AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 result in similar impacts regardless of their exact location within the Precise Plan area. Thus, it can be concluded that the DTPP DEIR, as confirmed by the project-specific transportation analysis required by the City, adequately disclosed the effects of the residential developments anticipated near the Greystar IV project. In addition, a trip generation study was recently conducted for the Greystar I residential development at 299 Franklin Street, which is across the street from the proposed project (sometimes referred to as the Greystar IV Project). The study showed that the completed Greystar I project is achieving a high percentage of alternative mode use (approximately 42% and 37% during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively), which is greater than the 20 to 25% assumed in the DTPP EIR. Recent traffic counts at study intersections evaluated in the DTPP EIR show that current (2016) traffic volumes are well below the estimated 2030 cumulative traffic volume projections presented in the DTPP EIR. (See Traffic Study Addendum for 1409 El Camino Real Residential Development, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, April 29, 2016) The project’s proximity to the Caltrain station is a key factor affecting the mode split. This trip generation study also shows that the Greystar I residential development generates fewer vehicle trips than assumed in the DTPP EIR. Irrespective of Appellant’s contentions, the issue presently at hand is whether the potential traffic impacts of the project at 1409 El Camino Real are within the previously analyzed impacts, or whether there are any new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified impacts. The evidence shows that this project will not trigger that standard, as further discussed below and in the Initial Study. There are no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts with regard to intersections studied in the DTPP EIR, and the project does not trip any threshold of significance. In addition, Appellant’s assertion that a delay in Caltrain electrification constitutes a changed circumstance for which environmental review is required does not demonstrate a need to prepare further environmental review. The DTPP EIR did not assume a reduction in future vehicle trips due to Caltrain electrification. The share of trips from the DTPP made by transit reflected trip making patterns at the time that the EIR analysis was completed. As such, delays to Caltrain electrification would not alter the results of the traffic analysis from the DTPP EIR. Appellant also asserts that bad drivers and more high-income drivers constitute changed circumstances and lead to new significant impacts and substantial increases in previously identified significant impacts. However, there is no evidence that either the DTPP or this project will cause poorer-performing drivers, and, as discussed further below, the traffic analysis does not show higher- income drivers are more likely to cause significant traffic impacts. 8.A. - Page 15