HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummary of NOP Comments.pdfAera Master Planned Community EIR
Summary of MOP Responses
EIR Section Where
Agency or Interested Party Comment Comment is Addressed
Agencies and Organizations - Written Comments
State of California Governor's Office of
Letter of acknowledgement.
Not applicable.
Pianning and Research, Sate
Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
(SCH# 2007051015)
Brea Olinda Unified School District
Impacts from population increase on existing
See Section 5.13, Public Services.
schools.
California Regional Water Quality
Storm flow runoff effects on water quality.
See Sections 5.8, Hydrology and Wafer
Contmi Board, Santa Ana Region
Preservation of wildlife population. Protection
Quality, and 5.41 Biological Resources,
of the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of State Waters. Low impact
development should be enforced along with
USACE's Clean Water Act Section 404 permit.
Cal State Fulierton
Impacts on biological resources. Wildlife
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
populations in the Whittier -Puente -Chino Hills
Corridor in danger.
City of Industry
Impacts on views and drainage in Tonner
See Sections 5.1, Aesthetics, and 5.8,
Canyon.
Hydroiogy and Water Quality.
Impacts on traffic volumes and the wildHe
See Sections 515, Transportation and Traffic,
corridor.
and 5.4, Biological Resources,
City of Yorba Linda
No Comment
Not applicable.
County of Los Angeles Department of
Suggests the discussion of hydrology impacts
See Sections 5.8, Hydrology and Wafer
Public Works
and sewer maintenance.
Quality, and 5.16, Utilities/Service Systems.
Requests a more compiete traffic study.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
County of Los Angeles Public Health:
Need for a landfill within proposed area.
See Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
Solid Waste Program
Materials,
County Sanitation Districts of Los
Project area requires annexation in order for
See Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Qualify
Angeles County
the District to provide wastewater general€on
services.
Department of Conservation: Division
Do not build on or damage wells in the Brea-
See Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Ofmda oil field.
Materials.
Resou rces
Department of Toxic Substances
identify historic uses of the site in case it has
See Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
Control
been contaminated. A health risk assessment
Materials.
may be required to determine the release of
hazardous materials,
Department of Transportation
Recognize all potential effects to Sate
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Facilities from developments. Mitigate traffic
impacts and alternatives.
Diamond Bar Residents for Quality of
Development on open area disrupts views.
See Section 5.1, Aesthetics.
Life
Increased air pollution from increased traffic is
See Section 5.3, Air Quality.
hazardous,
The vegetation in Tonner Canyon is very
See Sections 5,2, Agriculture Resources, and
valuable and development risks the
5.4, Biological Resources.
connectivity of wildlife.
Agency or Interested Party
Hills For Everyone
hillside Open Space Education
Coalition
League of Women Voters of Los
Angeles County
Los Angeles County Department of
Regional Planning
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat
Preservation Authority
Aera Master Planned Community EIR
Summary of NOP Responses
Comment
Development increases risks of landslides and
erosion.
Residential development has irreparable
consequences.
Increased noise disrupts country tone.
Population increase impacts local schools.
Too much traffic on Brea Canyon Road.
Requests that the EIR should include jobs -
housing balance, economic impacts,
infrastructure, and health effects. An
interdisciplinary approach to biology,
hydrology, and geology impacts should be
taken.
All altematives must be identified.
Development would destroy the community's
visual backdrop.
EIR should address unstable slope areas,
location of drainage facillties, long-term water
supply, cumulative traffic impacts, and noise
on animal population.
Avoid major impacts on wildlife corridors.
Higher demand for recreational facilities.
Include a detailed mitigation measures for oil
wells.
Recognize conflicts in coordinating service
providers with development,
Request EIR to provlde traffic studies, address
natural resources, water allotments, air quality
studies, water treatment facilities, and future
development information.
Requests to recognize SEATAC's notes on the
adverse effects on wildlife resources, an
evaluation of impacts from high density
development, and a review on ail well and
geological impacts.
Impacts on Metropolitan's facilities, such as
pipelines and reservoirs, should be addressed.
