HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 222-05 Fallon Village EIR
RESOLUTION NO. 222 - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
1r * *':1' * *' **** ** ** ** *' I: 11: *' **** ** *1c * **", *' *' * *' *** ** '* *
CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND ADOPTING
MITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE FALWN VILLAGE PROJECT
PA 04-040 and PA 05-038
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a general and specific plan amendment study for the
Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) area (Resolution 167-02). Braddock and Logan submitted a
related general and specific plan amendment and PD-Planned Development district rezoning with Stage I
Development Plan for future development of up to 3,108 dwellings at a variety of densities; up to
2,503,175 square feet of commercial, office, light industrial and mixed use development; two elementary
school sites, parks, utility extensions and open spaces located on an approximately 1,134 acre site located
in an area bounded by 1-580 to the south, Fallon Road and the Dublin Ranch development to the west, the
easterly Dublin city limit line to the east, and the northerly Dublin city limit line to the north. These
applications for the entire 1,134 acre area comprise PA 04-040 and are referred to herein as the "Fallon
Village project" or the "project"; and
WHEREAS, Braddock & Logan also submitted development applications for a portion of the
project area, including a PD-Planned Development District rezoning with Stage 2 Development Plan,
vesting tentative maps, development agreement and lot line adjustment for development of the northerly
488 acres of the project area. These development applications comprise PA-05-038 and are referred to
herein as the "Developer's project" The Developer's project proposes approximately 1,043 single family
lots, a 5 acre neighborhood park, a 4.6 acre neighborhood square, a 10 acre parcel reserved for an
elementary school, and land designated for semi-public uses; and
WHEREAS, the project area is within the Dublin city limits. The southerly 496 acres are within
the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area; the northerly 638 acres lie outside the
EDSP planning area; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future
development of the area. In connection with this approval in 1993, the City certified a program EIR
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 911 03064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum
dated August 22, 1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") that is available for review in
the Planning Department and is incoroorated herein bv reference. The program EIR was integral to the
planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy
alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to
apply to development in Eastern Dublin including the Fallon Village project; and
WHEREAS, in 2002, the City approved an annexation, prezoning and related PD-Planned
Development District Stage I Development Plan for the project area. A Supplemental EIR was certified
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 12/6/05, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 1 of39
for the 2002 project (SCH No. 2001052114, Resolution 40-02), is available for review in the Planning
Department and is incoroorated herein by reference. The 2002Supplemental EIR identified potentially
significant supplemental environmental impacts and related supplemental mitigation measures, which the
City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 40-02).
The 2002 Supplemental EIR mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to the Fallon
Village project; and
WHEREAS, both the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 Supplemental EIR identified potentially
significant environmental impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation. The City adopted Statements
of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA in connection with approval of the 1993 and 2002
projects; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the Fallon Village project consistent with
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR
and 2002 Supplemental EIR was required in order to analyze substantial changes in the project and
circumstances and new information that could result in new or potentially more severe significant impacts
than identified in the previous EIRs; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation dated June 10, 2005 was circulated with the Initial Study to
public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the 2005 Supplemental ErR, and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City
prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated August 2005 (SCH No. 2005062010) and referred to herein as
the 2005 Draft Supplemental EIR. The 2005 Draft Supplemental EIR reflected the independent judgment
of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the project and was circulated for the required 45
day public review period, from August 23, 2005 to October 6, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR dated November 2005 containing
written responses to all comments received during the public review period, which responses provide the
City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop on AprilS, 2005
to provide direction to staff on the project description. The Planning Commission held a study session on
the project on October 25, 2005 Staff reports for the workshops dated AprilS and October 25, 2005,
respectively are incoroorated herein by reference. A staff report dated November 8, 2005, and
incoroorated herein by reference, described and analyzed the 2005 Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs
and the project for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, staff prepared an errata sheet to identify the following clarifications and revisions to
the November 2005 Final Supplemental ErR, which errata are incoroorated herein by reference and
were presented to the Planning Commission at the November 8, 2005 public hearing:
I Page 7 Item 19, Table 4.2.12 was incorrectly printed in the DSEIR due to reliance on an earlier
draft of the transportation analysis of the Fallon Village project, not due to more recent traffic information
as stated in the FSEIR. Table 4.2.12 as shown in the FSEIR is the correct table.
2. Page 8 Item 21 is changed as follows: Amended Supplemental Impact TRA-2 as shown on this
page is replaced by the following amended language on the bottom of page 64 of the DSEIR with the
paragraph beginning with the word "However"
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 2 009
"However, these improvements will not be sufficient to reduce the intersection impacts to an
acceptable LOS during the p.m. peak hour Additional improvements to reduce the impacts at the
Dougherty RoadJDublin Boulevard intersection to an acceptable LOS would require adding a
fourth northbound left turn lane and ether imjlfOvemeHts."
3 Page 12. Page 12 is missing from the Final SEIR, insert p. 12 labeled "This page intentionally
left blank."
4. Page 13 Master Response for Traffic Issues
In first paragraph under Funding and Implementation. delete the second sentence, which reads "Although
not mentioned in the DSEIR, the City also has a Downtown Traffic Impact Fee which is applicable to
Eastern Dublin projects." The City clarifies that the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee is not applicable to
Eastern Dublin projects.
5 Page 46 Table 8 should be titled Table IX, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, the Draft and Final
Supplemental EIRs, and the errata sheet at a noticed public hearing on November 8, 2005 at which time
all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, and based on the record before it, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 05-57 dated November 8, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference
recommending certification of the Supplemental EIR, and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation, a City
Council staff report analyzing the EIR and the Project dated December 6, 2005 and incoroorated herein
by reference. the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs, and all written and oral testimony, at a noticed
public hearing on December 6, 2005, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs, including the errata items listed above,
reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and
constitute the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Fallon Village project; and
WHEREAS, the Project would have significant effects on the environment, most of which can be
substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include
mitigations and mitigation findings as set forth in Part A below; and
WHEREAS, some of the significant effects cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant;
therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Part
B below, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Part C below; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is contained
in Part D below;
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs are separately bound documents,
incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City planning department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568, files P-04-040 and P-05-038
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 1 009
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the following.
1 The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines
2. The Dublin City Council reviewed and considered the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and
considered the 1993 program EIR and the 2002 Supplemental EIR prior to approving the Project.
3 The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis
on the potential for environmental impacts of the Fallon Village Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby adopts mitigation measures,
findings, overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Fallon
Village project as follows:
Part A. Findings concerning impacts and mitigation measures
Part B Findings regarding alternatives
Part C Statement of overriding considerations
Part D' Mitigation monitoring and reporting program
Part A: Findings concerning impacts and mitigation measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15163(e),
the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant
supplemental environmental impacts from the Fallon Village project and means for mitigating those
impacts. All mitigation measures previously adopted through the 1993 and 2002 approvals continue to
apply to the Project unless modified herein. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the
following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final
Supplemental EIRs (SEIRs) should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and
mitigations. Findings pursuant to Section 21081(c) relating to Project alternatives are made in Part B
Supplemental Impact TRA-l: Year 2025 project contribution to impact to DublinlDougherty
intersection. (DSEIR p 64)
SM-TRA-I a) Advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of right-of-way and construction of
the planned improvements at Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard. The amount of money advanced to the
City shall be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (spread over those projects which are
required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City from Category 2 Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the right-of-way and constructing the
improvements. The City should provide credit for Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to the
developer for any advance of monies made for the improvements planned for the Dougherty Rd./Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
b) Pay a pro-rata share of the cost to construct the planned improvements at Dougherty RoadJDublin
Boulevard through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The City of Dublin will implement
these improvements. (DSEIR p. 64.)
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105. Item 6.2
PaQ:e 4 of19
Finding. Even with implementation of the above mitigations, the impact will not be reduced to less than
significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final SEIR as further set forth in the findings and overriding considerations
in Part B and Part C below
Rationale for Finding. Through fair share payment and payment of the City's traffic impact fee, the
project will provide funds for the identified improvements based on the project's proportionate demand.
The mitigations will not reduce the impact to less than significant therefore a statement of overriding
considerations will be required for any project approval.
Supplemental Impact TRA-2: Year 2025 project contribution to impact the Santa Rita RoadlI-580
eastbound ramps. (DSEIR p. 64 )
SM-TRA-2. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share of the cost to widen the 1-580 eastbound
off-ramp approach at Santa Rita Road to include a third eastbound left turn lane. (DSEIR p. 65 )
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The widened road will provide increased capacity to improve levels of service
during the p.m. peak hour
Supplemental Impact TRA-3: Year 2025 project contribution to impact Central Parkway and
Hacienda Way. (DSEIR p. 65 )
SM-TRA-3 Project developers shall contribute pro-rata share of the cost to modify the westbound
approach on Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive to include two left turn lanes, one through and one right
turn lane. (DSEIR p. 66.)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The modification to include two left turn lanes, one through, and one right turn
lane will provide a safe configuration for left turns onto southbound Hacienda Drive.
Supplemental Impact TRA-4: Year 2030 cumulative impacts to local freeways. (DSEIR p. 69 )
Mitigations: Mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin ErR, as specified on DSEIR pp. 69-71
No supplemental mitigations are identified.
Finding. Some of the improvements identified in Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures have already
been constructed. Other mitigations such as adopting traffic impact fees have been implemented by the
City Even with implementation of the above mitigations, the impact will not be reduced to less than
significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for higWy trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final SEIR as further set forth in the findings and overriding considerations
in Part B and Part C below
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 5 on9
Rationale for Finding. The previously adopted mitigations will create limited amounts of additional
capacity to meet cumulative traffic demand. The mitigations will not reduce the impact to less than
significant therefore a statement of overriding considerations will be required for any project approval.
Supplemental Impact TRA-5: Year 2015 and 2025 consistency with Alameda County Congestion
Management Plan. (DSEIR p. 73 )
Mitigations. No supplemental mitigations are identified.
