The URL can be used to link to this page

11.01 Trails at Santiago Creek 5 - Attachment 4 tt c men ,� a City of Orange Community Development Department M emo To: Chair Glasgow and Members of the Planning Commission Thru: Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Development Dixector�� From: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner� , Date: July 11,2019 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15,2019 Staff is forwarding correspondence received from interested parties in support or opposition � to the proposed Trails at Santiago Creek Project between the dates of June 27, 2019 through July 11,2019. �' Printed on recycled paper �a Addison Adams 1634 River Birch Circle Orange,CA 92869 addisonQadamscorporatelaw.com (310)339-6574 City of Orange Planning Commission 300 E. Chapman Ave. Orange, CA 92866 RE: The Trails at Santiago Creek—Hearing July 1 or July 15,2019 Deaz Commissioners, Please accept this personal Ietter as part of your consideration for this project. My neighborhood is within Orange Park Acres, and my backyard abuts the property at issue. I experience the noise and dust f�rst-hand as I can hear it and see it from my bedroom window. I have served on the Liaison Committee since it was formed five years ago. I wrote a letter to the City Council dated December 4, 2014 demanding termination of all non-conforming uses(dumping and crushing) at the site and to enforce the current zoning. I remain focused on terminating all industrial uses at this site. Approval of the project makes it more likely that the gravel yard will eventually be shutdown and cleaned up. Therefore, I support approval of the project. However, I also like the project. The concept drawing looks good: ��,a. � , : . t„s„�„., _ ,,�; d�ir �' , •,�„�l� ��iv`�awTMy-..�y--N.w. - • �` Z. � .;,w�{^1� r�J hw F . A� l �r.;j�' , `e��'��, r � �s.i ir+i� s � ��. ,.� ri {�t �,..s�,' ��> 1:..��. �yr�i _ ,t'��. )�� ""1.3 � d.,°�. �. ..C'i..: � /N , .- ^ `�`9`1�iyJt� " z, t� �.� ��;^�r � �r t�-.�+ � }r t� �4 � � �� j �}� , � � �� ,t�� f ,� ., r �`�"� "'�`�, { � � �� `�h� f �� A Y"�v {�Fk w+, . , � (�xw + . �,,'� ,`�� '��•�.a}' ,y;,.. ,�,,,,s�u."'1. b� ��.�::. _,. _., f "''�'`�n+.��r�'� - e i r'�.._'�_�°�_......*+ -i . . . .�, ..,r.. . .. , . ,.. . ,;.:,. ,. , . ., , .. THE 7RAlLS AT SANTIAGO CREEK.-.---._ .- -- . ._.__....._--�.-- Tho Pro1.ct�1T�tats wr�a�.au The concept drawing shows there are no.longer any mountains of rubble,there is landscaped greenway along the creek,and public access trails from all sides of the property. Taking this ugly property and converting it irito such a mix of single family Orange Planning Commission Re:The Trails at Santiago Creek June 27,2019 Page 2 housing and parkland with public access to a greenbelt along the creek would be a huge improvement. It is also not a significant departure from the existing planning documents for the site. Part of the property is already zoned residential consistent with the East Orange General Plan. That Plan and fhe OPA Specific Plan call for the remainder to be open space once the rock quarrying activities have ternunated(which they have). Taken together,the two plans call for a mix of residential and open space on this 109 acre property. Similarly the project proposes a mix of open space{with trails and greenbelt) and residential housing. This is consistent with the big picture planning for this location (mix of residential and open space). The general and specific plans ca11 for more open space acreage and less residential acreage than proposed here, as well as lower density residential (one acre within OPA), and residential in a different area on the property, but I consider those plan variances a matter of degree rather than disqualification. The proposed housing density is similar to adjacent Mabury Ranch and Jamestown which makes the number of homes non-offensive. There are a number of benefits offered to offset the negative plan variances which make this project worthwhile. Not the least of which is shutting down the gravel yard operations. For these reasons,the proposal has the promise of a good project for the city. I have several planning concerns with the proposal which I ask the planning commission to address with the appiicant as a condition of any approval of the proposed development entitlements. , 1. Shut Down The Gravel Yard Now,Not Later. a �.'= X ��' ....d+� " ia �.+i � �=r. `S'v C�-n , .f .>, �. a .. <{ ' ��A � �,� ��:. �,.. � ' �.. � yM,,,.... �� '�� r� .� - • �� y:. }j2 ,r,:��t',�' - .'� � f y' ,� yr ,,w M r � � �' A/�rt`ty0'} f�'!(4°�{�1'9gp�t ('� '•' �'�4I ! ✓{��l�j,Y` �� ,y rn i t,;'' �ta �l'q � ,{ � .,S :. I' j t ?„ ( Y � �-1�;�� .w;�,(/ �f' � #��i�� ... :+. � ��d�i� � ��i�� F �, f�. 4 t .�F�. C` .. '� •�f A -�i•��l�w' "2�$"�.�,`:.. 'a�+n.,G':'«.,'4 '�`+.��}y. ,. .``\ Orange Planning Commission Re:The Trails at Santiago Creek June 27,2019 Page 3 The current project does not call for immediate termination of any current activities at the site. On the contrary,paragraph 4.1.6 of the proposed Development Agreement provides that"OWNER will be permitted to continue the sand and gravel operations...[until]the fust certificate of occupancy for the Project." This is a glaring problem that needs to be corrected. All sand and gravel mining operations should terminate immediately. This should be no problem as there aze no current mining or quarrying operations on the site as authorized by the current zoning designation. The property is now being used as a dump and a waste concrete recycling operation,which is only permitted in an industrial - manufacturing zone (M2). All current operations at the site constitute a nonconforming use which should be terminated. First,no more dumping of waste concrete, asphalt, brick, construction debris, or other aggregate or base materials, or otherwise. Stop using the property as a dump. Second,they need to stop selling gravel, concrete, dirt or other base materials from the site. The constant flow of trucks in an out running as a business buying and selling loads needs to stop immediately. Third, all crushing operations need to terminate immediately. No more crushing waste concrete and asphalt into gravel or cement materials. No more crushing of anything at all, in fact. The gravel yard needs to be closed. It is a nuisance, it is an industrial use in a residential area, it violates the current zoning, and it is long past time for the noise, dust,ugliness and truck traffic associated with the dumping and crushing business to end. Even with approval it may take decades before the first house is built. Please don't let the surrounding neighborhoods suffer another day of this nuisance. 2. �Make Them Clean Up Their Mess. � - , , _• �t �t. g i '� � � t• .,. `�J., .� '�� +� 4 ,yi j ) . t �. a e i, �, >� * �: a..� ,ec�� ;�k� ��'�t ��pJ u.d� � �� ,� t �u. �, 5, � � t 8j *�71`�^ ` t ;�. X�`m �' ; } � f ��i��s�� t.. `fp*+ .J`W. K. � �' �tf. ('� � � / �.��b _,�.~;A.. �;y � � f.��.. � � �F• _ � ,y�i�y � {�} _,� �',k� � , � ti .��,r.`� ,� ,,,, � ra� � t �� . �w �.�� tc tt'A i.: n.. �.. s"�7 �* `�, ��' aw �- �, %� ' „x;>, n r ?'� � w•.� ��y„�:, oS � : '- ,� �� . ��f:s� �ht�� 1Y �4" � +y�,t :i s` . �. r .T�e _ _ t. - �!, � r� a a ti �, �" '�I' s.x'� �.• ��' . } .g�. '� �� ' !y , . �� °s°v'� , r�,l V`�'h.'} . rf * •_•'� �'��,�+r /'� ;' y {F � 7 ..t'' 1 V, �� .,"..-� � t .m..^^� �E 3 "j. ( � : "ti^� .. �� ! veSY=. q" ---�--, ... '�' ` ,a. +�" t L,�,Z aYs„' � � �� x.,. 7 ' "r.' i� " s.� t 1 �, �"-' b ;s " r z�f ;d � .»,-„� ' -�• '�,, �'r.� �y � ;a .-+ .g`. .�` � 'j �s.w .r.a� The evidence shows that SMARA applies to this property and so does the rehabilitation obligations arising from the current zoning(see Section 17.32.070 Rehabilitation Orange Planning Commission Re:The Trails at Santiago Creek June 27,2019 Page 4 Standards of the Orange Municipal Code). The property owner is required to clean up the mess they made and they should have already done so. At a minimum,the piles need to be removed or flattened so that they are no longer visible beyond the existing six-foot chain-link fencing. � � � �� , � � �� `�� ,��,�� " a �� °' , ��"�� ; �" � � �� s �„�s& �� „� � '�'��"�°�,��z��a . �� t��i�'��. � ` � � � - ''.r�. k` ,'�.� ' *�,�5�� E s� t w� Y a�a�,n'* �, ' "`�,� r„ s '2W' � '� � ,P�°�ti ,�. �,,y, '� � u-ri1 � #�x i� '� � � z F�€�. :.#: ,��., � k c,�.`i`y t(�� „�� ?S d .. rt_�� .�:�'}�j t¢ x"4�.R �.. °x - _.+-ws-��'"��..<� .�.1.•• a:,.,:" A proper remediation of the contaminated soil would be best for the environment. But even mere cosmetic improvements would go a long way towards improving the neighborhood. I'm tired of looking at this blight as I drive by on Santiago Canyon Road and it may take decades to find a builder to break ground on this projecf or otherwise engage in any meaningful cleanup or beautification. 3. Keep the Open Space Open. The project promises 69 acres of open space with trails and a greenbelt. Please malce sure this remains open for public use,not private use by the residents of this development. I don't see any CC&R's or easements precluding the new development's HOA from erecting gates with Iocks and excluding the public from use of the trails and greenway. Open space and greenway is only a public benefit if the public actually has the right to access the trails and the creek as promised in the concept drawing. I also don't see any time restrictions on when the open space will be cleaned up and open to the public. There is no obligation in the proposal to pay for cleanup and trails until after homes have actually been built, which may never happen. It sure would be nice far the open space to be cleaned up and open for public use on a time table separate from building homes. Right now the entire property is fenced off and my concern is that it may stay that way indefinitely. Orange Planning Commission Re:The Trails at Santiago Creek June 27,2019 Page 5 4. BicYcles Horses and Pedestrians Need a Wav to Get Around. The concept drawing shows a multi-use trail along Santiago Canyon, which is exactly what's needed. That trail needs to be extended along the dumpsite to Cannon, and up Cannon to the overpass. This is particularly important with the proposed tr�c changes and elimination of a practical bike lane. The intersection of Santiago Canyon and Cannon need crosswalks on all four sides,not just the two sides that currently have crosswalks. A trail along the creek underneath the bridge on Cannon connecting the bike trail on the west-side of Cannon to the project's trails on the east side of Cannon would vastly improve trail use and be consistent with the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance Vision Plan for this area. Creek crossings at both the east and west ends of the property would greatly improve pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle circulation. Maintaining public trail access from both the main entrance and the eastern entrance on Santiago needs to be protected to maximize pulilic use and enjoyment of the greenbelt and trail system. We should avoid a situation where entitlements are granfed and yet there are no immediate benefits provided to the community. The developer has no vested rights to build homes on this land south of the creek. Many of the promised benefits are tied to a certificate of occupancy. As actual construction may never occur, please make sure the property does not continue in its current state for an indefinite period of tune. As many of the promised benefits as possible should occur immediately or on a firm time-table rather than wait for the whims of the economy, further apposition to details of the proposed development, and the owner's ability to find a builder and that builder's timetable for getting further approvals and actually building the homes. Thank you for your efforts protecting and guiding our great city! �� Addison Adams COMMUNI7Y DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2019 ClTY OF ORANGE June 26, 2019 " Robert Garcia Senior Planner SMART Liaison Community Development Department 300 E. Chapman Ave. Orange, CA 92866 Dear Sir: I've been a resident of Orange for more than twenty years and strongly oppose the Sully Miller Development project. The City of Orange, especially East Orange is unique—let's keep it that way by limiting development on Santiago Blvd. I care about Orange Park acres and that it stays equestrian and also that it follows OPA's Specifie Plan. The OPA Specific Plan has protected our community for 45 years and our land use map has guided us all these years. Follow the OPA Plan -as written. NO to the Sully Miller Development Project. Sincerely, ��` � Leslie K. Kay, MS, D 135 S. Calle Alta Orange; CA 92869 cc: Ernest Glasgow Doug Willits Dave Simpson Richard Martinez Davitl R. Vazquez June 26, 2019 COMMUR CEIVEDP� JUL 01 2019 Ci I'Y OF ORP►NGE Robert Garcia Senior Planner SMART Liaison Community Development Department. 300 E. Chapman Ave. Orange, CA.92866 Dear Sir: I've been a resident of Orange for many years and strongly oppose the Sully Miller Developrrient project. The City of Orange, especially East Orange is unique—let's keep it that way by limiting development on Santiago Blvd. I care about Orange Park Acres and that it stays equestrian and also that it follows OPA's Specific Plan. The OPA Specific Plan has protected our community for 45 years and our land use map has guided us all these years. � Follow the OPA Plan - as written. NO to the Sully Miller Development Project. . Sincerely, ��.(1d , Daniel Getzing , 6PA 135 S. Calle Alta Orange, CA 92869 cc: Ernest Glasgow Doug Willits Dave Simpson Richard Martinez David R. Vazquez Robert Garcia . From: Jennifer Scudellari Sent: Monday,luly 1, 2019 9:52 AM To: Robert Garcia;Anna Pehoushek <<� Kim Kinsler Subject: RE:Rlanning Commission meeting for 7-15-19 FYI From:Cindy Cousine<fauxcow6oy@aol.com> Sent:Thursday,June 27,2019 8:14 PM To:Kim Kinsler<kkinsler@cityoforange.org> Cc:Jennifer Scudellari<jscudellari@cityoforange.org> Subject:RE:Planning Commission meeting for 7-15-19 June 27, 2019 Robert Garcia, Senior Planner City of Orange 300 E. Chapman Ave Orange, CA 92866 Dear Mr. Garcia, I would like it placed on record that I am opposed to the development the "Trails at Santiago Creek". With the OPA Specific Pfan 95% complete, it makes no sense to consider a zone change designation for OPA. Should the Planning Commission disregard the Specific Plan with only 5% remaining, it sends a clear message of your opinion for the importance of a Master Plan concept in general. Keeping the OPA Specific Plan as it is written is an obvious argument against the proposed development. What is not so obvious, is an argument that this property is suitable for any development at all. So it is something.you need to seriously consider. There is a multitude of � environmentai issue to consider in building on this property before there is any talk of re-designating the"Plan". 1 We already know the property is in a fiood plain, has issues with methane gas, and is on a known fault line.We know the area has traffic problems, and emergency evacuation issues. THESE are well known facts that Milan has yet to address, but even before all that, the city needs to address WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO SAFELY CLEAN UP, TOXIC WASTE THAT IS `DUMPED' IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD since its current land use. It is important to know what we are dealing with when moving around debris that has come from a literal "mountain" of waste. Has Milan created a °Brown Field"in our community and now wants to propose that houses be buiit on it?!? There are so many red flags relating to this property, to ignore even one could be negligible. Proposals can look great on paper, but who is going to sign on the dotted line for accountability, responsibility and liability for the fufure of our City? This is a discretianary decision. You need no justification to vote against a project that makes zero sense. Please don't change our zoning on a project that is dangerous for Orange! Thank you, Cindy Couisine 7728 E Appaloosa Trail Orange, CA 92869 � Regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment, zoning changes and development known as The Trails at Santiago Creek • No GPA or zoning changes should be considered until a full investigation and analysis of the mining residue and toxics is/are complete and it is known what kind of development, if any, should even be considered on the property. Any and all clean-up costs must be calculated and the ultimate payer of those costs be identified. •. lf the GPA and rezoning were to be authorized, protections for the remainder of the property(such as a permanent land trust) must be in place before development was to begin. Otherwise, full development for 240+ plus residential units will be just a matter of time. Communities throughout Southern California have born witness ta this sprawl in the past. • The site is in a flood plain and the RDEIR does not adequately address mitigation to offer substantive enough protections should the proposed development occur. • Despite the proposed traffic mitigation measures, the proposed development will add to existing traffic issues in the surrounding area. The addition of anothet traffic signal so close to existing signals on Santiago Canyon will slow traffic more than the short- run widening of Cannon will mitigate that which is already extremely impacted. • Construction traffic will create unaddressed noise, pollution and congestion in the area. • The site is adjacent to a former landfill with on-going methane issues that have not been atlequately addressed in the RDEIR, • The site has a history of wildland fires, also inadequately addressed in the RDEIR. • Upon research, two real estate brokers and one property appraiser have told me that the proposed project will diminish surrounding property values. • The RDEIR is woefully inadequate when addressing impacts to wildlife. Impacts to some species that use the site are glossed over, while other species that not only use the site (such as movement corridoc) but den on the property are not even mentioned. • Some of the negative impacts ideritified in the RDEIR cannot be mitigated. • City of Orange apen space will be lost forever. There will be no way to get it back. Ever. While traveling in Europe and South America I have often been told that there is no such thing as "too much open space". We urge both the Planning Commission and the City Council to proceed very cautiously when considering this proposed GPA and development. Please deny the requested GPA and development until you haVe ensured that all impacts and mitigations have been fully explored and.analyzed. Please do not even consider the requested GPA and zoning changes until the mining residue has been identified, clean-up requirements designed and costed, and payers fu11y recognize their obligations, Robert Garcia Prom: Dennis Riley <drrvcr@att.net> Senr Tuesday,July 2,2019 1:10 PM To: Carolina Riley Cc: Robert Garcia Subject: "NO"to the rezoning of Sully Miller Property Dear City Planner ATTENTION:Mr.Robert Garcia,Senior Planner I oppose the Trails at Santiago Creek Proposal because: The project does not reflect tlie goals and policies of the Orange General Plan. The.project does riot honor the Santiago Creek Greenbelt plan(1971). The site is in a floodplain,below two earthen dams and next to the IandfiIl that emits methane gas. Please honor the East Orange General Plan and vote NO on this proposal. Please include this in the public record. Sincerely, Dennis R Riley 5638 E Valencia Drive Orange,CA 92869 drrvcr(�a,att.net i Robert Garcia From: Dennis Riley <drrvcr@att.net> Sertt: Tuesday,July 2,2019 124 PM To: Carolina Riley Cc: Robert Garcia Subject: "NO"to the proposal for the Trails at Santiago Creek Dear City Planner ATTENTION:Mr.Robert Garcia,Senior Planner I oppose the Trails at Santiago Creek Proposal because: The project violates the East Orange General Plan. The project does not honor the Santiago Creek Implementation plan(1976). There are no reclamation plans to restore the former mining area for alternate use. Please honor the East Orange General Plan(August, 1975)and vote NO on this proposal. Please include this in the public record. Sincerely, V Cazolina Riley 5638 E ValenciaDrive Orange,CA..92869 drrvcr e,att.net i SANTIAGO CREEK DEVELOPMENT A landowner can come before the city with a plan on what they feel is the best use of their property, even a unrealistic and dangerous one.The present development plan is being called something d�fferent from the last proposal however, same fiood plain, same methane gas ,same creek that overflows. You can change the name but not the facts regarding the dangers surrounding the property. The landfill adjacent to this property closed in the 60's , long before re,strictions were in place on what coulc! be put in a public dumpsite. Lead based paints, asbestos, cleaning solvents, chemicals, lead/acid batteries, old oils and #uels, all dumped in the landfills, , well...there weren't any cecycfing centers, in those days it was called the city dum,p, Landfills emit methane gas afong with ammonia,sulfides and carbon SANTIAGO CREEK DEVELOPMENT dioxide. The Army Corps of Engineers has this� site designated as a flood plain, clear and simple, unfit for residential housing,. There are: numerous facts regarding fhis properiy at a website called KEEPORANGESAFE.ORG. I encourage you to take the time to read the facts not opinions. . The flood of `69 is a fact, not- opinion. Methane gas migcation through the soil is a fact, not an opinion. . Resi.dents tiving adjacent to this property have complained about respiratory issues, headaches, nausea, and they blame it on the dust presently generate;d by #he dumping and crushing of used concrete and �other b.uilding materials . Is this operation being monitored for safety and compliance of existing environmental laws. Drive by there, Is this mining or dumping2 SANTIAGO CREEK DEVELOPMENT Think about this. Rich aggregates were deposited and mined from this s�te, vyrell...how did they get there ?,why of course, from the creek flooding the �site, How many times would that land have to flood #o .enrich it with that much sand and gravel. That land is a relief valve for the creek. Two earthen dams v�rere built upst�eam to prevent the creek from flooding the surrounding area, well that didn't r�vork since the historic flood of `69 took homes, property and lives with it. Look at the photos on KEEPORANGESAFE.ORG taken during that historic � flood and see the destruction for yourselves. Ask yourself if building more horse trails or adding another traffic lane will prevent another flood from occurring. Ask yourself if adding methane biadders and methane detectors at each residence �itiill prevent the chemicals SANTIAGO CREEK DEVELOPMENT frorri the landfill from sickening the neighborhood. Time prohibits me from discussing the Jic�uefaction and earthquake zones involved., thoge items only exacerbate the problem� These are facts; not opinions. This is a discretionary action on your part and you do no# need a reason to make a decision. Don't put our ci#y in financial risk with this property deyelopmen# .Rernember Love Canal in New York state, they did the same thing, built homes next to a sleserted landfill,took . peoples word that it was safe And today? It's a grassy field, the homes bulldozed and the city lef� wi#h the biJl. i IN-e �don't need another Love Canal in our city. Facts don't lie, look at .the facts regarding #his propert�, can't change those. Horse trails don't change facts. Paul Andrews kgoopa@aol.com �`,�ry !, �o�y Hi. My name is David Hillman and ! have lived in the City of Qrange since 19G3. I am known for protecting and helping to expand the trail system in East Orange. ! am also part of a group that has been focused on making the 10-1/2 mile East Orange Loop Trail a reality.Volunteers—f.or the last 50 years, have worked the I.00p Trail—section by section. What I would like to talk to you about is "plans" and why fihey matter. It's very difficult to achieve a goal without a viable plan.There's a lot of work that goes into producing a plan that ultimately gets adopted by a City. We are in the middle of this process with the East�range Loop Traii.There have been numerous meetings with the lrvine Company, the County, OC Parks, the City of Oran�e, different homeowners associations, and property owners.There have also been s'rte meetings with Engineers,contractors, consultants,environmentalists and profiessors.We've logged in countless hours to come up with the best possib{e plan for our community, Our team, all volunteers, has gathered the needed information and funding in order to hire Cal Foly Pomona to produce a comprehensive plan.This professiona! plan wil! aflow us ta apply for grant funding or private donations to help finalize the loop Trail. The time and effort we have expended on the East Orange Loop Trail is a sma11 fraction compared to what it took to create the Orange Park Acres 5pecific Plan, the East Orange Plan, and the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan. These plans have carefully�uided development in our unique area for nearly 50 years. As you know these plans govem the Sully Miller site.We also know, Milan's Santia�o Creek proposal is not consistent with, but rather violates all three of these plans. And so f question, if a bad project like this, which goes against long standing community plans and the hard work it took to create them is approved, WHY BOTHER PLANNING? 1 would also like to say for the record that Milan's project has nothin�to do with the East Orange Loop Trail. it is not a missing link, nor is it needed or part of the East Oran�e Loop Trail. , , �a u�d �. l�w,a�c. �31�' .E 1Cairl,a�eK �✓c,. Or4a9 e � CiQ . 9'z�6 y � Robert Garcia . From: Michael Testa <outlook 068915ACE532A1 EB@outlook.com> Sent: Friday,luly 5,2019 7:46 AM To: chip4orange@gmail.com;mayor@markamurphey.com; kimberleenichols120 @gmail.com;aIv360@aol.com;Robert Gartia Subject: Trails at Santiago Creek PropoSal I live at 6517 Sycamore Glen Dr in The Reserve in Orange Park Acres and 1 strongly support The Trails at Santiago Creek Prop�sal that eliminates the gravel pit forever and creates new parks and open space. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 i June 27, 2019 ,^aMMUNITY DE�OPMENT �-,crzYl/ 1� Robert Garcia,Senior Planner JUL 0 5 2019 City of Orange : � ; v�- ORANGE 300 E. Chapman Ave Orange, CA 92866 Dear-Mr.Garcia, I would like it placed on recorcJ that I am opposed to the development the"Trails at Santiago Creek".With the OPA Specific Ptan 95%complete,it makes no sense to consider a zone change designation for OPA.Should the Planning Commission disregard the Specific Plan with only 5% remaining; it sends a clear message of your opinion for the importance of a Master Plan concept in general. Keeping the OPA Specific Plan as it is written is an obvibus argument against the proposed developmenf.What is not so obvious, is an argument that this property is suitable for any development at ail. There is a multitude of environmental issue to consider in building on this property before there is any talk of re-designating the"Plan". We already know the property is in a flood plain, has issues with methane gas, and is on a known fault line.We know the area has traffic problems,and emergency evacuation issues. THESE are we11 known facts that Milan has yet to address, but even before all that,the city needs to add�ess WNAT IT WILL TAKE TO SAFELY CLEAN UP,TOXIC WASTE THAT tS'DUMPED' IN OUR NEIGMBORHOOD since its current land use. lt is imp�rtant to know what we are dealing with when moving around debris that has come from a literal "mountain"of waste. Has Milan created a "Brown Field"in our community and now wants to propose that houses be built on it?!? There a�e so many red flags relating to this property,to ignore even one could be negligible. Propasals can look great on paper, but who is going to sign on the dotted line for accountability, responsibility and liability for the future of our City? This is a discretionary decision.You need no justification to vote against a project that makes zero sense.Please don't change our zoning on a project that is dangerous for Orange! Thank you, � ��, �� C��'�..��:.� Cindy Couisine . . 7728 E Appaloosa Trail Orange, CA 92869 Robert Garcia From: Jennifer Scudellari Sen� Friday,July 5,2019 2:33 PM To: Ro6ert Garcia Cc: Kim Kin5ler Subject: FlN:Sully Miller Project ----Original Message— From: Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@cftyoforange.org> Sent: Friday,July 5,2019 2:17 PM To:Jennifer Scudellari<jscudellari@cityoforange.org> Cc:Anna Pehoushek<apehousHek@cityoforange.org>; Kim Kinsler<kkin5ler@cityoforange.org> Subject: FW:Sully Miller Project --0riginal Message----- From:Melinda Sammons<melsams@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday,Ju(y 5,20191:28 PM � To:Parnela Coleman<pcoleman@cityoforange.org> Subject:Sully Miller Rroject Hello! I am an Orange nafive.My parents still reside in the home where my five siblings and I grew up. Our"backyard"was an orange grove until it was torn down to build the original Chapman dorms where they still stand today. Attending Killefer Elementary,Yorba 1r.High and graduating from Orange High School is but one of the many wonderful experiences we have from growing up here and we are all still proud residents making new memories in this great city.. My husband and I have lived in Mabury Ranch for thirty eight years. We are original owners and there are many in this rural community that are.Raising our families, being long time loyal neighbors and living side by side. We take pride in that. We old timer's know about The Sully Miller Gravel Pit. It was here thirty nine years ago when we drove out here each weekend to see the dirt piece of land we had bought slowly transform into our dream home. At that time three streets in Mabury Ranch were being graded. Everyone saw it. It wasn't hidden. As a ehild we rode along with my dad when he went to the dump. That's where he would go to drop off"junk". It's a landfill that is dangerous to build on. Not long ago sitting in our home my dad says this to me as we spoke about this ongofng controversy"Our old station wagon is in the bottom of that somewhere."(Boy do I remember that station wagon,good ridden'sI) I oppose building ANYTHING in what was once Orange's City dump. Leave it a(one. Let=it be. Continue with the dumping and grinding. 1 Thank you for this opportunity. . Sincerely, Melinda Tidball Sammons (OHS Class of i971) Sent from my iPhone z Robert Garcia - From: Joei Robinson <jrobinson@naturalist-for-you.org> Sent: Friday,Jufy 5,2019 5:42 PM To� City Council;Robert Garcia;Kim Kinsler,Jennifer Scudellari �� Naturalist4You. Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS:Trails @ Santiago,July 5,2019 Importance: High PUBLIC COMMENTS: Trails at Santiago,July 5,2019 FROM:Joel Robinson 5907 East Valley Forge Dr. Orange,CA 92869 714-639-8480 �robinson(�a,naturalist=far- oY u org TO:Planning Cammission,Mayor and City Council,City of Orange,300 E. Chapman, Orange, CA 92866 Included are my public comments as they relate to the City of Orange Planning Commission Hearing occurring on July 15th,2019. I am recommending that the planning commission vote "NO" in regards to the Trails at Santiago proposed development. Over the past few decades,si�nilar development projec#s have NOT been approved because any residential development on the proposed site would NOT be compatible or appropriate for the following reasons listed below: 1)The project development site is designated as open space on the General and Specific PIans. Therefore,it is recommended that the plaruung cornmission,mayor and city council respect and adhere to tiiese plans. 2)The maj ority of residents aze against the proposed development project site because it will significantly impact traffc,air quality,water quality,rural quality,dazk sky,aesthetics,health;safety,biologica!arid cultural resources. 3)The project proposal is located witlun_the historic floodplain(flood inundation zone)of Sazitiago Creek. Santiago Oaks Regional Park and Irvine Regionai Park were set aside as open space to accommodate severe flood events. Both parks are designed to buffer adjacent residents from the negative impacts of severe flood events. A similar pazk treatment is recommended for the proposed development site,since it is immediately downstream of current regional parks and two historic dams,which may fail in the neaz future. Any residential development located within the historic floodplain putS future residents in harrn's way. 4)Traffic congestion is already a significant impact, so any future development will exacerbate this problem. 5)The proposed development project is immediately adjacent to a historic landfill which produces daily methane emissions. Any residential development that accurs on or adjacent to historic landfill will threaten the health and safety of future residents. There aze already severat examples of residential development;projects on or adjacent to historic landfills,which currently threaten the health and.safety of residents arid have resulted in expensive litigation. i 6) Sensitive wildlife and plant species require contiguous habitat aiong Santiago Creek to maintain healthy populations in perpetuity, The proposed development praject will significantly impact sensitive wildlife species and decrease valuable connectivity between Santiago Oaks Regional Park arid tlie wildlife habitat azeas downstream at Grijalva Park and Cambridge Street. It is recommended that all non-cor�forming activities on the proposed development site be discontinued because current operations are significantly impacting residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. PleaseXtconfirmk�that'�,my�puliLc�comments�woere recerved via�ema��4T�ankayou� ��.,,�._..�.. .,..�� a..� Slncerely, Joel Robinsan Z Robert Garcia From: Mark Moore Gallery <mark@markmooregallery.com> Sent: Saturday,July 6,2019 10:22 AM To: Robert Garcia Subject: My Three-Minutes at the July 15th Hearing Importance: High Dear Robert, I would very much'lilce to be there at the Planning Commission on July 15th,however,I have:a scheduling :'�; coiiflict vv�th the change m dates. That said,all of you kriow"exactly fiow I feel'on this matter��of supporting,your approval of the he Trails at Sandago Creek based on our past face.to=face meetings recently: If is clear,;:to " �_ .; . , . _. , .. everyone vv�th an objechve perspective that the onlyreal danger to this community is that of the gravel=prt ; operation.that has a major unpact bn tlie health and peacefiil enjoyment of the homes of all of_us.that leave nearby It is`unperative that this .operation be closed and the land reciaimed. Replacirig the:gravel pit with: :. . single fai�uly homes,.parks,;trails, greenways,and;open space should�not even be'a:subject:for debate:It is. ��' ob�nously a decision tliat does the most good for tlie most people in the City of Orange. The Santiago'Creek'Greenway Allianee-whicli includes long-time:community activist aiid conservahorust:��' _. : , . • Shirley Gru�dle on their Advisory Board-SUPPORTS THE"PROPOSAL for The Trails at Santiago Creek:,`` �� . . Tlie homeowners association board of Mayberry�Ranch supports this plan. The homeowners association board ,., ,... of The Reserve.unanimously supports this plan.'Tlie City of Villa Park.suppotts this plan,Tfie Santiago ' � Greenways and Open Space Alliance composed�of inembers of the community surrouriding tlie grayel prt;site' : ,_ .... _ support3tlus@plan,Tlie'former president of the Orange Park Acres Association itself, Tom Davidson,supports.�: , . , . �; t}us plan., . _ , -�� , � � In fact,the only�oppo"sifion to this proposal is a relatively small facfion of residents in Orange Park�Acres that�°; have also have opp�sed EVERY otiier development plan proposed'for this property over.'the last 22 years. �,: regazdless of inent 'These people haye bullied,iritimidated,and atta.cked alTthose that disagree,witli them creat�ng an environment wliere the voices,:of the ina�ority..are.muffled or drowned:out in the:process It;is uonic� that most of these people are not residents�of tlie Crty of;Orange�and do not vote"in�City el'echon.s Their position , ,. , . . . : _ , , dges not e'venrepresent the majority of,residents�tliat.live ui�.OPA. ' ' We,,feel we have been`silenf t.00 long on.this issue while the minority or residents`in OPA haye dictated�to us . how the ,; __ - ._ . ' y will allow us,to hve.Do not allow ttie aritics of�liese people distract you from what is a very clear : ''� _ . _ �. .. �. : ,. decision Iiere I'implo"re you to APPROVE,the plan for The Trails at Santiago Creek T1us proposal without ` queshon does THE MOST GOOD.:FOR THE 1VIOST-PEOPLE in The City of Orange-arid that is the�bottom�;';, �me. � ,� � . �.. " , . . .. . .. _:., :. ,; Ttiat is my three minutes of time. Thank:you, ' Sincerely, Mark Moore 6507 Sycamore Glen Drive Orange Park Acres, CA 92869 1 Phone: +1.310.266.2283 z Robert Garcia,Planning commissioners and City Council Members City of Orange ]uly 8,2019 300 E.Chapman Avenue Sent via email Oran�e,CA 92866 RE:Trails at$antiago Creek Project Thank you for taking the time to_address my concerns about the Trails at Santiago Creek specific plan that will be on the July 15�',2019 planning commission agenda. Please make this response a part of Public Record. I am opposed to the project as presented and encourage the planning commission to not recommend approval to the city councit. Here are my reasons. First,I would like to note that the area is not zoned for homes. Many of us moved into#he area with the understanding that the land in question was zoned as open space,resource(sand/gravel)and Regiona!Park under the General plan, East Orange plan and the OPA specific plan. These pians are ln place to help cities plan_the future and residents choose where to buy their homes. We purchased with expectations that these promises would be kept. Second,history has proven that the safety of the area did not permit homes fo be built there and these concems have not changed. Fire,flood,and methane gas safety concerns should be of great concern to.the city. Especialiy when it comes to evacuation routes and this development has only one way in and one way out, Possible future lawsuits would be costly for the city and fater on to residents in increased taxes. Third,I am concerned about the"Public benefits"that are outlined in the project. We are told of open space,trails and public access. According to the city documents and the FEIR there is no one wilting to confirm that their entity would be willing to take over management of the open"public"areas. OC Parks has still indicated it needs more information. The FEIR also indicates that the management of the trails,etc.will fall to the prlvate HOA of the new community in the event that another entity does not. What will stop this new community from gating themselves off and not allowing public access to trails as has happened in the past. Any community that is allowed to be build must remain open and un�ated to keep the trails and the entrance at NicEry accessible to the public.Otherwise,these"Public benefits"ate not really benefits that can be considered for the project approval,unless there is a guarantee from an entity that will manage it,to keep it open to the public. Noth[ng should be approved without final knowledge of who will be taking care of and funding.the trails/Open Space and giving those entities time to review the plans and the area. In an effort to know what they are signin� on to take care of from this proposal. How do residents get assurance that if the Milan sells the property that the new owner wtll abide by the provisions in the RDEIR and The Trails at Santiago Creek 5pecific Plan� Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns, Lucy Busby � 1489 N.Portsmouth Circie, Orange,CA 92869 Robert Garcia Prom: Lucy Busby<castlehopper@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,July 8,20191:17 PM Ta� Robert Garcia; Kim Kinsler,jscudellari@cityofrorange.org;councilinfo Subjed: RE:Trails at Santiago Creek Project-Busby Comment Letter for Public Record Attachments: BusbyCommentPlanningcommission7-15-2019.pdf Robert Garcia,Planning commissioners and City Council Members City of Orange 300 E.Chapman Avenue Orange,CA 92866 July 8,2019 RE:TYails at Santiago Creek Project Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns about the Trails at 5antiago Creek specific plan that will be on the July 15`�, 2019 planning commission agenda. Please make this response a part of Pablic Record. I am opposed to the project as presented and encourage the planning commission to,not recommend approval fo the city council. Here are my reasons: First,I would like to note that the area Is not zoned for homes. Many of us moved into the area with the understanding that the land in question was zoned as open space,resource(sand/gravel)and Regional Park under the General plan,East Orange plan and the OPA specific plan. These plans are in place to help ciries plan the futvre and residents chaose where to buy their homes. We purchased with expectations that these promises would be kep� Second,history has proven that the safety of the area did not permit homes to be built there and these concems have aot changed. FIre,ttood,and methane gas safety concerns should be of great concem to the city. Especially when it comes to evacuation routes and this development has only one way in and one way out. Possible future lawsuits would be costly for the city and later on to residents in increased taxes. Third,I am concerned about the"Public benefits"that aze outlined in the project. We are told of open space,trails and gublic access. According to the city documents and the FEIR there is no one willing to confirtn that their enrity would be willing to take over management of the open"public"areas. OC Parks has still indicated it needs more information. The FEIR also indicates that the management of the trails,etc.wiIl fall to the private HOA of the new community in the eveat that another entity does not. What wil!stop this new coarmunity from gating themselves off and not allowing public access to trails as 6as happened in the past. Any community that is allowed to be build must remain open and ungated to keep the trails and the entrance at Nicky accessible to the public.Otherwise,these"Public benefits"are not really benefits that can be considered for the project approval,unless there is a guarantee from an entity that will manage it,to keep it open to the public. Nothing should:be approved without final knowledge of who will be taking caze of and funding the trailslOpen$pace and giVing those entities time to review the plans and the area. In an effort to know what they are signing on to take care of from this proposal. How do residents get assurance that if the Milan sells the property that the new owner will abide by the provisions in the RDEIR and The Trails at Santiago Creek Specific P1an7 Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns, Lucy Busby i 1489 N.Portsmouth Circle, Orange,CA 92869 Attached is a PDF copy of this letter 2 Robert Garcia From: Michelle Gregory <jonesvict@aol.com> Sent: Monday,July 8,2019 2:57 PM To: Robert Garcia Subjed: Re:City of Orange Notice of Public Hearing-Trails at Santiago Creek Cc: Robert Garcis Mayor Mark Murphy Good Morning Merk! Here I am wlth four grandkids thlnking about their future in Orangel This Sully Milker lssue is a NO brainer.Just because the wicked Milan invested poorly with the intent on intimidating the citizens and elected offictals of Orange to bend to hls whim,it does not make it rlght,fair or even good for Orange! !have been subjected to the terrible harassment dished out by Milan's tactics and his outside hired hard hands that tried to intimidate us before.The case is closed!We won at the superior court of California and it is absolutely ridiculous to even fathom that we have to deal with the likes of Milan AGAIN!! We are ready to protect our city.Unlike mayor cavecchi,I hope you will take the high road and vote a resounding NO to any rezoning or special treatment to this criminal! I do not take this issue lightiy.I spent countless days working on Ridgeline and I am ready to devote the time again if necessary. I am asking you to consider the safety of our city. If Milan gets a green light,his horrible intimidation tactics will begin AGAIN because we will not sit by quietly and watch him destroy our city and the zoning plans that are in place. Thank you for your time Mark. Smiles Michelie Gregory The Jones Victorian Estate Elegant hospitality since 1881! Cel 714-343-1964 On Jul 5,2019,at 3:57 PM,Robert Garcia<r�arcia@citvofaran�e.or�>wrote: Hello, You are receiving this email because yau previously expressed interest in receiving more information on the Trafls at Santiago Creek project in the City of Orange.The proposed project has been Scheduled for a Planning Commission Hearing on July 15,2019. Regards, �6ert �arcia Senior Planner City of Orange (714)744-7231 Please be advised that City Hall ie cloaed every othec Friday. For your convenience,please check the City website at wwtiv.cityoforange.org for the calendar of working/clased days. <Final Public Hearing iVorice.pd� 1 Robert Garcia From: Mark Moore Gallery <mark@markmooregallery.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 9,2019 3:57 PM To: Robert Garcia Subjed: Letter to the Editor of The Foothills Sentry Importance: High Dear Robert, "Better.to.remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.""