The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - APP-0533-14 - PART 5 EXHIBIT C FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ERRATA MITIGATION MONITORING LANDFILLS: Hazardous to the Environment � ■Landfill liners are just 1/10 of an inch thick. SEE: THE BASICS OF LANDFILLS, plus LANDFILL DIAGRAM Also check-out: �►Disposal & Recyclinq Statistics,Maps8�Graphs �MORE PHOTOS ►LANDFILL VIDEO -this takes several minutes to download .--�., _� �,--_ .�� ,.,_ � .. . >• . • � � ....< . -,;. �' '�.. . -�- - . �'�, _ ,... ,..a�s� 4 � .. n��. ` • �.�•, '. �. .� I "..,p'"' �._ , .. ,/ �, ti � ��. : : l 1 _ - �c.'"°t�«. �. � . -— _i. ___.� - -.`- -�n;�+'-".;,r-��P' .� y� . 6 .. .ii' � '� �_� � �� S,. w � � 1 _ . _ i� � � �,,, �m. '� �_ . „r. }� �� __ � � t &„ +.-.� ,� . „ , ,•;;� � - ; � _ ::. �-., ��r.,�.. ��,C'�t 1"... .t. . M ...��;b . ,��A .. - ;K':,`�=."°�'-,�„a�s „r'`�w,,�-�� .rx'"-�r�. ��t ,. � ry� wiiY�w:x ��#a•� . .. � . _,_, -... .6`.m.� .�:1..� _a......... _ . _ . .. ALL LANDFILL LINERS AND LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS WILL FAIL ... "First, even the best liner and leachate collection system will ultimately fail due to natural deterioration, and recent improvements in MSWLF containment technologies suggest that releases may be delayed by many 60.8 decades at some landfills. For this reason, the Agency is concerned that while corrective action rreay liave already been triggered at many facilities, 30 years may be insufficient to detect releases at other landfills." Source• IIS EPA Federal Re�ister,AuQ 30, 1988, Vo1.53, No.168, (scanned document). Check-out Peter Montegue's Rachel's for list of other comments in Federal Re�ister by EPA. SUMMARY The U.S. has 3,091 active landfills and over 10,000 old municipal landfills, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. However, in the good old days, every town (and many businesses and factories) had its own dump. According to the 1997 U.S. Census, there are 39,044 general purpose local governments in the United States-3,043 county governments and 36,001 subcounty general purpose governments (towns &townships). One suspects that there are many more old and abandoned commercial, private, and municipal dumps than the 10,000 estimated by the EPA. Municipal landfills and their leachate (water) and air emissions are hazardous. Municipal landfills can accept hazardous waste under federal law. An unlimited number of'conditionally exempt small generators' of hazardous waste have access to municipal landfills. (See 40 CFR 261.5). All landfills will eventually fail and leak leachate into ground and surface water. Plastics are not inert. State-of-the-art plastic (HDPE) landfill liners (1/10 inch or 100 mils thick) and plastic pipes allow chemicals and gases to pass through their membranes, become brittle, swell, and breakdown. "...82% of surveyed landfill cells had leaks while 41% had a leak area of more than 1 square feet," according to Leak Location Services, Inc. (LLSI)website (March 15, 2000). According to Dr. Fred Lee, "detection in new landfills can be difficult since the only way to know this is detection in the monitoring wells. The likelihood of a monitoring well at a single or double lined landfill detecting an initial leak is very small." Monitoring wells should be located in areas most likely to detect contamination (i.e., testing the ground water after it has passed under the landfill.) See: Subchapter I: Solid Waste. Lined landfills leak in very narrow plumes, whereas old, unlined landfills will produce wide plumes of leachate. Old and new landfills are typically located next to large bodies of water(i.e., rivers, lakes, bays, etc), making leakage detection and remediation (clean-up) extremely difficult. This is due to the incursion of surface water in both instances. Federal and state governments have allowed landfill operators to locate landfills next to water bodies under the misguided principle: Detection by monitoring wells can also be very difficult at lined landfills. Lined landfills leak in very narrow plumes, whereas old, unlined landfills will produce wide plumes of leachate. Ground water flows downstream, or toward nearby lakes and rivers. In some cases, monitoring wells have been located around landfills in areas least likelv to detect leakage (i.e., upstream of the groundwater flow). This is in violation of federal law. See Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Chapter I - Environmental Protection Aqencv, Subchapter I: Solid Waste/ PART 258 (Updated 1997) - Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Adobe PDF). If a landfill is located next to a water body, then the monitoring wells should be located between the landfill and the water; or(if there is no space left), in the water. See� EPA's Ground Water Monitorinq 1z All landfills could require remediation, but particularly landfills built in the last 60 years will require a thorough clean-up due to the disposal of highly toxic chemicals manufactured and sold since the 1940's. See:Remediation and Brownsfields EXPERTS & WEBSITES: • JA 4�ARY 20!}7: "Lynn, I wish to bring to your attention a new paper has been published on the health effects of hazardous chemical sites such as landfills,where the authors have shown an association between proximity to such sites and increased incidence of hospitalization for diabetes. Please find enclosed a recent write-up that I have prepared on this issue, in which I have included discussion of the diabetes paper, as well as an earlier paper on birth defects. If you or others in your group have questions or comments, please contact me." Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Association between Hazardous Chemical Sites and Illness," Report of G. Fred Lee &Associates, EI Macero, CA, January(2007). http�(/www members aal.com/annejleelNazChemSites-I1lness.pdf ALSO: "Ffawed Technology of Subtitle D Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste," Report of G. Fred Lee & 60.8 Associates, EI Macero, CA, December(2004). Updated January (2007) cont http�llwww members aol comlapple272981SubtitleDFlawedTechnPap.pdf This report is a synthesis of about 23 years of work on dry tomb landfills. G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE, AAEE Bd. Cert. Env. Eng. (also expert on construction and demolition debris) G. Fred Lee &Associates 27298 E. EI Macero Dr. EI Macero, CA 95618-1005 Ph 530 753-9630, Cell 916 712-7399 or 530 400-4952 FX 530 753-9956 (Turned on upon request) afredlee(cr�.aoLcom, www.qfredlee.com . Dr. Paul & Ellen Connett, Ph.D. Chemistry,world renown founders of Work On Waste http�//www.americanhealthstudies.orq/wastenot/, 83 Judson Street, Canton, New York 13617. (FYI-The Connets are now concentrating on the fluoride http://www.fluoridealert.orq/). Contact: michael(c�fluaridealert.orq or 802- 338-5577 . v,rww.Rachel.orq -An excellent site. Search for"landfill liners," "landfills,"' etc. o THE BASICS OF LANDFILLS, plus LANDFILL DIAGRAM o Rachel's#37 {08/10/87): EPA SaYs All Landfills Leak o Rachel's#217 (01l23191� WhY Plastic Landfill Liners Afways Fail o Check out# 117 -The Best Landfili Liner: HDPE (lists chemicals that attack liners) • Dennis E. Williams, Ph.D.,founder and president of GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 1326 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 3, P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711, (909)920-0707,formed in 1978 to provide consulting to the ground water industry. Dr. Williams has over 30 years of experience in ground water consulting, specializing in ground water planning, development and management, with specific emphasis on the ground water basins of Southern Califomia.LANDFILLS THAT LEAK • International Geosvnthetics Sacietv&Other Geatechnical Sites & RESEARCH PAPERS 13 oEr.�ets.., SEE: THE BASICS t?F LANDFILLS, plus LANDFtLL DEAGRAM New "WET" Landfills - BIOREACTORS - cause concerns: • National Recvclinq Council By Notice dated April 6, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 18014), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") requested comments and information concerning the design and performance of so- called "bioreactor landfills."We are writing in response to this request on behalf of our client, the National Recycling Coalition, Inc. (the "Coalition"). CARTER, LEDYARD & MILBURN • Government"pro-bioreactor" info: o Environmental Protection Aqencv(EPA) o National Institute of Health {NlH� Health Effects of Landfills: • Rachel's#371 (01106/94): Superfund �umps � Health • Rachel's#226 t03/27/91): Toxic Gases Emitted From �andfills • Rachel's#90 (08/1518$): MSW Leachate As Toxic As Hazardous Waste • Rachel's#69 (Q3/21I$8): Landfillinct Low-Level Radioactive Waste LEAKAGE info: 60.E • �andfills That Leak by Dennis E. Williams, Ph.D founder and president of GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., con 1326 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 3, P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711, (909)920-0707, formed in 1978 to provide consulting to the ground water industry. Dr. Williams has over 30 years of experience in ground water consulting, specializing in ground water planning, development and management, with specific emphasis on the ground water basins of Southern California./ • Rachel's#37 t08110l87): EPA Says All Landfills Leak • Rachel's# 117 -The Best Landfill Liner: HDPE • Mechanisms Of Leakaqe Throuqh Svnthetic Landfill �iner Materials Imperial College, Great Britain • RECYCLING LEACHATE BACK THROUGH A LANDFILL: Based on the available literature, pumping leachate back through a landfill causes increased decomposition, and it seems logical that it would also create a super toxic leachate. In addition, it would most likely accelerate the decomposition of the liner itself, thereby allowing leachate to contaminate ground water at an increased rate. LANDFILL EMISSIONS: • Rachel's#90 08/15/88 : MSW Leachate As Toxic As Hazardous Waste. • Low �evel Radioactive Waste by Judy Johnsrud, Sierra Club. • Rachel's#69 t03/21/88}: Landfillinq Low-Level Radioactive Waste • Rachef's#371 t01/06/94): Superfund Dumps 8� Health • EPA's (CESQGI Paqe - EPA allows an unlimited number of"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste"to dump hazardous waste in municipal waste landfills. • BURNING LANDFILL GAS: o Primer on Landfill Gas as "Green" Energy Pennsulvania Environmental Netwark o Alliance For a Clean Environment(ACE)-This Pennsylvania group has collected a significant amount of information on landfill gas. o TYPICAL CONSTITUENTS AND COMPOUNDS FOUND IN LANDFILL GAS TABLE 1: Typical Constituents Found in Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Gas Component Percent(dry volume basis)* Methane 40-60% Carbon Dioxide 40-60% Nitrogen 2_5��0 14 Oxygen 0.1-1.0% Ammonia 0.1-1.0% Sulfides, disulfides, mercaptans,etc. 0-0.2% Hydrogen 0-0.2% Carbon Monoxide 0-0.2% Trace Constituents 0.01-0.6% " Exact percentage distribution will vary with the age of the landfill. TABLE 2: Typical Concentrations of Some Trace Compounds Found in Landfill Gas Component Mean Concentration (pbV, parts per billion bv volume) Toluene 34,907 Dichloromethane 25,694 Ethyl Benzene 7,334 Acetone 6,838 Vinyl Acetate 5,663 Tetrachloroethylene 5,244 60.8 Vinyl Chloride 3,508 cont Methyl Ethyl Ketone 3,092 Xylenes 2,651 1,1-Dichloroethane 2,801 Trichloroethylene &am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;nb sp; 2,079 Benzene 2,057 SOURCE: G. Tchobanoglous, H. Theisen and S. Vigil, "Integrated Solid Waste Management, Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993. Shown here as reproduced in J.Wilcos, Ph.D., and W.Clister, "Waiting is Over: Landfills Have Clean Air Act Rules," Solid Waste Technologies, March/April 1996. Provided by Dan Knapp of Urban Ore, Berkley, California LANDFILL GAS 8�FIRE INFORMATION: ■ Rachel's#226 (d3/27/911: Taxic GasPs Emitted From Landfills ■ RachePs#69 t03121/88)• Landfilling Low-Level Radiaactive Waste ■ EPA� Air Emissions from Salid Was#e Disposal ■ EPA• Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Waste Manaqement-Draft Warkinu Paper March 1997 Write off for research papers from The University of Kuopio, Eastern Finland: Directory of papers: http•//www uku fi/wwwdata/iulkaisutoiminta/laitoksittain/vmptiet.html ■ Emissions of PCC}Cts, PCDFs and PCBs in waste landfill fires ■ Formation of polvaramatic hydrocarbons and polychlarinated orqanic campounds in municipat waste landfill fires LANDFILL COVER: The EPA allows the use of toxic incinerator ash as daily landfill cover, instead of soil, as the public was originally told. LANDFILL DETECTION: Old, grown-over landfills can be identified by using GRP (Ground Penetrating Radar)or y reviewing county or state aerial photographs that often go back to the 1960's. . 'BUYER BEWARE' of Old Landfills and Cantaminated Property 15 • Open Dumps 8� Litterinq . Illeaal Dumpinq at Epidemic Levels LEAKAGE DETECTION COMPANIES: . Leak Location Services, Inc. (LLSI) • Lonqbore COURT DECISIONS: . Landfill Liability: Court Rulinq Alters Superfund Landscape: This article is from Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection "UPDATE", September 13, 1996. • Landfills 8�Wetlands: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals destrovs wetland protection,Julv 27, 1998. REGULATIONS & EPA SOLID WASTE lINKS: • EPA's 4ffice of Solid-Wa�te l'Solid ltltaste Tapics • NOTE•�he U.S. Code{i.e. statutes), always supersedes CRFs: The Code of Federal Regulations(i.e., regulations). _ • U�,�,Gode�_Solid 1�laste Qispasal • Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)"Pitle�0 Environmg,nta�Pr+�tection/Chapter I: Environmentat Pratection As�encv/Subchapter l: S la id Waste�s ` o P�,12T 25&4UE�dat#d 'l9971-CRl�„�FOR Ml�N1�1PAL S4LID WASTE L�4NDFILLS 6o.f • Search€RA News �aAe _ corr `` NOTE:When looking for information on local recycling and waste disposal, cap your locat municipal government In some cases, the county(or parish)will be your s#arting point. For state and federal information on environmentat issues, including solid waste,visit the following'webpage-E�'A Re�ti+�ns 8 State`Environme�ntal Departments ERA ' =t �NFO � f �� ,� �, �r �� .�.��,��"'z' � �� s,�'a e �a+� �� : �� 4� �.r ��' �y "c€�• � �`T 7^" . . t �k t '� "�� a ' }� ` . . � . �4� F � ��« ��„� a :., ��,�� ` �.� n.nra so+4�t u-ro+r�c� si-�aa�.� .�.u.��o+u� �i_d0'b� wm+nlqOM O Soarce:BMCycit Maqazlrae.AprH 1449 16 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 60 Date: June 28, 2013 Charles Leffler Response to Comment 60.1 The Commenter's statements related to the opportunity to comment on this important document that concerns the health and safety of East Orange and the responsibilities of the City are noted. The repetitions to the other submission, new or different observations, and questions and concerns are noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter makes statements related to links and information that pertains to more current landfill standards than the closed former Villa Park Landfill. The Commenter states that the risks are magnified here due to the fact that the former Villa Park Landfill was prior to many of the oversights that started being put in place in the 80's and 90's. The Commenter states that some of the risks to homes in the proximity of the former Villa Park Landfill may only be multiplied while a false hope of protection is instilled in the Public by use of Vapor Barriers on the project site to isolate toxins escaping from the closed landfill. The Commenter's statements related to vapor barriers creating a false safety valve that is guaranteed to fail as noted in the former Villa Park Landfill, hazardous to the environment pages at the bottom of my perspective will cost the proposed project home buyers, neighboring homeowners, and the City health, safety, and economic costs are noted. The statements and comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. For the record, Vapor Barriers are not being proposed under project structures. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to methane on the project site. The Commenter's questions related to familiarity with California's 10 year construction defect laws are noted. The Commenter notes that this time runs from the close of sale date on the finished ready to occupy unit. Further that this is 10 years past completion of the project for the skeletons not properly handled while this developer has moved on. Finally, those 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. These comments and opinions 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 familiarity with California's 10 year construction defect laws are noted. The Commenter notes that this time runs from the close of sale date on the finished ready to occupy unit. Further that this is 10 years past completion of the project for the skeletons not properly handled while this developer has moved on. Finally, those 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. These comments and opinions are noted. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-431 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to placing a landfill (former Villa Park Landfill) next to a waterway are noted. The Commenter's statements related to not defecating where you dine are noted. The Commenter's statements related to a recharge pit being constructed downstream are noted. The Commenter's questions related to being the only one who sees a problem with these issues are noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's comment related to the number of errors to be compounded before we are being evacuated from the newest'Love Canal' is noted. The Commenter's statements related to the area near Norco, where ground and water contamination problems from a business with poor hazardous waste practices are noted. The Commenter's statements related to such practices were spoken of on the old Sully Miller property (former name of the project site) going back prior to and possibly after such disposal of toxic waste was illegal are noted. The Commenter's statements related to illegal activity with 20 foot of fill does not eradicate the problem 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 issuance of the NOP establishes the baseline for CEQA analysis. At that time it was determined that all potentially hazards and hazardous material that may have been previously on the project site no longer exist. The Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's statements related to alleged improper oversight are noted. The current backfill operation on the project site is under the "oversight" of the City. Please note that the Draft EIR states 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) 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, Backfill Operation. The backfill operation will restore those portions of the project site within the limits of Page 3-432 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — 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. In addition, grading permit(s) will be requested from the City to complete the backfilling of the previously mined portions of the project site, as described below in 3.8, Demolition and Grading Concept. 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. Therefore, as a practical result, 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. (Page 5.10-4 through t 5.10-11 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's statements related to toxins, chemicals, pollutants from illegal dumping, the asphalt operation or the concrete rushing operations exist and need to be properly cleaned up from the site are noted. The issuance of the NOP establishes the baseline for CEQA analysis. At that time it was determined that all potentially hazards and hazardous material that may have been previously on the project site no longer exist. The Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's statements related to a bag of ready mix concretes warning label 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 concrete powder inhalation warnings and not being safe for human consumption, being a skin and eye/membrane irritant, including to sinuses and lungs is noted. The crushing operation on the site exists irrespective of the project. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to class action lawsuits related to the crushing operation, rights of the crushing operation, rights not extending to polluting the air and water or putting the health of people at risk, and providing a smoking comparison are noted. The comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The crushing operation on the site exists irrespective of the project. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-433 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's questions include: 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?" This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The operations that are presently occurring on the project site are described in detail Master Response 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials specifically on Table 2.3-1, Summary of Materials Recycling and Backfill Operations. Proposed project grading is described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The City Staff oversees the operations as outlined in Table 2.3-1, Summary of Materials Recycling and Backfill Operations. The current operations on the project site are not presently reviewed by a "mining agency" as no mining is occurring on the project site. The Commenter's questions related to the project applicant or the licensee being fully responsible for actions on 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 City knowledge presently or now doing its due diligence and protecting the health and welfare of the public is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The operations occurring on the project site (Table 2.3-1, Summary of Materials Recycling and Backfill Operations) are exempt from CEQA in accordance with the City's CEQA Guidelines and Grading Ordinance related to grading permits. The Commenter's questions related to the effects of the clearing of the site of the operation are noted. The Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's question related to damage that has been or will be done to the soil and adjacent Santiago Creek is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12, Biological Resources specifically Figure 5.4-11A, Impacts to USACE / RWQCB Jurisdictional Features•, Figure 5.4-11B, Impacts to USACE / RWQCB Jurisdictional Features; Figure 5.4-11C, Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Features; Figure 5.4-11D, Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Features; and, Figure 5.4-11E, Permanent Impacts to USACE / RWQCB Jurisdictional Features for clarification of the temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands provided to the CDFW. These figures indicate that temporary impacts have been significantly reduced. However, permanent impacts to USACE waters have increased from 0.01 acre to 0.02 acre, which includes 0.05 acre of temporary impacts to wetlands, (and increased by 66 linear feet) based on the most recent storm drain design. Permanent impacts to CDFW/LBV have increased from 0.10 acre to 0.14 acre (and 66 linear feet). Page 5.4-74 of the Draft EIR has been amended to updated Figure 5.4-11, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features. No "damage" to the soil related to the proposed project has been identified in the EIR. The backfill operations on the project site are permitted. Please refer to the information provide above within this response. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the Page 3-434 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses proposed project. The Commenter's question related to the standards for reclamation is noted. The project site is governed by City and State regulations related to reclamation. Please refer to response above for more detailed information. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to overseeing the existing backfilling operations are noted. The City is regulating the backfill operation in accordance with City issued Grading Permit #2047. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to paying for the backfill operation 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 growth of the concrete pile in the backfill operation are noted. The Commenter's question as to if the irritant is being used as a negative pry to win public support for the project is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The crushing operation is an existing use separate from the project. The Commenter's questions related to polluting the air, water, risking the health of the affected neighbors in the backfill operation are noted. It is not known if the comment refers to the crushing operation, the backfill operation or both. The crushing operation is an existing use separate from the project. The backfill operation is not a part of the proposed project. In March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit #2047 related to the backfill operation. This implied allegation does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The crushing operation is an existing use separate from the project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description related to the materials recycling operation (which includes rock crushing). The Commenter's questions related to polluting the air, water, risking the health of the affected neighbors in the backfill operation are noted. It is not known if the comment refers to the crushing operation, the backfill operation or both. The crushing operation is an existing use separate from the project. The backfill operation is not a part of the proposed project. In March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit #2047 related to the backfill operation. This implied allegation does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's question related to implied corporate criminal behavior is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's opinion related to an acceptable weapon to coerce public acceptance of corporate aims 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 recognizing, admitting, and seeking a resolution to the problem is noted. Although not a CEQA issue, please note that the City has no facts to substantiate the allegation. The questions and comments provided do not provide substantial evidence nor do any exist in known City records. 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 3-435 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's questions related to pollution mitigation of the backfill operation are noted. The backfill operation is not a part of the proposed project. In March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit #2047 related to the backfill operation. The permit issuance was a ministerial act for a use by right allowed under the Orange Municipal Code. The crushing operation is an existing conditionally permitted use. Hence, 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 60.2 The Commenter's statements related to the operation of the former Villa Park Landfill operation 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 activities that are acceptable during war being OK then, but not being acceptable in times of plenty are noted. The comment that chemical and toxin make up of current landfill operations is merely a shadow of what may exist in the former Villa Park Landfill is noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues to the project or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's states concern that the site being next to a creek is an enormous concern. The concern further states that Santiago Creek flows to the Ocean only after settling in the Bond Pit; which reloads the aquifers on which many in the North County draw on for drinking water is insane. The comment is noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project because Santiago Creek would continue to drain to the Pacific Ocean with or without the proposed project. The Commenter's statement that recent dirt moving at the project site may have already seriously impacted the landfill is noted. The backfill operation is not a part of the proposed project. In March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit #2047 related to the backfill operation. The permit issuance was a ministerial act for a use allowed by right under the Orange Municipal Code. The landfill and all potential leaching or migrating is the responsibility of the County with or without the project and/or current grading and backfilling operations. 27 CCR 20005(c); 27 CCR 20180. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to the absence of a study, base line, non -expert approval and no oversight of the process leaving 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 water supply are noted. The backfill operation is not a part of the proposed project. The permit issuance was a ministerial act for a use allowed by right under the Orange Municipal Code. The landfill and all potential leaching or migrating is the responsibility of the County with or without the project and/or current grading and backfilling operations. 27 CCR 20005(c); 27 CCR 20180. In March 2011, the City issued Grading Permit #2047 Page 3-436 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses related to the backfill operation. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to high cancer rates in the East Orange area 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 a possible link between the OPA Water, now IRWD service and water drawn on the Bond Pit area aquifers 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 City actions affecting generations is noted. The comment that the City needs to get all the studies and answers before approving anything at the Sully Miller Property 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 review of data from all the links provided and inclusion as part of the EIR as questions to be answered are noted. The data links have been provided by incorporation of this letter into the EIR. The links do not ask specific questions related to the proposed project. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to the health and safety of the public being part of the City's trust 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 former Villa Park Landfill belonging 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 are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials guidelines and oversight agencies. 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 site historically containing settling ponds that were rumored to be 'private dump sites' for discarded vehicle batteries, used oil from equipment oil changes and other toxic materials is noted. The Commenter's states that this information is all second hand but that it is the responsibility of the City to contact and handle the situation with State Mining and or Federal agencies. The comments are noted but do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new substantial evidentiary information related to the proposed project and therefore, do not give the City cause to contact any agencies. 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 Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter notes that they heard that some group wants to help Orange Unified with a potential school site at the project site. The Commenter makes school -site connected statements related to the City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-437 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses former Villa Park Landfill, private dumping, dam inundation, sinkhole potential and egress issues to state that Orange Unified should consider making use of their existing Peralta site but in no way should the Sully Miller Property be a school site. The comment is noted. The comment further talks about toxins in the ground, air and water, sinkhole potential, am inundation area, waste of taxpayer dollars and risk to children. The comment is noted. Schools are not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the proposed project. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. 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 Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) 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. 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. Additionally, 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 including all links pertaining to landfills are noted. The data links have been provided by incorporation of this letter into the EIR. The links do not ask specific questions related to the proposed project. 