Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 7.4 Hacienda Business Park EIR (2)
AGENDA STATEMENT STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: - September 26, 1983 SUBJECT: Draft EIR for Amendment to Growth Management Element and Hacienda Business Park, Pleasanton EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1 . August 30, 1983 , transmittal letter 2 . Excerpts from Draft EIR ** :NOTE: Full Draft EIR available for review in Dublin Planning Department RECOMMENDATION: Determine comments on Draft EIR and direct Staff to transmit them to the Pleasanton Planning Department. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The Pleasanton Planning Department has forwarded the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Amendment to the Growth Management Element and Hacienda Business Park, Pleasanton, for review and comment . The document is detailed and complex. The project involves : 1 ) revisions to the text of the Pleasanton Growth Management Element ; anti, 2 ) approval of the Hacienda Business Park . The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that reviewers of EIR ' s should focus on the adequacy of the EIR in discussing : 1) possible impacts upon the environment; 2 ) ways in which adverse impacts might be minimized; and, 3 ) alternatives to the project . The Dublin General Plan Working Paper #2 : Analysis of Planning Options includes the following Policy Options : 1 . Insist that EIRs for major projects in Tri-Valley jurisdictions identify housing additions that will balance job additions . 2 . Insist that EIRs for major projects in Tri-Valley jurisdictions identify transportation mitigations that will avoid misuse of Dublin ' s street system by commuters attempting to avoid freeway interchange congestion. EMPLOYMENT/DEMOGRAPHICS/HOUSING The Draft EIR states in the Employment/Demographics/ Housing section that "the jobs/housing index is not, in itself, an environmental impact . Impacts stemming from the relationship between jobs and housing would be manifested in the form of traffic, air quality, public service, and other impacts . " The Draft EIR does not identify housing additions that will balance job additions . ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO_ 7 T COPIES TO: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The Draft EIR identifies significant impacts on: 1 ) Dublin Blvd./San Ramon Rd. Intersection; 2 ) Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. Intersection The Draft EIR identifies Transportation Systems Management as a mitigation measure . Strategies may include ridesharing/flextime, transit service, "park and ride" lots , and master traffic signal control system. It is not clear how these mitigation measures would affect the intersections on Dublin Blvd. On September 19 , 1983 , the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft EIR and recommended that the City Council forward the following comments regarding the Draft EIR to the City of Pleasanton: 1 . The Draft EIR should identify housing additions that will balance job additions . 2 . The Draft EIR should identify transportation mitigations that will avoid misuse of Dublihs street system by commuters attempting to avoid freeway interchange congestion. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the Draft EIR and determine what, if any, comments to send to the City of Pleasanton. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the above items and make recommendations to the City Council . CITY OF PLEASANTON NOTICE OF COZ_PLETION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT _ REPORT August 30 , 1983 A Draft Environmental Im?act Report has been prepared in conjunction with the project described below and is available for public review and comment . PROJECT TITLE : Amendment to the Growth Management Element of the Pleasanton General Plan (GP-83-1) and Hacienda Business Park Planned Unit Development .(PUD-81-30) PROJECT LOCATION : For PUD-81-30 , project site is located generally in the area bounded by the Arroyo 'Nlocho on the south , the _ Southern . Pacific Railroad tracks �. on the east , Hooyard Road on the west , and an ali`nment approximately 1 , 500 feet south of and parallel to Interstate 500 on the north In tI e City O eaC:=..t0n PROJECT DESCRIPTIO?• ^pis project D7on-oses clag and ot-er provisions to t0 t_"he tex.' 0i t- l rowth '' anc_e�ent °_r:e:-t Oi she Le-,oral .Plan andy p7- 000ses rezonl and develODuent p_an approval ofv commercial/office/ industrial complex on an approximately _ 573 acre site . CONTACT PERSON : Robert J . Harris , Director of Planning _- and Community Development (415) SLOE -3202 , extension 2�!: Copies of the document are available for review at 'the Planning Department , City Fail , 200 Bernal Avenue ,- Pleasanton , California . Copies are also available for review at the Pleasanton Library , 4333 Black. Avenue , Pleasanton , California . Comments may be received at City Hall throuah September 30 , 1983 . PUBLISHED : September 4 , 1983 PREFACE This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to conform to the _ California Environmental Qualitv Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines effective August 1 , 1983 . The Resources Agency of California has adopted amendments to incorporate the recent the Guidelines for Environmental Impact Reports, which changes in CEQA. Under CEQA, the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to provide objective information to public decision makers and the general public regarding potential environmental effects resulting from project implementation. The City of Pleasanton can then institute methods of reducing adverse impacts or consider alternatives to the project. Included in the amended CEQA guidelines (Section 15163) is the provision that allows preparation of a Supplemental EIR if substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, -which will require important revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of rew s;gnificant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR and ?_` only minor additions Or changes would be necessary to male the previous EIR m adequately apply to the project in the charged situation. Chat;es with _ respect to circumstances under which this project is undertaken allowing the preparation of a supplemental EIR include charges in the physical environment due tc construction projects and new information in recently published reports pertinent to the Hacienda Business Park. These changes are Su=ari=ed in t~e text of this Draft EIR . n en :ment to the Growth Management E.le..._._t of the �n The pro:,csed project i s a__ �._.:c . City of Pleasanton General ' a__ (GP-83-1 ) and approval Of a r°so^irR/ development plan for uaci Ada Business Pcrx (PU7-8i-30) . The G1VirOiental Impact Repor for the Hacienda Business Park (State Cleari nSj_^:Ouse X8 10901 14 ) i:as CC'=ipieted in June 1982, and was Ce_rt_:fed as Complete and adequate at that tLm by t_^.e City C0Uncil. In response to legal EIR, the Superior Court of :l-�eca County challenges to the adequacy of th.. IR __ . fOUP.O the aCleP.da BUS mess Park EIR to be complete and adequate. E:cwever, the approval of Hacienda 'usiness Park was set aside " . . .unless or until erement is made either to Hacienda Business Park or to the General Plan, such that Hacienda Business. Park is consistent with the General Plan," specifically `_- ; ith Goal 1 of the Growth Management Element ."to achieve and maintain a balance along land uses as the city develops" , and Policy 3 of Goal 1 "to encourage establishment OI industries compatible with the environmental COP.Stra?ntS in the valley, particularly air quality, and will the existing and future work force of Pleasanton. " The proposed Growth Managem=_nt Element Amendment is a clarifying statement setting forth the principles which -will guide the interpretation of the existing goals and policies of the Growth Management Element. This report is an EIR on the proposed General Plan P.mendment and is a supplemental EIR to the Final EIR on Hacienda Business Park. The Supplemental ElR addresses Hacienda Business Park as modified by