Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11121996 - D1 (7) t - t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY •titi COUl`j'� t t FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment GPA #96-0001 Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Amendment SP #96-0001 t t Windemere - Phase I Gale Ranch - Phase II Rezoning with Preliminary Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 953032 Development Plan 953033 Vesting Subdivision #7976 Vesting Subdivision #7984 Final Development Plan 953064 Final Development Plan 953086 SCH# 96013003 k t i 1 This Page Left � \ Intentionally Blank 1 1 i Chapter I. Introduction PURPOSE AND FORMAT OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 This final environmental impact report (Final EIR) has been prepared to respond to comments received by Contra Costa County on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for proposed amendments to the Dougherty Valley General Plan and Specific Plan along with the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I land development project(September 1996)(Draft SEIR. After completion of the Draft SEIR, Contra Costa County (County) is required to consult with, and obtain comments from, public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed project and to provide the public with opportunities to comment on the Draft SEIR. The County is also required to respond to comments raised during the consultation and public review period �) concerning significant environmental impacts associated with the project (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15088). The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review on August 30 1996 and the review period closed on October 14, 1996. • This document has been prepared in the form of an "attachment or addendum" to the t Draft Subsequent EIR as allowed b Section 15146 b of the State CEQA Guidelines. q Y O Q This document consists of the comments received on the Draft EIR, the responses and a Section that contains the modification to the Draft Subsequent EIR. This document, together with the Draft EIR and technical appendices (herein incorporated by reference), and the 1992 EIR constitutes the Final EIR. The Draft EIR should be referenced as needed in conjunction with the use of this document. This Final EIR contains the following elements: • the Draft SEIR(dated August, 1996 and bound separately); • a list of persons, organizations,and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR; • copies of written comments and a summary of verbal comments made at a special public hearing held by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator on Sepember 23, 1996; • a modifications section that clarifies and corrects the text of the Draft SEIR in response to comments, including revised portions of the Draft SEIR; • a summary of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreements; • an Acoustical Engineer's Study,and • an Air Quality Study. This document does not include the proposed environmental impact findings and mitigation monitoring program,which will be adopted by the County Board of Supervisors as part of the Final EIR'S certification before the project may be approved(Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Guidelines 15091 [a][1]) Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, I-1 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 i i This Page Left Intentionally Blank i� i1 I Chapter H. Comments and Responses Introduction This chapter contains a list of persons,organizations,and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR. This list is followed by copies of written comments and a summary of verbal comments made at a special public hearing held by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator on September 23, 1996 and at the Planning Commission hearing held on October 8, 1996,with each comment identified by number. Each comment letter or comment summary is followed by responses to the numerically identified comment. Responses that state that a change to the Draft SEIR has been made refer to Chapter III of this document,"Modifications to the Draft SEIR", in which these changes are contained. 1- List of Persons, Organizations and Public Agencies Commenting on the Draft EIR LETTER DATE SOURCE 1 10/09/96 City of Dublin 2 10/14/96 City of San Ramon 3 10/14/96 Town of Danville 4 10/14/96 San Ramon ValleyUnified School District 5 08/06/96 San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District 6 09/20/96 LAFCO 7 10/11/96 The County Connection(CCCTA) 8 10/04/96 East Bay Regional Park District 9 10/08/96 East Bay Municipal Utility District 10 10/09/96 California Department of Fish and Game 11 10/14/96 Regional Water Quality Control Board 12 10/08/96 Carlson,Barbee& Gibson,Inc. 13 10/10/96 Gayle and John Bishop 14 09/09/96 Elizabeth Pforr 15 10/14/96 Shapell Industries of Northern California 16 09/24/96 Windemere Ranch Partners 17 10/14/96 Mount Diablo Chapter, Sierra Club 18 10/10/96 Northwest Resource Information Center 19 10/09/96 P.G.&E. 20 10/11/96 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ZA-1 09/23/96 Zoning Administration Meeting Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-1 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch ll, Windemere I November 1996 --I r VL��, VL as -- 75 :4All CIO 46 It 11 r L4 1m 4�d E ?p uron 12 U9 > SaSo� rob U 10 Elm I H H 10 V- -l­JT:A C4SiA E SG OrT-9 PH 5:47 P.6 ma 5iT DtPt 0� 9 ILI HAW, AP lot 5 E 2 eQ Us Rio WI 0 ci > 10 a3 CD ta U 0 rz fa L; zw bd cn A H I li g. .42 V AN ov d co CA VIA VO i� eo vo % 1p N T�rN e•�C3 1 va, is tk uA 0..0 ca .1 All tsl-t a 0 41 - *5 A .0 0 o 114 55A % �t I co r Ca "0 Ile— le u C4 VO le le le y C .7+9 ?. 0 % 'I t A 00, 41 % 'A 0 44 s �1 g4 t-A W Cu ,g Age Q cl� 0, -lit Ve rd 03; via M N M • e '^ U `• Ito lit A 11� b � 'eh -� iA W-41 Responses to Comments of the City of Dublin 1-1 This comment expresses support for Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 and Alternative 4. No response is required. 1-2 Existing Dougherty Road is to remain open during construction of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects until such time as Bollinger Canyon Road is completed from its north Dougherty Road intersection to its south Dougherty Road intersection. When that segment of Bollinger Canyon Road is completed, the segment of,Dougherty Road between the north and south Bollinger Canyon Road may be closed. At that point in time,vehicles traveling on Dougherty Road between Dublin and Crow Canyon Road will use the segment of Bollinger Canyon Road in the Windemere I project and adjacent portion of the Gale Ranch II project. It is not anticipated that buildout of the circulation system for the Gale Ranch II or Windemere I projects will result in construction traffic impacts in Dublin. Infrastructure needed to serve Dougherty Valley also involves road improvement to impacted intersections, construction of conveyance facilities for potable water, recycled water and waste water. Depending on the service provider, some construction may be required in Dublin. These potential impacts are analyzed in the Draft Subsequent EIR(see pages 4.2-40 through 4.2-43). 1-3 The Tri-Valley area has several large employment centers, but is characterized by a shortage of affordable housing. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program contain broad goals and policies, and specific measures with the intent of assuring that a substantial part of the region's need for housing affordability is met by Dougherty Valley (see the Draft Subsequent EIR discussion of affordable housing commencing on page 4.12-7). As envisioned by the Specific Plan, affordable housing in Dougherty Valley will be stratigecally located a short distance.east of Bishop Ranch.and a short distance north of the Hacienda Business Park. Additionally, mixed land uses are planned for the village- center, where high density housing is within walking distance of retail stores. Other commercial uses are located within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. 1-4 The comment supports approval of an alternative that is presented in the Draft Subsequent EIR(see page 5-9). No response is required. 1-5 Refer to Response to Comment 10-1 for information on the Administrative Draft HMP prepared by LSA Associates for Windemere Partners, the purpose of an HCP, and recommended revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 of the DSEIR. Alternative 1 of the DSEIR was based on the preliminary recommendations contained in the preliminary HMP for the Windemere site. As indicated on page 4.7-18 of the DSEIR, the USFWS entered into an agreement with Shapell Industries in 1993 which states that development of Gale Ranch is not likely to adversely affect kit fox and that no formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be required unless new information on kit fox occurrence demonstrates that the species could be affected by development. A copy of the preliminary draft HMP is available for review at the County Community Development Department offices. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-2 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch A Windemere I November 1996 1-6 The 1992 EIR analyzed impacted intersections in the City of Dublin. The purpose of the Draft Subsequent EIR was to update information in the previous EIR as needed, as well as analyze the impacts specific to the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I land development projects. Mitigation measures in the 1992 EIR are still operative, including traffic impacts/mitigation measures 6, 7 and 8 (see Draft Subsequent EIR, pages 4.6-15 and-16 for a summary of the environmental analysis from the 1992 EIR. 1-7 The figures referenced by the comment presents peak hour traffic generated by the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Table 4.6-5 forecasts 2010 levels of service, assuming no mitigation. Intersections 20,21 and 22 show the effect of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects on LOS. Additional documentation on the effect of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects on the intersections analyzed is provided in the technical appendix. The commentor should also refer to the 1992 EIR for assessment of traffic volumes from full buildout of the Dougherty Valley planning area. 1-8 This EIR in combination with the 1992 EIR, defines the full range of traffic impacts and mitigation measures that will require financial participation by the project c proponents.The determination of approach/requirements for financingimprovements will be addressed in the Conditions of Approval. 1-9 This subject is to be addressed with subsequent development applications. The pending Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects will not trigger widening. The traffic mitigation fees paid by these projects will be used to mitigate significant impacts created by project-generated traffic. 1-10 The EIR has assumed that six lanes south of the Alameda-Contra Costa County line is adequate to carry the anticipated traffic, per the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The applicants will be responsible for their fair share of such improvements. 1=11 See response to comment 1-6. 1-12 The Draft Subsequent EIR was intended to address impacts not considered by the 1992 EIR,as well as impacts specific to the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Refer to the 1992 EIR for assessment of the Windemere Parkway extension to Tassajara Road. 1-13 Revenues generated through the Transportation Development ? (TDA), which transit operators receive, are based on the population of their.service area. As Dougherty Valley adds to the population of the transit operators service area, the operator will receive more TDA revenue. The Draft SEIR has identified transit-related significant impacts and mitigation measures. The funding of transit service is best addressed through the Conditions of Approval. 1 1-14- The Draft Subsequent EIR, in combination with the 1992 EIR, defines the full range of impacts and mitigation measures associated with the pending projects. The phasing for the specific mitigation measures will be determined with the standard review by Public Works for each set of improvement plans/final maps. 1-15 The FEMA study is not sufficiently detailed to serve as the basis for design level analyses. Detention basins in the Dougherty Valley project will be designed using Dougherty Valley GPA&SP. II-3 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch A Windemere 1 November 1996 hydrology models, parameters and construction standards acceptable to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. �. 1-16 Concur with the comment. This recommendation from the City of Dublin is the thrust of mitigation measure 10.1, which is presented on page 10-11 .of the 1992 EIR. This mitigation measure remains in effect. 1-17 Concur with comment. Mitigation Measure 10.1 (page 10-11 of the 1992 EIR) states that "detention basin designs should involve coordination with Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(ACFCWCD)prior to final design". 1-18 The detention basins developed in Dougherty Valley shall be designed so that development in the Specific Plan area will not increase flows above 4,670 cfs at the County line during peak runoff from the 100-year storm. This criteria must be met throughout the construction period and following buildout. Mitigation Measure (1992) 10.1 and the Condition of Approval address this issue. 1-19 The soils investigation recommended by the City of Dublin is a routine part of the final design process. Upon approval of the Final Development Plans for Windemere I and Gale Ranch II, hydrology and geologic/soils studies will be undertaken for the detention t basins. Those detailed studies will provide constraints on the design of the basins. ' 1-20 The standards of the Flood Control District would not allow runoff exiting a detention basin to sheetflow across a public road. The emergency spillway for Basin C could be designed as a culvert which would convey runoff across the Bollinger Canyon right-of- way, discharging directly into the channel of Alamo Creek. The design of the control structure is a part of the final design. These are engineering details that are not normally a part of the environmental review process. 1-21 Future phases of the Windemere Ranch Partners project and Shapell's Gale Ranch project will be required to keep flows at the County line to or at below current (pre- development)flows,which have been established to be 4,670 cfs for the 100-year event. Hydrology studies will be required when those projects are being processed. They may require increasing the size of basins in the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, or additional basins will be required. 1-22 Comment noted. There is an existing pedestrian bridge across San Ramon Creek through Hap McGee Ranch Park in Danville. This bridge, which is located on the Las Trampas-Mt. Diablo regional trail, illustrates the feasibility/practically of constructing a pedestrian-only bridge. It requires appropriate design and quality construction. 1-23 The comment notes that if the transit corridor shown in Figure 5-6 of the Draft Subsequent EIR were shifted to the east side of the Bollinger Canyon corridor, fewer units would be exposed to transit-related noise. However, it should be noted that a location on the west side of the road places the corridor adjacent to high density development,the village center and the community college. Where the transit corridor is adjacent to sensitive receptors, use of solid, noise barrier walls would be appropriate to control transit-related noise. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-4 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 1-24 Figure 13 of the Draft Specific Plan indicates a major trail on the east side of Dougherty Road at the County line. This trail extends through Dougherty Valley and intersects other planned trails in Dougherty Valley. Additionally, a ridgecrest trail is shown in t Figure 13 which trends subparallel to the east boundary of Dougherty Valley. The trails plan shows a staging area for this trail just north of the intersection of the ridgecrest trail with Windemere Parkway. The plan also suggests this trail could be extended into Alameda County. — 1-25 See response to comment 1-15. 1-26 See response to comment 1-16. 1-27 See response to.comment 1-17. T P � 1-28 See response to comment 1-18. 1-29 See response to comment 1-19. 1-30 See response to comment 1-20. 1-31 See response to comment 1-21. 1-32 See response to comment 1-22. 1-33 See response to comment 1-23. 1� r Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, - u-5 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch A W'r-demere I November 1996 .�,,' y o �N .N N � Q al 4Y, 10 rl al cr lk p:z cr Z 64 Af 06 Z v %0 CL ML V: C! 41 Pt-- ji"ll 3-F fill 0 z k -C v w < fall *1 z C, - -rig ami �O iv V5 H A N. 4 X) *-U w -.3 s sc ;913 W cu Uro v 2TCL LF) rl O o oA ; fixa `o 6- caa r IS "'4 0 �aNa E cJ, fi . R n cjr qCc�y y:.i 3 y u O a ^C• E ;�r" C a 43 :o e^5 a ° 'S - m 3y fico O c .Yi Rqq� '^• air•3 :" `, p v F O 3 y y W � � 6 v ;. v O O"Cfi .y, j _ {Y- �t a � fi R Q. ti C6 E Z L N t1 OCc Q' N c p d 6 N w - O. 1• 20 i i !To I - N r V ve c ti "? 3 C Y L y '• gv2�+L;se �a > a^ 5a v� � �••�y & '�`� `o,"_ -21 N fi 43, y u CS a n go 9 u a Sia a 'b �„ Y .,, y V V O y \ A C Jy _ e y fi K to O Ats C •C •v d Q 5 fi 1a .N•r obi L IT V~ � N Y V r+f d p Z - d 2 Q O d ft. . Ia �� C► i 1�1 Y Y ra u. la� FC .0� �p t L tl D � � �� a� W� u a u:a �•w a n S-t — ;� eg7ala yxc CE A r c 2 i <-1 D 0 C .1tt 7 4 L a O a y. . •• •• 3 :r, .tib.. �j C L7 a *s sn °` a c oc �-^ msu a c AUcz yr ga°h C7 _ & tai c " - y" 'J CA O < E � � N c cc %0 < a vi Q t F CN N N� N � 1 13 'o O y 4 a 242 Ig 3 o a h = w •a ^, _ � L Vi '. F � �� � n x O u p O s ."'J ^ lip ► �4 'S .�, n � 3 •I,�.,, � i 'tr � y. tom'+, 4 a `'`+ - � � _ v y -1 a�G C � J 3:.CCi .`a•+ � Sp '..� v '� Op.�� �v i !1 a v y� �V y � N � D �j Z w �•� � _I ✓ '� °Y y tr Q ,. It CL 1 Cr o e d w C3 120a r M M N a M N •= �, Cool y 1 •+1' l 'S ?. ��?a`� V �� v � �s o v .� o o r •� OSx O " FA O v v v--• ., `".�p R' o _ � w E a � 90 y s � 0 OO �: : '� � •n oS - . "s Z w c y3 c = Amo •� � ti-, a '� ,. u= a C `4 yc r `^ 04 N p co �r mi 7 mai i � G N O �. O 2u, "• w 6 00 i ... ^S A oo TE ac ra ac o dao oIt O A - 4t, 3 7y0 u 3 � o ,yn ? � � .. � •,, ny �•w r ^ � Sa yti a� v v ct v 4 LV oc Gpo Z .4 5 0 �O u. 0 •, o ,,,, C. a .fi.0�. w[ti 3 . 1 ,,. 2 C y 3 o U y v v ? O"t a .�r; O ?..�y C l v -t'• n a av ~ Fa�F y ,F�i? r.�CJ a " 'p � u y y = •+`�i � C� r E o=. O O q 1O g G L`JO q$ u* �-R��,� a"� ':i� C � O b-i a1 ��'1`• .�0.,,fig 4+� O u F r+y '? "0 CA co o c _. a 3 c $ a D w u U • F+�S O f N u 3 C Q a l�" N `otic p `4 C �' eC ` .�._V ti "y k OQ + N +� W"'3 v I fe i ..'o O a E J ' w a «��. 5 'y y v t rY Z , v "y Ifir 3 Z; t` G `o o*sF C) Q U .ar b O » 1 u ¢Z p QO M10 N rY , 0 0.Q 4 st v t FT s I y I v fi N A i 8 .4 0 {N?0-�i3 =v b y y c yy o _ � O � •'� 3�," j ,�, N� � �+�q o a'fisc:� V ot. 4 �tL .3 14 Cc O C '1 A t 3 ;z , tl `, b e o bo Y o Co g a q c K• n E $�y i+�• �j .+ .=�8 C •..2 F q ��" 3" "fi�'^w� J. a y i ti £`��'` >,repo tz � co ip Z srn _ !o 9- i v q�'�� U w Q cl v OC .O tl d1 io O Vf Q Uk G C r0 V) ,� 20 4 u w�+V n s+. 4 r u M L i `'•+ •` _y a�ayt E 9 L C L •� v � CD i u.��.y k•T 3 �`^� ^ � O o c G = uc ?oz z> 7j ok iT t Ho� E '" ` xN V-0 O 39 ao G.s+ Me1' ti x a o N43 No r G d O^ c $ c y 3d z Wt � cc i -3 -0 J i i v L E f u' $c �'+'- � •?�o�r.yc'� E ,o-= �';��C, y a V z �owo�, ^`s co yz off; " 5 i a. � 3o eo- i '3v ,Q y c _•��'� c,> _o �-.'� c ~C"1 -u �p a�c i ^'a� u� �A= 6 y�i�'T.. '� 4� �=G ,m y � a� y TO = „N•" re`rx ` ° ny �Uy� Y'c. W t O Hra.•�� 4.`.a`.q y� n = j ..3 � `�•��? = ti''' O A O N .O to 3 » �'(V. i � �a � 3o _yr,o •ie ha �= cco� o �v = yr.'W '� E m x'� V,�� J � � r3"yL = °� ''! L a r 5 � H;E•+� � a X J.c#C.—13 fi a Er ,4 d tQ. (� 0 rol sK aT � E 0- d i -s u O Y p n L . i Responses to Comments of the Ci of San Ramon P City 2-1 Copies of the Settlement Agreements are available for review in the offices of the County Community Development. At the request of this comment,a synopsis of the Settlement Agreements has been prepared(see Chapter IV of this response document). For a quick comparison of the approved Specific Plan with the proposed Specific Plan, see Figure 4.1-4 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The base for this map,which has been screened, is the adopted Specific Plan. The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use map is indicated with black lines. The proposed Specific Plan increases the amount of open space that is planned in Dougherty Valley by 255 acres. Overall,the proposed Specific Plan provides 3,985 acres designated as open space/parks and recreation(66.7 percent of the planning area). There do not appear to be any conflicts among the Settlement Agreements. 2-2 Table 4.1-1 is taken from the adopted Dougherty Valley Specific Plan(see Table 1 of the January 1993 Dougherty Valley Specific Plan). The difference in the total gross acres between Table 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is a minor difference in planimetering the planning area. The proposed Dougherty Valley Specific Plan estimates the total gross acreage"of the planning area to be 5,978 acres. 2-3 Figure 17 of the proposed Specific Plan titled "Community Facilities", identifies the Village Center as the site for a library, community center, community college, senior center, fire station and sheriff's substation. Outside of the village center, the.plan identifies park sites, school sites and the staging areas for trails. No sites are designated for a service center. If a service center is not provided in Dougherty Valley, equipment _ and materials used for maintaining public facilities will need to be brought into the valley (e.g. equipment used to maintain landscaped medians and street sweeping equipment). For a community the size of Douherty Valley, it is most efficient to reserve space for such uses within the community. A use of this type is normally not located within a village center, or within a residential neighborhood. In Dougherty Valley, potential sites could include locations on the urban fringe (e.g. adjacent to a detention basin or adjacent to open space). By screening with vegetation and using an architectural theme resembling a wood barn for any required structures, a service center �- could blend with adjacent open space areas. (Appendix G, page G7 shows views of two existing barns in Dougherty Valley. Structures which mimic this architectural style would enhance the historic agricultural character of the valley.) 2-4 This question does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR, but involves County policies and procedures for notifying adjacent property owners of pending �1 applications. The 300-foot notification distance is a standard used to inform neighbors of public hearings. Hearing notices are also posted in the area and published in the local newspaper. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-6 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 2-5 Correction noted. The map, which was presented at a scale of 1"=3,200', is intended to show the approximate location of District boundaries. Figure 4.2-4 indicates that the Country Club at Gale Ranch is in CCCSD;the remainder of Dougherty Valley is not in a sanitary district. The comment of the City of San Ramon regards a neighborhood in the City. The correction is hereby incorporated into the EIR. 2-6 In the proposed Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, Table 4 contains a footnote that reads as follows: If a middle school is not needed on the Shapell property, that area shall be utilized as project open space. If the middle school or high school site is not needed on the Windemere site, that area shall be utilized as W residential. 2-7 The responsibilities for providing childcare facilities are attached to individual projects, and they are not retroactive to projects which were approved prior to enactment of the childcare ordinance. 2-8 The comment from the City of San Ramon addresses the question of funding of police services in Dougherty Valley. In 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy and procedure authorizing the County to levy a special tax on new subdivisions for the purpose of augmenting police services. The tax is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel, annually. For the Dougherty Valley projects, the CSA will collect a fee for police services. As currently budgeted, this fee will be set at approximately$230/dwelling unit,but it may be adjusted in the future. 2-9 Concur with the comment. The proposed Specific Plan calls for a 72-acre community �. park. The Village Center Plan,which is presented in Figure 3-9 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, does not provide acreage figures for the land uses shown. The reference to a 70- acre community park on page 4.8-12 is incorrect. 2-10 The acoustical study performed for the 1992 EIR analyzed a Dougherty Valley project of 11,000 dwelling units distributed on the road network that links Doughrty Valley to nearby freeways. A total of 30 road segments were analyzed for the 1992 EIR. The 1992 traffic noise analysis is presented on page 8-12 of that document. The noise study for the Draft Subsequent EIR reanalyzed selected segments of that road system and found no evidence of new significant noise impacts. The acoustical engineer's report is presented in Chapter V. 2-11 The statement referred to in the Draft Subsequent EIR was intended to identify the service provider and not to pre-determine the.type of service to be installed by Pacific Bell. The use of fibre optic cable would facilitate electronic transmission of data. The nature of service to be provided has not been prescribed by Pacific Bell. 2-12 A County Service Area (CSA) would have the capability of assuming the tasks of a GRAD,provided a plan of control has been formulated and these costs incorporated into the taxes paid by property owners. However, an inadequately funded CSA would be unable to perform properly. In a major grading project such as Dougherty Valley, and with thousands of acres of ungraded open space (some of which is mantled with slide debris), there will be long-term costs to protect improvements from damage and to Impact Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, 11-7 Final Environmental mp Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 control erosion. The responsibility of the CSA to maintain open space must be defined, the costs of maintenance established, and adequate funding provided. 2-13 This comment quotes the EIR, but does not challenge its adequacy. The comment speaks to the adequacy of the Specific Plan. 2-14 There is no mention of a recycling center in the Specific Plan. As with a corporation yard, a site on the urban fringe, possibly in proximity to a corporation yard, would work best for a recycling center. 2-15 A concern of the 1992 EIR was the need for management of open space. The entity responsible for maintenance is not an environmental issue. The explanation provided by the City has provided its position on maintenance of the creek corridor and detention basins. It should be recognized that the creek corridors will be landscaped to enhance wildlife habitat capability and aesthetic values. Moreover, a trail system is proposed in the creek corridor, and potential wetland mitigation areas are identified in the Specific Plan along some reaches of creek corridors. In summary, the creek corridors are envisioned by the Specific Plan as much more than flood control structures, and since they are not included in private residential lots,they will not be maintained by a private property owner. Because of its varied functions, creek corridors will likely be maintained by the CSA. The Flood Control District is not adverse to maintaining regional detention basins (i.e. basins having capacities of>_15 ac. ft.), provided they are designed and constructed to District standards, and an adequate funding mechanism is provided. 2-16 A concern of the 1992 EIR was the need for a regional trail. The entity responsible for maintenance is not an environmental issue. Given the evaluation of the planning process since the 1992 EIR was prepared, a CSA is an appropriate entity to maintain the trail; EBRPD remains an option for maintenance of some trails and open space in the Dougherty Valley. 2-17 Concur with the thrust of the comment, that parks must be maintained. The EIR need not prescribe which entity performs maintenance. The CSA is an appropriate agency to maintain public parks in Dougherty Valley. 2-18 This comment indicates that the channel of the West Branch of Alamo Creek in the West Branch project is oversized, and the actual freeboard is substantially more that 2/3 foot. 2-19 The comment letter indicates that the County Flood Control District is the logical entity to maintain detention basins in Dougherty Valley. The District estimates maintenance costs to be $30,000 annually for .each basin. The EIR goes on to indicate that a mechanism is needed to assure perpetual maintenance. j2-20 This comment states the City of San Ramon's requirements for catch basins. It does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No response is required. 2-21 Figure 4.5-12 shows Windemere Grading. The areas to be graded as part of the Windemere I project have been shaded; areas that are not shaded are part of future phases of the project. Additionally, Figure 4.5-12 was annotated to provide information Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-8 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere 1 November 1996 on the depth of cut,thickness of fill or height of graded slopes at specific locations in the Windemere project. It also shows the line-of-section for four grading sections, which were presented in figures 4.5-13 and 4.5-14. In response to the comment of the City, a copy of Figure 4.5-12 is included in this response document(see page II-10). 2-22 This subject remains an evolving area of study. In March of 1993, the Storm Water Quality Task Force published three handbooks designed to assist agencies, business and individuals in complying with storm water permit requirements. Each of the three handbooks addresses a particular aspect of compliance: one is focused on Municipal best management practices, one is focused on Industrial best.management practices, and one is focused on Construction best management practices. In organization, substance and content, the three handbooks share a substantial common data base with some variation in the specific recommendations concerning source controls and treatment controls. With regard to Best Management Practices,those which appear to be most promising are outlined in Table II-1 BMP's are numbered but the numbers do not indicate any priority or ranking). Ultimately, the Countywide Clean Water Program will provide criteria for which BMP's are appropriate for protecting the quality of municipal runoff. 2-23 The comment addresses the geometry of the debris bench which is shown schematically in Figure 4.5-15. This buttress fill is to be constructed at the toe of major slopes on the perimeter of the urbanized portions of Dougherty Valley. It is to be an engineered fill with surface and subsurface drainage. The 2.5:1 slope proposed is consistent with the provisions of the County Grading Ordinance, and with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. See 2-26 for additional response. This gradient will conflict with the 3:1 standard of the City of San Ramon. 2-24 See Response to Comment 2-23. 2-25 Comment noted. The Gale Ranch II project is currently planned to be sheet graded as a single grading project; similarly, the Windemere I project is anticipated to be sheet . graded as a single grading project. The residential lot yield of these projects are 1,825 and 2,249 dwelling units, respectively. If the developers of each project is responsible for correcting soil/slide problems until the 400th building permit is issued, their responsibility for maintaining graded slopes and correcting slide/erosion problems in the major open space will end well before buildout of the projects is completed. 2-26 Grading of the project will occur under the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County, and it is the County's Grading Ordinance (Building Regulations, Divison 716, Chapter 71.6-2) that would be operative. That ordinance allows slopes to be as steep as 2:1 (H:V). However, a 2:1 standard is not being proposed for the Gale Ranch II or Windemere I projects. Rather, gradients have been adjusted to take into account slope heights as well as the nature of the earth materials that occur on-site,and provide for long-term stability. 'The Storm Water Task Force is an advisory body of municipal.agencies. , Dougherty valley GPA&SP, II-9 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch A Windemere I November 1996 1, � b O a OOOT ,009 0 (9661)'oul'uos91D W aagiug'uosjjuD:o3jnoS IZJ HIH quanbasgnS ayBA ti I Sq ' `a upid 2uip�aD azauzapui� z �Tgd�a� Q VsL,E*[V ssoi1 ao3 � �0 Z t'i-S't1�PUL,g a8 d suotraas ssozD 103£i-S'ti samgi3 ooS:moil Zi-5 :aanJ�t3 0 I. w � o:1/.r 1 ir. I•� :�.._.. /'1;l°,, i,!./.!J r•w II sl /,:•^ 1! '•'..":.'"_\ our �'t,•• �,ti.•' ; 1 i C \\`' t. III 8,y./I, I `;\'`1, _ './:. r,,J:S."i`.\,.1.( 1;� ,, ,t... -ore.✓! j` � / 1 ' I I 1\ 'l-- ! ,::'1(��11/I/.••. 1, tt'' :•\ / /,M1 r e ..... �'r, l •\, ~if..:'•��~ _:.:C.��1: j l ,r� .�,: ::GI::•1/.'+.r „t��l.��'\:, \ � r �'1� ,�al �. , �i r `.o<'rr •p �^': i I �1,\��'.. ,( f/4rJ !.- •J' 11..,I �\' '/`/,,' i. �'"'•' �fr\ 119 Xoiqa 199 1 .Y�`;,,.,• %.' :;J'/J .- `;\ 'i,%l/��' 'ti..- \"••f., •7(;rlJ+[rr \i� � r \ :'�:'�' �'', ' .SS ® `•\� i t`, c it fr Cl;:'♦t. �'� rJf ♦: _ •.f •(%r if ;:;\t: Ir• 'i\•,♦\S 1,..',J' !\ � '�° i laump xaato pou81 gag s' ado s;no 01 �I-S'£) I 4 .4108 'f -a`' ;' \`r. /. �it // -•�1`It n., ,1 � ;e ,/`' -\1 br• I,:ir'\'�.t), :�11. .•�.. ,\,: 1, „•` '.1•. rrr. ...- ,t . 109(I S'£)ado s 1no 814 �. ► do I 1 \`:;\� '�-_- x. 11, ''//r -• �\\;`_: ,�i .t_� ,,VV;�•: ..f:� '..\.. '? :ii'..::Y'J//1 •.\�'•. \' 111• iff' %./` lt•\\' ,\ it ou.•t,r ,•, �••1�;' _ .,: ):\�:.:.' /• .,!!�'�'•II I/( -:�} 1113 daaP 18Z .t 1 daa i „'`: :'�:` i�;; :I i''�:i'''-• \ i ino daa . .,L :!:!, P 109 '' \ li /: j'�\t 1\:� /'; ;�• 3 ano daa ,. � ' -�" P 100[ � .. (I�S'.£ Papunoi anowoo)adols xno tI8►y';Og t f \\ \\ I t e f oi_ 'J•; .r i%:r_:-:::7t'.:::�,`\', rj.,`' T' �'� -•a!� ! nuc Papunozinoiuoo)adols;noq2141SIi - •ii.i;i / / } , ',r,,• ••L ~r`:[.�,`: \ � �,. .. 1 ,,.I V .< .11 ./ 'f�. J/" 'oas.u` r-o• '\ \ r` .\ i �. fs>• \: 'V I:'+ '1.- `♦ 1• ( :,/' _ , 1. !-•}y\ \ r \ K •-. \.:. 1 1,.. �7�.i in ir 'er /I �.�`..\ - �:�/.•"'- to cit \ F / '\. I.'' 1'lr •11 "( - \ ,,":1 f •.i''\. 1^{\ � %;. :HI 1•:,'♦•I o'ri. it � � :i�.•"..,.•_. ''�:;;' �:;(' / 1, •1,•1 •�... ,`ri orrt,• �,�,.. ../ ,,�.,\: • `'\ '�`,!+n:.! /• ouJ /.,: .l,.j:r' t rl •t i 1'ii'-"c.•_•Lci 'i lr 1 '� , aP":';s,),�•' � �,� .) _ :_: ,I�/•.,, `, _CJI ;• l,• %• \;�:::::.:\. tI.3 �:::.:, / "';4 �T .t ', :3":;i` r:i':,r. t. _ '�'' !� ,>� \ \..,.r,t. 1 •.�:��'.:'Za:I Eil,r r•'4'� is .:;tii;•� \ •I• �:i�� I - °I' r ,!. ~\ A!, ,' `\,hr 'a`i;..'♦�\•. ,( ,'Y?` .1. I•, it �,� /"'V 1I1I 1 l_ t e'ft .\,i 1 i' 'ri •t - 1 ;\ \!� \: iyj;. •..\" r\' :1/„ ': it/J'%' t r' '."'.( /�' rl'' /'- .:iin 1:/( /♦ \it\ /:i/A' I '' �': C. . �a 9�i1• !' !r•/ rl 1./,�+J h,.•,`♦'2� \ is>' ::: '", '-^.•'.\ / y:�. - s'�1' .J`}id',\,\ ! a!1; •''+r,,.�. I-` ecce -'.r ,l•, 1' /11 - ,' t• I \ 'f i' •� :li ',>, - (� 1,. ♦C`�. ,. / 1• , :`, \ / 1. /' �\• �/� .\ �i;:.'->:.:a. ':% , L �� k]�<aar ``.�• Jr r:1`` 0'1 ,�'•, f,• ••�+ :v A:�`Gti•'?`i r., r .•, ... \\ - •ti,♦ ,.\., /, '//t l:!� '/ e�1e1 '1't5 ` ` •'1 1, :~•\\ �•:•\ /i .t:..r.:, a - `r" "�:'•:' ESI' /, r `��' ) !a g%i'•i.',1 / 'fPa � • IT ,,evr 1 'rP'• If'' / f ••�'t :�: 1r< - •t .t• ;/, , .!! - ,�:� .,- C •1"� `:c... 111. .« r` ,� ir;i�. ,derv• _`.\\` ;>� �la•t ii :;! •; !• � 1 � -(t, ''l'''' �.•� '"�'i ,."`"':,�,_... �. , � /i' :` /serf:,;} (� �\ ` '1i.,•', Y/. '1. i'i,;/'. `:. ::•f.• 1 j`II •Ii (' !/ ,1..: t' •`i. .._. ', 1• •/ _''� ....�" , ;/ a: /i;�:;�,1.�:' - .;.• _ 1.1 1 e�.Nl er/ 'i j� .. i �� 'i! :ti'. - "•/�' P 1i-���RL_-'` •�/ I: `\ •�'�i 1 eYA',r 'f � I :, •�- \ /.,.,:,;\ .}1 '•1 IF.S,\. a ��.�-y,.. _ 1 � 1 4 N (' /. I' 1':i ,'t'` .\'1 '�� r `,\., ,afFr 1: ��\:• :orr �•1 \1. �C I -s=` ` •t \ �If e.. 'ti'-'r 1 'f I f/ - f/ I'll"�..r..r- +_r./• 1 1 �'. •,\ \ l_•', - \\ t lir, "il JI f �, 1 7 :\, :'cin••.. l _ ," _:_/.• ffr 1 I ` /l'l I .t. t.: ^i`'• H:' •1 jF, :/.//J r - iq' I(' \ .'/ J I' 1, r ',Ji \ •���t. •'\'t'♦ v.�'�,\\'•`�od %,c' r/ - - ',\�.i '�- :v'. j ..`� '.� 1 'r i' :�� C).rl/ •F �,• `'� :+-.- -/„�� .1' ,\,',� ,,:rfl�r /.r :\ \t\t•\ ''�r�,� / - •:f^.�� * - ! - !'//,'r,ct"i 1 r!. /. '� 1, 'e.1 ''//,/.:••.P+ ♦s:.,�;u�♦ \' '�\•• jl .�;i .�pl..l f;�• -_ .\ p \, .\ ;�,�•.:. �~•, tt11 r �.•_ \ I i� r �; r+-• �.� �'• J.. /.� ;/J_`I - �`>\\ 1;11 :I`'1 ':I I, ;ll:.•.\`\..- \ \� -\ •I/!! I! i�0: t�•l .,,,, ,,.1• 1•r ,t%/�'r / ?�',�• \ ,�3'i,,i:,�. 'l,•% }; 1 I '`.'' _alU=;'�,,\. 1 - :/.i 1-•�'•j J!// - y. y 1 'II .iwJ,a•' 'r. s .o lh;:; /y... ./If � `:`,•'- - -- '\ i' - Y,: out,:i �-' r�i/� r. W, '�r:.:,:r/' I'`l,, oeu \: ='e'if .\Jj l '\`�'`+� �..' { •r...r• - •.i^•,`/if •1,• J`,' .tt -s n,. •,•\ :.�+ "e«rte -1 /' /� - ..-•'•:i'•',::' ,i' `'ll••: h• •� ,1” ,�\i 'A, „.�:,,,,.. / �\, ttl;-:" it •t\ ,,I, / i \ rr r ! \ - •%- eN 4e l 1 l Y\t � l 4(: S t. \il, ..�%;• i ^ li•.r. S 1 l r/ ! \t3 t\•' lyf fir /r •'ir" •':.:ty.::".. v°.� orlr� fir`•.. •,. `F - / 3,x,1' :/ .I � lil:' 1 - `'1•Y.... , /,' ' \ y'J \. ./_. •'/! (f:: Y .�,2aw ,(•'., , .e is��•.�',. :'1)r 1:�y\.�;I ,t, - .Y. �. �;, 'QF,.` _ i:l•. "l _.0 ,{ e'Nt' .\•. ,' 1•. \: ,r/.r: X'. J :,• ,'\ •\\'. Y\`011°'-- p•. ::/' /J• Y {• �� (":rr:'! '•1 ,:` � � :J:.toarq:.'-i::.,� - .S, .�:•• ,i: 1 ^',i r•,/• �!• r ;j. I � ' 1 rIr / ,r j. 1 •r-.� 1 I , 1 / •�:ti;iV, :ll�(K'( ti:•`)'�,t��♦t!. /�-:1. '• �\\. ',4::: '.i\ '\``::\� �' ,\t'� .. 111..: t�,�r•. /��II\o1>'1• ,.,�. :� \� ` s1. -{�f'I 'IJ Id li:i 1..1 ,\,, .\• `�' ,•'t.- f� .y::'�/•�,i �^ •..;,•�,,:/.` uI� \ t/ /• '�/'�rl r• _ `.:111!(1 Ji 111;1 II! ,I� ;'�W�° ...1.;-••/ � '"• h•... - �.,..--/"'~\.. !' Id �� '\� ,Y" \w l I rr i•�-` .-;/r' .!,I I :t ,.I :i. \\'• N'''-•::'•.'/p�•' :l r ..J• /....:;:.'' •i .�• /I � ! /! ,. 'tal. 1,•!.rl•i.' -i,ih�l�°!11'1 `1'�I.' ^'�r I'1 i• �:'^�,. _ - %!, •.r`•.•, - ,• cY1, i S:•-a. L/r` I .\ ••';�".f',• .,1 t j 1 " 7Fr r'�1))!r/r --..7ar:fs" 1� \t`': lil I ~,I�.• .:[[c�,�a\\ .,`, Ta.__ 1 r' '•'i:...t ..\.4�I°:•-JS' ..�'.�, j�'' // � i. t\• /J!A' mfr�F /; f - ,�t,,.. •(. �\\ \,,.` !,,l`•`1!:_N;f'.�1.)' J 1• ��-; '^• �b' i. -t• .�• :II '1 i•(' ..,y7j '.;ii,,;,+-.(,..:=_ � `<(�r�,,'•,t •1,I(r/,f!ll .. d ��` .! i. t •,• L .: , 1�I t i•_'•.. '\ - V` :'��' •\' -r:•s%/�•, 1�\111! -'�`\��\1\ ! ',:'�� •r�. "4•,' .o'1,i, / :t, ;...� !;'/s'�nr'' I .'1 !`'.. '?::. 1'�+ .\ ,.. -:3`�,!' ` 111 t I "� \: •�\ ..M.:F..•r.••,: .'�. ', �' J , .\• .r".r- :�\,. \ /.; co,•. `y,v' HHH11 N1 _ti�`L: % } '•.pri:. a1.�:I (. +'rl:. .,. n. 4♦;V(i,.�:/. ,\• '•\ f l \ i( i j , ( 11, '.r,. •11 i'1;1 ,'\.\ r ••k •Pr :•1 •r r v" '{ b•: y :.J.. q. 1 _ 'r. r.. •1• - Y• a S •;; .t r.. e o f.. ; 10 'Y 1 4 J' I JJ: 'i 4• , 1 "4. 7 1. J orN th" ..�:- 11' `P♦• i / •1 \ jj r J .1 'r J• r iir l: V 'i.• .! IJ ,r I r I i•• "� J' f: :,1.• r i \'.. I ..I 'r•I. 'il"• 'r 4 C;I \ i `i• \ f / i .t 1• .I\ f \ •i' i, - J 'I 1' 1 t r \ i i 1 'L4a ,l 11 ��fir';:•- rl 1 l r 1• aU •,,,•,ul•ir• \ .��- t`\ \'♦'. \ 1''r. -'j? tI .,�, I ).': ';1\ j�s;:%; j� •� Qi.' 1..,t I0.r '-;�' \\' ��.t''\�"::••,'\ 1. - Ill. it ;• \„I :/,/��:, 1'. r.. , - Ik�: s - - 1..1'1 `\ \. l '/I \1.•• ff ( t..\ '�r/. /, I // ! i,\'n1y� `J r01r J { 1 r i 1 rl t ,,. l / 1! •!r ''�t\ i• I 1 1 \ NII♦\ - r I �`;"`:�iii: !l1'l. \, .t,t \ 1.1;, 1• f� l�" � - - - ,�� ,�• !r lJ/�-� \ L1 % 1 {� to ii , fl /1 i \°e1fi, lii: :/'// _ ••r�. �l'.�,=t.:. 3 _ _ '/' S�` '1 t I r I `.-,.�y'C-'.\ fi'I 1 111' 1 1 ,.{ ri':,sy CI ,r !1 J, ,%, i/'•J,..-';.. _ (l t. - •t \'1 � a.. 1 I I`\ /,-•:• :i`' 41 t1�� - `x: +I/'+air>{t,, \'�' 1 Oji- /�,,.lr�'-^.'_4•. •.,\'•�� _ M\`a' •r,'� ' 1 I '/.-•__ 1, - � lil':�,t`-//� r i� ��_` a I\\,•� O. __i//�%� \� ���!i:%•�;-04, -�:\\.• ,,1, `�_ �- ''`Jf/ ;7;• •,i �� r 1 II ,f ,1ti:.�oVvr/ ! Al r r ,.\` :,\•�•• - �/ \, :�. :�..':•=•.:,.�-- ;.yt'.:1_;. '\\\ .� _ t ` `_ ,/Sr �•=,a1. �) / •� 1 .1 It�•, �J �'�^ 11 1 :'\., \\.:•• - ..\'C•• �-.r:?%- - �`� i \,.,� ♦`\ )• !/ r'� '!i '/. %f-.�4?'\ �/•// 'i` 11'�,�.:'• `� �i 1 rH IIi� ,��i' - �j�.� �--:6f�'-r�" 'fe ,1. •\.\ ♦ �r Jr t/1' ,i..;t:\• 9 '/'' � S•'•• b I 'ew' '`\.`•��—_ •./.- '.' -rr. 2` .�` �\-� C- /i' -•-- / %, ,.'\\� !i !,.�''' l C l /r { 1 r. �moi' / / �I -_ .`orlo:;;- ,\; - � \\�_ o�F�.'-.,�\..• - :\`Y{w``•x' a•'k�y'`•�: 1\, '' / , \.♦•`/.� � ,1114 /•i.•ti."':. d J �•✓`r,.�G :•r" � ,1" •` �4r. ;,/-: ,qq-""'-; : %=�,v�' )�1;`/-.' •,�•c_= .'..) '`l�:•r�'`�• a• \ %i !- •.{/��•� •\\l�ll `!'. \`�\��'1 �/ �1 III �;,�t.. .'_ '_�. i�l 1 ` '/e••,•f f. [ oe/ar ,, f � - '\ \_ \ ,•'1 / � '"'/ i\\\•I� ::;�al'\ `_:��/.� ', r 'I rl ,� ._�`-��iJr� \�.\���\� 1 -tel` qlr' i:,•.; p\�1`% �: \II'•:•^%'''�;:.• •1 � ( 1/(1r`-I-'.'y- /i /�Q . .,, t`1'� t ,� �• \•'"���r //,,(�:��� II`••,J, _rte,_ �`�\1`� �•:: i•:\�1, ,t' ��-.,p�if%S..a• �e �� `eri11 �r / ' ''r\` I `3!/ �.��\ '♦r -fir/i�s�r�r,'J I � //t((/l ��r '11/ ,� \ /. O O �w', :f/. '�, II ,i��,ll�•J , Ir•. ,I �� `Q .r-:�\j Ill l��/ '...�`-• /�j '�, /� � (.��411i: �� /.t;% r-r :/�/ �. .:. t�'.•t;�.;�; :�8 a:`fit.. •✓� r:;1�.".1`: ,,.!. L\:- �1.. .\. _,;,:a:�;.J%l. ,'t'f-`''- 'yn' i!•' - ., „ ., ., - .---.. .: . .. .rem .- .. ... .... .. •,i.. ...',ri �.: i Ow i a On Ir O mw m so m j This Page Left Intentionally Blank Ewa rt yrs �■rlt m G A �N �3�_ •$ V ��y•0G 0 ea O �+•'•N� V N j G~ � D A 1 4 � u u '" � �O �O � •�rA� A a? �e3 Gp 7p '�ly V ✓A �"G m'G � ��•fl��•,a� 'r�•• 'Cy G p �,� u G � •. umu � C�m >.uf3' 3,pv A Gv O '^� •QGGC.GJm � 1 C✓ c to ��;,5 9:�@ A•a�? �i GSA ? dv ° 'm >. O� ' ? ° O ° s w�-" o moo° GGA' •offs gQ 3 o°d' au %e`b 'b 3 a f.'. go o c�o `J' u° 3g 30 '^ �� �O'.�,p c ¢m g y Y % >g Gi$•~ uys �� �'' �> `Yrm `�'O 8 $ .Ano a uw�•CG1 Q � ,► d ` Y_ r �$� ' gg � �'�� G u p �'�t �� �o �^aj co °N'a• �+O u ° u � �u�,5„ .ryr g 3%silk OA ayu qG� 2 uy u �1;g3' GG^ o ,f0� d� Nc� swN ti � " A ° Gocp°a ��poo0Ng Z rso duw: g� �Uwo 3N� o:p"AV;o p0 ���+.°°' �•e�� 'a 7 �' �� N i y 00. '0 � t G u G'�s'. G fi•O �•A S o� � '�• gs g � n ..� N•s1 v'G $, u ?row"�j� o•� u p�o••o ri• �mPp Vu b��� >'G4 GA � � G ���,� �u.. OG 'L�i'G r +0np• Ci r:ntu�j� V u u y �1 � uGDFS O '% 'gym °•q �!i ? NOG G �^ 4fiu N "' >�, Cd p♦1> N u ��A v u r �.•fi O� .0 V1 G�+'?p'a. �•N w � 5 y N� u u � � ? •UN tliN ON a� PGNG' ✓ Gu $ �� uON3 �"•D� .0 " ., �Cpa�c ury fj Gu'dex dry •"+" ♦"�A �c Ot�° A . p�d T'u✓d ry,0 �0 d•u•o ai>� 3oAd >000c da ° 3 s.�u �0 A Ota Q +� V ' •?G NP v d 3 G O .�p >Y. W O G u " G u N�,s 0 N-0,00y ai o � °y�' G�i.flopbn> a $: 1jO�dGe5 ? �9 d p u'• '^�P y ° � ,a m o a G :: - °%g .. r , ,n •s>•o ,. A:3 r 4' > r v c>•-•• u N G u A •� � N u d "'� N 7t,♦ � � A u � 1� A V O G� ✓o. d I u•+� � ,.r gm o u4dw o•yo 'i G m �opN•° u p A ? `Oen �NrL'G°G yrs@"�' o40's�N °% o °+ tI-. G p� �^ao.>. 3 % ao� P �°•N� N��+... ;L'G•? rj.1 Cmc uuOVP3�P Nr'• N � u -or. p ' d,.� �° u u fl mar U O Z v c u V q>.N•p g A p, i G'? .G^.� r ` p•D d$ �j '�+ dVNu,�.t3 moi� A � E+`pl' Ayi� upc'a 0 ,�wU� � Gf�' wy: � $e+di � •p a o`� c ata�°�Gygyw' a'�:cc .•a daau � g 'V Y;uG% 6sD ys-s,t c 1"01 N $, O a1 T.r1 ;�r � � N ✓ m Pg u d u't � NGN uG Gu a 'nAf3 ApGpo • A gg `¢�, G'" of�e �u '�°m-sy G � ��✓ Ar✓ rC wp cgp�y�?c`�°iso >c`5 o'N'dC °C, d N � mC�apD• 9 � FySu G°i 4r,. '.au co n %g G air. rPv�a^ ;�'N 1S°S y�•.Gom� aGu✓.. dwGw u Cy 'U>p�O•b•"'�t3au3�„ 3uL� CA G 0. urG °1 'ypr.-11 -so.Qa 6 A Azutut . % % Gi Groe^oN pi C ?o GGA la cr 2 • lit A is X's G✓ sro- +�w u is 3 ° p N• p, 9 i� ?�� y?�%°r°,•�L Q S?o °° 3 m /� �Gil Vu NNdT` G u,-3 rp.>' „°y�'p�✓.�.pi"'✓UGCN op• wo+�•�'.�' p•GO• > � > i��3' � � sJ'�^ un �N G yK `�•r .. N ?•D... G �• G'�C •G Uo s �GupoDm.cA ✓aCscau d�idp•°GGG¢�,'^�co�+ry3�A��`'Ny{arPy°c�r'�5�t1�uq�g4•>d$u�'0i sG4V Ee0►�pSd3�°'v 'G7ay '8 3 " uof 0 „r'O+oGjd_Gma �N• >tu6•P'�tpJo w°0 p',� r.-a ,:, ma 3YN N 0, �'` p d �NY�q,�o3u�?p c s+..•U �"�awo °G+ � .a or ? 'n'$� °�.'Go»'��$��' art `3 g�c mental in'pacbe e�996 B dy` Final Environ t4a em 0 x GN 11.12 GPA&sp. pau&hertY h 11, 1 eyVlndente1 ally re ` Gate Rangy s � � i Ail 06 t Ns aWin} .0 Ot U10 0- e-0 v I Oft S1. 1 r.'- 91'0.*.,- its s t zz a A '011 32. %t st :2 C . 00 'AS A ' 0 1 C�I 't- Oes ; lga 00 % Us' 0 ij riaa 3 Oar C6 '6 '" V 1-66.1 .2 - $ Olt % Z t - rj o r. -0-1 ,- Xtl -.U AA0 Is. 1OO a to5 0 ro S2 1 W, I * .0 0-r Ul 1 1 Q.�SO a °o 0 . , a . LIAM SA V-101 - 0, I-e 2 i 1 0 0% 600 t A OHO 0 W taact Report al t IMPber 1996 FiFinalNoveto nvir A&SP, ,Dougherty "tie Wch Windernere 1. Gate 2-27 The slope gradients proposed are consistent with the operative County Grading Ordinance, and with the soil report prepared for the project. Available evidence suggests that a 2.5:1 slope of the height proposed (15 ft. maximum) will perform satisfactorily. Specifically, debris benches with this slope gradient were constructed in Shapell's subdivision located in the northwest corner of the Crow Canyon Road/Dougherty Road intersection, as well as in other projects in the East Bay. The performance and aesthetic characteristics of the 2.5:1 slope can be observed by viewing the northwest side of Reedland Circle. 