The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.4 EDubPropAttach7Vol1Revised,Draft Supplerr.~ental. Environmental Impact Report Stage i East Dublin Properties Development Plan and Annexation Volume 1: Draft Supplemental EIR SCHNo. 2001052114 Lead Agency City of Dublin Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation SCH No. 2001052114 City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 January 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY S-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1-1 3.1. Agricultural Resources 3.1-2 3.2, Air Quality 3.2-1 3.3. Biological Resources 3.3-1 3.4. Noise 3.4-1 3.5. Schools 3.5-1 3.6. Traffic and Circulation 3.6-1 3.7. Utilities 3.7-1 4. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 4.0-1 5. CEQA DISCUSSION 5.1-1 6. REFERENCES 6.1-1 6.1. Organizations and Persons Consulted 6.1-1 6.2. References 6.2-3 APPENDICES A. Initial Study B. City of Dublin Resolution 53-93 C. Agricultural Land Evaluation D. Air Quality Data E. Supplemental Addendum to the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan (Addendum to Appendix E of the Eastern Dublin EIR) F. Noise Background Data G. Intersection Volume/Capacity Tables H. Population, Jobs, and Housing Analysis EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (1/12/02) I. Responses to Parks Comments LIST OF TABLES Table S-1 Table 2.4-1 Table 2.4-2 Table 3.1-1 Table 3.2-1 Table 3.2-2 Table 3.2-3 Table 3.2-4 Table 3.2-5 Table 3.3-1A Table 3.3-1B Table 3.3-2A Table 3,3-2B Table 3.4-1 Table 3.5-1 Table 3.6-1 Table 3.6-2 Table 3.6-3 Table 3.6-4 Summary of Supplemental Impacts and Mitigations Property Ownerships and Acreages Proposed Project Acreages and Densities Project Area Williamson Act Contracts Ownership and Contract Status Ambient Air Quality Standards Project Area Air Quality Summary, Days Exceeding Regulatory Standards East Dublin Properties Mobile Source Emissions Micro-Scale Impact Analysis - Hourly CO Concentrations MicrO-Scale Impact Analysis - 8-Hour CO Concentrations Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area (Eastern Dublin EIR) New Species - Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area (Eastern Dublin EIR) New Species - Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise Exposure Comparison of Eastern Dublin Student Generation Rates and Current Student Generation Rates East Dublin Properties Trip Generation: Proposed Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Plus Pending - No Project (Dublin Model) Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 (No Project) EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (1/12/02) 2 Table 3.6-5 Table 3.6-6 Table 3.6-7 Table 3.6-8 Table 3.6-9 Table 3.6-10 Table 3.6-11 Table 3.6-12 Table 3.7-1 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4.3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Plus Pending Plus Project (Dublin Model) Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Th-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 Plus Project Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025, Countywide Model Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025, Tri- Valley Model Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Operational Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 Year 2025 Traffic Impacts at 1-580 On- and Off-Ramps between Hacienda and Fallon Dublin and Countywide Models: Year 2005 Peak Hour Volumes (No Project) Th-Valley Transportation and Countywide Models: Year 2025 Peak Hour Volumes (No Project) Zone 7 Water Supply Acquisition Projects Alternatives by Land Use Floor Area Ratios of Alternatives Regional Vehicular Emissions Comparison Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 Plus Mitigated Traffic Alternative Mitigated Traffic Alternative: Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water Impacts Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 Plus ECAP Alternative No Project/ECAP Alternative: Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water Impacts Impacts of Alternatives LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-A Figure 2-B Figure 2-C Project Location Eastern Dublin General Plan-Eastern Extended Planning Area Land Use Map Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (1/12/02) Figure 2-D Figure 2-E Figure 2-F Figure 2-G Figure 2-H Figure 2-I Figure 2-J Figure 2-K Figure 2-L Figure 2-M Figure 3.1-A Figure 3.1-B Figure 3.3-A Figure 3.3-B Figure 3.3-C Figure 3.4-A Figure 3.4-B Figure 3.6-A Figure 3.6-B Figure 3.6-C Figure 3.6-D Figure 3.6-E Figure 3.6-F Figure 3.7-A Parcel Ownership - Aerial View Topography Local Jurisdictional Boundaries Stage 1 Development Plan Project Area and Dublin Ranch Phasing Plan Airport Referral Area Eastern Dublin Circulation Network Master Infrastructure Plan East Dublin Planning Boundaries Williamson Act Agreements Agricultural Suitability Habitat Types Sensitive Species in the Eastern Dublin Area Known Occurrences of Habitat Types and Specific Plan/General Plan Land Uses Existing Noise Contours Build-out Noise Contours Existing Turning Movement Volumes Existing + Approved + Pending Turning Movement Volumes (Dublin Model) Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 Turning Movement Volumes Existing + Approved + Pending + Project Turning Movement Volumes (Dublin Model) Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + Project Turning Movement Volumes Estimated Daily Volumes Drainage Sub-basins EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (1/12/02) 4 Figure 4-A Figure 4-B Figure 4-C Figure 5-A Figure 5-B Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + Mitigated Traffic Land Use Alternative Turning Movement Volumes Alameda County Land Use Designations Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + ECAP Alternative Turning Movement Volumes 1992 Cumulative Projects 2001 Cumulative Projects EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (1/12/02) SUMMARY This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EIR or SEIR) chapter includes a summary description of the proposed Project, a list of environmental issues to be resolved, and a summary identification of each associated supplemental impact and mitigation measure. This summary should not be relied upon for a thorough understanding of the details of the Project, its individual impacts, and related mitigation needs. Please refer to Chapter 2 for a complete description of the Project, to Chapter 3 for a complete description of Project supplemental impacts and aSsociated mitigation measures, to Chapter 4 for a discussion of alternatives, and to Chapter 5 for a complete evaluation of CEQA-required discussions. INTRODUCTION The City circUlated a Notice of Preparation to interested public and private parties, including LAFCO as a responsible agency with approval authority over the requested annexations and a related park district detachment. The City prepared a 2-volume Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) dated July 2001. Written responses to cormnents received during the 45--day comment period were prepared and published in a Final SEIR dated October 2001. Through September and October, the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on the Project. At the November 6, 2001 City Council hearing, staff recommended that the DSEIR be revised and recirculated for public review. The Council accepted staff's recommendation, and this Revised DSEIR was prepared in response to the Council's direction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project area is approximately 1,120 acres in area and is located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to the west. The area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin. The entire Project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the Project area also are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Project area consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate ownerships. The proposed Project includes annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), prezoning the area to the City of Dublin PD- Planned Development Zoning District, and considering a related Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of the Project area. Development under the proposed prezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development would include a mix of residential uses at a variety of densities, employment-generating uses such as retail service, office and light industrial, parks, open spaces, community facilities, roadways and similar land uses. The Stage 1 Development Plan proposes retail, office and light industrial land uses located primarily within the southern portion of the Project area along the freeway and major arterials, with residential uses located in the more northern and eastern portions of the Project area. The Project also would provide a complement of neighborhood parks, school sites, open space, and a multi-use trail system to link the developed areas with the parks and trails within Project open space. The entire Project area is within the Sphere of Influence for DSRSD. The property immediately to the west of the Project area was annexed into the City in 1995 and is now EDPO Draft SEIR Page S-1 being developed in phases and urban infrastructure is being extended to a point approximately 3,000 feet west of the Project area. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES As provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes and guidelines, the environmental focus of this supplement to the 1993 Eastern Dublin Final EIR (inclusive of the Draft EIR and Response to Comments, hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR), is limited to those areas of controversy or environmental issues known to the City of Dublin (the Lead Agency). These issues include those identified in the Initial Study, raised by the public and by other agencies in response to the City's Notice of Preparation. As described in the Introduction to this Draft SEIR, these areas of environmental concern include: Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Noise Schools Transportation/Circulation Utilities/Service Systems SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Each significant supplemental impact and associated mitigation measure(s) identified in this SEIR is summarized in the Summary of Supplemental Impacts and Mitigations table which follows. The summary chart has been organized to correspond with the more detailed supplemental impact and mitigation discussions in Chapter 3 of this SEIR. The chart is arranged in three columns: 1) identified significant adverse supplemental environmental impact and its level of impact significance prior to implementation of recommended supplemental mitigation measures; 2) recommended supplemental mitigation measures; and 3) level of impact significance after implementation of the mitigation measure(s). In those instances where more than one measure may be required to mitigate a supplemental impact to a less-than-significant level, a series of mitigation measures is listed. For a complete description of the environmental setting, supplemental impacts, and supplemental mitigation measures associated with each topic of concern, please refer to Chapter 3 of this Draft SEIR. ALTERNATIVES This SEIR analyzes three new alternatives in addition to those previously considered in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These are; 1) a Mitigated Traffic Alternative (Reduced Density), 2) a No-Project (ECAP) Alternative, and 3) a No Development Alternative. EDPO Draft SEIR Page S-2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation AQ 1 Mobile Source Emissions: Reactive Organics Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Significant (RO), Nitrogen Oxide (Nox), and Particulate Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 - and Matter (PM-10): Mobile source emissions for 11.0) will reduce emissions but not below the unavoidable RO and NOx (precursors to ozone formation) significance threshold; no feasible mitigation are expected to exceed the Bay Area Air measures are available that would achieve less than Quality management District's significance significant impact. thresholds by two- to almost four-fold. These precursors would result in the formation of substantial quantities of ozone, which already exceeds both state and federal standards in the Tri-Valley area (significant impact; potentially significant cumulative impact). AQ 2 Mobile Source Emissions - CO: CO No mitigation is required Less than concentrations calculated for the 19 Significant intersections Within and around the Project area will not exceed the California · hourly standard of 20 ppm or the state/federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm (less than significant). BIO 1 Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss: The project SM-BIO-l: A Resource Management Plan (RMP) Less than would result in direct and indirect loss, , shall be prepared for the Project area for the City of Significant degradation, and disturbance to habitat types Dublin's review and approval prior to or concurrent not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin with submittal of any land use entitlement requests. EIR: seasonal wetland and, intermittent The RMP shall include all properties in the Project streams. Also, thirteen additional plant area and any necessary off-site mitigation lands, and species and eight additional wildlife species address consistency with lOcal policies, such as the have been identified as occurring or Stream Restoration Program and the Grazing potentially occurring on the site. Although Management Plan and mitigation measures other species addressed in this supplemental contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this SEIR EIR were addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, (for the full text of this mitigation measure, see EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation additional new information regarding the Chapter 3.3). specie habitat or a change in its regulatory status (change in listing status or change in regulation of the species or its habitat) could create impacts not addressed in the Eastern ' Dublin EIR (potentially significant; cumulatively significant). BIO 2 Loss of Special Status Plant Species: No SM-BIO-2: Plant surveys, as outlined in USFWS and Less than special status plant species were identified in CDFG survey protocols (CDFG 1996), shall be Significant the Eastern Dublin EIR. More recent conducted within the Project area in early spring, observations and documentation show the late spring, and late summer to confirm presence or occurrence, or potential for the occurrence, of absence of special-status plant species. Results of at least five rare plants within the Project area: these surveys shall be included with subsequent the San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's development applications. tarplant, palmate bird's beak, and caper- fruited tropidocarpum, and Livermore SM-BIO-3: Once presence is determined for a tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii), a newly special status plant species, areas supporting the described plant species within the Project area. species should be avoided. Other plants listed in Table 3.3-1B also may be present but have not yet observed. Direct loss SM-BIO-4: If a special-status plant species cannot be of individuals and associated microhabitats avoided, then the area containing the plant species could occur as a result of development of the must be measured and one of the following steps Project (potentially significant) must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 ratio (by acreage): On-going or planned development within the cumulative impact area identified for this a. permanently preserve, through use of a project is resulting in a loss of available habitat conservation easement or other similar method, an and total population size of Congdon's equal amotmt of acreage either within the Project tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale and area or off-site that contains the plant; potentially other species identified above, that could combine with loss of habitat and plant b. Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-2 I ~ I i il i I i I1 : i SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation species within the project area. (potentially use seeds from another source, within the Tri-valley significant cumulative), area, and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growir~g the plant either within the Project area or off-white. Such area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. If the plants fail to establish after a five year period, then step "a" above must be implemented Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 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. BIO 3 Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive SM-BIO-5: To the extent feasible, implementation of These Habitats: Impact 3.7C of the Eastern Dublin the Project shall be designed and constructed to mitigation EIR identified potentially significant direct avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the measures and indirect impacts to Arroyo Willow United States within the Project area. Examples of would Riparian Woodland and Freshwater Marsh avoidance and minimization include (1) reducing the reduce due to development, grading, road size of the Project or any future individual project construction, and culvert crossings. This development projects within the Project area, (2) impacts to a supplemental analysis identifies seasonal design future development projects within the 1 e s s th a n wetlands and intermittent streams as Project area so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts significant additional botanically sensitive habitats that to waters of the United States, and (3) establish and level; could be affected by direct and indirect ma~;3tain wetland or upland vegetated buffers to however, impacts of development of the Project area pr°t~ct open waters such as streams. Also, in order cumulative (potentially significant; potentially significant to protect the particularly sensitive Arroyo willow impacts cumulative), riparian woodland and red-legged frog habitat would found in the Fallon Road drainage from Fallon Road remain upstream to its terminus, to the maximum extent significant EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact TopidImpact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation feasible future development projects within the and Project area either shah completely avoid this unavoidable. drainage or limit impacts to brid§e crossin§s (as opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacffn§ features. SM~BIO-6: To the extent that avoidance and minimization are not feasible and wetlands or other waters will be filled, such impacts shah be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) within the Project area, through the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands or other waters. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 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. SM-BIO-7: If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate the fill of ;: wetlands or other waters at a 2:1 ratio (measured by . acreage) at an off-site location acceptable to the City. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and . protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure. SM..BIO-8: Botanically sensitive habitats shah be incl' ~ded in and shah be protected and enhanced by imp [ementation of the Resource Management Plan, EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-I, above. BIO 4 San Joaquin Kit Fox: The Eastern Dublin EIR BIO-SM-9 Futq~re development of the Project shall Less than identified potentially significant impacts due comply with the amended Eastern Dublin San Significant to construction of new roads and facilities that Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan (Appendix E) which could: destroy potential dens or bury foxes reflects the latest protocols for kit fox habitat occupying dens at the time of construction; evaluations, presence/absences surveys, pre- modify natural habitat to reduce available construction surveys and precautionary construction prey and den sites; lead to direct mortality or measures. disturbance to foxes due to increased vehicle traffic, human presence and domestic dogs in BIO-SM-10 San Joaquin kit fox habitat shall be the area; and directly harm kit fox or reduce included in and shall be protected and enhanced by prey due to the use of poisons for rodent implementation of the Resource Management Plan, control. There are no new impacts and no as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-I, above. increased impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox or its habitat beyond those:~ identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The' City adopted kit fox mitigation measures as set forth in Appendix E of Resolution 53-93. However, updated survey and pre-construction protection measures have been adopted since 1993 which should be incorporated into the existing adopted Eastern Dublin San. Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan to ensure that the latest protocols and standards are implemented in future development of the Project area. BIO 5 California Red-legged Frog (CRLF): Impact BIO-SM-II: Focused surveys following USFWS Less than 3.7 F of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified survey protocol shall be conducted in habitat Significant potentially significant impacts due to the considered suitable for CRLF which have not already destruction and alteration of small water been surveyed. The current protocol (USFWS 1997b) impoundments and stream courses on the requires that two daytime and two nighttime EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation Project site which could eliminate habitat for surveys be performed over a suitable four-day the CRLF. In March 2001, the USFWS adopted period, or, the most recent USFWS approved focused critical habitat for the CRLF; all of Dublin and survey protocol should be followed. Results of these Eastern Dublin are within the designated surveys shall be sent to the City for review. critical habitat. The critical habitat for CRLF still focuses on water and riparian features but BIO-SM-12: Specific California red-legged frog it is now known also to include adjacent habitat areas, including the drainage upstream and upland areas for potential aestivation and east of the current Fallon Road alignment, shall be dispersal. Reflecting this new information, included in and protected and enhanced by proposed development trader the Project implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as could have a broader impact on CRLF habitat outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above. and on the individual frog than previously analyzed (potentially significant). BIO-SM-13: To the extent feasible, development of individual properties within the Project area shall On a cumulative level, policies protecting avoid all areas of identified suitable California red- wetlands and other aquatic habitat have legged frog aquatic and dispersal habitat. reduced the rate of loss of these habitats since Specifically, development should avoid such aquatic adoption of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Similar habitat and provide a 300 to 500-foot buffer on each policies do not exist for upland areas and, as side of any stream which provides red-legged frog a result, cumulative growth impacts are habitat. Limited permanent development may occur greatest for upland components of red-legged within this buffer zone (such as a trail through the frog habitat. While aquatic habitat has length of the buffer zone, or a bridge crossing across preserved the ability of frogs to move the buffer zone), so long as it will have only minor between areas of aquatic habitat, upland impacts on the habitat. Limited temporary habitat is reduced or lost when development development activity may occur within this buffer occurs which may affect overall population zone to create trails, install bridges, etc., and to allow numbers. (potentially significant cumulative) for grading activities along the edge of the buffer zone, so long as such activity will have only minor impacts on the habitat. BIO-SM-14: If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation for CRLF at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS, shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. This mitigation, to be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City, shall be required prior to submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans and tentative maps for any specific property within the Proiect area. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shah be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. If the identified mitigation lands have been approved by the City, the following guidelines implemented prior to and during construction would reduce impacts individual CRLF and preserved CRLF habitat: BIO-SM-15: The following construction-related CRLF avoidance and protection measures shall be followed for all future development activity in the Project area, on a property-by-property basis: · Prior to construction, a map shah be prepared to delineate upland areas from preserved wetland areas. · The wetland construction boundary shall be fenced to prohibit the movement of CRLF into the construction area and co~'~lrol siltation and disturbance to wetland habitat. Followin$ installation of fencing, its proper EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation location shall be verified by a qualified bi.ologist. The biologist shall ensure that at no time during construction is vegetation removed inside of the fenced area. If construction necessitates the removal of vegetation within the fenced area, additional mitigation will be required. Additionally, the biologist shall walk the length of the fence once each construction day to ensure that CRLF are not trapped within the enclosure. The biologist shall walk the length of the fence more than once a day in areas where CRLF are most abundant. · Pre-construction surveys within the construction zone shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with appropriate permits to handle CRLF. If no CRLF are detected during these surveys then construction activities may proceed. If CRLF are found within the construction disturbance zone they shall immediately be moved passively, or captured and moved, to suitable upstream sites. · All construction employees shall participate in an endangered species/special-status habitat education program to be presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The program shall cover such topics as identifying wetland habitat and areas used by CRLF, identification of CRLF EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-8 1 I } I i 1 ) I / 1 t I ~ I I I "1 i SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITiGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation by photos, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and the consequences of violating the terms of these acts. · All construction adjacent to wetlands shall be regularly monitored to ensure that impacts do not exceed those included within the protective standards of the mitigations. Work performed within 500 feet of aquatic habitat shall be monitored by the biologist, who shall document pre-project and post-project conditions to ensure compliance. · During construction, the biologist shall be on site whenever construction within any aquatic habitats is to occur. Any construction activity within ordinary high water shall be photo-documented by the biologist. In addition, a biologist with the appropriate permits to relocate CRLF shall be available for consultation as needed. BIO 6 Special Status Invertebrates Impact 3.7/S of MM 3.7/28.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR was adopted Less than the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially to reduce the previouslY identified impact. That Significant 'significant impacts on special status mitigation is supplemented by the following invertebrates including vernal pool fairy additional mitigation measures shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp. Two additional special status invertebrate species, SM-BIO-16: Special-status invertebrate habitat shall the Conservancy fairy shrimp and the vernal be included in and shall be protected and enhanced pool tadpole shrimp, co~d be affected by by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, development within the Project area and as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1. disturbance of potential habitat such as EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-9 SUMMARY OF'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation seasonal wetlands. (potentially significanO. SM-BIO-17: The following vernal pool habitat surveys and mitigation shall be implemented for each property within the Project area: · Surveys of potential habitat for special status invertebrates are required. If suitable habitat is identified, then such habitat shall be surveyed to determine whether it is occupied by special-status invertebrates. If impacts to occupied habitat will occur (including direct impact as a result of habitat destruction, and indirect impact due to disturbance of areas within 250 feet of occupied habitat), the following measures shall be followed: (a) Preservation: For every acre of habitat directly impacted at least two vernal pool credits shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or, in accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, three acres of vernal pool habitat may be preserved within the Project area or off-site as approved by the USFWS. (b) Creation: For every acre of habitat EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation indirectly impacted, at least one vernal pool credit shall be dedicated within a USFWS- approved mitigation bank .or, in '~ accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, two acres of vernal pool habitat may be created and monitored within the Project area or on off-site as approved by the USFWS. · Vernal pool habitat and associated upland areas which are preserved onsite shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity. · All avoided habitat on site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during the time of construction. The monitoring biologist shall have authority to stop all activities that may result in destruction or take of listed invertebrate species or destruction of their habitat. Resumption of construction shall occur after appropriate corrective measures have been taken. The biologist shall report any' unauthorized impacts to USFWS. .* Fencing shall be placed and EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-11 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation maintained around any and all preserved vernal pool habitat. · All on-site construction personnel shall receive in§truction regarding the presence of listed species and their habitat. BIO 7 California Tiger Salamander: Impact 3.7/G SM-BIO-18: California tiger salamander habitat Less than of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified shall be included in and shall be protected and Significant potentially significant impacts on the enhanced by implementation of a Resource California tiger salamander (CTS) similar to Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation many of the impacts on the red-legged frog. Measure SM-BIO-1. Since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the CTS has been made a formal candidate for SM-BIO-19: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation Federal listing under the ESA. It has been lands, providing similar or better aquatic and upland recognized that upland areas of previously- habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a 1:1 defined CTS aquatic habitat provide suitable ratio shall be set aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat aestivation habitat. In addition, the presence shall be mitigated by preserving upland on-site or, if of CTS was confirmed in the southern portion necessary, by preserving currently-occupied upland of the Project area and suitable habitat is tiger salamander habitat off-site. Aquatic habitat present throughout the Project area. Direct and shall be mitigated by creating an equal number (or indirect loss of individuals in breeding ponds and acreage) of new aquatic California tiger salamander newly recognized upland habitat occur from the breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat. Project. (potentially significant). This mitigation, included in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City prior to submittal of Stage 2 development plans and tentative maps. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-12 ! ! [I SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation public use within preserved areas. BIO 8: Nesting Raptors. The Eastern Dublin EIR SM-BIO-20: A qualified biologist ghall conduct pre- Less than identified potentially significant impacts to construction surveys for nestin§ raptors. If an active Significant several species of nesting raptors. Since . nest is found the following mitigation measures shall certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, an also be implemented. additional special status raptor species, the short-eared owl, has been identified as SM-BIO-21: If construction must occur during the potentially nesting within the Project area. nesting season, all potential nestin§ trees within the Removal or disturbance of an active raptor footprint of development should be removed prior to nest would constitute a supplemental the Vtesffn§ season to prevent occupied nests from potentially significant impact, bein~g present when construction begins. SM-BIO-22: Construction should occur between August 31 and February 1 to avoid disturbance of owls during the nesting season. This construction window could be adjusted if monitoring efforts determine that the owls do not nest in a given year or that nesting was completed before August 1. SM-BIO-23: If removal of nesting trees is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting raptor survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist prior to tree disturbance. SM-BIO-24: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nesting tree. Buffer zones shall be no smaller than 200 feet. SM-BIO-25: If construction is scheduled when young birds have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-13 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged as determined by a qualified biologist. SM-BIO-26: Nesting raptor habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM-BIO-1. BIO 9 Golden Eagle - Elimination of Foraging SM-BIO-27: The territory of the golden eagle Less than Habitat: As discussed in Impact 3.7/K of nesting pair shall be included in and protected and Significant Eastern Dublin EIR, the conversion of enhanced by implementation of a Resource grasslands and the consequent reduction of Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation potential prey are expected to reduce the Measure SM-BIO-1. The protected golden eagle amount and quality of foraging habitat for foraging territory affects areas in the northern golden eagles. Additional data on eagle portion of the Project area designated for Rural foraging habitat gathered since preparation of Residential/Agricultural uses. Development the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the standards and uses for these areas shall incorporate northern portion of the Project area is used by the following measures: an identified breeding pair of eagles for foraging (potentially significant). · Homesites in this portion of the Project area shall be located in valley bottoms adjacent to existing or planned residential development. · Permitted agricultural uses shall be limited to grazing to maintain suitable golden eagle foraging habitat. · Rodent control in this portion of the Project area shall be prohibited. Any additional portion of the Project area that is within the viewshed of all nest sites used by this pair EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-14 I ! II I SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation shall alsO be managed in a similar manner. BIO 10 Burrowing Owl: Eastern Dublin EIR Impact SM-BIO-28: If construction is scheduled during Less than 3.7/M found that development in Eastern the nesting season (February 1 - August 31), pre- Significant Dublin could result in the loss of potential construction surveys should be conducted on the breeding habitat and/or the disturbance of entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of nests for this special-status species. While this the Project area prior to any ground disturbance. To impact has not changed, the California avoid take of over-wintering birds, all burrows Department of Fish and Game has developed should be surveyed 30 days prior to ground new guidelines for mitigating impacts to this disturbance between the months of September 1 and species since preparation of the Eastern January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or Dublin EIR. (potentially significant), suspended for more than 30 days after the pre- construction survey, the site should be resurveyed. SM-BIO-29: 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, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nes~g season SM-BIO-30.' Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified by pre-construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (February 1- September 1). SM-BIO-31: If removal of unoccUPied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is infeasible and construction must occur within the EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST,15 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MfI'IGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation breeding season, a nesting burrowing owl survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on site or adjacent to the site. All active burrows shall be identified. SM-BIO-32: All active nesting burrows shall have an established 250-foot exclusion zone around the burrow. SM-BIO-33: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet fledged, 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. SM-BIO-34: When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a 2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below. SM-BIO-35: A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shMl be acquired and permanently protected. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. SM-BIO-36: The Project proponent shall provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-16 ! ii ! I I 1 1 ) I I I ' I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation include success criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG. SM-BIO-37: Burrowing owl habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1. BIO 11 Nesting Passerines: The Eastern Dublin EIR SM-BIO-38: If construction is scheduled to occur Less than identified potentially significant impacts on during the nesting season (February 1- August 15), Significant riparian and freshwater habitat of tri-colored all potential nesting sites and structures (i.e., shrubs blackbird. The Project area provides and tules) within the footprint of development potentially suitable nesting habitat, including should be removed prior to the beginning of the grassland, arroyo willow riparian woodland, nesting season. However, because the removal of and freshwater marsh habitat, for two grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for impacts additional nesting passerines, the loggerhead to California horned lark are addressed more shrike and the California horned lark. A particularly in Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-39 to breeding colony of tri-colored blackbirds was SM-BIO-41, below. observed in the southern portion of the ProjeCt area. Potential destruction of nesting habitats SM-BIO-39: If removal of nesting trees and shrubs or disturbance to or loss of these nesting ~ithin the footprint of development is infeasible and passerines passerines could result from the construction must occur within the breeding season, project. (potentially significant), a nesting bird survey should be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. These surveys shall cover grassland habitat for potential nesting California horned lark. Birds present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting onsite or adjacent to the site. SM~BIO-40: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nest site. EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-17 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation Buffer zones can range between 75 feet to 100 feet. SM-BIO-41: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by July 15. SM~BIO-42: Habitat for nesting passerines shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM-BIO-1. BIO 12 Bat Species: Special status bat species SM~BIO-43: A qualified bat biologist shall conduct Less than potentially occurring on the site, including the occupancy surveys of the Project area to determine Significant pallid bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and the whether any mature trees,.snags or suitable Yuma myotis bat have been identified since buildings that would be removed during future certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. project construction provide hibernacula or nursery Destruction of roosting habitat for these bat colony roosting habitat. species could occur as a result of the project (potentially significant). SM-BIO-44: If presence is observed, removal of roost habitat should be conducted at specific times of the year. Winter roosts are generally occupied between October 15 through January 30 and maternity colonies are generally occupied between February 15 and July 30. If bats are using roost sites that need to be removed, the roosting season of the colony shall be determined and the removal shall be conducted when the colony is using an alternate roost. SM-BIO-45: Habitat for these bat species shall be EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-18 1 I I I 1 ] ] I ! I ~ I I 1 i I ] I SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1. NOISE 1 Exposure of proposed and existing housing to Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 and 2.0 of the Eastern Significant noise levels in excess of standards established Dublin EIR require acoustical studies for new Unavoidable in the General Plan. (potentially sigTtificant) residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and require mitigation for outdoor living areas of existing residences. However, even with mitigation, previously identified traffic noise impacts on existing residences could not be reduced to insignificance. NOISE 2: Exposure of future commercial, office and SM-NOISE-I: Require a noise insulation plan for Less than industrial uses to noise levels in excess of general commercial (including any proposed office- Significant standards established in the General Plan. type uses) and industrial land uses to be submitted (potentially significant) for all such development projects located within the future CNEL 70 dba contour. The plan shall show how interior noise levels would be controlled to acceptable levels. The acceptable level will depend on the type of use as set forth in the noise insulation plan. Interior noise levels could be controlled adequately by using sound-rated windows in windows closest to the streets and the freeway. NOISE 3 Exposure of people to or generation of SM-NOISE-2: Except for local deliveries, restrict Less than excessive ground borne vibration or ground heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roadways Significant borne noise levels. (potentially significant) and truck routes within the Project area and limit the hours of local deliveries to daytime hours as established by the City. This mitigation will reduce ground borne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic to less than significant. EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-19 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation TRAFFIC 1 Unacceptable LOS at Hacienda Drive/I-580 SM-TRAFFIC-l: Project developers shall contribute Less than eastbotmd ramps (potentially significant), a pro-rata share to the widening of the 1-580 Significant eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn lane. The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. TRAFFIC 2 Unacceptable LOS at Hacienda Drive/I-580 SM-TRAFFIC-2: Project developers shall contribute Less than westbound ramps (potentially significant), a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Significant Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on,ramp. The westbotmd loop on-ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound left-turn lane. The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-20 I ] I 1 ! I ~ ] '1 I i I ] 1 i 1 ] ] } SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation TRAFFIC 3 Unacceptable LOS at Santa Rita Road/I-580 SM-TRAFFIC-3: Project developers shall contT~.bute Less than eastbound ramps (potentially significant), a pro-rata share to construction which converts the Significant eastbound Santa Rita off-ramp through lane to a shared left turn/through lane. Project developers also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a westbound right-turn overlap from Pimlico Drive. The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. ' TRAFFIC 4 The new project intersection of DUblin SM-TRAFFIC-4: The Project developers shall install Less than Boulevard/Street D would operate at an a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D Significant unacceptable level of service during the PM peak intersection at the time development occurs in this hour (potentially significant), area utilizing this intersection. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when the traffic signal installation at Dublin Boulevard/Street D becomes warranted based on the estimated additional trips from individual projects, as determined by traffic impact studies of the individual projects. TRAFFIC 5 The new project intersection of Fallon SM-TRAFFIC-5: The Project developers shall install Less than Road/Project Road would operate at an a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road Significant unacceptable level of service during the AM intersection at the time development occurs in this and PM peak hours. (potentially significant), area utilizing .this intersection. EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-21 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when the traffic signal installation at Fallon Road/Project Road becomes warranted based on the estimated additional trips from individual projects, as determined by traffic impact studies of the individual projects. TRAFFIC 6 In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with SM-TRAFFIC-& Project developers shall contribute a Significant Project scenario, the Dougherty Road/Dublin pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Unavoidable Boulevard intersection would operate at Boulevard approach to include 1 left-turn lane, three unacceptable levels ofservice during the AM through lanes and two right turn lanes. Project and PM peak hours. (potentially significant), developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the west bound Dublin Boulevard approach to include three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata . share to configure the northbound Dougherty Road approach to include three left-turn lanes, three through lanes and two right-turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the southbound Dougherty Road approach to include two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The 1-580 westbound diagonal on-ramp from Dougherty Road shall be widened as necessary to include two single- occupancy vehicle lanes. In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring, as suggested below. EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-22 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation The Project developers shall pay their pro-rata share of the cost to construct these improvements through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The City will implement these improvements. TRAFFIC 7 The Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard No mitigations are feasible to reduce this impact to Significant intersection would operate at an unacceptable less than significant Unavoidable level of service during the PM peak hour in the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario, (potentially significant). TRAFFIC 8 The Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard SM-TRAFFIC-7: The Project developers shall Significant intersection would operate at LOS F (1.11) construct an additional through lane on northbound Un.~i~able during the PM peak hour in the Year 2025 Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), Cumulative Bttildout with Project scenario construct an additional left-turn lane on westbound (potentially significant). Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-turn lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring, as suggested below. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. SM-TRAFFIC-8: In addition to the above additional lane configurations (in Supplemental Mitigation EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-23 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation Traffic 7), the Project developers shall pay for studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the 1-580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection"). This new Project auxiliary intersection should consist of seven northbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left, 4 through, 1 fight), seven southbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left turn, 4 through, 1 fight turn), and 4 lanes for the new Project street; in the westbound direction three left turn lanes and a shared through/fight turn lane; and in the eastbound direction, two fight-ttLm lanes, one through and two left turn lanes. If the studies show that a new Project auxiliary intersection in such location is feasible, the Project developers shall construct such intersection. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. This "auxiliary" intersection, identified as XX in Table 3.6-6 would provide for three left-turn lanes onto southbound Fallon Road to absorb some of the Project-generated southbound left-tums at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Construction of this auxiliary intersection would require modifications to the planned Fallon Road and EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-24 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation Dublin Boulevard alignments to provide the necessary 750 feet distance between intersections. Land uses and planned building locations on the west side of Fallon Road may have to be modified to accommodate this new intersection. TRAFFIC 9 Fallon Road will be overloaded at planned SM-TRAFFIC-9: The Project developers shall be Less than interim lane configurations in the Future Base responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 Significant with Project scenario (potentially significant), and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six-lane width. The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Project developers also shall be responsible for widening the Fallon Road overcrossing (between the eastbound and westbound 1-580 ramps) from four lanes to six lanes. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. TRAFFIC 10 Central Parkway will be overloaded at SM-TRAFFIC-10: The Project developers shall be Less than planned interim lane configurations in the responsible for widening Central Parkway between Significant Future Base with Project Scenario (potentially Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to significant), four lanes. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-25 ~ SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation s~udies of the individual projects. 'fl~l~'l~lC 11 In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with No additi6nal mitigation measures are feasible Significant Project Scenario, freeway segments on 1-580 beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR Unavoidable and 1-680 in the Project area would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours (pofentially significanf). UTS 1 UncerEain Energy Supply: The current SM-UTS-l: Require discretionary City review Less than energy crisis makes PG&E's ability to serve prior to the installation and use of distributed Significant currently unserved territory with gas and generators, including emergency generators. electric service somewhat uncertain. Until PG&E emerges from bankruptcy some SM-UTS-2: Prior to approval of future uncertainty concerning the provision of gas subdivision maps or Site Development Review and electricity services to new and existing applications (as may be applicable) by the City of PG&E customers exists (potentially significant). Dublin, project developers shall submit "will serve" letters from PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas services are available to serve the proposed development project. UTS 2 Local Electrical Distribution Constraints: Mitigations SM-UTS-1 and SM-UTS-2, above also Less than Local electrical distribution constraints limit mitigate this impact Significant PG&E's ability to serve the Project area. PG&E has stated that it is able to adequately serve the Tri-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002; however, service reliability may be problematic after that point. If the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functionally equivalent project is not constructed, PG&E would be forced to respond to growing demand by expanding its existing system to the extent EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-26 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact After Mitigation that it is possible and by curtailing service if growth in demand exceeds the ~ransmission system's capacity or reliability requirements for essential services (such as hospitals) (potentially significant). EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-27 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 EIR REQUIREMENT On May 10, 1993, the City of Dublin approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, a comprehensive planning effort which established land use designations, densities and development patterns for Dublin's Eastern Extended Planning Area. The City Council declined to approve the original General Plan Amendment for a 6,920 acre development area. Instead, the Council approved a reduced development area of approximately 3,368 acres and a rural residential area of approximately 806 acres located outside the then-existing City limits but entirely within the City's Sphere of Influence. The approval anticipated future annexation and prezoning of the reduced development area and its development with a mix of uses in compact villages and with commercial uses along major arterials and 1-580. Open space would be provided in parks, along stream corridors and in the rural residential area with its 100-acre minimum parcel size. The original General Plan Amendment was analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'). The approved Eastern Dublin project was a modified version of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative analyzed in the EIR and in a related Addendum. The Eastern Dublin Property Owners have now requested annexation, prezoning and related approvals for a 1,120 acre Project area. (See Chapter 2.0.) The Project area is within the previously approved development area; the Project is within the scope of the project analyzed in the EIR. Consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, the City prepared an initial study to determine if the annexation and prezoning requests would require additional environmental review beyond the previous EIR. (See Appendix A,) The initial study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts of the annexation and prezoning were addressed in the EIR. This was not an unusual result given the comprehensive planning for the development area, the previous EIR analysis of buildout under the general plan and specific plan land use designations and policies, the long term 20-30 year focus of the general plan and EIR analyses, the fact that annexation and prezoning actions were specifically contemplated in the EIR, and the fact that the request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the Project area in the EIR. Although the initial study concluded that the previous EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, it also identified the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed 'in the EIR. The City determined that the potential new and/or substantially intensified impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared. As required by CEQA, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation to interested public and private parties, including LAFCO as a responsible agency with approval authority over the requested annexations and a related park district detachment. The City considered all responses to the Notice of Preparation and prepared a 2-volume Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) dated July 2001. The DSEIR was circulated for the required 45-day public review period. Written responses to comments received during this period were prepared and published in a Final SEIR dated October 2001. Several comment letters on the DSEIR and the Project were received after the public review period. Through September and October, the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on the Project. At the November 6, 2001 City Council hearing, staff recommended that the DSEIR be revised and recirculated for public review. Through the revised DSEIR, City staff wish to clarify the CEQA environmental review issues as well as the land use and planning issues raised through the comments on the DSEIR. Staff also wish to provide additional opportunity for public review of the clarifications. Finally, City staff wish to clear up what they perceive EDPO Draft SEIR Page 1-1 from the comments as possible misunderstanding of the past planning approvals for the Prc, liect area, of the relation between past approvals and the proposed Project, and of CEQA's presumption against further review once an EIR has been certified for a project except in specified circumstances. The Council accepted staff's recommendation, and this Revised DSEIR was prepared in response to the Council's direction. 1.2 SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Once an EIR is certified for a project, CEQA prohibits lead agencies from requiring a supplemental or subsequent EIR except in specified circumstances. According to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, additional EIR level review may be required only when substantial changes to the project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when substantial changes in circumstances would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when substantial new information shows the project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or shows that previously infeasible mitigation measures would now be feasible but the project proponent declines to adopt them. As reflected in the City's initial study, the Project is unchanged from the project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.. The land use types, densities and patterns proposed in the prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan are the same as approved in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Similarly, the annexation, prezoning, park district detaChment, and other related actions currently requested are identified as implementing actions in the previous approvals. As further reflected in the initial study, however, the following new information and changed circumstances since certifiCation of the Eastern Dublin EIR could result in new or intensified significant impacts: !. 1. New sensitive biological species have been identified. 2. The long distance commuting trends identified in the 1993 approvals may have substantially increased regional traffic and related congestion beyond levels anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 3. The above potential for substantially increased regional traffic may cause related substantial increases in nOise and air quality impacts. 4. Williamson Act properties in the Project area may request cancellation rather than non-reneWal of contracts. 5. There may be potentially substantial changes in the provision of public services and utilities. The initial study identified the impact categories of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Schools, Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities/Service Systems for further EIR level review. This Revised DSEIR describes the degree to which the Project's potential impacts in these categories were adequately covered in the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR. It further describes the type and extent of potential significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. Where supplemental significant impacts are identified, related mitigation measures are also proposed to reduce the impacts to less than significant. CEQA also requires that an EIR identify a reasonable range of alternatives. The Eastern Dublin EIR provided and analyzed such a reasonable range of alternatives, one of which EDPO Draft SEIR Page 1-2 was adopted in modified form in the 1993 approvals. However, to address the potential for new and/or substantially intensified significant impacts of the Project, this Revised DSEIR identifies an additional alternative for the Project area that could avoid or substantially lessen those impacts. Like the existing Eastern Dublin EIR, this Revised DSEIR is a program-level document that focuses on the new or substantially increased significant impacts of continued development pursuant to the General Plan and Specific Plan, as proposed in the Stage 1 Development Plan. The Eastern Dublin EIR and this Revised DSEIR together fully identify and assess all of the potential significant impacts of the Project area development potential. As provided in CEQA, and as discussed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this Revised DSEIR, additional environmental review of future individual development projects may be required prior to approval of future land use entitlements. The Eastern Dublin EIR is available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. 1.3 LEGAL BASIS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Several comments on the July 2001 Draft SEIR questioned why a Supplemental EIR had .b. een pr. epared rather than a Subsequent EIR or a "new" EIR. As noted above, CEQA strictly limit? the circumstances under which cities may require additional EIRs of any kind when a previous EIR has been certified for a project. The current Project requests are subject to these strictures since the Project is within the scope of the previous EIR and the project it analyzed. The City carefully reviewed the Project applications through the initial study process to determine what if any additional review was required. Such initial studies are routine and some level of additional review is common for implementing projects in Eastern Dublin because ultimate development of Eastern Dublin has and continues to require multiple layers of discretionary land use approvals - from the previously approved General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through annexation and zoning level approvals to permit level approvals - before building permits may be issued. For the adjacent Dublin Ranch annexation in 1995, and the nearby Quarry Lane annexation in 2000, for example, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations which addressed potential site-specific impacts of future development on those sites. Other implementing projects in Eastern Dublin have required no additional review beyond the previous EIR, or have required Negative Declarations. The current Project is the first that has required additional EIR review beyond the previous EIR. Based on the nature of the Project requests, the extent of previous EIR analysis, and considering the requirements of CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, the City determined that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared rather than a Subsequent EIR. Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs are similar in both substantive and procedural respects. First, both types of EIRs build upon a previously certified EIR. Second, both types of EIRs analyze substantial changes to the project and/or environmental circumstances when those changes would cause a new significant impact or would substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Change alone is not determinant; nor is the passage of time. The critical factor in both types of EIRs is substantial change from the analysis in the previously certified EIR. Third, both types of EIRs require the same notice and public review. Fourth, both types of EIRs are circulated by themselves, without the previously certified EIR. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 1-3 With the above similarities, the choice between a Subsequent and Supplemental EIR is a matter of the degree of additions or modifications to the previous EIR needed to analyze the new or substantially increased significant impact. Neither is a "new" EIR; both types of EIRs analyze the substantial changes from the previous analysis, Based on the Project initial study, the City determined that a Supplemental EIR is appropriate for the following reasons. 1. The Project is unchanged as to uses, density types and locations analyzed in the previous EIR. 2. There are no new impact categories from the previous EIR. All of the potential additions or modifications involve impact categories that were analyzed in the previous EIR. 3. The additions or modifications needed to update the previous EIR analysis do not require full re-analysis of a particular impact. In some cases, previously identified impacts or previously identified mitigation measures require updating or refinement. None of the modifications, however, introduces an entirely new environmental topic not addressed in the previous EIR. 4. The previously certified EIR was prepared for a major General Plan Amendment for a 6,920 acre development area. The EIR projected and analyzed potential environmental change over an estimated buildout period of 20-30 years. (See 1993 Final EIR, Response 25- 1.) The current Project is consistent with the General Plan lancku.sesand densities analyzed for the Project area in the previous EIR. 5. The previously certified.,Et.R project also included a Specific Plan with more detailed land use development concepts. Thus, the EIR included more detailed analysis in the Specific Plan area than is usual in a General Plan EIR. The current Project development area is located largely within the Specific Plan area and is consistent with the Specific Plan. 6. The current Project includes actions explicitly identified in the previously certified EIR as implementing actions. For the above reasons, the City determined that the current Project does not raise new policy issues as to the type, location, direction or extent of growth. Further, the range of potential impacts identified in the Project initial study is the same range as previously analyzed. Finally, the nature of the potential changes identified in the Project initial study requires updating and/or refinement of the previous EIR analyses, rather than full re-analysis. Irrespective of the label, and consistent with both Subsequent and Supplemental EIR provisions of CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, the City will not approve the Project without first certifying an EIR which comprehensively addresses the potential for significant environmental impacts of the current Project beyond those addressed in the previous EIR. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REVISED DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR This Revised Draft Supplemental EIR ("Revised DSEIR') consists of two bound volumes, and supplements the program EIR and Addenda certified by the City of Dublin for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. (SCH 91103064, "Eastern Dublin EIR", or "EDEIR", incorporated herein by reference.) This Revised DSEIR is organized as follows: EDPO Draft SEIR Page 1-4 Chapter 1 - Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the organization and review of this document as a Revised DSEIR which will be recirculated for public review. Chapter 2 - Project Description. Chapter 2 describes the proposed Project, Project area location and general existing conditions. It also describes Project objectives, the use of this document and future approvals required for the Project. Chapter 3 - Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Chapter 3 contains the impact and mitigation analysis for the Project. Each environmental topic includes existing conditions (setting); potential supplemental environmental impacts and their level of significance; and mitigation measures recommended to mitigate identified significant impacts. Chapter 4- Alternatives. Chapter 4 evaluates a Mitigated Traffic Alternative, and updates the No Project and No Development Alternatives from the Eastern Dublin EIR as applied 'to the Project area. Based on comments on the July 2001 DSEIR, Chapter'4 also discusses an intensified development alternative. The environmentally superior alternative is discussed in this chapter. Chapter 5 - References. Chapter 5 provides full references for all documents used in this Revised DSEIR environmental analysis. Chapter 6 - Report Authors. Chapter 6 lists the authors of this EIR and organizations and persons consulted in its preparation. 1.5 Appendices - The appendices contain the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study; Resolution No. 53-93 approving the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and including the mitigati°n findings, overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring plan; background data referenced in this Revised DSEIR including, but not limited to, an evaluation of Project area prime agricultural land, air quality data, an addendum to the Kit Fox Protection Plan in Appendix E of the Eastern Dublin EIR, noise data, and detailed intersection volume/capacity tables. REVISED DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR REVIEW PROCESS This Revised DSEIR will be circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA. Written responses will be prepared to all relevant comments on environmental issues received during the public review period. The public c~mments and responses will be compiled in a Revised Final SEIR. The Revised Draft and Final SEIRs will be presented to the City Council for certification. After certification, the City will consider the requested Project approvals and make appropriate findings based on the certified SEIR. 1.6 FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Future specific plan and zoning actions, as well as site development review, tentative map and other permit level entitlements will be required for individual development sites within the Project area. Further environmental review will be required for these future projects, and additional documentation may be required as appropriate under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for activities not examined in the Eastern Dublin EIR or this Supplemental EIR. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 1-5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Project area is approximately 1,120 acres in size, located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to the west. Figure 2-A shows the Project location in relation to the general Bay Area. The Project area abuts the eastern boundary of the City of Dublin (Figure 2-B). The entire Project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence (SOI). Approximately 472 acres of the Project area are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary (Figures 2-B, 2-C). The Project area consists of thirteen (13) different parcels of land under eleven (11) separate ownerships (Figure 2-D). 2.2 PROJECT AREA FEATURES TOPOGRAPHY The topography of the area ranges from relatively flat at the southern portion near the freeway, to gently rolling hills at the center of the area, to relatively steep slopes, some exceeding 30%. A series of low knolls trending from northwest to southeast bisects the southern portion of the property and provides a backdrop to the flatter portions of the area near the freeway. A few drainages flow in a north to south orientation, generally draining towards Fallon Road and Croak Road. Figure 2 - E shows the topography of the Project area. Few trees exist in the Project area beyond those planted around existing homesteads and scattered in the drainages. EXISTING LAND USES The Project area is used primarily for agriculture and grazing, with rural residences and associated outbuildings scattered throughout the area. A horse ranch is located on the approximately nine-acre Campbell parcel north of 1-580 east of Croak Road. (See Figure 2-D.) Other land uses in the Project area include excavation and landscape company corporation yards, horse boarding and training facilities, trucking/delivery/storage facilities, and an abandoned quarry pit. ADJACENT LAND USES Current land uses surrounding the Project area include a major transportation corridor (I-580 freeway) to the south, rural residential and grazing lands to the north and east, and Dublin Ranch to the west. Dublin Ranch is a mixed-use development adjacent to the Project area. Like the Project area, Dublin Ranch was planned in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan 'Amendment and Specific Plan approvals discussed below and is currently undergoing phased development. Dublin Ranch underwent a prezoning similar to the current Project proposal upon annexation in 1995, Through the Dublin zoning ordinance development plan processes, some development projects have been approved on individual sites. Land uses for Dublin Ranch are similar to those designated for the Project area. Dublin Ranch includes low density residential, medium density residential, medium-high density residential high density residential, general commercial, campus office, approximately 54 acres of a total 68-acre community park, a portion of an elementary school site, rural residential/agriculture designated areas, and open space. Agricultural lands to the north and east of the Project area are designated as Future Study Area- Agriculture in the General Plan. These lands were deleted from the Eastern Dublin development area upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment in 1993, as further discussed below. Under the Future Study Area designation these lands Would require additional study by the City to determine whether they are appropriate for development or preservation. However, no such studies have been undertaken since 1993. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-1 Land uses south of 1-580 include grazing and agricultural farming uses; however, land southwest of 1- 580 west of E1 Charro Road is in the City of Pleasanton's adopted Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan and is slated for future light industrial and commercial use, and a community park. OWNERSHIP The Project area contains thirteen parcels owned by eleven landowners. Ownerships and parcel sizes are shown in Table 2.4-1 below, and on Figure 2-D. TABLE 2.4-1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS AND ACREAGES* Property Owner Acreage Applicable Dublin Plan First American Title Guarantee 189.1 GP/SP Co. (FATCo.) (2 parcels) Chen 135.6 GP/SP EBJ Partners L.P. 0.8 GP/SP Pleasanton Ranch Investments 0.2 GP/SP Anderson Second Family 48.9 GP/SP Limited Partnership Ri~hetti Partners 48.7 GP/SP Branaugh 39.8 GP/SP Campbell 8.8 GP/SP Braddock and Logan 159.5 GP Croak (2 parcels) 164 GP' Fallon Enterprises 313.8 GP TOTAL 1,109.2 1,109.2 ac GP/472 ac SP * See Figure 2-D for specific parcel acreages 2.3 PRIOR PLANNING APPROVALS: 1993 EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (hereafter, "Eastern Dublin project"). The approved project was a modified version of the original General Plan Amendment (hereafter, "GPA") for a 6,920 acre planning area generally known as Eastern Dublin.~ The original GPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture/open space designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses, as shown on Figure 2-E of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. Within the nearly 7,000 acre planning area, a new Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposed land use policy at a greater level of detail in order to "bridge" general plan policy and zoning for individual development projects. Intended for both policy and regulatory use, the Specific Plan addressed 3,328 acres, supplementing the GPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs and regulations. (Eastern Dublin Draft EIR, hereafter, "DEIR', p. 2-4.) ~ The use of the term "original" in this section refers to the "project" described in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The EIR also included alternatives to the "project" and it was one of the alternatives which the Council approved, (See Resolution 53-93 in Appendix B and later discussion in this Chapter under "Eastern Dublin Project Approval"). EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-2 The GPA plarming area was located east of the City of Dublin. The planning area was characterized by a relatively fiat plain along 1-580, which gave way to rolling foothills and increasingly steep slopes to the northeast. Apart from facilit~::~ on County property in the southwest portion of the planning area (former Santa Rita Rehabilitatio ~ Center, U.S. Naval Hospital), the Eastern Dublin project area consisted primarily of open grasslands used for grazing and dry farming, and with scattered residences. (DEIR p. 2-3.) The original Gila land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area with a mixed-use urban community. The project concept is set forth in the following excerpt from the Eastern Dublin EIR. Residential and employment-generating uses will be balanced to enable residents to live near work. Employment-generating uses include retail, service, office, governmental, research and development ("R and D'), and light industrial. Residential designation [sic] range from Rural Residential to High Density multi-family. Higher density housing has been located near the future BART station and along a key transit corridor. Higher densities have also been located close to commercial centers where the concentration of population will contribute to that center's social and economic vitality. The-Project provides a full complement of regional office and retail land uses located near freeway interchanges, local-serving commercial centers are envisioned as pedestrian- and transit-oriented mixed-use concentrations which include retail, service, office, and residential uses, and are carefully integrated with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Open space is a major component of the Project's land use plan, giving form and character to the urban development pattern. The open space concept envisions a community ringed by undeveloped ridgelines. Urban and open space areas will be linked by an open space network structured along enhanced stream corridors. The circulation concept calls for an integrated, multi-modal system that reduces potential traffic impacts by providing area residents with choices for a preferred mode of transportation. (DEIR pp. 2-4; Eastern Dublin Responses to Comments, hereafter, "FEIR' p. 66.) At buildout, the GPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential with a 100 acre minimum parcel size. Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned. (DEIR p. 2-7.) Buildout was expected to occur over a 20 - 30 year period from the start of construction. (DEIR p. 2-6, FEIR p. 8.) The major policies of the GPA are summarized on pages 2-9, -10 of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. The GPA planning area was comprised of two subareas. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the planning area. Most of the urban laval development was planned for this area. The eastern portion of the ?~nning. ~,t~ *,:-a8 knower as the General Plan Increment Area. The General Plaa: Increment Area planned for loW and medium density residential development in Doolan Canyon with a small neighborhood commercial site. (DEIR Figure 2-E.) The Doolan Canyon residential land uses Were surrounded by Rural Residential designations. EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan addressed 3328 acres in the western portion of the GPA planning area. Seventy percent of the GPA residential development and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for the Specific Plan area. (DEIR p. 2-8.) The land use plan called for compact villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating commercial uses were provided EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-3 along arterials with transit access. (Id.) The major policies of the Specific Plan are set forth on pages 2- 10 to 2-14 of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. ~,ASTERN DUBLIN EIR The City of Dublin prepared a Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin project based on the original 6,920 acre GPA planning area and land use designations, and 3,328 acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. (SCH 91103064.) The EIR also identified a third component of Project Implementation. (DEIR p. 2-4.) This component included "procedural steps ... to be undertaken for full implementation of the [GPA and Specific Plan] Project; Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determinations on annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park Department (LARPD), and sphere-of-influence boundary changes; prezoning, and review and approval of specific development projects." (Id.) The City initiated the Eastern Dublin project in 1988 after several separate development projects were proposed for the area. The goal of the project was to provide comprehensive planning for development types, locations and patterns in Eastern Dublin which would be implemented through future individual development projects. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR sta. tement of project objectives, the project was intended to preserve visually-sensitive and biologically-sensitive habitat areas, encourage development patterns that support transit on local and regional levels, and maintain balanced employment and housing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. (DEIR p. 2-5.) The EIR analyzed the potential environmental effects of adopting and implementing the GPA and Specific Plan project. The EIR also analyzed the cumulative effects of the Eastern Dublin project, that is, the project "within the context of regional development." (DEIR p. 5.0-1.) As required by CEQA, the EIR included a list of ongoing and future development projects that, together with the Eastern Dublin project, might "compound subregional (i.e. Tri-Valley) environmental problems." (Id.) Reflecting a surge of development interest at the time, the cumulative projects in Dublin alone included 924 units, plus another 3,133 units on 3,140 acres in Western Dublin, and the potential intensification of uses at Camp Parks. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan projected 11,000 units; while the City of Livermore was considering the North Livermore General Plan Amendment with potential buildout between 3,713 and 16,513 units. The various cumulative projects also proposed millions of square feet of non-residential development. The list of cumulative projects from the Eastern Dublin EIR is shown on Figure 5-A of the DEIR and also in Figure 5-A in Chapter 5.0 of this EIR. Virtually all of the potential new development areas in the list of cumulative projects was undeveloped land, primarily in agriculture and/or open space uses, as evidenced by the aerial photographs which form the base maps for Figures 2-B and 2-D of the Eastern Dublin DEIR. ~ As. ~WO .~xpected for a majOr general plan level project during a time of dramatic development activity, me v.a~tetn Dublirr-Eix?,-~identified many potential significant impacts on both a project (GPA and Specific Plan) level and a cumulative (regional, subregional) level. Mitigation measures were proposed and adopted for most of the significafit imPacts tO reduce them to less than significant. The City of Dublin would implement some of the mitigation measures directly; examples include but are not limited to adopting a stream corridor restoration program, designating substantial areas within the project area as Open Space or Rural Residential where low density development will also provide foraging habitat, and continuing to participate in regional studies of future transportation requirements, improvements and funding. Other mitigations would be implemented through conditions or development standards for future development projects; examples include but are not limited to proportionate-share contributions to roadway improvements and transit service extensions, and compliance with the Kit Fox Protection Plan. Many of the mitigation measures also included policies and action p~ograms identified in the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan documents. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-4 Even with mitigation, however, some of the identified significant impacts could not be reduced to less than significant. Several of the these impacts were cumulative level impacts, such as loss of agriculture and open space, 1-580 and other traffic impacts, and air quality impacts. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR identified project alternatives, including No Project and No Development alternatives, a Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative, and a Reduced Planning Area alternative, and analyzed whether the alternatives would avoid any of the otherwise unavoidable impacts. As further discussed below, the City Council adopted a modified version of the Reduced Planning Area alternative after certifying the EIR as adequate and in compliance with CEQA on May 10, 1993. (Resolution 51-93.) ~..,. o certified an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 which assessed the modificatiOns to The City Council the Reduced PlanrLnag Area alternative and concluded that this alternative "will have no environmental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 for approval of the modified alternative. A second Addendum was later prepared. Dated August 22, 1994, the second Addendum updated plans for disposal of treated wastewater from Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are collectively referred to hereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the "EDEIR' and are incorporated herein by reference. EASTERN DUBLIN PROJECT APPROVAL The Eastern Dublin pl. anning process spanned some four years beginning in 1988. The City identified a preferred alternative in 1991 and prepared a draft GPA for the 6,920 acre planning area and a Specific Plan for 3,228 acres in 1992. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review in August of 1992. After numero~as Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City Council declined to · approve the original 6,920 acre GPA. Instead, the City Council approved a modified version of the Draft EIR's Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area. (Resolution 53-93, see Appendix B of this DSEIR.) Alternative 2 reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, a nearly 40% reduction in project area. More specifically, Alternative 2 provided for buildout of the Specific Plan area, buildout of the GPA area only within the Dublin Sphere of Influence, but no annexation and no GPA for Doolan Canyon. (DEIR p. 4- 9.) Intended as a "midpoint" between development and environmental concerns, Doolan Canyon would not develop and its current agricultural land uses and rural character would be maIntained. The importance of this area's function as a "green" community separator between Dublin, Livermore and the Tassajara Valley would increase as development occurred in eastern Dublin, and North Livermore, and lands east of San Ramon. (Id.) The beneficial effeCt of Alternative 2 is reflected in a comment letter on the Eastern Dublin EIR from the City of Livermore. By letter dated October 26, 1992, Livermore stated that Alternative 2 has the affect [sic] of less urban sprawl while not reducing overall intensities of land use. This may be an environmentally superior alternative to the current proposed project. Alternative 2 allows buildout as proposed in the Specific Plan, and buildout of the General Plan Amendment within the current SOI for Dublin. Equally important, it explicitly allows for the preservation of Doolan Canyon as an important "green community separator between Dublin, Livermore, and the Tassajara Valley...' (page 4-9). (FEIR, Comment 17-11.) Rather than urban land uses, the area outside the City's Sphere of Influence was designated a Future Study Area with an underlying Agriculture land use on 100 acre minimum parcel sizes, consistent with the Alameda C~unty General Plan. (May 4, 1993 Addendum p. 12.) Upon approval of the modified EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-5 alternative, the City Council adopted mitigation findings and a mitigation monitoring program for identified significant impacts that could be reduced to less than significant. (Resolution 53-93.) The City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for' identified significant impacts that could not be reduced to less than significant even with mitigation. (Id.) Through the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council considered the decision to allow urbanization of Eastern Dublin and found that overriding economic, social, environmental, land use and other considerations supported approval of the project. Following certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the modified Reduced Planning Area alternative, a lawsuit was filed challenging the validity of the EIR and the Council's approval of the GPA and East Dublin Specific Plan. (Pleasanton v. Dublin, San Mateo Sup. Ct. No. 385533). The Court upheld the EIR, finding it in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City has since implemented the mitigation monitoring program adopted by the Council (Resolution 53-93), as interpreted by the Court's Memorandum of Decision. Copies of Resolution 53-93 and the Court's Memorandum of Decision may be obtained from the City Clerk. A referendum qualified for the ballot following the Council's adoption of Resolution 53-93 approving the GPA and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. An election was held in January 1994 at which time the voters of Dublin approved Resolution 53-93 and the GPA and Specific Plan. The Future Study Area that was deleted from the original GPA development area is shown in Figure 2- B. In 1995, the City amended its General Plan Circulation Element maps to delete Central Parkway as a through-roadway to Doolan Canyon, consistent with the approval of Alternative 2. (Figure 5-lb, Dublin General Plan.) Since the Council's 1993 approval of the Eastern Dublin project, no land use studies have been initiated nor considered in the Future Study Area. 2.4 PROJECT APPLICATIONS The Eastern Dublin Property Owners have requested to annex the Project area to the City of Dublin and to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), to prezone the Project area to the PD-Planned Development Zoning District and adopt a related Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of the Project area, to detach the Project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and other related actions. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan approved in 1993 established the general development patterns, land uses and densities for the Project area. The current applications are the next step in the implementation of the 1993 Eastern Dublin approvals. All were specifically identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and represent an intermediate step in the ultimate development process. The requested approvals from the City would be legislative actions at a planning level. Subsequent applications would be required to complete the planning and zoning for the site through approval of Specific Plans where required and through Stage 2 PD rezonings for individual development sites. Upon completion of the zoning approvals, permit level approvals would be sought for Site Development Review, tentative maps and other permit approvals as appropriate. The Project includes the following requests. ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN The Project area is currently located in unincorporated Alameda County and is subject to the Alameda County East County Area Plan (ECAP). Upon annexation to the City, the Project area would be subject to the City's General Plan and other land use controls. The Project is already within the City's Sphere of Influence so no amendment to the Sphere is necessary for the annexation. (See Figure 2-F.) The westerly adjacent Dublin Ranch site was annexed to the City in~1995. The Project area is contiguous with the current City limits along its border with Dublin Ranch. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-6 ANNEXATION TO DSRSD DSRSD would provide public water and sewer services to the Project area upon annexation to the district. The Project area is already within the DSRSD Sphere of Influence so no amendment to the Sphere is necessary for the annexation. DETACHMENT FROM THE LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (LARPD) The 1993 Eastern Dublin approvals contemplated that neighborhood and community parks will be provided by the City and regional parks will be provided by the East Bay Regional Parks District. The Project area is currently in both LARPD and the East Bay Regional Parks District. The Eastern Dublin project included future detachment from LARPD. There are no LARPD facilities existing or planned in the Eastern Dublin area. PREZONI'NG TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The PD prezoning request includes a Stage 1 Development Plan as required by Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the PD District is to plan development sites as a unit with maximum flexibility to achieve efficient land uses that accommodate development, environmental protections and creative design. A Stage 1 Development Plan must identify land uses, densities and development standards, and must include a master landscape plan and development phasing plan. AH land uses within the Stage 1 Development Plan must be consistent with the General Plan and Spec'fflc Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan covers the entire Project area and reflects the land use types, densities and locations established in the 1993 Eastern Dublin project approvals. (See Figures 2-G, 2- H.) It also allows development standards and mitigation measures to be applied to the entire Project area for implementation through future individual projects. More specifically, the Stage 1 Development Plan includes a mix of residential uses at a variety of densities; employment-generating uses such as retail, service, office and light industrial; parks, open spaces, community facilities, roadways and similar land uses. Retail, office and light industrial land uses are located primarily in the southern portion of the Project area along the freeway and major arterials. Residential uses are located in the more northern and eastern portions of the Project area. The Project also provides a complement of neighborhood parks, school sites, open space, and a multi-use trail system to link the developed areas of the Project with the parks, trails and open space areas of the Project. If approved, the Stage 1 Development Plan would be the basis for future applications leading to development of the Project area. As required by General Plan Implementing Policy 2.1.4 (B), a Specific Plan(s) will be required for the approximately 638 acre portion of the Project area which is outside of the current Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Pursuant to the PD-Planned Development district zoning regulations, Stage 2 Development Plans are required for subsequent site-specific development projects and must be consistent with the approved Stage 1 Development Plan. Adopted by ordinance, the Stage 2 Development Plans would complete the PD zoning process for the related sites. The City will require application for the required specific plan(s) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development plans. Future development applications following the required specific plan and zoning actions could include entitlements such as Site Development Reviews, tentative subdivision maps, use permits, development agreements and similar requests. These future development applications will be subject to further environmental review as appropriate under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS The project applicant and City will enter into a pre-annexation agreement to specify certain funding obligations following annexation. These include funding any deficit between revenues from the Project EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-7 area and expenses for fire services; advance of Fire Facilities Impact Fees (due to construction of a fire station); advance of Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (for funding for 1-580/Fallon Road interchange improvements); and related funding issues. The pre-annexation agreement will not address the Project's obligation for funding infrastructure inasmuch as project conditions will require such funding. 2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Eastern Dublin project are set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (See DEIR p. 2-5.) All of the identified objectives for the Eastern Dublin project remain objectives of the current Project as it implements the comprehensive land use plan adopted in 1993. Additional objectives of the annexation and prezoning Project include the following. · Complete the planned expansion of the City's corporate boundaries to the east as provided for by LAFCO in adopting the City's Sphere of Influence, and in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Initiate a zoning level framework to guide future development projects within the Project area consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. · Facilitate the cohesive and cooperative planning of lots under separate ownership in the Project area. · Implement the City's objectives for Eastern Dublin as set forth in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin EIR. · Implement the City's long term progrararnatic planning approach for Eastern Dublin as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 2.6 CURRENT PROJECT: EASTERN DUBLIN PREZONING LAND USES, DENSITIES, AND INTENSITIES PROPERTY OWNERS ANNEXATION AND The Stage 1 Development Plan identifies land uses and intensities for the Project area consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. (See Figures 2-G, 2-H.) Proposed for development in two Phases, the first phase will include approxImately 702 acres in the west, central and southern portion of the Project area. (See Figures 2-G. and 2-I) This portion is easily accessible to utilities, can easily provide services, jobs, and other needed land uses for adjacent Project area neighborhoods, and already has good freeway access. Looped traffic flow and necessary infrastructure will be provided. The second phase of development would involve the remaining lands in the north and northeast portions of the Project area and in the higher elevations. Timing for the Project phasing will depend upon market demand. All necessary roadways, site grading, and utility backbone improvements are expected to occur in a timely manner with each development phase. Future residential development under the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan would be a maximum of 2,526 units. A wide range of residential unit types would be allowed within the proposed densities. Single family residential densities would permit lots from 4,000 square feet up to one acre. Medium density residential densities would typically be small lot development such as z-lots, zippers, small lots, clusters, or townhomes. Medium-high densities allow for units such as apartments or stacked flats. The minimum lot size in rural residential designations is 100 acres; a residential unit could be built on less than 100 acres only on an existing legal lot. The maximum square footage of potential commercial and industrial uses is approximately 581,090 square feet and 840,360 square feet respectively, for a total of 1,421,450 square feet maximum. (see Table 2.4-2.) The maximum proposed floor area ratios (FAR) for general and neighborhood commercial and industrial park uses are 0.25 (General Commercial), 0.30 (Neighborhood Commercial) and 0.28 (Industrial). Industrial uses constructed at this FAR are typically one and two story buildings; typical EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-8 commercial buildings are one to two stories; typical office buildings (permitted in some commercial zoning designations) are two to three stories. These standards are reflected in the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan. A portion of the Project area within the Airport Protection Area (APA) of the Live,more Municipal Airport. (Figure 2-H.) Although the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provided for potential residential development in the APA, the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the airport prohibits new residential land use designations or intensification of existing residential land uses within the APA. This policy is further stated by the Airport Land Use Commission in its letter dated November 27, 2000. Anticipating conflict between the APA policies and potential future residential development, the Eastern Dublin General Amendment and Specific Plan provide that residential designations that are inconsistent with the APA at the time of prezoning will convert to Future Study Area with an underlying Rural Residential/Agriculture designation. In accordance with these provisions, residentially designated lands in the Project area that are also within the APA are identified in the proposed Stage 1 D~evelopment Plan as "Future Study Area - Rural Residential/Agriculture." This designation neither creates a new residential land use designation nor would result in the intensification of existing residential land uses; the designation is consistent with the existing Alameda County land use designation and with the City's existing land use designations and no intensification of uses will result inasmuch as the existing uses are rural residential/agriculturaL Because lands within the APA cannot be developed as residential given the current policies, these areas are designated Rural Residential/Agricultural for purposes of assessing Project impacts in this DSEIR. The proposed development plan also includes approximately 14.1 acres to be added to a planned commUnity park which straddles the Project area and Dublin Ranch. (Figure 2-H.) Consistent with the City's standard of five acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents, the Stage 1 development plan provides approximately 24 acres of neighborhood parks and 2.7 acres of neighborhood squares, reserves a maximum of 32 acres for schools (or as otherwise determined by the City and the Dublin Unified School District), and retains approximately 77 acres as permanent open space. These acreages are consistent with the acreages for such uses under the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Regional park facilities continue to be provided by the East Bay Regional Park District. The Stage 1 development plan for the Project area (Figure 2-G) follows the intent and general layout of the General Plan and Specific Plan with the following refinements and clarifications: The City's General Plan identifies arterials in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. The PD zoning regulations require that collector streets also be shown in the Stage 1 Development Plan. Accordingly, collector streets are planned consistent with the City of Dublin's street standards. These alignments, however, split some General Plan/Specific Plan land use bubbles and create Unusable pieces of land. In an effort to maintain the intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan, some land use bubbles have been adjusted to match the alignment of these cOllectors. Within the Specific Plan area, some portions of the arterials have been realigned to better conform to the existing terrain. With these refinements, the proposed development plan remains substantially consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. The APA extends into the Project area to just north of Dublin Boulevard (Figure 2-J.) As noted above, potential residential uses in the APA do not conform to ALUP policies. Land uses in these areas are shown as "Future Study Area -- Rural Residential/Agriculture" as required by the General and Specific Plans. A junior high school site shown on the Specific Plan also encroaches into the APA. The Stage 1 Development Plan moves this site northward out of the APA according to ALUC policies, and adjusts adjacent land uses accordingly. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-9 Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agriculture bubbles in the northern and eastern portions of the area have been adjusted to follow existing topographic conditions more closely and to avoid more sensitive biological areas. All urban development areas will occur below the 770' elevation contour in conformance with the General Plan Development Elevation Cap for Eastern Dublin. PARKS AND RECREATION The Project proposes detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD), consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3 (I) and the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan (p. 7). Upon detachment, the County will reallocate property taxes received by LARPD to reflect the shifted obligation for park and recreational services. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan establishes the City's standard for community and neighborhood parks at 3.5 and 1,5 acres per 1,000 population, respectively, for a total of 5 acres per 1,000. The City's Public Facilities Fee will apply to future development within the Project area. The fees are used to fund community and neighborhood park land and improvements, as well as community facilities such as a second community center, a recreation center, a community theater, a second aquatic center, a senior center and a new library. A number of comments were received regarding park and recreational uses when the July 2001 DSEIR was circulated. Appendix I includes copies of the responses to those comments which relate to park and recreational uses. This information is included in this Revised DSEIR to provide as much information as possible regarding the Project even though the initial Study did not identify any issues related to parks and recreation. AFFORDABLE :HO USING The PD zoning provisions require Stage 1 Development Plans to address compliance with the City's Inclusionary Zoning regulations. The City's current ordinance requires five-percent of all developed housing to be affordable to very low, low, and moderate incomes, or, payment of an in-lieu fee to allow the City to facilitate construction of such housing. The City Council recently directed staff to prepare an amendment to the current ordinance to change the inclusionary requirement to 15%, with at least half of the requirement to be fulfilled through construction of affordable units. The Project proposes to comply with the Inclusionary Zoning requirements by paying an in-lieu fee, providing land, constructing housing, or a combination of these options. Compliance with the Inclusionary zoning provisions will be required at the time tentative subdivision maps or other entitlements are prepared and submitted for individual development projects. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Primary access to and through the Project area would be via Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Collector streets located throughout the Project would provide secondary access and ensure through-circulation. This proposed street network is comparable to that shown in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Proposed street sections would be comparable to those already approved or built in other areas of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Each street in the Project area would be designed with safety, convenience, and visual quality in mind and would address pedestrian and bicyclist needs. (See Figure 2-K.) In accordance with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies, numerous multi-use trails are planned to provide pedestrian and bicycle access through the Project area, connecting urban areas with open space trails and regional trails. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-10 UTILITY SERVICES Proposed utilities in the Project area are shown the Master Infrastructure Plan (Figure 2-L). The Master Infrastructure Plan addresses water, wastewater, st0rmwater, and recycled water infrastructure requirements and services. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide water, wastewater and recycled water infrastructure and service to the Project area. The entire Project area is within the Sphere of Influence for the DSRSD. These services were planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Update, which includes planned service for the proposed Project. The water and recycled water, and wastewater infrastructure requirements described in the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Update have since been updated in the DSRSD September 2000 Water Master Plan and December 2001 Final Revised Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin, and February 2000 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, respectively. It is anticipated that water storage reservoirs and turnouts from Zone 7 mains would be sufficient to provide water service for the Project area through buildout. Water mains would be located in all streets. According to DSRSD's updated Water Master Plan, it is anticipated that one new pump station would be located within the Project area. The Project Master Infrastructure Plan is based on the most current study provided by DSRSD and differs slightly from the Specific Plan's conceptual backbone and facilities system plans, as further discussed in Section 3.7. Final locations and sizing of all water service facilities would comply with the standards and recommendations of DSRSD. Sewer service for the Project area would require connection to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system and sewer treatment would occur at DSRSD's existing treatment plant. Gravity sewer mains would be extended easterly in Dublin Boulevard to the Project area. Sewer mains would be installed in all streets in accordance with the February 2000 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and as necessary. Final sizing and location of sewer facilities would be determined in conjunction with DSRSD. Force mains may also be utilized in the interim. When available from the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant, recycled water would be provided for irrigation of large landscaped areas, thereby reducing potable water demand. Final location and sizing of recycled water facilities would be per the updated Water Master Plan prepared by DSRSD. This main would remain in service and additional recycled water distribution mains would be constructed to serve large landscaped areas within the Project area as required. The Project area is within the adopted Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 Drainage Study Area, hence its expected flows are anticipated and planned for by Zone 7 and Project facilities would be sized appropriately. The storm drain system for the Project area would consist of major backbone facilities and local facilities. The backbone facilities would generally consist of larger diameter pipes networked throughout the area. These larger collector pipes would connect to open channels or box culverts that would direct the flows toward the existing G-3 channel located in Dublin Ranch Area H, along the freeway frontage road, an Zone 7 facility. Local facilities would generally consist of smaller diameter pipes connecting individual sites or areas to the collector system. The actual sizes and locations of proposed storm drain facilities would be determined with individual project improvement plans. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Project area is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area; approximately half of the Project area is also in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. (See Figures 2-B, 2-C, and Table 2.4-1.) The General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identify the type and density of land uses and future development contemplated for the Project area upon annexation to the City. (See Figures 2-H, 2- G.) The Project is consistent with the type, location and densities of use established in the General Plan and Specific Plan. Consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan policies, the Eastern Dublin EIR EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-11 evaluated potential development of the Project area at the mid-point density of each land Use category (except for Rural Residential/Agriculture). Table 2.4-2, below, indicates the mid-point development densities anticipated for the Project area under the General and Specific Plans. These densities are proposed for the Project through the Stage 1 Development Plan, with the exception of the two Future Study Areas, (Doolan Canyon, APA) for Which the Project and this DSEIR assume no new development. 2.7 REGULATORY SETTING The Project area is currently located in the unincorporated area of Alameda County. The County regulates land use for the area pursuant to the East County Area Plan (ECAP). The Project area is currently within the Dublin Sphere of Influence. (See Figure 2-F.) If the Project is approved, the Project area would be annexed to the City of Dublin and land use would be regulated by the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the approved PD zoning and the City's other zoning and development regulations. (See Figure 2-M.) Since approval of the Eastern Dublin project in 1993, local and state measures affecting the Project have been enacted. On the local level, the City of Dublin enacted a Development Elevation Cap for Eastern Dublin, and Alameda County voters approved Measure D which established new development regulations that would aPply to the Project area if it remains in the County. On a state level the statute regulating annexations was updated in 2000 as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. Each of these measures is discussed below. EASTERN DUBLIN DEVELOPMENT ELEVATION CAP In 1998, the City of Dublin amended its General Plan to establish a Development Elevation Cap for the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The development cap limits urban development to locations below the 770' elevation contour. The intent of the cap is to identify areas where orderly and logical growth may occur adjacent to existing development, incorporating open space systems and preserving Eastern Dublin's visual resources. The Project area is subject to the Development Elevation Cap restrictions, which are reflected in the Stage 1 Development Plan. MEASURE D Alameda County voters approved Measure D in November 2000. The effect of Measure D on the Project is discussed in the Initial Study under Land Use and Planning. As noted in the Initial Study, Measure D restricts development in the unincorporated portions of the County. It does not limit development within cities, nor does it create or impose urban growth boundaries on those cities. Thus, Measure D has no effect on the City's existing growth boundaries, the Development Elevation Cap in Eastern Dublin and the Urban Limit Line in Western Dublin. Measure D would also not restrict development of the Project area if it is annexed to the City. In addition, Measure D is not a factor that LAFCO would consider when evaluating the Project annexation request. The new annexation law, further discussed below, allows LAFCO to consider growth goals and policies only as established by elected officials. In approving the new annexation statute, the legislature deleted proposed language that would have allowed a LAFCO to also consider growth boundaries adopted by the voters. CORTESE-KNOX-HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT Alameda County's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is responsible for reviewing and acting upon requests for annexation to, or detachment from, cities or districts, such as the Project request for annexation to the City and DSRSD and for detachment from LARPD. LAFCO powers were authorized in the Cortese-Knox Act of 1985, which was comprehensively revised in the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 ("Act"). The purpose of the Act is to EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-12 encourage planned, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration to preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage efficient extension of governmental services based upon local conditions and circumstances. (Government Code Sections 56001 and 56301; all citations in this subsection are to the Government Code unless otherwise noted.) The Act further recognizes that providing housing at all income levels is an important factor in promoting orderly development. The ACt prefers additional growth within, or through the expansion of, the boundaries of those local agencies which can provide necessary governmental services and housing for all incomes. (Section 56001.) LAFCOs have the specific authority to review, among other things, annexations to or detachment from cities or districts. The Act now requires that annexation areas be prezoned and provides for annexation approvals consistent with the planned and probable use of the property based on the general plan and prezoning designations. (Sections 56375(a), (e).) Annexation requests are reviewed for consistency with adopted spheres of influence (sections 56375.5, 56668), and for guiding development toward non-prime agricultural lands unless such development would not be orderly or efficient. (Section 56377.) Additionally, the Act sets forth a lengthy list of factors to be considered by LAFCO. (section 56668.) The factors include but are not limited to land use and policy considerations such as' population, density, land uses, growth projections for a ten-year period and fair share housing needs; social and economic interests; the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands; consistency with applicable general and specific plans and spheres of influence. The factors also include environmental considerations such as topography, drainage basinS, public services and facilities including timely availability of water supplies. The Project annexation application to LAFCO will address all of the listed factors. To the extent that such factors involve potential environmental impacts, appropriate analysis will be provided through the Eastern Dublin EIR as supplemented by this Revised DSEIR. As noted earlier, annexation and future development of the Project area was assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, the EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts not only of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, but also of annexation of the planning area to Dublin and DSRSD as applicable. Consistent with similar LAFCO policies, orderly and efficient growth and extension of services were stated objectives of the 1993 Eastern Dublin project. The 1993 approvals ultimately limited potential development to the City's Sphere of Influence, consistent with LAFCO goals. The Eastern Dublin approvals provided for a significant housing component at varying densities and anticipated income levels to help the City meet its share of regional housing needs. The Eastern Dublin project also emphasized mixed use communities to provide not only a diverse housing stock, but also a balance of housing and employment opportunities. Even in 1992, the Specific Plan recognized that the absence of adequate and affordable housing has resulted in a workforce that commutes longer and longer distances. More and more frequently people who work in the Bay Area must reside in communities as far away as Tracy and Modesto in order to find suitable housing. The resulting commute patterns have detrimental side effects on the entire population in the form of increased traffic congestion on major freeways such as 1-580 and 1-680, reduced air quality, and decreased quality of life. As more and more employment is planned for the Tri-Valley area, it is critical that housing be provided to offset the new demand. (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan p. 30.) The Project area proposed for annexation includes the same residential and employment-generating land uses and densities adopted through the Eastern Dublin project and analyzed on a project and cumulative level in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As the Specific Plan excerpt above notes, traffic congestion EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-13 and reduced air quality are the primary environmental effects of long distance commuting. These impacts are updated in this Revised DSEIR. Efficient provision and extension of public services and infrastructure was an important issue in the 1993 approvals and continues to be an important issue for the proposed annexation. The Project proposes annexation to DSRSD as well as the City, and is located within the adopted Spheres of Influence for both agencies. Future development of the Project area is contemplated not only in the City's General Plan but also in DSRSD's Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan. Development and extension of services in Eastern Dublin has generally proceeded from west to east. With development of the Dublin Ranch property to the west of the Project area and extension of public service facilities and infrastructure to the northern portion of the western Project area boundary and within approximately 3,000 feet of the southern portion of the western Project area boundary, annexation of the Project area is a logical and orderly progression of development. The Project proposal includes a detailed Plan for Services as required by LAFCO and by the City's PD zoning regulations as part of a Stage 1 Development Plan. 2.8 INTENDED USES OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EIR This SEIR was prepared by the City of Dublin as Lead Agency for action on the Project Applications described earlier in this Chapter. LAFCO is a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the requested annexation and detachment actions. In addition to the above approvals, the SEIR may also be used by local, regional or state agencies in their revieTM of other approvals required for the Project. Such approvals could include, but are not limited to, CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered Species Act permits, Water Quality certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act, Alameda County Flood Control District/Zone 7 for ~proval of the G3 storm drain channel. The SEIR may also be used by the Alameda County County Committee or Alameda County Board of Education (if it acts as the County Committee) as the lead agency for approval to detach the Project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) and annex it to the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). (A reorganization of school district boundaries is not subject to LAFCO jurisdiction.) Section 2.7 of the Eastern Dublin EIR also identifies other potential future agency approvals that could rely on the SEIR. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-14 TABLE 2.4-2 PROPOSED PROJECT ACREAGES AND DENSITIES Land Use Type Gross Acres Proposed Project (Midpoint) Single Family Residential 433.5 1,734 dwellings (0.9 - 6 alu/acre) Medium Density Residential 9.4 94 dwellings (6.1 - 14 alu/acre) Medium/High Density 34.8 696 dwellings Residential (14.1 -25 du/acre) Rural Residential/Agriculture 269.1 2 dwellings (1 du/100 acres or parcel) Future Study Area~ 92.6 No development assumed General Commercial 41.0 446A90 sq. ft. (0.25 FAR) Neighborhood Commercial 10.3 134,600 sq. ft. (0.30 FAR) Industrial Park 68.9 840,360 sq. ft. (max. 0.28 FAR) Junior High School 14.6 N/A · Elementary School 17.3 N/A· Community Park 14.1 N/A Neighborhood Park 24.0 N/A Neighborhood Square 2.7 N/A Open Sp.ace 76.9 N/A Totals 1,109.22 2,526 du 1,421,450 sq. ft. Notes: SFuture Study Area indicates a land use designation for properties located within the Airport Protection Area. These areas will require future additional City review and action to determine appropriate land uses. 2Acreage total is less than the 1,120-acre Project area because it omits acreage utilized for public rights of way. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-15 San Francisco Pacific Ocean Project Location !ii San Francisco Bay 0 ( ~ 10 Miles jose~ DetailI RaA Proj L J FUTURE STUDY AREA AGRICULTURE -14 Aores j (CroSby} Acres NOTE: Central Parkwa' not continue through to the City's eastern sphere of influence. ('Please refer to Figure 5. lB of the Dublin General Plan). General Commercial may be ~ermitted by a P~anned Deve~ent Zo~g Proce;;$ (see text for cor~te discussion ] Will conver! to Fu[~re S~udy Area/Agriculture where dete*mined inconsistent with APA (see text t'o~ corr~ete cfisc, usei~n) l~l 9149\sup-EIR\fig2-B-EDGPA III General Plan .Eastern Extended Planning Area LAND USE MAP Legend COMMERCIAl_ ~ Neigl',,b~od Comm~¢iaJ ~ General Commercial ~ ~dus~,ial Park RESDENTIAL ~ High Density 25- du/ac ~ Medium-High Densily 14-25 du/ac ~ low Density 0*6 du~ac ~ Rural ResidentiavAgdo.~ture 1 d.v'100 ac PUBLIC/SEMI.PUBLIC/OPEN ~ Public/Semi.Pubic Facility O Elementary School I~ Junior High School (~ High Schoo~ O Pub~c/Semi-Pu~llC Parks & Recreation I~ Cily Park ~ Neighborhood Park Neighborhood $auare Open Soace Stream Co~'ridor CIRCULATION ~ Arterial Slreet --~-- Colector Street ...... Tran~ ~ ----- SOl Bour~ary .... ~a~ Plan Amendrrmnt Study Area .... Specific Ran Study Area EASTERN DUBLIN WMImm Robef~ & Todd East Dublin Properties FIGURE 2-B ProjectArea ..... ~ * Ge~erat Commercial may be permltted by a Plant, ed Developmer4.Zonir~g Prooess [see text for- complete discusslorO .~*> ~/t[~ C~nve[~to.. F~tu~e=.S~dy. Area/^grtcultu~e wl~efe ~eterm~,ed inconsistent with Ltvermore APdA (~ee text for complete 11111 I~ 19149~zup-E! R~g2-C-EDS P. psd Land~ Use Map Legend ~ Roads RESIDENTIAL ~ Rural Residential/ Agri~ Iture ~ Sin. g'la Family ~ Medium Density ~ Mad-HI Density / High Density COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ~ General Commercial E~ Neighborhood Commercia~ [~ Campus Office ~ Irt~ustr~at Park PUBLIC/SEMI~PUSLt ~ Publlc,rSemi,-Publio ~ Elementary School [~ du~tor H~gh School ~ High School PARKS AND'OPEN SPACE ~ Neighborhood Seu~re ~ Neighborhood Park ~ Community. Park ~ City Park ~ Open Space EASTERN DUBLIN Specific Plan Wallace Roberts &Todd ~s~vo~ January. 7, 1994 E~st Dublin Properties FIGURE 2-C os East Dublin Properties FIGURE 2-H Project Site and Dublin Raach OS L ProjeCt Area I' Legend l- lligh Density Residen{ia{ Medium High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Densi¢) Residen~inl Neighborhood Commercial mAOgY&SOmPS East Dublin Properties FIGURE 2-I Phasing Plan ~IJAI~,AY & SOInP$ /\ mA KAY&SOmPS 19149~ up-E IR\ fig 2.0. J -al rport.l~vA Airport Referral Area General Referral Area - 4,000' from 1-~0 )' from northern Airport Protection ~'rea - 5,00 edg+ of airport runway Source: Ea.ntern Dublin GPA, SP, ErR (Parl i) PlA Design Resource~ Inc. eLO. fio.edw.~ G~c~i'lon ~ ~reewaY . ~ O-Inne dlvld~ ~''~ O-Innedlvldbd ' . ~ 4.lane divided :-:-: '2-1afle divided' 2-Mile undlvidod t7 6~ / ~ 4LD ~ 14,g~ . 4LO qLu d ~ . 8 ~ ~q,/w ' -- , ,, ~:CE .... ' ' i · 44~ )28.~ ( teLO 0 ! ' 42~ 9,~eLD l 61,7~ 4~,~ i ' 64;~ ~,I~ ~ . ' " ~ '.~ NOrlh Not'to Dublin General Plan Figure East Dublin Existing and 2010 Projected Traffic Volumes- 2010 and Beyond Network 5-1b II . III .... Il III III I ' '~ i~! I I I ~[/// L :.~t.~...,..A EaSt:Dublin Properties FIGURE CO C? ! E~,J Parbqer~, L L Mot an East Dublin Properties F1GURE 2- L Master Infrastructure Plan ~[orm Dram ~m V~htcubr C:rcula~on Puma 5~on / Proj<~ Site ~ounda~ D~RSD's Master Plan. Size and location of utilities will be verified as land plans and demands are developed. NP ..... mA ,AY& SOWS 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Initial Study determined that there was the potential for new or substantially increased significant impacts in the impact categories Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Schools, Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities/Service Systems; all of which are addressed in this chapter. 3.1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Agricultural resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.1, Land Use, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. In 2000, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (AB 2838) extensively modified the state's annexation law. Among the modifications was a new definition of "prime" agricultural lands. This supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR examines whether previously identified agricultural conversion impacts would be increased substantially under the recently enacted definition of prime agricultural lands. It also examines whether the potential for cancellation of Project area Williamson Act contracts would result in new or substantially increased significant impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a description of agricultural resources on and around the Project area at the time of certification. Agricultural and grazing uses predominated within the Project area and throughout the GPA/SP area. While urban development has commenced pursuant to the adopted GPA/SP in lands west of the Project area, the annexation and prezoning area remains largely in agriculture, grazing and rural residential use. Approximately one-half of fire area within the Project area is subject to Williamson Act contracts and Notices of Non-Renewal have been filed on all such lands. The contracts will expire beginning in 2006, with the last expiration in 2010. Table 3.1-1 and Figure 3.1-A identify the contract status for the parcels that have filed for Non-Renewal. The remaining parcels in the Project area and immediately adjacent to the area are not under Willlamson Act contract. Some Project property owners are expected to request cancellation of their contracts prior to expiration. None of these parcels contain "prime agricultural land.' (Compare SEIR, Figure 3.1-A with Figure 3.1-B.) TABLE 3.1-1 PROJECT AREA WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACT STATUS Assessor's Parcel Owner Acres Expiration Number Non-Renewal Year Fallon 985-0007-002-14 Enterprises 313.8 1996 2-20-06 905-0002-002 Croak 124.2 2000 1-01-10 905-0002-001-01 Croak 37.8 2000 1-01-10 Source: Alameda County Community Development Agency Source: Eastern Dublin GPA/SP EIR, 1992; Alameda County Recorders Office, 2001. Future development of the Project area will implement the land uses and densities approved for the area through the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP. As future implementing projects are approved and built, the current agricultural lands will convert to urban uses, as anticipated in the GPA/SP and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, focusing on farmlands of local importance, prime agricultural lands, and lands subject to Williamson EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.1-1 Act contract. Much of the Project area supports farmlands "of lo: ~xportance" (see Figure 3.l-B). Farmlands "of local importance" are defined as those th~, : ~tribute to local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops. The agr~:: ~ural lands in the Project area are of local importance for grazing. Generally, areas o~ ocally important farmland on the Project area occur in the flatter or gently sloped portions while lands designated as "Other" on Figure 3.1-B are located in the northern, steeper portions. "Other" softs include all softs not of local or statewide importance. The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified approximately 200 ;~,":,"t:-~s of prime agricultural land in the southern portion of the GPA/SP area, based on the the;:..applicable definition (for annexation purposes) of "prime agricultUral lands" contained in Section 56064 of the,~ Cortese-Knox Act (Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 24-3; Figure 3.1). Impact. 3.1/D assumed the complet~, !oss of farmlands of local importance throughout the GPA/SP area, including the loss of pr~ ~'. agricultural lands. The E:,~tern Dublin EIR determined that the loss of agricultu~'~i lan~~, '.:~s not a significant imp~c i.:ecause: ~ ~he area of prime farmland comprises ~ relativ,:: i. ~;mall portion of a much ,:;-:ger area of' non-prime farmland~ 2) m~;!~:'~aining this la~d in ag~'~c ~tur~ ';..~ses would deter fl~e ordering, and efficient deveic, ,~;ment of the z:'e~a; 3) the area':~' ;.nversion would not threz:..:~r'~ any other prime farmland with urban~ation; 4) none :: the three affected landowt':ers had any intention of farming the land; and 5) the area of prince agricultUral softs already lie within the City's sphere of influence (Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 24-3.). Addressing conversion to urban uses more generally, the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that approximately one-half of the GPA/SP area agricultural activity would be lost to futUre development. Because 61% of Williamson Act lands already had filed for non-renewal and with the ;-elatively limited value of the non-prime soil," Impact 3.1/C identified discontinuation of agricultural uses as less than significant:' Although finding GPA/SP-wide loss of agricultUral lands less than significant, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands as a significant unavoidable impact. (Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 34-9, Impact 3.1/F.) Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this imp~!~::~ (Appendix B). Impact 3.1/E examined the indirect effects of Williamson Act non-renewal on agricultural lands and found them less than significant. CanCellation rather than non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts is not addressed separately in the EIR discussions although it was anticipated as a potential futUre activity that would require a formal petition, public hearings, findings and a resolutioaa (Eastern Dublin DEIR 2-15 to -17). Finally, the Eastern Dublin EI~ reviewed the policies to be considered by LAFCO pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Act (sec?~on 56377) and found that t~e GPA/SP was not in conflict with either of those policies. ' Those policies were (1) that development should be guided away from prime agricultUral land~,: :;tless such action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of the area; and (2) that existing vacant or non-prime agricultural lands within the existing sphere of influence should be developed before any propo?~:.~ is approved which would allow for the development of open space lands outside: the existing sphere of influence. (Response to Comment 24-3.) ~ It should also be noted that with respect to an earlier Eastern Dublin annexation proposal (that included the prime agricultural lands discussed in the Eastern Dublin EIR), LAFCG found that preserving the lands would not promote planned and orderly development and therefore convers~c was consistent wit~ Cortese-Knox. (See Alameda LAFCO November 10, 1994 Agenda Report, Item 9, p. 11; Alameda LAFCO Resolution 94-21.) EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.1-2 SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Cortese-Knox Act (Gov. Code sections 56000 et seq. governed annexations when the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. The Act recently was amended by AB 2838 (Stats. 2000, chap. 761) to, among other things, revise the definition of prime agricultural lands. Pursuant to the Initial Study for the annexation and prezoning Project, this supplement examines whether the revised definition of prime agricultural lands would result in more lands qualifying as prime than at the time of the Eastern Dublin EIR certification. It also examines whether expiration of Williamson Act contracts on the Project area through cancellation rather than non-renewal would be a new significant impact. Significance Criteria Agricultural resource impacts would be significant if the Project would convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the productivity of prime agricultural land to a substantially greater degree than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts are expected from the revised definition of prime agricultural lands or from cancellation of Project area Williamson Act contracts. Prime Agricultural Lands. Under AB 2838, soils are considered prime agricultural land if they meet any of the following criteria: NRCS rating of Class I or Class II, if irrigated, provided irrigation is feasible · Storie Index rating of 80-100 · Supports livestock used for food or fiber and has an annual carrying capacity of at least one animal-unit per acre · Planted with fruit or nut trees, or other unprocessed agricultural plant products with production of $400/acre or more in the past five years A soils report prepared for the Project proponents evaluated the potential for prime agricultural lands on the area based on the newly enacted definition (Appendix C, Berloger Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation (February 7, 2001). It determined that the Project soils .ail in eac, h of the specific tests required for classification of prime agricultural lands. pecifically, as to the first criteriOn, while there are about 100 acres of Class I and II soils in the Project area, the area could not feasibly be irrigated by either surface or groundwater supplies. As demonstrated in the Berloger Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation (February 7, 2001), the Berloger Report (October 3, 2001, Letter to Ms. Connie Goldade, MacKay and Somps), and the MacKay and Somps Draft Agricultural Lands Irrigation Cost Estimate (January 11, 2002) [all included in Appendix C ], irrigation using ground, surface, reclaimed, and/or potable water is not feasible within the Project area. Inasmuch as the Project includes annexation of the Project area to DSRSD, it is logical to assume that water to irrigate the area would come from DSRSD and not from other water retailers, such as Livermore. DSRSD's high cost associated with installation of infrastructure necessary to provide reclaimed water to an area currently not served by reclaimed water and DSRSD's rate structure which prices reclaimed water similar to potable water would make it economically infeasible to irrigate the lands. Zone 7's new transmission facility (North Valley Pipeline) is a treated water pipeline. Because of the cost of treated water, it would be infeasible to use water from this facility for agriculture. The City of Dublin commissioned a review of the potential of prime agricultural soils within the Project area by an independent consultant. Dr. Ronald Amundsen, a prOfessor of soil EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.1-3 science at UC Berkeley. Dr. Amundsen's report (dated December 17, 2001), included in the DSEIR in Appendix C, concludes that there is one s~l type (Rincon clay loam) that has a Land Capability class of II, if irrigated. The acreage of potential Class II soil is 70 acres. The 70 acres are part of the 100 aCres identified by the E'~ ?t!oger report. However, as discussed above, it is not economically feasible to provide irr~?: :.-"~on water to the Project area. Therefore no prime agricultural soils are located wi~an the Project area based on the first of the four criterion of AB 2838. The other three classification criteria within the new definition are not met. The Berloger report identified Storie Index ratings ~:~: 16 to 65 on the area, below the 80 ratL-~g required to qualify for prime agricultural soils. The report also found that the grazing capacity of the lands is approximately one animal-utqt per 10 acres, and that the land has not been used for fruits, nuts, or other unprocessed agricultural plant products in the past five years.. Thus, there are no additional prime agricultural lands in the Project area beyond those at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. Since no new significant impacts related to prime agricultural lands have been identified in this DSEIR, no mitigations are needed. Mitigation measures for loss of agricultural lands, including use of conservation easements, adding new lands to agricultural production and requiring a per-acre mitigation fee, have been considered by other public agencies. Because no new or additional significant impacts have been identified in this DSEIR no new mitigation measures are needed. Mitigation measures of the type described above are considered land use regulatory tools and, as such, are not required to be addressed in this document. Cancellation of Existing Williamson Act Contracts. Some Williamson Act contracts have expired since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Notices of non-renewal have been filed on all other contracted lands within the Project area. As noted in Impact 3.1/F of the Easter~ Dublin EIR, non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts is not considered an envir~:?~mental impact under CEQA, although it is a planning concern. Some property owners within the Project area may request cancellation of their Williamson Act contracts. Such cancellations would accelerate the expiration of the contracts and likely accelerate the conversion of agricultural lands to v. rban uses. However, the result of exp]r:~!