Laserfiche WebLink
19 <br /> <br />Appellants’ Contention: The City needs to analyze adverse impacts to emergency <br />services (police and fire), asserting increases in response times, crimes, and serious <br />accidents over the period of 2010-2015. (See Kris Johnson Appeal, p. 2) <br /> <br />City’s Response: The DTPP EIR’s threshold of significance is related to the need for the <br />construction of new facilities, and not the maintenance of a particular emergency <br />response time. As outlined in the Public Services section of the Initial Study (p. 33), <br />implementation of the Project would not result in substantial physical impacts <br />associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the <br />need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain <br />acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives beyond <br />those identified in the DTPP program EIR. <br /> <br />Both the Police Department and Fire Department participate in the City’s Plan Review <br />Committee (PRC) process and reviewed the proposed project, and neither department <br />identified a need for new or altered fire or police facilities as a result of the project. In <br />addition, the Fire Department facility serving the Project site is Station 9 at 755 Marshall <br />Street, on the same block as the Project site, approximately 200-feet away, and the <br />Police Department’s headquarters at 1301 Maple Street is approximately one-half mile <br />from the Project site. Thus, Appellant has not shown that the Project will lead to new <br />significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously <br />identified significant impacts related to Public Services. <br /> <br />iii. The Project Will Not Create Traffic Impacts that Require a New or <br />Supplemental EIR <br /> <br />Appellants’ Contentions: The City cannot rely on the DTPP EIR as it relates to traffic <br />because it is outdated and prepared before the consolidation of County Court services <br />in the downtown; because it did not account for cumulative impacts on streets that feed <br />into downtown; because the traffic estimates in the General Plan and DTPP were <br />underestimated in their respective EIRs; because only a portion of the approved <br />projects have been completed to-date; and, because the Project traffic studies show <br />that overall traffic projections are erroneous. (See Carr, Yeley and Associates Appeal <br />pp. 8-9, and Kris Johnson Appeal, pp. 1-2) <br /> <br />City’s Response: As explained in detail below, further environmental review regarding <br />traffic is not required, including because the potential traffic impacts of the 603 Jefferson <br />Avenue Project are within the previously analyzed impacts of the DTPP, and there are <br />no new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of any previously <br />identified impacts. <br />8.C. - Page 19