HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 12 Responses to Comments on Mitigated Neg Declr
RESPONSES T() COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGA'TED NEGATIVE
DECLARA110N FOR THE WINDSTAR
PROJECT
October 2007
ATTACHMENT 12
Introduction
On July 20,2007, the City of Dublin distributed the Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for the Windstar Project to public agencies and the general plblic,
In accordance with CEQA section 21091.b, the public comment period for the MND was 30 days. The
review period began on July 20,2007 and ended on August 21, 2007. During the public review period,
the City received one comment letter.
All comments on the MND and the City's responses to the comment:; are included in this document.
Each letter has been numbered and each comment has been assigned a number. Each comment letter has
been reproduced and is followed by the responses to the comment, generally in order of occurrence.
The City received the following letter:
Comment Letter 1: California Department of Transportation (dated August 20. 2007)
Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING' 510 286 5560'
l l
Au~ - 20 - 07 1: 1 4PM i
Page 1/2
S'l'ATE 01" CALIFORNIA BUSINESS TRANSPOR'l'ATlON AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENE~ aOVlJrnor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OA~.CJ\ 94623.0660
PHONE (510) 286.5505
FAX (510) 286.5559
T'l'Y (BOO) 735-2929
FUn your power!
Be ~ll"rgy efficiAtnJ.l
August 20, 2007
ALA680347
ALA-680-20.387
SCH 2007072081
Ms. Erica Fraser
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Windstar Project -Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Draft Triggering Analysis
for the West Dublin BART Transll Village Development
Thank you for including the California Department or Transportation (Department) in the
environmental review process for the proposed Windstar project. The comments presented below
are based on the MND and the Draft Triggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit
Village Development dated July 19. 2007 by TJKM Transportation Consultants,
Traffic ImDae' Andlvsis (TIAl
The TlA should include a specific discussion of what impacts tl:1e project would have to state
facilities, The TIA should include all ramps .and the mainline of Interstate 680 (1-680) and 1-580
around the project, The TlA should include the cumulative pIllS project scenario, Mitigation
measures should be identified and findings should be discussed for state facilities. Please see the
Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" at the following website for
more information:
http://wwW.dot.ca.govlhq/traffops/developserv/operationalsystemdreportsltisguide. pdf
Be sure to include the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and the 1-680 ramps in the study
intersection, review and analysis. What are the impacts from the BART stationlpaTldng, 309
residential condominium units, 150 room hotel, 7,500 sq, ft, of retail, plus the approved 17,500
sq. ft. (40% retail and 60% restaurant uses) at the northwest corn<:r of Dublin Boulevard/Amador
Pl~a Road at this intersection?
Page 39 of the MND. Trip Generation: The section refers to "p~ak hour trips", Assuming that
these are limited to motor vehiclt: trips, these should be described as "peak hour vehicle trips".
.Coltrans improues mobility acrC>B" Californ;'p,"
@
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
08/20/2007 MON 13:58 [TX/RX NO 7940] ~001
Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING'
, 510 286 5560;
AU~I - 20 - 07 1: 1 4PM;
Page 2/2
ri!15. Eriea Fraser
Aug\lst 20, 2007
Page 2
Kncroachment Permit
Any work or traffic control within the State Right of Way (ROW) requires an encroachment
permit that is issued by the De.partment. Traffic-related p:1itigation mf:asures will be incorporated 1.5
into tbe construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website
link. for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffopsldevelopserv/permjtsl
To apply for an encroachment permit. submit a completed encro~.chment permit application.
environmental documentation. and five (5) sets of plans which clearly indicate State ROW to (he
address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATfN: Michael Condie. Mail Stop #5E-
Should you require further information or have any questions reg<lrding this letter. please call
Lisa Carboni of my staff at (510) 622-5491.
C. SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: State Clearinghouse
"CaltraRH i.mprollu mobility ac/'OllB CcJ.i{or;uo"
08/20/20C7 MON 13: 56 [TX/RX NO 7940] ~ 002
Comment Letter: California Department of Transportation
Comment 1.1: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should include a silecific discussion of what impacts
the project would have to state facilities. The TIA should include all ramps and the mainline of Interstate
680(1-680) and 1-580 around the project. The TIA should include the cumulative plus project scenario,
Mitigation measures should be identified and findings should be discussed for state facilities. Please see
the Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies."
