HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Attch 5 Exh B Final SEIR Moller Ranch - Culvert ReplacementMoller Creek Culvert
Replacement
Project
City File #PLPA 2011-0003
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2005052146
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
November 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................... 2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR............................................. 2
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters........................................................... 6
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses ............................................... 7
Responses to Comments.................................................................................. 8
Introduction
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated September 2012
was prepared for this project and distributed for public review in September and
October 2012. The project area contains approximately 229.6 acres of land located on the
east and west sides of Tassajara Road just south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County
line in the Eastern Dublin area.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the Draft SEIR, lead agencies are required to consult
with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction
by law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an
opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to
substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the SEIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a 45-day public review
period ending on October 29, 2012.
This Comments and Responses document augments the DSEIR and, together with the
DSEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for this project. This document
contains all public comments received during the public review period regarding the
DSEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated
copy of each comment Ietter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to
that comment.
The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in
the DSEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated
clarifications and modifications to the text of the DSEIR. The City has carefully
reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or
clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR text, against the recirculation standards of
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information or
clarifications/modifications in this document constitutes significant new information as
defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially more severe significant impacts
or different feasible alternatives or mitigations, therefore the City has determined that
no recirculation is required.
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated by
reference into the DSEIR document.
1) Pages 69-70: Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-1-12 (Project contribution to
impact at Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd. intersection under both near -term and long-
term cumulative conditions) is hereby deleted from the DSEIR. Supplemental
Impact TRA-1-12 is determined to be a significant and unavoidable with no feasible
mitigation. It has been determined by the Public Works Department staff that the
requirements of the original supplemental mitigation measure to remove an existing
eastbound crosswalk on the south leg of this intersection is infeasible since removal
of the crosswalk would conflict with the City's Complete Streets policy. This
intersection is near higher density housing, intensive commercial and office uses
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 2
City of Dublin November 2012
that generate significant pedestrian traffic that currently use and will use the
crosswalk in question. The intersection lies near the Eastern Dublin BART station
transit Oriented Development (TOD) area and Priority Development Area.
This change of impact status to a significant and unavoidable impact is also made on
page II-1 of the Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impact and Mitigation
Measures at the beginning of the DSEIR.
1) Page 70: Supplemental Impact TRA-2-12 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-TRA-2-12 are revised to read as follows:
Supplemental Impact TRA-2-12 (Project contribution to impact at Fallon
Rd./Haek%-& Dublin Blvd. intersection under near term conditions). The
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F
during the PM peak hour under the Near -term traffic condition and would
experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller
Ranch development. (significant szcpplentental impact and mitigation
required).
lemental Mitigation SM-TRA-2-12 (Project contribution to impact at
,.� Dublin Blvd.. Fallon Road intersection under
term conditions). The project applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at
the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. This improvement will
reduce the impact to less than significant in the Near -term Plus Project condition
by improving operations to a pre -project condition. Although the project would
worsen the delay at the already failing intersection, the improvement does not
mitigate the intersection to an acceptable LOS and therefore the project shall be
responsible for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
2) Page 117: Supplen-ientaI Impact BIO-12-2 is hereby revised as follows:
Supplemental Impact BIO-12-2 (impacts to jurisdictional waters and woodland and
riparian habitat). The current project footprint would impact 4.45 acres of
jurisdictional habitats (approximately 0.1.4 acres less than the 2007 SEIR project),
including impacts to 3.51 acres of seep and seasonal wetland, 0.68 acres of
ephemeral and intermittent drainage and 0.26 acres of perennial drainage habitats.
The current project footprint would also impact 0.50 acres of riparian habitat, a
habitat that was not analyzed in the 2007 SEIR (significant supplemental impact).
3) Page 122: Supplemental Impact BIO 7-12, impacts to red -legged frog. The last full
line of first full paragraph is revised to correct the reference to Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO_12-2a, 2b, 2c to SM-BIO-12-2.
4) Page 123: The second paragraph is hereby revised to read as follows:
"However, the EACCS considers the project site to be within core habitat for San
Joaquin kit fox (EACCS Figure D-17), and as a result have incorporated mitigation
measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. According to the
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR page 3
City of Dublin November 2012
EACCS model for kit fox core habitat, all grassland cover types and all oak
woodlands within 500 ft. of grasslands, were considered suitable foraging and
denning habitat for this species. Therefore, the loss of 165.14 ac of grasslands on the
site will be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-
12-1a, 1b and 1c -2 and -3, described above, will fulfill the EACCS mitigation
requirements for this species. In addition, the following Supplemental Mitigation
Measure, which includes avoidance and mitigation measures for San Joaquin kit
fox (and American badger) will be implemented and will mitigate impacts to San
Joaquin kit fox to less -than -significant levels according to the EACCS."
5) Page 125, the first paragraph on this page is hereby revised to read as follows:
"The EACCS requires mitigation for loss of golden eagle foraging habitat within 0.5
mi of a nest site in the Livermore Valley Mitigation Area at a ratio of 3:1. Currently,
there is an active golden eagle nest in the Northern Drainage Conservation Area,
just barely within 0.5 mi to the southeast, and 3.76 ac of potential foraging habitat on
the Project site occurs within a 0.5-mi radius of the nest. Therefore, 11.28 ac of
golden eagle foraging habitat must be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio to comply with the
EACCS. This mitigation area overlaps with the annual grassland preserved for other
impacts. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-12-la, 1b and 1c, -2 and -3, will
satisfy these mitigation requirements."
6) Page 127, the wording of SM BIO 14b is hereby revised to read as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-12-14b (Moller Creek culvert impacts
to special -status plants). The project applicant shall implement avoidance
measures outlined below to avoid any impacts and should shall mitigate any loss
of habitat. To mitigate impacts on a plant population that cannot be avoided, a
parcel where the specific plant species occurs shall be acquired through fee title
purchase, or conservation easement or similar mechanism. The mitigation plan
shall be equivalent to or better in terms of population size and vigor than the
plant population affected at the project site.
7) Page 128, the wording of on the first full paragraph is hereby revised to read as
follows:
"The following supplemental mitigation will reduce this impact to a less -than -
significant level by requiring avoidance of tree removal that contain nesting birds
and bats during the nesting season to the extent feasible near the project site. 1-f-
8) Page 129, the wording at the top of the page is hereby revised to read as follows:
"Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SN4 BIC) ,- 6 SM-Bio-12-7 will also
assist in reducing impacts to red -legged frog to a less -than -significant level."
9) Page II-2, Summary of Supplemental Impacts Table, the Net Supplemental Impact
After Mitigation for Impact SM TRA-1-12 id changed from "Less -than -Significant"
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 4
City of Dublin November 2012
to "Significant and Unavoidable" for consistency with text analysis. Jerry, the
Impact number should be changed from 1-12 to 2-12 (see DSEIR p. 70 for reference)
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 5
City of Dublin November 2012
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period
on the DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties.
Cornmenter
Date
No.
State Agencies
1.1
De artment of Transportation
10 / 24 / 12
Local Agencies
2.1
Alameda County Transportation
Commission
8/20 12
2.2
Alameda County Transportation
Commission
10 / 29 / 12
2.3
Contra Costa County Public Works
Dej2artment
10/15/12-
2.4
East Bay Regional Park District
10 / 22 / 12
2.5
Alameda County Zone 7
10 / 2b / 12
Other Comments
3.1
TJKM Transportation Consultants
10 / 5 / 12
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 6
City of Dublin November 2012
Annotated Comment Letters and Response
(Note: Comment letters are not paginated)
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 7
City of Dublin November 2012
STATE OF CALIFORI FA—RUSINESS, TRANSPORTATIQN AND HOUSIM AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 28660
OAM ND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-6053
FAX (510) 286-5559
TTY 711
October 24, 2012
Mr. Michael Porto
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Porto:
Letter 1.1
0
Flex your powerl
Be energy efficient!
ALA580815
ALA-580-17.7
SCH#2005052146
Moller Ranch Development Project/Moller Creels Culvert Replacement —Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Tharik you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
enviroxunental review .process for the Moller Ranch Development Project/Moller Creek Culvert
Replacement Project. The following comments are based on the Draft Supplemental
Enviromunerltal Impact Report.
1.1 Trip Reduction
As previously stated in Caltrans' Notice of Preparation comment letter dated August 30, 2012, we
o 6 encourage the City of Dublin to cct'the'proposed project with pedestrian and bicycle facilities
to facilitate walking and biking to nearby jobs, neighborhood services, and major- mass transit
nodes. Providing these cormections will likely reduce the number of trips generated by the project
hence; reducing impact to local and State roadways.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Yatinan Kwan, AICP of my staff
at (510) 622-1670,
Sincerely,
ERIK ALM, A1CP
District Branch Cl-def
Local Development - Intergovernmental Re-�ie,0
c: State Clearinghouse
"Callrans improves mobility across California
ALA EDA 1333 Broadway, Suites 220 & 300
Counly iransporiafion
Commission
August 20, 2012
Oakland, CA 94612
Michael A. Porto
Consulting Planner Letter 2.1
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94569
PR (5 T 0) 208-7400
www.AlarnedaCTC.org
SUBJECT: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek
Culvert Replacement Project in the City of Dublin
Dear Mr. Porto:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) being prepared by the City of Dublin for the Moller
Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project. The project site is located
on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of the Fallon Crossing property and south of the
Alameda County boundary line. The proposed project would develop up to 382 single Family
detached dwelling units and would include neighborhood park and semi-public land uses. The
project also includes replacement of an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek, west
of the Moller Ranch property.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), on behalf of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) through the powers delegated to Alameda
CTC by the joint powers agreement which created Alameda CTC, respectfully submits the
following comments:
2.1.1 • The City of Dublin adopted Resolution No.120-92 on September 28, 1992 establishing
guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use decisions consistent with the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program (CMP). if the proposed project is expected to
generate at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing conditions, the CMP Land Use
Analysis Program requires the City to conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the
Countywide Transportation Demand Model for projection years 2020 and 2035 conditions.
