HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 HOV&AuxiliaryLanes
CITY CLERK
File # D[eDJ~-~[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2004
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Response to Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the
Northbound 1-680 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) & Auxiliary
Lanes Project along the Sunol Grade
Report Prepared by: Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer
1)
Interstate 680 High Occupancy Vehicle & Auxiliary Lanes,
Sunol Grade Northbound, Initial Study with Proposed
Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment, Prepared
by Caltrans and FHW A, June 2004
Project Location Map
Joint letter with initial comments from the Cities of
Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin on the proposed project
Initial Study and Negative Declaration, dated September 1,
2004
Letter from Caltrans, dated September 15,2004, in response
to the joint letter from Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin
Letter of comments from Pleasanton Mayor, Mr. Torn Pico,
dated September 1, 2004, regarding the project Initial Study
with proposed Negative Declaration Environmental
Assessment
2)
3)
4)
5)
RECOMMENDATION: A j ,lY'Approve proposal to submit a joint Tri-Valley response to Caltrans
~ ~ ~ with detailed comments from the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton
and Dublin on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration
~ for the northbound 1-680 High Occupancy Vehicle and Auxiliary
Ô Lanes project along the Sunol Grade
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The cost in Staff time to prepare a joint Tri-Valley response in
coordination with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton is
minimal.
DESCRIPTION: On August 3, 2004, the City received an environmental assessment
report (Attachment 1) concerning a proposed project to install an HOV lane and auxiliary lanes on
northbound 1-680 along the Sunol Grade. The report was prepared by Caltrans in coordination with the
-------~-------------------------------------------------------
G:IAGENMISClagstJ-680 HOV Sunol Grade NB.doc
COPIES TO:
Cheri Sheets, City of Livermore
Rob Wilson, City of Pleasanton
ITEM NO. -B ~
l~~
~\/
u.s. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), and
includes an Initial Study and a proposal to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project.
The project proposal includes constructing an HOV lane, five auxiliary lane segments and related
improvements along a 21.7-mile stretch of northbound 1-680 known as the Sunol Grade (see Project
Location Map, Attachment 2). The project area begins at the 1-680/Route 237 interchange in the City of
Milpitas, passes through the City of Fremont and ends at the Stoneridge Drive interchange in the City of
Pleasanton. The HOV lane is proposed to be constructed along the northbound 1-680 stretch ftom Route
237 to Route 84. The project proposal also includes installing ramp-metering equipment at 14 northbound
on-ramps, beginning at Calaveras Road in Milpitas and énding at Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton.
City Staff reviewed the environmental assessment report for this project, in coordination with the Cities of
Livermore and Pleasanton, prior to the September 3, 2004, deadline to submit comments on the report.
Based on this review, Staffhas several comments and concerns, as summarized below.
Staff Comments on the Environmental Assessment Report
1. The environmental assessment report offers very limited analysis of transportation impacts as a result
of the proposed project, and provides no supporting documentation that would enable Staff to
complete its review of the project's traffic impacts. For example, the report concludes that in Year
2025, the HOV lane would result in a 26% increase in traffic volumes on northbound 1-680 during the
P.M peak hour, compared to the no build alternative. Yet, there is no explanation in the report as to
how these forecasts were derived or what traffic modeling assumptions were used for the analysis.
Therefore, the current traffic impact analysis presented in the environmental assessment report is
determined by City Staff to be incomplete and inadequate.
2. The report concludes that there would be no adverse impact on transportation and traffic; however, the
report fails to address downstream impacts on 1-580, State Route 84, and local parallel arterials as a
result of the projected 26% traffic increase due to the addition of the proposed HOV lane. A
significant portion of P.M. peak commute trips on northbound 1-680 originating ftom the South Bay or
the Sunol Grade area are destined to the east via eastbound 1-580 or alternative surface streets through
Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore to avoid fteeway congestion. The environmental assessment report
should have examined the project impacts at key intersections along Dublin Boulevard that are
expected to operate near or at unacceptable levels of service during the P.M. peak hour in Year 2025.
An increase in traffic volumes during this time period as a result of adding an HOV lane on
northbound 1-680 would only exacerbate future traffic conditions on Dublin Boulevard unless
downstream capacity improvements are built first on eastbound 1-580 to relieve congestion along this
corridor (e.g., by constructing an eastbound HOV lane on 1-580 ftom Tassajara Road to approximately
Greenville Road and a truck climbing lane over Altamont Pass). The traffic study should recognize
current capacity constraints along the 1-580 corridor and address the need to construct improvements
ftom downstream areas, up.
The traffic study for the proposed project should be expanded to include an analysis of traffic impacts
on Dublin Boulevard at the intersections of Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and
Fallon Road. Similar analysis should be conducted at key intersections along other parallel routes in
Livermore and Pleasanton.
Page 2 ~
As a result of the above concerns, the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin prepared a joint
initial response to the proposed Negative Declaration requesting a 45-day extension to the comment
period on the environmental assessment report for this project (see joint letter, Attachment 3). This
extension was requested in order to provide Caltrans with a reasonable amount of time to conduct
additional studies in the event that an analysis of downstream traffic impacts had not been performed.
3. The environmental assessment report should examine the potential impact of prolonging the duration
of the P.M. peak commute period on 1-580 and local streets in the Tn-Valley area as a result of
constructing the proposed HOV lane on northbound 1-680 and not constructing similar downstream
improvements on eastbound 1-580. If the duration of the P.M. peak commute period is extended
beyond the typical two-hour period of 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., regional traffic in the area will travel through
Dublin streets over a longer period of time every day and the impact of the extended commute will
likely affect the quality of life in Dublin.
In response to the joint letter to extend the comment period on the environmental assessment report for
this project, Caltrans granted the tn-city team an extension until October 18, 2004, to submit detailed
comments on the traffic element of the report, but offered no supporting documentation or additional
studies for review by this team (see Caltrans letter, Attachment 4). As a result, City Staff is currently
working with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton on a joint Tri-Valley response letter to include
detailed comments on the traffic impacts of the proposed project. The letter will incorporate the
comments listed above, as well as other comments from Livermore and Pleasanton.
It is noted that City Staff will review comments prepared by Livermore and Pleasanton for the joint Tri-
Valley response letter prior to sending the letter to Caltrans. If City Staff has any disagreement with any
of the comments ftom these two cities and such disagreement cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all
three parties, the City will then cancel its plan to submit a joint letter with Livermore and Pleasanton and,
instead, will submit comments individually, under a separate letter from Dublin.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposal to submit a joint Tn-Valley response to
Caltrans with detailed comments ftom the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin on the Initial Study
and proposed Negative Declaration for the northbound 1-680 High Occupancy Vehicle and Auxiliary
Lanes project along the Sunol Grade.
Page 3~
\tJ{)ß~
Interstate 6aa-High Occupancy Vehicl·e & Auxiliary
Lanes, Sunol Grade Northbound
. Sant¡a Clara and Alameda Counties, California
District 4-ALA-68o.-KP 0..0./31.1 (PM 0..0./19.3)
District 4-SCL..:6ao.-KP 12.1/15.9 (PM 7.5/9.9)
EA 0.4·2860.0.0
Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the D.S Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration and
. The State of California Department of Transportation' .
:\OF TIt4tv.· ,
~'<,+~\Oo
¡;~ ~
:<C -;
~~
"''''TEl r:Ir '"
~c
I ~~t
"II
ll1Itran5
10-6 ",01
ATTACHMENT
. RECEIVED
I.ß,3
~"ò8'1
General Information About This Document
What's in thIs document?
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway.
Administration (FHWA) have prepared this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment,
which examines thè potential environmental 'impacts of the alternatives being
considered for the proposed project located in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties,
California. The document describes why the project is being proposed, alternatives
for the project, the existing environment that could be affected -by the project, the
potential impacts from each of the alternatives, and the proposed avoidance,
minimization and/or mitigation measures. , '
What should you do?
· Please read this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Additional' copies of
this document are available for review at the below address and at additional,
locations listed in Chapter 3 of this document beginning at page 45.
· We welcome your comments. If you have any comments regarding the proposed
project, please attend the public hearing/open house and/or send your written
comments to Caltrans by the deadline.
· Submit-comments via postal mail to:
Susan Chang, Depµty Director" Environmental Planning and Engineering
Attention: Robert Gross, Chief, 'Office of Environmental Analysis "
Department of Transportation, District 4
Office of Environmental Planning, Mail Station 6
111 Grand Avenue
Dakland California, 94612
· Submit comments via email torobert...Qross@dot.ca.gov.
· Submit comments by the deadline: September 3, 2004.
What happens ne~?
After comments are received from the pùblic and reviewing agencies, Caltrans and
FHWA may: (1) give environmental approval to the proposed project, (2) undertake
additional environmental studies, òr (3) abandon the project. If the project is given
environmental approval and funding is appropriated, Caltrans could design and ,
construct àll or part of the project.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in
Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy inane of
these alternate formats, pleasè call or write to Department' of Transportation, District
4, Attn: Robert Gross, Chief, Office of Environmental Analysis, (Mail Station 6) P;O.
Box 23660, Oakland California, 94623-0660, (510) 286-6454 Voice, or use the
California Relay Service TTY number, 1-887-735-2929.
,\
._~_ o._._.........~_.."....___._.........._........,.........."..".......................__....__........................."...".'"'oHo.~......."._."....................__..._......,........fo..........fo.........................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade NorthboundHQVLane ' ii
~~ß r.f
Slate. ClCIIIiÌ1puso Number: mÁ
04~ALA~()'KP,O.0I31.1 (PMO;OIJ9.3),
,I)f$CI;.6sq..KP12.111:'i,j)(PM 1.519.9)
SA 9+1(16000i
Construct, a. High QCeup!ir¡çy Vèhú:lc :lMe-, AloixiliaiyI.anennd rëllited i:mþroveme.nts inth~ northbound dircctiòn arid
widen the sOumOOJ;lnQ toadWaÿ at':vanc:iUs1ocatiorts along I~~ 6~O ftom StateJ(oute 237ÍI1Milpi~ {~øntaC1âm
CO,ullty),to~~ S~nc¡idgeDriye m~hu!.~ in}>'le;u¡anton(A.lam$County)
I NïTIAL STUDY wtthProposed Negatïve: Dectaration
ENVIRÒNMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Sü.l;nnitted Put'GIJant1o:(StatclPìYisi0l113,. qa1ifl1l!'llia'PuÞliQ:~C!í~'
(f.edcnil) 4zusC ,4332(~)(C)'ÌU1d 49 VSC:303 ,
, ,
'tJ;&: DBPARTME-'NT OF TRANSPORTATION
" Fedi!.1'à,1 tiighvïayAdtnihî'ttation.:md
'nm ,STATEOFCA:LIFORNIA
D¢p~'Qf:'I7riini>PQtUuiörl.
:. ~
.".".
. ,.~
"
I.' ;'t
.,.
" .
JL4J1t. 11/' J.iJO¥ "
Oa~ 'of Approyai " ,
"
~, .'~
I...
Sus"nChal1g " ' " '
Distii¡:t DMsionChief. PI;;! ing, ','
Cálifomlã'Oep,liIrtn'lerit of. rraosP()rt.atiPI)
., ,
, ,
.. ",',
~..'j~~,~.
:. 'Däteof~Provti¡
'.~.
:1 ~
' , '
, '
" '" ,."',.'" ~""f" , "',':,' ,"~',""" ,."
~" '
". ,',' q~c:¡c.':Fo:c;g .
,OIVi~lon Adminillt¡'atOr
'Féd&téiHlghWayAciministi1!tiOn ,
.. , ~
~ r , ...
¡ ,
.'
, .
:~ .,
;'
~1..
. '
., ':10
:....:.
. .,.
';.
..
'ï~t;;t;¡;'68ö'š~~'~i'G-;;;d;'Ñ~;:¡¡;b~;~~d'¡:;õvï~~;;~"''''''''......................................_..........~...........;....·..······...........··..·......·.....···ïii·....····...··..···..··..·,
4,øt)ß+
ScH 'NuJ1iber: 'J'BA
Dwartm~nt Of'rråriSpoitation,
Q4-A:LA.6'80-KP 0.0131 .I(PM 0.0/19.3):
04'SCL..68ø.KP1:U/15.9{PM 7;S/9.~9)
'EA04-286QClO,.(f:1:)
'>'
Propo~ed '~eg~ti"e 'De~lar¡:d:ion
Pu.rsUånt'to: DiVision 13, Puþlic R~UtcëS Code
I ' ,
Project Desc1'lption , ' '
The CalifomiaDeptirtment öfTransportation (caiwms) p1'OJ?oses to construct a high-occupancy
,\1e~cle.mOVJJane, ati.XÏ1íaiy länes and mlatedimprovetnentsalonga 35.,.km (2l.7-mi) stretch; of
Interstate 680 known,as'the Sunai Grade. The prOjèCt area begins attbe Interstate'6BO/Route23'7
iritcJ;Cihangèinthe City,ofMilpitas, ,Sania Clara Cónnt)1;Cállfoi'nia. .1t paS$~s through the City ,of
Frem~tin A1ameda.County,Cà1ifdnlÌaand ènds at'the Stonerldge Drlve intercbåJlge in the CitY,'
, .
,~f Pleásantöì:i,in A1.amedaCouiity. Facilities to be constructed include a northbound HOV lane,
,from the Ihtemate680/ROU:te 237 int.eriiliang'e to Rciute, 84. änd.fiveauX:iÎíaty lane segn:ients;·
. 'ext~ing ûom the Jacklin Road'OD-'rtln:¡,p, tothe:Mission ,B'oulevatdlR.6ute238off-æmp. The
southbtJund roadway will also bev.jdeped at yáriouslbcä#ons: l}hetweeij 1heAndtâ4e
RoáØ Intetchangeand the ,Calaveras 'Road Interchange, 2}, attheSheridanRoac1
Interchange.,ànd ~)in:themediån þètWeen,Auto Ma11Parkway and'Roüte 237. Ramp.
¡neteringequ1p!1leJlt will hl:i,inStaJled ,at fóµrteen. p.o2;fubowd ,on-i'aInps bøginningat Câ.la.~
RQad an,µend,U¡g at StonerldgeDpve.BxWing bridges will be widene&S6~'bamers:änd
retaining wall~Wi.n a:lsob¢C()~d'å$.n,~cesSaIy. ,Rigbt-ofway acquisitìoil will å1so be
.~.The ,objeçt,ive íS tClencQ\lJiIil~. C8rpo()liAg andtIanšit ilSð'thIÓUib- th¿·HOV1arie
incentiveanQ>red.uce Conge~9Il bypro~dµJ,gJn~maneuvetmg room near 11ighvolume 6nloff- ..'
ramp:;,.
Determination ,',
. .' , ....... . . ." ". .' . .' ...... ..... .
This"pl'Oposed Negative Declamion(ND) is included to give:notice :to,in~edagencies 'andtb,e'
public that it is Calt1'anS' Ïntënt10 adopt a Nt> fur~s project.Ib.is 40es notm,ean.tlmtCal~';
decision regarding theptoject istina1~Tbis'ND 1ssUbJeCttom~~tiçm'bascdon~entB
reëejved by interested'a!;encies, and the.public.
caltråns has prep'aredan Inj&1 Stitp.y forthis.project, and pending pUblic ~ew,expëctstö
d.etennine:&orothis'Stµøy that the Pt9PosØd,p1õOjectwòUIdX1Qt 'have a sig;i1iftCaIit.efÍeCtontbe
enviwnInentfotthe folloWing réaSoQ5:~
~'There will be no adverse jiI¡pacton agriþultunù resQUt'Ces, iir qµalitý,gëo16GŸa:iidsoiß,
hazards anc1hazardous m,aterials,hydrolQGY 1uJ,d water' 'lualitÿ, 1an.dus~.aí1d 'p1JUmùiS. Diinera1
. . ' "
resources, pQpu1ationand'~g,pJÛ)li¢~cC§; recreatiÕ11,transPQrtatiònand, 1ra:ffjc,utilities,
andse¡;vice'sysieJµs.
,-'There will 'be;lC\S~rthan,$igniñcant·þnpaat Qn.,acsthetiC$, bi~løgica1~~1
r.ellourceJ(p$QnfolQgy)an4.:nçi~;~,.
" .
·d'4r1t 'PI J,;-{)Ðf
~te.
, ,u.ty D~or,~\" . ta1'Pl~aiidEngú1eerii1t
.Ca1îfo~a D~aÌin:iet1t ofTfiØs¡)Ortatión . .
...._..........._................................................................~................~...........""".........................._..h·Uh.................................,............................................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane . iv
8~'1
Table of Conte~JrJ
...._........................................................_.......................9'10"'.........................................._..........._...._.........................................................................
Table of Contents
Cover Sheet....... .................. ..... ...... ................. ............ ...... ............ ................. ......... ........... ......... i
General Information About This Document .............................................................................ii
Title Sheet............................................................ ....................;............... ..iü
Proposed Negative Declaration....................................................................... ..iv
Table of Contents..... ............. ............... ..... ....... ............ ........... ....... ............... ......... ......... .......... v
List of Figures........... .... ......... ................. ..... ................... ..... ..... .............. ...... .......................... vii
Chapter 1 Proposed Proj ect............ ...... ............ ............... .......... ............................. ............ 1
1.1 Proj ect Background.................................... .......... ............ ............. .................... ..... ....... 1
1.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Purpose of the Project ........................................................................................... 4
1.1.3 Need for the Project...............................................................................................4
1.2 Detailed Project Description .........................................................................................6
. 1.2.1 Key Features.... ........... ........ ............ ..... ..... ................. ................... ................. ........ 6
1.2.2 Right of Way....... ....... ......... ..... ...... .......... .... .... ......... ................ .................. .......... 8
1.2.3. Design Exceptions..... ....... ................. ........ .... ....... ..... .......... ............ ..... ......... ........ 9
1.3 Project Alternatives .................. .................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 Benefits of the Build Altemative......................................................................... 10
1.3.2 Regional Transit System Relationship ................................................................ 13
1.3 .3 HOT Lanes......... ........... ....... .............. ........... ....... ..... ...... ... ..... ........ .................... 13
1.3.4 The "No Build" Alternative ...................................................:............................15
1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed ..............................~.................................................... 16
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance,
Minimization and/or Mitigation .Measures...........................................:................................. 17
2.1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 17
2.2 Growth........................... .................... ......................... ....... ............ ...... ...... ....... ........... 18
2.2.1 Regulatory Setting .......................... ..............................................~...................... 18
2.2.2 Affected Environment, .... .........;....... .~... ...-................. ............ ............... ........ ....... 19
2.2.3 Impacts. ................. ........ .... ...... ....... .... .............. ....... .......... ......... .......~. ................. 21
2.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures........................................ 23
2.3 Visual! Aesthetics.. ............ ........ ....... ........... ... ...... ............ ........ ............. ... ........ ......... .... 23
2.3.1 Regulatory setting .... ........ ................. ............. ....... ............. ... .................. ............ 23
2.3.2 Affected Environment... ............ ....................... ..... ...... ........... .... ......... .... ....... ..... 23
2.3.3 Impacts .......... ................. ..... ............ ........ .......... ........ ........ .... ..... ......... ..... ........... 24
2.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures....................................... 24
2.4 Cultural Resources. ........ ...................... ...... ....... ... ...................... ....... ..... ............. ........ 25
2.4.1 Regulatory setting .............. ........ ........... .......... ..................... .......... .................. .... 25
2.4.2 Affected Environment ..... .... ..... ...... ........... ................ ......... ......... ........................ 26
2.4.3 Impacts ...... .................. ................ ....... ................ ................. ....... ......... ....... ......... 26
2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures....................................... 26
2.5 Water QuaÌity, and Storm Water Runoff.........................................................-............ 26
2.5.1 Regulatory Setting. ......... ......... ............ ....... ......... .... .................. .......... ....... ......... 26
2.5.2 Affected Envìronment ............ ............... ......... ................. .................... ..... ........... 27
2.5.3 'Impacts .... ................ ...... ................. ....... ......... .............. ............. ............... ....... .... 28
2.5.4 Aviodance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures....................................... 28
2.6 Air Quality ........................................ .......... ..................................~.................... .......... 30
2.6.1 Regulatory setting: ..................................................................... .........~.... ........... 30
2.6.2 Affected Environment:· .~........... ......... .............................. ..... ....... .... ......... ....... .... 31
....._............................................................................................Hfl.tio..................................................,.................................................~....t..········."..·········_
Interstate 680 Suno{ Grade Northbound HOV Lane v
(P'rJb %~
2.6.3 Impacts............ ..... ............ ............. ...... ........ .... ...... ........ ...~........... ................ ...... ..31
2.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures ......................................32
2.7 Biology, including Wetlands .......................;...............................................................33
2.7.1 Re~atory Setting ............................................ .....................;..............................33
2.7.2 Affected Environinent........ ........ ..................... ........ ................. ...................... ......33
2.7.3 Impacts.~...... .... ...................... ............... ..... .~....... .................. .......... .................... ...34
2.7.4 Avoic;lance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures .......................................34
2.8 Paleontology ......... .......... ..... ...... ................... ...... ........ ........ ... ....... ................. ...... ..... ...3 7
2.8.1 Regulatory Setting.. ................. ........... .......... .......... ..... .............. ..........................37
2.8.2 "Affected Environment... ............................ ......... ...... ..... ..... ........ ..........................38
2.8.3 Impacts .... .......... .... .......... ..... .......... ..... ..... ....... ... ... .............. ..... ...................... ......3 8
2.8.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures .......................................38
2.9 Noise:............. ;".... :.......... ............... .......... ....... ........... .... ........ ....... .... .... ..... .............. .... ..3 9
2.9.1 Regulatory setting............... ........... ...................................... ..... ........... ....... .........39
2.9.2 Affected Environment.. ... .......... ...... .... .......... ....... ......... ...... .... ............. ....... ..... ....40
2.9.3 Impacts, ... ....... ..'.......... ............... ....... ..... ..... ..................... ................. ........... ....... ..40
2.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures .......................................41
2.10 Cunlu1ative Impacts....... ........... ....... ....;.... .......... ....... .................... ....... ....-...... ......... 41
2.10.1 Regulatory Setting ...........................................................................................41
2.10.2' Related Projects/studies ...................................................................................41:·
2.10.3 'Cumulative Impacts....... ..................... ............... ......................... .......... ........... 43
Chapter 3 . Coordination ............ ............. ............ ............................ ....... ........... ............... ....45
3.1 Locations for Viewing the Environmental Document .................................................45
3.2 Organizations and Individuals Contacted..... ............ .......... ....... ......... .;;......................46
3.3 Cultural Resources Coordination. ........ ......... ........... ........... .................... ..................... 46
Chapter 4 List of Contributors......... ...... ....... ....................... ..... .............................. ..........51
Chapter 5 References.... ... ... ............ ..... ...... ........... ...... ... ........ .... ..... ...... ........ .......... ... .......53
5.1 List of Technical Studies and Bibliography.......................................................... .......53
5.2 List of Abbreviated Tenns.. ...... ...... ....................... ............. ............... ......................... .54
Appendix A : Environmental Significance Checklist...................................................55
AppendixB: Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4 (t) ......65
Appendix C: Title VI Policy Statement ........................................................................... 69
......................n.....~....u..........'........n...nnnUU.............................................................................U.h...U.~............._..................................U..h....n_..··.·n·····.....