Finding. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final SEIR as further set forth in the findings and overriding considerations
in Part B and Part C below
Rationale for Finding. All Eastern Dublin projects, including the Fallon Village project, are required to
contribute toward regional roadway improvements through payment of the TVTD Fee. However, even
with funding from these fees, there is insufficient right-of-way on 1-580 and 1-680 to add capacity through
additional mixed flow lanes, therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable and a statement of
overriding considerations will be required for any project approval
Supplemental Impact SD-l: Changed non-point surface water quality. (DSEIR p. 123 )
SM-SD-l The Stage 1 Development Plan shall require that the water quality source control and
hydrologic design recommendations of the report prepared by ENGEO, Inc. be implemented for all
individual development projects within the Project Area. (DSEIR p. 124 )
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. Implementation of the detailed recommendations in the ENGEO report throughout
the Project area will ensure compliance with applicable NPDES water quality requirements.
Supplemental Impact SD-2: Changed non-point surface water quality hydro modification
standards. (DSEIR p. 125)
SM-SD-2. Development within the Project area shall comply with the hydromodification provisions of
the Alameda County Clean Water Program as approved by the RWQCB and administered by the City of
Dublin. If no Alameda County Clean Water Program permit has been adopted at the time individual
development proposals are approved by the City the applicant may be required to submit hydrology and
hydrologic analyses to identify specific increases in storm water runoff into downstream receiving waters.
Such reports will be reviewed by both the City of Dublin and Zone 7 Water Agency Development
projects will also be required to pay the then-current Zone 7 Special Drainage Area fee (SDA7-1) in effect
at the time ofthe development. (DSEIR p. 126.)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. Implementation of the mitigation measure will ensure that project runoff flows and
volume for the Eastern Drainage Corridor will be managed so as to comply with applicable water quality
standards.
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 6 009
Supplemental Impact GEO-l: Potential soil hazards due to alteration in the extent of Project
grading. (DSEIR p. 130)
SM-GEO-l Prior to construction, design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s)
depicting the locations and depths of landslide repairs, keyways and subsurface drains is required. The
correcting grading plans shall identity appropriate mitigation for graded slopes. In order to stabilize
slopes where unstable geologic materials extend at beyond proposed development area, geotechnical
corrective grading may extend beyond the limits of improvements and into open space areas. Grading in
open space areas shall be limited to excavations that remove unstable soils and landslide debris and
backfilling excavations with compacted, drained engineer fills. To provide stable construction slopes, the
back slopes of excavated areas may extend up slope and beyond the limits of mapped slides. The
corrective measures used will be typical and configured to conform at natural slope contours with
materials and compaction at the approval of a geotechnical engineer This may vary from original grade
within repair envelope due to geotechnical and slope drainage considerations. (DSEIR pp. 130-131 )
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The requirement for detailed grading plans showing the recommended measures
for stabilizing slopes, landslide areas and other unstable soils will ensure that the Project implements
appropriate corrective measures to eliminate unstable soils and other soils hazards.
2002 SEIR Impact BIO-2: Loss of special-status plant species (DSEIR p. 167) The 2005 SEIR
identified no additional impacts to special-status plant species beyond those in the 2002 SEIR, however,
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 from the earlier SEIR as adopted in Resolution 40-02 is
modified as follows.
SSM-BIO-I(revises 2002 SM-BlO-4), If special-status plants cannot be avoided, then the area containing
the plant that is to be impacted, and the approximate number of plants to be impacted, must be
determined, and the following steps must be taken:
(a) harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another source within the Livermore and
Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, and seed an area suitable for supporting the plant,
either within the Project area or off-site, at a level sufficient to replace the impacted individuals at a I 1
ratio on an individual plant and basis, and at a ratio no less than 5 I on an occupied habitat basis. The
mitigation site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity If the mitigation site fails to support at least
as many plants as were impacted within a five year period, support at least as many plants as were
impacted within a five year period, then step "b" below must be implemented; and
(b) permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal
amount of acreage either within the Project area or off-site area that contains the plant.
Prior to submission of a Stage development plan or tentative map, the developer shall submit a written
report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with this
mitigation measure, including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be
successful. (DSEIR pp. 167-168)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 7 0[19
Rationale for Finding. Implementation of the refined mitigation measures of harvesting seeds and
permanently preserving appropriate acreage will ensure that previously identified impacts will continue to
be reduced to less-than-significant levels through updated measures to avoid or reduce impacts to special-
status plants.
2002 SEIR Impact BIO-IO: Burrowing Owls (DSEIR p. 168.) The 2005 SEIR identified no additional
impacts to burrowing owl, however, supplemental mitigations SM-BIO-28 through -37 from the 2002
SEIR as adopted in Resolution 40-02 are replaced by the following updated mitigation measures.
SSM-BIO-2 (revises 2002 measures). During the breeding season (February I-August 31) prior to
submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding
season but prior to the initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG
protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the number of nesting pairs of
Burrowing Owls present on the parcel.
SSM-BIO-3(revises 2002 measures). Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted by
a qualified biologist prior to any ground disturbance between September I and January 31 If ground
disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the site should be re-surveyed.
If no over-wintering birds are present, burrows should be removed prior to the nesting season. If over-
wintering birds are present, no disturbance should occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows. If owls
must be moved away from the disturbance area during this period, passive relocation measures must be
prepared according to current CDFG burrowing owl guidelines, approved by CDFG, and completed prior
to construction
SSM-BIO-4(revises 2002 measures), If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February I -
August 31), pre-construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site-specific Project area and
within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at least 250 feet)
shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified in
pre-construction surveys to avoid direct loss of individuals. Owls present on site after February 1 will be
assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless evidence indicates otherwise. All active burrows
shall be identified. If construction around active nests is scheduled to occur when nests are active (i.e., if
they contain, or are assumed to contain, eggs or un-fledged young), a 250-foot exclusion zone around the
nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by
August 31 If owls are present during the early part of the breeding season, and evidence indicates that
they have not yet begun nesting, they may be passively relocated from the site if authorized by CDFG
SSM-BIO-5(revises 2002 measures). If destruction of occupied (breeding or non-breeding season)
burrows, or any burrows that were found to be occupied during pre-construction surveys, is unavoidable,
a strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial
burrows at a 2:1 ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat, and
will include permanent protection ofa minimum of6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per pair or
unpaired resident owl. A plan shall be developed and approved by CDFG describing creation or
enhancement of burrows, maintenance of burrows and management offoraging habitat, monitoring
procedures and significance criteria, funding assurance, annual reporting requirements to CDFG, and
contingency and remediation measures. (DSEIR p. 169)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 8 0[19
Rationale for Finding. The breeding season surveys will ensure that the presence and number of owls on
the site will be determined. The preconstruction surveys and required buffer zone around known nesting
and breeding sites will preserve owl burrows by allowing them to be avoided during the construction and
development process. The measures will also ensure that replaced and/or enhanced burrows be provided
in coordination with CDFG for any unavoidable disturbance.
Supplemental Impact BIO-l: Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats. (DSEIR p. 172.)
SM-BIO-l Impacts to central coast riparian scrub habitat shall be mitigated through the restoration or
enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3 1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the proposed aquatic
and buffer zone or corridor zone management areas on-site. If mitigation within the Project area is not
feasible, then the developer shall mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or
enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3 1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site location acceptable to
the City Any riparian mitigation areas shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity Restored habitat
shall be monitored for a period offive years including preparation of an annual report each year (DSEIR
p. 174.)
"A Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared for City review and approval prior
to issuance of the first grading permit on any property which contains riparian habitat as identified on
Exhibit 47 I of the DSEIR which will detail the steps to be taken to restore and/or enhance coastal
riparian scrub habitat within the on-site conservation area or at off-site mitigation lands, pursuant to
this mitigation measure This site-specific plan will be prepared once specific on-site conservation
areas and/or off-site mitigation lands are identified, and shall also include the following
components:
1 Performance standards to ensure successful restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat that
focus on plant survival rates, plant size, plant health, canopy cover, and presence of invasive
weeds.
2 .Monitoring to evaluate whether the restoration or enhancement measures are satisfying the
performance standards. Such monitoring shall occur for five years, or until the restored or enhanced
areas meet the performance standards, whichever comes first. A monitoring report will be filed with
the City annually
3 Photographic monitoring to visually assess the restoration or enhancement efforts and document
changes to this habitat during the length of the monitoring period described above.
4 If monitoring demonstrates that the performance standards are not likely to be met, or are not met,
at the end of five years, then specific adaptive management measures will be proposed in the annual
monitoring report and implemented the following year, including physical alteration of the
hydrological source, replanting or reseeding, removal of pest plants or animals, installation of
additional fencing or protective measures, erosion control or repair, active enforcement of recreation
area or homeowner policies, and/or other similar measures.
5 Recommended strategies and detailed methods to implement these adaptive management measures
shall be proposed in the annual monitoring report and approved by City prior to implementation. (FSEIR
pp 4-5, hereby corrected to reference addition of above text to end of mitigation SM-BIO-I on p
174 of DSEIR.)
Implement SSM-BIO-2, -3, and -4 below related to breeding habitat for CTS and essential aquatic habitat
for CRLF (DSEIR pp. 177-180)
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 12/6/05, Item 6.2
l'aQ:e 9 on9
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. Previously adopted mitigation measures provide on and/or off-site mitigation for
arroyo willow riparian woodland, freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, intermittent streams and alkali
grasslands. The supplemental impact and mitigation measures recognize and extend such protections to
ponds in the project area, which were not specifically identified as sensitive habitat in prior EIRs, by
requiring permanent onsite restoration or enhancement in the onsite open space corridor or at an
appropriate off-site location. The mitigation measures also require that the details of preserving riparian
habitat, including central coast riparian scrub habitat, be set forth in a mitigation plan that provides
performance standards and monitoring for the effectiveness of the measures.
Supplemental Impact BI0-2: Impacts to California red-legged frogs. (DSEIR p. 174)
SM-BIO-2 (revises 2002 SM-BIO-14). Ifavoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing
similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity Mitigation will be
required at a 3 I replacement ratio for essential aquatic habitat (including verified aquatic breeding
habitat) and associated upland habitat within 100 m of essential aquatic habitat, and at a 1.5 1
replacement ratio for dispersal habitat as defined in Exhibit 47.3 of the Draft SEIR.