Groundwater disposal can presents a danger
for the Reservoir.
Encourages the conservation of water.
Requests the DEIR to address the impacts on
the wildlife corridor at Harbor Blvd and open
space preservation alternatives.
EIR Section Where
Comment is Addressed
See Sections 5.6, Geology and Soils, and 5.8,
Hydrology and Wafer Quality.
See Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
See Section 5.11, Noise.
See Section 5.12, Population and Housing.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
See Sections 5.12, Population and Housing;
5,13, Public Services; 5.14, Recreation; 5.14,
Transportation and Traffic; 5.8, Hydrology and
Wafer Qualify; 5.3, Air Quality; 5.9, Land Use
and Planning; 5,16, Utilities and Service
Systems; 5.4, Biological Resources; and 5.6,
Geology and Soils.
See Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed
Project.
See Section 5.1, Aesthetics.
See Sections 5.6, Geology and Soils; 5.16
Utilities and Service Systems; 5.8 Hydrology
and Wafer Qualty, 5.15, Transportation and
Traffic; and 5.11, Noise,
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
See Section 5.14, Recreation.
See Section 5 7, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
See Section 5.13, Public Services,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
5.4, Biological Resources; 5.8, Hydrology and
Wafer Qualify; 53, Air Quality; 5.16, Utilities
and Service Systems; and 5.9 Land Use and
Planning.
See Sections 5.4, Biological Resources; 5.9
Land Use and Planning; 5.7, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials; 5.6, Geology and Soils;
and 5.16 Utilities and Service Systems.
See Section 5.16, Utilities and Service
Systems.
See Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning,
See Sections 5A, Biological Resources; 5.9,
Land Use and Planning; and 5.14, Recreation.
Aera Master Planned Community EIR
Summary of NOP Responses
EIR Section Where
Agency or Interested Party
Comment
Comment is Addressed
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
DEIR should present alternatives to reduce
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and
impacts on the habitat located in the wildlife
Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed
corridor.
Project.
DEIR should address the importance of open
See Sections 5.9, Land Use and Planning,
space to help preserve biological resources.
and 5.14, Recreation.
RMC requests a discussion on wildlife
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
movement and road kill.
DEIR should include adequate information on
See Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
impacts on oil remediation.
Materials.
Rowland Heights Community
Requests EIR to address traffic circulation
See Sections 5.151 Transportation and Traffic;
Coordinating Council
issues and infrastructure capacity.
513, Public Services; and 5.16, Utilities and
Service Systems,
New developments should coordinate with
See Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
Rowland Heights General Plan to ensure the
preservation of community character.
Requests the evaivation of toxics created from
See Sections 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
development and impacts on water,
Materials, and 5.8, Hydrology and Wafer
Quality.
Development of new land use impacts on
See Sections 5.9, Land Use and Planning,
public services.
and 5.13, Public Services.
Cumulative Impacts should be considered on
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
issues such as traffic, schools, and air quality.
5.13, Public Services; and 5.3, Air Quality.
South Coast Air Quality Management
Requests identification of potential adverse air
See Sections 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.15,
District
quality impacts and performance of a Vocalized
Transportation and Traffic,
significance analysis. A mobile source health
risk assessment is recommended for projects
which generate vehicular trips.
Southern California Association of
Expects EIR to specifically cite the appropriate
Governments
SCAG policies:
DEIR should reflect current SCAG forecasts.
See Section 5.12, Population and Housing.
Encourage land use patterns which efficiently
See Sections 5 9, Land Use and Pianning;
use existing facilities and preserve quality of
5.2, Agriculture Resources; 5.4, Biological
life by protecting resources.
Resources; 5.5, Cultural Resources; 5.11,
Noise; and 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
Encourage quality housing supply and equal
See Sections 5.12, Population and Housing,
access to public services,
and 5.13, Public Services.
''encourage consistency through consideration
See Sections 5.3, Air Quality; 5.9, Land Use
of air quality, land use, transportation, water
and Planning; 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
reclamation, and economic relationships.
and 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Requests adequate open space conservatEon
See Sections 5.9, Land Use and Planning,
for outdoor recreation.
and 5.14, Recreation
Promote a sustainable and productive
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic
transportation system utilizing SCAG's
Regional Performance Indicators.
