitating a street crossing.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 25.4
The Commenter's statements related to 3.7 acre extension of the Mara Brandman Horse Arena donation
are noted. At the time of printing of this EIR document, the proposed Development Agreement include
the donation of the 3.7 acre extension of the Mara Brandman Horse Arena as provided by the project
applicant.
Page 3-238 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-239
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 26
,
�v
, � ;
lune 27,2013 �' �,-�-" � ���°�
�
n
,, .� �- _B
, „ � . . ,
- ���
�:.�--_. _
{�:
� , . ,
�
� ��` �
Mr. Chad Ortlieb `�
Senior Planner ! `��� ��'
�..�
3 s ��
c�ty��a�an�e
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866 ° _
Re: Camments on the DEIR for the propased Rio 5antiagc� Praject
�ear Chac#,
Please allow me to say that there�re many asp�cts csf this project that I like and feel are goad far the
City of Orange which 1 address first. There are alsc�concerns which are addressed further in my letter.
!n general,the propc�sed plan daes away with th�eyesare of the current rock crushing oper�tic�n. It
would result in better air,visual aestttetics and reduced t�peratianal noise. The open space that is there
is anything but pristine and improvements are w�lcome.
26.1
Area A: Mor�than 50°!0 of the project's acreage is being offered as open space, cantiguous to Santiago
Oaks Regit�nal Park. I am in favor ofthe connected, multipurpose trails along Santiago Creek which give
access ta all kinds of recreatianai ac�ivities,fram equestrian, biking and hiking to just walking, and offer
benefits beyond a small segment of the City's ptapul�tian. The Specific Plan in#his document suggests
opticsns,other than the County,fc�r responsibility for the Greenway Reserve. I urge against an N�A as
access to trails can be changed or cic�sed. The N�A would have ta fund fo�caretakin�at a level andjor
responsibility not appropriate ta its nature. City funds are linnited. Other than the Cc+unty, OCTA wouid
be a viable possibility.
Area 6: The 10 acres for recreational use fihro�rgh a membership based {nominal fee?), privately
managed facility, such as the YMCA wauld prt�vide intergenerational opportunities unique tc�the area.
As th� Irvine Company's Sports Center project is slated far East Orange,the scope of this praposed 26 2
recreation facility seems appropriate. Amenities such as pools and patential classes are gaod
opportunities. Just a reminder that Ridgeline tnras also a membership based {nc�minal fee,} privately
managed facility.
Area C. I lik�the idea of a 5enior l.iving facility as the need f�r this housing is increasing. I understa�d
that dol(ars must pencil out, but if a two story rather than the prQp�sed three story facility is#�asibEe, it 26.3
is preferred.
Area [�: 130 Single �arnily Residences.The linear park and g�neral layaut are appealing. Mc�re details
regarding the houses would be appreciated. The 6,000 square foot lats are sma11 for the surrounding 26.4
minimur�n 8,�}ClC?square foot neighborhoods.
Concerns:
Dam Inundation—There are areas that fall into the dam inundation zone, not just the flood pkain. While
the event is very rare and the City has in the past allowed building in the zone (Hidden Creek)there is a 26.5
danger to residents. What mitigation measures will make this different from the Fieldstone project of
years past and offer protecCion for residents and their property?
Methane—A smalf amount was found in area C. Please explain if and how this risk can be totaliy 26.6
removed and the area made safe for residents.
Noise, Lights and �ensity—I have general cancerns regarding impacts on neighboring communities,
wildlife, etc. 26•7
Comments on Proposed Alternatives:
Alternative#1—The Rio Santiago Project is preferred over the current operation.
Alternative#2—Unacceptable for the adjacent Mabury Ranch community for the reasons given against
the Fieldstone project years ago.
Alternative#3—Commercial in area D is too close to neighboring residential communities.
Alternative#4—Storage facility is inappropriate for the area.
26.8
Alternative #5 -Where does the funding come for this? The noise and lights far an all recreation
alternative is too disruptive for the adjacent neighborhoods. The Irvine Company's Sports Center not far
away reduces the need in for such on this property.
Alternative#6-This alternative is as similar as to be identical to a proposed unauthorized alternative
circulated City-wide a couple of years ago. Didn't the City disavow any endorsement of that one? How
is it di�ferent?
AEternative#7—A development of clustered residentials is not in keeping with the surrounding
communities. ft has greater impact on traffic, schools and public services than the proposed Rio
5antiago praject because of its density.
Alternative#8—This is a reasonable alternative with the caveat that appropriate and acceptable
mitigations are found for the cEam inundation,flood and methane safety issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
��:.c_:�_�.,_ ��:..���r�.c�`.{:e.,t�,.
Sue Obermayer cJ
6219 E. Shenandoah Ave
Orange, CA 92867
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 26
Date: May 15, 2013
Sue Obermayer
Response to Comment 26.1
The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area A are noted. Please refer to Master Response
Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Parks related to the proposed project parks management and
maintenance. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to
the proposed project trails management and maintenance.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council far consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 26.2
The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area B are noted. Please refer to Master Response
Section 2.7,Recreation related to Planning Area B.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 26.3
The Commenter's statements related to the senior living facility and preferred two-story option are noted.
Please refer to Master Response Secrion 2.5,Aesthetics related to views of the project site.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 26.4
The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area D and request for more details regarding the
houses are noted. Please refer to Section 3.0,Project Description related to architecture of the Planning
Area D. Please also note that the Rio Santiago Specific Plan details out specific architecture requirements
on the project site. Additionally, final floor plans and elevations are required to go to Design Review
Committee. The Commenter's statements related to substandard lot size are noted. Please refer to Figure
5.1-13, Community Character Summary has been added to the EIR to provide additional clarity related to
Page 3-242 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
the discussion of the character analysis. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary provides the
local names, land use, relative age of construction, density, and other similar characteristics of
surrounding areas.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 26.5
The Commenter's statements related to Dam Inundation and mitigation measures are noted. The
proposed project requires Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, disclosure to homeowners and Mitigation
Measures HWQ-2, Evacuation Plans. However, dam inundation is identified in the DEIR as a significant
and unavoidable impact. Please refer to Section 2.4.4 of the Master Responses related to dam inundation.
Both the Fieldstone project and the Rio Santiago projects proposed creek bank stabilization as project
design features however,the Rio Santiago project also adds Emergency Evacuation Plan requirements.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 26.6
The Commenter's statements related to methane and Planning Area C are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.3, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Subsection 231, Relationship to Former
Counry Landfill related to methane and the proposed project.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 26.7
The Commenter's general concerns related to noise, lights, density, and wildlife are noted. No specific
concerns were stated and no data refuting the DEIR conclusions were provided. Please refer to Draft EIR
Section 5.1,Aesthetics, Section 5.4,Biology, and Section 5.12,Noise related to the above topics.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-243
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 26.8
The Commenter's statements related to alternatives are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.10,Alternatives related to the proposed project alternatives.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-244 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 27
Robert H.adfe
60d7 East Mabury Avenue
Orange,CA 92867
T�� ;
,::,
�`
�,
� ,.
� �
lune 28,2013
Mr. Chad Ortlieb '
Senior Planner, Planning Div'rsion
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
.
Orange,CA 92866 � `�
Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Repart(EIR 1818-09)
Re: Ria Santiago Praject
Dear Mr.�rtlieb:
The purpose af this letter is to provide comments on the subject DEIR. The following is submitted:
1. !n the proposed project, PA"C" provides far a maximum of three stories in the center of the 27.�
age restricted area. Three staries are not consistent with the surrounding development5
and would impase an additional source of uninterrupted light glare upon the surraunding
develapments.
2. PA"C" in the proposed project has identified outdoor uses, i.e., pool,outdoo�sports�elds
and courts. All of these facilities have activities that are naise producers. Specific hours af
operation should be conditioned on the use. In addition, it fihese facilities are lighted,the 27'2
lights must be directed away from existing developments and must be designed to reduce
night light glare.
3. The praject area is rural and is horne to a significant amaunt of wildlife. Duri�g any grading
operation,smal!mammals,rodents and snakes will be forced from their habitat. it is
recommended that a wildlife barrier be erected adjacent to the fence that parallels East 27.3
Mabury Avenue. This wou(d reduce the number af unwanted visitors ta the homes in
Mabury Ranch and beyond.
In reviewing the alternatives ta the proposed project in the dEIR,Alternative 8 seems to be the most
environmentally sensitive and the most desirab(e,from neighbors prospective. Na#urally, items 2 and 3
abaue wauld still be of concern even in this alternative. 27,4
7hank you for praviding this opportunity to express my thoughts.
5incere(y,
Robert H.�dle
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 27
Date: June 28,2013
Robert H. Olde
Response to Comment 27.1
The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area C story consistency with the area and light and
glare are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.3, Light and
Glare related to the proposed project light and glare. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,
Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.4, Structure Height related to the proposed project structure height. The height
of the project's building in proximity to East Santiago Canyon Road could block views of distant
ridgelines. This long-term unavoidable visual impact includes views of distant ridgelines.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 27.2
The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area C having recreation hours of operation and light
and glare from these uses are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics, Subsection
2.2.3, Light and Glare related to the proposed project light and glare. At this time the proposed project
does not have hours of operation for Planning Area C, the senior residential community. Please note that
the recreational and open space areas located within Planning Area C are not public park facilities. These
uses do not have the same intensity of uses as a public park. Additionally, please note that these
recreational areas are located generally in the center of Planning Area C. The proposed villa units would
be located between these uses and Santiago Creek. However, please note the proposed project as a
significant unavoidable impact(Impact AES-6)related to light and glare in Planning Area C.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 27.3
The Commenter's statements related to grading operations creating a need for wildlife barriers are noted.
Please refer to Section 5.4,Biological Resources related to wildlife and the proposed project. Please note
that although the proposed project does not have a wildlife barrier, it does include a setback from wildlife
area as shown in the Draft EIR on Figure 5.4-8, Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife Species. Please refer to
Draft EIR Section 5.4, Biological Resources related to the CEQA thresholds of significances and the
proposed projects impacts and mitigation measures.
Page 3-246 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 27.4
The Commenter's statements related to preferred Alternative 8 are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.10,Alternatives, related to the proposed project Alternatives.
This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-247
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
I LETTER 28
�
June 2�,2t?13
�
�
(
` Chad t?rtlieb- Seni�r P'tanning
Ciry of C}range—Plannir�g Divisicrn
� 300 E.Chapman Ave.
{�range,CA 92869
i
SIIBIECT: RI{3 SANTIAG�I�EIR
Ntr.t�rtl3eb:
I have a few questions w�ich I wouid a�preciate th��ity address as it review�the DEIR fc�r the
� Rio Santiagc�plan.
�
First�I don't understand why the applicant is in n�gc��ia�ions cvith the�otu��y of tJrange on the 5f� 28.1
; acres af natural c�pen space ic�eniified in Fla�ning Area"A " W�ty is�'t th�applicant simply bein�
' required to j�ast dc�nate this land tc�the Gity caf Oran�e,esgecially since certain groups keep clainlin�
that"C}ran�e needs parks and open space"? Why did t1�e City af Orange deciine this}and?
Second,can you ptease exptain the system for issuing park fee credit�to prc�perty owners who
want to develop their 1at�d? More specificaliy,if the State of C'alifc�rnia ant3 the City of t?range
have requirements fQr grantin�park credits,then why wauldn't the app�icant's dc�natic�n of the
open space in Pianning Area"A"�s well as the rernaizting 3.7 acres of t��Mara Br�ndman
equestrian center(now a parkrtng lot and flc�wer stand)plus a11 the nery public trails and parkland as
well as the c��n space and park area in Plannin�Area"�"be enc�ugh fs�r t#�e applicant tc�qualify 28.2
f�r these credits?
I am concerned that we are drivin�out those wh�want tta develc�p tt�eir tanri beca�e we refuse
their oi�fers of�apen space and parkland as we alst�refuse to give them the prc3�r credit fc�r crpen
space ar�d parkl�nd. Pleas�resp�nd tc�my questi�ns abave. T6ank you.
Sincerely �
0- � �
��t 1
�,...
_�..- j .,� � r /
� � �7 �" �� � - �/ 1f�1c�1� � �t1�.
�f=�-� � � � �- 9� �� �
� �
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 28
Date: June 24,2013
Judith M Lash
Response to Comment 28.1
The Commenter's statements related to donating Planning Area A to the City are noted. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.2.2, Future Ownership of Planning Area A
related to the proposed project donation of Planning Area A.
This commenter's statement and questions do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR
because they do not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the
Draft EIR. However, the statements and inquiries are noted and will be provided to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 28.2
The Commenter's statements related to park fee credits to the City are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR
Section 5.15,Recreation, pages 5.15-13 through 5.15-18 related to park fee credits.
City Staff's Orange Municipal Code (OMC) based opinion is that the project applicant land offerings do
not meet the OMC requirements for park land as explained in Draft Environmental Impact Report Table
5.15-4, Project Applicant Park Land Dedication Offer vs. Ciry Standards. Depending on the facilities to
be shown at the time detailed development plans of Planning Area C are approved in the future,City Staff
acknowledges that, pursuant to OMC Section 16.60.090D., there is potential for a maximum of fifty (50)
percent park credit for privately owned parkland in Planning Areas C and D. However, until such time as
detailed development plans are submitted and approved, City Staff believes that the project applicant still
must provide in-lieu park fees and/or parkland meeting the OMC requirements. City Staff's
disagreements with the project applicant are outlined with reference to OMC sections in Table 5.15-4,
Project Applicant Park Land Dedication Offer vs. Ciry Standards.
Based on the provisions of the City's Municipal Code provided in Table 5.15-4, Project Applicant Park
Land Dedication Offer vs. City Standards the City Council may require park land dedication or require
payment of fees, or both at its discretion. If proper and contrary findings are offered, the City Council
may disagree with City Staff and agree with the applicant that their offerings meet the code pertaining to
parkland dedication. Therefore, regardless of the City Council's decision on this issue,this Draft EIR has
fully identified the potential environmental impacts on recreation facilities and set forth the potential
methods to eliminate any potential impacts through compliance with the OMC, as determined by the City
Council. If the project applicant(1)pays City Park Fees and/or dedicates parkland in accordance with the
OMC, per City Staff recommendation or (2) the City Council accepts offerings in Table 5.15-4, Project
Applicant Park Land Dedication Offer vs. Ciry Standards as proposed by the project applicant and makes
findings contrary to staff advisement,no significant impacts on park and recreation facilities would occur.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-249
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Any such combination of park land dedication or park fees payment is possible and, with City Council
approval of the appropriate factual findings far compliance with the OMC, any such combination will
alleviate the impact on parks that could be created by the proposed project because either improved park
facilities would result from fees to handle the increased project population or, land would be provided for
the park needs of the increased project population. As a result of the City Council determination far the
method of compliance with the OMC, with appropriate factual findings for compliance with the OMC, a
less than significant impact is anticipated resulting from the proposed project and no mitigation measures
would be required.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-250 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 29
� � Chairman
David Mains
VSC� G�i3tCIC13�n
R. lynn Canton
S�cr�tary/�'rcasurer
��}xllichelle Pettit Williams
Q�ar��� Park Ar�na�, Ec���stria�s, �rails �orpora��c�� � �l���t��
�ois wid�y
3419 E Chapman Ave, Suite A8Q, drange CA 92869 Alice Sarenson
... " ` ..x ;•fi
f
, }�
June 24,2013 �`
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Oran�e, CA 92866
Dear l��r. Ortlieb:
As you may be aware,the Orange Park Arenas Equestrians Trails Corporation(OPA-ETG}is a non-profit
or�anization that manages the Mara Brandman Horse Arena located along Santia�a Canyon Road in the Qrange
Park Acres neighborhood of East Orange. The objectives of our organization are to:
. Pramote tlZe use of Orange Park Acres' equestrian arenas
and the multi-ptupose trails systems that aupport them
• Fr�teet and maintain equesh�ian resources so they are
used continuously and primarily for equestrian purposes
. Provide equestrian educational and recreational
opportunities for the benefit of the community
In section 5.15.2 of the Rio Santiago draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR), The Mara Brandman Arena is 29 �
lis#ed as one of several existing open spacelparks/arenas near the proposed project. Due to this close proxirnity,
our organization has a great interest ar�the plans for developing this property as they pertain to the objectives of
(?PA-ETC.
In particular, OPA-ETC is supportive af Rio Santiago's three new public,multi-purpose trails. These ne�v
recreational amenities include a creelc-side trail, a new Santiago Canyon Road 1rai1 with equestrian fencing, and a
trail connecting the creek-side trail to the Santiago Canyon Road trail. The total mileage af these new tails is
approximately 1.3 miles and each�vill allow for equestrian use as well as use by hikers,joggers, and bikers.
QPA-ETC also reviewed the Draft EIR to understand how and where equestrians would be able to access these
new trails, and was pleased to learn that equestrian access will be afforded at the existing signalized light at the
Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyan Road intersection.
K Pr�ser�iug th� �qn�s�rian ��rita�e and Traditions o� �range �ark �cres x
Additionally, ot�r organization would like to request from the City of Orange informatian related to the following
Rio Santiago concerns: 29.2
What entity tivill be tasked tivith n�aai�ztaii�in�g th�thr-ee ne�t�pa�blic, rnulti purpose lrr�ils?
In acic�rtion to the existzrzg equestriarz crossing at �range Park Br�ulevard and Sc�rztiago Canyon Road,
will the new signalized light proposed for the intersection af Nicky Way and Sczntiago Canyon Road 29•3
p��ovide far an equestrian crossing as well?
It is widely uraderstaod thi�t an�otherpublic�benefit of Rio Sa�ztiago is that th� 3.7 ucre exterasi�n �f the
Mara Brandrrian Horse�1Yena tivill b�donated by the lanc�owt�.er-c�s part af tlae approval of t�ie Projeet. 29.4
4lt�ough this dor�a�i�n is not discussed in tl�e Draf�EIR, could��ou corafirr7a �laat this� dorzation is itrdeed
still pat-t of the Rio Santia�c�Developtne�zt Agreeme�at? �
OPA-ETC appreciates the City of Oran�e's worlc thus tar in preparing and distributing this information for the
public to review. We look forward to your ongoing oversight and responses to these questions.
Sinc�, ,
�
t"`4 �{. ;,� :�
a !
Lc�is Widly
Director
Orange Park Arenas, Equestrians,Trails Gorporatian
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 29
Date: June 24, 2013
Lois Wildly
Director
Orange Park Arenas, Equestrians,Trails Corporation
Response to Comment 29.1
The Commenter's statements related to trails and access for equestrians are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.7,Recreation related to the proposed project trails.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 29.2
The Commenter's statements related to maintenance of the public trails are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to the proposed project trails
management and maintenance.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 29.3
The Commenter's statements related to signalized equestrian crossing are noted. The proposed project as
stated in PDF TRA-15, shall be providing a signalized trail crossing at the main entrance to the project
site on East Santiago Canyon Road. The signalized trail crossing will provide connectivity to/from
recreational trails and the Mara Bradman Arena facilitating a street crossing.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 29.4
The Commenter's statements related to 3.7 acre extension of the Mara Brandman Horse Arena donation
are noted. At the time of printing of this EIR document, the proposed Development Agreement includes
the donation of the 3.7 acre extension of the Mara Brandman Horse Arena as provided by the project
applicant.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-253
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-254 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
Chxir�a�
David Mains
��1�� ����a���
R_ Lynn Canton
�
— � �r,,�� � � ��
$ ��t
Y "�„n�a�'- g�''�� .��''*�� t � 'i� � �` , �
m �y�. �� �
� � "N�„ 'q����� 3: � '� +b. �
V - M '„
�° �C ".�r*���'` � ��.. � � ��. � � g� %
, ,� O� ��� � u a .. �y , .�,, �t �" � , �.
�i� � c � � �*� `��' ��s"� �� `y��,s►r�,a�'.�` '� '�` �� �
� ��'�' N� . ' ��. .� r,. � �.� � � § � U
.��'"� '� a y�' �.,. .�,�:,�' ,$��.� atl�... a3=�+ . . . �� O
' ,f, '` � 5 �. � � �
i2 �� ,�
. ������+ �` �� � �y. "" �`, t .
��
,. �1i1 �
r�l`.�►�f!A"fl_'7s).�'i�c((� � ",� �� . ', ��:�A a
� r 1 ���; .�� k �,� � � p��'�.t� �"�a
� � � ' . � �.:
.;��4'�. 1..�.,�� • � : � ,,� '�` ` *�.�,� .� ,�''��� A.
�� �{, � � � �;, ��,�
�'f � �: ; � ` . �' .�� --��
. � --�..`,. , � �.
� �� I .� '_"•---_. � a �
,° ' , '` --; � ,� ,
�� �� � 1 _, � ,,�
�:` . � � �. � . � ��
� �`��� � �.� ,
�_ �z � � . f � �� ��
� . �, 1, o
.
,� ,��� ��� � ,� � � � ;�"�,���
\ N t
� � �� � � � / .:% �� ���r��� W
�.e µ� �/�
�
t�� � Q�� Q � ,; X �''�"� l„/1 �
. , i
�� � _. ••�I , '� � � � � �� �� � z
� - :�; Q � c . �`�� �, �
� ��"�� ' �'' C D �,� � � ' .
� _ .
� . G► �- 0 1 ' ���_ � �
� �� , .1 �� � � �
k� � � � 0 � � �..� •4�ds`R��'��)i:��� � �
;c,"a�l:t: ' O?2 � ' }
'r'�V.et:l.i;i"ol�.y,l , C..�Q � ------ �� �
. ���� � � —`
1 r '� �
{ .. �C� � (� � � ��� �� �
, �� "�°� �� 0 � � � `� � �
o �k.� ° �` � / � � f"�
» •
• ^
. : r �
;A" � "��''tr., /� p/�� v� V
��e . .. y \ � 1 W 0 , �
' � f � � � � . � :��1An� �
� � �� � 41��\-��'�:t�iR �
"��Y,i��l:t :N.��'�'r'�� � � �� C � � G<l���� � � � W
- � C � � � �
�u�� � ��� �� G �� ��� � e � � 0
��.. � � , � a- � -� � � � a
,� . �� . i .�
a�� ��� � � � �� �1 ;" � ��
� ���.�,,... � �� ,�. 'Y=- \ , �^ '^ '` ��>� `���� �� � O
� . � ;,� , ,V � f .,` � . „ `� � �,� IZI CJ
� �..,�_:� �� '` ,� � ° '� e'm a � •� k,�.' "`� °��" � �
� �� �. �; � _ � � � - d .�" n �� _ �.
` c � � u �--'� �itA . °� O H
�•` `� p , Q.• � •�.
�� �� NO� ���` � �'� t � �
- --- � \ 0 ;�� �
�\ �
\
0 �� '` ���. � �
O � ••�..��,.` �
�,
' € � ° � � 1 � a O
k�� � � o o �" +� '�` �\ � � �•`� W
» � z d �,.J �
��� � c � r f�.� ` � �'� � �� `��'�:
r o u u ����� ;��. ' \�
o < < $-.� � � `�, P C) �� E D
v ? h N � �r4,�...yk'�" ;
� `,�'
N 4 4 .„�. � ��� . � � �
} �
° � O O � .c:`►.e F;r,� ...._--J , M/i't 7,��`f���Q�J �
r�
h i '�"
� � ..
p � 0 O .�: ��. . � � .�'� pRpNDE COUNTY C4E DEPAIiTMCNt' U
� �; «
� ��� "� oePu�r
�
-J---- _ ---- - ��~ .� `�`��,_ � s�r: o
�
�
`��� �
�fi �
�u:� _ rT', I
Cl
�'� �}
"v f's� �
L
— �
�
�� `� � �
�� �
�� � �
�z m
'�f r r tJ'�} �
y` V
.'f �`; rn
�
i>,
'�` _
x
�
:K
i—�+ *;�, ..
ti'�
Sfi
C"
A i �bP
^T
�i
�}y.�
S�qli
2tt6�q"•
:&S
� �$'�
oa[
i'i�?
�?y'.
