Microsoft Outlook - Memo Style

Transcription

Exhibit E
Page 1 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 2 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 3 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 4 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 5 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 6 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 7 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 8 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 9 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 10 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 11 of 82
Exhibit E
Moreland, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Amador <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:44 AM
Moreland, John; Kim, Judy
Saddlecrest Project and Proposed General Plan Amendments
John Moreland – Judy Kim
Orange County Planning
I am sorry but work does not permit me to testify today on these important issues.
The Canyon Land Conservation Fund whose membership includes 500 taxpaying homeowners along the Western Edge
of the Cleveland National Forest
oppose the Saddle Crest Project and Proposed General Plan Amendments specifically that carves out a niche for this
project.
The General Plan and its Growth Management Element should stay intact as is. By doing so you will be protecting the
County of Orange’s emblem.
Our emblem is of an Orange Grove and foothills near the snow capped Saddleback Mountain where this project is to be
located.
The 3 million citizens of Orange County need this environmental protection as currently stated in the OC Genreral/OC
Growth Mgt Plan and the 312 million
Americans need a buffer from growth near its national forests. The County recognized this when the built out of Rancho
Santa Margarita, Portola Hills, Tustin Ranch
And the East Orange Planned Communities were on the drawing boards.
Way over a million dollars have been spent by citizens and developers on Holtz Ranch, the last Saddle Crest project, the
current Geracci Farms issue currently in appellate court
to protect the last of our scenic western heritage.
We need leadership to keep the western edge of the Cleveland National intact, free from sprawl and at the same time give
developers opportunities in other areas of the County
to grow our economy. As it stands now, citizens will continue to take these projects to court wasting money, time and
effort that could be put to developing business initiatives
in the balance of the County.
Please do not pass this project and the proposed amendments to the General Plan.
Ed Amador-President
CLCF c/o Chay Peterson
PO Box 613
Silverado, Ca 92676
1
Page 12 of 82
Exhibit E
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
HEATHER M. MINNER
T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816
Attorney
www.smwlaw.com
[email protected]
July 25, 2012
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Orange County Planning Commission
County of Orange
300 North Flower
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702
[email protected]
Re:
Saddle Crest Homes Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners:
This firm represents the Saddleback Canyons Conservancy and the Rural Canyons
Conservation Fund on matters related to the environmental review of the proposed Saddle
Crest Homes project (“Project”). In a letter dated June 4, 2012 (attached) we submitted
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project detailing how the
County has failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code sections 21000, et. seq. (“CEQA”) and California Code of Regulations §
15000 et seq. (“Guidelines”) in its review of the environmental impacts of the proposed
Project. Further, we discussed how the approval of the Project would violate state
Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code sections 65000 et seq.
The July 2012 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Project fails to
rectify the deficiencies in the County’s review of the environmental impacts of the
Project. Further, the revised General Plan Amendments, which were made publicly
available less than 24 hours before the Planning Commission’s hearing, continue to
violate state Planning and Zoning Law. The County may not approve the Project until (1)
it is revised to comply with state Planning and Zoning law, and (2) environmental review
of the revised project fully complies with CEQA.
Page 13 of 82
Exhibit E
July 25, 2012
Page 2
1.
The DEIR must use the HCM methodology to analyze traffic impacts and
make its significance finding.
The General Plan Growth Management Element’s Transportation Implementation
Manual (“TIM”) provides that traffic conditions on Santiago Canyon Road are to be
analyzed using the HCM methodology for rural two-lane highways. TIM at 19; see also
DEIR at 3.14-7., 3.14-15, 3.14-25. The FEIR, however, analyzes traffic impacts under a
proposed volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio methodology. It then determines that the
Project’s traffic impacts “would be less than significant (on Santiago Canyon Road) with
the General Plan amendment to the TIM,” which would substitute the V/C methodology
for the HCM methodology. (FEIR, p. 30-168).
Yet, because the General Plan amendment to the TIM has not been approved, or even
considered by the Board of Supervisors, the FEIR must fully analyze traffic impacts and
make its significance determinations based upon the HCM methodology. The FEIR fails
to do so, however, and instead attempts to rationalize its use of the HCM methodology as
a more reliable projection of actual traffic impacts. (FEIR, p. 2-3). As described in our
June 4, 2012 letter, the V/C methodology is not more reliable because it does not take
into account the unique characteristics of Santiago Canyon Road. Moreover, as the Court
of Appeal already decided, it is the General Plan, not EIR consultants, that must
determine what traffic analysis methodology is used. Endangered Habitats League v.
County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777. Accordingly, the FEIR’s determination
that the Project’s traffic impacts would be less than significant is not based upon the
required standard and any decision to approve this finding would be a failure to
“proceed[] in a manner required by law.” Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.
2.
Because the Project’s traffic impacts are significant under the current HCM
methodology, the FEIR must identify feasible traffic mitigation measures and
alternatives.
The Project’s traffic impacts are clearly significant under the HCM methodology, as the
FEIR admits in passing. (FEIR, p. 30-168). Because the Project’s traffic impacts are
significant under the currently applicable standard, the FEIR must “list ways in which the
significant effects of [the] project might be minimized; and indicate alternatives to [the]
project.” Pub. Res. Code § 21061; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and
County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79. Yet the FEIR fails to meet these
requirements as a result of its erroneous significance determination. Before the Project
may be approved, the FEIR must be revised to correct this determination and list
mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s traffic impacts. Also, the FEIR must
Page 14 of 82
Exhibit E
July 25, 2012
Page 3
consider a project alternative that would avoid significant traffic impacts under the HCM
methodology. A core substantive requirement of CEQA is 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. Res.
Code § 21002. A reasonable alternative is one that would feasibly attain most of the
project’s basic objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the project’s
significant impacts. Guidelines § 15126.6(a); see Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of
Mount Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443–45 (1988). The FEIR does not comply with
these requirements because it does not consider an alternative that avoids the Project’s
significant traffic impacts.
3.
The FEIR does not contain an adequate traffic safety analysis.
As detailed in our June 4, 2012 letter, the DEIR completely failed to analyze the
Project’s potential to increase traffic hazards along Santiago Canyon Road. The FEIR
responds to this failure with two paragraphs that attempt to explain away this concern.
(FEIR, p. 3-169). The FEIR’s statement that the Project will not generate traffic “that is
incompatible with existing traffic patterns” is made without conducting any analysis of
actual roadway conditions or increased volumes of traffic. The FEIR does note that
accident rates “just north of the project site” are below what might be expected but fails
to explain how such data would be relevant to the remainder of the roadway or use this
data as a baseline to extrapolate the increase that the Project’s traffic will bring to the
roadway. (Id.). Accordingly, the FEIR still does not contain an adequate safety analysis
that fulfills an EIR’s basic purpose of informing the public and decisionmakers about this
legitimate concern.
4.
The FEIR fails to identify the growth-inducing impacts of the traffic
methodology general plan amendment and improperly relies on existing plans
to conclude that its impacts are less than significant.
The FEIR fails to adequately analyze the extent or environmental impacts of the
Project’s proposed amendment to change the General Plan’s traffic analysis
methodology. The FEIR admits that this change will remove an obstacle to future
development approvals in the County. (FEIR, p. 2-20). But instead of analyzing the
extent or impacts of this potential development, the FEIR tries to duck the issue by
stating that “[t]he fact this obstacle would be removed does not necessarily mean that any
particular number (or any) new development applications will be submitted, or if
submitted, that they will be approved.” (Id.). Of course new development is never
guaranteed until it is approved. That does not excuse the requirement to analyze a
project’s environmental or growth inducing impacts. Guidelines § 15126.2(d). Similar
Page 15 of 82
Exhibit E
July 25, 2012
Page 4
arguments regarding the uncertain nature and extent of development that a freeway
interchange will induce were rejected in City of Davis v. Coleman, (1975) 521 F.2d 661,
675-76.
The FEIR could easily begin to estimate the number and location of dwelling units
that could be approved based upon the evidence of potentially developable parcels that
we previously submitted in the record and other planning documents. As the City of
Davis court directed “the purpose of an EIS/EIR is to evaluate the possibilities in light of
current and contemplated plans and to produce an informed estimate of the environmental
consequences.” Id. at 676. These impacts go beyond the traffic impacts that the FEIR
claims were evaluated. Id. at 675; FEIR at 2-2.
The FEIR also attempts to minimize the impacts of the General Plan traffic
methodology amendment by stating that any new development would be required to
comply with existing land use policies and plans. (FEIR, p. 2-20) However, the fact that
development may comply with existing regulations does not mean that its impacts will be
less than significant. See Kings County Farm Bureau v. Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 690
(1990). Further, the FEIR concludes that the impacts of new development need not be
analyzed because it would not “be more growth than already anticipated by the County of
Orange General Plan.” (FEIR, p. 2-21) However, the impacts of a project must be
analyzed against existing environmental conditions on the ground, i.e., baseline
conditions, not conditions that are allowed to happen under approved plans. San Joaquin
Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (“the
baseline environmental setting must be premised on realized physical conditions on the
ground, as opposed to merely hypothetical conditions allowable under existing plans”).
Accordingly, the FEIR must be revised to identify the extent and location of new
development facilitated by removing the HCM methodology obstacle and to analyze the
environmental impacts of the growth using existing conditions as a baseline.
5.
The amendment to the introduction of the General Plan still violates state
planning and zoning law consistency requirements and the revised
amendment creates ambiguities and confusion regarding how it will be
applied.
The Project includes an amendment to the introduction of the General Plan that
would allow the Board of Supervisors to approve projects that are not “entirely
consistent” with each and every goal and objective of the General Plan or a Specific Plan
and to give greater weight to some goals and objectives over others. As described in our
June 4, 2012 letter, this amendment violates state Planning and Zoning law consistency
requirements. The FEIR attempts to limit the reach of this amendment by explaining that
Page 16 of 82
Exhibit E
July 25, 2012
Page 5
it was not meant to apply to mandatory regulations. Yet the County cannot rely on
statements in an FEIR to fix an illegal general plan amendment. The amendment itself
must be modified.
Further, it is not just a mandatory regulation that must be complied with but also
“a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory and clear.” Endangered Habitats
League, 131 Cal.App.4th at 782. In addition, courts have held that “[t]he question is not
whether there is a direct conflict between some mandatory provision of a general plan
and some aspect of a project, but whether the project is compatible with, and does not
frustrate, the general plan’s goals and policies.” Napa Citizens for Honest Government v.
Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App. 4th 342, 378-79 (rejecting county’s argument that
its General Plan policies “should not be viewed as directives”)
Far from clarifying the proposed amendment, the July 24, 2012 revisions create
additional ambiguity and confusion about how the amendment is to be applied. For
instance, the amendment now only applies to goals and objectives and no longer applies
to policies and implementation measures. Yet, the Orange County General Plan at times
includes Goals, Objectives, and Policies (see e.g. Resources Element, p. VI-30 to 31) and
at other times includes “objectives and policies” without distinguishing between the two
(see e.g. Land Use Element, p. III-30 to 31).
If the general plan amendment is truly meant to be consistent with existing law, as
the FEIR states (pp. 2-3 to 2-4), one wonders why it is necessary at all, and why it is
being proposed by the Project applicant. Instead of adopting a general plan amendment
that runs afoul of the consistency doctrine, the County should simply rely on these
existing legal requirements. At the very least, the Planning Commission and the public
should be given more than a day to consider the far reaching implications of the revised
amendment.
6.