Agency or interested Party
Southern California Gas Company
State of California Public Utilities
Commission
United State Department of the
Interior:
National Park Service
WEST Family of Companies
Wildlife Agencies: U.S. Fish and
Whdiife Services and Caiifomia
Department of Fish and Game
Wildlife Corridor Conservation
Authority
Aera Master Planned Community EIR
Summary of NQP Responses
Comment
Encourage mobility, livability, prosperity, and
sustainabilAy.
Recommends discussion of activities related to
new natural gas services
Requires consideration of safety factors
associated with highway -rail crossings
Incorporation of Los Angeles County Trail #16,
the Schabarum Trail Extension, into pians.
Feels the needs of the majority of the
community are not reflected in the project.
DEIR must inciude.
Descriptions of environment and purposes.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative assessment of
biological resources
Recommends mitigation measures for adverse
project -related impacts.
DEIR should discuss impacts on
waters/wetlands and proposed mitigation
measures.
DEIR must address significant Bioiogical
impacts (Le, wildlife corridors) and adequate
potential alternatives.
DEIR should discuss Area 1, 2, 3, Tonner
Canyon Crossing, and the Golf Course in
order to protect wildlife movement.
DEIR should discuss compatibility with
SEATAC recommendations.
DEIR should distinguish natural open space
and recreational parks.
DEIR should include a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
Address habitat fragmentation from roadways.
DEIR must provide a clear timetable of project
phases,
DEIR must provide a map of the proposed
development boundary.
DEIR must specify the acreage of natural open
space after development.
DEIR must include figures of General Plan
land use designations and zoning.
DEIR must address preservation of
gnatcatcher and raptor,
ElR Section Where
Comment is Addresses!
See Sections 515, Transportation and Traffic;
5.9, Land Use and Planning; 5.13, Population
and Housing; 5.2, Agriculture Resources; and
5.14, Recreation.
See Section 5.16, Utilities and Service
Systems,
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
See Section 5.14, Recreation.
Refer to Sections 513, Public Services; 5.14,
Recreation; 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
and 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems for
infrastructure and community -wide benefits.
Refer tc Section 1, Executive Summary;
Section 2, introduction; and Section 4,
Environmental Setting.
See Sections 5A, Biological Resources; 5.15,
Transportation and Traffic; 5.2, Agriculture
Resources; 5.6, Geology and Soils; and 5.8,
Hydrology and Hazardous Materials.
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and
Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed
Project.
See Sections 5.9, Land Use and Planning,
and 5.14, Recreation.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Refer to Section 3, Project Description,
See Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
See Section 5 4, Biological Resources.
Agency or Interested Party
Individuals - Written Comments
Anonymous (Resident)
Badn, Bob
Blagden, Stephen
Buller Family
Chang, Tom
Ebenkamp, Lynne
Fisher, Michael
Flack, Charles
Grant, John
Harris, Shirley
Hse, Elaine
Huang,Jay
Aera Master Pianned Community EIR
Summary of NOP Responses
Request the consideration of the
developments impact on creating
serviceslinfrastructure for schools, firemen,
transportation, housing, and police.
EIR must consider animal corridors.
impacts on quality of life, traffic, wildlife
corridors, and open space
Requests the Pre -Annexation Agreement to
specify environmental consequences from
housing as well as any economic
consequences.
EIR must classify open space designations
and discuss the loss of open space area in
Rowland Heights.
EIR must address traffic impacts,
Requests the El to discuss where the rest of
the required housing will be located since only
a portion wlll be within the project area,
Requests the EIR to study impacts of dead
end roads for emergency access.
EIR must classify the SEATAC findings.
Potential impacts on congestion, demands on
community infrastructure, and wildlife.
Potential impacts on traffic congestion.
Potential impacts on traffic congestion.
Need Attachment
Impacts on wildlife corridors and open space.
impacts on wildlife corridors.