2-28 The comment stresses that the City of San Ramon's standard for graded slopes is more restrictive than the UBC or County Grading Ordinance. The San Ramon standard of 3:1 is based on the adverse engineering characteristics of rock on the flanks of the San Ramon Valley. The geotechnical consultant for the applicant has recognized that the site is not well-suited to the use of 2:1 slopes. Consequently,their use is limited to fill slopes that are less than eight feet high and for cut slopes less than four feet high; 2.5:1 fill slopes are allowed for slopes 8 to 15 feet high. With the exception of these limited situations, the slope gradients will be 3:1 or flatter. For major cuts and fills, slope gradients in the project will be 3.5:1, which is flatter than the city standard. The applicant sponsored geotechnical/geologic studies were reviewed by the EIR geologist and found to be adequate for the processing of the pending applications. 2-29 See Response to Comment 2-28 2-30 The comment of the City of San Ramon indicates that if the project is annexed to the - City, it is unwilling to maintain drainage facilities and remove sediment from drainage basins. Drainage facilities maintenance in the creek corridor could include erosion control (e.g. control of erosion of creekbanks); at creek crossings, routine maintenance will be needed to ensure that culverts are not obstructed or abutments undermined. The Flood Control District is prepared to maintain detention basins, and presumably their role could be expanded to include maintenance tasks not assigned to the GHAD or CSA. Whichever entity performs this maintenance work will need an adequate budget. 2-31 Should the projects annex into the City, copies of all geotechnical data will be provided to the City of San Ramon. The geotechnical data provided to date is public information, available for review at the County offices. 2-32 Concur with the comment. 2-33 The design of the project includes buttress fills on the perimeter of the developed area. The buttress is intended to intercept water and sediment before it reaches the developed area. These facilities, as well as the creek corridor, require a commitment to long-term maintenance. The CSA or GHAD is the most logical entity to perform such maintenance. 2-34 The Specific Plan urges use of setbacks rather than sound barrier walls to keep the need for walls to a practical minimum. However, there are no standards to establish how much setback is needed to be consistent with the objectives of the Specific Plan. The acoustical study indicates sound barrier walls will be required along most segments of i Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-14 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 Bollinger Canyon Road, and they will be needed along segments of other arterial streets in Dougherty Valley. 2-35 Within the project, Bollinger Canyon Road will require south barrier walls. Within San Ramon, existing walls and setback mitigate traffic-related noise. 2-36 In response to the comment/concern of the City of San Ramon, this mitigation measure l is revised as follows: 4.6-15(e) Bollinger Canyon Road/Alcosta Boulevard intersection improvements. Reconfigure the eastbound approach(Bollinger Canyon Road) to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, three exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right- turn lane. Reconfigure westbound approach(Bollinger Canyon Road) tmno provide one exclusive left-turn lane, three exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right turn lane. Widen Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Boulevard in an easterly direction for a sufficient distance to allow adequate tapers for the additional lanes n the westbound approach and for the merge from three lanes to the existing two lanes in the eastbound direction. 2-37 Dougherty Valley projects will be designed to be transit-friendly. The Draft SEIR identifies potential bus routes and bus stops. On page 4.6-47 and. -48, the SEIR recommends that the.project proponent contribute toward the implementation of future express bus services in the Dougherty Valley corridor, as well as provide bus stops and other amenities to facilitate bus usage. Most notable among these is the recommendation to design access to bus stops from within the development that would allow at least 80 percent of the residents to walk no more than one-quarter mile to a bus stop. 2-38 Given the size of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, the number of traffic signals does not appear to be unusually high, and the spacing of intersections has been based on Public Works standards. A decrease in the number of signalized intersections would result in more vehicles using the remaining intersections, and more concentrated traffic in the neighborhoods. 2-39 The Draft SEIR analyzes traffic for the buildout of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Dougherty Valley will have its own neighborhood schools. However, the comment letter of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (letter #4) indicates that the first Dougherty Valley middle school should be constructed and operational once 450 middle school students are generated by West Branch and Dougherty Valley projects, which include the Country Club at Gale Ranch. The high school in Dougherty Valley must be operational once 601 high school students are generated. The comment letter of the City of San Ramon speaks to the interim condition, before neighborhood schools are opened in Dougherty Valley. It also assumes which schools will serve Dougherty Valley during the interim period. (The agreement between Shapell Industries and the School District does not specify which schools will be utilized by Dougherty Valley students during the interim period). Consequently it may be premature to perform a detailed analysis at this time. The.West Branch and Country Club at Gale Ranch projects are expected to generate 199 middle school students and 350 high.school students(see Draft SEIR,Table 4.3-3). Thus the interim condition,where middle school Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 and high school students attend schools outside Dougherty Valley will largely precede the generation of students from Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. The study will best be performed when the schools to be utilized are established and the projects rproducing the students are better known. At this point in time the absorption rates for the Country Club at Gale Ranch are speculative, and it is not clear if Shapell would buildout the Country Club project prior to bringing units on-line in the Gale Ranch II project. 2-40 This comment questions the adequacy of funding sources, rather than the adequacy of the transit analysis,which commences on page 4.6-42 of the Draft SEIR. The population of Dougherty Valley will increase the transit operator's revenue base. Provision for additional funding could be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Discussion of of this subject should involve the County Connection and project proponents, but it would be inappropriate for the EIR to prescribe a funding formula. This issue was fully discussed in the 1992 FEIR. 1996 Mtigation Measure 4.6-14 reiterates the project proponents responsibility regarding transit. 2-41 The Draft SEIR reinforces the transit analysis in the 1992 EIR, and provides specific analysis for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, (see response to 2-40). 2-42 Comment acknowledged. The traffic mitigation meassures can be modified in accordance with the procedures in the Settlement Agreement or the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to implement the South County Traffic Fees. Regarding Mitigation Measure 4.6-15(w); correction noted. 2-43 The comment cites information that is presented in the Draft SEIR, and then goes on to present the City of San Ramon's position relative to two impacted intersections(Camino ' Ramon/Bollinger Canyon Road) and Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road). However, it corrects a misstatement in the Draft SEIR, which is being incorporated into Chapter III. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-16 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 a p d G O N ° ��$' G N d N o•� ✓ �,a A N G to Nm'S�03°0 �, ✓ au o" Auw A p . � �b u w cS G A "` G O s ° ° N Y Gd ° " o tP!'� O+ '^ u— d C w--- G a �'u p,0 ' i+ " � �p d � �" 'nP F �N p O�O S�y�A N G °PO o $ a� o �D o o G c „'G au' � �.0 A . a � 9 pafdG O a-arA .: °�, o'sa ° 5iS °i •O 016 i °YO�v o G i V " p �'�Npw s G dr•�,✓�yq A h d� GGG � ed�y dy�y�J Vw° c'$ a �° o O P° oO da ot ^ ON'Pewg°ow o, m ,-, % 7 4d do dO�s Al,O O v 0 �$ p Aa qo•o GG o Al y ✓ GGe n Vv v °+ t A N d ✓ ° A'Fy 'L7 d a � � Go •O y,oN "u G v O ; G wrr .".• N•4 � � �. y100 -s',- O FwN p ".� + ; o« o ":¢ wo �� „offs'. o�'- ° v�'iF� woc, $ $u � EE r�, G °' �� g p=" 0 � 'a� y► Yi t4 W ✓ u N G N N G G G � aq ° ~� cGG 'U� u A'pc.G".Apj3: Ti. uCr. ` to?yE " y O r N O 1° -+�OP N Td Nyo NO %U 00 �O�,Nvu po N wG , p- . " Nd °rb A •�y U w °UY O `,.� G y V d u Gd C °G G V N C•� ,� �L o n'3 sd,`ooa �w u paAw 'u t LA }j �r' w, O O ° Gd p cp V E n ,Td y y °✓' p � ou �d v s ✓ A 4 y' Q" A p � R o01o � fl �� :qp 't' YY ea Nd Q^ a4° G P G � q,y ✓ ;6 T+ G V i A 5 Pp va•°6! A.>~A A A • �'rGG G y 6 ,a G w A �r U o>A t $U U n �numdoao °0P� N is d 3 0 ° v opo E aao 0o a c ✓ o op c ars : �n u r°.� .t4 o ons t��✓u d s �°(s aGu� Sy WA 'o A 0 v' Q u Ga.. v7G w v' w d �w G ° •ts N'°'� 11r w Igo M y N o o �c N•o� �y '� yO r�'NG 00 � ✓. b A P aG Yip �'� a��o G •o p� E� o.�:o.� o G d d e.-d0 d y �l d u .moi u F auw G ° A'�r � ^' G u O• A' �W ° Yr "cpm o�GO Q a F� d o'10 ���r, 0 p✓oGi O �� min 0. A O 5 G `G° 0 w U °U 0 d AwS 0 y �° W"aA ° 10 p a o 110 G+ A ° y i d� M o G �,n 0 a'° y N .•� i4 S o 1 H � uv �, r v C�o a ai a C m O 'b' N A 0- 0 N 9 a « O ° O A a �'• �� O•� 1� r O ��o a a v u a ,o- ° A N-8 of°� iC' �Co ° ° c uu u aA x0 0o °°y tot N C a « � 'y . 0- A o.i° a a w p yid y a C w ori `a� w .o Ho- G � G �'i ,.. a� o.. c7o ena�od c••-� eA� odp a'50 Ck c°d o p p, ) 7 a p a 0 o coan� �A ° �= v v � a M - C �aS3N So.00 � AaM�2 � o . ° -r` M a 0', o SAS a o oo4 v k' ° a G ', ° a« � � A °aAp ANO ° � Oa Av �yA `° o dv w u on'T O Ori O"° O"A a w A U A 9•x'H to «O a aAao tsas5o 0 Goa ��� A � o �yJa aA A ° 'o w °Cv Qeoa Caaa�3 Aou, �`' udEo .-oao«aao s 9�So (4A44 O $ °C �C o✓-.Q. Maao'�ho u � a -0 15 O ° F ✓ a A u v * A I o O N ea u C a C u u o �- A 4. o o Fv� tmZ0.4) � aNi.n °c ° °C ate. R °n�0. a q v ° N O O✓ v uN p'o A °' oid V .fl a E o a H •y > °' A w �d"a o �i Ai �f w o C, To a ga t%40 p � try °d %Dd t a uCA'n Sy a s A uaooDpd�'H U a60 .N$ ony �" a styy oCwN ' o A 4A yaa6 N 'Od 10 4t° v ~ ° w DC °° C SSuo QA A v rCr, aOp ,r , ;)u uXU- bp O w0 Ha y Jo� Na � c a � O o � ° c c ,. 0 � � o 'n Don A A N A•o o C p � �u✓O„�%V � t- `d N O U Response to Comments of the Town of Danville 3-1 The 1992 Dougherty Valley EIR analyzed cumulative impacts for buildout of Dougherty Valley. The number of units in the proposed Specific Plan has not been modified, and the footprint of development has been constricted by approximately 250 acres. Consequently, the analysis of cumulative impacts presented in the previous EIR did not require comprehensive updating. Where an update of cumulative impacts was needed, that information was presented in the Draft Subsequent EIR. For example, with respect to the traffic analysis, the cumulative analysis discussion commences on page 4.6-50 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The Town of Danville's comment references the EIR prepared for the Country Club at Gale Ranch (SCH #93081082, which was certified as adequate in 1994). That document was referenced in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Copies of the Final EIR are on file with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. 3.2 Comment acknowledged. 3-3 The grading referred to is for a future phase of the Windemere Ranch Partners, so there will be the opportunity to evaluate the grading concept in detail in conjunction with review of that final development plan. Nevertheless, some preliminary comments can be made on the currently proposed grading concept. An existing terrain feature in the portion of Windemere Ranch just south of Lawrence Road is a drainage swale that conveys runoff westerly to the channel of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. The southern and central parts of this swale are proposed to be designated single family residential - medium density(SM). The northern portion of the swale is designated open space (OS). The distance between the proposed SM lands and the corporate limits of Danville is approximately 400 feet. The grading concept shown in Figure 4.5-12 calls for placing fill in the swale, creating a pad that slopes to the west at 10 percent. The grading concept proposes extending the fill pad completely across the swale. Alternatively,the grading concept could be modified to extend the fill pad to the north boundary of the SM area,and then toe out the fill in the OS portion of the swale. 3-4 The comment letter notes that if the high school site were related as shown in EIR Alternative 3,traffic would be attracted to Lawrence Way. For that reason, the Town of Danville is opposed to this alternative. The letter then points out other adverse effects associated with relocating the high school site. (The location of the high school site shown in Alternative 3 is approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the location shown in the proposed Specific Plan.) The comments of the Town add balance to the discussion of this alternative. If the high school is considered as a community high school serving Dougherty Valley and West Branch, the location shown in the Specific Plan is superior. The alternative has the potential to reduce AM westbound peak hour traffic on a portion of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road, as well as the segment of Dougherty Road that is north of Bollinger Canyon Road. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, 11-17 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 1 3-5 This comment addresses a land use designation on Figure 5 of the proposed Specific Plan. It does not comment on the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR. No response is required. ' 3-6 This comment addresses a chane in Table 4 of the proposed Specific Plan. It does not g P P P comment on the adequacy of the Draft SEIR.No response is required. 3-7 This comment provides clarification on.the text discussion of park acreage on page 8-6 of the proposed Specific Plan. It does not comment on the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR. No response is required. 3-8 This comment requests text discussion to reconcile the data presented in Tables 4 and 5 of the Draft Specific Plan. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR. No response is required. 3-9 The Town of Danville provides an editorial comment on Table 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. It does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR. No response is required. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, __ 11-18 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch A Windemere I November 1996 N m I : Ei -0 --* -0 n t tte o . 914 -9A 1 —P. Ala jitt--.g. 1 9 � � P. w P.- Ze a v AA it ab o oa A -do AR -t., VIjg? 5! 4a 01 ca wa 0 1%U Go 41 40. :13 bbLDD go ! c> A u o c4 -0 42 2 91 n Ti. 1100 V two '6• t= t PAT 41 > 'o bl "oo ' 'a d lo, 04 Isi -- -- i !R O tn 1-9 VE_8 > 0 w bQ 44 e 03 cn 0 A % 4.4 44 as -50 :oS! t 9 V c, to M 7D' 4)= -4) m .99'0 rr4) 4) 0000 >.'-1a0 Ab Nmw Cd90v > C-,AL4)r1L0 w of 0) 0 dwd00-4 0 0ri-100 . 'dw �a'Gimai 414Y ° 3M0 $ 0w a 0UC Om0)imCd G3Y+-1.7 U.,4 �°.it co w 0 �Y ° ° � m 0 Y c-+ 0 110 140 C7w-,Y '-,0 OwmN m 41-1 m ; x O U Y m Y C O CCI~ b U N a O.c ri .-t r. DN a00 .a' a$ o mw >, UdNp h•r°17+I mm ONOrom 0 a w 04 a. ri�>.L m-m, m w'0 0 U1 4)p 1 y Y y CI•.In V HI 0 W'-1 3 4)q -, O .r11j W o3w 04m ; 44jc U_ c 14 YG+' wY m; w 4J-4-4-41 wwt) 044 o014 - : d = U 4(n ay , aIoFc °oma sow +' mm 'o0 43 000 14 y Q .11 qu wr am ' m + �yoa00Y 6zA w G0W N° a s 0110 H L O p'O O441 oa1ca wow > °1a °. V 4ro > o ,rii ) Id oma > myw Y�43,40)0 cp .Gim° mMdaw u.1o 4) 0 ` 0A0 ommYmo0 -.°.'r+ „c��..°ia yw, ..mi 7go W'o= 7HW U m6YY ° OC 'O -441 y CW6A4 'aC 0.0 Uro m � WN -rOiN •CjOWCdO UN�YaCM� >t U�•.mi G' -SNC m0'U.0 00 ° USO-411 0.°'�'�A'OY•0r1 ad -10i 10i•'a, �V'1 Y d W ° an d x 14"'1 a 6 1, Y 01 Y H W Ulm �NA-0, m0aC ; CL dIm>.d'O-•UI'� 01 � 'ON uvm41 44 10003 CMdOma-4 C.," 0a4j s wa -N � C7..a, 0 w 001 "H 4) H,G dor, F' omw _ 0b M ?' O N U N'° w 64) HMy� w = OdaCO-.{ HCC wad14 m �" U 01403 vLwoya 4)0> 0 Q0 >, 0-, 0 wW4) C 0% 0.0°tea aow4), aYCww4)44 C oc A,441 44 mi �m c0c % coal Ood� dad ° 'w � WCL H6YwUa N0ti 1oTai41 d A Cw Nw °> m 14 om UN o d 0 c a wNYLCc al '° 4)Nx0,NF, 000.0 [Aw >.W >. 4) 140 r,LCA N 0 ,G0 G NA 0- 0a, 0•', a4) a 0 H � •004) 4070 4) 'O p m-r1 d 6.0 r-1 0 W 0 0 0.0 0 14 11 w 11 0 >h 1A a NA >.w1, 04) 4) Ow Oa dry mdn° aM4)'Ow-� 14 -, w w 4) w ON la N+mi 4)G 14)11 HO CA -, ,C0 -, m-',Ya > 010 U 4) 0•r10 C'U m >0 4)W4Ww 4) 4)10 riY 04) 4) 11-, O7 C a- maa O " . W4) Wwro LwL14 LLCro-, >.Y Y-,L140CHOC -, WUl100 U U u a0 .1NN FQ00 d> 0 1-160 P.Q. 0'G , hags h U FY F_A7 - w �Q n 6m'owrnl° >. • W >.w � w >.0b aw041 • 11-11 ue ro7 c NCwAC Wr,L 0CAdC OLYL m 0 m V 10A H O W 4)-r,Y O 110 N Y .94 -,0 Y -t 1 (ns71�� y O 3 NOO 110 Y r, 1` O >> 0 0 wYwoo o +r W c4) ° Wow �o �aM00 = k0 c4) A6Yi0 Y a,-+ 4) V E) m mO ..aCOU p,dw y 01114 -4 a) Y ° m ..aj •0004) r- OW6 ; C w Ow, �' mOd'-4)1 to 41 �O1 0 >'aa+L' 0.00 C.00 yjaaL CAo.V10 1O4>,iL •r1� ) 00hd.0 H 00"4110 b,v0 41 .0'001000 A • £>Y O Y d w 0 3 ° H 6 3 a W 0 Y ° d y A .0 0 0 0 3� ou+o'ucm .w, av� ~'yvlaoa om'�� ►i wwm0 M Y >W r, Ca UN4) w ° Ol0 'O 0� W 4HI4) ►OiA4w-,°,4) o 1tler4r0 > 0010 dAO0 V% WL >0U 14 O,ow Y4) G4) ts-,� ° d A 0o .n a 0 0 .a 0 A A M N O, 40 14 m 13 4) >,'O ,4 '01 L L do _ C ,c � Uao ovdon � a1o: w 009Nu aY y d 4) 0004 r4 awx 4),6, 014 0 w d.9 3� Naai Q Fro w CA144jh 00G00w 1G�o'wo o41 a woo6 hN d0 m 3 0 3LR1 0 G w 4)r, 4) 4) d O a r4 C"'1-r°Iwd@aN > a QY...4jY 00) 0rg0m 4)dH U O C q4 6 a0-014)eq,C'm41 aUmdtj 0 L 144) 4) 'DMaw •;-+ E 4) d-4 0-0 0 4) 0% 0 0 14 IXY 0 W.0.0 '° 0 U_ d C _, )40C4J-14ji4 $4 ..,00a C.00-1 W a O: n y_1 y., O, C °'0 0 0" -0. Y m a.,4 C .O Y - m . 0 14 � c Ou E m w'm, cw0yymAyaDm 4) Or„ON YwY4) ° ►.0+111° 00 en 10 � U p Y06o �a.rajCa -md mU > 0 0= mow OHWvA4) • y 1 L U .] 4) >, A Y O 0 O O' 0 14 M'U'O - 1c1� c wN ,11 0U Aj 44 'AAjY0O1rlw 00'Oy,10 bl.° Hma awrl .>1, 0 " A N OO'C 1n 4) 11GHOH �w�� Ua 4)Apd 11004 Cm 4)41 € c�'' •r_+ CC om Y W 2 v ,0 °'wYL 3 d .w U o ay 6 O 14 U 41 O 'CH go Y1 CZ 0 ro, dwUN� 140 �0 14 W-O, CU °�>toa'°O"i ywL= H 14 ro.C40i7p Ywaiq >v o oY0 41 41 ilvu m MG3 �A3-a, r:l $4 .m,m'i, a�++ L0� d11 q r>'iy4) OW Gwo •'"1 V1p rl N UmU1 U N C Mg4) Y > 4)A UC 21400 r, OF F4 3 Zr 4)4J 4) 0 4)+'.O o'0 0 a.0 p 4) N-, H 0 0 w o m d 7= ° O o„ 04 H r4ar,U4) N Uma-, 4) 4) 4) 64) 011 U 1104) 6 Lmar, c a u,4) w YW0 aW 14 ac000YLa4)It00 C CaA0 Y0* m oYmw-, .p QO A 7YHd-, C .� 4) 0 Wa00Wm7 > 0 4) 00 > H 'Om -, m3A0 yjoo d 6 uaaNarl HU bl4)-, h -00-, HLar4 O 204) 4) 000 W ►►�rr•••yyy a" w -, Y Y N 4) .-1-19460 04) 14 > wUmwm14 0m > 0I0 -, Hr10H wO Z� U 611'0 Cr1N d W 14W0w6W4) cO'4) w-i4) >•r, 0. mNoUU 10wrimw rn w -, ma01n (a 4) 0014-, ROLL CU aN O)LNWL6 4 ,.0x7 'Oa07a cN.1� N� O haWUlos o awo6aU00omda a3c 'OY-, asWwm a„ws0 >,>, C a Y Y >,m 0 Y m -1 O >, rim O - Y -0 4) C14a m aA.y00 0 0 m Y A 10mC and rlL -4 m a 7M 00C m roNm NYm �Y40 -34 a 4Y•Y Y 14 .4 Y ro 0 Y'd ro r4 m Y L C ro Y m-4 14-4. w -4 o m o-1fivc-1 m m m-A o mY0041 mU •-i9 OIC H ro W C rl >%C O Y A m'd fi L m C a a U •.r-1 7'- 0 V 40 C m -40ITaU40 > ma m Y �, ° A 4A+ Y a p^to 41 0 1-1 A 0 0,A 0 'O�to 93 $4 'A ..t)% u 3 •.Ui p !ma mw N.4 rotll .0 .4 wb:°y H„Y,10-11 u. OA' II...IY p-Ay oy 4'."ilO 41 Cfim � m py omY N •. t0% p O 41 r0 r. 3° Q m04,43n-Id 00 0 ` ,-f 1 G04J G>N, r. QOUo � 4 41 O 0 0 m rl Y O 11 ro O rl rl p 4 m ca 4) v4 0Y MOO 0 •d 0AO 1C 0 14 , U .0 $4 U 0m r4 m X Y� 0 d ,040 y0Am > >' 1C mwtto0 to 00Y 0 a r-4 ON m: 014 � ° C 0 pvp,O A m 0.0 'Q0 L,y p� to m,°4 14444 •�FA C m.�l +' rn 14 40 Lm •,�40. Y C m•�+mbid .40 M-4 mm 43 w'i 0o a XO 1°Op L q y°Y m bOC fiO. L�ro tT .,mid .U� 403 Lw ,0R W MY 0 ,ro� NN C y roam .4O m °"Ip..ci- Y'd W to ro aG 10C as ACN c Yto o :1a •1 Et0V'00 V 3: 0 W "iim C•" 14 >4 0 .4 40 a a Y m m 40 0-4 r1 40 m m m L O L a L 3-i O 4 N O to O r+ O M�, 14 Om ro I0 �.1m4•.C4glapMix O O14 14 Y41 >,m00'0' 14 00-440Y40 40Y p Ufi 14 -4 0 C OX 0040 roYfi as w W aY W•c 0.0 a aw •11 aL40 as 0-4rorotT m $4 -4mfi c Aj wQ wOWW MA°a m 41 aMY 00'd' -4CCS >� >�m ,°iUA0 >.m0.A0 -1 41 GIW 1 Y1ta Aly 0. �r0 q,sro rog0Rkt" U 03l" W." a13 0 UEaoY ,°CO p.N,rH1 j 0 o a -t t 0 0 V $4 c •-44 41 °oagr !°,m pa ax Ofip a .W,� mY 1114 qac .4C lama -4040 Umm ►4-1p,$4 pY 0 m mm 40 •w 1 •"' • 40 C p - y O\'O aa7A H O 7 m'0 w U 41 U f0 m�H-I.aC °+� m m C� W b"m O v��a Lrl a U"4m UY.y YU,ymmr444 •010 'a to a romLm0r wm aNmW mem m 40ro fi •• 044 w-i 0 m U 0.0 a 0 m 7 m C m [ti a Y C m 0. ro O N m ro C O Cly C 0.0) a }1 Y k p 1y ^�C N O L Y ro Ol m • ��. c p a 010 C MA 0 m C W.0 0 0,4 14 0 O m -4 m -4-0 0 m U M O A-1 .0 N C 0 m-im m-4 00Y7a 00 UM aC-4a m mai .Ya mY roY mY Y.0Y.4 a• r1Y0 r-4 Mu Lm-- .4am Y 0. Y40 m0 m4, 4) mmml0rom 0 CCC 1 • .ngm OaC Oa mC.-IMNaM •O.n 1p ip'000 ro mCa Cm mgm0. a y OH o.4 amrlY4, Ub. 10 OroL Om0 o ro N rom- Y-4 Lmm LU 0m0r4La0 0m0 mL 7Y mO Coco ma W =1 Ln m• O ala UC Lm.0 a4J10H LY L1nA 041-4 Lm4 mom LY :3 -YO 0344 moa m-4 a.0 uro amm 900a Ea HMO mm3 E.4 amort Fm Urom • FEO C; N N N o N 10 r m 01 11 14 14 H .4 m D� 40 a tnm >,Y rom rom ro mw00 >, 1 "4 Y Ym14 m c mm , C0AC Y m YOY >,4JV 44 0 40 Cao L -1 m Y O P a ro C - Y -4 - 14 O Y H>,10 0 - Y•.4 a-4 •.4 m •0 C $4 C m L >+ •0 .4 Op ma -4Y lara > -0X0 4007 m O Y 9Yr1. 14 4j V0 ea as o aNY O,Cra m -4 Yom O -.4 144.-1 sO o ° w Y00 uYe a O mmp, w Cgam O-.I 0 a m3O m0 w 40 ,'No O > O0 ca 0 0 m o aro OC 0 fi ro Q N Oa. m a A >1 m c'4 x Yo 40 .I w 0 V C 14(n V C m 00 m a ri .d Y - C o Y Yi %4 . m w -4 ° � AN G -iva >, mN rpap d o r,1. WO d -4 'y GqLm3Y YO aOOW m Y me s Y vo m 1° p0;a to V, 40 00 a ro m yLc . d.d' 0 to L m a s :1 O u � �fi mti YArow > G 'd-4 mroc -4aC1; roW m0 m,0 14 0 �• -. grim p. -i Y mma 400 400 me m m-1 ° > a0 >, Q qc Yap' 1,1; fim u mk -440 L10YM O.0 k1y4Omm 0' m 0 m 140 CYu 14 f mW -4m a-Im � a am a', M .-1 > a 0 0 a LL 40 >+ p p am .4?C ° m C m a "'i a c a aY 14", tP m U CRY > O C ""1 14 O m C m m m m m> C w L A r1 m tP.y C m O 'y a ° 40 m O A' 0 rl a a a 4' m � CLma mM ml'' %4 m UOY r40C r4 m ^1w m> C Wa "4Yfi0 -440 >+' � ° -1 0 -41"' 0 a ro .40 "' m p .�41 u Y a •md>, "4 'd p a.'41 m Y C > a fi "1 C a m w L3M o .dip Y o � m 400 m mdaa c c my m ►4Y >,o a a -1 0 >j�1 ° O >,H 14 14 fi 0 w N 10L•4 H -4 C 0 1.4 4A , '4 m-m "l C 0Aa4001Y 7 ° ? 000 wCmm ° py yU w3 l 0 croY m' 11c am cCw Y A4 0ro> 40 0 14 I".i %4 r4"4 40 0 O > m A 441 0, A 00010 m A y! O y O C 4 O m L a " .4 L mC mto O 14 0' 40Um ; {i Y W ° 14 00 = 4 O't3m-4 AJp L > >.•. U O > ? L m Cm LYm407ama dy q 0 03w m ymq camy0CYO'd M 41V-i WjW a 0u CYobVymoGL ° U 0mmp,-1 UFA.NUw 0G Y 04) 0 a Cam O93Ld m o a o Y cm m mro 'i Y C p0.41 40 1I0T-m4 'mLmOaro mm m- o tr m 14 0 a am mo o a m C > c m Y 0 0 W m a c >Y L m aYro m 0 p C.0 A m m .4 to a 0 40 10 Y-4 A u -4 0' O-1 m-1 U O a m r; -4 C N0N 07 43 -4C0H C OY0 QY40 ro'4 mY Nmm r. m 0 14 0 Y W a A O O ro L > U 0-4 tT u Cly -4 m m 0-0 -4-4 US C 0 .Z m 14 L14C 0 0-4N0 -1 mUm1y 0 4) U ma mCaC fim - C ..1 000 U A 0 L-4 k.0 4J m LUro0 LO La Lm L-m 40-4 m 3 �roWJJ m 40%.4mYy E3 a3mw Z FU-4U m FU Fw F.4 FtTO$ 413 w mwc r4 -1 40m . .4 fiWY0 O ij W 11Y m N 0 .'i ., N M o 0 10 .4 N M o 0 mow 41L 0 0L 1 E 40-4 Y O R 04 i `T` � t � L )• 1 ' e .0 04 44 We d Wa d '.0iw 0 41 ,OaWr c.r4 a11 W C m O W OM W .Ar41 O 41 1 . C O V A n 46 41 0 0 W 0,43 0.0 0 ° 0 41 a W 0 N M 41 V c A C N M N qW °aAr-N N C c A EW V 0 .r0.0 >. ee W A41Or1 04" 0C U oE°b Cb , mm a 01 W.ar 46 1 ? m O .r art o e.+ > 41 41 F, r m.r•W� 0tandO14 - p >o41a M14 c7:1 411. o aa a . tM d .a Arb 1 � y Wa : 00 A ° 34Ym WGmm 4j0 NFun O d14 vy ° 4C00 m (a 46yc0WAO Cr-4 41 a46c41 �eOM � 46O lal O A A A E O 0.00 41 Ma d to di anac0 cy 10 mm0E4Aal a °UVIA d) 4 0 k ' W a W Am mM 0 N cy C °0r,,a°+C M�AC 41-11 "A 41 1w 0 4101 U4 U O C6W p, E'O O O W 41O, W 463.1 00 .0 46 F14 >, > laaM+ 0M4) i ca 00 P.0-r4oCb01a ,�ymmlWi'�C4.1 r4.1 W 141 4111 00.00 •,°� °-+ 0ya41a410�s acCa�Oa146.rHM S;N c G a F,O w a1 a '° M 41 e o .a 0 a1 w•• ba °c.>adMou �� Tsto >04141 A. 0m4 A+M' OvX00mH 41d,; m o °4 �'' mov°,v -4..N, O.+', -0i10 0. 54'40 � b'D" a'''tau�m Nuc e M 41C N W C U YA wm c > m,°„ E•'� •icy 1+ 1464600 41 W O H U N la It 41 al •.Ci A41 m W 0 tp-I °o-V 41 0w 0141 m4 •A Oy1 aM1 V 1a, > O> oA 41410 0 'd 43 rqN 1, 0 NH00600 AO010,,y'O46 dA WMN W G n 0 ° vF°i V 43NM N41M'mo.m.� j1 W W•°C 'WO WA 0AA'O m0a"•-IA� Cx Ap W M P: O qC,QE 413 Ualm4146 0,0 Om mA 0rlmm4 '{ tp".cAUNC'd 041 0 U U n7 H r1 V W C rr 0 N y 46 a a ya A m 41 b 'N W W eWi WWW CN .WiHj +1 ° 46Ar,� 41 ON46mmaQW46 E".r Wal w w � ° 3Otiaaia ° N � 4646 -r1+ No'ipWa u�cccU ° °N w�'4' 41 OU 4111 U.. e.. Ul, UM aNAWV meyWO cy.a N ° N > 1n c a c W a m M 41 rl 0 0 W �,'O,e 0 a1 7 41 W 'O'O O 411 O W O p c0mw0 0c46 >W W W mN >•F1 EOOeb41WO O W +� a > U OF, aa1M c41c H aM q V 41 .41 0MV43 r1 Am F, a• M F1 01 a V 10 e M H O U •-1 N A m yam„ 41 1 A O m 0 q 0 10 U'O W rt W N N 41 a M W M C a W �,m W O A a+A A•e 46 a1.r F,'0 11 A.r.r m N W > U Wal UeeWM Wa41 � 0 Ac0ry %4 >MM O.a F; WUr1 W a m n AW 000ev bA ca ►+ Uo3oewe wW1,AM oma, A x 0 W .+ z EF, aOUMa � 411J Rma m �v � 46oH H-0aa1W40MM H41'O 0 O m A rC U Yl Q' N H N n 41 1T a ci w V0 >,W bb.r W aC000 CO >1 '0-00 '° W460M0 V0CW >, wA WO C:r1 k 0 -4 r- 0 o 41 o 41 41 > W a1 41 W e A .r $4 W e C 41 0 V A o 0' 0 A Y W W a 10 0 CM eM m M a 10 a 0 F,M m 41 CrtM v a r1 N e 'o o A 41WWa1 F, e 0.4 o046c46 eWam•° m e 0y1oo mom a:3mAOOC'C CAS Dao 0r-Ir 410 CUW o0 %4V0 0 A.° q i1aWaNW uve F,me Mar, O .4 "V0013 A > C m"i 41 0.4 p m E0 0 m4 U U 0�0 as ,1 U-11 AC C > 0 a m >,0"cti a U 00.V a a -' ami ° mamN Uy4 .cmc aa1C.4..C4.46r qQ' e00HV 3.°-, +14 0 VCo > o.41 0wy 41X $4 j1� o a2+rrgia'H °' +' 1�a46d'"m °4 .411 "41'4 ali q q°,"M �O 4) W"b.0 a o'� > a Wal p•t °e .",.a0 r. O 0 014 y E)4 M F41j 0 9 41 E41 .CINCp ONO 44 044 stn ay AW Fa -H H'F+41.•1 Qay 1100 P. la IX a.WO CEN Q 00 46H > ° Wm a a mm a °41'o r, 0 setp a 41 ts 0 e U 10 ° copiaal aroA�+ m gayaA' mo Qc0 0Cd mo � M.00 r. uVtPM >,,,'r a4 W >> d au'�1 aao- M0W C44-314 >. A 44J aylm � 0b yW .e10p� 0Wq � Gw e.cmlxa ° cro p >,�JH41 0 Weald mF 0m 'otos mmcA °•4A rz mW 0V m0, M eWM e0oar 41 .r. 46 A W N b o p 4144.. 1. 461 . 41041 0.0F,.r 1464141 41coM >.e oya 41� mm,, m , U 41 .r > M W m'O 0M O aW a1U 1014 > W0Aa1M U w0U arc W > q F,V.9 > Owp > ♦J•041 >..41{a1 mM WrI W> W C ago Q 0 0 ;W q W .,q�4HA .Wr 0 '"1 14 W e41a1� m?.q WO'0O 0 ° WW 041mUO O-4 -'.° �F,M,yU ma U MwyH -H>A M4) O pMW OUap N0A F, � a�V W.I (11410 y° Ei0 0M 00! mc °.yr W W 7Ni1 .941� 0aW a>'1W Oa' CA P'.OkN yJJ004j > 0 00140 aa) c 4C y.•0iWWw Ea0 muvrge c.rd4 V0WC P� WaU0 $4 4JV W.IOCy.O 01, 00c� 41 V 461 Tma46jobal-Hi > ym d''w41e �o Wt" a 00 000r- :3 -r. °°y1 W U W. w'O,M.1y W a .Cr.1 WA q.00C 0 a'O A }°j 01C� 0.10 C 46 uA a FUM 41-1W .r,WC D W auW �aA+ 6 �'oum41> a uO�a1 a.41i46er AW y°'Moo Am464ma101.0 0V m A a1.r 46 0 E, m O m a1 p N 41'O p e W r1 Ey A m H 'c >.C 46 A b E+ G y, GWW >.0 041 Ac M .0Oc41 414) 0 E" A01HWC, W UC m W .r 0 >M - V p w V tyM E, 46E4 E., U 0-4 M c U 0 W m c 0 601 b, 1 46 0 W MMaI 0 a0 11 ..W{ O+ F1"M 14-4-004) ..Y.M-1'MOCOm460,4 O F 01.4> 11 a1 M •• W y 0-0-4 •• W 0 0 0 ••M 0 rl W A W a 01-41-1 •• c V W •• O 1-1 ••M.r 11 M A H A M 0.r >,'0 c ••N O .1W-H0W Nb 4J-M N °IAw oats n0crt Ir-4 M 1t1aM 0 a V %a 100 > EW46.rC n NabAa Nec0 Na 000 NE War Ne 41 .0 NO'0041e Na+j 00 >11M0 N� • W 41 U a • O W W • 0 041 UA W • 0%) 0 • a N > • W ad 0 m 0 • W M W 0 0Ar1 1% 1n 0'0ma mUYW 1n Oa1OWmW 1n MY 40 1nn+00 111 Nw 46000 1n041a41'0.0Ua 1nm n n ,r N m W � J a u Exhlbll ' 1 113ulldlnq10ccupency K-5 IK-5 6-8 6-8 Phased 9-12 9-12 Phased Permits Permits Sludenls School Students School Sludenls School Time Issued Issued Generated Opens GenereLed Opens Generale Opens 0 0 0 1 900 0 0 0 0 2 900 900 193 90 150 3 900 1800 387 "" 180 301 4 900 2700 580 270 451 5 900 3600 774 360 601 6 900 4500 967 "" 450 "" 751 7 900 5400 .1161 540 902 6 900 6300 1354 630 1052 9 900 7200 1548 .720 1202 10 900 8100 1741 "" 810 1353 11 900 9000 1935 900 1503 12 900 9900 212(3 990 1653 M M 13 200 10800 2322 "" 1080 1604 , - 14 110001 2365 1100 "" 1837 The expected opening dale as a result or student generation om i 00C 041mmIs .0qO+mC .� .�.1iiOb O% m .+L+4.• C04jMC03 q C U 41000-1C0 7 9 L MC.O >S 0 0-4 Fm 0•O- N C C EW. C mU7 AoOU O F m U 4.3 y..'9 U-1 0 0 q 0. N M 0- 0 m q m 0 , m m C.�41 m ti mL m tial d•� b+ q 0 •1 m m m A E L 'OmyyoEFmmacWp �cc A4 i.•qJ >` 7C'UO"^'v�Qm4 ,0p��F m + o OO aU° ° mm ° UNc 0 y> om " ° ° pNm &,,aGO 0 •o C::yE ° Fu0 o� oo ; a� � om ° a wo., m4mb >+e� . e, w, we mrm�o is .00 O . A GI .!y V"�N m O,•my U.'O•+ U m W '� m C `"4 U mmgY mry,, > .��.�q 7M 0O+ NO8 NOS "�.�� mp >0 q OL 0-4 0 0.0�A.�y C 00 Oqq .hMcA 0-1 A 0 �mUC•OC� 11 - UaO. „°��aO .,�0 OOOFU m F -10 C 0 0 mmN•� umCy yipEO.sE' O >. >m.•'4jsmm ; o. C 4 ;A 0. wmC-1 C0.0 F q NOO�ymyym 0+� m.�pw .pi M-4 6 m b� b •y m 3A C� o'�C W.0 y-�+C y = 'm+ . m0gM •..�iO.� p� CAOto, � .i,rmp Eq Q. ,•C mC y0m •, CW.Cqm 0 .40> V CFm C H11 :gym OO C q� >-A mO We OOOW m ,f- FNwNCO meE U.0 O dF 0•1 .Z , 0a soA014N (yqg ° 10 ° 11dqm 0 V0M0CCCm. mqaOt 'y4 N>. CCA 0 m OOAC.. M7OmO ym >� 7C •.i U 0 Ow .�.�>•i 0 0 0..� A .0.O.�-.r C m Ov m 0.C C N.- O1°m A > N.�.► E N.r M '1 A••� C y F c C.i O-� 00•-1 .+ C J3 mgm+�.�0OmO .1 q c-1 , U L 0 O%N-4.4 0 C m �•••O N 11 N U) P. 0 V . .J.i 010 0 m U S7Fmm O�7COE.-ICt +1 � Cm•+Igpp+1 +1 7+1 E•1 FmN CU >+� O7C•'�'O q q > gCULL>.t�+C 0 •.� YMyO ONUNOdHa11mEV0 A 0pP4 �HMOij4 .tOGAO0 ymca 41 , . �fl m r E A10 r m b q u7M7 q .+.+ a w n a-+ am c� p VO 8 Z. �p u g.� �� c �,� u � o .�► p,�fiM�y � c°+ � -00 J� O .'• o a» G u u p r. y ^ N' t: oa o• u� . Responses to Comments of San Ramon Valley Unified School District 4-1 This comment notes that SB1777 has resulted in all elementary and middle schools in the District being at capacity. The discussion of schools in the Draft Subsequent EIR commences on page 4.3-1. The District's comments update the enrollment/capacity information presented in the Draft SEIR. 4-2 The comment provides clarification on the relationship of the District to the Settlement Agreements. It also presents a copy of a 10 December 1992 letter from the District to the County. This letter was submitted by the District for informational purposes. 4-3 Based on the mix of units in the proposed projects of Shapell and Windemere Ranch Partners, Table 4.3-3 forecasts student generation for elementary, middle and high school. The District comment clarifies that the first phase of the middle school should be operational once 450 students are generated, and the high school operational once 601 high school students are generated. Table 4.3-3 indicates these thresholds will be crossed prior to full buildout of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. In the ' Draft Subsequent EIR,Figure 3-7 identifies the planned location of an elementary school and middle school in the Gale Ranch II project. The sites are contiguous and located in the northwest quadrant of the Bollinger Canyon Road/Dougherty Road intersection. Figure 3-8 identifies an elementary school site in the northeast portion of the Windemere I project. The planned high school site is in a future phase of the Windemere I project. The proposed Specific Plan shows the high school site immediately north of Bollinger Canyon Road and immediately east of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek(see Draft SEIR Figure 3-6). ,... k Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, - II-19 Final Environmental Impact Report ,. November 1996 Gale Ranch A Windemere 1 / .�vy"y K.. .yw> a A. 5 � t'?...,- _ - at�y.;'?Fx+m'if'2�;a•^' Ir""!�'s',7[f4'atp.A.r s'�rwt.sA.i" � �`i.?r'.-z:+++ir�.'y�,��s �[ .yy .C�;� �+'".. Ws � �.ixy y `..".-). + 1q }.. -re ra Ye .,r y� Y :SAN RAMO VALLEY _ s �{ s wp FIRE PROTECTION DIS:TRIC�T h T 54 Administration i �. 1500 Bo linger Canyon Rood s � €~ s Fre Prevention; :r' Phone 510!838 6600" °`��` p'' L Phone.'510 838-6680 M ,San_Ramonaluornia 94b83 : "! r 4 Fax 510 8838 6696 ' .-� � - i a, + •.�* �. ''is,;n' �3.s!' � � �.% s '-Jk�y-�� 'i P't'-�.fi.r r, w r ,� ',� - .��� �,,,�.• i � � '» ��=�y s,. - .t x,Y7r"��Sk.� ��'�'�.. �Art k:a"'r'�" ?�'�' "' eLas -,T,T .i � ai•'-'"<- �y,r ,.� � �. _�•:.• y` .d`,�o,3�.x,. '.;�i` �Y.'�[,,�t.+a�f":r y *'yr+n.�„4��'�:A *�3�< „� 'cv b � -; 4. .yqp. yyy}ys.T ��� w'.r�§..'� ^K fit•�°.i"��r .:s: d.ri T' rr• r _4 y,.:- •a-. .[xs t+`C J 7ry+€'- st "'S }t' '•f � r 3-} T yr. "C�aX-n ti Contra.Costa Courny ,:✓'?f"ediNs --`� xK'3:..--' "WY s"ak•":. r ,,r .. elop - 4 ae°S( ti �1� '°4••� >}.'k'i�° =c d � ��'F,L 7 ti, � y Community Devment epart Dment � r;� Ilk �,� ~��"'�;� �'�.+-'t,�,y'F' r r 1 r s... �r '.; •. �-{ " ! " I .rS �: 65 I Pine Street , I' !T<riu{3s 5 .ria•�` 'f y #` �t�r-r°` t;;�, r +5,{ ; ,yr•'�� F«." 107, r c r } '4• a P t s Y� 4th Floor,North Wing G,) . ,Martinez,CA �•'yy�..y�yt - v � rF -�:r`���'���-�1•:uf�-:y&� r=. .�+ 3� �r r _ 4 -S i •T.o-�t �.$ i ! yt- _X }$ ;�'�`,�'k�+x !'� ���R �y�5 : .t 4.'_u l q.y J}�Y ; '." i Atte Ms Debbie Chaml berain - :. Subject � dk Associates Station Fire Res once Study-Doughe :V v riy alley Development _ `r . �.Jo. a.--- w.�. r -.i.w�t-�Y�:i'3F.4�i3",r•M r' 't`' s�yc''�-�,s "'f�'f'Y. v" - Dear Ms_Chamberlaui i ti,'9�„� +r(i�t's.��'�,3a k •r f�Y`'j�r.`;'yr•�.1....�-f ._r This letter is to advise you of the action taken by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors one dnesday,July 24,'1996,relating the su�ject project. + ' _,.. After reviewing the staff report,the Board voted to'concur with the acceptance of the dk Study recommending only one fire station mi the Dougherty Valley. Thus concurrence was subject to the following coaditioFns c t g+is . W va- �a it 1 x r .. roval is redictwoo.n, the 9x •. K ti study remAPP devemared inthis aining intact and unchanged Intact and unchanged, among other things,means that the density and mtensity of use will not change '•fi''-"' '*•{mak +e:l�^ ,y,,, `q'�q' t µv o-t r.ls.3r�,4$�Y7 •�` +` ,4<4`.' a ` � t 3, .i d �•'•t� S'. rt,, %1..`-', . � .;:?' 2 If modifications to the Stu area are r est submitted and a roved : dY y the r, �N.. PP b i x applicable authority;the District ietains its`full rights of review for requumg`different i station locations and/or different sem delivery requirements as maybe required by'� u;such chanS'et �x -� Xx �+i�7• s'�+~a►cK`;. s rt�� %'�i�; 'z.' � :h�+ :;€i;:2FT`., '� q .,J L �'.,''F^�4. ',';s�, �at�'%'aD�y J ,'`ki ,�,,,F,K�`4�,Y aY" ,� ,'�'y�.; �l'.','.'ary -:5 ' Y Sw -�S•iS` f :. � '9 a-1�,. '."`•'R ' 'tg 3'�"`� 'e' c�y iy�, br.,ti i+ ��-�.wti �. �.•.s.<, i• ;; �- r n Thank You fof ouir',assistance k this matter' :�•� �'���ark�.,dL..•g i`,_.r S �y r.. v Y,T:;;� • � ��,r..,.�,��,xid,t•)'-+ a°"' ,x,�, {`+.'s"�a�zvt. a'tF.���,�•�.. "� •i"�."-�' d"Z.2ti<':•d t'' S ?"�. I �.4" .j'�V rdYIS {.�..4 -+� S s, y 7' t• *k =F`- .a✓ r y,rk � :_�+yt�...�a '��,�' �, +''4:; ?�7 � :a� � "�• ` �, "°�� , '-+�";`,��4"�`�'��2�,r�'y`y.,'���.�P'�1� ',r� G" ik v s ,y.F. ,�.µ�. ,�Y✓.Y a Sf: / { F . •,2 '}, . h o`� Sya -s va. t rt .` h ,�,t„ g;y» etc ^ ; `' t^"4 .# ,•rl.;�° w,�,,-� �� �.1' �+ .�l��Ki� �'ir'� "�+. M �-.ri y� •�. iT p w..e kit f. �y, �t.r':., i{' "Wei [ "'� iY. }.'^"x s N'•e'.i+ s •'114Nt..s ,;a.'�'i.f Jx-, 5 t a�.�%�. _ w ,w b +. ¢ b.y,', ,•�' �R ��,•��� � yi���"+t -i +7,"'a!'i` �q�.,,•�[��2�kh F„' ��"F ,y� ��ys �ai� r.=; r .�t.`�i! t+sr t•.i” e`` -rX� ,�v2s^r r"a�a..c.k a -E1 y'Ya x s - °'34 '�A�+� 1 � @ T Si.lr.. K x , 7f�,��.. ;� � -�1=i"' } -•�+ � �r '„��, ��-� A�"•.�l<�����. ��N �' 'Y"'r~��� k�,l`'�'J,['�"}'�"_ �� � ���� �• mss! i'.waFr��..a���2�*�`�"�#`�- � �' .:�,� � a* a z `,^L�Y°4;�'r-�fs "1. N r 4 ' ;»x.._��,• : 'Lroi-.2,a'g +�.. 3'4 `J �yT'M. "= i'+/y .� -, +i ."; _ s ,-<'' yf"".9 _ a s n �--'�'. }. rpt 8�►.;,. } ,[ _ �" s x. �� rK �""�gc'a..r,�u � 't ,�"t�rs�.t, t.�F3.z�'`'•�•�,�%���i Y�r.�• t�.` � �, d � �+}n r �' 4. � :. sf 5�c �. � b 's+r•a s ,.��;, a +�...�,,� � rl. � t d � �k.t• ,t:. � R4 f ±.R�s -,r f d i Response to Comments of San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District ' 5-1 The District indicates that it accepts the results of the study performed by DK Associates. The study concludes that one strategically located fire station, situated on Bollinger Canyon Road within the northwest portion of the Windemere I project, is ' acceptable to the District. However, the comment letter goes on to state that any changes in the proposed development will necessitate review of the one fire station concept. The Districts' comments do not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR No response is required. , Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-2U Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 N �o, � yZ� �v Y i �° ��, V t N•,r�.:2 u �'aN ani ° d b_ o a `'� vo ! w A d olm •� Su = d W o a a 89"" .�.y, d_ 0 '!F 00, 4p , y�� o a X, o e7 ou¢ spryy V u• In W. P '$ .^,.4 N T' p 1p O N O G l G W CD w tY+ „r.. ab O �+• ,o 5i o T Q t+ W� 1paya`squu��''' oc'S J "l � uaS'^ �..7 W p. u � u [[ G•S'n O Ky tri y �in �(y�y m ca o V y � bb AOA w > t{ .F Wi A Responses to Comments of the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission 6-1 Concur with LAFCO comment. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the preferred provider of potable water to Dougherty Valley, and EBMUD is the alternate provider. The discussion of potable water, recycled water and waste water is presented in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures commences on page 4.2-34 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. ' 6-2 Zone 7 is a contractor with the State Water Project and DSRSD will serve as a water retailer. According to Bert Michalczyk, Technical Services Manager for DSRSD, the , State Department of Water Resources/State Water Project is only concerned that the water is used in a"place of use' of the State water right. DSRSD has researched this question and established that all of the Dougherty Valley qualifies under this criteria. r Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-21 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 ' U'O -0 v �120 a 0 1 fa o- 0.0 13 AHPG C, ju S 4ktyn N it av kL H$ :a Egg 01 E 0 � g iota'ibjg �o�o a90 °514 u , '0" Ils — V -S 0 C, 08.. S 60 o � t o� e�•n 2 "' i 12 U A - 0 —:g A .4 taa u a im 'S 41 v ;> U C_ 0 .08 4) g 0 o z 0a5 o 0 Od;a in m -.z 0 : C 2 0: .0 0.3 ROZ 0 >a C13 Ln UJ4) In 0 to 0 t3 Vs .8 g 19 .4! go ps N43 -09 15*9 boo U,5 T CO OR 0 .9 *g pO_ ta 0 0.0 UO 04 80. :9 py 9.A O - u0 it 0 u-9 p 0 . � � . � � . . . � . � . � � . . . � . � 1 F�I � � )? Ali ] . ] /; �§ ( . k2 $ w$ ■a f\� 2 % . . � / W3> a. £ �a 93 § �� k �k� 7�\ ;A , e � � ;i ■ S\\ . � 0�\ §� too . \k§ ■7kl � $ °° §jk. E c I § # AE 222 , � #■ @ dk /� � 1 ' Responses to Comments from the County Connection 7-1 The comment noted that the Draft SEIR failed to include tables related to transit use. Tables II-2 and III-3 provide the requested documentation. 7-2 The EIR estimated ridership at 495,250 one-way trips annually. The comment from the County Connection suggests a substantially lower ridership (300,00 one-way trips annually). The County Connection estimate is based on its experience in the Central County. However, there may be site specific factors that could influence ridership in Dougherty Valley. Specifically, densities in the urbanized portion of Dougherty Valley ' are higher than those of San Ramon Valley communities and Lamorinda. Other factors include proximity to the East Dublin BART Station and nearby employment centers, which could encourage ridership, and the design of the neighborhoods, which are to facilitate access to transit corridors. For example, in many situations in the County a resident may be one-half block or one block from a bus stop,but the route to the bus stop may require walking four blocks. In Dougherty Valley, the Specific Plan and Community Design Handbook provide direction to include design features in neighborhoods that avoid/minimize such pedestrian circulation problems. A mitigation measure in the traffic chapter recommends that 80 percent of the units be within one- quarter mile of a transit line. 7-3 The comment provides estimates of the costs of providing bus service to Dougherty ' Valley. Provision for funding capital and operation costs is critical to extending bus service and paratransit service to Dougherty Valley. The Draft Subsequent EIR addresses the need for transit service, and transit is identified as a significant impact (commencing on page 4.6-45), and locations for bus stops are nominated (page 4.6-46 ' and -47). However, the source of funding and amount of participation by project proponents is not an issue that needs to be resolved by the Draft SEIR. It is an issue that ' can be addressed during the project approval process. 7-4 The comment discusses CCCTA policies for evaluating the productivity of a route. It does not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No response is required. 7-5 See response to Comment 7-4. 7-6 The comment supports the Draft SEIR impacts/mitigation analysis on pages 4.6-47 and - 48. No response is required. 7-7 This comment states that unless land development projects in Dougherty Valley are conditioned to provide funds for bus service, it would not be feasible to extend service. As the population base in Dougherty Valley grows,the revenues received by the Transit authority will increase. The question is one of the amount of funds required to provide transit service versus the amount of revenue generated by the project. If the transit district requires funds, for example, for capital improvements, this is a subject that is best addressed through the approval process. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-22 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 7-8 CCCTA's criteria for extending transit service are defined. Briefly summarized, there ' must be a) a population of sufficient size, b) funds to extend bus service, and c) buses must be available to serve the new routes. This comment clarifies the need for the transit authority. No response is required. 7-9 The planning process has given consideration to the need for bus stops. Specifically, Table 4.6-7 of the Draft Subsequent EIR identifies 45 potential bus stops. Mitigation Measure 4.6-12 (a) addresses bus stop improvements; 4.6-12(b) addresses the need to integrate bus stops on Bollinger Canyon Road with the design of the Village Center; 4.6- 12(c) addresses the need to integrate bus stops with school design; and 4.6-12(d) , addresses the need to provide efficient pedestrian and bicycle routes to bus stops. The comment of CCCTA points out the need to involve the transit authority in the implementation of these conditions. , Table II-2 Estimat=ed Transit Trips , 16-Hour Period Trips 4-Hour Peak Period Trips 12-Hour Base Period Trii 8ss Land All blode Transit All Mode Transit All Mode Transit Use Tris Split Tris Tris SgpI lit Tris Tris Split T`r-ii pts SFR>.25 mile 5.I87 1.23% 64 2,362 1.509'0 35 2,826 1.0090 28 ' SFR<.25 mile 6.308 2.91% 184 2.872 4.01)%, 115 3,436 2.00% 89 INIFR<.25 mile 1.,730 4.3 7 To 381 3.975 6.00% 238 4,756 3.00% 2-3.3 Commezzial 4.271 3.6490 155 1.944 5.00% 97 2.327 2.50% 59 Subtotal 24,497 3.20% 784 18,7s3 2.59% 486 13,344 2.23% 298 ' Community College 16.699 5.46% 911 7,603 6.0()% 456 9.097 5.00% 455 &lidlHigh Sehuol Trips — - 400 -- 150 -- -- 250 Subtotal 16.699 1.311 7,603 606 9,097 70S Total 41,196 2119+ 26.358 1.092 54M , Estirnate 'rm cit T Annual Transit Trips except schools(255 days), 199,900 Annual School Transit Trips(175 days) 229,400 Avcrage San-day Trans:Trips(52 i?ays) 65,950 Total Annual Transit Trips 495,230 Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, 11-23 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 ' ' Table II-3 Peak Hour, Peak Period and Daily Trips head Traffix I-Hour Peak(A.M.) Qour Peak 16-Hour ADT 24-Hour ADT Use Zone In Out In Out .in Out In Out ' SFR>.25 aide 1 34 98 127 365 278 802 309 891 2 23 64 86 218 in 524 209 582 ' 3 33 93 123 346 270 761 300 845 4 12 34 45 127 98 278 109 309 ' 13 10 47 37 175 82 385 91 427 32 18 53 67 194 147 425 164 473 ' 34 10 49 37 183 82 401 91 445 38 15 42 56 156 123 344 136 382 Subtota 15S 479 577 1,784 1468 3,919 1,409 4,355 SFR<.25mile 5 34 94 127 350 278 769 309 855 ' 7 18 51 67 190 147 417 164 464 8 29 82 108 305 237 671 264 745 30 26 75 97 279 213 614 236 682 31 19 55 71 205 155 450 173 500 ' 33 19 55 71 205 155 450 173 500 35 23 64 86 238 188 524 209 582 36 9 24 34 89 74 196 82 218 37 8 23 30 86 65 188 73 209 ' 39 17 46 63 171 139 376 155 418 Subtot2i 202 569 752 2,120 1,653 4,656 1,836 5,173 MFR<.25 milt 6 7 36 26 134 57 295 64 327 9 6 29 22 108 49 237 55 26 10 8 40 30 149 65 327 73 364 11 21 97 78 361 172 794 19I 882 12 12 57 45 212 98 466 109 518 ' 14 9 47 34 175 74 385 82 427 15 S 37 30 138 65 303 73 336 21 10 45 37 168 82 368 91 409 22 22 105 82 391 180 859 200 955 ' 23 8 39 30 145 65 319 73 355 24 6 30 22 112 49 245 55 273 25 10 49 37 183 82 401 91 445 26 7 36 26 134 57 295 64 327 ' 27 19 92 'll 343 155 153 173 836 28 9 48 34 179 74 393 82 436 29 10 49 37 183 82 401 91 445 40 10 49 37 183 82 401 91 445 ' Subto 182 885 678 3,297 1A89 7,241 1455 8,1146 Comrnca*cial 17 252 149 939 555 -2.062 1.219 2,.291 1,355 41 76 45 283 168 622 368 691 409 Subtota 328 194 1,222 723 2,684 11587 2,982 1,764 College 42 1,976 65 7,361 242 16.167 532 17.964 591 Subtot 1,976 65 7,361 242 16,167 532 17,962 591 TOTAL 2,843 2,192 10,590 8,165 23,261 17,935 25,846 19,927 Norm 1. Bari oa'lYaffu model output 2. 1-hour peak gips observed to be 53.7%of two-hour peak 3. 90%.of 14-hour ADT 1 �. 