The Project does not preserve the rural character of the area because it
creates clustered development. The General Plan and F/TSP require projects
that provide environmental protections and preserve the rural character of
the area.
Our June 4, 2012 letter lists the numerous General Plan and F/TSP plan provisions
that require development in the F/TSP area to be rural in character. There is no basis for
the FEIR’s statement that the rural character goals are limited to those discussed in
section 1.1.0c, page I-5 of the F/TSP. (FEIR, p. 2-15). Moreover, the Project conflicts
with F/TSP regulations that were developed to maintain the rural character of the area,
specifically standards that limit density and grading. (FEIR, p. 2-10, noting that the
Page 17 of 82
Exhibit E
July 25, 2012
Page 6
project is inconsistent with current F/TSP regulations). The FEIR attempts to argue that
because the total number of units allowed is the same, there is no increase in density.
(FEIR, p. 30-104). But density is a ratio of dwelling units per acre. By allowing
clustered development, the Project is increasing density in violation of numerous General
Plan and F/TSP provisions to maintain the rural character of the area.
Further, the Project is creates a false choice between preserving the rural character
of the area and protecting the environment. The Project’s Proposed F/TSP Amendment 4
would add a new subsection to the UAR land use regulations. This subsection would
exempt a project from the UAR land use regulations if the project would implement
certain F/TSP goals (notably omitting the goal of preserving rural character) and provides
“greater overall environmental protection.” Yet, as discussed in our June 4, 2012 letter,
General Plan and F/TSP policies require environmental protection and maintenance of
the rural character of the area. Accordingly, the Project is not consistent with the General
Plan or the F/TSP.
7.
The July 24th revisions to the general plan amendments do not fix the
Project’s inconsistencies with the general plan.
In our June 4, 2012 letter we also argue that the Project conflicts with the proposed
General Plan Amendment 2, which would require new development within the F/TSP
area to “maintain a buffer between urban development and the Cleveland National Forest,
to be compatible with adjacent areas, and to reflect the goals of that Plan.” The July 24,
2012 revised general plan amendment now deletes the requirement that development be
compatible with “adjacent areas” and simply requires development to be compatible with
“the [F/TSP] area.” This change does not remove the inconsistency discussed in our
letter. To begin with the F/TSP area is rural in character. Second, the revision does not
change the F/TSP objective to provide “a buffer to the Cleveland National Forest by
limiting development in areas adjacent to the forest.” F/TSP § I.C.2.a.(1)(b). Far from
“limiting” development on this buffer land, the Project would allow a full 65 units of
dense urban development.
For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission should not recommend
certification of the EIR or approval of the Project.
Page 18 of 82
Exhibit E
July 25, 2012
Page 7
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Heather M. Minner
Enclosure:
Letter from Heather Minner to John Moreland re Saddle Crest Homes (June
4, 2012) (without attachments)
cc:
John Moreland, Planner
[email protected]
420115.2
Page 19 of 82
Exhibit E
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
HEATHER M. MINNER
T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816
Attorney
www.smwlaw.com
[email protected]
June 4, 2012
Sent via E-mail and U.S. Mail
John Moreland, Planner
County of Orange
Current & Environmental Planning
300 North Flower
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702
[email protected]
Re:
Saddle Crest Homes Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Moreland:
This firm represents the Saddleback Canyons Conservancy and the Rural Canyons
Conservation Fund on matters related to the environmental review of the proposed Saddle
Crest Homes project (“Project”). We submit the following comments on the April 2012
Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Project. As detailed below, the
County has failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code sections 21000, et. seq. (“CEQA”) and California Code of Regulations §
15000 et seq. (“Guidelines”) in its review of the environmental impacts of the proposed
Project. Further, approval of the Project would violate state Planning and Zoning Law,
Government Code sections 65000 et seq. The County may not approve the Project until
(1) it is revised to comply with state Planning and Zoning law, and (2) environmental
review of the revised project fully complies with CEQA.
I.
Background
The Project is located on undeveloped land bordering the Cleveland National
Forest and is served by Santiago Canyon Road, a two-lane scenic rural highway. Land
use in this area is governed by the Orange County General Plan (“General Plan”) and the
Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan (“F/TSP”). The first attempt by Rutter Santiago, LP
Page 20 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 2
(“Rutter”) to develop this property was ruled illegal by the Court of Appeal in
Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (“EHL”) 131 Cal.App.4th 777 (2005).
The EHL court found that the project would have significant traffic impacts on Santiago
Canyon Road as demonstrated by the Highway Capacity Manual (“HCM”) traffic
analysis required by the General Plan. Id. at 796. As a result, the project was
inconsistent with the General Plan because it would create traffic conditions on Santiago
Canyon Road that fell below the required level of service. Id. at 783. The court also
found that the project failed to comply with applicable F/TSP policies and was thus
inconsistent with the General Plan’s requirement that new development in the area
comply with all F/TSP policies. Id. at 787.
In the wake of this decision, two of the properties involved in Rutter’s prior
proposal were purchased for open space uses that are compatible with the current
capacity of Santiago Canyon Road and the area’s rural character. DEIR at 1-2.
However, Rutter now proposes a more intensive development project for its remaining
property. It attempts to justify this dense, 65-unit Project by arguing that development in
the area could have been even worse—despite the fact that the EHL court struck down
the County’s approval of exactly this sort of development. See Attachment A, F/TSP
development summary exhibit prepared by Rutter. The DEIR for the Project repeats this
faulty logic. See infra section II.B.
Rutter could have responded to the EHL ruling by submitting a development
proposal that complied with General Plan and F/TSP policies guiding development in this
sensitive area. Instead, Rutter proposes several amendments to the General Plan and
F/TSP to allow it to develop a dense urban development immediately adjacent to open
space resources. As detailed below, this Project and its DEIR fail to comply with State
law.
II.
The DEIR Fails to Satisfy CEQA’s Requirements
The EIR is “the heart of CEQA.” Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988) (citations omitted). 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).
Page 21 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 3
Where, as here, the DEIR fails to fully and accurately inform decisionmakers and
the public of the environmental consequences of proposed actions, it does not satisfy the
basic goals of the statute. See Pub. Res. Code § 21061 (“The purpose of an
environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with
detailed information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the
environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be
minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.”)
As a result of the DEIR’s numerous and serious inadequacies, there can be no
meaningful public review of the Project. The County must revise and recirculate the
DEIR in order to permit an adequate understanding of the environmental issues at stake.
A.
The DEIR Fails to Accurately Analyze the Project’s Traffic Impacts
The DEIR fails to accurately analyze the Project’s traffic impacts because it relies
on a traffic impact methodology that does not take into account the unique characteristics
of Santiago Canyon Road, a two-lane rural highway. Rather than rely on the Highway
Capacity Manual methodology as required by the Orange County General Plan and as
specifically requested by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) (DEIR
Appendix A2), the DEIR relies on the simplistic and inappropriate volume-to-capacity
(“V/C”) methodology for determining the capacity of Santiago Canyon Road and
concludes impacts will be less than significant. DEIR at 1-48-50. Because the DEIR
utilizes this incorrect methodology, it substantially understates the Project’s impacts on
Santiago Canyon Road. Had the DEIR used the HCM methodology, the DEIR analysis
likely would have determined that impacts to this roadway will be significant.
Consequently, the DEIR’s use of the V/C methodology also results in the document’s
failure to identify feasible mitigation measures for the proposed Project’s significant
impacts.
1.
The HCM Methodology Is the Appropriate Tool for
Analyzing the Operational Capacity of Santiago Canyon Road.
The County General Plan outlines the traffic methodology that must be used to
measure a project’s impacts on two-lane highways, and specifically Santiago Canyon
Road. The General Plan Growth Management Element’s Transportation Implementation
Manual (“TIM”) provides that traffic conditions on Santiago Canyon Road are to be
analyzed using the HCM methodology for rural two-lane highways. TIM at 19; see also
DEIR at 3.14-7., 3.14-15, 3.14-25.
Page 22 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 4
Sound reasons exist for the use of the HCM methodology on two-lane rural
highways. As the TIM explains, the HCM methodology was developed after extensive
study and represents the best practice throughout the United States.
The majority of the road miles within the United States
consist of two lane roadways. As a result, a great deal of work
has been done throughout the country regarding the capacity of
two lane roads. TIM at 19.
The operating characteristics of two-lane highways are particularly complex.
Anyone who has driven on a two-lane road understands their constraints. Whereas fourlane roads provide opportunities to avoid slower moving traffic, simply by shifting to the
other lane, drivers on two-lane roads are constrained by a series of factors. Grades,
curves, limited sight-distance, slow drivers, and of course the volume of opposing traffic,
are significant factors in a two-lane roadway’s operating capacity. Unless passing lanes
or turn-outs exist, the interaction between fast and slow-moving vehicles creates
bottlenecks as platoons of cars form. Attempting to overtake or pass another vehicle in
these platoon formations is highly constrained or even impossible because of these
factors. The HCM methodology is a complex measure that takes into account these
roadway and traffic variables in its calculations of level of service.
The V/C traffic impact methodology, on the other hand, does not take these
variables into account and therefore does not capture the unique operational
characteristics of two-lane highways. Instead the V/C simply evaluates the traffic
volume traveling along the roadway and compares this volume to the capacity of a
roadway segment. DEIR at 3.14-12. Because the capacity of Santiago Canyon Road is
dependent on the complex interaction of numerous variables, HCM rather than V/C is the
appropriate method to analyze the proposed Project’s impacts.
2.
The DEIR Fails to Utilize the HCM Methodology for
Analyzing the Project’s Traffic Impacts.
The County General Plan identifies Level of Service (“LOS”) C as the acceptable
level of service on Santiago Canyon Road. DEIR at 3.14-17. Santiago Canyon Road
currently operates at an unacceptable LOS D, as determined by the HCM methodology.
Id. at 3.14-13. Accordingly, the General Plan greatly restricts the amount of traffic that
may be added to Santiago Canyon Road. Id.
Demonstrating a disturbing disregard for the General Plan’s clear LOS policy for
Santiago Canyon Road, the Project applicant suggests amending the General Plan to
Page 23 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 5
allow for the significant traffic generated by the Project. The proposed general plan
amendment number 1 (“GPA 1”) calls for using a more simplistic and much less rigorous
traffic methodology to measure the existing LOS on Santiago Canyon Road and the
Project’s traffic impacts, the V/C methodology.
Rutter attempts to rationalize the need for this GPA based on the dubious claim
that the HCM methodology is not reflective of observed operating conditions along
Santiago Canyon Road. DEIR at 1-13; 2-27; 3.14-25; 3.14-15. The DEIR explains that
consultants hired by Rutter conducted field observations of traffic operating conditions
along Santiago Canyon Road. These field observations, consisting of five travel runs in
each direction along the roadway, purportedly revealed travel speeds of between 51 and
53 miles per hour. Id. at 3.14-15. Based on these travel time runs, the applicant suggests
that the HCM methodology does not reflect actual operating conditions on the roadway.
Id. The DEIR then evaluates the operating conditions of Santiago Canyon Road based on
the V/C ratio method and determines that the roadway operates at an acceptable LOS A.
Id.
Yet, Rutter’s assertion that Santiago Canyon Road currently operates at a
satisfactory LOS is unsupported by the evidence in the DEIR. In particular, rather than
conduct the travel runs on the entire stretch of Santiago Canyon Road that would be
impacted by the proposed Project, the runs were conducted on a stretch of road that spans
only 1.2 miles. This segment of the roadway, from Live Oak Canyon Road to Modjeska
Grade Road, is not representative of typical operating conditions. Specifically, it does
not have the traffic constraints (e.g., curves and hills) that plague other stretches of the
roadway. In order to accurately determine the operation of Santiago Canyon Road, the
consultants should have conducted travel time runs between Cook’s Corner and SR 241
toll road, approximately 11 miles.
