Final EIR - pages 261 - 402

City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR List of Commenters and Responses to Comments Individual Commenters ‐ Master Response #2 FirstCarbon Solutions 2‐251 City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR List of Commenters and Responses to Comments Individual Commenters ‐ Master Response #2 The following comment letters (starting with Alexander and ending with Witt) are a set of essentially identical letters received by the City of Walnut Creek. Overall, these comment letters consist of a cover letter that states opposition to the proposed Project and references an attached comment letter, a photo, and a prior Transportation Assessment prepared by Fehr and Peers for a previously proposed yet completely unrelated McDonald’s restaurant in the Project area. Responses to the attached comment letter, photo, and Transportation Assessment are provided in Response to Comments Alexander‐1 through Alexander‐22, which are found immediately after the following letter and attachments. Since each of these comment letters are essentially identical, only the Alexander Comment Letter contains the entire letter with attachments. To conserve space, only the cover letters have been provided for the remaining 49 letters. FirstCarbon Solutions 2‐253 Alexander
Page 1 of 83
Alexander
Page 2 of 83
COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
SAFEWAY’S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE SHADELANDS
ECONOMIC BLIGHT AND URBAN DECAY

Safeway’s supermarket is expected to result in the closure of Nob Hill and the loss of
3,500 daily customers from Citrus Marketplace
The Urban Decay Analysis leaves little doubt of the economic blight that will result if the
City permits Safeway to build a supermarket in the Shadelands. The Urban Decay Analysis
states:
●
The “success of [Safeway’s] Project and cumulative projects will occur to the
detriment of other food stores. ... [T]he Nob Hill would have become one of only
three grocery stores at the Ygnacio Valley Road and Oak Grove Road commercial
node.”1
●
The addition of Safeway’s proposed 55,000 square foot supermarket in the
Shadelands and Whole Foods’ 37,500 square foot replacement of Safeway in the
Encina Grande shopping center will “more than double the increment of existing
grocery store space. … ALH Economics believes this is more grocery space than
can be supported at this market location.”2
●
“ALH Economics believes that one existing grocery store in the Walnut Creek
and Concord area could close, with the Nob Hill Grocery comprising a strong
candidate for closure, and possibly one other, not as clearly identified store.”3
Safeway’s proposed supermarket in the Shadelands would cannibalize business from Nob
Hill in the Citrus Marketplace shopping center and drive Nob Hill out of business. This would
also deny Citrus Marketplace of the anchor tenant that brings customers to the other businesses
there, compounding the economic blight wrought by Safeway’s supermarket. Nob Hill generates
more than 3,500 customers who drive to the Citrus Marketplace shopping center every day,
without even counting the many Nob Hill customers who walk from the Woodlands to Nob Hill.4
When Nob Hill closes after Safeway starves it of business, more than 3,500 daily customers will
be lost to Citrus Marketplace.
1
Urban Decay Analysis, p. 4.
Urban Decay Analysis, p. 52.
3
Urban Decay Analysis, p. 53.
4
Nob Hill is 38,000 square feet. [Urban Decay Analysis, p. 52.] According to the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, a grocery store is expected to generate 92.25 daily car trips for every thousand square feet. [Traffic
Impact Study, Trip Generation Assumptions Memorandum (Appendix E), Table 1.] This equates to 38 X 92.25 or
3,506 car trips of customers to Nob Hill every day.
2
1
Alexander
Page 3 of 83

ALH Economics arbitrarily overlooked urban decay right across the street from
Citrus Marketplace
Right across the street from Citrus Marketplace is the graffiti-ridden site at 2153 Oak
Grove (the former location of the HMS Endeavor restaurant at the northwest corner of Oak
Grove and Shadelands).5 This property had apparently become a shelter for transients who may
have inadvertently set fire to the vacant building at the site.6 Three years later, the property is
still vacant and rundown. The property is a textbook example of urban decay, with “visible
symptoms of physical deterioration that invite vandalism, loitering and graffiti.”7
Despite the presence of urban decay directly across the street from Citrus Marketplace,
ALH Economics inexplicably “found there were little-to-no visible signs” of urban decay in the
market area for Safeway’s proposed shopping center.8 As well, even though the City of Walnut
Creek has allowed the property at 2153 Oak Grove to fester for years, “ALH Economics
concludes that existing measures to maintain private commercial property in good condition in
Walnut Creek … are generally effective.”9 Like the City of Walnut Creek, ALH Economics
ignored urban decay that is right across the street from Citrus Marketplace.
