No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.6 Ltr EIR JuvenileHall CITY CLERK File # AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4, 2003 SUBJECT ATTACHMENTS: City of Dublin Comment Letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager ~ RECOMMENDATION: ~ ~ 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Draft City of Dublin Comment Letter Draft EIS/EIR on the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice (available for review at the Community Development Department) Receive staff report Approve draft letter in concept and authorize Staff to send the letter to Michael Houghtby, Field Representative, State of California Board of Corrections None at this time. DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Department of Justice and Alameda County have issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report on the proposed project entitled: the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice (draft EIS/EIR). One of the alternative locations for the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility is in the City of Dublin and both o£the proposed alternatives for the East County Hall of Justice are in the City of Dublin. The Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice, if located on the County Governmental Property (called the East County Government Center Property in the draft EIS/EIR) across from Santa Rita Jail, are both subject to the City's Site Development Review process. However, if the County selects the alternative for the East County Hall of Justice on Site 15A, the Hall of Justice will be subject to the City's full land use process, which would include the need for a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, PD rezoning, site development review, and development agreement. The U.S. Department of Justice is the Lead Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Alameda County is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Dublin will be a Responsible Agency under both NEPA and CEQA for the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice, if it is located on the East County Government Center Property. However, if the County selects Site 15A for the Hall of Justice, the City will be the Lead Agency as it has been for all other projects proposed for the Santa Rita Property. COPIES TO: In-House Distribution ITEM NO. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA and NEPA, the City of Dublin must rely on the environmental document once certified by the County. If the City considers the final EIR not adequate the City must challenge the adequacy in court within 30 days or prepare a subsequent EIR if warranted under CEQA Guidelines. (Guideline section 15096(e).) However, if the City is the Lead Agency, the City may rely on the EIR if it considers it adequate or may find that further environmental review is necessary. Stated another way, the City has more discretion when it acts as a Lead Agency than when it acts as a Responsible Agency. The comment period for the environmental document is from January 17, 2003 to March 10, 2003. Comments must be submitted prior to the March 10, 2003, date to Michael Houghtby, Field Representative, State of California Board of Corrections, 600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, California, 95814. City Staff has reviewed the draft EIS/EIR and has compiled their comments into one letter that is attached to this Staff Report (Attachment 1). It is anticipated, however, that due to the early submittal of the letter to make the City Council's Agenda deadline, that the comments may be slightly revised prior to completion of the final letter. The comment letter is lengthy. Several of the letter's main points can be summarized as follows: Regional Traffic Impacts do not adequately take into account future cumulative impacts to the 1-680 Freeway. This impact was a significant and unavoidable impact addressed by the Transit Center EIR and the City was required by CEQA to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration. Staff believes that inadequate analysis of this impact requires recirculation of the draft EIR/EIS. The draft EIS/EIR fails to consider helicopter overflights from Camp Parks as well as the firing range, automatic weapons range, situation village and bomb disposal area; Staff believes that this omission would require recirculation of the draft EIS/EIR. The draft EIS/EIR does not disclose or analyze a planned City of Dublin Neighborhood Park on the Transit Center site immediately west of Site 15A. It does not appear the proposed Hall of Justice on Site 15A is consistent with the either the existing or proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designations. The current designation is "High Density Residential" and the County Surplus Property Authority has requested an Amendment to "Campus Office." Staff does not believe the proposed Campus Office designation allows major governmental facilities such as the Hall of Justice. Construction of the proposed facilities could overtax City of Dublin emergency response in the event of a major disaster, since the City will already have to deal with Santa Rita and the Federal Correction Facility. Staff believes aesthetic impacts of both potential facilities on adjacent residential areas are understated. The draft EIS/EIR understates impacts to the Dublin Police Department. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and approve draft letter in concept and authorize Staff to send the letter to Michael Houghtby, Field Representative, State of California Board of Corrections. DRAFT ' ~' '~"~ CF.!'fo'% a g456t:. : oo C:,wc P',~,z~,., ~,~,,~, .... 19~[irch 4, 2003 Website: inttp://www, ci.d ublin.ca, us Mr. Richard Houghtby, Field Representative California Board of Corrections 600 Bercut Drive Sacramento CA 95814 Re: Comments on Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice Draft EIS/EIR, Alameda County California Dear Mr. Houghtby: Please find below the City of Dublin's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (hereafter "Draft EIR" or "DEIR"), issued by Alameda County for the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice project. As noted in the DEIR, the County intended the document to provide CEQA compliance for future City of Dublin review of the potential for developing the project elements on either the East County Government Center or Site 15 of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Unfortunately, the City of Dublin wews the document as inadequate for future review of either alternative project sites The City of Dublin believes that many potentially significant impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project are either missing or understated. As further noted in the following comments, the document's deficiencies cannot be resolved by mere clarification or insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. Therefore, the City of Dublin respectfully requests that the document be revised to provide adequate information and analysis on the East County area alternatives and recirculated for public review. Executive Summary · The Executive Summary does not identify proposed mitigation measures for each significant effect, as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15123 (b)(1). · Page S-21, Growth Inducement, fourth and fifth line. The document notes that Development at the sites evaluated would be consistent with the overall land use plans for the areas. In the case of both Dublin sites, this is likely not a correct statement. Site 15A is presently designated for High Density Residential, which does not allow public uses. There is also a question if the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan allows the Juvenile Justice Center as a permitted use in this area. See a further description of this in the comments under Chapter 4, Land Use and Planning. Code {925) * C~'~r' F.,';an~.ger 833-~350 ' ::)iy Cc:u:',ci', 83:3-g~50 ~ [:erson:.,ei 833-$605 ~ Economic Deve!opmen~ 833-8650 Fi,,"~a:,cs 833-66.40 ,, P:biic Vqor2s/E:tgines:';.:;5i ~33-S7.30" ;:s:ks & Community Services SS3-6645 ~ ;:oi~ce 833-6670 Page S-23, Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved. This section falls far short of describing local and regional areas of controversy that have surrounded this project for the past 2+ years, especially the Juvenile Justice Facility portion of the project. Numerous comments have been made to the County about the extreme distance between the majority of users of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and the alternative to site this facility in the City of Dublin, resulting in major social and economic dislocations for residents of the Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward and similar West County residents. Introduction (Chapter 1) Page 1-11, Areas of Controversy and Decisions to be Made. Paragraphs 3 and 4 state that the County will select one of the alternatives and will complete design concepts after certification of an EIR/EIS and adoption of a mitigation plan. Prior to such approval of a specific project and site, further CEQA review will be required at a project-level. The previously adopted mitigation plan may need to be revised and/or supplemented based on project specific CEQA review. Also, as set forth in the following comments, many of the proposed mitigation measures require future study and environmental analysis once additional design level information is developed. Page 1-19, Responsible, Trustee and Other Interested Agencies. This list does not include LAVMA. As described later in the document, this is an important agency and must be consulted as part of the environmental review process. Purpose and Need (Chapter 2) Page 2-2, Project Objectives, Juvenile Justice Facility, the City of Dublin requests that additional Project Objectives be added to the list to assure protection to Dublin residents and surrounding properties and improvements. Possible suggested additional Objectives include: Assure visual protection from unsightly views from the Juvenile Justice Facility. Provide for adequate safety and security for adjacent properties. Page 2-4. The Project described in the first full paragraph includes the detention center, five juvenile courtrooms and probation offices, and various support and staff facilities (e.g., classroom space, staff space). Table 2.1 includes estimated total square footage for the detention facility, the courts, and probation administration, but does not appear to include square footage for support and staff facilities. Please clarify whether additional square footage will be proposed to accommodate these functions.. Page 2-5, Project Objectives. East County Hall of Justice, Strategic Objective 1. This statement is unclear and confusing. Please explain what this means in terms of the proposed development of a new courthouse facility. Page 3 Page 2-6, Project Objectives, East County Hall of Justice, Economic Objectives. Please add an additional Objective to the effect that the proposed facility will not result in an economic detriment to the City of Dublin. This policy has been applied to all other land uses and developments in the Eastern Dublin area. Page 2-8. The text on page 2-7 states that the Hall of Justice will accommodate probate examiners; however, Table 2.2 shows "0" square feet of space needed for Probate Examiner functions. Please clarify. Pages 2-1¢ and 2-11, Costs of East County Government Center and Site 15A. Please clarify if development costs for these two sites include all impact and connection fees charged by the City of Dublin, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Zone 7 and other impact fees normally charged to new development projects in this portion of Dublin. If these fees and charges are not included, it appears development costs for the projects have been understated. Please provided updated and accurate development costs for the Dublin alternatives. Page 2-11. The document states that the County intends to utilize a design/build contract for construction of both facilities and that a request for design/build proposals will be issued following completion of the environmental review process. The design/build process is intended to produce cost savings for the client by allowing the design/build team to develop its own final design and construction methods, materials, etc., based on a set of performance specifications determined by the owner. Therefore, a final design is not available at the time bids are issued for the project. Selection is based on the lowest cost proposal adhering to the performance specifications, not a specific design. Depending on the contract, final working drawings may not be submitted until after the contract has been awarded to a specific design/build team. Any design changes inserted after the contract is awarded would be subject to the terms of the contract as opposed to being to being competitively bid. Given that many of the mitigation measures listed in the document are vague and require further study to develop the actual mitigation (for example, replacement of lost wetlands), it will be difficult to estimate the cost of certain elements of the projects, and it is unclear how a prospective bidder could adequately cover all potential mitigation requirements in a bid. Further, under the 1993 Annexation Agreement, the City has retained the right to perform design review of projects. Under the design/build process, the City may not see a final design until a design/build team has selected, at which time design comments from the City could impact the The document should clarify (1) the means in which the design/build process will be integrated with the Eastern Dublin and project mitigation monitoring plans, and (2) the means in which the City will be provided an opportunity to complete the design review process. Page 4 A potential process might be to (1) require development of a refined preliminary design which addresses any mitigation measures related to the design, (2) include the refined preliminary design in the bid documents, and (3) submit the bid package performance specifications to the City's design review process. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Chapter 3). Contrary to CEQA requirements, the Draft EIR does not provide a complete, accurate and consistent project description of the East County Government Center and Site 15A project alternatives, as noted in the following comments. Page 3-19. The project is described as being constructed on two flat terraces. This will require removal of the existing earth berm occupying the north third of the property, and grading the site to form one or two flat pads for the length and width of the property. The berm currently provides a screen for the Santa Rita Jail from the south. Removal of the berm will result in loss of the screen. The document does not indicate how this loss of screening will be mitigated, particularly since the existing berm is 20-30' high, providing complete screening of the existing facility. The document notes that the proposed berm along Gleason Drive will provide only partial screening of the new facility, which would potentially leave the old facility partially unscreened (unless it was blocked by the new facility, in which case the new facility would be exposed). Removing the upper 20' of the berm down to an elevation of 380 would require excavation of approximately 175,000 cubic yards of material. The document does not describe where the excavated material would be placed. Off-site disposal would require approximately 10,000 round trips by 18-wheel trucks on existing City streets. Any further excavation of the site below the 380 elevation as needed to accommodate the site design would result in additional material, so the above figures may be low. The truck traffic required for the material disposal is not discussed in either the traffic or construction impact sections. The document does not provide a grading plan for the site (The building elevations appear to include finished grades for the site, but the elevations provided in the document are illegible. The building elevations do not show conform-grading at the site perimeters). The building layout will require large pads, with little opportunity to step the grading in either direction. The site varies in height along its length from 362 at the west end to 380 at the east end. The site abuts Broder Road along the north side, which varies in elevation from 362 at the west end to 390 at the east end. Construction of a flat pad on the site result in a combination of cut and/or fill of over 20' from end to end. For example, if the site was graded to the 380 elevation, the west end of the pad would be 20' higher than the existing ground at the intersection of Gleason Drive and Arnold Road. The site plan does not describe how the grade differential will be handled, and how this will appear along the Gleason Drive frontage. Page 5 The plan shows a berm along the Gleason Drive frontage. A section and dimensions for the berm are not provided. It is unclear how high the berm will be and how much screening it will provide for the project. Given that the west end of the pad may be higher than Gleason Drive, much of the berm area may be taken up by a fill slope, leaving less room for screening. Dropping the pads to a lower elevation may increase the opportunity for screening, but would result in greater excavation, potential conform problems at the east end, and problems draining the site (the drainage issues are discussed further under the Chapter 7 and 14 comments). In summary, it is unclear from the site plan that the site can accommodate the proposed development or that the various grading/screening/drainage issues associated with developing the site have been identified and resolved. Page 3-19. The last two sentences state that 700-750 parking spaces will be required for the Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center site; however, the DEIR does not state how much parking is proposed to meet this need. The text states that parking "could" be at Santa Rita, or that surface parking "may" be provided onsite, however no specific number and location of proposed parking spaces is identified. Neither is the number and location of proposed parking spaces identified in later analyses even though inadequate parking is identified as a significant impact under Impact 9.2.5 on p. 9-86. In a similarly vague discussion, Mitigation Measure 9.2.5 calls for restriping the Santa Rita parking lot to increase parking capacity, but does not identify how much additional parking is needed, or could be created by restriping. The Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated to provide the number and location of proposed parking spaces for the Juvenile Justice Facility, to analyze with specificity the parking deficit impact, and to propose mitigation measures that will provide sufficient parking to meet the identified deficit. Page 3-24, Figure 3.15. This Figure does not include a south elevation of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. The southerly elevation is the most important elevation that would affect properties and improvements in the City of Dublin. Lack of a suitable elevation does not allow the City to evaluate aesthetic impacts from this critical viewpoint. As noted in later comments on Impact 5.15, a finding of less than significant visual impacts is not supported by the record. The Draft EIR should be revised to include additional viewshed analysis, especially for the critical south elevation, a_nd recirculated for public review. (See also, comments under p. 5-42.) Information is provided for the northerly elevation, which will face Santa Rita Jail and not private properties in Dublin. Information regarding building height on Figure 3.18 is also too faint to read, so that the City is not aware of the proposed building height. Figure3.19 is a conceptual rendering of the proposed East County Hall of Justice and does not include building height information. ~ 1~' Page · Page 3-33, Alternative Sites Considered and Rejected. The first full paragraph identifies site assessment criteria for location of the Project. Conspicuously absent from the description is Item No. 4 of the December 7, 2001 RFP, as follows: "4. Local Approvals/Acceptance: County's final acceptance of the site is contingent on the local government's approval of the use and the community's acceptance." The criteria should also include proximity to client base for each of the component projects. The Juvenile Justice Facility and Hall of Justice projects have different client bases and the role of public transit and transportation access will also be different for the two types of facilities. Land Use and Planning (Chapter 4) Page 4-9, Site 15A. This subsection should reference the recently approved Transit Center project, which was sponsored by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and was approved in November 2002 by the Dublin City Council. The Transit Center is located west and south of Site 15A. Site F, located within the Transit Center, is planned for a neighborhood park by the City. The status of the Transit Center and the location of the planned park should be noted in this DEIR. Page 4-9, Policy and Regulatory Setting. These "certain local land use principles in the Dublin area" recognized by the County should be identified in this section as well as later in the document in order to provide a complete picture of the limits and extent of land use regulatory governance by the County. Page 4-28, Annexation Agreements. As noted without discussion on Page 1-8, the City of Dublin is a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The discussion on Annexation Agreements should be revised to more accurately and completely describe Dublin's decision-making authority over the project alternatives identified within Dublin. The last line on page 4-28 fails to accurately describe the authority,.virtually dismissing it as a "formal opportunity to review project's proposed by the County..". In fact, under the terms of the 1993 Annexation Agreement, the City of Dublin is a decision-maker for projects on both of the East County alternative sites. With respect to potential development of the Juvenile Justice Facility and/or Hall of Justice on the East County Government Center site, the 1993 Annexation Agreement provides that any such project would be subject to the City's Site Development Review (SDR) process. As noted later in this comment letter, the DEIR should expand its description of this process. As part of the SDR process, the City would review the potential project for consistency with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and would be required to make findings on the project's consistency with these two regulatory plans. For CEQA purposes, the City is a Responsible Agency and is anticipating to rely on the DEIR for CEQA compliance. As noted throughout the comments, the City views this document as inadequate CEQA compliance for the East County Government site. :~ i~,~ Page 7 With respect to development of a Hall of Justice on Site 15A, the 1993 Annexation Agreement provides that any development on the Santa Rita property, which includes Site 15A, is subject to City of Dublin land use approval. As noted throughout these comments, the DEIR erroneously concludes that the Site 15A alternative would be consistent with a pending proposal to amend the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations to "Campus Office." The Site 15A alternative would require a General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of "Public/Semi Public." The City of Dublin has been the Lead Agency under CEQA for development review on projects on the Santa Rita property, which includes Site 15A, and would expect to be the Lead Agency for future land use approvals, including those proposed on Site 15A. Because the DEIR does not include and analyze all the approvals that would be required, the DEIR is insufficient to support future City review of the Site 15A alternative. The Annexation Agreements discussion should also clarify that the parties to the agreement included the City, County and the Surplus Property Authority. In the Agreement, the 214 acres north of Gleason Road is defined as the County Governmental Property, not the County Center. As noted in the DEIR, both potential sites in Dublin, the East County Government Center and Site 15A, are located with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area. As part of the associated Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, a wide range of Mitigation Measures were adopted by the City of Dublin to reduce environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. The document needs to be revised to acknowledge all applicable mitigation measures and an analysis of how the portions of the proposed project located in Dublin comply with these approved mitigation measures. Page 4-29, Figure 4.12 is incorrect, Site 15B, located just east of Site 15A, is designated for Campus Office, not High Density Residential as depicted on the exhibit. Also, the title of the figure implies that it is both the Specific Plan and General Plan map, however, these are two different maps. The title of the figure (as well as the Source notation) should be corrected to show the figure as "based on" the Specific Plan and General Plan maps. Page 4-30, first paragraph second line. The Draft EIR description of the 1993 Annexation Agreement is unclear; the City suggests that Section 8.a, the referenced provision of the agreement, be set forth verbatim. The passage is short and makes it clear that any County development on Site 15A, governmental or otherwise, is subject to City land use regulation. Page 4-30, second paragraph, second sentence. This paragraph is misleading both with respect to the content of Section 9 of the Annexation Agreement and with respect to General Plan consistency. Section 9.a provides for a General Plan consistency review pursuant to Government Code 65402, but, contrary to the DEIR, says nothing either way about whether the proposed use should comply with the General Plan. Section 9.a also provides for Site Development Review (SDR) of the Page proposed project according to the City's Zoning Ordinance. As part of this process, the City would be required to determine whether the project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Page 4-30, passim. The Draft EIR frequently refers to the EDGPA for applicable land use designations. The correct reference should be to the current City of Dublin General Plan land use map and text rather than to the 1993 GPA. Page 4-31, passim. The Draft EIR land use analyses generally refer to the EDSP, without also reviewing for consistency with the Dublin General Plan. While the EDSP is consistent with the General Plan, the documents, policies, programs are not identical. Applicable policies and programs of the General Plan should be separately identified and analyzed as appropriate. Note that consistency with the General Plan and with applicable specific plans are both required findings for Site Development Review under Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Page 4-31, Development Intensity. This discussion in the DEIR states that development of both a Juvenile Justice Facility and Hall of Justice on the East County Government site would result in a Floor Area Ratio of 0.36. This is inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which allows development at the mid-point of the density range, which would be 0.25. Requests to average density across the development area should be included in the Project Description. Page 4-34, first Consistency Analysis. The Land Use Development Goals and Policies on p. 4-33 do not support the related Consistency Analysis. The Consistency Analysis states that the East County Government Center alternative meets local and regional needs, providing a Juvenile Justice Facility for all County residents and a Hall Of Justice for Tri-Valley communities. There is nothing in the five land use goals cited on p. 4-33 that addresses such countywide or regional services. The only "regional" reference in the goals relates to a hierarchy of commercial areas and services, which areas and services are not located in or related to the governmental facilities proposed by the Project. Page 4-34, Consistency Analysis. The last sentence on this page erroneously implies that a project's consistency with applicable general or specific plans could "override" that project's inconsistency with applicable zoning. The Dublin zoning ordinance provides for reviewing uses that are not specifically allowable to determine if they are consistent with applicable zoning. Consistency with applicable specific Plans is not among the grounds for making such a determination. Page 4-35, Site Development Review. The EIR/EIS does not adequately describe the purpose, process or scope of the Site Development Review (SDR) process. This paragraph needs to be significantly expanded to fully capture the requirements of the City's SDR process, particularly since the EIR/EIS is intended to be the CEQA documentation for the City's review. Page 9 Page 4-35, Site 15A Land Use Designations, Consistency Analysis. As noted in the Consistency Analysis, the Hall of Justice proposal is not consistent with the applicable land use designation for Site 15A, which designation is High Density Residential. As further noted, the Surplus Property Authority has applied to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designations to Campus Office. The application has not yet gone to hearing and has not been approved. Nor has there been any determination by the City that the Hall of Justice alternative would be consistent with the potential Campus Office designation. In fact, the alternative is also inconsistent with the Campus Office designation which anticipates non-retail commercial uses. The appropriate land use designation under the General Plan and Specific Plan would be Public/Semi Public. Page 4-36, last paragraph of the Subarea Land Use Planning Concept paragraph. As noted above, the City does not believe that the proposed Hall of Justice on this site would be consistent with either the General Plan or EDSP land use designation of Campus Office. According to the EDSP, Section 4.8.2, Campus Office uses include offices and other non-retail uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors or outdoor storage. The proposed Hall of Justice would have major differences from traditional campus office uses in terms of differing hours of activity for traffic and would attract a more public clientele which would not be consistent with the Campus Office land use designation. Although public uses are not specifically excluded by the language of the EDSP, the fact that a separate Public/Semi-Public land use category also e:~ists indicates that the Hall of Justice should be located within this land use designation. Section 4.8.3 of'the EDSP notes that the public and semi-public land use designation provides for the development of government and institutional uses. In order to develop the Hall of Justice alternative on Site 15A, applications would need to be submitted to and approved by the City for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, PD rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 development plans, and Site Development Review. Contrary to the statements at the end ofp. 4-36, the County would be subject to the City's local land use processes pursuant to Section 8.a of the 1993 Annexation Agreement. Page 4-39, Impacts 4.1.5 and 4.1.6, physical division of an established community. The City of Dublin disagrees with the EIR/EIS conclusion that development of the two project elements in Dublin will not divide an established community. As identified later in the EIR/EIS document (Environmental Justice Section) the City of Dublin believes development of the two projects in Dublin would have a significant and unavoidable impact in terms of dividing existing communities in the westerly portion of Alameda County which is the primary client base for the Juvenile Justice Facility. As documented in the Environmental Justice Section of the EIR/EIS, many of the future detainees within the Juvenile Justice Center will be required to travel to Dublin from points west. With inadequate public transportation to the proposed Juvenile Justice Center site in Dublin, an excessive amount of time will be required to travel to and from the Center. This, the existing physical community in the western potion of Alameda County (including but not limited to Oakland, Hayward and San Leandro) will be physically divided as residents are forced to travel to Dublin, for detention, probation or visitation purposes. Page 10 Page 4-41, Impact 4.3.5. The City disagrees with the assertion that there will be No Impact from the East County Government Center alternative. First, the County's statement that the "site is not subject to the land use policies of the City of Dublin" is inaccurate. Development on the site requires SDR review, which in turn requires the City to make a finding that the development complies with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Second, as noted previously, the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility is not anticipated in the EDSP as a potential use in the East County Government Center. This raises a consistency issue which should be identified as a significant impact. Page 4-41. Impact 4.3.6. The City' of Dublin disagrees with the conclusion that there will be No Impact from placement of the Hall of Justice on Site 15A. As the Draft EIS/EIR noted previously, the alternative is inconsistent with the existing General Plan and EDSP designations of High Density Residential. The alternative is also not consistent with the proposed Campus Office designations. (See comment above regarding p. 4-36.) The DEIR should be revised to identify this inconsistency as a significant impact and should be recirculated for public review. Page 4-42, Impact 4.4.,Changes in land use effects on surrounding land uses and uses within the area of environmental impacts. The analysis concludes that it is unlikely there would be any adverse impact on surrounding property values. However, case studies cited in the report suggest there is substantial potential for such impacts. The report in fact acknowledges at the outset that there is a 'paucity of statistical findings' to support the conclusory statements made in the EIR. The EIR fails to analyze the project as proposed, relying instead on poorly-related comparisons to other facilities, and fails completely to analyze the cumulative economic impacts of the project. Furthermore, the comparison discussion includes adult facilities, not juvenile facilities, without any discussion of how such facilities are comparable or distinguishable. Contrary to its summary conclusions, the report states that, "[t]here is some evidence to suggest that correctional facility-related property value impacts occur in three instances: 1) immediately adjacent to or across from facilities in the absence of buffers or screening; 2) in the direct line of vision of facilities; and 3) during the initial period of uncertainty prior to development of a facility." The project as proposed is in fact directly adjacent to and within the line of sight of residential uses south of the East County Government Center site. The analysis fails to address this issue, but rather relies on data concerning existing properties in the vicinity of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and the federal penitentiary. Those facilities are not immediately adjacent to private development, and are not generally within sight of any surrounding residential uses. To base conclusions of no impact on these existing conditions is to fail to recognize the profound cumulative impact of the proposed project. With the development of the proposed project, the County will have created a significant concentration of correctional and judicial facilities that would Visual !!im :,~ Page l 1 confront the existing residential and commercial uses more directly than do any of the existing facilities. The report cites a study by Abrams of populous areas in four states, and notes that a high-income area in Arizona did in fact show evidence of a negative effect from an adjacent prison, particularly those houses in direct line of vision of the facility. As the study indicates elsewhere, residential unit prices for the study area in Dublin exceed $500,000. The area has much more in common with the more affluent areas in states like Arizona than with the small communities in Wisconsin cited in other studies. The fact that many studies were unable to isolate the impact of prison siting among other economic variables indicates more that the subject has not been sufficiently studied than that no impacts in fact exist. The City of Dublin therefore believes that the EIR bases it conclusions on insufficient data and analysis that do not support a finding of less than significant impacts for the East County Government Center. Page 4-56, Increased Demand for Housing and Services. The Draft EIR impact analysis is conclusory, and is not supported by substantial evidence. The analysis concludes that any increased demand for housing and services is less than significant, but bases this conclusion on vague employment projections of some 865 employees for the Juvenile Justice Facility and Hall of Justice projects. The discussion also notes but does not explain the relevance of increased daytime activity at the sites, including some 3,000 daily visitors to the East County Hall of Justice. Finally, the second paragraph under Impact 4.6 does not appear to have any relation to the identified impact. The Draft EIR should be revised to adequately analyze increased housing and services demands with substantial evidence presented to support the analysis and conclusions. Missing Information: The City of Dublin's response to the Notice of Preparation for this project specifically requested a discussion of neighborhood compatibility between the two projects in Dublin and surrounding neighborhoods. This was not listed as an impact in the DEIR and must be included in a revised DEIR document. Missing Information: The City of Dublin's response to the Notice of Preparation for this project specifically requested a discussion of project phasing and associated environmental impacts. This was not listed as an impact in the DEIR and must be included in a revised DEIR document. Quality (Section 5) Page 5-42, Impact 5.15. The EIR/EIS notes that development of the proposed project on the East County Government Center would result in a Less-than-Significant impact regarding substantial degradation in the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. Since the EIR/EIS document does not include elevations of the south side of the proposed Juvenile Justice Center, or analysis of security lighting, this conclusion cannot be supported by the evidence in this record. These issues are addressed elsewhere in these comments. Page 12 The City of Dublin also notes that the proposed construction of a multi-story Hall of Justice on the north side of Gleason Drive would result in potentially significant impacts to existing two-story single family residences on the immediate south side of Gleason Drive. Existing privacy of these residents will be disrupted, both within yard areas nearest the project as well as into second floors of the dwellings. The City requests that a viewshed analysis be prepared to evaluate this impact and recommend effective mitigation measures. The viewshed analysis should also address the views from the Juvenile Justice Facility towards the Santa Rita facility. The area where the Juvenile Justice Facility is proposed presently looks across the Santa Rita parking lot to heavily secured fencing with rows of razor wire. Juvenile detainees could be subjected to full views of the jail premises and perimeter fencing. Finally, the viewshed analysis should include any light standards that could be visible from the Gleason Drive residential area. The project as described does not appear to be consistent with the Chapter 3 Project Description. The first paragraph of text under Impact 5.1.5 mentions an "alternative master plan concept" referred to as "Master Plan Concept A." It is unclear if this is the same project as described on p. 3-19, et seq.. The first bullet on p. 5-43 indicates the Juvenile Justice Facility will have a distinct identity from the adult detention center. It is difficult to see how this identity will be maintained if the Juvenile Justice Facility shares parking with the adult detention center (presumably the Santa Rita jail). Finally, it is unclear what parking is existing or proposed, based on mention of an "allotment" of 550 spaces onsite and Santa Rita use of 250 parking stalls. Page 5-42, first bullet point. The ninth line of this paragraph notes that a berm would be constructed to screen the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility from existing uses to the south. The DEIR/EIS needs to clarify if the proposed berm would be of sufficient height to screen the proposed Facility. Based on the need to create a flat building pad, the City does not believe that the proposed berm would be sufficient to accomplish full or even substantial facility screening and a Significant Visual Impact would be created. As noted in comments for Chapter 3, it is not possible to determine the adequacy of the screening provided by the berm due to the lack of a typical section or grading plan. A point related to visual impacts is the fact that if the existing tall berm is to be removed as indicated in the Chapter 3 Project Description, significantly greater views will be available of Santa Rita Jail north of the East County Government Center. The City requests that a viewshed analysis be performed to identify potential impacts of existing and proposed facilities on the north side of Gleason Drive from motorists using Gleason and from properties on the south side of Gleason Drive. Page 5-43, first bullet point, next-to-last line. The EIR/EIS notes that the East County Hall. of Justice would provide a general public function. Since the intended use is as a public facility, the appropriate land use designation pursuant to the General Plan and EDSP would be Public/Semi-Public and not Campus Office. Page 13 Page 5-43, Impact 5.1.6, the EIR/EIS notes that the proposed Hall of Justice would have a Less Than Significant impact regarding a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The EIR/EIS notes that the type, height and mass of the building would not be out of character with surrounding buildings, including the Sybase complex and Microdental Building. Although the proposed multi-story courthouse may be similar in character with the office buildings cited, it would not be in scale with the neighborhood park planned by the City of Dublin immediately west of Site 15A, on Site F of the approved Transit Center. The Draft EIR should be revised to analyze this compatibility issue. Page 5-44, Impact 5.2.6. The Draft EIR identifies No Impact on scenic vistas for Site 15A. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence in the document. Site 15A is currently vacant, with vacant land to the west as well. Figure 5.32 on p. 5-40 looks across the site towards 1-580 and west across Camp Parks and shows large open areas. Views from 1-580 would be back across the vacant site towards northerly distant hills. Contrary to the scant discussion in the Draft EIR, development of the project on Site 15A will substantially affect both short distance and long distance views across the now vacant site. The Draft EIR should be revised to adequately analyze the project's potential effects on scenic vistas. Page 5-45, Impact 5.3.5 does not identify "lighting used for security purposes, reflective materials and other sources" either qualitatively or quantitatively, so it is unclear how or how much light and glare will be increased by the projects. If the security lighting is as tall as the light standards in the Santa Rita facility (which are approximately twice as tall as the parking lot standards, and have eight lights circled around the top of each standard), with that lighting closer to residential and commercial uses south of Gleason, and with a smaller berm, increased light and glare from the project is likely to be substantial. For these same reasons, typical shielding and unspecified "design revisions" are not adequate mitigation measures because there is no evidence that they will reduce increased light and glare that will accompany the project. The Draft EIR should be revised to adequately describe sources of project light and glare in an impact and mitigation analysis based on substantial and specific evidence. The analysis should also address the Gleason Drive berm which is described as only partially shielding the site. With only partial shielding, it is unclear how the screening will be provided. Geology, Soils and Seismicity (Section 6) Page 6-5, Figure 6.2. It is virtually impossible to decipher this diagram, even with the related text. The legend should be clarified to distinguish between different features of the Figure. The Figure should be clarified by clearly showing and labeling the rupture zone and setback areas, so the reader can tell which side of a particular boundary line is critical area and which is not. Although this figure is not directly related to the East County site alternatives, the seismic hazards of the Existing San Leandro site are the driving force for the entire project and thus should be clear and understandable to even non-technical readers. Page Page 6-17. The first paragraph impermissibly defers identification of potential geotechnical impacts and mitigations to future studies even though the size, configuration and location of buildings on both of the East County sites are set forth in the Chapter 3 project description and elsewhere throughout the document. While impact and mitigation analyses may need to be refined in subsequent final design stages, the Draft EIR should analyze the information that is available on the project, which in this case, appears to be considerably more than as noted. 14 Page 6-21, third paragraph under Foundation Support. The document says field exploration did not include borings or test pits. The Draft EIR should explain how the analysis can be adequate without these investigations, especially in view of last sentence regarding the instability of site materials. Page 6-36, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 6.5.5 and 6.5.6. The identified impact is potentially significant soil erosion from site preparation and excavation, and from ongoing soil erosion following development (p. 6-34.) The identified mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 6.5.2, p. 6-35) requires implementation of a SWPPP during construction, but does not identify or require site-specific or site design erosion control measures to address ongoing soil erosion impacts following development. The City's SDR review of the East County Government Code is a Project level review for which this information should be provided. Page 6-38, Soil Instability. Impact 6.6.5 indicates that the impact will be reduced to less than significant through engineering recommendations, however the impact is improperly described as Less than Significant rather than Potentially Significant but Mitigatable. Although explicitly stating that that the recommendations would reduce the impact, compliance with the engineering recommendations is not identified as a mitigation measure. By contrast, Impact 6.7.5 on p. 6-39 regarding Expansive Soils identifies compliance with the engineering recommendations (presumably from the same study) as a mitigation measure. Furthermore, the engineering recommendations are not summarized or otherwise identified in the discussion under Impact 6.6.5, or in related text on p. 6-16, or on p. 6-21 regarding Foundation Support and Settlement. It is impossible from the Draft EIR to know what actions are recommended to reduce this impact, let alone whether they will be successful. Page 6-40, Mitigation Measure 6.7.6 for Expansive Soils impacts at Site t5A is unclear whether either or both of the identified structure designs is necessary to reduce the impact to less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 7) Page 7-2, Stormwater Pollution Pre,cention Plans. The DEIR does not reference new and more stringent surface water quality standards which will soon be applicable to new development projects. Since proposed projects in Eastern Dublin will be required to comply with these standards, they need to be referenced in the document. Page 15 Page 7-3, East County Government Center. The Corps of Engineers has not yet approved the wetlands delineation for the East County Government Center site. It has not been determined if the existing detention pond is considered a wetland, or if preservation/mitigation will be required. Either option could impact the design of the site. Page 7-4.The document states that runoff from the site is discharged into the Arnold Road channel and then leaves the area via Tassajara Creek and a culvert under 1-580, 2,000' east of Tassajara Road. This is an incorrect statement. The Arnold Road channel does not discharge to either one of these drainage courses (note that the channel is located 4,000' .west of Tassajara Road. The Arnold Road channel discharges to a flow splitter near Central Parkway, with a portion of the flows continuing south in a closed pipe to a triple 54-inch culvert under 1-580 at Arnold Road, and the remainder continuing through an open channel to a closed pipe through the BART Station and then under 1-580. The document incorrectly states that the site drains to the detention pond. The 1999 Update to the Santa Rita Properties Master Drainage P1an (prepared by BKF Engineers, consultants to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority for Eastern Dublin development) shows drainage from the site split between two systems. The westerly portion of the site drains to the detention pond, with the approximately 3.7 acres of the easterly end of the site draining to a 24-inch storm drain in Gleason Drive which drains easterly to Tassajara Creek. The existing storm drain systems have been designed based on this split of runoff. Page 7-6, Impact 7.1.5 and Impact 7.1.6, Water Quality) These impacts are shown to be mitigated through the development of a SWPPP. The SWPPP will be required to provide physical improvements (grassy swales, etc.) to filter runoff. Given the high percentage of impervious surface on the site, and the need for much of the remaining open space to be occupied by the berms, it is unclear whether there is sufficient area for the water quality features to be provided, and thus, whether the mitigation measure will be capable of successful implementation. It is also noted that, should a Corps Of Engineers 404 Permit be required to fill the detention pond, the permit will not be effective unless the Regional Board provides a Water Quality Waiver. Further, the Board may act independent of the Corps and require that the pond be preserved or replaced as a water quality measure. In summary, it is not clear that the proposed site plan can accommodate potential water quality/wetland preservation requirements. Page 7-7, Impact 7.2, Substantial Interference with Groundwater Recharge. The DEIR indicates there would be No Impact with regard to this topic. However, Impact IM 3.5/Z of the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan identifies a Potentially Significant Impact with regard to reduced groundwater recharge area. Since both potential project elements in Dublin would involve building or paving currently vacant land, Dublin believes, contrary to the DEIR, this would be a potentially Page 16 significant impact. Therefore, the DEIR needs to be revised to reflect this new impact and recirculated. Page 7-8. Impact 7.4.5, Stormwater Capacity. This impact has not been addressed as stated in the document. This impact addresses only the water quality issues. There is no discussion of downstream stormwater capacity issues. Reference is made to the BKF 1999 Update of the Santa Rita Property Drainage Master Plan. The plan reviewed probable land uses within the study area, determined the future runoff from various sites, and sized the new drainage system accordingly. The plan used a coefficient of runoff ("C" value) of 0.5 for the East County Government Center. The proposed development on the site has a high proportion of impervious surfaces and a C-value of 0.5 appears low. The result would be a discharge of higher flows than had been assumed in the design of the downstream storm drain facilities. The plan also includes an analysis of the existing 24-inch storm drain which drains easterly to Tassajara Creek. The storm drain was installed as part of the initial Gleason Drive construction off Tassajara Road to serve the East County Government Center facilities. Based on the BKF analysis, the storm drain is undersized for a 15 year storm, with the hydraulic grade line 3-4-feet above the rim of the upstream catch basin, at approximate elevation 379. In other words, during a 15-year (and much lower) storms, water will back up out of the system and pond in Gleason Drive and potentially on adjoining property. This would be a significant impact. Impacts associated with construction of the proposed project are as follows: a) Addition of runoff from the site will increase the existing flooding problem in Gleason Drive. b) Connection of the project to the system could result in backup from the pipe onto to site. c) With or without a stormwater connection from the site to the Gleason Drive system, overflow from the pipe system could find its way onto the site as surface flow. Directing all runoff from the East County site to the system at Arnold Road would eliminate the first two issues, but not necessarily eliminate flooding of the site due to the overflow problem. In addition, this would result in a diversion of flows to the Arnold Road not allowed for in the design of the system. The document does not address the required pad elevations needed to provide adequate freeboard in the drainage system or to protect the site from the overflow problem at the east end of the site. Raising the pad to address these issues would reduce the ability to screen the site from Gleason Drive. · Page 7-6 and 7-7, Impacts 7.1.5 and 7.1.6., Violation of Water Quality Standards. These impacts are identified as "short term" in nature. No impact is identified for ~I .... Page 17 long-term operations of these two facilities as they might affect water quality. It appears that associated mitigation measures only require the SWPPP to deal with construction level impacts, which understates this potentially significant impact. Therefore, the City of Dublin believes this impact needs to be expanded to include long-term operational impacts of both facilities and modifications need to be made in the recommended mitigation measures. Page 7-10, Impact 7.6, Exposure of People or Structures to Flood Hazards. This is stated as "No Impact." Based on the capacity problem in the Gleason Drive easterly drainage system and the possibility of overland release onto this or other properties, it is unclear how this statement can be made. Please clarify how the area drainage would work with an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. Page 7-4 says there is existing flooding at 580/Tassajara because the culverts are too small; it appears the project will individually or cumulatively contribute to flooding, or will increase flooding there. Note: The BKF 1999 Update is cited as a reference at the end of the document. It is unclear why the document authors did not consider the existing flooding problems in the evaluation of the site drainage. Missing Information: The DEIR needs to review the potential for seiche in detention ponds the event of seismic activity. This potential impact should be included in the document. Biological Resources (Section 8) Page 8-14, California Ground Squirrel. The DEIR states that California ground squirrels are absent from the East County Government Center site. A recent field visit (1/22/03) found two clusters of ground squirrel burrows in the west central portion of the site. This discrepancy and the potential for loss of significant species or habitat, especially the California Tiger Salamander and burrowing owl, needs to be discussed in a revised document. Page 8-14, Congdon's Tarplant. The discussion on Congdon's tarplant misrepresents the status of this species in the East Dublin area. It infers the plants found on the East County Government Center site (and site 15A) are only a small portion of a much larger and widely distributed population in this area. Large portions of where this plant were reported by Preston (1999) have been lost or are rapidly undergoing development. What was once one of the species largest populations is being lost or fragmented into small, isolated stands. This project is a continuation of that pattern. The discussion in the DEIR should be revised to incorporate this information and the related potential for significant project and cumulative effects and should address mitigations for this impact as recently adopted through the Transit Center project. Page 8-16, California Tiger Salamander. The DEIR concludes that the East County Government Center site is not suitable habitat for this species due to the absence of breeding habitat and limited opportunities for upland estivation. This conclusion .... ~: Page 18 should be reevaluated. The site contains two ponds which are potentially suitable tiger salamander breeding habitat. The surface area of these ponds was sufficiently large and they contained ponded water to a depth of 4 to 6 inches on January 22, 2003. Invertebrates were observed swimming in the water column and Pacific treefrog egg masses were present. Their presence indicates regular ponding at these locations and that a food source for tiger salamander larvae is available. These ponds could support breeding tiger salamanders. The site should be surveyed for tiger salamanders using the survey protocol recommended by the California Department of Fish and Game. Based on this additional information, the City of Dublin requests the DEIR be amended to reflect this potentially significant impact and the document be recirculated per CEQA Guidelines. Page 8-18, Burrowing Owl, White-tailed Kite. The DEIS/EIR notes that the East Cotmty Government Center site provides potentially suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owl but makes no mention of whether they were observed at this location. Table 8.1 indicates they could possibly occur here. Burrowing owl are present on the East County Government Center site. One owl was flushed from a ground squirrel burrow on January 22, 2002. The burrow had evidence of long-term occupation (white wash, several pellets). A pair of white-tailed kite were also observed here on the same date. Table 8.1 says both species are "possible" on this site. The text discussion and table in the DEIR should be updated to reflect their status on this property. Pages 8-19 and 20. Wetlands. The DEIR reports that a preliminary jurisdictional delineation was conducted on the East County Government Center site and that two depressional features were present that met the Corps three-parameter test to determine if wetland conditions are present (page 8-19). The mapped locations (Figure 8.4) correspond to the locations where the ponds described above were observed. The DEIR text, on page 8-19, states that these features function largely as grasslands, with no unique values to wildlife. This is not correct. As noted above in the comments on tiger salamanders, these areas pond water for sufficiently long periods to support aquatic organisms, including breeding by Pacific treefrogs and possibly tiger salamanders. Evidence of use by waterfowl (feathers) was also present. This information is essential to properly evaluate project impacts on wetland resources and the DEIR should be revised to incorporate it and should be recirculated per the CEQA Guidelines to allow alt applicable regulatory agencies to evaluate this potential impact. Page 8-28, Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Nesting Loggerhead Shrike and Raptors. The DEIR correctly notes that these species could nest on the project site and surveys prior to construction are necessary to determine if nesting is occurring. However, Mitigation Measure 8.1.5a does not provide specific criteria for establishing buffers around active nests if they are found. It only makes reference to consulting a "qualified biologist" who will establish these buffers. It does not even state who the results of the pre-construction survey will be submitted to. The Area Biologist of the Department of Fish and Game should be named as the individual to contact to establish appropriate buffer size and implementing DFG's Page recommendation made a condition of project approval. The results of the pre- construction survey should be submitted to the County and the Department of Fish and Game. 19 Page 8-28, Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Burrowing Owls. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5b should be revised to note that burrowing owls are present on the East County Government Center site. This measure should also be revised to state that the Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines are those contained in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. They require the preservation (not creation as stated on page 8-28) of 6.5 acres of occupied burrowing owl habitat per single owl or pair found on a site. This mitigation measure should be revised to state that if the avoidance measures contained in the Department ofFish and Game's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation cannot be implemented then the project will be required to preserve 6.5 acres (or more if additional owls are detected) of off-site burrowing owl habitat. The location to be approved by the Department ofFish and Game. The DEIR shotdd address mitigations for this impact as recently adopted through the Transit Center project. Pages 8-28 and 8-30, Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Congdon's Tarplant. The method of determining the level of impact to this species used in Mitigation Measure 8.1.5c and 8.1.6a is not adequate. The number of individual plants detected at a specific location varies from year to year depending on a number of variables. As a result there is no way of knowing if the one year surveys were conducted was a high or low year in terms of total numbers of individual plants. Numbers of individual plants may also have no relationship to conditions which exist when the five-year monitoring program is concluded. A more accurate way of determining the level of impact is to measure how large an area of suitable habitat is impacted and require as mitigation the preservation of suitable occupied habitat at a 1:1 ratio. This method of impact analysis should be used to calculate impacts to Congdon's tarplant on both the East County Government Center site and Site 15A and to determine the necessary amount of mitigation acreage required. Page 8-33, Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Wetland Areas. As noted previously in the comments on wetland resources on this site, the DEIR does not adequately describe the condition and values of the wetlands present. The impact analysis should be revised to state there will be a significant impact on wetland resources and mitigation for their loss provided whether they are determined to be subject to the Corps jurisdiction or not. The same approach should be used to analyze potential wetland impacts on site 15A. See also comments above regarding Mitigation Measure 6.5.2. Page 8-36, Loss of Wildlife Habitat. These two analyses should be revised and reanalyzed in light of the above comments regarding the potential impacts on wildlife habitat and any impacts on movement corridors. Page 20 Page 8-38, Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances. Mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts 8.5.5 and 8.5.6 are not specifically cross-referenced, nor is reference to the "measures described above" sufficient to identify the mitigation measures proposed for these impacts. See also comments above regarding reanalysis of potential wetlands and sensitive species impacts and mitigations. Transportation (Section 9) Page 9.1, Regulatory/Policy Setting. This section should be expanded to identify and describe the range of traffic impact fees imposed by the City of Dublin for projects in Eastern Dublin. These include: a. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, imposed to finance transportation improvements needed to reduce traffic-related impacts caused by development in Eastern Dublin. This fee is imposed on a per-trip basis. b. Freeway Interchange Fee, which is imposed to reimburse the City of Pleasanton for costs to construct the 1-580/Tassajara Road and I- 580/Haciendsa Drive interchange improvements. These fees are also imposed on a per-trip basis, c. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, which is imposed to finance transportation improvements in the Tri-Valley development area made necessary by development in this portion of Alameda County. In some instances, government buildings are specifically exempted from this fee. Page 9-1, Regulatory/Policy Setting. This section should reference the existence of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. These documents provide a reguIatory framework for traffic and circulation, in the Eastern Dublin area and appropriate policies need to be included to provide a true picture of the regulatory setting. Page 9-23, East County Government Center and Site 15A, Project Scenarios. The DEIR texts suggest that no future traffic is accounted for under Scenarios Al, A2 or B. Assuming that a Hall of Justice is not located on Site 15A, it is likely that a another use, consistent with the proposed Campus Office land use designation, would be constructed on Site 15A, which would generate traffic. The analysis should clarify how potential future traffic on Site 15A would be adch'essed in cumulative analyses. Page 9-24, Important Roadways. The list of roadways does not identify which, if any, are MTS roadways for which the County Congestion Management Agency would require analysis. The City notes that many of the referenced roadways are being funded through the City's Traffic Impact Fee program. Thus, development relying on these roadways to meet project demand is paying its proportionate share of the roadway costs. · Page 9-25, Study Intersections. Nineteen study intersections are identified. Please explain why these particular intersections were selected. Page 21 Page 9-25, Existing Conditions Analysis. It is noted that the peak period traffic volumes were obtained from "recent transportation analyses or conducted in the field by TJKM Transportation Consultants." On page 9-29, it is noted that traffic volume counts were conducted in August 2001 and January 2002. Please identify the source of each count and the date on which each location was counted. Please provide detail as to why counts were done in August 2001 which is some time ago and during the summer when traffic volumes are generally lower than average. Please provide more detail as to how the percent occupancy for approved and pending projects was determined and applied given that the existing conditions data were collected in August 2001 and January 2002. Page 9-29, Baseline Conditions Analysis. Information for the Baseline analysis is incomplete and does not provide an accurate basis for the traffic analyses. The list of approved and pending projects does not include Dublin Ranch Areas D and E, the Dublin Transit Center, anticipated development in downtown Dublin or the Eastern Dublin Property Owners projects. Without consideration of these impacts, the baseline conditions could be artificially low. Similarly, the third full paragraph on Page 9-31 refers to "currently planned improvements," but does not identify those improvements, who planned them, who has or will pay for them, or who will construct them. Finally, there has been no mention in Chapter 9 of the City's Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee programs. The Dublin area alternatives should be reanalyzed.based on accurate baseline conditions, on participation in applicable traffic impact fee programs, or other identified mitigation measures. The revised analysis should be recirculated for public review. Page 9-31. There is a note that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR uses a methodology different from the CCTALOS methodology for analyzing peak hour intersection operations. Please provide more detail regarding the differences and how the "actual land use development, trip generation and regional travel patterns have necessarily changed since preparation of the EDSP." Page 9-31. Changes to the existing lane geometry at seven intersections are listed. Please provide detail regarding how these changes were developed, including if all are from the EDSP or if new changes were added and if changes would be acceptable to the jurisdiction where the intersections are located. Please provide detail on how each improvement is to be funded and constructed. Page 9-32. It is noted that the operations at one intersection (Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard) could be improved from LOS F to LOS C with the change of one through lane to a third right-turn lane. The calculations are included in the separate appendix. Please provide more detail on the reduction in volume for right tums on red, including the distribution of traffic in each right-turn lane that considers the movements at the next intersection. In addition, changing the through lane to a right- turn lane would result in only one through lane. Please explain how one through lane would be adequate given that Dublin Boulevard is an arterial that was widened to six lanes east of Dougherty Road in 2002 and intended to be three lanes in each direction Page 22 throughout its length. There is no evidence that the suggested roadway improvements have been reviewed with City staff for compliance with City circulation planning and improvements. The DEIR should also analyze whether the identified mitigations are part of the City's traffic impact fee program improvements. Page 9-32. It is noted that parking occupancy was surveyed in August 2001. Please provide details on the parking occupancy counts, including how a survey during the summer with generally lower trip generation and lower parking demand would compare to a survey during other times of the year. Please provide more detail regarding the surveyed site for parking data such as percent occupancy of the facility. Page 9-35, first full paragraph. This text provides information on the BART services, but does not appear to be complete. The text does not state whether travelers from Oakland, San Leandro and Hayward locations would have to change trains to or from Dublin. The text also appears to assume that project ridership will be comparable to regular commute patterns and peaks. If so, this assumption should be stated and substantiated. Page 9-35, the significance criteria for the City of Dublin as set forth in the Dublin General Plan circulation element should also be cited and analyzed in a revised and recirculated DEIR since the City, as a Responsible Agency, is intended to rely on the DEIR. Page 9-54, Impacts 9.1.5 and 9.1.6. Significant and unavoidable impacts are noted for the intersection of Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard. It is noted that "These impacts would occur with or without the Project, but the Project's traffic would be a significant impact that requires proportionate contribution toward mitigation." However, it is noted on page 9-61 that "Additional mitigation at the intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is not feasible due to physical constraints at this location and this impact is significant and unavoidable." Please provide more detail on how a proportionate contribution toward mitigation would be defined, what form it would take (e.g., payment of impact fees) and how it would be used. Page 9-57, Trip Generation. It is noted that the trip generation for Scenario A1 was "...estimated based on the Architectural Program and previous reports." Table 9.16 on page 9-58 presents the trip generation for Scenario Al, with about 9,000 daily trips and 1,200 peak hour trips. Please provide more detail as to the development of the trip generation, in addition to the note "Rates for the Project were calculated based on the number of trips estimated for these uses." Please provide a list of previous reports with details. Please provide more detail on the use of the Architectural Program and previous reports to develop the trip generation. It is also stated that "The person-trips were translated into vehicle-trips by assuming vehicle occupancy rates and a 10% transit and carpool reduction." Please provide detail as to the assumed vehicle occupancy. Please provide detail on how and why a 10% transit and carpool reduction was used, including the percent that would use BART and how they xvould travel to and from the East Dublin BART station. The existing transit use at the San Leandro site would be helpful to know, although the transit use at the East County sites may be lower if the existing and potential transit service is less frequent and less convenient with lower capacity. These comments on trip generation also pertain to the other scenarios as described on pages 9-61, 9-65, 9-66 9-72, 9-76. Page 9-57, Trip Distribution. The percent directional distribution for the project traffic is listed. Please provide more detail on how the directional distribution percentages were developed. Pages 9-58 and -61, Impact 9.1.5 and Mitigation Measure 9.1.5a. The Resulting Level of Significance discussion on p. 9-61 states that the Scarlett Drive extension would not mitigate the related impact to less than significant; however, no other mitigation measures are identified for this impact. Addressing this same intersection in the Eastern Dublin Properties Revised Draft Supplemental EIR (pp. 3.6-16 to -18), the City examined certain intersection improvements but found them infeasible. However, the City also identified other measures to reduce trip generation and congestion and improve levels of service. These measures include, but are not limited to, a transportation demand program, ride sharing, free or discounted BART or other transit passes, as well as current and future phases of the I-580 Smart Corridor program. With these additional measures, the City determined that impacts to the intersection would be reduced to less than significant levels. These additional measures should be included in the Draft EIR for project and cumulative impacts related to the Dublin intersections. Page 9-61, Mitigation Measure 9.1.5b. This proposed mitigation would change a through lane to a third right-turn lane. Please provide more detail regarding this measure, as noted under baseline conditions. Page 9-62, Mitigation Measure 9.1.5c. From this point on in Chapter 9, identified mitigation measures are no longer followed by a statement of the Resulting Level of Significance. Without this information, the reader does not know if the impacts have been avoided, and thus, how the alternative scenarios compare to one another regarding related traffic impacts. Page 9-75, Table 9.25. This table indicates that under Scenario C1 for the p.m. peak hour the level of service (LOS) for the intersection of Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard would be LOS F (with the Scarlett Drive extension). Under baseline conditions without the project, Table 9.9 indicates LOS E for the intersection with the Scarlett Drive extension. Therefore project traffic under Scenario C1 would result in the LOS changing from LOS E to LOS F. The significance criteria noted on page 9- 35 indicate that a project would have a significant environmental impact if the LOS degrades to worse than LOS E or if the volume-to-capacity ratio increases by more than 1 percent if the baseline conditions are LOS E or LOS F. Therefore, the project would result in a significant impact. Please provide more detail on the significant impacts of the project and the mitigation for Scenario C2. Please provide more detail Page 24 for the other scenarios also, as noted in Table 9.17 on page 9-61, Table 9.19 on page 9-64, Table 9.21 on page 9-68, Table 9.23 on page 9-71, and Table 9.27 on page 9- 72, as the addition of project traffic under each of the scenarios would change the volume-to-capacity ratio at this intersection by more than 1 percent. As noted elsewhere in these comments, traffic impacts should be analyzed based on the Dublin General Plan LOS standards, in a revised and recirculated DEIR. Page 9-87, Inadequate Parking Supply at East County Government Center. As noted in previous comments, the Draft EIR parking analysis is inadequate because it does not identify how many parking places are proposed to meet project demand and does not identify the deficit number of spaces. Mitigation Measure 9.2.5 is similarly inadequate since it does not identify the number of spaces needed to meet the deficit, or the number of additional spaces that could be created through restriping the Santa Rita lot. The Draft EIR should be revised to provide adequate, accurate parking demand and supply figures upon which the analysis can be based. Page 9-91, Impact 9.3.5. The impact analysis is inadequate because the finding of a Less than Significant transit impact is dependent on exPansion of LAVTA route coverage; however, this expansion is not identified as a mitigation measure and LAVTA is not required to even consider much less complete such expansion. Furthermore, the descriptions of LAVTA and BART facilities do not present evidence showing that the facilities are convenient or cost effective for anticipated project ridership. See earlier comments regarding the questionable validity of apparent assumptions that project ridership needs are comparable to commuter ridership needs. Note that this same comment applies to Impact 9.8.1 on p. 9-111; this impact analysis is inadequate since it also relies on voluntary actions such as LAVTA expansion that are not identified as mitigation measures. Page 9-91, please provide detail on how the new LAVTA routes and/or improved headways would be funded and on how bus connections and transfers would provide access and be coordinated with BART. Page 9-91, please provide more detail on how the number of transit riders was determined under Impact 9.3.6 for Site 1 SA. Page 9-101. It is noted that under Scenario A2, the project would add 1.5 percent of the total traffic on 1-580 and "This contribution of traffic would be considered a significant effect of the Project." In addition, significant effects are noted for four scenarios on segments of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. On page 17-16 m~der cumulative conditions, it is noted that "Project-related contributions to unacceptable levels of congestion on these roadway segments could be regarded as cumulatively considerable." The mitigation for these significant effects are a TSM/TDM Program (9.4.5a, 9.4.6a, 17.1.5a and 17.1.6a), an Enhanced Transit Program (9.4.5b, 9.4.6b, 17.1.5b and 17.1.6b), and Tri-Valley Transportation Fees (9.4.5c, 9.4.6c, 17.1.5c and 17.1.6c). Please provide more detail as to how these measures would provide mitigation for the significant effects. It is noted that even with these measures, the contribution of traffic by the project "... would be a Page 25 significant and unavoidable effect. Additionally, improvements to regional roadways depend upon other agencies for implementation and are outside of the County's jurisdiction. Consequently, construction of improvements cannot be assured." Missing Information: There is no reference in Chapter 9 or elsewhere to the current and potential geographic locations of the homes of visitors (to all the plam~ed facilities, including courts), inmates, juvenile probationers, and juveniles in custody. The distance that these persons currently travel and would travel with the East County sites should be included in the analysis, including vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and related impacts, such as on air quality. The traffic analysis described in the report does not include consideration of pedestrians and bicyclists. Please provide detail on how the operations at the study intersections may be affected by pedestrians and bicyclists. Please provide detail regarding the project impact on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and on pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to and from the project sites and at the study intersections. Page 9-108, Mitigation Measures 9.4.5a and 9.4.6a. TSM/TDM mitigation measures are normally responsive to commuter traffic impacts and do not appear appropriate for the Juvenile Justice Facility project. See above comment regarding unsubstantiated assumptions regarding the similarity of commuter ridership and potential project ridership. Also, the identified mitigation measures are "should" measures rather than "shall" measures and thus cannot be relied upon for implementation or feasible mitigation. Since the DEIR identifies mitigation measures using both terms, the City assumes that "shall" means mandatory, while "should" means advisory. Noise (Section 1O) Page 10-11, Local Physical Setting, East County Government Center. The DEIR/EIS does not disclose the presence of helicopter overflights of the property from military helicopters using Parks RFTA. Figure 4-2 of the Parks RFTA Enviroxxrnental Noise Management Plan prepared in December 2002 clearly shows that both the East County Government Center and Site 15A are subject to helicopter noise impacts. Based on this new information, the DEIR should be revised and recirculated to analyze this potential impact. Page 10-11, Local Physical Setting, East County Government Center. The DEIR fails to disclose the proximity of the weapons shooting ranges on Camp Parks. In late 2002, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office commissioned an acoustic study of the impacts of shooting ranges on adjacent properties to the ranges. This study was prepared by the firm of Wilson, Ihrig Associates. The report indicates potentially significant noise impacts to adjacent residential areas south of Gleason Drive. By inference, there would be significant noise impacts to the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility site, since this site in the East County Government Facility is located closer to the shooting ranges than properties south of Gleason Drive. Since this study was Page commissioned by the Alameda County Sheriff's office, the City of Dublin is concerned that this study is not used or even referenced in the DEIR document. 26 Information contained in the DEIR on Page 10-11 seems to contradict the finding of the earlier study. The DEIR notes that "Distant gunfire from the County Sheriff's Shooting Range was audible but not measurable at this location." The Wilson, Ihrig study found that shooting range noise could range up to 64 dBA at the Hacienda/Gleason intersection. Since the Juvenile Justice Center would be significantly closer to the Shooting Range, gunfire noise would be a potentially significant impact. This impact should be analyzed in a revised DEIR and recirculated for public review. Page 10-21, Significance Criteria. The first bullet point under Significance Criteria indicates that a significant noise impact would result if noise exposure limits would exceed noise standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. The City of Dublin has adopted a Noise Element as part of the General Plan that contains specific exterior noise exposure limits. Since two of the candidate sites are within the City of Dublin, specific reference needs to be made of City of Dublin standards with analysis included based on those standards. Page 10-27, Impact 10.2.5, East County Government Center. The City of Dublin agrees that future traffic noises would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to residences south of this site. Page 10-28, Mitigation Measure 10.2.5a. The recommendation that either the City or County install "quiet pavement" material on adjacent streets near the east County Government Center needs to be expanded to identify specific noise reduction levels, expressed in Ldn or a similar noise metric, to be achieved by this action. This mitigation measure must identify who will fund the increase in cost from normal paving to "quiet paving." The DEIR needs to include additional information of the approximate per square foot costs of this enhanced paving treatment. Page 10-33, Impact 10.3.6, Construction Noise Impacts adjacent to Site 15A. The DEIR incorrectly and inaccurately notes that there are "no noise sensitive receivers adjacent to Site 15A. The final approved development plan for the Transit Center shows a neighborhood park immediately west of Site 15A, which is considered a sensitive noise receptor. Therefore, this is a new impact not disclosed in this document and the DEIR must be revised and recirculated for public review. Impact Not Disclosed. The DEIR does not disclose anticipated impacts to surrounding properties from groundbome vibration. For the proposed East County Government Center, there could be potential impacts to residences south of Gleason Drive. For Site 15A there could be potentially significant construction -groundborne vibration impacts to both Sybase to the east and the proposed City of Dublin park immediately to the west on Site F of the Transit Center. The Draft EIR should be revised to include analysis of groundborne vibration impacts and should be recirculated for public review. Page 27 Air Quality (Section 11) Page 11-15, Mitigation Measure 11.1.1. The DEIR notes under point 1 that construction contractors should be required to use biodiesel fuel to minimize diesel emissions. How will this requirement be enforced? Similarly how will all the other recommendations contained in the Mitigation Measure (points 2-6) be enforced? Are all six of the recommendations required to be implemented? Page 11-13, Construction and Demolition Impacts. The DEIR/EIS references air quality standards adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, however, page 11-1 notes that this document has been prepared using BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The document needs to explain why emission standards have been changed in mid-document. Pages 11-25 and 11-28. Does the air quality analysis take into account increased quantities of permanent diesel emissions from new busses required to transport visitors to the two Dublin facilities to and from the East Dublin BART station? Since a large number of visitors are anticipated to travel to these facilities via public transportation systems, increased public transportation vehicle trips should be evaluated in the DEIR as part of the air quality analysis. Proposed Mitigation Measures 9.4.5b and c call for expanded LAVTA service in the Eastern Dublin area to support the proposed land uses. