HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 DubRchWest Attch 8a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
!
I
I
-,
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
2.0 Introduction .... .... ...... ......... ........... ..... .................. ........ ............................ .......... ..... ......2
2.1 EIR Requirement......... .................................... .............................. .... .... .....................2
2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR.......................................................................................2
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR ............................................................................4
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR ................................................................5
2.5 DSEIR Review Process ..............................................................................................5
2.6 Future Environmental Analysis ...............................................................................6
3.0 Project Description ......... .......... ................................................. .........................................7
3.1 Project Location................................................................................ ........... ...............7
3.2 Project Area Features............ .............. ............ ............... ........ ... ....... ..........................7
3.3 . Prior Planning Approvals: ........................................................................................8
3.4 Project Applications.............. .... ....................................................... ........................12
3.5 Project Objectives.......................... ....................................... .... ............................... .13
3.6 Project Development Plan....................... ............................ ................................... .13
3.7 Regulatory Setting ...... ............................. ......... ................ ...................... .................18
3.8 Future Actions Using This Supplemental DEIR ...................................................20
4.0 Environmental Analysis ..... .............................. ........................ .............. .........................34
4.1 Agricultural Resources .............................................. ........ ..... .... ...................... ..... ..35
4.2 Air Quality...... .... .... ................................... ............... ................... ................... ... .......38
4.3 Biological Resources ................................ ......... .......................... .............................47
4.4 Land Use ... .... .......... ...... .................................................. ................................. ... ......78
4.5 Population Housing and Employment..................................................................84
4.6 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................. .............93
4.7 Utilities and Services .............................................................................................113
4.8 Schools .......................................................................... .......... ................................128
4.9 Parks and Recreation ................................................... ..........................................131
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project....................................................................... 137
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR..............................................137
5.2 No Project .......... ........... ..................................................... .....................................138
5.3 Alternative 2: Reorganization and Development Under Existing General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan....................................................................139
5.4 Alternative 3: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West
with Revised Neighborhood Park Loc:ation...........................................................141
5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................143
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion................................. ................... ............. ....................144
6.1 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................... ............................. .... .......144
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts........................................l45
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted....................................................................l46
7.1 Persons and Organizations ...................................................................................146
7.2 References.................................. .......... ...................................................................147
8.0 Appendices. ..................... ....................... ................ ....... .......................... ..... .............149
Appendix 8.1.. .... ... .................. .................. ..... ................................................. ....... ... ........150
Appendix 8.2........................... ... ............ ................................. ........................ ..... .............151
Appendix 8.3................................................................. ........ ...................... .... ..... .............152
Appendix 8.4........................... ............. .................... ..... .......... ........ ........... ... ....................153
Appendix 8.5.. ............................ ......................... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..................... .....................154
Appendix 8.6....... ..... ..... ......................... .......................................... .................................155
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Supplementallmapcts/Mitigations................................ 1-1
Table 2. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations..................................... 16
Table 3. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards................................40
Table 4. Air Quality at Livermore Monitoring Site, 2000-2002 ...........................41
Table 5. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day .....................................44
Table 6. Plant and Wildlife Types..........................................................................74
Table 7. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations.....................................82
Table 8. Regional and Tri-Valley Population Projections....................................85
Table 9. Regional and Tri-Valley Households......................................................86
Table 10. Existing and Projected Employed Residents........................................87
Table 11. Proposed Dublin Ranch West Population Generation ........................91
Table 12. Existing Intersection LOS Levels of Service .........................................97
Table 13. Existing + Approved (Baseline) Intersection LOS ...............................99
Table 14. Proposed Project Trip Generation............................................................ 101
Table 15. Baseline + Project Conditions Intersection LOS................................. 102
Table 16. Intersection Level of Service under Buildout Conditions .................106
Table 17. Summary of Freeway Analysis............................................................ 108
Table 19. Dublin Ranch West Potable Water Demand ......................................126
Table 20. Dublin Ranch West Non-Potable Water Demand .............................127
Table 21. Existing and Proposed Student Generation, ......................................130
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
1=
I
I
I
I
I
M
I
I
I
I
en
I ~ £
~
.5
I ~ -
~
-
:E --0
¡:::
I ~ ...
~ --0
~
en
I Ö ¡¡j
< "8
~ ~
~
, ,.C
~ :E
~
I ~
~ ~l
:E
z bOa¡
I ~ :¡::QI';
·S 1j
-
> --0«1
~ ã,§
I
~ ~'3
!~
I ~
.B8
~ ß'¡>
I êJJ
8~
C/) .~~
~
I ... ~3
~ -£iß
t ~ ·it
C/) Ii
I =
... ~õ
I ]~
...¡:::
Æ'¡¡¡
~~
I
I
-
..
-akl
",:f =
~<~
-.....
Q,,,,OI:I
Q."'Þ
= g.¡.-
~.§:E
Ž
~
..
~
C
Q
'þ
:0
'Þ
~
1
..
-
=-
t
C/)
t:
..
!
¡
I
-
=-
t
~
...
=-
~
~t:
Æt
-
~
$
¡,
.~
..
..
..
==
3
.= ->
",,'~ ] jj
lii B·~l! <:>21.... =~
''êf,Q=~~= ii~"": B85-
~j1!B~rJ o--"~'" ~cB
.~::::~~'õ] ~iii::~ t!'~::g
¡Jo:=s;¡:¡.... ~..~oc ..:i:=
~;;,ª t:'6.'; §~~.~ ~ t 2
¡¡",::¡o§-"";::: =,,"23 8.,s~
= ~ 'õ 'i3 ~ * 1 .0 .B 1:1" 5 0 ....
<:>",~;:s" =.:;:'8 I:: >] "J: !:i c
~ e:: ._ .I:i !¡ ... .. Ë ~ g, .d¡ ~'" '" i
.0 " u ~ > 1j j '" >,= !8 .¡¡; ~
.E~0I88õ""==="'1::5 .c
~~.,sI::!:i...~8~-i"-8]B~
'" ~._..o¡::e:: oc~ !J!~>,
~ § Ea & B "'Ø= ~ ·s g. QJ .51'" ·i- g!
._ 01'" 0""0I0Ii! - i>
.-;=~;t",_OIitil: Sm""
Ó1.1I'ž- ",.c~..",g, ~.se¡g
<:¡8"':C ..
~
"
.2....
"" g¡
--¡;""
o .a
it""
¡:¡ 2
'J: ..s!
1> !::
'J: ~
~ ;
5'
1i c
2 ~
fi '"
8~
i-3
'ãë6
&!i
.~ 01 'S!
< oS ~
~
e
-
~
~
c
I<
]
g
~
.!!
~
E
::>
'"
q
-
8
''8
"
en
'"
§
iš
-=
~!
~:i
i~
~:s
~~
-
~
!
i
=
Q
=
~
=
i
S
I
ë.
~
u:¡
I
-
Š
5
i
u:¡
<;¡
~
-
"
"
...
e
-
""
~ ..
121
..4
~ "S
'2 ~
..:."
æ;§
",J ,,~ .
] ;¿ .8 ~ ._ <!t ,j] ~ O~ ~
=~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I O~ ~
':I '" j C.15" -= ,þ .- .. ¡!!
'" '" -=., " P-. -; ~ .¡::; ~ '" - 0 -
~=~ ~~_~~b~ ~~ ~ s ~~ã~= ~~~
~t¡ ~~1t~..~ ~1 ~ 6 B1~f~ I~~
~O-fí ..8«ßP-.I~E ""b -]6 "'~Ð!I!:::ë "~1õ
~ ] .~] j ~ ~ ~ J ~ . ~'§ ] ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ l~ 1 i 1
6 '" '" c 8.... 0 !i -0 '" "" ~ ,,6 1.1 ~ - ., .- - ., 1'! '" .. '"
ft-fí..", -fí1.~-'" ~6 ~~1 ~~¡~~ðC8"'"
~-=~E-~"..8..c"f~8 ~"" =6~ð-- -fí0
.,g ~ ~"E. i ~ ~ l ~ '~1] ¡ B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ .~ ~
'6 ¿; :Ë .5 'ë' ¡! ~ P-. ~ ~ g¡ ~ .. 11.¿ .. .S1 * .¿ ~ 10' ~ ê ~ ¡; '" 1! .-
1~t~p-.¡lj8.~iJ~i~~~i~~I~R~ð~i~
c-Q~"0"~2u~-2ezO",czccc~-ooIE
~~~i~8tB~~~j~a~£8!~ð!ð]~=£",~
~~g~~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~
-š
1: !!
" ~ ~
.S 6
~ -0 ..
=:;~
., Ci '"
~ ~ -0
"tS....õ
-"..c
5 -fí ~
'"' ~-fí
.i~~
E .5 B
P-.co::
.. 0 .-
~'Iõ ~
i-'§ 'Iõ
~i~ª
.- « ~
¿ ~~ ~
'"
&
<
~~
'"
"'~
«IE
a. ~
~
1
'J:
.~
-
'j¡
~
'J:
a
~
c
o
.,
.-
.,
;s
~
z
~
a:
¡¡j
I
c.
;:I
( J
~
I
J~
c-
._ 0
~~
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
!
I .2
I
I .š
~
"
e
I j
I 1
I
e
f ~
q
I ·1
'"
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
§
31
C:c
5'~
..:S
i!
J¡~
'i:i
zæ
-
t
a
I!
:s
;:I
Q
:¡::
.i
-
¡
~
ë
i
=
C/)
1
;;~
~...
~
r¡ ..
~ 0
.. ..
fo~
tIS~
~
G
~
..
<I
...
..
'"
,!:
-:S
,
5
....
~§
8, If¡
~i
~
'"
6
~
"'
"
~
"
'"
~
e
~
¡¡¡
"
~
c
o
..¡;:
"
..,
~
'5
~
e
'"
c.'t:I
g. .~
'" "
o .,..
Z ~
I c
., t ~.8
c " "" ~
o <I .. r¡
.- .- E - ...
... ::ì 1:1 ""._ '" c 0:
i ,"," c o.¡. ~.-
5~l~ -61 ¡¡:¡
- ~
æ - 0 " ~
::!1 -=
- ~1
~ g,.,š oj' e
. ~ " E
~ ~ ~ ~ . -!
ë ]o~~ ~ § ~ g.
CI)
'Š. ~ ~ o..~ 'ë"-'" ~ ~
Ii ~ ~I ..
i; = ~ ::! ~ 8 0
r¡:¡ '" '" " ~
..... 'ë'-£ .. 't:I '1 8
'"
'50 ~~..s:c: þ.. '"
:. þ~~~ .- 't:I -5~
.. ~ '§
.- " c:: å ¡¡¡ ::>
""'G is,, C
~""C>J:~ .. - 0 0:0
o-=.¡: .¡: :.;: ~ e .5 õ
"'OOO/ilO 8~
:.;: õ: .¡¡¡-¡;;
! "1'
'" 5l
.. 6
...
e <
..
I·
~ - I
-'"
s¡ !~
5:c 1ii
.. Q)I I
S'- .. :f
..:a ¡¡::
'Q... '8
§'~ .. j
.~
.5 cn:!i ~ I
1 ~I .s
..
..
c - ~ I
I<
,;:
&:J
~ -.:s ..... '"' QJ .;.
~ õ~] = .,;: '~-5,Pj 19 I
~ ]]ori' C¡"'~!3 E =æ § ~>.ê -; :õ
!j is ]"~ ,g~,,-.:: ...c" ~~c.;:¡ -= jg
.. .- U).... w ..c ...
:a ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~.~ .. ~ f ~],5 r~ f ~.j i io i ~ î-~ I
is
':::I ~i-=J81aßI~¡~.J=J€¡<¡ ~ iJê~
o: ë ~ 11 .~ B ~ · ~ ~ &. .§..~ i B ~ 10 ~ ~.-:. ~ '-;.~ ~ ~ Ë !3
e ~ '" "'J:>. 0 -e -.-,,'0 '" ¡S""" "," I
e .- In¡ ~ :>Ij ~ IS. §].2! ~ 11 .&j ê ~ !3 8;0.5 OJ ~ ] ~ ~~
" :a "'ê' c. 0" ..] ... 'J:- .c ~
'" ~ 0 § C3 .5 ~ ~.! ctI ~ 15..E !! ~ ~ ~ ~ ": ~ s - 'E oS
~ 'iI " ~ ~ '13 g ~.c ~ ~ 11 B :a ë .¡¡¡ ~.;; ê ~ =æ 1.1". E:; 'S
.§ ë 6.;;.;; "';¡¡';¡""¡:'O "'§>~ "'0 € c"'-g .c ...~..ê".. I
... 13>. J:I-=i!""o ,,6 '13,,0 i!?'" cO".,,"'O
] >., la _ ':.C _ "'C Qj .-..c = J..I QJ
'¡¡ ~ ~ ~.c " ." ~ -g .. iJ .2 go ë '" Ë ãJ C ~ '3 .,¡, 8; '" ." .2!.E t:
'" ~ < ~ i B ~ ] j ê is ] e- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~¡ ~ ].§.ê] ~ ~ B- ~
. 0 = <ð aJ U} Q. QJ Con Cl;I _ 0 I
3-¡j81O~~c~·~.c~"'c.8-=_~~~J<"'Æ~£c.
>:I;
¡~ ~·§..e ~~]~'<i :Q
I
tj 1
it
S
-
- B
~ ~ ~ a: I
I [j
[11 ~
E "
.. E <D 1
Co . .. E
~ ~~ ~
'ù '" ... ~
... o '"
~ !3~ I
ø:: ~
- ..
13 ,: c
'Oþ ... -¡¡;
o£ ~ I
õ=
=sð £.5õ
- £~ I
.. .... ,§õ
! .
0 .g~
E -
- /Q C(.)
I
I
I
¡g
I .0
I
I ~
~
I J
I 1
I
..
I j
q
I .§
'g
en
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=
-:B
.!&i
5:=
E'"
",:;
-..
~-~
=;;:;
I;/'J::!j
~i
5
-
t
ii!
g¡
:;
g
:=
&i
:=
...
:;
~
i
§'
I;/'J
1
E
-
~
š
I
I;/'J
11
...
=-
(!.
""
...
i
e
..
5,.j Š Q.J ..l:
0~'.c.s,Q .. jrt
., '.c '-' S -" ,.. ¡:;
vc:::s.]cv ;ME
..£"-!iJi!;"'J=~.2.s
'B.ë 8 2 .~ c; ~ ..£ j -d
'--d~o¡¡ "
]'5.- 5] j].ë~]
*~~~-E"~~d,:\~
~1:£ ~ a ¡; 'C 1 § ] "
..c=1:!S';S8.._"",~
1: S 't: _ ~ ..ë ~ "'Ö -= ë ·5
"ê.e-5" ~S-" go
æ·-Q>""¡t:=p",,..
I'i~"::: ~ 5..!3:si~ ¡;.š C
c ""P-'''-''·;ö''p-.o
'II - '" " .. P-. '.c
"" -.. 'II .s go.s p-..5 "
<i5 s.~'iI-d] .,~~~
·"o·->1jJ:::"O ~ï~
.,,0' .~ 'iI .~ ~ .!!!' ¡:¡ .g ~
WI ã) .,C QJ (f.! t Q,) C/:¡ .~
iajg-d ~o£~ 1:1 ii.::dJo£
~~
<Þ );,
~.è
CI. ~
o
Z
'" .
~ 1 .s",~::",ß
ïS~d -E §.~J!æ~~
1:;2:"" ¡¡¡ 'fj:'~~O'"
.:0<._" -d :>c...""~;:>
~~!!.¡. 'II ,1:']_0"'0"0
.s2",!!3 '" ..,Q._C
j-",~~ö'g ~ 8 jj ~i~
~~..s",,,,E,,,,,,_~¡:; 8
fU "~ ~o£~ ~:g'-=~".s"$]
~~ oa-~..o -='"'>'
=1<1' "'ojm 'O",B,Q
~ 1,61'~" s.š'~Iã~:ë¡¡
~ .. ~'§ ..!3 i.~ ~ ~ ] ~ þ ~
- .s '¡g ~ ~ '5 & ¡¡ ~ t :g ~ ""
O!! !::'01j E e 5] "'.- 8."
.-e"",!::~g;ei:j~f!¡E!
'? ="'tJ~,Q!" "'!I,-U!I..:.!
0] 0" -';"6..oo£...,,~
"0 e"'-"-"
=v~ :G o£._""¡t,,..
a:
¡¡j
I
CD
is.
c.
ã!
~
C
1ñ
~
.t:: c:
0=
~8
.5 Õ
25»
85
e
-
i
~
i!i
c
~
.£
'"
e
§
""
~
"
.9
'¡j
""
c
st
c;::
01-
5:a
'at
~3
't~
ZJ
t
=
¡:¡
::Ë
c
Q
;::
:"
;::
:ã
~
ë
.!
~
rLJ
i
t
s
i
i
"ù
~
-
¡¡
...
e
-
~~
lj
oW :;... 4J 1 § [I "'ß ..s:::
_ W -~ ~ oS -., "s>.f ~~
§ =~~U ~c~~s' E~w~æ1 ~~æ
= O·~œ ~~!~ : ~ ~E o~
ê !J g.! - -g .= 'S ,,~ æ \5 .¡::: S ~ oS := j ~ SOl (j >-.
"- '"' ~ .... «I o.c ~ (Cj'''¡: Iíiii 0 :s - O' ~ c:
o p., .¡.¡ Q,..... ':: UJ'" «I o.c L" ~ ~
'" _ "';:!sê'.~13~·;::.~c~c~0~<II~.æ8'"
...!G'-'...·;::ö·-g¡so "''f'" ;¡;¡æ""f~"".- 0
~n*ciot~",:tt~~~c",E;=§J11:!
~~;::-~~~o~~="'o""~:=o~",,,,~_,,,=
.š! ;;; ~ ~ 6 ~ 6 -g .:¡¡¡ ~ 1 fJ5 .š .!€ ~.g ~ ~ -£ !S ¡g ~
!i ';,,,s '" .,C [.-; g,¡( ~ ~ '-' .- = ~ ~ c ¡¡¡ ;¡ 6 ã! ~ ~ .-
~] -i [·Æ .~ fa ~ ~~1~ ~!1g.1 ~'Ë ~ c~£.'ª
"'M !G -- MtE~1:!"'- "'=~I~ 05
ª,.§><~1...e ~]1i.~·¡¡;..5 5i';='ª f-i.;s!·:g ...~£-:: ~
c -"''''õ-''t) =...=.....;¡.... &;;, =.,x:..þ;;....t:: 0-
8 e '" C Q .~ .. <II 0 - .- .- ¡: w ... Q >-"C Q
o Q. Q .!:: ~"'" ~ Š 1:S ¡g "" f'" ¡¡ ~ ill ..8 Ë ,g ~ ... 0
¡... g..g g.~"'ft""., "'-!i:: ~1;;: ª ~ ¡:¡~ ~ ¡:!'2>'2'~
~-"o~"-I"""Q"'s w~~~'-'!i"'~ C
~ j'j i'~'~] ! ~'I ~ ~ ~ j ~~ ~! 1~ ~J ~~ ~
g;
w
I
j!
B:
=
en
Æ
I
.s:::. C
~=
æ~
.5 õ
~~
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
í'
I
I
,-
I'
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
~
I J
I ~
. G
I
I j
~
I·~
'"
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
=
Q
si
¡h=
~:i
i~
~~
~~
-
t
51
:I
§
...
-
i
;:
...
::;
š
t
:r
en
-
~
-
¡
I
ê:t
...
~
..
¡;¡
O,
E
..
...;;
~i
l~
G.) ~ tfJ "'C "'S.~ ~ Lo 1:: ..
=-¡¡ ¡¡¡ ¡¡ ;Eo: ~~Æ""~E~~.~~,,,
~w ::>."' ~~ ~~~..s~~£~j~
:: g. ~ ~ ~ "' ~ ð ~ 0 .~ s e ~ .¡ J! .;: '5 ~.~ ~
~ ~ ~ .~ g. ~ i ] ~ ~.s [1 t :: -å: -š '5 .~J ~ ~ 1!
t,.., ..= --g E [ 5 ~ "" ..E Ë "" go ~ J!j ewe ã1 -:= ..!i "'.5.>o
~~1~~~t~~~1Æ~~ß8..E1"''''e=~e~
",..",=~ 'iI~ ._=,,=<:::;¡ ;",1:: ~U~U
::E!~~~it~~ro~g.E21~e"'t~Ære
f ¡:;.:>;¡ I:: 0" w ~ "'''' 0: bb~ "'~< f ;¡ ~-ø:;:1
~ '" ~ ; ~ ~ -š ~ ~ ~ 55 ·it "'r .~ ~ ~ ] g.~ ~ 8 6 .
~~N~ -~"'C._ -~~~_m ~
Iii ~ ~ 'is' >,'w ~ ~ '" :> ~.&> <:: 1 '" "".. '" .¡¡¡ e E ... ¡..
05.= 5-.S,;¡ ~'" li1] "'~ = ~.&>..s ~ ¡¡¡ tJ:: j:i ~ B"ti
....... -.t: = .... = QJ:3 I:: ~ "- ctI c:
<o:;~~ê..s..!i~"=êj£..=~1~~~..s~~i~
=~-._- ~~~ -~~~~r~> ~~
. ~ ;:: 5 S ~ u ~..... ~ .5. ~. . .5·c ~ -S e .=:
Ó "'~ i; S, ~ 1 ¡.. ~ = j .-= ~ .ª ¡¡ ~ :E::>'~ ~ ..s ~ :s
æ$.Eli ê-§,gJ¡ 5-.i~ ~ s,å.E s'cJlSJ¡¡.. ê'¡",1S
.
a:
jjj
i
U)
g
I
-E,§
".&>
&!ð
~õ
à~
I
I
~ c "i'8 I
...",
:~ :8 l~
.", ~~
~ 0/:: I
'i ~:i I
..
f '3,'"
l3
e I
- 'Sa.
I
ze
-
I,
.;;
¡jj '~j --0
11 f:: ] ~'æ"
- '.J: t'iI ,
C ;;I c" æoo. Ii..g ",.;
~ '" ~.s OJ '0 c ~ C "j " ~ OJ
~ "" ..<: :a t-.- ""
" .. .. It :0 e!s] -1",";:
]' ::E ê'iiiõ",'Ü.s,,-o -0 =>ö:I
" æ e.. .ä .5 ~,g ~ t ¡¡¡ ~ È ~ I
'" is ::Etiiis, "-ði"... "
'6 :c .. i"æ';E1~:B~'2.g
i i ~~ ¡!:<" ~ C ¡>'otOJ 15.., ~~
~OJ~~ooeOJ~ I
e :i :t ~ ë g. i ~ :0 f., ë .S ¡:: .. ¡g
"
'" !!¡>''''j~oo'B'¡¡¡ë~ -08
q ~ ..."'~ OJc·~oì:>8"'lc.s
- « c .!:3 .~ - C -0 '"
i5 .. ~-oo_ ]~..'-' '2'"' J
~ i ~ 'g!s'ªê"']It¡g~....g
.~ OJ ~ ': 1;'.ß æ oì:>..§ 'ß a. Q.
~ ~ 'æ E e ~:ra. ~ ·ß .~ 'e [¡£
;;I C]:S ~ ..-i3..<: § 028 I
(I;¡ 0'" "l!e¡¡5¡¡¡~,-e
uli:".c..
1
t:
l a: ,I
[j
I ~ 1
~
CD
.. !
-a I
§' ::;¡
en
(I;¡ ~
"
...
~ ~ I
'§~
£6 I
.S; Õ
:ab
.. 6ð I
...
..
ø.
. E
-
I
6
-:¡::
s&b
;:c
5¡
'at
ë !~
-
~ -¡:¡
" ze
ë
" -
e
.~
¡Jj
2::
51
g¡
:s
is
:c
.. J
ê
"' ¡
'"
c:? ";
" '5
.2 ..
~ e
~
'" ~
cn
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
¡
e
-
I
=
en
:¡
~
...
"
a
E
..
] ~~ >-.L~2 "~
t; ._ 10; t Q.I
~cæu~cª~~~ ~~~ .
