Loading...
10-01-18 PC - APP C - RTC ISND COMMENTS ASMBLD Appendix C: Responses to IS/ND Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-1 RESPONSES TO IS/ND COMMENTS List of Authors A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft IS/ND is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Author Author Code State Agencies California Department of Transportation ............................................................................ CALTRANS South Coast Air Quality Management District ........................................................................ SCAQMD Local Agencies Irvine Ranch Water District ............................................................................................................ IRWD Orange County Public Works ........................................................................................................ OCPW Individuals Michael Bonnaud ................................................................................................................. BONNAUD Donald Bradley ...................................................................................................................... BRADLEY Toni Bradley ........................................................................................................................ BRADLEY2 Roberta Grayson and Patricia Lowry ..................................................................... GRAYSON-LOWRY Sarah Huff ...................................................................................................................................... HUFF Peter Jacklin ............................................................................................................................. JACKLIN Teri Keffer ................................................................................................................................. KEFFER Mark Moore .............................................................................................................................. MOORE1 Mark Moore .............................................................................................................................. MOORE2 Sherry Hart Panttaja .............................................................................................................. PANTTAJA Bonnie Robinson .................................................................................................................. ROBINSON Laura Thomas .......................................................................................................................... THOMAS Responses to Comments Introduction The City of Orange, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Final IS/ND for the Tentative Tract Map No. 17847 Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. Comment Letters and Responses The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CALTRANS Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 CALTRANS Page 2 of 2 4 C-5 State Agencies California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Comment CALTRANS-1 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed Tentative Tract Map 17847. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. The project proposes to create a six-lot subdivision ranging between 1–1.2 acres. The project is located on Ball Road in the City of Orange, north of Santiago Canyon Road and east of State Route 55 (SR 55). Caltrans is a commenting agency and has the following comments: Response to CALTRANS-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment CALTRANS-2 In addition to the proposed equestrian facility, Caltrans recommends providing a separate pedestrian facility on the Project site along Santiago Canyon Road to conform to ADA standards. There is no existing pedestrian infrastructure along this stretch of roadway. A pedestrian facility would increase safety, access, and mobility for pedestrians. An example of equestrian, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities along a roadway can be found at the intersection of Esperanza Road and Yorba Ranch Road in the City of Yorba Linda. Response to CALTRANS-2 A separate pedestrian facility has been added to the proposed project along Santiago Canyon Road. The pedestrian facility has been placed along the southerly side of Santiago Canyon Road. It consists of a 5’ wide rigid concrete sidewalk located in the parkway. A landscaped area has also been inserted in the parkway; it is positioned between the sidewalk and the eastbound curb. This new configuration is shown in section B on page 2 of 3 and again in section E on page 2 of 3, of the revised Tentative Tract Map (Appendix D). Comment CALTRANS-3 Any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State ROW would require an encroachment permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans’s requirements for work done within State ROW, additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with Caltrans to meet requirements for any work within or near State ROW. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans’s Encroachment Permits Manual at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ Response to CALTRANS-3 The nearest State of California Right-of-Way, State Route 55, is located approximately 2.45 miles west of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project does not propose improvements on with a State of California Right-of-Way, nor is it in the vicinity of a State of California Right-of-Way. C-6 Comment CALTRANS-4 Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at (657) 328-6261 or Julie.Lugaro@dot.ca.gov. Response to CALTRANS-4 The comment is noted and the commenter has been added to the list of stakeholders to keep informed. SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: September 20, 2018 rgarcia@cityoforange.org Robert Garcia, Senior Planner City of Orange, Community Development Department Planning Division 300 E. Chapman Ave, Orange, CA 92866 Negative Declaration (ND) for the Proposed Tentative Tract Map 17847 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated into the final CEQA document. SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The lead agency proposes to subdivide 7.44 acres into six lots and construct six residential units (proposed project). The project is located at 6146 East Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange, adjacent to an elementary school and within 800 feet or less of other sensitive receptors.1 SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis The lead agency determined that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to regional air quality.2 However, the lead agency did not adequately analyze the proposed project’s localized impacts to air quality during construction. Please see SCAQMD staff’s detail comment below. SCAQMD Staff’s Comments Sensitive receptors are defined as areas with occupants who are especially vulnerable to health impacts associated with air pollution and other environmental contaminants, and include schools and residential units. Although temporary and short-term, on-site construction activities may result in localized air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.3 Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that lead agency utilize the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology developed by the SCAQMD to analyze localized air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. 