Even if the DEIR did include sufficient evidentiary basis to support the proposed
change in methodology – which it certainly does not – the DEIR should have, at a
minimum conducted its analysis under both the HCM and the V/C methodology.
Inasmuch as the proposed GPA has not yet been approved, the DEIR must analyze traffic
conditions as the current General Plan requires, i.e., using the HCM methodology. While
the DEIR purports to evaluate traffic impacts using both methodologies, this is not the
case. In fact, it does not use the HCM methodology to analyze Project impacts at all. In
direct violation of CEQA, the document simply recites the bare conclusion that the
addition of traffic generated by the Project would worsen the existing level of traffic
operations (LOS D). See DEIR at 3.14-25, 27, and 28. Santiago County Water Dist. v.
County of Orange, 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831 (1990) (an EIR must contain facts and
analysis, not just an agency’s bare conclusions). Nor does the DEIR use either method to
Page 24 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 6
evaluate the LOS for Santiago Canyon Road beyond Modjeska Grade Road, even though
the General Plan LOS C policy applies to the entire extent of Santiago Canyon Road.
Finally, the DEIR does not bother to arrive at a significance determination, as
required by CEQA. If it had, it would have identified the Project’s traffic impacts as
significant. As a result of this omission, the DEIR fails, in turn, to satisfy CEQA’s
requirement to identify feasible mitigation measures and Project alternatives to reduce the
Project’s significant impacts. San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and
County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79.
3.
The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze the Project’s
Potential to Increase Traffic Hazards.
The DEIR also fails to fulfill the essential task of analyzing the increase in
potential hazards to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians traveling along
Santiago Canyon Road. The increase in traffic volumes from development of the
proposed Project and from cumulative development in the area will undoubtedly enhance
the potential for motor vehicular accidents and elevate the risks to other roadway users.
Unfortunately, the DEIR glosses over this critical public safety issue. Rather than
analyze the roadway’s current accident rate and evaluate the effect that the increase in
Project-related and cumulative traffic would have on accident rates, the DEIR myopically
restricts its discussion of roadway hazards to the proposed Project’s access road off
Santiago Canyon Road.
The County cannot ignore this “elephant in the room.” Project-related and
cumulative traffic will degrade the operating conditions and greatly elevate the risk of
accidents of Santiago Canyon Road. Increased traffic on two-lane roads places additional
pressure on motorists to pass. Some motorists become so frustrated that they pass
vehicles, or drive or pull-over in the bicycle lane, even when it is illegal or unsafe to do
so. The risk of accidents on two-lane roads is extreme since any vehicle that passes
another vehicle must enter a lane that belongs to oncoming cars, motorcycles or bicycles.
The attached Los Angeles Times article demonstrates the high death toll that such road
conditions risk. Attachment B. Rather than undertake the rigorous analysis necessary to
shed light on this alarming sets of facts, the applicant and the DEIR preparers chose
instead to mask the entire problem.
Indeed, it is precisely due to these safety-related traffic constraints that the
County’s General Plan calls for development caps for locations within the
Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan area in the first place. Unless safety-related roadway
improvements (such as passing lanes and turn outs) are implemented, development levels
Page 25 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 7
must be carefully regulated to ensure public safety. It is also for these reasons that the
County and Caltrans require the use of the HCM methodology to ensure that the complex
array of variables that affect traffic operations on Santiago Canyon Road are taken into
account.
An analysis of the Project’s potential to increase the risk of hazards along Santiago
Canyon Road would necessarily begin with a description of the existing accident rate on
this roadway and an evaluation of how the roadway’s accident rating compares to state
and county averages. Those records would allow for a determination as to whether
Santiago Canyon Road currently poses a safety risk. Using that data as a baseline,
County engineers would then be able to determine whether the increase in vehicular trips
to and from the proposed Project and cumulative development would substantially
increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. At the
very least, The DEIR must analyze current traffic collision records on Santiago Canyon
Road between Live Oak Canyon Road and SR 241 and extrapolate the increases that the
Project undoubtedly will bring to this roadway.
4.
The DEIR Fails to Include Mitigation for the Project’s
Significant Traffic Impacts.
As discussed above, if the DEIR had utilized the HCM methodology, it likely
would have concluded that the Project’s traffic impacts would be significant. In addition,
if the DEIR had included an adequate analysis of traffic impacts along all of Santiago
Canyon Road, it likely would have determined that the increase in Project-related and
cumulative traffic levels would pose a significant public safety risk. Consequently, the
DEIR must be revised to undertake these critical analyses. If impacts are determined to
be significant, the EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures or alternatives capable
of eliminating or minimizing these impacts.
B.
The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Growth-Inducing Impacts
of Changing the General Plan’s Traffic Analysis Methodology.
CEQA requires an EIR to include a “detailed statement” setting forth the growthinducing impacts of a proposed project. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(5); City of Antioch v.
City Council of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325, 1337. The statement must
“[d]iscuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.” Guidelines § 15126.2(d). It must also discuss how projects
“may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively.” Id. The DEIR here does not begin to
Page 26 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 8
meet these requirements in analyzing the impacts of the Project’s General Plan
Amendments.
As discussed above, the Project’s GPA 1 would amend the traffic analysis
methodology used to ensure that developments are not exceeding roadway capacity as
required in the General Plan’s Growth Management Element. GPA 1 replaces the HCM
methodology for rural two-lane highways with the inappropriate V/C methodology. As
the DEIR admits, because Santiago Canyon Road is currently operating below an
acceptable Level of Service “C,” the existing methodology “creates an obstacle to
development.” DEIR at 8-4. It does so by precluding any projects generating perceptible
levels of traffic to Santiago Canyon Road. Id. at 3.14-7. Substituting a new traffic
analysis methodology that self-servingly shows a Level of Service “A” for Santiago
Canyon Road essentially opens vast expanses of open space to new development and
facilitates more intensive development on already developed parcels. See Attachment A,
showing developable lands along Santiago Canyon Road.
The DEIR completely fails to adequately analyze the extent or environmental
impacts of such growth-inducing impacts. To begin with, the DEIR asserts that the
impacts of GPA 1 will be limited to the F/TSP area. DEIR at 8-4. This is simply
incorrect. The new traffic methodology effectuated by GPA 1 applies to the entire length
of Santiago Canyon Road, which runs through the Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan area
as well as the F/TSP area and the East Orange unincorporated area. TIM at 19. Despite
this incontrovertible fact, the DEIR fails to mention, much less analyze, GPA 1’s growthinducing impacts in the Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan area and the East Orange
unincorporated area.
Further, the DEIR’s analysis of growth-inducing impacts in the F/TSP area is
perfunctory and flawed. First, it notes that “development that could occur utilizing the
proposed amendments would still need to be consistent with other provisions of the
adopted F/TSP . . . .” DEIR at 8-4. However, the fact that development may comply
with existing regulations does not mean that its impacts will be less than significant. See
Kings County Farm Bureau v. Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 690 (1990). In addition, the
Project’s third General Plan Amendment purports to provide the Board of Supervisors
with the authority to weaken or ignore some F/TSP provisions in favor of others. If the
Project is approved, the F/TSP will not provide the environmental protections that the
DEIR purports to rely on.
Second, the DEIR reasons that because Appendix B of the F/TSP lists a maximum
number of units for properties within the Plan area, and because several parcels within
the F/TSP were sold for conservation purposes, “any growth that would occur would be
Page 27 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 9
significantly less than contemplated by the F/TSP.” Yet, the F/TSP clarifies that the
maximum number of units listed in Appendix B in no way reflects the level of
development the Plan allows for, which depends on compliance with the Plan’s numerous
other provisions. As repeatedly stated in the F/TSP land use regulations, “[i]t is in no
way intended or implied that this maximum is a guaranteed level of development.” See,
e.g., F/TSP § III.D.2.2(a). This is because the maximum number of units “is not
necessarily achievable on each individual properties and [] the ultimate number of
dwelling units permitted shall be dependent on compliance with” the F/TSP guidelines
and regulations. F/TSP § I.C.2(a)3(d). The Specific Plan’s Objectives for Development
Potential only committed to providing “some development potential (minimum of one
dwelling unit) on each existing building site except for extreme situations . . . .” F/TSP §
I.C.2(a)3(a) (emphasis added).
Third, the DEIR concludes that GPA 1 would not result in any new significant
impacts because traffic under the V/C method would satisfy the level of service mandate.
However, as discussed in detail above, the DEIR must analyze the impacts of GPA 1
under the HCM method, which would show a significant traffic impact. Further, the
DEIR does not begin to consider the environmental impacts of new developments along
Santiago Canyon Road facilitated by GPA 1.
At a minimum, the DEIR must analyze the additional population growth, new
residential units, and other development that GPA 1 would facilitate along Santiago
Canyon Road and the areas Santiago Canyon Road serves including Silverado Canyon,
Williams Canyon, Modjeska Canyon, Trabuco Canyon, and any other unincorporated
area contributing traffic to Santiago Canyon Road. The DEIR should identify the
location and intensity of any such new development, and the environmental impacts
resulting from that development. This analysis must encompass the entire length of
Santiago Canyon Road.
III.
General Plan Amendment 3 Includes a “Precedence Clause” That Violates
State Planning & Zoning Law and Whose Impact on Growth Is Inadequately
Analyzed in the DEIR
Rutter’s 2003 development proposal included an F/TSP amendment that allowed
the Board of Supervisors to “balance consideration of Specific Plan development goals
and polices” in considering new development within the area. EHL, 131 Cal.App.4th at
786. The EHL court found that because this amendment allowed some requirements of
the F/TSP to be ignored, it was inconsistent with the General Plan requirement that new
development within the F/TSP area “shall be rural in character and shall comply with the
policies of [that] plan.” Id. at 785 (emphasis in original). Instead of now proposing a
Page 28 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 10
development project that complies with all F/TSP policies, Rutter proposes a General
Plan amendment, GPA 3, that deletes this requirement and inserts a new provision in the
General Plan itself that allows the Board of Supervisors to approve actions that do not
comply with all General Plan or Specific Plan provisions.
The exact language of the Project’s GPA has been a moving target. Rutter
provided a first version to the F/TSP Review Board on March 14, 2012. It then provided
a revised draft dated March 30, 2012. Despite the fact that CEQA requires “an accurate,
stable and finite project description,” the DEIR simply summarizes the “draft” GPA.
County of Inyo v. Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 (1977). Nonetheless, a review of
the March 30, 2012 GPA (attached as Attachment C) shows that it runs afoul of basic
state Planning and Zoning Law requirements.
A.
The Precedence Clause Violates State Planning and Zoning Law
Consistency Requirements
The California Supreme Court has described the General Plan as “the constitution
for all future developments within the city or county.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board
of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553, 570-71 (1990). To effectively guide development, state
law requires that general plans must “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies . . . .” Gov. Code § 65300.5. It also mandates that all
subordinate land use decisions, including specific plans, must be consistent with the
general plan. This requirement is known as the “consistency doctrine.” FUTURE v. El
Dorado County, 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336 (1998). It has been described as “the
linchpin of California’s land use and development laws” and “the principle which
infuses[s] the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Napa Citizens for Honest
Government v. Napa County, 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 355 (2001); Garat v. City of Riverside,
2 Cal.App.4th 259, 285 (1991) (disapproved on other grounds by Morehart v. County of
Santa Barbara, 7 Cal.4th 725, 743 fn. 11 (1994)) (general plan must be internally
consistent).
