4B1 Public Hearing 2016 0919 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF SAN LEANDRO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-6 AUGUST 2016 TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX Comment # Date Comment Response A02-03 Parking. Please confirm that there is an existing, unmet need for additional parking, as suggested in the Parking section of the draft EIR (p. 4-45). Please also confirm that any increase in parking supply as described would not increase VMT and impact the State Highway System. Reducing parking supply can encourage alternate forms of transportation, reduce regional vehicle miles traveled, and lessen future impacts. Please note that the commenter is referring to page 4-45 of the proposed General Plan and not the Draft EIR. Parking is not an environmental issue requiring analysis under CEQA so it was not included in the Draft EIR. However, the City agrees that reducing parking can encourage alternative forms of transportation and decrease VMT. Therefore, the City has incorporated policies into the proposed General Plan that encourage use of alternative modes to driving (for example, Policies T-1.4, T- 2.8, T-3.1, T-3.5, T-3.6, T-3.7, T-4.1, T-4.4, T-4.6, and T-4.9, and Actions T-1.4C, T- 3.1A, T-3.5A, T-3.5B, T-3.7B, T-3.7C, T-4.3A, T-4.4A, T-4.8A, and T-49.A). A02-04 As the City develops a Parking Management Plan, please consider eliminating minimum parking requirements or implementing maximum parking ratios in the City's three existing Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Secure locations for bicycle parking in PDAs should also be identified, to encourage active transportation and further reduce VMT. Please refer to Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth-a Caltrans-funded MTC study-for sample parking ratios and strategies that support compact growth. This handbook is available online at: http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Toolbox-Handbook.pdf The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue. See Response A02-03 above for proposed policies to encourage alternative modes of transportation. The City is conducting a Parking Management Study for its Downtown Area now, and is also evaluating parking needs through the Bay Fair Transit-Oriented Development Plan. Changes to parking standards could result from these processes. A02-05 Planned Caltrans ProjectsPlease provide more detail regarding the planned extension of the Interstate 880 (1-880) express and HOV lanes. The Planned Improvement section discusses recent and planned improvements to 1-880, but the location of the future improvements are not included. This information can be found in the Plan Bay Area RTP. Please note that the commenter is referring to page 4-40 of the proposed General Plan and not the Draft EIR. Planned improvements to Interstate 880 include southbound High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes from Hegenberger Road in the north to connect to existing HOV lanes at Marina Boulevard in the south. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) proposes to convert all HOV lanes from the Bay Bridge to Fremont to Tolled Express Lanes. As part of the traffic forecasting assumptions, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. used the Alameda County Transportation Commission's Countywide Model, which is consistent with the assumptions from the Alameda Countywide Plan and the MTC Plan Bay Area RTP. A02-06 Transportation Impact Fees Please include a discussion of the traffic impacts to the State highway system. Please identify the project-generated traffic and estimate the costs of improvements necessitated by the proposed plan. The plan should estimate the costs of the needed improvements and identify viable funding sources such as development impact fees or transportation impact fees. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi-modal improvements and regional transit projects in order to better mitigate and plan for the impact of future cumulative growth on the regional transportation system. Costs associated with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in an EIR do not fall under the purview of CEQA. Therefore, estimates of potential costs of improvements necessitated by the proposed project have not been prepared. However, the City has an active development impact fee program, and plans to begin updating its Development Fee for Street Improvement after the proposed San Leandro 2035 General Plan is adopted that could provide potential fair share contributions to fund needed improvements (Draft EIR page 4.13-52). A02-07 In addition to sending the draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse, CEQA Guidelines require that the Lead Agency also submit to the appropriate metropolitan area council of governments for review and comment (14 CCR§ 15206(b)(l)). Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jesse Schofield at 510-286-5562 or jesse.schofield@dot.ca.gov. The City submitted the Draft EIR to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as part of the Draft EIR distribution. ABAG published the Draft EIR notification in its CEQA Environmental Review Log (Issue 404, Wednesday, June 15, 2016).