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with increased service should also be assessed, especially due to the presence of a sensitive air quality receptor, a recently approved City park on Site F of the Transit Center. Page 11-28, Impacts 11.3.5 and .6, Ozone Precursors. Please clarify if the air quality calculations account for the excessive VMT for potential users of the proposed facilities required to access the proposed Dublin facilities from North Alameda County. Page 11-30, Impacts 11.4.5 and 11.4.6. There is no backup material contained in the DEIR to support the conclusion of Less-than-Significant impacts regarding carbon Monoxide hotspot impacts. Results of computer modeling need to be supplied in order to prove this is truly a less-than significant impact. Public Health and Safety (Section 12) Page 12-23, Mitigation Measure 12.1.6. The DEIR describes groundwater contamination as a potentially significant and mitigatable impact. Specifically, petroleum hydrocarbons associated with former service stations, chlorinated hydrocarbons apparently associated with a "former laundry" on the property adjacent to the east of Site 15A, and 'Ga tar-like substance" found in two samples are mentioned. The mitigation measure presented includes only soil remediation and case closure for the service station sites, and preparation of a soil management plan to deal Page 28 with potential petroleum-contaminated soil. Mitigation measures for groundwater contamination are not presented. Page 12-14 and 12-19, Aviation Operations. The Draft EIR does not disclose the presence of helicopter overflights from Parks RFTA over both of the Dublin area sites. See previous related comments. Page 12-22, Impact 12.1.5, East County Government Center. The Draft EIR states that "...the extent to which soils and groundwater may have been contaminated by previous activities at the site is unknown, and such contamination (if present) could result in potential construction worker health effects...". The recommended mitigation measure includes only the preparation of a soil handling/management plan (SMP). It is premature to develop a SMP before the extent of site contamination is determined and appropriate health risk effects have been assessed. As appropriate for the City's project-level SDR review, the Draft EIR should be revised to reflect a more formal assessment to establish that the site characterization is complete, and should be recirculated for public review. Page 12-25, Impact 12.27, Impairment/Interference with Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans. The DEIR indicates there will be No Impact with regard to an impairment or interference with an emergency evaduation plan. The City of Dublin believes the DEIR completely understates this impact with respect to construction of either one or both of the proposed justice facilities in East Dublin. Adding one or more major facilities to the Eastern Dublin area will be a Significant Impact to the City of Dublin emergency rescue resources in the community when added to the large number of inmates and staff at the Federal Correctional Facility and Santa Rita Jail facilities. In the event of a catastrophic emergency, City resources will be able to provide limited service to evacuating these facilities in a safe manner. Missing or incomplete information, Site 15A. The documentation provided in the EIS/EIR is apparently not complete and difficult to follow. It is not clear if groundwater testing took place at Site 15A, and no specific sampling and analyses results are reported. A groundwater monitoring program to determine the extent of groundwater contamination is mentioned, but no results are presented. The regulatory status of the former service stations are not given. Soil sampling locations and results are not included in the EIS/EIR. While the DEIR states that the extent of soil and groundwater contamination has not been established, it lists "...overexcavation and hauling away..." of soil as the recommended mitigation measure, and preparation of an SMP to deal with "... small pockets of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil..." encountered during grading activities. Given the stated uncertainty of the extent of soil and groundwater contamination, this measure is inadequate. The extent of soil and groundwater contamination should be established prior to determining mitigation measures. The Draft EIR should be revised to accurately and completely assess potential soil and groundwater contamination impacts and should be recirculated for public review. Public Page 29 Page 12-23, Mitigation Measure 12.1.6, Remediation. This mitigation measure "recommends" certain activities, and states that a soil management plan "should" be completed. As stated, the mitigation is inadequate since the mitigation activities are not required and therefore, uncertain of being implemented. The mitigation language contrasts with other mandatory activities, such as Mitigation Measure 12.1.5 which prescribes certain activities that "shall" be completed. Services (Section 13) Page 13-13 to 13-16, East County Government Center, Site 15A. The City imposes a number of development impact fees on residential and nonresidential development in Eastern Dublin. In addition to the traffic impact fees described under Chapter 9 comments, the following fees apply to Eastern Dublin development. a) Public Facilities Fee. The purpose of this fee is to finance public improvements (such as the Civic Center, library, senior center, neighborhood and community parks) to reduce the impacts of caused by future development in the City. It is imposed on the basis of population created by various development types. b) Fire Facilities Fee. The purpose of this fee is to finance fire facilities (fire stations and apparatus) necessary to reduce the impacts of future development on the City's existing fire facilities. It is imposed on the basis of population created by various development types. c) Noise Mitigation Fee. The purpose of this fee is to finance mitigation measures designed to minimize noise from roadways in Eastern Dublin. It specifically exempts public uses. As noted previously in comments on Chapter 9, all City and other applicable impact fee programs shoUld be identified in the Setting discussions, including those in Chapter 13 of the DEIR. Page 13-15, Parks and Recreation, second paragraph. The DEIR is partially incorrect in describing City park facilities near the East County Government Center and Site 15A. The document fails to disclose that a Neighborhood Park was recently approved by the City on Site F of the Transit Center, which is just west of Site 15A. Page 13-18, Impact 13.1, Indirect Effects on Public Services. The City of Dublin does not agree with the Less Than Significant conclusion reached in this impact analysis. The City of Dublin believes there could be Significant Impacts on a number of public services offered by the City of Dublin, including but not limited to police services, fire services, parks and recreation and maintenance services. Indirect impacts will result from the number of visitors to the Hall of Justice on City facilities. Page 13-22, Impact 13.3.5. Police Impacts to the City of Dublin, Juvenile Justice Facility. The City of Dublin strongly believes that DEIR grossly understates the impact of constructing the Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center. The DEIR states that the City of Dublin would not be required to provide ~ ~: Page 30 basic police services to a new Juvenile Justice Facility constructed at the East County Government Center, since County counselors, who are also trained law enforcement officers would staff the facility. The City of Dublin disagrees with these assumptions and believes the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility will represent a major increase in calls for service to the Dublin Police Department. Based on information supplied by the Sheriff's Office, Sheriff's personnel had to respond to 275 calls for service to the existing Juvenile Facility in San Leandro last year. There were 61 written reports generated for a variety of incidents, including assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, malicious mischief, grand theft and others. Impacts to the Dublin Police Department will include not only direct calls for service to the proposed facility, but tedious follow-up required by law, including but not limited to writing reports and cor~ appearances. The City of Dublin therefore requests the discussion regarding Impact 13.3.5 be expanded to reflect the true impact to the City of Dublin to provide necessary police service, including but not limited to additional vehicles and personnel needed to provide safety and security for this site and associated financial impacts to the City of Dublin. Page 13-22, Impact 13.3.6.,Police Impacts to the City of Dublin, Hall of Justice Facility. The level of impact reported in the DEIR understates impacts to the Dublin Police Services Department, The DEIR states that the Alameda County Sheriff's Department will provide security within the building. However, the City of Dublin will be responsible for police service outside of the building. Given the close proximity of a planned Neighborhood Park just to the west of Hall of Justice, the City of Dublin believes this will become a congregation point for visitors to the Hall, resulting in increased need for police services. The DEIR should therefore provide a revised and more detailed impact analysis, including estimates for increased Police staffing and emergency vehicles needed to provide an adequate level of security as well as a discussion of the fiscal and financial impacts on the City. Page 13-25, Impact 13.5.5. The project proposes approximately 2-acres of landscaped area. As part of the SDR process, the City will determine whether this is an adequate amount under the General Plan, Specific Plan and City Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The General and Specific Plans require that development pay its own way. To the extent that the project increases demand on City parks without proposing related mitigation, impacts on City parks and recreation facilities could be significant. (See following comment.) Page 13-26, Impact 13.5.6, Additional Parks and Recreation Impacts to Site 15A. The DEIR does not state what amount of park-like area is proposed for Site 15A. Failure of the project to mitigate the demand it creates for parkland will result in a shortfall of park facilities and/or park development fees for the City of Dublin. As noted in other comments, it is highly likely that visitors and employees of the proposed Hall of Justice will use the proposed City park immediately adjacent to the west of the proposed Hall of Justice. To the extent the project will not be providing parkland in accordance with the City's adopted standards, and will not be paying impact fees, the project will have a significant impact on the adequacy of parks and recreation services. Page 31 Utilities (Section 14) Pages 14-10, 14-15, Water Supply. These pages rely on DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysis for their conclusion that Zone 7 has sufficient water supplies for the project. It is difficult to confirm the supporting analysis in the DSRSD report. For example, the DEIR estimates water demand in gallons per day, while the DSRSD report provides water supply figures in acre-feet per year. Furthermore, the DSRSD report categorizes water demand by use, including Institutional. (See, e.g., Appendix C, p. 6.) The Institutional category is further divided into School and Other. Presumably the East County Government Center would be "Other", however, it is virtually impossible to determine whether this is an accurate assumption. The water supply discussions on the above pages, and the related Impact discussions on pp. 14- 21, -22 should be revised to provide a more comprehensive summary of water demand and supply for the East Dublin project alternatives. The revised discussions should contain complete and accurate citations to supporting materials. Page 14-13. Storm Drainage. The description of the existing drainage conditions does not include the presence of an existing 48-inch pipe entering the detention pond from the north. The 48-inch pipe carries a portion of the runoff from a ditch draining the County property north of Broder Road. Flows from this ditch are currently split, between the 48-inch pipe/detention pond and a ditch through the Camp Parks property. The pond and ditch do not have adequate capacity to handle the runoff from the north. As noted earlier in the comments regarding Page 7-4 of the DEIR, the description of the downstream drainage improvements is incorrect. Page 14-21, Mitigation Measures 14.1.5A and 5B. The third full paragraph suggests the mitigation measures are only recommended, however, Mitigation Measure 14.1.5A itself says it "would apply" to the alternative. It is unclear whether the mitigation is required or not. In any case, both mitigation measures are inadequate because they state the activities "should" be done, in contrast to other mitigations in the DEIR which identify actions that "shall" be taken. Thus, it is not certain that the mitigations will be implemented. Mitigation measures 14.1.6A and .6B on p. 14-22 are inadequate for the same reasons. Page 14-21, Mitigation Measure 14.1.5B, The Mitigation Measure suggests that the East County Government Center install dual water systems to include a recycled water system in order to minimize water use. This mitigation measure is very weak and does not require installation of a dual water system. Page 14-26, Impact 14.3.5 and .5, Expanded Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Services; Impact 14.4.5, Expanded Wastewater Collection Facilities. Impacts 14.3.5 and 14.4.5 imply that the project will pay DSRSD connection and other fees, but do not so state. If the project does not pay all DSRSD fees, the Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated to show the impacts as Significant. This same comment applies to any other impacts for which the project does not pay fees that other Eastern Dublin development would be required to pay, and does not identify other mitigation for project demand. Page 14-31 and 32, Impacts 14.5.5 and .6, Impacts to Storm Drain Facilities. Neither of two impacts describes impacts of salt loading on Zone 7 underground aquifers. This impact and any mitigation measures need to be described. Page 14-31. Impact 14.5.5. This impact indicates that the existing Gleason Drive storm drain may not be designed with adequate capacity for runoff from the project. This is listed as a potentially significant and mitigatable impact. Mitigation Measure 14.5.5 does not include a mitigation measure for the Gleason Drive pipe storm drain capacity deficiency (construction of the Arnold Drive Channel bypass addresses capacity problems with the detention pond but not the Gleason Drive pipe). Under Mitigation Measure 14.5.5, construction of an off-site detention pond in lieu of constructing the Arnold Road Channel bypass is discussed. This mitigation measure is vague and does not describe any potential site for construction of the pond, nor are potential impacts of the pond construction discussed. The Santa Rita Property Master Drainage Plan (updated in 1999) discusses past studies of potential detention pond sites and indicates that the further consideration of ponds was dropped as impractical. A more appropriate mitigation measure would be to require the County to complete construction of the bypass prior to grading the site and eliminating the existing pond. If the pond is retained in the mitigation, its potential impacts, including construction, operation, and ongoing maintenance, should be identified and analyzed. · Prior concerns noted under Chapter 7 comments regarding the capacity of the existing storm drains in Gleason Drive would apply to this chapter as well Historic/Archaeological Resources (Chapter 15) Page 15-10, Methods. The first paragraph under Methods says that no historical assessments of the East County Government Center site or Site 15A were done because there are no existing buildings. Failure to examine the sites for non-structural historical elements renders the Setting description inadequate as a baseline for identifying the projects' potential significance. Without such examination, the Draft EIR findings of No Impact for Impacts 15.3.5 and 15.3.6 (p. 15-32) are likewise inadequate. The first paragraph under Regulatory/Policy Setting in the Draft EIR recognizes that cultural resources are not limited to structures, but may include "locations of important historic events or sites of traditional/cultural importance to various groups." (p. 15-6). The third paragraph on p. 15-2, for example, notes that the "general alignment of Interstate 1-580 conforms to the location of a major prehistoric trail .... "The fact that a site has since been disturbed may limit the mitigations for identified significant cultural locations to plaques or other similar remembrances, however, that does not obviate the need under CEQA to examine whether a vacant site might nevertheless have cultural significance. Environmental Justice (Section 16) Page 33 Page 16-8, Juvenile Arrests/Population Characteristics. The first paragraph refers not only to detainees, but also to probationers. The Draft EIR analyses have focused primarily on the detention function of the Juvenile Justice Facility, but have not identified how the project will affect non-detention services. For example, how often would probationers be expected to travel to the Juvenile Justice Facility? Would the potential expanded transit service be adequate to get probationers from their jobs to the Juvenile Justice Facility in a time efficient mauner so as not to jeopardize their employment? The third paragraph asserts a substantial shift in population away from the urban centers, however, even with this shift, the second paragraph states that Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton account for only 12% of the County's population. It is unlikely that a Tri-Valley Juvenile Justice Facility will be efficiently accessible to most County residents any time in the near future. Page 16-14. The third full paragraph states that the travel distance to the East County Government Center site is approximately double the distance to other alternative sites. Given bus and BART routes and schedules which may require a rider to wait at one or the other end of the trip segment, as well as the likelihood of bus and/or BART transfers, it will likely be far more than double the time to reach the East County Government Center. Furthermore, once reaching the Center and completing their business Juvenile Justice Facility visitors will presumably need to make a return trip. There could well be a significant cost in terms of lost school, employment, family and other time. Page 16-15, Mitigation Measure 16.1.5, The Mitigation Measure recommends that the County of Alameda complete a "formal" transportation plan that addresses economic and social effects of inconvenient access and increased costs related to traveling to East Dublin to visit the Hall of Justice and/or Juvenile Hall. The City of Dublin believes this mitigation measure is inadequate and incomplete and will not mitigate significant impacts related to residents being forced to travel, where many of the offenders and their families and friends likely live, to Eastern Dublin, where proposed County facilities would service relatively few local residents. The proposed mitigation measure should be expanded to include, at minimum: Name of County Agency responsible for preparing and implementing the Transportation Plan Estimated number of increased riders on public transit to serve new County facilities. Estimated number of increased transportation facilities needed to serve expected increased ridership Provisions for interagency transit cooperation Sources for funding of new facilities On-going monitoring and reporting requirements Page 34 Undisclosed Impact. The Draft EIR does not account for the potential environmental justice impact of the proximity of the Juvenile Justice Facility to weapons firing ranges nearby within Camp Parks RFTA. It is conceivable that a proportion of the future detainees within the Facility may be traumatized by gunfire in other portions of the County. The proximity of the Facility to weapon's .ranges could result in continuing severe trauma to juvenile detainees. Growth Inducement (Section 17) Page 17-1, fourth paragraph. The statement that "development of these projects at any of the sites evaluated in the EIS/EIR would be consistent with overall land use plans in terms of density and intensity of use" is incorrect. See previous comments in this letter in the Land Use section indicating that a Juvenile Justice Facility is not a use envisioned in the EDSP for the East County Government Center. Similarly, development of a Hall of Justice on Site 15A is not consistent with either the existing High Density Residential or the proposed Campus Office land use designations of the General Plan and EDSP. Page 17-1 fifth paragraph. The statement that "many of the employees .... would be drawn primarily from the exiting labor supply serving these County functions, and limited new housing would be required to serve new employees" is not based on any supporting information presented elsewhere in the document. The City of Dublin believes that employment requirements for the two proposed County facilities is highly specialized and future employees of these facilities will be required to commute to these sites from west County areas. There is no analysis in the document indicating that the salary structure paid by the County will allow facility employees to relocate to either Pleasanton or Dublin. Page 17-2, et seq.. This chapter does not follow the format established in the rest of the Draft EIR for identifying impacts, mitigation measures and resulting levels of significance. Unlike the rest of the document, impact statements are simply part of the text, and often unaccompanied by any mitigation measures. (See, e.g., "potential for significant cumulative growth-inducing impacts" in the fourth line down on p. 17-2.) Without such formatting, much of the traffic analysis is unintelligible. Later sections of the chapter identify mitigation measures as in previous chapters, but do not similarly identify impacts, thereby requiring the reader to rummage through the text to attempt to discover the impact being addressed. Some of the text consists of lists of roadway segments without any indication whether they are intended to precede or to follow similarly vague mitigation measures. (See, e.g., p. 17-32.). Other roadway segments are identified as mitigation measures but without indication of whether the mitigations reduce the related impact to less than significant. (See, e.g., p. 17-28.). The text is interspersed with pages-long tables and figures, all at the end of a two-inch thick document. These deficiencies render this chapter of the Draft EIR inadequate as an informational document. Chapter 17 should be rewritten using the same format as the rest of the document and recirculated for public review. Page 35 Page 17-15 et seq., Cumulative Development Concept. The cumulative analysis is inadequate for failure to appropriately consider closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, as required by CEQA. The third paragraph limits the cumulative analysis to two projects in the vicinity of the East County Government Center. The analysis appears to ignore the many projects which have been recently approved in the area, including the projects listed in the traffic chapter, pp. 9-29 to 9-31, plus the East Dublin Property Owners project. One of the two included "projects" consists only of the purported remaining office development potential of the project site. There is no application for such offices, nor any indication that they are reasonably foreseeable. Attempting to recast development potential as a potential project is inappropriate and renders the cumulative analysis inadequate. Furthermore, the description of this "office" project is inconsistent within the text. For example, the first paragraph on p. 17-15 notes Juvenile Justice Facility, Hall Of Justice and "office" space totaling 880,000 square feet, while the second paragraph on p. 17-24 cites a total development potential of 964,000 square feet. Page 17-16, Biology. No mitigations are identified or referenced for the cumulative impacts apparently identified for Congdon's tarplant and wetlands. Based on the discussion under Impact 8.1.5 on p. 8-28, the project appears to contribute to cumulative loss of foraging habitat for burrowing owl and other raptors, however, this is not included in the cumulative analysis. Pages 17-16 and 17, Traffic Modeling Pursuant to CMA Methodology. This section does not adequately identify anticipated impacts to the 1-680 freeway. Approval of the County-sponsored Transit Center required the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations relative to future cumulative impacts to the 1-680 freeway since the portion of the 1-680 immediately north and south of the 1-580 freeway is projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service in the future. The addition of project traffic for the proposed County facilities would similarly add more congestion to the 1-680 freeway as well as to the 1-580 freeway, Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard as stated in the document. The Draft EIR should be revised to adequately analyze cumulative impacts on 1-680 and should recirculated for public review. Pages 17-16 and 17-17, All Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures identified for project impacts are inadequate because they recommend actions that "should" be taken, but do not insure that the actions will actually be implemented. This is in contrast to other mitigations which the Draft EIR says "shall" be implemented. Page 17-26.The list of approved projects does not include the Dublin Ranch Areas D and E, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) project or planned development in downtown Dublin. These projects should be included in the list and analysis, which should be revised and recirculated for public review. Page 17-27. Please provide more detail as to how the Tri-Valley Transportation Model was used for cumulative traffic conditions. On page 17-26, a list of projects is noted as "... assUmed to be fully built under this scenario:" Please provide detail as to how this list was incorporated into the model. Page 36 The CMA analysis for each of the scenarios indicates increases in the volume-to- capacity ratios for segments of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Please provide more detail as to the significance of these increases as noted in Tablel7.6 through Table 17.11 and more detail on how these impacts would be mitigated. Page 17-28, Cumulative Year 2025 Background Traffic, Without Project Conditions. The fourth paragraph identifies "mitigation measures" that must be taken to allow existing roads, including the Dougherty/Dublin intersection, the HaciendaJI-580 WB ramp, the Tassajara/Gleason intersection and the Tassajara Rd./Central Parkway intersection, to operate acceptably. How will these mitigation measures be applied to the proposed project, since this section clearly indicates that the analysis does not assume project development. Page 17-32, Mitigation Measure 17.2.5a and 6a, Contribute a Fair Share of Funds Toward Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection Improvements. Implementation of this mitigation measure would obligate the County to pay City and regional traffic impact fees to off-set impacts of the proposed project on local and regional roads. However, earlier in the DEIR/EIS it is stated that by previous agreement between the County and City of Dublin, the County is not required to pay such fees. Please clarify how the Mitigation Measure will be implemented in light of the DEIR's earlier statements. Page 17-32. Same comment as above applies to Mitigation Measures 17.3.5a and 6a on page 17-36 and 17.4.5a and 6a on page 17-40. Page 17-32. Mitigation Measures 17.2.5b and 6b. By the language of this mitigation, the County would be obligated to fund the improvements listed on page 17-33 of the DEIR/EIS. The language of the Mitigation Measure is uncertain (the County "should"), and should be revised so as to assure these needed improvements will actually be constructed. Page 17-56, it is noted that "Additional parking may be needed at the East County Government Center site if the East County Government Center Offices are built." Please provide detail on the future parking demand and supply for each of the future land-use scenarios. In Chapter 17, it is noted Sat "Even with implementation of Measure 17.4.5a, b, and c, and 17.4.6a, b, and c above, the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580, Dougherty Road and Dublin Blvd. could be a significant and unavoidable effect because funding may not be adequate to provide for implementation of all of the necessary mitigation measures planned for the Tri-Valley." Please clarify which mitigation measures are noted. Please note earlier comments regarding other measures adopted by the City of Dublin for this intersection. The impact of the project traffic at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road results in an increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1 percent. Page 37 Therefore, the impact is significant, based on the significance criteria listed on page 9-35. On page 17-32, it is noted that "There are no feasible mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection." Please note earlier comments regarding other measures adopted by the City of Dublin for this intersection. Thank your for your attention to these items, which are extremely important to the City of Dublin. Should you need clarification on any of the comments provided in this letter, please contact Ms. Jeri Ram, Dublin Planning Manager, at (925/833-6610). Sincerely, Richard Ambrose City Manager 621743 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 Responses to Comments ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2-1 Master Responses ................................................................................................. 2-1 Responses to Letters ........................... . ................................................................ 2-9 Responses to Public Meeting, February 19, 2003 ............................................ 2-227 Responses to Public Meeting, February 20, 2003 ............................................ 2-237 3. Amendments to the Draft EIS/EIR .................................................................. 3-1 4. Report Preparation .......................................................................................... 4-1 Appendix: Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Preferred Alternatives Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR TOC-1 Introduction PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ! REPORT This Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) provides responses to comments submitted by government agencies, organizations and individuals on the Draft EIS/EIR for the proposed development of a Juvenile Justice Facility and an East County Hall of Justice in Alameda County, California. In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Final EIS/EIR formally consists of the comments submitted by government agencies, organizations, and individuals; responses to comments:, and a revision Of th0~e PortiOns of the Draft EiS/EIRwhich have'been modified in response to comments received during the public review period on the Draft EIS/EIR. This Final EIS/EIR includes copies of all written comments received within the public review period following publication of the Draft EIS/EIR and verbal comments received at two public heatings held during the review period, and provides responses to those comments. In some cases, the responses have also resulted in revisions to the Draft EIS/EIR, and all such changes are reflected in this document. As required by NEPA and CEQA, this document addresses those comments received during the public review period that relate directly to the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Final EIS/EIR does not address those comments received that relate to characteristics or features of the proposed Project where the Draft EIS/EIR's analysis of Project- related environmental issues are not directly involved. The Final EIS/EIR has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (commencing with Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code), and the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agencies for the Project, as defined by NEPA and CEQA, is the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs/Bureau of Justice Assistance (OJP/BJA) and the County of Alameda, respectively. The California Board of Corrections (BOC) assisted the OJP/BJA in the preparation of the Draft EIS. (For further information, see Agency Responsibilities in the Draft EIS/EIR). The Final EIS/EIR (which is comprised of the Draft EIS/EIR and this document) is intended to be certified as a complete and thorough record of the environmental impacts °fthe proposed Project by the OJP/BJA, the BOC, and the County of Alameda. Certification of the Draft EIS/EIR as adequate and complete by the County and a Record of Decision (ROD) bY the OJP/BJA must take place prior to any formal County or OJP/BJA action on the proposed Project itself. (See Public Review Process at the end of this chapter.) The Final EIS/EIR certificatiOn and Record of Decision does not equate to approval of the Project. · Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS / EIR Page 1-1 Chapter 1: Introduction The Final EIS/EIR is meant to provide an objective, impartial source of information to be used by the lead and responsible agencies, as well as the public, in their considerations regarding the Project. The basic purposes of NEPA and CEQA are discussed below. National Environmental Policy Act According to Title 42 of the United States Code (USC), Section 4321, the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Section 1502.1 of the NEPA implementing regulations states: "The primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the National Environmental Policy Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. Agencies shall focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives and shall reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data. Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses. An environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions." Section 1502.3 of the NEPA implementing regulations states that "environmental impact statements are to be included in every recommendation on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Section 102 [42 USC Section 4332] (2) (C) requires "...a detailed statement by the responsible official on: · The environmental impact of the proposed action, · Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, · Alternatives to the proposed action, · The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and · Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS / EIR Page 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction California Environmental Quality Act The basic purposes ofthe Environmental Impact Report (EIR), under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), are very similar to purposes of the EIS under NEPA: · Inforn-t governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential enVirOnmental effects of proposed activities, Involve the public in the decision-making process, Identify ways that significant impacts to the environment Canbe avOided or significantly reduced, Identify and assess alternatives to the propoSed project, Prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the Project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures [CEQA Guidelines, Section 150029(a)] Because of the similarities of the NEPA and CEQA, Section 1506.2 of the NEPA regulations requires Federal agencies to cooperate with state and local agencies "to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication between NEPA and comparable state and local requirements." Such cooperation "shall to the fullest extent possible include joint environmental impact statements." CEQA provides that in the event that a project requires both an EIR pursuant to CEQA and an EIS pursuant to NEPA, the lead agency should, whenever possible, use the EIS as the EIR. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT The Lead Agencies provided two scoping periods for the Projects (see Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement/Report in the Draft EIS/EIR). The first scoping period extended from January 15, 2002 to February 22, 2002. A daytime and an evening public meeting was held on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at the Alameda County Public Works Agency's maintenance faCility on Gleason Drive in DUblin. In response to commentS received at the first set of scoping meetings and the County's identification of several additional alternative sites that could be considered, a SecOnd sc0ping Period was establiShed(frOm June 19, 2002 to July 25, 2002). Additional public meetings were held on Wednesday, July 10, 2002, in the afternoon and evening at the Asian Cultural Center in Oakland. The intent of the ElS/Em sC°ping ProCeSs for th~ prOposed PrOjects was to: · Inform agencies and interested members of the public about the proposed project and Lead Agency actions related to it, inclUding compliance with NEPA and CEQA requirements. ' ° ' Identify the range of concerns that form the basis for identification of significant envirOnmentaI issues to be addresSe~ in the'EIS/EIR, · Identify suggested mitigation measures, strategies or ideas and approaches to mitigation that may be useful and explored further in the EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS / EIR Page 1-3 Chapter 1: Introduction · Develop a mailing list of agencies and individuals interested in future actions relative to the EIS/EIR. Several potentially significant environmental impacts were identified in the scoping sessions. Based on the discussions and comments received during those sessions, the Draft EIS/EIR evaluated potentially significant Project-related impacts in the areas identified below: · Land Use and Planning · Visual Quality/Aesthetics · Geology, Soils and Seismicity · Hydrology and Water Quality · Biologic Resources · Transportation · Noise · Air Quality · Public Health and Safety · Public Services · Utilities · Historic/Archaeological Resources · Enviromnental Justice PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Draft EIS/EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that closed March 10, 2003. Public notices were published according to the CEQA and NEPA statutory and regulatory requirements that establish the specific start and closing dates of the review period. The State Clearinghouse circulated the Draft EIS/EIR to State agencies with jurisdiction over various aspects of the Project. At the federal level, the U.S. EPA published a notice of availability of the Draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register. Written comments were received from government agencies, organizations and individuals during the review period for the Draft EIS/EIR. Additionally, two public hearings were held. The first hearing was held on February 19, 2003 in the City of Dublin Council Chambers. The second hearing was held on February 20, 2003 in the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Chambers in Oakland. In accordance with CEQA, the Final EIS/EIR will be circulated to other public agencies and will be made available to the public for a minimum of 10 days prior to consideration by the Alameda Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS I EIR Page 1~4 Chapter 1' Introduction County Board of Supervisors. In accordance with Section 15080 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIS/EIR (incorporating the Draft EIS/EIR) will be reviewed and certified by the Alameda County BOS. In accordance with Section 1502~ 19 of the NEPA regulations, the California BOC and OJP/BJA will also circulate the Final EIS/EIR, and Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register by the U.S. EPA for at least 30 days prior to action by the U.S. Department of Justice. Under CEQA, certification of the Final EIS/EIR by the Alameda County BOS would not conStitute approval 0fthe Project;' butiS fi~C~Sar/j p~ior to appi:°9~l ~a project, 'To approve a project, in addition to certification of the Final EIS/EIR, the lead agency must adopt environmental findings and a mitigation monitoring program (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15091). If the project has significant environmental effects that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, the environmental findings must include a "statement of overriding considerations" (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15092). This requires the lead agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)]. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (b)]. A mitigation monitoring program shall include detailed information about who is responsible for implementing and monitoring a given mitigation, the standard which must be met to be in compliance, enforcement procedures for non-compliance, and other requirements as per the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097. A similar process is required for federal review and approval of the environmental document and the Proposed Action. The California BOC and OJP/BJA will review and circulate the Final EIS/EIR and OJP/BJA will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) stating its decision regarding the alternatives. This process is the NEPA equivalent to certifying an EIR, preparing Findings and a statement of Overriding ConsideratiOn and then issuing a Notice of Determination under CEQA. In general, the ROD must identify the government's decision, the alternatives which were considered, a Preferred Alternative or Proposed Action, the factors which led to the decision, whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not why. For mitigation measures established in the ROD, a monitoring and enforcement program must also be adopted and implemented. The ROD may not be issued less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register that the Final EIS/EIR is complete and available. OJP/BJA procedures include the requirement that the ROD shall detenrfine the allowable uses of the grantee's VOI/TIS fund with respect to the proposed action or its alternatives [28 CFR, Part 91.63(i)]. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS / EIR Page 1-5 Chapter 1: Introduction REPORT ORGANIZATION This Final EIS/EIR consists of the following chapters: Chapter 1' Introduction - Outlines the purposes of the EIS/EIR and general background information. Chapter 2: Response to Comments - Contains responses to comments submitted by letter and in oral testimony at the two public hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR. In response to some comments, the text of the Draft EIS/EIR has been modified, with changes as indicated. Copies of the letters and transcripts are included at the end of the chapter. Chapter 3: Amendments to the Draft EIS/EIR - Contains a summary of the revisions to the Draft EIS/EIR based on the comments received. Chapter 4: Report Preparation - Contains a listing of the persons responsible for preparation of this report. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS / EIR Page 1-6 Responses to Comments 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides responses to public comments received during the official public review period on the Draft EIS/EIR. Included is a copy of each of the comment letters, and transcripts of verbal comments recorded at the two public hearings conducted during the Draft EIS/EIR review period. The letters and transcripts are each assigned a number, and each comment is numbered in the right margin. The written responses correspond to that numbering. In some cases, responses include a revision to the text of the Draft EIS/EIR. Those changes are included as part of the response, with additions indicated in underlined text and deletions indicated in strikeout text. A compilation of all such changes to the text and graphics of the Draft EIS/EIR is provided in Chapter 3 of this document. The changes are considered clarifications and corrections that do not affect the validity of the Draft EIS/EIR. 2.2 MASTER RESPONSES The following section provides responses t° commonly aSked questions and issUes raised by commentors on the Draft EIS/EIR. This section is intended as an overview of the issues and explanation of the lead agencies' response. Individual responses to these issues, as raised in the comment letters and transcripts, also are provided following each individual comment. THE pREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Commentors raised concerns regarding the identification or selection of the "preferred alternative.'' Several commentors also reqUested clarification regarding the identification of the "environmentally superior alternative." Under CEQA, the local lead agency describes the proposed project, and evaluates at a lesser level of detail, alternatives to that project in a draft EIR (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15124, 15126.6). By contrast, under NEPA, the federal lead agency is required to identify a proposed action and evaluate alternatives at an equal level of detail. In the Final EIS, however, the federal lead agency is required to identify the preferred alternative among the alternatives evaluated. Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, the federal agency is required to identify in an EIS: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-1 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments "... the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference." (40 CFR §1502.14(e)) Further guidance is provided in the Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations (Forty Questions). "The 'agency's preferred alternative' is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities taking into account economic, environmental, technical and other factors" (Forty Questions, Question 4a). The guidance indicates that if a preferred alternative is identified at the Draft EIS stage, then the alternative must be identified as such in the Draft EIS. However, if the federal agency has not identified the preferred alternative at the Draft EIS stage, then the agency does not have to identify the preferred alternative at that time. However, by the time the Final EIS is filed, the guidance indicates that 40 CFR § 1502.14(e) presumes the existence of a preferred alternative, and thus requires its identification in the Final EIS unless otherwise prohibited by law (Forty Questions, Question 4b). Thus, the CEQ Regulations provide that the preferred alternative must be identified in the Final EIS, unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference. The lead agency's official with responsibility for preparing the EIS and assuring it complies with NEPA (i.e., OJP/BJA) is responsible for identifying the agency's preferred alternative. This official may be designated in the agency's implementing procedures (Forty Questions, #4c). The guidance also indicates that although the agency's preferred alternative is identified by the EIS preparer, the statement must not be slanted to support the selection of the agency's preferred alternative. In this regard, the identification of the agency's preferred alternative may differ from the agency's decision to select a particular alternative. Similarly, a federal agency is required to state in its record of decision (ROD) the agency's decision and ail alternatives, which the agency considered in reaching its decision (40 CFR § 1505.2). In the ROD, the federal agency identifies the alternative or alternatives considered to be environmentally preferable. The "environmentally preferable" or "environmentally superior" alternative can be different from the "agency's preferred alternative," although in some cases one alternative may be both.~ Additionally, the ROD must indicate whether the agency adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm resulting from the selected alternative. With respect to the preparation of the ROD, the OJP Guidance provides that the ROD shall determine the allowable uses of the grantee's funds with respect to the proposed action or its alternatives. Thus, OJP Guidance requires that the agency (OJP/BJA) identify the proposed action (i.e., the selected alternative) in the ROD. For purposes of CEQA, the proposed Project is defined as construction of the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice. In its NEPA guidance, OJP/BJA has delegated to the grantee (BOC) the responsibility for the preparation of the Final EIS. BOC has further delegated to the County as the implementing agency, the obligation to prepare the Final EIS, and See Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulation.q~ Question 6a. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-2 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments thus, to identify the preferred alternative. In accordance with NEPA, the County has identified the "preferred alternative" for the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice in the Final EIS/EIR. Based upon the environmental impact analyses contained in the Draft EIS/EIR and the public comments submitted on the Draft EIS/EIR, the County staff responsible for the preparation of the combined EIS/EIR, in consultation with BOC and OJP/BJA, has identified the Modified San Leandro Alternative (described in more detail below) as the preferred alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility, and the East County Government Center site as the preferred alternative for the East County Hall of Justice (described in the Draft EIS/EIR), Modified San Leandro'Alternative Since the circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, the County has examined the proposed project and the alternatives under consideration. Based upon this review and in response to comments provided by the public, the County has identified a f~aSible' alternative that would leSsen the initial environmental impacts of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. The County, through its Juvenile Justice Steering Committee, and in consultation with BOC and OJP/BJA, has indicated that this alternative is the Preferred alternative that it believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities taking into account economic, environmental, technical and other factors. This alternative is known as the Modified San Leandro Alternative. This alternative is described below, along with an analysis as to whether the alternative could result in environmental imPadts not previously analyzed or otherwise resulting in substantially more severe environmental imPacts beyond those projected in the Draft EIS/EIR. Description of the Modified San Leandro Alternative As with the original San Leandro Alternative eValuated in the Draft EIS/ETM, the Modified San Leandro Alternative woUld involve the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the existing Juvenile Hall site in San Leandro. The approximately 60-acre site is located at 2200 Fairmont Drive in unincorporated San Leandro, California. Under the Modified San Leandro Alternative, the Project would be constructed in phases similar to the original proposal. However, the initial phase would consist of a smaller, 360-bed facility constructed generally Within a similar development envelope as envisiOned under the original San Leandro alternative (see Figure 3.3a in this Final EIS/EIR). HoweVer, because Of its smaller Site requirements, the initial phase of the Modified San Leandro Alternative would be designed to provide greater avoidance of the geologic constraints on the site, particularly the old landslides on the eastern part of the site. This initial phase WOUld be located such that it would not be built on the main active fault that traces through the site, and would avoid placing any occupied structures on the several trace faults located on this site. Recent follow-up investigations have also shown that some portion of the prior Fault A identified on the site is actually an erosional or landslide feature, and does not present a constraint to development near Camp Chabot. The 360-bed alternative would be constructed on roughly 20 acres of the 60-acre site that are not susceptible to the most significant geologic constraints. As Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-3 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments with the original San Leandro Alternative, the scattered office and juvenile court uses would be relocated to these new facilities, and the existing Juvenile Hall would be demolished. This alternative would also provide for future expansion of the facility to 420 beds, and up to a maximum of 540 beds in later phases, consistent with the County's grant submittal to the California Board of Corrections and the project description contained in the Draft EIS/EIR. Initial Phase Facilities Under the initial phase of the Modified San Leandro Alternative, a new Juvenile Justice Facility including detention facilities, courts, administration, and other functions would be developed in an area that is currently occupied by one of the juvenile camps, which is unused at present. The development concept includes a new two-story building, outdoor recreation areas, parking lots, and related improvements uphill from the existing Juvenile Hall facility (see Figure 3.3a). The site conditions, including hillside slopes and earthquake faults, present constraints that limit the location of the facility. Generally, the site concept for the initial phase of the Modified San Leandro Alternative would include the development of the juvenile detention facilities, such as population housing and office/administrative space on the eastern side of the site, and the juvenile courts and parking on the northern and western side of the site. Future Expansion The Modified San Leandro Alternative would allow for future expansion to accommodate up to 540 beds, as proposed in the County's grant application to the Board of Corrections. Infrastructure would be sized to be expandable in modular systems or initially sized to accommodate additional loads; classrooms, dining, and similar functions would be built within the future housing pods; additional court space would be available within the shelled space developed in the first phase court building; and additional parking would be built as needed. Access Access to the site would be via the existing main entrance road or a new entrance to be developed on Fairmont Drive northeast of the existing access point. These access points would connect to the parking facility (split between public and employees). Deliveries would be made via a one-way loop off of the main entrance road, with vehicles going to dedicated bays on the second level but still on grade. An emergency access route would be provided around the perimeter of the site. Analysis of the Modified San Leandro Alternative There are no substantial differences between the Modified San Leandro Alternative and the original San Leandro Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR other than that the Modified San Leandro Alternative includes construction of a smaller facility in the initial phase of development. This smaller fkst phase is more capable of avoiding the geologic constraints of the site than the original San Leandro Alternative, and future phases would be accommodated within a more compact buildable area. Thus, there are no substantial changes in the proposed Project Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-4 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments contemplated under the Modified San Leandro Alternative, and its environmental consequences are similar. With respect to the analysis of the impacts associated within constructing a 360-bed facility in the initial phase of project development, the Modified San Leandro Alternative would result in the initial constrUCtiOn of a smaller facility than the facilitY envisioned and analyzed under the original San Leandro Alternative. Consequently, the initial phase of construction of the Modified San Leandro Alternative results in a general reduction in impacts when compared to the impaCts resulting from the 450'bed alternatiVe as evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. As such, the initial phase of the Modified San Leandro Alternative would generate similar, or in some cases less environmental impacts that the original San Leandro Alternative. Ail of the impact analyses for the 540-bed original San Leandro Alternative would remain the same or less under the Modified San Leandro Alternative. There would be no new significant or subStantiaii~ more s~e~e environmental i~pactSI Identification of the Modified San Leandro Alternative as the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS?EIR d%s not trigger recirCUlatiOn, The MOdified San Leandr° Alternative would have essentially the same environmental consequences as the original San Leandro Alternative at full buildout, except that fewer geologic impacts would occur. · : . East County Hall of Justice As a separate project, subject to CEQA, the County has identified a preferred alternative for the East County Hall of Justice through its Steering Committee, at the East County Govemrnent Center site evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. The project would not be substantially different from the site plan and develOpment concept Presented in the Draft EIS/EIR, although design refinements are likely to occur during the design/build process. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Juvenile JUstice Facility The Draft EIS/EIR identified the Pardee/Swan site as the Environmentally Superior Alternative fOr the Juvenile Justice Facility. Since the circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, comment letters on the' Draft EIS/EIR suggest that the Pardee/Swan site has become unavailable as a feasible alternative. The Port of Oakland has stated in its comment letter on the Draft EIS/EIR (see Comment 6-34) that the site will be permanently required for airport operations. The Port also has stated that it is engaged in construction at the site. Due to the Port's position regarding the unavailability of the Pardee/Swan site for the Juvenile Justice Facility, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the County would be able to acquire and construct the Juvenile Justice Facility on this alternative site. Given the Port's apparent unwillingness to convey the site to the County, if the County were to pursue such an alternative, acquisition would necessitate a condemnation action. Due to the findings which must be met in support of a condemnation action, as well as the cost and timing considerations associated with such an action, the outcome Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-5 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments of such efforts is uncertain and likely would compromise the County's ability to meet the VOI/TIS grant award deadlines. Additionally, development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at the Pardee/Swan site likely would be infeasible due to public trust considerations. Moreover, independent of the possible need for condemnation action, the current construction status of the Pardee/Swan site raises serious tin'ting and cost constraints for the development of the Juvenile Justice Facility at this location. Because of the difficulties in acquiring the site, as well as the cost and tinting implications associated with replacing the current use, the County has determined that the Pardee/Swan site is no longer available for consideration as a feasible alternative. With the elimination of the Pardee/Swan site as a feasible alternative, the Final EIS/EIR identifies the Modified San Leandro Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility, of the remaining alternatives. The Modified San Leandro Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative because this site is available and would result in fewer significant environmental impacts in several categories. Traffic, and the associated noise and air pollution, would be reduced. Demand for public services and utilities, including water demand and wastewater generation, energy supply, and similar public services and utilities would be reduced. Construction noise and air pollution also would be reduced somewhat. Additionally, the Modified San Leandro Alternative would result in less severe geologic and seismic hazards when compared to the Existing San Leandro Alternative because construction would be more compact and located in a more suitable part of the site. In consideration of the County's proposal to select the Modified San Leandro Alternative as the preferred alternative and the change in status of the Pardee/Swan site, the analysis of the Environmentally Superior Alternative has been revised to reflect the environmental benefits of the smaller facility under consideration which would be constructed in the near term at that location. East County Hall of Justice The Draft EIS/EIR identified Site 15A as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the East County Hall of Justice. As indicated above, the Final EIS/EIR indicates that the Modified San Leandro alternative is identified as the preferred alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility. If the Modified San Leandro Alternative is selected as the site for the Juvenile Justice Facility, the East County Government Center Site would provide greater flexibility for accommodating the development of the Hall of Justice. In other words, the East County Government Center Site would need to accommodate the Hall of Justice only, rather than both the Hall of Justice and the Juvenile Justice Facility. With the greater opportunities to accommodate the Hall of Justice, the building may be designed at the East County Government Center site to further reduce or avoid significant enviromuental impacts. For example, the building could be sited to minimize land use incompatibility. Thus, both Site 15A and the East County would provide comparable levels' of significant environmental impacts. Consequently, either alternative could be considered as the environmentally superior alternative. Alameda County Juvenile Justice FaCility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-6 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments DEFERRED MITIGATION Several commentors have suggested that the Draft EIS/EIR is inadequate in that mitigation measures are deferred to an unknown time in the future. Although the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred, the CEQA Guidelines provide that "measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." (CEQA Guidelines § Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) In addition, case law has held that an agency may adopt a mitigation measure that relies on future studies to define the design and implementation of the mitigation measure. See National Parks & Conservation Ass 'n v. County of Riverside, 71 Cal.App 4th 1341 (1999) (detenxfination about installation of tortoise protection fences properly deferred until after future study regarding migration patterns). NEPA case law has also held that mitigation measures may rely on future studies. See Sierra ClUb v. Babbitt, 69 F, SUpp. i202, 1230-31 (E,D.C,A, 1999) (hOlding that analysis and mitigation of impacts may occur during course of construction). Although several of the mitigatiOn measures identified in the Draft EIS/EIR depend in part on studies to be conducted in the future, these mitigation measures all properly provide a performance standard, or are necessary to define the range or scope of implementation of the mitigation measure. For example, implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan would be required to control erosion and sedimentation and adverse effects to water quality as a result of construction and operation of the projects. Although the specific content of the SWPPP is left to be written at a later time, the mitigation measure identifies the relevant issUeS t° be addressed, sample approaches, and a performance standard that requires ultimate conformance with established requirements of the appropriate regulatory agency. In this way, the mitigation measures adequately address foreseeable impacts and provide for the neCessary flexibility to address site-specific conditions during the detailed design and implementation phase. RECIRcuLATIoN Several commentors suggest that the EIS/EIR should be recirculated for additional public review and comment. CEQA requires recirculation when "significant new information" is added to an EIR after publication of the draft, but before certification. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5; Laurel Heights ImprOvement Ass'n v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 6 Cal. 1112 (1993). New information is considered significant when "the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a subStantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement.'' (CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a).) "Significant new information'' reqUiring re¢irCUlation includes a disclosure showing: 1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-7 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments 2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation rneasures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; o A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure, which is considerably different from others previously analyzed, would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; and, 4. The draft EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment are precluded. "Recirculation is not required where the new information added to an EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modification in an adequate EIR." (CEQA Guidelines §lS088.S(a).) There is less specific information in NEPA for when an EIS must be recirculated. The CEQ regulations provide that "If a draft statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion." Agencies also "shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to enviromnental concerns, or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts." (40 CFR § 1502.9(a) and (c).) The EIS/EIR is not "so inadequate" or conclusory, nor do any of the commentors or responses to comments disclose any new significant information that would require recirculation of the EIS/EIR. No new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts have been identified which would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed as part of the project. Moreover, no new feasible mitigation measures have been identified which are considerably different from others previously analyzed and would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project that the County and OJP/BJA have declined to implement. With respect to the identification of new alternatives, the County has identified a preferred alternative that is a refinement of one of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS/EIR, referred to as the "Modified San Leandro Alternative". As described in more detail above, that alternative is substantially the same as the San Leandro Alternative that was analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR, except that it would include fewer beds in the initial phase. Adjustments are also made to the site plan to incorporate geotechnical recommendations and reflect the lower bed count. This alternative would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project to some degree in the short term, due to less grading, less traffic, and similar reductions in activity at the site, but over the long term this site would accommodate future expansion to 540 beds, and so would ultimately be very similar to the original San Leandro Alternative already analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-8 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments 2.3 RESPONSES TO LETTERS This section includes responses to the letters received during the public revicTM period. The letters arc included at the end of this chapter, and are numbered as follows: 1 Joseph R. RodrigueZ; UiS. DeP~dment 0~ TransPortation; Federal Aviation Administration 2 Dawn Lee DeYoung, Department °fthe Army, U.S. ArmY Garrison, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area 3 Lisa B. Hanf, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4 Timothy C. Sable, California Department of Transportation 5 Virendra K. Sood, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority 6 James McGrath, Port of Oakland 6 Tay Yoshitani, Port of Oakland 7 Bert Michalczyk, Dublin San Ramon Services District 8 Robert Bobb, City of Oakland 9 Richard C. Ambrose, City of Dublin 10 Brian Wines, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 11 Jim Horen, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 12 Brian Wiese, East Bay Regional Park District 13 Beth Walukas, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 14 William R. Kirkpatrick, East Bay Municipal Utility District 15 Debbie Pollart, City of San Leandro 16 Edward G. Schilling, City of San Leandro 17 Donna Rolle, County of Alameda, Public Works Agency 18 Harry R. Sheppard, Superior Court of California, CoUnty of Alameda 19 Alice Lai'Bitker, Alameda County Board of Supervisors 20 Lois Brubeck, The League of Women Voters 21 Scott Kuhn, Communities for a Better Environment 22 Patrica Curtin, Reed Smith Crosby Healey LLP 23 Eric Synder, Hillcrest Knolls Association 24 Wilfredo G. Adajar, Dublin resident 25 Mark and Nancy Angel, Dublin residents 26 Launita Bergner, Dublin resident 27 Mike and Debbie Betts, Dublin residents 28 David Cheng, Dublin resident 29 Tom Cignarella, Dublin resident 30 Lily Feng and Manuel Costa, Dublin residents 31 Cecelia Guitierrez, Pleasanton resident 32 David Haubert, DUblin resident Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-9 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments 33 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Kasie Hildenbrand, Dublin resident Jolene Huey, San Leandro resident Kau.sar and Samir Ismail, Dublin residents Anil and Km~chan Sehgal, Dublin residents Anisha and Sameer Goyal, Dublin residents Ishmah Ashna, Dublin resident Mm~oj and Roopali Goyal, Dublin residents John Kaplan, San Leandro resident Lucinda Leung, Dublin resident Chia Liu, Dublin resident Shola Oderinde, Dublin resident Ram and Nitya Ramakrishnan, Dublin residents Dale D. Reed, San Lem~dro resident Robbin Velayedarn, Dublin resident George and Lisa, Dublin residents Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-10 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments LETTER 1: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation AdminiStration Response to Comment 1-1: The County of Alameda would submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alterati°n t° the FAA for review, and would comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, if the County decides to implement, and the Board of Corrections funds, the Juvenile Justice Facility project at the Pardee/Swan site. Page 4-22 of the Draft EIS/EIR discusses the Airport Land Use Policy Plan and the applicable height restrictions at the Pardee/Swan site. The discussion identifies the possibility that, although the project could require a FAA 7460 study, the ALUC staff believed that the project was most likely within an estimated 85-foot height restriction, based on the approximate distance of the site from the nearest runway at North Field. Additional administrative review was recommended to confirm the assumptions used in the analysis, if the County were to select the Pardee/Swan site for development of the project. Page 12-11 of the Draft EIS/EIR further identifies the need for a referral to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a Determination of Plan Conformity, due to the site's proximity to the Oakland airport. Page 12- 24 of the Draft EIS/EIR concludes that complianCe with current safety requirements would reduce potential safety impacts to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is. required. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-11 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments LETTER 2: U.S. Department of the Army, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Response to Comment 2-1' The existing setting in the vicinity of each of the alternative sites is described throughout the Draft EIS/EIR, as it applies to the individual topical areas under discussion. The existing noise setting was based on measurements conducted at the sites and generally available resources, including the Environmental Noise Management Program. Page 10-11 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended to read as follows: The East County Government Center site is located in the City of Dublin on the vacant area north of Gleason Drive at Hacienda Drive between Arnold Road and Madigan Avenue. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center is located north of the site, Gamp Parks RFTA to the west and the California Highway Patrol to the east. Business offices are south of the site between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive, and single-family homes are south of the site between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Drive. Parks RFTA is used for a number of training activities, including small arms firing, artille _ry bombardment simulations, tactical vehicle operation and military helicopter operations which have the potential to generate noise that may affect the proposed proiects. According to the Parks RFTA Environmental Noise Management Program (ENMP), areas within approximately 1,000 feet of the RFTA bounds _ry are potentially subiect to helicopter overflight noise. According to the 1995 Woodward Clyde study, Noise Source Inventory and Noise Abatement Plan for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin CA, "The limited Camp Parks-related helicopter activity was also found to cause minimal cumulative noise effects upon the community (noise levels less than 55 dBA Ldn)". (pg 4-1) Helicopters monitoring fi-eeway conditions are often more prevalent than military helicopters. In either case, helicopter noise would not impair the function of the Project at the East County Government Center Site. Page 10-18 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended to read as follows: TEe Tranzit Canter site Site 15A is located in the City of Dublin on Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Central Parkway to the north. The site lies immediately west of the Sybase Headquarters office complex. Other office buildings lie to the north of the site across Central Parkway. Vacant lands currently lie to the south and west. These areas are planned for development by public and private entities as pats of the County of Alameda's Surplus Property Authority's long-term development program, in concert with the City of Dublin's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City recently approved the County's proposed Transit Center project to include a mix of residential, commercial, and public land uses between the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station and the Parks RFTA, west of Arnold Road. Parks RFTA lies to the northwest Parks RFTA is used for a number of training activities, including small arms firing, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS/DR Page 2-12 ChaPter 2: Responses to Comments artillery bombardment simulations, tactical vehicle operation and military_ helicopter operations which have the potential to generate noise that may affect the proposed projects. According to the Parks RFTA Environmental Noise Management Program (ENMP), areas within approximately 1,000 feet of the RFTA boundary_ are potentially subject to helicopter overflight noise. According to the 1995 Woodward Clyde study, Noise SoUrce Inventory and Noise Abatefzent Plan for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin CA, "The limited Camp Parks-related helicopter activity was also found to cause minimal cumulative noise effects upon the community (noise levels less than 55 dBA Ldn)". (pg 4-1) Helicopters monitoring freeway conditions are often more prevalent than military helicopters. In either case, helicopter noise would not impair the function of the Project at Site 15A. Response to Comment 2-2: The text on page 4-7 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended to read as follows: The East County Government Center site is located in an area undergoing rapid change, with large-scale business park, retail and residential development occurring during the past five years (see Figure 4.4). Single-family and multi-family residential deVelopment has occurred to the east and southeast, and industrial/business park uses are located to the southwest. Commercial retail and office development is located about 1 mile south near the 1-580 freeway. · The U.S. Anny's Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and a federal correctional institution are located to the immediate west and northwest. The County owns approximately 335 acres of land to the north and east, on which exist the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center (County Jail) and related Sheriff's Office uses and large tracts of vacant land. Also to the north beyond the County Jail, the U.S. Air Force operates a microwave station, the Dublin-San Ramon Services District operates water storage reservoir tanks, aj r,,.,,~, r, o,~;,,.,~ Par!~arks RFTA controls approximately 500 acres of former public park land, and private land owners control open hillside and flatland grazing, agricultural and rural residential land. Response to Comment 2-3: The correct name for the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) is noted. Although consistent, current and correct nomenclature was intended to be used throughout the Draft EIS/EIR, some incorrect terms were inadvertently used in portions of the document. However, the context generally provides readers with a correct impression of the intended meaning, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-13 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments particularly in light of the fact that Parks RFTA was formerly commonly referred to as Camp Parks. Response to Comment 2-4: Mapped areas of land added to Parks RFTA are noted. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-14 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments LETTER 3: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Response to Comment 3-1: introdUctorY Comments nOted. Response to Comment 3-2: comment regarding the categoriZation of the Draft EIS/EIR as "LO "Lack ~0f ObjeCtions", is noted. Response to Comment 3-3: The cmranentor correctly notes that the Draft EIS/EIR indicates that the selection of a project from among the assessed alternatives will occur after the Final F_,IS/EIR is certified and adopted. The County and OJP/BJA concur that the agencies are required to identify the preferred alternative in the Final EIS/EIR as described further in the Master Response section at the beginning of Chapter 2 in this document. The selected alternative identified in the Record of Decision, however, may not necessarily be the same alternative as the preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS/EIR. That is, the Board of Supervisors may not approve the proposed project (i.e., the selected alternative) until the CEQA process is complete. Consequently, while the Final EIS/EIR may identify the preferred alternative, the Board will make its decision to approve one of the alternatives after it certifies the EIR~ The discussion of the approval process on page 1-11 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended to read as follows: Upon completion of the Final EIS/EIR, the County BOS will review and certify the EIS/EIR under CEQA, and OJP/BJA will circulate approve the Final EIS/EIR under NEPA and provide notice in the Federal Register that the Final EIS/EIR is available, as discussed above. The Final EIS/EIR will include an identification of a preferred alternative, based on the opinion of the departments within the County of Alameda that are responsible for preparation of the architectural programs and environmental analysis for the proiects. After the Final EIS/EIR is certified and adopted by the County BOS and circulated by the OJP/BJA and a plan to monitor and implement the mitigation measures has been adopted, the County BOS wi!! is expected to select one of the assessed alternatives for. implementation. This selection will be based on the environmental analysis in the Final EIS/EIR and the environmental findings, as well as on the program and budget constraints at the time the decision is madeof ce~;.~,caticn After an alternative is selected for implementation, more detailed decision-making regarding the projects' design and construction can occur. The Interim Final Rule issued bY OJP/BJA regarding compliance with NEPA states that grantees (BOC) and Alameda County Juvenile Justice FaCility/East COunty Hall of JustiCe - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-15 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments subgrantees (County of Alameda) may not start construction before the completion of the environmental analysis process, nor may they make further decisions or commitments of resources that would have an affect on the environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternative sites. Therefore, the County has been limited in its ability to complete design concepts for the various alternatives being considered. Sufficient information has been generated to facilitate the environmental analysis, but final design and specifications cannot be generated until the environmental analysis is complete. This EIS/EIR provides information about the various sites that were carried forward for analysis, which will be used by the decision-makers in determining an appropriate course of action. Other factors that may influence those decisions include such things as total cost, whether program objectives are fully met, ability to implement the alternative in a timely manner, and others. The selection will be formalized by OJP/BJA preparing and issuing a ROD prior to any implementing action occurring, and by the County BOS through preparing Findings, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and issuing a Notice of Determination. Response to Comment 3-4: Consistent with CEQA's requirement to identify the "environmentally superior" alternative in an EIR, the Draft EIS/EIR identified the Pardee/Swan Site as the environmentally superior alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility and Site 15A as the environmentally superior alternative for the East County Hall of Justice (see page S-8).2 By contrast, under NEPA, the Record of Decision is required to identify the "environmentally preferable alternative" (40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(b)). As discussed in the Master Response (Preferred Alternative) at the beginning of this chapter, agency EIS staff must identify the agency's preferred alternative in the Final EIS. This is distinct from the "environmentally preferable alternative," which is the alternative that generally causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment, and best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural and natural resources (Forty Questions, 6a). EIS agency staff is encouraged to identify the environmentally preferable altemative during EIS preparation, and the lead agency is encouraged to identify such an alternative in the EIS, but agency staff is not required to identify the environmentally preferable alternative until the Record of Decision. Please see the Master Responses section at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. 2 See Zischke and Kostka, Practice under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 15.37. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-16 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 4: State of California, Department of Transportation Response to Comment 4-1: The Draft EIS/EIR identifie~ the ~0nditipns at the I~580 westbound 0ff-ra~p' at FOOthill Blvd. as an existing condition that is unacceptable and that would be exacerbated by the Juvenile Justice Facility project. This impact is therefore found to be a potentially significant impact that should be mitigated. It is estimated that the proposed project with 420 beds would add 27 a.m. peak hour trips and 7 p.m. peak hour trips to the Foothill Boulevard/I-580 WB off-ramp intersection, while the project with 540 beds would generate 55 and 14 additional trips, respectively, to the intersection. This contribution of trips is extremely low, and so the County is not expected to solely fund the necessary improvements, but a signal or roundabout is identified as possible mitigation strategies for the County to consider. The recommended mitigation strategies would mitigate project impacts to pre-project levels. Response to Comment 4-2: The number of trips COntributed by thePr°ject °m EaStbound 1-580 east of Tassajara Road can be calculated by comparing the "2005 No Project" and "2005 + Project" columns in Tables 9.33 thr°figh 9.38 (sc~nari6s A1 ~i~0ugh'D)', Which iridicate that the projeCt c°ntribution Would be on the Order °fless than 100 uP to 500 PM peak hOUr trips. MitigatiOn would be prOvided thrOugh the payment of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council fees (see Mitigation Measures 9.4.5c and 9,4.6c), which Would funda fair'share Of the regional effort to improve conditions to pre-proj ect levels. Response to comment 4.3: Existing San Leandro Property Alternative The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and 1-58© Westbound Off-Ramp has an existing Level of Service ofF in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Mitigation Measure 9.1.2 states that the County should consider signalizing this intersection, or installing a two-lane roundabout. Either option would result in an acceptable LOS B. However, because the poor operation of this intersection is due primarily to existing conditions, and because the Project would only have a de minimus impact on those conditions, this Mitigation Measure would be optional (Draf~ EIS/EIR, p. 9-44). Accordingly, the Project's fair-share contribution to this mitigation measure, if anything, would be minimal. There is not at present a mechanism to partially fund a mitigation measure at this location. East County Government Center/Site 15A Alternative The impact to the 1-580 East of Tassajara Road roadway segment would be considered a significant effect of the Project. However, the Project's contribution would be only approximately 1.5% of the total traffic. Mitigation Measures 9.4.5a, 9.4.6a, 9.4.5b, 9.4.6b, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-17 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments 9.4.5c and 9.4.6c are intended to address this and other significant impacts of the Project resulting from additional roadway congestion in the Project area. Mitigation Measures 9.4.5c and 9.4.6c propose that Alameda County contribute to the regional mitigation programs as determined by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). The amount of this fair share would be determined pursuant to the TVTC fee program. All Mitigation Measures The commentor suggests that all of the mitigation measures must discuss financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and monitoring. CEQA requires that an EIR "describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).) The details of implementation are not required. Moreover, although an agency must adopt a mitigation monitoring program before approving a project that includes mitigation measure, the EIR itself does not need to discuss the monitoring program (CEQA §21081.6). The commentor states that feasible mitigation measure should be discussed for the impacts to the roadway segment and intersections labeled Significant and Unavoidable in Table S-1 at Page S- 13. However, this is merely the summary chart of the analyzed mitigation measures. The Significant and Unavoidable transportation impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 9, and mitigation measures are proposed for all of them. (See, for example, Impacts 9.1.5 and 9.1.6, and Mitigation Measure 9.1.5a.). Although these mitigation measures reduce these impacts, the impacts remain significant, and therefore are classified as unavoidable. Response to Comment 4-4: Copies of the LOS data sheets were provided to Caltrans. Response to Comment 4-5: The County would apply to the State Department of Transportation for any required encroachment penuits, as required by law. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-18 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 5: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Response to Comment 5-1: Introductory COlnments are noted. Response to Comments 5-2, 5-3 and 5-4: LAVTA provides clarification on where and when its service operates. Based on these comments, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 9-32, Transit Service: Existing transit service in the vicinity of the East County Govemment Center and Site 15A includes the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA--WHEELS x,x,+,ee!s) Route 1, t:2me-l-, the Humphrey/Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center Shuttle, and the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) connector. Route 1 Line ! provides service to and from BART via Broder Boulevard, Gleason Drive and Dublin Boulevard on approximately 30-minute headways for approximately three hours during the morning and five hours during evening commute hours on weekdays. On Sundays, WHEELS operates a fixed-schedule van shuttle between the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station that runs most of the day. Additionally, on all days of the week, a demand-responsive type of service called DART provides rides for the general public during some of the hours when fixed-route service is unavailable. DART's capacity is limited and is provided as a supplement to regular service. The ACE shuttle runs to and from the train station at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton. The shuttle routes coordinate with the arrival and departure times of the ACE trains. LAVTA Route 12~.,.,~T ;,, ~ ~, ~,' connecting the BART station, the Las Positas College and the Livermore Transit Center, also prOvides service along DUblin BouleVard near Site 15A site. Route 12 provides all-day and evening service on a 15 to 45 minute headway, Monday through Saturday. Site 15A is also served by Route I. Response to Comment 5-5: LAVTA provides suggestions for improving its service to the East County Government Center site. If the East County Government Center site is selected, these suggestions, which include increasing the availability of its Route 1 service and/or providing larger transit vehicles, will be incorporated into future discussions with LAVTA during the preparation of the formal transportation plan discussed in Mitigation Measure 16.1.5. Response to Comment 5-6: Per Mitigation Measure 16.1.5 and consistent with Mitigation Measures 9.4.5b and 9.4.6b, the County will develop a formal transportation plan as part of its development of any Dublin site Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-19 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments analyzed in this report. This plan will consider capital and operating subsidies as well as all other transit improvement options itemized in the Draft EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-20 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 6: Port of Oakland Response t° comment 6-1: Thi~ ~0mm~h~ ~ ~il 69~iew~ 6r summary of specific issueS with the document related to the status of the site and the analySis of potential impacts. These issues are discussed individually in subsequent responses to this letter. As demonstrated in the responses below, the Draft EIS/EIR analysis of the environmental impacts associated with development of the pr°Posed Juvenile Justice Facility on the Pardee/Swan site was based on information regarding the status of the Site that was available during the preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR. · , · Response to Comment 6-2: The Draft EIS/EIR recognizes the Port of Oakland's current construction of an approximately 3,500-sPace parking lot at this site for Oakland International Airport parking. The Drat~ EIS/EIR, page 4-6 indicates that "The Port has begun construction of a new parking lot at the site to serve the Oakland International Airport during implementation of the Terminal Expansion Project, and to replace parking that was displaced as a result of increased security measures in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C." The c0gnty recognizes that the terms "Terminal EXpansion Project" and "Airport Development Program" generally refer to the same program. The County notes that the Port will be preparing a supplemental EIR to analyze the use of the parking lot at Pardee/Swan as a permanent Airport Parking site. Response to Comment 6-3: If the Pardee/Swan Site were selected for the Juvenile Justice Facility, it would not displace current Port parking. As indicated on page 3-17'of the Draft EIS/EIR, "A four-level airport parking garage ~W0Uid also be built atthis site to acC0mmodat'e parking space that would otherWise be lost to the port of Oakland? With C°nstmCtion of the 4-story parking garage with at least 3,500 spaces to replace surface parking, airport operations would not be affected. Present use of the parking lot is limited, so partial displacement of some spaces during construction of the garage is not expected to result in any interim effects. Other local lots also could absorb some of the t~mporary displacement during construction of the garage. Impact and Mitigation Measure 4.7. ! °fthe DraR EIS[EIR also proVides that the County should assist the Port in addressing potential shortfalls in parking. RespOnSe t° comment 6,4: The Draft EIS/EIR does recognize that the Port has begun construction of a new parking lot at the site to serve the Oakland International Airport during implementation of the Terminal ExpanSion Project. Use of the term 'vacant' only indicates that there are no structures currently on this site. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-2t Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 6-5: According to the currently approved Terminal Expansion Project, construction of a new parking lot at the site is intended to serve the Oakland International Airport during implementation of the Termit~al Expansion Project. Since the description of this alternative would include construction of a 4-story parking garage to replace surface parking, neither interim nor permanent airport parking operations would be affected. Response to Comment 6-6: Any potential inconsistencies of this alternative with local land use regulations that could result in significant effects on the environment are fully analyzed within each respective section of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR properly includes analyses of the Project's consistency with the City of Oakland's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the Port of Oakland's Standards and Restrictions Ordinance for the Oakland Airport Business Park. (See the Draft EIS/EIR at 4-23 through 4-28.) A determination that a project is inconsistent with an applicable land use plan is a legal determination, not an "impact" or "effect" on the environment that must be separately evaluated in the EIS/EIR. Under NEPA and CEQA, only the Project's direct and indirect effects/impacts on the physical environment, and those economic and social impacts/effects that are related to effects on the physical environment, must be evaluated in an EIR/EIR. (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15358(b); 40 C.F.R. §1508.14.) Thus, the County is required only to evaluate the effects/impacts of potential inconsistencies between the Project and local land use requirements if and to the extent that such inconsistencies actually result, directly or indirectly, in effects/impacts on or related to the physical environment. The EIS/EIR properly evaluates all of the Project's potential direct and indirect effects/impacts on the physical environment, including any potential environmental effects/impacts that may occur as a result of the Project's exemption from local land use regulations. See Draft EIS/EIR at 4~9, and Chapters 4 through 17. The commentor has not identified any environmental effects/impacts that may result from the alleged inconsistencies between the Project and local land use requirements. Response to Comment 6-7: Comment regarding zoning consistency and potential reader confusion is noted. At page 4-23, the Draft EIS/EIR states that the Project site is "within the Port of Oakland's Airport Business Park" and that development within the Airport Business Park is governed by Port Ordinance No. 2832, which is the Port's Standards and Restrictions Ordinance. The Project site also appears on the City of Oakland Zoning Map as located within the M~40 (Heavy Industrial) Zone. Although City zoning for this site may not be applicable due to its location within the Port Area, the site is nevertheless zoned by the City as M-40, Heavy Industrial. The Draft EIS/EIR recognizes that Section 706(3) of the City of Oakland Charter "vests the Port with final land use jurisdiction over that part of the City defined as the 'Port Area,' although projects are required to be determined consistent with the City General Plan." Absent a binding judicial determination as to the applicability of the City's zoning ordinance, it is not clear to the County that the City's zoning ordinance does not also apply to the site, in addition to the Port's Standards and Restrictions Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-22 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Ordinance. Therefore, for purposes of the Draft EIS/EIR, the County conservatively completed consistency analyses for both the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Port's Standards and Restrictions Ordinance. This analYsis provides the reader with a complete assessment, and no other reviewers have expressed any confusion regarding the content of this section. Response to Comment 6-8: Any potential inconsistencies of this alternative with local land use regulations that could result in significant effects on the environment are fully analyzed within each reSPective seCtion of the Draft EIS/EIR. See also Response to Comment 6-6. Response to Comment 6-9: Consistency with local land use policies and regulations would not be required to implement this alternative. However, the consistency of this alternative with applicable land use policies and regulations, including the Oakland General Plan and the Port of Oakland's Standards and Restrictions ordinance was evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. This analysis is found on pages 4-23 through 4-29 of the Draft EIS/EIR. In regard t° the Port of Oakland's Standards and ReStrictions ordinance, the Draft EIS/EIR concluded that the proposed use of the site as a Juvenile Justice Facility is not among those uses specifically identified for the Airport Business Park, but that it WOuld generally be consistent with the Port of Oakland's requirements, and would not be deemed to be "objectionable" within a garden-type business park. The County believes that, if this site were to be selected, the facility could be designed to satisfy this goal. Response to Comment 6-10: The Draft EiS/EIR ConSidered a reasOnable range of alternatives in accordance with ~PA and CEQA. The Draft EIS/EIR explains in Section 3.2 that in 2001, in response to concerns that the County failed to consider sites other than the East County Government Center site for development of the Proposed Action; the County isSued a Request for ProPosals (RFP) to identify additional sites. Only one formal offer was received. Consequently, the County review team met with the Port of Oakland to review sites it owns, Additionally, the team reviewed an additional site at the oakland Airport and aSsessed a tOtal of 17 sitbS in Alameda county. Based upon all of the factors under consideration (e.g., minimum site acreage, accessibility, transit access; geOtechnical and hazardous materials constraints, etc.), the County's review team determined, prior to pr~parati0n Ofthe Dra~ EIS/EIR, that the pardee/swan site was a potentially viable (Draft EIS/EIR, p. 3-33) alternative under CEQA and NEPA. The Port's comments regarding the reasonableness of the Pardee/Swan site and potential environmental impacts are noted. Section 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR evaluates the alternative's consistency with adopted land use plans and potential conflicts with the surrounding uses and parking use under conStruCtiOn. The CoUnty Board of SUPervisors will consider these land use inconsistencies and potentially significant environmental impacts in determining the selected alternative. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-23 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 6-1'1: Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS/EIR states that development of the Juvenile Justice Facility on the Pardee/Swan site would include construction ora four-level airport parking garage on this site to accommodate parking space that would otherwise be lost to the Port of Oakland (Draft EIS/EIR, p. 3-15). The Draft EIS/EIR evaluated the loss of the planned parking (see e.g., Impacts 4.7.1, 9.2.4) and evaluated the mitigation and secondary impacts associated with construction of a joint-use Port parking garage on the Pardee/Swan site or at an off-site location in Impact 9.2.4. Secondary impacts associated with construction of the parking garage on-site are further evaluated in Impacts 6.6.4, 7.1.4, 7.4.4, 8.1.4, 10.1.4, 10.2.4, 11.3.4, 13.2.4, and 15.2.2. Additionally, cumulative impacts were addressed for the Pardee/Swan site in conjunction with two specific projects, the expansion of the Airport and the Metroport project, and with overall planned growth in the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan site. The Draft EIS/EIR evaluates the interim parking impacts due to temporary displacement of the existing surface parking lot spaces in Impact and Mitigation Measure 4.7.1. Interim construction-related noise and air quality impacts would occur during the construction of the replacement parking as described for the Proposed Action as a whole (see e.g., Impacts 10.1.4, 10.2.4, and 11.3.4). The text of this mitigation measure has been amended to clarify that the County should assist the Port in addressing temporary parking displacement that could occur. Response to Comment 6-12: Consistent with the Project Description, Mitigation Measure 9.2.4a requires the County to accommodate the Port parking. The County has designed a conceptual site plan that would accomplish joint development of this site with the Juvenile Justice Facility on the central and eastern portion of the site and a parking structure on the western portion of the site. The Draft EIS/EIR requires that the County pursue negotiations with the Port to make other parking tots available to relieve the interim parking demand at the Pardee/Swan site. Thus, specific mitigation is identified in the Draft EIS/EIR to provide the replacement parking. Overflow parking from the Project could be accommodate in the proposed parking garage because it could be sized to provide more than the displaced surface parking existing at the Port site. The impacts of providing replacement parking are addressed as noted in Response to Comment 6-11. Mitigation Measure 4.7.1, on page 4-57 of the Draft EIS/EIR, is revised to explain that the County would assist the Port of Oakland in finding replacement parking as follows: Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Parking Replacement. If sufficient demand for a surface parking lot exists prior to the construction of the parking garage proposed in conjunction with the development of the Juvenile Justice Facility at Pardee/Swan site, then the County should assist ~'^n~;~ ..... ;~*;~ the Port of Oakland in finding tc 5nd alternative parking space and/or compensating the Port of Oakland for loss of the space. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-24 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 6-13: The Comment°r correctly points out that there is an error in the first sentence in Impact Section 4.3,4 (Pardee/SWan Site), which erroneously assumes that the Pardee/Swan site is currently · owned by the County and is therefore not currently subject to local land use regulations. Based on this comment, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 4-41, first sentence of Impact 4.3.4: The County's develOpment of the Project on the :r-he Pardee/Swan site is would not b___e subject to local land use policies, and thus there is would be no impact arising out of conflict wittl local ~' cf oa!:!,,~d policies adopted to aVoid or mitigate an environmental effect. See als° ResPonSes t° Comments 6-6, 6'8 and 6-9. The c°mmentor ~1~s° stlt~S {hat ',there WOuld be unavoidable impacts that have not been adequately analyzed," but fails to identify any such impacts. The County disagrees with the assertion that there are unavoidable impacts that would · reSult from the ProjeCt that have nOt been adeqUately analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 6-14: ~he il~li:h~d '~h~ t~¢ p, Foject wiii have i~cts ~n scenic ~iStas, traffic and the r~gional: roadway ne ~t~ ~ork, andthe nature and extent of those impacts, are not related to the Project's compatibility or consistency with local land use policies. See Response to COmment 6-6. The Draft EIS/EIR contains extenSive diSCussions of all of the Project's potential effects on scenic vistas and on traffic and the regional roadway network if the Project is developed on the Pardee?S~an sitel s% Draft EIS/E!R at Chapters 5 and 9. AlthoUgh the commentor suggests that there are other potential impacts that are not adequately analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR, it does n0~.!