My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - #22 - Response to Late Comments
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
09/17/2024
>
Correspondence - #22 - Response to Late Comments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2024 9:56:40 AM
Creation date
9/17/2024 6:45:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
Response to Letter CCS: Bonnie Hanson, dated September 16, 2024 <br />This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (July 6, 2023, through <br />August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to <br />respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have <br />been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised. <br />Comment CC5.1: This comment states the commenter is concerned about the Project and that the commenter <br />has enjoyed living in Santa Ana. The comment states that the commenter lives in the area and shops at the <br />Project site and that the businesses help the community. <br />Response CC5.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy <br />of the Draft Supplemental EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or <br />provided. <br />Comment CC5.2: The comment discusses that the commenter went to a meeting regarding the Project at <br />Saddleback High School and had a list of questions. The comments asks what will happen to the businesses <br />in the area now and whether they will be invited to stay and what will happen during construction. The <br />comment asks how long construction will take. The comment asks about added traffic congestion and how <br />the Project will impact South Coast Plaza. The comment asks about the temporary Christmas Tree sales area <br />and the need for increased parking. The comment asks how the increase will affect local power, water <br />supplies, and sewer lines. The comment asks about increased traffic on the 405/Bristol, Bristol/Sunflower, <br />and Bristol/MacArthur intersections. <br />Response CC5.2: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental <br />EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Regarding the existing businesses and construction timing, as described <br />in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan, construction of Phase 1 is expected to commence in the first quarter of <br />2026 with completion in the first quarter of 2030. Existing land uses in the Phase 2 and Phase 3 areas would <br />be operational while Phase 1 is under construction. Phase 2 is expected to commence in the second quarter <br />of 2030 with completion in the fourth quarter of 2032. Phase 3 is expected to commence in the first quarter <br />of 2033 with completion in the second quarter of 2036. However, as the Project is a Specific Plan, future <br />businesses that would operate within the Project are unknown. <br />In regard to traffic congestion, the Draft Supplemental EIR Section 5.13 Transportation, details that Senate <br />Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity <br />or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the <br />State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines "shall promote the reduction of <br />greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land <br />uses" (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1 ]); and that "automobile delay, as described solely by level <br />of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant <br />impact on the environment" (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public <br />Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to <br />traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly <br />available on the City's Project website. <br />Regarding parking, as discussed on page 5.16-7 of the Draft SEIR, the Project is located on an infill site <br />within a TPA as defined under Public Resources Code Section 21099; therefore, the Project's parking impacts <br />are not considered significant effects on the environment. <br />Regarding the Project's impact on South Coast Plaza, the Project would not result in any changes to the <br />existing operations at South Coast Plaza. Regarding the electricity demands of the proposed Project, as <br />detailed in Draft Supplemental EIR Section 5.3, Energy, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) has the <br />capacity to continue providing service to the Project site at buildout of the Project. Also, as described on <br />page 5.3-1 1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project would be required to comply with most <br />current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Section 1 10.10 of the 2022 California Energy <br />Code for solar panels. Further, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 requires the proposed Project to meet CALGreen <br />Tier 2 voluntary energy efficiency standards, which surpass the building code energy efficiency <br />31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.