Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07112006 - C.30 (2) 30 TO: Board of Supervisors E---........ .:a -_ Contra FROM: Dennis M.. Barry, AICP = ; t�en ;. s Community Development Director �. ��� - �� Costa S>q cdur+� DATE: July 11, 2006 County SUBJECT: Letter Supporting the Caldecott Improvement Project and Providing Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment/Impact Report SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to transmit a letter to the California Department of 'Transportation expressing the County's support of the project as well as comments and concerns related to the Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report and its evaluation of impacts within the County (see Exhibit B). FISCAL IMPACT NONE to the General Fund. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On January 28, 2003, the Board of Supervisors transmitted comments to the California Department of Transportation (CaITRANS) in response to a Notice of Preparation for a combined Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report on the Caldecott Improvement Project. These comments acknowledged the importance of this project" and identified some concerns with regard to the impacts this project might have on transportation, water and conservation facilities and lands within Contra Costa County. A copy of the Board's response is attached as Exhibit A. Nit CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: ,-- 2ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT-VEE 'APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S ACTION OF BO ON cc, APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED-C OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS.A TRUE �C UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Hillary Heard (925/335-1278) �© /t, I0 John Kopchik (925/335-1227) ATTESTED- -r JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF cc: Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR G:\Transportation\TWIC\2006\Board Orders\Caldecott DER Jul 06.doc B � , DEPUTY LETTER SUPPORTING THE CALDECOTT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT July 11, 2006 ` Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (Continued) In May, 2006, CalTRANS released a Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR) on the project. The County has also received requests from various interest groups, including Friends of the Caldecott Tunnel, urging that letters of support be sent to Caltrans. On June 27, the Board referred this matter to the Transportation Water and Infrastructure (TWI) Committee. The TWI Committee was unable to meet to provide a recommendation to the Board. Staff attended the public hearing for this document shortly after its release, has reviewed the report and has learned that some elements of the Board's original concerns may not have been fully analyzed. As a result staff has drafted a comment letter that declares the Board's support for the project, and requests clarification regarding CaITRANS' evaluation of the Board's previous concerns (see Exhibit B). CalTRANS has requested comments on the Draft EA/EIR be submitted no later than July 12. Exhibit A: January 28, 2003 Letter to Christina Ferraz, Caltrans Exhibit B: Draft Comment Letter to Gregory C. McConnell, Caltrans Exhibit A The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen County Administration Building o Sta Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 and Martinez,California 94553-1293 �1 County Co(925)335-1900unty Administrator IV_ I John Gioia,1st District Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District Mary N.Piepho,3rd District /A.- Mark DeSaulnier,4th District i Federal D.Glover,5th District .rrA coti�"ti, July 11, 2006 Gregory C. McConnell, Sr. Environmental Planner Department of Transportation, District 4 Environmental Analysis Mail Station 8B PO Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Dear Mr. McConnell: This letter provides our comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR) for the proposed Caldecott Improvement Project. In addition to these comments, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would also like to express its support for Caltrans to proceed expeditiously to construct this important project, which was part of the program of projects overwhelming approved by Contra Costa voters with the passage of Measure J in 2004. At the public hearing on June 7, 2006 staff had the opportunity to review the proposed alternatives and the impact analysis that has been performed as part of the environmental review process. Based on the information presented at the public hearing and our review of the documents, the County would like to offer the following comments. Please note these comments are consistent with the County's response dated January 28, 2003 to the Notice of Preparation for this project. ■ The study does not appear to have examined what effects additional tunnel capacity might-have on the operation of 1-680 through the San Ramon Valley. There may be the potential for southbound congestion to worsen downstream on this freeway with the advent of two eastbound tunnel bores being open at all times. This additional capacity may even provide a quicker route for commuters destined for employment centers in San Ramon and Pleasanton who currently use 1-580 through Dublin Canyon because of existing traffic delay at the tunnel. Currently eastbound traffic is delayed at the tunnel when only one bore is open during the AM peak period. Our greatest concern is during the AM peak period when congestion on 1-680 is most significant between Walnut Creek and Alamo where the southbound freeway drops from six lanes to three lanes plus High- Occupancy Vehicle lane. The potential increase in congestion should be analyzed and, if warranted, :measures should be proposed that would mitigate these impacts. The study appears to address these impacts to some extent on the I-580 corridor within Alameda County. We ask that a similar analysis be performed for the 1-680 corridor south of State Route 