-ABRAHAM L1NC�OLN . . _ Anyone undecided on the issue of.the approval,of the.proposal to rezone the gravel pit in=East�'-`';. :` Orange from Sand &Gravel to Low-Density Homes and Parks as part of the Trails at Santiago.Creek proposed plan should de�nitely pick up,a copy;of the July,issue of the Foothills Senfry and read�their'_: Commentary on the proposal: It clearly illustrates tfiat facf.tHat the opponents.for this proposal are .literally grabbing at:straws.in lookmg for a good reason to turn down this proposal that would;bring the City�and'County`about$70=80 million in casfi and land in exchange for allowing 128.homes to be'built on 40,acres adjacent to the 120 acres to be dedicated to the People fo �range: Every objecttons#hey�have is a lot of rhetoric,that really has no subs#ance. Ironically,.a secon,d art�cle . . ,. . ..... . - .,.. on�,thafi issue on the,same,page is titletl "Hu,ffe..ry and Puffery" by;Bob Kirkeby. If you ask�me, the entire issue sfiould be titled "Huffery and�Puffery". It is remarkable that The Sentry would spend'a,full page criticizing this proposal which was th�ree,.yea�s in;the making and fias a tremendous amounts,of. benefits for the community and substance and not be able to coriie up with one truly valid point; � . ; against it. ��.'. .. Once agam, the`people fghting;aga�nst this�plan really showcase the,weakne"ss of their:argu"ment,and . _ the ignorance.of the�t�ue facts on this matter:I know that these people are not stupid people;;it�usf, : , , . >. . amazes.me�that they.can:make such,ridiculously stupid,arguments to a proposal;like this one'� � If..you want factuaf and�accurate information�on this.project; I ur.ge,everyone ta,review�.the Final Environmental lmpact Report.Trails at Sant�ago.,.Creek Specfic.Plan has been released.by the City of Orange ::It addresses,all�.79 questions that QPAA.had submitted on#his.project- including all:;the� objection�review in tliis article After a.full review over tfie�last tthree.years,`if finds flooding.potential _. and traffic impacts for:the The Project is consider,ed insignifcant-a main argument of the opponents� to`this plan -and.addresses all,the other issue's they object to. , . . You can,�ead the entire report now on the City of°Orange website at:.https:%Lwww.cityoforange.orq%DocumenfCenter�ew%9278/27650002-Trails-at-Santia4aFEIR=-- , . . : .._ . _ . ,,., _.. . . -Vol-1?bidld=' :. .. . _ . ., . -. , I tFiought you might fnd this helpful�in addressing any questions:of concems you migfit liave on the �� : proposal•;if.you°prefer�facts over'"Huffery and Puffery".. � - � � Sincerely, i Mark Moore 6507 Sycamore Glen Drive Orange Park Acres, CA 92869 Phone: +1.310.266.2283 2 Dear Orange City Clerk, I have lived in OPA for almost 20 years. The reason we moved here was because of the rural feeling and space. 1A/e did not feel crammed together because houses were on one acre lots. ! look down at Santiago Canyon Road and the Sully Miller property. It is unbelievable how the traffic has grown and now is bumper to bumper every weekday morning and night. No matter what they say it witl get worse. I have also noticed how the Sully Miller property has changed,there are four story mounds af dirt. A three story complex was voted down but a unsightly four story dirt mountain is acceptable? I understand that much of the operation is not legai and the city is doing nothing ebout it. Milan had to have known that only 20 acres of 110 was zoned for housing,That is their problem not OPA. A very smart man once told me "don't make your problem mine". That is exactly what is happening here. I object to re-zoning the property for the benefit of the developer. Re-zoning will set a precedent and there will be no sfopping anyone else wants to re-zone a property for their beneflt because the current zoning and specific plans and do not work for them. Please do not allow this project to get approved. It is bad for our community. Regards, Ken Kribel OPA Melanie Weir 8215 E White Oak Ridge#41 Orange,CA 92869 July 8,2019 COMMURTf`�"^�-'`D P�ENT JUL 1 1 2019 Robert Garcia Senior Planner,City of Orange CI� Y vr ORANGE 300 E.Chapman Avenue Orange,CA 92866 Re:"fhe Trails at Santiago Creek Dear Mr.Garcia: !oppose the Trails atSontiogo Creek deveiopme:nt proposal. This area was supposed to be reclaimed when mining ceased and.was never designated estresidential,with good reason. The Trails at Santiago Creek proposal violates all existing plans.Here are just a few specific examples of East Orange Genera!Plan objectives that are being ignored in this proposal: • 8. Rest�ict development within designated flood plains as depicted by the Corps of Engineers(p.124y • 10. Promote the pHasing out of natural resource extraction and the creation of a natural riparfan area alorig Santiago Creek along with proposed greenbelts;trails,recreation and open space areas.(p.124) ' • 29., Specify that property designated as open space on the East Orange General Plan,if developed,be ' utilized only for an open space,recreational or related use.(p.128) � • 6. Proyide residenfs with physical,visual and emotional re(ief from the congestion of urban surroundings.(p.131) • 1. Restrict residential development from areas subject to natural or man-made hazards.(p. 135) Not only does this proposal violate existing plans,this location is not a safe one build homes. � It is a former mining site,is.toxic and covered with sift ponds. • Issues with methane gas and the potential for liquefaction have not been addressed. • It sits on a flood plain below two earthen dams. • The area is prone to wildfires and is already difficult to evacuate as we saw during the Canyon 2 fire. 1'he developer is pushing hard to get this proposal approved and touts benefits that come with strings attached,and that are greatly outweighed by the costs that will be borne by our community. The traffic in this area is already terrible.Adding 128 homes,and the potential for even more,will put more strain on already too crowded roads and create a more hazardous situation in the event of an emergency. In your position you are already aware af the issues I have laid out. It is important that the Planning Commission and the City Council realtze that Orange residents are also aware,and the decision should rest with us. Sincerely, � F `�/� , • � � . � Melani Weir,�Orange ,, , � Copy: - , Planning Corimmissioners: DavEd Vasquez,Emest Glasgow,Doug Willits,Dave Simpson;Richard Martfnez Orange C�ty Councih Mark Murphy,Mayor,Mike Alvarez,Klm Nichols,�ip Monaco FOR PUBLiC RECORD July 11, 2019 T0: Cify of Orange Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Matthew Salcius 1343 N. Cabrillo St. Orange, CA 92869 RE: Sully-Miller Proposal I lived for many years in Huntington Beach because of the beauty of the SoCal coastline. After twenty-five years I moved to Orange. f married a wonderful woman who was, raising her boys here in Orange, When we decided to move in together and get married, we were looking for a home... but not a tract home, not something in another block of houses that atl Iook the same. What we found was The Colony in East Orange. This neighborhood has trees, the occasional horse clippity clopping up the street, and access to the Santiago Oaks Park trails via Mabury Ranch along Santiago Creek. It also has the El Modena Hilfs, which act like a barrier between busy Orange County and East Orange. And most importantly, it has open space that enhances the beauty of this part of Orange County. Open space is a commodity in short supply these days, as devetopers seek to maximize their profits. Not that there is anything wrong with that... this is America., after a11. But there comes a point where some things become mare important than profits. We look at our children and want the best life experience that we can provide for them. Forthe residents of Orange County, we want a place for them to come and reconnect with the (and, even if iYs just a picnic or a sliort hike. That brings us to the Sully-Miller site. Laws are being broken as we speak, with the seeming approval of our elected officials. In fact, Brett Bemard, Milan's planning and. development director said "If they don't approve it, we'll get the message that the city wants us to crush rocks here." He is impiying that our officiafs are okay with their illegal rock crushing business verses#he"The Trails at Santiago Creek". In 2007 if was stipulated in the JMI Properties/Santiago Partners LLC's Grant deed that the "manufacture, STORAGE, IMPORT, sale and distribution of aggregate or other materials" is prohibited. 1 do not understand why our efected officials continue to engage in these illegal activities. There are documents that exist today that reflect the wishes of the community. I am referring to the East Orange General Plan (1975) and a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2-93)which. allowed for 12.6 acres on the North side of the creek to 6e developed, and the Orange Park Acres Specfic Plan (1973).All outline what the community wanted fior this region. They identified the area for a regional park and a greenbeft. Why is it then that the efected officials entrusted with the community's wellbeing (not just a developer's wellbeing) are choosing to ignore these plans?At the very least, in a public forum the _ .. _. .. ... _i.i P.ag.e�. Matt Salctus FOR PUBLIC RECORD Board of Supervisors should discuss changing those plans. That way the community can see who stands with them or against them. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? If you must develop the land for additional tax revenues then develop it per the plan as it is defined, nothing else. Back room deals with land developers usually end up with elected officiafs getting voted out while the developer laughs all the way to the bank. If that was it, it would be bad. But it gets worse. We have all seen the evaluation of the land that these homes would sit on, partly dump, party flood plain, and ALL fire zone. When the methane gas or other chemicals leach to the surFace, either through natural decomposition or worse, by flood; people will get sick. The City of Orange and the County of Orange will inevitably be held responsible. Where will the land developer be then? Gone.Taxpayers will have to absorb the costs. I am extrapolating the data,obviously, but we do leam from historical data of other sites around the country that were faced with similar decisions. I am sure that you do not want to ieave a legacy of a city council that "failed to exercise a sense of concern for future generations". That quote came from David Axelrod, New Yoric State Department of Hea[th Commissioner, referring to those leaders who turned a blind eye to the Love Canal disaster. Their legacies are forever tarnished. You have the plans. You have the confidence of the community (for now). You know what to do: No rezoning. No 128 homes. Sincerely, Matt Salcius _ __ --- -----------,- . _.. ._ . ... _ _ ----- ___ . _--- 2 � Page Matt Salcius FOR PUBLIC RECORD July 11, 2019 FROM: Heather Salcius 1343 N. Cabrillo St. Orange, CA 92869 T0: Mr. Robert Garcia, City of Orange Planning Commission CC: Orange City Council RE: Sully-Miller Proposal I am writing to voice my opposition to the Sully-Miller"Trails at Santiago Creek" ProposaL My greatest concerns are centered on public safety (ref: June 20'19 Foothills Sentry): • The site is in a floodplain, below two earthen dams • The site is next to a landfill that emits methane gas • The site is in a high fire risk zone (as was seen in the Canyon 2 fire) � The site is undermined with silt ponds • The site is at risk for liquefaction during earthquakes • Evacuation due to flooding or wildfire is a major issue Who would ever think it is a good idea to put 128 houses on this site? Additionally, rush hour traffic is already horrendous at Cannon and Santiago Canyon. This devefopment will compound this issue, especially during construction (which will also create significant noise and air pollution for several years.) For these reasons, I request that you honor our East Orange General Plan and vote "NO° on rezoning. Sincerely, Heather Salcius , a.v 19 7'o .' �Ic�n��ns� COmmt Ss�o� �, � . � . � �°''x.� �S- . , � � � cQ � Aon� �-A�� . �`�' � �� v,o��!-�.� ��_ RECORD: Sully Miller liaison Committee (Nov 10, 2015 -August 27, 2018) Date Letter Work Product 10-Nov-15 The Orange City Council creates the Sully MillerLiaison Committee to discuss and deliberate over possible uses and handling of the Sully Miller site. 2016 Liaison Committee meets throughout 2016; continues to meet through Aug 27, 2018 16-Mar-17 NOP Notice of Preparation (NOP) is released for 150 homes;Scoping Meeting is held. Liaison Committee submitted plan for 25 acres/25 houses 3-Apr-17 l:etter Plan 1-25 homes/25 acres Liaison Committee submits response to NOP-presents a plan that would mirror The Reserve (25 houses on 25 acres). 23-Feb-18 DEIR DEIR released; 129 houses. Note: Plan 1 was not included in the DEIR as an alternative 12-Mar-18 Memo Liaison Committee provides memo with concerns to Council Members Mark Murphy, Kim Nichols and city staff on 03.15.18 9-Apr-18 Letter 130 DEIR comments submitted.including OPA (Shute, Mihaly&Weinberger letter) Liaison Committee submitted DEIR letter; this statement was included in the letter: Lock Of Cooperation with Lioison Committee "The Preface to the DElR rndicates that '�fJor the last 10 months, the City,Applicant and community representatives from OPA, Mabury Ranch HOA ond The.Reserve HOA have worked rogether in addressing these cancerns, as well as other related matters."!f only that sentence were true. Community representatives ottended those meetings for the explicit purpose to come to an agreement and avoid the necessity of one-day writing this letter opposing the proposed development�Unfortunately, the Applica»t has not obtained community approvaL Rather,.once again, the Applicant is acting �nilaterally in the hopes it can steomroll over community opposrtian." Liaison Committee submits Ietter to Elfend &Associates confirming Committee's 3-May-18 Plan 2-40 houses/40 acces concerns and the 40 houses/40 acres proposal 4-Jun-18 Milan offers 122 homes 19-Ju1-18 Plan 3-47.houses/40 acres Liaison Committee ofFers Plan 3:47 houses/40 acre proposal and produces proposal map as requested by Milan's consultant. Milan consultant tells the Liaison Committee that Milan has rejected the Liaison Group's 47 house proposal. Instead Milan Has decided to move forward with their 27-Aug-18 plans to build on the horse arena.site. The Tentative Tract Map for 5 houses at the horse arena site was provided to the group. The Liaison Group stops meeting. Date Event Comment OTHER KEY DATES 30-Aug-18 Milan releases TTM and Negitive Declaration for 6 houses on the horse arena site 19-Sep-18 Comments due for TTM- Neg Dec for the horse arena site 20-Sep=18 OPA informed Planning Commission to hold public meeting on TTM on Oct 1, 2018 21-Sep-18 OPA lodges complaint; requests PC not schedule Oct 1 meeting-City notices OPAPC 24-Sep-18 OPA sends letter to Planning commissioners 1-Oct-18 Hearing Planning Committee public hearing;tentative tract map for horse acena; approved ].3-Nov=18 Hearing City Council public hearing;tentative tract map for horse arena; approved 14-Nov-18 RDEIR Recirculated Draft Environmental Report comment period begins 31-Dec-18 RDEIR Recirculated Draft Environmental Report comment period ends It's been.over a year. Milan hasn't responded to the DEIR or RDEIR comment letters. . • . �• . • . . . - .. .. . . '; . `�:� •; • . •� , _ •,•. .. �:. _ . . . ,'. '-' : . `• .. .-t � . -prepared o4/7%g-T.Sears ' , "`: i. :1 -�. • . � !,4 C•-y :S _ .•�� i . . � • �f"� . l� .. - rA� ,�� •t�j �t � . 3• • ~ , ' � � g . �l � � � � . . . . • �• � ' � ~ �l . � J � � �. 1 i�� •• '�� , .• L�. . �'`'Y } April 3, 2017 Robert Garcia Senior Planner Planning Department City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Re: Liaison Committee (Orange Park Acres, Mabury Ranch and The Reserve) response to the NOP for The Trails at Santiago Creek proposal Dear Robert, As representatives of the Liaison Committee appointed by the Orange City Council please accept our general comments to the Notice of Preparation. We represent Mabury Ranch, Orange Park Acres and The Reserve. Each of our communities has sent separate letters with specific concerns about this project. This letter is not meant to be comprehensive but rather an overview of our unified perspective as we move forward with this process. The Liaison Committee has been working together to find consensus for an acceptable project for the Sully Miller site. As you know this is the third time in 18 years that a project has been proposed for the Sully Miller site. Both Fieldstone (2003) and Rio Santiago (2014) were rejected for good reasons. Our committee members have been engaged in the planning process of Sully Miller over the years. We have institutional knowledge of this site and understand the restrictions, limitations, community expectations and what they will tolerate on this site. As a committee, we have provided input on what would be acceptable based on constraints of the site, past proposals, planning law and the various plans that govern this site. The constraints, restrictions and challenges of this property are enormous. , Some of the issues that must be independently analyzed include the various plans on the site, allowed density, the creek, habitat restoration, flooding issues, methane on the adjacenf landfill, liquefaction, lighting, flood issues relating to the �' dam inundation zone, view shed, traffic, safety and circulation issues. There are many more issues. We respect the developer's property rights to develop in the area that is designated residential but also expect the historic planning documents for the site to be honored,. Past proposals have aHowed for 13 to 25 houses on the acreage north of the creek and six homes on the seven-acre arena site south of Santiago Canyon Road that are both currently zoned residential (Map F Existing City of Orange General Plan). We understand having contiguous open space north of the creek could be a cost saver for the developer and as such believe siting those development rights closer to the highway and away from the flood zone is logical. We.appreciate Orange Park Acres' willingness to entertain moving those rights to their planning area provided that the elements of the OPA Specific Plan are adhered to. We also understand that moving the six homes from the 7-acre site and leaving the horse arena is a benefit to OPA. At the March 16th scoping meeting the audience was asked to identify the alternative they favored. Although it lacked any specifics, without a doubt Map E is a plan that our committee could support provided that the density proposed complies with the OPA Specific Plan. We are pleased to share our knowledge and to have the opportunity to serve our community. Our top priorities will continue to be traffic and circulation, safety, trails, protecting Santiago Creek, restoring the habitat, density, respecting hisforic plans including the OPA Plan and preserving the character of the rural area. Our committee will continue to work in good faith in order to find a plan that hopefuily � we will be able to support. � Thank you, City of Orange Sully Miller Liaison Committee Orange Park Acres Mabury Ranch The Reserve I'om Davi�an �c�Lall �Ic��son ��ams �lieresa Secrrs St��ianie Lesins�i Dan ?►�tartin �,� • ' • . � - ' ;; i : ,� . > !F�- ;�.��t .. �.6�' �� . �� r.. . � � ' ,' f.`. 7 ` .. j. Liaison Committee fVlap . _ . ; - 4 , . � �. � t� � � , .� . _ . ,..r. � � , � , ti., .., , � , , . �� , SULLY MILLER The Trails at Santiago Creek Aka:The Trials at Santiago Creek, Rio Santiago [This is a working document and will be updated] Background The 109-acre aggregate mining property known as Sully Miller site has been used for resource extraction for nearly 100 years. Mining activities occurred on-site from 1919 to 1995 and consisted of surface mining of sand and aggregates. The General Plan designated the site Resource with the zoning sand and gravel. In the early 70s three plans were approved: Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan(First printing-March, 1971),Orange Park Acres Specific Plan (1973)end the East Orange General Plan (1975). All of these plans designated the Sully Miller as Open Space once the extraction life was depleted. 12.6 acres North of the Creek adjacent to Mabury Ranch On May 18, 1993 the city Council approved a General Plan Amendment(GPA 2-93),Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map to allow the 12.6-acre site north of the creek to be subdivided for a 25 dwelling unit development(see Resolution No. 8182 and Tract Map No. 14747). The General Plan changed the land use designation from R-A(Resource Area)to LDR(Low-Density Residential)and the zoning classification for SG (Sand and Gravel)to R-1-8. The tentative tract map expired in 2000. 12.6 acres is zoned for residential. Fieldstone proposal In 1999, Fieldstone proposed a 189-unit housing tract,which included 18 homes north of the creek adjacent to Mabury Ranch. The City Council approved the project in 2003. Citizen gathered the needed signature to qualify the referendum for the ballot. The City Council rescinded their vote,which reversed all the approvals. Rio Santiago In 2009,Santiago Partners proposed a 450+high-density project and finally settle on 395 units. Zero homes were proposed north of the creek. Citizens objected to the proposal. in 2014 the City Council denied the project. The following is a list of non-starters: ➢ Vio/ates ihe Orange Park Acres Specific Plan(1973)ond East Oronge Community Plan(1975) This proposal extinguishes the Orange Park.Acres Specific Plan on the site.This sets a precedent that the " OPA community will not be able to defend. 1 The applicant is requesting to remove the subject site for the boundaries ofthe Orange Park Acres Plan (OPA Plan). The area a,ffected is approximately 56 acres.The impact of.deleting this portion of the site form the OFA Plan is that it no longer is subject to the OPA Plan designation of this area for permanent passive open space and that any development on the site is not subject to the OPA Plan's residential density of 1 dwelling unit per acre and minimum lot size 1 acre. Precedent Setting • Changing and extinguishing the OPA Specific Plan for this property creates a precedent and pressure for changes elsewhere. • The developer wants to remove this site from the OPA Specific Ptan and create their own pfan that suits their needs. This will set a precedenf for Iarge!ot ownerto begin dividing up lots. In addition,the applicant.is reguesting the site be deleted from the boundaries ofthe East Orange General Plan(EOGP)approximately 40 acres. The impact of deleting this portion of the site form the EOGP is that if no longer is subject to the EOGP designation of this area for permanent passive open space. ➢ land Use Exhibit 2-5 is misleading and inaccurate. F.ully one third ofthe area surrounded in what is depicted is in the OPA Specific Plan,which are 1 acre lot sizes. There is no project description or Tentative Tract Map. ➢ General Plan Amendment The proposal calls for a General Plan Amendment(GPA)for 40 acres,changing it from Resource Area(R- A)to Low Density Residential(LDR). Low Density Residential allows for 2 to 6 dwelling units per acres— for a maximum of 24�units. Analysis should be done for Z40 units. Based on prior maps approximately 14 acres are in the East Orange General Plan and 26 acres are in the OPA Plan. Both plans designate the area as open space. LDR designation is not allowed in the OPA Plan. For this project to go forward,the developer needs it to be"up-zoned." in other words,the developer is seeking to enhdnce his entitlements on Sully Miller to help bail out the investors that bought at the top of the market. A General Plan Amendment i5 a discr.etionary legislative action that allows citizens to challenge the action by referendum. ➢ Zoning There are 12.6 acres zoned R-1-8 north of the creek.Transferring those development rights is imperative and the transfer shoufd take place as a condition of the acceptance of the EIR. However, under no circumstances should the transferred rishts exceed the existing entitlement for that site. The developer has no existirig right to.develop Sully Miller in the intensive manner that is be'ing proposed.Rather,forthis developmen#to move forward;the landowner needs to have his property .� rights enhanced,through"up-planning"and "up-zoning." The City has full discretion under the law to deny this request for enhancement. Because the City's ' general plan and zoning never allowed for this residential development,the developer has no legitimate expectation that these approvals would be granted. 2 A zone change is a discretionary legislative action that allows citizens to challenge the action by referendum. ➢ Maps Maps throughout the entire document are inconsistent with prior maps from city staff reports, parcel maps and historic map. The open space area in the Fieldstone project was 26 acres now it is shown as 16 acres. The creek has been changed. The boundaries for the East Orange General Plan and OPA Plan have been changed. Maps need to reflect the proper boundaries. � Tentative Tract Map(TTM) Without a tract map here is no way to analyze the aesthetics, impacts of noise, lighting, massing,air quality,etc. Failing to provide a trect map defers key etements of the project to a later date and leaves open ended as to what gets built and where. Very little can be done about the tract map if the GPA and zoning has already been granted. i Mitigation Mitigation cannot be defined if there is no project to anal,yze. Claiming,"No mitigation is required" is inaccurate, Doing the code is not mitigation—iYs just following the code. � Grading The impacts of the re-grading and re-compaction of soils south of the creek are not known nor are the hauling routes. There will be impacts to importing 700,000 cubic ya�ds of soil and exporting 400,000 cubic yards of silty soil,which will require approximately 73,333 truck trips. The dirt should be balanced on the site. ➢ Traffic The data is m'isrepresented. Sphere of Influence�501) is not large enough.There are NO Average Daily Trips(ADT)from the site now.With 129 homes there will be 1290 ADTs not 542. That's too many(the Nat'I avg is 10 per home). Analysis should be done for 240 units. ➢ Mining Activities The DEIR states that mining activities ceased in 1995.This has been an ongoing bone of contention about this site.The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA�governs this site.This site is listed in SMARA Section 3550.4 Sector J. Fieldstone argued that Sully Miller was not governed by SMARA because mining ceased prior to 1975. Dave DeBerry,the City Attorney at the time accepted that argument. Others have contested that. This DEIR states,"that mining activities occurred on-site from 1919 until 1995 and consisted of surface mining of sand and aggregates." SMARA needs to be adhered to and a reclamation plan must be included.The Orenge Park Acres Specific Plan,The 5antiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and the East Orange Plan all speak to fact that this site is to be ' reclaimed as open space.These plans are ignored in this document. 3 ➢ Open Space-Remediation and Need for Ongoing Maintenance.and Care The EIR purports to evaluate the development of 40Z acres of the 109-acre site. Only 8.3 acres of the remainder of the site are described as managed vegetation. The remaining 60.5 acres are left as unmanaged open space,including Santiago Creek. The proposal includes$5,100,000 in funds for lendscape and trails,but there is no indication of how or who will maintain the creek and the remaining open space once the money runs out. Will the homeowners be obligated to.pay association dues to maintain the open space? There is no word. Will the open space be transferred to the City of Orange or th'e County of Orange for maintenance? There is no discussion and no plan. Objective Number 2 of the Project(page ES-5).is to"Preserve and peotect Santiago Creek by abating the remnants of the resource extraction activities and establishing a greenway along the creek corridor." A. worthy objective,yet the EIR does not describe what abatement activities will take place,what . greenway will be established,end who will maintain it for years to come. The EIR merely offers to provide a finite amount of funds for trail and.landscape improvements. Objective Number 4 of the Project(page ES-5)is to"Develop a network of publicly accessible.trails within the project site that provide access to Santiago Creek and Santiago Oaks Regionat Park." There is a lack of any plan for ongoing maintenance and care of the trails,tf�e creek,and the open space area. The absence of any plan forongoing care and maintenance of the creek and open space is a glaring omission in this EIR. Remediation of the�pen Space is Needed. The EIR discloses that:"The project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment:'See Page ES-28—Impact HAZ-2. The mitigation measures for such concern are limited to building and grading permits for the houses. There is no discussion of remediation of such hazardous materials on the remainder of the property or in or around Santiago Creek except for the following statement(found at page 2-44): "The proposed project includes extensive remediation of bad soils conditions left as a byproduct ofthe former mining operation.This will necessitate the import of approximately 700,000 cubic yards of new clean materials and the export of approximately 400;000 cubic ya�ds of silty soils." The EIR does not further describe the extent or location of the"bad soils". Is it in.or near the creek? There is no indication where the 400,000 cubic yards of silty soils will be removed or where the"new clean materials"will be placed. Is all of this remediation limited to the building pads for the new homes? Where is the stewardship of the open space,the greenway, and the creek7 Where is the analysis? The question of remediation,care and maintenance of the majority af the property(the open space)is overlooked and�glossed over. How ean an Environmental Impact Report not clearly evaluate the impacts on the environment of the largest Portion of the property? - The EIR should address this issue squarely by committing to cleanup the entire property,including the . creek,to smooth out the piles, remove the debris and hazards,clean up the bad soils on the entire , property,clean up the hazardous waste on the entire property,and return the open space to its natural 4 state as it existed before the mining commenced as required by SMARA(see sole reference to SMARA at 3.11.3). There is no rei`erence in the EIR regarding what remediation is necessary, and whether $5,100,000 is anywhere near enough money to cover it. ➢ Alternatives The DEIR serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment,alternatives to the project,and ways to minimize adverse efFects and to identify possible ways to minimize those effects,and describe reasona:ble alternatives to those projects.The city appointed Liaison Committee submitted Alternative E as being a reasonable alternative. That plan was ignored and not analyzed. �➢ Project Imptementation The phasing is fuzzy. On Z-48 they admitted they need 404,401 and 1600 permits,which can take several month to years. On Z-46 they claim construction would begin in January 2019 and the project woufd be completed by January 2021. It is not realistic. Prepared March 12,2018 by the City of Orange Sully Miller Liaison Committee Distributed on March I5,�018 to Mark Murphy, Kim Nichols ond Ciry sraf}' . 5 April 9, 2018 Robert Garcia, Senior Pianner City of Orange Community Development Department 300 E. Chaprnan Avenue � Orange, CA 92866 rqarcia ,cifyoforange.org Re: Liaison Committee (Orange Park Acres, Mabury Ranch and The Reserve} response to the Draft En�ironmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Trails at S.antiago Creek proposal Dear Robert, As representatives of the Liaison Committee appointed by the Orange City Council Please accept our general comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report{DEIR). We represent Mabury Ranch, Orange Park Acres and The Reserve. Each of our communities may have sent separate letters with specific concerns about this project. This letter is not meant to be comprehensive but rather an overview of our unified perspective as we move forward with this pracess. Lack�f Cooperation with Liaison Committee The Preface to the DEIR indicates that `[f]or the last 10 months, the City, Applicant and community representatives from OPA, Mabury Ranch HOA and The Reserve HOA have worked together in addressing these concerns, as well as other �elated matters." If only that sentence were true.. Community representatives attended those meetings for the explicit purpose to come to an agreement and avoid #he necessity of one-day writing this letter opposing the proposed development. Unfortunately, the Applicant has not obtained community approval. Rather, once again, the Applicant is acting unilaterally in the hopes it can steamroll over community opposition. The Liaison Committee neighborhood representatives expressly rejected the OPA 2008 "Win-Wn" Alternative, and had it removed from the Pre-Development Agreement, and yet the DEIR discusses that proposal as if it was requested by _' the Liaison Committee. (See, e.g., page ES-6). The neighborhood representatives actually proposed Alternative E to the Pre-Development ' , Agreement. Despite the obvious importance to the community cepresentatives of 1 Alternative E, it was omitted from the DEIR, and despite rejection of the 2008 Win-Win Plan, it was included in the DEIR. Thus, many of the meetings with the Applicant, including the feedback that has been provided to the Applicant, has been ignored and omitted from the DEIR and the Applicant has instead attempted to paint a biased and inaccurate appearance of cooperation and endorsement from the Liaison Committee and neighboring communities, Omission of the correct Alternative E and failure to first obtain development agreement from community representatives means the years of discussions with the neighborhood representatives may have been largely wasted, as the Applicant is moving forward with its own plan, without consideration of Alternative E, and without any kind of agreement or approval from the adjacent neighborhoods most affected by this proposal. In addition, Appendix K to the DEIR attaches a draft version of the Pre- Development Agreement. The actual Pre-Devefopment Agreement is dated November 2, 2016, bears all signatures, and importantly, updates the labels on the Alternatives, removes the "win-win" plan as an alternative, and re-labels Alternative F as Alternative E. Violates the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan (1973) and East Orange Community Plan (9975) This proposal extinguishes the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan on the site. This sets a precedent that the OPA community should not be required to defend. It also is inconsistent with the General Plan. The applicant is requesting to remove the subject site from the boundaries of the Orange Park Acres Plan (OPA Plan). The area affected is approximately 56 acres. The impact of deleting this portion of the site from the OPA Plan is that it no longer is subject to the OPA Plan designation of this area for permanent passive open space and that any development on the site is not subject to the OPA Plan's residential density of 1 dwelling unit per acre and minimum lot size 1 acre. Precedent Setting • Changing and extinguishing the OPA Plan for this property creates a precedent and pressure for changes efsewhere. • Removing this site from the OPA Plan to create another plan to suit development need sets a precedent for large lot owners to begin dividing up lots. In addition, the applicant is requesting the site be deleted from the boundaries of the East Orange General Plan (EOGP) approximately 40 acres. The impact of deleting this portion of the site from the EOGP is that it.would no longer be '. subject to the EOGP designation of this area for permanent passive open space. 2 ➢ Land Use Exhibit 2-5 is potentialiy misleading and inaccurate in that the fots that are larger than 10,000 square feet are not marked in any way, and approximately 1/3 of the surrounding properties have this larger lot size. Fully one third of the area surrounded in what is depicted is in the OPA Plan, which are primarily 1-acre lot sizes. There is no project description or Tentative Tract Map. ➢ General Plan Amendment The proposal calls for a General Plan Amendment{GPA)for 40 acres, changing it from Resource Area (R-A)to Low Density Residential (LDR). Low Density Residential allows for 2 to 6 dwelling units per acres —for a maximum of 240 units. There is no mention in the DEIR of a new specific plan limiting developrnent to 129 units, nor has a copy of the plan been provided. Analysis in the DEIR has only been done for 129 units and therefore the General Plan should not be amended in a manner which would allow for more than 129 units. Based on prior maps approximately 14 acres are in the East Orange General Plan and 26 acres are in the OPA Plan. Both plans designate the area as open space. LDR designation is not allowed in the OPA Plan. For this project to go forward, the developer needs it to be "up-zoned." In other words, the developer is seeking to enhance his entitlements on Sully Miller which is not a goal of the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is a discretionary legislative action that allows citizens to challenge the action by referendum. ➢ Zoning There are 12.6 acres zoned R-1-8 north of the creek. Transferring those development rights could take place as a condition of the acceptance of the EIR. In 1993 the City Council approved a subdivision map for this parcel providing for 25 homes. In 2003 Fieldstone proposed building 18 homes on this parcel north of the creek. There may be room for debate and/or compromise whether the existing entitlemen#for the site is the 25 homes approved in 1993, the 18 homes proposed by Fieldstone in 2003, or a greater number of units permitted under the existing zoning. However, none of these numbers add up to 129 homes. Under no circumstances should the transferred rights exceed the existinq entitlement for that site. The developer has no existing right to develop Sully Miller in the intensive manner that is being proposed. Rather, for this developmen#to move forward, " the landowner needs to have his property rights enhanced, through "up-planning" and "up-zoning." Those are not goals of the General Plan. 3 The City has full discretion under the law to deny this request for enhancement. Because the City's general plan and zoning never allowed for this residential development, the developer has no legitimate expectation that these approvals would be granted. A zone change is a discretionary legislative action that.allows citizens to challenge the action by referendum. ➢ Maps Maps throughout the entire document appear to be inconsistent with prior maps from city stafF repo�ts, parcel maps and historic maps. For example, the open space area in the Fieidstone project was 26 acres whereas now open space is shown as 16 acres. The creek location has been changed. The boundaries for the East Orange General Plan and OPA Plan have been changed. Maps need to reflect the proper boundaries. ➢ Tentative Tract Map (TTM) Without a tract map here is no way to analyze the aesthetics, impacts of noise, lighting, massing, air quality, etc. Failing to provide a tract map defers key elements of the project to a later date and leaves open ended as to what gets built and where. Very little can be done about the tract map if the GPA and zoning has already been granted. Accordingly, we object to any General Plan Amendment, or any modifications or amendments to the EOGP or OPA Plan, in the absence of a Tentative Tract Map and a full understanding of the project proposed for approval. ➢ Mitigation Mitigation cannot be evaluated if there is no project to analyze. Claiming, "No mitigation is required" is speculative without a proposetl project. Of course there will be adverse impacts that must be mitigated. Grading and building according to the building codes does mean there are no adverse impacts that may require mitigation. ➢ Grading The impacts of the re-grading and re-compaction of soils south of the creek are not known nor are the hauling routes. There will be impacts to importing 700,000 cubic yards of soil and exporting 400,000 cubic yards of silty soil, which�will require approximately 73,333 one-way truck trips. The DEIR fails to analyze these impacts: t�affic, noise, emissions, air quality, soil disturbance and toxins. The dirt should be balanced on the site, meaning little or no importing or • exporting of any dirt. There certainly appears to be more than enough dirt already on the site to accommodate any reasonable grading plans. As there is ,� 4 no tract map, there also is no grading plan. Accordingly, we are unable to review proposed lot elevations and height restrictions for possible view impairment. We object to the DEIR for these additional reasons. ➢ Traffic The traffic data is misrepresented. Sphere of Influence (SOI) is not large enough. There are no Average Daily Trips (ADT).from the site now. With 129 homes there will be 1290 ADTs not 542. That's too many (the national average. is 10 per home). ➢ Mining Activities The DEIR states that mining activities ceased in 1995 (See page 2-19). This has been an ongoing bone of contention about this site. The Surtace Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) govems this site. This site is.Iisted in SMARA Section 3550.4 Sector J. Fieldstone argued that Sully Miller was not governed by SMARA because mining ceased prior to 1975, The DEIR states, "that mining activities occurred on-site from 19'19 until 1995 and consisted of surface mining of sand and aggregates." (page 2-19). As a result of this admission, it is now undisputed that SMARA applies to the site. SMARA,requires that the land be returned to its natural state as it existed before the mining activities commenced. SMARA needs to be adhered to and a reclamation plan must be included. ➢ Open Space - Need for Ongoing Maintenance and Care The EIR purports to evaluate the deve(opment of 40.2 acres of the 109-acre site. Only 8.3 acres of the remainder of the site are described as managed vegetation. The remaining 60.5 acres are left as unmanaged open space, including Santiago Creek. The proposal includes $5,100,000 in funds for landscape and trails, but there is no indication of how or who will maintain the creek and the remaining open space once the money runs out. The EIR does not describe what abatement activities will take place, what greenway will be established, and who wil( maintain it for years to come. The EIR merely offers to provide a finite � amount of funds for trail and landscape improvements. There is a.lack of any plan for ongoing maintenance and care of the trails, the creek, and the open space area. The absence of any plan for ongoing care and maintenance of the creek and open space is a glaring omission in this DEIR. Regard.less of SMARA, Remediation of the Open Space is Needed. The DEIR discl.o.ses that: "The project may create a significant hazard to the � public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident � ' conditions involving the likely release of haza;rdous materials into the 5 environment." See Page ES-28-- Impact HAZ-2. The mitigation measures for such concern are limited to building and grading permits for the houses. There is no discussion of remediation of such hazardous materials on the remainder of the property or in or around Santiago Creek except for the following statement (found at page 2-44): "The proposed project includes extensive remediation of bad soils conditions left as a byproduct of the former mining operation. This will necessitate the import of approximately 700,000 cubic yards of new clean materials and the export of approximately 400,000 cubic yards of silty soils." The DEIR does not further describe the extent or location of the"bad soils". Is it in or near the creek? There is no indication where the 400,000 cubic yards of silty soils will be removed or where the "new elean materials"will be placed. Is all of this remediation limited to the building pads for the new homes? The question of remediation, care and maintenance of the majority of the property (the open space) is overlooked. The DEIR should address this issue squarely by committing to cleanup the entire property, including the creek, to smooth out the piles, remove the debris and hazards, clean up the bad soils on the entire property, clean up the hazardous waste on the entire property, and return the open space to its natural state as it existed before the mining commenced as required by SMARA (see so(e reference to SMARA at 3.11.3). There is no reference in the DEIR regarding what remediation is necessary, and whether$5,100,000 is anywhere near enough money to cover it. ➢ Alternatives The DEIR serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to identify possible ways to minimize those effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to those projects. The city appointed Liaison Committee submitted Alternative E as being a reasonable alternative. That plan was ignored and not anafyzed. ➢ Project Impiementation The phasing o#this project is not realistic. On 2-48 the applicant admitted they need 404, 401 and 1600 permits, which can take several month to years. On 2- 46 they claim construction would begin in January 2019 and the project would be completed by January 2021. Our Liaison Committee has worked in good faith and has been very clear about our concerns. We take our responsibiliiy seriously. We have been working � � together to find consensus for an acceptable project for the Sully Miller site. " 6 As a committee, we have provided input on what would be acceptable based on constraints of the site, past proposals, planning law and the various plans that govern this site. The constraints, restrictions and challenges of this property are enormous. We ask the City to require the applicant to make the needed corrections and provide accurate analysis as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Thank you, City of Orange Sully Miller Liaison Committee Attached: PDA agreement 7 S H UTE� M I HALY � WE [ NBERGER �LP 396 HAYES STREET,SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415)552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com Apri15,2018 Robert Garcia,Senior Planner City of Orange Community Development Department 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 r�Tas'ciaC cih��tura�}�e.c�r�, Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Trails at Santiago Creek Project Dear Mr.Garcia: On beha[f of the Orange Park Association ("OPA"),we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report{"DEIR")for the Trails at Santiago Creek Project ("Project"). We submit this letter to state our position that the DEIR fails to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"),Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.,and the CEQA Guidelines,California Code of Regulations,title 14, § 15000 et seq. ("Guidelines"). Like all concerned members of the public,OPA relies on the environmental document required by CEQA for an honest and thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of a project such as this. We urge the City to correct the errors in the DEIR and provide the required assessment. The EIR is "the heart of CEQA:' Laccrel Heights Improvement Assn.v.Regents of Universiry of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392. It "is an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return. The EIR is also intended `to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has,.in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.' Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability." Id. � (citations omitted). Robert Garcia,Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 2 After carefully reviewing the DEIR for the proposed Project,we have concluded that it fails in numerous respects to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As described below,the DEIR violates this statute because it fails to: (1) provide a legally adequate description of the Project; (2) analyze the significant environmenta( impacts of the Project or propose adequate mitigation measures to address those impacts; and (3) undertake a.legally sufficient study of alternatives to the Project. To comply with CEQA and to ensure that the public as well as the City's decision- makers have adequate information to consider the effects of the proposed Project,the City must prepare and recirculate a revised draft EIR that properly describes the Project, analyzes its impacts,and considers meaningful alternatives and mitigation measures that would help ameliorate those impacts. The Project also demonstrates a disturbing disregard for the City of Orange General Plan ("General Plan") and the Ora�ge Park Acres Specific Plan ("OPA Plan"). While the applicant proposes to amend the General Plan and to remove the Project site from the OPA Plan,these amendments would directly undermine the integrity of the City's planning and zoning. For decades, both the General Plan and the OPA Plan have cailed for open space and recreational uses on the Project site—and the City has long recognized that development proposals on the Project site are governed by the OPA Plan. By amending the General Plan and removing the Project site from the OPA Plan,the City would be reneging on its promise to provide for balanced growth that preserves the integrity of the Santiago Creek corridor and the unique rural character of this area. In any event,even with the proposed amendments,the Project conflicts with fundamental policies of the General Plan and the OPA Plan,thereby violating the California Planning and Zoning Law,Gov.Code § 65000 et seq. And because these conflicts result in significant environmental impacts,the City's failure to identify them in the EIR violates CEQA as well. Therefore,the City may not legally approve the Project or certify the EIR. I. THE DEIR VIOLATES THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A. The DEIR's Flawed Project Description Does Not Permit Meaningful . Public Review of the Project. For an environmental document to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts • of a project,it must first provide a comprehensive description of the project itself. This S 1-1 UT E M I H A.L�' ��--�'EINBERGERi.i.r Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 3 description must be accurate and sufficiently detailed to permit informed decision- making. See Guidelines § 15I24. Indeed, "[a]n accurate,stable and finite project description is the sine qcca non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR:'San Joaqacin Raptor/Wildlife Rescace Center v. Coctnry of Stanislaacs (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713,730, quoting Coccnty of Inyo v. Ciry of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 193. As a result,courts have found that,even if an EIR is adequate in all other respects, the use of a "truncated project concept" violates CEQA and requires the conclusion that the lead agency did not proceed in a manner required hy law. San Joaqa�in Raptor,27 Cal.App.4th at 730. "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity:' Icl. Here, the DEIR's Project Description fails entirely to meet this mandate. 1. The Project Description Fails to Acknowledge the Full Amount of Development that Could Occur as a Result of the Project. Courts have consistently held that an EIR must examine a project's potential to impact the environment,even if the development may not ultimately materialize. Thus, an agency may not avoid analysis of proposed development merely because historic or projected land use trends indicate that the development might not occur. Equally important, CEQA requires an agency, in conducting environmental review,to take an expansive view of the project so as to "maximize protection of the enviconment:' Ticolicmne Cou�ity Citizens for Resporisible Growth, Ijic. v. City of Soriora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1223. An agency may not narrow the project description in such a way that minimizes the project's impacts and prevents full disclosure and public review. Courts have routinely invalidated EIRs that narrow the project description or analyze a smaller project than the one actually proposed. See, e.g.,Rural Land Owners Assn.v. City Coacncil of Lodi (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013 (finding inadequate an EIR for a general plan amendment that failed to describe or analyze the full amount of development that would follow annexation of land to the City). The Court of Appeal's decision in Stc�nislai�s Nat�cral Heritage Project v. Coacnty of Stanislaa�s (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182 is instructive. There,the county argued that an EIR could avoid providing a full analysis of water suppiy for future phases of a proposed development project because the EIR included a mitigation measure that would prevent development of those future phases until a water supply had been identified. Rejecting this argument,the court held that a lead agency must assume that a project will be _ developed as planned and must evaluate the impacts of the plannec�project,not a � potential, more limited project. Id. at 205-06. S i--1 U T E �t 1 H,�Ll' " ��-uG�CINBERCER�.�.p Robert Garcia,Senior Planner � Apri15,2018 Page 4 Similarly here,the EIR does not analyze the environmental impacts of the full amount of development that could occur as a result of the Project, but onIy a fraction of that developerient. Because the Project would redesignate 40 acres of the site to low density residential ("LDR"),a designation that allows 2 - 6 dwelling units per acre, approval of the Project would permit a total of 240 homes: .See DEIR Figure 2-8 (Proposed Land Use P(an) and pages 2-27,2-47.1 Inexplicably,however,the DEIR assumes that only 129 homes will be constructed. CEQA forbids such an approach,as it leads to an underestimate of the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. In the present case, miscalculating the amount of potential development causes a serious underestimation of the Project's impacts in almost every EIR category. The development of an additional 111 dwelling units would result in,for example, increased traffic,air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions,and energy consumption. It would also pose increased threats to drainage (i.e.,flooding),water quality and biological resources. Accordingly,the DEIR is fundamentally misleading to the public and decision-makers, in violation of CEQA. Because the DEIR fails to describe the Project accurately,it fails to serve its purpose as an informational document. See San Joaqacin Raptor Rescue Center v. Coaanty of Merced(2007) 149 Ca1.App.3d 645,672-73. If the City desires to limit its environmentat analysis to 129 dwelling units,it must place appropriate conditions on the Project,capping development at that level. Otherwise the DEIR must analyze the maximum amount of development allowed by the Project. 2. The Project Description Is Unstable and Lacks Essential Information. The flaws in the DEIR's Project Description extend beyond its failure to analyze � the full amount of development allowed by the Project. A fundamental purpose of an EIR's description of the Project is to give the public and decision-makers a sense of what uses would be developed on the site. Unfortunately,here, the DEIR's purported Project Description fails to meet this basic requirement because it lacks essential information. 1 The DEIR's Alternatives Chapter explicitly recognizes that the existing LDR land use designation would allow up to six dwelling units per acre. See DEIR at 5-1, stating that the existing R-1-8 Zoning for the residential area would provide a maximum of 77 single-family dwelling units based on acre density and would yield approximately 40 to 50 single-famify dwelling units (although a range of 32 to 92 dwelling units could . • be developed under the existing land use designations). SHUTE MIHALY �ti�G`EINBERCERi.i.P Robert Garcia,Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 5 According to the DEIR, the Project's entitlements would remove the site's residential areas from both the OPA Pian and the East Orange Plan and instead adopt a new specifie plan governing development of the Project site. DEIR at 2-12. The DEIR explains,however,that the Specific Plan for the Project has not yet been prepared. Ici. at 2-24. The remarkable fact that the DEIR has been circulated for public comment withoait tlze Project's Specific Plan has serious implications. Specific plans are required to specify the proposed distribution,location,extent and intensity of major transportation components, sewage, water drainage,solid waste disposal and'other essential facilities proposed within the plan area. Gov.Code § 65451(a)(2}. Specific plans are also required to identify a program of implementation measures, includirig regulations, programs, public works projects and financing measures necessary to implement infrastructure and services. Id.at § 65451(a)(4). Because these essential components have yet to be developed,the DEIR cannot do its job,as it is unable to analyze the environmental implications of the Project, For example,the DEIR provides no detail regarding the residential uses that would be developed on-site. Rather, it simply refers to Exhibit 2-8,the proposed Land Use Plan,which merely shows the boundaries of where residential uses would occur. The DEIR discloses no actual site plan, but takes a "trust us" approach,explaining only that the residential neighbochoods will be "notable." DEIR at 2-27. The DEIR also lactcs any information regarding the Project's development standards and guidelines, leaving important yuestions unanswered. How can the DEIR evaluate the Project's visual effects in the absence of a Project design? What plan can the public and decision-makers consult in order to verify that the neighborhoods will be well-planned? What are the architectural and landscaping themes? Where are the standards and guidelines to address landscaping and signage? The DEIR provides none of this information. The Project would require a massive amount of grading and earthwork that could have severe implications if not done correctly? For example, grading could result in the accumulation of sediment in downstream waterways which in turn could cause btockage of flows,potentially causing increased localized ponding or flooding. Vegetation removal and grading could also degrade water quality. Yet the DEIR's Project Description fails to provide any detailed information about grading and_earthwork, instead calling for the details to be worked out later. See, e.g., DEIR at 2-44("The blend of imported materials will be based on the recommendat'ion of the project's soils 2 The Project would require the importation of 70U,OOU cubic yards of new soil and the exportation of 400,000 yards of silty soil. DEIR at 2-44. - SHUTE VIIHALY �;�--1�G'EINBERGER�.�P Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 6 engineer..."). The DEIR also refers to the eventual preparation of an Interim Remediation Plan,which apparently may include interim grading and soil remediation, but the DEIR provides no details about this interim grading, let aione soil remediation on the Project site. DEIR at 2-44. In addition,the DEIR mentions,almost in passing,that groundwater and methane monitoring wells exist on the western portion of the Project site, but the DEIR fails to describe whether these wells pose any constraints for development of the site. DEIR at 2-2. Compounding the problern,the DEIR laeks a plan for the Santiago Creek corridor. In particular, while the Project calls for the restoration of the creek's riparian corridor(at 2-�7), it provides no details abvut fhis restoration. Given the importance of Santiago Creek,the.DEIR must address factors sueh as the creek's ultimate alignment;width, depth,bottom configuration,and creek edge treatment,including its riparian and wetland habitats. These factors must be addressed for purposes of flood control,water quality, wildlife preservation and protection,trail design,community character, and aesthetic purposes. In another criticat omission,the DEIR defers any consideration for management and maintenance of any of the Project's open space lands and trails. Instead it simply asserts that these issues "will be discussed as part of the ongoing process:' Id,at 2-28. Nor does the DEIR contain necessary information relating to the design,phasing, timing,and financing of Project infrastructure. In a development of this size and duration,public and private improvements must be developed in a logical and viable sequence; infrastructure needs to be in place prior to demand for new development, Yet the DEIR Eacks any documentation demonstrating that these critical Project components would be efficiently and effectively implemented. For example,the DEIR states that the Project will install a network of storm drainage facilities consisting of inlets,underground piping,and basins, but it includes no description, let alone design,for these facilities, Instead,it simply asserts that the "system is designed to detain flows from a 100-year storm event." DEIR at 2-44. Moreover,within the residential neighborhood Planning Area D,the DEIR explains that the existing Handy Creek Orange County Flood Control District Easement provides for an open space extension into the neighborhood and the opportunity for trail/paseo linkage from the residences to the surrounding recreational trail network(at 2-32),but the DEIR provides no details about this easement or how this - section of the trail system would function. These are just a few of the myriad issues that define sound land use planning. The � DEIR's failure to address these issues is particularly frustrating because the Project SHUTE MIHALI' ti�-VG�EINBERGER��.P Robert Garcia, Senior Planner April 5,2�18 Page 7 appiicant,which has been planning this Project since at least_2015,is clearly capable of providing some details about the development. DEIR at 2-22. Unless and until the applicant prepares a specific plan for the site that confronts these basic planning and design considerations,the DEIR will remain incapable of addressing and analyzing the Project's environmental impacts. At this point,tlie City shauld be providing focused direction to the applicant regarding its vision for the Project site. Furthermore,for items that are ineluded as part of the Project,the DEIR must provide a detailed description. For example,the DEIR explains that a development agreement would be approved as part of the Project(at 2-47). Under state law, development agreements define the nature and scope of a development project,typically at a more detailed level than plan amendments. See Gov. Code § 65865.2 (specifying contents of development agreements). Indeed,the very purpose of a development agreement is to provide "certainty in the approval of development projects:' Gov.Code § 65864. Development agreements, moreover, lock in vested rights to a certain development plan and can restrict future discretionary actions. See; e.g., Gov.Code § 65865.2. Accordingly,CEQA requires that the agency disclose the agreement's contents in the DEIR before approval. At this point, the DEIR's failure to describe these critical features sends an ominous message about the specific plan process for this large and highly controversial Project. It is simply inconceivable that accountable decision-makers could make a decision to approve the Project with essentially no information about fundamental Project components. Yet that is effectively what this DE[R asks the City to do. Under state law, the DEIR needs to be revised to include a detailed description of the Project. See Coacnty of Inyo,71 Cal.App.3d at 193. This description must then provide the basis for new, extensive analyses of the Project's environmental impacts. Finally,it is important to understand that, in addition to the obvious CEQA implications,the Project appears to have not been planned. Even the casual observer would wonder how the City could be this far along in the administrative process for the development yet still lack the critical substantive land use planning details. Only when the p(anning is complete will the City will be in a position to actually evaluate the Project's environmental effects. And only then can it make the intelligent, informed decisions that CEQA requires. SHUTE �11H,aLl' l�'�--VG'EINBERGERiI.v Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 8 B. The DEIR's Analysis of and Mitigation for the Impacts of the Proposed PToject Are Inadequate. In every section of the DEIR's analysis of impacts,it is apparent that the authors were faced with an impossible task: Tliey must evaluate the environmental consequences of a project that almost does not exist. As described above,the DEIR includes virtually no concrete description of the Project's essential components. This void becomes even more clear in the chapters purporting to examine the Project's impacts. Time and again the DEIR defers analysis and mitigation because.there is no way to determine how the Project will affect the environment. 1. The DEIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Land Use Impacts. CEQA requires that EIRs analyze the consistency of a project with applicable local plans;including general plans. See Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v.Napa Coccnty Bd. of Sa�pervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 386-87; Guidelines Appendix G, § IX (b). Inconsistencies with a general plan or other local plan's goals and policies that were enacted to protect the environment are significant impacts in themselves and can also be evidence of other significant impacts. See id.; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Ca1.App.4th 903,929. In addition,a recently issued Catifornia Court of Appeal opinion validates a jurisdiction's ability to deny a project because it cioes not comply with its general plan. See Ki�tzke v.City of San Diego (2017) 11 Ca1.App.Sth 1034, 1040-42. Here,the DEIR focuses exclusively on the Project's consistency with the City of Orange General Plan and fails to examine the Project's consisteney with other applicab[e land use plans in the area. As discussed below,the DEIR's failure to adequately analyze the Project's inconsistency with the Orange General Plan,or to recognize the relevance of the OPA Plan and the East Orange Plan,is a fatal flaw. (a) The Project Is Inconsistent with the City of Orange's General Plan. Like all general plans, the City of Orange's General Plan represents a legally enforceable "constitution" that governs land development. Orange Citizens for Parks _' and Recreation v. City of Orange (2016) 2 Cal.Sth 141, 152. It also represents the region's vision for its future. A cornerstone objective of the General Plan is to provide . policy guidance for Orange's future based on innovative land use planning techniques., S H UT E i�1 I H;�Ll�' �`<�G�EINBERGER�.�p Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 9 unifyina the developed portion of the City with east Orange,and expressing community vatues. General Plan at LU-1. The General Plan states: "The quality of the physical environment, built or natural, plays a large part in defining Orange's quality of life. Land use conflicts often occur when newer developments are insensitive to the use,scale or character of existing . development and/or the surrounding natural environment:' General Plan at LU-7. To this end,the General Plan identifies a goal and a series of policies requiring that future development preserve the character of existing neighboring communities. In a glaring omission,the DEIR fails to recognize that the proposed Project would be directly at odds with the following goal and policies: • Goal 1.0: Meet the present and fictatre needs of all residential ancl bacsiness sectors with a tliverse c�ncl balanced mix of land acses. • Policy 1.2: Balance ecatomic gains from new development while preserving the chc�racter and�lensities of resicfential neighborhoods. • Policy 1.4: Ensure that nery development reflects existing design standards, qa�alities, and featccres that are in context with nearby development. • Policy 1.6: Minimize effects of nery development on the privcrcy c�nd character of sacrroacncting neighborhoods. • Policy 6,1: Enscire thnt new development is compatible with the style and design of established str�cctccr•es and the stlrt-oacnding environment. Instead,the DEIR concludes,without any evidentiary support,that the proposed Project would be consistent with these policies because it would be "compatible" with surrounding uses. DEIR at 3.10-11-3.10-13. Specifically,the document asserts that the Project "promotes land use compatibi[ity with.surrounding residential development by c[ustering the new dwelling units on 40 acres of the site:' DEIR at 3.10-12. This is incorrect. It is this very clustering—and specifically allowing more than 3 dwelling units per acre—that makes the Project incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods. This area of Orange is characterized by a unique rural environment with low � density development. The properties in Orange Park Acres are designated Estate Low Density Residential,which allows only 0-2 dwetling units per acre. General Plan at LU- � S H U T E i�-1 I H;�Ll' V�-�`EINBERC�R��.N Robert Garcia, Senior Planner � � April 5,20I8 Page 10 25. The proposed Project's density would far exceed surrounding densities and thereby permanently change the character of the area. Because the DEIR lacks any basis to conclude the Project would be compatible with surrounding areas,it must be revised to correct the error—and to acknowledge that the Project's inconsistency with the General Plan constitutes a significant environmental impact. See Pocket Protectors v: City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 9Q3,929. � It is also important to emphasize that the General Plan currently designates more than one-half the Project site as Resource Area. According to the General Plan,the Resource Area designation provides that the site "[m]ay serve as a holding zone for future uses compatible with established and planned land uses in surrounding areas." General Plan at LU-16. For decades,residents have relied on the City's land use constitution,including this statement,when supporting developmenf in the surrounding neighborhoods. If the City amends the General Plan to remove this long-held designation, it would renege on its promise to provide for balanced growth that preserves the unique rural character of this area. (b) The Project Is Inconsistent with the Orange Park Acres and East Orange Plans. In addition to anatyzing a project's consistency with a jurisdiction's general plan, CEQA requires an analysis of consistency with other applicable local plans. Guidelines Appendix G, § IX(b). There are two specific plans in effect in the Project vicinity: the OPA Plan and the East Orange Plan. DEIR at 2-12. See Orange General Plan at LU-24. According to the General Plan,the purpose of the OPA and East Orange Specific Plans is to provide greater specificity than the General Pian as to the types of uses allowed in the area,the applicable development standards (setbacks,heights, landscape,architecture,etc.),and the required circulation and infrastructure improvements. Id. As the General Plan explains,the OPA and East Orange Plans "are often used to ensure that multiple property owners and developers adhere to a single common development plan." Id. (emphasis added). The City has long recognized that development proposals on the Project site are governed by the OPA Plan and the East Orange Plan. See Exhibit A (City of Orange � Resolution No. 8182, May 18, 1993). The DEIR also clearly recognizes the relevance of . the OPA and East Orange Plans. See DEIR at 3.10-4. S H U T E 1�1 I H A LY ti�-�1G'EINBERGER�.,.w Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 11 According to the DEIR,about 39 and 37 acres of the Project site are within the OPA and East Orange Plans,respectively 3 See DEIR Exhibits 3.10-1,3.19-2. The OPA Plan designates the Project site as "Santiago Greenbelt Plan," while the East Orange Plan designates the Project site as "Regional Park:' DEIR at 3.10-4. Rather than adhere to the land use designations set forth within the OPA and East Orange Plans—as the General Plan clearly envisions—the proposed Project would remove those portions of the Project site from both specific ptans. DEIR at 3.10-11. The DEIR states that this approach would "serve to reconcile any inconsistencies between the [Project's) Land Use Designations and the designations in each of the two plans." Id. However,this bold assertion—that simply removing the Project site from these Iong-standing plans would resolve any planning inconsistencies—makes a mockery of the state-mandated goal of providing for orderly deve[opment consistent with the City's long-range planning documents: the General Plan and the specific plans that help implement the General Plan. If approved,the Project would directly contravene the OPA and East Orange planning for this area of the City, yet the DEIR omits any consideration of these impacts. For example, both the OPA and the East Orange Plans call for phasing out the sand and gravel extraction operations on the Project site and creating a natural riparian area along Santiago Creelc, together with proposed greenbelts,trails, recreation and open space areas. See OPA Plan Policy 11 and East Orange Environmental Policy 10. The DEIR does not recognize the Project's conflict with these features. Further,as the OPA Plan explains,the"Land Use Element offers a balance in types of residential;public-quasi-public,open space and recreational land use. This balance provides for the retaining of the rural environment,offers economic viability and offers a visually compatible climate for the preservation of the Orange Park Acres lifestyle. Thus, it is believed that the goals of the community have been met:' OPA Plan at 120. In other words,the Plan provided for preservation of important open space to retain the rural lifestyle of Orange Park Acres,while allowing for a reasonable amount of 3 The DEIR incorrectly identifies the amount of land on the Project site that is located within the OPA and East Orange Plans.. The City has long recognized that 56.60 acres of the Project site are within the OPA Plan boundaries while 42.50 acres of the Project site are within the East Orange Plan boundaries. In addition,the DEIR incorrectly identifies the amount of land that is designated as Open Space within the Santiago Creek Channel. The DEIR identifies 16.5 acres. See DEIR Exhibit 2-6. The . correct acreage is 26.40. These mistakes in the DEIR's text and mapping must be . corrected in the revised EIR. • S H UT E �b] I H,a L�' ��-�G'EINBERCER�.�P Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 12 development. The Project would undermine this policy, a contradiction the DEIR ignores. For iEs part,the East Orange Plan strikes a similar balance between development and open space. It states: "Central theme of the proposed General Plan is the provision of needed residential development in the Area while simultaneously providing for the protection of the environmental assets of the Area." East Orange Plan at 107. The Plan describes the "extensive open space-greenbelt network"as one of the "key features of the Plan:' Id. If approved,the Project would place a large subdivision in the midst of this , greenbelt network,frustrating both the Plan's key feature and its central theme. In sum,removing the Project site from the OPA and East Orange Plans and allowing the Project's intense development would take the heart out of this important regional greenbe[t. Instead of gutting these land use planning documents,which were developed and approved with community support,the City should abide by the promises made in the plans. At the same time,the DEIR must be revised to analyze these inconsistencies. 2. The DEIR FaiIs to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quaiity. The DEIR's evaluation of the Project's hydrological and water quality impacts is flawed because it fails to support its conclusions with the necessary facts and analysis. (a) Water Quality Impacts. The Project site is a part of the Santiago Creek Watershed,which is a major � tributary to the Santa Ana River. DEIR at 5.9-2. Santiago Creek is listed on the 303(d) List for Impaired WaEerbodies for salinity/tota! dissolved solids/and chlorides while the Santa Ana River is impaired for indicator bacteria. Id. Currently,runoff from the site either sheet-flows into Santiago Creek or flows into inlets along roadways where it enters the Creek via a storm drain system. DEIR at 3.9-19. Given the Project's location directly adjacent to Santiago Creek,the DEIR should have thoroughly analyzed how the Project's construction and operation couid impact water quality within the creek and downstream water bodies,inctuding the Santa Ana ' River. Although the DEIR clearly acknowledges that the proposed Project will collect, route,and outlet project site tributary.flows directly to Santiago Cree[c (at 5.9-43),it takes : a flawed approach to analyzing the Project's impact on the creek. SHUTE N11H.�LY v�-V4'EINBERGERu.e Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 13 The DEIR's analysis of construction-related impacts raises more questions than it answers. It acknowledges the potential for increased on-site erosion and sedimentation impacts. DEIR at 3.9-19. It further acknowledges that the site's soils contain elevated levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ("TPH"). DEIR, Hazards Chapter at 3.8-3, 3.8- 12,3.8-13. The document fails,however,to disclose the effect that these TPH- contaminated soils could have on nearby waterways. It also does not identify the remedial action that will be required to ensure that these soils do not reach these waterways. Instead, it defers the identification of any solution until such time as the finaI surface cover and grade elevations for areas of concern are identified. Id. CEQA allows a lead agency to defer mitigation only when: (1) an EIR contains criteria,or performance standards,to govern future actions implementing the mitigation; (2) practical considerations preclude development of the measures at the time of initial project approval; and (3) the agency has assurances that the future mitigation will be both "feasible and efficacious." Commttnities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70,9495; San Joaqicin Raptor,27 Cal.App.4th at 669-71; Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). Here,the DEIR meets none of these requirements. Although the DEIR proposes to mitigate construction-related water quality impacts by submitting a stormwater pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") to the City,the mitigation measure does not even acknowledge that TPH-contaminated soils exist on site. Again, in order to ensure that TPH-contaminated soils do not flow into Santiago Creek during Project construction,the DEIR must define the measures that will be taken,along with performance standards. Relatedly,we can find no indication that a reclamation plan has been prepared for the Project site. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ("SMARA") was enacted by the California Legislature to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources,and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property and the environment. Pub. Res.Code § 2710-2796. Following completion of surface mining activities,a reclamation plan is required to return mined lands to a second, productive use while ensuring that mining operations have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Consequently, before any construction activities commence on the Project site,a reclamation plan must be prepared and submitted to the Department of ConservaCion for review and approval. Id. § 2774 (c). This process will help to ensure that water quality impacts (as well as impacts relating to air quality,flooding, wildlife and aquatic habitats)from the Project's construction are • fully mitigated. S H U T E Y1 I H,=�Ll�' ��-uVEINBERGERii.r Robert Garcia,Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 14 The DEIR fares no better in its analysis of,and mitigation for,water quality impacts that coufd occur during the Project's operational stage. In particular,as the DEIR explains,the Project would increase the amount of impervious surface coverage on the Project site,thereby creating the potential for discharge of urban pollutants into downstream waterways. Such pollutants would include sediment and turb'idity,nutrients, organic compounds,oxygen demanding substances;trash and debris,bacteria and viruses,oil and grease,pesticides,and metals. DEIR at 3.9-19. Here too,the DEIR looks to a mitigation measure(MM HYD-1 b) that calls for Best Management Practices ("BMPs") to be implemented as part of a Water Quality Management Plan. DEIR at 3.9- 20, 3.9-21. The measure,however,fails to provide any substantive explanation as to what these BMPs would entail or how they would be imptemented. Consequently,the reader is then forced to read through a 300-plus page document in the technical appendix to attempt to understand whether water quality would in fact be protected. As an initial matter, the DEIR's approach is a wholly unacceptable way of presenting decision-makers and the public with essential information,and it renders the EIR legally inadequate. Whatever is required to be in the EIR must be in the EIR text, not buried in an appendix. See Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. Coacnty of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Ca1.App.4th 715,722-23; San Joaqctin Raptor,27 Cal.App.4th at 727. Moreover, while the DEIR's mitigation measure refers to (but does not describe) technical terms such as "first flush," an objective that is purportedly intended to remove contaminants from the first two inches of stormwater before it enters area waterways,the technical appendix does not even mention this term. See Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Report prepared by Fuscoe Engineering,provided as Appendix G to the DEIR. - Similar to the other mitigation measures,MM HYD-lb explains that the project applicant shall be required to prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to the City identifying procedures to ensure that stormwater quality control measures work properly. DEIR at 3.9-21. A review of Appendix G,however,reveals that a yet-to-be-formed Homeowners Association ("HOA"),not the Project applicant, will be responsibte for inspecting and maintaining all BMPs prescribed for the project. See Appendix G at pdf page 229. Because the DEIR provides no information on this HQA,including its ability to ensure that stormwater control measures will be effectively implemented over the life of the Project,the DEIR lacks evidentiary support that the SHUTE i�11H�LY ��-VZ�E(NBERCER�;�.P Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 15 . Project's impacts relating to water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels:� (b) Storm Drainage and Flooding Impacts. The Project site is located in an area with serious hydrologic constraints,as it contains 100-year and 500-year flood hazard areas. The 100-year flood hazard areas within the Project site overlap the Santiago Creek channel. DEIR at 3.9-12. The 500- year flood hazard areas overlap areas south of the creek, including areas that were previously mined. Id. The Handy Creek storm drain,which currently accepts runoff from the Project site, has been identified by Orange County as a deficient flood control facility that is not capable of conveying runoff from a 100-year storm event. DEIR at 3.9-22. The Project proposes extensive grading and an increase in impervious surface coverage,changes that could cause increased runoff. This runoff,in turn,could create flooding conditions for downstream neighborhoods. In light of the site's existing hydrologic constraints,one would expect the DEIR to thoroughly analyze the Project's impact on downstream properties. It does not. Instead, it generally asserts that storm drain facilities will be construcEed that would achieve a net reduction of stormwater. during storm events. Other than a casual mention of inlets,underground piping, and basins,the DEIR provides na detaifed description of these facilities,or any documentation that they would be sufficient to protect adjacent properties. Although the DBIR includes a table (Table 3.9-5) depicting a reduction in discharge rates as a result of the Project, it does not provide any explanation as to how these discharge rates were calculated. Without a description of the assumptions and analytical methodology used to calculate discharge rates,the public anct decision-makers cannot determine whether the DEIR's information is accurate. CEQA prohibits such a cursory approach to environmental analysis. Rather,the statute requires that an EIR be detailed and complete, reflecting a good faith effort at full disclosure. Guidelines § 15151. As one court put it,the information regarding the project's impacts must be `� Again,as discussed above,the DEIR does not set forth sufficient specific, measurable performance standards for the SWPPP(for construction-related water quality impacts) or for the Water Quality Management Plan (operational water quality impacts) that could justify later formulation of mitigation methods targeted to meet water quality standards. • S H UT E �1 f H;a Ll�' �`--uG�EINBERGER�.�.Q Robert Garcia,Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 16 "painstakingly ferreted out." Environmental Planning and Information Coacncil of Western El Dorado Coacnty v. Coccnty of El Dorado, (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 3:50, 357 (finding an EIR for a general plan amendment inadequate where the document did not make clear the effect on the physicat environment). The DEIR here does not come close to meeting these requirements. As regards the Project's storm drainage, the DEIR touts the fact that the Project would achieve a no net increase in discharge of stormwater into the Handy Creek storm drain during storm events. DEIR at-3.9-23. Yet,because the Handy Creek storm drain is cacrrently incapable of conveyi:ng runoff from a 100-year stvrm event,achieving a no net increase in discharge is not sufficient to ensure that downstream properties will not be impacted by the Project. Finally,although the DEIR acknowledges that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements were modified in 2013,the document fails to explain how these new requirements affect the proposed Project. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ("MS4") permits typically describe, among other things,water quality goals and recommend additional BMPs to protect water quality 5 Given that the Project site is located within a 100-year flood zone and the site drains to Santiago Creek,the proposed Project will almost certainly need to incorporate additional BMPs. In order to ensure that stormwater and water quality impacts will be less than significant,the revised EIR must identify these B1VIPs. 3. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts on Bioiogical Resources. (a) Impacts to WiIdiife Species. An EIR's description of a project's environmental setting plays a critical part in all of the subsequent parts of the EIR because it provides "the baseline physical conditions by wHich a lead age�cy determines whether an impact is significant." Guidelines § 15125(a). "Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts:' Guidelines § 15125(c). Although numerous sensitive wildlife species have 6een observed—or have the potential to occur-=on the Project site,the DEIR fails to conduct the necessary focused surveys for all wildlife species potentially 5 U.S. EPA Final.MS4 General Permit Remand Rule,November 17,2016 . available at: htt�s:fi�V�V4V.epa.�7ov;sites/productionifiies/201b- ' I l;dc�rt�mentsffinal rule fact sl�ezt �OS.pdP; accessed March 13,2018. SHUTE �11H.�LY, �`-_VG�EINBERGER,.�P Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 17 impacted by the Project. For example, the DEIR admits that because suitable habitat exists on the Project site,focused surveys were necessary for the arroyo toad,a Federal Endangered Species and a Species of Special Concern. DEIR at 3.4-16; Appendix C at pdf page 73. However,according to the DEIR,the last survey for the toad was conducted more than eight years ago. Because the 2010 survey was negative for the toad, the DEIR preparers did not bother to survey the site again;.the DEIR simply asserts that this species is not "expected" to occur within the Project site. Appendix C at pdf page 63. The failure to locate a species during a survey does not suggest that the species is absent from the Project site. Adverse conditions may have prevented the investigators from determining presence. Disease,drought, or predation may preclude the presence or identification of a species in any given year. Furthermore, the DEIR does not provide any information about the nature of the 2010 survey,so there is no way to determine whether appropriate protocols were followed. In fact,according to the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ("USFWS"),"to be reasonably confident that arroyo toads are not present at a site,at least six (6) surveys must be conducted during the breeding season:' See USFWS Survey Protocot for the Arroyo toad, May 1999,attached as Exhibit B. Given that the arroyo toad is an endangered species and the Project site appears to provide suitable habitat for this.species (see DEIR at 3.4-16),current protocol-level surveys must be conducted. Without these surveys,the DEIR lacks the evidentiary support that impacts to the toad would be less than significant. The DEIR analytical error is not limited to the arroyo toad. Although the yellow- breasted chat was observed on-site,we could find no indication that the DEIR analyzed potential impacts to this sensitive species. See DEIR at 3.4-12,3.4-39. Accordingly,the revised EIR must include focused surveys and a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts to the chat. If impacts are determined to be significant,the DEIR must identify mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce these impacts. In addition,the DEIR fails to provide lega(ly enforceable mitigation for the Project's impacts to southem cottonwood riparian forest, a sensitive community that is considered high priority for conservation by California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"). DEIR at 3.453. The DEIR states that the Project would result in the "temporary" loss of almost one-half acre of this habitat(icf.),but CEQA does not distinguish between temporary and permanent environmental impacts. Furthermore, while the DEIR calls for these temporary impacts to be restored to pre-project conditions, . it does not even require that native species be planted,let alone southern cottonwood riparian forest. See DEIR at 3.4-53 (calling for temporary impacts to be restored using native species "where appropriate"). ' SHUTE �11HaLY ��-�G'EINBERGER�.i.r Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 18 The DEIR makes this same error in its mitigation for the Project's "temporary" impact to CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitats. Here too,it would allow these sensitive habitats to be replaced with non-native species. DEIR at 3.4- 54. But to maintain the.habitat's value for wildlife,native species must be planted. This is because exotic plants not only sever the food web,but often become invasive pests, outcompeting native species and degrading habitats in remaining natural areas 6 Unless and until the EIR commits to_replacing this lost habitat with other designated sensitive riparian habitat,i.e., locally appropriate native species,the DEIR has no basis to conclude that these impacts would be less than significant. Finally,the Project site's southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest provides habitat for the least Bell's vireo and is suitable nesting habitat for the willow fiycatcher, a State Endangered species.. DEIR at 3.4-1, 3.4-42,3.4-45. The Project proposes a 150- foot landscaping and fuel modification setback area adjacent to the southern cottonwood forest, but this measure is flawed: landscaping of this setback area would not be restricted to native plants. Id. For the reasons discussed above,all replacement vegetation must be native. (b) Impacts fo FederaIly Protected Wetlands,Streambeds and Riparian Habitat. The DEIR acknowledges permanent and temporary impacts to federally protected wetlands, a jurisdictional streambed,and associated riparian habitat. DEIR at 3.4-54. The proposed mitigation,lViitigation Measure BIO-4,is defective for two reasons. FirSt,while MM BIO-4 calls for mitigating impacts at a 2:1 ratio,it would restore only wetlands that are temporarily impacted. Id. Again, CEQA does not distinguish between temporary and permanent environmental impacts. Consequently,all impacts to these resources should be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio: Second,MM BIO-4 calls for restoration and revegetation with native species, but only "where appropriate:' Id. For the reasons discussed above,all natural communities should be restored with native species. 