• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

SOLAR4AMERICA ICE FACILITY EXPANSION File No. C19-029, CP19-024, PP18-037 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TEXT CHANGES January 23, 2020 CEQA Lead Agency: City of San José Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, California 95113 Phone: (408) 535-3555 In Consultation with: Starbird Consulting 115 S. 14th Street San Jose, CA 95112 Table of Contents SECTION 1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ...............................................................................3 SECTION 2 AGENCIES AND PERSONS COMMENTING ON THE IS/MND .......................4 SECTION 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ..............................................................................5 A. RESPONSE TO MARTIN DELSON ..................................................................................5 B. RESPONSE TO TERRY CHRISTENSEN .........................................................................6 C. RESPONSE TO SCCDEH, CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION ..............................6 D. RESPONSE TO SCCDEH, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMPLIANCE DIVISION .... 8 SECTION 4 TEXT CHANGES TO THE IS/MND ...................................................................13 SECTION 5 COMMENT LETTERS .........................................................................................14 File Nos. C19-029, CP19-024, PP18-037 Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND Solar4America Ice Facility Expansion 2 January 2020 SECTION 1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS The Solar4America Ice Facility Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was officially circulated for public review for a 20-day review period, from November 20, 2019 to December 12, 2019. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) requested additional time for comment, which was granted by the City. Their final letter was received on December 19, 2019. During the circulation period, the City of San José received four comment letters from Martin Delson, Terry Christensen, County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Consumer Protection Division, and County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Compliance Division. In summary, the comments received on the draft IS/MND did not raise any new issues about the project’s environmental impacts, or provide information indicating the project would result in new environmental impacts or impacts substantially greater in severity than disclosed in the IS/MND. CEQA does not require formal responses to comments on an IS/MND, only that the lead agency consider the comments received [CEQA Guidelines §15074(b)]. Nevertheless, responses to the comments are included in this document to provide a complete environmental record. The following pages contain a list of the agencies and persons that submitted comments on the IS/MND and the City’s responses to comments received on the IS/MND. The specific comments have been excerpted from the letters and are presented as “Comment” with each response directly following (“Response”). Copies of the actual letters and emails submitted to the City of San Jose are included in Section 5. Text edits to the IS/MND as a result of the comments have been included in Section 4. File Nos. C19-029, CP19-024, PP18-037 Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND Solar4America Ice Facility Expansion 3 January 2020 SECTION 2 AGENCIES AND PERSONS COMMENTING ON THE IS/MND Comment Received From Date of Letter Page Number A. Martin Delson December 10, 2019 5 B. Terry Christensen December 11, 2019 6 C. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental December 16, 2019 6 Health – Consumer Safety Division D. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental December 19, 2019 8 Health – Hazardous Materials Compliance Division File Nos. C19-029, CP19-024, PP18-037 Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND Solar4America Ice Facility Expansion 4 January 2020 SECTION 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS This memo responds to comments on the IS/MND as they relate to the potential environmental impacts of the project under CEQA. Numbered responses correspond to comments in each comment letter. Copies of the comment letters are attached. A. RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM MARTIN DELSON COMMENT A1: In the Section 4.17 (“Transportation”) of the Department’s review of the Solar4American project, there is a section entitled “Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities”. In that section, on pages 121-123 there is very brief mention of the Guadalupe River Trail. The report says, “The Guadalupe River trail is an 11-mile continuous Class I bikeway from Curtner Avenue in the south to Alviso in the north.” That happens to not be correct. Although there are plans to extend to Guadalupe River Trail to the south, the southernmost gateway is currently at W. Virginia Street, not Curtner Ave. The dotted green line shown exiting to the right on the map on page 122 is incorrectly labeled “Guadalupe River Tr”; in fact, that line represents the Highway 87 Bikeway, and its northernmost end is at Willow Street, not halfway to Virginia Street as shown. (The Coyote Creek Trail is actually somewhat closer to the facility, so that trail could equally deserve mention in this paragraph.) But I mention that really in passing; it is not the reason for sending these comments. RESPONSE A1: The comment is correct that the official current terminus of the Guadalupe River Trail is at Virginia Street, although there is also a 2.4-mile segment of the trail located in south San Jose between Chynoweth Avenue and Coleman Road. The City has plans (Guadalupe River Trail Master Plan, 2017) to extend the trail from Virginia Street to Chynoweth Avenue. The comment is also correct that the Highway 87 Trail is mislabeled on Figure 10. The northern portion of the Coyote Creek Trail ends at Selma Olinder Park northeast of the project area. The southern portion begins at Tully Road, southeast of the project area, traveling south to Morgan Hill. The comment does not affect the environmental analysis contained in the IS/MND. No further response is required. COMMENT A2: What is much more significant for this project than either the Highway 87 Bikeway or the Coyote Creek Trail is the planned expansion of the Three Creeks Trail* (*Ref: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=20713) which will go right along the south and the east boundary of the property, following the curve all the way from the southwest corner of the project site on S. 10th Street to the northwest corner of the site at Senter Rd. and E. Alma Avenue. (Somewhere along this path the trail will transition into the projected continuation of the Five Wounds Trail.) Lack of mention of this planned trail in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is a significant omission. In truth, a project plan should do more than simply acknowledge that a trail will be passing along the boundary of the project; the project should take advantage of the trail! It might provide a swath of land adjacent to the existing right-of-way to make the trail more spacious, and it might plan for an entrance to the facility from the trail with a welcome pavilion for people who will be coming to the expanded Ice Facility by foot, scooter, or bicycle along the new trail. Neglecting the link to this planned transportation link would be neglecting a wonderful opportunity for a friendlier and more inviting facility. RESPONSE A2: CEQA requires that the IS/MND include an analysis as to whether the proposed project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the File Nos. PP18-037, CP19-024, C19-029 Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND Solar4America Ice Facility Expansion 5 January 2020] circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The proposed project site is located north of the future trail alignment planned for the property adjacent to and south of the project site. However, the trail would not be affected by the proposed project, nor would it preclude its ultimate development. As stated on page 135 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would maintain all existing sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facilities, including bike lanes in the project area. The project also includes bicycle parking in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. The future extension of the Three Creeks and Five Wounds Trails as mentioned in this comment would not be affected by the proposed project, as the City has determined that the right-of-way for the future trail is sufficient on the property adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The proposed ice facility expansion project is a public project providing recreational opportunities in the City in an area with existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For these reasons, the project does not conflict with any plans or policies related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and would not result in any additional significant environmental impacts than described in the IS/MND. Therefore, no additional review or response is required. B. RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM TERRY CHRISTENSEN COMMENT B1: May I please second the comments of Martin Delson regarding the Three Creeks Trail adjacent to the Ice Facility on behalf of the Friends of Five Wounds Trail? We have been advocating for development of the Five Wounds Trail from Story Road to I-280 and on to US 101 for a decade and we've made some progress. But the ultimate success of our trail depends on its connection to the Three Creek Trail at Story Road -- and that connection won't be possible without the section of the trail adjacent to the Ice Facility. RESPONSE B1: As stated in Responses A1 and A2, above, the proposed project would not preclude the development of the future Three Creeks and Five Wounds Trails. The future trail alignment would be located on the property south of the project site and not on the project site. For these reasons, the project does not conflict with any plans or policies related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and would not result in any additional significant environmental impacts than described in the IS/MND. Therefore, no additional review or response is required.

Load more

  22

Copy Link