the 109 Conditions of Approval of PUD Oridinance No. 1040 (see Appendix 11 .1 ) . The Final EIR for the Hacienda Business Park project will not be a=ended but supplemented by this Draft EIR. The purpose of an EIR is to identify only the significant effects of a project on the environment , where significant effects are defined as "substantial adverse impact(s) on the environment" . This E_'R , therefore, discusses in detail primarily those impacts determined to have potentially significant or Vi r substantial adverse effects . The adverse impacts discussed in this Draft EIR are those related to the proposed General Plan Amendment, in addition to one's considered in the already certified Hacienda Business Park EIR. Areas of controversy regarding the Hacienda Business Park project have included employment/housing/demographics, transportation/circulation, air quality, _ noise, and public services . Also included in the amended guidelines (Section 15126) is the provision that the "discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures that are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project, and other measures which are not included, but could be reasonably expected to reduce adverse impacts" . Accordingly, all mitigation measures recommended within this EIR are not presently included within the project unless otherwise specifically noted. Vnere appropriate, this EIR incorporates by reference documents that are readily available to the .general public, in accordance with Section 15150 of the Guidelines . Where all or part of another document is incorporated by - reference , the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. in accordance with Section 15150(c) , the incorporated part of the referenced document 1S summarized where DOSSible Or briefly described if the data or information cannot be SU==ri7ed. All documents incorporated by reference in this EIR are available from the City of Pleasanton Planning Department. i Nf L2 Fi vii + L PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed -project is an amendment to the Growth Management Element of the City of Pleasanton General Plan (GP-83-1 ) and reapproval of Pleasanton Ordinance No . 10=10 which approved a rezoning/development plan for Hacienda _ Business Park (PUD-81-30) . 1 1 FFQJECT BACKGROUND AND .HISTORY On November 3, 1981 an application for approval of a rezoning/Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for Hacienda Business Park (PUD-81-30). was filed by Callahan-Pentz Properties, Pleasanton, and the Prudential Insurance Company of America (collectively, the applicant) with the City of Pleasanton. The Hacienda Business Park is a planned commercial/office/light industrial complex proposed for 573 acres easterly of Hopyard Road and approximately 1000 feet South of Interstate 580 in northern Pleasanton. The Hacienda Business Park project anticipates development of approximately eight million square feet of building, employing roughly 247000 workers, at full 'ouildout (in 25 years) . A ;- i ; p `e Clearinghouse ft ' Draft and final EIR for mac_°,_da B�s_ness ark (Sta:... 81090114) was prepared by the City of Pleasanton (City of Pleasanton, 1982) . - The Final EIR was completed in June, 1982, and was certified as complete and t ' time by the Pleasanton City Council. Refer to the Project adequate a� that.. Descript_on Of the Hacienda Business Park Dra=t EIR for a detailed description of that project. On June 22, 1982 the Pleasanton C-' t Council passed Ordinance No. 1040 aDD"Ovin the rezoning and development Dlan for PUD-81-30, H2Cienda BUS_neSS 'S Pan:{. Ordinance No. IQ-1, d?Cn i-c lL'de5 a Statement Ci EnVirOr tal 1�D�C Findings and the IO9 con-:ltiOns Of approval for Hacienda Business Pa.'k, is included in Appendix 11 . 1 - _n response to legal challenges to the adequacy of the E!R, the Superior Court Of A1�eda County found the ::aC?enda BU51r,eSS Park Final E1I to be complete and adecuate. However, the aDoro•val of Hacienda Business ?ark 'naS .Set aside " •.• _unless or until amendment is made either to Hacienda Business Park or to the General Plan such that Hacienda is consistent with the General Plan" _ The proposed project and Sllbjec- of this EIR is an ;--nendment to the Growth Management Element of the City of Pleasanton General Plan (GP-83-1 ) and reapprova l. of. Ordinance No. 1040 . The Growth Management Element (G?E of the City of Pleasanton's General "Plan was adopted On March 5, 1978, in response. to Pleasanton's very raDid residen- tial growth in the late 1960 's and early 1970 ' 8. This residential growth,_. unmatched by concurrent co=ercial and industrial development, had turned Pleasanton into a bedroom comnur_ity, with the large majority of its residents cor,.mutina to employment elsewhere and with increasing demands for public services which could not be satisfied by Pleasanton's predominantly residen- tial fiscal base. Adoption of the GME was intended to control the residential growth rate, while encouraging Co=erc-ial and industrial development to provide employment for local residents and a fiscal base able to finance the Dublic services necessary for the existing and expected future population. Currently Pleasanton has a population of approximately 35 ,400. The imbalance between residential and nonresidential development in favor of housing remains. The GME States that Pleasanton should attempt to reach a population of "75 ,000 persons living within a diverse mix of residential housing types, commercial 1-1 and industrial development to accommodate the needs of Pleasanton and the region for employment and shopping; parks, schools, churches, and- other public facilities to meet the needs of the residents; and a transportation network to carry the residents efficiently and safely to, from, and within the city" . In reaching this objective, the GME provides that the development of the city _ should be efficient, logical and orderly and should be pursued in a canner which insures that a high degree of environmental quality will be maintained. In recognition of this, the GME sets forth the following three goals: Goal 1 : To achieve and maintain a balance among lane uses as the city develops. Goal 2: To develop in an efficient, logical, and orderly fashion. Goal 3: To attain and maintain a high standard of environmental cuality in all development. The GME states that "Industrial and major commercial dev°_looment are _ necessities if Pleasanton is to achieve a healthy balance among land uses between residential, commercial and industrial development, " and describes as the primary benefits of such development: ( 1 ) employment :-or Pleasanton's _ present and future residents, and (2) a "healthy tax base to generate revenues for the city services and capital improvements necessary to serve the existing and future residents" . The G..•-E sets forth the following policies as the means by which to achieve these goals: - To encourage co=ercial and industrial development whichstrengthe s the local tax base and provides shoDC?ng and emp_o_:=en . necessary for Pleasanton residents; - To encourage establisr=:ent of a planned regional shopping cen e^; i i - To encourage establishment of industries compatible ;;ith environmental constraints in the valley, particularly air quality, and with t:e existing and future work force of Pleasanton; - To secure sewage capacity for commercial and industrial development _ through all available means; and == - To *monitor sewerage facility capacity relative to residential, : Commercial and industrial development in order to ensure capacity for balanced growth. The commercial, office, and industrial projects approved by the City of _. Pleasanton through May 1983 ( "Approved Projects") and Hacienda Business Park together offer the city the attainment of the fiscal case and employ-ent aims of the GME and the opportunity to finance, as mitigation^easures on these projects, the capital improvements required by Pleasanton's projected future growth. 1 .? OBJECTIyES OF PROPOSED GROVTH MANAGEMENT ELEME`;- AvD!':Er?T As a result of the decision in the litigation referred tc in Section 1 . 