6 Why Native Plants Matter,Audubon; available at: ' 11tt�r.r'l�v�v�ti.audtibon.or�/content/tirhv-i�ative-plants-m�ttei; accessed March 14,2018. SHUTE MIH�LI�' �'`-WEINBERGER�_�.P Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 19 (c) Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts. The DEIR fails to provide any analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources. The purpose of a cumulative impacts analysis is to determine whether the proposed Project's contribution is "cumulatively considerable" when viewed together with environmental changes anticipated from past,present,and probable future projects. Guidelines §§ 15064(h)(I), 15355(b). In determining the si.gnificance of the Project's incremental contribution,the question is not the relative amount of the Project's contribution to the existing cumulative problem (i.e.,does this Project contribute the same,less, or more than other projects), but whether the addition of the Project's impact is significant in light of the serious existing problem (i.e., is the Project's contTibution to the existing environmental problem cumulatively considerable). Thus,the greater the existing environmental problem is, the lower the threshold of significance is for considering a project's contribution to the cumu(ative impact. Comma�nities,for a Better Environment v. Cal.Resoacrces Agency (2002) 103 Ca1:App.4th 98, 120. Here, the Project site provides habitat for numerous sensitive species,some of which are endangered. In other words,any threats to these species—such as from loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation—must be considered a serious existing problem. Thus, the DEIR's failure to provide any analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources is a fatal flaw in the DEIR. (d) Impacts Related to Tree Removal. The primary purpose of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance is to regulate the removal and destruction of trees on undeveloped and pubiic interest property and to prevent further destruction of the City's once vast number of majestic trees. See Municipal Code §12.32.010(A). The Municipal Code explains that the regulation of tree removal is necessary because "large scale tree removal" is "more likely to have an adverse affect [sic] upon the existing environment:' Id.at §12.32.010(b). The Code also states that the "past destruction of trees on such property has not only interfered with the natural scenic beauty and tourism of the city, but also greatly diminished the ecological value of sueh natural vegetation." Id. The applicant's proposal to remove 256 trees must certainly be considered "large scale tree removal."� The DEIR asserts that removed trees would be replanted at a 1:1 'The DEIR does not clearly identify the number of trees that would be removed, � suggesting that some trees might be left in place and other trees would be removed for SHUTE �iIHALY t'�,�`-V�'EINBERGER��.p Robert Garcia, Sen'ior Planner April 5,2018 Page 20 ratio,and thaf this replanting woutd both eliminate any conflict with the Tree Ordinance and reduce Project impacts to a less tfian significant level. Id.at 3.4-58. But this facile reasoning is untenable. The whole purpose of the Tree Ordinance is to prevent destruction of the City's once majestic trees. To this end,the Ordinance explicitly acknowledges that trees of historical value may be considered "public interest property" Municipal Gode § 12.32.050. It further defines "historical trees" as those that by virtue of their origin,size, uniqueness and/or national or regional rarity are now iikely to be of historical value. Id. at 12.32.060. Tellingly,the DEIR makes no effort to determine the historical value of tlie trees that would be removed by the applicant. Until this analysis occurs,there is no way of determining whether the trees should be considered "public interest property" under the Tree Ordinance. Given the Ordinance's strong predilection toward tree preservation, the DEIR might well recommend a revised site development plan that allows for the preservation of the site's healthy mature trees. . In sum,the revised EIR should determine both the historical value of the site's trees and disclose the Project's grading and development schedule. It must also analyze any potential inconsistency with the Municipal Code 8 If the Project's plan for tree removal is determined to be inconsistent with the Code,the EIR must identify the impact as significant and propose feasible mitigation. temporary impacts. DEIR at 3.4-58. For all intents and purposes,the DEIR should simply assume that the Project will result in the direct loss of 256 trees. 8 1�lotably,the DEIR is inconsistent regarding the duration of construction. The Project Description explains that,for purposes of analyzing environmental impacts,the Project would be constructed in a single phase that takes 24 months to complete. DEIR at 2-46. However,the Noise Chapter states that"for purposes of providing a conservative, reasonable worst-case analysis in this EIR,it will be assumed that the entire project would be developed in a single phase that takes 12 months to complete:' DEIR at 3.12-20. The , revised EIR should ciarify the Project's construction schedule. SHUTE MIHALY ��-��EINBERGE.R�.�.P Robert Garcia,Senior Planner ' Apri15,2018 Page 21 4. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Traffic Impacts. (a) The DEIR Lacks the Evidentiary Support for Its Conclusion that Project Impacts Would Be Reduced to a Less-Than-Significant Level. The DEIR conctudes that,with mitigation,the Project's significant impact to the intersection of Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road in 2022 would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. DEIR at 3.16-70. The document fails,however, to present sufficient evidence that the mitigation for this impact would be effective. The DEIR identifies mitigation measure MM TRANS-2,which calls for the applicant to provide the City with fair share fees�or the construction of an exclusive left-turn lane and one shared left-turn/right-turn lane in the northbound approach of the Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road intersection. Id. The DEIR explains that the applicant's fair share responsibility for these impr.ovements is 14.5 percent. Id. In general,fee-based mitigation programs for traffic impacts based on fair share infrastructure contributions by individual projects have been found to be adequate mitigation measures under CEQA. Save Occr Peninsacla Conimittee v.Monterey Coi�nty Bct. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 140. To be adequate, however,these mitigation fees must be part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing. Ic�. at 140-41; see also Anclerson First Coalition v. Ciry of Anderson (2005) 130 Ca1.App.4th 1173, 1188-89 (explaining that fee-based trafFic mitigation measures have to be specific and part of a reasanable,enforceable plan or program that is sufficiently tied to the actual mitigation of the traffic impacts at issue). Here, the DEIR's proposed mitigation fails to meet these requirements. The DEIR simply assaimes that the payrnent will occur,that it wiil cause the road improvements to be constructed,and that it will adequately mitigate the impacts, without providing a reasonably enforceable plan to achieve those results. Indeed,we can find no discussion in the DEIR that outlines the City's plan to undertake these roadway improvements before the Project is constructed. Indeed,the absence of any details in the DEiR about the required intersection improvements demonstrates that the City is not committed to expeditiously solving this traffic impact. Consequently,the DEIR lacks the necessary evidentiary support that the Project's traffic impacts will be reduced to Less- than-significant levels. , SHUTE �iIH;�LY � V�-DG'EIVBERGER��.p Robert Garcia,�Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 22 Finally, because improvements to the intersection of Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road are not required to be constructed prior to Project completion,the Project is inconsistent with the following City of Orange General Plan policies: • Growth Management Element Policy 1.2: "Ensacre completion of transportation improvements as agreed tcpon by the City and cieveloper prior to completion of a development project." • Growth Management Policy 1.5 "Reqacire new development projects to link isst�ance of ba�ilding permits for the appropriate portion of the development plcin to roa�lway improvements reqicired to aclzieve the appropriate LOS." , The DEIR must be revised to correct these fundamental errors. (b) The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project's Roadway Safety Impacts. The DEIR discusses the Project's roadway safety impacts,yet this analysis focuses exclusiveiy on the Project's operations. DEIR at 3.16-84. The DEIR ignores altogether the safety hazards caused by the Project's construction. Based on our calcuiations,the Project would add a total of about 79,000 truck trips during the construction phase 9 This equates to 46$ trips per day,or about 58 trips every hour. Id. The revised EIR must evaluate haw this massive increase in haul trucks will impact roadway safety. The EIR must begin its analysis by identifying the track haul routes. It must then describe how traffic flow would be managed on area roadways. As part of this analysis,the revised EIR must include a crash prediction model that estimates the frequency of crashes expected on area roadways based on their geometric design and traffic characteristics. The crash prediction algorithm will need to consider the effect of a number of roadway variables: number of lands, lane width,shoulder width and type, horizontal curve length (if any),any changes in elevation,and grade. If roadway safety impacts are determined to be significant,the EIR must identify mitigation measures capable of addressing these impacts. � 9 Our calculations are based on haul truck information from the following site: . httn:i/�v�v�ti�.eartllh��ule�-s.c�m/ne�vs/ho«�-much-dirt-can-a-clump-trurk-rtrrti�l (accessed on � March 15,2018) and assumed 168 working days: 8 hours per day and 6 days per week. SHUTE MIHALY �`--VG'EINBERCER�.�.P Robert Garcia, Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 23 5. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project's Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts. The DEIR fails to accurately evaluate the Project's potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because it fails to take into account: (1) accurate soil import and export data,and (2) mobile source criteria air pollutanCs and toxic air contaminant emissions from the haul trucks transporting soils to and from the site. The DEIR's Project Description chapter states that the Project would import 700,000 cubic yards of new soil and export 400,000 yards of silty soil. DEIR at 2-44. For purposes of calculating the Project's construction-related emissions,the DEIR's Air Quality chapter identifies the net change between cut and fill as 530,000 cubic yards. DEIR at 3.3-34. However, the DEIR does not clarify the relationship between cut and fill and soil import and export. Ic�. In order to accurately calculate the Project's increase in construction-related criteria and air toxic emissions, the revised EIR must clearly identify the amount of soil import and export,and cut and fill. It also appears that the DEIR fails to take into account any emissions from haul trucks used to import and export soils. The DEIR identifies construction equipment in several tabtes,e.g.,Table 3.3-7 (Construction Equipment);Table 3.3-11 (Construction Equipment Summary); and Table 3.3-12 (Maximum Dai[y Disturbed Acreage),yet none of these tables identify haul or any other type of truck. Haul truck criteria air pol(utant emissions are,however, identified in a table in the DEIR's Appendix B. See Appendix B at pdf page 339. If the main body of the DEIR had included haul truck emissions in its construction localized significance analysis (see Table 3.3-I4),it would appear that the Project's PMio and PMZ,; emissions would exceed the localized significance thresholds, which would constitute a significant impact. The revised EIR must include air emissions from the Project's haui trucks. Once those emissions data have been identified,the EIR's Localized Significance Analysis must be revised. If particulate emissions exceed the thresholds,the Project may expose nearby sensitive receptors to an elevated health risk,which would potentially require the preparation of a health risk assessment. S H UTE yl f H,�LY �;`�-��G�EI N BERGER i.�.P Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 24 6. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Project's Energy- Related Impacts. The DEIR quantifies the Project's increase in construction- and operational=energy impacts. Although the Project would increase electricity, natural gas, and petroleum- based fuel consumption,the DEIR concludes that impacts related to this energy consumption would be less than significant because the Project would not involve inefficient,wasteful and unnecessary use of energy. DEIR at 3.1.8-15 Yet the DEIR lacks the evidentiary basis for this questionable conclusion. The Project would consume 944,100 kWh of electricity and 5.25 million cubic� feet of natural gas each year. DEIR at 3.18-14. At build-out,the transportation component of the Project would consume 276,430 gallons of gasoline or diesel. DEIR at 6-5. To conclude that the Project would not be inefficient and wasteful,it must include reasonably available measures to decrease energy consumption. We can find no indication that the Project includes any features that would reduce its electricity, natural gas, gasotine or diesel fuel consumption. One way for a residential project to decrease energy consumption is.to build to LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) standards,which require the incorporation of energy-saving features. For example,according to A Citizen's Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development, "green buildings" should incorporate strategies like the use of solar energy,energy and water efficiency,sustainably sourced (or recycled) materials,and efficient irrigation equipment, in addition to capturing rainwater and recycling wastewater. See A Congress For New Urbanism,Citizen's Cruide to LEED for Neighborhood Development at 13-16, excerpts attached as Exhibit C. The applicant appears to have ignored all such LEED strategies. Because these strategies have been determined to be feasible by a national advisory committee of experts in smart growth,the revised EIR shauld include these measures to mitigate for the Project's dramatic increase in energy consumption. SHUTE MIH;aLY V`<UG�EINBERGEREi.r Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 25 7. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze or Mitigate the Project's Consistency with Plans,Policies or Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions. The DEIR provides no evidence that the Project, which would generate almost 1,700 metric tons of CO2e emissions every year,is doing its fair share to meet GHG reduction goals. DEIR at 3.7-17. Worse still,because Ehe DEIR concludes that the Project would have no significant climate-related impacts, it fails to adopt any mitigation for the Project's substantial increase in emissions. The DEIR provides only a cursory discussion of the Project's consistency with the City's General Plan climate change policies and provides no analysis at all of the Project's consistency with state plans to reduce GI-IG emissions. (a) The DEIR Lacks the Evidentiary Support that the Project Would Not Contlict with the City's General Plan Climate Change Policies. Acknowledging that the City has not yet adopted a GHG reduction plan,the DEIR identifies afew General Plan policies related to climate change. DEIR at 3.7-18. One of these policies calls for the City to deve[op a strategy to reduce GHG emissions within Orange by at least 15 percent from current levels by 2020. Irl. Yet, rather than evaluate whether the Project incorporates features that would help the City achieve a 15 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020,the document skips this step altogether. Instead, it merely asserts that because the Project preserves some open space on the Project site,it would avoid additional GHG emissions. Icl.The DEIR never identifies the amount of GHG emissions that would purportedly be avoided by preserving open space. Icf. Nor does the DEIR ever reconcile the fact that a project that increases GHG emissions by 1,700 metric tons every year would,at the same time,avoid additional emissions. The Project is clearly inconsistent with the City's climate-related General Plan policies. These inconsistencies constitute a significant impact of the Project. The DEIR must be revised to rectify this deficiency. S H U T E �l i H,a Ll' V�-�'EINBERGERi.�.r Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 26 (b) The DEIR Fails to Analyze the Project's Consistency With State Plans To Reduce GHG Emissions. Executive Order("EO") S-3-O5 sets forth state policy related to GHG reduction, including reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 19901evels by 2Q50. EO B-30-15, signed by the Governor in 20I5,establishes a new interim target to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent beiow 19901evels by 2030. The DEIR acknowledges EO S-3- O5, but it never analyzes the Project's consistency with this directive. The DEIR ignores EO B-30-15 altogether. Tellingly,the DEIR provides no reason for its failure to analyze the Project's consistency with these directives. Other agencies have easily performed this analysis. For example,the San Diego Association of Govemments ("SAIVDAG") utilized the following threshold of significance in the EIR for its most recent Regional Transportation Plan/Sustairiable Communities Strategy: "GHG-4: Be inconsistent with the State's ability to achieve the Executive Order B-30-15 and S-3-OS goals of reducing California's GHG emissions to 40 percent below 19901evels by 2030 and 80 percent below 19901evels by 2050." See SANDAG's RTP/S.CS DEIR,GHG Chapter, attached as Exhibit D, at 4.5-33. The SANDAG RTP/SCS EIR evaluated the project's impacts by calculating a 40 percent and 80 percent reduction from the region's 1990 emissions and utilizing that as a target reference point for the RTP. It then compared the region's expected GHG emissions in the years 2035 and 2050 to the emissions that would be necessary to meet the EO trajectories. It included charts showing that the Plan would not meet the EO goals,concluding: "Because the total emissions in the San Diego region of 25.5 MMT COZe in 2035 would exceed the regiona12035 GHG reduction reference point of 14.5 MMT COZe (which is based on EO-B-30-15 and EO-S-3-OS),the proposed Plan's 2035 GHG emissions would be inconsistent with state's ability to achieve the Executive Orders' GHG reduction goals. Therefore,this impact(GHG-4) in the year 2035 is significant°' Exhibit D at 4.8-35. It reached a similar conclusion for the year 2050 goal. This analysis is easily adaptable to the proposed Project's GHG emissions. The DEIR's failure to compare the Project's emissions—which will continue for decades if not in perpetuity—against long-term GHG emission reduction poiicies such as � those in EO S-3-OS and B-30=15 is unlawful. The public should understand just how far . the Project will set the area off course from state-wide reduction goals. SHUTE MIHALY ��-�1G�EfNBERCER�_r.r Robert Garcia,Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 27 Finally,because the DEIR fails to undertake a proper analysis of the Project's climate impacts,it fails to analyze measures to reduce its GHG emissions. At a minimum,the applicant could incorporate strategies such as those discussed above and outlined in the LEED Handbook. Certain measures to reduce energy consumption for residential projects could also be effective in reducing GHG emissions. 8. The DEIR Fails to Adequafely Address the Project's Growth- Inducing Impacts. The DEIR fails to evaluate,or even acknowledge,the potential for the Project to encourage growth caused by the applicant's proposal to remove the Project site from the OPA and East Orange Plans. If approved,the Project will encourage and facilitate other developers to purchase property designated for open space or recreational uses. In addition, hy removing the low density land use designations (e.g., 1 acre minimum lot size),the Project has the potential to encourage large-lot property owners to subdivide their lots. Consequently,the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will not induce growth cannot be sustained. The revised EIR must acknowledge the potential for such growth and analyze the associated environmental impacts. C. The DEIR's Analysis of Project Alternatives Is Legally Inadequate. CEQA provides that"public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives . . . which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." Pub. Resources Code § 21002. Critically,an EIR must consider a ``reasonable range"of alternatives "that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation:' Guidelines § 15126.6(a) (emphasis added); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.,47 Ca1.3d at 404("An EIR's discussion of alternatives must contain analysis sufficient to allow informed decision making.") 1. The DEIR Does Not Analyze a Reasonable Range of Alternatives and the Analysis of the DEIR's "No-Project"Alternatives Is Deficient. The DEIR's Altematives Chapter contains jusf three alternatives: two no-project alternatives and one alternative entitled the "WIN-WIN" alternative. DEIR at 5-2. In the vast majority of environmental impact categories,the "WIN-WIN" a[ternative results in similar or more severe, impacts than the proposed Project. The DEIR thus does not �, provide an adequate range of alternatives. SHUTE �1IHALY ��-`�G'EINBERG.ERii.r Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 28 Moreover,the DEIR's analysis of the two no-project alternatives is itself deficient. Both no-project alternatives call for the continuation of sand and gravel operations on the Project site. DEIR at 5-1,5-2. While CEQA does allow the no-project alternative to take into account "predictable actions" if a proposed project is denied,the EIR must nonetheless conduct an appropriate analysis of the no-project's environmental impacts. Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(3)(B). In particular, CEQA requires that the no-project alternatives ana[ysis discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation ("NOP") is published,as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2). Here, the DEIR does neither of these things. (a) The DEIR ReGes on an Inaccurate Baseline in Its Analysis of Alternatives 1 and 2, the "No Project Alternatives:' The DEIR defines Alternative 2, the "No Project Alternative/Existing Land Use Activities Alternative," as the continacation of sand and gravel operations on the Project site. DEIR at 5-14. Alternative 1 also assumes a continuation of these operations. The DEIR is misleading,however,as sand and gravel operations currently occur only very infrequently. At the time the NOP was published(March 3,2017),backfilling operations on the Project site had been limited to 15 consecutive business days in any 6-month period. DEIR at 5-14. Because the DEIR incorrectly assumes that extensive sand and gravel operations are currently occurring and would continue,the document erroneausly concIudes that 1Vo-project Alternative 2 would have greater impacts on air quality,GHG emissions,and traffic as compared to the proposed Project.10 If sand and gravel operations were to resume at full capacity, the quarry's operations would likely be far more environmentally 10 For example,as regards GHG emissions,the DEIR states "The No Project AlternativelExisting Land Use Activities Alternative consists of maintaining the existing resource extraction activities on 77.3 acres of the project site. This alternative would . generate 742 fewer daily trips,which would result in fewer operational emissions of � greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore,the No Project Alternative/Existing Land Use . Activities Alternative would have fewer greenhouse gas emissions impacts than the . ' proposed project" DEIR at 5-16. SHUTE M(H:�LY V�-VG�EINBERGER�.�.P Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,201 S Page 29 impactful than a 129-unit subdivision.�l But,as noted above,this is not the reatity. Almost 25 years ago,the City determined that the extraction life of the aggregate mine was mostly depleted (See Exhibit A at 1 (Resolution 8182)),and activities have been reduced dramatically. Accordingly,it is simply nonsensical that two of the DEIR's three Project alternatives call for a continuation of mining operations.. The DEIR's error is significant because the DEIR concludes that one of the two "no project" a[ternatives (Alternative 2) constitutes the environmentally superior alternative. DEIR at 5-28. As noted above, this conclusion is based on the inaccurate assumption that quarry activities will continue. The conclusion also suffers from a second flaw. Under CEQA,the DEIR may not rely solely on a "no project" alternative ' as its environmentally superior alternative. Guidelines § 15126:6(e)(2) ("If the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative,the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives"). Accordingly, the City must take a serious look at alternatives that can actually avoid or lessen the Project's significant impacts,rather than designing straw-man alternatives to make this particular Project seem like the only possible choice. (b) The DEIR Fails to Evaluate a No-Project Alternative Scenario that Is Based on Current Plans. CEQA requires that the no-project alternatives analysis discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,based on ca�rrent plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Guidelines § 15126.6( e)(2). In addition, when a project consists of"the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan . . . the `no project' alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan . . . into the future:' Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(3)(A). Neither of the DEIR's "no-project" alternatives takes into account existing plans, i.e.,the OPA Plan or the East Orange Plan's land use designations for the site. To �� In fact,the City has long known Chat the sand and gravel operations on the Project site cause extensive environmental harm. See Exhibit A at 5 (City of Ocange Resolution 1Vo. 8182,May 18, 1993 stating, "the site's aggregate mining opportunities, if any,are limited by the residential development of the adjaeent property to the north � because noise and dust impacts associated with mining would have deterred such opportunities:'). ' . SHUTE �1IHALY V�-V4�EINBERCER�.�.P Robert Garcia, Senior Planner April 5,ZU18 Page 30 properly anaIyze these alternatives, the DEIR should have forecasted "what would be reasonably expeeted to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans:' Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2). As discussed above,the City clearly anticipated that development proposals on the Project site were to be governed by the OPA Plan and the East Orange Plan. See Exhibit A at 4 (City of Orange ResoIution 8182). Consequently, a continuation of the land use plans that the Project proposes to amend means the Project site would continue to be designated as "Santiago Greenbelt Plan" under the OPA Plan or"Regional Park" under the East Orange Plan. In other words,the current Resource Area uses may continue,but any future development must comply with the City's determination of compatible uses as shown in the OPA Plan or East Orange Plan,which are open space uses. The DEIR improperly assumes that under "No Project: Alternative 1- Development within the Existing Land Use Designations," Resource Area and Low Density Residential uses would occur on the Project site. DEIR Page 5-1. This mistake must be corrected. The DEIR must be revised to reflect a legally correct no-project alternative. This alternative will inform decision-makers and the public that under current land use plans, future uses on the Project site would be open space/park. Without a proper no-project alternative,the DEIR "fail[s] to meet the most important purpose of CEQA,to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmental impacts of the choices before them.." Planning & Conservation Leagace v.Department of Water Resotcrces (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892,920 (invalidating EIR because the no-project alternative improperly analyzed what would reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of the project). 2. The DEIR Must Consider Other Feasible Alternatives Capable of Avoiding or Substantially Reducing the Project's Significant Environmental Impacts. The DEIR identifies only one alternative (the "WIN-WIN" alternative) other than the two "no-project" alternatives,and the "WIN-WIN" alternative results in similar or even greater impacts than the proposed Project. We can find no logical explanation as to why the DEIR opted to include only one substanfive alternative,especially when this alternative is,as discussed below, based on an outdated (2008) development proposal that is no longer on the table. Rather than imparting serious information about potentially • viable alternarives,the DEIR's "WIN-WIN" alternative serves only as another"straw � man" to provide justification for the Project. Such an approach violates CEQA,as it �, teaves the public and decision-makers with no reasonable,less damaging option for - devetopment of this highly constrained site. SHUTE MiH�L�' �'`-�G�EINBERGER��.P Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 31 The City's decision to include the "WIN-WIN" alternative is particulariy perplexing because this alternative was not one of the alternatives included in the final 2016 Pre-Development Agreement ("PDA") between the City and the applicant. The PDA was the culmination of a public outreach program undertaken by City staff and the applicant to determine community priorities for the site. DEIR at ES-2. This public outreach program was intended to allow for"a high leve( of transparency to the community." See DEIR Appendix K (October I 1,2016 City Staff Report at 3), Yet, the environmental document does not reflecf the result of the outreach program.. Here,the DEIR appears to employ some subterfuge. The draft PDA,dated October 5,2016 and included as an appendix to the DEIR;shows Alternative E as the 2008 "WIN-WIN" alternative. Yet, when the PDA was approved on November 2, 2016,, the 2008 "WIIV-WIN" Alternative had been replaced with a different Altemative E,the "Liaison Committee Map:' See Preliminary Development Agreement, November 2, 2016,attached as Exhibit E. Inexplicably, the new Alternative E,the Liaison Committee Map,appears nowhere in the DEIR. If the City had meant to honor the results of the public outreach program,the DEIR would have evaluated the feasibility of fhe Liaison Committee Map,not the superseded "WIIV-WIN Alternative:' To comply with CEQA, the EIR must provide feasible alternatives that actually reduce impacts caused by the proposed Project. One such alternative is the Liaison Committee Map,the result of the City's public outreach. A graphic depiction of this alternative is shown in the November 2,2016 PDA (Exhibit E). The Liaison Committee Map allows for less development than either the proposed Project or the "WIN-WIN Alternative" and would therefore be more effective than the proposed.Project in achieving the Project's objectives (e.g.,locate homes in the most suitable areas of the site; preserve open space and greenway; preserve and profect Santiago Creek; and be compatible with neighboring residenfial uses}. It would also be environmentally superior to the proposed Project since less development and more open space would result in reduced environmental impacts. D. The DEIR Must Be Recirculated. Under California law,the present EIR cannot properly form the basis of a final EIR. CEQA and the Guidelines describe the circumstances that requi:re recirculation of a draft EIR. Such circumstances include: (1) the addition of significanf new information to . the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR but before - cerfification,or(2) the draft EIR is so "fundamentally and basically inadequate and , SHUTE N11H�L1�' �`-VGIEIi�JBERGER�_i,a Robert Garcia, Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 32 conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." Guidelines § 15088.5. Here, both circumstances apply. Decision-makers and the public cannot possibly assess the Project's impacts or even its feasibility through the present DEIR,which is riddled with errors. Among other fundamental deficiencies,the DEIR repeatedly understates the Project's significant environmental impacts and assumes that unformulated or clearly useless mitigation measures will effectively reduce these impacts. In order to resolve these issues, the City must prepare a revised EIR that would necessarily include substantial new information.This revised EIR must then be recirculated for public review and comment. II. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE CALIFORNIA PLAN1vING AND ZO1vING LAW. The State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov.Code § 65000 et seq.) requires that development decisions be consistent with the jurisdiction's general plan. As reiterated by the courts,"[u]nder state law,the propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements." Resocarce Defense Facnd v. Coatnty of Santa Cra�z (1982) 133 Ca1.App.3d 800, 806. Accordingly, "[t]he consistency doctrine [is] the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infuses the concept of planned growth with the force of law." Families Unafraid to Uphold Rctral El Dorado Cocanry v.Bd, of Sacpervisors(1998) 62 Ca1.App.4th 1332, 1336 (citations and internal quotations omitted). � General plans establish long-term goals and policies to guide future land use decisions, thus acting as a "constitution"for future development. Lesher Commainications, Inc. v. City of Walncct Creek(1990) 52.Ca1.3d 531,540. The policies in the General Plan must be internally consistent. Gov. Code § 65300.5. To promote coordinated land use policies and practices,state law requires local governments not just to formulate theoretical land use plans,but also to conform their development and land use projects and approvals with those duly certified plans. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Sicpervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570; see also Gov. Code § 65860 (requiring consistency of zoning to general plan); id. §§ 65359 & 65454 (requiring consistency of , specific plan and other development plan and amendments thereto.to general plan). . It is an abuse of discretion to approve a project that "frustrate[s] the General ' Plan's goals and policies:' Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.lApp.4th at 357. The project need not SHUTE� N1IHALY ��-WEINBERGER�.i.P Robert Garcia,Senior Planner April 5,2018 Page 33 present an "outright conflict" with a general plan provision to be considered inconsistent; the determining question is instead whether the project "is compatible with and will not frustrate.the General Plan,'s goals and policies:" lif.at 379. Here,for the reasons described above,the proposed Project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Because of these inconsistencies, approval of this Project would violate State Planning and Zoning Law. III. CONCLUSION. As set forth above,the Trails at Santiago Creek DEIR suffers from numerous deficiencies, many of which would independently render it inadequate under CEQA. Taken as a whole,the deficiencies of the DEIR necessitate extensive revision of the document and recirculation for public comment. Moreover,as currently designed,the Project conflicts with the City of Orange General Plan,the OPA and East Orange Plans, and the City's Tree Preservation (?rdinance. OPA respectfully requests that the City reevaluate the Project in light of its inconsistencies with these plans and ordinances and make changes to the Project to reduce its serious environmental impacts. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP ��0`f�yc,aG� Laurel L. Impett,AICP, Urban Planner `i� �, �- � Rachel B. Hooper List of Exhibits: Exhibit A: City of Orange Resolution No. 8182,May 18, 1993. • Exhibit B: USFWS Survey Protocol for the Arroyo toad, May 1999. ' Exhibit C: A Congress For 1Vew Urbanism,Citizen's Guide to LEED for ,� Neighborhood Development. � SHUTE �11H�L�' L�-VG'EINBERGER �.�,� Robert Garcia,Senior Planner Apri15,2018 Page 34 Exhibit D: SANDAG's RTP/SCS DEIR,GHG Chapter. Exhibit E: Preliminary Development Agreement, November 2,2016. cc: Donald Bradley,Orange Park Acres 98340L.10 S H UT E f�t I 1-1�LY . V'`-��EINBERGER��.P Checklist from Shute, Mihaly& Weinberger April 5, 2018 DEIR letter to City of Orange THE DEIR VIOWTES THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. • The DEIR's flawed project description does not permit meaningful public review of the project. • The project description fails to acknowledge the full amount of development that could occur as a result of the project. • The Project description is unstable and lacks essential information. • The DEIR's analysis of and mitigation for the impacts of the proposed project are inadequate. • The DEIR fails to analyze and mitigate the Project's Land Use impacts. • The Project is inconsistent with the City of Orange's General Plan. • The Project is inconsistent with the Orange Park Acres and East Orange Plans. • The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's impacts on hydrology,water quality,storm drainage and flooding impacts. • The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's impacts on biological resources, impacts to wildlife,wetlands,streambeds and riparian habitat and tree removal. • The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's traffic impacts and roadway safety impacts and construction-related air quality impacts. • The DEIR'S analysis of project alternatives is legally inadequate. • The DEIR does not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives and the analysis of the DEIR's "No-Project" alternatives is deficient. - The DEIR refies on an inaccurate baseline in its analysis of Alternatives 1 and 2, the "No Project Alternatives." • The DEIR must consider other feasible alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially reducing the Project's significant environmental impacts. • The DEIR must be recirculated. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE CALIFORNIA PLANNING AND ZONING " LAW. . May 3, 2018 Elfend &Associates, Inc 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1250 Irvine, CA 92618 Re: Trails at Santiago Creek proposal Dear Frank, Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on April 19, 2018. This letter seeks to confirm the details of the proposal jointly presented by the Liaison Committee at that meeting. The Liaison Committee would support a development proposal for the Sully-Milter property along the lines of the proposal in the DEIR with the following revisions: o Comments to the DEIR addressed and fixed �specifically,the comments in the joint letter from the Liaison Committee and the detailed comments from counsel for OPA). We propased that OPA's attorneys directly discuss the concerns with your client's attorneys and mutually work out and agree upon a revised draft before re-circulating or resubmitting to the City. The Liaison Committee would like to cooperate in that process ' in orde�to address concerns in advance and move forward with a DEIR the Liaison Committee supports rather than opposes. o Development not to exceed 40 homes on 40 acres;footprint same as proposed in the DEIR. o Development to have an agreed upon location for a private eommunity horse stable and horse friendly trail access and linkages. The look and feel of the community should be ranch style and incorporate rural design elements. o Corresponding zoning consistent with OPA Specific Plan and East Orange General Plan. o OPA SP and EOGP to be incorporated wi#h Project Specific Plan and agreed to by the committee before being made public. o TentatiVe Tract Map to include approximate grading elevations. o Remaining acreage designated as open space. , o All open space remediated to OC Parks standards. o No homes north of the creek,general plan and R-1-8 zoning changed to open space. •a o Nothing built on the upper silt pond except trails and habitat restoration. 1 o Bridge or other creek crossing(appropriate for pedestrians, bicycles,and horses) at west and east end of the property. o Trail under Cannon at creek. o Separated grade crossing listed on the plan; both a bridge and tunnel needs to be explored at Santiago Canyon Road at approximately the same (ocation. o Ridgeline dedicated to the City of Orange. o Road improvements to Santiago Canyon and Cannon as referenced in the DEIR. o Funding for habitat restoration and trails of$4,100,000 and $1,000,000 as proposed in the DEIR. o General Plan Amendment,Specific Plan amendments, Zoning ch;anges,funding obligations,dedication of Ridgeline, etcetera all to take place on approval of the DEIR, (i.e., nothing delayed until certificate of accuqancy). We appreciate your willingness to meet with us and hear our concerns. We look forward to receiving your client's response to the above proposal. Thank you, City of Orange Sully Mille�Liaison Committee 2 r Sully Miller Liaison Committee checklist - May 3, 2018 1. Comments to the DEIR addressed and fixed (specifically, the comments in the joint letter from the Liaison Committee and the detailed comments from counsel for OPA). We proposed that OPA's attorneys directly discuss the concerns with your client's attorneys and mutually work out and agree upon a revised draft before re-circulating or resubmitting to the City.The Liaison Committee would like to cooperate in that process in order to address concerns in advance and move forward with a DEIR the Liaison Committee supporEs rather than opposes. 2: Development not to exceed 40 homes on 40 acres; footprint same as proposed in the DEIR. 3. Development to have an agreed upon location for a private community horse stable and horse friendly traii access and linkages.The look and feel of the cornmunity should be ranch style and incorporate rural design elements. 4. Corresponding zoning consistent with OPA Specific Plan and East Orange General Plan. 5. OPA SP and EOGP to be incorporated with Project Specific Plan and agreed to by the committee before being made public. 6. Tentative Tract Map to include approximate grading elevations. 7. Remaining acreage designated as open space. 8. All open space remediated to OC Parks standards. 9. No homes north of the creek,general plan and R-1-8 zoning changed to open space. 10.Nothing built on the upper silt pond except trails and habitat restoration. 11.Bridge or other creek crossing �appropriate for pedestrians, bicycles, and horses) at west and east end of the property. 12.Trail under Cannon at creek. 13.Separated grade crossing listed on the plan; both a bridge and tunnel needs to be explored at Santiago Canyon Road at approximately the sarne location. 14.Ridgeline dedicated to the City of Orange. 