1-ltottr peak ealtmued to>x 11ryo or ADT Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch H,, Windemere I November 1996 a O u t eco w� d w w �gyp•:n n> °� s-, G a n O N O G F p j N A•N "� ;'i O G d 1,.. � s�G d p� C 4p• � yc `w 1� N Ail F N d O N V ~ _ o 'ntoO G){L �y1 d-O u 0 T" v C C � O of p •c Ln 1L v3 • L cou•ico c. a'�F •% a 0' i11 .n E � u °�F' � �. O.D ✓ ° F y c�^�+ G J � ys o a �.p y o'¢y•N a.w� ao w d a yY cnN o N w �Yo• cd �� c,. "Z d � .V. N G N u ✓� v � �D O� a 1 W ti s y d= a v ;, o o `�" �O aNi w °� c' p icn°'G I % 2 pn`n� °� o d w R T y v Y A o°.` * o w o 0 �P C a co vv � w'o Aoa Tv oy Q d o •u=°'ice,• C o �s " o .Y 4° cU jc N c io d V °' v4 y V. duZ °adst"oxw t" ° 4 C�' �► p, =' H A N U 7 Syl ywD�n'�✓n�eNi L A C3. G' A dA aAa r E R 0 p� O � Responses to Comments of the East Bay Regional Park District. ' 8-1 Figure 4.1.4 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows an overlay of the proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Land Use Map, using the adopted plan as a screen based. The ' "squeeze points" noted by the District appear to refer to the southeast portion of the Windemere Ranch property, where lands designated SM extend to within 400 feet of Windemere's east property boundary. An alternative is presented in the Draft Subsequent EIR which provides an opportunity to improve wildlife habitat values for the Windemere Ranch Partners project. The base for this map is a topographic map (5 foot contour interval). In this scenario, there is one "squeeze point" where a 99-acre urban ' area comes within 400 feet of the east property line. However, at this point there is a ridgecrest and nose of a ridge that are in the open space area, and it appears feasible for a trail to be safely constructed through this interval. In the alternative, ample setbacks are provided from the east property line which will allow flexibility in selecting a trail alignment. 8-2 The trail alignments are shown in the proposed Specific Plan (see Figure 13, page 6-8 of the proposed Specific Plan). The concept for trails has been modified due to refinements in road locations, changes in the grading concept on the Windemere Ranch, to come to ' an agreement with the U.S. Army over the land exchange. In summary, the modifications to the trails plan on the Windemere property are minor, and several new trails have been added. There have been no changes to the trails plan for the Gale Ranch ' property. Dougherty valley GPA&SP, II-24 Final Environmental Impact Report ' Gale Ranch A Windemere I . November 1996 �r .� y �w O/ v a u �U3 �oD•m � �3:°� �fA JO1 v d N O `` •o v eo ..�t 'cs � �F Yi•C�q �p� a N `�d �j o'c�i :o � "' °�+ u °' r •� a.•� 3 � c ,'•. r eUi$ i � w pw� c•aw� u'ai d a ci u'id-J � `° ` fid An . 24 4a d _ +� d �. d 7.K w '°� u .q O O H N � O �a w V u u y. O .� � •? G4 p � 8 � xn..e 6 uv •o$g3� u �'u.3.F ° � '� ec �� �� F � a of v a r p Tib °• u v ��'v u u u u ri� a u 4:.•: w c o a 30? u u W u 3 o N d rJ a`t3 �o ,�o u .. Fu o u ���G°)F T y R C v uu rJ s o - � C" "' � O�o y � 3 y TA �'� G .,�y r°'�` F G'Oma+•�' � t`�+a Q� `f' u oma° o cs c $ ofF cd o e a E' r^ wxC3 t o 'i`r ° s y ✓ o C4 u v fj A 3 Z d x '3 G ;, trial °S 3 F T�goN a o Na O Zd Qd,. .tl i.. N O 7 ,,T••N µ 0. O A A a g Na a � .no, ygGo,; �lu u �tusti,,u° m � _ v '1L 'iG to rn -ss U z N� nNi d' r C. a) N z C m V .= S T :: A •5 u � of 'rn '••' `- '� ar W'tl w 4• N " u z ' f"• r A v p A H y iO G — H 6 w ci a Z u g �3 `mss. i "9' ' C W°) "� })j `• " IL OD u w u N u v ..1 of L) G o � lJ � •2' C w�-. °) ^N •.•ra O � •�., °ry m > d v x v.. u a�yi+p.• .- O J '3 � O o A•7 Q fl" A w•� '.� 7'O R �X � o �- u�'` F U °� o �, � v d � $ o ur o fj• ': '° 3 W s � op wuu Nzi s. E CA C. �U' N w p,F °3 a�J 1-• .�va rte" ' C• [-+ �� �' �°° � ~•� � wooa deo �''• 3 � N � A w t3'T Q p u•,� >e a ox m �a r N 0 C 0 o e°i a u CC 10 a!o -. x -- ate.. y .�'-� N I-P I i2i, �—;2, --up FS u vo- -Q-Q 92 ' .k�" `4u, F.W A u q.d o'"Si on ti 2 -0 F3 cn y op 0 ;-3 w iO g t3 Q. e 6 C, -S 0 U14 ovi, t q 1 2 —:. 4j 3 -0 o ia r 0 o .1k,41 0 4) 0 13 C', rl r. 00 0 Jol Fi -0 E g O>Ej -r, 0 0. -t3 an § � 4 ON., > ii. 4�- 0. S r, 0 Ica, co 4) 0 3, R-v, S. ou, 0 < 0 ti Owaia !2 U'a 0 r E 3 H--m S 9 2 s to Lj r. cy, :o A! ME A. C* *C: c = 0,0 *; C6 6 2 40- 2 ma 0 aI 0 toat ro 0 :3 r- rn .0 r 0 r I ' OE en 41 .0 0 ix: t,�4--— :-s b. tg I . 9 4 1 . 4) .0 U -8- Qa cAG il--,, - ;> R Hcv :31- -g -0. 30 V�I' r :3 D � q3 ,U 0.0 In 11 -00 ro- '6 2 0 0. 0 0 5. 0 c On 0 A ZL,-'= o 00 o -g M -r, zi 4 o 'o jra- C) go > o C.u C4 A: 'd > zi lu 10 P.- 0 o AA. a v 0 CA F cr .0, > < ;> C4 4�1 0 0 > ch 42 - r 5 Z, C" 00. �S E v co v <:2 8 F E .§M !a 4"s 'w'-5 0 T. > V L 0 C: .0 U' t-go'� w N u W m °t u v ' 0 13" -U v 0 Z - �!'.5 -E o 0 P- -IOU ,Ug 0 v) o E 'o ;> 0 . (4 0 MA ro id a .6 E Zn "o- 'o, t. > 0 0 r 0- Coo 'oro 44 oA -0 > I O Oil . I I� ;:) -. - . P ;4 0 0 E 4; 4, c, t.3 0 —0 n 0�S i ;> va 0 U r o0 0tx m r 41 �2 L �5 . E -0 E 4175 0 > UK 4) tub r & o tau 03 0 U2 io u p 1 11 NO 1, 1! 0 < o 4; u 1 O � � � U itl U Mme.� •H . _ T u •u � L� wO � '� � °3 � y a � 'oi'i'� U. ,3 .F Z of C O'H H •y',C � U O F a v6 oA � aOy N 7y.w W O uIS F E tl m � �'� � o� � :a w � � u uw � �•rj �� F $ o '. > :�W Ts u 3 a •y. u � p �' F c �-uo e� � aW'�'"C•a,on :o eH � � cid � w.o yy+ O al .U.• (}•«. O O al ry� ;G O +n H N _T O'yC pw sc� ic$ s� •o,$ u Fu > �� o •� Ra Qa, oA CO u d'n u � 0.-7 u � u•r^n u �3 E•o d• a_ T p v a to .. o ` o•� aa� c��'�:u � H � v' �•" Grob a� � ; �3 u �, �,�W F• o@ o o f �' � u � o � 0 3 u� °>, a v c u u G- u oo u �•p O,u � u o u "� F :o v o u'c � �0 9 p o �_ O c[:3 at as u•° u a"� u b a, 4 r1 rc Q C�7 si fl p p a— p5 u U v, m vi c0 w � Responses to Comments of the East Bay Municipal Utility District , 9-1 EBMUD has provided clarifying language on the Settlement Agreement, and the terms under which EBMUD would provide domestic water service to Dougherty Valley. The recommended changes are now a part of the Final EIR. , 9-2 E1VIUD does not challenge the adequacy of the Draft EIR discussion. Further response is not required. , 9-3 The EBMUD comment notes that although information in the 1992 Brown and Caldwell report is dated,the discrepancies do not result in changes to the significant impacts. The ' comment goes on to state that if annexation to EBMUD is proposed in the future, an updated study would be needed to determine the potable water needs of the project and design of the water delivery system, along with any other infrastructure improvements ' that may be needed (e.g. filtration plant upgrading). The clarifying comments of EBMUD are now a part of the Final EIR. Further response is not required. 9-4 This comment clarifies the status of the facilities plan for Dublin-San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utilities District Recycled Water Authority(DERWA). 9-5 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. However, a comparison ' of the various reports on the benefits/impacts of recycled water may be useful and could be undertaken by EBMUD or DSRSD in connection with the DERWA EIR. EBMUD , provides comments that correct editorial errors in the Draft Subsequent EIR. 9-6 An objective of the Updated Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) is to address anticipated dry-year supply shortfall to meet the needs of customers within the current Ultimate Service Boundary. The District's comments are aimed at emphasizing this point. ' 9-7 Comment acknowledged. The discussion in the Draft Subsequent EIR implies that the agreement is in place. The comment states that there is on-going involvement of the , interested parties but there is no formal agreeement. 9-8 Comment acknowledged. 9-9 As the EBMUD comment states, Draft EIR'S for the Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows project are being circulated. The locations of these projects are shown in ' Figure 4.1-1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The TVPOA project is a request for a general plan amendment, rezoning and approval of a preliminary development plan. Additional work on the traffic study and EIR alternatives is being completed prior to release of the ' Draft EIR. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, 11-25 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 , 1 1 x N H H 41 1 w 41 m 10 0 ••d)1'aw x U w W 4(0i 40i a •101 14 (0 U a >41" d) •11 0 N O CC w O U (0 10 0 H w CC O O H > 41 mA•�+ m•.+•r1 U E >+ •.1 + 9•r1 4) o0, 41 A 7 >. (0w wro 41x41 4 4) 4) 4)Ai 10 W COw N >^ 0 IHm-� 41 m00C. Hx a U41 0 41 41.0 H o)0, m aroU •11a) (0 m r1 (0 H 1 O wrd U)0 4174) x 107 7d)41 10w•rlr4'H m41a •1lwaar-1 >, N (OHa41•104) ma v a uul aHu'd41 aro .0rol-4romro 'd (0 (0E (0u urotow a) ro u m (0 (0 w a rl o ro (a I 41 41 11 w 7 u E w w-.0,•.i 4-H N g 0 v 1 H F1 x �+ v41 Aad)•.+ ++ 1~110 a wcnO�u Cm Ea4) 41Erow (0EH L) 1, 0 row -1 m 41341 1001 w o (0.000 OHm 3H v w v m m ari a, m� O0 w [a 14 E 0 u ri P.U-4 Q, a amro to v m 0,.a 41 N 410 0aa H (0 > E > ( 04444A'.'N-.Ei-.9a NSOi 0Omk V._4Lr.)N4)1°o o (0 •.141 140 to m•rlmotn•+ 0 0 -1+Ha 3 a 41HroroHroxHu41 O W N CC 10-11 u r-1 b •,1 a h H 11.n 10'-41-1 W E m m O N Olw 3 N u•0,i (0 u W bl G 1 u x H m u ro a CO m�-1 >.w m k m 7 0. 0 41-.i W w •14'0 m 0,A 0 al-OH)CC .0 41 (010u 704) 07 ad) -,iNtnu: OamaH ud) w00 d) 0 (041 U Na Aaw am2wr� rowti x4) HHw >.•r17 •rl 014141uwU •rl10 >. a 4) 0 (0•n a % (0m-- O m a u k w•11 Eri N E M0 ro a m w E w w CC i U w O (0 w -to 'H 0,o > a ro 3 ro 4)41 cn N•rl-✓ri a 41 a u H a H 'A 4 r-I X M44 w ro (0 0 0 0 4) 4) m r-1 N •r1 >cn 7 41 41 m w - ro m a w P. fa 0 H w o 41 O ri N W H 0 a E d) 1 0 0 •11-rl 7 w 0,u •r1 0 m 0 H w 0-4 'y' 7 0,o, •rl 4110 a 1n 41 H A a U r1 En ri cnu mt+rw 0 0 -0,; m- 4) 0 (0(, (0 >41wa rov1-iaaa - m 0." 1 (a1 4) 41 x Nrdo >41 aro0 mar-111•iau00 uHw w m 0ri0 to t7 rl-n a •41 417 W-A0w0w O a wro. .1 •ri cnroEuwa3 �lu O ,0 41 0 4)cn�- m 11 d) m x E H•r1 r-I 0,,0 10 0,'>,41 10 m o a 41 0-r•1-+41 H m riH E .,1u,a~ (0 4J (d siuriwo3Eum w-4 roNauWwwN w m A E a 0 ccn r 0,i 41 0.0,1 b (0i fro N :3-H 41 Cd w-A 0 1.4 W N x 41 P1 m 0,A A w u ro r-1 w U .7 O W m 7 H 3 w,�r-1 .0•H 41 0 u a w d1 m u ro ro W P, ; 41H w ua >, Ha(0 d) au (0 >.a A.,i row woo 00-11 M 41 4) w mA a'-fumsi0ow .4m0HualaCCE a-H E 10m4a) > E 1 to 0U CCE - u >. CC (0tnCC OwW a0, 41uC7w CC ri (IS r-4 U41d) 701E 0.11 w O w k 41 0,1 d) a41h01-11 m U u 4) m•r1N ro-.1H4'd41 4) $1 a +•n 0 10 0 10 0 H m.r1.11 •1,r0,41 41 tow .a m or ro w U 4 rd F 0 CC .w a m ' 410 a wa7 ro41roAa410Haro roa.0w414) tn>41 m 30, (0uuH N w (0 (0 (0ro urim 41a ro w ro (a •+ E0 H0• XE . N01awro mutnrod) W u 0, >3 41 u rC 41 0.a cn ra 0, •r+ 0 >,10, H u 0-0 d) 1 w (0 a H a w 1 H41 • 0.11 u -1 w 0,b' m u 41 v 0 41r-i4w 0 a 00, N 0r-1•n 1010 M (04 m 4) >M0auN0 )ruO � wuuw' d) d•(01 °s1ro m(0m 0 (a 04 )4Jk4 )i04d _4i41q }iL ' 1 -r1m > d) Ha 0Em0 04 -11410h4) u41m 0CCw410 0m urouaam art 4) E u£ 041 0 to 04-4'a >, 0 CCa4110CC >r1U 4) w www ri•�>1 H as mx Hu row • rotn•110roa 41waw7ao7a vsia.c0r4amwu,-1 O O -r1 d) ro w 4)w N N ari (0 ECC m E 4)A m N`4 H.0, ro u to m m•ri all ,D W.0 x ri a A a(a.> N•r1 d) 0•r1 toco RC 0, E•r1 H W (0 w u ri•ri -4 .0 >,4) 7 Ha, - •1IU 4) w 41 •.i CW 0H-r• Ort Hwro L) a010H7cn H >. a ' 0,3 W 04J0 044 w r-10 w > E (0an041.7 0,107 7 waw 1.1 $40U0,Aw ri " >. 7 41 (00 w r1 r+ wro k roriQ. a 0r-1uro,-iwm X.(00 w-Hwm A (a41 Wri0a41m H 0,0.11 o m a rl a 0 O w H4-H 0 C U4 a u r-4 m > E w u d)al u U)11 0 0 0-H m 0 H 0 41 u 1 7 - OxU 0 0,3 w (d F: .0 0 A a (0'd 0.4 N w Q 0-.1•.141 41 4) 0 H w w U m •11 41 _14 v rl•,1 to u 4 41 4) CC 41 41 m 41 H 1L $4 u 0,a 0, 0 41 >, w.0 d) -R•H Q N d) ro N u O •r1 N w w CC cd1 0 10 rou H N EH3 r1 a- 41 Aroroam�Ha•r1w 04) 4) (0 10(0 4) xro �urid) 0,4) a41w •r1 4)F • • • ro w u)•r1 H a a•rt w rd O O'0 r-1 F N N 3 N.-41 4) o F (D r-1 (0 E E H w u u) N h A ro d)3:U a td 10•r1 U'H 41 7 41 >.0 4) 'A n 0, hr d) 7•r1 w•r1 CC E w o 7 " 01 roa3iviw >AJww+~1r-~imu-4111 mommwaimwm 4) 0r0Mk00owm 1 Hum avax rowHaZross1 .0k 0HOuuvU)al •o 00a410H0H.041 £ 0, 3 m oHA�41 mA � UU•riQ (0a3N—Hu0ri 4JUUM104.4 aV vW 4) 0 Ei k ro wro o w 1 CL- Wm 41 )A14 >.3 v 414101 411v .0 4i 4) u q �:; w w A m '0 7 a)41 01n H rd m E 41.,1 41 a 0 �. v a N w a 4) m u w m U U)`1 ri 3 >,0 7 >,w E (0 >. O N H w a E a, Z= 0 u•r1 04J -0 r-/ w 0 " •r1 ri a m 0 a, -,1-,4 U H H row N w 3 N w U) m O r1 O x > mm w aOw41 4) m rim ri u d) 0 k" 0 w : H ro > 311 w m a f- ' , 0'0 x H-0 U 0 H N o ro-,E-1 W r-1 H 41{".. 0 N (71 W o4 CA Vy 0,a CZ) w 4)rn d) 0 o a 0 •-•r1 X Hro w a) to>; o ri >10 U am 4100 u of 041 11 w c1 row w a) 0 w u N H 0-r1 'd .,, a x 7 .� .0 Xr (0w HH m0, to a 37 u 1 -4 0% H H au -a 0, 0 u d) o 0 a d) u b laa Ll a N E 111 0 41 4 (041m N ro o 0 0'i }HI u a 4) 0,'-1 d) N o 000 a a m 10.11 a 7 1a 7 ro u p a EA. E Hd) >,uw-1+000 4)A w0 My w cn a a o, d) O N 11 0.0 n u � m aro N r•i CC w e"' r1 (d 4J mow l 3 NO CC10 P. HO ro H E E CCH-r1 Ha41Nm NN41 Aa 41WN OU U w CC m J, 1 _ w O CC >," w•a.0 CC U O, W ro 11 4) ud)u pHEwm >,mau w ro 1m ro a m w a a a p1.,1 r,.r1,,r.1 0 7-a H to a ro ri > H q ro m m L H u www w XrI (a 4) 01 .a (0a EH 4)41 CO E N Gl A Wtn � 0141 mus°. > 00mNm3 'm0 ~ 001 0 a %1 v "'' 0 E a o U•r1 a u u E a•ri - 41 a ri 4)u 7 41 rd to x 41 u-r1 u k� )4) .0 0,w a-11 41 m a ro (0 t, u w a cn H 0'0 CJ u Hro ro 3 ro H 10, 0 x.0 ax a)ri41 v o H 4)m O rori m �m °H a owa0u0H Ea 0 >,'M w >, -0 H o, ' M-4 U) w>a (0 41 a E H H.r1 ro b E w w 0 0 4) 41 w .0 41 r-4w 4) 7 1n 0, 0 (0 w ax-11 a 010 E ri H r-i ro to u H o rA d, .a w a 3 d) ri m U w a ri a m r•1 41 N •r1 a D4 411.01 mEu >41aro w0, 41 Oro 4.3 (d 4)m F (0 >, Q u0, b) WH0,1 17a•r (3 C0 HE m (0 H>ro r1> tnm a 041 0 a 0 a (0 w U v a(7--a-- (0 •ri •• •ri w 7 v r/ .0 .0 11 a >,4) 1.1 4) 11 4J O E > 0 0 M u 41001 > >141 m >1 > u v 7 O 41Eu 30, as 44,6 Peram Hm- aoa a41m a)u w 0 H 1610 1 z aaro H maE o o0, d) mvN wm•11 4) H I 0, H 041 (a v rou 00H x0 '0 r-10 w.r141ww E -u Em10 4) u a E O Q 01141414144 H 70W 414) 0 .0H.r14) 0 41 (07 41.aa r+x x4) w tiro = umd) HwH•r1 v 0U > F410V w H r-1 44 t (0tn 4)•n w 'd 41 '" to d) >+iw0,1 ,-1 cna' 4) 04) $4 m7a >,.E rowu (0 710 0, 7 4) 0 r-1 a am r4 CC d) a H x CC 41 10 E E Old O 7 -H r-4 a 040 0 H o a •r1 o H H (0 .11 (0 0 LL 414110, 1141 u 7 414411 41H 10 •roriawH d) .,1 oraro 4)o Ua 0 3: (1)L) 0 a bm 4 U PC 0 (011vNQU O $ N W• E•i H•11 > 4) mH 0,wr41 m E o 4).1141u V O H s E •r1 00d) H os0,1 (0 d) HU Hr-1aH-110 4 > 0 Z z H001,-•1110 x o H 0liwwX Fwd) • • • • • 4):g hH741P.w.r1 w wwrwd)'090 HE 41Ea 41 H > EO-r1a•1141Hcn 7 S F- 0E7r-1.0H (0 oEEr4 Id M $4 a H0001n41 (0w AOCC (0.04) (0a 0, 0 3 Qy xuuU�wx o (0uauv� Ha (0� 1010 1 M o LM O. m W u r1 N r1 �� a m v QmWid 0 m ro roNww •moi ro � u N m a r1 aA•� u WA m a m W.- 3 a >, a m -r+ rn •ry1 H NW ro1a•ar1 Gm w uN m >1 (d to E0HGa 0m > ra1aHQGro.Fara1G11 2romu H-H'd u Aw0 Nmm uwG u-u a s bA••i •vOammTIG•r1 n 3 -+ m m A (d a3uu 01 w W roGro0Nar1 0mW •r1100W 1m m iwG o,JNmvu � umaro 4) 4) Nmaou , oWHm 1w wH O W N m m W A m N W x ri ru •rt rnrdNa0N G HNuNoANaN WrowNNoNN W 0 7 G.Gro•o,. >. 'OrnW P.4) wo Gro uG•H -mu W•nm0 GNaUME0UV > F 9ror1 G W u o - ro •,1'aa•r1 N u•n-.i m m W H O -�W W m a N W a H m u gornr1 roriwN WN•ri 3 Co•i •11 94 F W O m W • $4 V MH E W E -4 k 4) -I cdv a u11 :s 1 m u0m 0 H03'0Url -I 3a04) 4) H4J0,4fdU44Vm o • 0VuwN roroHm0mG 0010410E C)-A0 11 0-A0OiWNNaaaWm aM-MW-r1 O v .. V '0 ro w o O N W .a a m u t a v to W N N aro m E v W H a '0 0 3 044 NH Urowu •,1 roroNOWltl3a4Li � WHOW Er. P.kfa0m v0 aaH N (a >,to-.i 0 N a W a r1•ri N m N a 'o 010 m v_H to o m vro u•.i H ro 0.14 m m P: rd ria0 N cd rlmm0u0mN W aE a EQ•,1 WHri0N Wr1 rlromW -4•r1 N E > o a N to u-,1 > W {1 W m E m W m 0 u m N roa a a m u to N W ro c N H EGG•A 0 r1W a > W W a NO+m-.i r.ro u.-•imaGaJ OEE Qm.0 roma •ri N W E a 44•r1 W x ro m 0 7 .b H mama W (d.a m w.a 11 3 u w r1 W m r10Nm Hmu m Nm u0b. NW r1•rim0 W 4 m' .90m04J W 04Jaro Ww Nm00N 0 >. u W '0W G •wV p, ro3H '110 W u wm 4Ow W•r1W •r1 a 044 H W O A A m a A-1 a k m `- ,a O N H X 1 0••1 a a N a u a. O m 3: to E Wr-I as u 1r+ vu oev ro 0.11 0.4) 0 () 030" 4) 0 m a Aro roWm0 roro mE b HaamH m" v+i OW aU aim GOmWG U m V r-1 W ra£a w r. rn u a W ro�� ro v rt)•r1•r P.V 0 4 Cn 1 10 41 0'-1 0 �ObFCm ; Ev ErA0 dU.O+OO. ea • °iHWQAaaCo m 414r-1QNH u10tl13 0044 44 0 :J A u 0 x � �rA ro b r. , m H ro N m a N W W Co a 010 0 ro oN off VN o to 1. a : . � ro W ro m•r1 U•r1 ro roX.a•r1 EWWNmrn 4 oeaa> W W wU �6 MT) ro.c r.-1 v.>1E VA u-.iF Hrn �i•.ia a Wrf m 0 H •r1 N W • C 0 0 u • > • •H U ro u >.W 'n 4J -r1 r1 0.a C. -.'i H v Fi aJ L W m H u >. W N-$..-x . •, •.D • a s 4) 1 > O O 4) 7 O•rl �1.--�ri •• E O-4 W toVou'I • Hmaa •n-. b HroaaWSlw14 01M HN Wm WNaUE umQ0 Wrnu rlmm -C .. t aE . cu 0P: m > a•1 0OGA (a u•iro o O N a of 4J Co .1n - ., • .+ 0 u W w w •r1 m 11 w u 0 N W aro a N 4+r-1 >, W0W 00•'10 W >W0a G- '• •rlWtnm,4 rov mu Hro 00'000 H Hm.an, kH4 U vtnE •amu c • . • ririQ•rt muvm 4) (d a uvG > v W a4.JM44 1 N� be 0A! of Coro .a mm m >.>.aro WW Nm0W4 > wE pC ow k. m • • t? W•rI G 10c 't>-. b�. r .. E W19vu mw Omv�•riaarmu m0ri-.iu v 'O u) . 4 4 Cl 0 m G k H 0 9), ri u 0 u •.i a u u v 3" 0 .1 cWFOWN •rum v0 . o u v.olW WmmGO mwrna rC & a W . N > Wm N as Wk•n0N 3N a) m m'Orornu ri o4)Fa, NN 0A TJ am tna W ON W u N -AW WNWO m cA .- 0 • • muN •ri ' Naro vrororo-rix . -•. w . v 0NGmum ova Oa Ern 64J 10 En mE .c-. c:.» 00 000 V AO GUu v rou•rimu •rim r-i r•UhNWaErN11 W ro Wou 'ro•r1 ros( •. Ou C. C • E I wH AOrai mol•ui W W 4J It 0 WO vaA FHW NmH.W-roa"Wrl3.ii •'N WHwu O N Y.0 m N u •ram W u•11 a E• a a N r1 r rd u w ro • m0u 0- M 0_H V 0aW tW OCme- -0 N 4)•,iaN7 NroW -o 0 u .11 a Q N a.c b • : O' a, 0 HrmW aAN m r1 a a brry1 m m m > •rO W N m NN N 11 N a W LI) Wmm NuWmNromro CEW + Ou >•rrl'OHGW H > vm-1 mW WNNO NaNro-r10 F u m O m 0 omA W E 0 0E W ari a 4) W W.a W >1 m w u a u m a a u 011 a•11 r1 0 W N W a roaErO(dO W m m m. u u G N 4f-0 m aa m ra1 romH0a) urn rnm0Er1a0 a 0) 0 50accurnNNro .00driowoW ri) 0Wcroro0No vo > HVGm uc ad) 00H Gvava x 0 0 r1 E m 4 u u a u Oam aN m m "44 4) Id a-ri m A CO H N „ 1 i (a-0 0 0 3 o t� W Fn ►W/ ww o� W 4)a ro m " 4J'0 umx ort w r, ma 1 a mW 1 a N k ua v auNro GN OaW4J -.-141'1 ro o o roro HaE a k O a•r1 E 0 ro A u u w m r1 w W ro q W a N 4 a 0 .G m•ri O •r1 ro W O u 0 v N m ro (d.,jm o A•r1 O W E ro G U N a u N w w N•r1 HW Namw WN mNU mH N -r.uu H+iW W amNH•r1 U`-' to r: A a 0 ro m a ro W ro 0 u 11 N k" V. r1 -,i m E m a a w 3 ro r1 u rn H N U a W W a•r1 N a H W r1 ri 0 W 0 0 W X rn-r1 u to W to a N m•r1 •11 0 rU ro •A OwE 0 >.m rn a4)-r1u w E Ora > H0•H EQMEa EX Nw �-W W u W a r1 a m x 3 u 4) W•rl v to a m v gg rt W ►1 •rl•r1 o0wJ. ma.Gax Nr4 r1OWN 3 mWN.a P. WWpC EOm £ 1 ri iN aN W U 4)E- ari m•r1H WONWmroN m WmaNa NWwm ro N ma W•HN WWro aN NUNwHWP. ro0WQ cd 11 M41 4) W aU a N W W U W 3.a WaO N Gro m m (dH ro a N0 O. 'a N A ro (a ro > H W N -r1 Om a3w ro Eu •roHH am .a aCoNmaO0 Coro Ouv 90M$4 W -,.1 •r1•r,13. W v w- a Cou m o -r, mv cdrorox W ar, >,•ri 0.1110 a x N F_rouNAm•riaaU44 NRC WNWm amriN > 01ur1wm ym uN um NCC•r7 Nro H N•r1 maH WE0.au U a ouar4 aab' x W m W ro c a 'w m a a E N W W > w N u x N 0 a E u ro 1a H o W 0 0 CO 4J "04 U•OW W --tnmo v ma>-amu m o.r 00000 0-H NN Id u W 0 W•H a-,1 Q •r1 a m N W 0 0 N-,1 tn.a a ro ta m W H m E•r1 a u u aV W HNO a +� 1roEE►i1ro (aM ro.w 00E 3 .1 wo am _En mm W X441 WgHONWNNH WNANWvm0.10130 NNEAarom > Uu"E � b [.. 0 >.-riv7u N ol•r1ro � U+1ol> u W :3 -4Hav- •'4011] Wol "0 m ro u E m m N 41 4•r1 H.0 a W a a m O m a Uro N N O a N••i'0 mE m N E a m N W m a U u a 0«1 E to rdH m0•r1 H W ro G 044 a t1 0 m W W Cold v•rl ai Wmol00-H9WwW aro M 4) UEmol•114) W > mW Aa k 0 A 0 0 a w umuolmWUwWE Wrn r40atnN '0 4) NN NONENm0vuu Ero Wrl Q•,1 O O m +i E W ro a .a a•r1 0 rU1 "M a ro ro•r1 W H Q W o E.0 a w N" $4.4d ro 4p0rammu0tT0N•i Hr >r1 W a W 0041.)- W •moro WaW HN�ro rn mN M N 0,M WRW W N ro N IV'0 A W Nr •r13-11 am'0a r1NN.a0to.c0 N-1 Nm > rna ro- maWW Ha m am um �Id a r r1 A O N , H C U 3 • r1 (a v o v u 0.0 E W W Wa W �N aNNaaWr+NL U)4J HaOro m rl Id 0 v m•11 ri u a m v N N W -a W w .ri >r1 m a 044 •rt W.a N H Q O aauN , •r1m9HNaa m•nktn0.4 ro NLW 00NOa0M00Nawro a to rori >•.to •r1 m U W 00O%-r4ua auau > E941•'10HEN0 000 0 W roNarlo'0m4Naxu N 4 m 0 0 H w 0 0 0HwvH.0maam0 _W H Am ro z mrir1 W u W-A£ 0 m a m a 4)-A x E-nr1 H 44-,1 (0roa -r1 0 o v k v A 41 m W 0N000N0W.0 a6 W u'•7 WNatm v0 am W0UN•r1WU a W N ONH•ri WOW m m mW•r1 Em Co000 HN 100.11•r1 N.aro olw 04) 0 'd cxroW N WMA CN W O.c X Wrro u aN a a a ri.GNF C m mW W C-rW ro 1 a >+ aNmNN >ro •rnUNwx0 0 m m m 041104) U arWWoo N (d ororowWOWI OUJ m m r1 1+ x ro U m N N 1: 0 •,i N a•11 r1 .0 . 0 • E-1 v rd b Co x to W A ro3 41 .W r1Qm 4) a•1 .a G O• 0 0.8 w -. 0 >,H m N n Co , 4.3-4 10 0 10 G W m W Nro '41'0 .a mNm0m0m N•ri .0aaN H•ri0 W W•r1N , u H m W w X G >. v ro x W e•r1 m -,1 a N m•r1 0 N m aro G a G F m m W'0 u.G H A3•r1 ro Wm Oroo.- 44kr. wN > v > v a H-A03Gmw0E9ktn HO v-riAGau N E vri r•1 H H N•r1 w m O E+ H E O-H 4) 3 r1 O A-410 0-,i W .1 O.a k u 0 •r+ G Ck u 1 N rd r: 410_"" OWUWHU to 01-r1 ONN Wm NN N ro N N u mm my NN 00 W.ak.aNO d mm tyWn a -W N0r1u N NmmHaW A000NN0 tnN 0 m x x301 '10 N um W v-,ImmWlog ON«i a ON oro Nmaa -a NOWroNHroN w Nm m V �N m v ro •ri Hror1 W-1 W m 10 W 944 uGa O G m . mN E v.G 41mmy WNNmW WmEH•rr1ONEH.a WmaWa QH •rWF W NWNWW•r1roa•r1Wam O FmNm01r1mmroW >u FEL ' hA roro mu m U a aG N a u :3-H 44.0 W rnrnW 4)•a kul WX W-H um a u a O W P.-H > m 044 0-4 -•1 m N a m U 4-4-14 H-+ Id-r1 m rl x v K v O E a Coro m •Nrn Wu•.i•rim0WUroEWvro volto0roaro0arlm a W HO �WWaaa m NUm NaNkm rna aro.0 ou a E•,100a'0'A ro v4) EOWto 01r14) 0rnx m OE W £Oa Cl,•r1p,0L) 0rl04WOm 0rlrouEmccEEAr1 «i a. 11,7mANHmN u+i • 1 i i 00 vvm v fd + M m v 044) 00 a N m k•o ' ` m x $419 0 Erol rn W ro mm -H•ai 0 v vi N Ell 0: H41 :314 >. 93 .caAroa o-.+ a v xro 41EvvE rn0E w X00 v a q u ro-.t•.� a uE ",-% br1-4 ii op4) 4) u 41 mr—IQ14 � Sa cd go x u NuaviuE , ri�uNi v [ m fm 2Ln m E o � 3w ro ,j $4k0 W Nw •.i mw v di a Etn-r"l,Iro �4 Hb � wAmv roa0c- a3 }w 04 0 o\ x w ON a� roLn r11q m0 •0 RN wmwH Aoy >Ln r= V umN >xaW cd ON a) v 0 V1 $4 E3+•'>I mWN99r-iu 44u00 -' M b •.+ v W ar-.� ' IU.0 cdrti u hA uuvV-44J 4) to ONr.r.0" k u m Eli o > v ro o r a u oa -H-H u row.0 0–m u G� Responses to Comments of the California Department of Fish and Game 10-1 The commentor is correct in stating that a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)has not been prepared for the project or approved by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 on page 4.7-25 of the DSEIR incorrectly implies that an HCP has been prepared for the project, but accurately states that an"HCP should be approved by jurisdictional agencies prior to recording subdivision maps". An administrative draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was recently prepared for Windemere Ranch Partners by LSA Associates, their consulting biologist 2The preliminary HMP provides information on vegetation and wildlife on the Windemere site, discusses special-status species known or suspected to occur on the site, identifies an environmentally superior alternative developed in consultation with Ms. Shelia Larsen of the USFWS, evaluates the effects of the project, and proposes a mitigation program and framework for implementation. The discussion of special-status species in the preliminary draft HMP focuses on San Joanquin kit fox and other grassland dependent species. Information on the possible effects of development on California red-legged frog, a federally-listed threatened species and a species of special concern to the CDFG is notably absent from the preliminary HMP, as are detailed mitigation provisions to preserve and replace habitat disturbed by the project, and prevent take of individual frogs. The preliminary HMP will presumably be refined following review by representatives of the USFWS and CDFG, and will eventually serve as documentation for a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP). In response to the comment, Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 on page 4.7-25 has been revised. (See Chapter III of this document). 10-2 The comment regarding San Joaquin kit fox and need to revise the HMP and obtain approval from the USFWS and CDFG are noted. Refer to the Response to Comment 10- ' O1 for revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 which address these concerns. 10-3 The comments regarding California red-legged frog and need to revise the HMP and ' obtain approval from the USFWS and CDFG are noted. Refer to the Response to Comment 10-1 and revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 which addresses these concerns. A discussion of potential impacts on California red-legged frog is provided on page 4.7-21 of the DSEIR. As summarized in Table 4.7-2 on page 4.7-23 of the DSEIR, Mitigation Measure 16 includes provisions to minimize loss of California red-legged frog, western pond turtle and other aquatic species which could be affected by creek crossings. As noted in the response to Comment 10-1, the administrative draft HMP does not contain an evaluation of the possible effects of development on California red- legged frog or detailed mitigation measures to preserve and replace habitat disturbed by the project, and prevent take of individual frogs. As required by the revised Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, the USFWS and CDFG must review and approve the HMP, which will Z LSA Associates 1996,Administrative draft Multi-Species Habitat Management Plan,Windemere Project, Contra Costa County,dated 3 October 1996. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, U-26 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 ensure that adequate provisions related to California red-legged frog are incorporated into the document. 10-4 A discussion of the potential for occurrence of California tiger salamander on the site is provided on page 4.7-12 of the DSEIR. While California tiger salamander have been encountered in a number of locations in the Livermore vicinity several miles to the east3, no historical or recent observations have been made from the planning area o surrounding undeveloped lands. This includes systematic surveys in 1992 and 19934 conducted throughout the Tassajara Valley area to the east of Dougherty Valley, one of . two major watersheds which separate the planning area from the reported occurrences of California tiger salamander to the east. Due to the negative findings from past survey efforts and unlikelihood that individual could emigrate across two major watersheds from the east, no additional surveys to provide confirmation on absence of California tiger salamander were believed necessary or recommended .in the DSEIR. No new sightings of California tiger salamander have been made in proximity to the planning area since the 1992 and 1993 survey efforts, supplemental surveys are still not believed necessary, and the additional mitigation recommended by the commentor should not be required 10-5 A discussion of wetlands in the planning area is provided on pages 4.7-17 and 4.7-18 of the DSEIR. As described in the DSEIR, the wetlands delineation required by the 1992 EIR has been completed. The jurisdictional delineation prepared by LSA Associates for the Windemere Ranch site5 determined that the alkali meadow habitat in the upland area east of Alamo Creek (indicated in Figure 4.7-1)is not subject to Corps jurisdiction, and as such would not be provided protection under the wetland mitigation plan for the project. However, this remnant of alkali meadow habitat has been severely degraded by past dryland farming and intensive grazing. The 1992 DEIR describes these upland occurrences of alkali meadow as two "pools", one dominated by alkali heath and the other containing a bare center with sparse cover of alkali heath and alkali mallow around the edges. Due to their small size, isolated nature, and degraded condition, their removal to accommodated proposed development in Windemere I would not be considered significant. Most of the alkali meadow habitat in the planning area would be preserved in the proposed open space areas of Hidden Valley and the Alamo Creek corridor. 'The closest reported occurrences of California tiger salamander are from the Collier Canyon area north of I-580,located several miles east of the planning area and separated by two major drainages. The Habitat Restoration Group and Sycamore Associates, 1992,Surveys for San Joaquin kit fox, Amphiblane,and Other Wildlife Species of Concern,dated 18 August 1992,and Sycamore Associates, 1993, Spring 1993 Surveys for California tiger salamander,Tassajara Valley,Contra Costa County,dated 27 May 1993. s LSA Associates, 1995,Delineation of Corps Jurisdictional Areas,Windemere Property,San Ramon, California,prepared for Windemere Ranch Partners,dated 24 August 1995. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, _.. 11-27 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 � N yN y•e o $ E � e $� vv Yi8—p,� 5 •o I V e V E.T_a ev o o.•�.:i 4.p.5 v�.° y JD qmq•'ppm Y U C L� '03 `- 5 Y E = Y =•� $d�^� � a�`K.O j '9s Ev �•..• S T5 �u L$a = �� 1 aao. §. $ E " g� 3�5 � a� 'e�'' � 3 =� '� YY iG `oE5oL SySa _ CyUE m,5o•E.SL�` a--P ^ mid `AY� oae os Cup cr Rim a, E 3i$ $o $ if L E 3 o Zf a S m y pa 0Ln 3 cc Cr9 'p�. � cm3 a"u .m�+' f0 'v .o € oH..�_•� S o 30 �3��° e� ocm L 3 �� ��t tc'•� BY � _ 06 C v o• �'� B o y u 3 C OY 40� Y C mgZ•" � Ez �¢S „ggggcm,$ �5s� c�`G3 °oawy� r•. '$ ES�; CC 2f Mail .s-" _ Y+ aOO.� (!! ` a ¢ Ctao Yo SLp: W $O N0. ^. Ho Cy w E 5•U _ V'7 m uZvaa Su� 55 °g°`� q ME 'CY Aue= � u3p o � � Y '�` c v o �cc 33 � eaG8. g3� �z9•S & �'< EaC.3 EcuL3 3 .pr rz a 45 Y Cn N O ' p E 5s �' � C3 .p °C°m � .ss` g < ° w W c <_ 7 y.0 d H u p a S q FL M A o S ash $ a e v Y Fyi 2"U -0 PA =yT3 c I a' u J a $ £ 0 N O Cw�`� o CY jig $ •� c ecb 3 M �i t� ,rte+' 8 ��. O 'O N Y Is 142 on A-01 O E B m O Y Y t p u p N 4 C A m r Y YI:E E o�dM =W •_ -,2 IL 1 C oC3 0 4� C C C•� C Y z Wm Ut;{� YY �o u $ .� IU E ¢ G and ear _SE A3 u$ �n�j � IL sE S CNH Y � �ZU ae$ U Ys Y'eE's i ° YYLdv s Y Zv6a �V `o Gwo 3 $ $ Q3 EO E C a3 a or 5 U�ov 9G v° X7 E 7 y'g'C� vti 3 Z UI rYf fA r C4 PIZ em As At tAi "6" t -4 io Qqypo it -1 o w Va. --,A 14 1 ykt u cso A It -',I Ak s, - p9NSa F' 0 4 t .0 t V ut 8R a 0 la r-ra- 0 0 NIX va. a Its lai Its- $ g !-OS rb -V'a i k 5. 14.1 ! 9 It tA sstm it; 0 5 -.xT 4 ' te A "Si•t a i Is 1"k 'S, 16A g. 11-1 gW . .. —io IrS. .S.5 V1 pit ty 1 .1 Am all A 0 VAI AS ANA. j;�U ­CC 41 Q_ 0 :.9f, S1.31 fv t l► van r •3 3 "Y ✓ m► ,5 M C� 4 m .' Pte.E S � E 5 8� E � " $ O� •a • o � Gam- � � 'g �` o :fig � 3.N ,� EE� R�I � M N �j w � 6 ..rp Yy� .�G�� '�5•��j.' �0" ayES �y •"• �' .ri SC � .�.y�pP p� s4 a7big� 'C Y �O�" � p•g � 6�� p N sc g chi , S guo'g ills oyS 0. 'lilt EE11„ 1! Ely e�� �Zv s is rt Vo R1 �, N ofit IS c� it �raE rt �^ vOEoc Eis 11.3 uQ n E":a r''a �° 'E�.1F Eq � � o Rl +zo I ru � s v Responses to Comments of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 11-1 The RWQCB states the grading projects will require National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permits for discharges of storm water assocciated with construction activity. The discussion of water quality commences on page 4.4-21 of the Draft SEIR, and water quality impacts from the 1992 EIR are summarized on page 4.4- 30 of the Draft SEIR. This comment does not specifically discuss the proposed projects or the Draft SEIR. �! 11-2 This comment addresses wetland permitting requirements, but does not specifically discusss-the proposed projects or the Draft Subsequent EIR. 'I 11-3 This comment provides background information on the NPDES program. The comment does not specifically address the proposed projects or the Draft Subsequent EIR. 11-4 This comment identifies site planning strategies and erosion control measures to protect water quality. It does not specifically address the proposed projects or the Draft Subsequent EIR. 11-5 The comment identifies measures that should be included in the SWPPP to minimize impacts from chemicals and wastes used or generated during construction. This comment does not specifically address the proposed projects or the Draft Ssubsequent EIR. 11-6 This comment identifies measures that should be included in the SWPPP aimed at controlling generation of pollutants by the projects over the long-term (i.e. sediment, solvents, oils, grease and pesticides). Reference is made to BNIP's. This comment does not specifically address the proposed projects or the Draft Subsequent EIR. It Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-28 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere 1 November 1996 1 � rA silok tA I IS po" d }� p l la sol va be �P*- CA vV5 a CA C4 IS PtlIlt G CEO. Ira %-Z Ce4 00 0 -0 *0 40A Ai iJ li -4, All' Ott Otto moo a' C V C s 0 O+W v a' r Al?A ' g a �T ,�. d �� � CO ✓�s(i u � W sa6 tit d O� w 1 o, i Responses to Comments of Carlson, Barbee & Gibson 12-1 p p The adopted Specific Plan does not show the location of detention basins. The 1992 EIR ' evaluated detention basin sites, which were selected in consultation with the Flood Control District. The comment is correct. 12-2 A detention basin was established in the Blackhawk Country Club, at a low point on the course. Figure 4.4-1 has been amended to show the location of this basin. See Chapter III of this response document. 12-3 See response to Comment 1-21. 12-4 Comment emphasizes a point made in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Further response is not required. 12-5 The comment provides clarification on the methodology used to compute flood flows. No response is required. 12-6 The discussion in the Draft Subsequent EIR described the model runs on page 4.4-7; the control points and basin sites were shown in Figure 4.4-2; the calculated flows for the various scenarios analyzed were presented in Table 4.4-1; and text was presented which �. summarized that data presented in Table 4..4-1. The objective of these text materials was to provide the reader with an understanding of the scope of research performed to date. The discussion also emphasizes that as many as four basins are under consideration, but not all basins are necessarily needed to keep flows within prescribed limits. 12-7 The comment points out that the development concept is to retain a creek corridor that averages 300 feet in width as permanent open space; and development areas adjacent to the creek corridors will be padded up 10 feet (or more) above the elevation of the.flow line of the creek. This approach to grading and development ensures that all development areas are protected from flooding. 12-8 The comment provides clarification on the standards of the Flood Control District, and it goes on to provide clarification on some design details. 12-9 The comment provides clarification on the intent of Windemere Ranch Partners. Specifically, they propose construction of Basin A only, with its design to meet the requirements of the Flood Control District. Detention Basin Sites.B and C .were analyzed to provide additional options in the event the Flood Control District desired to consider other potential sites. 12-10 Comment noted. The hydrology studies performed by the applicant's civil engineers have been deemed adequate for the processing of the pending applications. Final design studies and details of phasing constuction and financing maintenance are routinely performed following approval of development plans. The responses prepared by Carlson,Barbee, &Gibson,Inc.are a-step forward in the design process. Dougherty Valley_GPA&SP, - II-29 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere 1 November 1996 12-11 It is difficult to establish the effect of the development on water quality without baseline data on existing water quality. Moreover, the discussion is intended to respond to the expectations and concerns of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-30 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 ol .0 0, -00 - X, t A 0— 2, o P :j . .1 cut o. ctv� 1 0 ra ` 60 op.0. -0, o. 16, .So 100, .S Vol All. -%- 0 iTy N ro o V, Uto ,!I- C� 0 0 1v 00 0-0 t4o ao ,0 m 60 4001. 00 V,- I - P� 't tti '&';, ✓- % 0 ra L�%t- - f.'s.-- Vt 4 2 I> 0-0 Responses to Comments of Gayle and John Bishop 13-1 The Bollinger Canyon Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection is located approximately 1.7 miles west of the Country Club at Gale Ranch. The effect of Dougherty Valley traffic on this intersection was considered in the 1992 EIR (see Figure 6-7, page 6-32). For the Draft SEIR, updating information on this intersection was not performed because the screening analysis indicates less than 50 peak hour trips. _ With regard to the Bollinger Canyon Road/Alcosta intersection, the traffic study indicates a V/C ratio of 0.91 during the AM peak hour and 1.00 in the PM peak hour for the PDP build condition, assuming no mitigation. With the mitigation measure recommended by the Draft SEIR, the planned improvement would yield V/C ratios of 0.83 in the AM peak hour and 0.86 in the PM peak hour. With mitigation, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 13-2 The Draft SEIR identified DSRSD as the preferred provider and EBMUD as the alternate provider. The EIR went on to update information on the work that has been done since 1992 related to the provision of water service to Dougherty Valley. The Draft Subsequent EIR addressed the.issues identified by EBMUD in the District's response to the NOP. This information is presented in the DRAFT SEIR, page 4.2-1 through 4.2-21 The environmental impacts/mitigation measures portion of the Public Utilities Chapter summarizes impacts from the 1992 EIR, and identifies a potable water impact that pertains to the Gale Ranch and Windemere projects (impacts/mitigation measure 4.2-1 through 4..2-4. Also, see response to the City of San Ramon's Comment 2-43. �. The General Plan requires that a project proponent demonstrate adequate water supplies prior to approval of a final subdivision map not a final development plan. This requirement is contained in Mitigation Measure 4.2-3{c}. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-31 - Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 N M E�1 1d1 C 3 G w 4 a W U No V 0 V.0 ro4Hiwow HY 0*1 O NM 0C CV-4 UW NtnAi - rov 0N0V0.4.1 W OCD V C 144.44mm4) H 0 i V E ' 0.440 4) 4)44 H .a 4m 41.4 to rnd .0 $4 a C4 4) 4) w 0 A -4 u Hm 04 Hrl V H -4 xvmoa 4) 4)1QQ wt-4 a04) CU -1 W Id 14 4)0 -4 HAw4) 47 H R' Y 4) 3 $49 I H > 4) 0 M �.W O C Y 0 011111 . N C a 444) t- C: 41ma0Cutz 1 '00 O4) 14a oro •C E >,Hxa H $4Ooa NW bla0 .+G Idco 9: m > ugo 8 ►114 00mv0i .i ICO '00V aH4A 'bs4)>(aw .041 H 4)44) 0 Y O HC O O N O 4 4) 41 0 m 4 O H >44 4)11 $4 4J X03 OOEO W .� a V.w m i .-4ul a'Am 0.14 V14 OA H4) .4~ •Id 44 °00) 010 3V> 030 . AW4 0), > V YO w ab1>, HA W >1 t C 0 >, 4 O C V H H V 4)++ • 4) OH A-4 $4 4)-40 0,4444) 44 10 to 2 Nt4i U)(A .a1uwCC3oq° H+4H 4400wC C44) 0)O4) C 77 CHp-, ' :3d) Ua >. 0.041 -4m.00mH 0.G 0O-1-4b4) $40 0)m04) •-IOQ3:4jmWH x04) 00-40o4 >, Oa H.I (d > $4 AC4) 4)AV OCIHHOamm 30u EmCUVO U' 40 u"I: u> tt N F- .. W r N f-J we 4 %ice 1 000 H VO 0.4 4) o IBJ E "I V C C 1 w H C a a 1 >, 41 +40 H 4) 004) E x >, Ow $I iia Oa b1 4) W a .4 O ,11 H 4 Y0Y Y H VW 4) H OCHC 41 041 -4V 0 A $4 A OC4) C NV N .H O = mE-4H-4 4) 4) CHHY4) C ++' W4 - - >• 4) O 44 a C CAm w.♦ mCxc0V4) > 14 03 $4-1 w-4E V 4)44 o C •41 -4 3 C a0 4) 0 0 V u m aAo 0 30 E10 3 w HH V 0 -4.• 6 '0 ° to :3 w" d -i aAQm 4)Y mw w o 0-4rn 4) w mC.iAa(aYan.vma0 m C.' 4+ H4+ w •04) -14) In. CHmE >1 ••+ 014) 10YW 4) a H9. OA-4 0000 $4 -+ >H j w3-10-4-I E0a 0 0 MU 4)H (d0 >,04)410 A 0).04140 m00V a: '0-4 Y H8 .40VV w-49U4)V HV m C aEEA- :3 .14 E0 CHV 4) 0-1 asa-CwY. aa .� -40 .4 M4) b• H a4 V 4) 0-4 > a H000H 4) w 44mm4)'0 4)V •.440 -4 >, 3 UOa O -4 O 4)AV > 00 .4 >, ON 4 C A $44)41 A 0 w 0.4 >1a 0 w $4H V 4) 0 4 CO 4)M tr0 t- 0 YH 0 C •� A OI 0) "4j V 0 C V u 0 0 0'0 U H H 0 A M 0 H m H 0 4) 8 0 H V A C Be 0 3 4) m 4) 00 A 4 0 .9 E •• U 4) 0 C H >,01 0 H 0 Y O H u C O H >,3 m 0)V O w C >1 u n a m H O x O w C F4 m 44 V 0 H M •0 C CH >,0Y0 • 4 0 4) 0 >Y-444 > -10 In va OAroro >°,~ 1 644 r.V fM 144-44-44Qu00t0007a ma0iyoa mArox 00 '1 H VA Ia-4SCt 4) 8V44 0 >, '0 off 0a m . 4) m >, H 4�1 e4)eq .� w'G4) V4)A3) wgOF�4a44.1.�1c °4$444 0ed w •.E4.w41w4m0P144 ACva3 RV- 34)-+ 4V^O •04) 04) a 0 >, Hw AH 41 0 >,0H O- •-1 4) m V .10 MUYw8410m004) >.CV -4 0444 $40 C 0-4 >, w 0 0.40VVV C mmm ma •-1u ON NUAE .4C0 O VY 4)U 4)V 4) UA14 .4o0m[7U0x H m +4O 8 16 > 0O00u COat >,C E 0, .4 ro v4) - wwYa'0r. �.+ 0 >1C .0 W�MmVx W (a(A 1144V p10 OQ9144 of004J 64030 4,44301A H4 M o 80 y4.r V VCOU4) 0 O --4 4) C H8 ? 4) C >-4 U VV W -44 V-1 HU 4) H 440C4) CV 0. a4) C • Q.V 4 0 V V V m 'Om 4 0 Ha • 0 4)•-1+440 8C •� ul a) H4) .4V au00000) CC4) H >1 u00 J V Hp1 O -+ 0100 4) m wUG0 w0 'A 41 Dow 0.3a 00 $4-44.4 ww44 0)w •1n Q./wwvj VNoN 411 "wQoxV o143410130aoN 3 oANW HO N-C+ CA•-401 100V 000 -40M > m�i0V ua11 H IA 0++ .4 4,0 a+ Hma•13 $41n0 0)4) (a r4 O 0 4) 0 4) x4) z-+ HU 4)uu0 CV O \4) 4) 4) > x4)4nH CAA 4J VH O 00 H A 4) u H $4C4.4Cl) a 0E 93 934 1 0, awm' 04 COA. 93. -441 ^I .1 .40 A-40U OwmVH4) 044 44) 04)YM rV4) 0 H U -•1.4Qa HC 4)-4m0or`AV V H V 0 >.4 a -Hoath .4 E a'In "a V V a.4 4 a at 0 0" O A 0 V a C-4 V 0 V w -4 3 0 w 10 as u1 m CU A VC - O.4 >, YAam-i $4 4) m E 'Gabs A • >'V b10 m O -a •• >,-4 0 03 O C H V C^I 4)A V 0 0 3 H 14 O-4 4)H .� H 4) 14 C 4 4T ww0H V0% HH4)- a HU00 a9. 0^1 H.40W CV 0440 CV 91.4 H0 >,0 '00-43 1 4) 0 > 4) 4) 4) 0th E3V H-4 A 0U 410.4 b• O ^0 .4-44)0,444 C4 4J HV-4 > 4) OH a" Id C OW H V 4)-44) U1n 0)100 0 0x +4 C-4 4) a 3 V Ua4) H V >,0a a4) aV a Ca30 31141 .4C HOm0 .4 V-4V > C 4) 4) m UHpCIQfVq� U O� A.wCHo W•C4R4) 60lo+yOmV4CmN•.~'1NaHm ° 'e•�ia.�4a01Nco w.tw H 14 C >1 4) N-4V U H 4)4 NU -100 000+1CH >V OH 0 64 40 V 04) 4) Q4)VwN >V4) O wC8Y >,•1 4)V-44) .4 4)4) 00 u04) a4)A >1aAA A9 3 H-4Cw H -4 $44144 b1O Awa CV CA 014 a.V >,H 0)E > m U HmVE 41 W 4J6 A.It £ 0 A 9: -44 4) 1414 x0.°i 44 6 r.4)i °V Cd 0 0)'C d C0 Q1 C 7•Ci 4 1C > 0 n.moi.0 0 3 0 . V g4)E. O8RB V w 4) 01-4 >,HH 4)V 41.1 V m8a00 08 m0.4V u 4100 r. tr W 4J r4 14 � 0 m'♦V m4) w 0 NmV C) 0 4) $404) 04) 0 4) 0NO O-Vi.>4H HC0 4) a-4W 00go �CMmooa °40.4 W n4 U.OZ 0 HQO umv zAQE i., EHW 0.*04 A= H000VM HA>W a30 zVVH r f Responses to Comments of Elizabeth Pforr 14-1 The comment addresses grading operations that are occurring in the Country Club at Gale Ranch. This property is not the subject of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The grading is being monitored by the County. Any specific problems posed by this grading project �. should be called to the attention of the Grading Section of the County Building Inspection Department. Not all of the concerns of Ms. Pforr are necessarily in conflict with the Conditions of Approval or the provisions of the Grading Ordinance. For example, hours of operation are regulated by the County; if neighbors complain about dust problems,particular attention can be given by the County Grading Inspectors to see that these problems are kept to a practical minimum. 14-2 The 1992 EIR identified 17 impacts to biologic resources (see Table c.7-2, and the Draft Subsequent EIR identifies an additional impact and mitigation measure (see Draft Subsequent EIR,page 4.7-21 14-3 The proposed General Plan Amendment and proposed Specific Plan provide for an additional 255 acres of open space beyond the amount of open space provided by the adopted.General Plan and adopted Specific Plan. The reference to the influence of developers on the planning process does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-32 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 s m s vo lio 00 % j t $GOO N cOC °s �� ma� At �a,r5 x' N Sx " mm Wo, �+ �� �i�jt y Oi - V, oaI m mu � �Ob .n �OOV Z SO90�v N�rq' GO '"N � J � •^ � p• �Gm$ O a 0-1l 0 0---0' b0 1 A .2 U 5 O 0 4) ti �� � � �.4� J G G u y1 r y u r Z< EUr rr _O o - '$ 16-Z� �-b � tOl o Uo. � � •O �" •C!�S,t� 'i' t�G6„`'gyp„ � m �� � O- N O• tJ D F1 `V s OC U u a 1 r Q +t. V m 0 a O � m O O O C C 0 v0 oco mc � a� p�a, tUa ivoa- v IOU � oc ' U _ja O? CD x8. m � � hm RFs LL �� o 90o� g c 0 a m0 i2 not �` a m€meg c ,h l 0 0° $ �w p6 C., � w� rnni5p � F O O 040) .c ry N� NpO E i � COpp a_ pN „ � f� j 01 rn 'U °Q Cc: U .6 ]:n C .p - ° O -p a^p m O�° C G_1 _c c N 10C O S! O O O c ° c Oj ° 30+ O '0 z s St z z^ z 0 E z m ° t p Ua Ua- UO Ua Uaa Ua 1� 00 u1 u! CD c - :'q v I F 0 t E ° mom p cmr E'S Iwo � � $ � � � S; U 32 4) C: Mn Qic E LU tpQVt+o m �O ° 0 U �j v m C p �2 _ ' C5 F-a Gpc75 � � E p� Lp aQ .y —�CCo.Yh� Co EpCCs + pQ° ° -Q Nv0�2pYc m32 afpC N a�Z z °_ E � �Q�°ma p_ o i 00 8 C j • ?, E c L> .iZ C •pctU t ui EN co U0E E vE`=0 M c Y25 ° N z•p th N Ti ° p C m m o �Uy o �� z v z uN o z cA C" z — pl �j jp�', C Q C �i mN s C Qv ° ,IF Cl.L�2 °aCb.0 Eqqa g� � E coUa Ua Ua Un°D Ua 8 � r N N ._.....—.-- trj tt s r t' C cm p °` m U o o o c U LU vbEc .` � aJ. o p �c c E DO v o o °' c� c b 2i aa ' N ,off 9v o 9� cc € _ C3 a (c} 2 �'d £ o u pay x L �pQ� C Q1 q)U.6 �_ b u rn ta. N Q 2-c; FF � .0'. vu Fo `6 c FL 0 C4 F "e p � Ec-c� ZSLt Tn &. cN C.1 ° p M p Ep c c p O c O O v c cdQN1OQm�' `r i tt' cSa2} a ^va oO W 0L in O zN-2ENa Ua uU ac �. U b, CLN LM to r ° !� c O m �ii c "- i4�u �cc > oya3 oP 4)) E�, o � m E v °' :F= � cIS -c 0 CCc c' a � -Cm mIU Uo , > gm y =c2 3 > FNvc+ c 4 °_x -6 t y m j4 tUp ap , .� Cy P b. - A: mO ' � � av` oma _ c r. . ate ° OOp '0 E, U � r _ a � b CtaUNlp] Lm ° C ID •H6 C nha' C y �GN7 G. v p p r- Q Q� � 12r Ki '� N' � E�rW C � b mx N O � a O �� � n vF vv�a� E 'b ° EU d �Q ° © � r z $ - m LA E w«aa �o .- E� E " AIL v " a 7a r . CC) o 02r FL 4) m E C- Cc:2 2 b 4) c c 0— d) 0 j t jo: . C _ ko i g g .9 a o 27� CDc "E' 0 -u c 0 ci 0 -6 U.6 OL to a co (D to L) 40)So ro, 02'5 P U 0 C) � g Ao o 0 .2 2 C, LL, cn 41 -OE- § 2 9.;1 S-6 1)� c c 0 411z, 0 0 — 32 I'D 0 E z I moc o-6 0 rn E - - a E E E -vi E V) 9 E'v co 6) U CL u a. U CL I N F LM Z O � ,Cg:F 'o r: zu 2 A (ID) i L C)R IF= 02 -0,8 t8 a a 5 � c (D z -b 0 '.o E uo op cpCj r UO !6 4) m Aft 0 0 - 0 ro- 5-5 -0 !C: > c ' 0- JTO 0 1 f(D ir= c 0 c zo IDo ? O.U. 6 ..o o -0, en 5 0 ll '0 in ci O t C'. 