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
vi
'1 ts1.J ~ '1
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location Map ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Projected Population and Employment Growth ........................................................ 3
Figure 3: Growth in Person Trips by Travel Co1TÍ.dor............................................................... 5
Figure 4: Typical Lane Configuration............ ..... ...... .......... ...... ......... ................. ......... ....... ....... 7
Figure 5: Location of Improvements.. ...... ............. ......... ................ ........... ..... .......... .......... ....... 8
Figure 6: Property Acquisition Summary ................................................................................. 9
Figure 7: Design Exceptions by Type and Location .................................................................9
Figure 8: Interstate 680 Northbound P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ............................. 11
Figure 9: Freeway Levels of Service..............................·.............................·............................ 12
Figure 10: RequiredPennits or Approvals ............................................................................. 16
Figure 11: NoAdverse Impact Detenninations Summary ...................................................... 17
Figure 12: Sunol Corridor Sensitive Species .......................................................................... 35
Figure 13: Land Area Impacted ,.............................................................................................35
Figure 14: Noise Abatement Criteria ................................................ .............................~........ 40
Figure 15: Related Transportation Improvements..................................................................~ 42
.................__.......................................................tt.....................................................~lIIt...............................¡..................................;............................;................10........
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane . vII
1
i'l
i'j
'.',1
;,"1
r.'
,. '.' ""'."".""'''-^'~~'~"-~';'~'';:;~'.'''.'''":;'''''':'''''~"''::.'
~Db~~
Chapter,1
Proposed Project
1.1 Project Background
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHW A) propose to constrUct a high~occupancy yehicle (ROV) lane,
auxiliary lanes and related improvements along a 35~1an (21. 7~mi.) stretch of
Interstate 680 known as the Sunol grade. The project area begins at the Interstate
680/Route 237 interchange in the City of Mil pitas, Santa Clara County, California. It
passes through the City of Fremont in Alameda County, California and ends at the
Stoneridge Drive interchange in the City of Pleasant on, in Alameda County. Figure 1
is a map depicting the project location.
Facilities to be constructed include a northbound HOV lane ITom the Interstate
680/Route 237 interchange to Route 84 and five auxiliary lane segments extending
from the Jacklin Road on-ramp to the Mission Boulevard/Route 238 off~ramp. The
southbound roadway will also be widened at various locations: 1) between the
Andrade Road Interchange and the Calaveras Road Interchange, 2) at the Sheridan
Road Interchange, and 3) in the median between Auto Mall Parkway and Route 237.
Ramp metering equipment will be installed at fourteen northbound on-ramps
beginning at Calaveras Road and ending at Stoneridge Drive. Existing bridges Will
be widened to accommodate the additional traffic lanes. Sound barriers and retaining
walls will be constructed as necessary. Right-ofway acquisition will also be
required.
1.1.1 Introduction
The Sunol grade is a major commuter route connecting South Bay cities with the Tri-
Valley area to the northeast in Alameda County. The northbound segment of
Interstate 680 in this area currently has three through lanes plus a truck climbing lane
extending from Mission Boulevard to the truck scales near Sheridan Road.
The growth trend analysis accompanying the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's (MTC's) 2001 RegiOIial Transportation Plan (RTP),concluded that
both Al-ameda and Santa Clara Counties are net importers of workers and are
expected to remain so. Figure 2 summarizes MTC's jobs and employment growth
projections for all Bay Area counties ITom the year 2000 to 2025. According to
Figure 2, Santa Clara County is second only to San Francisco in jobs surplus. In the
year 2000 there were 1.16 jobs for every employed Santa Clara County resident.
··············.....······~..······.·"'..._..t...........~...._................_....._...."........_......"......................~._._............."'..........................................._.._~....................................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northboµnd HOV Lane 1
Chapter 1 Proposed Project ,
....................................................................................n..............................................,...............................................................h.h..........................................
q'fJ~4
1-686 NB BOV Pt'Qj,cd LQca,tion (AlalDedia & Santa Clara County)
~
~~~~
Oct 2003
....,..- '.i',',,...·¡,~:.-~i~
.,...
~~r!~
.1....:..... ! ~
-~;i--r,~
~:~:~t}:
.:.!~.;,~:~"'..'. ,.
'.1,
~',-.
.Alameda' Cl).
..,¿.;
'-
'?;,.
-'
,..:$
,
.~~;;..
;r-·
...~~,~'., .
<
.:......
,_ ";I - '.~~
~--".~7'
,.
". " i'~IJ .
;>.,;:
'-~',J"" . ....'-
:/IIk' Loag¡~
NIriIlV'lndHOVL_
~wIil.inÑII'
--
Figure 1: Project Location Map
,....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
IOUb 8~
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
............."'.....'11....._...__........................................................................~............................._....................................................................'"'1........111.............111.........
Figure 2: Projected Population and Employment Growth
Year 2000 Year 2025
County Employed Jobs (J) J/R Employed Jobs (J) J/R
. Residents (R) 'Residents (R)
San Francisco 422,100 628,860 1.49 464,998 747,291 1.61
San Mateo 393.703 380,369 0.97 48S,S06 470,291 0.97
Santa Clara 928,699 1,077,227 1.16 1,187,219 1,353,591' 1.14
Alameda 694,602 725,789 1.04 909.708 991,191 1.09
Contra Costa ' 47S,888 360,090 0.76 680.S07 537,386 0.79
Solano 185.606 129,510 0.70 305.049 228,397 0.75
Napa 61.598 59,710 0.97 90,101 95,999 1.07
Sonoma 235,400 203.530 0.86 333,197 325,690 0.98
Marin 140,401 123,510 0.88 168,901 156,993 0.93
Bav Area Total 3.537,997 3.688,595 1.04 4,625,186 4,906,829 1.06
Source: MTC 2001, page 2-151, Table 2.10-6
This indicates a need to import roughly 16% of the County's workforce at a
minimum, since a :fraction of county residents undoubtedly work elsewhere. By.2025
the ratio will decrease slightly to 1.14. This pattern is generally the same for
Alameda County.
This project originated :from a transportation systems management report prepared for
the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) in 1997. The
report was the result ofa cooperative effort among ACCMA, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (SCVT A), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA), and Caltrans. Among other things it identified the need for operational
improvements in both directions of Interstate 680 along the Sunol grade.
Funding of this project became possible with passage of the Traffic Congestion Relief
Act of2000 (AB 2928 and SB 1662). This project is also included in the FY
-2000/2001 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) and is
proposed for funding :from the System Operational Improvements Program. It is also
included in the 2001 RTP and the 2001 cost-constrained Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTœ).
The project will be implemented by Caltrans in cooperation with its partners: FHW A,
SCVT A, ACCMA, and ACTIA. The estimated total cost as of June 2004 is $150.0
million. Anticipated funding sources are: 1) MeasUre B, the Alameda County sales
tax for transportation, 2) the Statè Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and
3) the State Traffic Congestion Relief Act.- Construction is expected to begin late:in'
.........o I..t"~~........._....................~..._..............,..."......................._........................"'..."p....._...................,..........'"".M........"".....¡....t..~................._.....~..................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound, HOV Lane
3
It Vb ß't
.9.!!!!P'!.r;.:".!..f:.:!?P..9.~'!..~.!:'!!!.f!.9!............................................_.................................................................................................................
the year 2007 and be completed three to four years thereafter. The project will have
to be built in stages, as funds become available.
1.1.2 Purpose of the Project
This project is intended to reduce congestion, encourage carpooling, increase transit
rider-ship, and complement the recently completed southbound HOV segment as
envisioned in the RTP. Adding an HOV lane will increase the northbound vehicle
carrying capacity ofInterstate 680 within the project area. In addition, operating
efficiency and safety will be improved by adding auxiliary lanes, widening selected
on-ramps, installing ramp metering hardware at all northbound on-ramps and by
widening the southbound roadway to provide standard lane and shoulder widths.
Most existing congestion is attributed to high peak period travel demand. By adding
the HOV lane, commuters will have the additional options of carpooling or riding
buses to decrease commute time. This project proposal will encourage the use of
these alternative transportation modes by providing travel-time savings compared to
the mixed flow lanes. Traffic studies also indicate that the added lane capacity will
improve traffic conditions for all motorists utilizing this conidor including those in
the mixed flow lanes. Compared to the no project alternative, all travelers will
experience less congestion and delays, and there will be a corresponding reduction,in
the number of congestion..re1ated accidents dUring the RTP's twenty-year planning
period. All things considered, Caltrans and its partners have determined that this
project is a cost effective means to enhance fteeway operations and safety while at the
same time encouraging ridesharing and transit use.
The project has independent utility and logical terrnini as defined in FHW A
regulations (23 CFR 771.111 (f)). With respect to the first, the project addresses ,an
existing congestion problem. It will improve traffic flows and safety at a reasonable
expense even if no additional transportation improvements are made in this area. The
same holds if the project is constructed in stages or is only partially completed, due to
funding constraints for example. With respect to logical termini, the Suno1 grade is
recognized as being one of the most congested fteeway segments in the Bay Area.
The project complements the recently completed southbound HOV extension at this
location by providing reverse-commute travel benefits.
1.1.3 Need for the Project
According to the RTP, person trips in the Sunol conidor are forecast to increase by
90% between 1998 and 2025, ftom 118,762 to 225,780 person trips daily. Figure 3
depicts.projected increases for all regional conidors. In addition to being highest in
the region, the projected trip increase for Sunol (90%) is three times greater than the
~··········....····.....··..""t......"..,,..".·_...........................,.,."'...¡......................,.....~..............................................,.............................................¡....~..._.....................~............
4 Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV 4ne
I
r-..
1-;)t'b ~~
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
............................................._.................._........................................._.......to................................".......................................................................................
region as a whole (30%). Meeting this demand during rush hour will require both
increased operating efficiency of curreht facilities and increased use of higher
capacity conÌmute alternatives, namely ride shanng and transit. Currently,
commuters traveling this corridor in the northbound direction experience heavy
congestion in the afternoon peak period, particularly on weekdays between 3:30 PM
and 7:30 PM. Delays of up to ten minutes are not uncommon.
Figure 3: Growth in Person Trips by Travel Corridor
Description 1998 Total 2025 Total Growth %
Golden Gate 1,997,256 2,676,270 34%
North Bay East-West* 58,678 102.151 74%
Transbav - Richmond / San Rafael* 48 076 86 089 79%
San Francisco 3,299.729 3,914,565 19%
Transbay - San Francisco/Oakland* 539,570 768,911 43%
Peninsula 2,994,172 3.675.431 23%
Transbay - Dumbarton, San Mateo- 177.291 261,977 48%
Havward*
Silicon Valley 6,154,034 7.884,660 28%
Fremont-South Bay* 212.102 296,010 40%
Eastshore South 2.577 298 3.033.523 18%
Sunol Gateway* 118,762 . 225,780 90%
Tri-Valley 502,890 872,301 73%
Diablo 1,449,164 1.950.791 35%
Delta 514,382 910.122 77%
. Eastshore North 1,591.018 2.195.706 38%
Napa Valley 352,ª00 530.545 51%
Total Region 22,586,722 29,384,832 30%
.Corridors that are primarily screenllnes, reflecting trips across a geographic boundary such as a
county line. Other corridors reflect areas with defined boundaries, and the reported trips
represent all trips that occur totally within' the corridor as well as all trips with one end within the
corridor.
Source: Metrooolitan Transportation Commisslon.2001 (Table 2.1-4 . oaoe 2-4)
More delays are expected in the future as travel volumes increase. A majority of
commuters are traveling from housing located in Alameda County, Contra Costa
County, and the San Joaquin Valley to workplaces primarily located in Silicon
Valley. Delays on the mainline, caused by the large number of vehicles exiting the
freeway, add to the current congestion. These off-råmp movements create
bottlenecks and can cause added delays for commuters travçling through the corridor.
Existing traffic data indicate that approximately 65% of all mainline accidents are
categorized as ''rear end" or "sideswipe".
The proposed HOV lane supports commute alternatives by giving carpools and transit
a distinct time/speed advantage over single-occupant vehicles. This project directly
supports the region's twenty-year Regional Transit Expansion Policy (MTC
Resolution No. 3434, December 19, 2001). The policy establishes a regional priority
...........~............._....,..................,..........................."........................."'..............................................................................................................................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
5
.9..'2~p..~f!.:'..!.!::.9.!??!::.q.~.,!!¿f!..~~.............._................:....................................................................................'-'.....~?~5::.±...
for transit expansion projects totaling $10.5 billion, of which $719 million is provided
fora new regional transit initiative called Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). BRT essentially
gives busses priority use òf existing freeways and surface streets. More infonnation
about BR T may be found at the MTC web site. Though not included in the transit
policy fund estimate, the BRT plan assumes HOV lanes will be provided on àll Bay
Area fteeways. The project's contribution to the regional transit system is further
discussed in Section 1.3.2.
1.2 Detailed Project Description
1.2.1 Key Features
The project consists of the following elements:
· High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane: A new HOV lane extending ftom Route
237 in Santa Clara County to Route 84 (Calaveras Road) in Alameda County will be
added. Inside and outside widening of existing paved surfaces will be required.
· Auxiliary Lanes: Five auxiliary lane segments connecting on-ramps and off-
ramps will be constructed between the following six freeway interchanges: Jacklin
Road, Scott Creek Road, Mission Boulevard (Route 262), Durham Road (Auto Mall
Parkway), WasWngton Boulevard, and Mi~sion Boulevard (Route 238).
· Structures: Overcrossing and undercrossing structures will be widened or .
modified to accommodate the additional lanes. The Sheridan Road overcrossing,
will be demolished and reconstructed because widening would not meet minimum
design standards.
· Alameda Creek Bridge: The bridge will be widened to the outside in both
directions. Rocks will be placed upstream of bridge supports to prevent erosion.
· Ramp metering: Ramps will be widened as necessary and metering equipment
installed at the following northbound on..ramps: Calaveras Boulevard Separation
(Route 237), J acldin Road, Scott Creek Road, Mission Boulevard Separation (Route
262), Durham Road (Auto Mall Parkway), Washington Boulevard, Mission San
Jose Separation (Route 238), Vargas Road, Andrade Road, Calaveras Road
Separation (Route 84), SunollKoopman Road, Sunol/Pleasant Road, Bernal Avenue,
and Stoneridge Drive
· Soundwall: A soundwall with an average height òf 4.3 m (14 ft) arid a length of
280 m (920 ft) is being considered at the northbound Ap.drade Road on-ramp
parallel to Athenour Way. If conditions have substantially changed dUring final
design, noise abatement may not be necessary. The final construction decision will
...................,.............-..."........-...-.......-..-...................................-....,..........,.........-.....................................................-.."'............................._...................,¡,..........
6 Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
'4 tSb ß"f'
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
..............._.._............_..........t.~t....~..............................H__......._..................._··_··_··_·····......................1'....._........_........_................_.................-
be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement
processes.
· Retaining walls: Retaining walls will be constructed at various locations on both
sides of the existing right-of-way. Their purpose is to maintain standard stopping
sight distances and minimize the amount of earthwork and right-of-way acquisition
required.
· Median widening: The median will be paved in both direc~ions between Auto
Mall Parkway and Route 237.
· Southbound roadway widening: The southbound roadway will be widened at
two locations: 1) between the Andrade Road Interchange and the Calaveras Road
Interchange and 2) at the Sheridan Road Interchange. The southbound widening is
necessary to provide standard lane and shoulder widths and to meet current
minimmn design standards.
Figure 4 depicts the proposed new HOV lane configuration with and without an
auxiliary lane. Figure 5 shows the approximate location of proposed highway
improvements listed fÌ'Om North to South.
Figure 4: Typical Lane Configuration
"2
,,'1.
Final Lone Configuration without Auxi I iory Lone
Southbound
Northbound
,,'1.
".
Final Lone Configuration with Auxi I lory Lone
............................."..................................._........~............................................"........................................................."'.........................."'.......................................,..-....
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
7
.8.'?~p.!.~!..!..':.rEP..9.~f!..rj.J~.'E!.f!.:!..........-.................................................................................................................!.?~....~...
Fi ure 5: Location of 1m rovements
Place name
Stonerid e Drive
Bernal Avenue
Sunol/Pleasant Road
Sunot/Koo man Road .
Scotts Corner Se aration
1-68D/Route 84 Calaveras Road
Alameda Creek Brid e
Andrade Road
Mission Grade Truck Ins ection Station
Sheridan Road
Var as Road
Mission San Jose Se
Palm Avenue
Paseo Padre Parkwa
Washin ton Boulevard
Durham Road Auto Mall Parkwa
Grimmer Boulevard
1-68D/Route 262 Mission Blvd.
East Warren
North DWR Undercrossin
South DWR Undercrossin
Scott Creek Road
Route 680/237
Alameda/Santa ClaraCoun Line
Jacklin Road
SR-237 Calaveras Boulevard
Southern ro'ect bounda
CJ ~
.E ca C)
> c: :: c:
O cu ><ïñ
" ::s rn
::t: .- « 0
a:I ~ 'ãi' £D b
z -g~ z ¡
- ::s::l- >
U OOU'O
2.ccs2
1ñcu:5¡1ñcu~
c: c ::s is c: c "0
OcaOGl Ora
CJ .Jtn.š CJ ....J ::E
C)
c:
.¡
Ë
f:
cu
"
c:
:3
c:
CD
"C
::
Q.
Ë
ca
...
.
c
o
~
:c
o
::E
iã ~
~ .t:
" cu
c -
::s cu
o Ë
tn a.
13 E
2 f!!
(û-
1ñ~ëõ
C III _
o J:D rn
CJ~.E
1.2~2 Right of Way
Temporary constt:Uction easements will be required :ITöm 25 separate parcels. Their
general characteristics are shoWn on Figure 6. Partial acquisition will also be
required for one of the listed properties controlled by the San Francisco Water
District. No improvements will be affected, either by the construction easements or
. the partial acquisition.
8
.........~........~..._.....................................,...,..,.........................................................,....................................h".............t....................................."......._....fo..··..··
Interstate 580 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
l/.oft) c6~
............._........................._............-.................._..................................,.......__....._..._.._........_._.......9..J:1.~E.~:!...!..t:'::!P..9.~~.~.!.:!:!?i.:!?!.
Figure 6: Property Acquisition Summary
Property type Number of parcels
Single family residential 5
Vacant (residential) 3
Vacant (agricultural) 8
San Francisco Water District 4
Alameda County Water District 1
Industrial 2
Public use (Church) 2
Total 25
1.2~3 Design Exceptions
Highway design standards have changed since this highway segment was first
constructed and the proposed project would not bring facilities up to current standards
. in all respects. Therefore Caltrans is requesting FHW A approval of certain deviations
from current design standards: called design exceptions. Figure 7 lists proposed
design exceptions by type and location.
e and Location
Location
Andrade Rd.
Andrade Rd ri ht lane under the overcrossin
Calaveras Blvd. Route 237
Calaveras Blvd. Route 237 to Jacklin Rd.
Calaveras Rd./Route 84
Calaveras Rd. Route 84 EB and Route 84 EB
Grimmer Rd. local undercrossin street
. Mission Blvd. Route 238
Mission Blvd. Rt. 238 local undercrossin
Mission Blvd. Route 262
Scott Creek Rd.
Sheridan Rd., south of interchan e
Var as Rd. and Sheridan Rd.
Washin ton Blvd.
Design exceptions relate to pre..existing non-standard conditions that would continue
to exist after project completion. Not correcting them will not compromise safety.
:;
1:1
'j
~
3!
;;I
o
.c
en
.CJ
1:1
¡; ,; !!!
E 0) CJ
.::: !!! ã) (,)
r::
0 .r:. II!: .5 0) m
== .:::
!!! ~ 0 -.:: ~ 13 ¡¡¡
(]) (]) CJ m 'C
ëi) ¡:; '2 ¡:; Co
¡¡¡ ¡; ,; J!! CJ m II) :; :ë:
E (,) CJ 0)
(]) 1:1 ë¡¡
1:1 I!! Õ¡ á 0) ~
1> .::: 0)
¡; ,; :::: .::: ~
E:; 0 .¡¡¡ 13 .::: r::
I!! Co CJ m '6.
0) IE 'E '2 ~
8 g' 0 3 e ~ 2
~.s Il. .5 :::æ en
........-...............................................................-.................................-.................~............-...............................................................~..........................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Norlhbound HOV Lane
9
.9t.'.~!!.!.'::'..!..e:Ee.e~~!!..!::.'5!!.!9.~..........,............................._.._...................._....................................................EJ..0.b..~.~.......
The proposed project will not create any new non-standard conditions., Design
exceptions are being requested for efficiency reasons. Ca1trans has determined that
the cost of bringing the roadway up to current standards would exceed,the benefits,
measured in tenns of improved ride and maintainability. For example, deviation ITom
the vertical clearance standard could necessitate removal of pavement under bridges
(grinding down) when the roadway is resurfaced. This would cost more than
convenûonal resufacing. However this higher cost would certainly be less than that
of upgrading existing faciliûes now.
1.3 Project Alternatives
In designing this project, Ca1trans undertook a value analysis (VMS 2001) to evaluate
various design options that meet the project's purpose and need. This led to
identification ofa single preferred alternative for environmental review. An analysis
of this build alternative and, for comparison, the no-build alternaûve follows. Final
selection of an alternative will not be made until after full evaluation of
,environmental impacts and full consideration of public hearing comments. The
approved final environmental document will reflect the selected alternative.
1.3.1 Benefits of the Build Alternative
Traffic flow improvements
To evaluate project effectiveness Caltrans prepared an operational analysis (Caltrans
2002) covering peak period travel, which typically occurs in the a:ftëmoon. A
discussion of key points follows.