1 , the city desires to provide principles for the interpretatio: of Goal 1 of the 1-2 Growth Management Element and to clarify that the projected employment from the Approved Projects and Hacienda Business Park is consistent with and "a necessary and positive step toward achieving the goal of a balance among land uses The proposed GNP. amendment provides the following; considerations for -_ - interpretation of Goal l : ( 1 ) Additional commercial, office and industrial development is necessary to improve the current imbalance between residential and nonresidential development; (2) Construction of nonresidential projects approved as of May, 1983, is a necessary step toward correcting the imbalance between residential and nonresidential development; and (3) From time to time Pleasanton may become a net labor importirg co_u=ity- An additional objective of the proposed project is the reapproval of PUD Ordinance 1040_ The approved projects and hacienda would aid in financig most of the capital im,orove_ents necessary for the currently planned fut::re population growth of the city and would provide sufficient revenues to maintain a budgetary surplus for the city- through at least 1991 , even wit_ increased service demands generated by the currently planned residential and commercial/industrial development (see North Pleasanton Fiscal Impact Report, Ci ty of Pleasanton, .`.pril 1982) . Hacienda Business Park represents approximately 65 percent of the developable commercial/industrial land Iorth Pleasanton, anti iS a =armor Component of the city's plans to iyple_=Ct assessment d_sU _cts SO. COnStrliCt_OP. Of tr7If_^, weer, and fare -seat°--^_ Capital imDrovementS (See Section 3 .3 , TrcnSDortation and Circulation, 3.5, Public Services) . T e portion of these capital improvements to be financed by Haciend=a Business Park alone is estimated to cost approxi_matel•i $100,000 per acre: Other co=ercial/industrial projects within these ° P 0rPO to assessment districts are expected to have =assessments raag_nd from 55, $86 ,000 per acre (Kissel and {arn, Inc. , January, 1983) . 1 FROPOSED CRowT' MAN!GEMENT ELEMENT AMEND?IE N In order to incorporate the foregoing clarification into the General . P1 the following text is. to be added just before •Policy b of the Gt-:a at page o . "The following principles shall guide the. interpretation of Goal 1 of the Growth Management Element. Additional commercial , office and industrial development is desirab_= to correct the continuing shortage of available emplovment opportunities for the local and regional work force. The City of Pleasanton shall endeavor to provide employment opportunities within the city for present and future residents . Fro❑ time to time, housing supply may exceed jobs, or jobs may exceed housing supply. To that extent, the city could be, =-t various points in time, a net labor importing community, requiring scme amount of ircommuting. 1-3 . It is recognized that approval of well planned, long range commercial, office and industrial projects provides the necessary infrastructure for creation of desired future employment opportunities. To the extent that _ the G'IZ requires consideration of the relationship between projected :] employment from such projects and projected housing supply, the relation- ship is hereby clarified to permit the additional employment opportunities projected within Pleasanton as a result of the commercial , rj office and industrial projects approved as of May of 1983 , together with �'r+ the project shown in the proposed PUD-81-30 (Hacienda Business Park) . The commercial, office and industrial development described in subsectionti 1 , above, is a necessary and positive stop theaGaowthiManagement glElement among land uses as called for by Goal £} and would be compatible with the present and future work force of Pleasan- ton because of the following factors: ess toward correcting the current .severe a. The need for prog.T imbalance in favor of housing; b. The uncertainty as to whether economic trends and competitive factors will allow buildout of the subject projects at the L projected rate; C. The compatibility of the subject projects with job skills of the present and future work force of Pleasanton; d_ Established regional economic and commuting patterns and the location of the described projects in close. proximii- to aJor f regional transportation corridors, which will result in a siEnif ica_n_t Pumper of workers who prefer to work in the c_c_Y ant F� c c in a dispersion of employment ell--s Oi 'k to live elsewhere and P�- �. the described projects throughout the San Francisco B< Region. e. The availability of land use controls and the democratic process to monitor and respond to evolving trends in the relationship between local workers and housing needs." The Pleasanton projects approved through ,May, .1983, including Hacienda _n_ 22 Business Park, are •listed in Table 1 . These pro dects will be considered collectively in this EIR as "approved projects" . , Approvals for proJects Other than Hacienda Business Park have not been legally challenged. Readoption of . Ordinance 1040 with its 109 conditions of-approval is contingent on passage. of the Growth Management Element clarification .or. alternative General Plan � .. Amendment. on of these projects, relevant environmental documents (i.e. , A descripti Environmental Impact Reports or Negative Declarations and Initial Studies) and City Council/Design Review Board approvals and a summary of mitigating conditions is included in Appendix 11 .2 Environmental documents include the Final EIR for C & S Industrial Park (Environmental Science Associates (ESA-, t� 1979) and the Final EIR for Fromm Industrial Park Planned Unit Development (ESA, 1981 ) • A glossary of terms used in this EIR is included as Appendix 11 .3 . u 1-4 I The proposed amendment has been worded so that its scope encompasses only the approved projects and Hacienda Business Park. The proposed amendment does not _.-- prevent approval of all further commercial/office or industrial development projects within the City of Pleasanton. Smaller scale projects which do not have the potential to significantly alter the ultimate relationship between jobs and housing in Pleasanton can still be reviewed and approved by the city on a case by case basis in accordance with the general principle set forth in the Growth Management Element and the rest of the General Plan. Any addi- tional proposed commercial, office/industrial development project meeting the criteria set forth in the CEQA guidelines as being a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance (Section 15207) would require close scru- tiny, additional environmental review amd probably amendment to the Growth Managment Element prior to approval- 1 u SUPPL ENT TO H^CrENDA BUST NESS PARS: ETR As mentioned above, the proposed project is an amendment to the Growth Management Element of the City of Pleasanton General Plan (GP-83-1 ) and reapproval of Ordinance No- 1040 which adopted the development plan for Hacienda Business Park subject to 109 conditions of approval (see Appendix 11 . 1 ) . The primary developmental impact of the proposed Amendment would be to allow reinstatement of Ordinance No. 1040 and its conditions of approval. T_�e Final EIR for Hacienda Business Par'.{ (State Clearinghouse 181090114) was comole;,ed in June 1982 and was certified d s complete and adequae at that time by the Pleasanton City Council . Relevant portions of the Draft and Final EIR for Hacienda Iusiness Park are su=arized throughout this Supplecentai I'or the combined Genera} flan �__,end^e-=-/wac'enda Business Par'- Prc jec% Discussions throughout the EIR include changes in the pny5ical environ?ent d re to construction projects and new inform-aticn in recently published reports pertinent to the Hacienda Business Park. TABLE 1 . COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS APPROVED IN PLEASANTON THROUGH MAY, 1983(a) C: PROJECTED = PROJECT NAME NET GROSS SQUARE FEET — OWNER/DEVELOPER ACRES OF BUILDING S??.CE Id 037 ,200 i Hacienda Business Park 8, 493 u Meyer Properties 73 1 ,250, 170 Reynolds and Brown 50.23 808,439 d Stoneson Development/Daon Corp . 