Reso13 PC 13-04 March 26 2013 Laurel Way EIR

Browse Search

impacts. Mirigation Measure GHG-0�would nequire t�e residenccs cansezve natural n�sour�es anc�be energy and resource efficient.The miti�ation measu�ne is oonsisteat with the perfarmance standa�rd ideatifiecl in the CARB Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal and will result in less than significant impacts frorn �reenho�ase gas eznxssions. Pobentaal Impact 3.13-1 is descti�aed from pag�3.13-2 to page 3.13-4 of the Dr�ft EIR and page 4-31 of the Revieed Fi�al EIR,which are heneby incorpoxa�ed by ref�etence. I+'INDINGS REGARDING CUMULATNE IMPACTS The City find,�that the Project will not result or cumulatively coairil�ute to any significant cumulative impacts, for the�asons explain�d in G'7rapter 4 af#he DEIR(pages 4-1 to�4-8}. A member af the public has�rgued t�at the EIR's analysis of cumu�ative impacts s�ould be revised to a.ddress two new propos�or appraved homes on Laurel Way, spe�ifically at 37�8 and 3724 Laurel Way. How�er,t,he EIR's ana2y�is of cumula�ive impacts already an�l�zes over 350 other new o�r anticipated hames (al1 of which a�e listed an pages 4-2 and�4-3 of the DEIR),in addition ta signifir,ant oommercial development. The addition of two moz�homes to tlse analysis wo�d not change the EIR's conclusions. Furthermore,the EXR original�y amalyzed development of 18 propased homes,before the project was reduced to Z 6 homes,�d concluded that such development wouId not result in any sigaificant environmental effects. The ad.dition of two homes on Laurel Way�the cum�ulative impacts analysis far the current project of l6 hornes wautd not have aay environmentally di#�erent impaot from th� 18 hames originally analyzed. FINDINGS REGARDIN�ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE EIR As set forth above,all of the p•raject's e,nvironmenta�im.pac�ts wi�l I�e rnitigaterl to a less than significant level through the adoption of the above-ideatified mitigation m�a.sures. Thus,with the adoption of these nnitigstion measwes,the project will not result in any signifi�t eavironmental effects, and the City docs not need to further consider thc feasibi�ity of the project alternatives identified in�he EIR. � INGS RELATED TO COIVIMENT5 aN THE EIR Tfie City reoeived 1] letters of cor�meat on the EIR. T�'1�CI��'18S�C�l�SB��COZI]II1CAtS 011 tfie E1R tlsrough writte�responses to the comments artd in some cases the text of the EIR was modified.All of the environmental zmpact topic�raise�were atldressed in the EIR. The City believes that th�environme�ta,l ooncerns raised by the pvblie ha�'e been addY'essed thmugh praj�ct design,the new application,and thnough mitiga.tian measur�s. A summary af the responses to comme�ts on the EIR is attar,hed below. SUMMARY�R RESPOI�SES TQ COMMENTS ON TI�E EIR TraflCc hazards and blic safety hatie been natel addressed ana miti tion defined to reduce 52