Thanks to Safeway’s proposed shopping center, a vacant Nob Hill and a deteriorating
Citrus Marketplace may become an environmental nuisance at the gateway to the Woodlands
neighborhood. ALH Economics anticipates economic blight at Citrus Marketplace when
Safeway’s proposed supermarket results in the closure of Nob Hill.10 The Urban Decay Analysis
should then accurately evaluate the environmental impact of the economic blight that Safeway’s
supermarket is expected to create, by acknowledging the urban decay directly across the street
from Citrus Marketplace.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The DEIR is internally inconsistent. The Urban Decay Analysis anticipates that
Safeway’s proposed supermarket in the Shadelands will take sales from Nob Hill and drive it out
of business. With Nob Hill closed, more than 3,500 car trips of former Nob Hill customers will
be diverted to Oak Grove and Ygnacio Valley to drive somewhere else for groceries.11 The
DEIR’s Traffic Impact Study does not account for this additional traffic that will result from the
diversion of Nob Hill’s customers elsewhere. This additional 3,500 cars daily on Ygnacio
Valley and Oak Grove, currently unaccounted for by the Traffic Impact Study, will create a
number of significant impacts on traffic in the community. The Traffic Impact Study should
account for those impacts so that the City and the community can be accurately informed of the
severity of the traffic problems that Safeway’s proposed supermarket will impose on the area.
5
See Attachment 1, photograph of 2153 Oak Grove.
See http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16788268.
7
Urban Decay Analysis, p. 55.
8
Urban Decay Analysis, p. 65.
9
Urban Decay Analysis, pp. 65-66.
10
Urban Decay Analysis, pp. 4, 54 (“ALH Economics believes that sales impacts are steep enough that some store
closures will likely occur. This is especially the case among grocery stores.”).
11
See FN 4.
6
2
Alexander
Page 4 of 83

Traffic and congestion, already at unacceptable levels, will worsen dramatically
with former Nob Hill customers driving elsewhere for groceries
According to a traffic analysis for a proposal to develop a McDonald’s on Oak
Grove, directly across the street from Safeway’s property in the Shadelands, the “intersection of
Oak Grove Road at Ygnacio Valley Road operates unacceptably in the AM peak hour.”12 The
DEIR’s Traffic Impact Study likewise affirms that the intersection of Ygnacio Valley and Oak
Grove is currently at Level of Service (“LOS”) F during the AM peak hour.13 (The Traffic
Impact Study also states that the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour conditions at the
intersection of Oak Grove Road and Treat Blvd. are also currently at LOS F.14) The Walnut
Creek General Plan defines LOS F conditions as:
“Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Represents jammed conditions. Many cycle
failures. Queues may block upstream intersections.”15
The closure of Nob Hill will result in 3,500 additional cars per day on Ygnacio Valley
and Oak Grove when the former Nob Hill customers are diverted elsewhere to shop for
groceries. The McDonald’s Traffic Study concluded that “a significant impact is expected to
occur at the Ygnacio Valley/Oak Grove Road intersection” due to the additional traffic from a
McDonald’s on Oak Grove.16 The additional 3,500 cars per day on Ygnacio Valley and Oak
Grove of former Nob Hill customers would likewise produce significant impacts on traffic and
congestion. Those impacts should be considered by the DEIR’s Traffic Impact Study so that the
City can make an informed decision about the scope of the traffic and congestion impacts from
Safeway’s proposed shopping center.

Safeway’s proposed shopping center will create traffic conditions that violate
Walnut Creek’s General Plan
The Walnut Creek General Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation, Policy 3.1 is to:
“Maintain the level of service standards for roadways shown in Figure 2 for the
City’s transportation network.”17
Specifically, the General Plan’s “Roadway Level of Service Standards” is for a “[p]eak hour
average speed” of at least 15 mph on Ygnacio Valley Road and LOS of high D on Oak Grove
Road.18 The intersection of Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove is already at LOS F during the AM
12
Attachment 2, Preliminary Transportation Assessment for Citrus Circle McDonald’s, Dec. 8, 2010 (“McDonald’s
Traffic Study”), p. 5.
13
Traffic Impact Study for Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan, Dec. 13, 2013, Appendix J to DEIR (“Traffic Impact
Study”), Appendix D to Traffic Impact Study, Delay Index Calculations, Existing Conditions, AM Peak Hour, p. 2.
14
Traffic Impact Study, Appendix D to Safeway’s Traffic Study, Delay Index Calculations, Existing Conditions,
AM Peak Hour, p. 1; PM Peak Hour; Existing Conditions, PM Peak Hour, p. 1.
15
Walnut Creek General Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation, p. 5-5.
16
Attachment 2, McDonald’s Traffic Study, p. 15.
17
Walnut Creek General Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation, p. 5-7.
18
Walnut Creek General Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation, p. 5-5.