Requests clarification of the green buffer zone.
impacts on wildlife corridors.
Potential Impacts on traffic, open space,
wildlife, noise, air pollution, water quality, and
aesthetics.
Comments regarding congestion and project
benefits.
EIR Section Where
Comment is Addressed
See Sections 5.13, Public Services; 5.12,
Population and Housing; 5.15, Transportation
and Traffic; and 5.16, Utilities and Service
Systems,
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources,
See Sections 512, Population and Housing;
5.15, Transportation and Traffic, 5.4,
Biological Resources; 5.9, Land Use and
Planning; and 5,14, Recreation.
See Section 5.12, Population and Housing.
See Sections 5.9, Land Use and Planning,
and 5.14, Recreation.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
See Section 5,12, Population and Housing.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
5.13, Public Services; 5.16, Utilities and
Service Systems; and 5.4, Biological
Resources
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic
See Sections 54, Biologicai Resources; 5.9,
Land Use and Planning; and 5.14, Recreation
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
As discussed in Section 3, Project Description,
50 percent will be retained as open space.
Refer to this section for additional information.
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
5.9, Land Use and Planning; 5,14, Recreation;
5.4, Biological Resources; 5.11, Noise; 5.3, Air
Quality, 5.8, Hydrology andWafer Quality; and
5.1 Aesthetics,
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Aera Master Planned Community E1R
Summary of MOP Responses
E1R Section Where
Agency or Interested Party
Comment
Comment is Addressed
Jameson, Catherine
Impacts on traffic congestion.
See Section 5,15, Transportation and Traffic,
Kiang, Walter
Letter of acknowledgement,
Not applicable.
Kight, Michael and Cynthia
Impacts on traffic and views
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
and 5.1 Aesthetics,
Kilmer, Jean
impacts on wildlife corridor and traffic,
See Sections 5 4, Biological Resources, and
5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Kramer, Mariano and Maria
Comments regarding infrastructure, impacts
See Sections, 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
on open space, and a clariflcation of
5.13, Public Services; 5.16, Utilities and
commercial/ mixed uses.
Service Systems; 5.9, Land Use and Planning;
and 5.14, Recreation,
Leung, Judy
Comments on the disruption of open space
See Sections 5.9, Land Use and Planning,
and 5.14, Recreation.
Impacts on noise and air quality from traffic
See Soctlms 5.11, Noise; 5.3, Air Quality; and
5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Maffucci, Andrew and Becky
Impacts on traffic and noise.
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
and 5.11, Noise,
Malkin, David and Teri
Cumulative impacts on traffic, water, and
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
wildlife corridors.
5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; and 5 4,
Biological Resources,
Martin, John
Need Attachment
Morris, Kent
Comments on ruining the natural parkland.
See Sections 5.1, Aesthetics, and 5.4,
Biological Resources,
Robertson, Glenn
Preservation of rangeland, open space
See Sections 5.4, Biological Resources; 5 9,
conservation, sensitive species, and the
Land Use and Planning; and 5.14, Recreation.
wildlife corridor,
Rodriguez, David
Need Attachment
Rodriguez, Mary
Preservation of natural landscape
See Sections 5.1, Aesthetics, and 5.4,
Biological Resources.
Schlotterbeck, Claire
Need Attachment
Su, Stephen
Impacts on traffic, pollution, water quality,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
wildlife, and value of homes.
5.3 Air Quality; 5.8 Hydrology and Water
Quality, 5.4 Biological Resources, and 5,12
Population and Housing.
Su, Wayne
Opposition to new housing development.
See Sections 5.4, Biological Resources, and
5.12, Population and Housing.
Tutt, Cinthya and Bryan
Concerns on impacts to wildlife, oil pits, and
See Sections 5.4, Biological Resources; 5.7,
traffic congestion.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and 5.15,
Transportation and Traffic.
Warren, John
Opposition to new housing development.
See Sections 5A, Biological Resources, and
5.12, Population and Housing.
Watanabe, Teri
Concerns with traffic levels, recreational areas,
See Sections 5,15, Transportation and Traffic;
population increase, pollution, and wildlife.
