HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Attach4 Final EIR Final
Environmental Impact Report
Dublin Transit Center
City of Dublin File No. PA 00-013
SCH# 2001120395
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
September 2002
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................... 2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR ....................................... 2
Revised Project Description .................................................................. 5
Summary of DEIR Comment Letters ..................................................... 8
Summary of Re-circulated Impact Comment Letters ............................ 8
Annotated Comment Letters and .Responses: ....................................... 10
Appendix A ........................................................................................... 52
Appendix B ........................................................................................... 53
Appendix C .......................................................................................... 54
Introduction
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated July, 2001 was prepared for this
project and distributed for public review in July and August, 2001. The proposed
project involves the approval of the Dublin Transit Center by the City of Dublin as
well as related amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, a
Stage 1 PD (Planned Development) rezoning, a Tentative Parcel Map and
Development Agreement. A full description of the proposed project is contained in
the DEIR document.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, 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 Draft EIR. Lead agencies are also required to
respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR
review period,
As the lead agency for this project, the City of Dublin held a 45-day public review
period between July 6 and August 21, 2001.
Based on information uncovered in the response to comments, a new significant
and unavoidable traffic impact was discovered and the City re-circulated this new
impact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 for a second 45-day period
between July 16 and August 30, 2002. The re-circulated document is included as
Appendix A.
This document contains all public comments received during the 45-day public
review process regarding the DEIR and responses to those comments. Included
within the document is an 'annotated copy of the comment letter, identifying
specific comments, followed by a response to that comment. Comments and
responses related to the re-circulated impact are also included.
The FEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information
presented in the DEIR as well as revisions to the proposed project.
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR
The following substitute Mitigation Measures for those contained in the Draft EIR
are hereby made by reference. Responses to the Department of Fish and Game
comments contain further discussion of these modifications.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 2
City of Dublin September 2002
1) Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (Congdon's tarplant, also known as spikeweed) is
changed to read as follows:
The size of the area occupied by the tarpIant should be determined
from the field survey and notes on past on-site distribution,
measuring the entire area from which the plant has been observed.
If on-site avoidance is not possible, one of the following options
must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 acreage ratio:
a. Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement
or other similar method, equal amount of off-site acreage that
contains the plant; or
b. Harvest seeds from on-site plants to be lost or from another
source within the Livermore-Amador Valley, and seed an equal
amount of off-site area suitable for supporting the plant which
shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity.
Prior to submittal of a tentative map and/or a Site Development
Review (SDR) application, the project developer shall submit a
Mitigation and Monitoring plan to the City for its review and
approval, demonstrating how the developer will comply with this
mitigation measure, including the steps they will take to ensure
that reseeding will be successful. If Option" b" is selected and is not
successful, Option "a' shall be implemented.
2) Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (a) and (b) (Burrowing Owl) is hereby changed to
read as follows:
· Pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist shall be conducted
on the entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of the
Project area within 30 days prior to any ground disturbance. If
ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days
after the pre-construction survey, the site shall be resurveyed.
· If over-wintering birds are present (September I to January 31) no
disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows unless
the Department of Fish and Game provides a letter giving consent
to relocate wintering birds. If owls must be moved away from the
disturbance area, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG
1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over-
wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the
nesting season to reduce impacts from noise, dust, and human
disturbance to mated pairs.
· ' If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the
nesting season is infeasible and construction must occur within the
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 3
City of Dublin September 2002
breeding season, maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet)
around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified by pre-
construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss
of individuals (February I - September 1). Ail active burrows shall
be identified.
If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not
yet fledged, a 250-foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be
established or construction shall be delayed Until after the young
have fIedged, typically by August 31.
· When removal of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing
unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of
debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a
2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below.
· A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired
resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected. The
protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat
and at a location acceptable to CDFG.
· The project proponent shall prepare a management plan and
provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the
protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success
criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG.
3) The location of the 24-inch Santa Rita-Dougherty pipeline is hereby corrected by
reference On Exhibits 11 and 19 to be located along the former Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way.
4) The following Zone 7 water supply numbers are hereby updated as requested by
Zone 7 staff. On page 173 of the DEIR, Zone 7's sustainable water supply from the
State Water Project is 84,100 acre-feet per year. On page 174, Lake Del Valle has a
sustainable average yield of 9,300 acre-feet per year.
5) The subsection entitled Alameda County Congestion Management Agency on
page 145 of the DEIR is hereby changed to read as follows:
"Freeway impacts are significant if the amount of traffic is increased
substantially so as to exceed Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency (ACCMA) standards for the LOS Monitoring Program. ACCMA has
established LOS standard of E for the Congestion Management Program
(CMP) roadway network, except where F was the level of service originally
measured, in which case the standard shall be F. Although the LOS E standard
was established for the purpose of monitoring existing level of service
conditions for the Alameda County CMP Designated Roadway System, this
standard provides a standard of significance for determining potential project
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 4
City of Dublin September 2002
environmental impacts on adjacent freeway systems within Alameda
· County,
In the project study area, ACCMA has also identified 1-580, 1-680, Dublin
Boulevard, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road,
and San Ramon Road/Foothill Road as the Metropolitan Transportation
System (MTS) routes that are subject to the CMP Land Use Analysis Program
requirements. Since the City's standard is LOS D for Dublin BoUlevard,
Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road, the LOS E standard
(except where F is the level of service without Project traffic, in which case the
standard is F) is applicable only to freeways.
ACCMA Land Use Analysis Program guidelines also specify that any
proposed project generating 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions
must conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide
Transportation Model for the base years 2005 and 2020. However, the
guidelines also allow for other transportation models/projections to be used
and Year 2025 must be compared to the Countywide Transportation Model to
ensure that the more conservative of the two traffic projections are used for
CMP purposes. Discussions with ACCMA staff in November 2000 indicate
that Year 2025 analysis using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model would be
appropriate to use for the Proposed Dublin Transit Center project. Compared
to the Countywide Transportation Model, the Tri-Valley Transportation
Model represents a more specific and focused travel demand-forecasting tool
for the Tri-Valley area of Alameda County and is generally the more
conservative of the two models."
Revised Project Description
Based on discussions with City of Dublin staff, minor changes have been made to
the underlying project description since completion of the DEIR and recirculation of
one of the traffic impacts. Specifically, previously planned Campus Office uses on
Site F are proposed to be replaced with a 8.73-acre (net) neighborhood park. Campus
Office uses previously shown on Site F have been redistributed onto adjacent sites
within the project area.
Revised Table 2 shows the location and extent of development currently being
proposed in the Transit Center.
Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5,the revised project description has been
reviewed by the City of Dublin and it has been determined that the proposed change
would not result in any new, significant impact that has not already been disclosed
in the Draft Environmental Impact Report or the Re-circulated Impact.
Anticipated traffic impacts of proposed park construction have been deemed less~
than-significant by the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer (found in Appendix C) due to
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 5
City of Dublin September 2002
the large residential component within the Transit Center that would result in non-
automotive access to the proposed park (walking and bicycling). Anticipated
increases in water uses for irrigation of turf and plants would be somewhat greater
than included in the original DELR, but would still be less-than-significant, since
recycled water from Dublin San Ramon Services District would be used for this
purpose rather than fresh water.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 6
City of Dublin September 2002
Table 2. Maximum Transit Center Development Potential REVISED
Site Area Area Land Max. Max FAR Density FAR Density Retail Add'!
(gr. ac.) (net ac.) Use Sq. Ft. D.U. (gr.) (gr.) (net) (net) Sq. Ft. D.U.
A 10.92 8.29 High Density 530 49 64
Residential
B 12.00 8.10 High Density 565 47 70 10,000
Residential ~
C 8.58 5.80 High Density 405 47 70 20,000
Residential
D-1 23 3.50 2.50 Campus Office 190,000 1.25 1.74 7,500 150
D-2 17.32 12.10 Campus Office 950,000 1.26 1.80
E-1 2 6.28 4.10 Campus Office 300,000 1.10 1.68 15,000 150
E-2 11.20 7.70 Campus Office 560,000 1.15 1.67
F 12.20 8.73 Neighborhood Park
P/SP 8.65 7.93 Public/Semi-Public
Total 90.65 65.25 2,000,000 1,500 70,000 300
Notes:
1 ) Ancillary retail square footage is in addition to proposed Campus Office, Residential or Public use, and would be limited to local-serving uses in ground
floor space along Iron Home Parkway.
2) Sites D-1 and E-1 would be "flex" space and could be developed with up to 300 residential units.
3) A hotel or mixed hotel/office project is encouraged on Site D-1 that could share off-hour BART parking.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 7
City of Dublin September 2002
Summary of DEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the 45-day public
comment period on the DEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other
interested parties.
Commenter Date
Federal Agencies
1.1 Department of the Army 8/20/01
State Agencies
2.1 Cal Trans 8/20/01
2.2 Office of Planning and Research 8/20/01
2.3 Department of Fish and Game 8/20/01
Local Agencies
3.1 Alameda County Public Works 8/6/01
Agency
3.2 Alameda County Congestion 8/16/01
Management Agency
3.3 Dublin San Ramon Services District 8/20/01
3.4 East Bay Regional Parks District 8/20/01
3.5 City of Pleasanton 8/21/01
3.6 City of Livermore 8/21/01
3.7 Alameda County Flood Control & 8/21/01
Water Conservation District, Zone 7
3.8 Bay Area Rapid Transit District 8/21/01
(BART)
3.9 San Joaquin County Community 10/16/01
Development Department
Interested Agencies
4.1 Rails to Trails Conservancy 8/21/01
(1) This comment letter was received after the close of the public comment pedod, but has been
responded to since a copy of the Draft EIR was inadvertently sent late to this agency.
Summary of Re-circulated Impact Comment Letters
The following comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the 45-
day public comment period on the recirculation of the new traffic impact (Impact
4.11-7). The full text of each letter and responses to comments are provided
following DEIR comment letters.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 8
City of Dublin September 2002
Commenter Date
State Agencies
R'I.1 Office of Planning and Research 7/16/02
Local Agencies
R-2.1 Alameda Coun~d Congestion 7/30/02
Management Agency
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 9
City of Dublin September 2002
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 10
City of Dublin September 2002
A"n*§ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON
PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
BUILDING 790, 5TM STREET
DUBUN, CALIFORNIA 94568-5201
N OF
August 20, 2001
Environmental Division
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr. Letter 1.1
City of Dublin - Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Peabody,
Parks Keserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) recently received the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DE[R) for the Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13). This project has the potential
to have a negative impact on Parks RFTA.
The mitigation measure listed for helicopter noise from Parks P,_FTA states that residents
will be given advanced notification of helicopter overflights. The DE[R does not state who will
make these notifications or how they will be made. A general disclosure statement is enclosed to
assist the City of Dublin with this notification process.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Marshall Marik at (925) 803-5638.
Sincerely,
ee
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army'
Commanding Officer
A statement similar to the one below should be included in general disclosures .for
developments adjacent to the property. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.
Marshall Marik, DTC, Environmental Manager, at (925) 803-5638.
General Disclosure Statement
Significant Property Uses in the Vicinity of (name of the development).
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA).
Parks RFTA (a.k.a. Camp Parks) is an U.S. Army Reserve installation located
approximately (distance...~. from (name of the developmenO. Parks RFTA has
approximately 700 acres of administrative facilities and over 2,000 acres of open
grassland for year-round weapons and field training. Activities with the potential to
generate significant noise levels Outside of Parks RFTA include: weapons firing; artillery
simulator activation, tactical vehicle operation; field power generator operation; and low
level helicopter operations. Helicopters enter and exit from the northern and eastern
boundaries of Parks RFTA. The noise from these helicopters directly overhead at an
altitude of 500 feet will approach 90 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Historically, 35% of
populations exposed to 90 dBA are expected to be highly annoyed.
Parks RFTA periodically conducts controlled burning activities, which generate large
amounts of smoke but provide a measure of protection from catastrophic fire events.
BUyers of homes adjacent to Parks RFTA should carefully consider the impact of
~:.,~:.:.." .nuisances including, but not limited.to, noise; smoke, and dust. For more
information, contact the Parks R.FTA Public Affairs Office at (925) 803-5636.
08/20/01 17:05 FAX 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B -~ STATE CLEARINGHO [~002/002
Peabody/DEli[
August 20, 2001
Page 2
3. How do the 1-580 intersection improvements mentioned on Page 167 fit in with the 2.1.3
mitigation measures that Cisco Systems needs to address?
4. Mitigation measures at Dougherty Road/I-580 and hacienda Drive/1-580 interchanges (Page 2 .'] .4
167) involving on-ramps need to include the ramp metering system and the HOV bypass
lane.
5. Year 2025 forecast for 1-580 mainline (Table 25, Page 166) shows minimal project traffic for 2.1.5
the peak commute directions (westbound AM and eastbound PM). We recommend closer
study of this situation.
6. The site for the Dublin Transit Center is less than one mile from the 1-580/1-680 interchange. 9. ~ .6
Please discuss the impacts to 1-680.
In conclusion, we emphasize that the Dublin Transit Center DEIR shoUld not ignore the 2. 'l .7
significant impacts that will occur with project implementation, including those impacts that
occur outside of its area of jurisdiction. These would include the significant traffic impacts to
the 1-580 mainline. The California Environmental Quality Act mandates that public agencies
avoid or minimize the significant effects that the' project would have on the environment,
whenever possible. We believe that there are feasible mitigation meaSures that will lessen the 2. ~. 8
impact the project will have on State transportation facilities. The City of Dublin, as lead agency,
needs to quantify the traffic impacts identified in the DEIR, develop measures to mitigate those
impacts, and incorporate those measures into the final EIR.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call
Paul Svedersky of'my staff at (510) 622-1639.
Sincerely,
HARRY Y. YAHATA
DistricI Director
JEA_N C. R. FINNEY
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Katie Shulte Joung, State Clearinghouse
08/20/01 17:04 FAX 5102565513 TRANS PLANNING B . STATE CLEARINGHO [~001/002
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
p 0 BOX2~60
OAKLAtqD, CA 046~a-0680
~ (510) 28~4~
Au~st 20, 2001 '
~ ~ ¢ '~1 _~0~S~2000112039
~. ~e Peabody, Jr. AICP qTATF CLEARINGHOUSE' Letter 2.1
ci~ of Dub~n
' Dubl~, CA 94568
~ ~. Peabody:
~b~n T~it Onter - Ci~ of ~b]in File No. PI 00-013 - ~rgt ~nTironmena] Impact
Repo~ ~E~)
~a~ you for ~c]u~ng the C~ifo~a Dep~ent of Transpo~a~on ~ep~ent) ~ ~e ealy
sages of.~e envkonment~ review process for ~, above-referenced project. We have ex~
· e Dr~ Environmental ~pact ~e~ and ha~e ~e following come, ts to offer:
i. We are very concerned about thc additional traffic volume that this project Will add to 2.1.1
Interstate 5g0 (l-5g0). The Dublin Transit Center will add about 10% to the 1-580 peak hour
traffic volume for eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. The Draft EIR
(page 166), states that the Dublin Transit Center traffic would worsen the mainline freeway
condition and have "significant and unavoidable impact." We concur that the additional
traffic is certainly significant. We disagree, however with the continued discussion of Impact
4-11-7, which cites that "mitigation is not feasible since freeway improvement is not under
the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin." This statement is shortsighted. Regardless of who
has jurisdiction, these significant traffic impacts need to be mitigated. The Department urges
the City of Dublin to participate in the development and funding of mitigation measures.
2. Regarding mitigation of the additional traffic to 1-580, we recommend the following 2.1.2
mitigation measures to control, monitor, and improve the freeway traffic conditions:
· Providing adequate storage for ramp metering queues at the on-ramps and adjacent
medal streets at all the impacted on-ramps and interchanges for a more effective
ramp metering operation.
· Providing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) bypass lanes at the metered on-ramps and
impacted interchanges.
· Installing Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), Changeable Message Signs (CMS),
Traffic Monitoring Stations, and other Traffic Operation Systems elements.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~~~
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse '~'~'
Gray Davis Steve Nissen
DIRECTOR
GOVERNOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
DATE: July 10, 2001
TO: Eddie Peabody Jr
City of Dublin
Planning Department Letter 2.2
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Dublin Transit Center
SCH#: 2000112039
This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document
for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is:
Review Start Date: July 5, 2001
Review End Date: August 20, 2001
We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments:
California Highway Patrol. '
Caltrans, District 4
Department of Conservation
Department of Fish and Game, Region 3
Department of Health Services
Department of Parks and Recreation
Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2
Resources Agency
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
State Lands Commission
State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Program
The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your
attention on the date following the close of the review period.
Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process.
I400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-304~,
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWV~'.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
Gray Davis Steve Nissen
DIRECTOR
GOVERNOR
August 21, 2001
RECEIVED
Eddie Peabody Jr ~Ll~ 2 3 ~001
City of Dublin
planning Department DUBLIN PLANNING
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Dublin Transit Center
SCH#: 2000112039
Dear Eddie Peabody Jr:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIK to selected state agencies for review. Onthe
enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has hsted the state agencies that
reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 20, 2001, and the comments from the
responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future
correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Kesources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be camed out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the Caiffomia Enviromnental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Ag?ncy
I400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW. OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2000t 12039
Project 7-~tle Dublin Transit Center
Lead Agency Dublin, City of
Type EIR DraftEIR
Description The project would include the development of a modem "transit village" on the site to take advantage
of the BART station, a planned regional trail immediately west of the site and several nearby public .~' .
transit routes. A maximum of 2 million square feet (sO of office is proposed, many of which would be in
high dse buildings, as well as 1,500 multi-family dwellings (up to 70 du/ac) and 70,000 sf of local
serving retail uses. Parking would generally be structured parking. Uses would be sited near road
rights-of-way to increase pedestrian usage. Requested land use entitlements include an Amendment
to the Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan to include this site into the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning and Subdivisions of existing properties for purpose of
sale.
Lead Agency COntact
Name Eddie Peabody Jr
Agency City of Dublin
Phone 925 833-6610 Fax
email
Address Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
City Dublin State CA Zip 94568
Project Location
'County Alameda
City Dublin
Region
Cross Streets Southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road
Parcel No. 986-01-9, -10, -11, -12, -13
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways 1-580 & 1-680
Airports
Railways
Waterways Chabot Channel, Arroyo Mocho
Schools
Land Use The project site contains'a Bay Area Rapid System District (BART) station and associated surtace
parking lot. Other uses include mino~ utility installations. The majority of the site is vacant. Dublin
General Plan designates the site for "Public" uses. Existing zoning is "A", Agricultural.
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding;
Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks;
Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste;
Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wildlife; Growth
Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission;
California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Health Services; State Water Resources
Control Board, Clean 'Water Program; Regional Water Quality control Board, Region 2; Native
American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities dommission; State Lands Commission
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
Data Rece/ved 07/05/2001 Start of Review 07/05/2001 End of Review 08/20/2001
Not~:'Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
State of Cafifomia - The Resources Agency GRAY DAVIS, Govem~r
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AN~D :GAME
YOUN~ILLE, CALIFORNIA 945~ %D¢~&SC 2i 200i
Mr. Eddie Peabody REcEIvED
City of Dubiln
Planning Department Letter 2.3 ~UG
Post Office Box 2340
z o rn~ ~ 5 6 8 D~B~N P~ING
Dublin~ C~ii~ ~-, ~4
Via Eex ~925~
De~r Mr Peebcdv:
rzmsit Center
~r aft ~1 'I~g~ Kep~ rt
City 0~ ~med~ Co~nty
Depar%menm of FiSh .~d 'G reviewed the
~oc*~ ~ .
subject s - = ~. ThUs m~
co,mercia! use ieveio earcels.
The proposed proje~ cern Du~lln
Specific Pi~n Area,
==~4 14ev To ~he north, acre site is
in use or D~ved
The biological 2.3.1
primarily on ~ EOnes plents and
enim~ls com~letedi:.~fh~ Cemp ~one by
HT Hervey i~ NO%~}er' 2,0~0 for E
{~rotocol ieveil0 ~;.r.}%nd..'.C~!i{or}ii~ ligq~ ~nn~issance
,-.. , ~, ~=l.' ."& "~ p-¥~,'.-'~'~ -,' ',",,~'" '~';~v ~'l:is based on
stedies done 0n':lanethe{.'l~,~rc~'L,¢.:'.":,..,.{'".l ?.%-~...;:...
n~ 4¢~ ~n~ a'-, ~e~: .-s,~?;emande:E~:tO,T'$-')':*'h~?~e, .be=~'.,'~oc~en%ed on
4 ~e ~ ~"'¢=<',"<:"'.~9%./':'.:~:[; '~ ".'"' ~"=~'~''~n, ===.. i=::~:~ ::s~ O0]
amlacent to the ss.me Has been. ~'dentm~med. mn..-uNe 2000
reconnaissance level survey as sui%able".breeding habitat for CTS.
Zt is also stated that there is no sui%ab!e escivation habitat on
site due to discing of the si~e. The Department does no% agree
with this finding. Recent research conducted by Peter Trenham
for completicn of b_is doctorate requirements at U. C. Davis and
~ · _on~
~ ~ the
~ama coll~ed a~ Byron airpor~ showed that CTS move
~istar_ces ~' ~ breeding habitats and estivation sites
pe~s~e~-
Effects ef development should he considered from ~he ~ ~ ~' 4v~
_ mov~me~;u corrloors
of fragmentation of habita~ and blocking o~ -~ ~ .
Based on tnzs' ' data, the Deper~ment considers the pr~s~qec! szte'
be potential habitat ane reco~s~ends ~n~ survey measures for
Mr. Eddie Peabody
August 21, 2001
Page 2
follow established Department protocol-or presence of the species [
should be assumed. Unavoidable impacts may be mitigated through
a Mitigation Agreement acceptable to the Department to compensate
for the loss of CTS habitat.
