Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.5 Dougherty Valley Growth Mgmt and SP DEIR (2) CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Comments on Dougherty Valley Growth Management and Specific Plan DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report) REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Draft letter of comments on Dougherty Valley Growth Management and Specific Plan DEIR RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to send letter FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The City of San Ramon has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Dougherty Valley Growth Management and Specific Plan. The plan would allow between 7 , 000 and 11, 000 dwelling units and land uses that support residential areas in the 6,000 acre Dougherty Valley area in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The land is owned by Sharpell Industries (Gale Ranch) Windemere Properties (Gunpert Ranch) and the U.S. Army (Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area) . Contra Costa County is processing a separate land use development plan for the Dougherty Valley. The DEIR only addresses the City of San Ramon' s plan and does not address Contra Costa County' s plan. The City of San Ramon will accept written comments on the DEIR until January 7 , 1992 . The Staff has prepared a draft letter of comments on the plan. Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to send the letter to the City of San Ramon. --------- -- ----------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. COPIES TO: General/Agenda File [grthmgmt Applicant/Owner Project Planner CITY CLERK FILE 0 t Manager Mr. Dean Mills, Projec ® Planning Services Division 2226 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 SUBJECT: Comments on Dougherty Valley Growth Management and Specific Plan DEIR Dear Mr. Mills : Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The proposed Specific Plan is located immediately north of the City of Dublin and will have impacts on Dublin. Of prime importance to Dublin would be the impacts of traffic passing through our City to Dougherty Valley along Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Analysis of the DEIR has indicated that significant deficiencies in the DEIR exist with regard to Traffic and Circulation; and Population, Employment and Housing, and Public Services and Utilities and should be corrected in the EIR. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The DEIR assumes full buildout and completion of all necessary improvements under the current General Plan. Full buildout of eastern Dublin may not occur until 2015 or later. Facilities the DEIR is assuming will be built and can be relied on for access may indeed not be built when Dougherty Valley needs them. Facilities in eastern Dublin, while sized adequately for local traffic, are shown as being expanded via mitigation measures with no mention of impacts to the eastern Dublin Specific Plan, timing of improvements, or who will pay for them. The DEIR addresses future land uses in eastern Dublin based on Concept 4 which shows 600 acres of business park on the Alameda County owned property. Concept 4 has been replaced by a specific plan concept which places mixed land uses on the Alameda County owned land and redistributes business park land uses elsewhere in the specific plan. The changes to the land use pattern are significant and would have impacts on the proposed Dougherty Valley specific plan. The revised specific plan should be addressed in the EIR. Fallon Road is proposed to be a four lane arterial in the eastern Dublin Specific Plan which would carry significant amounts of traffic from Contra Costa County to Interstate 580 . Fallon Road is only mentioned in passing in the DEIR. Impacts by Dougherty Valley on Fallon Road should be addressed in the EIR. The existing Tri-Valley daily traffic volumes for the City of Dublin in figure 4 . 4-3 are incorrect. Dougherty Road between Amador Valley and Dublin Boulevards is shown as 18,800 when Dublin Counts are 21, 300 . Dougherty Road south of Dublin Boulevard is shown as 38, 700 EXHIBIT Ar when actual counts are 44,200 . Dublin Boulevard is shown as 22 ,700 when actual counts are 24 , 000 . San Ramon Road is shown as 43,200 when the actual counts are 48, 600 . Village Parkway is shown as 15, 700 when the actual counts are 16,700 . Page 4 . 4-8 indicates that Tassajara Road will be improved to four lanes . Four lanes cannot carry the 64, 100 ADT shown on Figure 4 .4-9 . Table 4 . 4-4 indicates that Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard P.M. peak is shown as LOS B when its actual LOS is D. Please submit all level of service intensity calculations for the City of Dublin. Future Tri-Valley Intersection Operations for a.m. and p.m. peak hours are shown on Tables 4 .4-14 and 4 . 