24. Mr. Gregory C. McConnell Draft EA/EIR for the Proposed Caldecott Improvement Project July 11, 2006 Page Two ■ The study indicates that additional tunnel capacity created with the two and three lane bore alternatives would significantly improve traffic flow on the freeway, and as a result no mitigation measures are warranted or recommended. Consequently, the reader is to infer that that evaluation of mitigation measures such as ramp metering would not be necessary. ■ The study includes an analysis associated with how this project might impact other related improvement projects in the area inclusive of the Claremont Tunnel Seismic Upgrade Project. It is our understanding that the impacts have been evaluated and CalTRANS will be coordinating and consulting with the East Bay Municipal Utility District regarding the construction of these two important projects. ■ The study includes an analysis of project consistency with the Resource Management Plan for the Caldecott Wildlife Corridor (Plan), a planning effort that involved the County, but does not provide adequately detailed information on how the project will avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to the biological functions of the wildlife corridor to support the conclusion that the project and mitigation measures are consistent with the recommendations of the Plan. To the extent that offsite habitat preservation and restoration are required to mitigate impacts identified in the EIR and/or to comply with conditions of permits and approvals needed from the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, those mitigation actions should occur within the Caldecott Wildlife Corridor and should assist with meeting the goals of the Plan. Based on our interpretation of the Draft EA/EIR, the study does not fully evaluate all potentially significant impacts associated with the project alternatives as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Should our interpretation be determined to be correct, the Final EA/EIR for the Caldecott Improvement Project should include an evaluation of these impacts and if warranted identify measures that would mitigate these impacts. Please contact Hillary Heard of the Community Development Department at 925-335-1278 if you have any questions regarding the comments in this letter. Sincerely, John Gioia Chair, Board of Supervisors JG\HH\mlk c: Cristina Ferraz,Project Manager,CalTRANS Dist.4 Phillip Cox,Sr. Transportation Engineer,CalTRANS Dist.4 Dennis M. Barry,AICP,Community Development Director Steven L. Goetz,CDD-Deputy Director—Transportation John Kopchik,CDD-Conservation Programs Patrick Roche,CDD-Chief of Comprehensive Planning John Pulliam, Public Works Department Exhibit B The Board of Supervi., irsJohn Sweeten Contra Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building unty Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Costa Co(925)335-1900 Martinez, CalHornia Cou 94553-1293 L n John Gioia, 1st District % ly Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District January 28,200') Cristina Ferraz, Project Manager Department of Transportation,District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Ms. Ferraz, This letter is intended to provide our response to the Notice of Preparation for the combined Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Caldecott Improvement Project. It includes our comments andut regarding the information that should be inp included in the scope of the environmental analysis for this project. The Board of Supervisors would also like to express their continued interest to study efforts along this corridor that have the potential to alleviate both traffic congestion in addition to managing growth within Contra Costa County. At the agency-scoping meeting on December 3, 2002 staff had the opportunity to-review the proposed project and respond to the various elements of the study that will be included in the scope of the enviroruriental review. The Board of Supervisors also received a presentation on the project by Caltrans staff on January 28, 2003. Based on the scoping ineeting and the board presentation we offer the followinc, comments. I n ■ The study should examine what affects the additional tunnel capacity will have on the operation I- 680 (South) through the San Ramon Valley. Specifically if there is a potential that the additional capacity could cause existing downstream congestion on this route to worsen and if so outline what measures would be proposed to mitigate these IMPi acts. ■ The study should evaluate the need for ramp metering. There may be a need to address potential freeway and local road operational issues associated with the Project. Given the fact that the bottleneck that now results in traffic delays will potentially be removed by the additional tunnel capacity, ramp metering may or may not assist with management of the increased traffic flows along the affected corridors. Ramp metering may improve freeway operations, but could negatively impact local roads. 0 9 The scope of the stud), should consider how HOV lanes, enhanced transit service and the addition of Park &Fide facilities could be integrated into the project. X State Route 24 has grades on it that affect the movement of heavy truck traffic. The long-term forecasts of this study should include truck traffic and the potential increased use of this route by trucks in the future and flieff impacts on congestion levels. Ms. Ferraz Letter January 28,2003 Page 2 of 2 • The Claremont Tunnel is an existing tunnel that travels 130 feet undercTound transporting water from the EB-MUD Water Treatment Plant in Orinda to residents in the Oakland/Berkley Hills. The tunnel is currently under going seismic upgrades and improvements. The scope of the study should take into consideration the location of this tunnel given its proximity to the project area and measures should be taken avoid any impacts to this water system. It would be beneficial if an ongoing forum to discuss the issues affecting the tunnel and the corridors it serves were created out of the scoping process. This forum would help address the interest of the numerous cities and the two counties that are affected by this important project, and would help in the preparation of a complete and adequate enviromnental document. Please call Hillary Heard of the Community Development Department, 925-335-1278, if you have any questions regarding this response. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier Chair, Board of Supervisors /HH:mlk cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board CAO M.Shiu,CCPAAID G:\Transportation\Hillary\Letters\Draft\Caldcott tunnel draft.rev.doc The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen County Administration Building Costa Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 106 and Martinez,California 94553-1293 County County Administrator (925)335-1900 John Gioia,1st District Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District Mary N.Piepho,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District ` Federal D.Glover,5th District v pp 7 G3 July 11, 2006 Gregory C. McConnell, Sr. Environmental Planner Department of Transportation, District 4 Environmental Analysis Mail Station 8B PO Box 23660 Oakland, CA 9462.3-0660 Dear Mr. McConnell: This letter.provides our comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR) for the proposed Caldecott Improvement Project. In addition to these comments, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would also like to express its support for Caltrans to proceed expeditiously to construct this important project, which was part of the program of projects overwhelming approved by Contra Costa voters with the passage of Measure J in 2004. At the public hearing on June 7, 2006 staff had the opportunity to review the proposed alternatives and the impact analysis that has been performed as part of the environmental review process. Based on the information presented at the public hearing and our review of the documents, the County would like to offer the following comments. Please note these comments are consistent with the County's response dated January 28, 2003 to the Notice of Preparation for this project. ■ The study does not appear to have examined what effects additional tunnel capacity might have on the operation of 1-680 through the San Ramon Valley. There may be the potential for southbound congestion to worsen downstream on this freeway with the,advent of two eastbound tunnel bores being open at all times. This additional capacity may even provide a quicker route for commuters destined for employment centers in San Ramon and Pleasanton who currently use I-580 through Dublin Canyon because of existing traffic delay at the tunnel. Currently eastbound traffic is delayed at the tunnel when only one bore is open during the AM peak period. Our greatest concern is during the AM peak period when congestion on 1-680 is most significant between Walnut Creek and Alamo where the southbound freeway drops from six lanes to three lanes plus High- Occupancy Vehicle lane. The potential increase in congestion should be analyzed and, if warranted, measures should be proposed that would mitigate these impacts. The study appears to address these impacts to some extent on the I-580 corridor within Alameda County. We ask that a similar analysis be performed for the I-680 corridor south of State Route 24. Mr. Gregory C. McConnell Draft EA/EIR for the Proposed Caldecott Improvement Project July 11, 2006 Page Two ■ The study indicates that additional tunnel capacity created with the two and three lane bore alternatives would significantly improve traffic flow on the freeway, and as a result no mitigation measures are warranted or recommended. Consequently, the reader is to infer that that evaluation of mitigation measures such as ramp metering would not be necessary. ■ The study includes an analysis associated with how this project might impact other related improvement projects in the area inclusive of the Claremont Tunnel Seismic Upgrade Project. It is our understanding that the impacts have been evaluated and CaITRANS will be coordinating and consulting with the East Bay Municipal Utility District regarding the construction of these two important projects. ■ The study includes an analysis of project consistency with the Resource Management Plan for the Caldecott Wildlife Corridor (Plan), a planning effort that involved the County, but does not provide adequately detailed information on how the project will avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to the biological functions of the wildlife corridor to support the conclusion that the project and mitigation measures are consistent with the recommendations of the Plan. To the extent that offsite habitat preservation and restoration are required to mitigate impacts identified in the EIR and/or to comply with conditions of permits and approvals needed from the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, those mitigation actions should occur within the Caldecott Wildlife Corridor and should assist with meeting the goals of the Plan. Based on our interpretation of the Draft EA/EIR, the study does not fully evaluate all potentially significant impacts associated with the project alternatives as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Should our interpretation be determined to be correct, the Final EA/EIR for the Caldecott Improvement Project should include an evaluation of these impacts and if warranted identify measures that would mitigate these impacts. Please contact Hillary Heard of the Community Development Department at 925-335-1278 if you have any questions regarding the comments in this letter. Sin erely, John Gioia Chair, Board of Supervisors .IG\HH\mlk c: Cristina Ferraz,Project Manager,CalTRANS Dist.4 Phillip Cox,Sr.Transportation Engineer,CalTRANS Dist.4 Dennis M. Barry,AlCP,Community Development Director Steven L. Goetz,CDD-Deputy Director—Transportation John Kopchik,CDD-Conservation Programs Patrick Roche,CDD-Chief of Comprehensive Planning John Pulliam, Public:Works Department