�.,'a
� �'
���
� a•'.'
��
� �'`��
.�`
� � ���p
� ���
�.1 F
_ 4� ;..°
�� �°F�'����`�`��} �4�.�
� .
,
a a�-i. .�'f;§�.,�.,c��
�.. .._:
_.�. � �?
�,;a
_ z
;
', �'�.� € •,"'t
..�a r
h
� �
�
,Y�. -� .� ��-' �
' �' ��
�
x
.... -,
�.� �
. .-» �=�3 J_-:'*i,—
� -�-��"�-� '� � 3
— �, � �
r._� � ,
� rx,���� � s'i
.._. " � �-
E' � � &��'�,+��� ��.,.�-:1�
s:,
� '
i
. ,, Hugh Nguyen
Clerk-Recorder
. .�.
���''~;, C►range County �
C1erk-Recorder's Of�ce
12 Civic Center Plaza,Raom 106,P.4. Box 23$, Santa Ana, CA 927�Z�;-�
fveb:www.oc.ca.gov/recorder/
PHONE (714) 834-5284 FA� (714} 834-2500
� �
CITY OF ORANGE ` - � � �.
C1VIG CENTER 300 E CNAPMAN AVE � � � - �
ORANGE. CA 92666
Office of the�range Coimh� Clerk-Recorder
Memarandum
SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE�
The attached notice was recei��ed, filed and a copy was posted on OS/15/2013
It remained posted for 30(thirty) days.
Hugh Nguyen
Clerk-Recorder
In and for the County of Orange
By: Moran,Teresa D�p��`
Public Resource Code 2l{�92.3
Ti�e notice required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21d92 for an environmental iinpact report
shall be pasted in the office af the County Clerk of each caunty *** ir►v��hich the project will be
located and shall remain pasted for a periad of 30 days.The notice re uired ursuant to Section
21092 for a ne ative declaration shall be sa osted far a eriod of 2�da s unless otherwise
'' re uired b law ta be es:ed for 30 da s.The Countv Clerk sl�all nost notices within 24 hors of
i
; recei t.
Public Resource Code 21152
All notices filed pursuant ta this section shall be available for pubtic inspection,and shall be
posted *"*within 24 hours of receipt in the office of tlie County Clerk.Each notice shall remain
pasted for a period af 30 days.
*�* Thereafter;the clerk shall return the notice to the lacal lead age�icy**�within a notation af
the period it�vas posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine
manths.
Additions or chai�ges by ur�r�erline; deletions by ***
NQTICE OF AVAILABILITY {N4A)
� �� �
& NOTICE OF COMPLETION (NOC) �F A
' DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
F�R THE RIO SANTIAGO PROJECT
�STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009051072}
45 DAYREVIET�T�PERIOD
May 16, 2413
LEGAL NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
PUBLIC MEETING P C�S►T� D
��: Tnte���teu���t�e� MAY 15 2013
DATE: May i 6,2013 HUG}i NGUYEk,CL�RK•RECORDER
SUBJECT: The City of Orange (City)has prepared a Draft Environmental Imp c'�'Repor or e p o��
Santiago project. The DEIR has been prepared to evaluate potendal environmental effects
attributable to the proposed Rio Santiago project,generally ciescribed and located as follows:
Project Localion: The Rio Santiago project is located in the City of Orange (City), Orange
County, CA. The proposed Rio Santiago project is located east of State Route 55, to the west of '
State Route 261, approximately two miles to the north of Chapman Avenue, on the north side of
Santiago Canyon Road, between Orange Park Blvd. on the east and Cannon Street on the west, '
and south of Mabury Avenue. The site designated adc�ress is currently 6118 East Santiago '
Canyon Road.
Project Description: This Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Rio
Santiago project proposed for development by JMI Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC. The
proposed project contains approximately 110 acres on-site and 02A1 acres off-site. Project
approval would result in:
General Plan: The project would result in changing the City's General Pian Designation far the
site irom Fcesource Area(RA) to Low Density t'�esidentiai (LDR 2.1-6 DuiAc), i�edium Density
Residential(MDR 15-24 Du/Ac), Open Space Park(QS-P) and Open Space(OS); and froxn, Low
Density Residential (LDR 2.1-6 Du/Ac)to Open Space (OS). The project would also change the
changing City's General Plan to remove portions of the project site from 1975 East Orange
General Plan (approximately 56.45 acres} and Orange Park Acres Plan (approximately 40.3
acres).
Zonifzg: The project would result in a Zone Change {ZC 1254-09) to re-designate the site
designation from Sand and Gravel {S-G) and Single-family Residential 8,000 sf (R-1-8) to
Planned Comrnunity(P-C).
Present Land Use: The site is presently being utilized for a m.aterial recycling operation {i.e.,
asphalt and concrete crushing}and backfilling operation.
Public Natural Open Space .4rea (Planning Area A): The propased project would establish
natural open space on approximately 50 gross acres located on both sides of Santiago Creek.
Planning Area A would be bordered on the north by Mabury Avenue, west by Cannon Street,
south by Planning Areas B, C,and D. and east by Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Planning Axea A
includes the Santiago Cxeek Greenway Reserve, the flood channel includ �g
multi-purpose trail next to the Reserve/Creek,and provides for potential t�a conne
Pr�ivate Recreation Area (Planning Area B): The proposed project would impleme�t ;
recreational uses that are open to the public on approximate3y l0 gross acres on a fee basis �� �
y �a
could include permitted uses such as: a 81,000 square foot build'uig with a maximum two sto �.
height that the Specific Plan allows to house a commu asium llloolumulti purpose rooms,a chi d
could consist of uses such as a wellness center, gymn , p
care center, locker rooms, and administraonal facilitiesOand a re our eecenterasu h as anaAu sm
in association with the facal�ty. Educat
Center, could also be part of the 10 gross acres site, in association with the 81,000 square foot
building.
'�4ge-Qualifed Residential Community (P�a p�� mo e than 26 Sun ts on appro�nat ly 16 gro s
an age-qualified(SS and older) convnuru y
acres of the praject site. The communitYflats l�referr d Po� as`ov 11 solnna the�Spec fiaiPdu�)1
units composed of one and two stories (
independent living, and assisted living. UWo stoxies along heeperimet04 nd threoessori s in the
area. There would be a height hm�t of t
center of the area. The proposed proje�cea C�u Ac essory ameni es sucheas community dm�g
structures from all edges of Plannmg ort sexvices such as coffee .and juice
areas with a kitchen, community room, reading room, supp ool and s a
service with minor accessory food sales for the se dorsc a d recreat on fac lit es are all identif ed
facilities, outdoor gardens,txails, scenic view corr ,
as likely components of the age targeted community.
Sin le-Family Residential Community (Planning Area D): The p�rop�5s ap es of he project�s��...
g roximatel 3
no moxe than 130 single-family residences on app Y �
This coxnmunity would include xesidential lots with a minimum o imatel 2.Olxacresaof grading
square feet, witl� some lots as large as 2Q,000 square feet. App Y
activity will occur off-site in the County of Orange oumed property.
Project Note: Subsequent to the publication of the Notice of P�ripar�henro ec descripti n was
the project(which had a public comment period ending May 9,2 ,
P J
revised to clarify that the proposed project includes 2.01 acres of off-site grading. Additionally,
minor adjustments have been made to of the acreages of the planning areas.
Project APN: 093-280-07, 093-280-27, 093-280-29, 093-280370� 41�190-31, 370-011-08, 370-
011-18, 370-411-21, 370-011-22,370-041-12, 370 041-25, &
Projeet Case Numbers: The City has assigned the following case�oumbC�ange (ZC 1254 09),
Santiaga project: General Plan Amendment (GPA 2009 002},
S ecific Plan'(SP 001-09), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 025-09), Major Site Plan Review (MJSP
P
0595-09);Design Review Committee (DRC 4413-09), Development Agreement(DA 5825), and
� l Environmental Tmpact Report(EIR 1818-09).
OWNERI ; '
, �PpLICANT: JMI Properties/Santiago Partners,LLC
�,�,�7i Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner,Planning Division
< ` 'A�ENCY City of Orange, 340 East Chapman Avenue,Orange,CA. 92866
- GQNTACT� Phone (714)744-7237,FAX(714)744-7222,Email: cortlieb�icitvaforan�e.oi�;
;
�
r.�
� �� � �� �
� o� ��ERIOD: This DEIlZ is hereby made available for public review and comment. The public review period
v rt � �— far said docwnent has a State-mandated 45-day public review period. The public review period
� � � begins on May 16, 2013, and ends on July 1, 2013. Written cornments are invited on the DEIR
�' � -��' and should be submitted in writing to the Lead Agency Contact identified above no later than
�` `' S:00 PM on July 1, 2013. Any written comments received after this deadline are not required to
be accepted and would be accepted at the discretion of the City.
MEETINGS: A meeting date is scheduled for the Design Review Committee of the City of Qrange to review
and make recommendations on the project for the subsequent consideration by;the Planning
Commission and City Council of the City of Orange. You are welcome to attend the meetings to
provide testimony either in favor ox in opposition to the project. The Coinmittee will'only be able
to consider pubiic testimony directly relating to �lie Cotnmittee purview. Meefing dates are as
follows:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING:
DATE: Wednesday, June 5, 2013
TIME: 5:30 P.M. (or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard}
LOCATION: City of Orange Conference Room C, 300 East Chapman Avenue
If you challenge any decision to approve this request in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised prior to or at any public hearing for the project, o� in w�itten
corres ondence or ve�bally at a public hearin .
3AZARDOUS The project site is not identified on any of the lists enumerated pursuant to the
WASTE SITE: requirements of California Government Code Section 65962.5.
SIGIVIFICANT The DEIR analyzed the following topical environmental issue areas: Aesthetics,
ENVII20NMENTAL AgriculturaUForestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
EFFECTS Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Hazards and Hazardous Materials,Hydrology
ANTICIPATED: and Water Quality, Land Use and Plannuig, Minerals, Noise, Population and Housing, Public
Services,Recreation, Transportation and Traffic,Utilities and Service Systems.
After implementation of the proposed project, it has been detennuied that the following
to�icai envir�ruziental issne areas are ies� ruran si�iificant: A�iicuiturai and Farestry
Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources,
Population/Housing,Public Services,Recreation, and Utilities/Service Systems.
" After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that the following
� � topical environmental issue areas can be �easibly mitigated to a less than significant Ievel:
� �,
� � � Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials,
� a � ^ �� ��°' and Noise.
L3�9 N ��.
f�"" � �� After implementation of the proposed project,includin.g project design features and mitigation
(� r-` t' measures, it has been detennined that, in part, the following topical environmental issue areas
f
Q ;° would remain significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water
O � z Quality, Transportation/Traffic, and Cumulative (Aesthetics,Air Quality,and Traffic).
� �
�
�
AVAILABILITY: Copies of the DEIR are available for review at the following locations
business hours:
City of Orange City of Orange
Community Development Department,Planning Division* City Clerk*
300 E. Chapman Avenue 300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866 Orange, CA 92866
Orange Public Library&History Center El Modena Branch Library
407 East Chapman Avenue 380 S. Hewes Street
Orange, CA 92866 Orange, CA 92866
Charles P.Taft Branch Library
740 E.Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
* The DE1R is available for purchase on a compact disk for $l 0.00 at these locations.
The DEIR is available for review on the City website at www.cityoforan�e•or�by navigating to
City Departinents in the header menu, selecting"Commtanity Development"ftom the drop down
inenu, and then selecting "Froject Notices and Related Environmental Docuinents" from the
subsequent drop down menu.
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code, Reference: Sections 21092, 21152, and Z1153, Public Resourc�
Code.
� ; �,"� � �,� � �.. �
,� ��, �� .�� � a.��� � � � ��� � � � �
,� , ��'��_ �,� �.� � �� � ,��.`� Z
aq,-" m ��< �~ ���'.
4 � �W,�, ���� t , x 8� `1,`:'.�@
!�, V ,� � g , �, �� � � ` ��wy,,,.,.:
�
m C °� �� �*' "� �.+* � .E s�r"�
�� ,,' ?s. d �..�° r k y 1 �"
.!. � ���� ' �2 �� � " �`,�L„.� �
� �� �, c � ��a� � ,y, ,g,`�'� .�.,�r� �`�' te$ *� ` .
,� `� #� �S, "�` � `B�� +� ,aw+s¢'� ,,��„'�° '� � W
� � �� � �� ��� � �
� ��"`"� �`�
. .� � `�. ,l•• ` , `.x *� '��,rt •� � ,* �5�,+�%��' a � � ��/]
� �� . � ��� � ��� . �. � ��� � � �
��"��' �� �. ;°�� ��� �'��• � .� . _H z
,'� �1 � �� �*` r �.� _� x i � +.`����
'�6Y� ! ,1.1`/;!.�.l7:!':(C� • . � � 7'� '�tr �tl �
. � . " � � ��'P.k n_"
� � , _ «�y�� a�:.
e� Y,�'>'�
3 � i � ! '�� ° ��f.� � a .�
,�, � �� � 1 � � � ^� �f . �.��
� � ��� �'. ' � � � � � � ��� �
� .� .fr�.� f �� •.` 1� �--�„`��� � �",`�� .:� s��,
�; ��,. � i � ' � � � ".�
� �fi ��' � � � t �. �� %
'��� ` \ o / , �,�,;
�,,� � �
.
� ,�r � � �.� = e,
�� � � p
� � �"��'`�
'4 � � .: � � 4► � `�, � a
� '� ,
W 5 Q � � � � �.
����� ��x ..i I 1\, C� � � :� ., � �
x° �, L , c M 1 � � � Z
t�'f �� ,.� a � v ' � � '�° �
�'�m�,� � `� - = � � �
�� ^ v Q � � � � ��
_ ' Q � � ' ..i , � . o
a � � � �
� f�` e�,��� �`-� �
�rw{',\(.��.�i�O�I,Y��1GA4'ti�.� �, C'`Z�'+ Q `� --_'-_"� ----'-��y '4'#�14��„^ `4.. O
�y� `� �` G O � �' C '.� �`���" �. �
#R - �k. v / V , "� {'��Yj �
� z � � / � �
5 +�� •\ / ' ' � F•�
. ��`' � �-� / Q � �.��� �
� �
� ' �..
/ 1 Q � � �' �i.F�``i�, '
'tY�Yt;I :t'.�`�`��/'I � / ` l? `���"t'�� ��
" � a `
o� �
I 1 C ,o ` � ;'�,:rd��`•�" � W
1 '�\ G '
�� � � �� � ��� �� �� ^�� 0
��'���� �` �\ } � �. � �i� ,,�s " � h+i �i
� � �- � �,� ,s� �� j '..�'' � �. � � a
g.i� � ' . �" � �
�. �`": ..�.. �''� `. 1 _ r. � ,� �.�
�. '�"� � ,�[ b„ ��m Y � �� ._ `-s.S. v�. � �
� d� !, `� Q «��`
�: i��' �k�r � a �/�
,�, .� � \ C o' U -i� �, V1 �
;� � C � v U "�� 'Jl H"'�
v °' � a.•�' ` a �� Q E-�
� - ��� — �
��` � � � k
� ,, �, �� yj � z
��� � . Q �:,� ���� a �
��� ` ' '� � � , O
o ., , � �
� �,. � �.�_��
o � .�..1 � �/
o ••, ,\ , �"""� �
r V � Y \ • �1 �_//,
� � .. � � � 1. 1�
�+ � 2 d �p�. �,�.„ ` �� � .
� � � .t�� ���' � �
z' � p p ��`� .. � # ..w• ; \,�• -
�1 E N N � ��.'�8'��p : � .
0 � G C � �
; � d d - � �� &�
� � O O ci:R:i.�.� .._...Jl� �
� y � ,� � "�r�){t!\�'� �
� � � � � y,"���.•�*4' . "�a°. � ,„.. ��'� � � . U
.,
�
n.
� � � � � �� � ,.�
�,
�"�,,„.wr ,� � ��� �;`. �
, , .
,_
K � ,�.
a ` -
x �°.�.�
� ,, ------_ _ _ _ : n �l. O
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 10
Date: May 14, 2013
Hugh Nguyen
Clerk-Recorder
In and for the County of Orange
Response to Comment 10.1
The Commenter's statements related to posting the proposed project Notice of Availability/Notice of
Completion for the Draft EIR are noted. Please note that the Notice was posted at the County of Orange
on both May 14, 2013 and May 15, 2013. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions
of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Page 3-86 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—Decem6er 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 11
From: Daniel Garcia [mailto:dqarcianaqmd.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:40 PM
To: Chad Ortlieb
Subject: Rio Santiago Project
Mr. Ortlieb,
Per my phone message earlier today please forward the CaIEEMod electronic input files and any other pertinent
information (e.g., excel spreadsheets) needed to review the construction and operational air quality impacts from the 11.1
Rio Santiago Project. Based on a recent review of the Draft EIR for the said project the input files and data used to
quantify the project's air quality impacts were not available in the air quality section (Section 5.3) nor the air quality
appendix(Appendix B). This information is pertinent to SCAqMD's review of the proposed project.
Regards,
�et�c �j%�tela
Air Quality Specialist
Planning,Rule Development, and Area Sources
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
P: (909) 396-3304
F: (909) 396-3324
�
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 11
Date: June 28, 2013
Dan Garcia
Air Quality Specialist
Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources
Air Quality Management District
Response to Comment 11.1
The Commenter's statements related to receiving electronic CaIEEMod input files and excel sheets are
noted. The information that was requested was sent to the AQMD. Letter 9, dated July 3, 2013 was
received from the district after the above mentioned information was sent. This information does not
change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the
adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are
necessary.
Page 3-88 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 12
P.C. �cx 5�-�91
I'v:r�e �.N. .�61u -3a1
+�'��i,�'o��ia 1V��tz�e �'l��a�- Saeiet� �<;,,>s<;F�
; oRA �► � � � o �, tiTY � HA � z � R
:....................................................... July l,2013
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
City of Orange Planning Division
300 East Chapman Avenue
The California Naziv� Orange, CA 92866
P)�nt 5c�ciery is a
staee�v�de r�c,n-�roflt RE: Rio Santiago Draft Environmental Impact Report
arc�anizatian. (ts j�0ar NjT. �Tt110b
rnemkaers}��p is open
�� a�� The Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society has an
ongoing interest in preservation of open space and native vegetation
everywhere in Orange County and especially in our foothills. We
���s is c�edica�e�co commented on the Fieldstone development proposed in 2001 far the Sully- 12 . 1
t�,e pre�ervat�on anc� Miller property on Santiago Canyon Road. Now, in 2013,we still find that
enaoyme�,t�f the site is better suited to be an addition to Santiago Oaks Regional Park
c��5;�tirn�a°s r�attv� than to become yet more development in the Santiago Creek floodplain.
pla�,ts ar,c� thei� The property has been designated as open space since the 1970s, in four
haE��tacs. regional plans that were approved by the City of Orange:
• Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan(1971)
• Orange Park Acres Specific Plan(1973)
• East Orange Community Plan (1975)
�he t�ran�e coun�y • Sanriago Creek Implementation Plan(1976)
c���pter c��cu�s We believe that such plans represent the public will, and that they should 12 . 2
foc«s�s t�,��t not be changed for purely economic reasons. The Rio Santiago
development would require, at a minimum,rewriting all four Plans as well
`��`�"���"" °" ��'� as the City's General Plan. We are currently a co-petitioner in the lawsuit
'���"'� �'��"t� ��'� brought against the County of Orange and the Saddle Crest developer for
nacur<3�ve�etat�c�n �f just such an instance of changing the Plans to fit the proposed development
orar�c�e Coun�y and instead of changing the development to fit the Plans.
a�jacent S{�uthern
ca�ifgrr,�a. Some comments on the DEIR:
1. In various places in the text and in Table 5.15-2 it is stated that Santiago
Oaks Regional Park is adjacent to the project site. The park's boundary 12 . 3
should be mapped in Figure 3-2A and/or Figure 3-3. Figure 5.15-1
indicates the location of parks within a 5-mile radius,but does not map
their boundaries--it should do so.
2. Typo in the Community Development web page for Rio Santiago: "(b) 12 .4
Section OA Tile and Table of Contents."
e .,...y .y...... . .......ky.......,._,,.....� 3. P. 5.4-1: "... fuel medication ..." Perhaps "modification" is meant?
� � 12 . 5
�uly l, 2013 page 2 of2
4. P. 5.4-2: "Vehicular access to the project site occurs from East Santiago Canyon Road and related
daily to the aforementioned materials remaining and backfill operations." There appears to be a missing 12 . 6
phrase in this sentence?
5. Table 5.4.1 is inconsistent in the use of round-off. The text uses approximate acreage numbers. The
table should either also use approximate numbers--and so state in the header--or use the same number of
decimal places in the totals as in the individual acreages. But one wonders if a two-decimal-place 12 . 7
accuracy is really that accurate--or necessary--in recording field acreages.
6. Two entries in Table 5.4-1 are confusing:
• Rock Outcrop/Cattail Stand: on-site acres= 10.3/6.4,no offsite, total=0.10 ??? The text says it's
0.1 acre and all offsite. The text description indicates that it's disturbed wetland/riparian vegetation
that happens to have some big rocks in its substrate. It should be defined as"disturbed wetland/ 12 . 8
riparian"rather than as"rock... cattail ..." The location of this vegetation type is not clearly
indicated in Figure 5.4-1.
• Ruderal/Coastal Sage Scrub: on-site acres= 16./2.3, no offsite,total<0.1 ???
7. The vegetation discussion,pp. 5.4-5 - 5.4-7,makes it clear that the whole site is and has long been
severely disturbed, and most of it is bare dirt. The few small scattered patches of"native"vegetation
have all been invaded to at least some degree by non-natives,thus all qualify as"disturbed." To finely 12 . 9
define most of the relatively few vegetated acres as one of 5 variations of"ruderal"or 3 of"disturbed"
seems unnecessarily detailed.
8. Figure 5.4.-1: The green/black caption lettering is hard to read;plain white would be better. 12 . 10
9. Pp. 5.4-5 - 5.4-7: The text discussion is inconsistent in the use of scientific names. Either use
scientific names for all (native and non-) on their first mention, or use common names only throughout.
Since the same spp. are found in many of the vegetation types, it may be simpler to use only common 12 . 11
names here. However,both common and scientific names should be used in the species list,which should
be included in Section 5.4 as well as in the Appendix.
10. P. 5.4-9: "... and four associated tributaries,Tributaries A,B,C,D, and E." "A"through"E"=five,
does it not? Table 5.4-2 and Figure 5.4-2 show"E"as offsite--perhaps"E"was not counted because it's 12 . 12
outside the project footprint? If so,that should be clearly stated in the text.
11. P. 5.4-9: "6.065"linear ft. should be"6.065"? 12 . 13
12: P. 5.4-9: Table 5.4-2: typo "On-sit." 12 . 14
13: We find the mitigations proposed for southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) and for the
regulated tree spp. to be adequate. 12 . 15
Thank you for the opportuniry to comment on this DEIR.
Respectfully,
Celia Kutcher
Conservation Chair
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 12
Date: July 1,2013
�
Celia Kutcher
Conservation Chair
California Native Plant Society
Response to Comment 12.1
The Commenter's statements related to commenting on the Fieldstone project and the site being more
suited to be an addition to Santiago Oaks Regional Park are noted. This information does not change the
analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.2
The Commenter's statements related to the regional plans over the project site are noted. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning for detailed information related to the proposed
project and the plans. Please note the proposed project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to be
removed from the City adopted East Orange (EO) General Plan Orange Park Acres (OPA) Plan. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects
the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.3
The Commenter's statement related to the boundary of Santiago Oaks Regional Park is noted. Refer to
Figure 3-1, Santiago Oaks Regional Park Boundary that shows the location of the Santiago Oaks
Regional Park related to the project site. The Commenter's request for the boundaries of parks within a
5-mile radius of the project site is noted. This requested information has been provided and does not
change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the
adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are
necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-91
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
� � � � z � ��� ���
� � � �
� � � � � z� M
Pr� �,,�� ��� ��m ��� �. � � ,�, � ��� 3, ,
� � �� ��
� � #- u � �" � � �,: � � � ��, �,� , �
�,���x , r � „� : � >
� ��" �3'��� �' :-z' � �<� r
� �` � �>
*>
-� � ���� d ��f £'�1 � � 1��s� , �
�r � ,.
x �y
�': R�3 =,�+ ! �s '�'�'� x ,_ �`�!� ? '�'�+�`��jw ����w. ��v' , �VT +KY �^ . �.
