|
Comment 12: The comment asserts that the Final EIR does not adequately describe the Project. The
<br />comment states that the Draft EIR fails to specifically identify what provisions of the new designations may
<br />include and what will change from the existing land use regime. The comment states that the request for a
<br />zoning amendment to SD is vague and lacks detail sufficient to allow for comparison to the site's
<br />applicable land use designations. The comment further states that the SD for the site should outline all
<br />standards for buildings, height, setbacks, lot coverage, minimum unit sizes, landscaping, parking, signs,
<br />fences, or other features.
<br />Response 12: Chapter 3 Project Description, Section 5.2 Aesthetics, and Section 5.9 Land Use and Planning
<br />of the Draft EIR provide thorough descriptions of the Project, including building heights, minimum setbacks,
<br />lot coverage, residential unit sizes, landscaping, parking, and other features. Pursuant to Section 15125 of
<br />the CEQA Guidelines, the baseline for the impact analysis in the EIR is the existing environmental setting,
<br />rather than approved development standards. The SD zone does not include rigid standards to be met by
<br />development projects. As described in the City's zoning code (and Draft EIR page 5.9-40), the purpose of
<br />the SD zone is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the use of good design
<br />principles, maintaining an orderly and harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of property
<br />development. When development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are required (per Zoning
<br />Code Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural review to ensure that buildings,
<br />structures, and grounds would be in keeping with the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the
<br />harmonious development of the City or impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the
<br />neighborhood.
<br />The relevant details of the Project's height, setbacks, open space, landscaping under the proposed SD zone
<br />are discussed in the applicable chapters of the Draft EIR including, but not limited to, in the impact analyses
<br />on aesthetics, land use, and parks and recreation. Thus, the Draft EIR details what will change from the
<br />existing land use to the proposed Project and determined that impacts related to the change in site zoning
<br />would not result in a significant environmental impact.
<br />Comment 13: The comment provides references to case law and statutes related to deferral of mitigation.
<br />The comment also asserts that the EIR defers the development of mitigation measures related to hazards.
<br />The comment states that the EIR mitigation does not provide a specific plan or how compliance with any
<br />applicable code will sufficiently mitigate a known hazard on the site, and that the EIR needs to specify the
<br />removal plan and how code compliance will ensure safe removal of contaminants.
<br />Response 13: As described in the Final EIR and page 5.7-22 of the Draft EIR, contaminated soils would be
<br />excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities pursuant to the regulations of
<br />DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA. Mitigation
<br />Measure HAZ-1 requires approval of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure that excavation of
<br />contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements. The SMP would
<br />detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation
<br />of Title 8 of the CaIOSHA regulations and DTSC requirements for the removal, transportation, and
<br />disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment.
<br />The SMP would ensure specific existing regulations, procedures, and standards for removal, handling, and
<br />disposal of contaminated soils to protect human health and the environment would occur. The SMP would
<br />be based on the specific construction activities within the areas that contain the contaminated soils. The
<br />proposed mitigation does not constitute deferral because measurable performance standards that are set
<br />by existing regulations are required to be conducted. Use of existing regulations and their related
<br />performance standards that reduce environmental impacts are allowed pursuant to CEQA and does not
<br />constitute deferred mitigation.
<br />75C-198
<br />
|