0 Z z c Z §-u -0 ID E XE d 2 0 .20 � f I. E Eq 0 0 d) 6) 0 IL u U CL CL N • Mme#' y VO Rip {y N C CS - GN " p Cj v aty �7 QZ NZN a 4t as cSa UO .4 o a v> Qffi in°. m a � o j 8 : 025CZSO CSO d � �i ' L itsmC a '° •aoa� a � ovQ 2- S,o a , � Q3roq ,)a � Gy Ojn (jO` _N �jr O ? � ONS3tC7^ mbN Ota O� O) _a7 � �� ' G —, d � 17 I off',° ub-co � a � w M rn 0 LM �" Q, M o 0 N z 13 o iEcci0. � Ott! p X� atm ` a r v Gat a °' G � . giro a.D N +F �� •t �• ' O �.� X��Orn c"i �. o > g 3 ro ate w a Q O C -t -S t 1 104 kk air 10 Oco 13 rA '01 ,c iJ0_-0%�'n U4Cl� jO � bl t�v O �i � G a s 10u a, a 9 �Z: -; �t7z �-c� �.; � �i.Gy• offo u v mv°zp ta3gr.v — c1i Q 5z0L � � ' ooh coa 99 O> m 4 j I N M � m ca L Ty �JryG N ca m coco lH C, 0- o _QQQm u Or dl tl Q_ Y=., 9-8 V zi Cf cc 'Oro- m -O N '� d N ' ) �� vs is t5 0 0 0-0, uiy z�7 a 0i2.N r iJ OOvN cs aro tt u N� r o c o > r c cva '-10 co t � a �' � � u # v ytr- ° o� c a� `� d U ago pv to N G 7 T3 O dl O pct ? to NQ p c o a � ` x -0 tWEn poa Ndm �mcs °gyp o u�Ti v a0 � 0 NEu �0 .0o -10 O v a a9p ao 00 p � �Z � (gyp' 7( �?Co uvm Ef G O NQ �. M _¢ % '0 Z. p �? alum v "m �,r 'e+ .0 N O pa -a° o pro =d s oU � ` g � o ori, oc t c3 Q[t C N p G j ID 0( �� D °' w `� °; ; vm v � E� � � � oQ3 o N G • vv U � a, ° Q o o c E �j o h 13 O o ac V N o aic0i 0.0 -°' , o jD 7- � t? �' O ' U 0 m U d ar � � O N o or oc rn 7i N0 ocoa °� � �G n N "' Y M ull to to c a a ° s� 000� um CDN u N� 3 O �� O ��j -0 O `O OO 9p � 01 RC1 U � L U dGdu O N o �? N $ o0) 7 c u v d C tzo 7 fD 0o c � p �+ a � lm v a m u xy L o of � a � C ` ° Ts Do o, ?Na ao c N o G T cova °v o o OAv � •aai u m z °a°� o a o a a c c t3 t = u r4-) O v O � E0! Ufa O a div Q O oN C UvmdE ° g 0 o a0 aa •- n Ga ^ C V O C ' 76 u o O O a Q G V '^ N U ,� ° �'� 0 as W a U a► fl� 0 D N O N j d N -C O 1 b a4 a d a � ,� v .n d Q dC •u w w� 7ip O C Al a a u � O Ai �i u ui7 0 ti- 0 c O v, N v a) d � S a � m d a p N O d 0 c N y O v+yV ° y �O N d ° U O d p O N O Q _ U a o �sy o v ° a a a� as a d t� 75 md i �; o v � 2 o: pi an v `'15-AA � a ty % , `oQ o t -00 ° s o g 3 o c fes; y ?r °) ° P m w ty V C�p q) CL'10 a 1j a O .�. L ° c� d) c cv o : i N O G {) U C 7 t) O n .- ci C. Q C y N n CO a �cs� 2i �U a 0-% o tp c C: 0� � a o � O o O Vo, o i O0 - G�Fi � o C. ,,� C'i Q'r �Ud w F- a- C cQ �j G' j p ~s C N O N Q ^ Q 'p C° .0 ��. 0 ° O G D O G G° p sL Cl d O N� a y �� 1 a� ° C c1) U a N q O G v, O w C { d� G m NLSN Q_ G G 0 ° S itil)u -0-0 r4- Rv > c ; sE v a r d �y � � o• 4 O Gl o, � Q'► bL ul 8. gyp. E O°-p w Nxr �} Q Z baa N O `t33 (Dp U ° tr 7a) d O Sj f1 � OC •.�� Nj �ii C �� N pO ° D o O a E '`.. a 3 cs v °) a o c � aio � u r� `') g -"-adv ° o u c ` v ao c a .0 a1 'u o m s ci o v o r.c + •o , rn ao y C °"'- p U c v o - °Qo � �,-� ov c°� 4-a ��,r, °.a a41 W 400 a E No� p ' p Nfl raja Z?-0C � Ey r m ? vN co X O ° � � a a �' � �� oO °-�}bNa c � � iso o 50. u ov fE d to U •� uN3 aZ la a► a�acs a oC� a°avs'OC vam; 0a�'0�ao dnaoo uaoCc) O omL O0ui ate ° 3a °yvro aV N O `*O b t`5 p Oj C �) ut/ ) 41 a7 Ow ocVa ap 6 o N ) Q Q,,, O r0 O r M M i L fie G N � 'OOL � m � O p U r G U D 0. o p U O 4 CL. s ooj° d slb10 �c O T3 L G N l7 O o m0. 4 U N p O- R G C7 15� o v a� � � n o o ?, v y m ? ovmoo Q ' w G G n M G N L' GOQG to +�GE.p Go rno d as o G QS13 C D 7 ¢ N 7 G r D +� U Q V -Lt, Q N CO 0 aN .• s L iu • C a o W p ° p r Y N o O U v+ tft > O O cA V O Q ^Gyt3 '03C. 0 u a ' •° "O N ¢'a n p tJ cD 0l4 1 4OV � Q� G � T � a' UO. -p 16 O� GG No, �vuQ -0 -z —0 S p E O �n' O U B W 2S � ZG 4) 0 O A'+ Di U L G y ua U O a tG�?%n > G U° 0 co u•aE""ti a '� a,� o Q °' � (� Qoo ^F � day u N G a Q p r aG w [ G U V uIR )5 S �'- o 'GwGp o G3 � a GGp 'U N N p p �_y H O c o o � �`i oc4'0 6. da v asyc � ou'v c 10 00- o w? a Val K} Q V 3 N Q R a p • N N � N .fir Response to Comments of Shapell Industries of Northern California 15-1 The comments of Shapell Industries have been incorporated into the corrections in Chapter III. ' 15-2 Concur with the comment. The eighth bullet on page 3-26 recognizes the County Service Area (CSA) and the GHAD as entities that maintain open space. Conceivably ' the CSA could be assigned all responsibilities for maintenance of parks and open space, but funding and responsibilities would need to be clearly defined (see change in Chapter III). 15-3 This comment has been incorporated into Chapter III of this document. 15-4 The EIR statement recognizes the zoning category R-7 as implementing the SH general plan land use category. We concur that in the planned unit district, lots of 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. also yield densities within the range prescribed by the SH land use category. 15-5 The comment clarifies the fact that there will be no athletic fields included as part of the community college. Athletic fields can be anticipated to be a part of the improvements to the 72-acre community park. Consequently, structural use of the park facilities will ' require an agreement between the college and the local jurisdiction(see Chapter III). 15-6 This comment has been incorporated into Chapter III of this document. 15-7 The comment suggests impact 4.1-4 be deleted and the discussion retained in modified form as information which is incorporated into the setting. That option might delay or reduce the effectiveness of the mitigation prescribed on page 4.1-25 of the Draft SEIR. Inclusion of this mitigation requires design level study of the Village Center in the near future as part of the Specific Plan. The mitigation measure recognizes the Village Center as the heart of the community, vital to creating a sense of place. It is a compact, strategically located area which serves a number of community functions. Because of its importance and the need to integrate a. college campus within other uses, careful planning is needed. Failure to include this mitigation measure would allow Windemere Ranch Partners to proceed with independent site planning studies for their portion of the ' Village Center without a proper context. Subsequent independent development of the Gale Ranch portion of the Village Center by Shapell would eventually result. 15-8 See Response to Comment 15-7. 15-9 This comment has been incorporated into Chapter III. rP P 15-10 Concur with comment. This comment has been incorporated into Chapter III. 15-11 The EIR discussion presents both the force main and tunnel alternatives. If the force main alternative is adopted, the facility shall be equipped with backup pumping capability, odor suppression equipment, fencing. and vegetative screening. This change has been incorporated into Chapter III. Dougherty Palley GPA&SP, _ II-33 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 15-12 These comments have been incorporated into Chapter III. rP P 15-13 The Flood Control District favors regional basins rather than project-specific drainage . facilities. It is a correct statement that Shapell is under no obligation to size drainage facilities on its property to mitigate drainage impacts of the Windemere project. An agreement would be needed between the two property owners. Also,the size,design and location of detention basins must be acceptable to the Contra Costa County Flood Control District. In the absence of an agreement between Windemere and Shapell, Windemere would need to mitigate drainage impacts on its property. Currently, , Windemere hydrology studies have demonstrated that on-site detention basins are capable of mitigating the drainage impacts of its project, but basin sites other than those considered may also be feasible. The Flood Control District has not formally adopted any specific basin locations at this point in the planning process. 15-14 This comment has been incorporated into Chapter III. 15-15 The mitigation measure calls for the Specific Plan to show collector streets, which will assist project proponents to prepare development plans that will meet County Public Works Department expectations. 15-16 See Response to Comment 15-15. 15-17 Currently, neither the Gale Ranch II nor Windemere I projects propose a revision to the location of the transit corridor. Page 5-19 of the Draft SEIR presents an alternative that shows the transit corridor on the west side of the Bollinger Canyon right-of-way within the Windemere I project. 4.6-6 is a new impact that is based on evaluation of the development plans for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. The traffic engineer for the EIR has identified the potential conflict between transit vehicles and auto traffic at intersections as a safety hazard , and has identified a mitigation measure. The mitigation concept outlined in the Draft SEIR mitigation recommends a design level engineering study prior to extension of Bollinger Canyon Road into the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects area. The purpose of this study is to ensure that intersection design takes into account the ultimate transit use. The commentor suggests an alternate approach where the engineering study could be ' made a condition of approval of the final development plan. This appears to be an equally satisfactory approach, and the modification in language is presented in Chaapter III. 15-18 Because the transit corridor will not be constructed with subdivision improvements, the mitigation measure provides for a disclosure statement to be provided on all deeds r within one-quarter mile of the corridor. The comment of Shapell argues that it is not an environmental impact. The traffic engineer has made this recommendation because persons buying property in the Gale Ranch II or Windemere I projects would have no way to take into account the effect of transit on the enjoyment of their property. A transit use will have environmental effects (e.g. transit vehicle noise, increased human Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-34 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 presence at transit stops, possible removal of vegetation from transit corridor, etc.) These effects are difficult to gauge in detail since the nature of the system and its characteristics are not known at this time. What is known is the location of the corridor, and that information can be disclosed to persons considering the purchase of property. It alerts buyers to the ultimate land use; and in making the decision to purchase property, the buyer is accepting the potential effects which go along with living near a transit tcorridor. 15-19 The comment refers to a two-acre park and ride lot that is proposed on the south side of ' Bollinger Canyon Road. This is the only park-and-ride lot shown in the area of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Impact 4.6-13 refers to Windemere, but the first example sited is within Gale Ranch II. We concur with the thrust of the comment that Shapell has no obligation to mitigate Windemeie's impact. This error is corrected in Chapter III. 15-20 See response to comment 2-43. 15-21 This comment provides clarification on Shapell's approach to revegetation of creek corridors in the Gale Ranch II project. 15-22 Concur with the comment. This modification is the impact statement that has been incorporated into Chapter III. 15-23 Upstream from Dougherty. Valley, in the watershed of Alamo Creek, are existing 1 residential uses. Because these existing uses may have degraded runoff carried by the creek, post-development water quality measurements made downstream from Dougherty Valley would be influenced by the quality of water conveyed to Dougherty Valley from the upstream watershed, as well as the pollutants carried by runoff from urban areas of Dougherty Valley. 15-24 Because the Village Center is a key element in creating a sense of place for the Dougherty Valley, environmental analysis of this 34-acre area need not be restricted to considering traffic, geology, grading and drainage issues alone. This area poses potential for land use, aesthetic, and visual quality effects. Figure 4.8-15 rearranges buildings shown in the project proponent's Master Plan for Village Center and Community Park. (The plan submitted by the project proponents is presented on Page 3- 19 of the Draft SEIR) The EIR schematic more closely follows the vision of the Specific Plan and Community Design Handbook,which are presented on page 4.8-23 of the Draft SEIR. 15-25 Through an oversight, the technical report prepared by the air quality consultant for the Draft SEIR was not included in the technical appendices volume. . This report is presented in Chapter VI of the response document presented herein. The comment of Shapell Industries is correct, and the modification requested has been incorporated into Chapter III. 15-26 Concur with the comment. The text clarification requested by Shapell has been incorporated into Chapter III. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-3 5 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere 1 November 1996 15-27 Because the standards for human exposusre to EMF'S have not been established, even after implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.11=1(a) is a standard condition of approval used by Contra Costa County. Its use as a mitigation measure for this project is consistent with County procedures. 15-28 Concur with comment. The text revision requested by Shapell has been incorporated into Chapter III. 15-29 Concur with comment. The retitled figure is presented in Chapter III. , 15-30 The comment summarizes Shapell's opposition to the relocated high school site. 15-31 Shapell provides overview comments on CEQA requirements for alternatives,describes the status of alternatives from the 1992 EIR,and discusses the"alternatives"presented in the Draft SEIR and their potential use. 15-32 The comment provides a legal opinion on the necessity or lack thereof to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative in the Draft SEIR. It goes on to identify several disadvantages of the alternative presented in Figure 5-5. This discussion by Shapell adds balance to the EIR'S discussion of the alternative by pointing out the inherent problems associated with densification of the project. 15-33 Concur with comment. Table 4.3-8 of the Draft SEIR has been modified to incorporate this change. (See Chapter IIl.) 15-34 Concur with comment. Table 4.3-8 of the Draft SEIR has been modified to incorporate this change. (See Chapter III.) 15-35 Concur with comment. Table 4.10-2 of the Draft SEIR has been modified to incorporate this change(See Chapter III.) 15-36 Concur with comment. Table 4.9-4 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to incorporate this change. (See Chapter III.) 15-37 Concur with comment. Table 4.9-4 has been revised to incoroporate this change. (See Chapter III.) 15-38 Concur with the need to add clarifying language to the mitigation measures. See revisions to Table 9.4-4 in Chapter III. 15-39 Concur with the comment. Since the 1992 EIR was certified, additional geoechnical work was undertaken and the grading plans were modified to conform with the standards and criteria provided in the geotechnical report. This resulted. in comprehensive updating of this EIR Chapter in the Draft SEIR. See revisions to Table 4.5-3 to Chapter III. 15-40 Concur with the comment. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a-e) supercedes Mitigation Measure 10.1 in the 1992 EIR. See revisions to Table 4.4-5 in Chapter III. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-36 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 15-41 Concur with comment. The required assessment has been completed and is no longer required as a mitigation measure. See revisions to Table 4-13-1 in Chapter III. 15-42 Concur with comment. See revisions to Table 4.11-1 in Chapter III. 15-43 Concur that Mitigation Measures 15.10 and 15.11 from the 1992 EIR. have been superceded by approval of the Community Design Handbook. See revisions to Table 4.8-2 in Chapter III. 15-44 Concur with comment. See revisions to Table 4.8-2. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-37 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 LM cc .5O m u u > >p-0 u u 0X-0 $ cv c dp Y O w «• W t c N •y Y w a0 a o I W'b c ? a .o v u 0 o r N U N O ribyTNp N. y 'G 1>.' E .O >. u Oci v UU �' 0-9 u 7 .Y 0 0 Y.G N ° G. N 0.° O a•� N Y U w v o c a° v�i °a; o o a. u ��n< V u•p.O 0.A W 0. Y Y p• c O. > d�' Y NY G.C r V V p oo 0 0 ��i.S u x G e o 5 e u . _ 010 -0 go av Tg S AsU�> e a o � e 3 �U A>e � e a �, Y ;-j-: 3'S a EOFi c� aTia, .Soo w3 � ... E y F �A ov r o ov_ c O C: tro a eo3w . c' $ o 3 < y Ow TY o y or' `u ° V; a i° Y c o o is E`,o u y c.o PC1 U Y a' :o^ a N t E a u O Y Y:2. O .o Yi o 0. -o c u Aa c L3 0 0 >Y YA uE� u S o5o E o .c u 2 o� u a u° aci A w t w$A � c a e� 0 3 E�� S., � o H v a =o E E Y o 0 t o o ° _o a $p n•. o w •�Vv }'' u " 3, ^ gp Y�.o `°s c,o c Mtb— .5 Q•.uc c .. � N eu � r 0 v � e ° cYg 0.20 co rn c o u > • Yv a._ a .. oo•e >,•acia•o u y•>_o. 6u ~� ooooE U v 'wV9 5 E �o 6 p N V O h •�+ N .2 Ll 0. Q� 7 ♦ V' R V 0-0 0 a S v 0 0 o N Y S •CSCU pq N O Q ^ y �O ��000�O 2 r- :g Y a O Y x •0 _ ND" T V T c = ° ,O W'O 51 Y a U 0 Y v a o.,00 •u O.E " �, Y Y Y H �bo 2 c o o n o v' u ;� c E u 3 oA•s 41 ii ;:Tu , P4 a >+ a ���a mx u 8c4^° A u y ri Tii tq r w o o o u _ n xu o <ac g g Y occ 5w o �Q Y�vai o o _°o ° o rn� z g w+l pe e e S o°.,e > s �y ow j��i�. ,/ L Y Y u VI � Vl � ul.0 Cj� u >,�L � O• � .. •p u b J E•�i�' W Y Y 'p j C•°p Y� LY V O 0a p O a Az aww u�j r u vA S� Y90"^ o a�"en �`+u a E °o > = > s�" a. 5 E SS o0 U arc AC�Jrn u �nFc a Ua u Wwy 304 2N c �y V U o 00 ° <N U U 'o wl A �° 9 "1 N N %6 e ` .O'G 0.010 010•� 'O.0 g vi •O W° U c 10 3 o -00 aci o °•� w u kh E �' U° m g a mw v $ _ `� °e c w '� u .•E .i'•y aJ �« 2-.0 c.3 O n •� N V'U 0.�' a 8 .9 'UO Sr,•in U « X a� ^ °wm pE O E HU0 010 duo s � Ou�-A0/ mu O° U .0.0, •0 3 E `' c Fa > uu 3 A e u ani E yv°i c oo c •� w � u u E E � ccoo..N c a 5 N u u rpp u v u w p u nt o O U OCuO y C«N o �, � p w A�•y H W S. O�p o •p U 029 65 �' •gyp 67 « Wy M N C tt�yyy atl fes'`'gyp O,C.. •,� � 0.N 10, �� 40•'C, � H � •�•W u N C•�j 71 N N CA u r,- ou a 2 soca �� � ou iik +' cc uv k u eg a a 3w .o W u p c vo:2 a �«moo = . v P044 T8ptuo. y d ° w N w•y M ,_ a'id >0 H •�T.G W 8 V U0 0 a C4 3 e ii ca u u W u> eq p uv m a u in o v u u is c u aEi'Fi 3 Ii 0.v x v N U .yu .0 u a.«« U 0. U 7 U u X'U O u U•p W U•� V41'C gNI, Wa.0.0 m U aA W�` �'m� 3 �c53 3H 9w o« � 6 W O e� N M tf of rm 4010.00 u 0 " o -00 A « 0 9 S A .. o e0i u�6 p•vv�i.° ^ uSN U pow ° _ t o Y U «�cI 8v 3.?;'E W S u« A u u j ° c u �hM°"� '� ,« •,�, eeqq v00 u'j Tn u w p ;2t "'g•� E�+ � c o rn � .= 6'10 N o. •a W °� .o W�410'O G =.� oo > 'O of O C � :3 Ecc � c � `moo« '° u 2�w 3.0 �w `q o y v ` 0 0 3 E t' Gv°i u E > ; 3 ° u N u z cv_�0 ; ov c ° c `3uuC-i •� N o .c a 'v m y•2 a'OGL? 00s>w c« t m ei a, o°\ E 4-"u V- 0 ucpi � m c u T•uc g v 3° E v u o y u ?A,c� `a3o � WA � o $ U > 3 ° o-a U O C rn x C C O ° C 3 •� ° at CA '� oeo � e3 vC u u �n�q•410 O tG A�• V:� T.' U .W'OC N ` 'O 7 O W'�A .W•" ;•� v U'O c u 0 0 E 00 u .g a.ti •8 � u e c o t � e g� '" w a y A C4 �i mvC+. tia 8= � ��3 3��t`� 3 � �� S �3 S E uv . ' u e N n 1� co M O N' N N M r r r r •p N H T ay M p v u M pq C .5 C O A u u � � u � � ,,,,a Yn•e�a u o.« u � E 5 `o c t '' E q°� S" c'�-1�ry o $ =p 0 • U 15G S L °.2 7.a u•7 •O E T a O u � y rSSaAcv aa a° 2=— .A>> ac> 2o°� >. 'a .5 ° 0. ,U 41-00 oW ro ° . o � QaoS So 8 E ° O u O'G x G .X'S `n u , •OC r' 0 0 C. ril O o 0 �. a�0 a 8 x C7 c p N N osZ o`�' 'n 6., ;; °c� u Ta �• U °� 0�3 o �v° S v p °' u o adv IV! ra �� a ry« 5 u o r. a� 000 p u P.*0 0 '04 3 u of >. Z.7'OO•iS °'•o C N E Q 'O v1 G.C o P, .a�5 •.QC O A 3 ° baa Nry v a To U 3 u�0000 ° C W). 35 b �> °C7 ° ro .A�•5 poiicui ave ,�� e � �'Sag . u �+ v .t97Q � u o'er t: "•0 ° a m0np Sa � 0 o u ay E E m u E ry•° Y.� a E ag a ton ti a ° ° ry— o c aFu u v u , ry• �oC a10 o.0 o'� a S zo v° !-'� u v$ .. {++ 8 �•E..a v° .'a A r 8 8 ryF F :. c « A S �o u 8 In C4 M Ln �o N N N N c "Po� o dop0� o Y : oou � vsCu- w u > a 4 v1 O•'u0'u0 m S O '+ ° O U O .5 G O ° N y'n E v M c �t• CC C a o = T •pry qv�� C dl M F 7 a O C p — P4 y u •y� V S N a0 'O N u y p u � Cnvuoi' eu� ouu tl c� ' " N E O N. M— V aP «3eap5 u co E °O° `r cu° Lvio > EE 4S ' ° a rya woA2 o a0 32 E ° 01 _ xaA E mom E�7 ? o �w= w o u o � o.o a Q U A >C �'O 3 S 3 u 3 g 0-,, a g o N °q 0.x.8 p a7• o '" oo °' Yn �3 � � ij � � i'� S iii p, � � �.; S i''�•y x � ,r�u. Y P. e u � = $ 0S' ; 84j " 8 0 �� Ed7� o «v � � " oG � pQL u o N O �i a o 3 P.p O� � ,s„ q Y•u0.� « � T� POE�E3`Te�sNuSo P07 �° oOu� uu eua v > 5oo_ PuO x�Urdu�a`r8 a> °a = o > � o•o C6 — wE ° o ; oUN 4o6 u uu' 3 ° 507 0 °v ,°. $•o c E .. a p c E 3 N uU ooc ° o cc°a c L Eton3 u 3 0 3 W u v EPA e c c_y o .0 u $ c �+ H o uc o o u 3 S c u u co c 3Pa a B, :Q* a"" � > 8 c� =° a�.=oda° S C6 �� U W No T fn fn o M M uaa � 4k o24 o F� �o u� Fi ou3p a> n w r w 0 ' wO �G++ s. i `'a.J•. 9 G t�J y'� d 'OFA p.A 0 0 f S A% o v 3 off `✓ r c: "G gN U c- F A "o y ° G ° 'Y � w 6i °� °' J o 0 g 64 uoo so a O 0 41 Gi �A •�•F N�"' •� F �j N � A� Y . w�N� poi °bJO� '`po N ', uo07u'5 'Fou °'y`� `a.r�5p °O+"S.pq'G G'�7" �. '� ` U' �c`ty Gy'p w m o r 7•D opv `' ° :0. p �' �. p• O✓�y `L, 7 '� p J '.ra .p p1 Jam,. V Fiii%�j'j •A t oU qy O''� A O � ✓ O U'' .''N,D A N F J O a0 V Lr, '✓ate p o wu�+,•g�`�c3 ��'� a•' 4 M r. 4'G,•..7 � Q t�' M c9 M a M � � §A �a p ♦ vo g p a' Fa% oA o % N p o O i•�ai GN eAi `� ON °� ✓vim m VO uJ r A t. ? st d �i U %O q✓ F✓�,T .gyp O dGr� 'ib4 ° y v3"" v N ,d.. 7 �n•G r� Ca G by O s la 01 y AG �i FS'.'N J J d P.p - G � J � C D N L� a$ 7 ... J �� G m ��Y•o �A A� ��°„o N el•o � `oo F r 000� �.s u �7 ✓ � N d�O E� ao6 �'ytir °� 'J' G� wo- ♦`7 J A r 0.0 q .J��N J •O ,7 w CA�' ~ y •O •OG •Jf.2 '°~U+ N G �.� O G ? p O ✓ ce p ? u J•`•' G Oj J m G m Op • 0 . � It IiJ u O Gi T, % �'A .G �,•u w u G•O Gp .. �'p c W r o� "� � �D�p Q, � � A ° p �• P � 'a ? a p0 �,may,a o +�X.. n �� yp "G U'��:•.'fl rO� W '�, 6,i•L, G V �p�pf •i � GV ~Gc u y y �` •pA {/,,•yGi.O Yn w .o0.0 ba +{ '� ca�G,, G g W p to✓5 `? C o Y J d f" IF Jf.� Q��� ✓ V � p� IA'� 0•F W •� VV yl �. s �e o o p F�V p� or°. `' M u ✓ p gyp mom' ` �gj �.: �� W � ull vo & s b o ca 0i 9-H fflo -0 tit al Mi 91! tl tit :9 -9.5 A w of X7 a I Val 1 Responses to Comments of Windemere 16-1 Table 3-2 presents a land use summary for the Windemere I project. It indicates the School/Park in the northeast portion of the project is 12 acres. Table 4 of the proposed Specific Plan indicates that elementary school sites are five acres and the associated neighborhood parks are five acres. The fact that the elementary school site plus neighborhood park is 12 acres indicates space is available for a private childcare facility. 16-2 Comment noted. 16-3 The comment provides clarification on the position of Windemere Ranch Partners P relative to a fire station. 16-4 Concur with the comment. This error is corrected in Chapter III. 1 16-5 See response to comment 15-4. 16-6 The comment provides clarification on the agreement between the Community College District and Windemere Ranch Partners. 16-7 The grading plan of Windemere Ranch Partners for their property is presented in Chapter III. That plan cannot be used to establish precisely the location of lots. The comment of Windemere Ranch Partners indicates residential lots will have an estimated minimum setback of 118 feet from the boundary of Camp Park(minimum). ' 16-8 The comment represents the opinion of the project proponent. A reasoned argument could be made for evaluating the Specific Plan in terms of its internal consistency, and ' consistency with available infomation on the locations of fire station sites. 16-9 See response to comment 15-7. 16-10 The comment provides clarification on funding facilities for recycled water. 16-11 The change requested has been incorporated into Chapter III. 16-12 The impact/mitigation was included because more detail is available than was the case in 1992. 16-13 See response to comment 16-12. 16-14 The EIR analysis recognizes that force mains are a viable option. Also see response to comment 20-1. 16-15 Childcare is a potential social impact, and it is related to the land use map and development plans because space is needed for childcare providers. It is not unusual for Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-3 8 Final Environmental Impact Report ' Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 environmental documents prepared for projects in Contra Costa County to address this issue. 16-16 Concur with the comment. The change has been incorporated into Chapter III. 16-17 The comment provides clarification on the funding for police services in Dougherty Valley. ' 16-18 Upon development,an urban level of police services will be provided. 16-19 The comment refers to a statement that indicates a possible sight distance problem. Since the road utilized a design speed of 65 mph and is nearly level, the comment (not paragraph) is corrected in Chapter III. 16-20 The comment provides clarification on the applicant's intent. 16-21 The Flood Control District discourages regional basins in urban settings because routine maintenance activities can result in removal of emergent vegetation and may conflict with the aesthetic values of adjacent property .owners. Additionally, parking maintenance vehicles on the public road may limit access to adjacent residential areas, and extra care and street sweeping maybe needed to keep maintenance vehicles activities from tracking mud onto the public road. 16-22 The Draft SEIR comment refers to the side slopes, and not the embankment at the west end of the basin. This comment provides details on the applicant's intent. 16-23 See response to comment 16-21. 16-24 Concur with correction. The change has been incorporated into Chapter III. 16-25 The comment provides clarification on planned improvements to Bollinger Canyon Road , in the Windemere I project and south to the north terminus of the Bent Creek project. 16-26 The comment provides clarification of Windemere's desires. 16-27 See response to Comment 15-15. 16-28 See response to Comment 15-15. 16-29 The comment expresses a difference of opinion from that of the traffic engineer for the EIR,but no factual information is presented. The opinions of the project proponent are a matter of record. 16-30 Concur with the thrust of the comment that the circulation for the area is consistent with the Specific Plan(see Chapter III for correction). Based on analysis of the road system intended to serve 1,285 multiple-family units in Area A, the Draft SEIR has identified an impact and associated mitigation measure. The circulation within this area will be subject to routine review by the Public Works Dougherty valley GPA&SP, II-39 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere 1 November 1996 ' Department during processing of tentative subdivision maps. Road alignments, right- of-way widths and other design standards can be resolved at that time. 16-31 See response to Comment 16-30. 16-32 See response to Comment 15-18. 16-33 The determination on the changes to be made in the Specific Plan rests with the Board of Supervisors. Mitigation Measure 4.6-7 would focus on the segment or Bollinger Canyon Road within the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. 16-34 The comment presumes that all ten Bollinger Canyon Road intersections referenced by ' Mitigation Measure 4.6-8 will have previously been signalized, which has not been formally determined. Moreover, the establishment of a transit corridor would require another phase for the signals to accommodate transit vehicles. Depending on the type of ' signal installed during the buildout of Dougherty Valley, some changes in the signal may be required to facilitate the smooth flow of traffic. 16-35 See response to Comment 16-34. 16-36 The comment provides clarification on the intersection details provided by Windemere ' Ranch Partners 16-37 See response to Comment 15-18. 16-38 The comment provides clarification on the plans submitted by Windemere Ranch Partners. The mitigation measure specifies a 250-foot setback of the driveway access from the intersection. The reason for this mitigation measure is to prevent turning movements to and from the driveway from interfering with the flow of traffic at the intersection. 16-39 The comment provides clarification on the location of parking for the Windemere I portion of the Village Center. f16-40 The comment provides clarification on the intent of Windemere Raanch Partners to consider some spaces within the Village Center as available for use as a park-and-ride lot. The mitigation measure gives county departments responsibility for assessing the adequacy of park-and-ride lots in the Windemere I project. Some spaces at the Village Center could be considered to be available for this use, provided it is documented that 1 there is a surplus of parking spaces in the Village Center. Additional spaces may be recommended at other strategic locations in the Windemere I project. 16-41 See response to Comment 15-21. 16-42 See response to Comment 15-22. 16-43 See response to Comment 15-23. 16-44 See response to Comment 10-1. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, 11-40 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere 1 November 1996 16-45 The comment presents the opinions and recommendations of the project proponent. See response to Comment 15-24. i 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 i Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, 1141 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 LM > El 0 .0. wor. I A 4A A ran le :02 ?. as c� A cs 0 .01 C F->,.;a� go� a.9:0: 9'2 13-S V 00 00u t'r NAH a ra 9 UA -0 a* , NAV oa e J 0 0 x . w 0. ro- Op., 0 cap v .0 R < BO 0 .0 4, to 0A 01 08 0*0i F WN O > N •T-P- Cl*. W EVANo o- 8 Fa3rnIIo in F r- a.2 d wow 0 10 13 00: ps, - 0 bu-S 0 :r eo p, 'r-"05 L.OD',Z zo '02.� 0 wo isr- G 0 0' > u A d4 --:. N 0, ll Flu., — 0r3aOt. rA M0 ;A 5L-1 o o t M -,9.S. u—0 Ott§.9.W -6p r. r4 0 Ojg ..:o-s -t- o' A 0 mij >,o -Og Or 1s .40, .0 0 W4 (n%I oA= 19 " t� ..6 0. Ou On cu:s CD e!�J-3 Baca 05; A A -0 UcGj D eat r6:0 11 f ; -.g z t E-0 15, i 0 m a, Jno 4. 9 0- s. ca -A; cc Ire U en as g V ,.T 0yoL Uut UO 4) 0 .1.4 0. n 42 �IP-A Cd . i ob o�,d N iJ� �•a� © � .� �. =,-> 43 tDo 00 v SAN 0 0 0 ° 5 a S , 0 ca3 � CN'� �� s tA ON 0 cao .,vi B. N N r�1 h C^ 3 Iry VN o r N 40 `' ' n 3� M, N � _ Y F,es0y0 ' Hr° °ate°Afk ��+'s~���.+'A�'°d �► _ W paid�� p�•� �DM O ae1 N-4 •G•°i►`14. a T = 00 0 * 0 .a114 e4 to -40 Psb4soo .5.4 $64 1p e+i d 0OV$ 1+µ •m°a O N tib°0.a 4 #%'006 "0 00 A 4li d ° °''-4 :° d.d4$ iRO10A VC.0 O�� wSV�N SO o�p�>Fmrrm.+wh+dO4A � wa'�ai� N� 4 � �► ...24 � �� H a a boa 40 or dtonF 47 %4 "ag� c s «� r�0 4P4� 4Poo x400'0• -aye 00 0 0 0, a °ID 64 104 fir+♦ .00 . A a �°taFp4yQ,i' Fo3�m ♦a• m.°wd No�+o0Ov 54 j"0 a °.dO 0000-00,14 .4-0040'r.60 1 aydoa 0 .%0x. em0 -4 N� r +�� 70�ONy't�p7..A+J�44 NG r pF a�so+w,;"4> 0 u �+ rsgA 0411, ►�+'A�+e4r� .� ate a go fa�N!}m as o,dm F • d and 46 vF ad vk.4 o W, mmayN' � � or.s ' c 0��F 3 0 o u 0 �u 00� GK1u 7 � � p 0 100 w u Y? `� u b0 ►t T T ba d, to %0, X � 0 a M � � � 0 o .b 013id+ 1a0 j a,.p v eq u N 'n G v 7 'vin 7U a .00 �? -_ ba C, d N u A e> o ✓ace u 1:0, A t ...'a p o Bio ° .° c`a r,' aD u op.a % V- - 0 °� 0 u o 0 o . 0 ?U 'A p d 3..0 -0 0 o�A ? o % a � .. u ca 00 td A ' w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DaF� Responses to Comments of the Mt. Diablo Chapter of Sierra Club 17-1 The funding arrangements for public schools is taking place outside of the Draft SEIR. The San Ramon Valley Unified School District has reached an agreement with Shapell, and the conditions of approval for the Windemere project will require a separate agreement with the project proponents to provide turn key schools, with the timing of completion of construction and opening of the school specified in the agreement. (See comment letter#4 for additional information on ' schools). 17-2 Comparison of Figure 3 in the adopted Specific Plan with Figure 3 of the draft Specific Plan indicates the following proposed changes in parks: • One staging area has been eliminated (acreage drops from nine to six acres for staging areas). • Pocket park acreage drops from 19 to 18 acres. • Neighborhood Parks increase from 40 to 57 acres. ' • Creek corridors, community park and tot lot acreages are unchanged. 0 For the planning areas as whole,there is an increase of 255 acres of lands classified as open space(OS). 17-3 The land use summaries for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2,respectively of the Draft SEIR. The Gale Ranch II project calls for three ' types of parks which may be identified as follows: . • neighborhood parks(27.5 acres) ' • parks at school sites(10 acres) • elementary school park expansion(3 acres) ' In summary, Gale Ranch Phase II, based upon the city standard of 6.5 acres per 1000 population would be expected to contain 32 acres of parkland. Currently, the Shapell proposal depicts 37.5 acres of parkland, which far exceeds the requirement for this ' phase. Country Club at Gale Ranch (Phase 1) would require 21.39 acres but the approved plan provides only 14.4 acres. The expansion of the elementary school park by three acres in addition to the difference between the 32 acres required and 37.5 acres ' provided in Gale Ranch Phase II will result in a combined project ratio of 6.69 acres per 1000 population. The Windemere I project parks may be identified as follows: • neighborhood parks(16.9 acres) • parks at school site(7 acres) • linear parks(4.4 acres) • creek corridor park(47.4 acres) Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, 1142 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 • mixed use land,(north portion community park). , In summary, Windemere I is providing 28.3 acres of parkland, excluding community ' park acreage and creek corridor parks. This translates into approximately 5.2 acrees of neighborhood park per 1000 population. Applying the park standard of San Ramon, requires that a determination be made on the treatment of creek corridor parks. Because creek corridor parks include hiking and bicycle trails,they provide for active recreational .needs. When creek corridor parks are added to the 28.3 acres of neighborhood parks,the yield is approximately 14 acres/1000 population. , 17-4 The discussion on page 4.7-6 of the DSEIR provides a summary of information regarding wetlands and from the 1992 DEIR, and refers to differences between preliminary mapping shown in Figure 4.7-1 and more accurate mapping of wetlands ' based on a detailed wetland delineation, as shown in 4.7-2. The preliminary mapping of seasonal drainages and perennial creeks shown in Figure 4.7-1 was based on a field reconnaissance level assessment, and did not conform to Corps methodology in . determining jurisdictional wetlands and other waters. Since completion of the 1992 DEIR detailed wetland delineations have been prepared for the Gale Ranch and Windemere properties using Corps methodology, which allowed for refinement of the ' actual extent of jurisdictional areas. Figure 4.7-2 indicates the presence of wetlands and other waters in relation to proposed roads and grading, but does not distinguish plant community types. As noted by the commentor and indicated in Figure 4.7-1, freshwater ' marsh extends along much of upper segment of the West Branch of Alamo Creek. 17-5 The 1992 DEIR contains a discussion of the anticipated impacts of development on , wetlands, and includes mitigation measures which call for preparation of detailed wetland delineations and mitigation pians (Measure 11.8). A discussion of the potential effects of development on wetlands associated with the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, including disturbance to creek channels, is provided on pages 4.7-17 and 4.7-18 i of the DEIR. Figure 4.7-2 shows the extent of.proposed grading and location of creek crossings in relation to Alamo Creek and wetlands and other drainages. Implementation of the proposed Creek Revegetation Plans and adherence to further requirements on ' jurisdictional agencies, including the Corps and CDFG, would ensure that anticipated impacts are adequately mitigated and the overall habitat value of,the creek corridors is enhanced. 17-6 The information regarding observations of river otter along Alamo Creek are noted. River otter (Lutra canadernsis) is an uncommon year-long resident of rivers, large ' streams, lakes,wetlands,estuaries,and coastal areas. It is known from river drainages in the North Coast, Klamath and Cascade Ranges, and occurs throughout the Sacramento- San Joaquin delta region. Only the southwestern river otter(Lutra Canadensis sonorae), ' known from the Colorado River drainage, is considered to be'a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. River otter from the Bay Area and delta region have no special status. ' River otter have not been observed from or identified as a species considered to possibly occur in the Dougherty Valley area in past survey efforts of the planning area. , Historically, both branches of Alamo Creek which pass through the planning area were Intermittent streams which dried during the summer months and would have been Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, -- II-43 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November.1996 ' unsuitable as habitat for river otter and other wildlife dependent on perennial flows. Runoff from summer irrigation of landscaping from upstream development projects now create perennial flows in the creeks through the planning area, which supports emergent vegetation and could provide marginal habitat for muskrat and possibly river otter. Although there is a remote possibility that river otter have dispersed into the upper reaches of Alamo Creek from the greater Alameda Creek watershed, it seems more probable that the individuals observed are actually muskrat. As with other sensitive wildlife species associated with the creek channels, such as California red-legged frog and western pond turtle, proposed development could result in short-term disturbance to ' habitat and an increase in the potential for harassment of these mammals by humans and pets. Creek restoration efforts and increased summer flows from landscape irrigation would eventually serve to improve the suitability of the creek habitat for ' muskrat, otter and other water-dependent wildlife. Proposed development setbacks and establishment of an open space corridor along the creeks would minimize" direct disturbance within the channels,which would be limited to bridge crossing, flood control improvements and restoration plantings. Provisions incorporated into he HMP and HCP recommended in Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 of the DSEIR to protect California red- legged frog and western pond turtle would also serve to minimize disturbance to ' mammals which utilize the creek habitat. Due to the lack of any special-status and general protection of riparian corridors on the site, no supplemtal surveys or detailed mitigation pertaining to use by river otter is believed necessary. 17-7 Representatives of the USFWS will be responsible for determining the reliability and significance of the recent kit fox sightings in the Dougherty Valley area, referred to by the commentor, and their relevance to the 1993 agreement with Shapell regarding Gale Ranch. This allows both agencies an opportunity to consider new information in refining the Windemere I HMP and eventually approving the HCP. 17-8 The viewpoint for Figure 4.8-3 was on a ridge, elevated approximately 50 to 100 feet above the grade of Dougherty Road. As viewed from gateways recreation areas and important locations on-site units are not silhouted on the skyline. common open space, not a"recreation area or gateeway". Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-44 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 i i i 1 i 1 i i 1 r r �3 49 1 11 c CD Cl 1 v IJ30!k' :,t BA tib v 91 :L NV 1113096 J W C i0 Ewm 11i..1.� ti_in,. wW I I *Cor, a41 c CA2Z0 ' Response to Comment of the Historical Resources Information System 18-1 The letter has no comments on the Draft SEIR. No response required Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II45 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere 1 November 1996 M N1-910 os .+ N m m N d � G N '' w G �°'� G d'1 G C C m O G o p.•- m m .V O 't3.X m O N •N O� � Q' C N % to r. NDN 7 � G N 3:pG �p °..•- O N N GO"O d d 'N Yf O Cd N'O m G L' m G 01 0• NG` a Cm a•p. m w r m Cp G 1!�✓_ m a 0 0 m"� 7 m 'D O O D N '.S' � G -O•O O b N 'O 1 6� tl $(7.p a'O" 'O C T V Om.•�C? CO d O �+ A Al ?11' w .� O, O Cm y N G r D Vi 00 maGxm -mamN W t3 +lO %,o 0- 00 a ° mNomv 04m ° E m G C t 0 C. cG aaa—°E GN $ -0-0mNem ° m Fowm � ooeV0tmENd°c» , � �o` NE m m o S R tAc G c`Sm g cs� d a O o m m its g,- o•o m m m '� CSD u PQM G'p d Gp O m`0 4y ,W-00C�„ �'in'°O f' G .a G > �p^� O N 1] 3 mw o C O l0 ✓l N N. G m'Or, C N'xCm � A� N' w✓ J N � � m•6 �'N L� 'Co a ✓m t% 0(D'00 --i L1 ,p O m $.$12 , w t`r�j s m os�- m m y •a tl �1 G d � O•to u m m m 'N > � m � ° N m m ✓ C Geo m m p''u m N aw aQ N mr G Sj aO "GLmm N@ ain CL N ON jO p 3 UO -O •p w N , Ny Nd m °✓@ jm 'OON C$m$N m 5 pptG Od ✓7mO NdG U GO —007pC6imp°onO - 0t9u °'N �]m °'G° tea o�h a mD 'afi O m 9 .d N?n N in G 7 0 p.@ m ?� �„m Q _'a m w m Ojm Cm m'i 0 G� r GEmC mma. ; m , d N�w h ✓ m•o m � d O •x3.r0 Om ° o p Vol m d m L iU �•p ,.oa mC opera N a O N 7 Wc1°.Do o vy C'° S on 0c. cm m LZ m dY'�N ° U' EQmS m� E mpmwG7 _I +°m d cc osemem N � w •� m o+ m m �m•o B � Sm m G _-0A,6 y .00,.a L' Gw, p•mp O� Go m ',$° IPA R tp1 0•- p� �^N O• m N O N qw w o mw}vm N a✓m� m$S.N O OG G p.a O'� I� N °o° o m 10wm boy m1— otD'� gaa E C_. .m+�.a„•p p•mj p°•Cm O�@@'� m 'p�(j{'ms3 G C. Ot4 m m GUD WCQN$LS� G mrjN w dvm cao E m p g v m 0 2� in rp V3 e m�2 m - , vcpJa�6 �y�m �• °� �' o W o- �c �io$ � A 3NGNN p •.� mpN G��° �Vm L) c d`S$ m o m 0 ' o. � ua' Amp•'C p Alt r m o vp%n,2 0 u u 1 r r t r r r r m d a om g , r 4SOS T�'O m O m + c o m'o r � awTa� N m Gm m O m 'o N U�gip N to- m m m 1& O m m cp o �o °3 g'otgroAs oc os Ilea Io E A oE 1 �+oU o - m r r Response to Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company ' 19-1 The comment emphasizes that approval will be required for any grading, construction, planting, etc. within PG&E easement on the site. The comment does not address the adequacy of the DRAFT SEIR. No response is required. 19-2 The comment emphasizes that a consequence of growth and development in Contra , Costa County is the eventual need to expand distribution and transmission lines and related facilities. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR . No response is required. , 19-3 PG&E recently installed a natural gas transmission ine through the Gale Ranch. Future development could necessitate relocation of the pipeline. The project proponent must include a description of the relocation when applying for State and Federal permit approvals. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No response is required. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-46 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch A Windemere 1 November 1996 ' Jit � O � "� L ° g;,OCS 15 PH 5 25 O !.: fA U N d v u m c DLVE.Lt: 'E'x:;iCI:�L'I°T v � N wN v� mcg ID .son© W rZ c �, N �W pj N 47 O O a> > .'�:w di2 '.ii -6 mUSo Ili. m dm N ..i C3 2 d '- u ,r- 0 1° ti o N ow M `. aoi °�C u CC: a N agro c ,.. WN O r N d d3 U, 24 a °' N�i °� �� 4a wO B x aoci c« w �« c- a ` w � LA U1 N O �_ (� � ( c O GO flN WN A O ci y N C V 0 N _ ao WW�y r N � COIN >+c dCC L pZu� {L wOd co N ��« E oci � E Q ° +� �O C74�.� aQ rN r3 ✓w m � E C Q aci o p !- c Y �- d Q t0 0'1a �• m« 8 LL m W h E W u ��W n0'.Lr 3 N to V c0� tot L ZZg dU `° ° Tiv vd aQ to o � +-0) "> m �y W w S iS �, '>n « H a os w c ►d �QcAV O c w�� . mm -f mC N CC oG y M Eo. C W 9 OZ o N 0 �. c o Q,Lo m Q J O U V Responses to Comments of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' 1 20-1 The comment indicates that the Draft SEIR adequately addresses wastewater issues and , impacts. No response is required. 20-2 The District staff considers the tunnel alternative to be environmentally superior, which is in agreement with Draft SEIR conclusions on page 4.2-42, para. 1. No response ' required. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-47 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 � Q 7D , ( U 5 b T �. ..: Y N U r• oxo c w Y � ya7.� aN, " voyo w d ? moa ._ C Y O a� U,5 Y qx«.�' �•V �p Y H U c $ - yYj o eu A r w a Y ac o N > ou m Ao T .0 '° u •G O « U >1•b U O U.0 CEI-,:••�' x ee a U w y x 7 m N m N e0 W C H t o v Y r m« o 0 0«w T 3 $ o n c a aE' N c yxY 5 c °w e 0 �y N w 7 Y y u s�° '0 2 _v N > c « o.5 o e 3 « o o A y c <U u g " Y " o u ad o d e0 C u N y c a y ° O C x O E �. Y W Q C N u.C7 O p 0 'p'O C d- 7 Y A 3 N N o 3 v p 5 m v, a ° 4 0 oAc E C " cd ' " Ony p > bac} acro Or ��+ 2 5 u Yaxy u ' Y �G 7 w ~ O•°L ly. W C ° W > N U O U O N N OO�y � E C N o m x fe Y o ej' a S y E o O 3� a o ° o obi zYu 3vouoa >sma� tiE ie � oo E uv cao `� ^ c e cosY.« ut: s �= „ oo = uY oou � ov_ � �� a Y ,c o " u n o N 5 c N r p Y?.5 meq m «r w«o 00 ° eu-0 0 0 � C 7 •P2c."°`a •x5u, c uC t.0L. A oc:m.«C o �yo H u �° «S C O Y m >` 0. C :°50"a.•YNpCe�u 7xoE .�U>+ 6❑1�mWCO.0. o Oo to :2- N 2 N 'a , e u° yS+'EC� m C _ u 0 l E a i7i "o to 0.yC u.a >, o X •C^ wo .v sa ca 0. °' O O O.Y° rm VT c c H0 u -75 S S eoE u u u ayuE> u oC.0 E C O oEmY o w o rN, a _ $ mdr-, Y 0.S Nu e �•� _iY 0,- Ex0a s �vY•o ay,v«yym.. N2C 2uEu a�ud 3?c•vu 'awO vo ;a PvOi ap n>i 4aE c sT `� ma K N 7« ,o "hwuu'c .seaN, L)FE o Qg c m u e u m«M oN 4 0 0 c N F F HA OR 3 , "� Ei ° L' H' S`c 3 0 -Qc o Axa' Z in ' .�YcI>�Cu'C p Ya' �uVmC.QCv q^ •- �u�EC� NK ;' ' >xAaTee�}0 >`3a E�ev�oa; oF z w.�vos �, , u .5 r,- a tooarSuc� XrC7 AO 4 coeq ° cwor o cEOwomuEuuN uaoE U; PO mo P4 d o . .5ooE t; -5 $ a v °= E ar CL u v Zp^ Ah ' C 4 C• �p 0 « V G N > �+ M CC YC y Fa u V G Y o U d c c;x V U a-,. t O W.0-01,A + a_ P. a o c F v a o .m'-. v zQ,At u.9 K-0 >'S ac, > m n•� y u o 2 �'OY " 0 C•� �>, N ° 5 T C y a V, E y ..•� > o U U p a = e m A> a4 u u 6 C.o M �E u M 3 « u .ruff up+ H °srn� u a� w ° •°o N o e$ eo'v I., C9 a E e 5 a u o y F o a°, N T oo. y N >+c C m ami o /O� N u v u v c A OZ;`o.a�nO duC` v«0 l-0 Wa Yy ~ x : IS ,5 u � oASo -.