Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR <br /> ~ Response to Letter BLC: Briggs Law Corporation <br /> The City received a comment letter from Briggs Law Corporation on behalf of Citizens for Responsible <br /> Equitable Environmental Development ("CREED") dated June 5, 2010 and received June 7th, 2010, the <br /> day of the CitSr Council and Agency hearing on the Transit Code and Development Project. The <br /> comment period on the Recirculated Draft EIR closed on April 12, 2010. The CitSr is therefore under no <br /> obligation to respond to late comments. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)). Nevertheless, the <br /> following responses to comments are provided. <br /> Response to Comment ~1.01~ <br /> CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states that "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for <br /> <br /> which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the <br /> project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, <br /> accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding." (Refer also to Public Resources <br /> Code Section 21081.) <br /> The comment suggests that these findings should have been included in the Draft EIR on page 5-61. As <br /> noted in the Public Resource Code cited in the comment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, these <br /> findings only need to be made prior "approv[ing]" the project. While this information was not included <br /> <br /> in the Draft EIR, the required findings have been prepared and were included in the Planning <br /> Commission's Staff Report released several days prior to their May, 27, 2010 meeting. The findings have <br /> also been included in the City Council's Staff Report at the following URL (included in Exhibit 6 to <br /> Exhibit Q): <br /> http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/Items/80A TOINT PH TransitCode.pdf <br /> Response to Comment ~1.02~ <br /> Comment states "to the extent that you have attempted to make all findings required by Public Resource <br /> Code Section 21081 (a) and (b), such findings have not been supported by substantial evidence in the <br /> record. As noted in Response to Comment "1.01," the findings have been prepared and are included in <br /> the Staff Report The findings have been prepared in compliance with CEQA and are based upon <br /> substantial evidence. Also note that at the time the comment letter was written on June 5, 2010, the <br /> Administrative Record/Record of Proceeding was not yet finalized. Furthermore, not all substantial <br /> evidence needs to be included in the EIR, as suggested in the comment letter. (Refer to Public Resources <br /> Code Section 21167.6(e); see also San Franciscans Upholding the Dozvnto~rn Plan v. City County of San <br /> F~anczsco (2002) 102 Ca.App.4`h 656, 690-691.) <br /> The commenter does not provide any details on why they believe these Findings to be inadequate. <br /> Therefore no further response is required (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(x) and 15204(x)). <br /> Response to Comment ~1.03~ <br /> Refer to Response to Comment "1.02." Refer to the City Council's Staff Report for the findings. <br /> 12-36 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR <br /> <br />