Alternately, the latter ratio may be reduced at the discretion of the City, if additional essential aquatic
habitat is provided. The amount of reduction shall be proportional to the amount of additional essential
habitat provided, up to a maximum reduction of fifty percent. Because aquatic breeding habitat and
perennial water bodies providing summer refugia are expected to limit CRLF population size in the dry
eastern Alameda/Contra Costa region more than the availability of suitable upland habitat, flexibility in
this mitigation requirement (i.e., to allow for the creation of ponds to serve as partial mitigation and for
impacts to upland habitat) provides an opportunity to create greater benefit to CRLF populations on a
landscape level. This mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation monitoring plan submitted to the City
In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat
rather than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the Livermore and Amador valleys, and
their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved
areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within
preserved areas. (DSEIR p 177)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The revised mitigation measure distinguishes essential aquatic habitat from
dispersal habitat and by requiring quantification for the replacement ratios for each, ensures that impacts
to both kinds of habitat are adequately protected or otherwise preserved.
Supplemental Impact BIO-3: Impacts to California tiger salamander. (DSEIR p 177)
SM-BIO-3 (revises 2002 SM-BIO-19). To compensate for the permanent loss of up to 1.24 acres of
aquatic CTS breeding habitat, developers of individual parcels will create and/or enlarge suitable
breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio (mitigation to impact. on an acreage basis), in or adjacent to areas currently
supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to provide a high likelihood of
establishment and persistence of a breeding population. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference
shall be given to preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, selecting
mitigation land within the Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 12/6105, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 10 of39
for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high
quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation
shall be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar method and shall be
managed for use by CTS by a conservation entity This mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation and
monitoring plan submitted to the City for approval. (DSEIR pp. 179-180, FSEIR p. 7)
SM-BIO-4 (revises 2002 SM-BIO-19). To compensate for the permanent loss of up to 658.3 acres of
upland CTS habitat, developers of individual parcels will acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland
habitat at a 1 I ratio (mitigation to impact, on an acreage basis), in or adjacent to areas currently
supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding pond. Alternately, this ratio may be reduced
(i.e.. to less than 1 1 mitigation for lost upland habitat), at the discretion of the City, if additional aquatic
breeding habitat (beyond that required by SM-BIO-3) is provided. The amount of reduction shall be
proportional to the amount of additional essential habitat provided, up to a maximum reduction of fifty
percent. Because aquatic breeding habitat is expected to limit CTS population size in the dry eastern
Alameda/Contra Costa region more than the availability of suitable upland habitat, flexibility in this
mitigation requirement (i.e., to allow for the creation of breeding ponds to serve as partial mitigation for
impacts to aestivation habitat) may benefit CTS populations on a landscape level.
This mitigation requirement may be combined with SM-BIO-3 of the 2002 SEIR so that the overall
mitigation results in creation/restoration and preservation of breeding ponds (to mitigate impacts to
aquatic breeding habitat and preservation of associated upland habitat (to mitigate impacts to upland
habitat according to SM-BIO-4). In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to
preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the
in Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed
critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high quality habitat, and
excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas.
Land selected for mitigation shall be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or
similar method, and shall be managed for use by CTS by a conservation entity This mitigation shall be
proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City for approval. (DSEIR p 180, FSEIR
p7)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The revised mitigation measure distinguishes aquatic breeding habitat from upland
habitat and by requiring quantification for the replacement ratios for each, ensures that impacts to both
kinds of habitat are adequately protected or otherwise preserved.
Supplemental Impact CUL-l: Prehistoric resources on Fallon Enterprises property. (DSEIR p.
217)
SM-CUL-l (a) Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities on the Fallon
Enterprises Property, Project developer(s) shall retain the services of a qualified consulting archeologist
to train construction personnel to understand the potential for exposing subsurface cultural resources
and to recognize possible buried cultural resources. Training shall inform all construction personnel of
the procedures that shall be followed upon the discovery or suspected discovery of archaeological
materials. including Native American remains, and their treatment; and
(b) Upon discovery of possible buried cultural materials (including potential Native American skeletal
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 11 of39
remains), work in the immediate area of the find shall be halted and the Project archaeologist notified.
Once the find has been identified and evaluated, the Project archaeologist shall make the necessary
plans for treatment of the find(s) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 State law shall be
followed in the event of the exposure of Native American skeletal remains. This measure shall be
included on all grading and construction plan. State law shall be followed in the event of the exposure of
Native American skeletal remains. This measure shall be included on all grading and construction plan.
(DSEIRp.217)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations ensure that construction personnel will recognize if buried
cultural resources are uncovered, and will ensure that any such resources are not disrupted or destroyed.
Supplemental Impact CUL-2: Fallon Ranch house. (DSEIR p. 218)
SM-CUL-2. The following steps shall be taken to preserve and protect the historic Fallon Ranch house.
Implementation of mitigations (a) or (b) will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Implementation of mitigations (c), (d) and/or (e) will reduce the impact but not to less than significant.
(a) Retain the building on its historic site and rehabilitate it according to the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (U.S. Department ofthe Interior 1994).
This mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. This measure may not
be feasible given the residential development planned for the property (DSEIR p. 218.)
(b) Move the house to a different location consistent with its historic residential character and
rehabilitate it according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings. The feasibility of moving the buildings can only be determined by a contractor or
engineer experienced in moving historic buildings. Generally, it is feasible to move small wood-frame
buildings like the house at 5781 Fallon Road. The historic integrity of a building eligible under
California Register Criterion 3 is usually not seriously compromised if it is moved, thus it is not
considered to be a "substantial adverse change." (DSEIR p. 218.)
(c) Representatives ofthe Dublin Planning Department, the Dublin Historical Preservation Association,
the Dublin Parks and Community Services Department and other interested parties should be given the
opportunity to examine the house and provide suggestions for salvaging and relocating elements.
(FSEIR p. 8 )
(d) The documentation, with original photo prints and negatives, should be placed in an historical
archive or history collection accessible to the general public, such as the Dublin Heritage Center
Museum. (FSEIR p. 8.)
(e) Develop a public exhibit/education program on the Fallon Ranch and history of cattle ranching in the
Dublin area at the Dublin Heritage Center The exhibit could incorporate the documentation and
interpretative materials developed for Mitigation Measure 4 regarding the significant role of ranching in
local history (DSEIRp. 219)
Finding. Mitigations (a) and (b) are infeasible for the reasons set forth in the Braddock & Logan letter
dated November 3, 2005, on file in P A 04-040 and incoroorated herein bv reference. These reasons
include the fact that the house is located in a low area on the site with existing Dublin Ranch development
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 12 of 19
to the west, and planned residential development to the east. Development ofthe planned residential uses
will require raising grade levels to efficiently extend utilities to and to develop the residential area; it
would not be feasible as a practical matter to maintain the house at its low elevation with development on
either side. The structure itself is fragile and built on a foundation of stones. The single wall construction
contributes to the structure's distinctive characteristics but makes it very difficult to move without
compromising what structural integrity remains. The structure has also been modified over the years
which further compromises its historical distinction and makes it difficult to determine what features of
the structure should be retained. As a further practical matter, it is difficult to find a group interested in
moving and restoring historical structures, and also difficult to find a receiver site for such structures.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final SEIR as further set forth in this finding and in the findings and
overriding considerations in Part B and Part C below
Rationale for Finding. Salvage and/or documentation will preserve some aspects of the historic structure
but not sufficiently to compensate for the loss of the structure, therefore, the impact remains significant
and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted for any project approval.
Supplemental Impact CUL-3: Cultural Resources on Jordan and Chen properties. (DSEIR p 219)
SM-CUL-3 Prior to approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the Jordan and Chen properties, a
detailed cultural resources assessment of combined historic/prehistoric site at the 4J Ranch site (CA-Ala-
508/H) shall be conducted to determine if the site is eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources. All mitigation measures identified in that study shall be incorporated into the Stage 2
Development Plan approval conditions. (DSEIR p. 219)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required cultural resources assessment ensures that specific development
projects will determine the presence and extent of any sensitive resources and will provide appropriate
protection to avoid inadvertent destruction of the resources.
Supplemental Impact CUL-4: Croak Ranch historic resonrces. (DSEIR p. 220.)
SM-CUL-4. Prior to approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the Croak property, a detailed historic
resources assessment of Croak Ranch Homestead site shall be conducted to determine if the site is eligible
for the California Register of Historical Resources. All subsequent measures identified in such study shall
be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan approval conditions to ensure that historic resources
on the property are preserved. (DSEIR p. 220 )
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required cultural resources assessment ensures that specific development
projects will determine the presence and extent of any sensitive resources and will provide appropriate
protection to avoid inadvertent destruction of the resources.
Supplemental Impact NOISE-I: Aircraft Dyovers. (DSEIR p.226.)
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 13 009
SM - NOISE-l All occupants of the residential dwellings within the proposed Project shall receive written
notification at the time of sale, rental or lease of the potential for aircraft overflights of the Fallon Village
Project area. Written notices shall be approved by the Dublin Community Development Director (DSEIR
p. 226.)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required notice ensures that potential future residents of the Project will be
aware of possible overflight noise before they make a decision to locate within the Project.
Supplemental Impact NOISE-2: Future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development
on the Braddock & Logan properties north of Upper Loop Road and East of Creek Road. (DSEIR
p.227 )
SM-NOISE-2. An acoustical study must be prepared for the project. The study shall show how the
project will meet an indoor goal of 45 dBA CNEL. In addition, the study must show how noise in outdoor
areas will meet the level ofa CNEL of60 dBA (CNEL of65 dBA at City's discretion). Based on
preliminary site development information it is likely that the project can meet the indoor goal with regular
double glazed windows (no special sound rating). A noise barrier may be required if backyards or other
primary outdoor use spaces are located adjacent to either Croak Road or Upper Loop Road. (DSEIR p.
227 )
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. Through the requirement for an acoustical analysis, the mitigation ensures that
applicable noise standards will be met as development is implemented.
Snpplemental Impact NOISE-3: Compatibility of school and neighborhood park on Braddock &
Logan properties with future roadway noise. (DSEIR p.227)
SM-NOISE-3 The design of the elementary school and neighborhood park shall consider noise reduction
measures to comply with City exterior noise exposure limits including but not limited to appropriate siting
of improvements, use of noise barriers and similar noise reduction techniques as may be needed. (DSEIR
p 228.)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigation ensures that noise reduction measures will be built into the design
of the school and park so as to meet applicable noise standards.
Supplemental Impact NOISE-4: Noise from Upper Loop Road on Braddock & Logan properties
affecting existing residences. (DSEIR p. 228.)