4-15 . Inconsistencies are apparent in the figures for Dougherty Road/I-580 WB ramps, Hacienda Drive/I-580 WB ramps, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara/Dublin Boulevard. Levels of Service for these intersections appear to get better with increasing traffic flows, worsen and get better again. Likewise, Tables 4 .4-18 and 4 .4-20 show similar inconsistencies . How is this possible? Please submit calculations . This should be revised in the EIR. With regard to funding of a BART station, expand on the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 4 . 4-19 . Also, explain how light rail could be placed in the I-680 right of way given the existence of the HOV lanes . A screenline analysis of traffic volumes shown on pages 4 . 4-38 and 4 . 4-39 indicates that if the Lower Density plan is built there will be a traffic generation of 26, 300 while Table 4 .4-8 indicates that there will be a traffic generation of 46 , 300 of which 35, 000 would be residential . The Specific Plan concept would generate 45, 300 trips while Table 4 . 4-7 indicates a traffic generation of 130, 300 of which 99 , 700 would be residential . The High Density plan would generate 48, 700 while Table 4 .4-9 indicates a traffic volume of 149 , 300 of which 117 , 900 would be residential . What happened to the missing traffic? The assumption that the balance of the traffic would stay with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan is unreasonable. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many additional trips will be made by drivers bypassing the I-580/1-680 interchange. The EIR should address the true traffic impacts to roads and intersections in the City of Dublin. A screenline analysis of traffic volumes on I-580 and I-680 indicates that the Lower Density plan would reduce traffic by 2 ,500 ADT, the Specific Plan would increase the ADT by 6 , 300 and the High Density plan would increase traffic by 10,300 . These figures are far too low given the fact that many high income property owners will commute significant distances to their jobs . The DEIR on page 4 .4-60 projects no increase in daily traffic volume for I-580 west of I-680 . With at least 50, 000 daily trips coming south into Alameda County it is impossible to conceive that no increase in daily traffic volumes for I-580 west of I-680 would occur. -2- This should be revised in the EIR. The increases shown on page 4 . 4-41 all seem far to low. Figure 4 . 4-7 shows two left turn lanes on eastbound Alcosta to northbound I-680 . How will both lanes fit onto Alcosta? The assumption that the I-580/I-680 interchange will be complete is not correct as this project is not yet fully funded. The DEIR assumes that auxiliary lanes on I-580 will be constructed from I-680 to Fallon Road. What is the justification for this assumption given current Caltrans plans and lack of funding. The future traffic volumes for the specific plan on Figure 4 .4-9 indicate that 8,200 additional trips will use Dougherty Road north of Amador Valley Boulevard and 1,600 additional trips will use Dougherty Road south of Dublin Boulevard as a result of this project. These numbers are far too low. Likewise the 3,400 figure for Tassajara road is far too low. Also, the Lower Density project shows a reduction of traffic on Tassajara as opposed to no project. A count of traffic generation from Figure 4 . 4-8 indicates that a total of 33, 300 trips would flow to Bishop Ranch while only 11, 600 would flow to Dublin. This does not square with the 340 of all trips figure from Table 4 . 4-10 which would yield a total number of trips of 44, 302 . The analysis of impacts to roads in eastern Dublin is inadequate. Figure 4 . 4-9 indicates that 25,200 additional trips will flow south from Dougherty Valley along the Tassajara Road Connector to Tassajara Road but at the same time indicates that only 3,400 of them will reach Tassajara Road. It is unrealistic to think that 21,400 trips would be to eastern Dublin, please explain. Impacts to Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and their intersections with Dublin Boulevard and I-580 should be adequately addressed in the EIR. The DEIR assumes that the Tassajara Road Connector will be built. What would be the impacts to roadways and intersections in Dublin if this road is not built? This should be addressed in the EIR. The DEIR does not address potential impacts to City of Dublin intersections and roads from development in the Tassajara Valley. The Economics and Planning Systems report on Tassajara Valley indicates that up to 13, 000 dwelling units could eventually be built. Such a development, it ' s potential impacts on Dublin and necessary mitigation measures must be addressed in the EIR. Mitigation measure 4 . 