Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 BART Final EIR Dublin/Pleasanton Extension (2) AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 22, 1990 REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director SUBJECT: Response to BART Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Letter from Elizabeth H. Silver, Acting City o/0—send Attorney, dated January 17, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: a letter to BART specifying the Dublin City Council position and concerns. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit District) has completed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project. The BART Board of Directors is scheduled to hold its final public hearing on the project on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. in the BART Board Room, 800 Madison Street, Oakland. The City of Dublin previously submitted comments on the Draft EIR. The FEIR consists of the Draft EIR and BART's responses to comments. Staff recommends that the Dublin City Council send a letter to BART to be considered as part of the EIR record at the February 6th BART public hearing. The letter should specify the following as the Dublin City Council position and concerns: 1. The City Council opposes the proposed two-station project (Castro Valley Station and West Dublin/Pleasanton Station) , and supports the environmentally preferable three-station alternative (Castro Valley Station, West Dublin/Pleasanton Station and East Dublin/Pleasanton Station) with parking spaces evenly divided between the Dublin and Pleasanton sides. 2. If the three-station alternative is economically or otherwise infeasible at this time, the City Council may support a two-station alternative consisting of a Castro Valley Station and an East Dublin/ Pleasanton Station as an interim project. Support for the two-station ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM NO. .4— COPIES TO: Robert Brown, Livermore Gail Gilpin, Pleasanton � 1 alternative would be contingent upon further analysis of the infrastructure requirements and mitigation measures for the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station and a commitment from BART to pay its proportionate share. BART should also proceed at this time with the preliminary design work needed to construct the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station. 3. There is a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) deficiency in the "No Project" discussion in the EIR. The "No Project" discussion needs to compare the proposed project to the existing "on the ground" development or lack thereof. 4. The EIR needs to consider the I-580/San Ramon Road offramp improvements as part of the anticipated street improvements and needed mitigation measures in downtown Dublin. - 5. The BART Staff and Dublin Staff need to discuss specific mitigations and their costs prior to the items being presented to the BART Board for approval. The costs should include a breakdown in today's dollars as well as a commitment to fund a specific proportion or percentage of the actual cost. For example, there should be further analysis of the BART suggested mitigation of 40% of the reimbursable cost identified in the Dublin Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the "new road" and for Dublin Boulevard improvements. The 40% figure might not be accurate. The total potential cost associated with acquisition of right-of-way for the "new road" was not included in the CIP and needs to be considered. 6. The FEIR shows the displacement of the Unisource business facilities in downtown Dublin, which is substantially different than the Draft EIR that shows the Smith-Kline Bio-Science Lab being displaced. This change in the project should be recirculated to allow for additional review and analysis. 7. The EIR needs to consider a parking structure in Dublin for the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station to avoid the significant impacts caused by business displacement and the substantial economic impacts caused by displacing a major revenue generator in the downtown Dublin area. 8. The 3 station alternative (Alternative 2) or the 2 station alternative (Alternative 3) would be environmentally preferable over the proposed project because it would avoid the unmitigable traffic impacts on the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection as shown in Table 28-B-3 (pg. 3- 138 of BART's responses) and in the Summary of Adverse Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Measures (pg. 5-8 of BART's responses) . The 3 station alternative or the 2 station alternative would have an acceptable evening peak hour Level of Service (LOS) of "D" instead of the proposed project's unacceptable LOS of E 9. The Response to Final EIR for BART Extension, dated January 17, 1990, from Elizabeth H. Silver, Acting City Attorney, 5 pages, is attached and incorporated by reference as part of the Dublin City Council's comments. 