Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Jack W. Golden <br />September 16, 2004 <br />Page 9 of20 <br /> <br />Ne,?ative Declaration <br /> <br />Your letter repeatedly references a consistency requirement with the Negative Declaration. <br />There is no legal requirement that the Negative Declaration language be identical to the <br />general plan. Are you suggesting the Negative Declaration should be changed to mirror the <br />General Plan language? As you well know, the public comment period for the Negative <br />Declaration has elapsed. We did receive comments from ALUC staff, and those comments <br />have been addressed. However, none of the comments contained within your letter were <br />contained in the ALUC's comments. As such, the City will not be further modifying the <br />Negative Declaration language. There is nothing within this section of your letter that <br />indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard. <br /> <br />General Plan Internal Consistencv <br /> <br />As stated above, case law holds that consistency requires "that a proposed project be <br />compatible with the objectives, polices, general land uses and programs specified in the <br />applicable plan. The courts have interpreted this provision as requiring that a project be 'in <br />agreement or harmony with' the tenns of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with <br />every detail thereof." San Franciscans upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County <br />of San Francisco (2002) 102 CA 4th 656, 678. As such, it is unnecessary for each of the <br />sections of the general plan to repeat policies. Nor would such unnecessary repetitiveness <br />be required to achieve consistency with the AELUP. There is nothing within this section of <br />your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard. <br /> <br />VI. Item 2. Page 4 <br /> <br />A. Paragraph 1 <br /> <br />"In regard to question VIl D. on page 11 of the negative declaration, more <br />facts should be developed and a less conclusory discussion maintained. For <br />example, the AL UC has raised the concern that tall buildings in the <br />MacArthur Place/Hutton Center area are under relatively low general <br />aviation flight patterns and that approximately 22,000 fued-wing aircraft <br />typically fly over the proposed location of these residential high-rises on an <br />annual basis. The negative declaration should be revised to reflect this <br />concern, or should set forth evidence as to why this is not of concern to the <br />City and does not pose a 'safety hazard to people residing or working in the <br />City. ,.. <br /> <br />First, please see the above discussion on the Negative Declaration; which discussed that the <br />public comment period has closed. As such, the City will not be further modifying the <br />Negative Declaration language. <br /> <br />75C-204 <br />