Laserfiche WebLink
AGENDA ORDER - EIR & /SPECIFIC PLAN Following discussion and <br />LOWER SANTIAGO CREEK citizen comments, and on <br />DECLARED INADEQUATE; STAFF DIRECTED the motion of Councilman <br /> Bricken, seconded by Coun- <br />cilman Garthe, carried 6:0 unanimously, the Lower Santiago Creek <br />Specific Plan/Environmental Impact Report was declared to be <br />inadequate to mitigate the environmental impacts on the citizens <br />of Santa Aha, particularly the residents adjacent to the Creek, <br />and Staff was directed to transmit these concerns to the proper <br />Orange County agency. <br /> <br />City Manager Bruce Spragg stated that meetings had been held with <br />approximately 140 interested residents; that the objections are <br />fundamentally to the proposed equestrian trail, the bicycle and <br />hiking trails, and to the configuration of the channel itself. <br /> <br />A letter to the City Council, the Planning Commission and the City <br />Staff dated December 14, 1977, a "Memorandum of Points to Consider <br />In Support of Eliminating Trails and Changing Plan Concept from <br />Fourteen-foot Vertical Walled Concrete Channel to Aesthetically <br />Acceptable Landscaped Watercourse from the Santa Aha River to <br />Main Street", and a petition containing $$ signatures, was referred <br />to Staff, on the motion of Councilman Ortiz, seconded by Vice <br />Mayor Ward, carried 6:0 unanimously. <br /> <br />Speakers in opposition to the Lower Santiago Creek Plan and EnViron- <br />mental Impact Report were: <br /> <br />Willis Clemons, 1026 River Lane <br />David Geddes, 1210 River Lane <br />Pat Pleshe, 905 Riviera Drive <br />Raymond Marsile, 1515 Riviera Drive <br />Clara Leum, 1206 River Lane <br /> <br />The speakers overwhelmingly favored maintenance of the Creek in <br />its present condition; they were concerned about the handling of <br />debris in the area of the box culvert and whether it would be <br />screened out to keep the culvert clear, and with the general <br />maintem~nce of the flood control channel, as well as control of <br />rats; they were concerned that a 14-foot cement channel would <br />be a hazard to children who walk through the area and a liability <br />to the City; they were concerned about the probability of inviting <br />gyaf~tti on large cement walls producing an unsightly view; and <br />one speaker offered the suggestion that residents whose houses <br />back up to the creek may be interested in purchasing the creek <br />property at its appraised value to maintain as a green belt, <br />which would provide taxes for the City while preserving the charac- <br />ter of the area. <br /> <br />One speaker, Andrew Sorer, 1125 Riviera Drive, favored the <br />flood control channel because he had experienced difficulty in <br />obtaining financing for his home because of the flood hazard. <br /> <br />Edward Just, Orange County Flood Control District, stated that <br />those residents whose homes lie in the designated flood plain <br />are required by federal regulation to provide flood insurance <br />to any lender who finances the property and that the insurance <br />cost could be reduced if greater protection were provided against <br />flood damage. <br /> <br />Assistant City Manager Ronald Wolford commented on inferences made <br />that handling of the 1969 flood was not appropriate. He stated <br />that he had been the. City official on the scene, and that he <br />wanted to make sure that it is clear that the handling of the <br />release of water from the dam could not have been better; that <br />the water level of the dam had been lowered as much as possible, <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />469 DECEMBER 19, 1977 <br /> <br /> <br />