�ocY"d o a0 ura wvi o °° o t= 4E) Y H us « o y E oW N o z oeco OR tug -OP uF0a°c01.voNa >a uxto °vE E A 'H r m mu o rCr a CYa, z w .Yrof! :oEFs.0 u°5 o OQ Wo QaH > u cw ` ° Q o p a Ca, r- CL aqt o -:w Y 3 11 ooyoE _ q u aa...� Fwc a 'aa co0Negaovoio ° :u4oa = aci Qp mTa°u� a V.� yp m..� � �' «� _o• E 5 3ya c ' aOFA.qoaY� Q WWZW,wWj CFWA7 vYu^a�u�� ou.Awouy..�a5 vue �.. 2=a= c 3r A,3 eE. a3u:,s,a�i ac•oNo Pm3u "N 3 u ° e.a vu 0 A Y"u u °5 3 Ed 9 ec a a OE.,!-, E ° O ai •Su' -4au c.Eo to -A it 0 aAo: o s co r .0 o o3 6vL` E u u C , Cuz o � yr ~ N o � E'd« > :P- ° 0,,.,=$u .a y v 0-3 � Euoc Y« o . A ov 6 p. a .o E c r:= E-� We o'2 o o °" u mvao 2 OD N.��7Apoov a0� � Y�M �3 � � A$ xo �cuZ a dg 0 E o Li. to aF g r ao o e x°D°� Vsy..0 Trn; .E 3 °a.5 aw y y ;A ° cv a o ' O y O w s v m " v' m o �'_' w ° `'2 N c u ° °v u a.. y O O O 3 ° O u W A F.P4 ° o4�F, 0 o a�ac a z.av u m 3 v uU0 ..x EUA Public Hearing Testimony Zoning Administration Meeting ZA-1 See response to written comments of Mr.Blickenstaff (Comment Letter#17). ' 1 1 Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-48 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch H,, Windemere I November 1996 ' Chapter III. Modifications to the Draft SEIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, II-49 Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 .... a � Q a 3 ... O N co 0 a� h «� o ca a a. ap A r. �e a�yo ' VV COO (Qq/uJ oi w0� co ao p zco O 0 cue a, •" is w � Gp o o aoo ° u U A y a aai ie in O O w aui a� ato ° V") � w a ° > m�p � Cja� oy •• .ch.i.8 '> 0a � 3 FE O CL c~e E a � ,aa� �£QaoCa'� aa °� c^0iuo �a � aEi ua � u4' I~ � o M .-� .-� .--i .••a N Nt It M � Q N i 00 Q 4o oU0—O 4U. 00 a C Oca q u ur. q u Glc a y b y y u GO y{ � Q y F: a ca Q ° ie `e II Na « u > w ^ a w � Fa o.� a�o �� i i tea. � aE co .. as o o '� � � '3 bin r. 'O U as o cm y ^ ate Na� ua � yv (U co co as a '� � .� •� a3 .bo 0 5 � � pCgo� Q a � coa G cGQ GL Uao o eo 0 •w~ a a� v N II u � ................ O N cOa 'd O G t: ca Dc'a >' W g 00 O a b• o. ►.... W O o .• I W .0 N RvA. o a Vtz O p Q O a 00 W 0.'C .., E —C T on a. O "' U w •p .� W a N u N .0 u .� O a) w W y p + O ° v+ W .�•� ►. Q 0- .8 'o o ":pD. t� .O .r •V .' •: U i.' .i"+ O J.. ° a O 0. •in ._�'« t'�. .'�„ co o u• � � �' •• O �. y �. C �.. C u' o « o O C • Q O fVi w N p v cOv cOa • O c m y p vAf u O .. cc u h � � v U c° ac > va �c � �n v u � N r 0 m C ca ►. Cn E w Y O W U ° F O O h. N cc 4. •p O O U o cc °' a LL «+ ... Z cON co _ c �- o • 0 U. ` ° ° ° N t=Co Cd knm 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • A P en comprehensive network of o space and trails that enhance the environment and P P separate Dougherty Valley from adjacent development. ' 0 A system of parks accessible to Dougherty Valley residents and the Tri-Valley region offering a variety of recreational opportunities. • A portion of the village center that includes commercial, office, and community facilities accessible to all residents, located at the meeting place of the central transportation and open space corridors. 0 A well designed community that integrates in scale and form a mix of uses and offers a g Y g desirable way of life. • A-Allow for a community college located to serve the existing and growing Tri-Valley area. • A community park #djeent<tc . tr%. ltageCener. Project Land Use Description The land use summary for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The major design elements of the project are detailed in the following section. The Gale Ranch and Windemere descriptions are separated for clarity. Gale Ranch II An Illustrative Plan for the Gale Ranch II project is presented in Figure 3-7. Key features that can be seen on the map include the following: • Dougherty Road will be improved from the north boundary of Dougherty Valley to its intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road. Bollinger Canyon Road will be extended from - the East Boundary of the Country Club at Gale Ranch to the boundary with the Windemere I project. • The channels of the West Branch and Main Branch of Alamo Creek are retained as natural channels and enhanced with plantings. • The Gale Ranch II project contains a variety of single-family residential lot sizes, as well as cluster housing (townhouses and apartments). The project is broken into definable neighborhoods. • Non-residential uses include an elementary school intermediate school, fourP arks, commercial center, fire station, park-and-ride lot, day care center and 555 acres of permanent open space. A more detailed discussion of the Gale Ranch II project is presented below. 3-12 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION i • Reclaimed Water. The DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA). • Gas and Electricity. Pacific Gas and Electric. • Telephone. Pacific Bell. • Cable Television. Viacom, Ponderosa and other provider. • Fire Protection. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District or Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. • Police Protection. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. If the project annexes into the City of San Ramon, the City Police Department would have responsibility of police protection. • Park Maintenance. County Serving Area M-29. The County of San Ramon would assume maintenance responsibilities if the property was incorporated into the City. • Maintenance of Open Space. County Service Area M-29 and Geologic Hazard Abatement District. If the project annexes into the City of Ramon the City would have maintenance responsibilitiesHtesportstblttes mai be �ss,gt#edd toc�uta�rS +tkt' t • Schools. San Ramon Valley Unified School District. r Other Project Entitlements Geologic Hazard Abatement District. The County may establish a special district to fund any needed remedial grading work necessary to address any slope instability in previously graded areas �. on the Windemere property. Shapell Industries has requested annexation of Phase I into the existing West Branch GRAD. Subsequent phases of Gale Ranch are also proposed to be annexed into the West Branch GRAD. Windemere Partners have not made a proposal to ensure long-term maintenance of the hillside areas in its project. Options include annexation into the West Branch GHAD or establishing a Windemere GRAD. Construction of Infrastructure Improvements The County and local service and utility agencies shall ensure construction of pipelines and other facilities necessary to serve the project area. Some of the needed infrastructure must be constructed outside the planning area (e.g., pipelines, pump stations). j�. Annexation. The Dougherty Valley planning area is within the sphere of influence of the City of San Ramon. The project may be annexed into the City in the future. 3-2b ''� 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Community College The South County Campus has been relocated in the proposed Specific Plan from the Camp Parks property to the Windemere portion of the Village Center. This campus would be designed for a maximum 8,400 student capacity and would be designed to fit into the community; utilizing private bookstores and local restaurants to provide many services to its students. As a result of the move, the community college is no longer planned to have its own sports fields'but A.' # �"�'€have use of the athletic fields within the adjacent ;t . ad communityark'< u €<r:.;:.u > ` u .gyral ive rmeni.betwn.tlae coal e.an . l '< raun� far>lwi: ........::::::::::::::: ............ .. :.. g................. :..::......::.. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into by the Contra Costa County Community College District and Windemere Ranch Partners on February 28, 1996. It stated that the Army had determined that the Camp Parks property would not be available for a college campus, that the Windemere portion of the Village Center was an appropriate place for a community college campus, that the campus would be integrated with the community and a hub of local activity. The MOU shall remain in effect until December 31, 1996 and may be extended until June 30, 1997, at which point either a formal agreement shall be made or a or termination of the MOU shall occur. The MOU listed the entitlements, approvals and land use changes required to consummate a complete and final agreement for the acquisition of property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria This section uses the criteria from CEQA Appendix G (Significant Effects) and Appendix I (Environmental Checklist) as well as standard professional practice to determine the level of significance of an environmental impact. An impact is considered significant if the project would: 1. Conflict with adopted Contra Costa County environmental plans and goals, as expressed in the Contra Costa County General Plan land use element; 2. Result in substantial alteration of existing and planned land uses of the planning area; 3. Conflict with existing and planned uses of the planning area; 4. Result in the substantial conversion of open space or agricultural lands into urban or suburban land uses; 5. Conflict with text or map policies or designations of any applicable local general plans, community plans, or zoning or with land use provisions of any applicable regional plans; 6. Contribute substantially to adverse cumulative regional land use impacts; or ;� 4.1-20 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Miti ation Measure The following mitigation measures am ..,,^, imd to- ld`reduce the risk of land use conflicts to a less- than-significant level. 4.1-2(a) The project proponents should install security fencing around the northern perimeter of the Camp Parks portion of the planning area. 4.1-2(b) Prior to approval of units adjacent to Camp Parks, require assessment of noise impacts from military activities to ensure that adopted County noise standards are not exceeded, and require that the interior and exterior noise levels within residential neighborhoods comply with the standards. 4.1-2(c) Require that a statement be recorded at the County Recorders Office for residential parcels created within 300 feet of Camp Parks. The statement shall be a notification that there is an established military base within 300 feet of the property and that potential property buyers should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase. Impact 4.1-3 Maps in the Specific Plan and Specific Plan Policy CF-7 conflict with the results of a fire response study. The adopted and amended Specific Plans both state that "A one-acre site is reserved within the village center for the development of afire station.... Another one-acre site from which SRVFPD can effectively serve the community will be identified" (Policy CF-7). The locations of the two fire station sites proposed on the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects are shown in Figure 4.3-6. This map is presented in the DK Associates report and shows the sites proposed by Shapell Industries and Windemere Ranch Partners. The Proposed Windemere fire station site is shown to be in the northwest corner of the Bollinger Canyon Road/ Windemere Parkway intersection. However, the Final Development Plans for the Windemere I project do not expressly identify the fire station site. The land use map contained in the proposed Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment designates the northwest corner of the Bollinger Canyon/Windemere Parkway f intersection Commercial (C;see Figure 4.1-4). The Gale Ranch II fire station site shown in Figure 4.3-6 is designated Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) by the amended Specific Plan. 4.1-23 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY In 1996 DK Associates was retained to perform a Fire Response Study of the Dougherty Valley.' The purpose of the study was to estimate the response time to each street in Dougherty Valley from potential fire station sites. In performing the study, DK Associates utilized criteria and standards developed by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. The primary conclusion of this study was that a single fire station was capable of providing an urban level of service to all neighborhoods in Dougherty Valley.' The DK Associates report is discussed on EIR page 4.3-16, and the location of the fire station site recommended in the report issued by DK Associates is presented on page 4.3-20. The District has reviewed the report and agreed that one properly located station is capable of providing an urban level of service to all neighborhoods in Dougherty Valley. This is considered to be a significant impact. ji Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measuresyoull'reduce M .fjire protection impacts to a less-than-significant level. 4.1-3(a) The proposed Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment must be revised to accommodate the fire station site(s) under consideration on the Windemere I project. Specifically, the text discussion of a Village Center fire station must be amended, and the land use snap must designate the site(s) selected as P/SP. Alternatively, a fire station site should be relocated to the Village Center. 4.1-3(b) The treatment of fire stations in the policies and tables in the Specific Plan would be modified as needed to be internally consistent. In determining the size of fire station site(s), there should be consultation with the District. Impact 4.1-4 A function of the Village Center is to create a gathering place for residents. The Specific Plan and Community Design Handbook provide the context for creating an inviting Village Center. For the Village Center to be functionally successful, it must be true to the vision of the Specific Plan. The Master Plan for the Village Center and Community Park (Figure 3-9) is an attempt to provide a context for processing permits for the Windemere I portion of the Village Center. The key elements of the Specific Plan, as they pertain to the design of the Village Center include: a) ignore property lines and create a unified Village Center design, b) provide a main street, c) provide focal points within the Village Center, d) provide public gathering places, e) provide views 'DK Associates,Fire Respowe Study, Dougherty Valley, May 21, 1996. 'The standard for an urban level of service is a response time from emergency calls of five minutes or less. 1 4.1-24 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY of the Community Park and distant hills, and f) provide a functional design for the community park. This is considered to be a significant impact. Miti ation Measure The following mitigation measures a reduce MRMWA ::impacts to a less-than- significant levet+ 4.14(a) The Master Plan for the Village Center and Community Park shall be revised to more closely respond to the design issues identified by the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and Community Design Handbooks. No building permits shall be issued in the Village Center until the Master Plan is approved by the Zoning Administration. 4.14(6) The Master Plan for the Village Center should include strong architectural controls to ensure land use compatibility. It should include an architectural "vocabulary" that would define the design elements, textures and colors to be utilized. Not every structure in the Village Center will have all or most of these elements, but they will serve as a unifying context. Impact 4.1-5 When the 1992 General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted a minor modification to the ULL was included. This resulted in approximately �. 61 acres of Camp Parks being placed inside the ULL. The change in the ULL was made in anticipation of a land transfer between Windemere Ranch Partners and the U.S. Army. (The portion of Camp Parks that was placed inside the ULL is shown in the Alternatives Chapter, see Figure 5-4.) At that time it was planned to utilize Windemere Parkway as the boundary between the military property and the planned unit development on the Windemere property. Because the property boundary is irregular, the precise alignment of the road could only generally follow the surveyed boundary line. The land exchanges were envisioned as a method of allowing military control of land south of Windemere Parkway, and having lands north of the roadway included in the Windemere development. Because the land exchange did not occur and is no longer being pursued, there is no justification for placing any of the military reservation inside the ULL. Thisis considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 The ULL should be moved back to its original boundary along the Windemere Ranch/Camp Parks common property line. This mitigation measure will reduce the ULL impact to a less-than-significant level. 4.1-25 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES EBMUD can protect its own rights in the event they may be adversely affected. EBMUD will not file a legal challenge to that water arrangement to the extent it is carried out in substantial conformance with the program for the proposed water transfer as described in specified documents. • In the event the DSRSDBerrenda Mesa water cannot be secured, the developers agree to use best efforts to locate alternative water suppliers, again in consultation with EBMUD. • The Specific Plan is to be amended to reflect the designation of DSRSD as the preferred water provider. • Approval of tentative maps shall be conditioned on verification of an adequate water supply for the subdivision, the condition to be satisfied prior to recordation of the final map. If EBSIUD is to be the supplier,+t-E 1V> 3D shall not be required to VO4wide such verification;;; rior to annexation of the area into its service boundary. O aR b of any requests for- feliFninar-y 'werk, pr-eject development, annexation eco • �13MLJD agrees :that it.�v�ll nat oppose an appj.tcation fir anntrxatton �f �.e rn er. .into;the :.District::tiled :on br atter JuI 1 2D. U'>>`in `u;'`o:'::>`sxirc :: :::::: ;:::.;;:.;;:.;:.:;:.:•::::..::.:...:.:::.:::..:.:::::::fi::::::::::::::f:: :: :::::.:::.:::: .:.::::::::::::::: i::• :.:..::: :; :::::::::::::::•.....:.v:.....vvv v::::.::x:::.:w:::::.:::::•:•:•:::::.............:.::.................... ....... ... cpnct letlpn of annexation :':will.., side water.stvict✓<to><: >"'rig... RA:: ` acco d P .:.::::)::.:.:::::1a.::::::::.:::::....::.......:::::::::..:::::::.::.:::::::: .::. : . ... ... entA�re�i�ient,�t�elud►n •ski•� t`��d� ....:�Sehedu]'. � ��� u imiSsR.q... pd...p.r pessing :of.. P........................ ..... ..:..:: development,etc:: • Unless EBMUD has developed a sufficient water supply to meet demand in the EBMUD service area and the Dougherty Valley, any water service to the project shall be subject to an offset fee to-fund the cost of conservation programs or other methods necessary to offset additional water demand created by new hookups in the development.The number of new hookups per year would not exceed 600,with a maximum carryover of 150 from any preceding year. No new hookups would be issued during any period in which the District has declared a drought emergency. • Projects Must Be Designed to Accommodate Reclaimed Water. All projects in the Dougherty 1 g p � g rty Valley must be designed and built to accept and utilize reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in public and semi-public areas. The parties will consult in order that reclaimed water programs contemplated for the Dougherty Valley may be coordinated and compatible with EBMUD's reclamation programs. 4.2-3 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES • Future Approvals. EBMUD retains the right to oppose and file a legal challenge against any subsequent approvals for the Project with respect to the subject of water availability or quality to the extent such approvals are not based upon or in substantial conformance with the 1992 approvals, as modified to reflect the Country Club at Gale Ranch approvals and the Settlement Agreements. 4.2-3A � 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES DSRSD currently receives 100 percent of its treated water from Zone 7, which is a State Water Project contractor. Water enters DSRSD's distribution system from the Zone 7 Cross Valley Aqueduct through two turnouts. The original turnout, No. 1, is located at the intersection of Dougherty Road and the abandoned Southern Pacific right-of-way. Turnout No. 2 was added in 1985 at the same time the jointly-owned Zone 7/DSRSD Dougherty Reservoir was constructed. Turnout No. 2 is located at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. DSRSD Distribution System The existing DSRSD water distribution system consists of three pressure zones, which are identified in Table 4.2-2. The entire distribution system contains approximately 61 miles of pipelines. As previously described, water delivered from Zone 7 can be €leeted #Turidafr✓d and chlorinated at the turnouts before it enters the DSRSD Zone 1 distribution system. Water is then pumped into Zones 2 and 3, the successively higher western portions of the water service area from Zone 1. Zone 1, called the Lower Zone in the 1981 Water Master Plan, is the largest pressure zone in DSRSD's service area and contains about 500 major pipelines (roughly 49 miles). This zone encompasses the entire valley floor in Dublin and is served by two reservoirs, No. 1 and the Dougherty Reservoir. Zone 2 is located in the lower hills of the western portion of the City and contains approximately 75 pipelines (roughly eight miles). Zone 2 is served by the Hansen,Betlen and Shannon Pumping Stations and Reservoir No. 2. The Zone 3 distribution system is located on the mid-slopes of the western hills and will have approximately 50 major pipelines when completed. This zone has approximately four miles of pipelines and is served by Pump Stations 3A, 3B, 3C and the William J. Black Reservoir. DSRSD Storage and Pumping Facilities DSRSD owns three storage reservoirs in the distribution system and jointly owns the Dougherty Reservoir with Zone 7. Reservoir No. 1 and the Dougherty Reservoir serve Zone 1, Reservoir No. 2 serves Zone 2, and William J. Black reservoir serves Zone 3. The Dougherty Reservoir is located in the Dougherty Hills northeast of the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. The reservoir is fed by the Zone 7 Cross Valley Aqueduct and represents the terminus of the aqueduct. Reservoir No. 1 is on the west side of dublin near Vomac Road/Rhoda Avenue intersection. Reservoir No. 2 is in southwest Dublin at the end of Betlen Drive and is served by three booster pump stations--Hansen, Betlen and Shannon. The William J. Black Reservoir, serving Zone 3, is located above Brittany Drive and is currently served by Pump Stations 3A and 3B, which are on Creekside Drive and Bloomington Way, respectively. The extreme south part of Zone 3 is discontinuous with the rest of Zone 3 at this time and it is currently served by pump station 3C. ,� 4.2-7 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES Table 4.2-2 SUMMARY OF DSRSD PRESSURE ZONE ELEVATIONS Etcyations Served "(feet) Minimums.Stayc Pressure;; Pressure;:tone M inmium Maximum (ps ' Zone 1 330 430 33 Zone 2 390 520 48 Zone 3 520 740 38 At top of zone. DSRSD Connections with Other Water Agencies DSRSD currently has three pipeline interties, two with EBMUD and one with the City of Pleasanton,for rapid emergency response. Another intertie is planned to be installed with the City of Pleasanton within six months. The interties are strictly for emergency conditions, such as a major pipeline break, supply contamination,or interruption of deliveries due to earthquake,flood, or other disaster. These connections would allow either agency to obtain water from the agency during an emergency. Zone 7 DSRSD receives treated water from Zone 7, which +t- . in turn provides to its customers. ...................... ....................... DSRSD's most recent contract with Zone 7 became effective on August 23, 1994 and will be in . effect until 2024. Zone 7 is a contractor with the State Water Project (SWP). A discussion of Zone 7's water supply, distribution, treatment, storage and conveyance systems can be found in Fiscal, Institutional and Operational Report (June 1996), which is on file with Zone 7. Other water retailers served by Zone 7 include the Livermore District of the California Water Service Company, the City of Livermore's Water Department, and the City of Pleasanton. Commercial and residential growth in the region since 1963 has required continuous increases in the capacity of Zone 7's treatment,pumping, storage and distribution facilities. Since 1994,Zone 7 has identified potential expansion projects required to meet future treated water requirements. These projects form the basis of Zone 7 water'connection fees. As described in the Fiscal, — Institutional and Operational Report,adding Dougherty Valley(exclusive of Country Club at Gale Ranch) demand would require incremental increases to some of those projects and acceleration of portions of Zone 7's construction schedule. The projected changes would be: an increase of capacity in the South Bay Aqueduct from 15 cfs to 26 efs; the addition of seven million gallons per day (mgd) to the planned 30 mgd capacity increase as the Patterson Pass Water Treatment Plant; 4.2-8 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES y... One purpose of the Updated WSMP is to provide an adequate water supply �cx ;�f3za� v�t cu rent tSttrnafi .:;�.erutc .::$clunda:... .CSS$:. The future need for water, as defined b EBMUD, is the additional water required for Year 2020 levels of development f ux t . An EBMUD criteria is to limit rationing to 25 percent of normal water demand levels when a worst case drought occurs. With regard to annexation of the Dougherty Valley, the significance of the Updated WSMP is as follows: Water Supply. EBMUD has entitlements to draw water from the Mokelumne River. As described below, the quantity of water available from this source is characterized by EBMUD as potentially insufficient to meet future demands. EBMUD's Updated Water Supply Management Program states that the District does not currently have an adequate, reliable supply of water for existing and projected future customers within its current ultimate.service boundary (USB) in times of drought, and is projecting water shortages in times of drought (EDAW, 1993). The District has water rights to withdraw up to 325 mgd of water from the Mokelumne River system. However, during drought years, EBMUD may not be able to divert.this much water because of other entitlements and instream resource protection. Because many of these other water rights holders have entitlements senior to EBMUD's entitlements, EBMUD must allow these users to fulfill their allotments before the District can divert from the river. After other entitlements are satisfied during an average year, EBMUD currently obtains approximately 220 mgd from the Mokelumne River (EDAW, 1993). During drought periods of two or more years, however, EBMUD has been limited to withdrawing as little as 198 mgd. M An anticipated increase in the demand for Mokelumne River water by other water agencies will affect the District's ability to serve its customers and meet other water release commitments in dry years. The demands of users upstream of EBMUD's Mokelumne River reservoirs are expected to increase by the year 2020, from approximately 16 thousand ac-ft per year (TAF/year) to 31.6 TAF/year. (One ac-ft is equal to 325,800 gallons.) Use by senior water rights holders downstream of EBMUD's Mokelumne River reservoirs is expected to increase from 90.6 TAF to 104.2 TAF/year in wet and normal years, and from 55.1 TAF to 58.7 TAF/year in dry years. Thus the total demand by other agencies is expected to increase by 28.8 TAF/year in wet and normal years and 22.7 TAF/year in dry years. In addition, a 1961 agreement between EBMUD and the California Department of Fish and Game requires that EBMUD make fishery releases of 13 TAF/year. EBMUD anticipates that it faces possible reductions in supply due to increased allocations of Mokelumne water to fisheries. In response, EBMUD has proposed a Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan (LMRMP), under which the District will increase these releases to 19 TAF in critically dry years. 73 TAF in dry years, and 114 TAF in normal and wet years (EDAW, 1993). The District has recently signed "Principles of Agreement" with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game that provide flows in addition to the LMRMP. 4.2-11 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES planning options of long term supply issues. The additional households planned for development in the Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley and the Westside Specific Plan area would result in a maximum increase of 4.4 percent of total demand. This increase does not affect the analysis of the Updated WSMP because: (1) the range of increase lies well within the range of uncertainty in the EBMUD 2020 demand projections; (2) total demand generated by those projects would likely be less than 4.4 percent because the increase in housing in those areas would likely displace some development within the existing service boundary; and (3) after preparation of the Draft1 EIR, ABAG's 1992 report was issued and the projected number of new households expected within the District's ultimate service boundary in the year 2020 had declined by about 16,000, which nearly offsets the unit count of those identified projects (18,800). Thus, even including potential additional demand of large projects currently outside the District's boundaries, the difference would not be considered significant in the context of a system-wide analysis (EDAW, 1993). However, shortages would occur during drought periods due to diminished river runoff and the fact that EBMUD's. reservoir system storage capacity is not sufficient to provide the needed quantity of water through EBMUD's drought planning sequence. EBMUD estimates that, in the r absence of any steps to add additional water supply or additional storage capacity, and/or increase conservation and reclamation , the water shortage at the third year of its drought planning - sequence would be 113 TAF. Assuming implementation of EBMUD's Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan, EBMUD estimates the shortage at the third year of its drought planning sequence at 130 TAF by 2020. The "Principles of Agreement" increased in-river flows and would increase this shortage to 160 TAF $MUT3otes that the agreeets4tyttt iC11 ........................................................................:...................F....................... nficant.;increase>::tn>:;#lle zieed tc� a�cotx�znndale c�Itter>:use;:;fhan::ths :cf'>E :MUD .. ' t Taki`ng account of the need to ensure adequate supplies during drought .Years, EBMUD estimates the shortfall in its ability to meet its projected 2020 drought-period demand at 40 mgd (45 TAF/year) if the LMRMP is not implemented and 64 mgd (72 TAF/year) if the LMRMP is implemented (EDAW, 1993). The estimated shortage increases as a result of the "Principles of Agreement". In October 1993 EBMUD adopted a preferred Water Supply Management Plan alternative for meeting its projected need for water through the year 2020. At that time, EBMUD expressed its intention to proceed with development and evaluation of the feasibility of specific project elements within the framework of that alternative. The approved alternative includes the following components: a net reduction in water demand of 13 mgd by 2020, over and above water savings achieved from existing and previously adopted conservation programs; promotion of the use of reclaimed water and expansion of existing water reuse programs with the objective of reducing potable water demand by 8 mgd by 2005; implementation of a groundwater storage/conjunctive use program sized to provide EBMUD with a water supply from ground water storage of up to 50 TAF in dry years, to be operational by 2002. EBMUD projects that implementation of these 4.2-13 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES The B&C report is broader in its scope,outlining a water distribution system intended to serve all of Dougherty Valley. It did not identify a water reservoir site on the Country Club at Gale Ranch, but it did identify a potential water reservoir site on the same ridge, further to the south and in the same pressure zone. B&C indicates that the reservoir sites presented in their report took into account local soil conditions,potential visual impacts and optimum distribution system hydraulics. The B&C report does not include a grading plan for each reservoir and its access road, but it provides criteria for sizing reservoirs and pipelines. The purpose of the B&C report was not to P g P rP provide final design details,but to identify the overall system needed to serve the entire Dougherty Valley. It was recognized that during final design more detailed studies would be required and that those studies would/could result in adjustments to their plan of service. In summary, the B&C report is more generalized than the dcsign level report prepared by CDM. Nevertheless, the forecasts of water demand, reservoir situs, pressure zones and distribution system generally conform with EBMUD standards. RECYCLED WATER 1992 EIR The discussion of recycled water' in the 1992 EIR commences on page 5-8 of that document. It references the B&C report which was presented in Appendix E of the EIR.The report noted that although recycled water service is not available,B&C analyzed five alternatives for the use of water service in Dougherty Valley. The report also estimated demand for recycled water in Dougherty Valley, and presents a conceptual water distribution system, including mains, reservoirs and booster pumps. Recycled water policies from the General Plan are presented on page 5-23 of the 1992 EIR. Events Since Certification of the 1992 EIR DERWA The 1992 EIR notes that EBMUD and DSRSD signed a memorandum of understanding establishing a framework by which they may work together to provide a joint potable/reclaimed water service area. Such an agreement was a critical first step in provision of recycled water because in California the treatment, distribution and sale of recycled water requires a cooperative 2 Recycled water is wastewater that has been treated to be safe for reuse for nonpotable purposes. The State cy P P rP Department of Health Services(DHSD)has established standards for the use of recycled water in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 60301 through 60357 (known as "Title 22"). Title 22 establishes requirements for treatment processes,redundant process units,power supplies,alarms,and quality sampling and analysis for various uses of the recycled water.Requirements for recycled water used for irrigation of parks,playgrounds and schoolyards are more stringent than those for irrigation of golf.courses and highway landscaping where public exposure is not as great. Wastewater fir�rxrattpz3 afp pigrattnds scal !sxtl is considered adequately disinfected for protection of public health when coliform organisms do not exceed 2.2 parts per 100 milliliters of wastewater. 4.2-18 1 4.2 PUBLIC UTIIITIES effort between a water purveyor and a waste water treatment agency. Excluding the Country Club at Gale Ranch and Camp Parks, the planning area is presently outside the service area boundaries of all water purveyors and waste water treatment agencies. DSRSD and EBMUD have entered into a joint powers agreement to establish DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA). DERWA will plan for recycled water use in the San Ramon Valley, and its service area will be determined as part of a facilities plan and EIReur-r-ently undef preparation by lex-.;� ver to d fflJ't11::> cul .. 9G.r It is anticipated that an agreement t »' ;::;:<..aft.:.:.:::::::::::::: >::.;;;�' P g between DSRSD and EBMUD to provide recycled water service will be executed in the future. DSRSD DSRSD currently recycles between 0.2 and 0.4 mgd of secondary effluent for irrigation of highway landscaping near the intersection of Highway 680 and Stoneridge Drive. DSRSD is planning to rehabilitate the existing filters and improve the hypochlorite disinfection system to provide recycled water for unrestricted landscape irrigation of golf courses, parks,playgrounds,and greenbelts.The filters have not been used since 1980. As proposed, the filters would be brought back on line in three phases. Rehabilitation of one of the three existing filters during the first phase will result in a recycled water capacity of 5.2 mgd. DSRSD has recently completed a Recycled Water Distribution Master Plan which addresses the needs for transporting and storing recycled water for use within DSRSD's service area. If all of DSRSD's potential service area for recycled water made optimum use of recycled water, the District would need additional effluent to satisfy the demand. Conceivably, effluent could be sent to DSRSD from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). Brown and Caldwell Report The 1992 EIR includes a technical appendix that estimates demand for recycled water for various land use designations, including parks; athletic fields and landscaped areas at schools; road medians; and landscaped portions of commercial sites. Their study identified 541.4 net acres within Dougherty Valley where use of recycled water was feasible. Taking into account the evaporation rate, B&C estimated average day demand, seasonal peak demand, and instantaneous peak demand. The forecasted demand took into account the Country Club at Gale Ranch, including its golf course, as well as the then proposed 150-acre community college campus on Camp Parks property. For all of Dougherty Valley, B&C estimated average day demand to be 1,104 gallons per minute (gpm) and seasonal peak demand to be 2,538 gpm. The B&C report examined five alternatives for providing recycled water service which ranges from one to two 3 The map contained within the DERWA Notice of Preparation(NOP)designates Dougherty Valley as an"Approved Development outside DSRSD/EBMUD Service Areas." Two of four scenarios propose extending recycled water to Dougherty Valley. i� 4.2-19 4.2 PUBLIC UTILnUS �. Table 4.2-3 ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR RECYCLED WATER ON WINDEMERE PROPERTY . :.:<: Rec ycled Water ......... ,. Condition RequlremenE:'>: '.»; 1 _..... ... . ...... .:... Average Day,mgd 0.41 Average Day,Maximum Month, mgd 1.04 Maximum Day,mgd 131 Peak Hour, mgd 4.49 1 Annual Total, mgd 4,".* Annual Total, ac-ft 4,5 $ Source: John Carollo Engineers, September 1995. 1 Figure 3 Windemere Portable & Recycled Water Demands 8x4 4.2-21 ................ .. ... ...................... ........ ......11 ..........:....... iii`4.3 .P UBLIC SERVICES:. . INTRODUCTION This section examines the affect of the proposed project on schools, the community college district, open space, police protection, fire protection, and other public srcenetfacilities. SCHOOLS ,.............. .. .. .... Background The discussion of schools in the 1992 EIR commences on page 5-12, and school-related General Plan policies are presented on page 5-29 and 5-30. Dougherty Valley is identified as being within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (page 5-12). Enrollment and capacity data for 1992 is presented on page 5-15. The EIR goes on to state that the District was expected to "reach capacity by 1996, creating the need for additional school facilities." Financing options being considered by the District are briefly reviewed. In 1989, California High School was expanded. However, the downstairs classrooms are considered unusable due to needed renovations. Capacity at the District's high schools is being estimated by the District concurrently with the development of this EIR, but will meet current enrollment needs. Estimated District-wide high school enrollment is 5,247 (September, 1996). Iron Horse Middle School will open in September 1996 as a sixth/seventh grade school with 450 students. The following school year it will expand to 650 students in grades six to eighth and will be considered at its ultimate capacity. District middle schools will have a September 1996 capacity of 4,392 students and an enrollment of 3,975 students. Middle school enrollment for September 1997 is estimated at 4,357 students. I District elementary schools will have a September 1996 capacity of 9,000 students and an estimated enrollment of 8,822 students. However, these calculations were based upon 30 students per classroom. The State Legislature has recently proposed a standard of 20 students per classroom in grades K-3. Meeting this standard would bring the District to capacity for elementary school classroom space.. Proposition 203, approved by the voters in March 1996, provided $2 billion 4.3-1 43 PUBLIC SERVICES statewide for school facilities. Construction of Tassajara Elementary School' is being funded with a combination of Proposition 203 and local funds. The school is being designed for a capacity of 650 students and is expected to be ready for occupancy around January 1998. Total District enrollment is estimated at 18,773 students (September, 1996). Agreements Between Developers and School District �' p Shapell 1988 Agreement. On 13 December 1988 an agreement was reached regarding Shapell's West Branch subdivision and Gale Ranch. West Branch is located immediately north of Dougherty tValley (see Figure 4.3-1). This agreement stated that Shapell would provide two 10-acre elementary school sites and one 15-acre intermediate school site within its Gale Ranch subdivision. It was agreed that the Gale Ranch schools would serve the children generated by both Shapell projects. In addition,Shapell agreed to assist the District in its dealings with the State Department of Education, State Board of Allocation and other governmental entities, provide$10 million per 475 high school students generated by Shapell's West Branch and Gale Ranch projects to offset the District's cost of providing facilities (less any state matching funds or other alternative funding sources), and build one 650 student elementary school on the Gale Ranch property. Fifty percent of State funds received by the District as a result of Shapell's assistance would be credited to Shapell against future builder's fees. Full credit against builder's fees would also be made for land irrevocably transferred to the District for school sites and for construction of school facilities. The District agreed to declare and support that Shapell's efforts to comply with this agreement fully mitigates and meets Shapell's financial obligations for school facilities arising out of development of West Branch and Gale Ranch. Mitigation Monitoring. The Phasing and Mitigation Monitoring Program of the 1992 EIR defined a school's "fully operational condition" as including: hard court areas, school/neighborhood parks with turfed areas, landscaping around the schools, and furniture and equipment as outlined in the State school building program 'Ihe Sta tdA dS Evr seh o1. f;xl attt t11x##n fl Q t#� CI1 S St S c `edby.tet] x[1et1 1rrttIt defined student generation factors to be used and the school capacities: 650 student elementary, 1,200 student middle, and 1,800 student high school. It allowed schools to be constructed in phases, but required design development through construction to begin 36 months prior to the arrival of students that would bring student numbers to two-thirds of capacity for the first stage of school construction. (For example, if elementary school is going to be built with 300 student capacity with plans to later be expanded to 650 student capacity, then it must begin design development 36 months prior to an expected student generation 'This school site front on the north side of Camino Tassajara,just east of the eastern entrance to the Blackhawk development. 4.3-2 K „� • �` �.,. � � � � � •-ems., ��, � ,�,,,, � < ;,, �'�. i t4 -«���,.+Wig•, �� Y .3°" � 3"a� ��., ���£•�1) � i, � ^�... z ��' R`"�,.ls..n ''� �1`.r Fy' 4G e i. µ„ .?a„RVwY ~ �.•. 'r S >+�'y �"" 1� 3 ""� �s(y �3 �'1e;g� � � S ....��e L�^rN,� ? r � �'f F..._J (� �• <7'!"',-. 7 .Boundary � � jY� '� �� ��' l 219 ....A,.... „,,,� �►t' "'��. ��`• x Basun#2 i @N P� $5�� �''c �� #1 ............. .,,,J � Project x Boundary E� v r t �� :'"� � s � � ,�•'-,> s � � nal psri��«.lr'r l P as �'i �"�,, "` ' ,� '�� � '� �,m'� l r..�• Potential Dougherty k �- *! • Valley Basin Sites 2�♦ , , � >. >� ,, �.,, Y `� Identified in 1992 EIR 3 Existing Detention Basins A Figure:4.4-1 Alamo Creek Graphic Scale: Subsequent EIR Watershed Map 0 1000' 4000' 8000' 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Table 4.3-8 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Public Services The 1992 findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Need for approximately two (2) CLIP positions to provide traffic-related law enforcement service. Mitigation Measures: • The California Highway Patrol should create two additional patrol positions at the Dublin office, If the CHP is unable to create additional patrol positions,the County Sheriff Department shall provide adequate staffing. 2. Impact: Need for approximately live (5) sheriffs deputies and necessary equipment. Mitigation Measures: ' The developer shall provide 4,500 square feet of substation space. + Planning • The County will circulate development and open space management/improvement plans to CCCSD for review and incorporate feasible suggestions or produce alternative recommendations before approval. 