58. 13 1 ,375 ,000 a Fromm 855.2 1 , 160,000 Park t Valley Business Pa. k 00.44 915 ,000 Imperial Group 3.55 75, ij8 Farmers Insurance Group 13. 82 154 ,416 Kaiser 4 .71 46 ,400 McMahon-Oliphant 2.38 43 ,500 Tram ell-Crow 2.675 59,98' Sammis Co. (Centerpointe) 10 . 1 131 ,718 Kacor 7 .04 175,000 2.3 47 .028 I 5 Courtney (EFS) i ;u_. Courtney (Medical) 2.76 55,729 ` Devcon Construction 14.76 225,030 Carpenters Training Center 8. 135 63,412 1 . (CONTINUED) • h9 K, 1 1-6 ,a TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) . CMN-MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS APPROVED IN PLEASANTON TFROUGH MAY, 1983(a) PROJECTED PROJECT NA-IME NET GROSS SQUARE FEET OWNER/DEVELOPER ACRES OF BUILDING SPACE Dillingham Corp. 2.75 20,220 Axio© Group 4 .21 69,829 Pacific Telephone Co. 3 .55 10,909.- Bay Feritage Financial Coro. 3. 16 72,366 (Foothill Professional Center) t I i - M_iI Industries , Inc. h 48.000 . TOTAL 908.4'' 14,844,508 i al '...._.- environmental d-culler (a) Descr1pt10IIS Oi tnese �;'OjeC'.5, r ti_ �..^ �. 1t5, 2nd c Sllary Oi II11t'�c�'_np Conditions is '-nC '_- as Appendix 11 -3 . I 1-7 Appendix 11 . 4 form the basis of cumulative traffic i:r pacts under Scenarios 1A � and 13 in the Tri-Valley Transportation Study and .-_nalysis of the Pleasanton Area Traffic Circulation System , and are the subject of cumulative analyses in ;r this £IR. The characteristics of the project are described in detail in Section 1 . Section 3 of this report discusses in detail the environmental impacts which 7 would result if the proposed project is implemented . Areas of controversyr regarding the Hacienda Business Park project have included employment/housing/ denoSr2phics, tr2nsport2tion/circulation , air quality, noise , and public µ services; these areas are addressed in Section 3. Section 4 evaluates ;: alternatives to the proposed project . Potentially significant impacts are summarized below. EM PL OY1•!£NT/D£MOGRAPH?CS/HOUSING. The key assumptions and findings of the e::,ploy,, ent/denographics/housing analysis are sizmm2rized below. Local Impacts The 22 cco:nmercial/industrial projects approved, for development in tel 45,067 jobs. Additional Pleasanton will contain approxima y secondary employment generated In Pleasanton throu6gh the eco^oml multiplier effect is estimated to total 2 ,791 jobs. Adding he se J to estimated preexisting employ-rent Of 9 , 224 lobs yields an es,imat°_C total of 56, 882 jobs in Pleasanton at buildout . , T:^e aV erae nUT bEr Of workers Der hOUS°hO1C 15 e5 1:Ti2t_°d , be based on a con%'_nuation or trends Up to 1985 . Ore, the hou5ing need of workers employed In Pleasanton is esti... to be 32 ,061 dwelling units- - The total nL^,ber of dwell ins units In Pleasan On at bUl1COU� estimated to be 26, 667 units. Tnl5 estimate is based On toe General Plan target population of 76 , 000 , assLoing a future householt size of + 2. 85 persons (,'SSG Projections ' 83 ) . �. . - 82sed on the above d2t2 , the jobs/housing index in the City of Pleasanton at buildout is estimated to be 0 . 78. This figure indicates that the housing supply in Pleasanton will be equivalent to 78 percent of the housing need 2ttributable to workers employed in Pleasanton The analysis is summarized in Table 12. E - The above jobs/housing index assumes 100 percent buildout an occupancy of reasonably foreseeable projects. Actual project occupancy may be Ferri closer to 90 percent of planned levels due to vacancies, projects built " Zr I - at less than maximum densities and development that does not occur due to market, financial , enviromental or other factors. The jobs/housing index assuming 90 percent of estimated project employment at buildout € = would be 0. 85 . Regional Impacts . The relevant region for assessing the denographc and hous=ng impacts of employment gro°nth is the commute shed , or labor _cool area , from which workers will be drawn _ It is anticipated that the pri;,ary labor pool for commercial/industrial projects in Pleasanton and other Tri-Valley 2-2 2. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Growth project under evaluation in this EIR is an amendment to the Groroyal of a Man agEnent Element Of the General The General rezoning/d?velopment p_ Plan Anend^�ent is a project by the City of Pleasanton to clarify Goal 1 of the Growth Manage-nent Element Which states " tO achieve and maintain a balance of land uses as the city develops" . The proposednendment specifically states that the employment effects resulting from approval of Hacienda Business Park - t When added to the employment effects of all the ccnmercial , office and industrial projects approved through May, 1983 would be i°C 1eStent with the goal of balanced growth and the relevant implementing p° The primary developmental impact of the proposed General Plan a mendment would h Hacienda Business Park Planned Unite be to allow reinstatement of the D.��Jof Op^lent Ordinance. Haclendc BUS ine55 Park would contain approxl.12---`/ Devel 000 square feet of building space e Hacienda Business Park` s �9 and about 24 ,000 employees at buildout . in the absence of this amendment , 403 of th3 acres con for with the prior zo^_ng and that portion would be developed under the land use restrictions controlled by the Hacienda Business Park Owner' S Association and implemented by the recorded deed restrictions in the form Of de Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCGRs) . These CC8CRs pr8usinessyPark Specific land Use controls for all parcels w thin the Hacienda project. Cumulative impact discussions '_ Chi$ E!3 include the cunUlauive 1mpaCt Of " 2sonably foreseeable" projects . Reasonably foreseeable elplOy � - c^ those that have received at leas, g ene`�ati^g pr oject$. are defln_'_ c$ " have COnCept'Ual approval , in the f0 OI an ap�rOVed ien�ho L1Ve ( Cre- - SCO; fall°I at east potential to Obtain se er CapaC':Ly n V••- Contr a .,^r � � p_ ,,,,dy (( _t��nMr-) Sy5Uer1 Or the Central C.^...:.^ Wastewater Ma,.ag�en� r^ d` the present time, the San FranC'_S O Bar Sanitary District (CCCSD) syste . l ; which strongly disOO rages Regional Water Quali ty Control ward has a poc y develoa,:ent that must rely on discrete sewerage systems rather than On th°- Fur Furthermore, Reg_O.^ export of treated effluent to an CUtfall t° ]e Bay. 'r ^-d Board policy prohibits any szrean discharge of effluent in the watt. s:._� . As to land application of treated effluent, the Board of Directors Of ��de 7 , Ala:-neda County Flood Control ar:d Water Conservation District, w25tewat°_r manaSe-ment policies now enforced by the Regional Board . T^e5e land application systems of any kind unless Policies essentially prohibit additional export capacity is proven to be infeasible. Even then , ground- water duality standards which -ust be met are extremely restrictive. There- fore , the ability to connect to the LAV,,MA or CCCSD system is a consider Fore , prerequisite for development at this tire. Only projects Within incorporated areas that ^.at are LAV, members or in unincorporated communities that belong to DSRSD have access to the LAV,4"., system . Reasonably foreseeable ecm:,ercial/industrial projects ie�thePToirao�les/ are listed in Tables 7 , 8, 9 and 10 Of Section 3. 1 (�mploym s Housing) . Reasonably foreseeable residential projects in tha Tri-Valley , along with the reasonably foreseeable commercial/industrial projects, are listed in Appendix i1 . 4. All reasonably foreseeable projects listed in 2-1 communities will be the Tri-Valley area . Workers may be expected to be drawn not only from the Tri-Valley , however , but from a larger commute shed er,conpassing the secondary labor pool areas of the East Bay Corridor and _. Central Contra Costa County as well as the Tri-Valley. Therefore, regional - _ impacts have been analyzed at two geographical levels: 1 ) the Primary Region (Tri-Valley) ; and 2 ) the Secondary Region (Tri-Valley commute shed) . The analysis of the Primary Region is based on a detailed cataloging of reasonably foreseeable commercial/industrial projects in the Tri-Valley (see Tables 7 , 8, 9 and 10 of Section 3. 