= 0 ... " 0... ......" -= .!!J!Ii '"
~·.c:3~C:'æ"t: E(CG.I ~-=_ëj I"a
;¡¡ 2 ~ oJ ~"ß c.¡ .fj OJ 1;: ~'õ E'õ ~
:g ... E ¿ E go~ ;¡ '" ¡:: ~ -- þ.!IJ c"
~~ ~-=~o~. ~.~~O~
-811~~"'Æ~~~°!ã¡~~>
.j!t .- c ... 'bI, <:> ... '" 1 " ..!!J .. § " ...~
..,..-¡;¡·-"'''...·¡;:>,ê.....oo''
" 0 :: J!! ,,- .....- - " - ¡>, E -Þ.
]¡e~~~~¡~ ~~8 ¡~c.
..cop..<a""..cs g..'~t;~ ~.Ë0c
1E"'E~~.s5~!ã1t..t"'g¡~-
;,: = ~~~ ~~ ='i~.... G.I':.C.§St o-:ê
.~ '" = c. ---' '" " 0 '" ._ .= = " " >, '"
- ..c. .... '" co'" 8 c... - ..
"''''''' ,,"-=J:I 0."0 ",-0.-
~~s]~~~g¡~"'~E2~it1
<oæßJ1~8~~¡ i~2i~~
. .- E = - .. ;; > .- 'C '" -
If '" - '" .-i: -= ~ " ~ ... ot¡ <:> ~ æ ..
O~I~E~i',,=~~~lt~I'~
- ........ u ~ .- .= -= ..... ~ .... ... ....... é... ~
=,.0 (I:j .... ._ "C u:I co ~ ..... o....c (13 ¡....J ~ u.! it:
---,-
~ .~ = ~1
~0!)=-=:8. =
-=o"'t: ecw~æ''=
0.."2 c:: c .~ c::: ".¡: :::¡; m
ij .¡; ,g .. ::: .~ .- ~ ..
= J:I '" 5 E ~ æ e ~
~'1ãË''::~'i:Sœ~Õ
2§..e~1;:!ã-i5= .
(¡j ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ j "ti .@ ~
8=~·gt'ëJ!!¡':2'"
... ¡ .= .- "" c.::;¡ ~ ~ ¡
~ = ~ æ (I:j ~ ~ ~ 0 i
'0 '" .= .¡¡ ] -= 2 " 0
:':'1¡)t;~1$ooi'1av.s
~.::-= go ..e æ ¡¡ >-0.
<!; 8 E '" -¡¡j æ ",.!IJ ~
..: ~ i!_ ~ ..., ;; ~ æ 0..5
ó::¡; ~.~.§ ~~.~ 6~
::..c ". '" <:> " e c...!!J f!
- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
CD
"'...
..1]
0-1
a:
[j
~
~
CD
'B:
"
en
~
c
1;;
~
..c c
~~
.5 Õ
~S
I
.,
ã § I
.~
-:= ~Š
:-a ~J -
::E <:: '<'J I
-= Eï- " ~i
..:E -=
., §:! .¡
¡ ..,
.~
J5-:s VJ ~ I
5 ,
... <::
~ ~!. '"
1
Ii .š " I
.g ,..,
>-
&j .
]I i I
I - ""
!ß '" ,,'" '" ,..,
:is ~ .. '=:"~-=-=.EO¡j I
a >."t:J 0;.1 g.. c ,¡,,¡
'õ § ]<::'" v'"~È'"¡:¡Þ-
~ := ~ ì1!g.:!ß~].!.i.."2~:;:¡¡.~ .
..
5 .y .. 'x " ] ~ J!! .~... .=: ~ ~ ~ r~ I
oS e j!¡ '" If> '" -ß 0 ¡.- '"
E ... j!¡ 8:.'" eb~ ·ß..~ f Q.-:c -
., ::;;:
en ~ '" g .¡¡ !š '5" ~ E ~ .i;: l! 19 .5 ~
c:.j -
.. ti ijJ [;5 a, c.,.. ..¡-. ~'¡¡"'¡¡
Š ¡ Ë' ~ ~ g-l! ~ .5 Iii ~ .£ .s .¡¡ ~ 5i I
5 Q,I ,..-I 19 .- --..c "t:I
'~ .S! 8 -:: t1 -g ~ A ~ '" ;s <:: .5 1;;] <::
OC ~ 1;~._U!O 0
en Ii: ~ QJ CO' Q) ..= -..::: .
.CÒ-ø..== .., ~.s...,.~(C I
= 6'" .f "';SQ..5~~;S.s:=-
rI.:I SC'-:¡;e'- :='-""[
..~"" """-:g "".s
=1S. J!!ti 8 §l!.E !Uc&
I
- I
B-
e
-
- I
s .a a:
I 13 ¡¡¡
1t~ ¡ 1
EJ:::
- !
= '''i!
en ~ gg
ù 5 '" s-
.~ '7 VJ I
"'" ~
too & ~
- '"
B 'ë; -¡¡;
.- '" I
..š~ ~
0-
.- '" ...: c:
i:QU g=
... &!ß I
.. Ó ãõ
... ""Þ
Iii - 8ö
... =
I
I
. -..
I
I·~
. :~
"
'I ¡
I i
"
E
'"
IJ
I¡
5
I
..
II
~
-
I·ê
ij
'"
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
6
]'=
5,!
~i
-",
ê:~
Jš:;
~š.
zEI
-
~
~
=
ã
'=
.~
-
:s
~
..
j
~
cn
...
~
S'
-
¡
1
en
I
¡.
-
"
a.
e
..
,..g
':'¡;¡j
,..
., Ii;
!5'~
Q.. ~
Z
!!3 = ~
¡¡ .-=- >. "2
>1 '0'" ~ 11 1111j...:;; to:
:¡fn 11B~= .. þB" ",-e~=¡j!> :=
.sit: i!)'O.ß"= "''00='0 >.,2U.!2·S'c. ~ g¡
~ ii! c. ~:iS 1f:J: J1 ~ 0 = tI J:! .!!3 E c !l. e ..1 c-
, :1!..... e 2." ~~,¡, -:=J:!'-IO].,s --g.t1S...,.2! ø:: æ..
ãe=..c.~~.......Æ..-~ O~~ 0.,s'O U~>.
~ § [~..s c..S"~ &:12 ~Þ'§ ~.9-·~.s¡..ß.E §>1;Š ~~
... '-10 0 ~ "" Æ '0 0 S W ~ "2 .¡;; "- ., '0 õc .~ ~;ë .. .'"
ê8 Eo ~ '/5' g == ~ ~,,~ tJ ~ ~ ð ~ ¡:;j m ~ r~ -§ ~ -g,0 jj ~ ~ ]
.,.... ~~-'O "'....,u..."'c:s~ '" ~>
!l.'OC.:¡;:"'"-"'1<Eï:tjC.-",,c:::=co <t> -"'.51""
~ "" !> ., ::I c...1 c 8 .. '" ::I go.S - 0 :¡; >,'-10 ";:¡.si - B ]
.~ §......,s l:!~ ê ~ ¿ go'~ ~ 2! !Q g. ~ 'f! '" ~ &.S..s g]]'.S ..
o",'g= UO"'!Q°8_...~2~- ~ ~'" -."
= " ";ë ".f! .:¡;: c. ¡..'-8 ...P-. U t! ., 11"2 ¡:s È " !Q'~ ¡¡¡ ~ tJ
.s § ¡; :~ B II!' ~ " 11 c "Jj .!!3 go., c .~ e ï:'/:: .E ¡¡¡ c. s ,;: .~
" :s¡ ::¡s ~ .. Ire c l:! "':S ~ - ~ ~ :¡; 8 .- s · 0 'i ~ :;; e 1t tI 0
~~il~I~~~¡81]1J..s~¡l1jð§~~f]
.... ~ .-
O",...J =;.=:--
_ø:::..=ti<'i3
=:II U (f. I:U
[t
ijj
]i
c
.,
E
..
8:
ãJ
~
I
J: C
~~
Cõ
z¡~
¿So
]
"
~
"
e
'¡;
is
]
"
]
e
§
en
~
§
'f¡
en
.,
!!i
'.c
is
-:=
tt
~¡
i~
cn_
~~
ZI5
-
:i
11
"
.,
¡¡
e
-
f::
=
'"
¡,
:i1
is
!
:=
i
Š
I
ë.
§'
r,r.¡
-
~
15
-
'!
i!
15
-å.
§'
cn
i
Q
...
..
:;;
~
E
..
C\ tI)
'7¡¡
'Ø¡
g
a..
~
= ..., o!: '"
" <:: '" ° ..., '"
..c ·c ""Q - ~ ~ c ~ '1j
: "."t ] c: E .!!.J B ~ Ci " 'c ..J¡j . U ,
~~~~~~~O~__~ ~ '"
~ ~=~-o~æ"t! ",,~ ~ ~
~ ~ :;¡ êi ~ -.;I .!2 !:: .. ,.J .¡:¡ ~ "" .¡...._._ ." B I:>.
~5:>!i¡>.c;8.r>B~Q<;'" O::E"o-SÒ' g ct
"t! ....... = -""., -9 u 1:>.., . .~.~ ¡g ~ .¡; .s: "> '" oS 0';::
0::1 "''''''~~-~ ~"a"_.- ....__.
"~~-S"t ~"'1¡~.2 "t!~c;~~êiS~0::Ò'1§
~J""'~~~"'>.8=~o"~jS"t!~~..~~~
æ>",~jææði:~~.2 ~B~~~~e¡IJ~t~
¡¡¡.§» ~.r>g¡¡ "as E 'I:>.b~..~
1.1!lli~j~,~tIIJ~I~~j!~c:
0::.8 6- 0:: <:: g¡ 1:>.., "'=.". < Q I:>."'"t .r> <:: "t!..~ °
.~ ] ..;:: .~ .g ,g ¡(j 5. ~ .~.~ ~ i!: 1 1 to § 2 .g ~ Ji .~ u ';::1
~ ~.t; ~ ~ ~ 1:>." - ~ "" 8 '" " B e"a " ... .- I:>. '" :;
2 " .- " ;:> 0:: '" U~·!2 "t! .r>., ..., 0:: = '" -¡¡¡ e :¡; .¡¡¡
....cb~J:: .::I.... ..Q~=>-.- ~ n:c,S:p.,::Iio..¡:;
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ;!!:§:5 >..!¡ 4i ,,¡ 1 ~.g ~Q. ê E ... I:>. " á
ð 1$ 8;s 8 8 õ: ~ ¡¡¡ 'Õ '" S "t! 1;; 1:>.1'-. '" " ._ .!¡ '" '" ~
~
.r>
a:
¡¡¡
I
c.
s
'ª
o
I
~~
&!8
~~
ði:3
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I'
I
1
I
I
I' '"
I ·Æ 6
¡¡;cI
-~
'I Ð:!:I
er-
.,:E
'!o"
I a ~3
-
]j ~~
c
~ !
I c
a
~
I ~
;
I ~
Š
:!:I
~ III
I ë .2P
-
E ...
::> :a
'"
q '!
-
I c t
"
.",
J!
I =
fIJ
I
I i
E!
-
I ~
6
.!!
I i
fIJ
¡
I
Q
~
I
t 11
O,
a
..
I
I
= § "'.... 'g '" ..;
.,š",- ~ I:: " i:: -a"'sGJ æ
~ t _ '" = ~ -= I::,.Q "CI ~
="'.s8. ""'~"f! i~=j.,š
.- >, '.";:¡'J:
-=~]1! õb "0- '" ~ ~ 0-
j -= ~ ~ ~.,š ~ .5 .5 $ '" ¡.,. '" 'ë
.'" ¡:-.,.J .5.£
1 ~ ~ '" ~ :ö È~ § ~ .... "t:I CII::. ~
>, 1:: " ." ]j .!:: ~ U fiJ c
.B :]1 c:-~ .5 111 .s _ t:~8"'O
...... c ~ 5
~ c.!!!] ~'* ~.-...." oc ~l¡; ....
'-E'g .~ . ~Ë:§ =.¡:: QJ to;
:.a ~~."
~Esj""-= ,¡:¡ e.g~ooc
U) ¡..¡ 0 ~ ,j,
ð'"S' ~i'i=.,š:;äg¡ " " få ;'.§
c .- ." .... '6. tJ ~
....8~§....'" .E~I:: .. . '''']1 '"
_ ,.Q 0 œ 0 w .. = ~ ."
':' 0.. := ~
o ~ o..:g
-11; ']Q)1-I
= ... _ (t
~~
...
<II ..
g>E
~I
a:
¡¡:¡
]j
c
.,
E
.,
B:
'"
en
~
CI
I
~~
&!¿S
.S Õ
:c~
ðð
I
.~ õi~ I
.,t!;
-ä ¡¡
i::: ';'@
" ... I
e'" " iU ~
i~ :.= ~.E
'8 ~ ~
!t lID
.~
.5 'g z I
]I ~e ,š
~ ,¡,
.,
'"
11 - ,., I
~ ~
¡ t -o-o~." ,..,5ì § ~äi g:,
=1: !ߧi .-="= ... Ei",~ 1!~= I
Ii ii! ¡~]~ ~: go] ~ ~.{ ~t~! ~Ï~i~~
5
:¡ is ..s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1:: .5 -æ § ~ ~ >. ~ '" g ¡¡ 1, ~ ·S ,
_......... -~"t:I aD, ...."'S (I; ....
Š ~ ';'1 = j ~ [ Iií ¡¡¡ ¡ 1: ~.,s]::!':] .ß' ~;ë 1! ~ i
::: 00 ._'" ~ ¡¡- ]"'t=~o
" '" ~]~~lifl¡~-ollili-!BJ~1
E .!:P I
E - ~-o"l!eø:¡"¡:¡"'" 'r' 5.J! .".-
.~
'" :¡ Ji 1 ~ g; 'Ó i .-= ~ '5 .5 ~ J ~ -g E Î!' ß ~ ¡: '6
'" ~ 'ã !í.. t ¡;j ~ '" ] ~ .!:J:: e .8 8 '" r,ì
~ '! B 6- ~ .fo ¡¡¡ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1iì î ~ £1 .ª ß l~ ~ ~ .~
.§ ¡j ¡...~~::::J-t: .8vJ3-fU QJ i~ .~_....2· I
¡¡ e ·8 e 'B 1 ë :å 'õ ~ ê ] t R ¡:¡.:: ] ¡.. is 'C -g .~ '6 ~ ~
.!Ii
'" ~ ¡:¡. '" .- ~ iJ 5 '" " j! 0 - .. ª B = s
....fU~-g ::S>~O~O",=~.,s.,,~<J!OOI I
P'I QJ "J:: C - .- _
~ 6~.,s!:=~1i"'I!=~.I~~~Ælb
;:åb-¡ï¡ ~ ~'Ë §j1!~ &.-2'* ~]~~ ~ ~
I
-
!. lID 1
j
e
-
-
~ S a:: I
i fJ W
!i ~
§' .§ ~ 1
~
~ B:
I 5 ::J
(IJ I
~ Jì ~
'5
.~.; ~ I
õ"E
¡;:¡:s -g .r:
:c
~ ~ð 1
¡: '" .Eõ
.
=- 0 ~~
¡¡; ;
..
I
I
Exhibit 9 shows existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for the
Project site and Exhibit 10 shows proposed designations for the same area.
Table 2 compares land uses within the Projeçt area for the Dublin Ranch West, Bragg
and Sperfslage properties under the proposed Project as compared with the current
EDSP and General Plan. As çan be seen in Table 2, no land use changes are proposed for
the Bragg or Sperfslage properties. Table 2 does not include the Parks RFI' A property,
since no land use changes are proposed for this site.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 15
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations
Existing General Plan & EDSP Proposed General Plan & EDSP
Designations Designations
Gr. Mid- Gr. Mid-
Ac.1 Density Range &:1 Ac' Density Range ~inl
¡ty ensity
Bra!!;!! Propertv
Medium High 1.0 14-25 du 20du 1.0 14-25 du 20du
Density Residential
Nei¡;:hborhood Park 0.6 n.a. 7,841 SF 0.6 n.a. 7.841 SF
Subtotal 1.6 14-25 du 20du 1.6 14-25 du 20du
I Dublin Ranch West
i Property
I Low Density 20.0 18-120 du 80du 18.8 16-112 du 75du
I
I Residential
Medium Density 64.1 391-897 du 641 du 55.7 340-780 du 557 du
Residential
Medium High 4.8 67-120 du %du 20.2 284--503 402 du
I Density Residential
Nei¡¡;hborhood Park 11.8 N/A N/A 7.8 N/A N/A
Nei¡¡;hborhood Square 2.8 N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A
Open Space 70.1 N/A N/A 81.7 N/A N/A
Elementary School 9.7 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Neighborhood 0.8 8,712-20.908 10,454 sf 0.0 N/A N/A
Commercial sf
Subtotal 184_1 476-1,137 du 817 du 184.1 640-1,395 du 1,034 du
8,712-20,908 10,454 sf
sf
Sperfsla!!e Properly
Medium Density 1.0 6-14 du 10du 1.0 6-14du lOdu
Residential
Open Space 22 N/A N/A 2.2 N/A N/A
Subtotal 3.2 6-14 du 10du 3.2 6-14 du 10du
TOTAL 188.9 496-1,176 du 847 du 188.9 660-1,434 du 1,064 du
15,246-36,589 18,295 sf
sf
Note: 1- Gross Acres. Source: McKay & Somps
Stage 1 PD Prezoning and 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. All land uses
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 16
City of Dublin November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 17
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
within the Stage 1 Development Plan must be consistent with the General Plan and
Specific Plan. Exhibit 11 shows the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan.
The proposed Stage 1 PD-Development Plan would cover the entire Project area and
reflects the general land use types, densities and locations established in the 1993
Eastern Dublin project approvals with modifications as described above. The prezoning
would allow 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, parks, open spaces, roadways and similar land uses. Table 2 shows
proposed land uses for the proposed Stage 1 Planned Development prezoning.
If approved, the Stage 1 Development Plan would be the basis for future applications
leading to development of the Project area. 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. Future development applications
following the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and
zoning actions would include entitlements such as Stage 2 PD-Planned Development
applications, Site Development Reviews (SDRs), tentative subdivision maps, use
permits, development agreements and similar requests for land use entitlements.
It is anticipated that for future, more specific development proposals and entitlement
requests for the Project site that are consistent with this Supplemental EIR, no future
environmental reviews will be required.
Affordnble Housing
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
12.5 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. .
Dublin Ranch West Project proponents have complied with the affordable housing
requirement for the Dublin Ranch West portion of the Project by entering into a
Development Agreement with the City of Dublin to provide required affordable
housing units off of the Project site.
Access and Circulation
Primary access to the Project area would continue to be via Tassajara Road, a major
north-south arterial roadway that serves the eastern Dublin area as well as portions of
southern Contra Costa County to the north. Tassajara Road connects to 1-580 south of
the Project site which provides for regional access. Access over Tassajara Creek would
be provided by two vehicular and pedestrian bridges that would connect with Collector
streets within the Project area. Collector streets would provide access to local residential
streets. Proposed street sections would be comparable to those already approved or
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
built in other areas of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and consistent
with applicable City standards.
An ultimate precise alignment for Tassajara Road along the Project frontage was
approved by the Dublin City Council on July 20, 2004. Pursuant to the precise
alignment, Tassajara Road will be widened from two to six travel lanes to accommodate
future traffic volumes in Eastern Dublin and southern Contra Costa County. Owners of
the three properties within the Project area will be required to dedicate right-of-way to
the City at the time of development.
In accordance with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies, a primary
north-south multi-use trail is planned to provide pedestrian and bicycle access through
the Project area generally adjacent to Tassajara Creek, connecting urban areas with
open space trails and regional trails.
Utility seroices
Water distribution mains are planned to be located in all major streets. Construction of
water storage reservoirs are not anticipated to be part of this Project. although a water
storage tank is proposed to be constructed near the Project area as a separate project
undertaken by DSRSD. No water service is anticipated to be provided to portions of
Dublin Ranch West that are located outside of Alameda County. Sewer service for the
Project would be provided through connection to the DSRSD sewer system. When and
where available, DSRSD would provide recycled water for irrigation purposes, reducing
the need for potable water. All water and sewer facilities would be constructed to
DSRSD standards.
The stonn drainage system for proposed development on the Dublin Ranch West
would flow into Tassajara Creek, located in the westerly portion of the Project area and
then flow south into the Arroyo Mocho for ultimate discharge into San Francisco Bay.
Future development of the Dublin Ranch West will require additional hydrology and
drainage studies as mandated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as well as applicable
Oty ordinances and development policies.
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. They would be constructed to
standards adopted by Zone 7.
Exhibit 12 shows the proposed master infrastructure plan for the Dublin Ranch West
portion of the Project area.
3.7 Regulatory Setting
The Project area is currently located in the unincorporated area of Alameda County.
The County currently 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. If the
Project is approved, the Project area would be annexed to the City of Dublin and land
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 18
November 2004
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.
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. 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 may be subject to the Development Elevation Cap
restrictions, which are reflected in the Stage 1 Development Plan.
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. LAFCü
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 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.)
LAFCas 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; and consistency with applicable
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 19
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 DSEIR.
As noted earlier, annexation and future development of the Project area was assumed
in the Eastern Dublin ElR. Therefore, the EIR analyzed the potential environmental
impacts not only of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Spedfíc: 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 Project area proposed for annexation includes generally the same residential land
uses and densities adopted through the Eastern Dublin project and analyzed on a
project and cumulative level in the Eastern Dublin ElR. As the Specific Plan excerpt
above notes, traffic congestion and reduced air quality are the primary environmental
effects of long distance commuting. These impacts are updated in this 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 area is located within the adopted Spheres of Influence for both
the City of Dublin and DSRSD. 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. The Project proposal includes a detailed Plan for Services as required by LAFCO
and by the City's PD-Planned Development zoning regulations as part of a Stage 1
Development Plan.
3.8 Future Actions Using This Supplemental DEffi
This Draft SEIR supplements the certified Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to Sections 15162
and 16163 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following anticipated future actions related to
the proposed Project.
· City action on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment;
· City action on the PD Prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan;
· LAFCO and City actions on annexing the Project area to the City
· City actions on a Pre·Annexation and Development Agreement(s)
· City actions on Stage 1 PD-Planned Development applications for the Bragg and
Sperfslage properties, Stage 2 PD-Planned Development applications for Project
properties, Site Development Review (SDR) applications, subdivision maps and
similar land use entitlements.
More specifically, the City and DSRSD actions on the annexations would include
adoption of Resolutions of Application to LAFCO for annexing the Project area to the
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 20
City of Dublin November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 21
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City and DSRSD. DSRSD actions would also include a Public Facility Agreement and an
Area-Wide Facility Agreement.
In addition to the above approvals, the DSEIR may also be used by state or regional
agencies in their review of other permits required for the Project (e.g. CDFG Streambed
Alteration Agreements, California Endangered Species Act permits, Water Quality
Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Oean
Water Act).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I §
~
.
,
~
I õ
u
i
!
I i
-~
"'
ð
,
I ~
~
I
I
I
"ò
LivermOre
17
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
!
""""'"
I
C
I
2
,
4
,
.
,
.
,
'--_._11_11__.,
I "-.-.
I
.
r-·-.J
I
I
I
J'-.I
i
."
.
.
~
Z'"
,\
~'~
\\
~
\
.
\
\
\
.
\
.
\
.
\
.
\
~
z ..
0 ï§
~ ~
'" 0 z:
~ 0 (3
-1:1 ...I
:c ~ I
~ 0
w I
..,
0 I
II:
c..
Fallol'lRd.
.:ill'
z
o
....
Z
<t
'"
<[
'"
-"
"-
..
o
B
.-<
¡¡¡~~
~.~
~¡
~
~
~ ~
Q ~
" ~
~ ~
ffi ~
" ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
r--~-I'im'. ';":;.";¡;:",
¡ .
.-¡ ~ ~ ~
.mu_u_._ ~ '._
.... ~'"
;.¡.¡dJ..,,,~..,' ,
>-
....
ü
z
CJ
"
..
'"
z
..
'"
..
0
>-
....
11 -
ü
:1
"
.
i
'ii
v
r
Æ
.ii
â
<
ð ~
~
" I
"
I
¡;
I
~
I
~
I
"
z '¡¡¡U¡ ~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
°
ft¡
..
~ I
;;¡
..
ts I
2
UJ
~:!
11)2
WO
Z3:~ I
-:l:UJ
filO..
:I:i!ts
Cø;i5 I
II-Z:¡¡
O-UJ
>......
t-D:l!I:
_:I::>
00", I
.... -.--.-.-........--.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,
·
r·-·-·
.. -.-.-.,
! -·-~1
r-._J ·'i
I .