.� �. ... �� v e . .
, ' -� k4�� � ��. ��;.1 r r �+� �' �i�, �' �� � � '.ti . ,�,
e
. .. . -� n .h , � , �,�: �
R� t i
�
�aN6 ��
. �
;o , , � f�
� w
• �
��."� ,� � �
:. ;
,
�..,.. ,��
t
��. ,� . w
� � ��:' � u
: . ry .
� ,
� a fi �„ � � ���a� � _ ;� „ .�� v�
�.
� � . � � ��� " a �
_.
, t � .. �; �� __. � �,_... , � o = �, � � ��
� *� z
, b:
w _ .
.�a..� ,� �.
<..�._... . _. �..,, .� � �� � .� ����
�
,*� �
�� � � � ���� ���`� ����
;
Q p� � `t�"rt
a �� �' �.
�
' � Q G4�. . . t *-,ss, m� � �
. �x i . . '.,.
�. � o � �� . e .� , �� �
�, Q ; � �4, � � �� � � , �,�� :�; �,�.�,
� c� z �� ,�� ��° ° � `�.,,��.i
' � a o � � �,�� �� ��_ ` �� ��
z C9 � � . �. ;�,�„ '� ' ;, *'" �:..
��� �'� N GG 1 r �J � �. � � � ,y '�` . �' �.x�;��,+�'
•� � � ��°- �� , � ,� , ~ ��;�_ �� �
3 � �� , ,� >� .: � �° � -�- ��� ����'. ��` ��`�+k�+��
� ' � �`:� � �... `� � ���, s �F,
�
� .r � �� ., . . „ , � ; � '.
<. , , ' � .+�w+ ,� �` �
,: ♦ �,�.• �}�.t : r h ° d����� . t� �
.
„� :,
t.,;. : � � . _ _ , � � y� � � � r
,.-
t� r
' � � '�
a �.
�-, . .�'b '� ��^� � � �^;.� U � q,.ry,. ���_ `� :
� � � �'`�
_ �� .. � r,r s T�
�.� � R;
�r . ,
,I ,� � , � ��`
� F .
�
�. � w.
�' �c � '" �'�i"' �� � ��- � �"�
�.
� � ,�_,F 9,,, 4� � ;� `
�' �� � �� «
=�Q �� A �
� r �,� � ��`` �. '��� �< ;� � �"�
. "
,
. ��, � � . ..��c� ,� �c
� � ,�„��° ��. �,s, .�.^�_. � ���.
.
—,x; _, .: ;�� � _;* � �� � ` , �}'a
� " �° � � ."
,, ; � �� t�. ",� �� ��'- � i �`,r
� � i' � ��� •��� �. � " � � +� ''�; ��` �� -n
�- � �f s �
� a � - , ��a � �A� � ` ,��� �� ���� - � �
���;{ '" .((t `�� �� `� -�� � '� , � D � � ��, �j�{ `� �.J�'
� I � �."'f 4 -e�*�' � � 4 "`�, µ.�� t "_, .� y,.°� � +�?� �/�
ti � � "� V 1
+ � ��,���. , , � �. � r„ .;.: ;'� x�9,,' �.em �r. � y�e � ��
s` '
{� '�. �"'�. � � � �,
,
� . ., .� �
�� �t_ � �
+'� � �s � � � o-��� � ��.,''' ��� �w^� 3 :1�, �... � � �i
.c �- �?
€� > »
:�
� �� #- � �"�.. � � � h �
� � i �, �
� �y
..
�. � �, `�" ..a `�` . �""�� �, ; � � ��et-, � - � �" �z,�
� �.< ` , t ,
.
r ,i�"�' ,, ; �b r�"''� � �..� ��� � W
` = t
� ,
.
� ` � � �'' '"� � � �� �.�` �t `�... ��` � � �
�r �. ♦� ♦� ;r� ,�� � ,�' �� ,��t �t��� �, �g �
, �i,�'"t, � �`��r � ,�s � a� '' t. ,� ;Mm' ��,g�}- ,�, -
' a �;��..� -�. ♦ � � ,c�`` �. '* �. � .� 1,# ��: .� '� O
f �� �a+ �� ��� � � '3, , y,,. ' ���„���' �r� �a�^ �.t� �� � e�'i L �•�� �'d � �
. �'�� � i� !� ��� `��'" ,,.. t'"'d" �F j � �'".0. ` �e ��jj
�'� -� �•-� � �.� ��"'!�t.�� � �� '�`s� -"r �
a� ' ,�''.. � err.�"a ���. �. � °��s �' �`;�`k- +..,'�� ;+�. " s"'.� - + �� . �e,�.c .r+m �'°O �"y. ,,� �
• N
.
�
,�
_ �•�_
" . ^
� % . �.�^Y �t e .. �` �, �� `' '�r � � ,e y �1 � �-�I
„ � .
,
_ . .,: - ,.. , .. a� �
` � ��
-
� , ;
, . , �� � "���
.1., 4 �rj �� �`` .. �, ���. .. . � �, �
.
, �t ,
..+
�^ 4. '�4�> rt ` . , 4 , �'�o-�`.��. �� `�� � �`� ��" �k d q� `,�„ y�" �
., y " • ,. �v�
u .�t 4� . ,� c. ..�, m �j
.r, ���� � � �� <, r,���:�'' '► �♦ V � ��� � �i�� :t� ���� � � '� ���.�`�'r�,� h''"1 F-�
� � � a � . o � . ��;,�� � � x r ,: � �;_ ��r,�:� � o
, �;: �� ��` , �x�� r'����� ♦ O � •� �°�,� � � o ���`�.,.� � � �,� ��j' P-�
� a a , �. 1 �� s
r � '� ��� . � �. ,$ y�" ��� �� � ♦ � �� _.,� '���' � � ����� - r C/1
°� ���`� ♦ � � f. �
� � � � �� � �
ga: • , , , � � � '� =�e�
� �
� . �;a�� ` ;•"� � -°i� '�" m ��� �♦ � � � � U � � K'�' '� �� � � �
. .�
��,�,„, ��° � � a., " �� � � � �" �� � � :. , � �
�, .
.� ' µ- �
����""� � �y'. � �°,"� '+� � ,� °� � � � y � ,�: �
�""�'` �y �� � � '� ' � �_' �„ � • � � � �. ' C �.� t ; C.� #`�-;� � a W
. .
.
� � . �r
� °
, ,� - � r `'�, �, v ♦ °��` , '�� �x :� ��
� �
. � � �r
.
� � �� � � � •w � �
� • q�
� ,�� � � � �`� � �
�e � �' `� � 4 �+ i} 4' � �� � d � t ��� � � ti
� � �� �� �. ,� ��x.' � � � � e��,�ri'� � �€E � '� ��� � � �
�� ''
�..• , � � , - � ��� � ....�-� � , ..
� � . ,, ) • � ,r�� �.�.�
, ,
� +v(„� �� �����;�� '$� A t' �,+�� >,s.ww.��.w...� �.- �•._4i++•.'�` � ��1� � At �- �� �v+ ���. ����#�� � �
� • i �
r. �`
. e g �
�` �', �' �C . �_n�� , �'�x�� ��� x�.- f . �.+ C . � rf►��' - � y_�'� y `q'a.+s�� �^�"�' .�' �'r O
� 8
.. i . � M. ... .,y ,. � � i T�� ir , ' i_ � -�'"�'��' k �Y � � � �, � O
. ti �
r
. . �.. .�a a. , y, �( � pp - - L
' � — '� � ��t * ^ � -
- .���� � ' t ,�' 9^'.� � Y'��' x� l�- . I ��I� b a�� � ,�v�`�'� � �', r....� f r.
. ,
„ r' .
' �. . � ; 0 4 : -� a- y , ' ���� z�
; 3 •
.� _ 8 � :. �it�s' ,„ .�� � ��� �
�� O
c a //� �r
� ( � � I �y�� �� >
v �-. g' +a '. ' �f � .
.� .0. P . �, a7 .� � ��vs . ... x �..^aj �'i �` :. . � '�� � � �" It �� ��� .
� ��
.<
�r Ry� ���.k, � ."4:i� � {�r �'�.�.. e _ I I�� i . � � � E"'�
, ' �
`�� � ; «�< � "'T� �>:� �.�, � i I 1 � � �--i
; _
,r..
. ?
>
�� � � � �� �g � �� z� � � �
.
at �_� "�� ,�.��� ��� '��°` � . `: / �Rec�� r ; �1 ����r,� �; �
y .- _ �'
. � `�i��F`/ "' � ''�"�� �. �
, � .
� s a
_ �
„ ;. . ...y ..�, �
/ .
� � '�`g �. � ��a''� ,„ � ' e� U - , �p ' � m� � � :�s�tt, � (�
� � -
.
�.
,
; � �,
� C �� � � .,a � v��C�
"' , _ �
� .
�� �
�° , � �, c �w t � _ „`'' _ �� � �` � U
, .
. t - . ,� �
.' �� , � . — ",— '� � �.� �
. �
����4 t.��:���`'��ir �e > , � .� t _� � , ��� � ''�- ��f •�,�'�� �; � ��� +�
� �• il l � �
, _ �
�r`�" •� � �� ' ' -d � —��'-?' i �, � ,�,/
� � ,
�
r, � � ' � ., � 0 :� �� r r _ �`'`� F�
�, _ #
.;
„. ,
`� ' � •`�. .' C � � �. �'��' � 1 � a I �'� �� � �
�� _ . . � ��.:,� O .�u.r . W r .' � �� �r
t
� a
e. , ,
�. , ��� �, �,� �t
. . ,
..,
� � �`�.�� � ����� ,' . ���� ■ �L 9 0° ��t ��_����� -`-� '� ' . : .; �, :
. '_
�I�//��' �t�"� �,� � � ` e`� �. � .5 � W � p_� �� _�_ � �J � c. ,�4> ` ��pq �$" � �
� p �
� . ...�...y... 3 ' � � h C Y ' ��f.fT/T r � q,"'��_ . �' �
���.'R�r �i� $ � � �� ` °' m �t S �i� r �"���v� � E '� � Q,
'� ��x o. �`��� . *" c±.��. V �O J j' ���-�J4 � -*- � "... .
. ; . � /
� � � �r s a."x � �.� �'vps ' O o � ''l x `� t.j ��M."'�' �
,
. �. ..; .
+�_ , , s- 1 4":
.. _
�.� ` �
. �� �.� '-y.2..; ' e, ��, �.�`` � , �tq<., .. .�b. w,� �� ^� � � �� � .�¢ . Q ,
�„ n ��
.. h � � . a�' ,.� ... , �
�. �u W� ¢
� �'.. '€:., . , �` i�h^ " � p" � / �' � �i.�• , Q � � ) y
f . _ .-r( ��yy y }y�.� 2 l ,y�«
/a'����a Y�� #. . . � � ':��f��y'�KP # � '"' �� t�� � I Z 2 � ,>� }��1;., ��^��" � �
�� �� �" � � r a i � � ��� �s, � �°� �� `,'A✓,.� � � Z �� � �� i � c � �" � , �4�. � �
��,� �' ����� �� �� �, � �. Z W `uz �� — � ... x � p s
a �/�
�� � sz� � ��q � a ��` � �,�i,� " , z° � Q �Q a ��� ., ���.-� ��y� �� ,� a�- V 1 �
r,
, �
�.
� . ` ,.• � ,� � �1 � o - r� . I'�
� . .< ,. T*� ` ��/
�,
..t� +x $� � � 3tfi:.. `� �� � � � ''� 1 � � 1"4. 1+{
,�v �4,',�". t#-..., � � . � . �� t,� ,
r,� " ' f " \ �,"'.�w
= y " _
7�-e b.. t - ` .�� .,u: . � t"" � � �r � � � �. r
.�-s
� � t � 1`\
? !"' ♦ . � �c
i ,� "' . �'�, �,. �i, � _°� � i--.��a��--�
� ,�fy , _.. .�. ,.
, � �. p
�?�i� '�?'??: } �'a�� .',�'' � p t .e. � Y��\`±�..
� (•r. � r.
�'"t,� � u ��d��, ��'�� ' � r �^, !• '~` � ��. .
:
.
o- �
��i.. �a`.Y;:= � ��.*� � �i'� ,� �}• .. y ,���i
� T` �' ��-. f�• . � ��'�' ^'�%�4,,• � c4,�'t��a'� .b�':'.�
t�*,� �* � � ^� ' �+\�r`'���g�} ;� �
,z ��'!,�pp �. �.. '��yrf, � �3c� �'�� ��. l� .`,rtr�\, , �e
��� � k'� z '�r �a �`" �a ^�R t_ <�,` .. �'. �€��r� _ ,� ;;�
.../« ���� p c �<� � v_� � '�'. �'� � � ''��� " ��i,�`'�
:'
, „
: -
. .
r�
• ;
. ,`�. ' �.::+ ^. . � .7b � r,�`
.: ,�� �. .r. _ - . - , '
� T� �,+� s�' `��'�� �r� �.,� ..�j,�� +�:C at
�„�, "' - '�' �,. '�.•�� ��Yp sH � .r � � � ��•�� � 7F 1...k .
,+� '� � �.� � se Yr ,+E 9�`r'�1 � �.
, ,; �
_
� � � +� , �� , =���' � ��'�,. ��` :.�`
.
�
�
.—� ,�. � ' _ �'� _ -�' #�� � � � � , _ �_,���'" '� _�'-a �
_�
E
� f +�,� , . V . � �
y��
r� .
�'�a f. 'f " _ �t �: � ;. £� ��,i�`:� .� �K++� ���i $� � ���
_
� ` P«� ' � •�" .��� ��� � �� ! �■
> � . •
«
r' ,)r� "#�^ '� '��� y� ,�„d, � �� �,. � . ..
. . r r��w ' . .
.
� , :�,�� ,� � � , � �� ,� �`� � � ,�� �aa�
, ��
� ,
r�
, . �
, . � � �
� m
4� "v � �� ' 't+:� 8' � �ia��" •
� � �..•� , �.-u. L • - �
r
> ��v,
a
��." .r��``r¢� ' .'".r ` ,�y_.�,. . ""` �� M a-�i� `�m� `,�.✓ .sl�y�� � . . ... �� .���
� uup
�,F � . � �. > � v .�� �
C
� " ...� � ' :. �'� .. r .
"�C' AP��� . �•n �' �J � � .��� ��a���,$ i�.�,'� -b r� £�� � �� �� F"'
� g } �
{`�'�-6 r `����� �i, r �v v�� '� , �M: �'�-5- ��':� �''Y*$ i i,,. �i}Gci` � �� r�.. " ,��` �
t=x x a� � _ �? � � � � #k �- ;� � kq Cs� �"" �' "�t � G. W
� "�, ,'� � � �F�''s��=�,a,�' � ���'�"��r'"�t t4�. „ `� �k'�l� ��,�# � '', �
��"'�� 1'?�""�$1,, � � � y' .l�f��� � 'a+^u� "'� .�} tk.� p �t; � ��� 3 '*"' �
. .
,,, . � - �� . r
. ,. , .« . �
� � C x
z
�"' �w ,, y � ("�� � �:+ :,„
,
� � � / ��� � ,.* � � ry �..„ . . �4 . � � . .�O
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 12.4
The Commenter's statement related to website typo is noted. The Community Development web page
should read OA Title Page and table of Contents. This information does not change the analysis or
conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental
analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.5
The Commenter's statement related to typo on page 5.4-1 regarding fuel modification is noted. Section
4.0,Errata to the Draft EIR has the following change to the Draft EIR:
Page 5.4-1:
Page 5.4-1 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below:
On-site includes the approximately 110 acres within the Planning Areas. Off-site refers to the
approximately 2 acres of grading and fuel modifzcation ��� activities that will occur on
the County of Orange owned property.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.6
The Commenter's statement related to vehicular access sentence missing a phrase is noted. Section 4.0,
Errata to the Draft EIR has the following change to the EIR:
Page 5.4-2:
Page 5.4-2 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below:
Vehicular access to the project site occurs from East Santiago Canyon Road and access is used
�ek�e�daily related to the aforementioned materials remaining and backfill operations.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.7
The Commenter's statement related to the inconsistent use of round-off is noted. Total acreages in
Tab1e5.4-1 (Page 5.4-3 of the Draft EIR) have been rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. This is a
common practice for environmental documents and does not call into question that accuracy of the
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-93
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
analysis. Acreages calculated using Geographical Information System (GIS) technology can produce
measurements to the hundredths of an acre, the accuracy level that regulatory agencies such as CDFW
and USACE use in permit processing. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of
the Draft EIR because the use of rounding does not change the conclusions in the impact analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.8
The Commenter's statement related to Table 5.4-1 is noted. The comment is correct that Table 5.4-1 has
some typographical errors. For Rock Outcrop/Cattail Stand the On-site acreage should be 0.0 and the
Off-site acreage should be 010 for a total of 0.10 acre. For Ruderal/Coastal Sage Scrub the On-site
acreage should be 0.0 and the Off-site acreage should be <0.01 for a total of<0.1 acre. The location of
the Rock Outcrop/Cattail Stand is in the off-site area in the upper right corner of the Figure 5.4-1,Natural
Communities Map. It is such as small area that its RO/CTS label is hidden by the RUD/CSS label for the
Ruderal/Coastal Sage Scrub habitat in the same off-site location. While the Rock Outcrop/Cattail Stand is
a component of the off-site drainage, it is a more accurate description of the resource than disturbed
riparian and identifies it as having a unique character. Section 4.0, Errata to the Draft EIR has the
following change to the EIR:
Page 5.4-3:
Page 5.4-3 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below:
Table 5.4-1: Summary of Habitat Type/Vegetation Communities
On-Site Off-Site Total
HabitatNe etation Communi acres acres acres
Black Willow Scrub/Ruderal 0.5 0.00 0.5
Coast Live Oak Woodland 0.4 0.11 0.5
Coastal Sage Scrub a 2.4 0.00 2.4
Disturbed 44.4 0.00 44.4
Disturbed/Coastai Sage Scrub 0.8 0.00 0.8
Disturbed Ruderal 28.8 0.3 29.1
Eucalyptus Woodland 1.3 0.00 1.3
Mined Area 8.4 0.00 8.4
Non-Native Grassland 2.9 0.00 2.9
Ornamental 3.6 0. 37 4.0
Rock Outcrop/Cattail Stand 0.0�9�4 0.108.-8 0.10
Ruderal 0.2 0.00 0.2
Ruderal/Coastal Sage Scrub 0.0� 0.0 <0.1
Ruderal/Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 0.3 0.00 0.3
Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 14.3 1.13 15.4
Undifferentiated Open Woodland 1.4 0.0 1.4
Total 109.7 2.01 111.7
° The natural communiry is covered under the NCCP/HCP.
Page 3-94 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR-December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Source: Appendix C,Biological Resource Assessment.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not change
the conclusions in the impact analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are
necessary.
Response to Comment 12.9
The Commenter's statement related to description of text being unnecessarily detailed is noted. Not all of
the native communities are labeled as disturbed or ruderal but the commenter is correct that most of these
habitats all contain some non-native elements. The detailed descriptions are appropriate for this level of
environmental analysis. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR,
because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.10
The Commenter's statement related to Figure 5.4-1 caption lettering is noted. Although the labeling may
not provide as clear an image as desired, the labels are all discernible, with the exception noted in
Response to Comment 12.8 concerning the Rock Outcrop/Cattail Stand,which has another label on top of
it. The original Natural Communities map is also available in Appendix C,Biological Resources, Figure
6, Page 29, which may be easier to read. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of
the Draft EIR,because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR,
but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No
further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.11
The Commenter's statement related to inconsistent in the use of scientific names is noted. This comment
is appreciated and correct that the first occurrence of each species referenced by common name did not
also include the scientific name. Both scientific and common names are found in the Floral Compendium
of the Biological Resource Assessment in Appendix C. The detailed descriptions are appropriate for this
level of environmental analysis. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the
Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council far consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.12
The Commenter's statement related to five tributaries is noted. There are five tributaries with Tributary E
being located off-site but still a component of the study area. Section 4.0,Errata to the Draft EIR has the
following change to the EIR:
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-95
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Page 5.4-9:
Page 5.4-9 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below:
The proposed project contains one perennial USGS blueline stream, Santiago Creek, and five€e�
associated tributaries,Tributaries A, B, C, D, and E.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.13
The Commenter's statement related to 6,065 linear feet is noted. Section 4.0,Errata to the Draft EIR has
the following change to the EIR:
Page 5.4-9:
Page 5.4-9 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below:
Total jurisdiction within the proposed project consists of 6,065 H:9f� linear feet of perennial
streambed that supports approximately 3.34 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional
Water Quality Control Board(USACE/RWQCB).....
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.14
The Commenter's statement related to Table 5.4-2 typo is noted. S Section 4.0, Errata to the Draft EIR
has the following change to the EIR:
Page 5.4-9:
Page 5.4-9 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below:
Page 3-96 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Table 5.4-2: Existing Jurisdictional Acres'
Area(acres)
Feature Length(feet) USACE/RWQ B CDFW Nature
On-site
Santia o Creek 5,335 2.99(1.19) 13.46 Perennial
Tributar A 68 <0.01 n/a E hemeral
Tributa B 48 0.01 n/a E hemeral
Tributar C 51 0.02 n/a Perenniai
Tributa D 184 0.03 0.16 Intermittent
9t�s-i�On-site sub-total 5,686 3.05(1.19) 13.62
Off-Site
Santia o Creek 147 0.16(0.07) 0.22 Perennial
Tributar E 232 0.13(0.07) 0.26 Perennial
Of-Site Subtotal 379 0.29(0.14) 0.48
Total 6,065 3.34(1.33) 14.10
� Jurisdictional acreages overlap and are not additive (e.g., USACE acreages are included in the total RWQCB and CDFW
jurisdictional acreages).
� Acreages dn parentheses represents the portion of USACE jurisdiction that meets the three parame�er definition of a wetland.
j Tributaries outdet within Santiago Creek and are therefore encompassed by the extent of CDFW jurisdiction already quantified for
Santia o Creek
Source: Appendlx C,Biological Resource Assessment.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 12.15
The Commenter's statements related to mitigations proposed for southern tarplant and for regulated tree
supplement to be adequate are noted. We concur that the proposed mitigation for southern tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) and for the regulated tree species to be adequate and appropriate far
the anticipated impacts. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR
because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the
Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-97
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
06/27/2023 14:21 19497564962 PAGE 61/62
LETTER 13
5T,0,�OP CAC.lFQRN7A-.�311SiN .� .r�,w,�ySPaRTATION Ahfi HOQiJ,��NZnce�r�y __ ARh'Ot,n e .Hw�R2Ftv,nr.r,unN��ar
DEPARTMENT O�'TIf�A,NSPORTATION
Di9triCt 12 e�
j347 M�cheison Urivc,Suitc 100
Irvinr, CA 92612-8894 —.._..... .__..