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 site needing investigation by competent third party oversight 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 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 being all huge factors that have not been properly considered and handled or mitigated 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 Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Page 3-438 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) 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. Additionally, 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 analyze 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 risk of sinkholes or subsidence requiring geological and hydrological investigation and mitigation are noted. The Commenter asks if anything like the proposed retaining wall buried and back filled as proposed in the Fieldstone proposal 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 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. Additionally, 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 analyze 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 damage to Green River Golf area are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement that it is not a matter of will a flood occur it is a matter of when will it occur is noted. The Commenter further asks that if no full and proper mitigation is possible who will guarantee the insurance of these properties. These comments either do not raise new CEQA related issues not already analyzed by the project or do not offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to the project applicant being required to post bonds are noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's inquiry asking if the City will 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 is noted. The Commenter further states that the project site has three (3) strikes against it on those items alone. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Furthermore, the hydrology and geotechnical thresholds analysis and supporting data in the DEIR were conducted by licensed professionals (experts) in those respective areas. Full disclosure has been provided and no substantial evidence has been provided refuting the analysis. The Commenter's statements related to methane, toxins, other toxic, greenhouse and noxious gasses, the egress, spot zoning, County and City Plans, improper development not in character with the surrounding City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 Page 3-439 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses communities, and time to start over 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. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to zoning. 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. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to City plans. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2 Aesthetics related to community character. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions related to the proposed project and greenhouse gas. These comments either do not raise new CEQA related issues not already analyzed by the project or do not offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's states the following: • 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 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 1,200 and 1,400 bodies with maybe 1,000 vehicles with at least some teen drivers and egress. The comments are 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. In response, please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to land use and planning. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.13, Population and Housing related to potential impacts to population and housing, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant population and housing impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to population growth. No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.13-8 of the Draft EIR) Page 3-440 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses As noted in the Draft EIR, the City does not provide persons -per -household rates for age -qualified housing in the 2010 Housing Element. To determine the potential increase in population from the age - qualified units two communities in the Orange County area, Be.Regents Point in the City of Irvine, and Morningside in the City of Fullerton were contacted. Table 5.13-2, Examples of Existing Senior Housing, in the Draft EIR show the units present person -per -household for these two communities. Be.Regents Point has a person -per -household rate of 1.01. Morningside has a person -per -household rate of 1.23. The average rate of the two communities was established for analysis of the impacts of the proposed project. Using the person -per -household average rate of the two below referenced communities of 1.12, the proposed project age -targeted component would increase the City's population by 297 persons. As noted in the Draft EIR, to understand the significance of the potential population growth related to the age -targeted residences population trends in the City were analyzed. The City's population 65 years of age or older has been increasing from 1990 to present. As indicated in Table 5.13-3, Orange County and City of Orange Population and Senior Population Projections, in the Draft EIR the persons 65 and older population share is expected to increase from 9.86% in 2000 (12,293) to a projected 14.6% in 2030 (23,223) within the City. This increase is similar to that being experienced statewide. The 2010 California Regional Progress Report and the Orange County Projections 2006, indicates that 10.7% of the population of California is 65 years of age or older. In 2030, the population of 65 years of age and older persons is projected to be 18%. Of these, almost 5% will be 80 years of age or older. The proposed project would provide housing opportunities to meet this projected segment of the housing need in the City. The proposed project provides housing for approximately 297 persons or 1.27% of the projected 2030 City's age qualified residences. After making the above bulleted comments, the Commenter states or inquires the following: • The place will look like the 55 Freeway at rush hour in the morning and evening peak periods. • How do the 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 comments and questions are noted. In response, 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. Please refer to Section 6.0, Cumulative of the Draft EIR. This section analyzed potential cumulative impacts and describe the potential changes in environmental conditions that result from the incremental impact of the proposed project added to the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-441 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's statement that the air, water, power, and ecological impacts of the whole needs to be considered for real planning is noted. The comment either does not raise new CEQA related issues not already analyzed by the project or does not offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to the number of PCBs, hydro -carbon, and other pollutants that will run from the storm drains to Santiago Creek, to the Santa Ana River, and into 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. The Commenter's questions related to overflow into the Pacific Ocean 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 multipliers in damage to our local drinking water and pollution of our coastal wetlands are noted. 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. Therefore, 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. It would be speculative to guess that changes to the project site would alter this finding. 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, 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. The Commenter's questions related to 500 kids in the area in the school system are noted. Please refer to Section 5.14, Public Services related to existing schools and potential effects from the proposed project implementation on schools. 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 found that 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 State law, and no mitigation measures would be required. The Draft EIR found that Planning Areas A and B will not generate school age children. The Planning Area C (age -qualified) facility would not directly result in the generation of school age children. The proposed project 130 single-family homes in Planning Area D would generate school age children and would result in an increase demand for school services and facilities. With the addition of 130 single- family residents, the development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the number of residential units and school age residents in the Orange Unified School District (OUSD). The City of Orange, General Plan 2010 Program EIR, Page 5.12-23 uses the generation rates indicated in Table 5.14-5, Student Generation Rates from the Draft EIR. Page 3-442 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Based on the 130 additional units generated by the proposed project and a student generation rates a total of approximately 68 new K-12 students would be added to the OUSD. The mandatory obligations of Government Code Section 65995 would offset demands for educational facilities. As permitted by State law, school districts assess school impact fees to help finance needed facilities and services. Additionally, with the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 50 and Proposition IA in 1998, school districts that meet certain requirements now have the option of adopting alternative school fees, also known as Level 2 Fees and Level 3 Fees (Public Resources Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7). In general, alternative school fees, which are calculated for each school district, apply solely to residential construction within a school district. Therefore, OUSD and the City will require developers to provide for adequate educational facilities, to the extent allowed by law. Current developer fees assessed for residential development are $2.63 per square foot. SB 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of fees to the affected school district reduces school facility impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant level but does not relieve the affected district of completing its own analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant would be required to pay school fees to the OUSD as illustrated in PDF PS-6. Therefore, 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. The Commenter states that all the mineral resources were stripped away before the previous owners sold the property. The comment 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 water and habitat are noted. This question either does not raise CEQA related issues not already answered and analyzed in the DEIR or does not offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's comments related to creek responsibility and maintenance are noted. The comment related to giving property a bath or a coat of paint and some other tweeks prior to selling it and moving on is noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's asks if the City is going to be responsible to the future buyers of this property for: • the zoning it gave without real and proper ecological, geological, hydrological, inundation, ground, air and water pollution from both the former Villa Park Landfill with methane leaking and no one knows what else just upwind from the proposed site, • the illegal dump sites at the project site, • the decimation of habitat and potential run off from vehicles not properly accounted for in the Draft EIR to the nexus of the impacts from 4,000 already approved units to the East. The inquiry either does not raise CEQA related issues not already addressed in the DEIR or does offer new information related to the proposed project. Furthermore, responses already provided to the Commenter herein on the same or similar topics make reference to where full and proper analysis and disclosure may be found for the topics in the DEIR and Master Responses. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-443 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses In conclusion for the whole of the responses to Comment 60.2, the Commenter's statements, questions, and opinions do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because they do not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, the statements, questions, and opinions are noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 60.3 The Commenter's question related to the expense to City for the traffic impacts is 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 questions related to police, fire and paramedics impacts of the proposed project is noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services related to increase in fire and emergency medical and police issues. The Commenter's statements related to firsthand knowledge of paramedics with the attendant fire truck entourage are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services related to emergency response. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement that according to LAFD stats, over 80% of Fire Department responses are paramedic calls is noted. The question as to how that statistic jumps with the senior facility is noted. The Commenter's question related to increased emergency response burdens from a senior facility is noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services related to increase in fire and emergency medical issues. The Commenter's question that hotels pay a bed tax and what is the policy for senior units is noted. Senior units do not pay a bed tax. The question does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's inquiry related to how spot zoning, character, aesthetics, pollution, traffic, egress, health, safety, biological, geological, hydrological, air quality, water quality, dam inundation, noise, population, police, fire, paramedic costs, population, recreation, utilities and service system would be changed, altered, taxed, or different is noted. Please note that the units in Planning Area C are for age - qualified only, as required per the Specific Plan. In order for the units to become non age -qualified units, the lengthy entitlement (including CEQA) and application project would start over at the City. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to zoning and Section 2.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to land use and planning, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant land use and planning impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character and aesthetic issues and Section 5.1, Aesthetic of the Draft EIR related to Page 3-444 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses the visual resources on the project site and the determination of the potential impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant aesthetic impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. 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. Please refer to Section 5.4, Biology of the Draft EIR related to existing biological resources at the project site and potential effects from the proposed project implementation. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. Please refer to Section 5.6, Geology and Soils of the Draft EIR related to existing geology and soils conditions, the related geologic hazards on the project site, and an 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. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. Please refer to Section 5.3, Air Quality of the Draft EIR related to the existing regional and local air quality setting and an analysis of the proposed project's potential contribution to changes in regional and local air quality. It addresses whether the proposed project would have the potential to create a significant adverse impact on air quality. Where applicable, this section identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts and describes the residual impact after imposition of the mitigation. Please refer to Section 5.12, Noise of the Draft EIR related to the existing noise setting on the project site and in the project vicinity and an analysis of the potential effects from the implementation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. Please refer to Section 5.13, Population and Housing of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to population and housing, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant population and housing impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. 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. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation and Draft EIR Section 5.15, Recreation related to any potential impacts on recreational facilities. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant recreational impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. Please refer to Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems related to the existing and proposed utilities and service systems 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 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 I -age J-445 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses imposition of the mitigation. The comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to the quality of life, the peaceful enjoyment of one's property, and the communities of East Orange are noted. This question does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's commentary laden question related to what the project benefit is to the City based on the proposed project mitigation is noted. The question includes perceived deficiencies of the Draft EIR and opinions that the project will be a drain on Police and Fire Departments, create ecological havoc, have pollution, have traffic, and will create numerous risks to life limb and property. The question and its commentary 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. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services 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. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12, Biological Resources and Draft EIR Section 5.4, Biological Resources related to the proposed project and biology. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality related to the proposed project and air pollution. 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 comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. In conclusion for the whole of the responses to Comment 60.3, the Commenter's statements, questions, and opinions do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because they do not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, the statements, questions, and opinions are noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 60.4 The Commenter's statements related to existing plans and the rights to amend plans 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 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. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to plans and Section 2.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to land use and planning, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation rage J-446 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses measures to reduce any potentially significant land use and planning impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. The Commenter's statements related to the propose project setting a precedent 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 why have a General Plan, Community or Specific Plan if it can be amended are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to plans and Section 2.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to land use and planning, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant land use and planning impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. The Commenter's questions related to spot zoning are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to zoning. The Commenter's belief about the community's development mood 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. Response to Comment 60.5 The Commenter's questions related to the impacts from the Toll Roads on Chapman Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road through Villa Park Road to Katella Avenue 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 statement related to people avoiding tolls by traveling through the City is 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 personal observation related to traffic conditions is 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 questions related to data, impact, and mitigation 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 statements related to traffic impacts from the proposed project and related cumulative projects are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts related to the proposed projects, surrounding projects and the cumulative impacts. 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 questions City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 rage s-441 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses related to the existing system on a day to day basis and extreme circumstances 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 questions related to emergency service vehicle operations in an emergency situation 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. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold HAZ-G. The Commenter's question related to the number of people will suffer or die and responsible 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 mitigation, funding, and indemnify for the Citizens of the surrounding communities and City for the traffic impacts of the proposed project 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 questions related to the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed project and road improvements costs that will be required of the project applicant 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 inquiry of what community protections will be created is noted. The Commenter's inquiry if mandatory left turns at Taft to Tustin Ave will Orange Park, Jamestown, Meads, Amapola and other key neighborhoods will be protected is 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 questions how the health, safety, and welfare of the tens of thousands of existing residents will be provided and even upgraded in the face of these impacts for the benefit of the project applicant. This question does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's personal observation related to traffic conditions at Orange Park Boulevard at East Santiago Road when Salem Lutheran School is in session at the start of the daily session is noted. The Commenter's statements that the project does not fit due to near death experiences, adding Santiago phase II, extrapolating real estimates of the potential for multi -family dwellings in addition to recreation uses 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 states the following regarding the project: • Does not fit the area rage 3-448 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses • Does not fit aesthetics, • Requires spot zoning, • Has huge risks due to the adjacent landfill, private dumping, potential ground, water and air toxins, • Is in proximity to habitat, • Is in proximity to native peoples sites, • Has egress issues, • Strains local roads and neighborhoods • Is over building, • Has little or no mitigation, • Has flood, dam inundation risk, pollution of a protected creek, human water reservoir, pollution • Is a drain on water, power and other community resources, paramedics and local medical resources, and more The comments are noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 60.3 above. The Commenter's statement related to a project that just does not fit the hole they are trying to shove it into 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 60.6 The Commenter's opinion that 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 are noted. The Commenter's statements related to objecting to the proposed project and the existing plans 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 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 comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statement related to the next step for the City would be to involve the agencies mentioned in the comment and then have a CEQA Environmental Impact Report completed are noted. Please note that the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR was sent to approximately 70 different agencies to allow them the opportunity to comment and review on the Draft EIR. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 3.4, Project Description subsection 3.4.10, Other Additional Agencies Expected to Use This City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 rage s-44y Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses EIR related to the other agencies. It should be noted all other agencies would issue permits subsequent to City action. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 60.7 The Commenter's statements related to Resources and the property representing one of the last Open Space designated acreages of its size in Orange is noted. The comment that the City is seriously short of its Parks Space per Citizen is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to plans and Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to land use and planning, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant land use and planning impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. 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 recreation. The Commenter's statements related to use of the property as mitigation property from development in a more appropriate area of the City, use as a private pay to pay to play operation with City involvement/participation and with a City and/or County and/or entity partnership for acquisition are noted. The Commenter's states that the above statement touches on a questionable section in this questionable Draft EIR and notes that a Private, Public Park scenario is expressed. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project but will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. The Commenter's remarks that the same developer destroyed a private, public park called Ridgeline in its path to development here in the City. The remark is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's inquires about what protections setting a new private, public park precedent would have for future developments. The inquiry is noted but does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related cumulative impacts are noted. Please refer to Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts of the Draft EIR related to potential cumulative impacts and describe the potential changes in environmental conditions that result from the incremental impact of the proposed project added to the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The Commenter's statement that nothing at the project site should be considered without the connection to impacts of Ridgeline Equestrian Estates and Santiago Hills Phase II are noted. As noted in the response above, the cumulative impact potential of Ridgeline and Santiago Hills Phase II were analyzed Page 3-450 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses and disclosed in the Draft EIR. This statement does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's poses a question: "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 question is noted. This question does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's statements related to pages attached address some of the available information on current Landfill 'link' are noted. The data links have been provided by incorporation of this letter into the EIR. The links do not ask specific questions related to the proposed project. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Comments 60.7 and information in Response 60.7 does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the 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 3-451 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 61 Jakki Tonkovich From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:22 PM To: Megan Penn; Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico; Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: JMI FYI.. From: peacenow [mailto:kgb1111(@att.net] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:19 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: JMI 61.1 JMI should be denied from the possibility of ruining our neighborhood. 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 61 Date: June 28, 2013 Peace Now (kgb 11 I I @att.net) Response to Comment 61.1 The Commenter's statement that project applicant should be denied from the possibility of running the neighborhood 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 3-453 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 62 Peter S. Bowen 1309 Linda Vista St. Orange, CA 92869 714-293-1627 / psbowen513@gmail.com June 29, 2013 Mr. Chad Ortlieb Senior Planner City of Orange — Planning Division 300 E. Chapman Ave. Orange, CA 92869 RE: Public Comments on D-EIR for Proposed Santiago Project/Sully Miller Site Dear Mr. Ortlieb: Thanks for soliciting public comments on the draft EIR for the proposed Santiago Creek project at the old Sully Miller site on Santiago Canyon Road. From what I have read, I support the proposed project as what I believe is the best alternative we can expect for that site. It is certainly much preferable to the current use of the site. Nevertheless, I have some questions about the EIR and proposed project including: 1. If the YMCA, some other non-profit or private corporation decides not to build on Planning Area 62.1 B of the project, then what alternatives would be allowed? 2. What other organizations or companies would be allowed to build or operate a recreational 62.2 facility in that area under either the D-EIR or the new Rio Santiago Specific Plan? 3. What other recreational -based uses are permitted in that area under the D-EIR or under t e 62.3 new Rio Santiago Specific Plan? 4. 1 have heard rumors about the desire to create a regional autism center in Planning Area B? Would this be permitted under the D-EIR or Rio Santiago Specific Plan? 62.4 Thanks again for taking public comment on the D-EIR. While I support the project as I understand it, answering these questions will help me better understand the project and possibilities. Best regards, 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 62 Date: June 28, 2013 Peter S. Bowen Response to Comment 62.1 The Commenter's questions related to if the YMCA decides not to build Planning Area B what would be allowed are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.2, Conditionally Permitted Uses related to other conditionally permitted uses in Planning Area B subject to City review. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics and Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to uses allowed in Planning Area B. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses allowed in Planning Area B are: Permitted • Indoor/outdoor athletic facilities (gyms, • health club, etc.) • Indoor/outdoor athletic training center • • Autism center with accessory supportive • medical services • Bocce ball (and similar scale games such as • lawn bowling, croquets, etc.) • Lighted court sports (such as tennis, • basketball, etc.) • Pool(s) • • Satellite educational/resources facilities • • Daycare with 8 or less children • • Fences* • • Fish pond or stream • • Golf putting course • • Horseshoes* • • Interpretive nature center • Multi -purpose community facility Summer Camp Un-programmed open play area Orchard grove/Bosque Parks and athletics fields, public and/or private Play equipment (such as jungle gym, slide, etc.) Picnic and shade structures Antennas, wireless communication facilities Public utility buildings and structures Riding, hiking, equestrian, and biking (Multi -Use) trails Monument signage for Multi -Purpose Facilities* Bicycling parking* Additional temporary uses are permitted consistent with the City of Orange Zoning Code) • Lawn bowling • Conditional Permitted Uses • Archery range • Skate park • Country club(s) • Free-standing museums and libraries City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-455 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses • Stadiums and grandstand • Veterinary clinics and livestock animal hospitals • Daycare with 8 or more children All permitted and conditional uses not referenced in the above list, shall adhere to the standards of the City Municipal Code * Refers to Accessory 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 62.2 The Commenter's questions related to other recreational -based uses are permitted in the Planning Area B are noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 62.1 above. Additionally, please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics and Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to uses allowed in Planning Area B. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.2, Conditionally Permitted Uses related to other conditionally permitted uses in Planning Area B subject to City 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 noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 62.3 The Commenter's questions related to what other organizations or companies would be allowed to build or operate a recreational facility in Planning Area B are noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 62.1 above. Additionally, please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics and Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to uses allowed in Planning Area B. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.2, Conditionally Permitted Uses related to other conditionally permitted uses in Planning Area B subject to City 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 noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 62.4 The Commenter's questions related to regional autism center in Planning Area B are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Subsection 2.5.2, Conditionally Permitted Uses related to other conditionally permitted uses in Planning Area B subject to City review. Please refer to Response to Comment 62.1 above. Additionally, please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics and Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning related to uses allowed in Planning Area B. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the Page 3-456 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the 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 3-457 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 63 JAM Tonkovich From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 3:41 PM To: Megan Penn; Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico; Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Sully Miller / Rio Santiago EIR Comment FYI... From: Susan Philipp[maiIto: SusanPhilipp(o)soca1.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 6:22 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Cc: 'Susan Philipp' Subject: Sully Miller / Rio Santiago EIR Comment To Whom It May Concern: As a lay person, it is very difficult to "get through" the more than 5000 pages of this document. I had questions this week and was disappointed to hear that the lead planner was on vacation the week before comments were due. 63.1 From what I am able extract from this report, this project does nothing to enhance the rural residential setting in East Orange. It ignores our current zoning, opts out of specific plans and introduces commercial zoning into a residential community. Aside from the obvious bad fit, it appears that there is no satisfactory mitigation for the huge increase in traffic, the adverse effects on our air quality in the short and long term, the loss of the last bit of open space in Orange and finally, the potential for loss of life due to flooding. This report incorrectly states that equestrians will not be affected by this project. Equestrians are always adversely affected by an increase in traffic and population as are bikers and hikers. Crossing Santiago Blvd or 63.2 riding on the trail along side of it on horseback is dangerous. An increase in traffic and congestion will make it even more so. The very thought that this developer would try to put children with autism, a sports facility for our youth and a skilled nursing facility for compromised seniors on a known waste dump that could potentially flood and kill 63.3 people is troubling. It sounds to me that this project could be a huge liability for Orange and a bad plan all the way around for the citizens in the surrounding residential communities. Respectfully, Susan and Jim Philipp 10752 Meads Ave. Orange, Ca 92869 714 614 5707 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 63 Date: June 30, 2013 Pete S. Bowen Response to Comment 63.1 The Commenter's statements related to the proposed project and the rural character of East Orange, current zoning, removal of plans, introduction of commercial zoning, increase in traffic, air quality, and loss of open space are noted. 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 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 note that the proposed project does not introduce commercial zoning to the project site or area. 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 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. Please refer to Master Response Section 5.4, Hydrology and Draft EIR Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality related to flooding 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 63.2 The Commenter's statements related to equestrians always being adversely affected by an increase in traffic and population as well as bikers and hikers are noted. The Commenter's statement related to crossing Santiago Boulevard on horseback as dangerous 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 Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail connections and the proposed project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads and Campgrounds (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/fspubs/07232816/pageO7.htm) has industry standards that the trail crossing, including signal intersection crossing met. Additionally, please note that all proposed equestrian trails would be required to meet either City or County development standards. Please note that the comment on safety is not substantiated or quantified by the Commenter. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the 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 3-459 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 63.3 The Commenter's statements related to children near a waste dump that could flood and kill people are noted. Please note that the project site is not part of the former Villa Park Landfill. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to methane and hazardous materials on the project site. 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. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the 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 3-460 City of Orange - Response to CommentsiFinal EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 64 Jakki Tonkovich prom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> .;ent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:01 PM To: Megan Penn; Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico; Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: RIO SANTIAGO DEIR FYI... From: Charles Leffler[mailto:charlesleffler@ymail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 9:07 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Fw: RIO SANTIAGO DEIR Date Correction, Paragraph 1 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Charles Leffler <charlesleffler(a)ymail.com> To: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb cityoforange.org> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 8:20 PM Subject: RIO SANTIAGO DEIR Honorable Mayor and Council Orange City Staff Planning Dept. 2013 Addendum to my Comments made. Date correction paragraph 1. 2005 is more correctly 2009/10 30 June In the DEIR there are erroneous conclusions drawn from old information 64.1 1 about the safety of the Dams upstream from the proposed project site. Until 2009/10 there was a onsite, 24/7 Dam watchman. He was retired in 2009/10 and not replaced. There is no 24/7 human monitoring on site at the dam.This is a blatant error in the statements in the DER based on old no longer correct data. How could a 'current study' have such false and incorrect information? How can an 8 year 'dead' safety measure be presented as a current safeguard for the site inundation risk? Where is the DER author getting its 'facts'? What onsite investigation has been done? Based on this erroneous claim and conclusion, how many site investigations are needed to bring the DER up to date and a real and proper study that complies with CEQA's mandates and intent? 64.1 CONI z Laws and information have changed since some of the conclusions were drawn in parts of the DER. It is almost as though parts of the old Fieldstone document were copied, cut and pasted to fill the body of this DER without addressing updates in both law and current realities as to Global Climate Change. If the Earth is actually round, could it affect global shipping? How is out of date and improper conclusions drawn constitute a DEIR? If blood circulates through the body, are leeches or bleeding really effective? If global climate change creates repeated El Nino flooding effects, how will the target site be effected? How do the dam inundation risks multiply? An EIR is to study and identify ecological impacts including those related to plants, bugs, birds, animate and Humans. Many of those studies are completely missing from the DER and are 'covered' with statements like 'we believe there is no impact or issue'. What someone who Googles from wikipedia believes or cuts and pastes from a dead 8 to 10 year old report when REAL 64.1 cont 64.2 3 TIME, ON SITE STUDIES AND EVIDENCE IS WHAT IS CALLED FOR is hardly worthy of comment and yet, here we are. The DEIR is erroneous on many points, incomplete and a waste of Staff and Public time. It needs to be sent back with direction to the State of Ca. CEQA and EIR laws for the author to begin again. When I was in contact with State and Federal Mining Oversight Agencies in 2010/2011 understood that there needed to be a complete reclaimation of the property as a matter of course as part of the responsibilities of those who had mined the property. Apparently with the 'As Is' purchase of the property my Milan/JMI that duty now falls to them. There is no mention of entitlements in the Mining Act Site Clean Up requirements. No entitlements ran with the property save the approx. 12 acre R- 64.3 4 1 zoning on the section North East of Santiago Creek. Is it time the City of Orange turn over the' proper and complete handling of the Direction and Oversight of the Mining Act implementation on the site to the proper agencies or is the City of Orange going to hire needed engineers, scientists and monitoring personnel? Will the City fund or hire the laboratories and staff to oversee the testing? How can an EIR be done on a property in flux? The moving target of dirt movement, piling, (illegal) de -watering, truck trips that were staged to inflate teip numbers for the traffic study, and failure to properly place protective fencing around the site as required by City codes are just a short list of the disingenuous, deceptive and environmental corrupt ways that the DER site data were skewed. There was no dirt moving activity for years prior to and it has been halted, .iow that the EIR stud Should the property have 64.3 cont 5 been restored to its 'natural state' 20 years ago? I Ten years ago? Since that was Not Done .... ls it not time to bring the property back to its natural state under the Mining Reclamation Laws first and do the studies of the impacts based on the properly reclaimed property? Was the recent work on the property done to damage the environment to cloud potential studies and create eyesores that would trigger an 'anything but what exists there attitude in the Public,' as the ever °°" increasing piles of crushed concrete with their air and water polluting effects have on the neighbors? If an individual ran his property down, failed to follow City codes and Safety measures, what would the City do? The Corporation the controls the Proposed Rio Site Property is a Citizen under current legal rulings and must abide by the Laws and Codes as they apply. Rather than reward their failures to comply with Codes and Laws it is time to bring the Property into full compliance. Then and only then can a full, proper and complete EIR be carried out. Bring in the State and Federal Mining Agencies and bring this site to its natural 6 state 1st. East Orange communities have suffered for too many years while there was money to be made ... 1st in the S+G operation, then in Concrete production, then the crushing and road related commercial uses hidden under the 'Mining' site auspices and now the eyesore mountain s of dirt and crushed concrete meant to intimidate the public into believing they will forever suffer greater and greater ecological harassment while the City stands idly by ... unless and antil the Project is Approved. Show the Public that the City knows and will do its duty for the health and welfare of its Communities. Enforce the Mining Acts and bring the Site back to it. natural state before any project EIR is done or site zone change is considered. Another item touched on but :hat needed fleshing out is the DER 64.3 cont and Site called for extinguishing or changing of the General Plan and 4 over-riding Area or Community Plans that were City and County approved back in the 70's. These Plans cover large and intact communities and sections of resource such as the waterways and dismantling them with a pen stroke circumvents the Public input and awareness that is part of those planning processes. The recent General Plan update required meetings and comments, staff and public as well as legal input to bring it forward. The same kind of time and consideration needs to be applied to all the Plans that would be altered or changed by the carving out, 64. 8 exception from, exclusion, or extinguishment of their codes, plans, rules or intent for the target property. The entirety of the effect of All 5 over-riding Plans needs to be re- opened to Public scrutiny, input and authority before any changes in 1 or all should be made on the target site. The sanctity of all City Plans, Area plans, Historic Districts and designations is challenged and at risk by the actions asked in this DER. The ramifications open the City to legal and historic challenges that will forever scar the face of Orange. understand that the City Staff has a middle ground and knows 64.4 cont 9 their job. Recent interactions I have had with Staff showed me the how sharp and on point they are. The problem is as I look and look again at the documents there are insidious, underlying problems.. cracks in the dam created by what this faulty DEIR claims and asks. The right action is to acknowledge the failure of the DEIR and require that a new Study and Report is done After the full and complete restoration of the site to its native state. Then and only then can the true and full impacts the proposed 64.5 10 project be evaluated, mitigated and she project passed or not passed. Thank you, Charles Leffler 10693 Orange park BI Orange, Ca. 92869 (714) 538 6350 11 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 64 Date: June 30, 2013 Charles Leffler Response to Comment 64.1 The Commenter's statements related to an addendum to previous comments (see Comments Letter 35, 38, 39, 43, 57, and 60) are noted. The Commenter's states that in the Draft EIR there are erroneous conclusions drawn from old information about the safety of the dams upstream from the proposed project site. The Commenter's states that until 2009/10 there was an onsite, 24/7 dam watchman. Further that the watchman was retired in 2009/10 and not replaced. There is no 24/7 human monitoring on site at the dam. These statements by the Commenter are noted. This comment is correct. The watchman retired in approximately 2005 and was not replaced by the County of Orange. Section 4.0, Errata to the Draft EIR has the following change to the EIR. Page 5.9-50: Page 5.9-50 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below to modify the below mitigation measures: According to Herb Nakasone (County of Orange), County Staff operates and maintains the Villa Park Dam to provide maximum flood protection to downstream residents and businesses and is prepared to respond to emergencies if necessary. A County staff pefo„ live on the Villa n dam heepef onrsite at all times. A 24 hour, seven day week operational plan with trained personnel who understand the operations of the Dam is ready to be implemented in the event a storm is anticipated to fill the storage behind the Dam and control discharges are necessary 24 hours a day. The Commenter's states that this is a blatant error in the statements in the Draft EIR based on old, no longer correct data are noted. The Commenter has questioned how a current study could have such false and incorrect information is noted. The Commenter questions how can an eight year dead safety measure be presented as a current safeguard for the site inundation risk are noted. The Commenter questions the Draft EIR sources are noted. The Commenter questions the Draft EIR sources are noted. The Commenter's questions the onsite investigation that has been accomplished are noted. The Commenter's questions relating to the basis of this erroneous claim and conclusion, how many site investigations are needed to bring the Draft EIR up to date and a real and proper study that complies with CEQA's mandates and intent are noted. Please refer to Section 10.0, Organizations and Persons Consulted of the Draft EIR for a list of the organizations and persons consulted in the EIR preparation. Please refer to Section 11.0, Report Preparation Resources of the Draft EIR for a list of the EIR preparation resources and technical sub - consultants. Please refer to Section 12.0, References for a list of the references used in the preparation of Page 3-472 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and the EIR. Although it is correct that a watchman is no longer at Villa Park Dam, the dam inundation conclusion (significant and unavoidable) remains the same and the analysis is not errant. The purpose of this Draft EIR is to serve as an information document for public agencies, decision - makers, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project. Environmental impacts are analyzed to the degree of specificity prescribed by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. The EIR will need to be certified by the City that it reflects the best independent judgment in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Local CEQA Guidelines. The Commenter's opinion related to laws and information that have changed since some of the conclusions were drawn in parts of the Draft EIR are noted. The Commenter does not cite any specifics and changes related to the Draft EIR are not known by the City. The Commenter's opinion that it is almost as though parts of the old Fieldstone document were copied, cut and pasted to fill the body of this Draft EIR without addressing updates in both law and current realities as to Global Climate Change are noted. The Commenter's question related to the Earth and global shipping is noted. The Commenter's question related to how out of date and improper conclusions constitute a Draft EIR is noted. Please note that the EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Local CEQA Guidelines. The comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project's generation of GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.7-19 of the Draft EIR) Additionally, the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicting with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.7-21 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's question related to blood circulation, leeches and bleeding 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 global climate change, El Nino flooding effects, and effect on the target site is noted. Please refer to Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emission of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant land use and planning impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project's generation of GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.7-19 of the Draft EIR) Additionally, the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicting with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.7- 21 of the Draft EIR) City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-473 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses The Commenter's inquiry of how dam inundation risks multiply 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 64.2 The Commenter's statements related to the purpose of an EIR are noted. The Commenter's opinion that studies are missing from the DEIR based on statements like "we believe there is no impact or issue" is noted. The Commenter's statement related to use of unverified data and failure to provide real time on -site studies and evidence is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project because it does not offer any refuting facts about the project analysis. The Commenter's statement that the Draft EIR is erroneous, incomplete, a waste of Staff and Public time is noted. The statement that the DEIR needs to be sent back for a re -write is noted. This comment does not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project because it does not offer any refuting facts about the project analysis or demonstrates how the Draft EIR is out of compliance with CEQA. This information in Comment 64.2 or Response to Comment 64.2 does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 64.3 The Commenter's statement related to personal communications with State and Federal Mining Oversight Agencies and the Commenter's understanding that reclamation of the property is part of the responsibilities of those who had mined the property is noted. The Commenter's statement that reclamation duties now fall on the current property owner is noted. The Commenter remarks that there is no mention of entitlements in the Mining Act Site cleanup requirements. Please note that the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Chapter 9, Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, requires the State Mining and Geology Board to adopt State policy for the reclamation of mined lands and the conservation of mineral resources. These policies are prepared in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, (Government Code) and are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA, Public Resources Code, Sections 2710-2796) provides a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with the regulation of surface mining operations to assure that adverse environmental impacts are minimized and mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition. SMARA also encourages the production, conservation, and protection of the state's mineral resources. Public Resources Code Section 2207 Page 3-474 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses provides annual reporting requirements for all mines in the state, under which the State Mining and Geology Board is also granted authority and obligations. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter remarks that "No entitlements ran with the property save the approx. 12 acre R-1 zoning on the section North East of Santiago Creek." The City does not understand the comment. There are no entitlements currently on the R-1-8 zoned property north of the creek on the project property. The Commenter asks if it is time for the City turn over the proper and complete handling of the direction and oversight of the Mining Act implementation on the project site to the proper agencies or is the City hiring needed engineers, scientists and monitoring personnel. The question is noted. Although not a CEQA issue because the backfilling is not part of the project, please refer to the above response noting oversight responsibility. The Commenter's questions related to the City funding or hiring the laboratories and staff to oversee the testing are noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. The Commenter's questions related to the EIR be done on a property in flux are noted. The Commenter's statements related to the moving target of dirt movement, piling, (illegal) de -watering, truck trips that were staged to inflate trip numbers for the traffic study, and failure to properly place protective fencing around the site as required by City codes are just a short list of the disingenuous, deceptive and environmental corrupt ways that the Draft EIR site data were skewed are noted. The Commenter's statement related to no dirt moving activity for years prior and has been halted is noted. The comments related to restoration of the project site , bringing the property back to a natural state under the Mining Reclamation Laws and doing studies of impacts based on the properly reclaimed property are noted. These statements by the Commenter are noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project because no substantial evidence has been provided to support the opinions of wrongdoing with regard to the Draft EIR analysis or skewing baseline data and the grading activities currently or recently on -site are backfilling activities allowed by right under the Orange Municipal Code, independent of the project as stated by the applicant and, are not subject to CEQA analysis. The Commenter's inquiry if "recent" work on the property was done to damage the environment to cloud potential studies and create eyesores that would trigger an "anything but what exists there" attitude in the public is noted. The inquiry continues regarding the intent behind increasing piles of crushed concrete and air and water polluting effects on neighbors. The inquiry/comment is noted. The Commenter's similarly -oriented questions related to if individuals and corporations fail to maintain their property by ignoring codes and measures, what the City would do in instances of non-compliance, are noted. The Commenter's statements related to the corporation that controls the project site being a citizen under current legal rulings and must abide by the laws and codes as they apply are noted. The statement that rather than rewarding failures to comply with codes and laws and that it is time to bring the property into full compliance is noted. The statement that a full, proper and complete EIR be only be carried out after full compliance is noted. These statements by the Commenter are noted. These comments do not raise CEQA related issues or offer new information related to the proposed project. Both the backfilling and City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-475 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses crushing operation are permitted uses on the site and are not subject to CEQA analysis under the project Draft EIR beyond the baseline of their use. The Commenter's statements related to the State and Federal Mining Agencies, project site natural state, and East Orange communities 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 5.11, Mineral Resources related to the proposed project and mining. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 64.4 The Commenter's statements related to changing of the General Plan and Community Plans are noted. The Commenter's statement that these plans cover large and intact communities and sections of resource, such as the waterways, and dismantling them with a pen stroke circumvents the Public input and awareness that is part of those planning processes is noted. The Commenter's statement related to the recent General Plan update meetings, comments, participation and input is noted. The Commenter's statement that the same kind of time and consideration needs to be applied to the plan changes for the target property is noted. The statement that the entirety of the effect of all over-riding plans needs to be reopened to public scrutiny, input and authority before any changes should be made on the target site is noted. The Commenter's opinion that the sanctity of all City plans, area pans, historic districts and designations is challenged and at risk by the actions asked in this Draft EIR is noted. The comment that the ramifications open the City to legal and historic challenges that will forever scar the face of Orange is noted. All the statements by the Commenter are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, related to plans and Section 2.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR related to potential impacts to land use and planning, which may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant land use and planning impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. Additionally, several of the comments are repetitive of prior comments of the same commenting party and are responded to in Responses 57.3, 57.5 and 60.4. Please refer to those responses to supplement this response. The project has gone through and is going through a full public participation process. The public and agencies have been involved or had the opportunity to be involved in the Notices of Preparation for the Draft EIR, the associated scoping meetings, the Notice of Determination for the Draft EIR and the associated solicitation of comments, the Design Review Committee meetings, upcoming Planning Commission meetings and upcoming City Council meetings regarding the project. The City did not solicit the application. No predetermination has been made regarding the project or the changing of any plans. The City Council will make the ultimate decision based on information presented by and/or discussed by the public, agencies, staff, the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the Draft EIR. Page 3-476 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 64.5 The Commenter's statements related to competency of City Staff and the problems with the DEIR are noted. The Commenter's statement that the Draft EIR fails and a new study and report is required after the full and complete restoration of the site to its native state is noted. The Commenter concludes that then and only then can the true and full impacts the proposed project be evaluated, mitigated and the project passed or not passed. These statements by the Commenter 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 3-477 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 65 To: cortlieb@cityoforange.org From: jamieanne24@gmail.com Subject: Rio Santiago and its Draft EIR Date: June 27, 2013 Dear Mr. Ortlieb. I appreciate the City Council's efforts to ensure that all residents of Orange are informed about the impacts as well as the benefits of the proposed Rio Santiago project. I believe that at the end of the day, Rio Santiago will be one of the most studied and discussed developments in the history of Orange. Its land uses have changed in direct response to comments by neighbors and other interested parties. And, what is presented in the Draft EIR certainly represents the best of public input today. I am pleased with the current plan. Nevertheless, I do have some questions which center on what I believe to be an ultra- conservative approach taken by the EIR preparers with specific regard to the issues of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology, and Transportation Traffic. Please find my questions below: 1. Aesthetics. I understand that the issue of "visual character" is subjective, however, to rate the project's aesthetic level of significance as "significant and unavoidable" even with project mitigation ignores the fact that the site is currently a working, active, busy, and getting busier rock crushing and back fill operation. It is an ugly area of East Orange. It is noisy, dusty, and impacts everyone's property values. The ONLY portion of the property one could consider holding any positive visual character is the existing creekbed — an area being expanded into permanent open space by the applicant. Please, provide the good people of Orange with what could be a "less than significant" impact should the mine, rock crushing and back fill operation go away -- versus be replaced with the homes, parks, recreational amenities, and open space of Rio Santiago. The conclusion in this area was absurd. 2. Air Quality: To say that the heavy and migrant dust from the existing materials recycling effort as well as the back fill operation now on the site is better than the short term impacts associated with the construction of Rio Santiago is crazy. I was amazed with this conclusion in the Alternatives Study for "no development" and "development under existing general plan and zoning." Please provide more clarification as to this conclusion. 