My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 41 - Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
12/20/2022 Special & Regular
>
Item 41 - Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2024 2:21:12 PM
Creation date
8/11/2023 4:02:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
41
Date
12/20/2022
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.
/
355
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 Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 <br />comment also states that the comments reflect efforts which were limited to information that was <br />reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, <br />inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information <br />obtained or provided by third parties. <br />Response 18: The comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise any specific <br />concerns with the adequacy of the Community Plan Exemption Checklist or raise any other <br />CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required. <br />Comment 19: Attachments A through D: These attachments to the comment letter provides <br />multiple CalEEMod model runs used to substantiate the comments provided and responded to <br />above and provides resumes of SWAPE professionals who provided the SWAPE comments. <br />Response 19: This comment provides modeling used to substantiate the previous comments, <br />which were responded to above and provides resumes for the individuals who provided the <br />technical comments from SWAPE. The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the <br />adequacy of the or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required. <br />Exhibit 13 <br />Page 7 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.