__.... ........... ...._._..
Te}:(9�9)7Za-22c� .—. ._. _--�---- -- r.t�.ti y��,po„�o�1
r�ax: (ya9)7za-z592 Past-fY Fax Note 7671
D1tp���? �agee� �, 13¢en�!E/jicienrt
�o
To� 0�� From � c t.rs
Co./Dopt. �[��1t�� �Af.-
Co. ,�A��
.�ll ne 27� 2O�� Phone# Phone ff
Q�� �ly0—�4C9�
F�.�r� � .�y�- -�c-�o7a Fa'ct� q ZS�o —�f4G�
Mr, Chad Ortlieb �FQA
Czty of Orange, Cammuni.ty Develnprz�en,t I3ept. SCH�t: 2009051072
300 E_ Chapman Avenue Log#: 2287C
Orange, Ca.li�onZ�a 9286G SR-55, SR-241
Sub,�ect: Rto San¢I�g� P�'ojcct
Dear Mr. Ortlieb,
Thank y�u fnr thc �rPnrt��nity f.� rev.iPw and connmcnt on t�c DEIR!ax the �tao Santiago Pro,ject. 7hc
proposed project contaiz�s approximatcly l]0 acz-es on-site and 2.01 acres off-sitc. Praject ap�xoval.
would.result in Genera.l Pl�Amendments, Zone Changes, establishment of a 50 acrc natural open
space arca, up to 265 age qualzfed units, anc3 up to I30 sin.gle fami�y units. The neazest Statc routcs to
the prrojeci site aze SR-5� at�d SR-241.
The Califomia Departzz�ez1i o�'Tz�ansp�rrat�an (Depart�nent}, District 12 is a commcnting ageney on ihis
pr�jcct and l�ng tl�;c fnllowing commcnts:
13 . 1
1. The Traffic TmPar,1� Si�airly(TIS) failed to use�ii�hway Capacity Ma�zua� (HCM) ane�hodology to
analyze intersections within Department's right-of-way. The Deparlment's T,raffic dperations
Branch recommends a111pp�i.cants to use thc method outlined in the latest version of HCM
w�aen ana.lyzing txa�ic impacts on State 'Itiransporta.tion Facilities. The use of HCM i.s pre�ezyred
by the TJepartment bccause it is an.operatyo�nal analysis as opposed to thc Inlersectxon Capaci�y
Utili�ation(1LU)method,which,xs a pl�.z�ning at�alysis. Sl�oald the project rer�uire an
enc�oachment permit; Traffic Opexatioz�c znay find the Traf ic Tmpact Study based an ICU
nzctl�odoIogy ivaJ.tquate,�•esu�.tiizg ii�pc�s�iblr�lvi�x�y ur �l�iaial Uf a permi�by il�e Depari�rten�t.
A11�npt�t sheets, assurn�itions and volurnes dn St�te Facilities including ramps and interseciion
aralysis should be submittcd to the Depaz-tsnent zar xeview at�d approva.l. Thc E�R shauld
in.el�de appropriate mitigation mcasures to ofFs�i any petential imipacts. The tza.f�ic impa.ct on
the state transportatxon systezn should bc evaIuated based on ti�e Deparhx�,er�t's Cruxde fvr the
Prcparation o�'Traffic Impact Studies which is available at:
httR;//ww��v.dot.ca.dov/�ql�z�£{'ons/devclopservioperationalsystemsireporte/tisau�cie pdf
2. T�a�TZS st�uul�]hdve iaiclucle�i impact�alysis a��d Let�el of Scrvic� (LOS) based on existing, 13 . 2
opening yc�r, �d projected 2d year .forecast,P,,IV!/pM pc�lc-hour trai'fic volumes,
3. 7fhe TIS failed to address tl�.e itnpact of this projcct an SR 241 and SR 261 mainlines and tiie
Santiago CanyonlCha�man Avenue interchange, includ.ing ramp in#ersections. 1 -
"Calrrans(mpro>>es rreoLtI!(v naroar CaJifor�ie"
�6/27/2e13 14:21 1949756a952 PAGE 02/62
4. Thc Dcpartme.n.t Iias xnterest i�n working cooperatively to estab�ish a TrafCc Impact Fee(TIF)
pzogram to mitigate such ampacts an a"faix share" haszs. Loeal develo�n.�.e��t project applicants
would pay their"fa.ir sharc"to an establXshed.fund �'ar fiiturc transpoxtation improvem�nts on the 13 .4
state highway systexn. Tf there is an cxzstinC TZF program, it can bc an�ended to include
mitigation for the st�t�highway syste�x� or a new TT� probram may be considcrcd. The
Departrnez�t requests the opportunity to partze�pate in the TII' �or state h�gllway improvements
dcvc�opmcnt proccss.
5. The Department rcc�nestc t��axti�.iP:►��P �n the rzocess to cstabli.sh a�d irr►plement"fair sharc"
miti,�at�on�oz thc aforemcntioned projeci iinpacts. Thc Dcpartment has ar� estah�zshed
methodo�ogy st�t�dard.u,sed to properly cal.culate equ�table proiect share contribul.'tot�. '�l�is can 13 . 5
be found in�ppendix 8 of the Department's G�ide for the �reparation of 1�affic Impact Studies
whic�l is availa.ble at:
i�ttp:l/wtivw.doi.ca,�ov/lla�tra[["o��s/cleve�oUservlc��erationalsystcros/rct�orts/tis�u.ide.pd�F
�. T�tc 1?cl�ai�ii�St, ii�.a�:Lox��Ia�i�e witi�.SGctiuza �30 u!'�ti� Cdlifornia S�reecs and Higlaways Cade,
may entez x�tfl a.contract with the lead agency to provide the mitigation mcasures Iisted in t1�e 13 . 6
EJR. Tlsis zxaay include construction af ibe mi.ti�ation measuxea, the advsncomrnt of fux�ds
(proportional to t�e �'air-sk�are cost)to pay for iaaitinatiota m.easuxes, or the acquisition of rights-
of way needed .foa��utuze improvemcnts to the state lsighway system.
7. For CEQA putposes,tt�e Department docs not consider t1�e Con�estion Managemen.t Plat�.
(LMr) signittcan.ce thxeshold o�'an incrcase in.v/c moxe than 1%ramps or 3%for mainlinc
appropriate, For analysis of intcrscctions conneclirig to State facilities, ramps and frec��ay 13 . 7
uiaiulifie, w� .recu�zz��iG�i�I carly c��r�3.iri��ion �ecur ro discuss level o�'significancc thresholds
r�lated to txaffic and.circula.tion.
Pleasc cantinue�o kee.p us informed of this projcct an.d any.f.uture developments,which could
potential�y impact S#ate transportation :facil.ities. Z�you ilave any questians.or nced to contact t�s,
please da not hesitate to ca11 Dam.on Davis at(949}44d-3487.
Sincer
�_.,_
l�zi�topl�ex erre, Brunch C ief �
Local Developnaent/Intergavernmental R�view
C: Terry Roberts, Of£ice af Plannin�and Rescarch
"Ca��rnns impranes mnbiliry a�roa,�Gn!lJornla"
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 13
Date: June 27,2013
Christopher Herre, Branch Chief
Local Development/Intergovernmental Review
State of California—Business, Transpiration and Housing Agency
Department of Transpiration
District 12
Response to Comment 13.1
The Commenter's statements related to failing to use the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)methodology
are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion
of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the
surrounding area.
The study area for Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was scoped and developed in conjunction
with the Lead Agency, the City of Orange, and follows the traffic impact analysis criteria for the affected
jurisdictions of the Cities of Orange and Villa Park, the Orange County Congestion Management Program
(CMP), and Caltrans. In addition, the study area for tbe TIA included the facilities listed in the NOP
comments from Caltrans. Appendix N, Tra�c Impact Analysis, Pages 4— 8 of the TIA lists the analyzed
Caltrans facilities, and provides Caltrans significance criteria.
The TIA for the proposed project analyzed the following Caltrans facilities:
• SR 55 southbound ramps/Katella Avenue
• SR 55 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue
• SR 241-SR 261 southbound ramps/Santiago Canyon Road
• SR 241 northbound ramps/Santiago Canyon Road
• SR 55 freeway mainline, north of Katella Avenue
� SR 55 freeway mainline, south of Katella Avenue
All of these Caltrans facilities were analyzed in the TIA using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
methodologies for their respective facility-type. All of the LOS tables and worksheets analyzed under the
HCM are provided in the appendix of the TIA. In addition, all significance criteria and mitigation (if
required) are based on Caltrans' Guide of the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. This information
does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to �
the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are
necessary.
Page 3-100 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 13.2
The Commenter's statements related to Traffic Impact Study (TIS) should have included impact analysis
and LOS based on existing,opening year, and projected 20 year forecast are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to
transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
The traffic analysis scenarios analyzed in Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was scoped and
developed in conjunction with the Lead Agency, the City of Orange, and are listed on pages 8 —9 of the
TIA, and include:
• Existing Condition(2010—2011)
• Existing plus Project
• 2017 Opening Year Baseline
• 2017 Opening Year plus Proj ect
• 2030 General Plan without Project
• 2030 General Plan with Project
Daily a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions were analyzed in the TIA for each of those scenarios
listed above. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it
does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 13.3
The Commenter's statements related to Traffic Impact Study failing to address impact of this project on
SR 241 and SR 261 are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic
for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the
project site and the surrounding area.
The mainline segments of SR 241 and SR 261 were not analyzed in Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) since the proposed project trip distribution and assignment, shown on Figures 3 (page 17) and 4
(page 18) of the TIA, respectively, are less than 10 peak hour trips on both freeways (ar four percent or
less of the project trip distribution). The addition of project trips to these mainline freeway segments
would not be measurable and therefore would not significantly impact baseline levels of service (LOS).
The intersections of the SR 241-SR 261 southbound ramps/Santiago Canyon Road (intersection#21) and
SR 241-SR 261 northbound ramps/Santiago Canyon Road (intersection #22) have been analyzed using
the HCM methodology for all six analysis scenarios. This information does not change the analysis or
conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental
analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-101
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 13.4
The Commenter's statements related to working cooperatively to establish a Traffic Impact Fee project to
mitigate such impacts on "fair share" basis" are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8,
Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from
project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
The proposed project will be paying their fair-share to the City of Orange's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
program. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does
not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council far
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 13.5
The Commenter's statements related to the Departments requests to participate in the process to establish
and implement "fair share" mitigation are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8,
Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from
project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) determined that the proposed project would not significantly
impact any Caltrans facilities. However, as noted in the Response to Comment 4, the proposed project
will be paying their fair-share to the City's TIF program. This information does not change the analysis
or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 13.6
The Commenter's statements related to entering into contract with the lead agency to provide the
mitigation measures listed in the EIR are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8,
Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from
project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 13.7
The Commenter's statements related to for CEQA purposes, the Department does not consider the
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) significance threshold of an increase in v/c more than 1%ramps or
3% for mainline appropriate are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and
Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project
implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
Page 3-102 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) determined that the proposed project would not significantly
impact any Caltrans facilities. However, as previously noted, the proposed project will be paying their
fair-share to the City's TIF program. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the
Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-103
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTE
R 14
. �S�?�Lstional.���pert'
�+.�.�� ���3L��t!'7�� in:•�sfieatir�x�s
w�}s7�I�Iorth{r1=n�ill�
Ri�hardson.T:S, ?�;,j�.',
.,,, ,
_.�,
� , ,.,
�_ � , ;; ,,. �
MCI Communications 5ervices,Inc, °'� � � �
g �
<.
c�!�. `i.�.
, a .
t
�
05/20/2013 �" , ; ' �'
� - �
„
�
CITY OF ORANGE - �� - ` �
, � :
CHAD►ORTIEB ��'' `
�
� ��
30Q E. CHAPMAN AVEN[JE
OR�INGE, CA 9�866 : � :;`,_ ��� �
RE: STATE CLEAIZINGHQUSE NO.2009051Q72
—RIO SANTIAGO PRQJECT (DEIR)—UTILITY INFORMATION
—AREA QF E. SANTIAHO CANYON R(�AD, CANNON STREET
AND E. MABURY AVEl�IUE—pRANGE, ORANGE C4UNTY, CA.
Verizon Business ID: 20869-2013
Dear Sir or Madam:
MCI has been notified by yo�.ir office regardxng the above referenced project.
For your recards, in reviewin� the area in question, it has been determined that MCI daes
not have facilities within your project area. However, it will still be necessary for you to
contact the local One Calt System at least 48 hours prior ta any construction.
14 . 1
You should address correspandence cancerning any future projects to the attention af
OSP Nation�l Support/Investigations at tlie abave address.
If you need er assistance with this project, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely, ''��
JOHN B LDER
OSP Natio 1 Support/Investigations
972-729-632
Nn_Facilities.doc
M
•--� .�
� _.. , ....�.�,.. : �k_ . . a r� • �,�+�s S<.... ,o- � :.: m
���+� ���;��*+�, � � `` « a O
� �,. �S i a ���y,� i . �' u-' d N
� t ' �7k .Yy. i;��` } z� LL O
.,� G^ --�+.. � c �'�' .T` � `� �* :� �
a � _ '��_ .!��� p#.. � ;� '9
� � �.'►��.s 1 .$'.s _ � s�' � ��F«. r'�i�b+�.. t,,,, �'
. Q
Ar H �+F+.. . , p �- -4 '",�t„�_. 4 i,�- � � l� —
� ,
* ,
_ ' 7� �-� .«i:. ' .aert� � �,.+x'
� ,� u
a .,:
� �:'.c........e;-Cd.�r� � �"�� 'i.A�'i"� , �:�L'"A.'�""`` 'i� i' �, m
� ;'_ +.� .. . : ` v
�:� � ',b� �. � - m
8- K,-�'-.'F y�-., '�i . �� � �. x� . .
��. �= y� y =�+�, ;'�
� '} , r��'. _
� Y �r � �9 . �,�.� � �
��� � { ' r' �. . . �
�.. ' � K� �'' ,.�"`. �' r !
� #
.. i
� . 9, �" �
' �% . '# `�� � ' �
-��� � � �� ��. �
' �, �r � .� ",� ?`� �{ r
' � , G^- �`# �� - � 1�` � -
IK,,,�+. �:. � - .e g.�'�j� �� �� �
•.s;�����E � g '` �.»�. �,� � �� �
� � � �x� �.�t�: . �
� �� ' � ���� � �'�, f
�;'�: q;. µ r�g� t �r ;� '�, s,� ;
F.. ,4 ►# � �,. , ��''�_
k � 1� �� . .. b i' ; �. �a +i�:;,� .
� � i � s, � a a�� � �� '4•�p � ,��
_:.y� .r` � � 's;., . , k 'e �* � , � 4 a' ��,_�v
�� � Y' �t �iM�' � t�"�`� i� w�'''a #
� .
� � ���` � $�„ � '�
�
� �
?�� v.
�e� �'' _ '�� � `�R: �. �'�`x� �" �� � `�
' � � ,� '� < . � � """,� y�. � ,�, `��� ;a,. � �'
. �^ q„ • +wr
� � "� •� ` �"� �,-�, �� t�;
c ly,� �` � "p x � •� Y � � �� �"' �''���
o k,y+f j' y�,� ,sy { #" �i•� r,. ?.:�i
U "�j}` } , i t�s� ��I�
�� m ,�'1jF �R � .. •k.°"", a .. � � 'P... �� i d.8
❑ "�"'� +S,r.� 'y.? '; . " � ��;i" � n��` � ��ii':.- ��`�
� .�� . � ��'�. .. '� ' ��#N3� .
� � '# 1 � ' +� .Y
a � ��/.� �' � � *�"
�u �, -
� �'�
o ,.s �_,�s.,v.� * ?�,, ,
��.*� ' , � _
� °�t:,A"�� a,� � �,+o�.. �.,� � � ,
o , � � � "M�"i�� �� - � - �
Z � ��� � �� 3 «'�_ ��;
;� a,
d i
etl �. � �;�. "�t {� . �` � ",'� � .; � `r'.* !��". °! �. �:.�
Z �•' .� TM �� ` ��t �; �]N�r ,i��t � �
.
�,.
: ,: :
� y�
� '�.' � .,;� i °�j -�'��� 8� ' ,,:� ��� 0, ��i� �. ��
e� �
� .. ^ -. n. ..
f..... � .fe M � . � 'd r s�..� j rJ" .� .i�`'y.
a "�. � ;,� �-: �� "� ' � t:' �� , �
� � �r� �.r",�. �. s'':"}�»'+..1�} , _ � ,�""�^A��
I �
. y
i ,�
_
v i �
� o
r �
�
� � o
. � � �
v � �
a LL 9 m �
'o c
t.' .�i � � j � C
a u w � . O �
d � : W�1
W �n �: O i+1
� � N L � � VI
a � a ; O
c � � I i �]y
� '� .»
rn � -�+
� a _.� —____-----------_—__ --Y �"
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 14
� Date: May 20,2013
John Bachelder
OSP National Support/Investigations
Verizon Business
MCI Communications Services, Inc.
Response to Comment 14.1
The Commenter's statements related to MCI Communications Services, Inc. not having facilities within
the project vicinity and the request to contact the local One Call System at least 48 hours prior to any
construction are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR
because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the
Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Page 3-106 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 15
�����VIL���y � s
����=� �� Clt af Vllla Park
��.--
� ���,,-; 1?85�Sayttiu��t�Boz.rleti�a�•c�', Y'illa P�rrl,, C'ali�brrricr 928b1-�T87 tivK�ta>.�-rllcx�ar•k.or;�
' (?14) �98-ISDO • F'�7x: (?74j 948-ISQB
July 1, 2013
Mr. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, Planning Division
City of Orange,
300 East Chapman Avenue,
Orange, CA. 92866
Phone (714) 744-7237,FAX(714) 744-7222
Sent via Email to: cortlieb a cit�«1��ra��:;e.or�(with a follow up sent regular mail)
SUBJECT: Comments on DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
RIO SANTIAGO PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009051072)
Dear Mr. Ortlieb:
The City of Villa Park has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Rio
Santiago Project and has the following comments, questions related to the information provided.
The City has concerns related to the effects this proposed project could have on the City of Villa
Park specifically the neighborhoods immediately adjacent as well as the impacts this project
would have on the traffic trips on streets that run through Villa Park. Significant effects of
concern to the City of Villa Park include traffic, air quality, and noise.
The DEIR does not adequately address the traffic, aesthetic, noise, public services and air quality 15 . 1
impacts to the City of Villa Park, one of the adjacent cities that will be affected by the project.
1. Traffic impacts: Access to the project is taken only from Santiago Canyon Road.
In order to reach the project site, a significant number of vehicles will pass
through the City of Villa Park from the 55 Freeway, the major vehicular corridor in
the eastern portion of Orange County. The DEIR should address LOS at all
major intersections from the 55 Freeway to the project site, not only those
intersections near the site.
2. What impacts are expected from the project from the downgrading of Villa Park 15 .2
Road within the City of Villa Park from 6 lanes to 4 lanes?
3. Noise impacts and Air Quality resulting from the added traffic through the
adjacent cities should also be addressed. 15 . 3
4. The project will have a dramatic change on the current character of the area
irreversibly changing the aesthetic quality of this portion of the City of Orange
and impacting the City of Villa Park. The DEIR does not adequately provide 15 .4
information and review of how the development will impact the character and
compatibility of the existing, established neighborhoods with this new
development.
BRAD RI'�:�E, Mavor • I2IC'K B�I2NL.TT,hlayor P��o Tem
DIAi�A FASC:I�;I�'ELLI,C'c>uncilwarrtan * C;E�EG I�91LLS,Co�mcil���an • DEBORAH PAULY,Councilwoman
5. The view, light, glare and scenic quality would permanently be disrupted. The
DEIR should review these impacts. The City is especially concerned with the
15 . 5
view analysis found in Figure 5.1-11 showing the multi-story building completely
obscuring the current view of the open space and hillside. This impact does not
appear to have adequately addressed in the DEIR.
6. In the discussion of the project setting throughout the document there appears to
be no reference to the adjacent residential community in Villa Park. While the
document states that there is a residential neighborhood adjacent the City of Villa 15 . 6
Park is not mentioned. This seems to imply that the residences are all found in
the City of Orange. Please correct the references to the local setting and project
description to identify adjacent City of Villa Park residential neighborhoods.
7. In the Land Use discussion the DEIR states "The proposed project Specific Plan
establishes architectural requirements consistent with historic character of the
City and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project provides single-
family residential adjacent to the established communities. The proposed project
provides age-qualified housing adjacent to the project site's single-family uses."
The age-qualified housing portion of the project appears to be of a density, scale,
mass and bulk in consistent with that of the neighborhood. While it is understood 15 . �
that providing single-family residential adjacent to the existing neighborhoods is
meant to be a compatible land use, the statement that the senior housing
component is adjacent is unclear and confusing. Please provide additional
information including the distance that the senior housing component of the
project is to the current neighborhoods, in particular to the City of Villa Park
residential neighborhood. How tall these buildings will be and the density of the
project related to the immediate neighborhood.
8. The DEIR refers to a policy to protect the privacy and character of surrounding
adjacent neighborhoods (on page 5.10-17). The description/justification that
applies does not adequately show that the new project address privacy or fits the 15 . 8
character of the existing neighborhood. The project does not seem to be
consistent with this policy. Additional information and treatments should be
considered.
9. Additional public services will be needed for the new homes including police, fire
and schools. The DEIR should discuss the increase in demand related to fire
and police. Additionally, the DEIR should provide additional information related 15 . 9
to the number of students expected from the new development, the schools
these students will likely attend and how this growth will impact the services
available.
10.On page 7-5, Alternative 2 reads "access from Mayberry Avenue. Should this 15 . 10
read Mabury Avenue?
11.Page 9.2 states "While components of the proposed project would be denser
then adjacent residential areas, the overall density of the proposed project is
comparable to the surrounding neighborhoods." This statement seems to be 15 . 11
confusing and somewhat in conflict. If the project is denser than adjacent
residential areas in what way is it comparable to surrounding neighborhoods.
Please provide information on what neighborhoods this project was compared to
and include the density and other related characteristics.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. The City of Villa Park looks forward to
being involved in this process in the future. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please contact me at (714) 998-1500 or by email at jhildenbrand@villapark.org
Sincerely,
CITY OF VILLA PARK
,�. f-�Gr;�e�,b�a,�c�
Jarad Hildenbrand
City Manager
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER15
Date: July 1, 2013
Jarad Hildenbrand
City Manager
City of Villa Park
Response to Comment 15.1
The Commenter's statements related to traffic impacts, access of Santiago Canyon Road, LOS at major
intersections are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for
further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the
project site and the surrounding area.
The study area for Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was scoped and developed in conjunction
with the Lead Agency, the City of Orange, and analyzed all major intersections and roadway segments on
Katella Avenue-Villa Park Road-Santiago Canyon Road. The intersections and roadway segments
analyzed in the City of Villa Park include:
• Center Drive/Villa Park Road
• Lemon Street/Villa Park Road
• Hewes Street/Villa Park Road(County jurisdiction)
• Villa Park Road,Wanda Road to Center Drive
• Villa Park Road, Center Drive to Lemon Street
• Villa Park Road, Lemon Street to Hewes Street
• Villa Park Road, Hewes Street to Cannon Street(County jurisdiction)
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.2
The Commenter's statements related to downgrading of Villa Park Road within the City of Villa Park
from 6 lanes to 4 lanes are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and
Tra�c for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project
implementation on the project site and the surrounding area.
The following are the LOS results of the downgraded Villa Park Road roadway segments for each of the
plus-project analysis scenarios:
Page 3-110 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
• Existing plus Project
o Villa Park Road,Wanda Road to Center Drive: LOS B with 0.029 V/C increase.
o Villa Park Road, Center Drive to Lemon Street: LOS B with 0.029 V/C increase.
o Villa Park Road, Lemon Street to Hewes Street: LOS B with 0.033 V/C increase.
• Opening Year 2017 plus Proj ect
o Villa Park Road, Wanda Road to Center Drive: LOS C with 0.029 V/C increase.
o Villa Park Road, Center Drive to Lemon Street: LOS C with 0.029 V/C increase.
o Villa Park Road,Lemon Street to Hewes Street: LOS D with 0.033 V/C increase.
• General Plan Year 2030 plus Project
o Villa Park Road,Wanda Road to Center Drive: LOS E with 0.019 V/C increase.
o Villa Park Road, Center Drive to Lemon Street: LOS E with 0.013 V/C increase.
o Villa Park Road, Lemon Street to Hewes Street: LOS E with 0.011 V/C increase.