· I
I .
· I
I .
\' I
\\ (t".~_J Ii
., . .
. ,I
'\ I .
. I
\ IIZ!
IN !
~v'" I
! .
- !
!
I
i
I
.
! ~
":! ~
I <)
.
I
i
i
i
l
\
.
\
..
\
.
\
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
r·.....
.
I
.
-._!
z
o
~
N
Z
c(
C'> ø
~ 011::
.<:
.. W
III II::
C
W
CI)
o
11.
o
II::
11.
-
z
o
,...
z
.,
'"
.,
w
---'
a.
~
¡¡
~
~
·
\
\
\
.
\
.
\
\
\
\
·
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.
\
~..Il...l' ..
, ..,,"'\
\ i
d:V~ j
,.0/-.;,'-' \.
æ'?rc,O'"
ø~~ J
I
.--
'...1
ED
.::).
-
z
o.
"
.,
co
c
z
.,
'"
"-
o
>-
,...
<)
11
,~
o
,
-<:
ð
·
"
i
..
E
::; ¡;
þ
õ
I ~
.
I
.
I ~
~
Z 'iiiI~ ~
Ii;
o
It
0:
l-
t)
tE
;¡
..J
¡:!
:z:
W
I-:!i
r.nZ
1110
z3=~
_:l:Z
...lOW
mz..J
:I<¡$
Ca:Z
ILz!!i
o-w
>-...I..J
!::~8:
ooii!
.--
--"
TIPPER
coo"'"
cOs1P- J__
CON~'"--;oÚNTi
. ^,-^".DA
UN
(OUßl.IN RANCH WEST)
BRAGG
UNITED STATES DF AMERICA
(PARKS RESERVE FoRCES TRAININC,; AREA)
!
.
~
~
f
g
.~
-<
ð
"
,
"
SPERFSLAGE
EBRPD
SOURCE: Alameda County Community Development Agency. May 2002_
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPlEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
--
I
I
I
I
MISSION I
PEAK
HOMES
I
UN1NCOf!!IPOriATrD
ALAMEDA COUNTY I
--------
CITY QF ¡;;UaUN
PINN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--'
MOllER
SILVERIA
NEILSEN
ARAC
KOBO!.D
DUßUN
RANCH
PHASE 1
Exhibit 4 I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
N Area Boundary I
i
, 300 /1OlJ .""....
I . . I I
... ------- ------...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
....."
~
;;
;;
~
~
u
f
j
B
.
u
o
,
<
ð
J
~
ouN-rI
COS~ ~---
CON~ ~ ~ COlJNf'I'
-' "Eo.'
rJ.A
uNINCoRrorrATl!D
A1.A~DA ÇOUNTY
C"11Y Dr DU8L1N
Exhibit 5
TOPOGRAPHY
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SIJPPUõ!4ENTAL- ENVIRON!4ENTAL-IIIIIPACT REPORT
N
t
Area Boundary
o
I
300 $00 1200~t
, I
L Low Density Residentia I
MH Medium-High Density Residential
RM Resource Management
WM Water Management
cos:rp. CO~~
¡RÄ __ r
coN __ r - Co\,JNíf
." ...DA
ALA'"
!
·
·
~
¡¡
!
!
~
-~
-<
ð
·
..
.--
--"
SOURC£, A/8med. County Community DevelOpment AgBncy, MBY 2002.
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
--"
--
WM
VNlNÇORPOMTêD
AlAMEDA COUNTY
--~-~~-~--
CITY OF ~UBLIN
Exhibit 6
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS,
EAST COUNTY AREA PLAN
Revi$ed to Implement Measure D
N
i
Area Boundary
.
I
300
600
1200_
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
"
:;:
I !
jj
6
t
.
I !
~
-~
~
I 6
.
~
~
I
I
I
I
.... ..___...m
---
---
.---
---"
"Nfl
cOSí,ll. COJ..--
¡;ÖN~I-øÚNít'
-~LÞ-rw1EDA
M
uNJNCORFO~TED
AUlMEl)A ÇOUNTY
---_._--~~
CITY Or tJVaL./N
ES Elementary School
L Low Density Residential
M Medium Density Residential
MH Medium-High Density Residential
NC Neighborhood Commercial
NP Neighborhood Park
NS Neighborhood Square
OS Open Space
SOURCF;: Wallace Rol;J."s & Todd, 5-10--1993_
Exhibit 1
EASTERN EXTENDED
PLANNING AREA
GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
i
Area Boundary
o
I
3lJ()
600 12Q01eet
, I
..-
..-"
..-
cOs" C?y~
cON~~r~iJNíY
". "ED'"
,,,^
L
M
os
~
&
.
~
~
f
!
g
~
"
<
ð
..!
~
L Low Density Residential
M Medium Density Residential
MH Medium-High Density Residential
NC Neighborhood Commercial
NP Neighborhood Park
OS Open Space
SOfJRCE: MaoKay& Somps, r;J.13-ZQQ4,
..-"
Exhibit 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNINCORPORAÆD
ALAMeDA L;OI.1NTY
----~----- I
CITY OF DUBLIN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
GENERAL PLAN: PROPOSED
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
i
,
I
"'"
Area Boundary
300
,
'200_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
Ii
.
~
I ;1
f
!
I ~
-~
~
ð
I ~
'"
I
I
I
I
COSTA Ci?~~
CoN1'~~røI,.lNíY
. ~",~EDA
ES Elementary School
L Low Density Residential
M Medium Density Residential
MH Medium-High Density Residential
NC Neighborhood Commercial
NP Neighborhood Park
NS Neighborhood Square
OS Open Space
Project Road
""U""'."II Multi-Use Trail
SOURCE: Wallace Roberts & Todd, 5·1[}-1993,
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMEt.lTAL IMPACT REPORT
---
---
---'
------
fTYOFD/,JBLlN
Exhibit 9
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN:
EXISTING
N
~
Area Boundary
o
I
3Q(}
,
eoo 12001861
, I
...--
...--
...---
~
~
.
!
~
t
J!
B
-;;
c
~
ð
.
,
"
COSíA CO~~
-"". ...--- ~
<;01'1':;'-_- COWl'll'
-~""",,"DA
L Low Density Residential
M Medium Density Residential
MH Medium-High Density Residential
NP Neighbomood Park
OS Open Space
.
.
\
-g
~
" ...
\, ,
\. \.
Project Road
......4II1II.111*.. Multi-Use Traíl
,
,
-
SOURCE: MacKay & Somps. 4-28·2003.
Exhibit 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.JNINÇORPORATff)
At.AMEOA COUNrr
-~-~---~--
CIT'lOFQU8UN I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN:
PROPOSED
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
!
600
,
o
I
300
.
Area Boundary
1200fe8t
I
I ., ...
~ 0:
0
I- "- 0-
'" uJ
oOoffi .;, f- 0:
1 IJ) ...
~ wc.w:::æ w u
~ cn"'zc.z 3:: if
...
:c ~~zo:5 ;!;:¡: :;
""
:¡; " ....Jo ..,J...J
.. °<c:3irlc. j ~z..~
w ctl-'c.> =>«1<
c c: !!1
c.(/) w u. z \Ii z
0 ~ 0:J~O
>- m 8: e;
!::::J :;2~
uc CII",
01,1
e,
o
o
0-
'"
'"
'"
U~ ~
/\ c.iu
\.. ¡;n .
, = ~
\ ~.!j
ìÓd
'y
~i
",. ", "
t ."- ".
Y'"
"
o
'-., ,. '" ~
\
-<
6;j
ì
!
I
\
~ 1] 'I'
"' .,51
" " l1'I~u...u-¡ :': I" ..:11'1
'" ~~ '" "'- - @~
j' ~i~:\ J, i'
~ $ " $ ,",
" ., "' ,n
:") "'~ "' uó ~ uó
~ ---_.._-,.~ --1
B Lf)~~ i ! ;¡; 2~~ 212 ~
e q q
~~ ,." ,. --~-
- -------_.,_.~.. ..,,-~.-_.
¡¡.. H ~r':<:\!'Q ,- ! ;¡ ql.,þ~ q"!~ <,
;¡ Ii) tfI CJ I~· -0 .- .-'" ~
'" .~ (Ii \'I, "
\.,
\
¿
i!
...
~
'"
'!
---- .-.- _..._,.,.,,-,-,..,"~-
",.,",..--.-. ...-....--- -----.-- --.-
... ._(~ g~"""
0, ;?:
T1"' I,t -¡.J¡
_ I - ~ ¡1')
... I'" . ~
. '"
,,;
5
"
-;¡
:'"
~. "
" -"~ @~§,' I
}~l~ -!~~:: I
~ ~ n --------"-.
§ "
0/1 ~ \ 0-- <0 Ii.'¡ <0 -.t'. kI,)
J e~ Ó~~=Nf2q;O
\) '.:I.t( N~Þ
:¡¡
~
~ ~~ 5I::J
,2 -i2 rl~\Q~
! N ~N ~+ -i- 'I·"¡'
- "It -- -- c<) ~ ('(')
['.. ¡... (J") \0
Q <Ii ..r; t.D
." """""'"~ .,.,---,.- ~._--~-_. --.- .--.-------
o "" " I;,; ~Ji 0"0
"~ID " '," "., ","1",
.~ ~ roo
.. ......---....
~
(:<:
c:¿
~!~
" ,0
,,"
"'"
,;
E
,i;.
'"
~
I "'
"
"' ~
...- ~
" i!
'., G
.') :J
",
"
~ ~d . . ~
!j~,h,¡ ~!
~ ,I.j ~'6Q·,~' þ'~
<Jh')~¡~j
~fjl It..
Q ~!1'T ~ T
"~ ;:¡ ~ ~ !¡¡.! ¡g
;\ q~~ q C\,~ ~ ~.\
-0- ~ (\ j1) ~
~
~il H
. J
h~ "- ,
~lhi
f:Ji
H<! g
.I; 1 !/1Uì:i ,j) ~
V¡
o
:2:
~
~
,~
'd.',
..
V¡
o
",,,I
1\:'::'
J
,'.
-"
'"
'"
.....
,
,.
,.
.,',. .,' ,....~
, . '. ."~
~':..;~.......:.....~..~ ~" .
,:~, ~'£
".,.1
'n
'?
'"
" '"
.~ ....J
0 ,~
~ J;;;;
'- :::I
'n ~
" ,
;¡ 5
IP.,
] OJ
" V¡
;;;J ü
.<;)
;:J
"'"
«(.
¡2
.-~..--
-:..
.~..
...
~.3~
$ 3 ;j
...., . ¡: ....J
"-')
..-(
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
~
~
0
.<
2
I ð
t
Æ
i
I -~
.
-<
ð
,
;;:
I
z
c(
...J
0-
W i::'
a: «I
"0
::::I <=
I- ::>
0
0 OJ
N ::::I «I
-
~ a: E':'
,e I- «
. I/)
.. c(
w a:
LL.
Z
a:
W
l-
I/)
c(
:¡:
Z ~5 -'"
"'!¡o:
I !!!~
0'"
i"N~
~
, ~
I ~~
I
I
!FI<
;~, ~
I!I ~
I
.
I
\-.------
/
/
I
',,-
'''-.
I
j
"0
..
E
~ ~ .¡¡;
i i u
..
a::
.... .... .... ~
.. .. .. ;:
c c c
~ ~ ~ ..
U)
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· i
·
·
·
·
·
",ß~
w~1-'
èi5ffi
N~!«
(r'"
~~ .
....
,.
.'
..
.
..
.
:' ~
t~ t'\, ~
'."''""
...., lša::
~..';...'" N!:æ
"y ¡:'
: ';
.,.
:.~ ~---->
'I' : ; ~....,,"
~ ,~ ; ~~~þ~þ~þ~~~þþ~~~~
'.; '-~...¥
",ê ø.,'"
~... ""un 6U!l51"3 11
.f seun pasodoJd .¡¡
¡
·f
.f
...
.f
.f
.,
...
<:> ..
o'?' .,,t
~ ,..'"
~ ;,1'
.,...0 ,,:-
,?-'v ;"f
" ,.
,/
'..
.1-'-
.
'~I:
"
"
'!,
,'!,
"\..
'..
a.....a.a.
........~..þ 0':'01:1 'If~"Ir\>,ss..,.-I.
~"Þ~""ÞÞ~".Þ~""~.""..""Þ""""þþ"" þ
.,
t3 ~
~-5
.&]!~
t:=: Q.'¡ ?
.~ ~ -
~.~f
.s:¥8
~W:¡.s
-º- - ~
~-CI!
z -'"
m .s
-I',''''
-Ii",:;:;
\
\
\
,
\
\
"
'.
'fr .: ¡,
,0/ /...................
~~.. {......
~~..
"'~"'.'" :
~_:;.o::'Jt: .)f
- - .. - #"""'..~.-.::;..
.. - ..................~ - ..........
#~..... ............"'...
'.....
,-
If
,~
,\
,\
'r
"' ...........
.^"
~ '" i
:::¡ ~ ~
1 ~j
Q. ~ ~
~ ·x ð
Q.. Wo;
... ".
N
W
z
2
t:
o
"-
...
'"
l-
f
;¡
...
¡$
:z
uJ
I-i
UlQ
w'"
z~~
-:I:uJ
æg ...<
=><'"
Cœ:ffi
~æ¡¡¡
.......
>-ID"-
1-::1"-
¡:;c~
;Z
0
" Ê
.. ::>
0: œ
Z ,!j
.. ~
'" ~
...
0 ~~ ~
>-
0-
W ~.
~\
Q.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dubiin
Page 34
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Topics Addressed in the DEIR
This section of the DEIR identifies specific environmental areas which may be
affected as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project. The impact
areas are discussed individually in subsections 4.1 through 4.8:
4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.2 Air Quality
4.3 Biological Resources
4.4 Land Use
4.5 Population and Housing
4.6 Transportation and Circulation
4.7 Utilities and Public Services
4.8 Parks and Recreation
Each topic area is covered in the following manner:
A. Environmental Setting
A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general environmental
conditions on and around the project sites.
B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR
C. Supplemental Environmental Impacts
An identification and evaluation of whether the potential impacts on the
environment identified in the Initial Study, should the Project be constructed as
proposed would result in a significant substantially increased manner beyond the
analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR based on the standards of significance set forth
therein.
D. Supplemental Mitigation Measures
An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be incorporated into
~e. Pr?i.ect to reduce identified supplemental environmental impacts to a level of
lIlSlgniticance.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.1 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.
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 historically
predominated within the Project area and throughout the GP AI SP area. Urban
development has commenced pursuant to the adopted GP A I SP on lands immediately
east of the Project area and agricultural uses, induding cattle grazing have recently
ceased on the Project site. The Project site is currently fallow.
There are no current Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements within the Project
area.
The Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000) designates the Project area as
"Grazing Lands," with vegetation found on lands within this classification being suitable
for grazing of livestock.
Future development of the Project area would generally 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 and
undeveloped lands will convert to urban uses, as anticipated in the GP A/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 Act contract. Much of the Project area supports farmlands" of local
importance" (see Figure 4.1-B). Farmlands "of local importance" are defined as those
that contribute to local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops. The
agricultural lands in the Project area are of local importance for grazing. Generally,
areas of locally 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" soils include all soils not of local or statewide
importance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified small amounts of prime agricultural land in the
southern portion of the EDSP area (not on this Project site), based on the then-
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 35
November 2004
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). No prime agricultural lands were identified on the Project site. Impact
3.1 I C identified discontinuation of agricultural uses as an insignificant impact due to
urban development pressure and higher property tax rates, espedally since many of
the then property owners had filed notices of non-renewal for Williamson Ad
contracts. Impact 3.1 I D assumed the complete loss of farmlands of local importance
throughout the GP AI SP area, including the loss of prime agricultural lands.
The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that the loss of agricultural lands was not a
significant impact because; 1) the area of prime farmland comprises a relatively small
portion of a much larger area of non-prime farmland; 2) maintaining this land in
agricultural uses would deter the orderly and effident development of the area; 3) the
area's conversion would not threaten any other prime farmland with urbanization; and
4) the area of prime agricultural soils already lie within the City's sphere of influence
(Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 24-3.).
The Final Eastern Dublin EIR, in response to a comment, aclœowledged that the
Cortese-Knox Ad contains a different definition of "prime agricultural lands," which
resulted in approximately 200 acres of "prime" lands in the GP A/EDSP area. (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 GP A/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 "relatively limited value of the non-prime soil," Impact 3.1 I C identified
discontinuation of agricultural uses as less than significant. Although finding GP A/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 GP A/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
this impact (Appendix 8.4).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Cortese-Knox Act (Gov't. Code Sec 5600 et. seq.) governed annexations when the
Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. The Act recently was amended by AB 2838 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.
Significance Criteria. Agricultural resource impacts would be significant if the Projed
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.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 36
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts are expected from the revised
definition of prime agricultural lands.
Under AB 2838, soils are considered prime agrkultural land if they meet any of the
following criteria:
1) NRCS rating of Class I or Class II, if irrigated, provided irrigation is feasible
2) Storie Index rating of 80-100
3) Supports livestock used for food or fiber and has an annual carrying capadty of
at least one animal-unit per acre
4) Planted with fruit or nut trees, or other unprocessed agricultural plant products
with production of $400 I acre or more in the past five years
Based on research performed by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, the Project area
does not contain any Class I or Class II soils as identified in the "Soil Survey, Alameda
Area, California" (March 1966), prepared by the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service.
Based on site hydrogeological characteristics and local test well pumping results,
irrigation of the Project area would not be feasible. Therefore, the first criterion would
not be met.
Information on Storie Index Rating for soils in the Dublin area are contained in the "Soil
Survey, Alameda Area, California," issued by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in
March of 1966. Based on this report, soils with the highest Storie Index Rating within the
Project area is 49, which is less than the 80 Index Rating required to define prime
agricultural soils. Therefore, the second criterion for prime agricultural soils would not
be met.
Although the Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000) designates the Project
area as "Grazing Lands," information provided by two local cattle ranchers indicate that
the carrying capacity of lands within the Project area is approximately 0.10 animal unit
per acre, which is consistent with the general soil type, water resources and topography
of the Eastern Dublin area. Therefore, the third criterion for prime agricultural soils
would not be met.
Regarding the fourth criterion, production of at least $400 per year within the past three
of five years of unprocessed agricultural plant products, the site has not been planted in
agricultural products within the past five years. Therefore, this last criteria for prime
agricultural soils would not be met.
The Project area does not contain any current Williamson Act Land Conservation
Agreements.
Based on the above information, the Project area does not met the criteria for prime
agricultural soils as defined by AB 2838 (Section 56064 of the California Gov't. Code)
and there would be no 5t\Wlemental significant impacts regarding this topic.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 37
November 2004
4.2 AIR QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
Air quality impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This
supplement to the EIR examines compliance with applicable significance thresholds,
utilizes updated methods of analysis, and is based on current traffic forecasts that reflect
changes in roadway improvements and travel patterns that have occurred since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement also examines changes in the
regulatory standards since the previous EIR. This section of the DSEIR is based on a
supplemental air quality analysis prepared by Donald Ballanti and included in Appendix
8.5.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project is within the Livermore-Amador Valley. The Livermore-Amador Valley
forms a small subregional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. The Livermore-Amador Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills
or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon
and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area
has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared
to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions occur during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the
summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and
afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution E'0tential is
high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall (BAAQMD,
1999). High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only
traps locally generated pollutants but also can be the receptor of ozone and ozone
precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also
occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions, pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
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 I A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 38
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 GP AI SP continue to
apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed Project. Even with
mitigation; however, significant cumulative construction, mobile source and stationary
source impacts remained. (Impacts 3.11 I A, B, C, E). Upon approval of the Eastern
Dublin GP AI SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these
significant unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.)
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACfS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendment would change land uses and
development intensity from those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, although the
daily traffic generation would be slightly less than assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(See Section 3.6, Transportation and Circulation).
Since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR there have been several regulatory
changes, methods for air quality analysis as well as changes to applicable thresholds of
environmental significance. Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this
supplement assesses whether new or intensified air quality impacts will result from
increased regional traffic and changed regulatory standards.
Changes to the Regulatory Setting
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The federal and California ambient air quality
standards are summarized in Table 3 for important pollutants. The federal and state
ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and
methods, although both federal and state standards are intended to avoid
health~related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases.
In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true
for ozone and PMIO.
The U.s. Environmental Protection Agency established new national air quality
standards for ground-level ozone and for fine particulate matter in 1997. The existing 1-
hour ozone standard of 0.12 PPM microns or less) is to be phased out and replaced by
an 8-hour standard of 0.08 PPM. Implementation of the 8-hour standard was delayed
by litigation, but was determined to be valid and enforceable by the U. S. Supreme
Court in a decision issued in February of 2001. However, the new federal ozone
standard is not yet in effect pending final resolution of this litigation and adoption of
implementing regulations.
In 1997 new national standards for fine Particulate Matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less)
were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The current PM10 standards
were to be retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the
standards were to be revised. Implementation of this standard was delayed by litigation
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 39
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City ot Dublin
Page 40
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and will not occur until the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued court-
approved guidance.
The State of California regularly reviews scientific literature regarding the health effects
and exposure to PM and other pollutants. On May 3, 2002, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) staff recommended lowering the level of the annual standard for PMlO
and establishing a new annual standard for PM2.s (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in
diameter and smaller). The new standards became effective on July 5, 2003.
Table 3. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone I-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.08 DDm -
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
I-Hour 35.0 DDm 20.0 DDm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm --
I-Hour -- 0.25 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm --
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm
I-Hour -- 0.25 ppm
PM¡O Annual 50 ug/m 3 20 ug/m3
24-Hour 150 u£!m3 50 ug/m3
PM2.S Annual 15 ug/m 3 12 ug/m3
24-Hour 65 u£!m3 --
Lead 30-Day Avg. -- 1.5 ug/m3
3-Month Avg. l.5ug/m 3
--
ppm = parts per million
ug/m 3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: Donald Ballanti
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
are another group of pollutants of concern. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are
injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents.
The identification, regulation and monitoring of T ACs is relatively recent compared to
that for criteria pollutants.
Current Air Quality. The Project is within the nine-county Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality
monitoring sites in the region. The closest to the site is located in central Livermore on
Old First Street. Table 3 shows a summary of air quality data for this monitoring site for
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the period 2000-2002. Data are shown for ozone, carbon monoxide, PM10, PM2.5. and
nitrogen dioxide. The number of days exceeding each standard is shown for each year.
Table 4 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the
Livermore monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed
both the state and federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year-to-year
related to meteorological conditions. Years where the summer months tend to be
warmer than average tend to have higher average ozone concentrations while years
with cooler than average temperatures tend to have lower average ozone
concentrations.
Table 4. Air Quality at Livermore Monitoring Site, 2000-2002
I
Pollutant i Standard Davs Standard Exceeded Durin£!::
I 2000 2001 2002
Ozone Federall·Hour 1 0 2
Ozone State I-Hour 7 9 10
Ozone Federal8-Hour 2 2 6
PMlO Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
PMlO State 24-Hour 2 3 0
PM2-5 Federal 24-Hour 0 1 0
Carbon State/Federal 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour
Nitrogen State I-Hour 0 0 0
Dioxide
Source: CARB, 2003
Levels of PM10 at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards but exceed the more
stringent state standards. PM2.5 emissions at the Livermore station exceeded state
standards one day in 2001.
Attainment Status. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988
require that the California Air Resoun::es Board (CARE), based on air quality
monitoring data, designate air basins within the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas". Because of the
differences between the federal and state standards, the designation of non-attainment
areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 41
November 2004
In 1995, after several years of minimal violations of the federal one-hour ozone
standard, the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) 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 EP A downgraded the Bay
Area's classification for this standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified
non-attainment" area. Also in 1998, after many years without violations of any carbon
monoxide (CO) standards, the attainment status for CO was upgraded to "attainment."
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The California Air Resources Board and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have
both proposed that the San Francisco Bay Area be classified as a nonattainment area for
the federal 8-hour standard. The California Air Resources Board and U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency have both proposed that the San Francisco Bay Area
be considered unclassifiable with respect to the federal PM2.5 standards. Unclassifiable
means that an area cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting
or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the
pollutant. U.s. EP A plans to finalize PM2.5 designations by December 15, 2004.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and
federal standards) and PM 10 (state ambient standard). However, in April 2004, the U.s.
EP A made a final finding that the Bay area has attained the national one-hour standard.