65.1 65.2 3. Hydrology: The level of water quality, preventing flooding and run-off in the area from this project will improve due to new water systems and other methods to address drainage, flooding, storm water run-off and more. However, to penalize the project and note that its impacts are significant and unavoidable simply because it's downstream from two dams is to ignore the fact that people are allowed to build in areas downstream from dams — and that most of this area of Orange would flood should these two dams break. It also ignores the fact that the applicant will be required to inform future residents of the availability of flood insurance and it ignores that fact that the applicant will create emergency access plans. Why wouldn't the city of Orange require existing HOAs within the same area to provide the same information to the City? Why was the County allowed to build a new trailhead east of Cannon without this same impact? Why are trails being encouraged along Santiago Creek without full disclosure of the same risk of flooding should there be a catastrophic dam failure? It seems that the EIR preparer unfairly penalizes Rio Santiago yet ignores these concerns for new parks, trails and other amenities designed to attract the public to the area. Please explain this. 4. Transportation: It is a new level of punitive action by the EIR consultant to assess the level of significance for traffic as "significant and unavoidable" knowing full well of the traffic mitigation measures and Transportation System Improvement Program fees which will be imposed on the applicant through the Development Agreement and adopted in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Why were these fees and contributions as well as measures (which will certainly be imposed on the applicant) not factored into this section of the EIR analysis? If they were not available at the time the Draft EIR was distributed, then when will the City make the Development Agreement and its conditions available for public review? Again, I appreciate the City's effort to inform Orange citizens about the impacts and benefits of the plans for Rio Santiago and look forward to your responses to these questions. Respectfully, Jamie Johnson Orange, CA 65.3 65.4 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 65 Date: June 27, 2013 Jamie Johnson Response to Comment 65.1 The Commenter's statements related to supporting the current plan are noted. The Commenter's statements related to aesthetics — visual character are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, visual impacts 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 65.2 The Commenter's statements related to air quality — no project alternative having better are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10, Alternatives related to this issue. Under Alternative 2: Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning, the potential to result in impacts related to NOx emissions during the grading phase and VOC emissions from the application of architectural coating would be reduced. Mass grading activities would be limited to area to the north of Santiago Creek. Under this alternative uses permitted in RA (Resource Areas) would continue however would anticipated to be less than the mass grading anticipated by 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 65.3 The Commenter's statements related to hydrology - and improving water systems are noted. The Commenter's statements related to requiring other HOAs to provide emergency access plans are noted. The Commenter's statements related to trails being encouraged along Santiago Creek without full disclosure 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 Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail connections and the proposed project. Please note the County conducts their own environmental assessment. City Staff does not know what was applied to the new trail head east of Cannon. Please note that according to City Staff a trail is different than a residential project. Additionally, regarding trails being encouraged along Santiago Creek without full disclosure of the same risk, please note that trails would be subject to environmental review, however, trails are different than the whole of this 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. rage J-46U City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 65.4 The Commenter's statements related to transportation — Transportation System Improvement Program Fees, able to reduce project's impacts 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 5.3, 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 EIR — December 2013 Page 3-481 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 66 JAW Tonkovich From: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:32 PM To: Megan Penn; Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico; Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio Santiago DEIR FYI From: Bradley, Donald [maiIto: D.Brad leyOg MPGLAW.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:43 AM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio Santiago DEIR Dear Mr. Ortlieb: I live in Orange Park Acres ("OPA") within a mile of the proposed Rio Santiago Project. I have reviewed the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and have many concerns. In fact, the DEIR contains so many inaccuracies and flaws, as well as omissions of critical matters, that it would be impossible to list them all here. I highlight some of the most significant specific problems here. 66.' Overall, the nature of the project as a whole, and its impact to the character of the surrounding community have not been adequately analyzed, and where the analysis has been purportedly done, it misstates the project's impact on that character. OPA has maintained a rural, equestrian character for decades, and to the extent this project claims to be consistent with this character, that claim is not supported by the actual project facts. Further, the traffic impact of the project has not been adequately analyzed and what little analysis has been completed is deficient and misleading. The thought of traffic associated with a high -density senior center 66.2 merging onto Santiago Canyon Road with its 50-70 mph speeds is downright frightening. The supposed contribution of the project to the City of Orange's open space is misleading. For example, the claimed 50 acre "contribution" of open space surrounding the creek is a facade —that area cannot be developed in any event. There is no escaping that this project will consume many of the few acres of open space 66.3 remaining in Orange. The descriptions of the project's impact on CO2 emissions, groundwater contamination, and biological resources are woefully deficient. These are but a few of the many problems with this DEIR and the project as a whole. it seems that nothing short of a complete rewrite of the DEIR can hope to present the project properly, in a way that the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public, can realistically assess the project's true impacts. Thank you. Donald Bradley. 20112 Hillside Drive, Orange, CA 92869. 66.4 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 66 Date: July 1, 2013 Donald Bradley Response to Comment 66.1 The Commenter's statements related to the Draft EIR having flaws are noted. The Commenter's statements related to OPA rural, equestrian character are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, for a discussion of visual impacts related to the community character/environment of the surrounding area and the project site. Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts to aesthetics, including long-term Planning Area C 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 66.2 The Commenter's statements related to traffic impact of the high speeds from Santiago Canyon Road 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 5.14, Public Services specifically PDF PS-8, which requires the project applicant to perform speed surveys along East Santiago Road adjacent to the project site, after development of each Planning Area (B, C, D) separately. Please note that access to East Santiago Canyon Road from Planning Areas B, C, and D would be from a signalized intersection. Therefore, merging traffic from the proposed project to East Canyon Road would occur in a controlled manner. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 66.3 The Commenter's statements related to projects contribution of open space being misleading due to inability of development and 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 3-483 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 66.4 The Commenter's statements related to projects impacts to CO2 emissions, groundwater contamination, and biological resources are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality related to the proposed project and CO2 emission. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding, Subsection 2.4.1, Water Quality or Waste Discharge related to the proposed project impact on groundwater contamination. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.4, Biological Resources related to the proposed project and biological resource 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. Page 3-484 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 67 EM All., COPY To: cortli bO;�citvQforangc. From: Alyson.1 d 2111oy il.coni : Date: June 28, 2013 Subject: Rio Santiago Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Ortlieb, As a resident of Orange, I first want to express my support for the majority of the Rio Santiago plan. I am pleased to see that we have a plan for the Sully Miller sand and gravel mining site that seems to fit well 67-1 with our community. I appreciate that about half'of the site will become permanent open space and I know I will enjoy the new trails and park and recreational facilities that will be provided on the site. With that being said, I'd appreciate it if you could please provide more detail on the need for a brand new Senior Community, As a new resident of Orange, I am interested in the site plan and curious as to the cities current need in terms of housing. Is Orange in need of additional senior housing? Are there enough homes in the city to meet this specific housing market? Is there a "mandate" that obligates the City to provide homes for seniors? Given my lack of knowledge of the area due to my short -tenure here, is this area of Orange a prime location for a Senior Community given the average age of residents? Also, how are the Senior Community -related issues being addressed, including the noise for ambulances and other first responders? How are traffic and safety issues being addressed along Santiago Canyon Road since traffic moves so quickly on this road already? Finally, with regards, to the development, is it common to create Senior Communities at such a high -density level, with some buildings as tall as three stories? I ask these questions out of concern for our seniors and I hope this use is a fit for this area. .1 can tell you that I have truly enjoyed my residency thus far in Orange and appreciate all the fine work that the City does to ensure our great quality of life here in Orange. It appears to me that the recreational and open spaces to be provided by the Rio plan, and the Low Density Residential planned for the site, will benefit our community. I lowever, I would appreciate additional information to satisfy concerns that this plan will be good for stakeholders, including seniors, and would appreciate your response. Sincerely, \'3 Alyson Loyd Price 6016 E. Cadbury Drive Orange, CA 92869 67.2 67.3 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 67 Date: June 28, 2013 Alyson Loyd Response to Comment 67.1 The Commenter's statements related to supporting the majority of the proposed project and the fit of the project in the area are noted. The Commenter's statements related to new open space, trails and parks and recreational facilities are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 67.2 The Commenter's statement related to providing more detail related to seniors is noted. The Commenter's question related to does the City need additional senior housing is noted. The Commenter's question as to whether this area of Orange is a prime location for seniors is noted. The Commenter's question related to noise from ambulances is noted. The Commenter's questions related to traffic and safety along Santiago Canyon Road is noted. The Commenter's questions related to high -density and three stories are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.13, Population and Housing, Threshold PH -A related to the City and senior housing. Additionally, please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services 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. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise related to the proposed project and noise, including from additional emergency services. 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 Master Response Section 2.3, Aesthetics related to the proposed project an impacts from building heights. 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. J. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law. Please note that the California Vehicle Code Section 27156.2, exempts emergency vehicles from noise standards. Page 3-486 City of Orange - Response to Comments7Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation. Commercial and Medical Facilities 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). 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-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 514-12 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) Density and Stories Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.5, Structure Height, related to 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 67.3 The Commenter's statements related to liking the proposed open space and low density residential of the proposed project and the request of additional information 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 3-487 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 68 July 1, 2013 Mr. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 RE: Rio Santiago DEIR Comments Dear Mr. Ortlieb: The intent of Rio Santiago's developer is to build this project within the sphere of influence of Orange Park Acres, an equestrian community, yet there is no mention of horses or equestrians in the project's DEIR. If this project is built as planned, Orange Park Acres and the greater equestrian community, at large, will forever lose the opportunity to bring equestrian homeowners to this property location. The result will diminish equestrian endeavors and economics in Southern California. With such a large expanse of acreage to develop, it would seem that this landowner could easily accommodate the interests of the equestrian community, within which it plans to build. Designing a commercial or private community stable into the footprint of this project would not only help to sustain our coveted equestrian lifestyle, but it will add prestige to the City of Orange. It will add value to the developer's project by enticing affluent buyers, who will increase the quality citizenship of Orange. It will also play an important role to support an industry with roots, reaching back to the earliest settlers. Large lots, expansive greenbelt with common areas and trails, and ample accommodations to stable horses are clearly more in line with the design of a planned community in Orange Park Acres. If one acre lots are absolutely not possible, then Broadmoor Homes is a classic example of how a community in this area should be designed. These homes, green belt area, and amenities equate to an acre per residence. It blends in with OPA and welcomes public use of its internal trail system, which it maintains. Not only beautiful and appealing to its residents, it is highly attractive to equestrians and home buyers in general. If you will allow me to digress for a moment, it will help clarify my point. For over 27 years, I have been a horse owner and an OPA resident. In my community, I have observed with distress the sudden death of equestrian properties, when new nonequestrian owners make drastic changes. If a barn and corrals are removed to make way for a pool, tennis court, or extensive hardscape, it is common knowledge that it will never be converted back to a stable. When changes to a home or design of the property restrict entrance to the rear of the lot, it cuts off the opportunity for stabling horses by inhibiting access for feed deliveries, ferriers, vets, maintenance service, and even horses, themselves. When this happens the community loses one more viable horse property and inches toward the demise of our equestrian lifestyle. 68.1 68.2 68.3 C:1::�1 Our future, though changing slowly, is becoming a Villa Park like neighborhood. Beautiful homes on large lots, where horses once graced the landscape. As a planner, you must not let that happen. You must do what is in your power to help this community sustain its rural and equestrian standing. You are entrusted to consider wisely what developers put before you, and you must help Orange preserve this proud, irreplaceable community by helping it to remain attractive to equestrian landowners. It would be admirable if Rio Santiago's DEIR was filled with the intent to build minimum one acre horse properties, but unless I am naive, I believe there is no way to force a buyer to keep his property open and accessible in order to forever accommodate future horses. Though a homeowner's modifications to an individual property could make it impractical to stable horses, there is a viable solution to ensure that this development would always afford homeowners the opportunity to own and stable their own horses. The solution is a community stable, the like of which has existed very successfully in several communities in OPA, namely High Horse, The Wilderness, Pheasant Run, and Broadmoor Homes. Many of these have set up their own reserves and operate viably and independently from their respective homeowner associations. If Rio Santiago incorporated this type of careful planning and design, it would ensure the development's attractive appeal to equestrians and continue a fresh influx of likeminded residents to the Orange Park Acres community. If this developer were to incorporate horses into the design, it would go a long way in offsetting the slow decline of horse properties within the core of OPA. If Rio Santiago decides it will not sustain horses, incorporate expansive open area and a public trail system, create acre lots or their equal with common area, then this property should, in the least, accommodate an equestrian's interest and allow for passive recreational use. It should remain open space with public trails to ride, bike, and hike, where natural habit can exist and wildlife can flourish. The City of Orange doesn't need high density housing. It needs the preservation of its prized rural community or the infusion of badly needed park space. The planning commission can make this happen. Please support Orange Park Acres Specific Plan (1973) and the East Orange Community Plan (1975). If you will not turn away from the developer's high density design, then I must adamantly support the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (1971) and Santiago Creek Implementation Plan (1976). Each of these plans specifically designates this property as Permanent Open Space. Thank you for your consideration and your support of Orange Park Acres. Sincerely, Julie Maurer 7544 E. Saddlehill Trail Orange, CA 92869 68.5 ME 68.7 I-T-we 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 68 Date: July 1, 2013 Julie Maurer Response to Comment 68.1 The Commenter's statements related to being within the sphere of influence of Orange Park Acres are noted. The Commenter's statements related to no mention of horses or equestrians in the Draft EIR are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. 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 OPA Plan. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail and the proposed project. Please note that economics are not a part of CEQA. Please note that the proposed project includes equestrian trails throughout the proposed development. The Commenter's opinion related to loss of the opportunity to bring equestrian homeowners to this location, which results diminished equestrian endeavors and economics in Southern California area noted. Please note that the project 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 68.2 The Commenter's statements related to developing a project that could easily accommodate the equestrian community are noted. The Commenter's statements related to designing a commercial or private community stable into the footprint of the project are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to Broadmoor Homes as an example of area design including green belt area and amenities are noted. 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 68.3 The Commenter's statements related that large lots, expansive greenbelt with common areas and trails, and ample accommodations to stable horses being more in line with the design of a planned community in Orange Park Acres are noted. The comment regarding the Broadmoor development example in lieu of Page 3-490 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses one acre lots is noted. The comments regarding averaged one acre lots, compatibility with OPA, trails, and appeal are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. 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 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail 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 68.4 The Commenter's statements related to equestrian properties disappearing in the community are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 68.5 The Commenter's statements related to being like Villa Park and loss of rural community are noted. 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 68.6 The Commenter's statements related to preferring that the Draft EIR include one acre horse properties are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 68.7 The Commenter's statements related to inclusion of community stable and developing horses into the design are noted. 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 2.7, 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. City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 Page 3-491 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 68.8 The Commenter's statements related to at least accommodating an equestrian interest and allow for passive recreational use, then it should remain open space with trails are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, specifically 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 2.7.2, 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 68.9 The Commenter's statements related to not wanting high density and supporting the existing plans 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 City approved plans. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description 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. rage r-4yL City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 69 Jakki Tonkovich prom: Chad Ortlieb <cortlieb@cityoforange.org> .sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 5:11 PM To: Megan Penn; Jakki Tonkovich; Fred Talarico; Jackie Bateman Cc: Leslie Roseberry Subject: FW: Rio Santiago and its Draft EIR FYI... From: STEPHANIE REZAC [ma iIto: smsrezac(d�msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:20 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: Rio Santiago and its Draft EIR Dear Mr. Ortlieb, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the impacts of the proposed Rio Santiago project. Overall, I think the current plan is a good one, and the Draft EIR incorporates much of the input from the public, over the years, regarding development of that site. would like to ask some questions regarding the DEIR's approach to the topics of Aesthetics, Air Quality, .iydrology, and Transportation Traffic: Hydrology: It seems to me the project's new water systems and other measures dealing with drainage, flooding, storm water run-off and more will improve flooding and run-off prevention. I don't understand penalizing Rio Santiago and calling its impacts "significant and unavoidable" merely because it's downstream from two dams. That doesn't take into account a) that people are permitted to build downstream from dams, and that most of this part of Orange would flood should these two dams break; b) the applicant will be required to inform future residents that they can buy flood insurance and c) the developer must create emergency access plans. Orange doesn't force existing HOAs within the same area to furnish the same information; why not? The city doesn't require similar disclosure for recreational amenities along Santiago Creek. Why is the Rio Santiago developer being single -out for requirements not being applied to new parks, trails and other amenities designed to attract the public to the area. Please explain this. Air Quality: I find it hard to agree with the DEIR that the short-term impacts of Rio Santiago construction is worse than the mining operation now going on at the site. It is surprising this was the conclusion in the Alternatives Study for "no development" and "development under existing general plan and zoning." Additional explanation and clarification about how that conclusion was reached would be appreciated. Aesthetics. "Visual character" can mean different things to different people, but I question rating the ",roject's aesthetic level of significance as "significant and unavoidable" (even taking mitigation measures into account) because it doesn't acknowledge the current rock crushing and back fill operation going on there, which is only getting busier and more active. It is unsightly, noisy, generates dust and isn't helping anybody's 69.1 69.2 69.2 property value. The proposed plan does keep the one part of the existing property that is pleasing to the eye: the existing creek bed, which the applicant is expanding into permanent open space. I think this finding of the DEIR was ridiculous and would like to know what would be a "less than significant" impact if this mining and rock crushing operation is replaced by Rio Santiago's homes, parks, recreation facilities and open space. Transportation: How does the EIR consultant label the traffic impact at "significant and unavoidable" despite the traffic mitigation measures and Transportation System Improvement Program fees that will be borne by the developer through the Development Agreement (and form part of Orange's Capital Improvement Program)? How come these, and measures certain to be put on the applicant, were not factored into this part of the EIR analysis? If it turns out they weren't available when the Draft EIR was distributed, when will the City make the Development Agreement and its conditions available to the public? Thank you and I look forward to your responses to these questions. Respectfully, Stephanie Kuryllo- Rezac 8060 East Cheshire Road Orange, CA 92867 2 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 69 Date: July 1, 2013 Stephanie Rezac Response to Comment 69.1 The Commenter's statements related to supporting the current plan are noted. The Commenter's statements related to hydrology - and improving water systems are noted. The Commenter's statement that they don't understand calling the project's dam inundation impact significant and unavoidable is noted. The Commenter's statement that the significant and unavoidable conclusion of dam inundation doesn't take into account a) that people are permitted to build downstream from dams, and that most of this part of Orange would flood should these two dams break; b) the applicant will be required to inform future residents that they can buy flood insurance and c) the developer must create emergency access plans is 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 note that the significant and unavoidable conclusion relates to the potential for dam inundation in relation to the project, regardless of past projects and area flooding. Under current CEQA thresholds, any project in a dam inundation area would be required to analyze the significance of the risk to the project. The conclusion and potential significant and unavoidable impact from dam inundation exists despite insurance notifications and emergency access plans. The Commenter's statement and inquiry that Orange doesn't force existing HOAS within the same area to furnish the same information and, why not, is noted. Those existing developments are not proposing a new project meriting CEQA review. The Commenter's statement related to not providing similar disclosure for recreational amenities along the creek are noted. The inquiry as to why the developer is being singled -out for requirements not being applied to new parks, trails and other amenities designed to attract the public to the area is 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 69.2 The Commenter's opinions related to the short-term impacts of the proposed project construction not being worse than the mining operation on site are noted. The Commenter's statements related to air quality — no project alternative being better are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description related to the materials recycling operation and backfilling operation presently on the project site. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10, Alternatives related to this issue. Please note that under Alternative 2: Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning, the potential to result in impacts related to NOx emissions during the grading phase and VOC emissions from the application of architectural coating would be reduced. Mass grading activities would be limited to the area to the north of Santiago Creek. Under this alternative uses permitted in RA (Resource Areas) would continue, City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 I -age 3-490 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses however, with less mass grading anticipated than with 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 69.3 The Commenter's statements related to aesthetics — visual character are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, related to the visual impacts 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 69.4 The Commenter's statements related to traffic impact being significant and unavoidable despite the traffic mitigation measures and Transportation System Improvement Program fees that are part of the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, related to traffic fees. Please note that the proposed project necessary road improvement fees are not presently on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Commenter's statements related to the Development Agreement are noted. Please note that the project applicant's proposed Development Agreement has been submitted to 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. rage 3-496 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project I%ieresaSears o 0 0 7733Sant*o Cyn �qad LETTER 70 Orange, C� 92869 (714) 288-0520 W theresasears@hotmad com SENT VIA E-MAILto: cortliebecityoforange.org July 1, 2013 Chad Ortlieb Senior Planner City of Orange Planning Division 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Re: Sully Miller - Draft Environmental Impact Report for Rio Santiago proposal Dear Mr. Ortlieb, I have had the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Rio Santiago proposal and submit the following comments. I would ask that this letter be included in the official record of proceedings for the project and that I receive all future notifications related to the Rio Santiago proposal. First I would like to note that the May 16, 2013 Notice of Availability (NOA) & Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report reverses the acreage of the East Orange General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Plan. Also, public meetings should not be scheduled until the public has had their DEIR comments formally addressed. It simply is not appropriate to fast track the process. The Rio Santiago proposal has not been accurately described or properly analyzed in this DEIR. Significant facts must be disclosed to the public and decision makers as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DEIR fails to adequately disclose the significant impacts to the surrounding community, the city at large, natural and cultural resources and the risks associated with building in a known dangerous flood zone not to mention a proper disclosure of the toxic substances that have been dumped and buried at this site. Anyone reading this document can recognize this document is deficiencient and should be alarmed. I will point out a just few of the glaring issues. The purpose of the EIR process is to inform the public and decision makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project and identify feasible alternatives and measures to avoid adverse effects. The true scope of the Rio Santiago project and the significant impacts it will have cannot be fully appreciated because of the incomplete project description and setting information. 