15.Road improvements to Santiago Canyon and Cannon as referenced in the DEIR. 16.Funding for habitat restoration and trails of$4,100,000 and $1,000,000 as proposed in the DEIR. 17.General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan amendments, Zoning changes,funding , obligations, dedication of Ridgeline, etcetera all to take place on approval of the DEIR, � (i.e., nothing delayed until certificate of occupancy�. . Based on lettersent on May 3, 2018 to Elfend&Associates from the City of Oronge Sully Miller Liaison Committee Robert Garcia From: Bonnie Robinson <6onanddon4@gmail.com> Sen� Thursday,July 11,2019 4:56 PM 70: Kim Kinsler,Jennifer Scudellari; Robert Garcia; mayor@markamurphy.com; councilinfo Subject: Deny Planning Commission Recommended Actions- please forward today Deaz Planning Commissioners Glasgow, Simpson,Vazquez,Willits,Martinez,NIr. Robert Garcia,Mayor Mazk Murphy,and Council Members Alvarez,Nichols, and Monaco, Forthe Record July 11, 2a19 I am quite alarmed bythe Planning Commission Staff Report and the recommendation ofthe Planning Commission to City Council to adopt the Resolutions listed on the July 15th Planning Commission Agenda: Resolutions PC No. 07-19—10-19 regarding the General Plan Amendment No. 2018-0001, Zone Change No. 1286-18, Developrnent Agreement No. 0005-18 and Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1857-18. There is no overrid'ing Public Benefit to the Trails at Santiago Creek Proposal. The Final Environmental Impact Report is still filled with inaccuracies,discrepancies, and misrepresentation of our city's plans to justify adoptingthis proposal, as well as a lack of understanding ofthe significance of the financial liability and health and safety risks to our community. The Planning Commission Staff Report reinforces the same inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and lack of undersfianding ofthe significant risks. In the Planning Commission Staff Report page 11,it states in regards to the East Orange General Plan, "The central theme of the East Orange General Plan is the accommodation of residential development in the area balanced with the protection of the environmental assets of East Orange. The East Orange General Plan envisions commercial development,a variety of housing types, and an extensive open space greenbelt network."That statement alane is true; it is the theme of the East Orange Plan. Nowever,that is a general statement that refers to the entire area,that is divided into 17 planning sectors,from Santiago Creek to the north, Orange Park Acres to the east, Crawford Canyon and Newport Boulevard to the south,and the existing development of El Modena to the west. There is only one area currently zoned residential on the property being addressed by the City Resolutions before the Planning Commission on luly 15th: the 12.6 acres north of Santiago Creek,zoned low density residential in 1993. By the way,this is a discrepancy from the 15.4 acres listed in the General Plan Amendment Resotution. May I also remind you that the rezoning amendment of 1993 was approved by residents living in that area at the time and still living there today. In addition, number 11 on page 4 of the of the May 1993 Resolution,states clearly that future development proposals for the remainder of the Sully Miller Property will be governed by the Orange Park Acres Plan and the East Orange Generaf Plan. Milan and the Planning Commission Staff also seize on the word, "clusters;' a feature of a few of the neighborhoods of Orange Park Acres, not the general rule of development for that area. In addition, including the small homes originally used for worker housing fronting Santiago Canyon Road before the Orange Park Acre Plan was adopted,should not be used to determine lot sizes for Orange Park Acres and adjacent communities. It states on p. 6 of the Draft Planning Commission Document"While development of the residences onsite would change the character of approximately 40.7 acres of the site to residential uses..." That is a significant amount of acreage that is designated Open Space. The only other area where Milan Capital and associated 1 LLC's are permitted to build housing, is the arena site zoned R140 in canformance with the Orange Park Acres Plan.The remaining area being addressed by the Trails at Santiago Creek proposal on the former Sully Miller Property, is currently zoned RA Resource.The entire area of this property,south of the creek to Santiago Canyon Road, is designated Open Space and Regional Park in the East Orange General Plan and the Orange Park Acres Plan. No homes are mapped on that site in the Orange General Plan,and it was never intended for homes, as clearly stated in multiple places in the East Orange General Plan, due to the many safety hazards on the site and the necessity to restore and preserve that entire open space for the health of the creek,the health of the riparian habitat, and to retain the rural character of the area for the health of all of the residents of Orange. Milan does not have property rights to build any homes on the site,other than the 12.6 acres north of the creek and the six one ac�e lots of the arena site. Any building of homes anywhere on that site other than where already currently zoned is a violation of our City Plans. In early December 2018,some residents and I attended a meeting and asked what would be required of a proposal in order for OC Parks to accept a dedication of land for management. I am astounded that the memo from Bill Crouch,Community Development Director, City of Orange to Stacy Blackwood, Director of OC Parks, wasn't written until April 1, 2019 regarding the dedication to the County of Orange as long-term land awner/land manager in conjunction with the City granting entitlements for this project. I am even more astounded that the applicant didn't even have a meeting with Stacy Blackwood until May 15th. This is totally irresponsible of Milan Capital and a reflection of how the company generally does business.The requirements should have been known at the writing of the initial Draft Environmental Report. Stacy states in her letter, "The project plan is insufficiently detailed for us to undertake an assessment of any proposed land transfer. "...numerous elements are unclear in the project materials that we have been provided and/or reviewed within the RDEIR;elements which would have direct bearing on a recommendation to our Board to accept ownership of any of the open space acres resutting from the approval ofthis project." All ofthe proposed monetary�gures, "gifts" and words describing the beautiful trails and restoration of the creek in the FDEIR are arbitrary and meaningless. Many of the conditions set by the city,required by OC Parks and requested by our community for approval of this proposal,are deferred to issuing of permits,rather than being required prior to rezoning. Therefore,we would have no idea of the actual cost,details, environmental impact,or who would be left to manage the creek until after the area is rezoned! Even Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance, as did many of my neighbors and myself,expressed concerns that it is unknown if OC Parlcs will accept the land and doubt that a homeowners association would have the financial resources or expertise to deal with restoration and maintenance of the creek. I, along with The City of Irvine in their letter,dispute the projected traffic volume. They state that"tt appears the volumes for the Existing With Project TrafFic Conditions do not reflect the sum of existing and project volumes." Really,49 peak hour trips for a development of 128 homes? I know that when my children were older teenagers and young adults,we had five cars entering and exiting our own driveway multiple times of day for school and work. Villa Park's stated concerns are the same as my community's. I stated in my comments in response to both the DEIR and the RDEIR that all biological mitigation measures must be done on site. The FDElR still lists the offsite option. Even the Department of Fish and Wildlife responded that the only certified Department-approved mitigation bank whose service area extends to the project is Soquel Canyon Mitigation Bank and they do not have the creation credits necessary to accommodate the Department's policy of"no net loss". The in-lieu program is also not app[icable.This is our neighborhood and our creek. All mitigation must be done on site. z If environmental impacts in relation to air quality,are determined,as stated,to be significant and unavoidable after mitigation,then the requirements should not be overrided;the project should be denied. The Department of Toxic Substance Control shows major concerns. Methane and other toxins are definitely serious issues on this property. Tait Environmental Services faund that there was potential for vapor intrusion of Trichloroethylene and methane into future dwelling units. I believe that the property is bound by SMARA. Milan Capital and the city don't believe they are, although there is evidence that reclamation plans have been requested by the city in the past,with no follow-up. Regard[ess what you believe, a reclamation plan is necessary in light of what has been found on the property for the health and safety of the human and riparian community. In addition,the condition assessment rating of the dams' is "satisfactory." However, its hazard potential rating is"extremely high,"although one would have 255 minutes to escape the br-each of one dam and a whole 105 minutes to escape the breach of the other. Forget about the gridlock that we have already experienced when trying to escape the Canyon 2 Fire. When reading the stafF report about these issues,it almost sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit. Unfortunately, it is the reality of this property. How many times has Orange had to re-level the Yorba Dog Park and provide support to Santiago Canyon Road and bridges? I understand that there is another facility in Orange that recently had to be closed due to toxic issues. Shouldn't our city residents benefit from the lessons that other cities have experienced when building on sites not appropriate for homes or schools. Do you really want to expose current and future residents to these health,safety, and financial risks and liability? It states in many places on the documents provided that there has been a cessation of activity on the property in consideration of the community and negotiations. That activity was ramped up to full level last August, almost a year ago and continues to this day. In fact, anytime a proposal or plan is going to be voted on,there is a pattern of increased activity on the site or the threat of increased activity. Milan Capital and assorted associate LLC's have treated our community and the former Sully Miller property with utter disrespect,significantly degrading the site from its previous condition and not truly working with the community. I realize City Officials and the Planning Commission are trying to find a solution to the issues on this site,which have resulted from years of neglect and dereliction of duty. This is not the solution! We do not owe this company anyt}iing. Let's do this right. There are better solutions. Take it one step at a time. Begin working on the process to remove nonconforming use of the property,set a date for the conclusion of al1 activity,as supposed ta happen in our Plans and State Codes. Hold the company accountable for clean-up.Then,we can start looking at grants and other measures to restore the creek and green space. We expect the city to abide by our plans and respect the rights and safety of the residents who already live here.The Planning Commission and the City Council do not have an obligation to approve the Trails at Santiago Creek Proposal, nor a zone change for housing. � Do not certify the Final EIR. Deny the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change and all Related Entitiements. Thank you. Sincerely, Bonnie Robinson 3 5907 E Valley Forge Drive Orange, CA 92869 Please acknowledge receipt. 4 -- City of Orange Community Development Department Me1110 To: Chair Glasgow and Members of the Planning Commission Thru: Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Development Directox�� From: Robert Gazcia, Senior Planner '� Date: July 15,2019 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15,2019 Staff is forwarding correspondence received from interested parties in support or opposition to the proposed Trails at Santiago Creek Project between the dates of June 12, 20].9 through 5:00 PM on July 1 S,2019. �� Printed on recycled paper f+ Kim Kinsler , , _ -. From: Pete Bowen <psbowen513@live.com> Sent: Friday,July 12,2019 5:38 PM To: Kim Kinsler,Jennifer Scudellari; Robert Garcia; mayor@markmurphy.com; counciltinfo@cityaforange.org Subject: PI.EASE APPROVE MILAN PROJECT @ SULLY MILLER SITE . _ Dear Mayar, dur family has lived on the carner of Linda Vista St/Santiago Canyon Raad for almast 50 years—since 1972.PLEASE APPROVE THE IIIIILAN DEVELOPMENT AND WHATEVER ZONING IS REClUIRED TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. We are sick and tired af seeing a very nasty eye-sore on the former Sully Miller site. I see it every morning from the side of my house. Approving this project wil)replace it with something much better. Failure to approve the praject will simply mean that an increasingly bad eyesore will remain for the foreseeable future. Though traffic,streets and developments have drastically changed in the last 50 years(Santiago Canyon fram two lanes to sixj,w,e did not oppose development at Mabury Ranch,the housing tracts on Cannon St,the Colony ar in Orange Park Acres.We welcomed those families who moved into thase newly developed areas as new friends, neighbors and citizens.They have been blessings in our lives. The project is an apportunity to bring new blessings into aur community and to get rid of a terrible eyesore. I am disappointed that people who were happy to develop our area and mave in are quite inhospita6le about this project.They prefer the eyesore over real development.Once they move in,they seem to become incredil�ly intolerant: ' about others bene�ting the same way. PLEASE APPROVE 7HE PROIECT. Thank you for your service to our city and your attention to this issuel 8est, _` Pete 1309 N Linda Vista St ;; Orange,CA ' Pete Bowen 714.293.1627 www.aetebowen.net www:realtalkaboutlife.com(podcastJblog) �petebowen(Twitter} �-. Kim.Kinsler From: Mike Walker <mwalker17@socal.rr.com> Sent: Friday,July 12;2019 8:29 PM To: Robert Garcia;Jennifer Scudellari;mayor@markamurphy.com; Kim Kinsler,councilinfo ��; mwalkerl7@socal.rr.com Subject: Trails at Santiago Creek- I oppose Helio, I have been living at 5735 E.Valencia Dr.since 1972. When our family moved in,one of the reasans was that we were told that area in question was zoned as open space and would be used for a park. There are other original famllies in my neighborhaod that recall the same promises. The area of 5ully Miller is not zoned for residential and I have been opposing this every few years that it comes up. Fieldstone;Milan and the others. In additton to the zoning request,the livability of the area has steadily decreased over the past 30 years. Some evenings it takes me over 30 minutes to get to my home frum Windes and Santiago,Cannon and Hewes are all backed up as well. Mornings are not much better. Cars continually race through our neighborhood,Harleys roar up Santiago and I see littfe enfarcement of traffic laws. The area is dangerous enough. Many years ago I had to fight the planning cammission to get cones put up on Santiago so the cars would nat use Valencia as a shor'tcut,endangering my children and the other kids on our street. Also—the.area is a ftood risk,there is the methane.gas problem and we need more open space. Please put a stop to this once and for all.We do not need another recall. Apologies for not being ahle to attend the meeting—we will be in Montana visiting my daughter at school in her PhD program. Thank you, 11JIike and Janelle Walker 714-532-2006 Lifelong Orange resident. 1 ".>Y �;� Q 9 C.G.RP:A. � ..,. . �..n�.,,.��, California Cultural Resource Preservation Ailiance,inc. P.O,Box 54132 An alliance of A3merican Inaian and scientific cammunities warking far. irvine,CA 92619-4232 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. Ju1y 13,2019 Robert Garcia, Senior Planner City of Orange Planning Division RE: Planning Commission Hearing the Sully Project I am una.ble to attend the hearing,but please include this letter of objection to the project in the information for the Planning Commission. Regarding the response to written comments regazding our letter af December 10,2018: Section 3.5,Cultural Resaurces,page 3.5-I9,and Section 3.1?,Tribal Cultural Resources,page 3.17-7, lefters sentto three tribes Mareh 2017 inviting consultation,"The Ciiy did not receive a response from any of the tribes:' The project is located within the traditionai territory af the Juaneno/Acjachemen,a " non federally recognized tribe. As such,the Acjaehemen lack the funds to hire a paid cultural resource manager and it is often difficult for volunteers to respond in a timely.manner. It shautd be noted that Acjachemen deseendants serve on the California Gultural Resource Preservation Alliance(CCRPA)Baard '. and endorse this letter. -' Section�3,5 Cultural Resources,page 3.5-I I ofthe RDEIR dismiss CA-ORA-369 as"tharoughly studied ' , in 1979'and found to yield insufficient depth,midden depasits or other interpretive data to warrant fiutlier mvestigation." Tlie ability of a site to wazrant further investigation is not a criterion of a Tri6ai Culfural Resource. A Tribal Culiural Resource is based on traditional culturai and religious values and not archaealogical values. This response to aux comments goes on to say.that although the 2008 ar�haeaiogicat investigations failed ta locate rem�ins af the site,it was concluded that given the dense vegetation,the site cauld be obscured or buried. . The fact that the majority of archaeological sites in Orange County have been destroyed to make way for development makes those that remain even more important. Please consider alternatives ta development' that will preserve this culturaily sensitive area Sincerely, � .� � � � ��, �.�.- A,� � ��° � � �� "�� *� „, � '� ,�� , �' �� '�:_ � : ', :; �..��>,,.....,� �,� -< �.. � ��...:.. ... . . .._ ... .:- . - Patricia Martz,Ph.D.,President Kim Kinsler I From: Pamela Coleman I Sent: Monday,July 15,2019 7:31 AM To: Anna Pehoushek;Jennifer Scudellari; Kim Kinsler Subject: FW:Opposing Development on Canon &Serrano ----Original Message----- From:Stavros Chrysovergis<staavross@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,July 14,2019 5:47 AM To:Pamela Coleman<pcoieman@cityoforange.org> Subject:Opposing Development on Canon&Serrano To whom it may concern We live in Mabury Ranch and we STRONGLY oppose development at the subject property. Concerned with a multitude of issues such as trafFic,escaped routes,environmental pollution and others. WE SAY NO TO THE DEVELOPIVIENT PROPOSAL Stavros Chrysovergis,P.E.,G.E. ' Sent from my iPhone t Robert Garcia From: Kim Kinsler Sent: Monday,luly 15,201910:06 AM Toc. Robert Garcia Subjed: FW:Sully Miller proposal Not sure if you got this one yet or not. ._�. ._._.._....._....._��...._.�.._. ___.... ..._.__..._�__....�.._....._......_.._.._,_..._..�__.___.___...�_....�.�._ From:Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@cityoforange.org> 5ent:Monday,July 15,201910:01 AM To:A'nna Pehoushek�apehoushek@cityoforange,org>;lennlfer Scudellari<jscudelfari@cityoforange.org>;Kim Kinsler <kkinsler@cityoforange.org> Subject:FW:Sully Miller proposai �,.. , �.._.� ..._.�_.....,�._................_.............................._...�.w..._..........._.�.........._.._...._.�...,..., __�......�.....�......�_�....._,w.,_...._._... Fram:Steve Ducolon<steve@lund-ior3o.com> Sent::Monday,Juiy 15,2019 9:56 AM TocrPamela Coleman<pcoleman@citvoforan�e.ar�> . Subject:Sully Miller proposal Good morning Pamela I have 6een writing emails ta the city for quite some tlme regarding the proposed project afi the Sully Mi!!er site with no response so l have attached a previous email below. If the city should choose to cave in to th3s development you must address these fssues. Traffic on Santiago How is the city and the developer going to address the traffic impact? We are already impacted by traffic from outside our area. It is;insane that it takes me 20 to 30-minutes to go from Orange ParEc ave in Mabury ranch to Cannon every morning � aiready:Much less how.long it takes to get to Chapman after I get on Santiago..,. Added cars would hamper escape routes:fram the next wildfire. Mabury Ranch has only one escape route to the West- _ Serrano Avenue.During the Canyon 2 Fire,cars backed up on Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Street and Mabury Rench residents sat in their cars for more than an hour trying to evacuate. How cari we add mare traffic to thts area? I see many wild animals in thls area some that are probably endangered. How are the issues with the wtld and some endangered animals that Hve and move through this area7 After years of dumping we coufd be expased to toxfc materials that become airborne during construction.Who is going to be responsible for the healfh of the surrounding cammunity? I get it a developer bought some property here.It was a gravel yard. The city of Orange owes it to its residents to do the right thing. I would appreciate an answer as to how the traffic impact will be addressed? Good afternoon Robert, i I hati sent yau an ernail earlier with some of my concerns but had no repiy so i am sending you another email.Sorry I'm sure you are busy. As a resident and homeowner in Maybury Ranch I am ext�emely concerned about this proposai an8 the DEIR. The:Project is inconsistent with the City af Orange's General Plan. 7he Project is inconsistent with the Orange Park Acres - and East Orange Plans.The DEIR's analysis of project alternatives is legally inadequate. 7he DEIR fails ta adequately analyze and mitigate the project's irnpacts on bifllogical resources,impacts to wildlife, wetlands;strearnbeds and�iparian habitat and tree removai. 1 see wild animals here all the time(questfon if some might°be endangered has that been addressed? The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the proJect's traffic lmpacts and roadway safety impacts and construction=related air quality impacts,Traffic in this area is already unsafe and needs to be addressed befare any new projects are approved. The DEtR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's impacts on hydralogy,water quality,storm drainage.and floading impacts. Thts is a fiood zone are they crazy? fVat ta mention our drinking water flows down Santiago creek to: the reservoir.i question if Milan hasn't already changed the quality. The REIR's flawed project description does not permit meaningful public review of the project.The praject description fa.ils to acknowiedge the fu11 amount of development that could occur as a resuit of the project.The DEIR rrtust consider other:feasibie alternatives capable of avaiding or substantiaily reducing the Project's si�nificant environmental impacts: The DEIR relies on an inaccurate baseiine in its analysis of Alternatives 1 and 2,the"No Praject Alternatives:' The Project description is unstable and lacks essential information. The DEIR's anaiysis of and mitigation for the impacts - of the praposed proJect are�nadequate. The DEIR fails to analyze and mitigate the Project's Land Use irnpacts. , APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIQLATE CAUFORNIA PIANNING AND ZONING lAW.THE DEIR VIOLATES THE GALiFQRNtAENVIRONMENTAI QUALITY ACT. ` Steve Ducolon _ ' 6534 E. Smokey Ave ' ` Orange Ca 92867 Steve Ducolon lund-lorio Inc. Phone 949;443-4855 Fax 949-443-4856 � Kim Kinsler . Fr.om: Pamela Coleman Sent: Monday,July 15,2019 1128 AM °- To: Anna Pehoushek Cc; Jennifer Scudellari; Kim Kinsler Subject: FW:Planning Commission EIR -----Original Message--- From:Leisha Fauth<Ifauth36@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,July Z5,20191d:45 AM To:Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@cityoforange.org> Cc:Rreserve Niabury<preservemabury@gmail.cam� Subject: Planning Commission EIR July 15,2019 ' Leisha Fauth > 6206 E Teton,Ave Clrange,Ca 92867 "'`' ; Orange City Planning Commission c/o City Clerk Pamela Colema,n I am a resident of Mabury Ranch for over 2Q years. I da nat agree with a zoning change for the current Mifan development. l aiso disagree with the Environmental impact statement. � The;Elfi did not address traffic concerns or improvements for Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Streets. Having livetl through 3:evacuations due ta fires in the immec3iate area this causes great concern for any fire or emergency evacuation in the area. �uring the last evacuatian emecgency response equipment and personnel were hampered by the number of cars that were trying to drive into and out of Anaheim Hilis via Serrano. This is a direct cause due to aii of the development that has occurred in Anaheim Hiils over the last 20 years and I have no doubt that if we have another major disaster in the area emergency response will again be hampered by the traffic gridlock that accurs daily. The amount of gravel,dust and,dirt that is generated by the gravel pit is horrendous and the air quality has been impacted. ! have not seen any information that address the issue of toxic dust that will become airborne due to construction of homes on that site. Honestly, I would rather have the current gravel pit i.e.the large mountain af dirt than a new housing tract of homes in the area. I DO NOT AGREE WITti ANY MEI.l.O ROOS OR CQMMUNITY FACIUTlES DISTRICT OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL TAX TO FUND THlS PROJECT. Sa again, I am asking the Planning commission and the City Council to reject any EIR report and development of housing on this parcel of land forthe IVlilan,Sully-Miller project. � Sincerely, Leisha Fauth 2 Kim Kinsler _ From: Deborah Redfern <mdredfern65@gmail.com> Senr Manday,July 15,2019 11:19'AM To: Kim Kinsler,lennifer Scudellari;mayor@markamurphy.com; Robert Garcia Subject: The Trails at Santiago Creek P�oposal July 15,2019 . Planning Commission Orange,CA kkinslerCa�cityoforange.orq iscudellari(a�cityoforanQe�orq R�: Traiis at Santiaga Creek Propasal To Whom it May Concern, l appose the Trails at San�iaga Creek Praposal because it will directly affect me, my family, and my neighbQ�hood as a whale with a fremendous increase in traffic, noise, dirt/grime. I live in Jamestown and if this new community goes through,tryiag,to get out of our neighborhood during;the hours of 6:30 am to 8:30 am and again from 3:30pm to 6:30 pm ; wiQ cease. 7he traffic as it is now, we cannot tum left during evening hours and it is very dangerous to turn right in the am '; hours: The dirt and grime tliaf;will come from the additional traffic will be tremsndous as well as the many moving trucks, coming in and out af the praposed housing sight! Witti over 220K truck loads expected to be used to just haul out the dirt, ; then to have the construction of over 120 homes,will make this site even worse with all the dirt, traffic and nose♦ The `: <, noise will be continuous all day long fram the trucks and the building of new homes. Imagine if you lived ac�oss the street ; , from this disaster that Mitan has created, and this was a problem you we�e dealing with. Would you want your family ' - i subjecfed to the increased noise, pollution,trucks, additiona{traffic thaf affected you even entering or exiting your community? Vlle knew we had a street 6ehind our home that was:a thoroughfare, but it has become mcreasingly busy; ; � _ and tf.tfiis project goes througti, it will put aur home at risk for it's value as well as the issues we will have;;trying to sell it should we desire to. fts really easy to sit behind a desk and say what a great idea this would be, but please, (welcame ;; you to come sit in my back yard on any given day, and feel the dirt,and grime fram the traffic, hear the naise from the traffic and then try and leave mycommunity between the given hours of 3,30 pm-6:3a pm and ga west and then think about'voting in favo�for this project, I support Milan's praperty rights to build on the areas already zoned for housing: the area north of the creek and the > arena site. I ask you to vote"NO"on this proposal and rezoning. TFte Planning Cammission and City Counsel need to respect aur propetty rights, as residents who already IiVe lie�e. Hono�our East Orange General Plan. Very sincerely, Deborah Redfern Jamestown R�sident Thariks Deb � RE: No to the Traiis at Santiago Creek Proposal. No to Rezaning. 7/15/2019 Dear 111ir.Robert Garcia, 1 would like ta express my strong oppositien to the proposed zone change and the proposal forthe 128 homes on the 5uliy Miller Property. I am a resident of Orange and live dlrectiy in front of the marked area. i live in The Colony and my.backyard faces Santiago Canyon Road: My famfly and I are directly affected by what is currentiy happening and what wiil happen ifyou ailow this unfounded bad investment proposal to continue. I was attracted to The Colony 6ecause it seemed to 6e a remarkabte treasure ih arange. 1 was ab(e to enjoy the perks of nature like,cc�me across a roadrunner in my backyard,bunnies,hawks,etc.,and had a beautifut view of the valley. i was able to go on walks.or garaen in my backyard. i thought i was a very lucky indtvidual to have feund a place in the city where nature and safety were a p�iority. t am appalled of what has become of this community whits tn the hands of Sully IVliller. please g€ve us back our community and respect our property rights, health,and enviranmental concerns. Every mornin�I am awoken to the endless noise,smell,and sight of traffic. One of my many,huge cancerns are the trucks,sometimes parked directly in front of my home,in the center divider of Santiago Canyon road,awatting to enter the Sully Milier site. To make things worse,these trucks are parked:fo�more than iS-20 minutes,while running their engines,dispersing toxic fumes into our homes and communit(es. The proposed mitigation measures are not adequate and will:not alleviate nor remedy this cu�rent prabiem. They will only make things worse. Furthermare,I am not able to enjoy the outdoars of my home. I have >': .:. : to get.inside as quickly as possiBie during the daytime because I will inhale the dust 6eing dispersed°by the - sweeping trucks who are cleantng after the destruction that the Sully Miller Company is creating for our commun[ty. My daughter can't enjoy playing outside in our yard. That is out of the questfon given the health conditlons that we are now being exposed to. _; ; Ouc daughter is now faur-years old.lt is shatneful that because of the horribie conditions th.at this appalling and ,. ' ' 'careless company has created and is planning to continue to create,my daughter along with my husband and I, ;.: _ ;i have to keep our.windows compietely shut and run air purifier throughout the day and night. My daugh#er is currently suffering.from allergies c.aused by the environment. 5he has ta take her medicatians everywhere she goes to and is unable to.ptay outside because of all the toxins that are being released by Sul1y Miller. I have taken _ ,. hec:ta thei.dottar on:many occasions due to'her allergies and she is under the care of an allergist at the UCI ° Medical:Center. Ttiings will oniy get worse for the community. I am only one of many exampies. Mflan's project will only add unnecessary risks and detrimental'fmpactsthat we should not have to endure. Enough is enoughl Please listen to the peopie who live here and are d(rectly impacted by a Monster who's only concem is making.money at the expense of the community's heaith,Iivelihood,and much,much morei Please say NO to this inexcusable p1an. The RDEtR is inadequate and should not be approved. Thank yau for your tfine and I hope that you Ilsten to the people who are being affected by this horrific and appallin�proposal. Thank yau, Martha Guerrero-Phlaum _ . 5849 E Vapey Forge Orive Orange,CA 92869 Rob.ert.Garcia .. - Frorr�s- Kelly Odle <ketlyodle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,Ju{y 15,20191:10 PM Tgs Kim Kinsler,Jennifer Scudeliari Cc: council@cityofarange.org;Robert Garcia Subject: Oppase Trails at Santiago Hello.Orange City Planning Commission, I oppose the Trails at Santiago Creek Propasal for several reasons. ' T'm very concerned about fire safety for existing residents. During the Canyon 2 Fire in October 20I7,I witnessed countless cars attempting to navigate through residential roads,driving toward the fire in order to:get to:their homes to evacuate loved anes and pets. Siznilarly,I watched as panicked residents were stopped in tra�ic as they attempted to leave with their basic belongings,some including horse frailers from Orange Park Acres and Irvine Park.Adding another 128 single family homes will put more Iives at risk during fire events, which aze steadily worsening. The City of Orange could potentially be found negligent in protecting its citizens by allowin$homes to be built in Santiago Creek.Please remember,the residents of Mabury Ranch and the Reserves were evacuated during _ Canyon 2 fire because the Santiago Creek is a known fire zone. You will be putting new residents of these > proposed 128 homes in the direct path of the fire. Since there are few exit routes,the safety of current residents duririg5 fires will be-in j eopazdy: The City of Orange could be opening itself up to lawsuits. We cannot bear another tragedy like the one that happened in Paradise,Calif. , While fihe traffic issues are compounded during an extreme event such as a fire,they aze currently extremely i�y�.ng on a day-to-day basis.Residents of East Orange and Anaheim Hills aze.delayed on Santiago during tlie end of-day drive.time as they return home via Jamboree and the toll roads.It is severely impacting tlie quality of life for residents.Adding another 12$home with multiple cars will devastate the area further, I ask.you to hanor the existing East Orange General Plan in order to protect the citizens of East Orange and Orarige Park Acres. Thank you, Kelly Kelly Odle Resident of Orange since 1993,owner of hame-based consulting business since 1999,Odle Communications 5626 E.Valencia Dr. Orange CA 92869 Mobile: 714-469-0849 kellvodlena,g�riail•com � Rob.ert Garcia. From: Karen Wright <kswright425@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 15,2019 2:18 PM To; Kim Kinsler;Jennifer 5cudellari;cauncil@cityofarange,urg;Robert Garcia SubJect: Trails at Santiago Creek Prapasal Deaz Planning Commission, I have been a resident in East Orange far 21 years and I oppose the Trails at Santiago Creek Proposal for the following reasons: First is my concern for a11 the residents in East 4range when we have another fire(there will be another fire) and there aze additional homes built in this area.I witnessed the panic vf residents hying to evaeuate their homes and horses during the Canyon 2 Fire. With the addition of 128 homes in our cammittee and the 1,I00+ plus homes in the Irvine Company development,East Orange will be the next Paradise, Calif. Second is my concern for tr�c. The traff'ic on Sanriago Canyon Road is terrible. My son swam at SCC every night last year and some nights it would take rne 20 minutes to go 3 miles. Imagine the impact of adding the cars from an additional 128 + 1,100 homes.Also,how will the traffic be affected by the addition of walkirig paths? - My third concern is aIl the "What ifs".Althaugh the proposed plart sounds appealing,there are a lot of ' utiknowns. What if the city rezones the property and Milan sells,does the new inves#or build more thari 128 hames?What if the new investar does not want ta add the trails?What if the trails aze not maintained?What if the new homes are built on unsafe Iand,will there be a lawsuit against the city for approving the projeat? Please hanor the existing East Orange General Plan in order to protect the citizens of East Orange and Orange. Park Aeres. Thank you, Jeff&Karen Wright t. Robert Garcia From: Tom French <tfrench@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday,July 15,2019 4:00 PM � To: Robert Garcia Subject: Trails at Santiago Creek Dear Mr Garcia- My wife and I would like ta register our opposition to the Trails at Santiago Creek project. We are fine leaving the land the way it is.Traffic,flooding, methane gas among many other issues have yet to be explained or addressed. Please don not approve this proJect. Thank you Tom&Carla French 5905 E Mabury Ave Orange,CA 92867 Sent from my iPad 1 � � Robert Garcia - Fromc Caria French <cfrench106@sbcglobal:net> Sent: Monday,Ju[y 1�,2019 4:20 PM To: Robert Garcia Subject: Fwd:Traiis at Santiago Creek Dear Mr. Garcia, Please see attached message regarding the Trails at Santiago Creek Sent from my iFad Begin forwarded message: From: Carla Freneh<cfrench]06_sbcgtobal.net> Date:July 15,2U19 at 7:17:53 PM EDT Ta:pcoleman(r�,aityoforan�e.org Subject: Trails at Santiago Creek Dear Ms Coleman, „We have wiritten numerous times to express our dismay that t1�e.City of Orange continues to . _. review Milan'.s proposal to change zoning in the area formerly knawn as the Sully Miller site. The:citizens.of Orange voted that this space shauld remain open space.Why is this ignored by tlie City?Why doesn't the City enforce the laws regarding the use of this space? ,, Wlien:this was on the ballot,Milan threatened our communities that he would build 5 story dirt piles,if this zoning change was not approved by the voters.He has done as exactly that.The City has done nathing ta mitigate that,nor enforce decades old Iaws. He intends:to setl the property to, a.developer:that will;build more hames than he is requesting.He continues to fail to negotiate with surraunding communities in bad faith. He has failed to provide all of the necessary DETR studies.Is this someone the City of Orange wants as a partner? WE CERTAINLY DO NOT! My husband and I have awned our home on Mabury Avenue in Mabury Ranch for 32 years.We do not want additional homes built in this area. The City would not allow a dog park to be built on tlie site:How can the City in good conscience change the zoning to pernut homes to be built ,;; in and area of a former landfill with methane gas vents,a flood p1ane,and hazardous materials that now we lea.rn Milan wan.ts to implement Mello Roos for the surrounding communities to pay for:the cleanup on land he awns.ABSOLTJTELY NOT!! Let's nat:£orget the traffic impaet,the dangerous conditions that occurred in the last fire evacuation and the impact on the:surrounding communities. We are tired af Milan and their attempts to ignore the existing zoning. We want the City of Orange to da its job and enforce the existing laws.We no longer care that the mountains of dirt are 5 stories tail,it rtow mitigates the - 24%7 traffic on Santiago Canyon Raad. This has gone on for far too long. Te1T IVlilan to go away once and for a11. We eannot attend tonight's meeting since we are out af state,but we want to Iend our voices to i those opposed to this zoning change. Listen to your voters!! Sincerely,:Carla and Tom French 59U5 E Mabury Ave Orange,CA 92867 Sent from my iPad 2 City of Orange Communifiy Development Department Memo To: Chair Glasgow and Members of the Planning Commission Thru: Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Devetopment Director From: Robert Gazcia, Senior Planner� Date: August 2,2019 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of August 5,2019 Staff is forwarding correspondence received from interested parties in support or opposition to the proposed Trails at Santiago Creek Project between the dates of July 16, 2019 through 3:04 PM on August 2,2019. �' Printed on recycled paper �� ° `�o��l �d.�w s � �sfi� "....You feeling lucky...?" It may seem odd,but reading about the Santiago Creek proposal reminds me of a series of movies starring Clint Eastwood who played a law enforcement pro£essional who, when confronting a"bad guy"was wont to ask them, ".... You feeling lucky....?" Now what,you may ask,does this have to do with Santiago Creek? And,you may ask, who are you? I'll answer the second but easier question first. I'm Edward J.Andrews,P.E. I'm a Licensed Professional Engineer(P.E.)in Civil Engineering in the State of California with a B.S.and M.S.in Civil Engi.neering.and over 40 years experience in Civil Engineering practice. I've worked primarily for the U:S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)in the fields of hydraulics,flood control project management,and for the Los Angeles District, their Chief of Emergency Management.. I_was also a first,responder as a Structural Specialist for one of the Corps'Urban_Search and Rescue cadres. While noting the . _ _ above,I now speak representing.only myself. As to the first question,above,among the documents provided by the developer is some information regazding the flood risk facing}us proposed"improvements"in the floodplain. His proposal is to.provide finished floor elevations for the new homes mazginally above the 100-yeaz flood event. Now the"100-yeaz floodplain"is another way of saying"a flood having a 1%chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. A 1%chance. You feeling lucky? Why.plan only to protect to a 1%chance? Well,it's significantly cheaper and at 1%or above,ttie Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)does not require flood insurance in its program.(But,if still is available and FEMA notes that on their web site.) No flood insurance requirement? That may lull a potential home buyer into a false sense of security. Looking at a 1%chance of flooding another way,during a"typical' home mortgage period of 30 years a 1%chance flood would have a 26%chance of occurring. That fact � may give that potential homeowner a moment of pause. FEMA notes also that a 1% chance.flood is a 500%greater risk than having a house fire in that 30 yeaz period. Are you still feeling lucky? The developer's report notes that the FEMA FIRM(Flood insurance Rate Map) 0605920158J dated 3:December 2009 shows the proposed project in"flood zone X". Above the 100-year flood zone,but in a flood hazard zone none the less. It's interesting to note that FEMA recommends"critical facilities", such as fire and police stations,hospitals, schools,water and sewer plants,power and communications facilities,not be.located within�flood hazard zone. Access roads to such critical facilities are recommended to be above a 100-year flood. So,while a sewer plant could not be Iocated within this proposed development,a family's largest irivestment,their home, could. Wlnle a family's home coulii be.Iocated there,their children's school could not. While a critical facility reguires road access above a 100-year flood,this proposed development.plans for street flooding to be at"top of curb"for a 10-yeaz flood event—a much more common occurrence. How would a new homeowner decide when to evacuate? Before the streets are flooded? Before ttie IOQ-year+event enters the first floor? How lucky do you feel? How accurate aze the FEMA FIRM maps to_begin with? Well,.as accurate as the base data used iri their generation and current engineering practice allow. The base data includes flow:rates from historical and current stream gages for the azea. Those are generally for limitecl locations.and a limited number of years. Simply put,the longer the record and the.greater number of stream gages available,the better the potential for accurate but still estimated floods. Don't fail to note that flooding around tlie world has been consistently greater than the historical record would predict. A number of areas of the U.S,have experienced so called"500-year"floods in back-to-back yeazs recently. � Who then is responsible for the future flood response evacuation and recovery costs? Not the developer. The developer has no responsibilily.for the situation that he was entirely responsible in creating. Evacuation and recovery costs are the responsibi�ity of the individual homeowner,and local;County, State,and Federai agencies. The developer's profit motive creates a huge cost burden for the taxpayer. A more equitable approach would be for the developer fo provide performance�bonds to cover any future disaster response and recovery costs. (Costs for the.injured or dead should also be factois:) After all,it is the developer wbo creafed the potential hazard(subject to approval of his project.) I view this proposed development very simply, "...Yon feeling lucky...?" ��ku,L ��Jl,7�wS (��.G�� /.