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 19 of 28 <br />mobile-related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine <br />Project significance.” (Id. at 3.) <br />iii. Saturday and Sunday trip rates are incorrect. <br />Third, Mr. Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld’s review of the Project’s DEIR also revealed <br />that “the total daily trips calculated for Saturday and Sunday were underestimated for <br />each of the proposed land uses.” (Id. at 3-4.) The DEIR actually indicates that the <br />number of vehicle trips is higher than the input parameter figures used in CalEEMod <br />and thus the trip estimates are incorrect and cannot be relied upon. (Id. at 5.) <br />iv. Commercial-work trip length inputs are unjustified <br />Fourth, “the commercial-work (C-W) trip length was manually increased in <br />[CalEEMod]…” and the DEIR fails to provide any justification for this increase. (Id. at <br />5.) Because no rationale or justification was provided—the model cannot be relied <br />upon. <br />v. Pass-by and diverted trip percentages are unjustified <br />Lastly, the DEIR’s “pass-by and diverted trip percentages used in [CalEEMod] <br />were manually altered” and so the DEIR “underestimates the Project’s <br />operational emissions.” (Id. at 5; additional detail on p. 6.) According to Mr. <br />Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld, it is clear that “the model overestimates the <br />existing land use’s mobile-related operational emissions and should not be relied <br />upon to determine Project significance.” (Id.) The new values provided in the <br />DEIR were not adequately justified either because the reduction in pass-by and <br />diverted trips is not substantiated. (Id. at 6.) <br />For all of the above reasons, the DEIR’s air quality analysis is flawed because it is not <br />supported by substantial evidence. The EIR should be amended to adequately reflect <br />the true input parameters so that a reasonably accurate estimate of air quality impacts <br />can be analyzed and mitigated. <br />H. The City Failed to Include All Relevant Projects in its Cumulative <br />Impacts Transportation/Traffic Analysis <br />An EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA Guidelines <br />§15130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative impacts in any issue <br />area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's incremental effects <br />“viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.