4 The results of the analysis should be included in the final CEQA document. If significant impacts are identified, mitigation will be required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.5 Compliance with SCAQMD Rules Due to earth moving activities that will occur during construction of the proposed project, SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust is applicable. 6 A discussion of compliance should be incorporated into the final CEQA document. 1 MND. Page 11. 2 Ibid. Pages 9-11. 3 Earth moving activities and heavy duty off-road equipment can result in emissions of criteria pollutants at unhealthy levels. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds 5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (b). 6South Coast Air Quality Management District. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf SCAQMD Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 Robert Garcia September 20, 2018 2 Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the proposed project, the lead agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the final CEQA document. When responding to issues raised in the comments, the response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the proposed project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Alina Mullins, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at amullins@aqmd.gov or (909) 396-2402, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Daniel Garcia Daniel Garcia Program Supervisor Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources DG/AM ORC180904-02 Control Number SCAQMD Page 2 of 2 6 C-9 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Comment SCAQMD-1 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated into the final CEQA document. Response to SCAQMD-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment SCAQMD-2 The lead agency proposes to subdivide 7.44 acres into six lots and construct six residential units (proposed project). The project is located at 6146 East Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange, adjacent to an elementary school and within 800 feet or less of other sensitive receptors. Response to SCAQMD-2 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment SCAQMD-3 The lead agency determined that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to regional air quality. However, the lead agency did not adequately analyze the proposed project’s localized impacts to air quality during construction. Please see SCAQMD staff’s detail comment below. Response to SCAQMD-3 The comment is noted. Specific responses are provided to the detailed comment SCAQMD- 4. Comment SCAQMD-4 SCAQMD developed guidance and methodology to assist lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. However, as stated in that guidance, the use of the methodology is voluntary. While the lead agency acknowledges that this guidance is applicable to some projects, based on the type, schedule, and limited construction activity related to the construction of six single-family houses over approximately 7 acres, the lead agency has also determined that a qualitative analysis was sufficient for the review of the impact for this particular project. Response to SCAQMD-4 SCAQMD developed guidance and methodology to assist lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. However, as stated in that guidance, the use of the methodology is voluntary. Based on the type, schedule, and limited construction activity related to the construction of six single-family houses over approximately 7 acres, the lead agency determined that a qualitative analysis was sufficient for the review of this impact. C-10 Comment SCAQMD-5 Due to earth moving activities that will occur during construction of the proposed project, SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust is applicable. A discussion of compliance should be incorporated into the final CEQA document. Response to SCAQMD-5 The project applicant and lead agency acknowledge that SCAQMD Rule 403 will apply during construction of the proposed project. No changes to the CEQA document are required. Comment SCAQMD-6 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the proposed project, the lead agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the final CEQA document. When responding to issues raised in the comments, the response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the proposed project. Response to SCAQMD-6 The comment is noted and the commenter has been added to the list of stakeholders to keep informed. All comments requiring detailed responses have been addressed in this document. IRWD Page 1 of 1 2 1 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-13 Local Agencies Irvine Ranch Water Agency (IRWD) Comment IRWD-1 Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for Tentative Tract Map 17847. IRWD offers the following comment. Response to IRWD-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment IRWD-2 While not within IRWD’s service area, the proposed project site is in very close proximity to existing IRWD facilities. IRWD requests that the City of Orange keep IRWD updated on all the planned water and sewer facilities and connections for the proposed project. Please contact Eric Akiyoshi, Principal Engineer at (949) 453-5552 to further discuss this proposed project. Response to IRWD-2 The commenter has been added to the list of agencies to receive information on the proposed project. Comment IRWD-3 IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/ND. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 453-5325 or Jo Ann Corey, Environmental Compliance Specialist at (949) 453-5326. Response to IRWD-3 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK OCPW Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 OCPW Page 2 of 2 5 C-17 Orange County Public Works (OCPW) Comment OCPW-1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent of an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 17847 Project. The County of Orange offers the following comments for your consideration. Response to OCPW-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment OCPW-2 Since the City of Orange is responsible for land use planning and development within municipal limits, the City should review and approve all local hydrology and hydraulic analyses. The project proponent should ensure that the proposed development is adequately protected from flooding in a 100-year storm event. Response to OCPW-2 Impacts from placing residences and structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, are addressed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND. Specifically, the IS/MND analyzes whether the proposed project would be in a 100-year flood hazard area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). A Special Flood Hazard Area is defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1 percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. The project site is in Zone X pursuant to Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06059C0158J. Zone X is the area determined to be outside of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. Therefore, the proposed project does not proposed development within a 100-year flood hazard area. Comment OCPW-3 The City, as floodplain administrator, should ensure that floodplains are properly identified and that structures are located outside the 100-year floodplain in conformance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. Response to OCPW-3 Please refer to Response to OCPW-2. Comment OCPW-4 All work within or adjacent to any OCFCD right-of-way for flood control facilities should be conducted so as not to adversely impact channel’s structural integrity, hydraulic flow conditions, access and maintainabi1ity. Furthermore, all work within OCFCD’s right-of- way should be conducted only after an encroachment permit for the proposed work has been obtained from the County. For information regarding the permit application process and other details. Please refer to the Encroachment Permits Section link on OC Public Works’ C-18 website at http://www.ocpublicworks.com/ds/permits/encroachment permits. Technical reviews and approvals for the proposed work will be accomplished within the permit process. Response to OCPW-4 The project proposes to connect storm drain facilities to the existing OCFCD Handy Creek Storm Drain. Additionally, the proposed project includes upgrades to Nicky Way, which is along the Handy Creek Storm Drain Right-of-Way. As such, the proposed project would follow the OCPW permit application process, as- needed, which may include an OCPW Encroachment Permit. Comment OCPW-5 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Sahar Parsi (714) 647- 3988 or Editha Llanes at (714) 647-3988 in OC Infrastructure and Flood Programs. Response to OCPW-5 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. BONNAUD Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 BONNAUD Page 2 of 2 4 5 6 BRADLEY PagePage 11 ofof 11 1 2 3 BRADLEY2 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 GRAYSON Page 1 of 1 1 HUFF Page g 1 of 1 1 JACKLIN Page g 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 KEFFER Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MOORE1 Page 1 or 1 1 1 Robert Garcia From:Mark Moore <mark@markmoorefineart.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 19, 2018 4:56 PM To:Robert Garcia Subject:Milan Proposal Under Review Dear Sirs / Madams: I would like to express my support and that of my family towards accepting the proposal put forth by Elfend and Associates, Inc and Milan LLP. My understanding is that in exchange for the approval of their 128 lot proposal consisting of 8,000, 9,200 and 10,000 square foot lots they would be willing to offer the community 68.5 acres of open space and greenway on the property formerly owned by Sully Miller that has been a rock crushing and gravel operation in our backyard for the last 20 years. Other components include of the Milan Proposal include: *$4.1 million in greenway improvements *$2 million to relocate the existing horse arena *$1 million in traffic and circulation improvements *$1 million for local trail improvements That is a total of $8.1 million in cash towards the improvement and beautification of this eyesore and community nuisance that is currently over 100 acred of mountains of rock, gravel, weeds, and landfill. In addition to this, Milan is also willing to dedicate another 30 acres pf land that was formerly the Ridgeline Country Club to the city and the surrounding community. Given that this property was approved for over 400 homes ten years ago when it was owned by Fieldstone Homes, this sounds like an outstanding proposal that is a “Win” for the community. This proposal would add nearly 100 acres of recreation and open space to an area that desperately needs it and gives the city the ability to improve that land for the benefit of everyone in the City of Orange. While we are grateful to the activists in Orange Park Acres for the twenty year battle they spearheaded to get the best deal possible for the community, however, two decades of enduring this ugly and noisy sight in my backyard is enough and we feel strongly that this current Milan proposal is as good as we would ever hope to achieve and we should accept it now while the land owner has the motivation to make that offer. Extending these negotiations further will only result in either a revision of this offer with less land and less cash included to offset the loss of revenue from any concessions, or -worse -the withdrawal of the proposal altogether. My neighbors and I do not support another 20 year battle to reduce the number of homes on this property -we want this blot upon the landscape of our community gone yesterday! We urge the City and the Planning Commission to accept the proposal on the table by Milan LLP now and remove this monstrosity from our backyard. We have had enough noise, pollution, dust, and chaos here. Please get this plan approved and get this blemish removed from our city as soon as possible. There seems to be so much to gain for us all in doing so while we have the opportunity. Enough. All My Best, Mark Moore 2 6507 Sycamore Glen Drive Orange Park Acres, CA 92869 Phone:+1.310.266.2283 PANTTAJA Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 PANTTAJA Page 2 of 2 6 7 8 ROBINSON Page g 1 of 1 1 2 