Reso25 16295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

128 Prior EIR Determination Effect Peculiar to Project Site? New Significant Effect? New Significant Off-Site, Cumulative Impact? New Information, More Severe Adverse Impact? DTPP EIR DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments SEIR Focused GPU EIR XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? SU LTS LTS No No No No b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) (i.e., VMT impact assessment consistent with the City’s TAM)? Not Addressed LTS SU No No No No c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? LTS LTS LTS No No No No d) Result in inadequate emergency access? LTS LTS LTS No No No No Documentation: Commercial Component: a. The DTPP program EIR (pp. 9-48 through 9-79) identified significant and unavoidable impacts at 17 area intersections, as well as impacts on freeway segments, freeway ramps, and transit service. The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (pp. 9-20 through 9-24) acknowledged the DTPP EIR conclusion but explained that since certification of the DTPP program EIR, several CEQA criteria have been revised and, as discussed in item (b) below, the use of vehicle LOS or other delay- or congestion-based metrics for transportation and circulation impact analysis has been discontinued. Therefore, the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR determined that the related DTPP EIR transportation mitigation measures would not be applicable. With respect to transit service, the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (p. 9-24) explained that “based on guidance published by OPR in 2018, adding transit ridership is no longer considered a significant adverse environmental impact, and therefore the transit-related mitigation measure identified in the DTPP Final EIR (Mitigation Measure 9-9) would not be applicable to the proposed DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments.” The DTPP program EIR (pp. 9-54 and 9-56) concluded that development occurring under the DTPP would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (p. 9-24) concurred with the DTPP EIR conclusion. In addition, as explained in the DTPP program EIR (p. 9-35), the project would be required to contribute to the City’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (now the “Transportation Impact Fee”), which is used for various pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic operation improvements that are identified by the City. The SEIR found that the implementation of the Plan-Wide Amendments would promote various transportation goals and not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and this impact was less than significant. The Commercial Component would provide sidewalk improvements around the site perimeter as well as additional street frontage improvements to enhance pedestrian comfort and safety (e.g., new curb-ramps and bulb-outs, street trees, street lights) and amenities for bicyclists, as follows:  the existing California Street/James Avenue intersection would be removed because of the abandonment of California Street between Winklebleck Street and James Avenue would be replaced with a new sidewalk and a portion of the creek restoration area;  the existing Winklebleck Street/California Street intersection would be redesigned to accommodate the proposed Franklin Street extension and include redesigned bulb-outs at what would be the Winklebleck Street/California Street/Franklin Street intersection; ATTY/RESO.0028/CC RESO CEQA GUIDLINES (920 SHASTA) - EXHIBIT A REV: 04-22-25 VR Page 128 of 148