1 , E,nploynent/Demographics/Housing) as well as estimates of the ultimate residential holding capacities of Tri-Valley communities. (A list of reasonably foreseeable residential projects is included in Appendix 11 . 4) . The analysis of the Secondary Region relies on projections to the year 2005 extrapolated from ABAG ' s Projections '83 . PRIMARY REGION - Commercial/industrial projects approved for development in the Tri- Valley region, including Pleasanton , will contain approximately 87 649 jobs. Additional secondary employment generated by these projects is estimated to be about 11 ,395 jobs. Adding these jobs to estimated preexisting employment of 50, 373 yields an estimate of total Tri-Vallev emplovment at buildout of approximately 149, 417 jobs. - The average nu-Tiber of •.ro-:<ers per household in the Tri-1/alley as a w ole i5 e5ti-Mated to be 1. 60, based on a continuation of hi 5toric2l t ends to 19v5 . Tnere=cre , the housinz need of workers employed in the Tri-Valley i s estimate to be app-cx n2tely 013 , 385 dWellino units. - The total nLR,ber of housin7 units in the Tri-V21'1 ev at buildout 15 estimated to be 10; , "83 un'_t5. lni5 estimate Was derived by addinZ the nL-mber of potential units in Pleasanton to the estimated total number of potential units in other Tri-Valley communities, based on General Plan projections for Livermore and Dublin and extrapolations from PBAC 's Projections ' 83 for the San Ramon Valley. - Based on the above data , the jobs/housing index for the Tri-Valley at - buildout is estimated to be 1. 09. This figure indicates that the housing supply in the Tri-Valley will be equivalent to 109 percent of the housing need attributable to Workers employed in the Tri-Valley. Tine analysis is sLn,,,arized in Table 11 . - The jobs/housing index assuming 90 percent of estimated project employment at buildout would be 1 . 16. SECONDARY REGION - The East Bay Corridor labor pool area is comprised of the communities of . remont , Hayward , i;ewark., San Leandro , Union City, Castro Valley and San Lorenzo . The Cent-a'_ Contra Costa County labor pool area is com- prised of the communities of Concord , Walnut Creek , Lafayette , Orinda, Moraga, Pleasant Hill , Xartinez and Clayton. - Total employment in the Secondary Region is projected to be 598 , 408 jobs in the year 2005, including 140, 050 jobs in the Tri-Valley, 2-3 263 , 953 jobs in the East Bay Corridor and 194 , 405 jobs in Central Contra COst2 'CO unty . The housing need of workers employed in the Secondary Region in 2005 is estimated to total 430, 836 units, including 87 ,286 in the Tr i—Valley, 192 , 476 units in the East Bay Corridor and 151 ,074 units in Central _ Contra Costa County . These estimates assume that the average number of workers per household will continue to increase at the historical rate experienced between 1970 and 1980 until 1985 and level off thereafter . It was assumed that in those communities where the average number of .markers per household declined between 1970 and 1980, the future number would be the same as in 1980. The number of occupied housing units in the Secondary Region in 2005 is projected to be 482 , 929 units, including 88, 205 in the Tri—Valley, 242, 640 in the East Bay Corridor and 152, 084 in Central Contra Costa COUnty . X _ — Based on the employment and housing data described above, the jobs/housing index in the Secondary Region as a whole in 2005 is projected to be 1 . 12. This figure indicates that the housing supply in the Secondary Region will be equivalent to 112 percent of the housing needed by workers emplcved in the area. The jobs/housing index would be 1 .01 in the Tri—Valley , 1. 26 in the East B.y Corridor and 1 .01 in c Central Contra Costa CO L- LMty. The analysis is S1^er'zeo In Table 5 . L N'D USE AN1D PLA?4 'ING . The proposed project would have the followingg land use avid planning i,T,pacts. d The proposed enema e�•t to tale Growth Management Element r,-ould b°_ consistent with the city' s General Plan since only a clarification o: existing goals and policies '_s pr Oposed . The General Plan c nsistencv is reinforced by Resolution 83-55 which reaffirmed the Cou.^cil ' s decision that the develocrr.ent plan for the Hacienda Business Park 9 PUD-81-30 "is consistent w-i th the Pleasanton C-eneral Plan and specifically implements the development of commercial and industrial properties as encouraged by the Growth Manage_i,ent Element of the P1 an and its legislative history" Approval of this amendment also would in, plement a zoning change for that project site to Planned Unit Development (PUD) . This change is o still consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Ind ustr ial/Commercial . The proposed amendment would allow the City of Pleasanton to reinstate the PUD zoning ordinance for the Hacienda Business Park. As indicated in the DEIR for Hacienda, this development would have minimal direct impacts upon most adjoining developed and proposed but as yet C undeveloped land uses. _ The Hacienda Business Park' s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( CC&Rs) provide land use controls for site development and include ;maximu u m floor area ratio , maximum height , mini:,un landscape area ratio and minimum parking ratio allowed for each of the zoning districts 2-4 f within the site . These controls are enforceable by both the City of Pleasanton and the Hacienda Business Park Owners Association. The Hacienda Business Park, therefore, is unlikely to be as intensive a development as projected in previous environmental and planning studies due to the project' s CC&Rs development criteria . TRA NSPORTATION AND CiRCULATION . The transportation and circulation impacts are developed from the Tri—Valley Transportation Study and Analysis Of the Pleasanton krea Traffic Circulation System (TUTS) which examined the existing transportation network within the Tri—Valley region of San Ramon, Amador and Livermore Valleys and made recommendations for expansion of this network to provide an acceptable level of service based upon land use development to the year 2005. An additional purse of the TVTS was an analysis of the City of Pleasanton' s currently planned traffic circulation system. The study analyzed present and future traffic conditions within the City of Pleasanton and re- commended modifications deemed .necessary to accommodate planned growth. !ne TVIS included assessment Of traffic impacts under" two separate scenarios. in Scenario 1A, impacts of reasonably foreseeable development in the year 2005 _ are analyzed . This is done by taking extrapolations of the ABAG projections ( Projections '83 ) Of both housing and employment for each Of the five lain Population areas within the valley. Where reasonably foreseeable developments would result in housing or employment in excess of that projected by ___ G, it is 2S5UMed that those developments within that jurisdiction would not be fully built Out by 2005. in the case of residential uses, reasonably foreseeable development includes, in addition to know; projects, buildout of some land with residential general plan designations but with no current project prOpUS21s. Because r eSidential development is usually planned with a relatively short buildout horizon, the projects before local planning agencies at any given time do not reflect the foreseeable level of development Over a long period , Such as the 22 year planning period (i .e . , 2005) considered in this report. For this reason, a cataloging Of projects that meet the criteria for reasonably foreseeable employment generating development, as describes above, falls short Of both r'BAG based projections to 2005 and the amount.Of development that will be ==`� allowed under- applicable general plans. The development of residential pro- jects beyond those that meet the above criteria is "reasonably foreseeable" however , based on specific general plan policies in the form of population targets and growth management programs that specify levels of development beyond projects that are known at this time. Scenario 13 is an analysis of the impacts Of the full buildout of the reason,— ably foreseeable projects, including those portions which are not expected to be buii; out by the year 2005 according to a comparison with ABA;, projections ( Projections ' 83 ) . The Scenario 1B analysis represents the buildout of the residential portion of the current general plans in each of the five main population areas along with the employment provided by reasonably foreseeable proj ec ts. The proposed General Plan Amendment would have the following transportation and circulation impacts. 