AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 174 Resuonse A-5: As stated above, neither Mr. Brohard nor the cominentor provided a�ry detailed, specific concerns regarding construction traffic or a�ry data to suppoi�t a finding of significa��t effect. The conu�lents instead stated that construction traffic needed to be addressed a��d nutigation identified. The responses provided in the Fulal EIR a��d in this document logically place the project's construction traffic in fl�e conte�t of the current traffic conditions on El Canlino Real a��d demonstrate there is adeqi�ate capacity to accommodate the proj ect both dL�ring constSrL�ction a��d when fi�lly occupied a��d operational. To flie e�tent that the commentor believes that City's response to conunents on this issl�e is inadequate, the City respectfi�lly disagrees with tlieir conunents. Please see Responses A-3 a�1d A-4. Comment A-6: To comply with CEQA the City must �ct le�cst provide a list of trL�ck eqL�ipment, the time of day truck eqL�ipment will deliver or haul materials from the Project site and expla��ation of how this additional trucic traffic will not resL�lt in a significant iinpact on local roadways. This information is reqL�ired to address Mr. Brohard's a��d the Council's specific question about environmental impacts associated with construction traffic. Resuonse A-6: There is no specific requirement in the CEQA Guidelines that a�lalysis of a proposed project ml�st include a list of truck equipment a�1d the time of day truck eqL�ipment will deliver or haL�l materials from a project site. Over flie coL�rse of const�L�ction, tlie types of trucks a��d the materials and sL�pplies delivered to the site will vaiy depending upon the phase of constn�ction (demolition, site preparation, foundation work, franung, fulishing, landscaping, etc.), and trucks will arrive a�ld depart the site throL�ghoL�t the course of the day with no defined regular schedule froin construction start to finish. The period of concein is the morning and evening pealc hoi�r, however, as discussed in Responses A-3 and A-4, El Canuno Real has available roadway capacity to handle the project's construction traffic. Fiu�thermore, the proposed project is a typical residential project with no usi�al equipment requirements. Comment A-7: B. The Final EIR's Evaluation of To�c Air Contanunant Impacts on Residential Receptors Remains liiadequate As disci�ssed in oi�r October 26, 2011 comments, the Draft EIR failed to disclose that residential receptors on the Project site would be exposed to a�1 excess ca�lcer risk exceedu�g fl7e Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (`BAAQMD") tlueshold of 10 in 1,000,000. Instead, the City claimed that the ma�mum total rislc to residential receptors would be 9.4 per 1,000,000 — just below the BAAQNID threshold. As set forth in our conunents and fllose of Dr. Ja�nes Clark, however, the City relied on a risk a��alysis that is not supported by substa�ltial evidence. FL�rthermore, Dr. James Clark provided testimony that the increased ca�lcer risk was actually 12.7 in 1,000,000 a��d, thus, residential receptors will be exposed to roadway toxic air containina��ts ("TACs") exceeding safe and accepted threshold levels in the Bay Area. The Final EIR's evali�ation of pL�blic health impacts reinains uncha��ged a�ld inadeqL�ate. Fui�thermore, alflioL�gh Dr. Clarlc provided detailed comments on the Draft EIR questioning the City's "refuied analysis", the City failed to justify or explain the specific flaws that Dr. Clark identified. liistead, the Final EIR maultauled the City's L�nsuppoi�ted position that the Project woL�ld cause a less- than-significant iinpact on futL�re residents becaL�se exposure levels would fall jL�st 0.6 below tlie threshold of significa��ce. 2580 El Cainino Real Residenrial Project 6 Response to Conmients Recei��ed on Final EIR Cin� of Red��ood Cin Jannai� 2012