~entify any such impacts. The Draft EIS/EIR als° contains consistencY analYseS With all local land use policies that would apply to the Project, if the County were not eXempt from lOcal land use requirements. See Draft EIS/EIR at Chapter 4. Response to Comment 6-t5: Gove~ent Code SectiOn 65402 requires Counties, under delineated cirCumstanCes, to provide other local governments with certain information before acquiring real property within the other local governments' jUrisdictiOns. The County will comply With Government Code Section 65402 tO the extent that SUCh Compliance is necessary. Whether the CoUnty is required to comply with Section 65402 and the nature of any required compliance are not issues that must be addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR prOperly includes an adequate analysis of the Project's consistency with the City of Oakland's General P1an. The commentor does not identify the project's environmental effects which may be related to the County's compliance with Section 65402. H0~ever, the Draft EIS/EIR property evaluates all the potential environmental effects/impacts of the Juvenile JuStice Facility should it be developed on the Pardee/Swan site. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-25 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 6-16: Neither CEQA nor Government Code Section 65402 require a CEQA lead agency to refer a project to a local land use agency prior to preparation of the Final EIS/EIR. Section 65402 does not mention or refer to CEQA, and the CEQA statutes do not refer to Section 65402. Even if the County were required to refer the Juvenile Justice Facility project to the Port, neither Section 65402 or CEQA require that the County refer the Juvenile Justice Facility to the Port at any particular time during the County's CEQA process. The County also disagrees with the commentor's suggestion that the Port's Airport Business Park Standards and Restrictions require the County to refer the Project to the Port. The Airport Business Park Standards and Restrictions do not mention Section 65402. Response to Comment 6-17: The commentor correctly notes that this Project involves federal funding, and therefore is subject to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (ICA, 31 U.S.C. 6506 et. seq.). The ICA requires generally that federal agencies, in planning federal development projects and programs, consider "[to] the extent possible, all national, regional, State, and local viewpoints." (31 U.S.C. § 6506(c).) The Act also requires that "[t]o the maximum extent possible and consistent with national objectives, assistance for development purposes shall be consistent~with and further the objectives of State, regional, and local comprehensive planning." (31 U.S.C. § 6506(d).) The commentor states that the EIS/EIR is inadequate because it does not discuss compliance with the ICA. However, nothing in the ICA requires that an EIR, EIS, or any other environmental review or planning document discuss the ICA. Rather, compliance with the ICA is accomplished through the preparation of an EIS/EIR, and by providing all affected federal, state, and local government agencies an opportunity to comment. See Bergen County v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009, 1065 (D.C.N.J. 1985) (holding that state and federal agencies complied with ICA where all federal, regional and state agencies having jurisdiction or special expertise received copies of draft and preliminary environmental impact statements for comments, which were received and responded to in final environmental impact statement.) Response to Comment 6-18: See Response to Comment 6-17. ICA does not "waive" the County's exemption from local land use, zoning and building regulations. Rather, the ICA requires "[t]o the maximum extent possible and consistent with national objectives, assistance for development purposes shall be consistent with and further the objectives of State, regional, and local comprehensive planning." (31 U.S.C. § 6506(d).) The Project's consistency with local land use plans, policies and laws is discussed extensively in Chapter 4 of the EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 6-'19: The Draft EIS/EIR discusses the policies of the Oakland General Plan and the Port of Oakland's Business Park Standards and Restrictions Ordinance, as applicable to the Pardee/Swan Site alternative at pages 4-23 through 4-26. The commentor fails to note the other applicable policies Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-26 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments that are not mentioned or analyzed. The Draft EIS/EIR's cOnsistency analysis of local land use policies provides an adequate review of this topic. Response to Comment 6-20: Substantial evidence supports the Draft EIS/EIR conclusions regarding the enVironmental ' impacts associated with the Pardee/Swan site. Such evidence includes, among others, an assessment performed by the Draft EIS/EIR consultant of the existing and surrounding land uses, technical information regarding the geotechnical, hydrological and flooding, and biological resource conditions of the Pardee/Swan site, and analyses of the traffic, noise and air quality impacts associated with development of the Proposed Action at this site. Response to Comment 6-21: The parking demands for the Juvenile Justice Facility alternative at the Pardee/Swan site would be entirely met by off-street parking facilities. As noted in Mitigation Measure 9.2.4a, "In order to accommodate the Port parking lot and the Juvenile Justice Project, the County is evaluating joint development of the site. The proposed Juvenile Justice Project would be on the central and eastern portion of the site, and a parking structure on the western portion of the site. Parking for the Juvenile Justice Facility would be at grade along Swan Way in a 250-space public lot, and under a portion of the proposed building in a 250-space secured garage. Therefore, shared use of some of the structured parking may also be required to meet the full Project demand. The Port has downsized its parking lot project to about 3,500 vehicles, so there would be sufficient space in a new parking garage [with 4,000 spaces] for overflow parking from the Juvenile Justice Facility. Leases or other arrangements should be made part of the development if this site is selected for development of both projects." Response to Comment 6-22: The Draft EIS/EIR includes a description of the general development pattern in the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan site, which is for the most part "built out" in the immediate area. The Draft EIS/EIR further addresses land use development in the discussion of the City of Oakland zoning and General Plan designations for the area, and the Airport business park regulations that apply to the site. Additional build out under the Airport Development Program would occur in areas beyond the Pardee/Swan site's area of influence, except as pertains to traffic. The traffic study for the Juvenile JUstiCe Facility at the pardee/Swan site was based on the analYsis prepared by the Port for its proposed parking lot development at the site, which accounted for other cumulative development through 2005, and long-term projections made by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, which is reflective of local land use plans and roadway systems. The Draft EIS/EIR includes a complete analysis of those conditiOns under background conditions and with the project, as shown in Chapter 17, on pages 17-11 through 17-15. AlthOugh background conditions would result in significant traffic congestion on Interstate 880 without the project, traffic contributions by the project would exacerbate that condition. A mitigation measure is proposed to redUce project imPaCts, but the Draft EIS/EIR concludes that this would be a significant unav°idable impact due t0 ~e inability of~y Single Project to affect ,.- Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-27 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments significant improvements in regional traffic patterns. That discussion also addresses the cumulative effect on noise and air quality, and concludes that the project's contribution would be less than significant. Response to Comment 6-23: As required by CEQA and NEPA, the Draft EIS/EIR discusses feasible mitigation measures designed to minimize all potentially significant environmental impacts. The commentor's failure to provide any specific comments regarding the proposed mitigation measures for the Pardee/Swan site alternative prevents any more detailed response to this comment. Please also see the master response regarding deferred mitigation at the beginning of this chapter. Response to Comment 6-24: Mitigation Measure 9.2.4a assumes that the Port will use the site for a surface parking lot accommodating up to 3,500 parking spaces based on information contained in the Oakland Airport Replacement Parking Transportation Study (CHS Consulting Group, 2001). This study is the only publicly-available documentation of the Port's currently approved use of this site, and no increases to on-site parking are currently approved. Mitigation Measure 9.2.4b only indicates that the Port of Oakland has evaluated other parking options to meet its interim and long-term needs as part of the Airport Expansion project, including a second large site in the Central Basin area. If the Port were to develop that site (or another site) to meet its parking demand, then there would be sufficient land at the Pardee / Swan site to accommodate all of the Juvenile Justice Facility parking demand in surface parking lots. This measure does not require nor recommend development of the Central Basin site, and therefore the environmental effects associated with development of that site have not been analyzed. If the Port were to develop parking at an alternative site, it would reduce the cost and complexity of developing a parking garage at the Pardee/Swan Site and reduce the associated environmental effects of concentrated development on the site, as described elsewhere in the Draft EIS/EIR. No evaluation of potential parking shortfall has been conducted for a scenario under which the Port may determine that it needs more than 3,500 parking spaces at the Pardee/Swan site. Such an analysis would be speculative in light of the Port's currently approved plans for, and current construction of a 3,500-space parking lot pursuant to the Oakland Airport Replacement Parking Transportation Study (CHS Consulting Group, 2001). Response to Comment 6-25: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR accurately describes the public trust limitations on the County's potential use of the Pardee/Swan site, and correctly concludes that the site may not be available for development of the Project if the public trust restrictions are not removed. (Draft EIS/EIR at 4-20 through 4-21.) The Draft EIS/EIR also acknowledges that the Port of Oakland may determine that the Project is not appropriate for inclusion in the Airport Business Park area, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-28 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments and that such a determination may render the Project inconsistent with the Port'S development plan for the area. The Draft EIS/EIR contains an adequate analysis of the Project's consistency with the Port's development plan. (Draft EIS/EIR at page 4-23.) The Draft EIS/EIR also fully and adequately analyzes the potential enVironmental effects/impacts of developing the Project on the Pardee/Swan site despite its potential inconsistency with the Port's development plan. (,gee Response to Comment 6-6.) Based on the Port's current and foreseeable continued use of the Pardee/Swan site as a parking lot, the COuniY disagrees With the Commentor's suggestion that development of the Juvenile Justice Facility on the site could lead to significant business dislocation or blight. The Draft EIS/EIR contains a comparison and analysis of the potential environmental effects/impacts associated with deVelopment of the Project on each alternative site, and cOncludes based on the substantial eVidence in the existing record that the Pardee/Swan site is the environmentally superior alternative for development of the Juvenile Justice Facility. (See Draft EIS/EIR at page S-8, Table S. I and Chapters 4 through 17.) This analysis takes into account the fact that, if the Juvenile JuStice Facility is not developed there, the pardee/Swan site may be used for Airport Parking. Please see the Master Responses section at the beginning of Chapter 2 regarding the identification of a new environmentally superior alternative. Response to Comment 6-26: Comment noted. The referenced letter from the Port's Executive Director is included as part of this letter and responded to in this Final EIS/EIR. ReSponse to Comment'6'27: Referral of the Project to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") may not be reqUired. Generally, cities and counties are required to refer certain types of actions to the ALUC for consistency determinations. (,See Pub. Util. Code {}21676.) These actions are the proposed adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan, the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or bUilding regulation, Or, if the City Or county owns a public airport, any modification to its airport master plan ("Covered Actions"). Id. {}21676(b)-(c). This Project is not a Covered Action under {}21676. In preparing the EIS/EIR, the County consulted with ALUC staff regarding the Pardee/sWan alternative. Based On their preliminary review, the allowable building height on the site would be approximately 85 feet, and the proposed buildings woUld be within this height limit, although construction equipment may exceed it. If this site were selected, a more formal review by the ALUC would be required prior to construction. To conform to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, if the ALUC review finds that either the buildings or the construction equipment will exceed the height restrictions, a FAA 7460 study will be required. Typically, such a study would require that construction equipment, such as cranes that exceed regulated height limits near an airport, be well lit at night. DeveloPment of the new JUVenile Justice Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-29 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Facility would be required to be in conformance with federal and state standards as articulated in FAA Regulation, Part 77 and Part 150, in the ALUPP and in any other applicable regulations and amendments. The project would be designed to comply with the ALUPP and with the FAA 7460 study (if it is required). This analysis is adequate for purposes of CEQA and NEPA environmental review. Response to Comment 6-28: The proposed underground parking is proposed at the Pardee/Swan site to provide a limited amount of secure parking for court and juvenile hall staff. The development plan for the site is conceptual and would be subject to additional engineering and cost study, but the intent was to provide sufficient parking to meet the project's needs without resorting to extensive use of the remainder of the site, including the possible Port parking garage, for project parking. The secure parking would be developed partially underground, and partially beneath the new court building, which would be built slightly elevated to minimize the amount of excavation. This approach is considered feasible, consistent with the findings of the borings taken at the site that determined ground water was approximately 5.75 to 7.25 feet below the ground surface (see page 7-3 of the Draft EIS/EIR). Response to Comment 6-29: A discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on wildlife habitat, including the adjacent Arrowhead Marsh is provided under Impact 8.4.4 on page 8-35 of the Draft EIS/EIR. This was determined to be a potentially significant and mitigable impact. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4c was recommended specifically to minimize any adverse effects of night-time lighting on the adjacent marshland habitat. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4a recommends providing a buffer to the adjacent marsh habitat. Due to the recent parking lot improvements to the west and existing road to the east, buffers recommended in the mitigation measure are only necessary north of the site. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4a on page 8-35 of the Draft EIS/EIR has been revised in response to the comment as follows: Mitigation Measure 8.4.4a: Wildlife Habitat Buffer. As recommended in Mitigation x~ ....... ~ ~ ur,. r~+~+;,,,, ,,cr,~+~ Foraging u~;+~+ ~ A 50-foot setback shall be provided along the no,hem, eastern and w:zte~ edges of the site to provide a buffer for the su~cunding adjacent open space l~ds. Appropriate native and ommental shrubs and low-growing tree species shall be planted as landscape screening within 20 feet of the inside edge of this setback to provide screening of new structures, parking ~d other uses which may interfere with wildlife activity in the adjacent A~owhead M~sh ~ ~:~ ~;.~c~ T ~~,, Nightim lighti ig .......................... j. e ng shall be des ned to minimize ~y illumination of the adjacent marshland habitat. Response to Comment 6-30: Due to the unique characteristics of each development altemative, the parking demands for each alternative would differ respectively. However, for each alternative that is based on a 450~bed Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-30 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments facility with juvenile courts and administrative functions (i.e., the Pardee/Swan and East County Government Center alternatives), the peak parking demand is estimated at 550 spaces at 4:00 p.m. on weekdays, when day and swing shifts overlap). Response to Comment 6;31. Cost of construction requiring piles was considered in the estimate. The site is in a light industrial area and pile driving is not a forgone conclusion, pending soil tests; drilling and piers is a possible .sOlUtion. Response t° Comment 6-32: The Draft EIS/EIR indicates that there are two major development projects in the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan site that would be expected to contribute to cumulative to local traffic impacts (with related effects on noise and air quality along roadways in the vicinity of the Site). These projects include the proposed expansion of the Oakland International Airport and the Port of Oakland's Metroport project, on a site near the Hegenberger Road/I-880 interchange. However, the Draft EIS/EIR also recognizes that the City of Oakland has designated the Pardee/Swan area as part 0fthe Airport / Gateway Showcase District, and a "Change and Grow" area. The cumulative impacts as discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR are based not only on the addition of the two known major projects, but also on the level of development anticipated in the vicinity under current land use regulations of the cities of Oakland and Alameda. With respect to cumulative air quality impacts, growth or reduction in regional air pollutant emissions is developed by the MTC and BAAQMD in their ozone attainment plan. This plan uses local general plans and growth projects to account for expected projects that will be or are being located in Alameda or Oakland. Thus, the cumulative air quality impact of all new projects within the BAAQMD is part of the ozone attainment plan. The Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility is part of regional growth and emissions are therefore part of the ozone attainment plan. Response to Comment 6-33: The issues as set forth in this letter do not identify any critical flaws in the analysis contained in the Draft EIS/EIR, as indicated in the responses to these comments above. The commentor is referred to the responses to comments above regarding the specific issues raised concerning the Pardee/Swan site. This site was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR as the environmentally superior alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility because it resulted inthe fewer number of significant unavoidable and potentially significant but mitigable impacts as summarized in Table S. 1. Thus, the Draft EIS/EIR's conclusion that the Pardee/Swan site would be the environmentally preferred alternative is not flawed. Since the circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, the Pardee/Swan site has become unavailable as a feasible alternative (see Comment 6-34). Consequently, the Final EIS/EIR identifies the Modified San Leandro Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-31 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 6-34: The Port's comments regarding the availability of the Pardee/Swan site are noted. As explained further above in the Master Response regarding the Preferred Alternative, under NEPA and CEQA, the "environmentally preferable" or "environmental superior" alternative is different from the "agency's preferred alternative." Thus, although the Draft EIS/EIR identified the Pardee/Swan site as the "environmentally superior" alternative, OJP/BJA nonetheless must identify in its ROD the alternative that it believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities taking into account economic, environmental, technical and other factors. See the Master Response at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR regarding the County's decision to eliminate the Pardee/Swan site from consideration as a feasible alternative, and the identification of the Modified San Leandro Alternative as the preferred alternative and environmentally superior alternative. The Draft EIS/EIR (page 3-15) recognizes that the port of Oakland owns the Pardee/Swan site, and that the Port is currently constructing a parking lot at this site. The analysis contained in the Draft document is based on the potential that the County may acquire this site from the Port. If the County were to acquire this site, it would then be available for possible implementation of this Project. Acquisition and parking garage development costs are estimated at approximately $142 million. The County has determined that acquisition of the Pardee/Swan site is not feasible for economic, legal, and other reasons. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-32 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 7: Dublin San Ramon Services District Response to Comment 7-1' Comment regarding past communications from the DSRSD is noted. Specific comments are addressed individually in Response to Comments 7-2 through 7-5. Response to Comment 7-2: : : ~ : DSRSD staff have provided assurances to the County that sufficient sewer capacity is available. The Draft EIS/EIR provides a complete discussion of the water and wastewater services available in the area(seepages 14-10 throUgh 14-13, 14~15 through 14-16, 14-21 through 14-22, 14-24, 14-26, and 14-28 through 14-29). ReSPonSe to Comment 7-3: The provisions of the 1994 Areawide Facility Agreement (AFA) cited by DSRSD in this comment apply to the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility, and not to the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. Although the proposed project would be located on property adjacent to the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility, the provisions cited by DSRSD were not intended to cover other types of facilities. The AFA was entered into years before the County anticipated the development of a juvenile justice facility on this property, and could not have been contemplated by its provisions. Moreover, as the juveniles to be housed at the proposed project would not be considered "prison inmates," the AFA clearly does not cover the proposed project. Response to Comment 7.4: DSRSD staffhave previously agreed to improvements to the water line servicing Parks RFTA along Broder Boulevard. DSRSD has indicated that a plan for expansion of this line was already in progress. DSRSD has jurisdiction for water at the East County Government Center site and Site 15A. At the East County Government Center site, the existing land use designation under the City of Dublin's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (1993) and its subsequent General Plan Amendment (1994) is Public/Semi-Public (see page 4-30 and Figure 4.12 of the Draft EIS/EIR). As stated in the Draft EIS/EIR (page 4-30), the proposed governmental/institutional uses under this Project are consistent with the site's Public/Semi-Public land use. Further, this land use deSignation was effective prior to DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin (200 I), which assumed that development, and the water demand generated by it, would occur consistent with the City's General Plan. Water demand for the type of land Use proposed under this Project was already included in the DSRSD's projections and is consistent with the City of Dublin's General Plan. At Site 15A, the existing land use designation under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is High- Density Residential (see page 4-35 and Figure 4.12 of the Draft EIS/EIR.) The discussion concerning water demand at Site 15A includes a comparison between the water demand of East County Hall of Justice and a previous proposal for 375 high-density residential units on this site, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-33 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments a proposal which was consistent with the City of Dublin's land use designation. This discussion concludes that the proposed East County Hall of Justice would require 10,000 gpd less water than this proposed high-density residential development (see page 14-22). Engineering studies to determine the specific improvements and their cost that may be required to the DSRSD's water infrastructure will be undertaken once a preferred site has been selected. Response to Comment 7-5: The landscape irrigation system will use recycled water. Recycled water for toilet flushing has been evalauted and considered uneconomical. The East County Hall of Justice will use recycled water for landscape irrigation, but not for toilet flushing. Recycled wastewater is available at Gleason Drive for landscape irrigation provided by the DSRSD. A single 2-inch irrigation service with 2-inch meter and backflow preventer should provide an adequate supply of reclaimed water for irrigation use at the East County Hall of Justice. A similar connection would be used to serve the Juvenile Justice Facility. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-34 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 8: City of Oakland Response to Comment 8-1: General comments of concern about the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility alternative are n°ted. The City of Oakland is a Responsible Agency under CEQA and has been consulted with and notified.throughout the environmental review process. Response to Comment 8-2: The City of Oakland's comments are noted regarding the Draft EIS/EIR findings for the Glenn Dyer alternative. In accordance with CEQA, the Draft EIS/EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each alternative which would avoid, minimize, mitigate or compensate for the significant impacts resulting fi.om the Proposed Action. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4.) Moreover, the EIS/EIR evaluates a reaSonable range of alternatives based upon a rigorous site selection process as described in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives that were cOnsidered to be Potentially available and feasible were identified to determine whether they v¢6Uld SUbstantiallY lessen or avoid significant environmental effects of the Proposed Action. It should also be noted that the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility has been in place for almost 20 years as an adult detention facility, and the alternative under consideration is a conversion of that facility to a juvenile detention center, which would have a capacity to house fewer individuals, but would require additional construction due to the higher space requirements, particularly for recreation, for juveniles. The lead agencies believe the Draft EIS/EIR is an adequate and complete analysis of the project alternatives, as detailed in responses to subsequent comments of the City of Oakland. Response to Comment 8-3: Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS/EIR identifies the areas of cOntroversy (see Draft EIS/EIR, p. I- 11). The specific environmental issues associated with each site, including environmental justice, tran§portation, noise and air qUality due to the diStance of the Dublin site from the urban centers of the County are addressed in the individual topical sections. Those sections address the comments submitted as part of the scoping process. The comment is noted that issues also raised during the scoping process included the ability of the project alternatives to meet primary project objectives. The discussion of areas of controversy in the Draft EIS/EIR on page S-23 is revised as follows: Controversy expressed during the initial planning activity and scoping process for the projects focused on the selection of an appropriate size for the Juvenile Justice Facility, and appropriate location for both the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice. Concerns also were raised regarding whether the alternatives would be able to meet the primary project obiectives. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-35 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments On May 23, 2002 Board of Corrections (BOC) staffvisited the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility to determine whether it would be possible to convert the jail into a juvenile detention facility. This visit resulted in confirmation from the BOC, dated June 4, 2002, that "It is possible to convert the Glenn Dyer Jail into a juvenile hall." Any such conversion would include extensive modification to address requirements under California Code. The lead agencies have included the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility as an alternative because it would meet the basic objectives and the State code regarding development and operation ora juvenile detention facility. Although the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility was originally developed as an adult detention center, the conceptual development plan for the conversion to juvenile detention would include substantial renovation and expansion to address the need for supportive functions including education, counseling, recreation, group activities, and family visitation. The facility would no longer be in or connected to a jail or prison, and would be operated consistent with State mandates. The consideration of providing a homelike environment has to be balanced with the need for security and supervision. To the degree the facility provides group activities and meals, recreation, schooling, and family visits, the facility would be homelike. For all of these reasons, the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is considered a potentially feasible alternative that is appropriately carded forward in the analysis. Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR addresses environmental justice and provides a context in which these considerations are discussed in more detail. That analysis concludes that there would be a significant unavoidable impact to the juvenile detainees due to the freeway noise that would impinge on the required outdoor recreation area. The Draft EIS/EIR makes clear that there are competing objectives for natural light and air versus noise insulation. While it is possible that architectural treatments such as heavy glazing around a portion of the outdoor area and interior sound absorbing material could reduce the noise to an acceptable level, detailed study would be required and the effectiveness of those measures is uncertain. Response to Comment 8-4: As indicated on page 4-9 of the Draft EIS/EIR, as a political subdivision of the State, the County is exempt from local regulations. This exemption extends to local land use, zoning and building regulations. Moreover, Government Code Sections 53090-53096, which generally require local agencies to comply with the land use and building regulations of the county or city in which their territory is located, specifically exclude counties from this requirement. Therefore, the County is not required to comply with land use, zoning and building requirements of any of the local jurisdictions in which the project may be located, including cities and the County itself. Nevertheless, the Draft EIS/EIR does include an analysis of whether the proposed facilities are consistent with major aspects of local general plans, zoning and related policies, including those primary components of the City of Oakland General Plan. However, since potential inconsistencies would generally not prevent implementation of the project, this analysis is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it intended to be a comprehensive review of all City of Oakland General Plan policies. Therefore, the recommended additional policy consistency analysis of as many as eight additional General Plan policies is not necessary under CEQA, and would not Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-36 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments se~we to identify any additional environmental consequences other than those identified in subsequent chapter of the Draft EIS/EIR. Nonetheless, the County offers the following comments regarding other City of Oakland policies. Policies D2.1 and D.5.1 and Objective D3 implicate primarily the design aspects of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. As explained in the Draft EIS/EIR, the detailed design concepts for the various alternatives, including the Glenn Dyer alternative, have yet to be prepared due to financing constraints arising from the Department of Justice's participation in this component of the Project. See Draft EIS/EIR at 1-11. Consequently, evaluation of the Project's consistency with these aspects of the City of Oakland General Plan is neither necessary nor possible at this time. Chapter 12 of the Draft EIS/EIR satisfies NEPA and CEQA requirements to consider and evaluate issues relating to public safety. Similarly, Chapter 9 adequately considers and evaluates the potential effects/impacts on parking if the Juvenile Justice Facility is develoPed on the Glenn Dyer site. Development of the Juvenile Justice Facility on the Glenn Dyer site would be consistent with PolicieS N2.3 and N2.5 and Objective N2, and with Policy OS-2.1, because it would result in the develOpment of an institutional facility within the CitY of Oakland that prOvides a County-wide benefit, on the site of a similar, existing institutional facility. As a County-serving institution, the Juvenile Justice Facility would serve and benefit the entire City of Oakland, in addition to the rest of the County. See Draft EIS/EIR at 2-2 through 2-3. Its development on the Glenn Dyer site would not displace or adversely impact any existing parks or open space. As explained above, the design elements of the FaCility have yet to be determined. Therefore, the opportunity continues to exist to design the facility in a manner that is appropriate to serve the community and will meet the City's General Plan applicable policies and objectives. If the Glenn Dyer Facility alternative is selected for implementation, the County would include the City of Oakland in discussions as the design/build process progressed. Response to Comment 8-5: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR is amended as follows: Page 4-18, paragraph 6 The Glenn Dyer Detention Center site is located in an area zoned C-40 (Community ThoroUghfare Commercial Zone), and is adjacent to Jefferson Square park, an area zoned for open space and designated as a landmark. Within the C-40 zoning district, "extensive impact civic activities" are permitted if the Planning Commission approves a conditional use penuit. The Project would qualify as a Major Conditional Use Permit due to the size of the site and proposed additional building square footage, and the type of proposed use. See Figure 4.9 for zoning designations at the site and vicinity. Response to Comment 8-6: Under cEQA, aiead agency is required to evaluate the project's inconsistencies with adopted plans and policies. However, inconsistencies with plans and policies are not considered Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-37 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments environmental impacts under CEQA; an inconsistency between a proposed project and an applicable plan is a legal determination and not a physical impact on the environment. (See Zischke and Kostka, Practice under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 12.36.) The EIS/EIR evaluated whether the inconsistencies, however, might indicate potential environmental impacts. As noted in the Draft EIS/EIR, and also re-stated in Response to Comment 8-4 above, the County is not required to comply with land use, zoning and building requirements of any of the local jurisdictions in which the project may be located, including cities and the County itself. Nevertheless, the Draft EIS/EIR does include an analysis of whether the proposed facilities are consistent with major aspects of local general plans, zoning and related policies, including those primary components of the City of Oakland General Plan. However, potential inconsistencies would not prevent implementation of the project. Environmental consequences associated with potential inconsistencies are addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR. The potential inconsistencies itemized in this comment do not result in additional environmental consequences not addressed elsewhere in the document. The Gleam Dyer alternative does not lack a pedestrian orientation that would lead to significant environmental effects. As shown on Figure 3-8 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the street frontage along the facility would be landscaped with street trees to enhance the pedestrian environment and promote pedestrian activity. The lack of 24-hour public activity at the facility would not result in adverse environmental consequences. Mitigation Measure 9.2.3 identifies a recommended approach for resolving potential parking shortfalls at the site, including development of additional parking facilities under the elevated portions of the 1-880 freeway north of Jefferson Street. The Glenn Dyer alternative would be capable o£meeting the basic program objectives, but would not meet the optimal configuration of space for the Juvenile Justice Facility. The environmental impacts associated with additional sites needed to support those elements of the program that could not be met at this site are fully addressed elsewhere in the Draft EIS/EIR. Potential impacts to the adjacent Jefferson Square Park are more fully addressed in Response to Comment 8-9 below. The reuse of the currently closed North County Jail would not contribute to existing blight, but instead would restore this site to an active use. Continued closure of the North County Jail without a reuse of this site may contribute to existing blight. Given that there are no additional environmental consequences associated with this alternative that would require mitigation, there is no need for re-circulation of the document, and this alternative is not eliminated from further consideration on the basis of undisclosed environmental consequences. Recirculation of the EIS/EIR is not required because the Draft EIS/EIR evaluated Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-38 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments the Project's consistency with adopted plans, as well as the significant impact of the Proposed Action, and no new significant or substantially more severe impacts have been identified. Response to Comment 8-7: "Before" and "AfteTM renderings of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility are illustrated in Figures 3-7 and 3-8 of the Draft EIS~IR, while the massing of the proposed 1 O-story building adjacent to the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is represented in photographs labeled Figures 5-10, 5-11 and 5-i4. This set °F figUres adequately illUstrates how the site's visual characteristics would change if the Glenn Dyer site were chosen for a new Juvenile Justice Facility. Wind impaCts associated with the new building at the Glenn Dyer site would be considered less than significant, in that they would not be disruptive to pedestrians passing near the Glenn Dyer site. The proposed additiOn to the building for outdoor recreation use would for the most part be "wind-permeable," because the majority of its floors would be semi-outdoor recreational areas of an open air design, similar to the parking structure on the site. In addition, the building's design inCorporates beveled comers on all of its sides, thereby lessening the building's wind resistance and further reducing wind impacts at the sideWalk level. The predominant wind patterns in the area also mean that wind impacts would occur primarily on the faces of the building along Sixth Street, which is not a heavily used pedestrian corridor, and at the existing parking garage, which is not a sensitive location for pedestrian use. Shadows cast by the proposed Glenn DYer addition would have a less than significant impact on su~6~fiding land lJsesl B%ause the new building wOUld be built immediately adjacent to the existing structure and the addition to the existing structure would be only about 12 feet tall, shadows cast on surrounding areas would not be significantly different than the current shadow pattern. Response to Comment 8-8: The Glenn DYer Detention Facility is considered a potentially feasible alternative that is appropriately carried forward in the analysis. Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR addresses environmental justice and provides a context in which these considerations are discussed in more detail. That analysis concludes that there would be a significant unavoidable impact to the juvenile detainees due to the freeway noise that would impinge on the required outdoor recreation area. The Draft EIS/EIR makes clear that there are competing objectives for natural light and air versus noise insulation. While it is possible that architectural treatments such as heavy glazing around a portion of the outdoor area and interior sound absorbing material could reduce the noise to an accePtable level, detailed stUdy would be required and the effectiveness of those measures is uncertain. The County would have to make findings of overriding consideration if it approved the project at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility and did not have certain mitigation measures to address the noise impacts. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR page 2'39 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 8-9: Pages 15-31 and 15-32 of the Draft EIS/EIR includes a discussion ofpotentiaI adverse effects on the historic resources in the vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. The project was analyzed for effects that would constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resources or their character-defining features, consistent with professional practice in the field and applicable regulations. Although a marginal increase in shadow would be cast by new construction at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, this would not constitute a change to those resource-defining features, which in the case of the park relate primarily to its status as one of the oldest public parks in the City, not its specific design or use, which have changed substantially since its original construction. In addition, consultation with City staff regarding the use of the site during preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR indicated that the park is seldom used and the recreation center has not been available for use since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. A clarification is hereby made to page 15-32 of the Draft EIS/EIR: The proposed Project does not affect the physical characteristics that convey the significance of the historic districts, nor does the Project materially impact the individual National Register-eligible resources and local landmarks within the Old Oakland Historic District adjacent to the Project site. The historic resources are not directly altered, and the changes to the views to and from the historic resources are less than significant. Changes to the periods in which these resources would be in shadow cast by surrounding buildings, including increased shadow from the addition to the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, would not affect the resource-defining features. This includes impacts to thc, Grove-Lafayette Residential AP1, the St. Marg's Church Complex AP1, and the City landmark Jefferson Park. The addition to the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility would be .approximately 250 feet from the closest point of the park. The addition would increase the height of the existing building by approximately 12 feet and add an adjacent structure, .approximately 70 feet wide and 150 feet long, and approximately 25 feet taller than thc existing structure. These changes would increase existing shadow lengths cast on the park by about 100 feet (about 5,000 square feet) during the morning in the spring and fall. when the sun is Iow on the horizon and passes through mid-latitudes. Consistent with the City of Oakland's conclusions on other large projects in the downtown area that cast shadows on public historic parks (see the Oakland City Center Project Draft EIR, January_ 31, 2000), this would be a less than significant impact~ Response to Comment 8-10: The physical environmental setting at each of the alternative sites is described throughout the Draft EIS/EIR and is .considered in'the discussion of environmental justice to the extent it is relevant. Environmental justice is concerned with disproportionate effects on minority and low income persons. Table 16.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR identifies the presence of higher than average concentration of these classifications in the vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. The text on page 16-12 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended to more clearly state the manner in which the environmental effects on that community are considered less than significant, as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-40 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments The conversion of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility to house juvenile detainees would not have environmental justice impacts on the surrounding area, but could have signifiCant adverse effects on the detainees that cannot be readily mitigated. Regarding impacts to the surrounding area, although data about the residents in the communit~ around the facility indicates that a disproportionate share of them are of minority or low- income status, the impacts in this area are limited to the specific traffic, noise, air quality, and other physical impacts identified in the Summar~ Table and evaluated throughout this EIS/EIR. These impacts are addressed through mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid the impact in most cases, and are treated Similarly to the impacts and mitigation measures that would apply to development at other alternative sites that are not in areas disproportionately represented by minority or low-income persons. Responso to Comment 8-11' Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS/EIR evaluates the visual impacts associated with constructing the Glenn Dyer alternative. Wind impacts, as discussed in Response to Comment 8-7, would be considered less than significant in that they would not be disruptive to pedestrians passing near the Glenn Dyer site. Further, the design °fthe building ensures that it would be "wind- penr~eable." Shadow impacts are also briefly discussed in Response to Comment 8-7 and more fully addressed in Response to Comment 8-9. As discussed in these responses, the shadows cast by the proposed new building would not be significantly different than the current shadow pattern. Enviromnental justice impacts were analyzed for the Glenn Dyer alternative in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. No new significant information has been added, no new significant impacts have been identified, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the environmental effects of the project have been identified that warrant recirculation of the Draft EIS/EIR. The coUnty BOard of supervisors may not pre'determine the concluSiOns of the environmental analyses and the public input process by selecting a certain site as the only option, and therefore has delegated to the County departments responsible for conducting the analysis the responsibility for identifying a "preferred" alternative. On March 19, 2003, the Juvenile Justice Steering Committee recommended that the County implement a Modified San Leandro Alternative (described at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR). The committee's recommendation of a preferred alternative will be considered as part of the Board of Supervisors' final decision making process regarding selection of a site, the size of the facility, and allocation of funds for implementation, which must be delayed until the EIS/EIR is certified and adopted under the California Environmental Quality Act. The lead agencies have considered the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility a potentially feasible alternative that could meet most of the project objectives, and could be economically, legally and technically feasible, and has therefore remained as a candidate for consideration as a preferred alternative and as a potentially selected alternative. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-41 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 9: City of Dublin Response to Comment 9-1: The County and its consultant teams have attempted to coordinate the various planning, design, and environmental studies with the City of Dublin. Numerous meetings, telephone conversations, and letters have been exchanged, and the City has been an active participant in the various scoping meetings and public hearings on the projects that are evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR is intended to address the City's concerns and provide an adequate environmental assessment for the City to act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA when it conducts its independent review of the projects. Response to Comment 9-2: The lead agencies believe the Draft EIS/EIR is adequate and complete as an informational document in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Comments regarding specific areas of concern are addressed below. Recirculation is only required if"significant new information", as more specifically described in the Recirculation Master Response, is added to the EIS/EIR after publication of the draft but before certification. (See Recirculation Master Response). The commentor has not identified any significant new information that would require recirculation. Response to Comment 9-3: Section 15123(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a "brief" summary with language that is "as clear and simple as reasonably practical." The Project assessed in this Draft EIS/EIR is complex and in order to provide a clear overview of it, the Executive Summary includes Table S. 1. This table provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts among the six alternatives and an indication of whether mitigation measures would be required based on the significance of the identified impact. Additionally, page S-8 directs the reader to individual chapters for recommended mitigation measures. Although Section 15123(b)(1) does state that the mitigation measures should be identified in the Executive Summary, Section 15123(c) also states that the summary should not normally exceed 15 pages. The Executive Summary, without all the mitigation measures for each of the six alternatives, is 24 pages in length. Adding the mitigation measures would have resulted in an unwieldy "summary" that could have run 50 to 100 pages long. A mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP), which outlines how the mitigation measures in the EIS/EIR will be implemented for the selected project, must be adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. That plan will also provide the requisite summary of mitigation measures as they would apply to a specific project site. A draft of the impacts and mitigation measures that would be included for the preferred alternatives is included as an appendix to this Final EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-42 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-4: The statement to which the commentor objects is from the Executive Summary of the Draft EIS/EIR, and is not intended to constitute a specific detenrfination of consistency with any particular local land use plan. See page S-21. Rather, this comment conveys the County's determination that development on any of the alternative sites would, through careful planning and the implementation of appropriate design standards, be made consistent with the overall land use plans for that area. The specific analyses of the Project's consistency with the City of Dublin's land use plans are set forth in the Land Use And Planning chapter (Chapter 4) at pages 4-30 through 4-31 (analyzing the Project's consistency with the East Dublin Specific Plan) and at pages 4-35 and 4-36 (analyzing consistency with Dublin's land use designations applicable to Site 15A). At page 4-30 and 4-31, the County concludes that the Project, as a public facility, would be consistent with the East Dublin Specific Plan's land use designation of Public/Semi- Public for the East County Government Center site. Although the commentor states that there are questions as to whether this conclusion is Correct, it does not identify the nature of such questions or provide any basis for its purported disagreement. At pages 4-35 through 4-36, the Draft EIS/EIR acknowledges that the Project would not be consistent with the existing High Density Residential designation for Site 15A, but notes that if the City approves of the pending application to amend the General Plan designation for the site, the Project could be developed in a manner that would be consistent with the amended designation. Nonetheless, based on this comment, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page S-21, Growth Inducement The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice projects are intended to address documented needs for improved facilities, and would not induce subStantial population growth in the vicinity at any of the alternative sites considered in this EIS/EIR. Development at the sites evaluated would be consistent with overall land use plans for the areas, except at Site 15A. Under the 1993 Annexation A~eement betWeen the County of Alameda and City of Dublin, Site 15A is subject to the City of. Dublin's land use policies, Which do n°t Currently permit Public uses on this site. As discussed later in this report, the County has applied t° the City for a general plan' ' dm~rid~ent ~hat is Consistent With the proposed use (See page 4-35). See also Response to Comment 9-42. Response to Comment 9-5: The diScussion on Page S'23 adequately Summarizes the C°ntr°Versy Surrounding the Selection of a site. The specific environmental issues associated with each site, including environmental justice, transportation, noise and air quality due to the distance of the Dublin site from the urban centers of the County are addressed in the individual topical sections. Those sections address the comments submitted as part of the scoping process. The County's extensive site selection process is further described on pages 3-32 through 3-34 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-43 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-6: The commentor states that many of the mitigation measures require additional studies and environmental analysis after additional design information is developed. As the commentor notes, the County will select one of the alternatives and will complete the design concepts after Final EIS/EIR certification and adoption of a mitigation plan. CEQA permits mitigation measures to contain such additional studies and analysis that will aid in more specifically defining the implementation of the mitigation measure as further discussed in Deferred Mitigation Master Response. The Draft EIS/EIR is a project-level EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA. Future discretionary actions, if any, would be reviewed in accordance with the subsequent environmental review provisions under CEQA. Response to Comment 9-7: The Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) was inadvertently omitted fi'om the list of Responsible and Trustee Agencies on page 1-19 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The role of LAVWMA is described on pages 14-13, 14-16, and 14-26 of the Draft EIS/EIR. LAVWMA was included on the notification list for the scoping and Draft EIS/EIR. The text on page 1-9 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended as follows: · Port of Oakland · Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) · Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) · Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD) · East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Response to'Comment 9-8: Comment noted. Impact 16.1.5 (page 16-13) of the Draft EIS/EIR acknowledges that, based on the current pattern of arrests and home addresses of the detainees, a majority of the detainees' family members would have to travel a greater distance to participate in the detention and visitation process if the Juvenile Justice Facility was located in Dublin compared to other alternative sites. As discussed in Mitigation Measure 16.1.5, transit service enhancements would improve this access and ensure that the project obi ectives (which include providing ready access to detainees, their families, and staff and providing a facility that places a high priority on families and judicial case processing) are met. Site accessibility due to distance from existing populations is one of many factors considered in the selection of a new juvenile hall site. The Dublin's site greater distance from existing population centers is not a sufficient reason to exclude this alternative from consideration. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-44 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-9: Despite the City of Dublin's contentions, the County believes the Dublin site offers a Suitable alternative for meeting all project objectives and has included it in the environmental review on this basis. Response to Comment 9-10: The County of Alameda's mission with respect to the juvenile justice system, as stated on page 2-2, includes the important goals of protecting children, preventing juvenile crime, providing for public safety, and rehabilitating juvenile offenders. Locating the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility near other existing j ail facilities does not conflict with this mission. Since the detainees will be predominately within the Juvenile Justice Facility, the social interactions that occur inside it likely may have a nmch larger impact on them than the presence of other nearby jail facilities. Within the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility, activities such as group activities and meals, recreation, schooling and family visits will foster a homelike environment. In Impact 16.1.5 (see page 16-13), the Draft EIS/EIR acknowledges that, based on the current pattern of arrests and home addresses for detainees, a majority of the detainee's family members would have to travel a greater distance to participate in the detention and visitation process if the Juvenile Justice Facility was located in Dublin compared to other alternative sites. As discussed in Mitigation Measure 16.1.5, transit service enhancements would improve this access. Response to Comment 9-11: A specific objective to assure Dublin residents that the visual impacts of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility is not required. These concerns are specifically addressed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS/EIR, which is devoted to visual quality and aesthetics. For example, at the East County Government Center site, a combination of site design (to locate the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility away from existing residential development) and visual screening with berms and plantings are among the design features that would "generally deemphasize the new Juvenile Justice Facility vis-h-vis the surrounding community" (page 5-42). At Site 15A, the proposed facility would be consistent with the type, height and mass of existing nearby buildings (page 5- 43). At least two objectives listed on page 2-2 already address the issue of providing for adequate safety and seCurity for adjacent properties. These include "providing for public safety" (in the mission statement) and "assure community protection." No additional objective is required. Response to Comment 9-12: The square footages listed in Table 2.1 include all developed area proposed as part of the Juvenile Justice Facility. Staff areas and support functions are part of each of the major project components. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR page 2-45 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-13: The listed objective is for a facility that symbolizes the role and importance of the judicial system, resulting in a new building that will be visible to the users of the facility as they approach the facility as well as a dignified and monumental architectural presence that is visible to the community. Response to Comment 9-14: A specific objective to the effect that the East County Hall of Justice will not result in economic detriment to the City of Dublin is not required. The economic implications of locating correctional facilities in communities in general, and for each of the alternative sites, is discussed in detail in Impact 4.4 of the Draft EIS/EIR (page 4-42). Response to Comment 9-15: Space for probate examiner's use will be provided within the building when needed (for example, in a conference room). A dedicated office is not provided for the probate examiners. Response to Comment 9-16: The project costs listed in the Draft EIS/EIR are current and include development costs. Fees for City review process and DSRSD and Zone 7 Utility hook up fees have been included for the East County Hall of Justice. Response to Comment 9-17: Comment regarding the design/build process is noted. See Response to Comment 9-18, below. Response to Comment 9-18: The costs of mitigation are being estimated and included in the project budget. For example, the project budget includes dollars for relocating wetlands. The design review of the project by the City of Dublin is planned to occur before the design-build contractor is selected. The final design is being prepared by the bridging architects, not the design-build contractor, consequently the City's comments can be incorporated into the final design, before it is turned over to the design- build contractor. The design-build contractor will be preparing final construction documents for a project design that will have already been approved by the City. The Annexation Agreement grants the City the right to review the designs of any Project constructed on both the East County Government Center site and Site 15A, pursuant to the City's site development review process. With respect to Site 15A, the Annexation Agreement also requires any development by the County to comply with the City's land use rules and regulations. The County assumes, and the Draft EIS~IR states, that Dublin's design review will proceed according to the procedures described in Dublin's site development review ordinance, subject to any limitations imposed by the County's regulatory exemption under State law. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-46 ChaPter 2: Responses to Comm.ents Response to Comment 9-19: Page 3-19 of the Draft EIS/EIR describes the ProjeCt as Proposed at the East County Government Center site and includes a brief discussion of the propOsed berm along Gleason Drive to visually screen the site: Page 3-23 discusses the Project as proposed for Site 15A. Further details about how the Project WOuld be sited to ensure that the existing visual cllaracter of each site and its SQrr0undings are not significantly impacted are discussed in Impacts 5.1.5 and 5~ 1.6, respectively (pages 5-42 to 5-43). See also Response to Comment 9-20, below. Response to Comment 9-20: As stated on page 5-42 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the East County Government Center would be designed in a way that would not substantially degrade the site or its surroUndings, including existing nearby residential uses along Gleason Drive. The Juvenile Justice Facility would be placed on'tlie westernmost comer 0fthe site along Gleason Drive, Broder Boulevard and Arnold Road. This would place it farthest from the nearby residences, where it would be visually screened by constructing it on a pad approximately level with Gleason Drive, and then building up landscaped berms along the GleaSOn Drive frontage. Employees working at offices across Gleason Drive from the Juvenile Justice Facility would see a landscaped berm in front of the Facility, as well as a portion of the building's fagade. The fagade would be designed in a way that is very similar in style to the walls that enclose the nearby residential neighborhood. The landscaped berm, together with the building's massing, would provide a degree of visual screening of the existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility equal to that provided by the existing berm on the site. MOre details about how the each building would be sited t° reduce its visual impact are provided On page 5-42 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The site's proposed Open design at the main aCCess intersection of Gleason and Hacienda would allow nearby residential uses to see the proposed East County Hall of Justice. This building would be the 5i~te,.s signature building, displaying a refined, modem style that would enhance the viSUal qUalitY °fthe area. The site alterations that may be needed to site the Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center site are, as the commentor notes, discussed on page 3-19 of the Draft EIS/EIR. it is a general discussion th'at explains the need to grade; to remove a portion of the existing berm (on the northern end of the site); and to create and landscape a new berm (along the site's southern edge on Gleason Drive). More detailed grading plans will be provided when fully~d~vel0p~d. Preliminary estimates are that up to 70,000 cubic yards ofmateriaI may require hauling off-site as a result constructing the Juvenile Justice Facility at this site. The imPacts of conStmction2related activities On air quality, including "emissions from large trucks hauling materials to and from the site" are discussed Impact 11.1 (see page 11-4). The impacts of ConStruction-related activities on noise are discussed in Impact 10.3 (see page 10-29). Mitigations include requirements for scheduling truck traffic to reduce noise impacts. The impact of truck traffic to haul soil off-site on increasing traffic in excess of local roadway and/or intersection capacity was not specifically addressed. However, this impact would be less Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR page 2-47 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments than significant. As shown on Table 9.18, the maximum number of weekday trips that the Juvenile Justice Facility (with 540 beds) at the East County Government Center site would generate is 3,925. Hauling soil off-site to construct the Juvenile Justice Facility would involve the generation of approximately 1800 trips (assuming approximately 40 cubic yards of soil can be removed by a truck and trailer per trip). This is less than half the nmr~ber of trips that the Juvenile Justice Facility itself would generate over the long-term. Further, truck trips to haul soil off-site would occur only during the grading and excavation period, which would likely be less than the 18 months scheduled for constructing the Juvenile Justice Facility. These trips would be less than the total daily trips projected to occur at occupancy of the facility, and therefore are consistent with the traffic analysis conducted for the project. On the East County Hall of Justice portion of the site, pages 3-23 and page 5-42 include a general discussion on how this facility would be sited at the East County Government Center site. Grading details have not been finalized, but the following provides additional preliminary information. Cut and fill on the East County Hall of Justice portion of the East County Government Center site would be balanced. An approximately 340-foot wide section of the existing berm on the north end of the site will be removed under the footprint of the building and the excavated material will be used to widen the remaining 650 feet of the berm to form the upper parking terrace. No off-haul of excess fill would be needed. The East County Hall of Justice portion of the site would be graded to accommodate the building and parking on two gently sloping terraces. The lower terrace, which slopes up from Gleason Drive, would have an average elevation of about 380 feet above sea level. This is approximately the same as the existing elevation. The lower terrace would extend along the entire southern side of the site and wrap around the west side of the building to encompass the secure parking and loading area behind the building. The parking on this terrace would be screened from view from Gleason Drive by a low, planted berm along Gleason Drive, which would be continuous along the entire frontage of the site except where the driveways connect to Gleason Drive. The higher terrace, which would be constructed on the existing berm and which would provide access to the building entrance, would rise to an elevation of 398 feet to 405 feet at the north side of the parking lot. (The top of the existing berm has an existing elevation of 405 feet in this area of the site.) The upper terrace would extend along the entire north side of the site and would wrap around the east side of the building. The existing eucalyptus trees along Broder Boulevard, which are planted on the existing berm, would remain. The East County Hall of Justice building itself would have a main floor level of 393.5 feet above sea level, which would be accessed from the upper terrace. There would be a lower floor at elevation 379.5 feet, which would be accessed directly from Broder Boulevard in the back of the building for secure deliveries to the building. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-48 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-21: The 850 Parking Spaces needed for East CountY Hall of Justice are provided on'site. See page 9- 113 of the Draft EIS/EIR for additional description of East County Hall of Justice parking. Response to Comment 9-22: The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility's southern elevation at the East County Government Center site is included in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS/EIR. Landscaping would also be provided on the berm, further screening the wall from view, consistent with the description provided on page 5-42 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response t° Comment 9-23i~ Comment noted. Tlie Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 3-33, paragraph 2: As per the RFP, this Proposed Action requires a minimum of 20-acre clear site located in Alameda County. To ensure accessibility to a wide range of people, the site must be located Within one and a half miles of an existing BART station and must be easily accessible to other transportation routes, including bus service and access to freeways. The slope of the terrain cannot exceed five percent. The site must not be located within the Alquist-Priolo study zones or on any other known earthquake fault. The soils must be of substantial bearing value and not subject to liquefaction or ground failure. The site must be free of hazardous materials. The results of the review's team assessment are giVen in Table 3.5. In addition to these physical factors, the RFP stated that the County's final acceptance of the site is contingent upon the local government's approval of the proposed facility and the community's acceptance of it. This modification does not alter the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-24: The criteria for site selection did not specificallY include the prOximity to client base. Instead, one of the objectives (among many) for the Juvenile Justice Facility includes to "provide ready access for juveniles, their families and professionals working within the juvenile justice system" (see page 2-2) and Response to Comment 9-8. The Commentor does not note how the client base'w°Uld be different between the East County Hall of Justice and the Juvenile Justice Facility, and why this would be relevant to environmental impacts. Both facilities must provide a secure environment for in-custody or convicted juvenile offenders, respectivelY; must address the needs of the families of these detainees; and must provide space for professional and support staff. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-49 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-25: The commentor's comments are noted regarding the Transit Center Project. This project was approved after the County initiated preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Transit Center is included as a cumulative project in the cumulative analysis contained in Chapter 17 of the EIS/EIR analysis. The Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended as follows: Page 4-9, paragraph 2; Property north and east of Site 15A was recently sold by the County and developed with private office complexes, including Microdental and Sybase. Other property in the vicinity is vacant and is still owned by the County of Alameda. To the south is property known as Site 16A and 16B. To the southwest is a 91-acre site known as the Dublin Transit Center. The EIR for the Transit Center Proiect was approved bY the City of Dublin in November of 2002, and this site is planned for development of approximately 1,500 high-density apartments, 2 million square feet of office space, 70,000 square feet of' office space, and a neighborhood park. The plmmed neighborhood park site is located on a site known as Site "F", immediately west of Site 15A on the westerly side of Arnold Road. "~-~ immediateb ...... * ~*' ~;*~ ~ 5 ^~ i ...... --~-' ~ .......... ~;+~ p, Army's Parks Reserve Forces Training Area is located further west and northwest of the Site 15A and Site F, across Arnold Road. This information pertaining to the Dublin Transit Center is included as Part of the cumulative development scenario for all alternatives located in Dublin, and does not change or mOdify any environmental analyses or conclusions as contained in the Draft document. Response to Comment 9.26: Comment noted. At page 4-9, the Draft EIS/EIR states that the County recognizes the applicability of certain local land use principles to Site 15A, and notes that the applicable principles are described later in Chapter 4. The applicable land use principles are then fully and adequately described at pages 4-29 through 4-30 (under the heading "Annexation Agreements) and pages 4-35 through 4-37 (under the heading "Site 15A"). These descriptions amply satisfy the disclosure requirements of NEPA and CEQA. Response to Comment 9-27: The discussion on Annexation Agreements beginning on page 4-28 of the Draft EIS/EIR accurately represents the "Agreement Between County of Alameda (COUNTY), Surplus Property Authority (AUTHORITY) and City of Dublin (CITY) Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Upon Annexation, Provision of Services and Other Matters" dated May 4, 1993. The portion of this Agreement pertaining to Site 15A is found in Part 8. Land Use Approvals- Santa Rita Property. Site 15A is located within what was defined under this agreement as the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, consisting of approximately 613 acres east of Arnold Road, south of Gleason Drive and west of Tassajara Road. Part 8 of the Agreement provides: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-50 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments "8. Land Use Approvals- SANTA RITA PROPERTY Not WithStahdinX any rights Which it may POsseSS as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as follows with respect to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY: a) Any development or use of the property shall comply with all CITY rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other enactments relating to land use, including but not limited to CITY'S general plan, any applicable specific plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Mechanical Code and Housing Code. b) CITY, COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY may, but need not, enter into a development agreement of the sort authorized by Government Code 65864 et. seq. prior to any development of the property." As stated at page 4-30 of the Draft EIS/EIR, Part 8 of the Agreement requires any deVelopment by the County on Site 15A to comply with all Dublin's land use laws. The Draft EIS/EIR also recognizes that a General Plan amendment would be necessary to develop the East County Hall of JUstice on Site 15A. Such an amendment Would change the land use designation of this site from its current designation of"High Density Residential" to a land use category that is compatible with the East County Hall of Justice's proposed use. If the City of Dublin believes that the most appropriate land use designation for this use is "Public/Semi Public", then the County would amend its application to change its request from "Campus Office" to "Public/Semi-Public". However, the description of the project in question, the East County Hall of Justice, would not be changed by the selection of a more appropriate land use category. Similarly, the environmental review for this project as contained in the Draft EIS/EIR would not be affected by any potential change in the requested land use category. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects of the East County Hall of Justice facility, and its underlying land use designation would not affect the environmental conclusions. See Response to Comment 6-6. The portion of this Agreement pertaining to the East County Government Center site is found in Part 9. Land Use Approvals- County Governmental Property and County Sheriff Property. The EAST COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Site is located within what Was defined under this agreement as the COUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, consisting of approximately 214 acres east of Arnold Road, north of Gleason Drive and west of Tassajara Creek. As noted in Part 9 of the Agreement, "9. Land Use APProvals- COUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY "Not withstanding any rights which it may possess as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as follows with respect to the COUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and the SHERIFF PROPERTY: a) Except as set forth in SUbsection (d) beloTM, any COUNTY governmental uses PropoSed for either party shall be reviewed by CITY Planning Commission for conformity with Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-51 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments CITY's General Plan in accordance with Government Code section 65402 and shall be subject to site development review in accordance with CITY's zoning ordinance. COUNTY shall be the lead agency for CEQA review. CITY and COUNTY will share the costs associated with processing site development review equally. Any governmental uses proposed for either property, other than County governmental uses, shall be processed in accordance with CITY's rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other enactments relating to land use, including but not limited to CITY'S generat plan, any applicable specific plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Mechanical Code and Housing Code. COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY will assure that governmental uses of the property by any governmental entity other than the County are subject to CITY's land use rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other enactments by inclusion of a condition to that effect in any deed to, or lease of, such property or other similar mechanism. If the land use designation of any portion of either property is proposed to be changed or subsequently changed to allow non-governmental use of the property, the provision of section 8 of this Agreement shall be applicable to such property. In such event, CITY will provide municipal services of the type normally provided by CITY to such property, as provided in section 7, and C;[TY will receive tax revenues derived from or attributable to such property, as provided in section 3(b) and section 4. No site development review shall be required for any uses of the COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY by the Sheriff's Department as long as the use is within the perimeter of the existing County Jail property or other existing Sheriff Department facilities, such as the existing training facility. e) CITY agrees to process any review pursuant to Government Code 65402 and site development review required by section (a) as expeditiously as possible. As stated at page 4-30 of the Draft EIS/EIR, Part 9 of this Agreement provides that any governmental use of the East County Government Center site shall be subject to a general plan consistency review by the City pursuant to California Government Code Section 65402, and to site development review pursuant to the City's zoning ordinance. The comment that the Surplus Property Authority is also a party to the Annexation Agreement, that the Annexation Agreement describes the East County Govermnent Center site as the "County Governmental Property," and that the Draft EIS/EIR may not be sufficient to support any future review by the City of the Site 15A alternative are hereby noted. The County disagrees that the Draft EIS/EIR may not be sufficient to support any future review by the City. Response to Comment 9-28: We note that the City of Dublin identified a range of mitigation measures applicable to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Those mitigation measures were formulated to respond to program-level considerations at the tine of the overall land use plan approval. The mitigation Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-52 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments measures identified in the Juvenile Justice Facility EIS/EIR are consistent with the pertinent mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIS/EIR, and sPecifically mitigate the impacts of the Proposed Action at a project-level. Response to Comment 9-29: Comment noted. This graphics error is amended to indicate the current General Plan land use designation on the adjacent Sybase property is Campus Office, not High Density Residential. p ......,~ ~r)~p m~d GP Additionally, the source of the map is amended to indicate "Based on -.ut, ........ Amendment", as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-30: The discussion on Annexation Agreements beginning on page 4-28 of the Draft EIS/EIR accurately represents the "Agreement Between County of Alameda (COUNTY), Surplus Property Authority (AUTHORITY) and City of Dublin (CITY) Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Upon Annexation, Provision of Services and Other Matters" dated May 4, 1993. Nonetheless, the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended by adding the following text after the second paragraph on page 4-30, immediately preceding the heading "Land Use Designations": part 8 0~' ~he May 4; 1993 Am~exation Agreement states: 8. Land Use Approvals- SANTA RITA PROPERTY Not withstanding any rights Which it may possess as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as follows with respect to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY: a) Any develol~ment or use of the property shall comply with all CITY rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other enactments relating to land use, including but not limited tO CITY'S general plan, any applicable specific plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Mechanical Code and Housing Code. b) CITY, COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY may, but need not, enter into a development agreement of the sort authorized by Government Code 65864 et. seq. prior to any development of the property." Part 9 of the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement states: 9. Land Use ApproVals'cOUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY "Not Withstanding any rights which it may possess as a California cOunty, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as foll°Ws With respect to the COUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and the SHERIFF PROPERTY: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of JustiCe - Final EIS/EIR page 2-53 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Except as set forth in subsection (d) below, any COUNTY governmental uses proposed for either party shall be reviewed by CITY Planning Commission for conformity with CITY's General Plan in accordance with Government Code section 65402 and shall be subject to site development review in accordance with CITY's zoning ordinance. COUNTY shall be the lead agency for CEQA review. CITY and COUNTY will share the costs associated with processing site development review equally. Any governmental uses proposed for either property, other than County governmental uses, shall be processed in accordance with CITY's rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other enactments relating to land use, including but not limited to CITY'S general plan, any applicable specific plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Mechanical Code and Housing Code. COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY will assure that governmental uses of the property by any governmental entity other than the County are subject to CITY's land use rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other enactments by inclusion of a condition to that effect in any deed to, or lease of, such property or other similar mechanism. If the land use designation of any portion of either property is proposed to be changed or subsequently changed to allow non-governmental use of the property, the provision of section 8 of this Agreement shall be applicable to such property. In such event, CITY will provide municipal services of the type normally provided by CITY to such prOPerty, as provided in section 7, and CITY will receive tax revenues derived from or attributable to such property, as provided in section 3(b) and section 4. No site development review shall be required for any uses of the COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY by the Sheriff's Department as long as the use is within the perimeter of the existing County dail property or other existing Sheriff Department facilities, such as the existing training facility. CITY agrees to process any review pursuant to Government Code 65402 and site development review required by section (a) as expeditiously as possible." Response to Comment 9-31: The Draft EIS/EIR is not misleading with respect to the content or meaning of Section 9 of the Annexation Agreement. Section 9 applies to the East County Government Center site, but not to Site 15A. The commentor acknowledges that Section 9 "says nothing either way about whether proposed use should comply with the General Plan." Consequently, the statement in the Draft EIS/EIR that Section 9 does not require that a use proposed for the East County Government Center site comply with the General Plan is not misleading. Page 4-28 of the Draft EIS/EIR acknowledges that under Section 9, any governmental use of the East County Government Center site by the County is subject to site development review in accordance with the City's Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-54 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments zoning ordinance. Pursuant to Response to Comment 9-30, the Draft EIS/EIR has been amended to state specifically and in full the precise requirements of Section 9. Response to Comment 9-32: Comment nOted. With minor exceptions (such as the land use designation of the adjacent Sybase property), the 1993 EDGPA and the City of Dublin General Plan are consistent, and such change does not materially affect the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9.33: Contrary to the commentor s assertzons, the Draft EIS/EIR refe s to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, which was adopted and incorporated into the City of Dublin General Plan. FOr example, pages 4-28 and 4-31 and 4-35 describe the Proposed Action's consistency with both the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the EaStern Dublin General Plan Amendment (as incorporated into the City of Dublin General Plan). The c°mmentor's comments regarding additional General Plan PoliCies are nOted. Although the County is not subject to DUblin's General Plan, the follOwing the propOSed Action was reViewed for consistency with the following General Plan policies applicable to the Eastern Dublin area in WhiCh the East County Government Center site and Site 15A would be located. The following policies are hereby added to the text on page 4-33 of the Draft EIS/EIR: General Plan Policies Pertaining t° Eastern Dublin: Implementing Policy 3. J.D: Encourage an efficient and higher intensity use of the flat and gently sloping portions of the planning area as a means of minimizing grading requirements and potential impacts to environmental and aesthetic resources. Guiding Policy 5. I.L: Provide an integrated multi-modal circulation system that provides efficient vehicular circulation While encouraging pedestrian, bicycle, transit and other non-automobile-oriented transportation alternatives. Implementing POliCY 5. i:Mi provide ContinuitY with eXisting streets, include sufficient capaCity for projected traffic, and allow convenient access to planned land uses. DeVelopment of the Proposed Action on the East County Govermrtent Center site or Site 15 A would be consistent with each of these policies as the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice involves the development of a public institutional use on flat land within the planning area. Grading would be minimiZed as discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIS/EIR. The project would rely on an integrated multi-modal system for transportation access and would include adequate on-site circulation improvements. Additionally, the County would fund its Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-55 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments proportionate share of the cost of off-site regional roadway improvements as described in Chapter 9 of the EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-34: The development intensity of the East County Government Center alternative as calculated in the Draft EIS/EIR is appropriately determined based on the development capacity of the entire 88.5- acre County Center site, and not some portion thereof. Averaging the densities of individual buildings within the total site provides an accurate representation of the development intensity being proposed. Using the allowed mid-range FAR of 0.25, approximately 964,000 square feet of total development could occur within the 88.5-acre County Center site. Since only approximately 84,000 square feet of space currently exist on this site, the remaining maximum development potential within the County Center site is aboUt 880,000 square feet of new space. The East County Government Center alternative includes development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility of about 425,000 square feet, and the East County Hall of Justice with a total gross square footage of approximately 195,000 square feet (for a total of 630,000 square feet). This development intensity is well below the City-proscribed mid-range intensity at an FAR of 0.25. This development would be consistent with the EDSP development intensity assumptions. Response to Comment 9-35: The City of Dublin General Plan goal is specifically, "To create a well-defined hierarchy of neighborhood, community, and regional commercial areas, that serves the shopping, entertainment and service needs of Dublin and the surrounding area." The East County Government Center alternative would meet the service needs of the region, as well as those of Dublin, by providing a Juvenile Justice Facility that is needed for all County residents (including the residents of Dublin). The East County Hall of Justice would similarly serve the needs of the Tri-Valley region, including the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. Response to Comment 9-36: The referenced text on page 4-34 of the Draft EIS/EIR does not state nor imply any "override" process for either a general plan nor a zoning consistency analyses. That sentence states only that, if the Juvenile Justice Facility proposed for the East County Government Center site were demonstrated to be inconsistent with the City's zoning designation for the site, it could nonetheless be consistent with the City's general and specific plan designations for the site. This statement is a necessary conclusion of the consistency analysis, and is offered as further support for the statement at page S-21 of the Draft EIS/EIR, that "development at the sites evaluated would be consistent with the overall land use plans for the areas." The Draft EIS/EIR does imply that, according to California Planning Law (Section 65860(a)), the City zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan. In order to correct any misinterpretations of the Draft EIS/EIR, the last paragraph on page 4-34 of the document is revised as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-56 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Even if they were not specifically allowable Under the "A" zoning district, the City of Dublin considers its General Plan to be the EDSP as/ts primary policy document for this area and, as indicated abOve, the Juvenile JUstice Facility would be consistent with the General Plan. ;*° requ'~r~ments r,...,~ -, .... c~ City's ...... Response to COmment 9-37: The City's right under the AnnexatiOn Agreement to conduct Site Development Review (SDR) for th~ Pr0ject is adequatelY described at Pages 4-28 through 4-30 and page 4-35. The City's SDR process is a subsequent action pursuant to implementation of the project. This subsequent action Will rely on this environmental document for any necessary CEQA review related to physical environmental consequences. The fundamental purpose of this environmental document is to identify such potential physical environmental consequences, and recommend alternatives and or mitigation measures capable of reducing or avoiding such impacts. These physical effects are fullY addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR. A mOre detailed description of the City's SDR process is not necessary as a disclosure of environmental effects of the project. Response to Comment 9-38: Comment noted. If the City of Dublin believes that the most appropriate land use designation for the East County Hall °f Justice use is "Public/Semi Public", then the County woUld amend its application to change its request from "Campus Office" to "Public/Semi-Public". However, the description of the project in question, the East County Hall of Justice, would not be changed by the selection of a more appropriate land use category. Similarly, the environmental review for this project as contained in the Draft EIS/EIR would not be affected by any potential change in the requested land use category. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects of the East CountY Hall of JustiCe. Its underlYing land use designatiOn would not affect the environmental conclusions. Response to COmment 9;39: Comment regarding potential inconsistency with local land use designations is noted. See Re~pofise t° COmment 9:38; abOvel HOWever, it shOUld als° be noted that the prOpOsed East County Hall of Justice would include offices and other non-retail uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors or outdoor storage as per the description of the Campus Office land use designation. The County properly determined that the proposed East County Hall of Justice would meet this criteria. The commentor acknowledges that the proposed use is not excluded by the City's East Dublin Specific Plan. The potential traffic impacts of the Project in this location were fully and properly analyzed in the Dra~ E!S/EIR. See Draft E!S/E!R at pages 9-23 through 9-35, 9-57 through 9-79, and 9-101 through 9'109. See also Response to Comment 9-27. The following change to the last paragraph on page 4-36 of the Draft EIS/EIR is made in regard to required Consistency With the City °fDublin policies, rules and regUlations on Site 15A: Alameda County Juvenile JustiCe Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-57 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Site 15A is zoned PD by the City of Dublin. When development for areas subject to EDSP is proposed, the City requires a Stage 1 or 2 Plmmed Development application consistent with the General Plan and EDSP's land use designation. In conjunction with the assessment of the application, the City determines the appropriate zoning for the proposed development. Given that the proposed East County Hall of Justice would be a use that is inconsistent with the site's current General Plan land use designation, an appropriate general plan amendment, and any other development applications required pursuant to Section 8 of the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement, would be filed by the County. "'~+ .... ;°*~"* "';"' +~'~ City's r, ...... r~cc,,.~ ,~ .... designation, it is Response to Comment 9-40: According to the CEQA Guidelines published by the State Office of Planning and Research, the criteria of significance for determining a significant environmental impact is whether the project would result in "the physical division of an established community". The analysis of the Proposed Action's effects on the physical division of an established community focuses on the physical change in the environment associated with the project's impacts on surrounding land uses. Under either the East County Government Center or Site 15 A alternatives, the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would be located on vacant sites that have been planned for public institutional uses and in the vicinity of a mix of commercial and residential land uses which recently have been constructed or are under construction. Because the development of either alternative would not interfere with any physical connections among existing uses, the EIS/EIR concluded that from a land use perspective, the Proposed Action would not result in a physical division of an established community. The commentor's interpretation of a physical division of the community is not consistent with CEQA. However, The Draft EIS/EIR (page 16-13) recognizes that the East County Government Center alternative could have environmental justice impacts. These impacts are related to accessibility, including the time and cost of traveling longer distances in an area that is not as proximate to the majority of detainees nor as well served by transit as the more urban locations being considered in this EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-41: Comment noted. The extent to which any County development on the East County Government site will be subject to Dublin's land use policies will be determined by Section 9 of the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement. Pursuant to Response to Comment 9-30, the Draft EIS/EIR has been amended to state specifically and in full the precise requirements of Section 9. Any such potential inconsistency with the City of Dublin SDR process would not result in significant Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-58 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments effects on the environment other than as described elsewhere in the Draft EIS/EIR, and recirculation is not necessary. See Responses to Comments 6-6, 9-27 and 9-39. Response to Comment 9-42: The Draft EIS/EIR exPlains that the projeCt is inconsiStent With the Dublin General Plan land use designation under Impact 4.3.6. To remedy the inconsistency, the City would need to amend its General Plan to adopt a land use designation, such as Campus Office, supporting the establishment 0fthe Proposed ACtion at Site 15A. If the CitY does not amend the General P1an then the project would be inconsistent with the Dublin General Plan land use designation. The commentor also is referred to the Response to Comment 9-39 above. As explained in the Response to Comment 8-6, an inconsistency with an adopted plan is a legal determination and not an environmental impact under CEQA. As noted above, the Draft EIS/EIR identified the Proposed Action's inconsistency with the Dublin General Plan designation. Moreover, the Draft EIS/EIS indicates that the proposed inconsistency may be an indicator of other significant environmental effects evaluated in the EIS/EIR (see e.g., Impact 9.1,5), Thus, becau§e the inconsistency was identified in the EIS/EIR the inconsistencY itself, is not considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA, and the EIS/EIR evaluated the significant environmental impacts associated with the development of the Proposed Action on Site 15A, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts were identified triggering recirculation. The commentor is also referred to the Master Response regarding recirculation. Whether the land use amendment request is for Campus Office or Public/Semi- Public would not affect the conclusions of this analysis, and recirculation is not necessary. The commentor is also referred to the Master Response regarding recirculation. Response to Comment g-43: Generally, under NEPA and CEQA, socioeconomic effects are not considered physical environmental impacts sUbject to enVironmental review (40 C.F.R. § 1508.14; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15131). Consistent with NEPA and CEQA, however, the EIS/EIR evaluated the Proposed Action's physical effects on the environment caused in turn bY the economic and social changes assoCiated with the project. To evaluate the impacts on property values resulting from the Proposed Action, the Draft EIS/EIR relied on literature sources and empirical data regarding an existing jail facility in the project vicinity to evaluate the Proposed Action's impacts on propertY values. The Draft EIS/EIR bases its analysis of effects on the surrounding land uses and their property values, in part, on factual information regarding the effects of the nearby Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility on property values. As this data demonstrates, single family home transactions in the vicinitY indicate that median home sale prices in a nearbY reSidential area south of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility grew at a faster average annual pace (17 percent) than prices for either neW homes or resales in the rest of Dublin (6 percent and 13 percent, respectively) (Draft EIS/EIR, page 4-47). Contrary to the commentor's assertions, Impact 4.4.5 in the Draft EIS/EIR explains that the Proposed Action would be within the line of sight of residential uses near Hacienda Drive and Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-59 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Gleason Drive and further explains how the East County Hall of Justice effectively would screen the Juvenile Justice Facility from the neighborhood (see page 4~54). The EIS/EIR also evaluates the need for buffers, screening and the design of the facilities in terms of their ability to minimize impacts on the surrounding land uses. The impact conclusions were not, however, based on the impacts at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility as the commentor suggests. Impact 4.5 evaluates the combined effects on the surrounding community of the Proposed Action in combination with the Santa Rita facilities. Specifically, this analysis evaluates the cumulative impacts associated with the risk of increased criminal activity in the vicinity of the East County Government Center and Site 15A. Response to Comment 9-44: The employment projections as contained in the Draft EIS/EIR are not vague, but are specifically calculated based on the architectural program m~d functional needs of the facilities, as described on pages 2-2 through 2~9 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The specific staffing levels at the Juvenile Justice Center are projected to include 145 detention staff (working over three daily shifts), 120 probation administration staff, 110 court staff and 82 other personnel related to the operations of the facility. Possible future expansion to 540 beds and six courts would increase employment to approximately 550 persons. The specific staffing levels at the East County Hall of Justice are projected to include approximately 316 personnel working in the judicial functions of the courtrooms and related spaces, court administration, clerk of the court, jury services, probate examiners, family and children's services, information technology, district attorney, public defender, probation, court security, in-custody holding, volunteer services and ancillary support services. As noted on page 17-1 o f the Draft EIS/EIR, "Employment at any of the sites would be relatively small in comparison to the overall level of activity in the vicinity. Many of the employees (approximately 450 to 550 staff at the Juvenile Justice Facility, and approximately 300 staff at the East County Hall of Justice) would be drawn primarily from the existing labor supply serving these County functions, and limited new housing would be required to serve new employees. Considered in the context of Alameda County and the individual communities in which the projects could be located, the projects do not represent the introduction of large employment or economic generators. The second paragraph under Impact 4.6 is intended to refer the reader to the appropriate chapters within the document where the increased demand for transportation facilities and public services associated with the project are fully addressed (i.e., in Chapter 9: Transportation, Chapter 13: Public Services and Chapter 14: Public Utilities). These chapters include the analysis and evidence to support the conclusions state therein. This paragraph refers to impacts of increased daytime activity at the site, which includes the employees and visitors discussed in the paragraph that precedes it. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hail of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-60 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9.45: The issue pertaining to the potential impacts of the East County Government center altemative on surrounding land uses, including the compatibility with nearby residential areas, is most directly addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR on pages 4-53 and 4-54. The conclusions of this analysis indicate the following: · The East County Government Center site is located near diverse land uses that include the Emerald Park reSidential neighborhood. · Academic literature and analyses of property values near the existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility facilities indicates that adverse effects on property values are unlikely. · The site orientati°n and the design °fthe proposed juvenile juStice FacilitY and East County Hall of Justice would minimize impacts on the character of the existing residential neighborhood. · The juvenile juStice FaCilitY wOUld OCcUpy the weStern Porti0n or the site, which is the farthest from the residential neighborhood located in neighbOrhoods near Hacienda Drive ~d Glea~6fi Drivel TheS~ neighbOrhOOds are lOCated behind SOUndWalls, and haVe limited views to the western end of the site. The East County Hall of Justice would occupy the central and eastern portion of the lot, effectively screening the Juvenile Justice Facility 'fr°m the neighborhOOd, · The two-story height of the Juvenile JUstice Facility would be the same height or lower than the existing light industrial/office buildings at Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive. · The outdoor recreation areas are planned as an interior courtyard to minimize the use of exterior fen~ing. A small landscaped berm would be developed around the southern edge ' 6f the site tO screen the perimeter Wall from View and the structUre would be depressed into the site as the natural grade rises from west to east. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that the East County Government Center site Would not adversely affect, or be incompatible with nearby residential areas. Response to Comment 9-46: N0 specific construction phasing schedule has been established by the County. As indicated on page 3-19 0fthe Draft EIS/EIR, "the projects that make up the Proposed Action are being considered together in one combined EIS/EIR because the County first proposed developing the projects on the East County Government Center Site in Dublin. That proposal would have linked the Project comPonents as cumulative developments that relied on each other for proper site planning, infrastructure, and development, and would have been implemented in approximately the same time frame. HoweVer, one project coUld go forward Without the other, So long as the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-61 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments implications for the other Project is considered in the development of the East County Government Center site." Response to Comment 9-47: The Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center Bridging Documents: Volume 1, prepared for Alameda County by MVE & Partners/Rosser International, Inc., provide more detailed information regarding site design rationale at the East County Government Center site. The third paragraph on page 5-42 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended to include this information, as follows: Organization of the detention portion of the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center is predicated on both site and functional relationships that establish much of the internal organization of the complex. The site has its impact in its relationship to the surrounding community and its context. The County, early on, determined that the facility would be primarily oriented to and accessed from Broder Boulevard. It would be screened from Gleason Drive in order to minimize its visual impact on the adjacent residential and commercial properties south of the site. As a result, the complex would orient its public face toward the intersection of Broder and Arnold Road - the northwest comer of the property. Also, the Detention Center would largely face inward, with windows facing exterior recreation areas, not outward from the facility. These exterior areas would be screened by the buildings themselves, which in turn would be shielded by bermed/landscaped areas running the length of the site along Gleason. The Courts and Administration buildings make up the public face of the Project and would be oriented toward the intersection of Broder and Arnold. Both buildings would be two stories tall, and would screen the detention portion from public view. The Juvenile Justice Complex is separated from the East County Hall of Justice to the east by a service drive, which would provide access to the central plant related functions. A landscaped berm would completely screen Juvenile Hall from the entrance plaza in front of the East County Hall of Justice at ground level. The commercial buildings located +/-250 feet to the south would be separated from the Juvenile Justice Center by Gleason Boulevard and a landscaped earth berm. The residential community east of Hacienda Drive is located +/-400 feet from the southeast comer of Juvenile Hall. although this comer of the building is completely screened from view by a landscaped berm. The closest visible Juvenile Hall wall and building elements would be at a distance of+/-600 feet. Architectural Character: The Juvenile Justice Center is designed to express the civic and educational nature of its function, while providing Alameda County with a building asset of enduring and understated beauty. No specific style is pursued in the design beyond ..expressing the program and climatic influences in a straightforward contemporary manner. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-62 Chapter 2: Res ponses to Comments Exterior Finishes: Exterior building materials would be local from California or the western United States. The courts and probation structures would be clad in several shades and textures of sandstone in colors compatible with the Alameda County landscape of grassy hills. The Juvenile Hall structures would be clad in concrete masonry units of colors compatible with the sandstone used on areas most visible by the public. Relationship to Adiacent Areas: An important consideration in the design is the relationship of building volumes to the existing one and two level neighboring structures. The predominant building mass of the Juvenile Justice Complex is intended to be low enough to be screened from view with landscape. The taller two story courts and probation volumes are located in the western portion of the site most distant from the residential areas. Landscape Design: The primary intent of the landscape design for the Juvenile Justice Center is mostly the visual screening of non-public building areas such as the housing clusters. This would be accomplished through an undulating berm, which would function as a linear park along Gleason. The landscape design is inspired by the native vegetation of Alameda County, featuring low water need grasses and shrubs. Trees would be used along the surrounding street edges for additional visual screening of building elements not hidden behind earth berms. The southern eievation °fire juvenile justice FacilitY is included in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS/EIR. Final lighting types and layouts will be selected by the design/build team. However, according to the Bridging Documents, the exterior security lighting is mounted on buildings whenever possible, and where necessary, on poles that would be shielded by buildings and walls. The view of Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center will continue to be screened from the residences by the repla~c~ent ¢enu'ari~l lands~ap~ng,~biit the East` c°unty Hall °f juStice Will be Visible fr°m the residences. Please see Chapters 3 and 5 of the Draft EIS/EIR for descriptions of the proposed development at the East County Government Center, including landscaping, berms, and site configurations that are intended to provide privacy for adjacent residents. Parking would be provided in a combination of sites, including reconfiguration of the existing 577 ~PaCes in frOnt °fthe santa Rita Rehabilitation Center to aCcommodate up to 774 vehicles, reconfiguration of the existing 356 secure spaces in the rear of Santa Rita to accommodate up to 490 vehicles, new parking on the Juvenile Justice Facility site for 220 vehicles, new parking on the East County Hall of Justice site for up to 850 vehicles, and a supplemental lot for the Office of Emergency Services for up to 36 vehicles at the corner of Madigan Avenue and Broder Blvd. This parking supply is more than sufficient to meet the Projects' needs. Response to Comment 9-48: Comment regarding the proposed replacement berm is nOted. See Response to Comment %20. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-63 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments A series of cross sections are provided in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS/EIR, illustrating that the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility will be exposed to view from a relatively narrow slot along Gleason to the East of Hacienda, over the judicial parking area, and possibly from upper stories of local residences. However, substantial landscaping, distance, and final grading design will reduce the visibility of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. Response to Comment 9-49: The commentor is referred to Response to Comment 9-39. The County Surplus Property Authority requested a General Plan amendment to a land use designation supporting campus- type office uses to accommodate both the East County Hall of Justice and the Juvenile Justice Facility. Under the City's General Plan, this designation either could be Campus Office or Public/Semi-Public. The Campus Office designation states that the designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate emissions, noise, odors or glare, including, but not limited to professional and administrative offices, administrative headquarters, manufacturing and other uses. Thus, this designation does not preclude public uses. Similarly, the Public/Semi-Public Facilities designation allows governmental and institutional uses as the commentor points out. Response to Comment 9-50: Comment noted. There is no inherent negative visual compatibility impact associated with the placement of a civic building next to a neighborhood park. In fact, the City of Dublin Civic Center is located adjacent to a large City park. Response to Comment 9-51: The proposed East County Hall of Justice on Site 15A would not substantially visually alter the character of the area immediately north of 1-580. Them are several large office buildings located adjacent, or in close proximity to Site 15A. Therefore, the area's existing visual character would not be substantially altered by the proposed East County Hall of Justice. Response to Comment 9-52: The lighting design approach is to meet and exceed the standards established by the state of California's Title 24 Code. The Title 24 code limits the amount of energy consumption allowed for interior and exterior lighting and the design team intends to exceed these limits by reducing the lighting to be 15% below these state mandates. Pole style lighting fixtures at heights significantly lower than the adjacent and surrounding properties would be used. All the pole style lighting fixtures will have 100% horizontal visual cut-off to the light sources to minimize glare and their visual appearance. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-64 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments A step down approach to the site lighting to limit the amount of light fixtures that are turned on while the building is not in use would be implemented. This will be balanced with a minimum nUmber Of fixtureS on after hOurs tO maintain a safe and secure site. ResponSe to Comment 9-53: The features of this figure are accurately and clearly shown. Although the existing San Leando facility is not clearly indicated in the figure, the purpose of this map is to show seismic hazard related to the San Leandro alternative site. The features that are shown clearly on this figure include the fault rupture hazard zone, the location of the proposed facilities, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone, and locations where additional studies are necessary to verify the existence of an active fault. RespOnSe to c0mment:9,54: Several geotechnical baseline reports prepared for the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center site (SubSurface Consultants} 2002) were used as the primary sources of information contained in the Draft EIS/EIR regarding the potential seismic hazards of the East County Government Center site. The reports provide geotechnical parameters for seismic design and other geologic consideratiOns based on a review of published and UnPublished references, as well as preliminary geotectmical investigation including 20 test borings across the site. Site 15A was analyzed based on prior studies conducted for Cisco Systems and the County of Alameda. Should either site be selected for the facilities, additional subsurface investigations and geotechnical analysis would be required based on the specific requirements of the final design. This additional investigation and analysis is recommended pursuant to Mitigation Measure 6.2.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and is required for compliance with state and local building practices, but would not involve major new conclusions regarding the suitability of the sites for development. Response to Comment 9-55: The commentor takes the remark "did not include borings or test pits" out of context by omitting "~ inveStigate i0~d~i0fiS :~h~re bUildings~'~i~Vi°USly existed at the site". The statement was intended to indicate that remnants of old foundations might be encountered during development. The geotechnical investigations already conducted include thirteen test borings drilled at the East County Hall of JustiCe site. This level of preliminary geotechnical investigation exceeds the standard of practice for preliminary investigation and is more than adequate for the EIS/EIR process. The section included under Foundation Support and Settlement was drafted based on preliminary findings, and is hereby amended as follows; Page 6-21, paragraphs 1 through 3: Borings were drilled from across the crest of the berm along the northern portion of the site. The berm fill extends to depths of about 41 feet and generally consists of stiff to Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-65 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments very stiff silty clay, and meduim-dense clayey sands. The borings indicate that the berm fill extends as much as 9 feet below the proposed floor of the Juvenile Justice Facility, Beneath the berm, native soil generally consisting of interbedded stiff to very stiff silty clay, with medium dense to dense clayey sand was encountered, and extended to the maximum depth explored of about 51 ½ feet. The existing berm fill is not suitable for subgrade support for the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and would be excavated down to native sOil. In some areas, removal of all berm fill will require excavation to extend to below the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility subgrade elevation. All previous improvements including old foundations, underground utilities and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Beneath the near-surface fill materials, the site is underlain by predominantly clayey soils of moderate strength and compressibility. Low-rise buildings with low to moderate column loads can likely be supported on spread footings or a mat foundation bearing on native soil or properly compacted fill. Based on the results of the Geotechnical Baseline Report (Subsurface Consultants, Inc., January_ 2001) the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility can be supported on deepened spread footing foundations bearing on native soil or on properly compacted fill. \Ye estimate that Long-term total and differential settlement of spread footing foundations constructed on native soil or on properly compacted fill can be limited to less than about 3/4-inch and 1/2-inch, respectively. The field exploration was performed to evaluate overall geotechnical conditions at the site and did not include borings or test pits specifically for the purpose of investigating locations where buildings previously existed at the site. It is anticipated that old foundations, basements, abandoned utilities and areas of locally deep backfill may exist in areas planned for development. ~- ..... *~-~ .......... ' ........ ;*"*'~'~ *'^~ thc Response to Comment 9-56: The potential for soil erosion as a result of on-going operations is identified in the impact summary on page 6-34 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Post-construction mitigation measures are identified in Mitigation Measure 6.5.2, on page 6-35 of the Draft EIS/EIR, which is incorporated as an applicable measure for Site 15A on page 6-35. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final ElS/DR Page 2-66 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-57: Comment noted. Portions of the text under the Soil Instability section was in error, and is amended as follows: page 6~21, pa/agraPhs'l through 3.. ~ Impact 6.6.5: East County Government Center LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. At the East County Government Center site, the Project low rise 5ui!dings ':,'it5 !ow to mod~r"~e column loads can likely be supported on spread footings Or a mat foundation bearing on native soil or properly compacted fill with limited long-term differential settlement. Taller s footingg or ::'.atz. but COuld b ....... ...,~ .~...,~+....~ r ........... t~ ..... Comphance With the gebteChnical engineering recommendations for the foundations of structures that may be proposed at this site to address other potential soils constraints (see mitigation Measure 6.7.5) would reduce potential impacts associated With soil instability to a level of less than significant. MitigatiOn MeaSUre 6.7.5 recommends the deepening of all building footings, and layering of non-exPansive fill to support both interior ad eXterior slabs On grade, This measure assumes compliance with the geotechnical recommendations of excavation of the existing berm fills and r~Piacement With 'engineered c°mpacted fill.' RePlacement of eXcaVated fill With new fill beneath the eXisting berms in not anticipated to result in significant magnitUdes of settlement since this area has been preloaded for many years with the existing berm. Response to Comment 0-58: Based on the recommendations contained in the GeotechnicalBaselineRep°rt (Subsurface Consultants, Inc., January 2001) all building footings should be deepened, and both interior and exterior slabs on grade should be supported on a layer of non-expansive fill. These measures WoUld reduce the potential for damage to the propoSed buiidings and exterior paVement areas resulting froTM shrinking and swelling of the clay soil. This is consistent with the recommendations contained in mitigation Measure 6.7.5 as written in the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9.59: Comment noted. The RWQCB, in Comment 10-1, also noted that more Stringent surface water quality standards woUld be in effect in the near futUre. Please see Response to Comment 10-1. Response to Comment 9-60: Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS/EIR, the Corps of Engineers approved the delineation for the East County Government Center site. The verification confirmed that the two isolated seasonal Wetlands are not jurisdictional. The Corps determined that the detention basin, however, is subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. That determination was appealed and has Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-67 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments since been revised by the Corps (letter from Calvin C. Fong to Mr. James Sorensen, April 3, 2003) to indicate: "Area 2" (and "Area 1") meet the requisite critiera as wetlands, but both are not adjacent to any navigable waters or tributary streams and, therefore, not subject to Corps jurisidxcition under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act pursuant to SWANCC. However, this determination does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State or local approvals required by law, including compliance with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In particular, any proposed activity may still be regulated by the State of California's Regional Water Quality Control Board. "Area 2" delineation remains unchanged from the Corps delineation dated December 24, 2002. "Area 3" is shown to have been constructed as a detention basin and i[s] subsequently deemed Corps non-jurisidictional, (i.e., not requiring a permit for discharge, as per Federal Register, Vol. 5 I, No. 219, Section 323.4(E0(4), "Discharges not requiting permits", pg. 41234, dated November 13, 1986). In addition, the detention basin provides limited if any wetlands habitat. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are identified in Mitigation Measure 8.3.6 for the loss of wetlands. If the County selects the East County Government Center site as the preferred alternative, consistent with Mitigation Measure 8.3.6, the County will implement a mitigation program to meet the "no net loss" standard for the confirmed wetland areas. Response to Comment 9-61: The commentor corrects information regarding the existing storm drainage on the East County Government Center site. Based on this comment and a similar clarification in Comments 9-147, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 7-3, last paragraph and page 7-4, first paragraph: Surface runoff drains into two storm drain systems. The existing storm drain systemq have been designed based on this split of runoff. The majority of the site (approximately 35 acres) drains westerly to the existing detention basin located along the western property boundary at Arnold Road. The detention basin drains into triple 36-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipes under Arnold Road, discharging into the Arnold Road channel. The western portion of the site is also drained by an existing line of 24- to 30- inch pipe located within the western section of Gleason Drive, which also diScharges into the Arnold Road channel, c~,~, **,~ .;,,. ,~.-.11~.*,.; ..... ';"'+;""'~' '~'~*"*'*;"" *'"";'" Flow also enters the detention basin via T~,ere ':o° a!z~, an existing 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe that conveys a portion of the storm water from the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center along Broder Boulevard. and em??.'ez intc *&e detentien 5asin. A flow splitter discharges the remainder of the storm water from the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center southwesterly via a ditch tlu'ough the Parks RFTA property. Additicna!!y, .... ;o*;'~ 30 Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-68 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Thc Arnold Road channel discharges to a flow splitter near Central ~parl<wa¥, with a portion of the flows continuing south in a closed pipe to a triple $4-Jnch culvert under 1- 580 at Arnold Road. These pipes convey storm flows into Zone ?% Line G-2. The remainder continues through an open channel to a closed pipe through the BART station and under the 1-580. This open channel conveys storm flows into thc relatively new Line (3-5, which then drains into to I, ir~e G-2 south o£1-580. Line G-2 drains into the Chabot Channel and then to ArrOyo Mucho. Thc remainder of thc site (approximately 5 acres of its caster]y portion)drains into a second pipe within thc eastern section of Glcason Drive, a 24-inch pipe that drains easterly to Tassaiara Creel< (designated Line K bY Zone 7). Tassajara Creek drains to the An'oyo Mocho, which then drains to the An'oyo de la Laguna. Alameda Creek receives flows from the Arroyo dc la Laguna, and flows in a westerly direction through Niles Canyon until it ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay. Page 14-13, last paragraph: Storm Drainage The East County Government Center site lies within Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation DistriCt (Zone 7). The existing storm drainage system available to serve the site is maintained and operated bY zone' 71 .... +~ ;~ ~.~+ ^,' v^.,~ -~,~ ~ ~ ~;~ As discussed in Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality, surface runoff drains as follows: ~r;+,,;~ tke vicinity ~*' · surface runoff from the majority of the site (approximately 35 acres of its western portion) the site cOllects in an exiSting detention baSin located On site along the west property boundary at Arnold Road. The detention basin drains into triple 36-inch · diameter reinforced concrete pipes under Arnold Road, disCharging into the Arnold Road channel. · Additionally, an existing 24- to 30-inch storm drain line is located within the western section of Gleason Drive, which drains into the Arnold Road channel. There is also an existing 48-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe that conveys a portion of the storm water from the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center along Broder Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-69 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Boulevard and empties a~ into the detention basin. This system conveys an estimated peak flow rate of 75 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the existing jail facility to the existing detention basin. The remainder of the storm water from the jail facility drains southwesterly via a drainage ditch onto the Parks RFTA property, Drainage from the Arnold Road channel discharges to a flow splitter near Central Parkway, with a portion of the flow continuing south in a closed pipe to a triple 54-inch culvert under 1-580 at Arnold Road. These pipes convey storm flows into Zone 7's Line G-2. The remainder continues through an open channel to a closed pipe through the BART station and under the 1-580. This open channel conveys storm flows into the relatively new Line G-5, which then drains into to Line G-2 south of 1-580. Line G-2 drains into the Chabot Channel and then to Arroyo Mucho. Surface runoff from the remainder of the site (approximately 5 acres of its eastern portion) discharges into Additicna!!y, a second pipe located within the eastern section of Gleason Drive. This existing 24-inch 20 inc5 storm drain line is !ocat:d witSin ~ drains easterly to Tassajara Creek (designated Line K by Zone Zen:7). Tassajara Creek drains to the Arroyo Mocho, which then drains to the Arroyo de la Laguna. Alameda Creek receives flows from the Arroyo de la Laguna, and flows in a westerly direction through Niles Canyon until it ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay. These modifications do not alter the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-62: The Draft EIS/EIR indicates on page 1-9 that the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is a responsible agency under CEQA. The County is aware that pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and the State Porter-Cologne Act, the RWQCB is responsible for determining that issuance of a Section 404 Permit would not result in a violation of water quality standards. As part of its determination, the RWQCB may issue or waive a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or issue waste discharge requirements. It also is acknowledged that the RWQCB exercises its discretion in the water quality certification process. There is sufficient land area on the' site to provide for biofiltration, retention and/or other treatment of stormwater as part of the site development. Response to Comment 9-63: IM 3.5/Z of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR (Wallace Roberts & Todd 1992) notes that the area covered by that plan is located in an area of minimal groundwater recharge and groundwater reserves and the majority of the Tri-Valley's Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-70 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments groundwater resources are in the Central Basin south of the Project (see page 3.5-26). Nevertheless, it does state that development of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan could have an impact on local groundwater resources due to an increase in impervious surfaces within the plan area, and identifies this as potentially significant. It is important to note that East County Government Center site is a very small portion of the area covered by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area, so the amount of area that would become impervious as a result of the Project would not be substantial. As discussed in Response to Comment 11-8, exterior irrigation of the 8 acres of land on the site would result in approximately 5,000 gpd of water percolating into the water table. This is not considered enough to contribute significantly to salt loading, but in this area of minimal recharge and reserve sUch an input, particularly because it would occur during the driest part of the year, may offset any potential losses of recharge that may occur during winter storm events. Further, one of the mitigations identified to reduce this impact is to "Plan facilities and select management practices in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area that protect and enhance water quality" (see MM 3.5/49.0). As noted in Comment 9-62, the SWPPP will ensure that water quality is protected. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact of groundwater recharge. No new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts haVe been identified that would trigger recirculation. Response to Comment 9-64: The discussion regarding the need for additional facilities to provide adequate storm drainage services at the East County Government Center site is discussed in Chapter 14 under Impact 14.5.5. The commentor is correct to note that this issue is not addressed in Impact 7.4.5. Based on this comment and clarifications from Comment 9-152, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised to ensure the consistency between and the correctness of the two impacts, as follows: Page 7-9, Impact 7.4.5 (East County Government Center): POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Development of the site would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term, temporary adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit disposal of debris and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would represent a pOtentially significant impact. Development of the site may also cause the existing Pipes on Gleason Road to exceed their designed capacity. This potentially significant impact, and the mitigations for it, is discussed in Impact 14.5.5 (see Chapter 14: Utilities). A!thcugh deve!cpment of the ~,~v~;*~' az proposed ...... ,, ~,,,,,~'~ ,,w""+ ~'w ...... v,,v~v,~+o'~ +^~,. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-71 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Page 14-31: 14.5.5: East County Government Center POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The existing storm pipes south of the site on Gleason Drive are is designed to serve the site in its current undeveloped condition. Due to the large impervious surface area associated with the East County Government Center, the storm drainage runoff coefficient following development may be greater than both ~ pipe's design intent, and the existing pipeswould not be able to convey all storm water from the developed site. Additionally, if the existing detention basin is filled (subject to the final determination of its status a.q wetlands and final site plans), storm drain facilities to replace the detention basin would be needed. This would be accomplished by installing pipes that would drain either into the existing open channel on Arnold Road or into proposed bypass system (discussed below). Alameda County is currently involved in a separate project that includes construction of a new bypass storm drain system to reduce runoff into the on-site detention basin. The bypass storm drain system includes building a new open channel on Arnold Avenue (between Broder Boulevard and Gleason Drive) and reconfiguring the splitter that drains the Santa Rite Rehabilitation Center. The goal is to redirect a larger proportion of the storm water from Santa Rite Rehabilitation Center site through the proposed new channel or through the existing ditch on the Parks RFTA property instead of into the detention basin, If the bypass storm system improvement is completed prior to construction of the East County Government Center, discharge into the existing storm drain pipe along the western side of Gleason Drive and into the detention basin will not exceed their designed itv capac ...... 1.~ ......... ;~.,+o1., 91 fl ,.,,k;~ ,c~..i- ...... ,.-,n,.,1 [,.,`C,-,'~ ....,cdr,,.,., ,rD.,.;.. .... ~, .......... J ....... oano~ If the bypass storm system improvement is not completed prior to construction of the East County Government Center, the design capacity of both may be exceeded, an add/dena! 295 cfs ';,'auld flew ;.-,+,-..I-T.,=, .-1~+~,.+;... k.,.;,-, +T,...-..,,-.h +1.,~ .~..;,.{;.. t"'~l,:,,~o,~., T~..;.,,~ *-,;--o ,~vt.,:..,*l;.~ ;+o ~.v,~v...,;*". This would be regarded as a potentially significant environmental impact. On the approximately 5 acres of the eastern portion of the site that drains easterly, new impervious surfaces could also create runoff that may exceed the design capacity of the existing pipe. The proposed bypass system would not address this potentially significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measure 14.5.5: Timely Completion of Bypass System. Adequate storm drainage capacity for the majority of the site is contingent upon concurrent construction of the County's bypass system. If the bypass system is not completed in time to service the proposed development at the site, additional off-site storm drainage improvements will be required to provide adequate storm drainage improvements per the interim condition. These alternative improvements may include a new detention basin north of the site to detain the 295 cfs of storm water runoff. This temporary detention basin would. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-72 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments be located at the mouth of the creek that enters the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center from the Parks RFTA Property to its north. Mitigation Measure '14.5.15: Storm INater Pollution Prevention Plan. Mitigation Measure 7.1.2 (see Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality) would also apply to this alternative. Sufficient drainage is required to ensUre the protection of water quality, and the SWPPP may include provisions for swales and small detention ponds that would collect water on-site. These measures Would augment the existing drainage and would ensure that sufficient drainage is provided and water quality is protected. Creating small on-site detention ponds would also ensure the "no net loss" standard for wetlands is met (as per Mitigation Measure 8.3.5 in Chapter 8: Biological Resources). Resulting Level of Significance: Timely completion of the bypass system, or alternative interim storm drain system improvements described above, and implementation of the SWPPP, would prevent storm water capacity problems at the site, reducing this impact to a less than significant level. In the Draft EIS/EIR, this impact was identified as potentially Significant and mitigable. As discussed above, this impact remains potentially significant and mitigable. These modifications do not alter the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR. Additionally, as noted in Mitigation 14.5.5, the timely completion of the County's new bypass storm system or additional interim, off-site storm drainage improvements would ensure the storm water capacity problems that may occur as a result of the Project would be less than significant. If the East County Government Center site is selected, detailed engineering work would determine the feasible and appropriate balance between the pad elevations needed to ensure buildings Stay dry and the berm height needed to screen them. ReSponse to cOmment 9-65: The commentor is correct to note that the potential long-term impacts of the Project on water quality are not explicitly addressed in Impacts 7.1.5 to 7.1.6. This is an inadvertent oversight in the Draft EIS/EIR. The commentor suggests that the SWPPP would deal only with short-term, construction-level impacts. However, as noted on page 7-2 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the SWPPP would include "specifications for Best Management Practices that will be incorporated into the project itself to minimize runoff of pollutants after the project has been completed" [italics added for emphasis]. Further, as noted in Mitigation Measure 7.1.2, the SWPPP "shall incorporate BMPs to control sediment and erosion both during the building process and in the long-term" [italics added for emphasis]. The requirementS of the SWPPP would ensure that both the short- and long-term impacts of the Project on water quality are less than significant. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 7.5-7. 7, Impacts 7.1.2, 7.1.4, 7.1.5 and 7.1.6: POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Development of the site as proposed may have both short-term, temporary adverse effects from construction Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-73 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments activity and long-term effects on local water quality.would entail The short-term effects from construction activity include ,,,~ ....... ,','~,,,~ ~,,, ~,,,~ .... , ...... ~;, ...... ~, ~ r~,,,~ erosion and siltation illicit disposal of debris and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would represent a potentially significant impact. Response to Comment 9-66: As noted in Response to Comment 11-2 regarding flooding of Tassajara Creek at the 1-580, the FEMA flood hazard map has been updated to reflect the recent improvements made to this creek. The improvements are designed to prevent flooding where Tassajara Creek crosses 1-580. Response to Comment 11-2 includes revisions to the Draft EIS/EIR that state flooding during a 100-year storm event would be confined to an approximately 200-foot width along Tassajara Creek. Regarding the need for additional facilities to provide adequate storm drainage services at the East County Govenunent Center site and potential impacts of the Project on storm drainage, see Response to Comment 9-64. Due to NPDES Phase 2 requirement that will be compulsory when the project begins construction, an on-site storm drainage detention system will be required for the East County Government Center. The system must detain the net increase in storm mn-off between pre- and post-developed conditions. The site design and budget for the East County Government Center projects include sufficient permeable pavement and bio-swales to prevent additional storm water runoff from leaving the site. Conformance with this standard is part of the County strategy to obtain LEED certification for the project (LEED credit 6.1). The County will also provide treatment to remove suspended solids and phosphorous as needed for LEED credit 6.2. Response to Comment 9-67: The existing potential flooding along Tassajara Creek due to inadequate culvert flow capacity was noted in the Draft EIS/EIR (see page 7-4). No development is planned within the area within the 100~year flood hazard at any of the alternative sites. Subsequent to the 1999 BFK report, improvements made to Tassajara Creek as part of the Tassajara Creek Restoration Project in 2000 reduce the area subject to the 100-year flood hazard. As discussed in Response to Comment 11-2, a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is available that shows the revised flood hazard area. The LOMR is effective November 1, 2002. Response to Comment 9-68: If the detention basin is not filled, strong seismic activity may cause it to overflow. An existing grading plan shows that the most likely overflow would occur onto Arnold Drive and Gleason Drive. The elevation of the western side of the existing detention basin is 360 feet, whereas the elevation on the northern, eastern and most of the southern sides is 370 feet or higher (Subsurface Consultants, Draft Geotechnical Baseline Report for Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center, October 12, 2001; see Figure 2). Based on this comment, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-74 Chapter 2: ReSponses to Comments Page 7-10, to follow Impact 7.6: Exposure of People or Structures to Flood Hazards: ImpaCt 7.7: Seiche in Detention Basins ImpaCt 7.7.1: East CounW Government Center LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Strong seismic activity may create waves in the existing 1.6-acre detention basin on the western side of the East County Government Center Site. This maY cause the detention basin to overflow onto Arnold Drive or Gleason Drive. The site's isolation from other development and proximity of the detention basin to the existing drainage channel south of the site on Arnold Drive and to the drainage channel that will be built immediately west of the site as part of Alameda County's bypass drainage system will ensure that the impacts of a potential seiche would be less than significant. Response to Comment 9-69: As indicated on Page 8'14 of the EIS/EIR, ground squirrel were observed off-site along the flood-control channel on the west side of Arnold Road, but none were observed on the Site during field surveYs July of 2001. However, the EIS/EIR acknowledges that conditions could change and there is a potential for establishment of new raptor nests (inclUding burrowing owl) prior to construction, as discussed under Impact 8.1.5 on page 8-28. Ground squirrel burrows are commonly used for wintering and breeding nest locations by burrowing owl, and new ground sqUiffei COlOniZatiOn on the East COunty Government Center site would improve opportunities for nesting by burrowing owl. Mitigation Measures 8.1.Sa and 8.1,5b were recommended to provide preconstruction surveys and appropriate avoidance of any newly established raptor nests. Mitigation MeasUre 8.1 .Sb focuses specificallY on the potential for establishment of new burrowing owl breeding nests on the East County Government Center site, requiring preconstruction surveys within 30 days of Project-related ground disturbing activities, protection during the active breeding season or passive relocation during the nonbreeding season if nests are encountered, and conformance with the Burrowing OWl ProtOcol and Mitigation Guidelines for survey and mitigation implementation. As discussed on page 8-16 of the EIS/EIR, California tiger salamander are not believed to occur on the East County Government Center site due primarily to the absence of suitable breeding habitat but also because of the limited opPortunities for upland estivation, The man-made detention pond and seasonal wetland depressions do not hold water long enough to allow for egg laying or metamorphoses of larval young. These features would have to hold water into late spring fOr sucCessful breeding bY tiger salmander, Which is not poSSible because of their design or condition. A suppiemental field inspection was c0nduC~d b~ ~1/~ EiSmiR biOlOgiSt 0n March 25; 2003 to confirm conditions described by the commentor. A walking survey of the site was performed, inspecting all locations where water was suspected to possibly pond, inspecting the ground surface for ground squirrel burrows and possible burrowing owl activity, and inspecting trees and Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice ' Final EIS/EIR Page 2-75 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments shrubs for possible nesting birds. No ponded surface water was found across the entire site, consistent with conditions observed during previous field surveys. A narrow band of surface water flowed for a distance of approximately 15 feet from the culvert outfaI1 in the northwestern comer of the site, possibly due to runoff from the recent rains, but there was no surface water present in the entire detention basin. The two man-made seasonal wetland depressions indicated in Figure 8.4 of the EIS/EIR where the commentor observed surface water on January 22, 2002 also held no surface water. This was after several storms during the month of March 2003 which would have extended the presence of surface water ponding if conditions were appropriate on the site. As concluded in the EIS/EIR, the relatively short duration of sUrface water ponding in the man-made depressions on the East County Government Center site precludes their suitability as breeding locations for either California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. As noted by the commentor, California ground squirrel have established a colony on the East County Government Center site since the wildlife field work was completed in 2001. In the March 2003 survey, transects were made across the grasslands to determine the extent of ground squirrel use on the site. Burrow entrances were counted and inspected for possible sign of burrowing owl occupation. An estimated 48 burrow entrances were observed, clustered inl0 groupings, the largest of which had 15 openings. The ground squirrels occupy an area of approximately three acres in the center of the western half of the site. No pellets or white wash was observed at any of the openings, but what appeared to be two matted, slate gray down feathers were found tangled in grass near one of the burrow openings. Although coloration varies with individuals, the color of the two feathers is not consistent with burrowing owl and more closely resembles coloration found in plumage of white-tailed kite or northern harrier. Given the timing of the survey in late March, it seems highly unlikely that the feathers could be from a young burrowing owl as this species typically doesn't begin t° nest until March with a peak from April and May, which would mean that breeding, egg incubation, and emergence of young would already had been completed before the peak of the normal nesting season even begins. Because the new colony of ground squirrel burrows could be used for nesting by burrowing owl, protocol surveys were conducted in mid-April 2003 to confirm absence of any burrowing owl breeding activity on the site. The surveys were conducted by the EIS/EIR biologist using the methodology from the 1993 Burrowing Owl Su.rvey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines of the California Burrowing Owl Consortium. Field surveys were conducted on the evenings of April 10, 1 I, and 13 from two hours before to one hour after sunset, and on the morning of April 12 from one hour before to two hours after sunrise. The conditions observed on the site during the March 2003 reconnaissance were confirmed during the course of the protocol surveys, which consisted of conducting a road reconnaissance around the perimeter of the site and off-site drainage channel along the west side of Arnold Road, ground inspection of burrow entrances, and monitoring of the colony from the elevated berm to the north. Most of the survey hours were spent observing the colony from a single vantage location on top of the berm to the north, where the entire colony could be observed without disturbing the ground squirrel colony and any possible owl activity could be detected as foraging individuals entered or exited nest locations. No burrowing owl activity was detected or observed on the site or along the nearby drainage channel west of Arnold Road where ground squirrel colonies are located, and no burrowing owls Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-76 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments are suspected to currently use the site for breeding. The dense cover of non-native grasslands observed during the April surveys (averaging from one to two feet in height), may be a limiting factor in the suitability of the site for nesting by burrowing owl. Burrowing owls tend to nest in locations with low ground cover and high visibility. As stated previously, the EIS/EIR acknowledges that conditions on the site in the future could change and there is a potential for eStablishment of new raptor nests. If the East County Government Center site were selected and the project approved, Mitigation Measure 8.15b would require preconstruction surveys and appropriate mitigation if nests are encountered on the site in the fi~ture. Response to Comment 9-70: comment noted. As discUssed on page 8-14, Congd°n's tarplant occurs on the East CoUnty Government Center site and mitigation has been recommended to address potential impacts on this species. The reference to the record of over 10,000 individuals in the Parks RFTA vicinity was simply to report information on file with the CNDDB, not to misrepresent the status of this occurrence or need to provide adequate mitigation. As noted by the commentor, recent development in the East Dublin vicinity has eliminated much of the suitable habitat for this species and has most likely severely affected its abundance and distribution in the site vicinity. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5c was recommended to provide for adequate mitigation of the potential impacts of development at the East County Government Center site on Congdon's tarplant. This includes the possibility of combining the seed collection and re-establishment program with other mitigation plans such as that being developed for impacts associated with the Dublin Transit Center, allowing for a coordinated approach to providing adequate mitigation. The reCommended mitigation includes preparation of a detailed off-site mitigation program that provides for successful re-establishment and if necessary through additional habitat preservation at a minimum 1' 1 ratio. The mitigation program is to be prepared in consultation with the CDFG and meet with the approval of the County General Services Agency. No revisions are considered necessary in response to the comment. Response to Comment 9-71: As discussed on page 8-16 of the EIS/EIR, California tiger salamander are not believed to occur on the East County Government Center site due primarily to the absence of suitable breeding habitat but also because of the limited opportunities for upland estivation. The man-made detention pond and seasonal wetland depressions do not hold water long enough to allow for egg laying or metamorphoses of larval young. These features Would have t° hold water into late spring for successful breeding by tiger salamander, which is not possible because of their design or condition. As discussed in the.response to Comment 9-69, a supplemental field inspection was conducted by the EIS/EIR biologist on March 25, 2003 to confirm conditions described by the commentor. No pond~d Water was found across the entire site, consistent with conditions observed during previous field surveys, and the two man-made seasonal wetland depressions where the commentor observed water on January 22, 2002 held no surface water. This was after several storms during the month of March 2003 which would have extended the presence of surface Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-77 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments water ponding if conditions were appropriate on the site. As concluded in the EIS/EIR, the relatively short duration of surface water ponding in the man-made depressions on the East County Government Center site precludes their suitability as breeding locations for either California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. Response to Comment 9-72: Although suitable foraging habitat for these species on the East County Government Center site was observed, no active nests were encountered during the field surveys, as indicated on page 8- 28 of the EIS/EIR. Table 8.1 indicates that the occurrence of burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike on the site is "possible," due both to possible changes in conditions and nesting activity. The observed presence of burrowing owl and white-tailed kite on the site could change again in the future. Mitigation Measures 8.1.5a and 8.1.5b were recommended to provide preconstmction surveys and appropriate avoidance of any newly established raptor nests, including burrowing owl, white-tailed, kite, northern harrier, other raptors and loggerhead shrike. As discussed in the response to Comment 9-69 a supplemental field survey was conducted on March 25, 2003, followed by protocol nesting surveys for burrowing owl in mid-April 2003. While ground squirrel now occupy the site and have created suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owl, no burrowing owl nesting activity was observed during the breeding season protocol surveys. Based on the results of the field inspection in March 2003 and the protocol surveys in April 2003, it is assumed that the individual owl observed by the commentor in January 2003 may have been wintering in the vicinity when the annual grassland cover was low to the ground, but is no longer present on the site. These conditions may again change in the future, and preconstruction surveys called for in Mitigation Measure 8.1.5b would serve to confirm presence or absence of burrowing owl and need for a detailed mitigation program. No white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, or other raptor nests were observed on the site during the survey on March 2003 or during the protocol surveys for burrowing owl in April 2003, but preconstruction surveys would be required as called for in Mitigation Measure 8.1.5a. No revisions are necessary in response to the comment. Response to Comment 9-73: The two small areas shown in Figure 8.4 do meet the three criteria of wetland plants, soils and hydrology, as discussed on page 8-19 of the EIS/EIR. These features have formed as a result of past development and grading, with the larger, narrow feature underlain by asphalt and the smaller feature surrounded by stockpiled soil in an area that was used as a top soil stockpile area during construction of the adjacent Santa Rita Replacement Facility in the mid-1980s (Bissell & Karn, 1984). Because surface water is present only during the rainy season and transitional grassland species occur throughout the bottom of these depressions, they were characterized as functioning largely as grasslands. As noted by the commentor, species typically associated with seasonal wetlands such as invertebrates and pacific tree frog may utilize the developing wetland characteristics of these depressions. However, these are not considered unique and could be recreated as part of any required mitigation plan as called for in Mitigation Measure 8.3.5. These man-made depressions do not hold surface water long enough to support California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, or special-status plant species associated with vernal Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-78 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments pools and swales. If they did, they would have been identified as having unique values and functions. In response to the comment, the discussion of these features in the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 8-19 has been revised as follows: ...These seasonal depressions function largely as grasslands, with n0~ unique values tO wildlife although they are used by common species assOciated with seasonal wetlands ~ such as invertebrates and pacific tree frog. Response to Comment 0-74: Refer to the response to Comment 9-69 and 9-72 for a discussion of potential impacts on nesting loggerhead shrike and raptors. The commentor is correct that mitigation measures regarding preconstruction surveys do not include reference to consultation and reporting to the CDFG, which would be defined as part of the mitigation monitOring requirements if the Project were approved, in response to the c°mment~ Mitigati°n MeaSures 8,1.2a, 8,1.2b, 8.1.4a, 8,1.5a, and 8.1.5b have been revised to include the following sentence at the end of each measure to clarify coordination and reporting responsibilities: · ..If avoidance is not feasible, mitigation shall be developed in consultation with the CDFG and shall meet With the approval of the CoUnty General SerVicesAgency prior to any construction or grading. The results of the preconstmction survey and any required mitigation monitoring shall be submitted to the CDFG and County General ServicesAgency. Response to Comment 9-75: Refer to the reSponse to Comment 9-69 and 9-72 for a diScUssiOn of Potential impaCts on nesting burrowing owl and raptors, and Comment 9-74 for changes to Mitigation Measure 8.1.5b to clarify preconstruction coordination, approval, and reporting requirements. As noted by the co~eiltOr, if on-site avoidance of nesting habitat is not feasible, then securing off-site habitat is typically required by the CDFG. The possibility that habitat protection may be required if burrowing owl are encoUntered on the site is acknOWledged on page 8-28 of the EIS/EIR. However, details on location, size, and other characteristics of the mitigation program would be defined through consultation with the CDFG. All protocol requirements would be followed. Resp°nse to comment 9~76: Refer to the response to Comment 9-70 for additional discussion of potential impacts on C0ngdon's tmplant. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5c was recommended to provide for adequate mitigation of the potential impacts of development at the East County Government Center site on Congdon's tarplant. The concerns of the commentor over variations in populations numbers for any selected year are noted. However, the total number of plants observed in a given year is not a sole basis for determining success of recommended mitigation, which Would focus on habitat suitability and viability for the species. The recommended mitigation includes preparation of a d~aile~ ~0ff~it~ mitigati6n program that pr0vid~s for ~su%essful re-establishment; and if necessary through additional habitat preservation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The mitigation Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-79 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments program is to be prepared in consultation with the CDFG. No revisions are considered necessary in response to the comment. Response to Comment 9-77: Refer to the response to Comment 9-60 and 73 for additional discussion of potential impacts on the seasonal wetland depressions and adequacy of recommended mitigation. As noted previously, these features have formed as a result of past development and grading, and although they may support common species associated with seasonal wetlands this does not make them particularly unique. Their functions and values could be recreated as part of any required mitigation plan as called for in Mitigation Measure 8.3.5. The Corps has made a preliminary determination that the seasonal depressions and detention basin on the East County Government Center site are non-jurisdictional3. The seasonal depressions were considered to meet the requisite criteria as wetlands, but are not adjacent to any navigable waters or tributary streams, and are therefore not subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, but may be regulated by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section 401. The detention basin was determined to be constructed for water detention purposes and the Corps considers the basing to be non-jurisdictional. Further review and Corps determination would be necessary for the potential seasonal wetlands detected on Site 15A, which are believed to be considered isolated features as well, and addressed in the discussion on page 8-34 and provisions called for in Mitigation Measure 8.3-6. In response to the comment, Mitigation Measures 8.3.2a, 8.3.5, and 8.3.6, respectively, have all been revised to acknowledge the possible requirements of the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board in addressing impacts and mitigation for wetland losses. These mitigation measures have been revised as follows: Page 8-32: Mitigation Measure 8.3.2a: Wetland Delineation and Possible Replacement. The preliminary wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification, if this site is selected for the project. If the identified drainages ditches to be filled are not considered jurisdictional then no additional mitigation is considered necessary. If the Corps and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board detenrfines these features are jurisdictional and must be filled, then a mitigation program shall be prepared by a qualified wetland specialist, and shall at minimum provide for no net loss of wetlands. This mitigation program will be required to provide for the creation of replacement habitat with and increase in acreage and value at a secure location to meet the "no net loss" standard. Any mitigation program shall include monitoring and management for a minimum of five years to ensure success of wetlands creation; specify success criteria, 3 Department of the Army, San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers, 2003, Subject: File Number 26843S, letter to Mr. James Sorensen, County of Alameda from Calvin C. Fong, Chief, Regulatory Branch, dated 3 April, 2003. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-80 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments maintenance, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures; and define site preparation and revegetation procedures, along with an implementation schedule, and funding sOurces to enSure long-term management2 If required, the detailed mitigation program shall be prepared in consultation with the Corps and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board and meet with the approval of the County General SerVices Agency ,~ ....... ;.,, r, .... ~ .....~ r,,,.,~,,~, prior to any construCtiOn on the site. Page 8-33: Mitigation Measure 8.3.5: Wetland Delineation and Possible Replacement. The preliminary wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for Verification, if this site is selected for the project. If the identified wetlands and detention basin are not considered jurisdictional then no additional mitigation is considered necessary. If the Corps and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board deten~ines these features are jurisdictional, then a mitigation program shall be prepared by a qualified wetland specialist, and shall at minimum provide for no net loss of wetlands. This mitigation program will be required to provide for the creation of replacement habitat with and increase in acreage and value at a secure location to meet the "no net loss" standard. Any mitigation program shall include monitoring and management for a minimum of five years to ensure success of wetlands creation; Specify success criteria, maintenance, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures; and define site preparation and revegetation procedures, along with an implementation schedule, and funding sources to ensure 10rig-term management. If required, the detailed mitigation program shall be ~e~r~ ~n c~n~ultatiOn With the C0~S and/0r Regional water ~)ualitY control Board and meet with the approval of the County General Services Agency Ccmxv..un/ty r-, .... ~ .... "~ r,~,~,., .... * prior t° any construCtion on the site. Page 8-34: Mitigati°n MeaSure 823,6: wetland Delineation and possible Replacement, The preliminary wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification,, if this site is selected for the project. If the identified wetlands and drainage ditch are not considered jurisdictional then no additional mitigation is considered necessary. If the Corps and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board determines these features are jurisdictional, then a mitigation program shall be prepared by a qualified wetland specialistl and shall at minimum provide for no net l°ss of wetlands. This mitigation program will be required to provide for the creation of replacement habitat with and increase in acreage and value at a secure location to meet the "no net loss" standard. Any mitigation program shall include monitoring and management for a minimum of five years to ensure success of wetlands creation; specify success criteria, maintenance, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures; and define site preParation and revegetation procedures, along with an implementation schedule, and funding sources to ensure long-term management. If required, the detailed mitigation program shall be prepared in consultation with the Corps and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-81 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments and meet with the approval of the County General Services Agency Cmnmun/ty ...... v .................. prior to any construction on the site. As noted in the above mitigations, the County's General Services Agency, rather than the Community Development Agency, is responsible for implementing mitigations unless this task is specifically assigned to another designated agency. The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, available with the Final EIR/EIS, provides a summary of the mitigations for the preferred alternative and party responsible for implementing them. Response to Comment 9-78: As discussed on page 8-36, proposed development on either the East County Government Center site or Site 15A is not expected to have significant impacts on wildlife habitat. Both of these sites have been extensively altered by past development activities and are border by existing roads and development, limiting opportunities for movement and use by terrestrial wildlife species. Mitigation measures recommended to address the potential for occurrence of nesting raptors and loggerhead shrike would adequately protect any sensitive wildlife habitat values. Similarly, if trustee agencies determine that jurisdictional wetlands are present, appropriate mitigation would be required which would replace any wetland habitat values associated with the man-made depressions, detention basin, and low-lying areas. Response to Comment 949: The consistency discussions under Impacts 8.5.5 and 8.5.6 are based on the relevant policies from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan listed on page 8-5 of the EIS/EIR. The discussion refers to the earlier assessment of potential impacts on special-status species, (Impact 8.1), sensitive natural communities (Impact 8.2), wetlands (Impact 8.3), and loss of wildlife habitat (Impact 8.4), focusing on potential wetland, sensitive wildlife and special-status species. These subject topics are clearly presented in the report, and additional cross-referencing suggested by the commentor is not considered necessary. Refer to the responses to Comments %60, 69, and 70 through 78 for conclusions regarding changes to the text of the EIS/EIR recommended by the commentor. Response to Comment 9-80: The County acknowledges that the City of Dublin has adopted traffic impact fees for private development projects in Eastern Dublin whiCh are subject to the City's discretionary approval. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised on page 9.1 to add a new section entitled, "City of DUblin Traffic Impact Fees" in the Regulatory/Policy Setting as follows: City of Dublin Traffic Impact Fees The City of Dublin imposes the following traffic impact fees on development projects in Eastern Dublin: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-82 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments a. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, imposed to finance transportation improvements needed to reduce traffic-related impacts caused by development in Eastern Dublin. This fee is imposed on a per-trip basis. Freeway InterChange Fee, which is imposed to reimburse the City of Pleasanton for costs to construct the 1-580/Tassajara Road and 1-580/Hacienda Drive interchange improvements. These fees are also imposed on a per-trip basis, c. Tri-Valley TranSportati°n DeVel°pmeni Feel which is imp°sed tO finance transportation improvements in the Tri-Valley development area made necessary by development in this portion of Alameda County. In some instances, government buildings are sp%ifiCall~em~t~d'i'r0~ tlii~ fee~ Response to Comment 9-81: Comment noted. These documents are incorporated by reference. :, : Response to Comment 9-82: Under the Scenarios Al, A2 and B, the traffic analysis assumed 427,200 square-foot Cisco System development on the Site 15A. This portion of the Cisco development is expected to generate 2,802 daily trips, 534 trips occurred during the a.m. peak and 504 trips during the p.m. peak hour to the City of Dublin road network. Therefore, the Draft EIS/EIR analysis and texts haVe, in fact, taken into ConSideration the cUmUlative impacts due to the development on Site 15A under the Scenarios Al, A2 and B. Response to Comment 9-83: The MTS roadways in Dublin for which the County Congestion Management Agency would require anil lS" re listed'on pag~ 9,1011 comment regarding deVelopment' paying its proportionate share of roadway costs is noted. Response to Comment 9-84: The description of existing roadways on page 9-24 of the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Important Roadways Important roadways serving the East County GOvernment Center and Site 15A area include: Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. It is a four lane divided road` fronted largely by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road: Between Dougherty Road and Tassaiara Road, Dublin BouleVard is a six'lane divided Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-83 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments arterial fronted primarily by residential, commercial and vacant lands. East cf DougheXy .......... ~,. ...................................... 3 -~ Tass ara Road. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to ~eegan Street as a four-lane roadway fronted by new residential development. Average daily volume near Arnold Road is approximately 16,000 vehicles. Central Parkway is a two-lane east-west collector that extends from Arnold Road to Tassajara Road, and will be extended to Keegan Street (east of Tassajara Road) as part of the East Dublin Properties project. Haciehda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. North ofi-580, Hacienda Drive is a two-to-six-lane arterial running in the north-south direction from Gleason Drive southerly to 1-580. It is primarily fronted by commercial, office and Drive as a two !ane roadway. Average daily volume near Central Parkway is approximately 9,700 vehicles. South of 1-580, Hacienda Drive is a six-lane divided road, a major arterial in the City of Pleasanton. Response to Comment 9-85: The 19 study intersections were selected on the basis that they would handle most of the project traffic, and had been designated by the City of Dublin as study intersections for other proposed developments in the vicinity of the developments that are the subject of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Digital Drive/Hacienda Drive intersection is currently a very high capacity intersection. At the time of the preparation and release of the Draft EIS/EIR, the previously approved project served by the intersection was inactive, and the City (subsequent to the initiation of the subject Draft EIS/EIR) embarked on a study of an alternative proposal for the site, the proposed Ikea development. No details of this proposal were available at the time of the subject study. Response to Comment 9-86: The following table summarizes the source of each count and the date on which each location was counted: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-84 Chapter 2: Responses to comments Summary of Count Dates and Sources EaSt CountY Government Center and Site 15A Source of ID Signalized Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Count 1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) BayMetrics 2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) TJKM 3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway1 Jan 23, 2002 (Wed) Jan 23, 2002 (Wed) TJKM 6 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Dublin 7 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Dublin 8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) BayMetrics 9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) TJKM 10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive Jan 8, 2002 (Tue) Jan 8, 2002 (Tue) TJKM 13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Jan 10, 2002 (Thu) Jan 10, 2002 (Thu) TJKM 14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Jan 10, 2002 (Thu) Jan 10, 2002 (Thu) Dublin 15 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Jan 10, 2002 (Thu) Jan 10, 2002 (Thu) TJKM 16 Dougherty Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Dublin 17 Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Dublin 18 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Dublin 19 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound/Pimlico Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Jan 9, 2002 (Wed) Dublin ID Unsignalized Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive Aug 8, 2001 (Wed) Aug 8, 2001 (Wed) TJKM 5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard Aug 8, 2001 (Wed) Aug 8, 2001 (Wed) TJKM 11 Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive Aug 9, 2001 (Thu) Aug 8, 2001 (Wed) TJKM 12 Madigan AvenuelBroder Boulevard Aug 9, 2001 (Thu) Aug 9, 2001 (Thu) TJKM As shown on the above table, only the relatively low volume, not congested unsignalized intersections were counted in August 2001. The levels of service at these four intersections are not expected to change much With the use of cOunts conducted after the summer of 2001. Response to Comment 9-87: Contrary to the commentor's assertions, the baseline conditions level-of-service analysis is complete and provides an accurate basis for a conservative analysis of the traffic impacts a~s0ciated With the pr°poSed Action. The Draft~EIS/EIR indicates in the third Paragraph on page 9-31 which interseCtion analyses include lane geometry that are assumed to be altered from Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-85 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments existing conditions. For each of the seven intersections, the lane geometry assumptions for baseline conditions are conservative in that they reflect approved and planned improvements for whch 100% financing has been allocated. The baseline lane geometry assumptions do not reflect planned but unfunded improvements because without full finding commitment the improvements cannot be assumed to be operational by the time the Project is under construction. Consequently, the Draft EIS/EIR relies on a conservative methodology to project level-of-service results that may be more realistic than those level of service results that are based on assumptions which may not be realized in a timely manner. Response to Comments 9-88 and 9-89: Lane geometries and signal timing were checked with City of Dublin staff and were adjusted to determine whether any new significant impacts would occur. The City's assumptions resulted in the same or better level of service results. As stated in Response to Comment 9-87, the Draft EIS/EIR used conservative assumptions, and is therefore a worst-case analysis. Actual mitigation requirements for the development of one or both projects in Dublin would be determined as part of the County's final development plans, based on the project that is ultimately approved by the County Board of Supervisors and reviewed by the City of Dublin. Response to Comment 9.90: Contrary to the commentor's assertions, the baseline conditions analysis is complete and provides an accurate basis for a conservative analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Action. The Draft EIS/EIR states in the last paragraph on page 9-23 that the baseline condition is defined as existing conditions plus future traffic from approved and pending projects within the vicinity of the proposed Project. The text on page 9-23 inadvertently refers to "pending projects." In fact, the evaluation of baseline conditions is based on existing conditions plus future traffic from approved projects. These projects are further described in the analysis as projects consisting of developments that are either under construction, are built but not fully occupied, or are unbuilt but have final development plan approval. The second sentence of the last paragraph on page 9-23 is revised as follows to clarify the definition of baseline conditions: The baseline condition is defined as existing conditions plus future traffic from approved ~,,,4 ~; ..... ;~*~ within the vicinity of the proposed Project. The list of approved projects was based on all known projects within the Eastern Dublin planning area which were approved, occupied, or under construction at the time the County and OJP/BJA commenced preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR analysis. This approach represented an accurate projection of baseline traffic conditions in the near-term (2005) scenario. Moreover, planned roadway improvements were not assumed in the baseline conditions unless the roadway improvements were required to be implemented within the horizon of the baseline analysis and 100% funding commitments have been allocated to assure construction of the improvements. In Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-86 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments this way, the baseline analysis does not overestimate available traffic capacity and underestimate the traffic impacts at the analyzed intersections. Consequently, the EIS/EIR does not require a mCdified analysis of baseline Conditions nor does it trigger recirculation. The c°mment°r is also referred to the Master Response regarding recirculation. The traffic analYsis includes all substantial projects in the vicinity of the proposed project. The Transit Center traffic study was neither complete nor available at the time of the Notice of Preparation and the project had not been approved. Most of the Transit Center project occupies land not inCluded in the East Dublin SpeCific Plan Or its EIR. The Transit Center project was not approved until November, 2002, just prior to the release of the Draft EIS/EIR. Consequently, because this project was not approved at the time the traffic analysis was conducted, it was not included in the baseline conditions. The Transit Center Project is, however, included as a future pending project in the cumulative analysis as explained in Chapter 17 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR indicates that Under both near-tem~ (2005) and fum?e (2025)Cumulative conditions, the Proposed Project, in conjunction with baseline and cumulative traffic would result in a significant environmental impact to the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. The commentor is referred to Tables 9-17 through 9.27 and Chapter 17, Tables 17.13 through 17.19. For all baseline plus project and cumulative conditions, the EIS/EIR rePorted that unaCceptable levels ofsei3ice Would OCcUr at this interSectiOn. The commentor is referred to Response to Comment 9-80 regarding the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Feesl The mitigation measures identified in Mitigation MeasUre 9.1.5 require the County to cOntribute its proportionate share to the funding of local roadway and intersection improvements. It is anticipated that the County either will contribute its fair share through the construction of the improvements or funding which may consist of the payment of applicable traffic impact fees. Any of these methods are consistent with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigation Measure 9.1.5. Consequently, the Draft EIS/EIR does not require recirculation. The DUblin/D°Ugherty intersection Was analYzed under cUrrent lane patterns, as oppOSed to lane patterns plarmed by the City subsequent to the completion of the EIS/EIR traffic study, which will expand the intersection. The Draft EIS/EIR prOvides a worst-case analysis. Response to Comment 9-91: As noted elseWhere, the Transit Center EIR was approved subsequent to the Notice of Preparation of the subject EIR, and traffic information from the project was not made available by the City. Several locations in East Dublin were being improved at the time of the preparation of the EIR and have subsequently changed. All locations identified by the commentor were in that category. Response to Comments 9-92 and 9-93: Please see Response to Comment 9-88 and 9-89 regarding methodology used in traffic modeling. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Half of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-87 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-94: The East Dublin Specific Plan predated many of the traffic tools currently used to analyze traffic conditions in East Dublin, including the Tri-Valley Transportation Model and the CCTALOS methodology. The comments refer to the fact that at the time of the preparation of the EDSP, no significant development was in place in East Dublin. All traffic information was predicted; at the present time a significant amount of traffic data can be measured (instead of predicted), since a substantial amount of development has occurred. The point is that traffic conditions did not develop exactly as predicted in the studies but new measurements are made as required to record actual conditions. Response to Comment 9-95: Detailed comparisons with the EDSP are not available or relevant. All lane patterns noted represent proposals or designs previously approved by Dublin or Pleasanton. All improvements are funded by the East Dublin Traffic Improvement Fee or direct developer construction. Response to Comment 9-96: Under Baseline conditions during the p.m. peak hour, approximately one-third (=1153/(1153+2319) of the traffic on the southbound Tassajara Road approach to the westbound 1-580 ramps intersection is expected to go on the westbound on-ramp. Therefore, no more than one-third of the eastbound movement on Dublin Boulevard is expected to turn right onto southbound Tassajara Road and then proceed onto the westbound 1-580 on-ramp at the next intersection. With a triple right, the eastbound curb lane should have the capacity to safely accommodate this traffic movement. Signage can be placed on the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to inform drivers that the curb lane essentially feeds the 1-580 westbound on-ramp. Response to Comment 9-97: For the reasons discussed in the prior responses, the baseline LOS analysis is accurate and does not require re-evaluation nor does the Draft EIS/EIR require recirculation. The lane geometries reflect conservative assumptions regarding the existing roadway configurations as updated to reflect roadway improvements under construction or for which 100% of the funding has been allocated. The baseline analysis is based on an accurate list of approved projects representative of their approval status during the preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR. Pending projects are accurately reflected in the cumulative impacts analysis. The commentor is also referred to the Master Response regarding recirculation. Response to Comment 9-98: Please refer to response to comment 9-88 and 9-89 regarding the LOS analysis. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-88 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-99: There is no evidence to support the assumption that parking demand would be lower at the Santa Rita Rehabili~ation center during the summer, when the COUnts were taken. The level of activity at the Center is generally consistent throughout the year, unlike a school or other use that has Vacation days °r P~ri0ds 0fth~ yearl parking is sufficiently available at the existing lOts and in the proposed lots to accommodate substantially more traffic during the typical weekday, and on weekends during visiting, and there is space to restripe secure lots in the rear of the Center to provide additional spaces, as noted in Response to Comment 9-21 and 9-47, and pages 9-84 through 9-87 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-100: B~T provides direct service between Dublin-Pleasanton and San Francisco-Colma. Therefore, BART riders Originating froTM the DUblin-Pleasanton With destinations between Hayward and Fremont would need to transfer to the Fremont line at Bay Fair station, similarly, those with destinations along the Richmond line would need to transfer at one of the stations between Bay Fair and Lake Merritt. Those with destinations along the Concord-BaY P°int line WOUld need to transfer at Oakland West station. The return trip fi.om these three lines would require one "reverse"transfer similar to the one made on the trip from Dublin-Pleasanton. The Draft EIS/EIR states the available capacity on BART during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The greatest capacity (1,746 seats) is in the p.m. peak hour, which coincides with when most of the employees (and perhaps visitors) are expected to leave the East County Government Center to return home to one of the cities served by BARTi Response to COmment 9.101: Significance criteria were applied to the analysis to reflect the various alternative sites under consideration, providing a consistent framework under which a comparison could be made. As noted on page 9-2 of the Draft EIS/EIR, specific methodOlogies were used in conducting the analysis consistent with local practice. The City of Dublin's General Plan policies and significance criteria are not appreciably different from the criteria used in the Draft EIS/EIR. The Project EIS/EIR is consistent with the City's approach, i.e. LOS D as a goal for Routes of Regional Significance and at other intersections within the City of Dublin. The Draft EIS/EIR further identifies any increase of 1% or more on routes that are already operating at LOS E or F as'significant. The impact conclusions are consistent with these criteria. Response to Comments 9-102, 103 and t04: Please see Response to Comment 9-97 and the Master Response regarding recirculation at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-105: The City Plans tO have the following apProach lanes at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road: · Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-89 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments NB Dougherty: Triple left, three through and two right turn only lanes. SB Dougherty: Double left, three through and one shared through right lanes. WB Dublin: Triple left, two through and one shared through right lanes. EB Dublin: Single left, three through and two right turn only lanes. Rather than assume all of these approach lanes would be in place under build-out conditions, the Draft EIS/EIR conservatively uses existing lane configurations because funding has not been fully allocated to assure that these improvements will be constructed prior to commencement of the Project. Furthermore, with these improvements, the intersection would operate at a better level of service. The Draft EIS/EIR provides a worst-case analysis and therefore does not require amendment. The County would provide a fair share of funding for these improvements, consistent with Mitigation Measure 9.1.5. Response to Comment 9-106: A list of the architectural programs used in calculating the traffic and parking demand is provided in Chapter 18 of the Draft EIS/EIR, Section 18.4, under "2. Purpose and Need". The trip rates were also based on consultation with the project architects, engineers, County staff, and surveys of existing operations. The transportation consultants, TJKM Transportation Consultants, prepared numerous spreadsheets and calculations that are available upon request to the County of Alameda, as part of the administrative record for the study. Trip generation used in the report is considered conservative, based on the existing traffic patterns at the San Leandro site of the Juvenile Hall and the Pleasanton site of the Hall of Justice (see pages 9-37 and 9~38 of the Draft EIS/EIR). In fact, the peak hour trip generation per bed used in the analysis is at least four times as much as existing conditions at the Juvenile Hall in San Leandro. Although this discrepency was described as allowing for the increased office and court functions at the Project, in fact the estimate, even accounting for transit use, was overly conservative. Existing activity at the Hall of Justice in Pleasanton also was measured by TJKM Transportation Consultants. The estimate of daily and peak hour vehicle trips used in the Draft EIS/EIR is approximately two to four times the actual measured trip rate per courtroom at the existing facility, providing a substantial margin for any error in the transit reduction and ridesharing assumed for the project. Response to Comment 9-107: As stated on page 9-57, the trip distribution assumptions are based on "existing travel patterns, Project travel patterns for employment, visitors and jurors, and knowledge of the study area. The estimates represent a composite of all uses at the site, although it is recognized that individual uses may vary slightly in percentages and travel routes". Response to Comment 9-108: Mitigation Measure 9.1.5 provides that the County should fund a fair share of local roadway improvements. However, Baseline conditions assume that approved projects are built and Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-90 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments provide the necessary mitigation measures that are part of that approval. Projected Baseline traffic levels would not materialize if the proposed Project is constructed prior to the Transit Center, so the mitigation reqUested bY the City' would nOt be required unlesS and until the Transit Center is built, at which time the Transit Center developers would provide the required mitigation, consistent with the CitY's apprOval of that project. ' Response to Comment 9-109: Comment noted regarding the possible benefits of a transportation demand program, ride sharing, free or discounted BART or other transit passes, and the 1-580 Smart Corridor program. Mitigation Measure 17.1.5a and 17.1.6a contained in the Draft EIS/EIR require implementation of a TSM/TDM program with shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing, and other measures for employees and visitors. Additionally, the Draft EIS/EIR includes Mitigation Measure 17.1.5b and 17.1.6b requiring an enhanced transit program. Response to Comment 9-110: Please see response to Comment 9-96. RespOnse to Comment 9-111: The resulting level of significance can be determined from the tables that accompany the analysis. The same mitigation measures apply to the impacts in each scenario, and they are equally effective in addressing the identified impaCts as previouslY stated in the firSt instance. See Tables 9.19, 9.21, 9.23, 9.25, and 9.27 in the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-112: Impacts to the Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard intersection are classified as significant in the Draft EIS/EIR acCording to the established signficance criteria, which are consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and professional judgement and practice in the area. As stated on page 9-61, mitigation at this intersection was considered infeasible, to the extent that physical constraints and projected traffic volumes were known at the time and expected to occur as a result of the conservative assumptions used in the analysis. The proposed Project will contribute its fair share of the funding toward implementation of roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the Significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Such funding may contribute to the funding of planned ultimate improvements and other applicable imProvements identified for other recently approved projects in the vicinity, provided that these improvements also are reqfiiredt° mitigate for the imPacts of the proposed Project. The CoUnty c°ncurs that if the EaSt County Government Center site is selected as the alternative for either project, the County will contribute its fair share toward the implementation of the planned intersection improvements at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard. The CitY's ultimate improvements at that location may result in better-then-projected conditions, in which case the impact of the project would be less than was forecasted in the Draft EIS/EIR. Recirculation of a Draft EIS/EIR is not required when no new significant impacts are identified. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-91 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-113: As stated in the Draft-EIS/EIR, page 9-87, parking required for the East County Hall of Justice is 850 spaces. This number has been calculated based upon an analysis of the parking demand of the existing Pleasanton courthouse, as adjusted for greater occupancy of the facility, plus the needs of the jurors, jury pool, lawyers, witnesses, visitors, and the general public. It is a conservative number, but, if additional parking is later determined to be needed, the site is large enough to accommodate the construction of more surface parking. Response to Comment 9-114: In a letter dated February 24, 2003, the LAVTA general manager considers the expansion in service that may be needed with the proposed Project: As the current WHEELS fixed-route service in the affected area is not at capacity, parts of the anticipated new demand can be accommodated with the transit services that presently exist. However, extended temporal coverage for route 1 would likely be necessary, as DART is not designed to accommodate large point-to-point loads. Depending on how evenly the demand would be spread out, larger transit vehicles could also prove necessary in order to accommodate spot surges in ridership, even if these occur only on particular trips. Response to Comment 9-115: In the same letter mentioned above, the LAVTA general manager addresses the financial implications of improving service: Since LA VTA 's financial resources are severely limited at this point in time, it is requested that the County, as a sponsor of the project, provide some level of capital and operating funding for improved transit services to the proposed facilities-improvements that LA VTA otherwise may not be able to provide-as a condition for approval of the project. Response to Comment 9-116: The Draft EIS/EIR assumed that as a worst case condition, up to ten percent of the total daily trips and peak hour trips to the Project would be made by transit. In fact, the analysis also assumed that some of the trip reduction at the site would be due to carpooling/ridesharing by employees and visitors conducting business at the Projects. Furthermore, as noted in Response to Cormnent 9-106, the overall trip generation estimates for the Project are between two and four times as high as the existing operations that were field-measured at the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro and Hall of Justice in Pleasanton. Therefore the transit analysis overestimates potential demand without compromising the vehicular traffic impact estimates. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-92 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-117: The TSM/TDM Program and Enhanced TranSit prOgram recOmmended in Mitigation Measures 9.4.5, 9.4.6, 17.1.5 and 17.1.6 are recommended in order to further reduce project-generated trips. Reducing project-generated trips further reduces traffic volumes using Congestion Management Program facilities which would be impacted by the Proposed Action. The Draft EIS/EIR recommends that the County contribute its fair share to regional transportation mitigation programs through the payment of TVTC fees in order to fund regional transportation improvements. The last paragraph on page 17-17 of the Draft EIS/EIR inadvertently refers to different mitigation measures than those referenced for the impacts determined through the Congestion Management Agency modeling. Consequently, the folloWing text revisions are included in the Final EIS/EIR: Resulting Level of Significance: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 17.1.5a and 17.1.6a (TSM/TDM Program), 17.1.Sb and 17.1.6b (Enhanced Transit Program) and 17.1.5c and 17.1.6c (TVTC Fees)~,~. v~/r ....... 17.4.5a, ~'u, ,,,~-~ v, ~ _~,,~ ~'~.,. ~..~',, *,u and c above, the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580, Dougherty Road and Dublin Blvd, could be a significant and unavoidable effect because funding may not be adequate to provide for implementation of all of the necessary mitigation measures planned for the Tri-Valley. ResP°nse t° c0mment 9;1~8: ~ ~ : ~ .... :,. In an e-mail dated October 22, 2002 from CMA staff, Hopyard and Santa Rita Roads were not listed as MTS roadwaY segments that needed to be analyzed. Response to Comment 9-119: Travel distance, VMT, and related impacts to air quality and environmental justice are described in Chapters 11 and 16. Signalized intersections (including the Project's study intersections) are designed to assign right of way to not only drivers, but also pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian facilities at signalized intersections typically include painted crosswalks, pedestrian signal indications and push buttons. Bicyclists can dismount and use the pedestrian facilities at a signalized intersection or travel on the road as a regulated vehicle. In the vicinity of the Dublin alternative sites, the following roadway segments have bike lanes: Dublin Blvd. (Demarcus to Hacienda) W/B - Striped only at intersections between RT & through until after Sybase parking lot entrance (before Amold) then paved off-street "trail". No Bike Lane signs. E/B - Striped only at intersections between RT & through. No sidewalk. Arnold (Dublin Blvd. to Gleason) Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-93 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments N/B - Nan'ow paved trail on east side of street until Central Pkwy then striped on street until Gleason. No Bike Lane signs until striped area. S/B - Striped with signs from Gleason to Central Pkwy then no Bike Lane on this side. Hacienda (Dublin Blvd. to Gleason): Bike lane and signs both ways Central Pkwy (Hacienda to Arnold): Bike lane and signs both ways Gleason (Hacienda to Arnold): Bike lane and signs both ways Trip reduction strategies under Mitigation Measures 9.4.2b, 9.4.5a, and 9.4.6a could include incentives for bicycle use, and would include pedestrian travel to and from transit stops. Due to the County-wide and sub-County-wide service area of the Projects, few pedestrians are expected to travel to the sites without making a vehicular connection. On-site pedestrian safety is addressed as part of each of the site plans through the provision of adequate sidewalks, as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and other codes and practices. Mitigation Measures 9.4.2b, 9.4.5a, and 9.4.6a on pages 9-96 and 9-108 of the Draft EIS/EIR are hereby amended to include incentives for bicycle use, as follows: Mitigation Measure 9.4.2b: TSM/TDM Program. The County of Alameda should develop and implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, provision of on-site bicycle parking and employee showers, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours. Mitigation Measure 9.4.5a and 9.4.6a: TSM/TDM Program. The County of Alameda should implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, provision of on-site bicycle parking and employee showers, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours. Response to Comment 9-120: Commuter trips are very similar for the Juvenile Justice Facility and other office and government uses, because the use includes a substantial component of offices, courts, and daytime employees. Visitor trips for those conducting business with the courts, administrative offices, and detention center were estimated to account for approximately 60% of the total peak hour Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-94 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments trips, thereby providing a substantial opportunity for trip reduction if employer participation is encouraged through existing and enhanced trip reduction programs. Response to Comment 9-121: Please see Response to Comment 2-1. Helicopter nOise sometimes occurs in the area. According to the 1995 Woodward Clyde study, Noise Source Inventory and Noise Abatement Plan for Patios Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin CA, "The limited Camp Parks-related helicopter activity was also found to cause minimal cumulative noise effects upon the community (noise levels less than 55 dBA Ldn)". (pg 4-1) Helicopters monitoring freeway conditions are often more prevalent than military helicopters. In either case, helicopter noise would not impair the function of the juvenile hall and courts at the Dublin location. The following change is hereby made to the discussion in the Draft EIS/EIR: Page 12-i4 and Page 12-19, Aviation Operations in Site vicinity The City of Livermore Airport is located more than six miles east of the site, and no private aViation facilities are located in the vicinity. Miiita _rY helicopters also occasiOnally fl',/in the Parks RFTA area. Response to. Comment 9,122: According to the Draft EIS/EIR noise section, "LT-1 was made in the center of the rear yard of #5764 Idlewood Street behind an 8-foot sound wall along Hacienda Drive. At this location, Hacienda Drive was the major noise source. Construction of nearby offices also contributed to noise levels. Distant gunfire from the County Sheriff's Shooting Range was audible but not measurable at this location. The CNEL measured at this location was 58 dBA. The hourly data are displayed graphically in Figure 10.9. Measurement LT-2 was made on a pole at the comer of Idlewood Court and Winterbrook Avenue approximately 60 feet from the sound wall off Gleason Drive. At this site, gunshots were more audible but not measurable over the noise from traffic on Gleason Drive. The CNEL at this location was 57 dBA." ~During the monitoring surveys, even with distant gun range use audible, Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) are within acceptable limits, and thus no significant impact would occur. Response to Comment 9-123: Table 10.4 in the Draft EIS/EIR prOVides nOise exposure criteria from the City °fDublin General Plan Noise Element. Response to Comment 9'124:: Comment in agreement with the Draft EIS/EIR conclusion regarding significant noise impacts is noted. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of JustiCe - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-95 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-125: Quiet paving is often open-grade asphalt or rubberized asphalt. Cost depends upon the underlying structure of the existing road. If the existing road bed is in good shape, a simple overlay may suffice. If the current roadbed is substandard then more major reconstruction can be necessary. If the existing road is currently in good shape, noise attenuation can be on a local road (35 mph) may be on the order of 2-4 dBA. Some studies have found that mpaving severely degraded roads with quiet paving materials can produce reductions ranging from 7-10 dBA. Response to Comment 9-126: Noise mitigations proposed in the Draft EIS/EIR would be sufficient to protect the possible future development of a public park near Site 15A from temporary construction noise impacts. Impact 10.3.6 concerns construction noise impacts. Therefore, regardless of whether a neighborhood park is planned adjacent to Site 15A as a part of the Transit Center development plan, there is no existing noise sensitive receiver that would be impacted by the temporary construction noise. Future development of a public park would be affected more by local traffic than by construction activity. As described on page 10-18 of the Draft EIS/EIR, Dublin Blvd. currently generates an Ldn of 70 dBA along the roadway, and 64 dBA at 118 feet from the roadway. Construction noise due to development of the Hall of Justice at Site 15A would generate noise on the order of 60 dB at the park site, consistent with the description of potential impacts to the public park near the Pardee/Swan site (see page 10-32 of the Draft EIS/EIR). In addition, the Transit Center project was one of the other project analyzed as a part of the cumulative impacts analysis in Chapter 17 (See p. 17-5.) Cumulative noise impacts for the East County Government Center/Site 15A alternative are discussed at page 17-57 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The commentor has not identified any significant new information that would require recirculation. The commentor is referred to the Recirculation Master Response. Clarification of this potential impact is provided in the following amendment to the Draft EIS/EIR, consistent with the discussion of the Pardee/Swan site: Page 10-33, fourth paragraph: Impact 10.3.6: Site 15A N© ~MPACT~ LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. There are no existing noise sensitive residential receivers in the Vicinity of Site 15A, but offices are located within 500 feet and a future park is planned west of Arnold Drive. Construction activities will result in a temporary_ increase in the local noise levels of over 60 dB at the offices and any future use of the park site. However, the offices are provided with substantial shielding due to the new construction technology used at the building and are not considered a sensitive receptor for the purpose of this analysis. The planned park is not 'get in use, and this would not cause a significant impact upon the transient use of the park and trail facilities because the visitors are present for relatively short periods of time. Construction activities will, therefore, cause a less than significant impact. ~ c~'se nc Therefore, this is considered a less-then-significant adverse impacts. Construction of the new East County Hall of Justice is not associated with the demolition Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-96 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments of the existing Juvenile Hall Or the existing Gale/Shenone Courthouse, so there would be no demolition-related noise impacts. Response to Comment 9-127: Construction~generated ground borne vibration is normally only significant when pile driving or blasting occurs. Pile driving has not been identified as being neCessary to construct the Juvenile Justice Facility or the East County Hall of Justice, based on the expectation that fill soils will be rem6Ved and replaced and the COntinuous and/or isolated spread footings would adequately support the two to four story buildings. This is consistent with the conclusions of the geoteclmical reports for the East County Government Center site and for Cisco Systems at Site 15A. The Draft EIS/EIR does not need to be recirculated because no new significant impact has been identified. Response to Comment 9-128: According to CEQA Section 21081.6, applicants must prepare mitigation monitoring plans and implement them. When the project is approved by elected officials, all adopted air quality mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan adopted in conjunction with the CEQA findings. Response to Comment 9-t29: The Staff at Illingworth ~Ro~in~ ~h~ prepared thea~r ~ali~ SeCti~n ~fthe Draft EiS/EIR, used all of the most detailed and current information for calculating air qUality impacts. The state has about 35 air districts, and some of the larger districts have published CEQA Guidelines. Each air district has developed different information and, in these handbooks, it is customary to reference data rather than reproduce it. The South Coast Air QUality Management District, with a large staff and significant financial resources, has published an excellent CEQA Air Quality Handbook. This handbook provides general construction emission factors for projects, based on estimated development sizes. The primary source for significance thresholds is the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Please note that emission factors are the input to a model or calculation. Significance tlu'esholds are the standards to which the results of this modeling are compared. Response to Comment 9-130: Ten new buses would Serve the project from about 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. five days a week. Each bus would make about two trips per hour of five miles each. Annual bus emissions would increase ~¢~'~th~ i~°il$~ihg! ~6~ ~'ii7'lbs, CO 32.0 lbS, NOX 158 lbs, PM10 2.4 lbs. Response to Comment 9-131' Motor vehicles air emiSsion Calculations are based on the projeCt's traffic stUdy. Calculati°n methodology uses the same basic assumptions for each site (e.g., vehicle fleet mix). The EIR preparers have nOt made a judgment Whether' a Proposed Site Creates "eXCeSsive VMT" or not. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-97 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-132: Many of the technical calculations and model runs are not appropriate for the text of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15006). Technical details of the CO hotspot modeling are available as part of the administrative record, on file with the County of Alameda. Also please note that almost the entire state of California is in attainment of state and federal CO standards, primarily because of reformulated gasoline and cleaner vehicle standards that have been implemented. Response to Comment 9-133: Remediation (as noted in Mitigation Measure 12.1.6) to effectively reduce the potential health hazards of the contaminated soil that exists on the site from previous activities would also remove the source of on-site pollutants that may contribute to grOundwater contamination. As noted on page 12-22, the main source of VOCs detected in the groundwater on the site appears to be off-site, on the adjacent parcel to the east. Alameda County GSA has undertaken characterization activities but has not been named a responsible party for cleaning up this potential source of groundwater contamination. Response to Comment 9-134: See Responses to Comments 9-121 and 2-1. Military helicopters occasionally fly in the vicinity of the Parks RFTA area, although this activity has been described as "limited." Page 12-14 and Page 12-19, Aviation Operations in Site Vicinity The City of Livermore Airport is located more than six miles east of the site, and no private aviation facilities are located in the vicinity. Military helicopters also occasionally fly in the Parks RFTA area. Response to Comment 9-135: Active military use of the East County Government Center site ended in about 1958 and all the buildings were demolished or removed/relocated. Military use of the site had involved predominantly administrative and residential military activities, and no significant military research and development was conducted on site that would result in exposure to radiological contamination. The results of the Environmental Site Assessment activities conducted to date strongly suggests that impacts to soil which may be encountered during site redevelopment are no more significant than those encountered during redevelopment of any of the adjacent former military areas. Studies have not identified conditions that would require extensive remediation prior to redevelopment, i.e. chemical contamination has not been detected at concentrations that would suggest the presence of hazardous waste and concentrations that exceed established risk thresholds. Furthermore, common and routine site development procedures such as worker notification, dust control measures and work stoppage when unusual conditions are encountered conducted in association with a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP), will effectively address Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-98 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments and mitigate potential risks of exposure including those potentially associated with asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP). An SMP will be prepared based on the actual deVeloPment scheme selected, Parks RFTA Building 305 was not located on the East County Government Center site. Part of this confusion is that building numbering schemes were specific to the military unit that was governing the area during a specific time period. There have been at least 2 Building 305's in the Parks RFTA area; circa 1944-1958 --Building 305 was located several blocks to the south of the East ~unty G6vernment center site and was 0ccupied by a boiler room~ and circa i958 to 2000 - Building 305 was located just off of 8th Street on the west side of the military reservation near Dougherty and was initially used as a dormitory, and later used as a "Hot Lab" for the US Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL). The NRDL use of Buildings 305, 3 I0 and 131 (all located on the west side of Parks RFTA/Parks Reserve Forces Training Area), as well as open areas in the uplands more than 1 mile north (Chronic Irradiation Facility) and ~ mile west (Animal Farm) of the East County Government Center site. While these facilities are no longer in use, they have been the subject of studies conducted by the US Army Corp of Engineers and other military branches for several years. The Animal Farm site has already been redeveloped. Cs-137 contamination has been identified in the vicinity of some of the buildings and reportedly animal carcasses have been encountered and removed from the animal farm. A Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the East County Government Center site, which identified several potential environmental conditions. (See Draft EIS/EIR page 12-13.) Although the extent of the contamination is not yet fully known, the Soil Handling/Management Plan that the contractors will be required to prepare pursuant to Mitigation Measure 12.1.5 will contain, among other things, a contingency plan that will ensure that construction workers are adequately protected from health impacts associated with potential exposure to contamination. The commentor has not identified any new significant information that would require recirculation (See Recimulation Master Response). Response to Comment 9-136: As noted in Impact 12.7 (page 12-25 of the Draft EIS/EIR), none of the alternatives, including those in Dublin, have Priority 1 High Risk Facilities that pose a high risk of an accident for the release of hazardous materials. No Hazardous Material Business Plan (HMBP) is required. Response to Comment Soil and groundwater quality at Site 15A have been investigated by Lowney (2000-2002) and Versar (2001). Information regarding these studies was summarized in the Draft EIS/EIR Figures 6.8 and 6.9, and Pages 12-14 through 12-19, Page 12-22 and 12-23. The results of the Environmental Site Assessment activities conducted to date suggests that the site does not contain conditions that would require extensive remediation prior to redevelopment, i.e. chemical contamination has not been detected at concentrations that would suggest the presence of Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EtR Page 2-99 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments hazardous waste and concentrations that exceed established risk thresholds. Furthermore, common and routine site development procedures such as worker notification, dust control measures and work stoppage when unusual conditions are encountered conducted in association with a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP), will effectively address and mitigate potential risks of exposure including those potentially associated with asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP). An SMP will be prepared based on the actual development scheme selected. Response to Comment 9-138: Site remediation is a standard method of reducing the potential for impacts associated with elevated levels of hydrocarbons and is proposed as Mitigation Measure 12.1.6 (see page 12-23). Use of"should" and "recommended" in this context does not mean that site remediation will not be conducted. Instead, the recommendations in this mitigation present the various options (including hauling soil offsite, case closure of two former service stations, and preparation of a soil management plan) that are available to achieve site remediation and render the potential hazard less than significant. Response to Comment 9-139: Comment noted. The County is exempt from local land use, zoning and building regulations, including the impacts fees described in this comment subject to the restrictions on the County's immunity resulting from the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement. See Responses to Comments 9-27 and 9-30. Should the County select the East County Government Center/Site 15A alternative, the County would pay any applicable impact fees. Page 13-13, new paragraph 4: The City of Dublin currently levies a fire protection fee for new development to offset the cost of providing new station, equipment and personnel. The fee is meant to reduce the impacts of future development on the City's existing fire facilities. Fees are paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance based on square foota,~e of the respective building(s). Page 13-15, new paragraph 3: Dublin currently charges a public facilities fee for new developments to finance public improvements including, but not limited too, neighborhood and community parks. Fees are imposed on the basis of population created by various development types and paid at the time of building permit issuance. Maintenm~ce ofparkland is funded by the City's General Fund. Page ] 3-16, new paragraph 3: Dublin currently charges a public facilities fee for new developments to finance public improvements including, but not limited too, libraries. Fees are imposed on the basis of Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-100 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments population created by various development types and paid at the time of building permit issuance. The Noise Mitigation Fee does not apply to either the East County Government Center or Site 15A as they are both public facilities and therefore exempted from the fee. Response to Comment 9-140: Comment nOted, The Draft EIS/~i~ ~:~ ~fi aiuendea ~i0: reliant that ih~ n~ighb°rh°Od P~k ~ part of the recently approved Transit Center, as follows: .... page 13-15, paragraph 2: The. City park facilities nearest the East County Government Center site are to the east, Within approXimately one mile. The first is Emerald Glen Park, a 28-acre community park that offers sports facilities, a Snack bar, picnic area and a restroom. The second facility is a public access walking and hiking trail along Tassajara Creek. The trail foll°ws the creek from Interstate 1-580 north, and although the creek continues, the trail currently ends along the western side of the subdivision north of Gleason Drive. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) owns the right-of-way ~/nd~has ~ntered int° ~ agreement ~itl:i th~CitY of Dublin permitting pUbliC u~e Of the' maintenance trail provided the City maintains the trail and assumes financial responsibility for the public's use of the trail. The City has also approved a third facility, a new NeighborhOod Park. This new Park Will be l°catedto the sOuth, °n site F of the Transit Center. There are additional parks and recreation facilities near the East County Government Center site, but these are private facilities for residents of area subdivisions. Additionally, a neighborhood park Will be developed on Site F of the recently approved Transit Center, which will be located west of Site 15A. Response to Comment 9-141: Comment noted. As explained in the discussion of Impact 13.1.1 (p. 13-18), the indirect impacts on public services Would be no greater than OtherWise expected for anticipated growth in the region, and these indirect impacts Would~ in part, be mitigated bY the payment of applicable impact fees associated with new residential development already occurring in these area. The impacts on public services resulting from the number of visitors to the East County Hall of Justice on City facilities are direct impacts of the Project. Therefore, these impacts resulting from increased visitors do not need to be examined as part of the Impact 13.1, Indirect Effects on Public Services section. It should be noted that the direct impacts on City facilities from visitors to the East County Hail of Justice are addressed throughout Chapter 13 of the Draft EIS/EIK. Response to Comment 9-142: As stated in the Draft EIS/EIR, all security at the Juvenile Justice Facility would be provided by the Alameda county Sheriff's Office and/or the Alameda county ProbatiOn Department, not the City of Dublin Police Department. As noted in the comment, it was the Sheriff's Office who Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-101 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments responded to the calls for service at the existing San Leandro facility, not the City of San Leandro Police Department. Actual calls for service in the last year for the entire complex was 61. They covered a range of issues, not all of which were crime related. Calls for service from within the institution at Dublin would by agreement go to the Sheriff's Department. The City of Dublin Police Department would not experience any increased amount of calls for service from within the new facility, as the new facility will not be within their jurisdiction. All impacts related to the City of Dublin Police services are found to be less-than-significant for reasons given in impact section 13.3.5 and 13.3.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-143: It is true that building the project will bring more people to the area during the daytime hours if the facility is constructed. The presence of more people often results in demand for more police officers. In terms of environmental analysis, visitors and employees are categorized as daytime population, and Would not have any more impact on police services than would an increase an equal increase in the residential population of the area. This is because calculation of police service demand in Dublin is based on a simple ratio of 1.38 officers to 1,000 residents. Theoretically, this daytime population might have less of an impact than permanent residents because they would leave during the night, lowering the impact on police services for that shift. It also must be noted that just because a person visits an inmate he/she is not more likely to commit a crime than any other person. The City of Dublin has already taken into account an increasing population in its Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the surrounding neighborhood. The project will not increase the population, and consequently raise the demand for police services, beyond what has already been forecasted for Eastern Dublin by the City. In other words, the increased daytime population and subsequent increased police services demand generated by the Project has already been taken into account and planned for by the City. Therefore, the Project's increased demand for police services is not a significant environmental impact because it does not exceed the predicted police services demand allotted for the area in the City's General Plan. Response to Comment 9-144: Comment noted. The planned landscaped 2-acre park-like setting will undergo the SDR process to determine whether it is adequate with respect to all City rules and regulations governing recreational facilities. Response to Comment 9-145: Site 15A will have a public plaza and landscaping, but it will not include the 2-acre park-like setting found in the plans for the East County Government Center. It is plausible that many of the employees at the new East County Hall of Justice will use the proposed park if it is built, as will employees of many of the surrounding businesses. The City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has already anticipated an amount of park demand that exceeds the projected park demand generated by the project. Thus, there is no significant impact from the project above and beyond what was already predicted for Eastern Dublin. Therefore, the project does not need to Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-102 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments identify mitigation measures because there is no direct significant impact on park demand from the project to mitigate. Response to Comment 9-146: As noted in the Draft EIS/EIR, page 14-18, the water demand factors are derived from Table 3-4 of the DSRSD's i/Vater Master Plan (September 2000). The DSRSD's Final VFater Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin (2001) provides an analysis that "demonstrates that it [DSRSD] has ~hred sufficient water SUpplies to serve the approximately 4,970,000 gpd potable water demand for ail of Eastern Dublin"(see page 14-21). This analysis included the demand for potable water that would be generated by the Project on this site. As the commentor notes, the Draft EIS/EIR discusses water demand using the unit of"gallons per day." This unit is used both in the analysis of the increase in water demand that may occur as a result of the Project and for the total water demand projected by the service area provider (i.e., EBMUD or DSRSD) over a given time frame. By using the same units for water demand, comparing the total demand to the demand created by the Project is straightforward and is included in the analysis for each alternative. For example, on page 14-18, the analysis includes the following: "under this alternative [the increased demand] represents approximately 0.2 percent of this overall demand [for EBMUD's water]." Response to Comment 9.147: The discussion on page 14-13 regarding storm drainage on the East County G°vemment Center site describes the presence of an existing 48-inch pipe on Broder Boulevard that empties into the detention basin (see the second bullet in this section). See also Response to Comment 9-64. Response to Comment 9-148: Use of the terms "recOmmended'' and "should" in Mitigation MeasUres 14.1.5 and 14.1.6 is not intended to suggest that that this asPect of the mitigation measures woUld not be required. In the event that the East Government Center/Site 15A alternative is selected, and the Project is approved, Alameda County woUld be required, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; to implement these mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures 14.1.5A, 14.15B, 14.1.6A and 14.1.6B would apply to the East County Government Center and Site 15A, respectively. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 14-21, paragraph 2: Although water supply is available to serve the potable water demands of the East County Government Center site, the following mitigation measures would further measur-e-4s rq~m,m:}e~d~ t~ reduCe water demand consiStent W!t!~ current regUlations: Mitigation Measure 14.1.5A: Water Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.2A (see above), for all the Project components, would apply to this alternative. Additionally, all Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of juStice - Final EIS/EIR page 2-103 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments landscaping at the facility should comply with DSRSD's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to minimize use of irrigation water. Mitigation Measure 14.1.5B: Recycled Water Use. DSRSD ordinance requires that recycled water be used for all approved customer categories for all new land uses, including the East County Govenmaent Center site, within the DSRSD potable water service area. The East County Government Center would sSou!dbe required to install dual water systems and a recycled water distribution system to serve all outdoor irrigation needs of this facility. Resulting Level of Significance: Although this impact is considered less than significant due to the availability of water supplies from DSRSD to serve this alternative, the mitigation measures ~ above would serve to further reduce water demand consistent with DSRSD ordinances and regulations. Page 14-22, paragraph l: Based on DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin (DSRSD, 2001) DSRSD has demonstrated that it has secured sufficient water supplies to serve the approximately 4,970,000 gpd potable water demand for all of Eastern Dublin, assuming significant exterior water demands are met with recycled water. This amount of water demand was predicated on a more intense development plan for Site 15A than this alternative. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed that this site would be developed with as many as 375 high-density residential units, generating a demand for approximately 52,000 gpd. The East County Hall of Justice, although generating an increased demand for water supplies, would generate approximately 10,000 gpd less demand that what has already been planned for, and water supply acquired by DSRSD. Therefore, water supplies are currently available to serve this project alternative. Additionally, demand for potable water would be reduced in the EBMUD service area. Although water supply is available to serve the Site 15A, the following mitigation measures would further measur~ is recommended to reduce water demand consistent with current regulations: Mitigation Measure 14.1.6A: Water Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.5A (see above), for all the Project components, would apply to this alternative. Mitigation Measure 14.1.6B: Recycled Water Use. Mitigation Measures 14.15B (see above) would apply. Resulting Level of Significance: Although this impact is considered less than significant due to the availability of water supplies from DSRSD to serve this alternative, the mitigation measures ~ above would serve to further reduce water demand consistent with DSRSD ordinances and regulations. These modifications do not alter the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR nor do they trigger the need for recirculation. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-104 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-149: See Response to Comment 9-148. Response to Comment 9-150: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: 14.3.5: East County Government Center LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The East County Government Center would incrementally increase system-wide demand for wastewater treatment and disposal. However, future development of this site has been anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and DSRSD's long-term service plans and existing and planned wastewater treatment facilities at the Wastewater Treatment Plant can accommodate the wastewater increase attributed to this alternative. Similarly, completion of the larger LAVWMA wastewater disposal pipe from the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant to the EBDA's Outfall pipe to San Francisco Bay would be adequate to accommodate increased wastewater flows from this alternative. Therefore, treatment and disposal of increased wastewater flows associated with this alternative would be less than significant. DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within the District's service area. The Pro.iect would pay these wastewater and other fees to the DSRSD, as required. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and dispoSal sYstem capital improvements, as well as ongoing wastewater system maintenance. 14.3.6: Site 15A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Similar to the above East County Government · Center site, future development of Site 15A (at intensities greater than would occur under this alternative) has been anticipated in DSRSD's long-term service plans. Existing and planned wastewater treatment facilities at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and completion of the larger LAVWMA wastewater disposal pipe from the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant to the EBDA's outfaI1 pipe to San Francisco Bay would be adequate to accommodate increased wastewater flows from this alternative. Therefore, treatment and disposal of increased wastewater flows associated with this alternative · wOUld be less than SignifiCant. DSRSD wastewater connection and other fees on development of this alternative would be used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and disposal system capital improvements, as well as ongoing wastewater system maintenance. The Project would pay wastewater and other fees to the DSRSD, as, required,-, and this alternative would have a less than significant impact on these infrastructure systems. These modifications do not alter the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2'105 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-151: See Responses to Comments 11 ~8 and 9-63. Response to Comment 9-152: As noted in Mitigation Measure 14.5.5 in the Draft EIS/EIR, the timely completion of the bypass system and/or additional offsite interim drainage stonr~ drainage improvements, and implementation of the SWPPP, wilt be required to provide adequate storm drainage. As noted on page 14-31, an offsite detention basin is one of the interim improvements that may be undertaken if the bypass system is not completed in time to service the proposed development at the site. The basin would be located on County property, at the mouth of the creek that enters the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center from the north via the Parks RFTA property. Mitigation Measure 14.5.5 has been modified to include this clarification (see Response to Comment %64). Response to Comment 9-153: Comment incorporating earlier comments regarding storm drains are noted. See Responses to Comments 9-59 through 9-68. Response to Comment 9-154: Page 15-10 of the Draft EIS/EIR states in part: "Qualified professionals prepared archaeological assessments for the East County Government Center, Site 15A, Existing San Leandro Property and the Pardee/Swan sites. Since there are no existing buildings on the East County Government Center, Site 15A, and the Pardee/Swan sites, no historical assessment of sites was required." Historical assessments refers to reports specific to buildings. Since no buildings were present, a historical assessment was not conducted. However, the sites were reviewed and examined for non-structural potential as cultural resources, as discussed on page 15-22 and elsewhere in the Draft EIS/EIR. The EIS/EIR concludes that past activities at the site and Parks RFTA in general are not historically important and/or have been removed or highly disturbed by extensive earth movement since the 1950s when the major operations at the site were discontinued (see pages 15-6, 15-22 and 15-24). Measures are in place to halt construction, evaluate finds, and implement appropriate mitigation for archeological resources (see page 15-28). If any significant finds are made, the evaluation would also determine if they were related to any past uses at the site, which would include historical uses. The Draft EIS/EIR mitigation measures are consistent with standard mitigation measures required of development projects, consistent with State law. Response to Comment 9-155: The environmental justice impact discussion on pages 16-13 through 16-15 of the Draft EIS/EIR includes consideration of the transportation difficulties associated with operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility or Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center site as they would relate to anyone attempting to travel by public transit from the west County to the east County. The text on page 16-14 is hereby amended to clarify the subject of the discussion, as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-106 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments The East County Government Center Site is suited to development as a Juvenile Justice Facility and/or Hall of Justice and would not present any environmental hazards to the detainees. However, the site's location could Present Some transportation difficulties for families and others associated with the detainees, probationers, and other users of the Juvenile Justice Facility. Probationers report locally and at a central facility on a varying basis. Court filings, hearings, and other activities at the juvenile courts also would require regular transportation to and from the site. The County's transportation plan would address each of these needs by enhancing bus service from the Dublin BART station throughout the day. The statement on page 16-8 of the Draft EIS/EIR regarding population and arrest patterns is not intended to indicate that the Tri-Valley would be centrally located, but shows that existing "services are generally concentrated in areas of higher population density where there are con'esponding an'est rates." Response to Comment 9-156: It is acknowledged that there would be implications t° increased travel time and cost that have ramifications for the detainees, probationers, and their family members. Response to Comment 9-157: The County agency responsible for preparing and implementing the transportation plan would include the General Services Agency as the project developer, the Probation Department as the project operatOr, and the County Administrator's Office as the budget and administrative controller, with ultimate authority remaining in the Board of Supervisors. The Draft EIS/EIR estimated up to 1,000 daily transit trips on a weekday if both the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center site. This would break down to 250 during the peak hours, when buses already serve the site, and 100 during the early aftem°on when buses alreadY mn, resulting in approximately 650 person-trips in the daytime or evening during visiting hours. BuseS might run every half hour, with improved service, similar to the existing peak hour pattern, so we'd add about 10 buses between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. each weekday. We assumed evenly distributed trips, so the new buses would be able to carry about 400 people seated, and the existing buses from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. would carry about 250 people. These buses Would travel from the Dublin BART station to the site via Hacienda Drive, loop around the site, and go back to the BART station along Hacienda, a distance of about 5 miles round trip. As stated on page 16-14 of the Draft EIS/EtR, the plan would necesSarily be prepared in cooperation with the Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority and the City of Dublin. Funding WOUld be allocated bY the BOard of SUpervisors. Monitoring and reporting would be incorporated into the adopted mitigation program for the project, when the Board of Supervisors adopts such a program as part of project approval. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-107 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-158: The proximity of the Juvenile Justice Project to other public facilities would not be an enviromnental justice impact. The detainees would be shielded from noise and visual contact with shooting ranges at the Sheriff's facility and Parks RFTA by distance, buildings, topography, and site orientation. Response to Comment 9-159: The Draf~ EIS/EIR states, at page 4-31, that the East Dublin Specific Plan and East Dublin General Plan Amendment "establish a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50 and assume a mid-range floor-area ratio of 0.25 for Public/Semi-Public land uses," and that approximately 964,000 square feet of development could occur with the 88.5 acre development area "based on the assumed mid-range FAR." The Draft EIS/EIR further states that, after subtracting the 84,000 square feet of existing development, the East Dublin Specific Plan pemaits a maximum of approximately 880,000 square feet of new development within the development area, while the Project proposes approximately 620,000 square feet of new development (425,000 sq. ft. for Juvenile Justice Facility and 195,000 sq. ft. for East County Hall of Justice). In its comment, the commentor acknowledges that density may be averaged across the entire development area. Based on these facts, the County properly determined that development of the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice on the East County Government Center site could be made consistent with the density/intensity of use permitted on that site. See Responses to Comments 9-27 and 9-39. This comment is similar to Comment 9-4. Based on this comment, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 17-1, paragraph 4: The development of these Projects at any of the sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR would be consistent with overall land use plans for the areas except, as discussed in detail in Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning, for Site 15A. This site is not currently designated for public uses, but is designated for High Density Residential. In .~ in terms of density and intensity of use, all the The sites., including Site 15A, are eack located in urban areas with adequate infrastructure to serve the demands for services, such as water and wastewater, so no substantial infrastructure improvements would be required which could lead to growth-inducement in neighboring areas. See also Response to Comment 9-38, which discusses the County's application to the City of Dublin to seek a general plan amendment for Site 15A. As noted in that response, the County can amend its application to change the land use designation of Site 15A to whatever designation the City deems most appropriate for the East County Hall of Justice. The underlying land use designation would not alter the physical environmental effects of the East County Hall of Justice, nor affect the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-108 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-160: If the East countY Government Center/Site 15A alternative is selected, employees who lived in the vicinity of the existing facilities would either have a longer commute, or choose to relocate. Either way, because the employment at the sites would be relatively small as compared to overall activity in the area, the impact on the need for housing would be relatively small. Nonetheless, the EIS/EIR concludes that because of the overall trend towards increased traffic congestion, lack of affordable housing and increased demands on public services, there is the potential for signifiCant cumUl~ii~e growth, inducing impacts. Note that many of the emPloyees for the East COunty Hall of Justice currently work at the existing facility in Pleasanton, which is in relatively close proximity to the proposed facility. Response to Comment 9-161: The comment°r's comments regarding the format of Chapter 17 are noted. All of'the cumUlative impacts occurring under the "Cumulative Year 2025 plus Scenarios" for the Dublin alternatives are identified on pages 17-31 through 17-55 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Chapter 17 includes summary tables illustrating the peak hour intersection levels of service and the intersections which would be impacted at a significant level with the Proposed Action. That is, the impacts which are addressed by the mitigation measures are the intersections identified in each of the tables between pages 17-3i and 17-55 that WoUld be significantlY impacted by the Proposed Action under each of the scenarios. Response to Comment 9.162: The cumulative analysis considers past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in accordance with CEQA and NEPA requirements. The evaluation of past and present actions is considered to be part of the existing and baseline conditiOns. Baseline conditions described on pages 9-29 and 9-30 of the Draft EIS/EIR include "projects and occupancy levels" as of the date of the analysis. Cumulative projects described on pages 17-26 through 17-28 include "apprOved projects [that] were assumed t° be fully built out under this scenario," The evaluati°n of reasonably foreseeable projects is based on approved and pending projects as contemplated in the Eastern Dublin SPecific Plan, as amended, and the General P1an. The diScussion on page 17- 15 of the Draft EIS/EIR provides a general overview of the basis for cumulative development within the general vicinity of the East County Government Center site, and highlights that the recentlY approVed Transit Center and the future East County Government Center Offices should be considered in conjunction with other approved projects, inclUding the Eastern Dublin Properties. These projects are consistent with the City of Dublin's certified EIR for the Transit Center project. The East County Government Center offices were considered to be "reasonably foreseeable" because the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designates the site for office uses and the County intends to eventually develop the site. As the Draft EIS/EIR indicates, in addition to the 425,000 Juvenile Justic~ Fag!!ity and the 195,000-square foot East County Hall of Justice, approximately 260,000 square feet of office space als° could be developed Under the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Thus, if the County were to select the East County Government Center site as the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-109 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments selected alternative, it is reasonably foreseeable that the County could develop the additional offices as the need arises and funds were to become available. (While the commentor correctly notes that an application has not been filed, the County's development of offices on this site does not require an application to be filed with the City at this time.) The descriptions of the "office" component vary depending upon the scenario under consideration. The Draft EIS/EIR explains on page 17-24 that up to the total development potential of 964,000 square feet could occur, including the existing development on the County Center property north of Gleason Drive (see page 4-32 of the Draft EIS/EIR regarding land uses at the site). However, if the Juvenile Justice Facility and/or the East County Hall of Justice projects are constructed, less office development would occur. If one or both of the projects is not developed at the East County Government Center Site, then the County could eventually develop other County functions on the site of up to the total development potential of 964,000 square feet, including the existing development elsewhere on the County property north of Gleason Drive. Response to Comment 9-163: The project would offset its contribution to cumulative significant impacts to Congdon's tarplant and wetlands by implementing Mitigation Measures 8.1.5c, 8.1.6c, 8.3.5, and 8.3.6. Consequently, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, the Project would offset its contribution to cumulative impacts to burrowing owl and raptors by implementing Mitigation Measures 8.1.5a and 8.1.5b. It is anticipated that other development in the project vicinity also would be required to implement similar mitigation measures consistent with State and federal laws and regulations. Other cumulative development impacting tarplant, wetlands, raptors and burrowing owl would be expected, or has been required, to implement similar mitigation measures. The Draft EIS/EIR also explains that although some development in eastern Dublin may result in habitat loss for other federally-and state-listed species, the Project would not contribute to impacts associated with these habitats (see page 17-16). Response to Comment 9-164: Comment noted regarding the proposed Project's potential to add congestion to 1-680 and 1-580 freeways, as well as Dougherty Road/Dublin Road. This impact was addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR at pages 17-16 through 17-55. The Project's potentially significant unavoidable impact is described in that analysis, and the County and OJP/BJA would adopt the necessary findings as part of their approval of any project in Dublin. Response to Comment 9-165: Comment noted. Use of the term "should" in the Mitigation Measures on pp. 17-16 and 17-17 is not intended to suggest that that these mitigation measures would not be required. In the event that the East Government Center or Site 15A alternative is selected, and the Project is approved, Alameda County would be required, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, to implement Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-110 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments feasible mitigation measures. Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) programs, an enhanced transit program, and contribution of mitigation fees to a regional transportation agency (in this case, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council) to fund regional improvements are standard methods to reduce the potential cumulative traffic impacts of a project, USe of"sh°uld'' in this context presents the various optiOns that are available to reduce these impacts. Use of "shall" would not be appropriate given that, as noted on page 17-17, funding may not be adequate to provide for implementation of all the necessary mitigation measUres Planned for the Tri-Valley. The Draft EIS/EIR acknowledges that the Iack of funds to implement all the options listed in all three mitigation measures on pages 17-16 and 17-17 may mean that the Project's contribution to traffic on the 1-580, Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard is a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. Response to Comment 9-166: Comment noted. In fact, Mitigation Measure 17.1 contains several cross-referencing errors. To ensure consistent numbering with the rest of the Draft EIS/EIR, it is revised as follows: Page 17-4, Mitigation Measures (Existing San Leandro Property) Mitigation Measure 17.1.2a 17.1.1a: Preserve and Enhance Transit Service in San Leandro. The County of Alameda should coordinate with AC Transit service planners to ensure continued service at sufficient frequency and hours of operation to meet the needs of the Project and to provide a new bus stop at the main entrance to the facility. . Mitigation Measure 17.1.2b !7.!.!b: TSM/TDM Program. The County of Alameda should develop and implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single- occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours. Page 17-6, Resulting Level of SignifiCance (Existing San Leandro prOperty) Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 17.1.2a ! 7.~..2a and 17.1.2b ! 7.4.2b, the project's contribution of traffic to 1-580 would be a significant and unavoidable effect. Page 17-15, Mitigation Measure and Resulting Level of Significance (Pardee/Swan Site) Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-111 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Mitigation Measure 17.1.4a !7.!.3a: TSM/TDM Program. The County of Almneda should develop and implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single- occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools m~d carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours. Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 17.1.4a ! 7.'!, the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580 would be a significant and unavoidable effect. Page 17-16 to 17-i 7, Mitigation Measures and Resulting Level of Significance (East County Government Center Site and Site 1SA) Mitigation Measure 17.1.5a and 17.1.6a: TSM/TDM Program. The County of Alameda should implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single- occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours. Mitigation Measure 17.1.5b and 17.1.6b: Enhanced Transit Program. The County of Alameda should implement an enhanced transit program designed to improve access to the Project, with particular emphasis on expanding LAVTA route coverage and hours serving the site. Such a program should also consider the potential for participation in funding LAVTA shuttle services to and from the BART station. Mitigation Measure 17.1.5c and 17.1.6c: TVTC Fees. The County of Alameda should contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley Transportation Council fee program. Regional improvements that may be implemented through use of these fees may include enhanced rail and feeder bus transit services, construction or upgrading ofi-580 and/or 1-680 freeways, and/or construction or upgrading of alternative road corridors to relieve demand on the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways. Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 17.1.5a, b and c 17.~..5a, b, and c, and 17.1.6a, b and c, !?.~..Sa, 5 and c above, the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580, Dougherty Road and Dublin Blvd. could be a significant and Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-112 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments unavoidable effect because funding may not be adequate to provide for implementation of all of the necessary mitigation measures planned for the Tri-Valley. These modifications do not alter the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-1 $7: The list of built out development projects was provided to identify for the reader the development projects considered in the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, consistent with the City of Dublin's certified Transit Center EIR. Response to Comment 9-168: The fourth paragraph on page 17-28 states that "the assumed Year 2025 roadway network is based on existing improvements, improvements currently under construction, and required frontage improvements of approved projects." Similar to the level-of-service analysis for baseline conditions, the lane geometry assumptions for Year 2025 are conservative. Most of the East :Dublin Projects that are assUmed to be bUilt-oUt by Year 2025 will be required to submit their own traffic impact study that will describe mitigation measures (e.g., additional approach lanes at study intersections, new signal phasing, etc.) that may be needed to improve the level-of- service under future conditions. Rather than assume these mitigation measures will be in place where funding commitments have been fully allocated, the Draft EIS/EIR conservatively a~sumes that.in general the study intersections in Year 2025 will have the approach lanes that existed (not necessarily operatiOnal) as of December 2002. A reasonable number of lanes were assumed for approaches that serve an approved project site that is currently vacant, such as the northbpund approach Of Arnold Drive at Dublin Boulevard. Once again, this conservative methodology allows the Draft EIS/EIR to present level-of-service results that may be more realistic than those based on the assumption that all recommended mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the future base case conditions. Contrary to the commentor's assertions, the cumulative conditions (Year 2025) level-of-service analysis is complete and provides an accurate basis for a conservative analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Action. Response to Comment 9-169: Alternative signal phasing assumptions were used to reevaluate level-of-service at each of the five intersections. The LOS at these intersections is expected to be essentially the same as that presented in the DEIR. The other project scenarios would require lesser mitigation measures. Please see Responses to Comments 9-88 and 9-89. Response to Comment 9-170: Please refer to Responses to Comments 9-88 and 9-89 regarding the LOS analysis. ~ Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2'113 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-171: Methodology is described on page 17-25 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Tri-Valley Transportation Model was used consistent with the City of Dublin's certified Transit Center EIR. Mitigation Measures 17.1.5a, 17.1.6b, 17.1.5a, 17.1.5b, 17.1.5c and 17.1.6c are provided in the Draft EIS/EIR to address the significant impacts to regional roadways. Mitigation Measures 17.2.5a, 17.2.6a, 17.2.5b, 17.2.6b, 17.3.5a, 17.3.6a, 17.3.5b, and 17.3.6b are also provided to address impacts identified according to the Tri-Valley Transportation Model for Scenario Al, and similar measures are provided for each of the other scenarios. Response to Comment 9-172: Please see Response to Comment 9-105. Response to Comment 9-173: Optional mitigation strategies are feasible to address the identified impacts. The COunty would coordinate any necessary improvements with the City of Dublin and other responsible parties such as Caltrans. Payment of fair-share contributions toward mitigation measures would provide the City with flexibility to implement the measures that it deems most effective. Response to Comment 9-174: The Draft EIS/EIR assumed that not all improvements would be in place, based on the existing conditions in the field, in order to provide a conservative analysis. It is recognized that some roadways are already built to accommodate the ultimate planned improvements, but would require modification to achieve the full improvement. See Response to Comment 9-168. Response to Comment 9-175: Comment noted regarding the additional lanes that may be needed within the ultimate right-of- way along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. No Project conditions do not represent mitigation measures that would be required as part of the Project, and so the identified measures are merely intended to identify existing constraints and potentially needed long-term (year 2025) improvements. Actual conditions in the year 2025 are likely to be different from those projected in the analysis, and mitigation would necessarily be refined at such time as the need arises. Response to Comment 9-176: See Response to Comment 9-175. Response to Comment 9-177: The proposed Project will contribute its fair share of the funding toward implementation of roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the significant impacts of the proposed Project. Such funding may contribute to the funding of planned ultimate improvements and other applicable improvements identified for other recently approved projects in the vicinity, provided Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-114 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments that these improvements also are required to mitigate for the impacts of the proposed Project. A final list of measures to be funded would be determined in consultation with the City of Dublin and other responsible parties such as Caltrans following the selection of a Project for implementation. Long-term cumulative impacts are necessarily uncertain, and may be modified from the measures suggested in the Draft EIS/EIR, but the potential impacts and reasonable mitigation measures are adequately identified to provide the reader with an indication of the potential implications of approving development according to each of the scenarios. Response to Comment 9.178: Mitigation Measures 17.2.5a and 17.2.6a refer to the Project's responsibility to contribute "fair share" funds toward the implementation of lOcal roadway and intersection improvements from its cumulative impact on traffic. Mitigation Measures 17.2.5b and 6b, to which the commentor refers, discusses the timing of providing these funds. These mitigation measures state that the Project shOuld fund these improvements at such time as they are "documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effect." Contributing fair share funds and outlining a reasonable timetable Under which the fair share funds should be contributed are sufficient to mitigate the Project's cumulative impacts on local roadways and intersections. Use of the tem~ "should" in Mitigation Measures 17.2.5B and 17.2.6b is not intended to suggest that that these mitigation measures would not be required. In the event that the East Government Center and/or Site 15A alternatives are selected, and the Project is approved, Alameda County would be required, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, to implement these mitigation measures unless they were found to be infeasible based on substantial evidence. Response to Comment 9-179: See Response to Comment 9-178. Response to Comment 9-180: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 17-36, first paragraph (Cumulative Year 2025 plus Scenario A2): This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds, 13 courtrooms and 22'5,000 square feet of office use to be located at the East County Government Center. Page ] 7-40, first paragraph (Cumulative Year 2025 plus Scenario B): This scenari° is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed Juvenile~..u-' faci!it3 .... ., ;+~'.....~O. *'~'~°,..~, 13 courtrooms and 685,000 square feet of office development to be located at the East County Government Center. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-115 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments These modifications do not alter the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 9-'181: Parking is analyzed on page 17-56 of the Draft EIS/EIR, including potential future development of the County offices, which woUld apply under any of the scenarios analyzed for traffic impacts. Response to Comment 9-182: The commentor is referred to the Response to Comment 9-161. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-116 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 10: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Comment 10-1: The CoUnty or'Alameda Will Comply with all the requirements, including the performance standards, of the NDPES permit and the County's Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) that are in effect when the County submits its Notice of Intent (NOD to the State Water Resources COntrol Board (SWRCB) prior to constrUctiOn. In response to the request that Alameda County's NPDES permit be discussed, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 7-2, insert to follow paragraph 1: Under the terms of the County of Alameda's NPDES permit for stormwater discharges, post-construction best management practices (BMPs) must meet the maximum extent practicable (MEP) definition of treatment specified in the Clean Water Act (CWA). The County of Alameda implements its current NDPES permit for discharges under the Alameda County Countywide Clean Water Program, Stormwater Management Plan · (SMp)(EOAi inc., FebmaTM 1997),' Th~ ~0~niy Will comply' With the ~DES permit and SMP requirements that are in effect when its submits the NotiCe of Intent (NOD to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to construction. This addition does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIs/EIR. Response to comment 10-2: The commentor provides a timely update of information. Based on this comment, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 7-2, paragraph 2 As of March 2003, P~cr prior to initiating construction for sites that are 1 acre 5 acres or larger, Project Applicants must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to be covered by the General Construction Activity stormwater Permit. This requirement also applies to smaller sites that are part of a larger project. The General Permit requires the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must be prepared before construction begins. These modifications do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 10.3: The commentor states that it is .anticipated the NDPES permit will be reissued by the time the ProjeCts are constructed. Th~ ~iisting mitigation measures (7.1 and 7.4) states that the County will prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan, as required under its Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2'117 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments NPDES penuit and consistent with its terms, and consistent with ABAG's Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures, the policy and recommendations of the local urban runoff program (city and/or county), and the staff recommendations by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Given that the NDPES will likely be reissued, providing more detail to mitigate post-construction stormwater impacts under Impacts 7.1 and 7.4 would thus be speculative. As noted in Response to Comment 10-I, the County of Alameda's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will comply with the NDPES and SMP requirements that are in effect when the County submits its Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to construction. Response to Comment 10-4: Comment noted. To ensure consistency between Chapter 7 and Chapter 8, minor changes in the Draft EIS/EIR are made in each as follows: Page 7-1, paragraph l: Waters of the United States (including wetlands) are subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 regulates the filling and dredging of U.S. waters. A Section 404 permit would be required for project construction activities involving excavation of, or placement of fill material into, waters of the United States or adjacent wetlands. The Corps, in reviewing Section 404 permit applications, stresses avoidance of impacts, minimization of unavoidable impacts and mitigation of unavoidable impacts. In addition, a Water Quality Certification (or Waiver thereof) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions. Modification (e.g., realignments, culverting, construction ofoutfalls on the banks) of stream channels (including seasonal streams).. and fill of wetlands are among the activities that require Water Quality Certification under Section 401. This certification would need to be requested from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Page 7-2, paragraph 1: As mandated by the 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, discharge of stormwater from developed areas is regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES program via the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards). In addition, the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act requires the development of Basin Plans for drainage basins within California. The Basin Plans are implemented also through the NPDES program and include activities in areas outside of the jurisdiction of the Corps (e.g. isolated wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above ordinary high water mark). Activities in these areas are .regulated by the RWQCB and may require the issuance, or waiver, of its waste discharge requirements. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-118 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Page 8-1, paragraph 2: State and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and management of sensitive biological resources. State and federal agencies have a lead role in the protection of biological resources under their permit authority set forth in various statUes and regulations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) for freshwater and terrestrial species, while the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) is responsible implementing the federal ESA for marine species and anadromous fish. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. At the state level, the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) is responsible for administration of the California ESA, and for protection of streams, waterbodies and riparian corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section 1601-1606 of the California Fish and Game Code. Certification from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board is also required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines. As discussed in Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality, activities that require Water Quality Certification under Section 401 include ~0dificati°n (e.g.~ r'ealigments~' ~ulverting, construction of outfalls on the banks) of stream channels (including seasonal streams), and fill of wetlands. Page 8-3, paragraph 4: The CDFG, the Corps and the RWQCB and Co~s have jurisdiction over modifications to stream channels, riverbanks, lakes and other wetland features. Jurisdiction of the Corps is established through the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters" of the United States without a permit, including wetlands and unvegetated "other waters". All three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human activity. As discussed earlier, activities in wetlands or other waters outside of the jurisdiction of the Corps (e.g. isolated Wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above ordinary_ high water mark) may be regulated by the RWQCB under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and may require the issuance, or waiver, of its waste discharge requirements. Additionally, modification (e.g., realignments, culverting, construction of outfalls on the banks) of stream channels (including seasonal streams), and fill of wetlands are among the activities that require Water Quality Certification by the RWQCB, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFG over wetland areas is established under Section 1601-1606 of the Fish and Game Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow or alter the channel, bed or bank of any lake, river or stream. The Fish and Game Code stipulates that it is "unlawful to Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIStEIR Page 2-119 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, chmmel or bank of any river, stream or lake" without notifying the Department, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration agreement. The Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFG states that the Fish and Game COmmission will "strongly discourage development in or conversion ofwetlands...unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage." The Department is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. These modifications do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 10-5: The RWQCB is not listed as a party to the 1994 Consent Decree regarding wetlands on the Pardee/Swan site, which is discussed on page 8-12, paragraph 1. The 1994 Consent Decree does require that the defendants (the Port of Oakland) "apply for a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act" prior to construction on this site (see www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/1994/October/Day-24/pr-48.html). To obtain the Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification by the RWQCB is required. The area may also be regulated as waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne water Quality Control Act. The Port of Oakland has begun construction of a parking lot on the Pardee/Swan site. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-120 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 11' Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ZOne 7) Response to Comment 11-1: See Response to Comment 9-62. As noted on page 14-32, Zone 7 has completed a Special Drainage Area 7-1 Program Update, which considered the increase of peak flood flows in all stormdrain channels Within its system. Zone 7 is in the process of establishing new fees pursuant to thi~'i'~6~ ~6-'~6~1' ifie ~6si~'6t' sto~ drain ch~el improvements as identified in this report. The Draft EIS/EIR notes that new development at Site 15A would lead to the Project proponents contributing fees to Zone 7, thereby paying their fair share of the costs of adequate regional drainage and flood control facilities. Drainage impact fees wOuld also be paid to Zone 7 for the development of the East County Government Center site. Response to Comment 11-2: Comment noted. As the commentor notes, a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is available from the City of Dublin that shows the improvements made to Tassaj ara Creek as part of the Tassajara Creek Restoration Project in 2000. Based on this updated information, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 7-4, paragraph 2: Federal EmergenCy Management AgencY (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that flooding during a 100-year storm will occur primarily along Tassajara Creek. As a ~it'~ ~ht' i~pi:b~/e~ni~s't~ T~ssaj~ir~ ~reek; the'The fl0°ded areas Would be confined'lo in~,!',:'d~ an apprOXimatelY 2002foOt width along mOre than half of the length of Tassajara Creek in the general vicinity of the site., .and a wide area just nc~, cf where T ....;,,rn Creel: ftc;v: ""'~"- ~ ~,~r, ..,~,;~ ......... .-~; .... r+h,...i,~ ~+~ D;*~ 1.11 capacit) wkere tke creek crosses I 5~0. Cu~en ', ............... ~ ......~-.~ .... Page 7-4, paragraph 4: SimilarlY t° the East CoUnty G°vemment Center site, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that flooding during a 100-year stO~ Will Occur PrimarilY along TasSajara creek, WhiCh is more than 3000 feet east of Site 15Al As a result of recent improvements to Tassajara Creek, the TS= flooded areas would be confined to inck:de an approximately 200-foot width along more than half of the lengthO~'TasSajarac~eek. Tk mai s fo fl dig lc g ' s nreacn r cc n a n ~ .... ;.,,.,r,~,,l~,o Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-121 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Page 14-14, paragraph 1: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that flooding during a 100-year storm will occur primarily along Tassajara Creek. The flooded areas would be confined to ~ an approximately 200-foot width along more than half of'the length of Tassajara Creek in the general vicinity of the site., and a ';.'/dc aj · ~,IA q~-.+,. D;+,~ ;~;I ~.~111,1~ ~h~ ~1 ....... c~.. ~;.~ o~.~ Tazs ara Crzek ts Page 18-12, in Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2002. -1-¢9g. Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel 065048 0025 B, Revised to Reflect LOMR dated November 01, 2002. September -m ~ ocr, These modifications indicate that the Project's potential flooding impact is less than stated in the Draft EIS/EIR. Impacts 7.5 and 7.6, which assess the Project's impact on development within the 100-year flood hazard area and exposure of people and structures to flood hazards, respectively, found that the Project had no impact on either. These modifications do not alter the Draft EIS/EIR's conclusion. Response to Comment 11-3: The post-conStruction drainage impacts of the Project are discussed in Chapter 14 (see Impact 14.5). For Site 15A, Zone 7's Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 Program Update Considered the increase of peak flood flows in all storm drain channels within its system. Consistent with Zone 7 requirements, the creation of additional runoff as a result of an increase in impervious area means the Project proponents would be responsible to pay Zone 7's established drainage impact mitigation fee. At the East County Government Center site, Alameda County is currently involved in a separate project that involves the construction of a new bypass storm drainage system to reduce run-off into the detention basin on-site. As noted in Mitigation Measure 14.5.5, timely completion of the construction of this bypass system would prevent stormwater capacity problems at this site. Alternative storm drainage improvements, including a new detention basin north of the site, may be required in the interim. Drainage impact fees would also be paid to Zone 7 for the development of the East County Government Center site. A hydrology study to confirm the extent of the Project's impact on storm drainage is a routine part of site development in the Tri-Valley area. The hydrology study for this Project will be conducted once a site has been selected. If the site selected falls within Zone 7's service area, this agency will have an opportunity to review the hydrology study prior to commencement of the Project. The hydrology study will provide sufficient information to confirm the adequacy of the existing storm water system. The hydrology study will also recommend changes to the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-122 Chapter 2: Responses to cOmments existing system, if required, to ensure it can accommodate the proposed development on the selected site. In addition, in accordance with Zone 7's SDA program, a drainage impact mitigation fee Will be paid to Zone 7 for downstream storm water impacts that may occur within its service area as a result of the Project. All storm drainage impacts will be mitigated to a less than Significant level, as described in the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 11-4: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows. Page !4-6, paragraph !: The existing Juvenile Hall is located with the unincorporated CaStro Valley Planning ' Area, Castro Valley is within Zone 2__g of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water ConSerVation District. The District is responsible for designing all flood contrOl and storm drainage facilities to meet 15-year flood Standards. A complete system of storm drainage lines has been constrUcted throughout the Castro Valley Planning Area to ~eeOmmodate storm rUnoff, With adequate caPacity to accommOdate ultimate development (Alameda County, 1985). The existing storm drainage system at the site consists of small channels that drain to a large wetland area adjacent to Fairmont Drive, A storm drainage system in Fairmont · Drive also discharges into this wetland area. At the lower end of the wetland a 60-inch 'storm drainpipe conveys rUnoff downstream into the Zone 2:3 system, eventually draining into the Bay. These modifications do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 11-5: A hydrology study to confirm the eXtent of the Project's impact on storm drainage is a routine part of site development in the Tri-Valley area. The hydrology study for this Project will be conducted once a site has been selected. If the site selected falls within Zone 7's service area, this agency will have an opportunity to review the hydrOlogy study prior to commencement of the Project. The hydrology study will provide sufficient information to confirm the adequacy of the existing storm water system. The hydrology study will also recommend changes to the existing system, if required, to ensure it can accommodate the proposed development on the selected site. In addition, in accordance with Zone 7's SDA program, a drainage impact mitigation fee will be paid to Zone 7 for downstream storm water impacts that may occur within its service area as a result of the Project. All storm drainage impacts will be mitigated to a less than Significant level as described in the Draft EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EtS/EIR Page 2-123 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 11-6: As the commentor notes, there is an inconsistency between the Physical Setting description (page 14-16) and Impact 14.5 (page 14-32) regarding Site 15A's drainage courses. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 14-32, paragraph 2: LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Development of Site 15A with a new East County Hall of Justice facility would increase impervious surfaces from this now vacant site, increasing stormwater runoff. Runoff from this site enters into Zone 7's Line G-2 and G-5 drainage facilities facility, and would cause a slight increase in peak flows within these lines Line G 5 during major storms and high flows. Zone 7 has completed a Special Drainage Area 7-1 Program Update (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2000), which has considered the increase of peak flood flows in all stonu drain channels within its system. Zone 7 is in the process of establishing new fees pursuant to this report to cover the costs of storm drain channel improvements as identified in this report. New development at this site would contribute fees to Zone 7, thereby paying its fair share of the costs of adequate regional drainage and flood control facilities. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. These modifications do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR. A hydrology study to confirm the extent of the Project's impact on storm drainage is a routine part of site development in the Tri-Valley area. The hydrology study for this Project will be conducted once a site has been selected. If the site selected falls within Zone 7's service area, this agency will have an opportunity to review the hydrology study prior to commencement of the Project. The hydrology study will provide sufficient information to confirm the adequacy of the existing storm water system. The hydrology study will also recommend changes to the existing system, if required, to ensure it can accommodate the proposed development on the selected site. In addition, in accordance with Zone 7's SDA program, a drainage impact mitigation fee will be paid to Zone 7 for downstream storm water impacts that may occur within its service area as a result of the Project. Ail storm drainage impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as described in the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 11-7: As described in Mitigation Measure 14.5.5, the new bypass system may not be completed in time to service the proposed development at the East County Government Center site and additional offsite storm drainage may be required for the interim. As discussed in Response to Comment 9- 64, offsite storm drainage may include a temporary detention basin would be located at the mouth of the creek that enters the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center from the Parks RFTA property to its north. For a discussion of the hydrology study, please refer to Response to Comment 11-5. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-124 Chapter 2: RespOnses to Comments Response to Comment 11-8: The amount of water that will be used for exterior irrigation is minimal at either Dublin sites. For the 8 acres at the East County Government Center site, the estimate at 25,000 gpd. For the 4 acres at Site 15A, the estimate is 13,000 gpd. Further, evapotranspiration is assumed to account f°r 80% of total external %at~r~ use, leaving 20% (5,000 or 2,600 gPd for East County Government Center or Site 15A, respectively) as percolation into the water table2 The Project would not significantly contribute to salt loading in Zone 7's groundwater basin. The lead agencies Support Zone 7's Groundwater Demineralization Project. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2:125 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 12: East Bay Regional Park District Response to Comment 12-1: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR contains an analysis of the Project's potential visual, water quality, biological and construction-related impacts. Response to Comment 12-2: The massing of the Juvenile Justice Center proposed for the San Leandro site would not be substantially larger than that of the existing facility and would be developed below the slope adjacent to Fairmont Drive (see Figure 3.3a in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS/EIR for an updated site plan). Therefore, the view of the new facility from the Regional Park would not be substantially different than the view of the existing facility from the park. See Photo 2a and 4a. Please see the Modified San Leandro site plan on Figure 3.3a in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 12-3: Although Figure 3.11 is only intended to be a conceptual or illustrative site plan for this alternative, there are some aspects of the diagram that may be confusing for the reader to follow, as indicated in this comment. Figure 3.11 is therefore amended as described below: Page 3-18, Figure 3.11: Modifications to this figure include: 1. Property lines have been added to show the building site in relationship to the site, 2. The Arrowhead Marsh note is revised to more accurately indicate the direction of the marsh. 3. The building site is more accurately represented to indicate that no impacts to the park entry road would be anticipated. Response to Comment 12-4: The discussion referenced in this comment pertains to an analysis of the project's effect on the character of the surrounding community, which is industrial and distribution use-intensive. However, the document does not disregard the presence of the 738-acre regional shoreline park. In fact, pages 5-18 through 5-26 contain a comprehensive description of the adjacent shoreline park, and pages 8~10 through 8-12 contain a description of the adjacent tidal and seasonal wetland habitat. It should be noted that the East Bay Regional Park District does not have jurisdiction on this site, and that its land use plans for the area do not pertain to the Pardee/Swan site. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-126 Chapter 2: Responses to comments The description of the Pardee/Swan site in the Draft EIS/EIR specifically acknowledges the presence of the Arrowhead Marsh/Martin Luther King Regional Shoreline area, and the several large ponds in the area created as part of the joint wetlands mitigation effort by the Port. Draft EIS/EIR at 4-5. In addition, the aerial photograph at Figure 4-3 illustrates the site's proximity to the Airport Chmmel and San Leandro Creek shorelines, and the text in Figure 4-3 specifically calls out the presence of the Regional Shoreline area and the adjacent wetlands restoration project. At Page 1' 1 ~i~{he D~hft ~lS/glR~sta~es; ,,a portibn of the pard~e/s~an site is subject t° the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), but further states that "the Project would be developed outside of the BCDC jurisdictional area[.]" As noted at page 1-11 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the site plans contained in the Draft EIS/EIR are not final deSign plans. As noted at page 3-15, the site plan presented on Figure 3-11 is intended to give the reader an idea of what the proposed developments could look like at the various alternative sites. See Draft EIS/EIR'at 3'15. HoWever, Figure 3-11 does not represent a final site plan and was not intended to and cannot be relied upon to determine the precise locations of buildings and other structures that CoUld be developed on the Pardee/Swan site, ShOUld that site be selected for deVelopment 0fthe juvenile justice FaCilitY, ConseqUentlY, the concepts and approximate locations depicted on Figure 3-11 should not be construed to contradict the Draft EIS/EIR's eXPlicit statement that, if the Pardee/Swan site is selected for development of the JuVenile Justice Facility, "the Project would be developed outside of the BCDC jurisdiction area." According to staff counsel for the Port, the Pardee/Swan site is not subject to public trust restrictiOns because it is filled tideland; rather, it is sUbject to suCh restrictiOns because it was purchased, at least in part, with funds that are subject to public trust restrictions. Draft EIS/EIR at 4-21. The CoUnty has no information suggesting that the site, or any portion of the site, is filled tideland'. Response to Comment 12-5: As stated on page 5-42 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the proposed Project at the Pardee/Swan site would not be visually incompatible with adjoining resource protection and recreation uses, although it would represent a more noticeable contrast with the appearance of the adjoining open space than does the current undeveloped site. However, in the interest of providing as much information regarding visual continuitY for visitors to the nearby park, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as folloWs: Page 5-42, paragraph 2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Development of the Pardee/Swan site with a new Juvenile Justice Facility would be visually compatible and consistent with the adjacent United Parcel Service facility and other commercial structures in the adjacent pOrtiOnS of the Oakland Airport Business Park. The Juvenile Justice Facility and parking garage would generally be somewhat taller than the LIPS facility, but not as tall as the three-story office building located across from this site at 80 Swan Way. However, this development Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-127 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments would represent a major visual shift from the site's current open character. While not visually incompatible with adjoining resource protection and recreation uses nor substantially visually degrading to the site or its surroundings, development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at the site would represent more of a contrast with the appearance of the adjoining open space than does the current ~-mt~lope~site conditions, which include the early phases of development of an airport parking lot with extensive paving, light standards, and perimeter fencing. This contrast would be softened by the provision of landscaping around the perimeter of the site and appropriate light shielding. Response to Comment 12-6: Mitigation Measure 7.4.4 describes the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that the County of Alameda is required to complete and implement in conformance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit and with ABAG's and other local governments requirements. Preparation of the SWPPP will be undertaken after a preferred site has been selected and prior to construction. The SWPPP will include information on how to prevent storm runoff and siltation from construction activities and from the Project from entering wetlands and degrading water quality. Response to Comment 12-7: A discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on wildlife habitat, including the adjacent Arrowhead Marsh is provided under Impact 8.4.4 on page 8-35 of the Draft EIS/EIR. This was deten~ined to be a potentially significant and mitigable impact. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4c was recommended specifically to minimize any adverse effects of night-time lighting on the adjacent marshland habitat. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4a recommended providing a buffer to the adjacent marsh habitat. Review and approval of the provisions contained in the mitigation measure by the East Bay Regional Park District, USFWS, and CDFG is not considered necessary given the limited potential effects and recommended buffer setback provided as part of the measure. Due to the recent parking lot improvements to the west and existing road to the east, buffers recommended in the mitigation measure are only necessary on the north side of the site. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4a on page 8-35 has been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 8.4.4a: Wildlife Habitat Buffer. ^ ......... '~"~ :~ x~;*;~.~*;~.*, ~ .......Q ~ ~. ~+~,;~ ~r~+~ ~ .... ;"~ Habitat, _ ................................ v ....... ~---~ a A 50-foot setback shall be provided along the no,hem, ~aste~ -~d weste~ edges of the site to provide a buffer for the~... ~..~...~;-- adiacent open space lands. Appropriate native and omm~ental s~bs and Iow-growing tree species shall be planted as l~dscape screening within 20 feet of the inside edge of this setback to provide screening of new structures, p~king and other uses which may interfere with wildlife activity in the adjacent A~owhead Marsh ~ ~..~. ~....~-h~;-~ ~.~ S~__~. ~-..~.~"~- ~.j~-". Nightime lighting shall be designed to minimize ~y illumination of the adjacent marshland habitat. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2:128 Chapter 2: ReSponses to comments F' Response to Comment 12-8: Construction related noise and dust are not expected t° result in any signifiCant impaCts on wildlife associated with the adjacent Arrowhead Marsh. Mitigation Measure 11.3.4a would provide for adequate control of dust during construction, including watering of all active construction areas. Wildlife typically acclimate to changes in nearby noise and activity levels assuming an adequate buffer is provided, which is the case between Arrowhead Marsh and the Pardee/Swan site. Wildlife in the marsh are already accustomed to nearby vehicle and industrial- related noises, as well as construction-generated noise created during construction of the new parking lot on the site. No revisions are considered necessary in response to the comment. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-129 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 13: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Response to Comment 13.1: Comment summarizing the proposed action and alternatives is noted. Response to Comment 13-:2: Comment identifying prior correspondence is noted. Input from the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency is appreciated as it is necessary to determine the appropriate level of analysis consistent with the mandates of the CMA and participating agencies. Response to Comment 13-3: Comment noted. The text has been revised accordingly. Please see Chapter 3 of this Final EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 13-4: Comment noted. The reference to an ACCMA level of service standard has been deleted from page 9-1. The Draft EIS/EIR uses a LOS D threshold for the purpose of comparison, but does not imply that the CMA has established that threshold for determining significant impacts. Response to Comment 13-5: The title of Impact 9.4 has been changed to "Meeting the Requirements for the Land Use Analysis Program Established by the County Congestion Management Program for Designated Roads or Highways." Response to Comment 13-6: The impacts and mitigations for Year 2025 for each scenario are discussed in Chapter 17 in the Draft EIS/EIR. The MTS roadways to which the commentor refers were included in the traffic analysis; however, the Project was found to have no impact on them. Only the roadways that were potentially impacted by the Project were included in the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 13-7: Comment noted. Ail texts and tables that refer to "CMA-designated roadways" and "CMA Roadway Analysis" are hereby amended to "MTS-designated roadways" and "MTS Roadway Analysis", respectively. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-130 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 13-8: Both of the paragraphs implying that projected volumes would be lower in Year 2005 are hereby deleted from the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 13-9: The footnotes that state the estimated capacity of a freeway lane as 2,350 vehicles per lane should have stated 2,000 vehicles per lane. Since the V/C analysis presented in the tables actually used 2,000 vehicles per lane, the freeway impact analysis does not need to be reanalyzed. Response to Comment 13-10: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follOws: Page 9-101, Impact 9.4.6: Site 15A StudY segments include: · 1-580: East of Tassajara Road and West of HOpyard Road 1-680: South o_fi-580 DOugherty ROad:' SOuth ofDublin BOUleVard Dublin Boulevard: East of Dougherty Road Tassajara Road: South of Dublin Boulevard ,..- Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-131 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 14: East Bay Municipal Utility District Response to Comment 14-1' Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR is consistent with the commentor's comment. Response to Comment 14-2: The commentor requested that EBMUD's pOlicy concerning working with potentially contaminated soils and water be included. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 12-3, to follow "Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan" discussion East Bay Municipal Utility District Policy The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has a policy regarding working with contaminated material, particularly contaminated soils and water. The policy states that EBMUD staff'will not install pipeline in contaminated soil that must be handled as a hazardous waste, or that may adversely impact the pipeline or other construction material, or that may be hazardous to the health and safety of EBMUD personnel wearing Level D personal protective equipment. EBMUD requires a legally sufficient, complete and .specific written remedial plan establishing the methodology, planning and design of all necessary systems for the removal, treatment, and disposal of all identified soil and/or water contaminants. EBMUD will not design the installation of pipelines until such time as remediation plans are received and reviewed and will not install pipelines until remediation has been carried out. Response to Comment 14-3: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page ] 4-4, last paragraph: Water service to the existing Juvenile Hall site and the surrounding City of San Leandro is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), a publicly owned utility. EBMUD is responsible for service connections and water deliver to parts of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. x3r~* ...... +; ..... a .... +.,. a..1; ..... + .... + ^r ^ v,.-.,,.a, r~ .... *..,.,a .... ~' ~'*'Con~a Costa r~.....~+.,. The EBMUD water supply system is more fully described below under the Pardee/Swan Site. Response to Comment 14-4: Based on the commentor's clarifications, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-132 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Page 14-7, insert to follow the "Domestic Water Supply" discussion for the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility: Recycled Water To offset demand on EBMUD's limited potable water supply, EBMUD's Policy 73 requires that customers use nonpotable water for n°ndomestic purposes when it is of adequate qUality and quantity, available at reasonable cost, not detrimental to public health and not injurious to plant life, fish and wildlife. The City of Oakland has adopted a dual plumbing ordinance that requires the installation of dual plumbing systems for use of recycled water in development PrOjects that are lOcated within the service area boundary. of a recycled water project. The Glenn Dyer Detention Center Facility site is located within the service area boundary_ of Phase lA of EBMUD's East Bayshore RecYcled water Project. RecYCled Water deliverVis anticiPated for the Spring of 2005. Response to Comment 14-5: Based on the commentor's clarifications, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 14-7, first paragraph Domestic Water Supply The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located in downtown Oakland. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMU-D) serves all of Oakland with potable and recycled fcc!aimed water, as described below for the Pardee/Swan site. Page] 4-7, last paragraph potable Water Supply ' The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves all of Oakland with potable and recycled ~ water. The source of EBMUD's potable water supply is currently the Mokelumne River and local runoff. EBMUD's total service area customer demand in year 2000 was 230 mgd, and when adjusted for conse~ation and the use of recycled ret!aimed water, net customer demand was estimated at 216 mgd. EBMUD projects that the demand forecast bY 2020 of 277 mgd can be reduced t° 229 mgd with successful ~afei~¥~gcling and conservation programs. This projection assumes no occurrence of a drought and a population increase in EBMUD's service of apProximately 1.27 million to 1.42 million (EMBUD 2000). by 3'ear ~rv~n +T.~ .~+ .... + ....a~.~ c^. potable ,a.~,-.1 +1~-+go. t~;+..r r,r*-.'-....,. ,',+ ,~....-,~..-..*,-,,-.-.- ,-,..,.Al .,-,+,= ..,.+"th AO/_ [T21:)A,fTTT% Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-133 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 14-6: Based on the commentor's clarifications, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 14-8, first paragraph: EBMUD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (EBMUD 2000) that indicates that with aggressive conservation and recycling ,--~,'~*;,-- EBMUD can meet its obligation to serve its current and future customers in normal rainfall years through year 2020. However, in multiple years of drought, even with aggressive conservation and recycling reclamation coupled with 25 percent rationing throughout the service area, EBMUD predicts a shortfall of about 62.5 mgd. 2,'ears. In 1970, EBMUD signed a contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for a supplemental supply of American River water from the Central Valley Project (CVP). EBMUD's entitlement to water from the American River was challenged and for For more than 30 years, EBMUD has pursued this supplemental supply. ........ ~-~;,.~ .... ~;+ ........... +,.~ c~^,.,,, ,,.~ ^,~,,,~;~_ ~>; .... In 2000 an agreement was reached between USBR, EBMUD and Sacramento parties to develop a joint water supply. In 2002, EBMUD and the County of Sacramento (in association with the City of Sacramento and with support from USBR) formed the Freeport Regional Water Authority (FRWA). The FRWA will be releasing a Draft EIS/EIR in Spring 2003 for public review. Complete construction of facilities needed to divert water is expected to occur in 2008 (EBMUD 2000 and www.ebmud.com). 2001 a). Response to Comment 14-7: Based on the commentor's clarifications, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 14-8, paragraph 3: Recycled Water To offset demand on EBMUD's limited potable water supply, EBMUD's Policy 73 requires that customers use nonpotable water for nondomestic purposes when it is of adequate quality and quantity, available at reasonable cost, not detrimental to public health and not injurious to plant life, fish and wildlife. The Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland have adopted dual plumbing ordinances that requires the installation of dual plumbing systems for use of recycled water in development projects that are located within the service area boundary of a recycled water project. The Pardee/Swan site is located within the service area boundary of EBMUD's San Leandro Recycled Water Project. Recycled water delivery is anticipated for the Spring of 2015. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-134 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 14-8: Based on the commentor's Clarifications, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 14-17, last paragraph: Project Benefits/Mitigation Measures IncorPorated Each of the alternatives described below (except "No Action/N° Project") would increase the demand for water supplies, but both EBMUD and DSRSD have demonstrated that this additional demand is less than significant and can be met given the respective agenCY's Water d0nse~atiOn measures, and recycled water programs (where appropriate). The infrastructure required to implement these water conservation measures and recycled water pipelines (Where appropriate) would be a required improvement for any new facility constructed and would be part of the overall project costs. Response to, Comments 14-9, 14'lOand 14-11' In Comment 14-9, the commentor provides an estimate of 2,150 gpd/acre for the exterior irrigation water demand for the San Leandro and Oakland sites and states this is a more accurate estimate for these cooler sites than the rather than the 3,125 gpd/acre used for the Dublin sites. This leads to a revision of the calculations for the Existing San Leandro Property (Impact 14.I.2) -. and for the Pardee/Swan site (Impact 14.1.4). No new exterior irrigation is proposed for the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, so the calculations to estimate water demand in Impact 14.1.3 (Glenn Dyer Detention Facility) do not require revision. Further, in Comment 14-10, the commentor provides more detailed information to add to Mitigation 14.1.2A. In Comment 14-11, the commentor proposes a minor clarification that adds "by the year 2020" to Impact 14.1.2. Based on these comments, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-135 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Page 14-18, Impact 14.1.2: 14.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation of a new Juvenile Justice Facility (juvenile detention center and juvenile courthouses) at this site would increase demand for water supply from the EBMUD by approximately 42,200 50,0©0 gallons per day ifa 420-bed facility is built and 54200 42,999 ifa 540-bed facility is built. The increase from 300 beds at the existing Juvenile Hall to 420 beds at the Juvenile Justice Facility would increase potable water demand by approximately 12,000 gallons per day (gpd).4 The increase from 300 beds at the existing Juvenile Hall to 540 beds at the Juvenile Justice Facility would increase potable water demand by approximately 24,000 gallons per day (gpd). The additional approximately 85,000 square feet of juvenile courthouse and associated space would generate an increased potable water demand of approximately 13,000 gpd.5 · Additionally, the exterior irrigation water demand, assuming approximately 8 acres of irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 17,200 25,999 gallons per day.6 EBMUD projects that the total water demand throughout its service area is expected to grow by approximately 34 million gallons per day by the year 2020. The increased demand for water (between 42,200 ~ ~n~ 42,999 ~...,.,.... gpd and 54,200 gpd for a 420-bed to 540-bed facility) under this alternative represents less than ...... ;,~--*'-~-. .-~.v ............ .r 0.2 percent of this overall demand. Given that EBMUD has indicated that with aggressive conservation and recycling rec!amat/cn it can meet its obligation to serve its current and future customers in normal rainfall years through year 2020, this alternative project's contribution toward the overall water demand is an insignificant component. However, since EBMUD's ability to meet this demand is predicated on service area-wide implementation of conservation and recycling """~. ~v.~_~..v..,"-"' ~*;'--' the following mitigation measures are recommended: 4 Water demand for each bed within the Juvenile Justice Facility is estimated at 100 gallons per bed per day, derived from water demand factors for jail inmates (DSRSD, September 2000, Table 3-4). ~ Water demand estimates for Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice are estimated at 0.15 gallon per square foot per day. 6 Exterior irrigation rates assumed at 3,125 gpoVacre is used (DSRD, September 2000, Table 3-4). To account for cooler conditions, 2,150 gpd/acre is used for San Leandro and Oakland sites (EBMUD, March 10, 2003). Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-136 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Mitigation Measure 14.1.2A: Water Conservation. The Juvenile Justice Facility ShoUld be designed to incorporate water conservation strategies. In addition to state and federally mandated water efficient plumbing standards to install low-flow plumbing throughout the facility, water conservation strategies may include using efficient appliances (e.g., horizontal axis clothes washer); installing multiple pass or recirculating cooling systems; installing separate metering of significant coOling, process, or water uses in the proposed facility; .... ~, ..0 ~ .... n ..... ~,,~.;-~ installation cf installing PreSsure-reduCing valVes to maintain a maximum of 50 pounds per square inch (psi) water pressure, and using drinking fountains with self-closing valves. KitChen facilities should include high efficiency commercial tray dishwashers, low flow prerinse spray nozzles, air-cooled ice machines and connectionless countertop steamers. On the exterior, drought-tolerant~ o~ native or Mediterranean plants should be used for landscaping, lawn and turf areas should be minimized and efficient irrigation Systems (i.e,, drip .... *o'~o~ installed to minimize both oversPray and evaporation. For Planted areas, drip irrigation is appropriate. Self-adjusting, evapotranspiration-based irrigation timers are appropriate for automatic irrigation systems and should be used where feasible. Mitigation Measure 14.1.2B: Recycled Reclaimed Water Use. Recycled p. ec!aime~ water is not currently available near this Site. HoWever, new irrigation systems should be designed s° that they can be sWitched over to recycled ...........if and when it becomes economically available. Resulting Level of SignifiCance: Although this impact is considered less than significant due to the availability of water supplies from EBMUD to serve this alternative, the mitigation measures recommended above would serve to further reduce water demand, c0hSistent With EBMUD and Alameda county policy. Page 14-20, Impact 14.1.4: 14.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. COnstruction and operation of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site would increase demand for water supply from EBMUD by apprOximately 32,500 2 fi,999 or 44,500 ~, ~,999 gallons per day, depending on whether a ~20~ ~ 540-bed facflltfiS built. The Oakihnd Airp0rt parking ~garage would n0t generate a demand for potable water supplies. o. Increasing the size of the Juvenile Justice Facility from 300 to 420 beds would result in a net increase of potable water demand of 12,000 gpd within the EBMUD service area. Locating the 420-bed Juvenile Justice Facility at the Pardee/Swan Site would increase potable water dem~d by approximately 42;000 gPd at this site, but woUld decrease demand by 30,000 gpd at the existing Juvenile Hall. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-137 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Increasing the size of the Juvenile Justice Facility from 300 to 540 beds would result in a net increase of potable water demand of 24,000 gpd within the EBMUD service area. Locating the 540~bed Juvenile Justice Facility at the Pardee/Swan Site would increase potable water demand by approximately 54,000 gpd at this site, but would decrease demand by 30,000 gpd at the existing Juvenile Hall. · The additional 85,000 square feet of juvenile courthouse space would generate an increased potable water demand of approximately 13,000 gpd. · Additionally, the exterior irrigation water demand, assuming approximately 3.5-acres of irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 7,500~ ~.,v,,,,~an gallons per day. The 420-bed scenario would result in total increase of 32,500 2'3,000 gpd in the EMBUD service area, whereas the 540-bed scenario would result in a total increase of.44,500 . ~,,,.~,, gpd. Both of these figures represent a less than 0.1 percent increase of EBMUD's overall projected water demand throughout its service area. Given that EBMUD has indicated that with aggressive conservation and reclamation it can meet its obligation to serve its current and future customers in normal rainfall years through year 2020, this alternative project's contribution toward the overall water demand is an insignificant component. However, since EBMUD's ability to meet this demand is predicated on service area-wide implementation of conservation and reclamation, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure 14.1.4A: Water Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative. These modifications lower the estimate for water demand at the Existing San Leandro Property and at the Pardee/Swan site. This lowered demand would result in a less than significant impact, which is consistent with the existing Draft EIS/EtR. Mitigation Measure 14.1.4B (for Pardee/Swan) is discussed in Response to Comment 14-13, below. Response to Comment 14-12: Comment noted. The following additional mitigation is recommended: Page 14-19, insert to follow Mitigation Measure 14.1.3 (Glenn Dyer Detention Facility): Mitigation Measure '14.1.3B: Recycled Water Use. Existing exterior irrigation may be upgraded to dual plumbing to provide for the use of recycled water when it becomes available at this site. This addition would further reduce the demand for potable water at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility to less than projected in the Draft EIS/EIR. Consistent with the Draft EIS/EIR, the impact would remain less than significant. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-138 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 14-13: Mitigation Measure 14.1.4B states that Alameda County and EBMUD shOuld Coordinate to determine if the Pardcc/Swan site is a potential target Candidate for recycled water. EBMUD's comment regarding this mitigation implies it docs consider the Pardcc/Swan site a potential target candidate for recycled water. Based on this updated information, thc Draft EIS/EIR is revised as folloWS: page 14'20, Mitigation Measure 14. lB: Mitigation Measure 1 4.t .4B: Recycled Reolaime~ Water Use. Exterior irrigation may be upgraded to dual plumbing to provide for the uSe of recycled water when it becomes available at this site. ~r~X/~LrD water TeRSe program. Resulting Level of Sign~cance: Although this impact is considered less than sign~cant due to the availability of water supplies from EBM~ to se~e this alternative, the ' miti~mi°n measures recommended above would se~e to fu~her reduce water demand Consistent with EB~ and City of O~l~d policy. Response to Comment ~4-14: The sentence noted by ~e co~entor is inco=ect and should be deleted. Potable water demand in the EBM~ wOuld not be affected by the construction ~d operation of the East County Hall of Justice on Site 15A. Dem~d for potable water from Zone 7 would increase as stated in the Draft EIS/EIR. : phge j4220,' Impdb't i4~ ]. 6 (Sitb 15A) : ' 14.1.6: Site 15A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation of the East County Hall of Justice at this site would increase dem~Ed.for water supply from Zone 7 by appr0xi~ately ~,00~ gailans per dayi! - The additional 195,000 square feet East County Hall of Justice facility would generate an increased potable water demand of approximately 29,000 gpd. and would · 'Additionally, the exterior irrigation water demand, assuming approximately 4 acres of irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 13,000 gpd. BaSed on DSRSD's Final Water SerVice AnalySisf°r Eastern Dubiin (DSRSD, 2001) DSRSD has demonstrated that it has secured sufficient water supplies to serve the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-139 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments approximately 4,970,000 gpd potable water demand for all of Eastern Dublin, assuming significant exterior water demands are met with recycled water. This amount of water demand was predicated on a more intense development plan for Site 15A than this alternative. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed that this site would be developed with as many as 375 high-density residential units, generating a demand for approximately 52,000 gpd. The East County Hall of Justice facility, although generating an increased demand for water supplies, would generate approximately 10,000 gpd less demand that what has already been planned for, and water supply acquired by DSRSD. Therefore, water supplies are currently available to serve this project alternative. Although water supply is available to serve the Site 15A, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce water demand consistent with current regulations: Mitigation MeaSure 14.1.6A: water conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.5A (see above), for all the Project components, would apply to this alternative. Mitigation Measure 14.1.6B: Recycled Water Use. Mitigation Measures 14.15B (see above) would apply. Resulting Level of Significance: Although this impact is considered less than significant due to the availability of water supplies from DSRSD to serve this alternative, the mitigation measures recommended above would serve to further reduce water demand consistent with DSRSD ordinances and regulations. Consistent with the existing Draft EIS/EIR, the resulting level of significance would remain less than significant. Response to Comment 14-15: Comment noted. Because no expansion of EMBUD facilities is anticipated at the Existing San Leandro Property, no additional information regarding the process for extending EBMUD's water service is required. Response to Comment 14-16: Commented noted. Based on this comment, the Draf~ EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 14-23, Impact 14.2.4 (Pardee/Swan Site) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Water distributi°n pipelines in the vicinity of this site vary in age and size. Several sites in the immediate area that are designated for industrial and commercial uses are currently served by 8-inch water mains, and need to be replaced with !2 and 20 inch mains to provide adequate water pressure and fire flow requirements to accommodate more intense development. As noted in the Coliseum Redevelopment Plan EIR (City of Oakland, 1995), "the extent, cost, and location of on- and off-site improvements would be determined on a case-by-case basis. The cost would Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-140 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments be funded either by developers or by EBMUD as part of routine system upgrades." In either case, a new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site would be required to pay for these improvements and/or pay EBMUD connection fees to cover these costs. As such, local water delivery system impacts are considered to be less than significant. ResP0nse to comment 14.17: As stated in the Draft EIS/EIR, the proposed facility at the Glenn DYer Detention Facility would result ih no n~`t ing?~a~'e in wastewater treatment and diSposal demand Over its Preceding use (see page 14-26). Additionally, no improvements to the public water distribution are anticipated (see page 14-28). The Pardee/Swan site lies within the City of Oakland's Subbasins 86-001 and 86-002. The City of Oakland Public Works Department has confirmed that the amount of dry weather wastewater floWs (22,50© and 33,000 gpd for a 420~ or 540-bed facility respectively) that may be generated as a result of the proposed facility on this site may contribute to exceeding the allocated capacity of the sewer subbasins (S. Kong, pers. comm. March 25, 2003). Consistent with standard City of Oakland practice, if a project results exceeding the allocated capacity of the City's sewer subbasins, the project proponent is required to pay a mitigation fee to replace or rehabilitate older portions of the existing sanitary sewer collection system. Based on this comment, the Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follOwS: Page 14-28, Impact 14.4.4 (Pardee/Swan Site): POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Wastewater generated from this site may contribute to exceeding the allocated capacity of the sewer system subbasins su55agin serving this area. The following mitigation measures are recommended to address this impact: Mitigation Measure '14.4.4A: Sewer Line ReplaCement and Rehabilitation. Consistent with the City of Oakland's standard practice, development gevelepme~ of this alternative would sScu!d include payment ora mitigation fee to allow replacement or rehabilitation of older and damaged portions of the existing sanitary sewer collection system between the Project site and the appropriate EBMUD interceptor to prevent an increase in inflow and infiltration and overload from new wastewater flows. Mitigation Measure '14.4.4B: Subbasin Flows. A new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site should be programmed into the City of Oakland's Inflow and Infiltration Correction Program to ensure that increased flows do not exceed allowable flows and so that capacity increases can be made as appropriate. Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of mitigation measures identified above, potential impacts to the City's sewer collection system can be reduced to levels of less than significant. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-141 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Wastewater from this portion of the City is discharged from the City collection lines into the EBMUD Pump Station G. This pump station is currently operating at full capacity and needs to be upgraded by installing larger pumps, motor, piping and electrical components so that additional sewer flows can be accommodated. EBMUD collects sewer connection fees to pay for needed improvements to its wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system. Payment of these fees for this alternative would provide fair-share mitigation for the identified needed pump station improvements, and the impact on EBMUD transmission facilities would therefore be considered less than significant. Response to Comment 14-18: Comment noted. As stated in the Draft EIS/EIR, the proposed facility at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility would result in no net increase in wastewater treatment and disposal demand over its preceding use (see page 14-26). Additionally, no improvements to the public water distribution m'e anticipated (see page 14-28). No mitigation measures are required. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-142 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 15: City of San Leandro Response to Comment 15-1: The Draft EIS/EIR identifies the fact that the San Leandro alternative site is within the City of San Leandro's sphere of influence, and discusses applicable land use patterns and public services, as well as transportation effects and similar impacts that could occur in the City limits. Response to Comment 15-2: Comments confirming the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR regarding the lack of significant traffic impacts in the City of San Leandro are noted. Response to Comment 15-3: The impacts associated with emergency response for the San Leandro alternative were found to be less than significant for the following reasons: Page 2-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR describes the existing facility in the following way, "all of the existing facilities have or will soon exceed their useful economic life and need replacing, based on operational and architectural/engineering evaluations. These facilities have been frequently overcrowded over the past several years. The County's Board of Supervisors and the State Board of Corrections determined that the existing Juvenile Hall does not meet the current Board of CorrectiOns guidelines for juvenile detention facilities, nor does it meet current or future needs of the County of Alameda .... "In addition, the following buildings at the existing facility were found to be seismically deficient in some way, shape or form: Juvenile Hall Administration Snedigar Cottage 2nd (newer) Medical Module 1st Medical Module Modular Unit 1 Modular Unit 2 Living Unit A Living Unit B Living Unit C Living Unit D Living Unit B-2 Living Unit 1 Living Unit 2 Living Unit 3 Living Unit 4 Gymnasium Camp Sweeney Dining Hall camp Sweeney School Existing Juvenile Hall - Receiving and Intake Unit Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of JustiCe - Final EIS/EIR page 2-143 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Chabot/Las Vistas - Las Vistas (Units 1, 2 and 3), Las Vistas Recreation Building Camp R.E.A.D.Y - Camp R.E.A.D.Y. Boys Dormitory, Camp Director's Office Camp Sweeney - Camp Sweeney Administration Building, Camp Sweeney Boys Dormitory By contrast, a new facility at the San Leandro would be built using the most current building codes and the latest technology. Despite the fact that it would be larger than the existing facility, it would be much safer. Therefore, it is assumed that a new facility would actually have a lower demand on emergency services than would the No Project alternative. This would actually decrease the demand on the Alameda County Fire Department. Therefore, no further analysis is needed to determine that the impact will be less than significant on the demand for emergency services. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-144 chapter 2: ResPonses to Comments LETTER 16: City of San Leandro Response to Comment 16-1: The commentor is referred to a description of the MOdified San Leandro AlternatiVe at the beginning of Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR and the Master Response regarding the preferred alternative. AlthoUgh the Final EIS/EIR Specifies a preferred alternatiVe for the purposes of NEPA, the sel%ti°n of anY 0f the alternatives Wilt not be made until ttie EIS/EIR is adopted and certified under CEQA. Response to Comment 16-2: The commentor is correct in noting that the site of the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro (No Action / No Project) is subject to significant unavoidable geologic risks related to seismic activity along the Hayward fault and landslides. The project alternative of developing a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the site would address these constraints by moving the facility to another portion of the County property that has been extensively Studied by geotechnical researchers and found to be suitable for development. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS/EIR summarizes the studies, and Chapter 18 provides citations to the numerous reports on which the EIS/EIR is based. The project would necessarily be built to accommodate and withstand the constraints of the site if the San Leandro alternative is selected for implementation. Additional costs to address the site constraints have been considered by the County during the site selection process. Future repair costs will also be considered as part of the County's decision-making process, which will be completed following the completion of the environmental analysis process. The project is considered feasible at the San Leandro site, and therefore has been carried forward in the analysis. The long-term costs of the facility are not an environmental consideration to be evaluated in the EIS/EIR. The County of Alameda General Services Agency contracted Subsurface Consultants Inc. to prepare the technical report "Geotechnical Investigations Conceptual Panning Study Juvenile Justice Center San Leandro, California" (SCI, January 2001). This study is referenced in the Draft EIS/EIR and used as a basis for geologic conclusions pertaining to the San Leandro site. In this study, SCI concludes that the San Leandro Juvenile Justice Facility is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, and provides geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations for conceptuaMevel design and costing. Principal geotechnical considerations as described in this report include: A fault hazard study prepared by William Lettis and Associates (WLA 2001) assisted in the delineation ora site that is free of active earthquake faulting, and concludes there to be generally Iow risk of surface fault rupture in those areas where buildings are planned. A very deep ancient landslide underlies most of the planned building site, but this feature has been inactive for thousands of years. Risks associated with shallower dormant and active landslides can be mitigated by proPerly designed retaining wall systems. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-145 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Retaining wall systems of approximately 72-feet in height are planned for the site. These walls will retain varying conditions of fill natural soil deposits and bedrock, and will traverse areas where older landslides are present. The planned retaining walls can be constricted from the top down as site excavation proceeds, and can be restrained using drilled and grouted steel tendons (tiebacks). Walls up to about 23-feet high are planned for portions of the site that will retain fill placed during site development. These walls can be free-standing gravity walls or mechanically-stabilized earth walls incorporating tensile elements placed within the fill. Fill slopes up to about 30-feet high are planned at the western margin of the site. Conventional unreinforced fill slopes can be inclined at 1 ½ to 1 or flatter. Reinforced earth fills that incorporate tensile elements within the fill can be engineered to have inclinations of about 1 XA to 1 or flatter. Cutting and fill would be required to develop the site. In areas, cuts will encounter bedrock that can likely be excavated using conventional equipment. Fills will need to be properly keyed and benched into bedrock or firm undisturbed soil. Potentially expansive soils present at the site will require mitigation during site preparation. Foundations for the new building can be constructed on conventional spread footing foundations that bear on bedrock of firm, non-expansive soil. Based upon this analysis, the Draft EIS/EIR recommended numerous mitigation measures (Measures 6.1.2, 6.2.2, 6.4.2, 6.5.2, 6.6.2and 6.7.2) to address specific geologic considerations. The Geotechnical Investigations Conceptual Planning Study Juvenile Justice Center San Leandro, California" also informed the "Value Engineering Report" (Cornerstone Facilities Consulting, et.al.), which is the source for project costs. Cornerstone Consultants and its team engineers provided professional guidance for reducing costs while maintaining a juvenile justice complex that serves the people of Alameda County. As a result of this value engineering process, cost estimates for the San Leandro alternative were able to be reduced from approximately $236,782,000 (the original estimate) to an estimated cost of approximately $172,887,000 as reported in the Draft EIS/EIR (page 2-9). For comparative purposes, the costs of construction at the Pardee/Swan site are estimated at approximately $168 million, but an additional $142 million (or a total of approximately $310 m!llion) is estimated to be needed for site acquisition and construction of a parking garage to replace existing surface parking. Response to Comment 16.3: The County will consider the environmental constraints at the San Leandro site and the associated potential environmental justice effects before making a final site selection. Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR discusses environmental justice issues and concludes that compliance with stringent codes for juvenile detention facilities would provide protections against injury. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-146 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 16-4: As summarized on Page i:4 6fth$ fii:~ft'E~S']El~,:ihe e°un~ ~Sf Xiam~afi, caiifo~ia ~°ard of Corrections, and U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs have provided numerous public notices and opportunities for public comment regarding the proposed action and alternatives that are under consideration. A Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed . to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in January 2002. Scoping meetings were held in Dublin in February 2002. A 'second Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in June 2002. A second round of scoping meetings were held in Dublin and in Oakland in July 2002. The Notice of Completion / Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published and mailed in January 2003. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were sent to the City departments and public library in February, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in cooperation with the California Board of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs, conducted two public hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR to gather public comments in February 2003. As stated on pages S-23 and 3-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR, no preferred alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR because all of the sites were being given equal consideration. An environmentally superior alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR in conformance with the requirements of CEQA. However, that determination is only part of the informational purpose of the Draft EIS/EIR and was not an indication by the lead agencies that the Pardee/Swan site was the preferred alternative, nor does the identification of an environmentally superior alternative obligate the County to select that site. County staff has identified a preferred alternative in this Final EIS/EIR, in conformance with the requirements of NEPA, as described in more detail in at the begi~ming of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-147 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments LETTER '17: County of Alameda, Public Works Agency Response to Comment 17-1: No comments were offered; no response is required. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-148 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments LETTER 18: Superior Court, State of California, County of Alameda Response to Comment 18-1: Statements in supp°rt of a new Juvenile juStice Facility are noted. The commentor's opposition to the Glenn Dyer alternative is noted. On pages 3-8 through 3-15, the Draft EIS/EIR concludes that conversion of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in downtown Oakland a juVenile d tenti0n facility ~°ul~ not aChieve many of the project objectives. The analysis also concludes that use of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility would result in significant unaVoidable impacts due to the noise and air quality conditions in the area, and would therefore have environmental justice impacts on the detainees. The Draft EIS/EIR included the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility as one alternative based on the apparent feasibility of constructing a facility that could meet the minimum State standards for juvenile detention, and the analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR provides a uSeful comparison to other alternatives being considered. The County Board of Supervisors has not selected a preferred alternative. County staffhas identified the preferred alternative as the Modified San Leandro Alternative, described in more detail at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. Final selection of an alternative that would be implemented will occur after the completion of the environmental review process, and will include consideration of all public comments regarding the project. ReSP°nse to comment 18-2: ~°~mentS' ? s~pp;~ 0fa ~ East c(~U~tY i-i~ii 0f jUstic; are h°ted' The Draft EIS/EIR describes the existing operations and the program components related to new development. The analysis addresses two alternative sites, and includes information regarding the relative costs of each (see pages 2-10 and 2-11). It is acknowledged that development at Site 15A is likely to cost more than development at the East County Government Center Site. The proposed parking garage at Site 15A would be similar to those being developed elsewhere in Dublin at sites with higher density office and other uses. As with the Juvenile Justice Facility, no preferred site was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR. A final decision on implementation of the project will not be made until the environmental review process is concluded. Public transportation and accessibility are addressed in Chapter 9 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Site 15A is approximately one mile closer than the East County Government Center Site to the BART station, existing bus routes, and freeways. However, transit service is expected to be adjusted to better serve the East County Government Center site once development occurs, in coordination with the Livenuore Amador Valley Transit Agency. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-149 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments LETTER 19: Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker Response to Comment 19-1: The cost estimates provided on pages 2-9 and 2-10 of the Draft EIS/EIR include all associated costs for engineering, site work, structural systems, and furnishings to meet the requirements of each of the alternatives. These costs are based on schematic designs and include substantial contingencies. More detailed cost estimates would be prepared during the design phase in conjunction with the design/build team. The San Leandro site has been estimated to cost approximately $173 million, the reduced program at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility (420 beds maximum) would cost $122 million with an additional $41 million required to provide new administration and court facilities elsewhere in the vicinity, the Pardee/Swan site would cost $168 million for the Juvenile Justice portion plus about $142 million for the site acquisition and parking garage components, and the East County Government Center site is estimated to cost $173 million. Therefore, it does not appear from these estimates that there is a cost premium for development at the seismically active San Leandro site. Response to Comment 19-2: Development of any of the "build" alternatives, including a replacement project at the San Leandro alternative site, would address existing deficiencies at Juvenile Hall, which is located immediately along the Hayward fault. As discussed in Chapter 6 oft_he Draft EIS/EIR, extensive studies have been conducted to identify the buildable area on the San Leandro campus. The new Juvenile Justice Facility would be located within that area and woutd incorporate all necessary structural and equipment considerations to provide a safe environment for the detainees, staff, and visitors. Response to Comment 19-3: Construction at the San Leandro site would include all necessary security precautions to ensure that the construction site and activity would not affect the on-going operations at the existing Juvenile Hall. Access restrictions, temporary access routes, security personnel, and other measures would be in place. Detainees would not be moved to the new facilities until all of the new security measures were in place, tested, and approved for occupancy. The new facility would include state-of-the art technology as well as superior site planning and operational programs to address security, which would enhance the overall security for the neighborhoods in the area. Currently, security has not been a major problem at the facility, and therefore no security risks are anticipated. Response to Comment t9-4: The Juvenile Justice Facility conceptual site plan for the San Leandro property under both the Existing San Leandro Site alternative and the Modified San Leandro alternative includes grading and retaining walls that would address the topography and landslide potential at that site. The project has been designed in response to extensive geologic, geotechnical, and seismic studies Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-150 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments that identify the specific risks associated with the site, and these factors are included in the plan. c°nfonr~anCe with aPplicable codes and regUlations, inspectiOns, and quality control would protect the staff, jUveniles, and others at the site froTM landslides. Response to Comment 19-5: There is little to no reported crime impact of the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro upon the neighboring communities. In response to community concerns, the perceived impact of the release of adult prisoners from the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center in Dublin is discussed in detail (see page 4-55). No matter which site is selected, the Juvenile Justice Facility would be developed to include state-of-the-art security Systems and WOuld be Staffed by personnel who are trained and equipped t° address security at the facility. Response to Comment 19-6: Based on the review of other statistical analyses, it is expected that efforts to isolate the effect of the existing Juvenile Hall on surrounding residential property values would be inconclusive. The existing Juvenile Hall was built largely in the 1950s and the surrounding neighborhoods are older single-family areas. It would be nearly impossible to isolate the effect today of the Juvenile Hall on housing values from other factors such as houSing size, lot size, age of unit, condition of the housing stock, development over time of other "disamenities" in the area, and general quality and upkeep of the neighborhood. In addition, the condition of the surrounding area and value of the homes relative to other areas in San Leandro and the County at the time that the Juvenile Hall was constructed is nOt known and information regarding housing transactions in the area during the years immediately before and after construction of the Juvenile Hall is not readily available. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-151 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 20: Alameda County League of Women Voters Response to Comment 20-1: Pages 9-32 and 9-35 of the Draft EIS/EIR describe existing transit service in the Dublin area. Pages 9-89 tln-ough 9-91 address the impacts and mitigation measures necessary to address the transit service shortfalls in the Dublin area. Page 16-14 of the Draft EIS/EIR also provides an analysis of the environmental justice implications of developing the project at the East County Government Center, due to increased transportation costs and travel times for family members and other visitors. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-152 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 21' Communities for a Better Environment Response to Comment 21-1: The Draft EIS/EIR Contains an analysis of a reaSonable range of altematives in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. For example, the Draft EIS/EIR evaluated alternatives that involve the development of both the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice on separate sites or in combination. The Draft EIS/EIR prOvides a rigorous analysis of alternatives, including variations in the size, location, and configuration of the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice. In this way, the document provides the decision-makers with informatiOn about a reasOnable range of alternatives that C°Uld possibly achieve the ProjeCt objectives and that appeared to otherwise be feaSible considering costs, land availability, and other factors. The needs assessment ~d master Pian d~ined that th~ c~untY needed t° cOnStruct aneW Juvenile Just!ce Facility that would include 540 beds to meet the County's needs to house juvenile detainees. Based on inCreased Use of alternatives to detention implemented by the Probation Department in recent years, however, the Draft EIS/EIR indicated that a total of 450 beds could remain adequate for long-term needs (Chapter 2, page 2-3). The size of the alternatives under cOnSideration was based upon the purpose and projected need of the project and the project objectives. As described6n pages 2'2 thr°ugh 2'5 or,he Draa EIS~IR, ~e program requirements for the Juvenile justice Facility, and the Alameda county BOard of sUpervisOrs', direction regarding the project parameters based on data and analysis presented by the Juvenile Justice Steering committee and Others, indicate that a minimum of 420 beds would be required to address current and future housing needs associated with the juvenile justice functions of the County. HOWever, since that time, the Steering Committee has identified another feasible alternative and selected it as the preferred alternative, see'the master resPOnse regarding the MOdified San Leandro Alternative at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. As part of the evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives, the Draft EIS/EIR eValuated the No Actio~No Project alternative in which 300 beds would be provided in the existing facility. As this analysis demonstrates, the impacts and project-generated demand for services based on size and population would be reduced compared to the impacts and demand for services of a 450-bed or 540-bed alternative (e.g., traffic, noise, air quality, utilities and services). Similarly, the Modified San Leandro Alternative consisting of 360 beds also would result in fewer impacts and demand for services and utilities when compared to the 450'bed and 540-bed alternatives. The commentor is referred to the beginning of Chapter 2 Of this Final EIS/EIR for a descriPtiOn of this alternative. In addition, oTM 20 Other sites were conSidered during the site Selection process, as described on page S-7 and Pages 3-32 throUgh 3-34 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Although it is true that somewhat leSs land might be required if fewer beds were conStructed, the minimUm land area would nOt be substantially reduced because the beds make up only part of the facility. Many of the support Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-153 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments facilities could be reduced in size, but not necessarily proportional to the number of beds due to minimum functional requirements. For example, the courtroom and administrative functions make up fully 25% of the total square footage of the project, and would not necessarily be reduced in area with the construction of fewer beds. Response to Comment 21-2: Refer to Response 9-135 regarding concerns related to radiological experimentation/testing and the East County Governrnent Center site. An Enviromnental Site Assessment has been conducted at the East County Government Center site (see pages 12-13 and 12-14 of the Draft EIS/EIR). Studies conducted to date strongly suggests that impacts to soil which may be encountered during site redevelopment are no more significant than those encountered during redevelopment of any of the adjacent former military areas. Studies have not identified conditions that would require extensive remediation prior to redevelopment, i.e. chemical contamination has not been detected at concentrations that would suggest the presence of hazardous waste and concentrations that exceed established risk thresholds. The East Cotmty Government Center site and Site 15A were investigated for possible hazardous materials contamination. A Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the East County Government Center Site in January 2002, which identified several recognized environmental conditions, as described in more detail in the Draft EIS/EIR at pages 12-13 and 12-14. This assessment did not disclose the likelihood of the presence of radioactive materials. In September 2000, a Phase I preliminary site assessment was also performed for the Site 15A property. Soil and groundwater investigations were also performed on Site 15A, which included a screening for the presence of radiation. No radiation above background levels was detected. (See Draft EIS/EIR p. 12-17.) Furthermore, common and routine site development procedures such as worker notification, dust control measures and work stoppage when unusual conditions are encountered conducted in association with a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP), will effectively address and mitigate potential risks of exposure including those potentially associated with asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP). An SMP will be prepared based on the actual development scheme selected. The commentor's statements regarding the potential for radioactive contamination at the Dublin site does not constitute significant new information requiring the recirculation of the Draft EIS/EIR. (See Recirculation Master Response at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR). Response to Comment 21-3: The commentor is correct in noting that the East County Government Center alternative would result in several significant unavoidable impacts. The Executive Summary (Chapter S) of the Draft EIS/EIR lists all of the impacts and classifies them according to significance, including a summary of significant unavoidable impacts at each site on pages S-22 and S-23. The East County Government Center site has five significant unavoidable impact categories, including numerous roadway and intersection impacts that would require mitigation and remain unavoidable due to cumulative growth in the area. The traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of increased travel distance for detainees, their family members, and others associated with the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-154 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments activity at the project are fully described in each of the topical sections and are specifically considered in the environmental justice chapter (Chapter 16) of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR evaluai~s ~Umulative air qUality impaCtS and mitigation measures for the East CoUntY Government Center and Site 15A alternatives on page 1%57. The County has prepared a Draft transportation Plan for the project if it is imPlemented in Dublin, as noted on pages ~9'91 and 16- 14. Its implementation depends on final planning studies and allocation of funding from the County, but it is expected to reduce the accessibility impact to a less than significant level. Vehicular noise impacts are eXpected to remain significant, hOwever, due to the overall increase in tripS ih ih:e immediate vicinity of eXisting residences. Response to Comment 21-4: The environmental justice impacts associated with the East County Government Center site and impacts on accessibility are described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Construction of rOadwaY imProvements in the area likely wOuld eXacerbate traffic delays in the interim pending completion of the roadway improvements. Chapters 9 and 11 evaluate the air quality and traffic impacts aSSOciated with the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA and NEPA, the Draft EIS/EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures that may be implemented as part of the Project to mitigate significant environmental impacts. We note that the commentor cites to cases that apply to the preparation of an initial study and mitigated negative declaration and the threshold decision to prepare an EIR. In this case, the County determined to prepare an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines and judicial decisions regarding the adequacy of mitigation in an EIR confirm that, although mitigation measUres should not be deferred until some future time, mitigation measures may specify performance standards that wOUld mitigate {he project's significant environmental effect and may be accomplished in various ways. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(1)(B); Sacramento Old CityAss 'n v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App.3d 1011.) Thus, it is appropriate for an agency to identify mitigation measures in an EIR, but rely on future studies to define how a mitigation measure will be designed and imPlemented in accordance with Performance goals. The Draft EIS/EIR evaluateS the environmental impacts of the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures which would mitigate thOse impacts. In this regard, the Draft EIS/EIR does not defer the evaluation of mitigation measures. In fact, requirements regarding specific roadway improvements and the obligation to fund such improvements are specified in Chapters 9 and 17 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The recommended mitigation measures are designed to minimize the Project's significant environmental impacts by substantially reducing or avoiding them. (Pub. Res. Code § §21002 and 21100.) While the Draft EIS/EIR identifies the recommended regional roadway improvements, it discloses to the public and decision-makers the uncertainties regarding potential delays in the implementation of all such improvements. Although implementation of the measures may be deferred, it does not mean that the Draft EIS/EIR deferred the identification of the mitigation measures. Thus, the commentor seems to confuse the potential for delays in implementing mitigation with the deferral in identifying mitigation that may be required for a project. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-155 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 21-5: The public health impacts related to potential hazardous materials contamination at the East County Government Center and Site 15A are discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR at pages 12-22 to 12-23. For the East County Government Center, Mitigation Measure 12.1.5 requires the County's contractor's to prepare a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP) that will contain, among other things, a contingency plan that will ensure that construction workers and the public are adequately protected from health impacts associated with potential exposure to contamination. Compliance with the SMP, and all mitigation measures, will be monitored pursuant and enforced through a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to be adopted at the time of project approval, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 21086(a)(1). Costs of potential clean-up is included in the project budgets. Response to Comment 21-6: The commentor is referred to Response to Comment 9-163, above. A detailed discussion of the potential impacts of the project on wildlife, foraging habitat for raptors and loggerhead shrike, and Congdon's tarplant is provided under Impact 8.1.5, 8.3.5, and 8.4.5, together with adequate mitigation where appropriate. Response to Comment 21-7: The commentor states that other noise studies have shown levels to be louder than those measured by Illingworth & Rodkin. According to the Draft EIS/EIR noise section, "LT-1 was made in the center of the rear yard of #5764 Idlewood Street behind an 8-foot sound wall along Hacienda Drive. At this location, Hacienda Drive was the major noise source. Construction of nearby offices also contributed to noise levels. Distant gunfire from the County Sheriff's Shooting Range was audible but not measurable at this location. The CNEL measured at this location was 58 dBA. The hourly data are displayed graphically in Figure 10.9. Measurement LT-2 was made on a pole at the comer ofldlewood Court and Winterbrook Avenue approximately 60 feet from the sound wall off Gleason Drive. At this site, gunshots were more audible but not measurable over the noise from traffic on Gleason Drive. The CNEL at this location was 57 dBA." During the monitoring surveys, even with distant gun range use audible, Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) are within acceptable limits, and thus no significant impact would occur. The Wilson, Ihrig, and Associates (WIA) firing range acoustics report states that, "due to atmospheric inversion effects, range noise was higher during nighttime hours than during the daytime." The data and conclusions in the WIA report demonstrate that noise from the firing range is intrusive in the neighborhoods to the south. The WIA report contains a series of recommended mitigations that would reduce firing range noise in nearby neighborhoods, especially at night (but the noise would not be completely eliminated). However, the WlA report does not change the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR that exterior and interior noise impacts at the East County Government Center site would be less than significant (see Impact 10.1.5, page 10-24). Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-156 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Illingworth & Rodkin measured overall ambient sound levels focusing on the County and City standards for Ldn or CNEL. Long-term measurements included firing range sounds, sounds from helicopters, existing traffic, lawnmowers, barking dogs, and whatever other sources were generating sound at the time of measurements. CEQA § 15355 (b) defines Cumulative Impacts as "the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reaSOnable (sic) foreseeable probable future projects." The Sheriffs Firing Range and Parks RFTA are part of the eXiSting noise enVironment and haVe been inClUded in the meaSUrement of existing conditions. The Draft EIS/EIR used future traffic projections to calculate project- generated noise and cumulative increases. The new Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice will be constructed of subStantial, institutional-type materials that would normally reduce interior noise levels 30 dBA or more b~10W OUtside levels. ThiS 'noise attenuation would be sufficient to reduce gunshot sounds to below a level of significance (i.e. below 45 dBA). State law applicable to the project is described on page 10-4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and used as a significanCe threshold for the analysis. The State multi-family law is described for comparison purposes, but that standard is not applicable because the Juvenile Justice Facility is not such a land use. The reconfiguration of the existing berm would not Substantially affect the aUdibility of the Sheriff's shooting range or other activity as perceived from residential or other areas south of Gleason Drive. This is due to the distance the berm is from the shooting range, which limits its abilitY tO Pr°Vide much Shielding. In addition, the Sheriff's Department is considering the implementation of various improvements to sound barriers that will diminish, but not eliminate, gunshot sound in nearby areas. Those improvements are unrelated to and not needed to address the Juvenile Justice Facility. All of the Sheriff's Possible mitigation measures are oriented to close-in walls and baffles that would provide immediate shielding, rather than more distant berms or WallS that WoUld ail°w Sound t° refract and traVel around the barriers, thereby reducing their effeCtiveness. Sound measurement data was Obtained by prOfessional acoUStical engineers using specialized equipment, over several days at several locations. The measurements reflect short-term and long-term conditions, and adequately characterize the sensitive areas near the project sites based on prOfessional practice. The Draft EIS/EIR data is therefore considered adequate and Complete. Response to Comment 21-8: No greater site hazards exist at the alternative sites than existed under the current development between Gleason Drive and 1-580 prior to the proper cleanup and development as residential, school, recreation, and commercial uses. Refer to Response 21-2 regarding the mitigation of potential impacts at the East County Government Center site. The potential removal of pipelines lined or wrapped with asbestos containing materials (ACM) would be conducted under the observation of a Certified Industrial Hygienist and by contractors licensed to handle and remove Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-157 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments ACM. Similar pipelines have already been encountered and were successfully removed from other adjacent military properties without incident. Response to Comment 21-9: Figure 12.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR is from a database search conducted by EDR, Inc. on behalf of the EIS/EIR preparers, and is necessarily vague due to the use of census map files. As shown in Figure 3.12 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the school is located approximately ~A mile from the closest point of the East County Government Center site, although the majority of the site work and development would occur beyond this distance. Although Impact 12.3 addresses the handling of hazardous materials near school sites, the general issue of handling hazardous materials is addressed in Impact 12.1, under heading 12.1.5 and 12.1.6 for the Dublin sites. Concentrations detected to date at each of these sites would not constitute "hazardous materials", according to Fugro West Consultants. Impacted soils, including asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, if encountered may, however, need to be transported from these sites as "hazardous waste" in accordance with applicable State laws. Potential impacts to the community related to these materials would be short-term and mitigated by implementation of the soil management plan. None of the transportation would occur along roads near the school site. The discussion regarding impacts of hazardous waste handling near school sites in the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended as follows: Page 12-23, Impact 12.3: All Alternatives N© IMPACT. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Under each of the alternatives evaluated, construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not require the handling of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures 12..I .2, 12.1.4, 12.1.5, and 12.1.6 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Nene oft~.e sites e;'a!uated ~,e The closest part of Dougherty Elementary_ School is located ,,,;,h;., one-quarter mile cf an3' ~v;.,; ..... c,,^~ ,,,~ .................. ,:, v. preposed .......... from the closest part of the East County Government Center site. Site disturbance and construction activity would occur at or beyond this distance from the school site, and would not have any significant impacts after the implementation of the specified mitigation measures. Response to Comment 21-10: The commentor correctly notes that the Dublin site would result in more vehicle emissions than other sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR. The air quality analysis relies upon publicly available data from government-operated air monitoring stations. These air monitoring stations are part of a network that is representative of an air basin (or sub-basin). Although there are many air monitoring stations throughout the BAAQMD, the analysis is based upon data from those stations closest to the proposed project sites. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-158 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 21-11: As noted in tl~e Draft EIS/EIR; as a POlitica1 SubdivisiOn of the state, the coUntY is eXempt eom local regulations. (See Draft EIS/EIR at page 4-9.) This exemption extends to local land use (i.e., General Plans), zoning and building regulations. Moreover, Government Code Sections 53090-53096, which generally require lOCal agencies to complY with the land Use and building regulations of the county or city in which their territory is located, specifically excludes counties from this requirement. Therefore, the County is not required to comply with land use (i.e., General Plans), zoning and building requirements of any of the local jurisdictions in 'WhiCh the project may be located, including the City of Dublin. Consequently, even if the proposed project is determined to be inconsistent with local land use (i.e., General Plan), zoning or building reqUirements, such inconsistency generally wOuld not prevent implementation of the project. Nonetheless, the County has, by agreement, recognized certain local land use principles in the Dublin area pursuant to the Annexation Agreement dated May 4, 1993, as discussed at pages 4- 28 through 4-30 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The extent to whiCh the Project would be required to comply with Dublin's land use laws and policies, including its General Plan, would be determined by Sections 8 and 9 of the Annexation Agreement. See responses to Comments 9-27 and 9-30. Response to Comment 21-12: The Draft EIS/EIR does not need to be translated into Spanish. Notices and information sheets were translated, and translators for six different languages were made available at the scoping meetings held in Oakland in order to address the wide range of ethnic and language groups represented in the urban setting of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility and other alternative sites 'under consideration. No members of the public were observed to use these services. Public Participation was also encouraged through local commUnity organizations during the sCoping process, and no non-English speaking persons appeared during the process. The County of Alameda provides accommodation in all of its proceedings for accessibility by persons with phySical handicaps and language barriers. However, the projects evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR are not located in an area with a predominant language group other than English, as with the cases cited by the commentor (Puerto Rico and New Mexico). The lead agencies for this project have complied with Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice to the extent it applies to this project. Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR provides a description of the co--unities potentially affected by the project alternatives. Table 16. I shows that approximately 18 percent of the juvenile detainees are Hispanic. Table 16.2 documents that approximately 18 percent of the County's population is classified as Hispanic, and between 9 and 18 percent of the population in the vicinity of any individual site is Hispanic. The Draft EIS/EIR therefore concludes that there would not be a disproportionate impact on Hispanic persons. Response to Comment 21-13: Although the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may have certain jurisdiction over certain of the alternative project sites with respect to soil and water contamination, EPA is not expected to issue any specific approval or authorization for the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-159 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Project. EPA Region IX was one of the federal agencies to which the County distributed a copy of the Draft EIS/EIR. Region IX submitted a comment letter (see letter 3) which commended "the preparers of [the EIS/EIR] for publishing a clear and thorough analysis of the alternatives, and for including appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts." The EPA reviewed the Draft EIS/EIR and categorized it as "LO, Lack of Objection." No further consultation is required at this time. Response to Comment 21-14: The lead agencies believe the Draft EIS/EIR to be adequate as an informational document, and no significant new information is provided in response to public comments that would trigger the need for recirculation of a revised Draft EIS/EIR. No substantial additional analysis is included in this response to comments document that would preclude meaningful public input. Public participation has been extensively sought and input has been received from over 50 individuals and agencies, evidencing sufficient public involvement in the process. No analysis of important environmental issues has been inappropriately deferred. Impact discussions include planning, design, construction and operations, as well as cumulative and long-term impacts for each of the topical issues addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR. The mitigation measures provide sufficient detail and are based on known conditions documented in the description of the existing setting, and confonr~ance with established regulations and protocols that are sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the measures to meet the mitigation objectives. The commentor has not identified any significant new information that will need to be added to the Draft EIS/EIR and require recirculation as further indicated in the Master Response regarding recirculation at the beginning of Chapter 2 of'this Final EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 21-15: Communities for a Better Environment will be added to the mailing list and will be informed of all public hearings, and will be provided with CEQA/NEPA notices and public documents. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-160 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 22: Reed Smith Crosby Heafy, LLP Response to Comment 22-1: Sect!Onl 5 !23(~)0fthe CEQA Guidelines requires a %rief,%u~m~ With l~guage fhat is "as clear and simple as reasonably practical." The Project assessed in this Draft EIS/EIR is complex and in order to provide a clear overview of it, the Executive Summary includes Table S. 1. This table provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts among the six alternatives and ~ i~ldicati0n 0f whether mitigati0n measures W°Uld be required based on the significante Of the identified impact. Additionally, page S-8 directs the reader to individual chapters for recommended mitigation measures. Although SeCtion 15123(b)(1) does state that the mitigation measUres should be identified in the Executive Summary, Section 15123(c) also states that the summary should not normally exceed 15 pages. The Executive Summary, without all the mitigation measures for each of'the six alternatives, is 24 pages in length. Adding the mitigation measures would have resulted in an unwieldy "summary" that could have run 50 to 100 pages long. A mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRp), which outlines how the mitigation measures in the E!S/EIR willbe implemented for the selected project, must be adopted by the County Board of SUpervisors. That plan Will also provide the requisite summary of mitigation measures as they Would apply to a specific project site. A draft of the impacts and mitigation measures that would be included for the preferred alternatives is included as an appendix to this 'F]naiEi~i~~. ,' ,, , Response to Comment 22-2: Comment noted. See also responses to comments 22-6 through 22-10. The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page S-2I, paragraph 2: The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice projects are intended to address documented needs for improved facilities, and would not induce ~ substant!a1 population growth in the vicinity at any of the alternative sites considered in ....,o~ ~i~o~,~..o ,~,r~ ,~,,~ ...... ~o. Each site is located in ~ Urb~ area with adequate infrastructure to meet prQect-related dem~ds for se~ices, so no Substantial infrastructure {~pf~gements WOUld be required W~Ch couid induce ~0Wth in neighboring ~eas. EmplOyment at ~y of the sites would be relatively small in comparison to the overall level of activity in the vicini~. M~y of the employees (approximately 450 to 550 staff at the Juvenile Justice Facility, and approximately 300 staff at the East County Hall of Justice) would be drawn primarily from the existing labor supply se~ing these County hnctions, and limited new housing would be r~uired to se~e new employees. . Considered in the context of Alameda County and me individual communities in which the projects could be located, the projects do not repreSent the introduction of large Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East COunty Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-161 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments employment or economic generators. However, the overall trend in the region is toward increased traffic congestion, a lack of affordable housing, and increased service demands that could outstrip the ability of cities and other agencies to provide for all of the long- term growth within and beyond the nine-County San Francisco Bay Area. Therefore, there is the potential for significant cumulative growth-inducing impacts. Response to Comment 22-3: Although development costs of the new East County Hall of Justice on Site 15A might be higher than development costs associated with construction at the East County Government Center, this does not make the proposal infeasible. As noted on Page 2-10 of the Draft EIS/EIR, a number of funding sources have been identified that would adequately cover the costs of the proposed project. Response to Comment 22-4: Contrary to the commentor's assertion, the Draft EIS/EIR identifies and defines a "proposed project." The description of the "proposed project" may be found in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The "proposed project" is the construction of the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice. Alternatives are considered for construction of the proposed project in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. These alternatives were evaluated at a comparable level of detail in accordance with NEPA's more stringent requirements regarding the analysis of alternatives. Consequently, the environmental impacts of each alternative were evaluated. The Draft EIS/EIR summary table compares each of these alternatives so the reader can understand the comparison of impacts among each of the alternatives. If the commentor's assertions were true, a combined EIS/EIR never could be prepared. The commentor is referred to the responses to the comments contained in Comment Letter 9 regarding Dublin's land use approval authority with respect to the Project. The Draft EIS/EIR describes the number of parking spaces required and to be provided for the East County Government Center site on page 3-19. Figure 3.22 illustrates the number of parking spaces (850 spaces) proposed for the East County Hall of Justice on Site 15 A. Page 3-23 indicates that the Juvenile Justice Facility on the East County Government Center site would be two stories (approximately 30 feet tall) and the East County Hall of Justice would be a 4-story building. For the East County Government Center Site, the East County Hall of Justice would have a building height of 56 feet for the three-story office portion and 80 feet for the four-story court portion, with a 14-foot taller elevation as viewed from Border Blvd. due to the below-grade sallyport area. Development of Site 15A would require a slightly taller building to accommodate an at-grade sallyport and mechanical areas. Response to Comment 22.5: As stated in the first sentence of the discussion, pages 3-32 and 3-33 of the Draft EIS/EIR relate the search for alternative sites to accommodate the Juvenile Justice Facility. The Draft EIS/EIR Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-162 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments also includes an analysis of two alternative sites for the East County Hall of Justice: the East County Government Center Site, m~d Site 15A. Response to Comment 22-6: The discussion of Site 15A on page 4-9 of the Draft EIS/EIR is a description of the physical setting for Site 15A. The description of the policy and regulatory setting for this site is found on page 4-35 throUgh -37. On Page 4-35 °fthe Draft EIS/EIR it clearly states that "Development of Site 15A with a new East County Hall of Justice wOuld not be consistent with the land use designation for this property under the applicable General Plan. The annexation agreement provides that development of Site 15A and surrounding property within the Santa Rita Properties requires development consistent with City of Dublin land use policy and regulations. The County Surplus Authority has requested that the City of Dublin amend the General Plan and EDSP designation from High-Density Residential to a land use designation supporting campus- type office uses." The Draft EIS/EIR makes clear that Site 15A is not zoned or designated for public use at the present time. In Chapter 4, describing the Land Use and Planning effects/impacts of the proposed Project, under the headings "Site 15A" and "City of Dublin Zoning," the Draft EIS/EIR states, "Site 15A is zoned PD by the City of Dublin," Draft EIS/EIR at 4-36, and further states that "the development of this site as an institutional use could be found to be inconsistent with current land use designation." (Draft EIS/EIR at 4-36 through 4-37.) The extent to which development of Site 15A may be subject to review by the City of Dublin under its land use laws and policies would be determined by Section 8 of the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement. See Response to Comment 9-27 and 9-30. Response to Comment 22-7: Comment noted. This typographical error is amended as follows: page 4-9, paragraph 1: Site 15A is part of the County of Alameda's Santa Rita land holdings that were annexed to the City of Dublin in the early-1990's for the purpose of facilitating public and private development. Site 15A is located south of Central Parkway, east of Arnold Road, north of Dublin Boulevard and west of the new Sybase Corporation Headquarters Complex. It encompasses ap~rcX/mate!y ! !.5 net acres cf !-~.d approximately 12.5 net acres of land. The site is currently vacant, relatively flat and contains native and introduced species of grasses but no trees (see Figure 4.5). Response to Comment 22-8: Comment noted. This graphics error is amended as follows: Page 4-29, Figure 4.12: i'~: "Shi~ fi'~re is revised tO indicate the CU~ent 'G~neral elm land use designati°n on the~, adjacent Sybase property is Campus Office, and not High Density Residential. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page2-163 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 22-9: The extent to which development on Site 15A may be subject to review by the City of Dublin under its land use laws and policies would be determined by Section 8 of the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement. See Response to Comment 9-27 and 9-30. See Response to Comment 9-38 for a discussion of the most appropriate land use designation (fi'om High Density Residential to Campus Office or Public/Semi-Public) for Site 15A. Response to Comment 22-10: Although the last two sentences of the cited section on page 4-35 are correct statements of the County's exemption from local regulation generally, the County's exemption as applied to development on 'Site 15A has been modified by Section 8 of the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement. As a result, the last two sentences of this paragraph are incorrect, and the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended to delete those sentences. Page 4-35, fifth paragraph: Land Use Designations The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan designates Site 15A for High-Density Residential uses with an average density of 25 dwelling units per acre. This land use designation would permit up to approximately 300 residential units at this site. Consistency Analysis. Development of Site 15A with a new East County Hall of Justice would not be consistent with the land use designation for this property under the applicable General Plan. The annexation agreement provides that development of Site 15A and surrounding property within the Santa Rita Properties requires development consistent with City of Dublin land use policy and regulations. ~-,,,.~ ..~ r,...w_~.,+,, Sm'plus ........................................................ vr ..... , .... propose Response to Comment 22-11: The discussion on page 4-41 of the Draft EIS/EIR regarding the consistency of development of the East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A with the City of Dublin General Plan concludes by stating "inconsistency would not result in significant effects on the environment other than as described elsewhere in this document." Potential inconsistency with the City's land use designation for the site, i.e. High Density Residential under existing policy or Campus Office under an existing General Plan Amendment request, is also discussed on pages 4-35 and 4~36 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The County believes that the East County Hall of Justice is a use consistent with the proposed land use designation and the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-164 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments land use goal for the area, which includes a "high prOfile, quality image that establishes a positive impressiOn.'' The design intent of the East County Hall of Justice would be consistent with this goal. Site 15A is included in the City of Dublin's East Dublin Specific Plan area, as eXplained on Page 4-35 and cross-referenced to pages 4-28 through 4-35, The overall planning scheme for the eastern Dublin area includes a substantial amount of flexibility, as has evidenced by prior development decisions of the City regarding neighboring sites including the Sybase headquarters site and other local offices, in which residential land use designations have been amended t° ' allow office uses on all of the properties west of Hacienda Drive. Mitigation measures adopted by the City of Dublin in 1994 as part of its Eastern Dublin Specific Plan do not necessarily apply to individual projects within the Plan area. The EDSP EIR was necessarily broad in scope and general in its conclusions, considering that no development had yet OcCurred in the Plan area and projections were for a long-term buildout of the area during which changes to the environmental and regulatory setting, land use plan, and detail of information was inevitable. Although the City uses the EDSP EIR to tier analyses of subsequent projects within the Plan area, the County has determined that in this case, the project required a separate EIR, and has therefore conducted new, site-specific studies of the site and surroundings. Given the time that has passed and the changed circumstances in the area since the EDSP EIR 'W~S ~certified, th~ ~iginai mitigation measUres from the EDSPare inapplicable t° or redundant of the measures identified in the project-specific Draft EIS/EIR prepared for the East County Hall of Justice. As explained in the Draft EIS/EIR, the County disagrees with the commentor's statement that degel6pment 6fthe EaSt County Hall of juStice On Site 15A would be inconsistent With the proposed Office Campus designation for the site. See Draft EIS/EIR at 4-36. The County also disagrees with this comment to the extent that it contends that the severity of the traffic effects/impacts that would result from developing the East County Hall of JUstice on Site 15A may vary depending upon the site's General Plan or Specific Plan designation. The Draft EIS/EIR adequately addresses the potential traffic effects/impacts that may result from the proposed use of Site 15A. See Draft EIS/EIR at 9-101 through 9~109~ Response t0 Comment 22-'12: The county Sheriff would maintain a significant PresenCe at East County Hall of Justice, Would maintain a very high level of security throughout the facility and site, would be able to rapidly r%P6hd ~0 ~y disruption of normal c°mmunitY life by immediately alerting the Dublin pOlice Department, and would be able to provide any necessary back-up to the Dublin Police Department. The Sheriff's highly visible presence would certainly deter unlawful activity. Response to Comment 22-13: The Draft EIS/EIR evaluates the physical environmental impacts of increased criminal activity on page 4-55. The commentor's concerns regarding loitering, litter, and traffic are very similar Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EISIEIR Page 2,165 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments to the issues included in the discussion of Impact 4.5, which were determined to have no impact. The increased demand for public services and utilities is described in Chapters 13 and 14. Response to Comment 22-14: The conclusion regarding a three to four story East County Hall of Justice building being in character with nearby buildings is based on assumptions about the type, height and mass of the building as conceptually shown on Figures 3-9 and 3-12 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Such a building would not be out of character with the surrounding properties, which are designated under the City of Dublin General Plan for either Campus Office, Industrial Park/Office, or a mix of uses as approved under the Dublin Transit Center project. Response to Comment 22.15: The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 5-44, paragraph 4 Impact 5.2.6 Site 15A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The massing of the proposed East County Hall of Justice buildin~ located on Site 15A would have a less significant visual impact on the, area, as it would be consistent with the overall business park setting and existing buildings, and would not adversely affect the aesthetic setting of the other existing buildings in the area. Changes to the views from adiacent offices would not be significant environmental impacts of this proiect, as it would be consistent with the overall land use plan for the area, and views from individual offices are not protected a~ scenic vistas under CEQA or NEPA. Response to Comment 22-16: Design review for the proposed East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A would evaluate exterior materials proposed for the building's fagade, as well as proposed exterior security light design, in order to ensure that the building's facade and exterior lighting do not have a significant impact on adjacent land uses. Response to Comment 22.17: The impacts of office development at Site 15A is considered as a background condition for those future condition scenarios that include the Juvenile Justice Facility and/or East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center Site. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EISIEIR Page 2-166 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments The description of the scenarios on page 9-23 of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended as follows: · Scenario Al, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be co-located at the East County Government Center site. xT~' '~ .... ~ ..... * '-*' Site 15A would be developed according to the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. Development of the Cisco Systems proiect is considered representative of future conditions as part of this analysis because it was an approved project for that site. · Scenario A2, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be co-located at the East County Government Center site. 5!o deYe!o~ment of Site 15A would be developed according to the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. Development of the Cisco Systems project is considered repreSentative of future C6nditions as p~ of this analySis analysis because it was an approved project for that site. · Scenario B, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility would be located elsewhere outside of the area of influence in Dublin, and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be located on the East County Government Center site. No deYe!opw, ent of Site 15A would be developed according to the CiW of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. Development of the Cisco Systems project is considered representative of future conditions as part of this analysis analysis because it was an approved project for that site. Sce~ariO Cl, in 'Which a jUVenile JustiCe Facility With 420 beds woUld be loCated at the East County Government Center site, and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be located at Site 15A. The East County Government Center site would also accommodate futUre office development at some future date, consistent with the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. · Scenario C2, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds W°Uld be located at the East County Government Center site, and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be located at Site 15A. The East County GOvernment Center site ~ would also accommodate future office development at some future date, COnsiStent with the City of DUblin's SPecific Plan and General plan. · ~Scenario D, in WhiCh a juvenile jUstice Facility Would be located elsewhere oUtSide of the area of influence in Dublin, and an East County Hall of JustiCe with 13 courtrooms would be located at Site 15A. The East County GcYe~ent Center site is not considered ~,~ ....-, ~.r +,.;~ ~..~..~;~ The East COunty Government Center site would also accommodate future office development at some future date, consistent with the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. The text on page 9~57 of the Draft EIS/EIR is also amended for consistency, as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-167 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Scenario Description Scenario A1 includes the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds and the proposed East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms at the East County Government Center site. Site ~ qb ...... ~ "^* *'~ ~ .... '~'~ '"'~ *~';" scenario would be developed according to the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. Development of the Cisco Systems project is considered representative of future conditions as part of this analysis. The text on page 9~61 of the Draft EIS/EIR is also amended for consistency, as follows: Alternative Description Scenario A2 includes the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds and the proposed East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms at the East County Government Center site. Site 15A wc'~'!d ncr 5e d~;'e!c~d under tSis zcena~c would be developed according to the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. Development of the Cisco Systems project is considered representative of future conditions as part of this analysis. The text on page 9-65 of the Draft EIS/EIR is also amended for consistency, as follows: Alternative Description Scenario B would include development of only the East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center site. Site 15A ...... '~ ~* ~'~ ~ .... ~^~ ;., +*,; ...... ,4~, would be developed accordin~ to the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. Development of the Cisco Systems proiect is considered representative of future conditions as part of this analysis. ~ The Juvenile Justice Facility would be located elsewhere in the County, beyond the area of influence in Dublin. The text on page 9-66 of the Draft EIS/EIR is also amended for consistency, as follows: Alternative Description The Scenario C 1 is for the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds would be located at the East County Government Center site, and the proposed East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be located at Site 15A. Site 15A is bounded by Central Parkway to the north, Arnold Road to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south and the existing Sybase office development to the east. The East County Government Center site would also accommodate future office development at some future date, consistent with the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. The text on page 9-72 of the Draft EIS/EIR is also amended for consistency, as follows: Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-168 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Alternative Description 'The Scenario C2 is for the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds would be located at the East County GoVernment Center Site, and the proposed East County Hall of Justice would be located at Site 15A. The East County Government Center site would also accommodate future office development at some future date, consistent with the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. The text on Page 9-76 of the Draft EIS/EIR is also amended for consiStency, as follows: Alternative Description The Scenario D is for the .proposed East county Hall °f Justice would be located at Site 15A. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility would be located elsewhere in the County 6U~Side of the influence area ofDublin. The effectS of the Juvenile JUstice Facility would be as described in other sections of this chapter. The East County Government Center site would also accommodate future office development at some future date, consistent with the City ofDublin's specific Plan and General PlanI The proposed text revisions would not trigger recirculation because the revisions do not result in new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts. Response to Comment 22.'18: Mitigation Measures 9.1.5a and 9.1.5 b apply to traffic impacts resulting from development of the Project in Dublin. These mitigation measures state that the County would pay its fair-share contribution to roadway improvements. The Draft EIS/EIR acknowledges that fully mitigating the impact on the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is not feasible, even with the proposed Scarlett Road extension. As stated in the Draft EIS/EIR, the impact on this intersection is a significant and Unavoidable. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic may be expected to occur with the development of the project at either the East County Government Center site or Site 15A. Infrastructure to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians will be included consistent with the County of Alameda policies concerning this traffic at the time of development, such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and designated bicycle parking, as well as bus stops and turnouts. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic is not expected to significantly reduCe vehicular traffic or the level of service at any of the intersections studied for the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 22-19: The CountY has adequately evaluated the Potential noise impacts that may occur if the Project is d~gel0ped: at either 6f the alternatiVe sites in Dublin including the Project's consistency with Dublin's noise policies. (See Draft EIS/EIR, Chapter 10.) Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-169 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments The discussion of Impact 10.1.6 indicates that the noise exposure at Site 15A will increase and become 'conditionally acceptable' for the institutional use. This acceptance criteria is based on the City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility chart, Table 10.4, Draft EIS/EIR page 10-7. Response to Comment 22-20: Impact assessment 10.3.6 indicates that there will be no significant impacts and so no noise mitigations are proposed for Site 15A. Response to Comment 22-21: Noise-sensitive land uses are usually residences, schools, churches, hospitals, or other places where quiet is important. For residential areas, outdoor noise levels should be kept relatively low so that people can enjoy their yard areas. With schools, churches or hospitals, noise should not intrude on learning, worship, or healing respectively. Modem office buildings are typically well insulated with forced air ventilation (so windows do not have to be open for fresh air). Therefore, traffic noise does not usually penetrate or intrude on the work environment. Response to Comment 22-22: In general terms, the development of a new courthouse at Site 15A would be consistent with the development patterns in the area. See responses to comments 22-6 through 22-11 for additional explanation. Response to Comment 22-23: The Draft EIS/EIR evaluates the cumulative effects of constructing governmental office uses on Site 15A in accordance with the existing General Plan designation if the County were to proceed in developing its property. The County is not proposing to develop housing or non~ governmental office uses on this site. Response to Comment 22-24: As summarized on page 1-4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the County of Alameda, California Board of Corrections, and U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs have provided numerous public notices and opportunities for public comment regarding the proposed action and alternatives that are under consideration. A Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents and businesses, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in January 2002. Scoping meetings were held in Dublin in February 2002. A second Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in June 2002. A second round of scoping meetings were held in Dublin and in Oakland in July 2002. The NOtice of Completion / Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published and mailed in January 2003. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were sent to City departments and the local public library in February, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in cooperation with the California Board of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-170 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments conducted two public hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR to gather public comments in February 2003. Residents, businesses, and government agencies were thus afforded ample opportunity to be informed about the County's on-going site evaluations, and to express opinions about the various proposals. Response to Comment 22-25: The commentor will .be added tO t ~he mailing list and will be informed of alt public hearings, and will be provided with CEQA/NEPA notices and Public documents. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR page 2-171 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 23: Hillcrest Knolls Association Response to Comment 23-1: Commems regarding various opinions of the residents of Hillcrest Knolls are noted. As stated on pages S-23 and 3-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR, no preferred alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR because all of the sites were being given equal consideration. An environmentally superior alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR in conformance with the requirements of CEQA. However, that determination is only part of the informational purpose of the Draft EIS/EIR and was not an indication by the lead agencies that the Pardee/Swan site was the preferred alternative, nor does the identification of an environmentally superior alternative obligate the County to select that site. Moreover, in response to comments submitted on the Draft EIS/EIR and the County's consideration of a modified alternative for the San Leandro site, the Final EIS/EIR identifies the Modified San Leandro Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative for the development of the Juvenile Justice Facility. As summarized on page 1-4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the County of Alameda, California Board of Corrections, and U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs have provided numerous public notices and opportunities for public comment regarding the proposed action and alternatives that are under consideration. A Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents (including approximately 600 addresses in the vicinity of the San Leandro site), and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers (including the local Hayward/San Leandro paper) in January 2002. Scoping meetings were held in Dublin in February 2002. A second Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in June 2002. A second round of scoping meetings were held in Dublin and in Oakland in July 2002. The Notice of Completion / Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published and mailed in January 2003. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were sent to City of San Leandro departments and the local public library in February, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in cooperation with the California Board of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs, conducted two public hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR to gather public comments in February 2003. San Leandro residents were thus afforded ample opportunity to be informed about the County's on-going site evaluations, and to express opinions about the various proposals. On March 19, 2003, the Juvenile Justice Steering Committee recommended that the County implement the San Leandro Alternative. The committee's recommendation of a preferred alternative will be considered as part of the Board of Supervisors' final decision making process regarding selection of a site, the size of the facility, and allocation of funds for implementation, which must be delayed until the EIS/EIR is certified and adopted under the California Environmental Quality Act. The commentor is also referred to the Master Response regarding the Preferred Alternative. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-172 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Convenience of the sites to juvenile detainees, probationers, family members and others with business at the facility was considered in the environmental justice evaluation in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The analysis concluded that there could be a significant impact due to the increased travel time, cost and general inconvenience of locating the project in an area at a greater distance from the population centers of the County. If the project is developed in Dublin, this impact could be addressed through the implementation of a transportation program that might include increased bus service during the day, transit subsidies, dedicated shuttle service, identification of funding for the services and subsidy, and hiring a professional transportation planner to deVelOp a comprehensive approach to the issue. The new facility is being proposed in order to address substantial shortcomings of the existing Juvenile Hall. These shortcomings and the design intent for the new facility are detailed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and include staffing, crowding, and safety. The San Leandro site would be developed in accordance with applicable codes and would be seismically safe. All of ihe juvenile detention activity of the County currently occurs on the San Leandro site at the juvenile hall and camps. The new facility would include medium and high security areas to address different risk levels of the population. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-173 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 24: Wilfredo G. Adajar Response to Comment 24-1: Growth in Dublin has been proceeding according to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and other large-scale plarming activities of the City of Dublin. Traffic, noise, and air pollution are addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR for existing conditions, baseline conditions without and with the County projects, and for future conditions including pending and approved developments in the area. The impacts are variously categorized as less than significant, significant but mitigatable, and significant and unavoidable. The lead agencies will consider this information as part of the decision-making that will occur following the completion of the environmental review process. The image of the City is also evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR and the conclusion is made that the land use and design of the facilities would be compatible with the surroundings. The East County Government Center site is located at the far northern end of Hacienda Drive, which is not highly visible to most residents, employees and visitors to the City. The projects would incorporate high quality design, landscaping, and site planning approaches that would minimize the effect on local and city-wide character. Site 15A is located in an area that is undergoing development as office and retail that are similarly scaled as the proposed East County Hall of Justice, so the development would not be noticeably different from other uses in this are along Dublin Blvd. Response to Comment 24.2: Comment noted. The Draft EIS/EIR indicates, on page 16-14 and elsewhere that, "based on the current pattern of arrests and home addresses for detainees, a majority of the detainee's family members would have to travel a greater distance to participate in the detention and visitation processes if the Project was located in Dublin compared to the existing site or any of the other alternatives being considered in this EIS/EIR. The weighted-average travel distance to the site is approximately 23.9 miles, which is approximately twice the average distance to the other alternative sites. Therefore, the East County Government Center Site alternative could have environmental justice impacts related to accessibility, including the time and cost of traveling longer distances in an area that is not as proximate to the majority of detainees nor as well served by transit as the more urban locations being considered in this EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 24-3: Please see Response to Comment 29-4. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-174 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 25: Mark and Nancy Angel Response to Comment 25-1: Comment in oppositiOn to the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County GOvernment Center site is noted. TranSCriptS of the public hearings Conducted by the Board of Supervisors are included as Letter 44 and 45 in this response to comments document. Response to Comment 25-2: Comment note& The estimated number of visitors t° the site are documented in the Draft EIS/EIR. ResponSe to Comment 25-3: The commentor notes that emissions of ozone precursor compounds would increase if the project is buili in Dublin. This is a conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR as found on pages 11-18 through 11-29. Response to Comment 25-4: A detailed discussion of the potential impacts of the project on wildlife, foraging habitat for raptors and loggerhead Shrike, and C°ngdon's tarPlant iS Pr°vided under Impact 8, i'25'; 8,315, ~d 8.4.5, together with adequate mitigation where appropriate. As concluded on Page 8-16 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the East County Government Center site is not considered suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Potential impacts on deer, turkey, and raccoon populations are not considered significant. Response to Comment 25.5: The commentor notes that poor air quality adversely affects those with asthma. The commentor's family lives near the project site. Ozone is a regional pollutant, and preCUrsor emissions can travel tens of miles before the ozone is formed in the atmosphere. Ozone precursor and respirable particulate emissions will primarily occur on regional freeways and roads, not at the project site, so people living nearby would not be affected more than those living in other parts of the Amador Valley. However, construction emissions would be localized, and emission impacts would be more likely for those living near-by. This is especially true for dust and equipment exhaust. Response to Comment 25-6: See Response to Comment 22-13. The commentor's concerns regarding increased crime is noted. Impact 4.5 in the Draft EIS/EIR concludes that there would not be any significant increased risk of crime as a result of the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility or East County Hall of Justice. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-175 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 25-7: The commentor is correct. At the East County Government Center site Construction noise could be mitigated, but would still pose a significant unavoidable impact. (Impact 10.3.5). Response to Comment 25-8: No earthquake faults have been identified at either the East County Government Center site or Site 15A. Both of these sites are located about three-quarters of a mile east of the surface expression of the Mount Diablo fault, 2.5 miles northeast of the Calaveras fault, 9 miles southwest of the Greenville fault, 10 miles northeast of the Hayward fault and 28.5 miles northeast of the San Andreas fault. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (AP Zone) is approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the East County Government Center site, associated with a small apparently discontinuous zone of surface faulting. However, earthquakes occurring along the San Andreas fault or any of a number of other Bay Area faults have the potential to produce strong ground shaking at these sites. Mitigation Measure 6.2.1 would require the Project to be designed to address the projected seismic shaking hazards present at the site, in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, California Building Code and Board of Corrections design standards for juvenile detention facilities. Compliance with current seismic codes and standards would reduce potential impacts associated with strong ground shaking to levels generally considered acceptable according to engineering standards for projects of this type in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Response to Comment 25-9: Hazardous materials that may occur on the East County Government Center and Site 15A sites in Dublin are evaluated in Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety. Asbestos has been observed on pipes associated with former underground utility lines on the East County Government Center site (see page 12-13), but there is no evidence of asbestos at Site 15A (see page 12-17). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 12.1.5 and 12.1.6, respectively, would ensure that any potential impacts to exposure of hazardous materials that may occur on these sites would be less than significant. Response to Comment 25-10: The travel distance for many of the detainees, family members, employees, and others with business at the new Juvenile Justice Facility is addressed as part of the environmental justice analysis on pages 16-13 through 16-15, and in the transportation analysis presented on pages 9- 32 and 9-35. Transit subsidies are one mitigation measure recommended to address the economic hardship that may be caused by the increased travel demands of placing the facility in Dublin. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-176 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 25-11' Rehabilitation objectives are one part of the Overall program for the new Juvenile Justice Facility, and distance from the urban centers of the County is one factor in evaluating the effectiveness of an alternative in meeting the project objectives. Other project objectives are listed on pages 2-2 through 2-5 and include meeting assuring community protection, reflecting professional standards, and meeting all national standards and state and local requirements. The lead agencies will consider the ability of each site to meet the criteria as part of their deliberations on the seleCti°n of an altemative to implement. The Dra~ EIS/EIR prOvides sufficient information about the environmental consequences of selecting any of the sites. Other sources of information, such as economic, social, technological, and legal analysis, will be used in making the final determination. ReSPonse to Comment 25-12: The issue pertaining to the potential impacts of the East County Government Center alternative on surrounding land uses, including the nearby residential areas, is most directly addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR on pages 4-53 and 4-54. The conclusions of this analysis indicate the following: The East County Government Center site is located near diverse land uses that include the Emerald Park residential neighb°rhOOd. 2. Academic literature and analyses of property values near the existing Santa Ritajail facilities indicates that adverse effects on property values are unlikely. 3. The site orientation and the design of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would minimize impacts on the character of the existing residential neighborhood. 4. The JuVenile' Justice Facility Would oCcuPy the Western portion of the site, whiCh is the farthest froTM the residential neighborhood located in neighborhOods near Hacienda Drive and Gleason Drive. These neighborhoods are located behind sound walls, and have limited views t° the western end of the Site. The East COunty Hall of Justice would occupy the central and eastern portion of the lot, effectively screening the Juvenile Justice Facility from the neighborhood. 5. The two-storY height of the Juvenile Justice Facility would be the same height Or loWer than the existing light industrial/office buildings at Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive. 6. The outdoor recreation areas are planned as an interior courtyard to minimize the use of exterior fencing. A small landscaped berm would be developed around the southern edge of the site t° screen the perimeter wall from view and the structure woUld be depresSed int° the site as the natural grade rises from west to east. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that the East County Government Center site would not adversely affect nearby residential areas. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-177 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 25-13: Comment in opposition to the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Govenmaent Center site is noted. Response to Comment 25-14: Chapter 12 discusses public health and safety issues with respect to hazardous materials, safety near airports, emergency plans and risk of exposure to wildfires. Additionally, Chapter 13 includes a discussion regarding fire protection, hazardous material and emergency medical responses and police. The project would have no potentially significant and unavoidable impacts on any of the issues discussed in these two chapters. Response to Comment 25-15: Comment regarding intent to privately fund a lawsuit against the County is noted. Response to Comment 25-16: The population at the Juvenile Justice Facility would fluctuate and would be temporary, as the actual number of detainees in the facility varies over time and the length of stay averages 23 days (see page 16-10 of the Draft EIS/EIR). The maximum number of detainees at any one time would be limited to 540 under the full build-out of the project. The population of Dublin is estimated to be 20,000 persons, so the Juvenile Justice Facility would represent an increase of about 2.7 percent compared to the existing population. Response to Comment 25-17: It should be noted that, generally speaking, economic effects that are not related to, or interrelated with, physical impacts need not be evaluated in an EIR or EIS. See, e.g., 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15131(a), 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8, 1508.14. Nonetheless, as noted in the Draft EIS/EIR at Impact 4.4.5, and in the discussion at pages 4-42 through 4-51, the evidence indicates that the proposed project is unlikely to adversely effect local property values at all, let alone at a level that might cause or be interrelated with blighting or some other environmental effect. A literature review indicates that there is generally no long-term, statistically valid decrease in property values related to the siting of correctional facilities. In addition, an analysis conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., in November 2002, indicates that there has been no significant negative effect of the Santa Rita rehabilitation facilities on the growth of nearby property values. These findings indicate that property values will not be negatively affected in the future as a result of the Project. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-178 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 26: Launita Bergner Response to Comment 26-1: This comment raises issues pertaining to the West Dublin High School, which are not relevant to the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice Draft EIS/EIR. No response is required. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East COunty Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-179 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 27: Mike and Debbie Betts Response to Comment 27-1: A literature review indicates that there is generally no long-term, statistically valid decrease in property values related to the siting of correctional facilities. In addition, an analysis conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., in November 2002, indicates that there has been no significant negative effect of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility on the growth of nearby property values. These findings indicate that property values will not be negatively affected in the future as a result of the Project, and thus there would not be a fiscal impact related to property tax revenues from local properties. The Draft EIS/EIR describes the place of residence and place of arrest for juvenile detainees and probationers, and evaluates the environmental and social effects of the various project alternative locations. The East County Government Center site is acknowledged to present some transportation difficulties for persons who rely on public transit, and due to the additional travel time via any mode of transportation from the inner East Bay. Please see the master response regarding the selection of a preferred alternative at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-180 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 28: DaVid Cheng Response to Comment 28-1: Comment in opposition to the construction of either the Juvenile Justice Facility or East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center is noted. The proximity of the site to other land uses is described and potential impacts are evaluated in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR. No significant incompatibilities are identified due to the project characteristics, site orientation, and security measures. The property has been designated for governmental use since the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in 1994, and the project would be consistent with that designation and the development intensity allowed on the site. The closest houses are located behind a soundwall that extends for at least one-quarter mile from the intersection of Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive, providing an effective screen and separation for those residents who could be most affected and concerned about the proximity of the new development. The closest school is located one-quarter mile from the East County Government Center site and would not be affected by the project. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-181 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 29: Tom Cignarella Response to Comment 29-1: The comment as stated could be applied to virtually any site that is within Alameda County. Neither of the Dublin sites is within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone designated by the State of California. No earthquake faults have been mapped as crossing either site. For these reasons, both sites are considered to have a very low risk of surface fault rupture. The sites will be likely subjected to strong groundshaking, as will other nearby sites. Structures planned for the sites will be designed to resist strong groundshaking in accordance with the applicable codes and local design practice. Recent seismic activity that occurred in the San Ramon area in November of 2002 and again in February of 2003 highlights the geologic science's evolving knowledge about earthquakes and seismic activity. As noted in the ABAG publication, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 200 to 2030 - A Summary of Findings, "Our knowledge of both the physics of earthquakes and the nature of the faults in the San Francisco Bay Area is incomplete and uncertain." (ABAG 1999). However, a geotechnical baseline report prepared for the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center at the East County Government Center site (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. January 2002) was used as the primary source of information contained in the Draft EIS/EIR regarding the potential seismic hazards of this site. This report provides geotechnical parameters for seismic design and other geologic considerations based on a review of published and unpublished references, as well as preliminary geotechnical investigation including 15 test borings on the site. If this site is selected for the Juvenile Justice Facility or the East County Hall of Justice, design-level analysis would be conducted pursuant to Mitigation Measure 6.2.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR to ensure compliance with state and local building codes. Response to Comment 29.2: Under CEQA and NEPA, the analysis in an EIS/EIR of public services is not required to cover the direct impacts on hospitals and doctors. However, a discussion of the direct impacts of the Project on emergency response at the Dublin sites is provided on page 13-20 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Firefighters are trained as Emergency Medical Technician I (EMT I) in order to provide emergency assistance, so it can be assumed that they would be in a position to respond to emergency medical response dispatches from the Project. Therefore, the discussion of emergency response times with relation to fire fighting would also apply to emergency medical response times as well. A new Fire Station 17 will be constructed and fully operational prior to construction of the new County facilities and response times for emergency services provided by the ACFD from this station would be well within the five-minute response time established by the City of Dublin. Response to Comment 29-3: Examining the environmental effects of a catastrophic event is beyond the scope of "reasonableness" as defined by CEQA, and is therefore beyond the scope of this document. However, it should be noted that the Project would be built adhering to the latest building codes Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-182 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments and would incorporate the latest safety technology. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the projeCt would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity dUe t° the development's orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. The project would incorporate measures to address foreseeable conditions related to natural disasters. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility and federal correctional institution existed before any of the homes in the easteTM Dublin area, and additional government services have been planned for the East County Government Center as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice are consistent with the community plan and would not detract from the liVabilitY of the area beyOnd the specific environmental effects identified in the Draft EIS/EIR, such as increased traffic, noise, and air pollution. These effects were also considered in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and were found to be potentially significant when the City authorized the combined development of residential, commercial and public service uses. The Draft EIS/EIR addresses community safety and concludes that "speculation regarding the future actions or intent of individuals traveling to and from the proposed facility does not PrOVide a sUfficient basis for identifying any impact that would result in a physical change in the existing environment." (Page 4-56.) Response to Comment 29-4: Active military use of the East County Government Center site ended in about 1958 and all the buildings were demolished or removed/relocated. Military use of the site had involved predominantly administrative and residential military activities, and no significant military research and development was conducted on site that would result in exposure to radiological contamination. Parks RFTA Building 305 was not located on the East County Government Center site. Part of this confusion is that building numbering schemes were specific to the military unit that was governing the area during a specific time period. There have been at least two Building 305's in the Parks RFTA; Circa 1944-1958 --Building 305 was located several blocks to the south of the East County Government Center site and was occupied by a Boiler Room, and Circa 1958 to 2000 - Building 305 was located just off of 8th Street on the west side of the military reservation near Dougherty and was initially used as a dormitory, and later used as a "Hot Lab" for the US Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL). The NRDL used Buildings 3.05,310 and 131 (all located on the west side of Parks RFTA), as well as open areas in the uplands more than 1 mile north (Chronic Irradiation Facility) and ~4 mile west (Animal Farm) of the East County Government Center sitel While these facilities are no longer in use, they have been the subject of studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and other military branches for several years. The Animal Farm site has already been redevelop ed. Cs-137 contamination has been identified in the vicinity of some of the buildings and reportedly animal carcasses have been encountered and removed from the animal farm. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2~183 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments An Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted at the East County Government Center site (Page 12-13 and 12-14). Studies conducted to date strongly suggests that impacts to soil which may be encountered during site redevelopment are no more significant than those encountered during redevelopment of any of the adjacent former military areas. Studies have not identified conditions that would require extensive remediation prior to redevelopment, i.e. chemical contmuination has not been detected at concentrations that would suggest the presence of hazardous waste and concentrations that exceed established risk thresholds. Furthenuore, common and routine site development procedures such as worker notification, dust control measures and work stoppage when unusual conditions are encountered conducted in association with a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP), will effectively address and mitigate potential risks of exposure including those potentially associated with asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP). An SMP will be prepared based on the actual development scheme selected. Response to Comment 29-5: The commentor states that other noise studies have shown levels to be louder than those measured by Illingworth & Rodkin. According to the Draft EIS/EIR noise section, "LT-1 was taken in the center of the rear yard of#5764 Idlewood Street behind an 8-foot sound wall along Hacienda Drive. At this location, Hacienda Drive was the major noise source. Construction of nearby offices also contributed to noise levels. Distant gunfire from the County Sheriff's Shooting Range was audible but not measurable at this location. The CNEL measured at this location was 58 dBA. The hourly data are displayed graphically in Figure 10.9. Measurement LT-2 was made on a pole at the comer ofldlewood Court and Winterbrook Avenue approximately 60 feet from the sound wall off Gleason Drive. At this site, gunshots were more audible but not measurable over the noise from traffic on Gleason Drive. The CNEL at this location was 57 dBA." During the monitoring surveys, even with distant gun range use audible, Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) are within acceptable limits, and thus no significant impact would occur. The Wilson, Ihrig, and Associates (WlA) firing range acoustics report states that, "due to atmospheric inversion effects, range noise was higher during nighttime hours than during the daytime." The data and conclusions in the WlA report demonstrate that noise from the firing range is intrusive in the neighborhoods to the south. The WlA report contains a series of recommended mitigations that would reduce firing range noise in nearby neighborhoods, especially at night (but the noise would not be completely eliminated). However, the WlA report does not change the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR that exterior and interior noise impacts at the East County Government Center site would be less than significant (see Impact 10.1.5, page 10-24). Illingworth & Rodkin measured overall ambient sound levels focusing on the County and City standards for Ldn or CNEL. Long-term measurements included firing range sounds, sounds from helicopters, existing traffic, lawnmowers, barking dogs, and whatever other sources were generating sound at the time of measurements. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-184 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments CEQA § 15355 (b) defines Cumulative Impacts as "the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable (sic) foreseeable probable future projeCfs." The Sheriffs Firing Range and Parks RFTA are part of the existing noise environment and have been included in the measurement of eXisting conditions. The Draft EIS/EIR used future traffic projections to calculate project- generated noise and cumulative increases. The neW Juvenile Justice FacilitY and East CoUnty Hall of juStice will be ConstrUcted of substantial, institutional:type materials that WOuld n°~ally reduce interior noise levels 30 dBA or mOre below outside levels. This noise attenuation would be sufficient to reduce gunshot SOUnds to below a level 0fSignificance (i.e. beloTM 45 dBA). State law applicable to the project is described on page '10-4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and used as a significance threshold for the analysis. The State multi-family law is described for comparison purposes, but that standard is not applicable because the Juvenile Justice Facility is not Such a land use. The reconfiguration of the exiSting berm wOuld not substantially affect the audibility of the Sheriff's shooting range or other activity as perceived from residential or other areas south of Gleason Drive. This is due to the distm~ce between the berm and the shooting range, which limits the berm's ability to provide much shielding. In addition, the Sheriff's Department is COnsidering the implementatiOn of various improvements to sound barriers that will diminish, but not eliminate, gunshot SoUnd in nearby areas. ThOSe improvements are unrelated to and not needed to address the Juvenile JustiCe Facility. All of the Sheriff's possible mitigation measures are oriented to close-in Walls and baffles that would prOvide immediate shielding, rather than more distant berms or walls that would allow sound to refract and travel around the barriers, thereby reducing their effectiveness. Sound measUrement data was obtained by professional acoustical engineers using specialized equipment, over several days at several locations. The measurements reflect short-term and long-term conditions, and adequately characterize the Sensitive areas near the project sites based on Professional practice. The Draft EIS/EIR data is therefore considered adequate and complete. Response to COmment 20-6: The San Joaquin kit fox is described in Chapter 8 of the Draft EIS/EIR. As concluded on page 8- 16, Table 8.1, and page 8-21 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the East County Government Center site and Site 15A are not considered suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. As concluded On page 8-28 of the Draft EIS/EIR, no impact would occur to this species, so no mitigation is required. Response to Comment 29-7: U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL) used open areas in the uplands more than 1 mile north (Chronic Irradiation Facility) and ~A mile west (Animal Farm) of the East County Government Center site. While these facilities are no longer in use, they have been the subject of studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and other military branches for several years. The Animal Farm Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-185 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments site has already been redeveloped. Reportedly animal carcasses were encountered and removed from the Animal Farm site. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would not be affected or have any effect on this issue. Response to Comment 29-8: The Draft EIS/EIR describes public services and evaluates project impacts due to increased service demand in Chapter 13. The East County Government Center and Site 15A would be served by City and County police and security personnel. City police (which are contracted from the County Sheriff) would patrol and respond to calls for service along public roadways and private property. The County Sheriff would provide security at the individual facilities. While it is true that building new projects will bring more people to the area, and the presence of more people often results in demand for more police officers, in terms of environmental analysis, visitors and employees are categorized as daytime population, and would not have any more impact on police services than would an increase an equal increase in the general office or residential population of the area. This is because calculation of police service demand in Dublin is based on a simple ratio of 1.38 officers to 1,000 residents. Theoretically, this daytime population might have less of an impact than permanent residents because they would leave during the night, lowering the impact on police services for that shift. It also must be noted that just because a person visits an inmate he/she is not more likely to commit a crime than any other person. The City of Dublin has already taken into account an increasing population in its Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the surrounding neighborhood. The project will not increase the population, and consequently raise the demand for police services, beyond what has already been forecasted for Eastern Dublin by the City. In other words, the increased daytime population and subsequent increased police services demand generated by the Project has already been taken into account and planned for by the City. Therefore, the Project's increased demand for police services is not a significant environmental impact because it does not exceed the predicted police services demand allotted for the area in the City's General Plan. This conclusion is consistent with the discussion on page 13~22 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 29-9: Comment noted. The Dougherty Elementary School is located approximately 1,250 feet to the south of the East County Government Center site. Air pollutant emissions due to construction activity (dust and exhaust) would not significantly affect this school site with implementation of the mitigation measures as recommended. Response to Comment 29-10: Budget for landscaping is included in the Estimated Probable Cost in the Bridging Documents for both the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice. According to the Basis of Design, the landscaping will require minimal maintenance once established. Plant selections will be drought resistant. Species will be native to the area or suitable to the Dublin climate. The irrigation system will be vandal/pest resistant. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-186 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 30: Lily Feng and Manuel Costa Response to Comment 30-1: Comment in oppOsition to the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center Site is noted. The traffic and security impacts of the project are fully evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. The facility would not be immediately adjacent to existing residential USes, but across the street from a business park, Army Reserve facility, federal prison, and County jail. The proposed East COunty Hall of Justice would be developed at the northern terminus of Hacienda Drive, north of Gleason Drive. Newer residential development is located to the southwest from that site, across Gleason Drive, behind an eight-foot tall soundwall. The East County Hall of Justice would be set back from the roadway approximately 250 feet from the roadway, with a parking lot and low landscaped berm along the frontage on Gleason Drive. The alternative of developing a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the existing San Leandro site is fully evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. An alternative of developing the East County Hall of Justice at another site in Dublin also is evaluated. The Draft EIS/EIR conClUded that the Pardee/Swan site would be the environmentally superior alternative for the JuVenile Justice Facility. The Juvenile Justice Steering Committee has recently expressed a preference for deVeloping that project at the San Leandro Site. If the Juvenile JuStice FacilitY and/or East County Hall of Justice are not developed at the East County Government Center site, then it is very likely that other governmental uses would eventually be developed at the site. Such a use could include a hospital, as recommended by the commenter, although no such plans are currently under consideration. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-187 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 31: Cecilia Gutierrez Response to Comment 31-1: Comment in opposition to the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center site is noted. The place of arrest and place of residence of the juveniles involved with the Alameda County probation system is described in the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR fully discloses the distance of each alternative site from the urban centers of the County, using average travel distance as a measure. Those on probation will conduct regular appointments at existing probation offices throughout the County. Expanded transit service would be provided throughout the day and evening, as needed, based on the preliminary concept under consideration by the County. Transit travel times are discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR. These factors will be part of the deliberations of the lead agencies as they consider which site to approve. Response to Comment 31-2: A new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin would have certain transportation-related impacts as a result of its location, as discussed in Chapters 9 and 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The environmental justice / economic hardship aspects of the project location are considered potentially significant impacts that would require mitigation. Fiscal impacts are not within the scope of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are not included within this document. The fiscal impact of the projects is a consideration that would be part of the lead agencies' decision-making process when it selects a preferred site, and ultimately when they approve a project. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-188 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 32: David Haubert Response to Comment 32-1' PUblicly available data from g°vemment~0perated air monitoring stati°ns Was uSed for the Draft EIS/EIR analysis, consistent with prOfessional practice for an EIS/EIR for projects such as the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice. The project would not be exposed to unusual concentrations of air pollutants, nor would it generate unusual air pollutants that would warrant specialized measurements. Those air monitoring stations are part of a network that is .representative of an air basin (or sub-basin). There are many air monitoring stations throughout the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); the Draft EIS/EIR presents data from those closest to the proposed project sites, which are representative of the area. Response to Comment 32-2: Chapter 11 0fthe Draft EIS~EIR identifiers exceedences of federal and State ozone standards and th~ fact that federal n0nattaiment status Can lead t° WithhOlding °fFederal transPortatiOn funds. A complete Conformity analysis is provided on pages 11-6 and 11-7 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Data regarding actUal meaSured air pollutant levels for the past three years is provided on page 11-8 of the Draft EIS/EIR, including locations and dates of exceedences. The BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG prepare air quality attainment plans that include strategies for achieving clean air, while accommodating growth projected by loCal governments. With respect to cumulative air quality impacts, growth or reduction in regional air pollutant emissions is developed by the MTC and BAAQMD in their ozone attainment plan. This plan uses local general plans and growth projects to account for expected projects that will be or are being located in Alameda Or Oakland. Thus, the cumulative air quality impact of all new projects within the BAAQMD is part of the ozone attainment plan. The Alameda County Juvenile Facility is part of regional growth and emissions are therefore part of the ozone attainment plan. Additional air qUality planning and certifiCation is on-going at the state and federal levels, to ensure that highway funds are not withheld. Response to Comment 32-3: The health and safety StUdy in Chapter 12 °fthe Draft EIS?EIR provides an analySis of each site, andincludesa cOmpariSOn under each imPact Category, i.e. No Impact, Less than Significant Impact, or Potentially Signficant and Mitigable. In general, after mitigatiOn, there is no greater risk to public health or safety from any of the proposed sites, since all of the sites could be prepared for development using statutorily mandated methods to address existing site contamination. Response to Comment 32-4: The Draft EIS/EIR reCommends mitigation measures that Would require the County's contractor's to prepare a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP) that will Contain, among other Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-189 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments things, a contingency plan that will ensure that construction workers and the public are adequately protected from health impacts associated with potential exposure to contamination. Compliance with the SMP, and all mitigation measures, will be monitored and enforced through a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to be adopted at the time of project approval, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 21086(a)(1). Implementation of the SMP plan also would be monitored by the proper regulatory agency to ensure compliance. The costs are included in the project budgets. Response to Comment 32-5: Figure 12.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR is from a database search conducted by EDR, Inc. on behalf of the EIS/EIR preparers, and is necessarily vague due to the use of census map files. As shown in Figure 3.t2 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the school is located approximately % mile from the closest point of the East County Government Center site, although the majority of the site work and development would occur beyond this distance. Although Impact 12.3 addresses the handling of hazardous materials near school sites, the general issue of handling hazardous materials is addressed in Impact 12.1, under heading 12.1.5 and 12.1.6 for the Dublin sites. Concentrations detected to date at each of these sites would not constitute "hazardous materials", according to Fugro West Consultants. Impacted soils, including asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, if encountered may, however, need to be transported from these sites as "hazardous waste" in accordance with applicable State laws. Potential impacts to the community related to these materials would be short-term and mitigated by implementation of the soil management plan. None of the transportation would occur along roads near the school site. The discussion regarding impacts of hazardous waste handling near school sites in the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby amended as follows: Page 12-23, Impact 12.3: All Alternatives NO IMPACT. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Under each of the alternatives evaluated, construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not require the handling of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures 12.1.2, 12.1.4, 12.1.5, and 12.1.6 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Nene cft~e s:.tes e;'a!'c~ are The closest p~ of Dou~he~y Elementa~ School is located "';'~:~ one-queer mile ~r ...... ;~,; ........... ~ ~ *~ from the closest pa~ of the East County Govement Center site. Site disturbance and construction activity would occur at or beyond this distance from the school site, and wOuld not have any significant impacts after the implementation of the specified mitigation measures. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2.190 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 32-6: Public service demands for the projects are detailed in Chapter 13 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Specific fiscal analysis is not within the scope of environmental review pursuant to CEQA or NEPA; therefore, a detailed cost analysis is not included in the Draft EIS/EIR. The San Leandro Police Department reports that the current facility generates little if any crime in the community in which it is located. Response to Comment 32-7: Chapter 9 of the Draft EIS/EIR states that a new facility in Dublin would have certain transportation-related impacts as a result °fits location. FiScal impacts are not Within the SCope of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, fiscal impacts are not included within this document. Response to Comment 32-8: As noted on Page 13~20 °f~he Draft EIS/EIR, the Alameda CoUnty probation DePartment wOUld be responsible for the security and management of the jUVenile detention and related facilities, using state-of-the-art procedures and equipment. Thus, detainees at the proposed facility would not have access t° the surrounding areasl MOreOver, there is no evidence suggesting that viSitors to a jUvenile detention facility are any more likely to commit crimes in the surrounding area than are residents of the area itself. A comparison of crime rates in Dublin and San Leandro would be unlikely to produce meaningful information on this question, as there may be a variety of demOgraPhic and other factors contribUting to differential crime rates in the two respective areas. Even if such a Study were to conclude that Dublin'S crime rate were lower than that of San Leandr°, thiS ~0Uld beiie the concem expressed bY the comment0r, as the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility is already located in East Dublin with no apparent effect on crime rates. It should be noted that it is not the responsibility of an EIR or EIS to evaluate social or economic effects that d° not caUse, Or are not interrelated with, envirOnmental effects, See~e.g., 14 Cal, Code Regs § 15131(a), 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8, 1508.14. Response to Comment 32-9: With the introduction of the risk assessment process and faster case processing of placement cases the ADA has declined in the recent past (one-Year). Expansion'Of detenti°n alternatives such as electronic monitoring; home supervision-house arrest; weekend training academy and day reporting are being considered. However, the existing Juvenile Hall has been in operation for more than 50 years, and the propoSed JuVenile justice Facility is eXPected to serve the County's juvenile detention needs for approximately the same period of time. Despite recent successes by the County in reducing juvenile detention needs, a larger facility may eventually be ~%ded t9 acg0mm°date Projected I°ng-term groWth in the population of minors as indicated in the Purpose and Need chapter of the Draft EIS/EIR, The County has identified a preferred alternative that would reduce the size of the project to 360 beds in the short-term, while still providing for eventual expanSion if needed. Please see the discussion of the preferred altemative at the begizming of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-191 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 32-'10: Ancillary support, as noted on page S-4, includes facility security, building maintenance, and grounds maintenance. In addition, the East County Hall of Justice may be furnished with a cafeteria. Response to Comment 32-11: "Failure to Appear" violations are not expected to increase. Response to Comment 32-12: See Response to Comment 9-8. Response to Comment 32-13: Although travel distance would increase for some visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility, the improved configuration of the new facility, including dedicated visitor space, may make possible an increase of available visiting hours as compared to the current site. As a result, a new facility located in Dublin may actually increase visiting opportunities and the amount of time families spend visiting detained minors. Response to Comment 32-14: As noted in Impact 16.1.5, a more detailed evaluation of transit service enhancements, which may include transportation subsidies, would be included in proposed formal transportation plan. As noted in Response to Comment 32-27 (below), if the East County Government Center site is selected, then a formal transportation plan may be undertaken. Response to Comment 32-15: The commentorasserts that more recent noise data should be used, and the cost of mitigations provided. The commentorprovides no information to show that noise levels, and the conditions that cause them, have changed substantially from August, 2001 when noise monitoring was completed. Environmental documents do not typically calculate costs for noise reduction or mitigation. Noise abatement requirements are usually put into a bid request and the contractor includes them into his proposal. Response to Comment 32-16: Detailed parking data collected near the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is presented on page 9-12 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Survey results for the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility lots are presented on page 9-32 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The following are some conclUsions reached from surveying the parking at Pleasanton Courthouse (with eight courtrooms) on Thursday, May 30, 2002: Peak occupancy occurred in the morning between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m. when 158 (or 75%) of the 210 spaces were occupied. Alameda'County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-192 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments · Afternoon peak occupancy occurred between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. when 142 (or 68%) of the 210 spaces were occupied. · 40% of the vehicles surveyed were parked for anywhere between a few minutes and 1 hour. · 81% of the vehicles surveyed were parked for less than 3 hours. · 8% of the vehicles surveyed were parked for at least 7 hours (these were probably employees). Response to Comment 32-17: Comparative traffic scenarios are analyzed and discussed in Chapter 9, starting on page 9-23. Response to Comment 32-18: Approximately 0.6 mile (10minutes) to walk to site 15A from BART. 1.5 miles (30 minutes) to walk from BART to courthouse entry at East County Government Center site. Response to Comment 32-19: Based on a review of academic literature examining the economic impacts of prison facilities, there is generally no long-term, statistically valid decrease in property values related to the siting of correctional facilities. The academic studies reviewed used a variety of approaches including statistical analysis of the change in values over time as well as more qualitative approaches. The study communities are ali unique in some respect; however, the findings were generally consistent among a range of different communities. Response to Comment 32-20: The Draft EIS/EIR also recognizes that the "visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations in subjective reaction to the features of an urban area. A visual impression may be viewed negatively by one person and positively by another." Therefore, the EIS/EIR is particularly focused on determining if the Project would have a significant adverse effect on identifiable scenic views or vistas, scenic resources, historic resources as they relate to scenic qualities, and general visual qualities. These criteria are consistent with NEPA and CEQA Guidelines. Based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIS/EIR, a three-story structure at the East County Government Center site would be substantially different in height and bulk than much of the surrounding development, but would not degrade the site or its surroundings. Such a structure would not have significant adverse effects on identifiable scenic views or vistas, scenic resources, historic resources as they relate to scenic qualities, or general visual qualities. Response to Comment 32-21: The basic heigh{' ~d' i~;~{in{ ~fthe ~akt C0Uhty Hail of juStiCe wii1 ~o~:change if a larger site is available, because these are configured for efficiency of court operations and to provide natural daylight to all of the courtrooms. The location of the building on-axis with Hacienda Drive will Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-193 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments not change because this location provides maximum visibility in accordance with the project objectives. The arrangement of parking and landscaped areas on the site could change. Response to Comment 32-22: The November 2002 earthquake swarm near San Ramon, California appears to be associated with northeast-striking, lefMateral strike-slip tear faults that link the northern Calaveras fault on the west with the Mt. Diablo anitclinorium (e.g., Mt. Diablo thrust fault) on the east. This recent earthquake swarm is similar in magnitude and trend to previous contemporary earthquake swarms that have occurred in the San Ramon Valley (e.g., 1970 and 1976 Danville sequence and 1990 Alamo sequence). The maximum earthquake magnitudes of these swarms have not exceeded magnitude 5, nor have they been associated with surface-fault rupture. The inferred tear faults associated with the swarms are located northwest of the East County Government Center site, and thus do not constitute a surface-fault rupture hazard. The February 2003 Dublin swarm differs from the previously mentioned contemporary swarms that have been recorded in the San Ramon Valley. Specifically, the February 2003 swarm aligns with the northwest-trending, right-lateral strike slip northern Calaveras fault. The northern Calaveras fault is located west of the proposed site, and does not constitute a surface-fault rupture hazard to the proposed East County Government Center site. Also, it should be noted that the Dublin swanrt actually occurred several miles north of Dublin and has been designated the Dublin swarm on the basis of proximity to Dublin by the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN). Expected ground motions for design at the site were evaluated using probabilistic seismic risk analysis. The methods and basis of this analysis are summarized in Appendix C of the Geotechnical Baseline Report--Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center, Gleason Road and Arnold Drive (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002a). The design ground motions for the site consider the seismicity of both the Mt. Diablo thrust and the Calaveras (north) faults and the results are, in fact, dominated by these faults. As a result, the seismic risk analysis for the site fully and adequately considers the potential for and potential impacts of earthquake swarms of the type described above. Response to Comment 32-23: Detailed cost estimates have not been prepared for the mitigation measures that may be needed in Dublin. However, the Project will pay its fair share of traffic impact fees. The City of Dublin imposes the following traffic impact fees on development projects in Eastern Dublin: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, imposed to finance transportation improvements needed to reduce traffic-related impacts caused by development in Eastern Dublin. This fee is imposed on a per-trip basis. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-194 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments b. Freeway Interchange Fee, which is imposed to reimburse the City of Pleasanton for costs to construct the 1-580/Tassajara Road and I- 580/Hacienda Drive interchange improvements. These fees are also imposed on a per-trip basis, c. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, which is imposed to finance transportation improvements in the Tri-Valley development area made necessary : by development in this portion of Alameda County. In some instances, goVermnent buildings are specifically exempted from this fee. Response to comment 32.24: Funding sources and construction costs for each alternative are discussed on pages 2-9 through 2-11 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 32-25: ThiS 6ondiusiofi is not Stated ~he~ Withih th~Draft EIS/EiR. In SectiOns 9.7.5 and 9.7.6 on page 9-111, the Draft EIS/EIR states that the traffic associated both the East County Government Center and Site 15A will have no impact on emergency response routes or site access. Response to Comment 32-26: Round-trip costs were calculated based on the full fares for all modes of transit, including AC Transit, BART, and LAVTA, required to complete any given trip. See also response to 5-6. Response to Comment 32-27: As noted on page 9-91 and page 16-14 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the County has drafted a preliminary transit plan that analyzes available transit service, travel times, cost, and the opportunity for improving access to the East County Government Center site. That plan includes preliminary cost estimates for improving transit service to the site. Funds have not yet been identified to conduct a formal transportation plan. Funds will be allocated if the East County Government Center site is selected. ReSponse to Comment 32~28: Expected commute pattems of employees are included in Trip Distribution and Assigtunent presented on pages 9-38, 9-45, 9-50, and 9-57. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-195 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 33: Kasie Hildenbrand Response to Comment 33-1: Significant and unavoidable impacts are defined as those impacts for which no mitigation has been identified to ensure that the potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. In some cases, no mitigation is available to address the impact. In other cases, mitigation measures are recommended in the Draft EIS/EIR as a means of reducing the potential impact, but it is acknowledged that such measures only serve to partially reduce the impact, to the extent feasible. See page S-8 and page 1~10 of the Draft EIS/EIR for a discussion of the categorization of impacts and the process the County would have to comply with to approve a project that has significant unavoidable impacts, i.e. making findings of overriding considerations. Response to Comment 33-2: As explained more fully in Chapter 11 of the Draft EIS/EIR, Impact 11.1 regards construction- related emissions of toxic air contaminants, i.e. diesel exhaust emissions from heavy equipment at and traveling near the site. Although mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact, the Draft EIS/EIR takes a conservative approach and classifies this as a potentially significant and unavoidable impact because specific construction extent and schedules are not yet available, and so no health risk assessment has been prepared. This impact would be spread over the immediate vicinity of the site, further from the site, and along local and regional roadways, and so is likely to be less than significant at the more distant and dispersed locations. Impact 11.2 regards the specific exposure of detainees who would be exposed to concentrated air pollutant emissions, due to concerns expressed during the scoping process that one or more of the alternative sites could expose youth to toxic hotspots. No such hotspots were identified in the analysis conducted for the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 33-3: The preparers of the Draft EIS/EIR calculated construction and operation emissions using methods recommended by the BAAQMD. Air emission models were those provided by the ARB for this purpose. Model inputs (e.g., traffic volumes, site clearing and grading acreage) were provided by the project proponent. These calculations and model runs are documented in the teclmical appendix. Response to Comment 33-4: The discussion on page S-23 adequately summarizes the controversy surrounding the selection of a site. The specific environmental issues associated with each site, including environmental justice, transportation, noise and air quality due to the distance of the Dublin site from the urban centers of the County are addressed in the individual topical sections. Those sections address the comments submitted as part of the scoping process. The County's extensive site selection process is further described on pages 3-32 through 3-34 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-196 chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 33-5: AS summai?iZed 0n Page' 1'4 °fthe Draft EIS/EIR, the COunty of Alameda, California Board of CorreCtions, and U.S. DePartment of JUstice/Office of JuStice PrOgrams have prOvided numerous public notices and opportunities for Public comment regarding the proposed action and alternatives that are under considerati°n. A Notice of Preparation /Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents (including approximately 600 addresses in the vicinity of the San Leandro site), and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers (including the local Hayward/San Leandro paper) in January 2002. Scoping meetings were held in Dublin in February 2002. A second Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in June 2002. A second rOund of scoping meetings were held in Dublin and in Oakland in July 2002. The Notice of Completion / Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published and mailed in January 2003. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were sent to City of San Leandro departments and the local public library in February, and the Alameda County Board of SuperVisors, in cooperation with the California Board of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs, conducted two public heatings on the Draft EIS/EIR to gather public comments in February 2003. San Leandro residents were thus afforded ample opportunity to be informed about the County's on-going site evaluations, and to express opinions about the various proposals. Response to Comment 33-6: The commentor states that distanCe prohibits the County fi~om meetings the "majority" of its to Comment 9-$, the Draft EIS/EIR ac]~owledges that, based on the current pattern of a~ests and home addresses of the detainees, a majority of the detainees' family members would have to travel a greater distance to participate in the detention and visitation process if the Juvenile Justice Facility was located in Dublin compared to other alternative sites. As discussed in Mitigation Measure 16.1.5, tranSit service enhancements WOuld improve access. Response to Comment 33-7: It is the desire of the County that a state of the art juvenile detention facility be constructedl Both Physical and Electronic security measures will be incorporated in all aspects of the design. Response to Comment 33-8: A new Juvenile Justice Facility located in Dublin would include programs and services for detained minors that are not available in the existing JUvenile Hall location due to its size, configuration and age. As stated in the Draft EIS/EIR, an important part of the County of Alameda's stated mission is "rehabilitating juvenile Offenders'' (page 2-2). Rehabilitation is a comPle~ ta~kl ~d~ ~6~ial~hd ~h~sical factors that may influence rehabilitation are independent of a correctional facility's location. Social factors that may affect the success of rehabilitation efforts may inclUde a detainee's Willingness to fully PartiCipate in rehabilitation Pr°:grmsI th~ bridget avaii~ible to implement these 'Pfbgrams; ~d the skill and c°mmitment of Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-197 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments juvenile justice system's staff. Physical factors, such as designing the correctional facility to allow for group activities and meals, recreation, schooling and family visits, create a homelike atmosphere for a detainee and may influence how a detainee behaves in a rehabilitation program. As discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR, the County of Alameda is designing the Juvenile Justice Facility to provide these activities. The County is also considering several alternative sites in order to be able to meet its rehabilitation objective (and the other objectives noted in Chapter 2) with the resources it has available. Response to Comment 33-9: See Response to Comment 9-8. Response to Comment 33-10: The Juvenile Court design proposed for Dublin includes numerous design enhancements to better accommodate families, as compared with existing juvenile delinquency courts. Response to Comment 33-11: Many factors influence "promptness of service," including site and building design, the professionalism and level of staffing, budgets, and the distance of a facility from the urban core. As discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR, the County of Alameda is considering several alternative sites in order to be able to meet this objective (and the other objectives noted in Chapter 2) with the resources it has available. The juvenile court design proposed for Dublin is expected to increase the efficiency of court proceedings, with corresponding increases in promptness of service. Co- location of the juvenile hall and the juvenile courts would also improve service for detainees. Response to Comment 33-12: Ancillary services include food, legal counsel, services and relationship to courts provided by the Alameda County Sheriffs Office. Response to Comment 33-13: A normative environment refers to one in which expected norms are clearly illustrated and reinforced. The proposed Juvenile Court will include space for siblings and parents that permits them to observe court proceedings in a comfortable setting while insuring the decorum required for court operations. Response to Comment 33-14: The Juvenile Justice Facility, which will be designed to allow for group activities and meals, recreation, schooling and family visits, will foster a homelike environment (see Response to Comment 9-10). These design features are independent of the specific location of the Juvenile Justice Facility. As discussed in Response to Comment 9-8, transit service enhancements would provide improved access for detainees and their families to either of the Dublin sites. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-198 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 33.t5: The Draft EIS/EIR does not cite studies that show the average population in detention is decreaSing. As discussed on page 2-3, over the five-year period Of the needs assessment (from 1992 to 1997), the average length of stay steadily increased. If this historical trend continued, then the population requiring detention would continue to increase. However, as also discussed in this section of the Draft EIS/EIR, reforms to detention undertaken by the Probation Department has resulted in a decline in number of beds needed in a detention facility. Policy reforms include implementation of a detention risk assessment, a recognized need for treatment, and placement options within the community. Further, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with other agencies involved in the juvenile justice system, is undertaking a comprehensive review of this system. Additional reforms that direct detainees to options other than incarceration in a detention facility may be expected. Response to Comment 33-16: Fiscal impacts, including transportation subsidies and environmental clean-up costs, are not within the scope of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are not included within this document. The fiscal impact of the projects is a consideration that would be part of the lead agencies' decision-making process when it selects a preferred site, and ultimately when they approve a project. Response to Comment 33.17: The berm currently screens surrounding communities from Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) building is partially visible from the eastern end of the site, and the Federal Correctional Facility and (Heavy Equipment Repair Building) HERB are only screened from some locations by the existing berm. The California Highway Patrol (CI-IP) and Animal Control Services are not screened by the existing berm at all. The new Juvenile Justice Facility would relocate the berm from the rear of thc property to the front. The new berm, along with a wall and the Juvenile Justice Facility itself, would provide equivalent screening of thc Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility as what the existing berm provides. See the south elevation (Figure 3.18a in this Final EIS/EIR) and Response to Comment 33-32 for a description of the new berm. See ReSponse to Comment 9-47 for a description of the continued screening of Santa Rita from view of the residences. Response to Comment 33-18: Parking needs for the Juvenile Justice Facility are described in 9.2.5. It requires 710 spaces for 540 beds, and 550 spaces for 450 beds. These parking spaces would be accommodated at the reconfigured front lots of Santa Rita, and at the new parking lot on the west of the Juvenile Justice Facility. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-199 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 33-19: The nearest off-site uses, as measured from the edge of the East County Government Center site, are located approximately as follows: · The nearest commercial retail use is located approximately 1 mile to the south near the 1- 580 freeway. The nearest industrial/office business park is immediately south of, 0a~d across Gleason Drive from the project site, approximately 150 feet from the nearest parking lot area for that project. The closest home would be approximately 500 feet from the nearest comer of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility, about 500 feet from the proposed East County Hall of Justice building and 100 feet from the nearest parking lot area for that project. · The nearest school site is the Dougherty Elementary School, approximately 1,250 feet to the south. Response to Comment 33-20: Chapters 4 and 5 of the Draft EIS/EIR adequately evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed East County Hall of Justice on the surrounding land uses, including the immediate neighborhoods, and conclude that such impacts would not be significant. See Draft EIS/EIR at pages 4-42 through 4-54 and at 5-44 through 5-45 (discussion of impacts of creation of new light sources affecting the neighboring areas). Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS/EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts resulting from the development of a three- and four-story building on the visual character and quality of each of the Dublin sites. See Draft EIS/EIR at pages 5-27 through 5-44. It also adequately evaluates the potential impacts of such development on the area's scenic resources. In the Annexation Agreement between the County and the City of Dublin, the County has agreed that any development or use of Site 15A "shall comply with" all City land use laws, including the City's general plan, the East Dublin Specific Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and various other provisions of the City's municipal code. As a political subdivision of the State, the County is not bound by any local land use laws or regulations. See Draft EIS/EIR at 4-9. Typically, however, the County attempts, to the extent feasible, to implement its development projects in a manner that is consistent with otherwise applicable local land use principles. Response to Comment 33-21: Under the Annexation Agreement, Dublin's role with respect to Project development on the East County Government Center site consists of reviewing the development proposal for consistency with its General Plan, and performing site development review pursuant to the City's zoning ordinance. Dublin's role with respect to Project development on Site 15A may include General Plan consistency review and site development review, and could extend to other types of review Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-200 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments provided for under Dublin's applicable land use regulations. Dublin's role under Section 8 and 9 of the Annexation Agreement is described in full in Responses to Comments 9-27 and 9-30. Land in the vicinity of the East County Government Center site has been owned by the CountY, with the intent to develop it for County uses, for several years prior to the 1993 Annexation Agreement. For example, in 1985, the county built the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility on nearby County property. The East County Government Center site itself was formally designated for government use under the 1993 agreement. This site was not examined as a potential site for the Juvenile Justice Facility in the 1992 site review. The comment suggesting that the Draft EIS/EIR include all site selection studies prior to the release of the Draft EIS/EIR is hereby noted. The commentor is referred to SeCtion 3.2, whiCh discuSses what alternative sites were cOnsidered and why they were rejected. Response to comment 33-22: As noted on page 4-31, first full paragraph, using a mid-range develoPment intenSity of a 0.25 FAR, the 88.5'acre County Center property would have a development potential of approximately 964,000 square feet. Dividing this deVelopment potential by an average of 590 square feet of building floor area per employee would provide space for approximately 1,634 persons within the County Center property. Subtracting the existing 70 employees that currently work on the County Center property (at HERB, CHP, the planned fire station, the Animal Shelter and the SPCA office, leaves a remaining employment growth capacity of approximately 1,565 employees. Response to Comment 33-23: As clearlY"fi~ed iff ~hb Dr~ft EIS?EiR, as a politiCal subdivision of the State, the County is exempt from local regulations. This exemption extends to local land use (i.e., General Plans), zoning and building regulations. Moreover, Government Code Sections 53090-53096, which generally requires local agencies to cOmplY with the land Use and building regulations of the county or city in which their territory is located, specifically excludes counties from this requirement. Therefore, the County normally is not required to comply with land use (i.e., General Plans), zoning and building requirements of any of the local jurisdictions in which the project may be located, including the City of Dublin. With respect to development on the two alternative Dublin sites, the COunty's exemption from local regUlations has been modified by sections 8 and 90ftheMay 4, 1993' Annexati°n Agreement. See Responses to Comment 9-27 and 9-30, for a discussion of the extent to which the Project must comply with Dublin's land use laws and PoliCies. See also the Draft EsI?EIR at pages 4~28 thrOugh 4-30. The Draft EIS/EIR includes an adequate analysis of the project's consistency with the City of Dublin's land use and development goals. Relating the five applicable land use goals of the EDSP direCtly t° the cOnsistency analysis contained on page 4-34 of the Draft EIS/EIR: 1. To establish an attractive and vital community that provides a balanced and fully integrated :'.