Laserfiche WebLink
22 <br /> <br />The DTPP is somewhat unusual in that impacts from the DTPP “project” are the result <br />of trip contributions from multiple development projects. To address this, all feasible <br />mitigation measures were included in the TIF program with the understanding that an <br />individual project’s TIF payment satisfies their mitigation requirement for significant <br />impacts identified in the EIR. <br /> <br />Relevant to the project, the TIF program includes: <br />· Mitigation 9-3: Signalizing the intersection of Main Street and the Woodside Road <br />westbound ramp (called Main & Pine in the TIA) <br />· Mitigation 9-13: Prohibiting southbound left turns from Middlefield to Jefferson <br />· Mitigation 9-14: Modify lane configuration and signal phasing at Main and <br />Middlefield <br />Requiring the project to fully implement the above mitigation measures is not justified <br />when the project is expected to contribute only a fraction of the trips which generate the <br />impact. Such a requirement would exceed the project’s fair share contribution as <br />identified in the Council-adopted resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact <br />Report (Resolution 15086) and Mitigation Monitoring Program. <br /> <br />The TIA studied three additional intersections that were not included in the DTPP EIR, <br />but that City staff and/or the project’s consultant identified as having the potential for a <br />new impact. As illustrated in Table 7 of the TIA, the project did not trigger a significant <br />impact at any of the three intersections (Diller/El Camino Real, Franklin/Maple, and El <br />Camino Real/EB Woodside Road Ramp). Additional intersections were not included in <br />this analysis as they were seen as not having a strong likelihood of generating a new <br />impact or exacerbating a previously identified significant impact, as discussed in section <br />(e) above. <br /> <br />In addition, Appellant asserts that the City should study and/or adopt new mitigation <br />measures or alternatives, beyond those identified in the DTPP EIR. Appellant has not <br />demonstrated that the City failed to properly study or consider mitigation measures or <br />alternatives, nor pursued them as appropriate. Similarly, Appellant has not provided any <br />evidence that mitigation measures used in other jurisdictions would reduce identified <br />impacts to less than significant levels. CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3) provides <br />that when “[n]ew information of substantial importance,” which was not available at the <br />time an EIR was certified, comes to light with respect to “[m]itigation measures or <br />alternatives previously found not to be feasible,” but which are in fact feasible, and the <br />mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially reduce one or more significant <br />effects of the project,” then further environmental review may be required. This standard <br />has not been triggered. <br /> <br />(g) Appellant’s Contention: Neither the traffic study nor the DTPP EIR studied the <br />impacts from the project on turn-lane queues and queue “spillback.” (Appeal, <br />p. 16.) <br /> <br /> City Response: The City has evaluated the traffic impacts pursuant to the <br />applicable thresholds of significance adopted by the City, which analysis supports the <br />8.A. - Page 22