The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - APP-0533-14 - PART 4 EXHIBIT C FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ERRATA MITIGATION MONITORING LETTER 31 Hollis UV.fiitz ' 7722 E Santiag�Canyon Road �"`,�3 � ; � ; ;�� Orange CA. 92$69 ,� � ` `.��+„ 6/3D/2013 �� f`j � �`< �� -�`� � ` `R�� ` � �.� � � [ 3 S � � j� ��„F� _ � � a�j i Chad Ortlieb �� ` '�`° d� �., >��` Seniar Pl�nner �� '� � `, .� Ci�.y of ofange—Plannir�g Division �� 300 EastChapman Avenue Qrange.CA 928�5 RE: P�opqsed Ria Sarttiago develaprnent ° Dear Sir_ 6 iive on Sar�tiagtr Car�yon Road and I am concerned a�nutthe proposed Rio Santiago Development because of the following : 31.1 1. It wii�increase tra�c { rnore naise, more accic�ents, more palC�tio�t j. 2. The deve{aprnent wiil further degrade our rural envirQnmente 31.2 3. The develapmec�t is not in ke�ping with the zaning in the Orange ParEc Acres Specific plan tf�at has l�een fought far and affirmed over the years ,currently zoned for residential one 31.3 acre lot siae and no high �ensity dewe{opments. 4_ Ar�y chan�e irt the Oran�e Park Acre�Specific Plan,sets a bad precedent for any future �eveloprr�ents. 31.4 Thank you for yovr consideration in this matter. SincereiY, . .. ,//{{'�-{/�, � �Y�� . •t/" Hollis W. Fitz ��d 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 31 Date: June 30, 2013 Hollis W. Fitz Response to Comment 31.1 The Commenter's statements related to concern of the proposed project because of increased traffic, nose, accidents, and pollution are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increase in traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise Threshold NOI-A related to increase in noise from traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.3,Air Quality Threshold AQ-B related to increase in pollution from traffic. 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 31.2 The Commenter's statements related to degrading of rural environment are noted. Please refer to Master � Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and 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 31.3 The Commenter's statements related to zoning and specifically the OPA Plan are noted. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. Additionally, please refer to Draft EIR Section, 5.10,Land Use and Planning, Threshold LUP-B for detailed information related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. 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 3-260 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 31.4 The Commenter's statements related to precedent set regarding changes to the OPA Plan are noted. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. Additionally, please refer to Draft EIR Section, 5.10,Land Use and Planning, Threshold LUP-B for detailed information related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. 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 3-261 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 32 July I, 2013 Mr. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner City of Orange 340 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92$66 RE: Comments on the Rio Santiago Draft ElR Dear Mr. Ortlieb: Before the City of Orange can even consider the possibility of aliowing residential development on the o�d Sully Miller gravel mine the city should require an extensive study be done on what lies between the surFace and the bedrock on the entire site. This means that sample cores should be drilled clear to the bedrock at close intervals for the entire site. The reason for concern is huge. The results must be fully disclosed. 32.1 For decades gravel pockets were rnined on this property and many ather locations along the Santiago Creek. Afl the valuable gravel was extracted down to the bedrock. These pockets were many acres in size and were dug way below the level of the creek. An example of this is can be seen today at the Bond Street Pits. After the gravel was extracted, material was sought to back fill these pits. Human nature being what it is, it didn't matter what it was that got buried. Toxic matter was , often dealt with by burying it in those days. There was no oversighti and no one worried about burying waste below the water table or along side of a creek. An example is that 32 2 one of these excavated gravel pits became a county dump at the northeast corner at Santiago Blvd and Cannon. There are people alive today who witnessed the dumping and burial af foreign matter at the Sully Miller site. Much of which taday we would cansider toxic waste. The Draft EIR does not address or anaiyze any of these issues. Another reason the city must require the drilling of core samples for the entire site is that in [9b9 the Santiaga Creek flooded. In this tremendous flood the water brolce through the levees that separated the excavated pits from the creek. These pits were way below the creek level so they not only#iiled with water but by the end of the flood the pits were totally filled up with silt many feet deep. Sully Miller lost everything, the towers, conveyor befts, front end loaders; the mining operaCion was completely buried. I know a man who was employed by Sully Mifler for 35 years. He said they never 32.3 recovered any af the equipment and that al) of that silt and equipment is still there. It has never been excavated out. This silt fayer poses another potentially hazardous outcome if homes are built on the site. In an earthquake that uncompacted silt layer wiEf liquefy and the damage to the homes tould be similar to what happened to the Marina district in the San �rancisca earthquake of 1989. The Draft ElR faiis to address any of these issues. In the 1970s it was known that the Sully Miller site should never be developed for residential hvmes. The Orange Park Acres Specifc Plan (f 973),the East Orange Community Plan ({975), The Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (I 97 I), 32.4 and the Santiago Creek Implementation Plan (1976), all have the property designated Permanent 4pen Space. Two years ago,the develbper that now proposes residential homes and high density unirs be bui{t on the Sully Miller site, along with tfie construction company that leases the site dug a giant hofe on the site that was 250 yards in iength, 50 yards in width and ZO feet deep. The reason for this giant excavation remains unknown to tfie community. lt may have been an attempt to take out unstabie backfill and replace it with compacted 32.5 fill that would pass inspection for residential homes. If so there should be records that the work was properly permitted and closely inspected so that any toxic matter that was found was tesCed so that it could be disposed �f in a proper manner.We potentially had a deve{oper cleaning up a toxic waste site without aversight. The Draft E(R shoufd address these issues which includes producing all records. While working that excavation at the level of the water table tihe hole was filling with ground water as they dug deeper.They responded by pumping this potentially tainted water into the Santiaga Creek ta get rid of it. They got caught in the act and had to stop pumping.Without the pumping the water inundated the hole, so they were forced to 32.6 cease and backfill too soon.The gooey mess of old backfill that was still many feet above the bedrocic was left behind and buried. This o{d backfill now creates a potentially disastrous scenario for homes that are buift here in the future.That old fill could easily liquefy in an earthquake.The Draft EIR fails to mention or address these issues. The developer pushing to build on this property has to be met with a requirement to take and test care sampfes at close enough intervals so that a 3D map can be made of what lies between the surface and the bedrock. And then look out, because there is a chance that it will open I'andora's Box. This very impertant issue is not addressed in the 32.7 Draft �IR. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. �„�..�. Sincerefy ��.,�,� �<� ��,�Ga�z-c-�--c. David Hillman 4317 E. Fairhaven Avenue Orange, CA 92869 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 32 Date: June 30, 2013 David Hillman Response to Comment 32.1 The Commenter's statements related to the City requiring an extensive study regarding the soils on the project site are noted. The Commenter's opinion that the sample cores should be clear to bedrock and results must be fully disclosed is noted. The Commenter's statements related to gravel pockets are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geolo� and Soils and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for information related to the proposed project and soil sampling and drilling. Please refer to Appendix G, Geotechnical Investigation and Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment for further details. Please note that sample cores have been taken throughout the project site by Tait Engineers Ginter and Associates. The Draft EIR has concluded that the samples obtained are sufficient for project analysis and disclosure. 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 32.2 The Commenter's statements related to buried items on the project site are noted. The Commenter's statements related to no oversight regarding burying are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to dumping and burial of foreign matter on the site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Subsection 2.3.3,Buried Hazardous Materials related to the proposed project and potential buried 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 32.3 The Commenter's statements related to the 1969 Santiago Creek flood are noted. The Commenter's statements related to the pits being below creek level are noted. The Commenter's statements related to equipment still being in the pits are noted. Please note the following discussion of project site grading from the Draft EIR page 3-75: Approximately 2,248,200 cubic yards of material wi11 be over excavated per Tentative Tract Map No. 17344. Once removed, the material will be spread and dried on the project site. The material will then be mixed with imported materials. A total of 1,100,000 cubic yards of material will be Page 3-264 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses imported to the site. Please refer to Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic for detail information related to truck trips. The imported materials will be based on recommendations of the soils engineer and include concrete, asphalt, rock, and soil. The imported materials will be crushed on-site by either the existing materials recycling facility or additional operations. A total of 3,348,200 cubic yards of material will be blended during the project site grading (including backfilling operation and mass grading). This includes materials both over excavated and imported to the project site. The approved, on-going backfill operation currently is separate and distinct from the proposed project. However, some of this grading would have to occur to construct the proposed project. As a practical result,therefore, from the date of project approval, the backfilling and grading will become project site preparation activities and, as such, are analyzed as part of the construction phase of the project. In order to provide a "worst-case" analysis in this Draft EIR, all grading activities related to the backfill operation, mass grading operation, and establishment of super pads will be considered as project earthwork. Backfilling Operation The project site is being over excavated (i.e., areas of unsuitable materials) and backfilled to restore previously mined and silt pond deposit portions of the site to City approved grades. Table 17.32.020,Sand and Gravel District Use Regulations of the Orange Municipal Code, states that backfilling is a P (permitted use) in the S-G (Sand and Gravel) District. Additionally, Section 3.1, Grading Permit Exceptions of the City Grading Manual indicates backfilling is a permitted use. Grading is a ministerial (non-discretionary) action as defined by the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines(page 5—6). Prior to March 2011,restoration of the project site occurred for a portion of Planning Areas B and C. Refer to Figure 3-6,Backfill Operation for the approximate location of this activity. In March 2011, the City approved Grading Permit#2047. The extent of Grading Permit#2047 is depicted on Figure 3-6, Backfill Operation. The applicant has indicated that grading permit(s) will be requested from the City to complete backfilling of the previously mined portions of the project site, as depicted on Figure 3-6,Bac�ll Operation. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) far the proposed project was issued by the City on April 7, 2011, subsequent to the issuance of Grading Permit #2047. Although backfilling is a separate operation from the proposed project, some of this activity would have to occur to construct the proposed project. However, backfilling will occur on the project site until site restoration is achieved, irrespective of the proposed project. Mass Grading and Suner Pads The project site would be mass graded for super pads sloping primarily from east to west at a rate of approximately 1 percent upon completion of backfilling. Mass grading would apply to the City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-265 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses approximately 60 acres in Planning Areas B, C, and D. Mass grading is not proposed for Planning Area A, except for approximately five acres as noted on Figure 3-4, Tentative Tract Map. Planning Area A would only be mass graded to the south of Santiago Creek immediately adj acent to Planning Areas B, C, and D for infrastructure improvements. These infrastructure improvements include: drainage, flood control, and multi-purpose trails. Additional grading will occur in Planning Area A in two locations as noted on Figure 3-4, Tentative Tract Map to provide for proposed project drainage to Santiago Creek As previously noted, in order to provide a "worst-case" analysis in this Draft EIR, all grading activities related to backfill, mass grading, and establishment of super pads will be considered as project earthwark. Therefore, earthwark on the project site would include approximately 2,248,200 cubic yards of material that will be over excavated. A total of 1,100,000 cubic yards of material will be imported to the site. The imported materials include concrete, asphalt, rock, and soil. The imported materials will be crushed on-site. A total of 3,348,200 cubic yards of material, both over excavated and imported to the project site, will be blended during the backfilling and grading operations The Commenter's statements related to earthquakes on compacted silt layer that will liquefy are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Subsection 2.3.3,Buried Hazardous Materials related to the proposed project and potential buried hazardous material. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, Threshold GEO-A related to earthquakes, ground shaking, and liquefaction. 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 32.4 The Commenter's statements related to the OPA plan, EO General Plan, Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan, and Santiago Creek Implementation plan are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Plan, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the applicable plans over the project site. The following summarizes the applicability of each plan: 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 proj ect site from the East Orange (EO) General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Plan. Page 3-266 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses 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. 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. SARSCGP 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. However, the OPA Plan incorporated certain portions of the County adopted SARSCGBP within the Santiago Geek to the north and east of the OPA Plan study area. See Page 118 of the OPA Plan. (City Resolution No. 3915 adopted December 26, 1973). Because the OPA Plan was adopted as part of the City General Plan Land Use Element, certain Santiago Creek portions of the SARSCGP are a part of the City General Plan. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicting with General P1an policies and goals, and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-10, Draft EIR) Additionally, 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) SARSCGIP 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 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-267 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses SARSCGIP has been utilized as a reference, it is not a City adopted public policy related to the project site SCVP The plan(SCVP)is not a City adopted public policy 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 32.5 The Commenter's statements related to the giant hole on the site that was 250 yards in length, 50 yards in width and 20 feet deep are noted. The Commenter's statements related to an attempt to take out unstable backfill and replace with compacted fill are noted. The Commenter's statements requesting permitted records, including any toxic material are noted. The Commenter's opinion that the developer is cleaning up a toxic waste site without permits is note. Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports (Tait May 16, 2011) established the baseline and determined that there was no contaminated soil on the project site. As stated on Page 3-10 of the Draft EIR: To restore previously mined portions of the site, a portion of the project site is presently being backfilled as a permitted land use. The existing backfill operation is not a permanent use. The project site is presently being backfilled in sequentially defined phases. Figure 3-6, Backfill Operation, provides the location of the backfill operation. The project site is being over excavated (i.e., removal of unsuitable materials) and filled in the present backfill operation. The applicant has indicated that additional grading permit(s) will be requested from the City to complete backfilling of all previously mined portions of the project site. As previously noted,the project site was used from 1919 to 1995 for surface mining of sand, gravel, and other aggregates. Previously mined portions of the project site were used for residue silt deposition, otherwise known as silt ponds. The backfilling operation addresses both mined and silt pond areas. In March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit #2047 related to the backfill operation. Table 1732.020, Sand and Gravel District Use Regulations, of the Orange Municipal Code indicates that backfilling is a permitted use (P) in the S-G (Sand and Gravel) District. Additionally, in accordance with Section 3.1, Grading Permit Exceptions, of the City Grading Manuel backfilling is a permitted use. Grading is a ministerial (not discretionary) action as defined by the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines (page 5 — 6). Per Public Resources � Code Section 21080(b)(1), CEQA does not apply to ministerial actions, therefore, no CEQA environmental review was conducted for the permitted and existing ministerial approved grading. The limits of activity established by Grading Permit #2047 are depicted on Figure 3-6, Bac�ll Operation. The backfill operation will restore those portions of the project site within the limits of Page 3-268 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses activity to the elevations approved by Grading Permit #2047. Approved Grading Permit #2047 provides that 2,000 cubic yards of material will be cut in addition to the over excavation. A total of 223,000 cubic yards of material will be imported to the site. The imported materials include concrete, asphalt, rock, and soil. The imported materials will be crushed on-site. A total of 225,000 cubic yards of material, both cut and fill, will be blended during this approved backfilling operation. 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 32.6 The Commenter's statements related to the water table filling a hole in the backfill operation with ground water are noted. The Commenter stated that while working the excavation at the level of the water table the hole was filling with ground water as they dug deeper. The Commenter's statements related to pumping tainted water into Santiago Creek and getting caught and had to stop are noted. Please refer to Master Response 2.4, Hydrology and Water Quality and Master Response 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related the backfill operation Subsection 2.3.3 Buried Hazardous Materials Heading, Hazardous Materials in Bac�ll Operations. The Draft EIR notes that to restore previously mined portions of the project site, a portion of the project site is presently being backfilled as a permitted land use. The existing backfill operation is not a permanent use. The project site is being over excavated (i.e., removal of unsuitable materials) and filled in the present backfill operation. The project applicant has indicated that additional grading permit(s)will be requested from the City to complete backfilling of all previously mined portions of the project site. The project site was used from 1919 to 1995 for surface mining of sand, gravel, and other aggregates. Previously mined portions of the project site were used for residue silt deposition, otherwise known as silt ponds. The backfilling operation addresses both mined and silt pond areas. The Draft EIR notes that in March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit #2047 related to the backfill operation. Table 17.32.020, Sand and Gravel District Use Regulations, of the Orange Municipal Code indicates that backfilling is a permitted use (P) in the S-G (Sand and Gravel) Extraction District. In addition, grading permit(s) will be requested from the City to complete the backfilling of the previously mined portions of the project site. This approved, on-going backfill operation currently is separate and distinct from the proposed project. However, some of this grading would have to occur to construct the proposed project. All on-site grading that is occurring under Grading Permit #2047 is occurring in accordance with the City of Orange Grading Manuel (Manuel of Grading). This Manual of Grading sets forth the rules and regulations to control excavation, grading and earthwork construction, including cuts and fills. It establishes the administrative procedure far issuance of permits, sets requirements for approval of plans and inspection of grading construction, and provides guidelines for enforcement of City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-269 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses grading violations. The Manuel of Grading provides for the inspection of all grading within the City, requires inspection of work, and supervision. If any hazardous materials were to be uncovered during the grading operations, existing Federal, State, and local protocols would be anticipated to address the materials discovered. During grading operations conducted in accordance with Grading Permit#2047, surface and groundwater was removed to facilitate compacted engineering fill placement. The backfill grading operation was performed by R. J. Noble Co. /MTS (Licensee) a tenant licensee of the project applicant. The Licensee was issued Grading Permit #2047 by the City. The Licensee conducted the backfill operation in accordance with the conditions of the permit. During backfill operations, the Licensee needed to remove surface and groundwater from an excavation in order to facilitate placement of compacted engineered backfill within the excavation. To do so, the Licensee initiated a program to pump the interfering water and to dispose of it in Santiago Creek. During the period when the disposal program was in effect, a regular inspection of the backfill site was performed by a RWQCB inspector. The RWQCB inspector directed the Licensee to terminate the program of pumping water into Santiago Creek. The Licensee complied with the direction of the RWQCB. Subsequently, the Licensee established a "capture and re- use"program. This program pumped water into a holding tank. Water in the holding tank was then "re- used" on the project site. This "re-use" program consisted of spreading the water about the project site for dust control and to facilitate compacted engineering fill placement in the backfill operations. The RWQCB inspector acknowledged the water"re-use"program and no further action was taken. The Commenter's opinion that the backfill operation was forced to cease the backfill too soon and a gooey mess of old backfill now exists that is still many feet above the bedrock is left behind and buried is noted. The project applicant has indicated that the"gooey mess"does not exist. Further,that the backfill operations have been accomplished in accordance with Grading Permit #2047. In accordance with the Manuel of Grading the following reports have been prepared to document the backfill activities, `Preliminary Engineering Geologic/Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Bac�ll Plan Review for MTS Site Near Santiago Canyon Road, City of Orange, CA" by Ginter & Associates, Inc., dated January 12, 2011, Progress Reports 1 through 24 dated June 9, 2010 through January 7, 2013 and "2011 Annual Geotechnical Progress Report For the MTS IDEFO Bac�ll Site, City of Orange, CA"by Ginter & Associates, Inc., dated March 30, 2012. These reports are on file with the City, These reports indicated that the backfill plan is partially complete and that the areas where compacted engineered fill was placed were removed of all compressible materials and the compacted fill was founded on firm- bearing materials in accordance with the City of Orange's "Manual of Grading". The Commenter's opinions that this now creates a potentially disastrous scenario far homes that are built here in the future are noted. Based on the reports and the observations and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant of Records, Ginter & Associates, Inc., the backfill area where the compacted engineered fill has been placed is suitable and acceptable. The Commenter's statements related to this specific area and the effects of the backfill operation on liquefaction in an earthquake are noted. Based on the recommendations and conclusions in Ginter & Page 3-270 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Associates, Inc. January 12, 2011report, the implementation of the recommendation to remove all compressible materials and replacement with compacted engineered fill will help significantly reduce the potential for liquefaction. Also, since the proposed grade is over 50 feet above the groundwater, the liquefaction potential is low. In general, please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, Threshold GEO-A related to earthquakes, ground shaking, and liquefaction for additional information related to this topic. 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 32.7 The Commenter's statements related to a requirement to take and test core samples at close enough intervals so that a 3D map can be made of what lies between the surface and bedrock are noted. The Commenter's statements related to opening Pandora's Box are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geology and Soils and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for information related to the proposed project and soil sampling and drilling. Please refer to Appendix G, Geotechnical Investigation and Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment for further details. Please note that sample cores have been taken throughout the project site by Tait Engineers and Ginter and Associates. Please note that samples taken meet and or exceed industry standards. 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 3-271 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 33 Jakki Tonkovich From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:35 AM To: Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico <<� Megan Penn;Jackie Bateman Subject: FW: Rio Santiago From: Dan Graupensperger [mailto:yonka@pacbelLnet] . Sent: Monday, ]une 17, 2013 11:28 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Re: Rio Santiago Chad, You must get all the fun projects. When I drove the area yesterday it seemed to me that 33.1 the area zoned R1-8 is in an area that will be prone to flooding when we have those occasional bad years. Furthermore, the area on the west end is on or near a methane prone area tha— currently has burn offwells. My concern is that if a project is built there with city approval and 33.2 knowledge of these problems the city could be liable for damages when a problem occurs. A customer who I did some cabinet work for in south county recently lost their house due to a landslide. The agency that approved and was responsible for inspecting that site spent a few hundred thousand dollars defending their actions. Some pieces of land just should not ave houses on them. Anyway, as this project goes along be careful not to let the titans of �� 3 development and politics put you in a bad spot. Dan _— . _ _ _ ._ _— __ _ _— _ _ _ _ ..� __. _ _ _ _— From: Chad Ortlieb <cortliebCa�cityofarange org> To: yonkaCalpacbell.net Sent: Mon, June 17, 2013 8:30:01 AM Subject: FW: Rio Santiago Hi Dan, I'm the case pfanner far the subject praject. Please contact me with any questions or comments, Part of the area north af the creek is currently zoned R-1-8. The applicant`s praposal is to zone the whale site as Specific Plan (SPj and the Specific Plan will have Planning Areas C and D south af the creek designated for!ow and high density residential uses. The R-1-8 area north of the creek would be designated as Open Space. Rega rds, Chad Ortlieb 714.744.7237 cortliebC�cityoforan�e.or� 1 From: Jennifer Le Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:23 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: FW: Rio Santiago Ni Chad: See belaw. P{ease introduce yourself to Mr. Graupensperger.Thanks, -1 From: Dan Graupensperger [mailto:�nkaCo�pacbeli.net] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:36 PM To: Jennifer Le Subject: Rio Santiago Jennifer, I have been asked to started looking at the Rio Santiago project. Is there a lead planner for this that will accept e- mail input? I noticed that part of the flood plain/ creek is zoned R1-8 which does not seem like a good idea. Dan 2 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 33 Date: June 17, 2013 Dan Graupensperger Response to Comment 33.1 The Commenter's statements related to flooding and the R1-8 zoning are noted. Please refer to Master Section 2.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, Subsection 2.4.4, Dam Failure and Draft EIR Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Threshold HWQ-1, related to flooding. Please note that the proposed project is outside the 100 year flood zone as defined by the FEMA maps. However, the proposed project would have the potential to be in the path of inundation should a dam break to occur(Impact HWQ-1). This infarmation 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 33.2 The Commenter's statements that the City would be liable for damages if a methane related problem were to occur on the project site are noted. While this liability concern is not a CEQA issue, the potential of methane related issues from the County's former Villa Park Landfill have been addressed in the EIR. Please refer to Master Response 23, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 33.3 The Commenter's statements related to project site not having houses on it and development/politics are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Page 3-274 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 34 , � � � - � � - r . � � � � o . � 4 � o � � : � - � � - � � � - � � .--._-_.--, - . , —__ � cikyoforange.org • „ ,� _ � r � _, - ._— _ � ' File Go Ta Favarites Help ' - Fauarites rr Free Hatmail i' ' _- ` 4�Cik af Orange,CA.-Praje... ' Cik af Orange,CA-Rio 5... ;�http:!lwww.cityoforan... X I --I -� .�;Orange-Inkranet-Hamep... � .�;' y � :� 5' � j e° �t'"*+ r��""��_,i��,.� ,�.� . . ��+�� Y s � � Y�� 5 � ,. . .11��' - � � � ' :a � �'.PC, � "� . � ,�. ��,,, t �� i �i �rA , '�'Y y� ,a+ �t �i . �� .. _� �'' � �ri, 1�. �� " �� , ,�, t'. .� '�,,,�,,, � , r � , ��:- . -- �. a. r� ,� ,,. , �., �.�� ,� �. , �. . . . � � , .; �� f . , .�# .�, � .. p . �� .. . "� . . . ., '� . � � �`�' .,iyr .��r �' SAHiIAGt�CREEK � � � • .�' � -' -�-. GREENWAY RESERVE �.. ` 1,� �„�.` _"' �,. n� N i�,,.i ;� .4f�u-. >� � � ', , .::k` J� . �,,.'� \ .r.ir iM�.. , u. r.,�f��i � � `��. .� .L�?t A . r � ., � �� y' r � y..�� :, � "�' � ``~- �-"' "�''"`` :*f� , y� ` - ' . ' � `— �� r, f � .. . y �, w ,, �; ,�E � ,� r � ti . . �£„ ' � � ,��'' � �r"�,�'±�'„�� .. �� {+ �� 2 � ,�� '� +� „ '�� , ' ' ,� � �� ;°'�=a'�r� � � � : ` '� ,r *r ., ...� ,�_ _� , �r - �± '�j � '� '�"� �f .,�+y t,'��;'+r'''`t-•�'' ;�T �I _ --�- � 3 �.�`r. a. � 9 5� '�I. — � l / ��:�.y � i"'S ��o �� '� :� s !� .. � � ^, �... ��t� '�1 ��r � Sj��. a . i .�y . J ��_— _� .� _ �'! 7'"_ � � i - � : �� ' � * � � ��; . 1'!�'1 -�'�'1 '''' '�� a 'i t` £` ��'� ,� �y �F .4 i , T� y ��i �� - ; "- �_ ' . . � - �. p,y,t .�� ,. �., an.ew� � � .. , ' �_ ' 1 � ��,..� � �� A �{� � � �,. � �� + . : � _ .. R ,.�,..�. . -� , {-- � J � �� " ��`�-'`F ,�=�� _�,�,� ". ,►-+l�-� "�I � I;�''�. � .�.a3"=�` "�;. ' �-� �. �� "`� e�k Y'_��r iVSy�`� � I �, �� , ; i � . �r, ` _ .'�' ' ��} � ti� _ y �.il. . �a_ - � .t ,�'- �r � � .,, �. ... �- -, ��' 9 Q ` � „ �' `.[` I J^i '�r �� r Nin T "Yif AiY�r�:.wrw� � '; � —� f.w � iwmM1n �""A� _ ��.. . ., ` 3 . , •�-I�� —Z'� ..�1 �� ; �P 4 #a ;n-,. i , � � �1 �f� ,��a 'x '�1`' . M � ,_� �r �v_ � , � e � ,.:"� � �z , t � �r �� .�� r 'k. - ��i , I�� .,,;�.�"�.,� ��,�� '� � �. � Y` � v� �� ,� - , , .� : , . ,.:.,_ � _ ,� �";� „�. r�"'� _ �� ..� ,,. 3� � �° � .� , � a a y aiw vs� j�,,ii �+ �r��m d e�# " �� n�� ` .-.. �W � :. �� j� �. . [�S�� 'a"'a ; ��,rv, s,r�a ��.��.. �.., ' ��+.. �. M.4 -� � ._ .... . . ' . . � �� F� �x. � .,,.. � 9.. ` � �� . .. ., ,,,, ,,, _, . � r � �� < �`i .- G�w � • 4 ... .. . . . � +t ,�. z� � J . a ^ . . �v 1 � ':}al�4 '� .�''`��, ,.' ~Y+! ,-'-�r, . _ y �. . �yi � � .., . � ,�,. ��..:.�� . +' � - . � �4� � *�► R * r '• '� .' �.. ,. ; __ _�+, yJ __. `�}. ' ` ,. � ":'�- `, � �. �� ,��* '� � .. ' � �. � .� .� ��p�h7��11�� , ,y ,�- ,_ . j � �� §„ - l �� e � � ._ , �:. . � , ; . . �.''a� .•yF,�1a..i�i! ' �' ... . . � � � � ..' , . �� _- t _ . tiO7E �� . . . . . . . � . . . .. . . . . R'K=�an•�a�o:�cctic P�an t.5ay Y�13 2 From: Sanders, Matthew [mailto:Matthew.Sanders@Emulex.Com] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:57 PM To: Chad Ortlieb �ubject: sully miller dev overview? chad Can you help? Is there an overview diagram/map of the proposed project somewhere? 34.1 Was wondering if part of the proposal included a new connecting road between Serrano and Santiago Canyon? 34.2 I'm tired of driving all the way from east Santiago to Cannon just to go up Serrano. Thanks Matt 3 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 34 Date: June 19, 2013 Matthew Sanders Response to Comment 34.1 The Commenter's statements related to diagram/map of the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Figure 3-4, Tentative Tract Map for a map of the proposed project. However, within Chad Ortlieb's response dated June 19, 2013 the Specific Plan Figure 3-3, Site Plan was emailed to Matthew Sanders. 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 34.2 The Commenter's statements related to the proposed project providing a new connecting road between Serrano and Santiago Canyon are noted. No, the proposed project does not provide a connecting road between Serrano Avenue and East Santiago Canyon Road. This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-277 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 35 Jakki Tonkovich �rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> oent: Monday, July O1, 2013 8:06 AM To: Megan Penn; Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Importance: High I believe the belaw could fall into the public comment categary for the Rio Santiaga DEIR. Please include it. Thanks From: Diane Perry Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:11 AM To: 'charlesleffler@ymail.com' Cc: Leslie Roseberry; Chad Ortlieb Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Importance: High http•//www citVoforan�e ar��depts/commdev/plannin�/project notices and related environmental documents rio s antia�o noa and noc of draft eir may 2013.asp This is the link-should work. Let us know if it doesn't. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner on this project, his email is as shown above. He is out c�fi the office, returning on J�ly �.. But you can stil( still emails, correspondence, etc. to his attention. ,-__._._m�.._.��_ � � ; �e�rr�r � Sr,fl�'i��e�ssist,ant �ty rfL�c"�19� ��.E..E„«. �� a�rur�l�t�#y i��+��t �(?1#}7�#-3Z34 cu';��2[l t�a'r�r�: FAXt 71�#-7�4-7� � �rrY �t��fi� ;a�g ; � � � � € From: Michele Day Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:34 AM To: Diane Perry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Inquiry 'rom: charlesleffler@ymail.com [mailto:charleslefflerCa�ymail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:05 AM To: Webmaster Subject: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO i I searched DEIR, PLANNING DEPT. RIO, RI� DEIR, COMMENT ON DElR CEQA AND VARIATIONS THEREOF AND LOOKED FOR CONTACTS, CHAD aRTLIEB, PLANNER ETC, ETC...... never got any informatian on Rio Sabtiaga,THE PROJECT in planning, cequ, deir how to respand, contacts but I did find Alice Angus who retired still listed, �5.1 What am I missing? Naw does one find info on the projects in planning like Rio Santiago and its DEIR, haw and wha to send commen�s to? Is there a secret cade to get FUBUC INFORMATION? Thanks z 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 35 Date: June 22, 2013 Charles Leffler Response to Comment 35.1 The Commenter's statements related to not finding the proposed project on the City's website are noted. Please refer to Secrion 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.11.1, Availability of Draft EIR related to access and availabiliry of the Draft EIR. Additionally, please note that Diane Perry, City Community Development Department emailed a link to the Rio Santiago Draft EIR website. 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 3-280 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 36 Jakki Tonkovich From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> Sent: Monday,July O1, 2013 8:10 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Santiago project FYI... From: buddynrhondaCa�aal.com [mailto:buddynrhondaCaaol.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:19 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Santiago project To wham it may concern: I am a 17 year resident of C7range Park Acres and again I am voicing my opinion about this supposed future project from JMI. I don't know what it will take for our governing afficials ta see the writing on the wall. This eompany is na way is supportive of aur community. I would 36.1 rather looks at mounds of dirt and gravel as to see huge buildings, traffic, noise pollution etc. Can"t you all see haw we live, and why we live here? