The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - APP-0533-14 - PART 3 EXHIBIT C FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ERRATA MITIGATION MONITORING 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 21 Date: July 1, 2013 Rachel B. Hooper Laurel L. Impetter,AICP, Urban Planner Heather Minner Shute,Mihaly, &Weinberger LLP Please note the Commenter attached the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan and Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan to Letter 21. They are provided as Appendices C and D to this document. Response to Comment 21.1 The Commenter's opinions related to Draft EIR failing CEQA requirements based on failing to analyze significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, providing insufficient alternatives, and violating State Planning and Zoning Law are noted. These statements do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because they alone do not substantiate the claims,but the statement is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. This Comment reflects the opinion of the Commenter. Data to refute the Commenter's opinion is provided in Responses to Comments 21.2 through 21.24. In each instance an appropriate response has been provided. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5, Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR related to the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and mitigation measures. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 7.0,Alternatives, related to alternatives to the proposed project. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning,related to General Plan and zoning for 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 21.2 The Commenter's statements are noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please refer to Section 1.0, Introduction Subsection 1.2, Recirculation Consideration of this document related to recirculation. The Commenter states the standard for recirculation under CEQA. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, after a draft EIR has been circulated for public review, a final EIR need not be recirculated unless based on the totality of comments received, "significant new information" is added. [Id. at subd. (a). Information is not "significant"unless the EIR is "changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect . . . that the project's proponents have declined to implement." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5(a).] Page 3-162 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 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 far 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 23 �,�� =� c�,� < �'c� �� June 28, 2013 i„��.�� r�g��oa��s Mr. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner �La-:4-;s=att,P:c�;�tx�,,: City of Orange �1ar7;7y Kle�s2r,V.;r Pres�d�ni v,��,�;�,�,�,��;,,-�,E�,,�,��,. 300 East Chapman Avenue E-MAIL: cartlieb(�citvoforan�e or� ��'�'��'�'`'�'��r s��'�� Orange, California 92866 FAX: (714) 744-7222 Steph<,r�ie�a��r��v °`�"�Y �`}'�" RE: Comments on the Rio Santiago Draft EIR ��,,�� P1ic��c:�lt�Cluud ClerYientc� 7�ck Eidt �;��;>�,�€„�;�ti Dear Mr. Ortlieb: B�(�Ja�e�h ftr�`v Lit'on T<��,r�,u3,,,,4y Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks("FHBP"), an organization dedicated to the 7r`'"s`'``'`"'' preservation, acquisition, protection, and lon -term management of public wilderness, T�n�.Tliomp4tm g ��_��r`�� open space, and recreational lands in Orange County, appreciates the opportunity to s�p�po�;n��ir�a�,z�t;ans comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report("DEIR")for the Rio Santiago Project r;'�"��.`��'E �Uf�=��r,�� ("Project").These comments follow the information that has been provided to date and Audubc!�,Se�,£�5age Cl�a�i�r ef��s3�_:;;�c;nsf,,;�„�y are based on the environmental checklist form contained in the California Environmental �``s��""��'"�'s`'�"` Quality Act Guidelines. U'��uri�cer� E�rth f7�sourte Foun��:tl�n 2 3 . 1 �`�"��t�`"�'�°��'�"'�'"'�� On June 25, 2013,the Board of Directors of FHBP voted to oppose the Rio Santiago E��irc=�,rental Na;uYe Centee �7r��,�k��,ir:t;3�,��,iz�,t�� project that is proposed in the Orange Park Acres community in the City of Orange. FHBP co�.'.iti�;, �-�,�r�„�;o„��n�^;;�c�a;,a= is concerned about the conflict between the long-term planning vision stated in approved �°�i5£`r'�°",��'°``�'Y��'ft planning documents for the City of Orange, and the proposed Project.The Sully-Miller c:a:e ct„t;=r E_�3�au�,=�cr��;�o•,c�,�,��,,��;,tY parcel, site of the proposed Project, is partially within the Orange Park Acres ("OPA") �a�""a ca"'`"='�°"";�"r'°" Specific Plan, a residential-equestrian communit with im ortant connection to Santiago L��un�G:�eenbelt,1nc. y p ��v��E>��r��,� Oaks and Irvine Regional Parks, as well as the Cleveland National Forest.The proposed �ic�.a Club,arar�;�c::�unty �;,,-fr,��r:;>,,,,��t;�,,,, Project would significantly transform and urbanize the rural character of this highly visible ��'��°"��e�ti°' ��'��'t�'" area of the community. stop P��utrna C7ur r�E��.-por� SC. Mt�rk Presb�,�te-�,�„Cl�u�e(� �`�'�'f"""'" Both the East Orange General Plan and OPA Specific Plan are overdue for updating to �a„��ry g��rd establish a comprehensive vision for the site and the community area before the City of Maria�E3n c;eson co��„t�o�r�,,;�,,, Orange acts on a development proposal for such a key parcel.The City's General Plan "'3r'iY`"�rE4;`t`r update process presents a special opportunity to set a vision for open space management ��:ia��v�� a�,rn c,<,�,��, 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 Jc�e D��r��, s�ndy��,:s application may therefore sabotage the City's chances of achieving its open space goals. �"�'"`�"'"�" The language in the DEIR regarding extracting the proposed project from the OPA Specific EYeE°Y(i I�3aY�� K��j�� Plan in favor of a significant, new non-conforming land use, would be an irreversible v,<:�_�=:;,<�€�; sc�pr,��;��G��r,v��, impact to the cultural character of OPA and should have been thoroughly addressed in �`�:��`'�"Y the DEIR. r9att Rav= C:lairc 'st_r:Intt:�rt�e=ck �'�r'��`cY`'``"� Moreover Santiago Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Ana River and part of the Santa �ac��kin.nF>r, P�t.[�. � ��=��v��n�� Ana Mountains watershed, runs through the site. Planning studies for the Santiago Creek ��k�`�`��,`?� Vision Plan have not been completed, and implementation of a management plan is ��St�r��x�2ss necessaryto protect these precious riparian resources.The proposed Project would 23 . 3 "�"'�°'��£��"��"g�� urbanize and develop one of the last remainin o en s aces in the watershed and ga�-�s�-�sss g p p represents a significant and irreversible impact to watershed viability and sustainability wcase.fittan.arg 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 An 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 2 3 . 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 ' � 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 . 8 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 EIR 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 23 . 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 2 3 . 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. Approva) 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. 23 . 16 The proposed private recreational facilities will also have impacts on habitat, water quality and wildlife 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¢er�ely, � � 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 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 23.2 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 Creek. 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 regional environment are noted. This information does not change the analysis ar 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 tharoughly 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, ar 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 E/R—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 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 (Page 5.1-34 of the Draft EIR). Figure 51-13, 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. 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 2.51, 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 or 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 stared Page 3-220 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—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 far 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 P1an(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 Quality 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 Quality 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.oc gov.com/legacy3/newsl etters/pdf/V i lla_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 qualiry 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 1990 levels 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) far 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 hexafluoride) 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 Air 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 measure 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 far 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 far The project does not propose any changes to the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve maritime, rail, ar intermodal facilities or 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 or 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 farested 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 pro'ect 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 Scoping 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 or 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 Quality 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 or 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 or 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, 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. 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 project. (Page 5.1-45 of the Draft EIR) Page 3-228 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—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 City 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" for trail and park issues are noted. The Commenter's statements that the department was re- named some years ago as the "OC Public Works 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 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 3-230 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTE�R 24 = � F �;:, �� ,M.� ��a ��, � �'" �. �, �� T . � ; �� ' � � � �:k�� d �� .:"�� -. , ;�� a v �� .,� �:� ��,�� ,� .. E� � � �� . � .... � ..� �� ; �� " �� -� �� , � , � ��r Response to Draft EIR—Rio Santi�go Project Officers and State Clearinghouse No. 2009051072 Directors Jut�e 2a13 John T. Moore, President Ki�c winrerroth, Ta: Chad Ortlieb, Sr, Planner, Community Development Dept. Vice-President David Piper, Fxorn: Santiaga Creek Greenway Alliance SecretaryTreasurer. - Introduction Jeanne Carter, �e Santia o Creek Greenwa Alliance is a member of The Coalitian Grou re resentin o;recror g �' � p � surrounding neighborhoods and organizations that have an interest in the Rio Santiago Pamela Galera, project. The Coalition Group has met repeatedly with the applicant and his consultants Director throughaut the design af this project. The Greenway Alliance's interest has been primarily those issues that affect Santiago Creek including the prapased Open Space and Advisary Board recre�tional uses. 24.1 ,Iim bonovan, Comments ^'-'%onat Parks � 1. We believe the City of Orange and the applicant should jointly undertake the eonnection afthe eKisting bike trail that t�rnlinates an the west side of the Cannon Shirley Grindle, St. Brid e with the trail to be constructed an the Ria Santia a ro ecfi site. The Campaign f2eform g � p � act;�,sr idea]time to construct this underpass connection is during grading and Peter wetzet, construction of the trail on the project site_ "�Vhile this may not be an EIR issue, Regiona! we recommend this joint undertaking b�included in the Development Agreement. Recreafional Traits Advisory Committee 2. Is it passible to include a disct�ssicrn in the EIR regarding the passibility of future Marilyr►Moore, use of the landfill(at the sautheast carner of Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon) 24.2 Treasurer, OC as a arkin lot to serve the recreational uses on Plannin Area B? Friends of Music p � g 3. The EIR states that the prc►ject may be perceived as substantially degrading the long-term visual character of the site (Impact AES-3). We disagree with this assessment. The existing appearance of the site—tl�e recycling operation—is likely to cantinue for years ifthe Rio Santiago praject is not approved. We 24.3 therefore believe the praject as proposed should realistically be compared to its current and likely to continue use instead of being campared to a future"utopian" condition. We conclude that the proposed prQject represents an aesthetically positive impact. 4. It is our suggestion that the rnitigatian measures that are incorporated into the praject for the conveyance and storage of water run-off into Santiago Creek 24.4 should be surnmarized in the Executive Surnmary an p. 2-5, Section�.3.3. The impact of this project on Santiago Creek is of major importance and should Ue summarzzed in the Executive Summary, 5. The EIR should address the possibility flf connecting the multi-use trail on the Rio Santiaga project with the Mahury Ranch Trail on the north side of the creek which then connects to Santiago 4aks Regional Park. A possible cannection 24.5 could be made on the east side af the Cannon Street Bridge at the same time as the trail connection with the bike trail on the west side of the Catu�on Street bridge. (See No. 1 above). 6. We particularly appreciate the 50 acres of Open Space on both sides of Santiago Creek and the additionat 10 acres of Open Space-Park, 3+acres of public trails 24.6 and 1+acre of public linear park,that are included as part of this project. 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 in 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 wh�ch has an access shaft near the creek. The EIR should describe what measures are being taken to prevent illegal access to this water Iine via this access shaft. 24.8 The Officers and Directors of the Santiaga Creek Greenway Alliance have authorized submittal of these comments for your consideratioxa. Submitted By John 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 major 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 2.3, 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 EIR—December 2013 Page 3-235 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 25 � �. �.� ��i��A , ' David Mains , �;z � . t < < � ��, — �� '�i� �ta�rma�at � �� - R. Lynn Canton p SEGI�t��9��t �� G� Ile PettiC Williarns , �� -�=�� a�� P�rk �r�� q��i��s T��i�� or�ti��_ �� Cois vil�d�y 3419 E Chapman Ave,Suite 48a,arange CA 92869 Alice 5orensan June�4, 2tJ 13 Chad Ortlieb, ��t�or Planner �ity c�f�ran�c 300 E�st G't�apman Averlue _ __ _ _ C}r�r��e,GA 9286� L7ea��Mr. C)rtlie.l�: As you may bc aware, the 4range Park Arenas �quesfirialls Trails Corporatie�n{OPA-E`�"C�'� is a nan-prafit organi7ation tliat 7uanages the Mara Brandman I-iarse Arena lacated aiong Santiagt�Ca�yon�ZUad in the Orange Park t�cres neighbonc�rod c�f East�ran�e, The c�bjectiues of atir arganization are ta; • Pramc�te the use of Orange Park Acres' c;r�uestrian arenas and the multi-pur�os��rails systems�hat suppc�rt them • Irt�teet an� rnaintain equestrian rese�urce��a they are used cc�atinuously and prim�trily ft�r equestrian purpo�e� • F'ro�i�e equestria�l educatir�nal and r�creatiozzal c�ppc�rtunities for the be��efit of ihe cc�rrua�unsty In sectic�n 5.1�.i of the Ria Santiago draft Env�°c�nmen�allmpact Repo�rt (�EIR),The Mara�3ranc�n�n Arer�a is 25.1 listed as one at'several existin�open space/paarks/arenas i�ear the proposed project. Due tp�his cic�se proximity, aur or�;xnization h�s � great interest in the plan� f�ar develt��ing this praperty as they pertain to tll�abjectives af o��-r,�rc°. In�articular,{>PA-ETC is suppc�rtive z�f,Rio Sautia�c�'s tl�ree neiv public,multi-pur�ae�se trails,Tt�e�e��w recreatianal amenities include a cr�ek-side trail, a ��ew Santiagc�C'anyon Road trail ��rith csquestrian fencing, and a tr�il cflnnectin�t�e cree�-side trail to the Santiag�Ganya�z Rc�ad trail. The tcrtal mi1�a��t�f tt�ese new tails is apprc�ximafely 1.3 tz�iles and each��ill allow fc�r equ�strian use as well a�use by hikers,lc�ggers,and bikers. �PA-�T`�'alst�reviewed the Drai� EIR to understand lzouf and where equestrians would l�able tq access these new frazls, and was�leased to learn tl�at equestrian a�cess c�i11 be aifordec�at�e existing si�alizecci li��t at the C)ran��'ark Bc�ule�al-d a�d Sa�tia�o Canyon�aad inter�ection. � P"r�ser�i� t�� q��st�ia� ��r�ta�� a�� Tra�itions �f �rangc �ac� �cr�s �. �ldditionally, our c�rganizatic�n wcruld like to requesi frc�m tl�e��ity c�f C}range informa�i�u reiated to t.l�e fr�l�l�wing Rio Santiaga concerns: 25.2 What eyrtity wil��e tasked�vith�nainfcz�n�rzg�he threc,x rt�w public, multi pu��c�s��rail c? Ita additinr� t� the�iszit�g equestricz��crr»sing at C?rzan��Pc�rk Bc�ule�=ard ctnd�Sc�x�tirr��o Gar�yvrt Rr��cl H�i�l�h�neu°sz�r��t�Xized light�rctp�.��r�f�ar tlz� irzter-.sectiarr��`1Vick;y' t�'iz}�ar7d S�ntic�go Cr��rv�ra hi�rrd 25.3 provide j�ar�att eq��es�nn crossttt��c�s�u�l�? It is�idely�ndcrstr�od that r�noth�r��ubl�c ber��f�t c��l�ir�Saxttic��a is tha��h�3.7 acr�exter�sion r��'the �Yla�a I3rc�r�drr�un Hc�rse Are�� wzll t�e�Qnated hv the latrdt�wr�er us part af t/z�cz�pro�al af th�Fr-��ect. Atthou,gh tl�fs doncztzon i.s not t�ascussc�rl an tT��➢rr�f't�'IR, cautrl}}�u cc�r�rm thc��th�s rlr�nc�ttvrr is ind�ed 25.4 slill pr�rt c?f t1�e R%n�`arztzuga D��Ic�prr��nt:4gre�rn�nt� C?PA-ETC appreciates the City of Oran�e's wc�rk t3�us far in�rcparing and distributing this information t"ar the public to review. We lac�k forward to your ongoirlg ati�ersight atid responses tc�thes�questions. Sincerely, �� lice Sorenson l�irector Orange Park.Arenas, Equestrians, Trails Cr�r�aration 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 EIR—December 2013 Page 3-239 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 26 lune 27,2D13 � �` �� `� .��. -e�. �� - , ,_� Mr. Chad C7rtlieb � � � ��. _ _ Senior Planner � _ �s'# �.�, �� City�f Qrange ��`� 300 East Chapman Avenue � �`-' �� Orange, CA 9�866 � � Re: Camments an the f�ElR for the proposed �ia Santiago Praject Dear Chad, Plea�e allow me to say that there are many asp�cts t�f this project that i like and feel are got�d for the City of Orange which i address first. There are alsca concerns which are ad�ressed further in my{etter. in general,the proposed plan does away with the eyesore of the cu�rent rock crushing operat�t�n. It would result in better air,visual aesthetics and reduced aperational nais�. The open space that is there is anything but pristine and improvements are welcr�me. 26.1 Area A. More than 50°1a of the project's acreage is being offered as open space, contiguous to Santiago Qaks Re�ional Park, I am in favc�r ofthe cannected,multipurpase trails alang Santiago Creek which give access to all kinds af recreational activities,from equestrian, biking and hiking to just walking, and offe� benefits beyond a smatl segment of the City's pc�pulation. The Speeific Plan in this document suggesCs options,other than the County,for responsibility f�r the Greenway Reserve. I urge against�n HOA as access to trails can be changed or cic�sed. The N{�A wt�uld have to fund for caretaking at a level andJor respansibility not appropriate to its nature. City f�ands are limited. �ther than the County, OCi"A would b� a viable perssibility. Area S. 7he 10 acres for recreationaE use thrC�ugh� rnembet'Ship b�sed {nomirl�l fee�}, }�rivately rnanaged facility, such as the YMCA would provide intergenerational opportunities unique to the area. As the Irvine Company's Sports Center project is slated far East Orange,the scope of this prapased 26 2 recreation facility seems�ppropriate. Amenities such as paols and patential classes are good opportunitie�. Just a reminder that aidgeline was also a rnembership based (nominal fee,} privately rnana�ed facility. Area C: I like the idea of a Senior�iving facility as the need for this hc�using is Er�creasing. I unc{erstand that dc�llars must pencil out, but if�twc�story rath�r th�n the prop�sed three story facility is feasibfie,it 26.3 is preferred. Area I�; 3.30 Singl� Family Residences.The (inear park and general layout are appealing. More details regarding th� houses wc�uld be appreciated. Tne 6,OOt}square foo#{c�ts are smafl for the surraunding 26.4 minimum 8,000 square faQt neighborht�ads. Concerns: Dam inundation—There are areas that fall into the dam inundation zone,not just the flood p{ain. 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 pas#and offer protection 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 far residents. Noise, Lights and Density-1 have general concerns 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 for an all recreation alternative is too disruptive for the adjacent neighborhoods. The Irvine Cornpany'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 different? Afternative#7—A development of clustered residentials is not in keeping with the surrounding communities. it has greater impact on traffic,schools and public services than the proposed Rio Santiago project because of its density. Alternative#8—This is a reasonable alternative with the caveat that appropr{ate and acceptable mitigations are found for the dam inundation,flood and methane safety issues. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. ��-�_� C.�-:.�-e;-��ncc�` :c-c�,. �' Sue Obermayer � 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 for 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 seniar living facility and preferred two-story option are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Aesthetics related to views of the project site. 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 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 EIR—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 am� issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is nor.ed and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Re�sponse 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 2.3.1, Relationship to Former Cc�unty 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 Tt�e 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. TYiis 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 E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 27 Robert H.�d{� 6�07 East Mabury Avenue Orange,CA 92867 �: , lune 2$,2013 ,. _ Mr. Chad Ortlieb ' � � `� � � Senior Planner, Planning division City flf Orange � 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange,CA9Z866 � �� Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Repart(EIR 1818-09) Re: Ria 5antiaga Project Dear Mr. �rtlieb: The purpose of this letter is to provide comments an the subject DEIR. The following is submitted: 1. In the prapased praject, PA"C" provides for a maximum of three stories in the center of the 27.� age restricted area. Three staries are not cansistent witt�the surrounding developments and would impose an additional source af uninterrupted light glare upan the surraunding developments. 2. PA"C"in the praposed project has identified outdoor uses, i.e., pao(,outdaof sports fields and courts. All o#these facilitie�have activities that are noise producers. Specific hours of 27 2 operation should be conditioned an the use. In addition, if these facilities are lighted,the lights must be directed away from existing developments and must be designed to reduce night light glare. 3. The project area is rural and is horne to a significant amount af wildlife. During any grading aperation,small mamnnals,radents and snakes will be forced from their habitat. It is recammended that a wildlife barrier be erected adjacent ta the fenee that paralleis East 27.3 Mabury Avenue. This wauld reduce the number af unwanted visitors to the homes in Mabury Ranch and beyond. In reviewing the alternatives ta the prapased project in the DEIR,Alternative 8 seerns ta be the most environmentally sensitive and the most desirable,fram neighbors prospective. lVaturally,items 2 and 3 above wauld still be of concern even in this alternative. 27.4 Thank you for providing this oppartunity ta express my thaughts. Sincerely, w.� Robert H. Udle 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 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 3-247 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 28 June 24,2013 �had�rtlieb- Senior Planning Ci�y�f C}range—Planning Divisior� � 3(�}E.Chapman Ave. flran�e,CA 92869 StIBJ�CT: RIC► SAN'TIAGfl I)EIR ; I��r.4rtlieb= I I have a few questic�ns whieh I v�c�uld appreciate the City address as it revievvs the DEIR fc�r the � Rin Santiagc�plan. � First,I tic�n't understand why th�applicant is in n�go�iaficrns with the Gouz��y caf iJr�nge on the 50 28.1 i acres o�natcirai c�p�n��a�e id�ntifiecl in Flarir�ing Area "A.'r Why isn't t�t��plicant s�mply being ; required t4 just dc�nate this lar�d tc�the City af t}raa�ge,esgecially since certain grc�ugs keep claimin� ' that"Orange needs �rks and apen space"? Why did the City af Orange de�line this land? Second,can yc�u please explain the system for issuing park fee credit�to property owners wh� want to devel�p their land? Mc,re specifically,if the St�te af California and th�City af tJrange have requirem�nts ft�r grantin�p�rk credits,then why wouldn't the applicant's c�onatic�n of the open space in Planning Area"A"as well as the re�nainin�3.7 acres�af th�Mara Brandman eque�trian center(naw a parking l+�t and flc�wer starrd) plus a1l th�n�w pubiic tr�il�and�ark�and as well as the c��en��ace and park a�in Planning Ar�a :`B,>be ena��h fot��a��lica�at t�qnal�fy 28.2 far these eredits? I am concerned that vve are driving out thase who rvant ta dev�lop their land b�cause we r�fuse their offers c�f c�pen space and parkiar�t�as we alsc�refuse to give them the prc}per credit for o�n space and par�cla�ad. Please respc�nd to my questi�ns abc�ve. Thank yc�u� Sincerely .