THOMAS Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 THOMAS Page 2 of 2 3 (cont.) 4 C-37 Individuals Michael Bonnaud (BONNAUD) Comment BONNAUD-1 This letter is in regards to the NOI that was presented to the public regarding the Mara Brandman Arena Site. I would like the following issues discussed and addressed. Response to BONNAUD-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment BONNAUD-2 The developer did not address in the Land Use and Planning section how closing the arena would negatively impact the community of Orange Park Acres. The Mara Brandman community arena has been used for 10 years, year-round, 7 days a week to exercise the horses that live in and outside the community. Response to BONNAUD-2 Impacts to public services, including Parks, are addressed in Section 14, Public Services of the IS/MND. Specifically, the IS/MND analyzes whether the proposed project would “result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services” including parks. Additionally, as described in Section 15. Recreation of the IS/ND, the CEQA Checklist questions pertain to whether the proposed project would a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and b) include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. It was found that the proposed project would have a Less Than Significant Impact on existing neighborhood and regional parks as the proposed project would yield small, approximately 19 persons, increase in the population of the City of Orange and the project applicant will be required to pay a Park Facilities Fee. Additionally, while the Mara Brandman Equestrian Arena is a type of recreational facility, it is not a City owned or operated public recreational area and is not identified in the General Plan, nor the Orange Park Acres Plan, as parkland or a recreational facility, therefore it is not a public service, as such, is not utilized in calculating potential impacts on City services under the City’s CEQA thresholds. Comment BONNAUD-3 This arena site cannot be closed without a plan as to where the existing operations would need to be located due to the fact this location is used for emergency evacuations when a fire is in the foothills and we need to evacuate the horses and other large animals. As you may remember, several times over the last two decades we have had horses there at the site during an emergency either being housed for safety or waiting to be transported to safer locations. During the fires here last October I personally transported nine horses there and instructed at least a dozen others to just hand walk their horse to the arena for safety. That is the beauty of the current arena location. Folks can reach it on foot from anywhere within OPA with their C-38 large animals. After all, being an equestrian community many people do not even own horse trailers because they can ride right from their barn. If you allow the arena to close, where are we going to evacuate the large animals to safety in the future? This site is part of our disaster plan. This isn’t just another parcel of unused land. This parcel has history in the neighborhood and is an integral part to the functioning of our horse community. Closing this arena without mitigating this WILL have a negative impact on the community of Orange Park Acres. Response to BONNAUD-3 As noted in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would not conflict with the City of Orange Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, which establishes preparedness and emergency response procedures for disasters. Additionally, the City of Orange 2010 General Plan, Public Safety Element, outlines Emergency Shelters/Assembly Points in Table PS-3, the Mara Brandman Area is not a formal Emergency Shelter/Assembly Point, per the City of Orange. As such, the proposed project would not have an impact to codified Emergency Shelters/Assembly Points, per the City of Orange. No additional response is required. Comment BONNAUD-4 This site is used for community events weekly for adults and youths. Such events include horse shows, gymkanas, cow sorting, concerts, chili cook offs, horse training clinics, 5k and 1Ok events, just to name a few. The youth of our neighborhood deserve to have a location because there is nowhere else since this same company Milan closed down the last recreation area we had at Ridgeline with the golf, tennis and swimming. We will now lose the last recreational area we have for our children in OPA. Local businesses will be impacted as they use this site for storage. One business affected may have to close its doors if they have to move their hay storage, which would severely impact the neighborhood supply of horse feed. Response to BONNAUD-4 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment BONNAUD-5 The traffic and safety of increased cars turning into Nicky Way at that location needs to be addressed and a future light may need to be installed. Response to BONNAUD-5 As noted in Section 16, Transportation/Traffic of the IS/ND, the proposed project is a 6-unit subdivision, and as such, it would not significantly or adversely impact the public street system. Additionally, the proposed project includes improvements to Nicky Way to update the street up to City of Orange street design standards. No revision to the proposed improvements at Nicky Way is required, as they would be out of conformance with standards. C-39 Comment BONNAUD-6 The location of the horse trail proposed is not located in a safe location. The horse trails along such busy roads can be dangerous for all parties. Not to mention the fact that the horse trail will go directly to a traffic light on the busiest section on Santiago Blvd. with a blind turn, which needs to be evaluated for safety. Response to BONNAUD-6 The equestrian trails included in the proposed project design have been included as directed by the City of Orange and conform to City of Orange Standards. No revision to the proposed equestrian trails is required, as they would be out of conformance with standards. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-41 Donald Bradley (BRADLEY) Comment BRADLEY-1 Mr. Garcia, the developer’s proposal on the Arena Site suffers from both procedural and substantive defects. The development does not qualify for a CEQA negative declaration. The application understates the environmental impacts, which are significant. The development should require a full Environmental Impact Report. Response to BRADLEY-1 The CEQA Initial Study process serves as a preliminary analysis to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The IS/ND conducted for the proposed project determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Comment BRADLEY-2 Beyond this procedural issue, the application sidesteps the importance of the site to the surrounding culture and community. The site has operated as an equestrian arena for decades and its elimination will negatively impact the surrounding community, both by the elimination of recreation, and the increase in traffic. Response to BRADLEY-2 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-2 and BONNAUD-5. Comment BRADLEY-3 Finally, the developer has been in negotiations with the community over the “Trails At Santiago Creek” project, which potentially includes this arena site. Developing the arena site at this time jeopardizes an agreement on a more global development encompassing over 150 acres of property. Response to BRADLEY-3 The proposed project is separate from the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Project, as they are unique, and have independent utility. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-43 Toni Bradley (BRADLEY2) Comment BRADLEY2-1 I am a resident of Orange Park Acres, lived here for 8 years, moved here for having horses on my property. I was a 4H Horse project leader as well as a horse show concessions manager for the 4H club at the Sully Miller Arena. The point is that my family and I are here because we choose the equestrian lifestyle and the open space that goes with having a horse and riding it. Response to BRADLEY2-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment BRADLEY2-2 I see this slipping away at the hands of a developer that only thinks about coming into a sleepy community like ours and blowing it apart. This developer has done nothing but cause MAJOR division within our community and our city. Taken money and time from folks trying to raise a family, retire and every season in between. The pure effort taken on behalf of our community to preserve what all of us moved in here for is disgustingly sick, and frankly has made several truly sick when they should be enjoying their homes, families, and life. This developer once again is proposing to remove a community icon, the only public arena. A sacred place for many years for both equestrians inside OPA and those that come from all over to see horses. They are doing so without making good on promise to create something of same in OPA. I don’t understand why when the community has spent countless hours with representatives from each neighboring community, city officials, and attorneys working on a solution that is acceptable, Milan decides to take their toys and jump out of the sandbox. This move (submitting the tract map to the city for approval of 6 homes on the current arena site) tells me they are not to be trusted, deceitful, and don’t give a damn about the communities they are blowing up. This is not how negotiations work and certainly is not how you work with a community that is willing to go to the Supreme Court to protect their rights. Response to BRADLEY2-2 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment BRADLEY2-3 I am asking that you deny the developers submission, if nothing else on the basis that the community was not given adequate time for review and rebuttal. I am not proficient in reviewing this plan, but I know that based on the sneaky move of quietly submitting while negotiations are actively happening involving this property, their intent is to hurriedly move forward while appearing that they are trying to work with communities they are impacting. I call BS. C-44 Response to BRADLEY2-3 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. C-45 Roberta Grayson and Patricia Lowry (GRAYSON-LOWRY) Comment GRAYSON-LOWRY-1 My sister Patty Lowry of 508 Princeton Circle West, Fullerton, Ca 92631and myself Roberta Grayson of 6348 East Frank Lane, Orange, CA 92869 jointly own the property of 6348 East Frank Lane. We grew up here since the 1950’s and have seen Orange Park Acres develop into a rural horse community. While we do not object to developing the community what we do object to is suburbia creeping in to our horse community. It may be fine that Milan et al. wants to develop the property described however there is no mention of a replacement for the horse arena and parking that is being eliminated. Milan should not proceed until a replacement is provided for what they are removing from the horse community. Encroachment such as this into OPA community is very frustrating and not welcomed. You are taking away the atmosphere of this being a horse community. And if there is no place for the horses it is going to lead to further anger toward the city of unwanted development. There needs to be some kind of rodeo grounds provided by the City of Orange for this horse community if the City of Orange is making a deal with Milan et al. Why doesn’t the city provide land with power and water in its undeveloped land so the horse arena and everything else can be relocated at the city do proper planning of not having foresight? Response to GRAYSON-LOWRY-1 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-2. The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-47 Sarah Huff (HUFF) Comment HUFF-1 I strongly support the development of 6 custom homes on the exiting Arena Site off of Santiago Canyon Rd. It maintains the integrity of the O.P.A. Specific Plan and One Acre zoning. It does not impact the existing congestion exiting in to Santiago Canyon road leading up Cannon as other plans proposed on the Gravel Site with higher density and a larger number of home sites. Milan Capital should be required to donate and or sell at a discounted rate the Ridgeline property to the OPA neighborhood as an LLC to be used as a future site for the Arena. Response to HUFF-1 The proposed project is separate from the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Project, as they are unique, and have independent utility. The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-49 Peter Jacklin (JACKLIN) Comment JACKLIN-1 Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the proposed project at the Mara Brandman arena. My thoughts are few and simple. Response to JACKLIN-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment JACKLIN-2 I hope that the l0’s of 1000’s of cubic feet of fill dirt will be brought in from the Milan owned property across Santiago Canyon Road. Is there more need for dust producing vehicles on SCR? Response to JACKLIN-2 According to the Project Engineer, it is expected that most of the fill dirt needed for the proposed project site will be imported from the Sully Miller site. This nearby source is expected to minimize the