Pre-construction surveys are proposed to be conducted to 2.3.3
mitigate for impacts to burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) . The
Department considers this proposed mitigation to be inadequate~
Surveys according to established Department protocol should be
conducted on the entire project site and within a 500-foot zone
around the project site during the nesting and non-nesting
seasons. Buffers should be established around occupied burrows
at all times of the year, not only during the breeding season.
Disturbance of burrows used by owl pairs or single birds during
the nesting or non-nesting season should be mitigated by the
completion of a Mitigation Agreement with the Department and the
acquisition and conservation of 6.5 acres of suitable owl habitat
per owl pair or single bird in a location acceptable to the
Department.
San Joaquin kit fox (Vu!pes macrotis mutica) is presumed 2.3.4
absent from the site. The Department does not concur with these
findings. The area is in' the western range of the kit fox and
suitable foraging habitat exists on the project site. In this
area, because kit foxes occur in iow numbers and the detection
rate is iow even in areas where they are known to be denning,
negative findings based on the survey methods employed are not
acceptable. Close consultation with the Department and the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be needed to assure
compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species acts.
Loss of habitat is considered a taking under these acts and will
require permits from both agencies. Currently, mitigation
standards for permanent loss of habitat require compensatory
preservation of habitat. Information on what lands are propose~
be acquired or otherwise preserved as mitigation should be
disclosed.
Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii) was 2.3.5
observed on the site. A thorough field survey, conducted
according to the Department's Rare Plant Survey Guidelines by a
qualified botanist during the appropriate months, is needed to
determine the extent of these species on the project site. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section
15380(d) states that these species be addressed as other
threatened and endangered species and adequate mitigation be
~r. Eddie Peabod~
August 21, 2001
Page 3
provided for any impacts. The Department recommends that impacts
be avoided in areas where these species occur on the project
site. Conservation areas should also include an appropriate
buffer. The Department does not approve of trans!ocation as an
acceptable mitigation measure. There is no evidence to support
that translocation is a successful technique to perpetuate
populations of these plant species and, therefore, the proposed
mitigation is viewed as experimental, and does not meet the
mitigation standards of CEQA.
if avoidance of impacts to this species is not possible, a
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should be developed that will
provide for off-site conservation of populations cf these
species. The plan should be reviewed and approved by the
Department. Surveys to be conducted at a later time, or
mitigation measures to be identified at some future time, are not
acceptable. It has been determined by court ruling that such
studies and mitigation measures would be improperly exempted from
the process of public and governmental review which is required
under CEQA. The document requests future studies and future
identification of mitigation and, therefore, is considered
inadequate.
It is the Department's opinion that mitigation measures
proposed for this project will not reduce the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
environment would occur. Based on new information and cumulative
impacts, the Department does not believe that the DEIR for the
Dublin Transit Center establishes appropriate mitigation for
special status species.
It is the policy of the Department that a project should 2.3.6
cause no net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat
value. In 1995, Bay Area Rapid Transit filled 2.88 acres of
wetlands on the site. Wetlands were created on Camp Parks as
compensation. These wetlands have never functioned properly.
Acceptable mitigation for all wetlands areas affected by the
project should be proposed.
A Streambed Alteration Agreement must be obtained from the 2.3.7
Department prior to any work in a lake or stream corridor. Since [
the issuance of such an Agreement is subject to CEQA review,
disclosure and incorporation of mitigation measures requested by
the Department is needed to meet the requirements of CEQA.
Mr. Eddie Peabody
August 21, 2001
Page 4
Department personnel are available to address these
concerns in more detail. To arrange a meeting please contact
Ms. Janice Gan, Environmental Specialist, at (209) 835-6910; or
Mr. Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at
(707) 944-5584.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3310 E1 Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 97232-6340
Mrs. Keith Lichten
State Water Resource Control Board
2101 Webster Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Mr. Ed Wylie
U. S. Army corps of Engineers
333 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
'PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
· 951 Turner Court, Room 100
Hayward, CA 94545-2698 .
(510) 670-~01-
FAX (510) 670-5269 .'
August 6, 2001
Eddie Peabody, Jr.
Director Of Community Development Letter 3.1
City of Dublin
PO Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Subject: PA 00-013 Dublin Transit Center
W~ have reviev~ed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Transit Center
located north of the existing Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station and bounded by 1-580 to
the south, the Iron House Trail to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the north and Arnold
Road to the east hnd have the following comments:
1. Currently, it has been estimated that 90-95 percent ofBART's ridership in tiffs area is 3.1.1
vehicle oriented. The intrusion of "outside traffic" may develop an imbalance with a
· . greater demand for on-street parking than what is physically provided. Suggest
exploring a transit systc~m afld satellite parking lots (park and ride lots) interconnected
with the BART system in addition to the proposed permit parking (on private
property), the installation of on street limited-time parking and permit parking.
If you have any comments or questions.please feel free to contact me at 510-670-5260.
Very truly yours,
William Lep~e
Development Services
TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY
.exit AuguSt 161 2001,
Director
Matt Williams
ai,meaa co~,ty Mr. Eddie Peabody
Supe~so~
Ca~S~e~ Pla~ngDepanmem · Letter 3.2 AU~ 1'7
Ci~of~e~ 100 Ci~c PI~a . DUBUN
Mayor
~]ph ,p~,=~to Dub~ CA 94568
Ci~ of ~b~y
U,yor S~'JBJECT: Co~m~ems on the Dr;~ Env'i,'omueh~a Impact Repo~ for-the Dublha
Peg~' Thomsen
~ Tr~sit Center in the CiW of Dub~
Director
Pete Snyder
Dear ~. Peabody:
Ci~ of
Councilmem~r
~i~ Worthington Th~ you for the oppo~ty to coment on the CiW of DubI~'s Dr~ En~romem~
CiW of
co~m~ ~pact R~o~ ~E~) for ~e Dublin Tr~sk ViSage. The project consists of
~o~g~ ~. zi~ constmaion'of~M-Use tr~sit' oriented uses fo~ a ma~mum of 2 ~tlion squ~e feet of
a, of~ offices, up t0:1,500 dwe~hg ufiits ~d'tet~l':comerci~ development. The site is
so~, located no~" brahe ehsting' DUbhn-Pleasant0n'B~T statibn and is bounded :by 1-580
~,, of~,~o., to ~e s0dt~ the kon Horse Trail th: ~he '~est~ Dub~ BOulevard to the no~h ~d ~old
Mayor
¢~, ~o.~,o, Road to the ea~.
CiW of Ha~d
a,i~o~ The 'ACC~ res~t~gY submits the followhg co~ts. ~ere possible, page
Mayor
~o~ Coop~ nmbers in the DE~ are referenced.
Ci~ of ~v~ore
~uncilmembcr
romW~ > Pages 124 ~d 145. The project impacts to ~e folloMng MTS routes must be 3.2.1
c~,o~N~k ~yzed in the en~oment~ document: 1-680, S~ Ramon Road, ~d Foot~
~,m~m~b~ Road. The ~S routes subj~t to the requiremems of the C~ L~d Use
Su~n Boggs -
~.ofO~d ~alysis ~ro~m were dOc~amented m oar Deceafoe~ ,, 2001 response lo ~e
(~uncilmember NO~.
~r~ Reid
Ci~ of ~e~ont
Co~,,,~m~ > P~es 138 ~d 145. The DE~ states that the Co~ide model was not used 3.2.2
~,h~] ~k tO ~alyze project impaas to ~e MTS tr~sponation ~stem for 2005 ~d 2025
C[~ofPleumton conditions. In ~s case; a comparison of tr~c volumes be~een ~
~yo~ Coun~ide model ~d the model used needs .to be included h the.~ to show
Tom Pico'
that the most conse~afive tr~c volumes were.used.
CiW of San ~an~
Mayor ·
sh~i~o~g > page 1'45. Please see the 'a~taehed edits."' The ACCMA does not have':a p0Iic~ 3.2.3
c~voru~o,c~v for deleting a t~esh°Id oF si~ficance. : Ra~er,~ it is expectM that'
Mayor .: · ·
~r~C .... pr6fessional jud~em v~ be .applied to deteme projecI level' ~pacts,
~,,~ ~,,to~ therefore reference to C~'sigffificance criteria mUst be deleted.
Dennis R. Fay
1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220 ~ OAKLAND, CA 94612 · PHONE: (510) 836-2560 ,' FAX: (510) 836-2185
E-MAIL: mail@accma.ca.gov o WEB SITE: accma.cagov
Mr. Eddie Peabody
August 16, 2001
Page 2
> Page 154, paragraph 2. The DEIR states that BART assumes a ridership load 3.2.4
capacity of 1.35 per train during peak commute periods, which would effectively
allow for additional capacity on each BART car. According to the CMP, this
load factor is only applied to the average peak hour, peak direction transbay load
factor for all four BART routes. A load factor of 1.15 is used for all other
directions and times of day. The assumed load factor and the ability of BART to
accommodate the additional passengers generated by the Transit Village project
should be verified with BART staff.
)~ Page 157: For CMP purposes, the roadway network used to analyze project 3.2.5
impacts on the MTS must be consistent with the 2005 C1V[P Capital
Improvement Program and 2025 CWTP Investment Program: Also, all
improvements assumed in the base networks must have full funding identified.
Please verify how the projects listed on page 157 are fully funded. If they are not
fully funded, then they cannot be included in the roadway network assumptions
for CMP purposes.
> Page 167, Mitigation Measures. If this project is subject to the TVTC traffic 3.2.6
mitigation fee, it should be acknowledged in this section. For C1VIP purposes,
project contribution towards a fee to mitigate regional transportation impacts
counts towards project mitigation.
Once again, thank yO~ for the oppommity to comment on this DEIR. I can be contacted
at 510/836-2560 ext. 13 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Beth Walukas
Senior Transportation Planner
cc: Chron
file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2001
Notes:
(1)Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
methodology. LOS for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capacity Manuat
and represents average delay in seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
(2). Due to planned roadway improvements, some study intersections' LOS will irnprov~
existing conditions. This is particularly true along Dublin Boulevard where the roadway wot
widened from two to six travel lanes between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive.
(3) The Dougherty/Scarlett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus future t
conditions. This intersection w~]l be analyzed in future base scenarios with Year 2
cumulative development.
(4)Italicized type represents future mitigated intersection conditions
Source: Omni-Means
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE . /-'fi4'
Alameda' CountY Congestion Management Agency,/,/. ·
The Alameda County Congestion Management A~eEpaf (ACCMA) has'
established ~Sq~u..Cx'ita~ guidelines for prot~sed projects within the
County that have the potential to impact the F_~M'P'roadway network.
,--(,MT-S) routc$ ara de$1~-,ated as "key routes" and ~.c!ude--h~s-and-prin~pal-.
As stated in the Setting Section, in the project study area these MTS routes have
x....~been identified as 1-580,/I~blin Boulevard,~Dougherty Road,"Lfassajara Road, '
wT-Iopyard Road and°S'anta Rita Road. TI, ....... ~ S ~ - ....... , ~--~r.
w_~.ere F :v~2 *__he l~vol of .qo,wq._'ce:o~g~2P-y mea?ared,-,-wq~hieh-eas~tmadard~
~Ir~ add~c,n tc LOS r_-,~dway :*.~.d2rds~ CMA deiines at~ specify that any
proposed project generating 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions
must conduct a traffic amalysis of the project using the Countywide ,~ .~..
Transportation Demand Model for the base years 2005 and 2020. However, the ~.~.
guidelines also allow for other transportation models/projections to be used for _,,x
this process. For this process to occur, transportation volume projections used for|[
the Proposed Dublin Transit Center and Year 2025 must be compared to the
Countywide TranSportation Model to ensure that the more conservative of the
tWo traffic projections are used for C-E,~purposes. DiScussions with Alameda
CMA staff indicate that the Tri-Valley/Transportation Model is appropriate to use
Year 2025 analyses for this project. ! ..
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 145
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
D~IN ~ ?o~
DubS, C~o~ 94568
S~ ~ON F~: 92s s29 ~so
SER~CES
DIST~ 925 s2s os~5
August 16, 2001
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP
City of Dublin Letter 3.3
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Draft EIR for the Dublin Transit Center (PA00-13)
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Dublin Transit Center (PA00-13). Our agency has identified no impacts or necessary
mitigations beyond those identified in the Draft EIR. Our comments on the specific areas of our
service to the community in the area of the TranskCenter are detailed below.
Potable V~ater Supply and Service'
As you point out in the draft EIR, this project will create demand for an additional 447,000 3.3.1
gallons per day of potable water. Because of the planning already done by DSRSD in
cooperation with the City of Dubtin'a demand of 185,000 gallons per day for the Transit Center is
already incorporated into DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan. The impact of the full
development of the Transit Center will be an additional demand of 262,000 gallons per day. As
you point out in your report, the facilities currently planned by DSRSD for this area will be of
sufficient capacity to meet the increased demand at full build out of this project; and this demand
will be mitigated somewhat by the extension of recycled water pipelines through the project area
and adherence to Dublin's standard water conservation measures.
The supply of the 447,000 gallons of potable water for this project is provided for in the long-
term contracts between the Zone 7 Water Agency and DSRSD. No additional mitigation is
necessary is necessary for obtaining additional water supply for this project.
Recycled Water Supply and Service 3.3.2
As you note in the Draft EIR, DSRSD Ordinance No. 280 requires recycled water use for all new
land uses that are commercial, multi-family residential and institutional irrigation within the
DSRSD potable water service area. The development of the Dublin Transit Center falls into these
categories. In your report you show an expected demand for recycled water of 27,500 gallons per
day for irrigation and an additional 2,200 gallons per day for cooling at the electrical generation
facility. The sum of these two demands equals 29,700 gallons per day, or 33.3 acre-feet per year.
Currently, DSRSD's Recycled Water Plan has 10 acre-feet per year of reclaimed water reserved
for the Dublin Transit Center project. The anticipated shortfall of 23.3 acr~feet per year is
G:kENGDEPTxDept Items~AsstE~gl~Ltr8 - Draft EIl~helil~l&~ ~i's~Banler~l~ Distr~ct is a ~blic Entity
Mr. Eddie Peabody '
City of Dublin
August 16, 2001
Page 2 of 2
expected to be mitigated in the long term by upgrades now planned for DSRSD's Recycled Water
Reclamation Plant. In the short term, sufficient potable water supplies are available to
supplement the Recycled Water Supply as necessary.
Wastewater Services and Wastewater Effluent Disposal
The Draft EIR notes that the Transit Center Project will generate 447,000 gallons per day of 3.3 · 3
wastewater flows at full build out. Also noted is the inclusion of this wastewater demand in the
planned capacity expansions of DSRSD's Wastewater Treatment Plant and LAVWMA's
wastewater effluent disposal facilities. No further mitigation appears to be necessary.
As noted above, our agency does not deem ~.y mitigation beyond those specified in the Draft 3.3.4
EIR for the areas of our Potable Water, Recycled Water or Wastewater Collection and Disposal
services to the community. We feel that the joint planning effort done between the City of Dublin
and DSRSD has successfully identified those areas of concern and planned reasonable solutions
to those areas.
Sincerely,
DAVID BEHRENS
Principal Engineer
DB:/g
Cc: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD
G:kENGDE'PT~Dept ItcrasLa. sstEuglkLtr8 - Draft Ell[ - Dublin Transit Center.doc
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
John Sutter
President
August 20, 2001 Ward ~
Ayn Wiaskarnp
Letter 3.4 W~e*re~,de~t
Mike Porto ward 5
City of Dublin red Radka
Treasurer
Community DeveloPment Department/Plann/ng Division Wer~ ~
Doug Siden
1 O0 Civic Plaza Seore~ary
Dublin, CA 94568 Ward.
Bev=.rly Lane
Ward 6
RE: Comments on PA 00-013 Dublin Transit Center Draft Environmental caro~ Sevorin
Impact Report-Iron Horse Regional Trail Ward 3
Jean Sir~
Ward 1
Dear Mr. Porto:
Pat O'Brien
East Bay Regional Park District (the "DistriCt"), has received the Draft Environmental Genere} Manager
Impact Report (DEIR) for the PA 00-013 Dublin Transit Center and would like to make
the following comments regarding the Iron Horse Regional Trail, circulation, and
impacts on recreation.
The Iron Horse Trail, managed by the District, is both the main recreational feature in 3.4.1
the Diablo and San Ramon Valleys (and Tri-Valley in the future) as well as an
important component of the non-motorized transportation system in Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties. The multi-use, paved trail (10-foot paved asphalt with 2-foot
gravel shoulders on either side) currently extends more than 23 miles between Concord
and Dougherty Road in Dublin, with the extension to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station to be constructed in the westerly end of the proposed Transit Center Area
(scheduled for 2002). Beyond the BART Station, furore Iron Horse Trail is being
planned to continue south to Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area in Pleasanton and
eastward through Livermore to the San Joaquin County line connecting to major job
centers in Pleasanton such as Hacienda Business Park. Connections of the Iron Horse
Trail to multi-modal transportation facilities such as BART Stations are a goal of the
District, Alameda County, and BART, as are connections to employment destinations,
schools, commercial areas, and residential areas. Currently, the trail connects directly to
the Pleasant Hill BART Station and is located less than a mile away frOm the Walnut
Creek BART Station. The agencies have collaborated on providing maps of regional
trail and park facilities in all the BART Stations as well as on BART'S "Pathfinder"
program to develop directional signage and information to BART riders who may walk
or ride the trail to their ultimate destinations. The Iron Horse Trail also functions as the
major spine trail in the two counties cormecting seven Cities and other local and
regional trails. For example, commuters and recreational users will be able to access
the trail along Dublin Blvd which will connect to the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail
and provide'non-motorized connections to the Transit Center for the thousands of new ~
RECEIVED ~
AUG g I ZOO! ~
DUBLIN PLANNING ~
2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 I ~
ra 510 635-0135 ,~,,x 510 569-4319 r~D 510 633-0460 www.ebparks.org ~.
residents in East Dublin, as well as existing residential areas that border the trail (Park
Sierra at Iron Home, etc.)
The District is supportive of the project objectives in the DEIR which emphasize the
promotion of and encourage public transit alternatives to the automobile, including non-
motorized transportation modes, (BART, bus travel, and use of the Iron Horse Regional
Trail) while providing mixed use employment, residential, and retail development. A
similar urban development project which incorporated concepts of'?qew Urbanism"
and pedestrian friendly design and mixed uses was recently completed for the Pleasant
Hill BART Station area under the direction of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment
Agency. The Iron Horse Trail was consistently brought out as the major regional
facility which provides non-motorized transportation oppommities for commuters,
school-aged children, and residents who will be able to access the trail to travel to
shopping areas, other residential areas, and other multi-modal transportation facilities
thereby reducing vehicle emissions and creating an enhanced "livable community".
Environmental Impacts
Impact 4.1-2. The DEIR states that the proposed project would reduce existing views of 3.4.2
Mt. Diablo and the surrounding ridgelines from some public viewpoints, including the I
Iron Horse Trail, creating a significant impact. The Iron Horse Trail provides a
greenway as well as a functional trail connection, therefore, preserving views of
surrounding open space is important. The corridor should not be blocked offby
buildings or walls, nor resemble a roadway between two soundwalls.
Impact 4.13-1. The DEIR states that the proposed project would be considered a 3.4.3
si~cificant impact if there is a demonstrable increase in the use of a local, community,
or Regional Park, playground, or recreational facility. And, that implementation of the
proposed project would increase the demand for such facilities. The DIER states that
this impact is deemed less-than significant due to the type of proposed residential
facilities that would not be primarily occupied by families with small children due to
space constraints. Under Impact 4.13-2, the DEIR states that use of regional facilities,
particularly the Iron Horse Trail, will also increase with approval and implementation of
the Transit Center.
The proposed project will result in an addition of 1500 residential units and an
estimated population of 3000 new residents. Even if the majority of new residents are
adults, there will be an increase in demand of regional facilities, such as the Iron Horse
Trail. The District has surveyed Iron Horse Trail users (EBRPD 1997) and found that
the trail serves each age group in accordance with its proportion of the community, with
the highest proportion being adults and teenagers. Planning for these increases by
providing adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infrastructure will be very
important to ensure smooth circulation amongst future users of the Transit Center. The
DEIR states that the project will be subject to impact fees to pay for community park
facilities on a City-wide basis and that the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
2
(another City-wide impact fee) funds regional traffic improvements. Financing bike
and pedestrian friendly facilities at the Center, on arterials and connectors in the project
area, and links to the proposed Village Green should be considered an appropriate use
of these funds.
Staging/Parking for trail users should also be identified which could include dedicated 3.4.4
parking in the vicinity of the Iron Horse Trail and regulating parking to allowed shared
parking for trail users,' including weekends. The Transit Center itself will attract trail
users who will want to access the Iron Horse Trail and also shop or dine at the Center.
Recommended bicycle design practices, guidelines for bicycle parking, signal 3.4.5
standards, facilities such as short term, long term, and stationed bicycle lockers and
storage options, bicycle maintenance stations, etc. are outlined in the recently completed
Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, sponsored by the Alameda County's Congestion
Management Agency (CMA). This document was developed by a Bicycle Task Force
with representation of the City of Dublin, all cities in Alameda County and other
bicycle organizations and regional agencies, including East Bay Regional Park District,
in order to provide consistent guidelines for bicycle planning countywide and provide
information facilities which can be incorporated into Transit Center design to encourage
bicycle and pedestrian travel as an alternative to vehicle travel.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Dublin Transit Center.
I can be reached at (510) 544-2602 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Fiala
Trails Specialist
3
THE CITY OF
pL£AS.&NTON
August 21,2001
AU6
DUBUN P~NING
~. Michael Po~o F~: 833-6628
Project PI~
Dub~ Co--mW Development Depment
P. O. B. 2340
Dubl~, CA 94568
Letter 3.5
De= ~. Porto:
Subject: EIR PA 00-013 Dublin Trait Center
De= ~. Porto:
~e follo~g =e Ple~ton's co~en~ on ~e EIR ~ ~ey relate to ~spomfion.