3. Impact: Need for additional fire stations and.equipment. Mitigation Measures: • One fire station site shall be dedicated and a second site reserved for dedication in the planning area. SRVFPD shall approve (1) fire station construction plans and specifications; (2)location and staging of fire station sites; and (3) equipping of the fire stations. Two fire/medical emergency response facilities shall be constructed. One site shall have the capability to serve as a police substation in a separate facility. • Fire stations shall be constructed and acquisition of equipment needed to provide adequate fire and emergency medical response to the planning area shall be funded when the SRVFPD cannot meet time and distance response standards. 4. Impact: Increased fire hazards. Mitigation Measures: • See Mitigation Measures for Public Service & Utilities Impact 11. • SRVFPD shall review all plans for development of the planning area and recommend the incorporation of firebreaks, fire buffers,fire roads,non-combustible roofing,sprinklers,and other measures,where necessary to reduce fire hazards. 4.3-24 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Table 43-8 continued ' The East Bay Regional Parks District(EBRPD)or other responsible open space management agency should incorporate fire prevention measures approved by SRVFPD into its management of planning area open space areas. See Mitigation Measures for Public Service & Utilities Impact 16. These fire prevention measures could include fire breaks, grazing intensities, weed abatement strategies, controlled bums, access roads or other measures to reduce fire hazards. S. Impact: Need for additional school facilities to accommodate 2,618 elementary school, 1,241 middle school and 2,068 high school students. Mitigation Measures: SIB. :ac:.e:••y}'? 1' :::::.: :{:<ii:::q:.y,:+,{niq:?ii i:v ;};;:.n.?• Ide t► cbonl sates wtt1J each Final I)c%cle mcnt:Plan and re usce pfCer o Glee tie? 4n ! ;:;;�, • Building permits will not be issucJ until the Community Development Department establishes the adequacy of existing or planned school facilities. • During the initial phases of development. the need may arise for excess students to be housed at alternative sites prior to the completion of new• school facilities. If the SRVUSD is unable to accommodate additional students, the Project proponents will provide temporary space at existing or alternative facilities until new facilities can be constructed. 6. Impact: Need to accommodate approximately 1,329 community college students. Mitigation Measure: ' The Community Development Department, CCCCD, San Ramon, and Danville shall continue to work together to identify and develop an appropriate site for a community college in the San Ramon Valley. 7. Impact: Need for childcare facilities. Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents shall ensure that childcare facilities are provided to serve the planning area according to the County's childcare ordinance. Each final development plan shall indicate how needs for childcare would be met. Childcare facilities shall be located on school sites or transit routes and within 0.25 miles of the schools that the children housed at the facility attend. • The San Ramon Valley School Age Childcare Alliance shall plan a before-and after-school childcare facility on the existing middle school site in the planning area. • The Project proponents shall establish an acceptable funding mechanism and plan for providing temporary modular buildings capable of housing children at any off-site elementary schools,if necessary due to delays in P opening on-site schools. 4.3-25 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Table 4.4.5 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM 1992 EIR Hydrology and Water Ouality. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. pmdwtod pro 12FGjGGt lgvols se Ilia ste-FAMIA'AW; flow ';A1;tA1;oA :a tha County line is not ex-laded ____ I . - I uacuien Shall bg prG;,idGd for.at Wast the 19 year.local Good event A faGiiWas fi�r-A lamo Croak- 2. Impact: Risk of flood damage from development in the 100-year flood plain. Mitigation Measures: I • See the Mitigation Measures for Public Services & Utility Impact #7. • The Project proponent shall submit a letter for map revision to FEMA to reflect the new flood plain due to the channel changes proposed in the restoration program. Development within the anticipated revised flood plains shall be designed to withstand flooding. 3. Impact: Increased erosion during construction. Mitigation Measures: • See the Mitigation Measures for Soils and Geology Impact #5. 4. Impact: Increased water quality degradation because of urban runoff. Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents will construct, as appropriate, on-site retention or detention facilities or install silt or grease traps in the storm drain system. S. Impact: Increased runoff and flooding downstream of the planning area. Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents will construct on-site detention basins to reduce post-Project peak floodflows to predicted pre-Project levels so that storm limitations at the County line are not exceeded. 6. Impact: Increased channel erosion due to construction of bridge crossings. Mitigation Measures: • Design and construct bridges large enough that they do not constrict flows. 1 4.4-30 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Site Soils/Colluvium. Figure 4.5-8 shows the distribution of colluvium is typically in a weak, unconsolidated state and is susceptible to landsliding. Landslides. Landslides identified by Engeo are mapped in Figure 4.5-8. There are approximately 10 landslides within the Windemere I project area,most of which are relatively shallow earthflows. One is an area of accelerated erosion/soil creep that is mapped as Qls + Qc. Additional slope stability analysis andspecific, nat e-Sies ;...... :::: :..............::.............:........ .:::........................ detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations including keyway designs and subdrain locations will be performed during future review of 40-scale grading plans. Preliminary Grading Plan: Gale Ranch II The application for the Preliminary and Final Development Plan included a Preliminary Grading Plan, submitted at a scale of 1 inch=300 feet. In order to present the grading plan in the EIR, it was photographically reduced to a scale of 1 inch=1,000 feet. The limit of grading an proposed contours are represented by heavy, black lines; existing contours have been screened, and appear as faint, gray lines. To provide insight into the grading concept, proposed cut areas are represented with a dot pattern. Areas which lack the dot pattern are fill areas. Within the graded area the contour interval is 10 feet. Additionally, the Preliminary Grading Plan has been annotated (A through P) to provide information on the grading concept (e.g., height of graded slope and slope gradient; depth of cut; and thickness of fill). For reference, the grading plan shows existing units in Shapell's West Branch project as well as the north-northeast trending,300- foot wide PG&E easement. According to the engineers for the project, the plans indicate 10.2 million cubic yards of fill. In 1992, when the West Branch project was graded, approximately.03 million cubic yards of fill was placed in the northern portion of the Gale Ranch II project area, and placement of the fill was monitored by the applicant's geotechnical engineer. To illustrate the grading concept in the Gale Ranch II project, a series of three grading cross- sections have been prepared which show the existing topographic profile (dashed line) and proposed final grade (solid,heavy line). .Architectural details were added by the project engineer which indicate the approximate locations of residences, streets, creek channels and landscaping. The actual buildings may be of different height and style than shown and the trees shown represent mature vegetation.' The lines of section's are shown on Figure 4.5-9, and the grading sections are presented in Figures 4.5-10 and 4.5-11. The sections may be described as follows: z The planting of trees must conform with the recommendations of the developer's geotechnical engineer and botanistpandscape architect. 4.5-22 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING The annotations on the map provide insight into the height and inclination of graded slopes in the project, thickness of fill and depth of cut. According to the civil engineers for this project (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.), the grading plan is balanced. They estimate that the Windemere I project involves 8.5 million cubic yards of cut and 8.5 million cubic yards of fill. Furthermore, there are relatively level valley floor areas that can serve as a balance area for grading. The final grades of such areas can be adjusted upward or down to ensure that the project balances. To illustrate the grading concept in the Windemere I project, a series of four grading cross- sections have been prepared which show the existing topographic profile (dashed line) and proposed grade (solid, heavy line). Landscape features and residences have been added to the sections to illustrate the developed character of the community. The actual buildings may be of different height and style than shown and the trees represent mature vegetation.' The sections are presented in Figure 4.5-13 and 4.5-14. The features shown in the sections may be described as follows. IGrading Section A The section is aligned and positioned to cross a man-made creek in the Windemere I project. It ' is approximately 800 feet south of a proposed detention basin on the tributary channel that drains the Hidden Valley portion of the Windemere property. Near the left side of this section, the maximum depth of cut indicated is 70 feet. The existing creek channel is approximately 100 feet to the east (right) of the proposed channel. The thickness of fill shown ranges from 40 feet (maximum) and feathers out near the east (right) terminus of the section. The detail for Section A shows the proposed geometry of the creek channel. The floor of the channel will be 10 feet wide and the side slopes will have a gradient of 3:1 (H:V). The capacity of the channel, in combination with the upstream detention basin, will be such that developed areas will be protected from flooding. Grading Section B This section shows a 200+-foot high cut slope. The slope will have a gradient of 3.5:1 (H:V). The section indicates that the depth of cut proposed in the vicinity of"A" Street is 60 feet. Near the south (left) margin of the section, the depth of cut proposed is 409- jrtT } feet. The detail for Section B shows a debris bench that would separate "A" Street from the proposed cut slope. A function of the buttress fill is to stabilize the toe of the slope, intercept mud and 3 The planting of trees must conform to the recommendations of the developer's geotechnical engineer and botanist/landscape architect. l 4.5-26 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identified nine significant impacts and associated mitigation measures.(see Appendix B,pages B61 through B68 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). Table 4.5-3 summarizes the impacts and mitigation measures from the 1992 EIR. The following discussion is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. The following impacts and mitigation measures pertain to the Preliminary and Final Developments plan applications received by Contra Costa County for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I i projects. Unless otherwise noted, the identified impacts and mitigation measures pertain to both i projects. Substantial Change in Topography Impact 4.5-1 Development of the proposed project will require mass grading of hillsides to create stable areas suitable for development. This is a significant impact. According to grading plans prepared for these Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, approximately 100 acres would be graded. The grading plan strives to create safe, usable development areas. This objective is attained by mass grading most land proposed for development, along with adjacent open space land on the perimeter of the development, with , large, integrated open space areas. The plan also shows permanent open space along the channels of West and Main Branches of Alamo Creek, and two detention basins are proposed. Within the development,open space is provided by creek corridors and graded slopes separating development areas. Figures 4.5-9 and 4.5-12 shows the anticipated limits of grading. The grading plans were developed using maps at a scale of approximately 1"=300-200! (Gale Ranch II) and 1"=400' (Windemere),subsequently, tentative maps were prepared at 1"=100'which show grading. Given i the long-term nature of this project, the details of grading are subject to refinement as information on geology evolves, and development concepts are finalized. Additional comments on grading are as follows: • The conceptual grading plans for Gale Ranch II indicates cuts up to 100 feet deep and fills up to 77 feet thick. The Windemere I grading plans show cuts up to 90 feet deep and fills up to 47 feet thick. The majority of the development areas will be relatively flat-lying with cut and fill slopes graded at 3:1 or flatter. • On the Gale Ranch II project, engineered fill was placed just north of the abandoned ranch buildings. This portion of Gale Ranch was used as a balance area for surplus earth generated by grading of Shapell's West Branch project. Fill placement was done under a grading permit and was monitored by Engeo Inc. The fill was protected from erosion, and it was placed on a portion of the Gale Ranch project that is planned to receive fill. 45-37 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Table 4.5-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM SOILS AND GEOLOGY CHAPTER OF 1992 EIR Soils and Geoloey. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Substantial change in topography from grading operations. Mitieation Measures: • The Project proponents will prepare a detailed grading plan that specifies areas to be graded and shows earthwork balances. • The grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County geologist and incorporated into each final development plan. 2. Impact: Potential for structural damage and injury to people from development in areas susceptible to landsliding and slope failure. Mitigation Measures: • • The Project proponents will participate in a Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GHAD) or an alternative mechanism to fund remedial work for landslides and land disturbances in graded areas. The developer will be responsible for remedial work to correct all soil/slide problems for two to three winters after the work is performed. impacia f9r.lniubzy 19 People 'R Opel] Space and park areas suseeplible to landr,"ding and slope :Rstabil+ly. �i�uefacsifew. i M-49 FQPQ14 Will bQ A-Ad- aPPF0;,Gd by thg Geui;4), geologist before appFQ;.,-Al Wf#hs -r4Aa4 • �1df`Ivl�� .1a;6 4.5-38 r 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Table 45-3 continued r SS. Impact: Potential for increased short term and long term soil erosion rates from development on soils with moderate to high erosion hazards. Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents will prepare an erosion control and rehabilitation plan (ECRP)to control soil erosion and sedimentation in nearby streams and rivers. The ECRP will include: goals for grading,stabilization,and revegetation consistent with the final grading concept plan; species list,planting density, and irrigation requirements for the restored area; locations of all areas whcrc vegetation will be removed; methods to stabilize these areas; locations of areas to be rr.rgctjtcd. quantities, and methods of seeding, mutating planting, fertilizing,and irrigating plantcJ areas; methods to reduce runoff acruss cut and fill slopes and other graded areas; location and function of sediment traps and debris basins,location and type of temporary measures such as hay bales,earth berms,sand-bagging, or silt fences; and a schedule for implementation so that all erosion control measures will be installed and maintained throughout the rainy season of each construction year. • The site-specific, features of the ECRP shall be incorporated into the final development plan and approved by the County geologist before grading approval by the County staff. 4 . Impact: Potential for structural damage from development on soils with high shrink-swell potential. Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents shall use special design criteria for structures built on soils with high shrink- swell potential,such as: extending building foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation with deep footings or drilled piers, replacing the expansive top soil with a layer of select fill material with low expansion potential,or laying rigid mat or slab foundation designed to resist the fluctuations associated with the soil expansion q& Impact: Grading on hillsides with slopes of 26% and greater. XX Mitigation Measures: The Project proponents shall prepare a detailed grading plan that specifies areas to be graded and shows earthwork balances to be included in the Final Development Plan. • The grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County geologist prior to approval of the final development plan. 4.5-39 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Table 45-3 continued 8 Impact: Development of Windemere Parkway extension on potentially unstable land east of the planning area. Miti¢ation Measures: • The Project proponents shall design the Windemere Parkway extension based on a grading plan and an engineering geotechnical study. • The Parkway extension grading plan shall be approved by the County geologist prior to approval of the Final Development Plan for the Windemere property. tl Impact: Development of water,wastewater and recycled water infrastructure on potentially geologically unstable land within and adjacent to the planning area. Mitieation Measures: • See the Mitigation Measures for Soils and Geology Impact 2. ' • The Project proponents shall design all potable water,wastewater, and recycled water infrastructure to be located on undeveloped open space based on a grading plan and engineering geotechnical study prepared as part of the grading plans under Soils and Geology Impact 7. t • See the Mitigation Measures for Visual Impact 14. • The conceptual grading plans submitted with the Gale Ranch II and Windemere IJro'ects P do not show grading for water reservoirs or their maintenance roads. Other infrastructure 1 (e.g., sewage pipelines, pumping plant) may also require hillside grading. The grading of these facilities has not yet been established. Grading is shown for all roads required for these two projects. • Slide areas in open space lands which pose a threat to future development will require corrective grading. Decisions on which slide areas would be repaired will be made when 40 scale grading plans are analyzed by the geotechnical engineer. This will occur during processing of tentative maps. As proposed, the grading for Gale Ranch II will be performed as a single grading project. Similarly, the application for the Windemere I project indicates it will be graded as a single project. The two projects will be graded independent of one another, and each is designed to balance. Because there are broad, generally level areas within the proposed developments, an earthwork balance can be achieved by adjusting pad elevations upward or downward. 1 4.5-40 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Traffic Sinal Warrants Traffic signal warrants are used to evaluate the need for traffic signals at street intersections. There are a number of warrants that are intended for use at existing intersections where accurate data can be obtained. There are also peak hour warrants to assist in evaluating the need for signalization at future locations where traffic data must be estimated. These peak hour warrants were used to evaluate study intersections. Impact 4.6-6 Internal circulation in Area A is substandard and inconsistent with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan's overall urban form.. This is a significant impact. Area A includes a residential area 1,285 multi-family housing units,the Windemere portion of the Dougherty Valley Village Center,and the College Campus site. Access to Area A is via Bollinger Canyon Road which delivers motorists to three cul-de-sacs that vary from 400 to about 700 feet in length. Access to Villages 2 through 6 is provided by the cul-de-sac opposite"F' Street via a 36-foot wide local street, Alamo Creek Road, which dead ends at a driveway to Village 6 to the. north,terminates at a driveway/access road at Village 2 and the College Campus site to the south. There are no collector roads in Area A. Primary vehicular access for the 318-unit Village 2 and the north side of the College Campus is via a driveway connecting to Bollinger Canyon Road. There is no clear organizational framework for internal vehicular circulation in the area as called for in Dougherty Valley Specific Plan policy CD-1. This is an impact of the Development Plan and the Specific Plan General Plan amendment. Mitigation Measure 4.6-6 In conjunction with Mitigation Measure 4.6-4, modify the internal circulation of Area A by upgrading Alamo Creek Road to collector street standard and connecting this road to the termini of the proposed cul-de-sacs and extending it southerly between Village 2 and the College Campus site to Bollinger Canyon Road. The collector street � Ibe designed to reduce high-speed through-traffic. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.6-7 Safety hazards and potential reduced utility of the transit right-of-way due to potential conflicts between auto traffic and transit vehicles at intersections on the transit right-of-way. This is a significant impact. 4.6-36 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Maps do not specify the configuration of intersections along the mass transit right-of-way. The Specific Plan and County standards do not provide guidelines for such design. Specific Plan Policy C-5 proposes completion of a Dougherty Valley Rail Study to determine the appropriate placement of the rail system within Dougherty Valley. The intent of the last sentence in Policy C-5 is unclear since the Specific Plan has been prepared with the determination that the appropriate placement of rail within the Dougherty Valley is along Bollinger Canyon Road. Furthermore, the policy does not address the near-term need to develop intersection designs that will not unnecessarily constrain future use of the transit right-of-way by transit vehicles and reduce the utility of the right-of-way for mass transit use. No designs or County standards have been prepared for the ultimate configuration of intersections along Bollinger Canyon Road that accommodate auto traffic and use of the transit right-of-way. Bollinger Canyon Road needs to be designed to accommodate significant auto volumes at intersections crossing the right-of-way safely while avoiding potential costly revisions to intersections once a rail transit system is implemented. This is an impact of the Development Plans and the Specific Plan General Plan amendment. Mitigation Measure 4.6-7 , Prior to the extension of Bollinger Canyon Road, engineering studies Abe completed for this facility to ensure it will be constructed to accommodate both its initial use by auto traffic volumes and its future use by rail transit in a cost-effective manner. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.6-8 The ten intersections along Bollinger Canyon Road will eventually have to be signalized to accommodate the movement of light rail trains down the median. This is a significant impact. The timing of the installation of the signals at other locations should be determined by County staff based on the monitoring of travel volumes. The signal locations along Bollinger Canyon Road through the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II project area should be interconnected when the roadway is constructed to facilitate signal coordination of all of the eventual signals. Mitigation Measure 4.6-8 Based on the peak hour planning level traffic signal warrants, traffic signals should be installed at the following locations along Bollinger Canyon Road as part of the development plans: i� -- 4.6-37 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The 1994 EIR Traffic Analysis contained a mitigation measure stating"the project proponent shall reserve right-of-way along Bollinger Canyon through the project for the exclusive use of transit vehicles." The planned right-of-way set aside for Bollinger Canyon Road west of Dougherty Road and for the southern section of Dougherty Road is 186 feet, including 61 feet for the transit corridor. On Bollinger Canyon east of Dougherty Road to Alamo Creek,total planned right-of-way of 197 feet. The corridor within the.project area is approximately five miles long. Impact 4.6-12 The proposed development will create a demand for transit services in an area not currently served by available bus or rail routes. This is a significant impact. The 1994 EIR did not define the relationship between the Bollinger Canyon corridor and proposed future transit service. As a practical matter, construction of a light rail line in the San Ramon Valley will be largely dependent on multi-jurisdictional coordination and external funding sources. The following mitigation measures should be incorporated within each phase of the multi-phase Dougherty Valley Development. Mitigation Measures 4.6-12(a) Provide bus stop improvements at bus stop locations identified on Table 4.6-7. Bus stops would be equipped with shelters, benches, information kiosks. Major bus stops should be additionally equipped with bicycle storage racks and public telephones consistent with community design criteria. Waiting areas would be set back from the traffic lane to minimize noise and pollution. The County should condition the project proponent to 1 contribute toward the implementation of this measure. The Project's participation in this mitigation measure should be based on its proportionate share of the impact. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for implementing this measure when this facility is functioning at its threshold of significance. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for monitoring the success of this mitigation measure. 4.6-12(b) Integrate bus stops on Bollinger Canyon Road with the planned Village Center design concepts. The design of the Village Center and community college site would be configured to minimize pedestrian distance between buildings and the bus stops. The ba&6f 4ke-1,400 planned parking spaces would beef the planned dswlepm bekdtail o ce, community facilities and community college bu Ts t a Unobstructed pedestrian and bicycle access between , the bus stops and the planned buildings would be provided. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for implementing this measure when this facility 4.6-45 t S 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION provided. The project will be expected to contribute its fair share of the cost of these improvements. These improvements include those required under the PDP Build Scenario. Mitigation Measures 4.6-15(a) Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road intersection improvements. Within existing curb-to-curb pavement section, reconfigure northbound approach (Crow Canyon Road) to provide two left-turn lanes, one exclusive right-turn lane. On Tassajara Ranch Drive, remove median and add bike lanes. 4.6-15(b) Sycamore Valley Road/I-680 nortlibound on-ramp/Camino Ramon intersection improvements. Reconfigure westbound approach (Sycamore Valley Road) to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, one exclusive through lane, one shared throughlright-turn lane, and one exclusive right- turn lane. 4.6-15(c) Crow Canyon Road/Dougherty Road intersection improvements. Reconfigure eastbound approach (Crow Canyon Road) to provide three exclusive through lanes, and one 'free" right-tum lane to southbound Dougherty Road. Reconstruct southbound Dougherty Road, south of Crow Canyon Road, to provide dedicated curb lane to accept right turns from ' eastbound Crow Canyon Road. 4.6-15(d) Bollinger Canyon Road/Camino Ramon intersection improvements. If needed, reconfigure southbound approach (Camino Ramon)to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. 4.6-I5(e) Bollinger Canyon Road/Alcosta Boulevard intersection improvements. Reconfigure eastbound approach (Bollinger Canyon Road) to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, three exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Reconfigure westbound approach (Bollinger Canyon Road) to provide one exclusive left-tum lane, three exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Widen Bollinger Canyon Road, east of Alcosta Boulevard to .........aeastetl direetivr' or�z su zcient ztistanc�.ta trila ��'°uate to err cert. existing two lanes n.the i�astUaund direction, 09nsiME4-l�'&�E�.,,H,.1 ,,t �„n.,,,v Lakes n.•:.,,. 4.6-15(o Dougherty Road, re-alignment and construction of a six-lane facility between the northerly project limits and Crow Canyon Road. 4.6-51 4.6 TRAFFIC1CIItCUI ATION 4.6-15 Windentere Parkway, construction of a new four-lane, divided arterial facility between the lg) y project limits and Camino Tassajara Road. Intersection improvements at the Windemere ParkwaylCamino Tassajara intersection which include a traffic signal, left-tum 1 1 t 4.6-51A r 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCUIL ATION rBased on the 0.89 V/C ratio threshold for identification of significant impacts, the General Plan Amendment would result in impacts at two of the study intersections: - Camino Ramon/Bollinger Canyon Road (V/C = 0.91 in AM peak hour). Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road (V/C = 0.91 in PM peak hour). At both of these locations the V/C ratio with the General Plan Amendment will be 0.91; which exceeds the threshold of significance criteria for intersection impacts. The Gity of-San Rame.n. does not supper€use -isireapeity at these ee-atie*s--To achieve other objectives, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors agreed to accept a V/C ratio of up to 0.91 at these locations. This V/C ratio is consistent with the Settlement Agreement and the CCCTA's growth management program. The County must adopt findings of overriding considerations for these two impacts because the Settlement Agreement determined this LOS to be acceptable for other non- environmental grounds. Freeway Link Impacts While completion of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan is expected to add traffic to I-580 and I- 680, project traffic is not expected to create a significant impact (see Table 4.6-10). Pursuant to Measure C-1988 Growth Management requirements and Congestion Management requrements, the project will praticipate in mitigating regional freeway impacts through the South Contra Costa Regional Traffic Impact Fee. r r r r r r 4.G-54 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES within the Windemere I project area. According to Figure 4.7-1, the reach of channel that is to be realigned currently lacks significant vegetation. The Creek Revegetation Plans define monitoring and maintenance for the riparian restoration effort, to be funded by the project applicants, as called for in Assumption 8. Implementation of other mitigation recommended in the 1992 EIR would also be the responsibility of the project applicants. The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, identified 17 project-related impacts and two cumulative impacts pertaining to biological resources, and recommended a total of 27 mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B73 through B83 for a listing of these impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures,which are a part of the previously certified EIR, are summarized in Table 4.7-2. The following discussion , is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. Impact 4.7-1 Development of the Dougherty Valley has the potential to reduce the available habitat for the red-legged frog. Development in the planning area would reduce the available habitat for a nuffil3er-of speeial- status-speiestie'reteggc `trp, and would affect essential habitat features such as breeding and dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog and possibly nesting or denning locations for other species of concern. , Grading activities and the potential degradation of water quality associated with runoff from a suburban watershed could cause direct loss of California red-legged frogs along creek corridors and other suitable habitat (e.g., stock ponds). Maintenance and recreational uses along the creek corridors, tributary streams and around ponds would contribute to the likelihood of an unauthorized "take" of individual frogs. Harassment and predation by children and pets could become a serious problem, particularly where the creeks border residential development and improved parks. Due to the threatened status 'of California red-legged frog, there will be a consultation with the USFWS addressing the possibility of incidental take of frogs as a result of development in the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I project areas. It should be noted that most of the stock ponds in the planning area function primarily as water sources for livestock and are in a severely degraded condition. These features could actually be improved as habitat for the frog (and western pond turtle) if potential management conflicts are resolved. The potential for the project to impact the frog and its habitat is considered a significant impact. 4.7-21 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.7-2 continued • The Project proponents shall prevent fill material and sediments from entering the stream by ' placing silt fences,straw bales, and other erosion control devises around the streamside perimeter of the construction sites. The Project proponents will clean up and remove all loose soil and construction material from these areas on completion of construction. • The Project proponents shall replace trees removed by construction. Project proponents shall enhance Tassajara Creek for a distance of 100 feet upstream and downstream of the centerline o the bridge by planting additional valley oak, arroyo willow, and red willow trees. ' If the culvert alternative is selected, Project proponents shall construct culverts at least 10 feet in ' height,with a natural bottom to allow unimpeded animal access through the culvert. ' If the culvert alternative is selected, the Project proponents shall minimize creek fill by designing the crossing to use retaining walls. ' • The Project proponents shall replace the wetland area lost to road construction by creating replacement wetland habitat in lhJJcn Valley. ' The Project proponents shall n,o.ldy three seeps in Hidden Valley to provide red-legged frog habitat. Project proponents shall transplant red-legged frog tadpoles to these ponds to ' establishing a breeding population. • The Project proponents shall mvcgctate all cut-and-fill slopes. • The Project proponents shall provide undercrossings at drainage culvert undercrossings to allow wildlife movement beneath rather than across the road. • The Project proponents shall install fencing along the roadway extension to direct wildlife througb ' the road undercrossings. ' Although cumulative losses of kit foxes are not significant, Contra Costa County shall continue to implement relevant General Plan Policies by acquiring and managing habitat, protecting food supplies (i.e.denying permits to control the rodents kit foxes eat) and cooperating with similar efforts by other agencies and organizations. 17. Impact: Cumulative loss and fragmentation of annual grassland habitat for wildlife and special-status wildlife species. Mitigation Measures: • See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 1. Mitigation Measure -h 62 UN-P-4 .96P address Ae pmsenee of Ae Gahfiemia rved kgged frog and e1heF qweial"asu Fily need ;e pepam an 949A 1 4.7-25 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3..i...d.. .........:n .::::: :.:i:::::c::h::: '.i.:z::�::t:n::::e::r::s::::>:s:::.a::.ll::.::r::e<...,.:u::;r:e:;.:.r::..:iY:.u,.;:b.;:z.:;t•.a:.:<:t:::IV.:l::u;:.n;;;a.;:. e;.;.;.n,.:.:::t.....;p.:::".l::;a.:.:;n:..;.:..;..::(:...:..`1..1:.::...f..:.:i.>i.i.:...:i...;:.:.:.:ai...;.,d....c..:,..i.>'.:e•.:.;.s:.;<. ..:.;. :: jiil::ii•}:i::i i:v::?::::.iii'.:::i' r.}•r.ii_;::::;i::;::•.i':i::.:i':..::.:i::.i;•::i' .:i':.:ii:....':::.:::.:.:.:..:�.i:. .:......,i:..;..:�ii::.: ;....:;:....y y.....v:;.._:...�;.•ii....;..v,.i......i:^:i::...;. resetcn tlxe ,dun. oacuin kat fox, reel leed "rog unl otherpecrui" tutux specie. e ::.::..p... .. . ... ><;»::t> rtnnu �:t�irie:.•:or>1��< .r..af,�cfan >r� en. ......................... ..........#�...............�::._.�:; ...........::�::::.�:::::::::� .:. :�.:::e3' Asci'.: ued rtr:oser:.:de.. elo rriEnr 7'hrhoaltut :>al::; { ru..C:-#i$ttlzre er.:ecl::s :::s:..e. es>: ::>. :eeau :>:cot� uxiuZt::Mute:::treed:> ir:. nerr< cn ....:.................................... :... ....: ......... ec nizecl the CIr::;kn... wr::: r s ecretl ry ouc�cr }::?i;i:':.i%yii;}:;;i'•:ii•i:;ii:•:4:•iiy;•?i>;;+,.;n;.• •iii:Y:: :i:!::yiGi}ii::iii:i'.. i'ii^+:Y.iiiiii iiii{iiiis4:•isib:•i:•i:i{•:{iiii:•i::i{•:ii•.:iiiti•:•iii:• se . iAs�.itl�e�..�rot foal ;sxrt�nt::ar:th�..consul�atxan ;rocess��'.eute <��der::.:��X�re��;on . ... . .. . :.. ��•:<::::: :<:::::::»;:����:::::::.i: ::;:.i:i.;:;::.i:.:i:.i:;.:.;: :.: :.>::;:;';:.;:.::.:;:.;iii>::i::;; '.:i::;:;.;::;:.i:.<:<::>'.:::<.::::>:::::>: <:>:.::;::: :;�::: �::>:>:.::.:>'>: ::>:.>:.:.:;:iii.;::.>:.>:.>:.;:.>::>::;�:::::i.;: .......... ...... ::.: resentairves.A flip L�,�FWSun�:�l�F� rcax,to.re�orr�rn :::the�rna�ist�lx.,,cvrslorx:::::::.. :.;:i.; ...::.:::.:•••::.::::.:..:.::.�:Ci'i•.i""':?::ii:'•i''i:•ii}:ilii::^:^:'::•i:`ii:iiiii•:•:!<•??iiiiiiiiiiiiii:'.}:';!•ii:{'.i•::i+'Y;;":b:C4i:ii::•:i"::::iii}:•::�;:; :•iiYi:� i'•........... . ii:3:•i:8:: 1urt. ' ?� .: ..........g........::::: ......�:....:.:.:..::::.::::........ a ... ansii.lraco �vctlx r �:e int:.tr.ve ihe..tS Fkll$. tF+ tt:: ;r >.41 :.::::.:::.::::::.:::::::::::.:�.�.:� :;;:;:i ::.i':vi:.iii:i::':.i:i i.::::..i:::::.i:i:.:�:i�::�iiiiiiii".:' ;•:�:.:�.:::i iC:":.ii:.iii::::'::.::.::::.!:;•':ii}:;:is� ..�::::.i:•i:i'.:.i:;.i;.i•.:ii::•;•i;•ii:•i ii;•i:{•i;•i:`iii: :::r tan rel e rat urrd rxtr�nc� erns rat o huGttut or this s ecies. <�.....tt ut��r :.;Irr z sF ut .... .... ::. .:::::::::..::: :::::::::::..:::::: :::.:::::...X�.:..:.:...:::.:....... iiiii, >::>::.:»:<::<::>::; serve?:zr:the.l3�oly .ca1:A�ses.�nenx yr the Seaton 7�onsultutx�ni�deraf r�dang�rett rcn SpeorexAct rtu �vrps prru�eers perlrt xecer< The mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 4.7-25A 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY i Table 4.8-2 continued * The Project proponents shall restore native habitat types in key areas within the scenic corridor. * The Pr-9je..t nrnnnnems shall ensum that only ea;thtone colour are used f. all R4RJ.t..«eA and 1.,.;ldings * The Dr,. ,.t n nt.. shall de _any signs,@4h@;than r4squiFed gaff.. signs,t@ bo less tha ' * The Project proponents shall set back all houses,garages,storage units, and other structures of more than six feet in height a minimum of 25 feet from the center of the rounded edge of cut or fill slopes where the structures are to be located above the slope. * The Project proponents shall limit the height of all structures to 30 feet or less for all housing and commercial development on hillsides and terraces and 15 feet or less for areas between 25 and 40 feet from the center of the rounded edge of cut or fill slopes where the structures are to be located above the slope. ridgelines vAthia the planning ar-ea ;;.�hsn ;Aa;AMd f*am gateway areas,r-eGma4ion areas,;@Grantion "r.iiiiii:::•..:i?:.?iii?ii}iiii:i:^:i:iiiiyii:n:•;}i:iiiii'Ciii::'v:4ii'F'?'iiia:ryiii:'`i:•:!f+i::i}iii};ti::'.iiiii?i'.:t.:?iiY:::::: ::Sv:J};v'v...... ::.. .::::::: ::•:v:••:•:::::v: •y:::..f:::::::: . ::>.....ii`l.... .r ectii:'.rQ'.artertfsi<shv.....site:::laczl s>:�n catz rl ::o Ic :a aji!iR.RS1tM <:aXc <li elzi es: ::::::.:P..:.J.::::..P. .. ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::......::::::::::: . '.:::::::: : ;;:;:. ::::i..;:.;.:.:;:':....... .....:.i:.....;:.i:.i::'.i:.ii ::;::.>:::;:.;:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.;'..:.:.;;;;;;;i;i;;'.:.::.;:.:;;.: <:::::.:,•.;<;:::.:::::::::.::::::::::::::<::.;.. that: 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY Table 4.8-2 continued 7. Impact: Roads and road improvements in creek corridors. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall setback all roads in creek corridors a minimum of 150 feet from the creek centerline to the edge of the road and maintain a native vegetation buffer in the setback area. ' * Where feasible,the Project proponents shall retain and replant existing natural drainages with native vegetation. i 1 1 1 ! 1 ! i 1 1 1 - i 4.8-28A 1 4.9 NOISE ' Table 4.9-4 SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Noise ' The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Exposure of on-site and off-site land uses to construction noise. ' Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents shall employ the following noise-reducing construction practices: ' All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. Construction activities shall be concentrated during hours that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and shall be commissioned to occur during normal work hours. The County shall set the hours of heavy equipment operation. ' The contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures,including,but not limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activities, notifying adjacent residents in advance of ' construction work,or installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. 2. Impact: Exposure of residents and other noise-sensitive land uses in the planning area to traffic noise levels in excess of Contra Costa County standards. Mitigation Measure: ' Fn_aR_La„ contall; lines aall ed 4' ._.,+r,. t- ..d 01har. traa�it -------- -9lea County may peFMA the proponents pre*4d_e sound- walls, lasmas, a; a4bo; Pei-so �QA401'Falpagil;8A hQuAman the ;aads and :.. ' ;p ee <lsxcZ anen s sh ut �m..slay;;s l za rl{ar::: a al : ale; nye, >,sive lattc£ uses. sttch as xestcTeszs, rchzanlai aid healthcare factttes, aufzrle -44 "ab roznux::luts:::ead:<: ds #:::rad:.:.Ltta�s::em:::txa1 :::dei1.;::> :::: ::::: ::::::::::::::........:........::::::......................:fid. :#z: zesc::laz :u :.:.................................................:..:...................::::::.:.:.:::.::......::::::::::::::::::::: .:::::3:::......::::::...........:..:::::::::.............. . .......: ::::::.::::::.:::...::.;....; . . ............:::,:::::::::,:::: :. ....... arax.l es<: r::ry s :zu:::#he::: .lan ::: r �:: twee:::nn:: 'al l s>:&`: 1' 3. Impact: Exposure of residents in the planning area to noise from training activities at Camp Parks. Mitigation Measures: • See the Mitigation Measures for Land Use Impact 3. 4.9-11 4.9 NOISE Table 4.9-4 continued 4. Impact: Potential exposure of residents in the planning area to noise from light rail train passages. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Noise Impact * An EIR on the implementation of the light rail train system should be required prior to final Project , implementation. i 1 1 1 4.9-11A 4.9 NOISE Table 4.9-4 continued 5. Impact: Exposure of residents along Old Ranch Road to a substantial increase in noise. Mitigation Measures: Uo =.moo—p Subject to the 04 the City Q�San R A-m-on- * 'The Dus shall upgrade the a eust:...,1 insulatio.. ..f eo:sN.,g hamas that Q1413% 111A Ranch Zbe Pr-ejert prQpoa@;As shall AM--] imppaveffionts 40 the roadway glidacs to radliGn 448 noise Whan a * The (;Guaty shall ;@dUG@ the pous-A speei kwit ReduGifig 4ho speed of ;AA-11 Feduata uaffiv noise ..:.....::�pr is :: :::±ie ... able levet:.the ce:.. .::::::> ti s: roti#. :::::::`:. :` arid>a aeetltaa:::e7astln 'residences o <:"' :._.::::::.,..;::,:.:_:.,::.,::. '.;..,.: :::... : .•;:< :;...:..:.8 T red ce: ilr: lraatse>rr n©ase tc�a lesittxat szea�faean#:lel,t ;iifterease.in.nc�a .�atiilcl`:iteed to d be aced to 2;:cx:: :: tstetii': <s€ aiu€<saurtJ<zall>u €tre f "td'fo .ra.. level o u noose rod ctmn >:'`.:;::::::;:::<::<:>::::>�:;<>::::>::::>::::: :::::: :: :: <;.;:;;::.;;;<: TJte ra a uetats should ravtd .................walls a]aa3 fold::::ancliRad': n2 to existinge R xtl aaer+es�d noes:: ib'ecf>td< `.;.;<:.,:.. .;.,.. . :::.,;...: . :::,.,, .,..:.,: :;.>.„,.. .:;.>:_;:.>:a. >:.3...... the coaz wxreuee of the t�f fan Ramntt, levels.eve e+ ee::: tse:::. ::ecce i the ro .::.;::.;:;;;:.;:;:.>:.;:.>:.:<.;:<.::;.;;.:;>:.;::.: „.:<.>::::;:.>:.;:.;:;.;:.:;:.;:,>:.;:::<.:>:.::<.:::::;.:: ;;:<<..•:... >:::>:::....:>::>:......::.. P Ject a�pv cuts should eg ad the aevusFaeal t latacaai:.a .. ::;: exsLi> ti ?es::::tl at::;a sttt::{?!d Ranch Road when :sq >+ :> T :> ' iE?}:k?e;-,a jx tsue� gte ............::.:::. ..................................................................................................... . �p7s T ;;teelssl ;:rx fa:::sw: eke'eve S,the rc� ::cY::: nents:::s#at.ttld:>l ttd:>am emetats:::[4::: t :::a aadwa. :::::::..... ::...... ...... ;.: P.:.te.;..:..:. . ;::.:::::::::::::: ::.::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.:::.::.:::::::::::::. 46:r duo noisy` :<.:......:: :...:: :::::::..:::.::.:.::.:::::..::::::::::.::::: :: :::: :.::::.::. tzti>e>Ievels iliiazit:::sliot...V.