92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

452 Response: In terms of the CEQA Guidelines, the District, although a taxing agency, is a reviewing agency and not a responsible agency. Therefore, the District was not informally contacted. Comment: CSA~ Inc. states ~hat the appropriate environmental docu. ment for this project should have been a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and a Subsequent EIR requires the same public notice and review as a Draft EIR. Resoonse: The comment is correct in that ff the proposed Plan Amendment would have required an EIR, a Subsequent EIR would have been pr.epared..H, owever, the Initial Study Form, once comp~leted, did. not indtcat.e the Plan Amendment would have any sigmficant enwronmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared instead of a Subsequent EIR. Comment: The Agency has not adequately respo, nded to the District's comments on the Negative Declaration set forth in CSA, Inc.'s letter dated January 13, 1992. As sudh, the public review process has been pursued inappropriately. The City did not consult with the District on the environmental issues. The purpose of the review process appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a difficult position of having to either: a) seek administrative and legal remedies available to the District, or b) overlook the error and not pursue any further remedies. Response: The Agency has not only complied with CEQA, but has gone beyond the requirements. CEQA does .not require the L~.ad Agency to respond to comments received dunng the public review period of the Negative Declaration. In an effort to provide as much environmental information as possible, the Agency did respond to all written comments received to the Negative Declaration. The Agency did consult with the District on the environmental issues of the project. The Distric. t was mailed, by certified mail, a copy of the Negativ.e Declaratign In November 1991. The Agency has corn. plied with a. ll noticing requirements of CEQA and has not avoided the revaew process. Comm{nl: The scope of the Amendment far exceeds the contents of the Original Plan and the level of evaluation contained within the FEIR, dated June 15, 1982. Additionally, the specific projects set forth in Section D and E of the Preliminary Report, has been expanded far beyond the Original Plan, and as such project impacts should be evaluated beyond the conclusions reached m the Environmental Checklist For .m. More importantly, the Plan's amended tax increment limit, if attmned, would result in the private development and improvement of property within the Project Area, which was not contemplated in the FEIR dated June 15, 1982, or considered in the Environmental Checklist Form. 22