The finding of attainment does not mean the Bay area has been reclassified as an
attainment area for the I-hour standard. The region must submit a redesignation
request to the EP A in order to be reclassified as an attainment area.
While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PMIO'
The Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone
Standard (BAAQMD, 2001) is the current ozone air quality plan required under the
federal Clean Air Act. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000
Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2000). These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary
source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to
attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was
published subsequent to the publication of the East Dublin EIR These Guidelines
provide recommended mitigation practices during construction based on the size of the
Project and expanded recommended mitigations for operational impacts of commercial
projects.
Significance criteria. The BAAQMD has revised recommended thresholds of
significance since publication of the East Dublin EIR (BAAQMD, 1999). The document
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines establishes the following impact criteria:
· A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon
monoxide concentrations that causes a violation of the most stringent ambient
air quality standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour averaging
period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period).
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 42
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· A significant impact on regional air quality is defined as an increase in emissions
of an ozone precursor or PMlO exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance. The current significance thresholds are SO pounds per day (or 15
tons/year) for ozone precursors or PMlO.
· .Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality
impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality
impact.
· .Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to
objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.
Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM2.5 (partíc:ulate
matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for
this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2-s impacts would be considered significant if project
emissions of PMlO exceed 80 pounds per day.
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PM10. If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The following supplemental air
quality impacts and mitigation measures are identified in this DSEIR.
Supplemental Impact AO-1. Construction activities would have the potential to cause
nuisance related to dust and PM10'
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction
controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for çonstruction activities
would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure:MM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East
Dublin EIR implements most, but not all, of the currently recommended measures.
Supplemental Miti~ation SM-AO-1. In addition to measures identified in
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the East Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall;
a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris,
soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion
control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
Ac:c:ording the current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, implementation of these mitigation
measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than-signíficant
level.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental ËIR
City of Dublin
Page 43
November 2004
Supplemental Impact AO-2. The Project would result in a regional emission increase
that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors.
Vehicle trips generated by the Project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting
the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with Project
vehide use have been calculated using the URBEMI5-2002 emission model.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The incremental daily emission increase associated with Project operational trip
generation is identified in Table 5 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two
precursors of ozone) and PMlO' Also shown is the emission increase under the existing
Spedfic Plan designations. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's thresholds
of significance for these pollutants are also shown. Proposed Project emissions shown in
Table 4 would exceed these thresholds of significance for ROG and NO", so the
proposed Project would have a significant effect on regional ozone air quality.
Table 5. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day
Reactive Nitrogen PM10
Organic Oxides
Gases
Project 116.9 116.6 89.9
Development under 109.5 102.9 78.9
Existing Specific Plan
BAAQMD Significance 80.0 SO.O SO.O
Threshold
Source: Donald Ballanti. 2004
fu!J2plemental MitiJation SM-AQ..2. In addition to measures identified in MM
3.11/5.0-11.0 of the East Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall require that the
following be implemented:
a) The Project proponent should coordinate with LA VT A for the eventual
extension of transit service to the Project site. The Project proponent
should construct or reserve necessary right-of-way for transit facilities
such as bus tumouts/bus bulbs, benches, etc.
b) Provide bicycle land and/or paths, cOlUlected to community-wide
network.
c) Provide sidewalks and/or paths, cOlUlected to adjacent land uses, transit
stops, and/or community-wide network.
d) Consider shuttle service to regional transit system or multimodal center.
e) Consider providing a satellite telecommute center for Project residents
if this is feasible in terms of a convenient location.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 44
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f) Provide interconnected street network, with a regular grid or similar
interconnected street pattern.
Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation
Measures 3.11/5.0--11.0 together with the above measures will not achieve the more
than 30% reduction in Project-related emissions that would be needed to reduce
emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Ozone air quality impacts
will remain sig:r¡ificant and unavoidable.
S1\Pplementallmpact AO-3. Project-related regional emissions would exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ozone precursors, resulting in a significant
and unavoidable cumulative impact
According to BAAQMD significance criteria, any proposed Project that would
individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a
significant cumulative air quality impact. Since the proposed Project, after mitigation,
would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for Reactive Organic Gases and
Nitrogen Oxides, the Project would continue to have a significant unavoidable
cumulative impact on regional air quality.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AO-3. Same as Supplemental Mitigation
AQ-2.
Supplemental Impact AO-4. The Project would change traffic volumes and congestion
levels, changing carbon monoxide concentrations. This is a less-than-significant
impact
On the local scale, the Project would change traffic on the local street network (see
Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation), changing carbon monoxide levels along
roadways used by Project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous
gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas
are highest near intersections of major roads. New vehicle trips add to carbon
monoxide concentrations near streets providing access to the site.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where project
traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E,
or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F.
The analysis of intersection Level of Service (LOS) prepared for the Project found that,
of the 19 existing intersections studied, none would operate at LOS D or worse after
addition of Project traffic in either the AM or PM peak traffic hour. Therefore, the
BAAQMD threshold trigger level for estimating carbon monoxide modeling of
concentrations would not be exceeded.
Considering that the proposed Project is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide
(the state and federal ambient standards are met), that Dublin has relatively low
background levels of carbon monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area and
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 45
City of Dublin November 2004
that Levels of Service at intersections affected by Project traffic would remain acceptable
(see Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation), the conclusion of the East Dublin EIR
that the Project would have a less-than-signíficant supplemental impact on local carbon
monoxide concentrations is confirmed.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 46
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section provides infonnation on the biological resources within the boundaries and
in the vicinity of the Dublin Ranch West area. Biological resources were analyzed in
Chapter 3.7 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR for the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area. The Project applicant has proposed land use changes for the Project
area from that proposed in the Specific Plan, and the City of Dublin has determined a
Supplemental EIR is necessary. The purpose of this section is to supplement the 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, with respect to the proposed Project, and to update
infonnation regarding special status plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, and
any regulatory changes that may have occurred since approval of the 1993 EIR.
The biological resources found on the Dublin Ranch West site have been studied in
depth by H.T Harvey and Associates (RT. Harvey and Associates, Inc. (HIH), 2002).
This section updates species and regulatory infonnation from recent studies on the
Project site, and provides an analysis of impacts and mitigation measures specific to the
Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETI1NG
General Project Area Characteristics
The proposed Project area includes 81.7 acres of open space. Approximately 60 acres of
this open space are located within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone (TCMZ) and
within a private open space area between the development area and the TCMZ. There
are approximately 23 acres of additional open space along the western property
boundary (see Exhibit 13, Tassajara Creek Conservation Area). The preserved
biological resources within the TCMZ will be managed according to the Tassajara Creek
Conservation Area Management Plan.
The Project area is located just west of Tassajara Road in the Tassajara Creek
Watershed. The Project site lies primarily within the Livennore U.S. Geological Survey
quadrangle map and is dominated by the flat valley floor and moderately sloped
hillsides forming the Tassajara Valley. Elevations range from approximately 400 feet on
the Tassajara Valley floor, to approximately 700 feet in the hills in the northwest corner
of the site.
The portions of the Project area has been used for cattle grazing, and several ranch
buildings exist along the east side of Tassajara Creek. Adjacent land uses include the
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) along the Project area's western boundary,
Tassajara Creek Regional Park to the south, and residential development (existing and
currently under construction) consisting of a few homes and other outbuildings north
and east of the Project area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2002).
Project Area Habitat Types and Locations. The Project area, consisting of the
development area and the approximately 23-acre western open space area, is
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 47
November 2004
dominated by non~native grassland (approximately 133 acres), with small areas of
developed lands (approximately 1.0 acre), riparian woodland (approximately 0.4 acre),
and other aquatic habitat (approximately 0.1 acre). A substantial amount of riparian
woodland (approximately 15 acres) exists within the TCMZ, and the adjacent private
open space area consists mostly of non-native grassland habitat with some riparian
habitat (lITH 2002). Orùy riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat associated with the
two proposed bridge crossings have been addressed.
Non-native Grassland. The majority of the Project area is dominated by non-native
grassland that has been historically, and has been used for livestock grazing. This
habitat type is common in California and is the result of human alteration of
California's perennial grasslands through fire suppression, grazing, and introduction of
exotic annual grasses and weed species. Introduced annuals common to the site and this
habitat type include wild oat (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and yellow
starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). A number of species adapted to more alkaline
conditions also exist in scattered populations throughout the site including salt grass
(Distichlis spicata) and the special status plant Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia panyi ssp.
congdonii).
A number of wildlife species are associated with annual grasslands in eastern Alameda
County and are expected to use the Project site. Mammals that breed and burrow in
this habitat type include the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), pocket
gopher (Thomomys bottae), California vole (Microtus californicus), black-tailed hare
(Lepus californicus) and California meadow mouse (Microtus californieus californicus).
These species provide an important prey base for raptors and predatory manunals
including the American badger (Taxidea taxus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canus
latrans), and grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Avian species that breed or forage
in this type of annual grassland include the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta),
savannah sparrow (passerculus sandwichensis), burrowing owl (Athene cunícularia),
barn owl (Tyto alba), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaícensis). Reptile species common to annual grassland habitats include the western
fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituoprns melanoleucus). In
addition, amphibian species including the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) can utilize annual
grasslands for upland and migratory habitat.
Riparian Woodland. Riparian woodland exists along Tassajara Creek within the Project
area. This includes only riparian woodland that is not under protection of the TCMZ,
and could be impacted by the construction of two bridges spanning Tassajara Creek.
Valley oak (Quercus lobata), box elder (Acer negundo), and willows (SaIix spp.) dominate
the overstory of this woodland and reach heights up to approximately 50 feet. The
understory includes non-native grasses, and riparian species in the creek bed include
willows, cattail (Typha spp.), and bulrush (Scirpus acutus). The creek lies 20-50 feet below
the surrounding lands in a deeply incised channel with bluff-like banks. In some
locations this channel reaches widths greater than approximately 300 feet.
The riparian woodland within the Project area and along Tassajara Creek in the TCMZ
provides abundant habitat for a diverse range of wildlife species. Many resident and
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 48
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
migrant avian species, mammals, and riparian and aquatic associated species would be
expected along this corridor. Dense brush provides cover for species migrating through
this area, and tree canopies provide habitat for nesting and wintering species. Common
avian species include the chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), oak titmouse
(Baeolophus inornatus), bushtit (psaltriparus minimus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
woodpeckers (Picoides sp.), towhees (Pipilo sp.), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).
Neotropical migrants may also be found in this riparian woodland during spring and
fall months (including warblers, vireos, and flycatchers), and winter migrants include
the ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) and Townsend's warbler (Dendroica
townsendii). Several species of raptors would be likely to nest in this area due to the
proximity to foraging habitat and presence of large trees. Amphibian and reptile species
including the pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla), western toad (Bufo borealis), California red-
legged frog, common garter snake (Tharnnophis sirtalis), and alligator lizard (EIgaria
multicarinata) are also likely to be found along the riparian corridor.
Developed. A number of ranch-related structures including a trailer, barn, and several
homes exist between Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek. Vegetation in this area is
sparse, located between structures, and dominated by ripgut brome and other exotic
annuals such as yellow starthistle, and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). In addition, a
number of large eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus) are growing around the
developed portions of the site.
Wildlife species associated with developed areas include city pigeons (rock pigeon,
Columba livia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house mice (Mus musculus), and other
species adapted to human structures and disturbance. The eucalyptus trees provide
potential nesting habitat for rap tars, and day roosting sites for barn owls.
Aquatic Habitat. The aquatic habitat within Tassajara Creek consists of areas of
seasonal and perennial open water, as well as wetland areas vegetated by aquatic plants
and emergent vegetation along the margins of the creek. A report identifying Waters
of the U.s. on the Wallis Property (HfH 2000) identified wetlands along Tassajara Creek
near the proposed southern bridge crossing and along the tributary waters of Tassajara
Creek, both above and below the ordinary high water mark (OHW) (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 2002). The report also identified a single isolated seasonal wetland within the
11.6-acre area located in Contra Costa County, north and outside of the Dublin Ranch
West area boundary. Few aquatic plants are found in the shaded portions of the
aquatic habitat, but areas exposed to sun are generally occupied by algae and mosquito
fern (Azolla jiliculoides) (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2002). Portions of Tassajara Creek
that flow more slowly, such as near the proposed southern crossing, support emergent
wetland vegetation such as cattails and hard-stem bulrush. Other wetland plant species
observed in vegetated portions of the aquatic habitat include mugwort (Artemesia
douglasiana), watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquatica), salt grass, rabbit's-foot grass
(Polypogon monspeliensis), and iris-leaved rush (¡uncus xiphioides) (2002).
Tassajara Creek provides breeding habitat for a number of amphibian species and
probably supports an assemblage of freshwater fish including mosquito fish (Gambusia
affinis), California roach (Lavinia symmetricus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and three-
spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Amphibian species that may use Tassajara
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 49
City of Dublin November 2004
· California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records (CDFG 2004) for the
Livermore 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS
quadrangles
· U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Quadrangle Species Lists (USFWS 2004)
for the Livermore quadrangle
· CNPS Electronic Inventory records (CNPS 2004) for the Livermore 7.5 minute
USGS quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles, as well as for
CNPS List 4 species in Alameda County
· California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) publication "California's
Wildlife, Volumes I-III" (Zeiner et al. 1990)
· CDFG publication" Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California" (Jennings and Hayes 1994)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Creek as a breeding location include the pacific tree-frog, western toad, California red-
legged frog, and California tiger salamander. In addition, western pond turtle (Clemmys
marmorata) is found within Tassajara Creek.
Special Status Species and Habitats, Wetlands Research Associates, Inc:. (WRA) biologists
conducted a literature review including database searches for known occurrences of
special status species and habitats in the greater Dublin area. The following sources
were reviewed to determine which special status plant and wildlife species have been
documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project area:
WRA biologists conducted a site visit to evaluate the habitat conditions present within
the Project area and to determine the potential for special status species and/ or habitats
to occur on-site.
In addition, the following reports p were reviewed and, where appropriate,
incorporated herein:
· Dublin Ranch West Biological Resources Report (2002)
. California Tiger Salamander 2003-2004 Site-Specific Pitfall Trap Survey Summary
(2004)
· Dublin Ranch West Rare Plant Surveys Report (Summer 2Q02-Summer 2003)
(2003b)
Based on an analysis of the above information, special status plants and wildlife known
to occur, or with potential to occur, in the Project area are described below and
summarized in Table 6.
Special Status Species: Botanical. The Eastern Dublin EIR (1993) evaluated 12 special status
plant species: large-flowered fiddlenec:k (Amsinckia grandiflora), hispid bird's beak
(Cardylanthus mollis sSE. hispidus), palmate-bracted bird's-beak (Cordylanthus palmatùs),
Hoover's cryptantha (Cryptantha hoaven), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriagonum truncatum),
diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschschalzia rhombipetala), stinkbells (Fritillaria
agrestis), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), Great Valley gumplant (Grindelia camparum
var. parviflara), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia ronjugms), Lobb's aquatic buttercup
(Ranunculus lobil), and caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Trapidacarpum capparideum). Of
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 50
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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.
In their 2002 Biological Resources Report, H.T. Harvey & Associates concluded that the
Dublin Ranch West area had the potential to support 15 special status plant species:
large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinkia grandiflora), bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia
lunaris), alkali milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata),
brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquinuma), big-scale
balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa
ssp. plumosa), Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonil), Livermore tarplant
(Deinandra bacigalupii), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), diamond-petaled
California poppy, Diablo heliantheila (Helianthella castanea), showy madia (Madia radiata),
and adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima). Surveys were conducted by HTH in June 2001,
September 2002 and in March, April and May 2003 to determine the presence or
absence of these 15 plant species on the Dublin Ranch West site (HTH 2003b). Only one
special status plant species, Congdon's tarplant (a Federal Species of Concern, and a
CNPS List IB species), was found within tne Dublin Ranch West area; approximately
3,000 individuals were observed along both sides of Tassajara Creek (predominantly
east of the creek) in alkaline grassland areas (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2002). This
species, not included in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, is described in further detail below.
Table 6 shows 29 special status plant species that have at least some potential to occur
within the Project area. This table includes 11 of the12 species identified in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR, with the exception of great valley gumplant (no longer listed), plus
an additional 18 species that have some potential to occur in the Dublin Ranch West
area. Surveys conducted previously by HTH were timed to occur within the blooming
periods of all of these 29 species and only one special status plant species was reported
to occur on-site as a result of these surveys (Congdon's tarplant) (HTH 2003b).
Co~don's tat:plant. Congdon's tarplant is an annual herb that grows in valley and
foo 'il grasslands throughout the greater Bay Area and coastal California, from San
Luis Obispo County north to Solano County. It is a federal species of concern and is on
CNPS List IB (plants that are endangered, threatened, or rare in California). Protocol-
level, blooming period surveys for Congdon's tarplant were conducted by H.T Harvey
and Associates in June, 2001, and September, 2002. An estimated 500 plants occupying
approximately four acres were located (see Exhibit 14) south of the homestead area in
the southern portion of the site (HTH, 2002). An additional estimated 2,500 plants,
occupying approximately five acres, were located in a series of gullies between
Tassajara Creek and Tassajara Road that drain into Tassajara Creek, north of the
homestead area (HTH, 2002). Three additional small patches of Congdon's tarplant
were observed west of Tassajara Creek, together consisting of approximately 100
individuals (H1H, 2003).
Sensitive Plant Communities and Habitats. Natural corrununities considered sensitive
are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFG. CDFG
ranks sensitive communities as 'threatened' or 'very threatened' and keeps records of
their occurrences in its Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Impacts to sensitive
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 51
City of Dublin November 2004
natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
CDFG or USFWS must be considered and evaluated under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3,
Appendix G). Some plant communities and habitats, such as wetlands and riparian
habitat, are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, or local regulations,
and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the Corps,
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFG, and/ or the USFWS.
Based on the CNDDB search for the Livermore USGS quadrangle and eight
surrounding quadrangles, seven sensitive plant communities (or habitats) were
reported as occurring in the Project area vicinity: Alkali Meadow, Alkali Seep,
Cismontane Alkali Marsh, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Sycamore Alluvial
Woodland, Valley Needlegra5s Grassland, and Valley Sink Scrub. None of these
sensitive plant communities were determined to be present within or adjacent to the
Dublin Ranch West area, as the plant species composition and other features (such as
soil type or level of soil moisture) of the plant communities observed on-site did not
adequately match the descriptions of these seven sensitive communities as given in the
Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland
1986). However, the Riparian Woodland and Aquatic Habitat within the Dublin Ranch
West area are considered sensitive habitats as they are regulated by federal and state
agencies, including CDFG, the Corps, and the RWQCB.
~ecial Status Specie¡;: Wildlife. The Eastern Dublin EIR (1993) evaluated 27 special-status
wildlife species. Fifteen of these species still have state or federal special status, as
identified in Table 6. Nine of these species no longer have state or federal special status,
or there is no suitable habitat in the Dublin Ranch West area. These nine species include
American badger, Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle, curved-foot hygrotus diving
beetle, bay checkerspot butterfly, Callippe silverspot butterfly, Bridges' coast range
shoulderband, San Francisco forktail damselfly, Lum's micro-blind harvestman and
California linderiella. In addition to the 27 special status wildlife species addressed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, another 34 special status species were reviewed based on the recent
literature review conducted by WRA. Table 6 provides the current listing status, species
description, and potential for occurrence for all 61 special status wildlife species,
including the 27 species addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. Of these species, six
are knOWIl to occur on site, and another 11 have a moderate or high potential for
occurrence. These species are discussed in greater detail below.
The Project area has been surveyed for special status wildlife species by both HTH
(2002, 2004), and other consulting companies (San Joaquin Kit Fox, Vulpes f1/4crQtis
mutica, surveys by BioSystems Analysis, Inc. cited by H.T. Harvey). HTH (2002) reports
three separate surveys (using three different agency protocols) for San Joaquin kit fox,
four surveys for special-status reptile and amphibian species (including California red-
legged frog and western pond turtle) from 1993-2001, a protocol-level California tiger
salamander survey in 2003-2004, a protocol-level burrowing owl survey in 2001, and a
rec:onnaissance-levelloggerhead shrike, California horned lark, yellow warbler, pallid
bat, American badger, and nesting raptor survey in 2001. The results of these surveys
are discussed in more depth for specific species below.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 52
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
California Red-Legged Frog (Raw aurora dTl.wtonizJ. California red-legged frog (CRLF)
can use virtually any aquatic system with a permanent water source for breeding
habitat, regardless of vegetation cover characteristics. CRLF often disperse from their
breeding habitat to utilize various aquatic, riparian, and upland aestivation habitats in
the summer. However, it is also common for individuals to remain in the breeding area
on a year-round basis. CRLF can be encountered living within streams at distances
exceeding 1.8 miles from the breeding site and have been found further than 328 feet
from water in adjacent dense riparian vegetation, but they typically remain within 200
feet of water. During periods of wet weather, CRLF can move overland, usually at
night. Movements of about one mile are possible over the course of a wet season.
Frogs will make long-distance straight-line and point-to-point movements rather than
using corridors for moving between habitats. Also, frogs can move without apparent
regard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified increased sedimentation, increased vehicular traffic,
reduction of potential habitat, introduced predators (dogs and cats associated with
residential development), and direct mortality from construction as potentially
significant impacts to CRLF populations (1M 3.7/F).
Since approval of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, the CRLF has been listed as a threatened
species under the federal Endangered Species Act, and critical habitat was designated,
and later remanded. The Project area is included in the USFWS re--proposed Critical
Habitat (69 FR 19619, April 13, 2004). According to the critical habitat rule, CRLF critical
habitat includes: (1) "essential aquatic habitat," which consists of two or more suitable
aquatic breeding sites located within 1.25 miles of each other; (2) "associated upland,"
which consists of upland areas within 300 feet of essential aquatic habitat; and (3)
"dispersal habitat," which consists of any habitat connecting essential aquatic habitat
locations that is free of physical or other barriers and is at least 300 feet wide (Federal
Register, March 13, 2001).
HTH (2002) found Califonùa red-legged frogs in a number of locations along Tassajara
Creek, and concluded that the primary constituent elements of CRLF critical habitat
(aquatic habitat, associated upland habitat, and dispersal habitat connecting aquatic
habitat) are present on or adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West area. In addition, I-m--I
relocated a number of CRLF from elsewhere on the Dublin Ranch West portion of the
Project site into Tassajara Creek, in anticipation of management as part of the Tassajara
Creek Management Zone. The Tassajara Creek Management Zone refers to a portion
of the Dublin Ranch West area, not included in the project area, which will be managed
for the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitat.
CRLF are known to occur within dispersal distance of Tassajara Creek both east of the
Dublin Ranch West area along the Moller tributary to Tassajara Creek (J.Dreier, pers.
comm.), and to the west of the Dublin Ranch West area (CNDDB 2004). HTH (2002)
hypothesized that most CRLF movement and activity would take place within the
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 53
City of Dublin November 2004
deeply incised banks of Tassajara Creek, due to limited CRLF access points in and out of
the drainage. However, dispersal between the Dublin Ranch West area and two off-site
ponds to the west is considered possible from points along Tassajara Creek where the
banks are more gradual. The two off-site ponds have been documented to support
CRLF (CDFG 2004) and are within 1.25 miles of Tassajara Creek, which is the minimum
distance given in the critical habitat rule that is required between two breeding sites for
dispersal habitat to be considered present. See Exhibit 15, CalifoITÚa red-legged frog
habitat on the Project site.
San Toaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes mo.crotis mutica). San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) inhabit
grasslands and scrublands, many of which have been extensively modified by humans.
Their diet consists of small mammals, ground-nesting birds, insects, and vegetation
(primarily grass). SJKF construct dens in loose soil for housing and protection and can
also enlarge or modify burrows constructed by other animals or den in human-made
structures, such as culverts, abandoned pipes, and banks in roadbeds. Prior to 1930,
SJKF inhabited most of the San Joaquin Valley from southern Kern County north to
eastern Contra Costa County and eastern Stanislaus County. By 1930 the SJKF range
had been reduced by more than half, with the largest remaining portion being in the
western and southern portions of the Valley. The kit fox population is fragmented,
particularly in the northern part of the range. While there is limited historical
information on kit fox populations in eastern Alameda County, recent field surveys
have located a number of kit foxes in eastern Alameda County (CNDDB 2004).
