HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.10 Dougherty Vly EIR Comments (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Comments on Contra Costa County Dougherty
Valley Draft Environmental Impact Report
REPORT PREPARED BY: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A. Letter dated June 8, 1992 from James W.
Cutler
/1 , B. Staff comments on Draft EIR
RECOMMENDATION: � Or",rReceive report
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
On June 8, 1992 , James W. Cutler, Assistant Director of the
Comprehensive Planning Division of the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, sent a copy of the Dougherty Valley Draft
Environmental Impact Report for comments . The comments are due before
July 23, 1992 .
Attached are the Staff comments on the Draft EIR for review and
comment by the City Council .
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Senior Planner
Agenda File
James Cutler
Lee Thompson
Brenda Gillarde
Adolph Martinelli
CITY CLERK
FILE 11/1� C1 Q
Community Contra Harvey E. n
Director of Commuommunity Development
Development Costa
Department COUnty
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing t c
Martinez, California 94553.0095
U.
Phone: �_�
646-2035
T'a COUNT
REC1VEr)
r)e)
L}113LtN PLANNING,
TO: INTERESTED AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DOUGHERTY VALLEY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN
AND IMPLEMENTING PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
COUNTY FILE #2-91-SR
DATE: JUNE 8, 1992
Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Implementing Project
Entitlements, County File #2-91-SR: This is for a planned community of 6,000 acres
located to the east of the city of San Ramon in the Dougherty Valley on both sides
of Dougherty Valley Road. The site runs from the San Ramon city boundary on the
north, and south to the Alameda County boundary. A general plan amendment,
specific plan, rezoning, sphere of influence changes annexations and related
applications shall be covered in this EIR. The project would allow up to 11,000
dwelling units, a commercial center and substantial open space areas.
The enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Report is being distributed for review and
comment in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(CEQA) and State and County Guidelines. Substantive comments or information will
be included, and, if necessary, responded to in the Final EIR.
For accuracy of record, written comments are desirable and encouraged, and should
be supported by factual information whenever possible. Comments may be mailed to
the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street,
North Wing - Fourth Floor, Martinez, California 94553, before Thursday, July 23,
1992.
If written comments cannot be made, an oral presentation may be made at the public
hearing which will be held on this matter. The Hearing will be before the County
Interested Agencies, ividuals Date: June 8, 1992
Notice of Completion & Public Hearing File: #2-91-SR
DEIR - Dougherty Valley -2-
Zoning Administrator on Monday,July 13. 1992 at 9:30 a.m, in the McBrien (County)
Administration Building, Board of Supervisors Chambers, 651 Pine Street, Room 107,
First Floor, Martinez, California.
If you require additional information on the Environmental Impact Report, please feel
free to contact me at (510) 646-2035.
Sincerely yours,
James W. Cutler
Assistant Director - Comprehensive Planning
JWC:gms
p12:Douphrty.NoC
Enclosure
cc: File
�lll •,•- �' 11\`1
�8'211 CITY OF DUBLIN
P0. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
July
Mr. James W. Cutler
Assistant Director
Comprehensive Planning
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553-0095
SUBJECT: Comments on Dougherty Valley Draft Environmental Impact
Report.
Dear Mr. Cutler:
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
document exist with regard to the introduction; project description;
land use; public services and utilities; circulation, and housing
population and employment and should be corrected in the EIR.
INTRODUCTION
Page 1-9 , first paragraph. The first sentence of this paragraph
states that Section 15182 of the State CEQA guidelines provides that
no subsequent environmental review would be necessary for development
of the project if it is in conformity with the specific plan. This
section states that only residential projects may take advantage of
this provision. The word "residential" should be added.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Page 3-5, third paragraph. The last sentence should be changed
to read "To the southwest are developing residential subdivisions in
the City of Dublin and to the southeast is the site of the future
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan" .
LAND USE
Page 4-5, fifth paragraph. The area on either side of Alamo
Creek has been subdivided completely.
Page 4-15 , third paragraph. Mention should be made that the
LAVPUGP is being revised and will be known as the East County Area
Plan. The plan revision is a joint effort of the County of Alameda
and the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton and will address
land use issues of regional importance.
