Laserfiche WebLink
Hana Japan Restaurant Project <br />Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration <br />70 <br />May 2025 <br />XVII. TRANSPORTATION. <br />Would the project: <br />Potentially <br />Significant <br />Impact <br />Less-Than- <br />Significant <br />with Mitigation <br />Incorporated <br />Less- <br />Than- <br />Significant <br />Impact <br />No <br />Impact <br />a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy <br />addressing the circulation system, including transit, <br />roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? <br />    <br />b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section <br />15064.3, subdivision (b)?     <br />c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design <br />feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or <br />incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? <br />    <br />d. Result in inadequate emergency access?     <br /> <br />Discussion <br />a. The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be <br />addressed under CEQA. Previously, lead agencies used a performance metric entitled <br />‘level of service’ (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of <br />congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Enacted as part of SB <br />743 (2013), PRC Section 21099(b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and <br />Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural <br />Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing <br />“criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit <br />priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, <br />the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” It <br />should be noted that OPR is currently known as LCI. <br /> <br />Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines <br />Section 15064.3 in late 2018, which became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that <br />section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure <br />of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, VMT refers to the amount and <br />distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may <br />include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided <br />in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile <br />delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” See question ‘b’ for a <br />discussion of VMT. <br /> <br />Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities <br />The proposed project’s potential impacts related to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities <br />are discussed below. <br /> <br />Pedestrian Facilities <br />Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off- <br />street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access the <br />destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation <br />facilities. Existing pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks along Dublin <br />Canyon Road and Foothill Road, as well as the crosswalks at the Dublin Canyon <br />Road/Foothill Road intersection. However, the section of Dublin Canyon Road between <br />the road’s intersection with Foothill Road and the existing on-site private driveway does <br />not contain a sidewalk. The proposed project would include a new sidewalk along Dublin <br />Canyon Road would be constructed, thereby improving pedestrian facilities in the project <br />area. Thus, adequate pedestrian facilities would be available to serve the proposed