3
Alexander
Page 5 of 83
Peak Hour.19 As well, the east-bound AM Peak Hour speed at Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove is
11.9 mph, which is already below the General Plan’s standard of a minimum speed of 15.0
mph.20 The east-bound PM Peak Hour speed at Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove is currently 15.8
mph, less than 1 mph above the General Plan’s minimum speed.21
The DEIR should consider the impact on the Walnut Creek General Plan’s Transportation
Policy 3.1 from the additional 3,500 cars of former Nob Hill customers that will be diverted onto
Oak Grove and Ygnacio Valley every day. Only with that information in the EIR can any
rezoning of the Safeway property be done in compliance with General Plan’s Transportation
Action 3.1.1, which “require[s] that new development meet intersection LOS standards.”22

Diversion of former Nob Hill customers to other supermarkets will negatively
impact traffic on local streets, queuing at Safeway’s proposed shopping center, and
drivers weaving across traffic lanes after exiting the development
●
Additional traffic on local streets
The Traffic Impact Study states:
Safeway’s proposed shopping center “would likely result in both a redistribution
of traffic within the neighborhoods [south of Ygnacio Valley] and an increase in
traffic on these residential streets. The redistribution of traffic would be a result
of drivers, including both regional and local residents, who obtain services from
[Safeway’s proposed shopping center] that were previously obtained elsewhere.23
This assessment of the impact on local streets does not even account for the 3,500 additional cars
of former Nob Hill customers that will be diverted onto Oak Grove and Ygnacio Valley to drive
to alternative sources groceries. This additional volume of cars will further exacerbate the
congestion at the intersection of Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove. To avoid that congestion, more
residents south of Ygnacio Valley will seek these local-street alternatives to passing through that
intersection. That will further increase the volume of traffic on residential streets such as Via
Monte, Wiget, and the residential streets that feed into them. As well, the former Nob
Hill customers will have to drive out of the Woodlands via the intersections of Citrus and Oak
Grove or Peachwillow and Oak Grove to drive to other supermarkets, increasing the volume of
traffic on Citrus, Peachwillow, and their intersections with Oak Grove.24
19
Traffic Impact Study, Appendix D to Safeway’s Traffic Study, Delay Index Calculations, Existing Conditions,
AM Peak Hour, p. 2.
20
Id.
21
Traffic Impact Study, Appendix D to Safeway’s Traffic Study, Delay Index Calculations, Existing Conditions,
PM Peak Hour, p. 2.
22
Walnut Creek General Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation, p. 5-7. See also Walnut Creek General Plan, Chapter 5,
Transportation, pp. 5-1 to 5-2, which identifies Ygnacio Valley Road as a route of regional significance and
establishes Goal 1 to “Minimize future increases in congestion on regional transportation facilities.”
23
Traffic Impact Study, p. 37.
24
The Traffic Impact Study says that “residents living north of Ygnacio Valley Road that patronize the existing
grocery store would have a slightly shorter journey to reach [Safeway’s supermarket in the Shadelands], and would
no longer need to cross Ygnacio Valley Road to visit the relocated store.” [Traffic Impact Study, p. 37.] This
comment is an example of the DEIR’s internal inconsistency, between the Urban Decay Analysis and the Traffic
4
Alexander
Page 6 of 83
●
Queuing problems worse with 3,500 additional cars
Even without accounting for the additional 3,500 cars of former Nob Hill customers
driving on Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove, the Traffic Impact Study found significant queuing
problems during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.25 The Traffic Impact Study should evaluate the
additional scope of these queuing problems in light of the addition of former Nob Hill shoppers
diverted on to Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove to drive to other supermarkets.
●
More cars weaving across lanes of traffic upon exiting Safeway’s shopping
center
“Drivers exiting [Safeway’s shopping center] onto Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove would
enter a multi-lane street near signalized intersections. Some of these drivers may want to cross
multiple through travel lanes to access left-turn lanes at the adjacent intersection, resulting in
weaving maneuvers.”26 The addition of 3,500 cars of former Nob Hill customers, unaccounted
for in the Traffic Impact Study, will exacerbate the impact on traffic and congestion of these
weaving maneuvers. The Traffic Impact Study should address these impacts so an informed
opinion can be made about Safeway’s proposed shopping center.

Traffic Impact Study’s collision data is inconsistent with prior traffic study’s
collision data
The Traffic Impact Study says that during the 60-month period between April 2007 and
April 2012, forty-six auto collisions occurred at the intersection of Oak Grove and Ygnacio
Valley.27 Meanwhile, the McDonald’s Traffic Study said that during the 44-month period from
January 2007 to August 2010, fifty-one auto collisions occurred at the intersection of Oak Grove
and Ygnacio Valley.28
The collision data in the McDonald’s Traffic Study is based on a shorter period of time
than the collision data in the Traffic Impact Study, and the period for collision data in the
McDonald’s Traffic Study is almost entirely a subset of the period for collision data in the
Traffic Impact Study. Yet during its shorter period, the McDonald’s Traffic Study shows 5
collisions more than the Traffic Impact Study (51 collisions vs. 46 collisions). It appears that
some number of collisions in the McDonald’s Traffic Study are not accounted for in the Traffic
Impact Study and the Traffic Impact Study may not be counting other collisions. Given the
increasing number of auto collisions that will occur if Safeway is permitted to develop its
Impact Study. When Nob Hill closes, as the Urban Decay Analysis says is likely, then all former Nob Hill
customers from the Woodlands who are diverted to shopping at Safeway will need to cross Oak Grove to enter
Safeway’s shopping center, and then upon exiting, drive on Ygnacio Valley, North Via Monte, Shadelands Drive,
Oak Grove, and then Peachwillow or Citrus to return to the Woodlands. Consequently, many more Woodlands
residents’ cars will be a heavier presence on neighborhood streets if they are diverted to Safeway for groceries after
Nob Hill closes.