A number of potentially significant impacts to SJKF populations were identified in the
1993 Eastern Dublin EIR including direct mortality from increased traffic, potential
adverse affects of domestic dogs, harm from rodent control poisons, reduction in the
availability of prey species and den sites, and the destruction of den sites or mortailty of
foxes during construction (IM3.7fD).
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the USFWS 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 Dublin 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 six
miles east and five miles north of the Dublin Ranch West area in Contra Costa County
on Morgan Territory Road. Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the Eastern
Dublin and North Livermore Valley areas since 1997, none has been detected. Based on
negative results within the Eastern Dublin area and the surrounding areas, kit fox
appear to be absent from the Eastern Dublin area (see analysis presented in H.T.
Harvey & Associates 1997c).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophus latera/is eUTjlxanthusJ. Alameda whipsnake is a
slender, fast-moving, diurnal snake with a broad head, large eyes, and slender neck
found primarily in areas that support scrub communities, including mixed chaparral,
chamise-redshank chaparral, coastal scrub, and annual grassland and oak woodlands
that lie adjacent to scrub habitats. Within these plant communities, specific habitat
features needed by whipsnakes include, but are not limited to, small mammal burrows,
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 54
City of DUblin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rock outcrops, talus, and other forms of cover to provide temperature regulation,
shelter from predators, egg laying sites, and winter hibernaculum. Many of these same
elements are important in maintaining prey species.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to Alameda whipsnake as less than significant
due to the lack of suitable habitat (1M 3.7/E). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin
ElR, the Alameda whipsnake has been federally-listed as threatened under the ESA
(USFWS, 1997). The spedes 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 Project area does not occur within the designated
critical habitat. This designation was voided in May 2003. Appropriate habitat for this
species does not occur in Eastern Dublin, including the Project area.
Bald Eagle rHaliaeetus leucoce:phalus). Bald eagles require large bodies of water, or free-
flowing rivers with abundant fish and adjacent snags or other perches. Nests are
typically in large, old-growth, or dominant live trees with open branchwork.
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. The Project area provides very limited suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles
because there are no appropriate cliffs and very few trees for nesting and no foraging
habitat.
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). Peregrine falcon are crow-sized rap tors that
typically breed near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water on high cliffs, banks, dunes,
or mounds. Typical foraging habitat is located near bodies of water in open areas with
cliffs and canyons nearby for cover and nesting.
Potential impacts to the peregrine falcon were considered insignificant in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR due to the lack of appropriate habitat. 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. The Project area does not contain suitable cliffs for nesting
and does not represent important foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon.
California Ti¡;er Salamander (Amb.ystoma cal{forniense). California tiger salamander (CIS)
use vernal pools, stockponds, or other seasonal water bodies for breeding habitat and
require nearby ground squirrel or gopher burrows for aestivation habitat. CTS adults
may migrate up to 1.2 miles from their aestivation sites to the breeding ponds, and
juveniles have been observed to migrate up to one mile from breeding ponds to
aestivation areas (Shaffer et a!., 1992). The distance between the aestivation sites and
breeding ponds depends on local topography, vegetation, and the distribution of
ground squirrel or other rodent burrows.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 55
November 2004
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified similar impacts to CTS as would be expected for
CRLF including increased sedimentation in potential breeding habitat, increased
vehicular traffic, reduction of potential habitat, introduced predators (dogs and cats
associated with residential development), and direct mortality from construction. These
impacts were considered potentially significant (1M 3.7/ G).
Since approval of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, the California tiger salamander has been
listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated (USFWS 2004a, Federal
Register 69:47211-47248, August 4, 2004 and USFWS 2004b, Federal Register 69:48569-
48649, August 10, 2004). All of the Project area to the west of Tassajara Creek is within
critical habitat Unit 18 of the Central Valley Region.
Recent surveys for CTS on the Dublin Ranch West portion of the Project area resulted
in the capture of 273 salamanders (HrH, 2004). It can be concluded from this study that
the entire Dublin Ranch West property may be occupied at times by CTS. Based on trap
locations and results, it appears that the primary breeding location for these
salamanders is a stock pond located 600 feet west of the northwest portion of the
Dublin Ranch West area in the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. HTH (2004)
reported that no CIS breeding occurs within the Dublin Ranch West property and that
CIS use the site primarily for aestivation and migration. However, no larval surveys
were conducted in Tassajara Creek within the Dublin Ranch West area, and there is
potential for CTS to use the creek as a breeding location. Larval surveys have been
conducted along Tassajara Creek downstream of this site in 1993,1995,1998, and 2000,
and no CIS larvae were found during any of those surveys (HTH pers com).
In addition to CTS trapping, HTH installed a passive, one-way CIS barrier along the
western edge of the Dublin Ranch West property to prevent CIS trapped and released
to the west of the barrier (in 2003--2004) from returning into the Dublin Ranch West
property, and to allow CIS remaining in the Dublin Ranch West property to access the
known breeding pond northwest of the site. The barrier was installed in 2003, and is
currently in place and presumed to be operational.
Invertebrates. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts to
special status invertebrates including the longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchínecta
longiantenna), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchínecta lynchi), and eight other species.
Since certification of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, the longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal
pool fairy shrimp have been federally listed as endangered and threatened,
respectively. No habitat for either of these species, or the other eight invertebrate
species identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR exists in the Project area, and the
potential for occurrence of any of these invertebrate species is extremely low.
California Species of Special Concern and Other Special Status Wildlife Species.
These include the following.
Prairie Falcon (Falco mericanus1. Prairie falcons typically nest on cliff ledges, and forage
over adjacent habitats. Typical foraging habitat includes perennial grasslands,
savannahs, rangeland, and desert scrub.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 56
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Impacts to this species identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR as potentially significant
include the reduction in grassland habitat and subsequent reduction in prey availability
and disturbance from construction-related activities.
There have been no species-specific surveys for Prairie Falcon in the Project area, nor
any incidental sightings. The grasslands in the Project area provide suitable foraging
habitat for this species, but no nesting habitat is present on-site.
White-Tailed Kite Œlanus leucurus). White-tailed kites are associated with annual
grasslands, agricultural areas, scrub habitats, wet meadows, and emergent wetlands
throughout the lower elevations of California. Nesting generally occurs in shrubs or
small trees. It is frequently observed in the San Francisco Bay region.
Impacts to this species identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR as potentially significant
include the reduction in grassland habitat and subsequent reduction in prey availability
and disturbance from construction-related activities.
There have been no species-specific surveys for white-tailed kite in the Project area, nor
any reported sightings. The grasslands on the project site provide suitable foraging
habitat for this species, and nesting may occur in the oak woodland/ riparian vegetation
along Tassajara Creek.
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Golden eagles occur in a variety of habitats
throughout the San Francisco Bay region. Typical habitat includes rolling foothills with
open grasslands, scattered trees, and cliff-walled canyons. Golden eagles nest and roost
on secluded cliffs with overhanging ledges or large trees, and prey on lagomorphs and
rodents.
Impacts to this species identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR as potentially significant
include the reduction in grassland habitat and subsequent reduction in prey availability
and disturbance from construction-related activities.
A pair of golden eagles has nested successfully east of the Project area since 1990. Radio
tracking data of the male eagle shows that while the Dublin Ranch West area is
occasionally used for foraging, the primary foraging grounds for this pair are located
north and east of the Dublin Ranch West area (HTH, 2002). In addition to foraging
habitat, suitable nesting trees are located within the Project area and have the potential
to be occupied in the future by dispersing eagles.
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). Harriers are residents of annual grasslands,
emergent wetlands, and agricultural lands throughout California. They typically nest on
the ground in fields, marsh edges, or emergent wetlands.
Impacts to this species identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR as potentially significant
include the reduction in grassland habitat and subsequent reduction in prey availability
and disturbance from construction-related activities.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 57
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
Page 58
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There have been no species~specifíc: surveys for harriers on the Project area, nor any
incidental sightings. The grasslands on the Project area provide suitable foraging habitat
for this species, and nesting may occur in the Project area.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). The burrowing owl typically favors flat, open
annual or perennial grassland or gentle slopes with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub
canopies; however, they also colonize debris piles and old pipes. In California,
burrowing owls are found in close association with California ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beecheyl]. Burrowing owls exhibit high site fidelity and usually use the
abandoned burrows of ground squirrels for shelter and nesting.
Impacts to burrowing owls identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR include loss of
suitable nesting and foraging habitat, destruction of nests, harassment, predation by
feral dogs and cats, and direct mortality from vehicle collisions (especially during road
construction and maintenance).
HTH (2002) found no evidence of owl presence, nor saw any owls during protocol-level
surveys for burrowing owls conducted in 2001. Burrowing owls are known to occur on
adjacent properties north and west of the Dublin Ranch West area (RT. Harvey and
Associates, 2002), and numerous ground squirrel burrows, deemed suitable for
burrowing owl nesting, were observed within the Dublin Ranch West area.
Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Tricolored blackbird usually nest near
freshwater, especially wetlands, in dense cattails or tules, thickets of willow, blackberry,
wild rose, or tall herbs. This species requires protected nesting substrate to support
colonies of up to 50 pairs. Potential destruction of riparian and freshwater foraging and
breeding habitat was considered a potentially significant impact in the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR.
No tricolored blackbirds have been observed in the Project area, and it is highly
unlikely that this species would be found breeding in the Project area due to the lack of
suitable habitat.
Coopers Hawk (Accipiter coQperii). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to
Cooper's hawk as potentially significant (1M 3.7/P). Since certification of the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR Cooper's hawk have been observed in the Dublin Ranch West area.
Cooper's hawk are likely to nest and forage within the Tassajara Creek corridor.
Shaw-Shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to
the sharp-shinned hawk as potentially significant (1M 3.7/P). No additional surveys or
sightings have been reported for this species, and it is unlikely that sharp-shinned hawk
would nest in the Project area due to the lack of typical habitat. Sharp-shinned hawk
may forage along Tassajara Creek.
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) . A California and Federal Species of Special
Concern, loggerhead shrike is a wide-ranging species that occupies open habitats
including grassland, scrub, and open woodlands. WRA observed two loggerhead
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
shrikes in the Project area on July 13, 2004. Suitable nesting habitat exists for this species
along Tassajara Creek on the site.
Short-Eared Owl (Asia flammeus). The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
short-eared owl as insignificant due to lack of appropriate habitat (1M 3.7/ Q).
The Project area does not provide suitable nesting habitat for this species, and the
species is not known to nest in Contra Costa or Alameda counties, however marginal
foraging habitat does exist within the grasslands in the Project area.
California Horned-Lark (EremOJlhila alpestris actia). A California Species of Special
Concern, California horned lark are ground nesting birds that nest and forage in short-
grass prairie, mountain meadow, coastal plain, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats. No
homed larks have been observed in the Project area, however HTH (2002) reported
that nesting homed larks are known to occur north of the Project area. The grasslands
in the Project area provide suitable habitat for this species.
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias). A California Species of Special Concern, great blue
heron nest in large rookeries, usually in a single tree or group of trees. WRA observed
one heron in Tassajara Creek on July 13, 2004. Suitable nesting trees occur in the Project
area, although no herons are currently known to be nesting in the Project vicinity.
Western Pond Turtle (Clemm¡¡s marmorata). Western pond turtles (WPT) are a frequent
resident in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic
vegetation. WPT need basking sites and suitable banks for egg-laying. The 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR identified increased sedimentation, increased vehicular traffic, reduction of
potential habitat, introduced predators (dogs and cats associated with residential
development), and direct mortality from construction as potentially significant impacts
to western pond turtle populations (1M 3.7 IF).
WRA observed two western pond turtles in Tassajara Creek on July 13, 2004, and
turtles have been observed on a number of occasions during surveys conducted by
HTH (2002). Tassajara Creek provides quality turtle habitat, and while western pond
turtles are not likely to leave the Tassajara Creek drainage and move into upland areas
of the Project area due to the steep incised banks, females may occasionally wander out
of the riparian areas in search of nest locations.
California Horned Lizard iPhrynosoma coromtumfrontale). The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified impacts to the California horned lizard as insignificant due to their extensive
distribution (3.7/ R). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin ErR, the horned lizard has
been listed as a fully protected species under the California Fish and Game Code.
There is a low potential for occurrence of this species on the Dublin Ranch West area
due to marginal habitat and distance to :mown horned lizard locations. No additional
surveys or incidental sightings have been reported for this species.
Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inormtus). A USFWS Species of Local Concern, oak titmouse
is a common resident of oak woodland habitats that nests in woodpecker holes, natural
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 59
City of Dublin November 2004
cavities, or nest boxes. WRA observed an oak titmouse in the Project area on July 13,
2004. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat exists for this species along Tassajara Creek.
Yuma Myotis (MJlotis Jlumanensis). A California and Federal Species of Special Concern,
yuma myotis bats are known to live in disturbed and developed environments. Yuma
myotis roosting locations include buildings, caves, trees, bridges and rock crevices.
Potential habitat for this species exists in the Dublin Ranch West area including potential
roosting locations in old ranch-buildings on site.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBUN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife
resources in the EIR planning area. The Eastern Dublin 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, California tiger
salamander, and others (Impacts 3.7/D - S). Raptor electrocutions, associated with new
high-voltage power lines, were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin ElR and
included a number of mitigation measures (MM 3.7/26.0a-d). Mitigation measures were
adopted to, among other things, prepare resource management plans, avoid
development in sensitive areas and revegetate disturbed areas (generally Mitigation
Measures 3.7/ 1.0 ~ 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern
Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria. The project's impacts to biological resources would be considered
significant if the project results in the actions or outcomes listed below. These
significance criteria are based on the CEQA Guidelines' (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3)
recommended tools for detennining the potential for significant environmental effects,
including the model Initial Study checklist (Appendix G of the Guidelines) and CEQA's
mandatory findings of significance (Guidelines sec. 15065). The proposed project would
have a significant supplemental impact on biological resources if the following impacts
have the potential to occur but were not analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, or are
substantially more severe than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR:
· Substantially degrade the quality of the environment;
. Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;
· Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;
· Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community;
· Reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened
species;
· Eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory;
· Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat
modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 60
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG
or USFWS;
· Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS;
· Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Oean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption or other means;
· Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites;
· Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
· Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Regulatory Setting. Biological resources are regulated by the following:
Federal Endangered Species Act. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
protects listed species from hann or "take" which is broadly defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or
degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be
defined as "take" even if it is unintentional or accidental. listed plant species are
provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are
legally protected from take under FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the
project requires a federal action, such as a Section 404 fill permit.
The U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federal-listed
threatened and endangered species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains
lists of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally
protected under the FESA, but may become listed in the near future and are
often included in their review of a project.
California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act
(CESA) prohibits the take of any plant or arrimal listed or proposed for listing as
rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA,
CDFG has jurisdiction over state-listed species (California Fish and Game Code
2070). Additionally, the CDFG maintains lists of "species of special concern" that
are defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of
declining populations, limited ranges, and/ or continuing threats.
California Environmental Ouali1;y Act. Section 153S0(b) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed
on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare or
endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
Page 61
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 62
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the
section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered
plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal
with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a
significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or
CDFG.
Oean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps is
responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United
States. Waters of the U.s. and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CPR Part 328.3
(a) and include streams that are tributary to navigable waters and their adjacent
wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the u.s. are termed
"isolated wetlands" and, depending on the circumstances, may also be subject to
Corps jurisdiction.
California Water Ouality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs. Pursuant to
Section 401 of the federal Oean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the
Corps must obtain water quality certification fr:om the RWQCB. This certification
ensures that the Project will uphold state water quality standards. The RWQCB
may impose mitigation requirements even if the Corps does not.
The CDFG exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of watercourses and
waterbodies according to provisions of Section 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Game
Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for
the fill or removal of material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or
waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation.
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.c., Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989)
prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act
encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Most native
bird species in the Dublin Ranch West area are covered by this Act.
The Califomia Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-governmental conservation
organization, has developed lists of plant species of concern in California.
Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows:
list lA
List IB
List 2
Plants considered extinct.
Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more
common elsewhere.
Plants about which more information is needed - review list.
Plants of limited distribution-watch list.
List 3
list 4
Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no
formal regulatory protection, plants appearing on List IB or list 2 are, in general,
considered to meet CEQA's Section 15380 criteria and adverse effects to these
species are considered significant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Dublin Heritag-e Tree Ordinance (City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapter
8.72:4 [revised 11/02]) states that existing mature bay, çypress, maple, oak,
redwood, and sycamore trees shall be preserved in zoning districts if they are
over 24 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade.
However, trees meeting the above criteria may be removed on a limited basis
with the permission of the Director upon submittal of an arborist's report which
determines that the tree is in poor health and not likely to survive; if the trees
constitute a high fire hazard or a threat to persons, structures, or property; or. if
they impede publk works projects. Trees to be removed shall be shown on the
Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan and detailed on a tree inventory chart on
that plan.
Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measuxes. The following supplemental
biological resource impacts and mítigation measures are identified in this DSEIR.
slWplementallmpact BIO-1. Impacts to California tiger salamander.
Implementation of the Dublin Ranc:h West development Project would result in
the permanent loss of approximately 110 acres of California tiger salamander
aestivation habitat, which is within proposed critiçal habitat unit 18 (Central
Valley Region). All areas of upland habitat on the Dublin Ranch West property
(non~native grassland and riparian woodland) are assumed to be occupied by
CIS based on the results of the 2003/2004 trapping effort (HTB, 2004). Grading,
road and trail construction, and building will likely result in the destruction of
occupied burrows and in direct loss of individual CIS (the number of CIS that
will be underground during construction and will be killed is impossible to
estimate). CTS are known to breed in a sto<:k pond located 600 feet west of the
northwest portion of the Project area in the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
and may use Tassajara Creek for breeding based on CIS captures near the creek
(HTH, 2004) and on CIS breeding locations in a tributary to Tassajara Creek
(WRA, 2003). In addition, if salamanders are breeding in Tassajara Creek, this
population would become nearly isolated from the breeding population in the
pond northwest of the Project area.
The two proposed bridges spanning Tassajara Creek would çompletely span the
creek and would not result in the permanent plaçement of fill or degradation of
aquatiç habitat within the creek. However, temporary fill of some aquatic habitat
is antidpated during bridge construction, which may result in a degradation of
potential CIS aquatiç breeding habitat and direct loss of CIS individuals.
Indirect Project impacts following development construction would include
mortality of salamanders migrating across the development areas due to vehicle
strikes, human disturbance and harassment or mortality from introduced
predators in preserved areas (dogs, çats, raccoons associated with development,
ek).
Loss of CTS aestivation habitat, degradation of potential CTS breeding habitat in
T assajara Creek, and direct and indirect loss of CIS individuals, would be
signifiçant s~lemental impacts since the extent of this impact would be greater
Page 63
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 64
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
than identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR.
Adherenœ to the following measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1. A CTS management plan
shan be developed by the Project proponents, and approved by the
CDFG and the USFWS, prior to construction activities. This measure
shan also apply to construction of recreational trails in preserved areas.
The Plan will detail how CTS will be managed before and during
construction activities and will include the following:
a) Installation of a temporary herpetological fence prior to any ground
disturbance around the entire development footprint, which shan
prevent CTS from entering the construction site and shaIl remain
until the permanent fenœ or barrier is installed or the current one--
way barrier is extended and approved for use by the USFWS (SMM-
810-2). A maintenance schedule shall be included for this fencing.
b) A trapping and relocation plan that details how aestivating CTS
individuals win be adequately relocated from the development
footprint and into permanently preserved suitable aestivation
habitat.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2. A permanent
herpetological fence or barrier shall be installed around the entire
development footprint following construction activities to prevent
movement of CTS into the development area. Such fencing shall be
designed to allow for movement of larger terrestrial wildlife species,
but shall preclude CTS from climbing the fence. With USFWS approval,
the one-way barrier currently in plaœ may be extended to meet this
mitigation requirement.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3. CTS larval surveys wiIl
be conducted in Tassajara Creek to determine if CTS are using the area
for breeding. If CTS are determined to use Tassajara Creek as a
breeding location, the CTS management plan will be modified such that
appropriate measures are implemented during bridge construction to
protect known or potential breeding sites within the creek, and to
protect or relocate any CTS individuals that may be present in the
temporarily disturbed portions of the creek (as approved by CDFG and
USFWS).
Supplemental Miti;ation Measure SM-BIO-4. To compensate for the
permanent loss of approximately 110 acres of CTS aestivation habitat,
the Project proponent will acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable
CTS aestivation habitat at a 1:1 ratio adjacent to preserved, occupied
CTS breeding and aestivation habitat and construct a breeding pond, or
as required by the USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation aestivation habitat
shall be located in the Dublin and Livermore Valley area and shall
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
exhibit similar characteristics to the habitat lost. In selecting off-site
mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving one large
block 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. Land selected for mitigation
shall be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement
or similar method, approved by the USFWS and CDFG, and obtained
prior to the issuance of any construction permits.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BID-5. An Open Space
Management Plan (or plans, if necessary) shall be prepared for (1) the
preserved upland habitats within the Project area, including the
approximately 23-acre westem open space area, (2) the private open
space area located between the development area and the TCMZ, and (3)
for off-site land preserved under measure SMM-BI04. This plan shall
include strategies for grassland habitat management to maintain CTS
aestivation habitat, including grazing or mowing to encourage ground
squirrel use and limiting human access to migratory routes to and from
breeding habitats. If grazing is prescribed, the plan shall comply with
the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastem Dublin General Plan
Amendment Area. For the private open space area adjacent to the TCMZ,
the trail development and habitat management measures shall be
consistent with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration
Program (and the Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek Conservation Area
Habitat Management Plan. The Open Space Management Plan shall also
address management of the habitats for other special status species that
may utilize these areas, including CRLF, burrowing owl and migratory
birds. The plan shall include protection measures such as fencing,
signage, reduced or indirect lighting, pet control measures, trail use
limitations (daytime only), and habitat monitoring and reporting. This
plan shall be prepared and approved by USFWS and CDFG prior to
construction activities.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-6. A qualified biologist (as
identified by the City) shall monitor construction activities to ensure
protective measures are implemented and maintained (i.e. fencing is
maintained, preserved areas are not disturbed, etc.). The biological
monitor shall have the authority to suspend any and all construction
activities if protective measures are not properly followed and/or if
activities pose an immediate threat to preserved sensitive resources. The
biological monitor shall also have the authority to contact CDFG and/or
the USFWS to report any mortality of listed species during construction.
This measure shall also apply to construction of recreational trails in
preserved areas.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BID-7. All Project construction
employees shall receive an educational training program that includes
information on sensitive species identification and their potential
habitat, approved mitigation measures for the Project, and actions
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 65
November 2004
DUblin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 66
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
employees should take if a sensitive species is encountered. This
measure shall also apply to conatruction of recreational trails in
preserved areas.
Supplemental Impact BIO-Z. Impacts to California red-legged frog.
The Project area is within USFWS re-proposed critical habitat Unit 15 (East Bay-
Diablo Range Unit) for the CRLF (69 FR 19619; April 13, 2004). Impacts to CRLF
critical habitat would occur during Project development and during construction
of two bridges over occupied CRLF breeding habitat in Tassajara Creek,
resulting in the permanent loss of approximately nine acres of associated upland
habitat and approximately 66 acres of dispersal habitat, as CRLF populations in
Tassajara Creek are further isolated from potential breeding locations northwest
and southwest of the Project area. Associated upland habitat was determined to
be areas within 300 feet of Tassajara Creek, where movement from the creek is
considered feasible (where bank slopes are gradual enough to allow for wildlife
passage, including an existing dirt road which crosses through the creek), as
shown on Exlúbit 15. Dispersal habitat consists of the habitat between these
access points to the known breeding habitat in Tassajara Creek and two off-site
ponds west of the Project area known to support CRLF (CDFG 2004).
The two proposed bridges spanning Tassajara Creek would completely span the
creek and would not result in the permanent placement of fill or degradation of
aquatic habitat within the creek. However, temporary fill of some aquatic habitat
is anticipated during bridge construction, which may result in a degradation of
CRLF aquatic breeding habitat.
Grading, road and bridge construction, and other construction activities may
result in direct loss of CRLF individuals.
The Project may also have indirect impacts including mortality of CRLF from
vehicles, human disturbance and harassment or mortality from introduced
predators within preserved areas (dogs, cats, raccoons associated with
development, etc.) from increased disturbance along Tassajara Creek and within
the Tassajara Creek Management Zone.