-a ...:..::::131; .......:...::: •>: :::::::: :f.::::;:1?ose .sped 1a} 6. Impact: Exposure of residents along Dougherty Road near Old Ranch Road to excessive noise levels. Mitigation Measures: The Pr-9j@G4 proponents shall pr-evide sound or. beims along pougheFty Read adjaGGA4 to GUF;@H4 l�si�lsgs, : ctt ;:eg�stln: <:tsadtces:: :: l2ataci:: ar:::and> � lie: natl:to:bl✓<:mcmaii >ed::dutzn .::::: ............ . . .......................................................... :: ::::. 5'.::::.::::.:._.:.::::::::::::::::: .:::::: tau#.;:> :; aa. a ::<;Xl1e.:;. ecis<:>::::'il3er:::data:::eEslleeted:>ta::::be<:usetl::::ss::Escablis#iix te>si3ed`:aticl :. . .......y.:.::::. .:::::::.::::::::::.::::::::::::::.:::::.. ::::::::::::::::::::::..::::::::::::: ::.::::.:.. .... fli alusi3>>i :: du ::Fhao ::: aet:: at::: ulzl>:result::fxesan::: : IemntatzQn::of:ehe:> .ra>ret:::Ect 5 :::8p. ::.....................J....:....... :.:...:.:..... ::::::::::::: :::::::::.:..:::::::::: s>: ss-tn:.sf .:. aat::lsr2sx ::;tnca .ase:::au::: u1�€::aseed::lto:::1 <:reduced:::.:; mgm., .::::.::.:::::::.::...........................n:tzf drd.::.:::...... tL:saId wally bexinvuld peed.tc ' rig: ;....�.iits:ROM.* : Fia e:soitzit3> ll�€:aloii :€:Dvit €:Ro-�� '��czit<.`:<>:::::,...::,: ,.,:.:..:.:::,:.::,: P1 ::::::..::::.: : :.P.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::: .: P :z�szw If the Community Development Department, upon review, 0;f determines it necessary,the Project proponents shall 6W. [::upgrade the acoustical insulation of existing homes along Dougherty Road where sound walls or berms will not be effective in reducing exterior noise. * yaargtsit tsxE€view homes being built in the City of San Ramon should be required to have adeijuate acoustical insulation so that additional homes will not need to be retrofitted. 9 * See the Mitigation Measures for Noise Impact 5. 4.9-12 4.9 NOISE Table 4.9-4 continued 7. Impact: Exposure of new residents to noise from recreational and cultural facilities. Mitigation Measure: * The Project proponents shall incorporate noise control features, such as setbacks and barriers, into the design of recreational and cultural facilities that have the potential to generate noise. S. Impact: Exposure of existing and planned noise-sensitive locations to noise levels in excess of County noise ' standards. Mitigation Measures: , * No mitigation is available. — 4.9-12A 4.10 AIR QUALITY Table 4.10-2 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Air Quality The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Increased emission of PM-10 dust. ' Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall use recycled water from water trucks or sprinkler systems in ' sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and increase watering frequency when winds exceed 15 mph. * The Project proponents shall spray all dirt stockpiles daily or as needed. * The Project proponents shall implement permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project revegetation and landscape plans as soon as possible following completion of any soil-disturbing activities. * Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than 1 month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. ' The Project proponents shall stabilize all disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the BAAQMD. * Construction vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site 4# raras: ?'::aiee 2. Impact: Generation of construction-related ozone precursor emissions. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall use electric equipment where practical. ' * The Project proponents shall maintain and operate equipment according to manufacturer's specifications. Project proponents may,however,implement engine timing retard (4 degrees)for diesel-powered equipment. * The Project proponents shall install catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment where required by law. * The Project proponents shall substitute gasoline-powered for diesel-powered equipment where feasible. 4.10-4 I 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION , EMF's Impact 4.11-1 Although standards for human exposure to EMF's are not established, there is a potential for adverse health effects. This is considered a pit" tarty significant impact. Mitieation Measure ' 4.11-1(a) Where a lotlparcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following as a deed notification: ' "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible , potential adverse health effects caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed , before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an hypothesis is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made." I 4.11-1(b) When a Final Subdivision Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the , above note in the report. Even with effective implementation of the mitigation measure identified above, the exposure of ' EMF's remains a significant unavoidable impact. Soil/Water Contamination , Impact 4.11-2 Accidental spills of oils or greases from equipment maintenance activities or other spills during general construction-related activities present a health and ' safety problem,especially if contaminants reach the creek. This is considered a jpa tett± significant impact. Oils, greases, and coatings from equipment support and maintenance activities, as well as from general equipment use, and from carelessness when working with equipment near the creek, could potentially reach the creek during rainfall events. Lubricating oils and greases, hydraulic fluids, and fuels exist on equipment surfaces by design; and leaks and spills may occur during refueling. Also, fuels, oils and grease may drip from equipment to the ground and be brushed from ' equipment onto vegetation and soil during grading. Finally,there may be contaminated soils near existing Dougherty Road or elsewhere in the planning area. The impact of these substances on water quality in Alamo Creek and its tributaries is estimated to be minimal unless relatively large ' quantities are spilled near the creek. i 4.11-7 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION ' Table 4.11-1 SUMMARY OF ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD ' IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Energy Conservation. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. ' 1. Impact: Operations-related energy demands. Mitigation Measures: ' Tentative map for residential developments over 10 units shall incorporate design features to protect solar access. * Forty percent of the Project units shall meet the California Code design definition of passive solar. Passive solar design features shall include a significant amount of south wall glass, a small amount of non-south wall glass, adequate insulation,and a large area of exposed thermal mass. * In addition to the requirements for fluorescent lighting in kitchens and baths as prescribed by the Energy Standards,all fixed lighting in new homes in the planning area shall accept fluorescent bulbs.*A portion of the homes shall be provided with solar hot water heating. * The rights to dry clothes outdoors will be protected. * All new homeowners will receive a copy of the Home Energy Manual. 1 impaeU Potential inteRnal ineempatibillsy of residential land- wies*41h wdsting elestAn Wansimissinia "IRA& ' s Sas ele..tria ....d magnet:,. field o4.eag4hs of the tr-ansmission line in the Tloughe;ty Wane plan pr4ajer.0 adjaront to 230-kV lin-es * A disGiesur-a or-ding the ..d..eme heakh efF.its oftom.,......fission l:.,es...al he ro eFded „11 deeds Altema4mly,hom-es-mill be sat back faff.enough fiom 4ran-raission linas that slantr-in field strengths aw equal%a or-less Ihan those asseniated uith IaGal distribution livas 4.11-8 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURALRESOURCES Table 4.13-1 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Cultural Resources ' The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Damage to or destruction of the historic Louis Banke House (ca-cco-440h). ' Mitigation Measure: ' The historic significance of the Louis Banke House will be reviewed before any development is ' approved that would remove it. t * 4:he Prois..t Propene....ill Amd ., of the hist.Fir gni fi..angs .,f site QA-723 hef re te..ta47.,e Maps ViAl be appr-eved for.the sk@ 3 . Impact: Damage to or destruction of several important prehistoric and historic archeological sites located on Camp Parks. ' Mitigation Measures: ' A minor change in the road alignment of Windemere Parkway would avoid disturbing the identified , prehistoric and historic sites. If these sites cannot be avoided by realigning the road,then further,more detailed archeological studies must be completed to evaluate the resource, and supplemental environmental review may be necessary. * With regard to impacts from construction of a future public/semi-public use(e.g.,a community college), ' because no specific use is currently proposed for this area,and because any future use would be subject to CEQA review prior to implementation by a public agency, it is impossible to recommend specific mitigation at this time other than complete avoidance. ' 43. Impact: Damage to or destruction of potential buried archeological resources. Mitigation Measures: ' * The Project proponents and the County shall monitor grading activities and immediately stop all work and inform the County Community Development Department if buried cultural resources are discovered. , ' If the find is determined to be important by the County,the Project proponents shall develop a detailed mitigation plan that includes procedures for resource recovery, avoidance and preservation, or restoration. a 4.13-8 Op POFD �1 aw IDs♦•� Lawrence Road t OS mad-C�s3 ' P/SP Ms HS ML , a SMs C SH pS 0 / 8T7Lt11 LUL' 9 2 ' DDN aOr.D; r:PSP '. ,y, • ,. S ML SM .'' SM �s a P/$P , r ML PR x SIN ML C • ,e SP . S l MH ML SM „ • OS NNE • � .. SM ' MH OS OS SM {S AgEx; CGMMUNIT4 t?S °1H1 f'>S�s ' •` PJSP ` MU SM Es a a a Mt SM w PR STAGING AREA t OS OLD ' Legend SM SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SH SINGLE FAMILY HIGH C DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PR PARKS AND RECREATION ML MULTIPLE FAMILY LOWMU MIXED USE VILLAGE CENTER INCLUDES p5 ' DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE MH MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH P/SP PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC PRIMARY ROADS DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMSCHOCOLLEGE,ELEMENTARY,MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOLS,OTHER Dom Figure: 5-3 CD ����� Relocated High School Graphic Alternative scale: Subsequent EIR 0 800' 1600' 3200' ' Chapter N. Summary of Settlement Agreeement Danville/San Ramon Settlement Agreement This document is too lengthy and complex to be properly summarized here. However, the Agreement contains two key exhibits that are extremely useful, and ' which should be reviewed continuously throughout the preparation of the EIR and the processing of the applications. These are: Exhibit C, which addresses the agreed-upon traffic improvements, and Exhibit G,which describes the Capital Improvement Program ' Performance Standards. Walnut Creek Settlement Agreement ' Traffic: The parties have agreed that any subdivision maps approved in the Dougherty Valley shall be subject to any Measure C action plans, impact fees, ' congestion management plans, deficiency plans or the like which are designed to mitigate congestion on the Interstate 680/Highway 24 interchange or on streets in Walnut Creek, provided that such plans or fees are also imposed on other major residential projects within the member jurisdictions of SWAT, TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN, ' . and provided they are imposed only to the extent of the Dougherty Valley project's impacts on the interchange and the Walnut Creek streets. [¶ 1] ' • Wastewater.• The parties have agreed that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ["Central San"] will be the preferred wastewater provider for the Dougherty Valley project, and that the project will not utilize wastewater services ' provided by the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority ["TWA"], unless diligent efforts to use Central San or other alternatives are unsuccessful. [¶ 2] ' Pleasanton Settlement Agreement • Trcffl'c. Shapell and Windemere will each pay $150 per unit on each ' residential unit built (excluding Country Club at Gale Ranch units) to mitigate traffic impacts on Pleasanton. The fee will be collected by the County at the time building permits are issued, and shall be remitted by the County to the City of Pleasanton on a quarterly basis. If building permits are issued after annexation of the area into the City of San Ramon, the duty to collect and remit shall be included as part of any annexation agreement or shall be requested as a condition of annexation by the ' LAFCo. {Note: this obligation was included in the DevelopMent Agreements.) [¶ 1] • Wastewater- Approval of tentative maps shall be conditioned on ' verification of adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the project, the condition to be satisfied at the final map. The preferred provider is Central San. The project shall not use wastewater services provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District ' ["DSRSD"], the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) or the TWA unless diligent efforts to use Central San or other alternatives are unsuccessful. (112(a)(b)(c)I ' o Water. Approval of tentative maps shall be conditioned on verification of an adequate water supply for the project, the condition to be satisfied at the final ' Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere I November 1996 Page 2 map. Water may be provided by EBMUD or DSRSD. If DSRSD is the provider, it must be with water for which DSRSD has or will have permanently contracted With a water entitlement holder outside the current service area of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 ["Zone 7"], and in no event will it be with Water from DSRSD's Groundwater Pumping Quota. The permanent contract with a water entitlement holder may be with Zone 7 so long as the water provided to the Project is not water from the Main Basin. If DSRSD is the provider, no subdivision maps can be approved without adequate environmental review. [¶ 2(c)(d)(e)(f)] Annexations: Pleasanton will not challenge the Project's annexation to DSRSD, nor the use of the 1992 EIR for such annexation, provided the above-described conditions are satisfied. Pleasanton will not challenge the Project's annexation to San Ramon, or the use of the 1992 EIR for such annexation. [$V 2(g) & 4] • SubseauentAovrovols- Pleasanton will not challenge the approval of any tentative maps which are based upon or in substantial conformance with the 1992 approvals and the settlement agreements. Pleasanton retains the right to challenge the approval of any tentative maps which are not in conformance with the 1992 approvals, and not consistent with the settlement agreements, but such lawsuit will relieve Shapell and Windemere of their obligation to pay the agreed-upon traffic impact fee. [¶ 5] Alamo Improvement Association Settlement * Traffic. The parties have acknowledged and agreed that certain Alamo-area roadway improvements are not required or recommended for mitigation of the Project's traffic impacts, and based upon the traffic studies for the 1992 approvals, none of the listed modifications would be required: • Widening of Danville Blvd. from El Portal to Rudgear Road. • Widening of Stone Valley Road from Danville Blvd. to Green Valley Road, including addition of through lanes, continuous turn lanes, or right turn acceleration or deceleration lanes. • Any enlargement at the intersection of Stone Valley Road and Danville Blvd. beyond what is included in the Current Contra Costa Action Plan for the Walley Area (e.g., addition of a left turn lane from WB Stone Valley Road to SB Danville Blvd. and a second left turn lane from SB Danville Blvd.to EB Stone Valley Road). It is the position of AIA that the modifications described would not be desirable, and the County and AIA agree to consult concerning reasonable and feasible alternatives in the event that future traffic studies or other proposals recommend any of these • modifications. 2] Page 3 Submission of Aooliccfions to Petitioners for Review crud Comment Developers will submit to AIA the text of any proposed land use approvals prior to the date on which action is proposed to be taken by the County. The developers and the County agree to consider in good faith, and to consult with Petitioners' representatives with regard to any comments AIA may have on the documents. (c)] Sierra Club, et al. Settlement 4, Wcsfewcter. The developers agree to use best efforts to secure wastewater services from Central San. The developers will not divert any effluent to DSRSD beyond the quantity of effluent necessary to provide reclaimed water to development in the Dougherty Valley. [$ 1] * Redesign of Urban Core, The developers agree to participate in the development of a design program for the Village Center, intended to produce a high quality urban center incorporating a mix of housing types, a community transit node, a community center, a library, a senior center, pedestrian paths, commercial uses and an identifiable open space center such as a park or a town square. The developers agree to meet with two representatives of the Petitioners at key stages of the design program for the Urban Center of the Property and will make good faith efforts to incorporate the views and recommendations of those representatives into the design, with the understanding that the developers retain ultimate control over the design costs and final design of the center, subject to review and approval by the County. • ReconfiQurction to Increase Oren Socce. The d evelopers have agreed to reconfigure portions of their projects in an effort to move some development off higher slopes contiguous with open space areas, and to increase open space. Each developer is committed to increasing open space areas by 40 acres, along the lines set forth in Exhibits A and B attached to the Agreement, unless such changes are infeasible, in which case other areas for increasing open space up to 80 acres shall be identified. (See Exhibit C of the Agreement which identifies 30 acres of Shapell's 40- acre obligation.) At each project-level approval stage, the developers will consider opportunities to reconfigure development proposals to add additional land to open space, but there is no obligation to add additional open space. [$ 3(a)(c)] a Movement of Hiah School Site: Windemere has agreed to move the proposed high school site to the periphery of the project, subject to the approval of the school district. Windemere agrees not to develop the relocated site under certain terms and conditions, but if developed, half of the site shall be used for active open space and shall be located contiguous' to existing open space areas. [¶ 3(b) • Future Kit Fox Studies Any future kit fox studies which maybe conducted at the project level or otherwise must be performed within the time periods approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or by the California Department of Fish and Game. [¶ 4j Page 4 • Creek Revegefcfion frogrcnz- The developers have reaffirmed their commitment to prepare creek revegetation programs that incorporate revegetation of graded slopes and minimize visual impacts. They will meet with a mutually agreed- upon representative of Petitioners at least once during the development of the creek revegetation program, and will make good faith efforts to incorporate the views and recommendations of the representative, provided that the developers retain ultimate control over design costs and the final proposal, subject to the approval.of all responsible agencies. [¶ 5] • Submission of Anolicaflons to Petitioners for Review and Comment Developers will submit to designated representatives the text of any proposed land use approvals prior to the date on which action is proposed to be taken by the County. The developers and the County agree to consider in good faith, and to consult with Petitioners' representatives with regard to any comments Petitioners may have on the documents. [T 6(c)) • SubseauenfAnorovcls: The Petitioners agree not to file an action or aid in the prosecution of an action challenging an'y subsequent approvals (e.g., subdivision maps and FDPs) to the extent the a.pprovalsare-in substantial conformance with the 1992 approvals and all Settlement Agreements entered into with respect to the 1992 approvals. "Substantial conformance" is understood to include changes with respect to internal design, density and location of uses, product types, circulation and community facilities which do not change the fundamental parameters of the project, i.e., development of up to 11,000 dwelling units with at least 5017o of the project area in open space. The petitioners agree not to sue for technical violations of CEQA, but retain the right to sue if there is a "substantial departure from.the requirements of CEQA in the process of securing future approvals." Further, Petitioners agree not to challenge any annexations which are based upon the 1992 approvals as modified to reflect the Country Club at Gale Ranch approvals and the Settlement Agreements. [I 7(a)] EBMUD Settlement e Early Consultation Between EBMUD and Coun The County and EBMUD shall hold regular meetings (at least quarterly) to consult on issues of mutual. concern relating to land use planning and water supply management planning. Exhibit A to the Agreement sets forth a process for the County's prompt notification and consultation with EBMUD concerning development applications when EBMUD may be considered as a provider of water service. [I I • Confirmation of Service to Country Club&Gale Ranch. EBMUD confirms its intention to serve that portion of the Dougherty Valley already located within its service district boundaries, i.e.,the Country,Club at Gale Ranch development. EBMUD will not oppose the annexation into its service area boundary of the adjacent elementary school site, provided that, after consultation among the parties, it is determined that EBMUD would be the most logical provider for that site. [12] Page 5 • Designation of DSRSD as Preferred Water Pro✓ider/EBMUD as Backup: ➢ The parties agree that DSRSD will be the preferred water provider, utilizing ' water transferred from the Berrenda Mesa Water District. Developers agree to use best efforts to accomplish this, and agree to consult with EBMUD through the process of those negotiations so that EBMUD can �. protect its own rights in the event they may be adversely affected. EBMUD will not file a legal challenge to that water arrangement to the extent it is carried out in substantial confrmance with the program for the ' proposed water transfer as described in specified documents. [¶ 4(a)(b)] ➢ In the event the DSRSD/Berrenda Mesa water cannot be secured, the developers agree to use best efforts (as defined specifically in Exhibit C to the Agreement) to locate alternative water suppliers, again in consultation with EBMUD. [¶ 4(c)(d)] ➢ The Specific Plan is to be amended to reflect the designation of DSRSD as the preferred water provider. [¶ 4(e)] ➢ Approval of tentative maps shall be conditioned on vefification of an adequate water supply for the subdivision, the condition to be satisfied prior to recordation of the final map. If EBMUD is to be the supplier, it shall not be required to verify prior to annexation of the area into its service boundary. [¶ 4(f)] ➢ Failing the developers' efforts to locate an alternative.water supplier, EBMUD agrees to serve the project beginning in 2002, subject to specified terms and conditions, including an agreed-upon schedule for the submission and processing of any requests for preliminary work, project development, annexation etc. [I 4(g)] ➢ Unless EBMUD has developed a sufficient water supply.to meet demand in the EBMUD service area and the Dougherty Valley (as determined in the manner set forth in Exhibit E) any water service to the project shall be subject to an offset fee to fund the cost of conservation programs or other methods necessary to offset additional water demand created by new hookups in the development. (See Exhibit F describing offset fees.) The number of new hookups per year would not exceed 600, with a maximum carryover of 150 from any preceding year. No new hookups would be issued during any period in which the District has declared a drought emergency. [¶ 4(h)] • Projects Must Be Designed to Accommodate Reclaimed Water All projects in the Dougherty Valley must be designed and built to accept and utilize reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in public and semi-public areas. The parties will consult in order that reclaimed water programs contemplated for the Dougherty Valley may be coordinated and compatible with EBMUD's reclamation programs. [¶ 5] r - Page 6 Future ApArovaJs EBMUD retains the right to oppose and file a legal challenge against any subsequent approvals for the Project, with respect to the subject of water availability or quality to the extent such approvals are not based upon or in substantial conformance with the 1992 approvals, as modified to reflect the Country Club at Gale Ranch approvals and the Settlement Agreements. (¶ 7] Chapter V. Noise Impact and Mitigation Study INTRODUCTION Contra Costa County is considering a proposal for modifications to the Dougherty Valley residential and commercial development project that includes development agreements with the Shapell and Windemere companies. The project includes General Plan r. Amendment 96-0001, as well as the associated Specific Plan Amendments, rezoning, subdivision, and Final Development Plans, as described in the project development plans [1a, 1b]. This EIR study is a supplement to original EIR noise study prepared for the previous proposal for the Dougherty Valley project[2]. As a subsequent noise study, it does not repeat the details of previous work. The conclusions of the previous 1992 EIR are summarized and then new information is evaluated and reported. This study evaluates the existing noise environment and the potential new noise impacts from traffic, construction and operational activities that could be associated with the project, and proposes mitigation measures to minimize the supplementary noise impacts. For the most part the same sensitive receptor locations and evaluation methods have been used, and similar noise concerns and impacts have been assessed using new data and the new project scope. Updated information about the existing noise environment has been provided where available, such as for noise associated with Camp Parks south of the project. In some cases more detail has been provided in this study where particular project noise sources have raised significant concerns by local residents and County staff. EXISTING SETTING 1992 EIR- Sources and Receptors The earlier noise study described the undeveloped nature of the area and the wide variety of noise levels in the project area, depending upon the proximity to existing noise sources, roads and developed land uses. Existing noise conditions for a variety of locations were presented, based upon ambient monitoring and traffic modeling methods at a number of receptor locations. It should be noted that although significant topologic variation and shielding are characteristic of the project area, flat terrain was assumed in the traffic noise modeling. Three primary sources of noise in the project area were identified in the original report, as described in the following sections. Streets and Highways A number of major streets on the periphery of the project area were identified as primary sources of traffic noise: Interstate Route 680, Interstate Route 580, Alcosta Boulevard, Crow Canyon Road, and Camino Tassajara Road. In addition, Dougherty Road was identified as the only existing paved road in the immediate project planning-area. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch 11, Windemere I November 1996 4.9-1 Dougherty Valle Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise 9 Y Y Aircraft The Livermore Airport is 5 miles southeast of the planning area. The project is well beyond the airport noise protection area, which extends for roughly one mile from the airport boundaries. Overflying aircraft are sometimes are audible in the project area, but they are infrequent and not a significant noise source relative to local traffic noise. Camp Parks Training Activities During the months of April through October the Army facility south of the project known as Camp Parks is utilized regularly as a military training area, as well as on weekends throughout the year. Noisy activities include weapons training at firing ranges. ordinance demolition, sporadic helicopter flights in the area, and the use of heavy military equipment and vehicles. Future activity levels are expected to increase at the facility. A study of future activities for the Army at Camp Parks [3] anticipates a 60 dBA Ldn contour located a half mile into the southwestern corner of the project and one half mile into the southeastern comer of the project, with the 70 dBA Ldn contour located a quarter of a mile from the southeastern boundary of the project. These noise contours do not include the effects of sporadic use of helicopters. Several mitigation measures were proposed by the previous study to reduce potential impacts on the project: Mitigation 8.5. Locate noise sensitive land uses adjacent to Camp Parks so that noise from Army activities do not exceed County noise standards. Mitigation 8.6. To reduce noise to acceptable levels, the Army should relocate noise- generating activities so that the noise at noise sensitive land uses in the planning areas does not exceed County noise standards. An analysis of potentially affected areas within 6000 feet of Camp Parks should be conducted. Sensitive Receptor Locations A set of thirty typical receptor locations within and outside of the project boundaries was selected; the associated project impacts were analyzed in the original EIR noise report. New Information Related to Existing Noise Sources and Receptors t Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA) Noise Overview. The PRFTA (Camp Parks) lies just south of the project and east of Dougherty Road. As described above, a number of military training activities occur at the facility that have potential noise impacts on nearby receptors. However, the topography of the area offers significant protection from noise transmission from Camp Parks to project residential areas to the north. A range of steep mountains lies along the boundary between the project and the camp, with an elevation of 750 to 900 feet, whereas the nearest project residential properties to the north and the noisy activities to the south of the range are at an elevation of 650 feet or less. This provides a natural noise barrier with a minimum effective height of 100 feet, and reduces noise impacts from the PRFTA by at least 50 dBA, in addition to the attenuation associated with a distance of 2000 to 5000 feet. In �. spite of this level of protection, a discussion of the results of a new noise study for the Army Corps of Engineers concerning Camp Parks is presented below. This study 4.9-2 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise �x focused on noise impacts on existing receptors west of the Camp, which do not have the benefit of the substantial terrain shielding that the project areas to the north have. In the fall of 1995 Woodward Clyde Federal Services completed a new report on noise associated with the anticipated future military training activities at Camp Parks [4]. The principal conclusions of this study are summarized in the following paragraphs. Helicopter Noise. According to the Camp Parks base administrator, less than ten helicopter training flights occur a few days per year, with a few additional flights to bring Army personnel to and from the camp. In general the flights would not be over the project and would not be near or in view of project receptors. For this reason, and the fact that only a few flights per day would occur even during the worst-case training day, along with the terrain protection, it can be concluded that helicopter noise would not affect the project adversely. Ordnance Noise. Infrequently the Army detonates 1/4 pound explosive charges in the Explosive Ordnance Range (Demolition Pit) at the northeast comer of the site, about one quarter of a mile from the closest project residences in the southeast comer of the project. Noise levels at a similar distance were measured at 95 dBC with no terrain or barrier protection. This would translate into a noise level less than 40 dBC with the existing terrain shielding at the nearest project locations. Hence these would be very brief occurrences masked by ambient noise. Small Arms Firing Range Noise. Various individual military weapons are fired at the Small Arms Firing Range in the west section of the PRFTA, about 2000 feet from Dougherty Road and one mile from the nearest project residences. Peak noise levels from this activity were measured at 75 to 80 dBA at locations a half mile away with about 30 dBA of terrain shielding. For the nearest project locations to the north the additional distance and terrain shielding would reduce peak noise levels an additional 20 to 30 dBA, to 45 to 55 dBA. Again, this noise level would be at or below ambient noise levels for traffic, birds and other typical sources, and would not cause disturbance in project areas. Summary. Although some sporadic noise sources are associated with the nearby Army PRFTA facility, the attenuation provided by significant distance, terrain shielding, and atmospheric and ground absorption would reduce potential disturbance to a level of minor background noise at the nearest project receptors. ' Sensitive Receptor Locations Sensitive receptors that could be affected by project noise include residences on access �. routes into the project areas, as well as new project residential and school land uses. Streets carrying significant vehicle trips into and out of the Dougherty Valley development include Bollinger Canyon Road, Crow Canyon Road, Camino Tassajaro, and Dougherty Road. In addition, there are project residential receptors adjacent to major new roadways, such as new sections of Bollinger Canyon Road and Windemere Parkway. Ten selected locations near and within the project area represent worst-case residential receptor locations in neighborhoods that could be adversely affected by project traffic and/or operational noise. The locations are identified on the Exhibit 1 Project map. Other receptor locations not specifically evaluated would have similar or lesser project noise � impacts. 4.9-3 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise 9 Y Exhibit 1 -Dougherty Valley Development Project Map Noise Measurement Locations Map Noise Measurement Locations Noise Measurement Locations Noise Measurement Locations r << insert map >> ■ 4.9-4 ,� Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise ' Noise levels were analyzed at the following worst-case receptor locations: 1. North side of Crow Canyon Road near the west intersection of Canyon Crest Drive. Some homes at this location look twenty feet down onto the roadway behind a low masonry wall. 2. West side of Camino Tassajaro west of the intersection of Old Blackhawk Road. Homes on both sides of the roadway have an eight foot masonry wall protection, but second floor windows have a direct view of vehicles. 3. Intersection north of Bollinger Canyon Road and east of Silvervine Drive, across from ' the Retail Commercial area (now an undeveloped area). 4. West side of Alcosta Boulevard south of Pine Valley Road. Front yard of residences on parallel frontage road. 5. North side of Old Ranch Road west of Bent Creek Estates Drive adjacent to residences looking fifteen feet down onto roadway. 6. West side of Dougherty Road south of Austin Creek Avenue. First floor areas protected by masonry wall but not second floor areas. 7. Adjacent to Bollinger Canyon Road near the Canyon Lakes Drive intersection. This is now the end of Bollinger Canyon Road, but when the road is completed for the project, the road will carry significant traffic past the existing homes, which have second floor windows looking onto the right-of-way. 8. Northeast corner of intersection Bollinger Canyon Road and Monarch Road (now an undeveloped area) 9. Southeast corner of the intersection of Windemere Parkway and east of Bollinger Canyon Road (now an undeveloped area) 10. Northwest comer of intersection of Bollinger Canyon Road and Alamo Creek Road, across from the Village Center(now an undeveloped area) Ambient Noise Monitoring On March 15, 1996, ambient noise levels were monitored at the selected sensitive receptor locations described in the previous section. The monitoring and receptor locations are shown on the Exhibit 1 Project Map. A description of the noise measurement procedure and equipment is found on Page A-1 of the Appendix. Standard statistical noise descriptors were recorded at each receptor location, such as 1-90, 1-50, L1, and Le q The 1-90 is the noise level exceeded 90% the time, and is generally considered the background noise level. The L50 noise level is the median noise level exceeded 50% of the time, L1 is the peak noise level exceeded 1% of the time, and Leq is the single noise level which has a noise energy equivalent to the overall varying noise monitored. Results of the field noise monitoring are tabulated in Exhibit 2. 4.9-5 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise Exhibit 2 -Ambient Noise - Dougherty Valley Project Area (dBA) Location L90 L50 Leq L1 Ldn 1. Crow Canyon Road near Canyon Crest 60 66 68 73 70 Drive. (80) 2. Camino Tassajaro near Old Blackhawk 51 60 65 7.1 65 Road.(60) 3. undeveloped area near Dougherty Road 43 49 64 72 66 (30) (for project, intersection north of , Bollinger Canyon Road and east of Silvervine Drive) 4. Alcosta Boulevard south of Pine Valley 48 57 61 66 63 Road (40) 5. Old Ranch Road west of Bent Creek 41 49 59 70 60 Estates Drive (60) 6. Dougherty Road south of Austin Creek 45 59 1 67 75 69 Avenue (30) 7. Bollinger Canyon Road near Canyon 49 51 54 58 55 Lakes Drive (100') 8. undeveloped area (for project, intersection 41 45 47 51 46 north of Bollinger Canyon Road east of Monarch Drive) �. 9. undeveloped area (for project, intersection 42 46 48 53 47 west of Bollinger Canyon Road and south of Windemere Parkway) project,10. undeveloped area (for pj , 41 45 47 50 46 intersection west of Bollinger Canyon Road and north of Alamo Creek Road) Note: If applicable,the distance to nearby traffic is in parentheses. Using the field noise measurements and a standard model of hourly traffic distribution, the existing Ldn was computed for each location using the NCHRP traffic noise model [5]. The Ldn is the long-term average Leq, with a night time "penalty" of 10 dBA, when noise levels are expected to be significantly lower than in the daytime. The procedure for this computation is described on Appendix Page A-1. The ambient noise levels presented in Exhibit 2 generally reflect the significant traffic characteristics at each location: the distance to the traffic, the traffic volume, and the average vehicle speed. Background noise levels are established by distant high-volume streets and highways. Ldn noise levels in the 60 to 70 dBA range are typical of locations close to high traffic volumes. In remote areas away from traffic, such as receptor locations 8 through 10, noise levels are dominated by natural sounds such as birds and wind in the _ foliage. 4.9-6 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise 11 PROJECT NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Noise Criteria to be Met Noise Element Planning Criteria The Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element [6] has adopted noise criteria planning guidelines as targets to direct future planning decisions. These noise guidelines also can be used to assess potentially significant project-generated noise levels. The appropriate "Normally Acceptable" noise limits suggested by the Noise Element for various types of land use are outlined in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 -Contra Costa County Noise Planning Criteria (dBA) [6] Land Use Category Limit, Ldn Residential-single-family 60 Residential- multiple-family, hotel 65 Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, parks, 70 Commercial, office and business 70 Outdoor recreation, industrial, manufacturing, utilities, 75 agriculture Noise Element Policies and Implementation Measures In addition to the adopted noise planning guidelines, a number of general policies and implementation measures relevant to new projects are described in Sections 11.9 and 11.10 of the Noise Element and were reviewed in the previous EIR, as summarized below. 1992 EIR- Noise Impacts and Mitigation Measures [2] Construction Noise Construction noise from a number of different site preparation and construction activities would be produced by the project. This can temporarily and sporadically affect not only properties adjacent to the development sites, but more remote locations also. Receptors within 50 feet of a work site could experience intermittent noise levels up to 94 dBA, while runder some conditions sources such as large diesel machines and blasting could generate noise levels of 60 dBA at sensitive receptors up to 2000 feet away. Mitigation Measure 8.1. Implement appropriate noise control practices as directed by the County and the General Plan Noise Element to insure that all equipment have superior mufflers, limit construction activities to normal daytime hours, limit unnecessary idling of equipment, locate stationary equipment away from receptors, and install protective noise barriers. 4.9-7 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise Traffic Noise Traffic-related noise levels within 100 feet of all major arterials serving as access routes to and within the project area would equal or exceed the 60 dBA Ldn limit designated as "normally acceptable" by the County Noise Element. Specific arterial impacts: Noise levels at existing residences along Old Ranch Road and along Dougherty Road near Old Ranch Road would increase 3-5 dBA from project implementation. Mitigation Measure 8.2. Locate new residential areas outside of the 60 dBA traffic noise contours by using creative site design, land use and setback strategies. Mitigation Measure 8.3. Construct sound walls, berms, and other sound control measures to provide noise levels of less than 60 dBA Ldn on receptor properties near major arterials. Mitigation Measure 8.4. Incorporate acoustical treatment into the design and construction features of new residences and other buildings to provide interior noise environments of 45 dBA Ldn or less (from exterior sources). Provide detailed acoustical analyses for each tentative subdivision map that shows how the architectural design would provide the necessary noise protection to achieve the maximum 45 dBA Ldn interior noise level. Light Rail Noise The future construction of an advanced light rail system to provide internal circulation within and outside of the project is a possibility. Trains could be passing every 7.5 minutes during the daytime hours and every 15 minutes during late night hours. This would potentially generate a noise contour of about dBA Ldn within about 100 feet of the rail line, depending upon the type of train technology used and the speed. Mitigation Measures 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4. Use the same mitigation measures as described in the traffic noise section. Noise from Recreational and Cultural Facilities Recreational facilities such as play fields and amphitheaters will be encouraged and could have potentially adverse effects on.adjacent neighbors. Mitigation Measure 8.13. Incorporate noise control features such as noise barriers, t setbacks, structure orientation and other site design features to reduce potential impacts on neighboring properties. Cumulative Noise Under cumulative buildout conditions, current and planned noise-sensitive land uses (primarily residential)would be exposed to substantial noise increases and absolute noise levels in excess of the County standard of 60 dB Ldn because of cumulative growth and related traffic noise increases on area roadways. Implementation of the project would contribute to excess noise conditions along all roadways except Old Ranch Road. Mitigation. Implementing traffic mitigation measures as described for project traffic noise impacts would reduce sensitive receptor noise, but would not prevent significant and unavoidable traffic noise impacts. 