Dub~ ~d Ple~ton ~ve jo~tly plied for ~e implementation of adeq~te ~pomtion
i~mc~e m accomodate ~e jolt Oener~ PI= buildout of each ciW, ~ ~e go~ of m~n~g
acceptable levels of se~ce ~ each j~s~ction ~d at ~e ~eeway ~terch~ges. F~ding a~eements
have been cr~ed m ~s=e mum~ accomplis~ent of~ese projects ~ ~ eq~mble m~er. (See
a~ched J~e 27, 2001 lener m Eddie Pea~dy a~ched.)
~e E~ sm~s ~at Dubl~ ~li.-~e to mend ~e "~t Dubl~ Sp~ific Pl~Gen~ PI~" so ~at 3.5.1
entffiements c~ be ~ven. Ple~=ton needs m ~ow how ~e spedfic =~c development fees ~at =e
berg collected m pay Dubl~'s pro mm s~e of interch~ge ~provemen~ ~11 be ~pacted ~d ff such
fees =e adeq~te to meet ~e additio~ inh~mc~e needs requked to ~s~ ~at ~c impacts,
s~l= to ~om ~ter m off, do not spill ov~ ~to Ple~ton ~d ovem o= facilities. ~e EIR on
page 137, "F~c~g Improvements" shoed cle=ly ~di~e ~at ~e ~velopment must not o~y
"conffibute fees / or ~provements" but ~at Dubl~ is ob~gated by a~eements m contact
~ovemenB to m~nt~n adeqmte levels of se~ice. Ple~ton's Public Wor~ ~, ~ meet~g wi~
Dublin's Public Wor~ st~, ~ been lead m believe that ~ose ~terch~ge ~d ~tersecfion
improvements needed to be commcted to mm~ re~onable levels of semite depend on adeqmte
conffibutio~ ~om ~e Tr~sit Center development. It is not cle= m m ~at ~e CiW ofDub~ Capi~
Improvement Pro~ ~cludes adeqmte ~g for ~e t~ely ~plemenmfion of~e needed
~provements.
~e mo~t of ~c ~figafion ~ding req~ed relates to ~e de~ee of ~provements need~, whch 3.5.2
ch=actefistics of the developmem. Specific reductions ~ ~p
relate
to
~e
~p
generation
generation were es~ated for ~e EIR. ~ese were reductions in ~p productions due m pro~W of
1
PUBLIC WORKS P.O. BOX 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
Administration Engineering Traffic Inspection Operations Service Center
200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 205-E Main Street 3333 Busch Road
(925) 931-5648 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5680 {925) 931-5500
Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5484 Fax: 931-5595
Mr. Michael Porto
Project Planner
Dublin Community D~v¢lopnmnt Dq)artment
August 21, 2001
Page 2
residential and to BART and the Transit Center. A 15% reduction was given to Office generation and a
25% reduction to Residential development. Total peak hour trips were calculated to be some 4,155 AM
and 3,970 PM. Trips generation calculations were based on some 2 million Sq. Ft. of Office and 1500
Multi Family residential units along with BART ridership and 70,000 Sq. Ft of Retail. All rates used are
substantially less than those used in Pleasanton as shown below.
Land use Pleasanton Transit Center
Office
AM 1.33 1.25
PM 1.33 1.18
Multi Family
AM 0.56 0.38
PM 0.70 0.47
Retail
Promotional Center
AM 1.42 2.59
PM 3.36 2.59
In as much as BART is only oriented to trips to the WEST and the TOTAL percent of workers from the
west is only about 25%, a I5% reduction is generous and may understate the traffic impacts of high rise
office. In a like vein, the residential trips oriented to jobs in the west are also about 25%. And while as
many as 25-35% of the trips may work locally the reductions for residential axe also less than
conservative in terms of traffic impact. The Retail, in the critical PM peak period, also seems to be
overly conservative.
It is indicated on Page 147 that there is no additional BART traffic as, "The proposed BART parking 3.5.3
structure would not add any additional parking spaces to the existing East Dublin Bart Station." It would
appear that the proposed development might preclude the any future increase in number of BART
spaces. In that the surface area devoted to BART is significantly decreased, if there is clearly a loss of
future BART parking capability this should be stated.
Traffic analysis was done for "Future Base Traffic Conditions" (year 2005), which include "Existing" 3.5.4
traffic plus "Approved" traffic but not Project Traffic. Such traffic projections showed that there were
problems at Dougherty and Dublin Boulevard with projected LOS "E" AM and "F" PM. These problems
would influence the traffic operations at Dougherty and WB 1-580 and Hopyard and EB 1-580. Such
should be noted in the report. It is our understanding that the improvements needed to mitigate the
impacts shown on Pg. 141 are currently not funded in the short term CIP Program.
Mr. Michael Porto
Project Planner
Dublin Community Duvelopmcnt Dopartment
August 21,2001
Page 3
The "Cumulative year 2025 with Project LOS Projections" indicates several problem areas. The most 3.5.5'
significant is at the Dublin Dougherty intersection. Average daily traffic volumes on the section of
Dougherty from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard are projected to double from the current 40,000 trips to day
to some 80,000.
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard Intersection
The proposed widening creates an 8-lane northbound section; 3 left, 3 thru and 2 right, with a 4 lane 3.5,6
southbound. The southbound approach is proposed to be widened to 6 lanes 2 left, 3 thru, and 1 right.
WB would be 6 lanes, 3 left 2 thru and 1 thru & right. Eastbound would be 6 lanes 1 left 3 thru and 2
right. With this configuration the LOS would still be 0.97 "E" AM, and 1.06, "F" in the PM.
There seems to be some confusion on mitigations and levels of service of the Dougherty/Dublin
intersection. In the summary pages 1-32 impact 4.11-1 b) intersection widenings are cited with resultant
'LOS."D" In PM of 0.86 On page 1-37 impact 4.11-5 We show additional lane widening with a
projected PM LOS of "F" 1.06. Table 23 pg 160 and text on pg. 161 shows the intersection at 0.97 AM
and 1.06'PM. Table 7 of the appended Omni Means report Seems to confnm the LOS "F" conditions.
Staff believes that in order to accommodate these levels of traffic volumes that restriping of the
Hopyard overpass will be required to create additional lanes. This should be so indicated, A 3.5.7
queuing analysis is needed to determine the actual levels Of congestion along HopyardfDougherty
from Owens Drive north of Dublin Blvd. ~through ScarieR. The dose proximity of the
intersections will have a significant impact on operations and actual delay and levels of service.
Dublin Boulevard should also be studied due to the close proximity of Scarlett Drive to the
intersection and the obvious need to run long traffic signal cycles.
Hacienda Interchange
The current interchange desigu studies indicated that the EB off ramp required widening. In 3.5.8
order to accommodate the transit village, it was determined that the WB intersection needed. NB
3 thru lanes and a right turn lane. This is different than the proposed WB offof3 left and 2 right
lanes.
In conclusion while the report does a good job in identifying the problem areas it is lacking in 3.5.9
de£ming the actual impacts. While the use of intersection V/C LOS figures are informative, the
actual street system designed for Dublin has placed many intersections of major proportion quite
close together. In order to better determine the traffic impacts of these significant traffic volumes
and significant increases in traffic it is requested that Dublin pursue the development of traffic
simulation models to better determine the interaction between Dublin, Caltrans and Pleasanton
intersections. The traffic volumes projected as arriving from the freeway and departing to the
freeway are well above capacity. Given this the actual traffic volumes at our intersections will be
Mr. Michael Porto
Project Plarme~
Dublin Community Development Department
August 21,2001
Page 4 .
less than projected and the demand will exceed capacity at the ramp terminals; A more defmitive
analysis is needed of these ramp queues and how they may be accommodated; Possible mitigating
measures should include continued Cooperation of the 1-580 Smart Corridor project and future
projects and a commitment to improved TSM programs with the new Office tenants in terms of
what they will do to help achieve the reduced trip generation numbers. What will the 3.5.10
requirements be to improve their employees access to ACE, WHEELS and BART?
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the Public Works staff in accommodating
our mutual General and specific Plans.
Yours truly,
W. G. van Gelder
Depnty Director of Public Works
Transportation
c: Brian SWift
Randy Lum
C :\data\Traffic 2001 \porto.doc. sm
CI / OF LWE O ,
Since
BUi~DIN~; ~1849'
1052 S. Liv~ore k~nue
~iv ...... CA 9~50~99 VIA FACSIMILE
~: ~s~ ~.~oo Hard Copy to Follow
~(9~s)~sos~ Letter 3.6
~oa~co~c~ August 2~, 200~
CITY MANAGER
dh: 575-s~o.~,,: 37s~o6~. Mr. Michael Po~o, Project Planner
c~~ Dublin Planning Division
~ ~v~-~o. ~.~: ~-~,~ 100 Civic Plaza
c~c~ Dublin, CA 94568
Ph: 373.5130 * F~: 373-5185.
co~m' RE: Dublin Transit Center ~rojoct D~IR {SCH ~2000 ~ ~20~95)
DE~P~NT
Ph: 37~-5180 * F~: 373-5183
~.~.~s~o. Dear Mr. Po~o:
,~ ~.s~0o.~..: ~n-~ The City of Livermore aPpreciates ~e oppo~unity to provide its
~'~" ~mments on the Draft Environmental Impa~ Repo~ ("DEIR")for the
P~: 373-5200 * F~: 37~-5318
proposed Dublin Transit Center project. In general, the Ci~ of
~co~o~c Uwrmom suppers and applauds tho effo~s of Dublin, Alameda Gounty,
DE~T
~h:**a.,oos. ~: ~,2,,~ and ~ART in re~ard to the plannin~ of this prelect. We Doliov~ that the
n~c~ ~r~ prima~ o~jo~tiv~ of this project, i.e., devolopin~ a high intonsi~, mixod-
~: ~,~,~.,0.~=,n.,~,s uso development in el°so proximity to the BART station and transfer
~m n~~ station, will encourage future residents and amploy~os to uso BA~T and
~s,o~ .... other transit modes as an alternative to automobile d~pondoncy. We
Ph: 45~61 * F~:
also rocoonize the value of rousin~ the oxistin~ BART su~ace parkin~
~o~s.u~ ...... ~ ..... areas for hi,her intens~y uses and roplacin~ tho loss of parkin~ spaces
P~: ~7~55~.~: 37~503 with a new parking structure.
~: ~szo~.~,=: ~-so~ However, as an adjaoont jurisdiction, the City of Livarmoro is
~ouc~~* about tho potential rooionally significant impacts of this proposed
mos. [~ ..... ~ project, and the potential cumulatiw impacts that affect us all in tho
Ph: g7 I4900 * F~: g71~9~
r~ ~,~ Valley area. We do not believe that this EIR adequately addresses our
~uc s~sv,~s concerns, nor does it fulfill its obligations Under the California
3soo ~o~o~ ~ ~ Environmental Quali~ Act as a full disclosure document, pa~iculafly
Pb: 373-5270 * F~: 37~-5317
A~.~,~o. pe~aining to the following major topics of regional concern:
636 Te~ C~cle
Ph: 37~5280 * F~: 373-5042
~olf Co~e
909 ~ubh .... Drive
Ph: 373-5239 * F~: 373-5203
M~e~e Di~
Wa~er ~ao~
~o~ w. j~& ~.ao. s~,a. DUBLIN PLANNING
~: 373-5230 · F~: 37~-5295
Mr. Michael Porto, Project Planner
August 21,2001
Page Two
· Regional traffic congestion
· Adequate water supply
· Regional jobs/housing ratios
· Housing affordability
Our comments on these regionally important issues are more fully described
below.
Regional Traffic congestion
3.6.1
As noted on page 165 of the Draft EIR, congestion on 1-580 is projected to
operate at unacceptably poor, LOS F conditions during peak commute
periods by year 2025, even without the proposed project. The Draft EIR
recognizes that the addition of project-related trips to this 1-580 congestion
would be a significant and unavoidable imPact. In fact, according to
information presented in Table 25 of the Draft EIR, the project's contribution
of traffic on 1-580 during the peak hours is estimated to be approximately 4
percent to 5 percent of the total cumulative traffic on this roadway. However,
the Draft'EIR identifies only one partial mitigation measure for this imPact,
that being payment of regional traffic impact fees. As evidenced in the
TVTC's own studies, the regional traffic fee has been demonstrated to be
inadequate in meeting the pro-rata share of needed regional transportation
improvement funding, and additional funding sources are needed. The DEIR
suggests that no other mitigation is feasible since freeway improvements are
not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin.
However, there are feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to this 3.6
project, as well as all other cumulative development within the City of Dublin
that can address this regionally significant impact. Such measures include:
· Increased financial contributions toward the construction of high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-580.
· "Fair-share" contributions toward completion of North Canyons
Parkway/Dublin Boulevard extension as a six-lane roadway.
· Providing increased funding for improved transit opportunities.
Mr.' Michael Porto, Project Planner
August 21,2001
Page Three
The EIR should analyze the appropriate level of contribution by the project for
the implementation of these measures. The need for mitigation of increased
regional traffic congestion on a project-by-project basis is evidenced by the list
of cumulative development already approved in the City of Dublin, shown on
page 140 of the Draft EIR. According to this list, the City of Dublin has already
approved more than 4 million square feet of additional commercial/office space
and 4,800 new residences. This amount of cumulative development will have
substantial adverse effects on traffic congestion levels on 1-580. Passing the
responsibility for transportation improvements needed to accommodate this
cumulative development onto Caltrans, or other regional agencies, does not
address the responsibility that this cumulative development has toward
assisting in regionally-based solutions.
The City of Livermore has recently adopted a regional component to our local 3.6.3
traffic impact fee program. The purpose of this regional component is to
provide additional sources of funding that can be used to assist in financing
1
regional transportation and transit improvements needed to accommodate
. increased cumulative development. We strongly urge other local jurisdictions
within the Tri-Valley to similarly address their responsibility for funding needed
regional improvements.
Cumulative Water Supply 3.6.4
Page 180 of the Draft EIR estimates the potable water demands of this project
to be approximately 447,000 gallons per day, with an additional demand of
27,500 gallons per day for landscape irrigation, and 2,200 gallons per day of
water demand for cooling of the on-site electrical generator. This represents a
total water demand of 476,200 gallons per day. On page 181 of the Draft EIR,
this water demand is identified as a less than significant impact based solely on
a conversation between the EIR consultant and DSRSD staff. The Draft EIR
presents no evidence to support the conclusion that "existing long-term
contracts [are] in place to serve the full amount of development proposed...".
In fact, the Draft EIR admits that the water demands of the project are nearly 2
~ times the amount anticipated under the DSRSD Urban Water Management
Plan.
Mr. Michael Porto, Project Planner
August 21, 2001
Page Four
Current water supply contracts are based on numerous projections of
demand, including projections contained in the Urban Water Management
Plan. The water demands of the project substantially exceed the water
demands contained in that Plan. It is unclear, therefore, how the Draft EIR
can reach the conclusion that the water demands of the project would be a
less than significant effect.
We could assume that current water contracts could indeed supply the water
needs of the project, had these needs matched the projections contained in
the Urban Water Management Plan. However, the water demands of the
project actually exceed the projections of the Water Master Plan by more than
262,000 gallons per day. How will this extra water demand be met? Will
other cumulative development within DSRSD's jurisdiction be forced to rely
on less supply than anticipated in the Water Management Plan in order to
make up the difference? Will other customers within Zone 7's jurisdiction
(i.e., the City of Livermore) be forced to do without their anticipated water
supplies in order to accommodate this project's increased demand? The
Draft EIR provides no analysis of this issue. The discussion of water'supply
and demand contained in the Draft EIR is inadequate and does not provide
adequate public disclosure of this potential effect.
Recent litigation may further affect how, when, and how much water can be
supplied to the project. Pursuant to a settlement of litigation concerning the
provision of water to the Dougherty Valley project, DSRSD is required to
initiate a new water service analysis. The results of this DSRSD study should
have been used by this Draft EIR to assess the project's projected water
demand, combined with cumulative water demands throughout the region.
The Draft EIR should also have identified whether the project's water demand
would exceed currently available water supply, and how water supplied to this
project may affect water supplies to other cumulative development throughout
the region. Additionally, the Draft EIR should have assessed the extent of
environmental impacts that will be caused by the procurement of supply,
conveyance, and storage capacity needed to meet this project's and other
cumulative water demands, including the potential for increased seasonal
storage facilities in the region.
For the reasons cited above, the City of Livermore disagrees with the
paragraph on page 181 of the Draft EIR that suggests the information
contained in the Draft EIR fulfills the City of Dublin's responsibility under
Government Code 65302.2. While the Urban Water Management Plan may
be used as a
Mr. Michael Porto, Project Planner
August 21,2001
Page Five
source document for such activities as amending the General Plan, it does
not substitute for a well reasoned and researched analysis of potential project
impacts on regional and cumulative water supply, as required in an adequate
environmental review document.
Jobs/Housing
Page 122 of the Draft EI R shows the City of Dublin's current jobs/housing 3.6. ?
imbalance, currently estimated at nearly two jobs per employed resident.
Although a project-specific jobs/housing ratio is not included in the Draft EIR,
one can estimate this effect using job projections and proposed housing
opportunities. Assuming that the proposed 1,500 residential units would
generate a total of approximately 2,250 employed residents, and using the
Draft EIR's estimate of 7,832 jobs resulting from the project, the project's
jobs/housing ratio is approximately 3.5:1. Although the Draft EI R recognizes
that this project would contribute to Dublin's jobs/housing imbalance, it'does
not consider this to be a significant effect. The Draft EIR presents no
evidence to support this conclusion other than reference to the fact that this
project is located along a major transit line. The City of Livermore disagrees
with the Draft EIR's conclusion.
Locating the project along a transit line does not fully address the physical
effects associated with a Citywide jobs/housing imbalance. Since the local
labor force will not be adequate in size to make up the employment
generation projected for the project, future workers may still have to commute
long distances to their jobs. The Draft EIR's estimate that 15 percent of the
workers at the project will use transit (from page 146 of the Draft EIR) still
leaves 85 percent of the workers arriving via automobile. These auto trips will
continue to exacerbate regional air quality problems, add to existing
congestion, and lead to a loss of community for cities that provide homes for
these commuters.
The Draft EIR does not present an alternative that would include an increased 3
proportion of housing opportunities within the project, such as an alternative
that would have at least an on-site jobs/housing balance. The analysis of
such an alternative might have shown that an even greater proportion of
future employees could be dedved from the local labor force, thereby leading
to further reductions in commute lengths, air quality emissions and traffic
congestion. The continuation and worsening of the local jobs/housing
balance will have significant environmental consequences not addressed in
this Draft EIR.
Mr. Michael Porto, Project Planner
August 21,2001
Page Six
Affordable Housing Opportunities
Page 121 of the Draft EIR indicates ABAG housing goals for the City of Dublin, 3.6. ! 0
indicating a need for 1,327 affordable housing units from a total housing need of
5,436 units. This ABAG housing goal indicates a need for approximately 24
percent of all future housing to be made affordable to Iow- and very-low income
households.
The project proposes to "commit to meeting City affordable housing
requirements within the residential area," and this commitment is considered a
beneficial effect of the project (page 123 of the Draft EIR). However, under the
current City of Dublin zoning ordinance, the affordable housing requirement is
only 5 percent of the project total, or approximately 75 units. Given an actual
demand for 24 percent of all housing units to be affordable to Iow- and-very Iow
income households, the proportion of affordable housing units proposed in this
project (5 percent) should not be considered beneficial overall. The Draft EIR
(page 121 ) suggests that the City of Dublin Housing Element is planned to be
updated in the near future to accommodate fair share housing targets.
However, this EIR should include an accurate analysis of the effects of this
project on the availability of affordable housing opportunities. Rather than
considering the 5 percent commitment to affordable housing a beneficial effect,
we believe that the EIR should conclude that the commitment of as few as 75
affordable housing units within a 1,500-unit project is a less than adequate
contribution to the City's overall affordable housing need.
Based on these comments, we believe that the Draft EI R should be revised and 3.6.1 !
re-circulated to provide an adequate and thorough analysis of these regionally
significant issues affecting all jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley.
Should you have any questions about these comments, please contact Ms.
Susan Frost at (925) 373-5200. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to
comment on this Draft EIR.
Sincerely,
Susan Frost
Senior Planner
c: Linda Barton, City Manager
Marc Roberts, Community Development Director
Eric Brown, Planning Manager
Dan Mcintyre, City Engineer
Mark Weinberger, Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5997 PARKSlDE DRIVE ~ PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 ~ p~o~ (925) 484-2600 ~^x (925) 462-3914
August 21, 2001
RECEIVED
AUG ~ ~ Z001
DUBLIN PLANNING
Mr. Michael Porto
Project Planner
Community Development
City of Dublin Letter 3.7
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
PA 00-013 Dublin Transit Center
Dear Mr. Porto:
Zone 7 has reviewed the above-referenced CEQA.do~ument. The proposed project will consist
of offices, high density residential dwellings, commercial retailing, and a parking garage and will
be located on a. 91-acre 'site. Our comments below relate to Zone 7's responsibilities for water
supply, flood protection, and groundwater management in the Livermore-Amador Valley.
Reference should be made to our letter of December 8, 2000 to Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. regarding
our response to the Notice of Preparation for this drat~ ElK.
We have the following comments:
1. Page 93, Hydrology and Water ~Ouality, Environmental Setting, Water Quality 3.7.1
The draft ElK does not discuss the potential salt balance impacts to the main basin due to
irrigating, landscape with .recycled water. Salt loading from this project development to
the main basin is considered by Zone 7 to be "minimal to no" impact. Salt loading to
Alameda County Water District (ACWD) should be mentioned as a potential impact. This
impact is currently being addressed by a joint ACWD-DERWA study.
2. Page 95, Hydrology and Water Quality, Environment Impacts, Stormwater Runoff .3.7.2
a. The second paragraph mentioned that the development would generate
approximately 47 acres of new impervious area. It should be noted that mitigation
for impacts to flood control facilities downstream of the proposed project is
handled through the collection of appropriate drainage fees for the Special
Drainage Area 7-1 program. The 47 acres of impervious area would be subject to
said drainage fees.