Response: A focused Triggering Analysis was prepared for the Windstar Project, the hotel and retail
project to determine if any off-site improvements were necessary to ,erve the Project. The hotel and
retail projects are not currently under review at this time, but were reviewed to take into account any off-
site improvements that are necessary in the vicinity to serve the projects. Traffic studies were previously
conducted for each ofthese projects in connection with prior CEQA reviews and project approvals,
The 2001 Dublin Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Proj';lct Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SE1R) (SCH#2000042058) included a traffic study v/hich analyzed a 210 residential
development on the Project site. The proposed increase in units is le~;s than the 100 dwelling unit
threshold established by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for additional review.
The prior traffic study was adequate to review impacts related to the residential project as updated by the
Triggering Analysis and the MND. Freeway intersections were studied in the SEIR and the results can
be found in the appendices ofthe SIER and a discussion of traffic impacts can be found on pages 4.5-1
through 4.5-61 of the SE1R.
Additionally, the number of trips related to the increase in the resideltial units is minor, The hotel,
residential project and retail are antlcipated to result in 2,815 daily trips, The increase of 99 dwelling
units results in 293 additional daily trips with 21 additional AM peak hour vehicle trips and 21
additional PM peak hour vehicle trips. This minor increase in vehicle trips is not considered a significant
impact.
The entire BART Station and Transit Village Project has been reviewed in several CEQA documents
most specifically in the SEIR, as detailed in the MND, The Windstar Project is part of a Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) which includes pedestrian access to public transit (including a new BART Station),
retail, entertainment, and commercial uses and in the future will also include additional office space,
retail and housing units. The BART Station will be a transit hub and will have a bus pick-up and drop
off area for several bus lines which can also be used by commuters .n addition to the BART rail systf(:m.
The Windstar Project requests only an increase in the number of residential units; it proposes no change
to the rest of the TOD that was previously analyzed.
Traffic impacts related to the additional dwelling units are expected to be minor based on the proximity
of public transit and the typical des ire of occupants of a TOD to tak';l advantage of transit and pedestrian
opportunities in the area. TODs typically have fewer vehicle trips than dwellings located more than ~
mile from transit hubs. Development of a residential project in this location represents smart growth in
that it will reduce vehicle trips which reduces congestion and air quality impacts, is an infill
development which protects green fields and places development where it can be served by existing
services and encourages walking, bicycling or the use of public tram.it.
Comment 1.2: Be sure to include the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and the 1-680 ramps in the
study intersection, review and analysis.
Response: See also the response to Comment 1.1 above, The intersection of Amador Plaza Road and the
1-680 ramps was studied in the 2001. Transit Village SEIR (please refer to the traffic study included in
the Appendix of the SEIR).
Comment 1.3: What are the impacts .from the BART station/parking, 309 residential condominium
units, 150 room hotel, 7,500 sq, ft. of retail, plus the approved 17,500 sq, ft. (40% retail 50% restaurant
uses) at the northwest comer of Dublin Boulevard! Amada Plaza Road at this intersection.
Response: The BART station/parking, a 210 unit residential development, the hotel and 7,500 sq. ft. of
retail space were included in previous traffic studies, including the pior EIR and SEIR analysis and the
previous Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum to the Neg:::,tive Declaration. The BART
station/parking structure is currently under construction and a rezoning (Stage 1 Development Plan) was
previously approved for the 7,500 sq. ft. of retail, 2 10 unit residential development and hotel
(Ordinance 8-04, see MND for a description of prior approvals related to CEQA reviews), The
Mitigated Negative Declaration reviewed impacts related to allowing an increase in the total number of
residential dwelling units permitted on the Project site from 210 to 3)9 units.
The 17,500 sq. ft. retail project is also currently under construction and is a separate project. This project
is an infill project and replaced a movie theater that was demolished to accommodate the new retail
space, The project was deemed to be consistent with the Negative Declaration that was adopted for the
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area, where the project site is located. Additionally, development of he
site was assumed in prior cumulative analyses based on the General Plan which allows development of
the site and because the site was developed with a movie theater until recently.
The Focused Traffic Analysis concluded that the Project would, not~esult in any significant traffic
impacts with incorporation ofthe recommended mitigation measure~,. All previously adopted mitigation
measures applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply.
Comment 1.4: Page 39 ofthe MND, Trip Generation: This section refers to "peak hour trips." Assuming
that these are limited to motor vehicle trips, these should be described as "peak hour vehicle trips,"
Response: Staffs discussion in this section is related to vehicle trips only.
Comment 1.5: Any work or traffic control within the State Right of Way (ROW) requires an
encroachment permit that is issued by the Department.
Response: The above comment is noted and the Applicant has been notified of this requirement.