�o�. I read the FINAL Environmental Impact Report and found no comfort that this is reasonable. I repeatedly saw desperate attempts to make something that is unreasonable sound reasonable. While we are not dealing with something as powerful as the Missouri river, there are risks. Big risks. For flooding the Hazard Potential Rating is 'Ext+remely Hii•h.' But somehow because somebody thinks an event is "unlikely" that building here is ok? The fact that emergency responders will have 105 minutes to evacuate people is not comforting. We have great emergency responders, but putting the onus on them is not a plan. And who will pay for the damage? Who will take care of those who lose everything? Milan? And we are dealing with more than flood risk. We all know the risk of wildfire is immense. A "20-foot wet zone within the rear yard of the residential lots to support fuel management policies" is not going to protect these houses. Houses burned down in the Canyon 2 fire. And fires are getting larger, more frequent and more unpredictable. Then there is the methane gas. We know it is there. To "situate" the houses "strategically" so that later you can come in and fix the problems you know will arise, to add venting pipes, install gas sensors and audible alarms. How about not building houses in such a toxic place? And it does not stop there...soil removal and replacement, ground water testing. This is ludicrous. It is not safe. There are some places homes should just not be built. So we can deride people in Missouri but I contend that we cannot gloat that somehow what is being proposed here in Orange is fundamentally any different. There are some places where houses should not be built and yet developers want to do it anyway and make a buck — lots of bucks -- no matter the consequences. And officials enable them, look the other way and ignore the facts in order to justify projects that should not go forward. Real planning means looking at all factors and impacts and making good decisions, including decisions to NOT build. The Planning Commission and Orange City Council need to just say no to any development beyond the original 12.6 acres north of the creek and on the arena site. Melanie Weir 8215 E White Oak Ridge#41 Orange 714-321-3695 2 o. ,�`.��.9 I ' Orange Planning Commission — Public Comment 7/15/19 Good evening commissioners. f'm Stephanie Lesinski. I am a Mabury Ranch homeovvner, a HOA Board Director and in 2016 on Mayor Murphy's invitation I became a Liaison Committee member meeting with the landowner's representative attempting to find a solution for the former Sully-Miller site. Unfortunately after spending several years meeting with the Liaison Comrnittee we iearned the fandowner Mifan was � oniy interested in building a large- scale development, not working with neighboring communities. None of our recommendations were seriously considered . l,�t� There are 3 separate communities in Mabury Ranch all with their own HOAs. I live in the community governed by the Mabury Ranch Homeowner's Association . The other communities — Hidden Creek & Creekside Ranch - have members that have been outspoken in their opposition to this project. As a Mabury Ranch homeowner I am opposed to the project for many reasons: 1 . Our HOA conducted a survey in March of 2018. The least number of respondents were OK with the proposed project. These are the � only survey results our Board voted to adopt. 2. 4ur early community leaders meant for this land to revert to open space once mining ended . That's why the Specific Plans were enacted . Those plans need to be honored . 3 . There's no agency to manage the open space in this proposal. The last proposal , Rio Santiago failed for the same reason . And we won't support a CFD Mello � Roos to pay for it. 4. The site is not safe. It's next to methane vents. There have been multiple violations {hold up violation} — this one as recently •e as last fall from the Water Board . It's a public nuisance and should be shut down -- not built on . 5. It's unsafe for Mabury Ranch because of the additional traffic this development will generate at �antiago Canyon and Cannon . In the recent Santiago Canyon 2 Fire, Mabury Ranch homeowners � were delayed evacuating for more than an hour because traffic from Santiago Canyon backed on to Cannon - our only west escape route from Serrano. This is exactly how the residents of Paradise burned up in their cars. Adding a single car trip to the 11 , 000 new car trips generated from the already entitled I rvine Company development is too much . Don't put our lives at risk. Please deny the Santiago Creek deveiopment. The RD E I R d id not adequately address the concerns and errors that me and my neighbors submitted during the comment period . Mabury Ranch homeowners submitted more than 2 dozen responses and only 2 were in favor of this project. P lease reject th is flawed RD E I R. Thank you . •� �, °�'� Storm Water Multiple A►pplication � Report Tracking System SMARTS Inspection Details inspection 10/22/2018 InspectBon 2040022 Date: ID: Inspection Complaint Type: WDID: 8 301027730 Owner/ Rio Santiago LLC Facility/Site: Rio Santiago LLC Operator: PO Box 15450 6145 Santiago Canyon Road Irvine, CA 92623 Orange, CA 92623 Inspector: Kaitlin Diaz- Regional Board Agency: Regional Board Met With: Mr. Trevor Wood Violations: Yes Follow Up Additional Info Required Action: Notes: Regional Board Staff conducted an inspection for the above facility on October 22, 2018. Staff received a citizen complaint alleging potential violations of the Industrial General Permit. Staff inet with Mr. Trevor Wood, Vice President. The SWPPP was reviewed and was up to date. A site walk was conducted and Danny, heavy equipment operator, escorted Staff around the site. The facility was a former sand and gravel mining operation and is currently importing inert material for reclamation of the mining operations. The site is only operating in Backfill Area A, at present, and stockPiles of inert materials were observed in this area. A water tanker is used for dust control and waters down the site daity. Tracking plates were observed at the exit of the facility. The facifity operates with trucks entering at one entrance and exiting at another to keep materiaf tracking at a minimum. A street sweeper is contracted and cleans Santiago Canyon Road twice a day. Mr. Wood explaine.d a contracted crusher is brought onsite every 6 months for 2 weeks to crush imported material. He explained the site is low volume with approximately twenty truckloads of material brought onsite a day. Santiago Creek runs along the northem portion of the facility. Straw waddles, silt fence, and degraded sand bags were observed along the northern portion of the facility befinreen Backfill Area A and Santiago Creek. A portion of the silt fence was damaged along this area. The site has finro sampling locations. Overgrown vegetation was observed in the sampling area along with degraded sand bags and degraded straw waddles. Backfill Area B is west of the sampling locations and degraded sand bags were observed lining this section. Mr. Wood noted that new BMPs have been ordered and he will be replacing the degraded BMPs around the facility in the next week. There was no evidence at the time of inspection that onsite materials were migrating into Santiago Creek. Violation ID Violation T e Occurrence Date Violation Source Status 868095 Deficient BMP 10/22/2018 Inspection Violation Im lementation , i- r , ' Attachment File Type File Title File Description Part No. ID 2278293 Photograph Inspection Photos 1/1 10.22.18 �-; �� f2f2o� — l-}-c��rd,t�, �'� �'hr l��s�(w •h tiss�el tiy C`�u►,�,Y i� lq93 '_ i UtyofOronge—TroflsatSaatlagoGeekSpe cPlan On� ��G c�cv�; y�uv�j� �F f'H,C ('vlt lC /S 2c•nv( Ytsii�.h�H� � , Recirculoted Droft E!R AIMmaNves to the Propased ProJect �� Residential uses would be developed o 15.4 acres north of Santiago Creetc ith resource land use � activities(sand,gravel,and materiais recycling)occurring on 77.3 acres on both sides of the waterway.l I=� � Consistent with the City of Orange General Plan's density range of 2.1 to 6.0 units per acre,there is an �_� allowable range of 32 to 92 residential homes,and a target of 77 residential homes on this 15.4-acre residential land use parcel. The existing R-1-8 Zoning forthe residential area woufd provide a �j maximum of 77 single-family dwelling units based on acre density and would yield approximately 40 to , 50 single-family dwelling units(although a range of 32 to 92 dwelling units could be developed under �� the existing land use designations). Vehicular access would be taken from two points on Mabury Drive. , i, �� The intersection of East Santiago Canyon Road/Nicky Way would be improved to provide turn lanes and improved access to the materials recycling and backfilling operation. I'-� The totel number of dweliing units that would be developed under this altemative would be 90. ' � Resource land use activities would be located on 77.3 acres on both sides of the waterway. These -_- activities would consist of the continuation of the existing materials recycling and backfilling operation. �k The Santiago Creek corridor would be designated for open space(16.5 acres). However,no communi or recreational uses would b tY e developed. This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment to remove the project site from the East Orange General Plan and Orange Park Acres Plan. ' � Table 5-1 summarizes the Development within the Existing�and Use Designations Alternative. The ��i Devefopment within the Existing Land Use Qesignations Alternative is depicted in Exhibit 5-1. _ Table 5-1:Development within the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative Summary ,__._.__._.�____-------------._...... --_� � ---------.--- —.__....,..--- - 1 � ._��_—_�-�---------�---...---�------ -.,—. � . , . .� ._. :.. Scenario � I.and Use + Aaes �: DwellingUnits '-----_--------__._____._--__.___._. --- ----__.._ - --_—:__- -------_ _-__._._.L__-- , . Development within the Existing Land �Residential(North Bank) 15.4 ': 77 : Use Desi�nations Altemative 'Materials Recycling and � 'Backfillin g/Sand and Grave l k 77.3 i — � �---------.__---------�---- -----;-----.. ..- ----=------ ---..._: `Santiago Geek Greenway Open ?6.5 � ('� � �Space � � — , i , , ,__..._._.._.__----___.--............._.._�_.__:.. � ; ._.._..__._.._.._.�__..._.;......__.....___.,_.._.._. ��-:� j Subtotaf : 109.2 ; 77 s _..__------------ - - - ------,- -�--__._V ._ _ _—._ ... _._, _ ..._— ---------'---� ---� --- i �-� �Proposed Project ;Residentiai 40�7 � 128 . i , -__-----__----------_.___ -- =---- --- __._- ---- ----------___; _,, ,SantiagoCreekGreenwayOpen � 68.5 � — �Space/PaSsive Green Area . --_�_..._---------_.._._____._.__._.._^___..;.._..�....---_...----.__._.__.._,._. ----_._ ...._.... �� :Subtotal ` 109.2 128 ��»� ' _.__.. ._.__----_._..---------_._.__.__._.—_..�._ . .�_.. ----- � - -�:. .-- - ---- ---- -_.... ._- ;Source:FCS,2016. � t - ' The No Projed Ahernadve/Existing Land Use Oesignations NternaCrve;corresponds to Altemative F in the Pre-Development � �� I j Agreement(PDA). Refer to Secdon 2,Projecf Description for further discussion of the PDA. F1rstC'arbon Solutlons g.12 ' -� Y:�WDHatlmisl�ent�PIL1Nju7iS�Z7650GD1�EU�12'Rediefll�iYB000iSec�00Mematlwsdoa I L '� _ . R880Lt1TI0� �t0. 8182 ll REBDLDTIO�i Op TEE CITY COO�tCIL OF TS$ CITY. OF OR�GE DPSOLDI�Id 1'8$ BSt.'O��iD11- " TIO� OF � PLA�'tIHG C01�ISBIODi OB TSE • CITY OF OR1�NQ$ AHD AppROpIITd TH8 OE�tE$AL PI+71aT CI.ABBIFIC�ITIO�T GB P�tOPERTY BITIIATBD DIRECTLY AD�TbC$HT TO 7l�1D �iCRTB OF SA�I'1'I�QO CRESI� 71�iD SOOTH OF !dl18URY AVE�IIIS B$TW88b� L8B8� A�1D 0�105 P� 80DL89ARD8. t3EN�R.n� 1�L•a.� At�END�BIT 2�93 ��QRJ �ROP�R�88 i�8'�'. IATC.. RBCITllLB: After due public hearings as required by law, the City Council of the City of Orange considered a recommendation of the P].anning Com�uission of the. City of Orarage recommending, by Resolution No. PC �-93 that certain property situated directly . adjacent to and north of Santiago Creek and south of Mabury Avenue between Lassen and Orange Park Boulevards be redesignated . from the resource area designation to the low density residentiai designation and approved said r.ecommendation after finding and deterxaining the here3nafter described facts, The real p�ope�~ty . which is the subject cf the redesignation is more psrticularly described as follows: See Txhibit "A�� attached. The City Council finds in favor of the proposed residential � use of the site althouqh it precludes mineral development, as intended by the designation as a regionally significant aggregate � resource sector by the State Mining and Geology Board, based upon the following consideratiens: e entire 0 acre aggregate mining property, of which 12.6 acre forms the project site, has been utilized ' `�ral extraction for more than �0 years and the extract3on life is mostly depleted. On a regional scale, there are greater extracting opportunities � el�ewhere in e County. Th �12.6 acre roject site is physically isolated from the � ttie mining property by Santiago Creek, thus deferr�ng any possible mineral extraction opportunities. ----.� Furthermore, e 12.6 acre s' e has not been utilized for mineral e o its proximity �to neighborinq sinqle faniily residences which, if such extraction activities whereto occur, would be impacted . by noise and dust associated with mineral extraction. .; Mabury Ranch HOA Survev Trails at Santia_qo Creek • Survey was conducted between March 15t" & April 6th 2018 • It is the onlv sunrey where results were voted on & accepted by MRHOA Board of Directors � 63 Valid Surveys Received Question #1 : How many homes would you support? • Largest Number Responded: "I am Only OK with up to 35 homes south of the creek:" � Second Largest Response: "I �nr�nt to see the gravel pit and concrete crushing operation continued with no new homes." • Option with the Le� st re_sponses: "I arn OK with �29 horne� if they are south of#he creek." Question #2: What concerns you the most about the proposed development? • Largest Number Responded: "25 Homes built north of the creek, next to Mabury Ranch." � Second Largest Response: "Hotov 129 homes will affect traffic on Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Street." The MRHOA Board never voted to accept the results from a second survey that was conducted between May-July 201 S. These results cannot be officially aftributed fo MRHOA. P ,, Mabtny Rar�rh Homeoannnea A�[a�Eon ' � Boand of Dl�ors lYteelMg Minut�s . MaY 8�Z018 Upon due rto�fc�.�iver�and received,the 8oa�of DU±�ectors of The N1a6u�Y�ahch Homeovrrt'ter's Assodp�on hMd i t�el�Boand of D�fors Getter+�l Se�slon M�ttr'�on Tu�dal►. C��ta�ihe meetfing w�o�c�led•�o atder by Pr+�tdent.�dc i�Id�er.R�Road.� quorurfl of d�neciors pr�esertl. . Dlr+aabrs Praent ' - Dtcic Hofgnget,P�esld�t - . Sf�ephanie Le�t�d.Yice PlrasidetM ' - . Tom Broz-Tr�asurer ' D�n Lyc�ing,Sxretary-Via Telephone L CaH ts�vorit�ected ok 8:30 p.m.,ticdc a�ca9 at 8�42 p.m..di�otirteCted af 9:08 p.nt. Pat VYheebdc-Dhectot at l�e Nk:k Lali.DfiacEor at l:arge . Gynfhla Methef�D�+ecfor ai t,arge �a�.1lriiz Proie�onai MaRagernent Servtces,inc.(TPMS.Inc.) �� In acoo�danr.'$with Colf�ania C�Code.Sectior�4935(e),fhe Boa�d of DUactors noted that the io�awlr�topics wer�s d&cu�ed during fhe 6oecutive Ses�lcn MeStMg held or�Aprg i l. 2Qi8: 1. Appro�ed 6cecx�tive Session�e�idr�Mtni�fl�m�11.�18. 2. Approved EXecuifve Sess�on Mee�ng MlnutAs from Ap�118.201$wHh ootre�tions. 3. Het�U'tg. - . 4. Updateon:Judge.Law:F�nncases. -- _ 2h� fDla�C, (sc�t,�a�, r�t�w.�lr`n9 �h e �ur�rty : - . . � _ ----- --. _- - . .. _ . - -- - - -- ota�ust�ea� - . _. , - . �st Skrva�{ �— ��1'�a� a b�t�°�''�t A rnoi�on was made by Dtck Hollingec-and seconded'by.Stepficcile Lesinski to teceive ihe survey resu[ts,requ�e 5fephanie lesinski to pr.ovicle Nlorgan Bomboy tFie survey monkey re�vits and survey,Morgan Bomt�oywili fhen ensuie the resuits.are.from Mabvry Ranch homeowners and�there are no dup8cdte submtzslons,and ihe`hmr�eownets wid:be abie to �request a copy af ti�e survey.resuits.Mottoh:paued.unanlcsnoiufy. motion was made by Dick Hol�nger end seconded by StephaNe`lssinski to reverse tha' decision made at the April 11,2018 Meefing to send individuat sunreys to�fhe entire�aard, aU surveys wili only Be seen by Morgan Bomboy.Morgan.Bomboy w1t ddd.the slreat the homeowner�s[ocafied on to ihe comments,and a new tabutation wil!be prov�ded to the � Board.Motion passed unanunously Mahury Ranch Ftortseowners AssodaUon May 8,2018 Bcdrd ot Otrectars Meettng NQnutes e 4 Trails at San��go Creek Consensus Deqelopane�t Survey �a�rvey Re��al� 1) 12.6 acres of the 109-acre site that backs to Mabury Ranch is currently zoned to accommodate 25 homes. Our neighboring cammunities of Orange Pa�k Acres (OPA) and The Resenre support the Board's request to move that zoned section to another part of the property closer to Santiago Canyon Road. ln the event the property owner requires more buildable acres in exchange for moving the currently zoned property, how many homes would you support? In other words, fiow important is it that no homes are built north of the Santiago Greek? a- I am only OK with 25 homes even if that means building north of the creek(next to Mabury Ranch) b- I am OK with up to 35 new homes if they are sauth of the creek c- I am OK with up to 50 new homes if they are south of the creek d- I am OK with 129 homes if they are south of the creek e- 1 want to 5ee the gravel pit and concrete-crushing operation continued with no new homes. Res�onses a-9 b-21 c-12 d-7 e- 14 Question 1 35`Y 30% 25'Yo 2d% 25°!0 f0% �0% A B C D E Question 1 Mabury Ave 40�� 30% 20°la 10% 04', , � A B C D 1 . 2) What concerns you the most about developing the former Sully-Miller site? a. 25 Homes built north of fhe creek, next to Mabury Ranch b. How 129 homes wiil aifect traffic on Santiago Canyon Road. and Cannon Street c. More parked cars on Mabury Avenue if the new trails attract more hikers d. Impeded views once the pad is raised to the same level as Mabury Ranch e. Disruption of natural habitats f. Flood mitigation and issues regarding San#iago Creek g. IVoise, dust and the danger of large machinery near Mabury Ranch during construct9on h. That the development will not happen for several years and the gravel pit will remain Resaonses a-29 b-22 c-1 d-1 e-2. f-4 g-2 h-2 Question 2 sos�o 45% 40°!0 35g'o 30% z�� zo� is� 10% �� pa� e� . �1 � � � � A 8 C D E F 6 FI Question 2 Mabury A�e 10096 90% 80% 70gS 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% ,05'a A 8 C D E F G H •` 3) What is your second biggest concern about developing the former Sully-Miller site? a. 25 Homes built north of the creek, next to Mabury Ranch b. How 129 homes will affect traffic on Santiago Canyon Road. and Cannon Street c. More parked cars on Mabury Ave. if the new trails attract more hikers d. Impeded views once the pad is raised to the same fevel as Mabury Ranch e. Disruption of natural habitats f. �lood mitigation and issues regarding Santiago Creek g. Noise, dust and the danger of large machinery near Mabury Ranch ducing construction h. That the development will not happen for severaf years and the gravel pit will remain Responses a- 19 b-18 c-3 d-9 e-6 f-5 g-2 h-1 C�u�sticsr� 3 � 359'0 3095 25% 20% 15% 1040 5% 0% , . � �I A B C q E F G H Question 3 Nlaf�ury Ave Qo% 35% 30% 25% zo% 15% 3095 5� 0% A 6 C ❑ E F G H ' 'i. , � 4) Most of the remaining usable acres on this site are allocated as"open space" in the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan ancl City's General Plan. How.would you like to see this area utilized? a. Natural habitat with walking trails like Santiago Oaks Regional Park b. Organic gardens, farmer's market and 4H facilities c. Horse stabtes d. Paved bike paths e. Gravel pit Resaonses a-56 b=1 c-1 d-1 e-4 Question 4 ioo� 9oia ao�i �a% 60% 5U% 4040 30% �O�Y 10% D9'a p � •�•• � A 6 C D E C�,u�stion 4 Mabury Ave iao� 90% 80% 70% . 60% 50°� 40°l0 30% 209'a 20% �0% . A S C D E a ^• f . 5) �Currently a chain link fence separates Mabury Ranch from the Sully-Miller property. The proposed plan ` calis for a hiking trail that will run afong Santiago Creek. If no homes are built north of the creek (next to Mabury Ranch), which would you prefer? � , a. Keeping the chain link fence b. Constn.icting a more secure barrier such as a block wall c. Removing the fence and continuing the rai!fence that will allow open access into Mabury Ranch Responses a-21, b-18, c-24 Question 5 ' 40% 35% 30% • . 25% z�r i5% . 10°'0 540 d% . A B C Qu,estion 5 Mab:ury A�e so�o . .. �o� 60% 50% 409c 30% 20�Y 10% - . 0% A B C , �� . . 6) As part of this proposed 129-home development, the property owner is proposing: ' -Funding $5.1 million of landscaping and trail improvements -Donating the Ridgeline property in Orange Park Acres to the City with$2 million for relocating the Mara Brandman (horse)Arena to the Ridgeline site. This is in response to a lawsuit OPA filed against the property owner. The arena cuRently sits on property south of Santiago Canyon Road that is owned by the same property owrier and zoned for homes. If you agree to a concession of 929 homes south of the creek, how much do you feel the property owner should contribute toward a walUlandscaping buffer between Mabury Ranch and the new development? a. Zero b. $250,000 c. $500,000 d. I only approve of building 25 homes and wiif not agres to any concessions e. No Concessions are necessary; i am OK with tHe existing gravel pit Resaonses a-3, b-9, c- 16, d-19, e-16 35°/a Question 6 30go 25`Yo zaio f 53'0 1090 D°/u � . : A B C D E Question 6 IU�abury Ave 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% , , Oo� A B C D E .'. , � . 7) If the property owner decides to move forward with a large-scale development which action are you willing to take? a. Assist with addressing and mailing flyers b. Heip circulate a petition door-to-cJoor c. Speak at City of Orange Planning Commission and City Council meetings d. All of the above e. None of the above f. I am in favor of any devefopment on the site and will take no action to oppose it. Resbonses a- 16, b-6, c-6, d-13, e-20, f-1 35%, sas� Question 7 zsi zoss zs�io io� - 5% 03'0 � A B C D E F Questio� 7 Mabury Ave 409� 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 09'0 , A B C D E Nov. 2018 Response to recirculated DEIR Trails at Santia_ao Creek Citywide: Of the more than 3�0 responses to the City, only 7 were in favor Mabury Ranch: Of the more than 2 dozen responses to the City, only 2 were in favor STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gav(n Newsom.Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRIC7 12 , A 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 100 COMMt1NRY DEVELOPMEN3' SANTA ANA,CA 92705 RECEIVED PHONE (657)328-6310 ' Mdkfng Conservafion FAX (657)328-6510 �� 19 2019 a Califomia Way of_Life. m �" CITY OF ORANGE vwvw.dot.ca.gov July 15, 2019 Mr. Robert Garcia File: IGR/.CEQA City of Orange SCH#: N/A 300 E. Chapman Avenue IGR LOG # 201 7-01 1 68 Orange, CA 92666 SR 55, PM 15.222 SR 91, PM R11.353 SR 261, PM 5.494 Dear Mr. Garcia, Thank you for including the Galifornia Departmenf of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the City of Orange Trails ot Santiago Creek Specific Plan FinaI.EIR. This study evaluates the development of 128 dwellings on approximately 40.7 acres.of fhe approximately 109.2=acre site,.with varying lots sizes including lots larger,than 8,000 square feet. The majority of fhe project site (62.7 percent) is intended for the enhancement and presenration of the natural greenway/open space and Santiago Creek environs, as well as re-establishing open g�asslands in areas.that:have been denuded by the project site's history of commercial operations, totaling approximately 68:5 acres. Recreationdl t�ails will proyicle public access to the enhanced revegetated interior of the site. The mission of Caltrans is:to provide a sdfe, susfiainable, integrated ancl efficient transporfation system to enhdnce Ccilifornia's economy and livability. Caltrans is a responsible agency on this project. The responses to our previous comments support our concerns aboufi traffic operations and active transportafiion infrast'ructure improvements. Caltrans has the following additional comments: Active.Trcnsbortation ' 1. The City of Orange's.General Plan Circulation & IVlobility Element (2015) supports the.development and improvement of multimodal faeilities, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This..is supported.by Goqls and Policies: Goal 1.0, Pol'icies 1.1, 1.3, 1.6; Goal 2.0, Policy 2.6; Goal 4.0, Policies 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7. Please consider incorporating potential "Provlde a safe,sustainable,)ntegrated and efficient lransportaflon system to enHance Califomia's economy and fivabJliiy" Mr. Roberf Garcia 7/15/2019 Page 2 . . multimodal improvements and to help ensure that these General Plan Goals and Policies are met. 2. Linda Vista Elementary School, Oakridge Privcite School, and Salem Lutheran School are in the project vicinity. Please consider the safety of the students at these schools when implementing roadway improvements. 3. The existing Class I Santiago Creek Trail is located directly adjacent to and north of the project site. Please consider the safety of trail users when implementing roadway improvements. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate.to contact Matthew Fluhmann, at (657) 328- 6310 or Matfihew.Fluhmann@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Sco Shelley. Branch Ghief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 "Provtrle a safe,susfalnable infegrated and efficienf fransportation sysfem to enhance Califomta's economy and livabilify" Kim Kinsler From: Debbie Gabler Sent: Tuesday,July 16,2019 9:19 AM To: Kim Kinsler Cc: Robert Garcia;Jennifer Scudellari Subject: FW:Trails at Santiago Creek Hi Kim— Will you please be sure Planning Commissioners receive this. Thank you. De66ie C�a6Cer City Mana�er's Office City Council Office (71�)744-2203 From: Melanie Weir<melanie.weirll@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,July 15,2019 7:48 PM To:mayor@markamurphy.com;Kim Kinsler<kkinsler@cityoforange.org>;Jennifer Scudellari <jscudellari@cityoforange.org>;councilinfo<councilinfo@cityoforange.org>;Robert Garcia<rga�cia@cityoforange.org> Subject:Trails at Santiago Creek I wanted to attend the Planning Commission tlus evening and share my statement in person. I actually went down there and filled out a cazd,but had to leave. My statement is below. In yesterday's Washington Post was an article entitled "Even as floods worsen, Midwest towns plan new riverfront development." St. Charles, Missouri grapples with flooding from the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and right now the area is under water. And yet they are planning a $1.5 billion riverFront development along the Missouri's banks. Just down the road in St. Louis there is a development being planned in an area that once was a golf course...it has flooded in three of the past five years and is also currently underwater. They can't pump the water out because the Missouri river is too high. The mayor said, "If you have water in a bowl, it can't get out." This same mayor went on to say, "We're working on a plan to develop it in a safe and proper manner." l think, "How stupid can these people be and why should we have to keep bailing them out?" And still they approve these ridiculous projects. And we are doing the same thing right here. 1 Kim Kinsler From: Pamela Coleman Sent: Tuesday,July 16,2019 9:35 AM To: Anna Pehoushek;Jennifer Scudellari; Kim Kinsler Subject: FW:Reject Santiago Creek development From:Swanek Nathan<nswanek@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 16,2019 9:31 AM To:Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@cityoforange.org> Subject:Reject Santiago Creek development Planning Commission, Please reject the proposal for the Santiago Creek development. As a Marbury Ranch homeowner I have zero interest in swapping the current 40 home agreement for a larger development south of the creek. Traffic in the area is a nightmare as it is nothing proposed by yhe developer will relieve this nightmare. Finally the trails going into San#iago park are already over us�d, with people parking on • Maybury ave to access free park entry. There is no benefit to the community to justify such a million follar give away to the developer. Keep the land as is! Nathan Swanek Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android i Robert Garcia From: Avriel Webb <avrieiw@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday,July 20,201910:19 AM To: Robert Garcia Subjed: The Trails at Santiago NO! I live in The Reserve overlooking the gravel pit and my husband and I are AGAINST the proposed development. Mark Moore does NOT speak for us! I am for development but against this plan.Too much density!You can't turn back the clock once it happens. It is not in keeping with the charecter or the wishes of the community. Please help us preserve this semi rural way of life that we all moved here for.One of the last in Orange Countyl Thank youl Avriel Webb The Reserve Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad 1 . Robert Garcia From: Tim 7ers <terstim7@gmail.com> Sen� Saturday,July 20,201910:32 AM To: Robert Garcia Subjec�t: NO development at Santiago Creek I am a 23 year resident of The Reserve in Orange Park acres adjacent to the Santiago Creek project.As I write this I am Iooki.ng out my kitchen window over the Milan operafiions.While the rock cruslung and gravel operation is not ideal it is much more in keeping with Orange Park acres then a lugh density housing development that is currently proposed. For the past several years Milan has continuously pressured the residents of Orange Park Acres into a project that is not in anyway in keeping with the community.The Ridgeline area as well as the Santiago Creek azea should probably never be developed or if at a11 just as open park space or perhaps 1/2 to 1 acre homesites. I vigorously oppose the proposed plan and would much prefer it stay a gravel operation forever if those are the two choices. Thank you for reading this. . Sincerely,Tim Ters Cell 714-227-2186 Address 1620 River Birch Circle Orange Park Acres.California 92869 Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhonew 1 Robert Garcia From: Kim Kinsler Sent: Monday,July 22,2019 7:37 AM To: Robert Garcia Cc: Anna Pehoushek;Jennifer Scudellari Subject: FW: Development on Katella/Cannon From: Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@cityoforange.org> Sent:Monday,July 22,2019 7:32 AM To:Anna Pehoushek<apehoushek@cityoforange.org>;Jennifer Scudellari<jscudellari@cityoforange.org>;Kim Kinsler <kkinsler@cityoforange.org> Subject:FW:Development on Katella/Cannon From:MICHELE BROWN<mb-dewan@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday,luly 22,2019 6:32 AM To: Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@ci#voforan�e.or�> Subject:Development on Katelfa/Cannon To Whom it May Concern, We live in the area of the proposed development Sully/Mully. We have enough traffic at this point with cars coming through here from Weir Canyon, Imperial Hwy, Katella,Jamboree, 24�. etc. it's gridlock and there is no escape route in case of fi�es (which we regularly have)that can hold this amount of traffic. We also are not wil,ling to pay more taxes CFD for something we have no asked for, nor want. This has been a dumping ground and we do not want any thing that can be toxic to be distu�bed. Thank you Brown Family on Hidden Oaks Lane i Robert Garcia . From: lennifer Scudellari Sen� Tuesday,July 23,2019 9:36 AM To: Robert Garcia Cc: Kim Kinsler Subjec� FW:EIR for proposed development off Santiago Canyon Road From:Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@cityoforange.org> Sent:7uesday,July 23,2019 7:37 AM To:Debbie Gabler<dgabler@cityoforange.org> Cc:Anna Pehoushek<apehoushek@cityoforange.org>;Jennifer Scudellari<jscudellari@cityoforange.org> Subject:FW: EIR for proposed developrnent off Santiago Canyon Road Debbie, Please forward to City Council. Pam From:j williams<uscpibov@vahoo.com> Sent:Monday,July 22,2019 9:11 PM To:Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@citvoforanse.or�> Subject:EIR for proposed development off Santiago Canyon Road Pamela Coleman, Please forward this email to my new city council members. My name is Jeff Williams, and my family recently moved to Marbury Ranch in Orange from Irvine. We absolutely love our new home, and are loving getting to know the local community much better. However, we have great concerns about the proposed new development will have a negative impact on our new home. We are very concerned about the potential airborne materials released into the air of any new development. From the limited information we've been reading, from both pro and anti-development sources, it appears that there is too much misinformation being thrown out to the public. Clearly stated information regarding potential toxic debris from the site, and mitigation process/results is vital to be clearly articulated prior to any change in zoning for the property. Traffic concerns. I've read that there may be money available ta improve streets in and around the proposed development, but I question if that will enough to mitigate new traffic, and what is the timeline for improvements that would need to be made to surrounding roads in relation to new homes/residents? My biggest fear is that the new homes will be built, sold and occupied before the improvements to the surrounding roads can be completed, making the current traffic problems worse, not better. What, if any, assurances wil! current residents be given to ensure that our fears of greater traffic congestion will be dealt with prior to approval of the proposed new development? Taxes. When my famify purchased our new home, we knew our costs on home price, and our tax liability based on our homes purchase price. We knew what our budget could support, and bought 1 accordingly. Any increase in our taxes, i.e. a new Mello Roos tax, should require a vote of the public with 2/3 majority support. A Mello Roos tax for a new development would make sense, but I've read that there is legal loophole that could alfow those in surrounding communities, like those of us in Marbury Ranch, to be included in a new Mello Roos tax zone. That is wrong, and as a new voter, I'd be sure to vote against any council member that didn't get voter approval for a tax increase on Orange residents, even if legal via a Mello Roos loophole. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the next Council meeting to voice my concerns in person, as my family wi11 be traveling in support of our son. My son Jack Witliams,will be representing Team USA at the Pan Am Games, then off to the USA Archery National Championships, and the World Archery Youth Championships; and we'd hate to get home only to hear to bad news from neighbors about decisions that could greatly affect our new home/investment in Orange. Please do not allow for any new development without guarantees that our concerns, and those of our new neighbors are completely addressed. Thank you, Jeff Williams 6709 E Joshua Tree Ave Orange, CA 92867 949-351-6144 2 Robert Garcia From: Tim Ters <terstim7@gmail.corn> 5ent: Monday,July 29,2019 11:04 AM To: Robert Garcia Subject: NO Santiago Creek development I wrote you on July 20 concerning the Santiago Creek project and I just had one little addendum. The Orange Park Acres general plan from the 70s was not just an afterthought or a whim. It was a vision for a community that would feel safe for its residents with open space for all to enjoy.In spite of the phenomenal growth of Orange County OPA has remained a welcome respite. The Santiago Creek proposal is absolutely adverse to this community. Please help to keep OPA the wonderful place it still is. T'hank you for your time,Tim Ters Resident of The Reserve 1620 River Birch Circle Oran�e California (Adjacent to the Milan property) Sent from my iPhone Sentfrom my iPhonew _.__.__.__...__._.___.._._.._.__.___.___.________�.._____._.__�_.�_---...__ _ . __. ___. 1 Planning Commission Public Comments July 29th, 2019 Good Evening. The East Orange General Pian was developed as a result of concern held by residents, property owners, Iand developers and government jurisdictions as to the most appropriate future development patterns for the East Orange Area. It was determined that a General Plan of devefopment should be prepared which would identify goals, objectives and recommended land uses. ln 1974, the East Orange Study Planning Committee, composed of representatives of the City of Orange, the County of Orange, residents, major property owners/developers, representatives of homeowners associations and a consultant se�-vice retained for the purpose, was created to oversee the preparation of the Plan. fn 1975, after much research into topography, air quality, hydrology, appropriate land use, goals of the city, and other issues, input from all of the parties and surveys of the communities of the area of approximately 1900 acres, the plan was published. It was subsequently adopted by the city and is consistent with the Orange General Plan. The East Orange General Plan is comprehensive and specific as to zoning and designated land use. It takes into consideration natural and manmade hazards, health and safety of current and future residents and the need to retain a rural character in portions of East Orange for the �,�a� ��s �3oh n�� Ro��,��„` -- �l� � �� health of the entire City of Orange. It is a guide as to what should be developed and what shouldn't be and should not be disregarded. Without respect for our city's plans, it would be difficult to retain the unique character of each part of our city, as well as to ensure proper circulation, safety, apply for grants, invite new residenfis, and maintain a balance in Orange for a healthy community. The East Orange General Plan needs to be followed in all planning decisions for the area; nofi the general theme, but the details. It is critical that our Planning Commission Staff works as an independent agency and not at the will of developers and investors for proper planning decisions by our City Council. It is imperative that it provides accurate information as to appropriate (and use, health, safety and financial risks to City Council. Anything in a Planning Commission Staff Report that is not accurate, should be corrected before any decisions are made for possible future developments. The Easfi Orange General Plan, as well as the other city plans, is a contract with current residents. We expect the city to abide by our plans in respect for the rights and safety of fihe residents who already live here and for the health of our city's future. Thank you. Bonnie Robinson 5907 E.Valley Forge Drive � � V` � �. - � �' � ~ �, � s � .� -� �, c�° �. � �l � �k -� � � — � �' � `� � c � � � � � � � � � � � o � � � . � � 3 � o � � ,, � �- � � � � � � s � � � � � � �. � � . � � � � � { � � � � � r _ � � � m � � � � � � � � � T� � �- S � ' � � � � � � � o � � . � � � � � � � �, � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� - o � � � � � � � -� � � � � � � � � Robert Garcia From: Mark Moore Fine Art<mark@markmooregallery.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 30,2019 6:09 PM To: Robert Garcia Subject: The Trails at Santiago Creek Poject is Supported by the Vast MajoriTy of Residents lmportance: High Deaz Robert, It is very important to note that the vast majority of residents actuaily surrounding the old Sully Miller property proposed for The Trails at Santiago Creek support the current Trails at Santiago Creek plan now under consideration by the City of Orange as it would permanently remove tlie gravel pit from our community that has negatively impacted our health and well-being for the last 21 years and does not include homes north of Santiago Creek wluch would actually only add to the area traffic issues—which are critical issues to us all. We want to see the community gain over 120 acres in new parlcs and open space and#he$8 million being offered to reclaim and develop that Iand. In a nutshell,we urge you to support the THE TRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK PROPOSAL based on these key points: 1)Dedication of over 120 acres of desperately needed publiciy accessible parks and open space. 2)Addition of$1 million in new trails and walkways. 3)Addition of$4.1 million for parks,open space,and landscaping unprovements. 4)Addition of new$2 million state-of-the-art riding arena complex within OPA. 5)Addition of$1 million in traffic improvements to the azea. 6)Removal of a serious health threat to Orange Park Acres. '�Removal of a significant safety hazard from the streets given the high volume of dump trucks on site coming and going. 8)Removal of a major Noise Nuisance from the surrounding community. 9)Removal of a substantial Envirottmental threat from the azea. 10)Increase in the properry values of homes in the vicinity of the gravel pit site. 11)Provides a critical link to the citywide network of trails endorsed the Santiago Greenway and Open Space Alliance. 12)Minimum number of homes to be built to achieve these benefits-3 acres of open space for every 1 acre of homes! 1 On the other hand,those that oppose this project and live miles from this eyesore aze actually supporting the landowners right to develop the azea north of the creek with residential housing and the continued use of the sand and gravel operation as pernutted by ths S&G zoning code.Conversely,they aze supporting development but without the preservation of Santiago Creek Crreenway, open space,funding for trails,funding for traffic improvements or the dedication of Ridgeline.The opponents of this plan seemingiy want all of the negatives of this proposal without any of the benefits. It just doesn't make sense�s�,�;.s�; It is very interesting to note that OPA was a previously major advocate of development of this same site 15 years ago.An agreement with another devetoper in 2003 the city has on file will show that the Orange Park Acres Association.was in total support of nearly the same proposal with MORE houses than is proposed now. The Opponents of Rezoning have no real commitlment to ANYTHING other than what they can get out of any project.They are hypocites and they aze corrupt.They only have their own interests at heart and care nothing for the residents around them or what is best for the City and their community. From the OC Weekly May 15,2003: Newport Beach-based project developer Fieldstone Homes has signed a contract with the nearby Orange Park Acres(OPA) equestrian community to boost the project.According to the remarkable document, OPA,will get an equestrian arena and$SDO,000 for promoting Fieldstone's plan at every opportunity. At a packed May S, 2003 Opange Planning Commission hearing; 17 OPA members happily fulfrlled their contractual obligations. "Every environmental and aesthetic concern has been addressed,"said one OPA resident. `7t meets all reasonable expectations." Other OPA folks=mostly wearing jeans,flannel and cowboy hats—described the development as "an opportunity for the city of Orange to turn an eyesore into a jewel"and cheered Fieldstone for doing "a great job in providing for the ciry." One speaker. could barely conceal her glee at the prospect of a new horse arena. "We don't have a place to throw a decent party,"she said. "We like to play.'' Please listen to the voices of all those who have chosen to sign petitions or sponsor endorsements for this Proposal.This represents 7'HOUSANDS of reasonable and open-minded residents-not a hundred more vocal opponents-that support and endorse this plan. The Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance-which includes long-time community activist and conservationist Shirley Grindle on their Advisory Boazd-SUPPORTS THE PROPO5AL for The Trails at Santiago Creek. The homeowners association board of Mayberry Ranch supports this plan.The homeowners association board of The Reserve unanimously supports this plan.The City of Villa Park supports tlus plan.The Santiago Greenways and Open Space Alliance composed of inembers of the community surrounding the gravel pit site support this plan. The former president of the Orange Park Acres Association itself,Tam Davidson,supports this plan.Most of all,THOSE NEAREST THIS SITE AND MOST IMPACTED SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. Opportunities like this do not come along every day.This proposal has substantial benefits to everyone in the City of Orange and the vast majority of us who are sensible do not want to see it squandered. z Please support this rezoning and The Trails at Santiago Creek Project on Monday,August 5th and let's . make Orange a better place to live for everyone. iLi �SE_W, 3incerely, Mark Moore 6507 Sycamore Glen Drive Orange Park Acres, CA 92869 Phone: +1.31 Q.266.2283 . � � ,�, . �SEP; 3 Robert Garcia From: Mark Moore Fine Art <mark@markmooregallery.com> Sent: Wednesday,luly 31,2019 4:28 PM To• Robert Garcia Subject: The Truth About KeepOrangeSafe Importance: High Dear Robert, It is very interesting to note that OPA was a previously major advocate of development of this same gravel pit site 15 years ago that thyey now so staunchly oppose. In an agreement with another developer in 2003 the City of Orange has on file will show that the Orange Park Acres Association was in total support of nearly the sarne proposal with fifty more houses than is proposed now at that time. From the OC Weekly May 15,2003: Netivport Beach-based project developer Fieldstone Homes has signed a contract with the nearby Orange Park Acres(OPA) equestrian community to boost the project. According to the remarkable document, OPA will get an equestrian arena and$500,000 for promoting Fieldstone's plan at every opportuniry. At a packed May S, 2003 Orange Planning Commission hearing, 17 OPA members happily fu�lled their contractual obligations. "Every environmental and aesthetic concern has been addressed,"said one OPA resident. `7t meets all , reasonable expectations." Other OPA folks—mostly wearing jeans,flannel and cowboy hats—described the development as "an opportunity for the ciry of Orange to turn an eyesore into a jewel"and cheered Fieldstone for doing "a great job in providing for the city." One speaker could barely conceal her glee at the prospect of a new horse arena. "We don't have a place to throw a decent party,"she said. "YYe like to play." The new proposal they now oppose has MORE Parks and open space,MORE cash included to the City,and FEWER HOMES than the proposal they strongly favored iri 2003.That proposal 15 years ago provided for only 6 acres of parks,no cash contribution from the developer,and included over 180 homes at that time. There were no concerns whatsoever at that tirne about the safety of the site. The truth is that these Opponents of Rezoning have no real commitment to ANYTHING other than what they can get out of any project.They were in full support when they proposed a plan 11 months ago-The Seazs Adams Plan-to build 47 homes on the property if they all got all the money and open space proposed in ttie current plan for 128 homes,but when that offer was refused,they essentially held the landowner hostage by withdrawing tlieir plan in the Spri.ng and reversing their position.They were also in full support nearly ten years ago when,the same Iandowner(JMI)gave them$5 million to purchase that support(this was discovered last 1 yeaz and documented in The Foothills Sentry via a rebuttal from OPA admitting the Board "made an honest mistake"in doing so). . The truth is,based on past history,that these people are total charlatans and they have no real concerns of the safety of anything but their own pocketbooks.It certainly appeazs that they onty have their own interests at heart and caze nothing for the residents azound them or what is best for the City and their community.At best, these people are total hypocrites and at worst,they aze engaging in political extortion and are morally corrupt. Either way,it is clear that-based on past history-they will support and plan that pays them what they want and oppose any plan that does not. On the other hand,The Santiago Creek Greenway AlUance-a non-proft environmental group which includes long-time community activist and conservationist Shirley Grindle on their Advisory Board-SUPPORTS THE PROPOSAL for The Trails at Santiago Creelc.The homeowners association board of Mayberry Ranch supports tlus plan.The homeowners association boazd of The Reserve unanimously supports this plan.The City of Villa Park supports this plan.The Santiago Greenways and Open Space Alliance(composed of members of the community surrounding the gravel pit site) supports this plan.The former president of the Orange Pazk Acres Association itself,Tom Davidson,supports this plan.Most of all,THOSE NEAREST THIS STTE AND MOST IMPACTED$UPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. OpportuBities like this do not come along every day.This proposal has substantial benefits to everyone in the City of Orange and the vast majority of us who aze sensible do not want to see it squandered. Please support this rezoning and The Trails at Santiago Creek Project on Monday,August 5th and let's make Orange a better place to live for everyone. rr; �SEPj Sincerely, 1VIazk Moore 6507 Sycamore Glen Drive Orange Pazk Acres, CA 92869 Phone: +1.310.266.2283 � z , S 1 �SEP; 3 Thomas A. Broz 6306 E. Bryce Avenue ` Orange, CA 92867 August 5, 2019 Planning Commission City of Orange 300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 2018-007,Zone Change No. 1286-18, Development Agreement No. 005-18, and Environmental Review No. 1857-9 8 Commissioners Glasgow, Willits, Simpson, Martinez, and Vazque: My name is Tom Broz and I have been a resident of Mabury Ranch for 38 years. I am a both a licensed civil and structural engineer in the State of California and several other states. I am the recipient of.the 2012 ASCE Orange Counry Branch Civil Engineer of the Year Award, the 2017 ASCE Los Angeles Section Lifetime Achievement Award in Civil Engineering, and the 2014 University of Illinois C.ivil and Environmental Engineering Department Distinguished Alumnus Award, the University of Ilfinois Civil and Environmental Graduate Engineering program being the No. 1 ranked program in the USA for the past 5Q y:ears. I state these accolades only to establish my credibility. . 