Laserfiche WebLink
hydrology/water quality, hazards/risk of upset, land use, noise, population and housing, traffic and <br />circulation, public services and utilities, and visual resources. <br /> <br />3.4 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses to Comments <br /> <br />Comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations and <br />individuals: Jim Walker, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Southern California <br />Association of Governments, City of Costa Mesa, City of Irvine, Community Development <br />Department, California Department of Transportation, County of Orange, Planning & <br />Development Services Department, Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, Airport Land Use <br />Commission for Orange County, and the Gas Company. <br /> <br />The City evaluated the comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the <br />EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of <br />significant environmental issues raised. As required by CEQA, the City has provided to each of the <br />public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR its responses to the comments received from that <br />agency at least ten days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. The Final EIR provides adequate, <br />good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. <br /> <br />Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a lead agency is required to recircnlate an EIR <br />when significant new information is added to the EIR after notice is given, but before certification. <br />The term "information" includes: (i) changes to the'project; (ii) changes in the environmental <br />setting; or (iii) additional data or other information. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 further <br />provides that "[n]ew information added to an EIR is not 'significant' unless the EIR is changed in a <br />way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse <br />environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a <br />feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement." <br /> <br />The City has reviewed the comments received and responses thereto as welt as other textual changes and <br />references that have been incorporated into the Final EIR. <br /> <br />Since the release of the Draft EIR for public comment, there have been no changes in the project, <br />no changes in the environmental setting, and no additional data or other information that would <br />deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the project. Therefore, having <br />reviewed the information contained in the Draft and Final EIR and in the administrative record, as <br />well as the requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 regarding recirculation of draft <br /> <br /> <br />