Please note the following paragraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling.
o The CMP was amended on March 20h, 1998 so that local jurisdictions are responsible for
conducting the model runs themselves or through a consultant. The Alameda CTC has a
Countywide model that is available for this purpose. The City of Dublin and the
Alameda CTC signed a Countywide Model Agreement on July 17, 2008. Before the
August 17, 2012
Page 2
model can be used for this project, a letter must be submitted to the Alameda CTC
requesting use of the model and describing the project. A copy of a sample letter
agreement is available upon request.
21.2 • The DSEIR should address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and
transit systems. These include MTS roadways as shown in the attached map as well as
BART and LAVTA. The MTS roads in the city of Dublin in the project study area are: 1-580,
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard (see 2011 CMP Figure 5). Potential impacts of the
project must be addressed for 2020 and 2035 conditions.
o Please note that the Alameda CTC has not adopted any policy for determining a threshold
of significance for Level of Service for the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP.
Professional judgment should be applied to detennine the significance of project impacts
(Please see chapter 6 of 2011 CMP for more information).
o For the purposes of CMP Land Use Analysis, 20001Iighway Capacity Manual is used.
2.1.3 ® The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993,
the Alameda CTC Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DSEIR project
mitigation measures:
Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for
roadways and transit;
Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate;
Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced
by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities established in the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the CMP or the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP).
The DSEIR should include a discussion on the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures
relative to these criteria. In particular, the DSEIR should detail when proposed roadway or
transit route improvements are expected to be completed, how they will be funded, and what
would be the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these projects were assumed to be
built prior to project completion.
21.4 ® Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See
2011 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for bus service
and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The DSEIR should address the
issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the Alameda CTC policies
discussed above.
2.1.5 • The DSEIR should also consider demand -related strategies that are designed to reduce the
need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of
existing facilities (see 2011 CMP, Chapter 5), The DSEIR should consider the use of TDM
measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attaining
acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage ridesharing,
flextime, transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic
trips should be considered. The Site Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the
review of the development proposal. A copy of the checklist is enclosed.
August 17, 2012
Page 3
2.1.6 • The DSEIR should consider opportunities to promote countywide bicycle and pedestrian
routes identified in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, which were
approved in October 2006. The approved Countywide Bike Plan is and Pedestrian Plan are
available at http://www.actia2022.coin/app ri res/view/58
2.1.7 • For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of
the project. If the analysis finds an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., sorutdwalls)
should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It
should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available.
2.1.8 ® Local jurisdictions are encouraged to consider a comprehensive Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Program, including environmentally clearing all access improvements
necessary to support TOD development as part of the environmental documentation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at 510.208.7405 if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
Beth Walukas
Deputy Director of Planning
Cc: file: CMP — Erivironmental Review Opinions — Responses - 2012
Attachment 2
Design Strategies Checklist
for the
Transportation Demand Management Element
of the
Alameda County CMP
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Element included in Alameda County
Congestion Management Program requires each jurisdiction to comply with the Required
Program. This requirement can be satisfied in three ways:
1) Adopting "Design Strategies for encouraging alternatives to using auto through local
development review" prepared by ABAG and the Bay Area Quality Management District;
2) Adoption of new design guidelines that meet the individual needs of the local
jurisdictions and the intent of the goals of the TDM Element or
3) Providing evidence that existing local policies and programs meet the intent of the goals
of the TDM Element.
For those jurisdictions that have chosen to satisfy this requirement by Option 2 or 3 above, the
following checklist has been prepared. In order to insure consistency and equity throughout the
County, this checklist identifies the components of a design strategy that should be included in a
local program to meet the minimum CMP conformity requirements. The required components
are highlighted in bold type and are shown at the beginning of each section. A jurisdiction must
answer YES to each of the required components to be considered consistent with the CMP. Each
jurisdiction will be asked to annually certify that it is complying with the TDM Element. Local
jurisdictions will not be asked to submit the back-up information to the CMA justifying its
response; however it should be available at the request of the public or neighboring jurisdictions.
Questions regarding optional program components are also included. You are encouraged but
not required to answer these questions.
CHECKLIST
Bicycle Facilities
Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that foster the development of countywide
bicycle program that incorporates a wide range of bicycle facilities to reduce vehicle trips and
promote bicycle use for commuting, shopping and school activities. (Note: examples of
facilities arc bike paths, lanes or racks.)
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program.
Local Responsibilities:
Ia. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or
adopted policies that include the following:
la.l Provides a system of bicycle facilities that connect residential and/or non-
residential development to other major activity centers?
Yes O No O
1 a.2 Bicycle facilities that provide access to transit?
Yes O No O
1 a.3 That provide for construction of bicycle facilities needed to fill gaps, (i.e., gap
closure), not provided through the development review process?
Yes O No O
1 a.4 That consider bicycle safety such as safe crossing of busy arterials or along bike
trails?
Yes O No O
l a.5 That provide for bicycle storage and bicycle parking for (A) multi -family
residential and/or (B) non-residential developments?
Yes O No O
1 b. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance:
Design Review:
Standard Conditions of Approval:
Capital Improvement Program:
Specific Plan:
Other:
Pedestrian Facilities
Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that reduce vehicle trips and foster walking
for commuting, shopping and school activities.
Local Responsibilities
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program.
2a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or
adopted policies that incorporate the following:
2aJ Provide reasonably direct, convenient, accessible and safe pedestrian
connections to major activity centers, transit stops or hubs parks/open space and
other pedestrian facilities?
Yes O No O
2a.2 Provide for construction of pedestrian paths needed to rill gaps, (i.e., gap
closure), not provided through the development process?
Yes O No O
2a.3 Include safety elements such as convenient crossing at arterials?
Yes O No O
2a.4 Provide for amenities such as lighting, street trees, trash receptacles that promote
walking'?
Yes O No O
2a.5 That encourage uses on the first t7oor that are pedestrian oriented, entrances that
are conveniently accessible from the sidewalk or transit stops or other strategies that
promote pedestrian activities in commercial areas?
Yes O No O
2b. flow does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance:
Design Review:
Standard Conditions of Approval:
Capital Improvement Program:
Specific Plan:
Other:
Transit
Goal: To develop and implement design strategies in cooperation with the appropriate transit
agencies that reduce vehicle trips and foster the use of transit for commuting, shopping and
school activities.
Local Responsibilities
Dote: Bold type face indicates those components that most be included the "Required Program" in order to be
found in compliance with (lie Congestion Management Program.
3a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or
adopted policies that include the following.
3a.1 Provide for the location of transit stops that minimize access time, facilitate
intermodal transfers, and promote reasonably direct, accessible, convenient and safe
connections to residential uses and major activity centers?
Yes O No O
3a.2 Provide for transit stops that have shelters or benches, trash receptacles,
street trees or other street furniture that promote transit use?
Yes O No O
3a.3 Include a process for including transit operators in development review?
Yes O No O
3a.4 Provide for directional signage for transit stations and/or stops?
Yes O No O
3a.5 Include specifications for pavement width, bus pads or pavement structure, length
of bus stops, and turning radii that accommodates bus transit?
Yes O No O
3.b How sloes your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance -
Design Review:
Standard Conditions of Approval:
Capital Improvement Program: _
Specific Plan:
Other:
Carpools and Vanpools
Goal. To develop and implement design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips
and foster carpool and vanpool use.
Local Responsibilities:
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program.
4a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted
policies that include the following:
4a.1 For publicly owned parking garages or lots, are there preferential parking spaces
and/or charges for carpools or vanpools?
Yes O No O
4a.2 That provide for convenient or preferential parking for carpools and vanpools in
non-residential developments?
Yes O No O
4.b How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance:
Design Review:
Standard Conditions of Approval:
Capital Improvement Program: _
Specific Plan:
Other:
Park and Ride
Goal: To develop design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips and provide
park and ride lots at strategic locations.
Local Responsibilities:
5a, In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted
policies that include the following:
5a.1 Promote park and ride lots that are located near freeways or major transit hubs?
Yes O No O
5a.2 A process that provides input to Callrans to insure HOV by-pass at metered
freeway ramps?
Yes O No O
5b. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance:
Design Review:
Standard Conditions of Approval:
Capital Improvement Program: _
Specific Plan:
Other:
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program.
ALAMEDA 1333 Broadway, Suites 220 & 300
Coo! 'T T11! Sion
October 29, 2012
Michael A. Porto
Consulting Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Oakland, CA 94612
Letter 2.2
PH:1510) 208-7400
www.AlamedaCTC.org
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for
the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project in
the City of Dublin
Dear Mr. Porto:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (DSEIR) released by the City of Dublin for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller
Creek Culvert Replacement Project. The project site is located on the east side of Tassajara
Road, north of the Fallon Crossing property and south of the Alameda County boundary line.
The proposed project would develop up to 382 single family detached dwelling units and would
include neighborhood park and semi-public land uses. The project also includes replacement of
an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek, west of the Moller Ranch property.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), on behalf of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) through the powers delegated to Alameda
CTC by the joint powers agreement which created Alameda CTC, submitted comments on the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project (letter dated August 20, 2012 attached). While
comments were addressed for the 2035 scenario, they were not addressed for the 2020 scenario.
