My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75C
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
08/18/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2020 3:38:45 PM
Creation date
8/14/2020 11:38:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
8/18/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF4B7707-6A52-4917-BE8B-C9000EAD9571 <br />Bowery Mixed Use Project <br />May 21, 2020 <br />Page 3 <br />6. The airplane noise analysis bases its impacts on where the project is located with respect to JWA's noise <br />contours and there does not appear to have been any actual noise readings taken on site. An adequate <br />noise evaluation would include actual noise readings at the project site rather than an extremely broad <br />criteria such as an airport's regional noise contour. The limited noise readings that are referenced in the <br />EIR appear to be the background noise, i.e., vehicular traffic and sources other than the noise most likely <br />to irritate residents —aircraft landing at, and departing from, the airport. Noise readings should betaken <br />to determine actual existing noise conditions to determine whether they fall within a level that is <br />acceptable for residential development and/or one which requires additional noise attenuation. <br />The FEIR appears to ignore the fact that the project is a residential use proposed in the middle of an <br />industrial and office/professional area. The FEIR concludes that the residents would have convenient <br />access to walking, biking and existing transit and this would reduce vehicle trips, for instance. However, <br />there is nothing about the setting of this project that supports a conclusion that people will be walking <br />or biking to work, given it is bounded either by industrial uses or major arterials. <br />8. The reduced project alternative is environmentally superior, but is dismissed on inadequate grounds. <br />Thank you again for the opportunity to express our ongoing concerns regarding the proposed project. The City of <br />Tustin would appreciate an additional continuance by the Santa Ana Planning Commission, and City staff is available <br />to discuss our concerns so that they can be addressed prior to a decision by the Santa Ana Planning Commission or <br />City Council. <br />If you have any questions regarding the City's concerns, I can be reached at (714) 573-3031 or ebinsack@tustinca.org. <br />Sincerely, <br />d, a s'wA <br />Elizabeth A. BlnsacK <br />Community Development Director <br />Attachments: A - Letter dated February 5, 2020 <br />B - Responses to City of Tustin Comments <br />cc: Ali Pezeshkpour, Senior Planner, Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency <br />Jerry Guevara, Assistant Planner I, Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency <br />Matthew S. West, City Manager <br />Nicole Bernard, Assistant City Manager <br />David Kendig, City Attorney <br />Douglas S, Stack, Public Works Director <br />Chad Clanton, Parks and Recreation Director <br />Ken Nishikawa, Deputy Director of Public Works/Engineering <br />Chris Koster, Deputy Director of Economic Development <br />Justina Willkom, Assistant Director — Planning <br />Krys Saldivar, Public Works Manager <br />Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.