The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.3 NLivermoreGPA&DraftEIR ~ It e CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 26, 1993 SUBJECT: Comments on North Livermore Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Report REPORT PREPARED BY: u:, RECOMMENDATION: ~ Dennis Carrington, senior Planner A.~Letter dated June 10, 1993 from Susan Frost B. ~staff comments on Draft GPA and EIR C. ~North Livermore Land Use Plan Receive report and authorize Staff to send comments to the eity of Livermore EXHIBITS ATTACHED: FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: On June 10, 1993, Susan Frost, Associate Planner for the City of Livermore, sent a copy of the North Livermore General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for review and comments. The comments on the DEIR are due on or before July 27, 1993. The proposed North Livermore General Plan Amendment area contains approximately 14,600 acres. The project proposes 12,780 dwelling units, 13,000 jobs and a population of 30,000. Work on the North Livermore GPA began in 1988 with the appointment of a twelve member citizens Advisory Committee. In 1989 the Committee completed a plan which proposed to accommodate a population of 51,000 persons and 8.75 million square feet of commercial, office and industrial building floor area. Following the 1989 election, the eouncil appointed a four member sub-committee consisting of two Council and two Planning Commission members to re-examine the recommended amendment. The sub- committee revised the plan in 1990 and established four population alternatives consisting of 10,000; 20,000; 30,000; and 45,000 persons. The eouncil ultimately decided to proceed with the 30,000 population alternative. This alternative subsequently evolved into the current proposal and associated EIR. Attached are the Staff comments on the Draft GPA and Draft EIR for review and comment by the City Council /NLIV1 --------~-~--------------------------------------------- ITEM NO.~ COPIES TO: Senior Planner Agenda File Susan Frost Brenda Gillarde I CITY CLERK . .,.. --. --. " -t < o ~ e e ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 (510) 373-5200 NOTICE OF COl\1PLETION DRAFf PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL Il\1PACT REPORT TO: All Interested Persons PROJECT TITLE: North Livermore General Plan Amendment Study PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Livermore PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The North Livermore General Plan Amendment will establish the amount, mix and pattern of future land uses and major circulation systems for the 14,600 acre area north of 1-580, east of Fallon Road, south of the Contra Costa County line, and west of Springtownand the Altamont Hills. The project includes approximately 11,600 households and a maximum population of 30,000 persons coupled with an open space preservation program. LEAD AGENCY: City of Livermore, Planning Department, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California 94550. AVAILABILITY: Copies of the Draft Program EIR are available at the Livermore Planning Department, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California. REVIEW PERIOD: Written comments on the Draft Program EIR will be accepted untilJuly 27, 1993, a 45-day review period. Pl~se send your response to Susan Frost, Associate Planner, at the address shown above. Date: June 10, 1993 Signature ~. ,~ Title: Associate Planner Telephone: (510) 373-5200 EX. A IU~RMOR~ e e July 22, 1993 Ms. Susan Frost Associate Planner City of Livermore Planning Department 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 SUBJEeT: Comments on the Draft North Livermore Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Report. Dear Ms. Frost: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft GPA and Draft EIR. eomments on the Draft North Livermore GPA and Draft ~IR will be made separately in this letter. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The Draft GPA contains two policies of concern to the City of Dublin: General Land Use Policy 7. This policy is of importance to both the eity of Dublin and the eity of Livermore and it is important that it be as clear as possible. The first sentence of the policy indicates that the' city of Livermore shall petition LAFCO to amend its Sphere of Influence Boundary to encompass the entire planning area, with the long-range intent of gradual annexation to the eity. An examination of the Land Use Plan for the project shows that it encompasses all but a small portion of the land up to the easterly Sphere of Influence line of the City of Dublin, including Doolan Canyon. The second sentence states that if the City of Dublin does not seek to include Doolan Canyon within its Sphere of Influence and the County maintains an Agriculture or similar designation for the area, the eity of Livermore shall not seek to include Doolan eanyon within its Sphere of Influence. The two sentences are contradictory. One says to include Doolan eanyon within the Sphere of Influence and the other says not to. This policy should be clarified. Regional Circulation System Policy 3. This policy states that it shall be the eity's policy that State Route 84, if extended north of 1-580 in the future, shall not traverse the North Livermore area or impact the planned villages. The third paragraph on page 67 of the GPA text states that studies are underway to realign the southern portion of SR 84 within Livermore to follow a new alignment which would connect with I-580 between the Airway and