5.14, Recreation; 5.12, Population and
Housing; 5.3, Air Quality; and 5 4, Biological
Resources.
Aera Master Planned Community EIR
Summary of NOP Responses
EIR Section Where
Agency or Interested Party Comment Comment is Addressed
Willard, Lee
Zinziey, Richard and Lynne
Impacts on traffic, views, and wildlife corridors. See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
5.1 Aesthetics; and 5.4, Biological Resources.
Impacts on traffic, maintaining conditions of
services, schools, water, air pollution, and
open space.
See Sections 515, Transportation and Traffic;
5.13, Public Services; 5.16, Utilities and
Service Systems; 5.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality, 5.3, Air Quality; 5.9, Land Use and
Planning; and 5.14, Recreation,
Indi%4duais May 16, 2007, $coping Meeting — Written Comments
Anonymous
Concerns for demolition of wildlife corridor.
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
Barrett, Patsy
Impacts on traffic and wildlife corridors,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
and 5.4, Biological Resources,
Barrett, Truman
Concerns with traffic congestion and wildlife
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
corridors.
and 5.4, Biological Resources,
Bondurant, Gloria
Express concern for overcrowded streets,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
wildlife, and hazardous materials caused from
5.4, Biological Resources; and 5.7, Hazards
developments.
and Hazardous Materials.
Bondurant. Michael
Not fair for the citizens to suffer from
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
congestion and pollution.
and 5.3, Air Quality.
Buck, Doug
Project discloses unsound earthquake, wildlife,
See Sections 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
and population growth risks.
Materials; 5A, Biological Resources; and 5.12,
Population and Housing.
Chou, Eddie
Impacts on pollution and traffic.
See Sections 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.15,
Transportation and Traffic.
Chou, Johnny
Population impacts on traffic.
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
and 5.12 Population and Housing.
Coleman, Gloria
Increase in traffic problems.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Collister, Anita and Tom
Project costs on schools, open space, water,
See Sections 5.13, Public Services; 5,16,
lighting, street maintenance, traffic, and wildlife
Utilities and Service Systems; 5.8, Hydrology
corridors.
and Water Quality; 5 9, Land Use and
Planning; 5.14, Recreation; 5.15,
Transportation and Traffic; and 5.4, Biological
Resources.
Falco, Beth
Development threatens both traffic and animal
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
species,
and 5.4, Biological Resources.
Flack, Patty
Destruction of wildlife corridor.
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
Granger, Stan
Extreme congestion issues as well as wildlife
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic
habitat loss
and 5.4 Biological Resources.
Hughes, Michael
Impacts on traffic, water, and sewage systems
See Sectons 5,15, Transportation and Traffic,
are beyond system capacity.
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, and 516
Utilities/Service Systems
Jack, Barbara and John
mpacts on traffic and wildlife corridor,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic
and 5.4 Biological Resources
Jansen, Judy
Destruction of wildlife corridor
I See Section 5.4, Biological Resources
Aera Master Planned Community EIR
Summary of NOP Responses
PlR Section Where
Agency or Interested Party
Comment
Comment is Addressed
Khan, Elfriede
The impacts on pollution, traffic, and wildlife.
See Sections 5 3, Air Qualify, 5.15
Transportation and Traffic, and 5.4 Biological
Resources
Khan, Saeed
Concerns for traffic, inadequate infrastructure,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
and preservation of wildlife habitats.
5.13, Public Services; 5.16, Utilities and
Service Systems; and 5.4, Biological
Resources
McMillan, Beatrice
Dramatic increase in traffic.
See Section 5.15, Transporfation and Traffic.
Nebedom, Edward
impacts on traffic and pollution.
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
and 5.3, Air Qualify,
Sam
The impacts from population increase on traffic
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
and air quality.
5.3, Air Qualify; 5.12, Popuiation and Housing.
Sanchez, Joe
Project wilt increase traffic, pollution, and ruin
See Sections 515, Transportation and Traffic;
the environment.
