Ltr Re S Crest '12 Copy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXHIBIT D November 13, 2012 John Moreland Current and Environmental Planning Orange County Public Works/Orange County Planning P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana CA 92702-4048 The mission of the California Native Plant RE: Saddle Crest Homes Project: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17388 Society is to conserve Dear Mr. Moreland: California native plants Please include these comments in the record for Vesting Tract Map No. 17388. and their natural As was noted in our comments on the Saddle Crest EIR (No. 661), the Orange habitats, and to County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (OCCNPS) has a long- increase understanding, standing interest in maintaining and improving the natural vegetation and habitats appreciation, and in the foothills and canyons skirting the Santa Ana Mountains. We were among the plaintiffs in Endangered Habitats League, Inc. vs. County of Orange, (2005) horticultural use of 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, which overturned the 2003 SaddleCreek/SaddleCrest native plants. development approvals. OCCNPS finds that the Saddle Crest EIR (EIR No. 661) does not fulfill its CEQA duties toward the “special status” plants (defined in DEIR, p. 3.3-21) found on the project site, especially the populations of chaparral nolina and intermediate OCCNPS focuses that mariposa lily--which are found on site only within the project’s grading footprint. mission on the native (Note: California Rare Plant Rank, CRPR, is the new name for the CNPS List.) plants and remaining 1. Chaparral nolina, Nolina cismontana, CRPR 1B.2: Approximately 300 areas of natural individuals were found on site, growing on approximately 5.3 acres on a vegetation in Orange southwest-facing slope, which in the aerial images appears to be largely thinly- vegetated rock. Nolina cismontana is known to require rocky mafic soils; in County and adjacent Orange County it grows almost exclusively in a narrow band along the western Southern California. flank of the Santa Ana Mountains. If there is such a band of suitable soil in the proposed Saddleback North mitigation site, it likely already has all the Nolina on it that it can support. The DEIR (p. 3.3-65) rightly states: “Due to the limited distribution for this species in Orange County, the removal of 300 individuals represents a loss of a substantial number of this species [and] is considered potentially significant.” 2. Foothill or intermediate mariposa lily, Calochortus weedii var. intermedius, CRPR 1B.2: Approximately 200 individuals were found growing on approximately 3.2 acres located along the top of or just over the ridge from the Nolina, and nowhere else on site. Calochortus weedii var. intermedius is known to require a specific soil type, thus it seems likely that the C.w. var. intermedius population is growing in the only place on site with the required soil. If an area of suitable soil exists in the proposed Saddleback North mitigation site, it likely already contains all the C.w. var. intermedius that it can support. The DEIR (p. 3.3-64) rightly states: “... The loss of 200 individuals represents a substantial number of this subspecies, whose population numbers are relatively low on the southern flank of the Santa Ana Mountains, therefore impacts to foothill mariposa lily are considered potentially significant.” Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT D May 28, 2012 page 2 of 2 However, nowhere does the EIR indicate that studies have been done at the Saddle Creek North mitigation site to discover if suitable soils exist there--and are not already at capacity with Nolina and/or C.w. var. intermedius--into which to translocate and seed as mitigation for removing these plants from the grading footprint. Instead, there is a promise of studies, as summarized in Response to Comments O4-3: “... Suitable habitat, soil type, slope aspect, and exposure on the Saddle Creek North mitigation site are being considered (emphasis added) in preparation of the Special Status Plant Species Mitigation Plan. The plan will incorporate a combination of translocation of existing plants and/or seed collection/off-site seeding on the Saddle Creek North mitigation site. ...” Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states: An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. Section 15125(c) provides further clarification: Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context. EIR 661’s Mitigation Measures for translocation and seeding of Nolina and C.w. var. intermedius were proposed when it was written. But the studies on which they should have been based had not been done at that time, and appear not to have been done at the time of the Response to Comments--some months after the EIR was published. This is contrary to the CEQA Guidelines quoted above. The above considerations lead OCCNPS to find that EIR 661 does not fulfill its duties, under CEQA, towards the “special status” species on the Saddle Crest Homes site. We request that the Subdivision Committee withhold consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17388 until EIR 661 has been revised in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Respectfully, Celia Kutcher Conservation Chair Page 2 of 7 EXHIBIT D - Preserving Our Canyons - Saddleback Canyons Conservancy Starr Ranch Sanctuary P.O. Box 714 100 Bell Canyon Road Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92679 Rural Canyons Conservation Fund P.O. Box 556, Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678-0556 RuralCanyons.org November 14, 2012 VIA EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO: John [email protected] Members of the Orange County Subdivision Committee c/o John Moreland OC Planning 300 N. Flower St. Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 17388 (Saddle Crest Homes) Dear Mr. Moreland and Members of the Subdivision Committee: Our groups, Saddleback Canyons Conservancy, Rural Canyons Conservation Fund, and Audubon California, have received the Notice of Public Hearing by the Orange County Subdivision Committee in the above matter. At this hearing, the Orange County Subdivision Committee proposes to approve a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 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 113.7 acres in unincorporated Orange County. Our groups oppose approval of the VTTM. Our organizations provided comments during the administrative process leading to the Board of Supervisors’ October 2, 2012 approval of the Saddle Crest Homes project (“Project”). Our organizations are petitioners in a lawsuit challenging the certification of EIR No. 661 for Saddle Crest Homes, the approval of the area plan application for Saddle Crest Homes, and the approval of the associated Orange County General Plan and Foothill-Trabuco Specific Plan (FTSP) amendments. We reiterate and incorporate herein by reference the comments previously made and incorporated into the record for the Project by our organizations and our attorneys, Shute, Mihaly Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT D SaddleCrest Homes – Orange County Subdivision Committee - 2 & Weinberger, which address the Project’s failure to comply with CEQA, state planning and zoning law, the Orange County General Plan, and the FTSP. The VTTM should not be approved because (i) it is inconsistent with the Orange County General Plan and FTSP, (ii) the EIR for the Project is inadequate, and (iii) the General Plan and FTSP, as amended, are internally inconsistent. Moreover, since the time of the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the Project on October 2, a draft EIR for another housing development has been released for review and comment. The project, called “Skyridge,” proposes annexation by the city of Mission Viejo of currently unincorporated property, and a plan to build 84 homes at the intersection of Glenn Ranch Road and El Toro Road. The cumulative impacts of this new project were not addressed in the Project EIR, nor did the Santiago Canyon Road traffic analysis for the Project take into consideration the impact of the Skyridge development. This significant new information must be addressed in a subsequent or supplemental EIR and this EIR recirculated for public and agency review and comment. The Project alone will cause significant traffic impacts to Santiago Canyon Road, even without the addition of the 84 homes from Skyridge. The County must properly assess traffic safety issues before approving the VTTM. We are also concerned that the 100-acre property near the Project site and Modjeska Grade Road, which was purchased last year by the County of Orange with State Redevelopment Agency funds, will “benefit” from the loosened development standards (e.g., loosened grading limits, density standards, and oak tree protections) that have been approved for the Upper Aliso Residential District and throughout the FTSP area. These loosened standards are growth- inducing, as we have previously stated, and their impacts on the environment have not been adequately addressed in the EIR. For example, the County may now be incentivized to sell this property to a developer in an effort to recoup funds in the event the State Redevelopment Agency seeks reimbursement for these funds.