70.1 70.2 70.3 Page 2 Rio Santiago DEIR July 1, 2013 The public has the right to know. They trust that the information contained in the DEIR is something they can rely upon as accurate and truthful. The Rio Santiago Project DEIR is a far cry from the "full disclosure" document it is supposed to be. This DEIR is filled with "boiler -plate" responses, generalizations, broad assumptions, lots of hope and anticipation lacking the fundamental information and evidence to support their postulations. Much of data is deferred to some future time, after approvals: TBA. It's not clear if this approach is brazen or desperate, for certain it is a "Hail Mary." This project has been publicly promoted since 2007. There have been several starts and stops. There have been lots of press releases over the years, even proclamations that everyone on the planet supports the Rio Plan. It has taken a variety of forms yet it is surprising that the DEIR proposal is still so vague. Apparently years of trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole continue. The vague project description leaves numerous questions concerning key aspects of the project. The DEIR fails to identify the type and amount of uses in each planning area and fails to provide details concerning the types of commercial uses, number of employees, incomes, real traffic impacts, daily visitor estimates, daily emergency service needs, outside service providers, types of sports facilities, parking lots needed, storage and the like. The DEIR fails to adequately disclose the proposed and potential ancillary uses. The deferral of project details results in an underestimation of project impacts, especially Planning Area B. The project is not properly defined. The DEIR must analyze the maximum development, "worst case" scenario, so that the public may be properly informed. 70.4 70.5 The locations of major utilities and project components are not reported. The massive proposed installation of 265- units, along with kitchens, community rooms, exercise rooms, pool/spa, 81,000 square foot building, sports fields, parking lots, parking, 70.6 medical services, RV storage, stadiums, educational facility, etc. all will require new utilities which will have impacts to the area. These issues are not adequately disclosed for the public to understand the real environmental impacts this massive project will have. This project is in conflict with three long standing land use plans all adopted by the City of Orange: the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan, Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt & Implementation Plan and the East Orange General Plan. Committees 70.7 representing homeowners, major landowners, developers, and City and County governments carefully conceived all of these plans. All designate these this parcel as permanent open space. Neither the East Orange nor the OPA Plan (96 acres in total) designates this site for residential or commercial use. In fact both plans designate the Page 3 Rio Santiago DEIR July 1, 2013 site as permanent open space and were sold in its "as -is" condition with no entitlement contingencies. So this should not come as a shock to anyone. There are NO ENTITLEMENT CONTINGENCIES on these 96 acres. This project is also inconsistent with the City of Orange General Plan, which was updated in 2010. There is no reference to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan or the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Implementation Plan, which to my knowledge has not been rescinded, amended or replaced. There is no valid justification to wipe out all these carefully thought out plans in order to satisfy the needs of a developer. Citizens expect their elected officials to respect these long stand -standing plans. They do not support policy changes that do not protect their interests. Many remember the back room deal that was made with the 30-acre Strawberry Field in the 1990's. It was owned by the county, slated and zoned to be a park and was in an ideal location. A small group of individuals lobbied to get the land sold for houses as they viewed the property useless. Mostly it was about personal prejudice. It was sold to a developer for houses. Had it become a park as planned it would have been the third largest park in the City of Orange fulfilling an important need. Orange has struggled to provide needed parks. We are deficient by all standards and must learn from past mistake. We must keep a careful eye and require full disclosure and full understanding. The impacts of the proposed General Plan Text Amendment are far-reaching with consequences for generations to come. Whether these consequences are known or not, intended or not they must be analyzed. The impacts to the public park system in Orange are significant in order to accommodate the proposed private recreational facility. It sets in motion the ability to privatize or sell off parks. The DEIR fails to identify the real need for this General Plan Text change. There must be a detailed explanation as to why this must be done. The General Plan update was recently completed and no one was advocating for private landowners and non-profit organizations to sneak in under our public park system. Again, this stealth move requires a complete analysis. The DEIR fails to do this. The removal of the portions of the project site that are included in the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan and the East Orange General Plan and the creation of a new Specific Plan allows the developer to circumvent policies and regulations of our long-standing plans. There are major visual and aesthetic impacts that are not analyzed that will affect the natural rural ambience. This project introduces urban glare to our relatively dark sky setting that will forever change the character of our community. The DEIR does not adequately disclose and analyze these impacts. This project will result in short-term and permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The hustle and bustle of the commercial operation of a 265-unit senior housing facility, organized sports and increased traffic will have serious noise impact. The noise impacts 70.8 70.9 70.10 Page 4 Rio Santiago DEIR July 1, 2013 are not properly analyzed because the project is NOT adequately described. Noise and I 70.11 light impacts to species must be included to examine all the potential impacts. The constraints, historical uses, toxic dumping, methane gas contamination, unstable soils and hazards on this site, including the activities since the purchase of the property in 2007, all must be identified, properly disclosed and completely analyzed. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA") must be addressed. This DEIR does not define the plan for this site that legally complies with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), the Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) and all associated regulations and procedures that must be followed including permits for other uses and others that are using the property. Meaningful alternatives cannot be put forth for consideration until the true constraints of this property are fully understood. To suggest otherwise only short- circuits the CEQA process and the public's right to know. All potentially significant impacts must be disclosed including a "constraints map" of the site. One alternative that was not considered would be for agricultural use. Portions of this site have been used for agricultural production in the past. It is a logical location for growing due to its proximity to a water source. Agricultural is an important resource especially as locally grown food becomes a coveted commodity and is a high priority for many. The DEIR does not analyze the possibility of reintroducing food production on the site and only discounts agricultural needs. To be able to understand the impacts on biological resources focused surveys for each species must be included. The DEIR does not address the long-term habitat land management plan for the proposed open space area. None of this is included and must be disclosed and analyzed in order to properly evaluate the impacts to the wildlife, riparian habitat and protected wetlands. The true impacts and degradation to riparian and aquatic habitat through the discharge of pollutants into a creek cannot be determined based on information provided. The impacts of massive grading, modifying the natural flow of the water, altering vegetation or wildlife habitat, changing of the land forms, depositing substantial amounts of new material into a creek or causing substantial bank erosion or instability are all unknown based on the information provided. 70.12 70.13 70.14 70.15 The destruction in 2008 of several acres of trees and habitat on this project site needs to be part of the analysis relating to tree and habitat removal. This destruction may have interfered with native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The cumulative 7o.1s impacts to biological resources, past, present and future projects must be considered. This critical information is required by CEQA and must be included. Page 5 Rio Santiago DEIR July 1, 2013 Site excavation could result in the releasing of methane and other hazardous gases. In addition this site may contain hazardous materials that could create serious problems for the environment and the public. Because the project is located adjacent to the former Villa Park Landfill a thorough analysis of the potential impacts and potential liability the City may have due to inundation and landfill gases. This DEIR minimizes dam inundation and flood issues. It ignores the true realities. The proposed high -density senior housing project puts the elderly and infirmed right in the middle of a dangerous flood plain. There is no analysis of earthquake induced dam failures nor other natural or man-made failure causes. I live near the Villa Park Dam overlooking Santiago Creek and have witnessed the flow for nearly 25 years. There is no doubt that dam failure is possible and a high probability. The two upstream earthen dams, Santiago and Villa Park Dams are older structures and function in normal conditions. There has been concern that undetected geotechnical flaws in either of these older structures could result in loss of lives and major property damage downstream at the Rio Santiago site. All issues relating to flood hazards and dam inundation must be properly analyzed. This DEIR fails to do that. The DEIR states that "A County staff person lives on the Villa Park Dam site perpetually monitoring and operating storm discharges from the Dam to maximize storage behind the Dam thereby providing maximum flood protection." This simply is not true. Villa Park Dam has not had a resident dam keeper for several years. There is no one perpetually monitoring the dam. The dam keeper, with over 40 years of institutional and historical knowledge, has long retired and has been replaced by a pump station operator. The "maximum flood protection" claimed by this DEIR does not exist. As Bob Mc Gowan, former mayor of Villa Park stated in an email to me on February 12, 2005 "Every Dam Failure is unexpected and people were always assured before hand that they were in good condition." Santiago Creek has historically flowed all over the project site including underground. The Creek overtime has been rerouted to accommodate the sand and gravel operation. It now needs to be restored to its original flow. The DEIR fails to properly address this issue. The proposed planned bank stabilization for the creek may not protect the project area in the event of seismically induced catastrophic dam failure upstream. Residents and homeowners could experience the disasters of flooding. The City of Orange and its taxpayers could be exposed to tremendous financial liability. This is not addressed. A major portion of the site is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. Santiago Creek flows underground through the central portion of the site, causing a high water table, which in turn causes liquefaction during an earthquake. The DEIR fails to properly address this issue. 70.17 70.18 70.19 70.20 70.21 Page 6 Rio Santiago DEIR July 1, 2013 The DEIR states that, "Dam failure inundation is not normally used as a land -use planning constraint". In normal circumstances this may be true. However, this is not normal situation, proposing a project in a known dam inundation zone right in middle of a flood plain. The DEIR fails to identify the real dangers. This entire section fails to analyze worse case scenario, the exposure of people and structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death due to an inundation episode. The DEIR simply minimizes the real risk. The DEIR is deficient in that it does not properly analyze and convey these significant impacts or adequately explain how this streambed and dam inundation zone along Santiago Creek is suitable for this high -impact development. The Serrano Heights project has had significant impacts to Santiago Oaks Parks. This project will increase the use of regional parks in the area as well. These impacts must be explained. Required construction of various recreational facilities will have substantial impacts and have an adverse physical effect on the environment and potentially to our regional park. Planning Area B should include an accurate project description and a detailed analysis of the impacts to the environment. The traffic analysis does not evaluate the cumulative impacts of the projects in the area coupled with an analysis of the permanent proposed project. This would include resident, visitor, employee, service, recreational users, emergency and any others that might frequent this development. It does not include the Irvine Company 4,000 unit approved development to the East, the expansion of Santiago College or the projects in play in the Canyons. In addition, facilities that support alternative transportation must be considered: bus turnouts, bike trails and racks, horse crossings, staging areas, hitching posts, bus parking, RV parking, overflow parking, emergency ground vehicle access and an emergency helicopter landing to evacuate critically ill clients in the event of a road closure or emergency. Air traffic patterns would need to be considered and any related safety risks. Cumulative traffic impacts have not been analyzed. The DEIR fails to provide this information. 70.22 70.23 A backup plan must be designed in the event that Santiago Canyon Road is not accessible due to historical closures because of fires, power outages and fatal accidents in the area. What is the evacuation plan in the event of fires and or even worse dam failure? Having first hand experience with fire evacuation with large animals where we fend for ourselves I simply cannot imagine the impact of trying to evacuate the elderly in 70.24 such a chaotic circumstance. Where do these people go? Who helps them? How do they get out with such limited ingress/egress and thousands of people trying to get in and get out? Why are we putting people in such a risky situation? Those of us that have lived through fires get it. Those that have not may not understand the unnecessary liabilities being created because of this project. The DEIR is totally deficient in this area. Page 7 Rio Santiago DEIR July 1, 2013 No public bus routes exist along Santiago Canyon Road or in close proximity to this project site. If seniors don't have cars how would they get around? What impacts will that have on traffic? How do they get their food, go to the doctors or deal with their daily routines? How does this affect the rural area? The DEIR does not delineate these impacts. OCTA'S "Access Service" may not be available to seniors who reside in the area because that service is limited to frail elderly and handicapped persons who reside within one half mile of a OCTA fixed bus route system. The DEIR has not done a thorough analysis of public transportation resources available to support this project. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. I have only touched a few of the key issues. The Rio Santiago DEIR fails to accurately described or properly analyze the proposed project. A REVISED Draft Environmental Impact Report must be circulated that complies with CEQA and corrects all the deficiencies in the DEIR. The public has a right to understand the true impacts that are being proposed to their community. Sincerely, Theresa Sears 70.25 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 70 Date: July 1, 2013 Theresa Sears Response to Comment 70.1 The Commenter's statement related to the Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) reversing the acreage of the EO General Plan and OPA Plan is noted. The Commenter's statements related to a public meeting not being scheduled until Draft EIR comments formally addressed are noted. The Commenter is correct that the NOA and NOC did have reserve acreage. This was corrected in the 2°d Notice sent to the public regarding the updated Design Review Board Meeting. However, please note that the Draft EIR had the correct acreage within the document. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.11, Public Participation Process, Subsection 2.11.2, Design Committee Review of the Draft EIR, related to the public meetings and the EIR process. The close of the comment period for the Draft EIR was July 1, 2012. The proposed project was scheduled for DRC prior to the close of the review period; however, it was continued and re -noticed. The DRC held a public hearing on August 7, 2013. Therefore, the comment period for the Draft EIR was closed and the comments made on the Draft EIR were available. Furthermore, there is no requirement for the Design Review Committee to wait until the public comment period is over or to have all public comments and a City response prior to reviewing the project and associated 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 70.2 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately disclose the significant impacts to the surrounding community, the city at large, natural and cultural resources, and the risks associated with building in a known dangerous flood zone, not to mention proper disclosure of the toxic substances that have been dumped and buried at the site is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to the surrounding community and the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning related to the proposed project and City at large. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space and Section 2.7, Recreation related to the proposed project and open space and recreational opportunity including trails. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.5, Cultural Resources related to the project site and cultural resources. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology related to the proposed project and Rage 3-504 City of Orange - Response to CommentsiFinal EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses flooding. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to the proposed project and toxic substances, including the potential of buried locations. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.3 The Commenter's statements on the EIR process including informing the public and decision makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project and identifying feasible alternatives and measures to avoid adverse effects 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. The opinion that the project description including the significant impacts and setting information are incomplete 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. The Commenter's statement related to the public having the right to know is noted. The Commenter's statement related to being able to trust that the Draft EIR is accurate and truthful is noted. The Commenter's opinion related to the Draft EIR full disclosure 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. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR is full of "boil -plate" responses, generalizations, and broad assumptions is noted. The Commenter's opinions related to the approach being brazen or desperate, for certain it is a "Hail Mary" 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. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.4 The Commenter's opinion related to the proposed project being publicly promoted since 2007 are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to the starts and stops of the proposed project are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to press releases and proclamations of support are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole is noted. This information does not City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 Page 3-505 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the proposed Specific Plan conditionally allows a number of intensive uses in Planning Areas B and C, such as commercial uses, number of employees, incomes, real traffic impacts, daily visitor estimates, daily emergency services needs, outside service providers, types of sports facilities, parking lots needed, and storage. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5 Land Use and Planning related to this issue. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic and Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic related to the proposed project and traffic Impact. Please note that the traffic section of the Draft EIR analyzed worst -case traffic impacts based on most intense permitted uses. Please note that the proposed project does not propose primary commercial uses (see Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description). This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.5 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project and ancillary uses is noted. It is the Commenter's opinion that the deferral of project details results in an underestimation of project impacts, especially in Planning Area B. It is the Commenter's opinion that the project is not properly defined. It is the Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR must analyze the maximum development, "worst case" scenario, so that the public may be properly informed are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5 Land Use and Planning related to this issue. Section 6.4.1, Conditional Use Permit, Open Space - Park of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan provides a list of uses allowed in Planning Area B, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in accordance with the standards of the City of Orange Municipal Code (OMC). Several Commenters have expressed a concern with specific "intensive uses" permitted by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in Planning Area B. Stating that the impacts associated with these uses are quantitatively different from those associated with the proposed YMCA. They provided, as an example, of impact difference that automobile trips generated by a stadium exceed that of an athletic facility. Additionally, that these automobile trips are more concentrated in short windows of time before and after an event. The Draft EIR indicates that Planning Area B would be located in the southwestern comer of the project site, generally bordered by Santiago Creek on the north, East Santiago Canyon Road to the south and the closed Villa Park Landfill to the west. The planning area totals 10 gross acres in size (approximately nine percent of the project site) and would be developed prior to the last occupancy permit in Planning Area C and D. It would allow a variety of fee based recreational and community uses including "pay -for -play" uses, such as, but not limited to: Page 3-506 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses • Sports Activity Field(s) (i.e., softball/baseball), • Soccer/Lacrosse/Field Hockey Field, • Court Sport(s), • Swimming Pool(s), • Open Turf Area, and • Athletic Training Center. The Draft EIR indicates that the proposed sport fields have the potential to be lighted. Planning Area B would include a multi -purpose facility with a maximum of 81,000 square feet that may include a combination of the uses (listed below) and shall not exceed two stories in height. Ancillary uses in support of the above uses would also be allowed (including but not limited to parking lots, bicycle parking, restrooms, and support services such as sandwich shop, juice bar, coffee, pro shop, etc.). Freestanding commercial uses would not be permitted. The following uses would be allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and additional use -specific environmental assessment and review by the City: • Archery Range, • Country Club(s), • Free-standing Museums and Libraries, • Stadiums and Grandstands, • Skate Park, • Veterinary Clinics and Livestock Animal Hospitals, and • Daycare with 9 or more children The Draft EIR states that the proposed project would alter the existing visual character of Planning Area B with the elimination of existing on -site current uses [(i.e., the backfilling operation) Page 5.1-36 of the Draft EIR]. Further, the Draft EIR states that the proposed project, including all the permitted and conditionally permitted uses would not be perceived as a substantial degradation to the long-term visual character of portions of the project site and indicating that Planning Area B is substantially degraded by the current backfilling operation. At issuance of the NOP, Planning Area B was being backflled and contained the backfill operations and associated uses. There is no time limit for the completion of the backfill operation. Additionally, PDF AES-11 through AES-19, and PDF AES-22 would reduce potential long-term impacts related to the proposed project improvements in Planning Area B. These PDF's would require compliance with the City's Municipal Code related to landscaping and the establishment of specific design features to lessen the impact on the visual character of this area. Therefore, a less than significant long-term visual character impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. (Page 5.1-37 of the Draft EIR) The Draft EIR does not evaluate the impacts of an archery range, skate park, or daycare with nine (9) or more children. These uses are directly associated with a YMCA use and are customarily found within their operations. While Commenters noted these use are necessarily more "intensive uses," they are uses that require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in accordance with the OMC. An archery City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-507 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses range, skate park, or daycare with 8 or more children has been evaluated throughout the EIR in association with the YMCA as associated uses. Each of these three uses require further evaluation for potential specific issues once their precise location would be determined (i.e., safety zones for archery range). Therefore, the CUP a further discretionary approval and subject to further CEQA analyses and review by the City at the appropriate time to review potential issues. The Draft EIR does not evaluate country clubs; free standing museums and libraries; stadiums and grandstands; and, veterinary clinics and livestock animal hospitals. County clubs would be associated with a golf facility. Therefore, since no golf facility could be developed in Planning Area B this potential use, while conditionally permitted must be considered speculative. The project applicant has indicated that free standing museums and libraries would occur within the evaluated 81,000 square feet of allowable development within Planning Area B. Therefore, the CUP, which requires further discretionary approval and CEQA review by the City, would be the appropriate time to review potential issues with these specific uses. Planning Area B could be utilized as a stadium or grandstand with the approval of a CUP. It would be speculative to evaluate a stadium or grandstand facility at this time as the exact location and size (i.e., number of seats) is unknown. Therefore, the CUP, which requires further discretionary approval and CEQA review by the City, would be the appropriate time to review potential issues with these specific uses. The approval of the Specific Plan by the City would not represent a commitment to expand the use of the project site to allow these uses. City approval would established the requirement should these specific uses be considered on the project site that further evaluation (i.e., CEQA & CUP) must be undertaken. Therefore, while it might be argued that potential for approval of a future conditionally permit use would exist; there is no commitment to expand uses on the project site at this time. Please note that the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description provides ancillary uses allowed within the Specific 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 70.6 The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze major utilities that would be required for the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Response to Comments 70.3, 70.4, and 70.5 above. Additionally, please note that the proposed project is a Specific Plan and sub -level developments would require additional evaluation. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems related to the utilities and project components. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the 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 3-508 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.7 The Commenter's opinion that the proposed project conflicts with three adopted City plans: OPA Plan, Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt & Implementation Plan, and the EO General Plan. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5 Land Use and Planning, specifically Table 2.5-1, Summary of Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations that identifies each plan, policy, or regulation; indicates if it is applicable to the proposed project; and, provides a discussion of the issue/Draft EIR analysis. As noted Table 2.5-1, Summary of Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations the proposed project would conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations. The Draft EIR states that, "The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations and no mitigation measures would be required." (Page 5.10-105, Draft EIR). Even given this determination, several Commenters have expressed concern with the proposed projects consistency with other plans and programs (i.e., Santiago Creek Greenbelt Vision Plan, Santiago Creek Vision Plan, Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan, etc.), as indicated in Table 2.5-1, Summary of Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations, these plans are not applicable to the project site. Please note that the project applicant has the right to apply for the proposed project. Please note that staff did not initiate the application and not predetermination on the proposed project has been made. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.8 The Commenter's opinion that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City General Plan, including no reference to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and the Santiago Creek Implementation Plan, and the Strawberry Field development is noted. As noted in Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning, Table 2.5-1, Summary of Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations the proposed project would conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations. The Draft EIR states that, "The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relating to conflicting with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations and no mitigation measures would be required." (Page 5.10-105, Draft EIR). The following discussion is provided to further clarify with the proposed projects consistency with other plans and programs (i.e., Santiago Creek Greenbelt Vision Plan, Santiago Creek Vision Plan, Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan, etc.). City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-509 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan The Santiago Creek Greenbelt Vision Plan (SCVP) indicates that the first known public planning effort for Santiago Creek was included as part of a larger Santa Ana River plan, in March, 1971. The Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (SARSCGP) assessed the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, as a "link in the tri-county coast -to -crest greenbelt." The SARSCGP reviewed the natural resources and made proposals in four geographic segments and provided recommendations for implementation. Santiago Creek was evaluated as one of the four segments. The SARSCGP's recommendations for Santiago Creek included: • Study flood control needs and for feasibility of rehabilitating gravel pits as retention basins and regional parks, thereby alleviating future needs to line the Creek with concrete to protect adjacent housing; • Preserve agriculture; • Develop, enlarge or connect small parks along the Creek; • Link the Creek with residential communities by acquiring the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad "Tustin Branch" for trail use; • Extend a trail along the Creek, connecting parks; and, • Preserve and protect hill settings. The Santiago Creek Greenbelt Vision Plan (SCVP) indicates that trails were regarded as the single most important objective of the 1971 corridor plan. City Council actions related to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (SARSCGP) have been reviewed. Based on this review, it has been determined that the SARSCGP was not adopted by the City. At the request of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the City joined the program providing one -member from the City Council to represent the City on the Greenbelt Organization Committee; one City Staff member to be a rotating member of the Greenbelt Program Plan Committee; and appointment five citizens to the Orange Greenbelt plan committee. Please refer to City Council minutes April 15, 1972. However, the OPA Plan incorporated certain portions of the SARSCGP and the OPA Plan was adopted as part of the Land Use Element of the City General Plan. (City Resolution No. 3915 adopted December 26, 1973) as follows: ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLANNING PROGRAM Within the Orange County General Planning Program elements have been adopted and have application to this study: 1. The 1983 Orange County Land Use Element has been adopted and supersedes the Orange Community General Plan and the Tustin Area General Plan (see Exhibit 4t21 [1983 Land Use Element]). Not shown on the exhibit is the incorporation of the Santa Ana River - Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan. These plans have been used for reference in this planning Page 3-510 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses study. The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan will be proposed as an amendment to the 1983 Land Use Element. (Page 77 of the OPA Plan) POLICIES FOR ORANGE PARK ACRES 10. Preserve Santiago Creek as a balanced ecological system and riparian area, maintaining the diversity of plant and vertebrate species while allowing for light recreational use such as equestrian and hiking trails. Specifically support: the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Proposal by the County of Orange (Page 101 of the OPA Plan) The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan proposes the incorporation of that portion of the County adopted Santa Ana River - Santiago, Creek Greenbelt Plan within the Santiago Creek to the north and east of this study area. This covers approximately 450 acres of the study area. (Page 118 of the OPA Plan) The Plan proposes the incorporation of presently proposed trails within the, Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails for Orange County, the Proposed Orange County Skeletal Bicycle Plan and the Santiago Creek Project Priority Map. The Plan also depicts the proposed local routes to form the main trail system for Orange Park Acres to link to these routes. (See Exhibit # 33 (Parks, Trails & Open Spaces) of specific note is the incorporation, of Handy Creek as a trail link. It is recommended that it be acquired to provide for trails and drainage. (Page 118 of the OPA Plan) The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicting with General Plan policies and goals, and no mitigation measures would be required. Because the OPA Plan is part of the City General Plan, certain portions of the SARSCGP are a part of the City General Plan. (Page 5.10-10, Draft EIR) The proposed project would amend the City's General Plan and remove the project site from the OPA Plan area. The Draft EIR found that with the City's approval of the amendments to the OPA Plan and the EO General Plan and the approval of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-16, Draft EIR) Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan The Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan (SARSCGIP) was a status report. The Santiago Creek Vision Plan (SCVP) states that, "This document served as a thorough overview and update of prior planning efforts, using Orange County's corridor plan of 1971 as a benchmark, while incorporating known flood protection proposals and other regional projects of interest, such as water supply and waste treatment (Wells 1976: 2-10)." The Santiago Creek Vision Plan (SCVP) further states that, By 1973, "a multi jurisdictional, separate public agency," or joint powers authority, was formed to coordinate project implementation within Orange County: the Greenbelt Commission. The commission was comprised of three members of the County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Flood Control District, two directors of Orange County Water District, and council City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-511 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses members from each of eight cities located within the watershed, based upon acreage in the planning area: Anaheim (two representatives), Huntington Beach (two), Newport Beach (one), Orange (four), Santa Ana (two), Villa Park (three) and Yorba Linda (two). Twenty-six citizens were appointed as members of Santiago Creek Greenbelt Committees that worked to coordinate planning on a local level. The Board of Supervisors folded the greenway plan into the county's open space element of its general plan (Ibid.: 11-15 and 18, citing Resolution No. 74-1151). The group focus was limited to a reach of Santiago Creek that came to be known as "Lower Santiago Creek," extending from Villa Park Dam to the Santa Ana River confluence. The corridor was "arbitrarily defined" as three miles of land centered on the creek. In what may be described as a project vision, the implementation plan states that the corridor: ... should be viewed as a linear greenbelt, linking park nodes and significant open spaces by a bicycle, equestrian and hiking trail system. The river look and atmosphere should be saved or restored as appropriate, with an emphasis on trees, informal space, and quiet contrast to the surrounding urban texture and "busy- ness." The demands for open space and recreation should be balanced according to the potential of the corridor, i.e., some areas of intensive use, some of natural preserve, [others] in-between (Ibid.: 13). Goals expressed for Santiago Creek at this time (1976) included studying the creek's adequacy for ongoing flood protection, considering the feasibility of converting sand and gravel pits as retention basins and new parks, extending and linking the existing smaller parks located along the creek, developing a continuous recreation trail and preserving or protecting natural lands on nearby hillsides. The Greenbelt Commission's implementation plan defined a range of recreational uses and facilities that could comprise a greenway, including: bicycle and equestrian facilities; state, regional, natural, community, neighborhood and miniature parks; trail rest stops, park and ride facilities, water conservation facilities; equestrian centers, golf courses and open space reserves (Ibid.: 28-30). Santiago Creek is mapped generally as one of four planning areas within Orange County, with then -vacant lands along the creek identified as "greenbelt corridor" and nearby lands noted as "impact area." General concepts are presented, such as "Lower Santiago Creek Regional Park" that was first proposed in the county's 1960 Master Plan of Regional Parks, a "live stream" extending from Santiago Dam to Walnut Avenue, sand and gravel pit rehabilitation, and development of a specific plan for Lower Santiago Creek (Ibid.: 32 and 7982). The implementation plan also reflects some of the planning conceived by residents or coordinated by the City of Orange and local Citizen Greenbelt Committees. Equestrian and commuter trails were proposed from Hart Park to Santiago Oaks Regional Park, each along an edge of the creek. Hart Park, initially developed in 1933, had just recently been expanded across and south of the creek. An easterly expansion was now being discussed. Specific opportunities for development of a recreation facility and community park, the acquisition of open space, possible trail connections, park -and -ride sites, even a campground were suggested as projects. Nature preserve and wilderness areas were forecast at a site that had been recently purchased by the county, later known as Santiago Oaks Regional Park (Ibid.: 86-91). The success of this era was attributed to a strong level of community participation and interest in Santiago Creek, noted by Wells as key to Page 3-512 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses the implementation of local projects. The city's portion of the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan was approved by the City Council on 18 May 1976. In addition to charter membership, in the Greenbelt Commission, the city has provided funds and staff hours in support of the joint study to develop the land use decision model for Santiago Creek and Santa Ana Canyon. The city's Citizen Greenbelt Committee has been exceptionally active in the greenbelt program, and has worked closely with the committees of neighboring jurisdictions and their staffs in the development of greenbelt plans. Members of the committee have attended numerous meetings with developers regarding planned developments along the greenbelt corridor; reviewed and provided comments and recommendations to their city's planning commission and council about the compatibility of plans with the greenbelt, and in general have been a forceful, constructive influence on maintaining the inertia and quality of the greenbelt program (Ibid.: 81). City Council actions related to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Implementation Plan (SARSCGIP) have been reviewed. The SARSCGIP was accepted by the City Council on May 18, 1976. The City did not adopt the SARSCGIP. However, the City Council Minutes (May 18, 1976) indicated that the City approved the implementation of certain project projects identified in the SARSCGIP. Based on this review, it has been determined that the SARSCGIP was not adopted by the City. While the SARSCGIP has been utilized as a reference, it is not a City adopted public policy related to the project site. Therefore, no further action or analysis is warranted. Santiago Creek Vision Plan The Santiago Creek Vision Plan (SCVP) is a strategic visioning proposal for the seven -mile corridor in the City, from William O. Hart Park to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. The SCVP was prepared by the City, Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance, and the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program with support from the Wildland Conservancy in December 15, 2008. The SCVP describes a "Vision Plan" for a greenway, multi -purpose trail system and healthy watershed along Santiago Creek in the City. The primary goals of the SCVP are to: l . Develop a continuous multi -purpose trail on the upper bank of the Creek (uplands area). 2. Create a greenway along the creek by restoring the Creek bed and its adjacent uplands with native trees and shrubs. 3. Maximize ground water recharge by restoring the Creek bed in specific areas. 4. Maintain or improve existing level of flood protection. The SCVP also provides general guidance on how Santiago Creek, greenway and trail improvements could be integrated into development proposals. The SCVP was developed as a vision for the future of Santiago Creek. The SCVP anticipated that following its adoption, more detailed proposals for specific projects will include evaluation of environmental resources and identification of project impacts. The SCVP does not obligate the City or landowners to any immediate actions or land use restrictions. At time of writing the City's 2010 General Plan, the Natural Resource Element states, "In 1999, the City applied for, and was granted, technical assistance from the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-513 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Conservation Assistance Program to prepare a conceptual master plan for Santiago Creek. The plan, which is under preparation, will address three major components: recreation trails, open space, and flood control. The City will continue to work toward completion of the Vision Plan for Santiago Creek, and will implement its recommendation, consistent with General Plan policies concerning the Creek." (Page NR-46) The SCVP is intended to facilitate long-term actions and strategic development of community -based improvements. The SCVP primary goals are to: 1. Construct a multi -purpose trail system along the Creek bank connecting Santiago Park in Santa Ana to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Santiago Oaks Regional Park connects to regional trails further east and south (e.g., Anaheim Hills Trails, Irvine Regional Park, Weir Canyon and the Mountains -to -Sea National Recreation Trail and Peters Canyon). 2. Create a greenway (where possible) along the Creek by restoring the Creek bed and its adjacent uplands with native trees and shrubs. 3. Restore the Creek's natural contribution to groundwater recharge by removal of concrete parking lots from the Creek bed and replacing non-native plants with soft -stemmed natives. 4. Maintain or improve flood protection goals defined by county officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The SCVP describes the project site within Section 2.7, Mile 7, Cannon Street Bridge to East End of Sully -Miller (i.e., former project site owner) Property. The SCVP states that Mile 7 contains the largest undeveloped parcel of land in the study area. The SCVP describes the project site as: It is known as the Sully -Miller properties named for the firm that mined this site between 1920 and 1985. It is one of only four sizeable undeveloped parcels of land remaining along Santiago Creek (the other three are the Yorba site behind Chapman Hospital; the Hurwitz property on the west side of Cannon Street; and the abutting Villa Park Landfill). A small portion on the southeast corner is presently (2007) being used for a recycling/crushing facility operated by Hanson Aggregates. Agricultural field crops have been grown in the past on large portions of the site that were first mined for sand and gravel, and then filled with silt from the processing operations, or with inert materials (rock, asphalt, concrete, etc.). The Villa Park Landfill was a former gravel pit which was once mined to a depth of about 75 feet (County of Orange 1977). After removal of the sand and gravel it was used for disposal of household refuse. The disposal site is still producing significant amounts of methane gas that is evacuated through a system of underground wells and pipes exhausting to the atmosphere (County of Orange 2000). Figure 42 is a photograph of the Sully -Miller site looking west from Rattlesnake Peak in Santiago Oaks Regional Park. The Cannon Street Bridge is seen in the background near the upper left. A portion of Mabury Avenue is seen along the right. Santiago Creek, visible only as a riparian corridor, flows generally west past the Villa Park Landfill and under the Cannon Street Bridge. The creek itself is hidden by the trees in the foreground and eclipsed by the terrain. Page 3-514 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Much of the Sully Miller property is covered with a mixture of native and non-native plant species, as seen in Figure 42 and 43. The trees shown in the photo are mostly native willows. An unpaved road could provide a good base for the bike path running east from the Cannon Street Bridge to the vicinity of Handy Creek. The portion of the Sully -Miller site that is on the south side of the creek is ideal for trails, a greenway and active park use. A 100-foot right-of-way is recommended for the trail and greenway along the south side of the creek, to the point where the trail would cross the creek to join an existing segment of the Santiago Creek Trail on the north side. Much of this area will likely be left undisturbed due to the mitigation that would be required, should the site become disturbed. (Sully-Miller/Fieldstone Communities 2001). Abutting this site is a 9.6-acre parcel (now owned by John Martin) that is presently zoned R-1-8 although its development potential may be limited. The SCVP identifies four potential projects recommended for Mile 7 are shown in Table 2.5-2, Santiago Creek Vision Plan Potential Projects — Mile 7. Table 2.5-2: Santiago Creek Vision Plan Potential Projects — Mile 7 Project No. Description 7.1 Develop closed landfill as a parking facility for adjacent open space and active park. 7.2 Construct Class I bike path from Cannon Street to Handy Creek confluence. 7.3 Restore land on both sides of trails with native plants as needed. 7.4 Construct recreation trail north from the bike trail to the Mabury Ranch Trail Install pedestrian bridge across Santiago Creek. Jource: Nantiago Creek Vision flan. City Council actions related to the SCVP have been reviewed. Based on this review, it has been determined that the SCVP was not adopted by the City. While the SCVP has been utilized as a reference, it is not a City adopted public policy related to the project site. Therefore, no further action or analysis is warranted. The Commenter's opinion related to the back room deal that was made with the 30-acre Strawberry Field is noted. The Commenter's opinion related to that Strawberry Field being slated for a park is noted. The Commenter's opinion elated to Strawberry Field being sold for houses and being about personal prejudices is noted. The Commenter's opinion related to Strawberry Field potential of being the 3`d largest park is noted. Please note that the proposed project is not connected to the Strawberry Field project. Additionally, please note that the project applicant has the right to apply for the proposed project. Please note that staff did not initiate the application and not predetermination on the proposed project has been made. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the 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 3-515 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 70.9 The Commenter's opinion related to the City struggling to provide parks and being deficient by standards is noted. The Commenter's opinion related to keeping a careful eye and required full disclosure and full understanding are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to the impacts of the proposed General Plan Text Amendment being far-reaching and consequences not being analyzed are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to impacts to public park system in the City are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to the City selling off parks per the amendment are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to the General Plan Update recently completed and no one advocating for private landowners and non-profit organizations and sneaking in under the public park system are noted. The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the entire project are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation and Letter 21 related to this issue. This concern deals with the proposed change to the General Plan Text. A discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with the general plan is provided in Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning. The Draft EIR states, Open Space - Park The proposed project would modify the Open Space — Park (OS-P) General Plan designation as noted below. The City General Plan Open Space — Park designation is described as: Public lands used for passive and active recreation. Includes all parklands owned and maintained by the City of Orange, as well as parks operated by the County. " (City of Orange General Plan, Table LU-1). Land uses within this designation are described as follows: The Open Space Park designation refers to public and/or private lands used for passive and active recreation. This includes all parklands owned and maintained by the City of Orange, as well as parks operated by the County non-profit organizations, and private landowners (Proposed Amendment to City of Orange General Plan, Page LU-22). There are proposed changes to the General Plan text for Open Space Park and are noted above in *�'-� and underline. The proposed text changes allow for private recreation, such as a YMCA or other private pay for use facilities to be permitted on Open Space Park General Plan designation. With the inclusion of the text amendment to the OS-P, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. (Page 5.10-15, Draft EIR) Page 3-516 City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses The amendment to the City General Plan "Text" would amend the "Open Space —Park" (OS-P) description. The City General Plan presently only designates land as OS-P that is owned and maintained by the City or County. The proposed text changes allow for private recreational users, such as a YMCA or other private pay -for -use facilities to own land designated as OS-P by the City General Plan. The Commenter has expressed a concern was stated that the text amendment would allow the City to sell existing Park land to private owners planning to operate the park on a "pay —to -play" basis. These owners could develop any of the intense active recreational uses allowed under the current Park designation. Some of these uses may have significant environmental impacts on local streets and neighboring communities. While the amendment could potentially allow for a change in ownership, a change in ownership would not change any existing use or potential future use. CEQA requires the City to evaluate the significance of the environmental effect of a proposed project. The Commenter's concerns with the potential sale of City public park land to private individuals who might choose to exclude the public and allow the City to raise funds in an economic downturn are speculative. CEQA requires only the analysis of effects that are reasonably foreseeable and not changes that are speculative in nature. It is the opinion of the City that Commenter's concern is not valid and is speculative in nature. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.10 The Commenter's statements related to the removal of the project site from the EO General Plan and OPA Plan and creating visual impacts related to rural ambience and light and glare are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics related to community character. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics and Sub -Section 2.2.3, Light and Glare related to light and glare from the proposed project. 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 EO General Plan and 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. Response to Comment 70.11 The Commenter's statements related to noise and light impacts on species from proposed project are noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 70.5 regarding the project not being adequately described. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5,Biological Resources related to the proposed project and biology. Please refer to PDF BIO-6 which establishes development standards in the Specific Plan to reduce sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 rage t-07 1 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals) to the adjacent open space area supporting sensitive biological resources (i.e., least Bell's vireo and sensitive natural communities), as demonstrated in Table 5.4-8, Biological Development Standards, related to lighting, noise, exotic plant and animal infestations, educational materials, and trail locations. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-IA, requested that the project shall be designed to minimize exterior night lighting while remaining compliant with City of Orange ordinances related to street lighting. Any necessary lighting (e.g., to light up equipment for security measures), both during construction and after the development has been completed, will be shielded or directed away from Santiago Creek and are not to exceed 0.5 foot-candles. Monitoring by a qualified lighting engineer (attained by the project applicant and subject to spot checking by City Staff) shall be conducted as needed to verify light levels are below 0.5 foot-candles required within identified, occupied least Bell's vireo territories, both during construction and at the onset of operations. If the 0.5 foot-candles requirement is exceeded, the lighting engineer shall make operational changes and/or install a barrier to alleviate light levels during the breeding season. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.4, Biological Resources, Table 5.4-8, Biological Development Standards, related to specific development standards for the proposed project to reduce impacts of light and noise on sensitive species. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.12 The Commenter's statements related to historical uses including toxic dumping, methane gas, and unsuitable soil are noted. The Commenter's comments related to not defining the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and associated regulations are noted. The Commenter's opinion that the Draft EIR does not define a plan for the project site that legally complies with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), the Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) and all associated regulations and procedures including permits for other uses and other using the project site is noted. The purpose of an EIR is not to define a plan for the project site. An EIR is an information document that assists in the decision making process. Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description Subsection 3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR for a discussion of the intended uses of the EIR and Subsection 3.4.10, Other Additional Agencies Expected to Use This EIR for a list of additional agencies that are expected to use this Draft EIR for their review of the project and the project component under their review and approval. The City has reviewed the requirements of SMARA and OMR and provided notice to the State related to the completion of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to the proposed project and potential toxic dumping, methane gas contamination, and hazards. Please refer to Draft EIR Section rage i-b 1 b City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses 5.6, Geology and Soils related to the proposed project and unstable soils. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description related to the existing uses on the project site. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 70.13 The Commenter's statements related to alternatives not being put forth for consideration until true constraints are identified are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to short-circuiting the CEQA process and the public's right to know is noted. The Commenter's opinion related to all potentially significant impacts including a constrains map of the site is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10, Alternatives related to this issue. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the State CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, which would feasibly achieve most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the analysis. Additionally, an EIR may only consider alternatives that are feasible. Even within all of these parameters, an EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. However, alternatives may be considered even if they would impede, to some degree, the attainment of project objectives or be more costly (provided that they remain economically feasible). The analysis contained in this section includes an analysis of each identified alternative with respect to each of the environmental issues evaluated for the proposed project CEQA provides that a project cannot be approved, if there are feasible alternatives that would substantially lessen its environmental effects. The City may reject alternatives as infeasible, if based on substantial evidence in the record; the decision -makers find the alternatives are impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint. [California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 9571 Agricultural Production Alternative The Commenter requested that an alternative be presented in the EIR that would allow for the project site to be developed for agricultural use. The Commenter noted that portions of the project site have been used for agricultural production in the past. It was their opinion that the project site is a logical location for growing due to its proximity to a water source. They noted that agricultural is an important resource especially as locally grown food becomes a coveted commodity and is a high priority for many. The Draft EIR does not analyze the possibility of reintroducing food production on the project site. Agricultural production intermittently occurred on the project site with the most recent production occurring from approximately 1993 through 2004. Agricultural production included fruit orchards and strawberry production. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 rage s-o 7 a Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses As previously noted, the State CEQA Guidelines only require EIRs to describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, which would feasibly achieve most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the analysis. Additionally, an EIR may only consider alternatives that are feasible. Even within all of these parameters, an EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. It is noted that alternatives may be considered even if they would impede, to some degree, the attainment of project objectives or be more costly (provided that they remain economically feasible). The analysis contained in this section includes an analysis of each identified alternative with respect to each of the environmental issues evaluated for the proposed project. An agricultural alternative would potentially meet only one project objectives as noted in Table 2.10-2, Comparison Agricultural Alternative and Project Objectives. It is unknown agricultural production would be a financially feasible alternative. As noted above, recent agricultural production ceased on the project site in 2004. The potential for agricultural use of the project site in an economically feasible manner to the project applicant is speculative. Additionally, it should be noted that agricultural production is regulated under the California Food and Agricultural Code and parts of the Health and Safety Code, Labor Code, and Business and Professions Code (field workers and structural pest control). The Department of Pesticide Regulation for California sets pesticide use buffers and/or other conditions (i.e., SCAQMD). By law, specific conditions are set for the use of pesticides on agricultural crops where those crops are adjacent to "sensitive areas" such as schools (within '/4 mile), wildlife and endangered species habitat, aquatic areas, and occupied residences. Response to Comment 70.14 The Commenter's statements related to biological resources focused surveys for each species are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12, Biological Resources and Response to Comment 21.12 related to the proposed project and biological impacts. Focused surveys for sensitive species were conducted, in accordance with accepted protocols, for those special status species with some probability of occurrence on the project site. Focused surveys were conducted in the years 2010 and 2012 by qualified biologists for sensitive plants species (nine separate "Identified Species" as well as 19 additional species; reported on Page 5.4-14 of the Draft EIR), arroyo toad, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher, as reported Page 5.4-16 of the Draft EIR and in the Biological Resource Assessment, Appendix C. Both Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica ssp. californica) and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) were observed during the focused sensitive plant surveys. Focused surveys for arroyo toad were conducted by MBA in 2008 and PCR in 2010 but this species was not found on -site (Page 5.4-16 of the Draft EIR). Similarly, focused surveys were conducted for burrowing owl by PCR in 2012 but this species was not observed during these surveys (Page 5.4-17 of the Draft EIR). rage 3-b20 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed on -site during focused survey conducted in 2008, 2010 and 2012 (Page 5.4-17 of the Draft EIR). An incidental sighting of a single juvenile coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in August 2010. Because focused surveys during breeding season for this species did not record this species using the project site for reproduction, and since habitat where this coastal California gnatcatcher individual was observed was disturbed/ruderal (and not coastal sage scrub), it is assumed that this bird was a using the site as a dispersal area. Protocol surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher were also conducted (Page 5.4-17 of the Draft EIR). This species was not observed during focused surveys conducted for southwestern willow flycatcher in 2008, 2010 and 2012. However, willow flycatcher (i.e., not the southwestern subspecies) was observed during focused surveys conducted in 2012. Two willow flycatchers were observed foraging and calling in the trees that border the fallow field in the eastern portion of the project site. The habitat that these willow flycatchers were observed within is considered unsuitable as potential nesting habitat; therefore, it is assumed that both birds were migrants passing through the area, and are not the southwestern willow flycatcher subspecies. In addition, one willow flycatcher was also observed calling in two locations within the north central portion of the project site. The habitat that this willow flycatcher was observed in is considered suitable for nesting; however, no breeding willow flycatchers were observed during the focused surveys. Least Bell's vireo was observed within the project site during focused surveys conducted in 2008 and 2010 (Page 5.4-17 of the Draft EIR). A pair of least Bell's vireo was observed within the canopy of the southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest during the May 16, 2010 survey. Only the male least Bell's vireo was seen or heard during subsequent surveys (on May 26; June 5, 16; July 17, and 27, 2010). No least Bell's vireo were observed during the 2012 survey. Response to Comment 70.15 The Commenter's statements related to true impacts and degradation to riparian and aquatic habitat through the discharge of pollutants into a creek are noted. The Commenter's states related to the impacts related to massive grading, modifying the natural flow of water, altering vegetation or wildlife habitat, changing land forms, bank erosion are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.12, Biological Resources related to the proposed project and biological impacts. Additionally, please refer to Response to Comment 21.12. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Geology and Soils related to soil erosion. Project grading details are included in the Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR (Pages 3-24 and 3-75). The grading footprint is the basis for the biological resources impact analysis, as depicted in Figure 5.4-7, Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species (Page 5.4-55), and the calculations of impacts to natural communities Table 5.4-6, Impacts to Natural Communities on Page 5.4-67 of the Draft EIR. Additional impact assessment is depicted in Figure 5.4-8, Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife Species (Page 5.4-72), Figure 5.4-9, Impacts to Natural Communities (Page 5.4-73), Figure 5.4-10, Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities (Page 5.4-74), and Figure 5.4-11, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features (Page 5.4-75). City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 Page 3-521 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses In particular, approximately 37.8 acres of the proposed project site will be avoided from the development footprint. The proposed project will avoid the majority of Santiago Creek and its associated riparian habitat (13.8 acres of southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest and 1.4 acres of undifferentiated open woodland) as well as upland habitat (2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub). This includes approximately 16.2 acres of sensitive natural communities, including 2.4 acres of coastal sage scrub and 13.8 acres of southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest within and/or adjacent to Santiago Creek (see Page 5.4-45 of the Draft EIR). Mitigation for impacts to riparian resources is provided through MM BIO-3 and permitting from California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Response to Comment 70.16 The Commenter's statements related to destruction in 2008 of several acres of trees and habitat on the project site are noted. The Commenter's statements related to the cumulative impacts to biological resources are noted. Baseline conditions for project impact analysis consistent with the provisions of CEQA are established with the circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which the City of Orange circulated in April 7, 2011 to May 27, 2011. This date succeeds the referenced destruction of 2008 in the comment and therefore, would not be considered as part of the baseline conditions, and does not require environmental analysis under this Draft EIR. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts of the Draft EIR. Based on the information presented in this section related to effects on species, riparian habitat or sensitive communities, Federally and State protected wetlands, wildlife corridors and nursery sites, policies and ordinances, and conservation plans (Pages 6-19 to 6-22 of the Draft EIR), the proposed project would not have a significant potential to have a cumulatively considerable incremental effect upon cumulative biological resource impacts. Response to Comment 70.17 The Commenter's statements related to site excavation resulting in the release of methane and other gases are noted. The issuance of the NOP establishes the baseline for CEQA analysis. At that time it was determined that all potentially hazards and hazardous material that may have been previously on the project site no longer exist. The Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's statements related to alleged improper oversight are noted. The current backfill operation on the project site is under the "oversight" of the City. Please note that the Draft EIR states 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 Page 3-522 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses 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, 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. In addition, grading permit(s) will be requested from the City to complete the backfilling of the previously mined portions of the project site, as described below in 3.8, Demolition and Grading Concept. 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. Therefore, as a practical result, 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. (Page 5.10-4 through t 5.10-11 of the Draft EIR) The Commenter's statements related to toxins, chemicals, pollutants from illegal dumping, the asphalt operation or the concrete rushing operations exist and need to be properly cleaned up from the site are noted. The issuance of the NOP establishes the baseline for CEQA analysis. At that time it was determined that all potentially hazards and hazardous material that may have been previously on the project site no longer exist. The Draft EIR notes that: Tait Environmental Services determined that all other potential hazards and hazardous materials that may have previously been located on the project site no longer exist, including asbestos. Refer to Appendix I, Environmental Site Assessment Reports, to this Draft EIR for additional information related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Page 5.8-4 of the Draft EIR) The Draft EIR concluded that no long-term operational impacts would be anticipated in Planning Areas A, B, and D because hazards or hazardous materials identified in these planning areas will be mitigated to a less than significant level with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Potential long-term operational impacts occurring in Planning Area C include: Vapor intrusion of VOCs into future buildings. City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 Page 3-b13 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Tait Environmental Services collected five soil vapor sample in Planning Area C that contained methane at concentrations below one percent by volume. The possibility exists that this methane could infiltrate buildings in Planning Area C and concentrate in rooms with limited air exchanges. The methane concentration could exceed its lower explosive limit (5% by volume), creating a potentially explosive mixture. Tait Environmental Services noted that the need for the remedial actions would be depend on final surface cover and final grade elevations for the areas of concern. They noted that the potential need for remedial action would be reduced, when the distance between the detected methane -containing soil vapor and the final grade increased. Tait Environmental Services noted that vapor barriers or passive/active venting systems beneath buildings in Planning Area C would eliminate this concern. Remedial actions could include mechanical stripping of TCE-impacted soil in the affected area. Impacts to long-term significant human health risk from TCE-impacted soils and/or methane to users of residential buildings located in Planning Area C would be potentially significant (Impact HAZ-2); however, with the incorporation (See Mitigation Measure HAZ-2), impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Response to Comment 70.18 The Commenter's statements related to dam inundation and flood issues are noted. The Commenter's statement that there is no analysis of earthquake included dam failure is noted. The Commenter's statement related to living near the Villa Park Dam and being sure it will fail is noted. The Commenter's statement that there is concern that undetected geotechnical flaws in the Dams is noted. Dam Failure Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding, Subsection 2.2.4, Dam Failure related to the proposed project and dam failure. The Draft EIR evaluated drainage patterns related to flooding and the potential for a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The Draft EIR did not find that Planning Area A could not be developed because of flood plan issues. No residential development is proposed for Planning Area A. No improvements would occur in Planning Area A on the north side of the Santiago Creek. Residential improvements would be confined to Planning Areas C and D. All other planning areas would be reserved as some form of open space or recreational related area use (Page 5.9-44 of the Draft EIR). Please note that the proposed project has significant unavoidable impact related to dam failure (Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Dam Failure — earthquake The Draft EIR found that the project geotechnical consultant has reviewed documentation pertaining to dam construction, past performance and earthquake faults in the vicinity of the dams to evaluate the impacts due to dam failure and ensuing inundation flooding. Based on the information provided in the Draft EIR, Appendix G, Geotechnical Investigation, risk of catastrophic failure is reduced considering the past favorable dam inspection reports, the remote location of active faults in the area, the factor of safety Page 3-524 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses and stringent design criteria used in modern dam design and construction. As such, they are considered to be safe for continued use. 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 page 5.9-51 topic Dam Failure for additional information. Response to Comment 70.19 The Commenter's statement related to not having a County Staff person that lives on the Villa Park Dam site is noted. This comment is correct. The watchman retired in approximately 2005 and was not replaced by the County of Orange. Section 4.0, Errata to the Draft EIR has the following change to the EIR. Page 5.9-50: Page 5.9-50 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted below to modify the below mitigation measures: According to Herb Nakasone (County of Orange), County Staff operates and maintains the Villa Park Dam to provide maximum flood protection to downstream residents and businesses and is prepared to respond to emergencies if necessary. A-Cotinty staff pefron lives en the Villa d,,.,. keeper- on site at all times 24 hour, seven day week operational plan with trained personnel who understand the operations of the Dam is ready to be implemented in the event a storm is anticipated to fill the storage behind the Dam and control discharges are necessary 24 hours a day. Response to Comment 70.20 The Commenter's statements related to Santiago Creek historically flowed over the project site including underground are noted. The Commenter's statements regarding the rerouting of the Santiago Creek are noted. The Commenter's statements related to bank stabilization for the creek not protecting the project area and the City's financial reasonability are noted. The Commenter's statements related to restoration of Santiago Creek 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. 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. No substantial evidence is provided in the comments to refute the hydrology and geotechnical data and analysis in the Draft EIR. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-525 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 70.21 The Commenter's statements related to the project site being subject to liquefaction are noted. The Draft EIR states that the proposed project includes PDF GEO-7 to address potential impacts from expansive soils. PDF GEO-7 requires the proposed project to remove pond deposits and replace them with approved compacted fill. This is presently being accomplished by the backfill operation. This operation will eliminate any potential liquefaction issues within those soils. PDF GEO-8 requires remedial grading in areas of near surface alluvial deposits to effectively eliminate any potential project site liquefaction. Additionally, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires compliance with the recommendations of Appendix G, Geological Investigation. This would require that reinforced shallow foundations or deepened foundations be utilized as necessary to eliminate potential adverse effects of project site liquefaction. Liquefaction analyses were previously performed by Neblett and Associates, Inc. based on procedures developed at the NCEER (National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research) Workshop (Youd and Idriss, 1997), and available field data obtained by Gregg In Situ, Inc., utilizing Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) soundings are provided in Appendix G, Geological Investigation. Additional field exploration, consisting of hollow stem and bucket auger borings, and backhoe trenches were also performed to augment the CPT field data. The liquefaction analyses were performed based on CPT soundings obtained from CPT-2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 24 through 27 considered representative of the project site subsurface profile. All of the CPT soundings were founded in pond deposit materials. Several penetrated through the pond deposits and terminated within the alluvial materials. Groundwater depths utilized in the analyses reflect actual field measurements obtained from the CPT data. The analysis includes corrections for overburden stress (Cn), energy reduction (N60), overburden pressure (Nl)60, and equivalent clean sand correction (N1)60cs. The stress reduction factor (rd), cyclic stress ration (SCR), and corresponding computer factor of safety (FS) were based on the CPT data. Earthquake magnitudes of 7.1, and maximum peak horizontal acceleration of 0.375g, were considered appropriate based on information provided in Appendix G, Geological Investigation. The revised Idriss earthquake magnitude scaling factor (MSF) and high overburden correction factor (Ko) were utilized in the factor of safety computations. In general, soils that contain more than 35% fines (passing No. 200 sieve) are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. It should be noted, however, that these materials might liquefy under certain conditions (Seed and Idriss, 1982). In addition, SPT N-values (N1)60 greater than 30 blows/foot are not considered susceptible to soil liquefaction. Predominantly granular soils (Zones 7 through 10 of the CPT Classification Chart by Robertson and Campanella, 1998), exhibiting SPT N-values (N1)60 less than 30 blows/foot, are considered susceptible to soil liquefaction. Page 3-526 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Based on the analysis, several zones within the pond deposit materials at the project site are identified as being susceptible to soil liquefaction in their present condition and are summarized in Table 5.6-3, Zone of Potential Soil Liquefaction. The underlying alluvial materials are not considered susceptible to soil liquefaction for one or a combination of the following reasons: • The alluvial materials underlying the pond deposits at depth exhibit SPT N-Values (N1)60 above 30 blows/foot. • The alluvial materials underlying both the pond deposits at depth, and those exposed at shallower depths, are classified as silty and sandy gravels, cobble gravels, gravelly sand, clayey silts, silty clays, and clayey sands. Gravel clasts approximately '/2 inch to 3 inches in diameter were encountered throughout and generally consisted of approximately 20 to 50% of the total soil matrix. In addition, abundant cobbles (up to 12 inches in diameter) and some boulders were also encountered. In general, coarse -grained materials containing a high percentage of gravels are less susceptible to liquefaction. • Based on case histories, the potential for liquefaction occurs within the upper approximately 50 feet of site grade. Below approximately 50 feet, the overburden pressures induced by the overlying materials tend to confine pore water pressure release and subsequent adverse effects due to soil liquefaction. The proposed project would eliminate the potential adverse effects (Impact GEO-I) associated with soil liquefaction through the site improvement measures (PDF GEO-7, PDF GEO-8, and Mitigation Measure GEO-1). These are necessary in areas susceptible to potential soil liquefaction for the proposed structures. They include the removal of pond deposits and replacement with approved compacted fill that would mitigate potential liquefaction within those soils. It is anticipated that remedial grading in areas of near surface alluvial deposits would also effectively mitigate potential site liquefaction. Reinforced shallow foundations or deepened foundations could also mitigate potential adverse effects of site liquefaction. Therefore, with the incorporation of PDF GEO-7, PDF GEO-8, and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 the potential impacts (Impact GEO-1) related to liquefaction are considered less -than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The Commenter's statements related to dam failure are noted. The Commenter's statements related to failure to analyze worst case scenario from dam inundation is noted. The Commenter's opinions related to the Draft EIR minimizing the risk are noted. The Commenter's opinion related to the Draft EIR inadequately explaining how streambed and dam inundation zone along Santiago Creek is suitable for high -impact development is noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 70.18 regarding dam failure. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.4, Hydrology and Flooding, Subsection 2.2.4, Dam Failure City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-527 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses related to the proposed project and dam failure. Please note that the project has a significant unavoidable impact related to dam failure. Response to Comment 70.22 The Commenter's opinions related to the Serrano Heights project having significant impacts to Santiago Oaks Parks are noted. This comment regarding the Serrano Heights project is not related to the proposed project. The Commenter's opinion related to the proposed project creating potential increase demand for Regional Park is noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.14, Public Services, Threshold PS-D, Parks related to increase in park demand. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.15, Recreation and Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation related to increase in park demand. The Commenter's statements regarding these impacts being explained and detailed project description are noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 70.5 related to project description. Response to Comment 70.23 The Commenter's statements related to traffic not evaluating cumulative impacts are noted. Table J on page 35 of Appendix N, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) lists all of the cumulative projects that were assumed in the Opening Year 2017 traffic analyses which include the Salem -Lutheran Church and School expansion, and the Rancho Santiago College expansion. As confirmed with City Staff, there was no development anticipated for the East Orange Specific Plan in 2017. However, buildout of the East Orange Specific Plan was included in the General Plan 2030 analysis, which includes the build -out of all land uses within the modeled area. Pages 47 to 49 of the TIA discuss the 2030 traffic model assumptions used in the TIA. Therefore, the future scenarios of the TIA include traffic from new developments in the area. Please note that the TIA numbers are based on industry standards that include all users of a site. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic Threshold TRA-F, related to alternative transportation and the proposed project. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise Threshold NOI-E and NOI-F related to the proposed project and air traffic patterns. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts related to the cumulative traffic impacts. Response to Comment 70.24 The Commenter's statements related to a backup plan being designed in the event that Santiago Canyon Road is not accessible due to historical closures because of fires, power outages and fatal accidents are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials related to emergency planning. Specifically states, PDF HAZ-6: Prior to the issuance of any building permit the project applicant shall submit to the City Fire Chief or designee and Community Development Director or Designee, a Construction Phase Emergency Fire Access Plan and an Operational Phase Fire Master Plan for review and approval. At this time, City Fire staff will review the design and will require emergency vehicle access, per City of Orange Fire Department standards, to the Santiago Creek area. Nage 3-528 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses PDF HAZ8: 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 Staff. The EEP shall be based on initial anticipated occupancy of the planning area. The EEP shall be review 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. Related to dam inundation hazards the Draft EIR included Mitigation Measure HWQ-2, which states: Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Planning Areas C and D, the project applicant shall provide an Emergency Evacuation Plan to the City for review and approval, incorporating the following recommendations: Evacuation Elements. The Emergency Management Program shall include the following evacuation elements: 1. Finalized specific City Fire Department access routes shall be defined in accordance with the City Fire Department standards and CBC and CFC requirements. Each route shall be clearly identified to assist the City Fire Department with site access strategies. 2. Finalized specific City Fire Department staging areas shall be defined. Each staging area shall be established to assist the City Fire Department with coordinate site access/response strategies. 3. The structural integrity and performance of the age -qualified units against flooding shall be established in the Operations and Management Program. Operations and Management Program. The Emergency Management Program shall be developed to coordinate response efforts and evacuation strategies in the event of an emergency affecting a portion or entire Rio Santiago development. The Emergency Management Program shall include the following elements: 1. Emergency Management Team Structure: The Team structure will identify emergency response resources that are available to respond to the incident, how they can be accessed, and how they can be utilized during an incident. The emergency response team may include, but not be limited to, facility owners, facility operators, facility occupants, law enforcement, public fire services, rescue and medical response teams, and environmental and utility departments or agencies. 2. Emergency Management Response Protocols: Such protocols shall include, but not be limited to, crisis communication and public information dissemination, protective actions for life safety, and resource management. 3. Emergency Media Program: An emergency media program shall include, but not be limited to, plans and procedures to disseminate and respond to requests for pre -incident, incident, and post -incident City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-529 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses information to and from internal audiences such as employees or external audiences including the media and special needs populations. 4. Emergency Evacuation Response Protocols and Information: Such protocols shall include, but not be limited to, relocation of occupants to specific areas of the site, complete and immediate evacuation of all occupants from the site, or phased evacuation of the site. 5. Local Authority Coordination Protocols: Such protocols shall include, but not be limited to, staging locations, site access points, direct and alternate routes to the site, and emergency communications. 6. Emergency Management Program Documents/Forms: Such documents and forms shall include, but not be limited to, a pre -incident plan, building information, and emergency management team contact information. Flooding Program. The Flooding Program hall be developed to coordinate preparation and response steps to be taken in the event of a flooding from a dam failure emergency is reported and/or is predicted due to weather or other conditions. The Flood Program shall consider and incorporate the existing protocols for dam monitoring and emergency response procedures utilized by both dam operators, as described earlier in this report. The City shall review and approve the Flooding Program prior to issuance of any building permit in Planning Areas C and D. The Flood Program shall include the following elements: 1. Flood Response Procedures and Strategies: Such procedures and strategies shall include, but not be limited to, staging and coordination areas, strategies for evacuation or relocation of facility occupants, and staff responsibilities. 2. Flood Barriers and Location Information: This information will identify the location and description of flood barriers that should be considered during any flood incident which may impact the onset time of dangerous conditions. 3. Shelter -In Place/Phased Evacuation Strategies: The flood program will identify strategies for either relocation of occupants within the site to designated areas or evacuation of the project site, depending on the conditions of the incident. 4. Local Authority Coordination Strategies: Such protocols shall include, but not be limited to, staging locations, site access points, direct and alternate routes to the site, hazardous conditions on site, and emergency communications. 5. Flood Inundation Communication Protocols (Residents and Responders): Such protocols shall include, but not be limited to, emergency communication between responders, residents, and staff. The protocols shall identify the message content that needs to be sent, requested, and received between levels and functions of the residents and responders and identify the communication mechanisms to execute such communication (human, systems, tools, networks). 6. Mutual Aid Agreements —For coordination of age qualified units that may need assistance: Such agreements may include, but not be limited to, cooperative assistance agreements with private Page 3-530 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses organizations or government bodies, adjacent developments, and local organizations as a means for one entity to provide resources, services, and other required support to another entity during an incident. Access/Egress Routes. The City shall be included in the overall review and development of the access/egress routes, staging areas, etc. to assist in the coordination of response efforts upon their arrival to the development. Emergency Management Training Program. Emergency Management Training Program shall be developed prior to the occupancy of the development and be presented to the defined Emergency Management Team responsible for coordination of emergency response and evacuation steps. The Emergency Management Training Program shall include: 1. Emergency Management Classroom Training Program —Staff 2. Emergency Management Table -Top Exercises —Staff 3. Emergency Management Full -Scale Exercise —Staff and Residents Resident Emergency Management Guide. A Resident Emergency Management Guide shall be developed and provided to all residents of the development to identify information the residents should understand in the event of an emergency. This guide should serve as a basic outline for residents to use in the event of a flood from a dam failure emergency and what they should do and/or expect from the management and the City. Response to Comment 70.25 The Commenter's statements related to no public bus routes exist along Santiago Canyon Road and how the seniors get around are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 2.8.5, Public Transportation & Elderly Transportation for detailed information related to public transportation and seniors. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-531 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 71 1'r outial ("alifornia Realty tt`a( Lau rLit t ac,co 1` 4.2 6 4.4242 sent via email and mail July 1,2013 City of Orange Community Development Department Planning Division Attn: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner 300 East Chapman Ave Orange, California 92866 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report - Rio Santiago Project Dear Mr. Ortlieb: I am submitting to the City of Orange my comments as follows: 1. GOVERNING PLANS The developer is ignoring all of the plans that govern this property. The plans that apply are: Orange Park Acres Specific Plan, Santiago Creek Plan, Greenway Belt Plan and. the East Orange Plan. These plans are in place to protect the quality of life and balance of opportunities in the City of Orange. The City is responsible to adhere and not ignore these plans. Page 2. 2. TRAFFIC Cumulative traffic impacts have not been addressed. This is critical as the future Irvine Company - 1400 houses entitled project on 71.1 71.2 Santiago Canyon is built, the existing communities of Orange Park Acres, Santiago Hills, Hillsdale, Santiago Community College, Broadmoor, Pheasant Run, High Horse Trails, Lazy Creek, The Wilderness, Deerfield, The Reserve, Mabury Ranch, the City of Villa Park are ALL impacted by traffic on Santiago Canyon Road. City of Villa Park Councilwoman, Deborah Pauly, expressed concern and indicated she has been contacted by several residents of Villa Park to address this with the City of Orange. 