RES 12493 - Laserfiche WebLink

4.Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments residential development as the comment mentions, the majority of Site 11 is bordered by large parcels with low density development, and the site does not constitute as an infill site. Furthermore, as discussed in Impact 4.A-3,because the site is currently undeveloped,any new development at the site would result in substantial visual change. Visual change in and of itself would not result in an adverse visual quality impact and, as currently discussed in Impact 4.A-I, the Draft SEIR concludes that with the creation of a Specific Plan, development at Site 11 would result in less than significant visual quality impacts. 9-4 The comment disagrees with statement that Site 11 is in close proximity to PG&E gas line and suggests deleting it. The Draft SEIR states that a hazardous liquid pipeline is located in the vicinity of Site II, but does not identify it as belonging to PG&E. A confirming review of the mapping compiled by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration indicates that the hazardous liquid pipeline is located in vicinity of Bernal Avenue, located adjacent to Site II. The mapping tool does not provide site specific information so the pipeline may not intersect or be located immediately adjacent to Site 11. For clarification, the text on pages 4.G-4, under "Other Health and Safety Considerations"is revised as follows: A Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) natural gas pipeline in a 30-foot casement parallels the northern edge of the city, adjacent to 1-580 (PHMSA, 2007). In addition, according to mapping compiled by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, two hazardous liquid transmission lines run through the city. One cuts across Site 1 and then runseieg relatively close to Sites 10, 11, 6, and 17; the second runs along the southeast border of the city, north of the San Antonio Reservoir and well away from any of the potential sites for rezoning(PHMSA, 2007). Excavation in the vicinity of pipelines is regulated under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. 9-5 The comment states that Site I I has already been evaluated by accredited engineers and any previous contamination identified and handled appropriately. The comment suggests deleting Site 11 from any discussion regarding potential contamination. At the time of preparation of the Draft SEIR, no documentation of any site investigation or cleanup activities at Site II was made available for review; hence, the conclusion found in the document was made. However, the requirement of Mitigation Measure 4.G-2 would then be easily met by simply providing the appropriate"documentation from overseeing agency(e.g., ACEH or RWQCB)that sites with identified contamination have been remediated to levels where no threat to human health or the environment remains for the proposed uses." 9-6 The comment states that the Draft SEIR identifies Site 11 within"airport influence area" and that a local engineering and planning firm has confirmed that Site 11 is neither within the airport protection area nor the safety zone. The page 4.0-15 of the Draft SEIR states General Plan Amendment and Rezonings 4-32 ESA 1 210016 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2011