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see. This is so out of the box for our area, that it would be detrimental to our area and our wild life. Why would anyone in God's green earth want this instead of open land and space? Please �.2 consider our wants for this community. We live here, we raise our kids here, our kids go to school here, and a !ot of us will pass away here. Dan't add mare of the cities prablems ta our community. It is nat wanted or needed. Warmly respected Rhonda Malone OPA resident buddynrhandaC aol.cam i 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 36 Date: June 24, 2013 Rhonda Malone OPA resident Response to Comment 36.1 The Commenter's statements related to a preference of looking at dirt mounds rather than huge buildings, traffic, noise pollution are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the visual impacts of the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.4, Structure Height related to the building heights of the proposed project. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Draft EIR Section 5.1,Aesthetics). Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic related to traffic of the proposed project. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts related to traffic (Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffzc). Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise related to noise pollution 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 36.2 The Commenter's opinions related to the proposed project being detrimental to the area, loss of open space, place to raise kids, and adding more of the City's problems to the community are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.6.1, Loss of Open Space related to the proposed project impact on open space. The applicant has a right to submit an application for consideration by the City. No predetermination has been made for the project and the project is subject to consideration by the City Council. This infarmation 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 3-282 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 37 From: Jason Hirschhorn [mailto:jason.b.hirschhornCc�gmaiLcom] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:50 PM To: City Hotline Subject: Document request Hello, My name is Jason Hirschhorn, and I am with the Orange County Coastkeeper. As part of a project, I need to research the DSEIR for the Sully-Miller project. Unfortunately, several pieces of the report are not loading on your website: httpJ/www.city�faran�e.ar�ldeptsi'cominde��lt�lannin«Iprajeet nc�ticcs and related �:��viroaza�ental do 37.1 cuments�`rio santia�o noa and nQe of drafit eir rna�r ?013 as�. � In particular, I am looking for appendix K(which was divided into several sections and PDFS). If you could send copies of these it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Jason Hirschhorn z Jakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:13 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: RE: DSEIR for Sully-Miller/Rio Santiago...........FW: Document request Attachments: Appendix K,Water Quality Technical Report - lA(180 pgs).pdf Importance: High The below inquiry should be noted in the public commen�s for purposes of documenting DEIR public availability and City effarts to provide access to thase that have difficulty downloading the files from their camputer. Thanks From: Diane Perry Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:22 AM To: 'jason.b.hirschhorn@gmail.com' Cc: Leslie Roseberry; Chad Ortlieb; Valdemar Chavez Subject: RE: DSEIR for Sully-Miller/Rio Santiago...........FW: Document request Importance: High 17ttp�i/�v�v�� citvofc�ran�e c�r�/t�ept�;commdev%�lannin�/prc�ject n�tices and related envir�n:ment��1 docciments�` �io yantia� noa and i�oc of draft eir may ?013.as� �lease try the link again. I tested it and appears everything is coming up for me; I can pull up all the PDFs, including"K", so not sure why you were having problems. Some of the documents are large so takes a few minutes to pull up. I was able to view all of the "Ks" also. If still problems, please let us know. (It appears I can't attach all the 7 "K"PDFs by email all at one time, as I get a message saying "the attachment size exceeds the allowable limit." So I will send you 7 emails w/"K" PDFs attached if I can.) _��erry �� _T__� sr,C3ffiae as�s�nt Gi�+af{�ar� C�r�nurai�,+C3ev� nt �g �71�74�-72�4 t�r 722f7��ar� F�IX: T14-7�4-7� � �erry 'tyc�fr�ar�ge.�g � � __ � _.. � .-� From: Michele Day Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:32 AM To: Diane Perry Subject: FW: Document request Inquiry Diane, I sent this to yau since he is referencing yaur dept. 1 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 37 Date: June 21,2013 Jason Hirschhorn Response to Comment 37.1 The Commenter's statements related to not finding the proposed project on the City's website and Appendix K are noted. Please refer to Section 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.11.1, Availability of Draft EIR related to access and availability of the Draft EIR. Additionally,please note that Diane Perry, City Community Development Department emailed a link to the Rio Santiago Draft EIR website and additionally sent seven(7) emails with Appendix K attached. 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 3-285 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 38 Jakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday,July O1, 2013 8:35 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc; Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Importance: High The belaw response should be noted in the public comments for purposes of documenting C1EIR public availability and City efforts ta provide access to those that have difficulty downloading the files from their computer. Thanks From: Diane Perry Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:14 PM To: 'Charles Leffler' Cc: Leslie Roseberry; Chad Ortlieb; Helpdesk; Valdemar Chavez Subject: RE: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Importance: High Hi Mr. Leffler- "m sorry to hear that you are having difficulties accessing the City's Website & applicable Departments. Yes, I can help/tell you how to get from `here' to `there' for the RIO DEIR from the City of Orange Home Pag ��-ww.cityoforan�e.or-� 38.1 l. On the City's Home Page, on the `ribbon' going across top, place the cursor on"City Departments." There'll be a Drop-Down menu. 2. On the "City Departments" Drop-Down menu, click on"Community Development" (4th Department down). 3. On the "Community Development Home Page", left side,Navigation menu, place the cursor over "Planning Division;" a Fly-Out menu will appear. 4. On the Fly-Out menu, 4th item down, click on "Project Notices and Related Env. Documents." 5. When you get to this page (Project Notices, etc.), scroll down if necessary, and click on the "Rio Santiago-Notice o£ Availability & Completion of Draft EIR/May2013." This should bring up all the RIO PDFs. Hope this helps. �'�)T�,. 1 ci� ��c�� c�� '�t��t �� 3-��t To�ic ��c� �ic��" �r�d/��r addi�t� €�tF�er 1i��k��l�l��s tl��t-��►�z N�ef€��°e�t��c� ��1€,��. I�� C��4��1's �1�stir�c;e, I_��iI1 h�tFe 4t� d�Yf`er t� ��e Pl��nin� �2�t�t��e�-, I�c��Ii�: l��se1�€��a��, t� r�� t€� �'��° �:�� rc��na�►��a�� e�i�� `��;c�z��t�ts�' �z� �'�a�� t��i�_ ��[��a Regards, 1 i7uar�e P�rry_ _ � �,�3f�e l�s�at � t�ty�f{�rar� _ C�ty�trela�rner�t � �714}74�9-7�r�7`�E��'r�r� � ��Jf<7��-?�94-'�'3a,� � ��Y�Cah�ft�ra�.a�� ; , From: Charles Leffler [mailto:charleslefflerC�ymail.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:34 AM To: Diane Perry Cc: Leslie Roseberry; Chad Ortlieb Subject: Re: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Ms Perry, Thank you for the Link and it does work. The problem of getting to That page by going through the City's site still stands. As I said to the webmaster in my e-mail, I searched Santiago, DEIR, EIR, planning, Chad Ortleib, and many combinations there of and Never got Mr Ortleib's contact information or the Pages you sent me. 38.2 As a Public issue I have directed others to the City site to look at the Project information. Can you tell me HOW TO GET TO THAT PAGE FROM THE CITY'S HOME PAGE? It would be great if there was a Hot Topics link or some easy way for we who are not familiar with the City's web system. Please let me know if you can or direct me to the contact that show me the way to find out what the buttons keywords or links are when starting from the City Home Page to get to this page. I apologize in advance if it like missing the light because you are staring into the Sun but I really spent an embarrassing amount of time Trying to navigate the system to find something like this link page and got nowhere. Thank you, ��hir��"�a� �� r�� = �� , � F€�.. � . � �� [� '..�� M��?�� Y '.� � '- ��L' � �� ; � ��.....� "F` . . �.r � � F � � �� A � � � � �� , �»� _ .. � � �� . � . < w � � �,. E , ,� -�.. �� ! �� . � ��'��#��'t�' ��'��i�i�:. �� ;, .��`' 38.3 �� -�-�C��S �'��"�'� ��5�.��t�� "�U�11'��"��T� -'19'�� z � . .. ,.3 �.. �_�� '��, �� -.,�y-�.....� . �� - E..-. , - ;,�� Er� ', ' 38.3 � �� , . , - ' ��a � � � a. �'�"`' CONT. � � � EE FE , , . ;..., ; � � �,..� °' !� .�.F�..�� :1 � 3� � � .:� « `� � ,�a � ,,. � o , � .. _r. � , , � . � ' � A 1,,. ,-. �'�� ,�. ,.�» n.. �., .. , �'^ � � �E <n� G'.�. .�I 't,,,. �5, tt .�'� � " ..�''. � � . . � � ,��« . i = � , t � . ° ,,,,,� ,� . , €, fu:�` .{:�. ., l '�. � t.� --�- _ , ..�:, .._... -__. . �.�F�� .E�''�''��. ( � 3 r , t .[ x [ y.,�[E � �i � i ,s'�a. .� . �. E[ ,s -'�� - ..� '4' � „,! �� 8.4 r � - 3 � ` �,' ` � � € � �� €� � �a..�� [ ',, � � '��,3�3 t �..r y�� _ F � � � .:� '�"f's r""'�' ;?;, �,,:?.�,., ��il,.e-�w.�. � 3� �P :'•.7� ��p 3 ,., . p" . ...� s t . .. ��'� � � I �� 7�i � € � � €n �� € �1 I� E E�� .�� '�r•�' nreE �.� �k � � .R�I 3 Y ..�.� � ��€�1�� .��,' .�r, � � � � � � =x� � �� ,� ,�� - � , �... ,, � �'�,33 '�. — 3 �� , �.,. �� ,. � _� _ n� � t a � � a r �_ „ . �. � �� ..; ��... �.� � "3 � `� , �� [ -'� � � �,'��. � E .a ��— � ;� ,� � ��- � E u. . �� € E � � s��f ^` �� y � " �� . � , ,,�� . « .,� � , � �. � ,,;, � , 3��'� � �. , ��.�s�.,, � E 3.�� ' � € �, > � <� � � � � � € .., �, ,. .. _ ° `.. : ' „E �. � ,�`, , �� , ,`` �„ << , .�� , � � 3u '�- . . . [ ,i �u �� ' �. . .� �.;� � __ _ E . .'�� - ��: .�� .. E € �, .�.,�nE = ��'n:tE e� � �€��,;� � �.,. .�. . � E �.n ,� - �.� `� �? » � `=�i ��'.��-�� 3� '� € � �` � �' ��3 �;.,:� � � t �, �t, ;�,, � a ` 'i ,� l'` t , P .�� x�E� , 3 � �� . ` m ,r" � .., � E , r,. .,, �� , .,��E �_. ,� f , � �. � � ,�� .�� ,n , � �,�.- .. ,. �..__� E�. ��; [. ��,.. Thank you for your time and assistance, Charles Leffler 10693 Orange Park BI. Orange, Ca. 92869 — — -- __ From: Diane Perry<dperrv(a?citvoforanqe.org> To: charlesletfler(a�vmail.com Cc: Leslie Roseberry<iroseberrv(c�cit af�ranq�.orq>; Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb cx.cityaforanqe.org> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:10 AM Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO htt : www.cit oforan e.or de ts commdev lannin ra�ect natices and related environmental docume nts/rio santia�o noa anci noc of draft eir maV 2013.asp 3 This is the link-should work. Let us know if it doesn't. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner on this project, his email is as shown above. He is out of the office, returning an July 1. But you can still still emails, correspondence, etc. to his attention. . � ��r.ca�e �t t(�'�ty��t�r ��y L .'. ��1� ... _�. L YA•.,; _ {714,�7�7'2:��a�?2� ' r� FA�f:71�-?�'i-?2�2 � Y �#y�f� +�,g � From: Michele Day Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:34 AM To: Diane Perry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Inquiry From: charieslefflerCavmaiLcom [mailto:charleslefflerCa�ymaiLcom] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:05 AM To: Webmaster Subject: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO I searched DEIR, PLANNING DEPT. RIO, RIO �}EIR, COMMENT�N DEIR CEQA AND VAFtIATIONS THEREOF AND LOQKED F�R C�NTACTS, CHAD ORTLIEB, PLANNER ETC, ETC...... never got any informafiion on Rio Sabtiago, THE PROJECT in planning, cequ, deir how to respand, contacts but I did find Alice Angus who retired still listed. What am I missing? How does one find info on the projects in planning like Rio Santiago and its DEIR, hovv and who to send comments to? Is there a secret cocle to get PUBLIC INFORMATION? Thanks 4 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 38 Date: June 24, 2013 Charles Leffler Response to Comment 38.1 The Commenter's statements related to not finding the proposed project on the City's website are noted. Please refer to Section 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.11.1, Availability of Draft EIR related to access and availability of the Draft EIR. Additionally, please note that Diane Perry, City Community Development Department emailed a link to the Rio Santiago Draft EIR website. 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 38.2 The Commenter's statements related to not finding the proposed project on the City's website are noted. Please refer to Section 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.11.1, Availability of Draft EIR related to access and availability of the Draft EIR. Additionally, please note that Diane Perry, City Community Development Department emailed a link to the Rio Santiago Draft EIR website. 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 38.3 The Commenter's statements related to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan, OPA Plan, EO General Plan, and Santiago Creek Implementation 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 the proposed project and the above mentioned plans, what portion of the proposed project is within each City approved plan, and the proposed General Plan Amendment. Please refer to Figure 3-8, EO General Plan and Figure 3-9, OPA Plan related to the proposed project area currently within these plans. No further responses are necessary. 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 3-290 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 38.4 The Commenter's statements related to the City's website and the above mentioned plans are noted. Please refer to Section 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.11.1, Availabiliry of Draft EIR related to access and availability of the Draft EIR. Additionally, please note that Diane Perry, City Community Development Department emailed a link to the Rio Santiago Draft EIR website. Please note that the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan are available on the City's website. 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 the proposed project and the applicable plans, policies and regulations. Please note that the documents are not on the City's website because they are not expressly approved documents by the City. 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 3-291 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 39 Jakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday,July Ol, 2013 8:28 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman ��; Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO FYI... From: Charles Leffler [mailto:charlesleffler@ymail.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:34 AM To: Diane Perry Cc: Leslie Roseberry; Chad Ortlieb Subject: Re: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Ms Perry, Thank you for the Link and it does work. The problem of getting to That page by going through the City's site still stands. As I said to the webmaster in my e-mail, I searched Santiago, DEIR, EIR, planning, Chad Ortleib, and many combinations there of and Never got Mr Ortleib's contact information or the Pages you sent me. �s a Public issue I have directed others to the City site to look at the Project information. Can you tell me HOW TO GET TO THAT PAGE FROM THE CITY'S HOME PAGE? 39.1 It would be great if there was a Hot Topics link or some easy way for we who are not familiar with the City's web system. Please let me know if you can or direct me to the contact that show me the way to find out what the buttons keywords or links are when starting from the City Home Page to get to this page. I apologize in advance if it like missing the light because you are staring into the Sun but I really spent an embarrassing amount of time Trying to navigate the system to find something like this link page and got nowhere. Thank you, Another thing, in my research I find that the following 4 Plans that concern or direct the use of sections of the Property were created and signed into being by both the COUNTY Of ORANGE and The CITY Of ORANGE back in the 1970s. They are: The Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan -1971 39.2 �he Orange Park Acres Plan -1973 The East Orange Community Plan -1975 � The Santiago Creek Implementation Plan -1976 The OPA Plan cover a Sphere of Influence calling for 1 acre minimums on approximately 50 acres of the development target area. That includes approximately 39 � the section planned for an 80K commercial type building and some of the high rise coni senior units west of B Street and a large per-centage of the rest of the property East of B Street. The OPA Plan has been a important document and many times the City has upheld its value and validity as a Planning tool. Some of the other Plans have been implemented or partially implemented downstream and are import resources to understand the true potentials for the site. It is due to high value of these Plans that I ask that they be presented as links in the in the DEIR information immediately. There is only 7 days to get comments and those Plans are important to understanding the history, intent and some of the conditions that have over-riding consideration on the use of the proposed development 39.3 site. Would it also be possible to put Links to those Plans and the Link you just sent me to access the DEIR for Rio on the City Home page as a hot topic information box? If I need to come down to the Planning Desk to make this request in person please let me know as soon as possible. I can be there in the early afternoon, today. I had planned to come to speak with Mr Ortlieb but when I called this morning I discovered as you stated, he is on vacation until Jul 1 . Please let me know if/ when the links to the Plans will be on the City site or if I need to speak to someone else as Time Is Of The Essence. I did not plan to get into the Existing Plans/DEIR considerations in this e-mail but as time is short and there is so much valuable information on and direction for the Property in the 4 Plans I ask that this e-mail become part of the DEIR Comments so that it may be referenced in later conversations. Thank you for your time and assistance, Charles Leffler 10693 Orange Park BI. Orange, Ca. 92869 _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _._ __ _ _ _ . __ From: Diane Perry <dp�rr�(cr�cit�oforanqe.org> To: charlesleffler(a�vmail.com Cc: Leslie Roseberry<Iros�berr�(cr7citvoforanqe arq>; Chad Ortlieb <cartliebCa�cityoforanq�.orq> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:10 AM Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO http://www.citvoforan�e.or�Jdeptslcommdev/plannin proiect notices and related environrnental docume ntsJrio santia�o noa and nac of draft eir may 2013 asp �� 2 This is the link-should work. Let us know if it doesn't. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner on this project, his email is as shown above. He is out of the offiice, returning on luly 1. But yau can still still emails, correspondence, etc. to his attention. �� .�� ; c��-�� .��-��.:� � � �� _ u_ From: Michele Day Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:34 AM To: Diane Perry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Inquiry From: charleslefflerCa�ymail.com [mailto:charlesleffilerCaymail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:05 AM To: Webmaster Subject: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO I searched DEIR, PLAhINENG DEPT. RIO, R(O DEIR, COMMENT ON DEIR CEqA AND VARIATIONS THEREOF AND LOOKED FOR CONTACTS, CHAD ORTLIEB, PLANNER ETC, ETC...... never got any ir�formation an Rio Sabtiago,THE PROJECT in planning, cequ, deir how to r�spand, contac�s but I did find Alice Angus who retired still listed. What am I missing? How does one find info on the projects in planning like Rio Santiago and its DEIR, how and who to send comments to? Is there a secret code to get PUBLIC INFC}RMATION? Thanks 3 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 39 Date: June 24,2013 Charles Leffler Response to Comment 39.1 The Commenter's statements related to not finding the proposed project on the City's website are noted. Please refer to Section 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.1 l.l, Availability of Draft EIR related to access and availability of the Draft EIR. Additionally, please note that Diane Perry, City Community Development Department emailed a link to the Rio Santiago Draft EIR website. 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 39.2 See the response to Comment 38.3. Response to Comment 39.3 See the response to Comment 38.4. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-295 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 40 Jakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday, July O1, 2013 8:39 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman ��; Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio Santiago Project FYI... From: Steve Ducolon [mailto:steveC�lund-iorio.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 3:06 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio Santiago Project Chad, I am righting you today regarding The Rio Santiago project re zoning. As a resident of Mayberry Ranch I oppose the rezoning of this open space. 40.1 The changes below are unacceptable based on the very reasons I purchased this property in the first place. I moved to this part of Orange because of the open space feel it has. nvestors want the city to rewrite all the rules so they can profit from a 265 unit high-rise/high-density development plus a 130-unit housing tract, and an 81,000 square foot two story building. This will ruin my view and decrease the value of my property and the area as a whole. I am sure the developer and the city are not going to reimburse me for these loses? The developer is requesting major changes to the City's General Plan and zone changes to accommodate their Rio Santiago project without any consideration to the surroundings. 40.2 This area already is traffic challenged and I don't see the developer or the city addressing that issue either. 40.3 During school season it can take 25 minutes to leave Mayberry Ranch and get to Katella and Cannon. This developer wants to change the look and character of this area and it is not fair to the public that lives here and has purchased property based on it's serenity and country feel. 40.4 Thank you for taking the time to read this I and I trust you will do the right thing and not allow this developer to convince the city council to rezone this area for their profit! Sent from my iPad Steve Ducolon 6534 E. Smokey Ave Orange Ca 92867 Fax 949-443-4856 .;ell 714-878-4579 i 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 40 Date:June 24, 2013 Steve Ducolon Response to Comment 40.1 The Commenter's statements related to decrease in property values are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, related to the proposed project and the surrounding community. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.53, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics). 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 40.2 The Commenter's statements related to zone changes and the surrounding community are noted. The applicant has a right to submit an application for consideration by the City. No predetermination has been made far the project and the project is subject to consideration by the City Council. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to the project site zoning. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community 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. Response to Comment 40.3 The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, for analysis ofproject related effects on traffic. 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 3-297 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 40.4 The Commenter's statements related to degrading of rural environment are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2,Rural Character/Communiry Character related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and the project site. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics). 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 3-298 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 41 June 24, 2013 Chad Ortlieb Senior Planner Planning Division AGENCY City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA. 92866 Frank Su 5904 E Shenandoah Ave Orange, CA 92867 Chad, As a current resident of Maybury Ranch and where I spent my childhood, I am writing in full support of the Rio Santiago project. We have seen East Orange develop into an active community with this site as a remaining industrial eyesore. Below are my main points in support of the project. 41.1 1. Housing—With the dearth of any new supply of housing,the local housing market continues to rise and shut out the middle class from being able to purchase a home. The project will supply new stock of single family homes and the senior housing provides our aging community housing and care options, which is not found in the neighborhood. With most of the housing stock in the area built in the 1970's and 80's, a new development will enhance visual landscape. 2. Traffic—Santiago Canyon is a thoroughfare at the site as there is no visual break or activity on the site today. The current fencing and wall of trees creates a tunnel, which just encourages 41.2 cars to speed. The Rio Santiago project will add a visual relief and new lighted intersections, which will slow down traffic on Santiago Canyon. 3. Gravel yard-The current use requires trucks that drag gravel and dust onto Santiago Canyon and into residential areas. This use has been outlived by the development of single family 41.3 communities in the area. The gravel yard is also an attractive nuisance for vandals and others. 4. Open Space—The plan goes above and beyond what is required to preserve open space for trails that can be used by all. The development will provide active living on both sides of the 41.4 trail and really make the creek area an active zone. 5. YMCA—The possibility of a YMCA that can provide the community a focal point for p ysical activity and programs for our families from swimming, dance, and sports. There is a lot of 41.5 natural open space in the area, but no place for active play or organized sports. The new YMCA facilities are wonderful and can become the heart of a community. Thank you, Frank Su 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 41 Date: June 24,2013 Frank Su Response to Comment 41.1 The Commenter's statements related to support of the proposed project and housing are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.13, Population and Housing related to the proposed project and housing. 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 41.2 The Commenter's statements related to Santiago Canyon as a thoroughfare are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to the view of Santiago Canyon Road. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic related to the proposed project traffic improvements and 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 41.3 The Commenter's statements related to the gravel yard are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project, surrounding neighborhood, and the current use. 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 41.4 The Commenter's statements related to the proposed open space and trail are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, related to the proposed project and the proposed open space. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation related to the proposed project and recreational areas and trails. Additionally,please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning and Section 5.15,Recreation related to the proposed project open space and trails. Page 3-300 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 41.5 The Commenter's statements related to the YMCA are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-301 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 42 Jakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday, July Ol, 2013 8:43 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman ��; Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: open space for opa FYI... From: Bonnie Landin [mailto:bllandinCc�yahao.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 5:52 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: open space for opa Dear Sirs: Please honor the 1970's pledge for open spaces in Orange Park Acres. We already have enough traffic and 42.1 congestion in east Orange. We need open space to breathe! Thank you, Bonnie Landin OPA resident i 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 42 Date: June 24, 2013 Bonnie Landin OPA Resident Response to Comment 42.1 The Commenter's statements related to honoring the open space pledge in Orange Park Acres, traffic, and air quality are noted. Please refer to Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increase in traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.3,Air Quality related to the proposed project and air quality. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-303 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 43 Jakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday, July O1, 2013 8:46 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO The below response should be noted in the public comments for purposes of documenting DEIR public availability and City efforts to provide access to those that have difficulty downloading the files from their computer. Thanks From: Leslie Roseberry . Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:39 AM To: 'Charles Leffler' Cc: Chad Ortlieb; Diane Perry; Jennifer Le; Sharon Penttila Subject: RE: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Mr. Lefler: The Orange Park Acres Plan is actually on the City's website and can be found through this link; '�tt��:�lwww.c.itvofor��nqe.orc�;civic��xlfilebank;bfobc�lo��d aspx'�QlrablD-f902 The East Orange General Plan 1975 can be found on this link: 43.1 http:!/vvww.rityafior�3n��.orqlcivicax/fiilek�{inkiblobdlat_�d f�spx?PIobID=7258 We have hard copies of the other two documents and are scanning them today and will provide you with electronic copies. Thank you, �eslie Aranda Roseberry I'i:,r�i i � !:�;� �:3t:r �-i�r�P � � _-��,�� i C::��> >.u��:t'.�� I)c:�;L1 ��n��F��>nt. , 1 _,-;� t' 1 i: r�?: `<�;x: ��' . I�.�;;�"� . �, C)r< i ��c:�, i �� .��;:; L„�� 4� � ��.��,u;�� 'rom: Charles Leffler [mailto:charleslefflerCa�ymaiLcom] Sent: Monday, ]une 24, 2013 11:34 AM To: Diane Perry 1 Cc: Leslie Roseberry; Chad Ortlieb Subject: Re: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Ms Perry, Thank you for the Link and it does work. The problem of getting to That page by going through the City's site still stands. As I said to the webmaster in my e-mail, I searched Santiago, DEIR, EIR, planning, Chad Ortleib, and many combinations there of and Never got Mr Ortleib's contact information or the Pages you sent me. As a Public issue I have directed others to the City site to look at the Project information. Can you tell me HOW TO GET TO THAT PAGE FROM THE CITY'S HOME PAGE? It would be great if there was a Hot Topics link or some easy way for we who are not familiar with the City's web system. Please let me know if you can or direct me to the contact that show me the way to find out what the buttons keywords or links are when starting from the City Home Page to get to this page. I apologize in advance if it like missing the light because you are staring into the Sun but I really spent an embarrassing amount of time Trying to navigate the system to find something like this link page and got nowhere. Thank you, Another thing, in my research I find that the following 4 Plans that concern or direct the use of sections of the Property were created and signed into being by both the COUNTY Of ORANGE and The CITY Of ORANGE back in the 1970s. They are: The Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan -1971 The Orange Park Acres Plan -1973 The East Orange Community Plan -1975 The Santiago Creek Implementation Plan -1976 The OPA Plan cover a Sphere of Influence calling for 1 acre minimums on approximately 50 acres of the development target area. That includes approximately the section planned for an 80K commercial type building and some of the high rise senior units west of B Street and a large per-centage of the rest of the property East of B Street. The OPA Plan has been a important document and many times the City has upheld its value and validity as a Planning tool. Some of the other Plans have been implemented or partially implemented downstream and are import resources to understand the true potentials for the site. It is due to high value of these Plans that I ask that they be presented as links in z the in the DEIR information immediately. There is only 7 days to get comments and those Plans are important to understanding the history, intent and some of the conditions that have over-riding consideration on the use of the proposed development ;ite. Would it also be possible to put Links to those Plans and the Link you just sent me to access the DEIR for Rio on the City Home page as a hot topic information box? If I need to come down to the Planning Desk to make this request in person please let me know as soon as possible. I can be there in the early afternoon, today. I had planned to come to speak with Mr Ortlieb but when I called this morning I discovered as you stated, he is on vacation until Jul 1 . Please let me know if/ when the links to the Plans will be on the City site or if I need to speak to someone else as Time Is Of The Essence. I did not plan to get into the Existing Plans/DEIR considerations in this e-mail but as time is short and there is so much valuable information on and direction for the Property in the 4 Plans I ask that this e-mail become part of the DEIR Comments so that it may be referenced in later conversations. Thank you for your time and assistance, Charles Leffler 10693 Orange Park BI. Orange, Ca. 92869 _ _ _ _ _ __. _ ___ From: Diane Perry<dperry�citvoforanqe.orq> � To: charlesleffler(cD.ymail.com Cc: Leslie Roseberry<Iraseberry(a�cityoforanqe.orq>; Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb(a�cityoforanqe.org> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:10 AM Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO http://www.cityofaran�e.or�Jdepts/cammdev/plannin�/pro�ect notices and related environmental docume ntlrio santia�o noa and noc of draft eir mav 2013.asp This is the link-should wark. Let us know if it doesn't. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Pfanner on this project, his emaif is as shown above. He is out of the office, returning on July 1. But you can still still em�ifs, correspondence, etc. to his attention. � � �rrr;r_� m ; �.c��t � �;�� ' c �t�t�� t � � {��4�7��c�a�� ;��-��- ? �� .�� ( � �_.__. � 3 From: Michele Day Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:34 AM To: Diane Perry Subject: FW: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO Inquiry _ _ From: charlesleff{erC�ymaiLcom [mailto:charleslefflerCa�ymaiLcom] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:05 AM To: Webmaster Subject: DEIR COMMENTS FOR RIO I searched DEIR, PLANNING E�EPT. RIO, R{� DEIR, COMMENT ON DEER CEQA AND VARIATIONS TH�REaF AND LOOKED FOR CONTACTS, CHAD ORTLIEB, PLAN�IER ETC, ETC...... never got any information on Ria Sabtiago,THE PROIECT in planning, cequ, dein c�rw to respond, contacts but I did find Alice Angus who retired still (isted. What am 1 missing? Fiow does ane find info on the projects in planning like Rio Santiago and its DEIR, hcaw and who tc�send comments ta? Is there a secret code to get PUBL{C iNFQRMATION? Thanks 4 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 43 Date: June 25, 2013 Charles Leffler Response to Comment 43.1 The Commenter's statements related to not finding the proposed project on the City's website are noted. Please refer to Section 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.11.1, Availability of Draft EIR related to access and availability of the Draft EIR. Additionally, please note that Leslie Roseberry, City Community Development Department emailed a link to the OPA Plan and EO General Plan on the City's website and had electronic copies of the other requested plans sent to you. Additionally, please see Responses to Comment Letters 38 and 39 for additional response to information. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Page 3-308 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 44 m=� •�p, :,� � v lunc 26,2Q13 � �"'� ' `�, � Chad�rtiieb... Senior Planner �� City c,t'Oran�e-Piannii�g I7ivisin�� ,'' � , ,.` 3b{J E Chapm�n �a��° Urange, CA 9�866 t�•Ortlieb � ,�� RE:City of Orange�TR considerations far Rio Santiago Development Thc Zoaing changc nccdcd for thc dcvclo�mcpt�c ��awcd.OP�1,has Ueeri consistent wit11 tlZe general pta� li�r dcvclopmcnl. Many rhangcs would bc in or�cr to complc�c this projecl, Smaf f 4at sice for the i30 hr�mCs, witii li�t(c crj��n S�acci arnund thc homc�. 44.1 Eg: Broadmoor homes was a dcvclapment which varicd from the rtorm,however the builder }�rovided a gseat deat af open spaces. 'Che develapment l�as 2 lakes,4 teTlnys Ct?U1t5,d StAF�Ie f(3i' i fi�-hnrscs,an cxcrcisc Iurn�7uL an arcna,a p<>c�l nn�!c�mfortable"npen space ar�und . __ _ The proposed ct�valoprnent has one entrance fnr the 130 hames,and one f'vr the recreation area. Tr�(Tio is nenr impossible naw at tl�e intersectio3a of Ca�aion��d Santiago. FCi:T7rcvcr must currently iinc u�at.Orangc T'ark Bc�ulcvarci t�mak�t.114 tra�sitioit frt�zn SatttiRgo 44.2 io C3nnot3.UrivCrs arc nok co�.irtcat�s lo thosC alicrripting tp cnter Sanli8�0&E street that kaave no signa�.'�he back gate at Broadmoar is but�ne example. The proposed Recreation as•ea is di�•ectly adj�cerat co the metliaiie field,A possibte legal isstic with childrei� that mi,�;t�t have an adverse reaction,brir:�ing action a�ainst the City for pennitkin�this expasiue.'I'l:e 44.3 devetoper praposes that this sight be a"privately hetd parcei"wl�ich could eventually be turned into adrlitic�nnS 11c�nee siglus. '�1��proposecl Scniar�-Tuusin�is als�not properly placc:cl in the c�mmunity.This facitity has no Iacal public trsns�ortstion. It atso l�Cks any dr�zg smres, shop�ing centers,nor medical fscilities sysilah]e w�ithstt 44.4 reasanabl�distancc, This Laciliiy m�y rmc day he just anather apartrraent cpn�}�lex,�5 �hi5 911 piaced Center has tittle hopt oti survival. This passibility would be catastrophic to the community,tr�t�it,iavv enforcen�e�t ac�d Paramedic response. � �� Frances 8auer 78Zt� E Brofldmocar Trnii 4rfln�e,CA 9286J Tnnt� t,v, �..•Tr nr„� ,.,-, ,.,,, 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 44 Date: June 25,2013 Frances Bauer Response to Comment 44.1 The Commenter's statements related to the zone change, size of the lots, and limited amount of open space are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, related to the proposed project open space and other amenities offered. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to the project site zoning. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation related to the proposed project and recreation. 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 44.2 The Commenter's statements related to traffic increase are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traff c, related to increase in traffic. 