HOV lane performance
Figure 8 compares peak-hour performance for the build and no-build project
alternatives at project completion and for the year 2025. Estimates shown are one-
hour averages for the entire 35..lan (21.6..mi.) project length. In considering this
analysis the reader should be aware that the primary purpose is to differentiate future
traffic operations between the build and no-build alternatives. Results cannot be
directly compared to the existing observed congestion, w~ch is likely to be higher
than indicated by the peak-hour analysis. The difference is due to the fact that the
analysis does not account for any congestion accumulatingprlor to peak hour.
Calculated speeds, delays and travel times shown on Figure 8 assume both high peak
hour travel demand and no congestion before hand. Anything less than fÌ'ee flow
conditions prior to peak hour could substantially degrade real-world highway
performance. However, because pre-'existing conditions would affect both the build
and no-build alternative, this analysis is still valid for comparison purposes.
........................................"'................................"'........................................-..................................-"'."................................".........-................................................-......"...
10
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
I ßrih~t4
ø..................................................................................................................._....._...__..........................9..'2~E!.~:...!..f:.!!:!P..9.~!:!!.J::'!!i.~~.
Figure 8: Interstate 680 Northbound P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
(from Berryessa Road Interchange to north of Route 84 Interchange)
Mainline Ramp Total A,,:erage Maximum Total Total
Delay Delay Delay Speed Travel Distance Time
Time Traveled Traveled
vehicle- vehicle- vehicle mph veh-miles person.miles vehicle- person-
Year Alternative hours hours ·hours (kmIh) minutes (veh-km) (person-kIn) hours hours
No-Build· 550 225 775 42 26 116,330 134,730 3,010 3,480
'"' all vehicles (68) (187,210) (216,820)
=
~ Build ø non·HOV 1,750
> 0 0 0 61 17 107; 170 112,170 1,830
~ (mix flow) (98) (172,470) (180,520)
I'I,
= Build - HOV 0 0 o· 65 17 15,320 30,870 240 480
~ (105) (24,650) (49,680)
No-Build· 1,090 30 1,120 34 35 113,490 128,020 3,390 3,830
all vehicles (55) (182,640) (206,020)
'I')
N . Build - non··HOV 720 70 790 40 28 117,080 129,300 3,000 3,200
=
N (mix flow) (64) (188,420) (208,080)
; Build - HOV 0 0 0 57 19 25,380 57,020 450 1,010
~
> (91) (40,840) (91,760)
A summary of traffic conditions presented on Figure 8 follows:
· All travelers will experience no delay and an approximately 35% travel time
saving in the base year. . The model forecasts zero delay and speeds at or near the
speed limit for both HOV and non-HOV travelers: 65 and 61 mph respectively.
Average time to traverse the corridor would be reduced 9 minutes, ftom 26 to 17
minutes or 35%.
· By the year 2025, the HOV lane will continue to experienpe no delay and an even
greater time saving of approximately 46% compared to the no build alternative. The
mixed flow lane will experience some delays and therefore less time saving: about
20%.
· Travel corridor efficiency will increase. Total peak hour travel by the year 2025
is estimated to be 142,460 vehic1e·miles1 compared to 113,490 under the no build
alternative: an increase of about 26%. The projêcted increase in person trip
efficiency is ftom 128,020 to 186,320 person-miles or about 46%. This increased
. efficiency is attributable to two things: reduced congestion in the ftee flow lanes,
and increased HOV or transit travel. However, the model predicts that by the year
2025, travel demand in the ftee flow lane will again exceed capacity, as evidenced
by the 790 hour total delay estimate. At this point any further increase in travel
1 This total is the sum of the year 2025 mixed flow and HOV lane estimates shown on the
table (117,080 + 25,380 =142,460)
..... ...,. ·······~....···············~····.··~.~h"'·_o ............................... ................................................................................................................ .._.............................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
11
·9!J~e!-'!.:'.!..e!!?e.~.~~!!..!:'5!!.~9!............__._.._........._.._......,................................................................................._L~.Jfb.~~........
demand will result in either greater congestion, increased HOV lane use, or both.
This dynamic supports the assumption that the project will provide increased
incentives for HOV and transit use.
Figure 9 provides a graphic illustration of freeway levels of service. Relating it to
traffic flow estimates shown on Figure 8, the base year level of service (LOS) for all
travelers is expected to improve from LOS F (considerable delays) to LOS D
(minimal delays). Over time it will again deteriorate to LOS F in the mixed flow
lanes and LOS E in the HOV lane.
F¡gUre iEIElS fo~!!.IleE I
.....
01
s.rvka
Plow
Conditions
"
Opa.atII..
......
(mpb)
70
70
67
62
<53
Technical
Dellaiptions
HIghMt~of__
TnIIIIq.... ftNIy wIh II\ae
or no 1UtricItI0I18 on ....
or~1y.
....
TIIIf'IIc Ie able 8nd fIoWe
ft8eIy. The IIÞIIIty to
~ In tnIIbJaonty
ellgblly ........ \GtIIId.
.....
Few ................ on tpMrJ.
FnJedonIto·~le
~. Driveta InUIt
.. moremnful ~.II$
~.
'M.......:.....,.
SpMd. dMIIM II1ghtIy
end d,,-Iucn Ir".
FnMdom tolMMWW
Is no1ICabIyllrnttld.
'....... .....
53
VehJøIeI,... dwIIIy~.
with IItI.te room to ~
Driuor 0I:IIIIbt is poor.
",t,' _~1~1.- J". .'.-.,I~~,"."
Vtw'/ cons-1ed ..... with
..J....,~1n
.......... V8IIIcIu ~
10 1'/IINU8-
~~.
. ....... ..." ,^ ,~-I ,
........._....~................... .~......_.........~,........................................................._.......... ..............................III........~.II........."'t......... .....~....................~..."'.."'. .............
12 Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Norlhbound HOV Lane
~~~*
Chapter 1 proposed Project
......................................................................................................................................._...................~..'"...............................,...............................................
Auxiliary Lanes
The Caltrans Operational Analysis Report (Caltrans 2002) also analyzed weaving
conditions associated with auxiliary lanes. Auxiliary lanes facilitate movements at
freeway interchanges by providing more maneuvering room and vehicle storage
capacity at on-ramps and off-ramps. Since these lanes are not carried tbroughthe
interchanges, there is no increase in overall highway carrying capacity and
bottlenecks can occur where the auxiliary lanes are dropped. Two fteeway segments
with short weaving distances and significant weaving activity were analyzed:
. From the Route 237 On-Ramp to the Jacklin Road Off-Ramp, and
. From the Route 84 Calaveras On-Ramp to the Route 84 Vallecitos Off-Ramp,
which is near the end of the HOV lane.
The analysis indicates that conditions will improve from LOS F in the base year
under the no build alternative to LOS D at the first location and LOS E at the second.
Predicted services levels by the year 2025 are LOS E and F respectively.
1.3.2 Regional Transit System Relationship
This project is directly linked to the regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) initiative,
which is essentially a plan to provide high-speed bus connections between existing
urban centers. BRT costs less and is more flexible than conventional rail transit
because it uses existing highways. The ability to use HOV lanes gives it a decided
time/speed advantage over automobiles. For these reasons BRT is considered to be
the most cost effective means to increase transit ridership, particularly in lower
density suburban areas such as South Bay and Tri-Valley.
The Caltrans traffic flow analysis forecasts significant benefits for BRT as evidenced
by the average speed and traveltime estimates shown in Figure 8. For example base
year BRT travelers in the HOV lane will traverse the Sunol grade at an average speed
of 65-mph experiencing a time saving of 9 minutes, compared to the no build
alternative. By the year 2025, BRT riders would save 9 minutes compared to mixed
flow lanes under the build alternative and 16 minutes compared to the no-build
alternative. As the HOV network is expanded region-wide and other planned transit
improvements are completed; these advantages will increase proportionately.
1.3.3 HOT Lanes
The high occupancy vehicle or toll (HOT) lane concept involves charging tolls for
use of excess HOV lane capacity. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
establishes a long-range priority to test and possibly implement HOT lanes
throughout the Bay Area. This project and its companion southboUnd HOV lane
.............................,¡.............................................t...................."'...................."'................................................-.......................................................to......···..········....
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade NorthbOund HOV Lane
13
gQwE!E!.~:'..!..t.:'.9.e.~~~.q.!.:~!.~£~...................................................................................:.............................?:.~.~...~..!..............
. project are linked to this effort. This project is being designed with the possibility of
future conversion to HOT lanes in mind.
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) is pursuing the
possibility of implementing HOT lanes in the Sunol corridor and has received an
FHW A grant for this purpose. The project budget includes funding earmarked for
HOT lanes in local Ballot Measure B, which was approved by the voters in
November 2000. Among other things, the ballot measure specifies that car pools will
travel free, excess capacity may be sold to low occupancy vehicles and express hiDes
should be implemented in the southbound direction of Interstate 680 first.
In evaluating the express lane concept, ACCMA considered various design and
management options including fixed versus reversible lanes, single or multiple
access, separation by barriers or striping, and high-tech versus traditional toll
collection and enforcement. The recommended configuration is currently as follows:
one express lane in each direction separated from adjacent mixed flow lanes by solid
striping with limited access points. Electronic sensors, video surveillance and
enhanced highway patrol coverage would be used for toll collection and enforcement.
In addition to designing and building a toll facility, other major tasks must be
completed in order to effectively test and implement HOT lanes. These include
developing administrative and accounting systems, building public acceptance, and
amending state law to allow toll charges. With regard to the latter, state legislation
(AB 2032 by Assemblyman Dutra) has been introduced to authorize HOT lanes at
designated locations on a five-year trial basis. The proposed locations in our region
are Sunol grade and the entire Santa Clara County HOV network. The Sunol HOT
lane would be operated-by the Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority
(SSCLJP A), which is a cooperative effort between ACCMA, ACTIA, and SCVTA.
Key features of the HOT lane demonstration are:
.. Operators, in this case S SCLJP A, would typically be required to maintain LOS C
or better in the HOV lane. However, LOS D could be authorized by written
agre'ement with Caltrans.
· HOVs would be allowed unrestricted free access to HOT lanes at all times.
· Revenue generated would first be used for direct expenses related to operation,
maintenance, and administration of the demonstration program. SSCLJP A's
administrative expenses may not exceed 3% of the revenues.
· Any remaining revenues would be used exclusively in the Suno! travel corridor to
fund construction ofHOV facilities and transit service, including transit op~ting
subsidies.
····..·...t~...¡.t.....................iI.........._..................................................~.........fo.'_.t.............................t..~................................................................._..........
14
Interstate 680 SunoJ Grade Northbound HOV Lane
"~r1b~~
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
...................................................-...........................................................................................................................................................--..........................
If enacted, the new law would take effect in January 2005.
Lacking proper legal authority, HOT lanes are not a viable project alternative at this
time. However, the proposed project is being designed to facilitate future conversion
to HOT lane use. Caltrans will continue working with its regional partners to develop
this concept-to a point where a policy decision can be made.
1.3.4 The UNo Build" Alternative
The no~build alternative creates a benchmark for impact assessme~t against which the
build alternative can be' compared. If this alternative were selected, Caltrans would
make no modifications to Interstate 680 within the project limits, other than routine
maintenance. Adverse environmental impacts associated with the build alternative
would not occur; nor would the need and putpose of this project be. satisfied. Traffic
congestion would increase under the no~build alternative. There would be no travel
priority for HOVs or transit and presumably less use of these more environmentally
ftiendly travel alternatives. In addition the following changes, which are consider.ed
positive from an environmental perspective, may be delayed:
· Scour protection of the Alameda Creek Bridge .will be delayed. Scour protection
is an essential maintenance function. It involves placing large rocks upstream of
bridge abutments to prevent erosion. Most environmental disruption in the Alameda
Creek flood plain is associated with providing scour protection for the bndge rather
than widening per se. The no-build alternative therefore does not eliminate the need
to confÌ'ont environmental issues associated with scour protection.
· Traffic noise abatement will not take place. Caltrans' analysis indicates that this
project will not have a significant noise impact. Therefore expenditure of project
funds for noise mitigation is not required. However, because this project will
increase highway capacity, federal highway funds may be expended for noise
reduction or abatement. Under the no-build alternative, new sound-walls would
probably not be constructed in the foreseeable future, since noise abatement is
typically not an eligible project cost where there is no increase incapacity.
· The~highway drainage system would not be upgraded. The project includes
upgrading fteeway drainage to current standards, which have increased since this
highway segment was first cbnstructed. Under the no-build alternative drainage
improvements would be delayed until the roadway is rehabilitated.
. The non-standard shoulder condition in the southbound lane would not be
_. corrected as planned. For efficiency reasons, the Alameda Creek Bridge was not
widened when the southbound HOV lane was ·constructeq.. Rather, a temporary
l~t;;:;t~;..68Ö·Š~~~ïG;d;..Ñ~rlh¡;~~~dl.¡õïïi.~-;;;·.......··...........·.......·............··....·..·.......·......-.................·...·.........·..··..·.........·:;5·.
.9.t!!!E!.:!...!..!::!?P..9.~f}!.~.!:..r:9!.:9.~.................................................................................._._....................._..........._......"2..~...~.~
design exception allowing a reduced shoulder width in that direction was granted by
FHW A. Under the no-build alternative, this non-standard condition would continue
to exist.
· Ramp metering devices would not be installed. Ramp metering has proven to be
an effective traffic management tool. Without it, Caltrans' ability to control traffic
flows on both the main line and adjacent surface streets will be decreased.
1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed
Figure 10 summarizes environmental permits and approvals applicable to this project.
Figure 10: Required Permits or Approvals
Administering Agency
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE)
Authority
Federal Clean Water Act
(Section 404)
Permit or Approval
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (Linear Transportation Projects)
& NWP 33 (Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering); Controls project Impacts on waters of the U.S,
including wetlands.
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Region #2
Federal Clean Water Act
(Section 401)
Section 401 Certification: Certification by the RWQCB to the
ACOE and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that a Section 404
mitigation plan conforms to applicable Section 401 water
quality standards
RWQCB. Region #2
Federal Clean Water Act
(Section 402)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit # 99-06-DWQ, CAS000003: Assures that completed
project meets applicable water quality standards for drainage
and run-off.
NPDES permit #99-08-DWQ, CAS000002 (Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP»): Requires measures to
reduce discharge of pollutants from the project site during
construction.
"Section 1601" Streambed Alteration agreement; "Section
2080" agreement for threatened and endangered specit:;s.
California Department of
Fish and Game
California Public
Resources Code
'.
- ,
.............~.....................................¡...................··············..··..··,,_······..·..··..................""I't........_..............................................................~.............................II............"'...
16
Interstate 680Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
2.~tSb~ ~
Chapter 2
Affected Environment,
Environmental Consequences,
and Avoidance, Minimization
and/or Mitigation Me'asures
2.1.1 Overview
This chapter presents the result of Caltrans' analysis of environmental issues relevant
to this project. Issues were identified by reviewing applicable federal requirements
and completing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist, a copy
of which appears in Appendix A. The following checklist topics are discussed in this
section: growth, visual/aesthetics, cultural resources, water quality and storm water
run--off, paleontology, air quality, noise, and biology. In addition to infonnation
presented below, this analysis is also based on supporting technical studies that are
not attached to this document. A list of these studies appears in Chapter -S. They are
available for examination and copying at the following address: California
Department of Transportation, District 4, Office of Environmental Planning, 111
Grand Avenue, Oakland California, 94623-0660; telephone (510) 286-6214 (Voice),
or use the California Relay Service TTY number, 1-887-735-2929.
As part of the scoping and environmental analysis conducted for the project, the
following environmental resource areas were also considered but no potential for
adverse impacts was identified: agriculture, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous
materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, public utilities and services,
recreation, transportation and traffic. Figure II provides a brief explanation for the
"no adverse impact" detennination in these subject areas. The remainder of this
chapter covers environmental issue areas that require further consideration or
discussion.
Figure 11: No Adverse Impact Determinations Summary
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The project will neither convert farmland to non-agricultural use nor conflict with current open space or agriculture land
use designations. ,.
GEOLOGY AND SOilS
Because the Bay Area is seismically active, Caltrans routinely conducts detailed geotechnical studies and develops
project specific construction features to minimize seismic risks. A Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Caltrans 20018)
has been prepared to determine soli conditions and local earthquake fault characteristics In the immediate project
vicinity. A design report stating mitigation recommendations shall be prepared In accordance with the following
document: California Division of Mines and Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards. Long-
term and cumulative seismic Impacts were adequately addressed in the adopted EIR for the RTP.
.........._.........."'...II............~..........._...¡.................,..................".."........"................"..........¡,............jo.............................................-...................._...........................N.....
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
17
.9.!!.~E!.~=..?~t!!!:~~..€t].~!.':£':!!!:!::'':!.~·...€'2~!.'!?.'2!!:!!':!.~~!..<29.':!~f!.9.~.~!?~:.~.f!.1:!.t:!...'~~!.~!!.~9.':!................._~ß?.P.b...~.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project will not result In any Increased hazards or hazardous materials risks after construction. During the PS&E
phase of project development, once the exact location of land to be excavated and structures to be modified Is known,
detailed soil and asbestos surveys will be conducted by Caltrans' Office of Environmental Engineering.. Any hazardous
materials found will be encased or disposed of In accordance with applicable federal and state regulations.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project supports local and regional land use plans by improving access to existing urbanized areas that are
planned for future development. In particular the HOV lane ccimplements existing and proposed transit improvements
in the Sunol corridor. It does not involve acquisition of residential or commercial structures and will not alter community
Interaction patterns.
MINERAL RESOURCES
The project does not conflict with resource recovery plans or operations In the vicinity.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The project will not affect provision of existing public services or measurably Increase the need for new or physically
altered govemmentalfaclllties In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any public service. Standard Department management practices will preclude substantial adverse
1m acts dunn construction.
RECREATION
, Because the project will not cause a substantial noise level increase (12 dBA or more). It will not directly or indirectly
reduce the recreational value of any nearby properties. Because access to adjacent properties remains the same, it will
not measurably change the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
TRANSPORT ATIONfTRAFFIC
Traffic flow analysis conducted In conjunction with project design indicates that the project will reduce congestion and
encourage carpooling/transit use. It does not conflict with plans, or programs for bicycling or other altematlve
transportation means. Existing bicycle and pedestrian crossings at freeway Interchanges will remain open during
construction and be restored to full operating condition afterwards.
UTILITIES.AND SERVICES.
Existing utillties/servic,e systems will be restored to pre-existing conditions or better after construction. Standard
Caltrans procedures for coordinating temporary service disruptions during construction are considered adequate for this
project.
2.2 Growth
This section describes the project's relationship to existing and planned growth in the
immediate project vicinity and the Bay Area generally.
2.2.1 Regulatory Setting
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEP A), require evaluation of the potential
environmental consequences of all proposed federal activities and programs. This
proVÍ$ion includes a requirement to examine indirect consequences, which may occur
in areas beyond the immediate influence of a proposed action and at some time in the
future. The CEQ regulations, 40 CPR 1508.8, refer to these consequences as
, secondary impacts. Secondary impacts may include changes in land use, economic
vitality, ·and population density, which are all elements of growth.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also requires the analysis of a
project's potential' to induce growth. CEQA guidelines, Section 15126.2(d), require
..........................................t~...iI..............._......................................"..,"'....4.lIiI..'II......................."'."'............_.......................................................................
18
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
"'2lÞ at ~ 4
....................................~........._.....q,t!.f!.P..~!:..?_~.'!.!'?!.l!.~.~!2'f.!!!?!2~~~:..E3.!2~!rE!2T.r:.!2~!!.{.9..'!r!.~!q.'f.~.1]~!~.~!.'.~.~.'!!f1.~~e!!..
~
'~
"*
"
"¡'
:~
;(~~
:'~
.:,~\
'i~~
j
that environmental documents".. .discuss the ways in which the proposed project
could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment..."
"' ,
2.2.2 Affected Environment,
The Regional Context
This project is included in the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is a
25-year regional plan for maintaining and improving the surface transportation
system. The adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the R TP, dated
December 2001 (State Clearinghouse No. 2001032141), describes the regional land
use, planning, and growth issues considered in preparing the plan. The followiri.g is a
summary of relevant regional growth characteristics described in that ErR.
":.1
~':'
~;
· Urbanized land area will increase: Between 2000 and 2020 approximately 180
additional square miles of land will be developed at an average rate of nine square
miles per year. This will increase total developed acreage from 15%, or 1050
square miles, to about 18%, or 1230 square miles. The nine county Bay Area
consists of approximately 7,000 square miles, excluding the bay itself. (MTC 2001
Page 2-166 & 2-169) By the year 2020, the amount of undeveloped land is
therefore forecast to decrease :from 85% or 5950 square miles to 82% or 5770
square mUes.
· Population and jobs will increase: Between 2000 and 2025, the Bay Area's
population is expected to increase by 18.5 % (1.3 million people). Jobs will increase
by 33% (1.2 million additional jobs)
· The Bay Area will continue to be a net importer of workers: In the year 2000
there were 150,598 more jobs than employed residents. By 2025 this number is
expected to increase to 281,643. (MTC 200lpage 2~151 table 2.10-6)
To develop a regional strategy for accommodating future growth, the Association of
Bay Area Gov.ernments (ABAG) is undertaking a visioning effort called the Smart
Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project. The objective is to develop
regional consensus on a long~tenn (20+ years) regional growth strategy through
interaction with various groups, including elected officials, government staff.
community representatives, and other re~onal stakeholders. Four regional
development scenarios are currently being discussed, ranging in density from very
high, i.e. San Francisco, to continuation of current trends. The significant point for
purposes oftbis analysis is that all regional development scenarios currently being
considered byABAG retain the Sunol corridor as a major transportation link Further
ï~t;-;;~;·68ö·š~~~ïG~;;·Ñ~rl¡;¡;~~~d¡:¡õvï~;-;;;·...................·..........................·.................;..._......................_·...·...·~........···19·
.9!.!~B.!.!:'.?~t!.7.:'!~~..~'2.~!.'!?~!!2!:.~-'~.'2y.!.'!?.'2!!2=!!!<!!..e9.'2~l!.9.!!!:.!!.~~.~.~!!!!...¥.!!!.fi!~!~'?!!............!.È:=Z~..~...........
information on the smart growth strategy can be obtained ftom the following web
site: http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth.
