Loading...
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.