92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

456 revenues at the local and State level, any impact created by the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan willhave a - significant environme.n.tal impact on the .District, and a substantial financial detriment which necessitates mlUgation. The District, thei:efore., challenges and objects to the considera, tion of the Negative DeclaraUon, and requests that further consideration of the Amendment be delayed and deferred until a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been prepared addressing the impacts of the Amendment on the District, setting forth adequate and appropriate mitigation measures, and until adequate responses are provided by the City relative to the comments set forth in the District letter to the City, dated January 13, 1992. R~sponse: As indica.ted in the Agency's February 10, 1992 letter · response to the District's letter of January 13, 1992, the issues raised by the District are appropriately addressed, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33353 through 33353.7 as part of the fiscal review process. The District's opinion that an increase in the quantity of service should be addressed by the environmental documentation is inconsistent with Health and Safety Code Section 33012 which states that a net increase in the quality or g!!.O3l~ of service is "financial burden or detriment" which according to Section 33353.5 should be evaluated in the report of the fiscal review committee. The Agency also does not agree with the metho.dology used by the D. istrict to calculate student generation. This ~s discussed further ~n Section 8 below. Comment: With the level of environmental inadequacy substantiated in terms of the Negative Declaration and the Environmental Checklist Form, it would appear that the City h. as the duty to consider the impacts on the District in a more log:cal and accurate manner through a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the City has the obligation to ensure that the California Environmental Quality Act, the Guidelines for the i .mplementati. on of CEQA, and the requirements of the Califorma Commumty Redevelopment Law, are complied with, so as to protect the interests of the District, property owners, business persons, and residents of the community. Resoonse: The CEQA Guidelines have been followed in regards to the ~reparation of a Negative Declaration for the project. The Negative Declaration has adequately evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the Plan Amendment project. Soc0on 6: "California State Community College Financing System" This section appears to be for informational purposes and does not raise objections to the plan and, therefore, requires no response. Section 7: "District Information" The following also responds to the script presented at the hearing by Robert Partridge entitled "Condition of District."