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 44.3 The Commenter's statements related to the proposed recreation area being directly adjacent tc� the methane field are noted. Planning Arc�s A and B are adjacent to the formcr Villa Park Landtill site. The County operates a methane systetn on the former Villa Park Landfill site. The Commenter's opinions that there is a ��ssible legal issue i�ith cl7ildren �that might have an adverse reaction and �i•inging action agai��st the City f'or permitting this expasure is noted. The consideration of a projects possible future legal issue is not a CEQA consideration and such analysis would be 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 Commenters' concerns are speculative in nature. Therefore,no further analysis of these concerns is warranted. The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area B being a privately held pai-cel whicl7 could eventually be turned into additional home sites are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10, Alternatives, Subsection 2.9.1, Additional Alternatives, Residential Alternative related to residential uses in Planning Area B. Page 3-310 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 44.4 Commercial and Medical Facilities The location of commercial and medical services and facilities related to the proposed project is not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue. For information only, it can be noted that the nearest commercial center (i.e., shopping opportunity) is located 2.5 miles from the project site. The nearest medical services (i.e., emergency walk-in) are located 5 miles from the project site. Major medical services are provided in the City at St. Joseph's Hospital and CHOC Children's Hospital (7 miles from the project site). Fire Protection Related to fire protection including emergency medical services the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact related to the provision of fire protection and emergency medical services by the City Fire Department during construction-related activities. With the inclusion of PDF PS- l, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project would have the potential to increase the demand for fire protection services to the project site beyond the existing conditions. With the inclusion of PDF PS-1, PDF PS-2, and PDF PS-3 the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.14-12 of the Draft EIR) Police Protection Related to police protection the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to the provision of police protection by the City Police Department during construction-related activities. The proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to increase the demand for police protection services to the project site beyond the existing conditions. (Page 5.14-18 of the Draft EIR) Conversion to Multi-Family Housing—Planning Area C The Commenter's opinion that proposed project age-targeted housing in Planning Area C is noted. The conversion to Planning Area C from age-targeted housing to a multi-family apartment complex would require appropriate CEQA documentation and zoning code compliance, including parking requirements. Such a change to the project would require amendments to the Rio Santiago Specific Plan and amendments to the site plan. 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 3-311 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. Page 3-312 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 45 ,$ ;f : ��, n�� : `� � Sharan Butterfield �"� �� 1770 N.Mount McKinley Blvd. • j Oranse.CA 92867 '3 tl �.�. .. - � t_ " � '��d � :Iune 2Q_2Q1� Chad Ortlieb Seniar Planner Citv of drane�-Plannin�Division 30o East Chapman Avenue Oranee.CA 92866 1?ear Mr.Ortlieb and Planninbg Division, I am writin�this letter in resnonse ta The DraB Environmental Imnact Re�ort for the Rio Santia�o nroiect. I am very much against the praposed plan because of nurnerous factors. It will highly impact my�life and the lives of all af us in the East 4range area. Mv husband and I both commute ta and from work and the traffic on Santiaeo is alreadv unbearable in both directions. I know there has been another future development already approved by the City Council for the 45.1 lrvine Cflmpany project. I don't even know haw the current roads will even be able to handle that traf�ic let aldne vvhat is bein�nronosed on this nr4iect. Also as far as traffic.there is a senior l�ousin�nraiect bein� proposed. This wilt put many elderly peaple on the road that is already a traffic nightmare. A road where people try and speed whenever passible. it's a recipe for disaster. And along with senior housing and skilled nursin�comes more deliverv's.mare emer�encv vehicles.mnre delivery trucks. Its is iust not acceptable. Also having been in the Orange/C3PA area for aver 15 years,I knaw that there have been four pians adopted 45.2 bv the Gitv of(Jran�e in the 70's identifv this area is not far residential develobment let alone hi�h densitv housing. This kind of development is not in keeping with the area we live in. It does not canform to the surrounding areas of Villa Park.Mavbury Ranch.Oranee Park Acres and envuons. And last but nat least this praject is NOT zoned for any af the uses praposed. It is zoned Resourcel Sand& 45.3 Gravel with a desimation as Onen space and has heen for 40 vears. Sincerely, � Charnn Ri�trPfi�ir� ` r � ��` ��//'��}�----t-�f-��r,,, ` .L �F `�'' � �,{_.�t � - "'_�""" � r � � f� ��.� �-- `-� � �--. 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 45 Date: June 20,2013 Sharon Butterfield Response to Comment 45.1 The Commenter's statements related to being against the proposed and the increase in traffic are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increase in traffic. 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 45.2 The Commenter's statements related to the adopted plans for the project site are noted. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The City has not made any predetermination on the project. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and City adopted plans. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 45.3 The Commenter's opinions related to community character,project site zoning, and open space are noted. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The DEIR concludes that an unavoidable long-term visual impact would occur to Planning Areas B, C, and D. The City has not made any predetermination on the project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning related to the project site zoning. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, related to the proposed project open space and other amenities offered. 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 3-314 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 46 Jakki Tonkovich From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> Sent: Monday, July O1, 2013 9:41 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio Santiago FYI... From: Dan Graupensperger [mailto:vonkaC�pacbeEl.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:50 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio Santiago Chad, After a review of the Draft EIR and conversations with people who have been following this project I think it will be a mistake to build the proposed Rio Santiago project. Most of the site has been designated as sand and gravel or open space for many years. The entire adjacent 46.1 area was developed based on a long standing, recently updated general plan that no one could have had a reasonable expectation would change. Furthermore, a large portion of the proposed project falls within the OPA Specific Plan yet does not comply with that plan. The proposed project does not reflect the character of the adjacent horse oriented neighborhood. When reading the Draft EIR the firm that prepared it referred to potential increase in traffic, noise, call load for fire and police. The language used leads the reader to think these things may only possibly happen. This is misleading. All those things will happen without question. I cannot understand why the EIR would reference a facility so far away on which to base fire response and call load when there are these kinds of developments already within the city limits. Santiago Canyon Rd. and Cannon is already a very busy 46.2 intersection. The number and types of dwelling units proposed in the Rio Santiago project will add to this congestion. As Irvine starts to develop the area east of Jamboree the congestion will become even worse. The Executive Summary 2.3.4 says there will be no significant impact on Meats and Santiago. Again I think the EIR fails to reflect reality. During the school year this intersection is often so impacted by traffic that vehicles are backed up around the corner from Meats to the first signal on Santiago. There is also language in section 2.3.1 concerning visual impact caused by the project that will be mitigated according to the municipal code. Again the EIR does not reflect reality, the current on going use requires shielding with either a fence or dirt berm that is landscaped, neither of these are 46.3 currently in place. The owner of the property is not in compliance with municipal code now why expect him to be in compliance at a later date `? The nature of assisted living facilities means there are a lot people with long term health issues that re� emergency services on a regular basis. Everyone of these facilities currently operating in Orange is a heavy user of fire department resources. This not a good or bad thing it is just a I � fact. However, this does mean there will be emergency apparatus at the proposed facility on a regular if not daily basis. Furthermore, this facility is not located near a comprehensive 46.4 emergency care acility. The point of all this is that this project is not a good fit for the area so what basis would the city use to change the zoning. If there is a compelling need the city as a whole is missing and this development will fill that need there might be a basis for changing the zoning. However, what the reality seems to be is that the current owner of the property 46.5 purchased it knowing the zoning but planned to change it. He wants to do this for no other reason than personal gain, not a bad reason, but he expects the surrounding neighborhood to accept lower property values, more traffic, more noise and less open space without any compensation. This is not a basis for changing the zoning. Please do not allow the zoning for the parcels in question to be changed at this time. Dan z 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 46 Date: June 26, 2013 Dan Graupensperger Response to Comment 46.1 The Commenter's statements related to zoning of the project site, OPA Plan, and community character are noted. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The City has not made any predetermination on the project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and the project site. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.53, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community 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. Response to Comment 46.2 The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic, noise, and fire and police load are noted. Please note that the Commenter did not provide refuting data within the comment. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to increase in traffic. Please note that the proposed project would have a significant unavoidable impact related to transportation and traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise related to the proposed project and noise. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14,Public Services related to increase in fire and police load. 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 46.3 The Commenter's statements related to visual impacts are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, related to visual impacts related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and the project site. Please note that the proposed project would have a significant unavoidable impact related to aesthetic visual impacts. Please note that the impacts of existing uses on the project site are not a part of the proposed project. They represent the baseline condition far the Draft EIR review. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-317 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 46.4 The Commenter's statements related to seniors and emergency services are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14,Public Services related to increase in fire and police load. Please note that proximity of the proposed project to comprehensive emergency care is not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)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 46.5 The Commenter's statements related to zone change, loss of property value, more traffic, more noise, and less open space are noted. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The motive of the property owner for the application is not a CEQA issue. The City has not made any predetermination on the project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.6.1,Loss of Open Space related to the proposed project impact on open space. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increase in traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12,Noise related to the proposed project and noise. 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 3-318 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 47 June 26,2013 Chad Ortlieb-Senior Planner-Planning Division (cortlieb@cityoforange.org) City of Orange 300 E Chapman Orange,CA 92866 Mr Ortlieb RE: EIR Rio Santiago Development Zoning change needed Development is inconsistent with OPA general plan for development Many changes would be in order to complete this project. Mining,Open Space,Multiple dwelling,Recreation,Methane 130 homes with Small lot size 47.1 Little open spaces around the homes. E.g.: Broadmoor homes was a development which varied from the norm,however the builder provided a great deal of open spaces.The development has 2 lakes,4 tennis courts,a stable for 16+horses,an exercise turnout,an arena,a pool and comfortable"open space"around. No immediate parks No horse trail connections Public school impacted Access and Egress One entrance for the 130 homes,and one for the recreation area. Traffic Difficult and dangerous,near impossible now at the intersection of Cannon and Santiago. 47.2 EG: Driver must currently line up at Orange Park Boulevard to make the transition from Santiago to Cannon. Drivers are not courteous to those attempting to enter Santiago at street that have no signal.The back gate at Broadmoor is but one example. Proposed Recreation area Directly adjacent to the methane field. 47.3 A possible legal issue with children that might have an adverse reaction,bringing action against the City for permitting this exposure. Recreation Facilities Proposes as"privately held parcel"which could eventually be turned into additional home sights Proposed operators may find it extremely difficult to financially operate this type of operation. 47.4 Users of facility generally come from other areas of community,with no public transportation to the facility Senior Housing Improperly placed in the community. This facility has no local public transportarion. It also lacks any drug stores,shopping centers,ar medical facilities within reasonable distance. 47.5 This facility may one day be just another apartment complex,as this ill placed Center has little hope of survival.This possibility would be catastrophic to the community,traffic, law enforcement and Paramedic response. LeRoy Pendray 7826 E Broadmoor Trail Orange,CA 92869 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 47 Date: June 26, 2013 LeRoy Pendray Response to Comment 47.1 The Commenter's statements related to zoning change needed and development being inconsistent with the OPA Plan for development are noted. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The City has not made any predetermination on the project. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. The Commenter's statements related to zoning are noted. Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to the existing and proposed zoning on the project site. The Commenter's statements related to changes would be in order to complete these projects are noted. Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR related to actions need to complete the project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to the existing and proposed zoning on the project site. The Commenter's statements related to mining on the project site are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.11,Minerals related to loss of mining on the project site. The Commenter's statements related to open space are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space related to open space in the vicinity of the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation related to the recreational areas and trails of the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to multiple dwellings and the amount of open spaces around the homes on the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning related land use on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics related to community character. The Commenter's statements related to recreation are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning related to the existing and proposed zoning on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation related to recreation of the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to methane on the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to methane on the project site. The Commenter's statements related to little open space around the homes and surrounding communities are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space related to open space in the vicinity of the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, and Draft Page 3-320 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related land use on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics related to community character. The Commenter's statements related to there being no immediate parks to the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.1,Parks related to parks and the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to no horse trail connections are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7,Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail connections and the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to zoning Public school impacted are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14,Public Services related to increase in public school students. 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 47.2 The Commenter's statements related to the increase in traffic are noted. Please refer to Master Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to increase in traffic. 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 47.3 The Commenter's statements related to public school impact are noted. Please refer to Section 5.14, Public Services of the Draft EIR related to public school impacts. The Draft EIR found that with the payment of the required school fees in accordance with the provisions of State law, the development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on school facilities and no mitigation measures would be required. (Draft EIR page 5.14-19) Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to the proposed project and off-site former landfill. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-321 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 47.4 The Commenter's opinions related to changing the YMCA to home sites are noted. Such a change would require a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and environmental analysis. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.1, Parks related to parks and the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning related land use on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c, Subsection 2.8.5, Public Transportation & Elderly Transportation related to the proposed project and public transportation. 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 47.5 The Commenter's statements related to senior housing being in the improper location are noted. Please note that this is an opinion of the Commenter. The location of commercial and medical services and facilities related to the proposed project is not a California Environmental Quality Act issue. For information only, it can be noted that the nearest commercial center(i.e., shopping opportunity) is located 2.5 miles from the project site. The nearest medical services(i.e., emergency walk-in) are located 5 miles from the project site. Major medical services are provided in the City at St. Joseph's Hospital and CHOC Children's Hospital (7 miles from the project site). The Commenter's opinion that proposed project age-targeted housing in Planning Area C is noted. The conversion to Planning Area C from age-targeted housing to a multi-family apartment complex would require appropriate CEQA documentation and zoning code compliance, including parking requirements. Such a change to the project would require amendments to the Rio Santiago Specific Plan and amendments to the site plan. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related land use on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14,Public Services related to the proposed project and police and fire services. 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 3-322 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 48 Cindy Davidson 6122 E. Santiago Canyon Rd Orange, Ca. 92869 June 26, 2013 Mr. Chad Ortlieb Senior Planner for the City of Orange City of Orange— Planning Division 300 East Chapman Ave. Orange, Ca. 92866 Dear Mr. Ortlieb, I am writing to you regarding the Rio Santiago Draft EIR. This plan is deeply flawed and not at all in keeping with the current rural environment in which it is proposed. I want to address, what I consider to be 2 very important aspects that have been ignored and /or shelved in the developer's desire to reap profits. The high rise/ high density housing that is proposed is being developed as a Senior Assisted 48.1 Living Facility. This location does not support that type of facility as it is not located close to any medical facility and Doctor's Offices. Senior would have to drive quite a distance in order to see their poctors and frankly, in order to grocery shop, and complete other weekly functions. There is no current transportation system traveling down Santiago Canyon Rd. except by car. The speeds on this stretch of the road are posted at 50 mph. Also, the Sports Club—again, no way to access this via public transportation. This would not be easily accessible to people living outside of the area. 48.2 These are just 2 reasons why this proposal in so inappropriate for the location —to say nothing about the zoning change and definite impact on local property values. Thank you for your consideration, Cindy Davidson 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 48 Date: June 26, 2013 Cindy Davidson Response to Comment 48.1 The Commenter's statements related to the senior living site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning related land use on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 48.2 The Commenter's statements related to the sports club and no public transportation are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning related land use on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, related to parks and the proposed project. Please refer to Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR related to public transportation and Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to public transportation. Please note that property values are not a California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)topic. 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 3-324 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 49 lune �8, ZU13 Cc�mmunity I��velt�pment Departmenfi Pl�nning Uiui�i�n Attn, Chad(3rtlieb, Senic�r Alanner 3{�l�ast Cha�man Av�nue t3range, Califc�rnia 9�866 Re: Rict San�i�gc� �E�R ZC�{7�t1S1�72 Dear Mr. E�rtlieb: Thank yc�u fr�r t}�e c�ppc�rtunity fis� respc�nd to the[�raft E!R far the Rio S�nfiiag��rrtaje�L. ! have lived in�range �ark Acres#c�r 4£}year�. lVly�erspective may be�r�iqt�e in��S�t respec#c�nly. 1'I!keep my et�mrr�ents simpl� and��th�pc�int. They are: 1. T�is prc�jeet �s�t�reat tc�those r�f us w�ao enjay what re�rtain�caf a rural lifestyle irt C7range Park Acres. Apprt�uat 4f this pr��ect a�aer�s the dt�c�r to high density units in an area t�a� is protect�d 49.1 fc�r law density�nits, 2, l have eqr�al c�pp�r�unity t� pccr��rty righ�s and my lifestyle.A c�eveEaper has �� t�od-givers rigt�t tc�take t�►at�way�re�m me. 3. 1'd like tc� have a Specifit Plan fc�r my property. T}�ere are severa� plans in pl�ce f�rr the East {3ran�eJQPA area ri�l�t nav,r. t�r�e is laeir�g req�ested��ar Salert� L�ther�r�. The{7P,�5peci�ic Plan is ign�r�d by st�ff�nd �c�unc�I ali�Ce. ViJlay t�ne m�re? Because the develc��er ean cha�ge his �nind 49.2 a�i�ut v�hat l�e`!I ��i1d an�3 nta one cat� stand in t�is way. [}ne mare Spec�fic P�an, t�c�way. 4. 1t's almost im�rvssible�c�r a lay-persc�n to underster�d the�crc�nym I�den c�m�ents, How c�n the publi�res��nd? 5, The cc�m�inatir�n t�f the �r�p�set� ch�nges at Salem L�rther�n and the Ric�Saratiaga �roject will create a massive and t�nwanted t��ffic incursiar� into��equestri�n�re�.1`his�EIR is n�t rec�uired to address its im�,act �� the da��l projects, �`t�e city staff must s��rw t�e camma�nity hc�w traffic 49.3 will be han€�led i� br�th are ir�p�emented. Th� cc��°nm�r��ty tis�es r��t k�c�w and �snderstand �actw these tv�rt� projects wi�l irnpact its lifestyie. fi. �h�}�rcapt�sa�is s�c�t zc�r�ing�or tl�e high rise senic�r liui�g f�ci�ifiy.T�e cc�urts have rulec�thai ili�ga� 49.4 in th� �tarth Tt�stin c�se,This rrsust be e�c�ugh t� reject the pr��ssal. 7. it's clear frc�m tl�e {��IR's traffic analysis that this �r�ject h�� a E�rge tcaffic �rv�paet frc�m the 55 freeway �ast tc� .iarrik�c�ree Rc�ad; taking away c�n-street pa�'�ing, creatir�g rc�ad widen��ags a�d adr�itions of�anes.�'�Se tr�fFic�mpact af t�is prt�ject is imrnense�nd des�nres far rr�c�re t�'�atrr��r�t fh�n t}�e 1�ElR�ives it, a, �"c�the k�est �f r�y knovv�ed�e, the traffic load analysis igr►c�r�s�he irr�pac�s �f �ar�pc�s�d 49.5 Irvine Co. ht�using�3eveltapment east c��the stut9y are�. T�is is very di�� t� be r�a�istic by 2(i3�anc��h�uld be in the study. k�, �ccc�rd�r��tc�the �Elf�,these grr�p�sed changes are n�t iike�y t�ha�pes�,�`1�e�ity has nQt fund�d th�rn. If they dc��'t v�r�at will tr�f�ic be�ike?T►��E��t r�esc�i��s tratt�c c�ac�s. r�u� can cfty staff�apprctve a situation like ihis f�r a developer's benefi�t? C}nce ag�in,the c�ty staff favors the develcrper and ignar�s the n�ec3s s�f the�+eople. c. Mc►st c►f the heavy traffic€�r►5antiago Canyon between Ca�nnc�r�and lambor�e Road results from An�heirn Nills residents usin� Cannan. Cn �ases where traffic signals �re not functioning, firaf�ic backs up weiC beyond the Taft and�annc�t� inte�`s��tion.The [7EIR fails tc�take�ntt��ccount th�traff►c impacts an Cannan c�n b�th sides c�#Santiaga Canyon Road. d. The prc�posed solutic�ns tt�tt��acknov�rleelged futut`e iraffic situati�n�re ciur�sy and shc+rt- sighted. e. Many drivers w%!I exit SantiagQ Canyon Raad at Ora�rwge Park�ulevard car Meads�venue tc� avaid the #raffic. T#�is wili piace an a�nneeded and unwarrted b�rden c�n thtrse streets and the peaple whcs 3ive on them. Nas the County c�f prange PW[� be cc�nsulted� The prange Park Assoc�ation is currently wc�rkirtg with the Count� c�f C�range PW[7 and th� State Qf California tc� make t�e t�cauMevard anci Meacls �lvenue saf�r fcrr equ�striarrs and 49.5 drivers alike.This p�oject ct�u�d set t�ack alrrtc�st 5 years of pr�gress c�n the caunt�r's C�PA cont. rc�ads. f. �'he cc�rnbina�ticrn af�he prop�s�d EiidgeCine �roj�ct,t�re Salern (�utheran pre�ject a€�d t�e Ria Santiagt� prc�jeet d�mands that a task force of City, Caur�t� and CaPA residents assess the C�PA iraff�c situatron.�It�nger range traffic plan needs t€�be devel�ped t�efore any c�f these projects are al4awed tca�ontinue. g. Re:5.16.2� i. Road�rays: Access tt� the site can easity be prt�vided frc�rr� Chap€r�an Avenue, lambaree fioad and C�ra€�ge Park BQulevarcf. The t��IR ign�res these approaches cctmpiete�y. ii. 5antiaga� Canyon Rt�aci: The deseriptior► i�nores tt�e recently inst�lled street median east af Meads/W�r�des. h. Increasing the number €�f Lev�l o� Servic� {Lp�} E&� in�ersecti€�ns in the study area by 4Qt7%i�few�r than 4 years K�1C}WINCLY is�isrespectful of the cc�rnmunit}r's needs and is po�r manag�ment.This cannot l�appen. i. It's incomprehensible ta s�ae that by 2�}3�nQ mQr� intersecticrns wilf f�11 into the Lf�S E&F categories as the DEIR suggests. j. The study mentic�ns that no }�ubtic tran�portatic�n i� auaitable an S�ntiagc� Canyon Roa€�. That`ss correct, although there a�e bu�turn-auts c+��he r�ad.Thre study suggests that will rem�in the s�me in#he face of several hundred s�nic�r cit'rzens I}ving in the prc�ject.Seems unrealistic plartning ta me. 8. Twsa more traffie signals an Santi�gt� Canyc�n F�c�ad a cc�uple af 1�E}Q feet apa�t? No way�!! TFrey will never k�� synct�ra�t�aed anc� traffic v,rill back up. See tt�e ccamments abo�t Salem i.utheran Schc�ol. Synchr�nizatian of the current traffic �i�hts wau�d serve the same �ur�c�se. I dan't recal! se�ing a L4�5 for�cast far eith�r t�r both c�f thes� irrters�cti+�ns, 9. Ein� �f si�ht is adequate! Check�t�te recards of how many accidents ihat thece h�ve been near Santia�ca C�r�yc�n ro�d and �Siek� Way ar Jamestcawn. Sever�i pecapfe k�ave been kiiled �r�d ��ny have be�n iniured seriausly b�cause the line vf s±gl�t is ina�equate. C� f� 00 � � � � � � � �,; pJ Z7 9.� � � a x:s -v uJ i � C ,w �'` ,y"' �3 � � vy � +-` � �U � � A � G� sn "� � � '� 4.J va . � � +� � � Cl, �y p � +� i � � � � � 44 C) v- Q � � s ++ 4) � ui � � � � � � � � '� .� � :� ^.� � � ,^ � ;w, � .t� C� 4- � N C�7 � � s.� � � � � � � � � � Q � �" }� � .� vi fC � � � } � �' � ,� '� C � � i�4 A '`w �,,. b +,.+ C t/3 � ^�° > � � � rt3 '� re�s ti � � � � � � F�- � �. � � � C � � � Pp � � �,°�,, � � 4 � � � pJ Ol � � � � -�. .� � £1 �,„ � CS.. s°" � � C :�^ Q tO �` �k. +�'.+ �1 � �q,p � � 0) � :� a,. .y� &�- � +�+ tU 03 ..� ro .� �., @ � � � Q sn � � ,� � �y a-a .� � � �5 c�s � �. � � 2� � � +.�„- u�t ,� t6 � u G�D C O �Sd � � C� �� R4 � �� . �d � � � �C7 �*�'�"' Ck � � �+�+ G1 C.k .� ti. C � � � C -� � G fl. � �. � t4 � � s� Q � � � v�- G � � � U > � � C C3 �' Q� � � � � � � v � �j .w � � � t` �' � -cz " n� � � � c ° � o u � � � � a � c ,� a �' a� ro au � �� ca .,� a, � � ,� �, °+� v� � c sa °� o cu .�' � �' �, t�- � 4- e� � `'�` .� � CG� va t� a, � r� p ti» t`i C� � us � t!1 "C7 ' � '� � �y La ,� � �7 lCa . � +� a C� � O � . � C� � c.y -C3 � tl9 v`°7 � � � v � ..�,� � � O. � � � �t�" ...� � r�a C bA � ^r-+ C'D C � � � Rg � � � � C v "p � ?7 � Q. crh .0 �;} SCs � � �q fld �• +-' � � � � � fy„ G C '� ,,� QJ p y} al � �. Cy .G v � a L°'a. � �`° � � v �. d �, a+ � � � � +�. �, � ,� � � � � � � � +� � � � � � � .� ro � , � �' ro � s � � � � +� � ° ;� ro � c .c ro -rs � *'' � � � � Q� vi Uu vr +� � C RS +� 7 C �n � � �ts � � �- � � � k.�uS � °«' vr � � � � � � ? � � . �vs C3' t,} .�y C} c.r � 4� -� � z3 tU � tC p +.+ � � f'� o r.�'. � 'Li 'F'` � ptY C � � tt� bIA � � p„ U�i � � p '�,r'� ,F,, � Ri C7 � G 'u9 v � � � (� t., p. 'a"- C7 Cl a.� � � � � O � i-+ � � ;L, } "�y � � � rp C7 ig � � � r., ti7 � � +-" �rt � � C�i e.y � � � ''' q Cj � tl`t .� � � q�i N i°.7.. °"" `�'c °� rtr ta v � f3. � C *' rt +} � = `' � 'i. �" � '�' ��„ � tLk � O � � .� � � � � � +�+ en � t�J3 � � ,"��, � � ,Q� p � � �+D � � -�p V�t O �,�j � � O � � .__ � O � a� a� � �+ � � aa � ° ''' � �� u� � � � a�' `� +' � ,04 �io F�- � � t'�- .� � F�- � Q d �u t� .'� .� Z ro � � � G` ,, ''� vt —, c.3 u,, �, � � '� .r � � � � � � 4�-+ ,-�-+ � -� ar � � � i^�rs ro ��' ,� t11 p e ..,��"`�� f:? 6— w� >- 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 49 Date: June 29, 2013 Peter Jacklin Response to Comment 49.1 The Commenter's statements related to rural lifestyle in Orange Park Acres, density of the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and the project site. Please note that the proposed project would have a significant unavoidable aesthetics impact in Planning Area C (Impact AES-3). Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to the project site 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. Response to Comment 49.2 The Commenter's statements related to OPA Plan and the lay-person to understand the acronym laden comments are noted. Please refer to Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the OPA Plan. Regarding the Commenter's statements related to understanding an "acronym laden" Draft EIR please refer to Section 1.0, Introduction specifically Table 1-1, Draft EIR Terminology. Table 1-1, Draft EIR Terminology, provides a list of the terminology used in the Draft EIR. To the maximum extent practicable the City has tried to make this EIR understandable to the general citizens of the community. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The applicant has a right to propose a Specific Plan for the project area. Designating a Specific Plan far the project area would not constitute spot zoning due to the size and area covered. The City has not made any predetermination on the project and the City did not initiate the application requesting the 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 49.3 The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic and cumulative impacts are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.9, Cumulative Impacts related to projects including Salem Lutheran. Page 3-328 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 49.4 The Commenter's statements related to spot zoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Communiry, related to spot 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. Response to Comment 49.5 The Commenter's statements related to traffic impacts are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to the best of the Commenter's knowledge, the traffic load analysis ignore the impacts of proposed Irvine Company housing development east of the study area are noted. The Commenter's statements that it is very like to be realistic by 2030 and should be in the study are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.9, Cumulative Impacts related to projects including the proposed Irvine Company housing in the East Orange 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. The Commenter's opinions related to proposed changes that are not likely to happen are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to City funding for improvements are noted. The Commenter's statements related to traffic chaos without City funded improvements are noted. The Commenter's statements related to City Staff approving a situation like this for a developer's benefit are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to City Staff favoring the developer and ignoring the needs of the people are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-329 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's opinions related to heavy traffic on East Santiago Canyon Road between Cannon Street and Jamboree Road resulting from Anaheim Hills residents using Cannon Street are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to traffic signals not functioning and traffic backing up are noted. The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to take into account the traffic impacts on Cannon Street on both sides of East Santiago Canyon Road are incorrect. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's opinions related to solutions to the future traffic situation being clumsy and shortsighted 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. The Commenter's opinions that drivers will exit East Santiago Canyon Road at Orange Park Boulevard or Meads Avenue to avoid the traffic are noted. The Commenter's opinion that this will place an unneeded and unwanted burden on those streets and the people who live on them is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. The Commenter's statements related to the County of Orange PWD (Public Works Department) being consulted are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.11, Public Participation Process that outlines the overall public review process for the project. Additionally, please refer to Letter 3 and responses thereto from the Orange County Public Works/Orange County Planning Services. The Commenter's statement related to the Orange Park Association working with the County of Orange PWD and the State of California to make the boulevard and Meads Avenue safer for equestrians and drivers alike is noted. The Commenter's opinion that the proposed project could set back almost 5 years of progress on the County's OPA roads is 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. The Commenter's opinion that to the combination of the proposed Ridgeline project, the Salem Lutheran project and the Rio Santiago project demands that a task force of City, County and OPA residents assess the OPA traffic situation is noted. The Commenter's opinion that to a longer range traffic plan needs to be developed before any of these projects are allowed to continue is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. Please refer to Master Page 3-330 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Response Section 2.9, Cumulative Impacts related to related projects including Salem Lutheran and the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates projects. 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. The Commenter's statements related to Section 5.16.2 of the Draft EIR, Roadways that access to the project site can easily be provided from Chapman Avenue, Jamboree Road and Orange Park Boulevard are ignored 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. The Commenter's statement related to East Santiago Canyon Road: The description ignores the recently installed street median east of Meads Avenue/Windes Avenue is incorrect. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's opinions related to increasing the number of Level of Service (LOS) E and F intersections in the study area by 400% in fewer than 4 years being disrespectful of the community's needs and is poor management 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. The Commenter's opinions related to 2030 intersections are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's opinions related to public transportation on Santiago Canyon Road are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic far further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's opinions related to two traffic signals on East Santiago Canyon Road are noted. The Commenter's opinions that the new traffic signals on East Santiago Canyon Road will never be synchronized and traffic will back up are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to Salem Lutheran School and traffic signal synchronization are noted. The Commenter's opinion that synchronization of the current traffic lights would serve the same purpose is noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-331 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's statements related to a LOS forecast for either or both of these intersections are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area,which provides the requested information. The Commenter's opinions related to the adequacy of lines-of-sight are noted. The Commenter's statements related to a review of the accidents records on East Santiago Canyon Road,Nicky Way, and/or Jamestown Way are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to several people having been killed and injured because the line-of-sight is inadequate are noted. Please refer to Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR and Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. Specifically, the Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic Threshold D (TRA-D), Subsection, Sight Distance found that: PDF TRA-1 through TRA-8, TRA-11, TRA-12, and TRA-15 implement the proposed project design features to reduce or eliminate potential traffic hazards related to sight distance impacts. The proposed project would establish two new signalized access points to East Santiago Canyon Road,between Cannon Street and Orange Park Boulevard. East Santiago Canyon Road currently has a horizontal curve and a painted (non-raised) median at the location of the two. A Stopping Sight Distance analysis was conducted using the methodology from American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [(AASHTO) (Exhibit 3-1 —Stopping Sight Distance, Elements of Design, page 112)]. Based on the sight distance analysis, there is adequate sight distance at both new intersections for vehicles entering and exiting both access points. Refer to Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis for detailed information. At a minimum, within both lines of sight, landscaping should be minimized(i.e., low-lying shrubs) and on-street parking should be prohibited, to maintain adequate sight distance. With the provision of the minimum AASHTO sight distances at the two new signalized intersections, bicyclists and pedestrians on Santiago Canyon Road (especially ones travelling in the westbound directions) would be seen by drivers attempting to turn in to, and out of, the project site at both signalized access locations. These drivers would have adequate decision time to determine their maneuvers through the intersection(s). Therefore, based on the information presented above and the PDF's a less than significant impact would be anticipated and no mitigation would be required. (Page 5.16-66 of the Draft EIR) Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise, specifically page 5.12-27 related to the proposed project and siren noise. 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 3-332 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 49.6 The Commenter's statements related to noise impacts from traffic are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12,Noise, related to Threshold NOI-A related to noise impacts from traffic. 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 49.7 The Commenter's statements related to the horse crossing to the arena are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail connections and the proposed proj ect. 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 49.8 The Commenter's statements related to timing of improvements being completed and made available to the public as the first step of the proposed project are noted. A combination of Mitigation Measures, Project Design Features, and staff recommended conditions will be provided far City Council consideration of timing for improvements, should they contemplate project 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 49.9 The Commenter's statements related to ambulances and paramedic vehicles are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services related to increase in fire load, which includes ambulances and paramedic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise, specifically page 5.12-27 related to the proposed project and siren noise. 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 3-333 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 49.10 The Commenter's statements related to dam failure are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology, Subsection 2.4.4, Dam Failure related to the proposed project and the potential of dam failure. The Draft EIR agreed with the commenters concerns that the proposed project would have the potential to be in the path of inundation were a dam break to occur. The Draft EIR found that 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. 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 3-334 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 50 � � � _ � CREEKSIUE RANCH HUIVIEOWNERS AS5UCIATIOl�i(CRHOA} 5612 MDUNTAIN AVENUE ORANGE, CA 9286? June 28, 2013 Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner City of 4range- Planning Division 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Subject: Environmental Impact Repart— Propased Rio Santiago Development Dear Mr. Ortlieb, This letters includes comments addressing the EIR and project proposa! curreMly under review submitted by the organization proposing development of Rio Santiago located in East Orange along Santiago Canyon Road. Comments are submitted representing the Creekside Ranch Homeowner's Association located adjacent to the propose development. Qur mailing address is 5612 E. Mountain Ave, Orange CA 928fi7. We have read the Environmenta! lmpact Study for the proposed development and have the following quality of life concerns/comments: 50.1 � The primary and consistent concern from our association members is the lighting of athletic fields along the northwest zone of the site. The project will create a source of light and glare for the nearby properties, particularly the homes in Creekside Ranch directly faang the proposed sports pa�lc area. This new source of light and glare will adversely affect nighttime views. We would like to see aggressive measures taken to mitigate this issue. Specifcally, we suggest that the fields not be lighted and only be available for daylight activities. • Sorne members have expressed a concem that added traffic flow along Santiago Canyon Road and Canon wil! add to trip times and that measures 50.2 are taken to address this increase and its impact on trave!times within the region. • The proposal also depicts a three story struct�re.This str�cture and associated density do not sesm cansistent with the adjacent neighborhoods. 50.3 Respectfull bmitted on t�e !f of our association, Seyed Jalali President, Creekside Ranch Homeowners Association 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 50 Date: June 28,2013 Seyed Jalali Response to Comment 50.1 The Commenter's statements related to view, light, glare, and athletic fields are noted. They have been reviewed by the City as requested. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion of potential impacts to aesthetic issues. Related to long-term light and glare the Draft EIR found that in Planning Area B active recreational uses such as ball fields/parks and other similar uses would potentially introduce new sources of light and glare. This new source of light and glare will create a night hue in the area where no lights currently exist. The Draft EIR found that the potential light and glare impacts (Impact AES-6) would be reduced with PDF AES-7, the requirements of the Specific Plan, and Mitigation Measure AES-6, however, not to a less than significant leveL Therefore, related to Planning Areas C and D new sources of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, would be anticipated to occur. This is an unavoidable impact of the proposed project. (Page 5.1-45 of the Draft EIR) This information does not change the analysis 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 50.2 The Commenter's statements related to added traffic along Santiago Canyon Road and Canyon are noted. Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for Rio Santiago analyzed, addressed, and mitigated (if required)project traffic impacts along Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Street. 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 50.3 The Commenter's statements related to three-story structure and the density associated are noted. Related to Planning Areas B, C, and D, the Draft EIR found that the development in these areas may be perceived as substantially degrading scenic views to and of the project site. Therefore, an unavoidable long-term visual impact would occur (Page 51-31 of the Draft EIR). This long-term unavoidable visual impact includes views of distant ridgelines. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.5,Structure Height, related the proposed project three-story element. Page 3-336 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 3-337 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 51 Jakki Tonkovich �rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> oent: Monday,July O1, 2013 11:49 AM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Re-Zoning of Sully Miller FYI... From: Tom Traynor [mailto:ttr�norC�maximflexpac.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 8:36 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Re-Zoning of Sully Miller Hello Chad: Pm contacting you simply to express my concern with and objection to the above noted. Change to Orange's long-standing community plans, that were put in place specifically to make and keep this community great for 51.1 it's tax paying residents, simply to line the pockets of a developer(s) that seek to profit immensely by trampling those plans and the wishes of the community is fundamentally wrong. I drive my kids to or from school every down Santiago Canyon/Katella each day and the traffic on it now is heavy and anyone that uses that stretch of road will know this. If the proposed development is allowed to �appen, I hope someone has plans to put a toll road in because traffic will be a mess and I don't care what spin anyone with interests put on it. This is just one concern... the fact this thing is even on the table is disturbing, 51.2 but given the culture of litigation and corruption in this country nothing surprises me anymore. People are fed up with the exploitation, and it's my sincere hope that our elected officials in Orange take care of our community in a manner that best suits us and not those wishing to encroach on it for profit. Where this goes will be telling... one way or the other. Thank you, Tom '� � �� a� . TotS�Tr��ooT t��3�£�,�7t�� ir�C°t F��a't�.��.2�'�� '�G��,��4,IS�b1 ��;,� �;� F'r��d�nt �26��e�arch t��ivc � 3r�cn�,��[ifurn��92�i� �.q�., � "? .,.. a� �'� h1a�Crzi�°CeacPat,�n�, T 34�,��?.9582 x�42 F 9��.5�7`,9�� trayc��r�m�ximft�expac.�sa� 1 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 51 Date: June 28,2013 Tom Traynor Response to Comment 51.1 The Commenter's statements related to objecting to the proposed project and the existing plans are noted. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the existing area plans. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 51.2 The Commenter's statements related to the increase in traffic from the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic related to the proposed project traffic improvements and impacts. This information does not change the analysis ar conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-339 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 52 Mr. Chad Ortlieb Sr. Planner City of Orange, Planning Division 300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Subject: Draft Environment Impact Report for the proposed Rio Santiago Development (RSD) The following are both questions and comments regarding this matter. 1. Much, if not all, of this 110 Ac is presently under existing specific planning guides - Orange Park Acres Specific Plan, 1973 - East Orange Community Plan, 1975 - Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan, 1971 - Santiago Creek Improvement Plan, 1976. Why are these plans not binding in the use(s) of the subject property? 40.3 Ac covered by the East Orange Community Plan is designated as "regional park". This project would 52.1 remove this designation, thereby squelching this potential land use, yet the DEIR states that the propose development "eliminates potential conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy . . ." The proposal is in direct conflict with existing plans. The conclusion of the DEIR seems to put the cart in back of and in front of the horse simultaneously. 2. Is planning area A within the flood plain and can it be developed in any way? Who will be the eventual owner of this property and what are the estimated annual maintenance and operations costs under the proposed RSD plan? The General Plan changes and zoning entitlements should not be granted until the citizens of the eventual owing 52.2 agency/authority/whatever is known and the responsibility costs are recognized and accepted. 3. The proposed senior living enterprise adjacent to pay-for-play active recreation does not seem to be "compatible uses." Noise and light pollution conflicts seem inevitable between these land uses resulting in abnormally high complaints to the city and 52.3 additional calls for service. Since there are in the immediate vicinity no hospitals, infirmaries, clustered medical offices or pharmacies, it would seem that this location is not suitable for senior housing to begin with. 4. From an operational standpoint, senior housing functions less as residential land use and more as a commercial land use. A number of support services and their employees typically have access to the property on a (or near a) 24/7 basis, including food 52.4 preparation, industrial waste removal, nursing services, laundry services, and more. Was the operational context, not just the proposed physical structures, taken into account when developing the DEIR and how is this not in conflict with Goal 1.6 of the City's GP? 5. Although the DEIR separates the property into distinct planning areas, when it comes to density calculations it appears that the property was treated as a single piece. When examining planning areas C and D alone, the proposed density is not (as the DEIR states) compatible with surrounding developments, but substantially higher. I believe 52 � lots in the Reserve, Jamestown and Mabury Ranch range from 8,500 to 10,000 sq.ft. The proposed average for planning areas C and D would equate to roughly 4,000 sq.ft. How is this seen as compatible in light of the city's planning goal . . . "preservation of community character while encouraging and accommodating new development", ie: Goal 1.2 of the City's GP? 6. The proposed development plan includes three-story structures which are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and although the DEIR recognized that 52.6 the loss of view shed is a non-mitigated impact, why was a restriction to two-stories not considered? How can this be seen as "preservation of community character"? 7. What are the precise height of the proposed standards and lights for the ball fields? What are the lumens to foot of the light cast and what will be the effect on existing housing in Jamestown, the Colony and Mabury Ranch? Despite the conclusions of the 52 � DEIR that there is potential for light and glare impacts, it would seem they would be evident, the exact extent unknown because the developer has not stated the exact height of light standards, lumens and operational hours regarding areas C and D. 8. It appears that the traffic analysis for this proposal was preformed in isolation and did not consider the cumulative impacts. This is inadequate. The Irvine Company has zoning entitlements to construct approximately 4,000 units to the east and south of this proposed project and much of the resultant 40,000 trips per day would be on Santiago Canyon Road. At several times of weekdays the Santiago Canyon/Cannon (SC/C) intersection is severely impacted under existing conditions (this partly due to the backup at Cannon/Taft and Cannon/Serrano that feeds into SCB/C and currently causes two 52.$ plus signal change delays). Addition of Irvine Co. housing will cause worse delays in all directions at four times per day or more. Although SCB can be expanded to six lanes, (a) 3'/z years is a long time to wait for mitigation improvements that may provide some traffic congestion relief, and (b) the westerly flow will come to Villa Park Rd. and be stemmed into four lanes causing the congestion at a different point which is not true relief. What guarantee is there that the future traffic improvements will be implemented? Why aren't these improvements implemented prior to issuance of construction permits? 9. Is it typical for the land-owner to be allowed to alter the terrain, soils, drainage, etc of the subject property during the environmental assessment and study period (whether an 52.g on-going sand and gravel operation exists or not)? 10. Post construction of the proposed project there will be five signalized intersections along SCB within a 1.5 mile length. The resultant stop-and-acceleration will slow traffic 52 flow, add to air pollution and add to noise pollution. This will not be compatible with existing community character. 11. Stating that the construction impact of 4.4 years is short-term may be appropriate from the developer's point of view, doubtful that many adjacent resident would concur. 52.11 12. Since scenic vistas over and beyond the project site currently exist, what are the criteria for establishing "officially designated scenic vistas?" 52.12 13. Within the NCCP/HCP what are the criteria for establishing "reserve assembly" or "wildlife corridors?" The DEIR seems to discount the corridor nexus between Santiago Oaks Regional Park, Irvine Regional Park and the Cleveland NF. Due to existing corridors, these are areas are "large open space areas in the immediate vicinity" of the project site. Some of the wildlife mentioned in the DEIR don't "likely move through the 52.13 proposed project" site, they do. Existing residents adjacent to the site have observed them at all times of the year, at all or close to all times of the day. Some are obviously denning on the property as they have been seen carrying kill from other areas onto the property. Not presently, but in the recent past both white-tailed kites and red-shoulder hawks have been seen nesting on the property. The DEIR should be more precise so better informed decisions can be made. 14. How were 100 feet and 300 feet levels of clearance during construction determined 52.14 for various interruptions of species activities? 15. The DEIR states . . . "proposed project is inconsistent with exiting City General Plan land use designations for the project site, it would be in substantial compliance with the Land Use Element and Policies after the proposed General Plan Amendment." The conclusion seems to be, approve the GPA and there is no project impact, no conflict 52.15 and therefore no mitigation measures necessary. Of course there is impact to and conflict with the existing land use designations. But if implement the amendment and change the goals and policies to suit the proposed development, then there is no conflict. This seems to be a "eat your cake, but still have it too" scenario. 16. Under the proposed operation, will the pay-to-play facilities be "common open space?" 52.16 17. Regarding Goal 3 of the City's GP -3.1 won't the increased costs for city services (especially if the City is the ultimate owner of Area A) far out-pace the one-time and annual revenues created? -3.3 as noted in the DEIR vehicular flows and traffic densities will be increased as 52.17 a result of the proposed project -3.4 the increased noise and light pollution will destroy or alter the viewscape as well as jeopardize the wildlife population 18. The proposed project will have contrary impacts regarding Goal 6 of the City's GP -6.4 vistas destroyed or negatively impacted 52.18 -6.9 increased exposure to flood damage -6.10 adverse air and noise pollution not mitigated, traffic is mitigated but end result is still a worse situation than existing -6.11 the propose property is undeveloped except for 10+/- Ac of the sand and gravel operation, hence the proposed development skews the value of natural resources 19. Under the visual and aesthetic resources section of the DEIR, why doesn't 7.1 52.19 apply? 20. Regarding the noise study, the test period in June of 2009 may not be relevant to this proposed project in that the present sand and gravel operation was substantially more casual during that period. How is the conclusion reached that ". . . no significant noise sources currently impact the project site. . ." when the September 2011 test 52.20 measured sound levels at 67.4 dBA which exceeds the City's standard of 65.0 dBA? It appears that the study concludes that noise standards are presently exceeded and will be exceeded due to the proposed project (expectation of 68.0 dBA), therefore no mitigation is required. Wouldn't a more logical conclusion be that noise standards should not be exceeded and enforced when they are? 21. The noise testing of 2011 was performed using receivers that were located in a way that measured noise at a different grade level than the noise that will be created at later phases of the development process and different from that which will emanate from the 52.21 project after completion. Was this taken into account when drawing impact conclusions? Was topography considered when drawing these conclusions since there is a canyon like affect that augments the carriage of sound presently? Why doesn't policy 1.2 apply to this proposal? 22. Presently as a neighborhood courtesy, OCFA station 23 call responses often run with sirens off until they are a half-mile or so from the project site, this, to help mitigate noise to the surrounding residential areas. With the addition of two proposed traffic 52'22 signals on SCB this is thought be impractical. Was this future noise impact taken into account in the DEIR? Was the likelihood that senior housing will create more emergency vehicle runs per capita or per residence taken into account in the DEIR? 23. The study concludes that there will be "significanY' interior noise impact upon existing neighborhoods adjacent to the project site (also existing), yet no mitigation is proposed or required. Why? Also, did the study take into account the cumulative 52.23 impacts of noise, additional housing, senior housing enterprise, traffic and ballfields and playcourts in operation together? 24. The no project alternative indicates an expanded sand and gravel operation, yet expansion would require an extended/expanded CUP which may or may not be granted (noise, buffer, etc requirements aren't in existence or being enforced now so community 52•`'" resistance may be evident should such a CUP be requested). Therefore, wouldn't the logical no project alternative be what is on site now with the sand and gravel operation limited to between 5 and 10 Ac? 25. If the zoning is granted that qualifies senior housing use and in the future a commercial senior housing operator can't be found or a senior housing operation is 52.25 found to be economically infeasible, what protections are there that the area C won't be converted to apartments? 26. Assuming that an economic impact analysis can be (but not required to be) part of a draft environmental impact analysis, why wasn't an EIA performed on this proposed 52.26 project? There will be an impact not only to the City but also to surrounding properties. 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 52 Rin Rithschild Response to Comment 52.1 The Commenter's statements related to objecting to the proposed project and the existing plans are noted. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and the existing area plans. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The applicant has a right to propose a Specific Plan for the project area. The City has not made any predetermination on the project and the City did not initiate the application requesting the 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 52.2 The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area A being in the flood plain, if it could be developed and who would own Planning Area are noted. Per the Specific Plan, permitted uses in Planning Area A are: Flood control improvements, multi-use trail(s), natural open space, and passive park uses. These are not conditionally permitted uses. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology, Subsection 2.4.4,Dam Failure related to the proposed project and the potential of dam failure. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.6.2, Future Ownership Planning Area A related to the future ownership of Planning Area A. The Commenter's questions related to the estimated annual maintenance and operations costs under the proposed project plan are not CEQA related issues; therefore, they are not discussed further in this document. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and City General Plan issues. 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 52.3 The Commenter's statements related to noise and light pollution are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.3, Light and Glare, related to the proposed project's impacts on light and glare and the surrounding community. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12,Noise related to noise impacts from the proposed project including from calls from Planning Area C. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-345 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's statements related to commercial and medical facilities in the vicinity of the project site are noted. However, the location of commercial and medical services and facilities related to the proposed project is not a CEQA issue. For information only, it can be noted that the nearest commercial center(i.e., shopping opportunity) is located 2.5 miles from the project site. The nearest medical services (i.e., emergency walk-in) are located 5 miles from the project site. Major medical services are provided in the City at St. Joseph's Hospital and CHOC Children's Hospital (7 miles from the project site). Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to public transportation in the vicinity of the proposed project. Additionally, please refer to Section 5.14, Public Services of the Draft EIR related to the existing fire, emergency medical, police services, schools, parks, and other public facilities and potential effects from the proposed project implementation on these services. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 52.4 The Commenter's opinion that age-restricted housing is a commercial land use is noted. The City considers the uses proposed in Planning Area C as allowed uses in higher density residential districts subject to approval of a discretionary permit (as the project is subject to). From a CEQA context, the DEIR analyzed the proposed assisted and independent living components of the project against the environmental thresholds required by statute. The Commenter's statements related to Goal 1.6 of the City General Plan are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, Table 5.10-2, Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan for the proposed project consistency with the City's General Plan 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 52.5 The Commenter's statements related to Goal 1.2 of the City General Plan are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning for detailed information related to density of the surrounding residential community. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, Table 5.10-2, Project Consistency with the Ciry of Orange General Plan for the proposed project consistency with the City's General Plan and the proposed project. Page 3-346 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses City of Orange, General Plan Land Use Diversity and Balanced Development, Goal 1.0, Policy 1.2 states: "Balance economic gains fi�om new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods." The proposed project meets this goal as stated on page 5.10-18 of the Draft EIR: The proposed project includes a backbone infrastructure system that is designed to meet the needs of the development within Rio Santiago. The proposed project also ensures that adequate public services will be available to the Rio Santiago residents (Policies 1.1 and 1.2). Employment in the age-qualified living community would be for management, services and amenities directly related to age-qualified housing, while open space/recreation areas would provide further employment opportunities within the multi-purpose community facility that may include an Autism Center and education facility (Policies 11 and 1.2). Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion of community character. Please note that the proposed project has a significant unavoidable impact related to aesthetics. 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 52.6 The Commenter's statements related to project 3-story element and community character are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.5, Structure Height, related the proposed project three-story element. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion of community character. Please note that the proposed project has a significant unavoidable impact related to aesthetics. 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 52.7 The Commenter's statements related to lighting of the ball fields are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics far further discussion of potential impacts to aesthetic issues. Related to long-term light and glare the Draft EIR found that in Planning Area B active recreational uses such as ball fields/parks and other similar uses would potentially introduce new sources of light and glare. This new source of light and glare will create a night hue in the area where no lights currently exist. The Draft EIR found that the potential light and glare impacts (Impact AES-6) would be reduced with PDF AES-7, the requirements of the Specific Plan, and Mitigation Measure AES-6, however not to a less than significant level. Therefore, related to Planning Area C and D new sources of substantial light or glare, City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-347 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, would be anticipated to occur. This is an unavoidable impact of the proposed project(Page 5.1-45 of the Draft EIR). This information does not change the analysis 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 52.8 The Commenter's statements related to traffic and cumulative traffic impacts are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) 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. 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 52.9 The Commenter's statements related to altering the terrain, soils, drainage during the environmental assessment period are noted. To restore previously mined portions of the site, a portion of the project site is presently being backfilled as a permitted land use. The existing backfill operation is not a permanent use. The project site is presently being backfilled in sequentially defined phases. Figure 3-6, Backfill Operation, provides the location of the backf'ill operation. The project site is being over excavated (i.e., removal of unsuitable materials) and filled in the present backfill operation. The applicant has indicated that additional grading permit(s) will be requested from the City to complete backfilling of all previously mined portions of the project site. As previously noted, the project site was used from 1919 to 1995 for surface mining of sand, gravel, and other aggregates. Previously mined portions of the project site were used for residue silt deposition, otherwise known as silt ponds. The backfilling operation addresses both mined and silt pond areas. In March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit#2047 related to the backfill operation. Table 17.32.020, Sand and Gravel District Use Regulations, of the Orange Municipal Code indicates that backfilling is a permitted use (P) in the S-G (Sand and Gravel) District. Additionally, in accordance with Section 3.1, Grading Permit Exceptions, of the City Grading Manuel backfilling is a permitted use. Grading is a ministerial (not discretionary) action as defined by the CEQA Guidelines and the Ciry of Orange Local Page 3-348 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines (page 5 — 6). Per Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1), CEQA does not apply to ministerial actions, therefore, no CEQA environmental review was conducted for the permitted and existing ministerial approved grading. The limits of activity established by Grading Permit #2047 are depicted on Figure 3-6, Backfill Operation. The backfill operation will restore those portions of the project site within the limits of activity to the elevations approved by Grading Permit #2047. Approved Grading Permit #2047 provides that 2,000 cubic yards of material will be cut in addition to the over excavation. A total of 223,000 cubic yards of material will be imported to the site. The imported materials include concrete, asphalt,rock, and soil. The imported materials will be crushed on-site. A total of 225,000 cubic yards of material, both cut and fill, will be blended during this approved backfilling operation. Please refer to Master Response Section 23, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Table 2.3-1, Summary of Materials Recycling and Bac�ll Operation for specifics of the materials recycling and backfilling operation as of December 2013 (the time of this printing). 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 52.10 The Commenter's statements related to stop and acceleration will slow traffic flow, add to air pollution and noise pollution and not be compatible with the existing community character are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and the project site. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality related to the proposed project and air quality. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, TranspoYtation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increase in traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12,Noise related to the proposed project and noise. The air quality and noise studies were developed with the proposed circulation system that includes the addition of two new signals on East Santiago Canyon Road. Additionally, each study included consideration of anticipated traffic flow considerations as they might apply to air quality and noise. 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 52.11 The Commenter's statements related to the construction impact of 4.4 years being construction-term from a developer standpoint but not from adjacent residents' standpoint is noted. Please refer to Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 5.12,Noise of the Draft EIR. These sections provide a comprehensive analysis of construction-related project specific and cumulative impacts related to air quality and noise. Please refer City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-349 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Communiry Character related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and 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 52.12 The Commenter's statements related to scenic vistas are noted. As stated on page 5.10-4 Scenic Vistas: The City's General Plan EIR defines a scenic vista as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public (page 5.1-1). Portions of Orange are characterized by scenic vistas including undeveloped hillsides, ridgelines, and open space area that provide a unifying visual backdrop to the urban environment. Officially- designated scenic vistas do not occur on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics related to the proposed project and scenic vistas. Please note that this long-term unavoidable visual impact includes views of distant ridgelines. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning related to the proposed project and General Plan Goal and Policies consistency. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning Table 5.10-2, Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan related to the proposed project and the goals, objectives, and/or polices of the City's General Plan. 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 52.13 The Commenter's statements related to NCCP/HCP criteria far establishing "reserve assembly" or wildlife corridors are noted. Please note, the process to create a reserve system in the NCCP/HCP includes a number of discrete steps: resource inventory, consideration of alternative reserve design strategies, formulation of a preliminary reserve concept, preparation of a "Proposed" Reserve design and formulation of a final reserve design that reflected comments and modifications generated during the public review and hearings on the Draft NCCP/HCP, Joint EIR/EIS and Implementation Agreement. The Reserve design provides the basis for preparation of the Draft NCCP/HCP, including the adaptive management plan, assessment of conformity with NCCP Planning Guidelines and FESA Section 10 (a) standards, and evaluation of reserve habitats as equivalents of critical habitat. A Final NCCP/HCP includes amendments/modifications to the Draft NCCP/HCP that would be adopted by the City and/or County, CDFG and USFWS following completion of the public review process. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12, Biological Resources and Response to Comment 2 L 12 related to the proposed project and biological resources. Page 3-350 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's opinions related to the quality of the biological resource assessment of project impacts are noted. The Commenter's opinion is not based on any factual evidence presented in the comment or elsewhere. Please note that the Section 5.4, Biological Resources of the Draft EIR is based on the following sources that were used in consideration and discussion of the potential environmental impacts: • Biological Resources Assessment Rio Santiago, City of Orange, prepared by PCR Services Corporation, January 2013, as provided in Technical Appendix C, Biological Resource Assessment to this Draft EIR. � Investigation of Jurisdiction Delineation Rio Santiago, City of Orange,prepared by PCR Services Corporation, January 2013, as provided in Technical Appendix D, Verification of Jurisdictional Delineation to this Draft EIR. • Tree Survey Report Rio Santiago, City of Orange, prepared by PCR Services Corporation, January 2013, as provided in Technical Appendix E, Tree Inventory Report to this Draft EIR. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 52.14 The Commenter's questions as to how 100 feet and 300 feet levels of clearance during construction determined for various interruptions of species activities are noted. The distances were based on recommendations of PCR Services Corporation Staff biologists. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12,Biological Resources for detailed information regarding clearance during construction. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 52.15 The Commenter's opinions related to consistency with the City General Plan and related to general plan amendments are noted. Please refer to Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.1, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, related to the proposed project and City General Plan issues. 