3. ZONING High Density zoning is not compatible with" both Neighborhood and the Specific Plans that govern this parcel. The project is zoned Open Space Resource. This has not been properly addressed: when mining operation ceases to exist, the property zoning is to revert to a use within open space zoning. 4. SANTIAGO CREEK The developer has stated that the County of Orange is "chomping at the bit" to take the "gift" of Santiago Creek. However, according to Supervisor Todd Spitzer, "the County of Orange has nothing to do with the project". Also, the future trail connections into Santiago Oaks Regional Park will be the County of Orange's responsibility. This is unclear in the DEIR. No approval or acceptance is on record. 5. RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES The DEIR diminishes the recreation opportunities in this Orange neighborhood offering Orange residents immediate access to 4 Orange County Regional Parks if high density zoning is allowed. This loss of recreational opportunity and impact of high density zoning will diminish surrounding City of Orange and Villa Park homeowners property values. 6. BALANCE OF OPEN SPACE These parcels within the City of Orange are highly valuable and cannot be replaced. The City of Orange is "short" at least 240 acres of designated open space. Further, rezoning of open space is irresponsible. The reason families, businesses choose to live, work and play in a city is quality of life with balance of opportunities. Page 3 I am a 30 year resident of Orange Park Acres of Orange, and a 20 year Realtor by profession. Thank you for your consideration. Please confirm via email you have received. Sincerely, 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 Laura Thomas 7211 E. Clydesdale Ave. Orange Park Acres, CA. 92869 For the HOMEstyle ... thatfits your LIFEstyle ... 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 71 Date: July 1, 2013 Laura Thomas Response to Comment 71.1 The Commenter's statements related to the regional plans over the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning for detailed information related to the proposed project and the plans. Please note the proposed project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to be removed from the City adopted East Orange (EO) General Plan and Orange Park Acres (OPA) Plan. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Additionally, it should be noted that the developer has the right to request to amend existing plans, that the project applicant is requesting amendments to the OPA Plan, East Orange Plan, and City General Plan, and the proposed project was evaluated for its impacts, which includes the ramifications of the amended plans. Please note that the City has no pre -determination. The City did not initiate the application; the project applicant submitted an application. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 71.2 The Commenter's statements related to 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. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts related to the proposed project and the surrounding project's cumulative impacts. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 71.3 The Commenter's statements related to high density zoning not being compatible with the neighborhoods are noted. The Commenter's statement related to when mining operation ceases to exist, the property zoning is to revert to the use within open space zoning is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion of community character. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning related to the proposed project and applicable plans, policies, or regulations. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.10, Alternatives related to the project site and Alternative 2: No Project Development Alternative — Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning. Please note that the Commenter is incorrect about the project site would converting to open space zoning when the mining operation ceases. A portion of the project site is zone R-1-8 (Single -Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft.) and the majority of the project site is S-G (Sand and Gravel Extraction. Please see Figure 3- City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-535 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses 10, Existing and Proposed Zoning District. Based on the City's zoning map no portion of the project site is zoned open space. However, the General Plan does have a portion of the project site designated Open Space. Please note that within the RA zoning district based on the City Municipal Code the following uses could occur: Horticulture activity P Backfilling, with inert materials P Caretaker's residence A* Cement or concrete mixing or batching plant C Landfill (sanitary) C Manufacture from raw materials extracted on site C Mining, quarrying, extraction or storage of raw mineral products (including sand, gravel, rock, clay, etc.) P Moving an existing structure or building onto a site from another location A* Parks; public or private C Poultry farm - Repair shops, garages or covered storage bins, or other accessory structures A Structures and mechanical equipment associated with such a use A P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use Permit A = Accessory Use - = Not Permitted * = Use subject to special provisions Additionally, please refer to Master Response Section 2.5, Land Use and Planning for detailed information related to the proposed project and the other plans related to potential future land use on the project site. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 71.4 The Commenter's opinion related to the County of Orange having nothing to do with the project is noted. The Commenter's statement related to future trail connections into Santiago Oaks Regional Park being the County's responsibility is noted. The Commenter's statement related to no approval or acceptance is being on record is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.6, Open Space, Subsection 2.6.2, Future Ownership Planning Area A, related to the final ownership of Planning Area A. The Draft EIR states that Planning Area A will be conveyed to either the City, Orange County Parks, the Homeowner's Association (HOA), or Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) as a habitat restoration project Page 3-536 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses for the Measure M2 Freeway Environmental Mitigation Program for permanent public open space preservation. 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 the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 71.5 The Commenter's statement related to the Draft EIR diminishing the recreation opportunities if high density zoning is allowed and the loss of open space is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation related to recreation of the proposed 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. The Commenter's statements related to diminished property value are noted. Please note that property values are not a CEQA issue. 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 the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 71.6 The Commenter's statement related to the City being short 240 acres of open space is noted. The Commenter's statement related to rezoning of open spaces is 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 the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-531 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 LETTER 72 Addison Adams 1634 River Birch Circle Orange, CA 92869 July 1, 2013 Via email: cortlieb@citvoforange.com Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, Planning Division City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Re: Rio Santiago Project Dear Mr. Ortlieb, This letter provides my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Rio Santiago project. I am a homeowner adjacent to the proposed project living in The Reserve HOA. I have reviewed the DEIR and the Specific Plan and have the following comments and concerns. I am writing this letter to you in your capacity as the Lead Agency Contact referenced in the Notice of Availability & Notice of Completion dated May 16, 2013. 1. The overall design is favorable. The general location and layout of the proposed Planning Areas seems well thought out and reasonable for the location. I look forward to seeing the existing operations terminated and a beautiful community constructed. 2. The current use is a nuisance and should be abated. The current use of the project is no longer appropriate for the surrounding area, which are single family homes to the north, east and south. The noise and dust of crushing and moving concrete and rock is a nuisance for these residential communities and the nearby schools. The high piles of broken concrete and gravel immediately adjacent to the Reserve are a visual eyesore. The current concrete crushing and storage operations should be abated and the harms it causes mitigated. At a minimum, the piles should be relocated away from existing housing to mitigate harm on homeowners caused by noise and dust and reduced in height to mitigate the existing ugliness and view impairment. Orange Park Acres is a residential community and a working sand and gravel yard, and concrete backfilling operation, is simply not acceptable in this area. My understanding is that prior ownership used the land in a manner that was less of a nuisance on surrounding communities. But for the past six plus years the operations have significantly increased and giant piles of gravel, dirt and broken concrete have been created on the property, including (for no apparent reason) immediately adjacent to the homes in The Reserve. The proposed development would result in abating the existing nuisance, but the existing nuisance should not be allowed to continue in any event. 3. The proposed lot sizes are too small. The developer seeks a zoning change for Planning Area "D" LDR authorizing residential lots as small as 6,000 square feet, and the proposed site plan shows that the majority of the lots will in fact be at or close to this minimum lot size. This would be the smallest lot -size zoning in the area. The Reserve is immediately adjacent to the proposed project and is zoned R1-40, meaning a minimum lot size of 43,560 square feet. It is similar in size to Planning Area D (30 acres 72.1 rpm Mr. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Re: Rio Santiago July 1, 2013 Page 2 compared to 34 acres) but has only 30 homes rather than 130 homes. To the south is Orange Park Acres and a horse arena also zoned R1-40 (minimum 43,560 square feet). Adjacent to Orange Park Acres to the south and west are residential areas zoned R1-20 (minimum 20,000 square feet) and R1-10 (minimum 10,000 square feet). Further down towards Cannon is Jamestown zoned R1-8 (minimum 8,000 square feet). To the north across the Santiago Creek is Mabury Ranch zoned R1-8 (minimum 8,000 square feet). None of these nearby neighborhoods are zoned R1-6. Of course, I would prefer a residential zoning and development consistent with The Reserve and Orange Park Acres, which is R1-40. At a minimum, it seems the lot sizes should be no smaller than the other neighborhoods in the area and I am concerned that such small lots will require an overly dense appearance inconsistent with this area of Orange. 4. The proposed height limit may be too high. Homeowners in the Reserve along the boundary with the proposed project currently enjoy views to the west and north. It is not clear from a review of the grading plan (which provides for an average grade elevation of 400 feet above median sea level), whether the finished grade adjacent to The Reserve will be higher or lower than the existing grade adjacent to the Reserve. Accordingly, I am unable to determine from the DEIR the degree to which the specific building height limit of 32 feet for Planning Area D LDR will impair views of existing homeowners in The Reserve. It does seem that there is a tremendous amount of proposed earth work and grading involved in this project (over 3.3m cubic yards), which is what triggers the question of what the actual topography of the finished project will look like in Planning Area D. Grading equal to or lower than the existing elevation grading would be preferred in order to minimize adverse impact on views. Similarly, single story homes rather than two-story homes would also minimize negative impact on views. 5. The trail should connect to the bike path on Cannon. The Specific Plan provides for a multi -purpose trail along Santiago Creek on the north side of the proposed project. However, the trail simply ends without connecting to Cannon Street. The trail should, at a minimum, connect to Cannon, and would be much more useful if it connected to the existing bike path on the west side of Cannon. This could be pursuant to an underpass along the Creek where it flows under Cannon Street. Without this connection, the utility of the trail is basically eliminated. The proposed project should provide for this connection, rather than merely leave it to others to build an underpass in the future. 6. The trail should connect to the north side of Santiago Creek. There is an existing path along the north bank of Santiago Creek (the Mabury Ranch Trail) which continues all the way down to Santiago Oaks Recreational Park. The multi -purpose trail along the south side of Santiago Creek proposed for this project should provide for a means to cross the creek and connect to the Mabury Ranch Trail. The proposed project should provide this connection, rather than merely leave it to others to build a crossing. 7. The County -owned land on the corner should be included in the development plan. The closed Villa Park landfill should be included in the development plan. Orange needs additional park space. This corner could and should be used for park and recreational space for the general public. The County of Orange should enable use of this space for this purpose. The proposed project includes Planning Area "B" OS-P (Park) which is adjacent to the landfill. Instead, it seems Planning Area D could be expanded to accommodate larger lot sizes, Planning Area C moved west to overlap Planning Area B, and Planning 72.3 72.4 72.5 Mr. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Re: Rio Santiago July 1, 2013 Page 3 Area B moved entirely over the closed Villa Park landfill to allow both for the proposed use of Planning Area B and for a park open to the public where the landfill currently is. This -corner is an existing eyesore in this beautiful neighborhood and should be cleaned up and put to good use for the benefit of the residents of Rio Santiago (and its developers) as well as the general public. 8. The intersection at Santiago Canyon and Cannon should include cross -walks. The Rio Santiago project will significantly adversely impact traffic on Santiago Canyon and Cannon Street. The existing intersection at Santiago and Cannon does not include cross walks on all four sides. This intersection should be upgraded to include cross walks for all four directions. This is particularly important in light of the location of Linda Vista Elementary School on Cannon just south of Santiago. Bes regards, �'!'� d ison Adams AU��/ 72.7 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 72 Date: July 1, 2013 Addison Adams Response to Comment 72.1 The Commenter's opinions related to overall favorable design are noted. The Commenter's opinions related to the current use as a nuisance that should be abated are noted. Please note that the project site's existing uses are not subject to this CEQA review. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 72.2 The Commenter's opinions related to proposed lot sizes too small are noted. The Commenter's statement related to this being the smallest lot -size zoning in the area is noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics for further discussion of community character, including lot sizes of surrounding communities. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 72.3 The Commenter's statements related to height limit being too high are noted. The Commenter's statements related to the final grade of the project site are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.2, Aesthetics, Subsection 2.2.5, Structure Height, related to the proposed project three-story element. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, Figure 5.1-4 through Figure 5.1-12, View Analysis related to the comparison of final grade of the project site and existing grade. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 72.4 The Commenter's statements related to trails should connect to bike path on Cannon Street are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail connections and the proposed project. Please note future trail locations are general. The proposed project would not preclude the implementation of the future trails. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 Page 3-541 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses Response to Comment 72.5 The Commenter's statements related to trails should connect to north side of Santiago Creek are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.7, Recreation, Subsection 2.7.2, Trails related to trail connections and the proposed project. Please note future trail locations are general. The proposed project would not preclude the implementation of the future trails. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 72.6 The Commenter's statements related to the County owner landfill being part of the development plan are noted. Please note that the project applicant does not have ownership of the adjacent landfill or rights to proposed plans or development over the site. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 72.7 The Commenter's statements related to the intersection at Santiago Canyon and Cannon Street including cross -walks are noted. There are presently cross -walks on the two of the four potential pedestrian movements. The proposed project will have the potential to create a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Cannon StreetNilla Park Road — Santiago Canyon Road. Mitigation Measure MM TRA-3 provides that prior to the issuance of first building pennit that the proposed project will pay its fare -share (17.7%) for improvements at this intersection. It is anticipated that at this time, the City will determine the appropriate pedestrian movement. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Page 3-542 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 73 A. June 28, 2013 Dear Mr. Ortlieb, Please consider my opposition to the Rio Santiago project as proposed due to the concerns listed below in regards to the DEIR for the project. As stated in the DEIR, "After implementation of the proposed project, including project design features and mitigation measures, it has been determined that, in part, the following topical environmental issue areas would remain significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation/Traffic, and Cumulative (Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Traffic)." That statement alone should be reason enough to prohibit this project. The traffic behind my home on Santiago Canyon Road is already significant and getting steadily worse. My backyard is often unusable due to traffic noise. At times I cannot even hear the speaker on my home phone when my windows are open. Exhaust and particulates, as evidenced by the black tire dust on outside patio furniture, is already a problem without another increase in traffic. I am concerned about my health and that of family members and neighbors. My husband and I purchased our home on Valley Forge Drive almost 27 years ago. Before we made the purchase we were told that the land was designated as open space and the gravel operation would soon cease its activity. A park was to be built on the land across the stre!?t from our backyard. With the Rio Santiago project, a three-story building will bdirectly behind my house, not my idea of a park and another obstruction to the view of the foothills, one of the reasons we purchased our home. A three-story structure is inappropriate for this area. 73.1 73.2 Another concern is Santiago Creek. If this project is enacted, a measure must be in place for daily monitoring of the construction activity so the creek is not threatened. 73.3 The owners of this property already have a less than stellar record on this issue with their "preparation activity" for this project before approval. The current "material recycling operation" is also an issue. Heavy trucks are stopping directly behind my house, waiting for an opening in traffic to enter the property every 3 to 20 minutes all day long. In a one -hour period, at least seven of these trucks entered the property. The so-called backfilling totally changed the topography of the land. Was that approved? Because of the significant environmental effects anticipated, the project should be denied or revised. Sincerely, Bonnie Robinson 5907 E. Valley Forge Drive Orange, CA 92869 73.4 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 73 Date: June 28, 2013 Bonnie Robinson Response to Comment 73.1 The Commenter's statement that the proposed project would still have significant and an avoidable aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, transportation and traffic, and cumulative (aesthetics, air quality, and traffic) is noted. The statement that the impacts should be reason enough to prohibit the proposed project is noted. The Commenter's statements related to increase in traffic noise and traffic air quality from the proposed project are noted. 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 worsened air quality related to traffic. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 73.2 The Commenter's statement related to being told the project site was designated as open space after the gravel operation was completed is noted. The Commenter's statements related to the project's three-story building, lack of park envisionment, obstruction of foothills 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 2.2, 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 the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 73.3 The Commenter's statements that measures must be in place for daily monitoring of the construction activity so the creek is not threatened are noted. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 5.4, Biological Resources related to setbacks and impacts of the proposed project on Santiago Creek. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Response to Comment 73.4 The Commenter's statements related to the current material recycling operation as an issue from heavy trucks and the backfill operation changing the topography are noted. Page 3-544 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 3.0 Comments and Responses Materials Recycling Approximately five acres in the southeastern portion of the project site are used as a materials recycling area. This area includes apparatus for the crushing of boulders, bricks, rocks, etc. for recycling. The materials recycling area additionally includes operations that provide for the cement treatment of base materials. Figure 3-5, Materials Recycling, provides the present location of the materials recycling area. Material for this operation originates primarily from off -site sources. Access to the materials recycling area is from a controlled entrance along East Santiago Canyon Road. Materials generated by this operation have historically been used on and transported off the project site. The materials generated by this operation at issuance of the NOP were being taken off -site. Materials recycling will continue on the project site through the construction of the proposed project until Planning Area D is developed. Backfilling Operation 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 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 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, 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. City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 Page 3-545 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 3.0 Comments and Responses In addition, grading permit(s) will be requested from the City to complete the backfilling of the previously mined portions of the project site, as described below in 3.8, Demolition and Grading Concept. 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. Therefore, as a practical result, 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. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, because the comment reflects the author's opinions and not data provided in the Draft EIR, but is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. No further responses are necessary. Page 3-546 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 74 August 16, 2013 City of Orange Email: cortlieb@cityoforange.org Soud*mCalifomia Gas Company 94000akdaleAvemre Subject: Rio Santiago Project Chatnvorth,CA On Rio Santiago Road from Jamestown Way to 91311 North of Orange Park Blvd Mailing Address: P. O. Box 2300 Chatsworth, CA 91313-2300 M.L.9314 Southern California Gas Company Transmission Department does not operate facilities within your proposed improvement. However, our Pacific tel818-701-4546 Coast Distribution Region may have some distribution facilities within fax 818-7014554 your construction area. To assure no conflict with the local distribution's pipeline system, please contact them at (714) 634-5067. 74.1 Sincerely, Rosalyn Squires Planning Assistant Transmission Department (818) 701-4546 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 74 Date: August 16, 2013 Rosalyn Squires Planning Assistant Transmission Department Southern California Gas Company Response to Comment 74.1 The Commenter's statements related to not operating facilities within the proposed project improvement are noted. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Page 3-548 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project LETTER 75 From: Darrell Chin [mailto:darrellac@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:22 PM To: Chad Ortlieb Subject: RE: Rio Santiago Project Hello Chad, I am a resident of Orange and live in the Serrano Heights community. I am in favor and support 5 g g y pport the Rio Santiago project as long as Cannon and Santiago is widen to accommodate the project at build -out. The intersection of Cannon and Santiago Canyon is an eyesore and needs a high quality project to improve the 75 City in general. In addition, as a family with children, I welcome new recreational amenities and housing opportunities for our senior residents. A City needs to be dynamic to meet the future needs of the residents, which demography indicates is 75.3 aging. The investment into the community should applauded as long as the impacts of the development are mitigated to the maximum extent possible by the developer. Please put me on the project interest list if one is available. I would like to be informed and support the 175.4 project at public hearings when possible when discretionary approval is required. Thank You, Darrell Chin 3.0 Comments and Responses LETTER 75 Date: August 27, 2013 Darrell Chin Response to Comment 75.1 The Commenter's opinion related to supporting the project as long as Cannon and Santiago are widen to accommodate the project at build -out 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. Response to Comment 75.2 The Commenter's opinion related to the intersection of Cannon and Santiago needing improvement is noted. Please note that the property at the immediate northeast corner of Cannon and Santiago Canyon is County owned land and not part of the project. The Commenter's opinion related to welcoming new recreational amenities and housing opportunities for seniors are noted. Please refer to Master Response Section 2.8, Transportation and Traffic for further discussion of potential impacts to transportation and traffic from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response to Comment 75.3 The Commenter's statement related to the City being dynamic to meet the future needs of the residents, which demography indicates aging 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. Response to Comment 75.4 The Commenter's statement related to being added to the notification list and being in support of the project is noted. The Commenter is on the notification list. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR because it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of environmental analysis conducted in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Page 3-550 City of Orange - Response to Comments/Final EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project 4.1 Introduction As provided in Section 15088 (c) of the CEQA Guideline, responses to comments may take the form of a revision of the draft EIR or may be a separate section of the Final EIR. This section complies with the latter, and provides changes to the Draft EIR in revision mode text (i.e., deletions are shown with str-ikethr-eogh and additions are shown with Italics). These notations indicate changes to the Draft EIR to provide clarification, corrections, or revisions as needed as a result of public comments or due to additional information that was received during the public review period. Universal changes to the Draft EIR are noted and then other specific changes to the Draft EIR are outlined on the following pages under their appropriate page number or Draft EIR Section headings. The following changes clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. They do not change any of the conclusions or impact findings reached in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted under CEQA Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(e) 4.2 EIR: Universal Changes 1. Executive Summary (Section 2.0) shall include all new and update Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures. 2. Project Description (Section 3.0) shall include all updated Project Design Features (PDFs). 3. All references to Planning Area B "pay -for -play" uses shall be changed to "managed recreation" uses. 4. Figures 5.1-13, Community Character Summary, Figure 5.1-14, Rio Santiago Entrance Improvements, Figure 5.1-15, Views Along Santiago Canyon Road, Figure 5.9-8A, Existing and Proposed Water Well Locations, Figure 5.15-3, Trails and Bikeways, Figure 5.15-4, Proposed Public Open Space Amenities, Figure 5.15-5, Proposed Private/Semi Private Open Space Amenities, and Figure 7-813, Residential Development Alternative — B have been added to the EIR. (Please see Master Response sections.) 5. Section 5.2: Agricultural and Forestry Resources: Thresholds AGR-A to AGR- E (i.e. Threshold AGR-A) change CEQA citation remove D�•'r Resour-ees Thfadd Agricultural and Forestry Resources Threshold. 6. All references to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 through AQ-4, shall be revised to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4C. 7. All references to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 through AQ-19, shall be revised to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-21. City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 Page 4-1 Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072 2.0 Master Responses 8. Figure 5.9-8, Project Drainage Design Features Map has been modified to Figure 5.9-8B, Project Drainage Design Features Map with minor change of former adjacent landfill name. 9. Figure 5.4-11, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features has been modified to Figure 5.4-11A to E provides clarification of the temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands provided to the CDFW. 10. Table 5.4-6b, Impacts to Natural Communities (LBV) provides clarification of the temporary and permanent impacts to least Bell's Vireo. 11. Table 5.4-7b, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features provides clarification of the temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands provided to the CDFW. 12. Section 5.14, Public Services: Thresholds PS -A to ARGR- E (i.e. Threshold AGR-A) change CEQA citation change Public Service Threshold number 4-3. to 14. 13. Section 5.15, Recreation: Acreage of Linear Park changed from 44-2-to 1.54 acres. 14. Section 5.15, Recreation: Table 5.15-6, Recreational Areas and Table 5.15-7, Trails and Bikeways have been added to the section. Page 4-2 City of Orange - Response to CommentslFinal EIR — December 2013 SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project