4-14 on page 4 .4-54 indicates that the southbound approach to Dougherty road should be restriped to provide three through lanes and one through-right lane. There is not enough room to restripe and add lanes . Mitigation measures 4 .4-15, 4 .4-16, 4 .4-19 and 4 .4-35 contain a unique form of mitigation of the impacts of Dougherty Valley. The mitigation reads as follows : "Continue to refine planned land uses in -3- V ! ` the East Dublin area to balance traffic demand with available roadway capacity. " Dublin will not modify development plans for eastern Dublin thereby reducing development potential in Dublin and reducing revenues to Dublin to enable Dougherty Valley to maximize its growth potential . This type of mitigation measure should be deleted from the EIR and replaced by a mitigation measure which reduces the scale of the Dougherty Valley specific plan. For mitigation measure 4 .4-15, why will there be four southbound lanes on Hacienda? Mitigation measures 4 . 4-21a and 4 . 4-21b state that in order to mitigate impacts to CCTA and WHEELS "Dougherty Valley development could contribute a proportionate amount to the capital and/or operating costs associated with these service extensions . " A mitigation measure should state what percentage would be paid and when. This should be changed in the EIR. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Although the Tri-Valley area jobs housing balance is presently ideal, the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan contains a mix of land uses immediately adjacent to Dublin which has a far from ideal jobs housing balance. The Specific Plan would result in an increase in population of 35, 620 and create only 605 jobs . It is highly unlikely that these residents would be employed in San Ramon and more likely that they would commute through Dublin to jobs elsewhere. The localized jobs housing imbalance and its impacts on Dublin should be addressed in the EIR. The DEIR is seriously deficient and must be significantly revised to address actual levels of traffic produced by Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley; actual impacts to Dublin roads and intersections; mitigation of impacts including timing, cost and responsibility; efforts to minimize traffic generation through a better job-housing balance; assumptions of the model and errors in fact. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The DEIR is inadequate in its analysis of water service and wastewater transport and treatment (Section 4 . 10) . Regarding water service, the report indicates that DSRSD (the Dublin San Ramon Services District) is considered as a potential water service provider. DSRSD currently provides water service to the City of Dublin. DSRSD does not currently provide water service to the City of San Ramon or Contra Costa County. DSRSD purchases its water from Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. A Zone 7 representative has stated that there is a potentially inadequate supply of water for present and proposed uses within the existing Zone 7 service area. DSRSD and Zone 7 should not be considered as potential water suppliers until after the existing DSRSD and Zone 7 water service and sphere of influence areas are assured an adequate water supply for present and proposed uses . -4- Should DSRSD and Zone 7 continue to be considered as potential water suppliers, the DEIR will need to fully address the potentially significant impacts on the water supply of present and proposed uses within the existing DSRSD and Zone 7 water service and sphere of influence areas . Regarding wastewater transport and treatment, the situation is similar to the water service situation. The report indicates that DSRSD is considered as a potential sewer service provider. The plan area is not within the DSRSD' s current service area or sphere of influence. DSRSD provides sewage disposal as a member of LAVWMA (the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency) and/or as a member of TWA (the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority) . Both LAVWMA and TWA representatives have stated that there is inadequate sewage disposal capacity to serve present and proposed uses within the existing service and sphere of influence areas . DSRSD and LAVWMA/TWA should not be considered as potential sewage disposal providers until after the existing DSRSD and LAVWMA/TWA sewage disposal service and sphere of influence areas are assured an adequate sewage disposal capacity for present and proposed uses . Should DSRSD and LAVWMA/TWA continue to be considered as potential sewage disposal suppliers, the DEIR will need to fully address the potentially significant impacts on the sewage disposal capacity of present and proposed uses within the existing DSRSD and LAVWMA/TWA sewage disposal service and sphere of influence areas . If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Mehran Sepehri, Senior Civil Engineer, or me. Sincerely yours, Laurence L. Tong Planning Director LLT/DHC cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager Mehran Sepehri, Senior Civil Engineer Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County Planning Director Robert Beebe, General Manager, DSRSD -5-