It appears that the DSEIR used 2015 as the mid-term analysis year. This calls into question
whether the most up to date version of the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model was
used for the analysis for either future scenario. As a result, we respectfully submit the following
comments:
2.2,1 a The DSEIR appears to have not done a 2020 mid -year analysis of the environmental impacts
on the MTS transit, roadway and bicycle and pedestrian networks. This analysis is required
as part of the Congestion Management Plan's Land Use Analysis Program and should be
included in the Final SEIR.
2.2.2 • Please verify that the August 2012 version of the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand
Model was used to conduct the analysis and determine the impacts documented in DSEIR,
including Appendix 8.3. Reference is made to use of the countywide model in the document,
October 29, 2012
Page 2
but it does not appear that the most recent version was used. If the most recent version of
the model was not used, please contact me to discuss options for correcting this.
2.2.3 ® The environmental impacts and mitigations on the MTS transit and roadway network should
be added to Table 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DSEIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me
at 510.208.7405 if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
Beth Walukas
Deputy Director of Planning
Attachment 1: Response to the NOP dated August 20, 2012
Cc: File: CMP -- Environmental Review Opinions — Responses - 2012
`Z Contra Costa Co any Julia R. Bueren, Director
4 Deputy Directors
Public Works R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
a' Stephen Kowalewski
V e p a r t m e n. t Stephen Silveira
October IS, 2012
Michael A. Porto, Consulting Planner
City of Dublin Letter 2.3
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
Moller Ranch Development & Moller Creek Culvert
Replacement Project (PLPA 2011-00003)
Dear Mr. Porto:
We have reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) dated
September 2012 for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement
Project (PLPA 2011-00003).
The proposed development fronts Tassajara Road at the County line. Tassajara Road north
of the project site turns into Camino Tassajara Road within Contra Costa County. Camino
Tassajara Road within the County limits is a 2-lane roadway with an existing reverse curve
that straddles the County line. We have been coordinating realignment of the roadway at
the County Line with the City to improve the safety of the roadway and plan for future
traffic volumes.
After reviewing the Draft SEIR, we would like to provide the following comments on the
Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. (dated September 10,
2012):
2 3 1 1. Under the Near -Term scenario, approved/pending development projects in the
vicinity of the site were included in the model. Do these development projects
include build -out of Dougherty Valley within Contra Costa County? Build -out of
Dougherty Valley should be accounted for under the Near -Term and Long -Term
scenarios.
2.3.2 2. Future traffic volumes were forecasted using the Dublin travel forecast model. Does
this model account for future developments and traffic patterns within Contra Costa
County? The proposed development is adjacent to the County Line and any model
used should incorporate future plans within the County in order to accurately identify
project impacts.
2.3.3 3. The following roadway segments were included in the roadway segment analysis:
• Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and County Limit
a Camino Tassajara between County Limit to Highland Road
'Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL! (925) 313-2000 • FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Addressee
Date
Page 2 of 2
Where were volumes along Camino Tassajara taken for roadway segment analysis?
The County's General Plan currently plans for 6-lanes along Camino Tassajara from
the County Line to Windemere Parkway and 4-lanes north of Windemere Parkway.
This was based on findings from previous EIR's, such as the Dougherty Valley
Specific Plan, Windemere, and Gale Ranch. Based on the analysis presented,
Camino Tassajara between the County Limit and Highland Road does not identify
any need to widen the roadway to 6-lanes under the Long -Term scenario.
The following segmentation would provide more accurate analysis:
• Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and project entrance
• Tassajara Road between project entrance and County Limit
Camino Tassajara between County Limit and Windemere Parkway
• Camino Tassajara between Windemere Parkway and Highland Road
Traffic volumes from Windemere Parkway contribute significant traffic on to Camino
Tassajara. Volumes south of Windemere Parkway are significantly higher than
volumes north of Windemere Parkway and are more indicative of future volumes
along Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and the County Limit. Thus, the project
may have traffic impacts to Camino Tassajara between the County Limit and
Windemere Parkway that are not addressed in the Draft SEIR.
We look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me at
(925) 313-2016 or email me at avifl:a)pw.cccounty.us.
Sincerely,
Angela Villar
Project Engineer
Transportation Engineering
AV:xx
G:�TransEng\Projects\Cam Tass safety Imp - Windemere Pkwy to County Line\City Coordination\letter - City - 2012-10-15 - Camino Tassajara
C: Mark Lander, City of Dublin
W. Lai, Engineering Services
J. Fahy, Transportation Eng.
C. Lau, Transportation Eng.
2950 P€RALTA OAKS COURT P.O. BOX 5381 OAKLAND CAOFORNIA 94605.OM I T. 1 88B EBPARKS F.510 569 4319 TDD.510 633 0460 WWW.EBPARKS.ORG
October 22, 2012 Letter 2.4
Michael A. Porto
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject; Comments on Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR
Dear Mr. Porto,
2.4 Thank you for providing the East Bay Regional Paris District (District)
with a copy of the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Moller Ranch
Development in the City of Dublin. The District has no comments on the SEIR. Please
provide us with any future public notices and a CD of the Final SEIR.
If you have any
questions, please call me at (510) 544-2622.
Sincerely,
A A4,'
Brad Olson
Environmental Programs Manager
RECEIVED
0CTa� ?` E
DUBLIN PLANNING
a.`�
Healthy Part{.
Heafthy peop e
Board of Directors
Carol Severin John SULLer Ayn Wieskamp Whitney Dotson Doug Siden Beverly Lane
Ted Radke Robert E. Doyle
president Vice -President Treasurer Secretary Ward 4 Ward 6
Ward 7 General Manager
Ward 3 Ward 2 Ward 5 Ward I
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
100 NORTH CANYONS f ATiKWf1Y. LIVERMORE, CA �3Q5.11 � PHONE (925) 494. SOf1f1M�' •�-
Decornbar 1.3, 200d
llk Erica Fraser
Com2nunity Development SeTvices
City of Dublin Letter 2.5
100 Civic.Plaba
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Di,a ji` Supplemental..fir-t�iroririze.,ntal.Cinprrct Repa1 i far fi%e Crzcarlrtra U�clllc�ylMolZer Xtaucl r'
Prgjed ReorganizationlAnnexulion Speeifr4cPlan Anjar:dmerrt Freroning PA 03-060
Dear Ms. /maser:
2.5 Zone 7 has reviewed the refoyca.00d CBQA document in the context of Zotrc Ts mission to provide
thinking water., non potable Nvater for agriculture and irrigated turf, :Flood protection, and groundwater and
stream management within. the Livermore-Arnador galley, Our ootaments are as follows:
1.. On page 72, under Environmental Setting, the first sesntcnce states that the Project area -s located
within the ,Arroyo Las Positas watershed. The Projectmay be within the Tassajara. Creekwatembed
as opposed to the Arroyo Las Positas watershed. Ploase verify.
2. On page 74, urnder'Regulatory Framework, it states that. the Dublin Rideh Stoi rn .Drainiage Master
Plan was prepared for each developmwt project in Eastem Dublin planning area. Zone 7 requests a
copy of this storm drainage master plait and any other existing hydrolo67 and/or hydraulic studies for
this proposed project for review to determine impacts on Zone 7's regional flood control system,
We would like to understand how the drainage solution will be iruplernentod-to protect all
downstream properties from new drainage impacts (Program 9U).
Under Impacts and Mitigation Measures on'the sanne page, natural obannel improvements wherever
possn�Ote are proposed. Zone 7 requests that the City anchor the project proponent consult With :Lone 7
on any proposed cltaurnel ilrlprovernent:s, Recent findings in the developtrrertt ofZoiuc 7's Stream
Managemmmt Master Plan (SMMP) itaclicate the need for oonsideration artd analysis of the impacts bf
development to the regional flood control system and the identification of appropriate mitigations.
Therefore, during the interim period, bofore fiill implemmtalion of the regional water storage plan
contemplated by the SMMP, the Qty and/or the project proponent should consult with Zone 7 prior
-to undertaking the impaot and rrnitigation analysis. Future improvements to the flood control sysbevm
are planned, thus, it is imperative that the City and/or the project proponent provide a technical
analysis to identify Any impacts to the regional flond -control systenz that /nay ocour downstream of
proposal proj ect iii the interim period.
3, The proposed project is subject to Zone: 7's Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 Drainage Fees for the
crcafion of now impervious areas por the ACFC&WCD Ordinemoe 0-2002-24. The project proponent
will need to complete a Zone 7 8.DA. 7-1 Impervious Snrf'aces Wort sheet, submit an improvement
plan identifying and quaniifying all new proposed impervious areas, and submit a payment for tine
proposed impervious surfaces.
FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL FAX NO. :9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12:59PM P6
4. On page 78, iinder. Salt. Loading, 2nd paragritph, beginning with the 3rd santence, please modify the
remaining text in. the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs to the following:
"Thn plan ilirludcs demineralizing groundwatcl` from existing Zone 7 webs (Mocho Wells 1, 2,.3
and 4). The mitigation ;for salt loading, i.e., the demineralization facility (Mocho Growidwattr
l7erninerali7ation Plant) is fundQd partly from wader connection fees and partly from water rate
mvenues. All development within the Project area will pay for mitigation of increased salt
loading impacts through the payment of their water and sewer hook up fees and water rates. This
complies with &stern'.Dublin HUR 3.5/23.0, which ,required recycled water projects to be
coordinated with any salt mitigation requirenxen.ts of `Lone 7.