SM-NOISE-4 Noise from Upper Loop Road is expected to generate a CNEL in excess of 60 dBA. The
existing homes along the existing alignment of Fallon Road are currently exposed to an Ldn of about 56
to 59 dBA. It is unlikely but possible that the noise from Upper Loop Road would cause noise levels to
increase by more than 6 dBA at these existing homes. However, an evaluation of noise from Upper LooprReso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 14 of 39
Road on existing dwellings shall be made and if it is found that the road would increase noise by more
than 6 dBA in backyards of those existing homes, then appropriate noise mitigation measures (i.e.
roadway alignment or noise barrier) shall be included in the new roadway design. (DSEIR p. 228.)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required noise evaluation and implementation of mitigation if necessary, will
ensure that existing residents will not be exposed to substantial increases in ambient noise from the new
roadway
Supplemental Impact AQ-l: Construction related air quality impacts. (DSEIR p. 238.)
SM-AO-l. In addition to measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3 11/1 0 of the East Dublin EIR, the
City of Dublin shall: (a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil,
sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind, (b) Require construction contractors to sweep
daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites; and (c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. (DSEIR p. 239)
Findin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation ensures that additional dust control measures will be implemented
to reduce and control fugitive dust and erosion during construction.
Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3, Project level and cumulative increases in regional emissions
that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ozone precursors. (DSEIR pp. 239-240 )
SM-A0-2. In addition to measures identified in MM 3 11150-11.0 of the East Dublin EIR, the City of
Dublin shall require that the following be implemented:
a) The Project proponent should coordinate with LA VTA for the eventual extension of transit service
to the Project area. Project proponents should construct or reserve necessary right-of-way for transit
facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, etc.
b) Bicycle land and/or paths, connected to community-wide network should be provided as part of the
Stage 1 Development Plan.
c) Sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/or community-wide
network should be provided as part of the Stage 1 Development Plan.
d) Consider shuttle service to regional transit system or multimodal center
e) Consider providing a satellite telecommute center for Project residents if this is feasible in terms of a
convenient location.
f) Provide interconnected street network, with a regular grid or similar interconnected street pattern.
(DSEIR p. 240.)
Finding. Even with implementation of the above mitigations, the impact will not be reduced to less than
significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final SEIR as further set forth in the findings and overriding considerations
in Part B and Part C below
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 15 009
Rationale for Finding. The above mitigations would reduce vehicle trips, which are the primary source
of ozone precursors, but not enough to reduce the impact to less than significant. A statement of
overriding considerations will be required for any project approval.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-l: Potential for exposure to asbestos-containing materials and lead-
based paints. (DSEIR p. 247)
SM-HAZ-1. Prior to the demolition of any structures identified in the Environmental Site Assessments as
potentially containing ACM's orIead-based paints, Project developer(s) shall undertake comprehensive
asbestos and LBP surveys of those structures and implement appropriate ACM and LBP handling and
disposal methods based on those surveys. As recommended in the ENGEO 2005 report, an environmental
professional shall be present during demolition and pre-grading activities to inspect for potential
environmental contaminants. (DSEIR p 247)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigation ensures that any asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint
will be identified and that appropriate removal and disposal regulations will be complied with.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2: Potential for soil/groundwater contamination and exposure hazards
from existing hazardous materials. (DSEIR p. 247 )
SM-HAZ-2. As identified in the Environmental Site Assessments for each property, all observed
hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and potential containers of those materials shall be removed
from the properties by licensed waste contractors prior to building demolition. If no building demolition
is required, this removal shall be completed prior to any grading activities on an individual site. The
contents of potential hazardous material containers shall be identified and disposed of accordingly,
including specific methods to preclude airborne release of materials. All dumped scrap and miscellaneous
material and equipment shall be removed from the site prior to anyon-site development activities. If
recommended in the ESA (i.e. Mandeville, Anderson, and Fallon Enterprises properties), an
environmental professional shall view the property during demolition and pre-grading activities to ensure
compliance with this measure. (DSEIR pp. 247-248 )
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. Proper identification, handling and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site
ensures that soils and groundwater will not be exposed to contamination.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-3: Potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface
contamination. (DSEIR p. 248.)
SM-HAZ-3 (a) A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the former gas station site north and west of
Croak Road to obtain information with regard to operation, demolition, and removal of the former
gasoline service station in order to better assess the likelihood of this use having a detrimental impact to
soils and water quality at the EBJ site and adjacent sites. This Assessment shall be completed and
approved by the Alameda County Fire Department prior to any demolition or site grading, whichever is
first. Additionally, a limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted for the EBJ parcel and adjacent
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 16 of39
areas of the Anderson and Chen/Tseng properties to better assess whether impacts to soil and shallow
groundwater have resulted from the former gas station
(b) All identified potentially contaminated areas on the Jordan Ranch site shall be remediated as
identified in the Phase I ESA. In addition, as identified in the Phase II ESA, the Jordan Ranch owner
shall inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department (ACEHSD) of an
unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons as diesel and gasoline in the vicinity of the removed
underground fuel tank at the site. The property shall be subject to further subsurface investigations to
evaluate the lateral and horizontal extent of the contamination, and to evaluate whether ground water has
been affected, and shall be remediated as directed by the ACEHSD Further site assessment, including
soil and groundwater sampling and testing, shall be conducted to evaluate the horizontal and lateral
extent of impact to underlying soils and groundwater A limited Phase II ESA, including soil and
groundwater sampling, shall be conducted to evaluate the potential impact on underlying soils and
groundwater within the area of the diesel storage drums, weed killer, and other storage containers in Barn
2, as well as in the vicinity of the stored fuel containers and farm equipment in Barn 1 During removal
of hazardous material contaminant sources at the Jordan Ranch site, a qualified environmental assessor
shall be present to observe the removal and conditions exposed during that removal. After the removal of
these sources from the site, and any excavation to remove contaminated soil, additional soil sampling
and laboratory testing shall be conducted to confirm that the contaminated materials have been removed.
Ifpotentially hazardous substances are identified, remediation plan(s) shall be prepared by a qualified
consulting and approved by an appropriate oversight agency A worker safety plan shall be included in
all remediation plans
(c) A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the portion of the Fallon Enterprises property where the buried
household garbage dump is located. The assessment shall include soil sampling and testing to evaluate
the potential impact to underlying soils. The assessment shall be completed and approved by the
Alameda County Fire Department prior to site grading operations. If potentially hazardous substances
are identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation plan(s) shall be prepared by a qualified consulting and
approved by an appropriate oversight agency A worker safety plan shall be included in all remediation
plans
(d) A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the portion of the Anderson property used by Pleasanton
Trucking and Materials. That assessment shall include soil sampling and groundwater testing to evaluate
the potential impact to underlying soils. If potentially hazardous substances are identified in the Phase II
ESA, remediation plan(s) shall be prepared by a qualified consulting and approved by an appropriate
oversight agency A worker safety plan shall be included in all remediation plans
(e) A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the portion of the Branaugh properties used by Branaugh
Excavating, Branaugh Transportation, and the Golden StatelExecutive Landscaping Companies. That
assessment shall include soil sampling and groundwater testing to evaluate the potential impact to
underlying soils. If potentially hazardous substances are identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation
plan(s) shall be prepared by a qualified consulting and approved by an appropriate oversight agency A
worker safety plan shall be included in all remediation plans.
(f) Upon development of each site, all existing wells shall be abandoned under permit from Zone 7 Water
Agency and in accordance with all applicable regulations.
(g) When, or prior to, the existing structures are demolished, all existing septic systems and associated
leach fields shall be pumped out and removed under permit from the Alameda County Health
Department. (DSEIR pp. 248-249 )
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2 Palle 17 of19
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The Phase II ESAs will ensure that any subsurface contamination is identified and
that appropriate remediation plans are prepared. The mitigations further require remediation of identified
contamination sites so that contamination will be removed before development occurs. Requirements for
a worker safety component of the remediation plans ensures that contamination will not harm workers
during the remediation process. Because environmental testing and remediation will occur before
development, the impacts will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
Part B: Findings concerning alternatives.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified four alternatives: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land
Use Intensities and No Development. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use
Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced
Planning Area alternative. The 2002 SEIR identified additional alternatives including the Mitigated
Traffic Alternative, Development under the County General Plan, and a No Development Alternative.
Since the 2005 SEIR identified significant unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts (i.e., at the
DublinIDougherty intersection, and for cumulative freeway conditions) and air quality impacts due to
increased ozone precursors that are generated primarily by traffic, the 2005 SEIR identified a Reduced
Project Development Alternative to examine whether reduced land use densities would avoid the
significant traffic and air quality impacts. The 2005 SEIR also updated the no project and no
development alternatives. Since publication ofthe Draft Supplemental EIR, developers of the Braddock
& Logan properties have determined that the Fallon Ranch House will be demolished; as noted in the
DSEIR, this is a significant unavoidable impact.
The major changes from the 2002 project include identification of a central open space corridor, increased
residential development, and increased commercial development to be located in the AP A. The 2005
SEIR identified and analyzed several limited scope alternatives primarily intended to provide the City
with information on site use and design options related to the above major changes. The alternatives
analysis is presented in Section 5 0 of the 2005 SEIR, as amended by the Final SEIR. (DSEIR pp. 255-
278, FSEIR p. 8-9 )
The City Council hereby finds that the alternatives identified and analyzed in the 2005 Supplemental EIR
do not avoid the Project's significant unavoidable impacts on traffic, air quality and cultural resources
and/or are not feasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant
to CEQA sections 21002, 21081(c).
Alternative 1: No Develooment. (DSEIR pp 257-258.).
Finding: Infeasible. The 2005 Supplemental EIR updates the No Development Alternative.
This alternative would avoid the supplemental traffic, air quality and cultural resources identified in the
SEIR, but would not achieve the City's long-established objectives of urbanizing the Fallon Village
project site. This alternative also fails to provide needed housing as set forth in the Housing Element of
the City's General Plan. This finding is consistent with the City's 1993 and 2002 findings on the No
Development Alternative. (See resolutions 53-93 and 40-02, respectively)
Alternative 2: No ProiectlDevelooment under Existin2 Sta2e 1 Develooment Plan. (DSEIR pp. 258-
262.)
