AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 173 There is sL�fficient data to conclude that the construction of the proposed project woL�ld ha�e a less than significant transportation impact and no nutigation is required. The conunents subnutted have provided no quantitative a��alysis to the contraiy. Comment A-4: The Final EIR continues to omit an a��alysis of potentially significant impacts associated with material hauling a��d worker traffic. As a result, the Final EIR fails to incorporate nutigation measures necessary to ensL�re that constn�ction traffic does not degrade iinpacted areas below the City's threshold of Level of Seivice ("LOS") D. We explained that feasible mitigation may be sinular to the measures incorporated u1 flie City of Redwood City's environinental review docLUnent for the Sequoia Hospital CainpL�s Project, inclL�ding linutulg deliveries a�1d off haul to specified times and designating truck routes. Resuonse A-4: The Final EIR inclL�ded a detailed, reasoned discussion of why fl7e City concluded that construction of the proposed project would ha�e a less than significant traffic impact including the fact that the project will be required to comply with standard City regulations regarding constn�ction tn�ck traffic as oL�tlined ul Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code (Response 0-35, page 56 of the Final EIR). Not only does the City have the discretion to designate the specific times of day fllat trucics inay access or lea�e the project site, bL�t tlie project site is located on a designated truck roL�te. For the SeqL�oia Hospital CampL�s Froject, the City deemed it necessary to designate the roads, roL�tes, a�1d times the construction vehicles could tra�el becaL�se the site is located ul a residential area as opposed to a major regional roadway like the proposed project site on El Cainino Real. I�� addition, construction traffic for the hospital project was more specifically regulated becanse of the substantial size of the project and because the hospital project would be constructed in phases over a six to seven year time fraine. Therefore, the potential construction traffic impact from the hospital project was substa�ltially greater than the proposed project, which is neither substa�ltially large for a residential proj ect nor will it take an L�nusually long period of time to construct. The City did not fail to identify nutigation for construction vehicle trips as no nutigation is required. Comment A-5: The City's response to oi�r October 26, 2011 comment on fllis issue also fails to comply with CEQA's requirements to provide a good faith reasoned response. A lead agency must provide a specific response when public conunents raise a specific qL�estion abol�t a significa�lt environmental issue. Depending on the nature of the comment, a reasoned a��alysis of the issue a�ld references to suppoi�ting evidence may be required. "A conclusory statement, unsL�ppoi�ted by empirical or experimental data, scientific authorities, or expla��atoiy ulforination of a��y kind not oi�ly fails to ciystallize isslies but affords no basis for a comparison of the problems involved with the proposed proj ect. . . " Here, the City responded, without a��y substantial evidence, that traffic impacts would be less tha�� sigiufica�lt. The City did not provide a response that addressed Mr. Brohard's a��d oL�r detailed concei7�s. li�stead, the City simply assL�med, wifliout a�ry evidence, that traffic patterns on El Cainino Real coi�ld accommodate an Lu�ql�a�ltified amolu�t of slow moving trl�cks at a�1 unspecified time of day. The City's response violates CEQA because it is a conclusoiy statement that fails to address the issue of constrL�ction traffic impacts. 2580 El Cainino Real Residenrial Project 5 Response to Conmients Recei��ed on Final EIR Cin� of Red��ood Cin Jannai� 2012