The Project’s GPA 3 directly contravenes these legal principles. Instead of
providing clear, consistent direction for future development in the County, GPA 3 would
allow general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, and development projects to
be inconsistent with an unspecified number of general plan goals, objectives, policies and
implementation measures. It does so by adding a new General Plan section entitled
“Interpretation and Implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plans.” The
amendment contemplates that “no action is likely to be consistent with each and every
goal, objective, policy and implementation measure contained in the General Plan or a
Specific Plan . . . .” It then proposes to allow the Board of Supervisors to “give greater
Page 29 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 11
weight to some goals, objectives, policies and other provisions over other goals,
objectives, policies and provisions in determining whether an action is in overall
harmony with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.” In other words, the
Board of Supervisors may give precedence to some Plan policies over other policies
when making its required consistency findings.1
Such “precedence clauses” are in clear violation of the general plan consistency
doctrine. In Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Kern County, 126 Cal.App.3d 698,
708 (1981), the court voided a similar precedence clause in Kern County’s General Plan
for violating state law consistency requirements. The prohibited clause stated that if
conflicts exist between provisions of the County’s open space-conservation element and
the land use element, the land use element should take precedence. Id. at 703. The court
reasoned that one general plan element cannot take precedence over another because all
elements of the general plan “have equal legal status.” In other words, one provision of
the general plan cannot be given greater weight than another.
The precedence clause proposed by the GPA is even more insidious than Kern
County’s because it fails even to identify which general plan goals, objectives, policies
and implementation measures will be given precedence over others. Instead, the Board
of Supervisors is given carte blanche to pick and choose which policies it will favor and
which it will ignore for any given action. As the EHL court admonished, “Consistency
requires more than incantation, and a county cannot articulate a policy in its general plan
and then approve a conflicting project.” EHL, 131 Cal.App.4th at 789 citing Napa
Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 379-80. Yet GPA 3 would allow the Board of Supervisors to
do just that.
While the Board of Supervisors has the authority to interpret its planning
documents, it does not have the authority to override state law by granting itself the broad
discretion to determine consistency provided by GPA 3. Courts require general plans to
resolve these internal conflicts up front. Sierra Club, 126 Cal.App.3d at 708. “If a
general plan is to fulfill its function as a ‘constitution’ guiding ‘an effective planning
process,’ [it] must be reasonably consistent and integrated on its face.” Kings County
Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 744. As the California Supreme Court has stated,
1
The GPA 3 itself conflicts with another General Plan provision stating that “all
subdivision, capital improvements, development agreements, projects subject to the
zoning code, specific plans, and other land use actions must be consistent with the
adopted General Plan.” General Plan, p. I-1.
Page 30 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 12
general plans must “possess some degree of stability so that they can be ‘comprehensive
[and] long-term’ guides to local development. DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763,
789 (1995) (citing Gov’t Code § 65300). This GPA would place Orange County citizens
and developers in the dark regarding what is and what is not allowed under the General
Plan.
As detailed below, the Project is inconsistent with several General Plan and F/TSP
provisions. Rutter’s attempt to wash over these inconsistencies with the GPA 3
precedence clause will not stand.
B.
The GPA 3 Precedence Clause Will Induce Growth in the F/TSP Area
and Elsewhere in the County.
GPA 3’s precedence clause is not only fundamentally illegal; it will also have the
effect of inducing growth in the F/TSP area and elsewhere in the County. In violation of
CEQA, the DEIR for the Project nowhere analyzes the environmental impacts of such
growth.
The DEIR acknowledges that it must analyze aspects of the Project that would
remove obstacles to growth through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land
development. DEIR at 8-1. Inexplicably, it fails to mention, much less analyze, the
Project’s General Plan Amendment 3. GPA 3 would allow the Board of Supervisors to
take actions that conflict with certain (unnamed) “goals, objectives, polices and
implementation measures contained in the General Plan or in a Specific Plan.” As a new
provision regarding interpretation of the General Plan, GPA 3 applies not only to the
F/TSP, but also to the County’s 3 other Specific Plans: Coto de Caza Specific Plan, North
Tustin Specific Plan, and Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan.2
The proposed amendment unquestionably weakens environmental regulations and
removes regulatory obstacles to growth. The County currently restricts development
within unincorporated areas of Orange County by requiring applicants to comply with its
General Plan and Specific Plan goals, objectives, polices and implementation measures.
For example, Land Use Element Policy 2 restricts development from occurring where
inadequate public services and facilities exist. Resources Objective 3.1 discourages the
disruption of significant natural landforms in Orange County. The F/TSP Resources
2
While the County formerly had 5 other Specific Plans, it appears that the Santa
Ana Heights and Sunset Beach Specific Plans are now within the jurisdiction of Santa
Ana and Huntington Beach, respectively.
Page 31 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 13
Overlay Component prohibits development within wildlife corridors and along Major
Ridgelines and Major Rock Outcroppings. F/TSP, pp. II-13, II-21.
Such policies constitute formidable regulatory obstacles to proposed development.
For instance, the County denied a residential development project proposed over 9.2
acres within the F/TSP because it did not comply with the F/TSP’s requirement for a site
development permit meeting grading standards. See Hafen v. County of Orange (2005)
128 Cal.App.4th 133, 143 (upholding County’s denial of a grading permit). The County
denied another residential development proposal within the F/TSP area because it was
inconsistent with the F/TSP’s maximum density, wildlife corridor, setback and open
space dedication requirements. See Attachment D, Resources and Development
Management Report re Application PA05-0056.
The development project Rutter proposed in 2003 provides yet another example.
There, the project conflicted with the General Plan’s traffic requirements and the F/TSP’s
regulations regarding tree preservation, grading and open space. EHL,131 Cal.App.4th at
783, 786. As a result of the County’s restrictive policies, two out of the three properties
involved in that proposed project are now conserved for open space uses. DEIR at 1-2.
These development projects were halted because they were inconsistent with one or more
aspects of the General Plan or a Specific Plan.
GPA 3 would remove these regulatory obstacles by allowing the Board of
Supervisors to give less weight, or even overlook, applicable General Plan and Specific
Plan policies and requirements. GPA 3 thus opens up for development entire land areas
whose geographic features or resource characteristics have been protected by existing
Plan policies. It also facilitates more intensive development than would otherwise occur
on currently developable parcels. The attached maps show such developable land within
the Foothill Trabuco and Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan areas. Attachment A. In
addition, most parcels listed as previously subdivided would be subject to this new policy
when applying for a site development permit or further subdivision for additional
development.
In short, GPA 3 could “encourage and facilitate” development with greater
environmental impacts on all of these parcels and elsewhere in the County. Lead
agencies must analyze the environmental impacts of projects that will weaken land use
policies and regulations designed to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. See Pocket
Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 930 (2004). Accordingly, the
DEIR must be revised to identify new growth that would be induced by GPA 3, and to
analyze the environmental impacts of that growth.
Page 32 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 14
IV.
The Project Violates State Planning and Zoning Law Because it is
Inconsistent with the General Plan and the F/TSP.
State Planning and Zoning Law requires that all subordinate land use decisions,
including specific plans and zoning, must be consistent with the general plan. Gov. Code
§§ 65359, 65454, 65860. A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it
conflicts with a plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear, regardless of
whether the project is consistent with other general plan policies. FUTURE, 62
Cal.App.4th at 1341-42. Even in the absence of a direct conflict, a local agency may not
approve a development project if it frustrates the general plan’s policies and objectives.
Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79. Amendments to the General Plan must
maintain its internal consistency. Gov. Code § 65300.5.
Similarly, zoning ordinances and other development approvals must be consistent
with an adopted specific plan. Gov. Code §65455.3
The Project violates these state law requirements because it conflicts with and
frustrates clear policies within the General Plan and F/TSP to appropriately phase
development and to protect the rural character of the Foothill Trabuco area.
A.
The Project Conflicts with the General Plan and the F/TSP Because it
Does Not Phase Development to Be Compatible with the Existing
Transportation System.
The Orange County General Plan contains several policies to ensure that new
developments will not be approved unless the County’s transportation system can support
the traffic those developments would generate. Land Use Policy 3 (Land
Use/Transportation Integration) states that “[w]hen local or regional imbalances [in land
use and the transportation system] occur, development should be deferred until
appropriate improvements to the circulation system can be provided or adequate project
mitigation measures can be developed (e.g., public transit, employee housing programs.)”
3
The Project’s GPA 2 attempts to delete the General Plan requirement enforced
by the EHL court that new development “shall comply” with all policies of the F/TSP and
substitute softer language that new development shall “reflect the goals” of the F/TSP.
This GPA would not change the requirement that new development must be consistent
with F/TSP goals, however. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.Appp.4th at 378-80.
Page 33 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 15
Similarly, Land Use Policy 2 (Phased Development) states that the County will “ensure
that new development will not overload existing facilities or be allowed to be completed
without adequate facilities.” The F/TSP also includes a phasing objective “to ensure that
circulation and other infrastructure capacity is not exceeded and that development occurs
commensurate with necessary infrastructure improvements.” F/TSP § I.C.2.0(4)(d)
Based on the DEIR’s LOS analysis, the County land uses are out of balance with
the current design of Santiago Canyon Road. Santiago Canyon Road is a two-lane
highway without passing lanes or signaled stops. DEIR at 3.14-8. As the DEIR admits,
the current level of service on Santiago Canyon Road is at LOS D (DEIR at 3.14-13)
whereas Circulation Plan Policy 5.5 and Growth Management Element Policy 3 require
that “LOS ‘C’ shall be maintained on Santiago Canyon Road links until such time as
uninterrupted segments of the roadway (i.e. no major intersections) are reduced to less
than three miles.” Accordingly, the General Plan’s land use and circulation policies
require that development be deferred until improvements to Santiago Canyon Road are
made.
The Project directly conflicts with these policies. Instead of waiting until
improvements are made to the design of Santiago Canyon Road or adopting mitigation
measures to reduce uninterrupted segments, the Project proposes a general plan
amendment, GPA 1, to allow increased levels of traffic on Santiago Canyon Road. As
such, it is inconsistent with and frustrates General Plan and F/TSP policies to phase
development to be compatible with the existing transportation system.
B.
The Project Conflicts with the General Plan and the F/TSP By Placing
a Dense Urban Development in a Rural Area.
Foothill Trabuco is an area of unincorporated Orange County that is characterized
by its rural development pattern, steep hillsides, narrow ridgelines, and extreme
environmental hazards, such as flooding, mudslides, and wildfires. The area is one of the
last buffers between developed Orange County and the Cleveland National Forest. The
County’s General Plan and the F/TSP contain goals and policies expressly to preserve
this buffer and maintain the rural character of the area. The Project conflicts with these
policies by placing a dense urban development on land immediately adjacent the
Cleveland National Forest.
The General Plan’s Resources Element Open Space Policy 1.1 states that the
County will “guide and regulate development of the unincorporated areas of the County
to ensure that the character and natural beauty of Orange County is retained.” The
General Plan clearly recognizes that the F/TSP area is rural in character, listing it under
Page 34 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 16
policies for “Transitional Areas for Rural Communities.” General Plan Growth
Management Element, Policy 6 (emphasis added). The F/TSP similarly describes the
Upper Aliso Residential (“UAR”) District of the F/TSP area as having a “rural character”
with “low density” development and “steep to gently sloping terrain and significant
biological resources.” F/TSP § III.D.8.1.