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 12/6105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 1 R ofW
Finding: Does not avoid the Project's significant unavoidable traffic, air quality and cultural
resources impacts. The impacts for this alternative would generally be the same as identified in the 2002
SEIR. Like the Project, this alternative results in unavoidable traffic impacts and air quality impacts from
ozone precursors (Resolution 40-02); this alternative also would not avoid the Project's significant
cultural resources impact because the Fallon House would be demolished, as with the Project. To the
extent that the 2005 Project proposes to develop the AP A, and to increase the number of residences to
3,108 and the amount of commercial, office and other non-residential use to 2,503,175 square feet, this
alternative does not meet Project objectives because it retains the AP A as a future study area and does not
provide for either the increased residential or non-residential development.
Alternative 3: Reduced Proiect Develooment. (DSEIR pp. 262-265 )
Finding: Does not avoid the Project's significant unavoidable traffic, air quality and cultural
resources impacts. This alternative reduces the overall level of Project development by 25% to reduce
related trip generation; this level of development would reduce but not avoid the Project's significant
supplemental traffic impacts. This alternative would reduce project emissions by approximately 25%, but
this substantial reduction would not be sufficient to meet air quality thresholds for ozone precursors. This
alternative would demolish the Fallon House and thus would not avoid the Project's significant cultural
resources impact. This alternative would result in approximately the same number of residences as the
2002 approval and a more modest increase in non-residential development compared to the Project. This
alternative does not meet Project objectives because it does not provide for the Project's increased
residential and non-residential development.
Alternative 4: Offset Central Parkwav. (DSEIR pp. 265-269)
Finding: Does not avoid the Project's significant unavoidable traffic, air quality and
cultural resources impacts; creates a new significant unavoidable impact. This alternative is a
limited focus design alternative. It would reduce the Project biological resources impacts by crossing the
central open space corridor at a narrower area further from the ponds on the Jordan property It would not
avoid the Project's traffic, air quality or cultural resources impacts, and would create two additional
significant traffic impacts as follows:
Supplemental Impact ALT 4-1: Project contribution to impacts at Tassajara RoadlDublin
Boulevard intersection in the pm peak hour in the 2025 Buildout plus Project scenario. (DSEIR p. 266 ).
Mitigation SM-AL T -4.1 would reduce this impact through contribution to planned intersection
improvements by payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, but not to less than significant.
Physical constraints at the intersection and the potential safety hazard created by having four left turn
lanes prevent construction of improvements sufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant,
therefore, the impact for this alternative would be significant and unavoidable.
Supplemental Impact ALT 4-2: Impacts to Upper Loop Road. (DSEIR p. 267) Redirecting
traffic through an offset of Central Parkway could overburden the Upper Loop Road. Mitigation SM-
ALT-4.2 would reduce this impact to less than significant by requiring four travel lanes on the Upper
Loop Road between Fallon Road and Central Parkway as offset.
Alternative 5: Industrial Alternative. (DSEIR pp. 269-272.) This is a limited focus alternative that
would replace 77 1 acres ofland between 1-580 and the Dublin Boulevard extension with an industrial
land use designation rather than commercial and office uses.
Finding: Does not avoid the Project's significant unavoidable traffic, air quality and
cultural resources impacts. Industrial uses tend to be less traffic intensive than commercial uses, but
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 12/6105, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 19 of 39
not enough to avoid the Project's significant supplemental traffic impacts. Further, any reduced traffic
trips would not reduce emissions enough to avoid the Project's air quality impacts related to ozone
precursors. This alternative would not avoid the Project's cultural resources impact since it would also
result in demolition of the Fallon House.
Alternative 6: Jordan Alternative. (DSEIR pp. 272-276) This alternative would reduce the size of the
central open space corridor and correspondingly expand the adjacent development areas. The total
amount of residential and commercial development would not change, only the location in the open space
corridor area. This alternative would require a project sponsor to request and have approved a general and
specific plan amendment.
Finding: Does not avoid the Project's significant unavoidable traffic, air quality and
cultural resources impacts; creates new significant biology and cultural resources impacts. This
alternative would create new significant impacts since sensitive biological and cultural resources areas
would be developed instead of retained in open space.
Supplemental Impact AL T 6-1: Impacts to wetlands, special-status species and habitat. (DSEIR
p. 274) Mitigation SM-ALT-6-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant by requiring the
developer to prepare a biological mitigation plan prior to approval of any related general or specific plan
amendment for approval by the City and state and federal resources agencies.
Supplemental Impact ALT 6-2: Impacts to cultural resources. (DSEIR p. 275 ) Mitigation SM-
AL T -6-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant by requiring the developer to prepare a detail
mitigation plan that identifies the precise location of underground resources and identifies a plan to
document and protect the resources in place if feasible, or off-site if on-site is not feasible.
Part C: Statement of overriding considerations.
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully
considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project.
In 2002, the City Council considered an annexation and prezoning project on the Project site. That
project was approved for future development of up to 2,526 dwellings at a variety of densities, up to
1,421,450 square feet of office development, commercial and similar non-residential land uses, a junior
high school, elementary schools, parks, utility extensions and open spaces. The City prepared a
Supplemental EIR for the 2002 project which identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to
less than significant. The Supplemental EIR also identified supplemental air quality, biology, noise, and
traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals
for urbanization of Eastern Dublin and with the 2002 approvals on the Project site. (Resolutions 53-93
and 40-02, respectively) Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding
considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the Fallon Village project.!
The City Council must also adopt overriding considerations for the supplemental impacts identified in the
1<< . public officials must still go on record and explain specifically why they are approviug the later project despite its
significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis in original) Communitiesfor a Better Environment v California Resources
Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App.4th 98.
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 20 of39
2005 Supplemental EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the
unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 Supplemental EIR and
the 2005 Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the prior
approvals and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the Fallon Village approvals, to
be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes
that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as
identified in the prior EIRs and the 2005 Supplemental EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to
the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated
to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, land use, or
other benefits and considerations, as set forth below, that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts on
the environment and support approval of the project.
2. Unavoidable Silmificant Adverse Imoacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following
unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future
development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Fallon Village project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impact
3 81B, Alteration ofRuraVOpen Space Character; Visual Impact 3 8/F, Alteration of Visual Character of
Flatlands: Although development has occurred south of the project area, the site is largely undeveloped
open space land. Future development of the Fallon Village site will contribute to the cumulative loss of
open space land and character
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts:
While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation
demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway
impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.31, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin
Boulevard Impacts: The Fallon Village project will be required to implement all applicable adopted
traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIP program. Even with mitigation,
however, these impacts continue to be unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural
Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U Increases in energy usage through
increased water treatment, disposal and operation of water distribution system: Future development of the
Fallon Village project will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even
with seismic design, future development of the Fallon Village project could be subject to damage from
large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Biological Resources Impact 3. 71e. Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat. Even with
mitigation, biologically sensitive habitat will be lost to development.
Air Quality Impacts 3. 11/A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Fallon Village project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, and mobile and stationary
source emissions.
3. Unavoidable Silmificant Adverse Imoacts from the 2002 Suoolemental EIR. The following
unavoidable supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the 2002 Supplemental EIR for the
Project site.
Reso # 222 -05, adopted 12/6105, Item 6.2 PaQ:e 21 of39
Supplemental Impact Noise 1 Exposure of existing houses to noise levels in excess of standards
established in the general plan.
Supplemental Impact Traffic 6. Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Dougherty
RoadlDublin Boulevard intersection.
Supplemental Impact Traffic 7. Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Hacienda
Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection
Supplemental Impact Traffic 8: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Fallon RoadlDublin
Boulevard intersection.
Supplemental Impact Traffic 11' Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, freeway segments
on 1-580 and 1-680 in the project area
4. Unavoidable Silroificant Adverse Imoacts from the Fallon Villal!:e 2005 Suoolemental EIR.
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts were identified in the 2005 Supplemental
EIR for the Fallon Village project.
Supplemental Impact TRA-l. Project contribution to impact the DublinIDougherty intersection
(DSEIR p. 64)' The developers will be required to advance money for road widening and other
improvements but the improvements will not create enough capacity to reduce the impact to less-than-
significant levels.
Supplemental Impact TRA-4. Cumulative impacts to local freeways (DSEIR p. 69): Traffic
generated by the project will contribute to unacceptable levels of service on 1-580 and 1-680 segments
during peak a.m. and p.m. hours.
Supplemental Impact TRA-5 Consistency with Alameda County Congestion Management Plan
(DSEIR p. 73): Traffic generated by the project will exceed County monitoring standards.
Supplemental Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the Fallon Ranch House (DSEIR p. 218 )
Supplemental Impacts AQ-2. AQ-3' Increase in regional emissions (DSEIR pp. 239-240): The
project's emissions increase exceeds BAAQMD thresholds on project and cumulative levels.
4. Overridinl!: Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern
Dublin project approvals and implementing development against the significant and potentially significant
adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as set forth in Resolution 53-93 In 2002, the City
Council balanced those unavoidable impacts as well as the supplemental unavoidable impacts identified
in the 2002 SEIR, against its benefits, and determined that the unavoidable impacts were outweighed by
the benefits of the 2002 project as set forth in Resolution 40-02.
Now, in 2005, the City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, hereby determines
that the unavoidable significant impacts of the Fallon Village project identified in the 2005 Supplemental
EIR, and the prior EIRs as applicable to the project, are outweighed by the need for and desire of the City
to implement and bring to fruition its long-range planning goals and policies. This long-range planning is
reflected in the City's 1993, 2002, and 2005 approvals for Eastern Dublin and the project site, and as set
forth in the City's General Plan (as amended), Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended), and Zoning
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 12/6105. Item 6.2 PaQ:e 22 of 19
regulations (as amended). The City has carefully and systematically planned for the incremental
development of its eastern lands, and the development that comprises the Fallon Village project. The City
Council has considered the public record of proceedings for the Fallon Village project and has determined
that approval of the project would implement the City's long-term program-level and development-level
planning for Eastern Dublin in general and the Fallon Village project site in particular
Consistent with this planning vision for Eastern Dublin, the Fallon Village project provides for
development of a mixed use community, but also preserves important visual and biological resources
through the central open space corridor and through open space designations on steeper lands in the
northerly and easterly portions ofthe project site. The project will provide over 3,108 units of needed
housing with diverse densities and building types, as well as maintaining open space on the site. The
project will also provide 2,503,175 square feet of office, commercial, light industrial and similar non-
residential land uses, which will provide services to and employment opportunities for Dublin residents.
