My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT_RAMSEY
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Planning Commission (2002-Present)
>
2020
>
05-11-20
>
3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT_RAMSEY
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2020 10:02:45 PM
Creation date
11/9/2020 10:00:03 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.
/
488
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
City of Santa Ana – The Bowery <br />May 11, 2020 <br />Page 13 of 28 <br />If there is an inconsistency with the applicable land use plans that will not be amended, <br />as of now, there is no way for anyone to make that determination. (See, generally, The <br />Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal. App. 5th 883, 896 [consistency <br />of development permit and development plan with general plan]; Clover Valley Found. v. <br />City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 200, 239 [consistency of development project <br />with general plan]; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 223 <br />[consistency of zoning ordinance with general plan]; Mitchell v. County of Orange (1985) <br />165 Cal. App. 3d 1185 [consistency of specific plan with general plan].) <br />The DEIR’s project description states that it is requesting to change the site’s land use <br />designations, but fails to specifically identify what provisions those new designations <br />may include and what will change from the existing land use regime. Importantly, the <br />request for a zoning amendment to SD is vague and lacks detail sufficient to allow for <br />any real comparison to the site’s underlying and applicable land use designations. The <br />SD for the site should outline all standards for buildings, height, setbacks, lot coverage, <br />minimum unit sizes, landscaping, parking, signs, fences, or other features. This <br />information cannot be found in the DEIR which merely requests the change to a SD <br />from M-1 zoning without any commitment to details. For example: <br />• states the setbacks from Warner Avenue will be 12-feet and 20-feet from Red <br />Hill Avenue, with “courtyard and landscape areas [providing] additional <br />setbacks…” <br />• “The proposed setbacks along N. Main Street and Edgewood Road would be <br />greater than the minimum setbacks required in the M-1 zone.” <br /> <br />(DEIR at 5.9-40.) <br />What are the remaining setback requirements? What are the landscaping requirements? <br />How will parking requirements be determined or will it be consistent with other DC <br />mixed-use developments? None of these important and required specifications are <br />provided in the DEIR. For all these reasons, the Project’s description is inadequate and <br />should be revised with additional detail. <br />F. The Final EIR Impermissibly Defers the Development of Environmental <br />Mitigation Measures <br />CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted into an environmental impact <br />report are required to describe what actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.