25
Traffic Impact Study, p. 40-41.
26
Traffic Impact Study, p. 39.
27
Traffic Impact Study, p. 9.
28
Attachment 2, McDonald’s Traffic Study, Attachment A: Collision Data.
5
Alexander
Page 7 of 83
shopping center in the Shadelands, the inconsistency between the collision data in the Traffic
Impact Study and the collision data in the McDonald’s Traffic Study should be explained so that
the a decision regarding Safeway’s requested rezoning can be based on accurate collision data.

Pedestrian safety compromised when Safeway’s supermarket prompts the closure of
Nob Hill and Woodlands residents must then cross Oak Grove to walk to a
supermarket
The closure of Nob Hill will not only divert thousands of additional cars onto Oak Grove
and Ygnacio Valley. It will also require all Woodlands residents who walked or biked to Nob
Hill to cross Oak Grove by foot to shop at Safeway in the Shadelands. Safeway also expects
many pedestrians to cross Ygnacio Valley to access Safeway’s shopping center from the south.
At the June 27, 2013 meeting of the City’s Transportation Commission, during a discussion of
pedestrian safety concerns regarding Safeway’s proposal, a commission member asked “what
price do you put on safety?” Because Safeway’s shopping center would cause so many
pedestrians to be exposed to the traffic on Oak Grove and Ygnacio Valley, the full scope of these
safety concerns should be evaluated by the Traffic Impact Study. This evaluation of pedestrian
safety impacts should include the impact of pedestrians from the Woodlands having to cross Oak
Grove to buy groceries in the Shadelands after Safeway prompts Nob Hill to close.
IMPACT OF THE REST OF THE SHADELANDS RECEIVING THE SAME
REZONING AS SAFEWAY
Safeway comes before the City asking for its property in the Shadelands to be rezoned to
less restrictive zoning than the zoning of the other Shadelands properties. In essence, Safeway is
asking the City for favorable spot zoning of Safeway’s property in the Shadelands. No public
need exists to justify this spot zoning. However, if despite the overwhelming evidence that
Safeway’s requested rezoning would not be in the public interest, the City concludes to the
contrary, than the City will be opening itself up to claims by the owners of the other Shadelands
property owners that they are entitled to the same rezoning that the City will have granted to
Safeway. Therefore, the EIR should consider the impacts if the rest of the Shadelands properties
obtain the same rezoning as Safeway is requesting.
PLANNING PRINCIPLES WILL BE VIOLATED
The City’s Advisory Committee for Safeway’s proposed shopping center issued eleven
Planning Principles for any development at this property.29 Several of these Planning Principles
would be violated if the City gives Safeway the rezoning it seeks. Specifically:

29
30
Planning Principle 2:
“Establish a family friendly mix of uses that supports the needs of neighborhood
residents while, at the same time, being economically viable for the landowner. Retail
uses should be neighborhood oriented retail rather than destination or big box retail.”30
DEIR, p. 2-8.
Id.
6
Alexander
Page 8 of 83
The Urban Decay Analysis is clear that the neighborhood residents do not need Safeway’s
proposed supermarket in the Shadelands. A rezoning that permits this supermarket will violate
Planning Principle 2.

Planning Principle 6:
“Minimize traffic impacts and improve circulation through land use selection, enhanced
mobility options, and transportation improvements. Minimize increased through traffic
in the Woodlands neighborhood.”31
After Nob Hill closes, traffic impacts and circulation will worsen, not improve. As well, former
Nob Hill customers in the Woodlands will need to drive out of the Woodlands to shop for
groceries, which will increase through traffic in the Woodlands neighborhood. The additional
distance for pedestrians to walk to Safeway instead of Nob Hill will also prompt some
Woodlands residents to drive to Safeway when they would have walked to Nob Hill, increasing
the through traffic in the Woodlands. Therefore, a rezoning that permits Safeway to develop a
supermarket in the Shadelands will violate Planning Principle 6.

Planning Principle 7:
“Establish a multimodal circulation network that balances the needs for safety and
comfort of pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers and transit riders. Promote ways to enhance
connections to downtown Walnut Creek, BART, and surrounding neighborhoods.”32
By locating a shopping center on the non-residential sides of Ygnacio Valley and Oak Grove,
Safeway will be prompting many more pedestrians and bicyclists to cross those busy streets. In
addition, when Safeway’s supermarket prompts the closure of Nob Hill, Woodlands pedestrians
who would have walked to Nob Hill will need to cross Oak Grove to shop for groceries.
Accordingly, Safeway’s requested rezoning would violate Planning Principle 7.

