AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 171 CEQA is mL�ch more tha�� siinply a presentation to the public of the lead agency's environinental a��alysis. PL�blic conui�ents a��d responses to conunents are eqlially essential ingredients of a valid EIR. Here, the City's failure to provide adequate responses to public comments sweeps potentially significa�lt environmental impacts under the rug. The City must adequately respond to public comments in a revised and recirci�lated EIR. Resuonse A-2: To the e�tent that fl1e conullentor believes that City's response to coinments on flie Draft EIR is inadequate, the City respectfully disagrees with their conunents. Each sL�bsta��tive comment received on the Draft EIR was accorded dL�e respect a�1d the City's response ul each insta��ce provided a good faith, reasoned a�lalysis of the issue(s) raised. There is no need to recircL�late fl�e EIlZ, as each of the issL�es raised by the cominentor and their experts was addressed meaningfully in the Final EIR. The comments on the Draft EIR do not introdi�ce new ulfonnation about a new significa�lt impact or a si�bstantial increase in severity of the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR. This coinrnent is acknowledged. Comment A-3: A. The Fu1al EIR's Evaluation of Construction Traffic linpacts Remains Lladequate. As discussed in our October 26, 2011 conu�lents, the Draft EIR completely fails to analyze traffic impacts associated with Project construction. The City mL�st disclose potentially significant impacts associated wifl� constn�ction traffic and incoiporate specific mitigation measures. As explained in our comments and those of Tom Brohard, a licensed Professional Civil Engineer a�ld Professional Traffic Engineer, the Draft EIR failed to analyze the Project's potentially significa�lt construction tn�ck traffic impacts di�ring the 19 months of construction. Mr. Broha�d provided expert opu7ion that the Project's construction tri�cic traffic may result in significant impacts. Specifically, dL�ring the 19 month constrL�ction period, site development woL�ld u�clude demolition of e�sting buildings, site grading, pa�ing and bl�ilding constn�ction, which would involve daily deliveries of construction materials. TrL�cks woL�ld be needed to haul soil, sa�1d, gra�el a��d ofl�er loose materials (including demolition debris). I�� addition, water trL�cks would be needed to control dust enussions. According to Mr. Brohard, construction traffic impacts may be significa�lt. Resuonse A-3: Mr. Brohard's specific comment in the October 26, 20ll letter was: "The Draft EIR fails to a�lalyze potentially sigiuficant traffic impacts or to develop nutigation measL�res associated with trucic and worlcer trips dL�ring demolition, clearing, and grading of the e�sting site as well as during construction of the Proposed Project." Mr. Brohard did not provide a�ly specific opinion or data as to why he believes the project's constniction traffic may result ul a significant impact, talculg u�to account the project's location on El Cainino Real, a inajor regional roadway designed for tn�cic traffic and which possesses adequate capacity to acconui�odate project traffic duru�g both construction and operation, as explained in more detail below. The teinpora�y addition of construction traffic to a local roadway system does not, by itself, automatically resL�lt in a significatit iinpact. Whether a sigiufica��t impact occurs depends on the volume of the project construction traffic a�1d the capacity of the roadway system to accoimnodate the trips. 2580 El Cainino Real Residenrial Project 3 Response to Conmients Recei��ed on Final EIR Cin� of Red��ood Cin Jannai� 2012