My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
80A - TRANSIT ZONING CODE - FEIR - SUPPLEMENTAL - REPONSE TO COMMENTS
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2010
>
06/07/2010
>
80A - TRANSIT CODE AND STATION DISTRICT - FULL PACKET LISTED INDIVIDUALLY
>
80A - TRANSIT ZONING CODE - FEIR - SUPPLEMENTAL - REPONSE TO COMMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 4:08:36 PM
Creation date
10/8/2010 4:16:51 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
Attactnnenf I: Reasons for Denying Transit Zoning Code <br /> Briggs t,aw Corporation--J'une 5, 201 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> V. Alternatives <br /> 5.01 CI;QA Guidelines Section 15162(dj(2) states that if the environmentally superior <br /> alternative is the na project alternative, the EIR must ide~~tify an environmentally <br /> superior alternative from among the other alteiā¢~iatives. Another environmentally <br /> superior alternative was not identified in the EIR. <br /> VI. Notice of Public Hearing <br /> 8.01. To the extent notice was given under Government Code section 65090, it did not <br /> satisfy the procedural and substantive requirements of Section 65090. For example, <br /> the notice failed to include the planning commission's recommendation and a <br /> complete project description. <br /> VII. Response to Comments <br /> 7.01. The City of Santa Ana did not respond to commenters as required by CEQA <br /> Guidelines Section 15088(b). <br /> VIII. Neecl to Recirculate <br /> 8.01 Under Public Resources Code Section 21092,1, the EIR should have been recirculated <br /> because significant new information was added. For example, around fifty pages of <br /> the EIR were revised in some respect and three appendices. Alternatives were added, <br /> and ~vl~ile public review vas extended to April 12, 2010, the report analyzing the <br /> additional alternatives was not recirculated and was not done until May 22, 2010. <br /> 8.02 The EIR should have been recirculated because new significant impacts were <br /> identibed. For example, the final EIR acknowledges that the project will also have a <br /> significant air quality impact because of PM-2.5. The public lost the opportunity to <br /> identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce this new significant impact during the <br /> public review period. <br /> <br /> IX. Description of Project <br /> 9.01 An accurate project description is essential to an adequate analysis of the project's <br /> environmental impacts. You have failed to include a complete and consistent project <br /> description. <br /> 5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.