��-�� ' � ��--°° ��,._.. � ,,,: � 1 � tr�� _ �� - �:�� - �1�� >�� c��r--�-.� . � � �- �� .� 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. City 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 for 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 C�airman David Mains - Vice Chairman R. Lynn Canton , , :�� ` �' _� r��retar�/'�reasurer ��fs�ficl�elle Pettit Williams �r�� t��i�� i��"� ��'��t�tl�� _ Direu�ors Lais Widly 3419 E Chapman Ave, Suite 480, Orange CA 92869 j ' Alice Sorenson , ��; �- �: e w.� June 24,2013 � � � � �.. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange,CA 92866 Dear Mr. Ortlieb: As you may be aware,the Orange Park Arenas Equestrians Trails Corporation(OPA-ETC)is a non-profit or�anization that manages the Mara Brandman Horse Arena located along Santiago Canyon Road in the Orange 1'ark Acres neighborhood of East Orange. The abjectives of our or�anization are to: . Promote the use of Orangz Park Aca�es' equestrian arenas and the multi-p�upose trails systems that snpport them . Protect and maintain equesh�ian resources so they are used continuonsly and primarily for ec�ues�rian�urpases . Provide equestrian educational and recreational opportunities for the bene�t of the community In sectioil 515.2 of the Ria Santiago draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR),The Mara Brandman Arena is 29 � listed as ane of several existing apen space/parks/arenas near the proposed project. Due to this close proxirnity, our organization has a great interest in the plans far developin�this properiy as they pertain to�he ab}ectives of OPA-ETC. In particular, OPA-ETC is supportive af Ria Santiago's three new public, rnulti-purpose trails.These new recreational amenities include a creele-side trail, a new SanCiago Canyon Road trail with equestrian fencing,and a trail connecting the creek-side trail to the Santiago Canyon Road trail. The total mileage of these new tails is approximately 1.3 rniles and each�vill allow for equestrian use as v��ell as use by hikers,jnggers, and bikers. OPA-ETC also revie��ved the Draft EIR to understand how and where equestrians would be able to access these new�rails,and was pleased to leam that equestrian access will be afforded at the existing signalized light at the Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road intersection. K Fr�servi�� the Eques�rian !{�eita�e and Traditians �f �ra�ge �ark Aares x Additionally, ot�r or�anization would like to request fram the City of Orange inforiilatian related to the following Rio Santiago concerns: 2g,2 Yi�tat entity will be tasked witli rtzai��lttinin�g tlxe three new p��hlic, rnultz purpose trails? ha acldition to the existir�g equestYiara crassing ar Clrange Park Boulevurd and Santiago C.r�nyon Road, will the new signalized light proposed for the iniersection of Nicky Way and Santiagd Canyon Road 29•3 provide for an equestrian crossi�ag as well? It is widely r�nderstood that anothei�public ben�fit of Rio Sa�tiago is that the 3.7 r�c�re�xtensian of the Mr�r-a Bran�lr�zan Hof-se�rena lvill b�rior��tecl by-the larac�o�v��er c�.s part of�the approval of the Project. 2g.4 Althougla this donczti�n is not discussed irr� the I�raft EIR, could you c•onfirrn t�l�at this danation is indeed still part of the Rio Santiago Ilevelap�ne�it�3greernent? � OPA-ETC appreciates the City of Orange's worlc thus far in preparing and distributing this information for the �ublic to review. We look forward to your angoing oversight and responses to these questions. Since �, 1 � I 3 P ¢ � "�� . Lois Widly Director Oran�e Park Arenas, Equestrians,Trails Corparation 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 E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 30 ��ir�� David Mains ��t�� tl��i`�I�"�' R. Lynn Cantan � � �� C��p'J��t'��".�€�� Michelle Pettit Williams � � � i � ... �.� �{��;;,, ''� �� `� `` ;,` . �kd Y&i24!#� . .. .� �� . ..:. � ' •.. � Lais Widly 3419 E Chapman Ave, Suite 480, Qrange CA 92869 � �° ' ; `=Alice Sorenson . �_ .m> r , _ �. ; � � f ; �-� . � �R =� . � � �� .., 3 F E_�= � � June 24, 2013 �� . Chad Ortlieb, Senior Platlner City of 4range 300 East Cha�tnan Avenue �range, CA 928b6 Dear Mr. Ortiieb: As you mav be aware,the Orange Park Arenas Equestrians Trails Corporation(OPA-ETC) is a non-prafit organizatior�d7at manages the Mara Brandman Horse�rena lacated alon�Santiago Canyon Road il�the Orange Park Acres neighbarhood of East Orange. The objectives of our organization are to: ■ Frc�mote the use of Ot'ange Paa-k AcreS' equestri�n arenas and tl�e tnulti-purpose trails systems that �uppo�-t them ■ Peoteit and maintain equestria�i resources so they are used cor�ti►u�ously and primarily for ec�uest��ian 30.1 pw-pc�ses ■ Pro�ici� �c�uestria��educati�nal anc�t-ecceationaL o�}�t�i`tunities far tl�e t�enet�t c�f the eommunity In section 5.15.2 of the Rio Santiago draft Environmeiltal Inipact Report(EIR), The Mara Brand7nan Arena is l;sted as one c�f several existin�o�en space/p�rkslarenas t�ear the prop�sed project. Due to this close proximity, our organizatian has a�reat interest in the plans for develaping this property as they pertai�n to the objectives oY OPA-ETC. In particular,OPA-ETC is supporti��e of Rio Santiago's three new pubtic, multi-purpose trails.These»ew recreational amenities inciude a creek-side trail, a new Santia�o Canyan Road irail v��ith equestrian fencing, and a trail connecting the ct•eek-side ti-ail to the Santiago Canyon Road trail. The total mileage of these new tails is approximately 1.3 nules and each��ill allow for equestrian use as well as use by hikers,joggers, and bikers. OPA-ETC also reviewed the Draft EIR to uFiderstand ho��i and where equestrians would be able to access these new�trails, and was pleased t� leari7 that equestrian access will Ue affordee�at the existing si�alized light at the Orange Park Baulevard and Santiago Canyon Road intersectton. ,�, � T� � `� 4<r A �.° � e� i�`ja;6�e t�,'g �p°»i'U�' �".ir7q �n�� .� �a��v�°�,��d�; �x�,� �az3a`�at.3z�;��. ��t��d ,:o-r ��a�,��b �� v w; , Additionally, ou�arganization would lihe ta request from the City of Qrange infonnation related to the fallowing Rio Santiago concerns: 30.2 YYhat ent�ty will be tasked with n2aintazning the three new publzc, multi�uf�c�se trails? In additipn tc�the existing eguestriarz crossing nt ONarzge Pcrrk Boul�ilard and Santiago �'anyon Road, will the rzew sigt�ali�ed dig�at propose�'.fo�°the intersectir�n of�'ic1�t� t�ay and Sarrtiago Ganyof�Road provide f'or ctn er�u�strian crossing as well? 30.3 It is tivi�lely under°stood that unothe�•public benefit�f Rio S'antiago is that th�3.7 acre extension of the �l-�af•a Brandman Harse Arerza will be donated by the landoi��y�er as part af tl7e approucrl t�f the Projc�ct. �lthough this donation is not discu,ssed zn the Draft EIR, ec�uld you eon��•m thcrt t1�is donation i,s indeed 30.4 still part of the Rio ASantia�o Deljelr�pnrent�f�reement? C�PA-ETC appreciates the City of t7ran�e's work thus far in preparing as�d distributin�this infonnation for tt�e public to review. We ]ook forwarci to your on�ainb oversight and resporrses ta these questions. Sincerely, � r Michell Pettit Williarns � Secreta /Treasurer Orailge rk Arenas, Eqttestrians, Trails Co7paration 3.0 Comments and Responses In order to be"significant,"the new information must constitute one of the following: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponent decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusionary in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15088.5(a)(1)-(4).) As with other challenges to an EIR, the substantial evidence standard applies to recirculation. (Section 15088.5(e); Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Ca1.4th at 1120). Accordingly, if any substantial record evidence supports the lead agency's decision not to recirculate, it must be affirmed. (Section 15088.5(e).) Moreover, it is a petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the record is wholly devoid of any substantial evidence supporting the lead agency's decision not to recirculate. (Western Placer Citizens [etc.] v. County of Placer(2006) 144 Ca1.App.4th 890, 903.) As noted above, the Draft EIR fully describes the proposed project, analyzes its impacts, and discusses meaningful alternatives and mitigation measures. Neither the Commenter nor the body of comments received presents significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Therefore, no substantial evidence has been provided by the Commentator and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. 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 21.3 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed Specific Plan conditionally allows a number of intensive uses in Planning Area B, such as country clubs, freestanding museums and libraries, and even stadiums and grandstands with a conditional use permit. It is the Commenter's opinion that the impacts associated with tbese uses are quantitatively different from those associated with the hoped-for YMCA facility. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5 Land Use and Planning related to this issue. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-163 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Section 6.4.1, Conditional Use Permit, Open Space - Park of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan provides a list of uses allowed in Planning Area B, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in accordance with the standards of the City of Orange Municipal Code (OMC). Several Commenters have expressed a concern with specific "intensive uses" permitted by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in Planning Area B stating that the impacts associated with these uses are quantitatively different from those associated with the proposed YMCA. They provided the example that the impact difference of automobile trips generated by a stadium exceeds that of an athletic facility. Additionally, that these automobile trips are more concentrated in short windows of time before and after an event. The Draft EIR indicates that Planning Area B would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site, generally bordered by Santiago Creek on the north, East Santiago Canyon Road to the south and the closed Villa Park Landfill to the west. The Planning Area totals 10 gross acres in size (approximately nine percent of the project site) and would be developed prior to the last occupancy permit in Planning Areas C and D. It would allow a variety of fee-based recreational and community uses including "pay- for-play" uses, such as,but not limited to: • Sports Activity Field(s)(i.e., softball/baseball), • Soccer/Lacrosse/Field Hockey Field, • Court Sport(s), • Swimming Pool(s), • Open Turf Area, and • Athletic Training Center. The Draft EIR indicates that the proposed sport fields have the potential to be lighted. 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 would also be 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. The following uses would be allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and additional use-specific environmental assessment and review by the City: • Archery Range, • Country Club(s), • Free-standing Museums and Libraries, • Stadiums and Grandstands, • Skate Park, • Veterinary Clinics and Livestock Animal Hospitals, and • Daycare with 9 or more children. The Draft EIR states that the proposed project would alter the existing visual character of Planning Area B with the elimination of existing on-site current uses [(i.e., the backfilling operation) Page 5.1-36 of the Draft EIR]. Further, the Draft EIR states that the proposed project, including all the permitted and Page 3-164 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses conditionally permitted uses would not be perceived as a substantial degradation to the long-term visual character of portions of the project site and indicating that Planning Area B is substantially degraded by the current backfilling operation. At issuance of the NOP, Planning Area B was being backfilled and contained the backfill operations and associated uses. There is no time limit for the completion of the backfill operation. Additionally, PDF's AES-11 through AES-19, and PDF AES-22 would reduce potential long-term impacts related to the proposed project improvements in Planning Area B. These PDF's would require compliance with the City's Municipal Code related to landscaping and the establishment of specific design features to lessen the impact on the visual character of this area. Therefore, a less than significant long-term visual character impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. (Page 5.1-37 of the Draft EIR) The Draft EIR does not evaluate the impacts of an archery range, skate park, or daycare with nine (9) or more children. These uses are directly associated with a YMCA use and are customarily found within their operations. While Commenters noted these use are necessarily more "intensive uses," they are uses that require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in accordance with the OMC. An archery range, skate park, or daycare with 9 or mare children has been evaluated throughout the EIR in association with the YMCA as associated uses. Each of these three uses require further evaluation for potential specific issues once their precise location would be determined (i.e., safety zones for archery range). Therefore, the CUP would be subject to further discretionary approval and further CEQA analyses and review by the City at the appropriate time to review potential issues. The Draft EIR does not evaluate country clubs; free standing museums and libraries; stadiums and grandstands; and, veterinary clinics and livestock animal hospitals. County clubs would be associated with a golf facility. Therefore, since no golf facility could be developed in Planning Area B,this potential uses, while conditionally permitted, must be considered speculative. The project applicant has indicated that free standing museums and libraries would occur within the evaluated 81,000 square feet of allowable development within Planning Area B. The approval of the Specific Plan by the City would not represent a commitment to expand the use of the project site to allow these uses. City approval would establish the requirement that should these specific uses be considered on the project site that further evaluation (i.e., CEQA & CUP) must be undertaken. Therefore, while it might be argued that potential for approval of a future conditionally permit use would exist; there is no commitment to expand uses on the project site at this time. Therefore, the CUP would be subject to further discretionary approval and further CEQA review by the City would be the appropriate time to review potential issues with these specific uses. Planning Area B could be utilized as a stadium or grandstand with the approval of a CUP. It would be speculative to evaluate a stadium or grandstand facility at this time as the exact location and size (i.e., number of seats) is unknown. Therefore, the CUP would be subject to further discretionary approval and further CEQA review by the City would be the appropriate time to review potential issues with these specific uses. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-165 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The approval of the Specific Plan by the City would not represent a commitment to expand the use of the project site to allow these uses. City approval would impose the requirement that should these specific uses be considered on the project site that further evaluation (i.e., CEQA & CUP) must be undertaken. Therefore, while it might be argued that the potential for approval of a future CUP would exist;there is no commitment to expand uses on the project site at this time. 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 21.4 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed City General Plan Text Amendment is not properly addressed. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation related to this issue. This concern deals with the proposed change to the General Plan Text. A discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with the General Plan is provided in Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning. The Draft EIR states, Open Space -Park The proposed project would modify the Open Space — Park (OS-P) General Plan designation as noted below. The City General Plan Open Space—Park designation is described as: Public lands used for passive and active recreation. Includes all parklands owned and maintained by the Ciry of Orange, as well as parks operated by the County." (City of Orange General Plan, Table LU-1). Land uses within this designation are described as follows: The Open Space Park designation refers to public and/or nrivate lands used for passive and active recreation. This includes all parklands owned and maintained by the City of Orange, ��parks operated by the County, non-nrofit orQanizations. and nrivate landowners(Proposed Amendment to City of Orange General Plan, Page LU-22). There are proposed changes to the General Plan text for Open Space Park and are noted above in s�l� and underline. The proposed text changes allow for private recreation, such as a YMCA or other private pay for use facilities to be permitted on Open Space Park General Plan designation. With the inclusion of the text amendment to the OS-P, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-15, Draft EIR) Page 3-166 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter is not correct in stating that the proposed project includes a General Plan text amendment that would amend the General Plan's description of the "Park" land use designation. The amendment to the City General Plan text would amend the "Open Space—Park" (OS-P) description. The City General Plan presently only designates land as OS-P that is owned and maintained by the City or County. The proposed text changes allow for private recreational users, such as a YMCA or other private pay-for-use facilities to own land designated as OS-P by the City General Plan. The Commenter has expressed a concern that the proposed amendment would impact approximately 20 public properties currently with the OS-P designation and any future properties that would be so designated. The concern was stated that the 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. While the amendment could potentially allow for a change in ownership, a change in ownership would not change any existing use or potential future use. CEQA requires the City to evaluate the significance of the environmental effect of a proposed project. Commenter's concerns with the potential sale of City public park land to private individuals who might choose to exclude the public and allow the City to raise funds in an economic downturn are speculative. CEQA requires only the analysis of effects that are reasonably foreseeable and not changes that are speculative in nature. It is the opinion of the City that Commenter's concern is not valid and is speculative in 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. Response to Comment 21.5 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed project contradicts governing land use plans. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning related to this issue. It should be noted that the City has the right to amend existing plans,that the project applicant is requesting amendments to the OPA Plan, East Orange Plan, and City General Plan, and the proposed project was evaluated for its impacts, which includes the ramifications of the amended plans. Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR addressed potential impacts to land use and planning, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identified mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant land use and planning impacts and described the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. The Draft EIR found: 1. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicting with General Plan policies and goals,and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-10,Draft EIR); City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-167 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses 2. With the inclusion of the text amendment to the OS-P, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-15,Draft EIR); 3. With the City's approval of the amendments to the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan and the approval of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-16, Draft EIR); 4. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10- 105, Draft EIR); and, 5. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with a conservation plan and no mitigation measures would be required(Page 5.10-107, Draft EIR). The Draft EIR found that, "The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans,policies, and regulations and no mitigation measures would be required." (Page 5.10-105, Draft EIR). Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, specifically Table 2.5-1, Summary ofApplicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations that identifies each plan, policy, or regulation; indicates if it is applicable to the proposed project; and,provides a discussion of the issue/Draft EIR analysis. As noted in Table 2.5-1, Summary of Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, ar regulations. The Draft EIR states that, "The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations and no mitigation measures would be required." (Page 5.10-105, Draft EIR). Even given this determination, several Commenters have expressed concern with the proposed project's consistency with other plans and programs (i.e., Santiago Creek Greenbelt Vision Plan, Santiago Creek Vision Plan, Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan, etc.). As indicated in Table 2.5-1, Summary of Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, these plans are not applicable to the project site. However, a concern that the proposed project is not consistent with the "spirit" or "intent" of these plans or programs, even though they are not applicable to the project site. Therefore, the following discussion is provided to further clarify. Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan The Santiago Creek Greenbelt Vision Plan (SCVP) indicates that the first known public planning effort far Santiago Creek was included as part of a larger Santa Ana River plan, in March, 1971. The Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (SARSCGP) assessed the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, as a "link in the tri-county coast-to-crest greenbelt." The SARSCGP reviewed the natural resources and made proposals in four geographic segments and provided recommendations for implementation. Santiago Creek was evaluated as one of the four segments. The SARSCGP's recommendations for Santiago Creek included: Page 3-168 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses • Study flood control needs and for feasibility of rehabilitating gravel pits as retention basins and regional parks, thereby alleviating future needs to line the Creek with concrete to protect adjacent housing; • Preserve agriculture; • Develop, enlarge or connect small parks along the Creek; • Link the Creek with residential communities by acquiring the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad"Tustin Branch"for trail use; • Extend a trail along the Creek, connecting parks; and, • Preserve and protect hill settings. The Santiago Creek Greenbelt Vision Plan (SCVP) indicates that trails were regarded as the single most important objective of the 197] corridar plan. City Council actions related to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (SARSCGP) have been reviewed. Based on this review, it has been determined that the SARSCGP was not adopted by the City. At the request of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the City joined the program providing one-member from the City Council to represent the City on the Greenbelt Organization Committee; one City Staff inember to be a rotating member of the Greenbelt Program Plan Committee; and appointment five citizens to the Orange Greenbelt plan committee. Please refer to City Council minutes April 15, 1972. However, the OPA Plan incorporated certain portions of the SARSCGP and the OPA Plan was adopted as part of the Land Use Element of the City General Plan. (City Resolution No. 3915 adopted December 26, 1973)as follows: ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLANNING PROGRAM Within the Orange County General Planning Program elements have been adopted and have application to this study: 1. The 1983 Orange County Land Use Element has been adopted and supersedes the Orange Community General Plan and the Tustin Area General Plan (see Exhibit 4t21 [1983 Land Use Element]). Not shown on the exhibit is the incorporation of the Santa Ana River - Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan. These plans have been used for reference in this planning study. The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan will be proposed as an amendment to the 1983 Land Use Element. (Page 77 of the OPA Plan) POLICIES FOR ORANGE PARK ACRES ... 