AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 162 developers that there should be affordable housing and prevailing wage for those that construct it. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING M/S (Schmidt/Bondonno) Motion passed: all yes Blake Lyon, Acting Principal Planner, stated that during the public comments period there weren't any specific questions addressed or presented to the Commission. He stated that there were several letters provided following the preparation of the Staff report that the consultants could comment on. James Reyff, Air Quality Consultant, Ilingworth and Rodkin, subcontracted by David Powers & Associates. He stated they have done air quality studies for the City like the General Plan, Downtown Precise Plan and other EIR-type studies including risk assessments in the last few years. He stated that one letter received today brought up many issues with the EIR addressing risk assessment, mostly age sensitivity factors and cancer risk calculations. He stated there is a lengthy response in the final EIR to address that. He stated a new issue was brought up on how the age sensitivity factors were applied, with the commenter stating that the method used was not appropriate. The way it was applied was consistent with what the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would do, and resulting concentrations were applied instead of emission factors because age sensitivity factors calculate risk. Were it applied the way the commenter specified the result would have been the same. Ms. George stated that a letter was received today commenting on the project's analysis of construction traffic. She stated that in the EIR the impact from construction trips would be less than significant, based on the fact that traffic trips be less than actual project trips, that it's a temporary condition, that EI Camino Real is a designated truck route, and because the city has discretion to regulate those construction times. In the final EIR there is a breakdown of project trips, concluding that approximately 71 AM peak hour and 63 PM peak hour trips would be a 2% increase in traffic volume and to increase from level of service (LOS) C to D there would need to be a 45% increase in peak hour traffic volume. She stated that in no way could this project create that many traffic trips to take that intersection to a LOS D, which would make it a significant impact. Vice Chair Schmidt asked Mr. Reyff about the letter that he received and spoke about today, noting that it seemed a conversation seemed to be missing from the email. He asked if there was more to the email than what the Commissioners received. Ms. Skousen stated that it was the entire comment that was received and what came before is not part of that comment. The response only addresses what was in the email and the comment. She stated that the response was that despite what another expert says, the expert that was consulted with is correct. Vice Chair Schmidt stated that in the email there is talk about the review of the project, and that the result seemed low. He asked what seemed low. Mr. Reyff replied that his interpretation was that the Air District has screening cancer risk which this whole issue addresses, and his results were lower than that because it was Page 12 of 17