AgdaPkt 2004-04-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� � � ■ d ■ �■ O �'$"� 1) The EIR has been completed in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. 2) The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information -- within the EIR prior to approving the project. 3) The final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. The Final EIR is comprised of the following two dreuments: ■ Draft EIR — Delivered to the Planning Corr�mission on October 16, 2003 under separate cover ■ Response to Comments — Delivered to the Planning Commissioners on February 2, 2004 under separate cover The public review period for the draft EIR was October 10, 2003 through November 24, 2003. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 2003 during the comment period to receive additional comments from the public and to provide their own comments on the Draft EIR. The Response to Comments document addresses all of the letters and oral testimony received during the comment period and at the November 18, 2003 public hearing. The EIR has concluded that although there are some impacts that can be mitigated, there are also cumulative impacts on the transportation system and water supply that are "unavoidable and significant." In order to approve the project, which will be considered at a future public hearing, the Planning Commission will need to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations with Findings. This statement must list each unavoidable and significant impact and associated findings for why, despite the negative impacts, the project should be approved `— anyway. A draft Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings will be provided to the Planning Commissioners at the same meeting as the Planned Development Permit and Tentative Map review. Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQ) guidelines, the EIR also examines alternatives to the project. The EIR considered the following altematives: • No Project Alternative • Industrial Park Zoning Distr;ct Atternative (40% floor-area-ratio) • Reduced Height Altemative • Split-Site Alternative The Split Site Rltemative was considered to be the "environmentally superio�' alternative. The Industrial Park Zoning District alternative, because it is considerably smaller than the proposed project, would also result in reduced environmental impacts. The Planning Commission is not being asked at this time, to "approve" the project or any alternatives. The Planning Commission may consider alternatives at the time that they consider the project approval, which in this case, is the Planned Development Permit. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Programs (MMRP) are stand-alone documents. MMRPs include all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. For each measure, the responsible party, timing of the implementation of the measure, and the monitoring responsibility are identified. MMRPs must be adopted at the time of .� project approval, which, in this case, will be considered at a future hearing for the Planned Development Permit. The MMRP was the Abbott project was included in the Planning Commission packet materials for this meeting under separate cover