However, as stated in Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), page 60: "...per direction of the City
Engineer of Villa Park, those downgraded segments were analyzed at the peak hour level by the forecast
operations of their end intersections (i.e., intersections on either end of the segment). Based on review of
the intersection LOS, the only impacted roadway segment would be Villa Park Road, Santiago Boulevard
to Center Drive. The other two downgraded Villa Park Road segments would operate with satisfactory
LOS in the peak hour as their intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better. However, since
the proposed project would not significantly impact the Santiago Boulevard/Villa Park Road intersection
(U/C contribution of less than 0.010 V/C in both peak hours), the proposed project would not have a
significant impact to the downgraded roadway segments on Villa Park Road when analyzed with the peak
hour end-intersection methodology..." This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of
the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.3
The Commenter's statements related to the potential for noise impacts and air quality based on traffic
passing through adjacent cities are noted. Refer to Section 5.3,Air Qualiry and Section 5.12,Noise of the
Draft EIR for an analysis of the proposed projects impacts related to these two(2)topical areas.
Section 5.3, Air Quality of the Draft EIR analyzed existing regional and local air quality setting and
analyze the proposed project's potential contribution to changes in regional and local air quality. It
addresses whether the proposed project would have the potential to create a significant adverse impact on
air quality. Where applicable, this section identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts and describes
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-111
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
the residual impact after imposition of the mitigation. This analysis included the City of Villa Park's
analysis of traffic related air quality impacts.
Related to operational air quality impacts of the proposed project,the EIR found that with the inclusion of
mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19), the project impacts would be reduced
related to violating any air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation. However, there would remain a significant unavoidable impact related to violating air
quality standards from regional NOx emissions during the grading phase. Further, the EIR found related
to operation-related cumulative air quality impacts, that the greatest cumulative operational impact on the
quality of regional basin will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from
residential, commercial, and industrial development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology,
projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not
significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. With respect to long-term emissions, this
project would create a less than significant cumulative impact and no mitigation would be required.
Related to operational noise level roadway noise impacts in the City of Villa Park,the Draft EIR analyzed
potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project are a result of project-
generated vehicular traffic on the project vicinity roadways and from stationary noise sources associated
with the proposed recreational area. The potential off-site noise impacts caused through the increase in
vehicular traffic from the on-going operations from the proposed project on to the project study area
roadways have been analyzed for five (5) traffic scenarios. The Draft EIR determined that for off-site
roadway noise impacts created by the proposed project's operations to be considered significant, the
proposed project would need to increase the noise levels on a residential or school land use above 65 dBA
CNEL where the without project noise level is below 65 dBA CNEL, or by (1) 5 dBA CNEL, where the
without project noise level is less than 65 dBA CNEL or (2) 3 dBA CNEL, where the without project
noise level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. A significant impact would also occur if the proposed project
provides any increase to a residential or school use which already exceeds 75 dBA CNEL. The proposed
project's on-site and off-site noise impacts were analyzed and no significant long-term off-site noise
impacts from project-related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments. It is
reasonable to assume that, if no impacts were anticipated in the study area that with the same standards,
no impacts in the City of Villa Park would be anticipated related to the proposed project.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.4
The Commenter's statements related to the proposed projects impacts on the character of the area and the
aesthetic quality of the City of Orange and City of Villa Park are noted. Please refer to Master Response
Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion of potential impacts to aesthetic issues. Please refer to
Page 3-112 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning for further discussion of the proposed project and
City General Plan consistency.
Several commenters expressed opinions that the proposed project would substantially improve or degrade
the existing quality of the project site and its surroundings. The Draft EIR notes that the natural and
manmade physical features of a community form an overall impression of an area. This impression is
referred to as "visual character." The Draft EIR studied the visual character as a point of reference to
assess whether the proposed project would appear compatible with the established features of the
setting/project area or would contrast noticeably and be deemed unfavorably with them. Based on the
commenters to the Draft EIR, it would appear that some agreed and some disagreed with the findings of
the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR found that the proposed project does not propose changes to the existing visual character
or quality of the surrounding community. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary has been added
to the EIR to provide additional clarity related to the discussion of the character analysis. Figure 5.1-13,
Communiry Character Summary provides the local names, land use, relative age of construction, density,
and other similar characteristics of surrounding areas. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,
Aesthetics for further discussion related to specific off-site changes in visual character. The proposed
project would change the visual character of two off-site areas. The proposed project would provide off-
site improvements to East Santiago Canyon Road and a 2.01 area in Santiago Oaks Regional Park. The
latter would not affect the City of Villa Park.
Changes to East Santiago Canyon Road would be noticeable to persons traveling to and from the City of
Villa Park. The East Santiago Canyon Road off-site improvements are identified in the Rio Santiago
Specific Plan, on the Tentative Tract Map, and as PDF's in the Draft EIR. They are described in detail in
Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR. Figure 5.1-14, Rio Santiago Entrance Improvements
provides an illustrative of the off-site improvements at the project entrance. Figure 5.1-14, Rio Santiago
Entrance Improvements shows the signalization, lighting, trail crossing, and landscape median on East
Santiago Canyon Road.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.5
The Commenter's statements related to view, light, glare, and scenic quality are noted. They have been
reviewed by the City as requested. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further
discussion of potential impacts to aesthetic issues. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use
and Planning for further discussion of the proposed project and City General Plan consistency. Related
to view and scenic quality refer to Response to Comment 15.4 above.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-113
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Related to short-term construction light and glare the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would
alter the visual character of the project site during the short-term site preparation phase of the project by
the addition of light and glare. Impacts would be related to construction vehicles located on the project
site, along East Santiago Canyon Road related to installing or modifying public utilities and water lines,
construction materials stored on the project site, and project site preparation activities that would create
daytime glare from vehicles and materials. These activities are short-term in nature, similar to the
existing material recycling and backfilling operations, and would cease at the completion of the project
site preparation. The Draft EIR found that due to the short-term nature of this activity, impacts are less
than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.1-41 of the Draft EIR)
Related to long-term light and glare the Draft EIR found that in Planning Area B active recreational uses
such as ball fields/parks and other similar uses would potentially introduce new sources of light and glare.
This new source of light and glare will create a night hue in the area where no lights currently exist. The
Draft EIR found that the potential light and glare impacts (Impact AES-6) would be reduced with PDF
AES-7, the requirements of the Specific Plan, and Mitigation Measure AES-6, however not to a less than
significant level. Therefore, related to Planning Areas C and D, new sources of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, would be anticipated to occur. This is
an unavoidable impact of the proposed project. (Page 5.1-45 of the Draft EIR)
This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.6
The Commenter's statements related to the Draft EIR not mentioning that the City of Villa Park is an
adjacent residential community are noted. The City of Villa Park is in the center of Orange County. It has
an area of 2.1 square miles, a population of 6,500 and approximately 2,050 homes, and is almost 99%
built out. With the exception of one shopping center, the City is zoned for single-family residences, most
of which are on half-acre lots. The shopping center includes a grocery store, banks, a pharmacy with a
postal substation, a variety of specialty shops and offices, the City Hall and community room, and a
branch of the Orange County Public Library. The City of Villa Park boundary near the project site is at
Cannon Street and East Taft Ave. Another City of Villa Park boundary close to the project site is at Villa
Park Road (which a continuation of East Santiago Canyon Road) and Lemon Street. The City of Villa
Park recently adopted their General Plan, which included a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This
document included downsizing Villa Park Road(i.e., East Santiago Canyon Road) from a six lane road to
a four lane road,with less than significant impacts and no mitigation.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-114 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 15.7
The Commenter's statements related to Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR are noted.
The City of Villa Park has requested additional information including the distance that the senior housing
component of the project is to the current neighborhoods, in particular to the City of Villa Park residential
neighborhoods. The City of Villa Park has request information on how tall these buildings will be and the
density of the project related to the immediate neighborhood.
The closest City of Villa Park residences to the project site is at the northwest corner of Cannon Street
and Taft Avenue which is approximately 1000 feet from the proj ect site north boundary in Planning Area
A, Open Space. The distance from the potential lighted ball fields associated in Planning Area B would
be approximately 1200 feet. The distance from the three-story element locations in Planning Area C
would be approximately 2000 feet. These distances reflects the closest points, not actual travel distance.
However, distance as driving would be approximately 1.0 miles from the project site. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.4, Structure Height related to the building
heights of the proposed project.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.8
The Commenter's statements related to their opinion that the Draft EIR description/justification that
applies does not adequately show that the new project addresses privacy or fits the character of the
existing neighborhood are noted. Further, the Commenter's opinion that the proposed project does not
seem to be consistent with this policy are noted. Finally, the Commenter's request that additional
information be provided and treatments considered are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.2,Aesthetics for detailed information regarding community character.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.9
The Commenter's statements related to additional public services created by the proposed project are
noted. The Commenter requests information related to police, fire, and schools. Specifically related to
schools they requested the number of students and likely attendance. Please refer to Section 5.14,Public
Services of the Draft EIR related to the existing fire, emergency medical, police services, and schools
potential effects. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant
impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-115
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Fire Protection
Related to fire protection the Draft EIR found that site preparation construction activities could require
calls for fire protection services from accidents, fires, hazardous spills or other similar incidents
associated with razing of existing structures, clearing and grubbing, and site grading. These activities are
typical of development and construction activities. The Draft EIR found that as provided in PDF PS-2,
prior to the approval of the grading plan or issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever
occurs first, the project applicant shall submit to the City Fire Chief or designee and Community
Development Director or designee a Construction Phase Emergency Fire Access Plan for review and
approval. PDF PS-2 requires a Construction Phase Emergency Fire Access Plan that would enable
emergency responders to efficiently respond to an emergency call by knowing in advance the route to the
project site, locations of fire hydrants, and vehicular access from adjacent roadways. Therefore,
implementation of PDF PS-2 would reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level.
Related to long-term fire protection the Draft EIR found that the on-going operation of the proposed
project would have the potential to result in an increase in call volume for emergency services to the
project site and vicinity. Specific PDF's (PDF PS-1, PDF PS-2, and PDF PS-3) have been incorporated
into the project. With the inclusion of PDF PS-1, PDF PS-2, and PDF PS-3 the proposed project would
have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required.
Police Protection
Related to police protection the Draft EIR found that the proposed project, the addition of construction
workers and the on-site activities have the potential to increase the number of responses to the project site
and on the surrounding roadways by the Police Department. This would also have the potential to
temporarily affect access and, therefore, response times by the Police Department to the project site and
vicinity. The Draft EIR noted that PDF PS-4 would enable emergency police responders to efficiently
respond to an emergency call by knowing in advance the route to the project site, vehicular access from
adjacent roadways, staging areas, and site construction signage. Therefore, short-term construction
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures would be required.
Related to long-range police protection the Draft EIR found that the on-going operation of the proposed
project would have the potential to result in an increase in call volume for police protection services to the
project site and on the roadways in the project vicinity. The Draft EIR found that the on-going operation
of the proposed project would have the potential to result in an increase in call volume for police
protection services to the project site and on the roadways in the project vicinity; and therefore, have the
potential to result in the need for additional equipment and Staffing in order to maintain the response
times and level of service provided by the Police Department. To address the increase not reduced by the
project design features, the applicant will pay applicable fees consistent with the requirements of the
Orange Municipal Code Chapter 3.13, Police Facility Development Fee. Compliance with Orange
Municipal Code Chapter 3.13 to reduce the proportional effects of the proposed project related to the
provision of adequate police protection services. The proposed project would pay applicable fees
consistent with the Police Facility Development Fees as demonstrated in PDF PS-3. Therefore, based on
Page 3-116 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
the discussion provided above, the potential impacts of the proposed project related to existing City
Police Department facilities in the City would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would
be required.
Schoo/s
The Draft EIR found that the Planning Areas A, B, and C would not generate school age children.
Further, the Draft EIR found that Planning Area D with 130 single-family residences would result in an
incremental increase in the number of residential units and school age residents in the Orange Unified
School District(OUSD). The Draft EIR noted that the project site would be served for public schools by
Chapman Hills Elementary, Santiago Middle School, and EI Modena High School. The design capacity of
these schools is shown on Table 5.14-2, Orange Unified School District Facilities of the Draft EIR. The
proposed project would have a less than significant impact to schools and school facilities with the
payment of the required school fees in accordance with the provisions of the State law, and no mitigation
measures would be required.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 15.10
The Commenter's statements related to Alternative 2, No Project — Development Under the Existing
General Plan and Zone are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10, Alternatives for
additional information. The typographical error in the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
Page 7-5 of the Draft EIR
North of Santiago Creek
Land uses permitted in the RA, OS, and LDR (Low Density Residential) designations would be
developed to the north of Santiago Creek with access from�Mabury Avenue. A total of
17 single-family residences would be constructed on approximately 12 acres (11%) of the area to
the north of Santiago Creek. The minimum lot size would be approximately 8,000 square feet.
These residences would not be restricted in regards to occupant age. Improvements to this portion
of the project site and the adjacent public street would occur. Additionally, approximately 38
acres to the north and south of Santiago Creek are designated RA (described above) and Open
Space (OS). These 38 acres are zoned in S-G (described above).
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-117
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
3.0 Comments and Responses
Response to Comment 15.11
The Commenter's statements related to density of the proposed project and adjacent residential areas are
noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for detailed information regarding
adjacent residential densities. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary has been added to the EIR
to provide additional clarity related to the discussion of the character analysis. Figure 5.1-13, Community
Character Summary provides the local names, land use, relative age of construction, density, and other
similar characteristics of surrounding areas. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary provides data
related to adjacent residential areas requested by the City of Villa Park. The proposed project is denser
than some of adjacent residential neighborhoods and less dense than others. Based on information
provided the lots range from 4,500 square feet to over an acre. The neighborhood includes duplexes to
estate lots. The earliest construction occurred in 1925 and has continued until the present. Entry
monumentation ranges from none to elaborate monumentation projects. Street widths range from 22 feet
wide to 60 feet wide, with over 10 different paving widths including parking on one or both sides. Curb
styles are either none, rolled and/or square. Sidewalks range from none to both sides. Lighting ranges
from none to tall metal poles. The majority of the community lighting is tall metal poles. The buildings
are both one and two-story. Based on the above information it is reasonable to state that there is no one
singular community character in the vicinity of the project site. The community character within the area
is established by its eclectic nature.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Page 3-118 Ciry of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
LETTER 16
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.
June 17,2013
Chad Ortlieb,Seniar 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-0RA-369 and possibly buried portions of CA-ORA-1172. The 16 . 1
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-0RA-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. 16 . 2
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-0RA-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 porrions of CA-ORA-1172 extend within the project ] � _3
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 invesrigations and to further participation in the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
� � . �� ?��Z.{� �
�� fi��>� ���'"s,,..:.:. ��fi,�'"�.
.
� 1,�-
Patricia Martz,Ph.D.
President
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 16
Date: June 17, 2013
Patricia Martz,Ph.D.
President
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
Response to Comment 16.1
The Commenter's statements related to cultural resources specifically potential to impact CA-0RA-369
and possibly buried portions of CA-ORA-1172 are noted. Please note that CA-ORA-369 has been
archaeologically tested and found to not have archaeological significance. Additionally, this site will be
preserved. Furthermore, two Native American Consultations were conducted for the project site and the
proposed project. Please refer to Appendix F, Cultural Resource and Paleontological Records Review
for additional information. CA-ORA-1172 will be covered by Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4
for monitoring during construction. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the
Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 16.2
The Commenter's comments related to CA-ORA-369, specifically their opinion that archaeological sites
have cultural and religious values for Native Americans and these values can only be mitigated by
avoidance and preservation, are noted. Please note that CA-ORA-369 has been archaeologically tested
and found to not have archaeological significance. Additionally, this site will be preserved. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 16.3
The Commenter's statements that CA-ORA-369 will be preserved within the portion of the project site
proposed as open space are noted. The Commenter's opinions are noted related to the determination of
low significance based on scientific data may cause protection of the CA-ORA-369 to be overlooked. The
Commenter opines that the proposed housing development presents the potential for vandalism and
looting and a site protection management plan (for CA-ORA-369) should be included as a mitigation
measure. The proposed project would add surveillance to the area by placing residences in closer
proximity. This will provide for the potential for increased reporting of activities. The location of the site
would not be advertised to the community.
It was the Commenter's opinion that there is also the possibility that buried portions of CA-ORA-1172
extend within the project area, as well as other buried cultural deposits are noted. CA-ORA-1172 will be
Page 3-120 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
covered by Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 for monitoring during construction. Section 4.0,
Errata to the Draft EIR has the following change to the EIR:
Page 5.5-19:
Page 5.5-9 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below to modify the below mitigation measures:
MM CR-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading or grubbing permit the project developer shall
have an archaeological resources mitigation-monitoring program, commencing
with a site visit and consultation with California Cultural Resource Preservation
Alliance, Inc. This site visit would allow the retained, qualified archaeologist to
examine the project area sediments in relation to the parameters of the
grading/excavation program as detailed in Mitigation Measures CR-2, CR-3, and
CR-4. All documentation shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Directar (CDD) and grading permit issuance may not occur unless the CDD
approves the documentation.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-121
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 17
� ����
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 Environmental 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:
AT8�T INQUIRIES
22311 Brookhurst Street, Suite 203
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
AT&T-Inquiries a�,7forkertengineering.cam
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact Mr. Joseph Forkert at 17 . 1
(714) 963-7964 or me at your earliest convenience.
����s� �t�
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
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 17
Date: May 23,2013
Joseph Forkert for
Tanya Hernandez
OSP Maintenance Engineer
AT&T
Response to Comment 17.1
The Commenter's statements related to ATT not having facilities within the vicinity of the proposed
project are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because
it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-123
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 18 '
.
. .
�!
. '__ ; s
,
,� � �: . �,���,��,,, ���
� F':�'i�
t1 i
�
_ � _
June 26, 2013 �. � �
: , ,
� ,
f
, City of Orange ; ` , ,'
Attentian: Chad Ortlieb,Senio�Planner
300 East Chapman Avenue
�rang�, CA 92866
$
RE: Rio Santiago Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Camment
Dear Mr. Ortlieb,
My name is Jim Meyer,founder and Executive Directar of Trails4All, a 502c3 non-profit '
organizatian dedicated ta the creation, restaratic�n, and preservation trails and open
space throughaut Southern G�lifornia. We da this by uniting equestrians, hikers,
. bicydists, walkers, and jaggers and working toward a comman goal. make the trails we
all enjoy better and more accessible and suppart the creatian af new trails for
everyone ta discover.
With this mission in mind,Trails4All has been aware of the Ria Santiaga project far
same time because of the trails and apen space comp4nent being contemplated by
the applicant. With the release of the Rio Santiaga Draft Environmental Impact Report
and SpecEfic Plan,Trails4All was delighted to see that multi-use trails and open space
are key component of the final proposed plan for Rio 5antiaga.
Specifically, we were pleased that: t 1$ .1 :
• SQ acres of the 110-acre site will become the Santiaga Creek Greenway Reserve
(permanent c�pen space and 3 acres will became new public trails.
� A new creek-side multi-purpose trail u,rill affer future cann�ctivity to regional
trails and Santiago Oaks Regional Park.
• A new Santiago Canyon Road traif will have a setback o#nearly 40 f�et from
Santiago Canyon Road.
• And,the new 1.3-acre public linear park wiil include a public multi-use trail �
which wifl provide a cannectian between the Santiago Canyon Road and creek-
side trails. -
Trails4Al1 applauds the trails and open space camponent of the Ric�Santiago plan. In
our experience the trails element ctf a iand use plans plan is typically an afterthought,
the result of a condition placed on the projeet at point near the end of the plan�ing
process when there is little room far trails and they are squeezed into undesirable ;
areas. It�is refreshing ta see a great emphasis placed an trails as we�l as open space at
the frant of this process.
13114 �lari�e hv��ue � Paramaunt, CA 90113-t133 (310]34��4t19 �.fa� [Sbt]�19.�153 � www,trails4all,org
Additionafly, Trails4All would also like to submit for your consideration some guestions
regarc�ing the Rio Santiagfl trails and open space: 18 2
�
' 1. What entity will manage and maintain the 50-acre Santiago Creek Greenway
Reserve?
2. What entity wil{ manage the Rio Santiago public, multi-purpose trails? 18 . 3
3. When will the public, multi-purpose traifs be constructed?
Trails4Al1 thanks you in advance far your response and ongoing oversight as the Rio 18 .4
Santiago project mo�es through the public review process.
Sincer I
/� � �
.�7�m Meyer
Executive Director,Trails4Al1
.
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 18
Date: June 26,2013
Jim Meyer
Executive Director
Trails4Al1
Response to Comment 18.1
The Commenter's statements related to what Trail4All does, review of the Draft EIR, and approval of the
trails and open space component of the proposed project are noted. This information does not change the
analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 18.2
The Commenter's statements related to what entity will manage and maintain the 50-acre Santiago Creek
Greenway Reserve are noted. As noted in Section 3.0,Project Description, page 3-28: Planning Area A
will be conveyed to either the City, Orange County Parks, the Homeowner's Association (HOA), or
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) as a habitat restoration project for the Measure M2
Freeway Environmental Mitigation Program for permanent public open space preservation. Additionally
information regarding dedication of Planning Area A, is located in Master Response Section 2.6, Open
Space. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not
raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However,
it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No
further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 18.3
The Commenter's statements related to what entity will manage the proposed project public multi-
purpose trails are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation for detailed information
regarding trails, location, timing, and management and maintenance responsibility. As noted in this
Master Response, Table 5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways, has been added to the Draft EIR to clarify this
information. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it
does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR.
However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and Ciry Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 18.4
The Commenter's statements related to timing for the proposed trails are noted. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.7, Recreation for detailed information regarding trails, location, timing, and
management and maintenance responsibility. As noted in this Master Response, Table 5.15-7, Trails and
Bikeways, has been added to the Draft EIR to clarify this information. This information does not change
the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of
Page 3-126 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-127
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 19
�;�`��� ��rs�vtatJ�fi�]�.v��_c���,�r�s�.
���a�a��r.a�,r��v�.av���
� ������s�-���4�������,ra�i��3n,���
aune 28, 20�.3
Chad C�r�li�b
S�nior Pl�nner far City of� C7r�ange
Gity of t����nge µ Planning [Jivisian
300 East Cha�man Avenue
{Jrange, C� 9286�
��ar Chad �rtliek�, '
The Y is ane of the nation's leading nor�profits strengtheninc�
communities thrc�ugh youth devel�pment, healthy living and sacial
responsibility. Across the U.S., �,70a Ys engage 21 rnillit�n men,
women and children — regardless nf �ge, income or background -- ta
nur-ture th� po�ential of children and teens, improve the nation's health
and well-�eing, and prc�vid� opportunities �o give back and suppor�
n�ighbors. Anchc�red in mr�re than i0,000 communities, the Y has the
long-standing r�la�iflnships and physical presence nat just �o promise,
but ta deliver, lasting personal and sacial change. �";
19 . 1
The YMCA oF Orange has continued to build community ir� CJrange, Villa
Park, and Anaheim Hills for over 90 years, We support the Rio ;
San�iago proj�ct because it offers ta �rovide �he Y with a physical
presence in the private recr�ational �rea (Planning Area B) of the
propos�d project. This wou(d aliaw us to maximize our imp�ct in our
service area,
The YMCA is appreciative c�f the Ci�y of �range's de�ailed revi�w t�fi �he
Rio Santiago project and looks forward to cc�ntinuing �o p�rticipat� in
�he public process.
Respect�ully,
Jimmy �zaeta '
Chief �xecutive Officer
YMCA of arange • 146 N. Grand Street • Orange, CA 92866
714-633-9622 • fax: 714-633-4337 a www.ymcaoforange,org
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 19
Date: June 26,2013
Jimmy Ozaeta
Chief Executive Officer
YMCA of Orange
Response to Comment 19.1
The Commenter's statements related to support of the proposed project including the potential YMCA
within Planning Area B are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the
Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis
conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary.