2 - DIEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK WEST MICHAEL R.NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION PENINSULA OFFICE STEVEN R.MEYERS GATEWAY PLAZA 1220 HOWARD AVE..SUITE 250 NATALIE E.WEST BURLINGAME.CA 94010.4211 ELIZABETH H.SILVER 777 DAVIS STREET,SUITE 300 (415)348-7130 MICHAEL S.RIBACK SAN LEANDRO,CALIFORNIA 94577 FAX(415)342-0866 MOLLY T.TAMI (415)351-4300 ANNE E.MUDGE FAX(415)351-4481 MARIN OFFICE MICHAEL F.RODRIQUEZ 1202 GRANT AVE..SUITE E MEMORANDUM NOVATO.CA 8 92-2- 94945 OF COUNSEL (415)892-8878 THOMAS F.BERTRAND R�CElVED REPLY TO: AN i a 19gIa San Leandro pUg1.IN p�p;Vtd►►`�G TO: Laurence Tong DATE: January 17, 1990 Planning Director FROM: Elizabeth H. Silver Acting City Attorney by Kit Faubion RE: Response to Final EIR for BART Extension We have received a copy of the Final EIR for the BART extension and have reviewed it for project changes or mitigations that affect Dublin, and for the adequacy of its responses to our comments on the Draft EIR. The City should request that these and any other comments it submits on the Final EIR be included in the EIR record. The Errata sheets beginning on page 2-3 contain corrections to text and clarifications of issues in the DEIR. Some of the revisions apply generally, such as the added mitigation on DEIR page 4-98 requiring hazardous waste producers to comply with the county's hazardous waste disposal plan. The following revisions directly affect Dublin. 1. Page 2-3 . Alternatives 2 and . 3 now include no business displacement in Dublin. 2 . Page 2-4 . Projections corrected to show 45% of future employed valley residents commuting to San Francisco. 3 . Page 2-5. BART's new approach to traffic mitigation is to give money to the jurisdictions that will undertake the actual mitigation work. A December 20, 1989 letter to Rich Ambrose includes BART's estimate of its share of the mitigation improvements. The final dollar amount will not be available until a final mitigation and monitoring plan is adopted. TO: Laurence Tong RE: Response to Final EIR for BART Extension DATE: January 17, 1990 PAGE: 2 4 . Page 2-6. Traffic mitigations for the Regional Street/Dublin Blvd. intersection have been revised. The revisions include deleting the mitigations identified in the DEIR and including in their place widening Dublin Blvd. and the new road connecting Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive. With this change, the Smith-Kline facility will not be displaced, however the Unisource building now will be displaced. Note: Figures 2- 7, 4-3 on pages 2-15, -17 of the Final EIR show slightly different configurations of the proposed new road. It is not clear from these general depictions that the new road can be built without displacing businesses east of Regional Street. Also, the FEIR notes that these revisions were made after consulting with Dublin. City staff should review any such claim to make sure they reflect the City's understanding of what was being changed. Additional revisions on this page delete two I-680 mitigations to traffic impacts for the West Dublin station. The FEIR does not specifically address how the now unmitigated impacts affect Dublin's traffic impacts analysis. 5. Page 2-7. Smith-Kline facility stays, Unisource and approximately 200 jobs now face displacement with the project. 6. Page 2-8. Revision addresses possible Pleasanton sewer moratorium impacts as adverse effects on the project but not as environmental impacts under CEQA. 7. Page 2-9. Revise detention pond mitigations to better address .flooding (hydraulic) concerns. 8 . Page 2-10. Discussions for Alternatives 2 and 3 revised to state that mitigations for the East Dublin station are speculative and that traffic mitigations at the Hopyard/ Stoneridge intersection are not feasible. While many of these and other revisions are simply clarifications of DEIR text, some of the revisions may be more important, such as the now proposed displacement of the Unisource building and the elimination of certain traffic mitigations as infeasible. These revisions raise the question of whether the document should have been recirculated to allow further public review. While the city may request that responses to the Final EIR be included in the record for consideration of a decision to TO: Laurence Tong RE: Response to Final EIR for BART Extension DATE: January 17, 1990 PAGE: 3 approve the project or not, the public comment period on the EIR is officially over so without recirculation of the changes, the city may be precluded from any meaningful review of the more significant revisions. The City must request recirculation if it feels the FEIR changes are substantial in order to preserve its standing to challenge the EIR. Turning next to the Final EIR's responses to comments, our letter was designated as letter 28-C. Our observations, as follows, will be in the same order as the responses. MAJOR CONCERNS 1. In spite of the response, we still question whether the ultimate project includes a Livermore extension. A BART sign still appears to mark the location of the future facility in Livermore. 