2-5 The projected traffic volumes due to cumulative development in north Pleasanton represent significant increases on the street network Compared to existing volumes. Many of the intersections would of experience some traffic congestion , but since intersection levels of _ service are acceptable under conditions de-scribed by Scenario 1 -. capacity exists to accommodate gro,rtb and development well beyond the year 2005. In most instances, as pertains to Scenario 13, a ; " full buildout" never does occur due to the lack of development of a s7all number of parcels, development to densities lower than planned or vacancies in existing development. For exa ple, the densities of the existing Hacienda Business Park approved and proposed projects represent only about 92 percent of the maximum density allowed by the Hacienda Business Park CC& Rs and/or PUD ordinance. A more reasonable and realistic analysis Of traffic conditions would be when 90 percent of future buildout occurs. The 90 percent buildout is estimated t0 OCCUr considerably after the year 2Cit75. li]°_ results Of - the 90 percent analysis for Scenario 13 show that six intersections l 11 below Level OI S?r'J1Ce D. ^11 Other intersections will ,x will fa_ kc operate satisfactorily. - ImDrOVem°_n-s t0 the Strpet network serving the north Pleasanton vlclnity are planned to coincide with cu-rUlative project development-. Fy or n the Cltyl S General Plan , ine5° lmprOV°72^t5 : F DrQDOSed North Pleasanton Assessment Di str1Ct _nd the condition's Of H �i� �_ LU51neS5 Par roes°_ iilprOV°mentS ap?roval nor _ 2 k are d °_tail eC in S-ection 3 . 3 (lransDOr t-tion and C1rCulat10n) hi y being 1 1 ed wi thJ n �h- ^e m a s t er trai :lC CCRtrCI S}'Stet Corr=ntl _ nS�a___ y< n� : City Of P1eaSa.^. 0 x7111 DrodUCe Li1Cr0Ve5ientS 0 t'?e ex15�1 r c: _ C G circulation and the total travel tire. and delay time reduction i; prov= rents would optimi ze the LOS projected_' by the recent Tri-Valley study. 4 in determining vehicle riles of travel associated vi,,*,) ccmmut.e t i rps by all Pleasanton employees, three different. Options regarding d15Z.ibu- tlon of Pleasanton employees were 2ssL�ned . The �,MT would range from t; 287 ,074 miles/day under the option that all employees reside in the Tri-Valley (54 percent in Pleasanton) with a Transportation System Management (TSM) program; to 731 , 841 under a scenario that only 1j r percent of Pleasanton employees reside in Pleasanton wi shout TSM. j - Conditions of Approval for Application PUD-8i-30 (SOe ppendix 11 . 1 ) has required the implementation Of traffic mitigation measures, i .e . , Transportation Systems Management. (See conditions of Approval Numbers �5, 87, 58, 72, 75 & 76) • If the full buildout of the 22 approved projects together with forecasted residential grcw�h takes place at �.J3 densities projected in the TUTS , the City of Pleasanton should implerment city-wide mitigation measures such as are deacribed in Section 3. 3 (Transp\Drtation and Circulation) and already required of =- the 22 approved projects to maintain LOS D intersection conditions at all city intersections. Fi 2-5 c 1 r —- AIR QUALITY. The General Plan Amendment would have the following air quality impacts. - Earth material in the forte of particulates would be generated during construction of the approved projects under the proposed A:-i,endment. Cond-itions of approval for Hacienda Business Park PUD Ordinance No . 10'Y0 included submittal of a dust control plan as part of the improve- ment plans. - A worst case assessment of cunulative local CO impacts along five major arterials in Pleasanton was prepared based on modeling using Scenario 13 traffic volumes derived from reasonably foreseeable Tri-Valley projects at buildout . Violations of federal air quality standards are not projected . The state one hour standard is equaled at Stoneridge Drive. - Air pollution Emissions from regional VMT associated with ccnmute trips Of Pleasanton workers would be an in5i5nifiC2nt increment when ccmpared to emissions on a regional scale ( See !able 34 ) . - Conditions of approval for Hacienda Business Park FUD Ordinance No . 1040 intended to reduce air quality impacts include an ongoing program of air quality monitoring and Transportation Systems Management „itigation measures to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle miles PUS T 5 %IT r 7 e e r_.. en u J� h 11 bIi Tn C_n a! lam 2.']d'i � *q d ha' t,^,_ i0_ Ct. '1� pL' C se-vices im:)2cts. AdditiOnal pUb11C services facilities ( especially for -water, delivery J cod waS�eS,'a�_. tr?a�1e^,�) would be nee.--4---'j to serve :,,... CC'`i.;?'°_'"Clal , industrial , and Office p-oject5 includ • in this A-enonnent. The cltv' 5 building by building approval process for all projects ensures Control Over Capacity constraints. Expansion of existing sewage facilities 15 being planned by the responsible agencies. The required off site water Suoply and distribution system facilities for the specific projects - -�- included in this Amendment will be constructed by 1985 by the water assess,ient district. Increased demands for public services wound be mitigated through the provision of additional personnel , facilities, and equipment by the City of Pleasanton. Increased public revenues from the commercial , industrial , and office projects would exceed the expenditures required to increase service levels. NOISE. . Tne General Plan Amendment would have the following noise impacts. Tem--\)rary construction stage noise at the Hacienda Business Park site is re-noved from noise receptors. Construction noise of approved projects is regulated by the city' s noise ordinance (City of Pleasanton , 1982 ) . - Reasonably foreseeable development would result in increases in motor vehicle noise levels along portions of Interstate 580, Interstate 580 , Santa vita Road , Stoneridge Drive, and West Las Positas Boulevard . Tnese increases could reouire potential mitigation to reduce adverse impacts to residences along these roadways ( see Table 36) . Additional acoustical analyses would be required in order to determine design specifics of appropriate mitigation strategies. In addition , the appli- cants of approved projects under the General Plan Amendment should im- plement (possibly through the mechanism of the North Pleasanton Assess- ment District) an ongoing acoustical monitoring program to determine the accuracy of sound levels predicted herein as these projects are ccmpleted and to modify mitigation as appropriate . ENERGY. The General Plan Amendment would have the following energy impacts. - Construction activities associated with approved projects and Hacienda ` Business Park under Ordinance No . 1040 would result in short term energy consunption. Heating , cooling , and building lighting would require .Iong term, energy use . Manufacturing operations which may K, occupy some of these projects also would produce a long tern demiand for energy. Energy conservation Geasures and the use of active and passive 4 solar energy. included in the conditions of approval for. many of the development projects will reduce potential energy consumption levels. - The fuel consueotion from regional VMT associated ui th ccrm-lute trips of _ _ Pleasanton workers would range between 14, 355 gallons per day for option B ( 211, employees reside in the Tr i-Valley, with TSM) to 37, 590 ga'_lons per day under option C ( 15 percent workers reside locally, no z TSM) . L; GEOrOCY• The proposed General. Plan .^-_mendment would have the following geolc_ 4 gic_l impacts. y%. t Some of the approved projects including Hacienda :'_Isiries5 Par'.