North Livermore interchanges. ongoing studies by Cal Trans, the Toll Road eompany and the TVTC indicate that a route though North Livermore for SR84 is necessary. Furthermore, it would seem logical that SR 84 would continue to the north, traversing the North Livermore Planning Area. This policy should be clarified. EXHIBIT B e e DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City of Dublin's comments about the Draft EIR concern section 4.5, Transportation and eirculation. Regional Roadway Access. Page 4.5-2, first paragraph. The third sentence states that the proposed extension of SR84 through the project area north of 1-580 has been withdrawn. This is not correct. As stated above Cal Trans, the Toll Road Company and the TVTC are looking at SR84 through the planning area north of I-580 at the present time. Impacts of project on the city of Dublin. circulation impacts on the city of Dublin were These impacts should be studied and mitigation as necessary. Transportation and not analyzed in the EIR. measures proposed and funded Projected Roadway Network. Page 4.5-7, second paragraph. The roadway network assumed to be in place for the year 2010 includes several facilities which are not fully funded. Programmed locally funded projects in each jurisdiction's CIP and in the CMP's CIP are not assured because there is no assurance that necessary funding for the CIP's will be available. Future projects shown in the local General Plans or other approved planning documents are likewise not assured due to the lack of funding for the proposed developments. Additionally, the reference to Measure C should be changed to Measure B. Measure B funding is not assured due to the need for matching funds. Furthermore, the report does not specify funding by the project to mitigate impacts to facilities by the project. Figure 4.5-7. The ADT volumes are different from the volumes shown in the Tri-Valley model. For example, North Livermore Avenue north of I-580 is shown as 32,600. It is shown as 53,000 in the Tri-Valley model. No volume/ADT counts were prepared for North eanyons Parkway where it becomes Dublin Boulevard. The same problem exists for I-580 for which no traffic counts are available west of Collier Canyon Road. Table 4.5.3 and Table 4.5.6. Table 4.5.3 "Roadway Volumes and Service Levels 2010 eonditions without Project" and Table 4.5.6 "Roadway Volumes and Service Levels 2010 eonditions with Project" show that, without adding any additional facilities or capacities, levels of service went down in some segments of I-580 and some roadways after adding a population of 30,000 to the area. This reduction in LOS should be verified by evidence within the body of the EIR. Regional Facilities. Page 4.5-17, third paragraph. This paragraph states that implementation of the project results in beneficial impacts to I-580 between North Livermore Avenue and First Street (LOS F to LOS D) and I-580 between Vasco and Greenville (LOS D to LOS C) by increasing the level of services for these regional facilities. How was this accomplished? How can the LOS improve without any additional improvements after adding more than 30,000 people to the area? e e Figure 4.5-6. An analysis of ADT's from Figures 4.5-6 and 4.5-7 indicates that I-580 should have 10 lanes. How will the additional lanes be provided or funded? Based on Figure 4.5-4 and TVTe ADT's Vasco Road should be 8 lanes from I-580 to North Canyons Parkway. Other roadways in Livermore and regional roads should have their lane capacities changed as well. How will these facilities be funded? Also, how will regional facilities be funded? Figure 4.5-4. The figure shows that the ADT for LOS D for four lanes on Vasco Road is 32,500 and for four lanes on North Livermore Avenue is 30,200. Why is there this discrepancy? Regional Facilities. Page 4.5-22, second paragraph. The project would add a population of 30,000 to the area yet no improvements are proposed to be made to regional facilities. How will the impacts of such an increase in population be mitigated? Transit Service Policies. Page 4.5-24, Policy 25. How will improvements to LAVTA be funded? Reconfiguration/Widening of Roadways. Page 4.5-25, Policy 3. See second comment on GPA above. Mitigation Incorporated into the Project. Page 4.5-26, Policy 4. This policy says that North Livermore avenue north of Isabel Parkway shall not be widened and shall remain as a two lane rural road. This policy ignores obvious regional transportation deficiencies and dumps them on an already overburdened I-580, I-680 and the I-580/1-680 interchange. In spite of policies (especially policies 2,4 and 5) to not widen roadways or extend roadways and send local and regional traffic to the freeways, LOS . standards for 1-580 improve with the project. Verification of this should be shown in the EIR. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner: Mehran Sepehri, Senior eivil Engineer or me. Sincerely yours, Laurence L. Tong Planning Director LLT/DHe cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works Mehran Sepehri, Senior civil Engineer Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County Planning Director /NLIV2 e e ...0 , ~ o > . z. " - .~_. v. -- ........-j .. \ ..~ ~y..,----_.:.:.'::' J~ 't~ E9:ll~ ![f ;r ,-r> gU ~J~~I !nl: I 3a~~ :,.:: 8wl~~~~oomlll~~lf lWilli!lllll!1 ~;--;::;.n g-~-~ R 5. s CJ S Cs z ~ 2- 0 .., .., 3~::!. 2 ~...J ~:Jr n ;J> <" ~9~ ;::::-- ro :j :; ;:l 0 ::l P. '"' "::i' 3 ro ro ;:l ~ r ~ z a c (j) rn i - CD - ...... ~ r~-f ~.: -:: ~ --:; " ::-::. II! .:':... ~ it ~~ ....... 'I.) r ::r> z