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-129
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 20
Tom t�avidsan
6122 E.Santiago Canyon Road
{Jrange,CA 92869
lune 2C},2t}13
RE: Comments-Rio Sarrfiiago DEIR
Mr.Chad Urlieb-Senior Planner
City af Urange—Plar�ning I3ivisian
300 East Chaprna�n Ave.
Orange CA 92666
[7ear Mr.Orlieb,
I realize that general comments mean nothing to a DEIR, but I cannc�t help myself and must say that i
have a r�umber of ce�neerns with thi�[�EIR. I# is lackir��in alm4st every area it covers.
1 cannc�t support this prc�ject in any way,The C7PA Specific Plan should be supported- nat reduced-fih�s
develc�per sh��ld nc�t be al(c�wed to "c�pt ouE".The density�f t#�e prapc�sed praject is too high fc�r any of 2 0 . 1
the surrounding neighborhoods and will have a severe negative impact lacal housing values,The traffic,
with senior drivers on one of the fasfiest moving streets in tl�e city,will be a daily accident waiting to
happen.The developers praposed trail goes nowhere wEth nt�connectians tc� It�cal trails.AND,there are
no public parks. In fact,the deveiaper is askin�that the e�ty amend the General Plan tc� ine u e-see
beiow
Qpen Space Parks- 3.t}c�f the praject descript`sc�n-The partic�n between ihe lines is taken directty from
the DEiR document.
dpen Space-Park
The Csty Generaf P#an Open Space—�ark de�ignation is described as.
Public lands used fc�r passive antl active recreation. lncludes all parklands owned and maintained by the
Cit af Oran e as well as arks o erated b the Cour�t ,° Cit of C)ran e General Plan,Table �k1-1 . 2 0 .2
Y � , p P Y Y { Y � )
l.and uses within this designatic�n are described as f�llows:
The Oper�Space Park designatic�n refers to public andJor private l�nds used ftir passive and activ�
recreation.This includes all parklands�wnecE and rnaintained by the City of C}range,as-w�-a�s, parks
operated by the County�r�on-profit or�anizatic�ns and �rivate iandowner�{Proposed Amendrnent to
City of t}range General Pi�r�, Page LU-22).
There are proposed changes to the General Plarr tex#far t7pen Space Park arrd are noted above in
strikethrc�ugh and underline.The proposed text ehanges wt�uld allc�w�or private recreat�on uses, such as
a YMCA or a#her private use facility in the C}pen Space Park General Plan designation on property under
the awnership of nt�n-profit organizatians flr private lancfowners.
20 . 3
The developer through,the L�ElR, is prc�posing to amend the General �lan of the Gty of Qrange ta
include the fo9lowingi ...,."non-profit c�rganizatic�ns, and private landowr�ers"to be considered as Park
Space.
This is spot zc�ning for this develc�per's interest oniy. it serves no other purpase to the City a#t}range.
Spat zoning is illegali This may also open the way for all city parks to be privatized and wiCl be the end of 2 0 .4
our park system as we know it.
Beyond that,which serves no purpc�se to#his t}EIR,this dev�loper has a prt�ven track rect�rd Qf ht�w they
handle private recreation c�pen space. 2 0 . 5
Thank you for y�ur Cime in this matter.
Sincerely, ��,..._._. ,�
�
Tom Davidsc�n
3.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 20
Date: June 20, 2013
Tom Davidson
Response to Comment 20.1
The Commenter's statements related to preferring the city supported OPA Plan, density of the proposed
project, traffic, trails to nowhere and no public parks are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section
2.5, Land Use and Planning related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. Please refer to Master
Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics for detailed information regarding adjacent residential densities. Figure
5.1-13, Community Character Summary has been added to the EIR to provide additional clarity related to
the discussion of the character analysis. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary provides the
local names, land use, relative age of construction, density, and other similar characteristics of
surrounding areas. Figure 5.1-13, Community Character Summary provides data related to adjacent
residential areas.
Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic related to traffic conditions.
Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation related to trails and connections. Please refer to
Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation related to the proposed projects recreational areas.
This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise
any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is
noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 20.2
The Commenter's statements related to General Plan Text Amendment to Open Space - Park are noted.
Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7-1, Parks related to the General
Plan Text Amendment regarding Open Space — Park. It should be noted that the EIR is an information
document and does not amend the City General Plan. The EIR does outline the proposed amendment by
the applicant. Both the EIR and General Plan amendment will be decided upon by the City Council. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 20.3
The Commenter's statements related to the proposed General Plan Text Amendment to Open Space -
Park are noted. It should be noted that the EIR is an information document and does not amend the City
General Plan. The EIR does outline the proposed amendment by the applicant. Both the EIR and General
Plan amendment will be reviewed by decided upon City Council. Please refer to Master Response
Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7-1, Parks related to the General Plan Text Amendment regarding
Page 3-132 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
3.0 Comments and Responses
Open Space — Park. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR
because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the
Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. No further responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 20.4
The Commenter's statements related to spot zoning and privatization of City parks are noted. Please refer
to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an
Established Community,related to spot zoning'. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation,
Subsection 2.7-1,Parks related to the General Plan Text Amendment regarding Open Space—Park. This
information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any
issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is noted
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further
responses are necessary.
Response to Comment 20.5
The Commenter's statements related to the developer's proven track record are noted. This information
does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to
the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are
necessary.
� Accordin to the eourt ]tienida Sara.lirar�Purtnershf�v. Citn o�Sarr Clenterrte,201 CaI.A 4tlt 12$6 "2011
g' [f 1 1'. pp. ( )],"the essence of spot zoning is
in�atioual discrimination."Quoting at length from Arcadia Develc�pment Co.v.City of Morgan 1-[ill, 197 Cal.App,4th]52(>(2011),the couri
continued: "Spot zoning occurs where a small parcel ie restricted and given lesser rights than the surrou��ding property,as where a lot in the
center of a business or com�nercial di5trict is limited to uses for resideutial purnoses thzreby creating an'isla��d'in the middle of�a lar�er area
devoted to other uses. . . . Lisually spot z�oning involves a small parcel of land,the larger the� property d1e more dif'ficull it is to sustain an
allegation of spot zoning. . . .Likewise,where the'epat'is not an isl�nd but is connected on some sides to a like zone the alleg�tion of spot
zoning is roore difficult to establish since line�s rnust be drawn at some poim. . . . Ecei�where a small island is ca�eated in the midst of less
restrictive zo��in�,the zoning may be upheld where rational reason in the public benefit exists for such a classification."
City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-133
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
LETTER 21
S H (?T �.� �r� I 1--I � LY
��-� ��' E [ �' i� E R G � R �_��_.�
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 Urban Planner
www.smwlaw.com impett@smwlaw.com
July l, 2013
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
City of Orange
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Attn: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
300 East Chapman Ave
Orange, California 92866
cortlieb @ cityoforange.org
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report—Rio Santiago Project
Dear Mr. Ortlieb:
On behalf of the Orange Park Association ("OPA"), we have reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Rio Santiago ("Project"). We submit this letter
to state our position that the DEIR fails to meet the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq. ("Guidelines"). Like all concerned
members of the public, OPA relies heavily on the environmental document required by CEQA
for an honest and thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of a project such as this.
The Environmental Impact Report (`BIR") is "the heart of CEQA." Laurel Heights
ImprovementAss'n v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 392 (1988) (citations
omitted). It "is an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no
return. The EIR is also intended `to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency 21 . 1
has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.' Because the EIR
must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability." Id. (citations
omitted).
After carefully reviewing the DEIR for the Project, we have concluded that it fails in
numerous respects to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As described below, the DEIR
violates this statute because: (1) it fails to analyze the significant environmental impacts of the
Project or propose adequate mitigation measures to address those impacts, and (2) it fails to
undertake a legally sufficient study of alternatives to the Project. Approval of the Project would
also violate State Planning and Zoning Law because the Project conflicts with the City's General
Plan and other controlling land use documents.
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 2
To ensure that the public as well as the City's decision makers have adequate information
to consider the effects of the proposed Project—as well as to comply with the law—the City
must prepare and recirculate a revised draft EIR that properly describes the Project, analyzes its
impacts, and considers meaningful alternatives and mitigation measures that would help
ameliorate those impacts.
I. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Evaluate the Project's Environmental Impacts.
The discussion of a proposed project's environmental impacts is at the core of an EIR. 21 . 2
See Guidelines § 15126.2(a) ("[a]n EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental
effects of the proposed project") (emphasis added). As explained below, the DEIR's
environmental impacts analysis is deficient under CEQA because it fails to provide the necessary
facts and analysis to allow the City and the public to make informed decisions about the Project.
An EIR must effectuate the fundamental purpose of CEQA: to "inform the public and
responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made."
Laurel Heights ImprovementAssn. v. Regents of Universiry of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112,
1123 ("Laurel Heights IP'). To do so, an EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an
agency's bare conclusions. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d
553, 568 . Thus, a conclusion regarding the significance of an environmental impact that is not
based on an analysis of the relevant facts fails to fulfill CEQA's informational goal.
Additionally, an EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to mitigate significant
environmental impacts. Guidelines § 15126.4. Under CEQA, "public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.
. . ." Pub. Res. Code § 21002.
A. The DEIR Fails to Analyze the Impacts of the Entire Project.
Under CEQA, the DEIR must analyze "the whole" of the Project. Guidelines § 15378(a).
Yet, the DEIR fails to analyze two critical components of the Project: the full development 21 . 3
potential in Area B and the General Plan text amendment. These components may result in
significant adverse environmental impacts that must be analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR.
Accordingly, the City may not approve the Project until the DEIR is revised to consider the
whole of the Project.
l. The DEIR Fails to Analyze tne Full Development Potential of the
Project.
The Project's Specific Plan conditionally allows a number of intensive uses in Area B,
the Open Space-Park area. For instance, country clubs, freestanding museums and libraries, and
even stadiums and grandstands are all allowed with a conditional use permit. Specific Plan at 6-
4. The impacts associated with these uses are quantitatively different from those associated with
�4 1�'T i= \-i 1 f-i,�[�l`
�°'' 1�'C_E1�, I'�I:hC��(:R �_��=
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 3
the hoped-for YMCA facility. For instance, the number of automobile trips generated by
stadium events far exceeds that of an athletic facility. This is because the capacity of a stadium
is greater than an athletic facility with the same floor space. Moreover, automobile trips
generated by stadiums and grandstands are not dispersed throughout the day. They are
concentrated in short windows of time before and after the event. This concentration of traffic
has the potential to overwhelm the public and private streets serving the stadium. In addition to
traffic, the noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts associated with stadiums and grandstands
are more significant than those of the uses analyzed in the DEIR.
The DEIR's failure to grapple with the impacts of these conditionally allowed uses
clearly falls short of CEQA's requirement to analyze the Project's potential adverse
environmental impacts. Under well-settled case law, an EIR must analyze a planning
document's maximum development potential, not an estimated or hoped-for level of
development. As the court in City of Redlands explained, "an evaluation of a `first phase-
general plan amendment' must necessarily include a consideration of the larger project, i.e., the
future development permitted by the amendment." City of Redlands v. County of San
Bernardino (2002) 96 Ca1.App.4th 398, 409 (emphasis added). Environmental review of the 21 . 3
development allowed by a planning enactment must take place regardless of whether that
development will actually materialize. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. of Ventura CONT.
County (1975) 13 Ca1.3d 263, 279, 282; Christward Ministry v. Superior Court(1986) 184
Ca1.App.3d 180, 194-95 ("The fact future development is not certain to occur and the fact the
environmental consequences of a general plan amendment changing a land use designation are
more amorphous does not lead to the conclusion no EIR is required.").
The court in City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors of Monterey County
(1986) 183 Ca1.App.3d 229 reached a similar conclusion. That case involved the rezoning of a
parcel of land in Monterey County from single family residential to open space and resort uses.
Id. at 233-34. At the time of the rezone, the parcel was already being used for resort purposes in
compliance with the local coastal program. The County argued that it need not prepare an EIR
for the project because the existing use of the property was consistent with the rezone and "no
expanded use of the property was proposed." Id. at 235. The Court of Appeal rejected this
argument, finding that "the rezoning by itself. . . did in fact represent a commitment to expanded
use of the property . . . ." Id. at 244. Thus, it is the "commitment to expanded use" of property
embodied in a land use enactment that is the "project" requiring review under CEQA, and not, as
the DEIR analyzes the Project here, some lesser speculative amount of development predicted to
occur.
Thus, the Specific Plan's maximum potential for future development of the Open-
Space Park area, whether or not construction of particular projects will actually occur, must be
analyzed in the DEIR. Because the Specific Plan conditionally allows intensive uses such as
stadium and grandstands, the impacts from those uses must be analyzed in the DEIR.
`�}-i l�'T�. �i I H t�Ll`
�h..��..__�'F�(!V' [�L R C��E.R �_�_�
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 4
2. The DEIR Fails to Analyze Potential Impacts from the General Plan
Text Amendment.
The Project includes a General Plan text amendment that would amend the General
Plan's description of the "Park" land use designation. The existing General Plan only allows
land designated as a Park to be owned and maintained by the City or County. The Project's
proposed amendment would allow Park lands to be owned by private individuals. This
amendment would not simply affect the Project site. It would also impact approximately 20
public properties currently with Park designations and any future Park properties. See General
Plan at LU-25. Such a far-reaching amendment would have significant environmental impacts
that the DEIR fails to acknowledge, much less analyze.
In a time of tight budgets, the General Plan text amendment would allow the City to sell
existing Park land to private owners planning to operate the park on a"pay—to-play" basis.
These owners could develop any of the intense active recreational uses allowed under the current
Park designation. Some of these uses may have significant environmental impacts on local
streets and neighboring communities. The DEIR must discuss and analyze these potential
impacts.
21 ^
Further, private pay-to-play operation of local parks may price-out some Orange
residents, requiring them to use other public parks for their recreational needs. While the
California Constitution limits the fees the City may charge for recreational services to the actual
cost of providing those services, no such limit exists for privately owned parks. Cal. Const. Art.
13C § 1. Moreover, private park owners may simply chose to exclude the public. This in turn
will place a greater burden on the remaining local park facilities—a reasonably foreseeable
impact that the DEIR must analyze.
Finally, the DEIR fails to analyze how the General Plan text amendment will impact the
City's acquisition of future parks. General Plan Natural Resource Element Policy 5.6 requires
the City to "identify areas within the City that are currently underserved by existing open space,
and develop programs to purchase land and build park amenities at a minimum level of 3 acres
per 1,000 persons and the goal of 5 acres per 1,000 persons." The City is far from reaching these
standards. As the DEIIZ discloses, the City currently has a ratio of only 1.84 acres of parkland
per 1,000 residents. DEIR at 5.15-8. This means that, to comply with Policy 5.6, the Ciry must
acquire over 152 acres of developed parkland by one estimate and other estimates have shown
that 165 acres must be acquired. Id. Yet, if privately owned land "used for passive and active
recreation" counts as parkland, as the proposed amendment would allow, then the City's exiting
parkland acreage will increase substantially. This increase will raise the ratio of parkland to
persons, resulting in a corresponding decrease in the number of acres the City must acquire to
reach the General Plan standards. This in turn will mean that lands that would have been
acquired for parks before the General Plan amendment may instead be developed in the future.
�i-i l�!"1_E�. �,-1 6 I�;�Ll'
�.'` .,1k E_ITti ['�1=.�C:�E.R �_�_�
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 5
The DEIR must analyze the extent of this significant environmental impact before the Project's
General Plan text amendment may be approved.
A. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Land Use
Impacts
1. The Project Contravenes Governing Land Use Plans.
Approval of this Project would make a mockery of the state-mandated goal of providing
for orderly development consistent with the City's long-range planning documents: the General
Plan and the specific plans that help implement the General Plan. "The general plan has been
aptly described as the `constitution for all future developments' within the city or county," and
thus "`[t]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends
upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements."' Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553,570-71. Land use decisions must also be consistent
with Specific Plans, which implement the General Plan's directives for future development in a
community. Gov. Code §65455. Yet the Project pays no respect to the City's land use plans. It
requires numerous amendments to the General Plan and the General Plan's implementing
documents. The Project's intensive residential development is clearly inconsistent with the
planned open space and recreational uses for this property. Orange residents relied on these open 21 . 5
space and recreational use designations when supporting development in the surrounding
neighborhoods. If the City approves this Project, it will have reneged on its promise to provide
for balanced growth that preserves the unique rural character of this area. Residents have relied
for decades on the City's land use constitution and related plans; the City's decision-makers
should likewise adhere to these long-standing policies.
While the General Plan land use map designates most of the Project Site as Resource
Area, the General Plan makes clear that the historic resource extraction use for the property is to
be phased out and replaced with open space uses. Indeed, the General Plan description of the
Resource Area designation provides that it"May serve as a holding zone for future uses
compatible with established and planned land uses in surrounding areas." Other sections
likewise provide that the planned future uses for the Project site will be recreation and open
space uses. Policy ll for the Orange Park Aacres (OPA) Plan is to "Promote the phasing-out of
gravel pit operations along Santiago Creek and promote restoration of natural amenities within
the area." OPA Plan at 101. The OPA Plan designates the eastern portion of the Project site as
"Santiago Greenbelt Plan." Similarly, Environmental Policy 10 of the East Orange General Plan
is to "Promote the phasing out of natural resource extraction and the creation of a natural riparian
area along Santiago Creek along with proposed greenbelts, trails, recreation and open space
areas." The East Orange General Plan designates the western portion of the Project site as
"Regional Park."
S N l�,'T E=e ti'1 i f I i�Ll`
�.'� ak'4:I �; E'�l=.h C�E:1� �_�_��
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 6
Both the OPA Plan and the East Orange General Plan prevent development on the Project
site in order to allow for creation of the Santiago Creek Greenbelt and Regional Park. This
planned greenbelt stretches along Santiago Creek through the Project site. Removing the Project
site from the East Orange and OPA Plans and allowing the Project's intense development takes
the heart out of this important greenbelt and regional park.
Because of this conversion, the Project's land use impact to the two Plans is significant.
The OPA Plan designates 56.45 acres of the Project site as "Santiago Greenbelt Plan." Instead of
this open space use, the Project would develop a majority of this acreage. The DEIR attempts to
minimize the impact of removing this property from the OPA Plan by stating that the property is
"approximately three percent of the overall OPA Plan area." DEIR at 5.10-16. But this
calculation ignores the true impact to the OPA Plan, which is to eliminate the Plan's delicate
balance between growth and open space preservation. As the OPA Plan explains, the "Land Use
Element offers a balance in types of residential, public-quasi-public, open space and recreational
land use. This balance provides for the retaining of the rural environment, offers economic
viability and offers a visually compatible climate for the preservation of the Orange Park Acres 21 . 5
lifestyle. Thus, it is believed that the goals of the community have been met." OPA Plan at 120. CONT.
In other words, the Plan provided for preservation of important open space to retain the rural
lifestyle of Orange Park Acres, while allowing for a reasonable amount of development.
The Project's impact to the OPA Plan's vision for the area is significant. The OPA Plan
preserved as open space 184 acres of the Santiago Greenbelt. Removal of the Project's property
results in a 30% reduction in that open space, from 184 acres down to 128 acres. DEIR
Appendix P, OPA Plan at 121. This reduction in open space is compounded by the City's recent
approval of the Ridgeline Project, which will convert 51 acres of open space and remove over 39
acres of designated recreation land from the OPA Plan. Id. Between these two projects, 95
acres of designated open space-recreation land will be removed from the OPA Plan. Id. That is
a 19% reduction in lands designated for open space and recreational uses in the OPA Plan. The
Project's gutting of open space lands eliminates the balance between development and open
space provided in Orange Park Acres. It extinguishes any hope of achieving the OPA
community goals presented in the Plan, which include providing "a wholesome rural atmosphere
emphasizing a quiet seclusion close to nature." OPA Plan at 97, Objective l.b.
The East Orange General Plan strikes a similar balance between development and open
space. It states that the "Central theme of the proposed General Plan is the provision of needed
residential development in the Area while simultaneously providing for the protection of the
environmental assets of the Area." East Orange General Plan at 107. The Plan describes the
"extensive open space-greenbelt netwark" as one of the "key features of the Plan." Id. The
Project would place a major development in the midst of this greenbelt network, frustrating both
the Plan's key feature and central theme.
5Nl?TE. �-1ItIA[_`r
��'f`��d 4k'(:(�� E3 l�:R f�[�:�: �_�.�
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 7
The East Orange General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Plan each strike a balance
between development and open space/recreation resources. In doing so they preserve the unique
rural character of the surrounding communities by providing for a greenbelt regional park once
sand and gravel operations along Santiago Creek are phased out consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Policy Map's Resource Area designation for the Project site. Instead of gutting these
land use planning efforts that were developed and approved with community support, the City
should abide by the promises they made in the plans.
2. The Project's Amendments to the OPA Plan and East Orange
General Plan Create Growth-Inducing Impacts.
Approval of the Project's proposed OPA Plan and East Orange General Plan
Amendments would have serious growth-inducing impacts. If the City takes such action, it will
encourage and facilitate other developers to purchase property designated for open space or
recreational uses, and even attempt to combine smaller residential lots on Santiago Canyon road 21 . 6
within these Plan areas and propose similarly intense residential development projects. As
discussed above, the City's recent practice has been to approve such projects. Repeated
approvals of these applications creates a precedent that will only encourage and induce future
growth in these Plan areas. That growth must be analyzed in the DEIR. See Pub. Resources
Code § 21126(d). Specifically, the DEIR should identify the privately owned parcels currently
designated for open space or recreational uses in the OPA Plan and the East Orange General Plan
and analyze the impacts of future residential developments on these parcels.
3. The DEIR Fails to Analyze the Project's Consistency with All
Governing Land Use Plans.
The DEIR purports to analyze the Project's consistency with "any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." DEIR at 5.10-14. However, the
DEIR fails to analyze the Project's consistency with the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek
Greenbelt Plan and the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan. These
Plans cover the Project site; the City's portion of these Plans was approved by the City Council 21 ' �
on May 18, 1976. See Attachment 1, Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation
Plan at 81. Specifically, the Project conflicts with these Plans because they designate the Project
site as open space that is part of the protected Greenbelt. Id. at 82, 83; Attachment 2, Santa Ana
River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan at 40, 45, 65. Such conflicts with governing land use plans
are significant environmental impacts under CEQA. See The Pocket Protectors v. City of
Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. Accordingly, the City may not approve the
Project until it is revised to be consistent with the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt
Implementation Plan.
SNI,'���-�, �II} I,��,LY
�a� �\k'1:Ii`,' (�1;1�C�[:f: �_��_
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 8
4. The Project Conflicts with the General Plan.
Even with its numerous land use plan amendments that erase the open space and
recreational land use designations for the Project site, the Project conflicts with the City's
General Plan in numerous respects.� Such inconsistencies are significant environmental impacts
that the DEIR must disclose. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131
Ca1.App.4th 777. Further, the Project violates State Planning and Zoning Law because of these
inconsistencies. State Planning and Zoning Law requires that land use decisions be consistent
with the general plan. Gov. Code §§ 65359, 65454, 65860. A project cannot be found consistent
with a general plan if it conflicts with a plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear,
regardless of whether the project is consistent with other general plan policies. Families
Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County (1998) 62 Ca1.App.4th
1332,1341-42. Even in the absence of a direct conflict, a local agency may not approve a
development project if it frustrates the general plan's policies and objectives. Napa Citizens for
Honest Gov. v. Napa County (2001) 91 Ca1.App.4th 342, 378-79. The Project must be revised to
be consistent with the City's General Plan before it can be approved. Id. 21 . 8
a. Land Use Element Goal 1.0.