Finally, the project will provide a junior high school, elementary schools, parks, utility extensions and
open spaces, and will provide land for future development of semi-public uses, all within the City's long-
term goals for Eastern Dublin.
Part D: Mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Fallon Village Draft SEIR (DSEIR)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
P A # 04-040, 05-038
December 2005
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resnousibilitv Resoousibilitv Scbedn1e
Supplemental Mitigation Traffic-t. Project Dublin Public Prior to
Project developers shall: Developers Works approval of
a) Advance to the City applicable monies Department first final
for acquisition of right-of-way and subdivision
construction of the planned map
improvements at Dougherty
Road/Dublin Boulevard. The amount
of money advanced to the City shall be
based on the developer's fair share of
the deficit (spread over those projects
which are required to make up the
deficit) between funds available to the
City from Categary 2 Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee funds and the
estimated cost of acquiring the right-of-
way and constructing the
improvements. The City should
provide credit for Categary 2 Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to the
developer for any advance of monies
made for the improvements planned
for the Dougherty Rd./Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 23 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verifieation
Resnonsibilitv Resnonsibilitv Sebedu1e
b) Pay a pro-rata share of the cost to
construct the planned improvements at ~
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard ,
through payment of the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee. The City of Dublin
will implement these improvements.
Supplemental Mitigation Traffic-2. Project Dublin Public Prior to
Project developers shall contribute a pro- Developers Works approval of
rata share of the cost to widen the 1-580 Deparbnent final
eastbound off-ramp approach at Santa subdivision
Rita Road to include a third eastbound left , maps} as
turn lane. required by I
Public
Works
Director
, Supplemental Mitigation Traffic-3. Project Dublin Public Prior to
Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata Developers Works approval of
share of the cost to modify the westbound Deparbnent final
approach on Central Parkway at Hadenda subdivision
Drive to include two-left turn lanes, one maps, as
through and one right turn lane. reqmred by
, Public
I Works
, Director
,
Supplemental Mitigation Storm Drain-t. i Project Dublin Public As part of
The Stage t Development Plan shall reqmre Developers Works Stage t
that the water quality source control and Deparbnent Developme
hydrologic design recommendations of the nt Plan
report prepared by ENGEO, Inc. (February approval
28, 2005) be implemented for all individual
development projects within the Project
area.
Supplemental Mitigation Storm Drain-2 Project Dublin Public Prior to
Development within the Project area shall Developers Works approval of
comply with the hydromodification Deparbnent improveme !
provisions of the Alameda County Oean I ntplans
Water Program as approved by the ,
RWQCB and administered by the City of I
Dublin If no Alameda County Oean Water
Program permit has been adopted at the
time individual development proposals are
approved by the City the applicant may be
reqmred to submit hydrology and
hydrologic analyses to identify specific
increases in storm water runoff into
downstream receiving waters. Such reports
will be reviewed by both the City of Dublin
and Zone 7 Water Agency Development
projects will also be required to pay the
then-current Zone 7 Special Drainage Area I
I
I
fee (SD A7 -1) in effect at the time of I
development.
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 24 009
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resnonsibilitv ResDonsibilitv Scbedu1e
Supplemental Mitigation Geotechnical-1. Project Dublin Public I Prior to
Prior to construction, design level Developers Works ' approval of
geotechnical report(s) and corrective Department ! first final
grading plan(s) depicting the locations and subdivision
depths of landslide repaiIs, keyways and map
subsurface drains is required. The
corrective grading plans shall identify
appropriate mitigation for graded slopes. In
order to stabilize slopes where unstable
geologic materials extend at beyond
proposed development area, geotechnical
corrective grading may extend beyond the
limits of improvements and into open space
areas. Grading in open space areas shall be
limited to excavations that remove unstable
soils and landslide debris and backfilling
excavations with compacted, drained
engineer fills. To provide stable
construction slopes, the back slopes of
excavated areas may extend up slope and
beyond the limits of mapped slides. The
corrective measures used will be typical
and configured to conform at natural slope
contours with materials and compaction at
the approval of a geotechnical engineer.
This may vary from original grade within
repair envelope due to geotechnical and
I slope drainage considerations.
Supplemental Mitigation Biological-1. Project Dublin Prior to
Impacts to central coast riparian scrub Developers Planning issuance of
habitat shall be mitigated through the Division grading
restoration or enhancement of riparian permit for
habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), any
preferably within the proposed aquatic and subsequent
buffer zone or corridor wne management project
areas on-site. If mitigation within the containing
Project area is not feasible, then the or directly
developer shall mitigate impacts to central adjacent to
coast riparian scrub through the restoration wetlands or
or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 other
ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site waters of
location acceptable to the City. Any the u.s.
riparian mitigation areas shall be preserved
and protected in perpetuity Restored
habitat shall be monitored for a period of
five years including preparation of an
annual report each year.
A Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
shall be prepared for City review and
approval prior to issuance of the first
grading pennit on any property which
contains riparian habitat as identified on
Exhibit 4.7.1 of the DSEIR which will detail
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 25 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Scbedu1e
the steps to be taken to restore and/ or
enhance coastal riparian scrub habitat
within the on-site conservation area or at
off -site mitigation lands, pursuant to this
mitigation measure This site-specific plan
will be prepared once specific on-site
conservation areas and/ or off-site I
mitigation lands are identified, and shall I
also include the following components: i
a) Performance standards to ensure
successful restoration or enhancement
of riparian habitat that focus on plant
survival rates, plant size, plant health,
canopy cover, and presence of
invasive weeds.
b) Monitoring to evaluate whether the
restoration or enhancement measures
are satisfying the performance
standards. Such monitoring shall I
I
occur for five years, or until the I
restored or enhanced areas meet the
performance standards, whichever I
comes first. A monitoring report will
be filed with the City annually
c) Photographic monitoring to visually
assess the restoration or enhancement
efforts and document changes to this
habitat during the length of the
monitoring period described above.
d) If monitoring demonstrates that the
performance standards are not likely
to be met, or are not met, at the end of
five years, then specific adaptive
management measmes will be
proposed in the annual monitoring
report and implemented the following
year, includillg physical alteration of
the hydrological somce, replanting or
reseedillg, removal of pest plants or
animals, installation of additional
fencing or protective measmes,
erosion control or repair, active
enforcement of recreation area or
homeowner policies, and/or other
sintilar measures.
e)
PaQ:e 26 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
implementation.
Supplemental Mitigation Bio1ogical-2.1f Project Dublin Prior to
avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands Developers Planning issuance of
providing similar or better habitat for CRLF Division grading
shall be preserved and protected in permit for
perpetuity. Mitigation will be required at a any
3:1 replacement ratio for essential aquatic subsequent
habitat (including verified aquatic breeding project
habitat) and associated upland habitat within containing
100 m of essential aquatic habitat, and at a or directly
1.5:1 replacement ratio for dispersal habitat adjacent to
as defined herein (Figure 3.3-D Exhibit 4.7.4). wetlands or
Alternately, the latter ratio may be reduced at other
the discretion of the Oty, if additional waters of
essential aquatic habitat is provided. The the U.s.
amount of reduction shall be proportional to
the amount of additional essential habitat
provided, up to a maximum reduction of fifty
percent. Because aquatic breeding habitat and
perennial water bodies providing summer
refugia are expected to hmit CRLF
population size in the dry eastern
Alameda/Contra Costa region more than the
availability of suitable upland habitat,
flexibility in this mitigation requirement (Le.,
to allow for the creation of ponds to serve as
partial mitigation and for impacts to upland
habitat provides an opportunity to create I
greater benefit to CRLF populations on a
landscape level. This mitigation shall be I
proposed in a mitigation monitoring plan I
submitted to the Oty I
!
In selecting off-site mitigation lands, I
preference shall be given to preserving I
large blocks of habitat rather than many i
,
small parcels, selecting mitigation land I
I
within the Livermore and Amador valleys, I
and their surrounding watersheds, to I
account for local loss of proposed critical
habitat, linking preserved areas to existing
open space and other high-quality habitat,
and excluding or hmiting public use within
preserved areas.
Supplemental Mitigation Biological-3. To Project Dublin Prior to
compensate for the permanent loss of up to Developers Planning issuance of
1.24 acres of aquatic CIS breeding habitat, Division grading
developers of individual parcels will create permit for
and/ or enlanre suitable breedinlr ponds at any
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 27 ofJ9
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resoonsibility Resoonsibility Schedule
a 2:1 ratio (mitigation to impact, on an subsequent
acreage basis), in or adjacent to areas project
currently supporting CTS and with containing
sufficient surrounding upland habitat to or directly
provide a high likelihood of establishment adjacent to
and persistence of a breeding population. CTS habitat
In selecting off~ite mitigation lands, as identified
preference shall be given to preserving one in the
large block of habitat rather than many DSEIR
small parcels, selecting mitigation land
within the Uvermore and Amador valleys,
and their surrounding watersheds, to
account for local loss of proposed critical
habitat, linking preserved areas to existing
open space and other high quality habitat,
and excluding or limiting public use within
preserved areas.
Land selected for mitigation shall be i ,
permanently preserved through use of a
conservation easement or similar method
and shall be managed for use by CIS by a
conservation entity. This mitigation shall be
proposed in a mitigation and monitoring
Plan submitted to the City for approval.
Supplemental Mitigation Biological-4. To Project Dublin Prior to
compensate for the permanent loss of up to Developers Plarnring issuance of
658.3 acres of upland CTS habitat, Division grading
developers of individual parcels will permit for
acquire, preserve, and manage suitable any
upland habitat at a 1.1 ratio (mitigation to subsequent
impact, on an acreage basis), in or adjacent project
to areas currently supporting CTS and I containing
within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding or directly
pond. Alternately, this ratio may be , adjacent to
reduced (i.e., to less than 1.1 mitigation for I CIS habitat
lost upland habitat), at the discretion of the I as identified
City, if additional aquatic breeding habitat i in the
(beyond that required by SM-BIO-ll) is I I DSEIR
provided. The amount of reduction shall be ,
proportional to the amount of additional ,
essential habitat provided, up to a
maximum reduction of fifty percent.