10. Preserve Santiago Creek as a balanced ecological system and riparian area, maintaining the diversity of plant and vertebrate species while allowing for light recreational use such as equestrian and hiking trails. Specifically support: the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Proposal by the County of Orange (Page 101 of the OPA Plan) City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-169 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan proposes the incorporation of that portion of the County adopted Santa Ana River- Santiago, Creek Greenbelt Plan within the Santiago Creek to the north and east of this study area. This covers approximately 450 acres of the study area. (Page 118 of the OPA Plan) The Plan proposes the incorporation of presently proposed trails within the, Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails for Orange County, the Proposed Orange County Skeletal Bicycle Plan and the Santiago Creek Project Priority Map. The Plan also depicts the proposed local routes to form the main trail system for Orange Park Acres to link to these routes. (See Exhibit#33 (Parks, Trails & Open Spaces) of specific note is the incorporation, of Handy Creek as a trail link. It is recommended that it be acquired to provide for trails and drainage. (Page 118 of the OPA Plan) The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicting with General Plan policies and goals, and no mitigation measures would be required. Because the OPA Plan is part of the City General Plan, certain portions of the SARSCGP are a part of the City General Plan. (Page 5.10-10, Draft EIR) The proposed project would amend the City's General Plan and remove the project site from the OPA Plan area. The Draft EIR found that with the City's approval of the amendments to the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan and the approval of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-16, Draft EIR) Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan The Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan (SARSCGIP) was a status report. The Santiago Creek Vision Plan (SCVP) states that, "This document served as a thorough overview and update of pYior planning efforts, using Orange County's corridor plan of I971 as a benchmark, while incorporating known flood protectio�a proposals and other regional projects of interest, such as water supply and waste treatment(Wells 1976: 2-10)." The Santiago Creek Vision Plan (SCVP) further states that, By 1973, "a multi jurisdictional, separate public agency," or joint powers authority, was formed to coordinate project implementation within Orange County: the Greenbelt Commission. The commission was comprised of three members of the County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Flood Control District, two directors of Orange County Water District, and council members from each of eight cities located within the watershed, based upon acreage in the planning area: Anaheim (two representatives), Huntington Beach (two), Newport Beach (one), Orange (four), Santa Ana (two), Villa Park (three) and Yarba Linda (two). Twenty-six citizens were appointed as members of Santiago Creek Greenbelt Committees that worked to coordinate planning on a local level. The Board of Supervisors folded the greenway plan into the county's open space element of its general plan(Ibid.: 11-15 and 18, citing Resolution No. 74-ll 51). The group focus was limited to a reach of Santiago Creek that came to be known as "Lower Santiago Creek,"extending from Villa Park Dam to the Santa Ana River confluence. The corridor Page 3-170 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses was "arbitrarily defined" as three miles of land centered on the creek. In what may be described as a project vision,the implementation plan states that the corridor: ...should be viewed as a linear greenbelt, linking park nodes and significant open spaces by a bicycle, equestrian and hiking trail system. The river look and atmosphere should be saved or restored as appropriate, with an emphasis on trees, informal space, and quiet contrast to the surrounding urban texture and"busy- ness." The demands for open space and recreation should be balanced according to the potential of the corridor, i.e., some areas of intensive use, some of natural preserve, [others] in-between (Ibid.: 13). Goals expressed for Santiago Creek at this time (1976) included studying the creek's adequacy for ongoing flood protection, considering the feasibility of converting sand and gravel pits as retention basins and new parks, extending and linking the existing smaller parks located along the creek, developing a continuous recreation trail and preserving ar protecting natural lands on nearby hillsides. The Greenbelt Commission's implementation plan defined a range of recreational uses and facilities that could comprise a greenway, including: bicycle and equestrian facilities; state, regional, natural, community, neighborhood and miniature parks; trail rest stops, park and ride facilities, water conservation facilities; equestrian centers, golf courses and open space reserves (Ibid.: 28-30). Santiago Creek is mapped generally as one of four planning areas within Orange County, with then-vacant lands along the creek identified as "greenbelt corridar" and nearby lands noted as "impact area." General concepts are presented, such as "Lower Santiago Creek Regional Park" that was first proposed in the county's 1960 Master Plan of Regional Parks, a "live stream" extending from Santiago Dam to Walnut Avenue, sand and gravel pit rehabilitation, and development of a specific plan for Lower Santiago Creek (Ibid.: 32 and 79-82). The implementation plan also reflects some of the planning conceived by residents or coordinated by the City of Orange and local Citizen Greenbelt Committees. Equestrian and commuter trails were proposed from Hart Park to Santiago Oaks Regional Park, each along an edge of the creek. Hart Park, initially developed in 1933, had just recently been expanded across and south of the creek. An easterly expansion was now being discussed. Specific opportunities for development of a recreation facility and community park, the acquisition of open space, possible trail connections, park-and-ride sites, even a campground were suggested as projects. Nature preserve and wilderness areas were forecast at a site that had been recently purchased by the county, later known as Santiago Oaks Regional Park (Ibid.: 86-91). The success of this era was attributed to a strong level of community participation and interest in Santiago Creek, noted by Wells as key to the implementation of local projects. The city's portion of the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan was approved by the Ciry Council on 18 May 1976. In addition to charter membership, in the Greenbelt Commission, the city has provided funds and staff hours in support of the joint study to develop the land use decision model for Santiago Creek and Santa Ana Canyon. The city's Citizen Greenbelt Committee has been exceptionally active in the greenbelt program, and has worked closely with the committees of neighboring jurisdictions and their staffs in the development of greenbelt plans. Members of the committee have attended numerous meetings with developers regarding planned developments along the greenbelt City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-171 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses corridor; reviewed and provided comments and recommendations to their city's planning commission and council about the compatibility of plans with the greenbelt, and in general have been a forceful, constructive influence on maintaining the inertia and quality of the greenbelt program(Ibid.: 81). City Council actions related to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan (SARSCGIP) have been reviewed. The SARSCGIP was accepted by the City Council on May 18, 1976. The City did not adopt the SARSCGIP. However, the City Council Minutes (May 18, 1976) indicated that the City approved the implementation of certain project projects identified in the SARSCGIP. Based on this review, it has been determined that the SARSCGIP was not adopted by the City. While the SARSCGIP has been utilized as a reference, it is not a City adopted public policy related to the project site. Therefore,no further action or analysis is warranted. Santiago Creek Vision Plan The Santiago Creek Vision Plan (SCVP) is a strategic visioning proposal for the seven-mile corridor in the City, from William O. Hart Park to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. The SCVP was prepared by the City, Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance, and the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program with support from the Wildland Conservancy in December 15, 2008. The SCVP describes a "Vision Plan" for a greenway, multi-purpose trail system and healthy watershed along Santiago Creek in the City. The primary goals of the SCVP are to: 1. Develop a continuous multi-purpose trail on the upper bank of the Creek(uplands area). 2. Create a greenway along the creek by restaring the Creek bed and its adjacent uplands with native trees and shrubs. 3. Maximize ground water recharge by restoring the Creek bed in specific areas. 4. Maintain or improve existing level of flood protection. The SCVP also provides general guidance on how Santiago Creek, greenway and trail improvements could be integrated into development proposals. The SCVP was developed as a vision for the future of Santiago Creek. The SCVP anticipated that following its adoption, more detailed proposals for specific projects will include evaluation of environmental resources and identification of project impacts. The SCVP does not obligate the City or landowners to any immediate actions or land use restrictions. At time of writing the City's 2010 General Plan, the Natural Resource Element states, "In 1999, the City applied for, and was granted, technical assistance from the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program to prepare a conceptual master plan for Santiago Creek. The plan, which is under preparation, will address three major components: recreation trails, open space, and flood control. The City will continue to work toward completion of the Vision Plan for Santiago Creek, and will implement its recommendation, consistent with General Plan policies concerning the Creek." (Page NR-46) The SCVP is intended to facilitate long-term actions and strategic development of community-based improvements. The SCVP primary goals are to: Page 3-172 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses 1. Construct a multi-purpose trail system along the Creek bank connecting Santiago Park in Santa Ana to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Santiago Oaks Regional Park connects to regional trails further east and south (e.g., Anaheim Hills Trails, Irvine Regional Park, Weir Canyon and the Mountains-to-Sea National Recreation Trail and Peters Canyon). 2. Create a greenway (where possible) along the Creek by restoring the Creek bed and its adjacent uplands with native trees and shrubs. 3. Restore the Creek's natural contribution to groundwater recharge by removal of concrete parking lots from the Creek bed and replacing non-native plants with soft-stemmed natives. 4. Maintain or improve flood protection goals defined by county officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The SCVP describes the project site within Section 2.7, Mile 7, Cannon Street Bridge to East End of Sully-Miller (i.e., former project site owner) Property. The SCVP states that Mile 7 contains the largest undeveloped parcel of land in the study area. The SCVP describes the project site as: It is known as the Sully-Miller properties named for the firm that mined this site between 1920 and 1985. It is one of only four sizeable undeveloped parcels of land remaining along Santiago Creek (the other three are the Yorba site behind Chapman Hospital; the Hurwitz property on the west side of Cannon Street; and the abutting Villa Park Landfill). A small portion on the southeast corner is presently (2007) being used for a recycling/crushing facility operated by Hanson Aggregates. Agricultural field crops have been grown in the past on large portions of the site that were first mined for sand and gravel, and then filled with silt from the processing operations, or with inert materials (rock, asphalt, concrete, etc.). The Villa Park Landfill was a former gravel pit which was once mined to a depth of about 75 feet (County of Orange 1977). After removal of the sand and gravel it was used for disposal of household refuse. The disposal site is still producing significant amounts of inethane gas that is evacuated through a system of underground wells and pipes exhausting to the atmosphere (County of Orange 2000). Figure 42 is a photograph of the Sully-Miller site looking west from Rattlesnake Peak in Santiago Oaks Regional Park. The Cannon Street Bridge is seen in the background near the upper left. A portion of Mabury Avenue is seen along the right. Santiago Creek, visible only as a riparian corridor, flows generally west past the Villa Park Landfill and under the Cannon Street Bridge. The creek itself is hidden by the trees in the foreground and eclipsed by the terrain. Much of the Sully Miller property is covered with a mixture of native and non-native plant species, as seen in Figure 42 and 43. The trees shown in the photo are mostly native willows. An unpaved road could provide a good base for the bike path running east from the Cannon Street Bridge to the vicinity of Handy Creek. The portion of the Sully-Miller site that is on the south side of the creek is ideal for trails, a greenway and active park use. A 100-foot right-of-way is recommended for the trail and greenway along the south side of the creek, to the point where the trail would cross the creek to join an existing segment of the Santiago Creek Trail on the north City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-173 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses side. Much of this area will likely be left undisturbed due to the mitigation that would be required, should the site become disturbed. (Sully-Miller/Fieldstone Communities 2001). Abutting this site is a 9.6-acre parcel (now owned by John Martin) that is presently zoned R-1-8 although its development potential may be limited. The SCVP identifies four potential projects recommended for Mile 7 that are shown in Table 2.5-2, Santiago Creek Vision Plan Potential Projects—Mile 7. Table 2.5-2: Santiago Creek Vision Plan Potential Projects—Mile 7 Project No. Description 7.1 Develop closed landfill as a parking facility for adjacent open space and active park. 7.2 Construct Class I bike path from Cannon Street to Handy Creek confluence. 7.3 Restore land on both sides of trails with native plants as needed. 7.4 Construct recreation trail north from the bike trail to the Mabury Ranch Trail Install pedestrian bridge across Santiago Creek. Source: Santiago Creek Vision Plan. City Council actions related to the SCVP have been reviewed. Based on this review, it has been determined that the SCVP was not adopted by the City. While the SCVP has been utilized as a reference, it is not a City adopted public policy related to the project site. Therefore, no further action or analysis is warranted. 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 21.6 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that, if the proposed project were approved, the approval would have a growth-inducing impact. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.9, Cumulative Impacts related to this issue. The Draft EIR in Section 6.1.3, Sources indicates the sources that were used in the consideration and discussion of the potential cumulative environmental impacts. Section 63, Evaluation of Cumulative Impacts of the Draft EIR addressed each of the 17 topical environmental factors referenced in the State CEQA Guidelines. The analysis for each environmental topic was accomplished in the following manner: 1. The analysis summarizes the proposed project and related projects and identifies impacts at the project-level of detail; Page 3-174 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses 2. The analysis then discusses impacts that would result when the effects of the individual projects are viewed collectively; 3. The analysis addresses whether the proposed project's incremental contribution to a potentially significant impact is cumulatively considerable. If not, the analysis ends. If it is, the analysis continues to Items 4 and 5 (below); 4. The analysis then determines the proposed project's relative contribution to the significant cumulative effect; and, 5. The analysis then determines whether mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project or related projects can reduce the cumulative impacts, or whether new mitigation measures consistent with the CEQA Guidelines can be feasibly implemented to reduce or eliminate the significant cumulative effect. The Draft EIR in Section 6.1.3, Sources indicates the sources that were used in the consideration and discussion of the potential cumulative environmental impacts. The City has determined that these sources are appropriate for the cumulative analysis of impacts. Further, the Commenter has not provided evidence that the sources are not appropriate or that other data exists. It is speculative to anticipate that additional applications would be received to amend the OPA and/or East Orange Plans and/or the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. It is also speculative that City approval would result. Each application would have individualized considerations. Therefore,no further analysis of this concern is warranted. 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 21.7 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR does not analyze the proposed project's consistency with all governing land use plans. Please refer to Response to Comment 21.5 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 21.8 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed project conflicts with the City General Plan — Land Use Element Goal 1.0. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning related to this issue. Please refer to Response to Comment 21.5 above. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-175 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Although Planning Area C by itself is potentially not consistent with the density and character of the surrounding community, the overall proposed project density and character does meet this goal. Please note that within Planning Area C, the proposed project includes setbacks, architecture futures, and landscaping to minimize address this issue. 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 21.9 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed project conflicts with the City General Plan — Natural Resource Element Goals 1.0, 4.0 and 5.0. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning related to this issue. Please refer to Response to Comment 21.5 above. It should be noted that that nothing about the project eliminates the City's ability to accomplish the mentioned Goals and Policies on remaining open space resources within the City. Additionally, it should be noted that there is a R-A (Resource Area) General Plan designation on the site and significant percent of project areas that would be open space hence,meeting intent of the goals and policies related to 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 21.10 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed project conflicts with the City General Plan — Circulation and Mobility Element Goal 4.0 and the Element's Plan of Recreation Trails and Bikeways. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning related to this issue. Please refer to Response to Comment 21.5 above. Additionally, related to recreational trails and bikeways, please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, specifically Sub-Section 2.72, Trails and Bikeways. Figure 5.15-3, Trails and Bikeways and Table 5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways has 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. Please note that the project applicant is providing several of the City and County desired trails on the project site. Additionally,the project applicant does not have the authority to build trails on property they do not own. Furthermore, the project applicant does not have the obligation to develop their property with all General Plan identified trails at one time and the offering of Planning Area A would allow a future entity to complete the creek crossing trail to the off-site Mabury adjacent trail to fulfill the City and County obj ectives in the future. Page 3-176 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses The new information added to an EIR related to parks and trails is not "significant" as the EIR has not been changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Additionally, the new information would not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts; therefore,no recirculation is required. The Commenter's concerns 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, they are noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The proposed project would establish an internal pedestrian system that will include both on-street sidewalks and off-street paths. On-site vehicular connectivity will be provided between Planning Areas C and D to allow easier access to the signalized intersection / primary access point. The proposed project would provide for Santiago Creek to be maintained for a multi-purpose trail system. The proposed project would provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities that meet or exceed City Standards with the exception of the San. Please note that the Santiago Creek trail has been designed to meet County of Orange Standard for a 20-foot right-of-way easement width from the Regional Riding and Hiking Trails Design Guidelines. The trail has been designed to County standards, as City Staff has informed the project applicant the City does not intend to take ownership of Planning Area A, including the multi-use trail. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic specifically Subsection 2.8.S, Public Transportation & Elderly Transportation related to public transportation and the proposed project. The proposed project will include a signalized trail crossing at the main entrance to the project site on East Santiago Canyon Road. The signalized trail crossing would provide connectivity to/from recreational trails and the Mara Bradman Arena. The proposed project would include on-site regional and multi-purpose trails and neighborhood trails. These trails will provide connectivity between the project site and the adjacent community and within the project site neighborhoods. The proposed project will include approximately 1.3 miles of on-site regional and multi-purpose trails. The proposed on-site regional trails would have the potential to be accessed from existing and proposed off-site public trails. The proposed perimeter regional trail along Santiago Creek will implement a portion of the proposed City and County Master Plan of Trails. Trail Connections The Commenters expressed concern with future trail connections. The specific concerns are addressed below. Santiago Oaks Regiona/Park Trai/Connection—Mu/ti-Purpose T�ai/ Commenter expressed concern that the Santiago Oaks Regional Park Trail should connect to the north side of Santiago Creek and the Mabury Ranch Trail. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, specifically Table 5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways related to the proposed project and trails and bikeways. Please note, that this connection is not part of the proposed project; however the proposed project does not precludes this connection from occurring in the future. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-177 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Cannon St�eet Bridge Connection—Mu/ti-Pu�pose Trai/ Commenters expressed concern that the proposed multi-purpose trail along Santiago Creek ends without connecting to Cannon Street. It was their opinion that the trail should connect to Cannon Street and the existing bike path on the west side of Cannon Street. They noted that this could be accomplished with an underpass along Santiago Creek, where it flows under Cannon Street. It was their opinion that without this connection, the utility of the trail is basically eliminated. They stated that the proposed project should provide for this connection,rather than merely leave it to others to build an underpass in the future. Cannon Street Connection—Bike Trai/ Commenters expressed concern that the bicycle trail comlection fron� the project site to Cannon Street should be accomplished with the proposed project. Refer to Figure 5.15-3, Trails and Table 5.15-7, Trails 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 information and concerns expressed does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it do not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, they are noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment 21.11 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed project conflicts with the City General Plan — Natural Resources Element Policy 2.11 and Goal 4.0, Growth Management Element Policies 1.2 and 1.5 and Noise Element Goal 7.0. Please refer to Responses to Comment 21.12 through 21.24 below. The Commenter's opinion references issues addressed in these subsequent comments. 