•< would be located on potentially unstable or expansive soils and in an area or rl high gr011ndS7akin5 potential . These impacts have been mitigated p5 through in, ple-'.entation of soils engineer' s re--ommendations and incorp0— ration of building cede reQUiremenus in construction to minimize earuh quake impacts, a5 well as grading Schedule restrictions,ictions, r ev-egetation of exposed slopes, and temp-ovary on site retention of StOMW2r,er to reduce the potential for erosion. HYDRDLOGY. The proposed General Plan Amendment would have the following hydrological , flood control , and water quality impacts. , Surface water quality would decrease as a result .of increased vehicular activity in the project area. The .volume of surface runoff would increase as a result of the creation of impervious surfaces. This addi- tional runoff was considered in the design of the on and off site stop U drainage improvements. Recent flood control improvement5 in the area �? have reduced the flood 'hazard area designation for the area between Interstate 680 and Hopyard Road . E The potential for accidents involving hazardous materials would in- __ crease as industrial operations are introduced into the area. The planned establishment of procedures for handling and storage of haz- 0 ardous materials would reduce risks and the potential .rater quality degradation associated with such uses. 2-8 OR BIOLOGY. The proposed General Plan Amendment would have the following biolo- gical impacts. A loss of prime and non—prime 2gricu1 tUr21 soils could continue to occur as development proceeds. The long term retention of agricultta-a! uses in these areas are considered by the Pleasanton City Council to be infeasible due to economic , social , and environmental considerations. . . VISUAL. The proposed General Plan Amendment could have the. following visual and aesthetic impacts.. Development of the approved projects and Hacienda Business Park under Ordinance No . 1040 would Cause a change in the visual character of the area, including the loss of 2gricultw-21 open space areas.- Specific development project elements, including design, materials use , site orientation, and landscaping plans are reviewed by the City of Pleasanton to insur-e the maintenance and enhancement of project aesthetics and views to and from the site . - A.RCHAEOLOGY. ine proposed General Plan Amendment mould have the following archaeological impacts. Archaeological re--,)uz-ces have been identified at the 'Hacienda Business Par:{ site . i-ieasures incoroor2ted into the conditions Of approv;2 in Crdinance No . 1040 ,;ould protect these resources. . layer of fill has been applied to allow construc tion of access roes, utility trenc::=s, and other develo-cnent features whiCh mL'st OCCUr- Over 2rChaeologicZal sites. A Qu2lified 2rCh2eologist is 2v2il2ble au-,2.ng construction 2t the site to review activities. ALTERNATIVEES The proposed project which is the subject of this Environmental Impact Report constitutes two separate but related actions: ( i) the proposed anendmentto the Growth Management Element of the General Plan , and. ( ii) reapproval of Ordinance trio .' 1040, which approves the development plan for Hacienda Business ',Park. Because the project is two separate actions,' i .e ., the Amendment and reapproval of PUD. Ordinance 1040, two sets of alternatives are presented . Sections 4. 1 through 4.5 discuss alternatives to the Amendment, and Section 4 . 6 discusses alternatives to reapproval of PUD Ordinance 1040. Alternatives to the Amendment include the following . — The No Project Alternative which could maintain the present judicial interpretation of the Growth M2nagenent Element which does not permit reapproval of PUD Ordinance 1040 absent an alternative amendment to th_e General Plan . — A Tri—Valley Employment Center Alternative under which Pleasanton would approve an amendment to the Growth Management Element, allowing Pleasanton to become a Tri—V211ey employment center . — An Increased Residential Capacity Alternative under which Pleasanton would increase the number of housing units provided in Pleasanton at residential buildout . (f 1 A Residential Community Alternative under which amendments to the General Plan would be enacted �t�ereby Pleasanton could rffnain 2 bedroom ccmmun i t . E A Commercial/industrial Reduced Intensity of Development Alternative 'T under which Pleasanton would approve amendments to the General Plan whereby the allowable intensity of development for commercial/in- � dustri2l properties in the North Pleasanton area would be reduced . Alternatives to reapproval of PUD Ordinance 1040 include the following . ` A No Reapproval of PUD Ordinance 1040 Alternative which could mean either ( i) the development of the Hacienda site would not proceed Y7 beyond the 12 buildings alre2dv constructed , or ( ii) the development of r. the Hacienda site .pursuant to its present zoning and existing parcel ' - A °arti21 Approval Al ter nat'Ve wniCh would approve the portlal N development of Hacienda Business Park.' Mixed Use Alternative where H2cienda Business Park would be developed as a mixed caamerci2l/industri2l/res=idential development. rnV1rOC-ii°_.1tal 1moacts Of �h? 21 �°_rP.a�?Ve5 are discussed in Section 4 of the -?R ine Commercial/Industrial Reduced intensity of Development Al ternativ 4'OUId be an " env irorneritallV SUper"'-0r al-er- n 05 deSCr'beC by CGQ"., be CaUSe 2C`=-r SC LT.D_ aCtS On tra: ='C COr: °_S ion , n0'Se 1a,els , erierz y CO^S TI-^u�'_O Y be reduced i_ the prep -ies were req�_reu to develov _t and air quality would ' ?J° Cc. lnteri__ y . HOh'eV , if __!O'.,abI densities in th°_ North PI 's ^^ 2r ea are iU her r_°JL'CeC , L!?°_ Qua io:'- ccm—im—clal and industrial S�aC°_ _- *' el 'J oe deflected to another arec OI PleaS2nton , and this a'_ternatiVe ^?a'+ k :- } `} GMr because development " 'n an efficient, logic-21 2riC not m e.t Co a_ 2 o: orderly f2S1'On" reOU4 t hat projects to be Constructed be economically Capable Of Supporting the aSSeSSIe.^.i.5 for needed CaDlt21 Lri:prOV°?lent5 and 5 increased demand for canmility services. - None of the alternatives to the Nlendment will completely fulfull the A;end- +� r the } tiv=_s to each .action may have the - merit' s o:,jectives. Any one o� the alternatives effect of reducing one or more of the potentially significant adverse inputs of the development of Hacienda Business Park in accordance 'with PUD Ordinance 10 1040. towever , because different potentially significant 2dverse impacts occur under the various alternatives, none of the alte-rnatives necessarily produce a net rejuction of potentially significant adverse impacts_ L . 2-10 s? . At 90 percent of estimated future employment at 100 per- j cent buildout and occupancy , the jobs/ho.using Ind=x in r.�s Pleasanton at buildout would be . 85 . This figure indi- cates that Pleasanton ' s housing supply would be equiva- lent to 85 percent of the housing need attributable to x workers employed in Pleasanton . _---. MITIGATION "SASURES . Tine jobs/housing index is no" , in _ ? itself , an environmental impact . Impacts stemming from r the relationship between jobs and housing would be manifested in the form of traffic , air quality , public ervice and other impacts . Therefore , mitigation s measures required as a result of Employment/rousing/ Demographic impacts are d '_scussed In other sections of this EIR, as appropriate . ti. . h< �J i sr� rn F?= -f 12 3 . 1-58 ti k rL� Gi i 1 TABLE 2% : SCENARIO 1A INTERSECTIOX PERK HOUR LEYEL OF SERYICE - P;-1 Peak Intersection V/C LOS Y/C LOS �1 . Dublin Blvd ./San Ramon Rd . 0.64 S 1 .05 F.' 2. Foothill Rd ./Canyon Wy 0.62 B 0'88 D 3. Deoda- wy 0.47 A 0.67 6 4 . S oneridge Rd . 0.69 S 0.65 8 W. Las Positas Blvd . 0.6L B 0 4b A 5• . 5. Sernal Ave . 0. 34 A 0.32 A 7 • 0 77 C p oc Du in •Blvd 0.72 /DouCh_rty Rd C ✓ � Do�c�e--y ,.� / l -��o 00.---- � o �vE!rd Rd . / I -580 0.63 0.67 10. Ower's Or . 0. 7= C 0.82 0 11 . Gibraltar Dr . 0.61 0.51 A 17• Ytors-2 Dr . 0.-.6 A 0.58 A 1, . Stolneri od 0. 8G C 0.�� D 1_ • Inc ! =-W odJ., C. �O A 0.77 A 1 Corona-o G. 0.=o i G E D 1 ' 'K. Las rCsl-as �3! vd. , Q. lI C 1J Va! lev T r a i I s; .r..._, 0. � C 0 .75 C a- �- 0 . '� C p D 1.J �!