Mr. Michael Porto
AugUst 21, 2001
Page 2
b. In the 3ra paragraph, the effect of stormwater on Line G-5 is discussed at great 3.7.3
lengths; however, little is mentioned about the impacts on Line G-2 where Line G-
5 and the Caltrans box CUlvert drain into. A similar analysis for Lines G-1 and G-2
should be included. Adequate review cannot be made without seeing correct
hydraulic assumptions.
3. Page 109, Exhibit J 1--Existing Land Use and page 172, Exhibit 19--Exiting Water 3.7.4
Facilities
The 24-inch Santa Rita-Dougherty Pipeline should be shown on both Exhibits 11 and 19
along the old Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
4. Page 171, 173, and 174, Utility'es and Public Services, Environmental Settings, Water
Demand and Supply
a. Zone 7's existing 24-inch Santa Rita-Dotigherty Pipeline, 1 g-inch Hopyard 3.7.5
Pipeline, 16-inch Santa Rita Pipeline, and DSRSD Turnout No. 4 appear to be
within the project limits. These pipelines require planned maintenance in the
future. Access needs to be maintained at all times to the turnout, valves and
appurtenances. No structures nor trees will be allowed within the Zone 7
easements. An encroachment permit from Zone 7 will be required prior to any
construction within a Zone 7 easement or in close proximity to Zone 7 facilities.
Please submit future plans to Zone 7 for review as they become available. Please
contact Athena Watson at (925) 484-2600, extension 243, regarding an
encroachment permit or any other questions including specific facility locations.
b. Zone 7 does not have any proposed transmission facilities adjacent to or within the 3.7.6
project Site/
c. Each April, since 1992, the Zone 7 staff has reviewed the Livermore Valley' s long- 3.7,7
term "sustainable ,;rater supply." There are several Zone 7 water supply numbers
in the DEIR that should be updated. On page 173, State Water Project, 2~a
paragraph, Zone 7's sustainable water supply is 84,100 acre-feet per year. On page
174, Local Surface Water, Lake Del Valle has a sustainable average yield of 9,300
acre-feet per year.
The Anrrual Review of the Sustainable Water Supply, dated April 18, 2001, can be
obtained from the Water Supply and Demand Section of Zone 7's home page.. The
internet address is zone7water, com.
Mr. Michael Porto
August 21, 2001
Page 3
5. Page 180 and t81, Utili#es and Public Services, Environmental Setting, "Water
Demand"
a. The draf~ EZR should clearly identify both treated water and recycled water 3.7.8
demands for this project in the same five-year format as Table 26 on page 173.
This information will be used by Zone 7 to update our water supply planning
efforts and to plan future production facilities to meet the intermediate and long-
term treated water demands in the Livermore-Amador Valley. Also, until the Salt
Management Plan is implemented, this recycled water information will be used by
Zone 7 to evaluate the potential impact to our main basin from each proposed
development.
b. We estimate an annual recycled water volume of 41 acre-feet based on the 3.7.9
assumptions given in the Draf~ EIR that 15 percent of the site is designated for
landscaping and 36 inches of irrigation water is applied annually. This translates to
a 36,600 gallons per day (gpd) annual average rate versus the reported 27,500 gpd
estimate. Please clarify...
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Please feel free to call me at (925)
484-2600, ext. 233, or Jack Fong at ext. 245, if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Engineedng Services Manager
cc: Dave Requa, DSRSD
Amy Leist, ACWD
Ed Cummings
Jim Horen
Dave Lunn
Diana Gaines
Matt Katen
Jack Fong
p:\w~eua¢l~-l~O I Poma ltr,wpd
I
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
· : ~ 800p.o.MadisOnBox 12688Street - Lake Merritt Station RECEIVED
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Telephone (510) 464-6000 S~P
VIA FAX and MAIL
WILLIE B. KENNEDY'
JOEL KELLER
~C~-~E~D~ AUgust 21, 2001
THOMAS E. MARGRO SD-01-263
GE.E.~S. SS# 13.7.2 Letter 3.8
MC# EA-2018.3.7'
DIRECTORS
Mr. M. ichae! ?orto
DAN RICHARD Project Planner
,s~ D,mIcT Dublin Community Development Department
JOEL KELLER Planning Division
?.O. ;Box 2340
ROY NAKADEGAWA
3.D D~,CT Dublin, CA 94568 ~
CAROLE WARD ALLEN
.~. D,~..D~ Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
PETER W. SNYDER Dublin Transit Center
THOMAS M. BLALOCK
~T, D,~,o, Dear Mr. Porto:
WILLIE B. KENNEDY
~ Di~TR,CT BART would like to thank the City of Dublin for this opportunity to Participate
JAMES FANG in the public review process of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
s~ D,sTRic, for the Dublin Transit Center. BART offers the following comments for your
TOM RADULOVICH
~, D,s~,cT consideration.
The East Dublin~Pleasanton BART Station that serves Dublin is at the heart of 3.8.1
the City's efforts to create a mixed-use transit-oriented center for development.
One o.f BART's primary goals is to encourage the development of community-
based plans that balance various opportunities and constraints associated with
transit-supportive land use and enhanced access to BART. As such, BART
supports the Dublin Transit Center proposal and has been working closely with
the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (Authority) and City of Dublin
to ensure that the Center will enhance the BART station and the adjacent area.
'BART believes that the basic concept of replacing much of the existing surface
parking with a parking garage will truly facilitate the "transit-oriented"
development of the proposed project. This will greatly enhance access to and
use of the BART station, and will also be an overall enhancement to the
surrounding area.
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street - Lake Metritt Station
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Telephone (510) 464-6000
As the DEIR correctly states, BART and the Authority have entered into an 3.8.2
agreement to allow for the replacement of existing surface parking with a
parldng structure adjacent to the station entrance. As part of this agreement, the
Authority recently constructed 421 spaces of short-term interim parking on
County property adjacent to the station ("Site A"), with the understanding that
Site A would be developed with housing once the parking structure is
constructed. Construction of a 1,700 space, five-level BART parking garage
will therefore allow for the replacement of the approximately 1,200 spaces
currently located on "Site C", which then can be made available for mixed-use
development. Additionally, the 1700 spaced garage will also replace the 421
temporary spaces. As noted in the DEIR, these 500 spaces in the new garage
will therefore increase the supply of parking permanently available to BART
patrons..It will not, however, increase the currently available supply, since the
interim lot on Site A will be developed for housing in the future. Additionally,
the currently ~permitted on street parking near the station will be lknited to short
time periods as the area develops, thus reducing these parking spaces.
Because the overall BART parking supply will not be increased by the 3.8.3
currently proposed garage, the BART/Authority agreement states that the
garage will be designed to accommodate 250 additional spaces, so that these
spaces can be added in the future if funding is available. Should funding
become available for additional parking spaces, and to preserve the option for
added parking~ BART recommends that the final EIR examine an alternative to
the proposed project. This alternative would include a garage with up to 2,200-
spaces, which would increase, the overall supply of BART parking spaces in
Dublin by approximately 500 spaces over the existing number. This alternative
should also consider possible impacts to nearby intersections and freeway
congestion reduction benefits that up tO 500 additional space..s may b,ring.
It should' be noted that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.8.4
(FSEIR) for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
(April 2001) stated that BART is considering the implementation of a parking
program at both the East and West DubliniPleasanton BART Stations, in which
a patron can pay a fee of $2.00 per day on a monthly basis to guarantee 'a
parking space until 10:00 a.m. Approximately one-half of the spaces at each
station could be reserved on this basis, with the other one-half of the spaces
remaining free on a fn:st come, fn'st served basis. This parking program should
be incorporated by reference into the DEIR.
In addition, the BART Board of Directors adopted a new parking limit policy 3.8.5
that will reduce a single parking event from 72 hours to 24 hours. This pot/cy
will go into effect prior to the opening of the new extension service to the San
Francisco International Airport, which is scheduled for Fall, 2002. At that time,
M_r, Porto
August 21, 2001
Page 2
BAYAREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street - Lake Merritt Station
p.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Telephone (510) 464-6000
BART may have or BART anticipates that it will have parking char~s for long
term and monthly parking at Selected stations. Since the East
Dublin/Pleasanton Station is at the end of the line, it is reasonable to expect that
this station will be targeted for these services. As stated in the West Dublin
FSEIR, these parking policies may result in greater parking "spillover" if
BART patrons seek nearby free parking are.as. While BART acknowledges that
the Transit Center DEIR identifies spillover BART parking as a potentially
significant impact, and proposes mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts,
we suggest that additional mitigation measures be considered as well. For
example, BART's Parking Management Toolkit developed for the BART San
Francisco Airport Extension Project and referenced in the West'Dublin FSEIR,
may provide appropriate mitigation measures.
It appears that the 'proposed project may require the removal of a bus loading 3.8.6
area located adjacent to the proposed parking structure to enhance circulation
and aesthetics of that portion of the site. This loading area serves Stockton
Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART), Amtrak Thruway Bus, Modesto
Transit, and CCCTA Route 259. While it appears possible to relocate the bus
loading area to another part of the station area, we suggest that the Authority,
the City of Dublin and BART work with the affected bus services to come up
with an acceptable relocation plan that will not impact bus service.
Thank you for. considering these comments. If you have any questions,
comments, or need additional information from our files, please don't hesitate
to contact Ms. Joan Duffield at (510) 464-6191.
Sincerely,
Senior Environmental Compliance Specialist
BART Environmental Compliance Division
CC: J. Layton, BART IC Mayo, BART
V. Menotti, BART D. Stazk, BART
J. Ordway, BART J. Evatts, BART
K. 14.agerty, BART H. Goldstrom, BART
· J. Gravesande, BART S. Cook, ACCDA
A. Marduelli, ACC'DA P. Cashnmn, ACCDA
Mt. Pont
Au~m.tst21,2001 '
Page 3
~ SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~/ 1810 E. HAZELTON AVE., STOOKTON, CA 95205-6232
PHONE: 209/468;3121 FAX: 209/468-3163
October 16, 2001 RECEiVED
OCT ! 7 ZOO!
Mr. Eddie Peabody
Director of Community Development DUBUN PLANNING
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568 ~ Letter 3.9
Subject: Dublin Transit Center Draft
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Dublin Transit Center Draft EIR which we have
reviewed. As you are aware, we sent you a letter in December 2000 requesting that San
Joaquin County be notified of any projects that have the potential of creating significant
traffic impacts on Interstate 580 and the Altamont Pass. The Dublin Transit Center with its
2 million square feet of office space and 70,000 square feet of commercial space and up to
1500 apartments located immediately adjacent to 1-580 eertain!y has that potential.
The Dublin Trangit center Draft EIR, however, dOes not addreSS cumulative traffiC' impacts 3.9.1
on 1-580 east 0f;Fallon Road. 'Specifically,' areas' of conCeim. regarding unaddressed
potential cumulative traffic impacts include 1-580 from Fallon Road east over the Altamont
Pass to 1-205 and also the Alameda and San Joaquin County access roads to 1-580 'in the
vicinity of Altamont Pass including Grant Line Road, Altamont Pass Road and Byron
Bethany Road. The f~eeway and county roads in these areas are already experiencing
heavy congestion, and the Regional Transit Fees discussed as partial mitigation in the
DEIR do not cover these roadways.
In addition, Alameda County has been expressing its concern that all development in San 3.9.2
Joaquin County along 1-580 and 1-205 address cumulative traffic impacts to the above
roadways. The residential development of concern in these areas has historically been
associated with the imbalance of job growth and housing development in Alameda County
and its neighboring counties which has led to heavy demand for housing in San Joaquin
County. It appears that the office development proposed in the Dublin Transit Center will
contribute to the jobs housing imbalance in Alameda County and continue to create more
need for residential development in San Joaquin County.
In order .for::the EIR:to adequately address cumulative traffic impacts, 'we specifically 3.9.3
request that the'FEIR'evaluate cumulative traffic impacts:to 1-'58'0 from Fall0n Road .east t°
1-205 and county access roads to 1-580 in the vicinity of Altamont Pass including Grant
Line Road, Almmont Pass Road and Byron Bethany Road.[ In addition, the jobs housing 3.9.4
1
balance section of the EIR should identify where employees of the office buildings are
likely to live given their household income levels and the local and regional supply of
available, suitable housing as the project is occupied. This is of importance in evaluating
regional cumulative traffic and homing demand impacts.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. If you have any questions or desire further
clarification of our CEQA concerns, please contact Michael Hitchcock at (209) 468 8597.
Sincerely,
Ben Hulse,
Director
cc. San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
Manual Lopez, County Administrator
Michael McCrrew, Assistant County Counsel
Adolf Martinelli, Alameda County Community Development Agency
Scott Swanson, Alameda County Development Services Department
Paul Sensibaugh, Mountain Home CSD
attachment
2
Rece:Lved: 8/21 /2001 6:10~M; ->C~ty of Dub[:Ln PW/F:LPe; #521 ; Page 2
08/21/2001 17:03 4153972228 RAILS TO TRAILS CONS PAGE 02
~ Letter 4.1
August 21, 2001
~ Mike Porto.
-- tO - City of Dubthl
TRAIL~ Community Development Department/Pla~!ng
Division
100 Civic Plaza
CONSERVANCY Dublin, CA 94568
California P~e :' Corament$ on t'A 00-013 Dublin Transit Center Environmental Impact Report as it
Field O~cc relates to the Iron Horse t~egional Trail.
Dear Mr. Porto,
I am writing on behalf of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy California Field
comment on the Draft ]EI]R. (DEIK) for the proposed Dublffl Transit Center project_
Our comments focus mainly on issues related to the Iron Horse Kegional Trail and to
impacts on circulation and recreation. The Iron Horse Trail received national attention
when it was named a Millennium Trail by the White House in 2000. It has been
considered a model for other rail-trail projects around the stab and the country.
First, we would like to commend the City of Dublin for its intent to der?lop the land
surrounding the BAKT station as a high density transit oriented development. We
applaud your efforts to reduce the number of auto trips that will be generated from this
development, and especially your emphasis on buses, BART, and bicycle/pedestrian
activity as the primary means oftranspor~ to and from the Center. The presence of the
Iron Horse Trail, as well as providing the western boundary of the project, is a
sig~xificant asset to the people who will work, shop, and commute through the transit
village when it is completed.
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is a national nonprofit organization with an office and
8,000 members in California. We envision a country laced with a network o£trails,
sidewalks, and on-street bike lanes that will enable people to travel within and between
neighborhoods and cities by foot or bicycle. Numerous studies and the experience of
hundreds of communities across the country demonstrate that such networks create big
bang for the buck by serving real transportation needs. These facilities provide
numerous additional benefits to local communities by creating landscaped open places
for people to recreate and exercise. They also have tangible economic benefits to
surrounding neighborhoods and community livability, particularly in terms
enhanced property values and small business development. Completing this section of
' ' the Iron Horse Trail and connecting it to the planned TOD would bring these benefits
C.,li[~n~i, Fi,la Ot{ice tO Dublin.
26 (YFm-rell Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 9~108 As the primary bicycle and pedestrian route the Diablo Valley, the Iron Horse Trail 4.1.1
n15.3~.~-2220 plays a crucial transportation and recreation role for the residents of Dublin and poJuts
PAX: 415.397.2218 north. In order to enhance the transportation value oft_he corridor, special emphasis
Natio~,! Offia should be placed on providing connections betweeD the trail and the new Transit
1]00$~enteenthStmet. NW Center. These connections, providing access between the trail a~d the center, am
10th Root
Washington, DC 20036
202-331-9696
FAX: 202-331-9680 t996 Kecipient of Presidential Award
web site: www. railtraiLs.or8 for Sustainable Development
100% Recycled Paper
Received= 8/21/2001 6:1OPM; ->O~y o~ Du~n PW/F[re; #521; Page 3
08/21/200[ i7:03 41§3972228 RAILS TO TRAILS CONS PAGE 03
more ~ffective when included as integral parts of the owrall project and when included at the
beginning of planning and design process, rather than being added as an "afterthought." The trail
should connect directly with paths entering the development, and the ar~ should include plentiful
bicycle parking, drinking fountains, b~nches, restrooms, gateway treatments at ~atrances, and
parking for trail users arriving from outside of Dublin.
Page 1 g6 of the DEIR., states that, "improvements pt~ned to consist of an unfenced 1 O-foot wide 4.1.
paved trail within the existing right-of-way." We are concerned that 10 fe~t of width is not
adequate rn accommodate the increased bicycle/skater/pedestrian traffic that the proposed
development will generate. Although ten feet is the minimum multi-use trail width permitted by
both Caltrans and AA. SI-ri'O, whenever greater use or a mix of modes is anticipated, a 12-foot
path is recommended to avoid user conflicts. In some cases, a fourteen or sixteen foot wide path
is warranted, although in this case, a 12-foot wide path with two foot wide decomposed granite .
shoulders should be sufficient. In all respects, the design of the Iron Horse Trail and its support
facilities should be consistent with best practlees in trail design, especially at intersections.
Also of concern To us are comments on page 187 of the DEIR that state, "Implementation of the 4.1 · 3
proposed project would increase the demand for local and community park and recreation
facilities for future residents within the Transit Center project; however, since the type of
residential dwellings would not be primarily occupied by families with small children due to
space constraints and (sic) adequate park and recreation facilities exist to the east, this impact is
deemed less-than-significan'~' We are not sure why an assumption has been made that families
with small children will not be interested in living in this new TOD. The benefits that TeD's
offer, such as proximity to shopping, a village atmosphere, and transportation alternatives, are
some of the most sought after elements of family housing. Unless this project proposes to actively
discourage occupancy by families we believe this asstunption would be ha error.
More problematic however, is the assumption that only small children require park and recreation
facilities. In fact= people of all ages, including children, adults, and especially senior citizens
require open space, hiking and biking trails, and playing fields iu order to lead a healthy lifestyle.
The most recent public opinion and attitudes on outdoor recreation study, published by California
State Parks in March 1998, determined that Californians believe outdoor recreation and facilities
are very important to quality of life and that they want more local community parks mad places to
ride and hike. The same study showed that walking ranked number one as the recreational activity
most done by the state's citizens. We request that you update the DE[R to include provision of
park and recreation facilities connected with an enhanced Iron Horse Trail as a required element
of this development.
Finally, we wan{ to encourage the City of Dublin to consider some additional enhancements that 4.1.4
would make the center a model for bicycle and pedestrian commuting. One of the most exciting
kinds of projects underway in many cities is the development oi~ "Bikestation" within or very near
transit centers. The Cities of Berkeley, Long Beach, and Pale Alto have opened Bikestations, and
they have'become indispensable parts o£these communities' transport systems. See
http://www.bikests.tion.or~ for more information.
Thank you for your attention. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Master Response Regarding Cumulative Traffic Impacts and Traffic Impact Fees
Several comment letters (Caltrans, City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore) raise
issues with cumulative traffic issues of the proposed project and proposed
mitigation measures. This section of the FEIR provides a response to these
comments in a single location to reduce the length of individual responses.
The City of Dublin has adopted a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program for all
properties located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan area.
TIF fees are collected on a square foot basis for all new development at the time
building permits are issued for the purpose of constructing traffic and
transportation improvements to accommodate cumulative traffic demand
resulting from build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan.
The current Eastern Dublin TIF program includes numerous freeway
improvement projects, including installation of eastbound/westbound auxiliary
lanes on 1-580 between Fallon Road and Tassajara Road, and improvements to
Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard
interchanges with 1-580. The TIF program also includes other improvements that
directly benefit freeway operations, including park-and-ride lots and construction
of Dublin Boulevard as a 6-lane arterial, which provides the only cross-valley
parallel roadway and reliever route for 1-580. The City of Dublin also collects fees
(Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee) from all Eastern Dublin development
projects to repay Pleasanton for existing improvements to freeway interchanges
constructed by the City o£ Pleasanton.
Properties encompassing the proposed Transit Center are not currently subject to
TIF fees or the 1-580 interchange fee. However, since the Transit Center is
proposed to be included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the TIF program is
in process of being reviewed and may be amended to cover all future
development within the project area, or a separate impact fee would established
for the required improvements. As such, future development within the Transit
Center would pay a £air share of transportation improvements as funded by the
TIF Program.
In addiQon, other traffic fees are earmarked for regional transportation
improvements as part of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). These
fees are known as the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) fees and
are collected from the various jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley area (including
the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville, and the
Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa) and are intended to fund projects
identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan. A number of regional
transportation improvement projects to be funded by TVTD fees include I-
580/Foothill Road-San Ramon Road interchange improvements, 1-680 auxiliary
lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road, West Dublin-Pleasanton
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 11
City of Dublin September 2002
BART station and HOV lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road. The
proposed project would be subject to the TVTC fee.
The City of Dublin is also participating in the 1-580 Smart Corridor project which
is being funded by the federal government. The Smart Corridor project involves
computer-assisted freeway information infrastructure improvements, such as
traffic monitoring and accident management, to maximize the use of vehicular
capacity on the 1-580 freeway. The Smart Corridor project also includes
identification of alternative reliever routes.
Thus, although the Draft EIR identifies that mainline freeway operation impacts
along the 1-580 freeway would be significant and unavoidable, the proposed
Transit Center would be contributing fair share fees to assist in funding regional
transportation improvements. The EIR identifies that major widenings and/or
improvements to the 1-580 freeway would not be an economic or physically
feasible mitigation measure that could be undertaken by the sponsors of the
proposed project.
Comment 1.1: Department of the Army
· Comment 1.1.1: Clarification is needed regarding who will provide
notifications for potential helicopter overflights of the project area.
Sample notification language is provided for use by the City.
Response: The suggested notification language is acknowledged.
Mitigation Measure 4-9.3 is included in the EIR that would require future
residents of dwelling units within the Transit Center project to be notified
of potential helicopter overflight noise. Typically, such disclosures and
notifications are required to be provided to future buyers and/or residents
by the City of Dublin as part of subdivision map or Site Development
Review (SDR) levels of land use entitlements.
