Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR <br />Response to Comment 7.01ff <br />The comment states that the City did not respond to comments as required by CEQA Guidelines section <br />15088(b). Section 15088(b) states that the "lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a <br />public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an <br />environmental impact report." Written responses were mailed to each commenter, including public <br />agencies, on May 25th, 2010, more than ten days prior to the June 7, 2010 Joint Session of the Santa Ana <br />City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency. A complete set of comments and responses to the <br />comments are also provided in the Final EIR. <br />The City has also complied with all other CEQA requirements for the evaluation and response to <br />comments on the EIR. Chapter 10 of the Final EIR contains written responses on all environmental <br />issues raised in comments received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR during the noticed <br />comment period from February 2, 2010 to April 12, 2010, and one late comment received on April 13, <br />2010. <br />Response to Comment "8.01ff <br />The comment states that the EIR should have been recirculated because significant new information was <br />added and that the report analyzing the additional alternatives was not recirculated until May 22, 2010. <br />Draft EIR Chapter 5 (Alternatives), which analyzed an additional three project alternatives and clarified <br />the project objectives, was recirculated on February 24, 2010. Appendix J, Alternatives Testing: Financial <br />Analyses, was attached to Draft EIR Chapter 5, and recirculated at the same time. All other changes and <br />modifications made to the EIR in response to comments are merely clarifications to the EIR and do not <br />trigger the need for additional public review (Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines §15088.5). <br />Response to Comment "8.02ff <br />The comment states that the EIR should have been recirculated because the Final EIR identified a <br />significant air quality impact from PM25 emissions. Significant air quality impacts resulting from PM23 <br />emissions is not significant new information requiring recirculation under CEQA Guidelines section <br />15088.5 because these impacts were identified in the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR Section 4.2.) <br />Impact 4.2 -5 identifies PM25 as one of the criteria pollutants that would have a significant impact during <br />construction of the project. (Draft EIR, Section 4.2.3, pages 4.2 -28 through 4.2 -33.) PM25 was <br />inadvertently left off the list of criteria pollutants included in the Draft EIR discussion of this impact on <br />page 4.2 -30, but was clearly analyzed and included in the impact conclusion as evidenced in Table 4.2 -7, <br />which includes data for PM25 along with CO, NO,, ROG, SO,, and PM10. The Final EIR was revised to <br />clarify the text as follows: <br />To the extent that construction of these individual projects overlaps, then the combined emissions <br />from these small, individual projects could exceed the recommended SCAQMD thresholds, <br />particularly for CO, NOx, and-PM10, and PM2.5, for which the Basin is currently in nonattainment. <br />(Final EIR, p. 9 -16; double- underline indicates text additions from Draft EIR, strikeout indicates <br />deletions from Draft EIR.) <br />1240 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR <br />