Planning Principle 11:
“Promote the success and viability of the site and adjacent commercial centers.”33
While the rezoning Safeway requests would be a windfall of tens of millions of dollars to
Safeway, it will lead to economic blight at Citrus Marketplace, particularly after Safeway’s
supermarket prompts the closure of Nob Hill. Therefore, a rezoning that permits Safeway to
develop a supermarket in the Shadelands will violate Planning Principle 11.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IGNORES THE MOST
APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE TO SAFEWAY’S REQUESTED REZONING
As described above, the supermarket that Safeway wants to build in the Shadelands
would produce many of the most significant negative impacts that will be imposed on the
neighborhood from this development. If Safeway’s proposed shopping center did not include a
supermarket, these impacts would be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, the most
31
DEIR, p. 2-9.
Id.
33
DEIR, p. 2-9.
32
7
Alexander
Page 9 of 83
appropriate alternative to Safeway’s proposal is a development that does not permit Safeway to
build a supermarket in the Shadelands. This alternative may not be to Safeway’s liking but this
alternative is no less feasible than Safeway’s current proposal, which would leave Citrus
Marketplace without a supermarket as an anchor tenant. Accordingly, the EIR should fully
consider as an alternative a rezoning that does not include a supermarket in the Shadelands.
CONCLUSION
Just because Safeway, the owner of this property, is also Safeway the supermarket
corporation, does not justify rezoning the property to permit Safeway to build a shopping center
with a supermarket on the property, especially when the reasons against this supermarket are so
compelling. Particularly in light of all of the negative impacts that Safeway’s development
would impose on the community, City approval of Safeway’s requested rezoning would be
arbitrary and capricious.
8
Alexander
Page 10 of 83
Urban Decay at 2153 Oak Grove
Alexander
Page 11 of 83
Alexander
Page 12 of 83
Alexander
Page 13 of 83
Alexander
Page 14 of 83
Alexander
Page 15 of 83
Alexander
Page 16 of 83
Alexander
Page 17 of 83
Alexander
Page 18 of 83
Alexander
Page 19 of 83
Alexander
Page 20 of 83
Alexander
Page 21 of 83
Alexander
Page 22 of 83
Alexander
Page 23 of 83
Alexander
Page 24 of 83
Alexander
Page 25 of 83
Alexander
Page 26 of 83
Alexander
Page 27 of 83
Alexander
Page 28 of 83
Alexander
Page 29 of 83
Alexander
Page 30 of 83
Alexander
Page 31 of 83
Alexander
Page 32 of 83
Alexander
Page 33 of 83
Alexander
Page 34 of 83
Alexander
Page 35 of 83
Alexander
Page 36 of 83
Alexander
Page 37 of 83
Alexander
Page 38 of 83
Alexander
Page 39 of 83
Alexander
Page 40 of 83
Alexander
Page 41 of 83
Alexander
Page 42 of 83
Alexander
Page 43 of 83
Alexander
Page 44 of 83
Alexander
Page 45 of 83
Alexander
Page 46 of 83
Alexander
Page 47 of 83
Alexander
Page 48 of 83
Alexander
Page 49 of 83
Alexander
Page 50 of 83
Alexander
Page 51 of 83
Alexander
Page 52 of 83
Alexander
Page 53 of 83
Alexander
Page 54 of 83
Alexander
Page 55 of 83
Alexander
Page 56 of 83
Alexander
Page 57 of 83
Alexander
Page 58 of 83
Alexander
Page 59 of 83
Alexander
Page 60 of 83
Alexander
Page 61 of 83
Alexander
Page 62 of 83
Alexander
Page 63 of 83
Alexander
Page 64 of 83
Alexander
Page 65 of 83
Alexander
Page 66 of 83
Alexander
Page 67 of 83
Alexander
Page 68 of 83
Alexander
Page 69 of 83
Alexander
Page 70 of 83
Alexander
Page 71 of 83
Alexander
Page 72 of 83
Alexander
Page 73 of 83
Alexander
Page 74 of 83
Alexander
Page 75 of 83
Alexander
Page 76 of 83
Alexander
Page 77 of 83
Alexander
Page 78 of 83
Alexander
Page 79 of 83
Alexander
Page 80 of 83
Alexander
Page 81 of 83
Alexander
Page 82 of 83
Alexander
Page 83 of 83
City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR List of Commenters and Responses to Comments Christy Alexander ‐ February 20, 2014 Response to Comment Alexander‐1 The comment states that the author is against the Project and that it will have a deleterious effect on the local area. The comment is one of many identical comment letters received by the City of Walnut Creek. The comment states opposition to the proposed Project and includes an attached comment letter, a photo, and a prior Transportation Assessment prepared by Fehr and Peers for a previously proposed yet completely unrelated McDonald’s restaurant in the Project area. Responses to these attached comments, photo, and Transportation Assessment are provided as follows. Response to Comment Alexander‐2 The comment states a concern about the proposed Project’s potential impact on urban decay. Refer to Attachment 1, ALH Economics’ Master Response to Comments Memo, for response to this comment. See also the response to Comment CCBCTC‐1 above. Response to Comment Alexander‐3 The comment states a concern about the proposed Project’s potential impact on the adjacent Citrus Center Marketplace. Refer to Attachment 1, ALH Economics’ Master Response to Comments Memo, for response to this comment. See also the response to Comment CCBCTC‐1 above. Response to Comment Alexander‐4 The comment states a concern regarding a site the author claims is evidence of blight across the street from the Citrus Center Marketplace. The property in question formerly housed a restaurant and was completely destroyed by fire. The comment does not offer any evidence of how a single fire‐damaged property constitutes blight or urban decay, and does not offer any information as to other factors impacting the property’s desirability or future use. The existence of this property does not refute the analysis or conclusions of the Urban Decay Analysis in Appendix K to the Draft EIR. Also, refer to Attachment 1, ALH Economics’ Master Response to Comments