The. salt loading impact from the Project is part of a regionsl salt: management issue, which results
from the salt acoumulatimi from all the existing and proposed irrigation systems in the entire
region. As noted in the T--nvironz iental Sotting section alcove, Zone 7 is inipleme;nting a regional
damineraliration program of which individual developments within the; Project area would
participate; duough payment of fees to zone 7. Therefore, there would be no supplerr e-Wal lmpaers
with regard to the Project's contribution to regional salt: loading."
S, If wells are to be used or destroyed, a ;Cone: 7 well drilling permit and eompli:cnce with the permit
conditions are required to ensure "wellhead protection."
6. All abandonod septic systems should be completely removed to eliminate them as a potential conduit.
for the transport of Rurface contamination, should it occur.
In Addition, "Lone 7 requests that we be able: to review all plans and speri.l'iaations or. any additional
information and/or studies pertaining to proposed development. Plmso sub►nit such additional
information to me at the address shown above,
Wes appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questiisns or oorntacnls,
please feel free to contact pie at your earliest cotsvenience at 925-454-5636 or via t•-inadll at
toiin (r .zunewa1;or.etclm,
Sincerely,
\E 4
Mary'Lim
r�71
l nMrorrmental Services Program Manager
cc: Karla Neinetlt, linvirommnntal & Public .A,£Fairs Alanager, Zone 7
Jim 11.oren, Principal lJn&gnecr, Zone 7
Matt Katen, Principal Engineer, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Principal Engineer, "Lone 7
reff'Tang, .A,ssociatc Civil Engineer, Zone 7
Rece i gyred Time Oct, 26, 2012 12:38PM No, 0819
FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL
FAX NO. :9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12:58PM P3
AI.AMEDA QQIJNTY F.LQQ12 NTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DI RIQ,,2QNE. Z
100 N(_)RTH GANYON8 PARKWAY. LIVERi BORE. CA 9455i-9466 - PFRONE (925) 45A-5000
August 29, 2012
Mr. Michael. Porte, Consulting Planner Letter 2.6
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 'Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Notice of Preparation of.a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (DSEIR) for the Moller'RanCh Development & Moller Creak Culvert
Replacemenit Project
Dear Mr. Porto;
Zone 7 Water Agency -(Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced-CEQA document in the context of
Zone 71s mission to provide drinldng water, non -potable water far agriculture/irrigated turf,
flood protection, and groundwater and streatiA.managament within the .Livermore-Amador
Valley. We submitted comments on the 2006 DSMR,forthe Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch
Project, -Whieb are still applicable to the DSE1R for the Moller Ranch Development. Zone 7's
comment letter is attached for your xeferencc. We the following additional comments for your
consideration:
2.6.1 1. Please ensure that the projected water dernand associated with the development is already
accounted-Por in Dublin San Ramon Services District's 2010 Urban. Water Management
Plan.
2.6.2 2. if wells are constnrcted and/or destroyed,'a Zone 7 well drilling permit and compliance
with the permit conditions are rewired to ensure "wolihead protection."
2.6.3 3. All abandoned septio systems. should be completely removed -to eliminate them .as a
potential conduit for the transport of surface contamination, should it occur.
2.6.4 4. With regards'to salt loading issues, Zone Ts comm.enis 1h the 2006 DSEIR for the
Casainira Valley/MollerRaach Project still apply. Zone 7 requests continued support
from the City on Zone Ts regional detnincralization-program that may include a new
groundwator demineralization plant.
2.6.5 5. on page 10 - Moller Ranch Requested Land Use Approvals, under Development
Agreement, any D evelopment. Agreement proposed. between the Dcvdloper and the City
of Dublin, needs to be roviewed I y.Zone 7 prior ib implementation to ensure
responsibilities associated with the Development Impact Pees are properly addressed.
Received Time Oct. 26. 2012 12:38PM No, 0819
FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL FAX NO. '9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12:56PM P4
Mr, Michael Porto
City -of Dublin
August: 29., 2012
Page 2 of
2.6.6 6. `0-n page 57, iRe docum.011t inentions th,, 'id i- ltlrely drat. portions of tba piq t. lie wit1lin.
100-year flood bazard area of'Moller.0reek, yet there is no mention that, any study is
inoposed to vei ify the potential impact, The doexinient should state that the hydrology
and Witter Q)vabfy'Report prepared by.l; C--tEG1.h,a.,s detertninedthat the project does .not
liry wishin a..l 00-year flood hazard area,
2.6.7 7, Zone 7 .r-equests that. the Developer or tho City provide a copy o�'`the l fydrelogy axle].
Water Quality Report prepared "by ENG;I O :Cor Zoiae- Ts review-
2.6.8 a. On page 58, iteca c indicates that: there is no new ianpact to the stroambed course.
1.,1oj�te,ver, it: is not clear wlnAber previous CEQ.A dooLunerits ad -dressed the ronstredit?
-of a.lvger udlvexl •along; Moller O'eek and what the impact o:Crealigping MEiller Cr&S,
nitly be. %ttrthennore, the NUI' Mates that tinE: pretjcet;to remove an,rl xeplace an exisfiiig
50 y.�mr uld Tussajara RckW zalvc E is a separate and distinct prefject :from the Moller
Ranch Developmeat:. Therefore, the "no,. iewimp-act" to tlic stmainbed court-0 does no:
appoar to be, appropriate Les it is not: supported by Any c:rivironniental analysis.
2.6.9 9, un page 59, item f h1dioates tUat: degradation ofwatOr clutilit'y is a potentially significant
impart t. The statement is •invanai.ntent. wi.6. what was idelitifiod in the cheekligt on page
29, his,paragraph.or the dhecklist shoa]4 clarif{ r whether there is no :new impactor not,
We appreciate, tfic; opportu.vity to carament can. tixis NOF. idle lK�ok forward.to 7-eviewi)ig the
DSEIR,and providing comments in consideration of any bnpa::ts to Zone Tfaeilitics. Tfyou have
any.cluestions, please. ff el flee tct contact nw. at (925) 454-5036 :or via'ennail .at
mlim@zoue7lmeater e:CDm.
Sincerely,
lvlcuy Lim
lnt:egrated. PlAnning
Enclosure
Co. Cans] dvlaharicy, Matt Katon, Foe Seto} Brad Ledesma, Jeff Tang
Received Time Qct.26. 2012 12:38PM No.0819
aWROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL. FAX NO. :9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 1257PM P1
I
M
COUNTY FLOOD OL AND WAT RVA MR DTSTR 9J, ZONE 7
' t 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY • UVERMORE, CA 94551 - PHONE (925) 454-5000 • FAX (925) 4.54-5727
[Sout Via Fax: (925) 933-6628 ]
October 26, 2012
Mr. Micbael Porto, Consulting Planner Letter 2.7
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94168
Subject: :Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSPUR) for the Moiler
Ranch Development &- Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project
Dear Mr. Porto:
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of
Gone 7's mission to provide drirt sing water, non;-potablo water for agriculture/irrigated turf,
flood protection, mid groundwater and stream manageziae-at within the Livermore-Arnador
Valley.
We, submitted comments on the 2006 DSEIR for the Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Project,
which are still applicable to the DSEIR for the Moller Ranch Development. We also supplied
comments earlier this year on the Notice of Preparation of the DSEIR for the Moller Ranch
project; these comments still apply. Both lettea-s are attached for your reference.
We recognize that this current comment period is specifically meant for the three topics in the
DSEIR - Transportation, Biological Resources, and Air Quality sections. However., we are
compelled to offer Comments on other notable issues within onr area of expertise.
2.7.1 1. On p. 1-2, an arched culvert of 230' length and 26' span is proposed; however, Exhibit
3.6 shows the Preliminary Design of Culven Replacement as being a 12'x 12' box
culvert.
2.7.2 2. Since the Culvert Replacement project is new to the .Moller Ranch project, and it does not
appear to have been addressed previously in the 1993 Eastern Dublin E1R or the 2007
Received Time Oct, 26. 2012 12:38PM No.0819
FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL FAX NO. :5254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12:58PM P2
Mr. Michael Porto
City of Dublin
October 26, 2012
Paget oft
Casamira 'Valloy S1 1R, it seems that one of the areas of environmental concern under
Section 1.3 — Sulnrnary of Environmental Issues onp.1.2, should. be Hydrology and
Water Quality and address how the realignment of Moller Creek will be impacted.
2.7.3 3. Please review all comments in our letter dated A.ugnst'29, 2012 (attached). In particular,
it appears that our August 29, 2012 comment still stands, as potential Hydrology and
Water Quality impacts due to the Culvert Replacement, are not addressed in the Draft'
Supplemental MR or in any response to our letter.
2.7.44. Consider incorporating opportunities to protect, preserve or improve the riparian habitat
along Moller Creek. Environmental regulatory agencies are looking at the Alameda
Creek watershed as an area with potential for the recovery of steelhead salmon. fictions
in the upper watenshed areas can have beneficial ecological effects downstream, such aq
cooling of'surface water temperatures, improved water duality, and added food
productivity. Zone 7 is following the National Marine Fisheries Service's preparation of
the Recovery Plan for Central California. Coast Steelhead, and currently serves as Chair
of the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup. Should you be interested, we
are available to suggest resources to help Dublin identify riparian habitat projects or
goals.
We appreciate the opportunity to continent on this DSEIR. If you have any questions, please feel
'free to contact me at (925) 454-5005 or via email. at crank@zone7watencom.
