My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/15/1984
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
SUCCESOR AGENCY(formerly Community Redevelopment Agency)
>
COMMUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (1974-2012)
>
1973-1999
>
1984
>
05/15/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:15:09 PM
Creation date
3/3/2005 11:34:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
5/15/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
<br />. '. <br /> <br />Santa Ana City Council/ Community Redevelopment Agency <br />May 15, 1984 <br />Page Ten <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />XVI. <br /> <br />THE FINDINGS RE APPROVAL OF THE PARTICIPATION <br />AGREEMENT ARE INADEQU~TE <br /> <br />The findings concerning approval of the Proposed Participation <br />Agreement contained in Proposed Resolution No. B4~11 are also <br />inadequate. The findings reveal nothing about the extent of <br />the unmitigable adverse environmental consequences associated <br />with the project. For example, the findings state that there <br />will be "increased traffic in the surrounding area". Proposed <br />Resolution No. 84-11 (at page 4). How much of an increase <br />will occur? What level of traffic will result? What <br />"surrounding areas" will be affected? The findings offer no <br />answers to these questions. As a result, there is no indication <br />that .the,CRA is aware of the actual consequences of any <br />approval of the Proposed Development. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Similarly, the findings give no indication of the feasibility <br />or effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. For <br />example, standards are imposed to "minimize adverse shadow <br />and glare effects". Are these standards measurable? To <br />what extent will they be effective? Again, the findings offer <br />no indication of the answer to this question. <br /> <br />Finally, there is no basis in the record before the CR~ to <br />conclude, as does Proposed Finding No.3, that the Proposed <br />Development will be viable from an economic point of view. <br />Without any basis for this conclusion, the statement of <br />overriding considerations also fails for want of supporting <br />evidence. <br /> <br />XVII. <br /> <br />INADEQUATE NOTICE TO AFFECTED PERSONS <br /> <br />In violation of CEQA an1 the State EIR Guidelines, official <br />notice of matters concerning this EIR was not provided to <br />City of Orange City Clerk, Cal Trans, the United States <br />Department of Transportation, and Orange residents in the <br />vicinity of the Proposed Development. Accordingly, proper <br />notice must be provided those persons and the EIR recirculated <br />for comment and review. <br /> <br />. XVIII. INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTIAL <br />NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT <br /> <br />The EIR analysis should have included traffic, noise, police <br />and fire protection, air quality, housing, light and shadow, <br />view, trash management, crime, privacy and enjoyment of <br />residential life style, parking management, and impacts <br />associated with construction. The Final EIR also fails to <br />discuss mitigation measures designed to preserve the <br />residential character of the surrounding neighborhoods. <br /> <br />\ß <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.