presence of dust producing vehicles using Santiago Canyon Road. However, the proposed project is not dependent on the Sully Miller site for fill dirt. Comment JACKLIN-3 I don’t see the need for the equestrian trail. For most in the community it leads nowhere— similar approach to the Ridgeline design. It might service the 6 new homes. Who knows if they will be equestrians? Response to JACKLIN-3 The equestrian trail has been included as part of the proposed project as directed by the City of Orange. Comment JACKLIN-4 I propose that the proper “rural lifestyle” design for Nicky Way is to leave it the way it is. Six additional homes do not require the road to be designed differently. Response to JACKLIN-4 The improvements at Nicky Way have been included as part of the proposed project by direction of the City of Orange and will be in conformance with City of Orange street design standards. Comment JACKLIN-5 Also, the cul-de-sac should be a similar design to the current Nicky Way. Response to JACKLIN-5 The improvements at the proposed cul-de-sac will be made in conformance with City of Orange street design standards. No revision of the proposed project is required. Comment JACKLIN-6 My understanding is that there is a Handy Creek diversion under Nicky Way. I can’t tell if that’s being addressed or how it’s being addressed. C-50 Response to JACKLIN-6 The Handy Creek diversion consists of a reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert storm drain that is existing in place beneath Nicky Way. The culvert is to be protected in place and will not be modified except that new storm drain lateral pipes are to be connected to the existing RCB at several locations. C-51 Teri Keffer (KEFFER) Comment KEFFER-1 This letter is in regards to the NOI that was presented to the public regarding the Mara Brandman Arena Site. I would like the following issues discussed and remittance given as to the problems I see with their proposal. Response to KEFFER-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment KEFFER-2 First and foremost the environmental impact with regards to the removal of the eucalyptus trees as well as some of the last oak trees and avocado trees in Orange. The habitat destruction for the hawks, owls, bats and occasional raptor are a factor that needs to be addressed. Response to KEFFER-2 As noted in Section 4, Biological Resources a) and e), the slope on the eastern portion of the proposed project site can be characterized as partially disturbed oak woodland habitat. The area consists primarily of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) interspersed with some laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) and other native and non-native grasses. Some of the oaks present on the proposed project would need to be removed and/or relocated, permits to comply with local ordinances shall be obtained prior to any tree removal or relocation. The type of habitat present on the project site can provide some roosting, nesting, and foraging grounds for a variety of bird species; however, the low quality and size of the habitat area are likely of minimal value to sensitive species. Nonetheless, the proposed project would comply with mandatory regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which outlines: • If construction or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for migratory birds (typically February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for migratory birds within the construction area, including a 300-foot survey buffer, no more than 3 days prior to the start of ground disturbing activities in the construction area. • If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, USFWS and/or CDFW (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or a qualified biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 300 feet around an active raptor nest and 50-foot radius around an active migratory bird nest) or alteration of the construction schedule. • A qualified biologist shall delineate the buffer using nest buffer signs, ESA fencing, pin flags, and or flagging tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. C-52 Comment KEFFER-3 This arena site cannot be just easily closed without a plan as to where the existing operations would need to be located due to the fact that this location is used for emergency evacuations when a fire is in the foothills and we need to evacuate the horses. Example; several times over the last decades we have had horses there at the site either being housed for safety or waiting to be transported to safer locations. Where are we going to do the evacuations to in the future? This site is part of our disaster plan. Response to KEFFER-3 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-3. Comment KEFFER-4 This site is used for community events weekly for adults and youths. Such events include horse shows, gymkanas, cow sorting, concerts, chili cook offs, horse training clinics, 5k and 1Ok events, just to name a few. The youth of our neighborhood deserve to have a location because there is nowhere else since this same company Milan closed down the last recreation area we had at Ridgeline with the golf, tennis and swimming. We will now lose the last recreational area we have for our children in OPA. Response to KEFFER-4 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-2. Comment KEFFER-5 Local businesses will be effected as well since that property is utilized for storage for several businesses. One business affected may have to close its doors if they have to move their hay storage, which would severely effect the neighborhood supply of horse feed. Response to KEFFER-5 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment KEFFER-6 This isn’t just another parcel of unused land. This parcel has history in the neighborhood and is an integral part to the functioning of our horse community. This needs to be addressed. Response to KEFFER-6 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Comment KEFFER-7 The traffic and safety of increased cars turning into Nicky Way at that location needs to be addressed and a future light may need to be installed. Response to KEFFER-7 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-5. C-53 Comment KEFFER-8 And lastly I feel the location of the horse trail proposed is not located in a safe location. The horse trails along such busy roads can be fatal. Not to mention the fact that the horse trail will go directly to a traffic light on the busiest section on Santiago Blvd. with a blind turn and I feel there will be a serious accident due to it’s location. The location of the trail to connect to the future proposed trail system would need to be moved up along the hillside where the trees are. Response to KEFFER-8 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-6. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-55 Mark Moore (MOORE1) Comment MOORE1-1 With regard to the proposal on Tract Map 17847, our position is—and has been for the last 20 years—that we are open to ANY AND ALL proposals from Milan that immediately removes the mountains of rocks and gravel and stops the rock crushing operation on the former Sully Miller Property directly adjacent to our home in THE RESERVE. If this proposal from Milan REI for the 7 acres south of our home and Santiago Canyon Drive achieves this or helps to have this occur, then we fully support it. The most important issue—from our perspective—is to come to a reasonable agreement with Milan to develop the Sully Miller Property as soon as possible to remove this eyesore and health-hazard from our community. This rock crushing operation is a PUBLIC NUISANCE (Civil Code, Section 3493 and Code of Civil Procedure, Section 731) and directly impacts the quality of life and our rights to enjoy our homes for my community and the surrounding area. That is my perspective and that of my wife and has been for the last two decades. Response to MOORE1-1 This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project. The proposed project is not located in the rock and gravel area that is noted in the comment. Nonetheless, the comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. No further response is necessary. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-57 Mark Moore (MOORE2) Comment MOORE2-1 I would like to express my support and that of my family towards accepting the proposal put forth by Elfend and Associates, Inc and Milan LLP. My understanding is that in exchange for the approval of their 128 lot proposal consisting of 8,000, 9,200 and 10,000 square foot lots they would be willing to offer the community 68.5 acres of open space and greenway on the property formerly owned by Sully Miller that has been a rock crushing and gravel operation in our backyard for the last 20 years. Other components include of the Milan Proposal include: $4.1 million in greenway improvements $2 million to relocate the existing horse arena $1 million in traffic and circulation improvements $1 million for local trail improvements That is a total of $8.1 million in cash towards the improvement and beautification of this eyesore and community nuisance that is currently over 100 acred of mountains of rock, gravel, weeds, and landfill. In addition to this, Milan is also willing to dedicate another 30 acres pf land that was formerly the Ridgeline Country Club to the city and the surrounding community. Given that this property was approved for over 400 homes ten years ago when it was owned by Fieldstone Homes, this sounds like an outstanding proposal that is a “Win” for the community. This proposal would add nearly 100 acres of recreation and open space to an area that desperately needs it and gives the city the ability to improve that land for the benefit of everyone in the City of Orange. While we are grateful to the activists in Orange Park Acres for the twenty year battle they spearheaded to get the best deal possible for the community, however, two decades of enduring this ugly and noisy sight in my backyard is enough and we feel strongly that this current Milan proposal is as good as we would ever hope to achieve and we should accept it now while the land owner has the motivation to make that offer. Extending these negotiations further will only result in either a revision of this offer with less land and less cash included to offset the loss of revenue from any concessions, or—worse—the withdrawal of the proposal altogether. My neighbors and I do not support another 20 year battle to reduce the number of homes on this property—we want this blot upon the landscape of our community gone yesterday! We urge the City and the Planning Commission to accept the proposal on the table by Milan LLP now and remove this monstrosity from our backyard. We have had enough noise, pollution, dust, and chaos here. Please get this plan approved and get this blemish removed C-58 from our city as soon as possible. There seems to be so much to gain for us all in doing so while we have the opportunity. Enough. Response to MOORE2-1 This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project. The proposed project is separate from the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Project, as they are unique, and have independent utility. The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. No further response is necessary. C-59 Sherry Hart Panttaja (PANTTAJA) Comment PANTTAJA-1 This letter is in regards to the NOI that was presented to the public regarding the Mara Brandman Arena Site. I would like the following issues discussed and remittance given as to the problems I see with their proposal. Response to PANTTAJA-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment PANTTAJA-2 First and foremost the environmental impact with regards to the removal of the eucalyptus trees as well as some of the last oak trees and avocado trees in Orange. The habitat destruction for the hawks, owls, bats and occasional raptor are a factor that needs to be addressed. Response to PANTTAJA-2 Please refer to Response to KEFFER-2. Comment PANTTAJA-3 This arena site cannot be just easily closed without a plan as to where the existing operations would need to be located due to the fact that this location is used for emergency evacuations when a fire is in the foothills and we need to evacuate the horses. Example; several times over the last decades we have had horses there at the site either being housed for safety or waiting to be transported to safer locations. Where are we going to do the evacuations to in the future? This site is part of our disaster plan. Response to PANTTAJA-3 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-3. Comment PANTTAJA-4 This site is used for community events weekly for adults and youths. Such events include horse shows, gymkanas, cow sorting, concerts, chili cook offs, horse training clinics, 5k and 10k events, just to name a few. The youth of our neighborhood deserve to have a location because there is nowhere else since this same company Milan closed down the last recreation area we had at Ridgeline with the golf, tennis and swimming. We will now lose the last recreational area we have for our children in OPA. Response to PANTTAJA-4 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-2. Comment