4B1 Public Hearing 2016 0919 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF SAN LEANDRO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-8 AUGUST 2016 TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX Comment # Date Comment Response roadways on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network, but also potential impacts on MTS transit operators (AC Transit and BART in this case), Countywide Bicycle Network, and Pedestrian Areas of Countywide Significance. The CMP Land Use Analysis (DEIR Impact TRAF-2) identified potential impacts on the roadway network and transit operators, but did not identify potential impacts on the Countywide Bicycle Network and the Pedestrian Areas of Countywide Significance. See Appendix J of the 2015 CMP document for more details on how these impacts should be assessed: http://www.alammedaactc.org/files/managed/Document/17417/CMP_AppendixJ TransImpactAnalysis TechGujidelines 2015.pdf pedestrian and bicycle impacts will be addressed under Impact TRAF-6. Thus, in addition to analyzing potential impacts to the MTS network resulting from vehicle trips associated with the proposed Plan, the Draft EIR evaluates the effects of vehicle traffic on bicyclist and pedestrian conditions. The Countywide bike and pedestrian plans enacted by the Alameda CTC are among the referenced sources for strategies to support alternative modes of transporation. (Draft EIR p. 4.13-66.) Consistency with adopted plans is addressed in Impact TRAF-6, along with presentation of the many related policies and actions in the proposed General Plan. In addition, the discussion in Impact TRAF-2 on page 4.13-63 has been revised in response to the comment, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, to provide additional detail on bicycle and pedestrian facilities on MTS network roadways, as requested by the commenter. A03-06 • The DEIR's CMP Land Use Analysis found that northbound Doolittle Drive north of Davis Street in the AM Peak is the only MTS arterial segment that would experience significant traffic impact. The DEIR identified two mitigations: widening northbound Doolittle Drive and providing shuttle service between key city sites. However, the DEIR could not determine the benefits of these improvements nor the feasibility of road widening, therefore this impact was considered significant and unavoidable. o Please clarify whether the identified mitigation of shuttle service would be an expansion of the existing Links Shuttle service. Also, provide an explanation for the type of analysis used to determine that the provision of shuttle service would lessen the project related traffic impacts on this roadway segment. o Alameda CTC suggests that the DEIR identify improvements to the existing Class II bicycle facility on this segment of Doolittle Drive, such as buffered bicycle lane or cycle track, as to encourage mode shift from auto to bicycling in this corridor. Impact TRAF-2A of the Draft EIR CMP land use analysis found traffic on northbound Doolittle Drive north of Davis Street would be significant as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation could include the provision of shuttle service, which would be an expansion of the existing LINKS Shuttle system. Page 4.13-63 of the Draft EIR explains that shuttle service would likely lessen the proposed project’s impact on the segment, but that its effectiveness in reducing the number of trips on Doolittle Drive cannot be adequately quantified. In assessing this mitigatoni measure, Kittelson and Associates, Inc., performed qualitative estimates of vehicle trip reduction and mode shift to shuttles to understand the potential effects of expansion of the LINKS Shuttle service. If expansion of LINKS Shuttle service led to a reduction in project trips during the AM peak hour of at least 16 trips (21 percent of project trips), the impact would be mitigated. However, because vehicle trip reduction and mode shift to shuttles cannot be guaranteed with expansion of LINKS Shuttle service, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. In further response to this comment, Mitigation Measure TRAF-2A has been revised to add restriping to convert existing bicycle lanes to buffered or protected bike lanes, as shown in Chapter 3 of this FInal EIR. A03-07 • The DEIR's CMP Land Use Analysis found that the Proposed Plan would not cause transit ridership to exceed available transit capacity during peak hours on AC Transit and BART. However, the proposed plan is still expected to generate more than 2,200 daily riders at the San Leandro and Bay Fair BART stations. o Alameda CTC suggests that the DEIR assess how this daily ridership increase would affect demand at the parking lot of both BART stations. The DEIR could also identify strategies and improvements to encourage BART passengers to use alternative modes to access both stations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please contact me at (510) 208- 7426 or Daniel Wu of my staff at (510) 208-7453 if you have any questions. Parking capacity and demand at the two BART stations were not analyzed in the Draft EIR because parking is not an issue requiring analysis under CEQA. The additional project trips mentioned by the commenter are divided between the two BART stations, and they are further divided between many modes of access, including park and ride, kiss and ride, walk, bike, bus, and taxi. The trips are further divided across multiple trip purposes and different arrival/departure times during the day. Therefore,the increased ridership will be dispersed throughout the system and not concentrated at the same time or location. The proposed Plan encourages use of alternative modes to driving via several policies and actions (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).