The General Plan requires future development to preserve the character of existing
neighboring communities. The Land Use Element includes the following goals and policies:
• "Meet the present and future needs of all residential and business sectors with a
diverse and balanced mix of land uses." Goal 1.0
• "Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character
and densities of residential neighborhoods." Policy 1.2
• "Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of
surrounding neighborhoods." Policy 1.6
The Project conflicts with these goals by exceeding surrounding densities and thus
changing the unique rural character of the surrounding neighborhoods. This area of Orange is
characterized by a unique rural environment, close to nature, with low residential densities and
land uses that support an equestrian lifestyle. Yet the Project proposes to introduce a total of 395
dwelling units on the 50 acres of Planning Area C and D. Specific Plan at 3-3. In the Medium
Density Residential area, 265 dwelling units are planned on just 16 acres—over 16 dwelling
units per acre. Id. This far exceeds the surrounding densities and will permanently change the
' The Orange General Plan can be found on the City's website at
http:l/���4v��.citv«ft�raa�rie orglde��t5ict»��n�devl��lannin�l<te�neY-al ��l�n a�� and is fully incorporated
herein by reference.
�F�l,���� ., 11 € �i,�lLl'
��s Ok (_i C�Ea I=��;C.; E:(; �_�,_
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 9
character of these neighborhoods. The properties to the west in Orange Park Acres are
designated Estate Low Density Residential, which allows only 0-2 dwelling units per acre.
General Plan at LU-25. The properties to the north and south are designated Low Density
Residential, which allows only 2-6 dwelling units per acre. Id. Despite the Project's dramatic
spike in the community's density, the DEIR finds that Project is consistent with the community
character because building massing (height) has been limited on the edges of the property and
compatible architectural styles have been chosen. But these paltry measures do nothing to
mitigate the inconsistent densities that are proposed for this site. Because the Project is
inconsistent with the low densities of the surrounding community, it directly conflicts with Land
Use Element Goal 1.0.
b. Natural Resource Element Goals 1.0,4.0 and 5.0.
The General Plan's Natural Resource Element includes several goals and policies
clarifying that the City must actively seek to protect and/or acquire important open space
resources such as the Project site. These goals and policies including the following:
• "Provide recreational use, scenic enjoyment, and the protection of natural
resources and features in open space areas." Natural Resources Goal 1.0
• "Conserve open space through various public-private funding mechanisms and
management strategies including, but not limited to, conservation easements."
Policy l.l
21 . 9
• "Actively seek out new public open space opportunities through land recycling."
Policy 1.2.
• "Promote development of additional open spaces and access points adjacent to
waterways and planned trails." Policy 1.3
• "Provide recreational facilities and programs that adequately serve the needs of
residents." Goa15.0
• "Identify areas within the City that are currently underserved by existing open
space, and develop programs to purchase land and build park amenities at a
minimum level of 3 acres per 1,000 persons and the goal of 5 acres per 1,000
persons." Policy 5.6
• "Consider the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a means to
acquire and develop more publicly available open space." Policy 5.7
As discussed above, the City does not begin to meet the General Plan's open space
requirements. The Project site is one of the last large undeveloped parcels that could enable the
��--1�'^1_!�. 11 � 1 1;a L`r'
,.. �4 (_1 i�; ['�I:(�C_;�:f: �_�_E�
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 10
City to achieve its goal. In addition, the Project site is a priority far open space protection
because it includes access points to adjacent waterways and planned trails and is part of the
Santiago Creek trail network. General Plan at CM-27. Yet, the DEIR fails to state how the City
has pursued any of the General Plan's strategies to protect such open space. Has the City
pursued acquisition, easements, land recycling, or TDRs for this site? In the absence of such
efforts, approval of the Project conflicts with these Goals and Policies, as well as Land Use
Policies 1.6 ("Provide a range of open space and park amenities to meet the diverse needs of
current and new residents") and 6.4 ("Create and maintain open space resources that provide
recreational opportunities, protect hillside vistas and ridgelines, and conserve natural resources.")
21 . 9
The DEIlZ suggests that these Natural Resource goals are met by preserving a fraction of
the project site as open space in Planning Area A and by providing recreational opportunities in CONT
the privately-owned Planning Area B. However, as the OPA Plan and the East Orange General
Plan make clear, the entire site is considered important open space. Moreover, there is no
guarantee that the recreational amenities suggested in Area B will ever be built. DEIR at 5.15-
15. Instead, the DEIIZ makes clear that the Project's build-out is subject to market conditions.
DEIR at 3-75. The Project's Specific Plan further states that Area B will be the last to be
developed. Specific Plan at 7-1. This also means that the section of the Santiago Creek trail
north of Area B may never be developed either, and the other trail sections may be delayed until
all the Project's buildings are permitted. DEIR at 3-72; Specific Plan at 3-7.
The Project is not even consistent with General Plan policies for lands that the General
Plan does consider appropriate for development. Natural Resource Goa14.0 requires the City to
"conserve and protect wildlife habitat, plant and animal species of concern, and general
biodiversity." To achieve this goal, Policy 4.4 requires the City to "repair or improve ecological
and biological conditions in the urban and natural environments when reviewing proposals for
site development and redevelopment, as well a public improvements." Yet, despite the fact that
Santiago Creek traverses the entire length of the Project site, the Project does not provide for the
restoration of the creek within its boundaries. DEIR at 3-28. This missing Project component
clearly conflicts with Natural Resource Policy 4.4.
c. The Project Conflicts with Circulation and Mobility Element
Goa14.0 and the Element's Plan for Recreational Trails and
Bikeways.
The General Plan emphasizes the importance of connected trail systems to provide
recreational and alternative transportation options for Orange Residents. The Circulation and
Mobility Element includes the following goals and Policies: 21 . 10
• "Provide efficient and accessible modes of pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian
transportation and improved facilities and amenities." Goa14.0
`�N�'TE:, �1I }i;�Ll`
� . \� E:Ii`.' l�I;hC=��:I� ��.E_
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July l, 2013
Page 11
• "Create a comprehensive bicycle network that is integrated with other
transportation systems by establishing complementary on-street and off-street
facilities as identified in the City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan and OCTA
Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, including Santiago Creek . . . ." Policy 4.1
• "Expand and maintain an equestrian trail network and provide for appropriate
staging areas and infrastructure." Policy 4.8
Despite these clear goals, the Project fails to implement planned bike trails and a
connected equestrian trail network. A County-planned off-road paved bikeway passes through
the Project site and connects to the existing trails along Mabury Avenue. DEIR Figure 5.15-2.
While the Project does plan for a public multi-use trail in roughly the same location, the Project's
trail has one critical difference: it does not provide for any connection to the existing trails along
Mabury Avenue. To fulfill the intent of this planned trail, the Project's trail should provide for a 21 . 10
crossing over Santiago Creek to connect to the existing trails along Mabury Avenue.
CONT.
The City's planned trails also demand this connection. A planned recreational trail
crosses the Project site and connects the existing trail along Santiago Canyon Road to the
existing Mabury Avenue trails. DEIR Figure 5.15-2. Yet again, the Project's planned trail from
Santiago Canyon Road fails to connect to the existing Mabury Avenue trails. To be consistent
with County and City's trail plans, the Project must provide these trail connections and analyze
and mitigate the impacts of doing so.
Finally, DEIR Figure 5.15-2, which purports to portray the location of existing and
proposed trails in and around the Project site, is misleading in a number of respects. First, it
portrays the proposed location of the City's planned Class 1 (Off Street) bike trail outside of the
Project site paralleling Mabury Avenue. However, as shown in the General Plan's Plan for
Recreational Trails and Bikeways, the proposed Class 1 trail is more clearly located inside the
Project site. General Plan Figure CM-3. As the DEIR admits, "The City's General Plan shows
this (existing Mabury Avenue) trail as wider than its current configuration. This widening could
occur on the project site or adjacent properties to the north." DEIR at 5.15-20.
Second, Figure 5.15-2 is similarly misleading by showing the portion of this Class 1 trail
on the outside of the Project site's western boundary. Instead, to be consistent with the location
of this trail in the General Plan's Plan for Recreational Trails and Bikeways, the Project should
provide for this Class 1 trail along the site's western boundary. This trail would also provide a
necessary connection from the Project's multi-use trail and the existing Mabury Avenue trails.
Third, Figure 5.15-2 fails to show a planned grade-separated trail crossing at the
intersection of the trails paralleling Mabury Avenue and Cannon Street on the Plan for
Recreational Trails and Bikeways. This separated grade crossing must be included in the
SNl�3TF, 1-i1�i��,Ll'
�a,=;~� ��"E��=1(�F�E�R C`� ��,R ����
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 12
Project. It would greatly improve the safety of those using existing and planned trails at this
intersection, including the Project's residents.
The DEIR concludes that the Project is consistent with the General Plan's Circulation
Element because it "would not preclude the implementation of the future trails"planned by the
City and County. Id. But this misses the point. To be consistent with the General Plan's
Circulation Element and Trails Plan, the Project must include those trails in any development of
the Project site.
Only by including the planned trails and connecting the Project's trails to existing trails
can the Project be consistent with other General Plan policies governing development and trails.
See Growth Management Element Policy 1.7 ("Promote the expansion and development of
alternative methods of transportation."), Natural Resources Element Policy 6.4 ("Link existing
equestrian trails and provide outlets to open space areas, particularly in the northeast region of
the City, to reach regional parks such as Santiago Oaks, Irvine, Peters Canyon, and the
Cleveland National Forest.").
d. Natural Resource Element Policy 2.11 and Goa14.0, Growth
Management Element Policies 1.2 and 1.5 and Noise Element
Goal 7.0.
2� . �1
Finally, as discussed in mare detail in the sections below, the Project conflicts with
Natural Resource Element Policy 2.11 and Goa14.0, Growth Management Element Policies 1.2
and 1.5, and Noise Element Goa17.0.
B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts
on Biological Resources.
1. Impacts to Wildlife Species
An EIR's description of a project's environmental setting plays a critical part in all of the
subsequent parts of the EIR because it provides "the baseline physical conditions by which a lead
agency determines whether an impact is significant." Guidelines § 15125(a). "Knowledge of the
regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts." Guidelines § 15125 (c).
Here, the DEIR fails to conduct the necessary focused surveys for all wildlife species that may 21 . 12
be potentially impacted by the Project.
Numerous sensitive wildlife species have been observed, or have the potential to occur,
on the Project site. These species include: arboreal salamander, coast range newt, coast patch-
nosed snake, red-diamond rattlesnake, coast horned lizard, Coronado skink, orange-throated
whiptail, western mastiff bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, coastal whiptail , sharp-shinned
hawk, rough-legged hawk, red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, burrowing owl, Southern
California rufous-crowned sparrow, prairie falcon, American peregrine falcon, loggerhead
S I-1 k����E a 4�1 1 N,�Ll`
�°'� ���:'�I�;� F i�:R C;���R �_�_N
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 13
shrike, long-eared owl, pallid bat, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego desert
woodrat, and gray fox. DEIR at 5.4-16.
Despite the site's potential to support a wide array of sensitive wildlife, the DEIR
preparers conducted focused surveys for only a few species -- arroyo toad, burrowing owl,
coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher. DEIR at
5.4-57. While certain of the remaining species that have the potential to inhabit the Project site
may be included or conditionally covered in the Natural Community Conservation Plan and
Habitat Conservation Plan County of Orange Central & Coastal Subregion ("NCCP/HCP"), the
Project has the potential to impact numerous additional species that are not included in the
NCCP/HCP and for which focused surveys were not conducted. These species include: yellow-
breasted chat, coast range newt, coast patch-noised snake, western mastiff bat, San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit, San Diego pocket mouse, Loggerheard shrike, Long- eared owl and, Pallid bat.
In the absence of focused surveys, it is unknown whether these species inhabit the Project. The
EIR should be revised to include focused surveys for each species that potentially occurs on the
Project site.
21 . 12
Furthermore, the DEIR relies on faulty reasoning to conclude that any impacts to these CONT.
species would be less than significant. DEIR at 5.4-57. For example, the DEIR asserts there
would be no impact because the majority of the suitable habitat which has potential to support
these species will be avoided. Id. Yet, the DEIR provides no analysis or evidence to support this
claim. Meaningful analysis of impacts effectuates one of CEQA's fundamental purposes: to
"inform the public and responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions
before they are made." Laurel Heights II, 6 Ca1.4th at 1123. To accomplish this purpose, an
EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency's bare conclusions. Citizens of Goleta
Valley, 52 Ca1.3d at 568. Here, the EIR must actually explain how the other"suitable habitat"
would be sufficient to protect each sensitive species.
Second, the DEIR asserts that the loss of individuals as a result of the Project would not
be expected to reduce regional population numbers. DEIR at 5.4-57. Here too, the DEIR lacks
any support for this statement. What would be the expected species loss? What are the regional
population numbers? Without fundamental details about each species that could be impacted by
the Project, the DEIR has no basis to conclude that impacts would be less than significant.
Third, the DEIR errs when it discloses that the Project's impact on the willow flycatcher,
a state-endangered species, would be less than significant. DEIR at 5.4-62, 63. Although this
endangered species was in fact observed on the Project site, the site provides suitable nesting
habitat, and this habitat will be permanently removed, the DEIR simply asserts that other nearby
habitat will still be available for foraging opportunities and that impacts to this species would be
less than significant. For the reasons discussed above, the EIR must support its conclusions with
substantial evidence. In addition, because the DEIR focuses exclusively on the loss of foraging
S N L,�T�g ��1 ( H��Ll`
�` ti�'(�Iiti' E'�I:RC.;E:R �_�_�_
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 14
habitat, it fails to identify the loss of breeding habitat for the willow flycatcher as a significant
impact.
Fourth, in addition to the species that have the potential to occur on the Project site itself,
several wildlife species have the potential to occur within the two-acre off-site area that will be
impacted by grading for on-going fuel modification. Of the wildlife species with potential to
occur within this off-site area, ten are identified as sensitive including five species that are
federally and/or state listed as endangered or threatened. Specifically, these species include the
state endangered willow flycatcher, the federally and state endangered southwestern willow
flycatcher, the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, the federally and state
endangered least Bell's vireo, and the federally endangered arroyo toad. DEIR at 5.4-63. Here
too, the DEIR preparers failed to conduct focused surveys for many of these species. No surveys
were conducted of the off-site parcel for the Willow flycatcher, the southwestern willow 21 . 12
flycatcher, Coastal California gnatcatcher, least bell's vireo, arroyo toad, coast range newt, CONT.
white-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon, and the yellow-breasted chat. DEIR at 5.4-63
through 66. Until focused surveys are conducted for each of the species that has the potential to
breed, nest, or inhabit the off-site land, the EIR has no basis to conclude that the Project would
result in less than significant impacts to these species.
Finally, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the Project's indirect edge effects on the
numerous species that have the potential to occur on- and of-site. The DEIR asserts that these
impacts would be minimized by the use of a 100-foot limited use setback area Project and that
the applicant would establish development standards to reduce sensory stimuli. DEIR at 5-4-76.
While these measures will likely be important, the DEIR must first actually analyze the actual
and specific consequences to each of the potentially affected species from these various effects.
Specifically, the EIR must identify the number of individuals of each species that will be
affected or the degree to which the populations will be impacted from edge effects such as noise,
vibration, dust, light and human presence during construction could potentially impact these
species.
2. Impacts to Riparian Habitat
The DEIR identifies 1.63 acres of impacts to two sensitive riparian communities:
southern cottonwood/willow riparian forest and black willow scrub/ruderal, and correctly
concludes the loss of this riparian habitat would constitute a significant impact. DEIR at 5.4-67. 21 . 13
Although the document identifies mitigation for this loss, it lacks the necessary evidence to
conclude this mitigation will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. First,
Mitigation Measure Bio-2 calls for restoration and/or enhancement of sensitive riparian
communities at a ratio no less than 1:1 for permanent impacts. Id. at 5.4-68 (emphasis added). A
footnote to this mitigation measure implies that a higher mitigation ratio ordinarily would be
required; it does not adequately justify the agency's decision to reduce the protection here:
`i H l.'�,E:. �1 l F-�;�LY
_ . ��'��Ii; 1�t:(�C;F,1� �_��_
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 15
Due to the amount of contiguous southern cottonwood-willow
riparian forest habitat within this area, a minimum 1:1 mitigation
ratio is proposed for permanent impacts since impacts associated
with the installation of two storm drains will be minimal (less than
0.1 acre) and it is anticipated that this sensitive natural community
will persist immediately around the storm drain structures without
the structure disrupting the habitat functions of this community.
Rather, the added storm drains may provide additional hydrology
to the system, which may benefit this sensitive natural community.
Id.
Mitigation amounts for impacts to riparian lands should not be based on contiguous 21 . 13
habitat or the presence of storm drains unless the EIR provides the evidentiary basis for such
assumptions. In addition, statements such as "it is anticipated that this sensitive natural CONT.
community will persist" does not provide the necessary evidence that impacts will, in fact be
mitigated. Any impacts to riparian habitat must be mitigated at the ratio required by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") regardless of the proximity of contiguous
lands or stormwater infrastructure.
Second, the DEIR proposes a mitigation ratio of no less than 0.5:1 for thinning impacts
for Fuel Modification Zones, claiming that the majority of the native canopy will persist, as well
as some understory species. DEIR at 5.4-68. The DEIR provides no detail regarding the protocol
for fuel modification zones. Effective fuel mitigation requires that land be kept clear of dry
brush and irrigated to keep foliage in a moist state. The EIR must explain why a 0.5:1 ratio is
sufficient mitigation for land that will be subjected to on-going fuel modification.
Third, the DEIR identifies certain habitat loss as "temporary" and proposes to mitigate
for this loss at a reduced 0.5:1 ratio. CEQA does not distinguish between temporary and
permanent impacts. Any impacts to riparian habitat must be mitigated at the ratio required by
CDFW.
Fourth, the DEIR proposes to mitigate for impacts to black willow scrub/ruderal habitat
at a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, claiming that the habitat is isolated and disturbed. DEIR at 5.4-68.
We can find no logical explanation as to why this sensitive habitat should be mitigated at a
reduced rate. Indeed, inasmuch as this habitat supports at least two willow flycatchers (see
DEIR at 5.4-62), it is critical that the loss of this riparian habitat be fully mitigated. Again,
impacts to this natural community should be mitigated at the ratio required by CDFW.
3. Impacts to Federally Protected Wetlands.
The DEIR acknowledges permanent and temporary impacts to federally protected 21 . 14
wetlands. Mitigation Measure Bio-3 calls for mitigating the permanent impacts at no less than a
2:1 ratio, and simply restoring wetlands that are temporarily impacted. DEIR at 5.4-68. As
`�NL?TI� �1I1Ir�LY
�"__ �� E_� 1�,' !>I:R C:;[:12 �_�_��
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 16
discussed above, CEQA does not distinguish between temporary and permanent environmental
impacts. All impacts to wetlands should be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. Moreover, this measure calls
for"restoration with native species, where appropriate." Id. (emphasis added). All natural
communities should be restored with native species unless the EIR provides evidence that non-
native vegetation provides sufficient habitat for wetland restoration purposes.
4. Impacts Related to the Project's Inconsistency with the City's Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
The primary purpose of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance is to regulate the removal
and destruction of trees from undeveloped and public interest property and to prevent further
destruction of the City's once vast number of majestic trees. See Municipal Code §12.32.010
(A). The Municipal Code explains that the regulation of tree removal is necessary because
"large scale tree removal" is "more likely to have an adverse affect [sic] upon the existing
environment." Id. at §12.32.010 (b); DEIR at 5.1-11. Finally, the Code states that the "past
destruction of trees on such property has not only interfered with the natural scenic beauty and
tourism of the city, but also greatly diminished the ecological value of such natural vegetation."
Id.
The applicant's proposal to remove 228 trees must certainly be considered "large scale 21
tree removal." Yet, the DEIR asserts that simply planting replacement trees at a 1:1 ratio would
eliminate any conflict with the Tree Ordinance. Id. at 5.4-79. Accordingly, the DEIR cannot
conclude that the loss of these trees is, in any way, consistent with the Tree Preservation
Ordinance even with replanting. Nor, given the clear statement in the Municipal Code that the
destruction of trees "greatly diminishes ecological value of natural vegetation," can the DEIR
conclude that impacts relating to the loss of these trees would be a less than significant impact
under CEQA. The EIlZ should be revised to acknowledge the significance of this impact and to
propose feasible mitigation or an alternative capable of minimizing this impact to a less than
significant level. Given the Tree Ordinance's strong predilection toward tree preservation, the
obvious choice is a revised site development plan that allows for the preservation of the site's
healthy trees.
Finally, as discussed below, while the applicant proposes to mass-grade the site and
remove all 228 trees immediately, it will develop structures over a 4.4 year period. DEIR at 3-
76. This approach is flatly inconsistent with the Municipal Code, which prohibits the removal of
healthy, non-hazardous trees unless another use is commenced on the real property within ninety
days after removal of such trees. See Municipal Code §12.32.110. Clearly, this Municipal Code
provision was specifically intended to prevent proposals such as the Rio Santiago Project from
destroying the ecological value of a site without a clear plan to remedy the destruction. The
DEIR completely ignores this mandate. The revised EIR should analyze this inconsistency with
the Municipal Code and identify the impact as significant and propose feasible mitigation.
�l--I U�1,I: 11 � F 11'1 L�"
g . tk FI ('� C�I:hC:;�:(�����
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 17
5. Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources.
The DEIR's analysis of cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered species is
deficient because the document does not adequately evaluate whether the proposed Project's
contribution is "cumulatively considerable" when viewed together with environmental changes
anticipated from past, present, and probable future projects. Guidelines §§ 15064(h)(1),
15355(b). In determining the significance of the Project's incremental contribution, the question
is not the relative amount of the Project's contribution to the existing cumulative problem (i.e.,
does this Project contribute the same, less, or more than other projects), but rather whether the
addition of the Project's impact is significant in light of the serious existing problem (i.e.,is the
Project's contribution to the existing environmental problem cumulatively considerable). Thus,
the greater the existing environmental problem is, the lower the threshold of significance should
be for considering a project's contribution to the cumulative impact. Communities for a Better
Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Ca1.App.4th 98, 120).
Here, the Project site provides habitat for numerous sensitive species some of which are
threatened and endangered. In other words, any threats to these species — such as from loss of
habitat and habitat fragmentation—must be considered a serious existing problem. Thus, the 21 . 16
DEIR errs when it concludes that there would be no cumulative impacts to species. First, it
assumes, incorrectly, that the Rio Santiago Project's impacts would be less than significant. For
the reasons discussed above, this conclusion cannot be sustained. Second, the DEIR concludes
that the other land use projects would have a less than significant effect on wildlife species
because each of those projects proposed specific mitigation measures for impacts to species. Yet,
the DEIR cannot simply conclude that a project's contribution to a cumulative impact is not
cumulatively considerable simply because the project impact can be reduced to a less than
significant level. See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692,
720-21, Rather, the remaining contribution after mitigation must still be evaluated in light of
other past, present and future projects to confirm that any remaining effect is not a considerable
contribution to the cumulative impact. The DEIR never actually conducts this analysis and the
document therefore lacks the evidentiary support that the Project's cumulative effect on wildlife
species would be less than significant.
Similarly, the DEIR incorrectly concludes that the Project's cumulative impacts on
wildlife corridors, policies and ordinances, and conservation plans would be less than significant.
DEIR at 6-21, 22. Again, the DEIR provides no actual analysis of the cumulative effects of each
of the related land use projects on wildlife corridors, policies and ordinances, and conservation
plans. Instead, it summarily concludes that since each project's impacts with regard to the
corridors, ordinances and plans were found to be less than significant, the cumulative effects
would not be considerable. For the reasons discussed above, the DEIR lacks the evidentiary
support that the Project's cumulative effect on wildlife corridors, policies and ordinances, and
conservation plans would be less than significant.
�F�U�1,��, �1 E t-�i�LY
��` 0�'E:I I\' [>l,}�C�;�:C: �_�_E>
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 18
C. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality.
The DEIR's evaluation of the Project's hydrological and water quality impacts is flawed
because it fails to support its conclusions with the necessary facts and analysis. Of critical
concern is the DEIR's lackluster approach to water quality impacts to Santiago Creek and its
watershed. The DEIl2 acknowledges that the proposed Project will potentially provide additional
sources of polluted run-off during the Project's construction and operational phases. DEIR at
5.9-44. The DEIR further acknowledges that the proposed Project will collect, route, and outlet
project site tributary flows directly to Santiago Creek. Id. at 5.9-43 (emphasis added).