2 . While the response is helpful, it does not appear to clarify the EIR's apparent confusion between impacts analysis, alternatives analysis and cumulative analysis. Dusek v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (1985) 219 Cal. Rptr. 346 is clear that "no- project" is the existing environment. To the extent the no- project description assumes development on vacant land, it runs afoul of Dusek by comparing a proposed project plan to an existing plan rather than to the existing on the ground development (or lack thereof) . Future development around the project site is appropriate in a cumulative impacts analysis, while alternative development on the project site is appropriate in an alternatives analysis. neither, however, is appropriate in a no-project analysis. Furthermore, their improper inclusion may mislead the public and decision makers as to the extent of a project' s impacts, as noted in the Alameda County Planning Department' s comments on the Draft EIR. The additional discussion of alternative sites is noted, however Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11920, September 22 , 1989 is still unresolved. Until we get better direction on the breadth of required analysis, we cannot tell if the revised discussion is adequate. TO: Laurence Tong RE: Response to Final EIR for BART Extension DATE: January 17, 1990 PAGE: 4 Response re: alternatives findings upon project approval noted. BART's findings should be reviewed once a project is approved to see if they are adequate. 3 . Staff should review the project list to see if it is complete. The response appears to be saying that analysis of the effects of these other projects appears in the Transportation Technical report. Until we review that report, we cannot tell if the cumulative analysis is sufficient. Similarly, the response notes five reference documents and a technical report relevant to cumulative effects of other impacts. Until we review those documents, we cannot tell if the analysis is sufficient. 4. Verify response with staff. MINOR CONCERNS 1. Response adequate. 2 . Response adequate. 3 . Response adequate. 4 . Response generally adequate, however if a question arises about whether a particular feature is "standard" or not, BART must be able to document its answer, presumably by producing its official standards and their effective dates. 5. We will review the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" when it is available to determine if it is adequate. 6a. Response to our comment about the feasibility of the Stoneridge impacts states that the overpass widening is feasible. Page 2-6 of the FEIR, however, states that neither of the mitigations suggested in the DEIR (and questioned in our comments) is feasible. With these conflicting statements, the FEIR is confusing, however it appears that no mitigation of this impact is possible. The FEIR does not specifically state whether the result is an unmitigated significant impact for which overriding considerations will be required if the project is approved. TO: Laurence Tong RE: Response to Final EIR for BART Extension DATE: January 17, 1990 PAGE: 5 6b. While BART stations may not be significant sewage generators, they nevertheless must have sewer service available. The fact that the ability of the sewer system to provide its service has already been challenged through litigation (DEIR p. 4-521 renders the possibility of a sewer moratorium more than speculative. 6c. Response adequate. 6d. Response noted; it appears that detention basins have been eliminated as mitigations for runoff impacts which the DEIR identifies as less than significant anyway. As noted in the city' s comments on the DEIR, the possibility of a parking structure at the West Dublin station should be considered to mitigate water quality impacts by reducing the amount of paved area, and to minimize or eliminate the need to displace the Unisource building under the proposed project. 6e. Response adequate. 7 . Response adequate. 8 . Response adequate. Because traffic distribution would be less concentrated with alternative 2 than with the proposed project, alternative 2 would better mitigate air quality impacts. As noted in the earlier responses, BART will be required to make findings on the project alternatives if it approves the proposed project. Those findings should be carefully reviewed for adequacy under CEQA. 9 . Response adequate. 10. Response adequate. Here again, the alternatives better mitigate certain project impacts. As noted in no. 8 above, BART' s alternatives findings should be carefully reviewed. 11. Response adequate. 12 . Response adequate.