PANTTAJA-5 Local businesses will be effected as well since that property is utilized for storage for several businesses. One business affected may have to close its doors if they have to move their hay storage, which would severely effect the neighborhood supply of horse feed. Response to PANTTAJA-5 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise C-60 any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment PANTTAJA-6 This isn’t just another parcel of unused land. This parcel has history in the neighborhood and is an integral part to the functioning of our horse community. This needs to be addressed. Response to PANTTAJA-6 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment PANTTAJA-7 The traffic and safety of increased cars turning into Nicky Way at that location needs to be addressed and a future light may need to be installed. Response to PANTTAJA-7 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-5. Comment PANTTAJA-8 And lastly I feel the location of the horse trail proposed is not located in a safe location. The horse trails along such busy roads can be fatal. Not to mention the fact that the horse trail will go directly to a traffic light on the busiest section on Santiago Blvd. with a blind turn and I feel there will be a serious accident due to it’s location. The location of the trail to connect to the future proposed trail system would need to be moved up along the hillside where the trees are. Response to PANTTAJA-8 Please refer to Response to BONNAUD-6. C-61 Bonnie Robinson (ROBINSON) Comment ROBINSON-1 I am writing in response to Negative Declaration No. 1859-18 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17847. As this site is in Orange Park Acres’ sphere of influence and the proposed development matches the current zoning, I do not have objections to the development itself. Response to ROBINSON-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment ROBINSON-2 However, I fear that Milan Capital is now resorting to piecemeal proposals in order to negate the larger picture of how this development and the company’s other proposal for 119–129 homes on the area of Sully Miller Property across from this site, which unlike the Mara Brandman site, is not zoned for homes according to the OPA and East Orange Specific Plan, will have an extremely negative impact on the surrounding community. In addition, once again, Milan Capital has continued, as in past history, in ramping up its operations on the Sully Miller Property, right before a proposal is submitted to the city so that the community and the City of Orange officials will say, “Anything is better than what is going on now.” I would ask that all city officials keep in mind, that anything is not better, and that the Specific Plans for this area must be preserved. In addition, all meetings between community members, the representative of the developer, and city council members need to be open to everyone and abide by the Brown Act, in other words, no more liaison committee with a limited number of representatives of only some of the communities affected by Milan Capital’s proposals. Response to ROBINSON-2 Tentative Tract Map No. 17847 is properly treated as separate from the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Project for CEQA purposes. The Tentative Map project is a small 6 lot equestrian development that is permitted on the site. It does not require any change in land use regulations. While the projects are in geographic proximity, they are unique, have independent utility, can be processed and implemented separately, and neither project is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the other. Moreover, neither project legally compels or practically presumes completion of the other action and the City can approve or deny either project without impacting the approval or development of the other. The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-63 Laura Thomas (THOMAS) Comment THOMAS-1 I understand, Milan Capital, owner of the 7 acre site that the current community arena occupies has submitted the above Tentative Tract Map #17847 for approval. Recognizing the property owner’s rights to build one acre homes on this site, I have concerns in considering the tentative tract map approval. Response to THOMAS-1 The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required. Comment THOMAS-2 The site is within the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan and must comply. Being an equestrian community with a 20+ multi use trail system supported and maintained solely by the Orange Park Acres community, the utmost trail system connectivity with the highest priority must be included. Santiago Canyon Road is highly trafficked with only an increase of daily car trips in the future. The Orange Park Acres Advisory Committee and Orange Park Acres Trails Committee should, as in the past, review the tentative tract map with trails to enhance public safety and trail system connectivity. This also includes review in landscaping design. Response to THOMAS-2 The proposed project has followed the City of Orange Planning Application process, review by committees will take place as determined by City staff. Comment THOMAS-3 Another concern with approval of this tract map, is a review of the residence square footage in relation to lot size. The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan provides animal keeping on one acre properties. Setbacks for animal keeping must be considered in the footprint of any residence, accessory building, pool and garage. As well as accessibility to the property related to animal keeping. Response to THOMAS-3 As noted in Section 10, Land Use/Planning b) of the IS/ND, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Orange General Plan, the City of Orange Zoning Ordinance, and the Orange Park Acres Plan designations. Comment THOMAS-4 Being a 35 year resident, past Orange Park Association President, Board member, current OPA Real Estate Committee member and realtor, I strongly feel that providing any additional homes in the Orange Park Acres sphere the consideration of these items will insure property values, desirability, and quality of life in Orange. Not to mention, our four surrounding County of Orange Regional Parks accessed by multi users. Who wouldn’t want to live here! The East Orange sphere encompasses the City of Orange Equestrian Overlay and Orange Park Acres Equestrian Community, a jewel in the crown of Orange. C-64 Response to THOMAS-4 The comment is noted and will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and, therefore, no further response is required.