Laserfiche WebLink
Atfaclime~it 1: Reasons for Denying Transit Zoning Code <br /> Briggs La~s• Corporation-June 5, 2010 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> • All new commercial or industrial development or major rehabilitation can <br /> incorporate renewable enez•gy generation on-site to the maximum extent <br /> feasible from an engineering standpoint. <br /> • All new or substantially rehabilitated residential project over a 100 units must <br /> generate electricity an site to the maximum extent feasible fz•onz an <br /> engineering standpoint. See Exs. 3k-3n. <br /> • Any nett' or replaced parking lots should be required to use "cool pavement." <br /> See Ex. 3a. <br /> • There are a number of opportunities relating to providing solar panels and <br /> solar water Beaters for residential use, including opportunities targeted to <br /> affordable housing. See Exs. 3p-3x. <br /> 3.07 The EIR does zzot include any alternatives that significantly reduce the impacts <br /> associated tivitlz greenhouse-gas emissions. <br /> 3.08 Additional evidence supporting the conclusion that the project may have a significant <br /> environmental impact due to greenhouse gas emissions can be found in the GHG <br /> folder. <br /> <br /> IV. Water Supply <br /> 4.01 The WSA for the proposed project acknowledges that tBe final WSA mst be adopted <br /> by the City Council, and its conclusion adopted into other environmental documenfis <br /> as necessary. The WSA is dated Januazy 2010, but there is no evidence that the WSA <br /> was adapted by the City Council as regtured under Water Code Section 10910(g). See <br /> Minutes and Agenda Folder. <br /> X4.02 TBe EIR azzd WSA fail to account far the uncertainty and impediments to watez• <br /> supply as a result of climate change. See Exs. ~4a-~f. <br /> 4.03 Even if fiittu'e water supplies are available for the project, the EIR fails to provide <br /> enough information about the environmental consequences of supplying that water. <br /> The informational purposes of an EIR are not satisfied unless decision-makers and the <br /> public are provided with enough informations to evaluate the pros and cons of <br /> supplying the amotmt of water that the project will need. The critical issue to be <br /> considered, especially with respect to groundwater, is not simply whether an adequate <br /> supply is available, but whether there is an adequate discussion of the project's <br /> foreseeable impacts. While the EIR includes a discussion about water supply, it does <br /> not provide information about the impacts of supplying water such as the effect that <br /> the project's tivater t~se will have on water izifrastructure or the availabitity of water <br /> for other purposes. <br /> 4 <br /> <br />