Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission certifies Final EIR for New Irvington Tunnel, notes unavoidable impacts
Summary
The Planning Commission certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the New Irvington Tunnel (SFPUC) and acknowledged significant unavoidable program‑level impacts; staff said SFPUC must adopt a CEQA statement of overriding considerations if the commission’s certification is used to approve the project.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted on Nov. 5 to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed New Irvington Tunnel, a project by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission intended to increase regional water reliability.
Planning Department environmental analyst Steven Smith told commissioners the draft EIR was published June 1, 2009, and that staff had circulated a comments‑and‑responses document (Oct. 23) and errata (Oct. 28) correcting typographical matters and summarizing cumulative‑impact information. Smith said the draft and errata do not present new information requiring recirculation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff concluded that the project would result in significant and unavoidable project‑ and program‑level impacts — including fisheries effects in Crystal Springs Reservoir (San Mateo County), indirect growth inducement in the SFPUC service area, streamflow effects in Alameda Creek, and potential paleontological impacts at the Irvington portal during construction — and therefore the SFPUC would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations under CEQA if the commission chooses to approve the project.
Commissioner Logue moved to certify that the final EIR adequately addressed environmental impacts and complied with CEQA and local administrative code requirements; the motion passed by roll call and the commission certified the Final EIR.
The certification records that staff and the commission addressed public comments and that factual errata do not change the report’s conclusions, while noting the need for mitigation measures and the possibility that the SFPUC will adopt an overriding consideration if it proceeds despite unavoidable impacts.
Next procedural steps include SFPUC action on project approvals and potential adoption of findings and a statement of overriding considerations if the agency decides to move forward with project approvals in light of the significant effects identified.
