More projects issues
There's a long list of reasons to deny the "Trails at Santiago Creek" proposal
Both the City Council and the Planning Commission denied Milan’s Rio Santiago project. Milan has continued to use this as a dumpsite for concrete waste and other unknown materials. Recently citizens have uncovered, through the Public Record Act, more alarming information about the site. Actually the more that is uncovered the more we are convinced that it is irresponsible and dangerous to rezone this site to residential.
The Project conflicts with fundamental policies of the General Plan which violates California Planning and Zoning Laws. The Orange General Plan does not promote changing designed Open Space to residential zoning.
The project is directly at odds with the goal and policies of the East Orange General Plan and OPA Plan. These plans do not promote changing Open Space to Residential.
The list of “community benefits” are based on city approvals to rezone the property to resident which violated existing plan and any rezone will have detrimental impacts to neighboring communities. This is not good planning.
Milan bought this property was bought without entitlements for housing except for 12 acres north of the creek. They can build there. This plan infringes on our property rights and forces all of the impacts to our neighborhoods.
Our City Council has full discretion under the law to deny this u zoning request. Milan has no legitimate expectation that these approvals would be granted.
June 2019
As Orange weighs approval of a housing tract on the Sully-Miller property, there are a few points worth pondering:
1. Nothing has changed since the city denied a project on the same property in 2014
2. The project does not reflect the goals and policies of the Orange General Plan
3. The project violates the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
4. The project violates the East Orange General Plan
5. The project does not honor the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan (1971)
6. The project does not honor the Santiago Creek Implementation Plan (1976)
7. The site is in a floodplain, below two earthen dams
8. The site is next to a landfill that emits methane gas
9. The Canyon 2 Fire exposed the property as a high-risk fire trap to homeowners
10. Liquefaction poses serious threats to the area, which lies in an earthquake fault zone
11. The property is undermined with silt ponds
12. There are no reclamation plans to restore the former mining area for alternate use
13. The site is still designated an area of regional significance (aggregates) by the state
14. The Draft Environmental Impact Report is inadequate, failing to address agency and community concerns
15. The Draft Environmental Impact Report relies on outdated studies to support its findings
16. The Draft Environmental Impact Report ignored the site’s history
17. Construction traffic will create significant noise and air pollution for several years
18. The project infringes on the rights of neighboring homeowners
19. There are generations of toxic mining residue buried on the site
20. The city (and taxpayers) will be liable for future homeowners’ health or property loss
21. There is no agreement between the landowner and anyone else to manage the creek once it’s conveyed
22. The builder plans to build 128 houses, but amended zoning will permit 240
23. The public benefits are backloaded with strings attached
24. Designated open space will be lost forever
25. Some of the identified “negative impacts” cannot be mitigated
26. No one has stepped up to accept the liability or maintenance of the “gift” of unbuildable land
27. Viable alternatives have not been addressed
28. Forces impacts of development onto rural neighborhoods
29. Investors are not entitled to build here; the city is not obligated to approve the project
30. Clean-up costs will eventually be borne by taxpayers . . .