1 am here to tell the facts,the whole facts, and nothing but the facts so help me God. 1 sat through the Pfanning Commission meeting on July 15 and heard one person after another state non-facts relative to the proposed project for the Sully IUliller site and I would like to correct those non-facts. Most of the facts that I am about to state are actually stated correctly in the projects RDEIR and it is apparent either the speakers did not read the RDEIR or were following a script authored by one individual who has been leading the opposition to this project and is playing on people's emotions and not facts. The facts are: • The propose project site on the Sully Miller Property does not lie within the 100 year flood zone as defiried by FEMA. This can be seen at https://msc.fema.ctov/portal/hame. If one goes to this website and types in the project address the FEMA flood map for this area will come up of which I have attached a copy. The area shown in blue with red cross hatching is the 100 year flood area. You will see that the 100 year flood stays in the creek channel next to the proposed project site. • The propose project site on the Sully Miller Property does 1ie within the 500 year flood zone as defned by FEMA. This can also be seen at https:/lmsc.fema.qov/portal/home. 1 If one goes to this website and types in the project address the FEMA flood map for this area will come up of which I have attached a copy. The area shown in tan is the 500 year flood area. You will see that the 500 year flood will cover the existing topography of the Westem portion of the proposed project site. I say existing topography. If the � proposed project pad elevation in this Western portion were to remain at the current site elevations then the proposed project site would be in the 500 year flood area but please note this is acceptable to FEMA. However, it is my belief, based on my experience working with various city Public Works Departments, that the pad elevation is this area will be required to be raised to match the elevation of Santiago Canyon Road in order to eliminate the requirement to install a"lift station"for the sanitary sewers lines that woufd service the homes in this area. • Villa Park Dam is categorized as a"High Risk"dam by the Califomia Department of Water Resources(DWR)because of the Extremely High Downstream Hazard if this dam where to fail: The dam structure has been cert�ed"Satisfactory" by the DWR and thus poses no failure threat. If this dam where ever to fail, OC Flood Control's recently prepared inundation map presented at the ASCE EWRI meeting on April 4 of this yeac showed that the proposed project site is no#in the inundation zone. Like the 100 year flood the waterflowing from the breached dam will stay in the creek:channel next to the proposed project site. The,area's which wilt be inundated are downstream of the Bond Pits: • Villa Park Dam, Santiago Dam (Iryine Lake),and the project site are not located over earthquake faults. This can be seen at http:l/scedc.ca(tech.edu/siQn�canU. If one goes to this website and scrolls on the map enlarging it, of which I have attached a copy,you wili see that there are two faults in the vicinity of the proposed project site. These are the EI Modena and Peralta Flills faults. Neither of these faults is located under Villa Park Dam, Santiago Dam (Iniine Lake), or the proposed project site. This has further been confirmed in the geotechnical study confained in Appendix I to the RDEIR. You will also see that these faults last activity was over 2.6 million years ago and thus are not considered active faults which require activity in the last 10,000 years. • There are currently two existing areas on the proposed projec#site that would be subject to potentia! liquefaction during a seismic event. These two areas are the disposal ponds for the sand and gravel mine tailings. However, before any structure could be built in these areas the mine tailings would have to.be excavated, removed and new engineered fill placed in these areas. Once this is completed there is no potential whatsoever for liquefaction on the proposed project site. This is afl explained in Appendix I to the RDEIR. • The Villa Park Landfill (operated from 1962 to 1966)located immediately to the West of the proposed project site has a methane capture and disposal system installed. No evidence of inethane migrating under Santiago Canyon Road into the Jamestown home tract has ever been recordeci. On the other hand methane has been found in OCFA Fire Station 231ocated on Santiago Canyon Road west of the proposed project site. The methane in Fire Station 23 comes from the Reeve Pit landfill (operated from 1958 to 1961)which does not have a methane capture and disposal,sysfem installed and is located under Oakridge School and Santiago Canyon Road immediately in front of the school and across from Fire Station 23. 2 • The Mabury Ranch Homeowners Associativn (MRHOA)conducted a survey of the proposed project of its 384 members in June 2018. This was fhe only survey yalidated by the MRHOA Board of Directors. 101 of our 384 membe�s responded. The results of the survey showed that 70% of the respondents indicated they support the proposed project. The silen#majority versus the vocal minority. The complete results of that survey are attached. • More than haif of the area known as Orange Park Acres is not part of the City of Orange but rather is part of unincorporated County of Orange. This part of Orange Park Acres is zoned�100% R-1-40. The other portion, slightly less than half,which is within the City of Orange, has a mixture of zoning inciuding R-1-10, R-1-15, R-1-20, and R-1-40. Having stated the facts 1 will now state my opinion. The proposed project is not"Dangerous to Orange"as indicated by the signs pos#ed by those opposed to the project. This project if built will not succumb to flooding, earthquakes, or methane gas. I am appalled at the behavior of the opponents to this project who have stated one after the other that if the Planning Commissianers were to vote for the approval of this project the individual planning commissioners would be acting unethically. ( am also appalled at those same individuals claiming Mr. Robert Garcia, the Senior Planner for this project,to be inept in handling the processing of this project planning application. For all the projects proposed for this site, this project is the best one proposed so far. I believe the proposed project representatives have clearly stated that they would be willing to continue to discuss the proposed number of homes to be built. The opponents of tliis proposed project are led by one individual who has from Day 1 not been willing to negotiate from her stated position. That person fias provided a script for her followers based on emofion and fear and not on faots. I support this project whole heartedly with the meeting of the following two provisions: 1. The Open Space portion of the project must have a public agency, preferably OC Parks, accept the Open Space. To do that fhe proposed project owner must detail and come to agreement on with the�accepting agency what improvements to the open space are required and what their costs will be and what portion of those costs the proposed project owner will fund. The p�oposed project owner must also endow the accepting agency for maintenance costs for the open space for an agreed to initial period. 2. The pad elevations within the tract must nat be less than that of Santiago Canyon Road along longitutlinal lines. This will eliminate all flooding issues through a 500 year storm. I thank you for listening to me. Sincerely, � a Thomas A. Broz, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE 3 � y t:��E�FEIVIA FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By (https�!/wuuw.fema.gov� Ad d ress Navigation Enter an address,place,or coordinates:Q _ . : _.... - 6145[.San[iago Canyon Road Orange CA Search Search __. . _ Whether you are In a hlgh rlsk zone or not,you may need tlbotiJnsurance(htcos��l�wnv.fema eownationai-naod- ' Insurance-arnaraml6ecause most homeowners Insurance doesn't mver flaod damage.If you ilve In an area �aflgtlagES , with lovl or moderate Oood risk,you are 5 tlmes more likely to experiente OooJ than a lire in your home over the � nex[3D years.For many,a Natlonat Flood Insurence Prog2m's Itood Insurance pollrycoutd cost less than sC00 . - .. peryear.Catl your insuran[e agenc[oday and protect what}rouVe bulit. MSL Home(/portaln �earn more aEouc�tens vou can�ake�httor�n�rrru.tema ernn+vnaamittaannm to reduce itood rlsk damage � ._._ . . .._.. ---- _._ .,.....__.. .__.._.._.__....----.._...__._._ _...... MSC Search by Address (/portal/search) . __.... Search Results—Products for ORANGE, CIIY OF ShowALLProductsn(https:/� MSC Search NI Produ[ts _. .,__ .. (/portal/advanceSearch) . - .- -- .- . __._ _. _ �nnSC Produc�s and 7oots The flood map for ihe selected area Is number 06059C0158J,ef(ective on 12/03/2009 p (/porta Vresourceslproductsa ndtools) Hazus DYNAMIC MAP MAP-IMAGE Changes to this FIRM A (lporcaUresources/hazus) , RevislOns(0) LOMC Ba[ch Files �'' f Amendments(2) P�WNICAb (lportaVresources/lomc) `' ��paPµ� Revalidatlons(0) `w��"'�P Ihttps://msc.fema ov/�orcal/downloadProd�ct? uwan�. Product Availabllity �—� Uponal/producrAvailabitiry) fllenath=106/P/Firm/06059C015{�j,p_ng$, rod� tTvpeiD=FINAL PRODUCI"8nrod�rss� MSC Frequendy Asked Questlons(FAQs) You cvn choose a new ood ma or move the laadon in b selertln o d!erenc acoton on the locamr Go TO NFHL VleWer n htt (lporta!/resources/faq) n P p Y g j( ( p: mop he(av or by ente�ing o new faaUon!n the search�eld obove.ft moy[ake o mmute or mare during � " ' '' MSC EmailSubscriptions peok hours togenero[e o dynomlc FlRMerte Ifyou are o person viith a diwtriliry,are blind,or have law VAortal/su6scriptlonHome) vision,ond need ossismncQ plense contoct o mop speciolist Contacc MSC Help (hrcps-l/mscjema.gov/portal/iesources/conmct). VPortallresources/con[act) - _ - -� ..._ . . .. _ --- -. .. .. .. . . . _ _. . .i "��,i, ,"u' �`�°�� "�s-#." �{" #'a; � '' '�-t � � � � ,„y 3f t+v �,j�� ta.�"„g �`�` `d"i�' �' } �' :y r -yc '� -' s"' 4Ta 5 �tl n��9�.` � w � . r zt;, t �`-"�"' � �ar'�R 2 4 y�s��I']l :� �f�l f��C. ha p' . a t,u'*p� � �, ��,x��"re,.'•`�1 t��C� �+ �a i i- .- ., ti ��. ffN �H � 'r1 � 1 .� S y4�.S! '`"' S � � w�� .A'"1 r rw�.� 'li ��r � �' � .� 4 �_1 �4"� �t�` �t . �i " � t `�Y�`1 ,. 1�t}s� -"�� ' v t', ' , � , ` '�'' ,�� 'a � � �A�I ,a ��~D D�,�;a�,.aF.,,.:�� i�� a ; i� ,�•`�� . ,.: , , "aE�_.. .;�� , a, mi� in�?��%''�"!t�"S.�SJ''`� '�°�� '''i=�` .� ��`�° �: .. ~ r� . ^� �--. �.-p::,.. 'f� .I � trA��, . ti �za: �a •� � 7 � . q "� � � , �. »�: .E: i��i• : ,�.�� ... � , _,, �. 1� y�; •.. A �� `j�r ) .. ~ �� +� is..� al�. �'+�r y:.• ,y� �"3" �` '� _ � �'" � �Y� ..p' � 4 3� �� .. i � � (in!' � • L �E�� "tF�� - Y"� �_ w . _ � , D � I .-�f,,rG �D� . . ' �;. �ir� ��4 �i��56i! � „ ,E . ..� - ... �c� � � . � . C ` �� -; pt �` ''� �- �� ',�„"' � �_. `f �� \ , „�„,. R ea e�'� s, cc p'� ''� � ��; �;�, . � 1 � � �i� �-'� -+x...,y� R ,. y� > �•,� yr 3 f � w�yA �a') `K'�'.,' �-�-.. .o,..�. :r'`.; .�� ' s' r�s�>.;� y�t`t��l� �'" , e '� ��m �+� � .t {Pil o hll � ��= s.>s ;'t r `��p* "c;,...'`^' �?'C" �_ FF.'''�ba� � �'•� 1�:W� L i�a.��`"."�t..� T.�.::..:�.a';�� .1'�; �•-1..r� ��.Q1d[�fM7� I M[��rYa��wl�r4Y �� Iv _�L�Y�L �... . . . . . , . � �IaerA�w�a�u� � �. _ � 0��4�w11'��d�� R�� Wp�d 11�1� OiO i �tl 114�l�1oll�w� Q. w��o�+l MVMONUtf M!f1��1 .. '.-._ .� w--bl IM�WWaI P onr.+omnr�w.� �r•r�"^ ��) >Y��6M� I...`tll\��YN�u��.rnMp ^O�WYra� '�� "'°a°mn'"'r" }.�..i�e:��r o —, a..e. �-�—...er�w.w ewruu�sl 5� v.+on � ��r.w.s��r autwta�_✓�.,�r..�.�e.� �r�nw�ma.:. �c.r�r�.m.n..� �ww�rrm..r wtdul'-"u..ne.wi.w�a... ama�q.ua 'P-•�M�w,_. r.mcT.m�...� �...u..�rr .'�NIUY�s�IM�lu1u.. flOmN.W110�!� rlrtil�tMa.e OINN�IdA1� `O��M�M �' Share This Page. Home(h(Sp�:!/www.fema gov/1 D�wnload Plu -Ig ns(htSps://www.fema.gov/�q npw Ioad•�lu�,-Insl About Us ttos:llwww.fema.goWabout•agenM Privacv POI1N fhtt�s://wuvw.fema.gov! rl� vacv- QIINI FOIA(h�tns://www.fema v,gQ/fola) Offlce of the Inspector General (htms://wwrvv.olg.dhs.govll Strategic Plan fhttr�s:/lw�wv.fema.gov/fema-strategl5; IR anl Whitehouse.gov(httns�//www.whitehouse.gav/1 DNS.gov(httns://www.dhs.goWl Readv.aov (httos://www.ready.�,ov� USA.gov( [tRs://wwi,v.usa.govll j?isas[erAsslstance.eov (h[t�s://www.dlsasterassistance. og�v/1 . . �•.. . �c.ole.dhs.�ov/hot11ne1 r r . . �Offlclal webslte of the Department of Homeland Securtry �' _ ., i. . f� t) -. r, , . r , ,. i . , _ � c ._ F f , . 3.: i: C'; ; r� ._ Y iSearch site... _�� . . -- � - '" ' Southern�Califorr�ia , .: .. � . � �� «,, � :. , � . . . . ; � . , � .. � � �� Earth�quake��Dat�a��Cen.t�er� � ��- � ��- � _ A ABOUT:R8tEN7 FJ►RTHQUAKES:EAR7XQUAKE 7NF0;SIGNSFICANT LARTHQUAKES AND RAULTS:EQ 41TALOGS:OOWNLOAD DATA:STqT10N 1NFD Significant Earthquakes and Faults Historicai Historical Earthquakes & Significant Faults in Southern CA Earthquakes& Slgnifieant Faults Below is a map of Southem Ca11lornla to alspiay slgnlfican[earthquakes znd tuults.The fault[races are shoan In � Map in Southem red,Thls Is an Intemctive map.7o taggte detalied Instructlons on how to use the map and Its assala[ed contrW Caiifomfa p�nel,cU[k[ht Intomitatlon button("1')lo the t7ght.A ih�k to Ihe glossary can also be tound Urere.The control Chronologieal panel ls lacated Just bHo�v the map.Fundlnq for development was proviaed by the_SCEe lntemship Program. Earthquake index � �r , ,�r� .. (. .:��q�'i C''!' v'� .',a��'.� �+=t . . � Z .., � �y .� '� �-� ... � "�?l+�N° � �s�°' i . ,,e�r�'"� f 9.��r h • Fault Name Index �,. ' `��,�5s�.�,r, si �a''. al��a.�.s w�.�.�g � �fj�� :j Credi[s and Data a`� $�e9 , Y.. , � -� r ��., n��r{�F"M+f�s��;�n � � �'" I•'' � �� J..,"•t 'S-t°' ,�;4 �, Sources c�` 1 �ry� ; � 4�g „��-,�.,,�oY�-��k,,^ i{ ? o� L,;,� q,� f \ ,r.+,�y�.�{ �&'�� .��j'•.,r�''i �: !f 1, t �.'�. F '._ � r ��r / as - ' �t�' f � b � � . �,�r"`r�� ,� . lr.d�+`�l= ,��4,,.A.a � u,� y �; �:i o/� �� ->� � ��n� r O�Iy,Cao�o� � sf�,s t, � -,�✓x �d �� :� � i�,A>,�✓'��rat�Cofiter�"a+ .E: � z a� } ��C�4'� '�'at,i'�}�"'��c� r:,-..k •,r 7"6'f�e r��-�,.},cp��e o� ' 'j .i�'' � , t . t � �.re..'f+� 'l,r•!,I � 7 � ��. �y . .e '�r ... �t/liLL'�dr�, �� .T'� y,p l i� �d ay �,;'�f�yr�9 � .f�,�,� ">*"Q... . ' �at 'a'' �� rt�,�„''� .,.X 1�� '� `4� ..,�s,�^�+-�....""' '.� r>,i;91J""° "�. � 'T�' u«.!.s � . � d re�'.�, x � � u � � � ,� ..S r 2 p0 Ua � . . � .a; �'�,j, Reg�onalPark � , ��"'',� `,� ` ��,�� ss t,n.w � -'^s-./ .. �;�c �.� - �, .': ' � i t, � ✓,�•'�.. .,+ ��` �� .p vltla Park'' ��^'�.' �a �+' � ��y r�I �= g n � r ' f� E Rr.aca Am �Pxi R3T.^" � ��,6.'�� P�./g� 'Z . " ' � )l ' f) ,;� � 1 � � , g+' ; �� 4 a +•",��y�}d r q�"'�e; 1` ,g� s, � ..�'� '�'� �1�3 i j ' 9t1tt§j4 ['� ;JP' _x ss' ,�� Po k A�rrs -;°}C'oliofln ., t.,..—'��r� �p/� �y � ` '� _ �tiiz� �' �" kr�r�.'w9� )_ �a a�` x 4 '%r:t +hl' �, J; .� � �:, � , Reflmnal�Pk ,,,�' �Y � r �' Gongle '� ?a�' '��"��f � F��'� '`'� f� ,[� r . JMap d8 p�Ra491 4ongiwde:-i17,7777'LatiSude:33.91�0" ignifieant�vents by PA�gn �gni£ccant Events by PJame M4 5 A.9(6 E�ents) MS S 5.9(20 Eventis) Marker Magnitude Anza Gap Esrtt�quabe ^. Cal(ca Earthquake ^ �.:, i.� � . �a s a.9 hlo�tebella Earthquakr. 4 - Chlno HIIts EatthqUake r Newport Beach 1996 Coso Earthquake � �5 5 5.9 • , Earthquake Galway Lake Earthquake � �6 s a.9 MG 5 6,9(21 Events)� M7 5 9.0(5 Events) v : � Big BcarEarthquake E�Mayor-Curapah r �7 5 e.o yaRego Mountaln . Ear[hquake 4,:� I Earthquake � Hector hUne Earthquake 1:i Oesert Hat Springs Kern Caunty EartBquake v: � , . t ,� . +"3 i.: r,r � �; .. � , . , ti.: . � , ,.� 3., , ��. , r. �'� ��r �Search site...._ . .) -�� ,Southern Cal�.fornia . , - � ��.�. 1 �� Earthc juake Data Cente.r, � -!�+ � .~ ; � � I A ABOVT:RECBNT EARTNQUAKES:EARTNQUAICE INFO:SIGNIFICANT EARiHQUAKPS AND FAl1LT5:EQ CATALOGS:DOWNLOAD DATA:STATiON INFO Significant Earthquakes and Fauits Historical 91Q1�IP1EtEI�IHIIIZiKI11F11�l191Pt4181�IZi5�lYISYfKIYiZ Earthquakes& Significant Fauits Fault Name Index Map if1 Southem EI Modeno and Peralta Hills Fau14s California EI Modeno Chro�ological �rvaE oF Fau�T:reverse EarthquakeIndex �N�rH:about i0 km Fault Name Index aEna�coMMummes:Anahefm,Orange MOST RECENT SURFAtE RUPTURE:OU<lt2�tldN Peralta Hiils Fault Trre oR Fau�r:reverse �eecrH:about 10 km MOST RECENT SURFACE RUpTURE:LdC2 B[B�f17N oTHea Norss:North-dipping.Possible Holocene rupture,though this may be Iandsllding mistaken as fault rupture. References Thfs fault Is featured on the following maps: �outhern Fault Mao Los A eles Fauit Mao r +,,aa.� �;,,�:akar�an„d 1 �+ ( A � :.:I;-�� ;��' oC Commanfc:Emp11�IQs�updnla:01t31/20)J f� � � :..�, .:. `� �E�C -.��II�.�I,�,i4 ��, f@�ry�' 02D79 Gailach.AU Rt�hls Reservotl �a r�. �•,ti'�,�•p;r,� ..ra�wcs..�, � �...�.�.�v "'�� o"�ec� Y,.._`.'.. Ufvislon of Gealoyical ana Ptane[ary Sclences�Callfomla Insti:u:e ot 7echno�ogy ti . � Quaternary � ,�"`A'.1�:r;� n �� .�� $ . � x Tiie�ua#ernary Period is the current and most recent of the three periods of the Cenozoic Era in the geologic time scale of the International Commissi,on on Stratigraphy{ICS). It follows the Neogene Period and spans from 2.588 t 0.005 miilion years ago.to the present. MABURY RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS SULLY-MILLER PROPERTY JUNE 2018 RESULTS 384 MRHOA Members / 101 Surveys Retumed/99 Valid Surveys/26% Return Rate Follows is a series of statements and/or question's which your response to will provide the MRHOA Board of Directors direction as to what is individually most important to you and what you would prefer to be done to the Sully-Miller property.. We highiy encourage you to complete this survey. We need you to identify yourself at the end survey so that we can verify your survey submittal is valid (MRHOA member). We have also allowed some additional space at several places in the survey should you desire to elaborate on your responses. 1.) The Options. There are three potential options for the 109 acre Sully-Miller property that sits between Santiago Canyon Road and Mabury Avenue. Each of these options have different probabilities of occurring based on the "give and take"between iVlilan,the property owner, the surrounding communities,the MRHOA, and the City of Ocange and possibly the Caunty of Orange: . Option 1 —Fight for the denial of the project by the City of Orange which, if successful,will leave a materials recycling facility on the site which undoubtedly will be restarted. The hope here would be that somehow in the fu#u�e funds and an agency could be.found to purchase and restare the parcel 100%to open space. The other potential result would be Milan selling the property to another developer who would then pursue approval of his project for the site. Agree 36% Neut�al 27% Opposed 27% 95 Responses • Option 2—Support Milan in construct of a planned residential development which would include houses only on the South side of the creek with the remaining portion of the property to be kept and restored to open space. � Agree 70% Neutral 14% Opposed 16% 94 Responses • Option 3—Watch as Milan constructs a planned residential development on the North side of the creek already zoned R-1-8 and allow the materials recycling facility to remain on the South sicie of the creek and be restarted. Agree 0% Neutral 2% Opposed 98% 93 Responses , . Please indicate your order of preference for the three potential options by making 1 S�,2"�, and 3�a Option 1 1 S�—36%. 2"d—48%. 3�a-16% Optio� 2 1 S�—65%,2"d-34%. 3`d—1% 91 ResponS@S Optio11 3 1�-1%.'2"d— 14%. 3�d—85% 1 2.) O tion 1. The following statements/questions wiA help to,better de�ne your specific views'/concems related to Option 1. • Would you be concemed with materials recycling facility continu,ing to operate for an extended pe�iod of time while efforts are made to raise or�nd a source.offunds which would'.most likely total 10's of miltions of dollars and to find an agency willing to own and manage this property as permanent open space similar to the iriine Ranch Conservancy? Concemed 46% Neutral 28% Not Concemed �26"/0 92 Responses • Would.you be concerned,if the entire Sully-Miller property became open space,with the potenfiel for increased traffic on Yellowstone Boulevard due to people accessing the open space from Mabury Avenue? Goncerned 78% Neutral 12"/o Not Concerned 10% 93 Responses Would you be eoncerned with the potential for increased vehicular.parking on Mabury Avenue due to people accessing the open space from there? Concerned 80% Neutral 13% Not Concemed 7% 95 Responses Would you be concemed.with removal of the fence along Mabury Avenue to open up the open space but at the same time allowing for easier access for the wild fife to your property? Concerned 68% Neutral 14°/a Not Concemed 18%0 95 Responses 3.) Option 2.The.following statements/questions will help to better deftne your specific views/concems rela#ed to Option 2: . In orde,r to get all parties involved to agree to not build any homes North.,of t�e creek it will require concessions on all parties'parts as to the mix and number residences built Sauth of the creek. The surrounding communities will�be looking for comparable lot sizes.wtiile the developer will be looking for a minimum numb:er of residences reguireci to guarantee fiim some level of profit. As such would you be concerned if some of the housing built South of the creek was on lot sizes smaller than one acre but not less than 8,000 square feet whioh is the minimum lot size in the MRHOA? + Concerned 30% Neutral 25% Nvt Concemed 45% 96 Responses Similarly would you be concemed with the total numbe�of homes built South of the creek? Concerned 72'/0 . Neutral .20% Not Concemed 8°0 95 Respanses 2 What wouid be the specifc range of the total number of homes you would be comfortable with being built South of the creek considering alI the impacts that may result(traffic,noise, dust, required flood mitigation issues, etc.)? Please note that if less than the current propose total of 129 homes is built the amount of improvements to the surround open space and trails and the amount of creek restoration may be reduced in kind. 50 homes or less 30% 50 to 100 homes 29% 92 Responses Up ta a maximum of 129 homes 35% We're OK with whateve�number of homes 6% Na matter what size and number of homes are constructed South of creek they will have a visual impact on the MRHOA. As such would you be concerned with the orientation of the homes immediately adjacent to the creek. These homes could be constructed with their rear yard wail facing the creek or they could be reoriented so that immediately adjacent to Santiago ' Creek would be the bike/horse trail, than a street,and then the front yards of the home just like our homes are oriented on Mabury Avenue. Does this issue concem you? Concerned 52% Neutral 39°/, Not Concemed 18°10 96 Responses Would you prefer the homes South of the creek anct immediately adjacent to it to be oriented with their front yards facing the creek 52% or thei�rear yards facing the creek 48% . 85 Responses • Constructing this option with houses only on the South side of the creek and open space on the North side of the creek wilf have some issues which may be of concem to MRHOA members. Access to the open space North of the creek for the houses South of the creek would have to be provided by means of a pedestrian bridge over the creek:which is what is shown in the current DEIR. This bridge would more than likefy be similar to the bridges in our West Greenbelt. Would you be concerned with the installation of such a bridge from a safety/security or other standpoint? Concerned 32% Neutral 23°/a Not Concemed 45°0 96 Responses Vehicular access to and parking for the open space North of the creek from the MRHOA would be provided by"curb side"parking on Mabury Avenue. Would you be concerned with the potential for increased vehicular parking on Mabury Avenue? Concerned 88% Neutral 6% Not Concerned 6°Io 96 Responses If you would be concerned with increased parking On Mabury Avenue would you like to see some restriction imposed on this parking by the City, if possible? Yes 93% . No 7% 88 Responses ' 3 Open Space means open space which means there is potential that whoever owns this open , space might want to remove the fence along Mabury Avenue.Would you be concemed with �emoval of the fence along Mabury Avenue to open up the open space but at the same time allowing for easier access for wifdlife to your properly? Concerned 66% Neutral 15% Not Concerned 19% 95 Responses (f the fence along Mabury Avenue could remain would.you have a preference as to what type of fence should be there? Please indicate your preference. Current chain link 10°/0 Welded wire similar to what is on Hewes around the Bond recharge basin 23% Wrought Iron 95% 910 Responses Block wal! 10°/a Match existing split rail 36% If the area North of the creek becomes Open Space,the City of Orange is considering extending the Santiago Creek Class 1 Bikeway through it(see the attached Santiago Creek Trail Network Exhibit). This Class 1 Bikeway would be an AC paved traii adjacent to our existing sideway/equestrian trail along Mabury Avenue. Would you be concemed with this bikeway being constructed? Concerned 46'/o Neutral 17% Nat Concerned .37° 87 Responses If you are concerned with the construction of this bikeway would you prefer that it 23% not be constructecf at all or 77% -constructed adjacent to tfie creek streambed away from Mabury Avenue. 60 Responses 4.) O ta ion 3.The following statements/questions will help to better define your specific views/concems related to Option 3. . Constructing homes North of the creek is opposed by the MRHOA. However,this area is currently zoned R=1-8 and Milan has stated that if construation of a sufficient number of homes South of the creek is denied they would submit a tract map for this area to the City of Orange for approval.The City wauld be hard pressed to deny approval. The MRHOA Board of Directors is aware that Milan has already prepared e tract map with approximately 46 homes for this area. If there was no way the MRHOA could prevent homes from being built here,we need to know your preferences as to number,size,orieritation,and access to any such homes. The currenEzoning for this area requires homes of a similar size to those in the MRHOA- minimum size lots af 8,000 square feet. Would you prefer less but larger homes similar in size to those in Hidden Creek? Yes 82% No 18%. 91 Responses 4 i � �!� I Wouid you be concemed if these homes were zoned for equestrian use which would ailow the keeping of horses on the properties? Concemed .50% Neutral 24% Not Concemed 26% 93 Responses How would you prefer these homes to be oriented? Front yards of the homes facing Mabury Avenue 73% 86 Responses Rear yard wall of the homes facing Mabury Avenue 27°!0 Where would you prefer to have the access road for these homes located on Mabury Avenue? Extension of Yellowstone Blvd. 38% Between Yellowstone Blvd. and Orange Park Blvd. 26% 88 Responses Between Yellowstone Blvd.And Lassen Blvd. 25% No preference 10°0 None .� 5.) As the proposed The Trails at Santiago Creek project goes forward which actions are you willing to take to help support the MRHOA in its efforts to get the best possible results? Assist with addressing and mailing flyers 28% Help circulate a petition door-to-door 7% Speak at City of Orange Planning Commission and City Council mee4ngs 10% All of the above 10% 99 Responses None of the above 23% 5 Robert Garcia From: Mark Moore Fine Art <mark@markmooregallery.com> Sent: Thursday,August 1,2019 4:09 PM To: Robert Garcia Subject [BULK] KeepOrangeSafe Has No Credibility Importance• Low Dear Robert, If the Opponents of Rezoning the gravel pit and the Keep Orange Safe group was so concerned about the safety of the Sully Miller site, why did they SUPPORT plans for development of this property at least THREE T(MES over the last 15 years?These people have absolutety no credibility. The current Opponents of rezoning f rst reversed their opposition to development according to documents on file at the City in May 2003 when Newport Beach-based pzoject developer Fieldstone Homes signed a contract with the Orange Park Acres equestrian community to boost the project.According to documents on file, OPA received an equestrian azena(now the Mara Brandman Arena)and$500,000 for promoting Fieldstone's plan at every opportuni.ty. See copy of the letter they sent to the City Council DEFENDING their support of the project from May 28,2003 below. s ',. . ; �� .� �� :� i�J�� .��. �� :�1�`.��, �� : :�� :�1��.��, ��1'��1�:t� ��y �,�`��,�� 'Y:��, �+��n�i��ar� . �� :��►��-��r�. ��1:��, �.,� �� :�t�: �i�l��n� �e��l�� t�� 'i�� + �'I�•. �� d�:+��c��►�� `��i��.�.��. � �� t�� 1:��±��r �� h��c��.+� �� _. �� -�. �� v�� i � . �.w� •� ♦� oa��.u-.c r ��a � .. .• 2 The current Opponents of rezoning were also in full support nearly ten yeazs ago when JMI gave them$5 million five years later in 2008 to secure their endorsement for theix development proposal at that time. The current Opponents of rezoning were again in total support of building on this property as recently as last August when they proposed The Sears Adams Plan to the landowner and to the City—a project proposal that included 47 homes on the property along with all$8 million in cash that was proposed in the current 128 home plan under review tonight. When the Seazs Adams Plan was deemed by the landowner.to be financially unfeasible,tliese people essentially blackmailed the landowner by withdrawing their plan in.the spring and reversing their position again. The facts show,based.on past history,that these people are total charlatans and they have no real concerns:of the safety of anythirig but their own pocketbooks.It certainly appeazs that they only have their own interests at heart in this matter and caze nothing for fihe health and well being of the neighbois azound thein or what is best for the City and their community. At best,these people—based on the evidence of their past actions-aze total hypocrites and at worst,they aze engaging in political extortion and are mozally corrupt.Either way,it is clear that-based on past history.-they will support and plan that pays them what they want and oppose any plan that does no� Opportunities like this do not come along every day. This proposal has substantial benefits to everyone in the City of Orange and the vast majority of us who are sensible do not want to see it squandered. Please support this rezoning and The Trails at Santiago Creek Project on Monday,August Sth and let's make Orange a better place to live for everyone. �t, „ �SEq; 3incerely, , Mark Moore 6507 Sycamore Glen Drive Orange Park Acres,CA 92869 Phone: +1.310.266.2283 3 �'°�, � r . , ' � r... . •,� ',,µ� � a ,,,,^'"�' • . . . .. . ... . e . � y�� r . , f. , � � ��n 9 �� F' t"• ,�m, ` • yf , ' i" �.. I `P �.� .`�s ` .Y a- M � f� ' a'. l✓'� ,�.' ±* �L'"-.u�.,..�.e+� �y* �•`.. „ � .... .. —. ;�` `��.,..__ . � ! i " Y ... . . ,�r v._.. ,- � � F h 1 �.,� «.�...,i Robert Zornado From: Adrienne Gladson <adriennegladson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,August 2,2019 10:23 AM To: Robert Zornado; Pamela Coleman Subject: Letter to the Planning Commission about TASC- please forward to them Attachments: TASCfollowuppcletter8-2-19.pdf City Clerk Team- Please forward my letter to,the Planning Commission asap. I want them to have this today ahead of the meeting next Monday. With respect, Adrienne J. Gladson,AICP • Gladson Consulting ��LOp�� adrienne ladson ,�mail.com COMMURE�EIVED 714 319 9377 AUG 4 2 2019 CITY �F ORP`NGE� 1 - � — Honorable Orange Planning Commissioners From:Adrienne Gladso�,AICP August 2,2019 �� Trails at Santiago Creek(fASC) As a folfow-up to my brief comments during public comment portion of the hearing on July 15,2019,for this project,I have two questions that requ,ire answers. 1)Is the RDEIR/FEIR adequate and legally defensible? TFiis question must 6e answered confidentialiy and without hesitation because we received a f etter from Shute,M ihaly& Weinberger(successful CEQA litigators)informing us that the RDEIR/FEIR is flawed and cannot be certified. Isn't this the firm that prevailed against us on the Ridgeline proposal? 2)Why should we change.the land use for this site to allow more homes,and what are the short and long-term irripacts of doing so? Are those impacts fully answered in compliance with California's planning laws,fully mitigated; are the answers deferred, passed on to future entitlements that the next buyer of the property will have to overcome;or simply omitted? Do the action words of the RDEIR/FEIR,DA,5pecific Plan,and staff report have teeth(will, shaU,require)or no teeth(should,could,up to,study further, consult, determined after � approvalJ? Will eVerything promised in the project be delivered and will the homes be built (i.e.,financially feasib le)? I(as do you)need these answers to make the best decision for everyone in Orange. Importantly,how can a yes or no vote be made withoutthese answers7 Additionally,I have two statements highlighted from page 4 and page 20 of the staff report (highlighted and attached)that I requestforfurther clari,fication and explanation. Statement 1 -Please explain why the 187 comment letters,including my own(page 283 of Volume 2,RTC pdfl,lack sufficient specificity,and provide reasoning on why they have not been properly addressed. My comments are relevant. I find the statement in the stafF report that none of the comment letters are relevant astonishing(see question 1 above). The paramount question from my comment fetter is centered on the loss of open space. This answer is necessary in light of the goafs and policies of the General Plan and OPA community plan,which notes that we are woefully deficient in our open space inventory. The project must disclose that itfurther depletes that inventory,creates a significant and adverse impact, and override it The General Pfan and OPA plan for decades has worked together in unison and harmony identifying the central portion of the site for open space and the site of a new regional park. That information cannot be dismissed as irrelevant nor ran the lead agency and the applicant pretend it's not a land use impact. ft must be properly disclosed and resolved,or we are not being properly informed. 1 , ; ; Simply stating thatthe Council can make any land use change for any property withoutfully analyzing all of the impacts the change wil) b�ing,such as the loss of open sPace,will create adverseenvironmentalimpactsthatthecommunitywill�notaccept. Astherecammending body on lancf use matters,not having this criticai inform`ation and disclosing it creates an atmosphere of apprehension and questions who is being served. ifthe Council acts to deplete further our already defiicient inventory of open space lands,as this action proposes, where wi8 that end? Are we headed toward a slippery slope of.doing the same thing on other open space sites in town most of which we own? And what will be next for our General . Plan and treasured community plans in ot}ier unique areas of Orange? Statement 2-(Attachment 5j.affirming that"...the Board feels...is not subject to this provision." How do feelings play into an officia)finding from a State agenry with responsible oversight,that it(this project)is not subjectto this�rovision?Isn't itwise to reevaluate this matte,rfurther? Additionally,expfain whatthe permissible uses in the Sand and Gravel zone are,how legaf non-confirming uses are allowed to continue,and how code enforcement personnel monitorsuch usesto ensurethe activitystays,in compliance. I have.reviewed this project a great detail,not because I oppvse.respansible development here,but because I stand for,understand,and support sound planning,and I am passionate aboutfollowing the(aw and a fairtran5parent process for every project. I cJo so.because I purchased a home next to Santiago Creek knowing there was a future Regional park planned to go here and I want to make sure development actions for very complex project sites like this one are done�ight or they will not earn my support. 2 m � Planning Commission Staff,Report . July 15,2019 Page 4 Staff received 306 wrilten comment lettcr(s)dixrit►g the RDEIR public review period, of wluch 96 letters were not CEQA related,and'187;lette�s�tl�at�lacked�sufficient specifiazty=and,did aot,pt+ouida�-- �any�reasoning for#he comments:The CitY PrePated Response to Comineats to eddre'ss erivironmental comments reoeived during'tlie public review period.The Response to Cnmmeats includes a Mester Responses to Comments,which provides a singie comprehsn'sive zesponse to similer comments about a par�icular topic.The topics addressed in the Mescei Respo}ises are Plan Consistency,Adequacy of the project description; analysis .of attematives, dam safely and risk of failure, wildfire riak, stewerdship of open space, applicability of Sutface Mining and Reclamation Act(SMAR�!), site enviroameutal conditions,soil impo=t/export quaatities�and general comments on the Project,general appositian tu the ptoposal. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelin�s,comments recaived on the RDEIR dudng the raview period are iacluded in the Final,EIR(FEIR)(Exhibit B).Pursuant to CEQA C3uidelines Sectian 15088.5(fl(1), . a summaiy of ravisions msde to the RDEIR is included in the FEIR;aiso,pursuant to that C3uideline, responses to comments are limited to comments received on the RDEIR,elthough comments on the initiel DEIlt will ba pait of the administrativc reco=d. The CEQA Guidelines generally roquire a lead agency to evaluate and prepare a written response to all camments on eavironmental9ssues received on the draft EIR.(Ciuidelines,§ 15088(a),(d).)Such a response may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR.(C3uidelines,§ 15088(d).)When a dreft EIR is substentially revised and the oatire document is reeiiculated,however,the lead agency only needs to respond to comments on the recirculated F..Ilt,not those received during the earlier eirculaiion pariod. (Guidelines, § 15088.5 (fl (1).) Instead,the egency need only provide a stwmary of the revisions that were made to the previously circula#ed draft�ElR (Guidelines, § 150885 (�J.)The RDEIR Introductio.n descn'bes a summaryof the revisions tliat were made to the DEIR,including a full liat of DEIR commentera end specific sections that ware�revised.Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 in the Tntroduction provide a snmmaiy of key areas where the document was revised to eddi+ess pertinent and representative comme�nts made diaing the prior public review period PROJECT BACKGROUND �I�cai�t: Milan RBI X LLC,Ghristo lier Nichelson Pro er Owner: . Milan REI X LLC,Ch=isto her Nichelsoa Property Locarlon: 6145 E.Santiaga Caayon Roed.Tiie proj.ect site consists of 12 psrcels and is bisected Santi Creek in en east west direction. Facisting General Low Deasity Residentiel (I.DR) (15.4 acres) north of Santiago Creek; Plan Resoutce Area(RA) (77.3 acres) south of Santiago Creek; Open Sgace I,and Use Elemer►t (OS)(16.5 acres)within Santiago Creek. Desi allon: Existtng Zonirrg Saad snd(iravel Extractioa (SG) (97.9 acres) 5antiago Creek end azea Class�ca#on: south of Santiago Creek;Residentiel Single Family-5,000 SF minimum lot size -1-8 �11.6 acres north of Santi o Cceek. Old Towne: No � ci c Plan/PC: Nona Site S11ie: 109.2 acc�s �3 �. ti. � Plenaing Commission Staff Report �� 7uly 15,2019 Page 20 in response,on Jtme 6,2019,the City Attaraey conLacted Je�'rey Schmidt,Fxecutive Officer for thc Stete IV�ning and Geology Hoerd(Board).Mr. Schmidt requested a letiar of explanetion fram the City and a�ted that ia most instaacea the.Executive Officer,t in consiiltation with the State Cieologiet, is responsible for ragponding on behalf of the Board.Accordingly,the City Attoiney sent a letter to the Bacecubive Officcr,copying two Acting State Qeolqgists,saeking a determination from the Boerd . regarding the applicabilit�r of PRC 2762(dxl)(Attaclime�4). 3ubsequently, on June 19, 2019, thc City Attorney receiyed en email communication from the .�._ _ _. Executive Officer(Attachment 5)affirmiiig�that,".;: the.Bo�d feels,that�tlie Tra�ls at Saatiago,:Creek � �.. -� . ,_ ._ __ ,� z .Projeot, ,.,:is not subja:t,;to�tivs.prov�on. This most�cen commimication from the Steie confirms the City's position that S1VlAItA snd provisions contained in the PRC are not applicable ta thte projeat site. ' Item 4:Vllis Park Land81! The Villa Perk Laadfill site located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site was originally a sand and gravel mine vnii11962 when the sita was repurposed as a landfill,The VilIa Park Landfill was opersted by Otange County(OC}VfTaste&R�;cycling as;a Cless III municipal solid waste Iandfill from 1962 to 1966.The landfill property is approximately 18 acres,of which approzimately 11 acres were used for waste disposaI.Tha landfill was closad in 1966 in accordance with"closiue reguletions in effect st the time.OC Wesbe 8c Recycling has since been implementing post-closure monitoring and maintienance of the V'illa Park I;andfill. The Villa Pazk Landfill is not equipped with ea eagineered artificial liner or with a leachate collection and removal system because this landfill predates regulatory requirements for these meesures.An active gas collection system hes been installed at the site to control, collect,and flare landfill gas generated in the buried refuse.Groundwater monitoriag,vadose zone periimeter ges probe monitoring, and site maintenance is conducted by OC Weste�Recyeling on a regular basis. Tait Environmental Services conducted a Phase II Eavironmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the projeot site that evale�ated pottntial expoeure of the proposed development ta hazatdous materials from the gast land use activities and the neighboring landfill.Tait F.nvironmental Services fnund that there was the potentiel for(1)vapor inhusion of Trichloroethylene(TCE)and methane into future dwelling uaits aud(2)elevated levels of Total Petiroleum Hydrocerbons in the soil.To reduce any potentiat risks associgted with hazerdous matedals on the project site,Iviitigation Measures HAZ-2a to HAZ-2e contained in the RDEIR will be required where vapor uitrusion lias the poten�ial to occur and will reduce impacts to a level of less then si�ufiaant. These meesures will epply to: 1) any occupied stractures within 1,OOD feet of the landfill boundary;and/or 2)s�uctucal systems to preveAt gas-related hezerds are required to be raviewed and epproved by the County vf Ocange Health Cere Agenay2o�al Enforcement Agency. These measures requii�e a supplemental Phase II ESA to be prepared and aPP�Priate measures to be. taken to iemediate any hazandous conditians W the satisfacdon of the California Departmmt of Toxic Substance Coatrol;with finel confirn�ation by the City prior to the issua�tce of huilding permits. Item S:Dam Safetv and Riak.of Failure Sentiago Dam ia loceded S miles upstream of the project sita.The dem wes completed in 1932 and impounds�rvine Lake.Santiago Dam is aa eartWrack fill sfiichua that is 136 feet tall and 1,425 feet Pc �� ! City of Orange Community Development Deparhnent Memo To: eh�Gi�goW�a - Members of the Planning Commission Thru: Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community.Development Director� From: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner� Date: August 5,2019 Rec Planning Commission Meeting of August 5,2019 Staff is forwarding correspondence received from interested parties in support or opposition to the proposed Trails at 5antiago Creek Project between the dates of August 3,2019 through 4:30 PM on August 5,2019. Printed on recycled,peper �� COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMEM' August 1, 2019 RECEIVED � �� AUG � 1 2019 . Dear Commissione�'"r ilM:�.