Instead of proposing a project that is in keeping with the rural character of the
area, Rutter proposes a General Plan amendment, GPA 2, that would remove the Growth
Management Element Policy requirement that new development in the F/TSP area be
“rural in character.” This brazen tactic cannot succeed. GPA 2 does not change the fact
that the F/TSP area is rural. Accordingly, the Project is still inconsistent with Resources
Element Open Space Policy 1.1, which requires new development to retain this rural
character.
The dense urban nature of the Project also conflicts with numerous F/TSP goals
and objectives to maintain the rural character of the area. Section 1.A (Introduction,
Authorization and Purpose) of the Specific Plan states that the purpose of the F/TSP is
“to preserve the area’s rural character and to guide future development in the
Foothill/Trabuco area.” (Emphasis added). The very first F/TSP goal, (Rural
Character/Forest Buffer) is “[t]o preserve the rural character of the area and provide a
buffer between urban development and the Cleveland National Forest.” F/TSP §
I.C(1.0)(a) (emphasis added). Its objectives include “utiliz[ing] architectural and design
guidelines to establish rural standards” and “encourag[ing] larger-lot development in
resource-constrained areas. Id. § I.C.2.a.(1)(a) and a.(3)(e) (emphasis added).
The F/TSP implements these rural character objectives through land use
regulations specific to each planning area within the F/TSP. The land use regulations for
the UAR District are intended to “provide for the maintenance of low density, singlefamily residential development in a manner that is rural in character . . . .”4 Id. §
III.8.1(emphasis added). They do so by providing that “[i]n no case shall the maximum
number of dwelling units permitted [as shown on Appendix B] on any property be
exceeded.” Id. § III.8.2(a)(emphasis added).
The Project clearly conflicts with these F/TSP goals and objectives by proposing a
Specific Plan amendment that allows for projects that exceed the F/TSP’s rural density
4
None of the Project’s proposed F/TSP amendments change these goals and
objectives to maintain the rural character of the area.
Page 35 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 17
and grading standards. Land use regulations for the UAR District preserve the rural
character of the region by requiring a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres with an average
minimum of 1.0 acres. Id. § III. 8.8(a). They also require grading standards that, as the
Hafen court explained, “are at the very heart of the FTSP, its environmental and aesthetic
concerns , its substantive and procedural regulations and its design guidelines.” 128
Cal.App.4th at 139; F/TSP §III. 8.8(a). The Project’s Proposed F/TSP Amendment 4
would add a new subsection to the UAR land use regulations. This subsection would
exempt a project from the UAR land use regulations if the project would implement
certain F/TSP goals (notably omitting the goal of preserving rural character) and provides
“greater overall environmental protection”—a standard so vague it is essentially
unenforceable.
Relying on this exemption, the Project would develop 65 units on property that
Appendix B caps at 40 units. The average lot size is just 0.39 acres. DEIR 2-6. This
dense, “clustered” development conflicts with the General Plan and Specific Plan goals
and objectives to maintain the area’s rural character through large lot sizes and dispersed
development patterns. Accordingly, under state Planning and Zoning Law, the County
may not approve the Project. Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; Gov. Code
§65455.
C.
The Project Conflicts with the General Plan and the F/TSP Because it
Does not Maintain a Buffer with the Cleveland National Forest and is
not Compatible with Adjacent Areas.
The Project site is directly adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest to the north,
and two undeveloped, open space parcels to the northwest. Half of the site’s eastern
boundary and its entire southern boundary across Santiago Canyon Road are conserved as
open space. The Lyon Ranch development (Santiago Canyon Estates) is the single
example of developed land adjacent to a portion of the site.5 See Attachment A.
The Project would place a dense urban development in the middle of this open
space area. In so doing, it conflicts with General Plan and F/TSP policies requiring that
this site serve as a buffer zone from further urban development in the area.
The General Plan’s current Growth Management Element Policy for Transitional
Areas for Rural Communities requires new development within the F/TSP to be rural in
5
Santiago Canyon Estates was not approved under existing F/TSP standards but
was instead grandfathered in to the F/TSP. F/TSP at III-46.
Page 36 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 18
character and comply with F/TSP policies to “maintain a buffer between urban
development and the Cleveland National Forest.” While the Project’s General Plan
Amendment 2 would delete this requirement, it still proposes language that would require
new development within the F/TSP area to “maintain a buffer between urban
development and the Cleveland National Forest, to be compatible with adjacent areas,
and to reflect the goals of that Plan.” The F/TSP objectives include providing “a buffer
to the Cleveland National Forest by limiting development in areas adjacent to the forest.”
F/TSP § I.C.2.a.(1)(b). Far from “limiting” development on this buffer land, the Project
would allow a full 65 units of dense urban development.
The DEIR makes a false comparison with a hypothetical non-clustered project to
show that the Project creates more of a buffer than might otherwise be allowed.
However, the hypothetical non-clustered project would actually be prohibited under
current land use requirements because it would generate excessive traffic. DEIR at 8-6.
To comply with County planning laws, the entire Project site must be developed as a
buffer with much less density. That is why the F/TSP policies discussed above call for
rural development in this area, not intense urban development.
The Project’s attempts to create exemptions for itself fail to escape its inherent
inconsistency with these interlocking policies. It must be revised to be consistent with all
General Plan and F/TSP Policies.
V.
Conclusion
The Foothill/Trabuco area serves as a buffer zone between the Cleveland National
Forest and urbanized Orange County. The General Plan and the F/TSP contain clear and
detailed provisions to ensure that it remains so. These provisions require new
development in the area to be low-density, dispersed, and rural in character. They also
prohibit new development from placing urbanized traffic demands on the scenic two-lane
road that serves the area. Despite these facts, Rutter proposes a dense, clustered
development in the heart of Foothill/Trabuco that would add 780 daily automobile trips
to Santiago Canyon Road. DEIR at 3.14-19. The Saddle Crest Project includes no less
than 15 amendments to the General Plan and the F/TSP in an attempt to shoulder its way
through the County’s land use regulations.
Yet, the Project cannot avoid its inconsistency with numerous other General Plan
and Specific Plan provisions designed to protect the region from just this type of
development. Aware of this impossibility, Rutter proposes a General Plan amendment
that would allow the Board of Supervisors to approve projects that conflict with County
land use goals and regulations. This amendment flies in the face of well-established state
Page 37 of 82
Exhibit E
John Moreland
County of Orange
June 4, 2012
Page 19
Planning and Zoning law requirements, however. It cannot be used to justiff approval of
the Project.
In addition to the fact that the Project violates state Planning and Zoninglaw,
environmental review for the Project fails to satisff CEQA's requirements. In an attempt
to conclude that the Project's traffic impacts are less than signiftcant, the DEIR does not
use the required traffic analysis methodology. And it completely fails to analyze the
Project's impacts on traff,rc safety. Nor does the DEIR discuss the growth-inducing
impacts that the Project's General Plan amendments will have throughout the region, or
the environmental impacts this additional development will cause. For all of these
reasons, the County must not consider the Saddle Crest Project further. At the very least,
the Project and the DEIR must be substantially revised and recirculated for public review.
ery truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Heather M. Minner
cc:
Orange County Board of Supervisors
344019.4
SHUTE/MIHALY
Page 38 of 82
I.¡
,VEINBERCERLLp
Exhibit E
Moreland, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gloria Sefton <[email protected]>
Moreland, John
Staff Report for Today's Planning Commission Hearing
John,
Two things:
1. I received notice of additional proposed General Plan amendments on the SaddleCrest project
yesterday at 3:40 PM, less than 24 hours before the Planning Commission hearing today. That is
certainly inadequate time for me (and the rest of the public) and the commissioners to fully
understand the implications of these changes that will affect the entire Orange County General
Plan. I therefore request that today's hearing be postponed to give adequate time for review of these
changes.
2.
Please forward to me the staff report for today's meeting.
Thank you.
Gloria Sefton
1
Page 39 of 82
Exhibit E
Moreland, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ray Chandos <[email protected]>
Moreland, John
Re: Saddle Crest Homes -- Revisions to Proposed General Plan Amendments
John,
This was sent out less than 24 hours before the public hearing. This is not good planning practice. The hearing
should be continued to allow the Planning Commission and public an opportunity to review these fundamental
revisions to the proposed project.
Thank you.
Ray Chandos
--- On Tue, 7/24/12, Moreland, John <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Moreland, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Saddle Crest Homes -- Revisions to Proposed General Plan Amendments
To:
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 3:39 PM
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you requested to be on our email distribution list for the Saddle Crest project or you commented
on the Saddle Crest Draft Environmental Impact Report (No. 661). In response to comments raised during the public review process
for the Draft EIR, the applicant for Saddle Crest Homes has revised two of their proposed General Plan Amendments (Land Use
Element and Introduction Chapter). These revisions are for clarification purposes only. Attached are two “strike-through” documents.
The first document compares the modified language to the originally proposed amended text and the second compares the modified
language to the existing General Plan/Specific Plan language.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments.
All the best,
John Moreland
Contract Planner
OC Planning
300 N. Flower Street, 1st Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
phone: (714) 667-8806
1
Page 40 of 82
Exhibit E
email: [email protected]
website: www.ocplanning.net
 Please consider our environment before printing this email.
2
Page 41 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 42 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 43 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 44 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 45 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 46 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 47 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 48 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 49 of 82
Exhibit E
Moreland, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori Galasso <[email protected]>
Moreland, John
Re: Saddle Crest Homes -- Revisions to Proposed General Plan Amendments
Mr Moreland,
Not unless someone is trying to clarify even more specifically they want to change the things that suit them
instead of adhering to the "Specific" Plan in place.
with the deletion of ", policies and provisions" ---in determining whether an action is in overall harmony with the General Plan
and any applicable Specific Plan in light of the plan’s purpose.
That's the part that's under the part describing Board responsibilities. Just to clarify.
Thanks,
Lori Galasso
On Jul 24, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Moreland, John wrote:
These revisions are for clarification purposes only.
1
Page 50 of 82
Exhibit E
Moreland, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brail, Michael - El Toro High School <[email protected]>
Moreland, John
Kim, Judy
Documented request to Include my letter in the record, and distribute to each
commissioner.
6/4/2012
Dear Mr. Moreland,
The Saddle Crest project is not in compliance with Orange County's General Plan or the Foothill Trabuco
Specific Plan, it flouts state planning and zoning law, and the EIR does not adequately address numerous
significant adverse impacts, including sprawl, growth inducement, traffic, harm to threatened and
endangered plant and animal species (like the gnatcatcher and cactus wren), air pollution, hydrology,
visual impacts and recreation.
As a concerned Orange County citizen, educator, and a Modjeska Canyon homeowner, I hope we can
conserve the natural beauty, and rural character that is unique to our Orange County canyons.
Thank you,
Mr. Michael Brail
1
Page 51 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 52 of 82
Exhibit E
July 25, 2012
Ms. Channary Leng
Mr. John Moreland
OC Public Works/OC Planning
300 N. Flower Street
P.O. Box 4048
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Leng and Mr. Moreland:
Some of my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report #661 for the proposed Saddle
Crest Homes project were dismissed with the remark that “[t]he commenter does not state a specific
concern about the adequacy of the Draft EIR … a response is not required ...”
My specific concerns included such things as the amount of grading proposed, the impact on cactus
along the roadway, the loss of open space, and proposed changes to general and specific plans
designed to accommodate the proposed project. These concerns are related to aesthetics, biological
resources, and land use and planning, topics which an EIR is required to address.