Comment 2.1: Caltrans
· Comment 2.1.1: The commenter is concerned about the volume of
additional traffic to the 1-580 freeway contributed by the project and
disagrees with the DEIR finding that mitigation is not feasible. Caltrans
urges the City of Dublin to participate in the development of funding
mitigation measures.
Response: The proposed Dublin Transit Center project would add
approximately 10% (on average) to the AM and PM peak hour eastbound
and westbound commute direction traffic on 1-580. These increases would
be experienced on 1-580 west of the Dougherty/Hopyard interchange. East
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 12
City of Dublin , September 2002
of the 1-580/Dougherty-t-Iopyard interchange, project-related increases in
peak hour commute traffic would be less than 10% depending on the
freeway segment. The DEIR acknowledges that this would be a "significant
and unavoidable impact." FIowever, this statement is not meant to imply
that the City and/or project sponsor would not be assisting with funding
solutions to regional traffic congestion as identified by Caltrans. Please
refer to the Master Response regarding City of Dublin participation in
freeway and freeway-related improvements. The Master Response notes
that the City intends to include the proposed Transit Center project into
the TIF prOgram, so that this project would contribute a fair share toward
freeway-related improvements.
The City of Dublin continues to believe that project-related impacts to
mainline freeway operations will remain as significant and unavoidable
even with the project's contribution to future improvements through
payment of traffic impact fees.
The City of Dublin notes that major project objectives include constructing
a mixed-use, high-density transit village around a major transportation
hub. These objectives are consistent with several recent "smart growth"
development strategies recommended by regional planning agencies such
as the Association of Bay Area Governments, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
and others. As such, the proposed project would have a beneficial impact
on regional commute patterns by placing higher density housing, . offices,
retail and other land uses near convenient public transportation systems
to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles on regional
thoroughfares.
· Comment 2.1.2: Caltrans recommends the following mitigation measures
to control, monitor and improve traffic conditions: providing adequate
storage for ramp metering queues, providing HOV by-pass lanes at
metered on-ramps, installing closed-circuit television and other devices.
Response: Comment regarding the need for mitigation of traffic
congestion on the 1-580 freeway is acknowledged. Please refer to the Master
Response. This response details the project's contribution of regional
traffic impact fees and improvements presently and anticipated to be
funded by these fees. The City of Dublin is also participating in the
federally funded Smart Corridor project for the 1-580 freeway which
includes many of the measures identified in the comment.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 13
City of Dublin September 2002
· Comment 2.1.3: The commenter asks the relationship between 1-580
intersection improvements noted in the Transit Center DEIR (p. 167) and
mitigation measures for the proposed Cisco Systems project.
Response: Regarding mitigation measures for the proposed Cisco Systems
project. This was a separate project located easterly of the proposed Transit
Center. Cisco Systems withdrew its application to the City of Dublin for
development of Site 15A in Eastern Dublin as an office complex. However,
most recently, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has re-
filed a Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan to re-designate Site
15A from High Density Residential to Campus Office. A specific user for
Site 15A has not been identified. The City of Dublin is currently evaluating
anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment request.
· Comment 2.1.4: Mitigation measures at the Dougherty Road/1-580 and
Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchanges involving on-ramps need to include
the ramp metering system and the HOV bypass lane.
Response: Project specific traffic mitigations for Dougherty Road/I-580 and
Hacienda Dr./I-580 interchanges have been recommended in the DEIR.
Project specific mitigation required for the Dougherty/I-580 interchange
would involve widening/re-striping of southbound Dougherty Road
between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 westbound off-ramp as well as
widening and re-striping the 1-580 westbound diagonal on-ramp as
described on page 167 of the DEIR (also see Response 3.5.7). The widening
of this on-ramp will be coordinated with Caltrans to satisfy HOV bypass
lane requirements.
With respect to the Hacienda/I-580 interchange, modifications have been
recommended in the DEIR, page 167 (Mitigation Measure 4.11-1) for the
westbound loop on-ramp with project traffic. These modifications will be
coordinated with Caltrans to satisfy HOV bypass lane requirements.
It is recognized that ramp metering and HOV bypass lanes may improve
traffic flows to/from 1-580 on a system-wide basis. The Dublin City Council
adopted Resolution No. 168 in 2001 supporting the phased
implementation of ramp metering on 1-580 from 1-880 to the Altamont
Pass. The implementation plan of ramp metering along 1-580 will be
devised as part of the next phase of the 1-580 Smart Corridor project which
will also fund the installation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
components for system-wide ramp metering along 1-580.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 14
City of Dublin September 2002
· Comment 2.1.5: Year 2025 forecast for 1-580 mainline operations show
minimal project traffic for the peak commute directions (westbound AM
and eastbound PM). The commenter recommends a closer study of this
situation.
Response: Regarding future traffic on mainline 1-580 freeway operations,
the proposed project would be contributing (on average) 10% or less to
peak commute directions on 1-580 mainline segments. This is identified in
the DF. IR as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact 4.11-7). Project-
related peak hour trip generation and trip distribution has been reviewed
by the City of Dublin and no additional study is warranted for this project.
The City of Dublin will continue to monitor future development projects
for contribution of traffic to the 1-580 freeway.
· Comment 2.1.6: The project site is less than one mile from the 1-580/I-680
interchange. Please discuss the impacts to the 1-680 freeway.
Response: Based on information developed subsequent to circulation of
the Draft EIR for this project, new information has been developed that
indicates a potentially significant and unmitigatable impact to mainline 1-
680 freeway operations would result with the development of the
proposed Transit Center. Therefore, as previously described in this
document, this new impact has been re-circulated for a 45-day period and
responses are incorporated in the Introduction section of this document.
· Comment 2.1.7: The commenter emphasizes the Transit Center DEIR
should not ignore the significant impacts that occur with project
implementation, including those impacts outside of its jurisdiction.
Response: Comment acknowledged regarding potential project impacts to
traffic on nearby freeways. Please refer to the Master Response regarding
the proposed project's contribution to regional transportation
improvements and the above responses regarding freeway impacts.
· Comment 2.1.8: The commenter believes that feasible mitigation
measures will lessen the impact on State transportation facilities. The
DEIR should quantify impacts and develop measures to mitigate those
impacts and incorporate those measures in a Final EIR.
Response: The City of Dublin shares the Caltrans concern for minimizing
the proposed projects impacts; as shown in Table 25 of the DEER, 1-580
freeway is anticipated to operate at unacceptable levels of service during
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 15
City of Dublin September 2002
peak hours whether or not the proposed Transit Center is constructed. The
analysis suggested by Caltrans is already present in the DEIR (reference
DEIR Impact 4.11-7). On page 166, the DEIR text notes that mitigation
measures include payment of regional impact fees. The proposed Transit
Center would-make a contribution to assist in funding improvements for
regional State facilities (see the Master Response). However, even with the
identified mitigation measures, mainline conditions would exceed
thresholds of significance set forth in the DEIR. Nevertheless, the Transit
Center would be required to participate in regional impact fee programs
and the City has agreed to participate in the 1-580 Smart Corridor program.
Through the DEIR analysis and the above described measures, the City
recognizes freeway conditions and continues to work on both a project and
regional level to reduce traffic impacts.
Comment 2.2: State Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
· Comment: State Clearinghouse has received the DEIR and submitted the
document to selected state agencies for review.
Response: Comment acknowledged regarding completion of the 'public
period. No further discussion is required.
Comment 2.3: State Department of Fish and Game
· Comment 2.3.1: Information contained in the DEIR is based primarily on
previous studies completed by Jones & Stokes and H.T. Harvey Associates.
Response: A number of studies of properties in the general vicinity of the
Transit Center site were reviewed for the possible presence of species.
Focused surveys have also been recently conducted on the site by Davis
Environmental Consulting. The first of these surveys was conducted in
the spring of 2001. An additional late season survey was conducted in
August 2001 to cover the growing season of late-blooming plants but has
not yet been published. Along with the previous studies completed by
Jones & Stokes and Harvey Associates, these studies provide a
comprehensive background for biological resources on the project site.
· Comment 2.3.2: California tiger salamanders have been documented on at
Camp Parks, immediately north of the project site and the Department
does not agree with the finding that the site is not suitable for this species,
even with historic disking of the site.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 16
City of Dublin September 2002
· Response: The potential presence of Califomia tiger salamander species
was addressed on pp 65-66 of the DEER. No new California Tiger
Salamander surveys were conducted during the reconnaissance survey of
the site, however, the site was surveyed for California tiger salamanders
during 1994-1995. The survey was conducted for BART and covered the
same area currently under consideration for the Dublin Transit Center. In
the 1994-1995 survey, both nocturnal, visual surveys for adults and
dipnetting surveys for larvae were conducted on the project site.
Nocturnal surveys were conducted during rainy nights between
November 1994 and January 1995. Larval dipnet surveys were conducted
in May' 1995. Each field visit to the project site was complemented by a
field visit to a known reference site on the same night or day. Nocturnal
surveys entailed 10 field visits during which roads around the project site
were driven and transects were walked throughout the site. During the 10
nighttime surveys, no California tiger salamanders were observed on the
Transit Center site. California tiger salamanders were observed at the
reference sites during 9 of the 10 nocturnal field visits, indicating that
California tiger salamanders were active and above ground at the time of
the surveys, and that environmental conditions were appropriate to
observe California tiger salamanders on the project site had they been
present. Similarly, no California tiger salamander larvae were observed in
any of the aquatic habitats on the project site (ditches and ponds), while
California tiger salamander larvae were observed at the ponds on
reference sites on the same days. The report concluded that California tiger
salamanders did not occur on or near the site.
Since the 1995 report to BART, the BART parking lot has been constructed
on the project site and additional development has occurred in the
vicinity of the Transit Center site, essentially isolating the site from
suitable estivation and breeding habitat that occur north and east of the
project site. Habitat fragmentation is an issue for California tiger
salamander populations in the Bay Area, but this site is already isolated by
other development in the area, particularly the extensive residential and
commercial development to the east.
In light of the 1995 survey results, the ongoing disturbed condition of the
site, its isolation from other natural open space areas, and the lack of
suitable breeding ponds onsite, the site does not currently provide habitat
for California tiger salamander. As an isolated parcel, development here
would not increase fragmentation. Other developments in the East Dublin
area have already fragmented the California tiger salamander habitat in
the region and development of this parcel, which is already surrounded by
development, will not contribute to further fragmentation of the
California tiger salamander habitat in the Eastern Dublin area. Thus, no
further analysis is required under CEQA.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 17
City of Dublin September 2002
· Comment 2.3.3: The Department considers the mitigation measure
proposed in the DEIR inadequate regarding burrowing owl species.
Surveys should be conducted within the project area and a 500-ft. zone
around the project.
Response: As noted on page 71 of the DEIR, no burrowing owls or
burrowing owl signs were observed on the site during reconnaissance
surveys completed by the project biologist. However, it is noted that this
species is known from the area and it could potentially occur on the site.
In response to the Department's comment, the following substitute
mitigation measure language is proposed for Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (a)
and (b):
· Pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist shall be conducted
on the entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of the
Project area within 30 days prior to any ground disturbance. If
ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days
after the pre-construction survey, the site shall be resurveyed.
· If over-wintering birds are present (September I to January 31) no
disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows unless
the Department of Fish and Game provides a letter giving consent
to relocate wintering birds. If owls must be moved away from the
disturbance area, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG
1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over-
wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the
nesting season to reduce impacts from noise, dust, and human
disturbance to mated pairs.
· If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the
nesting season is infeasible and construction must occur within the
breeding season, maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet)
around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified by pre-
construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss
of individuals (February I - September 1). All active burrows shall
be identified.
· If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not
yet fledged, a 250-foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be
established or construction shall be delayed until after the young
have fledged, typically by August 31.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 18
City of Dublin September 2002
· When removal of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing
unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of
debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a
2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below.
· A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired
resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected. The
protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat
and at a location acceptable to CDFG.
· The project proponent shall prepare a management plan and
provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the
protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success
criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG.
· Comment 2.3.4: The Department does not concur with the DEIR finding
that kit fox are absent from the site.
Response: The absence of kit fox on the project site is documented on pp
69-70 and in Table 8b of the DEIR. Ruderal grassland such as that found on
the Transit Center site may provide foraging habitat for kit foxes; however,
the isolation of this site from large tracts of open grasslands makes it
unlikely that it is used by this species. The project area is too small to
sustain a viable kit fox population and too isolated to be an important
foraging area. Given that this species occurs in low numbers in this
portion of the range, it is even less likely that an isolated parcel such as the
Transit Center site, surrounded by development and major roadways on
all sides, would be used on a regular basis. Because the site is at the edge of
kit fox range, implementation of pre-construction surveys would be
appropriate to avoid any "take" of kit foxes due to mortality or
harassment. However, the poor quality of the site as foraging and denning
habitat does x~ot warrant compensatory mitigation for this species.
The project will implement protection measures for San Joaquin Kit Foxes
as required by the East Dublin Specific Plan. This includes pre-construction
surveys of the site prior to habitat modification. A copy of the Kit Fox
Protection Plan is available for review at the City of Dublin Planning
Division office during normal business hours.
· Comment 2.3.5: A thorough field survey for Congdon's tarplant is needed
to determine the extent of these species on the project site. The
Department recommends avoidance of populations of these species. If
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 19
City of Dublin September 2002
avoidance is not possible, the Deparhnent does not recommend
tTanslocaQon of seeds, since this may not be successfi~l.
Response: Potentially significam impacts of the proposed project on
Congdon's tarplant is identified in the DEIR as Impact 4.3-1. This is the one
species that was observed on the site during the field survey and
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 has been proposed to reduce impacts to this
species to a less-than-significant level. Avoidance of this species has been
deemed infeasible within the project area due to the project's design as a
higher intensity, mixed-use transit-oriented project across the entire site.
Collection and planting of seed is not acceptable mitigation to the
Department, therefore the only remaining feasible mitigation measure for
impacts to this species is preservation of off-site populations.
Based on the Department's comment, the following substitute Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1 is proposed:
The size of the area occupied by the tarplant should be determined
from the field survey and notes on past on-site distribution,
measuring the entire area from which the plant has been observed.
If on-site avoidance is not possible, one of the following options
must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 acreage ratio:
a. Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement
or other similar method, equal amount of off-site acreage that
contains the plant; or
b. Harvest seeds from on-site plants to be lost or from another
source within the Livermore-Amador Valley, and seed an equal
amount of off-site area suitable for supporting the plant which
shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity.
Prior to submittal of a Site Development Review (SDR) application
for a specific development site, the project developer shall submit a
Mitigation and Monitoring plan to the City for its review and
approval, demonstrating how the developer will comply with this
mitigation measure, including the steps they will take to ensure
that reseeding will be successful. If Option" b' is selected and is not
successful, Option "a' shall be implemented.
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the DEIR's programmatic analysis,
together with the modified mitigation measure (above) is adequate under
CEQA. The DEIR discusses that the species is known to be present and will
be affected by future development of the proposed Transit Center. Feasible
mitigation measures are identified to preserve the species through off-site
mitigation. The mitigation measures further provide for refinement of
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 20
City of Dublin September 2002
off-site protection programs prior to the approval of any subsequent
approval of development projects.
· Comment 2.3.6: The project should result in no net loss of either wetland
acreage or wetland habitat. Previous creation of wetland related to the on-
site BART facility in 1995 have not functioned properly.
Response: The potential for both wetland acreage and habitat occurring on
the site was addressed in the Environmental Setting Section of the
Biological Resources section of the DEIR. A jurisdictional determination
for the project area was updated on June 5, 2001. No jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. are contained within the Transit Center area (Corps File #
25892S). Ditches and drainages that surround the site are not included in
the project area and there is no plan to fill these features as part of this
project.
If wetlands created as compensatory mitigation for the previous fill of 2.88
acres are not functioning properly, then it is the responsibility of the Corps
and agencies with permitting authority to seek remedial action at these
created wetlands from the responsible party (BART) in order to have them
meet the criteria established in the wetland mitigation and restoration
plan.
The project area as it currently exists does not have any jurisdictional
features. Previous fills were completed under the appropriate permits
from the Corps and no wetlands occur onsite. Because this project does not
fill any wetlands, there will be no net loss of wetlands due to this project
and therefore no mitigation for wetland fills is required.
· Comment 2.3.7: A Streambed Alteration Agreement must be obtained for
any work in a lake or stream corridor.
· Response: Streams and ditches that surround the site are not part of the
project area and no work is to be conducted in these ditches as part of the
Transit Center project. Therefore, no Streambed Alteration Agreement
will be required from the Department for this project.
Comment 3.1: Alameda County Public Works Department
· Comment 3.1.1: The introduction of "outside traffic" may develop an
imbalance with a greater demand for on-street parking than what is
physically available. A transit system and satellite parking lots should be
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 21
City of Dublin September 2002
explored connected to the BART system along with other parking
improvements.
Response: The installation of street limited-time parking and permit
parking are part of the overall parking strategies surrounding the
proposed BART parking structure discussed in the Transit Center DEIR on
pages 155 and 156. In order to provide additional parking beyond the 1,680-
1,700 spaces analyzed in the DEIR, BART is exploring the possibility of
adding 500 parking spaces to the proposed parking structure (for a total of
2,200 spaces) which would provide relief &om excess on-street parking
demand in the vicinity. Please refer to Response 3.8.3 in the FEIR for
additional discussion and analysis regarding the potential provision of
additional BART parking.
Comment 3.2: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
· Comment 3.2.1: Project impacts to MTS routes must be analyzed in the
environmental document: 1-680, San Ramon Road, and Foothill Road.
Response: The following responds to CMA's request for additional
information regarding impacts to MTS routes. For 1-680, please refer to
response 2.1.6 (Caltrans). MTS routes of San Ramon Road and Foothill
Road have been analyzed for project impacts as part of this FEIR. Based on
overall project trip distributions found in the DEIR, it is projected that of
the project trips to/from the west, 1% would use Footkill Road and 3%
would use San Ramon Road via Dublin Boulevard. During the AM peak
hour, this would equate to 41 trips on Foothill Road and 123 trips on San
Ramon Road. Vehicle trips on San Ramon Road would likely use Dublin
Boulevard or Amador Valley Boulevard to access the project site to/from
the west. This would further serve to disperse the 123 trips on San Ramon
Road. For these reasons, proposed project trips would not change roadway
LOS listed for San Ramon Road and Foothill Road on these MTS routes
from Year 2005 or 2025 levels as listed in the ACCMA CMP.
Comment 3.2.2: The DEIR states that the Countywide Model was not used
to analyze project impacts to the MTS system for 2005 and 2025. A
comparison of traffic volumes between the Countywide model and the
model used in the DEIR must be included in the FEIR.
Response: The ACCMA Countywide model was not used for future
horizon Years 2005 and 2025. In its place, the Tri-Valley Transportation
Model was used. Discussions with ACCMA staff resulted in the use of the
Tri-Valley model rather than the ACCMA Countywide model for future
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 22
City of Dublin September 2002
projections. As requested by CMA staff, the Tri-Valley model volumes
were compared to the ACCMA Countywide model volumes to assure that
the most conservative volume projections were applied in the DEIR. The
Tri-Valley model's land use assumptions were based on ABAG Projections
'98 data and the street network was updated using the recent Alamo Creek
Transportation Model for the Dublin/Pleasanton area. Consistent with '
ACCMA guidelines and discussions with ACCMA staff, the FEIR
compares PM peak hour link volumes between the Countywide model
and Tri-Valley model to show that the most conservative model volumes
have been used for the project analysis. PM peak hour (two-way) link
volumes on the MTS roadways of Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard,
and Tassajara Road from the DEIR have been compared to ACCMA model
output in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Comparison of ACCMA Model and Tri-Valley Model
PM Peak Hour Two-Way Link Volumes
2005 ACCMA/Tri-Valle¥ 2025 ACCMA/Tri-Valley
Dougherty Rd.:
n/o Dublin Blvd. 2,945/4132 3,817/4,642
Dublin Blvd.:
Dublin to Arnold 2,223/4,662 4,421/4,830
Arnold to Hacienda 843/3,716 2,313/4,085
Tassajara Road:
1-580 to Central 2,369/4,677 4,034/5,352
(1) Dowling Associates, "Dublin Transit 2025 Land Use Projections '98," November 15, 2000.
(2) Alameda County Congestion management Agency, "ACCMA Projections '98-2005 and 2020
Base Model, October 14, 1999.
As shown in Table 2, the Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and
Tassajara Road MTS roadway segments would experience higher volumes
with the Tri-Valley Model used in the DEIR. This would apply to both the
2005 and 2025 horizon years. A review of other MTS roadways indicates
that this trend would hold true for other segments outside the study area.
Therefore, Tri-Valley Model projections for the Year 2005 and 2025 were
used rather than the ACCMA Countywide Model for the most
conservative cumulative analysis. Discussions with ACCMA staff confirm
that the Tri-Valley Model projections are acceptable for this EIR.
· Comment 3.2.3: The Congestion Management Agency does not have a
policy for determining a threshold of environmental significance. It is
expected that professional judgment will be applied to determine project
level impacts.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 23
City of Dublin September 2002
Response: It is acknowledged that ACCMA does not have a policy for
determining a threshold of significance. Reference to CMA significance
criteria has been removed by reference from the DEIR text. This is further
documented in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the FEIR
(see Modification No. 5). However, the ACCMA standards, established for
the purpose of monitoring existing LOS conditions on the Alameda
County CMP Designated Roadway System, are still used in this FEIR as
standards of significance based on professional judgment. Traffic and
circulation impacts and mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA will not
change.
· Comment 3.2.4: The DEIR states that BART assumes a ridership load
capacity of 1.35 per train during peak hour commutes. The CMP only
assumes this factor when to average peak hour, peak transbay load factors
for all 4 BART routes. A load factor of 1.15 is generally used at other times.
BART ridership factors should be verified by BART staff.
Response: The ridership or load factor of 1.35 per train was provided by
BART staff for this analysis and is consistent with observed BART
ridership during peak hour commute periods. According to BART staff,
this load factor allows for riders in the seats as well as standing in the
aisles as discussed and referenced on page 153 and 154 in the DEIR. It is
acknowledged that a load factor of 1.15 may be used during off-peak
periods when BART ridership is not at its peak. However, BART staff
recommended a load factor of 1.35 for peak hour analyses.
