AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A that hearing was provided to the City Council under separate cover. Attachment 4 of this Page 5 staff report includes these Final EIR comment letters and responses to comments that were deemed to be "new" and were not already responded to in the Final EIR or cases where clarifying information seems to be needed. One public agency, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), submitted a late letter on the Final EIR. This letter was dated June 20 (the day after the joint hearing) and was not received by the City until June 25. Public agency comments were due by end of business on June 14, which was the last day of a 21-day review period, where only 10 days were legally required. Although under no legal obligation to consider this letter, staff has researched each item and has not found cause to modify any of the analyses conducted for the Costco traffic study and, thus, no new conclusions should be made pertaining to potential traffic impacts as a result of the Caltrans letter. Staff has been in discussion with Caltrans staff to provide them with additional background and context. The Costco traffic study utilizes more accurate and rigorous methods of analysis than typical traffic studies (actual data from other Costcos as opposed to industry standard trip generation rates) in order to best assess traffic volumes associated with the proposed Castea gas station. Caltrans staff indicated that this methodology may not be familiar to their staff. It is also important to note that several comments in the letter are not within Caltrans' purview. The Caltrans letter is included as Attachment 5 to this staff report. EIR Addendum During the course of preparing responses to the appeal, staff discovered that there was a production error in one part of the Appendices to the Draft EIR. As previously discussed, one of the appellant's concerns is that traffic associated with the Stanford Outpatient clinic project was not accounted for in the traffic analysis; which could possibly result in understatement of potential cut-through traffic on local streets. This issue was addressed in the Final E1R response to comments as well as in the staff presentation at the June 19 joint hearing. As noted, the Stanford Outpatient clinic project, as well as others, was included in the cumulative traffic analysis. Appendix D of the Draft E1R contains the traffic study and technical memos on which the Traffic and Circulation section of the Draft EIR (Section 4.4) is based. The traffic study in Appendix D includes nine technical Attachments (A through I). These attachments provide supporting technical documentation for the analyses that were performed by the traffic engineers. Although the most current and correct version of the traffic study is included in Appendix D, the corresponding set of correct Attachments for the traffic study were not included in Appendix D. The Attachments included in Appendix D of the Draft EIR were for an earlier version of the traffic study that did not include the Stanford project because the planning application for that project came in well after the Costco traffic study was underway. Thus, the Attachments for the earlier traffic study do not make reference to the Stanford Outpatient project. Lead Agencies are required to include reasonably foreseeable development in the cumulative analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130), as the development is known at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The Stanford application was not complete until after the Costco NOP was issued. Thus, the City was under no obligation to include the Stanford Outpatient project in the cumulative analysis. Nonetheless, staff determined that it was important to respond to and research neighborhood concerns about traffic as thoroughly as possible. The traffic engineers were instructed to add the Stanford project traffic into the cumulative analysis once the results of the Stanford traffic study became available. This added time and expense to