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 21.12 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze and mitigate potential project impacts to biological resources including specific species. Specifically, the Commenter makes the following five statements that are addressed in mare detail below: (1) Insufficient focused surveys were conducted, and the conclusion of impacts to species being less than significant is not based on analysis or evidence; (2) the statement that loss of individuals would not be expected to reduce regional populations numbers lacks support; (3) the loss of breeding habitat for willow flycatcher is not identified as a significant impact; (4) insufficient focused surveys were conducted within the off-site area; and (5) indirect edge effects on the numerous species with potential to occur on- and off-site are not adequately analyzed. Page 3-178 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Focused Surveys and Conclusion of Significant Impacts A general biological survey was conducted to determine the presence of any potential habitat for special- status species or presence of individuals. Based on the results of the survey, available information from databases and literature, and published survey protocols, the need for focused surveys was determined. This is an industry-accepted methodology and consistent with CEQA guidelines,as described below. A general biological survey was conducted in 2010. During the general biological survey, plant communities were classified and mapped, plant and wildlife species observed were inventoried, and a habitat assessment was conducted to identify any suitable habitat with the potential to support special- status plant and/or wildlife species. Although the wildlife agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) require species-specific focused surveys for Federal and State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species, CEQA does not require focused surveys be conducted; rather, CEQA requires that enough information be gathered to enable a sufficient assessment of a project's potential impacts on a species should they be present within the project site or immediate vicinity.' Based on the habitat assessment and an extensive literature review (e.g., which included all available information from current and previous survey data, occurrence data from California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB], USFWS occurrences, California Native Plant Society [CNPS] Online Inventory), it was determined which species required further focused surveys be conducted pursuant to protocols. Specifically, in accordance with the USFWS and/or CDFW accepted protocol, focused surveys were conducted for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonczz traillii extimus), as reported Page 5.4-16 of the Draft EIR and in the Biological Resource Assessment, Appendix C. Focused surveys for special- status plant species were also conducted within the project site (nine separate"Identified Species" as well as 19 additional species;reported on Page 5.4-14 of the Draft EIR).Z Based on an extensive literature review (e.g., which included current and previous site survey data and a review of all known CNDDB, USFWS, CNPS occurrences), the potential presence of special-status species in the project vicinity was determined. Potential project impacts were analyzed for all species with potential to occur within the project site and it was determined that, with the exception of burrowing owl, focused surveys for other non-listed wildlife species was not warranted as sufficient data was available to make a significance determination. Although burrowing owl is a Species of Special Concern, this species is typically surveyed for since CDFW recommends focused surveys in accordance with their � Association of Environmental Professionals. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Statutes and Guidelines. z It should be noted that focused surveys were conducted again in 2013 (during the appropriate survey period for each of the respective species with potential to occur within the project site),and these current surveys included the off-site portion of the project site. With the exception of Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica ssp. californica) and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) (which were previously observed and recorded during prior focused surveys in 2008, 2010, and 2012), the results of the 2013 focused surveys were negative. Please see Master Response Section 2.12, Biological Resources for a more detailed discussion of the 2013 focused surveys. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-179 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses protocol.3 It should also be noted that, with the exception of burrowing owl, focused surveys for non- listed wildlife species (e.g.,wildlife species that are Species of Special Concern) are not typically required by the wildlife agencies (i.e., USFWS and CDFW) and do not typically have published, agency-accepted survey protocols. Furthermore, special-status species that were observed during the numerous focused surveys conducted in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013 over all suitable native habitat within the project site were recorded in the comprehensive floral and faunal compendium (e.g., including focused surveys conducted in riparian habitats for arroyo toad, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher; grassland/ruderal habitats for burrowing owl; coastal sage scrub habitats for coastal California gnatcatcher; and special-status plant surveys throughout the project site). Mareover, all special-status species observed(e.g., yellow-breasted chat), as well as any special-status species that may have not been observed but have potential to occur within the project site, were thoroughly analyzed (i.e., by determining the potential for species' presence within the project site; acreage of impacts to potentially suitable habitat for the species within the project site; and an assessment of remaining suitable habitat and resources available that would be avoided by the proposed project and present within the vicinity and region)to determine if the project would have a potentially significant impact on the species. The Draft EIR fully discloses the presence ar 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 (Juglans californica ssp. californica) and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), 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. Furthermore, each species has been analyzed, and for those species observed or with potential to occur on-site, a determination was made as to whether or not implementation of the proposed project would significantly impact the species and the appropriate mitigation measures were prescribed(see Pages 5.4-50 to 5.4-66 of the Draft EIR). The majority of the suitable habitat (e.g., southern cottonwood-willow riparian farest, coastal sage scrub) which has potential to support sensitive wildlife species will be avoided and the availability of contiguous habitat within the project site will continue to provide resources and foraging habitat for these species, if present. Specifically, approximately 37.8 acres of the proposed project site will be avoided from the development footprint (i.e., the development footprint includes the limits of grading, and fuel modification areas extending outside of the limits of grading), as the project was designed to concentrate the development on the most disturbed portions (i.e., within the southern portion) of the project site, which are currently denuded and void of suitable habitat due to on-going backfill operations, and materials and recycling operations. The proposed project will avoid the majority of Santiago Creek and its associated riparian habitat (13.8 acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian farest and 1.4 acres of undifferentiated open woodland) as well as upland habitat (2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub). The 13.8 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 7,2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California. Natural Resources Agency. Page 3-180 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and 2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub within and/or adjacent to Santiago Creek are also considered sensitive natural communities (see Page 5.4-45 of the DEIR). As stated on page 5.4-57 of the DEIR,the proposed project was designed to minimize impacts to Santiago Creek and the northern portion of the project site. All of the coastal sage scrub habitat is avoided, and the majority of the native habitat within Santiago Creek is avoided; however, there are small project- associated impacts along the fringe of creek for on-site storm drain outlet installation4 and off-site slope stabilization and fuel modification. The impacts to this community are small and clustered along the edges of creek as compared to the 13.8 acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest,which will be avoided and preserved by the proposed project. The avoided southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest will continue to provide sufficient cover, resources, and nesting and foraging habitat for any special-status wildlife species within the project site, if present. In addition, impacts associated with fuel modification thinning will leave canopy and some understory vegetation intact,which will continue to provide foraging and cover habitat for wildlife. Furthermore, since the majoriry of the suitable habitat which has potential to support sensitive species will be avoided, and contiguous habitat exists to the west and to the east of the site within the 1,269-acre Santiago Oaks Regional Park, any loss of individuals would not expect to reduce regional population numbers due to the small size of the impacts as compared to available suitable habitat to be avoided within the project site and present elsewhere within the region. Additionally, the CNDDB occurrences data and other available data was reviewed to assess known species distribution within the region. Additionally, it is expected that any large, regionally-significant populations of sensitive species would have been detected during the numerous surveys conducted on the project site during 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013. Based on the lack of any available data or observations suggesting presence on the project site and minimal impacts to habitat, impacts are either not expected or would be minimal. Please note, for permanent impacts to habitat within Santiago Creek (both on- and off-site), mitigation is also prescribed for sensitive plant communities (i.e., southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest) at a 1:1 ratio,jurisdiction(i.e., CDFW) at a 2:1 ratio, and sensitive wildlife (i.e., least Bell's vireo) at a 3:1 ratio to mitigate for the loss of functions and values provided by this community. Regional Populations Approximately 37.8 acres of the proposed project site will be outside the development footprint (i.e., limits of grading, and fuel modification areas extending outside of the limits of grading). The proposed project will avoid the majority of Santiago Creek and its associated riparian habitat (13.8 acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and 1.4 acres of undifferentiated open woodland) as well as upland habitat (2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub). The 13.8 acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and 2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub within and/or adjacent to Santiago Creek that will be avoided by 4 Please note,based on the most recent storm drain design, a detailed description of universal changes made to the EIR can be found in the Master Response Section 2.12,Biological Resources. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-181 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses the proposed project are also considered sensitive natural communities(see Page 5.4-45 of the Draft EIR). As stated in the response above, the avoided southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest will continue to provide sufficient cover, resources, and nesting and foraging habitat for any special-status wildlife species within the project site, if present. Additionally, it is expected that any large, regionally-significant populations of sensitive species would have been detected during the numerous surveys conducted on the project site during 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013 or during the extensive literature review conducted for the project site. Furthermore, since the majority of the suitable habitat which has potential to support sensitive species will be avoided, and contiguous habitat exists to the west and to the east of the site within the 1,269-acre Santiago Oaks Regional Park, any loss of individuals would not expect to reduce regional population numbers due to the small size of the impacts as compared to available suitable habitat to be avoided within the project site and present elsewhere within the region.. Impacts to Willow Flycatcher Although the project site supports potentially suitable nesting habitat for willow flycatcher, focused surveys were conducted and no breeding willow flycatchers were observed (see page 5.4-18 of the Draft EIR). This species was not observed during focused surveys conducted in 2008, 2010, or 2013. However, those willow flycatchers (i.e., not the southwestern subspecies) observed during the 2012 survey were foraging on-site. Two willow flycatchers were observed foraging and calling in the trees that border the fallow field in the eastern portion of the project site. The habitat that these willow flycatchers were observed within is considered unsuitable as potential nesting habitat; therefore, it is assumed that both birds were migrants passing through the area, and are not the southwestern willow flycatcher subspecies. In addition, one willow flycatcher was also observed calling in two locations within the north central portion of the project site. The habitat that this willow flycatcher was observed in is considered potentially suitable for nesting; however, no breeding willow flycatchers were observed during the focused surveys. Although willow flycatchers are not expected to breed within the project site (i.e., since only three willow flycatchers were observed foraging during the 2012 surveys; this species was not observed during 2008, 2010, or 2013 surveys; and there has been no current or historical evidence of this species breeding on-site),the proposed project will impact only faraging habitat for the willow flycatcher. However, as stated on page 5.4-62 of the Draft EIR, significant impacts to foraging habitat for this species are not anticipated for the following reasons: • Although the black willow scrub/ruderal will be permanently removed,this isolated stand of willows provides only a small, limited amount of foraging habitat for this species. The riparian habitat within Santiago Creek that will be avoided by the proposed project will still be available to provide a greater area of contiguous habitat for foraging opportunities. • For the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest which will be impacted with the installation of two storm drain outlets,temporary impacts will be restored to pre-project conditions. Permanent impacts for the storm drain outlets will be mitigated at an on-and/or offsite location. Additionally,the storm drain outlet structures are not expected to exclude continued use of the surrounding habitat for foraging should willow flycatcher occur within these areas. Page 3-182 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses 2013 Focused Surveys within the Off-Site Area Although not included in the May 2013 Draft EIR, focused surveys for sensitive plants, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher have been conducted for the 2013 season in accordance with the protocols for each respective species. The 2013 focused surveys included the off-site portion of the project site. Please note that the off-site area is approximately 2.01 acres of that will occur in the County of Orange owned property(as shown on Figure 3-4, Tentative Tract Map). No additional sensitive plant or wildlife species were observed during the 2013 focused surveys.s Furthermore, the potential for each of these sensitive species was analyzed prior to 2013 surveys being conducted based on the results of focused surveys conducted on-site(i.e., in the 2010 and 2012 surveys), which contains the majority of the suitable habitat with potential to support this species within the project boundaries. Based on this analysis conducted prior to the 2013 surveys being completed, a determination was made as to whether or not implementation of the proposed project would significantly impact the species and the appropriate mitigation measures were prescribed (see Pages 5.4- 63 to 5.4-66 of the Draft EIR). Thus, although this information was not incorporated into the May 2013 Draft EIR, the Draft EIR analysis sufficiently addressed biological resources without the results of the 2013 surveys. Indirect Edge Effects The project site is presently leased to backfill operations, and materials and recycling operations. Thus, the southern portion of the project site, which will be impacted by the proposed project, is currently disturbed and has a high level of human activities due to on-going operations on-site (e.g., use of heavy equipment, large trucks driving through the site, etc.). However, the wildlife that have been observed within the project site during surveys, including sensitive wildlife species, persist within the riparian habitat associated with Santiago Creek in spite of these activities. Thus,the species that utilize the project site currently exist adjacent to disturbance, and the proposed development would reduce the existing disturbance. Upon build-out of the proposed residential project, which will include a predominantly native vegetated 100-foot setback from the riparian habitat that does not currently exist with activities on the site, it is expected that sensory stimuli would be reduced with less dust, vibration, noise (after completion of construction, as noise would be limited to slow moving traffic through the development and noise limited through City ordinance), and ambient lighting compliant with lighting standards set by the City's ordinance and in consideration of minimizing lighting near Santiago Creek (i.e., shielding or directing away lighting from Santiago Creek, both during construction and after the development has been completed) (see MM BIO-lA on page 5.4-60). Furthermore, the 100-foot setback buffer will provide additional habitat for a number of plant and wildlife species, as well as a visual and auditory barrier from the proposed development. The 100-foot setback buffer also serves as a spatial barrier that will help prevent non-native species from encroaching upon the native habitat, as well as a physical 5 Southern California black walnut and southern tarplant (which were previously observed and recorded during prior focused surveys in 2008,2010,and 2012)were observed during the 2013 survey. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-183 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses barrier between native habitat and wildlife and human activities associated with the proposed project upon build-out. During construction, there are a number of requirements and best management practices (BMPs) included to address indirect impacts(e.g., edge effects)to the least Bell's vireo(see MM BIO-lA and MM BIO-1C on pages 5.4-58 to 5.4-61). These recommended mitigation measures and BMPs align with what is typically recommended or accepted by the wildlife agencies.e Due to the heightened sensitivity of this federal and state endangered bird to anthropogenic disturbances, compliance with the mitigation measures to address impacts to the least Bell's vireo will also address edge effects to other wildlife species with potential to occur on- and off-site within Santiago Creek. The following mitigation and BMPs are included: • Priar to grading and construction a training program shall be developed and implemented to inform all warkers on the project about listed species, sensitive habitats, and the importance of complying with avoidance and minimization measures. • All construction work shall occur during the daylight hours. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours determined by the City. • During all excavation and grading on-site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards to reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum extent possible. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors (i.e., least Bell's vireo territory within Santiago Creek)nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall stage equipment in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Noise from construction activities shall be limited to the extent possible through the maximum use of technology available to reduce construction equipment noise. Project-generated noise,both during construction and after the development has been completed, shall be in compliance with the requirements outlined in the City of Orange General Plan Noise Element to ensure that noise levels that the riparian area is exposed to do not exceed noise standards for residential areas. • The project shall be designed to minimize exterior night lighting while remaining compliant with City of Orange ordinances related to street lighting. Any necessary lighting (e.g., to light up equipment for security measures), both during construction and after the development has been completed, will be shielded or directed away from Santiago Creek and are not to exceed 0.5 foot- 6 There are not set published standards; however, the mitigation measures proposed are based on what the wildlife agencies typically include in their permits and Biological Opinions and will be subject to agency approval during the permitting process. Page 3-184 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses candles. Monitoring by a qualified lighting engineer(attained by the project applicant and subject to spot checking by City Staffl shall be conducted as needed to verify light levels are below 0.5 foot-candles required within identified, occupied least Bell's vireo territories, both during construction and at the onset of operations. If the 0.5 foot-candles requirement is exceeded, the lighting engineer shall make operational changes and/or install a barrier to alleviate light levels during the breeding season. • All construction, grading, and fuel modification activities(i.e., thinning)will take place outside of the least Bell's vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15) to the greatest extent feasible. If any construction, grading, and fuel modification activities are required during the breeding season, and pre-construction surveys determine least Bell's vireo are present, activities may continue in the presence of a biological monitor who will confirm the continued absence of these species and stop wark if the species return. • Additional measures to be taken far all construction activities within 300 feet of potential least Bell's vireo habitat during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15): 1. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within one week prior to initiation of construction activities and all results forwarded to the USFWS and CDFW. Focused surveys shall be conducted for least Bell's vireo during construction activities. 2. If at any time least Bell's vireo are found to occur within 300 feet of construction areas, the monitoring biologist shall inform the appropriate construction supervisor to cease such work and should consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if work shall commence or proceed during the breeding season; and, if wark may proceed, what specific measures shall be taken to ensure least Bell's vireos are not affected. 3. Monitoring by a qualified acoustician shall be conducted as needed to verify noise levels are below 60 dBA within identified, occupied least Bell's vireo territories. If the 60 dBA level is exceeded, the acoustician shall make operational changes and/or install a barrier to alleviate noise levels during the breeding season. 4. Installation of any noise barriers and any other corrective actions taken to mitigate noise during the construction period shall be communicated to the USFWS and CDFW. 