�.;��;,:,.. CITY OF ORANG� I would like to briefly summarize my opposition to the Trails at Santiago Creek development and illustrate why not rezoning the 5ully Miller site is the only protection the City has from a myriad of potentially bad consequences; • Residential zoning of the site does nat conform to the OPA Specific Plan nor to a11 other plans and threatens the integrity of the OPA community. (t would require the rezoning of designated open space resulting in the total loss of 25 acres of open space.(Milan's funny math cannot count Ridgeline as open space gained since it is already zoned Open Space). • The land is unsuitable for homes as it is situated atop 2 earthquake faults,an underground creek and sift ponds which could create liquefaction,downstream from 2 earthen dams for which it acts as a backwash and flood zone,is adjacent to an old dumpsite producing methane and the soil is mixed with rnining toxins plus unmonitored toxins from dumping. Housing would require methane bladders. What could go wrong? • Serious traffic issues currently exist adjacent to the site with traffic backing up for 2 miles.The unnecessary addition of more homes wiil exacerbate trafFic as well as the difficulty in evacuation during emergencies. No widening of the road can alleviate the backup caused by stop lights and the addition of a new stop light will compound that problem. Too many residents on the site could be#rapped with one entrance and exit onto a busy,dangerous road. � The project does not comply wi#h SMARA as no professional discernment has been made that the property is sufFiciently depleted of mining resource in order to be rernoved as an area of regional significance from the books. • The groject development agreement enables unforeseen outcames for 15 years during which waste concrete crushing can continue on the site,Ridgeline does not get"bought"by the City until the first home is built,the City could agree to higher density housing,the landowner can wait for a- bill to pass in Sacramento that would permit high density housing,or the property could be sold to a new investor that witl solicit higher density housing from a new city council. These points are far from corr�prehensive but adequately illustrate why a rezone will open the door to greater complications and repercussions for the citizens of Orange.It is not a solution to the poor stewardship of the site by the City.To ignore all ofthese concerns and push forward at the behest of an investor is an abuse of power and threatens the safety and financial security of our city. It perverts the integrity and existence of planning documents,especially when the majority of Orange residents demand that the plans be honored. I respectfutly ask that you wisely choose to deny the rezone. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, � C�,�G��-t, Sharon W.Mule 7401 E Saddlehill Trail,Orange CA 92869 714-532-�4578 Robert Garcia From: Michael Testa <outlook 06899 5ACE532A1 EB@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday,August 4, 2019 12:37 PM To: chip4orange@gmail.com;mayor@markamurphy.com;kimberleenichols120@gmail.com; aIv360@aol.tom; Robert Garcia Subject; Trials at Santiago Creek Proposal I support The Trails at Santiago Creek Proposal that eliminates the gravel pit forever and creates new parks and open space. Please show your support also. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Robert Garcia From: Mark Moore Fine Art <mark@markmooregallery.com> Sent: Sunday,August 4,2019 7:19 PM To: Robert Garcia Subject: KeepOrangeSafe Has Shown to be Shameless Importance: High Dear Robert, The following is a letter I received from Maybury Ranch resident Dan Swoish this week: Mark: ;r; �SEP; I have attached a copy of the complete letter I sent to the Foothills Senhy(FS).My letter to the editor printed by the FS in April 2019 was,without my permission,edited by the FS and misrepresented my message. I am sure you have reviewed OPA's "Mia Culpa" letter to the editor in the March 2019 FS.While OPA's letter does not identify the specific amoant of money they eactorted out of Fieldstone($1,000,000.00)they clearly admit that is what they did when they secured "monies for a ciub house".I personally saw tLe agreement and wish I still had a copy of it.They also convinced Fietdstone to agree to give them the deed to the seven acre arena site. OPA would then have immediately requested the arena be rezoned from residential to recreationlopen space.Now OPA constantly harps on how evil Mabury Ranch is because we would like to get the property north of the creek rezoned open space.Apparently requesting a property be rezoned is only OK if OPA requests it. I really did not want to write a letter to the FS but I was so angry about the deception they were trying to pull off I felt I had to.The true purpose of the Mia Culpa letter is revealed in paragraph three where they talk about"the dangers of setting a precedent".They understand how damaging the Fieldstone debacle they created is to their credibiGty.How can they argue that"we must adhere to the OPA specific plan" when they show a pattern that they use the Specific Plan strictiy as a tool for their own gain?They can'� They got caught extorting money from a developer for their sole benefit and to the detriment to everyone else in East Orange.It exposes them for the greedy,lying,pricks they are..They are trying to head off the legitimate argument that OPA could care less about the OPA Specific Plan,or any other development plan regarding East Orange,by making it appear the Fieldstone deal(185 homes)is the only time they have egtorted money out of a developer.They even go so far as to coerce four past OPA presidents to admit they are complete morons and did not know anything about the OPA Specific Plan or the otlier plans regarding East Orange. In my unedited letter to the FS you wiU see the importance of the last paragraph. The enHre point of my letter is to debunk#he assertion in their Mia Cuipa letter that OPA's contemptible behavior with Fieldstone was a one time mistake.It was not,Their behavior with the J1VII project shows this is just the standard method of operation for OPA when it comes to gefting anything they can grab at the egpense of everyone else in East Orange.You can now understand why the FS edited my letter and printed it without the last paragraph.It would have completely destroyed the bullshit narrative they are trying to create. i OPA behaved despicably with the Fieldstone project but they outdid themselves when it came to the JNII project.Before the JNII project was proposed to the city the MRHOA Board reached out to OPA to form a CoaliNon Group so that the community as a whole would negotiate with any new developer. The Coalition Group eventually had representatives from six organizations and neighborhoods from East Orange.Each group was allowed two representatives. An agreement was signed by all the representatives in the Coalition Group stating there would be no negotiating with the developer on an individual basis.The main purpose of the group and the agreement was to avoid the disaster that occurred due to the actions of OPA with Fieldstone. Their level of deceit is almost inconceivable bnt the tevo OPA representatives used our trust in their signatures to delay the progress of the project for the sole purpose of driving up the costs and pressure on the developer,JNII,while OPA negotiatec�their own deal behind t9�e Coalitions Group's back.We were able to get a copy of an email from the then president of the OPA board to John Martin,the president of JNII.The email called out 12 bullet points of demands that were required for OPA to support the 350 home project.The raost significant of the 12 demands was$5,000,000.00 and, of course,the seven acre arena site. This is not just rumor or innu.endo,it is a fact.We presented the email to the City Attorney(I think his name was DeBerry).The city council had no choice(in a unanimous 5-0 vote) but to immedia#ely revoke the OPA's position of quasi representatives for the City of Orange in any projects in East Orange.The city could not be put at risk of a lawsuit,if the city voted against the project,they could not win because their representative was trying to extort money from the developer. Again,this goes back to why the FS printed my letter to the editar after they removed the last paragraph. There was no way the FS wanted the deception they were helping OPA create be exposed. I hope this information is helpful. Dan His letter top the FS (Foothills Sentry)he referenced rerad as follows.This is what Dan had actnally sent to The Foothill Sentry to be printed with the missing last paragraph: Vindicated at last! I was pleased to read the"Mea Culpa" letter to the editor in the March edition of the Foothills Sentry. In 2001 I saw the contract signed by the OPA Board president and Frank Foster of Fieldstone pledging 100%support from the OPA community for the Fieldstone project.OPA�ould receive$1,000,000.00 and ownership of the seven acre I�orse arena for their support. In 2001 I spoke to the City Coancil about the Fieldstone project and made the point that the Council Members must receive aIl comments made by residents of OPA as paid lobbyists and not the concerned citizens they were pretending to be.I was verbaliy aitacked and called every name in the book by tLe OPA representatives.It has been a long wait but I agpreciate they finally acknowledged I was right. I was shocked to learn from the"Mea Culpa"letter that FOUR past presidents of the OPA Board"were not educated about the OPA Specific Plan"and"were not fully informed regarding the consequences to our plan".How could anyone accept the responsibilities of being an OPA Board President and not be aware of the OPA Specific Plan?These are the same people that comstantly preach that they knqw what is best for us and East Orange. z �1hop,e�to�see�a��eaGi�p��Ii"'�letter}firomi;OPA��;the�'April�=edittonE�off�he�Fodtliills�5 tr.y,�a dgiug F�.,l.`�'. 3':k.i1.. �4..,.�a z"� . ,.,. s.,s ; � ,� :: .„y`:�s F,. r f ..t s v,.�.-,1" ... c.c��.:-..... ,;.-d".�� tlieuz�achons.,�r�egarc�ang,the�350�unit�JNII��pro,ec��`In��U08�,OPAtagam�off'ered�tl�eir�suppor��,of�a de o m�ntfor� a� TI�srtime,�the�r�price�increase'd��to,�°,$S;O,OO;OOO�OOt,and��tlie�ar,ena:Wh'"en��'th��Ci`y �. #_ „P.� .�.. �P Y�. .� .� �- a ,, � liecameaa,wAa�e`'�of�fW`sk5fact�tliey��unm�ed'iately,�e�o�ed�j4he�OP��'sl�pµosihon�gff�represeating�'the�City oin,�an� �iroaect"s'��;.��Fiast�Orange:,,�,,,Ap`parentTy the�OP�A'•iboard�still�a�a�not�know�;;a"b""out;��he�UP,„;�'�i4,;5'�'ecifia�P,laii.� ,�x�:-..�. The iast�papra�raph of this letter was removed from his editorial and nublished without it. They decided to print my letter but only after they edited it to fit their narrative. If you go online and look up the letter to the editor they printed,supposedly from me,you will see they changed a few thirigs but most importantly they completely removed my last paragraph.The whole point of the letter was contained in the last pazagraph. The facts show,based on past history,that these people are total charlatans and they have no reai concerns of the safety of anything but their own pocketbooks. It certainly appears that they only have their own interests at heart in this matter and care nothing for the health and well being of the neighbors around them or what is best for the City and their community. At best,these people—based on the evidence of their past actions-are total hypocrites and at worst,they are engaging in political extortiott and aze morally corrupt.Either way,it is clear ttiat-based on past history-they will support and plan that pays tliem what they want and oppose any plan that does not. Opportunities like this do not come along every day. This proposal has substantial benefits to everyone in the City of Orange and the vast majority of us who aze sensible do not want to see it squandered. Please support this rezoning and The Trails at Santiago Creek Project on Monday,August Sth and let's make Orange a better place to live for everyone. ;__; �s�.P; Sincerely, Mazk Moore , 6507 Sycamore Glen Drive Orange Park Acres,CA 92869 Phone: +1.310.266.2283 3 Robert Garcia • From: PETER WETZEL<wetrer@aoi.com> Sent: Sunday,August 4,20'I9 9:19 PM To: Robert Garcia Cc: - giddyap11 @gmail.com Subject: Planning Commission Hearing on M.ilan I attended the previous meeting and submitted a speaker's card to speak against fhe Milan development's proposed GP and zoning changes but was not called befflre we ran out of time. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the August 5 meeting, but list here comments I would like the Commissioners to see. Please pass these on to.them. I have always thought that General Plan and,Zoning plans served two main purposes:to allow governments to plan where and how to develop in future,doing so with logic and judgment removed from pressures of an emotional campaign by a developer and to guide potential buyers and investors as to what would be aflowed to occur in future: This proposal from Milan is jus#the sort of thing which plans are meant to prevent. The area in question has been planned for with, not one, but three plans made years ago with foresight and before Milan had invested in the property. Should we not,therefore,follow the plans we have had in place fo�many years, deyeloped without pressure and emotion? I urge the Commission to reject af!of the requested GP and zoning requests and to honor the work of city planners who set up the specific and general plans already in place. Thank you, Peter Wetzel 7217 E. La Cumbre Dr. i . Robert Garcia From: Kim Kinsler Sent: Monday,August 5,201911:03 AM To: Robert Garcia Subject: FW:Opposition to Proposed Development-Santiago and Canon I think we may have gotten this one in physical form? From:Parnela Coleman<pcoieman@cityoforange,org> Sent:Monday,August 5,201910:58 AM To:Kim Kinsler<kkinsler@cityoforange.arg>;Anna Pehoushek�apehoushek@cityoforange.org> Subject:FW:Opposition to PropoSed Development-Santiago and Canon From:Anthony Gressak<a�ressak nanobanc.com> Sent:Monday,August 5,20].9 8:19 AM To:Pamela Cofeman<pcoleman@citvoforan�e.or�> Subject:Opposition to Proposed Development-Santiago and Canon Ni Pamela, Good morning.Unfortunately I will not be ab[e to attend tonight's planning commission meeting to speak. I respectfully submit the following email to express my opposition to the project. I understand the importance of private property rights. However,this project is inappropriate for its proposed location and is entirely unsafe. • The proposed project is not consistent with the goals and policies of numerous plans fhat have been enacted by the City of Orange such as: o Orange General Plan o Orange Park Acres Specific Plan o East Orange General Plan o Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan(1971) o Santiago Creek Implementatlon Plan(1976) • Furthermore,the EIR is inadequate and fails to address agency and community concerns: o The EIR relies on outdated studies to support its�ndings,and o The EIR ignored impacts related to the site's histurical use o The EIR identifies"negative impacfs"that cannot be mitigated • There are multiple safety concerns that lmpact both the existing'and potential future residents: o The site is in a floodplain,below two earthen dams o The site is next to a landfill that emits methane gas o Liquefaction poses serious threats to the area,which lies in an earthquake fault zone o The property is undermined with silt ponds o And most importantly,the Canyon 2 Fire exposed the property as a high-risk fire trap to area residential including MY FAMILY. In conclusion,these investors are not entitled to build here;the city is not obligated to approve this project: The project is inappropriate and unsafe. The residents are clearly against this project and we will use all legal remedies to fight it if we have to. Don't make us 5pend our valuabie time fighting the City. 1 Do the right thing tonight! Please protect my family's safety and VOTE NO! Sincerely, Anthony Gressak z C�X C A S T L E �oX,Cnstle&Nicholson LLP 3121 Micheison Drive,Suite 200 N I C H O L S 4 N Irvine,California 92612-5678 P:949.260.4600 F:949.260.4699 Morgen L.Gatlagher 949.260.4674 mgallagher@coxcestle.com File No. 82654 August 5,2019 VIA EMAIL Commissioners Ernest Glasgow,Doug Willitts,Dave Simpson, Richard Martinez and David R.Vazquez City of Orange Planning Commission 300 East Chapman Avenue ' Orange CA 9286fi Re: Trails at Santiago—Response to Comments at the July 15,2019 Hearing Honorable Commissioners: On behalf of the applicant,Milan,this,letter is to provide responses to some of the public comments that were made by speakers at the Commission's July 1 meeting and the July 15 hearing on this project. Our role as counsel for Milan is to advise on California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)issues,and we specialize in working to ensure that environmental impact reports fully comply with that statute. One of us,Mike Zischke,co- authored the leading legal guide to CEQA,Practice Under the Calr`fornia Errvironmental Quality Act,published by California Continuing Education of the Bar and updated each year. In preparing these responses,we have reviewed the comments made at the meeting and hearing;and also reviewed the City's documentation on these issues as contained in the Recirculated EIR;the staff report,correspondence with various parties including the State Mining Board,and other record documents. We also reviewed the packet of followup correspondence that was circulated to this Commission by Robert Garcia on August 2. That , packet consists of a number of letters that restate or simply reprint the speakers' testimony,some letters supporting the Project,and a number of letters and emails that raise issues that were already addressed in the City's staff report and in the Recirculated EIR. In brief,the public comments all raise issues that have been thoroughly addressed by the City in the record that is before you as Commissianers. Many of the speakers' comments also grossly overstate environrriental conditions and risks associated with the Project. These points are covered in more detait below. 1. Plan Consisten —The Ci General Plan and Related Plans The General Plan for the City of Orange is the primary governing land use plan for the City,and acts as the"constitution"governing all development. This point was www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles� Orange County� San Francisco City of Orange Planning Cornmissioners August 5,2019 Page 2 established by the California Supreme Court in Orange Citizens for Parks&Recreation v Superior Court(2016)2 Ca1.5th 141, 157-158, Ironically,even though Milan's opponents prevailed in that case,and confirmed the primacy of the General Plan,they now try to cite other plans to claim that the Project should not be approved. Their arguments miss the mark. First,the proposed Project approvals will be consistent with the Gity General Plan. That Plan designates the project site as Low Density Residential(LDR)(15:4 acres), Resource Area(RA)(77.3 acres),and Open Space(OS)(16.5 acres).The proposed project would change the RA designation to a combination of"Low Density Residential"arid"Open Space,"and the LDR designation to"Open Space" The part of the project site that is currently designated"Open Space" in the General Plan will remain designated as"Open Space:' The proposed project also includes a General Plan Amendment that would amend both the East Orange General Plan and Orange Park Acres plan to incorporate the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan.The Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan would create vertical consistency with the General Plan. Second,the Project is consistent with the East Orange General Plan and the Orange Park Acres(OPA)Plan. For example,one prominent policy of the OPA Plan in its residential designations is the concept of"clustering." The proposed Trails at Santiago site design would align with the OPA Plan concept of"clustering"and retaining open space areas near residential"clusters:' Notably,the Orange Park Association approved the use of clustering with smaller lots in their 20031etter to this Commission regarding the prior proposal for this site. (Recirculated EIR,Appendix D): That 20031etter cited Broadmor,Pheasant Run,and the Wildemess as examples of project with smaller lots and clustering,and The Reserve,having lots of less than one acre,is another example of nearby development with smaller lots and clustering. The Trails at Santiago Project in fact provides more open space proportionally than these projects,given that it includes 40 acres of residential development and over 68 acres of recreational and.open space lands. Additionally;the project is consistent with concepts identified in the East Orange General Plan. For example,the East Orange General Plan contains a concept that where possible,new development should be compatible with existing residential densities and should maintain continuity with architectural style,house size,and price range.The project's residential area would have a density that is similar to or less dense than most nearby residential azeas, including the Jamestown neighborhood,which is within the East Orange General Plan area. Third,many cominenters emphasized in particular the Orange Park Acres(OPA) Plan.As discussed above and in your staf�s report for the July 15 hearing,the Trails at Santiago Pmject is consistent with the OPA Plan because it is consistent with surrounding development • and furthers the concept of"clustering"in the OPA Plan. In evaluating all the comments about � the OPA_Plan,however, it is also important to note the tegal status of that Plan. The OPA Plan is often referred to as a"specific plan"but it is not a specific plan adopted pursuant to the specific plan statute.In fact,the Plan was adopted in 1973,prior to the 1974 enactment of the specific City of Orange Planning Commissioners August 5,2014 Page 3 plan statute. (City of Orange Resolution No.3915,December 1973).Also,the OPA Plan does not meet the requirements for specific plans in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.The Plan identifies goals,policies and recommended land use concepts for Orange Park Acres,but does not contain a program of implementation measures,infrastructure plans or development criteria, as required by the statute.The Plan is described in the current General Plan 2010 as a "development plan"that is one of the plans that has influenced growth and change within the City of Orange(General Plan 2010,page I-23).The OPA Plan is thus a relevant land use document,and the Recirculated EIR evaluates the consistency of the Project with this Plan,but the OPA Plan does not control land use policy in the City in the same manner as the policies in the City's General Plan 2010,as was confirmed in the Orange Citizens for�arks&Recreation Supreme Court decision. 2. The Villa Park Landfill and Methane Mi�ration. Commenters raised claims regarding the closed Villa Park Landfill,arguing that the Project should not be developed because of pToximity to the landfill posing risks from the possible migration of inethane. The evidence before the City contradicts these claims. First,there is nothing unique or unusual regarding the Villa Fark landfill,as it was a Class III Municipal Solid Waste landfill,similar in nature to most landfills in California and in Orange County,and was not a hazardous waste landfill. The landfill only operated for four years,and closed in 1966. Homes have been developed near the Villa Park Landfill without experiencing methane or other hazard problems,including the Jamestown neighborhood built in the-1970s,with homes as close as 100 feet from the ctosed landf lI,and the Colony North, Creekside Ranch,and West of Cannon developments,with homes as close as 350 feet to the landfill. Methane migrating from the landfill will not pose a health risk to future residents. First,the site has been monitored since its closure in 1966. This includes the extensive monitoring with vapor probes summarized in fhe November 2017 report by Tait Environmental Seivices. The vapor probes adjacent to the Trails at Santiago project site"did not contain detectable concentrations of inethane"during the time period in question. (Tait,November 2017,p. 8). The August 5 letter to this Commission from engineer Thomas Broz confirms there is no pattem of inethane migration to the site. Finally,to ensure that there is no hazard due to possible migration or accumulation of inethane in the future,the Tait study and the EIR recommend mitigation measures,pursuant to which homes will be situated to allow for remediation and additional assessrnent of soil will be required tiefore constiuction. If any soils are contaminated with methane,they will be removed. Future homes near the former landfill will incorporate structural barriers and methane sensors. Existing County methane sensors will remairi onsite and will continue to be monitored by the County. City of Orange Planning Commissioners August 5,2019 Page 4 3. Fire Safetv and Evacuation Issues Several speakers raised questions about fire safety and the ability to evacuate the site if a fire:occurs. In brief,the project includes design features and mitigation measures that avoid any significant fire risk,arid the site can be safely evacuated if a fire does occur. First,the project includes design features that reduce fire risk,in particular placing approximately 68.5 acres of open space/grasslands and greenway with managed vegetation within the western,northern,and eastern portions of the project site. This acts as a substantial buffer at the wildland/urban interface,which will inhibit and reduce the spread of any fire.Further,Planning Area B,the Grassland area south of Santiago Creek,includes a managed vegetation/fuel modification zone north of and east of Planning Area C:that would act as a vegetative buffer between the open space and residential neighborhood.The buffer zone would be 130 feet wide and would be planted with vegetation that meets fuel management policies.The project also includes a 20-foot wet zone within the rear yard of the residential lots to support fuet management. The managed vegetation and fuel modification zones comply meet Orange County Fire Code requirements(as required by City of Orange Municipal Code Section 15:32.020). The project also includes a robust f re protection system for residences as required by the California Building Code.Fire sprinkler systems and ignition resistant structures have a very high success rate for confining fires or extinguishing them. The project is also close to existing fire stations. Orange Fire Department Station No. 8 is 1.75 miles from the project site,and Orange County Fire Authority Station No.23 is 0.64 mile from the project site.Emergency response times from the City of Orange Fire Department would be approximately 3 minutes and 45 seconds.The proximity of these f re stations and the short response times increases the likelihood of successful initial attacks to limit the spread of any fires. Accidental fires within the landscape or homes wauld have limited ability to spread,as landscaping would be highly maintained,and much of it would be inigated,which would further reduce its ignition potential.Further,under the EIR mitigation measures,the applicant.must prepare a Fuel Modif cation Plan for submission to the City of Orange for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. (Recirculated EIR,Materials,Mitigation Measure HAZ-6). Finally,the EIR notes that all roads will meet Fire Deparhnent standazds and there is no significant impact reIating to emergency access and evacuations. (Recirculated EIR, section 3.1�. The Specific Plan provides for two emergency access points,and requires final review of project plans by the Fire Department to ensure that emergency access requirements are met. (Specific PIan,p. 17). The EIR also includes a mitigation measure requiring preparation of an emergency evacuation plan prior to any occupancy of homes. (Mitigation Measure HYD=S). \ I City of Orange Planning Commissioners August 5,2019 Page 5 4. Consultation with Tribes Two commenters,one from the Juaneno Band of the Acjachemen Native American Tribe,and one from the Muscogee Creek Nation(an Oklahoma tribe with some members who reside in Catifomia),stated thatthe City did not consult properiy with Native American Tribes. This is incorrect. As noted in the Recirculated EIR at page 3:5-19,#he City completed the requ'ired AB 52 tribal consulfation process in March 2017,by sending certified consultation letters to the three tcibes,the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians,the Torres. Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians,and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. This was only part of a substantial history of tribaI consultation for this project,as there was a full round of tribal consultation in 2008 (prior to enactment of AB 52)when the former Rio Santiago project was being considered;at that time, 12 consultation letters were sent to various tribal contacts. The City also consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission. The City did not receive any response to the AB 52 consultation letters.By statute,further consultation with Native American tribes is only required if a tribe responds to the AB 52 notice and requests consultation,so the City has completed and complied with the AB SZ process and requirements. The Recirculated EIR,and the supporting studies of cultural resources, demonstrate that there are no sacred lands_or traditional cultural properties in or around the project site,and no significant Native American artifacts or resources were located on the project site during a pedestrian survey. (Recirculated EIR,Sections 3.5 and 3.17,and Appendix I�. The EIR does disclose,however,that there may be subsurface Native American artifacts or resources that could be uncovered during deveiopment,and for that reason,the EIR includes mitigation measures that provide for full-time archeological monitoring and provisions to stop work and evaluate any Native American resources or other cultural resources that may be uncovered during construction. (Recirculated EIR,pp.3.5-21 to 3.5-25. 5. Hazardous Substances/Contamination Claims Some speakers claimed the site should nat be developed because of existing contamination,and some speakers characterized the site conditions in extravagant and inaccurate terms,comparing it to a"Love Canal"type of situation. These claims are exaggerated and incorrect. One example of the substantial exaggeration and inaccuracy in the comments is the statement from Ms,Stephanie Lesinski(copied into her letter,which is in the August 2 packet circulated to the Commission),who characterized the site as a nuisance containing "methane vents"with a history of Water Board violations. There are no methane vents on the site;as noted under item 2,above,on-site investigations with vapor probes showed no detectable methane on the site, The Water Board notice that she provided was a routine inspection from last October which noted that there were degraded sand bags,degraded waddles,and overgrown City of Orange Planning Commissioners August 5,2Q 19 Page 6 vegetation in the required runoff sampling area,and that notice itself stated that new materials to remedy these conditions had been ordered arid would be in place within a week. This notice shows a pattern of compliance,nat a pattern of violation and nuisance. As shown in the site studies and the Recirculated EIR,contaminants on the site are the types of contaminants,such as petroleum hydrocarbons,commonly encountered on previously developed property in California. These substances are particularly common on previous industrial and manufacturing sites. The project site does not contain many contaminants that are often on such sites,such as asbestos,pesticide residues,and lead. (Recirculated EIR,section 3.8). Also over half of the site is clean,and passes the very low initial screening criteria established by the state and does not require any further investigation or remediation. On sites such as this,there are standard protocols to clean up soil so it is safe for residential uses. Before homes are built,the site will be required to comply with all local,State and federal standards.A qualifted hazardous materials contractor will remove all soil that exceeds residcritial standards and the City will confirm that all,contaminated 5oil has been remediated prior to construction. (Recirculated EIR,Mitigation Measures HAZ-2b). These procedures and requirements are reflected in the Recirculated EIR mitigation measures for the project. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b requires that any existing potentially hazardous conditions be abated to DTSG standards.Also,further,the mitigation requires that all contaminated soils"be excavated and disposed of off-site in accordance with the rules and regulations of the United States Deparhnent of Transportation(DOT),United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CaVEPA),California Occupational Health and Safety Administration(CaUOSHA),and any local regulatory agencies:' The applicant must document compliance with these requirements by submitting confirming soil sampling results with the grading permit application. 6. Villa Park and Santia�o Dams Some commenters stated that the Project should not be developed because of possible flooding from the Villa Park and Santiago dams,which are 1.5 miles and 5 miles upstream of the site,respectively. The dams were characterized as two of the most dangerous dams in the state. There is simply no basis for these comments,and the record evidence before the City confirms that tHe dams are safe. The City's General Plan identifies flooding as"unlikely" and the U.3.Army Corps of Engineers has determined there are no existing or potential safety concerns.The dams are inspected at least annually and onsite staff inembers consistently monitor the dams. According.to the United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)National Inventory of Dams Santiago Creek Dam was last inspected on May 3,2018,and the Villa Park City of Orange Planning Commissioners August 5,2019 Page 7 Dam was last inspected on February 21,2018,and the condition assessment rating for both dams is"satisfactory:'According to the California Division of Safety of Dams(DSOD)website,a "satisfacto.ry"condition assessment indicates that no existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized.Acceptable performance is expected under all loading conditions(static, hydrologic,and seismic)in accordance with applicable regulatory criteria or toferable risk guidelines. Many of the speakers' comments on dam safety and flood risk are based on the hazard potential rating for the dams,but those hazard potential ratings are not measures of dam safety. Hazard classifications are based on the size of the reservoir and the number of people who live downstream of a dam,not the actual conditions of the dam or its critical structures. Thus the condition assessment("satisfactory") is the appropriate measure of whether there are potential dam defcciencies that may cause downstream flooding.(See Recirculated EIR,Master Response 4). Both dams have a hazard potential rating of"extremely high"which simply indicates that many residents already live below the dams. In other words, living below a dam in the City of Orange is a comman fact of life,not ari unusual risk.There are over 20,000 homes in the same potential inundation area as the project site,including homes within Orange Park Acres. There is nothing new or unusual about permitting development below the dams,and the City's General Plan does not prohibit or limit development in the area. 7. Greenwav and Open Space Maintenance Some speakers questioned how open space within the Project will be maintained. The Project will provide open space.and a recreational trail system,as described in the City's staff report and in the Recirculated EIR. Specifically,the project will include approximately 68.5 acres of dedicated greenway and open space comprised of natural hillsides,re-established grasslands,a restored Santiago Creek riparian corridor,and a managed vegetation/fuel modification zone. The Project will also provide funding in ihe.amount of$4,100,000 for landscaping,trails,and other improvements for the Santiago Creek Greenway and open spaces. (See April 1 Memorandum to.OC Pazks). In addition,the applicant is funding an additional $3,000,000 for trails,equestrian,and recreational amenities in the East Orange Area.Among other things,the applicant is proposing to dedicate the 51-acre former Ridgeline Golf Course site to the City for future open space and recreational uses. There are a variety of ineans to provide for long term stewardship of the open space area and trails. Pursuant to the provisions in the Specific Plan,page 8-3,all public trails and open space(except the easement for fuel modif cation zone maintenance)shall be offered to Orange County,the City of Orange,or another suitable entity as a publically available trail system.All conveyances will be subjeot to specific guidelines established in confo=mance with City standards and project approvals.Unless and until the applicanYs offer of conveyance is accepted,the public trails will be privately owned and maintained by the Master HOA or a similar entity. City of Orange Planning Commissioners August 5,2019 Page 8 The specific entity to provide stewardship and maintenance will be confirmed later,but several options are already being explored. As described by Mr.Garcia at the July 15 hearing,Orange County Parks has expressed interest in participating in such long term maintenance and stewardship. In addition,Milan has approached local conservancies regarding a conservancy acring as the long term steward for this area pursuant to a conservation easement which would follow a standard template for such easements,modified as needed to reflect any approval conditions that may be required by the City,and any conditions tttat may be required by the resources agencies(such,as the Army Corps of Engineers,the Fish&Wildlife Service,and the Department of Fish&Wildlife). 8. Claims Relatins to the Surface Minin�and Reclamation Act Several speakers claimed that the Project cannot proceed because it is not in compliance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act(Public Resources Code §§2710 et seq.): Both tlie City and the State agency with jurisdiction over surface mining,however,have confirmed that SMARA does not apply to the Project. Surface mining operations ceased on the project site prior to January 1, 1976. Under SMARA,a mining reclamation plan is required only for post-1975 mining operations.As such,a mining reclamation plan under SMARA is not required for the project site.This issue was fully evaluated in 2003 by the State Office of Mine Reciamation(OMR)and tiy the City.It was at the time that the OMR and the City determined then that SMARA did not apply to the site.This analysis is fully set forth in Appendix M of the RDEIR.Further, SMARA applies to surface mining,and does not apply to grading projects that are moving earth from one place to another.Therefore,grading activities for the project pursuant to the Sand and Gravel Extraction District(SG)zone or a valid grading permit would not be subject to SMARA. Two specific SMARA claims were raised, neither of which has merit. First,there was a claim that SMA12A prohibits project approval,or requires a hearing by the State Mining Board before the project can be approved. This is incorrect. SMARA specifically states that it does not control over local land use decisions. (Public Resources Code§2715(fl.) SMARA provides for"home iule,"with the local lead agency having primary responsibility for enforcing the law's requirements. (Friends of the Kings River v. County of Fresno(2014)232 Cal.App.4th 105, 118;Nelson v. County of Kern(2010) 190 Ca1.App.4th 252,268 ["SMARA devolves principal regulatory responsibility over surface mining to local public agencies"].) With approval of the General Plan Amendment,which is within the City's traditional land use regulatory powers,the Project Site will no longer be designated as"Resource Area."Second,an argument was raised ttiat the City must provide to the State Mining Board a statement why it is proposing this project in an area with designated minerals,under Public Resources Code §2762(d)(1). On June 6,the Cify provided such a statement to the State Mining Board,although the City also indicated it did not believe that such notice was required in light of the prior consultations between the City and the Board. The State Mining Board evalua#ed this City of Orange Planning Commissioners August 5,2019 Page 9 requirement,and in a June 19 email to the City,confirrried its conclusion that this Project is not subject to this requirement. � * �x We appreciate the opportunity to clarify these poirits,and appreciate the Commission's careful attention to the detailed and votuminous studies that have been prepared for this project. Very truly yours, G� .�.._--- Morgan L. Gallagher G��G,G� Michael H.Zischke MHZ/MLG 082654110866512v1 Kim Kinsler From: Pamela Coleman Senr Monday,August 5,2019 3:43 PM To: Kim Kinsler,Anna Pehoushek Cc: Dehbie Gabler Subject: FW:City Council feedback re Santiago Canyon Rd/Cannon development The below email was received in the Clerk's ofFice today. Debbie- I copied you since it was addressed to the City Council. Pam Coleman,CMC Deputy City Clerk , City of Orange (714)744-5502 ' -----Original Message�-- From: Karen<kchristyd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,August 5,2019 3:35 PM To:Pamela Coleman<pcoleman@cityoforange.org> Subject:City Council feedback re Santiago Ganyon Rd/Cannon devefopment Dear Members of the City of Orange City Council: I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed development at Santiago Canyon Rd/Cannon by the Mifan corporation: Having lived in The Colony for nearly 30 years, I have some deep concerns about what is being proposed. They are: 1)The impact on evacuation during a wildfire situation could endanger lives. Just look at what happened in Paradise,CA during the fire there last year when residents were trapped in their cars attempting evacuation. Last years fire in October should scare anyone away from adding more residents to this atready crowded escape route. 2)The unknown contaminants in the huge mauntain of dumped materials on site are a health concern for all our neighborhoods. Residents should know what is there before anything is moved. 3) The distinct possibility of establishing a CFD is enough for me to vote out anyone who supports this proposal. That's a cheap way for the city and developer to avoid what is their responsibility. 4) Lastly,the impact of more residents in this area on traffic on Cannon is the most irritating and annoying. I have to schedule the times I leave my neighborhood to avoid rush hour. It's just ridiculous trying to.get out of my own little cul de sac! I really need a helicopter to make an escape. Please consider these concerns as you vote tonight: Sincerely, Karen Davidson � i 173� N Wifliamsburg St 2 Kim Kinsler From: Sami Beaini <scbeaini@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday,August 5, 2019 5:04 PM To: Kim Kinsler Cc: Christine Beaini Subjed: Sully Miller property development To:City of Orange Planning Commission From: Sami and Christine Beaini 6403 East Mabury Ave Since I am unable to attend the meeting the evening of August 5,2019 due to a prior commitment, I would like to voice my opinion and support for the project based on the latest proposal by the developer. The proposed development will never be supported by everyone unless everyone agrees to negotiate on some of their conditions. This proposal brings less traffic to the area and presents a fair deal for everyone. I am in full support of the project and encourage Mabury Ranch,OPA and other neighbors to put their differences aside and move forward with a yes vote for a better community. Thank you, Sami Beaini � 6403 East Mabury i4ve Sent from my iPad i