Sincerely,
(E��
Elke Rank.
Associate Water Resources Planner
Enclosure
Cc: Jill Duerig, Carol Mahoney, Matt paten, Toy: Seto, .ieff Tang, Brad Lodesma
Received Time Oct, 26. 2012 12.38PM No. 4819
`dfsiocsTirsc P°'kr:�sYovr Cornme�nity
Transportation
Consultants October 15, 2012
Mr. Andy Byde Letter 3.1:
Braddock and Logan Homes
4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle
j Suite 201
I Danville, CA 94526
i
I
Via e-mail only: abyde@braddockandlogan.com
i
Subject: Peer Review of the Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study (City of Dublin)
i
i
Dear Mr. Byde:
TJKM Transportation Consultants is pleased to provide you with our peer review of the subject
traffic impact study conducted for the Moller Ranch Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR). The purpose of this letter report is to provide a summary of review comments concerning
various conclusions of the subject traffic study final report prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates (KHA) on August 27, 2012, including traffic level of service (LOS) results and proposed
I traffic -related mitigations. TJKM offers the following comments concerning individual mitigation
measures (MM) proposed in the KHA traffic study.
MM 2: An impact was found at the 1-580 Eastbound freeway segment between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road during the p.m. peak hour under Existing plus Project Conditions. This conclusion
1 was based on an Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) operational
threshold of LOS E. While ACCMA does not have development traffic -specific LOS thresholds,
the KHA study interpreted this threshold to mean that any project traffic, even one trip, added to
I a freeway segment already operating below LOS E (i.e. LOS F) would constitute a significant
impact. The Moller Ranch Development is expected to add just 16 trips to this segment, for a total
i of 2,325 p.m. peak hour trips under Existing plus Project Conditions. Project traffic therefore
would represent only 0.7 percent of total traffic on this segment.
3875 Hoppard Road
Suite 200 i
Pleasanton. CA Previous TJKM traffic impact studies approved by City of Dublin staff, including the Arroyo Vista
94588.8526 ! Housing and Grafton Plaza developments, have established a less stringent development -related
925,463,0611 i
925.4633690f3x ? LOS threshold. This threshold states that if a freeway segment operates unacceptably (i.e. LOS F)
under a baseline condition without a proposed development, the impacts of the proposed
S16 W. Shaw Avenue j development are considered significant if the contribution of project traffic is a two (2) percent
Suite Zoo increase over total traffic without the project. Given that the project would add 16 trips to an
Fresno, CA p I p 1 p
93704-2515 existing baseline of 2,309 p.m. peak hour vehicles, or a 0.7 percent increase, this additional traffic
559.325.7530
559.221.4940 fax would therefore not constitute a significant impact under this two percent threshold.
S,acr,aweoit '
980NinthStrcet Similarly, under the two percent threshold, identified Existing plus Project condition impacts for I-
160Floor 1 580 Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road and from Fallon Road to Airway
Sacramento, CA g l Y
95814.2736 Boulevard (both Existing a.m. peak hour) would also not be considered significant impacts. For the
916.449.9095 Hacienda to Tassajara segment, 12 project trips are added to a baseline of 1,995 vehicles (0.6
}331t, ass, percent increase), while for the Fallon to Airway segment, 2 project trips are added to a baseline
I400 N. Dmton Avenue
Suite 21 of 2,137 vehicles (0.09 percent increase). Therefore, there is no significant impact for either of
Santa Rosa, CA , .9643 these freeway segments during the a.m. peak hour under Existing plus Project Conditions.
95401
707.575.5800
707.575.5886 fax MM S. An impact was found at the Tassajara Road 1 Fallon Road intersection under Near Term
plus Project Conditions, with a proposed mitigation of a second eastbound left turn (from
.+xN lEE ii, Com
3.1.1
3.1.2
iv1r. Ar.�9Y �y�e
�LEUt3l' r, i0f
' Puge 2
eastbound Tassajara to northbound Tassajara) to address increased eastbound left turn queues
expected due to added Moller Ranch project trips. A closer look at existing intersection field
conditions reveals that there would be insufficient right-of-way to accommodate widening the
eastbound approach for an additional left turn lane. To accommodate additional left turn queues,
TJKM recommends that the eastbound through lane be reconfigured as a shared left turn -through
lane. This would require restriping the eastbound approach and modifying the existing traffic signal
to allow split phase operation for the eastbound and westbound approaches. This is expected to
mitigate queuing impacts on the eastbound approach from added project left turns while still
allowing adequate green time for the remaining approaches. TJKM recommends that the project
applicant fund this proposed intersection restriping and signal phasing modification.
MM 6: An impact was found under Near Term plus Project Conditions for the Tassajara Road 3. .3
segment from Fallon Road to the Contra Costa County Line based on an average daily traffic
(ADT) threshold. In TJKM's experience in the Bay Area, General Plan ADT thresholds are typically
used as a general guide in sizing future roadways, but since they are planning -based they are not
typically used as operational impact thresholds. The City has accepted recent TJKM traffic studies
that use a.m. and p.m. peak hour volume -to -capacity (VIC) quantitative metrics consistent with
Alameda County CMA and Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) arterial LOS analysis
procedures. TJKM notes that the KHA study has already conducted a peak hour LOS operational
analysis for this MTS roadway segment. The study reported an acceptable LOS A for both peak
hours under Near Term plus Project Conditions (Table 22), indicating that no mitigations are
necessary. On this MTS peak hour analysis basis, TJKM concludes that no mitigation is needed
under this scenario.
MM 7: An impact was found at the 1-580 Eastbound freeway segment between 1-680 and 3.1.4
Dougherty Road during the p.m. peak hour under Near Term plus Project Conditions. This
conclusion was based on a threshold in which any trips being added to a freeway segment already
operating at LOS F would be considered a significant impact. The Moller Ranch Development is
expected to add 16 trips to this segment, for a total of 2,435 p.m. peak hour trips under Near
Term plus Project Conditions.
Based on the previously identified TJKM threshold of a two percent traffic increase on freeway
segments already operating deficiently under a baseline condition, this segment would not be
considered to have a significant impact given that the project would add 16 trips to a Near Term
baseline of 2,419 p.m. peak hour vehicles (0.66 percent increase).
Under the two percent threshold, similarly identified Near Term plus Project Conditions impacts
for 1-580 Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road and from Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard (both Existing a.m. peak hour) would also not be considered significant impacts.
For the Hacienda to Tassajara segment, 12 project trips are added to a baseline of 2,097 vehicles
(0.57 percent increase), while for the Fallon to Airway segment, 2 project trips are added to a
baseline of 2,219 vehicles (0.09 percent increase).
MM 12: The proposed mitigation for the Long Term plus Project impact determined at the 3.1.5
Tassajara Road 1 1-580 WB Ramps intersection is traffic signal retiming. In TJKM's Dublin traffic
study experience, this is not a typical mitigation for an analysis year that is more than 20 years out
from existing conditions. The KHA study used non -optimized signal timing under 2035 baseline
conditions, which may not be a reasonable assumption. TJKM has typically assumed optimized
signal splits for long term analysis years given that most cities like Dublin periodically retime their
signals according to traffic levels in the interim. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to assume
optimized timings at this intersection in the 2035 baseline, rather than proposing signal retiming as
bIr Andy 8yde
October 15, 2012
Page 3
a mitigation. TJKM recommends instead that signal retiming be considered part of the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program should such mitigation become necessary in the future.
MM 14: This mitigation proposes widening Tassajara Road from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard from 3.1.6
eight to nine lanes under Long Term plus Project Conditions to address an identified impact of
exceeding Dublin General Plan thresholds for eight -lane roadways with the addition of Moller
Ranch project ADT. TJKM offers the same comments as MM 6 with regard to the inappropriate
use of roadway ADT thresholds in determining impacts and proposing mitigations. On a peak hour
traffic operations basis, proposing a fifth northbound lane as mitigation for this Tassajara Road
segment contradicts the findings of KHA's MTS roadway analysis under Long Term plus Project
Conditions, which found no significant impacts on this segment in the northbound direction
(acceptable LOS DIE for a.m./p.m. peak hours) maintained as shown in Table 31 of the KHA traffic
analysis). Based on this lack of identified peak hour arterial impacts, there is no operational
advantage to adding a northbound lane on this Tassajara Road segment. However, should such
widening become necessary in the future, TJKM recommends instead that this mitigation be
considered part of the Eastern Dublin TIF program should such mitigation become necessary in
the future.
MM 15: This mitigation measure requires the applicant to pay for coordinating traffic signals 3.1.7
between Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. This is based on the metric of
average roadway speeds. Recent TJKM traffic studies reviewed by the City of Dublin that have
included this Tassajara Road segment have used the 1985 HCM analysis method with a quantitative
metric of V/C to determine impacts.
It would be more reasonable to assume optimized signal timings along the Tassajara Road corridor
in the 2035 baseline, rather than proposing signal coordination as a mitigation, TJKM recommends
that signal coordination be considered part of the Eastern Dublin TIF program should such
mitigation become necessary in the future.
TJKM appreciates the opportunity to provide these traffic study peer review comments. If you
have any questions, please contact me at (925) 264-5034. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to
evaluate this important project traffic study in the City of Dublin.
Sincerely,
/44"v IeKtO7
Andrew R. Kluter, P.E.