Direct loss of CRLF upland and dispersal habitat, and direct and indirect loss of
CRLF individuals would be significant sup.plemental impacts, since the extent of
CRLF impacts would likely be greater than anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Adherence to the following measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Supplemental Mitig:aûon Measure SM-BID-S. To compensate for the
permanent loss of approximately 9 acres of CRLF-associated upland
habitat and approximately 66 acres of dispersal habitat (75 acres
combined), the Project ahall acquire and preserve in perpetuity upland
habitat at a 1.5:1 raûo of preserved to lost habitat or as required by the
USFWS in the Tri-Valley Area that exhibits similar characteristics to
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
habitat lost (similar proximity to established breeding locations, CRLF
population densities, etc.).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-9. The following
construction-related CRLF avoidance and protection measures shall be
followed for development activities within the Project area:
a) Prior to construction of the proposed bridges, a map shall be
prepared to delineate CRLF breeding habitat, corn;truction and
laydown areas, and areas of proposed tempora¡:y fill within
Tassajara Creek. Pre-construction surveys within these areas shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist (as approved by the City)with
appropriate authorization to handle CRLF. If CRLF are found within
the construction areas (or other sensitive wildlife species), they shall
be immediately moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of
Tassajara Creek if authorized in a biological opinion issued by the
USFWS for the Project. Construction, laydown, and temporary fill
areas shall be fenced appropriately to prohibit CRLF movement into
these areas, as supervised and verified by a qualified biologist.
Construction activities and access shall be confined to these fenced
areas during construction activities. A qualified biologist will
monitor the fence and construction activities daily when corn;truction
activities are conducted within Tassajara Creek. A biologist with
appropriate permits to relocate any CRLF shall be available to the
on-site biological monitor if CRLF (or other sensitive wildlife
species) are found within the fenced areas during daily construction
monitoring; CRLF shall be relocated to undisturbed, preserved
portions of Tassajara Creek.
b) Prior to grading activities or any ground disturbance within upland
habitats, and following insWlation of protective tempora¡:y
construction fencin~ a qualified biologist with appropriate
authorization to handle CRLF shall conduct pre-construction
surveys. If CRLF are found within the construction areas, they shall
be immediately moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of
Tassajara Creek if authorized in a biological opinion issued by the
USFWS for the Project. This measure shall also apply to construction
of recreational trails in preserved areas.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-tO. Grading activities
should take place during the dry season (as is practicable), since CRLF
will be less likely to be present in upland areas during d¡:y months of
the year.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures BIQ-2, BlO-5, BIO-6 and BIO-7 shall
also be applied as mitigation for this impact.
Supplemental Impact BIO-3. Impacts to breeding birds.
Implementation of the proposed Project may result in a loss of approximately 1.0
Page 67
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 68
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
acre of riparian vegetation, oak trees, and other suitable nesting locations for
red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk, loggerhead shrike, and other species both
common and sensitive. In addition, the Project would result in the loss of
approximately 110 acres of grassland habitat that provides nesting habitat for
sparrows, burrowing owl, California horned lark, and others. Construction
activities, trail development and use may also result in noise disturbance to
nesting birds, which could result in nest abandonment and mortality of eggs or
juveniles. Removal of habitat for these birds, and potential noise impacts to
nesting birds, are potentially significant supplemental impacts.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a
less than significant level.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-ll. Prior to any tree removal
or ground diaturbance, a qualified biologist (approved by the City)
shall conduct breeding bird surveys throughout the Dublin Ranch West
area and mark an appropriate buffer around any nests discovered.
Buffers shall be a minimum of 250 feet for raptors (although sensitive
raptors such as golden eagles may require a much larger buffed, and
between 50 and 100 feet for passerines depending on habitat type (50
feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in open areas). Pre-construction
surveys shall take place throughout the development portion of the
Project area, including surveys for grassland birds and birds likely to
nest along the Tassajara Creek corridor. Nesting status ahall be
monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when nests are no
longer active. All activities shall be prohibited within the buffer until
after young have fledged and moved out of the nest. This measure shall
alao apply to construction of recreational trails in preserved areas.
Supplemental MitiJation Measure SM-BIO-12. Vegetation and tree
removal shall take place (as much as practicable) outside of the breeding
period for most birds (Febmary-Auguat is a broad breeding period that
covera most species). This measure shall also apply to construction of
recreational trails in preserved areas.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures BIO-5, BIQ-6 and BI0-7 would also be applied
as mitigation for this impact.
Supplemental Impact BI0-4. Impacts to bat species.
Implementation of the Project would remove a number of barns, old ranch
buildings, and large trees that are potential roosting sites for special status bat
species. The destruction of bat roosts used by special status bat spedes is a
potentially si~ificant supplemental impact.
Adherence to the following measures would reduce this impact to a less~than-
significant level.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-13. Surveys of potential
roosting habitat including structures and large trees in the Tassajara
Creek bridge crossing areas shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
prior to any disturbance of potential roosting sites. If active roosts are
discovered, bats would be excluded from those roosting locations by a
qualified biologist prior to habitat removal (late summer-early fall).
TIrls measure shall also apply to construction of recreational trails in
preserved areas.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures BI0-5, BIO-6 and BI0-7 would also be applied
as mitigation for this impact.
Supplemental Impact BIO-5. Impacts to Burrowing Owl.
The Project would result in the loss of potential burrowing owl breeding habitat
and/ or the disturbance of burrowing owl nests. The loss of occupied burrowing
owl nesting habitat and/ or loss of nesting owls is a significant impact. The
following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This
supplemental mitigation measure has been updated from the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-14. The following pre-
construction survey, avoidance, and/or compensation measures shall be
applied for impacts to burrowing owls (this measure shall also apply to
construction of recreational trails in preserved areas):
a) Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist prior to any ground disturbance between
September 1 and January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or
suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the site should
be re-surveyed. If no over-wintering birds are present, burrows
should be removed prior to the nesting season. If over-wintering
birds are present, no disturbance should occur within 150 feet of
occupied burrows. If owls must be moved away from the
disturbance area during this period, passive relocation measures
must be prepared according to current CDFG burrowing owl
guidelines, approved by CDFG, and completed prior to
construction.
b) If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (Febmary 1
_ September D, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted in the
entire Dublin Ranch West area within 30 days prior to
construction and within 250 feet of the Dublin Ranch West area
prior to any ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at least 250
feet) shall be maintained during the breeding season around
active burrowing owl nesting sites identified in pre-construction
surveys to avoid direct loss of individuals.
c) If destruction of occupied (breeding or non-breeding season)
burrows, or any burrows that were found to be occupied during
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 69
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 70
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pre-construction surveys, is unavoidable, a strategy will be
developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing
burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on
permanently protected lands adjacent to occupied burrowing owl
habitat, and will include permanent protection of a minimum of
6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident
owl. A plan shall be developed and approved by CDFG
describing creation or enhancement of burrows, maintenance of
burrows and management of foraging habitat, monitoring
procedures and significance criteria, funding assurance, annual
reporting requirements to CDFG, and contingency and
remediation measures.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures BIQ-5, BIQ-6 and BIO-7 will also be applied as
mitigation for this impact.
Supplemental Úl\pact BID-6. Loss of special status plants.
The Project would remove approximately 630 individuals of Congdon's tarplant,
or approximately five acres of occupied Congdon's tarplant habitat (HTH 2002
and 2003). Trail construction withiri. the private open space area may also impact
Congdon's tarplant. The removal of Congdon's tarplant individuals and habitat
would result in a significant supplemental impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce
Supplemental Impact BIN to a less than significant level.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BID-IS. One acre of new
occupied habitat for Congdon's tarplant shall be provided for every
one acre of existing Congdon's tarplant habitat lost within suitable, on-
site preserved habitat (such as the TCMZ). The Project applicant shall
develop and implement a detailed Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to
fully compensate for impacts to Congdon's tarplant. The plan shall
include the mitigation design, methods of salvage of existing seed,
maintenance methods (including weed management), monitoring
procedures and perfonnance criteria, reporting requirements, and a
contingency measure to preserve existing off-site occupied Congdon's
tarplant habitat at an equal amount to lost habitat in case of mitigation
failure. The Project proponent shall provide a secure funding source
(such as a performance bond) for the implementation of the mitigation
plan and long-term maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area.
The created mitigation area must be preserved in perpetuity (such as
through a permanent conservation easement). The Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of
grading permits for the Project. Mitigation shall require a minimum of
five years of monitoring, and annual monitoring reports shall be
provided to the City.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Supplemental Mitigation Measures BI0-5, Blû-6 and -BI0-7 would also be
applied as mitigation for this impact.
Supplemental Impact BIO-7. Loss of riparian vegetation.
The Project would remove approximately 1.0 acre of riparian vegetation along
Tassajara Creek to construct the two proposed bridge crossings, and may
remove riparian habitat during trail construction in the private open space area.
Indirect impacts from bridge and/ or trail construction, such as inadvertent
removal of additional riparian habitat or damage to existing riparian habitat,
may also occur. In addition, trees subject to the City of Dublin's Heritage Tree
Ordinance within the riparian vegetation may be removed and / or damaged
during bridge crossing construction. The removal of riparian habitat and
Heritage Trees would be considered a significant supplemental impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a
less than significant leveL
Supplemental Miti¡ation Measure SM-BIO-16. Riparian habitat
removed by the proposed development shall be replaced by the creation
of new riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (acreage created:acreage removed),
subject to the approval of CDFG and the City. The Project applicant
shall develop and implement a Riparian Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to fully compensate for impacts to riparian habitat,
including any Heritage Trees. If removal or damage occurs in an area
that will not be permanently removed, riparian habitat shall be restored
at that location according to the Riparian Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. The plan shall include the mitigation design, riparian
species planting design (utilizing native species found in Tassajara
Creek), sources for plant materials, maintenance methods (including
irrigation, deer protection and weed management), monitoring
procedures and performance criteria, reporting requirements, and
contingency measures in case of mitigation failure. The Project applicant
shall provide a secure funding source (such as a performance bond) for
the implementation of the mitigation plan and long-term maintenance
and monitoring of the mitigation area. The created mitigation area must
be preserved in perpetuity (such as through a permanent conservation
easement). The measures within the Riparian Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be consistent with the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program (Sycamore Associates, et. aI.
1996b) and the Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek Conservation Area
Habitat Management Plan. The Riparian Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan must be approved by CDFG and the City prior to the
issuance of Project grading permits. Mitigation shall require 10 years of
monitoring¡ and alU\ual reports shall be submitted to the City and
CDFG.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-17. A Tree Removal and
Preservation Plan that addresses all trees with a dripline that fail within
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 71
November 2004
Page 72
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
any areas proposed for grading, including trees on the adjacent TCMZ
shall be prepaJ:ed by a qualified uborist OJ: fOJ:ester. The Plan shall
pJ:ovide detailed J:ecommendations J:egardmg tree removal and
preseJ:Vation methods, including protective fencing around the dripline
of preseJ:Ved trees, and shall be submitted to the City for review and
acceptance prior to issuance of any Project grading permits. Trees to be
removed or protected shall be accurately and clearly delineated on all
Project grading plans, including a delineation of the dripline foJ:
preserved trees.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures BI0-5 and BI0-6 would also be applied as
mitigation for this impact.
Supplemental Impact BIO-S. TempoJ:ary loss of aquatic habitat
The Project may result in the temporary fill of aquatic habitat (wetlands and/ or
open water) within Tassajara Creek during construct the two proposed bridge
crossings. The temporary fill of aquatic habitat would be considered a significant
supplemental impact.
Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Supplemental Miti8ation Measure SM-BIO-IS. Aquatic habitat
temporarily filled by the proposed development shall be J:estored to
pre-Project conditions following completion of bridge construction,
subject to the approval of the C01'pS, RWQCB, and CDFG. The Pmject
applicant shall develop and implement a Restoration Plan that shall
include reasonable measures to avoid and minimize advel'Se effects to
the aquatic resources. Such measures may include use of temporary silt
and construction fencing to prevent fill beyond the area anticipated,
structures to temporarily re-route or avoid any flowing wateJ: in the
creek, timing bridge construction activities so that placement and
J:emoval of fill can occur in the same dry season (April 15 through
October 15), and use of construction mats to prevent permanent impacts
to substrates from heavy equipment The plan shall include the type,
amount and location of the temporary fill material proposed, a schedule
for placement and removal of fill, and the ultimate upland location for
the fill material once it has been removed. The plan shall include
methods for restoring the area to pre-Project conditions once the
temporary fill is removed, including welland and/or riparian species
planting design (utilizing native species found in Tassajara Creek),
sources for plant materials, maintenance methods (including irrigation,
deer protection and weed management), monitoring pJ:ocedures and
performance criteria, reporting requirements, and contingency measures
in case of mitigation failure. The Project proponent shall provide a
secure funding source (such as a perfonnance bond) for the
implementation of the mitigation plan and long-tenn maintenance and
monitoring of the mitigation area. The Restoration Plan must be
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approved by the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG prior to the issuance of
Project grading permits. Mitigation shall require five years of
monitoring, and annual reports shall be submitted to the permitting
agencies.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure-BIO-6 would also be applied as mitigation for
this impact.
Dublin Aanch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 73
November 2004
'"
I ,I
...
'-'
OJ
Q.
en
.:::
...
-
--0
-
...
~
--0
=
..
...
C
«I
¡:,¡:
~
'S
::I
'-'
o
=--
-
-
..
'Þ
C
..
...
Q
~
......
Q
...
'"
....
,..¡
~
..
-
,.Q
r:
~ ...-.:I
.~ ~ "E ~
..¡ 'ED I': U
~æ.!S z
-<3 ~ «: ê:j
~ æ z:: _
CI'; :::=1'- ....
_ 0- ¡:¡ ;;0
.!! t:J.¡¡ U
¿:C/JQ. ~
õ~;
¡ç: ~ 1Ji i!
:>- '5 ;:¡ ...
~ ::: I.. .:¡
'" is 0 _
;;0 ,,"-< ~
ES"5 E-
e:~. =¡..Z
,-.cu¡:( _
-c .~ : œ
,.<¿ '" 9
ï5..-o"g.: -
e;L"4:Er--
o 0 I ,j =
u J., "'6bö
'õi g '" '"
I: '" ~
::¡I .}~£
~.::: § ~
-......J O"~
¡;...... ~ M
5°00-.
u~E~
C'I:i :::' "'" ~
'E~~£
E':'~"'O
..ss~~§
<: 0 -s -
EN=:Ô'
",,-,o~
1~¡¡J. '" _
OJ 0 g .
:::U.$:!"æ
.- -- ¡;;::.......
I.. u ~ ~
:=I 00 I',) 10-.
82-= ~
o g g.-
B 8 ~~.
'" >. '" iJ;.
~.¡'B>",
¡::;:I..--
~~Sl;l)
'" .::: 'i !;'.
... Q :=I ~ E-I
;:: "ê;:r:I: ~
c&,3:S-g ¡
S ~"2 ~ <
tl z ~~ =
o æ B-1':
~Q fi ~ -:-
~ u E¡ ~ {,I:¡
(;,4_.......... :;:¡
..I: >. Q Vol E-I
-- ="2 § <
¡:¡ "' e'= ¡..
.~ 8~] '"
r.r¡(I: liJ-§r--
~'E>.c..
m:E-~
IS. ~ -~ ¡
"'O<o~
¡¡ ,,~ :~
~~.§;
-t'lÿc..a:,
~-õ~Q
~ ~ -s u
~O'~~
'ægZ-S
~ o.~ 0
:§ Ë § ;¿.
r,.1 ~ ~ §
'*aðð
'"
¡;¡
~
'"
- '"
.::1 :¡¡
-'" =
lio
""",
" .-
'= a
1'; !!
~.g
13 ~
'is. E
{:::".
..¡ ¡:¡
'i c ~
':::0_
= - '"
£~~
&~.:=
~ Q., g
o Õ ~
..¡ '" <>:
.r
""
"
~:§
§ '3
]E
- 13.;
,=S = ~
E "¡: 'Ø
o ~ .¡::
~=-.Q
-; 8 ~
u"'"@
è:11::!
~tf)..E:'o
t=: .~
!9 ~ =
P.. u.g
"' '" '"
'" " '"
'æ -~ g
1= ...... "'0
..... ;>-,,:;;;:
"'i;:i'"
I=i _ ¿
:=I -;¡ ~
~ E.~
>. '" :>
'E "-<0 !!
o "
'" >. -
,,- ¡:¡
E .~ ~
8: '5
u
æ
.1!3
'"
E
E
;¡
.~ e
õ "
>...
E,%
"E]
"5==
.s "
, .::J
~~
,,::i;:
õ
"
š
:¡;
'"
--"
~
.s
"§
'5.
{:::
'"i.s
È'¡;;
.. '"
~~
"'"
" ¡¡
.3[
.§
]1]:;
= ~]
¡:¡ "'
'" u '"
t5.> æ
g ~ 00
~ " "
~ Q..~
o~='
¡:j g ~
.-..:..: ec
" g U
~~-8
"0 .>t --=
" ~ U
'æ E.5
'g ~~
~.§ ¡g
«1,5 e
; õ ~
t:'-~
O >< -
"''''0
~ t .
~1! a .
.~ ~ -E ~
c v.¡ "'0 blI
'¡:: ~ ~:g
¡:!.,.,':i,..c.Q
u
12
'"
'"6
ê-~
"O~
~ "
¡j.::J
OQ~
..ê;i
- "
"'.-
,''.;;::::is
~ "
li~
"""
" .-
'r;; ~
" E
~.s
..>.
" "
'Q. E
>. .
E--_-ê
..: oc ~
:!s::
" ~ '"
-8:J~
0"':>-
=-e..=
" 0. U
" - "
..;¡g~
'"
'" 'ED
~ ~ '2
"§ E §
~~;....
-a ,::= ~
= g "E
u 0" C':I"
" ¡¡ "
~ ~ 8-
.t! g E
.J::;¡ ;:..-~
'" ~ "
--,,"'-
!o--. ~ ~
0", a
>. " "
"'¡) ~ I::
'C ";J ~
: ~ ~
~'-.!:
~oo""O
~ 5 §
="ª ~
"c_.... tl
,-::: 1;.1 c:
a: ~-s
11 ,;, -
'" g a
.- ""' ¡:;:
g~:§!:1
~ § 'S ~
« U =:;¡ e
u
æ
'"
..i
'= §
~'"
E-F
~
i-~
",,-
" "
.- ~
.t:..,
~ =
-:g
:a =
EO
"""
" .-
.~ &
"'"
-¡¡ >.
U "
'5. ¡¡
Þ!i ~
"; ': ~
i~~
~ 5~
t~..::
" '" U
'" - '"
-g~
" .
00 S g}.
- ~ "
-"i &. '6
:Eo:::!-
~ .: .:;
""",-'"
]æ-æ:
œ Iõf'J ~
~ ~ ij3
~ ~,=
-C:'§E
§ ..:::. ur
¡;¡:: "Cj ~
1! § ~
" .."
:;S8~
g.> .z
~ ~ f$
:€ ~.;
>- u-
... 2 ~
"E Æ 2
ëé ~ ~
'u ~~
~~ð
>.= !:d
=,g~
!! " e
~2P~
ðj~
u
æ
'"
.~
I': ~
-0 "
~]
.£ ,~
, -
"""
£i'
I
I
'"
õ
I
--
§
~£
" .-
::E ;;¡
o
..: '"
" ""
;. =
¡¡j:§
- .-
o "
""~
..--"
- "
'" "
.. E
~Ò1
'" ~
::;;.2
I
I
I
-ã
!:2 Z
" .;
" "
¡¡ " U
ê ~.~
.:; § "
5 ¡,. ~
'§~~~
-2 . § .2
.! g}¡ ~ g
=: _E ~=
="-::I~
.5 ",.- '"
~.:.i'JJ3""C
;:... "C .. ~
.~ .£ ~ ~
::;¡ ~ ~ =
;.e 6 v $!
o '- r::
-- i>. ~..c
~~ "'.,.
~ ~'ã ::=
~ ~ ~]
2J " 8 '"
,- ..... ¡,.·u
&.."0....0
.E § ç,j ~
E=i 0 :' ~
=: r.o;..._ 00
0"'-
g~'S§
~<.c;J-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
'"
u
û
æ
I
I
'"
'Õ;
¡;¡
'" "
.~ ~
¡¡ ~
~ ,:=:¡
E 15
>=~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:a
..
;::
c
'þ
I::
o
u
'-'
'"
Q,I
:z
~
~ ...:=
¡,oJ ~ "t::!
~~~
~ =- ¡jtI
" E:;;:
"v
0>. §.:
~ 0< ~
~ /Z .......
';:ì c:: ~
4: (J:i c...
~;::¡'"
o .,¡-
r;n gp t;
~]~
CI) ~ õ
::::>ê~
e~~
e __ {':I .
I;-,-forie=
iJ -~ ~ ~
::::: "'0.....
Q.] C·=
E ~ =::5
8~~ö
o ..,
.~ s é E
-ij'"d.E
. ~ t.":I ~
þ:J §.~
o
~~Ut'l":.
8.t=:6~
~ ~ 5 ~
\U Q.\o ~ ...
E':'~-o
.!!;gu§
< o.s ft
¡;;:N=8
~æ.g~
~oe--:
~s¿£-æ
._ C:-..I
~ ~ 8 ::
r.J ~ ..!: ! )
u,.D 0 ¡;;:
o C':I ~.-
sð~~
s: ~.!l. t.
.,#- .- bOO'I
g~;-
~ ~ :r.-. v.,
'-' .- 'i ~
In Q :=I f':i
"'- -
¡,. E! 9"'...
c:=g"O
'- -æ .- æ
'" Z 0
íj ~'"
000:
:o-.LI.. --'-
~ Q 5 2
6 U ,. "
-- ~ = ~
"'~-
.s ~.~ ~
000
.£ 5 s·~
š.U¡¡~
;ðt.":ltiS.g
ë "E >-. Q.
mE"''''O
c.{':I.2;=
-" '"
v«:0:2
æ 11i~.~
~b(¡=~
~::=:.EC,:)
::a EC,dl..
~~~ou
- ;=1'-
~O'~ij
_~z..,¡;;:
~ is.~ Õ
_ E c;: ~
to;:IJ-IE;.b
"g ~::: §
~¿ð8
Oil
U
Z
gj
==
;>
U
U
o
~
~
¡::
z
Oil
~
0011'
'" .-
;>,
'" p.
o "
e íj
B ~
8~
" '"
'" "
-e -Ç3
E !S.
'" '"
õ~
"
]]
" 0>.
i~
~ '" .
o E. ~
...;: ·oo -~
E
~
=
.!1
S 00 00
:.6 g ê
~ .g"5
'õ -ij "'C
>.-0 ;
"t: ~ ~
~ " "
~ 2 ~
,. " "
.g~.s
'i 8"!i
'" v;:l .;
= /U £ ~
.- .~ '" i
~ E 'g +E
.5"'0 00 E
i æ ~.~
[F,I ~ >r. "'tj
......."'o-s=
E!=fo~
::I .! .- e
"'"' "'d.t=: :;;I
I=: 0 U'>.s;:
..... 0 ..... 0
v ~ ¡g -
§ ~ !2 ~
..Q I;¡:;I ;>,'~
...... 0 ~__
.Þ Øl¡Q ~
.- = ~
~] ~ ~
.- r,,;¡, I-< <U
<!:: .: .E >
*
~
E
'"
U
tJ
û
'"
""
'"
Oil
~
'"
'"
v
~
jf ]
E ~
E §
~ ~
" ....
~ .~--
~ ..æ~
~ ~ ~
" _ i2 ~
~.2ð2
'"
g
Ci
'"
Q.
2
"
-S
0$
13 '00
2.,8
0-
Z is
. ~
ii '"
~ ~
!ö,Q.
~~
"
~oo
o 0
- .",
~ '"
'" 00
~Eoo
Q."~
"'- "
~v
0"'-
00 - '"
.",'¡:¡ 0
'" "'~
~ '-' '"
'= "C.-
_._ 00
'" ,.",
.- e '-'
o Co 11
......: -= u
",,-,,,,
''';;;::.2 :::
~ ~ '"
~ ~ tì
'õ i1.~
:0-.3 ~
_~ g I.J
æ=~
~u¡=
,,'" '-'
:;1~;'
",,:¡;;
~ ~.E
'" '" <.>
.- - z;;:
-0 0'-
'" ~ .
