Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02251992 - TC.2 --- ..0 - `E...: ._-__oma TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' C�.J111 FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DATE: February 10, 1992 Canty SUBJECT: Report on comments for the Martinez/Benicia Bridge System Project Draft EIS/EIR. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign and transmit the attached letter (Exhibit A) providing comments on the Martinez/Benicia Bridge System Project Draft EIS/EIR. FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On December 17, the Board of Supervisors requested the Community Development and Public Works Departments to submit coordinated comments on the subject document for approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Transportation Committee has reviewed these comments and supports their approval by the Board of Supervisors, see Exhibit A. These comments were prepared following consultation with each member of the Board and are consistent with the comments prepared by the staff of the Contra Costa.Transportation Authority which are also attached for your information (see Exhibits B and C) . Please note that we are recommending transmittal of courtesy copies of the County's comments to the CCTA, the Solano Transportation Authority, Preston Kelly (District 4 ' Caltrans Director) , and our state legislative delegation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER /ane /dn j�s� SIGNATURE(S) : Schroder Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ c OTHER L VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Public Works Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLtRK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY ltrans/ml/marben.bos t Phil Batchelor The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board and County Administration BuildingCosta County Administrator �J 651 Pine St., Room 106 (415)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553 County Tom Powers,1 st District c Nancy C.Fanden,2nd District ....---•--.�_-•o,. Robert I.Schroder,3rd District Sunne Wright McPeak 4th District n; :a Tom Torlakson,5th District °7j _ ... ;.`.'"•` i February 25', 1992 Ms. Cynthia Adams Senior Environmental Planner Environmental Analysis Branch A Caltrans District 4 P.O. Box 7310 San Francisco, CA 94120 Dear Ms. Adams: This letter, which have been endorsed by the Board of Supervisors, provides comments from the County of Contra Costa on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Project. The Board wishes to state first that we support a second span for the Martinez-Benicia Bridge. However, additional information is needed before the preferred project can be defined. The County shares the concerns of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) , our congestion management agency, regarding the funding shortfalls described for the project. The preferred project covered by the DEIS/EIR should be supported by realistic funding assumptions, especially in view of the large unmet needs elsewhere in Contra Costa County. The County shares the concerns of the Authority regarding the need for a system-wide analysis for the entire area affected by the project. As a minimum, the corridors that should be analyzed should include: 1. I-680 between the Rudgear Road interchange and I-80; 2. I-80 between the proposed Atlas Road interchange near Richmond and some point east of State Route 12 East in Fairfield; and 3. I-780 for its entire length. The Level of Service (LOS) of adjoining freeway segments could be significantly worse, particularly since affected segments such as the I-680/SR 24 interchange are designed to meet Year 2005 volumes and this project is designed for Year 2015 volumes, Yet, it is highly unlikely that another major modification of the I-680/SR24 interchange could occur by 2015. Cynthia Adams Letter February 25, 1992 Page 2 The DEIS/EIR should be revised to consider evaluating the following .alternatives based on the system-wide analysis, with the thought that any future bridge structure should allow pedestrian/bicycle access as required by BCDC Permit No. 19-87, and accommodate the provision of a future transit facility: 1. An alternative that includes no additional transportation improvements beyond those funded with Regional Measure 1 revenues and those already programmed by the State. This should include an operational analysis; 2 . An alternative that includes transportation control measures in regions' Clean Air Plan, such as increased transit services high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) bypass and ramp metering facilities, park and ride lots, and employer-based ridesharing strategies designed to help achieve the regions' average vehicle ridership goal; and 3. A transit-only alternative, which assumes that all additional capacity provided on the new span is for HOV, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. The transit alternative should be expanded further north to include the I-80/SR 12 East interchange area to encompass some of the greatest congestion addressed by the project, rather than be limited to the Benicia area as described in the referenced Benicia-Martinez Traffic Study Report. Consideration should also be given to transit connections south of the Pleasant Hill BART station area to serve employment centers in the Tri-Valley area. Funding for such an alternative is within possibility considering the funding flexibility provided be the Interstate Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act. . 