~on or cancellation would be the same either way, in that existing agricultt2ral uses wov~!t' ~'~e converted to urban uses as provided for in the adopted General Plan and Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin EIR thoroughly analyzed the conversion of agricultural uses throughout the GPA/SP area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assessed the conversion of agriculture to urban uses. The fact that the conversion may occur sooner as a result of cancellation of the Williamson Act contracts does not change the analysis, nor result in additional significant impacts beyond those assessed in Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, requests for cancellation of Williamson Act contracts on the Project area is not a significant new impact or a substantially increased significant impact, beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In the event a cancellation request eventually were submitted to the City, the request would be subject to the procedures noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Any approval of the request is subject to strict findings requirements of Government Code section 51282, including the following: 1) that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act; or, 2) that cancellation is in the public interest. In order for the City to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act it must find that the cancellation is EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.1-4 for land on which a notice of non-renewal has been served, that cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use, that cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan, that cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development, that there is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land. Similarly strict findings are required to find cancellation in the public interest. Any cancellation request to the City would also be subject to Dublin General Plan Policy 3.2,A regarding Agricultural Open Space in the Extended Planning Areas as follows. Lands currently in the WilIiamson Act agricultural preserve can remain as rangeland as long as the landowner(s) wish to pursue agricultural activities. The City does not support the cancellation o/Williamson Act contracts, unless some compelling public interest would be served. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.1-5 _ .~'" Ex~.stm~ C~b/of Dubhn E3ounaary ast Dublin Prope¥~:i~s, FIGURE 3.1- A ..W-i!!.i~.?.r~..~.~..~? inAOKAY & SomPs 1-58 : -x...__.~..Hier ;anyon Road Source: Eastern Dublia GPA, SL% EIR (Pail 1), Preliminary Tille Rt~oer ts East Dublin ProPerties FIGURE 3.1-B Locally Important Farmland !? DIAl:KAY 8[ Somps 1-580 Source: Eastern Dublin GPA. SPo EIR (part I ) : ~]t.qtera Dublin GPA., Sd), EIR (Part 2} I 3.2 AIR QUALITY Air Quality was analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR examines compliance with applicable air basin plans and regulatory standards in light of increases in regional traffic and changes in commute Patterns since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement also examines changes in the regulatory standards since the previous EIR (initial Study pp. 24, 29). ENVIRONMENTAL SETFING The Project area is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Prevailing daytime onshore winds often occur in conjunction with regional capping inversions that trap air pollution within a shallow layer near the ground. Over time, substantial reductions in pollutant emissions throughout the Basin have improved air quality in the Project area and the Tri-Valley region to a point where almost all clean air standards are met on almost every day of the year. Within the Tri,Valley Air Basin state and federal emission standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. However, the Tri-Valley Basin also receives emissions from upwind Bay Area sources. Hence, standards for other airborne pollutants including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin some of the time: IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to construction, mobile source and stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures were adopted to control construction dust and exhaust emissions, and to minimize mobile and stationary source emissions through, among other things, cooperative transportation and air quality planning and transportation demand management. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed annexation and prezoning. Even with mitigation, however, significant cumulative construction, mobile source and stationary source impacts remained. (Impacts 3.1lA, 3.1lB, 3011C, and 3,11E). Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant unavo{dable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.) The ~-,::.posed annexation and prezoning includes' the same land uses and densities analyz~.:~ in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, there are no new or intensified air quality impacts regarding the level and type of construction activity required for potential development of the Project area. SUPPLMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. While emissions related to potential development of the Project site are not expected to differ from the previous EIR, regional traffic has increased substantially over previously assumed levels. Section 3.6 of this SEIR analyzes the impacts of this increased traffic. As reflected in the Initial Study, increased regional traffic also could create new or intensified air quality impacts. Also, since certification of the previous EIR, the Basin is no longer in attainment status for ozone. Pursuant to Guidelines section 15162 and 15163, this supplement assesses whether new or intensified air quality impacts will result from increased regional ~r~fic and changed regulatory standards. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-1 Significance Criteria Based on the Initial Study, Project or cumulative air quality impacts are considered significant if they result in conflict with applicable air quality plans or violation of air quality standardS beyond levels analyzed in the previous EIR. Regulatory Setting The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the State agency responsible for regulating air quality in California. CARB responsibihties include estabhshing State Ambient Air Quality Standards, emissions standards and regulations for mobile emissions sources (e.g., autos, trucks, etc.), and overseeing the efforts of county-wide and multi-county air pollution control districts, which have primary responsibility over stationary sources. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for air quality regulation within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review activities. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national ambient air quality standards, however, individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards and to include other pollution sources. At that time, California already had established its own air quahty standards. State and federal standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 3.2-1. The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network which measures the ambient concentrations of six criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), inhalable particulate matter (PM-10), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Eastern Dublin can be readily inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the BAAQMD at its Livermore air monitoring station. Federal Requirements. In 1995, after several years of minimal violations of the federal one-hour ozone standard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the designation of the Bay Area Air Basin from "non-attainment" to "attainment" for this standard. However, with less favorable meteorology in subsequent years, violations of the one-hour ozone standard again were observed in the basin, particularly at the Livermore monitoring station. Effective August 1998, the EPA downgraded the Bay Area's classification for this standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified non-attainment" area. In response to the EPA's redesignation of the basin for the one-hour federal ozone standard, the BAAQMD and regional metropolitan planning and transportation agencies were required to develop an ozone attainment plan to meet this standard. The BAAQMD currently is preparing a 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan for compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. Also in 1998, after many years without violations of any carbon monoxide (CO) standards, the attainment status for CO was upgraded to ,'attainment." State Requirements. California's Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, calls for designation of areas as attainment or non-attainment based on State Ambient Air Quality Standards rather than federal standards. The Act also requires development of air quality plans and strategies to meet State air quahty standards. The Act classifies the Bay Area as a serious non-attainment area for ozone. This classification triggers various plan submittal requirements and transportation performance standards, and requires the local clean air plan to be updated every three years to reflect progress in meeting the air quality standards and to incorporate new information regarding the feasibility of control measures and new EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-2 emission inventory data. The Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan (1991 CAP) included a comprehensive strategy to reduce air pollutant emissions and focused on control measures to be implemented d~:tring the 1991 to 1994 period. It also included control measures to be implemented from 1995 through 2000 and beyond. The Bay Area 1994 Clean Air Plan (1994 CAP) included changes in the organization and .~,'~eduling of some 1991 CAP measures and also included eight new stationary and mobile source control measures. The updated 1997 CAP contains every control measure deemed feasible for implementation as required by State law. Even wi~:!~ all reasonable and feasible measures, however, the 1997 CAP did not predict near-term a~..-,~inment of the State ozone standa:cd. The CAP was again updated in December 2000. "Ihe goal of the 2000 CAP is to redt~ce emissions of ozone precursors (Reactive Organics, Nitrogen Oxide and Particulate Matter (PM-10)). The 2000 CAP indicates regional improvements in ozone concentrations, but still shows ozone standard exceedences in the Livermore valley and, therefore, continues to include "all feasible measures" to reduce ozone (BAAQMD 2000). The CAP and Ozone Attainment Plan implement state and federal Clean Air Act ozone standards, respectively. Monitoring Results for Criteria Pollutants Table 3.2,2 is a five-year summ~ry of monitoring data (1995-1999) from the Livermore station. Table 3.2-2 compares measured pollutant concentrations with both state and federal ambient air quality standards, as further described belo~r. Ozone (0~). 03 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere thro~'~gh a complex series of photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen o~ides (NO×). 03 is a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with O3 production by the photochemical reaction process. 03 causes eye and respiratory irritation, reduces resistance to lung infection, and may aggravate pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Table 3.2-2 shows that the State standard was exceeded on an average of 14 days per year between 1995 and 1999. The less stringent federal standard of 0.12 ppm for one hour was exceeded an average of eight times per year. Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, invisible gas usually formed as the result of incomplete combustion of organic substances. Approximately 80 percent of the CO emitted in Alameda County comes from on-road motor vehicles (CARB, 1999). High levels of CO can impair the transport of oxygen in the bloodstream and thereby aggravate cardiovascular disease and cause fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. Table 3.2-2 shows that no State CO standards were exceeded between 1995 and 1999. Measurements of carbon monoxide (CO) show low baseline levels with the hourly maximum averaging 25 percent or less of the allowable State standard. Similarly, maximum eig~s~_~.~'~.our CO levels are at least six parts per million (ppm) below the 8-hour exposure level vl nine ppm considered unhealthful for sensitive receptors. Suspended and Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM-lO and PM-2.5). PM-10 consists of fine grained inhalable particulates that can cause adverse health effects. PM-10 can include certain substances, such as sulfates and nitrates, that can cause lung damage directly, or can contain absorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Table 3.2-2 shows that exceedances of the State PM-10 standard occur relatively infrequently. State PM-10 standards were exceeded in only nine measurements out of 304 measurement days (PM-10 is not monitored every day) in the last five years. Federal PM-10 standards have never been exceeded at the Livermore monitoring station. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-3 Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, federal standards for PM-2.5 (an even finer particulate size than PM-10) have been adopted. California has not yet proposed a state standard for PM-2.5, although the existing State standard fOr PM-10 is more stringent than the new federal standard for PM-2.5 and therefore already provides a higher level of public health protection for PM-2.5 than the new federal standard. The BAAQMD currently is monitoring PM-2.5 at the Livermore station but the period of record is too brief to establish any meaningful patterns or trends. In a few PM-2.5 samples taken in late 1999, however, none exceeded the federal 24-hour standard for PM-2.5. Because the new federal standard is less stringent than applicable state standards, this new standard does not have the potential for new significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. Other Air Pollutants Criteria. The standards for NO2, SO2, and lead are being met in the Bay Area, and the latest pollutant trends information suggests that these standards will not be exceeded in the foreseeable future (ABAG and BAAQMD, 2000). SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Unanticipated increases in regional traffic and related increases in vehicular emissions beyond those assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR could conflict with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan, could contribute to 'violations of other State and Federal standards, and could contribute to cumulative pollutants. Supplemental Impact AQ 1: Mobile Source Emissions: Reactive Organics (RO), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), and Particulate Matter (PM-lO) Since 1993, the BAAQMD has set CEQA-type thresholds of significance for certain pollutants - Reactive Organics (RO), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxide (Nox) and Particulate Matter (PM-10). The BAAQMD Plan considers any project which may be expected to generate mobile sources emissions exceeding 80 pounds per day of ROG, NOx or PM-10 as having a potentially significant impact. Buildout of the Project will cause 54,071 daily automobile trips to be generated within the air basin (see also Table 3.6-3). Table 3.2-3 shows that the Project's expected Mobile Source Emissions will be 156 pounds per day of RO, 335 pounds per day of Nox, and 316 pounds per day of PM-10. Mobile source emissions for RO and NOx as precursors to ozone formation are expected to cause the significance thresholds to be exceeded two- to almost four-fold. Because these precursors would result in the formation of substantial quantities o~ ozone, which already exceeds both state and federal standards in the Tri-Valley area (see Table 3.2-2), mobile source emissions for these pollutants are considered a significant impact. In addition, mobile source emissions may result in regional impacts through emissions of ozone precursor Pollutants. This impact also is a potentially significant cumulative impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 - 11.0 together with the monitoring, transportation measures and advanced traffic signal timing identified in Chapter 3.6/Traffic and Circulation), will not achieve the 50-80% reduction in Project-related traffic which would be needed to reduce emissions below the current ozone precursor significance threshold, and no additional feasible mitigation measures could achieve that level of reduction in Project-related traffic. Residual air quality impacts will remain ~. Supplemental Impact AQ 2: Mobile Source Emissions: CO Table 3.2-3 indicates that CO emissions are projected to exceed substantially the BAAQMD threshold of potential significance of 550 pounds per day. This threshold is EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-4 used to determine: ~¥hether further micro scale (e.g. inte~:~ .:,!'i_on) CO analyses are ~qarranted. Sigr~ · ~nce under BAAQMD standards, ho~.'~'., er, 'is determined by whether Project t~',:', .: :: creates ;:~ny new violation of CO standards. CO emissions were calculated for the ~: mtersec~:i.::.ns within and around the Project area (see also section 3.6, Traffic and Circulation). Table 3.2-4 shows that microscale CO concentrations, in conjunction with a 3-5 ppm non-local hourly "backgrom~: ' in the Dublin Ranch area will not exceed the California hourly standard of 20 pp~:~. Table 3.2-5 indicates that anticipated Project traffic CO emissi,vns also would not exc~?;d the state/federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm at any of the 19 intersections. Therefore, CO impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-5 TABLE 3.2 -1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging California Standards Federal Standards Time Concentration Method Primary Secondary '.Method I Hour 0.09 ppra (180 pg/nP) Uhraviolet 0.12 ppm (235 Hg/m~) Same as Erbylen~ Ozone (03) Photometry Primas7 S[and~d Chemil~ncsccncc ' 8 Ho~ ~ 0.08 ppm (t57 Hg/m~) Respirable Annual Gcom~mc Paniculate Mean 30 gg/m~_ Size Selective -- Inertial Inlet S~plcr Saint as Scp~ation Ma~er 24 Hour 50 pg/m~ ARB Me,od 150 gg/m~ Pfim~ Gravimetic (PM,o) Annual P (8/2~a5) Analysis Al'ithmcuc -- 50 ~g/m~ Mcan Fine 24 Hour lne~ial Paniculate No Separate stat~ Standard 65 ~m~ Same as S¢par~tion ~d Ma~er Annual Pdm~ S[an~d trm)/n~ni.s~ Afi~mc~c 15 g~m~ Gravim~tic M~ Analysis Carbon 8 Ho~ 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m~) Non-dis~ive 9 ppm (t0 m~m~) . ln~ed Non-d~iw Mofloxi~e 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 m~m~) Phomme~ 35 ppm (40 mg/m~) None (GO) 8 Ho~ 6 ppm ~ m~m~1 (NDe) Photomt~ Annual Nitrogen ~m~mc S~ as -- G~ Ph~c 0.053 ppm (100 g~m~) Pdm~ S~n~d Gas Dioxide Mean Ch~milu~ncscenc~ Ch~lu~nesc~nce (NO~) I Hour 0.25 ppm (470 Hg/m.S~ 30 ~ys 1.5 pg/m~ average Land AIHL Me,od 54 Q~ Atomic Abs~on 1.5 ~m~ p~m~ ~d Atomic A~o~doa Annual Sulfur Mean ~ 0.030 ppm (80 gg/m)) Dioxide 24 Ho~ 0.~ ppm (105 gglm]) ~uor¢sc¢nc~ 0.14 ppm (365 gg/m3) (S 0~) P~aroso~ilin~ 3 Hour ~ 0.5 ppm (13~ g~m~) I Hour 0.25 ppm (655 BErn)) Visibili~ . In suffici=m ~oum to produce ~ ¢xtinc[ion Reducing 8 Hour co¢ffic/em of 0.23 p~r kilometer~visib~i[y (l 0 am to of ten miles or more (0.07~30 miles or more Panicles 6 pm, PST) for ~k¢ Tahoe) due [o par[icl~s when [he N O r¢lafiw humidi~y is I~ss ~an 70 percent. Method; ARB Method V (~/I 8/89). Sulfates Turbidimetfic FedeFa 24 Hour 25 g~m~ B~um SulfaIe-AIHL Me.od 61 (~6) Standards Hydrogen c~im Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 g~m3) S~ac~ TABLE 3.2 - 2 PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY SUi ,~, ~ ~RY DAYS EXCEEDING REGULATORY STANDARDS Standards 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ozone 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 20 22 3 21 14 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm (F) 11 16 0 8 7 Max. 1-Hour (ppm) 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.15 PM-10s ..... Days > 50 microg/m~ (S) 1/61 1/61 2/61 2/61 3,/60 Days > 150 microg/m3 (F) ~,~ :61 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60 Max. 24-Hour ( microg/m~) ~,f~2 71 62 62 87 Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour > 20 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 8-Hour > 9 ppm (S,F) 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour (ppm) 5 5 5 4 5 Max. 8-Hour (Ppm) 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.9 Nitrogen Dioxide i-Hour > 0.25 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour (ppm) 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.09 Ratio = Days Exceeding/Days with Monitoring (PM-10 monitored only one day in six) (S) = State Standard (F) = Federal Standard Source: BAAQMD, Livermore (Old Fire Station) Monitoring Site EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-7 TABLE 3.2 - 3 EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY Reactive Carbon Nitrogen Particulate Analysis Year Organics Monoxide Oxides Matter 156 1,824 335 315 Bay Area Significance Threshold 80 550* 80 80 East Dublin Share of Threshold (2020) 195% 332% 419% 394% * A CO microscale impact analysis is recommended by BAAQMD if this threshold is exceeded. Source: URBEMIS7 Computer Emissions Model; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, rev. Dec. 1999. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-8 '~i ?, LE 3.2 - 4 MICROSCAL~ IMPACT ANALYSIS HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) above non-local BACKGROUND AT 25 FEET FROM EDGE OF EACH INDICATED ROADWAY Intersection Existing Existing + Existing + Approved Approved + Pending + Pending + Project 1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 7 8 8 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbotz~'~d!. 6 9 9 Ramps 3 Hacienda Drive/2~!580 Westbound 5 8 8 Ramps 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 5 7 7 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound 7 9 9 Ramps~ 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound 7 8 8 Ramps 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 5 8 8 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway -- 6 6 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 5 6 6 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard -- 6 6 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway -- 5 5 12 Grafton St~eet/Gleason Drive -- 5 5 13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound 5 6 6 Ramps 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound 5 5 6 Ramps 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard -- 6 6 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway - 5 5 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive -- 5 5 18 Croak Road/Dublin Boulevard .... 5 19 Fallon Road/Residential .... 5 Note: Standard ~ = ~_~,: ppm, including 4.4 ppm (existing), 3.5 ppm (future) EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-9 TABLE 3.2 - 5 MICROSCALE IMPACT ANALYSIS 8-Hour CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) above non-local BACKGROUND AT 25 FEET FROM EDGE OF EACH INDICATED ROADWAY Intersection Existing + Existing + Existing Approved Approved + Pending + Pending + Project 1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 4.1 4.8 4.8 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound 3.4 5.0 5.2 Ramps 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound 2.8 4.4 4.5 Ramps 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 2.6 3.8 3.9 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound 3.8 5.1 5.1 Ramps~ 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound 3.6 4.6 4.8 Ramps 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 2.7 4.3 4.4 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway - 3.2 3.2 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 2,6 3.2 3.2 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard -- 3.1 3.2 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway -- 2.4 2.4 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive -- 2.2 2.2 13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound 2.4 2.8 3.2 Ramps 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound 2.2 2.7 3.5 Ramps 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard -- 3.1 3.9 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway -- 2.7 3.4 1.7 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive -- 2.2 2.3 18 Croak Road/Dublin Boulevard .... 2.4 19 Fallon Road/Residential .... 2.5 Note: Standard = 9 ppm, including 2.1 ppm (existing), 1.7 ppm (future) EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-10 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION Biological Resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.7 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR. This SEIR is likewise a program-level (as opposed to a project-level) environmental impact report. It is intended to update the 1993 EIR with respect to the Project and the Project area. The actions that may be taken upon completion of this SEIR are annexation of the Project area properties into the City of Dublin, prezoning the properties, and approval of a Stage 1 Planned Development plan which assigns general land use designations to the properties and establishes a conceptual master infrastructure plan, as depicted in Revised DSEIR Figures 2-G and 2-J. This SEIR analyzes potential environmental impacts of these actions at a program level, as did the 1993 EIR which it supplements. Approval of the actions described above would not constitute approval for any specific development. Consequently, detailed biological information for each of the properties within the Project area is not necessary for this program SEIR (though as explained below, such information is included where it is available). Rather, before any development can occur on any of the properties within the Project area, detailed development proposals must subsequently be prepared on a property-by-property basis and be presented to the City. Such proposals will be subject to additional environmental review that must analyze the specific proposed development and any associated environmental impacts, all at a level of detail which is greater than for this program-level analysis. Although detailed, property-specific biological resource information is not required for this program SEIR, some property owners within the Project area have conducted detailed surveys of certain biological resources on their property since certification of the 1993 EIR and have provided the results of such surveys to theCity. Based on these recent surveys, and other more general information such as aerial photographs, the City has identified in this Revised DSEIR all of the habitat types Which occur in the Project area. Also, to the extent currently known or reasonably inferred based on existing information, this Revised DSEIR identifies the location of all such habitats and specific sensitive species. This, in conjunction with the proposed general land use designations and master infrastructure plan in Figures 2-G and 2-J, enable this Supplement to identify and analyze potential impacts to biological resources in the Project area to a greater degree than was possible in the 1993 EIR. In turn, even-though not every location of every sensitive habitat or species throUghout the Project area is known, this Revised DSEIR establishes specific mitigation requirements and standards that will apply to all impacts to such resources within the Project area. These mitigation requirements will be implemented through a Resource Management Plan that must be prepared for the entire Project area before any property within the Project area may be developed, and through the property-specific, project-level environmental review that must occur before any property may be developed. This Supplement to the EIR also examines habitat types that were not previously anticiPated to occur in the Project area and regulatory changes since certification of the 1993 EIR which have resulted in the identification of new sensitive species. This Supplement also examines the supplemental effects of changes in regulatory standards since the EIR, such as the designation of critical habitat for the California red legged frog in 2001. Cumulative impacts to biological resources are also addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING General Project Area Characteristics The Project area occurs within a regional transitional area with respect to topography, habitat, and land use practices. Topographic relief generally decreases from north to south and, to a lesser extent, from east to west. Habitats adjacent to the Project area are, for the most part, contiguou~ 'with relatively undeveloped private property to the north and east on which cattle grazing occurs. TO the EDPC' Draft SEIR Page 3.3-1 east of the Project area, habitat is predominantly annual grasslands interspersed with small inclusions of riparian woodland. To the north and northeast, oak savannah, mixed woodlands, and chaparral increase with increases in elevation. Lands to the west are being developed for residential housing (Dublin Ranch). Development (urban, industrial, and cultivation) is greatest in the south. Thus, the habitat of the Project area is influenced by adjacent agricultural and urban development. (See also Eastern Dublin EIR Figure 3.7-A showing habitat types in Eastern Dublin). The Project area itself is relatively flat in its southern portions, and hilly with some intermittent north- south drainages and steep slopes to the north. Gazing of non-native grasslands, and dry farming of grain crops, are the predominant current habitats and land uses. Site topography and characteristics are more fully described in Section 2.4. The Project area is part of a larger region characterized by grassland habitat with patches or strips of sOether ha, b,itat, type. s intermixed. These .o. ther habitat types include riparian woodland, oak savanna, asonm tresnwarer wetland, and alkah wetland. Stock ponds are also common in this landscape. The.,boun, darie.s of this overall grassland landscape are defined by the foothills of Mount Diablo to the norm ana northeast, Highland Ridge and the Altamont Hills to the northeast and east, Interstate 580 to the south, and the existing developed portions of Dublin and San Ramon to the west. Development within this overall area has been occurring around its perimeter with the greatest concentration along the southern and western sides in east Dublin, the Dougherty Valley area in Contra Costa County, and north Livermore. This analysis of cumulative impacts assesses potential development, and consequent impacts on biological resources, across this overall area. Specific Project Area Hab, itat Types and Locations The Eastern Dublin EIR identified nine different habitats and showed intermittent streams on Figure 3.7-A. Based upon recent studies and review of aerial photographs, eight of these habitats are known or assumed to occur within the Project area and are considered to provide moderate to high values for a nUmber of special-status species. One additional habitat type, seasonal wetlands, was not identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR but is known to occur within the Project area. As indicated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and further confirmed by recent studies, intermittent streams, shown but not previously identified as a habitat type in the Eastern Dublin EIR, are known to ekist within the Project area. The seasonal wetland habitat and these intermittent streams may, in turn, provide moderate to high habitat values for special status species. A majority of the Project area consists of cultivated lands used for dry rotational croplands, and non- native grassland used for grazing. Several drainages within the Project area support intermittent streams and, to a lesser extent, arroyo willow riparian woodland. The southern portion of the Project area supports ruderal field and developed lands. Seasonal wetlands also are known to occur in some low-lying portions of the Project area, although not all properties within the Project area have been surveyed in detail so additional occurrences of seasonal wetlands are possible. All of these specific habitat types are described below in order of dominance with their estimated acreages. The known locations of these habitat types are shown in Figure 3.3-A. Dry Farming Rotational Cropland. Approximately 535 acres; see Figure 3.3-A. Farming within the Project area primarily consists of grain crops of wheat and barley. These croplands occur on the lower elevation hillsides and bottomlands in the southern half of the Project area. These fields are typically cropped at various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years at a rate of one in every five. Grain crops are not irrigated. In fallow years, vegetation is characterized by introduced weedy herbs and grasses along with remnant individuals of the previous grain crop species. Planted barley was identified as the current rotation crop on the Project area. Non-native Grassland. Approximately 500 acres; see Figure 3.3-A. Non-native grassland supports a wide array of native and non-native grasses and herbs. Characteristic introduced grass species EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-2 include slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus rnollis), farmer's foxtail (Hordeutn leporinum), and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros). Occasional stands of the native bunchgrass, nodding stipa (Nasella ?~dchra), were observed on the north-facing slopes of some of the rolling hills. Ruderal Field. Approximately 40 acres; see Figure 3.3-A. As a result of continued disturbance and compaction, fallow fields support dense stands of ruderal species (defined by Frenkel, 1977, "as a broad category of plant life closely related to man and consisting of native and alien elements which occupy disturbed habitats and waste ~i~ces"). In the Project area, these species are predominantly introduced weeds such as thistles, mu~;t ~:~ ,:~s, and grasses. Developed. Approximately 35 acres; see Figure 3.3-A. Developed land occurs around homes, barns, and existing facilities. These areas are typically characterized by mtJeral or horticultural plant cover with little or no native vegetation. Isolated stands of blue gum (Eucal'y~'~tus gIobulus) are typically found associated with developed sites throughout the GPA area. Intermitto~t Streams. Approximately 31,000 linear feet; see Figure 3.3-A. Hydrology of the Project area is influenced by direct precipitation, headwater flows, and surface runoff from surrounding areas. These small tributaries are each characterized by shallowly incised channels with an obvious bed and bank. These intermittent streams flow predominantly though non-native grassland and rotational croplands. Many intermittent streams support in-channel ponds or pooling water. These areas typically dry up by early spring. Springs, Seeps and Impoundments. Two ponds, four in-stream pools; see Figure 3.3-A. Most of these habitat areas support species characteristic of freshwater marsh habitat or alkali grassland habitat. Impoundments are typically small ponds created for livestock, adjacent to perennial springs or intermittent drainages. Larger artificial ponds support perennial, emergent vegetation around their banks. Most ponds are dry by summer, and therefore, support vegetation indicative of progressively drying, disturbed habitats. The Project area contains one stock pond located on the northem portion of the Project area and one man-made pond located at the southwest portion of the Project area. Four additional areas of pooling water are located along the western half of the Project area within the intermittent streams. Arroyo WilloTM Riparian Woodland. Approximately 10 acres; see Figure 3.3-A. This habitat is characterized by a dense thicket of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) along a narrow intermittent drainage that crosses lower Fallon Road. Associated with the 5 to 10 meter tall stand of arroyo willows are an open understory of ruderal herbs, predominantly poison hemlock. The understory of the arroyo willows northeast of Fallon Road has been heavily grazed. Seasonal Wetlands. Present, but not all occurrences have been identified and thus total acreage not quantified. Seasonal wetlands consist of annual and perennial native and non-native wetland indicator species. This plant association typically resembles a wetland community only following the wet season; it dries up rapidly with the onset of summer and the wetland indicator species go dormant. During the dry season, such sites may not be readily recognizable as wetlands as wetland species go to seed and typical upland grasses and forbs become established. Although not identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as a habitat type and hence not indicated for the Project area, this habitat type has been observed within the Project area. Freshwater Marsh. Present, but not all occurrences have been identified and thus total acreage ::tot quantified. Freshwater marsh typically occurs in low-lying sites that are permanently flooded with fresh water and lack significant current. It is found on nutrient-rich mineral soils that are saturated for all or most of the year. This vegetation community is most extensive where surface flow is slow or stagnant or where the water table is so close to the surface as to saturate the soil from below. Freshwater marsh is distributed along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-3 the margins of lakes, springs, and streams (Holland 1986). This vegetation community characteristically forms a dense vegetative cover dominated by perennial, emergent monocots 1-15 feet high that reproduce by underground rhizomes. Freshwater marsh has been observed on the southern portion of the Project area. Alkali Grassland. Present, but not all occurrences have been identified and thus total acreage not quantified. This habitat is similar to non-native grassland, but is found only in areas of alkaline-rich clay soils with moderate to saturated soil water content. Alkali grassland supports an array of introduced grasses similar to that found in the non-native grassland throughout the Eastern Dublin area. Several additional species are indicative of alkaline conditions. These include salt grass (Distichlis sl~icata var. nana), alkali rye grass (Elyrnus triticoides), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum hystrix), brass buttons (CotuIa coronopifolia), and alkali mallow (Sida hederacea). This habitat type was considered potential habitat for five species of rare plants: palmate bird's beak (Cordylanthus palmatus), caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideurn), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana), Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii) and a newly described species, Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) (CNPS 2000). Special Status Species Special status plants and wildlife with potential to occur within the Project area are described below and summarized in Tables 3.3-1 A and B, and Tables 3.3-2 A and B. The descriptions also include information from background research and studies conducted since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Locations of observed special status species are mapped on Figure 3.3-B: Sensitive Species in the Eastern Dublin Area. For properties within the Project area for which species surveys and mapping has not yet occurred, the potential presence of species and habitat is inferred based on habitat type and suitability, field reconnaissance, and local knowledge of species occurrences on nearby parcels. - Special Status Species: Botanical The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated 12 special-status plants (Table 3.7-1). Of those 12 species, the great valley gumplant is no longer listed as a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant species and is therefore not considered in this Supplement. Based on a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2000) and the CNPS (2000) for this Supplement, 13 special status plant species not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR may have some potential to occur within the Project area. This potential is based on suitable habitat present onsite and/or proximity to known occurrences in the area. These additional species include two rare plants, the San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) and Congdon's tarplant (Hernozonia parryi ssp. congdonii) that were found within the Project area during botanical surveys conducted in 2001 (Sycamore Assoc., in prep.) The Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) is a newly described rare plant species that has been observed in two areas in Alameda County. Alkali grasslands throughout the Project area provide potentially suitable habitat for this new species (CNPS 2000). Based on reported occurrences of these species near the Project area, these special-status species may occur in the Project area. Preliminary botanical surveys conducted in 2001 for the Project also identified the potential presence of big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), big tarweed (Blepharizonia pIumose ssp. plumosa), showy madia (Madia radiata), raytess ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), hairless popcorn-flower (Palgiobothrys glaber), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata), crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. coronata), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), and alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), based on available habitat. Botanically Sensitive Habitats The habitat types in the Project area are described above. Five of the habitat types are botanicaily sensitive communities, recognized by the CDFG Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2000a) as rare and declining in the state. These communities, which provide potential habitat for special-status EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-4 species, are arroyo willow riparian woodland, seasonal wetlands, intermittent streams, freshwater marsh and alkali grassland. Special-Status SPecies: Wildlife The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated 27 special-status wildlife species (Table 3.7-2). Ten of these species no longer have state or f~c~.eral special status, or there is no suitable habitat in the Project area. These species include American badger, Ricksecl.:,~?s water scavenger beetle, curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle, bay checkerspot butterfly, Callippe s'i erspot butterfly, Bridges' coast range shoulderband, San Francisco forktail damselfly, Lure's micro-b~-~d harvestman and California linderiella. These species will not be addressed further in this Supplement, Based on a review of the Natural DiVersity Database (CNDDB 2000), habitat available within the 1,120-acre Project area, the proximity of the Project area to known species occurrences, and the contiguity of their habitats to the Project area, eight additional species are evaluated in this Supplement and are considered to have the potential to occur in the Project area (Table 3.3-2B). These species include merlin, loggerhead shrike, Cal~:.~-nia horned lark, pallid bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, Yuma myotis bat, conservancy fairy shrimp anct vernal pool ta~?ole shrimp. Some species evaluated for their potential to occur within the 1,120-acre i~roject area may only be occasional visitors, migrants, or transients, if they occur at all. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species Invertebrates. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts for special status invertebrates such as the longhorn fairy shrimp and the vernal pool fairly shrimp. Since then, these species as well as the conservancy fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp have become federally-listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These species live within strict habitat requirements, and can be found in vernal pools and other small seasonal bodies of water that allow the appropriate desiccation of the cysts (eggs). Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been reported approximately four, five and 11 miles east of the Project area (CNDDB 2000). Longhorn fairy shrimp have been reported approximately seven and eight miles east of the Project area (CNDDB 2000). The Project area may provide suitable habitat for these species in the seasonal wetlands on site (see Figure 3.3-A). In 2001 a habitat assessment survey for special status invertebrates was conducted on the Braddock and Logan property. This assessment concluded that these, species are not likely to occur on the property. (Entomological Consulting Services, September 12~. 2001). California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the California red-legged frog (CRLF) as potentially significant (IM 3.7/F). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, CRLF has been federally listed as Threatened under the ESA. In addition, on March 13, 2001 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for CRLF. The Project area is included within the designated critical habitat. Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under Section 7 of the ~SA for actions carried out, fundec~ or authorized by a Federal agency. The USFWS pubhshed a draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF in January 2000. The Project area is located within the Mt. Diablo core area Unit 23 (Draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF (USFWS 2000a). The CRLF is a California species of special concern. Additional surveys conducted between 1993 and 2000 detected CRLF in several locations throughout the Eastern Dublin planning area and adjacent to the Project area (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2000b). Seventeen reported CRLF observations within five n~ales of the GPA/SP area encompassed by the Eastern Dublin EIR were reported between 1981 and 1997 (CNDDB 2000). Specific locations of EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-5 frogs, especially along linear waterways, vary from year to year, and season to season, as habitat quality and availability fluctuate. Within the Project area, CRLF have been reported in the unnamed drainage adjacent to Fallon Road, approximately 2000 feet north of 1-580. They have also been reported breeding upstream in the same drainage approximately 600 feet east of Fallon Road (H.T. Harvey & Associates). In 2001, Sycamore Associates conducted a site assessment for CRLF on the Fallon Enterprises and Braddock and Logan Group properties. Four adult CRLF were observed on the Fa]Ion Enterprises property, and one adult was observed on the Braddock and Logan property. These properties are considered to contain suitable CRLF breeding habitat in certain aquatic features, and suitable dispersal and upland refagia habitat. (Sycamore Assoc.; July 14, 2001 Site Assessment Report). In 2001 a site assessment and a focused survey for CRLF was performed on the Chen, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh and Campbell properties. No CRLF were detected, nor was any evidence of CRLF breeding (egg masses, larvae) observed. Nevertheless, the quarry pond on the Anderson property is considered to provide suitable breeding habitat, and suitable dispersal and upland aestivation habitat are present In isolated wetland areas and uplands adjacent to aquatic features. (Sycamore Associates, August 16, 2001 Letter Report, August 14, 2001 Site Assessment Report). Thus, the Project area does contain breeding habitat for CRLF in some intermittent streams, and also contains dispersal habitat along and adjacent to those streams. Alameda Whipsnake (Masti¢ophus lateralis euryxanthus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to Alameda whipsnake as less than significant due to the lack of suitable habitat (IM 3.7/E). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Alameda whipsnake has been Federally-listed as Threatened under the ESA. The species has been listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act since 1971. In October 2000, the USFWS designated critical habitat for this species, however, the 1,120-acre Project area does not occur within the designated critical habitat. Primary habitats for Alameda whipsnake include east, southeast, south and southwest facing slopes containing coastal scrub and chaparral, with rock outcrops (Swaim 1994; Swaim, pers.com. 1996). Several observations north of the Eastern Dublin area have been reported between 1972 and 1999. However, appropriate habitat does not occur in Eastern Dublin, including the 1,120-acre Project area. Based on the above information, this species is not considered to occur within the Project area. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anaturn). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to peregrine falcon as insignificant due to the lack of appropriate habitat (IM 3.7/E). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR this species was federally de-listed (August 25, 2000) but remains state-listed as Endangered. Historic nesting locations are known from the region north of the Eastern Dublin area. Peregrine falcons have been reintroduced to these historic sites on Mt. Diablo and are known to be nesting on Mt. Diablo (Sproul, pers. comm.). The Project area does not contain suitable cliffs for nesting and does not represent important foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the bald eagle was reclassified from federally Endangered to Threatened. It remains state-listed as Endangered, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The bald eagle also is protected under the federal Bald Eagle Protection Act. The historic breeding range of the bald eagle in California extended from southern coastal areas through much of the central and northern portions of the state. Bald eagles nest approximately 12 miles southeast of the Project area at Lake Del Valle (CNDDB 2000). The Project area does not provide suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles because there are no appropriate cliffs or trees for nesting and no foraging habitat. Several birds are known to winter in the Altamont area and thus may occasionally pass through the Project area. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpus macrotis mutica). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the kit fox as potentially significant (IM 3.7/D). The San Joaquin kit fox remains federally-listed as Endangered and state-listed as Threatened. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the USFWS EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-6 has updated its recommendations for survey protocols and protection measures (USFWS 1997 and 1999). A number of surveys for kit fox have been conducted in the Eastern Dubli~'~ area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a) and the adjacent North Livermore Valley (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). None of these surveys detected kit fox with the exception of a single kit fox detected on two separate nights while spotlighting approximately 2 miles north of the North Livermore site in Contra Costa County on Morgan Territory5~ Road approximately 5 1/2 miles northeast of the Project area (1996). Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the Eastern Dublin and North Livermore Valley areas since 1997, none have been detected. Based on negative results within the Eastern Dublin area and the surrounding areas, kit fox appear to be absent from the Eastern.. ?~ublin area (see analysis presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c). Despite the lack of any observations, the Project area supports habitat that could be considered suitable for kit fox. Therefore, kit fox have a potential to occur within the Project area although that potential is low. Federal Candidates for Listing - Wil~t,~ife Species California Tiger Sat:.~:~ander (Ambystoma californiense). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the California tige:~. ~alamander (CTS) as potentially significant (IM 3.7-G). The CTS is a candidate for listing under the~ ESA. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, CTS has been observed adjacent to and within the Project area. California tiger salamanders were detected on the Dublin Ranch site in 1998 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1998, 2000), approximately 1,000 feet from the Proiect area western boundary. ACTS adult was recently detected onsite during2001 winter/spring surveys in the quarry pond on the Anderson property, and one adult was observed in a burrow on the Branaugh property. No CTS larvae were observed during aquatic surveys on those properties. (Sycamore Assoc., August 20, 2001 Letter Report). During 2001 site visits to the Braddock and Logan Group property and the Fallon Enterprises property no CTS larvae or adults were observed, but potentially suitable breeding ponds, suitable dispersal (intermittent drainages), and upland aestivation habitat (ground squirrel burrows) were observed. (Sycamore Assoc., July 14, 2001 Site Assessment Report). Based on the known occurrence on the Anderson and BranaUgh properties, and the available habitat, California tiger salamander are considered to occur in suitable habitat in the Project area (ponds and adjacent drainages and uplands). California Species of Special Concern and Other Special-Status Wildlife Species Westen~ .Pond Turtle (Cleramys marmorata). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the wet~ern pond turtie as potentially significant (3.7/H). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, we~:~,.~ern pond turtle was reclassified from a federal candidate species to a federal Special Concern Species. In addition to being a California Species of Special Concern, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this species also is protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 5050. Several documented occurrences of the western pond turtle have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project area (CNDDB 2000). Three occurrences were reported within five miles of the Project area (CNDDB 2000). Western pond turtles were also found at two locations along Cottonwood Creek (Figure 3.7-C of the Eastern Dublin EIR), east 'of the Project area. No Western pond turtles have been observed within the Project area. However, based on occurrev, ces in the vicinity of the Project area, and'on the presence of suitable habitat onsite such as ponds and ~t~'eams, Western pond turtle has the potential to occur within the Proje~?. area. EDPO Draft SEI~t Page 3.3-7 California Horned Lizard (Phrynosotna coronatum frontale). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the California honed lizard as insignificant due to the their extensive distribution (3.7/R). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the honed lizard has been listed as a fully protected species under the California Fish and Game Code. Honed lizards have been documented approximately 11 and 12 miles south and approximately 13 miles east of the Project area (1994) (CNDDB 2000). Marginal habitat for the lizard probably occurs on portions of the Project area. However, the California honed lizard is unlikely to occur within the Project area based on the marginality of on-site habitat and the lack of contiguity with occupied habitat off-site. Northern Harrier (Circus cya~us). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the Northern Harrier as potentially significant due to the potential loss of habitat (3.7/0). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, marginally suitable nesting habitat was identified in the grassland portions of the Project area (see Figure 3.3-A) Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the burrowing owl as potentially significant (IM 3.7/M). In addition to being a Califomia Species of Special Concern, as indicated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR burrowing owl individuals and sign have been observed within Eastern Dublin (Biosystems Analysis 1989, H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000b). One individual was observed on the Braddock and Logan Group property located in the northeastern portion of the Project area in October 2000 (Sycamore, in prep.). Suitable breeding habitat, in the form of ground squirrel burrows, has been observed during recent site visits within the Project area (Sycamore, in prep). Based on the available habitat and the known occurrences in the Project area and the vicinity, burrowing owl are considered to occur within the Project area. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the short-eared owl as insignificant due to the lack of appropriate habitat (IM 3.7/Q). In addition to being a California Species of Special Concern, as indicated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, localized field observations have identified marginally suitable foraging and nesting habitat in the grassland portion of the Project area. Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the Cooper's hawk as potentially significant (IM 3.7/P). In addition to being a California Species of Special Concern, this species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Cooper's hawk have been observed within Eastern Dublin (Townsend, pers. comm. 2000), however suitable nesting habitat does not occur within the Project area. It is likely that dispersing birds and winter migrant birds occasionally uSe the Project area. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a significant impact to a nesting site for a pair of breeding eagles (IM 3.7/J), potentially significant project and cumulative impacts to foraging habitat (3.7/K), and a potentially significant impact due to electrocutions (3.7/L). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, an active eagle's nest has been identified adjacent to the Dublin Ranch Phase 1 and Area A, northwest of the Project area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000c). Portions of Dublin Ranch adjacent to the Project area are part of a golden eagle mitigation site for this nesting pair of eagles. These birds are known to forage in the northern portion of the Project area (Hunt, pers. comm. 2001). Several reconnaissance-level site visits indicate that suitable nest sites are not present within the Project area. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-8 Merlin (Falco coI~.:t.~barius). The merlin ~,- : :nail falcon that breeds in wooded areas of the Pacific Northwest, Canada and Alaska. Altho~. ~: does not nest in Califo~, the species winters in grasslands, savannas and other open hab] ~:, ~"oughout the state from O~: ~. ':' :.~r through March. Once a common winter resident in California, ~-~ :: ~:,ers have declined marked? -~.ince the 1960's (Remsen 1978). It preys almost exclusively on smal1 ?~ds, although it also takes si~:~all mammals and insects, tn California, wintering merlins are concentrated along the coast and in the Central Valley. Merlins may only be occasional visitors, migrants, or transients, if they occur at all. This species has been observed in the general vicinity of the Pro,lect area as a wintering species (Townsend pers. comm. 2000). Prairie Falcon (Fatco mexicanus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified iv:~acts to the prairie fal~'on as potentially significant (IM 3.7/0). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Prairie falcon,, been found to nest several miles north of Eastern Dublin, on Mt. Diablo and near Brushy Peak (Sproul, pers. comm.). No suitable nesting h~:bitat occurs in the Eastern Dublin area; however, most of the area is high quality potential foraging habitat. Prairie falcons have been commonly observed during the winter in recent' ',,ears within Eastern Dublin (Townsend pers. comm. 2000) and likely forag' .:'~ the Project area. Sharp-shinned t~..~'~k (Accipiter striatus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the sharp- shinned hawk as ~c~tentially significant (IM 3.7,/P). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, it has been determined that suitable winter foraging habitat may occur within the arroyo willow riparian habitat that occurs within the Project area (see Figure 3.3-A). Suitable breeding habitat is not present. Tricolored Blackb?~?d (Agelaius tricolor)~ The Eastern Dubtm EIR identified impacts to the tricolored blackbird as potentmtly significant (IM 3.7/I). ~e species has been reported to the north and south of the Eastern Dublin areh (CNDDB 2000). Since certification of _the Eastern Dublin EIR, a tricolored blackbird breeding colony was observed in the sp.ring of 1999 in the southern portion of the Project area (Townsend and Lenihan, pers. comm.). See Figure 3.3-B. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Loggerhead shrike is a wide-ranging species that oc:~.~pies open habitats including grassland, scrub and open woodland communities. The species typically nests in densely vegetated, isolated trees and shrubs and occasionally man-made structures. Loggerhead shrikes feed on a variety of small prey including arthropods, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds (Yosef 1996). In California, the species does not migrate and is resident year-round. Declines in numbers have been noted across a broad geographical range in the United States. Nesting habitat for t~s species occurs near riparian habitat and coyote brush habitat in Eastern Dublin. Loggerhead shrike has been observed in the Eastern Dublin area (Townsend, pers. comm: 2000). Sycamore Associates biologists observed a loggerhead sbrSke during a reconnaissance-level survey o~:~ October 4, 2000 and again on January 16, 2001, just e~:-~: ,,:~t' the Project area on the east side of Doolan Road (Tz~,~:c~rian, pers. ob. 2000, 2001). 5uitable br~ ~.;~'~g habitat for this species occurs within th~ ?rojec~ .~ea in the arroyo willow riparia~ woodland ~;~ of Fallon Road (see Figure 3.3-A). Based o1~ ~' ~;e known occurrences and the suitable habitat available, loggerhead shrike is considered to occur wi~ ~he Project area. Califo~: .,~.~";ted Lark (Eremophila aIpestris actia). This species, a Calffor:!~i:~ Species of Special Concern, breecis m open grasslands throughout the Central Valley and adjacent ~.::~c~',aJlls and along the central and southern California coast region. It is a ground-nesting species that prefers shorter, less dense grasses and areas with some bare ground. Breeding habitat for this species occurs in grassland habitat portions ~f the Project z~t~a. This species has been documented in the vicinity of the Project area approximatei.? 0.75 miles north of the Project area (1992), and approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project area at the Tassajara and Highland Road intersection (1992) (CNDDB 2000). Based on these known occurrences and the suitable habitat available, California homed lark is considered to occur within the Project area. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-9 Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). This species, a California Species of Special Concern, prefers arid, low elevation regions with roosting available in deep crevices on rock faces, buildings, bridges and tree hollows, especially oaks. Pallid bats obtain prey such as crickets, grasshoppers, Jtme beetles, ground beetles, and sometimes scorpions. This species obtains and feeds on its prey primarily on the ground. Within the Project area, habitat for this species includes, but is not limited to, all trees and old buildings, There have been no surveys for this species in the Project area; however, based on the available suitable roosting habitat, Pallid bat have a high potential to occur within the Project area. Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii). Townsend's big-eared bat, a California Species of Special Concern, occurs throughout California. Inhabiting mesic habitats, it will roost in .colon. ies~ in c_aves, mines, tunnels, or buildings. This species forages along habitat edges, gleaning insects from bushes and trees. Once abundant throughout California, Townsend's big-eared bat has decreased in population numbers due to sensitivity to human disturbance of roosting sites. Within the Project area, habitat for this species includes, but is not limited to, large snags and old buildings. There have been no surveys for !his species in the Project area; however, based on the available suitable roosting habitat, Townsend s big-eared bat have a high potential to occur within the Project area. Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis) Yuma myotis, a California Species of Special Concern, is found everywhere in California except the Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions. This species typically feeds on small insects over water sources. Diverse roosting structures are used, including buildings, mines, caves or crevices. Within the 1,120 acre Project area, habitat for this species includes all trees and old buildings. There have been no surveys for this species in the Project area; however, based on the available suitable roosting habitat, Yuma myotis have a high potential to occur within the Project area. Other Protected Species Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamiaeensis), Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus) (referred to as black-shouldered kite in the Eastern Dublin EIR), American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), barn owl (Tyto alba), and Western Screech Owl (Otus kennicottii). With the exception of the white-tailed kite, these species were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These raptors are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and under California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Often edge species, these raptors will forage in grasslands, open meadows, and exnergent wetlands adjacent to woodlands, forests or riparian areas. Nesting substrates for these species vary between dense riparian foliage near permanent water to isolated trees and human structures. All are year-round residents. These species are expected to forage on site and may occupy suitable nesting habitat present within the Project area. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife resources in the GPA/SP planning area. Table 3.3-1A shows special status plant species and Table 3.3-2A shows special status wildlife species the Eastern Dublin EIR identified as potentially occurring in Eastern Dublin (also see Eastern Dublin EIR Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2) The EIR identified potential impacts related to the general effects of potential development in Eastern Dublin including direct habitat' loss, indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/A, B, and C). The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified Potential impacts related to wildlife species such as San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog, EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-10 California tiger salamander, and others (Impacts 3.7/D - S). Mitigation measures were adopted to, among other things, provide for resource management plans, aVoid development in sensitive areas and revegetate disturbed areas (generally Miti~?~tion Measures 3.7/1.0 - 28.0). All ~nitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dub'~;' GPA/SP continue to apply to imp!ementing actions and projects such as the proposed annexation .:~:' d prezoning of the Project area. Eve:~ with mitigation, the City concluded that the cttmulative los:t, or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of t~)verriding Considerations for this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93). The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed cumulative impacts on biological resources within the area described above. At that time, Contra Costa County had an Urban Limit Line which functioned as a growth boundary. That Urban Limit Line placed all of the Dougherty and Tassajara valleys inside the growth boundary (i.e., allowing development of those areas), and placed lands to the east of Tassajara Valley and north of the Cov2y line outside the growth boundary. Alameda County had no comparable growth boundaries; instead, planning for the Alameda County portions of this region was performed by the cities of Dublin and Livermore. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified three significant cumulative biological impacts. These are listed below: 1. Habitat loss on the project site will contribute to the ongoing loss of wildlife habitat in the Tri- Valley region (IM 3.7/A). 2. The project will contribute to the cOntinued loss and deterioration of botanically sensitive habitat, particularly riparian habitat (IM 3.7/C). 3. The project will contribute to the cumulative loss of foraging habitat for golden eagle and other raptors (IM 3.7/K). SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development that was assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study for the Project determined that species and/or habitats not previously identified or analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR could occur in the Project area. The Initial Study also determined that the recent designation by USFWS of critical habitat for the California red- legged frog and changed regulator?' standards for this and other species could create new potentially significant impacts that should be analyzed in this Supplement. Significance Criteria Impacts to biological resources are considered significant if specie. ~hat could occur in the Project area and could be substantially affected by the Project have been listed as threatened or endangered since the Eastern Dublin EIR, or if changes in the regulatory status of species previously identified show substantially more extensive potential impacts on habitats. Significant supplemental impacts could occur if sensitive habitat described in the Eastern Dublin EIR is newly identified within the Project area. Regulatory Setting ~-:~ecial-status plant species inclu.