§"E£
u.....=.~
U
'"
U
û
æ
"
- "
J!i."
:::: E
'i~
êš
'" ."
~i
~ ....
~ §-
'" ~
~~
'"
.;¡
"
'"
'" .
.S! .,g
- '"
2J "
" '"
O>.~
8.¡¡
~ ~
is Q.
-ªõ
"
00
ZŠ
.:5
ii '"
~::
.. E
lS.æ
... '"
~.g
.~
v
1;!
!j .-
_ 11
~'9
~=
ë ~
~ .
'" Q.
O>.j¡
J!iv
<.> .
.= ~
",0::
.. ~
8,]
"'Z
g,'"
o'g
<Q!2J
g,'§
- ~
= "
:E .: ~
!ì Q..:
~ ~ ~
~~g
.- '"
fl~~
Ò 8.Ë
U
Ô
~
ë .~
g ~
æ "
"'''
'" "" "
J;! !1,'¡;
;>,Ii"
~~~
~~~
~ .i:.t i':
~ð.l5
'"
'"
'"
E
e
~
,.,
c
00
o
~
g
~£
'!-æ
~>
t .:
"'''
~ g'
z..!;
v
1:
'"
'¡(
!J
Ó 5
~~
'" .
il
" '"
~ 0
o ~
tì ~
~ "
~ is
~""
v .
æi E
-æ§
¡::-o r.'!
l:ioO=ü
:;: ~ ~
8,0 ~
o V"'¡....
. '" v
~o",
~ t ~
'" " 0
.- '¡).8
~~B
B ~ Ii)
Ö'5:!'
~ "
æ
~
5E ....
.E!
- "
J;! E
~)
.: ;¡
=''S '"':I
g'''''
Q ~ ~
~ ~ E
'" " "
en CI.., ·5
1i! '"
::s
..ê -8
~ '"
:1i
--... .
~ ~.~
'" ~ S
" '" 00
."== d) c;:
E ~.t::
..... QJo ¡...¡
....-¡¡
.¡ g ~
'::I '" E
= -e 2
~.s4-0
8.~ V
i!:§l
.:s""",
~c.Q
00 0
::>: .",
. ¡g ~
~ e Ii)
V~>
6 £ ~
... ~ ~
<Q!~~
.g ~ [ .
~ ~ §.~
O-=.c CJ;'I
::=:.~ ~E
_;;> -r-I-"",
i';E~
fI;I oS C ~
::E......~~
¡::-;;.!1'"
..=.=.s8
'" t' 0
';-0';1.8
~ ..~...
æfle=
1i5 0.. c..~
ooc_~
~ C ~ ð
OQ'- =' ~
'" e "
~ 0 ,.
t:: 5 ~.-=
~ e ~.~
ö8~~
U
'"
U
~
.-
:¡;
p..
'"
"
¡¡
1;j,g
~ c
:;1<
~
:!
,,~
~ B
6.5
:; th
:E ::!
.a~
-0",
-~ ~
:;¡U
.11
].~
i~
"'0
~;§
0._
,.¡ "
s
~~~
.g Æ ~
00 t'
E ~ ~
"Cê6,:,
§:Ë£
ìõ:"''''
00:: 8
æê~
<.> .. Q.
!Jg<g
e -fi ~
-!j",'"
00 .- ::3
E -g "
õgJ:
r.IJ "; ¡,¿
-= ~ E
:Ë<:..!
l!! . ~
ì':>'"
~s8t'
r.E ~ ~ t
",v",-e
.- c:; 0 u
00 =' ;>."C
~~:,¡c;;
ë'- ""0
-!j å ;¡
U
'"
U
~
v
!J
'ª
>-.
'"
'"
"
v
ê
'G
£
o
'"
'"
"
~
¡,;
"
§
"
.~
"
¿,
~ ~
815
~~
"
'-'
'"
~
æi 0>.
"'Õ
o
6 -
8 .ª
...~
~JS
8..
=-~
" Q.
00 ;>,
of--
:.::.:,
. '-'
=~
~ ~ .
õ.·S .2
... SO";;
., ¡:; 0
z..,oo
.c
.-
'" .-
'" "
~ ~
'ª~
S -0 u5
",coo
. " 00
.Ë ~:;
'" '" 0
g-2.-c
o,..Q ur
...., ~ bel
ã ~ ê
tf)'- u¡
§~~
ca 'S "'C;
~ ~.~
'" .!!
== ~ I.": :
_$ (I,) ClI
~ " '"
8.¡;¡¡ ""
.¡::: I£: 3
o '" '"
.- E "
'1;j:::s3
o-¡s
is g.-
~~;:
u
'"
U
uf
""
~
.. "
> .~
-§ -~
16 "
..!; .~
'" "
J! ¿,
'";'"Æ~
'21~ B
'" "
.§" ~
:a
~
=
'þ
c
e
-
¡r. .. m
q; v.J "'C
.- ~ IL'I
"'õoe
:;:¡ " "
rJ E :.;:
IL'I "i ¡:;;::
p.. ::I ....
:::: O':;:¡
~ tI'.¡.-
'1) r.= ~
~cn5.
Õ~;
1;1') ~t'j
~:g;:¡
'" " ~
~ 0 S
I:
E ~"§
5: _.. .
:;fo~===
~ '0: CI:i UJ
~"g]-E
E ~ C': ::E
o ~ Q) :;I
t.,) 0 ~Q
o;e~E
~ij"C~
>- " ~
"'.- " -"
'E:"";: O"¡.¡.¡
gõ~~
u..=8:=;:
~ ::: ¡:: Q)
13 fi ~.s
E;:';.J:'"O
..!~~æ
<: Q -.s ~
EN=§'
"r.= 0 ¡;;
i¡¡:'~-
"O!:! .
.-U£7I¡i
--z;;:~
.;: " 8 "
B]-=t
~ s ~.:
Sõ~~
~ .~~~
o ~ c......
~ ~ ~ r..,
" ':';"g ~
I- C :::¡ L":
:: "§ 'i":<:
o. " 1i!?J
~ ii"2 .-.:I
~ ~ §.~
~ 0 ~ ê
E U ~ IU
C;~.5 ~
:: <:o.~ ~
" .. "
~ ::;I 0 '.oW
._ 0 I.. ~
g,U¡:¡,g
~l;QtIJ.g
" ] '" ""
!:! ¡;;;-a"C
ø...E'r.:J ¡
"'O<O!'.I'J
I:: .. r:fJ ....
CI:i Ii) _.~
~"ilJ §~
::æ¡¡;&:
;g';UQ
:t ~.~ U
ooCl~J...
.2d.:1Z"ê
.s ¡;;, -..I
~ o¡-~ 0
-¡EE~
.- IL'I £ =
g,.:,; '-e- 6
v:¡¿ u
'"
I ¡
:=;
~
¡¡,;¡
~
==
==
§
o
=:
1Z
~
¡:
~
'"
~
"
~
[
"
'" õ
'" '"
ê I~
......0
--':>.2
'"
o-¡¡;
" '"
~ .~
g,...
><: 0'.
,..:.£
c-¡¡;
&;>
t .5 ¡ ,)
~ 5-:::
"5 8 "'
z;...,§
E
-
=
:ã
oô
~ "
::;:-¡;;:
" ~
- "
"'..0
-- .:<
" '"
s "
"';<;
E",
,g "
- '"
~ ~
" 0
.- -
~.-
" ¡!o
,. .
~ "
.: 2
,,~
"'_
:':I ._
.2, e:
;;0
~ '"
" "
..0.:<
- "
".-
0-5
'" "
" .,
I!! "
"Q
"
.. .
.- '"
~ -
'" "
"'"
.- 0
~ "
*
gs
E
'"
uJ
V)
æ
~
u
uJ
~
!;¡
'[
.¡;:
:Ë 'fi
""I.'
E""
~~
~ .,
..0 "
= 00
_!!! .s
š.J:
'C~
13
ii
.~
~
" £
~ .-
= "'
" "
o
E
~
I!!
'"
i
''';
5
o
.:;
ji;E
- '"
"""
.1:1",
o "
<:>..!!!
" ¡:¡
o E
..:ibIJ
È
.Q~
] .~
~ '"
~~
!:! §
£ ~
ii13
1i ~
.<::2
-~ .!!
iJ
"' '"
o~
" "
0."
o c: ~
>. ... ;:..
!.1 ~ g
E " "
bIJ"''''
o"2-g
VJ §'._
~ " =
" " '"
..!.t:~
., " 00
~ c·S
00.>= ~
"iiii-
" " "
" bIJ"
" " ~
<;>~
l-
V)
æ
.§
" 1'i
~ ¡
.~
:;;;'2
_S g
&1.'
~i
~~
§
:is
,g .5
go¡9
-s-o :s
E.2
"
.... bIJ
",,,
~-~
.. "
" "
Çt
ri¡..;
-¡~o
=:I ~:B
= "'0 t:
" " 0
ë..sgu
..."'=
.!:: ä·~
.. 00 '"
=.5-~
~ "'
,,-¡¡;
'" E
..s: e
£Ë -
~ '"
"'- "
~ ê_!!
00& ~.&;
].2 :E
,,~ ...
~:¡;~
05",
- "'''
~~~
:æ~rf
> õ>.=
]£ë..
'" I!!
-Š~:!'
1.'.1 ~ g
~~.5.
0=.:<1
~ - >:
= "5-_
"u'"
:E .¡;: (;
'" bIJ '"
e " 0
ao E -¡¡;
.§~X
~ >. i5
~~æ
.... "'"
ft
u
o
æ
.a
.~
=
ß ~
:Q e
~ "
.£~
1-S ..,
, "
~ ~
:.2.s
,.'"
-
S
:is
,g
00
"
'õO
E
..s:
i
lii
¡ r;]
~ "
o 0
..."
,. ~
" !:!
,.¡...
g;
.s æ .
.- ~,:¡,¡:
;0 .S ~
~ [IJ ~
1U1i::~
,. " '"
-¡;: z =
bIJ E
=oo.c
.- "
;0.<:: ¡¡
o '" 0..
¡:;:: ~ 0
'0..
'II~'<::
¡:: u'-=:
.....<::;0
Is 15 ~
~ ... ~
" 0_
'æg1~
~~::
~ u;\ =
~ -= ~
/ J !1;1._
:a ¡¡ e
o -~ c
"'''''''
" " ~
oJ¡'<:: "
~ "' .
l'!;I,,=-=
i~¡:
._ ~ 5:
" "bIJ
!2:S¡
_ .. "
'ft
t.u
o .
o..~
IJ-.'"
!<
]
2-
"
::
jj
" !;¡
õo-
'" ..
" 1:1
~;.::
- '"
15:t:
00
"
.~
..s:
~
; ~
000
::=;:'S!
- t:
:;:¡ "
z ~
"
:œ .;::
- !.
= .-
i·~
:§:s
:::.2
~
,g
~ ~
" ~
.,
" "
" .-
" .,
~o;
.- "
¡jz
~
æ ~
'j::
[5
.- "
~. <;<'
.:<~
2i _
" ::ï
,;; e
~ t
.@~
" ~
g f':=I ~
~ g £
" ~
¡g ¡ '-
.s .-=: m
=.Qg
.-.2 '"
-g --
6~]
~~~
¡,,;
u
'5
~§-
..ê 8
'" ..
~ ~
"'-
c...9-
" "
8~
00
"
.£
'"
"
00
E
..s:
'"
'"
:E
..;
;; ~
iu
t&
~ ~
..¡~
;
~ ~
z;;: 0 ~
Q; Z"6
-~ ~ i
.9- Ciii ..::
'-.":;;: ¡,<;I
~~ "~
::¡ .<:::¡:
..., "'"
r.;¡.5 ~
'" """
:a ;>-. DI':
tÛJ: ~
.: 't ]
0.., "
.. "" 0..
2 æ ~
~ ~~~
"'.... "
o'-::;:! .
Q.§~.g
.S V ~ ~
'" 13 -'" '5
"'0 ~ ¡::: 0
~ -- 0
~ E v.; ~
..0 . 8. "
¡:.., ~..5!.......
= c If.¡ 1'1,1
~ = Q..O t
__ "0 ;=:__
~'{)'ij .S
E-~~~
u
tJ
...
"
~~
~ '€
'"
:E t3
~ ,~
E-.Sf.
~~
I
~
5
I
-æ =
I!!
.§~
-~ t:5
.- "
]i3:
.~~
.5 g
~~
.~ =
::>::15
-'0
! u
"'.<::
.1:1";;
o ._
<:>."
,. âf
j..8
I
I
I
I
. ~
'" '"
~ "
"'"
.. '"
-;;: ,.
~ ~
~:.c
" "
lie:
o t:
~ "
ë:
g;:;;;;:
C":.2
£õ¡
_ "-
.2....:iS
= ~,g
,,- ~
.g-"Ii
'[1 2'5
~ ~-2.,
~ t: C
- " "
_5 ~ ~
,. "".-
c.æ~
o ~ ~
ê"":;:¡
".¡;¡ bIJ
y ~.5
g~~
;¡ ~æ:
~ "'''
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rJ
o
æ
I
I
~
,g ..,
~~
'Qb c
2 ~
~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
::a
..
::s
=
.~
-=
o
u
-
~ ~!;I;I
00"'''''
""'I: ~ 0
""õbS
~ ~ ~
'ü ¡...., <
"1] "
J5' ;=I .~
_ C'" ~
~ U";.-
~Z;S [
Õ;:¡~
'" 00_
:<: " '"
~"€3:J
en g I-
~O~
I::
E,,-'"
00 1:!
2 _ '" -
<--"'lil>:i
"'C.~ = ü3
" "
'ã. "" 2! _"1
:=: ¡ CCI:i5
Õ I\) t::¡ :;:::I
() "-' "'S"DQ
...... 0 ¡;;: =
.~ e I.": 'I-<
~t-c~
.. '" 00
Þ;:'j g.¡jj
:=:e,¡"",Q('Ol
50(:;0'\
U"5E~
~ In ¡,.., ~
13 ~ ~.s
E;:"~"Ö
"'::!!; " "
<Q.s~..
eN =8
- æ "",
$ ]'"
'" -
"0 _
~U£c;
._ -- c:_
5 ~ g ~
u.2-=g
g,\3 1:!.¡¡
£a~N
~ þ~~
.....- bI:IQ\
g2?c:_
~ I\) ~ Iõf.I
2::!: .::: -0 ~
'" 0 g ¡;;.
I.. -a:¡ 9"=
o :¡.... ~ "C
....3 = c
3 «I '2 ~
H Z ~ g¡,
o æ .s .:
r? Q ij §
J::UE;~
~~-"-"
.s ~.~ ~
" " "
rJ ':=I 0 '=
---+ 0 ¡;;, ~
\;,\oU"'u
t.. g:.:;:
~~~'3
.c=¡~;:o-..c.,
--"'iE;;""
Q..,!.": '_ c:
~<g:
;3 4r~_~
~~Æ~
:eiE.c..¡.1.,
="d4j¡Q
~ § .~ u
~O'~t
_~Z""
~ 0.$ Õ
E" .
:5ætÈ~
~ ;¡..;.;:: =
p,,~ a:: 0
(r, ,-"UU
\Ø
..
-
,r¡
..
E-<
~
~
=::
;>
u
u
o
~
ro.
~
¡::
~
~
"
-5
~
"
.2
1;;
'-'
.s
~~
-~ :!::
¡¡ '"
" 1>1
" "
",,,,
0""
" '-'
:.:: "
oJ&!
5 .E
:C:E
... "
....0
!(
~
::::
~ ~
-g§e-
.5 ...., 0
:;! :;; S
'" " 0
~2~
c-o~
8.;0
" !J '"
-5 ~ ~
.~ Z ~
¡.o¡ 00 00
....... c ~
.s0"O
8 ~ .£
~ ~ b£1
~-c c
:.:;: .£ "ãQ
-caã
e~~
~ ~ "
-c-...... ¡;
-=1)-=
g"'O .~
'': : ~
.s ~ '"
.- !::
.t:) =~
~_c;.)-
..c-g\j~
7ð~~"'8
.~ B = I..
"'~-2!
~~~'"
*
'"
C
~
It
U
ú
13
'"
¡o¡
~
'"
~
"
~~
..,-"
" "
" '"
-8""
- "
o <!<
..,«:
Š
:Q
..ê ~
~'':::
" 1')
"6'0 c
'" '"
è).-=
'-,.
"'"
.-:=: 0"
-¡ 0 .
" " '"
O'¡i~
];€
i:"'C2
.. " '"
~.!3 .::
~~~
..c ~.'=
.. 00-"
== .s~
!J
00
" "
"Z ~
ell 00 .r
¡::g¡,g,
2~]
~.~ ~
- '-' '"
1ß S ~
z E 5 oi
,,¿ 0 ;; ~
~;>.~
m =;;;::;;;: I:':
e "U¡ g !)
~ ~ ~ ~
~ is :=.-
~ -c .2 ~
-;¡ .E !.,g
!:! '" " '"
t¡...., ¡;fJ oor.o...
.J-.J ð:I ~ C
~ ~=--'tj
.=.-.>'c
'" ,. -" "
~oo.co
'§E]5
¡;fJ 0 ~ u
~,.= t: ~
uoo-:';.fæ
~-g c r$
= t'I: : :=I '>-<
-- - e 0
-¡:¡ ~ ..""
~oo§.§
íi
U
.g ~
~ ~
1! ¡¡!,
" "
t\ :i
-5 "
15 .f;:
"w
"
"
c '"
:E §
8 -.g
"
.5.!2
" ""
..=
t'::I .=
~ ~
J2 ~
~g
::E
¿
1:
:! m
i~
""--=
J; g .
\1> '" "
.. ~ .~
'" =
-æ "
2 õ §"
~ .5 Oil
>- - -
~i~
,¿ 8 g
"'8 bQ ¡::
~ I=: ~
~.Eõ
¡:: "<-
=i ] :;
1:1 = u
'S 8 ~
= - "
!! ~ 00
" -¡¡
'" .-
",,-"'<;1
.'!:: E ~
a= M .2
~~u
.;¡ ~.;¡
S'" "
._ yO
!5..=~
"'C r$ ~
£""=
" "';>,
'R ~ = .
~:f~~
<¡::~..
w
[f;
"
'"
=
" 8
-ª '5
"" E
-~ ¡;:¡.
.~ .!:i:
~.;;
c
c
'5
1;1
!:!
'"
g
¡;¡
~
.c
,.
'-'
'6.
{::
-Ii
"
iß
is.
'Ss
Z";;
c
~
""s
....
:s i:t u
§ Õ ~
... '" "
" " ..
~;.cB
~ .8 6
~...<-
~~È
ë ;::: ¡.,
~ '" '"
o & g
Ii ::: '"
" " c
.:: ~ ~
~ -"
rf ~ B
""c""
~ is §
5 00
~ ¡f~
~ = u
i-ãË
"
~~rIJ
~ j ~ .
1 '" 00
00 =.5
~ ~ &'fl
c:Qüo~
cjlt
[f;U.
-u
¡jJ13
c
"
"
~
1:1
.;:: :;¡
"""
¡; --
" ..
Q.~
íj ~
.¡: (:I
".!i
5 '"
<"-
'¡j
~
E
'"
'OJ' ....t=:
~ .: g
E-~~
000
§ ._~- _5
:E
,. "
"-0
~.~ ~
"iÎ~=
~ ~ .~
:s2
i> Æ ~
:C~1;
_c "
- ¡:¡
...f-
= . ~
,,""-
[1;1 ~ ~ C':i:
t ~ ;; ~
~U~~
>.
_-= "'t:I
.§ ¡
'" '"
2 t
Q.>-
... ~·c
§.§ri
- '-' "
t3=~
""0.- U
-- 00 ""0
1:::_~_ .-ê "=
-a ~ ~
tf .E .~
!:! " ,¡
- " !::
S~~
" ..!!
oi
"
-'" .
'- ~ ~
* E ii .
g " àI 1;:
-æ~~~
] 8. ~ ~
o ~ CI:I_
(,) "'0 0l¡(D
........~~a-:
~ ~.- ~
~ ~ ~ Ë
8 ~.E ~
[£~Bt;
" "
e _'1
l!-g
" ..
" "
-'-"
-" '"
-æ~
!:! ..
..«:
c
"
"
"
~
õ
c
Š
:E
"
-'"
"§
-6.
~
-:
¡¡
E
""
'S,!i
Z'o;
"
~ '
--'"
- ~
S~
'"
~.~
],.
d
o
~"5'.g
æ ~ t
bö~1)
c ~ ~
.;:: (,) 0
-8 '6.::
is£~
~="ii
"''' -
.,go~
",-""
_ 00 '"
" >. ~
E::: !;
...:.. > C
¡ e~
-'" .-
"'-",""
.-=: U') ~
.c ;¡..,,¡ ~
.ß "-"
'" E ""
- "
>."'"
=..:~
-¡; .g 16
:;''= ~
u
æ
fi
"
-- .~
¡:: ~
g -~
:E .r,; ~
'" ,,-
's ~ ð
I.-. -.."-
c " "
=: i;¡ 3
ð !§8
"
o
I
""
õ
"
Š
:E
"
--=
"§
'6.
~
..
'"
"
E
""
~$
Z'¡;
...
c
'" '"
¡i.g
¡; "
'" "
¡:¡ ~
§ ~
.J!! .5
~ -~
-'" c
~
§~
"Q.'"
"U
- =
.~ .2
~ 3
-""
[! 1::
~ g
1:1:1 .S
~1
..!!'"
'" oi
't:::]~
£~s
¿ §':5
~ t) jg
íi
U
ú
æ
"
"
"
'" S
"'-
- ..
;; ~
" "
"" "
~ "
:::: =
-""
, .-
001i
£~
:a
Q,¡
==
r:::
.-
...
C
Q
"
...
--=
..
-
,.Co
¡::
" "'"
.~ n ~ ~
..J.. 5 U
~ = ~ Z
.- e:;;: r.¡
!].: =
- "':3 ~
'" '" '-" Uu
.- ç:¡
:5",:5. 0
o :::J":;: =:
r.n QO..... 0
~ i ~ ~
tI.:I :=I ¡... ~
:::J e.E -(
E~~ ~
EO - !1 . M
¡,......c: ~ ¡:( _
]-¡¡",,¡;¡ S
.- ""0 ""0 = .=.:
~¡¡¡¡;¡¡
8 :!! ~"
o ",,0
00 E i=: C
:.J J.. E ~
. ~ 1i -u¡
þ;:¡ &~
§ "'-< e ~
0°00\
u-"e::::
~ ~ ¡.., Q)
"'E ~ ~ oS
§;:::'~-g
-ò!;" '"
< 0 -= r
5"'=6'
~OOO\
¡~]::::
~U£-¡
.-........ =-
¡., ~ ~ IV
=' r.'J CJ ...
~ .2 -" 1!
õ 5 i::!.-
£Q~~
" >, " ;¡(
~.~~~
~ 1.1 E VJ
~ _~ "0 C,;I
t;¡ Q § ~ !;;;
~ E 9'::<:
o ::I Ii) ""C ..
~r -æ "2;¡ ~=....
¡jZ i':'gj,
~æ £.5
~Q~2 *
~ E;:; go¿
;;......- -
-S ~.:¿ ~ ~
" "" ~
(¡ ~ E"':: t""""
"tJ 0... «: r.r.J
"U icl'~
IO.,,¡¡¡:E
"." "
"OJ>,""
¡:cEi)"Q
"Ä.!2'~ ;j
"C<cìjrI':J
æ ~....!
~ ~;......
.- = - '"
::¡:¡~~¡I;,
::""OIt)Q
== £!.~u
~QI=I-I
.3~ZJæ
t; o.! Õ r:I:J
caeE6:::
._~.£¡;;;: u
~ ;>:.=:;;1 ~
~¿u 8 ~
"
"
-
~
""
õ
"
!
:E
.ß
..
"
-5.
P
..
=
"
"
"
..
""
~B
z-;¡
>'''
.2"¡i
8 :!! "
".2=
-ö :c:o"
" ...
f:! t ~
~"'5oo
~ ~.ê
"~ u
5 _ !1
e -;<¡ .Q
~ ð"'æ
88 ¡)!
!,) 00
~ci£
="2 ~
~~~
§::::-§
c;B:;iã
!a. ~ -= E
:3 ...."'"
S;;::.Q"Ó""O
-"=1.11.1
>1J..~i;
§itp.
-- - 0lI1-I
8 Õ ot) 0
,,>- .