4. The system-wide analysis and consideration of the above alternatives should provide the basis for defining an environmentally superior alternative as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The system-wide analysis should re-examine some of the technical assumptions used in the Benicia-Martinez Traffic Study Report. The treatment of school trips on Page 5-31 of that report may underestimate AM peak hour trips which typically include many school trips. This is particularly significant considering development of the new State University in Concord. The treatment of trip attraction rates may Iunderestimate average trip length since employment projections are not constrained in Contra Costa and Solano counties as they were for the rest of the Bay Area. This actually. may provide 'a best-case analysis since more jobs in Solano and Contra Costa counties .would capture more employed residents of these counties, reducing traffic increases across the Cynthia Adams Letter February 25, 1992 Page 3 river. Table 6-1 does not include the planned widening to State Route 4 east of I-80 which may influence traffic flow between the Carquinez and Benicia-Martinez bridges. The alternative of a new bridge between the existing vehicular and rail bridges should be re-examined. Using a steel truss bridge design similar to Figure 3-6, five travel lanes plus shoulders could be accommodated on the upper deck, with transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access on the lower deck, all within a nominal 80 foot width. The fact that this alternative would preclude options to widen the new bridge or the existing span for some future project beyond transit or pedestrian-bicycle access should not be considered a fatal flaw. Costly grade separations for elevating a transit line from the I-680 median would be avoided if transit used the lower deck. The higher construction costs due to the confined work space should be compared with potential lower costs from a less spread-out I-680/780 interchange. This bridge location alternative could also affect recommendations on toll plaza location. In 1989, the Board adopted a resolution (89-182) opposing relocation of the toll plaza to Contra Costa. This position is largely based on the need to meter the flow on traffic into Contra Costa (recognizing downstream capacity constraints) , and to encourage the use of HOV's. The Board recognizes that this issue is closely tied with toll plaza location and operation on the Carquinez Bridges. As such, this document requires a more through analysis, including environmental delay, air quality, energy consumption and construction costs, of toll plaza location and operation alternatives for the Carquinez Bridge. . The DEIS/EIR should fully explore and consider toll collection or mainline metering in the southbound direction (with HOV bypass lanes) to respect down stream capacity constraints on both I-80 and I-680. Page 3-2 describes provisions for ramp metering. The DEIS/EIR needs to examine the operation of parallel local facilities with ramp metering in place. Mitigation measures should be recommended as appropriate. Each bridge alignment needs to be evaluated for their impact on marine operations, potential short- and long-term sedimentation impacts, and the potential to compromise the safety of docking operations. These concerns are raised in part from the County's work with the Army - Corps of Engineers on the San Francisco to Stockton Ship Channel Project which will allow the use of larger tankers and reduce the occurrence of lightering. Mitigation of impacts to marine operations should be included in the cost comparisons of alternatives. Cynthia Adams Letter February 25, 1992 Page 4 The County does not support the western bridge alignment due to the potential impact to adjacent businesses. Additional information in needed regarding -the project's impact on Tosco's future operations, such as its transshipment capabilities and its ability to construct additional storage facilities as mentioned on Page 7-2 . Land for tank replacement may not be available. The County supports the full diamond interchange at Pacheco Boulevard to reduce traffic impacts for the Arthur Road neighborhood. The DEIS/EIR does not adequately address the operation of the I- 680/State Route 4 interchange. operational problems associated with weaving movements on I-680 and on State Route 4 need to be evaluated and resolved. Plate 4 indicates a tighter turning radius than currently exists for the southbound off-ramp at Marina Vista. The impact of this design on traffic safety should be addressed. Extending the auxiliary lane approaching the curve may not sufficiently reduce the approach speed of exiting vehicles. In-kind replacement of wetland habitat should follow the County's General Plan goal of three acres of replacement habitat for each acre lost. This goal is to be adjusted based on the relative values of the acreages lost and gained. The DEIS/EIR should assess whether Caltrans policy on replacement planting is adequate mitigation. The County further supports the use of drought tolerant native plants and wildflowers for replacement planting, consistent with the County General Plan. Visual impacts are particularly important since I-680 is a major gateway into Contra Costa. Additional photo-simulation is needed on I-680 through Contra Costa given the right-of-way constraints described on Page 7-134. Recent freeway construction in the area as heightened the County's concern with the visual impact of landscape removal and soundwall construction. Environmental regulations prohibit use of mitigation measures recommended for flooding problems in the Peyton Slough area. The County is concerned about the ability to comment on the project after the preferred project is defined. The project description consists of several alternatives; and the impacts of the project vary significantly among these alternatives and their associated mitigation measures. It will be difficult to achieve full disclosure of ,the proposed action to the public and allow for appropriate comment when a discrete and finite project is not defined until after the DEIS/EIR is circulated. . A more definitive project description should be provided with an opportunity for additional public input before a final EIS/EIR is certified. Cynthia Adams Letter February 25, 1992 Page 5 The County provides these comments to help prepare a more adequate and complete environmental document. If you have any questions about this letter, or would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Mr. Steven Goetz in our Community Development Department at 510-646-2131. S i nT rel ')-0 ,5 � Sunne Wright McPeak, Chair Board of Supervisors cc: P. Kelly, Caltrans E. Munn, CCTA Senator Boatwright Assemblyman Baker Assemblyman Campbell Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Chair, Solano Transportation Authority.