The Sub-regional Context
This project involves the approximately 23-mile stretch of Interstate 680, which links
the City of Pleasant on in the Tri-val1ey region of Alameda County with the Silicon
Valley Cities of Fremont and Milpitas, which is in Santa Clara County. The sub-
regional study area encompasses land within approxiniate1y one mile of the highway
on either side. Analysis is based on population 'and growth trends identified in the
R TP EIR and review of general plans obtained from adjacent jurisdictions: the cities
of Pleasant on, Fremont and Milpitas; and Alameda County. The following is a
summary of land use, planning and growth characteristics derived from those sources:
· Population will increase: Alameda ai:1d Santa Clara Counties (the two most
directly served by this project) are forecast to grow at roughly the same rate as the
region. They contained 46% of the region's total population and 49% of its jobs in
the year 2000 and are expected to maintain roughly these same percentages through·
2025. (MTC 2001 page 2-148, tables 2.10-1&2)
· Employment will increase: Both Alameda and Santa Clara counties are net
importers of workers and are expected to remain so. Figure 2 (page 3) depicts
;
anticipated growth of jobs and employed residents for all Bay Area counties from
the year 2000 to 2025. According to Figure 2 there are currently 1.16 jobs for every
employed resident in Santa Clara County and 1.04 jobs per employed resident in
Alameda County and the region as a whole. This indicates a need to import workers
to fill availablejobs. This trend is expected to continue.
· General plan growth restrictions apply: Alameda County and the three cities
adjacent to this segment of Interstate 680 have adopted general plan growth
restrictions to preserve the scenic rural character of undeveloped hillsides visible
ftom the roadway. A summary of growth res1rictions by jurisdiction follows:
Alameda County: The county has land use control over the unincorporated land on
'either side of Interstate 680 on the Sunol grade. This land is planned and zoned by
the county for agricultural, open space and recreational use. Urban development
would not be allowed without annexation to an adjacent city, i.e. P1easanton or
Fremont.
Fremont: Development in the hills north and east of Mission Boulevard in the City
of Fremont is controlled by Ordinance 5344, which was initially adopted by voter
approved initiative in 1982 and has subsequently been clarified and expanded by the
..._.......¡.."";.·__..~··~t..·..~"'.....··········..······.....·......................_..................."......................................................................................_.."_......,,...........................
20
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
· ¿ß~CO~
..............._...................................._..Ç.~l!.P..~!.r:..?.~!.!~!.f!.~.~r!.~!~!!J!!.f!.~!..13..'!.~!:!?r!.'!2~!!.~~!_q,'?.'!!!!.'1.'!.~.'!!:.~~..t!;!!.~.':1fE~~!!.'?...'1.
.~
~
City Council. (Fremont 1990) The ordinance essentially limits housing
development to a maximum density of between one unit per five (5) acres and one
per 20 acres depending on soil stability, topography and related site characteristics.
There are various incentives for clustering development, to reduce service costs and
mcrease open space.
Pleasanton: The Pleasanton General Plan establishes an urban growth boundaxy
(UGB), which "is intended to be permanent and to define the line beyond which
urban development will not occur." (Pleasanton 1996, page II-7) For land in the
vicinity of this project, the UGB conforms very nearly, if not exactly to land which
is currently either developed or undergoing development. One exception here is the
Kilkare Canyon area, which lies west of Interstate 680 and abuts the freeway at the
Interstate 680/State Route-84 interchange. This area is designated for future
development in the general plan; but a specific plan has yet to be prepared. Beyond
the UGB, and excluding Kilkare Canyon, land is designated for open space,
agricultural or recreational use. The ridge lands west of Interstate 680 are restricted
to recreational or agricultural use by Measure F approved by the voters in 1993.
"Measure F may not be amended as to land use designations nor repealed except by
a vote of the citizens of Pleasant on." (Pleasanton 1996, page II-8) Land south and
east of Interstate 680 .from the UGB to the Alameda County line is designated as
"Wildlands Overlay" where no development is allowed other than single-family
homes on lots of record in 1996, when the General Plan was adopted.
Milpitas: Development in the hills east of the city is limited by an urban growth
boundaxy initiative approved by the voters in 1998, called Measure Z, which was
placed on the ballot by City Council Resolution No. 6796 (Milpitas 1994). Measure
Z established an urban growth boundary until the year 2019. This boundary may
not be changed except by a vote of the people or as required by law. The maximum
dwelling unit density allowed on hillsides is one dwelling unit per gross acre.
Development nonnally will not be allowed unless land is within the city limits and
all city services are provided.
2.2.3 Impacts
Growth inducing impacts are the individual and cumulative effects of a project on
future urban land development patterns. In order for growth inducement to be an
issue, the growth in question must first of all be unplanned. Second, there must be a
causal relationship between unplanned growth and the project under consideration.
Neither situation applies in this case.
...............................................,.................-..............._.....~~;.;..;......................................................-···....I.....~......................................~.......................~.........._...
Interstate 680 Sunol Gtade Northbound HOV Lane
21
.Ç.~~p.!.~:'.~.~~9!.7..~..€r:!~!':9.'2p.!!.:?!:..~'!.y.!.'E.':!.,!!!~!..Ç.9.r2~~9.'!.f!,'2.~~.~.~'2p.:~!!!.v.~~!?'2..._._..?.~.rb...~.........
Caltrans has analyzed the potential for adverse growth inducing impacts in
connection with this project. The analysis considered individual and cúinulative
impacts from a regional and sub-regional persp'ective. Our conclusion is that this
project will not cause or measurably contribute to undesirable unplanned growth,
either by itself or in combination with other transportation improvements proposed in
,the RTP for the Sunol Gateway Corridor. The reasons for this finding are as follows.
. Highway capacity lags Bay Area population and employment growth: Due to
limited funding if nothing else, regional travel demand is likely to increase more
than transportation system capacity during the 20 year period covered by the R TP.
The regional growth issue was adequately addressed by MTC in the plan's adopted
EIR. The following finding ftom that document applies here: "It is unlikely that the
limited transportation system expansion contemplated in the proposed 2001 RTP
will be of sufficient magrlitude compared to the in place transportation system to
stimulate new growth beyond the 19 percent increase in ,population and 33 percent
increase in jobs that are currently projected by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABA G)". (MTC 2001, page. 3:'16) The MTC analysis includes the
cumulative impact of providing HOV lanes on all Bay Area fteeways.
. Increased HOV capacity prom~tes smart growth: This project is directly
linked to major R TP initiatives to reduce dependence on the private automobile,
specifically carpooling and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). It supports all regional land
use development scenarios currently being developed by ABAG, including the
highest density scenario.
. Congestion relief resulting from this' project will not alter sub~regio~al
growth patterns: Travel time reductions in free flow lanes resulting from this
project will not alter the public perception that the Sunol corridor is congested. Thus
it is unlikely that people will weigh this factor any differently in deciding where to
locate.
The impact of this project on the broader issue ofland use and plamùng is positive. It
<'directly supports local and regional land use plans by improving assess to existing
urbanized areas that are planned for future development. In particular the HOV lane
complements existing and proposed traIisit improvements in the immediate vicinity.
These include the existing ACE stations in Pleasanton and Fremont, the existing
Fremont BART station and the two-new BART stations proposed for Fremont's
Irvington - and Warm Springs - communities, the multi ...modal transit facility planned
near the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton and the BR T initiative. These
improvements will make transit a more viable travel option, compared to the single
..~.._...._..",............_...................t...~.................................................................................."..............~............................._..............._..................-..................~...........
22 ' Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Notthbound HOV Lane
z>oDbß~
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
..............."'................................................_..................................._....................................,..........".."',.................................·.,··,······_·.,.."'..._...IIH·..."....
~
occupant automobile. Improved transit access in turn will increase the relative
attractiveness of these existing urban areas for future planned development, thus
contributing to the attainment of regional smart growth objectives.
With respect to regional growth patterns and smart groWth in particular, it is
important to note that Interstate 680 is a major intra-regional travel corridor
connecting existing regional centers that are planned for future development at.
current or higher densities under all regional development. scenarios CUlTently being
developed by ABAG. Therefore this project will be compatible with future land use
plans no matter which is ultimately selected.
~;
.~
':~
2.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
None. The project will not adversely impact land use planning or growth.
,
'I
,~
2.3 Visual/Aesthetics
j
Caltrans completed a visual impact assessment and technical report for this project in
accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) guidelines (Caltrans
2004A). The purpose was to evaluate project impacts on scenic and other visual
resources and identify means to maintain or improve visual quality through project
design. This section summarizes information contained in that report.
~
I
2.3.1 Regulatory setting
NEP A requires the federal government to use all practicable means to ensure all
Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and
culturally pleasing surroundings [42 V.S.C. 4331(b)(2)]. To further emphasize this
point, FHW A in its implementation ofNEPA [23 D.S.C. 109(h)] directs that final
decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking
into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction
or disruption of aesthetic values.
Likewise, CEQA establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action
necessary to provide the people of the state "with.. . enjoyment of aesthetic, natural,
scenic and historic environmental qualities." [CA Public Resources Code Section
21001(b)]
2.3.2 Affected Environment
The regional landscape traversed by Interstate 680 features a variety of visual
conditions characteristic of the San Francisco East Bay and South Bay Areas,
including suburban communities, undeveloped hillsides and rural valleys. Landscape
...........................................,..........'!'............................................................III.II....~"...."."'...................................~........_..........................................111.................
InterstBte 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
23
.9~~p..!.~:'_?~~:'~lf:.q.É.,:!!-!!.:!?,,:!!!!!:!.~,...?!:!y.!.':!!:!!!!lf:.':!!.'!~.9.9!!~'!..q!!.~!!E~.!!!!!E..¥.!!!g!!!!9.':!.................¿1.Þ.:b...Jtt....._~.
in the immediate project vicinity has distinctly different aesthetic characteristics. The
approximately 9.5 kilometer (6 mile) northern portion of the right of way has hilly
topography and sparse development. Typical.views include picturesque, natural
appearing hills, rural valleys, and low-density development of various types. The
approximately 14.5 kilometer (9 mile) southern portion is characterized by a
combination of light industrial and residential development near the roadway with
rolling hills visible to the East.
All of Interstate 680 within Alameda County is included in the.Califomia·Scenic
Highway System. Much of the highway, including the northern portion of the project
area has been officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. This designation
cUITently ends at Washington Boulevard. However the portion extending southward
from Washington Boulevard to the Santa Clara County line is eligible for designation.
Approximately 11.8 kilometers (7.3 miles), including nearly the entire segment from
North Mission Boulevard (Route 238) southward to Calaveras Boulevard (Route
237), have Landscaped Freeway status, which allows planting and maintenance of
ornamental vegetation within the highway right-of-way adjacent to dense
development.
2.3.3 Impacts
Implementation of the project would cause changes to the existing visual
environment. The change, depending on its type and extent, would be more evident
in some areas than in others. To accommodate outside widening, trees and shrubs
will be removed. Inside widening; on the other hand will have negligible visual effect
since the existing median contains little vegetation. Approximately 540 oak trees will
be removed from within the twelve-meter setback from the traveled way.
Construction of retaining walls will alter views from both the roadway and adjacent
properties. Construction of a sound wall near the Andrade Road Interchange would
have an adverse visual impact since its visual character would be inconsistent with
the rural character of the Soool Valley landscape and it would block views from the
roadway and adjacent properties. Overall, the magnitude of change would be
relatively small, and would be consistent with the prevailing visual character of the
highway corridor.
2.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Construction features that may adversely impact scenic resources are removal of
landscaping, placement of sound walls ànd construction of retaining walls. The
following mitigation measures are incorporated to assure that associated visual
impacts are less than significant.
...........................................-....................~~~....~...........................-..__.._..................~.............._.._..........oi........................~...........................................................
24
,Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
· ~ ttb ßt..\
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
'~................~..........~......._-..........................................................._.....~.............................-......................"..............................................-..............................
':;"
· Landscaping: Each of the approximately 540 oak trees to removed will be
replaced at a 1 to 1 ratio beyond the 12-meter setback in groups of three or more.
Other trees atid sctubs removed will also be replaced at a ratio of I to 1 or greater
according to Caltrans standards. Replacements done for landscaping purposes will
be in addition to natural habitat enhancements discussed in the Biology Section of
this document (Section 2.6). Tree placement is dependent on the location of habitat
areas, viewsheds, sound walls and retaining walls. The intent is to enhance existing
habitat areas, retain any valuable viewsheds and reduce the visibility of any
soundwalls.
· Retaining walls: Wall surfaces will be given aesthetic surface treatment by
means of fonn liners, sandblasting, or mechanical chipping. Cut and fill slopes will
be contour graded fòt a more natural appearance.
· Sound Walls: Color, texture and pattern will be used to create an attractive
pleasing design. Actual design will be determined in consultation with local
agencies and input from residents living near the walls.
;
or;
" I
iJ
I
;~
~, ::.
..~
1¡
~j I
1
;81
;~
j,
..~
"t
,i',
,£
"~
2.4
Cultural·Resources
2.4.1 Regulatory setting
The tenn "cultural resources" as used in this document refers to historic and
archaeological resources. A summary of applicable laws and regulations follows.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHP A) sets forth national policy and
procedures regarding "historic properties" ..;~ that is, districts, sites, buildings,
structures and objects included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. Section 106 ofNHP A requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on such properties, following regulations issued by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800).
Cultural resources may also be protected by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act. Please see Appendix B for additional infonnation.
Under California law, cultural resources are protected by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, which established the California Register of Historic Places. Section 5024.5
requires state agencies to provide notice to, and to confer with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) before altering, transferring, relocating, or demolishing
state..,owned historic resources.
...'"'~......._........~.........."'................................................................................................................................................................................................-............
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
25
g~~E!.~:'.~.~t!.~9!:!:.~.5.~~!.r:£':!!!:!!!.':!.t§.'2~!.'!!.~!!2!,,:!!.~!.g,~!2!:9.~!!..'!.~~.~.~':!.~..'~~!.~!!!!9.,:!.............~.:¿..çtO....?f.:±n....
2.4.2 Affected Environment
. Caltrans surveyed known archeological sites, and completed a historic architecture
survey of structures within the project's area of potential effect (APE), which was
determined differently for each discipline. A historic properties survey report
(Caltrans 2003A) and archeologicaUnvestigation (Rosenthal 2002) were prepared.
The assessment for this project builds on work.completed in conjunction with a
southbound HOV lane addition, which has a nearly identical APE. A summary of
conditions based on these studies follows:
. One property, Telles Ranch, appears eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places.
. No archeological sites are within the APE for the northbound project, although
five were found to exist within the APE for the southbound project.
2.4.3 Impacts
Caltrans analyzed changes expected to occur within the Telles Ranch APE as a result
of this project and determined that there would be no impact on historic values. This
finding is based on the fact that, while the project will change visual characteristics
within the APE, this will not cause a greater degredation of historic values than
construction of the highway in the first place. FHW A at;ld SHPO have conCUITed
with this finding. Further information pn the interagency consultation process
appears in Section 3.3.
2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
None
2.5 Water Quality, and Storm Water Runoff
2.5.1 Regulatory Setting
The primary federal law regulating Water Quality is the Clean Water Act (CWA),
issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). EP A delegated its
al$ority in California to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Section 401 of the Act requires a
water quality certification from the SWRCB or RWQCB when a project: 1) requires a
federal license or permit (a Section 404 pennit is the most common federal permit for.
Department projects), and 2) will result in a discharge to waters of the United States.
Section 402 of the Act establishes the national pollutant discharge elimination system
(NPD ES) permit system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredge or fill
material) into waters of the United States. To ensure compliance with Clean Water
.......~........t................................Io"."'.-'"..................'11................................-..........................................................................................................................................
26
Interstate 680 SunolGrade Northbound HOV Lane
- . . ~t1 ~ i; ~
Chapter 2 Affected Environment. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
..........................................................................................................................-...........--.-..................."......................................................................
Act Section 402, SWRCB has issued Caltrans an NPDES Statewide Stann Water
Permit to regulate storm ~ater discharges from Caltrans facilities (Order No. 99-06-
DWQ, CAS000003).
In addition, SWRCB has issued a statewide construction general permit for
construction activities (Order No. 98-08-DWQ, CAS000002) that applies to all storm
water discharges from land where clearing, grading, and excavation result in
disturbances of at least 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or more. The general permit requirement
also applies to smaller projects if the associated construction activity is part of a
larger common plan of development with soil disturbances totaling 0.4 hectares (1
acre) or more, or if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting
from the activity as determined by the RWQCB. All projects that are subject to the
construction general permit require a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
Caltrans construction projects that are less than 0.4 hectares need to incorporate water
pollution prevention plans (WPpPs).
2.5.2 Affected Environment
The Sunol grade (Interstate 680), is within the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Control Board jurisdiction (Region 2). The project site is within the South Bay Basin
Watershed. Interstate 68Úcrosses and discharges to the following creeks and flood
channels within the project area: Calera Creek, Alameda Creek, Mission Creek and
tributaries, Vallecitos Creek, Torogas Creek, Alameda County Flood Control District
(ACFCD) Line K (Zone 6) Channel, Canada Del Aliso Creek, Tularcitos Creek, Scott
Creek, Agua Fria Creek, Arroyo Del Agua Caliente Creek, Arroyo De Laguna Creek.
These water bodies are all in the South Bay Basiri.
Mission Creek, Alameda Creek, and Arroyo De La Laguna Creek are water bodies on
EP A's 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. Mission Creek is listed for
Ammonia, Chlordane, Chlorpyritos, Chronium, Copper, Dieldrin, Hydrogen Sulfide,
Lead, Mercury, Mirex, PARs, PCBs, Silver and Zinc. Alameda Creek and Arroyo De
La Laguna are listed for Diazinon.
The project area is under the jurisdiction of either the Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (ACFC&WCD) or the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD) with respect to flood control. Flood insúrance rate maps for the
City of Milpitas indicate a narrow isolated segment 'of the base floodplain (100-year
flood) along northbound Interstate 680 from Jacklin Road to south of Canterbury
Place.
............~.........................................~............................................"....-............................................................................................-..............................-................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
27
g!!..~p.!.~:'.?.~t!.!~~~.t!...€.~~~:9.':!.'!:!!':!.~.§.~'::~:9.':!!!2!!.':!~!...9..'!.,:!:!,~9;'!..f!.!.'£!!.!~!.'.t!..M!!!.V.~!!9.':!.....ªÞ"~...~..~.................
The Interstate 680 corridor cuts through a variety of topographical conditions, ranging
ftom primarily flat areas in the south to steep slopes on the Sunol grade. Cut slopes
ratios as steep as 1 to 1 (one unit of vertical drop per unit of horizontal distance) are
not uncommon. The majority of the construction disturbance consists of.rninor (1 to
4) slopes designed to meet the existing grade. Much steeper (2 to·l) slopes are found
in the more topographically challenging areas.
2.5.3 Impacts
Caltrans has performed many studies to monitor and characterize highway storm
water runoff throughout the State. Commonly found pollutants are total suspended
solids (TSS), nutrients, pesticides, metals, pathogens, litter, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), and total dissolved solids (TDS). Some sources of these pollutants
are natural erosion, phosphorus from tree leaves, combustion products from fossil
fuels, the wearing of break pads, and droppings of wild and domestic animals within
state right~of~way. Such pollution is directly proportional to traf,fic volumes and the
level of service.
Studies have shown that"stop~and-go" traffic has the potential to produce more
pollutants than "free flowing" traffic. Since the proposed improvements will reduce
congestion and improve traffic operation,. the potential for discharge of pollutants .
onto the roadway will be reduced. On the other hand grading and installation of new
paving will change drainage patterns and increase the quantity of surface water run-
off within the Interstate 680 right of way, both during construction and permanently.
The net impact of these changes on water quality will be very small and an elevation
in pollutant loading is unlikely with the proposed facility improvements.
Ground water may be encountered in structure excavations. Early discussion shall be
initiated regarding the handling and disposal of this water during the design phase.
Ground water will also be tested for potential contamination as a part of the
hazardous waste site investigation. Proper handling and disposal of the ground water
will be based on the levels of contaminants reported in the site investigation report.
2.5.4' Aviodance, Minimization ~nd/or Mitigation Measures
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Since there is a need for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Section 404
permit, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from Region 2, RWQCB is also
required. Compliance with permit requirements will adequately mitigate any adverse
impacts to the waters of the U.S.
··............................................11..'.................·"........................................................................................................................._............................_..u."'.......t.~..'!'....
28
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
3lÞÞô ß~
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
.~I.,..........t............................"'.I........""..."II...................................__.........................................___.........................lrl........,·········...........1...'·....·.....-.·..·.....·············
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
According to Caltians NPDES permit and the Construction general pennit, best
management practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into this project to reduce the
discharge of pollutants during construction as well as permanently to the maximum
extent practicable (MEP). These BMPs fall into three categories, temporary
construction site BMPs, design pollution prevention BMPs, and pennanent treatment
BMPs.
Construction site BMPs are applied during construction to reduce the pollutants in the
storm water discharges. One critical construction activity, dewatering, may be
necessary for this project because of the high ground water level in certain areas.
Early discussion shall be initiated regarding the handling and disposal of this water
during the design phase. If the water is found to be uncontaminated and acceptable
by the R WQCB it will be discharged back into existing waterways. Appropriate
temporary construction site BMPs will be used to reduce any potential discharge of
pollutants to the extent feasible as described in section A.9 of the ~tatewide general
construction permit. A project-specific waste discharge permit (WDP) may be
required from the RWQCB, ifsubstannal dewatering is to be done.
Design pollution prevention BMPs are permanent measures to improve storm water
quality by reducing erosion, stabilizing disturbed soil areas, and maximizing
vegetated surfaces. Erosion control measures will be provided on all disturbed areas.
In steeper sloped areas, retaining walls will be constructed to reduce the amount of
cut or fill required in the widening. The majority of the project's impacts involve
minor cuts or fills I-15m in length with slopes ranging from 1 to 4 up to 2 to 1. The
redesign of these sections will generally include vegetated swales with permanent
erosion control measures such as hydro-seeded revegetati-on, soil stabilization and
erosion control netting. In several areas, erosion control measures for steep (2 to 1)
cut or fill slopes will include the addition of fiber rolls to prevent significant sheet
flow across the slopes. Areas behind and above the retaining walls, characterized by
short steep cut slopes 2 t05 m in length, will be treated in similar fasmon to the other
cut and fill slopes. Several areas of the project pose potential impacts to the existing
water bodies and wetlands along the corridor. These areas include fill slopes, drainage
areas, and construction activities in and around several of the creeks and adjacent to
existing wetlands. Due to the sensitivity of these water bodies, these areas will
receive the most effective application of permanent erosion control measures to retain
waterborne particles on site and prevent permanent impacts to the creeks and
wetlands.