· Comment 3.2.5: For CMP purposes, the roadway network used to analyze
project impacts on the MTS must be consistent with the 2005 CMP Capital
Improvement Program and 2025 CWTP Investment Program.
Improvements assumed in the base networks must have full funding
identified.
Response: The roadway network used to analyze project impacts is
consistent with the 2005 CMP CIP and. the 2025 CWTP Investment
Program. Based on discussions with City of Dublin Transportation staff,
network improvements listed on pages 157 and 158 of DEIR would be
funded by the Eastern Dublin TIF, the TVTD fee program, the Dougherty
Valley Development Dublin-Contra Costa fees, and project-specific
improvements including the traffic mitigations listed in the DEIR for the
proposed Transit Center Development.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 24
City of Dublin September 2002
· Comment 3.2.6: If this project is subject to the TVTD traffic mitigation fee,
it should be acknowledged in this section. For CMP purposes, project
contribution toward a fee to mitigate regional transportation impacts
counts toward project mitigation.
Response: The proposed Dublin Transit Center would be subject to and
would contribute towards the TVTD traffic mitigation fee should the
project be approved.
Comment 3.3: Dublin San Ramon Services District
· Comment 3.3.1: Estimated water demand for the buildout of the proposed
project is estimated to be 447,000 gallons per day. Preliminary planning by
the City of Dublin and DSRSD has reserved 185,000 gallons per day for this
project, however, facilities currently planned by DSRSD will be of
sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. Use of recycled water and
adherence to standard water conservation measures may reduce the total
anticipated estimated water demand. No mitigation is needed.
Response: Comment acknowledged that DSRSD has determined that
sufficient water supplies will exist to serve the buildout of the proposed
Transit Center. DSRSD recommends no additional mitigation measures
regarding potable water supply and service to serve the proposed project.
· Comment 3.3.2: The DEIR notes that the project would result in an
expected demand for 27,500 gallons per day for recycled water and 2,200
gallons per day for electrical generation cooling purposes. There would be
a shortfall of 23.3 acre-feet per year of recycled water above what is
currently reserved to serve the project. This shortfall will be mitigated by
planned upgrades to DSRSD's Recycled Water Reclamation Plant.
Response: Comment acknowledged that short-term recycled water
supplies are available to serve the proposed project and that long-term
demand will be met through planned upgrades of the recycled water
system.
· Comment 3.3.3:The proposed project would generate an estimated 447,000
gallons per day of wastewater at full buildout. This amount of wastewater
has been included in DSRSD's and LAVWMA's wastewater facility
planning and no additional mitigation is needed.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 25
City of Dublin September 2002
Response: Comment acknowledged that the planned expansion of DSRSD
and LAVWMA's wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems
will be adequate to serve the project.
· Comment 3.3.4: No mitigation for the project beyond that specified in the
DEIR for water, recycled water or wastewater is needed.
Response: Comment acknowledged that that the Draft EIR adequately
addresses potable water, recycled water and wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal and no additional mitigation measures are needed.
Comment 3.4.1: East Bay Regional Park District
· Comment 3.4.1: Connections of the Iron Horse Trail to multi-modal
transit stations are a goal of the District. The District is supportive of the
proposed project which promotes public transit alternatives to automobile
travel.
Response: Comment acknowledged regarding background information
regarding the Iron Horse Trail, which is located immediately to the east of
the proposed Transit Center site, and the East Bay Park District's support of
project objectives. No further analysis is needed regarding this comment.
· Comment 3.4.2: The DEIR notes that the proposed project would reduce
existing views of Mt. Diablo and other nearby ridgelines from some
viewpoints. The District recommends that that the Trail not be blocked off
by buildings or walls.
Response: Impact 4.1-2 identifies potential blockage of views from the Iron
Horse Trail to adjacent foothills and open space. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure 4.1-1 would ensure that some views from the Trail would be
maintained, as identified through the Site Development Review (SDR)
process. This Mitigation Measure encourages the reservation of view
corridors through the project to maximize views to surrounding features.
· Comment 3.4.3: Impact 4.13-2 of the DEIR notes that construction of the
project would have a less-than-significant impact on parks and
recreational facilities. The District notes that construction of the residential
component would increase demand for regional facilities, such as the Iron
Horse Trail, and encourages complementary bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and use of impact fee funds.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 26
City of Dublin September 2002
Response: Construction of the residential component of the proposed
Transit Center is anticipated to increase the use of local, community and
regional recreational facilities. The City has planned for local and
community parks to serve new developments. As noted on p. 187 of the
DEIR, the Iron Horse Trail has long been planned as a major regional
facility. Multi-modal transportation as well as connections to the Iron
Horse Trail are addressed in the project and would further be refined in
further implementing development projects. There would also be impact
fees, property tax revenues and other sources of funding to assist in
constructi°n and maintenance of recreational facilities.
· Comment 3.4.4: Staging and parking areas for trail users should be
considered as part of the project, which could include dedicated parking
areas and shared use of parking facilities during non-peak times.
Response: The possibility of including staging and parking areas for the
Iron Horse Trail is not precluded in the EIR. These proposals will be
considered as part of more specific Stage 2 Planned Development
applications to be considered by the City of Dublin.
· Comment 3.4.5: Bicycle facilities, including but not limited to bike parking,
signal standards, and related features should be included within the
proposed project.
Response: East Bay Regional Park District's comments and
recommendations regarding inclusion of bicycle facilities within future
Transit Center development projects are acknowledged. The application
for the project filed by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
identifies as an objective of the proposed project "to create safe and
convenient pedestrian/bicycle connections between local destinations,
transit stops and nearby regional trails." (Dublin Transit Center, General
Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Planned Development
Rezoning, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, 9/01). Specific
designs and locations of these connections will be identified through the
Site Development Review process as specific development plans are filed
with the City of Dublin within the Transit Center project area.
Comment 3.5: City of Pleasanton
· Comment 3.5.1: The City of Pleasanton would like to review specific traffic
impact fees that would be collected by the City of Dublin to determine if
such fees are adequate to finance needed transportation infrastructure.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 27
City of Dublin September 2002
Proposed interchange and intersection improvement projects need to be
adequate to accommodate proposed project traffic so traffic does not "spill
over" into Pleasanton.
Response: As indicated in the Master Response, the current Eastern
Dublin TIF program includes numerous freeway improvement projects,
including installation of eastbound/westbound auxiliary lanes on 1-580
between Fallon Road and Tassajara Road, and improvements to Hacienda
Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard interchanges
with 1-580. The TIF program also includes other improvements that
directly benefit freeway operations and help reduce traffic congestion in
the City of Pleasanton, including park-and-ride lots and construction of
Dublin Boulevard as a 6-lane arterial, which provides the only cross-valley
parallel roadway and reliever route for 1-580. The City of Dublin also
collects fees from all Eastern Dublin development projects to repay
Pleasanton for existing improvements to freeway interchanges.
The Eastern Dublin TIF program was last updated in 1999, and the current
fee amounts are based on the cost estimates calculated in 1999 for these
freeway-related improvements. Properties encompassing the proposed
Transit Center are not currently subject to TIF fees. However, since the
Transit Center is proposed to be included in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, the TIF program is in process of being updated and will likely cover
all future development within the project area. This TIF update will also
include updating the cost estimates for the above freeway-related
improvements. Future development within the Transit Center would
pay a fair share of regional transportation improvements as funded by the
TIF Program.
In addition, one of the mitigation measures specified in the DEIR for the
Transit Center development is the widening of the Hacienda Drive
overcrossing in the northbound direction to include three through lanes
and an exclusive right-turn lane leading to the 1-580 westbound loop on-
ramp. This mitigation measure is intended to prevent northbound traffic
on Hacienda Drive from spilling over into the City of Pleasanton during
the AM peak period under future traffic conditions with Transit Center
traffic.
· Comment 3.5.2: Trip generation assumptions used as the basis of the traffic
analysis are substantially less than used by the City of Pleasanton and may
understate traffic conditions.
Response: Trip generation assumptions for the proposed project were
reviewed at length by City of Dublin Transportation staff as part of the EIR
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 28
City of Dublin September 2002
process. In addition, a review of other office trip generation was conducted
for other office development around existing BART stations and is shown
in Table 3. As shown, the office trip generation rates used for the proposed
Dublin Transit Center are actually higher than those used by the City of
Pleasanton. It is true that Pleasanton's rates are 1.33 trips/I,000 square feet
for the AM and PM peak hour. However, these rates were reduced by 15%
due to their proximity to the planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and Transit Village Development. This is evidenced in the trip
generation conducted for the Pleasanton portion of the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART development. Office uses for the Pleasanton
portion were calculated using an AM and PM peak hour rate of 1.13
trips/I,000 square feet.
With respect to residential development, AM and PM peak hour rates
used for the proposed project were reduced by 25%. This is consistent with
residential trip rates for the planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and Transit Village, which were reduced by 30%. Peak hour rates
used for the project's retail development are based on ITE research for
specialty retail development. The projected retail uses are planned to be
ancillary to Transit Center office development and serve the internal
office populations. None of the retail is expected to be "destination"
oriented and it would not generate the same number of vehicle trips as
other typical retail-commercial development.
Table 3. Dublin Transit Center Comparison of Trip Generation Rates
Reference AM Rate PM Rate
(ksf) (ksf)
Conunerce One Report: Omni-Means (~) 1.32 1.25
(Using Average ITE Corporate Office Rate)
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (2) 1.13 1.13
(TJKM Transportation Consultants
Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Study (3) 1.20 1.10
(Actual SurveTs)
Dublin Transit Center ,(4) 1.25 1.18
(Using ITE General Office equations)
(1) Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Supplemental Traffic Circulation Analysis for the
Proposed Commerce One Project, City of Dublin. Administrative Draft, September
2000. Based on ITE Trip Generation, Average AM and PM peak hour trip rates for
Corporate Office Headquarters, 1997 and reduced 10% for proximity to BART.
(2) TJKM Transportation Consultants, A Traffic Impact Study of the Proposed West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village, Dublin and Pleasanton,
Administrative Draft, July 21, 2000. Based on City of P/easanton standard rates for
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 29
City of Dublin September 2002
office development (1.33 trips for AM and PM peak hour) and reduced 15% for
proximity to BART.
(3) Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Ple_~_s_~nt Hill BART Specific Plan Traffic Study, Pleasant
Hill, April 29, 1996. Actual surveys of the Urban West and 3000 Oak office
developments.
(4) ITE Trip Generation, Equational AM and PM peak hour tdp rates for General Office
development on the various Transit Center blocks and reduced 15% for proximity to
BART.
· Comment 3.5.3: The DEIR notes that the proposed BART parking garage
would not add additional parking spaces and development of the
proposed project may preclude future parking spaces. Since the amount of
surface parking spaces is to be eliminated, there will be a loss of BART
parking and this should be disclosed in the DEIR.
Response: The proposed development of the Transit Center would
eliminate surface parking spaces, but these would be replaced in the
proposed on-site parking garage. The proposed project would therefore not
preclude future increases in the number of BART parking spaces. BART is
currently studying the possibility of adding 500 new parking spaces to the
prOPosed parking structure in addition to the spaces currently on the site.
Please see the comment letter from BART (Letter 3.8) and the response,
which indicates that the addition of 500 BART parking spaces would not
result in a significant impact to'local streets and intersections during peak
hour conditions.
* Comment 3.5.4: The DEIR notes problems at Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road (LOS E in the AM and F in the PM). These conditions
would influence traffic operations at Dougherty Road and Westbound 1-
580 ramps and Hopyard and eastbound 1-580 ramps. Improvements to
upgrade these conditions may not be funded as part of the short-term CIP
program.
Response: Regarding anticipated impacts to the Dublin/Dougherty and
other intersections, with Year 2005 existing plus future base conditions,
one intersection is expected to operate at poor levels. The
Dougherty/Dublin intersection would be operating at LOS E (0.94) during
the AM peak hour and LOS F (1.03) during the PM peak hour. In addition
to mitigation measures recommended for the eastbound/westbound
Dublin Boulevard approaches, mitigation .is also recommended for the
Dougherty Road northbound/southbound approaches that would include
widening and lane re-striping (please refer to DEIR, page 141). With these
mitigation measures, intersection LOS is projected to improve to LOS C
(0.73) during the AM peak hour and LOS D (0.85) during the PM peak
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 30
City of Dublin September 2002
hour. With these improvements to northbound Dougherty Road,
significant vehicle queuing is not anticipated along Dougherty Road at the
1-580 westbound and eastbound (t-Iopyard) intersections.
The current CIP program for the City of Dublin includes a Dougherty Road
improvement project between Houston Place and 1-580 to be funded in
part by the Eastern Dublin TIF program. This CIP project includes
intersection improvements at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard as
specified in the TIF program. Construction of this CIP project is currently
scheduled for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The commenter may refer to pages
141 and 144 of the DEIR for a description of improvements covered by this
CIP project at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection under
future base conditions.
· Comment 3.5.5: The DEIR notes several problem areas under Cumulative
Year 2025 With Project condition, the most significant being the Dublin
Blvd./D°ugherty Road intersection. Future daily traffic volumes are
anticipated to double from 40,000 to 80,000 vehicles.
Response: Cumulative Year 2025 with Project volumes would
significantly impact the Dougherty/Dublin intersection. Average daily
traffic volumes would increase between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard on
Dougherty Road causing significant congestion at the Dougherty/Dublin
intersection as identified in Impact 4.11.5 in the Draft EIR. Mitigations are
proposed to the Dublin/Dougherty intersection (see Mitigation Measure
4.11-1), however, even with mitigation, cumulative traffic conditions in
the year 2025 is identified as a significant and unavoidable impact.
Therefore, approval of the project would require a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
· Comment 3.5.6: The commenter notes potential confusion regarding
mitigation measures and levels of service at the Dublin/Dougherty
intersection. The commenter believes that re-striping of the Hopyard
overpass would be required to create additional lanes.
Response: Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 (b) of the DEIR (page 167) calls for
improving Dougherty Road to four lanes in the southbound direction
between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 westbound on-ramp. These lanes
will be configured so that the right-most lane would lead exclusively to the
1-580 westbound on-ramp, with the second rightmost lane leading to the
overpass or the 1-580 westbound on-ramp. These improvements would
result in three southbound lanes leading to the 1-580 overpass. The
commenter is correct, in concluding that the re-striping the overpass
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 31
City of Dublin September 2002
would be required to create additional lanes. It is anticipated that an
existing southbound shoulder area adjacent to the 1-580 westbound on-
ramp would be retried to form the third through lane leading to the
overpass.
In regard to impacts of the project on the Hopyard/I-580 interchange, Table
23 contained in the DEIR does not identify a significant impact of the
project at this intersection. No re-striping would therefore be required.
· Comment 3.5.7: The commenter requests a queuing analysis to determine
the actual levels of congestion along Hopyard/Dougherty from Owens
Drive north of Dublin Blvd. The close proximity of the intersections will
have a significant impact on delay and levels of service. Dublin Blvd.
should also be studied due to the close proximity of Scarlet Drive to the
intersection and the need to run long traffic cycles.
Response: The traffic engineering consultant who prepared the traffic
study for the DEIR also conducted a supplementary operational LOS
analysis at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection under 2025
plus Project conditions and ultimate geometric improvements. As
described in the DELR, the ultimate configuration for the northbound
Dougherty Road approach would consist of three left-turn lanes, three
through lanes, and two right-turn lanes, for a total of eight lanes. With
this lane configuration assumed to be in place for the northbound
approach, the operational LOS analysis showed no evidence that traffic on
Dougherty Road would back up to Owens Drive in Pleasanton~ On Dublin
Boulevard, the distance between Dougherty Road and Scarlet Drive is
approximately 1,100 feet, which should provide ample storage for
westbound vehicles on Dublin Boulevard approaching Dougherty Road
under 2025 plus Project conditions and ultimate geometric improvements.
As described in the DEIR, the ultimate configuration for the westbound
Dublin Boulevard approach would consist of three left-turn lanes, two
through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane, for a total of six
lanes.
Comment 3.5.8: The commenter notes that the eastbound off-ramp at
Hacienda Drive and 1-580 would need widening and that overpass at the
westbound ramp would need 3 through lanes and a right turn lane. This
configuration is different than the proposed overpass configuration at the
westbound off-ramp.
Response: The Hacienda/I-580 westbound off-ramp intersection would
require mitigation measures as listed in the Draft EIR on page 167. These
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 32
City of Dublin September 2002
mitigation measures include the widening of the 1-580 westbound off-
ramp to three left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes, and the widening
of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing to three northbound
through-lanes and a right-turn "trap" lane onto westbound 1-580. which is
consistent with the configuration stated by the commenter for the
overpass at the westbound off-ramp. With respect to the eastbound 1-580
off-ramp at Hacienda Drive, this off-ramp was recently widened to two
right-turn land and two left turn lanes. No additional improvements
would be needed for the eastbound 1-580 off-ramp at Hacienda Drive as a
result of the proposed project, since no significant impacts have been
identified in the DEIR.
· Comment 3.5.9: The design of the street system in Dublin has placed
many streets of major proportion quite close together. It is therefore
recommended that a traffic simulation model be employed to determine
traffic impacts to intersections.
Response: It is assumed that this 'comment is made in reference to Dublin
Boulevard being close to 1-580, especially as this relates to future traffic
conditions at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection with
Transit Center traffic. For the response to this comment, please refer to
the response to Comment 3.5.7. It should also be noted that the City of
Dublin plans to participate in the development of regional traffic
simulation models to coordinate traffic signals across jurisdictional
boundaries with the City of Pleasanton. The current 1-580 Smart Corridor
Project is expected to facilitate this coordination effort.
However, with regard to the Transit Center EIR, CEQA does not require
the use of traffic simulation models to analyze potential impacts. The City
of Dublin believes the information presented in both the DEIR and FEIR,
which employ standard travel demand forecasting models, adequately
identifies traffic and circulation impacts and mitigation measures.
· Comment 3.5.10: What will the requirement be to improve employee
access to public transit opportunities.
Response: Regarding accessibility of future project employees to public
transit opportunities, future Project employees would have complete
access to the East Dublin BART Station where they would have access to
Wheels, BART, and bus transfers to ACE stations via walking and/or
shuttle buses. In terms of improving access, street circulation in and
around the BART Station would become more pedestrian friendly with
the narrowing of streets, limited on-street parking, and transit only lanes
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 33
City of Dublin September 2002
(which currently exist for buses accessing the BART Station from Demarks
and Iron Horse. In addition, a proposed BART parking structure would
help to remove some of the current congestion around the East Dublin
BART Station by concentrating the parking in one area rather than
spreading out the parking in multiple or temporary surface lots which
now exist. The entire circulation system design and concept of the
proposed Dublin Transit Center is to concentrate development as close as
possible to a central multi-modal public transit station in the Tri-Valley
and encourage pedestrian and bike use over single-occupant automobile
use.
Comment 3.6: City of Livermore
· Comment 3.6.1: The DEIR recognizes that traffic conditions on the 1-580
freeway is anticipated to operate at LOS F conditions in the year 2025, and
notes that only a partial mitigation measure, payment of fees, is available
to assist in reducing this congestion.
Response: The DEIR notes that the 1-580 freeway is anticipated to operate at
unacceptable levels of service in the year 2025, whether or not the
proposed Transit Center is constructed. The DEIR concludes that the
project's impact to I- 580 freeway conditions is significant and unavoidable
(see Impact 4.11-7). The size and scale of the proposed project is too small
to finance mitigation of freeway conditions to a less-than-significant
condition; however, the Transit Center will be required to pay traffic
impact mitigation fees (see Master Response) which are established in
proportion to the project's contribution to regional and local traffic
impacts.
· Comment 3.6.2: The commenter notes that feasible mitigation measures
are available to address regionally significant impacts, including increased
financial contributions to construct HOV freeway lanes, financial
assistance to construct North Canyons Parkway and others. The DEIR
needs to evaluate the appropriate level of contribution to implement
these measures. The City of Dublin has approved significant development
elsewhere in Dublin and passing the responsibility of cumulative
development does not address regional solutions.
Response: The City of Dublin is not passing its regional responsibilities to
address traffic impacts from private development projects. The
development fee programs currently in place in Dublin contribute toward
regional transportation improvements and are explained in the Master
Response as well as the response to Comment 3.5.1. The proposed Transit
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 34
City of Dublin September 2002
Center development will make a fair share contribution toward
implementing these improvements in addition to the mitigation
measures required of the project as outlined in the DEIR. The extension of
Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway will be constructed as part of
the Eastern Dublin TIF program when the East Dublin Properties project
east of Fallon Road is developed in the future.
In sum, the City of Dublin believes that planning and implementation of
such projects as the Transit Center is one action that local agencies can take
to assist in reducing regional transportation congestion. The Transit
Center is intended to follow "smart growth" principles promoted by
ABAG, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and other agencies. Under smart growth
principles, relatively dense mixed-use development projects are located
adjacent to major transportation hubs. Ideally, these projects will reduce
vehicle trips on regional routes, such as 1-580, by placing high density
residential housing and retail support uses near major job center, all easily
accessible by public transit services.
· Comment 3.6.3:The City of Liverrnore has adopted a regional component
to the City's traffic fee program. Other jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley are
encouraged to adopt a similar program.
Response: This information is acknowledged.
· Comment 3.6.4: The DEIR presents no evidence, other than discussions
with DSRSD staff, that adequate potable water supply exists to serve the
proposed project.
Response: In regard to cumulative water supply for the proposed project,
please refer to the letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District (Letter
3.3). Both the text of the DEIR and the DSRSD, the water provider for the
City of Dublin as well as other areas, letter indicate that sufficient potable
water is available in terms of long-term signed water supply contracts to
serve the proposed Transit Center and no additional impacts or mitigation
measures are required.
