3.0 Responses to Comments
elsewhere in the document but provides no facts, reasonable assumption based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts attesting to the claimed inadequacy. 40-8
The comment seeks clarification on the Redevelopment Plan portion of the Proposed Alternative and takes issue with the use of general language demanding specific definitions or references for each outline, suggesting the document is inadequate for that reason. The comment provides no facts, reasonable assumption based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts supporting this claim. The details of the Redevelopment Plan component of the Proposed Alternative would have been a product of the Community Redevelopment Agency, due to the dissolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency, the Proposed Alternative area will not be a redevelopment project area anytime in the foreseeable future. The details of the Specific Plan are included in the Specific Plan document, including the stated goals (“Purposes”) of the plan.
40-9
The comment is a duplicate of comment 40-8. See Response to comment 40-8.
40-10 The comment claims the map in figure 1-1 is not consistent with other maps within the DEIR but does not specify the inconsistencies. 40-11 The comment alleges the DEIR does not meet CEQA requirements but does not provide any additional analyses, facts or findings that supplement and/or contradict the analyses and conclusions of the DEIR. 40-12 The comment appears to suggest the Redevelopment Plan (“Redeployment Plan”) component represents a separate land-use plan requiring a separate EIR. The Redevelopment Plan component was essentially a funding mechanism for implementation of the Proposed Alternative and contains no land-use changes and therefore required no additional EIR. Because the component is the product of a separate agency it is manifest as a separate “plan.” However due to the dissolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency the Proposed Alternative area will not be a redevelopment project area anytime in the foreseeable future. 40-13 The comment states, “Without required specific quantified mitigation requirements and conditions for ministerial consideration and compliance, all subsequent “projects” must undergo further CEQA considerations and must be deemed to not meet the City’s clearance procedure. Provide revised draft EIR and a complete RP and CRA mechanism Process and recirculate.” As the EIR is a programmatic document and there are no specific development projects proposed at this time, future applicants will need to demonstrate that the project property satisfies the prevailing standards and mitigations set forth in the Proposed Alternative. 40-14 The comment states, “As no “standards” are specifically referenced, defined, and quantified all “projects” must be provided as “Supplemental” or Subsequent) EIRs and then certified before approvals. Provide revised DEIR along with a specific subsequent review Process and recirculate.” 3-108
Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan FEIR