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 3-351 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 52.16 The Commenter's inquiry related to if pay-to-play facilities are "common open space" is noted. This question does not raise a CEQA related issue. However, it should be noted that, if the Commenter's referenced facilities are those to be potentially located in Planning Area B; all of Planning Area B would be designated OS-P(Open Space-Park). This would include both structures (i.e.,YMCA,Autism Center, bleachers,restrooms, etc.)and out-door areas(i.e.,play fields,park, and opens space 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 52.17 The Commenter's statements related to Goal 3.0 of the City General Plan are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to increase costs for City services are noted. The City Staff has recommended that the donation of Planning Area A should not be accepted by the City. It is the opinion of City Staff that the acceptance of this area would be a financial burden on the City; therefore, inconsistent with the goals of the City. The City may or may not accept the recommendations of their Staf£ The cost of services in not a CEQA issue. Please note that the Commenter was not specific about which Goal 3.0 of the General Plan they were referencing. However, based on review it appears the Commenter is referring Vibrant Commercial District Goal 3.0. Please note that the proposed project is not a commercial project. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning Table 5.10-2, Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan related to the proposed project and consistency with the City's General Plan Goals and Policies. However, the provision of such services is an issue and has been addressed in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 5.14, Public Services of the Draft EIR related to existing fire, emergency medical, police services, schools, parks, and other public facilities and potential effects from the proposed project implementation on these services. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. The Draft EIR made the following findings related to the provision of public services. Fire Protection The proposed project would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact related to the provision of fire protection and emergency medical services by the City Fire Department during construction-related activities. With the inclusion of PDF PS-1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project would have the potential to increase the demand for fire protection services to the project site beyond the existing conditions. With the inclusion of PDF PS-1, PDF PS-2, and PDF PS-3 the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. Page 3-352 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—Decem6er 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Police Profection The proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to the provision of police protection by the City Police Department during construction-related activities. The proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to increase the demand for police protection services to the project site beyond the existing conditions. (Page 5.14-18 of the Draft EIR) Schoo/s The proposed project would have a less than significant impact to schools and school facilities with the payment of the required school fees in accordance with the provisions of the State law, and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.14-19 of the Draft EIR) Parks The proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered government facilities related to parks and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.14- 20 of the Draft EIR) Other Facilities The proposed project would have a less than significant impact by paying applicable development fees to off-set any increase demand to public facilities, such as libraries and City Hall and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.14-21 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's statements related to vehicular traffic flows and traffic densities are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c related to the proposed project traffic improvements and impacts. It is further the opinion of the Commenter that all of the above mentioned fees are one (1) time fees and that annual costs would exceed revenues to the City. City development fees are established to bring new development into the City and establish it at the basis of existing development. The cost of future services to the proposed project once fees are paid is on equal bases with existing uses in the City. Therefore,no long-term costs beyond that of existing development would be anticipated. The Commenter's statements related to noise and light pollution and wildlife protection are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.3, Light and Glare, related to the proposed projects impacts on light and glare and the surrounding community. Please refer to Section 5.4, Biological Resources of the Draft EIR related to wildlife protection. Additionally, please refer to Response to Comment 52.13 and Response to Comment 52.14 above. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-353 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 52.18 The Commenter's statements related to Goal 6.0 of the City General Plan are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to vistas is noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 52.12 above. The Commenter's opinion related to flood damage is noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 52.2 above. The Commenter's opinion related to air pollution is noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 52.10 above. The Commenter's opinion related to noise pollution is noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 52.10 above. Please note that the Draft EIR Section 5.12,Noise found that the project would have less than significant impacts related to noise. Please refer to Draft EIR Sections 3.0, Project Description and 5.12, Noise related to the Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures that include such things as sound walls, limit on outdoor activities, landscape setbacks,and traffic controls. The Commenter's opinion related to traffic is noted. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation and traffic. Please refer to Response to Comment 52.2, 52.3, and 52.8 above. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning and Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to the proposed project and General Plan consistency. Specifically, the Draft EIR states on page 5.10-24 the following consistency with Goal 6 of the City's General Plan and as clarified on Draft EIR page 5.10-24: Goal 6.0: Advance development activity that is mutually bene�cial to both the environment and the community. Policy 6.1: Ensure that new development The proposed project includes architectural and is compatible with the sryle landscape design guidelines (refer to Chapter 4) to and design of established give greater assurance that the project will be structures and the surrounding developed as a high quality, distinctive community environment. that not only enhances the visual quality of the site, but also blends with the existing architectural styles Policy 6.2: In areas where residential uses and landscape character found in the surrounding abut commercial or industrial neighborhoods (Policy 6.1). An integrated network land uses, use buffering of trails is planned throughout the proposed project techniques to improve area to provide internal connectivity and a safe compatibility. Such techniques environment for pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian include the use of setbacks, �avel (Policy 6.3). The proposed pedestrian and screening, soundwalls with bikeway circulation system also provides potential pedestrian access, and connections to existing trails in the surrounding areas appearance standards. (Policy 6.6). The project retains the Santiago Creek in its existing condition as natural open space, Policy 6.3: Establish and maintain greenway and wildlife corridar to preserve the greenways, and pedestrian and Creek's riparian habitat (Policies 6.4 and 6.7). The bicycle connections that proposed project may not be consistent with certain complement the residential, portions of this specific policy. However because Page 3-354 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses commercial and open space Santiago Creek is being retained in its existing areas they connect. condition, the possible inconsistency does not rise to the level of a significant impact. Therefore, the Policy 6.4: Create and maintain open project is consistent with the overall City General space resources that provide plan. recreational opportunities, protect hillside vistas and Landscape parkways will be provided along streets ridgelines, and conserve in the Specific Plan area to enhance the site's visual natural resources. quality, facilitate pedestrian ease of use and maximize environmental benefits. (Policy 6.8) Site Policy 6.5: Reduce pollutant runoff from development measures that reduce impacts of storm new development and urban �,�,ater and urban runoff generated from the project runoff to the maximum extent include structural and non-structural best practicable. management practices (BMPs) and low impact development (LID) strategies for post-construction Policy 6.6: Enhance the walkability of water quality protection, as described Section 5.9, both new and current development. Hydrology and Water Quality (Policy 6.5). The proposed project includes design features to Policy 6.7: Integrate natural amenities and minimize adverse air, noise, circulation and other connections, including environmental impacts to surrounding areas, such as waterways and wildlife providing trails on-site to encourage walking and corridors, within the design of biking and reduce automobile trips; using sound urban and suburban spaces. walls for sound attenuation on a limited basis, primarily along Santiago Canyon Road; Policy 6.8: Maximize landscaping along incorporating traffic calming devices, where streetscapes and within appropriate, within the project area to reduce traffic development projects to speeds, such as neck-downs at intersections and enhance public health and other key locations, enhanced paving at pedestrian environmental benefits. cross-walks, raised pedestrian crosswalks, short or curved street segments and cul-de-sacs where Policy 6.9: Restrict development in areas applicable, and other similar design solutions (Policy where exposure to hazards 6.10). The project will implement the appropriate such as flood, erosion, mitigation measures related to hydrology/water liquefaction, dam failure, quality, natural hazards, hazard materials, air, noise, hazardous materials, and toxic traffic, biological resources, cultural resources and gases cannot be mitigated to other environmental factors contained in the Draft reduce risk to residents and EIR (Policies 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11). The proposed liability to the City. project has been designed to locate development Policy 6.10: Mitigate adverse air, noise, away from Santiago Creek. Additionally, buried rip- circulation, and other rap along the south bank of Santiago Creek will environmental impacts caused Protect the habitable structures located in Planning City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-355 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses by new development adjacent Area's C and D. Emergency response resulting from to existing neighborhoods dam inundation flooding would be provided by both through use of sound walls, City and/or County of Orange emergency personnel. landscaping buffers, speed In addition, an Emergency Evacuation Plan would be limits, and other traffic control in place on-site for the age-qualified community. measures. This plan would be provided by the developer of Planning Area C, which will include such items as Policy 6.1 l: Recognize the value of natural emergency management team structure, response and cultural resources in the protocols, media program, and local authority undeveloped portions of the coordination protocols. It is the policy of the City to planning area. restrict development not to prohibit development in dam failure hazard areas (Policy 6.9). Additionally, Policy 6.12: Maximize the land use insurance coverage for the peril of flood due to dam opportunities for the Irvine inundation exposure from a future breach in the dam Lake area by providing a mix located upstream would be available for purchase by of uses, such as lodging, the homeowners' of Planning Area D (Policy 6.9). housing, and recreational uses. Please refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Threshold HWQ-I, for additional information related to dam failure and the proposed project's significant unavoidable impact. Policies 6.2 and 6.12 do not apply to the project because the project site does not abut commercial or industrial uses, and is not within the Irvine Lake area. The Commenter's opinion related to the property being undeveloped affecting the analysis is noted. Please refer to Section 3.0,Project Description and Section 4.0, Environmental Setting of the Draft EIR. The bases of the analysis is required by the State CEQA Guidelines to be existing conditions (e.g., at issuance of the NOP). 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 52.19 The Commenter's statements related to the applicability of 7.1 are noted. Comment 52.19 does not indicate what"7.1" is a comment. There are 5 policies 7.1 within the City's General Plan. The proposed project does not apply to three of these policies. Please see below related to each of the three policies 7.1. Please note that Natural Resource Element Policy 7.1 has been clarified. Page 3-356 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Land Use Element Policy 7.1: Coardinate with the Orange Policy 7.1 does not apply because they are City Unified School District and obligations but will be accomplished via the DEIR Community College District review process. regarding future plans for their facilities. Natural Resources Element Policy 7.1: Preserve the scenic nature of The Draft EIR indicated that Policy 7.1 was not significant ridgelines visible applicable to the project site. It could be considered throughout the community. that significant ridgelines are visible throughout the community. Therefore, it is noted that the proposed project while not consistent with portions of this specific policy could be found consistent with the overall City General Plan. Public Safety Element Policy 7.1: Provide crime prevention, Policy 7.1 does not apply as it is a City policy. community service, and education programs designed to prevent crime. 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 52.20 The Commenter's statements related to the noise study are noted. The DEIR details that, The ambient noise in the project vicinity is generally characterized vehicle traffic on Santiago Canyon Road, from materials recycling activities in 2009 and backfilling activities in 2011 on the project site, and from aircraft landing at John Wayne Airport approximately 10 miles south of the project site. Although the recycling and backfilling activities contribute to the ambient noise environment, East Santiago Canyon Road is the primary noise source and this noise would occur independently of whether any activity was occurring on the project site. Furthermore, according to OMC Section 8.24.070(E) the current backfilling activities are exempt as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a Federal Holiday. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 Page 3-357 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Additionally, the City General Plan provides maximum allowed noise exposure from transportation sources of 65 dBA CNEL at the exterior of residential uses. This standard was developed for the placement of new homes and is not an enforceable standard for existing homes, since noise from vehicles on public roads is regulated by the State and Section 8.24.070(J) exempts any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law. 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 52.21 The Commenter's statements related to the noise study are noted. Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (2012) states: Studies of highways through canyons typically have shown noise increases of less than 3 dBA from canyon effects. Noise increases generated from highways in narrow canyons with steep side slopes theoretically could be more than 3 dBA, depending on groundcover and the steepness and smoothness of side slopes. The canyon walls, to some extent, act as parallel soundwalls with respect to multiple reflections. However, unless the slopes are perfectly vertical, buildup of reflections will be more limited because of the slope angles. Please note that there are no slopes that are steep enough or high enough in the vicinity of the project site to create a measurable canyon effect. Regardless the noise levels were calculated through use of the SoundPlan model, with topographical data from the grading plan entered into the SoundPlan model. The SoundPlan model is capable of calculating refracted noise from changes in elevation and although the conditions in the project vicinity do not exist for the Canyon effect to occur, the SoundPlan model would have incorporated any canyon effect noise impacts into its noise calculations. 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 52.22 The Commenter's statements related to the noise study are noted. Please refer Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise and Section 5.13, Population and Housing related to the increase of emergency vehicle per capita. Please note that the City Municipal Code (OMC), Chapter 8.24070 Exemptions from Chapter Provisions (Noise Standards), D. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery,vehicle, or work. Page 3-358 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses J. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law. Please note that the California Vehicle Code Section 271562, exempts emergency vehicles from noise standards. 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 52.23 The Commenter's statements related to the noise study are noted. Please note that Impact NOI-1 related to potential to create an impact to interior noise,relates to the project site not off-site areas as discussed in the Draft EIR on page 5.12-48. 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 52.24 The Commenter's statements related to the Alternative No. 2 - No Project-Development Under the Existing General Plan and Zone are noted. The Commenter's statement that this should be retention of the project site with only 5 to 10 acre sand and gravel operation is noted. Please note that the alternative analyzes the most intensive case possibly under permitted and conditionally permitted uses already recognized for the proposed zone. The alternatives presented in the Draft EIR include scenarios of related to a "no-project" condition as described below. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative—No Development This alternative evaluates what would be reasonably expected to occur on the project site in the foreseeable future, if the proposed project were not approved. 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. 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. This alternative would allow for the comparison of the environmental effects of existing conditions and uses against the environmental effects that would occur if the proposed project were approved. (Page 7-3 of the Draft EIR) City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-359 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Alternative 2:No Project Alternative—Developmenf Under Existing General Plan and Zoning This alternative 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 existing City General Plan Policy Map is depicted in Figure 3-7, Existing and Proposed General Plan. 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). (Page 7-5 of the Draft EIR) Under Alternative 1: No Project Alternative—No Development, it should be noted that 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. Under Alternative 2: No Proj ect Alternative — Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning uses in addition to those permitted in the S-G (Sand and Gravel Extraction District) are evaluated. This includes R-1-8 (Single-family Residential District). Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10,Alternatives 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 52.25 The Commenter's question related to conversion of Planning Area C to apartments is noted. The conversion to Planning Area C from age-targeted housing to a multi-family apartment complex would require appropriate planning and CEQA documentation. This would be anticipated to include City Council approval of a revised site plan revisions. Revisions to the proposed project would be required to establish parking and recreation standards for multi-family apartments. An apartment plan would require additional parking and different recreational areas than an age-targeted housing project. These changes would require an amendment to the Rio Santiago Specific Plan and require new California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) documentation. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 52.26 The Commenter's question related to the City requiring an economic impact analysis of the proposed project are noted. As noted by the Commenter's statement an economic analysis is not a CEQA requirement; therefore,no additional response is provided. Page 3-360 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 3-361 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 53 Jakki Tonkovich �rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday, July Ol, 2013 12:00 PM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman ��; Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Sully Miller Project FYI... From: Kribel, Ken [mailta:KenKribel(c�SOUTHERNWINE.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:36 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Sully Miller Project Mr. Ortlieb, I am adamantly against the rezoning of Sully Miller from open space to zoning that allows almost 400 residences to be 53.1 built. I moved into Orange Park Acres in 2000 because of the rural living and open space. That is what makes our community so special. I am appalled that a developer knowingly bought property zoned open space and is attempting to rezone to benefit his 53.2 agenda while the entire community suffers. Jo not let this happen to our beautiful rural community. Respectfully, OPA resident, Ken Kribel Sr.VP Director of National Accounts, On-Sale Southern Wine and Spirits of America 562-926-2000 x12118 n �.�... .,�� a,..w H, �..... w.. R��.. �,w __ 1��,s �t�c��.��a�,rc� �.�� tltf��r•c��ac�r 1)'«f.�`t�trtlt€�r�a €3�tr�f� ck ,�ptr�-it.� �,�� it.��r��i/tcz�c..�, !t �,t i��tc;��c�`e�c�'r��1�.f��t�rc� t-r.sc c>{�t/a�� il�tr;{r�=ir�`a��a1��r��r��t�tt'tr1 3��I�ic:6a it is r��'cJrc�.ss��c1��r��ac��= c:<��zt�ris�1 ira{c��zcrtic�ra th�rt i,s ta�1r�-�ti��lic,��r�°u�F-ic�lu�°�', ��i��lle��ct, c=t��fi�lc�t�tt�t�1, �r��r.��E��a��t fi�c�� i.��cic�,s�arf~�� t��r�c�•�r�,��?/ic��r�� Ica3�� o�rn��r c�t��,str�r�P�� .�� c�tt��rtac�� u�� tt~��`��_°I, T�_�`r��r ��r-c� ��a� �It�� t�tr��ca`ecl x�c��°��?i��i. ��c�cr crr��> ��cz�°�>��t�f�r�ti�iE��t��rrt rrrrl� r�;�c�. ��i,�.�c>ra�it�c�ti�,��, ��.��tr�il�rrli�)r�. t,��°t1�a��i��,��%��rrs c��7as�lr��ic°�ati��tz �s� .etr•ict�l��r�°��l��ttc�i�'. I��c�t� Iar��;c� f�cc�e�i��eu't/�is c��r77r��za�ric�ti��a ir�� c��r�c�r�, �t3trf�� tr,� i��a�sac�clic�tc�lt �;�� tc�f��ac��tc� cxfrr�(�J ��'c:.str�{>t� tfai.s raar�.;��a€�c� if tr„f'��°.�`��gil�j t�l• tif� ��c�9c�tc� t�ais r��c3�.�cr�;cj ira7r��c�c/icrt�31�' if� tfai_�� s ;arr c�l<>c,tr°c�nrc cc�rrrrr�zar��r_�c�tir�ra, T1��1�� _��,�. i 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 53 Date: June 28, 2013 � Ken Kribel Response to Comment 53.1 The Commenter's statements related to objecting to the proposed project rezoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community 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. Response to Comment 53.2 The Commenter's statements related to loss of open space are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.6.1, Loss of Open Space related to the proposed project impact on open space. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-363 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 54 Jakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> .ient: Monday, July O1, 2013 12:02 PM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;lackie Bateman ��; Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Sully Miller FYI... From: Maria Morgan [maiito;mmorg1029@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:12 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Suily Miller Planning commission, I read that a developer is requesting that Sully Miller be rezoned to accommodate 400 future residences including 3 story 54.1 buildings, I am very much against any such project. It would ruin our neighborhood forever. I first hand experience the traffic on Santiago Blv while driving my children to school, it is bumper to bumper traffic in the morning going eastbound. Sometimes it takes me 15 minutes for a 4 mile trip. Our roads cannot handle anymore traffic 54.2 especially from 400 more residences and senior living units that will take many people to staff it along with constant delivery trucks. lease do not allow this to happen. Respectfully, f�taria �tis��gc�n �� mmorq1029(a�aol.com 1 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 54 Date: June 28, 2013 Maria Morgan Response to Comment 54.1 The Commenter's statements related to objecting to the proposed project rezoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community 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. Response to Comment 54.2 The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic on Santiago Boulevard are noted. Please refer to Master Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to increases in traffic. 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 3-365 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 55 lakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> oent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:03 PM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Sully Miller FYI... From: �gar44Cc�verizon.net [mailto:paar44@verizan.net] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:30 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Sully Miller Good Afternoon I am opposed to the re-zoning of Sully Miller for the purpose of homes and 3 story senior residences. Our community will not benefit from this 55.1 measure. Thank you Concern citizen 1 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 55 Date: June 28, 2013 � Pgar44@vrtixon.nrt Response to Comment 55.1 The Commenter's statements related to high density units are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Communiry related to the proposed proj ect and the surrounding community and zoning. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.5, Structure Height, related the proposed project three- story element. 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 3-367 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 56 Jakki Tonkovich �rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday, July Ol, 2013 12:05 PM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio Santiago project FYI... From: Tom Rapport [mailto:trap�ort�c�mail.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:22 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio Santiago project A senior center and high density units are not acceptable for this location. 56.1 Santiago Canyon Road is a dangerous high speed road and more traffic, especially from senior drivers is not acceptable. In addition, the 4 plans adopted by the City Of Orange do not make this plan acceptable. 56.2 "hanks, Tom Rapport i 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 56 Date: June 28,2013 � Tom Rapport Response to Comment 56.1 The Commenter's statements related to objecting to the proposed project rezoning and the 3-story residences are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community and zoning. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.5, Structure Height, related the proposed project three-story element. 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 56.2 The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic on Santiago Boulevard are noted. Please refer to Master Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increase in traffic. The comment does not specify which 4 City adopted plans are being referred to. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, related to proposed and adopted plans in the City pertaining 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. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-369 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 57 lakki Tonkovich 'rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> oent: Monday, July O1, 2013 12:11 PM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio Santiago, DEIR..... Damn that Dam Attachments: Santa Ana - Santiago Greenbelt Plan.pdf FYI... From: Charles Leffler [mailto:charlesleffler@ymail.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:32 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio Santiago, DEIR..... Damn that Dam Honorable Mayor and Council; City of Orange Planning Department: 27 June 2013 MILAN/JMI - RIO SANTIAGO PROJECT Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns on the Rio Santiago DEIR. The California Environmental Quality Act is a valuable asset in the protection of the quality of life. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the roads we travel, the environment, the health, welfare and lives of people have been and will continue to be 57.1 seriously, adversely impacted by the past, current and future use of the site intended for this project. The lack of benefit to the City and Public by this Project completely overwhelms inadequate mitigations as admitted by the DEIR. The proposed project is a risk that Orange cannot afford to take. The intended site of the Rio Santiago project is the Sully Miller site which is about 110 acres. As it stands the old sand and gravel mining site is primarily zoned � Resource/Open Space. There is approximately 12 acres north of the Santiago Creek that is R-1 zoned. The remaining acreage includes 40 some acres of Santiago Creek bed which as far as the City is concerned is a liability. It is a false creek course created by the former Mining Operation that is trying and will over time correct itself. The entire Site is acknowledged to be in a Dam Inundation Zone. There are 2 earthen Dams 57.� upstream that while monitored, are subject to the forces of nature including not only a 100-year flood but also earthquakes and subsidence. To place 395 units with potentially 1000 or more people's lives, homes and personal property in jeopardy is not only unwise it should be a crime. Who is responsible for the liability and loss when it occurs? Will the ads and sales brochures carry the warning in large print plain language that The Developer, The City Planners and City Council were all warned that the Site is an a Dam Inundation Zone and assume all responsibility for damage or loss of life, limb or property? This may not happen in 10 or even 30 years. How will the buyers be indemnified? Who will serve the time if the negligence is found to be criminal? How will buyers be noticed of the risks and their rights. California has a 10 year Construction Defects Law, will the City extend that obligation for Milan/JMI and its Officers, managers and 'experts' to 50 or 100 years? What is the expected lifetime of a home? I am sure you are aware of well maintained and beautiful properties in Orange that are over 100 years old. First and foremost, the site is covered by at least 4 County/City Plans plus the 57.3 Orange General Plan. None of those Plans are honored or fully explored in this DEIR. That is a major inadequacy. Various Public agencies have oversight and responsibilities from the County Parks, Army Corps of Engineers, Flood Control, Fish and Game, State Mining, Federal Mining, AQMD, EPA, County Sanitation District, State and Federal Dam Safety and Oversight Agencies, Drinking Water Agencies, Endangered Species, Toxic Waste, County Roads, numerous Environmental protection Agencies from the County, State and Federal levels who should all have received the DEIR, studied the Document and Site and Commented prior to the Public phase. Has the City of Orange hired independent Hydrologists, Dam Engineers and other qualified experts to examine and evaluate the risks on the Public's behalf? The DEIR states that the elevation of the site is unable to be raised above Inundation levels. The risk cannot be fully mitigated. Again, how much of that risk liability falls on 5�.4 the Applicant and how much belongs to the City and its Staff and City if this project is approved? There is no requirement to approve the proposed project but rather to uphold health and safety concepts to protect current and future generations. No one would approve a non-earthquake standard structure because the DEIR states that it is not mitigatable simply because the Applicant wants to proceed? Would you not do the proper due diligence with County, State and Federal Agencies as well as require and hire independent, qualified experts to evaluate? When this site was considered for development with half the number of units by the Fieldstone Company a dozen years ago, a complex channeling plan was put 2 into the project plan to protect the property from creek erosion and flooding while maintaining the altered course and 'natural' appearance of the Creek. That PLAN did not address and handle the INUNDATION FACTOR. As stated in the DEIR, there is JO full and proper mitigation. THE SITE IS A RISK. So does the City sell cigarettes to kids and alcohol to teens because the manufacturers and store owners say......... Well, they will get them anyway and we told them that they were bad for them....The DEIR understates that this is a Bad Site for People to LIVE on and it is not fully mitigate-able. The Rio Santiago Plan is unacceptable. Plans for this site were developed some 40 years ago. The 1973 OPA Plan, The 1973 Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenway Plan, The 1976 East Orange Community Plan and the 1976 Santiago Creek Implementation Plan are and were fully in place and available for notice to the buyers. The majority of this property was slated for and should be used as Recreational Open Space. It would help fulfill the City of Orange's Park Deficit. It would be a proper use without putting homeowners, elders, children and property at serious risk. Like the City's Historic District, Old Towne 57.5 designation there needs to be consideration and care of these plans and not just wiping them away for the profit motive of a developer. What would be said to buying a number of homes in Old Towne, demolishing the structures and building high-rise apartments? It could take 20 or 30 stories to profit properly from the plan so once the homes are bought, what would drive the City to allow the Development? There is no requirement or justification to approve such an erroneous plan. There is no law that equires the wipe out of long existing community plans, the rights, values and expectations of thousands of property owners for the benefit of developers with an ill- conceived plan. The applicant doesn't seem to realize There Is a Plan in Place that needs to be honored. What happens to the Creek, the water that flows to the Bond Pit and the wildlife as and when this site is developed? Where in the DEIR is the plan to return the Santiago Creek to its historic natural course? The Mining operation set the creek on a Northerly course to keep it out of their settling ponds 40 to 60 years ago. The Creek still follows the bedrock flow under the dirt to a greater or lesser degree depending on up creek saturation as evidenced by all the de-watering that was being improperly carried out at the site over the last year or 2. The reports, citations and media information should be available. When that groundwater hits the landfill it activates the microorganisms that create methane and causes other chemical reactions. The 57.6 leakage depending on the specific weight of the contaminants may be up to airborne as with methane or sinking as with heavy metals. Some leaching downstream may occur and end up in the Bond Pit. Issues that must be addressed: • What testing has been done determine water quality and what levels of toxins exist at the site and at the Bond Pit? 3 • What measures are in place to monitor and manage changes due to the effects of the proposed development? • Does the City of Orange have the expertise to oversee these factors? • Has the City hired non-partisan experts to test, evaluate and form a plan or advise on the effects of and suitability of the development? • If a vapor and moisture barrier prohibits the natural flow of the water between the bedrock and compacted soil what happens when the water pools up under the buildings in the proposed project? • Once the soil east of the landfill is saturated may subsidence occur? • Does the hydrated soil erode and allow the Santiago to reclaim her course? • What happen to the Bond Pit water quality during these potentials? • What happens at the Bond pit after the changes made by the project have been in place...5, 10 or 15 years? • Does the City understand the long term effects of the potentials I am bringing up? • Has the City prepared for pollution of the Bond Pit and the aquifers below? • Has the City protected, and insured the residents against the impacts and negative effects and damages from this project? • I believe the water issues are above the City's skill set and will require State and Federal Agencies to make determinations as to Water Quality, Dam Safety, Mining Land Recovery criteria. When will a complete list of all County, State and Federal Agencies be contacted be available? What oversight, jurisdiction, and proper monitoring and management skills will each Agency provide? • What happens to the Santiago Canyon Road or the streets and homes in the proposed project if saturation below causes subsidence? In the hills of Orange/Anaheim overlooking Santa Ana Canyon Road a number of years back there were a few homes that sunk, slipped and had to be demolished due to ground water saturation issues. Those homes were well above any flood and inundation area risk and yet, ground water destroyed the properties. They are still vacant lots on the edge of the neighborhood. More issues that must be addressed: 5�.