~' range of residential, commercial, employment, recreational and social opportunities~ ' The East CoUnty Government Center Alternative would be integrated with other existing Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2'201 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments governmental services sector uses north of Gleason Drive including the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility, the CHP offices, the animal shelter, the SPCA, the planned fire station and the Alameda County Sheriffs' training Facility. To provide a diversity of housing opportunities that meets the social, economic and physical needs of future residents. - The East County Government Center Alternative would not assist in providing housing opportunities. o To create a well-defined hierarchy of neighborhood, community, and regional commercial areas, that serves the shopping, entertainment and service needs of Dublin and the surrounding area. - The East County Government Center Alternative would serve the service needs of Dublin and the surrounding area by providing a Juvenile Justice Facility that is needed for all County residents, and a local East County Hall of Justice to serve the needs of the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. To provide a stable and economically sound employment base for the City of Dublin, which is diverse in character and responsive to the needs of the community. - The East County Government Center Alternative would provide for a broad range of job types, including administrative, management, technical, legal, security, educational, service, maintenance, and similar occupations. Wage scales would reflect the various job classifications, and would range from entry-level to upper management. The Project would also provide construction jobs for several years on each of the project components. To develop a comprehensive, integrated park and recreational open space system designed to meet the diverse needs of the City of Dublin. - The East County Government Center Alternative would have enclosed recreation areas for the detainees, as well as on-site open areas to provide visual relief and outdoor activity areas for employees and visitors. Other issues raised in this comment pertaining to the project's benefits to Dublin or its ability to serve as an economic stimulus for the area are not environmental issues, nor are they included in the Dublin General Plan goals, and are therefore not analyzed. Response to Comment 33-24: The Draft EIS/EIR (page 16-13) recognizes that the East County Government Center Alternative could have environmental justice impacts. These impacts are related to accessibility, including the time and cost of traveling longer distances in an area that is not as proximate to the majority of detainees nor as well served by transit as the more urban locations being considered in this EIS/EIR. Site accessibility due to distance from existing population centers is one of many factors to considered in the selection of a new Juvenile Justice Facility site. The Dublin site's greater distance from existing population centers is not a sufficient reason to exclude this alternative from consideration. Response to Comment 33-25: Mitigation Measure 16.1.5 in the Draft EIS/EIR includes preparation of a formal transportation plan to improve access to the East County Government Center site. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-202 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Fiscal impacts, including transportation subsidies, are nOt Within the scope of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are not included within this document. The fiscal impact of the projects is a consideration that would be part of the lead agencies' decision-making process When it selects a preferred site, and ultimately when they approve a project. See Response to Comments 5-5 and 33-44 for a discussion on the changes that LAVTA suggests for improving its service to the East County Government Center site. These include increasing the availability of its Route 1 service and/or providing larger transit vehicles. These suggestions will be incorporated into future discussions between the County and LAVTA during the preparation of the formal transportation plan discussed in Mitigation Measure 16.1.5. Responsibility for implementing these changes to transit service rest with LAVTA. ReSponSe to comment 33,26: A detailed discussion of this alternative's impaCts on special status species is found On page 8-28 through 8-29 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The effects of existing and on-going noise sources on existing residences and businesses are not impacts attributable to the Project and are therefore not evaluated in this EIS/EIR. As noted on page 10-24 of the Draft EIS/EIR, "Noise levels in indoor and outdoor activity areas would be acceptable for the intended uses based on attenuation provided by structural systems of the building, i.e. the heavy masonry construction of the housing pods and perimeter wall around the recreation yards for the Juvenile Justice Facility." A detailed discussion of this alternative's impacts on air quality is found on page 11-25 through 11-30 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Project-generated traffic would not cause any CO hOt spots exceeding federal or state standards. Regional emissions of ROG, NO× and PM]0 would also be below state and federal thresholds. Response to Comment 33-27: According to the CEQA Guidelines published by the State Office of Planning and Research, the actual criteria of significance for determining a significant environmental imPact is whether the project would result in "the physical division of an established community". The commentor's interpretation of dividing a community is not consistent with CEQA. Impacts related to transportation are discussed generally in Chapter 9 of the Draft EIS/EIR and specific impacts to the detainee population and their families are discussed in Chapter 16. Response to Comment 33-28: A review of academic literature on the subject indicates that there are few if any documented instances of long-term, statistically valid decreases in property values related to the siting of correctional facilities. In addition, an analysis conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc, in November 2002, indicates that there has been no significant negative effect of the Santa Rita Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-203 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Rehabilitation Facility on the growth of nearby property values. These findings suggest that growth in property values will not be affected negatively in the future as a result of the Project. Some of the study communities profiled in the academic literature reviewed on this subject appear to be similar to Dublin based on population, location within a greater metropolitan area, and general land uses in the vicinity of the correctional facility (existing or proposed). Other communities appear less similar to Dublin because of smaller population and more remote location. Nevertheless, findings were generally consistent across study communities, indicating applicability to the context of Dublin. It is correct that the study conducted by Economic & Planning Systems did not quantify the cumulative effects of placing all County correctional and judicial facilities in one central location. A review of studies on the subject indicated that property-value impacts may occur in three instances: 1. Immediately adjacent to or across from facilities in the absence of buffers; 2. In direct line of vision of facilities; and 3. During the initial period of uncertainty prior to development. The conclusion regarding this Project assumed that the County will provide landscaping and screening sufficient to mitigate potential visual impacts. Response to Comment 33.29: Some of the study communities profiled in the academic literature appear to be similar to Dublin based on population, location within a greater metropolitan area, and general land uses in the vicinity of'the correctional facility (existing or proposed). Other communities appear less similar to Dublin because of smaller population and more remote location. Nevertheless, findings were generally consistent across study communities, indicating applicability to the context of Dublin. Response to Comment 33-30: The commentor is referred to Responses to Comments 32-8 and 33-53. As noted in Response to Comment 32-8, it is not the responsibility of an EIR or EIS to evaluate social or economic effects that do not cause, or are not interrelated with, environmental effects. See, e.g., I4 Cal. Code Regs § 15131(a), 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8, 1508.14. Response to Comment 33.31: Figures 3-12 and 3-13 on pages 3-20 and 3-21 of the Draft EIS/EIR illustrate where the East County Government Center site is located in relation to surrounding areas of the City of Dublin. Each of these figures includes a map scale, with which distances from the site to particular nearby points in the City can be determined. As detailed in Response to Comment 9-47, the Juvenile Justice Facility would be oriented away from the existing residential facility. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2'204 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments The statement quoted, "new development, etc." is taken out of context. In the sentence preceding this statement, the Draft EIS/EIR, page 5-1, states, "New development can substantially change the visUal qualities and characteristics of an area and may have long term lasting effects on its evolution, thereby stimulating growth and increasing its attractiveness for new or expanding businesses, residential development or other desired or planned land uses." In other words, a project can improve or not improve a neighborhood. The EaSt cOunty Govermnent Center is zoned for civic use and a courthouse certainly compatible with this use, along with the nearby fire station, highWay patrOl office, public works corporation yard, and animal shelter. The East County Hall of Justice is physically removed from residential and commercial development on the south side of Gleason Drive by being set-back from Gleason Drive by over 300', and it is a fully self-contained facility with its own parking. The Juvenile Justice Facility's design is oriented, on it's public face, toward the intersection of Arnold and Broder. The support and service functions are oriented along Broder. The publiclY accessible parts of the Courthouse are oriented toward in internal courtyard. The housing portions of the Juvenile Justice Facility are all oriented toward internal courtyards or recreation areas. No part of the Juvenile Justice Facility is oriented toward the communities south of Gleason. The parts of the Juvenile Justice Facility where children are being detained would have to be oriented away from SRJ. This is accomplished by orienting the secure parts of the Juvenile Justice Facility toward internal courtyards and recreation areas. Response to Comment 33-32: The proposed berm height varies. It is on average between 10 and 15 feet above Gleason. The southern wall of the Juvenile Justice Facility is only partially screened by the berm. On average, the top 10 feet of wall is exposed. While some of the exposed wall will be masked by landscaping on top of the berm, the wall will be visible from Gleason. With this in mind, the wall is designed to have an attractive appearance. The greatest degree of exposure of the wail is at the comer of Arnold and Gleason. The least amount of exposure is along Gleason near Hacienda. From the homes south of Gleason and from the entry to the Courthouse, the view of the Juvenile Justice Facility will be completely obscured. Response to Comment 33-33: The Draft EIS/EIR is revised as follows: Page 5-45, paragraph 4, Mitigation Measure 5.3.5: Lighting Design Criteria. The County shall cons?der mitigate potential light and glare impacts i~ during the design-build process, including measures such as shielding, design revisions, or other means of reducing impacts. For example, lighting should, to the extent feasible, be oriented away from residential uses. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EtR Page 2-205 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Resulting Level of Significance. Implementation of this mitigation measure would further lessen the Project's already less than significant impact. Impact 5.3.6 is revised to read exactly as the same as the mitigation measure above. Response to Comment 33-34: The location of known active faults in relation to the East County Government Center site is indicated on page 6-19 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR does not indicate that this site is not at risk for damage due to an earthquake. It does indicate (on page 6-29) that there is little or no risk of a fault rupture at this site, but does recognize that strong seismic shaking would be anticipated at this site and throughout the seismically active Bay region with the potential to cause property damage, injury or death. Response to Comment 33-35: The seismic risk analysis discussed above in comment 32-22 considered all "Significant Seismogenic Sources Within 100KM of the ... Site". The faults considered in the analysis are obtained from a database maintained by the California Division of Mines and Geology and which is the most up-to-date source of information that is appropriate for this type of analysis. The analysis included the Calaveras (north and south), Mt. Diablo, Hayward (north and south), Concord, Greenville, San Andreas and San Gregario Faults. The Pleasanton Fault is considered as part of Calaveras Fault complex and its contribution is implicit to the fault parameter used for the Calaveras Fault. Regarding the San Ramon and Dublin earthquake swarms, please refer to Response to Comment 32-22. Response to Comment 33-36: The site issues are anticipated to be similar to the site history and related issues addressed when the land south of Gleason was developed. Please see response to comment 33-54. Response to Comment 33-37: A discussion of the results of a preliminary wetland assessment of the East County Government Center site is provided on page 8-19 of the EIS/EIR, together with a map of potential wetlands indicated in Figure 8.4. Mapping prepared as part of the National Wetland Inventory typically identifies man-made detention basins as palustrine, semi-permanently flooded wetlands with an unconsolidated bottom. As indicated on page 8-33, mitigation would be required if the Corps determines the man-made detention basin and isolated seasonal wetland depressions to be jurisdictional wetlands. If necessary, these features could be recreated at an off-site location as required under Mitigation Measure 8.3.5. Due to their man-made origin, recreating these features at an alternative location could be successfully accomplished to ensure no net loss of wetlands. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-206 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 33-38: :Page 7-4 does not include a discussion of surface runoff. It does include a discussion about the potential for 100-year flooding on Tassajara Creek due to inadequate culvert flow capacity where the creek crosses the 1-580. As discussed in Response to Comment 11-2, as a result of recent improVements to Tassajara Creek,'the pOtential 100~year flOod areas would be greatlY reduced and would be confined to an approximately 200-foot width along the creek. ResP°nse to Comment 33,39: A detailed discussion of the potential impacts of the project on wildlife, foraging habitat for raptors and loggerhead shrike, and Congdon's tarplant is provided under Impact 8.1.5, 8.3.5, and 8.4.5, together with adequate mitigation where appropriate. As discussed on page 8-16 of the EIS/EIR, California tiger salamander are not believed to occur on the East County Government Center site due primarilY to the absence of sUitable breeding habitat but also because of the limited opportunities for upland estiVation. The man'made detention pond and seasonal wetland depressions do not hold water long enough to allow for egg laying or metamorphoses of larval young. These features would have to hold water into late spring for successful breeding by tiger salamander, which is not possible because of their design or condition. A supplemental field inspection Was conducted bY the EIS/EIR biologist on March 25, 2003 to confirm absence of Suitable conditions to support breeding by California tiger salamander and update information on burrowing owl nesting activity. As discussed on page 8-28, surveys of the East County Government center Site Were Conducted in July 2001 and March and May 2002, not in 1999 as suggested by the commentor. Refer to the ResPonse to Comments 9-69, 71, and 72 for a discussion of a supplemental survey conducted on March 25, 2003 to further clarify the pOtential for occurrence of burrowing owl, other raptors, and habitat suitability for California tiger salamander, followed by protocol surveys for burrowing owl in mid-April 2003. ResponSe to Comment 33.40: As discussed, on page 8-36, proposed development on either the East County Government Center site or Site 15A is not expected t°. have significant imPacts on Wildlife habitat. Both of these sites have been eXtensivelY altered by past development activities and are border by existing roads and development, limiting opportunities for movement and use by terrestrial wildlife species. Mitigation measures recommended t° address the potential for occurrence of nesting raptors and loggerhead shrike would adequately protect any sensitive wildlife habitat values. Similarly, if trustee agencies determine that jurisdictional wetlands are present, appropriate mitigafi°n W0Uld be reqUired Which wOUld replace any wetland habitat values associated with the man-made depressions, detention basin, and low-lying areas. No revisions are considered necessary in response to the comment. Response to Comment 33-41: FisCal imPaCts, including Potential improvements to roads, are nOt within the scope of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are not Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-207 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments included within this document. The fiscal impact of the projects is a consideration that would be part of the lead agencies' decision-making process when it selects a preferred site, and ultimately when they approve a project. The Draft EIS/EIR concludes that the local traffic impacts on the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to be significant and unavoidable under the various scenarios considered in Dublin. Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 9.1.5, which recommends that the County contribute its fair-share funding to improve local roadways (in this case, to extend Scarlett Road), the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Further mitigation is not feasible. Response to Comment 33-42: As stated in the Draft EIS/EIR, page 9-87, parking required for the East County Hall of Justice is 850 spaces. This number has been calculated based upon an analysis of the parking demand of the existing Pleasanton courthouse, as adjusted for greater employee occupancy of the facility, plus the needs of the jurors, jury pool, lawyers, witnesses, visitors, and the general public. It is a conservative number but, if additional parking is later determined to be needed, the site is large enough to accommodate the construction of more surface parking. Response to Comment 33-43: Comment noted regarding the likelihood that LAVTA or BART will make transportation changes. Response to Comment 33-44: The ftmding for new LAVTA routes and/or improvements has not been determined. However, in a letter dated February 24, 2003, the LAVTA general manager addresses the financial implications of improving service: Since LA VTA 's financial resources are severely limited at this point in time, it is requested that the County, as a sponsor of the project, provide some level of capital and operating funding for improved transit services to the proposed facilities-improvements that LA VT,,i otherwise may not be able to provide-as a condition for approval of the project. Similar to its existing routes, LAVTA would most likely provide service to and from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. In the same letter mentioned above, the LAVTA general manager considers the expansion in service that may be needed with the proposed Project: As the current FFHEELS fixed-route service in the affected area is not at capacity, parts of the anticipated new demand can be accommodated with the transit services that presently exist. However, extended temporal coverage for route 1 would likely be necessary, as DART is not designed to accommodate large point-to-point loads. Depending on how evenly the demand would be spread out, larger transit vehicles could Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-208 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments also prove necessary in order to accommodate spot surges in ridership, even if these occur only on particular trips. Response to Comment 33-45: For a discussion of the noise impacts of the Sheriff's Shooting Range and the Parks RFTA weapons range, see Response to Comment 29-5. The Wilson, Ihrig, and Associates (WIA) firing range acoustics report is also discussed in that response. Response to Comment 33-46: The commentor is correct in summarizing the noise impacts of development, as presented in the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR. Please see Response to Comment 33-26, above. Response to Comment 33-47: Please see Response to Comment 9-130. Response to Comment 33.48: Refer to Response to Comments 9-135 and 33-54 regarding the military use of the East County Government Center site and the lack ofradiological testing that was conducted by the Naval Radiological Defense Labs (NRDL). For clarification, the University of California and Stanford University both reportedly operated portions of the radiological laboratory facilities for the military on properties other than the proposed Dublin sites. The historic uses of buildings (and building numbers) on this site is presented in Figure 12-6a in this Final EIS/EIR. Refer to Response 24-3 regarding the significance of potential chemical impacts at the Dublin sites. Response to Comment 33-40: Comment noted. As noted on page 12-22, implementation of Mitigation Measure 12.1.5, the preparation and implementation of a soil handling/management plan, would ensure that the potentially significant impact of working with soils and/or groundwater that may have been contaminated by previous activities on the site would be less than significant. Response to Comment 33-50: Refer to Responses 9-135 and 21-2 regarding the mitigation of Potential impacts at the East County Government Center site. Refer to Response 9-137 regarding the mitigation of potential impacts at Site 15A. Dougherty Elementary School is built over an area that had similar potential hazardous waste. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-209 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 33-51: The Project will increase demand for fire protection services, emergency medical response services and hazardous materials response services. However, construction and operation of these facilities would not result in a loss of acceptable response times or other ACFD performance objectives nor would it result in significant adverse physical or environmental impacts. A new Fire Station 17 will be constructed and fully operational prior to construction of the new County facilities and response times for emergency services provided by the ACFD from this station would be well within the five-minute response time established by the City of Dublin. Examining the environmental effects of a catastrophic event is beyond the scope of "reasonableness" as defined by CEQA, and is therefore beyond the scope of this document. However, it should be noted that the Project would be built adhering to the latest building codes and would incorporate the latest safety teclmology. Response to Comment 33-52: The impacts on public services resulting from the number of visitors to the East County Hall of Justice on City facilities are direct impacts of the Project. Therefore, these impacts resulting from increased visitors do not need to be examined as part of the Impact 13.1, Indirect Effects on Public Services section. It should be noted that the direct impacts on City facilities fi'om visitors to the East County Hall of Justice are dealt with throughout Chapter 13 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Response to Comment 33-53: It is true that building the project will bring more people to the area during the daytime hours if the facility is constructed. The presence of more people often results in demand for more police officers. This increased demand does not necessarily imply more criminal activity, just an increase in demand for police services, of which, solving crimes is one service. Also, it must be noted that because a person visits an inmate he/she is not more likely to commit a crime than any other person. Police service demand is calculated in Dublin using a ratio of 1.38 officers to 1,000 residents. However, in terms of environmental analysis, visitors and employees are categorized as daytime population, and would not have any more impact on police services than would an equal increase in the residential population of the area. In fact, they might have less of an impact because they would leave during the night, lowering the impact on police services for that shift. The City of Dublin has already taken into account an increasing population in its Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the surrounding neighborhood. The project will not increase the population, and consequently raise the demand for police services, beyond what has already been forecasted for Eastern Dublin by the City. In other words, the increased daytime population and subsequent increased police services demand generated by the Project has already been taken into account and planned for by the City. Therefore, the Project's increased demand for police services is not a significant environmental impact because it does not exceed the predicted police services demand allotted for the area in the City's General Plan. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-210 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments No direct comparisons were made to current criminal activity surrounding the existing San Leandro and expected criminal activity surrounding the proposed Dublin sites because such cOmparisOns are both unfair and irrelevant as the crime rate has to many uncontrollable variables that determine it to make it suitable for direct comparison. A more relevant comparison is made in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR concerning the effeCt a detention facility has on the property values of a surrounding neighborhood. The crime rate is an important consideration in property value calculations as there is a direct negative correlation between crime and Property value (less crime, higher proPerty values). This study would indicate evidence of increased criminal activity in a neighborhood by a decrease in property values due to the nearby location of a detention. facility. A summary of findings for all relevant studies pertaining to the effect on surrounding property values of detention facilities can be found on pages 4-42 - 4-43. As far as financial impacts to the City of Dublin, specific fiscal analysis is not within the scope of environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, a detailed cOst analysis cannot be given. Response to Comment 33-54: Background information on past uses of the East County Govemment Center site is provided in several sections of the Draft EIS/EIR, including Chapters 6, 12 and 15. Active military use of the East County Government Center site ended in about 1958 and all the buildings were demolished or removed/relocated. Military use of the site had involved predominantly administrative and residential military activities, and no significant military research and development was conducted on site that would result in exposure to radiological contamination. The results of the Environmental Site Assessment activities conducted to date strongly suggests that impacts to soil which may be encountered during site redevelopment are no more significant than those encountered during redevelopment of any of the adjacent former military areas. Studies have not identified conditions that would require extensive remediation prior to redevelopment, i.e. chemical contamination has not been detected at concentrations that Would suggest the presence of hazardous waste and concentrations that exceed established risk thresholds. Furthermore, common and routine site development procedures such as worker notification, dust control measures and work stoppage when unusual conditions are encountered conducted in association with a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP), will effectively address and mitigate potential risks of exposure including those potentially associated with asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP). An SMP will be prepared based on the actual development scheme selected. Parks RFTA Building 305 was not located on the East County Government Center site. Part of this confusion is that building numbering schemes were specific to the military unit that was governing the area during a specific time period. There have been at least 2 Building 305's in the Parks RFTA area; circa 1944-1958 --Building 305 was located several blocks to the south of the East County Government Center site and was occupied by a Boiler Room, and circa 1958 to 2000 - Building 305 was located just off' of 8th Street on the west side of the military reservation near Dougherty and was initially used as a dormitory, and later used as a "Hot Lab" for the US Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR page 2-211 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL). The historic uses of buildings (and building numbers) on this site is presented in Figure 12-6a in this Final EIS/EIR. The NRDL use of Buildings 305,310 and 131 (all located on the west side of Parks RFTA), as well as open areas in the uplands more than 1 mile north (Chronic Irradiation Facility) and ~ mile west (Animal Farm) of the East County Government Center site. While these facilities are no longer in use, they have been the subject of studies conducted by the US Amay Corp of Engineers and other military branches for several years. The Animal Farm site has already been redeveloped. Cs-137 contamination has been identified in the vicinity of some of the buildings and reportedly animal carcasses have been encountered and removed from the animal farm. The proposed Dublin sites did not have any uses that would suggest that "military toxics" are buried on site. These sites did not have any historical uses significantly different than those historically conducted on the adjacent former military properties, which have already been redeveloped without posing any significant risk to the public. Response to Comment 33-55: The Draft EIS/EIR fully discloses the distance of each alternative site from the urban centers of the County, using average travel distance as a measure. Those on probation will conduct regular appointments at existing probation offices throughout the County. Expanded transit service would be provided throughout the day and evening, as needed, based on the preliminary concept under consideration by the County. Transit travel times are discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR. These factors will be part of the deliberations of the lead agencies as they consider which site to approve. Response to Comment 33-56: Comment noted. See Response to Comment 9-8. Response to Comment 33-57: Comment noted. See Response to Comment 9-8. Response to Comment 33-58: See response to 5-6. In addition, it should be noted that point-to-point transit service is available during off-peak hours through LAVTA's DART service. Response to Comment 33-59: Round-trip transit costs include multiple types of transit services such as buses and BART. Round-trip transit costs depend on the origin of the trip; the highest cost would be for the person who is required to take multiple types of transit at the furthest distance from the site. Gas and vehicle costs vary considerably depending on the type of vehicle driven and its condition and age. The relative cost of traveling to Dublin compared to traveling to the alternative sites was Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-212 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments considered a more useful measure. It was determined by calculating the weighted-average travel distance (23.9 miles) of traveling to Dublin and comparing this with traveling to the alternative sites: it is apPr°iimatelY tWiCe as far to the Dublin sites compared to the alternative sites (see page 16-14). Response to Comment 33-60: The County of Alameda can "work with" the Livermore-Amador Valley Transportion Agency (LAVTA) t° expand transit service to the East County Government Center site. It has no authority to ensure LAVTA provides this service. As noted on page 16-14 of the Draft EIS/EIR, financing mechanisms for supporting expanded transit service and/or transit subsidies have not been develOped, The CitY's streets are public and LAVTA is not required to pay the City to use them. Response to Comment 33-61: See Response to Comment 32-27. Response to Comment 33-62: Staff from the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro and leased courtrooms in Pleasanton are expected to form a large portion of the employees at the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice. These employees live within commuting distance of the existing facilities. If their workplace is relocated, some employees at these facilities may chose to relocate nearer to it. Additional staff will be recruited from within commuting distance of the new facilities. Response to Comment 33-63: Contrary to the commentor's assertions, the Draft EIS/EIR analyses are based up°n past, present and reaSonably foreseeable development. Past and present development is reflected in the baseline conditions. Similarly, the analysis was based on an extensive list of approved projects and development contemplated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as described further in Response to Comment 9-90, above. Chapters 4 through 16 evaluate the impacts of the proposed ProjeCt against the baseline conditions including past and present development. Chapter 17 contains the analysis of the Project's impacts in comparison to baseline plus reasonably foreseeable development as described above in Response t° Comment 9-90. The commentor's remarks concerning the environmental impacts described in the Draft EIS/EIR indicates that there was data and analysis provided in the Draft EIS/EIR regarding the impacts of the proposed Project, as well as cmnulative impacts. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of JustiCe - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-213 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 33-64: Traffic mitigation measures are recommended in Chapters 9 and 17 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Air quality mitigation measures are recommended in Chapter 11 and 17. All Project-generated significant and significant unavoidable impacts to intersections and roadways within the Project vicinity are identified in Chapters 9 and 17. The Draft EIS/EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures. The Project will be required to implement the mitigation measures required as conditions of Project approval. Implementation will be monitored through the mitigation and monitoring program required by CEQA. Therefore, the Project's mitigation measures will be implemented and impacts due to the lack of implementation would not be anticipated. If, however, regional and cumulative mitigation measures are not implemented, then the region could experience further traffic and air pollution impacts as indicated in Chapter 17. Response to Comment 33-65: Construction-related air pollution impacts are evaluated in Chapter 17 and Chapter 11. The cumulative construction-related impacts on sensitive receptors would resemble the types of construction-related impacts described for the proposed Project as stated in Impacts 11.1 through 11.3. Similarly, the cumulative mitigation measures would resemble the mitigation measures identified for the Project's construction-related impacts as set forth in Mitigation Measures 11.1.1 through 11.3.6. The commentor is concerned that construction-related emissions could be cumulatively considerable. The Best Available Mitigation Measures have been included into the project. These include stringent requirements to control construction dust and diesel exhaust from heavy equipment. Essentially the same mitigation strategy for these two areas is recommended for every site. Construction would last for about 18 months. Grading, trenching, and other earth- moving activities would last for a few months of this period. Because this phase of construction activity would take place during the dry season, some of the unmitigated emissions would add to existing pollution levels. Response to Comment 33-66: Noise impacts are evaluated in Chapters 10 and 17 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors would resemble the types of noise impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhoods described in Impacts 10.1.5 and 10. 1.6, 10.2.5, 10.2.6, 10.3.5 and 10.3.6. Traffic noise impacts to existing residential neighborhoods depend on an individual home's distance to the roadway generating the sound. Table 10.4 shows projected future traffic noise levels for residential areas. The Draft EIS/EIR also states that noise levels will exceed City of Dublin General Plan Noise Element recommendations even without the project (due to other approved development). Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-214 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 34: Jolene Huey Response to Comment 34-1: As stated on pages S-23 and 3-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR, no Preferred alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR because all of the sites were being given equal consideratiOn. An environmentally superior alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR in conformance with the requirements of CEQA. However, that determination is only part of the informational purpose of the Draft EIS/EIR and was not an indication by the lead agencies that the Pardee/Swan site was the preferred alternative, nor does the identification of an environmentally superior alternative Obligate the county to select that site. The commentor is referred to the Master Response regarding the preferred Alternative at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. As summarized on page 1-4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the County of Alameda, California Board of Corrections, and U.S. Department of Justice/Office of jUstice Programs have provided numerous public notices and opportunities for public comment regarding the proposed action and alternatives that are under consideration. A Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all respOnsible / trUstee agencies and local reSidents (inclUding approximately 600 addresses in the vicinity of the San Leandro site), and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers (including the local Hayward/San Leandro paper) in January 2002. Scoping meetings were held in Dublin in February 2002. A second Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in June 2002. A second round of scoping meetings were held in Dublin and in Oakland in July 2002. The Notice of Completion / Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published and mailed in January 2003. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were sent to City of San Leandro departments and the local public library in February, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in cooperation with the California Board of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs, conducted two public hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR to gather public comments in February 2003. San Leandro residents were thus afforded ample opportunity to be informed about the County's on-going site evaluations, and to express opinions about the various proposals. County staff has identified a preferred alternative in this Final EIS/EIR, in conformance with the requirements of NEPA, as described in more detail at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR page 2-215 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 35: Residents of Dublin Response to Comment 35-1: Comments in opposition to the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center site are noted. Response to Comment 35-2: The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity due to the development's orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. The project would incorporate measures to address foreseeable conditions related to natural disasters. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility and federal correctional institution were present before any of the homes in the eastern Dublin area, and additional government services have been planned for the East County Government Center as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice are consistent with the community plan and would not detract from the livability of the area beyond the specific environmental effects identified in the Draft EIS/EIR, such as increased traffic, noise, and air pollution. These effects were also considered in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and were found to be potentially significant when the City authorized the combined development of residential, commercial and public service uses. The Draft EIS/EIR addresses community safety and concludes that "speculation regarding the future actions or intent of individuals traveling to and from the proposed facility does not provide a sufficient basis for identifying any impact that would result in a physical change in the existing environment." (Page 4-56) Since the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility is already located at the East County Government Center, this condition exists with or without the East County Hall of Justice. That this condition will be any worse with the East County Hall of Justice is certainly debatable. The County Sheriff will maintain a significant presence at East County Hall of Justice, will maintain a very high level of security throughout the facility and site, will be able to rapidly respond to any disruption of normal community life by immediately alerting the Dublin Police Department, and will be able to provide any necessary back-up to the Dublin Police Department. Examining the environmental effects of a catastrophic event, including a terrorist attack or machine gun fire, is beyond the scope of"reasonableness" as defined by CEQA, and is therefore beyond the scope of this document. Response to Comment 35.3: A literature review indicates that there is generally no long-term, statistically valid decrease in property values related to the siting of correctional facilities. In addition, an analysis conducted by Economic & Plamfing Systems, Inc., in November 2002, indicates that there has been no significant negative effect of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility on the growth of nearby Alameda County Juvenile juStice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-216 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments property values. These findings indicate that property values will not be negatively affected in the future as a result of the Project. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-217 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 36: John Kaplan Response to Comment 36-1: As stated on pages S-23 and 3-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR, no preferred alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR because all of the sites were being given equal consideration. An environmentally superior alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR in confonr~ance with the requirements of CEQA. However, that determination is only part of the informational purpose of the Draft EIS/EIR and was not an indication by the lead agencies that the Pardee/Swan site was the preferred alternative, nor does the identification of an environmentally superior alternative obligate the County to select that site. As summarized on page 1-4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the County of Alameda, California Board of Corrections, and U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs have provided numerous public notices and opportunities for public comment regarding the proposed action and alternatives that are under consideration. A Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents (including approximately 600 addresses in the vicinity of the San Leandro site), and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers (including the local Hayward/San Leandro paper) in January 2002. Scoping meetings were held in Dublin in February 2002. A second Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent was mailed to all responsible / trustee agencies and local residents, and published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in June 2002. A second round of scoping meetings were held in Dublin and in Oakland in July 2002. The Notice of Completion / Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published and mailed in January 2003. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were sent to City of San Leandro departments and the local public library in February, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in cooperation with the California Board of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs, conducted two public hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR to gather public comments in February 2003. San Leandro residents were thus afforded ample opportunity to be informed about the County's on-going site evaluations, and to express opinions about the various proposals. County staff'has identified a preferred alternative in this Final EIS/EIR, in conformance with the requirements of NEPA, as described in more detail at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR. As indicated in the Master Response regarding the Preferred Alternative, since the circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, the Pardee Swan site has become unavailable as a feasible alternative (see Comment 6-34). Consequently, the Final EIS/EIR identifies the Modified San Leandro Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility, of the remaining alternatives, because the site is available and would result in fewer significant environmental impacts as compared to the remaining alternatives for the Juvenile Justice Facility evaluated in the EIS/EIR. The environmental consequences of developing the Juvenile Justice Facility at the San Leandro site have been fully addressed in the Draft EIS~IR. The analysis specifically addresses traffic, transportation, land use and socioeconomics. As part of the Juvenile Justice Facility project at any of the alternative sites, the existing Juvenile Hall would be demolished, so the existing Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-218 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments effects of that facility on the community would be removed. The County's overall planning effort for the Fairmont campus is still ongoing and takes into consideration the possibility of the Juvenile Justice Facility. No recommendations are expected regarding future development of other portions of the campus that would preclude the Juvenile Justice Facility, and all such future plans would be subject to independent enviromnental review when they are adequately defined. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East CountY Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-219 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 37: Lucinda Leung Response to Comment 37-1: Comments in opposition to the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center site are noted. The Draft EIS/EIR provides an analysis of the land use compatibility impacts of the project, and concludes that the project would not adversely affect property values, nor pose a significant security or crime risk to the community due to the high level of security provided at the facility, as well as the orientation of the project towards the northwest, as far away as possible from the residential areas of Eastern Dublin. The analysis of property values also concludes that, although initial reactions to proposed detention facilities are often negative, that over time the communities do not experience the feared side-effects of the facilities and they come to accept the presence of the facility so long as it is "mitigated by a design that maintains continuity with the existing scale of development, careful landscaping, low-key architecture and high quality building materials." (Page 4-44 of the Draft EIS/EIR) This is the case with the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-220 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 38: Chia Liu Response to Comment 38-1: Comments in opposition to the project are noted. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EiR Page 2-221 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 39: Shola Oderinde Eesponse to Comment 39-1: Comment noted. The issue pertaining to the potential impacts of the East County Government Center alternative on surrounding land uses, including the nearby residential areas, is most directly addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR on pages 4-53 and 4-54. The conclusions of this analysis indicate the following: · The East County Government Center site is located near diverse land uses that include the Emerald Park residential neighborhood. · Academic literature and analyses of property values near the existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility indicates that adverse effects on property values are unlikely. The site orientation and the design of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would minimize impacts on the character of the existing residential neighborhood. The Juvenile Justice Facility would occupy the western portion of the site, which is the farthest from the residential neighborhood located in neighborhoods near Hacienda Drive and Gleason Drive. These neighborhoods are located behind soundwalls, and have limited views to the western end of the site. The East County Hall of Justice would occupy the central and eastern portion of the lot, effectively screening the Juvenile Justice Facility from the neighborhood. · The two-story height of the Juvenile Justice Facility would be the same height or lower than the existing light industrial/office buildings at Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive. The outdoor recreation areas are planned as an interior courtyard to minimize the use of exterior fencing. A small landscaped berm would be developed around the southern edge of the site to screen the perimeter wall from view and the structure would be depressed into the site as the natural grade rises from west to east. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that the East County Government Center site would not adversely affect nearby residential areas. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EISIEIR Page 2-222 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 40: Ram and Nitya Ramakrishnan Response to Comment 40-1: The iSsue pertaining to the potential impacts of the EaSt County Government Center alternative on surrounding land uses, including the nearby residential areas, is most directly addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR on pages 4-53 and 4-54. The conclusions of this analysis indicate the following: · The East County Government Center site is located near diverse land uses that include the Emerald Park residential neighborhood. · Academic literature and analyses of property values near the existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility indicates that adverse effects on property values are unlikely. · The siteorientation and the design of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would minimize impacts on the character of the existing residential neighborhood. · The Juvenile Justice Facility would occupy the western portion of the site, which is the farthest from the residential neighborhood located in neighborhoods near Hacienda Drive and Gleason Drive. These neighborhoods are located behind soundwalls, and have limited views to the western end of the site. The East County Hall of Justice would occUpy the central and eastern POrtion of the l°t,. effectively screening the 'Juvenile Justice Facility fi.om the neighborhood. · The two-story height of the Juvenile Justice Facility would be the same height or lower than the existing light industrial/office buildings at Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive. The outdoor recreation areas are planned as an interior courtyard to minimize the use of exterior fencing. A small landscaped berm would be developed around the southern edge of the site to screen the perimeter wall from view and the structure would be depressed into the site as the natural grade rises from west to east. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that the East County Government Center site would not adverselY affect nearby residential areas, including nearby schools and parks. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-223 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 4t: Dale Reed Response to Comment 41-1: Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS/EIR addresses seismic safety at the San Leandro site and each of the other alternative sites under consideration. The analysis concludes that, while No Project would result in a continuing significant impact due to seismic hazards, the impacts of development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the San Leandro site would be mitigated to a less than significant level through strict conformance with applicable codes and regulations, and the design-level studies that would be completed to confirm the findings of extensive subsurface exploration already conducted to identify and categorize specific fault traces on the site. A geotechnical baseline report prepared for the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center at the East County Government Center site (Subsurface Consultants, Inc. January 2002) was used as the primary source of information contained in the Draft EIS/EIR regarding the potential seismic hazards of this site. This report provides geotechnical parameters for seismic design and other geologic considerations based on a review of published and unpublished references, as well as preliminary geotechnical investigation including 15 test borings on the site. If this site is selected for the facility, additional subsurface investigations and geotechnical analysis would be required based on the specific requirements of the final design. This additional investigation and analysis is recommended pursuant to Mitigation Measure 6.2.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and is required for compliance with state and local building practices. Security measures are similarly incorporated into the project through structural and operational features that would improve conditions relative to the existing Juvenile Hall. The Draft EIS/EIR therefore concludes that the impact would be less than significant. The Board of Supervisors will make a determination on which project to implement following the completion of the environmental review process. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-224 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 42: Robbin Velayedam Response to Comment 42-1: Comments in opposition to the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center site are noted. The project's potential effect on land values is addressed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, which concludes that the impact would be less than significant. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-225 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Letter 43: George and Lisa Response to Comment 43-1: The issue pertaining to the potential impacts of the East County Government Center alternative on surrounding land uses, including the nearby residential areas, is most directly addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR on pages 4-53 and 4-54. The conclusions of this analysis indicate the following: · The East County Government Center site is located near diverse land uses that include the Emerald Park residential neighborhood. · Academic literature and analyses of property values near the existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Facility indicates that adverse effects on property values are unlikely. The site orientation and the design of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would minimize impacts on the character of the existing residential neighborhood. The Juvenile Justice Facility would occupy the western portion of the site, which is the farthest fi'om the residential neighborhood located in neighborhoods near Hacienda Drive and Gleason Drive. These neighborhoods are located behind soundwalls, and have limited views to the western end of the site. The East County Hall of Justice would occupy the central and eastern portion of the lot, effectively screening the Juvenile Justice Facility from the neighborhood. · The two-story height of the Juvenile Justice Facility would be the same height or lower than the existing light industrial/office buildings at Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive. The outdoor recreation areas are planned as an interior courtyard to minimize the use of exterior fencing. A small landscaped berm would be developed around the southern edge of the site to screen the perimeter wall from view and the structure would be depressed into the site as the natural grade rises from west to east. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that the East County Government Center site would not adversely affect nearby residential areas. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-226 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments 2.3 RESPONSES TO PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS, FEBRUARY 19TM, 2003 This section includes the resPOnses t° c°mments received at the Al~eda County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting held in the City of Dublin on February 19th, 2003. A transcript of the hearing is included at the end of this chapter, with comments numbered as foll°ws: 44-1 44-2 44-3 44-4 44-5 44-6 44-7 44-8 44-9 44-10 44-11 44-12 44-13 44-14 44-15 44-16 President Steele, Alameda County Board of Supervisors David Haubert David Haubert Janet Lockhart Tom Cignarella Audrey Cooper Arlene Ruffo Lester Jung KiTM Liebetrau Dorothy Gordon Rich Guarienti Nelson Poon Vera Sims Paul AdWar Ron Allen Vince Bordelon 44-17 44-18 44-19 44-20 44-21 44:22 44-23 44-24 44-25 Tony Cassondonte Elpi Albulencia DaVid BewleY L. Eade Elisha Cheung Rowena Margan Ebony Richards Ananth Neddy Kasie Hildenbrand Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page2-227 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 44.1 (comment submitted by President Steele) Comment noted. The President of the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Gail Steele, introduced the meeting and speakers for the meeting held February 19, 2003. No response is required. Response to Comment 44-2 (comment submitted by David Haubert) The commenter notes that emissions of ozone precursor compounds would increase if the project is built in Dublin, summarizing the conclusions of the Draft EIS/EIR. As discussed in Chapter 11 of the Draft EIS/EIR, growth or reduction in regional air pollutant emissions is accounted for by the MTC and BAAQMD in their ozone attainment plan. This plan uses local general plans and growth projects to account for expected projects that will be or are being located in Alameda or Oakland. Thus, the cumulative air quality impact of all new projects within the BAAQMD is part of the ozone attainment plan. The Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility is part of'regional growth and emissions are therefore part of the ozone attaimnent plan. The commenter notes that a federal nonattainment status can lead to withholding of Federal transportation funds, and that freeways are growing increasingly crowded. The BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG prepare air quality attainment plans that include strategies for achieving clean air, while accommodating growth projected by local governments. The plan prepared by MTC and BAAQMD is meant to achieve the federal ozone standard in a timely manner. An Enviromnental Site Assessment has been conducted at the East County Government Center Site (see pages 12-13 and 12-14 of the Draft EIS/EIR). Studies conducted to date strongly suggest that impacts due to soil which may be encountered during site redevelopment are no more significant than those encountered during redevelopment of any of the adjacent former military areas. Studies have not identified conditions that would require extensive remediation prior to development, i.e. chemical contamination has not been detected at concentrations that would suggest the presence of hazardous waste and concentrations that exceed established risk thresholds. Furthermore, common and routine site development procedures such as worker notification, dust control measures and work stoppage when unusual conditions are encountered conducted in association with a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP), will effectively address and mitigate potential risks of exposure including those potentially associated with asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP). An SMP will be prepared based on the actual development scheme selected. Response to Comment 44-3 (comment submitted by David Haubert) Please see the master response at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for discussion of the modified San Leandro Alternative and the selection process for a preferred alternative and final approval of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-228 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 44-4 (comment submitted by Janet Lockhart) Written comments submitted by the City of Dublin are responded to as Letter 9 of this Final EIS/EIR. Comments in opposition to the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center site are noted. An environmentally superior alternative was identified in the Draft EIS/EIR in conformance with the requirements of CEQA. However, that detenrtination is only part of the informational purpose of the Draft EIS/EIR and was not an indication by the lead agencies that the Pardee/Swan site was the preferred alternative, nor does the identification of an environmentally superior alternative obligate the County to select that site. Please see the master response at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for a complete discussion of the environmentally superior alternative and preferred alternative, including the modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 44.5 (comment submitted by Tom Cignarella) The commenter states that other noise studies have shown levels to be louder than those measured by Illingworth & Rodkin. Noise levels can vary in a community depending upon day of week, traffic le3els, or rain. Measurements~ Were made in areas where prOjeCt impact could be expected (Table 10.6). Distant shooting from the gun range was audible, but it did not substantially affect measurements of CNEL. Noise from the shooting range could be heard in outdoor areas on the Project site and in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted for comment 21-7, the Sheriffs Department can implement various improvements to sound barriers that will diminish, but not eliminate, gunshot sound in nearby areas. Those improvements are unrelated to and not needed to address the Juvenile Justice Facility. The new juvenile hall and court buildings will be constructed of substantial, institutional-type materials that would normally reduce interior noise levels 30 dBA or more below outside levels. This noise attenuation would be sufficient~to reduce gunshot sounds to below a leV~iofSignificance (i.e. below 45 dBA). Other noise sources in the area, such as the automotive training facility, are existing conditions that would not be affected by the proposed project alternatives or reconfigurations of the berm. Response to Comment 44-6 (comment submitted by Audrey Cooper) comments in opp°Sition t° the Juvenile jUstice Facility at the East county Government Center site are noted. As discussed in Chapter 11 of the Draft EIS/EIR, growth or reduction in regional air pollutant emissions is accounted for by the MTC and BAAQMD in their ozone attainment Plan, This pian USes local general Plans Nd growth ProjeCts t° account for exPected projects that will be or are being located in Alameda or Oakland. Thus, the cumulative air quality impact of all new projects within the BAAQMD is part of the ozone attainment plan. The Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility i's Part of regiOnal grOWth and emissions are therefore part of the ozone attainment plan. The commenter notes that a federal nonattainment status can lead to withholding of Federal transportation funds, and that freeways are growing increasingly crowded. The BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG prepare air quality attainment plans that include strategies for achieving clean air, while accommodating growth projected by local governments. The plan prepared bY MTC and BAAQMD is meant to achieve the federal ozone standard in a timely manner. Measurements were made in areas where project impact could be expected (Table 10.6), Distant shooting from the gun range was audible, but it did not substantially affect Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-229 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments measurements of CNEL. Noise from the shooting range could be heard in outdoor areas on the Project site and in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted for comment 21-7, the Sheriff's Department can implement various improvements to sound barriers that will diminish, but not eliminate, gunshot sound in nearby areas. However, those measures are unrelated to the proposed project, as the development of the project would not have a substantial effect on the audibility of those activities. The Draft EIS/EIR addresses the presence of other governmental activities in the vicinity of the East County Government Center site, and characterizes their land use and environmental impacts to the degree they are relevant to the subject study. As explained in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the site has been designated for governmental uses as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan since 1994. Please see the master response regarding the selection of a preferred alternative at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for more information about the final site selection process. Response to Comment 44-7 (comment submitted by Arlene Raffo) The Draft EIS/EIR presents information in Chapter 16 regarding the relative average travel distances to each of the alternative sites for the majority of employees, detainees, family members and many other visitors to the facility. The Juvenile Justice Facility would be constructed in a manner that would preclude sight and sound contact for the detained minors near the Santa Rita Jail facility. The Transportation chapter of the Draft EIS/EIR addresses the congestion on local roadways and intersections, and identifies the significant impacts, planned mitigation measures, and unavoidable impacts of existing, background, and future growth, as well as the project's potential impacts. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. The Draft EIS/EIR addresses the potential presence of San Joaquin Kit Fox on pages 8-16 and 8-36, concluding that there is very low likelihood of any impacts at the East County Government Center site due to the fact that the site is surrounded by developed parcels and heavily traveled roads. No mitigation is necessary. Response to Comment 44-8 (comment submitted by Lester Jung) The population centers and relative average travel distances to each of the alternative sites is described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and the impacts of this travel are included in the transportation, noise, air quality, environmental justice, and other sections of the analysis. The commenter's summary of caseloads is unclear. The existing caseloads for Juvenile Court and for the East County Hall of Justice are described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Each project would be constructed and operated independently, except to the extent that the site development at the East County Government Center site would require coordination of utilities, grading, and similar physical attributes. The personnel for each project is described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and the impacts of an increased work force in the area are evaluated in the land use, transportation, noise, air quality, growth inducement and other sections of the Draft EIS/EIR. Bus lines are not expected to serve the East County Government Center site as a single mode of transportation from the inner East Bay, but would serve the site as a connection from BART and for local travel. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County GOvernment Center site is acknowledged and' considered a Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-230 Chapter 2: ResPonses to Comments potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The commenter's assertion that this would have implications for rehabilitation of juvenile detainees is noted. The juvenile detention facility would also include rehabilitative elements aside from parental visits, including education, counseling, group activities, role modeling', an~ s~milar functions, The lead agencies will conSider all Of these factors when approving the project. Please seethe beginning °fChapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for a discussion of the County's identification of a preferred alternative for each project, and the m6dified San Leandm Alternative. Response to Comment 44-9 (comment submitted by Klm Liebetrau) Noise from existing activity and future traffic and other land uses is described and evaluated in Chapter 10 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Distant shooting from the gun range was audible during noise studies for the Draft EIS/EIR, but it did nOt substantially affect measurements of CNEL. Noise from the shooting range CoUld be heard in outdoor areas on the Project site and in the surrounding neighborhood. The Sheriffs Department has conducted a Study to evaluate various improvements to sOUnd barriers that Will diminish, but not eliminate, gunshot sound in nearby areas. HOWever, those measures are unrelated to the proposed project, and are not required to mitigate project impacts. It is noted that significant traffic noise would affect the neighboring residents along 'Gleas°n Drive near Hacienda Drive due t°cUmulative traffic groWth. Traffic increases on local roads as a result of the PropOsed projects would be consistent with estimates made when the Eastern Dublin Specific P1an was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1994, which inClUded extensive governmental uses on the property north of Gleason Drive. The project woUld n°t resul~ in any significant imPactS to local intersections near residential areas. Transit service to the East County Govermnent Center site is described in the Transportation section of the Draft EIS/EIR. The EIS/EIR recommends mitigation that would address the frequency of serVice, mid'daY, and evening service to accOmmodate visitors. EarthqUake hazards are addresSed in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Neither of the Dublin sites is within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake HaZard Zone designated bY the State of California. No earthquake faults have been mapPed as crosSing either site. FOr these reasons, both sites are considered to have a very low risk of surface fault rupture. The sites will be likely subjected to strong groundshaking, as will other nearby sites. StructUres planned for the sites will be designed to resist strong groundshaking in accordance with the applicable codes and local design practice. Visual quality and aesthetics are addressed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS/EIR, which concludes that deVelopment of the East CoUnty Government Center site would not result in a significant adverse effect. The Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice would be designed to reflect the dignity and importance of justice functions in American society, would be constructed of high quality materials, and would include extensive landscaping and other features to screen the sites from view to the extent feasible. Please see discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for a description of a modified San Leandro Alternative and the lead agencies' identification of a preferred alternative. Response to Comment 44-10 (comment submitted by Dorothy Gordon) COmments in support of a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EIS/EIR Page 2-231 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 44-11 (comment submitted by Rich Guarienti) Comments in opposition to locating a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The population centers and relative average travel distances to each of the alternative sites is described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and the impacts of this travel are included in the transportation, noise, air quality, environmental justice, and other sections of the analysis. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 44-12 (comment submitted by Nelson Poon) Comments in opposition to locating a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The population centers and relative average travel distances to each of the alternative sites is described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and the impacts of this travel are included in the transportation, noise, air quality, environmental justice, and other sections of the analysis. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity due to the development's orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. Response to Comment 44-13 (comment submitted by Vera Sims) Comments acknowledging property value increases and lack of security concerns in the vicinity of the existing Juvenile Hail are noted. Such comments support the conclusions of Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Comments in support of constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility to address the shortcomings of the existing facility, as noted in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR, are noted. Concerns about the geologic stability of the San Leandro site are noted. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS/EIR includes discussion of the geologic instabilities and seismic constraints of the San Leandro site, and concludes that the site is buildable. Please see the master response at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for a discussion of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 44-14 (comment submitted by Paul Adwar) Comments in opposition to locating a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity due to the development's orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-232 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 44-15 (comment submitted by Ron Allen) Comments in OppOsition to the develOpment of a neTM JUvenile Justice FaCility in Dublin are noted. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact tb the viCihity due t°'the d~vel°pment's OrientatiOn away'from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. Chapter 4 also concludes that there would not be a significant adverse effect on property values in the area, based on other case studies. Response to Comment 44-16 (comment submitted bYVince Bordelon) Comments in support of a neTM Juvenile Justice Facility, particUlarly in DUblin, and c°nCems about the condition of the existing facility, are noted. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR provides informafi"0n ab0Ut t~e projecineed, md Chapter 3 provideS a description of each of the alternatives under cOnsideratiOn and the relative ability t° satiSfy the Project objectives. Please see Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for information about the modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 44-17 (comment submitted by Tony Cassadonte) comments in opPosition to locating a new Juvenile Justice FacilitY in Dublin are noted. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity dUe to the development's Orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. Please see Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR for a complete discussion. Support functions are included in the program needs and project designs, So minimal support would be required from the local community services. Detainees would be released to responsible adult family members or guardians, and would have home-based release to their place of residence, not all into the local commUnity. Examining the enVirOnmental effects of a catastrOphic event is beyond the scope of "reasonableness" as defined by CEQA, and is therefore beyond the scope of this document. However, it should be noted that the Project would be built adhering to the latest building codes and would incorporate the latest safety technOlOgy. The Draft EISFEIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity due to the development's orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. The project would incorporate measures to address foreseeable conditions related to natural disasters. Response to Comment 44-18 (comment submitted by Elpi Albulencia) Comments in opposition to locating a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. Methodologies used in preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR reflect the technical approach and level of detail judged to be appropriate to each of the topical analyses. Personnel with specialized training were emploYed to perform the studies and to consult other published sources and agency personnel. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rated the Draft EIS/EIR "LO - Lack Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EISIEIR Page 2-233 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments of Objections", signifying that the document presents an adequate analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Draft EIS~IR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity due to the development's orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. Please see Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR for a complete discussion. Chapter 4 also concludes that there would not be a significant adverse effect on property values in the area, based on other case studies. Response to Comment 44.19 (comment submitted by David Bewley) Comments summarizing the "project need" for the new Juvenile Justice Facility are noted, consistent with the discussion in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Earthquake hazards are addressed in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Neither of the Dublin sites is within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone designated by the State of California. No earthquake faults have been mapped as crossing either site. For these reasons, both sites are considered to have a very low risk of surface fault rupture. The sites will be likely subjected to strong groundshaking, as will other nearby sites. Structures planned for the sites will be designed to resist strong groundshaking in accordance with the applicable codes and local design practice. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for a description of the modified San Leandro Alternative and the reduced number of beds that could be developed in response to the reduced juvenile detention population during the past year. The population centers and relative average travel distances to each of the alternative sites is described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and the impacts of this travel are included in the transportation, noise, air quality, environmental justice, and other sections of the analysis. The comparison of alternatives provided in the summary table in the Draft EIS/EIR provides a quick reference to environmental issues at each site under consideration. The Draft EIS/EIR identified the Pardee/Swan site as the envirom'nentally preferred alternative. The County Board of Supervisors and U.S. Department of Justice will consider this information as well as other technical, legal, social, and economic factors when deciding which project to pursue. Please see the Master Responses at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for a discussion of changes to the preferred and enviromnentally superior alternatives. Response to Comment 44-20 (comment submitted by L. Eade) A new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin would have certain transportation-related impacts as a result of its location, as discussed in Chapters 9 and 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The environmental justice / economic hardship aspects of the project location are considered potentially significant impacts that would require mitigation. The fiscal impact of the projects on governmental agencies is a consideration that would be part of the lead agencies' decisiOn-making process when it selects a preferred site, and ultimately when they approve a project. Earthquake hazards are addressed in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Neither of the Dublin sites is within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone designated by the State of California. No earthquake faults have been mapped as crossing either site. For these reasons, both sites are considered to have a very low risk of surface fault rupture. The sites will be likely subjected to strong groundshaking, as Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-234 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments will other nearby sites. Structures planned for the sites will be designed to resist strong groundshaking in accordance with the applicable codes and local design practice. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity due to the development's OrientatiOn away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that wOUld be built into the prOject} and the aVailability Of SecuritY serVices at the Site. Traffic and parking impacts are evaluated in Chapter 9 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Sufficient parking is provided on the Site at the East COuntY Government Center and at Site 15A. Site 15A Would require the cOnstrUctiOn °fa Parking garage, similar to some of the office deVelOpments in the vicinity. The caseload projections for the East County Hall of Justice, contained in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR, reflect existing and projected Tri-ValleY Court CaSeS. Some Case management decisions may result in'shifting cases from one court to another. Comments in opposition to the location of the East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A are noted. Please see the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for a discussion of the County's selection of a preferred alternative. ResPonse t° comment 44:2i (comment Submitted bY EliSha CheUng) Comments in opposition to the location of a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. please see the disCUSSion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for information °n the COunty °fAlameda's identification of a preferred alternative, the modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 44-22 {comment submitted by Rowena Margan) The Juvenile Justice Facility would not be the largest in the country. The transportation patterns associated with the existing Santa Rita Jail are not directlY related to the proposed Projects. However, the County has designed the site plans to address throUgh traffic by limiting pedestrian access between Broder Blvd. (immediately adjacent to Santa Rita Jail), and the community t° the soUth, by replicating the viSUal and phySical barrier of the existing berm. In addition, detainees from the Juvenile Justice Facility would not be released into the community unsupervised, but would be released °nly into the cUstody of a responSible parent or guardian. Therefore, there would be a distinct difference from the release pattern at Santa Rita Jail, in which prisoners are released at various times of the day with no direct superviszon or provision of transportation. The number of visitors to the East County Government Center Site are estimated in Chapter 2 and Chapter 9 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The population at the Juvenile Justice Facility would fluctuate and would be temporary, as the actual number of detainees in the facility varies over time and the length of stay averages 23 days (see page 16-10 of the Draft EIS/EIR). The maximum number of detainees at any one time would be limited to 540 under the full build-out of the project. The population of Dublin is estimated to be 20,000 persons, so the Juvenile Justice Facility would represent an increase of about 2.7 percent compared to the existing population. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant imPact to the vicinity due to the develoPment's orientation away from the nearby Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-235 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. Response to Comment 44-23 (comment submitted by Ebony Richards) Comments in support of developing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. Detainees would be released into the custody of a responsible parent or guardian, and would not have home supervision in Dublin unless their family resided there. Rehabilitation is incorporated as part of the mission of the Juvenile Justice Facility, and would be supported by alternatives to incarceration that are under review and being implemented by Alameda County. No enviromnental issues are raised in this comment. Response to Comment 44-24 (comment submitted by Ananth Neddy) Earthquake hazards are addressed in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Neither of the Dublin sites is within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone designated by the State of California. No earthquake faults have been mapped as crossing either site. For these reasons, both sites are considered to have a very low risk of surface fault rupture. The sites will be likely subjected to strong groundshaking, as will other nearby sites. Structures planned for the sites will be designed to resist strong groundshaking in accordance with the applicable codes and local design practice. The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the land use compatibility of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at each of the alternative sites, and concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact to the vicinity due to the development's orientation away from the nearby residential areas, the security measures that would be built into the project, and the availability of security services at the site. Traffic and parking impacts are evaluated in Chapter 9 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The population centers and relative average travel distances to each of the alternative sites is described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR, and the impacts of this travel are included in the transportation, noise, air quality, environmental justice, and other sections of the analysis. Response to Comment 44-25 (comment submitted by Kasie Hildenbrand) Please see responses to comments contained in Letter 33, submitted by the commentor. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice- Final EISIEIR Page 2-236 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments 2.5 RESPONSES TO PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS, FEBRUARY 20TM, 2003 This seCtion includes the responses to the Comments receiVed atthe Alameda County BOard of Supervisors Special Meeting held in the City of Oakland on February 20th, 2003. A transcript of the hearing is included at the end of this chapter, with comments numbered as follows: 45-1 President Steele, Alameda County Board of Supervisors 45-2 ~ Marion Sims ' ~ ~ 45-3 Mike Molina 45-4 Olis Simmons 45-5 Tory Becker 45-6 Emil Dupont 45-7 Arytey Welbeck 45-8 Nicole Lee 45-9 David Kahn 45-10 Khadine Bennet 45-11 Rocio Nieves 45-12 Marls Arnold 45-13 Todd Davies 45-14 May Saephanh 45-16 Justin Bojorquez 45-17 David Haubert 45-18 Kasie Hildenbrand 45- t 9 Sarah Jarmon 45-20 Tiffic 45-21 Ari Wohlfeiler 45-22 Rachel lackson 45-23 Calvin King Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-237 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 45-1 (comment submitted by President Steele) Comment noted. The President of the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Gail Steele, introduced the meeting and speakers for the meeting held February 20, 2003. No response is required. Response to Comment 45-2 (comment submitted by Marion Sims) Comments in support of developing a new Juvenile Justice Facility are noted. Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft EIS/EIR present the project need and a description of the alternatives that are under consideration. The Board of Supervisors and U.S. Department of Justice will consider this information, along with other technical, social, legal, and economic factors as part of their decision-making process. Response to Comment 45-3 (comment submitted by Mike Molina) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-4 (comment submitted by Olis Simmons) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draf~ EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-5 (comment submitted by Tory Becker) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-238 Chapter 2: Responses to comments and these on-going efforts currently implemented by Alameda County may continue to be implemented whether or not the proposed Project is approved. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of'this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-6 (comment submitted'by Emil Dupont) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel fOr VisitOi:s to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it develoPed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. RespOnse to comment 45-7 (comment sUbmitted by Arytey Welbeck) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential diffiCultY of traVel for VisiiOrs to 'the JuVenile JuStice FaCili~ if it deVel°Ped at tile Eiit County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented bY Alameda' CoUnty as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to COmment 45-8 (comment submitted by Nicole Lee) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for viSitors to the jUvenile Justice Facility if it deVelOped at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the SeleCtion proCeSs for the preferred altemative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-9 (comment submitted by DaVid gahn) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR page 2-239 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-10 (comment submitted by Khadine Bennet) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45.11 (comment submitted by Rocio Nieves) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the begirming of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-12 (comment submitted by Marls Arnold) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-240 Chapter 2i Responses to Comments Response to Comment 45-13 (comment submitted by Todd Davies) Comments in opposition to conStruCting a neW Juvenile JUstice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the disCuSsion atthe b~ginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 4544 (comment submitted by Miarri Glass) comments in °pPOSiti°n t°C°nstmCting a new juvenile Justice FaCilitY in DUblin are noted. The potential difficultY of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as deSCribed in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. AlternatiVes to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as eXplained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the Selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-15 (comment submitted by May Saephanh) comments in OppOsitiOn to ConStrUcting a neTM JuVenile JuStice FacilitY in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it deVeloped at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that WOuld reqUire mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are beingimplemented bY Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-~6 (comment submitted by Justin Bojorquez} Comments in OppOSition to constrUcting a new juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. There woUld be no sight or sound contact between Santa Rita Jail and the juvenile detention facility. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-241 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-17 (comment submitted by David Haubert) Please see responses to comment letter 32, submitted by the same commentor. Response to Comment 45-18 (comment submitted by Kasie Hildenbrand) Please see responses to comment letter 33, submitted by the same commentor. Response to Comment 45-19 (comment submitted by Sarah Jarmon) The No Project / No Action alternative would have fewer environmental impacts, compared to other "build" alternatives, but would result in a significant unavoidable environmental justice impact due to the conditions present at the existing juvenile hall facility in San Leandro. Although alternatives to detention could reduce the detained population, an alternative facility is necessary to address the fact that some minors will require detention and temporary housing within a juvenile facility, according to the County's mandated role in the juvenile justice system. Response to Comment 45-20 (comment submitted by Tiffic) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. There would be no sight or sound contact between Santa Rita Jail and the juvenile detention facility. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to Comment 45-21 (comment submitted by Ari Wohlfeiler) Comments in opposition to constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The potential difficulty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Alternatives to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County as explained in Response to Comment 45-4. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. There would be no sight or sound contact between Santa Rita Jail and the juvenile detention facility. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the selection process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2:242 Chapter 2: Responses to Comments Response to Comment 45-22 (comment submitted by Rachel Jackson) Comments in oppOsition to constructing a new jUVenile Justice Facility in Dublin are noted. The site selection process, public Scoping meetings, and other relevant actions of the lead agenCies as they pertain to the environmental analysis are summarized in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The potential diffic'hlty of travel for visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility if it developed at the East County Government Center site is acknowledged and considered a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation, as described in Chapter 16 of the Draft EIS/EIR. AlternatiVes to detention are under consideration and are being implemented by Alameda County. However, those activities are not evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR because they are not a part of this project. There would be no sight or sound contact between Santa Rita Jail and the juvenile detention facility. Please see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 2 of this Final EIS/EIR for an explanation of the seleCtion process for the preferred alternative and the consideration of a modified San Leandro Alternative. Response to comment 45'23 (c°mment submitted bY calvin King) Comments nOted. No environmental iSsues are raised, so nO response is prOvided. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Final EIS/EIR Page 2-243