Failing to respond to comments like this would severely undermine the credibility of the final EIR.
Sincerely,
Scott Breeden
P.O. Box 663
Silverado, CA 92676
Page 53 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 54 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 55 of 82
Exhibit E
Moreland, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jon Pawlowski <[email protected]>
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:31 PM
Moreland, John
Saddle Crest Homes
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Dear John, I am a concerned resident of Portola Hills. I have lived and worked in the area for over 26 years. I
have been a resident of Orange County for my entire life of 43 years. I moved to Portola Hills because of the
connection to nature and the relaxed atmosphere. It is nice to be able to go home and feel like you are away
from it all for a few hours when you work in the busy section of Orange County. This is why I live here and why
most live here. I feel as most in the area feel that the future construction plans are counterproductive in terms
of what these new communities will create. More traffic, more people, more litter, more noise, and more
pollution are all obvious affects. At some point I believe we have to understand that by continuing to build on
the little land we have left in Orange County we are killing the reason why people like in here in the first place.
This area of Saddle Crest Homes sits in one of the only areas in Orange County where one can experience
true nature. That is the appeal. Animals need to have some room left for them!!! If we build the area to death
we ruin it for the animals and for ourselves. I believe there ARE more important things in life than money.
As a resident I feel my way of life is being threatened. I feel nature is being threatened. I feel compelled to
oppose and resist this in every way possible and encourage others to do the same. Since I have been in the
field of advertizing on both television and the Internet for over 20 years I plan on using media to bring interest
and help to this needed cause.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Jon Pawlowski
Systems Operations Director
BJ Global Direct
Direct Line: 949-825-5830
1
Page 56 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 57 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 58 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 59 of 82
Exhibit E
Aug 23, 2012
Mr. John Moreland – Sent via e-mail to: [email protected]
Orange County planning
PO Box 4048
Re:
Comments for public record for Project from Delma Johnson resident/Equestrian.
Saddle Crest Planning Application PA110027
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 17388
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (PA110027)
Contents Draft EIR General Plan Amendments:
Final EIR 661
#1. Growth Management Element (Policies, Transitional Areas for Rural Communities):
This change proposed striking out F/TSP and F/TFP from rural planning areas is re-defining the
whole premise, defined and supported by the community when the F/TSP was drafted. The
F/TSP defines the complete contiguous area within these boundaries of Trabuco Road, Live oak
Canyon Road, Santiago Canyon Road, which Embraces up to the Cleveland National forest as
The Buffer Area defined within the F/ TSP. All areas outside this perimeter of roads are
defined as outside the TSP areas are URBAN AREAS. Rural Residential Property is usually
brought and sold with land acreage. Rural residential lots are those with no less than an acre.
If the real estate is within the corporate limits of a city, that property is not classified legally as
rural. Trabuco Canyon Specific Area would be considered not incorporated and the properties
are classified legally as rural. Census Bureau defines Rural as property that is not urban.
Therefore the Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan Area is Rural along with the Silverado-Modjeska
Specific Plan area and is commonly rural in character. These areas are all embracing the
Cleveland National Forest. The Buffer Area required to support and sustain the forest, wildlife
and migration patterns, have long been defined by the community and are defined to be rural
in nature. You need to realize the Foothill Trabuco specific plan area is the Buffer Area, this
area legally cannot be redefined or any part thereof as Urban Residential by just a County Staff
mandate that supports the amendment of an urban project by referring to Mariposa County
General Plan, under 5.1.01 “rural character states, (see page 19 of 48 OC Planning Report 7-252012 for specific quote). I summarize their decision as being made because mariposa defines
rural character as there are spaces between the homes. Even with higher densities and
commercial and industrial usages are still considered rural character. “However, (county Staff
quotes) this proposed amendment will not alter how projects within the F/TSP are processed.”
Page 1 of 13 pages
Page 60 of 82
Exhibit E
This is as shallow as it gets. No impact because of this change. County Staff has no idea what
rural character and rural residential within the specific plan is all about. This is amazing.
This change/amendment is not necessary as a general or specific change. We are supporting
and maintaining an existing buffer, not dicing it up Urban/Rural piece by piece for the one
applicant. The individual rights have to be equally protected and equally enforced. The Buffer
Area is Rural in nature. The specific plan Area is the Buffer. The Counties job is to define what
projects sustains the rural character and what should be protected or accepted as natural open
space within the Buffer, which is the Specific Plan Area. The Yes factor to this change will result
in urbanizing illegally the Foothill Trabuco Area with no community support. The citizens of
Orange County will suffer. The community will eventually be grandfathered while losing their
rural residential lifestyle, which includes horse and animal keeping on properties, so extremely
important to those of us that have been subjected to losing this ability in other Counties.
Mariposa County is not Trabuco Area, there is no comparison. This amendment changes as an
example, Los Angeles County, has completely changed a community to being restricted from
owning any animals on any parcel except for maybe cats and dogs, forever. Once you give way
to urban influence in a rural area, you open the gates to the rural being consumed by the
developer. Please, educate county staff on the severe impact to rural residential Trabuco by
these changes, you are destroying us. Is this just adamant complaisant behavior on staff’s part
to apiece this destruction on our community? You are not giving any respect to public input.
The community has spoken and informed the county of undefined severe impacts this will have
on our community. Once you destroy, no matter if thru ignorance of the issue or because of
intentional blatant intent, you as County Staff cannot correct what you are doing to us as
residences. I left LA county Griffith Park Area, then Palos Verdes Area, then Torrance and here I
am in Trabuco Canyon, being subjected to the same zoning changes that have taken our rural
lifestyles and destroyed these areas by urban-cement clusters of bedroom communities, with
no rural character.
Approval of changes will have additional impact on recreational elements in addition to the
loss, of keeping animals on our parcels, especially our horses.
Stick to what has proven to work, Rural Residential Areas in Trabuco/Sil-Mod thru out all three
canyons are supporting the buffer zone, while complying with the guidelines. Rural properties
that are just outside of urban areas are driving the growing trend of rural property ownership.
Being surrounded by open space and the natural environment is appealing in Orange County.
The areas that this new development needs to be compatible with are the rural residential
properties and animal ownership that has not been evaluated or included into EIR 661 and the
small ranches that are supporting the recreational flavor of the equestrian usage. This
Amendment change sets a bad precedence and the total impacts, through the affected
counties, have not been presented to the public. The applicant wants to pick and choose only
Page 2 of 13 pages
Page 61 of 82
Exhibit E
the issues that support his objectives. The county Staff is also only referring to references that
are supporting the applicant site plan. The applicant has already chosen the adjacent areas that
reflects their urban agenda and has completely left out of review the balance of the 90% that is
not urban use. This reads like and urban nightmare. Applicant states “sensitive treatment is
required where one urban use transitions to another (what another urban use?) And where an
urban use is introduced into an essentially undeveloped area.” Adjacent urban key areas
introduced to what! This applicant does not need an amendment to evaluate his compatibility
with adjacent areas that is part of the EIR Process. It should read – to be compatible with rural
residential America. The Specific Plan was introduced to avoid any further Urbanization of the
Rural Buffer. Trabuco is not like any other county Area. The community, has tried in good faith
to inform and define, we are being defined, as the commenter said, o’ well that’s not relevant
but we will make note. Has anyone read all the input to this site plan? Has the Board of
Supervisors read the input by community and concerned groups or are they just listening and
being told by staff, no impact the mariposa county general plan has told us so. Please!!
Do not support this proposed amendment. It is a bad choice for the community and Orange
County. The impact is severe and cannot be mitigated. The EIR 661 does not evaluate this
issue. Save the Canyons, Save our lifestyle, Save our Horses.
#3 Proposed amendment.
What a legal nightmare for the “Board of Supervisors” to Interpret without extensive
knowledge of the objectives of the community. That’s why the Specific Plan was drafted and
proposed as development directive with specific detail information of our natural wonders
within the area. This is why the Trabuco Advisory Board is there to assist the Board of
supervisors. This addition of unnecessary verbiage, I’m sure has some deep dark meaning to
help future urban development in our rural area. Be Cautious of the slurry overkill on your
responsibility it will come back to haunt you. This has already been addressed, and this whole
amendment process is open to interpretation. Well the applicant wants to add “that
harmonizes their goals”. This is another change- not necessary. Get more involved with your
community. Have any Board member actually been to Trabuco specific plan area? Who voted
to approve these amendments, have they read the hours of input and talked to any of the
community. Have all the Board of Supervisors read the complete specific plan, or are they just
responding to interpretation of unknown sources and power point presentations that only
reflect the applicants premise, not the Board of Supervisors own good common sense?
We have left other urban blighted areas and came to Trabuco bringing our assets, our
businesses and our horses, which supports the Orange County Economy. Understand your
decisions are far reaching; you are destroying the remaining rural residential areas with any
Page 3 of 13 pages
Page 62 of 82
Exhibit E
sizeable acreage in Orange County. Most of us with money, not dept, have already found it
distasteful to stay in OC and many have already left to States that have rural open space and
rural character. These changes might bring in 67 clustered homes, but will they bring in people
who can support the OC economy with our assets and our business, or will you just force us out
of Orange County or California, with our money and our horses.
#4, 5, 6, 7 ( Proposed Amendments)
This is a Trojan horse. These requested changes are extensive. The community needs to know
how these changes overlay onto the specific Plan. This has been part of the reviewers and
finally the Boards purview, project by project, issue by issue? Are these changes actually just
complicating this whole process? Does this applicant have the ability to request a variance
instead of re-inventing this whole document? We have been rushed thru the amendment
process, without informing the community what the bottom line of future impacts will be, to
the future development of this community and neighboring communities. Too many issues and
too many fast decisions. No public education on the ramifications to make smart decisions.
After reading the OC Planning Report 7-25-2012, I believe your supporting staff is lacking in
knowledge as to what they are so casually in agreement with, kind of blew my mind. If in
doubt don’t support the amendment. - NO
The Amendments to F/STSP consistency checklist and other conforming changes to reflect plan
amendments per this project should not be made. This needs additional review. The total
concept here is that the Specific Plan creators have one ideology of preservation for the good of
the entire county and State and the applicant has amended to re-define his agenda. This needs
to be for all, not just one.
These amendments will open the gates to defining a projects ability to meet the F/TSP rural
guidelines by just dedicating the necessary open space to the forest and turning the balance of
the acreage project to urban cluster. This Open natural dedication is usually the steepest
grades and most unapproachable part of the project, even to surveyors. Most applicants are
ready to turn the cost of taxes and care of the dedicated steep terrain, over to the forest
anyway, with usually minimal value other than conservation. Migrating animals do not
habituate in these steep slopes except to migrate; flatter areas need to be available. The rural
residential parcels are a prime support to wildlife. Wild Life has no hesitation to graze in our
pastures and then one leap over property fences to other open areas. They drink our horse
water and are relative secure within our larger parcels. URBAN has no support to the Buffer or
the wildlife. I have seen the deer drinking out of the sewers in our urban usage. I have seen
Page 4 of 13 pages
Page 63 of 82
Exhibit E
the lone crane, one foot standing; still protecting, it’s plowed- over habitat, after massive
grading. This is their home, we can share it along with the open spaces and with the oak trees,
it can work and is, but not in an urban cemented world.
