AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 20 Zoning Administrator were answered by staff and/or consultants to the satisfaction of these decision-making bodies. Item #2: Staff does not agree with this comment The Final EIR responded fully and accurately to all comments that were received. With regard to comments received on the Final EIR, please see Attachment 4 of this staff report. Item #3: This comment was raised on the Draft EIR and responded to in the Final EIR (see page 3-49 in Final EIR). The request for searchable pdf files for this project was the first time the Planning Division has received such a request. There is no requirement for online documents to be in searchable format and the software used by the EIR consultant (which provided the pdf files for posting to the website) does not have searchable capability. This comment can be seen as expressing a public need for searchable file types, and it may be possible and appropriate in the future for the City to standardize to a searchable file type. Staff notes, however, that throughout the Costco review process, members of the public have expressed appreciation for the high quality and inclusiveness of the documentation available on the City's website. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STUDIES Item #4: The Stanford Outpatient Project was not included under Near-Term Project Conditions because only approved projects were included under this scenario. At the time the original Costco traffic analysis was performed, the Stanford project was not yet approved. The Stanford application was not complete until after the Costco traffic study was initiated, and after the Nap for the Costco EIR was issued. Thus, the City was not required to include it in the Costco analysis; however, staff directed the consultants to revise the traffic model to include Stanford's traffic volumes in the long-term cumulative analysis in order to be more thorough. Staff's objective was to make sure that both traffic studies accounted for the other project. although only the Stanford project analysis was required to do so. Thus, the Stanford project was included in the analysis for the future 2020 condition. It should be noted that traffic volumes associated with vacancies from the Midpoint Technology Center (as we!! as other major employment centers) were included in the Near-Term Conditions analysis; the Stanford project comprises a portion of that site. Typically, traffic associated with other developments in the area that are "reasonably foreseeable" is included under future 2020 conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 Cumulative Impacts), and only traffic from approved developments are included in the Near-Term analysis. Both the Stanford and Costco impact analyses followed this methodology. Both traffic analyses evaluated the Woodside Road/Middlefield Road intersection and determined that the level of service during the PM peak hour under Cumulative (2020) Conditions is projected to be LOS F. Therefore, the results of these analyses are consistent. In addition, the proposed improvement at this intersection to be implemented as part of the project by Costco is projected to offset the additional delay that the additional project volumes would contribute. Item #5: The relationship between gasoline sales volume and trip generation has been a primary question in the Costco review process, and was addressed at length in a Master Response in the Final EIR (see page 3-2 in Final EIR). A summary of that response is provided here. The key message from many interested members of the pUblic was that Costco's application underrepresented their potential gasoline sales 2