~7~: those listed as Endangered, Threatened, Rare, species proposed ,,r listing, and candidates for ~:-,:::ng under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1996, 1998; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 2000c). The California Native Plant Society EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-11 (CNPS) also maintains lists of plants of special c.o, ncem (CNPS 2000). The CNPS lists are recognized by the CDFG and serve essentially as their list of candidate" plant species. The CDFG generally states that all taxa on CNPS lists lB and 2 should be addressed in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and recommends that taxa on CNPS lists 3 and 4 also be considered. Special-status animal species include those listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1996, 1998) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 2000b). The USFWS officially lists species as either Threatened or Endangered, and also identifies candidates for listing. Certain species also receive federal protection under the federal Bald Eagle Protection Act (e.g., bald eagle, golden eagle), the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and state protection under CEQA Section 15380(d). In addition, many other species are considered by the CDFG to be species of special concern; these are listed in Remsen (1978), Williams (1986), and CDFG (2000b). Although such species are afforded no official legal status, they may receive special consideration during the planning stages of certain development projects. State statutes further classify some species under the following categories: "fully protected", "protected fur-bearer", "protected amphibian", and "protected revtile." The .d,esignah.'on. "protected" ind!,c, ates that a species may not be taken or possessed except ~nder spec~m perrmt from the CDFG; .fully protected" indicates that a species can be taken for scientific purposes by permit only (CDFG 2000b). Raptors and passerines are protected under California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 and 3503, respectively, in which all nests, eggs, and birds are protected (CDFG 2000b). This chapter identifies potential impacts to special-status plant and animal species and their habitat, and identifies sPecific mitigation measures to address such impacts. Several species listed as threatened or endangered ur~der the ESA or CESA or otherwise classified as protected are or may be present in the Project area. Depending on the circumstances, approval of the project, and eventual implementation in the form of future development of individual properties within the Project area (which developments will require site-specific development proposals and additional, site-specific environmental review), may require permits from the state and federal agencies that implement the ESA, CESA and other resource protection laws, including laws to protect aquatic habitat areas. The City recognizes that those state and federal agencies may require mitigation measures in those permits, and that such mitigation measures could exceed the level of mitigation required by the City in this supplement. It is recognized that all future development activity within the Project area as well as the cumulative impact area must comply fully with the ESA, CESA and other applicable resource laws. When future development is planned, any proponent who wishes to develop within the Project area will identify which other permits are necessary, if any. All future development will comply with all mitigation requirements contained in any applicable permits' obtained from other agencies, which mitigation measures may differ from the mitigation measures imposed by the City. Since the 1993 EIR, land use and development policies for the overall cumulative impact area have changed. Contra Costa CoUnty has revised its Urban Limit Line, moving it to the west and thereby placing all of the Tassajara Valley outside of the Urban Limit Line. Consequently, the Tassajara Valley is no longer considered to be available for urban development. Also, Alameda County adopted an Urban Growth Boundary. This line places the southern and western portions of the Project area within the growth boundary (i.e,, allowing development of those areas), and places the northern and eastern portions outside of the growth boundary. This Urban Growth Boundary would guide any land use development proposed to occur on unincorporated lands subject to Alameda County jurisdiction. However, the Project area is entirely .within the City of Dublin's General Plan planning area and Sphere of Influence, and for this analysis is therefore still considered to be available for urban development. The Urban Growth Boundary also places large portions of North Livermore outside of the growth boundary. Again, however, those areas are within the City of Livermore's planning area and for this analysis are still considered to be available for urban development. As a result of these changes in land use policies and rules, the amount of land within the overall area described above which is available for development has decreased since the 1993 EIR was prepared. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-12 This is primarily the result of the change in .~he Contra Costa Urban Limit Line in the Tassajara Valley region. As a result, cumulative impacts o~ iological resources, while still cumulatively significant, are less today than when analyzed in the 1993 EIR. Methodology The biological analysis contained in this Supplement is based on surveys and assessments conducted for the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as subsequent and ongoing surveys for biological resources within the Project area. The location of habitat types for this Supplement is based on field reconnaissance and focused surveys, verification of the Eastern Dublin EIR habitat mapping, and review of aerial photographs (2000). Special status plants and wildlife with potential to occur within the Project area are described above and summarized ~. Tables 3.3-1 A and B, and Table 3.3-2 A and B. The descriptions also include information from background research and studies conducted since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Locations of observed sensitive species are mapped on Figure 3.3-B: ~5~nsitive Species in the Eastern Dublin EIR. For properties within the Project area on which species surveys and mapping have not been performed, the potential presence of species and habitat is inferred based on habitat type and suitability, field reconnaissance, and local knowledge of species occurrences on nearby parcels. Supplemental Impacts Supplemental Impact BIO 1: Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss The Project, and subsequent development which will be subject to detailed_ property-by-property development proposals and additional project-level environmental review, would result in direct and indirect habitat loss, degradation, and disturbance across the overall Project area as described in .Impacts 3.7A and 3.7B of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Not all of these impacts were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, due to the subsequent development of new information and new regulatory activities as described above. Also, many impacts may not be adequately addressed solely through subsequent property-by-property development proposals and project-level environmental review. For example, since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR one new habitat type not previously identified in the EIR, i.e., seasonal wetland, has been identified as occurring within the Project area. Figure 3.3-C shows the Project's proposed general land use designations and roadways, in conjunction with the mapped habitat areas described above and depicted on Figure 3.3-A, such as seasonal wetlands. Under these proposed general designations, a portion of the newly-identified seasonal wetlands would be preserved within open space, while other seasonal wetland areas would be filled for development purposes. Second, intermittent streams, shown but not identified as habitat in the Eastern Dublin EIR, have been identified as a habitat type and are known to occur within the Project area as shown on Figure 3.3-A. Some por~s of the intermittent streams would be located within open space corridors or open space areas designated in the GPA/SP and the Project, while other portions would not. Third, thirteen additional plant species and eight additional wildlife species have been identified as occurring or potentially occurring on the site, as compared to the Eastern Dublin EIR. Two of these plants, the San Joaquin spearscale and Congdon's tarplant, have been observed within the Project area. Suitable habitat for two other plant species, palmate bird's beak and caper-fruited tropidocarpum, has been observed within the Project area. Whether these species exist in the Project area, and where, will not be known until property-specific, detailed development proposals are later prepared and project-level environmen~i ~'eview is performed. Finally, the potential impacts to any particular biological resource will likely occur on two or more of the individual properties within the Project area. Analyzing and mitigating for such impacts solely on a property-by-property basis will not adequately address the collective impact across the Project area. Consequently, while each property owner in their subsequent development proposals and project-level environmental review EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-13 must follow the impact-specific mitigation standards set forth in this chapter, a more comprehensive approach to these impacts which cuts across property boundaries is also warranted. The potential loss of seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams not previously analyzed in the EIR, the potential loss of sensitive species habitat not previously analyzed, and the collective impacts to biological resources across the entire Project area, result in supplemental potentially significant impacts and a potentially significant cumulativo impact. , v Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-I: In order to address newly analyzed impacts, and in order to address impacts to biological resources in a coordinated manner across the entire Project area (as opposed to addressing them solely on a property-by-property basis), the Project proponents shall prepare and implement a Resource Management Plan (RMP) as described below. Following approval of the Project, but prior to subsequent submittal to the City for discretionary review of any specific development proposal for any property within the Project area, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the city for its review and approval an RMP encompassing all properties within the Project area. The RMP will analyze biological impacts in more detail and more comprehensively than can this program-level SEIR, and such impacts will in turn be analyzed to an even greater, project-level degree when Stage 2 development plans are submitted by individual property owners within the Project area to the City for discretionary review. The RMP shall address all properties within the Project area and any necessary off-site mitigation lands. As noted below, it must apply and comply with all biological resource mitigation measures contained in this SEIR (SM-BIO-2 through SM-BIO-45) and in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The RMP must address the following special status species and habitats: 1. Botanically sensitive communities: arroyo willow riparian woodland, seasonal wetlands, intermittent streams, freshwater marsh and alkali grasslands. 2. Special Status plant species: San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's tarplant, palmate bird's beak, caper-fruited tropidocarpum and Livermore tarplant. 3. Special status invertebrates: conservancy fairy shimp, longhorn fairy-shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. 4. Special status amphibians: California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. 5. Special status raptors and passerines: golden eagle, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike and California horned lark. 6. Special status mammals: San Joaquin kit fox, pallid bat, Townsend's big-eared bat and Yuma myotis bat. The RMP shall consist of the following: · Overview Discussion of existing conditions of soil, geology, adjacent and proposed land uses, creeks and drainages, wetlands, vegetation, and special status plants and animals across the entire Project area For each special status species and sensitive habitat listed above, a detailed discussion as follows: 1. General description of the resource - biology, life history and regional distribution 2. Specific description and mapping of occurrence across the Project area (to be based on property-by-property surveys) EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-14 3 Potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts per the Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIR 4. Description of applicable local state and federal regulatory requirements. A comprehensive and detailed plan for managing these resources consistent with the following requirements and principles: 1. Each of the biological resource mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this SEIR 2. All applicable local, state and federal regulatory requirements 3. Local resource protection policies (e.g., Stream Restoration Program, Grazing Management Plan) 4. To the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with applicable mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, impacts to sensitive biological resources shall be avoided, and such resources shall be preserved and managed on-site (i.e., within the Project area) 5. To the extent impacts to sensitive biological resources cannot be avoided, those impacts shall be mitigated off-site consistent with the applicable mitigation measures. 6. Sensitive biological resources which are preserved either through avoidance or mitigation shall be permanently protected and managed. The means to accomplish this shall be specified in the plan. 7. Management efforts shall employ principles of adaptive management, and shall be monitored regularly. 8. Funding for such preservation, management and monitoring work must be assured. Implementation of this mitigation measure will redUce the identified impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 2: Loss of Special Status Plant Species N~ special status plant species were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. More recent observations and documentation show the potential for the occurrence of at least five special status plants within the Project area. The San Joaquin spearscale and the Congdon's tarplant were documented within the Project area since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR (Sycamore Associates, in prep.). Suitable habitat for palmate bird's beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) and caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum) was observed in the upper reaches of Doolan Canyon to the east of the Project area, and such suitable habitat known to occur within the Project area. Additionally, suitable habitat (alkali grasslands) may be available for Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigaIupii), a newly described plant species within the Project area. Whether these or other plants listed in Table 3.3-1B are present in the Project area will not be known until individual properties within the Project area are surveyed for these plants. Given the presence of suitable habitat, and the known occurrence of two of these species, direct loss of individuals and associated microhabitats could occur as a result of future development in the Project area. This could result in a supplemental potentially significant impact. On-going or planned development within the cumulative impact area identified for this project is resulting in a loss of available habitat and total population size of Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale and potentially other species identified above. Combined with loss of habitat and plant species within the project area,.a supplemental cumulative impact is anticipated with regard to special status plant species. Supplementa~ Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-2: Plant surveys, as outlined in USFWS and CDFG survey protocols (CDFG 1996), shall be conducted across the Project area in early spring, late spring, and late summer to confirm presence or EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-15 absence of special-status plant species. Results of these surveys shall be addressed in the RMP (SM- Bio-l) and in project-level environmental review of all subsequent development applications in the Project area, SM, BIO-3: Once presence is determined for a special status plant species, areas supporting the species should be avoided to the extent feasible. SM-BIO-4: If a special-status plant species cannot be avoided, then the area containing the plant species must be measured and one of the following steps must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 ratio Coy acreage): a. 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; or b. Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another source within the Tri- valley area, and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within the Project area or off-site. Such area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity, If the plants fail to establish after a five year period, then step "a' above must be implemented Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 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. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce both project and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats Impact 3,7C of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant direct and indirect impactS to Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh due to development, grading, road construction, and culvert crossings. This supplemental analysis identifies seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams as additional botanically sensitive habitats that could be affected by direct and indirect impacts of develOpment of the Project area. Figure 3.3-C shows the Project's proposed general land use designations and roadways in conjunction with the habitat areas as shown in Figure 3.3-A. A small portion of the newly-identified seasonal wetlands would be protected in open space, while the remainder would be filled for development. Portions of the intermittent streams and other previously- identified habitat types would be located within open space cor~:'~.{ors or open space areas designated in the GPA/SP and the Project, while other portions would be filled for development. Other locations of seasonal wetland could later be identified when property-specific development proposals are prepared, and could be affected by development. This could result in a supplemental potentially significant impact and cumulative significant impact. Supplemental Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 3.7/6.0 and 3.7/7.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to this impact but do not mitigate it to less than significant. SM-BIO-5: To the extent feasible, implementation of the Project through subsequent preparation of Stage 2 development proposals on a property-by-property basis shall be designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States (which include seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams) within the Project area. Examples of avoidance and minimization include (1) reducing the size of future individual development projects within the Project area, (2) design future EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-16 development projects within the Project area so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts to waters of the United States, and (3) establish and maintain wetland or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams. In order to protect the particularly sensitive Arroyo willow riparian woodland and red-legged frog habitat found in the Fallon Road drainage from Fallon Road upstream to its terminus, future development projects within the Project area either shall completely avoid this drainage or limit impacts to bridge crossings (as opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacting features. SM-BIO-6: To the extent that ;~ oidance and minimization are not feasible and wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters will be filled, such impacts shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) within the Project area if feasible, through the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map for any property within the Project area, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure. SM-BIO-7: If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate the fill of wetlands or other waters ~ a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site location acceptable to the City. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure. SM-BIO-8: Botanically sensitive habitats shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level; however, cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to the loss of additional botanically sensitive habitat. Supplemental Impact BI04: San Joaquin Kit Fox The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts due to construction of new roads and facilities that could: destroy potential dens or bury foxes occupying dens at the time of construction; modify natural habitat to reduce available prey and den sites; lead to direct mortality or disturbance to foxes due to increased vehicle traffic, human presence and domestic dogs in the area; and directly harm kit fox or reduce prey due to the use of poisons for rodent control. There are no new impacts and no increased impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox or its habitat beyond those identified in the Eastern 'Dublin EIR. The City adopted kit fox mitigation measures as set forth in Appendix E of Resolution 53-93. However, updated survey and pre-construction protection measures have been adopted since 1993 which should be incorporated into the existing adopted Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan to ensure that the latest protocols and standards are implemented in future development of the Project area. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-9 Future development of properties within the Project area shall comply with the amended Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan (Appendix E) which reflects the latest protocols for ldt fox habitat evaluations, presence/absences surveys, pre-construction surveys and precautionary construction measures. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-17 SM-BIO-10 San Joaquin kit fox habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 5: California Red-legged Frog (CRLF) Impact 3.7/F of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts due to the destruction and alteration of small-water impoundments and stream courses which could eliminate habitat for the CRLF. Increased sedimentation from run-off into small riparian zones or water impoundments could reduce the water quality and threaten breeding and larval habitat. Removal or modification of the vegetation in the stream courses could reduce the suitability of habitat for adult frogs. Additionally, increased vehicle traffic and construction of new roadS could increase direct mortality. Harassment and predation by pets and urban wildlife, especially raccoons, is an existing problem and could increase with residential development. Mitigation measures were adopted for theses identified impacts. In March 2001, the USFWS adopted critical habitat for the CRLF comprised of approximately 4.1 million acres across the State. All of the Project area is within the designated Critical habitat. The USFWS published a draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF in January 2000. The Project area is located within the Mt. Diablo core area Unit 23 (Draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF (USFWS 2000a)). Based on studies and observations conducted since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the habitat for CRLF still focuses on water and riparian features but is now known also to include adjacent upland areas for potential aestivation and dispersal. As described above, since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, CRLF have been observed at several locations within the Project area. However the full extent of their distribution within the Project area has not been de~.ermined. Reflecting this new information, potential development of the Project area could have a broader impact on CRLF habitat and on individual frogs than previously analyzed. This is a potentially significant supplemental project impact. - On a cumulative level, policies protecting'wetlands and other aquatic habitat have reduced the rate of loss of these habitats since adoption of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Similar policies do not exist for upland areas and, as a result, cumulative growth impacts are greatest for upland components of red- legged frog habitat. While aquatic habitat has preserved the ability of frogs to move between areas of aquatic habitat, upland habitat is reduced or lost when development occurs which may affect overall population numbers. This represents a potentially significant cumulativo impact. Supplemental Mitigation Measures in light of the new information on the extent of potential CRLF habitat since the previous EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0 and 3.7/22 .0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR must be supplemented through the following additional mitigations. SM-BIO-II: Focused surveys following USFWS survey protocol shall be conducted in habitat considered suitable for CRLF on properties within the Project area which have not already been surveyed. The current protocol (USFWS 1997b) requires that two daytime and two nighttime surveys be performed over a suitable four-day period. Results of these surveys shall be sent to the City for review. SM-BIO-12: Specific California red-legged frog habitat areas, including the drainage upstream and east of the current Fallon Road alignment, shall be included in and protected and enhanced by EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-18 implementation of the Resource Manageme~~ '~n, as descri~,~d in ~d?:i~ation Measure BIO-SM-I, :.~bove. SM-BIO-12~.: ~ the extent feasible, development o~ ::~'~dividua] ?opertie~, ~,-~:i~in the Project area shall avoid all ~.~:~ of identified suitable California i'ed-legged frog aqua~.tc and dispersal habitat. Specifically, development should avoid such aquatic habitat and provide a 300 to 500-foot buffer on each side of any stream which provides red-legged ~og habitat. Limited permanent development may occur within this buffer zone (such as a trail through the length of the buffer zone, or a bridge crossing across the buffer zone), so long ~? ~- will have ;.~ ~..~ minor impacts on the habitat. Limited temporary development activity may occu: ....' ~: -~,~m this b.~:: ,~.,~ zone to create trails, install bridges, etc., and to allow for g~ading activities alonb ~i~c edge of th~ buffer zone, so long as such activity will have only minor impacts on the habitat. SM-BIO-14: If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better :-~t for CRLF at a 3:1 replacement ratio or s~,~table rat?~ c~eterrnined by the USFWS, shall be prese,~:~' and protected in perpetuity. This mitigat~::~,-~, to be 1~.: ,~ed in a mitigation and monitoring plan sv.~:~mitted to the City, shall be required prior to submittal t,., ~: :~ge 2 Development Plans and tentative maps for :~:~',~ ~;pecific property within the Project area. In ~,~cting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be :.,:~..¥~ to preserving large blocks habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to e,~sting open space and other ,:~agh-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. If the identified mitigation lands have been approved by the City, the following guidelines implemented prior to and during construction would reduce impacts individual CRLF and preserved CRLF habitat: SM-BIO-15: The following construction-related CRLF avoidance and protection measures shall be followed for all future development activity in the Project area, on a property-by-property basis: · Prior to construction, a map shall be prepared to delineate upland areas from preserved wetland areas. The wetland construction boundary shall be fenced to prohibit the movement of CRLF ~to the construction area and control siltation and disturbance to wetland habitat. Following 'installation of fencing, its proper location shall be verified by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall ensure that at no time during construction is vegetation removed inside of the fenced area. If cor~struction necessitates the removal of vegetation within the fenced area, additional mitiga~:i, on will be required. Additionally, the biologist shall walk the length of the fenc~~ once each c*::',:,~struction day to ensure that CRLF are not trapped within the enclosure. The biologist shal! walk the length of 0"~: fence more than once a day in areas where CRLF are most abundant. Pre-construction surveys vv~!~.? :~ the construction zone shall be conducted by a qualified biologist w~.~ appropriate p~its to handle CRLF. If no CRLF are detected during these surveys the~. :onstruction activities may proceed. If CRLF are found within the construction dist~.:~rbanc¢ zone they shall immediately b~ moved passively, or captured and moved, to suitaL~e upstream sites. All construction employee~:... ~! participate in an endangered species/special-status habitat education program to be pr~::: .~ed by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The program sh~: cover such t',~;~cs as identifying wetland habitat and areas ~:~ed by CRLF, identificatic;: :.,f CRLF by ??,otos, the state ~nd federal Endangered Species Acts, and the consequence:? of violating thc terms of these ~::i,:~ EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-19 All construction adjacent to wetlands shall be regularly monitored to ensure that impacts do not exceed those included within the protective standards of the mitigations. Work perfOrmed within 500 feet of aquatic habitat shall be monitored by the biologist, who shall document pre- project and post-project conditions to ensure compliance. Durh~ construction, the biologist shall be on site whenever construction within any aquatic habitats is to occur. Any construction activity within ordinary high water shall be photo- documented by the biologist. In addition, a biologist with the appropriate permits to relocate CRLF shall be available for consultation as needed. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce this project and cumulative impact to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 6: Special Status Invertebrates Impact 3.7/S of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts on special status invertebrates including vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp. Two additional special status invertebrate species, the Conservancy fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp, could be affected by development within the Project area and disturbance of potential habitat such as seasonal wetlands. This is a supplemental potentially sig-nificant impact. Supplemental Mitigation Measures MM 3.7/28.0 of the Easte~a~t Dublin EIR was adopted to reduce the previously identified impact. That mitigation is supplemented by the following additional mitigation measures. SM-BIO-16: Special,status invertebrate habitat shall be included In and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM- BIO-1. SM-BIO-17: The following vernal pool habitat surveys and mitigation shall be implemented for each property within the Project area: Surveys of potential habitat for special status invertebrates are required. If suitable habitat is identified, then such habitat shall be surveyed to determine whether it is occupied by special-status invertebrates. If impacts to occupied habitat will occur (inCluding direct impact as a result of habitat destruction, and indirect impact due to disturbance of areas within 250 feet of occupied habitat), the following measures shall be followed: (a) Preservation: For every acre of habitat directly impacted at least two vernal pool credits shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or, in accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, three acres of vernal pool habitat may be preserved within the Project area or off-site as approved by the USFWS. (b) Creation: For every acre of habitat indirectly impacted, at least one vernal pool credit shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or, in accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, two acres of vernal pool habitat may be created and monitored within the Project area or on off- site as approved by the USFWS. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3'20 · Vernal pool habitat and associated upland areas which are preserved onsite shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity. All avoided habitat on site st:::: I be monitored by a quarried biologist during the time of construction. The monito~'a~g biologist shall have authority to stop all activities that may result in destruction or take of listed inverte!:,eate species or destruction of their habitat. Resumption of construction shall occu~' after appropriate corrective measures have been taken. The biologist shall report any unauthorized impacts to USFWS. Fencing shall '~:~ vlaced and maintained around any and all preserved vernal pool habitat. · All on-site construction personnel shall receive instruction regarding the presence of listed species and their habitat. Implementation of th.ese mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 7: Catifonzia Tiger Salamander Impact 3.7/G of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant in,pacts on the California tiger salamander (CTS) similar to many of the impacts or~ '~'he red-legged frog. Since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the CTS has been made a formai c~ndidate for Federal listing under the ESA. It has been recognized that upland areas of previously-defined CTS aquatic habitat provide suitable aestivation habitat. In addition, the presence of CTS was confirmed in. the southern portion of the Project area and suitable habitat is present throughout the Project area. Direct and indirect loss of individuals in breeding ponds and newly recognized upland habitat is a supplemental potentially · significant impact. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-18: California tiger salamander habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM- BIO-1. SM-BIO-19: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigat,lon lands, providing similar or ?~etter aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a 1:1 ratio shall be set as~,:::e in perpetuity. Uvland habitat shall be mitigated by preserving upland on-site or, if necessary, by preserving cur?~ntly- occupied upland tiger salamander habitat off-site. Aquatic habitat shall be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic California tiger salamander breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat. This mitigation, included in a mitiga-,:~on and v~:~nitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City prior to submittal of Stage 2 development plans and te~'.:~,:~tive maps. in selecting off-sit~-~ mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many ~ .?:all parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluCai~ tg or limiting public use within preserved areas. Implementation of these mitigation ~'~asures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Supple,~.,.~.::~-at Impact BIO 8: Nest', ~':~ ~ ~taptors The East~m Dublin EIR identified t:,o~entially significant impacts to several swcies of nesting t'~ptors. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, an additional special status ~;~,'~or species, the short- EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-21 eared owl, has been identified as potentially nesting within the Project area. Removal or disturbance of an active raptor nest would constitute a supplemental potentially significant impact. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-20: A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors. If an active nest is found the following mitigation measures shall also be implemented. SM-BIO-21: If construction must occur during the nesting season, all potential nesting trees within the footprint of development should be removed prior to the nesting season to prevent occupied nests from being present when construction begins. SM-BIO-22: Construction should occur between August 1 and February 1 to avoid disturbance of nesting raptors during the nesting season. This construction window could be adjusted if monitoring efforts determine that nesting was completed before August 1. SM-BIO-23: If removal of nesting trees is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting raptor survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist prior to tree disturbance. SM-BIO-24: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nesting tree. Buffer zones shall be no smaller than 200 feet. SM-BIO-25: If construction is scheduled when young birds have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged as determined by a qualified biologist. SM-BIO-26: Nesting raptor habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM-BIO-1. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 9: Golden Eagle - Elimination of £oraging Habitat As discussed in Impact 3.7/K of Eastern Dublin EIR, the conversion of grasslands and the consequent reduction of potential prey are expected to reduce the amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Additional data on eagle foraging habitat has been gathered since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR. That data indicates that the northern portion of the Project area is used by an identified breeding pair of eagles for foraging (Granger Hunt, pers. comm.). This is a supplemental potentially significant impact. SM-BIO-27: The territory of the golden eagle nesting pair shall be included in and protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM- BIO-1. The protected golden eagle foraging territory affects areas in the northern portion of the Project area designated for Rural Residential/Agricultural uses. Development standards and uses for these areas shall incorporate the following measures: · Homesites in this portion of the Project area shall be located in valley bottoms adjacent to existing or planned residential development. · Permitted agricultural uses shall be limited to grazing to maintain suitable golden eagle foraging habitat. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-22 · Rodent control in this portion of the Project area shall be prohibited. Any additional portion of the Project area that i~, ~ ~, ~ the viewshed of ~i'~ nest sites used by this §hall also be managed in a similar manner. Implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to a less than sig-nificant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 10: Burrowing Owl Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/M found ~hat deve~,~ment in Eastern Dublin could result in the loss of potential breeding habitat and/or the disturbance of nests for this special-status species. While this impact has not changed, the California Department of Fish and Game has developed new guidelines ~vr mitigating impacts to this species since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Without the following supplem~,':~ntal mitigation, this could be a ~ upplemental potentially significant impact, Supplemental Miti~gation Measures (adapted from CDFG 1995) SM-BIO-28: If c~-'~.truction is scheduled during the nesting season (February I - August 31), pre- construction surw~.' ?,hould be conducted on the entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of the Project area p~'~,:' ~o any ground disturbance. To a:~.'oid take of over-wintering birds, all burrows should be surveyed{ /~ days prior to ground disturbance between the months of September 1 and January 31. If grc:,~.,.~.::.~.~ disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre- construction survey;~ tne site should be resurveyed. SM-BIO-29: 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, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nesting season. SM-~IO-30: Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting sites ide:~'~:if~.ed by pre-construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (February 1-September 1). SM-BIO-31: If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding seasom a nesting burrowing owl survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on site or adjacent.to the site. All active burrows shall be identified. SM-BIO-32: All active nesting burrows shall have an established 250-foot exclusion zone around the burrow. SM-BIO-33: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet fledged, 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. SM-BIO-34: When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a 2:1 ratio on protecte ,i tands, as provided for below. SM-BIO-35: A minimam of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired, and permanently preserved and protected. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-23 SM-BIO-36: The project proponent shall provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG. SM-BIO-37: Burrowing owl habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 11: Nesting Passerines The Eastern Dublin El R identified potentially significant impacts on riparian and freshwater habitat of tri-colored blackbird. The Project area provides potentially suitable nesting habitat, induding grassland, arroyo willow riparian woodland, and freshwater marsh habitat, for two additional nesting passerines, the loggerhead shrike and the California homed lark. A breeding colony of tri-colored blackbirds was observed in the southern portion of the Project area. Potential destruction of nesting habitats or disturbance to or loss of these nesting passerines is a supplemental potentially significant Impact. The following supplemental mitigation is identified for these species. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-38: If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 1- August 15), all potential nesting sites and structures (i.e., shrubs and tules) within the footprint of development should be removed prior to the beginning of the nesting season. However, because the removal of grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for impacts to California horned lark are addressed more particularly in Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-39 to SM-BIO-41, below. SM-BIO-39: If removal of nesting trees and shrubs within the footprint of development is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting bird survey should be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. These surveys shall cover grassland habitat for potential nesting California horned lark. Birds present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting onsite or adjacent to the site. SM-BIO-40: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nest site. Buffer zones can range between 75 feet to 100 feet. SM-BIO-41: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by July 15. SM-BIO-42: Habitat for nesting passerines shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM-BIO-1. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Supplemental Impact BIO 12: Bat .Species Special status bat species potentially occurring on the site, including the pallid bat, Townsend's big- eared bat, and the Yuma myotis bat have been identified since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Destruction of roosting habitat for these bat species is a potentially significant supplemental impact. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-24 Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-43: A qualified bat biologist shall conduct occupancy surveys of the Project area to determine whether any mature trees, snags or suitable buildings that would be removed during future project construction provide hibernacula or nursery colony roosting habitat. SM-BIO-44: If presence is observed, removal of roost habitat should be conducted at specific times of the year. Winter roosts ~?e generally occupied between October 15 through January 30 and maternity colonies are generally occupied between February 15 and July 30. If bats are using roost sites that need to be removed, the roosting season of the colony shall be determined and the removal shall be conducted when the colony is using an alternate roost. SM-BIO-45: Habitat for these bat species shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to ~ less than significant level. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-25 TABLE 3.3 -lA SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (Eastern Dublin EIR) Species (1) CNPS Federal/ Habitat (5) Flowering Status (2) State Period (5) Status (3, 4) Amsinkia grandiflora lB CE/FE Grassy slopes Apr-May Large-flowered below 1200 ft fiddleneck Alkaline places in Jun-Sept. Cordylanthus mollis ssp. lB grassland hispidus Hispid birds- beak Cordylan thus Alkaline June-Sept. palmatus lB CE/FE overflowed lands; Palmate birds- grassland beak Cryptantha Course sandy areas Apr-May hooveri 1 B CR in grassland Hoover's cryptantha Eriogonum truncatum Dry grassy slopes; Apr-Jun Mt. Diablo buckwheat 1A 1000-1500 ft. chaparral, grassland Eschscholtzia Dry, gravelly, or Mar-Apr rhombipetala 1B grassy slopes Diamond-petaled California poppy Fritillaria Heavy adobe soils Mar-Apr agrestis 4 at low elevations; Stinkbells grassland, cismont~e woodlanc~ Fritillaria liliacea Heavy soil in open Feb-Apr Fragrant fritillary 1B hills and fields near coast; coastal scrub; grassland; often on serpentine Grindelia campor~tm Dry grassy slopes; May-Oct Var. parviflora 4 perhaps alkaline Great Valley gumplant No longer areas has Special- Status Lasthenia conjugens Grassland; vernal Apr-May Contra Costa 1 B FE pools Goldfields EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-26 Ranunculus lobii Shallow vernal Feb-Apr Lobb's aquatic 4 ponds, mesic sites; buttercup redwood or mixed evergreen forests, northern oak woodland Tropidocarpum 1A Grassy, alkaline Mar-Apr capparideum hills below 500 ft. Caper-fruited tropidocarpum TABLE 3.3 -lB NEW SPECIES - SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Potential To Occur in Species (1) CNPS Federal/State Habitat ~5) the Project area in Status Status (3, 4) SEIR. (2) 1 B FSC Chenopod scrub, Apr-Sept. Atriplex valley/foothill joaquiniana grasslands/alkaline San Joaquin meadows spearscale 1 B Chenopod scrub, May-Oct. Atriplex valley foothill depressa grasslands/alkaline Brittlescale meadows 1 B FSC Chenopod scrub, May-Oct. Atriplex valley/foothill cordulata grasslands/ Heartscale somewhat alkaline meadows 4 Chenopod scrub, April-Oct. Atriplex valley/foothill coronata var. grasslands/alkaline coronata meadows Crownscale 1B Playas, valley March-June Astragalus /foothill tener var. tener grasslands, alkaline Alkali milk- vernal pools vetch 1 B Cismontane March-June Ba lsatnorhiza woodland/valley macrolepis var. /foothill grassland, macrolepis sometimes Big-scale serpentinite balsamroot __ EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-27 Blepharizonia 1B Valley/foothill July-Oct. plumose ssp. grasslands plutnose Bi~ tarweed Calochortus pulchellus 1 B Chaparral, April-June Mount Diablo fairy cismontane lantern woodland, valley/ foothill grassland Deinadra bacigalupii 1B Meadow on June- Livermore tarplant alkaline soils. October Hemizonia parryi ssp. 1B Valley/foothill June-Nov congdonii grasslands on Con~don's tarplant alkaline soils. Madia radiata 1B Valley/foothill March-May grassland below Showy madia 250 feet, and cismontane woodland Palgiobothrys 1 A Alkaline meadows April-May and vernal coastal glaber saltmarshes Hairless popcorn- flower Senecio .. 2 Coastal scrub and January- cismontane April aphanactis woodland on Rayless alkaline soils ralgwort I Species names and nomenclature follow California Native Plant Society (1988) 2 California Native Plant Society (2000): lA = Presumed Extinct in California lB = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2 = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = Plants for which more information is needed -A Review List 4 = Plants of limited distribution -A Watch List 3 California Department of Fish and Game (2000c): CE = State listed, endangered CR = State listed, rare 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998): FE = Federally listed, endangered FSC = Federal Special Concern Species 5 Munz and Keck (1968) EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-28 TABLE 3.3 - 2A SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (Eastern Dublin EIR) SPECIES STATUS AMPHIBIANS California red-legged i~og FT/Critical Habitat Rana aurora draytonii DFG: CSC DFG: Protected (Full species) California tiger salamander FC Ambystoma californiense DFG: CSC DFG: Protected REPTILES DFG: CSC DFG: Protected Western Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata Alameda whipsnake Masticophus lateralis eu~, xanthus California homed lizard Ph~, nosoma coronatum frontale CT/FT/Critical Habitat DFG: Protected DFG: CSC DFG: Protected (Full species) BIRDS Bald Eagle CE/FT, FPD Haliaeetus leucocephalus CDF Sensitive DFG Fully protected BEPA Golden eagle DFG: CSC (Fully protected) Aquila chn,/saetos BEPA White-tailed kite DFG: Fully protected Elanus caeruIeus DFG: Code 3503.5 Northern Harrier DFG: CSC Circus ~,aneus DFG: Code 3503.5 Sharp-shinned hawk DFG: CSC Acci?iter striatus DFG: Code 3503.5 Cooper's hawk DFG: CSC Acci?iter cooperii DFG: Code 3503.5 Prairie falcon DFG: CSC Falco mexicanus DFG: Code 3503.5 American Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hy?ugea Short-eared owl Asio flammeus CE/Federally delisted CDF: Sensitive DFG: Fully protected, Code 3503.5 DFG: CSC DFG: Code 3503.5 DFG: CSC, Code 3503.5 Tricolored blackbird DFG: CSC, Code 3503 Agelaius tricoior FSC MAMMALS EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-29 San Joaquin kit fox CT/FE Vulpus macrotis mutica INVERTEBRATES FE Longhorn fairy shrimp Branchinecta Iongiantenna Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta Iynchi FT TABLE 3.3 - 2B NEW SPECIES - SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BIRDS Merlin DFG: CSC Falco columbarius DFG: Code 3503.5 Loggerhead Shrike DFG: CSC, Code 3503 Lanius ludovicianus California horned lark DFG: CSC, Code 3503 Eremophila al?estris actia MAMMALS San Joaquin kit fox Vulpus macrotis mutica Pallid bat Antrozous ?allidus Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii Yuma myotis bat Myotis yumanensis INVERTEBRATES Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi :CT/FE (not a new mitigation) DFG: CSC species, but new DFG: CSC (Full species) DFG: CSC FE FE The wildlife status definitions and governing agencies follow: U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service (1998) FE FT FC FPE FSC Endangered: Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a sJ.gnificant portion of its range Threatened: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future Federal candidate species Federally proposed Endangered: Taxa already proposed to be listed as endangered Federal Special Concern Species EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-30 FPD Federally Proposed for delisting BEPA Bald Eagle Protection Act: This act contains numerous protection measures relating to bald eagles and golden eagles California Department of Fish and Game (2000a, 2000b, 2000c) CE CR CT CPE CSC Endangered: A native species or subspecies of animal, which is in serious danger of becoming · extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range Listed as Rare by the State of California Threatened: A native species or subspecies that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts Proposed for listing as Endangered California Species of Special Concern: taxa that are restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or associated with habitats that are declining in California Fish and Game Code (CDFG 1998) DFG Protected and fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Fully protected and protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or the Department of Fish and Game. Information on fully protected and protected species can be found in the Fish and Game Code, (birds at § 3511, mammals § 4700, reptiles and amphibians at § 5050, and fish at § 5515). EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-31 LEGEND Habitat Types Dry Farming: Barley Fiekls [7-'~ Non-native Grassland -'~ Ruderal Developed Intermitten t Stmams ~--'~ Seeps, Spriogs, Impoundments (Ponds) [-'~ Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland ~ Seasonal Wetlands ~'-]' Freshwater Marsh East Dublin Properties FIGURE 3.3-A Habitat Types ~ Eoealyptus Trees l' Unknown Trees I / InM:KAY&SomPs ~ ¢' 31 Figure 3.3-B: Site Vicinity for East Dublin Prope~ies Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation, East Dublin, Alameda County, California Oceu~ences of Special-status Animal Species Sycamore Associates LLG 2001 East Dublin Properties FIGURE 3.3-B Sensitive Species in the Eastern Dublin Area LEGEND San Joaquin kit fox California red-legged frog California tiger salamander Golden eagle nest Tricolored blackbird colony Base Map: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Livermore, California NORTH SCALE LEGEND Habitat Typ~s' [--~' Non-native Grassland ~/ Developed" ~ lnterniittentStreams .' ' ' . See~S, Sl~ri~igs, Impoundments · Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland /'~6a;~al Wetlaads Freshwater Ma ~h LAND USE LEGEND ESr Elementa~'Seho01 JH;:3unior High S~hool L- Low Dengity Residential M- Medium Density Residential · MH- Medium High Density Residential "NS; NeighborhoOd Square NP- Neighborhood Park CP- Community Park OS, Open Space RRA- Rural R~sidential/Agriculture NC- Neighborh6od Commercial GCc.General Commercial mm~s~v~ 'I; Industrial Park East Dul}lin.properties~ FiGuRE 3.3,C Know~ O¢~urrcn¢¢s of Habitat Ty~¢s I [,~-/c-~-~, . / AoICAIs OflIp$ 3.4 NOISE Noise was analyzed in Chapter 3.10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR examines whether new significant or substantially increased noise impacts could occur in light of increases in regional traffic and changes in commute patterns since certification of the EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a detailed discussion of the noise conditions that existed on and around the Project area in 1992-3. Then, as now, the major noise source affecting the Project area is traffic on Interstate 580 (I-580). Measurements conducted along 1-580 since 1992, primarily as part of the bi-annual City of Pleasanton noise monitoring survey, have indicated that noise levels have increased only slightly since 1992 (less than 1 dBA) (Illingworth and' Rodkin, Bi-Annual Citywide Noise Monitoring in the City of Pleasanton, 1995 and 1998). This minimal noise level increase between 1992 and now is because the freeway was operating at peak-noise generating conditions in 1992. Increased traffic tends to slow traffic speeds thereby decreasing noise generation, although the increased traffic may shift the timing of peak noise occurrence. The increased traffic volume on 1-580 between 1992 and now has reduced traffic speed and noise levels. Therefore, the traffic noise contours contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR accurately represent the existing noise conditions on the site and the existing conditions noise contour map included in the Eastern Dublin EIR is reproduced in this study as Figure 3.4-A. Other noise sources on and adjacent to the Project area include noise generated by traffic on arterial roadways near and within the Project area and aircraft flyovers, mainly from aircraft utilizing the Livermore Municipal Airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR also mentioned the Camp Parks Reserves Forces Training Area (RFTA), located about 1-1/2 miles west of the site near Tassajara Road, as a potential noise source. Only the sound of occasional helicopter flyovers is audible in the Project area. While maximum noise levels generated by individual helicopter flyovers may reach 70 to 80 dBA, the level of helicopter activity at Camp Parks does not generate a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) (a time- averaged noise descriptor; please refer to the Eastern Dublin EIR p. 3.10-1 for a full description), of 60 dBA in the Project area due to the infrequency of helicopter flyovers. The Project area has been deemed to be outside the area of concern for noise as described in the Environmental Noise Management Plan, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California (U.S Army, December 2000). As reflected in the Eastern Dublin EIR, major arterials would be constructed nearby and within the Project area. These include Fallon Road, a major north-south arterial providing access from the Project area and beyond to 1-580, and Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial providing a local arterial street parallel to 1-580 from the Project area westward through the City of Dublin. These arterials, along with new roads to be constructed within the Project area, are potential traffic noise sources. The Livermore Municipal Airport is located southeast of the study area on the south side of 1-580. The Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan includes projected noise contours for noise levels due to Livermore Airport aircraft activity. The projected year-2011 55 dBA CNEL contour line crosses the site on its southern edge, just north of Dublin Boulevard (see Figure 3.4-B for the location of the 55 dBA CNEL contour for Livermore Airport). The 60 dBA CNEL contour does not reach the Project area. IMPACTS 'AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.4-1 The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential impacts related to noise. The impacts applicable to the Project area included exposure of existing and future residences to future roadway noise and to construction noise. Compatibility impacts for mixed uses were also identified (Impacts 3.10/A, B, E, F). Mitigation measures were adopted to require acoustical studies for all residential projects within the future 60 dBA CNEL contour and to provide noise barriers for then-existing residences where feasible. Adopted mitigation measures also require construction noise management programs, compliance with local noise standards, and review of noise management programs in future mixed use projects. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed annexation and prezoning. Even with mitigation, however, potentially significant impacts remained for exposure of then- existing residents to future roadway noise. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/Sp, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93). The proposed annexation and prezoning include the same land uses and densities analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, there are no new or intensified construction noise or mixed use compatibility impacts. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development as assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, noise expected to be generated by Project traffic has not increased from the previous EIR. However, better defined roadway locations indicate potential additional noise impacts may occur beyond those assessed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and additional developed areas may be subject to unacceptable or conditionally acceptable noise impacts. Significance Criteria Noise impacts are considered significant under the City's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines if they cause exposure of existing and proposed housing (including hotels) to a CNEL of more than 60 dBA. For increases in ambient noise, the Eastern Dublin EIR utilized as significance criteria noise standards established by the U.S. Department of Transportation in Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Assessments, U.S. Department of Transportation, Circular UMTA 5620.1. These standards consider a traffic- generated noise increase of 3 dBA or less as insignificant, an increase of 4 to 5 dBA as potentially significant, and an increase of 6 dBA or more as significant. City of Dublin Noise Standards Pursuant to the Dublin General Plan Noise Element, a CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered normally acceptable for residential development (See Table 3.4-1, excerpted from the General Plan.) Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires all multi-family residential dwellings, hotels, and motels exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA or greater to have an acoustical study that shows how an interior CNEL of 45 dBA will be achieved in habitable rooms. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measure 3.10/1.0, the City also applies this standard to single-family homes. The City has been applying a standard for outdoor noise levels not to exceed an Ldn (day/night average sound level) of 65 dBA in backyards or common outdoor areas for other projects in the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.4-2 Supplemental Impact NOISE 1: Exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan. In some cases, land uses proposed within the Project area would be exposed to noise levels that would be considered conditionally acceptable under the City of Dublin's Noise Element. This is considered a supplemental potentially significant impact. The noise contours for Project buildout are shown in Figure 3.4-B. These contours do not take into account acoustical shielding due to existing or future buildings or topography. Consequently, actual noise levels may be less than that shown on the map. The noise contours for the Project area are more detailed than they were in 1993 because a roadway system has been identified and more precise noise contours could be developed. Residential development proposed along Central Parkway would be exposed to a CNEL of over 65 dBA, as would residential development along Fallon Road and the internal loop roads. This would be a potentially significant impact. These areas would require an acoustical study during Project development to determine how interior levels could be controlled to the City and State goal of 45 dBA and how outdoor noise levels in residential use areas would be controlled to a CNEL of 65 dBA. Although the noise exposure information is more detailed and allows a more accurate determination of where mitigation will be required, the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR remain applicable. Adopted Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 and 2.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR require acoustical studies for new residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and require mitigation for outdoor living areas of existing residences. These mitigations will continue to apply within the 60 dBA contour as adjusted and will reduce increased traffic noise impacts on new housing to less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are recommended beyond those previously adopted. However, even with mitigation, previously identified traffic noise impacts on existing residences could not be reduced to insignificance. Therefore, upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93). To the extent that increased traffic noise would intensify this impact, the intensified impact also would be potentially significant and unavoidable. Supplemental Impact NOISE 2: Exposure of future commercial, office and industrial uses to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan. As reflected in the noise contours for 1-580 and Project area roadways, the general commercial and industrial commercial land uses proposed between Dublin Boulevard and Interstate 580 would be exposed to a CNEL of up to 75 dBA, which is considered conditionally acceptable for these land uses under the guidelines of the Noise Element of the General Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact. SM-NOISE-l: Require a noise insulation plan for general commercial (including any proposed office-type uses) and industrial land uses to be submitted for all such development projects located within the future CNEL 70 dBA contour. The plan shall show how interior noise levels would be controlled to acceptable levels. The acceptable level will depend on the type of use as set forth in the noise insulation plan. Interior noise levels could be controlled adequately by using sound-rated windows in windows closest to the streets and the freeway. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.4-3 This mitigation will reduce noise impacts on future commercial, office, and industrial uses to less than significant. Supplemental lmpact NOISE 3: Exposure of people to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Increased traffic on 1-580 and Project area roadways also could increase ground borne vibrations caused by the passage of heavy trucks or equipment along nearby streets. Like noise, the effects of vibrations are more noticeable during the quieter times of the day -- early morning, evenings and nighttime hours. Also like noise, vibrations are considered to be more of an impact in residential areas, which typically are more sensitive receptors than other land uses. The discussion of increased noise levels in Supplemental Impact Noise 1, above, applies generally to ground boh~e noise, since both are generated by vehicular traffic, the main source of current and future noise on and within the Project area. Therefore, no additional supplemental impact or mitigation measures are required for ground-borne noise. Ground .borne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic could be a potentially signifiCant unpact. SM-NOISE-2: Except for local deliveries, restrict heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roadways and truck routes within the Project area and limit the hours of local deliveries to daytime hours as established by the City. This mitigation will reduce ground borne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic to less than significant. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.4-4 TABLE 3.4 -1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNI?~( NOISE ENVIRONMENTS COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dBA) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Acceptable Normally Acceptable (Noise Insulation Unacceptable Features Required) Clearly Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 75 Over 75 Motels, hotels 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 Over 80 Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 Over 80 Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60 - 65 65 - 70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70 - 75 75 - 80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 70 - 75 Over 75 Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Source: California Office of Noise Control, 1976, as modified by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.4-5 l~19149\sup-EIR\fig -noise Existing Noise Contours Legend m. General Plan Amendment Area ..... Specific Plan Area CNEL (Community Nois( Equivalent Level) Noise Measurement Location Source: Charles Salter and Associates lnc, EASTERN DUBLIN GPA · SP · EIR WaJlaee ~rts & Todd Figure East Dublin Properties FIGURE 3.4 -A :: ,., ! ·' BUild,outNoise Contours · = :'] CNEL Noise Contours = ::':~''' ~ ': ' . · : ~GRI~'tsTI~RE.. =' ' , ':":/i'~. :;2" :/" i !!: CP ~ Ae6~i~tics/Aii-: Q uali!y 3.5 SCHOOLS The need for new school facilities was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR examines whether student generation rates and the related need for different levels of school facilities to accommodate future development of the Project area have changed substantially since certification of the EIR. The supplement also examines the effect of Senate Bill (SB 50), enacted in 1998, on school mitigation and funding. ENVIRONMENTAL SETFING The Project area currently is within the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) boundary. As a companion request to the proposed annexation, the Project proponents propose to detach from the LVJUSD and attach to the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). (Provisions of the Education Code govern the liability of property when it is detached from one school district and annexed to another.) The proposed reorganization is consistent with Dublin General Plan Policies 4.1.B and 4.1.F that the DUSD provide school facilities in the Extended Planning Area and that schools located within the City limits be operated by DUSD. Enrollment in DUSD schools in October 2000 was 4,082 kindergarten through 12th grade students (Dublin Unified School District Study of Demographic Projections and School Construction Revenue Analysis, DRAFT, Shilts Consultants, Inc., June 2001). DUSD maintains five elementary schools, a middle school, a high school and a continuation high school. The high school and middle school levels have experienced the highest levels of growth over the past five years with an average annual increase of 3.6 percent per year. In total the DUSD experienced an average growth rate of 2.26 percent over the past five years. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR projected the demand for school facilities that would be generated by development under the GPA/SP. At the time the EIR was certified, the DUSD had not adopted student generation standards for all levels of school facilities. The LVJUSD, however, recently had adopted increased generation rates for single- and multi-family development at all school levels from kindergarten through 12th grade. (Eastern Dublin EIR response to comment 16-12.) These rates were used in the EIR analysis to ensure a conservative and consistent projection of new student yield from future development of the GPA/SP area. Based on projected student generation, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the demand for new school facilities and the potential for overcrowding if the demand was not met (Impacts 3.4/F, G, H). The EIR also identified impacts on financing school facilities (Impacts 3.4/I and J). Mitigation measures were adopted to reserve school sites on the GPA/SP land use maps, to coordinate new development with school district facilities planning, and to encourage the broadest possible funding mechanisms for new school facilities (MM 3.4/13.0 - 19.0). These mitigation measures reduced the impacts to a level of insignificance. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed prezoning and annexation of the Project area. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Pursuant to the Initial Study, this supplement analyzes whether EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.5-1 demand for new school facilities has changed significantly since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and assesses the ability to fund new facilities given changes in the law occurring since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Significance Criteria Schools impacts are considered significant if student generation rates have increased such that the demand for new school facilities substantially would exceed the demand identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. School financing impacts would be significant if the Project failed to comply with SB 50. Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts are expected due to revised student generation rates or the enactment of SB 50. Student Generation Rafts. Table 3.5.-1 compares student generation rates used in the Eastern Dublin EIR to student generation rates currently used by the DUSD. DUSD generation rates are used because it is assumed that the proposed reorganization will be approved given the approval of a similar reorganization for the 1995 annexation to Dublin of 1,538 acres. Table 3.5-1 shows that at all levels current student generation rates are well below the rates used in the Eastern Dublin EIR analysis and do not result in new significant impacts. The Eastern Dublin EIR generation rates indicate that the Project would have generated some 1,587 students based upon the unit counts indicated in Table 3.5-1, below. Under the proposed DUSD student generation rates the Project would generate 1,095 students, only 69% of the 1993 projections. Under current LVJUSD rates, the Project would generate 1,478 students, 93% of the 1993 projections. TABLE 3.5 - 1 - COMPARISON OF EASTERN DUBLIN EIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES AND CURRENT STUDENT GENERATION RATES Residential Use Grade Level EIR Rates~ DUSD Rates2 LVJUSD Ratesa Single Family K-5 .33 .280 .30 (1,736 units) 6-8 .16 .125 .15 9-12 .21 .155 .17 Multi-Family K-5 .22 .085 .30 (790 units) 6-8 .11 .035 .10 9-12 .14 .035 .11 Sources:1 Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 16-17, Table 3.4-2 (revised). 