AgdaPkt 2010-01-25 clsd and regular

Browse Search

6.2A Page 15 City, there were 31 attendees (30 members of the public and 1 city representative). The transcripts of the public scoping meetings are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. In addition to comments received during scoping meetings, the San Francisco Planning Department received written comments in the form of29 letters or emails. The comment inventory is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Comments received addressed environmental issues such as aesthetics; biological resources; construction-related impacts; cultural resources; geology and seismic reliability; growth; hazardous materials; hydrology; land use; noise and vibration; traffic, water quality; and water supply. Comments also addressed project description; CEQA alternatives; CEQA process; agency and municipal coordination; and the WSIP PEIR. The San Francisco Planning Department then prepared the Draft EIR, which describes the Project and the environmental setting, identifies potential impacts, presents mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant or potentially significant, and evaluates BDPL No.5 Project Alternatives. The Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with each of the key components of the BDPL No.5 Project, and identifies mitigation measures applicable to reduce impacts found to be significant or potentially significant for each of those key components. It also includes an analysis of four alternatives to the proposed Project. In assessing construction and operational impacts of the BDPL No.5 Project, the EIR considers the impact of the BDPL No.5 Project and the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project in combination with other past, present, and future actions with potential for impacts on the same resources. Each environmental issue presented in the Draft EIR is analyzed with respect to significance criteria that are based on the San Francisco Planning Department Major Environmental Analysis Division ("MEA") guidance regarding the environmental effects to be considered significant. MEA guidance is, in turn, based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, with some modifications. The Draft EIR was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review and comment on December 22, 2008 for a 45 day public review period, which closed on February 5, 2009. Public hearings on the Draft EIR to accept written or oral comments were held in Fremont on January 14,2009, in Menlo Park on January 20,2009, in Redwood City on January 21,2009, and in San Francisco on January 22,2009. During the public review period, the San Francisco Planning Department received 27 written comments sent through the mail, fax, or emai!. No comments were received at the San Francisco public hearing. A court reporter was present at each of the public hearings, transcribed the oral COl11lnents verbatim, and prepared written transcripts. The Comments and Responses ("C&R") document was published on June 16,2009 and it included copies of all of the comnlents received on the Draft EIR as well as individual responses to those comments. The C&R provided additional, updated information and clarification on issues raised by commenters, as well as the consultant, SFPUC and Planning Department experts. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EI~..",:hicl!j~~J\l.4.~~J:he.......... ........::.DTaffEIR;:the C&R:"-documerifand.'-allErrata':Sheets'~iiiidin(jrthe supportlt1g:informatiotL"The ..... Final EIR provided augmented and updated information on many issues presented in the Draft EIR, including (but not linlited to) the following topics: project description; cumulative impacts analysis; and mitigation measures. hl certifying the Final EIR, the Planning Commission determined that the Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA because the Final EIR contains no information revealing (1) any new significant environmental impact that would result from the BDPL No.5 Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, (2) any substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact, (3) any feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the BDPL No.5 Project, but 5