Administration (415) 833-6650 • City Council (415) 833-6605 • Finance (415) 833-6640 • Building Insoection (415) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (415) 833-6620 • Engineering (415) 833-6630 • Planning
Police (415) 833-6670 • Public Works (415) 833-6630 • Recreation (415) t UHIBIT 13
Page 4-16, fifth paragraph. This paragraph should state "West of
Dougherty Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of Way, the
land uses vary from residential to business park, commercial and
industrial . From east to west, from the abandoned Southern Pacific
Railroad ROW the land uses are as follows : Business Park/Industrial :
Outdoor Storage, Retail/Office and Automotive, Business
Park/Industrial , Single Family Residential ( 6 . 1-14 . 0 du/na) , Retail
Office, Retail Office and Automotive, Retail/Office, Medium High
Residential ( 14 . 1-25 . 0 du/na) and Single Family Residential ( 6 . 1-14 . 0
du/na) . "
Page 4-16 , sixth paragraph. The 159 acre figure for land
suitable for development should be changed to 21 acres of residential,
16 acres of commercial and 23 acres of industrial . The 79 acre site
just east of the Dougherty Hills area has already been completely
subdivided.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Page 5-1, second paragraph. Mention is made that Dougherty
Valley lies outside the service area of DSRSD for sewage service. For
DSRSD to be considered as a sewage provider, the project would have to
be annexed to that district. Annexation of the project into DSRSD for
sewage service would depend on the implementation of "Alternative
North 3" including the installation and/or upgrading of extensive
facilities . More importantly, annexation of the project into DSRSD
should not occur until proposed developments in the DSRSD service area
are assured adequate sewage capacity.
Page 5-8, second paragraph and page 5-40, Mitigation Measure 5 . 5 .
The EIR identifies DSRSD as a potential source of water for Dougherty
Valley. At the present time the Alameda County Water Conservation and
Flood Control District No. 7 (Zone 7 ) does not allow the sale of water
outside of its boundaries by retailers like DSRSD. The Dougherty
Valley lies outside of the Zone 7 service area. DSRSD could request
Zone 7 to allow the sale of water outside of its service area, but the
chances of Zone 7 agreeing to do so are slim based on the positions of
the Zone 7 board members . DSRSD should not be considered a source of
water for Dougherty Valley until proposed developments lying within
the existing DSRSD and Zone 7 service areas are assured an adequate
supply of water. If East Bay Municipal Utilities District will not
allow annexation and DSRSD is an unlikely service provider, the EIR
should analyze the alternative sources of water service from other
agencies .
CIRCULATION
Figure 6-2 . The volumes shown are incorrect. Village Parkway
should be 16 , 700, Dougherty Road north of Amador Valley should be
5, 300, Dublin Boulevard east of Village Parkway should be 24 , 000 and
Dougherty Road south of Dublin Boulevard should be 44 ,200 . See TJKM
volumes of 1991 .
Figure 6-3 . The portion of San Ramon Road south of Alcosta
should be 23, 600 as shown on Figure 6-2 .
Page 6-6 , first paragraph. Fallon Road will be relied upon by
residents of the project and should be included in the Local Roadway
Network analysis .
Page 6-6 , third paragraph. Dougherty road has an ADT of 44,200,
not 38, 700 .
Page 6-10, first paragraph. The sentence beginning with Access
to I-580 . . . . should be continued to say "Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road, Fallon Road and North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. "
Page 6-10, third paragraph. The I-580/I-680 interchange should
be analyzed in the unsignalized intersection analysis .
Figure 6-5 . The title should read "Planned Roadway Improvements
by 2010" . The I-580/I-680 future improvements are not completely
funded and may not begin in 1994 .
Table 6-3 . The data in the table for Dublin should be changed as
follows :
1990 2010 CUMULATIVE
No. HH. No. Empl . No. HH. No. Empl . No. HH. No. Empl .
Dublin 6 , 135 9 , 000 8, 361 9 ,400 8, 361 9 ,400
E. Dublin 9 0 11, 917 36,786 17 ,551 39 , 696
W. Dublin 5 0 2, 861 118 3, 092 118
Table 6-5 . This table states that only 13% of the project
traffic will pass through Dublin. The table also states that 3% will
go to Livermore, 8% to Pleasanton and 3% Outside the Bay Area. The
vast majority of the non-Dublin trips will pass through Dublin due to
the avoidance of back-tracking, avoidance of the I-580/I-680
interchange and the attractiveness of fast and direct routes through
East Dublin. Dublin Staff estimates that 20-25% of the project
traffic of 168, 810 ADT or 33,762 to 42,203 ADT, the equivalent of a
six lane arterial, will pass through Dublin' s roadways . This level of
impact should be acknowledged in the EIR and appropriate mitigations
made by the project proponents .