The City of Livermore's disagreement with the statement in the DEIR
regarding consistency of the proposed Transit Center project with DSRSD's
Urban Water Management Plan is noted. However, based on information
contained in the DEIR text supplemented by DSRSD's August 16, 2001
letter (Comment letter 3.3) and September 3, 2002 letter (included within
this document as Appendix B), the City of Dublin continues to believe that
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 35
City of Dublin September 2002
sufficient water will be available to serve the proposed Transit Center,
should the project be approved.
· Comment 3.6.5: Recent litigation may affect how, when and how much
water can be supplied to the proposed project. Specifically, pursuant to
litigation settlement in the Dougherty Valley, a water service analysis was
required to be initiated by DSRSD to address provision of water to this
project. This water service analysis should have been used for the Transit
Center EIR to assess water demand as well as cumulative water demand in
the region.
Response: Based on a recent letter from DSRSD to the City of Dublin
(Letter to Mike Porto, City of Dublin, 9/3/02, attached as Appendix B),
DSRSD continues to believe that sufficient water supplies exist to serve
this proposed project. This is based on the District's Final Revised Water
Service Analysis prepared in December 2001, which included an analysis
of all the District's regional service area.
· Comment 3.6.6: The commenter disagrees with the findings of the DEIR
that information contained in the DEIR ~ulfills Dublin's obligations under
Government Code Section 65302.2 dealing with the provision of adequate
water supply for general plan amendment.
Response: Section 65302.2 of the Government Code requires the City to use
DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan as a source document for the
proposed General Plan Amendment. As reflected in the DEIR, the City has
considered DSRSD's plan in compliance with the statute
A more recent letter from DSRSD staff to the City of Dublin (9/3/02)
confirms that DSRSD has adequate long-term water supply contracts with
Zone 7 to serve the proposed project.
· Comment 3.6.7: The commenter disagrees that the proposed project would
have a less-than-significant effect on the City's jobs-housing balance. The
commenter believes that project would result in an estimated 2,250
employed residents (based on a maximum of 1500 residences) and 7,832
jobs.
Response: Regarding the jobs/housing balance, it is the contention of the
City of Dublin that the jobs/housing balance is best viewed on a regional
basis and not on a project level, as suggested by the City of Livermore. On a
regional level, the project is consistent with "smart growth" policies of
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 36
City of Dublin September 2002
ABAG and other agencies encouraging mixed-use employment,
commercial and high density residential projects near major transit hubs.
· Comment 3.6.8: Locating the proposed project along a transit line does not
fully address the physical impacts of a city-wide jobs-housing imbalance,'
specifically traffic impacts.
Response: Potential effects of a jobs/housing imbalance may be reflected in
environmental conditions such as traffic congestion, noise and air quality
impacts of proposed uses. Accordingly, the DEIR addresses potential air
quality impacts (Section 4.2), increased storm water impacts (Section 4.7),
potential noise impacts (Section 4.9) and traffic and circulation impacts
(Section 4.11).
· Comment 3.6.9: The DEIR does not include an alternative that'would
include a greater number of residential dwellings. Such an alternative
may result in lower air emissions and less traffic congestion.
Response: In terms of including an alternative that would encompass a
greater residential component, such an alternative would not be
consistent with project objective 3, increasing employment opportunities
through the development of a maximum of 2 million square feet of office,
retail and other employment generating land uses. Please note that the
EIR Project Description does make a provision that an additional 300
dwellings units could be constructed on Sites D-1 and E-1 within the
Transit Center. If this option is exercised, up to 1800 high-density
dwellings could be built.
· Comment 3.6.10: The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has
assigned a goal of 1,327 affordable housing units to the City of Dublin. The
proposed project would comply with the minimum affordable housing
requirement contained in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which is 5%. The
actual proportion of affordable housing should actually be 24%, which is
the proportion of ABAG's requirement for moderate and above moderate
income housing to low and very low-income household dwelling units.
Response: Compliance with affordable housing goals is not a CEQA matter
and no further response is necessary; however, whatever method the City
of Dublin chooses to meet its housing goals is a land use policy issue and is
set forth in the goals, policies and implementation programs of the
General Plan Housing Element. Similar to many other cities within
ABAG, the City is in the process of updating its Housing Element, The
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 37
City of Dublin September 2002
Transit Center will be required to comply with all applicable housing
policies and implementing programs.
However, since publication of the DEIR, the project applicant has revised
the project description (January 2002) to include up to 15% of planned
residences to be affordable to the project to moderate, low and very low
income households. The project description also notes that the applicant
would be requesting assistance &om the City of Dublin and other sources,
such as reductions in development costs and other incentives to make this
a reality.
· Comment 3.6.11: The DEIR should be revise and re-circulated to provide
an adequate, thorough analysis of regional issues.
Response: The Draft and Final Ears have analyzed potentially significant
environmental impacts as related to the proposed Transit Center project,
as required by CEQA. Both the Draft and Final documents provide
information at a programmatic level regarding the environmental
consequences of potential development of the proposed project. This
environmental information together with the General Plan and other
land use policy analysis, will be reviewed by Dublin decision makers as
they consider action on the project.
Comment 3.7: Alameda County Zone 7
· Comment 3.7.1: The DEIR does not address the potential of salt imbalance
to the ACWD due to irrigation with recycled water. This impact is being
addressed in a joint ACWD-DERWA study.
Response: Comment noted that Zone 7 considers salt loading to the main
groundwater basin due to irrigated landscaping with recycled water to
have minimal to no impact. The impact of the proposed project on
potential salt loading to Alameda County Water District (ACWD) water
supplies downstream on Alameda Creek are also considered to be
insignificant. As discussed on page 181 of the DEIR, only 15% of the net
project area, or about 13 acres, could potentially be landscaped and
therefore irrigated with recycled water. This represents a small percentage
of the area that would be ultimately be irrigated with recycled water in
Eastern Dublin, and an even smaller fraction of the area irrigated with
recycled water within the entire Alameda Creek watershed. Salt-loading is
a regional issue that is being addressed by both DERWA (for recycled water
in Dublin and San Ramon) and by Zone 7 (for South Bay Aqueduct water
imported for irrigation in Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin). DERWA is
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 38
City of Dublin September 2002
working in cooperation with ACWD to mitigate projected salt loads
impacts on ACWD treatment facilities in Fremont.
· Comment 3.7.2: The DEIR notes that the proposed project would generate
additional acreages of impervious surfaces, impacting downstream
stormwater facilities and will be subject to drainage fees.
Response: The comment regarding mitigation for identified stormwater
runoff impacts through payment of Zone 7 fees is acknowledged and no
further mitigation is needed.
· Comment 3.7.3: An analysis for drainage lines G-1 and G-2 should be
done, similar to the analysis done for Line G-5 in the DEIR.
Response: Zone 7 recently completed a special Drainage Area 7 7-1
program update of channel improvements costs by Schaaf & Wheeler,
Consulting Civil Engineers (dated 6/30/00). The report addresses increases
in peak flows of all storm drain channels in the Zone 7 service area due to
anticipated development of the Dublin Transit Center and other nearby
development projects. The report includes peak stormwater flows, cost
estimates of needed improvements within all channels and fees that
would need to be collected in order to accommodate future peak storm
flows. Since new drainage fees are anticipated to be adopted by the City of
Dublin prior to any development within the proposed Transit Center and
fees levied on new development within the Transit Center as a standard
condition of approval, with a portion of these fees forwarded to Zone 7,
any increases in stormwater flows attributed to the Transit Center will be
off-set future regional drainage improvements financed by increased Zone
7 drainage fees.
One of the goals described in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is that as
development occurs, required drainage channel improvements will be
constructed to adequately accommodate increased drainage flows. With
the development of the neighboring Santa Rita area by the Alameda
County Surplus Property Authority, the Authority commissioned a
master drainage study entitled "Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan" that
includes the drainage area of the proposed Transit Center. This master
plan was prepared by Brian, Kangas, Foulk in May, 1999. Zone 7 and the
Alameda County Flood Control District has reviewed and approved this
drainage analysis of the project area. This document describes the existing
and proposed drainage flows and needed drainage improvements
surrounding the Transit Center that have been installed to control
drainage based on future development projects in accordance with Zone 7
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 39
City of Dublin September 2002
flood control criteria. The master plan identifies a new drainage system
that will be needed to convey upstream flows from the existing flow
splitter above Broder Road across existing Zone 7 G-l, G-2 and G-5
drainage channels through Caltrans culverts under the 1-580 freeway to
the G-1 drainage channel in Pleasanton. One of the issues identified in the
study is the G-1 100-year flow is 1,130 cubic feet per second (cfs), but the
design capacity of the 1-580 culvert is 800 cfs. The study recommends the
existing splitter be removed, a new storm drain splitter be installed,
widening the G-5 storm drain channel and new storm drain lines through
the existing BART parking lot along Arnold Road to redistribute drainage
flows from the G-1 channel to other existing culverts crossing the 580
freeway.
An updated HEC-1 drainage analysis was completed by Frank Codd
(December, 2000) that documents that the flows of the fully developed
Transit Center and surrounding properties to the existing Caltrans box
culverts crossing 1-580. The analysis concludes that the increased
stormwater flows due to the development of the proposed Transit Center
were less than identified in the original analysis contained in an earlier
drainage study completed in 1994. Since many of the recommended
drainage improvements that were part of Alameda County's Santa Rita
development have now been constructed, the only remaining phase to be
constructed is the removal of an upstream flow splitter that will reduce
the stormwater flows from the G-1 line to the G-2 and G-5 lines. Plans for
the removal of the flow splitter have been submitted to the City of Dublin
for review. Therefore, development of the Transit Center would not
significantly increase storm flows into the G-2 Line.
· Comment 3.7.4: The 24-inch Santa Rita-Dougherty pipeline should be
shown along the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
Response: The 24-inch Santa Rita-Dougherty pipeline, it is hereby
corrected by reference on Exhibits 11 and 19 to be located along the former
Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
· Comment 3.7.5: Access should be provided to several Zone 7 pipeline
facilities located near the proposed project. Encroachment permits will be
required prior to construction within a Zone 7 easement area. Future
construction plans should be reviewed by Zone 7.
Response: Zone 7's request for limitations on landscaping near Zone 7
facilities and the need for future encroachment permits is acknowledged
and will be incorporated in development standards as part of Stage 2 PD
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 40
City of Dublin September 2002
rezonings. Referral of future construction plans to Zone 7 will be made by
the City of Dublin at the time specific development is proposed.
· Comment 3.7.6: Zone 7 does not have transmission lines adjacent to or
within the project area.
Response: The comment by Zone 7 that no transmission facilities exist
within the project area is acknowledged. No further action is required.
· Comment 3.7.7: There are several numbers regarding water supply that
need to be updated as identified in the Zone 7 comment letter.
Response: Updated informati°n provided by Zone 7 concerning
sustainable water supply is hereby incorporated by reference in the EIR.
This information concerns Zone 7's sustainable water supply from the
State Water Project and the sustainable average yield in Lake Del Valle.
These are also referenced in the Modifications to the EIR section.
· Comment 3.7.8: The DEIR should clearly identify both treated and recycled
water demands for the project in the same five-year format as Table 26.
This information will be used by Zone 7 for water supply planning
purposes.
Response: Zone 7's request for use of potable and recycled water demand
in five-year increments cannot be provided at this time, since construction
of specific development projects within the Transit Center is not known.
Reference the Phasing section of the Project Description on p.14 of the
DEIR. Information on estimated water demand is included in the DEIR at
full buildout of the proposed project, since this information has been
provided by the project applicant.
· Comment 3.7.9: Zone 7 estimates an annual recycled water volume of 41
acre-feet, which translates to 36,000 gallons per day, not 27,500 gallons per
day as identified in the DEIR.
Response: In preparing this response, the City reanalyzed estimates of
recycled water needs as presented in the DEIR. The estimate has been
revised so that the use of recycled water at full project buildout would be
29,456 gallons per day. This includes an estimated 1.0 acres of landscaped
median not included in the original estimate included in the DEIR. This
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 41
City of Dublin September 2002
calculation assumes 67 net acres of development on the site (minus roadways) with.
15 % of the site devoted to landscaping.
Comment 3.8: Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
· Comment 3.8.1: BART supports the proposed Transit Center and has been working
with the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority to make the plan a reality.
The basic concept of the project, to replace existing surface parking lots with a
parking garage, will facilitate a transit-oriented development. This proposal will
also enhance access to and use of the BART station and will be an enhancement to
the surrounding area.
ResPonse: In regard to the comment that the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
supports the proposed Transit Center project, this comment is acknowledged and
no further analysis is necessary.
· Comment 3.8.2: Construction of the proposed 1,700-space parking garage would
replace existing temporary and surface parking spaces, but would not increase
suppl3/.
Response: The comment notes that there would be no increase in parking supply.
In October of 1999, ACSPA submitted a request to the City of Dublin to add
additional temporary parking stags to reduce a serious parking problem at the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. At the time the additional temporary stalls were
constructed, approximately 1138 residential units were occupied in Eastern Dublin
creating a higher demand for parking at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. A
temporary lot for apProximately 421 tong term parking stalls was created. The
project proposes to incorporate the temporary 421 stalls with the permanent 1250+
stalls for a combined total of approximately 1700 permanent stalls. Therefore,
additional permanent parking would be secured. This comment is acknowledged
and no further analysis is needed.
· Comment 3.8.3: BART requests that the possibility of adding approximately 500
additional Parking spaces should be analyzed as part of the proposed Transit
Center project.
Response: The following additional analysis has been prepared in response to the
BART request.
Project Description
The DEIR assumed 1,700 spaces parking spaces for the proposed 5-story BART parking
garage. Based on the BART comment letter (Letter 3.8), BART has an existing agreement
with the applicant (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) to provide for an
additional 250 spaces, however, BART now seeks to add approximately 500 additional
parking spaces on additional floor(s) of the proposed parking garage. With these
Transit Center PA 00-013. Page 42
City of Dublin September 2002
additional spaces, there would be a total of 2,200 parking spaces with the
expanded garage, a net difference of 500 parking spaces.
Trip Generation
After publication of the DEIR, both Alameda County and BART staff have
indicated that number of existing parking spaces at the East Dublin BART
Station was 1,870 spaces rather than 1,680. This was due to available street
parking on DeMarcus and Iron Horse Boulevard as well as several existing
smaller surface parking lots not accounted for in BART's total for the East
Dublin BART surface parking spaces. For these reasons, the AM and PM
peak hour trip generation rates would be reduced slightly from those used
in the Dublin Transit Center DEIR (daily rates would remain unchanged).
Daily and peak hour trip generation for an additional 520 parking spaces
has been shown in Table A, below. As calculated, an enlargement of the
proposed garage by 500 spaces would result in an additional 1,804 daily
trips with 152 AM peak hour trips and 134 PM peak hour trips.
Table A
Dublin Transit Center
Proposed East Dublin BART Parking Garage Expansion
AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
a. Dublin Transit Center DEIR (1,680 spaces):1
Daily: 1,680 spaces x 3.47 trips/space = 5,830 trips
AM: 1,680 spaces x 0.54 trips/space = 904 (788 in, 116 out)
PM: 1,680 spaces x 0.43 trips/space = 274 (222 in, 502 out)
b. East Dublin BART Parking Garage Expansion (2,200 spaces):
Daily: 2,200 spaces x 3.47 trips/space = 7,634 trips
AM: 2,200 spaces x 0.48 trips/space =1,056 (920 in, 136 out)
PM: 2,200 spaces x 0.39 trips/space =858 (263 in, 595 out)
c. Net Trip Increase:
Daily: 7,634- 5,830 = 1,804 trips
AM: 1,056 - 904. = 152 (132 in, 20 out)
PM: 858 - 724 = 134 (41 in, 93 out)
Trip Distribution
Peak hour vehicle distribution for the additional BART parking garage
trips was based on the same distribution found in the Dublin Transit
Center DEIR and was estimated as follows:
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 43
City of Dublin September 2002
Hacienda Drive to/from the south 55%
Hacienda Drive to/from the north 3%
Dublin Boulevard to/frOm the east 10%
Dublin Boulevard to/from the west 30%
Arnold Drive to/from the north 2%
Total 100%
AM and PM peak hour trips attributed to the proposed East Dublin BART
Station parking garage expansion were distributed onto the street network
and added to "key" intersections within the project area.
Anticipated Traffic and Circulation Impacts
Additional peak hour vehicle trips related to the parking garage expansion
were added to key intersections in the project area. 'Key intersections were
identified as any intersection that is currently operating between LOS D
(0.86) to LOS D (0.90) during the AM or PM peak hour with proposed
Dublin Transit Center traffic. The addition of BART parking garage
expansion trips that would cause these key intersections to operate at LOS
E (0.91) would be considered a significant impact and require additional
mitigation measures beyond those recommended in the DEIR.
Under Existing + Future Base + Proposed Project conditions, five key
intersections were identified as operating at LOS D (0.86-0.90) and are
shown in Table B. As calculated, the addition of proposed East Dublin
BART Station parking garage expansion trips to existing plus future base
plus project conditions would not cause key intersections in the study area
to operate below level of service D (0.90). However, there would be slight
increases in signalized intersections' volume/capacity ratio (= or < 0.01)
during the AM or PM peak hour.
Under Cumulative Year 2025 + Proposed Project, six key intersections
were identified as operating at LOS D (0.86-0.90) (see DEER Table 23) and are
shown in Table B. The addition of 500 spaces to the proposed BART
parking garage trips to Cumulative Year 2025 plus project conditions
would not cause key intersections in the project area to operate below
level of service D (0.90). There would be slight increases in signalized
intersections' volume/capacity ratio (= or < 0.01) during the AM or PM
peak hour.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 44
City of Dublin September 2002
Table B
Dublin Transit Center
Proposed East Dublin BART Station Parking Garage Expansion
Key Intersection AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service
l[Existing + Future Base + Project)
Intersection E+FB+Project E+FB+Project+
BART Expansion
AM PM AM PM
3. Dougherty/Dublin -- D 0.86 -- D 0.87
13. Hacienda/The Boulevard -- D 0.88 -- D 0.89
14. Hacienda/I-580 WB Offramp D 0.89 -- D 0.90 --
15. I--Iacienda/I-580 EB Of& D 0.90 D 0.90 --
20. Santa Rita/I-580 EB -- D 0.87 -- D 0.87
Of&/Pirnlico
Cumulative Year 2025+ Project
Cum. Year 2025 Cum. Year 2025 +
BART Expansion
4. Hopyard/I-580 EB Off-ramp -- D 0.90 -- D 0.90
12. Hacienda/Dublin -- D 0.88 -- D 0.88
13. Hacienda/The Boulevard D 0.88 .... D 0.89
14. Hacienda/I-580 WB Offramp D 0.89 -- D 0.90 --
15. Hacienda/I-580 EB Offramp D 0.90 -- D 0.90 --
20. Santa Rita/I-580 EB -- D 0.88 -- D 0.88
Of&/Pimlico
Conclusion
In summary, the addition of 500 parking spaces for the proposed East
Dublin BART parking structure beyond the 1,680 parking spaces analyzed
in the DEIR would not cause significant transportation impacts beyond
that previously analyzed in the DEIR. This would be true for existing plus
future base plus project and Cumulative Year 2025 plus project conditions.
Significant and unavoidable impacts would still result regarding
cumulative traffic impacts (Impact 4.11-5) and mainline freeway
operations (Impact 4.11-7). Given that the 1-580 presently operates at
congested levels of service without the addition of project traffic, the
addition of 500 more parking spaces at the BART station is not anticipated
to divert a significant enough number of vehicles from the freeway to
reduce impacts to the 1-580 freeway.
· 'Comment 3.8.4: The commenter notes that the Final Supplemental EIR
for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village stated
that BART is considering a parking reservation program at both the East
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 45
City of Dublin September 2002
and West Dublin stations. This program should be incorporated by
reference into the Transit Center EIR.
Response: This information on BART parking programs is acknowledged
and hereby incorporated by. reference into the EIR.
· Comment 3.8.5: The BART Board of Directors has adopted a new parking
limit policy reducing a single parking event from 72 to 24 hours.
Implementation of this policy could result in spillover of parking onto
nearby streets.
Response: The DEIR identified future potential parking impacts from the
BART station on nearby streets and other areas (Impact 4.11-4, parking
impacts). Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 requires the City of Dublin to limit
on-street parki.ng near the BART station. Further, through the Site
Development Review process and other future levels of entitlements, to
ensure that private parking lots and structures discourage unauthorized
BART parking. No further analysis is therefore necessary.'
· Comment 3.8.6: Implementation of the proposed project may require the
removal of a bus loading area that serves Stockton Metro Area Regional
Transit, Amtrak Thruway bus, Modesto Transit and CCCTA Route 259.
BART suggests that a relocation plan for transit service providers be
prepared between the City of Dublin Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority and BART.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed as part of
Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning applications for individual
development sites within the Transit Center adjacent to the BART station.
Comment 3.9: San Joaquin County Community Development Department
(Note: This comment letter was received after the close of the EIR comment
period but is being responded to since a copy of the DEIR was delivered late to
San Joaquin County.)
· Comment 3.9.1: The commenter notes the DEIR does not address
cumulative traffic on 1-580 east of Fallon Road. This includes potential
impacts to the 1-580 east of Fallon Road and includes Grant Line Road,
Altamont Pass Road and Byron-Bethany Road. These roads are currently
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 46
City of Dublin September 2002
heavily congested and payment of regional impact fees do not include
these roadways.
Response: DEIR Impact 4.11-7 notes that traffic congestion on the 1-580
freeway will be significant and unavoidable in Year 2025 with or without
the proposed Transit Center. The methodology used to determine this
impact was the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, which has been used at
the request of Caltrans. The model chosen to address impacts is limited to
roadways within the eastern Alameda and southern Contra Costa County
areas, consistent with normal and customary traffic impact analyses. The
model does not include roadways outside these areas.
The intent of the proposed project is to reduce auto traffic on the 1-580 and
other roads by providing a mix of housing (up to 1500 dwellings) in
addition to office and retail uses within close proximity to a major
regional transportation hub.