2 Based on a study commissioned by the DUSD Board, entitled Dublin Unified School District Study of Demographic Projections and School Construction Revenue Analysis, DRAFT (Shilts Consultants, Inc., June 2001). The rates indicated above for each grade classification are an average of rates for large lot and small lot single-family detached units, and an average of the rates for townhomes and multi-family residential for the multi-family category. 3 LVJUSD, Notice of Preparation Response to Comments, dated June 27, 2001. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.5-2 School sites to meet projected demand were provided in the GPA/SP and through implementation of adopted mitigation measures. The Eastern Dublin EIR recognized, however, that "movement" in the size, number and location of designated school sites could occur over the course of development (Eastern Dublin EIR response to comment 15-30). This movement has in fact occurred with development in Eastern Dublin as the type and location of school facilities and sites have been shifted as needed to meet the demand identified by the DUSD. Through such planning, the City and the DUSD have implemented the EIR mitigations to ensure that school facilities are available to meet projected demand. No school facility impacts are expected beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. SB 50 (The "Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998"). Senate Bill 50 became effective on November 4, 1998 as a result of the California voters approving Proposition lA. SB 50 provided a $9.3 billion bond measure for school construction and revised the limitation on developer fees for school facilities. The statute allowed an increase in the statutory limit on the amount of school mitigation fees and applied the limit to all development approvals, overturning prior case law exempting certain approvals from the previous statutory limits. SB 50 establishes an amount of allowable developer fees, which is known as a Level 1 fee. The statute allows a school district to exceed the base Level 1 fees and impose higher Level 2 fees if the district 1) is determined to be eligible for State funding; 2) adopts a school facilities needs analysis; and 3) satisfies other criteria of SB 50. Statutory provisions establish a maximum amount of Level 2 fees for all projects within a particular school district. The statute also allows a district to impose Level 3 fees if Level 2 fees have been imposed and state funding is no longer available. Currently, the DUSD collects' Level 2 fees from developers. Under SB 50, payment of the permitted school fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts for CEQA and other purposes. SB 50 limits the amount of fees a school district may legally impose on new development. Both DUSD and the LVJUSD impose these fees on new development; therefore, there is no new significant impact related to funding of school facilities. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.5-3 3.6 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Traffic and Circulation was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR examines compliance with the City of Dublin's established standards for intersection levels of service (LOS) in light of increases in regional traffic and changes in commute patterns since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993. The analysis also considers the cumulative (year 2025) growth of the entire region by utilizing the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to examine future conditions with the proposed Project and cumulative conditions. The Tri-Valley Transportation Model was developed with and adopted jointly by the Tri-Valley cities after certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. It assumes General Plan build-out for the Tri-Valley cities and completion of each of the city's road networks to their ultimate geometries. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project area is located on the eastern edge of the City of Dublin's planned urbanized area and almost in the middle of the Livermore-Amador Valley's Interstate 580 (I-580) corridor. 1-580 is a major Bay Area east-west commuter route from communities as far east as the San Joaquin Valley to job centers as far west as San Francisco and Redwood City and more local job centers in Walnut Creek, Bishop Ranch (San Ramon), Dublin and Pleasanton. 1-580 also provides commuter access to Interstate 680 (I-680). 1-680 lies several miles west of the Project area and is a major north-south freeway and commuter route from the Tri-Valley area and communities farther north to the technology job centers in Santa Clara County and San Jose (the "Silicon Valley"). Existing Roadway Network Interstate 580 (1-580): 1-580 is an eight lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and Tracy to the east and Oakland and other East Bay cities and San Francisco to the west. In the vicinity of the Project area, 1-580 carries approximately 170,000 vehicles per day (vpd) based on the 1998 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Interchanges near the Project area include (west to east) Dougherty/Hopyard Roads, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara/Santa Rita Roads, Fallon/E1 Charro Roads, and Airway Boulevard. The 1-580/I-680 interchange is under construction and improvements are expected to be completed by the late summer of 2002. The new interchange will consist of: an 1-680 southbound to 1-580 eastbound flyover, improw~Taents to the 1-680 northbound to 1- 580 eastbound movement, I~680 southbound off- and on-ramps and an 1-680 northbound on- ramp (completed) to provide direct freeway access from Dublin Boulevard. 1-580 is congested during peak periods. During the morning commute, the freeway is overloaded in the westbound direction, primarily between Vasco Road and Airway Boulevard. During the evening commute, the primary eastbound bottleneck is at the Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road interchange. The evening peak hour traffic backs up to 1-680 or points westerly on a regular basis. Dublin Boulevard: Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. Between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway it is a six-lane road. From Village Parkway east to Dougherty Road it generally maintains a four-lane width. Various roadway projects currently under construction or planned will result in Dublin Boulevard being improved to six lanes between Village Parkway and Tassajara Road. It is currently being extended as an initial four-lane road for approximately 3,400 feet east of Tassajara EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 1 Road to serve impending development in that area (Dublin Ranch Area G). The existing average daily traffic (ADT) varies from 33,600 vpd east of San Ramon Road (based on a current daily count performed by the City of Dublin) to 9,700 vpd at its current eastern end just west of Tassajara Road (estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts at Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan indicate Dublin Boulevard as a planned six-lane arterial with a median from Tassajara Road to the City's Sphere of Influence limits at the eastern boundary of the Project area. Dublin Boulevard is identified by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) as a major Tri-Valley east-west parallel arterial to 1-580 and is anticipated to provide local traffic relief when 1-580 becomes congested. It is designated in the General Plan as a "Route of Regional Significance." The General Plan anticipates extension easterly to connect to North Canyons Parkway. The ultimate improvement of Dublin Boulevard is part of Dublin's Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program (referred to sometimes as the Traffic Impact Fee) (see below). Central Parkway: Central Parkway (referred to as the Transit Spine in the Eastem Dublin EIR) is an east-west collector that currently extends from Arnold Drive to Tassajara Road as a parallel two-lane collector to Dublin Boulevard. It is currently being extended easterly from Tassajara Road for a distance of about 3,400 feet to serve a portion of the Dublin Ranch development (Area G). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan indicate that Central Parkway will extend as a four-lane road from Tassajara Road easterly to Fallon Road. East of Fallon Road it is planned as a four-lane road which turns south to connect with Dublin Boulevard within the Project area.~ Gleason Drive: Gleason Drive is a four-lane east-west arterial serving the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, the Federal Correctional Institution and other public and private developments. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that it will extend east of Tassajara to serve portions of Dublin Ranch and eventually will extend eastward to terminate at future Fallon Road. It currently carries 4,100 vpd west of Tassajara Road (estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts at Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive). The ultimate improvements are part of the Traffia Impact Fee Program. ~ Some City planning maps erroneously show Central Parkway extending easterly and ending at the sphere of influence boundary. The "Project" that was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR included development in Doolan Canyon and the easterly extension of the Transit Spine (now called Central Parkway) to connect with Doolan Road which was to extend north and connect with Tassajara Road. However, the Council did not adopt this "Project," but, rather, adopted the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR's "Alternative 2' (Reduced Planning Area Alternative) with some modifications. Alternative 2 did not include development in Doolan Canyon. The modifications to Alternative 2 were included in an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR, dated May 4, 1993; these modifications to Alternative 2 included changes to the Transit Spine. The Transit Spine was changed from a 2-lane road to a 4-lane road and the text noted that Figure 5.1 of the Specific Plan should be revised to show four lanes for the Transit Spine between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Consistent with this, when the City adopted its Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, although it included Central Parkway easterly to Fallon Road, it did not include construction of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road in its fee program. Thereafter, in 1997, the Council made amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; one of those changes was to show Central Parkway as a 4~lane road extending easterly of Fallon Road and turning south to connect with Dublin Boulevard within the Eastern Extended Planning Area. Figures 5-lB of both the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflect this configuration of Central Parkway. Only two of the four lanes of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road are proposed as part of the proposed Project; right-of-way for the additional two lanes will be reserved for the future ultimate 4-lane width. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 2 Dougherty Road: Dougherty Road is a north-south inter-city connector linking Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon with 1-580 in Dublin. Dougherty Road has four lanes between the Alameda County/Contra Costa border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. South of 1-580 it continues as Hopyard Road, a six-lane arterial in the City of Pleasanton. The ADT is about 38,000 vpd south of Dublin Boulevard (estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road). Dougherty Road is designated in the General Plan as a "Route of Regional Significance." The General Plan indicates it will be 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard and 8 lanes between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard. Eastern Dublin developers pay for their proportionate share of improvements through the Traffic Impact Fee. Hacienda Drive: Hacienda Drive is a north-south arterial designed to provide access to 1- 580 from both Dublin and Pleasanton. North of 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, it is currently constructed with six through lanes. North of Dublin Boulevard it is four lanes to its terminus at Gleason Drive (with some turn lanes). South of 1-580 it continues as an eight- lane arterial in the City of Pleasanton. The existing ADT south of Dublin Boulevard is 11,200 vpd. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan indicate Hacienda Drive as an eight-lane arterial from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, as a six-lane arterial from Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway, and as a four-lane collector north of Central Parkway. The ultimate improvements are part of the Traffic Impact Fee program. Tassajara Road: Tassajara Road is a north-south arterial designed to provide access to 1-580 for Dublin and Pleasanton. It extends northerly f-rom Dublin to the Contra Costa County line and beyond to Danville. North of the County line the road is two lanes and is named Camino Tassajara. From the County line south to North Dublin Ranch Parkway it remains two lanes wide. From North Dublin Ranch Parkway to Dublin Boulevard it currently has four lanes of an ultimate six-lane width. South of Dublin Boulevard, it has been widened to six lanes of an ultimate eight lanes. The current traffic volumes south of Dublin Boulevard are 19,000 vpd (based on a recent daily count performed by the City of Dublin); near the County line are 10,500 vpd (estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts at Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive). South of 1-580 in Pleasanton the road continues as a six-lane arterial named Santa Rita Road. Tassajara Road is designated in the General Plan as a "Route of Regional Significance." The ultimate improvements are part of the Traffic Impact Fee program. Fallon Road: Fallon Road currently is a two-lane County road providing access to existing ranches and homesteads in the Project Area and to as-yet undeveloped areas of Dublin Ranch, terminating about 1.1 miles from 1-580. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that Fallon Road will be realigned and extended to Tassajara Road, which would provide regional congestion relief along Tassajara Road. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that Fallon Road eventually will be an 8-lane arterial from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, a six- lane arterial from Dublin Boulevard to north of Gleason Drive, and a four-lane arterial north to Tassajara Road. It currently has very low traffic volumes. The ultimate improvements are part of the Traffic Impact Fee program. Transit AItamont Commuter Express (ACE): The Altamont Commuter 'Express operates three trains per day between Stockton and San Jose. The trains provide westbound service in the morning and eastbound service in the evening. The trains have Tri-Valley stations at Vasco Road in Livermore and near the downtowns of Livermore and Pleasanton, the latter of which is most likely to serve Dublin commuters. The ACE trains provide service to the EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 3 Pleasanton station at 5:40, 6:52 and 7:53 each morning and at 5:10 and 6:39 each evening. The ACE train was not in operation at the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment were approved and the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. Livermore- Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA -- Wheels): The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority provides bus service to the communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. Several bus lines currently provide service to east Dublin, including lines 12, 12X, 10A, lA, lB, 20X and the ACE connector. Line 20, 12 and 12X provide service along 1- 580 in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. Lines operate on approximately 30-minute headways. It is expected that these lines will be expanded further as additional homes and bus~esses are constructed in the east Dublin area. There is a Wheels bus connection between each ACE train and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with intermediate stops. BART: The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District operates trains between the .Dublin- Pleasanton station near Hacienda Drive and the Oakland-San Francisco area. The trains operate on 15-minute headways on weekdays. The Dublin-Pleasanton station is accessible by private auto, taxicabs, buses, and private shuttles as well as by pedestrians and bicyclists. The parking lot has a capacity of approximately 3,000 parking stalls. A new West Dublin-Pleasanton station is in the planning stages and is expected to be operational within about two years. Dublin, Pleasanton and BART are parties to a Memorandum of Understanding for' financial commitments to fund the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. In addition, long-range planning studies of potentially extending BART lines to Livermore are underway. The studies also will examine alternative means of improving transit service to Livermore in the BART corridor until funds are available to construct the BART extension. At the time the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP were approved and the Eastern Dublin EIR certified, BART had not yet been extended to Dublin. The extension to Dublin had, however, been approved by BART. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR Freeways The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on 1-580 with and without build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out scenario (Impacts 3.3/A,--B, C, D, and E). The significance criteria for freeway segments consisted of operations t]~?:.~ exceed level of service (LOS) E. Mitigation measures (3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on 1-680 north of 1-580 to a level of insignificance. Other mitigations (3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on the remaining 1-580 freeway segments and the 1-580/680 interchange. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on 1-580 freeway segments between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of !-580. Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Aonsiderations (Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant unavoidable cumulative impacts (Impacts 3.3/B and E). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed pre-zoning and annexation. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 4 Intersections and Roads The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated levels of service and PM peak hour traffic volumes at 18 intersections with roads and 1-580 ramps for cumulative buildout without the GPA/SP project and cumulative buildout with the Project. The significance criteria for intersections were operations that exceed LOS D. Mitigation measures were identified for each intersection that was projected to exceed the LOS D standard in each scenario. Mitigation measures (3.3/6.0 - 9.0 and 11.0) for Impacts 3.3/F, G, H, I and K were adopted to reduce impacts to each of these intersections to a level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to re-stripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. The GPA/SP project contributes a proportionate share to the multi- jurisdictional improvements through payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a credit against payment of such fees. Other mitigations (3.3/13.0 and 14.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on other identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and TasSajara Road (impacts 3.3/M, N). Mitigation also was included (3.3/12.0) to address delays on E1 Charro Road (impact 3.3/L). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed pre-zoning and annexation. The GPA/SP project contributes a proportionate share to funding these improvements ~hrough payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a credit against payment of such fees. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on several identified intersections: Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/I), Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M). -Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration (Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant unavoidable year 2010 and cumulative impacts. Transit, Pedestrians and Bicycles The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to transit service extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles (Impacts 3.3/0 and P). Mitigation measures 3.3/15.0 - 15.3 and 16.0 - 16.1 were adopted which reduced these impacts to a. level of insignificance. These mitigations generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit services (for which the GPA/SP projects contribute a proportionate share through payment of traffic impact fees) and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed pre-zoning and annexation. Fee Program Prior to approval of any development in Eastern Dublin, in January 1995 the City adopted (and has since updated) the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee which consisted of three "categories": Category 1 was, in general, to pay for required transportation improvements in the SP/GPA project area; Category 2 was, in general, to pay for required improvements in other areas of Dublin; and Category 3 was to pay for regional improvements to which development in Eastern Dublin should contribute. The improvements for which the fee are EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 5 collected included those improvements assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, those improvements necessary for Eastern Dublin to develop, and those improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as mitigation measures. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee was last updated by the Council in 1999 by Resolution 225-99. It is applicable to all of Eastern Dublin (all of the area within the "General Plan Amendment Study Area" shown on the General Plan land use map, except for the area designated as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"). In June 1998, the City adopted the Tri-Valley TransportatiOn Development Fee, in conjunction with the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville and the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa to fund regional improvements. (Resolution 89-98, as revised by Resolution 85-99.) This fee replaced the Category 3 fee. It is applicable citywide. It funds eleven regional improvements which are listed in the resolution. In addition, the City has adopted a Freeway Interchange Fee to reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain interchanges on 1-580 (Hacienda Drive interchange and Tassajara/Santa Rita Road interchange) that also benefit Eastern Dublin. This fee applies to the same area as the Eastern Dublin Traffic impact Fee. It was adopted by Resolution 11-96 and was amended by Resolution 155-98. All development projects in Eastern Dublin are required to pay these three fees at building permit or construct the improvements included in the fee programs. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the proposed Project land uses and trip generation. While traffic volumes related to potential development of the Project area are not expected to differ from the Eastern Dublin EIR, regional traffic has increased substantially over previously assumed levels, and commute patterns are somewhat different than those occurring in 1993. For example, a greater volume of traffic originating in the Tri- Valley and especially areas to the east now moves through the area on 1-580 westbound to 1- 680 southbound to reach the Silicon Valley, and utilizes local streets to avoid localized congestion on 1-580 during peak commute hours. In addition, the Tri-Valley Transportation Model ("Tri-Valley Model"), adopted to reflect full General Plan build-out of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions (including the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon, the Town of Danville, and the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties), now extends cumulative development to the Year 2025. The Tri-Valley model assumes construction of roadway improvements which may bring additional traffic into Dublin and impact study intersections to a greater degree than previously expected. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this section of the Supplemental EIR assesses whether significant new or intensified traffic impacts may result from increased regional traffic, changed commute patterns and different assumptions of the Tri-Valley Model. Significance Criteria Intersections. An impact would be significant if an intersection previously mitigated to an acceptable level would now exceed acceptable levels. In addition, an impact would be significant if a new intersection is identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such intersection was not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as a study intersection. The General Plan standard requires that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F). EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 6 Roadway Segments. With respect to routes of regional significance, an impact would be significant if a road has been identified since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR as such a route and such route would fail to comply with the applicable standard of the General Plan. The General Plan requires the City to make a good faith effort to maintain Level of Service D on arterial segments of, and at intersections of, routes of regional significance (Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road) or implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve the level of service. If such improvements are not possible or sufficient, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council cannot resolve the matter, the City may modify the level of service standard if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Gw:ding Policy E [e.g. Level of Service D]). The maximum ADT threshold standards of the General Plan for four-lane roadways (30,000 vpd) and six-lane roadways (50,000 vpd) are used to determine the width of streets. Hazards. An impact would be significant if Project-generated traffic would cause new significant safety hazards or would cause safety hazards previously mitigated to an acceptable level to become hazardous. Freeways. Freeway impacts are significant if the amount of traffic is increased substantially beyond the levels anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR so as to exceed Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) standards. ACCMA has established LOS standard of E for the CongestiOn Management Program (CMP) roadway network, except where F was the level of service originally measured, in which case the standard shall be F. Although the LOS E standard was established for the purpose of monitoring existing level of service conditions for the Alameda County CMP Designated Roadway System, this standard~provides a standard of significance for determining potential project environmental impacts on adjacent freeway systems within Alameda County. Specifically, the CMP identifies a specific system of freeways and roadways that must be monitored for conformance to the ACCMA LOS standards. These roadways, identified as Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) routes are designated as "key routes" and include highways and principal arterials. For arterials to be considered MTS routes, the following criteria must be met: · Must carry 30,000 vehicles per day for at least one mile; · Must be a four lane (or more) roadway; · Must be a major cross-town connector; · Must connect at both ends to another CMP route. In the project area, ACCMA has identified 1-580, 1-680, SR 84, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road as MTS routes. Since the City's standard is LOS D for Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, the LOS E standard (except where F is the level of service without Project traffic, in which case the standard is F) is applicable only to freeways. In addition to LOS roadway standards, ACCMA guidelines also specify that any proposed project generating 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions must conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Model for the base years 2005 and 2020. However, the guidelines also allow for other transportation models / projections to be used and Year 2025 must be compared to the Countywide Transportation Model to ensure that the more conservative of the two traffic projections are used for CEQA purposes. Discussions with ACCMA staff in November 2000 indicate that Year 2025 analysis using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model is appropriate to use for the proposed EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 7 Dublin Transit Center project (Draft EIR for Dublin Transit Center, SCH No. 20001120395 [July 2001], available at City of Dublin). Additional discussions with ACCMA staff in August 2001 confirmed that Year 2005 and 2025 analysis for the proposed Project can be done using the generally more conservative traffic volumes from models other than the Countywide Transportation Demand Model. Therefore, the use of the generally more conservative Year 2025 Tri-Valley Transportation Model to analyze impacts of the proposed Project should be appropriate. Compared to the Countywide Transportation Demand Model, the Tri-Valley Transportation Model represents a more specific and focused travel demand-forecasting tool for the Tri-Valley area of Alameda County. Level of Service Analysis Methodology and Description of Dublin Model and Tri-Valley Model The City has conducted a number of traffic studies upon which this current analysis draws. In addition to the traffic analysis Conducted for the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City has since commissioned dozens of traffic studies for individual development proposals within the Eastern Dublin area. Each of the traffic studies builds upon previous ones by accumulating traffic from each development and evaluating the cumulative effects of the growth in the Eastern Dublin area. This traffic impact analysis continues that approach by considering the potential traffic that could be generated by the proposed Project in conjunction with the full build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area west of the Project area, and then in conjunction with expected full build-out in the Tri-Valley area. The intersection level of service analysis was conducted by TJKM using two separate models: the "Dul~lin Model" and the Tri-Valley Model. The Dublin Model forecasts traffic generated locally within the East Dublin area. This model represents the conditions of proposed, pending, or approved projects in Eastern Dublin without the Project, as well as approved projects within the City of Pleasanton. The Dublin Model, which uses the TRAFFIX software to distribute traffic to the study intersections, was developed by TJKM to analyze Eastern Dublin projects. This model was developed in order to better understand traffic on a local level, such as at key intersections and local-streets, which a regional model like the Tri-Valley Model does not consider. However, the Dublin Model is less precise at evaluating regional traffic patterns; the Tri-Valley Model can be used for this purpose. In the Dublin Model, the trip distribution and assignment of traffic for each of the individual projects is developed based on the type of land use, existing counts, and knowledge of the study area. The estimated trip generation of East Dublin projects has been updated as projects change in size or use. The output from the Dublin Model is shared with other consultan ts to maintain consistency in the City of Dublin. The Dublin Model is used for the near-term analysis and evaluates traffic volumes without and with the Project. This model does not consider regional traffic that potentially would utilize City streets; rather, it evaluates only traffic generated locally within the vicinity of the Project area. The Dublin Model is typically used in standard traffic analyses for the City of Dublin to assess traffic impacts. A future "baseline" of the Dublin Model was developed, which did not include the proposed Project but included all other proposed, pending or approved projects in Eastern Dublin, as well as approved projects within the City of Pleasanton, and a second analysis included Project-generated traffic. The Tri-Valley Model (sometimes called the "TVTM Model") is used to assess cumulative traffic volumes for build-out conditions in the Tri-Valley area to the year 2025. All land uses assumed in the TVTM Model are consistent with the city and county control totals as shown in the ABAG Projections '98. The Tri-Valley Model assumes build-out of the North Livermore Specific Plan as proposed, so it accounts for possible maximum cumulative EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 8 development. The TVTM Model "baseline" assumes build-out conditions within the Tri- Valley exclusive of the proposed Project. Similar to the Dublin Model, the TVTM Model was used in the analysis with and without the Project for ready comparison between intersection LOS with and without the Project, so that Project impacts can be more easily identified. Under both models, peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios with corresponding levels of service. Levels of service ratings are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A though F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. The operating conditions at signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This method provides an overall intersection LOS. At STOP-controlled intersections, LOS was evaluated using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. This method ranks LOS on an A through F scale similar to that used for signalized intersections, but it uses average delay in seconds for stopping movements as its measure of effectiveness. The levels of service calculations and background traffic information are in Appendix H to this document. TVTM Model Assumptions The latest version of the TVTM Mode/was used to evaluate the proposed Project. It is based on ABAG's Projections 98 All Tri-Valley agencies, including Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville, Alameda County and Contra Costa County participated in the review and development of the updated TVTM Model. The network and land use assumptions utilized in the model were approved by all seven of these agencies. The same model, with the same assumptions, has been used in all major Livermore traffic analyses, including the North Livermore project and EIR, South Livermore, and the various traffic studies associated with proposed 1-580 improvements in Livermore For many years, the ABAG Projections have directly taken into account the explosion of new job growth in the Tri-Valley area and the 1-580fl-680 corridor. The TVTM Model and ABAG forecasts also take into account the amount of housing that would be produced in all areas included in 'the projections (including Brentwood, Tracy and areas easterly) that serves trips .to the Tri-Valley area. The TVTM Model accounts for the effects that housing outside the region has on the 1-580 corridor. In some cases, 1-580 traffic volumes are lessened in the "with Project" scenario as compared with the "no Project" scenario, precisely because of more convenient housing supplied by the proposed Project. Circumstances have changed in the Th-Valley area since 1993, including the extension of BART service to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, 1-580 widening and auxiliary lane improvements in the vicinity of the Project, the 1-580/I-680 interchange improvements, the extension of Dublin Boulevard as a key six-lane arterial from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road, the Isabel Avenue Expressway improvement in Livermore (SR 84), and the expansion of LAVTA operations. Every change in circumstances noted above is mentioned and accounted for in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and in this DSEIR. Although each of these changes in circumstances has occurred since EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 9 1993, each was anticipated in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (see "Future Road Improvement Assumptions" discussion in Eastern Dublin EIR). The land use in the TVTM Model includes approximately 12,500 dwelling units in North Livermore, as included in the North Livermore Specific Plan and EIR. This assumption is also included in the analysis of the proposed Project. This land use has been contained in the TVTM Model for several years and will continue to be included until the City of Livermore directs the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Technical Advisory Committee to remove it. An alternative for North Livermore land use different than the current land use contained in the TVTM Model or the Livermore General Plan would have to be initiated and analyzed by Livermore, not by this DSEIR. Existing Intersection Operations TJKM evaluated intersection operating conditions at ten existing intersections, all of which also were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These intersections were selected for analysis due to their proximity to the proposed Project and heavy traffic use. Figure 3.6-A shows the location of these ten intersections and the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes. All of the ten existing intersections evaluated currently operate at acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the existing intersection LOS for the AM and PM peak hours. Future Baseline Conditions / Dublin Model and Tri-Valley Model Additional study intersections were selected for the baseline analyses. Seven additional intersections were included in the baseline analyses of the Dublin Model and the TVTM model to reflect 'road improvements for approved or pending projects. These additional intersections are planned to be installed and signalized along Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, and Fallon Road at buildout of Eastern Dublin. Future baseline intersection traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figure 3.6-B, Dublin Model and Figure 3.6-C, Tri-Valley Model. Thus, the future baseline analyses evaluate 17 intersections. The additional intersections were derived from Dublin planning documents. To implement the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan and the Traffic Chapter of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City of Dublin has undertaken a comprehensive program of transportation improvements in the community. The purpose of this program is to accommodate anticipated traffic from the Eastern Dublin area based upon the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed 2010 base network and roadway and transit improvement projects specified in the EIR as mitigations. Overall, the program includes upgrades to 1-580 interchanges, construction of new roads and improvements to existing roads. Traffic Impact Fees were established by City Council resolutions to fund the program of ultimate improvements required for build-out of the Eastern Dublin General Plan .Amendment and Specific Plan areas, and any impacts created by such development. (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee; Freeway Interchange Fee and Tri-Valley Transportation Fee, hereinafter collectively "Traffic Impact Fees" or 'TIF Fees.") New developments are required to dedicate land for the ultimate expected road rights-of-way and construct those improvements needed for the development. TIF fees are levied on all new development in Eastern Dublin, and TIF credits are provided for developments that dedicate land or construct improvements in the TIF Fee programs. None of the projects described below are funded by Measure B (a ballot measure approved by the voters of Alameda County to provide increased funding for certain road improvement projects in Alameda County). EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 10 Planned improvements in the Project area included as a part of the Traffic Impact Fees program are listed below: Santa Rita/Tassajara Roads: The northbound overcrossing over 1-580 will be widened to three lanes and lane additions will be made to the eastbound off-ramp approach to Santa Rita Road. E1 Charro/Fallon Roads: the existing two-lane overcrossing over 1-580 will be widened to four lanes, the intersections involving the eastbound and the westbound ramps will be signalized, and the ramps will be improved near the new signals. Included in this project are new auxiliary freeway lanes on 1-580 between E1 Charro/Fallon Roads and Santa Rita/Tassajara Roads. Street improvements to: 1. Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and North Canyons Parkway at Airway Boulevard 2. Central Parkway between Arnold Drive and Fallon Road 3. Gleason Drive between Arnold Drive and Fallon Road 4. Arnold Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive 5. Hacienda Drive between 1-580 and Gleason Drive 6. Tassajara Road between 1-580 and the Contra Costa County line 7. Fallon Road between 1-580 and Tassajara Road All of these roadways ultimately will be either four or six lanes in width, except those segments of Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 which will be eight lanes~in width. Intersection improvements at virtually all intersections involving the arterial and collector roadways listed above. All of these improvements are assumed to be constructed in the Dublin Model Baseline and TVTM Model Baseline. Funding of Planned Improvements As explained on pages 3.6-6 and 3.6-12 of this DSEIR, the City has adopted several traffic impact fees that are imposed on developers within the GPA/SP area to fund improvements that were assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, improvements necessary for Eastern Dublin to develop and improvements which were required as mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Page 3.6-12 includes a general description of the type of improvements to be funded with the impact fee revenues and lists improvements in the Project area that are part of the City's Traffic Impact Fee programs (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee; Freeway Interchange Fee and Tri-Valley Transportation Fee). The City conducts a project-specific traffic study for each project and requires construction of those impr?vements that are needed for the project, both on-site and off-site, to maintain the City s level of service standards. Some improvements have been or will be constructed by developers as a condition of project approval or as part of a development agreement; some improvements have been or will be constructed by the City through its Capital Improvement Program; and some improvements are within the jurisdiction of another entity and will be constructed by that entity (e.g. Caltrans) or on behalf of that entity by the City. If a project will be constructed by a developer as a condition of project approval or as part of a development agreement, the City enters into an improvement agreement with the developer for such EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 11 construction and requires bonds to secure the timely construction. If a project will be constructed by the City, the City assures that it has the funds available prior to awarding a contract for construction. Funding for City-constructed projects may come from several sources, including Traffic Impact Fees and state or federal grants. The City assures that improvements will be constructed and in place when needed to maintain level of service standards through "triggering" studies that analyze when required improvements must be in place. Some of the improvements listed on page 3.6-12 have already been constructed either to the ultimate width or to the width required by current development (e.g., Dublin Boulevard to approximately 3,450 feet east of Tassajara Road; Central Parkway from Arnold Road to Tassajara Road; Gleason Drive between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road; Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive; Hacienda Drive between 1-580 and Gleason Drive; and Tassajara Road north of 1-580 to North Dublin Ranch Drive). Improvements to the overcrossings at Santa Rita/Tassajara Road and 1-580 and E1 Charro/Fallon Road and 1- 580 will be constructed by the City; funding for these improvements will be through advances of Traffic Impact Fees from developers in Eastern Dublin who are parties to agreements with the City to advance funds as needed for such construction. Through thd above funding, construction (to satisfy project conditions or a development agreement) and triggering mechanisms, the City ensures that necessary roadway improvements are in place to accommodate traffic from individual projects. These mitigation measures and processes will also apply to future development projects, in the Project area. Future Baseline Level of Service Analysis Table 3.6-3 (existing plus approved plus pending projects [Dublin Model], without a Dublin Boulevard connection east to North Canyons Parkway) indicates the levels of service at the 17 analyzed intersections in the Dublin Baseline Model, and Figure 3.6-B indicates the turning movement volumes at these same intersections. The levels of service with the above improvements are presented under the "unmitigated" column, The levels of service with any further mitigation are presented under the "mitigated" column. All intersections operate at acceptable levels except: 1) Hacienda Drive/I-580 eastbound ramps (LOS E in AM peak hour); 2) Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound ramps (LOS F in AM peak hour); and 3) Santa Rita/I-580 eastbound ramps (LOS E in AM and PM peak hours). However, these three intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service when mitigated, as described above. Table 3.6-4 (Cumulative Year 2025 No Project) indicates the levels of service at the 17 analyzed intersections based on the TVTM Baseline Model. Figure 3.6-C (Tri-Valley Model, Cumulative Year 2025) indicates the turning movement volumes at these same intersections. All intersections operate at acceptable levels in this year 2025 model except: 1) Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard (LOS E in both AM and PM peak hours); 2) Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound ramps (LOS E in PM peak hour); and 3) Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard (LOS E in PM peak hour). Only the Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound ramps can be mitigated to an acceptable level. Mitigation for the other two intersections would require additional lanes and road-widening that is not feasible given the physical constraints at these intersections, as described below. Thus, even without the Project, traffic impacts at two of these intersections (Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard) are cumulatively significant. Given that these two intersections function at acceptable levels of service EDP© Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 12 without mitigation in the near-term Dublin model, traffic impacts at these intersections likely are created by regional traffic traveling through City of Dublin intersections based on a direct comparison between intersection LOS resulting from the Dublin Model versus the TVTM Model, without Project traffic (refer to Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4 of this DSEIR for future baseline conditions). The Baseline? Dublin Model assumes the full build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area west of the Project area, without a Dublin Boulevard connection in place east to North Canyons Parkway. Under the Dublin Model Baseline conditions, the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. (See Table 3.6-3.) In contrast, the Tri-Valley Model evaluates regional traffic patterns and assesses cumulative traffic volumes for build-out conditions in the Tri-Valley area to the year 2025, including build-out of the North Livermore Specific Plan as proposed, and assuming Dublin Boulevard is extended to North Canyons Parkway. Under the Tri-Valley Model Baseline conditions, the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard would deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours. (See Table 3.6-4.) Therefore, it can be said that these two intersections are likely to be impacted to unacceptable levels of service by regional traffic growth anticipated by year 2025, as Dublin Boulevard will likely serve the Tri-Valley region as an alternate reliever route to 1-580 during congested commute periods. Comparison of Traffic Volumes to the Countywide Transportation Model Under Year 2005, all of the "Dublin Model" volumes within the study area are higher than the Countywide Transportation Model (see page 3.6-8 for discussion of Countywide Transportation Model), except at three locations where the volumes are shown in bold in Table 3.6-11. Please note that the Dublin Model assumes that Dublin Boulevard does not extend east of Fallon Road without the Project and, hence, no volumes are reported for Dublin Boulevard east of Fallon Road under the Dublin Model. Under Year 2025, the reported traffic volumes from the TVTM Model within the study area are generally higher than the Countywide Transportation Model, except at some locations where the volumes are shown in bold in Table 3.6-12. The Countywide Transportation Model segments that have higher volumes than the other two models include: Hacienda Drive south of Dublin Boulevard (2005) Dougherty Road south of Dublin Boulevard (2005) Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard (2005 & 2025) 1-580 between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (2025) 1-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (2025) Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (2025) Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (2025) Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (2025) Hacienda Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (2025) The higher volumes forecasted by the 2025 Countywide Model on Fallon Road, Tassajara Road, and Hacienda Drive appear to be concentrated within the blocks between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. However, the volumes on these roadways decrease more than expected north of Central Parkway in the Countywide Model. The Countywide Transportation Model has a regional focus, larger traffic analysis zones and fewer centroid connectors. Therefore, it can be expected that traffic loading onto specific segments of roadways will be more variable than in more refined models such as the TVTM Model and EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 13 the Dublin Model. Traffic volumes generated from the more refined models are more conservative on surrounding segments and, therefore, those volumes have been used. Intersection Conditions with the Project Four new intersections were added to the "Baseline Plus Project" analyses to account for new Project roads intersecting Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Central Parkway (Figure 3.6-D, Dublin Model and Figure 3.6-E, TVTM Model). These new intersections are being proposed with the Project to provide direct access to the Project. Thus, the "Baseline Plus Project" analyses evaluate 21 intersections. The "Baseline Plus Project" analyses assume that all major roadways within or adjacent to the Project are constructed in their ultimate configuration as anticipated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, and that all internal Project roads are constructed. In addition, both "Baseline Plus Project" models assume that Dublin Boulevard has been extended to North Canyons Parkway as assumed in the 1993 EIR's "Future Road Improvement Assumptions." Traffic generation rates for each of the Project land uses and trip volumes for the Project are presented in Table 3.6-1. These trip volumes were added to each of the models to determine the contribution of Project traffic. Estimated daily traffic volumes with and without the Project also are indicated in Figure 3.6-F. Figure 3.6-F also indicates the number of lanes required on each roadway due to future baseline and Project traffic. In determining the need for supplemental mitigations, both models were utilized. If a greater significant Project impact is identified in one model, the mitigation needed to reduce that impact to a less than significant level is required, even if a mitigation might not be triggered by the other model. "Dublin" Model Table 3.6-5 (existing plus approved plus pending plus Project) indicates the expected levels of service at the 21 analyzed intersections in the Dublin Baseline Model with Project- generated traffic. Figure 3.6-D indicates the turning movement volumes at these same intersections. The levels of service with the above improvements are presented under the "unmitigated" column. The levels of service with any further mitigation are presented under the "mitigated" column. The Dublin model (Table 3.6-5) identifies five intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS - intersections 2, 3, 5, 18 and 19. Ar unacceptable LOS is considered a significant impact. Three intersections outside of the Project area are at unacceptable levels of service and can be mitigated. As with the Dublin Baseline Model without the Project, the existing intersections which would operate at unacceptable levels with the Project are: 1) Hacienda Drive/I-580 eastbound ramps (LOS E in AM peak hour); 2) Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound ramps (LOS F in AM peak hour); and 3) Santa Rita/I-580 eastbound ramps (LOS E in AM and PM peak hours). The Hacienda Drive/I-580 eastbound ramp AM LOS (0.93) does not change between the Baseline and Project analyses. The LOS with Project traffic increases only at the latter two intersections and only by 0.01. Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 1: Unacceptable LOS at Hacienda Drive~I-580 eaStbound ramps. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 14 S1V!- TRAFFIC-I: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the 1-580 eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn lane. The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. With this mitigation, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service. This impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 2.' Unacceptable LOS at Hacienda Drive~I-580 westbound ramps. SM-TRAFFIC-2: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1- 580 westbound loop on-ramp. The westbound loop on-ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound left-turn lane. The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. With this mitigation, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service. This impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Supplemental lmpact TRAFFIC 3: Unacceptable LOS at Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound -ramps. SM- TRAFFIC-3: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off-ramp through lafie to a shared left turn/through lane. Project developers also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a westbound right-turn overlap from Pimlico Drive. The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. With this mitigation, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service. This impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Supplemental lmpact TRAFFIC 4: The new Project intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Street D would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. The new Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour (LOS F) with one-way STOP sign control. This is EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 15 considered a significant impact under the Dublin Model Baseline and TVTM Model, with Project. SM-TRAFFIC-4: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when the traffic signal installation at Dublin Boulevard/Street D becomes warranted based 'on the estimated additional trips from individual projects, as determined by traffic impact studies of the individual Projects. Implementation of this mitigation measure reduces this impact to a level of insignificance. Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 5: The new project intersection of Fallon Road/Project Road would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The new Fallon Road/Project Road intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours (LOS F) with one-way STOP sign control. This is considered a significant impact under the Dublin Model Baseline and TVTM Model, with Project. SM-TRAFFIC-5: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when the traffic signal installation at Fallon Road/Project Road becomes warranted based on the estimated additional trips from individual projects, as determined by traffic impact studies of the individual projects. Implementation of this mitigation measure reduces this impact to a level of insignificance. Tri-Valley Transportation Model Table 3.6-6 (cumulative plus Project, year 2025) indicates the levels of service at the 21 analyzed intersections in the TVTM Model with the expected Project-generated traffic. Figure 3.6-E indicates the turning movement volumes at these same intersections. The levels of service with the above improvements are presented under the "unmitigated" column. The levels of service with any further mitigation are presented under the "mitigated" column. In addition to the impacted intersections indicated by the Dublin Model, the TVTM Model identifies three additional intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels under the cumulative analysis. Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 6: In the Year 2025 Cumulative BuiIdout with Project scenario, the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (No. 1 on Table 3.6-6) would operate at LOS E (0.93) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (1.03) in the PM peak hour. However, this EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 16 intersection operates at LOS E in the AM and PM peak hours even without the Project. These LOS represent a significant cumulative impact. The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection shows a 0.01 decrease in the AM level of service and a 0.03 increase in the PM level of service between the TVTM Baseline, Year 2025 and the Cumulative (with Project) analysis. Development of the Project creates only a 0.03 impact at this intersection during the PM peak hour and improves the intersection very slightly in the AM peak hour. SM-TRAFFIC-6: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include 1 left-turn lane, three through lanes and two right turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the west bound Dublin Boulevard approach to include three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the northbound Dougherty Road approach to include three left-turn lanes, three through lanes and two right-turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the southbound Dougherty Road approach to include two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The 1-580 westbound diagonal on-ramp from Dougherty Road shall be widened as necessary to include two single-occupancy vehicle lanes, in addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring, as suggested below. The Project developers shall pay their pro-rata share of the cost to construct these improvements through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The City will implement these improvements, However, these improvements will not be able to reduce the intersection impacts to an acceptable LOS. Additional improvements to reduce the intersection impacts to an acceptable LOS would require adding a fourth northbound left turn lane and other improvements. Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left turn movement simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation. In addition, these additional improvements to reduce this impact are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Adjacent properties to the intersection are already built out and efforts are now being made to acquire additional right-of-way to implement the above improvements (in Supplemental Mitigation Traffic 6) in the future. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e., Year 2025). Such monitoring will be done to assist the City and Project developer to comply with General Plan Policies requiring implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. Such transportation measures to be considered at the Stage 2 Development Plan include requiring a comprehensive transportation demand program; ride sharing; free or discounted BART or other transit paqses for employees; vanpools; staggered work hours; and other trip reduction programs as specified in Chapter 5 (Travel Demand Management Element) of the ACCMA Congestion Management Program. In addition, current and future phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project (i.e., state-of-the-art systems deployment for traffic monitoring, incident management, and regional traffic coordination among the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, Alameda County, and Caltrans) would likely relieve some congestion at the 'Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection through ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. EIDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 17 Therefore, the impact at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection remains a significant cumulative impact. Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 7: In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario, the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. The Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as exceeding the applicable LOS under the cumulative buildout with Project analysis (Impact 3.3M). Mitigation Measure 3.3/13.0 remains applicable. This SEIR analyzed this intemection and found it still to operate at an unacceptable level in the cumulative analysis. The Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection (No. 4 in Table 3.6-6) would operate at LOS E (1.00) during the PM peak hour with the Project, and would operate at LOS E (0.97) during the PM peak hour even without the Project. These LOS represent a significant cumulative impact. Given the existing right-of-way and improvements at this intersection, there is no opportunity to provide additional mitigation beyond the existing intersection geometries. Given that the Dublin Model indicates that this intersection operates at acceptable levels, the impacts at this intersection that create an unacceptable level of service are created in part by regional traffic volumes and movements. Again, the difference between the TVTM Baseline and TVTM Baseline Plus Project indicates a 0.02 decrease in the AM peak hour and only a 0.03 increase in the PM peak hour attributable to Project generated traffic. Additional improvements to 'reduce the intersection impacts to an acceptable LOS would require adding a fourth northbound left turn lane and other improvements. Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left turn movement simultaneOusly would raise major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation. In addition, these additional improvements to reduce this impact are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Adjacent properties to the east of the intersection are already built out. The Sybase Headquarters project which is currently under construction will occupy the northwest corner of the intersection. The southwest corner of the intersection is presently undeveloped, however, a pending application exists to construct an office complex by Cisco Systems, which would occupy this corner. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e., Year 2025). Such monitoring will be done to assist the City and Project developer to comply with General Plan Policies requiring implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. Such transportation measures to be considered as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan include'- requiring a comprehensive transportation demand program; ride sharing; free or discounted BART or other transit passes for employees; vanpools; staggered work hours; and other trip reduction programs as specified in Chapter 5 (Travel Demand Management Element) of the ACCMA Congestion Management Program. In addition, current and future phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some congestion at the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. Therefore, the impact at the Hacienda Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection remains a significant cumulative impact. However, as part of the above ITS deployment along the 1- 580 corridor, the City of Dublin will implement advanced traffic signal timing techniques (e.g., adaptive signal timing) along Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive to improve the operation of this intersection by utilizing the intersection's throughput capacity more efficiently. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 18 Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 8: In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario, the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F (1.11) during the PM peak hour. The Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (No. 15 on Table 3.6-6) would operate at LOS F (1.11) in the PM peak hour. This represents an increase from the TVTM Baseline Model of 0.23. However, this analysis also assumed that Dublin Boulevard would be extended beyond the Project botmdaries to North Canyons Parkway, a scenario not utilized in the TVTM Baseline model. The indicated increases in turning movements and traffic volumes at this intersection could be attributed to the Project and regional traffic utilizing Dublin Boulevard as an "escape" route from PM peak hour congestion on 1-580. The analysis indicates large turning movement volumes from Dublin Boulevard westbound to southbound Fallon Road (2,095 vehicles) and large volumes of northbound Fallon Road vehicles (1,748) during the PM peak hour. Even with intersection geometries allowing for three Dublin Boulevard westbound to southbound Fallon Road left-turn lanes and 'four northbound Fallon Road through lanes cannot accommodate the intersection volumes. This LOS is a significant cumulative impact. SM-TRAFFIC-7: The Project developers shall construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left-turn lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-turn lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring, as suggested below. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. Construction of these additional lanes at the intersection will aid in moving vehicles through the intersection and will reduce the impacts to the intersection. However this mitigation cannot reduce the impacts to an acceptable level (LOS D), so this impact remains a significant cumulative impact. SM-TRAFFIC-8: In addition to the above additional lane configurations (in Supplemental Mitigation Traffic 7), the Project developers shall pay ~.'~? studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the 1-580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection"). This new Project auxiliary intersection should consist of seven northbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left, 4 through, 1 right), seven southbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left turn, 4 through, 1 right turn), and 4 lanes for the new Project street; in the westbound direction three left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane; and in the eastbound direction, two right-turn lanes, one through and two left turn lanes. If the studies show that a new Project auxiliary intersection in such location is feasible, the Project developers shall construct such intersection. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 19 This "auxiliary" intersection, identified as XX in Table 3.6-6 would provide for three left- turn lanes onto southbound Fallon Road to absorb some of the Project-generated southbound left-tums at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Construction of this auxiliary intersection would require modifications to the planned Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard alignments to provide the necessary 750 feet distance between intersections. Land uses and planned building locations on the west side of Fallon Road may have to be modified to accommodate this new intersection. This new intersection is anticipated to function at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. However, even with this new auxiliary intersection, the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E (0.91) in the PM peak hour, just above the acceptable standard of LOS D (0.90). Even with this mitigation then, this impact remains a significant cumulative impact. Additional improvements to reduce the impacts at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection to an acceptable LOS would require adding a fourth westbound left turn lanes. Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left turn movement simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e., Year 2025). Such monitoring will be done to assist the City and Project developer to comply with General Plan Policies requiring implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. Such transportation measures to be considered at the Stage 2 Development Plan include requiring a comprehensive transportation demand program; ride sharing; free or discounted BART or other transit passes for employees; vanpools; staggered work hours; and other trip reduction programs as specified in Chapter 5 (Travel Demand Management Element) of the ACCMA Congestion Management Program. In addition, current and future phases of the 1- 580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some congestion at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. As part of the future phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor project, the City of Dublin will implement advanced traffic signal timing techniques (e.g., adaptive signal timing) along Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road to improve the operation of this intersection by utilizing the intersection's throughput capacity more efficiently. Therefore, the impact at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection remains a significant cumulative impact. Roadway Segment Conditions with the Project Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 9: Future Base with Project scenario, Fallon Road will be overloaded at planned interim lane configurations. Figure 3.6-F indicates the future traffic volumes with and without Project traffic volumes on roadway segments. The Dublin Model provides comprehensive daily traffic volume forecasts on roadway segments adjacent to the Project. Based on the Dublin Model, Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard is expected to carry an increase of 16,600 ADT due to Project traffic over future baseline traffic of 36,500 ADT, for a total of 53,100 vpd, between 1-580 eastbound and westbound off-ramp intersections an increase of 16,200 ADT (over 17,500 ADT baseline for a total of 33,700 ADT), between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway an increase of 22,200 ADT (over 19,000 ADT baseline for a total of 41,200 ADT), and Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road and increase of 18,200 ADT (over 4,000 ADT baseline for a total of 22,200 ADT). EDPC) Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 20 Project traffic volumes will require that certain segments of Fallon Road be widened to accommodate expected average daffy traffic volumes. This increase in ADT is considered a significant impact. Dublin Boulevard east of Fallon Road to Street D is expected to reach an ADT of 45,800 vpd and 34,100 vpd west of Fallon Road, based on the TVTM model with Project traffic. SM- TRAFFIC-9: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six- lane width. The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Project developers also shall be responsible for widening the Fallon Road overcrossing (between the eastbound and westbound 1-580 ramps) from four lanes to six lanes. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. With this mitigation, Fallon Road will be wide enough to carry the expected traffic volumes at an acceptable level. This impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Supplemental I~npact TRAFFIC 10'. Future Base with Project Scenario, Central Parkway will be overloaded at planned interim lane configurations. Based on the Dublin. Model, Central Parkway between Fallon Road and Tassajara Road is expected to carry an increase of 1,300 ADT due to Project traffic over future baseline traffic, for a total of 16,800 vpd. This increase in ADT is considered a significant impact. SM-TRAFFIC-10: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects? 2 The first time the City circulated the DSEIR for comments, a comment questioned the need to reserve right-of-way for the future ultimate width on Central Parkway east of Fallon Road, considering the low ADT volume of 1,900 vehicles estimated for this roadway segment based on the Dublin Model. The near-term ADT forecasted for Central Parkway east of Fallon Road ranges between 1,900 and 6,100 vehicles per day based on the Dublin Model with Project traffic (see Figure 3.6-F). In the long-term, this ADT is expected to range between 7,300 and 9,200 vehicles per day based on the Year 2025 TVTM Model with Project traffic. Based on these ADTs, Figure 3.6-F shows two lanes being required on this roadway segment as part of the proposed Project. Figure 5-lb of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflects a four-lane divided roadway configuration for Central Parkway between Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard, including the segment extending easterly of Fallon Road and turning south to connect with Dublin Boulevard within the Eastern Extended Planning Area. Central Parkway is intended to connect the intensively developed areas in Eastern Dublin with the existing Eastern Dublin BART station located approximately 2-3 miles west of the Project area. Furthermore, when Eastern Dublin is fully developed, Dublin Boulevard is expected to be extended to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. At that time, Central Parkway will likely be used as a key alternate route to bypass congestion on Dublin Boulevard west of Fallon Road. This congestion would be the result of traffic diverting from 1-580 due to heavy commute EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 21 With this mitigation, Central Parkway will be wide enough to carry the expected traffic volumes at an acceptable level. This impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Freeway Segment Conditions with the Project Year 2005 With and Without Project In order to include 1-580, I~680 and SR 84 in the MTS route analysis for Year 2005 conditions, Table 3.6-7 is presented in this DSEIR to show the volume-to-capacity ratio and the corresponding level of service with and without the proposed Project during the PM peak hour in Year 2005. The PM peak hour volume projections were obtained from the 2005 Countywide Transportation Model since the Dublin Model does not include freeway volumes. Based on this analysis and as shown in Table 3.6-7, the proposed Project is not expected to cause levels of service on 1-580, 1-680 and SR 84 to change during the PM peak hour under Year 2005 conditions. Year 2025 Without Project Mainline AM and PM peak hour directional volumes on Interstates 580 and 680 and on State Route 84 have been evaluated for the Year 2025 without the Project, based on the TVTM Model. As shown in Table 3.6-8, ten mainline freeway segments were analyzed along 1-580, 1-680 and SR 84 in the Project study area. These include the following segments: 1-580: West of 1-680 1-680 to Dougherty Road Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard East of Airway Boulevard 1-680: North of 1-580 traffic or unexpected freeway incidents. Therefore, the forecasted ADTs on Central Parkway from the TVTM Model could be exceeded in the future as a result of regional travel needs through the Tri- Valley area. This is especially true if Central Parkway is extended in the future from Arnold Road to Dougherty Road to make for a more efficient regional circulation system in Dublin. The Class I Collector Street classification for Central Parkway is consistent with the street designations described in the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and fulfills all possible future needs to accommodate local trips within Dublin, as well as regional travel patterns within the Tri- Valley area in general. Central Parkway has been constructed between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road as an interim two-lane roadway with right-of-way reserved for the ultimate four-lane width. This DSEIR includes a supplemental mitigation measure (SM-TRAFFIC-10) on page 3.6-24, which requires the Project developers to widen Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. East of Fallon Road, Central Parkway will have two lanes as part of the proposed Project, but, consistent with the rest of Central Parkway, right-of-way will be reserved for the future ultimate four-lane width. Page 2-9 of this DSEIR notes, under "Project Access and Circulation," that primary access through the project site will be via Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and that secondary access will be via collector streets located throughout the Project. The location of the collector streets and the possibility of using Croak Road as the connector for Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard will be determined by the tentative map and site development review stages when lotting patterns are known. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 22 South of 1-580 SR 84: South of 1-580 As shown in Table 3.6-8, the 1-580 segment west of 1-680 in the westbound commute direction is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour in Year 2025 without Project volumes. The other six segments analyzed on 1-580 between 1-680 and east of Airway Boulevard are projected to operate at LOS F in the westbound commute direction during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the three 1-580 segments between Tassajara Road and east of Airway Boulevard and the 1-680 to Dougherty Road segment would be operating at LOS F in the eastbound commute direction. The 1-580 segments west of 1-680, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive, and Hacienda Drive tO Tassajara Road would be operating at LOS E, D and E, respectively in the eastbound commute direction during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 3.6-8, the 1-680 segment north of 1-580 is projected to operate at LOS E in both directions of travel during the AM peak hour in Year 2025 without Project volumes. During the PM peak hour, the 1-680 segment north of 1-580 is projected to operate at LOS F and E in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. The 1-680 segment south of 1-580 is projected to operate at LOS E in the southbound direction during the PM peak hour. Roadway improvements currently under planning for SR 84 were assumed to be in place for this analysis; these improvements are included in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (T'VTD) Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan as one of eleven most regionally significant projects that have been given priority for funding with revenues from the TVTD Fee program. The Project Study Report (PSR) for the SR 84 improvement project is currently underway and is evaluating a number of roadway configuration alternatives, including a possible ultimate configuration of six lanes on Isabel Avenue from 1-580 to Vineyard Avenue and four lanes from Vineyard Avenue to 1-680. The total length of the project is approximately ten miles. As shown in Figure 3.6-8, SR 84 south of 1-580 is anticipated to operate at LOS A without the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2025 conditions. Year 2025 With Project Supplemental hnpact TRAFFIC 11: In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario, freeway segments on 1-580 and 1-680 in the Project area would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. With the proposed Project traffic added to Year 2025 No Project mainline freeway volumes, projected LOS for eastbound and westbound commute directions on 1-580 would remain unchanged. However, with a projected LOS F in the AM westbound commute direction between east of Airway Boulevard and 1-680, the proposed Project trips would be adding to an already deficient condition. During the PM peak hour, Project trips also would be adding to a deficient condition between Tassajara Road and east of Airway Boulevard and between 1-680 and Dougherty Road in the eastbound commute direction. These specific segments of 1-580 would not meet the ACCMA standard of LOS E during the AM or PM peak hour, even without the Project trips. This is considered a significant cumulative impact. The only mainline freeway improvement identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is the widening 'of the 1-580 freeway to provide a fifth auxiliary lane in each direction between EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 23 Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Although efficiency improvements (such as HOV Lanes) and expanded public transportation could be added in this corridor, little or no additional capacity for single-occupant vehicles is planned. Actions to encourage alternative travel modes include advocating HOV lanes on 1-580, extending BART to Livermore, implementing the 1-580 Smart Corridor approach (including adaptive signal timing, transit priority systems, incident management, and possibly ramp metering), and supporting other major investments in transit. In advocating HOV lanes on 1-580 and other projects listed above, the City of Dublin will coordinate with other local jurisdictions and attempt to obtain additional funds (e.g., from State and federal sources) to implement these projects. Moreover, the City of Dublin will support advancing the funding priority of the HOV lanes on 1-580 through participation in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is applicable to the Project, requires participation in a Transportation Systems Management program, which would include strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicles. Moreover, as part of Mitigation Measures 3.3/3.0 and 3.3/5,0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Project shall contribute a proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 by paying a regional fee, which the City has implemented through Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, followed by the TVTD Fee (see pages 3.6-6 and 3.6-12). Both the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the TVTD Fee (which has substituted for the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee) include HOV lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road, as specified in the TVTD Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan. As discussed above, the Project will be required to pay for its proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 improvements, by payment of TVTD Fees. The Project will also pay its proportionate share toward transit improvements in the Tri-Valley Area (which includes Livermore) by payment of the TVTD Fee; one of the improvements to be funded by the TVTD Fees is express bus service in the Tri-Valley area. (See Resolution 89-98, adopting TVTD Fee [available in the City Clerk's office].) With the proposed Project traffic added to Year 2025 No Project mainline freeway volumes, projected LOS for both directions of travel on 1-680 would remain unchanged during the AM and PM peak hours. With a projected LOS F in the PM peak hour northbound direction north of 1-580, the proposed Project trips would be adding to an already deficient condition. However, the 1-680 segment north of 1-580 would not meet the ACCMA standard of LOS E in the PM peak hour northbound direction, even without the Project trips. Mitigation Measure 3.3/3.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR remains applicable to this impact. This mitigation measure requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to construct auxiliary lanes (for a total of 10 lanes) on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR is also applicable to this impact but, even with this mitigation, the impact remains a significant cumulative impact, and a statement of overriding considerations will need to be adopted. This mitigation measure requires the Project to contribute a proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes (for a total of 10 lanes) on 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, as implemented by Caltrans. This mitigation measure also requires local jurisdictions to require that all future development projects participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council study, in June 1998, the City of Dublin adopted Resolution No. 89-98 establishing a Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee for future developments within the City of Dublin. TVTD Fees paid by project developers pay for regional improvements to the freeway system. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 24 Therefore, the impact on the freeway system of 1-580 and 1-680 in the Project area remains a significant cumulative impact. As shown in Table 3.6-8, with the proposed Project traffic added to Year 2025 No Project volumes, projected LOS for both directions of travel on SR 84 would remain unchanged at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2025 conditions. Therefore, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on SR 84 under Year 2025 conciitions. Transit Operations Impacts BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) The impact on BART was evaluated by estimating increased ridership with the development of the proposed Project. Future ridership projections used in the Eastern Dublin EIR were based on the assumption that the East Dublin/Pleasanton station would be the only station constructed in the Tri-Valley area. However, it is expected that the currently planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station would also be available in the Tri- Valley area at the time when the proposed Project is constructed. The Project consists of residential, commercial, and. industrial uses. It is anticipated that a small percentage of commercial and retail employees/visitors would use BART to and from the site. These riders would be in the reverse commute direction (eastbound) coming to the Project and capacity would be available to accommodate the added riders generated by these uses. Additional riders generated by the residential uses were calculated based on the methodology used in the DEIR for the Dublin Transit Center, July 2001. For the Transit Center, it is assumed that 32.1 percent of households would use BART since the residential portion of that project is located within the Transit Center area (Draft EIR for Dublin Transit Center, SCH No. 20001120395 [July 2001], available at the City of Dublin). However, since the proposed Project would not be in the immediate vicinity of a BART station, it is assumed that approximately two percent of the Project households would use BART, which is consistent with current BART ridership estimates within the Tri-Valley area containing the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and part of San Ramon. The traffic-consulting firm of TJKM Transportation Consultants calculated this two percent ridership estimate, and the calculation sheets are available at the City of Dublin. Approximately 50 additional riders are estimated to use BART due to the proposed Project a§ calculated below. Residential: 2,526 dwelling units x 1 Adult/unit x 2% x 2 trips per day = 100 trips/day (50 riders inbound to BART during the AM/50 riders outbound to BART during the PM) Currently, BART runs four 8-car trains to/from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station during the peak hours. Each train has a capacity of 560 seats, which translates into 2,240 seats during the peak hour. At this station, approximately 1,063 riders enter the station during the AM peak hour and 325 exit the station (total of 1,388 riders). BART assumes a ridership load capacity of 1.35 persons per seat during the peak commute periods to account for sitting and standing passengers. During the PM peak hour, BART ridership is lower with a total of 1,266 riders (entering and exiting). Adding 50 more entering riders during the AM peak hour would result in 1,113 riders to the peak commute direction (westbound). With the added ridership from the proposed project, it is determined that the seating capacity would be 0.50 persons per seat (1,11.3 riders/2,240 seats), which is below BART's load capacity. During the PM peak hour, the capacity would be even lower With the additional 50 riders generated by the proposed project. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 25 This analysis is conservative in that it assumes that all of the riders would use BART during the peak one hour in the AM and PM. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the GPA/SP Project would create a need for substantial expansion of existing transit systems (BART and LAVTA), resulting in a significant impact (IM 3.3/0). The impact of the Project on BART was adequately analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR remain applicable to the Project (MM 3.3/15.2 and 3.3/15.3). The Project will contribute towards the construction of park and ride lots, through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and to improvements to transit service through payment of the TVTD Fee. LA VTA (Livermore -Amador Valley Transit Authority) -- Wheels Several bus lines currently provide service to east Dublin, including lines 12, 12X, 10A, lA, lB, and 20X. None of these lines, however, provide service immediately adjacent to the proposed project (Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard) simply because roadways do not exist. It is assumed that LAVTA would introduce new bus lines or reroute existing bus lines to accommodate the riders from the Project as it becomes built, It is also expected that LAVTA would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate riders, as needed. A calculation is provided to estimate the number of monthly riders estimated to be generated by the proposed project. Two percent of the residential uses are expected to use transit: 2,526 dwelling units x 2% x 2 trips/day x 20 working days per month = 2,020 monthly riders. It is expected that the commercial and industrial employees/visitors would generate a minimal number of riders. The impacts of the GPA/SP, of which the Project is a part, on the need for expanded transit were adequately analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Chapter 3.3 of Eastern Dublin EIR) and, as noted above, mitigation measures were imposed to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (See MM 3.3/15.0 [provide transit service within 0.25 mile]; MM 3.3/15.1 [provide transit service at minimum frequency of 30 minutes during peak hours]; MM 3.3/15.2 [GPA/SP Project to contribute to capital and operating costs of transit service extensions]; and MM 3.3/15.3 [coordinate with BART and LAVTA to provide bus service to BART station].) These mitigation measures remain applicable to the Project and no additional mitigation measures are required. Increase in Hazards/Inadequate Emergency Access The Initial Study identified two other impacts where the Project may have a potential impact greater than that identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR: 1) the potential to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use; and 2) emergency access so that access to property or structures is inadequate. Approval of the proposed Project and future development of the Project area would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways. Construction of new residences and commercial development within the Project area could increase the need for emergency service and related access to new residences and commercial establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and addressed these impacts and EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 26 suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. The Initial Study noted that changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities might have the potential to increase those impacts above levels anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although additional cumulative traffic will occur within the Project area, the location of land uses and roadways and the intensity of development will not change from that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The location of land uses already has been determined to be compatible in the Project area, since mixed-use development is not planned. As Stage 2 development plans, tentative maps and Site Development Review applications are submitted for review and approval, each development will be reviewed for compliance with City standards which dictate street safety standards such as sight distance, vertical and horizontal curves, gradient, intersection geometries, distance between intersections, driveway locations, etc. Conformance with these City standards will ensure that potential traffic-related hazards will be minimized to a level of insignificance. Similarly, all development projects will be reviewed to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained to properties and structures. Where necessary, the City may require emergency vehicle access in accordance with City standards and Project-specific conditions may be imposed to ensure City standards for adequate emergency access is provided. These impacts are insignificant and no supplemental mitigations are required. Supplemental Information to Clarify Issues of Concern with Previous DSEIR Through the revised DSEIR, the City has attempted to provide clarification on issues raised regarding the previous DSEIR. The following information is provided in addition to the analyses in this revised DSEIR to provide further information on related issues. Proposed Access to the Project Site It is noted on page 2-9 of this DSEIR under "Project Access and Circulation" that primary access through the project site will be via Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and that secondary access will be via collector streets located throughout the Project. The location of collector streets will be determined by the tentative map and site development review stages when lotting patterns are known and a collector street, such as a residential collector or residential street, will serve the elementary school proposed at the eastern edge of the Project site. The design of the easterly end of Central Parkway will similarly be determined by the tentative map stage. Central Parkway could serve, for example, as a "T' intersection with collector streets connecting to it to serve the low-density residential properties to the north and south, as well as the school. Footnote 1 on page 3.6-2 of this DSEIR explains that, as approved in 1993, the Transit Spine (now called Central Parkway) ran west to east from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (May 4, 1993 Addendum to Eastern Dublin EIR). General Plan Figure 5-lb, added by the 1997 amendment to the General Plan following approval of a negative declaration (Council Resolution 77-97), is the same as Figure 2-I of this DSEIR. Although not to scale, it is clear from both figures that Central Parkway loops south-east to connect to Dublin Boulevard within the project site and not within the Future Study Area/Agriculture areas shown on the General Plan Land Use Map for the Eastern Extended Planning Area (generally referred to as Doolan Canyon but shown on the General Plan Land Use Map for the Eastern Extended Planning Area as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; see Figure 2-B of this DSEIR and Figure 5.lb of the General Plan). A number of maps and figures in this DSEIR show Central Parkway terminating west of the Future Study Area/Agriculture area (Doolan Canyon) (see Figure 2-D; Figure 2-F; Figure 2-G; Figure 2-I; Figure 2-J; Figure 3.3-C; Figure 3.4-B; Figure 3.6-A, -B, -C, -D, -E, and -F). EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 27 Because the Project does not propose the extension of Central Parkway into Doolan Canyon, an analysis of environmental impacts of such an extension is not required. The impacts of extending Dublin Boulevard through this area were addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Revisions to DEIR Text, pages 3.3-16 to 3.3-18 [Dec. 15, 1992 letter from DKS Associates] and IM 3.3/J and MM 3.3/10,0 of Eastern Dublin EIR, finding an impact at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway and finding the impact could be mitigated to a level of insignificance through payment of a regional transportation fee). As shown in Figure 3.6-F of this DSEIR and based on the TVTM Model, the estimated daily volume for this segment of Central Parkway is 8,700 vehicles per day under cumulative 2025 No Project conditions and 9,200 vehicles per day under cumulative 2025 plus Project conditions. In the TVTM Model, Central Parkway does not extend east to Doolan Canyon; instead, it extends easterly from Fallon Road for a short distance, then loops southerly to intersect with Dublin Boulevard. The 8,700-vehicle volume represents the forecasted amount of traffic that would occur if the Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard loop were actually constructed. This volume would occur even if the proposed Project was not developed, and is made up of two components: 1) traffic using Central Parkway to reach destinations in Eastern Dublin, and 2) traffic bypassing congested Dublin Boulevard. In reality, the Central Parkway loop likely would not be constructed if the proposed Project were not developed. However, this volume represents what would occur if the street were actually in place but without any project development. With the development of the proposed Project, the daffy traffic volume on this segment of Central Parkway would be expected to increase to 9,200 vehicles per day, based on the Year 2025 TVTM Model. The issue of the location of Central Parkway, growth-inducing effects and any environmental impacts associated with such location were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the negative declaration approved for the 1997 General Plan amendments and this DSEIR. No additional analysis is required. The issues relating to access to the elementary school and the design of Central Parkway at its easterly terminus will be analyzed in connection with tentative map approval or site development review approval of specific development projects. Freeway Segment Operational Analysis Additional freeway segment operational analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology for basic freeway sections under Cumulative Year 2025. The levels of service are based on density and speeds. Table 3.6-9 is provided to show the change in speeds without and with the project at the study freeway segments. "Speed" as a measure of effectiveness was chosen for presentation since the general public is more familiar with this parameter. Delay is not a standard measurement in freeway analysis. Speeds below 51.1 mph correspond to Level of Service (LOS) F, and are not computable. Under these conditions traffic is assumed to be stop and go since the volumes are near or exceed capacity. As shown in Table 3.6-9, without and with the project, 1-580 experiences congestion (LOS F) in the westbound peak commute direction between 1-680 and east of Airway during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, 1-580 is forecasted to operate at LOS F in the eastbound peak commute direction between 1-680 and east of Airway, except between Dougherty and Tassajara where there are more lanes. This segment would operate at LOS D and E with EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 28 speeds between 53.0 and 59.7 mph without and with the project. 1-680 is projected to operate at LOS D, E and F, and SR-84 is projected to operate at LOS A south of 1-580 during the AM and PM peak hours without and with the project. Westbound 1-580 between Tassajara and Fallon Roads is expected toexperience the greatest reduction in speed of 3.2 mph due to Project traffic during the PM peak hour; although the speed is reduced, the LOS remains the same, however. The above Project traffic impact results are consistent with the discussion of Freeway Segment Conditions with and without the Project (pp. 3.6-25 to 28). As shown in Table 3.6-9, the Project tends to result in increased traffic in the off-peak directions of 1-580 and have minimal impacts in the peak directions. For example, Table 3.6- 9 shows an 11 percent and a 13 percent increase in project-related mainline volumes on 1-580 in the AM peak hour in the eastbound direction between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road and between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, respectively. The TVTM Model assigns these additional trips in the AM peak hour because of the relatively uncongested freeway lanes in the non-peak direction. In the peak directions, project-related volume increases are either much smaller or, in.some cases, negative. In the case of the negative numbers, 'more traffic is assigned to the surface street system or is reduced because of the improved proximity of jobs and housing caused by the Project. The above analysis provides information on Project traffic impacts on 1-580, 1-680 and SR 84 mainline segments. Based on this analysis, the added traffic by the proposed Project would not cause a change in operational levels of service. Project Impacts on 1-580 On- and Off- Ramps Table 3.6-10 provides a summary of the trips that are expected to use the on- and off-ramps on 1-580 at Hacienda Drive, Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road/El Charro Road during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2025 conditions. The peak hour volumes were obtained from the TVTM Model. As shown in Table 3.6-10, most of the project trips will use the Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road interchange to access the Project site. With the minimal number of additional trips, the City determined that the additional trips would not result in significant traffic impacts at this interchange. No mitigations beyond the improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this DSEIR are required. All of the intersections near this interchange, including the overcrossing, are being sized and reconfigured to accommodate added traffic. The Project will contribute its proportionate share to the cumulative widening of Fallon Road and improvements to the 1-580/Fallon/El Charro Road interchange improvements through payment of Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (see p. 3.6-6 of this DSEIR). Separate traffic operations studies have been prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants for the 1- 580 off-ramps at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara/Santa Rita Roads and Fallon/El Charro Roads to ensure that queuing onto mainline 1-580 would not occur under cumulative conditions. These studies were conducted as part of the Project Study Reports (PSR) for the 1-580 interchange improvement projects at these three locations. These PSR traffic studies include both the effects of the interchange improvements ond the effects of the proposed Project. The land uses specified for the proposed project are the same land uses that were included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These land uses have been included in the TVTM Model that was used to analyze the interchanges in the PSR studies. (To make the "with Project" analysis in this DSEIR, the TVTM model was used as is; to make the "no Project" analysis, the land use in the Project area was zeroed out.) Consequently, the PSR studies and their analyses include the full traffic effects of EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 29 the proposed Project. Thus, the 393 vph for the westbound 1-580 Fallon Road on-ramp in the PM and the 335 vph for the eastbound 1-580 El Charro Road off-ramp in the AM shown in Table 3.6-10 are not additional trips, but are in fact included in the PSR analyses. (In these examples, the specific volumes affect the uncongested direction of the freeway.) In addition, continuous auxiliary lanes are planned along 1-580 between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road in both directions to eliminate traffic weaving as vehicles enter the freeway. The auxiliary lanes provide adequate distance to allow vehicles to merge into the traffic stream. Therefore, added traffic due to the proposed project at the on- and off-ramps is not expected to result in significant traffic impacts. The above information shows that Project traffic added to the ramps will not cause significant traffic impacts. Impact of New Housing Opportunities on 1-580 Traffic Conditions In most cases, traffic volumes increase slightly on 1-580 in the 2025 With Project scenario as compared with the 2025 No Project scenario. However, it is clear that additional housing provided near the Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore job centers will have the effect of displacing future regional traffic otherwise traveling from more distant points (such as the San Joaquin Valley) to reach Tri-Valley jobs. A very similar effect was propounded in the North Livermore Specific Plan DEIR, April 2000, prepared for the City of Livermore and the County of Alameda. The TVTM Model does not arbitrarily assign new housing opportunities throughout the modeled network in order to achieve a match between jobs and housing. The TVTM Model does recognize proposed housing such as contained in the Project, and does reorganize its forecasted trips throughout the region to reflect the improved travel consequences of jobs and housing being placed in closer proximity. Such assignments reflect real-world conditions that closely parallel the traffic and related benefits resulting from in-fill projects within cities. Table 3.6-8 discloses traffic volumes and impacts along the 1-580 corridor. The proposed Dublin Boulevard extension through the Project is expected to carry over 40,000 vehicles per day, with or without the Project. However, the Project is expected to facilitate the construction of Dublin Boulevard. This roadway provides immense benefits to the 1-580 corridor and is expected to allow the freeway itself to continue operating at reasonable levels with modest planned freeway improvements by creating significant arterial capacity increases. Summary of Transportation Improvements at Impacted Intersections and Roadways Further mitigations of Project traffic impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR are included in this DSEIR, including ten supplemental mitigation measures listed on pages 3.6-16 to 3.6-24. These mitigation measures are identified in this DSEIR to the best extent possible to mitigate traffic impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Questions were raised when the DSEIR was previously circulated regarding the impacts and the mitigation measures at certain intersections; regarding mitigation for air quality and traffic impacts; and regarding the availability of mitigation measures to encourage carpools and public transit. The following addresses those concerns. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 30 This DSEIR identified significant cumulative impacts at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 6, p. 3.6-18), Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 7, p. 3.6-20) and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 8, p. 3.6-21), but found that physical improvements, beyond those identified, to widen these intersections to achieve LOS D were not feasible due both to safety concerns of additional turn lanes and the physical constraints of the intersections. The Eastern Dublin EIR found the GPA/SP project would create a need for expansion of existing transit systems. (Impact 3.3/0.) Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 [coordinate with LAVTA, the transit server, to provide transit service within .25 mile of 95% of population], 15.1 [provide transit service at LAVTA's frequency standards], 15.2 [contribute towards costs of transit service extensions which is done through the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee] and 15.3 [City to coordinate with BART and LAVTA to provide feeder bus service to the BART station] were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the Project. HOV lanes on City arterials would not be feasible, as this measure would impede traffic flow on City streets and deteriorate intersection levels of service to unacceptable levels during the peak periods due to the limited lane capacity available on surface streets. In order to reduce cumulative traffic impacts and improve levels of service at City intersections and on the freeway system in the vicinity of the Project, this DSEIR identified transportation measures that could be required as part of the Stage 2 Development Plans for individual projects, as appropriate to the project. The transportation measures identified in this DSEIR include comprehensive transportation demand program, ride-sharing, free or discounted BART or other transit passes for employees, vanpools, staggered work hours, and other trip reduction programs specified in Chapter 5 of ACCMA's Congestion Management Program. In addition, this DSEIR specifies implementing the 1-580 Smart Corridor approach (currently under Phase 1 installation) to include adaptive signal timing, transit priority systems, incident management, and freeway ramp metering. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is applicable to the Project, requires participation in a Transportation Systems Management program, which would include strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicles. Moreover, as part of Mitigation Measures 3.3/3.0 and 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Project shall contribute a proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 by paying a regional fee, which the City has implemented through Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, followed by the TVTD Fee (see pages 3.6-6 and 3.6-27). Both the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the TVTD Fee (which has substituted for the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic impact Fee) include installing HOV lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road, as specified in the TVTD Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan. Funding of Regional Transportation I~nprovements Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR corresponding to Impact 3.3/E states: "The City shall coordinate with other local jurisdictions to require that all future development projects participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley Transportation Council study." The City is an active participant in the development and funding of regional transportation mitigations, in compliance with adopted Eastern Dublin mitigation measures. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 31 The TVTD F~e Resolution No. 89-98 was adopted by the City of Dublin pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement that Dublin entered into with Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, Alameda County and Contra Costa County in which all the parties agreed to impose TVTD Fees on development that receives a land use entitlement. (Refer to page 3.6-6 of this DSEIR for a description of the current Fee Program in the City of Dublin.) The TVTD Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan identifies eleven planned projects as being the most regionally significant, including installation of HOV lanes on 1- 580 between Tassajara Road and Vasco Road. These projects have been given priority for funding with revenues from the TVTD Fee program. In September 2001, the City adopted Resolution No. 168-01 supporting the 1-580 Smart Corridor Management Plan that was previously approved by the 1-580 Smart Corridor Policy Advisory Committee. The Plan supports the phased implementation of a Ramp Metering Plan on 1-580 from 1-880 to the Altamont Pass. The member jurisdictions of the 1- 580 Smart Corridor project, including Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Alameda County, are committed to petition the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Caltrans to elevate the priority funding for the next phase of the 1-580 Smart Corridor project to implement a coordinated system of ramp metering on 1-580. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 32 Table 3.6-1 wast tzuonn rropernes ~ np t, eneranon: rroposea fro ect Use FAR Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Residential L -- 1,734 du 9.57 16,594 0.75 25:75 325 975 1,300 1.01 64:36 1,121 630 1,751 M -- 94 du 9.57 900 0.75 25:75 18 53 71 1.01 64:36 61 34 95 MH -- 696 du 6.63 4,615 0.51 16:84 57 298 355 0.62 67:33 289 143 432 RRA -- 2 du 9.57 19 0.75 25:75 1 I 2 1.0l 64:36 1 1 2 Sub 7btal -- 2,526du 22,128 401 1,327 1, 728 1,472 808 2,280 Commercial GC* 0.25 446.5 ksf 39.96 17,842 0.87 61:39 237 151 388 3.78 48:52 810 878 1,688 NC 0.30 134.6 ksf 61.31 8,252 1.42 61:39 117 74 191 5.68 48:52 367 397 764 Sub Total 26,094 354 225 579 1,177 1,275 2,452 Industrial I 0.28 840.4 ksf 6.96 5,849 0.89 82:18 613 135 748 0.92 21:79 162 611 773 Total Future Study Area 0.0 ........................ (GC and D GRAND TOTAL 54,071 1,368 1,687 3,055 2,811 2,694 5,505 Notes: Du: dwelling units Ksf = 1,000 square feet L = Low Density Residential M = Medium Density Residential Mit = Medium High Density Residential RRA = Rural Residential / Agriculture GC* = General Commercial (Large Shopping Center) GC = General Commercial NC = Neighborhood Commercial I = Industrial Park Table 3.6-2 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existin~ Conditions Unmitigated Intersection Con trol A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour * LOS * LOS 1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.68 B 0.81 D 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Signal 0.44 A 0.27 A Ramps 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 WestbOund Signal 0.28 A 0.13 A Ramps 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Signal 0.18 A 0.26 A Boulevard 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Signal 0.65 A 0.68 B Ramps 6 Tassajara Road / 1-580 Westbound Signal 0.38 A 0.48 A Ramps 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.23 A 0.24 A 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.49 A 0.36 A 13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound One-Way 5.2 B 4.6 A Ramps STOP 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound One-Way 3.1 A 3.1 A Ramps STOP Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections. · * = The signal at Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive is currently under conStruction, and is not operational at this time. Table 3.6-3 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing plus Approved plus Pending (Dublin Model) - No Proiect Unmitigated Mitigated Intersection Control A.M. Peak HoUr P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS 1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D (w/Scarlett Drive Bypass) 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.86 D 0.74 C 0.73 C 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Signal 1.20 F 0.74 C 0.86 D 0.56 A Ramps 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.63 B 0.82 D 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Signal 0.98 E 0.97 E 0.83 D 0.90 D Ramps 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Signal 0.79 C 0.81 D Ramps 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.61 B 0.84 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.42 A 0.50 A 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.58 A 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.65 B 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.22 A 0.23 A 12 Grafton Street/GleasOn Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0.05 A 13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Signal 0.17 A 0.31 A Ramps** 14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.23 A 0.38 A 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.42 A 0.48 A 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.29 A 0.39 A ** 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.09 A 0.09 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections. ** = Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in the future. Table 3.6-4 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley TransportatiOn Model CUmulative Year 2025 (No Pro, iect) Unmitigated Mitigated Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak HoUr P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS 1 Dougherly Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.00 E ........ 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.73 C 0.84 D 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.93 E 0.66 B 0.72 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 0.97 E ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.85 D 0.77 C 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.75 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.88 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.63 B 9 Tassajara Road/(31eason Drive Signal 0.59 A 0.50 A 10 Orafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.31 A 0.41 A 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.06 A 0.09 A 12 Grafton Street/Oleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.36 A 13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.47 A 0.54 A 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.57 A 0.69 B 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.88 D 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.54 A 0.72 C 17 Fallon Road/Caleason Drive Signal 0.42 A 0.28 A Note: * ~ Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections. Table 3.6-5 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existin~ plus Approved plus Pending plus Pro, i, ~ct (Dublin Modei~ Unmitigated Mitigated Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.75 C 0.88 D (w/Scarlett Drive Bypass) 2 Hacienda Drivefl-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.87 D 0.75 C 0.74 C 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 1.21 F 0.76 C 0.86 D 0.57 A 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.90 D 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.99 E 0.98 E 0.84 D 0.90 D 6 Tassaj ara Road/I- 580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 C 0.82 D ~ 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.66 B 0.85 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway** signal 0.44 A 0.54 A 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.60 A 10 Graflon Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.72 C 11 (}ration Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.23 A 0.25 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0.06 A 13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps** Signal 0.38 A 0.81 D 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.42 B 0.75 C 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.54 A 0.83 D 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.60 "~ A 0.67 B 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.13 A 0.13 A 18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP 13.4 C 140.1 F Street D/Dublin Boulevard - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.22 A 0.31 A 19 Fallon Road/"Project Road" One-Way STOP 60.7 F 50.0 F Fallon Road/"Project Road"** Signal ........ 0.42 A 0.41 A 20 Street D/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 3.3 A 3.9 A 21 Street B/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 3.2 A 3.2 A Note: * ~ Volume-to-CaPacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections. ** = Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in the future. Table 3.6-6 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 plus Project Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS 1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F ........ 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.81 D 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.00 E ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.74 C 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.69 B 0.73 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.70 B 0.61 B 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.56 A 0.47 A 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.35 A 0.44 A 11 Graf ton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 /'~ 0.12 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.37 A 13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.60 A 0.63 B 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.63 B 0.76 C 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.88 D 1.11 F ........ 15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ........ 0.77 C 0.91 E XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.62 B 0.71 C 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.83 D 0.84 D 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.51 A 0.31 A 18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP >120 F >120 F Street D/Dublin Boulevard - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.80 C 0.83 D 19 Fallon Road/"Project Road" One-Way STOP >120 F >120 F Falton Road/"Project Road" - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.55 A 0.49 A 20 Street D/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.6 B 7.6 B 21 Street B/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.7 B 4.9 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections. Table 3.6-7 Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - CumUlative Year 2005 (ACCMA Model) Year 2005 No Project Year 2005 + Project Location Capacity P.M. Peak P.M. Peak Vok V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS 1-580, west of 1-680 Eastbound 9,200 7,438 0.81 D 7,489 0.81 D Westbound 9,200 6,999 0.76 D 7,121 0.77 D 1-580,1-680 to l)ougherty Eastbound 9,200 6,347 0.69 D 6,402 0.70 D Westbound 9,200 6,899 0.75 D 7,134 0.78 D 1-580,1)ougherty to Hacienda Eastbound 13,800 8,684 0.63 C 8,786 0.64 C Westbound 9,200 5,361 0.59 C 5,629 0.61 C 1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara Eastbound 11,500 8,048 0.70 D 8,228 0.72 D Westbound 9,200 5,361 0.58 C 5,766 0.63 C 1-580, Tassajara to Fallon Eastbound 9,200 8,267 0.90 E 8,530 0.93 E Westbound 9,200 6,033 0.66 D 6,626 0.72 D 1-580, Fallon to Airway Eastbound 9,200 8, 475 0.92 E 8, 579 0.93 E Westbound 9,200 6,016 0.65 D 6,198 0.67 D 1-580, East of Airway Eastbound 9,200 9,181 1.00 F 9,631 1.05 F Westbound 9,200 5,927 0.64 D 6,058 0.66 D 1-680, North of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 6,404 0.93 E 6,440 O. 93 E Southbound 6,900 5,027 0.73 D 4,992 O. 72 D 1-680, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 6,033 0.87 E 5,967 0.86 E Southbound 6,900 4,447 0.64 D 4,453 0.65 D SR 84, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 2,066 0.30 B 2,080 0.30 B Southbound 6, 900 1,385 0.20 A 1,400 0.20 A Notes: Levels of service calculated based on Highway Capacity Manual 1997 by the Transportation Research Board, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections. Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger ears per hour per lane. peak hour volumes were based on the ACCMA Model Year 2005. Table 3.6-8 Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 (Tri-Valley Model) Year 2025 No Project Year 2025 + Project Location Capacity A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS 1-580, west of 1-680 Eastbound 9,200 5,320 0.58 C 8,261 0.90 E 5,437 0.59 C 8,351 0.91 E Westbound 9,200 8,126 0.88 E 6,749 0.73 D 8,192 0.89 E 6,871 0.75 D 1-580,1-680 to l}ougherty Eastbound 9,200 8,047 0.87 E 10,084 1.10 F 8,232 0.89 E 10,139 1.10 F Westbound 9,200 10,387 1.13 F 9,442 1.03 F 10,554 1.15 F 9,677 1.05 F 1-580, Dougherty to Hacienda Eastbound 13,800 7,460 0.54 C 9,722 0.70 D 7,728 0.56 C 9,824 0.71 D Westbound 9,200 t0,042 1.09 F 8,714 0.95 E 10,473 1.14 F 8,944 0.97 E 1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara Eastbound 11,500 6,154 0.54 C 9,897 0.86 E 6,823 O. 59 C 10,077 O. 88 E Westbound 9,200 10,665 1.16 F 7,706 0.84 E 10,425 1.13 F 8,111 0.88 E 1-580, Tassajara to Fallon Eastbound 9,200 5,747 0.62 C 10,219 1.11 F 6,499 0.71 D 10,482 1.14 F Westboufld 9,200 10,353 1.13 F 7,277 0.79 D 10,237 1.11 F 7,870 0.86 E 1-580, Falion to Airway Eastbound 9,200 6,888 0.75 D 11,145 1.21 F 7,285 0.79 D 11,249 1.22 F Westbound 9,200 10,731 1.17 F 7,785 0.85 E 10,453 1.14 F 7,967 0.87 E 1-580, East of Airway Eastbound 9,200 6,472 0.70 D 10,465 1.14 F 6,922 0.75 D 10,512 1.14 F Westbound 9,200 10,437 1.13 F 7,272 0.79 D 10,306 1.12 F 7,500 0.82 E 1-680, North of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 6,038 0.88 E 7,053 1.02 F 6,017 0.87 E 7,089 1.03 F Southbound 6,900 6,000 0.87 E 5,676 0.82 E 6,075 0.88 E 5,641 0:82 E 1-680, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 4,674 0.68 D 5,436 0.79 D 4,572 0.66 D 5,370 0.78 D Southbound 6,900 5,565 0.81 D 5,647 0.82 E 5,586 0.81 D 5,653 0.82 E SR 84, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 735 0.11 A 1,137 0.16 A 721 0.10 A 1,13'3 0.16 A Southbound 6,900 1,015 0.15 A 792 0.11 A 1,030 0.15 A 778 0.11 A Notes: Levels of service calculated based on Highway CapaciO, Manua11997 by the Transportation Research Board, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections. Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger ears per hour per lane. Peak hour volumes were based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model Year 2025 without and with the Proposed Project. The Proposed Dublin Transit Center peak hour trips were manually added into the volumes based on the traffic study conducted by Omni Means in April 2001. Table 3.6-9 Peak Hour Mainline Freewa}, Operational Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 No Proiect ' Plus Project Change in )cation Cap. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed3 (mph) Vol. Speed~ Speed~ LOS2 Vol. Speed~ LOS2 Vol. Speed~ (mph) LOS2 Vol. (mph) (mph) (mph) LOS2 AM PM 580, west of 1-680 Eastbound 9,200 5,320 60.0 C 8,282 <51.1 F 5,437 60.0 C 8,351 <51.1 F 0.0 n/a Westbound 9,200 8,126 52.5 E 6,749 59.2 D 8,192 51.9 E 6,871 58.9 D (0.6) (0.3) 580, 1-680 to Dougherty Eastbound 9,200 8,047 53.1 E 10,0M <51.1 F 8,232 51.5 E 10,139 <51.1 F (1.6) n/a Westbound 9,200 10,387 <51.1 F 9,442 <51.1 F 10,554 <51.1 F 9,677 <51.1 F n/a n/a 580, Dougherty to Hacienda Eastbound 13,800 7,460 60.0 C 9,722 59.7 D 7,728 60.0 C 9,824 59.6 D 0.0 (0.1) Westbound 9,200 10,042 <51.1 F 8,714 <51.1 F 10,473 <51.1 F 8,944 <51.1 F n/a n/a 580, Hacienda to Tassajara Eastbound ll,500 6,154 60.0 C 9,897 54.1 E 6,823 60.0 C 10,077 53.0 E 0.0 (1.1) Westbound 9,200 10,665 <51.1 F 7,706 55.5 E 10,425 <51.1 F 8,111 52.6 E n/a (2.9) 580, Tassajara to Fallon Eastbound 9,200 5,747 60.0 D 10,219 <51.1 F 6,499 59.6 D 10,482 <51.1 F (0.4) n/a Westbound 9,200 10,353 <51.1 F 7,277 57.6 E 10,237 <51.1 F 7,870 54.4 E n/a (3.2) 580, Fallon to Airway Eastbound 9,200 6,888 58.9 D 11,145 <51.1 F 7,285 57.9 D 11,249 <51.1 F (1.0) n/a Westbound 9,200 10,731 <51.1 F 7,785 55.0 E 10,453 <51.1 F 7,967 53.7 E n/a ( 1.3) 580, East of Airway Eastbound 9,200 6,472 59.7 D ~ 10,465 <51.1 F 6,922 58.8 D 10,512 <51.1 F (0.9) rda Westbound 9,200 10,437 <51.1 F 7,272 57.6 E 10,306 <51.1 F 7,500 56.6 E n/a (1.0) 680, North of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 6,038 53.1 E 7,053 <51.1 F 6,017 53.3 E 7,089 <51.1 F 0.2 n/a Southbound 6,900 6,000 53.5 E 5,676 56.3 E 6,075 52.7 E 5,641 56.5 E (0.8) 0.2 680, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 4,674 59.9 D 5,436 57.7 D 4,572 60.0 D 5,370 58.1 D 0.1 0.4 Southbound 6,900 5,565 57.0 E 5,647 56.5 E 5,586 56.9 E 5,653 56.4 E (0.1) (0.1) ~ 84, South of 1-580 ~ I Northbound 6,900 735 60.0 A 1,137 60.0 A 721 60.0 A 1,133 60.0 A 0.0 0.0 Southbound 6~900 17015 60.0 A 792 60.0 A 1~030 60.0 A 778 60.0 A 0.0 0.0' Notes: 1) The maximum speed for LOS E is 51.1 mph. Speeds less than 51.1 mph correspond to LOS F. Under these conditions it is assumed that traffic is stop and go since the estimated volumes near or exceed capacity. 2) LOS = Level of service. Levels of service are calculated based on Highway Capaci(vManua12000 by the Transportation Research Board. 3) Parentheses ( ) indicate that speeds are slower with the development of the proposed project. Table 3.6-10 Year 2025 Traffic Impacts at 1-580 On- and Off-ramps between Hacienda and Fallon Location Year 20:~5 No Project Year 2025 + I~roject Change in traffic* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak I-$80 On-ramps at: Hacienda - 1,075 1,748 1,169 1,810 94 62 Eastbound Hacienda - 1,397 2,347 1,258 2,237 (139) (110) Westbound Santa Rita - 706 1,146 746 1,157 40 11 Eastbound Tassajara - 1,519 1,568 1,483 1,432 (36) (136) Westbound El Charro- 851 977 931 963 80 (14) Eastbound Fallon - 1,051 1,334 1,354 1,727 303 393 Westbound 1-580 Off-ramps at: Hacienda - EBL 681 636 701 717 20 81 Hacienda - EBR 1,186 1,100 1,200 1,056 14 (44) Hacienda - WBL 645 692 606 675 (39) (17) Hacienda - WBR 1,017 990 1,000 1,096 (17) 106 Santa Rita - EBL 831 530 805 418 (26) (112) Santa Rita - EBT 104 208 102 203 (2) (5) Santa Rita - EBR 181 113 181 110 0 (3) Tassajam - WBL 474 493 512 508 38 15 Tassajara - WBR 743 650 731 679 (12) 29 El Charm - EBL 798 895 1,133 1,077 335 182 El Charro - EBR 103 48 100 46 (3) (21, Fallon - WBL 693 747 643 715 (50) (32) Fallon - WBR 806 1,254 855 1,299 49 45 Note: *t~arentheses indicate a reduction in lraffic. The peak hour volumes are generated based on the Tri, Valley Transportation Model. Reductions are possible with the development of the proposed project as background traffic may be reassigned to other locations as new traf~c is introduced. The reassigned background traJ~c may be replaced with less project traffic resulting in overall reductions. Table 3.6-11 DUBLIN AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2005 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (NO PROJECT) Dublin Model ACCMA Model % Difference from PM Peak hour PM peak hour ACCMA Model Location (1) (2) {[(1)-(2)]+(2)}_100 Dublin Boulevard East of Fallon -eastbound -- 778 -- -westbound -- 2 -- Between Tassajara and Fallon -eastbound 1,260 446 183% -westbound 1,960 .... Between Hacienda and Tassajara -eastbound 2,384 183 1,203% -westbound 1,686 11 15,227% Between Dougherty and Hacienda -eastbound 1,356 731 85% -westbound 2,254 264 754% West of Dougherty -eastbound 1,876 936 100% -westbound 2,017 1,724 17% Fallon Road · South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 1,547 311 397% -southbound 1,506 138 991% Between Dublin and Central -northbound 1,133 235 382% -southbound 729 410 78% Between Central and Gleason -northbound 216 45 380% -southbound 185 127 46% North of Gleason -northbound 94 6 ' 1,467% -southbound 86 12 617% Tassajara Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,629 921 185% -southbound 3,416 747 357% Between Dublin and Central -northbound 2,084 827 152% -southbound 1,285 926 39% Between Central and Gleason -northbound 1,860 377 393% -southbound 1,245 276 351% North of Gleason -northbound 1,787 167 970% -southbound 1,111 60 1,752% Table 3.6-11 (Cont.) DUBLIN AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2005 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (NO PROJECT) Dublin Model ACCMA Model % Difference from PM peak hour PM peak hour ACCMA Model Location (1) (2) {[(1)-(2)]+(2)}_100 Hacienda Drive South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 1,546 746 107% -southbound 1,178 1,375 -14% Between Dublin and Central -northbound 1,027 436 136% -southbound 1,197 826 45% Between Central and Gleason -northbound 558 144 288% -southbound 650 347 87% Dougherty Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,709 3,136 -14% -southbound 3,064 2,598 18% North of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 1,681 2,040 -18% -southbound 1,279 1,170 9% Table 3.6-12 TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2025 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (NO PROJECT) Tri-Valley Trans. Model ACCMA Model PM peak hour Location AM peak PM peak AM peak PM peak % Difference from hour hour hour hour ACCMA Model (1) (2) {[(1)-(2)]+(2)}_100 1-580 East of Fallon -eastbound 6,740 10,696 -- 9,222 16% -westbound 10,201 7,623 -- 7,011 9% Between Tassajara and Fallon -eastbound 5,599 9,770 -- 9,564 2% -westbound 9,823 7,115 -- 6,643 7% Between Hacienda and Tassajara -eastbound 6,036 9,483 -- 9,573 -1% -westbound 10,178 7,562 -- 6,047 25% Between Dougherty and Hacienda -eastbound 6,904 9,558 -- 10,324 -7% -westbound 9,907 8,240 -- 7,838 5% West of Dougherty -eastbound 7,145 9,813 -- 7,464 31% -westbound 10,! 66 8,674 -- 7,455 16% Dublin Boulevard East of Fallon -eastbound 1,608 2,632 -- 1,013 160% -westbound 2,405 1,999 -- 20 9,895% Between Tassajara and Fallon · -eastbound 892 1,767 -- 750 136% -westbound 1,385 501 ...... Between Hacienda and Tassajara -eastbound 1,079 2,534 -- 1,048 142% -westbound 2,031 1,346 -- 86 1,465% Between Dougherty and Hacienda -eastbound 1,502 2,179 -- 2,127 2% -westbound 1,920 1,837 -- 2,770 -34% West of Dougherty -eastbound 1,905 2,612 -- 1,590 64% -westbound 2,517 2,704 -- 2,349 15% Fallon Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,243 2~79 -- 1,137 153% -southbound 2,849 3,007 -- 743 305% Between Dublin and Central -northbound 411 1,165 -- 1,341 -13% -southbound 1,259 460 -- 1,190 -61% Between Central and Gleason -northbound 582 1,329 -- 283 370% -southbound 1,364 697 -- 322 116% North of Gleason -northbound 603 !,350 -- 115 1,074% -southbound 1,399 709 -- 50 1,318% Table 3.6-12 (Cont.) TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2025 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (NO PROJECT) Tri-Valley Trans. Model ACCMA Model PM peak hour Location AM peak PM peak AM peak PM peak % Difference from hour hour hour hour ACCMA Model (1) (2) {[(1)-(2)]+(2)}_100 Tassajara Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,521 2,633 -- 2,403 10% -southbound 2,461 2,982 -- 1,838 62% Between Dublin and Central -northbound 1,643 2,494 -- 2,933 -15% -southbound 2,773 1,815 -- 2,156 -16% Between Central and Gleason -northbound 876 1,832 -- 1,252 46% -southbound 2,215 1,125 -- 738 52% North of Gleason -northbound 563 1,856 -- 595 212% -southbound 2,137 738 -- 213 246% Hacienda Drive South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,935 3,269 -- 1,861 76% -southbound 2,215 3,456 -- 2,222 56% Between Dublin and Central -northbound 672 759 -- 1,054 -28% -southbound 1,063 759 -- 1,430 -47% Between Central and Gleason -northbound 327 854 -- 497 72% -southbound 509 722 -- 578 25% Dougherty Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,441 4,291 -- 4,246 1% -southbound 3,692 3,406 -- 3,333 2% North of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 767 2,157 -- 2,944 -27% -southbound 2,283 1,560 -- 2,148 -27% Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #9 Dougherty/Dublin Hacienda/I-#80 EB Ramps Hacienda/l-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Ritad.580 EB Ramps Tassajara/I-580 WB RamP~ Taecejara/Dublin Tsssejara/Gleason ~ ~ m ~! 34 (290) ~1~,1.~ J¢'179(245) ~1~, ~ ~-704(212) ~1~ ~¢'131 (83) ~l~.t~ ~-199(104) ~1,~ j¢'818(523) ~1~, ~1~ 37 (75).fl ~1 ~1~ 144 (68) J~ ~ 4881884)'~239 (518)"~coeur'corer- u~ 1,169 (289) ~4 Intersection #13 Intersection #14 El Charro/I-580 EB Ramps Fallon/I-580 WB Raml~ ~ '~, ~' ~' ~-43 (43) ~ ' :~'; ":'~ ~' ~:~ ~'' ~ '~ '~ ":~'~'~'::~:~:~* e ,' ~:~ ~:;~?~%~::~:?.;:= = Project 13~10 236(129 ~ ~ ~ LEGEND 0 Future Intersection ~ ~eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee~ .... Future Roadway-- ~ ~ --- ~ ~ s~~ ~ . ~ Baseline ProjeCts XX AM Peak Hour Volume (~} PM Peak Hour Volume City of Dublin East Dublin Properties Existing Turning Movement Volumes East Dublin Properties FIGURE 3.6-A 157-143 - 7/01 ' LH Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Dougherty/Dublin Hacienda/l-580 EB Rampa Hacienda/l-580 WB Rampa Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rita/l-580 E8 Ramps Taasajara/1-580 WB Ramp~ Tassa|ara/Dublln TassJara/Central ~]~o ~_114 (105) ~; ~_n.i,~ ~,-39 (43) ~ ;~.80(227) 8~ ~ ~-I 151 '500) (o~ nl-844(801', ~..524(391' ~..738(454) ~'~'~ +379(783) nH42(87) +445 (952) 8.~ (103)_~ ~lfl~ 1,777(1,382)-~ ~1~ +~..~ 152(3~1)-~ ~1+1~ 1,3~7(1,232)-~, ~1~' ti~ 103 (399)J ~]~1~' 31(10)J ~lfl~' (834)_--~: o~ ."-'"~ 1,834 (218)-'~ ~ 594 (1 601)''~' 161 o~mm~.~'. 605 (183)-~ I~ 338 (1,297)-~ Intersection #9 Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Intersection #12 Intersection #13 TasaaJara/Gleason Graffon/Dublin Graffon/Central Graffon/Glea~on El Charro/I-Se0 EB Ramps ~_47(40) ~ ~.8(39) ~"-~ ~-. (37) ,,t-27(17) ~ ~' +298 (~,1381 ~-~26 (102) +42 (32) ~4~,L4~:~-38 (24) ~J~,t~ ~-84 (52) ~1~ ~-106 (32) ~"1 (2) 9 (30)~ ~ 7~ (7~)~ m ~ 50 (163~~ ~ 27 (79)~ ~ 13 (10)~ ~ ) ~-.~. (155)~; ~ 523 (212)~ ~ 24 (69)~ ~ ~; 2~ (~29)~ Inters~tion ~14 Interaction ~15 Interaction ~16 .... FalloW-580 WB Ramps Fallo~ublln Fallo~Centml t Ex~st~ng Intersection ~ ~384 (497) ~ ~ 0 Future Intersection Future Roadway 523 (5~)~~ XX AM Peak Hour Volume 315 (823)~ ~ ~ m~~ Inters~tion ~17 Not to S~le City of Dublin East Dublin Properties East Dublin Properties FIGURE 3.6-B Existing + Approved + Pending Turning Movement Volumes (Dublin Model) 157-143 - 7/01 - LH Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Dougherty/Dublin Hacienda/I-580 EB Ramps Heclenda/l-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rita/I-5$0 EB Ramp~ Tassajara/I-580 WB Ramps Tassajara/Dublin TassjareJCentral m ~ v ~._33 (25) . ~ ~ ~. ~-~ ~ ~_40(33) ~ ~-' ~-743 (650) r~1-966 (326) ,¢-56 (75) ~o~ ~-1,204(1,204) . tL1,017(990), o~o)~ -e-1,009(685) ~c~ ~ .~ ~.67(146) ~ ~-6~(~) ~ ~+ ~516~) ~ ~-~(~)~_~ ~_~(___j~o~ ~ ~-~7~(~93) ~,~-51~(1,031) ~ ~-5t6(6~) ~ 104 ~208)-~ ~ ~ . ~ 380 (1 363)-~ 48 (55)-~ ! ~.~.~- 940(1,334)? ~'~"~' 1,186 (1,100)-~ ~ ,~' ~17 (1,242)? ~ i"'~ ~ 203 i384)'-'~ ~ 188 (163)-~ 914 (1,191) '~ ~J~ ,~-.°~° m~' 4SS (877) ~I, m~o~m~ 181 (113)-~ Intersect;on ~ Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Intersection #12 Intersection #13 TassajareJGleason Graffon/Dublin Grafton/Central GraftordGleason El Charro/I-580 EB Ramps c~ ~o ~ ~_49 (59) ~ o~ w mm~'~ ~-179(36) ~m ~_14(44) ~= ~-11 (10) ~) ~ ~, ~-475 (27~) % *-1,363 (m7) .,- 49 (~) ~ ~ % ~-305 (122) 39 (418)--~ ~1 f I~ 821 (1,922)--~, 35 (68)-I~ ~1 1361348 -'~ '~1 fI 7~-{) (895)-'4 9941 {273)-'~(235~"~ e(~m'"'~'~'~ ; 87 (95)-'~ ~' 123309,"~ ~ 103 (48)--~ Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Intersectioil #16 Proposed Fallon/I-580 WB Ramps Fallon/Dublin Fallon/Central~ - \ ,* ~ Project ' 'LEGEND ~, , -- ~. ~o~ · Existing lntersection .: ;~b..~.~, * ,-' .... -~ ............ , ~'~ ~.806(1,254) ~',_(o ~--218(337) ~.~ ~.~' ~0(81) =u~' 0 Future Intersection ,~/ , ..... Future Roadway ~ ~ ~693 (747) ~ ~ ~, F1,4~(1,a~ ~ ~ % ~-103 (ss) XX AM Peak Hour Volume ~ ~(1~-'03)-*°(1)~ %fr~~4 (?)~ %f ~ ~ 66 (175)_-~' ~ (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume . 278 (444)-~i ~.~o.m. 207 (75) ,~ ~ ~ j o ';D F~= '-- ~ Fallon/Gleason .... · · ~ ~ i:~.~=~ ~ .~=L: ~ . ~x~ ~" ~~'~~" ' ~~'~'~'~ ................ City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 Turning Movement Volumes 157-143 - 7/01 - LH East Dublin PropertiesFiGURE 3.6-C ~ II II I Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 I intersection #6 Intersection #7 intersection #8 _,, DoUgherty/Dublin Hacienda/I-580 EB Ramps Hacienda/I-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rtta/I-580 EB Ramps Tassajara/I-580 WB Ramps T~_~_~jara/Dublin ?assjareJCentral 898 (915)~ ~ 1,~(218)~ ~ ~ '57(1,915)~ 161 (~3)~ ~ ~m .~ ~9 (939)~ ~ ~ ~ 2~ (678)~ ~ ~ o~ 793 (918)~ ~ 63 (2~)~ Inte[sec{~on ~ Intersection ~10 inters~tion ~11 Intemecfion ~12 Intersection ~1~ Inters~tion ~14 Intersection ~15 Tassajar~Gleason Graflo~Dublin Graflo~Central Graflo~Gleason El C~-580 EB Ramps FallO~-560 WB Ramps Fallo~Dublin ~ m ~ ~ ~472 (668) ~k ~38 (24) ~i~ ~(52) --~1~1~ (32) ~1(2) ~i ~ ~43 (43) ~ ~1~ (797) ~9 (1,125)~ ~ 71 (239)~ 27 (79)~ 13 (10) ~ ~ ~ 236 (129)~ mmm~ 315 (323)~ ~. 36 (155)~: ~ 523 (212)~ 24 (69)~ ~ ~ o ~ Inters~tion.~l 6 Intersection ~17 Intersection ~18 . Fallo~Central Fallo~Gleason Street D/Dublin LEGEND ~ ~ % ~o ~ :';'.~:;':~: -:.::,*: ": .... '~? , Proposed ~- ~ O Future Intersection ~" ~ ~9 (.) ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~.~- ~%~:,~...~ :.~.~,;;,~ ~-: ::.: ~ , · ~D~ +35 (21)~mm .... ~uture ~oaoway ~0 (38)~ ~ ~ AM Peak Hour Volume .=~ ~ ~ ~ ~) PM Peak Hour Volume v/~...: · ~;~'. '::::,::: .' :-:~:~' ,., .-' ",,' Inters~tion ~19 Intars~tion ~20 Intersecti~ ~21 Fallon~esidential CentraEStr~t D ~ntmFStr~t B ~152 (98) ~ ~ ~107 (107) ..... .4 ...... ~ :, -, ,~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ,, , ~ ~ ............... City of Dublin - East Dublin Propedies ~ Existing + Approved +, Pending + Project Ii East Dublin Properties Turning Movement Volumes (DUblin Model) Not to Scale FIGURE 3.6-D 157-143 - 7/01 - LH Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #$ InterSeCtion #6 Intersection #7 Intersection DoughertylDublin Hacienda/I-580 EB Ramps Hacienda/{-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rlta/I-580 EB Ramps Tassajara/I-580 WB Ramps Tassajara/Dublin Tassjara/Central ~,_41 (25) ~ ,.. ~og tt_42(37) ~.~ ~m ~m W_53(61) ~ ~_64(138) ~-..o~ ~':1,337(1,159) m-- ~306(675) '4-1,147(685J ' 'i~08) 4:1,114 (366) ,~,~c.,S-70(82) 14(60)._.~ ~l~{f ~' 701 (~17)-,~ +1~' }~ 52 (78)-'~i~1 ~l~'' 805(41a)_d ,~r~' f 397 (978)..~'~1 f I,~" 34 (41)_,~"~ ~,1.~' 908 (1,371)? ~ ~"'"'-'~ 3,200 (1,056)'~ ~ ~' 529 (1,282)~---~ ~m o) 102 (203)''~ 949(1,,80)~ ~(oco~u~ ~ 411 (861).{ ~ 181 (110)"~.o ....... '.~..~ ~.