SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. 2 PC: 4-9-92 GP-89-11 Page 9 The Final EIR recommends that the developer be required to provide an adequate level of external, commute-oriented transit service for the first residents and workers, as required by policy of the recently adopted San Joaquin County Congestion Management Program. The initial transit service that the developer should fund could consist of dial-a-ride or limited fixed-route service to the nearest urban center (Tracy) or transit hub. Later phases of the project would support commuter bus service to major employment areas in San Joaquin and Alameda Counties. The FEIR also recommends that the developer should be responsible for funding transit connections between the project site and future transit service endpoints (e.g., BART in Dublin or Livermore), when warranted by commuter demand. The analysis in the EIR assumes that Countywide TDM efforts could result in a decrease of about five percent in peak-hour roadway volumes by the year 2010. However, the Moutain House TDM program may be expected to achieve a higher overall rate of solo automobile trip reduction due to location advantages and the implementation of more aggressive programs proposed by the project sponsor(such as home-end as well as work trip-end TDM measures). An overall trip reduction of 10 to 15 percent may be possible, although the FEIR analysis and mitigation measures have assumed only a modest five percent reduction in peak-hour trips. TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS: The transportaion analysis in the Final EIR analyzed two separate project scenarios, based upon two different assumptions about the number of jobs which could be expected to be created on the site by the year 2010. The 'Proposed Project' scenario assumed full buildout of the housing and full buildout of all the jobs projected by the developer(approximately 19,000 jobs) by the year 2010. In contrast,the'Market Constraint' scenario assumed that only a portion of the jobs (44 percent) would actually be created by the year 2010 due to other market competition in the County and region. The FOR transportation analysis indicates that the Proposed Project scenario would generate up to 249,000 daily vehicle trips,while the Market Constraint scenario would generate 177,000 daily vehicle trips. Although the Proposed Project scenario would generate more daily trips,the greatest impacts to roadways off the Mountain House site occur under the Market Constraint scenario. This is due to the difference in those trips that would remain internal to the project site, e.g., residents of the new community driving to jobs and shopping opportunities within the community. The transportation model used for the FEIR analysis indicates that the portion of total trips (work, shopping, and other trips) generated by the Proposed Project scenario which would be internal trips could be as high as 72 percent by the year 2010, as opposed to 51 percent internal trips for the Market Constraint scenario. The portion of daily work trips that would remain internal to the project site under both alternatives is much lower, 45 percent and 24 percent, respectively. The transportation impacts to regional roadways due to the Market Constraint scenario (partial buildout of jobs on the site) is generally greater than the Proposed Project scenario. Thus, mitigation measures for the project have been based upon this worst-case analysis. The Market Constraint scenario would add approximately 17,000 average daily trips to the 1-580 freeway at the Altamont Pass by the year 2010, as well as another 15,700 to 21,600 additional trips to the 1-205 freeway east of the project site. These new trips would contribute significantly to the cumulative projected traffic growth and Level of Service deficiencies on the roadway system in the southern part of the County. Some of these impacts would be unavoidable and significant.