.................................................·_·~·t··..·..."............................................."....."'..¡........................,.........................."."................................,"'.........................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Norlhbound HOVLane
29
.£~~E!.€!.!..?~!!!:!~.~.5.r:!~!.'!?r:!!!:!!:.:!.t5.r:!Y.!.'!?r:!!!:!!:.r:!!.é!LÇ.g,'2.s.!.!lI!..€!.:!.C?.~.~.!:.r:!.,!-'!t!!!!.~f!.~!£':!.....__..._~.1..~.~.1...........
Inlet and outlet protection and velocity dissipation devices placed at the upstream and
downstream end of culverts and channels are also design pollution prevention BMPs
that reduce runoff velocity and control erosion and scour. The nee~ for these deVices
will be further investigated during the design phase.
Since this project is considered a major reconstruction project, it is not exempt from
incorporating treatment BMPs. Treatment BMPs are permanent devices and facilities
treating storm water runoff. Some examples are biofiltration swales, infiltration
basins, and detention basins. Due to potential high ground water within the project
area, infiltration basins do not seem feasible. Biofiltration swales and detention
basins are being investigated as possible alternatives. Both treatment BMPs treat the
same types of constituents: TSS, particulate metals, and litter. Since this is the case,
biofiltratÌon swales are the most cost-effective alternative.
2.6 Air Quality
..
Caltrans prepared an air quality impact report for this project (Caltrans 2003). This
section sununarizes information contained in that report.
2.6.1 Regulatory setting:
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 is the federal law that governs air quality. Its
California counterpart is the California Clean Air Act of 1988. These laws set
emission standards for various pollutants. At the federal level, these standards are
called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Standards have been
established for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), ozone (03) and
particulate matter that is 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PMIO).
Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the U.S. Department of Transportation
cannot fund, authorize, or approve Fedefa1 actions to support programs or projects
that are not first found to conform to the Clean Air Act requirements. Conformity
with the Clean Air Act takes place on two levels-first, at the regio~allevel and
secOI1d, at the project level. ~e proposed project must conform at both levels to be
approved.
Regional level confonnity is concerned' with how well the region is meeting the
standards set for the pollutants listed above. At the regional level, Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) are developed that include all of the transportation
projects planned for a region over a period of years, usually 20. Based on the projects
included in the RTP, an air quality model is run to determine whether or not the
··_·__·.........I o pw........__...._........._...-.¡."'''"..~'''"....................."................".._"'11.......""".............._............_..._......................................_.....'".."'.."...........~..........
30
Interstate 680 Sunol Gradel Northbound HOV Lane
3C¿~<6~
, Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
.~....*....................___.......................t.II"'...............M....fo._..._.........·......····..··········..····__.....................~........._.__........................................................
,-
implementation of those projects would result in a violation of the Clean Air Act. If
no violations would occur, then the regional planning organization, such as MTC for
the Bay Area and the appropriate federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway
Administration, make the determination that the RTP is in confonnity with the Clean
Air Act. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP must be modified until confonnity is
attained. If the design and scope of the proposed transportation proj ect are the same'
as described in the RTP, then the proposed project is deemed to be in conformity at
the regional level.
i
'W
;¡¡
.~
'.'.'~.'.'
~j~.
1l"
Conformity at the project-level is also required. Again the pollutants of concern are:
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous dioxide (N02), ozone (03) and particulate matter that
is 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PMIO)' If a region is meeting the standard for a
given pollutant, then the region is said to be in "attainment" for that pollutant. lfthe
region is not meeting the standard; then it is designated a "non-attainment" area for
that pollutant. Areas that were previously designated as non-attainment areas but have
recently met the standard are called "maintenance" areas.
2.6.2 Affected Environment:
The Bay Area is currently classified as a "moderate non-attainment" area for I-hom
ozone, with a redesignation to "attainment/maintenance" scheduled to occur in the
coming months. The Bay Area is currently designated as "marginal non~attainment"
area under the 8..hour national ozone standard and has until June 15,2005 to
demonstrate confonnity with that standard. It is also a non..attaimnent area under the
state ozone standards. For PMlO, the Bay Area is designated as "unclassified" for the
24-hom standard and "attainment" for the annual arithmetic mean under the national
standards and as "non-attainment" under the state standards. For PM2.5, the area is
unclassified under federal standards; there are no state PM2.5 standards.
2.6.3 Impacts
The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the San Francisco Bay Area was
found to confonn to the air quality improvement plan by the Metropolitan .
Transportation Commission (MTC). The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A)
and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) adopted the air quality confonnity finclliïg'
on March 18,2002. The project is also included in MTC's financially consträined
2001 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The MTC 200¡'RTIP'
was found to conform by FHW A and FT A on March 18, 2002.' The design ç(jïìÞêPt .,/<.
and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description Í11 tl1v,,,:,,,V)::',:·,
:,' ".,': f. ':' , : . I :,::.:, ;,~ .': ~:: ::;' .
2001 RTP, the 2001 RTIP and the assumptions in MTC's regional emissions @~~~~~,~îÂ',X:<·;::'d
·······'~;·::·!':'i:::";· .
.,: ':.,'.:.....
" ':\'::.,'0,,:,
.......II........_..............~~._...._....~.........~/P.-.~-........................_.._.......¡..................._.........._......."'...".............._,.f'.............".;.~.........:...iHo....:+.~.:.~~~,~~~:;~~.~~~i;··
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
.9..1}.~E!.~!..?~t!.:.~~l!.1...Sr:!~!.':9.'2'!:!!~..~'!.'f.!.':9.':.!!!..!'l.~I!;!.£C!.r:!~~9.'!..,!_r!E~.~.:.'!..~.M~!.~!!.~£'!.......................ª.~..~......~ tf
This air quality analysis utilizes the ''Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol", dated December 1997, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Studies,
University of California at Davis. This protocol was approved by MTC in Resolution
No. 3075 on June 24, 1998. Use of this protocol was recommended by the Bay Area
Interagency Conformity Task Force, which is the interagency consultation group
established pursuant to EP A's confonnity regulation and the Bay Area ' s conformity
SIP.
Since the Bay Area was designated a maintenance area for CO on June 1, 1998, the
protocol indicates that.an analysis by Comparison is appropriate for this project. This
involves a comparison of the proposed facility with existing facilities within the air
district.
Since this project would result in a facility that will be smaller and less congested
than comparable existing facilities within the same Air District, (which has been
declared a maintenance area), this project will also meet microscale air quality
requirements and will therefore have no significant impact on air quality or cause
exceedences of state or federal CO standards.
Qualitatively, we expect that this project 'Yill not have adverse effects on microscale
particulate levels since actual non-truck vehicle emissions of particulates are believed
to be small, and the number of heavy duty diesel trucks using the facility will not be
increased by the project. While the Bay Area does list yearly exceedences of the State
PMlO standards, the closest monitoring stations show minimal problems; at the
Fremont monitoring station, where there was only one exceedence of the State PMlO
standard in the year 2002. There were none at the Oakland station. Vje would expect
the levels in the project area to be substantially lower than at these monitoring
stations. One reason is that the project is not located in an agricultural area or an area
of frequent snowfall, where particulate levels might be expected to be higher near the
roadway.
....
In addition to the above, construction activities such as grading and operation of
construction equipment on unpaved surfaces will create dust, which if not properly
controlled, could be hannful to sensitive receptors, including plants animals and
humans.
2.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/orMitigation Measures
Because the project conforms to the Bay Area's air quality improvement plan,
development of specific measures to Control emissions associated with the completed
....tt............._.....................~.................."...............................,;._......._........._....................~.....~¡..........................._................_........................................_....
32
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
. l.f0't ß~
.......................................................et!.?P..!~.?~f!!.~~~.~r!.~!:E!!.'!!.'?.."!!!..~'2~~'E!!.'!!.f!,!!.!:!.{.9Er!.~~g.~!.'!.9.!~.!:!2~.~I!!.f!.'!:.~~r:?!!..
if
R:
f~~J
~!f
~~
,:,
.~,
project is not required. Standard Caltrans construction management practices are
adequate to assure that associated air quality impacts will be minimal. These include
requiring emission controls on construction equipment and spraying water on exposed
surfaces to minimize dust.
2.7 Biology, including Wetlands,
Caltrans conducted the following studies to identify biological resources that would
be affected by this project and to devise appropriate protective measures: Biological
Evaluation (Caltrans 2003A), Natural Environmental Study (Caltrnns 2004B) and
Wetlands Delineation Survey and Map. This section summarizes information
contained in these documents.
2.7.1 Regulatory Setting
The following federal and state laws apply:
· Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
· Migratory Bird Treaty Act
· Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
· Clean Water Act
· Federal Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (E.G. 11990)
· California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
· California Fish and Game Code
To determine applicability and achieve compliance with the above laws, Caltrans
consulted with the following federal and state agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
2.7.2 Affected Environment
The 22-mile stretch of the proposed project is directly abutted by a mixture of
unimproved and landscaped land typical of side of road habitat. The biological study
area is composed of natural grassland, woodland, or-residential neighborhoods. '
Streams and intennittent drainage areas are scattered throughout the landscape.
Eleven vegetation habitats exist along the right of way, of which the following three
are classified as habitats of concern: fresh emergent wetland, oak woodland, and
riparian. The first two occur at various drainage areas along the roadway.' Riparian
habitat is found at two locatIons: Alameda Creek and Calera Creek.
..·..·····..···············.........~.................."'..tt.._.........................._......................_._.................."'.........~"''''.....'''......................................................"'............................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
33
.9..'2~B.É~:.;?~~.~~~?..€'2.~!.'!?.1J.'!:!.~~t€':!~!.~!!.!f!.'2!~~£9.':!~r:9.~.'!.!?.~.~.f!£!~.M.~!.~!!.~!9.':!._................'::f.L~....~.~......
Caltrans used an endangered and threatened species list received from USFWS on
March 12,2003 (Reference File No. 1-1-01-SP-1052), and the 2003 version of the
California Natural Diversity Data Base to identify sensitive species likely to occur
within the biological study area. Of35 sensitive plant or animal species identified,
those with the potential to occur witlùn the study area or that are of special interest to
resource agencies are listed in Figure.12 below. Of the 24 species identified, two
animal species are classified as either threatened or end~gered by either the USFWS
or CDFG: the Alameda whipsnake, and the California red legged :&og. The
California tiger salamander has been proposed as threatened in the federal
classification system; but has not yet been formally classified as such. Inaddition
two species of birds are threatened or endangered: the little willow flycatcher and the
bank swallow. The remaining 19- are classified. as species of concern. No special
status plant species are expected to occur within the project area.
2.7.3 Impacts
The existing right-of way traverses natural drainage channels and is suitable habitat
for indigenous plants and animals, including sensitive species. Construction activities
will cause temporary disruption of the natural environment due to grading, excavation
and movement of construction equipment. New paving and other physical changes
will pennanentlyalter some roadside habitats. The proposed project may have the
potential to impact sensitive species including the California tiger salamander and red
legged frog. Modifications to existing structures during the nesting season could
result in the removal of nesting or roosting sites used by migratory birds and bats.
Approximately 13.69 acres of wildlife habitat will be directly impacted by the project.
An additional 10.95 acres will be temporarily disrupted during construction. Figure
13 quantifies land area impacted by habitat type. Acreage impacts are summarized
for six of the eleven habitats identified in the biological study. Acreage impacts for
the remaining four habitats - urban, scrub, ruderal, cropland and landscape _ were
considered either minimal, not biologically important, or are discussed in
Visual/Aesthetics section of this document (Section 2.3).
'"
2.7.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
This section describes actions Caltrans will take to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate
adverse impact to the biological environment. Infonnation is arranged according to
the nature of the anticipated impact: either long term or construction related.
··.....······~·········..·..~............._..~~h..................tt·······..·..········..···..····..¡O'.·.········...........ø........................................................................................h.,....................."'.
34 Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Nonhbound HOV Lane
" '.: ',·-':;,'I:'.,::~:,':,,:::,~ :.~;"-:;::., ,', ":;¡",'-": ;.":." ",'-) ::~<: ::~;';": '~:'::~';,:::~:' ~::, ~,.".=.'.'::.".",~.,~:=;>:.<:.':;.t~:. ;', ~~~:,,:."L.'~.':'"
41..*t)6 ~
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
····..·······..·.pn.....··································............................-.."......................................................."..............................-................................................................
.'r;
:f
','
Status
Figure 12: Sunol Corridor Sensitive Species CD E
CD
.... "0
nI
.... CD
en LI..
Scientific Name Common Name
Turtles
Clemmys marmorata marmorata, Northwestern pond turtle SC
C/emmys marmorata pall/da, Southwestern pond turtle SC
other amphibians and reptUes
Ambystoma califom/ese, California tiger salamander PT
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus, Alameda whipsnake T T
Rana aurora draytonli, California red legged frog T
Rana boylii, Foothill yellow legged frog SC
Spea hammondii, Western spadefoot toad SC
Migratory birds
Age/aius tricolor, Tri-colored blackbird SC
Buteo regalis, Ferruginous hawk SC
Calypte costae, Costa's hummingbird SC
Carduelis lawrencel Lawrence's goldfinch SC
Chaetura vauxl Vaux's swift SC
Empidonax .trai/Iii brewsteri Little willow flycatcher E
Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite (black shouldered) SC
Goethlypis trichas sinuosa Saltmarsh (common yellow throat) SC
Lanius ludovlcianus Loggerhead shrike SC
Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher SC
Swallows and swifts
Riparia riparia Bank swallow T
Bats
Eumops perotis califomicus Great western mastiff-bat SC
Myotis cilioabrum Small footed myotis bat SC
Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis bat SC
Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis bat SC
Myotis volans Long~legged myotis bat SC
Myotis yumanesis Yuma myotis bat - SC
KEY: E = endanaered, T= threatened, PT= Proposed as threatened, SC = Soecies of Concern
Figure 13: Land Area Impacted
Vegetation Type
Oak Woodland
Mixed Woodland
Ri arian
Wetland
Waters of the United States
Grassland
Total·
,..................111......."'..........;0................_...................-.........."'.................................................................................................................................................-....
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
35
.£~~E!.f!.:'.?(¿t!~.'?!I!.r!.;.?'2.~!.'!?':!!!:!!!.':!.~...?..'2Y!.'!?.'2!!:!!':!.~~!..~9!?~:9.~.~!?:~"~.f!.~.!:.1!!!.ªf!.~'!.':!.................~.;?..f!.b.~.....
A voidance, Minimizatir;m and/or Mitigation Measures for Long-term
Impacts
The following measures will be implemented to mitigate long-tenn impacts on
habitats of concern. The net effect of these measures will be to restore existing
habitat to pre existing conditions. The long..tenn impact on sensitive species is
therefore negligible.
· Wetlands: Approximately 0.036 acres of fresh emergent wetland will be created
within the state right-of..way. The location is just south of the Sheridan
Overcrossing on the southbound side of the roadway. This exceeds the 2 to 1
mitigation ratio typically required by the ACOE.
- Oak woodlands: To replace those removed by construction, oak trees will be
replanted at a mitigation site located within the Interstate 680 right of way betWeen
Sabercat Road and Washington Boulevard. The replanting of 64 oak trees at a
replacement ratio of 5 to 1 (320 trees total) will compensate for oaks removed from
oak and mixed woodland areas in conjunction with this project. An additional 300
oak trees fÌ'oma companion southbound project will also be replanted at the same
mitigation site. These oak impacts and replanting are separate fÌ'om landscaping
improvements discussed in Section 2.3.4
- Riparian habitat along Alameda Creek and Calera Creek: Some willows
along Alameda Creek within the impact area would be cut or removed. Clippings
and rootwads will be retained for on site mitigation use at a minimwn ratio of 1 to 1
after construction. Temporary impacts to riparian habitat at Calera Creek are limited
to pruning of trees along one side. They do not involve tree removal, and are
considered to be self-mitigating. The total acreage of riparian mitigation will be
detennined during the development of the mitigation and monitoring plan described
below.
-Mitigation Monitoring: Mitigation and monitoring plans will be prepared for
identified habitats of concern within the project's area of impact. Each will contain
a site implementation plan, success criteria, monitoring regime, and contingency
me~ures. The purpose of these plans is to restore land impacted by construction to
pre-existing conditions as much as possible and improve its value as wildlife
habitat.
A voidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures for Construction
Period Impacts
The following is a summary of Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
that will be implemented during construction. These are more fully described in the
.......to<o................_.....................__......._...........................................'............................".........................................................................................................1'....
36
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Norlhbound HOV Lane
.,.'"
. :....' ~,",",il!?'·,~~::<,~,'-":"':'~':?',;t~:;::· ·"ï':é""':':':"~"..:\',:':' :':' '7::: ':':',':~""'."i'~"'=:, ", ~"~",:: ", "....,; ',.:" ,',:"'J:,, :',:,';i, ,." ",;.';,.., ",', :"". '
. ._.~, ".,-~.".:",.,~'r',"_,",.""~"'.I".i...."..~~ .'" _,_.
- ~~G.b'ès4'
......._......................................_.......g.'!.':!P..~'!.~1-~.'!.~9.!.*!.r!..~:!.'(.!~:!.'!!.~~~!..~:!.'(.!!E:!.'!!.~~~f!L!?.~:!.~'!.9..'!.f!!.!9.~~.~!!.r!..M.!~!f!f!:!.~9!!..
Natural Environment Study (Caltrans 2004B). All preventive measures will be
devised and monitored bya qualified biologist.
· Limit area used for construction: Wetlands and other sensitive natural areas not
needed for construction will be designated environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs)
and marked with ESA fencing. Construction personnel, equipment, or debris will
not be allowed within ESAs.
. Restore habitat to pre-existing conditions after construction: Sensitive habitat
acreage temporarily disturbed by construction will be graded and replanted to
restore its original appearance and function as feasible. Trees and scrubs removed
will be replanted along the roadway, where feasible or within mitigation sites at a
ratio of 5 to 1 for large oak trees and 1 to 1 for others.
· Time construction to avoid periods of animal activity: Construction will be
timed to avoid the nesting season for migratory birds and swifts and the migration
period of the California tiger salamander and California redlegged frog. If
construction cannot be completed during periods of animal inactivity, special
measures will be implemented to prevent hann to sensitive species. These include
pre-construction inspections, installation of exclusion devices and prohibiting
construction near active nests.
· Install exclusion devices to block passage of wildlife into construction areas:
Barrier fencing may be used at various points to exclude listed species ftom
construction sites where warranted. Portions of structures that could be used as
nesting or roosting sites will be fitted with protective netting to prevent access by
birds or bats during construction.
. Provide for continuous movement of water and wildlife through the Alameda
I
Creek flood plane during construction: The stream will be rerouted, rather than
dammed, for installation of scour protection of bridge abutments. Construction in
the Alameda Creek-bed will be confined to one side of the creek in each of two
construction years. This will allow the creek~bed to continue to function as a
wildlife travel· corridor.
2.8 Paleontology
2.8.1 Regulatory Setting
Paleontology is the study of life in past geologic time based on fossils. Although there
is no federal law that specifically protects natural or paleontological resources, there
are a number of laws that-have been interpreted to do so. The primary one is the
AntiquitieS Act of 1906, which protects historic or prehistoric ruins or monuments
·ï~¡;;;:;¡;;t;..6äö·š~;;;ï(i;d;·Ñ~rlhb;~~di:¡õv·ï:;;~;.........·....·.......·..·..·'..·........·.................·..........................·....................·...·..-·'37·
.£':!~E!.'!.!..?~(!:.9.!~~..€':!.~!'!?!!!!!!:.~~..~':!Y.!.'!?.':!!!.!!.':!.~!.E.9.!!~'!.!!.~.:~:!;:.~!!.~..'~~!.~~~9.!!..................._..~Ð..!!.1.
and objects of antiquity. This Act has been amended to specifically allow funding for
paleontological mitigation. Under California law, paleontological resources are
protected by CEQA, the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4306 et
seq., and Public Resources Code Section 5097.5.
2.8.2 Affected Environment
The project is located in an area of known paleontological sensitivity. Therefore
Galtrans hired a consultant to investigate this resource an4 assess associated project
impacts (Hanson 2004). Key characteristics of the existing environment are:
· The existing right of way passes through an area of known paleontological sites
collectively identified in, the 1950's as the Irvington sites. These sites have yielded
specimens of several species of fossil mammals.
· The Irvington sites mark a period of time called the Irvington North American
Land Mammal Age (NALMA), which extends from about 1.9 million years before
present (m.y.b.p.) to about 0.5-0.3 m.y.b.p.
· Large fauna fossil specimens found in this area are used as a standard of reference
throughout North America to detennine the age of sedimentary rock. ,
2.8.3 Impacts
The paleontological study found that "Proposed, structural elements of the project
necessitating excavation into undisturbed bedrock or sedimentary deposits will result
in significant impacts to paleontologic resources unless mitigated by an effective
monitoring and salvage effort." (Hanson, 2004 Page #24) The study also concluded
that there would be no indirect or cumulative impacts on paleontological resources.
2.8.4 Avoidance, Minimizationand/or Mitigation Measures
- Consistent with Caltrans policy to preserve and enhance the environment, the
following paleontology mitigation measures will be implemented during project
design and construction phases:
· Preparation of a detailed mitigation plan prior to construction: The plan will
be prepared by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist The objectives are to identifY
specific areas and activities to be scrutinized during construction and describe
actions to be taken to document and preserve any specimens found.
· Monitoring excavation during construction: A qualified vertebrate
paleontologist will observe excavation In sensitive areas and take samples :trom
surfaces exposed. Construction personnel will receive training in resource
identification and preservation techniques.
..·"..····..·..·..·..·············"',.......1'".................10.............................................................................................................."'................................................................,.......
38
Intel'!datÐ 68D Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
~~:p~:~'~::~r;~s:,'s:+;r.~,:~~;F;r~:;;~:;~.~:~:;~,~'Sty·;:,:(';,·,·::~,·,~~~:,::,':;:'::,~:~:::.;<','~,·':',~;~~#7~:r~7~~~~,:,',~~Í~~,~;z:.~~·~~&.~~ì~~
"
~"f) '6~
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
..........................."""..........."'.........................................-.............................................."'............-....................................................................................-.-....-..............
