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.