AgdaPkt 2015-09-28 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

City’s Response: The City’s Fire Marshall has been an active participant in the review of the proposed Project, including all proposed improvements located within the public rights-of-way. In any event, the evidence shows that the improvements will not slow emergency response time. For example, the Initial Study explains that the Project will not cause emergency access impacts, and that the bulb outs and other right-of-way improvements will actually enhance the user experience of the public street system (particularly for pedestrians). (Initial Study Checklist, pp. 36-38.) Further, if the City found that the bulb-outs, or any improvements within the public rights-of-way, impaired the travel or movement of emergency vehicles, the improvements would not be installed. iv. There Are No New Cumulative Impacts that Were Not Considered in the Certified EIR. Appellants’ Contention: The City must prepare an EIR to study cumulative impacts to police, fire, emergency medical facilities, and parks and recreation facilities, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15130(d). In addition, because the DTPP EIR stated that study of these cumulative impacts at that time was speculative, the City must now prepare an EIR to study them. (J&S Management Appeal—July 22, 2015 letter, p. 2, and June 10, 2015 letter, p. 12.) City’s Response: CEQA Guidelines section 15130 concerns the cumulative impacts analysis that is included in an EIR. The DTPP EIR included the required cumulative impacts analysis and the City is not required to prepare an EIR, for reasons discussed above. Further, the Initial Study Checklist that was prepared for the 601 Marshall Street Project, along with all supporting technical reports and documents, show that there are no project-specific significant impacts to emergency services, parks or recreational facilities. As such, the Project does not have a considerable contribution to any potentially significant cumulative impact and no further environmental analysis is required. v. There Are No New Water Quality Impacts Associated with the Project that Weren’t Considered in the Certified EIR. Appellants’ Contention: Construction of the Project may cause water quality impacts, e.g., by disturbing the soil. (J&S Management Appeal—July 22, 2015 letter, p. 2, and June 10, 2015 letter, pp. 13-15.) City’s Response: Appellants speculate, but offer no evidence that construction of the Project may cause water quality impacts. The Initial Study includes evidence that the Project will not cause any significant impacts. For example, the Project will comply with 7.A. - Page 24