� • What are the potentials, risks and safety factors for this in the Rio DEIR? • Who is signing off on all those risks for the City? • What indemnification to the City and future property owners as well as neighboring properties is Milan/JMI being required to provide? • Why would the City and its citizens take on such risks for the benefit of the developer? Wiping out existing plans and open space designations for Development of an over built high density project on ecologically sensitive, dam inundation risk, altered creek bed watershed that feeds a drinking water reservoir and flows to the Santa Ana 4 and then Pacific should be a no starter. It destroys too much for too many and in return gives only high density, traffic, visual and noise pollution while putting future homeowners in a flood risk dam inundation area that cannot be properly mitigated. Jphold the General Plan, OPA Plan, Greenbelt Plan, East Orange Plan and Santiago Creek Implementation Plan. Reject the Rio Santiago Development Plan. Egress, one road access in and out for potentially over 1000 residents, many who will be bed-ridden, or need assistance, living in a high density high rise facility, families 57.8 in the East portion, first impact area, plus perhaps 200 day users in a flood, dam inundation and fire risk site surrounded by a methane leaking former landfill on the West, a steep creek embankment on the North and a fortress walled community on a hill to the East with a berm and walled obstruction to the South. Was this Project designed for a Disaster Movie Script? How many lives are you willing to risk to make a buck. Shall we lower the Standards on Air, Rail and Vehicle travel and remove seat belt, child seats, drinking while driving and phone use while driving laws if it will better serve the Developers bottom line? This site has serious problems in and surrounding it. Egress is not just inadequate; in an emergency it is a multiplier to the negative effect. Reject the Rio Santiago Project. Nowhere in the surrounding area to this site were there ever or are there now any 3 story commercial/multi family units or commercial buildings planned, permitted or built. The 3 story senior units are most properly identified as Apartments, multi family units. The change in zoning in this area to accomplish this results in SPOT ZONING. The 80,000 Sq Ft, 40,000 Sq Ft footprint multi use commercial/recreation building also results in SPOT ZONING. Neither of these facets of the Plan fit the single family residential and rural residential nature of the surrounding Communities. No Spot Zoning. The City already has Spot Zoning problems it is trying to rectify. Creating new problems is not just unwise. It is against current City standards and guidelines for Development. Reject the Rio Santiago Plan. In the previous Fieldstone development plan of the Sully Miller site there was a huge underground vapor barrier, monitor and warning system plan at the West end of the site abutting the former Villa Park Landfill/Methane producing site. From meetings and records I saw in that time there was and may still be methane escaping as far away as the tree wells on the South side of Santiago Canyon Road across from the former Dumpsite. These issues must be addressed: • Who is testing and what agencies are involved and making recommendations for the oversight and mitigation of risks from the methane leakage? 5 • Have residences in Jamestown, South of the former dumpsite, been tested regularly and what were the results? • How far east of the former dumpsite between the bedrock and newly re- compacted dirt will the methane travel in 1 , 3, 5 or more years? • How long will methane leach from the site and when will it peak? • What other toxins are present at the landfill site? • Which toxins are airborne? • Which are water soluble and may enter the water supply via the Bond Pit as a result of changes to the conditions at the Sully Miller site with the proposed 57.� development? • What are the health hazards to Residents living downwind of the landfill when these changes in the topography occur? • What affect will high or low rainfall and ground saturation have on the air and water borne toxins migration? What are the health risks and fire/explosion potentials from the methane and or other toxic gasses that exist and are escaping the former landfill? • How will measures taken to modify or eliminate leakage (such as the vapor barrier) push the methane towards existing Communities where it may be impossible to rectify the situation without huge costs and loss of property and property values? • If Mabury Ranch was inundated by methane leakage and problems, who would be responsible, The City of Orange, for its approvals, The County of Orange, as it owns the former landfill or Milan/JMI for their poor plans and development of a known risk site? • If the City approves the site without proper expert investigation and reasoned statistical analysis has the City assumed the responsibility for the problems with the site and development? • Will Bonds be required of Milan/JMI for the potential health, life and property loss due to their development of the high risk property? • Has the City hired or required the hire of competent experts on the risks, issues, mitigation and liabilities attendant to the methane and other toxic gas leakage that exists surrounding the former Villa Park Landfill? All of this was known by Milan/JMI, their consultants and investors if they have done their due diligence. I sat with some of the same advisers in the Fieldstone planning process who were also for years and recently connected to Milan/JMI's team. Where in the DEIR is the study of the Methane and the potential for additional risks to existing neighborhoods from what would be mitigation for the development? What is the domino effect of risk/damage/loss from the changing the topography, aeration capability, and migration potentials for the methane and other toxic substances existent 57.1 and escaping from the former landfill? Reject the Rio Santiago Plan. I just was interrupted by a call from SCE with a peak energy savings plan. California is short on power, water and has heavily congested roads and highways, 6 especially during peak hours. It is a problem, and yet.... DEVELOPMENT continues. ORANGE is essentially built out. The remaining sites like the old Sully Miller property was not planned for development for a reason, too many Liabilities and Constraints. 3uch sites are the only hope for making up the Parks shortage and although other Cities and Counties in the State have adopted low or no growth measures in an effort to keep pace with infrastructure and resources Orange is faced with Developers looking to maximize land use with multi family units that overrun roads and resources. Power, Water, Sanitation, Police, Fire, Recreation, ALL, are being squeezed to add more units in less space. What happens to the roads when the Irvine Company Santiago Hills Phase II sees the dollar signs large enough to begin construction? At what point does a City say, This is the Nature of Our Community, Our Plan, Our vision and hold to the existing Community Plans telling the speculating grifter, Thanks, this is Our City and you will not take its resources and character for granted and for your profit. Does Rio Santiago fit any Orange City Plan? Does it add basic needs and add to the quality of life in Orange? No, it takes more Open Space and adds more people per square foot which adds thousands of trips per day and huge unmitigatable hazards to life and property for future residents as well as current citizens...loss of Open Space with the false promise of open space that is a stream bed which no one wants to be responsible for...it is a risk factory. The other recreational opportunities are a spot zoned commercial building in a dam inundation zone with methane leakage risks to the 57.11 .;hildren who attend, and pay to play that gives NOTHING back to the Citizens of Orange for all the Creek and Greenbelt Plans that it wipes away. On a risk reward basis, the Rio Plan is all Risk for the City and loss to the surrounding communities including Villa Park while it is highly rewarding to a few in the developer business who will not be here in Orange when the problem created by this development manifest. We do not need this project, we do not want this project and there are too many serious health, finance and resource risks, losses and dangers created by this project to approve it. Reject the Rio Santiago Plan. The usage of the term 'global warming' can be misleading or lead to the idea that the total threat is an arid or desert condition. Global climate change is more descriptive of what the global warming effect. In the last 500 years there was the little ice age, 57.1; which NASA determines as from 1550 to 1850 although other experts date it differently shows that weather anomalies are possible without the causes believed to be at the center of current concerns. However the potentials vary worldwide. Flooding may increase or drought may prevail in an area. Here we had a decidedly cooler spring. It may be a simple matter to scan and dismiss all the questions raised and objections made in my letter. The applicant and or his 'experts' will tell you ...it is no problem and none of this will happen....while we are still in town.' The problems are for � You, Me and the entire City of Orange. Does this project fit the any City Plan? NO. In fact long standing City, City/County and Community Plans have to be trashed for this project. So, does this project it give fairly to the City for what It takes? If you consider 57� more dense population, mega vehicle trips per day, Police and Fire expense, light, noise and potential toxic air and water pollution — All negatives for our City you may think so. Then consider, the Dam Inundation, Toxicity, Egress and other problems. This project with its Spot Zoning, Contamination Risks, Flood and Inundation Risks, wipes out many good plans and is detrimental to surrounding established communities and on the whole, Orange. RESPECT THE OPA, GREENBELT AND EAST ORANGE PLANS. Why would the City of Orange, the Public, assume the responsibility for approval of a project with serious risks and life threatening liabilities that the developers DEIR states exist but are not correctable or mitigatable? Why would the City accept a DEIR that does not consider the full effects of the project in light of existing entitlements like Santiago Hills phase II with traffic and impacts of said project? The whole of the coming real impacts need to be considered as it will all affect life in east Orange.. Take into consideration, Santiago phase II and its full effects on water, runoff, creek flow, traffic, ground water and air pollution and as a cumulative and combined with the negative impacts risks and dangers of the Rio project. What are the potential risks, hazards and negatives that will impact the 50,000 plus users of Katella/Santiago including Villa Park and toll road, Jamboree and regional Parks users? What impacts do the changes in topography, channelization, runoff, and global weather changes �.� have on the Bond Pit downstream? What potential for increased sedimentation of the area north of the Katella Bond Pit crossing and increased hillside saturation as water backs up and increased landslide as already occurs impedes or takes out the Bridge. That crossing was out as recently as 1980. The 2 previous bridges were never expected to fail. Today's traffic count is many multiples of that period. How will the grading, construction, ROMP, compaction, vapor barriers, building weight loads and increased traffic effect the toxic landfill, emissions into ground, water and air, the creek flow after 4000 SH phase II properties water runoff flows through handy Creek and meets Santiago Creek at the project site to silt and dam the Cannon or Katella crossings and creating ponding back up or wash out? What will be the effects of global climate change on the water flow, flood potential, dam inundation, the toxic landfill problems and the potential flooding on the Sully/Rio site? Does it require filled body bags to prove that the present project is not proper for the intended site? Does it take 1 million, 5 million or 25 million in property damage and loss to prove that the proposed site has too many risks and problems to be suited for the proposed development? It may be unsuitable for any permanent structures as global weather changes progress. What will happen with the level of the ocean rising affecting ground water levels. Aquifers are re-charged (toilet to tap) to protect the water supply but must be monitored to NOT raise the level so much as to inundate low lying homes and businesses. How will this change? Bond Pit re-charges the aquifers with water s runoff stored there. If it cannot do so pump out due to changes in the sea levels or changes downstream, it will permanently fill to the run off point of the old creek bed on the southeast of the main Pit. Instead of capturing and holding millions of gallons of ainfall in a storm, the creek will flow to the Santa Ana River as it once did, like it did in the flooding that destroyed property near Memory Lane in 1969. The year round saturation of the Pits could cause landslides on its un-reinforced walls and destabilize or take out the Katella Crossing. It is also possible that the banks on other sides of the Pit could destabilize. Note the cliff face erosion above the north of Katella side in the Villa Park neighborhood back yards. How will the changed conditions at the Sully site contribute to those risk potentials? What mitigation and financial responsibility will the developer assume? In the event of a Bridge closure or outright failure, how will the 200,000 trips a day be rerouted and how will Chapman Ave handle that load? What will be the effect on residents and commerce in Orange? Who wants to look back after that crossing has failed,(already twice in recent history)again due to global weather changes and creek re-routing, compaction, runoff, absorption and load changes at the Rio site contributed to the failure and say....'That should not have happened! I guess we goofed.' The purpose of Planning, the requirement of CEQA, is to really look at the liabilities, risks, impacts across the board and correct, mitigate or show proper reason to over-ride minor faults. Potentials for failure and hazards that are not addressed in this DEIR are not minor. This project does not fit the Communities or Orange. It is not safe nor is it an environmental fit. Health and safety are serious issues here. Does Rio fit the surrounding communities? 57.15 No. Does Rio fit the City General Plan? No. Does it fit the East Orange Plan, Greenway Plan, OPA Plan or any existing City and County plan that through thousands of hours of staff and public time and effort were formed agreed upon and signed for by City and County authority? Are the site flooding risks, site dam inundation risks and other safety risks fully and properly addressed, corrected and or mitigated? Does Orange want to put the lives and property of its citizens at risk? Are the impacts from proposed lighting pollution, commercial buildings, high 57.1f density, out of character residences, over building egress safety issues, huge traffic impacts and other issues been corrected? Are the risks to potential residents and property users from escaping Methane and other toxins escaping from the adjacent landfill by ground, water and air fully investigated, identified and corrected or mitigated? What are the boundaries of the eakage of the methane? What levels are toxic to plants, animals and humans. What are the risks for explosion or fire? It may not be the Project owners creation but is it proper and safe to locate new residences in the area. Prior projects were built in the 9 late 70's and 80's when awareness and the Law was different. If the construction of units in the planned area contribute to the death of 1 person, who is responsible? If the Health of 1 person is damaged, was the project proper? How many people have to be damaged for the City to be found negligent in its due diligence oversight? What is the duty of the City? Protection of Life, Health and Property are important aims that this DEIR misses the mark on, Is the safety and impact of the site access/egress in agreement with the use and flow of Santiago Canyon Road? Does it consider and include impacts already entitled but not in operation by SH phase II? Does it consider the constraints on the westbound route through Villa Park where the road narrows and cannot be widened without Eminent Domain and destruction of existing homes? Does it take in account the already difficult freeway access during much of the day? Does it protect the surrounding communities from huge and unacceptable impacts from congestion on the road driving traffic through non thoroughfare communities looking to expedite their 57.1 travels? Does the DEIR properly identify the high rise Multi- Family Units for what they are and provide proper egress, parking and traffic numbers to provide the real impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding area? NO. In fact the `Senior' designation and units in the proposal does not fit the area, is not guaranteed by the proposal or DEIR, is misleading and subverts the effort of the CEQA process. Multi-family zoning has greater impacts on traffic, schools, parks and other issues in significantly greater ways than `Senior' units. Neither, `SENIOR' or MULTI FAMILY fit the General Plan, any other Plan or the Communities in the Development's proposed area. The Zoning, as asked for, would represent blatant SPOT ZONING. Are the serious health risks, threats to life and property, traffic, pollution, overcrowding, egress, flooding, air quality, ground contamination, water impacts, contamination and hazards, City resource use issues such as paramedics, dam inundation, hydrology, geology, ecology, pollution, site or adjacent site toxins, gas emissions, containment, detection, relief, eradication or responsibility thereof, pollution, ecological, native cultural rights or concerns, historical plans or Orange parks addressed, fully corrected or mitigated in this DEIR? This DEIR misses more than it addresses and should be handed back with the full current CEQA laws and rulings, State studies of the Threat of the Rising Ocean 57.1 Levels, Studies on the health hazards of the Villa Park Landfill and the Dangers of Landfills information, copies of the California Health and Safety Codes, Orange County Health and Safety Codes, AQMD, EPA, FEMA, SMARA State, Federal and County Flood Control Regulations, Wildlife, Fish and Game Manuals and laws, Army Corps of Engineers Regulations, Federal Mining clean up documentation and regulations, State and Federal Natives Peoples sensitivity information and Rights documents, State and Federal Dam Inundation Rules and Regulations, oversight and safety issues, copies of the existing City and County agreed Plans for the area which should include copies of the Greenway Plan, the East Orange Plan the Santiago Creek Plan and the OPA Plan, a copy of the Orange General Plan with the 2010 plan io updated areas zoned for Multi-family Zoning highlighted in neon currency green for them. While I tried to be complete with my concerns as one who has served on ;ommunity committees dealing with Salem Schools expansion, OPA's Real Estate Committee since the Fieldstone plan back in the late 90's to current issues including Ridgeline, The Cemetery, Salem again, and other issues I am aware of my limitations. I also sat on the `Grindle' Coalition until the schisms and politics of Ridgeline rendered it less than a lackey for the Developer's interests. While I am not an expert on all CEQA and all these issues that must be addressed, I see a deeply flawed project with a poorly done DEIR that should be discarded to start over. I find that it is a serious shortcoming that the DEIR process does not have a detailed, delineated form that ensures that all issues are fully met and addressed prior to submission. It is appalling that City Staff has to do and re-do the work of the developer and that it requires citizen vigilance and intervention to protect the public. 57.19 In the 50's when I lived a few doors from Bristol in southwest Santa Ana, bean fields and cow pastures were all you could see for miles to the west. South of Delhi, now Warner Road it was open fields to where Harbor intersects Newport in Costa Mesa until into the 60's. I do not long for those days. However, then, there was seemingly unlimited miles of buildable property in the County. Today, with some exception in South County, essentially with the entitlements approved City and County wide, Orange County is basically built out. Here in Orange with its Recreation and Parks shortfall there is almost no land left to make it up. The Sully site was planned �nd could still be cut to fit some of that need. The fees in lieu of land deal that finished Grijalva but stole park space from the Irvine land in the East still leaves a stench in the air. Politics, developer money and compromise have left some deep wounds on the landscape. Before the gavel is dropped and land designated as open space destined for parks in Orange is forever lost it may be worthwhile to pause and look at what Orange gets with the ill-fitting, risk overrun, impossible to correct, un-mitigatable, toxic time bomb we are discussing. ORANGE GETS PROBLEMS. In the Traffic section the DEIR notes that the City is responsible for the Streets. Is it not the City's responsibility to require that the Developer in creating future impacts creates compensate the City for the additional time and road enhancements the Developer's Project will thrust on the area? I reacll many hours of nexus discussions in Planning and Council meetings when the Irvine Company sought approvals. I understood that mitigation may mean dollars from developers to make improvements. This project has huge potential liabilities and dangerous egress issues. When the s�.2o cumulative effect of approved projects and potentials created by the massive over population per square acre asked @ Rio are put together Santiago Canyon Road from the 55 to Jamboree will become a giant parking lot. That is if the Project is approved. Since the Developer sees it as the City's problem the City needs to acknowledge the problem and deny the Project. Unless the Developer provides full and responsible nitigation for the enormous problems it creates for its future residents, the surrounding communities and Cities (Villa Park and Anah. Hills) and the already existing 100 of thousands of Commuter trips per day it looks like the Developer is �� asking the City to realize that the proposed project is bad for the City, its now and future residents and should not be approved. There are no entitlements save a small section of R-1 zoning North of the Santiago Creek on the site subject property. The property was bought in 2008 'AS IS' with knowledge of the sites defects, encumbrances, hazards, proximity next to a closed and hazardous landfill with the potential methane and other toxins migrating to the site property. Representatives of the current property were involved in the same meetings, discussions and risk assessments that were part of the Fieldstone effort to develop the 57.� site. A poor decision to purchase outright, land slated for Open Space, with all the warts and defects hazards, risks, environmental sensitivity and overwhelming impacts to the City, its surrounding Communities and the sole responsibility of the Developer. No further entitlements should approved until after Full and Proper mitigation for all the known and unknown risks hazards and issues have been truly mitigated. None of the 4 Plans that were previously Adopted, Approved or Accepted such as the Orange City Council Approval of the Santa Ana/Santiago Creek Implementation Plan as noted in the following May 18, 1976 Council Meeting..... Please note the attachment above for minutes of the 18 May 1976 Orange City Council Meeting approves/adopts the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek 'plan'. Nor the OPA Plan, the East Orange Plan or the Greenway Plan should be corrupted, removed or cut from the property's conditions or approvals. The City General Plan when updated was set set with the current Resource/Open Space designations as correct. Thus it is and thus it should remain. 5�2 It is time for Orange to hire unbiased, qualified engineers. Mining, Bridge, Hydrology, Geology, Landfills (toxicity mitigation and clean up), Air Quality, Water Quality, Dam Safety, Flood Control, Toxic Ground and Ground Waste Engineers need to be consulted and report on this site. In addition, experts in Ecology, Endangered Species, Fire Safety, Noxious and Explosive Gas, the Light and Noise fields need to be consulted and weigh Orange's Traffic Engineers need to really research and estimate the cumulative effects of currently entitled projects and what compounding effects this proposal would create. This all needs to be Done before the first DRC meeting is scheduled. Filled body bags are not what this development should give in return for approvals to build in Orange. Thank you, Charles Leffler 10693 Orange Park BI. Orange, Ca. 92869 714 538 6350 12 1�2 � Page 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 18, 1976 IN RE FEES FOR CARNIVALS AND SPECIAI. EVENTS: The City Manager remarked that the Jaycees would li.ke to be present at the discussion on carnival and speci,al events fees. Councilman Peraz announced the President of the Jaycees had requested a con- tinuance so they may offer other alternatives. , .. Moved by Councilman Perez, seconded by Councilman Barrera, and duly ��,'� adopted, consideration of fees for carnivals and special events was conCinued to the meeting of June 8, 1976, per request of the Jaycees. IN RE SCHEDULE OF PiIBLIC H�ARING ON PROPOSED PRELZMINARY BUDGET - FY 1976-77: The City Manager explained to the new Councilmen Che procedures and schedules which are followed in the preparation of the annual budget. He suggested that the public hearing commence at 4:00 p.m, on June 1. Council discussion ensued relative to the most appropriate time for the public hearing; with a concensus that it should be heard in the evening for citizen participation. i;..: Moved by Counci3.man Perez, seconded by Councilman Beam, and duly \'� adopted, to set for public hearing at 7:00 p.m. June 1, 1976 con- f%�� sideration of the Proposed Preliminary Budget for FiscaJ. Year 1976-77, with the understanding that should budget consideration not be com- pleted at that time, Council may have to carry this matter over to Wednesday night. IN RE APPRCJVAL OF SANTA ANA RIVERfSANTIAGO CREEK GREENBELT PLAN: Associate Planner Norvin Lanz presented a status report on the progress to-date of the Greenbelt and ImplementaCion Plan. Ae indicated on a Greenbelt 5tatus Map the projected developments and on a Development Schedule Map the estimated time for development of the various phases. He further iterated that our staff had developed the overall plan for the City of Orange, City of Villa Park, and the County of Orange and that there had been no remuneration given the City for this work. There was Council discussion whether or not a policy had been con- sidered by the Greenbelt Commission as to maintenance; and the concept of an executive golE course at the Bixby borrow site with the deter- mination that the city cannot assist financially in such a plan and it would have to be done by private investors. In response to a questi.on from Council on whether there was an area large enough for a golf course under fee title, Mr. Lanz remarked that there were approximately 100 acres in the northeast section of the Greenbelt area. Moved by Councilman Perez, seconded by Councilman Barrera, and duly adopted, the report on the Santa Ana River/5antiago Creek Greenbelt Plan was accepted, and Council upheld the recommendations of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Arts Advisory Commission that the City projects be adopted as part of the Greenbelt Plan and that they, be placed in the highest priority as £ollows: 1. E1 Camino Real Park Devel.opment '- }�� 2. Secondary Bike Trails 3. Hart Park Extension 4. Hitching Post at Hart Park 5. Cerro Villa Park 6. Hitching Post in the Upper Trail aC Yorba Park. IN RE FIRE TRUCK IN EL MODENA PARK - TO BE REMOVED: �%'� Moved by Councilman Barrera, seconded by Councilman Hoyt, and duly ;�h" � , adopted, authorization was given to sell to the highest bidder, the`- . '� stripped surplus fire truck presently located in EL Modena Park. IN RE BICENTENNIAL COMNIISSION ANNUAL REPORT - TO BE CONTINUED: The Gity Clerk announced that Mr. Gene Beyer, Chairman of the 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 57 Date: June 28,2013 Charles Leffler Response to Comment 57.1 The Commenter's opposition to the proposed project is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.2 The Commenter's statements related to zoning on the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, related to zoning. The Commenter's statements related to Santiago Creek being a liability are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues from the relation of the comment to speculative City liability concerns or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to former mining operation creating a revised creek course that will correct itself are noted. The Draft EIR evaluated the proposed project based on existing conditions at the time of the issuance of the NOP as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. This comment does not raise CEQA related issue or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to placing residences in a dam inundation area are noted. Please refer to Master Response 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area, including dam inundation issues. In the course of the preparation of the EIR, the City consulted all known references related to the potential odds of seismic activity as a catalyst for dam failure. As of this writing there is no known data that would provide the potential odds of the potential seismically induced failure of one of the above mentioned dams. Therefore, at this time it would be speculative to provide the odds of failure. Please refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, specifically page 5.9-51 regarding Dam Failure for additional information. The Commenter's statements related to liability, negligence, and buyer's rights are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. However, should the City Council contemplate approval of the project, staff will be recommending a condition on the project to such effect: "The CC&R's shall include a disclosure that the site is located in a dam inundation area. The CC&R's shall include requirements for owner notification of the dam inundation risk at the time of sale or transfer of ownership of any property in the project area. The CC&R's shall include City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-383 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses the site specific evacuation plan that the City approves for any and/or all of the Planning Areas which may be above and beyond the provisions of any Project Design Features or 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 noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.3 The Commenter's statements related to City and County plans for the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. 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 57.4 The Commenter's statements related to authority for decisions related to the proposed project and project site are noted. The City provided a Notice of Preparation and a Notice of Determination to all applicable agencies and the State Clearinghouse. A list of agency distribution is available at the City Planning Division. Some agencies such as California Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers do not initiate project review unless approval first occurs. Those approvals would still be required even if the City Council approves the project. The Commenter's opposition to the proposed project is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to the previous project(i.e., Fieldstone),unavoidable impacts related to dam inundation and opposition to the proposed project is noted. This comment does not offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.5 The Commenter's statements related to "plans for his site" are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's statements related to economic justification of property rights are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Page 3-384 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 57.6 The Draft EIR evaluated the proposed project based on existing conditions at the time of the issuance of the NOP as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. The Commenter's statements related to returning Santiago Creek to its "historic natural course" are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including issues related to Santiago Creek. The Commenter's statements related to groundwater impacts are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including groundwater related issues. The Commenter's statements related to potential impacts on the former Villa Park Landfill and the Bond Pit are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. It should be noted that the landfill, a creek coarse, contaminants, chemical reactions and leaching baselines would all occur with or without the project. The DEIR has analyzed the effect of the aforementioned dynamics against additional impacts to the environment caused by the project. Many of the dynamics cited would persist with the no project alternative. The Commenter's statements related to effect of the project on the adjacent landfill are noted. The County is responsible for what occurs from its site. This would include establishing a baseline and determining, if the proposed project affects the baseline. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to water pooling under the buildings are noted. Based on the information presented in the EIR, water pooling under building is not anticipated. Please refer to Master Response 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including groundwater related issues. The Commenter's statements related to compaction and how would it affect methane migration are noted. The County is responsible far the former Villa Park Landfill. The Commenter's statements related to effect of the project on the adjacent landfill are noted. The County is responsible for what occurs from their site. This would include establishing a baseline and determining, if the proposed project affects the baseline. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-385 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's opinions related to City's qualifications to evaluate the proposed project are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter has not provided any data to support in change in this analysis. The Commenter's statements related to the effect of potential methane mitigation on groundwater are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to potential subsidence are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5. 6, Geology and Soils related to existing geology and soils conditions, the related geologic hazards on the project site, and analysis of the potential effects with implementation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures, when applicable, to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after implementation of mitigation measures. The Commenter's statements related to hydrated soil eroding and allowing Santiago Creek to relocate are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5. 6, Geology and Soils related to existing geology and soils conditions, the related geologic hazards on the project site, and the potential effects with implementation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures, when applicable, to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after implementation of mitigation measures. Additionally, please refer to Master Response 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to what would happen to the Bond Pit water quality are noted. The proposed project impacts on surface and groundwater are provided in the Draft EIR in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Additionally,please refer to Master Response Section 2.4,Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including groundwater related issues. The Commenter's question related to the Bond Pit after the changes made by the project have been in place...5, 10 or 15 years are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including groundwater related issues. Based on this data no impact on water quality at the Bond Pit would be anticipated. The Commenter has not provided any data to support in change in this analysis. The Commenter's questions related to the City's understanding of the long term effects of the proposed project are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to the City being prepared for pollution of the Bond Pit and the aquifers are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its Page 3-386 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to the City protecting and insuring, and insured the residents against the impacts and negative effects and damages from this project are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues ar offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to water issues being above the City's skill set and requiring State and Federal Agencies to make determinations as to water quality, dam safety, mining land recovery criteria are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to a complete list of all County, State and Federal Agencies to be contacted is noted. Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR. The following is a list of other additional agencies that are expected to use the Draft EIR for their review of the project and the project component under their review and approval: • County of Orange, Resources & Development Management Department - potential for incorporation of one of the proposed on-site regional trails into the County's Master Plan of Trails and potential for incorporation of Planning Area A into Santiago Oaks Regional Park • Orange Sanitation District-to provide wastewater and sewer to the project site • Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)- for Section 401 certification • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)- review for consistency with Air Quality Management Plan • State of California, Department of Fish and Wildlife — for issuance of Section 1602 and 2081 permits • United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)—for issuance of Section 404 permit • United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)—for Section 7 consultation The Commenter's question related to oversight,jurisdiction, monitoring, and management skills at each Agency are noted. The Commenter's questions related to Santiago Canyon Road, streets, and homes if saturation causes subsidence are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality specifically Threshold HWQ-B and Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water qualiry from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including groundwater related issues. Overall the Commenter's questions relate to concerns with geology and soils. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geology and Soils related to existing geology and soils conditions, the related geologic hazards on the project site, and the potential effects with implementation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures, when applicable, to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after implementation of mitigation measures. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-387 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 57.7 The Commenter's statements related to ground water saturation issues at an off-site location at a distance away are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including groundwater related issues. The Commenter's question related to the potentials, risks, and safety factors are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Overall the Commenter's questions relate to concerns with geology and soils. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geology and Soils related to existing geology and soils conditions, the related geologic hazards on the project site, and the potential effects with implementation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures, when applicable, to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after implementation of mitigation measures. The Commenter's questions related to risk approval at the City are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to indemnification to the City, future property owners, and neighboring properties from the project applicant are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to the City and citizens taking on risks for the benefit of the developer are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.8 The Commenter's opinions related to wiping out existing plans and open space designations for development of an over built high density project on ecologically sensitive, dam inundation risk, altered creek bed watershed that feeds a drinking water reservoir and flows to the Santa Ana and then Pacific should be a no starter are noted . Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space related to open space concerns. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12 Biological Resources related to ecological sensitivity. Please refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR Page 3-388 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses specifically page 5.9-51 regarding Dam Failure for additional information. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4,Hydrology related to the proposed project and flood and dam inundation. The Commenter's opinions related to proposed project that it destroys too much for too many and in return gives only high density, traffic, visual and noise pollution while putting future homeowners in a flood risk dam inundation area that cannot be properly mitigated are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to upholding the General Plan, OPA Plan, Greenbelt Plan, East Orange Plan and Santiago Creek Implementation Plan. The Comment "Reject the Rio Santiago Development Plan" are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the proposed project and the surrounding Community Character. Please note that the proposed project as a significant unavoidable impact related to aesthetics. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traff c and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c related to traffic issues. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Communiry Character related to the proposed project and the surrounding Community Character. Please note that the proposed project has a significant unavoidable impact related to aesthetics. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12,Noise related to noise issues and concerns. Please refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR specifically page 5.9-51 regarding Dam Failure far additional information. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology related to the proposed project and flood and dam inundation. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's statements related to existing plans and open space designations are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's statements related to egress, one road access in and out for potentially over 1000 residents, or need assistance, living in a high density high rise faciliry, families in the East portion, first impact area, plus perhaps 200 day users in a flood, dam inundation and fire risk site surrounded by a methane leaking former landfill on the West, a steep creek embankment on the North and a fortress walled community on a hill to the East with a berm and walled obstruction to the South are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services related to fire risk and services at the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to increase in traffic. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4,Hydrology related to the proposed project and flood and dam inundation. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geology and Soils related to the proposed project and soils. Please note that the Draft EIR discusses at length impacts from a dam failure (starting on Page 5.9-53). The Draft EIR states that in a highly unlikely circumstance a dam break were to occur, the project site would be in the path of inundation that would cover the majority of the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have the potential to be in the path of inundation were a dam break to occur. The Draft EIR provides mitigation measures (MM HWQ-1 and MM HWQ-2) City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-389 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Additionally, PDF PS-4 requires that prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, the project applicant shall submit to the Police Chief or designee, and Community Development Director or designee, a Construction Phase Emergency Access Plan. PDF PS-5 requires that prior to the approval of the grading plan or issuance of the first grading or building permit, the project applicant shall submit to the Police Chief or designee, and Community Development Director or designee, an applicant funded Operations Emergency Access Plan for on-going proposed project operations showing all proposed means of emergency access for both police and other emergency personnel into and around the proposed project. Additionally, PDF HAZ-8 requires that individualized Emergency Evacuation Plans (EEP) shall be prepared for each planning area by the project applicant to the satisfaction of City Emergency Responder Department reviewing Staf£ The EEP shall be based on initial anticipated occupancy of the planning area. The EEP shall be reviewed and revised every five years or when a significant change in structure use occurs within a planning area. The EEP shall be reviewed by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works and approved by the Police and Fire Departments prior to the occupancy of the first structure in each individual Planning Area. Even with implementation of the recommendations in the EEAS, it would not be possible to completely eliminate the risks associated with potential dam failure. The project design component for mitigation to dam break failure has been considered and it is concluded it is unfeasible to raise the site grading to a level that would mitigate this significant unavoidable condition. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would not reduce the potential impact (Impact HWA-1) and this potential impact remains a significant unavoidable impact. This is because no mitigation measure can completely eliminate the risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Further, future property purchasers or occupants will be informed that flood insurance is available to insure their properties against loss in the event of inundation from a dam break and purchasers or occupants are encouraged to purchase such insurance policies at their discretion. The disclosure would state that the project lies within the inundation zone and that emergency response plans are in place and if needed would be implemented. The notification would be made through escrow instructions at the time of purchase or sooner as needed and would be attached to the proposed project as a condition of approval prior to occupancy. Based on the City's General Plan Safety Element,these dam facilities are maintained and safety-inspected to ensure that risks are minimized; the information provided in Draft EIR, Appendix G, Geotechnical Investigation suggests that only a very low risk of catastrophic failure exists considering the past favorable dam inspection reports, the remote location of active faults in the area and the factor of safety and stringent design criteria used in modern dam design and construction; and, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM HWQ-1 and MM HWQ-2, the potential impact would be reduced; however, not to a less than significant level. Therefore, this would remain a significant unavoidable impact due to the potential for a significant risk of loss, injury, ar death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2, the proposed project impact(Impact HWQ-1)remains a significant unavoidable impact related to being in the path of inundation were a dam break to occur. Page 3-390 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's questions related to the proposed project being designed for a Disaster Movie Script are noted. This comment does not raise new CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to the number of lives the City is willing to risk to make a buck are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to lowering standards on air, rail and vehicle travel, removing seat belts, child seats, drinking while driving, and phone use while driving laws; if they will better serve the Developers bottom line are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues for the project or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to the project site having serious problems in and surrounding inadequate egress for emergency uses having a multiplier effect on the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic related to traffic issues. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to nowhere in the surrounding area to the project site were there ever or are there now any 3 story commercial/multi-family units or commercial buildings planned, permitted or built and that the 3 story senior units are most properly identified as apartments, multi-family units are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's statements related to the change in zoning in this area to accomplish these results in spot zoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.53, Physically Divide an Established Community related to zoning and particularly spot zoning. The Commenter's statements related to the 80,000 sq. ft., 40,000 sq. ft. footprint multi use commercial/recreation building also resulting in spot zoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, related to zoning. The Commenter's statements related to the proposed project not fitting the single family residential and rural residential nature of the surrounding communities are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the proposed project and the surrounding Community Character. Please note that the proposed project as a significant unavoidable impact related to aesthetics. The Commenter's statements related to no Spot Zoning are noted. The Commenter's statements related to the City already having Spot Zoning problems it is trying to rectify are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to zoning and spot zoning. The Commenter's statements related to creating new problems are not just unwise. It is against current Ciry standards and guidelines for development are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to denial of the Rio Santiago Plan are noted. The Commenter's opposition to the proposed project is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues ar off new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-391 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 57.9 The Commenter's statements related to the previous Fieldstone development plan of the Sully Miller site are the underground vapor barrier, monitor and warning system plan at the west end of the project site abutting the former Villa Park Landfill/Methane producing site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to the proposed project and the Villa Park Landfill. The Commenter's statements related to meetings and records reviewed at the time of the Fieldstone project are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to personal observations related to methane escaping as far away as the tree wells on the south side of Santiago Canyon Road across from the former Villa Park Landfill site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to testing and agencies involved and making recommendations for the oversight and mitigation of risks from the methane leakage are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to residences in Jamestown, south of the former Villa Park Landfill site testing and test results are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to the distance east of the former Villa Park Landfill site between the bedrock and newly re-compacted dirt for methane travel in 1, 3, 5 or more years are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to how long will methane leach from the Villa Park Landfill site and when will it peak are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to other toxins present at the Villa Park Landfill site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to airborne toxins from the Villa Park Landfill site is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to water Page 3-392 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses soluble entering the water supply via the Bond Pit as a result of changes to the conditions at the Sully Miller site with the proposed development are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to the health hazards to residents living downwind of the Villa Park Landfill site when these changes in the topography occur are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to the effect of high or low rainfall and ground saturation have on the air and water borne toxins migration is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's questions related to the health risks and fire/explosion potentials from the methane and or other toxic gases that exist and are escaping the former Villa Park Landfill site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to measures taken to modify or eliminate leakage (such as the vapor barrier) push the methane towards existing communities where it may be impossible to rectify the situation without huge costs and loss of property and property values are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 23,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to the responsible entity if Mabury Ranch was inundated by methane leakage and problems are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to City responsibility for problems with site development are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to bonding requirements of the project applicant for potential health, life and property loss due development of the project site are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to the City retention of experts on the risks, issues, mitigation, and liabilities attendant to the methane and other toxic gas leakage that exists surrounding the former Villa Park Landfill are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-393 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 57.10 The Commenter's statements related to the project applicant's due diligence are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to personal observations related to the Fieldstone planning process are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to the location in the Draft EIR of inethane and potential risks to existing neighborhoods from mitigation for the development are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to the domino effect of risk/damage/loss from the changing the topography, aeration capability, and migration potentials for methane and other toxic substances existent and escaping from the former Villa Park Landfill site are noted. The County is responsible for the former Villa Park Landfill. The Commenter's statements related to effect of the "domino effect" are noted. The County is responsible for the former Villa Park Landfill. Therefare, the County is responsible for the control of any methane from the former Villa Park Landfill. The Draft EIR did not determine that methane from the former Villa Park Landfill was impacting the project site. Additionally, even if proposed project grading did change methane patterns, it would be the responsibility of the County to control property so as to not impact adjacent properties. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, HazaYds and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's opposition to the proposed project is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to SCE with a peak energy savings plan and California being short on power, water, heavily congested roads and highways during peak hours are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.17, Utilities and Services Systems related to the proposed project and available infrastructure. The Commenter's statements related to the City essentially being built out are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to remaining sites like the old Sully Miller property not being planned for development for the reason of too many liabilities and constraints are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to sites being the only hope for making up the parks shortage and Page 3-394 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses although other Cities and Counties in the State have adopted low or no growth measures in an effort to keep pace with infrastructure and resources the City is faced with developers looking to maximize land use with multi-family units that overrun roads and resources are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation and Draft EIR Section 5.15, Recreation related to the proposed project and parks. The Commenter's statements related to power, water, sanitation, police, fire, recreation, being squeezed to add more units in less space are noted. Please note that the proposed project would be required to pay offset impact fees. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to roads when the Irvine Company Santiago Hills Phase II sees the dollar signs large enough to begin construction are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to traffic analysis and fair share mitigation of the proposed project. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation and traffic. The Commenter's questions related to the City's consideration of the project benefits are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.11 The Commenter's questions related to any Orange City Plan are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's statements related to the quality of life in Orange are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's opinions related to open space, density, trips per day, and unmitigatable hazards to life and property for future residents as well as current citizens, loss of Open Space, false promise of open space, stream bed responsibility, and risk factors are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Section 2.6, Open Space, Section 2.7, Recreation, and Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Pla�rning, Section 5.15, Recreation, and Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic. The Commenter's opinions related to other recreational opportunities, spot zoned commercial buildings, dam inundation zone, methane leakage risks to the children, and project benefits are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 23, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Section 2.6, Open Space, and Section 2.7, Recreation. Please refer to Draft EIR City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-395 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, Section 5.15, Recreation, and Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic. � The Commenter's statements related to risk reward are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter has not provided any data to support in change in this analysis. The Commenter's statements related to needing or wanting the proposed project related to health, finance and resource risks, losses and dangers created by the proposed project are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter has not provided any data to support in change in this analysis. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Section 2.6, Open Space, Section 2.7, Recreation, and Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, Section 5.15, Recreation, and Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic. The Commenter's statements related to denial of the proposed project are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.12 The Commenter's statements related to the usage of the term "global warming"'being misleading or lead to the idea that the total threat is an arid ar desert condition are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to global climate change being more descriptive of what the global warming effect. In the last 500 years there was the little ice age, which NASA determines as from 1550 to 1850 although other experts date it differently shows that weather anomalies are possible without the causes believed to be at the center of current concerns are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to the potentials vary worldwide are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to flooding may increase or drought may prevail in an area. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to a decidedly cooler spring are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Page 3-396 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 57.13 The Commenter's statements related to evaluation of the comments by the City are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues ar offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to City and County plans are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's opinions related to dense population, mega vehicle trips per day, police and fire expense, light, noise and potential toxic air and water pollution, dam inundation, toxicity, egress and other problems are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to spot zoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to zoning. The Commenter's statements related to contamination risks are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to flood are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including flooding issues. The Commenter's statements related to inundation risks are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4 Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including inundation risk issues. The Commenter's statements related to plans are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's statements related to surrounding established communities and the City are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.14 The Commenter's questions related to City plans are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's opinion related to unavoidable impacts is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to the City accepting the EIR that does not consider the full effects of the project in light of existing entitlements like Santiago Hills Phase II with traffic and impacts are noted. Please refer to Master Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to the proposed project and related project effects on water, runoff, creek flow, traffic, ground water and air pollution are noted. See Master Response Section 2.9, Cumulative Impacts related to comments pertaining to cumulative consideration of potential impacts relating to "water, runoff, creek City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-397 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses flow, traffic, ground water and air pollution." Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to potential risks, hazards, and negatives that will impact the 50,000 plus users of Katella/Santiago including the City of Villa Park, Toll Road, Jamboree Road, and regional parks users are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to what impacts from changes in topography, channelization, runoff, and global weather changes would have on the Bond Pit downstream are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Changes to project site topography are not anticipated to have an effect on the Bond Pit downstream of the project site. No data has been provided that would establish this as a potential project impact. Please refer to Master Section Response 2.4,Hydrology and Flooding related to impacts from channelization and runof£ Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions related to global weather effects. The Commenter's question related to the potential increased sedimentation of the area north of the Katella Bond Pit crossing and increased hillside saturation as water backs up and increased landslide as already occurs impedes or takes out the Bridge are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4,Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to the bridge crossing being out as recently as 1980 are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to 2 previous bridges that were never expected to fail are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related the current traffic count increases are noted. Please refer to Master Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's asks how will the grading, construction, ROMP, compaction, vapor barriers, building weight loads and increased traffic effect the toxic landfill, emissions into ground, water and air, the creek flow after 4000 SH Phase II properties water runoff flows through Handy Creek and meets Santiago Creek at the project site to silt and dam the Cannon ar Katella crossings and creating ponding back up or wash out? The comment is noted. This comment does not raise new CEQA related issues. The DEIR Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation and Traffic, Air Quality, and Cumulative Analysis sections have a mandatory thresholds analysis related to the Commenter's questions. The question/comment does not offer new information related to the proposed project. Page 3-398 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's opinions related to the effects of global climate change on the water flow, flood potential, dam inundation, the toxic landfill problems, and the potential flooding on the proposed project are noted. Global Climate Change, in relation to the project's greenhouse gas contributions and in terms of how global warming would affect the project site is discussed in Technical Appendix H of the DEIR. This opinion requires speculative evaluation beyond the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines. This comment does not raise new CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to the number of body bags needed to prove that the present project is not proper for the project site is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to does it take 1 million, 5 million, or 25 million dollars in property damage and loss to prove that the proposed site has too many risks and problems to be suited for the proposed development are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement related to it being unsuitable for any permanent structures to be on the project site with global weather changes is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to what will happen with the level of the ocean rising affecting ground water levels are noted. This question requires speculative evaluation beyond the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions and comments related to aquifer re-charge, water supply, monitoring, not raising levels so much as to inundate low lying homes and businesses are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area including groundwater related issues. The Commenter's question related to Bond Pit re-charge of the aquifers with water runoff stored is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. Additionally,please refer to Responses to Comments 57.6, 57.9 and 57.14 above. The Commenter's questions related to changes in the sea levels or changes downstream are noted. This opinion requires speculative evaluation beyond the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to the Bond Pit, past flooding, past property damage, potential landslides, potential road flooding/removal, potential destabilized slopes, cliff face erosion, risk potentials, mitigation and financial responsibility, re-routed traffic, effects on residents and commerce global weather changes, creek re-routing, compaction, runoff, absorption, and load changes are noted. The DEIR Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation and Traffic and Cumulative Analysis sections of the DEIR have a mandatory thresholds analysis providing CEQA-related answers to the commenter's CEQA applicable questions and comments. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-399 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The questions/comments do not offer new information related to the proposed project and some of the comments are not CEQA related issues. This opinion requires speculative evaluation beyond the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines Responses to non-CEQA related issues are not provided. 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 57.15 The Commenter's statements related to personal observations on the purpose of planning, of CEQA, of liabilities, risks, impacts across the board, mitigation, and proper reason to over-ride minor faults are noted. This comment does not provide specificity or raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to potentials for failure and hazards not addressed in the Draft EIR are noted. This comment does not provide specificity or raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to errors in the Draft EIR not being minor are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to the project not fitting the communities or City are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements that the proposed project is not safe nor an environmental fit are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to health and safeties being serious issues are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues ar offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to the proposed project fit with the surrounding communities is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3,Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community and zoning. The Commenter's questions related to the City General Plan are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's question related to the East Orange Plan, Greenway Plan, OPA Plan or any existing City and County plan are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's question related to flooding risks, dam inundation risks, and other safety risks being fully and properly addressed, corrected and/or mitigated are noted. Please refer to Master Response 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's question related to the City placing the lives and property of its citizens at risk is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues ar offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is Page 3-400 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final E/R—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.16 The Commenter's statements related to impacts from proposed lighting pollution are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to light and glare impacts. The Commenter's statements related to commercial buildings are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to the designation of buildings as commercial or residential in the City. The Commenter's statements related to high density are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to housing density. Additionally, please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics related to density of the project and surrounding communities. The Commenter's statements related to out of character residences are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics regarding lighting and buildings. The Commenter's statements related to over building egress safety issues and huge traffic impacts are noted. Please refer to Master Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increases in traffic. The Commenter's question related to other issues being corrected is noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.17 The Commenter's question related to safety and impact of the site access/egress being in agreement with the use and flow of Santiago Canyon Road are noted. The Commenter's question related to impacts already entitled but not in operation by SH Phase II are noted. The Commenter's question related to constraints on the westbound route through the City of Villa Park where the road narrows and cannot be widened without eminent domain and destruction of existing homes is noted. The Commenter's question related to freeway access is noted. The Commenter's questions related to protecting surrounding communities from impacts from traffic congestion are noted. The Commenter's traffic questions were analyzed in the DEIR and the impacts have been disclosed. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Tra�c and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's question related multi- family units egress, parking, and traffic are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffzc, related to potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-401 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to the senior designation and units in the proposal not fitting the area are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2,Aesthetics related to community character. The Commenter's statements related to multi-family zoning having greater impacts on traffic, schools,parks, and other issues in significantly greater ways than"senior"units are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to zoning. The Commenter's statements related to senior or multi-family units and the City General Plan, any other plan or the communities in the area are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. The Commenter's statements related to spot zoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, related to 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. Response to Comment 57.18 The CEQA applicable portions of the Commenter's questions have been analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR, Master Responses, and in priar responses to this comment letter. As such, the questions raised do not provide specific information that would lead the City to believe that additional analysis or disclosures are merited. The project would be required to adhere to all other laws and agency requirements cited by the Commenters. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project The Commenter's statements related to the Draft EIR missing more than it addresses and should be handed back with the full current CEQA laws and rulings, State studies of the threat of the rising ocean levels, studies on the health hazards of the former Villa Park Landfill and the dangers of landfills information, copies of the California Health and Safety Codes, Orange County Health and Safety Codes, AQMD, EPA, FEMA, SMARA State, Federal and County Flood Control Regulations, Wildlife, Fish and Game Manuals and laws, Army Corps of Engineers Regulations, Federal Mining clean up documentation and regulations, State and Federal Natives Peoples sensitivity information and Rights documents, State and Federal Dam Inundation Rules and Regulations, oversight and safety issues, copies of the existing City and County agreed Plans for the area which should include copies of the Greenway Plan, the East Orange Plan the Santiago Creek Plan and the OPA Plan, a copy of the Orange General Plan with the 2010 plan updated areas zoned for multi-family zoning highlighted in neon currency green far them are noted. The DEIR addresses all mandatory thresholds of CEQA and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The project would be required to adhere to all other laws and agency requirements cited by the Commenter. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed proj ect. Page 3-402 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—Decem6er 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 57.19 The Commenter's statements related to personal observations related to a "deeply flawed" and "poorly done" Draft EIR that should be discarded to start over are noted. The Commenter's statements related to personal observations related to serious shortcoming that the Draft EIR process does not have a detailed, delineated form that ensures that all issues are fully met and addressed prior to submission are noted. The Commenter's statements related to personal observations that the Commenter is appalled that City Staff has to do and re-do the work of the project applicant and that it requires citizen vigilance and intervention to protect the public are noted. The statements do not raise CEQA related issues ar offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's personal observations related to Orange County development history, the City's built out status, the project site's park potential, in-lieu park fees related to Grijalva, park space stolen from the Irvine land, politics, developer money and compromise are noted. The comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement related to lost open space designated land destined for parks being replaced with an "ill-fitting, risk overrun, impossible to correct, un-mitigatable, toxic time bomb, project is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.20 The Commenter's statement that the traffic section of the Draft EIR notes that the City is responsible for the streets is noted. The Commenter's inquiry about the City's responsibility to require the developer to compensate the City for future impacts created is noted. For the traffic related statements and comments, please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. The Commenter's recollection of Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the Irvine Company sought approvals is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement related to how mitigation may mean dollars from developers to make improvements is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-403 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's opinion that the proposed project has potential liabilities and egress issues is noted. Without factual backing refuting the DEIR analysis, this comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement related to the cumulative effect of approved projects plus the project creating over population per square acre and creating a giant parking lot form Santiago Canyon Road from the I-55 to Jamboree Road is noted. Without factual backing refuting the DEIR analysis, this comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement that since the Developer sees the roads as the City's problem, the City needs to acknowledge the problem and deny the proposed project is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements regarding the project applicant providing full mitigation for the proposed projects impacts are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.21 The Commenter's statements related to hazards are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR related to potential hazards and hazardous effects from the project implementation on the proposed site and its surrounding area. The Commenter's statements related to"Creek Plans" are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to project site entitlements are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's personal observations related to the project applicant are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to previous planning is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues ar offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 57.22 The Commenter's statements related to previous plans are noted. The Commenter's statements that the referenced plans should not be corrupted, removed or cut from the property's conditions or approvals are Page 3-404 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses noted. The applicant has the right to propose changes to the City's General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan. The applicant has a right to propose a Specific Plan for the project area. The City has not made any predetermination on the project and the City did not initiate the application requesting the project. The Commenter's statements statement related to the attached City Council Minutes on May 18, 1976 are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Land Use and Planning, related to adopted plans in the City. This includes the dates the City reviewed and approved adopted plans. The Commenter's opinion related to the City hiring additional consultants for project review is noted. Please note that the Planning Center was retained by the City to review portions of the DEIR. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to the number of body bags needed to prove that the present project is not proper for the project site is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council far consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-405 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 58 Jakki Tonkovich �rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> oent: Monday, July O1, 2013 12:13 PM To; Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman ��; Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio Santiago Project Should Be Disapproved FYI... -----Original Message----- From:J Allison [mailto:ieallison@sbc�lobal.net] Sent: Friday,June 28, 2013 1:46 PM To: Chad Ortlieb; dpauly@villapark.or; jhildenbrand@villapark.ar� Subject: Rio Santiago Project Should Be Disapproved I feel that this project as it is put forward is flawed and has a lot of problems with traffic, safety, landfill gas,flood,fire, financial, recreational and ethical issues. First is the traffic, already traffic is heavy morning and evening on Santiago Canyon Rd/Villa Park Rd and the density of this project would make it intolerably worse. Most of the traffic from the project would be trying to go to or come from the 55 freeway which would take it right through Villa Park causing extreme congestion. I live on a cul de sac off of Villa Park Rd and it is already difficult to nearly impossible to make a left a lot of the time and even to turn right it is 58.1 sometimes a problem with traffic backed up from Wanda almost a half mile to the east. If it gets much worse, I can see hat Villa Park will need to add stoplights at every street intersecting Villa Park Rd just so we can get out of our neighbourhoods. This would then back the traffic up past Hewes to the east, almost back to the project itself. I don't see people going down Hewes to get to Chapman to go the the 55. Also, increased traffic through Villa Park is a real safety concern. During school time,there are kids crossing Villa Park Rd to get to and from Villa Park Elementary, Cerro Villa,Villa Park High School and others and as traffic increases,the chances of someone running a red light or driving in the bike lanes increases substantially, creating an intolerable situation of the safety of our kids, especially from the the older drivers that would be expected from the senior housing and all the traffic to and from a large recreational complex. Another concern is the methane gas from the landfill, since the wind is often from the southwest,wouldn't the gas tend 58 2 to blow over to the multistory senior housing and pool/build up there causing safety concerns for the seniors. Then there is also the issue of the housing being on a flood plain and the likelihood of a flood some time in the future causing property destruction and a safety concern for the residents of the project. 58.3 Approval of the project would seem to put the city at risk financially as the city would likely be sued for approving a project on a flood plain when the floods do happen. Another concern is fire,there seems to be only one exit for project for all residents and if a fire came blowing in from Santiago Oaks park, it seems that it would be a problem for all the residents to be able to get out in time with only one 58.4 entrance and exit. Financially for the city, it seems that this project would be costly as a high density senior residence would require a lot of 58 � city services that the city does not have now and would not receive enough revenue to cover the cost of adding more. �here is also a substantial recreational impact from this project. � Currently many, many cyclists use Santiago Canyon Rd and it will become substantially more dangerous with all the traffic from this project and there is a high likelihood of vehicle/cyclist accidents occurring, especially from the senior facility. It will also make the newly completed Santiago trail section much more dangerous where it crosses Santiago 58�i Canyon Rd at Hewes for walkers, hikers and cyclists. It also seems that as this is an active watercourse, it would require approval from a number of Federal and State agencies such as the U.S. 58 � Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, California Department of Fish and Game and many others before the city could even consider the project. Even more basic is the fact that the developer bought the property knowing the zoning and bought it would that restriction. I believe in property rights but the developer got the property at the price they did because of the restricted rights. Granting the zoning change is basically the city giving the developer millions of dollars for which they are not entitled. If a person in a residential area requested that their property be rezoned to commercial making it worth more, 58.E is the city going to grant their request, I don't think so, so why should the city do so on a larger scale. It doesn't make any logical sense. I will be recommending that the city of Villa Park go on record as being opposed to this project due to the substantial negative impacts to Villa Park. For all of these reasons, I request that this project be disapproved by the Orange City Council. Thanks, James Allison 10371 Kenwick Dr. Villa Park, CA 92861 2 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 58 Date: June 28, 2013 James Allison Response to Comment 58.1 The introduction comment in the first sentence is responded to in Responses 58.1-58.8 that follow. The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to increase in traffic. 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 58.2 The Commenter's statements related to wind direction from the southwest blowing methane gas to the multi-story senior housing and pool/building are noted. Landfill gas naturally vented into the air at a landfill surface is carried by the wind. The wind dilutes the gas with fresh air as it moves it to areas beyond the IandfilL Wind speed and direction determine the gas's concentration in the air,which can vary greatly from day to day, even hour by hour. In the early morning, for example, winds tend to be gentle and provide the least dilution and dispersion of the gas to other areas. Wind direction would not be anticipated to have an effect on potential methane gas migration in the soil. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3,Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to methane on the project site. The Commenter has not provided any data to support in change in this analysis. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 58.3 The Commenter's statements related to flood plain are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology, Subsection 2.4.4, Dam Failure related to the proposed project and the potential of dam failure. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality page 5.9-13, topic Floodplain Mapping related to the proposed project and flood plain status. 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 3-408 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 58.4 The Commenter's statements related to fire are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services related to increase in fire and police load. Additionally, please note that the proposed project includes a Fire Master Plan (Draft EIR Figure 5.8-1, Conceptual Fire Master Plan). Please refer to Section 5.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold HAZ-G and HAZ-H (page 5.8-16 to 5.8-19). 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 58.5 The Commenter's statements related to density correlating to the cost of City services are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services related to increase in public services. 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 58.6 The Commenter's statements related to traffic, cyclists, walkers, and hikers are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Tra�c, related to increase in traffic. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation related to recreation of the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trails 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 58.7 The Commenter's statements related to active watercourse with required approval are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.4, Biological Resources, related to permits required for the proposed project. Additionally, the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Subsection 3.4.10, Other Additional Agencies Expected to Use this EIR, lists other agencies expected to use the EIR for permitting purposes. Please note that the approval by the City of the proposed project is required prior to actions by Resource Agencies. Resource Agencies are provided copies of the EIR and may comment during public review periods. Additionally, the project applicant may begin the Resource Agency review process during the City's review. 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 3-409 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 58.8 The Commenter's statements related to property rights and rezoning the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.3, Physically Divide an Established Community related to the proposed project and the surrounding community 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 3-410 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 59 Jakki Tonkovich From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:14 PM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman <<: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: proposed Rio Santiago development FYI... From: Gaither, Maryann [mailto:Maryann.Gaither �mulex.Com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:39 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: proposed Rio Santiago development Chad, It saddens me to learn of the high-density units proposed in rura� East Orange and yet again no plans for open space. Each year The City of Orange continues to grow but also continues to lose public open spaces. A city needs a place its residents can relax with family and neighbors. It doesn't need high density residential areas, "exclusive, luxury"apartments and crowded streets and schools. 59.1 We have sadly lost our Ridgeline County Club, the SuperSports Recreation area will all too soon be gone to high density homes and now I learn of the Rio Santiago Development. PLEASE help stop the destruction of Orange. I will only list my concerns over the Rio Santiago Development in this email. 1. Traffic! Santiago street even if made into a 6 lane road will have cumulative traffic issues since the Irvine company already has plans for homes on nearby Jamboree. 2. There is no public free open space. I see plans for a privately owned park. 5g.2 3. It will have a trail to nowhere! Why would anyone want that? 59.3 4. The 395 units on 60 acres does not fit into the existing neighborhood. I envision homes that are too ctose and lacking garages to house the owner's cars. There is nothing more unsightly than a neighborhood with the streets packed full of 59.4 cars. 5. Why the Senior Assisted & Skilled Nursing unit? This is nothing more than high density apartments. Also, there are no 59.5 nearby amenities that seniors need. This part of the plan really makes no sense. 6. Then there are the 50 acres of flood space that the developer cannot use and is trying to get the city to take. They are trying to label it as a gift! I think that one very expensive gift! 59.6 Maryann Gaither 132 Caile Alta Orange, CA 92869 1 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 59 Date: June 28,2013 Maryann Gaither Response to Comment 59.1 The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic loss of open space are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and TYaffic, related to increase in traffic. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.6.1, Loss of Open Space related to the proposed project impact on open space. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 59.2 The Commenter's statements related to no public free open space and privately owned park are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.6.1,Loss of Open Space related to the proposed project impact on open space. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.1,Parks related to parks 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 59.3 The Commenter's statements related to trails to nowhere are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail connections 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 59.4 The Commenter's statements related to not fitting into the existing neighborhood and lack of garages to house the owner's cars are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.2, Rural Character/Community Character related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area, including density and 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. Page 3-412 City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 59.5 The Commenter's statements related to high density units and amenities for seniors are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10,Land Use and Planning related to the consistency of the proposed project with adopted plans and programs. The location of commercial and medical services and facilities related to the proposed project is not a CEQA issue. For information only, it can be noted that the nearest commercial center (i.e., shopping opportunity) is located 2.5 miles from the project site. The nearest medical services (i.e., emergency walk-in) are located 5 miles from the project site. Major medical services are provided in the City at St. Joseph's Hospital and CHOC Children's Hospital (7 miles from 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 59.6 The Commenter's statements related to Planning Area A and flooding are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Qualiry, Threshold HWQ-D and Threshold HWQ-I, related to the proposed project and flooding, including Planning Area A. 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. City of Orange-Response to Comments/Final EIR—December 2013 Page 3-413 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 60 Jakki Tonkovich �rom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> �ent: Monday, July O1, 2013 12:18 PM To: Megan Penn;Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico;Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio DEIR questions and observations FYI... From: Charles Leffler [mailto:charlesleffler@ymail.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 4:59 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio DEIR questions and observations City of Orange Planning Department Orange Mayor and Council 28 June 2013 ADDITIONAL LETTER RE: THE RIO DEIR Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document that concerns the health and safety of East Orange and the responsibilities of the City of Orange. Due to the scope and magnitude of concerns I wrote 2 letters that may have some overlap but were intended to fully address the negative factors I am aware of and the serious lack if proper mitigation and agency notification addressed in the DEIR. I apologize if there are repetitions to my other submission but there are new or different observations, questions and concerns in each letter. At the bottom of my 60.1 questions are links and information that pertains to more current landfill standards than we suffer with the closed Villa Park Landfill. The risks are magnified here due to the fact that the VP Landfill was prior to many of the oversights that started being put in place in the 80's and 90's. Some of the risks to homes in the proximity of the Landfill may only be multiplied while a false hope of 'protection' is instilled in the Public by use of Vapor Barriers on .he proposed project site to isolate toxins escaping from the closed landfill. � Creating a false safety valve that is guaranteed to fail as noted in the LANDFILL, HAZARDOUS TO THE ENVIRONMENT pages at the bottom of my perspective will cost the potential Rio home buyers, the neighboring homeowners and the City of Orange huge in health, safety and economic costs. Perhaps you are familiar with California's 10 year construction defect laws? The time runs from the close of sale date on the finished ready to occupy unit. That is 10 years past completion of the project for the skeletons not properly handled while this developer has moved on. Buyers who discover erosion, corrosion, toxic emissions, seepage and then the ordinary and usual construction faults will have time to wonder how this project made it through the Planning and approval Process. Many in the City of Orange have to already seen some of the shortcomings of this Plan for a highly sensitive site adjacent to a valuable water asset that has already been corrupted by 6o t an old improper decision to place a landfill next to a waterway. What is that saying about not defecating where you dine? Later, a recharge pit was constructed downstream. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? How many more errors can be compounded before we are being evacuated from the newest 'Love Canal'? Recently near Norco there were ground and water contamination problems from a business with poor hazardous waste practices. Such practices were spoken of on the old Sully Miller property going back prior to and possibly after such disposal of toxic waste was illegal. Covering the illegal activity with 20 foot of fill does not eradicate the problem. Since no proper oversight was was required with the recent mountains of fill dirt dumped at the Sully mine site we can only start where we are. What toxins, chemicals, pollutants from illegal dumping, the asphalt operation or the concrete crushing operations exist and need to be properly cleaned up from the site? Read a bag of ready mix concretes warning label. Or inhale a few pounds of concrete powder if you do not believe the warning. It is not safe for human consumption. It is an skin and eye irritant and in other words membrane irritant. Sinuses and Lungs are such membranes. I am surprised some enterprising Class Action Legal Group has not rounded up the residents downwind of the site for a real shot at the big time. There may be a legal right to do the crushing 2 operation on the former mine site. That right does not include polluting the air and water or putting the health of people at risk. If people want +hose risks they can take up smoking. However they cannot Smoke in a Public Building or nearly any building or on Public Beaches, so then does the concrete crushing operation have the right to pollute the air and water? Does the City have the experts on Staff to oversee and regulate the operation? Has the City kept the State and Federal Mining agencies involved in oversight? Is Milan culpable as the landowner or is 60.1 the licensee fully responsible? Did the City or is it Now doing its due �°nt diligence and protecting the health and welfare of the Public? What will be the effects of the clearing of the site of the operation? What damage is or will be done to the soil and adjacent creek? Who is setting the standards for reclamation? Who is overseeing it? Who is paying for it? Why has the concrete pile grown 3 fold or more instead of moving constantly off the site if it is in such demand? Is the IRRITANT being used a a negative pry to win public support for the project?. In so doing, is Milan deliberately polluting the air and water, risking the health of the affected neighbors in an effort to get approval of their project? At what ,�oint would such Corporate behavior be criminal? What is a acceptable weapon to coerce public acceptance of Corporate aims? Does the City of Orange recognize, admit and seek a resolution to the problem? Will the crushing pollution be properly mitigated prior to and whether or not the project is approved? Keeping in mind, Recycling was hardly a thought at the time of the Villa Park Landfill's operation. During the War, OK, but in times of plenty. sorry. The chemical and toxin make up of current landfill operations is merely a shadow of what may exist in the old Villa Park landfill. The fact that the site abuts a Creek is a enormous concern. The situation with that Creek not only flowing to the Ocean only after settling 60.2 in the Bond Pit which reloads the Aquifers on which many in the North County draw on for Drinking Water is insane. All the recent dirt moving at the Sully Miller site may have already seriously impacted the landfill. Since no study was done and no base line was done due to the City's non expert approval and no oversight of the process leaves questions as to where we stand now and what the future impacts on the surrounding area will be as well as what the risks for the Bond Pit and 3 Water Supply. High Cancer rates in the East Orange area have been questioned for years. Many questions have been raised as to a possible link between the OPA Water, now IRWD service and water drawn on the Bond Pit area aquifers. What the City does not know may adversely affect generations. The City needs to get all the studies and answers before approving anything at the Sully Miller Property. Please read all the data from all the links provided and include them as part of the Rio DEIR questions to be answered. The health and safety of the Public is part of the City's trust. The landfill belongs to the County and therefore the County, State and Federal Agencies need to have awareness and input. County, State and Federal guidelines need to be fully understood, addressed and followed. On another note, during the operation of the Sully Miller Hanson operations there was settling ponds that were rumored to be 'private 60, dump sites' for discarded vehicle batteries, used oil from equipment oil changes and other toxic materials. My information is all second hand but it is up to the City to contact and handle the situation with State Mining and or Federal agencies. I have heard that some group wants to help Orange Unified with a potential school site at the project site. Seriously, with the Landfill and Private Dumping, Dam Inundation and Sinkhole Potential on top of the Egress issues maybe Orange Unified should consider making use of their existing Peralta site....but in no way should the Sully Miller Property a School Site. Toxins in the ground, air and water, sinkhole potential, dam inundation area....what a waste of taxpayer dollars and a risk to our children. All the information below including all links pertain to some of the current 'think' on LANDFILLS. The Sully Miller site needs serious investigation by competent third party oversight. The hazards of the landfill, illegal 'private dump sites' and water contamination coupled with 25 year, 50 year and 100 year flooding compounding with the dam inundation risks are all huge factors that have not been properly considered and handled or mitigated. The real risk of sinkhole or subsidence putting lives and property requires real geological and 4 hydrological investigation and mitigation. If anything like the proposed retaining wall buried and back filled as proposed in the Fieldstone �roposal were attempted, what would be the risks to Mabury Ranch as a torrent of water after time exposes the concrete careens into the Northern Bank. For every action there is a reaction. Did you see the damage to Green River Golf area after years of no problems when it flooded some years ago? It is not a matter of will a flood occur it is a matter of when will it occur? If no full and proper mitigation is possible who will guarantee the Insurance of these properties? Will Milan be required to post bonds? Will the City indemnify the home buyers because It decided it was more knowledgeable than all the experts who have studied hydrology and geology and the Government studies that indicate flood plains, flood zones and dam inundation areas? This site has all 3 strikes against it on those items alone. Add the methane and toxins plus whatever other toxic, greenhouse and noxious gasses, the woefully inadequate Egress, violating Spot zoning laws, and violating the trust of 3 or 4 County and City Plans for the Area with an improper development that is not in character with the surrounding communities 60.2 �nd it seriously looks like it is time to STOP... and Start Over. �°nt There is a serious problem with the proposed Senior Units. The designation Senior is nice if you want to say there will not be 10,000 more car trips as they will be too heavily sedated to drive. The fact is the approval will be for Multi Family Zoning and thus should have parking, egress and air pollution consideration for how many average people could occupy those 265 units. At 3 persons per unit that would put 795 people in the multi family units alone. That would raise the 395 units to between 1200 and 1400 bodies with maybe 1000 vehicles with at least some teen drivers. Egress? The place will look like the 55 Freeway at rush hour in the morning and evening peak periods. Now how do all those vehicles merge with the 4,000 homes with 12,000 vehicles and 50,000 trips per day that Santiago Hills Phase II is already approved for? Why is there no study of and mitigation for the compilation of impacts that this potential and already approved projects will have on the quality of life? The air, water, power and ecological �mpacts of the Whole needs to be considered for real planning. How many PCBs, how much hydro-carbon and other pollutants will run from 5 the storm drains to the Santiago, to the Santa Ana and into Bond Pit? How much in overflow will run to the Pacific? What are the multipliers in damage to our local drinking water and pollution of our coastal wetlands? What would 500 kids in the area require of our school system? One expects that all the mineral resources were stripped away before the previous owners sold of the property. What about the Water and habitat. The 'protection' offered by giving the Trojan Horse of Creek responsibility and Maintenance to any qualified agency willing to accept it is really in question. people will Give You Their Problems one old horse trader once taught me.....what you do is give that horse, car or piece of property a bath or a coat of paint and some other tweeks and then Sell it and move on. Is the City going to be Responsible to the future buyers of this property for the Zoning it gave with out real and proper Ecological, Geological, Hydrological, Inundation, Ground, Air and Water Pollution from both an existing Closed Toxic Landfill with methane leaking and no one knows what else just upwind from the proposed site, the illegal dump sites at the property itself, the decimation of habitat and potential run off from vehicles not properly accounted for in the DEIR to the Nexus of the impacts from 4000 already approved units to the East? What will be the expense to Orange for the traffic? What about Police, Fire and Paramedics? On the one hand having had a couple elder family members in local Senior 'homes' I know first hand that Paramedics with the attendant Fire truck entourage were frequent visitors to the 160 bed unit we had family at. Do you know that according to LAFD stats, over 80% of Fire Department responses are Paramedic calls. How does that statistic jump with the Senior Facility? Is this the burden of the Citizens of Orange or the people making a 60.3 profit from these types of projects or running them for profit? Hotels pay a bed tax in most cases what is the policy on these Senior Units? If the units become basic multi family units without the Senior tag, HOW DO ALL THE IMPACTS CHANGE? The fact that multi family units would be spot zoning, not fit the nature and character or aesthetics of the surrounding area aside...how would the pollution, traffic, egress, health, safety, biological, geological, hydrological, air quality, water quality, 6 dam inundation, noise, population, Police and Fire.Paramedic costs, Population, Recreation, utilities and Service System be changed, �Itered, taxed, or different? What does this proposal take from the Quality of Life, the peaceful enjoyment of one's property, the Communities of East Orange? And since almost nothing is mitigated in this seriously deficient DEIR is there anything Orange gets from this proposal other than drain on its Police and Fire Departments, ecological havoc, pollution, traffic, and numerous risks to life limb and property? On existing Plans that are in Place that include the Sully Miller Hanson now Rio property over 56 acres of the proposed development property sits within the OPA Plan area. Those acres include all the area slated for housing on the East of B St as well as the 'Senior' planned multi family units on the South West of B Street area. This Plan has been in place since 1973, was created by the City, County and Residents in Co-operation and limits to 1 Acre lots any subdivision. The site was designated Resource/Open Space however, if developed under the OPA Plan the 1 Acre Lot Minimum is required. Trashing that Plan and undoing the 1 Acre designation is a dangerous precedent. It obs the existing Communities of value and trust in the covenants and agreements that hold our Cities together. This may not have been understood and considered fully in the past dealings with this property so.4 but it needs full consideration Now. If the OPA Plan is Extinguished for the benefit of the holder of 50 acres how is that not the Right of every property owner currently under the Plan? Does 5 acres of ownership allow withdrawal from the a Community Plan or is 1 acre sufficient? What is and where is equal Protection Under The Law? If Milan can remove its 50 acres from the Community Plan then ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, WITH EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR AND IF GRANTED TO MILAN BE GRANTED ZONE CHANGES COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT IS BEING GRANTED IN THIS REQUEST. This sets a precedent for for serious damage to some of Orange's 'protected' Communities. If by buying a City block and being granted zoning and approvals a quadrant of Downtown Orange could be transformed form Orange, to High Rise �A without consideration of General, Community and Specific Plans by just asking and receiving exemption or nullification of the Plan for that � section of the property, where are the Rights of those who live under the plan. Where is the equality? Why have a General Plan, Community or Specific Plan if it only requires X amount of dollars by a handful of investors to extinguish and decimate the Covenants, Agreements, and Community that hold thousands of people for many decades in a Community? And again, if one individual or group is granted these changes, under the LAW, All deserve equal consideration, benefit and zoning changes. If these existing Plans are ignored for the benefit of 60.4 this developer how is it not immediately applicable that every landowner �ont. has a commensurate zone change and upgrade to multi-family or commercial use if they so desire. With the Spot Zoning asked for how is it that my neighbor cannot next week join with some such developer scheme and open a new South Coast Plaza in the heart of Orange Park Acres? Theoretically the City with it's General Plan, good planners and wise Council holding the line on development in the City woutd uphold the vision of the People of Orange. That vision is in the General Plan, the Community Plans and the hearts and minds of the people who live in Orange. Is it only a matter of dollars to trump all that? I do not believe the recent Referendum, Ballot and court battles over Zoning indicate that the people of Orange are behind the current Development mood. When will the Voters of Orange be heard and actually listened to? What are the current impacts from the Toll Roads on Chapman and Santiago Canyon through Villa Park Road to Katella? How many people avoid tolls by running through our Community in the East to catch Cannon to cut over to Anaheim or shave some time off the 55 drive to Corona and beyond? I have stood at B Street and Santiago at peak traffic periods many, many times and seen the back ups that 60.5 occur at Cannon from both directions. I see the NO Turn signs into Villa Park from Cannon to ward off the faint of heart. I understand These are Public Roads. However the impacts that are coming with the 4,000 units in Santiago Hills phase II have not be factored in. Where is the real data as to what the impacts of the current recession era traffic will be with East Orange completed and the real potentials for the proposed. Rio development? Is it possible to say that traffic impacts cannot be fully or properly mitigated and therefore the project just gets a $ PASS? The truth is this project will impinge on existing traffic hugely. Cannon will become a constipated mess. Villa Park will be over run with ~�eople seeking shortcuts. Orange Park Blvd and Newport will become super hi-way connections at great risk to residents and animals. Closure of Orange Park Blvd at Frank St should be considered. If you have ever witnessed Orange Park Blvd when Santiago Canyon traffic was diverted due to an accident at Dead Man's Curve you would have some idea of potential for disaster. add to that peak traffic, Salem School traffic, 4,000 times 2.5 vehicles per unit and now Rio. How is the existing system going to handle it on a day to day basis. What about extreme circumstances? How will Fire and Rescue vehicles and operations be able to do their job in an actual emergency? How many people will suffer or die and who would be responsible? How will the asked for Development mitigate, pay for and indemnify the Citizens of the surrounding communities and City for the impacts of their project. The Nexus exists, they are situated in the heart of the problem are that will only grow as the Irvine Company actuates its already approved 60.5 plans to the East. What are the real impacts of the actual number of ��t. .rips that will be generated by the proposed project? What road improvements will be required at what cost to the developer? What community protections will be created? As with the mandatory Left turn at Taft to Tustin Ave will Orange Park, Jamestown, Meads, Amapola and other key neighborhoods be protected? How will the health. safety and welfare of the tens of thousands of existing residents be provided and even upgraded in the face of these impacts for the benefit of the developers? Come down to Orange Park Blvd at Santiago when Salem is in session at the start of the daily session. Monitor the traffic North and South on Orange Park, East and west on Santiago. Have a near death experience or two and then add Santiago phase II and only Then extrapolate with Real estimate of the potential for multi family dwellings which is the truth of the Senior Units sans seniors and all the other home and 'recreational' stuffed into this site and do the math....lf it does not fit, you must flush it. This project does not fit the area, aesthetics, it ,�equires spot zoning, has huge risks due to the adjacent landfill, private dumping that went on at the site, potential ground, water and air toxins, 9 proximity to habitat that needs protection, native peoples sites that were decimated during countless years of violation and exploitation, serious unresolvable egress issues, strains of local roads and neighborhoods, over building, little or no mitigation, flood and dam inundation risk, pollution of a protected creek and human water reservoir, pollution that runs to the Pacific, huge drain on water, power and other community resources which are in short supply, extreme impacts for Paramedics and local medical resources and more. All of that agter just being a project that just does not fit the hole they are trying to shove it into. The most logical action would be to tell the developer to go back and design a project that fits the existing plans and zoning for the property. Since they have the right to run the course first, the next step appears to be for the City to involve Native's Peoples Advocacy Agencies, Army Corps of Engineers, Wildlife, Fish and Game, Coastal 60.1 Commission (Santiago flows to the Coast and impacts the wetlands), County, State and Federal Ground, Water, and Air Quality Agencies, State and Federal Mining Agencies, County, State and Federal Landfill Oversight Agencies, Dam Oversight Agencies, Flood Control agencies, Superfund Clean Up Agencies, any Waterways Agencies, and figure out what the real risks and potentials are for the limited resources huge liabilities that exist on this property and the adjacent landfill and Bond Pit Recharge Station. Once you know where you really ARE, an actual CEQA, Environmental Impact Report for the property could be done. Another point as to Resources. This Property represents one of the last Open Space designated acreages of its size left in Orange which is seriously short of its Parks Space per Citizen. As Mitigation property for development in a more appropriate area of the City or as a private pay to play operation with City involvement/participation this property should be seriously considered for acquisition by the City or in partnership with the County or some other entity. This touches on a questionable section in this questionable DEIR. A Private, Public Park 60 scenario is expressed. This same developer destroyed a Private, Public Park called Ridgeline in its path to development here in Orange. What protections would this NEW, Private, Public Park have when this or any future developer decided that killing the 'Park' would better serve them financially? This is amazing doublespeak and needs to be openly and �o honestly dealt with. What next? The city will pay for upgrades to a private park? This is a seriously strange position that needs to be ;larified, categorized and legally spelled out. It is vague and misleading and contradicts the stance of Milan on the value of Ridgeline to the community and Orange. Seeing the connection here begs the question of a comprehensive cohesive paln for the 2 properties which Milan controls but maintains the stance that they are separate thus avoiding 60.� the joint impacts to East Orange. The potential impacts of both �o�t. development affect waterways, air and ground pollution impacts streets and roads that are shared and therefore there is a nexus between the 2. The City may not be able to completely join the projects but due to the over riding impacts for the same Streets, communities, roads, major arterials, schools, Police and Fire the City has a responsibility to consider overall impact of the 2 projects and multiply them by the impacts already set in stone with the Irvine Company's approvals. Nothing at Rio should be considered without the connection to and impacts of a development of Ridgeline and neither of these 2 should not approved without being scrutinized against the already agreed but �s yet not material Santiago Hills Phase II impacts. How much easier is it to take the time and extra steps in Planning taking into account the reality of the developments that are on the table and properly mitigate or deny projects than to have to try to undo the results when construction is done? The pages below address some of the available information on current Landfill 'think'. All the pages and all the links if fully opened in this e-mail would not transmit so it will be necessary to open links and copy pages to get the full information that is intended in my concerns on this DEIR. Thank you, Charles Leffler 10693 Orange Park BI Orange, Ca. 92869 ��