Table 6-6 . The Design ADT' s for a Four-lane divided arterial and
a four-lane undivided arterial should be 31, 000 and 27 , 000
respectively.
Page 6-26, paragraph 3 . The EIR assumes that major road
improvements shown on the Dublin General Plan will be completed when
Dougherty Valley needs them. This assumption is risky because to date
none of them have been funded and improvements by developers are
subject to market limitations . Likewise, improvements to the I-580/I-
680 interchange are not assured due to only partial funding in the
short term and no funding for long term improvements including off-
ramps to downtown Dublin.
Page 6-27 , paragraph 4 . A statement is made that demand for a
ten lane facility will exist. What portion of that demand will come
from the project and how will that be mitigated? This should be
addressed in the EIR.
Figure 6-7 . An analysis of the ADT' s shown in this Figure
indicates a total "External Project Traffic" in 2010 of 72, 000 and
70, 900 at buildout. Why does the external traffic decline at
buildout? If 30% the total ADT of 168, 810 shown in Table 6-4 is
subtracted from the total ADT, 118, 167 ADT will impact areas outside
of the project. These two numbers differ drastically. It would seem
that the ADT' s given in the figure are very low. Please address this
in the EIR.
ADT' s were not provided in this figure for Old Ranch Road,
Tassajara Road or Fallon Road east of Tassjara Road and north of I-
580 .
Windemere Parkway is shown with ADT' s of 11, 700 and 13, 900
southbound on Tassajara for 2010 and buildout with project. However,
the intersection of Tassajara and I-580 shows only an impact of 1, 000
ADT and 3, 200 ADT with project in 2010 and buildout. It is
unreasonable to expect that 10,700 ADT in 2010 and 10, 700 ADT at
buildout would be absorbed in Eastern Dublin. This should be
addressed in the EIR.
Table 6-13 . The Dougherty Road intersection with Dublin
Boulevard is shown as going from an existing LOS of D to an LOS of B
with your project . The Dougherty Road intersection with I-580
westbound off-ramp is shown as going from an existing LOS of B to an
LOS of A with your project. Please explain how an increase in traffic
can lead to an improvement in LOS. In two instances a V/C ratio of
. 90 is shown as LOS D when it should be LOS E .
Page 6-48, Mitigation Measure 6 . 4d. The I-680 northbound off-
ramp should be changed to on-ramp.
Page 6-55, paragraph 1 . A drop in LOS from acceptable (D) to
unacceptable (E) and unmitigable for the Dougherty Road/Dublin
boulevard intersection has impacts which are significant and
unavoidable . Staff questions whether this impact is unavoidable given
the possibility of modifying the project or providing alternate access
to I-580 such as Fallon Road. If a change in LOS should occur, other
than the possibility of mitigation via the Alameda County Congestion
Management Program, what can be done to address this impact?
HOUSING, POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Table 14-1 . The number of employed residents in Dublin in 1990
was 11, 321 and the number of jobs was 9 , 000 .
Page 14-14 , fourth paragraph. It is stated that implementing the
project would result in the addition of about 29, 000 people and 2 , 500
new jobs . This would result in a job to employed residents ratio of
2 ,500/17 , 600 (see next comment) or . 14 . This ratio is far from ideal
from Dublin' s viewpoint. Although the EIR states that 50% of the
trips generated by the project will begin and end within the project
and the City of San Ramon, that seems quite unlikely to occur given
the . 14 ratio. It is very likely that, due to the relative absence of
jobs in Dougherty Valley, a sizeable number of project residents would
commute through Dublin to jobs elsewhere. This impact to Dublin would
be significant and not mitigable and should be addressed in the EIR.
Consideration should be given to changing the project to achieve a
jobs to employed residents ratio similar to that proposed to be in
effect in 2005 in the Tri-Valley area ( . 99 ) . This would help minimize
circulation impacts to the City of Dublin.
Page 14-16 , paragraph 3 . If 11,000 dwelling units will be built
with an average yield of 1 . 6 employed residents per unit, the total
employed residents should be approximately 17, 600 not 6 , 010 .
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
/DVDEIRCO