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 21.13 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze and mitigate potential project impacts to biological resources including riparian habitat. Specifically, the Commenter states the City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-185 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses following four statements that are addressed in more detail below: (1) Insufficient mitigation for impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest; (2) mitigation ratio for Fuel Modification Zone thinning impacts lacks support; (3)CEQA does not distinguish between temparary and permanent impacts; and(4) insufficient mitigation for impacts to black willow scrub/ruderal community. Mitigation for Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest The mitigation proposed takes into consideration the quality of the resource and the nature of the impact. Although southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest is a sensitive plant community, this community also includes some non-native species. Per CDFW's Natural Communities — Background Information,� the characterization of a sensitive plant community must take into consideration the quality of the habitat. Certain factors may degrade the value of the resource (e.g., presence of invasive, exotic species; evidence of human-caused disturbances, such as roads; surrounding development/disturbance) and certain factors may increase the value of the habitat (e.g., ability to support rare plants or wildlife; surrounding open space areas). Once the quality of the sensitive plant community is established, the nature of the impact must be assessed. Even if a project would affect a small acreage of high quality habitat, it may not constitute a significant impact unless the impact is considered likely to be a serious threat to the existence of all high quality communities of this type. The southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest community within the project site supports invasive,non- native species; exhibits some signs of disturbance by humans (e.g., ornamental plantings, remnants of an old culvert in the drainage where a previous road crossing existed); and is adjacent to developed and disturbed areas. However, it also supports special-status species (e.g., least Bell's vireo) and is contiguous to surrounding open space areas (e.g., Santiago Oaks Regional Park). Therefore, with these considerations, this community is of moderate-to-high quality. However, the proposed project has been designed to avoid the majority of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest within Santiago Creek. Only some impacts to fringe southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest habitat will occur. Given the small nature of the impact which are clustered along the edges of this community (including fuel modification impacts that will leave the canopy and a portion of the understory of the habitat intact), it was determined that the impact qualified as significant,but a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio was sufficient. In regards to the footnote, due to the small size of the proposed permanent impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest (less than 0.1 acre), the sensitive natural community will persist immediately around the storm drain structures without the structure disrupting the habitat functions of this community as the footprint of the storm drain outlets encompasses a small area and the storm drain outlets will provide added hydrology important to native plant survival. Although there will be some loss of functions and values associated with the project's impacts, this loss of functions and values to the � CDFW. Accessed online on November 14, 2013. Natural Communities — Background Information. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_background.asp Page 3-186 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses sensitive community as a whole, relative to the contiguous habitat that Santiago Creek supports, is minimaL Thus, a minimum l:l mitigation ratio is proposed. Mitigation amounts are not based on contiguous habitat or the presence of storm drains; however, these factors are a part of the larger picture of characterizing and analyzing these resources on an ecosystem level and thus are taken into consideration. Larger mitigation ratios are proposed by the project for impacts to higher quality resources, including a 3:1 mitigation ratio for least Bell's vireo habitat(see MM BIO-1B on page 5.4-60 of the Draft EIR) and a 2:1 mitigation ratio for CDFW impacts(see MM BIO-3 on page 5.4-70 of the Draft EIR). The project is currently in the process of obtaining regulatory permits. CDFW has no published, set mitigation ratios. The mitigation proposed is based on the ratios presented in the Draft EIR, and as noted in the comment, final mitigation ratios are subject to agency approval prior to issuance of permits. As such,the term"minimum"was used in recognition of pending agency approval. Mitigation for Fuel Modification zone Thinning Impacts Per the Conceptual Fire Protection Plan for the project, Fuel Modification Zones C and D will not be irrigated. Furthermore, because southern cottonwood/willow riparian forest is a wetter riparian community, no irrigation is required. Only thinning will occur in accordance with the project's Conceptual Fire Protection Plan, which follows the guidelines of the Orange City Fire Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance Program and the Orange County Fire Authority's Vegetation Management horizontal spacing and vertical separation requirements. Zone D (where all southern cottonwood/willow riparian forest fuel modification impacts will occur) will be thinned to 50% of native vegetation. This 50% reduction calculation was determined based on site-specific modeling done by the project's fire consultant. Therefore, the impacts from thinning will somewhat reduce the currently existing functions and values of the habitat. However, the majority of the native canopy will persist, as well as some understory species, as outlined in the Conceptual Fire Protection Plan, to ensure that no more thinning than what is required to meet the 50% reduction will be conducted and the remaining habitat will stay intact. Thus, although this community will be partially impacted by the fuel modification, the existing southern cottonwood/willow riparian forest will remain relatively intact and provide some habitat functions and values. The mitigation proposed takes into consideration the nature of the impact. Because the fuel modification activities will not completely remove the southern cottonwood-willow riparian farest and native canopy as well as some understory species will remain intact, this community will persist and will continue to provide some habitat functions and values for wildlife. As such, a minimum 0.5:1 mitigation ratio is proposed. Furthermore, as stated in MM BIO-1B on page 5.4-60 to 5.4-61, the requirements of the Fuel Modification Program will be written into the Fire Protection Plan and CC&Rs to ensure the proper long- term management of Fuel Modification Zones C and D so that thinning areas are not reduced greater than 50% and can still maintain habitat values and functions. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-187 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Temporary Impacts The comment is incorrect related to the Draft EIR identifying certain habitat loss a temporary and proposes to mitigate for this loss at a reduced 0.5:1 ratio. Temporary impacts will not be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio. Rather, areas where temporary impacts occur will be returned to pre-project conditions (i.e., pre-project contours and revegetated with native species, where appropriate) to ensure no net loss of habitat, and will be subject to agency approval during the permitting process. CEQA does not specifically distinguish between permanent and temporary impacts, nor does it specifically prescribe what mitigation should be applied or that the same mitigation should be applied for different types of impacts. Returning temporary impact areas to pre-project conditions is consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) definition of"temporary impacts"and ensures compliance with the "no net loss"policy under the Clean Water Act(CWA). Other resource agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or CDFW, generally define temporary impacts similarly to the USACE during their respective permitting processes. Thus, the mitigation proposed is based on the nature of the impact and the quality of the resource to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat which will result in significant impacts that which will trigger the CEQA threshold for riparian habitat, and is subject to agency approval. Mitigation for Impacts to Black Willow Scrub/Ruderal Within the eastern portion of the project site, there is an open field exhibiting evidence of disturbance. Although most of this area is dominated by ruderal, weedy species, an isolated patch of a few black willow trees were planted along the southern edge of the field and comprise a small community of black willow scrub/ruderaL This community is comprised of less than ten individual black willow trees with an understory dominated by non-native ruderal species. Approximately 0.5 acre of black willow scrub/ruderal occurs within the project site(all on-site). The mitigation proposed takes into consideration the quality of the resource and the nature of the impact. Although black willow scrub is a sensitive plant community, this community also includes a dominance of non-native species within the understory; however, the community was called black willow scrub/ruderal (versus ruderal/black willow scrub) due to black willow being the dominant plant species in the canopy of the isolated community. Per CDFW's Natural Communities — Background Information, the characterization of a sensitive plant community must take into consideration the quality of the habitat. Certain factors may degrade the value of the resource (e.g., presence of invasive, exotic species; evidence of human-caused disturbances, such as roads; surrounding development/disturbance) and certain factors may increase the value of the habitat (e.g., ability to support rare plants ar wildlife; surrounding open space areas). Once the quality of the sensitive plant community is established, the nature of the impact must be assessed. Even if a project would affect a small acreage of high quality habitat, it may not constitute a significant impact unless the impact is considered likely to be a serious threat to the existence of all high quality communities of this type. The mitigation proposed takes into consideration the quality of the resource to be impacted. Because the black willow scrub/ruderal habitat is a disturbed community comprised of an isolated patch of black willow within a fallow field dominated by disturbance and non-native, ruderal (i.e., weedy) upland Page 3-188 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses species that is not contiguous to other riparian habitat, this community provides limited function and value as a native riparian community (e.g., small and isolated, provides little cover, was not used as nesting habitat, is not contiguous to other native habitat). The comment is correct that two willow flycatchers were observed foraging within this community. However, as stated on page 5.4-62, although the black willow scrub/ruderal will be permanently removed, this isolated stand of willows provides only a minimal amount of marginal foraging habitat for this species (and no nesting was observed within this community). Furthermore, faraging habitat for this species would not be restricted to this small, disturbed community as the riparian habitat within Santiago Creek that will be avoided by the proposed project will still be available to provide a greater area of contiguous and higher quality habitat for foraging opportunities far willow flycatcher (e.g., 13.8 acres of southern cottonwood/willow riparian forest with a dense canopy dominated by native plant species). Thus, in evaluating black willow scrub/ruderal habitat as a sensitive plant community, this community is of low quality. The habitat was assessed based on CDFW guidelines, and for a community of fewer than ten trees, the isolation and disturbed nature reduces the functions and values of this community, including foraging, and warrants a reduced mitigation ratia Moreover, CDFW has no published, set mitigation ratios and final mitigation ratios are subject to agency approval prior to issuance of permits. As such, the term"minimum"was used in recognition of pending agency approval. 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 21.14 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze and mitigate potential project impacts to biological resources including Federally protected wetlands. Temporary impacts to wetlands8 will be restored to pre-project conditions (i.e., pre-project contours and revegetate with native species). Returning temporary impact areas to pre-project conditions is consistent with the USACE's definition of"temporary impacts" and ensures compliance with the "no net loss of wetlands" policy under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Other resource agencies, such as the RWQCB and/or CDFW, generally define temporary impacts similarly to the USACE during their respective permitting processes. Therefore, temporary and minimal adverse impacts to wetlands do not typically warrant mitigation at a 2:1 ratia The mitigation ratio is subject to the approval of the agencies during the regulatory permitting process pursuant to their policies and guidelines. "Please note,based on the most recent storm drain design, a detailed description of universal changes made to the E1R can be found in Master Response Section 212,Biological Resources. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-189 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Temporary impacts will occur to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction that would warrant vegetation "with native species, where appropriate." This statement does not mean that non-native vegetation can be planted, but that natives will be planted where suitable (e.g., based on site conditions such as hydrology) based on site conditions and consistent with returning an area to pre-project conditions. 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 21.15 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze and mitigate potential project impacts to biological resources including inconsistency with the City's tree preservation ordinance. A total of 323 trees were surveyed within the project site, of which 302 trees are within the project development footprint and off-site areas of the project site (and 21 will be avoided). It should be noted that only those trees within the project footprint, or within the immediate vicinity of the project footprint were surveyed, and comprise only a small fraction of the trees within the project site boundary, most of which will be avoided by the project. Based on aerial review and site assessments, there are several hundred if not well over a thousand trees within Santiago Creek, most of which are native and contribute to high quality habitat, that will be avoided by the proposed project. As such, the impacts are not considered"large scale tree removal." Of the 302 trees that will be impacted, 228 trees are located on-site and 74 are located off-site. With the exception of those trees within Santiago Creek which will be impacted by the storm drain outlets, the majority of the trees on-site that will be impacted are scattered and therefore provide a lower ecological value as habitat. These scattered trees also include a large number of non-native tree species (e.g., bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus) and gum tree (Eucalyptus globulus)). Of the 74 trees within the 2.01-acre off-site area that will be impacted, 48 trees are within Fuel Modification Zones C and D and, although three gum trees will be removed in accordance with the Fire Protection Plan requirements, the remaining 45 trees will be left in place but will be subject to thinning. Any potential impacts to regulated trees are considered potentially significant. MM BIO-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level (see page 5.4-79). Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would impact any trees, a City permit shall be obtained. The City requires a l:l mitigation replacement ratio for all trees that would be removed by the proposed project. Replacement of regulated trees to be removed will be accomplished on-site andlor on public off-site lands at the discretion of the City. In addition, for those trees within Santiago Creek (both on- and off-site) that will be impacted, which include a large number of native trees species that comprise a part of a woodland, mitigation is prescribed for sensitive plant communities (i.e., southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest) at a 1:1 ratio, sensitive wildlife (i.e.,least Bell's vireo)at a 3:1 ratio,and jurisdiction (i.e., CDFW) at a 2:1 ratio to mitigate for the loss of functions and values provided by these individual trees comprising a woodland community. The City Municipal Code provides for an overall comprehensive approach to the Page 3-190 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses compliance with the City's Tree Ordinance. The City Municipal Code Section 12.32.110B provides for replacement of trees within a 90 period. The Rio Santiago Specific Plan provides a comprehensive landscape program that includes compliance with the City's Tree Ordnance. Approval of the Specific Plan by the City would replace this existing City Code for the project site and establish a tree removal/replacement plan for 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 21.16 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze and mitigate potential project impacts to biological resources including cumulative impacts to biological resources. The majority of the development footprint occurs on disturbed areas that are currently used for backfill and materials recycling. Approximately 37.8 acres of the proposed project site will be avoided by the development footprint (i.e., the development footprint is the limits of grading, and fuel modification areas extending outside of the limits of grading). The proposed project will avoid the majority of Santiago Creek and its associated riparian habitat(13.8 acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and 1.4 acres of undifferentiated open woodland) as well as upland habitat (2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub). The 13.8 acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and 2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub within and/or adjacent to Santiago Creek are also considered sensitive natural communities (see Page 5.4-45 of the Draft EIR). As stated in Appendix C, Biological Resources, Section 9.2, with the implementation of project design features, mitigation measures, and compliance with existing regulations, there will be no cumulative impacts to least Bell's vireo, regulated trees, or jurisdictional waters by the proposed project. Thus, by developing on the most disturbed portions of the site, avoiding the majority of Santiago Creek which provides the highest biological functions and values on the site, avoiding direct impacts to Federal and State-listed species to ensure no loss of individuals, and providing Project Design Features (PDF's) and mitigation measures to ensure no net loss, and in some cases a net gain, of high quality resources for wildlife species or habitat functions and values, there would be no remaining impacts after mitigation. These recommended mitigation measures and BMPs align with what is typically recommended or accepted by the wildlife agencies.9 Because these impacts (as well as impacts to sensitive plant communities and migratory birds) will result in no remaining impacts after mitigation and will be mitigated to less than significant on a project-specific level, and because other projects within the region will also be mitigated to a less than significant level (see pages 6-18 to 6-22 of the Draft EIR), the project's impacts are not cumulatively considerable to past, present and future projects. Rather, there 9 There are not set published standards; however, the mitigation measures proposed are based on what the wildlife agencies typically include in their permits and Biological Opinions and will be subject to agency approval during the permitting process. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-191 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses would be a preservation of, and potentially a contribution to, sensitive biological resources on a regional level. Furthermore, the project site is within the Central Subregion of the Central/Coastal NCCP. The NCCP/HCP Reserve System design has set aside approximately 37,000 acres for long-term management. By preserving large habitat blocks and maintaining connectivity, the NCCP/HCP Reserve System has minimized the cumulative impacts of proposed projects within authorized take lands. Since the proposed project and known past,present or future projects would not result in significant, unmitigated either alone or combined, there would be no incremental effects which could be cumulatively considerable and no mitigation measures are required. The project will contribute to the loss of "open space" with the loss of approximately 69.7 acres of marginal foraging habitat for non-sensitive raptor species that are not covered under the NCCP/HCP (e.g., Cooper's hawk and merlin), but is not expected to substantially affect these species to a point where their survival in the region is threatened. These species are relatively mobile and are expected to locate to additional foraging habitat remaining in the region. Furthermore, the project was designed to avoid Santiago Creek and the open space area within the northern portion of the project site, which provide the best wildlife habitat on-site, to the maximum eXtent practicable. Additionally, the portion of the project site which will be impacted by the proposed project is currently disturbed and has a high level of human activities due to on-going operations on-site (e.g. use of heavy equipment, etc.), and therefore, does not serve as optimal foraging habitat for these species. In addition, this loss is not considered cumulatively significant due to the long-term management of preserved areas within the NCCP/HCP Reserve System. The proposed impacts will not inhibit wildlife movement through the project site nor use of the Santiago Creek wildlife corridor. Santiago Creek is the primary wildlife movement area within the project site, since the majarity of the southern portion of the site beyond the creek is disturbed and provides little habitat that wildlife would use for cover, nesting, or faraging. While impacts are proposed within Santiago Creek, they are minimal, will be mitigated, and do not affect the corridor, as impacts will occur on the fringe of the riparian habitat. Therefore, for species that utilize the habitat associated with Santiago Creek, impacts to wildlife movement would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. A total of 302 trees are within the project development footprint and off-site areas of the project site. Any potential impacts to regulated trees are considered potentially significant. MM BIO-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level (see page 5.4-79). Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would impact any trees, a City permit shall be obtained. The City requires a 1:1 mitigation replacement ratio for all trees that would be removed by the proposed project. Replacement of regulated trees to be removed will be accomplished on-site and/or on public off-site lands at the discretion of the City. The proposed project would not impact any natural communities that are considered to be coastal sage scrub habitat regulated under the NCCP/HCP. Thus, no impacts on coastal sage scrub or coastal sage scrub-obligate species would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The least Bell's vireo is a conditionally covered species under the NCCP/HCP and implementation of the PDF's and mitigation measure (MM BIO-1) to address least Bell's vireo will contribute to the long term conservation of the Page 3-192 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses species and its habitat. In addition, the proposed project does not conflict with NCCP/HCP established reserve assembly or wildlife corridors. Thus, the proposed project is considered consistent with the goals and objectives of the NCCP/HCP. 