AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 6 guidelines, and conclude that the health risks are not significant. These analyses comply with CEQA requirements. 3. Bowlinq Alley Restaurant: Appellant claims that the EIR contains conflicting descriptions of baseline conditions relevant to the Project site's bowling alley restaurant operations against which to measure such impacts as energy usage, wastewater, public health, traffic and GHG emissions. City's response: In its October 26 2011 comment letter, Adams Broadwell correctly pointed out that, while the restaurant in the bowling alley was closed as of the date the Notice of Publication was issued, the energy analysis in the Draft EIR inadvertently assumed that the restaurant was open, thereby affecting the energy and greenhouse gas emission analyses in the Draft EIR. This error was corrected in the Final EIR, and the affected analyses in the Draft EIR were recalculated and corrected in the Final EIR. Consequently, the Final EIR does not contain conflicting descriptions of baseline conditions and fully complies with CEQA requirements. 4. Bicycle Corridor: Appellant claims that the EIR fails to analyze the impact of the Project on a future Hetch-Hetchy bicycle corridor. City's response: The Project does not propose to construct any permanent structures on the Hetch-Hetchy water pipeline parcel. The decorative paving and potted planting improvements proposed as part of the Project would not interfere with a bicycle path on the Hetch-Hetchy easement, should one be proposed in the future. 5. South Bayside Svstem Authority (SBSA) Treatment Plant: Appellant claims that the EIR fails to address impacts relating to wet weather storm drainage flows to the SBSA treatment plant. City's response: The EIR explains that the Project's anticipated increase in wastewater generation is well within Redwood City's remaining unused capacity allocation at the SBSA Treatment Plant for both average dry weather and peak wet weather flows, and that the Project would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. This analysis complies with all applicable CEQA requirements. 6. BAAQMD e-mail: On December 13, 2011, just hours before the Planning Commission hearing, the Adams Broadwell firm submitted a second comment letter on the EIR, attached to which was a copy of email correspondence between an Adams Broadwell lawyer and a BAAQMD staff inember. In their correspondence, in response to the lawyer's question regarding BAAQMD's review of the Project's air quality analysis, the BAAQMD staff person stated the following: "We reviewed this project briefly. I spoke to the person who worked on this and she recalls that the results [of the TAC impact analysis] seemed low. However, we did not have the staff