Project Manager
f:1fUR1SD1CT10N0IDublln1157-225 Moller Ronch TIS Peer Review\LR 100912.docx
Letter 1.1: California Department of Transportation
• Comment 1.1: The Department encourages the City of Dublin to connect the
proposed project with pedestrian and bicycle facilities to facilitate walking and
biking to nearby jobs, neighborhood services and major mass transit nodes.
Providing these connections will likely reduce the number of trips generated by
the project, thus reducing impacts to state and local roads.
Response: This comment is acknowledged. The City notes that a combination
grade -separated and at -grade pedestrian and bicycle path would be provided
adjacent to the main project roadway. This pathway would allow residents and
visitors to access Tassajara Road to the west of the project where connections
could be made with public transit and residents could reach other services in this
portion of Eastern Dublin.
Letter 2.1: Alameda County Transportation Commission (August 20, 2012)
Comment 2.1.1: The City of Dublin adopted Resolution No. 120-92 in 1992
establishing guidelines for reviewing impacts of local land use decisions
consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). If a
proposed project is expected to generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips, the
City must conduct a traffic analysis using the Countywide Transportation Model
for projections years 2020 and 2035.
Response: Comment noted. The commenter is directed to the Responses to
Comment Letter 2.2 that summarizes the results of analyzing the project using
the Countywide Transportation Model.
• Comment 2.1.2: The traffic analysis should address all potential impacts of the
project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. This includes all of the MTS
roadway systems as well as BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts of the project
must be addressed for 2020 and 2035 conditions.
Response: This comment noted and the commenter is directed to the responses to
Letter 2.2.
• Comment 2.1.3: The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be
discussed. The commenter includes Alameda CTC criteria for evaluating the
adequacy of project mitigation measures.
Response: Comment noted. The City believes the project traffic analysis does
discuss the adequacy of proposed supplemental transportation mitigation
measures included in Chapter 4.1 of the DSEIR.
• Comment 2.1.4: Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service
must be analyzed. Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for bus
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 8
City of Dublin November 2012
service and 3.75 minute-15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The
DSEIR should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the
context of the Alameda CTC policies.
Response: Comment noted. The City believes the project traffic analysis contained
in Chapter 4.1 of the DSEIR adequately discussed potential impacts to public
transit systems serving the proposed project.
Comment 2.1.5: The DSEIR should also consider demand -related strategies to
reduce the need for new roadways in the long-term and make the most efficient
use of existing roads. The DSEIR should consider the use of TDM measures in
conjunction with roadway and transit improvements. To the extent possible,
mechanisms to encourage ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling, telecommuting
and other measures should be considered. A copy of a Site Design Checklist is
included as part of this comment.
Response: This comment is noted, however, as a residential project, the
effectiveness of proposed ridesharing, flextime and other features are not
appropriate to this project. The project would include a multi -function trails
along the main project roadway that would facilitate non -auto transit to and
from Tassajara Road, where future residents could link with regional bus
transportation and use bicycles for local trips.
• Comment 2.1.6: The DSEIR should consider opporturdties to promote
countywide bicycle and pedestrian routes identified in the Alameda Countywide
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Response: This comment is noted. The project does propose a major bicycle and
pedestrian trail along the main project road that would assist in implementing
the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The project does propose a major
bicycle and pedestrian trail along the main project road that would assist in
implementing the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan by encouraging and
facilitating alternate transportation modes.
• Comment 2.1.7: For projects adjacent to state roadways, the analysis should
include address noise impacts of the project and incorporate mitigation as a
condition of approval.
Response: The proposed Moller Ranch project is not located near any state
roadways and no conditions of approval are needed for this project.
• Comment 2.1.8: Local agencies are encouraged to provide a comprehensive
Transit Oriented Development Program, including environmental clearing of all
access improvements necessary to support TOD development as part of project
documentation.
Response: This comment is noted but does not apply to the currently proposed
Moller Ranch development project, which is not located near either BART station
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental ElR Page 9
City of Dublin November 2012
or other transit facilities. It is located in a semi -rural area along Tassajara Road at
the northerly City limits, which is not an appropriate setting for transit oriented
projects.
Letter 2.2: Alameda County Transportation Commission (October 29, 2012)
• Comment 2.2.1: The DSEIR appears not to have done a 2020 mid -year analysis of
he environmental impacts of MTS transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
networks, This analysis is required as part of the CMP's Land Use Analysis
Program and should be included in the Final Supplemental EIR.
Response: Based on this comment, the Alameda CTC staff was contacted to
receive the most recent model forecast data and complete the 2020 evaluation as
recommended by Alameda CTC. Results of the evaluation did not result in new
impacts that were not previously disclosed in the DSEIR and related traffic
study. A summary of the updated MTS roadway and freeway analyses are
attached as Attachment 1.
Comment 2.2.2: The commenter asks the City to confirm that the August 2012
version of the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model was used to conduct
the analysis and determine impacts in the DSEIR. Although the DSEIR does
reference the countywide model, this does not appear to be the most recent
version. I£ the most recent model was not used, please contact the Alameda
County CTC to discuss options for correcting this.
Response: Traffic impacts in the DSEIR were identified using traffic forecast data
from the Dublin Traffic Model and the Alameda CTC Model. As Alameda CTC
noted in their comment, the forecast data from the Alameda CTC model was not
the most recent version. Therefore, Alameda CTC staff was contacted and the
most recent model forecast data was obtained so that an updated evaluation
could be completed. Results of the evaluation did not reveal in new impacts that
were not previously disclosed in the DSEIR and related traffic study.
• Comment 2.2.3: The commenter requests that environmental impacts and
mitigation measures on the MTS roadway and transit system be added to Table
1.0, Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations.
Response: Based on the current analysis, no new impacts or mitigation measures
resulted from the updated analysis.
Letter 2.3: Contra Costa County Public Works Department
• Comment 2.3.1: The commenter states that the Contra Costa County Public
Works Department has been coordinating the realignment of Tassajara Road at
the County line with the City of Dublin to improve the safety of the roadway and
plan for future traffic volumes.
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental F1R Page 10
City of Dublin November 2012
Response: This comment is noted and no further discussion is required.
• Comment 2.3.2. The commenter notes that under the Near -Term scenario,
approved and pending projects development projects were included in the
model. Do these projects include build -out of Dougherty Valley within Contra
Costa County? Build -out of this project should be accounted for under the Near -
Term and Long-term scenarios.
Response: Because the Moller Ranch project is proposed to be constructed in
2015, full buildout of Dougherty Valley is not assumed in the near -term. There is
significant development by Shapell Homes within the Gale Ranch project that is
unlikely to be completed by 2015. Buildout of Dougherty Valley area has been
assumed in the long-term analysis for the Moller Ranch DSEIR.
Comment 2.3.3: The commenter notes that future traffic volumes were forecasted
using the Dublin forecast model. Does this model account for future
developments and traffic patterns in Contra Costa County? The proposed
development project is located adjacent to the County line and any model used
should incorporate future plans within Contra Costa County to identify project
impacts. The traffic analysis analyzed roadway segments along Tassajara Road,
Camino Tassajara. The commenter asks where were traffic volumes along
Camino Tassajara taken for the study? Based on he analysis contained in the
DSEIR, there is no need to widen Camino Tassajara between the County line and
Highland Road to six lanes, even though this improvement is included in the
Contra Costa County General Plan. the commenter notes that additional
segments should be analyzed along Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara to
provide for a more accurate analysis.
Response: Traffic impacts in the DSEIR were identified using traffic forecast data
from the Dublin Traffic Model and the Alameda CTC model. Both models
recognize future growth from Contra Costa County and attempt to account for
future gateway traffic at the county border.
The DSEIR confirms the need to widen Tassajara Road within Alameda County
where project traffic is primarily directed; however, the DSEIR should not be
used to assume that widening of the same road in Contra Costa County is not
needed. Project traffic is principally directed towards the south and the City of
Dublin and the I-580 freeway. Thus, minimal project traffic is expected to travel
to the north within Contra Costa County during the peak or off-peak periods.
Volumes are sufficiently low whereby under CCTA guidelines the intersections
or road segments would not warrant evaluation in a traffic study or DSEIR.
Contra Costa County confirmation of the need for widening Camino Tassajara
would, therefore, be based on documentation other than this DSEIR.
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 11
City of Dublin November 2012
Letter 2.4: East Bay Regional Park District
• Comment 2.4: The commenter states that the East Bay Regional Park District has
no comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Moller
Ranch project.
Response: This comment is noted and no further response is required.
Letter 2.5: Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(December 13, 2006)
Comment 2.5: The commenter provides comments on the Casamira
Valley / Moller Ranch Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Response: The SEIR referenced in this letter has been certified by the City of
Dublin. The comment period on this earlier SEIR closed in 2006 and no further
response is required.
Letter 2.6: Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(August 29, 2012)
• Comment 2.6.1: The commenter asks that the projected water demand associated
with the proposed project has already been accounted for in the Dublin San
Ramon Services District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
Response: The proposed number of dwelling units in the current proposal, 382
dwellings, is less than the maximum number of dwellings under the Casamira
Valley General Plan Amendment approved by the City of Dublin in 2007 (426
dwellings). Since the Urban Water Master Plan is based on General Plan land
use assumptions, the number of dwellings in the currently proposed project has
been accounted for in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
• Comment 2.6.2: The commenter states that if wells on the site are destroyed, a
Zone 7 well drilling permit will be required and compliance with conditions are
required to ensure wellhead protection.
Response: The this comment is noted and the City of Dublin will ensure that all
required Zone 7 permits will be obtained by the project applicant and that
conditions of permit issuance are fulfilled. -
Comment 2.6.3: All abandoned septic systems should be completely removed to
eliminate them as a potential conduit for transport of surface contamination.