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 21.17 The Commenter's statements related to the project's impacts on hydrology and water quality are noted. Santiago Creek Watershed Appendix J, Hydrology Study correctly identifies the impaired waterbody status of the Santa Ana River for indicator bacteria. In addition, post-construction BMPs were identified that include medium to high removal rates for bacteria, oil and grease, and heavy metals 1 as required by the 2011 Model WQMP, the accompanying Technical Guidance Document (TGD) and TMDL implementation standards. Total dissolved solids (TDS) are not an identified pollutant of concern related to residential development per the 2011 Model WQMP and accompanying TGD. However, pesticides and toxic organic compounds are identified as potential pollutants of concern within the TGD and TDS is a commonly associated pollutant with these identified pollutants. Based on the TGD, toxic organic compounds are not expected to be a concern for residential development and pesticide impacts will be controlled through source control, site design and the LID features proposed in the Water Quality Technical Report and the Preliminary WQMP. Therefore, impacts of TDS originating from the project site to downstream receiving waters are considered less than significant. Specific Water Quality Appendix J, Hydrology Study provides an entire section on the potential construction impacts of the project including risk assessment, sizes of sediment basins, applicable BMPs for controlling visible and non-visible pollutants and the types of BMPs for each phase of development. Based on the analysis provided in the technical report, the project is expected to be a Risk Level 2 project. As part of the Risk Level 2 requirements, the project is required to demonstrate compliance with specific monitoring criteria identified in the General Consri-uction Permit including measuring turbidity levels and pH levels. Turbidity levels provide a measure of the amount of sediment leaving the site and pH provides a measure of non-visible pollutants that may be discharging from the site. Turbidity and pH monitoring will occur for all runoff discharges from the site to ensure the effectiveness of the BMPs are meeting specific pollutant action levels. As previously noted in the technical report (Page 28), numeric action levels for turbidity are 250 NTU and between 6.5-8.5 for pH levels. If the field monitoring reveals runoff levels above the numeric action level (NAL) for turbidity or outside the range for pH, changes in BMP deployment are required including sediment and erosion control, material storage and waste management, tracking controls and other measures to reduce turbidity and/or control pH levels. Thee General City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-193 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Construction Permit allows for changes to be made in the field to improve erosion conditions and additional monitoring is required verify improvement. Based on this on-going and iterative monitoring process required by the Construction General Permit, impacts related to turbidity(sediment)and pH(non- visible pollutants associated with construction activities) will be mitigated to less than significant to Santiago Creek. The increase in imperviousness is identified in Appendix K-1, Preliminary WQMP on page 2. A summary of the potential pollutant sources from construction areas and activities is summarized below. This table is used to identify proper sediment and erosion control BMPs, tracking controls, wind erosion control, non-storm water management controls and material and waste management controls for the various construction areas and activities. Potential Pollutant Sources from Construction Areas and Activities Activity/Area of Concern Potential Problem/Pollutants Visually Observable? Cleared and graded areas Sediment mobilization from soil stockpiles and erosion can Yes occur without proper sediment and erosion controls. Concrete disposal Concrete waste, sediment, metals, can raise pH levels outside Yes of permitted range Construction site entrance Tracking of sediment off-site onto existing roads if entrance is Yes not stabilized/protected. Demolition of existing Trash&debris Yes structures Dewatering (may require Turbidity and sediments,leaking hydraulic oil from dewatering Yes separate permitting) equipment Drilling Sediment,Non-starm water discharges Yes Equipment storage area Leaking hydraulic oil and antifreeze from construction Yes equipment. Existing drain inlets The allowance of non-storm water discharges to enter the Yes storm drain without proper inlet protection. Fueling area Gasoline and diesel fuel leaks and spills from fueling activities. Yes Landscaping Sediment and erosion, trash, debris, organics, soil Varies amendments, fertilizers,soil amendments Masonry,Paving Operations Sediment, oil & grease, mortar, concrete wastes, can raise pH Yes levels outside of permitted range Material delivery and storage Construction materials such as paints,plaster, and solvents left Varies area exposed and uncovered,or accidental spills. Painting,Plastering, Stucco Trace metals, oil, grease, fuels, toxics, thinners, solvents, non- Varies storm water discharges Run-on from existing facilities Developed areas contribute to the deposition of bacteria, Varies pesticides, fertilizers, oils, litter, and sediment on impervious surfaces. Vertical Construction Exposure of trash/debris, sediment,metals Yes Waste collection area Exposure of trash/debris to roof drainage or direct contact with Yes storm water if left uncovered or exposed. Page 3-194 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Projecf 3.0 Comments and Responses Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPP) are prepared based on the site-specific construction documents associated with grading permits as required by the State's General Construction Permit. Requesting development of a SWPPP at the entitlement stage prior to the completion of approved site plans and approved grading/building permits would be speculative and inaccurate. Furthermore, it would be inconsistent with the requirements of the SWPPP criteria itself which relies heavily on the construction drawings, phasing plan, schedule and dialogue with the selected contractor for the project. The technical report provides the framework for which the appropriate BMP measures far the SWPPP will be selected based on the construction impact assessment and the effluent monitoring criteria required for all Risk Level 2 projects. The technical report divides the project into the four main phases of the construction project and identifies the primary pollutants and types of BMPs that will be required to satisfy compliance with the General Construction Permit for each phase. In addition, all phases of construction will require runoff monitoring in accordance with Risk Level 2 requirements which is a performance and numerical based criteria to protect downstream receiving waters. The Local Implementation Plan (LIP) is a storm water compliance document prepared by the City of Orange and implemented by the City of Orange. The LIP requires that projects develop a site-specific Water Quality Management Plan which is included in Appendix K-1,Preliminary WQMP. Specific SWPP and LIP The specific construction measures and BMP anticipated for the site are provided in Table 8 of Appendix K-2, Water Quality Technical Report. Most if not all of these BMPs will be implemented throughout the duration of the construction process. The site-specific SWPPP and the phased construction BMP plans will identify specific types, locations and quantities for the construction process based on the approved grading plans, phasing plans and input from the contractor. The performance criteria for construction runoff was originally reported within the technical report (page 28) but has been re-emphasized within these responses. The measures identified in the report are consistent with the BAT/BCT narrative standards for removing conventional pollutants from construction runoff. BAT stands for Best Available Technology (economically available) and BCT stands for Best Conventional Technology (pollution control). The BMPs identified in Table 8 of the technical report (page 30-31) represent compliance with BAT/BCT standards when implemented correctly using approved design standards such as CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Portal: Construction(November 2009). Stormwater Infrastructure Fundamentals pertaining to the specific stormwater infrastructure to prevent post-construction water quality impacts are provided in Table 15 of the Appendix K-2, Water Quality Technical Report and in more detail in the PWQMP (Appendix K-1). Table 15 of the Appendix K-2, Water Quality Technical Report(page 49) and Section IV.7 of the P-WQMP (Appendix K-1, Page 40) defines the Planning Areas, the drainage areas within each Planning Area,the average runoff coefficient(measure of imperviousness), the minimum design capture volume for treatment, the type of biotreatment BMP, and the quantity of BMPs required(number of units or square feet of BMP surface area). Additional details are also provided City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-195 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses for the hydromodification requirements including the volume of flow that must be detained, the rate at which it will be discharged to protect downstream receiving waters and the proposed location of the detention system. Specific features such as site design measures and source control measures are implemented at the final precise grading plans as required and documented in the final WQMP. The sizing of the proposed LID features assumes no upstream site design or source control measures which would effectively reduce the sizing criteria of the proposed LID features. Therefore, the project has taken the most conservative approach to water quality treatment requirements. During final design, site design features can be implemented that would effectively reduce the proposed downstream biotreatment BMPs. The implementation of bio-treatment BMPs is considered medium to high for all pollutants of concern thereby meeting the standards set forth in the local MS4 stormwater permit and the 2011 Model WQMP. General Construction Permit The General Construction Permit requires runoff monitoring to measure turbidity and pH levels to ensure discharges are within allowable ranges that are considered protective of downstream receiving waters. If the monitoring identifies runoff discharges outside the allowable ranges, the Permit requires BMP modifications and additional monitoring to improve runoff discharge quality until levels are within the allowable ranges. Through the iterative process of ineasuring runoff quality and making improvements until levels are brought within allowable ranges, impacts to downstream receiving waters are considered less than significant. Post-construction performance criteria requires that a certain volume of runoff is treated to a specific level of treatment prior to discharging from the site in order to protect downstream receiving waters for the lifetime of the project. The WQTR and P-WQMP provide sufficient details and analysis to demonstrate that the design capture volume of the site is being properly quantified and treated with biotreatment BMPs which is considered a sufficient level of treatment for residential land uses and the pollutants of concern. Therefore, impacts to downstream receiving waters are considered less than significant. 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 21.18 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR analysis of the proposed projects aesthetic impacts is not adequate is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to aesthetic impacts analysis. Additionally,please refer to above: • Response to Comment 21.3 related to continually permitted uses; and, • Response to Comment 21.15 related to the City tree ordinance. Specifically related to light and glare please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics and Sub- Section 2.2.3 Light and Glare. The Sub-Section notes that Commenters expressed concern with the Page 3-196 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses lighting of athletic fields in Planning Area B. In their opinion the proposed project would create a source of light and glare for the nearby properties, particularly the homes in Creekside Ranch. Creekside Ranch residences directly face Planning Area B. They stated that in their opinion the new source of light and glare would adversely affect nighttime views. They requested that aggressive measures be taken to mitigate this issue. Specifically, they requested that the fields not be lighted and only be available for daylight activities. The Commenter questioned the precise height of the proposed standards and lights for the proposed ball fields in Planning Area B. They requested information related to the lumens to foot of the light cast. They requested analysis of the light and glare impacts on existing housing in Jamestown, the Colony and Mabury Ranch residential areas. The Commenter expressed concern with the conclusions of the Draft EIR related to light and glare. It was their opinion that there is potential for light and glare impacts, and this impact is unknown because the exact height of light standards, lumens and operational hours have not been provided. Short-Te�m Construction The Draft EIR found that the visual character of the project site would be temporarily impacted during the short-term site preparation phase of the project by 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) Long-Term Operation 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 Rio Santiago Specific Plan requires that the proposed project limit the outdoor activities in Planning Area B to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Furthermore, PDF AES-8 requires compliance with City's Municipal Code Title 17 Zoning, Chapter 17.12, General Regulations Applicable to All Districts, Section 17.12.030, Lighting, which regulates lighting of the proposed project. Potential light and glare impacts would be reduced with PDF NOI-2, PDF AES-7, PDF AES-23, and PDF AES-24, and the requirements of the Specific Plan; however, the impacts would not be eliminated. Therefore,the following impact would have the potential to occur and mitigation is proposed: Impact AES-5: The proposed project would have the potential to result in impacts related to light and glare in Planning Area B. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-197 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses MM AES-5: The project developer shall use Musco lights or similar products that are specifically designed to reduce spillage, including shields and louvers. This lighting shall be detailed on building permits for Planning Area B. The Draft EIR found that the Rio Santiago Specific Plan outdoor lighting criteria, PDF NOI-2, PDF AES- 7, and Mitigation Measure AES-5 reduce sources of light and glare potential impacts (Impact AES-5) in Planning Area B, however not to a less than significant level. Therefore, related to Planning Area B, new sources of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect nighttime views in the area, would be anticipated to occur. This is an unavoidable impact of the proposed project. (Page 5.1-44 of the Draft EIR) Additionally, refer to Section 5.4, Biological Resources related to potential light and glare impacts on biological resources. Specifically, refer to least Bell's vireo occupied habitat mitigation (BIO-lA) monitor activity 3 and 7. (Draft EIR page 5.4-60) Refer to Table 5.4-8, Biological Development Standards related to lighting(Draft EIR page 5.4-77). The Draft EIR found in Planning Areas C and D that potential light and glare impacts would be reduced with PDF AES-7, PDF AES-23, and PDF AES-24, and the requirements of the Specific Plan; however, the impacts would not be eliminated. Therefore, the following impact would have the potential to occur and mitigation is proposed: Impact AES-6: The proposed project would have the potential to result in impacts related to light and glare in Planning Areas C and D. MM AES-6: Prior to the issuance of any building permit and as specified in the Specific Plan, the project applicant shall submit a photometric analysis of Planning Area C and D for review and approval by the City of Orange Community Development Department and the City of Orange Police Department. The photometric analysis shall provide evidence that the lighting design is consistent with the City of Orange Municipal Code Ordinance 17.12.030 and has been designed to provide for lighting that is directed, controlled, screened, and/or shaded such that light and glare would not result in direct illumination on the surrounding properties or roadways. 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 ar 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) The opinions of the Commenter related to light and glare impacts do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because they do not raise any factually based issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Page 3-198 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please refer to Section 6.0, Cumulative and specifically Table 6-1, Cumulative Impact Comparison related to cumulative lighting as both a potential proposed project, proposed project contribution to cumulative impact, and cumulative impact with Related Projects for aesthetic and biological resource impacts.No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 21.19 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR analysis of the proposed projects park, recreation and trail impacts is not adequate is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning related to this issue. Specifically, related to recreational trails and bikeways, please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation specifically Sub-Section 2.72, Trails and Bikeways. Please refer to Response to Comment 21.3 and Response to Comment 21.5 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 21.20 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR analysis of the proposed project's construction of recreation trail facilities across Santiago Creek impacts is not adequate is noted. A trail crossing over the creek is not necessitated by the project. There is no nexus between the City or County having trail designations over the property and the applicant having a mandatory requirement to construct trail improvements over portions of the properiy that are being developed. The applicant has a right to propose trail connections and segments for another entity to complete at another time. Therefore, since the project proposes no trail crossing over the creek. No further action is required. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning related to this issue. Specifically, related to recreational trails and bikeways, please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, specifically Sub-Section 2.72, Trails and Bikeways. Please refer to Response to Comment 21.3 and Response to Comment 21.5 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 21.21 The Commenter's opinions related to construction-related transportation impacts and feasible mitigation are noted. As indicated on page 65 of the TIA under "Traffic Volumes", the peak construction phase of the building construction includes ambient traffic growth and traffic from cumulative projects. However, as noted, all existing activities on site (materials recycling and backfilling) would be ceased. Therefore, the peak construction activity related to the highest volume of construction traffic generated by the site would be during the building construction phase and would generate approximately 392 daily trips with PCE(truck to passenger-car equivalence), 115 a.m. peak hour trips with PCE, and 58 p.m. peak hour trips with PCE. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-199 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Regarding the Draft EIR being revised to include the materials recycling daily trucks in the analysis of construction-related traffic, the Commenter is incorrect. For all traffic conditions, the materials recycling operations would be eliminated. The proposed analysis of construction is included Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Section 7.0, Project Construction Analysis. The peak construction period of the proposed project was analyzed to determine whether the temporary construction activities related to the construction of the project (all Planning Areas) would have a significant, but temporary, impact on the study area street netwark. Far purposes of this analysis, the short-term horizon year of 2017 was used as the base year of the construction analysis. It is likely, however, that the peak construction activities would occur one to two years prior to the Opening Year of the proposed project(2015 or 2016). Levels of Service The Peak Construction Phase a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were input into the TRAFFIX LOS software to determine the intersection ICU values for intersections within the City's jurisdiction, and the control delay, in seconds, for Caltrans ramp intersections within the study area. In addition, roadway segment volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios were determined per the City's methodology, and freeway mainline segment LOS was determined using the HCM methodology using the HCS software. Intersections Table Y on page 67 of the Traffic Impact Analysis for Rio Santiago, Vista Environmental, (revised) January 7, 2013, presents the results of the Peak Construction Phase intersection LOS analysis, while the LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Based on the peak construction activity, and the significance criteria of the respective jurisdiction (City ar Caltrans) for each intersection, the proposed peak construction phase would not create a significant impact to the study area intersections. Roadway Segments Table Z on page 69 of the Traffic Impact Analysis for Rio Santiago, Vista Environmental, (revised) January 7, 2013, presents the Peak Construction Phase roadway segment LOS analysis, while the calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Per the City's criteria, the project would have a significant impact if the project causes a roadway segment operating at LOS D or better in the baseline condition, to operate at LOS E or F with the addition of project traffic; or, if the proposed project adds 0.010 ar more V/C to a roadway segment that is already operating at LOS E or F in the baseline condition. Based on the peak construction activity, and the significance criteria of the respective jurisdiction (City or Caltrans) for each roadway segment, the proposed peak construction phase would not create a significant impact to the study area roadway segments. Improvements Regarding the implementation of required improvements, specifically on Katella Avenue, from Handy Street to Santiago Boulevard, as stated on page 77 of TIA, implementation of the traffic-related mitigation measures 1) prohibit on-street parking on either side of the street; and, 2) stripe a third eastbound or westbound through lane, for the proposed project would mitigate to levels less than significant Page 3-200 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses (Mitigation Measure TRA-2). However, due to the fact that these improvements are not presently included in the City's CIP and may not be constructed when needed to mitigate the project impacts, the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Table J on page 35 of TIA lists all of the cumulative projects that were assumed in the Opening Year 2017 traffic analyses which include the Salem-Lutheran Church and School expansion and the Rancho Santiago College expansion. There is no development anticipated for the East Orange Specific Plan in 2017. However, buildout of the East Orange Specific Plan was included in the General Plan 2030 analysis,which includes 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. Response to Comment 21.22 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to identify the proposed project's construction-related noise impacts on Salem-Lutheran Church and School as significant are noted. The Commenter quotes Section 8.24.080 of the Municipal Code, which states that noise impacts to schools, hospitals and churches should be analyzed the same as impacts to the residential uses as detailed in Section 8.24.050. Section 8.24.080 of the Municipal Code also provides an additional standard of"noise level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions or which unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in the hospital". Section 8.24.070 exempts construction noise from the provisions of Section 8.24.050 and Section 8.24.080 as long as construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday. The construction contractors for the proposed project will be required to follow all applicable rules and regulations including the limitation on construction hours provided in Section 8.24.070, therefore Sections 8.24.050 and 8.24.080 are not applicable to the construction noise impacts created from the proposed project. The Commenter also references Los Angeles Unified School District v. city of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Ca1.App.4th 1019, 1025-26. In that project the existing ambient noise already exceeded the 70 dB standard utilized for the nearby sensitive receptors and the operational project noise increase was found to range between 2.8 and 3.3 dBA at buildout. In this EIR, LAUSD also utilized the threshold that since the existing noise levels already exceeded the noise standard at the nearby sensitive receptors, the noise increase from the proposed project would be insignificant regardless of how much more the project increased the noise levels. The court did not define how much of a project-related noise increase would be considered significant, instead it just stated that the use of no noise increase threshold is not acceptable for cases where the existing noise level already exceeds the standard. It should be noted that the court case did not address construction noise and dealt only with operational noise. It should also be noted that the threshold of a perceptible noise increase is 3 dB for the most sensitive humans and that construction noise impacts to Salem-Lutheran School would result in 0.9 dB noise increase, which is well below the threshold of perception. Since, the City does not provide a City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-201 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses standard for construction noise that occurs during the allowable hours, the Draft EIR provided a conservative analysis and utilized OSHA's noise level standard of 90 dB over 8 hours, which was developed to limit harm to persons such as hearing loss. The Draft EIR found that the noise impacts from construction activities were within the OSHA standards at all of the nearby sensitive receptors. 