. Preparation of a paleontologic mitigation report: Infonnation about such
things as techniques used, areas investigated, and specimens found will be compiled
into a paleontologic mitigation report, which will be delivered to a designated
repository institution together with any specimens considered worthy of
preservation.
The mitigation plan is further discussed in Section 6 of the paleontological study
(Hanson 2004).
2.9 Noise:
Caltrans prepared a traffic noise impact report to identify issues and recommend
solutions associated with this project (Caltrans 2004C). The report concluded that
there would not be a substantial noise impact on surrounding properties. However,
for noise abatement purposes, construction of one sound barrier immediately
northeast of Andrade Road is feasible and preliminarily reasonable.
2.9.1 Regulatory setting
NEP A and CEQA provide the broad basis for analyzing and abating highway traffic
noise effects. The intent of these laws is to promote the general welfare and to foster a
healthy environment.
For highway transportation projects with FHW A involvement, the federal-Aid
_ Highway Act of 1970 and the associated implementing regulations (23 CFR 772)
govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts. The regulations require
that potential traffic noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified during
the planning and design of a highway project. The regulations contain noise
abatement criteria (NAC) that are used to detemrine when a noise impact would
occur. The NAC differ depending on the type ofland use under analysis. For
example, the NAC for residences (67 dBA) is lower than the NAC for conunercial
areas (72 dBA): Figure 14 lists the noise abatement criteria.
If it is detennined that the project will have noise impacts, then potential abatement
measures must be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be
reasonable and feasible at the tUne of final design are incorporated into the project
plans and specifications. This document discusses noise abatement measures that
would likely be incorporated in the project.
Not all traffic noise impacts are substantial. In order to aid in the assessing oftb,ç
significance of noise impacts, Caltrans' Traffic Noise Ana/ysisProtoco/fQr New."
. ":...
\,'
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
,;>" c":,,,. '
....m ."".,_
",,-
·£~~P..!.::'·?·(¿,~·~~'!.~..l§.'!·~!.:P.'!·'!!·E!.'2~~..~'!'!.!.:P.'!!!:!~'!.~l!!..'?9.lJ~:9.~~'27.'!.~.~!J.~..¥J!!.¥.!!.~c?'!J.............!:iJ...!b..!i.......
Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, October 1998, defines a
substantial noise increase. A substantial noise increase occurs when the future noise
level with the project results in an increase of 12 dBA or more over the existing
noise level.
Figure 14: Noise Abatement Criteria
NAC, Hourly A..
Weighted Noise
Level, dBA L h
Oeseri tion of Activities
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and seIVe an important public need and
where the preservation of those qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to serve its intended ur ose
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
sport areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools,
churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
Categories A or B above '
Undeveloped lands.
A
57 Exterior
B
67 Exterior
C
72 Exterior
D
E
52 Interior
Residence, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, has ita Is, and auditoriums
2.9.2 Affected Environment
The affected environment consists of properties in close proximity to the :freeway. To
determine existing noise levels, adjacent land along the right-of-way was divided into
noise study areas. Caltrans conducted field measurements at various exterior
locations, such as back yards or frontages of residences facing the freeway. Existing
noise levels were detennined through a combination of field readings and computer
simulations of worst case travel volumes and speeds
2.9.3 Impacts,
Given existing noise levels and travel volumes, future noise levels are forecast to
., .
increase by 2 dBA across the board if the build alternative is constructed without
additional sound walls. TIris is less than the threshold noted above for a substantial
.,.
noise increase (12dBA). Therefore this project will not cause a significant long-term
noise impact and mitigation measures are not required.
However, projected future noise levels constitute traffic noise impacts, requiring
consideration of noise abatement measures. The rationale for recommending or not
recommending sound baniers as abatement measures in particular locations is more
fully described in the traffic noise impact report (Caltrans 2004C).
....................-..............................................................-................................................-.......,.........................................................................
40
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
",. '··''':~·-1·:·',····",··,'', ,.,< "',"' _,~.".._,.
:- ',.,·:"::':~,',~'-'~;:·:":::r.~ t\~\'~'::>.'~'·,;::,~~':~::.~.~;:/i,\,:i,:;,:~':':':\I.~,1·7:~:;::;::,:I:;;.:¡¡~;''~'~~~;~!~,::7':';!i;::~rt:\0"~.~\:~I~~;,~~~~;,.:l';~:~~,~~~~;·.;:.>t;'.~~~'¡;yt.'a::if.,:,~~':',.,~~,I;:¡o;:;\~y':.\,::+:~~':.,~J~:~~:;~.¡,~...u~
......, .'
·.........._.........~......_......_.._................Ç.t!.~P..~~f..!.!f!.!!.r:!.':~.§g,~!:.?~T.~~~_~~~!!E~:!?!g,~~~..Ç.,C?g,~!g.'!.~!2.c:!!..~.!!!2~.Mf!!J!.~.~~?!2. 4" T$b~ ~.
2.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Based on the studies completed to date, Caltrans and FHW A intend to incorporate
noise abatement in 'the form of a barrier located atthe northbound Andrade Road
onramp with an average height of 4.3 m (14 £1) and a length of280 m (920 £1).
Calculations based on preliminary design data indicate that the barrier will reduce
noise levels by 5 to 12 dBA for 4 residences at a cost of$174,400. If during final
design conditions have substantially changed, noise abatement may not be necessary.
The final decision will be made upon completion ofllie project design and the public
involvement processes.
2.10 Cumulative Impacts
2.10.1 Regulatory Setting
Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. A
cumulative effect assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by individual land
use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but
. collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts to resources in the project area may result from residential,
commercial, industrial, and highway development, as well as from agricultural
development and the conversion to more intensive types of agricultural cultivation.
These land use activities can degrade habitat and species diversity through
consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of habitats and populations,
alteration of hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of
migration corridors, changes in water quality, and introduction or promotion of
predators. They can also contribute to potential community impacts identified for the
project, such as changes in community character, traffic patterns, housing availability,
and employment.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 describes when a cumulative impact analysis is
warranted and what elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative
impacts. The definition of cumulative impacts, under CEQA, can be found in·Section
15355 of the CEQA Guidelines. A definition of cumulative impacts, under NEP A,
can be found in 40 CFR, Section 1508.7 oftheCEQ Regulations.
2.10.2 Related Projects/studies
This projeèt relates directly to two policy areas identified in the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP): the Sunol corridor and the regional transit expansion
...........................................................-_..................,................................................¡....~"'..~................................,.~.................,............................"'...."'...............~,.......
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HO V Lane
41
.9..1]~E!.c;::..?~!!..~.?.~!~..~':!.~!.:9.:!.l!!!:.:!.~..~'2~!.':9.r:!!!:!!!,:!.~,!!',Ç,9.':!~C;:9.i!.':.!!.~:.~.!!.:!.'!..M.~!.!I.~~9.:!............:!.'1.!b...f!.:t.........
policy (Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Resolution No. 3434,
December 19, 2001J For purposes of this analysis, the Sunol Corridor also includes
.' that portion of Route 84 connecting Interstate 580 in the City ofLivennore with
Interstate 680 near Suno!. The transit policy envisions spending $10.5 billion over
the next twenty years to expand service and increase coordination between existing
mil/public transit systems, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Altamont
Commuter Express (ACE), Santa Clara Valley Transit (SVT), and Alameda County
(AC) Transit. Of this total $719 million has been set aside for a new service called
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). BRT uses busses rather than trains to'move people
between major population and employment centers. For this reason it is considered to
- be the most cost effective means to increase transit rider-ship. Further infonnation
about BRT and the regional transit expansion policy may be obtained from the MTC
web-site. (http://www.mtc.dst.ca.us/projects
To evaluate cumulative impacts, Caltrans considered state highway improvements
planned for the Soool corridor, others planned for that portion of Route 84 connecting
Interstate 680 with Interstate 580 through Pigeon Pass, and planned transit
improvements in the vicinity. Figure 15 is a list of related projects. Land use
planning and growth characteristics were also considered. These are further
discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this document.
Figure 15: Related Transportation Improvements
1-680
SCL 680 MO.O MO.O 1-28011-680 connector to SB US·1 01: Braided ramp with Tully 21707 $25.0
Rd. exit
ALA 680 TBD TBD 1-680/1-880 cross connector (study only) 21458 $2.3
SCL
ALA 680 TBD TSD 1-680 to 1-880 cross connector (Mission Boulevard or other ·21089 TSD
SCL alignments, to be determined)
ALA 680 R11.85 R21.87 HQV Lanes on 1-680; Alcosta Blvd. to SR-84 in Alameda County none TBD
ALA 680 R11.6 R12.02 . Direct HQV to HOV connectors between Route 84 and 1--680 21043 TBD
ALA 680 R15.26 R15.26 1-680/Sunol Boulevard ramp Improvements, includes signal 21470 $0.9
1m rovements and wlden!n under existin Structure
ALA,. 680 R16.75 R16.75 '~680/aemal Avenue Interchange Improvements 21472 $17.5
ALA 680 R18.39 R18.39 1-6801 West Las Positas crossing improvements 21469 $29.4
ALA 680 R19.3 R19.3 1-680/Stoneridge Drive Interchange improvements 21471 $7.5
ALA 580 R19.5 R20.02 580/680 I/C: construct 5B 680 connector to Ea 580 none $116.4
ALA 238 TaD TaD East 14th St./Mission Blvd (SR-238) Improvements (Phases 2 & 21115 $25.0
3)
SCL OFF OFF OFF Downtown East Vaney: LRT Phase 1 and 2 + Bus Rapid Transit 21791 $518.0
on Monterey Hwy from downtown SJ to Guadalupe LRT
SCL OFF OFF OFF Downtown East Vaney: Eastridge to Guadalupe LRT 21793 $292.0
.......,...................................................."................".....................................................................-..........................................................................,................
42
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
:;:.::.:;;~:'!:'<7'1;~"·~~"'!"f!~~:,,i':~!:¡::;;,~;::;;:c;·'''ìi''I~;'':'."('2l';¿'O"E:"Ò'Yi:é;\Ii'l!ij"Y¡:¡i¡,"'iifff"""'&;"~_..;""'.~"',.;.,..~"",.,,..~,«__._._.._._..__....-'___
-.v
:~;.-
"
,
"~.
......................................................g,~.~P..~!!~.?.~~9.t.~~.~:!.~!:!?!!.'!!!!!!!:!_~'!.~!~:!.'!!.f!.!!.~!!.~.9..'!.!2!!!g.~~.'2~~..~!.'.~.¥..!~![!.~.~!?!.'.5 oot> ß ~.
J
:\
..~
":,
':'¡
"
Figure 15: Related Transportation Improvements
SCL OFF OFF OFF Tasman Corridor East light rail extensiòn from N First St to 96019 $271.3
Hostetter Rd
SCL OFF OFF OFF Capitol Corridor light rail extension along Capitol Ave from just 98118 $136.3
south of Hostetter Rd to Wilbur Ave north of Ca ltol Ex
ALA 680 OFF OFF Regional Express Bus Program: 1-680 to Pleasant Hill BART 21437 $0.4
? Station
'I ALA 680 OFF OFF Regional Express Bus Program: Tri-Valley to Sun Microsystems 21438 $1.2
~~ ALA OFF OFF OFF ACE station/track improvements in Alameda County, includes 98139 $44.1
:';jf ' parking improvements at Vasco and downtown Llvennore
t stations
SCL 680 All All Traffic management system improvements (various) none $36.2
ALA
Ji"
:11 SR-84
;;¡..
ALA 84 R17.99 R17.99 Direct HOV-to-HOV connectors between SR-84 HOV lanes and 21043 TBD
iI' 1-680 HOVlanes
.,,;
'}j ALA 84 23.5 28.0 SR-84 (Isabel Ave) from Vallecltos Rd to 1-580 (4-lane roadway) 94034 $54.9
,,',
II'
~: and other im rovements throu h Pi eon Pass
i¡~ ALA 84 23.5 28.0 Widen SR-84 from 4-6 lanes between Livennore and Sunol 21088 $120.0
}: ortion not Included In Committed Fundln or Track 1
if ALA 84 R17.99 R29.71 SR-84 (Vallecltos Rd and Isabel Ave) from 1-580 to 1-680 safety 21127 $106.7
and capacity Improvements
ALA 84 21.0 23.1 Improve SR-84 alignment on Vallecitos Rd. none $26.7
ALA 580 14.0 14.0 Isabel Ave/SR-84/1-580 Interchange Improvements: build bridge 21476 $49.5
to provide 6 lanes over 1-580, remove Portola Ave. IIC
ALA 580 14.0 14.0 Isabel AvefSR-84/1-580 interchange Improvements 21105 $67.2
ALA OFF OFF OFF Regional Express Bus Program: Fremont BART Station to 21433 $2.2
Stanford University
ALA OFF OFF OFF Regional Express Bus Program: Tri~Valley to Sun Mlcrosystems 21438 $1.2
ALA OFF OFF OFF Express bus services In Dumbarton Corridor 21149 $4.0
ALA OFF OFF OFF Dumbarton Rail Bridge Rehabilitation (Alameda County share) 21194 $17.1
N/A OFF OFF OFF Dumbarton commuter rail services (·25-year operating cost 21880 $137.5'
estimate
ALA OFF OFF OFF Union City Intennodal Station access improvements (Phase 1), 94012 $33.9
Includes extending 11th St and constructing at-grade parking
and edestr;tan rade se atatiòn
ALA OFF OFF OFF Union City Intennodal Station (Phase 2), includes 19 bus bays 21123 $5.9
and a kiss and ride 100 road
ALA OFF OFF OFF Union City intennodal (Phase 3): BART par1ting. structure to 21196 $20.0
support transit village.
ALA OFF OFF OFF ACE: Tri-Valley to Silicon Valley service via the Dumbarton 21060 TBD
Bridge to Mlllbrae
Source: Caltrans Trans ortatlon Conce t Re orts Jul 9 2002
2.10~3 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,
combined with the potential impacts of this project. A cumulative effect assessment
examines the collective impacts imposed by individual land use plans and projects.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively substantial
impacts taking place over a period oftime.
Considered by itself this project will not cause or contribute to significant cumulative
environmental impacts. There will be either no impact at all or no adverse impact on
1....,::,:,:::;·1
., .,','.:'.',':,:::,::,: »:,:.:,
.ï~t~;;t;t;.68ö.š~;;-~i.G;d;.Ñ;thb~~~dï:;õvï;~~................................................................................................,..,.....".,,·,·:':.~~$L ···.·..··..;,'..~·:~~,);¡\0ë¡~~"';k .'.
.£'2~E!.~:..~.~t!!:!?~~t!...€T2.~!.':9.~!!!!:.!!.t€':!Y!.'!?!!!!!:!!.~a.!.g9.r2~:'9.~7.!!.'?:'~.f!.~.t!..~~!.f!f!.~!9.~...........~..~..~._~......_.
the following resource areas: agricultural resources, air quality, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning,
mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation
and traffic, utilities and service systems. Thus there can be no adverse cumulative
impact. Adverse environmental impacts in the following resource areas will either be
avoided entirely or minimized through preventive measures incorporated intc;> the
project: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources (paleontology) and noise.
Considering this project in relation to land use plans for adjacent jurisdictions and
projects listed in Figure 15, the cumulative impact of constructing all of them, with
the possible exception of the Interstate 680/880 cross connector, will not be
significant for the following reasons:
· They serve existing urban centers that are planned for future development.
· They primarily use existing right-of-way, support established travel patterns-and
do not create any new highway routes.
· Their nature and scope is such that it will be possible to avoid reduce or mitigate
environmental·impacts on a project by project basis with no adverse spillover
effects.
A discussion of land use planning and growth trends that support this finding appears
in Section 2.2 of this document. With respect to the Interstate 680/880 cross
connector, if and when this project goes forward it will almost certainly be
accompanied by an EIR/EIS, which will investigate and resolve relevant
environmental issues, cumulative or otherwise.
;.
............~..................._...........................,....._..·.....·..····"'·..···..··"'".......t..····........._..~II._..............~Io........"".........'.......................__.........,................,..............,,"'........
44 Interstate 680 Suhol ~rade Northbound HOV Lane
¥,,,,,,,,,
_..............,,~"~._-~..._'~...- ,-" ~-". ._-~'-'.- -,. ..--........-.-..
Chapter 3
Coordination
Early and continuing coordmation with the general public and appropriate
agencies is an essential part of the environmental process to determine the sco~~
environmental· documentation, the level of analysis, potential impacts and
measures and related environmental requirements. Agency consultation
participation for this project will be accomplished through a variety
informal methods, including: project development team meetings, and
coordination meetings. This chapter summarizes these efforts. The
fully identify, address and resolve project~related issues through early and
coordination.
3.1 Locations for Viewing the Environmental
This environmental document is available for public viewing at the followin~
locations. An electronic version is available at the following web address:
httpllwww.dot.ca.gov/dist4/envdocs.htm
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
925~833-6600
City of Fremont, City Clerk's Office
3300 Capitol Avenue
Fremont, CA 94538
510-284-4063
City of Milpitas
455 East Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
408-586-3290
City of Pleasanton
123 Main Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
925- 931-5002
City of San Ramon
123 Main Street
SanRamon, CA 94583
925-973-2650
Caltrans District 4
111 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94623
510-286-4444
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade
Alameda Co. Congestion
1333 Broadway Suite 220
Oakland, CA 94612
510-836-2560
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Ave, Suite 100 ,
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
925-407-0121
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
3331 N. First Street, Building B
San Jose, CA
408- 321-2300
Fremont Library
2400 Stevenson Boulevard
Fremont, CA 94538-2325
510-745-1444
Milpitas Library
40 N. Milpitas Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
408~ 262-1171
Pieasanton Library
400 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
925-931-3400
.s~Ob ~
3.2 Organizations and Individuals Contacted
A list of organizations and individuals receiving a copy of the draft document will be
included in the final document.
3.3 Cultural Resources Coordination
The Department surveyed known archeological sites, and completed a historic
architecture survey of structures within the project's area of potential impact (APE).
This led to identification of historic properties potentially eligible for protection and
ultimately to a finding that this project would have no impact on them. This process
was completed in direct consultation with FHW A and the State Office of Historic
Preservation (SHPO). On March 19,2003 SHPO concurred with FHWA's and
Caltrans' finding that one property, Telles Ranch, is eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and that there are no other eligible properties
within the project's APE. A copy of this letter appears on the following page. With
respect to Telles Ranch, FHW A and Caltrans have determined that this project will
not impact historic values and SHPO concurs. Copies ofSHPO's May 16 and June
17, 2004 letters related to the no impact finding appear on the following pages.
'.
.._........_._._.._....."'t~.···_·_··_···..······...·····...........".......~..............................._......_................_......._........................"................_........_..............
46
Interstate 680 Sunol Gràde Norlhbound HOV Lane
~.~~. "'1--=-,-..".."
~~~
Chapter 3: Coordination
~........._..._.........__...........................,...._......._..........-..-...........................--........................................···..····-.....··....·..·......··..··....54 Vb" t.t
(,
. ,
" 51 A':tlioFC¡¡'IJFORNI~- tHE RESOURCES AGENGY
OFFICe OF HlSTÖ¡;¡IÇ PRESERV ATl6N '"
DËPAf\l',IVI1:NTOF PA~KS AND HECBE!'oTìQN
!",o. BOX~96 '
SA'OAAMEt>m;>. CA90 295,oppf ' ,.
~916)'6S3'6WI FiX:,{916ï6$3.iai4, '
ï:atShpo ~ohp.p.ricu¡a.1/Ir.I " .
www·~np;~;cø~, ",
'"
. -. ':~¿~
":1
19}vtarch, ,2PO~
~, , .
Ma,~a Memndry. Chief ,_
Office -of Cultural ResQürèeStudies,
D,epartmlintofT ransportatiøn
DistrÎct Ö4"E..nvíi'cmrneritàl Planning
111 Grand Avenlle1 MSSD '
P.b.BQX 23660' . "
,Oa!dand, PA94ß23-0660 .
,AeplyTo: FHWAO;aPB05D
d
, " .
Fie: FHe: ;No.04Ò4,.ALA..S8o-0;diR19.3.04-SC-l:...S1!Ó,.,7~5/9.9,tSectton 106 ConsUttatlon
on the \:"680 SuooIG-rade:N0rthbQund ¡;OVLane:P'róje:ct.,Älamedà àndSàt\tii
" ,Clara Couritles ' · -,
, Dear Ms. Melandry:
- , '
, ..
0111..24 'Febrnäry, 2003, yôurespondéd tp rn{¿ODecembef.20Ô2 :c;orrespondencereQarding'thesùbÿect
:un,der1aking, byprovidlrig me- with a lettet~nd,.~i;lpP';Qrti,ng.\¥!CB:Ji!'flratio~· inten~~dloaddre$S mYc:tuestioos' .
about theun~ertaklng'S APE, about tl1ehlstonc ptOpefÌ)', ,~f)tlflca.~lon ~Llrv.ys,andabouUhe National'
Hegisterel/gibilltyof 91$ Mission Road¡ . Fremont and ot 7~ß7 !\thehQ-\jfWay.,1?unol" Thank you for
~ddreSsing,thesequestions' onb~halfoftheFf.iWA. '
.'
I,': .,. .. :'.:
I have cQnside~ed,tbeilÍformatlpn proVided,rt þøurdOrrespôndenoëand attaêhiT1entS-:<!indhavealsò Ìe.. '
e?Cam¡I}~,dpertÎrl1~ :\tsecti9nsof the HPSR sønup ,mébyÞHWA1", Mäy of 200~ ~áSed upçnJ/:Iis 18VieVi, Ie
, : . W0l11d,1lketo prp:ykle ttJ~FHWA BI"I9 Caltra.n~ witb :the;lO-lloWin~(;pmmenJs: '. . .
. ~ . , " . ,
:A;P:E
,. T.t:íeAP€ :de'¡inëated for tti'!S Undertaking j~:sa:tìsfaqtory.- rnov.' under$tandlhatall ptosp8Ctiv.e effecÌ$:of
tM und&¡taklngon h!stc)~c propElrtiesfal1 within the -bounc¡iarles ofthe.currsnt'AF,='E l'Iii!i.þsyou furr:lI'shed.
