CORRESPONDENCE - 75C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 9 "The existing uses described in the FIR only add up to 207,121 square feet, while the EIR's traffic study relied on 212,121 square feet of land uses at the Project site. When Mr. Smith analyze trip generation based on uses existing at the time the environmental analysis began in July 2019, he determined that baseline traffic levels are significantly lower than was analyzed in the EIR. The DEIR concludes that based on a fully occupied industrial park, the baseline trip generation would be 159 passenger car equivalent ("PCE") trips in the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour, with a daily total of 1,326. Smith, p. 2, (citing DEIR, 5.14-11, table 5.14-5). In contrast, based on the actual existing land uses at the time the NOP was circulated, the maximum trip generation is 29 PCE trips in the AM peak, and 33 PCE trips in the PM peak hour, for a daily total of 335 trips. Smith, p. 2. In other words, while existing uses generate only 29 PCE trips in the AM peak, the FIR takes credit for 159 PCE trips, an increase of 540%. Similarly, the EIR's baseline inflates the trips generated in the PM peak and daily trips by 481% and 395%, respectively. Overstating baseline traffic skews the calculation of what additional traffic the Project will generate. For example, the DEIR assumes the Project will generate 604 PM peak trips. By deducting an additional 126 trips' based on an existing industrial park use, the DEIR underestimates the Project's traffic impact by nearly 21 percent. "This flaw alone is sufficient to significantly alter findings of impact and mitigation requirements." Smith, p. 2. The EIR's error is similar to that in Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of Fresno ("Woodward") (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711.) In that case, a developer proposed to build a shopping mall on a vacant lot. The FIR erroneously used as a baseline an office park that was previously approved for the parcel, and subtracted the difference. The court held that the baseline should have been zero since the property was actually vacant. Using the non -zero baseline for the vacant parcel misled the public into thinking the proposed shopping mall's impacts would be much less than they would be when compared to the existing vacant parcel. This is exactly what happened here. The FIR underestimates traffic generated from the Project because it relies on excessive deductions of traffic of the prior use of the Project site. Using an inflated baseline premised on a hypothetical use of the Project site as an industrial park misleads the public and decision makers into believing the Proj ect's traffic impacts will be much less than they are when compared to the existing land uses. The EIR's traffic baseline violates CEQA. The FIR must be revised to analyze the Project's traffic impact using a baseline as it existed at the time the environmental analysis began. 2. The EIR improperly classifies 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project as a shopping center. To calculate the amount of traffic generated from the 18,000 square feet of retail space included in the Project, the FIR relied on "Land Use Category 820, "Shopping Center." Smith, ' (159 trips based on full industrial park use) — (33 trips based on uses at time NOP issued) = 126 excess trips.