Major impact to the community.For example- 113 acre site plan. 56 acres dedicated to natural
open space. The balance will then be defined after these amendments as urban residential
(clustering) within our Rural Buffer. Therefore acreage not dedicated will be completely graded
for re-manufactured slopes to accommodate 65 residences and 3 nonresidential lots, with no
rights to own animals. This will basically be approximately a 67 acre slab of cement, with a
private gate, right in front and across the street from limestone-whiting wilderness park and
Santiago equestrian stables. This project area is the last connective link needed to connect
the park wildlife corridor from whiting park to the Cleveland Forest. Why approve the
permanent placement of a 67 acre clustered bottleneck at the wilderness migrating access from
whiting park to the National Forest. This is not a good positive decision. Even if the back 56
acres of steep 35% grade terrain is dedicated to open space. You are now re-defining and
loosing approximately 50 % to Urban residential uses, with no ability to keep animals. You are
bottlenecking an overwhelming impact to the surrounding usages. Yet the EIR 661 has not
defined any major impacts. Ask, does this project enhance the rural residential properties
north of the project. Silverado/Modjeska area; visualize the large parcels w/horse ownership,
ranchetes which are visible along Santiago Canyon road? This project does not support that
usage. (Not mentioned in the EIR). During Community Meetings held, Trabuco,Sil-Mod owners
have voiced their outrage toward this clustering scenario of development. The EIR has been
selective as to how they evaluate their neighboring usages. They completely ignored the
small rural usages to the north, the rural usages to the south and the Mountain Lion perched
on top of the neighboring whiting ranch ridge. The EIR ignored the horses at the stables which
will be visible as you drive out to the applicants closed gated community gate. But O! YESS you
will see rural like planted Oak Trees at the entrance and a segment of a horse trail. The
occupants of this community will never know what it is to own more than one dog, and one cat,
if the landlord permits.
The EIR is selective in defining only what they want to evaluate to make their clustering point.
They do not include the impact this cluster of cement will have on whiting ranch, the equestrian
facility and the migrating patterns of wildlife. Most of our parcels are larger than the width of
the migration green belts these animals will be herded thru. Animals will all end up in the 60
acre neighboring ranches’ front door, to graze on flatter land until that too has been obliterated
thru another executive order by our county staff.
Page 5 of 13 pages
Page 64 of 82
Exhibit E
The clustering scenario is the worst choice ever, even with the natural open space dedication.
Completely cementing approximately 56 acres in front of the Whiting Park and Santiago
stables.
Better Choice is the rural residential (not clustered) - one acre lot size scenario. This scenario
was analyzed by the applicants engineer and has certified that the Non-Clustered (rural
residential) is compliant with all the F/TSP requirements that can be shown on the site plan.
Gee! This was done without taking rural character out of the plans! Protect the animal
ownership /Horse keeping on parcels for the project. Give the owner builder a chance to
purchase one, two, three, four acre parcels or bundle one or more acre parcels depending on
the need of usage. Give the owner builder the decision making on where he wants to build his
home. He will make better decisions and protect all trees on his property and care for his open
space. Rural Residential is conducive to the overall scheme of the migrating animals. Applicants
can still dedicate the unreachable steep grade to Forestry. Especially when some areas were
not accessible to survey. Yes this can be done to support the rural Buffer without any of these
ridiculous amendments.
The EIR started under a false premise by re-inventing natural, rural residential and open space.
The premise to support clustering and nothing else, not presenting the facts and letting the
review process take its course. The EIR has avoided the truth of the specific plan area. This
whole project continues to grow. Notice of Public Hearing Aug 15, 2012 adds to proposal
tentative tract map 17388(saddle Crest Homes) now it’s asking for the creation of 68 numbered
lots and 21 lettered lots for the development of 65 single family residential lots and 3
nonresidential lots on the 113.7 acres. Appendix C Rural components of Saddle Crest Homes
the applicant defines” Saddle Crest Homes is a 113-acre parcel of land, located in a transitional
area of existing urban development and the Cleveland National Forest”. The buffer has
already been preempted as a transitional area of existing urban development by this applicant.
But yet we are told that the community has not properly done their job to define the Buffer
Area as rural, natural, and rural in character. Wow!!!!! Why go thru the EIR process? Rural
Trabuco has already been preempted by this applicant. Are there any commercial lots
requested in this site plan? The transitional areas I am sure somewhere is adding commercial
and industrial to this label. These proposed amendment changes will also be consuming our
rural lifestyle. The Specific Plan Buffer is not a Transitional area, it is the Rural Buffer. The
Lake Forest/ Portola incorporated cities being the outside urban area, to the Buffer Area (being
the rural area) that is the transition. The total Buffer Area needing rural protection as defined
by the Specific Plan. The rural residential usage and natural preservation efforts protects the
Rural Buffer from the outside urban area usages. The word transition is movement, moving
from one location to another. An urban location area transitions to a rural location area. The
Page 6 of 13 pages
Page 65 of 82
Exhibit E
Buffer Area itself is not a transition area, as the applicant wants to change for his project. The
Buffer Area is completely rural. Urban has always being defined as opposite and outside of
Rural.
Community input at meeting 4-18-12 and 5-9-12. Concerns were made to EIR 661, that the
animal ownership, part of our rural residential lifestyle we protect, is been destroyed for our
grandchildren, under this new clustering scenario. I asked applicant representative, will my
grandkids be able to keep their ponies on your project? My concerns were inaudible on the
minutes taken. Two heated meetings, all three canyons voiced their concerns, sometimes all
at one time, clapping enthusiastically when they agreed on a no approval of this overreach site
plan. The EIR does not mention the ongoing destruction and the taking of our ability to keep
horses and small farm animals on this and future projects. These amendments as defined are
taking our rights to animal zoning. This is the taking of the ability to keep future horses thru
future developments. This project takes away permanently thru urban-clustering, the animal
ownership rights for future residences. The EIR starts on a false premise, no agriculture, no
historical usages. The agriculture, farming, ranchets, livestock (Horses, sheep ,pigs ,chickens,
ponies, llamas, rabbits, dogs, cats) do currently exist and are a valuable resource to this area.
Approval of any of the submitted applications mentioned in this site plan will subject a high
impact to the community- this cannot be mitigated.
The EIR 661 did not embrace the historical usages. The upper Aliso area is a remnant of
ranches, cattle and Horses. This usage is now smaller but rural one acre and over parcels are
still small ranch usages. Look at the equestrian Santiago stables, go into the project area. First
thing you see is the pasturing of horses. Down a ways to cook’s corner. Horseback riding
lessons, horse boarding, look at Rancho Las Lomas-exotic animals. This usage is still there.
These property owners are hanging on to their rural lifestyle to this day. The same rural
residential usages are contiguous thru the Live oak, Trabuco Ranches, Rose canyon, Hamilton
Truck Trail area, Sil-Mod, Upper Aliso areas and through the specific plan Area. The Double F
Ranch was a prior usage of the prior owner on neighboring north property to this site plan.
They are allocated minimum 2 acre/ per residence. Can this applicant Harmonize with this
neighboring property and increase his site for 2 acre/residence instead of 1 acre per residence.
This would definitely bring the site plan in harmony with the balance, of minimum subdivision
within the majority of the Specific Plan Area. Prior ownership of neighboring property to this
site plan was Double F Ranch, where I purchased a classic Morgan Stallion from the Waer
family. They bred some of the best Morgan Horses worldwide. I am blessed to still have 2
breeding mares from that bloodline in Trabuco. If the rural residential none clustering is
protected for future owners this parcel could have future horse breeding capability, but not, if
Urban cluster is approved. Approximately 90 % of all three canyons want to protect their
Page 7 of 13 pages
Page 66 of 82
Exhibit E
equestrian communities; these are the neighboring usages, the applicant should be worried
to be” Harmonious with”.
How much reasonable profit are we responsible for, to these projects. Is the answer – we are
now with this project responsible to pay the ultimate price- our rights to own and keep our
Horses, the right to support/ request future development to respect the communities
objectives of promoting rural residential real estate transactions. This is survival for our
equestrian small ranch lifestyle. Change these amendments and you are as county staff,
ignorantly putting the last nail on our equestrian lifestyle and impacting the equestrian
recreational element of the specific plan and that of Orange County. The EIR cannot mitigate
the keeping of horses. This issue was not mentioned in this EIR 661.
We cannot mitigate the keeping of horses in this EIR. Horses cannot be kept in a clusteredcement bedroom community or in a business park.
This project has defined an end to our equestrian future in orange county Trabuco. This has
not been mentioned in this EIR.
The EIR re-defines the Trabuco oaks village as a rural residential area, all because there is space
between the homes and no curbs. Since when has these issues had anything to do with rural.
Rural parcels are one acre or larger. Have the ability to own animals. Rural Property is land in
which there is open country and usually less than 1000 people per square mile of land. The
National Center for Education Statistics considers rural area to be any areas that are outside of
an urban area. Rural Residential property is usually brought and sold with land acreage.
Typically rural residential lots are those with no less than an acre. One acre is 42,560 sq. feet.
None of the parcels within the Trabuco Oaks Residential village is over 42,560 SF. per my
recollection. But they do have the appearance due to the fact that these parcels are all
grandfathered parcels with prior ability to subdivide into smaller lot sizes till the specific plan.
The village community is unique and has fought to protect their grandfather ability to keep
animals on their properties. The larger lot owners do have chickens, rabbits, llamas, support 4H small animal programs and support equestrian activities. The lot sizes are deceiving in size
unless you can see the length of the property. Usually cannot be seen from Trabuco oaks Dr.
The rural components of Saddle Crest Homes are defined as minimum street pavement,
parking on the street, no sidewalk proposed, rolled curbs, Natural like materials and/or colors
on front yard walls, informal and irregular grouping of streets trees and other landscape
elements, selecting tall canopy for visual enclosure, native species to include. First time I have
thought of these as Rural. How can the applicant be allowed to define this as a rural
component of site plan???
Page 8 of 13 pages
Page 67 of 82
Exhibit E
Definition of Rural residential is usually over one acre parcel, land in which there is open
country, outside of urban metropolitan areas. Bought and sold with land acreage. Typically
rural residential lots are those with no less than one acre usually quite peaceful and quiet,
being surrounded by open space and the natural environment. This can include agriculture,
livestock, farming areas. Many rural properties are subject to the jurisdiction of a conservation
authority, which can impose restrictions of the land. Don’t re-invent our Trabuco village. Don’t
define Rural as “rolled curbs” or homes with spaces in-between.
The EIR 661 skirts the real issues. Redefines history, as no history, and definitions of rural and
natural. The review process now seems to rezone the area,( does it?) and has been an
apparent pre-defined effort to abusively cram this clustered 67 homes down our throats with
legal direction from the county lawyers and staff, using our tax dollars to destroy our lifestyle
fore-ever. Rural has always been the opposite to Urban. This project proposal turns Rural into
Urban. It changes our Rural Buffer into a 50% Urban Cluster. The community and all
Neighboring communities are against that.
I say this because without prior knowledge of this project when I attended the 4-18-12 and the
5-9-12 meeting, it was apparent this whole process was already pre-defined to change the
process of evaluation. The applicant was supporting Cluster, my way or no way. All that was
herd was about the neighboring urban developments.
The EIR defines no prior usage, no history, does not mention the increasing horse ownership in
the neighboring areas within the specific plan and how this now urban direction will have
impact on these elements. Horses were pulled out of the site for some time, a lot of us where
wondering why? The EIR mentions, but yes, there seemed to be disturbed grasses in the project
area. The project as presented to us did not meet any of the guidelines being repeated over
and over by county rep. But the applicant after requesting 15 amendments to every other
possible plan and completely confusing the attendants on what proposal we were actually
hearing, was adamant that this project, with the help of county legal, would stand up in court
and prevail. Every time I read a document I become more confused as to what was the total of
submitted amendments, to what plans and what was actually approved and to which plans.