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 21.23 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately address the proposed project's growth inducing impacts 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 are noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 21.6 above related to this opinion. The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR growth-inducing analysis fails to analyze the impacts of future growth that will result from the widening East Santiago Canyon Road are noted. The Commenter's opinion that the proposed project facilitates growth by providing far a potential future widening of East Santiago Canyon Road are noted. The right-of-way of East Santiago Canyon Road is established by the City General Plan — Circularion Element. The proposed project is consistent with this Element of the City's General Plan. Therefore,the proposed project does not facilitate a widening of a planned roadway, rather provides right-of-way as required by State and local plans and policies. The Commenter's statement that the Draft EIR concludes that the Project will not have any growth- inducing impacts because 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, ar utilities) in the area surrounding the project site and it is not supported by the evidence is noted. As noted above, the right-of-way of East Santiago Canyon Road is established by the City General Plan — Circulation Element. The proposed project is consistent with this Element of the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not facilitate a widening of a planned roadway, rather provides right-of-way as required by State and local plans and policies. The Commenter's opinion that the proposed project does remove impediments to future growth is not correct. The City based on the City's General Plan Circulation Element has established the right-of-way of East Santiago Canyon Road. The proposed project is consistent with this Element of the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not facilitate a widening of a planned roadway, rather provides right-of-way as required by State and local plans and policies. Commenter's opinion that the growth along Santiago Canyon Road and areas served by the East Santiago Canyon Road is limited by its current traffic capacity are noted. The Commenter references the City General Plan, Growth Management Element Policy 1.6, Level of Service Standards. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning related to consistency with the City General Plan. Page 3-202 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's opinion that by providing dedicated land for right-of-way expansion along East Santiago Canyon Road that the proposed project removes a physical barrier to future growth are noted. The Commenter's statement that the roadway may be expanded to add lanes and the traffic capacity of Santiago Canyon Road may be increased are noted. As previously stated, the City's General Plan Circulation Element has established the right-of-way of East Santiago Canyon Road is established by the City General Plan — Circulation Element. The proposed project is consistent with this Element of the City's General Plan. Therefore,the proposed project does not facilitate a widening of a planned roadway, rather provides right-of-way as required by State and local plans and policies. The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR must identify the future roadway expansions the City may implement, and the future growth this roadway expansion will serve are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic related to this issue. 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 21.24 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately address alternatives to the proposed project 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. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the State CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, which would feasibly achieve most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the analysis. Additionally, an EIR may only consider alternatives that are feasible. Even within all of these parameters, an EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. However, alternatives may be considered even if they would impede, to some degree, the attainment of project objectives or be more costly(provided that they remain economically feasible). CEQA provides that a project cannot be approved, if there are feasible alternatives that would substantially lessen its environmental effects. The City may reject alternatives as infeasible, if based on substantial evidence in the record, the decision-makers find the alternatives are impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint. [California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz(2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957] Alternative 2: No Project Alternative—Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning Commenters expressed concern that the uses in the Draft EIR for Alternative 2-No Project-Development Under the Existing General Plan and Zoning could not be achieved as a CUP would not be granted. Additionally, Commenters expressed concern that Alternative 2- No Project- Development Under the City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-203 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Existing General Plan and Zoning should reflect the 1975 East Orange (EO) General Plan, Orange Park Acres (OPA) Plan, and Santa Ana River Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan. These two concerns are discussed below. Conditiona/Use Permit(CUPJ Commenters indicated that an expanded sand and gravel operation would require an extended/expanded CUP which may or may not be granted. They noted that noise, buffer requirements, etc. in their opinion are not existent or being enforced now. It was further their opinion that Alternative 2- No Project- Development Under the Existing General Plan and Zoning should have been defined as the existing uses on the project site with the sand and gravel operation. The Draft EIR evaluated what would be "reasonably" (emphasis added) expected to occur on the project site in the foreseeable future, if the proposed project were not approved. The Draft EIR noted that the City is not aware of any plans for development of the project site other than the proposed project. The environmental conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published would be assumed to continue, subject to changes resulting from reasonably projected contraction or expansion of the existing uses. Alternative l: No Project Alternative—No Development evaluates what would be reasonably expected to occur on the project site in the foreseeable future, if the proposed project were not approved. Alternative 2: No Project- Development Under the Existing General Plan and Zoning evaluates the development of the project site for uses permitted under the City's existing General Plan and Zoning. The City General Plan Policy Map designates the project site as Resource Area, Low-Density Residential, and Open Space. The City's current Zoning Map designates the portion of the project site north of Santiago Creek as R-1-8 (Single-family Residential), with the remainder of the project site designated S-G (Sand and Gravel Extraction). The Draft EIR states, "The City Attorney has stated that the materials recycling (i.e., asphalt and concrete crushing) would require approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit for expansion." [Emphasis added(Page 7-3 of the Draft EIR)] Therefore, while it might be argued about the potential for approval of a future Conditional Use Permit, the potential for continuation of the existing conditions on the project site under either scenario is evaluated. 1975 East O�ange(EOJ Genera/P/an, Orange Park Acres(OPAJ P/an, and Santa Ana River Santiago Creek Greenbe/t P/an 1975 East Orange(EO) General Plan Commenters requested that an alternative be presented in the EIR that would establish the project site as designated in the 1975 East Orange (EO) General Plan. Portions of the project site are located within the 1975 East Orange (EO) General Plan. Approximately 40.3 acres of the project site are located within the boundaries of the 1975 East Orange (EO) General Plan. There are approximately 1,900 total acres in the EO General Plan. The project site is approximately two-percent of the overall EO General Plan acreage. The existing EO General Plan designates the project site as "Regional Park." Please refer to Draft EIR Page 3-204 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Figure 5.10-1,Project Site within EO General Plan, shows what part of the proposed project is within the EO General Plan. The Draft EIR found that with the removal of the proposed project area from the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan, all land use allocations, improvements, development standards, lines for the proposed project would be under one specific plan(the Rio Santiago Specific Plan) as implemented in PDF LUP-4. With the implementation of PDF LUP-4, the proposed project would amend the City's General Plan by removing the project site from the East Orange(EO) General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Plan. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would establish new designations for the project site on the City's General Plan. These changes eliminate potential conflicts with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation. Therefore, with the City's approval of the amendments to the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan and the approval of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Orange Park Acres(OPA)Plan Commenters requested that an alternative be presented in the EIR that would establish the project site as designated in the Orange Park Acres (OPA) Plan. The Orange Park Acres Plan (OPA Plan) was adopted on December 26, 1973. Approximately 56.45 acres of the project site are presently located within the boundaries of the existing OPA Plan. There are approximately 1,794 total acres in the OPA Plan. The project site is approximately three-percent of the overall OPA Plan acreage. The OPA Plan designates this area as "Santiago Greenbelt Plan." Please see discussion below related to the SARSCGBP. Please refer to Draft EIR Figure 5.10-2, Project Site within OPA Plan, shows what part of the proposed project is within the OPA Plan. The Draft EIR found that with the removal of the proposed project area from the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan, all land use allocations, improvements, development standards, lines for the proposed project would be under one specific plan(the Rio Santiago Specific Plan) as implemented in PDF LUP-4. With the implementation of PDF LUP-4, the proposed project would amend the City's General Plan by removing the project site from the East Orange (EO) General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Plan. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would establish new designations for the project site on the City's General Plan. These changes eliminate potential conflicts with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation. Therefore, with the City's approval of the amendments to the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan and the approval of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan of 1971(SARSCGP) Commenters requested that an alternative be presented in the EIR that would establish the project site as an open space-passive recreational alternative area compatible with the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan of 1971(SARSCGP). The SARSCGP is further discussed in Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-205 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The SARSCGP addresses public equestrian and human trails, and the need to protect the watershed and its habitat value. 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. It should be noted that CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. As noted below, a specific SARSCGP alternative would not attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. And such an alternative would not be feasible because of the conflicting and overlapping land use designations of the General Plan,the East Orange General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Plan. Because a specific SARSCGP alternative would not meet the minimum requirements of CEQA compliance, it need not be included in the EIR. However, for purposes of full public discussion and disclosure, additional information regarding such an alternative is presented below. Evaluation of Development Under the 1975 East Orange (EO) General Plan, Zoning, Orange Park Acres (OPA) Plan, and Santa Ana River Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan Although development of the project site for uses permitted under the existing City's General Plan, Zoning, 1975 East Orange (EO) General Plan, Orange Park Acres (OPA) Plan, and Santa Ana River Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (SARSCGP) would not meet minimum CEQA requirements, this section discusses the potential impacts of such an alternative. The City General Plan Policy Map designates the project site as Resource Area, Low-Density Residential, and Open Space. The existing City General Plan Policy Map is depicted in the Draft EIR on Figure 3-7, Existing and Proposed General Plan. The City's current Zoning Map designates a portion of the project site north of Santiago Creek as R-1-8 (Single-family Residential), with the remainder of the project site designated S-G (Sand and Gravel Extraction). The existing zoning district classifications are depicted in the Draft EIR on Figure 3-10,Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts. Figure 7-2,No Project Alternative —Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning in the Draft EIR depicts a schematic of the land use under the existing City General Plan. The EO General Plan designates the project site as "Regional Park." The SARSCGP designates the project site as an open space-passive recreational area. Table 2.10-3, Summary ofDevelopment- General Plan, Zoning, EO General Plan, and OPA Plan (SARCRGBP)provides a summary of potential land uses. This Table 2.10-3, Summary of Development - General Plan, Zoning, EO General Plan, and OPA Plan (SARCRGBP) demonstrates the confusing and overlapping land use designations. The City's General Plan designates the project site as Resource Area(RA), Low Density Residential (LDR 21-6 Du/Ac), and Open Space (OS). Please refer to Draft EIR Figure 3-7, Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations. The Zoning on the project site is S-G (Sand and Gravel Extraction) and R-1-8 (Single- Family Residential 8,000 s.f.). Please refer to Draft EIR Figure 3-10, Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts. Please refer to Draft EIR Figure 5.10-1, Project Site within EO General Plan, shows what part of the proposed project is within the EO General Plan and Draft EIR Figure 5.10-2, Project Site within OPA Plan shows what part of the proposed project is within the OPA Plan. Page 3-206 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses It should be noted that development of the project site consistent with all of the above plans is not feasible as the plans overlap proposed land uses. In fact, the proposed project would resolve the overlapping differences and create a feasible plan protection of open space and parks conceptually consistent with the SARSCGP. Table 2.10-3, Comparison Summary of Development - General Plan, Zoning, EO General Plan, & OPA Plan (SARSCGBP) and Project Objectives provides a comparison of the major components of each plan (i.e., Open Space, Open Space/Passive Recreation, Regional Park, Resource Area, and Low Density Residential development land uses with project objectives. Table 2.10-4, Comparison Summary of Development - General Plan, Zoning, EO General Plan, & OPA Plan (SARSCGBP) and Project Objectives demonstrates that this alternative would not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a). The development of the project site consistent with all of the above plans would potentially meet only three project objectives as noted in Table 2.10-4, Comparison Summary of Development- General Plan, Zoning, EO General Plan, c� OPA Plan(SARSCGBP)and Project Objectives. As a result, this alternative would not feasibly attain most of the basic objectives as required by the CEQA Guidelines. For information purposes only, Table 2.10-5, Impact Summary Comparison Development - General Plan, Zoning, EO General Plan, & OPA Plan (SARSCGBP) provides a comparison of the impacts of the proposed project to each alternative arranged by topical environmental issue area. Table 2.10-6, Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and Project Alternatives Comparison provides a summary of the SARSCGBP recommendations and each project alternative. Table 2.10-6, Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and Project Alternatives Comparison demonstrates that this alternative would have the same or greater impacts in a large majority of the environmental issues analyzed in connection with the proposed project. As a result, a specific SARSCGBP alternative would not satisfy CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) to feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and it would not significantly reduce the number of impacts relative to the proposed project. The commenters concerns and the additional information presented in this Master Response 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. In addition, the information presented (1) does not identify a new significant environmental impact, (2) does not identify a substantial increase in the severity of an impact, and (3) does not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. However, the comments are noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The information and opinions expressed 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, 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 3-207 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 22 Jakki Tonkovich From: tdcdnd@aol.com [mailto:tdcdnd@aaLcom] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:09 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio Santiago Chad, 22 . 1 Good morning. I am in receipt of the DEIR for Rio Santiago. After reading the legal notice of the Design Review Committee it seems to me, and others, that the cart is before the horse. The Design Review for this project, or any other, should be done after the 45 day comment period, and after all those comments have been published. Then and only then should the review process begin. I know that the DRC onlv looks at r.Prtain thinac hut there will be comments that DRC should take into account- not before comments are submitted, but after. Thank you, Tom Davidson 1 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 22 Date: May 15,2013 Tom Davidson I 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 priar 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 E/R—December 2013 Page 3-209 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 ��rr�`�c�,., LETTER 2 3 ��v- s .��'g � �'a�, �� `" , � June 28, 2013 - �,� � �� go�� Mr. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner ��:,�:t�v�,�t,P,�>;;F:�� ,; City of Orange h�tar�ny Kie��er,'v`;Ue Pr�Sident 3�� EBSt Ch8 t11811 AVeflUe v��K��v�ans�;,,��:��,��,�E� p E-MAIL: cortlieb(c�cityofioran�e.or� ��°�Y�'�vG°��`��r��r� Orange, California 92866 fAX: (714) 744-7222 �tepha�,ie??a,a:�- �'i'�"'}`�``'" RE: Comments on the Rio Santia o Draft EIR ��-car� 6 Nli�:^��le.c�au�-c!<=r�inle ��'`�'�� Dear Mr. Ortlieb: �"`:'��?'l}j(t�"f�}if15 f3t3�3�CtS�C)}? fltny E.:PY�n ��}�„r-�,=�,,,�ti, Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks("FHBP"), an organization dedicated to the �'�"�`��'�`'�'' preservation, acquisition, protection, and long-term management of public wilderness T:na Triorn�son , r�i:��^�r`4��r�, open space, and recreational lands in Orange County, appreciates the opportunity to s�p�or�,��ar�aneZ�c�ons comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR")for the Rio Santiago Project "��n��4�f'��;'��j�",F�� ("Project").These comments follow the information that has been provided to date and A��c�E,i>2,�ea�:Sage C1?�pt�r e�,�5,,��,,;�co�y�=��,�Y are based on the environmental checklist form contained in the California Environmental ��`��"'��=�rk Quality Act Guidelines. �alu°�tec�=rs Ear�F�Resource��un�?Cion 2. �`�`"�s�y'`'r'c°`'°c'°''`''c�`:,. On June 25 2013 the Board of Directors of FHBP voted to 0 ose the Rio Santiago E€�lirc,,rental�vz��u�e Cer�i�r � • pp r��;:;k��,vfr:��,��t=�5��: project that is proposed in the Orange Park Acres community in the City of Orange. FHBP �J�ill��14�'F �-�,n��t��,eE.-��n�°��;�-,d� is concerned about the conflict between the long-term planning vision stated in approved c�'�'�`=`��"`�Y'�4'Y��''fE planning documents for the City of Orange, and the proposed Project. The Sully-Miller c,�+=e c:�;,t�. �_�3��,,,�c�r,��;,c��,��;��-E,.,�y parcel, site of the proposed Project, is partially within the Orange Park Acres("OPA") ��"�'��'��'°�`'�"'�`�°t'°" Specific Plan a residential-equestrian community with important connection to Santiago E.�gur��,Gre�=nbelt,Znc, � r�,=�,�:�03� �a�c:��,�er��a��4 Oaks and Irvine Regional Parks, as well as the Cleveland National Forest.The proposed Sie;rt�Cluk�,C?rar:�,�Cc�ur7ty ��,v�.,��.�,,�,,,��t;�,,, Project would significantly transform and urbanize the rural character of this highly visible �x`�v�°��' �='��c�' area of the community. stop t�ollu�ina Qur r�4ti-JpoN� St€'�1t�r><F'res;ayte.-i;;,,Cf��c�� `�'��';�"''� Both the East Orange General Plan and OPA Specific Plan are overdue for updating to ��S�ry��ra establish a comprehensive vision for the site and the community area before the City of ��a��''�`��``:i4i71 Oran e acts on a develo p p y p y� co„�„c goar�i,,,�,,, g pment ro osal for such a ke arcel.The Cit s General Plan r��r��r'�'��41t'� update process presents a special opportunity to set a vision for open space management �Qy��Br=��,�s in the Cit p Y pp g Y� g !��,r�c;��Fn y and to com rehensivel establish an a roach to meetin the Cit s lon term 2: �'`�'�"``�°"k recreational open space needs. A premature decision on this specific development 7C��BU;r,r, ��;n�y c��,,�� application may therefore sabotage the City's chances of achieving its open space goals. �"�'"�"r�" The language in the DEIR regarding extracting the proposed project from the OPA Specific Fve��n h{�r! �u��y Plan in favor of a significant, new non-conforming land use, would be an irreversible v�t�E�;:>r��, ��p�,u�;��,��G impact to the cultural character of OPA and should have been thoroughly addressed in ��`��' the DEIR. C�latt�2�y1 L:I�irr'S:��Iotte�rb�=ck `�`"'S�'`�r� �`�' Moreover Santiago Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Ana River and part of the Santa 7a:k skin-:c=�,'-t.a. � ��v s��F�� Ana Mountains watershed, runs through the site. Planning studies for the Santiago Creek �"��`�r"�'`� Vision Plan have not been completed, and implementation of a management plan is ��SfOff'��s��zs6 necessary to protect these precious riparian resources.The proposed Project would 23 "�°'��°°��c'�g��s� urbanize and develop one of the last remaining open spaces in the watershed and 349-349-3654 wc�w.fxen.vpy represents a significant and irreversible impact to watershed viability and sustainability 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 An 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 2 3 . 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 . 8 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 EIR 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�e'�'r�ely, �, �f 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 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 23.2 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 Creek. 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 far 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 regional 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 far 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 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 (Page 5.1-34 of the Draft EIR). 