~o~ c~ -~ Intersec~ion #9 {ntersect{on #10 Intersect{on #11 Intersect{on #t 2 InterSect{on #1 Tassajara/O{eason Graffon/Dub{{n Grafton/Central Grafton/G{eason El Cha~ro/{-580 EB Ramps Fsi{on/{-580 ]NB Ramps Fal{ort/Dublhm Fallon/Dubl{n -- -- ~ mw ~-10(9) ~ ~ ~_855(1,299) ~-1,017(190) ~ 'l-1,017(ll]0) ~ ~.. W_49 (61) ~- (o ~) t~._8 (256) ~_e(256) ~-230 (48) ~ ~_32(53) ~ ~-371 (132) ' ~J{~, ~,-4~4(256)~ ~-,,530(927) +137(34) ~J{~, ~-, (0) [, ~j{ ~o43(7,5) ~J{k ~-1,438(2,096) ~J~ ~-1~0(1,471; 37 (437)-~ ~{~1~' 890 (2,014)-+ 42 (151)-~'~t 126(374)-4 ~{~ ,1,133 (1,077)-W fl~ ~ 29675 (295)-4(1 190)'-~ ~i~l~ 20(80).-~ ~I~1 39 (264)_-,- ~ ,1, (120)-~ ~ ,09 (369)-~~ ,00 Intersection #16 Intersection #17 Intersection #18 Fallon/Central Fallon/Gleason Street D/Dublin LEGEND ~o~'~°r' ~o .'.~_~~'~' · Existing Intersection I~,{ --. -,,, ~.~u.R.,~.~.~ D , ."" ~e" ~roposed~roject ~ ~._ ~L256 (214) ~."~..~,, ~.o2 O Future intersection +152(58) .... Future Roadway (' , · ~r~ ~-80(28) .+-2~a5(1~02) ! XX AM Peak Hour Volume 61 {106)-4 ~/fr~ /;~.~7.~--~. 16(56)-d (XX) PM Peak HOur Volume 69H52)-~ ~ 'q~'. -..M"~",~.~ 1,637(2,540)-~ .... , / ~,~' ~', ~. , ,~ ' Intersection #1~ Intersection #20 Intersection #21 Fallon/Resldential Central/Street D Central/Street' B ~ ,~. ~g",./' . ~, ~-~ ' ~, .L ~' -'? 357 (602)'~' City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + Project East Dublin Properties Turning Movement Volumes 157-143 - 7/01 - LH LEGEND 17r50C Existing +Approved + Pending 33,70(~ Existing + Approved + Pending + Project 40~00l~ Cumulative 2025 47,50E Cumulative 2025 + Project 6 Required No. of Lanes .... Future Roadway Proposed Project Note: * The planned no. of lanes is 6 lanes ** The planned no. of lanes is 8 lanes *** Estimated ADT based on pending Pleasanton Staples Ranch development GLEASON DR. PK'WY. -- THE BLVD. North Not to Scale I a dnnl ," 2 I ~ /~ ',~o~ I 4 I .' ~-" 19.800 A', , '-. ~', ..' '..& ,, ~,~ ,.,~- -. ,~ .... m ~ PIMLICO DR. City of Dublin East Dublin Annexation Estimated Daily Volumes 157-143- 10/01 -LH East Dublin Properties FIGURE 3.6-F 3.7 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Sewer, water, storm drainage, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste were analyzed in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR; in 1994, an addendum to the Chapter 3.5 analysis of sewer treatment and disposal (dated August 22, 1994) was approved by the City Council. SEWER Sewer issues (also referred to as 'wastewater') w;?~-e analyzed in Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and a 1994 Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR examines the effect of recent planning for additional wastewater disposal capacity in the Tri-Valley area. It also examines the impact of faster-than-expected growth in the Tri- Valley area and th~'~ impact on planned expansion of DSRSD's treatment plant facilities. ENVIR 0 NMENTAL SET'FIN G The Eastern Dublin EIR thoroughly examined wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal issues for the Project area. The Project area currently is not served by a wastewater service providerand would require wastewater collection facilities. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which owns and operates a treatment plant in Pleasanton, was identified as the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project area. Disposal was to be provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD, which operates a pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade and into East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge into San Francisco Bay, and by the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA), a joint powers authority which at the time was planning for necessary disposal capacity beyond that provided by LAVWMA. At the time of the Eastern Dublin EIR, TWA was proposing to transport untreated wastewater through the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District system for treatment and disposal in Martinez. In 1994, TWA transferred authority over acquiring/constructing additional disposal capacity to LAVWMA and · LAVWMA later chose as its preferred alternative the construction of a second disposal pipeline over the Dublin Grade for discharge into San Francisco Bay using EBDA facilities (1994 Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR). IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous potential impacts related to wastewater. The lack of a collection system was identified as a significant impact and Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 - 5.0 generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers were adopted to mitigate this impact to less than significant. Potential growth- inducing impacts of pipeline construction were mitigated by preventing the cOnstruction of facilities greater than those required for the GPA/SP project. Inadequate treatment plant capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity were identified as significant impacts: both were mitigated to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures requiring developers to Obtain "will-serve" letters from DSRSD prior to issuance of grading permits; DSRSD will not issue a "will-serve" letter in the absence of treatment- plant and disposal capacity. An additional mitigation measure requires Eastern Dublin developers to prepare detailed wastewater capacity investigations. Other mitigation measures supported DSRSD, TWA and, subsequently, LAVWMA in efforts to expand treatment and disposal capacity (along with recycled water projects). Other impacts to the planned TWA disposal systems and the recycled water systems related to noise, odors and potential spills also were identified and mitigated to levels of insignificance. The impact of EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-1 the use of recycled water on the main groundwater basin was identified as a potential impact and a mitigation measure requiring coordination of recycled water projects with Zone 7's salt mitigation program mitigated this impact to insignificanceEven with mitigation measures, significant impacts related to increased energy use for the sewer systems (Impact 3.5/F, H, V) and growth-inducement (Impact 3.5/T) remained significant and unavoidable. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts (Resolution No. 53-93). SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type and density of development assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. However, the Initial Study identified potentially significant changes since the Eastern Dublin EIR due to subsequent planning for additional wastewater treatment and disposal caPacity. Significance Criteria. Wastewater treatment and disposal impacts are considered significant if they would require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities beyond what was anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR or if there would be inadequate treatment and/or disposal capacity to serve the Project. Supplemental Impacts. Since improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will accommodate potential development of the Project area, no supplemental significant impacts are anticipated. Treatment Plant Capacity. There continues to be limited available treatment capacity at the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant. DSRSD wastewater is directed to the District's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located north of Stoneridgc: :Drive in Pleasanton. The WWTP serves the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. It currently has an average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd). Anticipating that additional disposal capacity will be available following completion of the second LAVWMA pipeline (described below), DSRSD has embarked on the first stage of its planned expansion to serve additional growth in its service area.. The first expansion will add 5.5 mgd ADWF to the treatment plant for a total of 17.0 mgd ADWF. This expansion is consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.5/9.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which anticipated the expansion of DSRSD's treatment plant in stages, as capacity needs increased. DSRSD approved a negative declaration for the WWTP expansion on August 17, 1999 (Webb, pers. comm. 2001). Plant expansion is expected to be complete on or before November 2003 and is expected to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate development under the proposed prezoning and annexation. In any event, the mitigation measures in the EIR and DSRSD's inclusion of Eastern Dublin in its long-range wastewater planning ensure that the limited treatment plant capacity is a not a new significant impact. Therefore, there is no new significant impact due to treatment plant capacity. Disposal Capacity. As was noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR the increase in wastewater flows resulting from the GPA/SP requires an increase in wastewater disposal capacity. As noted above, LAVWMA, rather than TWA, is the agency charged with increasing wastewater disposal capacity for the Tri-Valley area. LAVWMA needs disposal capacity above and beyond its current pipeline to serve Eastern Dublin and other development within the Livermore/Amador Valley. In addition, LAVWMA's existing pipeline is deteriorating. Therefore, LAVWMA is repairing its existing export pipeline, constructing a new parallel pipeline, and/or replacing the existing pipeline to create additional disposal capacity and connecting it to the EBDA outfall. When completed the LAVWMA system will have a capacity of 41.2 MGD (8.7 Livermore, 16.25 Pleasanton and 16.25 DSRSD). EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-2 Livermore may decide to pay into the expansion portion of the pipeline project in the next five years. If Livermore does participate, capacity will be allocated as 12.4 MGD to Livermore, 14.4 MGD to Pleasanton and 14.4 MGD to DSRSD. Through the LAVWMA contract, ADWF is limited to 11.1 MGD from Livermore, 10.3 MGD from Pleasanton and 10.4 MGD from DSRSD. LAVWMA and EBDA agreed to terms for the new connection on March 18, 1998, but the proposal was subject to ratification by the voters of Livermore and Pleasanton. On November 3, 1998, Pleasanton voters approved the proposal but Livermore voters rejected it. In December 2000, Pleasanton's City Council approved the financing plan for the LAVWMA pipeline. Under the terms of the LAVWMA agreement, the citizens of Livermore may vote on the Project again and have until the election of November 2005 to approve it. Design of all phases is nearly complete. A portion of the project -- the pump station and force main from the pump station to the top of the Dublin Grade -- is under construction. Once the expansion is completed, the disposal capacity needed to serve the Project area would be available. Since LAVWMA's capacity expansion project has been approved by the LAVWMA Board, is adequately financed, and portions are under contract, adequate wastewater capacity is anticipated to be available when the Project area is developed. In any event, mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR ensure that development will not take place if there is insufficient wastewater disposal capacity. Therefore, there is no new significant impact due to disposal capacity. WATER Water service was analyzed in Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR examines whether new water supply contracts and litigation concerning the sufficiency of DSRSD and Zone 7's water supplies to serve future development are significant new impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING No public water service currently is provided to the Project area. The residences and other land uses in the Project area use well water. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies DSRSD as the provider of water service to Eastern Dublin. DSRSD's long-range water planning for Eastern Dublin includes the Project area. DSRSD obtains its water supplies from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood. Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), which wholesales treated local surface water, groundwater and imported water from the State Water Project to retail water agencies. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the GPA/SP area. Mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 addresses possible salinity in the groundwater basin. Mitigation measures 3.5/24,0 - 40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD; to minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies; and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers. Other mitigations (3.5/41.0 - 43.0) were adopted to deal with the potential for reservoir failures, the potential for loss of system pressure, and noise from water system pump stations. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the General Plan and Specific Plan would increase demand to serve development at build- out under the then-applicable general plans and required an additional 25,000 acre-feet annually (AFA). Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0 relied on Zone 7's planning to acquire EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-3 additional supplies. Impact 3.5/T, Inducement of Substantial Growth, was deemed to be significant even after mitigation. Impact 3.5/S found a .lack of a water distribution system and required a "will serve" letter prior to grading permit (mitigation measure 3.5/3.8.0). Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93). SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed Project envisions the same type and density of proposed develOpment assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Thus, water use related to potential development'of the Project area is not expected to differ from the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement examines whether new water supply contracts and settlement of litigation concerning the legality of a 1998 amendment to a 1994 water supply agreement between DSRSD and Zone 7 to serve future development in Dougherty Valley would affect the sufficiency of water available to serve the project area. Significance Criteria. Water supply impacts are considered significant if there would be insufficient water supplies for the Project. Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental significant impacts are expected due to new water supply contracts or the settlement of the Dougherty Valley litigation concerning the sufficiency of DSRSD's water supplies to serve future development. Water Supply Contracts. Pursuant to its 1994 contract with DSRSD, Zone 7 is obligated to supply water requested by DSRSD, subject to its availability. In 1994, DSRSD renegotiated its water supply contract with Zone 7. The renewed contract is for a term of 30 years and is renewable upon expiration. The agreement also provides DSRSD with the ability,, to secure alternative sources of water. Alternatives include: water transfers, constructi6n of wells and pumps from the groundwater basin that Zone 7 manages, and recycled water. Zone 7 has, consistent with its contractual obligation to provide water to DSRSD and other retailers and the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR, obtained additional supplies and entitlements to water necessary to serve its service area. Zone 7's Water Supply Planning Program sets forth its long-term water supply and facility needs through the year 2020. A twenty-year water-supply planning horizon customarily is used in the industry (see Water Code section 10631). Zone 7's Water Supply Planning Study Update (Water Transfer Associates, February 1999) identified Zone 7's water supply acquisition program. Based on input from the water retailers, cities, and agricultural users within its service area, Zone 7 estimated that by the year 2020 (near buildout of Zone 7's service area), it would need an additional average year water supply of approximately 40,400 AFA. To meet projected demands, Zone 7 identified water supply options based on average, wet and dry year scenarios. The planning program addresses potential water supply options, groundwater management, and conveyance and treatment facilities. Zone 7 has secured or is in the process of securing the identified water supplies and is planning the necessary facilities, as evaluated in the Zone 7 Water Agency Water Supply Planning Program EIR (Wong, pers. comm. 2001). Zone 7's long-term and drought-year protection water sources are shown in Table 3.7-1 below. DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin (December 2001) demonstrates that Zone 7 already has secured sufficient supplies to serve the 5,620 AFA demand of all of Eastern Dublin. Therefore, there is no supplemental significant impact due to new water supply contracts. Water Supply Litigation. In 1998, DSRSD and Zone 7 entered into an amendment to their water supply agreement that permitted DSRSD to expand its service area to include the EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-4 Dougherty Valley Service Area. The expansion process included various approvals by Zone 7 and DSRSD and the purchase from third parties of State Water Project entitlements. Following the approvals, Citizens for Balanced Growth ("Citizens") and the City of Livermore ("Livermore') filed separate lawsuits challenging the legality of the amendment to the water supply agreement. The litigation was concluded by a multi-party settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"). DSRSD also entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Cooperative Implementation of Agreement to Settle Water Litigation" with the City of Dublin in December 1999. Although the City was not a party to the litigation or the Settlement Agreement and the litigation did not concern Dublin or the territory in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP area, Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement obligates DSRSD upon receipt of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR concerning a project in Eastern Dublin, to prepare a preliminary water service analysis and a preliminary impact analysis which analyzes the water-related impacts of the proposed project. Two of the parties to the Settlement Agreement, Citizens and Livermore, may comment on the adequacy of the documents and may engage DSRSD in a dispute- resolution process pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement anticipates that, at the conclusion of the dispute-resolution process, final analyses will be produced. The information provided by DSRSD to the City pursuant to this Settlement Agreement process is intended to assist the City in its CEQA review and land use approval process for development projects in Eastern Dublin. The level of analysis required by the Settlement Agreement is significantly more detailed than is required under CEQA or any other state or local law. The City prezoning and LAFCO annexation processes are independent of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, which is binding on the parties to the agreement only. As required by the Settlement Agreement, DSRSD prepared and submitted to the City, in June 2001, a Programmatic Water Service Analysis ("PWSA') and preliminary impact analysis for the proposed Project. As required by the Settlement Agreement, the PWSA demonstrates that: The water demand for the Project area is set forth in DSRSD's most recently adopted Urban Water Management Plan (adopted May 2000): Total firm sustainable water supplies (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) that reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD will meet the projected water demand associated with the Project, together with all other existing uses and uses under build-out of the applicable general plans fcic, all areas lying within DSRSD's water service area, as and when demand is expected to arise. This conclusion is based on Zone 7's contractual obligation to provide DSRSD with sufficient water to serve DSRSD's customers, along with an analysis of Zone 7's available resources in the future; During a "credible worst case drought scenario" (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), providing water to the Project area will not significantly and adversely affect the reliability of water service to DSRSD's existing customers; and During a "credible worst case drought scenario" (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), providing water to the Project area will not significantly and adversely affect the quality of water service to DSRSD's existing customers. After the issuance of the PWSA, Citizens and Livermore challenged the adequacy of the PWSA under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. As required by the Settlement Agreement, the parties, this fall, engaged in a mediation process concerning the adequacy of EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-5 the PWSA. (After the initiation of the mediation, in October 2001, DSRSD issued a Revised Water Service Analysis ("Revised WSA'), incorporating revisions to the document agreed to by the parties in informal discussions to that point.) The process included the appointment of a Technical Panel to advise the mediator on the adequacy of the PWSA. After receiving a recommendation from the Technical Panel, the mediator issued his decision on December 3, 2001. He concluded that with minor revisions and the formation of a "Retail Water Supply Council" made up initially of Livermore and DSRSD, the Revised WSA met the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The mediator's approval of the Revised Water Service Analysis became final after Livermore and DSRSD executed a memorandum of understanding committing to the formation of the Retail Water Supply Council and the technical panel's approval of the Revised water service analysis, incorporating the revisions required by the mediator's decision, The Final Revised Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin is dated December 2001. The memorandum of understanding is dated January 2, 2002. With the issuance of the Final Revised WSA and execution of the memorandum of understanding, DSRSD has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and there is no supplemental significant impact due to water supply litigation. STORM DRAINAGE Storm drainage was analyzed in Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR~ This supplement analyzes whether storm drainage facilities needed to serve the Project area will exceed those previously identified. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project area is within the Alameda Creek watershed, which drains to the San Francisco Bay. Zone 7 is responsible for master planning, overseeing construction coordination and maintaining major storm drain channels and culverts for this area. The City has jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility over local storm drains that discharge to the Zone 7 flood control system and would be responsible for the approval of local storm drainage facilities. Drainage on the Project area drains southerly toward 1-580 and leaves the area through Zone 7's Line G-3. Line G-3 is a major Zone 7 drainage channel south of 1-580 that discharges into Arroyo Mocho. Drainage from the Project area reaches Line G-3 through an existing culvert approximately 2000 feet east of Tassajara Road. To serve new development in Eastern Dublin, Zone 7 and the City in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have designated drainage courses that will require upgraded drainage facilities. These include drainage facilities that will be funded by developers of projects in Eastern Dublin. To serve development on the Project area, a drainage channel or pipeline needs to be extended easterly from the culvert beneath 1-580 connecting to Line G-3 (the "Line G-3 extension"). In an application to Zone 7, the City (with the assistance of the developer of Dublin Ranch), has proposed that Line G-3 extension be installed underground in a box culvert to Fallon Road. As anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this segment of the Line G-3 extension would be constructed to have sufficient capacity to serve the Project area at build-out. The developer of Dublin Ranch has proposed that this segment of the Line G-3 extension be funded by a benefit assessment district to which the Project area eventually would be annexed. As identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Figure 3'.5-A), the Line G-3 extension would need to be extended further east to serve the Project area. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential flooding related to increased runoff to creeks (IM 3.5/Y). Adopted mitigation measures required the construction of drainage facilities designed to minimize erosion and flooding and requiring the preparation of storm drainage master plans for all development applications in Eastern Dublin (MM 3.5/44.0-48.0). The potential for reduced groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces (IM 3.5/Z) was mitigated by water quality planning and Zone 7 recharge programs (MM 3.5/49.0- 50.0). The potential for increased non-point source pollution due to development (IM 3.5/AA) was addressed in mitigations' requiring compliance with storm water quality programs (MM 3.5/51.0-55.0). SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed Project envisions the same type and density of potential development assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute substantially greater quantities of stormwater runoff than originally analyzed. Pure-~,aant to the Initial Study, this supplement analyzes whether new storm drainage facilities required to serve the Project area exceed those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Significance Criteria. Storm drainage impacts are considered significant if the Project area would require new storm drainage facilities substantially in excess of those that were anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts are anticipated. Storm drainage facilities described in the Eastern Dublin EIR will accommodate potential development of the Project area. SOLID WASTE Solid waste was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement analyzes whether rapid development in the Tri-Valley area would have a significant impact on the availability of solid waste services. ENVIR 0 NMENTAL SETTING Livermore Dublin Disposal Service/Valley Waste Management (LDDS/VWM) provides solid waste collection and recycling service to the Project area. The 1995 franchise 'agreement between LDDS/VWM and the City of Dublin expires in 2003 and is subject to renewal for three years (Borges, pers. comm. 2000). The franchise agreement states that LDDS/VWM has sufficient capacity in the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility to account for development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment areas. Solid waste collected by LDDS/VWM is transported to the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility in unincorporated Alameda County. The landfill is receiving approximately 6,000 tons of solid waste from the LDDS/VWM service area per day. The estimated remaining capacity at the landfill is approximately 9 million cubic yards. This is anticipated to provide landfill capacity for 7 or 8 more years. In 2000, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority approved expansion of the landfill. The expansion would add an additional 40 million cubic yards of capacity which would provide about 25 additional years of service (Thompson, pers. comm. 2000). EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-7 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the impact of increased solid waste production and the impact on solid waste disposal facilities. (See IM 3.4/0 and IM 3.4/P,) It was specifically noted that the projeCt cOuld accelerate the closing schedule for the Altamont Landfill. The Eastern Dublin EIR found the impacts to be potentially significant: The impacts were reduced to the level of insignificance by mitigation measures that required the preparation of a comprehensive solid waste management plan for Eastern Dublin and that prevent approvals of development unless sufficient or a reasonable expectation of adequate landfill capacity is available to accommodate project wastes. Mitigation measures 3.4/38.0 - 40.0 requiring preparation of a Solid Waste Management Plan were adopted to reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed pre- zoning and annexation. Since there is no new solid waste production associated with the project, there are no supplemental impacts. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria. Solid waste impacts are considered significant if the project requires disposal capacity in excess of the current solid waste management capacity. Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts on solid waste disposal capacity are anticipated from the rapid development of the Tri-Valley area. When the previous EIR was certified, expansion of the Altamont landfill had not yet been permitted. Since the previous EIR expansion of the landfill has been approved to provide long-term disposal for development under the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, including the current Project area. LDDS/VWM does not foresee any problems in collecting or disposing of the solid waste generated by the proposed Project (Borges, pers. comm. 2000). In addition, the increase in solid waste and recyclable materials would be accommodated at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility (Thompson, pers. comm. 2000). Thus, there are no significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS Electricity and natural gas service was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR analyzes whether the current e~ergy crisis and other local factors prevent an adequate supply of electricity. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the Project area. At the statewide level, California is in the midst of an energy crisis resulting from its deregulation of electricity markets. The crisis appears to be related to the regulatory factors and a lack of an adequate supply of electricity. At the local level, PG&E's ability to provide electricity service to new customers in the Tri-Valley area is constrained by inadequate capacity in its transmission and distribution facilities. Planning for future growth, PG&E has begun a project to increase Tri-Valley capacity. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified three potential significant impacts related to electricity and natural gas. Two of these impacts, Impact 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions and 3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources, were deemed to be potentially EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-8 significant impacts that would remain significant even with mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant unavoidable impacts (Resolution No. 53-93). SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study for this project identifies the current uncertainty regarding supply of energy, including electricity and natural gas, to serve the proposed project as a potentially significant impact. Significance Criteria. Energy consumption impacts are considered significant if gas and electricity supplies are insufficient to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Supplemental Impact UTS 1: Uncertain Energy Supply. The current energy crisis makes PG&E's ability to serve currently unserved territory with gas and electric service somewhat uncertain. Currently, California is experiencing an energy crisis that appears to be caused by a lack of sufficient electricity generation facilities. Due to the electricity crisis as a whole and the transmission constraints in the Tri-Valley area, a potential exists for increased use of distributed generation (i.e., small electricity generators fired by natural gas and diesel) to ensure reliability for commercial and industrial users. However, several major power plants have come on-line in the last several weeks and a number of new power plants shortly will begin operations. In 1999 and 2000, the California Energy Corrw~-~ission (CEC) approved nine new power plants, which would provide approximately 6,270 megawatts (MW). Numerous power plant proposals currently are before the CEC, which would generate approximately 5,915 MW (CEC 2001), and could lessen the energy shortfall. In addition, PG&E has declared bankruptcy because 9f billion of dollars of debt owed to generators of electricity for power purchased in California's deregulated markets. Until PG&E emerges from bankruptcy some uncertainty concerning the provision of gas and electricity services to new and existing PG&E customers exists. Until the crisis is resolved the uncertainty created by the crisis is a new potentially significant impact. Supplemental Impact UTS 2: Local Electrical Distribution Constraints Local electrical distribution constraints limit PG&E's ability to serve the Project area. PG&E has stated that it is able to adequately serve the Tri-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002; however, service reliability may be problematic after that point. PG&E's Tri-Valley electrical system was loaded at 98.6% of capacity in 1999 0ones, pers. comm. 2000). Because of these issues, PG&E has begun the process of seeking California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval for the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project. It filed a Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA), with the CPUC, which is the CEQA lead agency. The CPUC will determine the siting of the proposed PG&E system enhancements. PG&E is requesting that its Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project be in operation by June 2002. Delays in the CPUC process would delay implementation of the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project until 2003 (Jones, pers. comm. 2000). The CPUC released the EIR for the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project on December 26, 2000 (copies may be obtained from the City Clerk). Public hearings were held in February 2001. PG&E proposes to increaSe electric service by adding substations in Dublin and North Livermore, expanding the Vineyard Substation in Pleasanton, and installir~g approximately EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-9 23.5 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to serve the substations (CPUC, 2000). PG&E is proposing construction of a 5-acre, 230/21 kV substation with four 45 megawatt transformers in Eastern Dublin (same as described below for the D2 alternative). The proposed transmission line would come from the east through open space in North Livermore and possibly from areas to the northwest from Contra Costa County. The Tri- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project EIR provides mitigation measures, which, if adopted by the CPUC or other responsible agencies, would avoid or minimize the environmental impacts identified. The EIR identifies two alternatives in Dublin, the D1 Alternative and the D2 Alternative. Under the D1 Alternative, the South Dublin Substation would be located in Dublin Ranch betWeen Fallon Road and Tassajara Road, north of Interstate 580 (I-580). The 230 kV transmission line connection would be from the Vineyard Substation, south of 1-580, through quarry lands from Stanley Boulevard north to the vicinity of E1 Charro Road. Under the D2 Alternative, the Dublin Substation would be fed from the west from PG&E's existing San Ramon Substation, at the edge of the City of San Ramon, along the south side of the Windemere development and other housing developments, and across Tassajara Road. If the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functionally equivalent project is not constructed, PG&E would be forced to respond to growing demand by expanding its existing system to the extent that it is possible and by curtailing service if growth in demand exceeds the transmission system's capacity or reliability requirements for essential services (such as hospitals). It is possible that if the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project were delayed then other alternatives would be identified. For example, development of local, small power generation facilities partially could address the Tri-Valley region's transmission constraints. However, a number of these generation facilities would be required to supply the power needed to address effectively the present limits on electric service. The impacts of thermal power generation, even small-scale, also can be significant (air quality impacts, noise, and use of hazardous substances), although often mitigable (CPUC 2000). Until the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functional equivalent alternative is approved, the impact would be. sikmificant. With construction and operation of the Tri- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or an equivalent alternative and project phasing as described in the supplemental mitigation below the proposed annexation and prezoning would result in a less than significant impact. SM-UTS-I: Require discretionary City review prior to the installation and use of distributed generators, including emergency generators. SM-UTS-2: Prior to approval of future subdivision maps or Site Development RevieW applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit "will serve" letters from PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas services are available to serve the proposed development project. Implementation of these supplemental mitigation measures will reduce supplemental impacts UTS 1 and UTS 2 to less than significant. Supplemental Information to Clarify Issues of Concern with Previous DSEIR Through the revised DSEIR, the City has attempted to provide clarification on issues raised regarding the previous DSEIR. The following information is provided in addition to the analyses in this revised DSEIR to provide further information on related issues. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-10 Storage of Recycled Water Storage of recycled water to serve much of Eastern Dublin, including the Project area, will be located in enclosed water tank(s) which will be located in an off-site storage facility within Dublin Ranch. Salt Loading to Main Basin The salt loading from project development within the annexation area to the main ground water basin is caused mainly by the use of reclaimed water irrigation systems. (David Lund, Zone 7, pers. comm.). Salt loading to the Main Basin from this project development is considered by Zone 7 to be "minimal, to no" impact. This impact is more of a regional salt-water management problem, because it results from the accumulation of all existing and proposed irrigation system improvements of the entire region. In 1999, Zone 7 adopted a Salt Management Plan that will completely offset salt loading that would otherwise take place. Zone 7 is actively implementing the Salt Management Plan over the next several years. The plan includes demineralizing shallow groundwater with high salt content and reinjecting it into the groundwater basin; the resulting salty brine is to be piped out of the basin through the LAVWMA disposal facility. (Zone 7, Salt Balance Annual Report, June 20, 2001.) Zone 7 has addressed the salt loading impacts to the main groundwater basin and the mitigations needed in a joint ACWD-DERWA study. Based on this study Zone 7 has included the construction of brine processing facilities as part of their Capital Improvement Program that is currently being funded by Zone 7 fees. The City will continue to work with Zone 7 and with the other agencies to resolve impacts of the problem. The funding for mitigations of salt loading will be paid for with increased water and sewer rates of Zones 7 and DSRSD. All development of the proposed projects within the annexation area will pay for mitigation of increased salt loading impacts through the payment of their water and sewer hook up fees and water rates. This complies with Eastern' Dublin EIR MM 3.5/23.0, which required recycled water projects to be coordinated with any salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7. Water Planning The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the adequacy of the water supply to serve the project and relied on mitigation measures requiring Zone 7 and DSRSD planning for adequate water supplies to serve future development. Since the proposed Project envisions the same type and density of proposed development analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the Project site, there is no additional demand beyond what was analyzed in 1993, and no further CEQA analysis of that issue is required. However, LAFCO will consider whether adequate water supplies will be available for projected needs. Since this Project has been included in the City's General Plan since 1994, this is not a new project for which water supply planning has not taken place. DSRSD and the City have cooperatively been engaged in facilities planning for Eastern Dublin, and DSRSD's currently planned facilities will be adequate to serve the project. Water Demand Water demand figures used in this DSEIR and the FWSA are inconsistent. The demand figure from the Eastern Dublin EIR for the approved project (Reduced Planning Area -Alternative in the Eastern Dublin EIR) was 6,4 MGD without recycled water for irrigation and 5.5 MGD with recycled water for irrigation. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative was approved with modifications that actually reduced the number of residential units by approximately 625, which accordingly would reduce the demand numbers slightly. [See 1993 Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR]. The 7.7 MGD demand factor for the Project EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-11 that was studied in the 1993 EIR is greater than that of the project (modified Reduced Planning Area Alternative) that was actually approved. DSRSD, in its Final Revised WSA, uses a demand figure for all of Eastern Dublin of 5620 acre feet annually, which comes from Appendix C to DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan (May 2000). DSRSD's demand figure assumes that landscaping would use recycled water. DSRSD informs the City that the noticeable reduction in Eastem Dublin potable water demand between the 1993 EIR, and the May 2000 UWMP (and subsequently the Final Revised WSA and this DSEIR), is due to the District's progressive recycled water program and water conservation program. Furthermore, DSRSD states that the total water demands (potable and recycled water) actually increased when one compares the 1993 EIR estimates to the 2000 UWMP estimates but that potable water demands decreased. This is due primarily to the increase in park acreage and the addition of a golf course in Eastern Dublin, requiring greater usage of recycled water and correspondingly reducing potable water demands. It is also due to a decrease in residential densities. In any event, since demand has not increased, the water supply impacts are no greater than the impacts studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Water Supplies Long term planning and monitoring of water supplies is the responsibility of DSRSD and Zone 7. Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0, requiring a will serve letter prior to issuance of grading permits, is the principal control to ensure adequate water supplies are available to serve new development. (Eastern Dublin EIR, responses to comments, pp. 23-24, comment #3-14.) Zone 7 and DSRSD continue to plan for adequate water supplies to serve their respective service areas. Zone 7 Channels and Fees Zone 7 completed a Special Drainage Area 7-1 program update of channel improvement cost by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers dated June 30, 2000. The report took into consideration the increase of peak flood flows of all storm drainage channels within Zone 7. This drainage basin covers all of eastem Alameda County, including the Project area. It identified the peak flows, cost estimates of needed mitigations of all channels, and fees needed to be collected in order to mitigate the needed improvements. Zone 7 is in the process of establishing new fees pursuant to this report. The fees would b,e applied to all new development including future development of the Project. The project s contributions to projected future flood flows are accounted for through the report. Future development of the project would pay its fair share contribution of the cost of adequate regional flood control facilities through the Zone 7 service area fees. Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan Consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR's mitigation 3.5/46, the City of Dublin is currently working with Zone 7 on the adoption of a new and more detailed drainage analysis of annexation project area titled "Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan" that includes the drainage area of the project. This was completed by MacKay and Somps Infrastructure Group in August 2001. This document describes the needed improvements to the G-3 flood control channels down stream of the annexation project in order adequately to serve development in accordance with Zone 7 flood control criteria, Downstream mitigations within the Dublin Ranch development are currently trader design and part of the master development agreement between the Lins and City of Dublin for the Dublin Ranch Development. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-12 TABLE 3.7-1 ZONE 7 WATER SUPPLY ACQUISITION PROJECTS Project Name Amount Funding Status Term/Expiration Source Long-Term Water Supply Sources Byron-Bethany 2 - 5,000 afa Zone 7 Completed 1998 15 years, Irrigation District Connection Fee Agt. No. A98- renewable Pro~ram 03-BYR Berrenda Mesa SWP 7,000 afa (920 Dougherty Completed Dec Until 11/20/36 Entitlement Transfer afa) (Net to Valley 1999 Zone 7) Developers SWC Amendment 19 Lost Hills SWP 15,000 afa Zone 7 Completed Dec Until 11/20/36 Entitlement Transfer Connection Fee 1999 Program SWC Amendment 20 Belridge SWP 10,000 afa Connection Fee Completed Dec Until 11/20/36 Entitlement Transfer Pre-payment 2000 SWC from North Amendment 21 Livermore Developers Drought Year Protection Semitropic Water 3,870 afa, min Dougherty Implemented Until 12/31/35 Storage Bank (43,000 Valley 1998 Agt. No. af) Developers A98-07-SEM Semitropic Water 1,980 afa min Zone 7 Implemented Until 12/31/35 Storage Bank (22,000 Connection Fee 1999 Agt. No. af) Program A98-07-SEM Amendment Semitropic Increased 13,000 afa min Zone 7 Semitropic to Pumpback Project Connection Fee Draft Agreement Program Dry-Year Options 15,000 afa Zone 7 May not be Connection Fee needed w/ Program Semitropic Pumpback EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-13 TABLE 3.7-1 ZONE 7 WATER SUPPLY ACQUISITION PROJECTS (continued) Project Name Amount Funding Status Term/Expiration Source Import Water Conveyance First 7/22nds'of Future 7,000 afa Zone 7 Completed Dec .Until 11/20/36 SBA Contractor's Share Connection Fee 1999 SWC Program Amendment 19 Next 15/22nds of 15,000 afa Zone 7 Completed Dec Until 11/20/36 Future SBA Connection Fee 1999 w/ 5-yr w/opt out in Contractor's Share Program opt-out SWC 2005 Amendment 20 SBA Conveyance 10-50,000 afa Zone 7 CDM & ESA Alternatives, including Connection Fee Study Upgrades & Line B-4A Program Completed DWR (SBA Parallel Pipe); In- Study Agreement Valley Pipeline and Near Term SBA Improvements ($7,035,000) approved 5-2-01 *Cost excludes pumping cost into Zone 7 area ($15-20/af) SBA = South Bay Aqueduct SWC = State Water Contract SWP = State Water Project Source: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2001 EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-14 4.0 ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that EIRs describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that feasibly would attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's significant effects. The purpose of the analysis is to determine if the basic Project objectives can be met at a lesser environmental cost. 4.1 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a major General Plan Amendment encompassing 6,920 acres and for a new Specific Plan for 3,328 acres within the General Plan Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (GPA/SP) proposed a comprehensive land use plan for an urban mixed use community. The land use plan included a variety of types and densities of homing, as well as employment-generating commercial, office and other uses. Portions of the planning area were designated for parks, schools, open space and other community facilities. Protection for natural features of the planning area, including riparian corridors and principal ridgelands, was provided through restrictive land use designations and policies. The land use plan reflected the GPA/SP project objectives as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR Section 2.5. As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the GPA/SP project. The four identified alternatives included No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities, and No Development, as follows: No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative evaluated potential development of the GPA/SP area under the then-applicable General Plan of Dublin for the incorporated portion of the planning area and under the Alameda County General Plan for the unincorporated portion of the planning area. This alternative also discussed other jurisdictional scenarios including potential future annexations to Dublin and/or Livermore, but without the GPA/SP project. Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative evaluated development of the Specific Plan area as proposed, but assumed development beyond the Specific Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of this alternative was to exclude Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon from the project, Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative evaluated potential development of the entire GPA/SP area, but reduced some higher traffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential uses. No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development would occur in the GPA/SP planning area other than the agriculture/open space uses under the County General Plan. The City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993 (Resolution No. 51-93). 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 EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-1 Alternative rather than the GPA/SP project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). The Council approved this alternative based on findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use impacts, would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic, infrastructure, and noise impacts of the original proposed GPA/SP project. Even with the alternative project, however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93). As discussed in this section, the "GPA/SP' refers to the modified Reduced Planning Area Alternative approved by the City, unless otherwise specified. 4.2 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR The current Project proposes annexing the Project area to the City of Dublin, prezoning the Project area to the PD, Planned Development District, and other related changes and applications as described in Chapter 2, Project Description. The annexation and prezoning request includes the same land use designations and densities as analyzed and approved in the GPA/SP. Even with the same land uses and densities, the Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix A) determined that there was the potential for new or substantially intensified significant impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. The potential new or intensified significant impacts primarily derive from increased regional traffic along 1-580. To the extent that air quality and noise impacts are a function of traffic, the Initial Study determined that these impact areas also could be significantly affected. These and other impact areas are further discussed in Chapter 3 and supplemental significant impacts have been identified together with supplemental mitigation measures. Even with mitigation, some of the supplemental impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Most of these impacts are traffic-related, such as impacts which create unacceptable levels of service at intersections in the cumulative build-out year of 2025. With the potential for traffic-induced supplemental impacts, this supplement identifies a new alternative for the Project area -- the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. The following discussion describes the new alternative and compares it to the potential effects of the proposed Project. Although the No Project and No Development alternatives in the Eastern Dublin EIR were found infeasible upon approval of the GPA/SP, this chapter will also update those alternatives with respect to the Project area to assist in the comparative evaluation of the Project's impacts. All mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and all mitigation measures proposed in this supplement are assumed to apply to the alternatives (as applicable), unless otherwise stated. Although this supplemental EIR only analyzes the seven impact categories identified by the Initial Study, this alternatives discussion evaluates each alternative according to all of the impact categories identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR in an effort to adequately compare the previous alternatives to the proposed alternatives in relation to the Project. MITIGATED TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE The Mitigated Traffic Alternative reduces traffic-generating residential and commercial/ industrial ("commercial") land use intensities within the Project area. Both the number of EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-2 residential units and the commercial floor area are reduced by 25% compared with the Project. Potential development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would occupy the same area and create the same development "footprint" as the Project. The number of residential units would be reduced from 2,526 to 1,895 units. General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and Industrial land use Floor Area Ratios (FARs) would be reduced to approximately 0.19, 0.23 and 0.21, respectively. The resulting total floor area of approximately 1.06 million square feet compared to 1.4 milh'on square feet for the Project. Table 4-1 lists land use acreages and development intensities for the Project and the Mitigated Traffic Alternative (as well as the following alternatives), and Table 4-2 compares the FARs of the alternatives with the Project. The following discussion compares the impacts of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative to the Project impacts as set forth in the Eastern Dublin Eastern Dublin EIR and this supplement. Unless otherwise noted, mitigation measures identified for the Project in Chapter 3 also would be required for potential development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. Aesthetics. The effects of potential development in the Project area on visual and scenic resources, and on light and glare, is discussed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Project Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that the Project would have no impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR because the development footprint and intensity of development was the same as previously analyzed. Similarly, the Mitigated Traffic Alternative proposes the same footprint of development with land uses distributed in the same fashion. At buildout, the visual character of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative may be somewhat less intense than the Project due to the decrease in density across the Project area. However, the Project area still would be an urban landscape. Therefore, impacts to the Project area's visual resources under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be similar. to those of the Project. Adopted City policies and Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures protecting the area's hillsides, ridgelines, scenic corridors, and watercourses would continue to apply to future development of the Project area. Agricultural Resources. The Project area is largely agricultural and grazing land at preSent. This supplement examines the effects of the revised definition of prime agricultural lands for the purposes of annexation, and of potential cancellation of Williamson Act contracts. The supplement identifies no new significant impacts beyond the agricultural conversion impacts of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Under the Mitigated Traffic A.ltemative, the types and locations of land uses would be the same as for the Project. Lance' ~se impacts related to conversion of agricultural land would be similar to the Project since the same location and amount of Project area could potentially be developed. Therefore, impacts to the Project area's agricultural resources under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be the same as for the Project. Air Quality. As discussed in Section 3.2, the Bay Area air basin has been downgraded to non-attainment status for ozone since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. In response, new mobile source emissions standards for ozone precursors have been adopted. Project emissions would exceed the new standards. Based on the non-attainment status in the local air basin and the Project's exceedance of the new emissions standards, this supplement identifies significant unavoidable Project and cumulative impacts on air quality. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would reduce daily traffic by approximately 25% compared with the Project, with corresponding reductions in daily emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM- 10 compared to the Project (see Table 4-3). Even with these reductions, emissions of the EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-3 Mitigated Traffic Alternative would remain substantially greater than' the BAAQMD significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. This altern~i.ve would reduce the air quality impact compared to the Project, but not enough to avoid i~e identified significant impact. Air quality would remain a significant unavoidable project-Jevel and cumulative impact for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. Biological Resources. Section 3.3 describes regulatory and other changes affecting biological resources since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Supplemental impacts and related mitigations are identified to reflect additional sensitive habitats and special status species beyond those in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease potential development densities, however, the development areas would be the same as for the Project. The resulting disturbance to habitat and special status species would also be similar to the Project. Mitigation measures have been identified for the supplemental habitat and species impacts. Even with mitigation, however, loss of newly described botanically sensitive habitat would be a significant unavoidable cumulative impact for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative as well as for the Project. Cultural Resources. The Initial Study determined that he'Project would not have supplemental impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR because the development footprint and intensity of development was the same as previously analyzed. Although the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease development intensities, it proposes the same footprint of development with land uses distributed in the same fashion as the Project. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would have the same impacts to cultural resources as the Project. Geology and Soils. The Initial Study identified no potential supplemental impacts for geology and soils because the potential development of the Project area is the same as assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease · development intensity but the development footprint would remain unchanged. Similarly, construction activities, such as grading, to prepare for and support development would be the same as for the Project. With the same distribution of land uses as the Project, geology and softs impacts from the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be the same as for the Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would involve the same kind and distribution of land uses as described for the Project in the Initial Study. Lower residential and commercial densities would similarly decrease the already low potential for hazardous materials impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would involve the same development footprint as the Project. Potential development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would require the same type of construction activities as the Project and would also be subject to the same protective water quality regulations, such as erosion and sedimentation controls. The overall network of storm drainage improvements for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would generally be the same as for the Project since the development footprint would be unchanged. There could be some localized changes to storm drain size due to lower intensity of development, but overall, the required channel EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-4 improvements would remain the same. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would have approximately the same potential for increases in storm water runoff and non-point source pollution as the Project since each would ultimately develop the same total number of acres of land. Land Use and Planning. The type and distribution of land uses in the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be the same as for the Project. Land use impacts would be similar to those of the Project as identified in the Initial Study to the extent that' no established communities exist within the Project area' and the area is not subject to any existing adopted HCP or NCCP. The type and location of land uses would be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and Specific Plan for the Project area. Mineral Resources. The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Like the Project, the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would have no impact on mineral resources. Noise. This supplement analyzes noise impacts related to increased traffic on 1-580 and related increases in traffic on local Dublin roadways. While regional traffic levels would likely be unchanged, less intense development within the Project area under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips, fewer mobile noise sources, and fewer stationary noise sources. Thus, this alternative could reduce the noise levels along internal streets, possibly reducing noise mitigation requirements such as soundwall heights. In other respects, however, the noise impacts would be similar to the Project since the streets and land uses would be in similar locations. Noise impacts on land uses adjacent to the freeway generally would not change. Noise impacts on existing residences may be reduced somewhat from the Project as local traffic and related roadway noise is reduced, but not enough to reduce this impact to less than significant. Population, Housing, Employment. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease development intensity but would not eliminate urbanization of the Project area. Thus, the effect of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative on growth inducement and existing housing would be similar to the Project. The residential population under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be 5,351 residents, which is 1,784 fewer residents than the Project. New jobs under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease to 1,931 from the Project's projected 2,575 jobs due to a reduction in the intensity of commercial development. This alternative would have fewer residential units than the Project, resulting in 3,069 employed residents and 1,895 total dwelling units. The ratio of jobs to employed residents for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be .63:1, the same as the Project, since both residential and commercial uses would be reduced by 25%. An excess of jobs would remain under both the Project and the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. Public Services (Schools). This supplement analyzes the potential impacts of the Project on school facilities since the Initial Study determined that the Project would not have any impact on other community services or facilities. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would generate 25% fewer elementary, junior high, and high school students than the Project. The reduced number of future students could affect the timing of new school facility construction. The reduction could potentially reduce the future number of facilities needed to accommodate development, however, the proposed land use plan for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative still retains the school sites shown in the Specific Plan. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-5 Recreation. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative proposes the same type and distribution of land uses as the Project. Park sites would be provided generally in the same location as for the Project. Future development of parks would be based on the City's adopted 5 acres/I,000 population standard. Transportation/Circulation (Traffic). The Mitigated Traffic Alternative evaluates a 25% reduction in the number of residential units and the floor area of commercial uses. The reduction in residential units and commercial floor area results in fewer vehicle trips, although vehicles would be'using the same roadway systems and would similarly affect intersections during peak hours. As with the Project analysis, the Future Study Areas were not included in this analysis of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative because no development is assumed in those areas. The Tri-Valley Cumulative Year 2025 traffic model was used to compare traffic impacts of the Project and the Mitigated Traffic Alternative because significant unavoidable Cumulative Year 2025 impacts were identified for the Project. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative was analyzed to determine if it would avoid any of the Project's unavoidable impacts. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative is expected to generate approximately 43,000 daily trips, including 2,300 AM peak hour trips, and 4,300 PM peak hour trips. Figure 4-A shows the peak hour tttming movement volumes for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. Table 4-4 summarizes the project levels of service at key intersections. Under this scenario, the levels of service at intersections are generally the same as for the Project. As with the Project, the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard would operate at unacceptable levels of service during one or both peak hours under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. Under the Mitigated Traffic Altei'native, however, the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard would improve to acceptable levels of service with the construction of a new intersection midway between the 1-580 westbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard, as required by Supplemental Mitigation Traffic 8. By comparison, even with the new intersection, the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable levels with development of the Project as proposed. Thus, the Mitigated-Traffic_ Alt~x~ai.v~e~_would avoid the Project's significant unavoidable cumulative impact at the Fallon Road/Dhhhn_ Boulevard intersection. Utilities. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would require infrastructure similar to the Project since it consists of potential development of the same area and with similar uses. The geographic extent of the infrastructure networks also would be similar to the Project since the development footprint of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative is the same as the Project. Table 4-5 presents the estimated impact of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative on water, sewer, and recycled water demand compared to the Project. As reflected in the table, the decreased land use development intensity with the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would similarly decrease the demand for water, sewer, and recycled water. Domestic Water System. The water demand for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative is estimated at 0.70 MGD, which is approximately 25% less that the Project demand of 0.93 MGD. The network of water pipelines would be similar to the Project, but some pipeline diameters may be downsized where the decreased land use intensities result in decreased EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-6 demand. The number of water storage reservoirs needed to meet fire flow requirements would be similar to the Project. Sezoer System. The estimated wastewater flow for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative is 0.60 MGD, approximately 23% less than the Project flows of 0.78 MGD. Impacts on the DSRSD collection and treatment system would be somewhat less than for the Project. DSRSD still would have to expand its wastewater treatment plant to handle flows from potential development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative as well as from the Project, although the 'expansion would not be as great as for the Project. As shown in Table 4-5, there is a potential recycled water demand of approximately 0.22 MGD, the same as the Project, generally because the footprint of development is the same as the Project. Recycled water is used primarily for irrigation of public and common area landscaping. TABLE 4 -5 MITIGATED TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE: WATER, SEWER, AND RECYCLED WATER IMPACTS Item Estimated Average Estimated Average Estimated Average Daily Water Daily Wastewater Daily Recycled Water Demand (MGD) Flow (MGD) Demand (MGD) Project 0.93 0.78 0.22 Mitigated Traffic 0.70 0.60 0.22 Alternative Solid Waste. As discussed in this supplement, there are adequate solid waste facilities to accommodate the Project. The reduced density of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would reduce the demand on waste disposal facilities and could potentially extend the useful life of the_t_~f~s Electricity and Natural Gas Supply. Development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative could potentially be subject to the recent energy supply shortfalls described in this supplement. Reduced densities under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would reduce related energy demand compared to the Project, and would thus reduce the energy supply needed to accommodate Project area development. NO PROJECT (ECAP) ALTERNATIVE The purpose of the No Project Alternative is "to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project" (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6). The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the No Project Alternative for the entire GPA/SP area. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City found the No Project Alternative infeasible. The Project proposes the same land uses and densities as proposed for theProject area in the GPA/SP. This supplement updates the No Project Alternative discussion as it applies specifically to the Project. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-7 Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no prezoning or annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin. The Project area would remain subject to the jurisdiction of Alameda County and the County's adopted General Plan and East County Area Plan (ECAP). If development of the Project area were to occur it would be according to the existing ECAP. Hence, this No Project alternative addresses impacts which could be generated by development of the Project area according to the ECAP. At the November 2000 General Election, Alameda County's voters adopted Measure D, a significant amendment to the' County's 1994 East County Area Plan, the applicable County General Plan document for the Project area. The ECAP had previously adopted an urban growth boundary, which prohibited "urban development" outside the urban growth boundary. (ECAP, p.5.) "Urban development" was defined as designations having densities greater than 1 unit per acre, including such land uses as low-, medium-, and high- density residential, industrial, major commercial business park, and supporting uses. Measure D altered the urban growth boundary in Eastern Dublin to track the eastern boundary of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. (See Text of Measure D [amending Policy 1]; a copy of Measure D may be obtained from the City Clerk.) Thus, only the Project area outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is affected by Measure D. However, prior to the adoption of Measure D, much of the area was beyond the urban growth boundary and was designated "resource management." The County's intent in adopting the ECAP was to be consistent with applicable city plans in eastern Alameda County, including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see Figure 2-B: Alameda County Land Use Designations). The ECAP specifies land uses and densities for the Specific Plan portion of the Project area which are similar to those of the Specific Plan except that the number of commercial acres is higher (see Table 4-1) and the non-residential land use types in the ECAP (Major Commercial and Mixed Use) would have higher employment generation than the Project The approximately 637 acre portion of the Project area outside of the Specific Plan boundary is designated as Resource Management in the ECAP. This land use designation has a minimum parcel size of 100 acres and a maximum building intensity of 0.01 FAR (1 residential unit per every 100 acres). This County designation would permit approximately six residential units in this portion of the Project area rather than the approximately 1,286 dwelling units that potentially could be developed under the Project's proposed residential designations. As discussed in the Initial Study and above, Measure D would prohibit urban developmer~ of the area outside of the Specific Plan if the Project area were to be developed in the County rather than annexed to the City. Development of the Project area could occur under the ECAP only if the required services, including water and sewage collection and treatment, are provided. Water and sewage treatment for the existing uses in the Project area currently are provided by wells and septic systems, respectively. While it is technically possible that water and sewage treatment for the full development permitted under ECAP could be provided by wells and septic systems, this probably is not feasible due to salinity problems associated with water wells and water quality problems associated with widespread use of septic systems. The entire Project area is within the Sphere of Influence of the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). If wells and/or septic systems are not feasible, annexation to the DSRSD and extension of services would be necessary to serve the Project area before the Specific Plan portion of the Project area could be developed under the ECAP. Because of the low service requirements of rural residential development, the portion of the Project area outside of the Specific Plan EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-8 could be developed with the six potential units without annexation to, or provision of services by, the DSRSD. Aesthetics, Impacts to the Project area's visual resources under the No Project /ECAP Alternative would be less than the Project because the northern portion of the Project area would retain most of its existing rural character. Development, and related visual character, of the Specific Plan portion of the Project area would be similar to the Project as it changes from a rural/agricultural to an urban landscape. Development would not be subject to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and EIR mitigations tailored to protection of the area's hillsides, ridgelines, and watercourses. County development policies would be applicable. Agricultural Resources. Development of the Specific Plan portion of the Project area would be similar to the Project and would convert existing agricultural and grazing uses to urban uses, as described in the Initial Study. Outside the Specific Plan portion of the Project area, areas that are shown as low density and rural residential/agricultural in the Project would be designated Resource Management, a non-urban designation with 100 acre minimum parcel sizes. Thus, the ECAP, as amended by Measure D would prohibit urban development outside the Specific Plan area. Compared to the Project, overall development would be reduced under this alternative. Related agricultural conversion impacts would be similarly reduced from those identified for the Project. Air Quality. The No Project /ECAP Alternative would generate approximately 80 percent more trips than the Project, primarily because of the increased potential for commercial/mixed use development, This alternative would generate 64.1 pounds per day more c~f ROG, 133.3 pounds more of NO× and 88.7 pounds more of PM-10 than the Project (Table 4-3). Like the Project, the emissions of this alternative would be substantially greater than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. If the demand for single- family housing is not met by this alternative and housing is shifted farther into the Livermore Valley or even into the Central Valley, longer commuting distances may generate additional emissions. This alternative would not avoid the Project's significant unavoidable mobile source emissions impact. Instead, it would substantially increase that impact. Air quality would be a significant unavoidable impact of this alternative. Biological Resources. The No Project Alternative would produce less intense overall impacts on biological resources than the Project because substantially less development could occur in the 637-acre area outside of the Specific Plan. Not only the development footprint, but also the intensity of development would be less than the Project. The northern portion of the Project area would remain largely undeveloped and hence, impacts to sensitive biological resources in this area would be substantially less. Development of residential and commercial land uses in the Specific Plan portion of the Project area would have the same impacts to special status species and sensitive habitat as the Project since the development footprint would be the same in this portion of the Project area. This alternative would reduce biological resources impacts compared to the Project, but not enough to avoid significant cumulative impacts related to the loss of botanically sensitive habitat. This impact would be a significant unavoidable cumulative impact of this alternative. Cultural Resources. The No Project/ECAP Alternative could reduce potential impacts to cultural resources in the northern portion of the Project area since no urban level EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-9 development and related ground disturbance would occur. Impacts in the Specific Plan portion of the Project area would be similar to the Project since the development footprint in the Specific Plan area would be similar to the Project. Geology and Soils. The No Project/ECAP Alternative would involve similar geology and soils impacts to the Project in the Specific Plan area since the development footprint would be similar to the Project. Impacts outside of the Specific Plan area would be eliminated or substantially reduced in comparison to the Project since no urban level development and related ground disturbance would occur. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Development under the No Project Alternative would be the same kind and distribution of uses as the Project and would result in similar impacts. Development in the area outside the Specific Plan would be under the ECAP Resource Management designation, and would generally be similar to existing agricultural and grazing uses. The Project's already low hazards and hazardous materials impacts described in the Initial Study would be further reduced with the No Project Alternative. Hydrology and Wat6r Quality. The No Project Alternative would involve the same development footprint as the Project in the Specific Plan area. Potential development in the Specific Plan area would require the same type of construction activities as the Project and would also be subject to the same protective water quality regulations, such as erosion and sedimentation controls. The overall network of storm drainage improvements for the No Project/ECAP Alternative essentially would be the same as for the Project in the Specific Plan portion of the Project area. No improvements would be necessary outside the Specific Plan area. Land Use and Planning. Potential development under the ECAP would be similar to the Project for the Specific Plan portion of the Project area. This alternative would potentially allow 281 low density units, .175 medium high density units and 1,300 high density residential units resulting in a total of 1,764 residential units, which is about 44 percent fewer dwelling units than the Project. However, the ECAP allows for greater commercial/mixed use development of up to 3.4 million square feet over 144 acres compared to the Project development of 1.4 million square feet in 120 acres. About 724 acres would be designated for Resource Management and 94 acres for agriculture uses. The ECAP Resource Management designations would be retained for the areas outside the Specific Plan which are shown as low density and rural residential/agriculture in' the Project. If developed without annexation, both ECAP and Measure D would prohibit urban development outside the Specific Plan area. Compared to the Project, overall development would be reduced under this alternative, and any land use impacts would be similar to the Project as identified in the Initial Study to the extent that no established communities exist in the Project area. The Project area is not subject to any existing HCP or NCCP. Mineral Resources. The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Like the Project, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on mineral resources. Noise. When the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared, the County was updating its General Plan, including revisions to what is now known as the ECAP. The EIR recognized that development could occur under the No Project alternative depending on the outcome of the County General Plan revisions. Under the ECAP adopted since the Eastern Dublin EIR, the EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-10 No Project Alternative would result in less residential development within the Project area than the Project. This could reduce the noise levels along internal streets, possibly reducing the required soundwall heights. However, this alternative permits substantially greater commercial and mixed use development, thereby potentially increasing noise levels in the Specific Plan portion of the Project area to levels higher than the Project. These increased noise levels could exceed applicable noise standards, which would be a potentially significant impact requiring future development to provide appropriate noise mitigation to acceptable standards, Other noise impacts, such as freeway noise, would be similar to the Project. To the extent that existing residences occur in the Specific Plan area, noise impacts would be the same or greater than the Project; the No Project Alternative would not reduce this impact to less than significant. Population, Housing, Employment. The No Project Alternative would eliminate urbanization outside the Specific Plan portion of the Project area but not within the Specific Plan area. Thus, the effect of this alternative on growth inducement and existing homing would be similar to the Project for the Specific Plan area. This alternative would reduce growth inducement outside of the Specific Plan area. The projected residential population in the Project area under the No Project Alternative would be 3,875. This is 3,260 fewer residents than the 7,135 new residents estimated for the Project. New jobs would increase to 7,898, from the Project projected level of 2,575 due to an increase in commercial acreage and change in intensity and types of use. This alternative would reduce residential units resulting in 1,764 total dwelling units compared to 2,526 for the Project and 2,858 employed residents in the No Project/ECAP Alternative compared to 4,092 for the Project. The ratio of jobs to employed residents for the No Project Alternative would be 2.76:1, substantially greater than the 0.63:1 ratio of t!2e Project. As such, this alternative would increase the existing excess of jobs over employed residents in Dublin and the Tri-Valley area. Public Services (Schools). This supplement analyzed the potential impacts of the Project on school facilities since the Initial Study determined that the Project would not have any impact on other community services or facilities. The No Project Alternative would have more commercial and less residential development than the Project, and would generate approximately 45 percent fewer elementary, junior high, and high school students. In contrast to the Project, areas outside of the Specific Plan area would not provide schools sites. Demand for other community services and facilities would be similar or somewhat less than those of the Project. Recreation. Under the No Project Alternative, urban development similar to the Project could occur in the Specific Plan area. The mix of uses would be different, however, with reduced residential and increased commercial uses. This reduced potential for residential uses in the Specific Plan area, together with reduced development potential outside the Specific Plan area also decreases the potential demand for parks and other recreational resources compared to the Project. Transportation/Circulation (Traffic). The No Project Alternative consists of 281 low density units, 175 medium high density units and 1,300 high density residential units resulting in a total of 1,764 residential units, which is about 44 percent fewer dwelling units than the Project. In general, there would be more high density residential units and less low density residential units than the Project. The No Project Alternative consists mostly of major commercial and mixed uses totaling 3,441,240 (3.4 million) square feet over a EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-11 combined 144 acres. This alternative evaluates a reduced number of residential units and an increased floor area of commercial and industrial. ~tses. The Cumulative Year 2025 traffic model was used to determine traffic impacts. This altemative would generate approximately 80 percent more trips than the Project and more than twice the trips of the Mitigated Traff;~c Altemative due to the increased commercial/mixed use development. Figure 4-B shows the peak hour turning movement volumes for this No Project/ACAP Alternative. Table 4-6 summarizes the levels of service at the study 'intersections. Under this scenario, the levels of service are generally the same as the Project. Similar to the Project, the No Project Alternative results in unacceptable levels of service at the intersections of Dougherty Road/ Dublin BOulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard. Under the No Project Alternative, the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard would improve to acceptable levels of service with the construction of a new intersection midway between the 1-580 westbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard, as recommended by SM- TRAFFIC-8 in Section 3.6 of this supplement. However, this new intersection on Fallon Road still would be anticipated to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour and still represents a significant unavoidable cumulative impact. Utilities. The No Project/ECAP Alternative would require infrastructure similar to the Project for the Specific Plan area since the footprint of development would be similar. Land uses outside the Specific Plan area would be non-urban. Related land use intensities would be substantially lower, reducing or eliminating the need for infrastructure networks as compared to the Project. Table 4-7 presents the estimated impacts of the No Project/ECAP Alternative on water, sewer, and recycled water as compared to the Project. As reflected in the table, the decreased land use development intensity with the No Project Alternative would similarly decrease the demand for water, sewer, and recycled water. Domestic Water System. The water demand for the No Project Alternative is estimated to be 0.68 MGD, approximately 27 percent less than the Project demand of 0.93 MGD. This alternative has lower overall intensities of potential development which would reduce the water demand. Extension of pipelines to the northern portion of the Project area where rural residential and low density residential uses predominate may not be required. Smaller water storage reservoirs than for the Project would be adequate to meet fire flow requirements. Sewer System. The estimated wastewater flow for the No Project Alternative is 0.67 MGD, which would be 14 percent less than that estimated for the Project (0.78 MGD). DSRSD would need to expand its wastewater treatment plant to handle these flows, although the expansion could be approximately 14 percent less than for the Project. As shown in Table 4-7, there is a potential recycled water demand of 0.11 MGD, 50 percent less than for the Project. Because of the decrease in extent of residential development outside the Specific Plan area, extension of sewer pipelines to the northern portion of the Project area would not be required. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-12 TABLE 4.-7 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: WATER, SEWER, AND RECYCLED WATER IMPACTS Item Estimated Average Estimated Average Estimated Average Daily Water Daily Wastewater Daffy Recycled Demand (MGD) Flow (MGD) Water Demand (MGD) No Proiect Alternative 0.68 0.67 0,11 Solid Waste. As discussed in this supplement, there are adequate solid waste facilities to accommodate the Project. The reduced overall density of the No Project Alternative would reduce the demand on waste disposal facilities and could potentially extend the useful life of the facilities. Electricity and Natural Gas. Development under the No Project Alternative could potentially be subject to the recent energy supply shortfalls described in this supplement. Reduced overall densities under the No Project Alternative would reduce related energy demand compared to the Project, and would thus reduce the energy supply needed to accommodate Project area development. NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The purpose of the No Development Alternative is to compare the effects of approving the Project against the existing physical character of the Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the No Development Alternative for the entire GPA/SP area. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City found the No Development Alternative infeasible. The Project proposes the same land uses and densities as the GPA/SP. As described in the Initial Study and this supplement, the existing character of the Project area is low-intensity agricultural and grazing uses with some existing residences, agricultural buildings, and miscellaneous other uses. Under the No Development Alternative, no development beyond the existing uses would occur. All of the Project's impacts would be avoided, including the Project's significant unavoidable impacts on mobile source emissions, traffic, loss of botanically sensitive habitat, and noise, as these impacts are described in Sections 3 and 5. This supplement updates the No Development Alternative discussion as it applies specifically to the Project. Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources. The existing agricultural, grazing and rural residential character of the Project area would be maintained. There would be no disturbance or alteration of the Project area's visual resources, such as its hillsides, ridgelines and watercourses. There would be no conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Air Quality. No new vehicle trips and mobile source emissions or stationary sources of air emissions would be generated. Any air quality impacts would be limited to emissions related to existing uses. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-13 Biological Resources. Existing agriculture and grazing uses could continue on the Project area. No new development would occur, so there .would be no related disturbance or alteration of ground surfaces, vegetation or watercourses, and no related impacts on existing habitat, plants and wildlife. Any impacts to biological resources would be related to existing uses. Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality. Existing uses and landforms would be maintained. No new development would occur so there would be no related excavation, grading 'or other alteration of ground surfaces or watercourses. No cultural resources would be unearthed, nor any erosion or sedimentation impacts created. Any impacts would be related to existing uses and agricultural practices. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. No new hazards or hazardous materials would be introduced to the Project area. Any impacts would be related to existing uses of the Project area as further described in the Initial Study's Environmental Setting for this topic. Land Use and Planning. Continuing existing use would maintain the undeveloped nature of the Project area and would not divide an established community. There are no adopted HCPs or NCCPs in the Project area. This alternative could be inconsistent with the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the ECAP to the extent that these documents anticipate future urbanization of the Project area to one degree or another. Mineral Resources. The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Like the Project, the No Development Alternative would have no impact on mineral resources. Noise. There would be no new noise generating uses. Any noise impacts would be related to existing uses. Population, Housing, Employment. The No Development Alternative would not generate new residences or new jobs and thus, Would not affect the current jobs/housing ratio. The 'residential population for the Project area would be unchanged compared to the 7,135 new residents estimated for the Project. This alternative would result in no new jobs in the City as compared to the Project's 2,575 new jobs. Public Services (Schools), Recreation, Utilities. Under the No Development Alternative, there would be no increased demand for public utilities, including water distribution and storage systems, sewage collection and treatment facilities, and recycled water distribution systems. There would be no additional impacts on sewer, water, storm drainage, or fire flow requirements, and there would be no increase in storm water runoff and non-point source water pollution. No utility infrastructure would be constructed within the Project area and existing uses would continue to utilize wells and septic systems. There would be no storm drain improvements. There would be no increased demand for community services and facilities, parks and schools. No parks and schools would be developed within the Project area. Transportation/Circulation (Traffic). Under the No Development Alternative, there would be no traffic generation and no change in levels of service at the existing intersections in and near the Project area. The proposed roads and intersections would not be constructed. None of the significant adverse traffic impacts of the proposed Project or the Mitigated EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-14 Traffic Alternative would occur, although significant cumulative 2025 impacts could still occur since 2025 impacts are expected to occur even without development of the Project area. ENVIR O NMENTA L L Y S UP ERI 0 R A L TERNA TI VE CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project (or in this case the No Development) alternative. The certified Eastern Dublin EIR ranked the identified alternatives based on the greatest reduction of impacts from the GPA/SP project. (DEIR p. 4-10-20.) The No Development and No Project alternatives ranked first and second. These alternatives did not fulfill the Eastern Dublin project objectives, and were found infeasible upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project. (Resolution 53-93.) The next alternative in the Eastern Dublin EIR was the Reduced Planning Area Alternative, which the City Council approved in a modified version rather than the original project. As noted earlier in this chapter, this Revised DSEIR identifies and analyzes an additional Mitigated Traffic Alternative based on the current Project's potential for traffic-induced supplemental significant impacts. Compared to the alternatives ranking in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this new alternative would rank between the No Project and Reduced Planning Area alternatives, primarily because the reduced densities would also reduce traffic and air quality impacts. The new alternative would not, however, fulfill the City's objectives for Eastern Dublin. Consistent with prior discussion in this chapter, the Mitigated Traffic Alternative and the No Project and No Development alternatives are compared in this section as well. The development scenarios in the Mitigated Traffic, No Project and No. Development alternatives all reduce some potential environmental impacts of the Project. The relative impacts of the alternatives are shown in Table 4-8 and discussed in the list below: The No Development Alternative would achieve the greatest reduction of environmental impacts compared to the Project. The Project area would remain in its existing rural/agricultural condition. The impacts associated with the Project including impacts on land use, traffic, biological resources, visual resources, and air quality would not occur. This alternative would not fulfill the Project objectives or the City of Dublin's objectives for Eastern Dublin. The No Project/ECAP Alternative would achieve a substantial reduction of visual impaCts and impacts on biological resources because the portion of the Project area outside the Specific Plan would not be developed. Noise impacts would be similar to those of the Project but could be somewhat increased in the Specific Plan portion of the Project area due to the potential for increased commercial development compared to the Project. Compared to the Project, this alternative would have similar significant traffic impacts at several intersections, and could have even greater impacts at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersections because of the greater intensity of commercial and industrial land uses. This alternative would generate greater mobile and stationary source air emissions than the Project. Development would be limited to the southern portion of the Project area and the northern portion, approximately 637 acres or more than half of th~ Project area, would remain in its existing rural/agricultural condition. This alternative partially would fulfill the City's objectives as to the Specific Plan portion of the Project area, but would not meet the City's General Plan goals for its Sphere of Influence. In addition, it would exacerbate the EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-15 City's existing excess of jobs compared to employed residents The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would reduce impacts on traffic and air quality but would not substantially reduce visual, noise, or biological impacts compared with the Project. The impacts of this alternative would be greater than the No Development Alternative, but less than the Project. Compared to 'the No Project/ECAP Alternative, this alternative would have greater impacts on visual and biological resources and lesser impacts on traffic and air quality. This alternative would reduce the City's ratio of jobs to employed residents but to a lesser degree than the Project, and would provide a smaller share of Dublin's contribution to regional housing needs. ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED Comments on the July 2001 DSEIR suggested the City should identify additional alternatives, primarily involving reduced development areas. The EIR need not consider every possible alternative to the Project, and the Mitigated Traffic Alternative is a reasonable alternative which directly responds to the potential for significant supplemental impacts due to increased regional traffic, air quality and traffic noise, as described in the Initial Study for the annexation/prezoning Project. Through the Eastern Dublin EIR, as supplemented by the Revised DSEIR, the City has identified a reasonable and comprehensive range of alternative land uses and densities throughout Eastern Dublin, and across the Proiect site. The City reviewed the range of alternatives when it considered the Eastern Dublin project in 1993, and ultimately adopted a modified version of Alternative 2, the Reduced Planning Area Alternative. This alternative is substantially reflected in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and in the proposed Project and was a significant reduction in the development potential analyzed through the Eastern Dublin EIR. In the course of reviewing comments on the July 2001 DSEIR, however, the City considered the suggested alternatives but has not chosen them for further analysis. The alternatives suggested in the comments generally include either Project or reduced densities and a reduced development area. Each of these variations is addressed below. Reduced Density-Reduced Development Area. The suggested alternative would reduce both the project density and development area by approximately 25% as a way to avoid grading and runoff impacts and to locate development away from sensitive resources. Under CEQA, the purpose of a project alternative is to identify ways to avoid significant impacts that cannot otherwise be mitigated to less than significant. (CEQA section 21002.) Neither grading nor runoff was identified as a significant impact in the Initial Study or this R~,vised DSEIR, so neither would be a basis for identifying a CEQA alternative. This alternative would, however, reduce density across the Project by 25%, and would respond to the potential for significantly increased traffic, air quality and noise impacts. This is the same reduction as the Mitigated Traffic Alternative, so this alternative would provide the same avoidance of significant traffic, air quality and traffic noise impacts as the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. This alternative would also reduce the development area to avoid sensitive biological and habitat areas. For the purposes of this discussion, the Project development area is assumed to be approximately 758 acres (1120 acre Project area minus 362 acre Rural Residential areas); a 25% reduction would be approximately 190 acres. This discussion EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-16 further assumes that the reduction in area would not be taken from the southwest comer of the Project area or the lands along 1-580. These lands, are the flattest part of the Project area and the most accessible from the freeway and roadways. A reduction virtually anywhere else in the assumed development area would reduce biological and habitat impacts, since most of the Project area contains sensitive resources and/or habitat. (See Section 3.3.) In this respect, this alternative is similar to the No Project/ECAP Alternative that would prohibit development outside the Specific Plan area. The ECAP Alternative would remove more development area than the subject alternative, but would still not avoid the Project's identified unavoidable biological effects. Under these circumstances, the subject alternative would not avoid the Project's unavoidable impacts sufficiently to be identified and analyzed further. Project Density-Reduced Development Area. This suggested alternative would retain the Project density for both residential and non-residential development, but would reduce the development footprint by 25%. This alternative was suggested to avoid impacts to biological resources, geologic hazards, loss of topsoil and agricultural resources. This alternative is not further analyzed because, as noted above, a 25% reduction in development area will reduce but not avoid the Project's significant cumulative biological impact. Geologic hazards, loss of topsoil and agricultural resources were not identified as significant impacts in the Initial Study or this Revised DSEIR. With densities the same as the Project, this alternative would generally have the same potential for significant regional, traffic, air quality and traffic noise impacts as the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. The practical effect of this alternative would be to "densify' the project by concentrating development in smaller, more intense development areas. At least some of the intensification could be expected to occur in the southwest portion of the Project area along 1-580. Buildings adjacent to 1-580 would likely be taller than the Project's potential 1-3 story buildings in order to achieve similar land use intensities. Taller buildings could block views from 1-580 to the foothills in the northerly Project area. In addition, traffic impacts to local, internal streets could increase significantly since greater peak hour traffic would need to be accommodated. Intensifying development in other areas of the Project would necessarily change the mix of future residential development densities and types, with increased higher density housing as Project densities are accommodated in smaller development areas. Such intensification' is not consistent with the Project objectives and would require a significant amendment to both the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-17 TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVES BY LAND USE Land Use Designation Project No Project Mitigated (a) Traffic (b) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 120.2 144.3 120.2 (Acres) Square Feet 1,421,450 3,441,240 1,066,088 Jobs 2,575 7,898 1,931 RESIDENTIAL (Acres) 746.8 954.9 746.8 Units (low density) 1,734 281 1,301 Units (medium density) 94 175 71 Units (medium/high density) 696 1,300 522 Units (rural/agriculture) 2 6 2 Total Units 2,526 1,764 1,895 (c) Population 7,135 3,875 5,351 Employed Residents (d) 4,092 2,858 3,069 SCHOOLS (Acres) 31.9 0 31.9 Elementary (acres) 17.3 0 17.3 Junior High (acres) 14.6 0 14.6 Jobs 565 0 424 PARKS (Acres) 40.8 10 40.8 OPEN SPACE (Acres) 76.9 0 76.9 FUTURE STUDY AREAS (Acres) 92.6 0 92.6 TOTAL ACRES 1,109.2 1,109.2 1,109.2 NOTES: (a) No Development Alternative not included in table above because it would involve no development. (b) Mitigated Traffic Alternative consists of a 25 percent reduction in development from the proposed Project. " (c) Total residential units does not equal sum of components uue to rounding. (d) Projections assume a ratio of 1.62 employed residents per household based on ABAG's Projections 1990. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-18 TABLE 4-2 FLOOR AREA RATIOS OF ALTERNATIVES Land Use Designation Project No Project Mitigated (ECAP) (a) Traffic General Commercial 0.25 -- 0. ! 875 Neifihborhood Commercial 0.30 -- 0.225 Industrial 0.28 -- 0.21 Major Commercial -- 0.60 -- Mixed Use -- 0.50 -- NOTE: (a) No Development Alternative not included because it would involve no development. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-19 TABLE 4-3 REGIONAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS COMPARISON (Year = 2020) EMISSIONS Scenario ADT ROG NOx C O * P__M-10 Project 54,071 156.6 334.6 1,824.3 +314.5 Mitigated Traffic Alternative 40,553 117.5 251.0 1,368.2 235.9 vs. Project -25% -25% -25% -25% -25% No Project/ECAP Alternative 97,400 220.7 467.9 2,467.4 +403.2 vs. Project 80% 41% 40% 35% 28% BAAQMD Threshhold 80 80 550 80 Source: URBEMIS7 Computer Model = requires microscale analysis if 550 lb/day is exceeded. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-20 Table 4-4 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 plus Mitigated Traffi~ Alternative Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS 1 Dougherty Road,Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.02 F ........ 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.82 D 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 £ 0.65 B 0.75 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 1.01 F ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.76 C 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.73 C 7 Tassaj ara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.73 C 0.88 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.72 C 0.61 B 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.58 A 0.47 A I0 Graflon Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.34 A 0.44 A 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.09 A 0.12 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive . Signal 0.45 A 0.37 A 13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.58 A 0.63 B 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.62 B 0.75 C 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.86 D 1.04 F ........ 15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ........ 0.75 C 0.87 D, XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.60 A 0.68 B 16 Fallou Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.76 C 0.85 D 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.50 A 0.31 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections Table 4-6 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 plus ECAP Alternative Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F ....... 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.81 D 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 D 0.93 E 0.65 B 0.76 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.03 F ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.77 C 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.73 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.87 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.62 B 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.57 A 0.47 A 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.33 A 0.45 A 11 Graflon Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 A 0.13 A 12 Grafton StreeffGleason Drive Signal 0.41 A 0.35 A 13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.70 B 0.67 B 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.74 C 0.84 D 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.89 D 1.35 F ........ 15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ....... 0.74 C 0.86 D XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.78 C 0.96 E 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.84 D 0.89 D 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.54 A 0.33 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections TABLE 4-8 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL OF IMPACT RELATIVE TO PROPOSED PROJECT: IMPACT · No Development No Project Mitigated Traffic Land Use No Impact Less Similar Population, Housing, and No Change Increase in Smaller Reduction in Employment Jobs/Housing Imbalance Jobs/HoUsing Imbalance No Impact Additional significant Significant impact impact at one ehminated at one Traffic and Circulation intersection; significant intersection impact eliminated at one intersection Community Services and No Impact Similar Similar Facilities Public Utilities No Impact Less Less Soils, Geology and No Impact Same Same Seismicity Biological Resources No Impact Less Same Visual Resources · No Impact Less Similar Cultural Resources No Impact Possibly Less Same Noise No Impact Similar Similar Air Quality No Impact Increased Emissions Fewer Emissions, Still Sigrtificant EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-21 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 . Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 DoughertylDublin Hacienda/I-580 EB Ramps HaCienda/l-580 WB Ramps Heclenda/Dublln Santa Ritad-580 EB Ramp; Tassajara/L580 WB Ramps TassajeraJDublln Tassjars/Central ~_44 (53) ~ ~_~7(2~ ~' ~- ~.,010(1,0~0 , ~_75~ (677) ,-o~o~ 4--1~'7(1,178) - mo~,- 4-1,130(68~ ' ' 4-1,055 (371) 4-68 (77) ~60(~81)-+ c~ o~ ~. ~. 444 {885)-'4 ~'-G' ~03 i206~-s, ~- 442 (1,447)-~ r,. ~,- m ~ 192 (163)-'4 lntersec'~on #9 Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Intersection 812 Intersection #13 TassaJars/Gleaaon Grsften/Dublln Grsfton/Central Grafton/Gleason El Charro/I-580 EB Ramps ~ ~ <o ~ Not to Scale ~.50 (59) "~ w 4-213(43) ~ ~--26(57) ~ ~'1°(1°) ~, ~-~91(26~) ~, 4-~,~9(~) 4-10~(27) 4-~62(133) 109 (263)-I' 110 (121)~ ~1~ 115 (353)-'1~ 1,059 (1,098).-~ ,~ 37 (292)-'4 ~'~ 101 (46)'-'~ ~.~. i ',, ^re~ D o,° ~ Proposed Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Intersection ~ 6a Intersection #16 ', Fallon/I-680 WB Ramps Fallon/Dublin Fallon/Dublln Fallon/Central ~' , . ~ Project ,--. ,, ..... ......... , .,_- ,_- ~.0(1~3 ~_0(1~ '~ ~._~52 (282) ' '. ' ' ' + 85 (27~)-~l% ~' ~ 17 ¢4)-~ 53 (s4)-~ ~ ~' r~ , ~ , ., ..... 226 (~26)-~ ~,, ,, ' ~-'-T=-'- ~ Intersection #17 Emer~d ~, / H, Ate,F ; ~;~ '~. LEGEND ~ ~>= ~"1 ~1s ~, ~ ~; ;: ~'~ :~ ', ~%~ ~ Existinglnterseetion ~ ~J I~ ~vo. ~ ~ --~... r ~_ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~5~ ................ ~ .... Fur,r, Ro~dww ~ ~ ~ ~"~' , ~'~ ' AM Peak H°ur V°lum' i X~ ..~ ~/ ~13 (~ PM Peak Hour Volume ~ ~ Fn~f ~.hlln Prnnprf{pe City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties FIGURE 4-A' Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + Mitigated Traffic Land Use Alternative Turning Movement Volumes 157-143 - 7/01 - LH PD - Rural Reaideatial/ Agriealturc Project Community. Park PD- Olin Space ?D - General Commercial PD- General Commercial PI) - Campus OtTke Major Commercial \ \ \ mACKAY&SOmPS !-580 East Dublin Properties i FIGURE 4-B Alameda County Land Use Designations Resource Management Collier Pare-el Agrlcu]ture ........... '~ ;:~:~" DubUa Ranch Ar~s B-E PD, 19149~lsp-ElR~fig4-A-ex:rone.pad East Count)' Ar~ Plan Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 ,,, Dougherty/Dublin Heclenda/I-580 EB Ramps! Heclenda/I-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rita/i-580 EB Ramps Tassajara/I.580 WB Ramps Tassajara/Dublin Tn_~_%i~ra/Central ~l~t4. ~-609(783) ~ ,, ~J; ~344(658) ~l~I~ 4-1 127(739 o.~ ~_64(66) ~'~.~J !~,-64(136) 14(62)_.~ ~lfl~ 667 (647)-~ +1~' ~ 58(69)-t~ ~t+1~r 781(448)-,~ ~ f 398 (949)_d ~1~1~' 33(39)_~+i~' 967(1~I)? ~ 1,157 (1,072)-'~ ~'"~. ~ 605 (1,343)-t' 102 (200)-~ ~' 534 (1,458)-+ 54 (63)'+ 1~C6(1,174)~ ~- -v (,J°. 483 (858)-~ ~ 169 {110)-~ ~ i;~ 200 (369)-~ ~.~'~'~ 197 (164)-~ ~' Inte~sec'~on #9 Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Intersection #12 Intersection #13 TassaJara/Gleason Grafton/Dublln Grafton/Central Graflon/Gleason El Charro/I-580 EB Ramps ~'~' ~.48 (62) ~' ~_32(64) North ~ ~o ~ ~ m Not to Scale ~h~ +162 (~6) ~ ~o,, ~276 (134) ~ 108 (305)--~ ". ~'~'~' 117 (120)~ 101 (45)_.~ Proposed c~~ i' , e Project Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Intersection #156 Intersection #16 Fallon/I-580 WB Ramps Fallon/Dublin Fallon/Dublin Fallon/Central ' ' ; __~- tt_966(1,306) +9(;2(225) 4-902(225) ~ t~_197(168) o~ 454(70~). ~ 454~703)-~ ~/~'.~ 43 (97)? .~ , . - - 268 (174)~ (~ u~ Tassajara /Cas~r- ~ .' ',~k Existing Intersection ~~ J~/~ i co '4 , o ,.,.re,.,...,o. ...'° ................ ,. -~ ..... Future Roadway"o~ ~ 'x~ ~ -X~ ~ AM Peak Hour Volume · ~ (~) PM Peak Hour Volume City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties - FIGURE .4-C Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + ECAP Alternative Turning Movement Volumes 157-143-7/01-LH 5.0 CEQA-REQUIRED DISCUSSIONS CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2 mandates discussi°n of the following topics in an EIR in addition to those addressed in the project and alternatives impact assessment: cumulative impacts; unavoidable significant adverse impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes; and, growth inducing impacts. These topics are addressed in Section 5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Eastern Dublin EIR discussions of growth-inducing impacts and significant irreversible changes are unchanged by the Project. Therefore, this section summarizes the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) findings regarding the Project's identified significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts, beyond those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 5.1 SUPPLEMENTAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines "cumulative impacts" as "... two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Reasonably foreseeable development projects in the area were fully considered in the Eastern Dublin EIR. A number of associated cumulative impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the GPA/SP project. The cumulative impacts addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, that are related to the impacts analyzed in this Supplement are summarized below. · Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands (impact 3.1/F) · Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Impact 3.3/A) · Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between 1-680 and Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B) · Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (Impact 3.3/C) · Cumulative degradation of 1-680 freeway operations north of 1-580 (Impact 3.3/D) · Cumulative degradation of 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard and between Dougherty and Hacienda (Impact 3.3/D) · Cumulative degradation of Dublin Boulevard intersections with Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M) · Cumulative degradation of Tassajara Road intersections with Gleason Road, Fallon Road, and Transit Spine (Impact 3.3/N) · Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste disposal facilities (Impacts 3.4/0, P) · Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/E) · Lack of current wastewater disposal capacity (Impact 3.5/G) · Increase in demand for water (impact 3.5/Q) · Increase in potential flooding (Impact 3.5/Y) · Increase in non-point sources of surface- and ground-water pollution(Impact 3.5/AA) · Direct habitat loss (Impact 3.7A) · Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3.7/C) · Exposure of existing residence to future roadway noise (Impact 3.10/B) · Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construction activity (Impact 3.11/A) · Construction equipment/vehicle emissions ((Impact 3.11/B) · Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (Impact 3.11/C) · Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11/E) EDPO Draft SEIR Page 5-1 The Project would create supplemental significant cumulative impacts beyond those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The supple~nental cumulative impacts identified in this Supplement and further discussed in related ~?~ct analysis in Chapter 3 are: AQ 1: Mobile Source Emissions. The Project and cumulative development would result in mobile source emissions of Reactive Organics (RO), Nitrogen Oxide (Nox), and Particulate Matter (PM-10) substantially exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District significance thresholds and contribute to continued exceedences of state and federal Clean Air Act ozone standards. This impact was identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this impact; however it would remain cumulatively significant. BIO 1: Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss. The Project and cumulative development would significantly reduce habitat not previously identified for special status species in the Eastern Dublin area. The mitigation measures proposed in this Revised DSEIR would reduce the Project's contribution to this impact to less than significant. BIO 2: Loss of Special Status Plant Species. The Project and cumulative development would cumulatively and significantly impact up to 13 species of rare plants not previously identified .as occurring or potentially occurring on the site. The mitigation measures proposed in this Revised DSEIR would reduce the Project's contribution to this impact to less than significant. BIO 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats. This supplemental analysis identifies seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams as additional botanically sensitive habitats that could be affected by direct and indirect impacts of development of the Project area beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This impact was ide~tified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this impact; however it would remain cumulatively significant. BIO 5: California Red-Legged Frog. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts to this species from development affecting aquatic habitat. Information developed since then recognizes the need to protect upland habitat as well. Mitigation measures proposed in this Supplement would reduce the Project's contribution to this impact to less than significant. TRAFFIC-6: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario. In this scenario, the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. This impact was identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this impact; however it would remain cumulatively significant TRAFFIC-7: Hacienda Drive/Dublin Bqulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario: In this scenario, the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. This impact was identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this impact; however it would remain cumulatively significant. TRAFFIC-S: Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario: In this scenario, the Fallon Road/Dublin EDPO Draft SEIR Page 5-2 Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F [1.11]) during the PM peak hour. This impact was identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this impact; however it would remain cumulatively significant. TRAFFIC-II: 1-580 and 1-680 Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario. Under this scenario, freeway segments in the Project area would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. This impact was identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this impact; however it would remain cumulatively significant. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified nine unavoidable significant adverse impacts (section 5.2). These are summarized below: Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between 1-680 and Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B) · Under the Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario, cumulative freeway LOS will exceed City significance thresholds (Impact 3.3/E). · By the year 2010, development with the project will cause LOS F operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with 1-580 eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/I). · Under the Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario, LOS will exceed City significance thresholds at Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road (Impact 3,3/E). · Project impacts on LOS at Tassajara Road intersections (Impact 3.3/N). · Project contribution to regional ozone precursor emissions (Impact 3.11/C) · Noise Impacts on existing residents (Impact 3.10/B) · Change in the area's visual character (Impact 3.8/B) Significant and Unavoidable impacts identified in this Supplement all are cumulative impacts; These impacts were also previously identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts are summarized in Section 5.1, above. They are: AQ 1: Mobile Source Emissions; · BIO 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats; · TRAFFIC-6: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario; · TRAFFIC-7: Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario; · TRAFFIC-8: Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario; and, · TRAFFIC-II: 1-580 and 1-680 Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario. EDPO Draft SEIR Page 5-3 East Dublin Properties FIGURE 5-A 1992 Cumulative Projects Subregional Land Use Planning and Development· Legend ..... G~neral plan Amendment Area ---- Specific Plan Area Ad_iacent to the Prolect SIt~ A1 Camp Parks A2 Dougherty Valley A3 Tassajara Valley A4 North Livermore GPA A5 Triad Business Park A6 Stoneridge Drive Business Park A7 Hacienda Business Park Other Neerbv Subreeional Proiec~-~ B1 Laurel Creek B2 West Pleasanton 'B3 Westem Dublin SP/GPA B4 Hansen Hill/Donlan Canyon B5 San Ramon Westside SP B6 Bishop Ranch Business Park EASTERN DUBLIN GPA · SP · EIR Wallace Roberts & Todd Figure 5 - A ~. ?~Bttsittess Parl~ Sa. Ramoii We~TJ~'ide Specific Pla Dublin West Plea,e~"ttton 750,000 sf Comnte~lal/Offiee East Dublin Properties .. FIGURE 5-B 2001 Cumulative Projects ?Legend Jill All Residential Designatious ~]11~]~ All Commercial Designai'io.s ~ Public/Semi-Public ~ Parks Opeu Space/Agricullffre. /Vartlt £/ver#tare t2.3~5 unn~ 5.13 msf CommerciM L.-a 6. REFERENCES 6.1 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED EIR Preparers The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document. Klm Briones, Biologist, Sycamore Associates, LLC Loci Cheung, Environmental Planner, Cheung Environmental Consulting Hans Giroux, Air Quality Specialist, Giroux & Associates Connie Goldade-Erickson, MacKay & Somps Richard Grassetti, Grassetti Environmental Consulting Marylee Guinon, Sycamore Associates, LLC Jerry Haag, Urban Planner Lori Hileman, Transportation Engineer, TJKM Transportation Consultants Rich Illingworth, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Michael Kent, Technical Associate, Michael Kent & Associates Ki Klm, Transportation Engineer, TJKM Transportation Consultants Chris Kinzel, P.E., Transportation Engineer, TJKM Transportation Consultants Phyllis Potter, Land Use Planner, SAIC Malcolm Sproul, Biologist, LSA Associates, Inc. Jim Templeton, Engineer, MacKay & Somps City of Dublin Staff John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Andy Byde, Senior Planner Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Traffic Engineer Eddie Peabody, Jr., AICP, Community Development Director Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney Kevin Van Katwyck, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer EDPO Draft SEIR 6-1 Other Agencies and Organizations Consulted Lisa Asche, Alameda CDA, January 2002 Chris Bazar, 2000. Assistant Planning Director, Planning Department, Alameda County, December 2000. Gary Beeman, 2001. Wildlife Biologist, June 14, 2001. Douglas Bell, General Manager, Livermore Area Parks District Annette Borges, 2000. District Manager, Livermore Dublin Disposal Services/Valley Waste Management, November 2000. John Brode. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Debbie Chamberlain, 2001. Senior Planner, City of San Ramon Planning Department, February 2001. Ken Craig, Parks Superintendent, Livermore Area Parks District Paul Fassinger, 2000. Research Director, Association of Bay Area Governments, November 2000. Vivian Housen, 2001. General Manager, Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency. Grainger Hunt, 2001. Wildlife Biologist. June 28, 2001. Buck Jones, 2000. Planning and Compliance Department, Pacific Gas & Electric, Co., November 2000. Ray Kuzbari, 2000. Associate Engineer, City of Dublin, December 2000. Colleen Lenihan, 2000. Wildlife Biologist, M.S., November 8, 2000. John Sugiyama, Dr., 2001. Superintendent, Dublin Unified School District. Karen Swaim, 1996. Biologist, Swaim Biological Consulting, October 27, 1996. Bob Thompson, 2000. Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility, November 2000. Susan E. Townsend, Ph.D., 2000. Wildlife Biologist, November 8, 2000. Kevin Van Katwyk, 2000. Senior Civil Engineer, City of Dublin, December 2000. Bruce Webb, 2000. Senior Planner, Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District, November 2000 and February 2001. Scott Wilson, 2001. Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, January 29, 2001. EDPO Draft SEIR 6-2 Vince Wong. ?,:,.~"3 and 2001. Assistant General Manager, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Ct~'.,:,:ervation District (Zone 7), November 2000 and February 2001. 6.2 REFERENCES Arnold, R. 2001. Bankead and Mandeville Properties in Eastern Dublin (Alameda 'County, CA) Habitat Assessment Report for the Threatened Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Endangerd Longhorn Fairy Shrimp. Report Prepared for Braddock and Logan 12. Entemological Consulting Services, Pleasant Hill CA. Abrams, L.R., 1944, 1951. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), 1999. Zone 7 Water Agency Water Supply Planning Program Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, January 1999. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), 2000. Urban Water Management Plan Update. October 2000. Bass, R.E., A.I., Herson, K.M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-step Guide on how to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California. 414 pp. BioSystems Analysis, Inc., 1989. East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft Biological Assessment. 73 pp. Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1979. See Biosystems Analysis 198~ California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1980. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1988. Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1998. Fish and Game Code 1998: Unabridged California Edition. LawTech Publishing Co. LTD. San Clemente, California. 548 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000a. Special Plants. Natural Diversity Database. January. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000b. Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base. January. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000c. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Diversity Data Base. January. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000d. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base. January. EDPO Draft SEIR 6-3 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 1988. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 1991; California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 1999. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), 2000. Data Base Print-out for the Livermore, Tassajara, Byron Hot Springs, Altamont, Mendenhall Springs, La Costa Valley, Niles, Dublin, and Diablo Quads. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2000. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Version 1.5.1. Sacramento, California. California Public Utilities Commission, 2000. Tri-Valley 2002 Electric Power Capacity Increase Project Environmental Impact. Camp, Dresser, & McKee Inc., West Yost & Associates Consulting Engineers, and Jerome B. Gilbert, Consulting Engineer, 2001. Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin. Prepared for Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 2001. Cheatham and Haller, 1975. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Chuang and Constance, 1969. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Chuang and Heckard, 1973. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. City of Dublin, 1998. Dublin General Plan. Adopted in February 1985 and revised in July 1998. City of Dublin, 1992. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 28, 1992. City of Dublin, 1992. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental hnpact Report, Part I, December 7, 1992. City of Dublin, 1992. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Part II, December 21, 1992. City of Dublin, 1993. Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, May 4, 1993. City of Dublin, 1994. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, January 7, 1994. City of Dublin, 1994. Final Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, January 7, 1994. City of Dublin, 1994. Addendum to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Update to Provide Sewer Service, August 22, 1994. City of Dublin, 1997. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, Ordinance Number 20-97, Adopted September 2, 1997. EDPO Draft SEIR 6-4 City of Dublin, 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998. Csuti and Kleinsmith, 1982. See Biosyste~ns Analysis 1989. Dublin San Ramon Services District, 1993. Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Final Report, December 1993. Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2000. Draft Urban Water Management Plan, May 2000. Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2001. Preliminary Water Service Analysis and Preliminary Impact Analysis for East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation to City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 24, 2001. Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2001. Wastewater Master Plan. Frenkel, R.E., 1977. Ruderal Vegetation Along Some California Roadsides, University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 163 pp. Garret and Dunn, 1981. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Hegdal et al., 1986. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Hitchcock, 1951. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Hoffman, 1952. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency. 156 pp. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency. 156 pp. Hood, 1975-1977. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Howell, 1972. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1990. Rare Plant Survey of the East Dublin Property, Alameda County. 9 pp. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1997a. (Revised). Dublin Ranch San Joaquin kit Fox Survey. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1997b. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch, Alameda County: Phase L 1993 USFWS Protocol, Fall 1996. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1997c. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Prdiminary Report and Results from Earlier Phases of Kit Fox Surveys. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1998. Dublin Ranch: Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. 15 pp. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000a. Dublin Ranch Golden Eagle Nest Buffer-Zone Analysis. 8 pp- EDPO Draft SEIR 6-5 H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000b. Project Area Biological Assessment for the California Red- legged Frog. 40 pp. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000c. Dublin Ranch Area A Golden Eagle Report. 10 pp. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000b. Botanical Surveys, April 17. April 1990, June and October 1998, March 1999 Ingles, 1965. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Trip Generation. Jenkins and Harris-Hailer, 1981. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Kartesz and Kartesz, 1980. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Kruckeberg, 1957, 1958. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Leonard and Gould, 1974. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Luckenbach, 1975. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. McMinn, 1939. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Monk and Associates, 1997. Vernal Pool Crustacean Surveys. Stonechase Project Site, Alameda County, California. 50 pp + appendices. Munz and Keck, 1959. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Murie, 1954. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Murie, 1965. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Orloff S., L. Spiegel, and F. Hall. 1986. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of its Range; Wildlife Society - (CAL-NEV) Trans. West. Sec. Wild. Soc. 22:60-70. Orloff et. al., 1976. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Orloff, S., F. Hall, and L. Speigal. 1986. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of Their Range. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 22:60-70. Orloff in press. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Orloff, S., A.W. Flannery, and K.C. Belt. 1993. Identification of San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) Tracks on Aluminum Tracking Plates. Calif. Fish and Game 79(2):45-53. Remsen, J. V., 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. An Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species; California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Management Branch Admin. Rept. No. 78-1. EDPO Draft SEIR 6-6 Schemnitz, 1980. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Shilts Consultants, Inc., 2001. Draft Dublin Unified School District Study of Demographic Projections and School Construction Revenue Analysis, June 2001. Schitoskey, 1975. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Snow, 1973. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Stebbins and Major, 1985. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. Swaim, Karen, 1994. Aspects of the Ecology of the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). Masters Thesis, Hayward State University. 140 pp. Sycamore Associates IzLC, Balance Hydrologics, dk Associates. 1996. Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Progra~n. Technical report prepared for the City of Dublin. June. Sycamore Associates LLC. 200la. Site Assessment for California Red-legged Frog and California Tiger salamander at the Bankhead/Mandeville Properties. Technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group. July. Sycamore Associates LLC. 200lb. Site Assessment for California Red-legged Frog at the Dublin Corporate Center, Dublin, Alameda County, CA. Technical report prepared for the Foster Enterprises, Matt Righetti and Michael Tseng. July. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001c. California Red-legged Frog Focused Surveys, Dublin Corporate Center Project Site, Dublin Alameda County, CA. Technical report prepared for the Foster Enterprises, Matt Righetti and Michael Tseng. August. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001d. California Tiger Salamander Focused Surveys, Dublin Corporate Center Project Site, Dublin Alameda County, CA. Technical report prepared for the Foster Enterprises, Matt Righetti and Michael Tseng. August. The Habitat Restoration Group. 1992. Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox, Amphibians and Other Wildlife Species of Concern. 37pp. Thomas, J.W. (Tech. Ed), 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forest: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington; U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553, Washington, D.C. 512 pp. TJKM, 2000. A Traffic Study,for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H Devdopment. TJKM, 2000. A Traffic Study for the Proposed Emerald Glen Apartments Development. TJKM, 2000. A Traffic Study.for the Proposed Sybase Headquarters. TJKM, 2000. A Traffic Study.for the Proposed Marriott Hotel. TJKM, 2001. A Traffic Study for the Proposed Residential Development on the Silveria Property on Tassajara Road. EDPO Draft SEIR 6-7 Townsend, Susan PhD, 2002. Early Evaluation for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Bankhead and Mandeville Properties, Dublin, CA. Report prepared for Braddock and Logan Group by Susan E. Townsend and Sycamore Associatiates, Walnut Creek, CA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), 2000. Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits. Federal Register Vol. 65 (47): 12818-12899. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1993. San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol For the Northern Range. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1996a. Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Taxa; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR part 17. February 28. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1996b. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. September 23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1996c. Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on Issuance of 404 Permits for Projects with Rdativdy Small Effects on Listed Vernal Pool Crustaceans within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California. February 28. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1997. San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol For the Northern Range. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1997a. Standardization Recommendations For Protection of the San Joaqu~n Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1997b. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Fidd Surveys for California Red-Legged Frog. Sacramento, California.- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. December 31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1999. Survey Protocol for the San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Northern Range. June 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination and Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). March 8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2000a. Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red- legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 258 PP. Wallace, 1976. See Biosyst~ns Analysis 1989. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Eastern Dublin Draft EIR, A. Section 3.7 - Biological Resources. Figntre 3.7-C Sensitive Species. August. Weinstein, 1978. See Biosystems Analysis 1989. EDPO Draft SEIR 6-8 Water Transfer Associates, 1999. Water Supply Planning Study Update. Prepared for Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). February 1999. West Yost & Associates, 2000. Water Master Plan, September 2000. Prepared for the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Willams, D.F. 1986. Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. 111 pp. Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In A. Poole and F. Gill leds], The Birds of North America, No. 231. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia; and Amer. Onithol. Union, Washington, D. C. Zander Associates. 2000. Request for Jurisdictional Determination,for the Jordan Ranch,. April 11. EDPO Draft SEIR 6-9