3.0 Responses to Comments
than two decades after Project approval, a comparison wholly rejected by the court in Sunnyvale….The analysis presents a warped and incomplete picture of the Project‘s actual traffic impacts, because readers have no understanding of the actual impact of an influx of more than 27,000 new residents and millions of square feet of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses to the Project area. By failing to present the existing conditions as compared to existing-plus-Project conditions, the DEIR never demonstrates the actual additive traffic impact that the Project will have… The DEIR must provide, in understandable form, the comparison of existing conditions to those that will occur with the Project. To do anything else ―results in illusory comparisons that can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts. (CBE v. South Coast, supra, 48 Cal. 4th at 322). Moreover, the DEIR‘s failure to use a correct baseline precluded consideration of mitigation measures that will ensure more effective use of alternative modes of transportation.” The comparison of Existing plus Project conditions to Existing Conditions, consistent with the Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (the Sunnyvale ruling), was conducted in the supporting traffic analysis in the Original DEIR. The level of service analysis and impact assessment table is included at the end of Appendix 4B (Technical Calculations). An Appendix 4E, which was completed and referenced in the Original DEIR, but mistakenly not included in the on-line version of the DEIR, included the existing plus project analysis, as well as text and table documentation equivalent to the Original DEIR Chapter 4. Portions of the Transportation Chapter were revised and recirculated in the RP-DEIR on May 31 to July 16, 2012 to include the evaluation of Existing (2009) Plus Proposed Alternatives Conditions, consistent with the Sunnyvale ruling. The Existing plus Project analysis was provided for informational purposes only because it does not represent a realistic assessment of the Project’s potential for impacts. Existing development can and will likely occur in the Project Area whether or not the Proposed Alternative is adopted because the Project Area is not fully built-out to the level of development allowed by existing zoning designations. This level of growth would be driven by natural market forces, though it would be capped at the maximum development potential allowed by existing zoning designations. The Cumulative plus Project analysis detailed in Chapter 4 of the Original DEIR applies growth associated with the Project to the baseline estimates of the natural growth associated with market forces forecast for the Project Area. Under the Existing plus Project scenario, the Project was grown to full build-out of the Proposed Alternative. Thus, the natural growth that can occur by right in the Project Area even without the adoption of the Proposed Alternative is attributed to the Proposed Alternative in the analysis of Existing plus Project, an unreasonable analysis given that growth can and will occur in the Project Area without the adoption of the Proposed Alternative. Thus, the Cumulative plus Project scenario assigns significance to the impacts identified in the traffic study that informed the Original DEIR analysis, whereas the impacts identified under the Existing plus Project scenario are provided for informational purposes only. Subsequent to the Sunnyvale ruling, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal of the State of California (Second District Court) issued a ruling in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. 3-60
Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan FEIR