My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
80A - SUPPLEMENTAL - SANTA ANA TRANSITZONINGCODE POST- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - FEIR
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2010
>
06/07/2010
>
80A - SUPPLEMENTAL - SANTA ANA TRANSITZONINGCODE POST- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - FEIR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2016 5:27:55 PM
Creation date
6/10/2010 12:51:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
80A
Date
6/7/2010
Destruction Year
P
Notes
supplemental EIR Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
Attachment 1: Reasons for Denying Transit Zoning Code <br />Briggs Law Corporation -June 5, 2010 <br />Page 2of5 <br />I. Necessary Findings and Sufficiency of the Evidence <br />1.01. The draft EIR states on page 5 -61 that the No Project /Reasonably Foreseeable <br />Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, you <br />have not made the findings required under Public Resources Code Section 2108I(a) <br />and (b) to approve the project generally and as they relate to the environmentally <br />superior alternative. <br />1.02. To the extent that you have attempted to make all findings required under Public <br />Resources Code Section 21081(a) and (b), such findings have not been supported by <br />substantial evidence in the record. <br />1.03. You have not made all of the necessary Endings to support the General Plan <br />Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Site Plan Permit, Architectural Permit, Minor <br />Exception Permit, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Sign Permit or Sign Exception <br />Permit. Alternatively, such findings are not supported by substantial evidence. <br />II. Air Quality <br />2.01 CARB guidelines state that siting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway <br />should be avoided when possible. See Ex. 2X. The proposed project identifies <br />residential uses, a sensitive land use, next to Interstate 5. <br />2.02 Mitigation measure MM4.2 -7 is not sufficient. The mitigation measure is too vague <br />to be enforceable because the requirement that diesel - powered equipment be <br />retrofitted with after - treatment products only applies "to the extent that they are <br />readily available in the South Coast Air Basin." Mitigation measures MM4.2 -8 and <br />-9 suffer the same defect in that they only apply when "readily available" and are <br />"cost effective." <br />2.03 Many of the mitigation measures are designed so that they will not be subject to <br />public scrutiny. For example, mitigation measures MM4.2 -7 through -17 all require <br />that the specifications be provided prior to the issuance of the grading permit or <br />building permit, but do not require that the specifications be identified prior to <br />approval of fixture projects. <br />2.04 Mitigation measures MM4.2 -2 through -6 are unenforceable because they only say <br />what the contractor "should" do. <br />III. Air Quality- Greenhouse Gas Emissions <br />3.01 Because the project's cumulative greenhouse gas emission impact is significant, all <br />feasible mitigation measures must be adopted. Many of the mitigation measures <br />proposed are unenforceable. For example, MM4.13 -21 calls for "consideration" of <br />installation of solar roofs and MM4.13 -22 and MM4.13 -24 call for measures to be <br />implemented "where feasible," but do not define "feasible." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.