The Project site is a part of the Santiago Creek Watershed, which is a major tributary to
the Santa Ana River. DEIR at 5.9-8. The Santa Ana River is listed on the 303(d) List for
Impaired Waterbodies for Indicator Bacteria. Id. The Regional Water Quality Control Board`s
(RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin identifies numerous
beneficial uses of Santiago Creek and also identifies the water quality objectives for specific
constituents for the water quality of the Creek. DEIR at 5.9-12. These constituents include
compounds that may result from urban land use development including total dissolved solids, oil
& grease, metals, bacteria/coliform. DEIR at 5.9-12. 21 � 7
Rather than provide a detailed analysis of the specific water quality impacts that would
result from the construction of the proposed Project, the DEIR simply discusses the types of
impacts that could occur generally. See, e.g., DEIR at 5.9-30, broadly acknowledging that there
"could be" accelerated erosion during a storm event and suggesting there "could be" an increased
potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions . This generic discussion could have
been written for any land use; the DEIR provides no detail about how the development of the
proposed Project would impact water quality and the Santiago Creek. It never even identifies the
increase in impervious surfaces or the specific types of pollutants that could be discharged in
stormwater from the construction of the proposed Project.
The EIR relies heavily on the preparation of plans such as a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) and a local implementation plan (LIP) and compliance with the State's
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges (General Construction Permit) to conclude the
Project would have less than significant water quality impacts. DEIR at 5.0-30, 32, 45, 58, 59.
Yet these plans do not yet exist. In fact, the DEIR looks to these plans to provide— after project
approval—the necessary site-specific analysis and the specific measures needed to protect water
quality. For example, the DEIR states that the SWPPP would address site-specific conditions
related to project construction; identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may
affect the quality of storm water discharges; and describe the BMPs that reduce or eliminate
sediment and pollutants in storm and non-storm water. Id. at 5.9-31. This is the exact
information that should be provided in this DEIR; it cannot be deferred until after Project
approval.
5 N l!_I_E�. \1 � ��;�LY
a,.��� ���%"F Ii�' C'aE:�C;�.R�_�_E>
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 19
Furthermore, the DEIR fails to set forth sufficient specific, measurable performance
standards for the SWPPP and LIP that could justify later formulation of mitigation methods
targeted to meet those standards. Instead, the DEIR simply states that the General Construction
Permit requires that the "SWPPP include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or
exceed measures required by the General Permit" and "selected BMPs would meet the
BAT/BCT standards required by the current applicable [General Construction Permit."). Id. at
5.9-30. We can find no indication that the EIR ever identifies the specific measures required by
the General Permit. Nor does the DEIR identify the BAT/BCT standards.
Fundamental details pertaining to the stormwater infrastructure necessary to prevent post-
construction water quality impacts are also deferred until later, leaving this important issue
unresolved. What little detail exists in the DEIR regarding these stormwater infrastructure
elements is given such cursory treatment that the public and decision-makers are left in the dark
as to how the stormwater system would actually function. The document references conceptual
site design features, source control, Low Impact Design (LID) and other BMPs, and asserts that
these features will provide water quality treatment and flow attenuation. DEIR at 5.9-45, 60.
Critically, the DEIR does not identify the sizing of the stormwater infrastructure. Instead, it
includes general language on the subject, such as "there will be a significant effort to...;" "in 21 . 17
most instances, LID features will be sized...;" "site design BMPs to be implemented where CONT
applicable and feasible;" and "where feasible, [ ] features will be designed in accordance with
feasibility criteria." DEIR at 5.9-45, 46. Such vague references provide no assurance that the
stormwater infrastructure will satisfactory handle the Project's increase in stormwater.
Not surprisingly, the DEIR's conclusions regarding the level of significance following
the implementation of these stormwater treatment systems are equally vague. The document
concludes that "water qualiry exceedances are not anticipated, and pollutants are not expected
... that would degrade water quality in the Santiago Creek. DEIR at 5.9-48 (emphasis added).
Until the EIR is revised to specifically identify proposed stormwater control features and
evaluate whether these features are sufficient to protect water quality, the DEIR's conclusions
that the Project's hydrological impacts would be less than significant cannot be sustained.
Finally, the DEIR's treatment of cumulative stormwater and water quality impacts is
particularly disingenuous. First, the DEIR concludes the Project itself would have no stormwater
and water quality impacts. For the reasons discussed above, this conclusion cannot be sustained.
Second, the DEIR identifies other related land use projects, but then admits that there has been
no determination as to the status of water quality and stormwater impacts for certain of these
projects, specifically the Salem Lutheran Church Expansion and Villa Park Self-Storage project
(at 6-48). Then, absent any analysis whatsoever, the DEIR boldly concludes there would be no
incremental or combined effects to water quality. Id. at 6-48 and 6-49.
CEQA prohibits such a cursory approach to environmental analysis. Rather, the statute
requires that an EIR be detailed, complete, and reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure.
�1-I�,'T€�� �t1H,��L`r'
�� ��` -����'F I�� ��C:RC:��.R�_�_�>
Chad Ortlieb, Seniar Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 20
Guidelines § 15151. The document should provide a sufficient degree of analysis to inform the
public about the proposed project's adverse environmental impacts and to allow decision-makers
to make intelligent judgments. Id. Consistent with this requirement, the information regarding
the project's impacts must be "painstakingly ferreted out." Environmental Planning and
Information Council of Western El Dorado Counry v. County of El Dorado, 131 Ca1.App.3d 350,
357 (1982) (finding an EIR for a general plan amendment inadequate where the document did 21 . 17
not make clear the effect on the physical environment). The DEIR here does not come close to
meeting these requirements. CONT.
Finally, the Project's impacts to Santiago Creek conflict with the following General Plan
Goals and Policies:
• "Protect the ecological integrity and overall health of Orange's watershed."
Natural Resources Element, Policy 2.11.
• "Conserve and protect wildlife habitat, plant and animal species of concern, and
general biodiversity." Natural Resources Element Goa14.0.
Before the Project ensures that all impacts to Santiago Creek are mitigated, these Goals and
Policies have not been met.
D. The DEIR's Analysis of the Project's Aesthetic Impacts Is Deficient.
The DEIR's treatment of the Project's visual resources impacts suffers from substantial
deficiencies. The DEIR understates the severity of impacts to the aesthetic environment and
neglects to identify sufficient mitigation to minimize these impacts. A few of the most egregious
deficiencies are discussed below.
First, Planning Area B could be developed with an array of conditional permitted uses
that could be visually intrusive. One such use includes stadiums and grandstands. DEIR at 5.1-
36. The DEIR asserts that these uses would not be perceived as a substantial degradation to the 21 . 18
long-term visual character of portions of the Project site, as the Planning Area is substantially
degraded by the current backfilling operation. Id. at 5.1-37. We disagree. While much of the
Project site consists of materials recycling and backfilling operations, the appearance of these
operations is similar to large-scale grading activities. A stadium and/or grandstand, in contrast,
would dramatically alter the visual character of the site and the surrounding low-density
residential neighborhoods. Because the DEIR omits any visual simulation or even any textual
description of such an intensive use, it fails entirely to analyze the effect such large structures
would have on existing views.
Second, the Project would result in a tremendous increase in light and glare on the
surrounding community. In addition to the lighting associated with the proposed residential
uses, the Project would illuminate sports fields and other public recreational uses. DEIR at 5.1-
`�Nl!"1,�:. \-1 ( H�LY
�: �k'E={� l'sF:RC�€:R �.�_�
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 21
42- 44. The DEIR correctly concludes that this increase in light and glare would constitute a
significant impact. Id. Yet, rather than actually analyze the effect this light and glare would have
on adjacent land uses, the DEIR merely proposes to have the applicant submit a photometric
analysis after Project approval. Id. at 5.1-45. As the DEIR acknowledges, the purpose of this
photometric analysis is to "provide evidence that the lighting design is consistent with the City's
Municipal Code." Id. Inasmuch as the purpose of the Municipal Code provision is to ensure that
lighting would not directly illuminate surrounding properties, it in entirely inappropriate to defer
this analysis until after Project approval. Under CEQA, the public and decision makers must be
apprised of the visual effect of this substantial increase in light and glare prior to Project
approval. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-07.
The DEIR also states that antennas and wireless communication facilities are permitted
uses on the Project site. DEIR at 5.1-36; 5.1-39. Due to their height, cell phone towers can be
quite visually offensive. The DEIR is deficient in its failure to provide visual simulations of
such uses on the Project site.
21 . 18
Third, notwithstanding the DEIR's clear recognition that large-scale tree removal from CONT.
undeveloped property is likely to have an adverse effect upon the surrounding environment
(DEIR at 5.1-ll), the DEIR absurdly concludes that the mass removal of the site's trees would
have no visual impact. Id. at 5.1-32. Clearly such a conclusion cannot be sustained. As the
City's Tree Preservation Ordinance makes clear, the past destruction of trees has interfered with
the natural scenic beaury of the City. Id. at 5.1-11. The fact that the applicant intends to replace
mature trees with saplings in no way compensates for this adverse environmental effect.
Fourth, the DEIR acknowledges under impact AES-4 that the Project would introduce
low level lighting along the Santiago Creek trail in Planning Area A. DEIR at 5.1-42. The
DEIR recognizes that this increase in lighting and glare may impact sensitive wildlife species,
and proposes to mitigate these impacts by shielding the light away from the Creek and using
candles that do not exceed 0.5 foot-candles. Id. The DEIR concludes that such measures would
reduce impacts to species to a less than significant level. Id. This conclusion, however, is pure
speculation; there is no data or analysis accompanying it. Moreover, the DEIR's discussion
ignores altogether the substantial increase in light that would accompany the Project's proposed
sport fields. As discussed above in the context of indirect effects on biological resources, the EIR
must actually analyze impacts to species from indirect effects, including lighting. It cannot
simply conclude these impacts would be less than significant.
Fifth, the DEIR errs in its approach to analyzing cumulative aesthetic impacts. The
document concludes that the proposed Project, together with related land use projects, would
introduce new sources of light and glare that could adversely affect surrounding properties and
contribute to "urban glow." DEIR at 6-8. The DEIR correctly concludes that this would be a
cumulatively significant environmental impact. Id. Yet, rather than seriously grapple with this
S N l'��E, l%1� t-I;L 1_`r'
� �0�'�=I i�: (3 E:R C_�E:F� �_�.>>
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 22
issue and identify feasible mitigation measures, the DEIR simply asserts that the proposed
Project "incorporates site light design that eliminates direct glare and minimizes light trespass to
adjacent properties and by related projects complying with the Orange Municipal Code Title 17
Zoning relative to lighting regulations." Id. at 6-9. As discussed above, the DEIR never states
that the Project complies with the Municipal Code. Rather it asserts a photometric analysis
would be prepared— after Project approval—and that the purpose of this analysis is to ensure that
lighting would not directly illuminate surrounding properties. Until the analysis is undertaken,
the public and decision makers are left in the dark as to the extent of the impacts and whether it
is feasible to mitigate for such impacts. The revised EIIZ must conduct an actual analysis of the
light and glare effects from the Project together with related land use projects.
E. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts
on Parks, Recreation and Trails.
The DEIR contains no substantial evidence to conclude that the Project's impact on
recreational facilities is less than significant. If this is the case, the document must be revised to
include the facts and analysis that CEQA requires.
1. The Project Will Increase the Use of Existing Trails and Parks.
The DEIR concludes that the Project will not have a significant impact on recreation
because it will not "increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other public
park facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be
accelerated." DEIR at 5.15-12. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence. The DEIR
reasons that there will be no impact on existing facilities because "either improved park facilities 21 . 19
would result from fees to handle the increased project population, or land would be provided for
the park needs of the increased project population." DEIR at 5.15-14. Yet the DEIR admits that
the Project developer may not be required to pay the Park and Recreational Facilities
Development Impact Fee. Id. The DEIR seems to assume that if no fees are paid,there will be
no impact to off-site recreation resources because some recreational facilities may be dedicated
on site .
This conclusion is belied by the evidence, however, since the Project includes several
trails that connect to other trails and parks. Project residents can be expected to use these trails
beyond the Project boundaries, as the DEIR admits. DEIR at 5.15-13. For instance, the Project
includes a public recreation trail along Santiago Canyon Road that continues to the west. Yet the
DEIR contains no analysis of whether use of this existing trail will increase such that physical
deterioration will occur. More importantly, the Project's proposed multi-use trail leads directly
to Santiago Oaks Regional Park, yet no analysis of the impact to that Park is included in the
DEIR. The DEIR must be revised to consider the impacts the Project will have on adjacent trails
and parks.
�N U�l,�v. �1 1 I f�l�l'
�'` _�l"(�! (�,' f}I:(�C;E:I� �_�_�>
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 23
2. The Project Will Require the Construction of Recreational Trail
Facilities Across 5antiago Creek
The DEIR erroneously concludes that the Project's impacts to recreational resources are
less than significant because the Project "will not require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment." Here,
the DEIR fails to consider the impacts from the future creek trail crossing necessitated by the
Project. The Project's proposed public multi-use trail in the south of Planning Area A must cross
Santiago Creek to connect to the existing Public Recreation Trail that parallels Mabury Avenue.
As discussed above, these connections are planned for in General Plan's Plan for Recreational 21 .2 0
Trails and Bikeways as well as in the County's bikeways plans. General Plan at CM-26; DEIR
Figure 5.15-2. The DEIR itself admits that"Future trail locations [in Planning Area A] are
general; however, may be located on the project site including a potential connection across
Santiago Creek. DEIR at 5.15-20.
Accordingly, the Project requires construction of trail crossings across Santiago Creek to
extend planned trails and to provide the necessary connections for the Project's residents.
Construction of multi-use trail bridges across creek channels and the grading and habitat clearing
necessary to accomplish such construction could have significant environmental impacts. CEQA
requires that the DEIR analyze and provide sufficient mitigation measures for these impacts.
Conversely, if the trail extensions are not developed, significant impacts to the hydrology and
riparian habitat of Santiago Creek could occur from unauthorized crossings by Project residents
attempting to make these connections.
F. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project's Construction-Related
Transportation Impacts and Lacks Feasible Mitigation For the Project's
Operational Traffic Impacts.
The DEIR's analysis of the Project's potential traffic impacts is flawed. First, the
analysis of construction-related traffic fails to take into account the traffic from truck trips
resulting from the on-going mineral recycling activities on the Project site. As a result the DEIIZ
underestimates the Project's traffic impacts during the four-year construction period. 21 . 21
Materials recycling will continue on the Project site through the construction of the
proposed Project, until Planning Area D is developed. DEIR at 3-10. It is our understanding that
Planning Area D would be the last Planning Area to be developed with build-out expected to
occur by the Year 2017. Id. at 3-75, 77. The mineral recycling activities would generate 145
daily truck trips.2 Because the DEIR omits these 145 truck trips from the traffic impact analysis,
2 The entire Materials Recycling activities generate 500 daily truck trips. DEIR at 5.16-
21. Approximately 29 percent of the existing site traffic is related to minerals recycling activities on the
project site.Id.
S N U T�=. �11 ���;�l L�'
y$`, \�'`�:I I`�' �?a I:C��.:;I:1: �_�_E�
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 24
it underestimates the Project's potential traffic impacts during this four-year construction period.
The EIR should be revised to include the materials recycling daily truck trips in the analysis of
construction-related traffic.
Second, the DEIR fails to identify feasible mitigation for the Project's traffic impacts. For
example, the Project would cause Katella Avenue between Handy Street and Santiago Boulevard
to operate at level of service (LOS) F. DEIR at 5.16-27. The DEIR correctly identifies this
deterioration in LOS as a significant impact. Id. The DEIR further acknowledges that the
proposed Project is 100 percent responsible for the deficient LOS and therefore the applicant's
fair share contribution toward the circulation system improvement to correct this LOS deficiency
is also 100 percent. Yet, rather than require the necessary circulation improvement (restriping a
third eastbound or westbound through lane) be undertaken prior to the issuance of building
permits or Project occupancy, the DEIR states that the circulation system improvement may not
be constructed when needed to mitigate the impact. The document ultimately concludes that this
Project impact is significant and unavoidable. Id. at 5.16-29. We can find no plausible
explanation as to why this circulation improvement should not be implemented prior to issuance 21 . 21
of building permits or Project occupancy. CONT.
Indeed, the DEIR's failure to require this mitigation measure conflicts with the following
General Plan Policies:
• "Ensure completion of transportation improvements as agreed upon by
the City and developer prior to completion of a development project."
Growth Management Element Policy 1.2.
• "Require new development projects to link issuance of building permits
for the appropriate portion of the development plan to roadway
improvements required to achieve the appropriate LOS." Growth
Management Policy 1.5.
Because improvements to Katella Avenue are not required to be constructed prior to Project
completion, the Project is inconsistent with these clear Policies.
Finally, the DEIR's analysis of cumulative traffic impacts is sorely deficient
because it omits the traffic generated by the Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned
Communities. The Santiago Hills II Project, approved in 2001, wc�uld develop inore
than 1,700 units. The East Orange Area 1 Project, approved in 2005 would develop
about 1000 units. The East Orange Area 2 Project approved in 2005, would develop
about 1,200 units. See
httt�:/1w��rw.city�Foran�e.c�r�7/cie�ts/commde��lplannin�ladvance��151�iieolde��'alilt a�� ,
accessed on June 19, 2013. These developments would result in approximately 45,000
vehicular trips, many of which will travel along Santiago Canyon Road directly adjacent
�1-I�!TE= \i ( 1_I;�LI
���� �'E_1 (\ E�� RC�I�Ft�_�.E
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 25
to the Rio Santiago Project. The DEIR also fails to consider traffic generated by the
Salem-Lutheran Church and School expansion, ongoing Rancho Santiago College
expansion, as well as several proposed and approved projects in the
Silverado/Modjeska/Trabuco Canyon areas. Because the DEIR did not take these
developments, and the associated vehicular trips into account, it substantially
underestimates the Project's cumulative traffic impacts. The DEIR must be revised to
include these planned communities and expansions in the cumulative traffic analysis
G. The DEIR Fails to Identify the Project's Construction-Related Noise Impacts
on Salem-Lutheran Church and School as a Significant Impact.
The DEIR fails to recognize that construction of the proposed Project would result in a
substantial increase in noise levels significantly impacting the Salem-Lutheran Church and
School. The Salem-Lutheran Church and School, a private elementary school and church, is
located approximately 300 feet southeast of the area proposed to be graded. DEIR at 5.12-25.
The City's Municipal Code is intended to protect certain land uses, including schools,
from excessive noise. The Municipal Code Interior Noise Standards state:
It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the
noise level at any school, hospital or church, while the same is in 21 . 2 2
use, to exceed the noise limits as specified in Section 8.24.050
prescribed far the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital
or church is located; or, which noise level unreasonably interferes
with the use of such institutions or which unreasonably disturbs or
annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are
displayed in three separate locations within one-tenth of a mile of
the institution indicating the presence of a school, church or
hospitaL (Ord. 17-74: Prior Code 9500.8). DEIR at 5.12-21.
Section 8.24.050 identifies exterior noise standards of 55 dB(A) during the time period of
7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. DEIR at 5.12-19. Noise levels at the school already exceed the 55 dB(A)
exterior noise standard. Id. at 5.12-9. The Project would result in a 0.9 dBA increase in noise
from grading along the east side of the Project site. Id. at 5.12-26. Pursuant to the City's noise
standards, the DEIR should have determined that the Project's construction's related noise
constitutes a significant impact.
Moreover, CEQA case law is clear that in locations that already experience elevated
noise levels, any increase in noise would necessarily constitute a significant impact. Los Angeles
Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Ca1.App.4th 1019, 1025-26 (emphasis
added).
�N l,3 T F. �1 I H,�L Ll'`
�°� �4k'i_I� E'>E=,RC;[=.(� �_���
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 26
Finally, the Project's failure to mitigate this significant noise impact conflicts with Goal
7.0 of the General Plan's Noise Element, which requires the City to "[m]inimize construction,
maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses."
H. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address the Project's Growth Inducing
Impacts.
As discussed above, the DEIR's growth-inducing impact analysis is inadequate because it
fails to consider the precedent set by approving removal of open space and recreation lands from
the OPA Plan and East Orange General Plan. The growth-inducing analysis also fails to analyze
the impacts of future growth that will result from the widening Santiago Canyon Road, which the
Project facilitates.
The DEIR concludes that the Project will not have any growth-inducing impacts because 21 .2 3
"the development of the proposed project would not foster growth in the surrounding area or
remove an impediment to future growth (e.g., extension of a roadway, public services, or
utilities) in the area surrounding the project site." DEIR at 9-2. Yet this conclusion is not
supported by the evidence. In fact, the Project does remove impediments to future growth. As
the DEIR itself makes clear, "A 10 foot easement on the north side of Santiago Canyon Road has
been set aside for any future roadway expansions and will be deeded to the City. This area will
be maintained by the project HOA as a landscape area until future City expansion is proposed."
DEIR at 3-31.
Growth along Santiago Canyon Road and areas served by the Road is limited by its
current traffic capacity. See Orange General Plan, Growth Management Element Policy 1.6,
Level of Service Standards, at GM 5, 7. By providing dedicated land for right-of-way expansion
along Santiago Canyon Road, the Project removes a physical barrier to future growth. The
roadway may be expanded to add lanes and the traffic capacity of Santiago Canyon Road may be
increased. The DEIR must identify the future roadway expansions the City may implement, and
the future growth this roadway expansion will serve.
II. The DEIR's Analysis of Project Alternatives is Legally Inadequate.
The DEIR's "no-project" alternative is flawed because it does not take into account the
"Santiago Greenbelt Plan" designation of the Project site. CEQA requires agencies to analyze a
"no project" alternative as part of an EIR's alternatives analysis. Guidelines § 15126.6(e). "The
purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decisionmakers to 21 .24
compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the
proposed project." Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(1). When a project consists of"the revision of an
existing land use or regulatory plan . . . the `no project' alternative will be the continuation of the
existing plan . . . into the future." Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(3)(A). To properly analyze this
alternative, the agency must forecast "what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
S E-1 U'1�E�. 11 i }�f�LY
=F.f , 4�;'FII� (�[:�C;I:K ���
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
July 1, 2013
Page 27
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans . . . ." Guidelines §
15126.6(e)(2).
Here, a continuation of the land use plans that the Project proposes to amend means the
Project site will continue to be designated as "Santiago Greenbelt Plan." This is the Project
site's land use designation in the OPA Plan. In other words,the current Resource Area uses may
conti�lue, but any future developrnent must comply with the City's determination of compatible
uses as shown in the OPA Plan,which are open space uses.
The DF,IR's "No Project-Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning"
alternative improperly assumes that Resource Area and Low Density Residential uses would
occur on the Project site. DEIR Page 7-5. This mistake must be corrected. Any future 21 . 24
development of the Project site would have to be consistent with the OPA Plan's Santiago CONT.
Greenbelt Plan designation.
The DEIR must be revised to reflect a legally correct no project alternative. This
alternative will inform decisionmakers and the public that under current land use plans, any
future development of the site would be for apen space uses. Without a proper no project
alternative, the DEIR"fail[s] to meet the most important purpose of CEQA,to fully inforn�the
decision makers and the public of the environmental impacts of the choices before them. A new
EIR must,therefore, be drafted." Planning & Conser•vation League v. l�epartment of Wader
Resou��ces (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 920 (invalidating EIR because the no project alternative
improperly analyzed what would reasonably be expected to occur in absence of project).
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY &WEINBERGER LLP
- �c�.�i����c ��'�� ~--
�:
Rachel B. Hooper � �
�,,� �/��,,•-� { �,�' 1.c1�..cc.1 L. i„*,�°�'J
l
Laurel L. tnpett, AICP, Urban Planner
"''�,`�"`�,,W.....��. ,�,�'�..�. . `"_'_..°.��
Heather Minner
cc: Orange Park Acres
A88370.6
SHUTE MIHALY
�?`-WEINBERCERu_P