55A - SAN LORENZO SEWER LIFT STATION

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT "A" The case cited in the comment letter — San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.AppAth 656 — held that failure to include a parking analysis in an FIR is not a CEQA violation. This is not the same, nor can it be construed to mean, that an FIR that does consider impacts to parking is invalid. Similarly, the fact that the Natural Resources Agency removed the parking adequacy question from Appendix G in 2010 does not mean the FIR erred for analyzing it anyway. The City has discretion to analyze those impacts it chooses in its FIR. In short, there is no need to remove this impact from the analysis. Section V.C.1 (Alternative Site 2) Alternative Site No. 2 was studied in the FIR at the request of the commenter, even though it does not meet CEQA's stated purpose for consideration of alternative site locations. As specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), the "key question and first step in the [alternatives] analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR." As indicated in Final DEIR Section 5.4.4.5, implementation of Alternative Site No. 2 "would not eliminate the Project's near -term unavoidable impact at the intersection of South Bristol Street /West Segerstrom Avenue during construction." Nevertheless, the FIR analyzed Alternative Site No. 2 and determined that it would result in the construction of approximately 1,500 additional linear feet of sewer conveyance infrastructure, thereby necessitating a greater area of ground disturbance than the proposed project. As a result, Draft Final FIR Section 5.4.4 properly concludes that impacts to hydrology /water quality would be increased in relation to the proposed project, although such impacts would not represent a significant environmental effect. With respect to reduction in parkland, the Draft FEIR adequately explains that a reduction in 0.03 acres of parkland would exacerbate the City's existing deficiency in parkland (refer to Section 5.4.4.4). The commenter's claims that his client has been "misled" regarding the City's application for a Urban Greening grant to develop an Eco -Park, and that the City violated the Public Records Act (PRA) are incorrect. The commenter filed a PRA request on October 20, 2011 requesting information on the Eco -Park grant application. The City responded to this request on October 31, 2011, providing the grant application and other relevant documents. The Parks Department received verbal notice from the State earlier this year (2012) that they were unsuccessful in obtaining Grant funding at this time. However the future plans for this park remain in place. Further, the conflict with the City's grant application was not characterized as a significant environmental effect in the analysis. A discussion of the City's future plans for the Segerstrom Triangle site was provided merely to foster informed decision - making. 55A -125