The average applicant could not have had this overwhelming overhaul of the amendment
process to completion in such a rushed manner.
The EIR does not distinguish that our rural residential lifestyle supports our historical ability
to keep our horses on our properties. Keep our Small farm animals. Plant a small garden.
Page 9 of 13 pages
Page 68 of 82
Exhibit E
Breed and care for horses, chickens, sheep, llamas, pigs etc. We through these usages
support the Recreational element of the Trabuco specific Plan area and Sil-Mod area.
Activities such as Hiking, bicyclist, equestrian activities, 4-H, horse rescue, separate animal
Breeding programs thru 4-H, pony days, farm project, organic vegetables, animal school
programs, Equestrian trails Inc., horse play day at the local arena. Working with our orange
county kids to give them the unbelievable experience and the association with a real live farm
animal & riding a pony or a horse( you can just see their eyes lighting up with joy) have support
to the Recreational Plan. All because of our Rural Residential ability. We can Keep our bicycles
and motorcycles in a clustered garage, but we cannot care for our horses and farm animals in a
business park or a clustered – Cement community. Support one acre and over parcels which is
a minimum area to still have some support toward rural Residential and The Recreational
Element of the specific Plan. EIR 661 did not address this.
THE RECREATIONAL ELEMENT: Is supported by the rural private recreational elements of the
community, horse ownership and supportive open space areas to ride, O’Neill Regional Park,
Irvine Park, Cleveland National Park, rural horse ownership, public access trails, Regional master
plan trails, Trails being requested along conservation areas, public stables (Live Oak and
Santiago Stables) and hundreds of canyon usages involving the out of area children and want to
be rural America equestrians. The Only Small Trabuco Elementary school supports animal
programs for the public, with on hands community involvement. This is the Thread that binds
our rural residential buffer to the Recreational Element of Trabuco, for all of Orange County.
This is a very delicate and complicated coordination from the community. Destroy Rural or
don’t protect it for the future and you are destroying and weakening our desirable Trabuco
Recreational Element. This element is more than just the visual piece of horse trail in front of
this project, as defined by the EIR 661 and site project. Ask how this project is supporting the
total concept in process of the recreations elements of Trabuco and all of Orange County. This
project EIR has not specifically defined the impact of 3000 homes under development to City of
Lake Forest/Portola Hills. The development in neighboring cities, RSM, all thousands of homes
in Ortega/ Antonio Rd Area, the extensive development north near the toll roads and I’m Shure
many more. All these new occupants will be and currently are headed into the Trabuco Area
for their recreational usages. A great short drive to the rural natural Trabuco Sil-Mod
Recreational area. The sanity of all surrounding counties, to be able to come to this area and
enjoy peace and quiet, and enjoy the experience of stepping into Gods natural wilderness areas
and scenic wonders, without having to drive out of state. They come into the rural community
amazed at the natural views and lifestyle. Most come in, park their cars and bicycle into the
area; some ride their motorcycles as they gaze at our horses. Some park in the oaks and back
pack to the Forest or park in Hamilton Truck Trail and Hike into the Forest or park at our stables
and backpack into the forest. They come, they are welcome, and they are amazed. “How is
Page 10 of 13 pages
Page 69 of 82
Exhibit E
this possible, to still have a small piece right here in Trabuco, of Rural America? They take
pictures of our animals and of their wide eyed wonderful children. This EIR/project/
amendments pulls our specific plan out of rural buffer- Divide and CONGUER, destroy by
redefining rural America to Urban residential. This project is a deterrent to supporting our
recreational element. To enhance try supporting additional day time parking and access to the
forest from the specific pan area. Giving access to connective trails to Master Plan Trails would
boost the ability of the equestrian stable facilities to have Commercial Planned Trail Rides or
Mule back packing for the public. What about doing something for the 4-H programs as usage.
Having our kids as couch potatoes is bad for Orange County. Why spend our money for these
experiences out of state, why not here in Orange County. Our Master Plan of walking and
riding trails needs to be upgraded to the traffic element. Giving the recreational Element a
total boost. County staff should be keeping up with the additional influx of users from outlying
areas, opening more access to the recreational areas from this property that is already the last
connective link to the forest for public coordinated recreational improvements. The balance
of the acreage kept for wildlife preservation. Our wildlife cannot live on steep terrain all the
time. Ask the question do we value our wilderness, if so then this project needs to be sent to
an already defined urban area. All this residential development is on steroids in the county.
Add the project to preservation and enhance the recreational opportunities for Orange County.
Our O’Neill park camping is experiencing overuse. Work on the possibility of carbon trade off,
or a possible trade (State or Federal property trade thru General Services Administration that
are currently up for sale, or just not being used (but still spending tax payers’ dollars). Instead
of county staff simplifying by agreeing with this project atrocity- take the extra effort to
overreach, not to destroy the community, but to work for the community.
Don’t let one developer change our history, our valuable lifestyle? This action of approving this
non-compliant project is wrong. The county has to understand and give support to this
amazing tapestry of combined uses which defines our rural America, Our Trabuco Canyon Rural
Residential Lifestyle.
Stop the approval of vesting tentative tract Map 17388(Saddle Crest Homes). Bring the EIR
back for proper evaluation of a site plan and properly define the complexity and concerns of
the community. Don’t be supportive of the amendment without the term rural in character.
All these caring individuals defining the natural wonders of this area, and all we see out of this
process is blind enforcement of the opposite of our objectives and goals. The last of the
frontier, all these concerned people are so close to the vision for this area, our conservationist
friends have done so much for all of us. Never in my dreams did I ever think the Royal Oaks in
the Ferber Property would be there for public enjoyment. For me to be able to take my
grandkids to see the property and the wonderful huge royal oaks, will be a thrill and I live two
properties away and have been a residence for 25 years. We all benefit from preservation of
Page 11 of 13 pages
Page 70 of 82
Exhibit E
our natural resources. Help us to understand why these bad decisions are being made. Stop
and think, did county staff make the right decisions. 99% of the people in
Trabuco/Silverado/Modjeska don’t support what is being done. Even most people in outlying
cities have expressed their grief; a lot of them thought this site plan property was already under
preservation.
Sincerely,
Delma Johnson
PO Box 435, Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678
Concerned rural residential property owner and Equestrian.
CC: Bill Campbell supervisor 3rd district, members of Orange County Board of Supervisors
CC: Todd Spitzer /Candidate for Orange County Supervisor, 3rd District
CC: Governor Edmund G. Brown State of Cal.
CC: Equestrians Trails Inc. Saddleback Canyon Riders
CC: John Moreland, Channary Leng, OC planners
CC: Mark Anderson, Adams Smith, FTSP Review Board
CC: Saddleback Canyons Conservancy – Saddleback Canyons Trabuco, Modjeska,Silverado
REFERENCES
Rural Residential Property eHow money Contributor by Kristie Lorette.
Residential Planning / ALONLINE.edu
Definition of a Rural Property by eHow contributor Mike Broemmel.
Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Trabuco Cyn, CA
United States Census Bureau Identification Rural Property
United States Department of Agriculture defines Rural Property as.
The National Center for Education Statistics considers rural areas to be.
Foothill/ Trabuco Specific Plan.
25 years of rural residential experience with my equestrian recreational usages within specific
plan area- contributor Delma Johnson
Builder/ owner of current home in foothill Trabuco 1987 - Contributor Delma Johnson
32 years / currently retired from State of California – Delma Johnson
Grandmother to 4 beautiful grandkids that love their farm animals and ponies in foothill
Trabuco- Delma Johnson
Page 12 of 13 pages
Page 71 of 82
Exhibit E
EX Member of the Trabuco Specific Plan Efforts as Equestrian Representative Contributor
chosen by supervisor Gaddi Vasques – Delma Johnson
Helped to define the Local Trabuco Cyn Trail System to the recreational element of the F/TSP.
Requested an equestrian trail representative for public co-ordination and implementation of a
County wide connection of Local Trails to Master riding Trails within foothill Trabuco. Thank You
Jeff Dickman- contributor Delma Johnson
Member of Equestrian Trails Inc. since inception of corral 357 saddleback Canyon Riders.
Member of American Morgan Horse Association since 1987 - Delma Johnson
Page 13 of 13 pages
Page 72 of 82
Exhibit E
Moreland, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Delma Johnson <[email protected]>
Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:55 PM
Campbell, Bill [HOA]; Rich Gomez; Rick Balthaser
Moreland, John; Delma Johnson; Sharon Stancato
Saddle Crest Project Equestrian concerns for Public Record, EIR 661
Saddle Crest Development Equestrian Concerns - PDF.pdf
Comments for Public Record.
Speak up to keep Trabuco Buffer for only future Rural usages, that support our rural residential lifestyle
and preservation usages.
Saddle Crest Project is, thru Amendment changes to General and Trabuco Specific Plan, redefining the
Trabuco Buffer in my view as a
50% Urban Area and is likely being approved , just by having the Saddle Crest Applicant comply with the
natural open space dedication.
The right to Keep our Trabuco animals and The right to keep our horses, is not possible in an Urban
Environment.
This project will stifle and eventually destroy our keeping of horses and Our Recreational Element of the
Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan if approved.
Changing future development from rural parcels to Urban Clustering, therefore taking our future equestrian
lifestyle thru emission
.
The project Area is the last connective link needed to connect the Whiting Park wildlife corridor to the
Cleveland Forest.
The EIR 661 cannot mitigate the Mountain Lion perched on top of the Whiting Ranch Ridge Trying to figure
out how to get to the forest with an Urban Cluster of
homes bottlenecking the access.
How does this project support the Orange County Vision of protecting and Supporting the Rural Character,
Rural Residential and Natural Resources of this area.
It does not.
Do not wait and regret not being pro-active. Don't sit and get locked into a Rural Box. For those of you that are
living in Urban Residential, this rural Trabuco Area gives you
a future ability to move to a Rural Area, maybe your kids, grand kids will want to own that pony or horse. Don't
get involved and we all loose for all of Orange County.
Delma Johnson cares about our Rural Residential Equestrian Trabuco Community.
Voice Your Concerns to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Do not wait.
Email your comments to: [email protected]
Heres the link to County Website Review.
http://www.ocplanning.net/SaddleCrest_Project.aspx
Ref: Saddle Crest Development , EIR
Saddle crest Planning Commision Staff Report 7-25-12 . To access the link below, you need to right click then
select open.
http://www.ocplanning.net/Documents/pdf/SaddleCrestHomes/SaddleCrestPlanningCommissionStaffReport.pd
f
******* Also see Attached PDF by D.Johnson *******
1
Page 73 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 74 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 75 of 82
Tab 1
Exhibit E
Page 76 of 82
Tab 2
Exhibit E
Page 77 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 78 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 79 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 80 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 81 of 82
Exhibit E
Page 82 of 82

Microsoft Outlook - Memo Style

Transcription

Similar documents

The Witchcliffe Farmhouse - The Rural Building Company

Enterprising Eastern Perthshire Ltd

Construction of a Nurse network

EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE FUND FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Monterrey/Montemorelos – July, 2009 The central plaza, fountain

Newsletter

International finalists Sustainable energy building

1540 While searching for the fabled “golden” cities, Garcia Lopez de

Yuengling Lager Chili Dip

Chocolate Banana Bread - Cloud 9 Specialty Bakery