.,
" ~
, ' ~',
"
Idel1Ufyii:¡g HIstoric Propertlës
. ..~' In
1; The information you pt9vided in reSponse:to_mY'r~quëst c'le,~rly ii'\dicates (Os.ttl;1a,FHWA eflo:rt to
identify Mistoric propertie~ ,withÎt! this undenaxl:ìg',s APE. wasreasOt:\aþl$ and.o.ths:'\v:s,a Iii! -s):cordcncÐ
v.,iith theprovfsJons::Of36 CPR :~800.4(a)(2:3)ändj§!300A(l?)(~)',·· . . ..,,' .
: ' , ¡., '::
2.1 eol:)cIJdntheFHWA determln!ltJon'th,å,tpursuannó,36CFR§ß00.4(ç): ,..
a. The TéJIE!sFlanth proPerty at 42200 Vargas Roàd, 'Fremont; is. eligIble for
löcluslo)"i in, ~l1eNatlç¡n1i1 R?,gISter. .
_.:b. ·,S15M\sS'loÒ HoadiFrs,rnpnt, a~Ø.7sa7Athen9I,1r Way,Sunot ar~,nót eU,9ltílefbr inCiJusioh:in the'
NatioiialR.âgoiÌlter~ . _' . .... '
t. There ate rio o1tier lI~ed~or.~º9,j,bleNa:Ÿ9milR~i$ter 'prtJperfles,wJthln ih~
undertaklng!s ARE .' .
, '
Havingtnusconc1úôed4his phase of ourconsuhåtIon in a satisfabtory manner,llooklorward'Ìo receiving
the FHWA findin¡} of effect fbt.thjsU1idert;akiry9~lid t,Q,c.t1r19!~qiØg this t::ÇIDSU,;aµo~ Jl1its'QJ"rtIrety~ .
"
~ '+-
ï~t~;;¡;i~...6BÖ·Š~~~j"G;d;Ñ~rlh¡;;;~~;j¡:¡ÕV·L;;;..·......·...·····.......................................-............-.....,.................................·..·:ij·
t~. ~ ~:, .
. :~ ~ '
.'
, '"
'.,
<oJ.'
:".~'
, "
,,',
56ð()~
'f'
, .
"',,'.
.
Ms. Mara Mel¡;indry
,. .19Marchj~003
F:a~é T:'(I!9:
.!,.'
FHWA02080SD .
,:5Urìdll~680N~ HOVLar\ê$
". ' " . ~
';, ;'
;., '~.'
: y" ::. . ,""".. ,'/' .;¡'" '
If<yoÚ hâ\l'eatJyqúß~tiQr),s, pléMe~rit~¢ fl~p~lÇ~e,utzberg. :Superv,~pr; ,Cµ,lturaIBe:;ol1r.Ce£fProgralT\ ,at
yp~t"cofiy;enì~n~.,.'· . ,,' . . " ,..... . ..... Ii ¡".'
'¿..
.~ r~·~~.
.'"
Dr~ Knox Mellon
'$fatè Hj!)toricPiEJ$~rv,,' 'atiofJ Ç)ffic¡;¡1:;
. ., " , .." .
'.;
:ice: FHWA'
:',,;
. "
....',
,',
./.
,i
),:';
.-;:
';
"
-'
, '
~': '
,.
'. ~ t.·· ,
..
,I' or
'."
"
'.
.'
, ,
"
(',
',' :
:,.,
.,';
..'
+.
~.¿
'!"..yc
.ç'."
',.
>
, .
- "
',.
.'
·"4Š··_·······..··..··...._·ø....................'......M..............·..···....···..··..··..·....·..·····..·..··i~;;;;¡;;·68õ·s~;;;ïG;;;;·Ñ;;;:¡¡,¡;;;~~;:¡Hö\iL;~;
~-'"-I
--
__. .^'. - n..
....................................._......................................._.................._.._.........._......_....................................9.!.!~P..~'!!..:!.:..r:?9!?!'!!!!!.~.~9!!.61.P lIb ß ~
May 6', 2004
Reply To:
FHWA020805D'
Gene K. Fong, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
California Division
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Finding of Effect for the 1-680 Sunol Grade Northboùnd HOV Lane Project in
Alameda-County, CA [HDA-CA, FILE No. 04-ALA-680, PM 0.0/19.3, 04-SCL-680, PM
7.5/9.9, DOCUMENT No. P468795]
DearMr. Fong:
You have provided me with the results of your effort,s to determine whether the
undertaking described above may affect historic propèrties. You have done this, and are
consulting with me, in order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and implementing regulations codified at 36 CFR Part 800. .
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) previously determined and Dr. Knox
Mellon, former State Historic Preservation Officer, concurred, that The Telles Ranch is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The FHWA has now concluded that
no historic properties wHl be affected by Alternatives 1 & 2 for the above proposed
project. ~
I reserve comment on the FHWA's finding of effect pending my receipt of FHWA's
response to the following questions
1. Does the land west of Vargas Road constitute part of the setting of the Telles
Ranch?
2. What will the proposed sound wall look like? What type of landscaping, if any,
will be planted?
Thank you for considering historic properties during project planning. If you have any
questions, please call Natalie Lindquist at (916) 654-0631 or e-mail at
nlind@ohc.carks.ca.aov.
Sincerely,
1><
Stephen D. Mikesell
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
..........._._.................~....................._".................................._"'......__"""'""__.............._..._.........11......·.....··········_··...............~................_..........".................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
49
-
,.
5-"1 ù(:) 1!L+
June 17,2004
FHW A020805D
.Gene K. Fong, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
California Division
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4·100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Reply To:
Re: Finding of Effect for the 1-680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane Project in
Alameda County, CA [04-ALA-680,PM 0.0/19.3, 04-SCL-680, PM 7.5/9.9, DOCUMENT
No. P468795]
Dear Mr. Fang:
I have received Caltrans' reply of May 21, 2004, submitted on behalf of FHWA, that
attempts to address my questions about the finding of effect for the above-cited
undertaking.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) previously determined and Dr. Knox
Mellon, former State Historic Preservation Officer, concurred, that the Telles Ranch is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The FHWA has now concluded that
no historic properties will be affected by undertaking Alternatives 1 & 2.
Setting and the integrity ofthat setting are important aspects of the Telles Ranch's ability
to convey its significance, It is apparent that the integrity of the area west of Vargas
Road has been impaired by the changes documented in your correspondence and
attachments. This area is therefore not a part of the Ranch's historic setting. .
Accordingly, I concur with the FHWA's finding of "no historic properties affected" for this
undertaking.
Thank you for considering historic properties during project þlanning. If you have any
questions, please call Natalie Lindquist at (916) 654-0631 or e-mail at
nlind@ohD.Darks.ca.Qov.
Sincerely,
><
"
Stephen D. Mikesell
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Mara Melandry, Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies
District 04
·"~·····..····..·..._··...tM."'.""'''...''''''_.'''''''..''''''_..'_'.'._...-....--..........................................................._......................."................"'...."'..........................fo......H....
50
Intendate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
5~Ob t4
Chapter 4
List of Contributors
This environmental document was prepared by the Caltrans District 4 (Oakland),
Office of Environmental Planning and Engineering. The following is a-list of
individuals who directly participated in preparation of this environmental document.
The organization listed is a unit of Caltrans unless otherwise indicated.
Office of Project Management
Emily Landin-Lowe, Project Manager
Office of Design, Alameda II:
Kendall ~tamura., Senior Transportation Engineer
David Chan, Transportation Engineer
Division of Operations:
Maria Pazooki, Transportation Engineer, Operations
Environmental Engineering:
Chris Wilson, Senior Transportation Engineer, Hazardous Materials
Glen Kinoshita, Senior Transportation Engineer
Chris Corwin, Transportation Engineer, Air Quality and Noise
Water Quality Program
Analette Ochoa, Senior Transportation Engineer
Kee Tsang, Transportation Engineer
Chris Padick, Associate Landscape Architect
. Environmental Analysis Division
Robert Gross, Office Chief
Dennis Radel, Senior Environmental Planner
Kurt Findeisen, Associate Environmental PlaIÎner
Cultural Resources Division
Elizabeth McKee, Senior Environmental Planner -- Axcheology
Elizabeth Krase, Senior Environmental Planner - Architectural History
Richard Fitzgerald, Associate Environmental Planner -- Archeologist
. Alicia Langford, Associate Environmental Planner -- Architectural Historian
Natural Sciences/Permits Division
Margaret Gabi1~ Senior Environmental Planner, Biology
Amy Fowler, Associate Biologist
Robert Young, Associate Biologist
Office of Landscape Architecture:
................."'.."'..."'~...."'~..... I".~......._...."'...............................__..............................¡¡.-......................................"'..........................................................."'..."'...."'..
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
51
Chapter 4: Contributoæ
SCt'7J45'+
Thomas Packard, Associate Landscape Architect, Aesthetics
Division of Design West:
Craig Tomimatsu, Senior Transportation Engineer, Hydraulics
Federal Highway Administration:
Steve Healow, Senior Project Development Engineer
Paleontological Resources Consultant:
C. Bruce Hansen, Paleontological Resource Specialist
'"
..·....··············..············_.···.····..·w·....................................._.........._............."""........_.............-..............._........................_.....IP+H.......".....................~......
52
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
[Poøt)'Îj ~.
Chapter 5
References
5.1 List of Technical Studies and Bibliography
Text Reference Document Citation
Caltrans 2001 Environmental Engineering Office. Hazardous Waste Investigation
Report, Oakland, CA., February 2001.
Caltrans 2001A Environmental Engineering Office. Water Quality Impact Assessment,
Oakland, CA., August 2001.
Caltrans 2001 B Geotechnical Design Office (West B). Preliminary Geotechnical Report,
Sunot Grade Northbound HOV Lane and Proposed Improvements.
Oakland, CA. July 2001·
Caltrans 2001C Hydraulics Office, Engineering Services. Floodplain Assessment,
Oakland, CA., August 2001.
Caltrans 2002 Office of Highway Operations. Operational Analysis Report, Oakland,
CA., November 2002
Caltrans 2002A Office of Environmental Planning (Cultural Resources). Historic Property
Survey Report (3 volumes),' Oakland CA, May 2002
Caltrans 2003 Environmental Engineering Office. Air Quality Impact Report, Oakland.
CA., November 2003
Caltrans 2003A Natural Sciences and Permits Office. Biological Evaluation. Oakland,
CA., March 2003.
Caltrans 2004A Landscape Architecture Office. Visual Impact Assessment Technical
Report, Sunol Grade NB HOV Project, Oakland, CA.,February 2004
Caltrans 2004B Office of Natural Sciences. Natural Environment Study, Oakland, CA.,
January 2004
Caltrans 2004C Environmental Engineering Office. Traffic Noise Impact Report, Oakland,
CA., April 2004
Fremont 1990 City of Fremont, Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Fremont, CA September 1990
Hanson 2004 Hanson, Bruce C. Paleontotogicalldentification and Evaluation for.
Caltrans 1-680 Northbound (Sunol Grade) Improvement Project, Oakland,
CA., April 2004
Milpitas 1994 City of Milpitas, General,Plan, Mllpitas, CA. June 1998
MTC 2000 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Transportation Blueprint for the
21 st Century, Rapid Bus Proposal, Posted on the internet August 28,
2000. <http://www.mtc.ca.aov/proiects lbluecrint/be ·raeJdbus.htm.>
MTC 2001 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Final Environmental Impact
Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation plan for the San Francisco
Bay Area. (State Clearinghouse No. 200103214) Oakland, CA.
December 2001 )
Pleasanton 1996 City of Pleasanton, The pleasanton General Plan, Pleasanton CA,
August 1996
Rosenthal 2002 Rosenthal, Jeff and Richard T. Fitzgerald. Extended Phase I and Phase II
Archeological Investigations, Davis, CA, January 2002
VMS 2001 Value Management Strategies Inc. Value Analysis Report, Route 680
Northbound HOV Improvements, Escondido, CA., August 2001.
.............................................._."......,...........~..................................¡,.....;..........~...fo......................................................._............_......_.........4I..·.............·.....".....t
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
53
Chapter 5: Refe~leC{b fs\f
...........................................................................-.............#.......................................................fo...............~.........._...._.........._.................W!......................
5.2 List of Abbreviated Terms
Term Definition Term Definition
AB State Assembly Bill HOT (lane) High Occupancy and/or Toll lane
AC transit Alameda County Transit HOV high-occupancy vehicle
ACCMA Alameda County Congestion km kilometer(s)
Management Agency
ACE Altamont Commuter Express kp . kilome~er post or post kilometer
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers LOS level of service
ALA Alameda County m meter( s )
APE Area of potential effect on mi mile(s)
archaeological or architectural
resources .
BART BiayArea Rapid Transit MTC Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
BRT Bus Rapid Transit' ND negative declaration
Caltrans See Department NEPA National Environmental Policy
Act
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation PM post mile
Authority
CDFG California Department of Fish PS&E Project, Specifications and (cost)
and Game Estimates phase of project
, development
CEQA California Environmental Quality RTIP Regional Transportation
Act Improvement Program
CMA Congestion Management RTP Regional Transportation Plan
Agency
dBA Decibels RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Department California Department of S8 State Senate Bill
Transportation (Caltrans)
EIR environmental impact report SCl Santa Clara County
FHWA Federal Highway Administration SCVTA Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority
FSTIP Federal Statewide SHOPP State Highway Operation and
Transportation Improvement Protection Program
'. Program
ft footlfeet SSCLJPA Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint
Powers Authority
FY Fiscal Year STIP State Transportation
Improvement ProQram
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ï~ï;~t;t~·6åõ·š~~~ï(i~d;·Ñ~rlhb~~;;d·HÕïïL;~;··............·..,..··..........-···.......··...-..·....·...................·..·....··..-..........·····........54
lJ 9 Øb '::6 .....
Appendix A: Environmental Significance
Checklist
This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might
be affected by the proposed project Where the checklist determination is something
other than ''no impact", the associated environmental topic is further discussed in
Chapter 2 of the environmental document. A summary of the reasons for each ''no
impact" determination appears in Figure 11, which is located in Chapter 2.
The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist
are related to CEQA, not .NEP A, impacts.
Environmental Significance Checklist
I.·AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially d8mage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial1ight or
glare that would adversely affect clay or
nighttime views in the area?
n. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(CEQA
definition only)
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporati
on (CEQA
only)
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
(CEQA
definltion only)
.x
x
x
o
No
Impact
o
o
o
x
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
....__.....................................-_~........~........................._".........,........._........................................."'....",.....'1111..............-..............-...............'II........II.~..........._.
55
lÞ 3rJÓ ~l.J
Environmental Significance Checklist
·······.....·....................111...............................................................................u...........................................................................................,....................._._.....
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
(CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definltion only) Incorporad definition only)
OD (CEQA
only)
a) Convert Prime Fannland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 X
Fannland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 0 0 0 X
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 X
environment which, due to their location or .
nature, could result in conversion ofFannland, to
non-agricultural use?
m. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district might be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 X
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 X
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 X
increase of any criteria pollutant for which. the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors )1
d) EXpose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 X
pollutant concentrations?
,~
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 X
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect; either 0 0 X 0
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as- a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
·······..".........._.......lIIiII'~.IoM........iI................+··············......"'..............M"'.................."............"""................_........................................111'.............................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane 56
-
Environmental Significance Checklist ~ 4- crt> ~ 1.1,..
_........_..Io..."'..__......~..Io·'"......,···...II'··.···.·.·..········.._..._................._......~....._........_~.......-_._.-.........................................".....-.....--.........-.-.........-....
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Signitlcant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
(CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definition only) Incorporati definition oniy)
on (CEQA
oniy)
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 X 0
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish ánd
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 X 0
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological inteITUption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 0 0 X 0
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 X 0
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 0 0 X 0
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 0 0 X
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 0 0 X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 X 0
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 0 D. 0 X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS: Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
I.".....................__._..........""'....~.................._.........,,.....................................................fo'..............................."..fo................................_..................···.................,.....................
Interstate 680 Suno/ Grade Northbound HOV Lane 57
lo5 tib $rL1
. ' . Environmental SignIficance Checklist
....-.........__....""..........~................_...."..........-....................................-........................................,.."'......."..~..........-......_...~........_.._....-.................................
, Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant ' Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
(CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definition oniy) Incorporati definition only)
on (CEQA
oniy)
substantial adverse effects, including the risk 0 0 0 X
of loss, injury, or death involving;
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 X
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial 'evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 X
liquefaction? ,
iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 0 X
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 X
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 0 0 0 X
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial riskS to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 0 0 0 X
the use of s,eptic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
vn. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS B Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 X
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
........ø....4I.................................................~H....................._..............".,......__...~.........................................._......_......_......................_.._........"".........__....
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane 58
~4\1""O'"~.: ,,-.~,!.!. P,,~,.. :'¡¡~;¡:',t~.; 1,;.-' ,;". ..:..:...:..;.., ",;t:."di~.~¡._'¡.¡;\ò......~~""-'-_':-=u.=
Environmental Significance Checklist L.,l.IéFb ß 4-
........·.....·..t.....~.........._.............·..;t.~........"'............._........................................................................--.........-.............-...................................""'.....................-........
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
(CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definition only) Incorporati definldon only)
on (CEQA
only)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous . emissions or handle hazardous 0 0 0 X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list 0 0 0 X
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
. e) For a project located within an airport land use 0 0 0 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project
uea?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? .
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 X
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project:
Violate any Water quality standards or waste 0 0 0 X
discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 0 0 0 X;
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deticitin aquifer
······.........··............·~......n......·····..······.···.·._.....................................................................-.............."............................................-......~............................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Norlhbound HOV Lene 59
b'~ 8'f
Environmental Significance Chif:klist
................................................................_"......"oI o.........................._..........""""...~...................................n.................................................................................................
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
(CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definidon only) Incorporatl definition only)
on (CEQA
only)
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 0 0 0 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off~site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattCIn 0 0 0 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 0 0 0 X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 X
g) Place housing within a 100- year flood hazard 0 0 0 X
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 X
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 0 0 0 X
of loss; injury or death jnvolving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
....
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the
project:
Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
......_................................".......................············....41......................._......................."......._..........................................................._...............................................
Interstate t$80 Sunol Grade Northbound HOVLane 60
Environmental Significance Checklist
....""".....""1..........................,................................_..._._..............................410"'...............--......"...............................................".................................................
(lÔ~~~
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
t (CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definition only) Incorporatl definition only)
!¡:, on (CEQA
~, only)
;~',!;: for the pmpose of avoiding or mitigating an
!i¡?,
j';~i environmental effect?
':'1"
;',.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 X
;'\', conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 X
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 0 0 0 X
impörtant mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 0 0 0 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 0 0 X
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise
levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient 0 0 X 0
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 0 0 0 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an aiìport land use 0 0 0 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity ofa private 0 0 0 X
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
o.r working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would
the proj ect:
........_......................_."..............~.......................................................................................~........................"'...._.........................._.....................dll...
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
61
'. Environmental SignifiCa~ ~ck~'
.................-.............................-.............................._""'...............................................··..···..·....····....-·····..···..········...........M.............................".........................
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
. (CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definition only) Incorporatf definition only)
on (CEQA
only)
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other .
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0 0 0 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? 0 0 0 X
Police protection? 0 0 0 X
Schools? 0 0 0 X
Parks? 0 0 0 X
Other public facilities? 0 0 0 X
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 0 X
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical 'deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities 0 0 0 X
or .require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial
........_"........................................................".........t...........~.._......_......................................._..............................................._...................._..........".....
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
62
~.
~---'
Environmental Significance Checklist
..............-........................................_...........-..-....-..-............................-..............-......................................................................................f'.f't\<G.J.
. 1Dvu~
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle 1rips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or c,ongestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air 1mffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., :farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Contlict with adopted policíes, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater trea1ment requireÌnents of
the applicable Regiowil Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Result in the construction of new water or
wastewater trea1ment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing or new
entitlements and resources?
e) Result in a detennination by thè wastewater
trea1ment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
(CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definition oDiy) Incorporati definition only)
on (CEQA
only)
0 0 0 X
o
o
o
X
o
o
o
X
o
o
X
o
o
o
o
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
X
o
o
o
X
o
o
o
X
o
o
o
x
o
o
x
X
·ï~;;;t;t;..68Ö·Š~~~tG;d~..Ñ~;¡¡,b;~;;;HÕV·L;~;....·......·,........·......_.........·..·........................·......·....·...._·..;.....,..·..;,..;;;";.;'t~:¡".' .',',,":,':,;,\". ...........:.... ..'.'"
. \.. ~', ,/~:;~;>01: ~. ':. ',:, ',¡' ~ :.:>,':: ~':,':: :'): < .-:.:';
'..:.:<":."'.'\> .,..-: ~'¡':";'::~\ :Y:'/<:~'\
;. :0·,~~;'''' ,:." :.:: :/. .,;,..
, . '.' ,', ',.' >:5. ,:::,:;~L,'}Ù~:i:.:;J:,;;:',: '-', <:';:1.::':
.,.'.
".,.';..;
~" ~~~~;',,:: I
.. :'~,:~\:';';~':~" ,~\~:'~'~~~
- Environmental Significance Checklist
..............................................oI o....................................................................~......".."......................................."'...._...................................................................
'1 Irt) W
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
SigDificant SlgDificant Significant ' Impact
Impact with Impact
(CEQA Mitigation (CEQA
definition only) Inéorporati definition only)
on (CEQA
only)
provider's existing comìnitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient D D D X
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes D 0 D X
and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
Does the project have the potential to degrade the D D X 0
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self~
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict,
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 X 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considemble? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other
cunent projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 X
that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
'.
..................."""_.......................~-............................................._".....,,"'............................................."'.._......"''''.''''............."''1'..............................._...................""..
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
64
12..CYQ ~ ~
Aþpendix B: Resources Evaluated Relative
to the Requirements of Section 4 (f)
Regulatory Setting
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law
at 49 U.S.C. 303, declares that "it is the policy of the United States Government that
special· effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and
public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites,"
Section 4(f) specifies that the Secretary [of Transportation] may approve a
transportation program or project. . . requiring the use of publicly owned land of a.
public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, St~te, or
local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance
(as detennined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the
park, area, refuge, or site) only if: 1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to
using that land; and 2)the program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize hann to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic
site resulting :&om the use.
Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of the Interior and, as
appropriate, the involved offices of the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and
Urban Development in developing transportation projects and programs which use
lands protected by Section 4(f). Ifhistoric sites are involved, then coordination with
the State Historic Preservation Officer is also needed.