Memo, for response to this comment. See also the response to Comment CCBCTC‐1 above. Response to Comment Alexander‐5 The comment states a concern about the proposed Project’s potential impact on the adjacent Citrus Center Marketplace. Refer to Attachment 1, ALH Economics’ Master Response to Comments Memo, for response to this comment. See also the response to Comment CCBCTC‐1 above. FirstCarbon Solutions 2‐337 List of Commenters and Responses to Comments City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Response to Comment Alexander‐6 The comment states a concern about the proposed Project’s potential impact on the adjacent Citrus Center Marketplace. Refer to Attachment 1, ALH Economics’ Master Response to Comments Memo, for response to this comment. See also the Response to Comment CCBCTC‐1 above. Response to Comment Alexander‐7 The comment states that the Urban Decay Analysis concludes that the Citrus Marketplace Nob Hill will close, but that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze traffic impacts resulting from this closure. The Draft EIR traffic analysis considered all trips to Safeway as new trips rather than diverted from other locations. In this regard, the traffic analysis provided a conservative approach, as trips from other grocery stores were not assumed to be removed or diverted. While it is possible that trips to the new Safeway would come from people now shopping at other stores, it was also assumed that traffic to those stores would remain, or if the store closed, it would be re‐purposed and generate its own traffic at a level similar to today. Therefore, the traffic analysis assessed a worst‐case scenario for potential traffic impacts in the study area. Response to Comment Alexander‐8 The comment cites a prior traffic analysis for a proposed McDonald’s location on Oak Grove Drive and states that the Draft EIR’s traffic analysis is inadequate as it fails to account for traffic impacts from the anticipated Nob Hill closure. There is no McDonald’s restaurant currently planned in this area. This proposed restaurant is no longer under consideration. The issues regarding traffic and Nob Hill are discussed in Response to Comment Alexander‐7 and Alexander‐
9. Response to Comment Alexander‐9 The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to account for traffic from the anticipated Nob Hill closure and that the increased traffic will result in conditions that violate the City’s General Plan. Intersection LOS standards applied to this analysis are reported in the Draft EIR on pages Tables 3.13‐3, 3.13‐4 and 3.13‐5. Since the intersection of Ygnacio Valley Road/Oak Grove Road is part of a route of regional significance (Ygnaico Valley Road), the City of Walnut Creek has not established a significance threshold for the intersection. Instead, the route is to be analyzed as a whole using the delay index methodology described in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR traffic analysis calculated the changes in delays and speeds and service levels and concluded that the project would not result in significant impacts on Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard corridors or intersections studied along Oak Grove Road based on the City’s General Plan standards and significance criteria. Corridor speeds are projected to remain above 15 mph on both Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard and the LOS for study intersections along Oak Grove Road would be LOS C or better. 2‐338 FirstCarbon Solutions M:\DriveT@VOL1\wpwin\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110005\EIR\5 ‐ RTC\36110005 Sec02‐00 Shadelands RTC List of Commenters and Response to Comments_5.12.14.doc City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR List of Commenters and Responses to Comments The issues regarding traffic impacts that may occur in the event Nob Hill closes are discussed in Response to Comment Alexander‐7. Response to Comment Alexander‐10 The comment states that the Draft EIR should account for an increase in traffic from 3,500 former Nob Hill customers who will be diverted onto Oak Grove Road and Ygnacio Valley Road. Refer to Responses to Comments Alexander‐9, ‐11, and ‐12. Response to Comment Alexander‐11 The comment states that the anticipated Nob Hill closure will result in additional traffic impacts on local streets. The Draft EIR traffic analysis considered all trips to Safeway as new trips rather than diverted from other locations. In this regard, the traffic analysis provided a conservative approach, as trips from other grocery stores were not assumed to be removed or diverted, as discussed in Response to Comment Alexander‐7. With respect to local streets such as Via Monte, Wiget Lane and Via Monte, the Draft EIR provides an analysis of potential residential street impacts on page 3.13‐54 and concluded that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on these local streets. Response to Comment Alexander‐12 The comment states that the anticipated Nob Hill closure will result in queuing problems. The Draft EIR traffic analysis considered all trips to Safeway as new trips rather than diverted from other locations, as discussed in Response to Comment Alexander‐7. As such, the queuing and weaving evaluations in the Draft EIR are also considered a conservative analysis. The queuing analysis is presented in the Draft EIR on pages 3.13‐57 and 3.13‐58. Although neither the City of Walnut Creek, nor the CCTA have established thresholds related to queuing, it was determined that intersection queuing at Oak Grove Road/Ygnacio Valley Road could pose a potential operational hazard if southbound queues extend to the north beyond the Project driveway on Ygnacio Valley Road. Mitigation Measure TRANS 4‐d would require the construction of an additional