As noted in the Master Response, the proposed project would contribute
to regional transportation improvements, most notably the 1-580 freeway,
which is the primary automobile route between Dublin and San Joaquin
County.
· Comment 3.9.2: The commenter notes that Alameda County has requested
San Joaquin County to address cumulative traffic impacts along the 1-580
and 1-205 freeway. The office component included in the proposed Transit
Center will contribute to an imbalance of job and housing development in
Alameda County and will continue to create more need for residential
development in San Joaquin County.
Response: The City of Dublin is unaware of requests by Alameda County
with respect to San Joaquin County development projects. The City
acknowledges, however, that an imbalance in residential and job growth
can result in congested roadways. Located at the intersection of two major
regional corridors and anchored by a BART station, the project is proposed
in response to such pressures. This is further reflected in the Project
Objectives (DEIR pp. 26-27), which include creating a state-of-the-art mixed
use center near major transportation hubs whereby office employees have
the opportunity to either live within the project area or may either take
BART or another public transit carrier to their respective place of
employment. This planning approach is intended to respond to planning
mandates for higher intensity development near public transit hubs, as
expressed by ABAG, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay
Area Air Quality Management District and others, and is intended to assist
in providing a solution to a regional jobs-housing imbalance.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 47
City of Dublin September 2002
· Comment 3.9.3: The commenter requests that the EIR address cumulative
impacts to the 1-580 freeway from Fallon Road east to 1-205 and county
access roads to 1-580 in the vicinity of the Altamont Pass and Byron-
Bethany Road.
Response: According to the traffic study prepared for the DEIR, most
project trips are expected to originate either from the south or from the
west in relationship to the project location. The Tri-Valley Transportation
Model used in the traffic study to forecast Year 2025 cumulative traffic
conditions is focused on the Tri-Valley area and does not include a
detailed roadway network for San Joaquin County. Project trips to/from
the more distant east (i.e., San Joaquin County) are expected to be limited
and should dissipate further away from the project towards San Joaquin
County. As a result, the Transit Center project is not expected to have any
significant traffic impacts on roadways near or inside San Joaquin County.
· Comment 3.9.4: The jobs-housing balance section of the DEIR should
identify where employees of the office buildings are likely to live, given
their household income and the local and regional supply of available
housing as the project is occupied.
Response: Specific information regarding the residence of future project
employees has not been provided by the project sponsor. However, the
purpose of the traffic model used to assess project impacts (the Tri-Valley
Transportation Model) has made assumptions regarding future
employment and location of housing. Therefore, transportation-related
impacts of the regional jobs-housing balance have been accounted for the
traffic and transportation analysis of the proposed project.
Comment 4.1: Rails to Trails Conservancy
· Comment 4.1.1: Special emphasis should be placed on providing bicycle
and pedestrian connections between the Iron Horse Trail and the proposed
Transit Center.
Response: Appropriate standards regarding bicycle and pedestrian
connections between the proposed project and the Iron Horse Trail should
be addressed as part of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development
rezoning applications. Maximizing non-auto transit modes is a basic
objective of the Transit Center project.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 48
City of Dublin September 2002
· Comment 4.1.2: The commenter does not believe that the 10-foot trail
width proposed for the Iron Horse Trail is sufficient to accommodate
estimated activity for the facility.
Response: The'Iron Horse Trail is a facility that has been planned by the
East Bay Regional Park District, not the City of Dublin. Trail
improvements should be reviewed with the Park District.
· Comment 4.1.3: The commenter asserts that, contrary to the DEIR, families
would desire to live within the residential portion of the project.
Response: The residential component of the proposed project are planned
as high density dwellings in 4 to 5 story configurations. Dwellings may
contain small patios and balconies, . however, the project would not
include larger outdoor recreational areas. The DEIR reasonably assumes
that families generally may be less attracted to such unit types. Neither the
project applicant nor the City discourages families from locating in this
project
· Comment 4.1.4: The commenter asserts that, contrary to the DEIR, that
additional enhancements be included as part of the project, including a
"bikestation."
Response: The comment regarding provision of a "bikestation" within
the Transit Center will be discussed as part of the Stage 2 Planned
Development application which deals with the design of the proposed
project.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 49
City of Dublin September 2002
Annotated Re-circulated EIR Comment Letters
and Responses
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 50
City of Dublin September 2002
. STAT~ OF ClI-II~OII-NIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
. Gray Davis Tal Finney
. INT~XIM DI1LI~CTOII
GO%q~RNOR
Memor~_~ d~jm
Date: July 15, 2002
Letter R 1.1
To: All Reviewing Agencies
Fromi Gregoria Garcia, Project Analyst
Re: SCH # 2000112039
Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-013)
Pursuant' to the attachment, the Lead Agency has re-circulate.d a portion of their EIR.
R 1.1.1 '
Please be advised that the review period is July 16, 2002 to August 30, 2002. All other
project information remains the same.
cc: Eddie Peabody
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
i400 TENTH 3TKEET P.O. BOX 5044 SAC1L4.MENTO, CALIFOKNIA 95812-3044
916-445-.0613 PAX 916-37.3-3018 www.opr.~.gov
~ECE~ED ~
JUL i 9 20~
~otice of Completion s~u ~ ~ 0 0 0 ! ~-
Environmental Document TransmiRal Form
Proj~t Title: ~u~lln Transit
City:Duhiin Zip: 9~8 County:
Proj~ ~on
County: Alameda Ciw~mest Communi~: Duhlln
~ss~ssor's P~roel Nos.: ~-01-9. ]0. ]
Wi~in 2 ~ii~s: State H~ ~: T-580 ~ I-~0
Airpo~: ~one R~lways: S~hools:
Document Type O&er: ~olnt Docutncnt
__NeE D~ -- Oth~r '
Local Action Type
-- Ocncml Pla ~lcmcnt ~ Planned Unit Dovclopmcnt __ Use Pemit -- Co~tal
__ Conal~unity PI~ __ Site Pl~ ~ Land Division (Subdivision. --
P~ccl MaP. Tra~ Map,
Development Type
Water Facilities; ~Te MGD__
~ O~cc: Sq.~. ~.000.000 Xcre= ~mpf~ee~ . -- Tr~spo~ation:
X Comm=~iah Sq.~. 70-000 ~c~ ,, ~pl~es -- Mining: ~Ii~r~l __
-- ' .... W~tc Treatment:
-- ~ducation~ [-Iazardous Wast=: ~vpe __
~ Project ~U~ Discussed in Document
X Acslheti~Visual ~ ~Jood pl~looding ~ Schools/Universities ~ Wat0r Quali:y
-- Agricultural Land -- Forest L~d/Fira ~d __.Septic SysteZ~S
Supply/Groundwater . '
~ Al=hoolo~icaI/Historical -- Min=~Is ~.' ~ Soil ~rosion/Compacti0n/Orading ~ Wildlit%
-- Co.mi ~n~ ~ Noisa ~ Solid W~e ~ Grow~% Inducing
~ Dmina~=/Abso~Zion ~ Population~ousing B~ ~ Toxi=~d=dous ~ ~andus~
~nomi~Jobs ~ Public S~viocs~ilifi=s ~ Tr~c/Ci~ulatloD ~ Cumulatlv~
-- X R~r~tion/Parks X V=g=mtion
~es~t .Land Use/~g<~n~~ of ~e site is vacalt Da~Iin
~s~ted surfaco p~g 1o~. ~z~x --~
PI~ desi~ates the site for "hbBc "uses. ~s~g ~n~g is "A,' A~culmrE.
- - : ~e p~je~ would incl~e deebpment of a m~ --malt ~tla~" on the site zo .~e advamge of
of
~j~ D~P~o=
B~ smgon, a p~n~ ~onal =~ ~ia:e~ west of ~e site ad s~E n~ pubic ==sit rout~. A
million sq= feet of office is proposal, may of which would be ~ ~gher ~e build~, ~ ~ as 1,500 mu~-f~Y
(up ~o 70 dM./~) ~d 70,000 ~- ~ of lo~1 s~ ~ ~s~. P~ wo~ ~ner~Y be s~red p~n~. Uses wo=l~
~bl~ ~e~ ~n/~e~c P~ to ~ctude ~s die in:o ~e ~stem ~bh S~iflc Pla. a S:age 1 Eaned ~ve~pme~
R~nE~ ad Su~i~ions of ~sdng properges for pu~ose of sale.
Katie Shulte loung Project Sent to the following State Age'ncies
S~:e Clc~inghous~ Contact: (916) 445-0613 State/Consun~er Svcs
.~ X Resources General Se~ices
Sta~ ~e~cw BeEan: Co. Cai Con~ A~ -- A~o~ Projects
~ Colorado ~vr Sd
~ ~ -- Trm%sportation Projects
SCSI COMPLIANCE ' ~ ...... ~ DcI~ Protection
- __, X _ P~r~ ~ ~C ~ Sw~CB: Wtr ~ights
Recla~cio= ~o~rd ~ Rt~..%VQCB D ~ .__
please note State 'Clearinghouse Number __~Bay Cons & D=v Con==~ .... Toxic Sub Ctrl-~C
~/~dlt Corrections
(SCH~) on aH Comments ...... o~s (~n~rE=n~Y Svos) ~ndependent
please for~vard late co~en~ directly to the ~ C~P ~ X__. NAHC
Lead ~gency ~ ,. Caimans ~ ~ .,< ~ublie Utilities
~ , '""Housing ~ Con~
AC Transit July 30, 2002
Director
Patrisha Pira$
Mr. Eddie Peabody
Alameda Comaty
supe~isors Community Development Department Letter R-2.1
of D11blin
Scott Haggerty
City of Alameda 100 Civic Plaza
Mayor Dublin, CA 94568
Ralph Appezzaw
City of Albany
Mayor SUBJECT: Ke-circulation of a portion of the Draft Environmemal Impact Report for
Pe,gy, Thomsen the proposed Dublin Transit Center/n the City of Dublin
BART
Vice Cbairperso~
mr~er Dear Mr. Peabody:
Pete Snyder R 2.1.1
City of Berkeley
¢ou.~member The ACCMA has reviewed the re-circulated portion of the Draft Environmental Impact
~r~. wo~m~n~o~ Report (DEIR) for the proposed Dublin Transit Center. We look· forward to seeing the
City of Dublin
¢o~.ca~e~er responses to our comments on the previous DEIR in the future. We resp~y submk
C~orse^. Zi~ one additional comment on the recirculated portion of the DEIR. In the second
clty of W.~Ue paragraph under '~New Impact'' reference ~o '!the ACCMA standard of LOS E would no/
Nora Dav~, be met' must 'be- delemd/ This standard applies-to the LOS Momtonng program, which
city om,mo.t monitors existing c°nditions;':;~d does not apply to the Land Use Analysis Program,
Mayor
¢~ ~o~o~ which monitors the impact of development on the regional transportation network for
City of Hayward the study years 2005 and 2025.
Mayor
Roberta Cooper
for the opportunity to review the recirculated DEIR. Please do not hesitat~
Thank
you
City of Livermore
Coundlmember to comact me at 510/836-2560 ext. 13 if you require additional information.
Tom Vargas
City of Newark
Councilmember Sincerely,
Luis Freitas
Vice Mayor
Larry Reid .
City of Pimlmont
Coundlmember
je~Wie~er Beth Walukas
city of m~asamon Senior Transportation
Planner
Chairperso~
Mayor
Tom Pico CCi Chron
City ofs,~ r.=,~-o Jean :Hart, DePuty Director ' ~ '
Mayor " ' "
She~a Young file! CMP - Environmental Review Opinions.-ResPonses 7 2002...': ..
City of Union CitTREC~lVl~U
MarkGree~ug 0 1 Z00~
F~xecutive Director
1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220 · o~D, CA 94612 * PHONE: (510) 836-2560 · FAX: (510) 836-2185
E-MA.IL: mail@accma.ca.gov · WEB SITE: accma.ca.gov
Letter R-I.I: State of California Office of Planning and Research
· Comment R-I,I.I: The State Clearinghouse has re-circulated a portion of
the EIR between July 16 and September 30, 2002. All o.ther project
information remains the same.
Response: Comment acknowledged. This is information only and no
further analysis is required.
Letter R-2.1: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
· Comment R-2.1.1: The second paragraph under the "New Impact" section,
the reference to "the ACCMA standard of LOS E would not be met" should
be deleted, since this standard applies to the LOS Monitoring Program
which monitors existing conditions and does not apply to the Land Use
Analysis program, which monitors the regional transportation network
for study years 2005 and 2025.
Response: Comment acknowledged. The discussion o£ LOS E was included
in the New Impact section of the Re-circulated Impact to describe that the
proposed Transit Center project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact to the 1-680 freeway. The statement is based on the
DEIR Transportation and Circulation section Standards of Significance
(page 145). Refer to the Response to DEIR comment 3.2.3, whereby it is
acknowledged that the ACCMA does not have a policy for determining
threshold of significance, although LOS E is still used in the EIR as a
threshold Of significance based on professional judgment.
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 51
City of Dublin September 2002
Appendix A
Re-circulated Traffic Impact
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 52
City of Dublin September 2002
CI'TY OF DUBLIN _
100'Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: hffp://www, ci.dublin.oa.us
July 17, 2002
. TO: Affected Agencies and Organizations
- FROM: City of DUblin community Development Department
RE: Re-circulation of a portion of Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the proposed Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-013), SCH # 2001120395
Background: ,The proposed Transit Center includes the phased construction of up to
· 2.0 million square feet of office space, up to 70, 000 square feet of local-serving retail
commercial uses, up to 1500 attached dwelling units, and a multi-story parking garage
for BART parking at the existing Eastern DUblin BART station on a 91-acre project area.
The Transit Center 'site is located between DUblin Boulevard and the 1-580 Freeway, and
between the Iron Horse Trail and Arnold Drive in the Eastern Dublin portion of the
City of Dublin, AlamEda County.
The project would also include construction of new streets, landscaping and utility
connections to serve the proposed development.
The property owrter, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, has requested
· approval cfa General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, a Stage 1 PD-Plarmed Development rezoning, a development agreement and a
parcel map to implement the above-described development program~
Environmental Review. A Draft EIR (DE]R) for the Transit Center project was
prepared by the City of DubLin and drculated for public comment for 45 days between
July 6 and AuguSt 21, 2001, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality ACt
(CEQA) and its related Guidelines. The City prepared draft responses to the comments
received during the public review period. The :responses will be compiled irt a Final
E]R.
Re-circulation of Portion o£ DEIR re: Impacts to I'680: In the course of preparing a
response to comments regarding the potential for project impacts on 1-680, the City
developed irrformation revealing a new sigrdficant impact that was not identified .in the
original DE]R. More specifically, Impact 4.11-7 identified significant mainlLrte freeway
Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 - City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 · Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 o Parks & Community Services 833-6545 -Poiice 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 - Buil~Jin§ inspection 833-6620 - Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
operation impacts for 1-580 in the year 2025. New information generated for 1-680
operations shows that the project may also have significant mainline freeway impacts
for 1-680 in the year 2025. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5,
information and analysis regarding this new significant impact is being circulated for a
45-day public review and comment period.
The new impact is described in more detail below.
New Impact:
The 1-580/I-680 freeway interchange is located more than one mile to the west of the
project area. However, mainline volumes along 1-680 both north and south of 1-580
have been evaluated for peak hour operation. These volumes and resulting impacts are
shown on the following Table 25a below.
As shown on Table 25a, with the Project traffic added to Year 2025 No Project mainline
freeway volumes, projected LOS for both directions of travel on 1-680 would remain
unchanged during the AM and PM peak hours. With a projected LOS F in the PM peak
hour northbound direction between 1-580 and Alcosta Boulevard, the proposed Project
trips would be adding to an already deficient condition, and the ACCMA standard of
LOS E would not be met, even without the Project trips. Although future developments
in the proposed Project would contribute TVTD regional traffic improvement fees,
which would also assist in funding the planned 1-680 auxiliary lanes between Bollinger
Canyon Road and Diablo Road, based on the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, these
measures will not avoid or substantially reduce the impact to the 1-680 freeway.
Therefore, the project impact on 1-680 would be significant and unavoidable.
Table 25a. Year 2025 1-680 Mainline Freeway Operation,
AM and PM Peak Hour LOS o,2~
Location Capacity Year 2025 No Project Year 2025 With Project
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS
1-680, I580 to Alcosta
Blvd.
NB 6,900 6,189 E 7,179 F 6,277 E 7,486 F
SB 6,900 5,714 E 5,654 E 6,074 E 5,762 E
1-680, 1-580 to
Stoneridge Dr.
NB 6,900 4,449 D 5,368 D 4,674 D 5,436 D
SB 6,900 5,228 D 5,842 E I 5,283 D 6,034 E
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 2
Re-circulated DEIR July 2002
City of Dublin
(1) Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 1997, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS
Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections, December 1997. Assumes maximum service flow rate of
2,300 passenger vehicles per hour per lane.
(2) Year 2025 base year no project volumes based on the Updated Tri-Valley Transportation
Model using ABAG projections '98. Proposed Dublin Transit Center peak hour trips were
then manually added into these base volumes to generate Year 2025 with project volumes.
The following new impact is hereby identified and discussed as Impact 4.11-8 and is
included by reference in the Dublin Transit Center DEIR.
Impact 4.11-8 (mainline freeway operations, 1-680): In 2025, without the proposed
Transit Center project, 1-680 mainline conditions would exceed Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance. The addition of Transit
Center traffic would worsen that condition for the 1-680 freeway near the project area
(significant and unavoidable impact, mitigation is not feasible since freeway
improvements are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin).
Close of Re-circulation Comment Period: Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15088.5 (f)
(2), the City of Dublin requests that any comment on the new impact be limited to the
new impact being disclosed in this Re-circulated DEIR.
The close of comment period for the re-circulated DEIR information is 5:00 p.m.,
August 30, 2002. Comments should be forwarded to:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
Attn.: Eddie Peabody, Jr.
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
For Further Infoi~mation: Contact the City of Dublin Community Development
Department at (925) 833-6610.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 3
Re-circulated DEIR July 2002
City of Dublin
Appendix B
DSRSD Water Service Letter
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 53
City of Dublin September 2002
DUBLIN //~~~\\ 7051 Dublin Boulevard
SAN RAMON ~ Dublin, Califorriia 94568
FAX: 925 829 1t80
SERVICES
DISTRICT 925 828 0515
September 3, 2002
~EC~VED
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP "' ~'~ 0 ~: ~00Z
City of Dublin
Planning Department DUBLIpi PLANItII~G
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Water Supply for Dublin Transit Center
Dear Mr. Peabody:
The purPose of this letter is to further clarify project and long-term water needs related to the
Dublin Transit Center. The project is currently undergoing environmental review and the City is
preparing responses to comments on the Drift Environmental Impact Report (PA00-13). As
noted in our August 16, 2001 letter, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), the water
supplier for the area in which the proposed Dublin Transit Center is located, identified no impacts
or necessary mitigations beyond those identified in the Drift EIR. Further, our March 26, 2002
letter to Mr. Michael Porto, explained the various sources of water supply available to DSRSD
through Zone 7 and concluded "DSRSD does have adequate long term water supply contracts
with Zone 7 [Water Agency] to serve this project."
In the DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) tM demand for the Transit Center was
assumed to be 185,000 gallons per day (gpd). As now proposed, the demand will be 447,000
gpd. This is an increase in demand of 262,000 gpd. DSRSD is able to satisfy this increased
demand because a number of other projects already constructed within the City of Dublin have an
actual demand which is lower than that included in the UWPM. DSRSD is currently preparing a
comprehensive update of its UWMP to reflect these lower demand projects. This revision will
further confirm that an adequate water supply is available. Until that time, an examination of the
magnitude of the increased demand for the Dublin Transit Center may also be useful in
illustrating that DSRSD has the needed supply.
DSRSD's Final Revised Water Service Anaiysis (December 2001) analyzes in detail DSRSD's
water demand and supply projected for 2020. Table 2-1 in the analysis identifies DSRSD as the
water supplier for Dublin and Dougherty Valley, projecting build-out demands of 12,660 acre
feet per annum (afa) and 4,560 ara, respectively. Thus, the total water demand projected for
build-out of the DSRSD service area is 17,220 afa. The project's 262,000 gpd increased demand
over plmmed demand converts to 293.5 afa. This is an increase of just 1.7% from the long-term
demand projections. As noted above, DSRSD expects to meet this demand under its current
contracts, and no additional mitigation is necessary for this project in the long or short term.
The D~blin San Ramon Services District is a l~lblic Entity
Mr. Eddie Peabody
City of Dublin
September 3, 2002
Page 2 of 2
If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
DAVID K. BEHRENS
Principal Engineer
DKB:jg
CC: Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD
Dave Requa, DSRSD
Greg Taylor, DSRSD '
H:',ENGDEPT~ublinTra nsitCenterLtrg-3-02.DOC
Appendix C
Traffic Engineer Memo Regarding Minor Project Changes
Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 54
City of Dublin September 2002
Public Works' DePartment
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 13, 2002
TO: Jerry Haag
FROM: Ray Kuzbari
SUBJECT: Proposed Neighborhood Park Within the Transit Center Area
This memorandum is to let you know that a developed city park equipped with meeting rooms and
sports facilities would generate approximately 4.29 vehicle trips per acre during the AM peak hour and
2:97 vehicle trips per acre during the PM peak hour. These trip rates were taken from the April 2002
San Diego Traffic Generators Manu_a!, which are more conservative (i.e., higher) than the ITE trip rates
for this type of land use.
It is my understanding that an 8.7-acre neighborhood park has been proposed within the Transit Center
area that could' be large enough, to include sports facilities. Based on the above trip rates, the proposed
park would generate traffic volumes that are considerably low, including approximately 38 AM peak
hour trips and 26 PM peak hour trips. As a result of these low traffic volumes, the proposed park within
the Transit Center area is expected to have no significant traffic impacts on the adjacent street system.
cc: Lee Thompson
Mike Porto
GADEFELOPiIgublin Transit Ctr~park trip gen m~rno.doc