My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-19_AGENDA PACKET
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Planning Commission (2002-Present)
>
2019
>
01-14-19
>
01-14-19_AGENDA PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2019 4:02:30 PM
Creation date
8/16/2019 3:57:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PBA
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.
/
492
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
Response to Comment <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City of Santa Ana 1 <br />Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 <br />Response to Lozeau Drury LLP Comment Letter dated November 26, 2018 <br /> <br />Comment 1: This comment provides an introductory statement to the letter from Lozeau Drury LLP. The introductory <br />statement notes the comments on the Draft and Final EIR are submitted on behalf of the Laborers International Union <br />of North America (LIUNA), Local Union No. 652, and its members living in and near Santa Ana. The comment also <br />provides generalized assertions and states that that the EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all <br />feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s impacts and a revised Draft EIR must be circulated for public <br />review. <br /> <br />Response 1: This comment is general in nature and does not provide any examples or citations of where analysis <br />within the EIR is flawed, where additional information is needed, or what feasible mitigation is recommended. In <br />accordance with CEQA, the City of Santa Ana prepared a Draft and Final EIR for the proposed project for the purpose <br />of informing City decision makers, governmental agencies, and the public about the potential significant environmental <br />effects of the proposed project, identifying the ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced, <br />and implementing mitigation to reduce and prevent impacts to the environment. The EIR adequately analyzes the <br />environmental effects of the proposed project, and the conclusions in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence <br />in the record. None of the requirements for recirculation listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and described in <br />Master Response 2: Draft EIR Recirculation of the Final EIR (page 2-4), have been triggered, and recirculation of the <br />Draft EIR is not required. <br /> <br />Comment 2: The comment summarizes the proposed project, including the proposed discretionary actions. <br /> <br />Response 2: The comment is an introduction and summary of the project and does not include comment about the <br />environmental analysis in the EIR and, therefore, does not require an additional response. <br /> <br />Comment 3: The comment provides a summary of CEQA requirements through references to case law and statutes. <br />The comment asserts that the Final EIR fails to meet CEQA’s legal standards and includes conclusory statements that <br />lack any factual support or analysis. <br /> <br />Response 3: The comment is general in nature and does not identify any specific alleged deficiency with the analysis <br />in the Draft EIR, or any other alleged noncompliance with CEQA. To the extent such argument is asserted, the Draft <br />EIR thoroughly and appropriately evaluated the project’s potential environmental impacts, and the conclusions of the <br />Draft EIR are supported by substantial evidence, including expert opinion. <br /> <br />Comment 4: This comment provides an introduction to Francis Offermann, PE, CIP and describes that Mr. Offermann <br />explains that many composite wood products typically used in modern home construction contain formaldehyde-based <br />glues which off-gas formaldehyde. The comment asserts that there is a fair argument that residents of the Project will <br />be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 180 per million, above the South Coast Air Quality <br />Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. The comment <br />further asserts that even if the project uses modern “CARB-compliant” materials, formaldehyde will create a cancer <br />risk of 126 per million. <br /> <br />Response 4: The comment does not describe how the asserted formaldehyde related cancer risk of 126 per million <br />would occur and does not identify any project-specific conditions (other than the fact that the project’s construction may <br />use wood building materials) that would lead to impacts. Current federal and state regulations exist, which limit the <br />potential formaldehyde emissions from building materials. On June 1, 2018, the U. S. Toxic Substances Control Act <br />(TSCA) Title VI was implemented, which requires composite wood products sold, supplied, offered for sale, <br />2-297
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.