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental E1R Page 12
City of Dublin November 2012
Response: This comment is noted and the City of Dublin will ensure, through the
development review process, that Zone 7 requirements dealing with abandoned
septic systems are met.
• Comment 2.6.4: The commenter requests continued support from The City of
Dublin regarding Zone Ts regional demineralization program that may include a
new groundwater demineralization plant.
Response: This comment is noted. This is a regional concern and will continue to
be considered by the City of Dublin.
• Comment 2.6.5: The commenter notes that any Development Agreement
proposed between the developer and the City of Dublin needs to be reviewed by
Zone 7 to ensure that responsibilities associated with Development Impact fees
are properly addressed.
Response: This comment is noted but does not address and environmental topic,
so no response is required.
Comment 2.6.6: The Initial Study notes that it is likely that portions of the project
site may lie within a 100-year flood hazard area of Moller Creek, yet there is no
mention that any study is proposed to verify this potential impact. The document
should state that the Hydrology and Water Quality Report prepared by ENGEO
has determined that the project site does not lie within a 100-year flood hazard
area
Response: The ENGEO report cited by the commenter does document that
proposed residential portions of the project site is outside of a I00-year flood
hazard area. Under applicable standards of the City of Dublin Municipal Code,
no residential dwellings are allowed to be constructed within a 100-year flood
hazard area.
Comment 2.6.7: Zone 7 requests that the project developer or City provide a copy
of the Hydrology and Water Quality Study prepared by ENGEO for Zone 7
review.
Response: This comment is noted and the City of Dublin staff or the project
developer will forward a copy of the ENGEO report to Zone 7.
Comment 2.6.8: The commenter asks if there is a new impact to a streambed
course, it is unclear if the present CEQA document addressed the construction of
a larger culvert along Moller Creek and what the impact would be for realigning
Moller Creek. The NOP states that the removal and replacement of the existing
culvert is a separate and distinct project from Moller Ranch and therefore, the
"no new impact" conclusion does not appear to be appropriate for the
environmental analysis.
Moiler Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 13
City of Dublin November 2012
Response: This proposed culvert replacement project was not addressed in the
2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR. The culvert replacement project was
addressed and analyzed in the current Supplemental EIR. In terms of the
conclusion reached in the Initial Study that the proposed culvert replacement
would not have a new impact, the commenter is correct. See the Corrections and
Modifications section of this document.
• Comment 2.6.9: The commenter notes that the Initial Study found that
degradation of water quality is a potentially significant impact. This statement is
inconsistent with what was defined in the checklist on page 29. The paragraph or
checklist should clarify whether there will be as new impact or not.
Response: This issue is clarified by the project applicant's requirement to comply
with Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-SD-1 contained in the 2007 Casamira
Valley Supplemental EIR. As noted in the current DSEIR, the project applicant is
required to comply with all previous supplemental mitigation measures
contained in this earlier document. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-SD-1
requires the project applicant to prepare a water quality plan consistent with the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and that this plan be
approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City
of Dublin. The current applicant has retained ENGEO to prepare a "Hydrology
and Water Quality Impact Report" dated July 10, 2012, to meet this earlier
supplemental mitigation measure. Based on the ENGEO report, the current
Moller Ranch project would not result in any new or more severe water quality
impacts than previously analyzed. As noted in the response to Comment 2.6.5,
the City will transit a copy of this report to the commenter.
Letter 2.7 : Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(October 26, 2012)
• Comment 2.7.1: The commenter notes that the proposed arched culvert would
have a length of 230 feet and a 26-foot wide span. However, Exhibit 3.6 shows
the preliminary design of the culvert replacement as being a 12-foot by 12-foot
culvert.
Response: According to the City of Dublin staff, the current design for the Moller
Creek culvert replacement would be a 12-ft. x 12-ft. culvert, 412-ft. long.
Comment 2.7.2: The commenter states that the culvert replacement project is new
to the Moller Ranch project and does not appear to have been previously
addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2007 Casamira/Moller Ranch
Supplemental EIR. It seems that that Table 1-2 should identify hydrology and
water quality as impacts and address how the Moller Creek realignment would
be impacted.
Response: The commenter is correct in that the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR did not
identify the currently proposed Moller Creek culvert replacement as a specific,
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 14
City of Dublin November 2012
discrete project. However, infrastructure projects, including those such as the
proposed culvert replacement project, were assumed to be constructed to
support the amount of urban development envisioned by the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The proposed culvert replacement project was not included or
analyzed in the 2007 Moller Ranch SEIR.
The City believes that the DSEIR discussion based on the Hydrology and Water
Quality Report prepared by ENGEO adequately analyzes any impacts to
hydrology, water quality and the potential for minor streambed alteration to
Moller Creek. As noted in the District's request for a copy of this report, see the
Response to Comment 2.6.7.
• Comment 2.7.3: The commenter notes that the comments made by the District as
part of the NOP response dated August 29, 2012 still stand as regards potential
hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed culvert
replacement. These were not addressed in the SEIR or in any previous response.
Response: Comments made by Zone 7 are addressed in Letter 2.6 of this
document.
Comment 2.7.4: The commenter requests the opportunities to protect, preserve
and protect the riparian habitat along Moller Creek be considered.
Environmental agencies are looking at the Alameda Creek watershed as an area
with potential for the recovery of steelhead salmon. Actions on the upper
watershed can have beneficial impacts on downstream areas, including surface
water temperatures, improved water duality and added food productivity. Zone
7 is following the National Marine Fisheries preparation of a Recovery Plan for
the Central California Coast Steelhead.
Response: This comment is noted. The current Moller Ranch/Moller Creek
Culvert Replacement SEIR is based on detailed biological analyses of both the
Moller Ranch proposed development and the culvert replacement. The SEIR
contains a large number of supplemental mitigation measures that are untended
to protect, preserve and improve the local habitat near the area that would be
affected by the proposed culvert replacement.
Letter 3.1: TJ'KM Transportation Consultants
Comment 3.1..1: The commenter notes that an impact was found on the I-580
Eastbound freeway segment between I-680 and Dougherty Road during the p.m.
peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions. This conclusion was based on
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) operational
threshold of significance of LOS E. The commenter notes that the ACCMA does
not have traffic -specific standards and the standard used in the DSEIR was that
even one trip added to a freeway operating at LOS E would be a significant
impact. Previous traffic studies, including the Arroyo Vista project and Grafton
Plaza developments used a less stringent, development related standard. This
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 15
City of Dublin November 2012
standard was that if a project contributed a 2% or less increase there would be a
significant impact. Similarly, if the 217o or less threshold were to be used, the
Existing Plus Project impact for I-580 Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive
to Tassajara Road and from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard would not be
considered significant impacts. Therefore, using this less stringent threshold,
there would be no significant impacts related to these freeway segments.
Response: The comment is noted. While ACCMA (now called Alameda County
Transportation Commission) does not dictate development -related traffic
standards, the application of standards is left to professional judgment. For this
Supplemental EIR, it is the City's current professional judgment to assess
supplemental impacts of the project on the state freeway system by assuming an
impact significant if any project vehicles would be added to an existing
congested freeway (LOS F) segment during a peak hour period. Therefore, no
changes are required to any supplemental mitigation measures involving
impacts to the state freeway system.
Comment 3.1.2: An impact was identified at the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road
intersection under Near term Plus Project conditions, with proposed mitigation
being construction of a second eastbound left -turn lane. A closer look at existing
field conditions reveals there is insufficient right-of-way to accommodate
recommended widening. Instead, the commenter suggests that the eastbound
through lane be reconfigured as a shared left turn -through lane. This would
require re -striping the eastbound approach and modifying the existing signal.
This suggested improvement would mitigate queuing impacts on the eastbound
approach from added left turns while still allowing sufficient green time for the
remaining approaches. The commenter suggests that the project applicant fund
this intersection re -striping and signal timing changes.
Response: The City believes that sufficient right-of-way exists to allow the
construction of a second east -bound left -turn lane as recommended in the DSEIR
and no change is required to the supplemental mitigation measure.
Comment 3.1.3: An impact was found under Near Term Plus Project Conditions
for the Tassajara Road segment from Fallon Road to the Contra Costa County
line. based on an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) threshold. The commenter notes
that ADT thresholds are typically not used as operational impact thresholds. The
City of Dublin has accepted previous studies that use an a.m. and p.m peak
volume -to -capacity quantitative metrics consistent with the Alameda County
Transportation Commission and MTS arterial LOS analysis procedures. Based on
the analysis contained in the Supplemental EIR, this roadway segment would
operate at LOS A for both peak hours under Near Term Plus Project Conditions.
Therefore Mitigation Measure 6 is not required.
Response: Based on the City's professional judgment for application of traffic
impact methodologies, the DSEIR correctly analyzed expected future impacts for
Tassajara Road from Fallon Road to the County Line and no change is required
to Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-7-12
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 16
City of Dublin November 2012
Comment 3.1.4: An impact was found at the 1-580 Eastbound Freeway segment
between 1-680 and Dougherty Road during the p.m. peak hour under the Near
Term Plus Project Conditions. This conclusion was based on a threshold in which
any new trips added to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F would be
considered a significant impact. The proposed project is expected to add 16
vehicles to this segment in the peak hour to a baseline of 2,419 peak vehicles.
This would be an increase of 0.66 percent. Based on the earlier comment, using a
two percent increase on freeway segments already operating at a deficit, this
segment would not be considered to have a significant impact.
