AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

We believe a majority of responses to comments made to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR.) were incorrect, inadequate in that they were not fully responded to, or caused the comment to remain unanswered. Though specified to not require City response, all comments and/or questions to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were not answered. Note: many questions were the same or similar as provided in the DEIR.. 7A Page 12 CD The above are some of the reasons for our appeal relating to process. Note: PDF files provided online for the Costco Project EIR's were not searchable. Other J f.;\ EIR's avail.bl e online were able to be searched for keywords that fucilitated pnblic 1 V reVIew. Proiect Description and studies: We continue to question the estimated trip generation figures projected for the proposed gas station. In pointing out that the Costco DEIR. failed to include the Near Term (Cumulative/Background) eff~cts indicated for the Stanford Outpatient project, Valerie with the City Planning Department verbally respqnded at the June 19, 2007 Hearing that it was included in Appendix D . We still find this to not be the case. Appendix D only mentions the Stanford project for the 2020 Traffic Conditions. Without the cumulative inclusion of the Stanford Outpatient Project at Near Term Peak hour conditions, the findings are flawed. Specifically, the Stanford cumulative traffic estimates and tables indicated that the Woodside Road / Middlefield intersection would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F with or without Stanford's project inclusive of five or six intersections operating at unacceptable levels of LOS E or lower at AM. / P.M. peak. hours. In comparison, the Costco EIR specifies a Near Term Peak bour LOS E at the same intersection with or without it's proposed project. We continue to question how the increase in projected gallons from 540,000 to 750,000 did not have a corresponding increase in traffic and air quality. The association of the estimated 390 site trips to be generated from the fueling center was made with 540,000 gallons per month. Even with the argument that t.l}e 750,000 was a conservative threshold, shouldn't there be a corresponding change in the conservative threshold? Having not studied the cumulative impacts ofthe Stanford Outpatient project in the Near Term, we do not feel that cut through traffic was accounted for in Costco's EIR. The Stanford project, being only 3 streets apart from the Costeo project, will press the use of "side streets" to be used especially in congested conditions acknowledged on Woodside. Flynn Avenue and Scott Avenue are considered side streets. Once tbis becomes learned behavior that use of side streets is a faster access point to the Costco project, cut through traffic will be rampant. l CD ..-J o C0