southbound left‐turn lane at this intersection. Installation of this second left‐turn lane would reduce the queue lengths, and therefore reduce the potential operational hazard. Additional discussion of driveway weaving maneuvers is provided in Draft EIR Appendix J, pages 39 and 40. Response to Comment Alexander‐13 This comment states that the addition of drivers from the anticipated Nob Hill closure will lead to more cars weaving across lanes of traffic and lead to an increases in traffic congestion. Refer to Responses to Comments Alexander‐9, ‐11, and 12. Response to Comment Alexander‐14 The comment cites prior traffic analysis for a proposed McDonald’s location on Oak Grove Drive and states that the Draft EIR is inconsistent with the data in that analysis with respect to FirstCarbon Solutions 2‐339 List of Commenters and Responses to Comments City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Response to Comments on the Draft EIR collisions. The Draft EIR collision data has been reviewed by the City’s transportation consultant and verified as correct for the time period of April 2007 to April 2012. It is possible that the McDonald’s Traffic Study evaluated collisions for a different time period or based upon a different data set. Furthermore, it is possible that the McDonald’s analysis considered all collisions to have occurred at the intersection. Whereas, for the purpose of the Draft EIR analysis, collisions were identified as either occurring at the intersection or away from the intersection at a mid‐block location. Response to Comment Alexander‐15 The comment states that the anticipated Nob Hill closure will result in additional pedestrian traffic crossing Oak Grove Road and resulting safety concerns. Regardless of whether Nob Hill closes and/or it is replaced with another grocery store or other type of retail tenant, the Draft EIR considered the potential effects to pedestrians crossing Oak Grove. This is presented in Impact TRANS‐6 on pages 3.13‐59 through 3.13‐68 in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analysis concluded that with the implementation of the proposed mitigating measures, impacts to pedestrian access and safety would be less than significant. As explained more fully therein, the Project will entail a number of additional safety measures imposed under Mitigation Measures TRANS‐6a through 6h, which will include new crosswalks along Shadelands Drive and North Via Monte, improved existing crosswalks with current, state‐of‐the‐art, ADA compatible pedestrian safety features, visibility enhancements on existing crosswalks and at new street and driveway crossings, and bulb‐outs (e.g., curb extensions) on internal streets to shorten the distance for pedestrian crossings. Additional discussion of alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian access is, provided in Draft EIR Appendix J, pages 42 through 44. Response to Comment Alexander‐16 The comment states a concern about the proposed Project’s impact on future land use decisions in the Shadelands Business Park. Before the proposed Project will be able to be developed, a number of discretionary approvals by Walnut Creek City Council would be required, which will in part be supported by the discussion, analysis, and findings contained in the Draft EIR. Any future development proposal in the broader Project area wishing to pursue a General Plan Amendment and/or Zoning Amendment will be required to take a similar entitlement approach with the City retaining discretion as to the appropriate land uses, development standards and other applicable development policies that will apply to the broader Shadelands Business Park. In addition, any new application for a General Plan and/or Zoning Amendment will require its own analysis under CEQA. Moreover, the EIR for the Project cannot evaluate wholly speculative impacts from completely hypothetical future projects unrelated to the Project itself. Response to Comment Alexander‐17 The comment states the author’s opinion that the proposed Project “violates” its own Planning Principles, as originally presented in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. In particular, the comment states the author’s claim that the proposed Project is inconsistent with Planning 2‐340 FirstCarbon Solutions M:\DriveT@VOL1\wpwin\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110005\EIR\5 ‐ RTC\36110005 Sec02‐00 Shadelands RTC List of Commenters and Response to Comments_5.12.14.doc City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR List of Commenters and Responses to Comments Principle 2 because “the Urban Decay Analysis is clear that the neighborhood residents do not need Safeway’s proposed supermarket”. Refer to Attachment 1, ALH Economics’ Master Response to Comments Memo for a response to this comment. Additionally, as addressed in Response to Comment CCBCTC‐1, based upon the findings of the Urban Decay Analysis, there is no basis to conclude that the proposed Project, when combined with other cumulative developments, would cause or contribute to urban decay, which could subsequently result in direct and indirect environmental effects. Therefore, based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with Planning Principle 2. Response to Comment Alexander‐18 The comment states the author’s opinion that the proposed Project is inconsistent with Planning Principle 6 because the proposed Project will “worsen” traffic in the Project area. However, as addressed in Response to Comment CCBCTC‐1, and as further detailed in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project will not result in a significant traffic impact on local or regional traffic and circulation under the Existing Year (2013) plus Project Scenario, Design Year (2015) plus Project Scenario, and