• I e�i Ira 1 G �1 C 'J p �c G D Ave - '� .J y ac AV D 2G. �( '. _ . G. �1 D 0 21 Del Valle rKwy 0 �. 0.: 22. Tassaj_. /I -58 WS 0. 0. 47 A 0.25 A imlic Dr 0. :0 A O.b3 B 23• Santa r, /� - 2= . Rock St . 25 , Old Santa F 0.51 A 0.45 A Fitz ^d . _ - 26. W. Las Positas Sivd . 0.57 D 0.90 D 27 . Trenery 0. 59 A 0.83 D 28 1ioi r Ave . 0. 513 A 0-73, C 213, valley Ave . 0. 59 A 0.68 B 30. Slack Ave 0. ^.2 A 0.74 C 31 . slain St ./Stanley Blvd . 0.61 B 0.74 C 32 Ray St ./Johln St . 0.69 S 0.67 B 33. St . Lary St . 0. 52 A 0.61 B 3A . Rose Ave . 0_6c B 0.78 C 35 . Angela St . 0.55 6 0.6-. B � Ave . 0. 1119 A 0.6i B 36. Be. nai ve 0. 57 A 0.52 A Stanley tanley S! vd ./First St Source : TJK". , Jule 1983 I a _ TABLE %c : SCENARIO 1B INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERYICE P.' pe At." Peak 'k _ LOS In-ersec�ion - - �1 . Du SI in 61vd ./San Ra-cn Rd 0.71 C 1 1-' / Fj 2. Foo iII Rd ./Canyon Wy 0.66 6 0.90 3• Ceodar wy 0.67 6 0.88 C 4 . Stoneridae Rd - 0. 78 C 0.74 C j• W. Las Posi as Eivd . 0.73 C 0 �2 F' 6. 6erna I rive 0.36 n 0.32 r" �; Ci �lvG ./Douene;y ° 0.86 R ' ./ I -�8O 0. 73 C 0.79 C ✓c . uo' 0.79 C . Rd / I -:80 O.v! Rd . /i -580 G ID 10• Owens Cr 0. 07 Gi'rallar Dr . 0.72 C 0.-1 i _ . I n C I Cc 0- 7 ! n - Coronado r0s1T25 �i G ^� L i S. I -y` irayls, G . C 0. i vaiicy`Av 0. 00 D C. . y P. J 21. p_eI� EI I P`., y, 22, --==J?^-/I -;80 •,tie O� ' L, . c ii a Rd /Pi ;I ico C Dr . 0. 54 i .7S C 2_ • roc Si - - 27 . Old Son a R a 0. ,4 r1 0..0 2; 'h'. Lac- Pcs i;as E I " 1 .02 2 Tr ever y 0.73 C C.8- o 23 t•lonr Ave . 0. 71 C 0.74 C 0.7i C 2C - Va'I ley Av-2 30. Black Ave . 0.45 A 0.75 C O.69 6 0.79 C 51 . I',a i S- ./S-an l -2 y 3I v - 32 Ray Sl ./Jo^n si . 0.77 C G.c. 6 -- ST . ,-lEry ST .. 0. 74 n 0.61 6 Rose Ave - 0. 77 C 0.81 C 34 . Pose S. 0.58 0 - 35 . i•,nce - . �� . 6=rnal ,;v e . 0. 50 P. O.c1 6 S-?n1 =_y gIvd ./= irs S. 0. 70 6 C .;7 37 . I . Sc _- ce : TUTS , TJ:K`: • July 1983 In order to test'.the ability of the recorumended street network to accormOdate buildouttrzffic`.volumes, intersection conditions for Scenario 15 were also analyzed_' Scenario 1B represents traffic conditions estimated to occur 30 to 35 vearS In the suture on the .Scenario 1 circulation network. . The analysis o. Scenario i2 assures a 1004 buildout and occupancy of all assumed land development. I'n'this . sense , it represents a very conservative. worst case_ _ :analysis. +lsO. included ,' in Table 29, is a Scenario l5 at .9C5 which rcpreserts -a realistic ,buildout.of app-oximately 901s of ultimate_ ."This is considered:;reasonable in light of-.the discussicn .in Section .3.1 and:Sectio :.> 3.2 A .90 '•oercent, buildout takes into account vacancies, .develeprnents COnStrllCteC 'at, le=5 than allowable densities and contemplated development not �c tally cone ruct :r A ed 1 z N1'T, :.cn Io. -r su _ :.'r• - _ • . - , ' .. a"ti . *Manacement S�ST= :j .N L' Tr n 5T On SVSteaS - - 255um�tlCr.= DTevi0:151'v .C_SCLSSed are' belieV°d 't0 be: aChlevableJanC yew Cc O Dc'.aCCOLP.C!'_Si2C .wit:?ou= ,the im—. el�2t'_On C2 -5_2C1�1C IlecSllrc^S .a1C �rOCr re -ai° tic 10115ii2ltClC}iTe^� GOr1CenL_z+10P.S 1n the'BcV tir` t}i t .have ac =av C i c: reSa?k le 'SL'GCe:5,5- i enCOUraCinC ° -vlbvees t0 travel t0 anc frCm .work - :.'cC^ °GK'S 'Other .��� .a !Si Pg1 °_ OCCL'Oant Veh Cle Mznv of she SL'ccesses P.av r°5lllt°C:'=-G "CCnd1t10n5 -1dCC1 :Or :alternatlVe..COm[C1�'_P.g -Such a5_'lOW Gar :_nC aa. .. , avail a— lit: .:j1'C 1' Dc_':1nc Cost, e ftrem, hi(;ni+ay .congestlpP.,. r'c10Cat'_p-: G� -a'bu ecs 'several. m_l les .-f-cm "its DreV1CL'S "location_ ilOSt C. t i2C° neg=t:.'2`li,Cent_Ve5 a Ot ex�eCtee-t0 be nresent. 'for "new ea^1CV2e5 ncrt.. �1eaSarton- Hence, L c isTsGOrtance O: a 5-rOnC and w211 O_CcP.1-cG rrpCra t _. CGllr°, ltern'tive GOTH Lt°_ patter�'c. ,i5 2zriC�r_. 'a m a 4 C 1 c y e r s 'w=t h i the D1 easaritOn area hculd be re c_u_reC to p st C. aC _C: � ' _G r ans-`orzat_C 1 acem Pt DrpCr_= T_ans:-orzc_ : . c -...cnt st_ =S '«( .0 are necessary in acn1 _ny acce^-a2-_ i eve 1 S-O f;ser i Ge,. as - reviously C'_SC'_SSeG," ma}' 1nCluee tnc =p1 i Owi nC T 'videS-aring/`lextlme StrateCleS - a CarOO011r.g and vanpool-i ng should be encouraged by th - a^viC;nti:lent CS trans_Crtazion cCCrQlnatorS at eaCia bus'P.ecc_' ` ?lcasan on. employers snOL1C institute a lCCal= °_ Zed r1Q SGcY_r: CO ter IlatC ll lg system ZOr their employees: "c rse other incentives should be provid Preferential parking a ed .for those emojogees encagee in ridesharing._. _ - - E. ? -=iliat-ion w,_tn: the 5av Area ?IDES prOCran is. recom_meneed. e. Em�lcvers shoulc be recuired to seriously consider staceerec work hours or flexible working hours .to _reduce.peak hour im_acts_ TI _ Transit Service " a. The Plecsanton-!iv-2-lOre-Dublln-San hamCn .area w111 reCUlr extensive local transit and Shuttle Service upon buildou_ o. developments currently being considered in these corn unities. The developers themselves should cooperate in the planning and implementation of these systems. . 3.3-53 b. In, tb- tore, the BARTD bus service ( evert to a true . ex?r ervice with local transit fi`__�nc in -and feedinc the t s express lines. C. Bus. stops and bus shelters should be ,encouraged throughout the Pleasanton area. .. •Cyclinc . SDecial bicycle f ci l'ti° s n "ld be ePCOI raced on Pl eas ^^ _ major .streets and within each major complex to facilitate - - - :'.cyclir.c. :, . -- cr aP.d rRide OtS: :CDtI,;,uIl'..Tra SDOrtatl on ,.S}'St81Tis M.anaCemen t'`CC12 be'_ 'cCh1eVEC.b}' ' the, CQP.St-iu lion Of . Perk 'and.:Fide parklnc .aOts. ;These lots ':,tt' ically: .prCV SC1° Dar�lnG SpaCcS°for-2SO 't0 400-:alltCMCL it es, ar°' licinLe and ha e. d reCt freeway Or`ma30r .arterial T011te access Potentia c_:._aP d 1 P- lOCctlons for',"the`�Clty Cf -Pleasanton-would be ";the:: northwest GUadra Ci: t E I=SSO�Sa t' _'Fita' nOad in erC lanae; the nOrtfl'1O_St` cuadrant :of Lne 080 Stoner,cG2 Prl B '1 L rChc Ce :a GL'adla- Oi : �Llc l-CBO�SL' Ci.:So, le -_-C 1 - . ° .::.. . . . _ _ . . . _ " 2.nzerchanae; and the vic,r.' ty OT_. the iP-tersectiOn O Nall°_} J° 1"°_'.a c_- _L'cC ' .... . Ora :. • ...:...::.. .. :<=c- ==ic .Sir"]an' - SV--e:Tm: Tna� -Lr-i'sn,-� -and -c.11 "iC _ c . . . per T'ra_ Cc- rGl _ _ g ins _ °- _ . tra==1C., 51 Cjnc 1. master...CCntr011Er' ana..lnterconnect�''S} cte:i 15 n a is .. . . CG�DIEtlO.1 A S -`11Gr central - �rC_-'_C COP.tr01 sVSt°_m" na-S-been-,1 oD=raticn• In ' Cj tv ''b= Re 10 5_ 2 .lc /S . tw0-V ear'..' De_Ore 'and G_;eY anal :c_C 1 P .�__c COLnLoh-;':grcc iIC_Cat=d re6`cticn of.'total travel •timee by 13-6 a1C Cc Li12 b}',.�C.�� . T'°se i t.r°Veal_:,ts :ere acco.Dllshec CESD_te the _. rc___C 'v01'`..°s .__ 1'.- a52 Gll_'1nc t.—a s. lld'v De _OC. ( 1`: �C-- SvstEm � aluatio - __-c a:aster tra__1C =--r01 s_'szem ...-.rTO_:,Lly .D°_1nC 1nSLa11eC w_��_:'. __._ C'_�- O . rlc ad asanton has incorDCra.Ec ':an'r vances 'ma0°_ witn' ._ _n ^°_ -i°__C O. -- CC Lr01 re 52arC: S1nCc ib. rt_• _ sta_ -°=-tnD-art s}'Sta. S:`:CL1C. _'OC`_C2 Er .li'_rove-°its to t c 2X1sLing traliic C1rCLlat'on than those experienced by the C ti' o_ P.enc. -The total.-travel time, and delay. t1,7°- r=dL CtlOn;improvements .�'OUld ODtl _Ze: ti]2 LOS DrC]ected.by the aP.al%'Si5 C= t_the . ?l°_asaracn area t ar C -C'rculatlon system- Th° _`uture' slgnallCation C` all arterial intersections should be installed• in . such .a wav a5 to -arovide loop detectors and :interconnect compatibility for tie-in: to the central con-roll. -;- Ccnd-itions 'of, A_DOroval' ford Application,:P.U.D.--81-30 (See• A_npendix .11_1) has reculred the implementation o` traffic mitigation measures, T_Gnsoortation .Systea:s Management, as a Condition. OT _approval .Ior. P.U.D.-81730. . .(See conditicns of Approval Num:oers 56,57,58;72,75 b 76) If -the full..buildout •of .the 22 approved projects together with forecasted residential gro'w'th takes place at densities projected .in the. TVTS, the City o_ Pleasanton should implement City-wide mitigation measure, such as. are described herein .and already required -of the 22, approved .projects to maintain LOS D intersection conditions at all city intersections. 3.3-56.