My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
02/05/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2019 12:11:19 PM
Creation date
2/19/2019 10:30:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
75E
Date
2/5/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
375
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
project numbering is different between the Figure 4.1 and Table 4.11-16. A revised DEIR <br />should be issued with a figure that locates all of the projects in table 4.11-16, and uses <br />consistent project numbering throughout -the DEIR.. <br />4) The vening Year {20401 Pro lect Plus and Cumulative Prolects {2040) sections Jack a <br />discussion of impacts to the surrounding residential streets and intersections in table 4.11-3 <br />and 4-11-4 These impacts have the potential to be significant. The DEIR should be issued <br />with these impacts included. <br />5) The Opening Year (2040) Project Plus and Cumulative Projects (2040) sections identify, <br />intersections and freeway segments in the stasdy area as unsatisfactory by 2020/2040, and <br />state that the increase in freeway traffic due to the cumulative impact densification at the I- <br />5 Main and SR 22/Main/Town & Country is insignificant because it is already unsatisfactory. <br />Again, this Is not a logical statement. <br />6) Text on page 4.11-23 ends abruptly one-third of the way through the page, during a <br />discussion about freeway ramp queuing, after stating that all the Options (A,B,&C) result in <br />unsatisfactory queues but not significant only because there is not a standard for <br />significance. The next sentence starts, "However, Option", stops there, and leaves the <br />bottom two thirds blank. A very diligent reader finds that the text picks up with "C" seven <br />pages later on 4.11-30 where it states something important- Option C would have the most <br />significant impact on freeway queues. This is a key finding about Option C, which is lost to <br />all but the most diligent reader due to the formatting. The DEIR should be re -issued with the <br />formatting corrected so that readers have the opportunity to understand and comment on <br />the impact of Option C. <br />Section 411.7 Cumulative Impacts concludes that the cumulative impacts are not <br />significant, but omits that the basis for that conclusion is that the level of service without the <br />projects is already unsatisfactory in 2020 and 2040. This is an illogical conclusion. Bad traffic can <br />most certainly be made worse. Professional Planners and elected officials have a responsibility <br />to make our cities better, not to continue to approve development knowing it will make quality <br />of life worse for the current residents. The DEIR should be reissued with cumulative impacts <br />compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions clearly addressed <br />Submitting DEIR Comments Page 8 <br />4.9.8. (Should be 4.11.8) Regulations. Adopted goals for intersection and roadway level of <br />service provide the framework for approving or disallowing new development to reduce <br />potential impacts. Allowing unsatisfactory level of service to get even worse with no mitigation <br />is in conflict with the adopted goals for level of service. <br />4.9.9 (Should be 4.11.9) Mitigation. This mis-numbered section says in one line that traffic <br />impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. The discussion through -out <br />Section 4.11 says that level of service on the surrounding freeways will be unacceptable in 2020 <br />and 2040. Concluding that no mitigation is required is not logical. Bad traffic can most certainly <br />be made worse by bad planning. Pmfessional Planners and elected officials have a <br />responsibility to make our cities better, not to continue to approve unmitigated development <br />knowing it will make quality of life worse for the current residents. The DEIR should be <br />reissued with mitigations to the cumulative impacts compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions <br />clearly stated. <br />4.9.10 (Should be 4.11.1011 LESS after Rflitigation. This section should be rewritten and <br />mitigations to the cumulative impacts compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions are defined. <br />4.13 Utilities and Service Systems. <br />Section 4.13.2.6. Water Cumulative Impacts <br />Section 4.13.2.6 Water Cumulative impacts discusses only the impact of this project on the City of Santa <br />Ana's water supply and demand. "Tice cumulativeimpacts of aff the development is not evaluated. This <br />section should be revised to evaluate the Cumulative Water Impacts, and the DEIR reissued with the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.