AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 3 Citv's General Response: David Power's and Associates, the City's environmental consultant, working with its traffic and air quality sub-consultants, determined that no new impacts were identified by the Adams Broadwell appeal letter and, therefore, there is no need to revise and recirculate the EIR. The comments do not introduce new information about a new significant impact or a substantial increase in severity of the impacts disclosed in the Draft and Final EIR. Each substantive comment received was accorded due respect and the City's response in each instance provided a good faith, reasoned analysis of the issues raised as provided in detail in the Draft EIR (provided under separate cover), Final EIR (provided under separate cover, pages 27-70), Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment 5) and City's written response to the appellant's Final EIR comments (Attachment 6). The Final EIR provides written responses to the October 26, 2011 Adams Broadwell comment letter. At the December 13 Planning Commission public hearing on the Project, the representatives of David Powers & Associates and Illingworth & Rodkin, the City's air quality expert, also provided oral testimony that responded to Adams Broadwell's December 13, 2011 comment letters on the Final EIR (refer to Attachment 5). In addition, while the City has no legal obligation to respond to comments submitted outside of the public comment period on the Draft EIR, the City elected to provide written responses to the supplemental comments received from Adams Broadwell, including the December 13 letters, in an effort to be inclusive and to provide full disclosure (refer to Attachment 6). Staff believes it has complied with the requirements of CEQA and has prepared a legally adequate EIR for the Project. Staff also believes the EIR provides an accurate description of the environmental setting and an analysis of all project impacts and feasible mitigation measures as summarized below. Refer to the Draft EIR, Final EIR and Attachments 5 and 6 for details. The specific issues raised in the appellant`s appeal letter, and the City's responses, are summarized below. Refer to Attachment 2 for appellant`s appeal letter and the Final EIR (pp. 27-70) and Attachment 6 for detailed responses. 1. Traffic Attachment A of the October 26 Draft EIR comment letter from the Adams Broadwell law firm is a letter from Tom Brohard & Associates, containing several comments on the EIR's traffic analysis. Based on those comments, Appellant makes the following claims: a. Appellant claims that the EIR's use of 2008 traffic counts to assess potential traffic impacts, rather than 2011 traffic counts, violates CEQA requirements. City's response: The baseline traffic conditions were established in accordance with the CEQA guidelines. The 2008 traffic counts were used because they provide a more accurate estimate of the Project's potential traffic impacts given the downturn in the economy that has resulted in fewer peak hour traffic trips