Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6.2A <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />service goals and system performance criteria. The program includes a water supply strategy <br />and modifications to system operations, and construction of a series of facility improvement <br />projects spanning seven counties, including Tuolumne, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, Santa <br />Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco. The BDPL No.5 Project, one of the facility improvement <br />projects adopted as part of the Phased WSIP Variant, is within the Bay Division Region (from <br />Irvington Tunnel Portal to Pulgas Tunnel Portal) of the WSIP and is located in parts of Alameda <br />and San Mateo counties. <br /> <br />To address the potential environmental effects of the WSIP, the San Francisco Planning <br />Department prepared a Program EIR (IlPEIR"), which was certified by the San Francisco <br />Planning Commission on October 30, 2008 (Motion No. 17734). At a project-level of detail, the <br />PEIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the WSlpls water supply strategy and, at a program <br />level of detail, it evaluated the environmental impacts of the WSIP's facility improvement <br />projects. The PEIR contemplated that additional project-level environnlental review would be <br />conducted for the facility improvement projects, including the BDPL No.5 Project. <br /> <br />2. BDPL No.5 Project Environmental Impact Report <br /> <br />Pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of Section 21094 of the Public Resources <br />Code and Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR prepared for the BDPL No.5 <br />Project, described below, tiers from the PEIR and incorporates by reference the relevant analyses <br />of the PEIR with respect to the WSIP's impacts and mitigation measures. The Final EIR <br />summarizes and incorporates by reference the PEIR's analysis of the impacts associated with the <br />WSIP's water supply strategy, including the PEIR analysis and conclusions regarding impacts on <br />the SFPUC's watersheds and growth inducement impacts. The BDPL No. 5 Project was fully <br />analyzed and considered in sufficient detail in the PErRls analysis of water supply and growth <br />inducement impacts. <br /> <br />In accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the San Francisco <br />Planning Department, as lead agency, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and conducted <br />scoping meetings for the EIR (see Appendix A of the Draft EIR). The NOP was circulated to <br />local, state, and federal agencies and to other interested parties on June 2, 2006, initiating a <br />public comment period that extended through July 7, 2006. <br /> <br />As indicated in the NOP, the EIR addressed the full range of environmental impacts of the BDPL <br />No.5 Project. The NOP included a preliminary list of the potential environmental impacts <br />related to the following resource topics: aesthetics, land use and zoning, hydrology and water <br />quality, noise and vibration; biological resources; cultural resources; hazards and hazardous <br />materials; and geology and soils. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed <br />Project, location, and objectives (see Appendix A of the Draft EIR for a copy of the NOP). <br /> <br />Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15083, the San Francisco Planning Department held two <br />public scoping meetings. The first meeting was held on June 20, 2006 at the Fre~ont}l:l1.l:>.H9.... .. <br />. .... ..............:.:....Library..lriFfeiriorit~.arid.the se'coria-:nieetirigwas"held OliJune'21~:2006:afthe Veteratf's.... <br />Memorial Senior Center in Redwood City. The purpose of the meetings was to present the <br />proposed BDPL No.5 Project to the public and to solicit public input regarding Project issues of <br />concern to the community, and identify environmental effects and potential alternatives to be <br />considered in the environmental review process. Attendees were provided an opportunity to <br />voice comments or concerns regarding potential effects of the Project. <br /> <br />Based on the sign-in sheet for the meetings, approximately 58 people unrelated to the Project <br />team or staff attended the two public scoping meetings. In Fremont, there were 27 attendees (21 <br />members of the public, 2 agency members and, 4 representatives of local cities). In Redwood <br /> <br />4 <br />