Because aquatic breeding habitat is
expected to limit CTS population size in the
dry eastern Alameda/Contra Costa region
more than the availability of suitable
upland habitat, fleXlbility in this mitigation
requirement (i.e., to allow for the creation
of breeding ponds to serve as partial
mitigation for impacts to aestivation
habitat) may benefit CTS populations on a
landscape level.
1
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 28 009
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Resoonsibilitv Schedule
This mitigation requirement may be
combined with SM-BIO-ll of the 2002 SEIR
so that the overall mitigation results in
creation/restoration and preservation of
breeding ponds (to mitigate impacts to
aquatic breeding habitat and preservation of
assodated upland habitat (to mitigate
impacts to upland habitat according to SM-
BI0-12). In selecting off -site mitigation
lands, preference shall be given to
preserving one large block of habitat rather
than many small parcels, selecting
mitigation land within the in Livermore and
Amador valleys, and their surrounding
watersheds, to account for local loss of
proposed critical habitat, linking preserved
areas to existing open space and other high
quality habitat, and excluding or limiting
public use within preserved areas.
Land selected for mitigation shall be
permanently preserved through use of a
conservation easement or similar method,
and shall be managed for use by CTS by a
conservation entity This mitigation shall be
proposed in a mitigation and monitoring
Plan submitted to the Citv for approval.
Nesting status shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist to determine when nests
are no longer active. All activities shall be
prohibited within the buffer until after
young have fledged and moved out of the
nest. This measure shall also apply to
construction of recreational trails in
preserved areas.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure BIO-l Project Dublin Prior to
(revised). If special-status plants cannot be Developer Planning approval
avoided, then the area containing the plant Division of Stage 2
that is to be impacted, and the approximate Developm
number of plants to be impacted, must be ent Plan or
determined, and the following steps must subdivisio
be taken: n map for
a) Harvest seeds from the plants to be any
lost, or use seeds from another source subsequen
within the in Livermore and Amador t
valleys, and their surrounding developme
watersheds, and seed an area suitable nt project
for supporting the plant, either containing
within the Project area or off-site, at a spedal-
level suifident to replace the status
impacted individuals at a 1.1 ratio on species as
an individual plant and basis, and at identified
a ratio no less than 0.5:1 on an in the
occupied habitat basis. The DSElR
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 29 of39
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
mitigation site shall be preserved and
protected in perpetufty If the
mitigation site fails to support at least
as many plants as were impacted
within a five year period, then step
"b" below must be im lemented.
b) Permanently preserve, through use of
a conservation easement or other
similar method, an equal amount of
acreage either within the Project area
or off-site that contains the plant. ,
I
i i
Prior to submission of a Stage 2 I
development plan or tentative map, the
developer shall submit a written report to
the City for its review and approval
demonstrating how the developer will
comply with this mitigation measure, ,
including the steps it will take to ensure i
,
that transplanting or seeding will be i
successful.
Supplemental Mitigation BI0-2 (revised), Project Dublin Prior to
During the breeding season (February 1- Developers Plarming approval of
August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 Division Stage 2
i development proposals for a particular Developme
I parcel, or during a subsequent breeding nt Plan, or I
season but prior to the initiation of during ,
,
construction, a survey shall be conducted , constructio
i
according to CDFG protocols to determine n activities
whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if for parcel
present, the number of nesting pairs of containing
Burrowing Owls present on the parcel. burrowing
, owl
Supplemental Mitigation BI0-3 Project Dublin Prior to
(revisedkPre-construction surveys for Developers Planning commence
burrowing owls shall be conducted by a Division ment of
qualified biologist prior to any ground grading
disturbance between September 1 and activities for
January 31. If ground disturbance is any
delayed or suspended for more than 30 subsequent i
days after the survey, the site should be re- developme ,
,
surveyed. If no over-wintering birds are nt project i
present, burrows should be removed prior containing
to the nesting season. If over-wintering burrowing
birds are present, no disturbance should owl
occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows.
If owls must be moved away from the I
disturbance area during this period, passive i
relocation measures must be prepared
according to current CDFG burrowing owl
guidelines, approved by CDFG, and
completed prior to construction.
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 10 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resoonsibilitv Resoonsibilitv Schedo1e
Supplemental Mitigation BI0-4 (revised). Project Dublin Prior to
If construction is scheduled during the Developers Planning commence
nesting season (February 1 - August 31), Division ment of
pre-construction surveys should be grading
conducted on the entire site-specific Project activities for
area and within 500 feet of such Project area any
prior to any ground disturbance. A subsequent
nrinim.um buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be developme
mamtamed during the breeding season nt project
around active burrowing owl nesting sites containing
identified in pre-construction surveys to burrowing
avoid direct loss of individuals. Owls owl
present on site after February 1 will be
assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the
site unless evidence indicates otherwise. All
active burrows shall be identified. If
construction around active nests is
scheduled to occur when nests are active
(Le., if they contam, or are assumed to
contain, eggs or un-fledged young), a 250-
foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be
established or construction shall be delayed
until after the young have fledged, typically , i
by August 31. If owls are present during I i ,
the early part of the breeding season, and ! I
evidence indicates that they have not yet
begun nesting, they may be passively
relocated from the site if authorized by
COPG.
Supplemental Mitigation BIQ-S (revised). Project Dublin Prior to
If destruction of occupied (breeding or non- Developers Planning commence
breeding season) burrows, or any burrows Division ment of
that were found to be occupied during pre- grading
construction surveys, is unavoidable, a activities for
strategy will be developed to replace such any
burrows by enhancing existing burrows or subsequent
creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on developme
permanently protected lands adjacent to nt project
occupied burrowing owl habitat, and will containing
include permanent protection of a burrowing
nrinim.um of 6.5 acres of burrowing owl owl
habitat per pair or unpaired resident owl. A
plan shall be developed and approved by
CDFG desmbing creation or enhancement
of burrows, mamtenance of burrows and
management of foraging habitat,
monitoring procedures and significance
criteria, funding assurance, annual
reporting requirements to CDFG, and
contingency and remediation measures.
Supplemental Mitigation Cultural-I, Fallon Dublin Prior to
I a) Prior to the initiation of construction Enterprises Planning grading
or ground -disturbing activities on the Property Division operations
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 31 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Scbedu1e
Fallon Enterprises Property, Project Project on Fallon
developer(s) shall retain the services Developer Enterprises
of a qualified consulting archeologist Property
to train construction personnel to
understand the potential for exposing
subsurface cultural resources and to
recognize possible buried cultural
resources. Training shall inform all
construction personnel of the
procedures that shall be followed
upon the discovery or suspected
discovery of archaeological materials,
including Native American remains,
and their treatment.
b) Upon discovery of possible buried
cultural materials (including
potential Native American skeletal
remains), work in the immediate area
of the find shall be halted and the
Project archaeologist notified. Once
the find has been identified and
evaluated, the Project archaeologist
shall make the necessary plans for
treatment of the find(s) consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5. State law shall be followed in
the event of the exposure of Native
American skeletal remains. This
measure shall be included on all
grading and construction plan State
law shall be followed in the event of
the exposure of Native American
skeletal remains. This measure shall
be included on all grading and
construction plan.
Supplemental Mitigation Cultura1-2. The Fallon Dublin Prior to
following steps shall be taken to preserve Enterprises Planning grading i
I
and protect the historic Fallon Ranch house: Property Division operations I
,
a) Retain the building on its historic site Project on Fallon ,
,
,
and rehabilitate it according to the Developer Enterprises I
Secretary of the Interior's Standards tmd Property I
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings (U.s. Department of the I
Interior 1994). This mitigation measure I
would reduce the impact to a less- I
than-significant level. This measure I
may not be feasible given the ,
I
residential development planned for ,
i
the property I
,
b) Move the house to a different location I
;
,
consistent with its historic residential I
I
character and rehabilitate it according ; I
to the SecretaTl/ afInterior's Standards I I
,
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 12/6/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 32 nf39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resnonsibilitv Resoonsibilitv Schedule
and Guidelines Jar Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings. The feasibility of moving the
buildings can only be deterntined by a
contractor or engineer experienced in
moving historic buildings. Generally,
it is feasible to move small wood-
frame buildings like the house at 5781
Fallon Road.
The historic integrity of a building eligible
under California Register Oiterion 3
is usually not seriously compromised
if it is moved, thus it is not considered
to be a "substantial adverse chanl!e."
c) Representatives of the Dublin Planning
Department, the Dublin Historical
Preservation Assodation, the Dublin
Parks and Community Services
Department and other interested
parties should be given the opportunity
to examine the house and provide
suggestions for salvaging and
relocatinl! elements.
d) The documentation, with original photo
prints and negatives, should be placed
in an historical archive or history
collection accessible to the general
public (e.g., the Dublin Heritage Center
Museum),
e) Develop a public exhibit/education
program on the Fallon Ranch and
history of cattle ranching in the Dublin
area at the Dublin Heritage Center
Museum. The exlnbit could incorporate
the documentation and interpretative
, materials developed for Mitigation
I Measure 4 regarding the significant
!
i role of ranchinl! in local history
i Supplemental Mitigation Cu1tural-3, Prior Jordan and Dublin Prior to
to approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan Chen Planning approval of
for the Jordan and Chen properties, a Properties Division Stage 2
detailed cultural resources assessment of Project Developme
combined historic/prehistoric site at the 4J Developers nt Plans on
Ranch site (CA-Ala-508/H shall be Jordan and
conducted to determine if the site is eligible Chen
for the California Register of Historical properties
Resources. All mitigation measures
identified in that study shall be incorporated
into the Stage 2 Development Plan approval
conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Cultural-4. Prior Croak Dublin Prior to
to approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan Property Planning approval of
for the Croak property, a detailed historic Project Division Stage 2
! resources assessment of Croak Ranch Developers Developme
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 11 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Veritication
Responsibility Responsibilitv Schedule
Homestead site shall be conducted to nt Plan on
determine if the site is eligible for the Croak
California Register of Historical Resources. i Property
All subsequent measures identified in such !
study shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 i
Development Plan approval conditions to ,
I
ensure that historic resources on the I
property are preserved.
