80A - TRANSIT ZONING CODE - FEIR - SUPPLEMENTAL - REPONSE TO COMMENTS

Home Browse Search

Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR Response to Comment ~4.02~ The effects of global climate change on water supply were discussed in the Draft EIR in Section 4.13, more specifically starting on page 4.3-7. Response to Comment ~4.03~ Water resource impacts were addressed in EIR Section 4.6, including cumulative projects. Water Supply infrastructure is also addressed in EIR Section 4.12. The comment does not provide any details on what impacts they believe have not been adequately analyzed. (Refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a).) Response to Comment ~5.01~ The comment states that if the "no project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. This requirement is found in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (e)(2), rather than section 15162(d)(2), as cited in the comment. The Final EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative other than the "no project" alternative. Chapter 9 of the Final EIR states: Alternatives 4. 5. and 6 would reduce impacts to cultural resources. but not to less-than-significant levels, and all oilier impact levels would remain die same. Alternative 1 would, therefore, be environmentally superior to the proposed project because the significant environmental impacts to aesthetics, air qualityr, land use, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems would be lessened to die greatest extent, since this alternative proposes die least amount of future residential and overall development, however, Alternative 1 does not fully meet die project objectives, as noted above. As noted above, if die environmentally superior alternative is die No Proms Alternative. CEOA requires drat an EIR also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among die other alternatives. Among Alternatives 2. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative because die impacts to air dualit<r. global climate change. and transportation would be lessened to the greatest extent. and die significant and unavoidable impact to aesdhetics would be reduced to aless-dean-si,~nificant level. (Final EIR, p. 9-62; double-underline indicates text additions from Draft EIR.) Response to Comment ~6.01~ The Cit<r and the Agency complied with all substantive and procedural noticing requirements for public hearings on the proposed project. Notice of the June 7, 2010 CitSr of Santa Ana City Council Meeting was published in accordance with the procedural requirements of Government Code section 65090 and contained the substantive information required by Government Code section 65094, including: the date, time, and place of the hearing; the identity of the hearing body; a general explanation of the matter to be considered; and a general description of the location of the real propert~~ being considered. Government Code section 65090 does not require the planning commission's recommendations or a complete project description to be included in the public hearing notice. Planning commission recommendations are included in the Agenda for the June 7, 2010 City Council Meeting posted on the City of Santa Ana's web site. (Note that there appears to be a typographical error in CREED's comment letter, which identifies the comment under heading VI. Notice of a Public Hearing as 8.01 rather than 6.01.) City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-39