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 51-13, 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 or 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 far those impacts, mitigation will include on-site enhancement, which is intended to improve the qualiry 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 far 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 far 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, therefare, 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 Quality 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 Quality 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/pdf/V illa_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 53 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 Spec�c 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 1990 levels 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 E/R—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 hexafluoride) 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, ar 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 Air 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 impiemented by a project applicant or lead agency. second phase of the program. Align zero-emission When this measure 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 applicabie 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, tbe 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 or 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 or 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 Scoping 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 or 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 Quality 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 or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds far 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 or 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 project. (Page 5.1-45 of the Draft EIR) Page 3-228 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—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 City 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 23.9,2310 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—Decem6er 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" for trail and park issues are noted. The Commenter's statements that the department was re- named some years ago as the "OC Public Works 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 �F� �_� �� „ � �;.. � � � � , , � � f� ` . �....f ha� a`� , . � .. r' . . � ' � ^ � �.,,-�' � . .. � � .. � � �� +, � r� ° n � �� „� E '� � i 3;i�i ��i � �� ', i � itils . . `� " x � � � � � r ' � '� �� n` � � �� iiiii��IVII��t,.�, "_� t��P � � � � 3 =�. _, F _ . � � � „� �� +� �, ,. a.�� ,�.»a �` ,,."#... �a . s .R',�r"� , 1� �. ; .. .. �a a '.6 �r .� � ., . , ,_ ' �.�,z �,�: �, ;.`w m,,� ` - ". ��iif=. . , -� ` . ... � .��°�'�a,� �'� : b�,� .. . ... ..s.3 ... . _ ,�.. '^t34 Response ta Draft EIR.—Rio Santiago Proj ect ot�icers and State Clearinghouse No. 2Q09051072 Directors Jttne 201.3 John T. Moore, President Kirk�nferrr�th, Ta: Chad Ortlieb, Sr. Planner, Community Development Dept. Vice-President David Piper, Fram: Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance Secretary7reasurer. Intraduction Jeanne Carter, �e Santiago Creek Greenway Alliaz�ce is a member of The Caalition Group representing Director surrounding neighborhoods atad organizations that ha�ve an interest in the Rio Santiago Pameta Galera, pr43ect, The Coalitiori Graup has met repeatedly with the applicant and his consultants or�cto� thraughout the design c�f this project. The Greenway Alliance's interest has been primarily those issues that affect Santiaga Creek including the propased Open Space and Advisory Board recreational uses. 24.1 Jim Donovan, CommeIIts �'-•%ona/Parks �e 1. We believe the �ity of Orange and the applicant should jointly undertake the eannection af the existing bike trail that terniinates on the west side of the Gannon Shiriey Grindle, St. Brid e with the trail to be constructed on the Ria Santiago project site. The Campaign fteform � Act;�1St ideal time to construct this underpass cannection is during grading and Peter wetzet, construction of the trail on the project site. While this may not be an EIR issue, Regionat we recomniend tllis joint undertaking be included in the Development Agreement. Recreational Traits Advisory Commiftee 2. Is it possible to include a discnssion in the EIR regartiing the possibility of future Marilyn Moore, use of the landfill(at the southeast corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon) 24.2 Treasurer, oc � � �� at to serve the recreatianal uses on Planning Area B? Friends of Music P � 3. The EIR states that the project may be perceived as substantiallv degrading the long-term visual ci�aracter af the site(Impact AES-3). We disagree with this assessment. The existing appearanee af the site—the recycling operation—is likely ta cantinue far years ifthe Rio Santiago project is not approved. We 24.3 therefore believe tl�e praject as proposed should realistically be compared to its currei�t and likely to cantinue use instead of being compared to a future"utapia�l" candition. We conclude that the proposed prQject represents an aesthetically positive impa�t_ 4. It is aur suggestian that the mitigation measures that are incarporated into the praject for the conveyance and storage of water run-off into Santiaga Creek 24.4 should be summarized in the Executive S�immary on p. 2-5, Sectio� 2.3.3. The impact of this pxaject on Santiago Creek is of major importance and should be summarized in the Executive Summary, 5. The EIR shvuld address the possibility of cannecting the multi-use trail on the Rio Santiago project with the Mabury Ranch Trail on the north side of tlie 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 connectian with the bike traii on the west side of the Cann.on Street bridge. (See Na. 1 above). 6. We particularly appreciate the 50 acres of Open Space on both sides of Santiago Creek and the additional 10 acres of Open Space-Park, 3+acres of public trails 24.6 and 1+acre of public linear park,that are included as part of this project. 7. This site was once used for sand and gravel mining. Have the hazardous znaterials and waste left over from the mining operations been removed in accordance with the Suxface 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 shoutd describe what measures are being taken to prevent illegal access to this water line via this access shaft. 24.8 The Officers and Directors of the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance have authorized submittal of these comments for your consideration. Subznitted By John T. Moore, President Santiago Creek Greenway Ailiance 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 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 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 major 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 far 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 2.3, 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 Qualiry, 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 far consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-235 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 25 F ' �bais�a� w � � ��:�� `_% °�. David Mains i �,. �1C� ��'ffi� � �� R. Lynn Cantc�n .�, ��,-� �OCTC�B�J t Nt��lle PettiC Wiiliams � _� �r�� P�� , ��ri��, �'�� or��i�� .ois wia�y 3419 E Chapman Ave,Suite 48{�,Orange CA 92869 . Alice Sorenson June 2�,2013 Chad C}rtlieb, S��iar Planner City c�f Orat��e 30t� East Chapman A�-enue _ _ _ _ _ _ �ran�;e, C'A 92�6b Dear Mr. C�rt1i��: As yau may be aware. the Orange Park Aret�as�qu�.strians Trails Carporation(OPA-ETC)is a non-�rofit organization t�iat manages the Mara Brandman Horse Arena located alang Santia�t�C�izynn Rc�ad in the C}ran�e Par�C t��res n�iglibc�rhtrod of East C}ran�e, The c�bjectives of our arganization are t�; • l'rc��uute the use of Orange Fark Acre�' ec�uc:��ian arenas and the multi-purpas��rails systems that supperrt them • Protect and maintain equestrian reserctrc� �o th�y are zzsed continuously and�rimarily far�quesfirria� purp�ses ■ }'rQvic�e�uestrian educa�ional and r+�reatic�n�l c�pportunities fg� the be��eft ufthe comznuni�y In seciion S.l 5.'?ot the Itia Santiago dzaft Envirnnment,al Impact Report(EIR}, Tlie Mara I3randman t�rena is 25.1 list�d as c�ne a��everal existing ap�n space/parksfa�enas near the praposed project. Due tc�t�iis close pro�cimity, c�ur orga�zizatiou has a greak interest in the plan.s far develaping t��is property as they p�r�in tu tl��obj��tiv�� of OPA-I:T'C;, In�articular, �PA-ET�is suppor#ive c�f R�4 Santia��c�'s tl�ree n�w publie,multi-pur�a�se trails.The�e s�e�v r�creatianal ame�ities include a cr�ek-side trail� a new Santiagc��'.anyc�n Road trail with ec�uestrian fenci��g, and a irail cz�nnectin��e creek-sid�trail to the Sazifiiagp�anyon Rc�ad trail. T3�e total �ilea��of th��ncvsr tails is appraxim�tely 1.3 miles and each will allow fa�`ec�ue�trian t�se as well as usel�y hik�rs,j�r�ers,and bikers. OPA-FTG alsc�revie��ed the Draft EIR tt�understand l�o�=a�nd wher�equestrians urc�uld b+�al�le�acce�s the�� ne�trails, �nd was pleased to learn that ec�uestrian access will l�e afforded at t�e existin�signalized litht at t��e t�ran�e}'ark I3c�ulevard a�d Santiago Canyan R��c3 intersectic�n. � Fr�s�rvi th� ��e�tr"sa� ��rata�� a�d �raditia�s oE Rr��e P�r� �cr�s � Additianally, our c�rganization wauld 1'rke tc�requ�st fram the City af C}range infcarmation related to the follawing Rio Santiago concerns: 25.2 What ent�ty�>ill bc�usked with r��ain�aining the thre�n�u�publie, multi purp�ase�rait r? In czd�fr`ti�n tr� tJre cxisting equestr�crn c�•c}�.sing at�run��Par�Bcaule��czrtl an�Santic��r� �aiaylat�R��tzcl, widl the r�e�v sz�-taaliz�d tight��c�Za�rsed for th�interscc�tic�rt c�f��'Vfeky i�a}3 cxnd�"arzziago Car�yz��r Rc�r�z� 25.3 �arr�vide fa�^an�guestr�c�n crvc.s�in�c�s �v�l�? It is x�idely undcr-,rtood tfzat ant�ther��ublic berxefit c�fRi�Sctsttiagn is�hat the 3.7 acre extensivrt t�f t tY�arrz Brundrncxn Hor�se Aret�c�ti��ill I��dc�nated h}��h�tt��tdQ��r��er as�ac�rt c�f th�a�prc�vc�l Qf the Fr-�?jer.t. Although th�s r�r�na�ion is not disc�s��.�d r`r� th�I�r�f�EIR, coulrl}tr�u c�r��rr�� dha�thfs dr��udic�r� is incleed 25.4 stil�part t�j"the Ric��'aritaugc�D��elc�prr��n�AgrAeem�rrt� QPA�BTC appreciate�the�ity of Or��e's��c�rk thus far in preparir��and distributing this infarmation far the public ta review. We loctk forward ta your ongaing oversight�nd respanses to tl�ese questians. Six�cerely, » �� ---�. Aliee Sarenson Direct�r Qran�e Park Arenas, Ecjuestrians,Trails�cr�garation 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, sball 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 E/R—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 EIR—December 2013 Page 3-239 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 26 ; , June 27,�t}13 -- '� � . ��; �� `� '� Mr. Chad Ortli�b �� -�� f�� ; � Senic�r Planner �� .� , � _ , �s , ,. City of�ran�e ` - ` ,F�j 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 � � Re: Cc�mments c�n the DEIR for the propased Rir�Santiago Project Dear Chad, Plea�e aElc�w me to say that there are many aspects trf this project that I like and feel ar�e good far the �ity Qf�range which i address first. There are als�a concerns which are addressed further in my letter. in general,the propc�sed plan dae�away with the eyesore of the cu�rent rock crushing operatian. 1t wauld result in better air,visual aesthe�ics and redu�ed operatianal naise. The open space that is there is anything but pristine anct improvements are w�lcome. 26.1 Area A: More than 50°lo af the project's acreage is being offered as open space, contiguous to Santiago (?aks Regiona) Park. I am in favor of the ccrnnected, multipurpase trails along Santiago�reek which give access to all kinds of recreational activities,from equestrian, biking and hiking to just walking, and offer �ienefits beyond a srr�all segment of the City's population. 7he Specific Flan in this dacument sugg�sCs options,ather than the County,ft�r responsibility fc�r the Gr�enway Reserve. I urge against an HOA as access tc�trails can be changed or closed. The NC7A wc�uld have to funci fo�carefiaking at a level andJor responsibility not apprvpriate ta its nature. City funds are limited. Clther than the Caunty,{7CTA would be a viable possibility. Area B: The 10 acres for recreatiana( use thrnugh a membership based {nominal fee?}, }�rivately rnanaged facility, such as the YMCA would provide intergenerational opportunities unique to the area. As the Irvine Company's Sports Center project is slated far East�range,the scope of this prapas�d 26 2 recreation facility seems appropriate. Amenities such as poc�fs and potential classes are good opportunities. lust a reminder that Ridgeline was also a membership based (nominal fee,j privately managed facifity. Area C: I lik�the idea of a Senior�iving facility as the need fr�r this housing is increasing. I understand that dollars must pencil aut, but if a two story rather than the prap�sed three story facility is feasibCe, it 26.3 is preferred. Area [?: 13Q Single Family Residences.The linear park and general layout are appealing. Mc�re details regarding the houses wc�uld be appreciated. The 6,OtIQ s�uare foot Ic�ts are small for the surrounding 26.4 minimum 8,0(l0 square foot neighbanc�rods. Concerns: Dam Inundation—There are areas that fall into the dam inundation zone, not just the flood plain. 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 protection for residents and their property? Methane—A smalf amount was found in area C. Please explain if and how this risk can be totally 26.6 removed and the area made safe for residents. Noise, Lights and Density—I have general concerns regarding impacts on neighboring communities, wildiife, 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—Commerc9al in area D is too close to neighboring residentia!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 fior an all recreation alternative is too disruptive far the adjacent neighborhoods. The Irvine Company's Sports Center not far away reduces the need in fdr 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 different? Alternative#7—A development of clustered residentials is not in keeping with the surrounding communities. It has greater impact on firaffic, schools and public services than the proposed Rio Santiago project because of its density. Alternative#8—This is a reasonable alternative with the caveat that appropriate and acceptable mitigations are found#or the dam inundation,flood and methane safety issues_ Thank you for the opportunity to comment. :�.�.�:._�.._ C%..-��;-e�rr��`�;.c.c�., Sue Obermayer 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 for 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 Section 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 far 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 2.3.1, Relationship to Former County 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 ElR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 27 Robert H.Odle 6007 East Mabury Avenue C}rartge,�CA 92867 � �`� � � � � , . ;� , lune 28,2013 _ Mr.Chad Ortlieb Senior Planner, Planning Division City of Orange � � 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 � � �� Subject: Gomments on Draft Environmentai Impact Report(EiR 1818-09) Re: Rio Santiago Project Dear Mr. Ortlieb: The purpo$e of this letter is to provide comments on the subject DEIR. The following is submitted: 1. In the proposed praject, PA"C' provides far a maximum of three stories in the center af the 27.� age restricted area. Three stories are nat consistent with the surrounding developments and would impase an additional source af uni�te�rupted light glare upon the surrounding developments. 2. PA"C' in the prapased project has identified outdoar uses,i.e., poo1,outdaor spoets fields and courts. All o#these facilities have activities that are naise producers. Specific haurs af 27 2 operation should be conditioned on the use. In additian,if these facilities are lighted,the lights must be directed away from existing develapments and must be designed ta reduce night light glare. 3. The praject area is rural and is harne to a significant amount of wildlife. During any grading aperation,smail mamnnals,rodents and snakes will be forced fram their habitat. ft is recommended that a wildlife barrier be erected adjacent to the fence that parallels East 27.3 Mabury Avenue. This would reduce the number of unwanted visitars ta the homes in Mabury Ranch and beyond. In reviewing the alternatives to the prapased project in the DEIR,Alternative 8 seems to be the most environmentally sensitive and the most desirab{e,fram neighbors prospective. Naturally, items 2 and 3 abpve would still be af concern even in this alternative. 27.4 Thank you for providing this oppartunity to express my thaughts. Sincerely, Robert H. t�dfe 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 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 3-247 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 28 I June 2�,2C?13 Chad�rtlieb- Seniar P�anriing City c�f t3range—Plannin� Uivision � 30t}E.�haprr�an Ave. C?range,CA 92$69 � SUBJE�I': RIU SANTIAGU DEIR � Mr.Ortlieb: ,' I have a few quest�ons which I wcauld�p�reciate the Ciry address as it reviews the DEIR fc�r the ' Rio Santiagc�plan. i First,I dc�n't understand why the applicant is in n�gotiatir�ns with the�aunty c�f(Jrange on the 50 28.1 i acres of natural open�}�a�e identif�ed in Planning Ar�a."A.°' Why isn't the appli�ant simply being � requir�d tc�ju�t dcznate this land tc�the Ci of+�rat3 e es �Y � , p�ecia�ly since certain groups keep cIa'r�nin� ' that"t7ran�e needs parks and c�pen space"? Why did the Ciry of Urange decline this land? Second,can yc�u piease explain the system for issuin�park fee credits ta prc�perty o�rners whc� want ta d�velop their land? Mc�re specifieal[y,if the State c�f Califc�rnia and the City of Orange have r�equirements fQr grantin� park credits,then why wc�uldn't the app]icant's dc�nation Qf the open spac�in Flanning Area"A"��well as the remaining 3.7 acres c�f the Mara Brar�dman equestrian c�nt�r(nc�w a parking Itat and fi�w�r stand) p1t�s all the�ery public tra�ls ancf parkland as well as the t�pen s�ace and park area in Planning Area"rjaa be enc�ugh fc�r t�e applic,�r�t tc�qualify 28.2 � for th�se cre�fits? � . I am cc�ncerned that we are driving out those who want to develop their land becarase we refuse their offers c�f c�pen space and parkland as we alsc�refuse tc�giwe them the prc3per c�-edit fc�r e��n space ar�cl parkland. Please respond tc�my questic�ns abave. Thank yc�u. Sincerely �� , .� . F , � �f., �_ l #`` C1 � �` ,..s�� :~ - �ll�c��Z � ,,�tt�'c�-�. �rf�-�t � � � t� �� '�' .� � _� 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. City 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, ar 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. City 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 for 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 for 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 E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 29 �hairman David Mains Vi�e �hairrnan R. lynn Canton ,� "f 5�areta�y/�`rea�urer �.I�icMelle Pettit Williams Qr�� Park Ar�na�, ��s�ri�n�, Tr�ils C�rpo��tio�� r�� Lois Widly 3419 E Chapman Ave,Suite 480, Orange CA 92869 ` " Alice Sorenson , ��s ,; June 24,2013 � , � ��,%'� Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange,CA 928G6 Dear Mr. Orttieb: As yau rnay be aware,the Orange Park Arenas Equestrians Trails Corporation(OPA-ETC}is a non-profit organization that rnanages the Mara Brandman Harse Arena located along Santiago Canyon Road in the Orange Park Acres neighborhood of East(7range. The objectives of our organization are to: . Pramote the use of�range Park Acres' equestrian areilas and th�multi-p�upose trails systems that support them . Prc�tect and maintain equest�ian resources so they are used continuously and primarily for ec�uestrian�urposes . Pravide equestrian educational and recreational op�ortunities for the vene�t of the community In section 5.15.2 of the Rio Santiago draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR),The Mara Brandman Arena is 29.� listed as ane of several existing open space/parks/arenas near the proposed project. Due to this close proxirnity, our argaYlization has a great interest iz7 the plans for developing this property as they pertain ta the objectives of OPA-ETC. In particular, OPA-ETC is supportive of Ria Santiago's three new public, multi-purpose trails.These new recreational amenities include a creelc-side trail, a new Santiaga Canyon Road trail with equestrian fencing, and a trail connecting the creek-side trail to the Santzago Canyon Raad trail. The total mileage af these new tails is appraximate.ly 1.3 miles and each tivill allow for equestrian use as well as use by hilcers,joggers, and bikers. OPA-ETC also reviewed the Draft EIR to understand how and where equestrians��vould be able to access these new trails,and was pleased ta learn that equestrian access will be afforded at the existing si�alized light at the Orange Park Boulevard and Sarltiaga Canyan Road intersection. �c Preserning the �qu�sl�ian 1i�rita�� and Traditions o� Ora�ge �ark �cres �� Additionally, our nr�anization would like to request from the City of Orange information related to the following Rio Sai�tiago concerns: 2g.2 What entity will be taskecl ivith nzaintaiizing the three new pacblic, rnulti purpose trails? Ira acldrtion to the existiMg equestriar�crossing at drange Park Bo�clevard and Santiago Ganyon Raad, will the new signalized li,�ht proposed for the intersection afNieky Way and Santiago Ganyon Road 29•3 provide for c�n equestrian crocsing as x�ell? It is widely r��ideYstaad that arzother�ublic�benefit af Rio Santia,�o is thczt the 3.7 acre exteriszon of tl�e Mara Brafadr�zan Horse Areraa tivilX b�don.r�tecl by-the lanc�oiv��er r�s part of�the app�oual of tlae Project. 2g.4 Althaugh this dor�czti�n is r�ot diseussed irr tl2e Draft EIR, eould}%ou c�orrfirrrz that this clorzation is indeed still part of the Rio Sa�ztia�c�I�ev�lop�7tent r�greemer�t? � OPA-ETC appr�eiates the City of Orange's work thus far in preparing and distributing this information for the publie to review. We look forward to your ongoing oversight and responses to these questions. Since , , � 49� �i�,o _ '� Lois Widly '�� Director Orange Pat•k Arenas, Equestrians,Trails Corparation 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 LETTER 30 ' ��wm�� i�l David Mains „a,i. ��i�� at��i�x � R. Lynn Canton ��4 ��4?°�� Michelle Pettit Williams » � .; � � � �..s`x�' ". �i�� '� �. .� ;.. Lois Widly 3419 E Chapman Ave, Suite 480, Orange CA 92869 `� Alice Sorensan .Cune 24,2Q13 � Cl�ad Ortli�b, Senior Planner �. . ��w � � City of Urange 300 East Chapman A��enue Orange, CA 92866 Dear Mr. Ortlieb: As you may be aware, the Orange Park Arenas Equestrians Trails Corporation(OPA-ETG) is a non-profit organizatio��that manages the Mara Bra��dman Horse Arena located alon� Santiago Canyoun Road il�the Oran�e Park Acres neighborhoc�d of East Qrange. The flbjectives of our organization are ta: ■ Pramote the tise of O�•ange Park Acees' equestr-ia�� a�•enas anc!tl�e m��lti-pur�ose trails s��stems t1�at support theit� • Prc�ieet and maintain equestrian��esources so tlaev are L�sed c.o��tinuc�usly and primarily far ec��estrian pu�-pc>ses 30.1 ■ Pror>ide eq�iesti-ian educatiunal a�7d re�reational oppoa-tu»ities ft�r the beneCt of tl�e community In section 5.15.2 of the Rio Santiago draft Environnlental Impact Report(EIR), The Mara Brandman Arena is iiste.d as one�-�f severai existing open spacelparks/arenas►lear the proposed project. Due to this ciose prQximity, our organization has a grea#ii�terest in the plans for developin�;this praperty as they pertain to the objectives af �PA-ETC. In particular, OPA-ETC is supportive af Rio Santiago's three new public, multi-purpase trails.These new recr�ational amenities include a creek-side trail, a new Santiago Canyon Road irail ��ith equestrian fencing, and a trail connecting the cr�ek-side trail to the Santia�o Canyon Road trail. The total mileagz of these new tails is � approximately 1.3 rniles and each will allc��for eques�rian use as wel�as use by hikers,joggers, and bikers. OPA-ETC also reviewed the Draft EIR ta understand ho��-and where equestrians would be able to access these new trails and«as lease , d to learn hat p t equestrian access will be afforded at fhe exis�ing signalized light at the Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road intersec;tion. � ��`_ ��, �� .��` �� 3�� r� ` :��E �� :`��'�� 4�,�" �� es,�a.�� ,�� '; Additionally, our arganization w�uld like to request fram the City of Orange informatian related to the fc�llowing Rio Santiago concerns: 30.2 What et�Xity will be taskec�with rr�aintaanin�tdte three new public, multz pur�ose trazls? I In add�tion tt�the exist�ng�questrian erossing czt�rar�ge Park Bt�ulevarc�ancX Santiago C`anyon Road, � H=zll the new sigt�crli?ed Ii�h�prol�osecl,fo�the interseetiot� of Nicky �ay and Santiago Gc��vorr Road 30.3 provide,for an equestrzan erossin�as well? It is tividely understood that anothef•public bei2efit c�f Ri�Scmtiagr� zs thAt the 3.7 acr�exiension of the �-�c�t•a Brandman Horse Arerza wzll be dorrated by the landox�raer as�crrt of the upprovul of thc�Praject. Although this donation is not discussed in the Drcrft EIR, cc�uld you confrrm tl�at tl�is donation is indeed 30.4 still part of the Rio Santic�go D�velopment Agreeme�t? OPA-ETC appreciates the Gity of Orange's work thus far in preparing and di�tributing this iiZformation for tl�e public to review. u%e look forward to yoizr ongoizl�oversigllt and respc�nses ta these questions. Sincerely, . �� Michell Pettit Williams Secreta !Treasurer Orai�ge rk Arenas, Equestrians, Trails Corporatian I i 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 30 Date: June 24,2013 Michelle Pettit Williams Secretary/Treasurer - Orange Park Arenas, Equestrians, Trails Corporation Response to Comment 30.1 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 far consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 30.2 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 30.3 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 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 30.4 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. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-257 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. I � i Page 3-258 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project