Supplemental Mitigation N oise-l. All Project Dublin Prior to
occupants of the residential dwellings Developers Planning approval of
within the proposed Project shall receive Division tentative
written notification at the time of sale, rental subdivision
or lease of the potential for aircraft map and/or
overflights of the Fallon Village Project area. building
Written notices shall be approved by the permits for
Dublin Community Development Director. residential
projects that
do not
I include a I
, land
, subdivision.
Supplemental Mitigation Noise-2. An Project Dublin Prior to
acoustical study must be prepared for the Developers Building issuance of
project. The study shall show how the Division building
project will meet an indoor goal of 45 dBA permits for
CNEL. In addition, the study must show residential
how noise in outdoor areas will meet the projects
level of a CNEL of 60 dBA (CNEL of 65
dBA at City's discretion). Based on
preliminary site development information I
it is likely that the project can meet the
indoor goal with regular double glazed i
windows (no special sound rating). A noise
barrier may be required if backyards or
other primary outdoor use spaces are
located adjacent to either Croak Road or
Upper Loop Road.
, Supplemental Mitigation N oise-3. The Dublin Unified City of Dublin Prior to
I design of the elementary school and School District Planning constructio
i neighborhood park shall consider noise and City of Division nof
reduction measures to comply with Oty Dublin Parks elementary
exterior noise exposure limits including but and Community school and !
not limited to appropriate sitting of Services i neighborho
improvements, use of noise barriers and Department i od park on
similar noise reduction techniques as may Upper Loop
be needed. Road
Supplemental Mitigation Noise-4. Noise Project City of Dublin Prior to
from Upper Loop Road is expected to Developer Planning approval of
generate a CNEL in excess of 60 dBA. The adjacent to Division roadway
existing homes along the existing alignment Upper Loop improveme
of Fallon Road are currently exposed to an Road nt plans for
Ldn of about 56 to 59 dBA. It is unlikely but Upper Loop
possible that the noise from Upper Loop Road
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQe 34 0[19
I Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resnonsibilitv Resnonsibilitv Schedule
Road would cause noise levels to increase
by more than 6 dBA at these existing
homes. However, an evaluation of noise
from Upper Loop Road on existing
dwellings shall be made and if it is found
that the road would increase noise by more
than 6 dBA in backyards of those existing
homes, then appropriate noise mitigation
measures (i.e. roadway alignment or noise
barrier) shall be included in the new
roadway desiR1\.
! Supplemental Mitigation Air Quality-I. In Project City of Dublin During
I addition to measures identified in Developers. Building constructio
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the East Include language Division nof
Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall: in all individual
construction developme
a) Require construction contractors to plans and nt projects
water or cover stockpiles of debris, specifications
soil, sand or other materials that can
be blown by the wind.
b) Require construction contractors to
sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road,
parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
c) Require construction contractors to
install sandbags or other erosion
control measures to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways.
Supplemental Mitigation Air Quality-2. In Project Dublin Prior to the
addition to measures identified in MM Developers Planning approval of
3.11/5.0-11.0 of the East Dublin E1R, the Division subsequent
City of Dublin shall require that the tentative
following be implemented: subdivision
a) The Project proponent should maps or Site
coordinate with LA VTA for the Developme
eventual extension of transit service to nt Review
the Project area. Project proponents approvals if
should construct or reserve necessary no
right-of-way for transit facilities such subdivision
as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, map is
etc. required
b) Bicycle land and/ or paths, connected
to community-wide network should
be provided as part of the Stage I
Development Plan.
c) Sidewalks and/ or paths, connected to
adjacent land uses, transit stops,
and/ or community-wide network
should be provided as part of the
Stage I Development Plan.
d) Consider shuttle service to regional I
transit system or multimodal center.
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 35 009
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resnonsibili'; Resnonsibilitv Schedule
e) Consider providing a
satellitetelecommute center for Project
residents if this is feasible in terms of a
convenient location.
1) Provide interconnected street
network, with a regular grid or similar
interconnected street nattern.
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-t. Prior Project Dublin Prior to
to the demolition of any structures I Developers Building issuance of
identified in the Environmental Site , Division and
I any
Assessments as potentially containing , Alameda demolition
ACM's or lead-based paints, Project County Fire permit
developer(s) shall undertake Department
comprehensive asbestos and LBP surveys
of those structures and implement
appropriate ACM and LBP handling and
disposal methods based on those surveys.
As recommended in the ENGEO 2005
report, an environmental professional shall
be present during demolition and pre-
grading activities to inspect for potential ,
environmental contaminants. I
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-2. As Project Dublin Prior to
identified in the Environmental Site Developers Building grading
Assessments for each property, all Division and operations
observed hazardous or potentially Alameda for any
hazardous materials and potential County Fire property
containers of those materials shall be Department within the
removed from the properties by licensed I Project area
waste contractors prior to building i
, I
demolition. If no building demolition is
required, this removal shall be completed
prior to any grading activities on an
individual site. The contents of potential
hazardous material containers shall be
identified and disposed of accordingly,
including specific methods to preclude
airborne release of materials. All dumped
scrap and nuscellaneous material and
equipment shall be removed from the site
prior to any on-site development activities.
If recommended in the ESA (i.e.
Mandeville, Anderson, and Fallon
Enterprises properties), an environmental
professional shall view the property during
demolition and pre-grading activities to
ensure com liance with this measure.
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-3a. A
Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the
former gas station site north and west of
Croak Road to obtain information with
regard to operation, demolition, and
removal of the former asoline service
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
Project
I Developer of
former gas
station property
Dublin
Building
Division and
Alameda
County Fire
De artment
Prior to
grading
operation
on this site
PaQ:e 36 of 39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Resoonsibility Resnonsibilitv Schedule
station in order to better assess the
likelihood of this use having a detrimental
impact to soils and water quality at the EBJ
site and adjacent sites. This Assessment shall I
be completed and approved by the Alameda ,
,
County Fire Department prior to any
demolition or site grading, whichever is
first. Additionally, a limited subsurface
investigation shall be conducted for the EBJ
parcel and adjacent areas of the Anderson
and Chen/Tseng properties to better assess
whether impacts to soil and shallow
groundwater have resulted from the former
gas station.
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-3b. All I Project Dublin Prior to
identified potentially contaminated areas on Developer of Building grading
the Jordan Ranch site shall be remediated as Jordan property Division and I operation
identified in the Phase I ESA. In addition,. as Alameda on the
identified in the Phase II ESA, the Jordan County Fire Jordan
Ranch owner shall inform the Alameda Department property
County Environmental Health Services
i Department (ACEHSD) of an unauthorized
I release of fuel hydrocarbons as diesel and
I gasoline in the vicinity of the removed
underground fuel tank at the site. The
property shall be subject to further
subsurface investigations to evaluate the
lateral and horizontal extent of the
contamination,. and to evaluate whether
ground water has been affected, and shall be
remediated as directed by the ACEHSD.
Further site assessment, including soil and
groundwater sampling and testing, shall be
conducted to evaluate the horizontal and
lateral extent of impact to underlying soils
and groundwater. A limited Phase II ESA,
including soil and groundwater sampling,
shall be conducted to evaluate the potential
impact on underlying soils and groundwater
within the area of the diesel stora e drums,
Reso # 222 - 05, adopted 1216105, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 37 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Resnonsibilitv Schedn1e
weed killer, and other storage containers in
Barn 2, as well as in the vicinity of the stored
fuel containers and farm equipment in Barn
1. During removal of hazardous material
contaminant sources at the Jordan Ranch site,
a qualified environmental assessor shall be
present to observe the removal and
conditions exposed during that removal.
After the removal of these sources from the
site, and any excavation to remove
contaminated soil, additional soil sampling
and laboratory testing shall be conducted to
confirm that the contaminated materials have
been removed. If potentially hazardous
substances are identified, remediation plan(s)
shall be prepwredby a qwilified conswting
and approved by an appropriate oversight
agency. A worker safety plan shall be
included in all remediation plans.
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-3c. A Project Dublin Prior to
Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the Developer of Building grading
portion of the Fallon Enterprises property Fallon Division and operation
where the buried household garbage dump Enterprises Alameda on the
is located. The assessment shall include soil property County Fire Fallon
sampling and testing to evaluate the Department Enterprises
potential impact to underlying soils. The property
assessment shall be completed and
approved by the Alameda County Fire
Department prior to site grading operations.
If potentially hazardous substances wre
identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation
plan(s) shall be prepared by a qwilified I
conswting and approved by an appropriate
oversight agency. A worker safety plan shall I
be included in all remediation plans. ,
,
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-3d. A Project Dublin Prior to
Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the Developer of Building I approval of
portion of the Anderson property used by Anderson Division and Stage IT
Pleasanton Trucking and Materials. That property Alameda , Developme
,
assessment shall include soil sampling and County Fire I nt Plan for
groundwater testing to evaluate the Department Anderson
potential impact to underlying soils. If I property
potentially hazardous substances wre
identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation
plan(s) shall be prepared by a qualified
conswting and approved by an appropriate
oversight agency A worker safety plan
shall be included in all remediation plans.
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-3e. A Project Dublin Prior to
Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the Developer of Building approval of
portion of the Branaugh properties used by Branaugh Division and Stage IT
Branaugh Excavating, Branaugh property Alameda Developme
Transportation, and the Golden Countv Fire nt Plan for
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216/05, Item 6.2
PaQ:e 38 of39
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Resnonsibilitv Schedule
State/Executive Landscaping Companies. Department Branaugh
That assessment shall include soil sampling property
and groundwater testing to evaluate the
potential impact to underlying soils. If
potentially hazardous substances are
identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation
pIan(s) shall be prepared by a qualified
consulting and approved by an appropriate
oversight agency. A worker safety pIan
shall be included in all remediation plans.
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-3f. Project Dublin Public Prior to
Upon development of each site, all existing Developers Works issuance of
wells shall be abandoned under permit Department grading
from Zone 7 Water Agency and in and Zone 7 permits for
accordance with all applicable regulations. each
property
within the
Proiect area
Supplemental Mitigation Hazards-3g. Project Dublin Public Prior to
When, or prior to, the existing structures Developers Works issuance of
are demolished, all existing septic systems Department grading
and associated leach fields shall be pumped and Alameda permits for
out and removed under permit from the County each
Alameda County Health Department. Environmenta property
I Health within the
Department Proiect area
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST
Anl'~ ~
i Clerk
Reso # 222 - 05. adopted 1216105. Item 6.2
Page 39 0[19