Similarly, under the commenter's suggested two percent threshold for freeway
segments, the Near term Plus Project Condition identified for the 1-580
Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road and from Fallon
Road to Airway Boulevard (both Existing a.m. peak hour) would also not be a
significant impact. For the Hacienda to Tassajara Segment, 12 projects would be
added to a baseline of 2,097 vehicles (0.57 percent increase), while the Fallon to
Airway segment would experience 2 project trips to a baseline of 2,219 vehicles
(0.09 percent increase)
Response: The comment is noted. See response to Comment 3.1.1. No changes are
required to any supplemental mitigation measures involving impacts to the state
freeway system.
Comment 3.1.5: The proposed mitigation for the Long Term Plus Project
identified for the Tassajara Road/I-580 WB Ramps is traffic signal timing. In the
commenter's opinion, this is not a typical mitigation for an analysis year that is
more than 20 years out from existing conditions. The traffic analysis in the DSEIR
used non -optimized signal timing under 2035 conditions that may not be a
reasonable assumption. The commenter has typically assumed optimized signal
splits for long term analyses given that most cities like Dublin typically
periodically retime signals according to traffic levels in the interim. Therefore, it
would be more reasonable to assume optimized timing at this intersection in the
2035 baseline, rather than proposing signal retiming as a mitigation measure. The
commenter suggests that signal retiming be included in the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact fee program should such mitigation become necessary in the
future.
Response: The City is satisfied that the Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-
TRA-5-12 contained in the DSEIR adequately reduces the long term impact of the
proposed project to the Tassajara Road/I-580 WB Ramp by requiring signal
timing changes to the traffic signal system in this location. The supplemental
mitigation measure reflects the professional judgment of the City's traffic
engineering staff and no changes are required for this measure.
• Comment 3.1.6: Mitigation Measure 14 proposes widening Tassajara Road from
I-580 to Dublin Boulevard from eight to nine lanes under Long Term Plus Project
Conditions to address an identified impact of exceeding Dublin General Plan
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 17
City of Dublin November 2012
thresholds for eight -lane roads with the addition of project traffic. The
commenter raised the same concern as expressed in Comment 3.1.3 with regard
to use of an inappropriate use of ADT roadway thresholds in determining
impacts. On a peak hour traffic operations basis, proposing a fifth northbound as
mitigation for this Tassajara Road segments contradicts the findings of the traffic
analysis under Long Term Plus Project Conditions, which found no significant
impacts on this segment in the northbound direction.. Based on this lack of
identified peak hour arterial impacts, there is no operational advantage to
adding a northbound lane on this Tassajara Road segment. However, the
commenter recommends that if widening is required in the future, the proposed
Tassajara Road widening be included in the Eastern Dublin TIF program.
Response: The City of Dublin is satisfied that the supplemental impact was
correctly analyzed in the DSEIR and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-
9-12 will be needed to ensure that the project pays a fair share contribution to
implementing this measure. No changes are therefore required with respect to
this topic.
Comment 3.1.7: Mitigation Measure MM 15 requires the applicant to pay for
coordinating traffic signals along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to
Gleason Drive. This is based on a metric of roadways speeds. Prior studies
reviewed by the City have examined Tassajara Road segments using the 1985
HCM analysis method with a quantitative method of V / C to determine impacts.
It would be more reasonable to assume optimized signal timing along the
Tassajara Road corridor in the 2035 baseline rather than proposing signal timing
coordination as a mitigation. The commenter recommends that signal
coordination be considered as part of the Eastern Dublin TIF should this
mitigation be needed in the future.
Response: The City of Dublin is satisfied that the supplemental impact identified
by the commenter (SM-TRA-8-12) will be adequately mitigated by the
implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-8-12 that requires
future retiming of traffic signals along Tassajara Road between Fallon Road
Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive. The supplemental impact and associated
mitigation measure is based on the professional judgment of the City's traffic
division and consulting traffic engineer who prepared the traffic report used in
the preparation of DSEIR. No changes to supplemental mitigation measures
contained in the DSEIR are therefore required.
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 18
City of Dublin November 2012
Attachment
Supplemental ACTC Model Results
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 19
City of Dublin November 2012
Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 20
City of Dublin November 2012
Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Roadway Analysis
KiMeyHorn and Assac-ales. Inc. 111912012
Alameda OTC - Land Use Analysts MOILr Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Roadway Analysis
EB
}i
2670
E
A
938
0.351
D
2120
0.797
B
945
0.154
K 0,01
O
2153
0,806
< 0,01
Dougherty Road
Tassalara Road
WB
I1
2670
E
F
2761
i.OJO
F
2904
1.114
F
Y774
1,039
a 0.0f
F
3000
1.124
a 0.01
DuWn Boulevard
EB
It
1740
E
A
412
0231
F
2858
1.609
A
417
0234
0.0f
F
2870
1,81E
a 0.01
Tassalara Road
Fallon Road
WB
11
1780
E
F
2410
i-754
A
546
0.307
F
A
554
0,311
<0.01
[-580 EB Ramps
Dubin Boulevard
NB
111
3190
E
6
1553
fl.456
E
3275
0.9E6
B
1577
0.465
< 0,01
E
3357
0.990
0,024
SH
111
3390
E
6
1912
0554
B
1600
0.472
B
1933
0.670
< 0.01
B
1614
0.476
< 0.01
NB
11
1780
E
A
317
0.173
D
1581
0,888
A
301
0203
0.025
E
1730
0.972
0.084
Dubin Boulevard
Gleason Onve
SB
11
2670
E
B
1535
0,576
A
1370
0.254
O
1065
0,624
0,048
A
$00
0.303
0.049
Tassalara Read
NB
11
1780
E
A
180
0,101
C
£067
0 599
A
224
0.126
0.025
C
1219
OM5
0.085
GI€anon Drive
Fallon Road
56
!I
178Q
E
B
993
0.558
A
416
0234
C
1127
0.15 3
0.075
A
505
0284
0,050
Fallon Road
Highland Road
Na
It
1 178Q
E
A
458
0257
B
773
0.434
A
524
0294
0.037
B
496
0560
0.125
SIB
11
1 1780 f
E
A
1 310
1 0-174 1
A
1 445
0.250
A
507
0285
I 0.111
A
576
0.326
0.074
��❑ and A&= 111912012
Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Roadway Analysis
®KimleyHorn
and Associates, Inc. 111912012
Ainmoda CTC - Land Uso Ana"is Mollor Ranch Tmft impact SSudy
Road—y Ar alysin
®m❑ and andA:so-_=tx. �'K 11/92012
�
Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Freeway Analysis
Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to
determine LOS.
'Volume is measured in vehicles 1 hour 1Iane (vphpl)
®X7Mey-Horn
and Assxiales- Inc. 11/9/2012
Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis
Freeway Analysis
Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study
I Eastbound I E I D 1 1765 1 F 1 2651 1 D 1 1769 1 4 1 F 1 2665 1 14 I
Westbound I E
I D
1769
C
1484
D
1780
11
C
1491
7
1-580 - Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr
Eastbound
E
C
1163
D
1621
C 1165
2
D
1629
8
Westbound
E
D
1642
C
1380
D 1652
10
C
1387
7
1-580 - Hacienda Dr to Tassa'ara Rd
Eastbound
E
C
1075
D
1569
C
1078
3
D
1578
9
Westbound
E
D
1663
C
1436
D
1673
10
C
1442
6
1-580 - Tassa'ara Rd to Fallon Rd
Eastbound
E
C 1272
D
1744
C
1272
0
D
1744
0
Westbound
E
F 2108
E
1863
F
2108
0
E
1863
0
1-580 - Fallon Rd to Airway Blvd
Eastbound IE
C
1295
D
1643
C
1302
7
D
1647
4
Westbound I
E I
D
1 1521
1 C
1 1468
1 D
1 1523 1
2
1 C
1 1475
1 7
Note; Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are highlighted.
Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to determine LOS.
(Volume is measured in vehicles 1 hour 1 lane (vphpl)
®K&ay-ttorn
ardAssa Wes. Inc, 11/9/2012
Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Freeway Analysis
Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to
determine LOS.
'Volume is measured in vehicles I hour I lane (vphpl)
Kur�'eyNo{n
® and Associates. Inc. 111912012
Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Freeway Analysis
r
s
1-580 - 1-680 to Dougherty Rd
"2!15'
Eastbound
E
F
2115
F
2747
F
2119
4
F
Westbound
E
F
2053
D
1732
F
2064
11
D
1-580 - Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr
Eastbound
E
C
1399
D
1677
C
1401
2
D
1686
9
Westbound
E
E
1838
D
1590
E
1848
10
D
1597
7
1-580 - Hacienda Or to Tassa'ara Rd
Eastbound
E
C
1307
D
1703
C
1310
3
D
1713
10
Westbound
E
D
1783
D
1582
D
1793
10
D
1589
7
1-580 - Tassa'ara Rd to Fallon Rd
Eastbound
E
D
1504
E
1868
D
1504
0
E
1868
0
Westbound
E
F
2247
F
2018
F
2247 j
0
F
2018
0
1-580 - Fallon Rd to Airway Blvd
Eastbound
I E
D
1548
D
1758
D
1555
7
D
1763
5
Westbound I
E I
D 1
1540 1
p
1 1614 1
D
1 1543
1 3 1
D
1 1622 1
8
Note- Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are highlighted
Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to determine LOS.
'Volume is measured in vehicles 1 hour! lane (vphpl)
®and A �sociais
and tes, inc 11/9/2012