Finding
Caltrans surveyed potential Section 4(f) properties within a distance of approximately
0.8-km (O.S~m.i) of Interstate 680 in the project area. For purposes of this discussion,
the term "potential Section 4 (f) property" refers to one that would be considered for
protection under Section 4(f) it were put to transportation use. Based on this survey
. and an analysis of possible project impacts, Caltrans deterrn.ined that this project
would not directly or indirectly put potential Section 4(f) properties to transportation
use. A list of potential Section 4(f) properties and an explanation of why they will
not be put to transportation use appears below. This finding will be communicated to
the public entities controlling the listed properties during the public review and
comment period for the draft environmental document.
Properties surveyed ,
The following is a list of potential Section 4(f) properties within a distance of
approximately O.8-km (O.S-mi) of the project area together with an explanation of
why they will not be put to transportation use:
......Ii............................,~t....~._.._..........._..............u....................~·..·······_..·,,····..·..........................."'............-..........."""......................................................................'";...
.~!.9!!.C?r!..~(Q......................._...__.......__........._............................."?!!:!_..............................._..:......................_................J:~..'!.b.._
Tells Ranch (near the Vargas Road interchange): This property has been detennined
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Caltrans found that the
project would have no effect on this property in accordance with the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The State Office of Historic
preservation concurs with this finding. The Section 106 analysis and finding is
considered adequate for Section 4 (t) purposes.
Bicycle Paths: Existing bicycle paths intersect the Interstate 680 right-of-way at three
locations: Mission Boulevard (northern crossing), Washington Boulevard, and
Grimmer Boulevard. These routes will be kept open during construction. There will
be no change in surface street circulation patterns after construction. Therefore the
project will not impair their recreational use.
Public Parks and Schools:
A list of public parks and schools located within the survey area appears on the
following page. This project will not impair their out..door recreational value for the
following reasons:
· There will be no land acquisition.
· Surface street circulation patterns will not chang~.
· Visual and noise impacts will be less than significant.
· The project will not cause or contribute'to any other adverse impacts on nearby
properties.
',.
ï;;;;¡;;;·6ŠÕ·Š~~;i·G7ad-;·Ñ~rlh¡;~~~d...¡:,ÕVL;~;··....····..······.....---...................................................................···..···..·......·66
.....
Section 4(t)
.....-.......................................-.................-........................................................-........................................-.................--....·..··..·....·;¡~Gb ~ t..4:.
Arroyo Agua Caliente Park
Beresford Park
Booster Park
Calle Oriente Park
Cardoza Park
Del Prado Park
Foothill High School
Grimmer Park
Higuera Adobe Park
Jame Leitch Elementary School
Joseph Weller Elementary School
Linda Vista Elementary School
Lone Tree Creek Park
Lydiksen Elementary School
Marshall Pomeroy Elementary School
Meadowlark Park
Milpitas High School
Mission Valley Elementary School
Muirwood Community Park
Oakhill Park
Plomosa Park
Sandlewood Park
Suonyhills Park
Thomas Russel Middle School
Val Vista Park
Valley Trails Park
Walter Reuther Park
Wann Springs Park
Grimmer Blvd @Paseo Padre Pkwy
Paseo Refugo @ Santa Rita
Gable Drive @ Hoyt St
Calle Oriente @ Park Victoria Dr
N. Park Victoria Dr.@ Calavaras Blvd.
Hansen Drive @ Calle De La Mesa
West Las Positas @ Foothill Rd
Deleware St east of Fremont
Higuera Rd @ GallndoDr.
East Warren Ave. @ Fernald St.
Vegas Ave. @ Boulder Sl
Benbo Drive @ Bruce Drive
Starllte Way @ Turquoise
Highland Oaks Drive @ Driftwood Way
Escueua Pkwy @ Washington Dr.
Regency Dr. near 1-680
Escueua Pkwy @ Washington Dr.
Chadbourne Dr. @ Lockwood
Muirwood Drive @ Muirwood Court
Muirwood Drive @ W. Las Positas
Scott Creek Road & Plomosa
Escuela Parkway @ Curtner Dr.
Escuela Parkway @ Washington Dr.
Escueua Pkwy @ Washington Dr.
Payne Drive @ Denker
Valley Trails Drive @ Lassen Street
Jaklin Rd. @ Hillview Dr.
Fernald St. @ Hackamore St.
- i~;;~;·68ö·š~~~ïG;;··Ñ~-;;,b;~~;¡Hõv·i.;~;....·....··..........····......................................................................................···..'67·
Appendix C: Title VI Policy Statement
Î [; tJt ~t.f
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
1120 N STUBT
P. O. BOX 942813
SACRAMENTO. CA942134101 '
PHON! (9\6) 6$4·52&7
FAX (91/;) 6~
.
July 26. 2000
TITLE VI
POLICY STATEMENT
The California State Department of Transportation under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and related statutes, ensures that no persOn in the State of California sbaU,
on the grounds of race, color, sex and national origin be excluded ftom participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity it administers.
h 1f;/Mrì44
~O~LES
DirectOr
Title VI Evaluation
Overview
Federal and state law and regulations require consideration of the impacts of various
government programs on low income and minority populations. These are
summarized below. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) identified concentrations oflow income and minority populations called
còmmunities of concern and detennined and detennined the Plan's impact on them to
be generally positive. Caltrans analyzed the impact of this project on adjacent
communities of concern and has made the following determination:
"No minority or low~income populations have been identified that would be
adversely effected by the proposed project as specifically required by E.G. 12898
regarding enviroÌm1ental justice."
Laws and regulations:
California Government Code Section 65049.12 (c) defines environmental justice as"
the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the
development, adoption, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and
. ,. .
¡................~.............~..................................fo..............fo...........................,...........!............,...................._.................,..1'.........................................fo..............t.~
1Lo Ob~J.
policies." The Governor's Office ofPlaD11ÌIÍ.g and Research coordinates state
environmental justice efforts.
Federal Executive Order (EO) 12898, entitled "Federal ActiotlS to Address .
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations", was signed by
President Clinton on February 11, 1994. The EO requires each federal agency to take
appropriate steps to identify and avoid any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects ofFedera1 progr8;II1S' policies, and activities on
minority and low-income populations.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) bars discrimination based on race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap in conjunction with any Federal-
aid activity.
Environmental justice expands the concept of inclusion embodied in Title VI by
adding low-income populations to the list of those requiring special consideration.
There are three areas of concern: non-discrimination in hiring and contracting,
participation in project decision·making, and increased attention to environmental and
human health conditions in minority and 10wRincome communities.
Analytical framework:
This analysis uses the analytical framework developed by MTC during preparation of
the 2001 RTP. To evaluate the impact of the RTP on low income or minority
families, MTC identified geographic areas, called communities of concern, which
contain relatively high concentrations of these groups. Data was compiled and
analyzed by travel analysis zone. Acommunity of concern is defined as one or more
contiguous 1ravel analysis zones with a minority population of 70% or more aÏ1Cl/or
where at least 30% of households have incomes at or below 200% of the poverty
level based on the 1990 census. Of a total öf 1099 travel analysis zones, 333 were
considered to have a meaningfully greater concentration oflow income or minority
families. These zones are located in 42 clusters called communities of concern,
wbich range in size trom one to 36 zones. (MTC 2002, page 3-5) 2
Relating this analysis to the local project impact area, the travel analysis zones
adjacent to Interstate 680 within the City ofMiliptas and at the base of the Sunol
2 MTC used 1990 census data to determine poverty level concentrations because Income data from the 2000 ,
census was not avallable.at the time of the analysis. Also, at 200% of poverty level, MTC's income threshold Is twice
that contained In U.S. DOT EJ guidelines, which use 100% of the poverty level published by the U.S. of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), (FHWA 1998) The higher MTC threshold was used to reflect the relatively high cost of
living In the· Bay Area. Current and past poverty guidelines amounts for a family of 4 are as follows: year 2002 ::
$18,100,2000:: $17,050, and 1990:: $12,700. The MTC definition produces more low-income communities of
concern than the U.S. DOT deflnltion. For example a family of four with an Income of $25,400 In 1990 would be
classified as low Income.
..~.,,",,,.........................._.....................,........,..-....-.....................,...............................................;....................................................."............."...................
Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound HOV Lane
70
~.......................,............_.................................................._.............................................................................................,.................::!.J..~~
grade in the City of Fremont qualify as communities ofconcembased on the minority
population criteria
¡
~
:~'
,
1i
,
.,
.¡
J
Caltrans evaluated this project with respect to the three areas of concern noted above:
hiring and contracting, project decision-making, and community impact. The
conclusion is that this project will not have an adverse impact on minority or low-
income populations. With respect to the first area of concern., hiring and contracting,
this conclusion is based on the fact that standard C~trans hiring and contracting
practices will be used. These provide adequate opportunities for participation by low
income and minority groups. The basis for the no impact finding in the other two
areas is further discussed below.
.~
·i
:~~
I
\1
.~
"(I.,
:,':
f{
<
.'!(
Community involvement in project decision-making:
The environmental justice community was directly involved in the planning process
leading to selection of this project for inclusion in the 2001 RTP. In preparing the
RTP 1 MTC convened an Environmental Justice Advisory Group (EJAO) to review
the plan and advise on relevant issues. Community outreach conducted by MTC
during preparation of the RTPplus community meetings held by Caltransduring the
design phase of this project provide adequate opportunities for low income and
minority groups to participate in the decision making process.
Project impacts on communities of concern:
In conjunction withEJAG,MTC conducted an equity analysis of the RTP to measure
its impact on low income and minority communities 3. The analysis compared transit
and auto accessibility by community in 1998 and 2025, assuming full RTP
implementation. The analysis found that low income and minority communities
receive the same or better treatment as other communities. The reasons for this
finding, which also apply to this project, are as follows (MTC 2001, page 1-5):
:t
j
.,j
\1
I
.,~
~
·:t~
. Low income and minority communities are primarily located in our region's older .
urban core, which is already better served by the existing highway and transit
system than newer outlying areas.
. Because the R TP places a priority on maintaining the existing system rather than
expanding it, areas that are already served will receive a proportionately greater
benefit.
3 The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan; Equity Analysis and Environmental Justice Report.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, September 2001. .
-¡;;;;;¡;;i;..68ÕS~~-;;ïG;.;;;;~..Ñ~;¡¡;t;;;;~dï:¡õ\ïi.~;;;..............·............·.....-··....·..·..··.....··....·...·..·........·...........-.....·....·......·--....7:;·
~otJ t.4'
· The R TP invests a significantly higher proportion of resources in transit than its
share of the market. Transit users, therefore, will enjoy a proportionately greater
benefit.
Another important aspect of community impact assessment, which is not addressed in
the MTC analysis, is the impact(s) of physical project changes onthe surrounding
environment. 'This issue is addressed in the environmental review process for
individual projects, which includes analysis of possible project impacts in a variety of
social equity related areas, such as community facilities and services, visual
resoUrces, noise, cultural reS01,.11'ces, land use, and others. Based on this· analysis
Caltrans detennined that this·project will not adversely impact nearby low income
and minority cómmunities for the following reasons:
Af
\'i~,
,f~::
I'·
, ;:r
:;~:;'
s·
· Although temporary easements will be used to gain access to adjacent properties
during construction, the-completed project will be almost entirely contained within
the existing right-of-way. The single exception is a small pennanent encroachment
on land controlled by the San Francisco Water District.
· There will be no temporary or permanent displacement of existing homes or
businesses.
· Existing community facilities and services will not be altered
· Environmental safeguards incorporated into the proj ect will reduce external
project impacts, such as noise, to insignificant levels.
· The project will directly benefit carpool and transit travelers within the Sunol
Gateway corridor, which includes MTC identified communities of conceni in the
Cities of Milpitas and Fremont.
........................................-.................................................................................................................-................-............,........................................
Interstate 6BOSunørGrade 'i()rthÞo~nd HOV Lane
72
. Ii
i
-¡'9ë5b $y.
..f?!:.~P.~~:'..!..!:!.~P..~.~~~.!:!.9!~.~!...................................................................................................................................................................................
------."..--..-.---.
___ - - _.. _____ u__....__.__. ___.. .__ . __.__._..__.._.._..'u__.____....." ..._.____
.---. ----.-.-.-
~,
~;..;..-:.-;
1-680 NB HOV Pro.iect Location (Alameda & Santa Clara County)
Oct 2003
-----...---.'.--.----.-."'...,- .. -..-------...---.-.
.---- .----.----.----- .,,"
~
-"=,,,,,--..~,-- ~~
...-.,""".... I3iTiI .
-"~J-
~~_.
Alameda Co.
Figure 1: Project Location Map
..................................................................................................................................................................
2
Interstate 680 '
-.--.---.-
'.
~~~y
W.E
S
...."
/
r~~'
..,;,'
".,,J'
A.i'~aShowl\ ¡
~~p
li_^_,~;ron
M I .1L';: .~I\I;I
ATrACHMENT
2.
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
10.52 S. LivcnTJore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94~;'i().4899
Ph: (92.5) 96().400Ci
FL", (925) 960-40~8
TOD (92.5) 960-4104
MAYOR t COUNCIL
Ph 960-4010 . F..,,: !l6Q-402;'i
CITY MANAGJl:R
Ph: 960-4040 . F"--": 960-4045
CITY ATTORNEY
Ph: 960-41~0. Fa,,: 960-4180
RJSK MANAGEMENT
Ph: 960-4170 . Fa,.: 960-4180
CITY CLERK
Ph: 960-4200 . F..", 96().420;'i
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Ph: 960-4400 . F L": 960..4459
Buildin, Di,;.ion
Ph: 960-4410 . Fa,,: 960..44 1 9
En,inurin, DiVÎlion
Ph: 960-4.500 . Fax: 9(¡().4.505
Houlin, Di,;non
Ph: 960-4580 . Fax: 960-4149
Púmni", D¡'ujo"
Ph: 96Q.4450 . F.x: 960-4459
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Ph: 960-4140 . Fax: 960-4149
nNANCJl:DEPARTMENT
Ph: 960-4~00 . Fa,.: 960-4309
FIREDEPARTMJl:NT
4.5.50 Ea'l Avenue
Ph: 454-2361 . FIX: 454.2~67
UBRARV
1000 5, Livermore Avenue
Ph: 373.5500 . FIX; 373-.5.503
PERSONNEL
Ph: 960-4100 . Fa": 960-41.05
POUCEDEPARTMENT
1110 5, Livermore Avenue
Ph: 371.4900 . Fa,,; 371-4950
TDD 371-4982
PUBUC SERVJCES
3.500 Robertson ParI; Rd-
Ph: 960-8000 . FIX: 960.800.5
Airpørt Divisi""
636 Te.minal Cirel.
Ph: 373-5280 . FIX: 373.5042
Gølf Cowne Di....ion
909 Clubbo..." Drive
Ph: 373-5239 . F..,,: 373-.5203
Ji "inllnanee Di.;non
3500 Robertson Par\¡ ad
Ph: 960-8020 . F..,,: 960·8025
W4l"r R_rca Di,'uion
101 W. Jock London Blvd
Ph: 960-8'00 . Fax: 96Q.8J05
CITY OF LIVERMORE
ßD tJb c¿ if
·'Wine
Country
Since
1849"
September 1, 2004
Susan Chang, Deputy Director,
Environmental Planning and Engineering
Department of Transportation, District 4
Office of Environmental Planning, Mail Station 6
111 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612
Attention: Robert Gross, Chief
Office of Environmental Analysis
Subject: Comments Regarding the Interstate 680 High Occupancy Vehicle &
Auxiliary Lanes, Sunol Grade Northbound Initial Study with Proposed
Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment
The Cities of Dublin, Livennore and Pleasanton are requesting a 45-day extension
to the comment period on the environmental document for the 1-680 northbound
HOV Lane. The reason for-the request is that staff has not yet received supporting
documentation from Caltrans necessary for us to complete our review of the
project's impacts. The existing document does not address downstream impacts on
1-580, State Route 84, and on local parallel arterials. If an analysis which
characterizes downstream impacts has not yet been perfonned, time is needed for
Caltrans to conduct these studies and then the infonnation needs to be reviewed by
imp~cted agencies.
The time extension would allow our three cities to meet and discuss our concerns
and issues with Caltrans and then to provide a coordinated response. The three
cities have recently embarked upon a consensus building process for regional
traJ)sportation issues and this project represents the first opportunity for us to
implement this approach. We believe this approach will be beneficial to both
Caltrans and the Tri-Valley region. In addition, our preliminary discussions have
iDcluded staff from the Congestion Management Agency, and it is our hope to
I embark on a Tri- Valley phasing plan for transportation projects that will insure that
improvem~ts are constructed 'ftom downstream areas, up. This project and it:;
relative timing will be part of that discussion.
ATTACHMENT
3.
'3 J C5b 't y.
Please respond to our request at your earliest opportunity, as without an extension of time,
our jurisdictions will have to submit a more critical review ofthe document by the deadline
should our request be denied. We appreciate your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
, J,..-1_ ~
lCon
City Manager, City of Livermore
~~'4'{\~~
Deborah Acosta-McKeehan
City Manager, Pleasanton
~..~~.
... ... .. ···ehardC. Ambrose
i . City Manager, City of Dublin
cc: Bijan Sartipi - District 4 Director, Caltrans
Emily Landin~Lowe - Project Manager,Ca}trans
Dennis Fay - Executive Director, ACCMA
Christine Monsen - Executive Director, ACTIA
Marc Roberts - Community Development Director, City of Livennore
Cheri Sheets - City Engineer, City of Livermore
MohammadPoumia - Transportation Manager, City of Livermore
Bob Vinn - Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Livermore
Rob Wilson - Public Works Director, City of Pleasant on
Jeff Knowles -Deputy Director' of Public Works/Transportation, City of Pleasant on
Melissa Morton - Public Works Director, City of Dublin
Ray Kuzbari - Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin
Bill Gray - President, Gray-Bowen and Company
<62.Jb ß t.f
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER. GovernQr
DEPARTMENT·OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
(510) 286-5124
(510) 286-4454 TDD
~.".
~
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
September 15, 2004
. Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager
City of Dublin
101 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 95678
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
Subject: Interstate 680 Sunol Grade Northbound High Occupancy Vehicle Lane
and Related Improvements, Environmental Document Comment Period
Extension.
In response to your September 1, 2004 three-party letter regarding the above, I
am extending the time to comment on the traffic issues identified in your letter
until October 18, 2004.
The Department will work in cooperation with you to address your concerns before
finalizing the environmental document. Please contact Emily Landin-Lowe at
510.286.5124 or byemail (EmilvLandin-Lowe(â¡dot.ca.gov) to coordinate your efforts.
. Sincerely,
t () .
Ii h?'71{,J)Gt/j/ //~
SpSAN CHANG ð
Deputy District Director, Environmental Planning and Engineering
c: Emily Landin-Lowe, Project Manager, Caltrans
Linda Barton, City Manager, City of Livermore
Deborah Acosta-McKeehan, City Manager, Pleasanton
"Caltrans improves mobility ¡;¡cross Califo;
ATTACHMENT
~.
~?dö'Î;'-f
-.. ...
pLfASANTON.
September 1, 2004
Susan Chang, Deputy Director
Environmental Planning and Engineering
Department of Transportation, District 4
Office of Environmental Planning, Mail Station 6
111 Grand Avenue '
Oakland, CA 94612
Attention: Robert Gross, Chief,
Office of Environmental Analysis
Subject:
Comments Regarding the Interstate 680 High Occupancy Vehicle & Auxiliary
Lanes, Sunol Grade Northbound Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration
Environmental Assessmçnt
Dear Ms. Chang:
On August 3, 2004 Pleasanton received a copy of the proposed environmental document for the
widening ofI-680 through the Sunol Grade. Although I recognize that this project should help reduce
congestion and delay along the 1-680 conidor in Fremont, it will result in up to 1,600 additional vehicles
per hour on Pleasanton roadways.
Pleasanton Staffhas reviewed the project's Draft Project Study Report (PSR), the Operational Analysis
Report, and the Initial Study for the Proposed Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment.
Although all of these documents appear to show that the project would result in increased traffic through
the grade, none of the documents discuss where this increased traffic goes, or how it impacts traffic
demand and delay on Route 84, 1~580, or through Pleasanton. As you know, eastbound Route 84 and I-
580, east ofI-680 currently experience LOS F conditions, with eastbound I~580 being one of the most
congested freeways in the Bay Area. Any project that generates, or otherwise allows more traffic to
access these congested roadways will only serve to extend the duration of these LOS F congestion
levels. Because congestion and delay is already so bad on these regional roadways, traffic already
diverts from the freeway onto surface streets through Pleasanton as motorists try to find alternative
routes from northbound 1-680 to destinations east of Pleasant on. The surface street routes traveled
through Pleasanton by this regional traffic impact several LOS E and F intersections, and pass by
schools, parks, and senior centers, significantly impacting safety and the quality of life in Pleasanton.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT
5.
Susan Chang
September 1,2004
Page Two
ls tf~ca1
By not discussing these potential impacts in the project documents, these reports do not identify any
corrective mitigation, mitigation funding, or the timing for constructing such mitigations relative to the
completion of the proposed project through the Sunol Grade. Congestion along the 1-680 and 1-580
corridors through the Tri~ Valley area is a major concern to all local agencies. The Tri-valley
Transportation Council (TVTC) is struggling to identify and fund transportation projects needed to
relieve existing and future congestion along these corridors. Constructing the northbound 1-680 HOV
project as currently proposed would significantly impact traffic conditions in the Tri~valley, as the
project increases traffic capacity through the Sunol Grade, which currently acts as the southern
constrained gateway into the area.
In addition to our request that the environmental documents for this project include an analysis of
downstream impacts, we also request that you consider the following project variation:
Construct the entire proposed project, except that no widening or additional lanes would be constructed
ftom the Alameda Creek Bridge north. By not widening the Alameda Creek Bridge and by having
northbound 1-680 remain only 3~lanes wide over this bridge and to the north of the bridge, all of the
congestion relieving HOV and auxiliary lanes on the south end of the project can be built, but total peak
hour freeway traffic volumes south of Route 84 would still be limited by preserving this existing 3-lane
segment. This alternative would relieve all of the significant congestion points detailed in the project
documents, while greatly reducing the project impacts in the Tri-Valley area. The northern portion of
the project could be completed once the appropriate mitigation measures are in place.
Sincerely,
~ \~~ ?~Lb
Tom Pico
Mayor
c: Pleasanton Planning Commission
City of Livennore
City of Dublin
City of San Ramon
Town ofDanville ..:
Alameda County
Contra Costa County