Cumulative Year (2030) plus Project Scenario. Therefore, based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with Planning Principle 6. Response to Comment Alexander‐19 The comment states the author’s claim that the proposed Project is inconsistent with Planning Principle 7 because the proposed Project will be “prompting many more pedestrians and bicyclists to cross busy streets”. To the contrary, as further detailed in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR, to improve bicycle/pedestrian circulation both on and adjacent to the Project Site, the proposed Project will include new crosswalks along Shadelands Drive and North Via Monte, improved existing crosswalks with current, state‐of‐the‐art, ADA compatible pedestrian safety features, visibility enhancements on existing crosswalks and at new street and driveway crossings, and bulb‐outs (e.g., curb extensions) on internal streets to shorten the distance for bicycle/pedestrian crossings. With these additional measures, patrons and residents on the Project Site will be able to confidently connect to sidewalks/paths, neighborhoods, and regional trails in the Project area. Therefore, based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with Planning Principle 7. Response to Comment Alexander‐20 The comment states the author’s opinion that the proposed Project is inconsistent with Planning Principle 11 because the proposed Project will “lead to economic blight at Citrus Marketplace”. FirstCarbon Solutions 2‐341 List of Commenters and Responses to Comments City of Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan and The Orchards at Walnut Creek Project Response to Comments on the Draft EIR However, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with Planning Principle 11, as further detailed in Attachment 1, ALH Economics’ Master Response to Comments Memo, which confirms that no urban decay will occur. Response to Comment Alexander‐21 The comment states the author’s opinion that the Draft EIR does not evaluate a project alternative involving exclusion of the Safeway grocery store. As further detailed in Section 6, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of a project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of a project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. As further discussed in Draft EIR Section 6, previously conducted research and analysis has confirmed that an approximately 55,000 sq ft of grocery use would be economically viable on the Project Site and is a basic requirement of the Project Applicant, and thus, the proposed 55,000 sq ft of grocery use is considered an integral component of the overall proposed Project and critical for the Applicant. As such, evaluating a project alternative that did not include a Safeway grocery store was considered an infeasible alternative, and thus, was not analyzed. Response to Comment Alexander‐22 The comment states the author’s opinion that rezoning of the Project Site for development of the proposed Project would be “arbitrary and capricious”. However, the comment does not provide specific reasons as to this claim, provide specific commentary on the analysis or findings within the Draft EIR, or specifically address any substantive environmental topic areas as identified by CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, the comment is noted and no further response is necessary. 2‐342 FirstCarbon Solutions M:\DriveT@VOL1\wpwin\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110005\EIR\5 ‐ RTC\36110005 Sec02‐00 Shadelands RTC List of Commenters and Response to Comments_5.12.14.doc [email protected]
6WHYH
6XEMHFW
):6DIHZD\
VSURSRVHGVKRSSLQJFHQWHU&RPPHQW/HWWHUUH'UDIW
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
To the City of Walnut Creek:
I live in a Walnut Creek neighborhood that will be negatively impacted by rezoning the
Shadelands to permit Safeway to develop a shopping center with a supermarket. This
development would not be in the public interest and the Draft Environmental Impact Report
provides inadequate evidence to approve Safeway’s requested rezoning. I am submitting the
attached Comment Letter and Attachments regarding this proposed development.
Sincerely, Colleen and Joseph Casey (428 Dogwood Drive, Walnut Creek)
<COMMENT LETTER--DRAFT EIR FOR SAFEWAY'S PROPOSED
SHOPPING CENTER.pdf><Attachment 1, Urban Decay at 2153 Oak
Grove.pdf><Attachment 2, McDonald's Traffic Study.pdf>
1
[email protected]
6WHYH
6XEMHFW
$WWDFKPHQWV
):6DIHZD\
VSURSRVHGVKRSSLQJFHQWHU&RPPHQW/HWWHUUH'UDIW
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
&200(17/(77(5'5$)7(,5)256$)(:$<
6352326('
6+233,1*&(17(5SGI$WWDFKPHQW8UEDQ'HFD\DW2DN
*URYHSGI$WWDFKPHQW0F'RQDOG
V7UDIILF6WXG\SGI
To the City of Walnut Creek:
I live in a Walnut Creek neighborhood that will be negatively impacted by rezoning the
Shadelands to permit Safeway to develop a shopping center with a supermarket. This
development would not be in the public interest and the Draft Environmental Impact Report
provides inadequate evidence to approve Safeway’s requested rezoning. I am submitting the
attached Comment Letter and Attachments regarding this proposed development.
Sincerely,
Steve Elster
620 Teak Court
Walnut Creek
1
[email protected]
6WHYH
6XEMHFW
):6DIHZD\
VSURSRVHGVKRSSLQJFHQWHU&RPPHQW/HWWHUUH'UDIW
(QYLURQPHQWDO
To the City of Walnut Creek:
I live in a Walnut Creek neighborhood that will be negatively impacted by rezoning the
Shadelands to permit Safeway to develop a shopping center with a supermarket. This
development would not be in the public interest and the Draft Environmental Impact Report
provides inadequate evidence to approve Safeway’s requested rezoning. I am submitting the
attached Comment Letter and Attachments regarding this proposed development.
Sincerely,
Elsie Witt
1