4.9-8 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise New Information Related to Project Noise Impacts and Mitigation Measures Traffic Noise Impacts The dominant source of noise in the Contra Costa County project area is traffic on local streets. Peak passby noise levels for passenger vehicles on local streets are 55 to 65 dBA at 50 feet. Buses, trucks, motorcycles, and poorly-muffled automobiles produce passby noise levels 5 to 15 dBA higher. (See the Appendix for definitions of noise terminology and examples of noise levels for typical sources for comparison.) There are few streets in the development area at present; a two-lane Dougherty Road runs north and south through the main area to be developed. After project implementation an extension of Bollinger Canyon Road and a new and widened Dougherty Road right of way are arterials that would carry a majority of the new traffic. These streets also are r primary access routes to and from the Dougherty Valley development. The new residential and commercial developments associated with the Dougherty Valley project also would generate more trips on existing local streets outside of the boundaries of the project, possibly increasing roadside noise levels. This section evaluates the potential noise impacts of project trips at key locations both within the project boundaries 1 and outside of it. Ten sensitive receptor locations with proximity to project-related traffic volumes have been chosen for evaluation. These locations represent worst-case traffic noise impacts Other locations within and outside of the project area would have equal or lesser noise impacts. Noise modeling is based on traffic volumes from the project traffic study by Larry Patterson of Meyer-Mohaddes Associates, Foster City [7]. Two traffic conditions for the year 2010 have been considered in this noise study: the "PDP No Build"traffic case and the worst-case "General Plan Amendment (1996)"traffic case, which includes an ultimate capacity 11,000-unit project size. Traffic noise impacts were modeled with an improved version of the NCHRP Report 117 Traffic Noise Model [5]. The estimated increases in traffic generated by the General Plan Amendment case (1996) relative to the PDP No Build case and the associated Ldn noise levels at each of the representative receptor locations are presented in Exhibit 4 on the next page. Note that project locations 3, 8, 9, and 10 would be undeveloped in the No Project case, and therefore have no associated traffic increase or noise level for the No Project case. The highest exposure to traffic noise typically is at second floor windows of residences closest to major roadways, since they usually have no noise wall protection. These locations are included as examples of the worst-case. Other more protected receptor locations, such as those on ground level with noise wall protection would have considerably less noise exposure. All locations except receptor location 4 have noise wall protection for ground level locations. Project locations adjacent to major arterials are assumed to have at least an eight-foot noise wall at the perimeter of the development. The representative receptor noise levels resulting from the relationship between traffic volume, distance, and wall protection are highlighted by the data in Exhibit 4. 1 4.9-9 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise Exhibit 4 -Traffic Noise Impacts - Ldn (dBA) Location No-Project Proj. Traffic Project Project Noise- Volume Noise- Noise - 2nd Floor Increase(°k) 2nd Floor 1st Floor 1. Residences above Crow Canyon 67 16 68 62 Road near Canyon Crest Drive (120) 2. Residences along Camino Tassajaro 61 12 62 53 near Old Blackhawk Road (130) 3. Residences north of Bollinger Canyon N/A — 69 60 Road and east of Silvervine Drive (150) 4. Residences along Alcosta Boulevard 62 10 62 62 , south of Pine Valley Road (60) 5. Residences above Old Ranch Road 60 29 61 53 west of Bent Creek Estates Drive (85) 6. Residences along Dougherty Road 68 53 70 60 south of Austin Creek Avenue (60) 7. Residences along Bollinger Canyon 64 204 69 60 Road near Canyon Lakes Drive (120) 8. Residences north of Bollinger Canyon N/A -- 67 59 Road and east of Monarch Drive (140) 9. Residences west of Bollinger Canyon N/A -- 69 60 Rd and south of Windemere Pkway (80) 10. Residences west of Bollinger N/A -- 66 57 Canyon Road and north of Alamo Creek Road (120') Note: The distance from the nearest residence to the nearest traffic lane is in parentheses. Discussion of Potential Traffic Noise Impacts Noise Increases Two aspects are important when considering potential noise impacts of a project, the increase in noise level, and also the overall noise level produced, as discussed in the following section. Because of the widely varying instantaneous noise level throughout the day, long term Ldn noise level increases of 2 dBA or less are not usually noticeable. For the project, Exhibit 4 shows that for most existing receptor locations the addition of project- related trips would increase traffic noise by 2 dB or less-- not noticeable increases. For average noise increases of 3-4 dBA, some persons notice the increase in noise level, although the increase would not be considered serious. Noise increases of 5 dBA and above are very noticeable, and, if there incidents that are frequent or continuous in nature, this degree of noise increase could represent a significant impact on the noise environment. At locations 6 and 7 more substantial traffic changes would produce noise level increases of 3 and 5 dBA, respectively, which could represent noise impacts. 4.9-10 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) ` Noise Overall Noise Levels Because of existing high-volume traffic patterns outside of the development area, overall noise levels are already relatively high in the project area. As discussed previously, noise planning criteria recommend noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn or less for residential land uses, which is a difficult target in any urbanized, traffic-intensive area without noise wall protection. Even the low traffic volumes on residential streets produce a noise level 3 dB �. above the recommended residential level. According to County noise planning criteria (Exhibit 3), outdoor noise levels of 60 dBA or less are recommended for single-family residential uses. In general, residences along major arterial roadways that are protected by a noise wall of at least 8 feet meet this criteria. Among the receptor locations evaluated for this project only two do not meet the 60 dBA criteria at ground level: receptor location 1, which is protected by an unusually low wall of approximately 3 feet, and receptor location 4 , which faces Alcosta Blvd. with no wall protection. Both of these locations have first floor noise exposures somewhat above 60 dBA with or without project implementation. Therefore, the project does not significantly affect the noise environment (1 dB or less). The second floor noise levels are included in the analysis only to represent the worst-case tpotential noise exposure. Typically, second floors do not represent real exposures as do first floor and yard locations where people spend time and are directly exposed. Unless there are second floor balconies or decks facing the roadway, where outdoor activities could be directly exposed to traffic noise, they do not represent real noise exposure. As long as standard window designs are used providing adequate noise protection when the windows are closed, no significant noise impact is represented by second floor noise levels above 60 dBA. Typical dual pane windows with good seals provide the 25 dBA noise reduction required to achieve a satisfactory interior noise level of 45 dBA or less, even with outdoor noise levels of 70 dBA. The 45 dBA interior noise criteria is from the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code). Traffic Noise Mitigation Noise Wall Installation. Noise barriers should be installed in locations adjacent to roadways that have the following general characteristics: i • residential properties within 150 feet of arterial traffic ■ • daily volumes of at least 10,000 trips and speeds of 40 mph or higher. • receptors at an elevation that can be protected by a noise barrier. That is, a barrier can be installed that intercepts the noise path between roadway and receptors. (Receptors significantly above the roadway often cannot be effectively protected by a barrier.) Project roadways generally meeting the above criteria for residential barrier protection include: Bolllinger Canyon Road Windemere Parkway East Branch Road Dougherty Road 4.9-11 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise Traffic volumes. Reduce local street traffic volumes by improving desirability of alternatives to the automobile, such as car pools, bicycle routes, and improved public transit service and routes in the project area. Exhaust noise. Enforce California Vehicle Code prohibitions against faulty or modified loud exhaust systems-- Sections 27150 and 27151. Vehicle speeds. Reduce speed limits wherever possible without impacting traffic flow requirements. Planted median strips. Where possible, design and install raised and planted median strips on major arterial streets to reduce transmitted traffic noise. Construction Noise Impacts The initial phase of the project construction involves site clearing and grading of the areas of the site to be developed. Typical noise levels for construction equipment are listed in Exhibit 5 (next page), along with the "usage" level, or the portion of the time the equipment is generally used. Construction equipment noise level data are based on Reference 8. Tree Removal Many of the trees on the project site must be removed, requiring the use of gas engine chain saws, which typically produce sound levels of 82-87 dBA. The smaller branches could be ground up on site using a tree chipper, which produces a noise level of 87-90 dBA. The tree cutting and chipping tasks would last a few days at most. Site Clearing and Grading Site preparation generally would be performed by various types of heavy demolition and excavation machines, such as bulldozers, backhoes, graders and haul trucks. These have large diesel engines and typically produce noise levels of 85 to 90 dBA under full load, and 80 to 84 dBA while idling. Wood Construction and Concrete Work A number of construction tasks involve working with wood and carpentry tools, such as • building forms for concrete foundations and walls • building the framing for new buildings These tasks require both manual and electrical carpentry tools, which produce noise levels of 75 to 85 dBA. Fallowing construction of forms, concrete mixer trucks and pumps would be required, which produce noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA. Completion of Structure and Interior Details Final construction phases include erection of exterior wall panels, windows, and roof followed by completion of interior walls, installation of equipment, plumbing and lighting. The highest noise levels during this period would be from material haul trucks and cranes, with miscellaneous pumps and auxiliary engines providing the background noise at 60 to 70 dBA. The final stages generally would not cause significant noise disturbances. 4.9-12 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subse pq . _ent) Noise iExhibit 5 -Construction Equipment Noise Levels [8] Equipment Noise Level Usage Mobile Equipment Front Loader 75-80 0.4 i, Backhoe 75-85 0.2 Bulldozers,tractors 75-85 0.4 Scraper 80-90 0.4 Grader 75-85 0.1 iTruck 75-90 0.4 Paver 80-90 0.1 Materials Handling Concrete mixer 75-85 0.4 Concrete pump 75-80 0.4 Crane 75-85 0.2 Derrick 75-90 0.2 Stationary Equipment ' Pumps 70-75 1.0 Generators 75-80 1.0 t. Compressors 75-80 1.0 Saws 75-80 0.05 Impact Equipment Pile drivers 95-100 0.05 Jackhammers 75-90 0.1 Rock drills 80-100 0.05 rPneumatic tools T-80-85 0.2 Construction Noise Mitigation Quiet equipment. Choose construction equipment that is of quiet design, has a high- quality muffler system, and is well maintained. This includes trucks used to haul materials. Temporary Baffles. Erect temporary plywood enclosures around equipment or activity iareas that produce excessive noise at nearby receptors. Machine Idling. Eliminate unnecessary idling of machines not in use. 4.9-13 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise Maintenance. Use good maintenance and lubrication procedures to reduce operating noise. General Shopping Center Mitigation Measures Locate loading dock, dumpster and compactor locations as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Erect eight foot masonry walls between commercial areas and receptor locations. Manage the schedule of commercial center activities, particularly evening activities, to reduce potential noise impacts on nearby receptors. Significant Proiect Noise Impacts Although much of the site is undeveloped, during site preparation and construction, equipment could be within 50 feet of some existing residences. Therefore, .the maximum noise exposure of an unprotected location would be 80-85 dBA. Construction noise would be intermittent and of limited duration at any given location, rather than continuous, since equipment is used sporadically over a number of weeks. For the Dougherty Valley Development project, a few of the directly adjacent residences would experience disturbance from project-related noise traffic, and the second floor residential areas would be unprotected by any barriers. In a few locations, project noise impacts could not be fully mitigated and therefore would be unavoidable. 1 1 4.9-14 Dougherty Valley Development EIR (Subsequent) Noise iREFERENCES A. Cited References 1a. Preliminary and Final Development Plan, Gale Ranch Phase 2, Ruggieri Jensen & Associates, Pleasanton, for Shappell Industries of Northern California, October 12, 1995. 1 b. Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map, Subdivision 7976, Carlson Barbee& Gibson, Inc, San Ramon, for Windemere Ranch Partners, October, 1995. 2. "Draft Environmental Impact Report (Noise Section), Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Related Actions,"for Contra Costa County, Jones and Stokes Associates, Sacramento, June 1992. 3 "Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Installation Compatible Use Zone Report, Implementation of Development Plans for Parks Reserve Training Area," Dublin, California ("ICUZ Study'), Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1988. 4. "Noise Source Inventory and Noise Abatement Plan", Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, CA, Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Oakland, for U. S.Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District; September 1995. 5. "Highway Noise-A Design Guide for Highway Engineers", National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1971. (Traffic noise model upgraded by ECS to improve accuracy, based on extensive field validation measurements.) 6. Noise Element of the General Plan, Community Development Dept., Contra Costa County, ' Martinez, January 1991. 7. Dougherty Valley Project Traffic Study, Larry Patterson, Meyer-Mohaddes Associates, May 1996. 8. "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., December 1971. B. Background References on Noise "Community Noise", U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., December 1971. "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., March 1974. ' "Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan", Office of Noise Control, California Dept. of Health, Berkeley, February 1976. 4.9-15 1 Noise Appendix Page A 1 Environmental Noise Measurement and Analysis Procedure 1. Select monitoring sites as representative of worst-case sensitive receptor areas, topography, noise sources, and noise transmission characteristics. 2. Make field noise measurements of individual sources and long-term statistical variation on the project site and, if appropriate, on access routes to the project, 20-30 minutes in each location. Equipment: Noise Distribution Analyzer,Metr6sonics Model db-601 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, Rion Model NL-11 Sound Level Calibrator, Bruel and Kjaer Model 4230 3. Record peak noise levels for individual sources and incidents, and the statistical descriptors of interest, such as L50, LIO, and Leq, and Ll. 4. Based upon field measurements and transportation noise modeling, determine sourceldistance relationships on the project site. 5. Compute Ldn values from field measurements and traffic noise model based on traffic volume variation throughout the day. Without specific hourly traffic variation data, use standard commute-based volumes as follows: Period Hours Hourly Volume (% ADT) A. 7 am 9 is 2 7.5 B. 9 am 4 Pin 7 5-.6 C. 4 pin 7 pin(no peak) 2 7.0 D. 7 pm—10 pin 3 4.0 E, 10 pin--Midnight 2 2.5 F. Midnight—7 am .7 0.7 G. Peak Hour 1 10. 0 Environmental Consulting Services Cupertino Noise Appendix Page A 2 Environmental Noise Concepts and Definitions Sound is the rapid fluctuation of air pressure higher and lower than normal atmospheric pressure. The term noise is often used to mean unwanted or undesirable sound, but this a very subjective matter depending upon the individual;the terms noise and sound are often considered interchangeable in normal usage. The frequency of the sound, or pitch if it has a dominant pure tone, is the number of fluctuations of air pressure each second. If the sound frequency is within a range of roughly 50 to 15,000 cycles per second (Hertz), it is audible to persons with normal hearing. Another characteristic of sound is its loudness, usually measured and reported in decibels (dB), a shorthand logarithmic unit that avoids havingto deal in the very large numbers describing the range of sound levels in its basic engineering units. In deciBel units, 120 dB (which would be experienced when standing close to a large jet plane on takeoff is not 6 times as loud as an extremely quiet background of 20 dB, but rather a hundred thousand times as loud. Examples of common noise sources and their sound levels are found on Page A-5. The basic issues in dealing with the community and environmental noise are its effects and the way it is perceived by most persons (see the Effects section, Page A-3). Therefore, the noise must be measured or modeled, and then compared to guidelines, regulations, and known effects. For these ' purposes the deciBel is used with "A-weighting", meaning that the lower and higher frequencies are de- emphasized to match the sensitivity of human hearing, as opposed to the artificially "flat" frequency response. Unless otherwise stated, all references to decibels relative to human effects and community impacts are in "A-weighted" decibels, or dBA, in the usual abbreviated form. These deciBel values are then referred to as noise levels, or sound levels. The equipment used to measure noise levels is called a sound level meter. ' In spite of the tendency to describe environmental noise levels with single-number descriptors for simplicity, the most characteristic feature of noise that people experience in their communities is its ' extreme variability. So to better understand what a given noise environment is really like, more than one descriptor is generally used to describe its variability. For example, the average noise level may be accompanied by the maximum or highest noise level, and also the minimum noise level occurring during a particular time period. For example, in some cases it would be more important to know that the minimum noise level is 45 dBA and the maximum noise level is 90 dBA, than that the average noise level is 55 dBA. There are literally dozens of different types of noise environment descriptors, each developed to give information on the effect of a specific type of noise under certain conditions--such as for aircraft noise, for speech intelligibility, or for hearing impairment. In recent years governmental agencies have been standardizing on the use of Ln, Leq, or Ldn. Ln, where n is a number in percent, refers to the noise level exceeded n percent of the time. For example, traffic noise may be generated along a freeway such that at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway the noise level is 70 dB or higher ten percent of the time. Hence its L10 noise level is reported as 70 dBA. The L50, or median noise level, is also often used as a noise descriptor. The Leq also often is used, since it reflects the single noise level that has the same energy as the varying noise environment, and reflects more accurately the impact of peak noise incidents. Ldn is essentially a 24-hour Leq computation with a 10 dB "penalty" during the 10 pm to 7 am time period, when a more quiet environment is expected. In other words, a location with a 55 dBA daytime Leq would have a 55 dBA Ldn if the noise level dropped to 45 dB during the night time hours. The State of California uses the CNEL, which is basically equal to Ldn. The equipment for measuring statistical noise descriptors is called a Noise Distribution Analyzer. Environmental Consulting Services Cupertino Noise Appendix Page A 3 The "ambient" noise level refers to the combination of all sources of noise at a given location. The "background" noise, is similar, and refers to the combination of distant sources that determines the minimum sound levels in any location. In statistical descriptors the L90 or L99 level often is used as a measure of the background noise level. To more readily understand and compare differences in noise levels from one location to another, equal noise contours are often developed for a given site. Most often LIO or Ldn contours are used, joining locations on a site that have the same noise level, in 5 or 10 dB increments. Noise contour maps are similar to plotting equal elevations on a topographic contour map. Several concepts are particularly important in discussing what to do about unwanted noise mitigation, reduction and attenuation. The terms having the same meaning in general usage: to lower noise levels in a receptor area. Reflection is one common noise reduction method, which diverts sound energy from a location of high impact to an area of less impact, such as using a noise barrier. Noise absorption is a mechanism by which some materials, such as foliage outdoors or fiberglass batts used as insulation, absorb sound energy and thus reduce its impact. Mathematical noise models are often used in projecting noise levels that cannot be directly measured, such as in the case of future traffic or airport conditions. Noise models use previously measured and analyzed relationships between noise source characteristics and physical and geometric conditions to compute noise levels with relatively good accuracy. A number of models for projecting aircraft noise, roadway traffic noise and railroad noise have been developed and are in widespread use. The Effects of Noise on People Noise is a part of our modem society--noise from motorized labor-saving devices, transportation sources, and recreation devices. The use or conversion of energy for any purpose is seldom accomplished silently. We as humans have a capacity to tolerate or ignore a certain amount of noise in our environment. But adverse effects are present in many exposures to noise, and dangers to health other than outright hearing impairment also are recognized. The problem of controlling noise is difficult because it affects each individual differently. People do not hear sounds similarly, hence they do not react to sound in the same way. First of all, each person's reaction to noise depends upon the characteristics of the noise itself- * loudness - frequency - duration * time of occurrence - unfamiliarity or uniqueness But the effect of a noise on people also depends upon the situation- * background or ambient.noise level - individual sensitivity to noise intrusion * activity or preoccupation of listener - perceived need or justification for noise Environmental Consulting Services Cupertino Noise Appendix Page A 4 The combination of factors that determines how much a person is disturbed by a noise includes physiological effects, psychological/emotional effects, and activity interference. To better understand the use of the deciBel as a measure of relative loudness, a list of common noise sources and their approximate sound levels are given on Page A-5. Physiological Noise Effects At relatively high noise levels above 80 dBA, the delicate internal ear mechanism can be altered to cause Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), resulting in partial deafness for a period of a few minutes to a few weeks, depending upon the noise level and the exposure duration. If these excessive levels over 80 dBA are continued over long periods of time(for example, eight hours a day for several years), or very high levels (over 100 dB) are experienced for shorter periods, Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) may occur. PTS indicates that irreversible loss in normal hearing capacity has occurred. Fortunately, few exposures to levels causing hearing damage occur in the typical community noise environment. However, some problems can be experienced by those attending or participating in regular musical and recreational events with high noise environments, or by those engaged in occupations involving high workplace noise levels, regulated by State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health codes. The potential for other less damaging, but nonetheless disturbing, noise effects exists throughout our normal daily schedules--at home, school, shopping center, park, or highway. These noise impacts can cause subtle physical, mental and emotional stresses of varying degrees of seriousness. ' Activity Interference Noise disrupts human activities such as sleep, conversation, or stereo and TV enjoyment. Studies have shown that noise not only can prevent sleep because of its intensity or characteristics, but also can seriously disturb the quality of sleep without waking the sleeper. Conditions such as these--community noise causing bedroom noise levels between 35 and 50 dBA--are encountered to some extent in many urbanized areas, particularly near high volume traffic or airport areas. At interior noise levels over 55 dBA, all types of normal speaking and listening activities are disrupted. Speech intelligibility drops sharply, music listening and TV watching become strained, and aural communications must be carried ' out at much higher volumes to be successful. Obviously, shouting to be heard and understood is both undesirable and unpleasant for all concerned. ' Psychological and Emotional Impacts Less well-documented and understood, but probably more widely experienced, are those impact of noise that cause such subtle effects as distraction, annoyance, startle, privacy interruption, stress and tension. These effects as a class can, if continued, cause very serious emotional and psychological anxieties and disturbances. Often the increased irritability and tenseness are not directly attributed to the noise environment, as the listener may not be consciously aware of the noise intrusion. Our human ability to tolerate and adapt to" disturbing noise levels thus can adversely affect our subconscious body processes. Protection against the intrusion of disturbing noise is particularly important to mental and emotional health in an active and complex urban community. Environmental Consulting Services "' Cupertino Noise Appendix Page A 5 ' Typical Noise Levels Noise Sources Noise Level(dBA) Human Response or Impact Jet aircraft takeoff(50') 130 Auto horn(3') 120 Deafening Rock music in a night club 110 105 Single-event possible permanent hearing damage Motorcycle accelerating,no 100 muffler(25') 95 Temporary hearing loss Motorcycle accelerating, stock 90 muffler(25') Food blender(3') 80 Very disturbing to most activities , Power lawn mower(20') Steady urban traffic(25) 70 ' Normal conversation(3) 60 Communications difficult Daytime street,no nearby traffic 50 45 Sleep disturbance Quiet office 40 Inside quiet home. Soft whisper 30 Very quiet (10.) Movie or recording studio 20 Seldom-experienced ambient 10 Barely audible to good hearing Threshold of hearing 0 Environmental Consulting Services Cupertino Chapter VI. Air Quality Impact Evaluation INTRODUCTION This report addresses the air quality impacts of proposed modifications to the Dougherty Valley Plan and certain implementing project approvals. The FEIR for the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Related Approvals, certified on December 22, 1992, addressed air quality impacts of development of the Dougherty Valley project. The FEIR found that there would be six areas of air quality impact: • construction emissions of PM-10 • construction-related emissions of ozone precursors • local carbon monoxide impacts due to project traffic • increases in regional emissions ' • cumulative carbon monoxide increases 0 cumulative regional emissions The purpose of this analysis is to re-visit these impacts in fight of proposed modifications to the ' Dougherty Valle General and Specific Plans and changes in methods of analysis that have occurred � rtY Y P since 1992. The proposed General Plan Specific Plan amendments will change the density of some land uses and would involve changes to roadway networks. As a result, the traffic-induced project- related impacts would be modified somewhat. The construction-related impact discussion of the 1992 FEIR would still be valid and has not been revised or supplemented. Dougherty Valley GPA&SP, Final Environmental Impact Report Gale Ranch II, Windemere 1 November 1996 r i EXISTING SETTING 1992 EIR The 1992 EIR presented information of the climate of the site, the ambient air quality standards applicable within the region, and measured data from the Livermore monitoring site for a three year period. Existing concentrations of a major local pollutant, carbon monoxide, were estimated for worst-case conditions at and near major intersections. The requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts were summarized. The assessment of project impacts addressed construction impacts, local effects of project traffic on carbon monoxide concentrations, and the regional impact of project traffic on ozone precursor emissions. The CALINE-4 computer model was used to predict carbon monoxide impacts, while the URBENIIS-3 program estimated regional emissions of ozone precursors. Background Important changes have occurred in the area of air quality management between 1992 and 1996. The BAAQNID has established revised thresholds of significance for regional impacts subsequent to , the 1992 EIR. Concentrations of federal nonattainment pollutants been gradually declining in the Bay Area over the past decade. The Bay Area recently was recently redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a"maintenance area" for ozone, and a request for redesignation to maintenance area for carbon monoxide has been submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The area-wide plan required by the California Clean Air Act was adopted in October 1991 and 2 iupdated in 1994.1 The Plan imposes controls on stationary sources(factories, power plants, industrial sources, etc.) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) designed to reduce emissions from automobiles, including indirect sources. Since the Plan does not provide for a 5% annual reduction in emissions, it proposes the adoption of"all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule". The Bgy Area'94 Clean Air Plan forecasts continued improvement in regional air quality. An analysis of carbon monoxide trends shows attainment of the standards throughout the Bay Area and maintenance of the standard through the year 2000. However, implementation of the Plan would not provide for attainment of the State ozone standard even by the year 2000. ' The project is within the nine-coup San Francisco Ba Air Basin. The Ba Area Air Quality P J nine-county Y Y Management District operates air quality monitoring sites throughout the Bay Area, although none are located near the site. The closest monitoring site is located in Livermore. Measured levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide meet all state and federal ambient air quality standards. Concentrations of ozone and PM-10, however, have exceeded federal and/or state standards recently. Table 1 shows a summary of air quality data from the Livermore monitoring site for the three-year period 1993-1995 for these two pollutants. ' 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area'94 Clean Air Plan (CAP), 1994. ' 3 TABLE 1 i AIR POLLUTION DATA SUMMARY LIVERMORE STATION , 1993-1995 Pollutant 1993 1994 1995 Ozone Highest 1-Hour Concentration,PPM 0.16 0.13 0.16 Days Federal Standard Was Exceeded 1 2 7 Days State Standard Was Exceeded 7 5 20 PM-10 Annual Geometric Mean, ug/m3 20.9 22.1 19.4 Days Federal Standard Was Exceeded 0 0 0 Days State Standard Was Exceeded 3 4 1 4 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' Methods for predicting and analyzing air pollutant emissions are constantly being revised and updated to account for changing technology and emissions controls programs. The impact analysis contained in the 1992 EIR has been updated and revised to reflect current practices and methods. These impacts are evaluated using thresholds of significance developed by the Bay Area Air Quality S Management District subsequent to the 1992 FEIR. The following impacts discussion utilizes the g q P following refinements to the methodology in the 1992 FEIR: ' 0 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has periodically published maps of background levels of carbon monoxide and correction factors to allow forecasts of ' background carbon monoxide levels in future years for use in environmental documents. These maps and correction factors are used in this analysis and yield significantly lowerr background levels compared to those assumed in the 1992 FEIR. ' • The latest version of the EMFAC7 emissions program has been used. The EMFAC program has been updated every few years to reflect current control programs and emissions control technology. In general,the latest EMFAC7 program yields lower emission estimates because it reflects the most current emission standards for vehicles and considers the effects of a variety of emission programs(reformulated fuels, for example) not considered in 1992 FEIR. • The URBEMIS-5 �' computer program is used to calculate project impacts for regional P P 1 emissions. The 1992 FEIR utilized the now-obsolete URBEMIS-3 program. ' • The significance of regional air quality impacts is judged using thresholds of significance developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in its recent guidance document. 5 The 1992 FOR identified air quality impacts of three types: construction-related dust impacts, increases in carbon monoxide concentrations along streets providing access to the site and increases in regional pollutant emissions. The construction-related dust discussion in the 1982 FEIR does not require revision. The analysis and discussion for the other two impact areas has been revised and updated. Significance Criteria In this report, the project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it would: 0 Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G(x)). 0 Result in substantial emissions or deterioration of ambient airquality (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I(H.2.a)). The significance thresholds recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are considered to represent "substantial" emissions. These thresholds are 80 pounds per day for all regional air quality pollutants except carbon monoxide. The significance threshold for carbon monoxide is 550 pounds per day, although exceedance of this threshold only triggers the need for estimates of carbon monoxide "hot spot" concentrations.2 • Create objectionable odors(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I (H.2.b)). • Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or result in any change in climate, either locally or regionally (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I(II.2.c)). Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAOMD CEOA Guidelines, 1996. 6 Carbon Monoxide Impacts ' To assess the magnitude of impact on local carbon monoxide levels, the CALINE-4 computer simulation model was used. The CALINE4 model is recommended for use in the analysis of such mobile source environmental impacts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The CALM-4 computer simulation model was applied to eight selected intersections in the project vicinity to estimate future carbon monoxide levels in the area. The intersections modeled were selected as those which would operated at Level of Service (LOS) D or worse in the PM peak hour. The CALINE-4 model was run under worst-case assumptions for traffic and meteorology. A detailed discussion of the methodology used in the CALINE-4 modeling is provided in Attachment 1. The model results were used to predict the maximum one- and eight-hour concentrations, ' corresponding to the one- and eight-hour averaging times specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Table 2 lists the results of the CALM-4 analysis for the ' peak one-hour and eight-hour traffic periods in parts per million(PPM) for the year 2010 with and without the proposed project. The predicted future one-hour concentration values in Table 2 are to be compared to the federal one- hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. The predicted eight-hour concentration values in Table 2,are to be compared to the state and federal standard of nine PPM. ' Table 2 indicates that the project would have a mixed impact on local carbon monoxide concentrations. Project traffic would increase concentrations at some locations, decrease concentrations at other locations and have no effect at yet others.. It should be noted that the year 2010 predictions with and without the project show no violations of the 8-hour standards. This is in contrast with the 1992 FEIR analysis that indicated potential ' violations of the 8-hour standards at some receptors with the proposed project. The reason for the 7 TABLE 2 ' PREDICTED YEAR 2010 CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION No Project With Project , Intersection 1-Hr. 8-Hr. 1-Hr. 8-Hr. Alcosta/ 9.5 5.9 10.1 6.3 ' Bollinger Dougherty/ 13.5 8.7 10.3 6.4 I-580 WB Off Tassajara/ 10.4 6.5 10.5 6.6 I-580 WB Off Santa Rita/ 9.7 6.0 9.7 6.0 , I-580 EB Off Hacienda/ 10.6 6.7 10.6 6.7 I-580 EB Ramp , Hacienda/ 9.8 6.1 9.8 6.1 i I-580 WB Ramp , Sunset/ 9.2 5.7 9.4 5.8 Bollinger , Camino Ramon/ 9.3 5.8 9.6 6.0 Bollinger 8 lower predictions in Table 2 are the use of revised and updated background concentrations that reflect a general down-trend in future carbon monoxide background' and the use of the latest emission factors for vehicles that reflect current control programs such as oxygenated fuels. Considering that the.1992 FOR indicated violations of both the 1-hour and 8-hour standards in the existing case and that the proposed project and cumulative projects would add additional traffic to the street network, the project would be expected to delay somewhat the attainment of the carbon monoxide ambient air quality standards at some locations. The proposed project would therefore have a significant adverse and significant cumulative impact on local carbon monoxide concentrations, although this impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance by the year 2010 by current emission control programs. Regional Air Quality Impacts Trips to and from the project would also result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San ' Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Estimates of regional air emissions generated by project traffic were made using the URBEMIS-5 program. The URBENUS-5 program and the assumption made in its use are described in Attachment 2. Table 3 indicates the estimated incremental daily emissions associated with project-related traffic for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PM-10 assuming build out in the year 2010. ' Daily emissions associated with proposed residential uses are also shown in Table 3. Residential uses contain a number of dispersed and intermittent sources of pollutants such as space and water heaters, ' household paints and solvents, fireplaces and woodstoves, lawn mowers and other equipment.' The 1992 FEIR assumed a background level of 6.0 PPM for the 1-hour averaging time and 3.0 PPM for the 8-hour averaging time for both 1992 and 2010. Current BAAQMD guidance similarly provides identical background concentrations in 1992, but predicts that background concentrations will decline to 3.5 PPM(1-hour) and 1.7 PPM(8-hour)by 2010. ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality and Urban Development-Guidelines, 1985. 9 Guidelines for the evaluation of project impacts issued by the BAAQMD consider emission increases , of ROG, NOx or PM-10 to be significant if they exceed 80 pounds per day. Because project emissions listed in Table 3 would exceed this criterion for all three pollutants, the project would have , a significant adverse impact on regional air quality. The emissions shown in Table 3 are below those described in the 1992 FEIR. The data in Table 3 does not include emissions from portions of the Dougherty Valley General Plan that have already been completed. Also, Table 3 reflects reduced traffic generation resulting from the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, and reflects later emission factors that include the effect of recent control programs that were not included in the 1992 FEIR analysis. Nevertheless, the 1992 FEIR and Table 3 exceed the BAA MD significance emissions shown m the criteria by a large Q amount. , BAAQMD guidance states that any proposed project that would individually have a significant air ' quality impact (based on BAAQMD thresholds of significance) would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Since project-related emissions exceed-the significance , thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM-10, the project would have a significant cumulative impact on regional ozone and PM-10 air quality. , 10 TABLE 3 ' PROJECT-RELATED REGIONAL EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY ROG NOX PM-105 CO Automobile Exhausts 292.0 397.5 554.7 3,594.4 Residential Sources 465.3 92.6 30.1 267.9 ' Total 757.3 489.6 584.8 3,862.3 ' BAAQMD Significance Threshold 80.0 80.0 80.0 550.0 ---------- ROG=Reactive Organic Gases NOX=Nitrogen Oxides PM-10=Particulate Matter, 10 Microns CO=Carbon Monoxide ' S Includes an emission factor of 0.69 grams/mile for entrained road dust. -- 11 ATTACHMENT 1: CALINE-4 MODELING The CALINE-4 model is a fourth-generation line source air quality model that is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize pollutant dispersion over the roadway.' Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 150 meters of the roadway. The , CALINE-4 model allows roadways to be broken into multiple links that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, etc.. 1 wemployed, which distributes emissions along g of the each le The intersection mode of the mode as intersection for free-flow traffic, idling traffic and accelerating and decelerating traffic. The ' intersection model extended 500 meters in all directions. Receptors (locations where the model calculates concentrations) were located at distance of 20 feet from the roadway edge for all four ' corners of the intersection and at locations 50 feet in either direction, for a total of 12 receptors. Figure 1 is a schematic diagram showing the location of receptors. ' The worst case mode of the CALINE-4 model was employed. In this mode the wind direction is varied to determine which wind direction results in the highest concentration for each receptor. Emission factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC-7F model. Adjustments were made for vehicle mix and hot start/ cold start/ hot stabilized percentages appropriate to each roadway. Temperature was assumed to be 40 degrees F. ' The computation of carbon monoxide levels assumed the following worst-case meteorological , conditions: Windspeed: 1 mps ' ' California Department of Transportation, CALINE-4-A Dispersion Model for Predicting Air , Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadways, Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84-15, 1984. 12 Stability: F Category Mixing Height: 1000 meters Surface Roughness: 100 cm Standard Deviation of Wind Direction: 10 degrees The CALINE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby roads to the total concentration. The other contribution is the background level attributed to more distant traffic. The assumed 1-hour background level was 3.5 PPM and the assumed 8-hour background level was 1.7 PPM in 2010. These background concentrations were developed using carbon monoxide background levels and ' correction factors for future years prepared by the BAAQMD. To generate estimates of 8-hour concentrations from the 1-hour CALINE results a persistence factor of 0.70 was employed. f13 Figure 1: Location of; CALINE-4 Receptors i 3o -Ft 20 Ft. • • .0t 1 14 ATTACHMENT 2: URBEMIS-5 ' Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using a program called URBEMIS-5.2 URBEMIS-5 is a program which estimate the emissions that result from various land ' use development projects. Land use project can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, ' office buildings, and industrial parks. URBEMIS-5 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied information can ' also be used when it is available. Inputs to the URBEMIS-5 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type and average speed. Trip generation rates for project land uses and land uses removed by the project were provided by the project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths and vehicle ' mixes for the Bay Area were used. Average speed for all types of trips was assumed to be 30 MPH. ' The URBEMIS-5 runs assumed summertime conditions with an ambient temperature of 75 degrees F. The URBENIIS-5 program provides emission rates for Total Organic Gases (TOG). The TOG emission was multiplied by 0.914 to estimate Reactive Organic Gases(ROG). PM-10 emissions from road dust are not calculated by the URBEMIS-5 program. Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)generated by project traffic was multiplied by a road dust emission factor' of 0.69 grams per mile, and this emission was added to the URBEMIS-5 estimates of exhaust emissions. ' 2 California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS-5 Computer Program Version 5.0 User Guide, July 1995. ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEOA Guidelines, 1996. 15 t t �� `, 1 � �