5.3, Air Quality; and 5.4, Biological Resources.
Sun, Eddy
Oppose project because it causes more traffic
See Sections 5,15, Transportation and Traffic,
and destroys natural habitat.
and 5A, Biological Resources.
Reed, Fred and Kelly
Impacts on wildlife habitat and community
See Sections 5.4, Biological Resources; 5.15,
infrastructure.
Transportation and Traffic; 5.13, Public
Services; and 516, Utilities and Service
Systems.
Vandorsten, Paul
Impacts from traffic congestion, air pollution,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
and wildlife habitat on quality of life.
5.3, Air Quality; and 5.4, Biological Resources.
Individuals May 16, 2007, Scoping Meeting — Oral Comments
Amid, Aziz
Impacts on transporting to schoo€.
See Sections 5.13, Publics Services, and
5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Brooks, Letty
Project alternative should be considered
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
because of potential destruct}on to the wildlife
corridor.
Carillo, Delores
impacts on traffic congestion.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
Colgan, Gloria
Concerned about traffic congestion.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Cote, Ann
Questions affordable housing numbers,
See Sections 5.12, Population and Housing;
destruction of native plants, wildlife corridor,
51, Aesthetics; 5.4, Biological Resources; and
and traffic mitigation.
5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Ebenkamp, Lynne
Concerned about traffic problems.
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Hall, Carol
Desires a comparison of the wildlife corridor
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
now and after development.
Harbaugh, John
Questions why Diamond Bar must pay for the
Comment noted.
EtR and not the developer,
Janow, Gilbert
Questions impact on the carbon balance and
See Sections 5 3, Air Qualify, and 5.15,
traffic.
Transportation and Traffic.
Kersey, David
Comments on hazardous materials, traffic, and
See Sections 51, Hazards and Hazardous
open space.
Materials; 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
5.9, Land Use and Planning; and 5.14,
Recreation,
Aera Master Planned Community EIR
Summary of NOP Responses
E1R Section Where
Agency or Interested Party
Comment
Comment is Addressed
Meehan, Ellen
Feels destructing the wildlife corridor has
See Section 5.4, Biological' Resources.
severe implications,
Ortiz, Richard
Implications with the oil fields and location of
See Sections 57, Hazards and Hazardous
the wildlife corridor,
Materials, and 5.4, Biological Resources.
Paulson, Lee
Questions the restoration of habitat and traffic
See Sections 5,4, Biological Resources, and
congestion.
5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
Paulson, Meleney
Concerned about the impact on homes and
See Sections 5.12, Population and Housing,
the wildlife corridor.
and 5A Biological Resources.
Perez, Caroline
Feels unwanted growth will cause traffic
See Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
congestion to increase dramatically.
Saretsky, Richard
Potential severe 'impart on traffic fiow,
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
avaiiable open space, wildlife corridor, and oil
5.9, Land Use and Planning; 5.14, Recreation;
field contamination.
5.4, Biological Resources; and 5.7, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials.
Shu, David
Concerned about the approval process.
City staff provided a response regarding the
approval process.
Stacy
Concerned about the fault line, traffic
See Sections 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous
congestion, and preserving the natural habitat.
Materials, 5.15, Transportation and Traffic;
and 5.4, Biological Resources.
Stuart, Wendy
Questions the impacts on schools, the wildlife
See Sections 5.13, Public Services; 5 4,
corridor, and the hazardous waste exposed
Biological Resources; and 5.7, Hazards and
from the oil fields.
Hazardous Materials.
Sutton, Don
Impacts on traffic and wildlife habitat.
See Sections 5.15, Transportation and Traffic,
and 5.4, Biological Resources,
Vasquez, Jae
Questions whether or not all three agencies
Each jurisdiction will be taking separate
included must agree in order for the project to
actions on these portions of the project.
be passed.
Willard, Lee
impacts on the wildlife corridor.
See Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
* Denotes a "responsible agency." Agencies with discretionary authority over some aspect of the project are defined in CEQA as "responsible agencies"
(Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines). Such agencies may use this EIR in their consideration of the project
