AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 82 Response to Comments in FEIR Letter E-2 1. The pollutants referenced are the standard list of pollutants (called criteria pollutants) addressed as part of the CEQA review process. While the EIR did not contain a detailed description of each pollutant, the pollutants were analyzed in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District procedures, as noted in the air quality section (Section 4.5) of the Draft EIR and associated technical report (Volume II, Appendix E). Not including the detailed descriptions of the pollutants does not invalidate the air quality analysis or the EIR. 2. It is beyond the scope of the EIR analysis to address single-event air emissions associated with a fire or other incident unrelated to the proposed project. However, as noted at the June 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Redwood City Fire Department has recently installed a public notification system called Code Red. This system was used for the first time during the referenced Seaport fire. Over 1,000 households were notified through that system, first in English and then in Spanish. This comment was forwarded on to the Redwood City Fire Department for their information. With regard to exposure to pollutants associated with the proposed project, the EIR concludes that air emissions would not exceed regulatory thresholds which are protective of the public health. 3. The emission control strategies identified for the Downtown Precise Plan are required because build-out under the Precise Plan is projected to result in long- term significant project and cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, these strategies are required by the C/CAG Congestion Management Program in order to reduce emission-related impacts associated with increased traffic. In addition, Redwood City's downtown is a unique urban environment that will grow in density and take advantage of transit-oriented development and accommodate alternative modes of transportation. The Costco project would not have long- term significant project or cumulative air quality impacts; therefore, the emission redl.lctibristrategies are. .ribfreqUired... ...Nbhetheless, the.. TranspbrtatidhDemand. Management (TDM) measures identified in the EIR for the Costco project were added as conditions of approval in the Notice of Official Action. 4. The explanation of how trip generation correlates with fuel sales was described at the June 19, 2007 Planning Commission hearing and is further detailed in the staff response to the appeal letter. See Attachment 2 to this staff report. Further, a detailed discussion of the trip generation methodology is provided in the Master Responses to Traffic Comments in the Final EIR. 5. The intent of this comment is unclear, but the information presented in it is correct. The Bayside Gardens Draft EIR (June 2004) evaluated several alternative land uses for that project site, including a big box retail use (Chapter 17, Alternatives). The number of daily trips estimated for a big box retail use was 5,608. The type of big box retail was not developed in detail, and standard trip generation rates were developed for this use by using the ITE Trip Generation Manual. As indicated in previous responses, the trip generation rate for the Redwood City Costco project is based on actual Costco store operations. which is more accurate than an ITE trip generation rate. In addition, the Bayside Gardens Draft EIR evaluated a brand new big box retail on that site, whereas the Costco store on Middlefield Road is an existing facility and only the net increase