QJ; 0 ~~
.§ .; -¡¡ ¡¡:;
~-í::::"'C
žê!8.§
....... ~ ~........
¡,¡
'"
ítf
.~
o
=.1:;
£ E
~ f:
]:§
·Ë §
..
~ ~
ð~
_5
=§~
~ S:å
"ni
""0"
e " 8
0'"
1..;.-..9
~ 0 ..
;?Z Ô
;:¡;: . u
_f§
.. '" '"
.....0
]¡~~
0""'"
"''''' "
" g §
c ~ ~
...;¡"'<
~
'5
¡roj;¡
~e::: .g
" ."
._ 00 0
"g]E
"!)~"I:;j
.: !) §
'" " ..
1) ." "
jO¡¡¡~
?: u¡ =
~ rt '-
.....g..s
.~ ð:I C
;;: ~.e
~ :rJ ~
'" " ""
~.g ~
"" . "
o ~ ~
= '¡::: ~
._.~ ~
-g ~ a
:;; ¡tj o;.I'J
~"'CI~
.<;> ¡¡¡ ~
- -..
" """
" 00
'" i:J=
~ ClQS
~
u
'i ~
0"
-g ~
'" "
'1",-
§.~
-" <0
"'-<:
"
:if
~:E
~ ..
h.c
.:=: QO
Of .5
-6~
§ "
o "
~."
...-
1;h>-';'
.. s..~
..J ~ ~
,..::o<t8
.. "
.- 'E. a
'Est-=.
:!8~
8.,,¡¡¡
..ceo;;
.!P S ~
= ~ ðb
"
2)
'" .
oJ!¡
" ~
-g';;
" '"
"
2)",
" "
" "
Z EO
.; ""
." >,
=-
"..
- "
~ .-
2 ""
-"þ
'" .
'" '"
,,-;¡;
'" 5
'" e
§ ~
"'-
,,-
" '"
~ 5
""00
"'....
" 0
""",
o "
~ "
!! a
"'~
~'"
...õ
~
u
û
æ
.~
...
--"
e: e
o .-
.."
" i'!
.~ ~
-..,
" ~
~-<:
§
E
~
~
""
õ
"
!
:s
.ß
..
u
'5.
p
.:
=
"
E
'"
~£
z-r;;
~
>, "
1: "'C
" 1j
"-':: i:J
. 0 ""
~-=;..
~IZJ~
t;:; . ~
."êd:
" ..
~ = ->.
0........
'"a."t::I ~
i>r.~E
-",""
.c " 0
'" 5 ""
J:.~.s::j
,,~ "
A ë ~ u
~~F;::"'C
¡¡¡..,,~ ~
~"Q"'C=
~ ~ 5'~
~i E e
1:: ~ CIO 1.0
o c: ~ ß
i¡"æ.!..c
'õò .. ¿'~
C =.I;¡ 0 ...
'C =._ ~
.£·=iiC':l
c :I iJ 2:!
.- " ""..
~ "" ".."
'-" ~ >- "'Q
U
'"
u
ú
æ
!¡
§
~ §
1; E
'E.!¡
.5 .~
S1j
" ...
" "
0..,
EV
"
õ
:õ = !:Iii
"
o _ª ~
.5 .&J tJ
".ß~
~ I:t\;;-
õ.: "fi
~ ~ ¡;;;:
~z&
"" '"
"':~:Ë
.S: l": :::;I
='ØQ
~ ~.5
¡::.,,:=: ~
" g ~
0'" 2!
...;¡ '" ""
-"
"
o
o
~
.,,'"
" 0
'" 5
r: ~
" 1;
,s '"
.~ ~
~~
:§
- .;
-::f
~ [;S
"'",
oS "
"""
8 ~
.,,-
c 3= ~
.. 05
""C::;;: ._
~ ~ :2
"2 f!I"8
h '" ..
~ ~ 00
t ·-.5
.... '" E
.:= .-ê i)
"''''-
U
'"
U
~
'§
"" "
.; ~
&~ ~
" 1¡¡
" "
....,
>V
E
:E
.5 ~
:¡;.c
o~
.~ ~
~] ~
Õ .-=:= co;J
-";"E~
~;:¡~
:.: .
-=~"5
!! '" "
..-&
j n :=:
o~""
"'-= ~
~ u "
~ "Q
j ¿(.:
:€
"
."
"
"
'6
"
~
~
~~
~ ~
~.s:
"...
'iiI.~
"....
" -
.~-=
c.':;;:
·ê ¡::
g,-!9
.;:: 15
.5 i
=
:=2£
:3õ
Z "
u
13
~
1;;
.~
"
S=:JJ
" ~
~~
:EG
I
I
_5
:¡;
"
o
.5
f;b
e
.£
~
:.:.
. ¡¡
- ..
.. '"
';...
= '"
~~
"'''''
" g
o '"
...;¡'"
I
I
I
I
~
1:: "
¡¡ ~ "'
.g-.::!.
... "
o~-g
:c "0 ~
.. . .
]'2'E
.:,: 8-
:3- '"
.... '" -
00-1:)
~ ~ c
_ 8 0
~ é~
:3 '" >-
"'0'1:: ~
~.~ X
~;~
~ :E .!2
~] -ê
.- ;;......c
i:.£~
.... 'E!
."<;1,,
.- .... .......
~ "'C =
" ¡¡¡ í:!
.- "
" '"
;.ê 1:: ~
e !. ~ '00
O·¡: ~ §
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
'E
:E
..
"
'6 ~
~ ê
'" "
Ê~
"'-
ðð
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:a
~
c
...
...
¡::
Q
'"
-
;; r.t~
..~ ðj q,¡
-..5
.!q-§
"",~
15. m '"
(/) ~ ......
_ <:r ~
-"' ¡g .¡:¡
Š V) ì!S..
O;:o~
'" bj)-
~~:j
'" " ~
~o~
6 5 ""
ö V, ~
¡:; __ ð:I .
"'-'-=( )o::
"'C.~: ti3
~ "
ï5."'O] _5
E~C':I:E
o IU 11.,} ::=I
y ¡;, ~Q
'¿;¡ g " "
:.:¡ t: ~ ~
. ~ æ !ij
þ:J §.~
"
=:I ~ ~g::
8"5ª~
~æt.,g
E!~';
.5~~=
<<5-5':
c;;:N =§'
~æ;~
¡¡ Q ~ .
cU£-;j
.-- ¡;;:...
5 ; 8 ~
() .B ..= g
g " !::!.-
g8~~
~ ~~g
õ -0 :>~
" " "
~.::. -6 ~
~ Q g ~
!.om 7=
':~~1S
3 ~ '2 ~
~ e" ~ ~
>,IJ-. -'-
~ Q C E
J:: U iU Q,)
... .. ~~
.2~-
- Þ.:I g¡
" " 0
~ ::I 0"=
.- 0 '" 13
¡¡ U "¡¡._
c.~-:E
[,0} "t:I (.Q =
'EJ~>.Q.
.gEi;;-o
p.. ~ -....... =
2!<.$];
C':I~...u;\
4)....... ~:.;::
~ êf..!o
:aSQ..(.l..
="t:IuO
~ §.~ U
~QI~~
§iUZ~
tIJ 5 .~ Õ
~ E E ~
.- t t8 ~
g ~ ;.;;: =-
~að8
\C
..
-
..!:>
~
¡.¡
U
~
CI:i
;:0
U
U
o
~
¡.,
~
¡::
~
¡¡;
-"'
:E
"
Q
"
1!"
m
-
..=:
i
'"
:œ ~
-
c ~
~:s-:
"'''''
,. "
j~
!:;;
~
:I::
.=
s~=
00. ~ .-
8z"fi
!j .-1::
- >, 00
~§Š
.Eg:ë
'§~..ê
" 6 00
~ g è:
o ,.
ov,.~
5
"E .
¡ ,) l! ~
~5~
" 0 "
.g ; 8
"00 -: -g ~
æ.@~~
:::CSc.of5
c,.c"cr;;::
" 2 '"
000-=2'
"E 1;10 1'.f.I._
~ ç;; g
11 0~1!
QòE~c..
.5 eê S ~
~~Ë'~
_ ",.B "
..
rg
~
'"
U
'"
IJ-.
~
~
'"
'E
f.,ª,
.: E
6 ..,
6 r::
.Ëj
'" "-
" ..,
~~
2<-%
.E
:E
"
Q
.S
"
bj)
¡;:
..=:
>,
'"
::E
'"
:! ~
- -
" 00
~~
"''''
,. "
" §
-'"
1;!
3.$
'"
9 ~
" "
~ 0
[=
00 "
"S!""2
¡¡; "
. '"
{j.g
æb
-'"
'2.~
0""
" "
~ .g
p."
O.D
'g'~
¿õ
00
~.';d
p.",
00 _
¡:;;::E
'-.2 .
]-§~
= ~ ~
U
æ
'E
:s :¡:::
bj).-
" ..,
'§ ¡;
5 ..,
" r::
'" "
00--"
&c ~
" "
--
- "
<'">
"
:E
"
Q
.5
"
bj)
¡;:
..=:
>,
'"
::E '"
--' ~
.! cø
- -
" 00
~~
"'''''
j~
li
~
"
'"
>-
'"
00
-'"
8
"
"
8'-
"."1
o "
~i
-- '"
I:: '"
8 e
o "
-'-
" .-
-88
.- "
~-¡
... "
" '"
.Ë S
;: "
=~
0"
E~
E"
0"
í!-ë
;:0.0
U
æ
~
.!.;]
[-~
-g~
o "
;: ~
. "
00 "
.- "
;:-
~:ì1
.: -5
" "
bj)'"
~'"
~ª
"S!-g
¡¡;Q
~
g ~
~-o
::E ~
-' 1;\
".0
:::0
" .
.. '" .
Q-g~
'" m '"
..c~'"
0000'"
:= ~~
~
i 1;
.g g
'" 0 "
" 00 "
5:;;: :i:i
"
,¡
§
~
. ""
J2 '"
,,~
0:: '"
00
=""1:1
J:1 "
"- "
.3 ¡:¡: "¡
.:: "C ""0
f': = ._
15..m-;::
00 00 B
00 '" "
E oJ .-
!)C.... !\,}
, '- "
" ".¡:
ö'- ¡:¡:
..c=; ~ e
'" bj)
.5 ~ ê-
~ ~ ~
:f~ -g _
6 =- I;I;! ~
'-"; ;>-"g
""0 - Õ·-
¡;;: ~"ö C
f': ca t!:I ='5
'" - 51
"it5 ~ c E
Ž 8.58
U
tJ
"
15
-" "
~ ..,
'" .~
- ~
"E].
~ "
"" "
~~
.- --"
E ê-
ª IE
- "
'" ...
U"-1
-'"
"
"
~
U
¡;:
'"
'¡¡j'
00
~
bj)
5
-¡¡
1:
i:
"
00
..0
o
-' ..:
¡¡.g
~ §
]
.D
"
_5 §
~ 00
ž "
ð
.;..0
:§~
:s =
.E Õ
11 ::f
~ :2
>-
8 '"
;:~
8~
"õ "
ë ~
~]
~ i) -
-"~
55 & ~
'" ~
860:;;
o "
,. "
:s
'"
13
"
¡:
'"
"
1;\ '-
5]
.§ g.
~)
~
'E
o
"
-"
"
~
U
"'-'
:;;5
"ë¡' :õ
00 '"
:2'"
E-"ií
"
-;-;"Q
':::I ~
5 6
i~
!l
§
-¡:
&
.¡:
.c
]
§
-¡¡
>- ..:
~ "
o 8
.ª
.c 1;\
" ¡¡
"'",
ê ~
"'.-
~f
" .
:;'g
" "
,,-
cE"2
5 ~
~~
- 8
~]
~
~ ~
.B .;:
š~
'" ...
- "
."' IE
" "
tÊ1:;
'" ¡¡
ð¡;::
00
-g
"
1i
'"
..,
."'
gf
's¡,
'"
..8
"ß
>-
:J
00
.D
o
...
~£
~ .~
.. "
... 0
. .;
oO -
;¡ ~
~ 00
- "
vj 'Z
.Dbj)
2 :;;
.c-
oO
1:€
~ 0
.2 5
1;1 "
1;1 0
~~
~ ~
&...
00 .;
§~
;: ~
."18-
.~ ¡¡
"'-5
.Eo
5 Õ
p'oo
; g
~~
" .
:;rJ2
L!::š.
u
tJ
û
æ
..,
"
Jj §
] :~
00 ""
-¡i!
".¡;¡
1: ~
~-~
.2'.5
.=
:a
"
Q
.=
g,
¡;:
<E
~
;;; .
- ~
" m
"'-
" '"
.:!~
&""
,. g
" m
..¡'"
¿
o
00
'"
1;!
bj)
c
'E
"
.IS
.=
00
i
:¡¡ ii
.2-=
..0 .¡¡
"
t; "
00 '"
2!i
l"::I:E
"'§~
~~
'" Co
",0
" ~
1;! 0
¡¡ E
'" "
Æ]
~ "
""&:
U
'"
U
û
æ
'"
;:~
<: '-
~'"
'" "
~-<>
" 5
bj).-
ª a.
v.¡:¡¿
:¡¡¡¡
¡:Q-<:
:a
..
;:I
c
...
-=
I;)
'"
-
~ - ~
~~]
" " ..
"ZS S <
" -g "
~:=-....
...... 0' ~
.~ 13 .¡¡
I;:;; C(¡ CI.
õ::J;
'" ""-
~~~
(/')::::10
~g'"
E = '5
e r,,¡ æ _
......:c;~o::
"H::=~
~"'O ].;:
E¡~:C
o Q ~ =
u 5""§þo
~ E æ E
:..:J~-6£
~~ §.~
c'-- ! ) ~
5 0 a ~
u'25-
~ ~ .~~
E__~-o
.sg~æ
<Co: ~
~æ~~
~ Q E .
"u£-¡¡;
.- -- = .....
5 U ~ ~
R .8 ..:: "
IS ~ B·S
£ií~t:J
Q., ."
" >. ,,~
¡¡, -1;i õb",
c ~ c_
.= ~ e Q?
~ .- -g !!!.
l";I Q = l'I:I
10.. ""i 9'"=
~Èi~"I:I
a ~ -s æ
§zt>~
>.12 £.5
~ Q E ê
E U > 11.1-
-æ,...::~::J,
.;;: Þ.~ ~
" " 0
~ " e''''
.¡¡ 8 ¡¡.ª
Q.C': -:r3
v.r "'0 u:¡ :::I
-::;">."'-
~ E -n"'C
~.s='y ¡
-g<,,~~
~ ~ ... ¡¡:¡
~ ~ §:.:
"';;¡¡;f2
;g-6Q.}Q
" g¡.,g;u
~ '=' ~ tt
_~z..::
~ o.! Õ
-æ Ë ~ .::.
'u Q) 2 c
Q.I > ;.:;;; :=
"";:¡ "'8
",~u
\C
a¡
:z
;:
~
~
co:
:;;>
u
u
o
~
:;J
~
...
o
...
>.
..
5
.¡ ~
" :::
:5! co;;I
>- ~
]~
-;..c
,5 ~
æ&!
.!:,Q :;;;:
~:§
... "
..0
'" "
"""
'" -
- "
8.-;;
iO ...
o ~
...¡...
E
~
:::
" !:i
~
-8 2i '§
.5 e 8:
"0 ¡¡:
u;::=:::
"0 ¡¡, £
;; ?.'i
-= " ~
~.J51;;
;>0. ~ -§
:æ Æ ~
';::¡"f;J =:
IS, ;i'~
~ ..!2 =
¡.;:: ~
" "g
~ ~ ~ .
.... 00 ..... ~
..:: - e·-
~1lQ.&
~ {) 000
'-:.E:: ~ V"'¡
~ '": -;;; 0
= 3 Z'~
:3"3e:::::;;¡:
00_ ...
g ~ ~ 0
~~-E~
1ã::: ~"=
¡¡:f!-.£
~ r3 S 8
"
~
u
Ô
û
¡£
'"
¡.¡
ü
¡.¡
...
'"
'E
:6 6
~"5
.. "
:P'S
"0 "
::: '"
0'-
- '"
8~
.- ""
=-.::
~
E
., .;
] ~
"0 ..
-s: ~
.- "
]~
~~
.- "
Ë&1
.~ =
::E:§
. "
-0
~~
~+E
~.5
"'"
10 ~
~.s
§ ~ ~
g:'i) -=
>- ."
.£ e 3: ij
- " ""
Wi ª QO
& 8 ~.§
5 ~ 'r;. §
"0 0 ..::
" ~" e ì;
~u1ibr.r.¡
..9 'iî .I=: 0
... ¡¡,-", ""
o ~ ~ OCI
~ ~ ~.5
~,.D ...,:
.~ 5 ~.~
-= ~ ~ 6
11) ~ U to=.
.i: "'8.~"O
~ .- Q,)
~ -= ~
~ rñ 3: ~
~ ::: 0 C':I
0-
2/"O"':J
:S~=:=-=
~ 5 M g
= ...... c ¡:¡:
.- U Q} -
õJ¡IO"O'"
c~~~
.,:;:: 0..... 00
~ ~ = 0
,,""it""
ß'E~~
¡.Q
'"
-¡:
~
..
\:s "
'5l
= "-
1;.1:'::
>.'"
<:: '"
¡¡, <:
.£ ::!
:': I:':
¡¡,.g
'" --
- '"
:¡J]
>.
'"
E
-æ ~
-6 '"
:~ '¡1
]~
""..::
.: g
Ë&1
.!O c
~:§
'"
-;0
"'..8
11,;
".-
""~
" '"
" !:i
..¡...
,¿
2
..::
2J ;::
'" 0
§~
1~
"0 .~_
." .
~ ~ 13
" 1A 2
-B¡;¡;;;
~ "0 'C
o '" ¡¡¡
~.; ~
=:¡~
g,z E
o ¡.; 0
.5 ~..:::
~~
j
.., ~ t
.~ ~ §
I ~ ~
" ª"Js
e;o:,"ÔlJ..
æ
""
~ .~
<:: -
"0 "
- ~
¡¡¡,,,
.,..'i!
"8 "
~¡
:Jð
.2~~
_.QN~
S C':I - cf,
~'s 118
..= ;"t3~
¡;;:: = e ~
.g.~ ~";::::
C':I -= "ðr =
.2: $ ~"O
'5 &~]
" "0 "
V = .s ~
:õ~--
m A ~ :2'
'-=£:š::a
J5 'Vj ~ ~
"'..:: ""
,wCCoI;Ie-
¡¡ " .5 -=
f¡~15f.1)
..~~~
=- ~.Q U
.;
õ ~
" 'õ;
"";:
1!..
E ~
"0 "
'" 1A
" .,
'" :::
·ê -~
[it
.- ~
~
.'C
00 "
"0 '"
¡¡¡ 00
=õ ~
02
o "
~ ""' ~
."0 "
] §]
~ ~~
tQ.g1.o
äc£
.. " ~
Ë ~ ~
= :¡¡ "
<Z~
u
'"
u
¡¿
.;
.&>
i
~
'ã
"
.,
'"
'"
i
~
~ '"
¡¡¡ 1:1
¡:: .~
-ª ¡;
~~
äã
" ~
ïê s
~f
ð<::
õ
"
Jš
:2;-8
1! 'æ
"~ '3
o
g¡ .~
0--",
'" "
"'5 ~ rñ
.- >..~
,,""0 "
>.="
Eo-- cr.¡ ~
- $'6
.!!! "
~ "~ ~
!~~
~n
..¡ """"
~~ "ii
E E
~ .-
00 0 -
£~g-
.$ ~ ~
= !;! -
""g"
0.,"
c..=õ
~.- 0
= = c..
'" 0 >.
§ "'0 ~
._ :¡¡ E
~ u.. 0
" ""
U .; E
o "0 "
'5 § :.
""->-
~8~
¡¡¡;:1!
"rIJ~(/.J
Ë g .;
~~B;
" "0 ~.-
'-¡;;'.Q.o
b.2£1!
.- ~
~ = ~]
.5 ~.5 :s.
s.~ t QI)
00 ~ .:::; =
~ ~õ:.s
t,.) _ ""C 0
ZIc;c~
o > C':I~
u
Ô
~
]
'8.-
<t'i
"0 '"
!!.E
00 E
EJ!
$ '"
., "
~¿s.
'"
;¡
"'C.~
§ ;
'E.I-
" ...
"t;I¡;;;:::z::
= 0...
tI;I"a:::c
.g 'g >.
1!t'"
g~~
"" "
~ot
'" '"
'" ..,
.:.ª ~
c7.: ~.5
,..J § æ
=_"0
""""
t! :Ë ~
.t1!u
¡¡.
~ d
t¡....,.S2
o E
~ ~
~ "
" ,.
~ '"
~ "
" ~
g &
,; .::
c.........,;
~ '" '"
" ,,-
p.. =.ß:.Q
... ~ '"
5Ë.:;;:
'" " i5
Ir-< ¡,.._
00-
:;;: ~ ~
~ ~.~
~ " "
;5..2:,8
g ~ ~
... "'''
""C 5 u
= ""d ~
"'..:: "
f.f.]:: ~
]~.:
.!!..........
¡¡, " .,
3~~
u
'"
u
Ei'
""
.g --
]J
...¡;-
~ ...
'-..
"0 '"
::: ...
'" ~
'ê '"
·>-01::1
... '"
:.= :r:;::
'" '"
WI>:;
I
I
~
o
"0
~
8
I
"'"
"
~
u
~!1
'i~
00 _
"'-
I-..
'"
-¡"Q"Q
'" ~
" ~
i~
~.;;
o e
..¡""
I
I
I
]
I
'"
§
:¡;
'"
..::
...
o .
>.00
- "
" -
.- '"
~ß
,. "
'" ¡::
"
" ,.
"
., .-
5...
",."
~ -;;
;;; ~
>.~
""£
~--g
~ '"
.. U
" -'"
:: 1!
o 0--
'" '"
.- ..::
"0-
" 0
",""
æ §
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
'"
u
Û
¡£
I
I
l
'"
"
gg
"
'1
o
- '-
,,-
~Z
;§ ¡¡
0",
"'I>:;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:a
Q¡
:=
=
'R
...
C
Q
'"
-
~ r ~
" ,,'"
.- ~ ~
...IõoE
~§Æ
.~ -õ -0:
~ §.:
"''''
-; 1;1) -~
'0 e,:, U
6'" :!t
15::0'"
.,,'"
i:f;~t;
~~~
~[5~
E 5-5
2 '" -
....:ë~.,¡
13 -if "' ¡;¡
~~~.=
e§~:a
8 ,,~ "
_ oo CI
r.f.I g c;: =
.- ~ ~ ~
...:J~"eJ£
- ~ ~ ~
b:.:J g.~
.c:....~M
:=:101..<0\
UC..c: 0 Q'\
"E-
"' - "
¡; ~ ~-:$
s,::::¡"c
.£!:!"ij
-0:0-="";
~ N z;:;: Q
~OQO\
-¡,¡,.'CC\
:¡¡ ,,-
ìiJQ t.-< .
cus-æ
.- "- -= 't
~ ~ 8 l-
fd's -= g
is .$ ~ .-
.9Q~~
~ þÆ~
õ "iifJ Ø,bC\
c.¡..:3-
,.:¡¡¡: ~ .... I:.I'¡
e¡S~~
::: -æ 9":í3
o~ ÈI 8 "'!j
... ';j -- ¡;;:
:;; z == ~
~ 0 â~
¡:...¡¿. ---.
~ Q f 2
E U .... ~
....... ~ -= '--'
,,~-
of: Þ.~ ~
'" '" 0
~ ~ 0"=
.- 0 ~ e
8.uti~
,:-!'Jõ:1-g
=Qj~Q.,
.!:Ei)"'C
c.,,5!·ü §
-g~~s
~ ~ ......._~
~ ~§-
'ª~¡¡:¡¡:
:-'::"CiUQ
~ ~.~ U
~o~~
êiÎ~z-E
00 0_5 0
- " E ,;;
.~ E 8 ~
~ ;>:= :=I
c.:J CI:I 0
CI'";,-",UU
'"
~
.0
¡::
I>J
U
Z
¡;¡
=
õ:>
U
U
o
=:
~
:.;)
!:
z
I>J
S
=-
s
'"
'-
~ ~
" ::J
'C.I--
" oo
] §
"'-¡¡
.~ ""0
- '-'
§ <:
"''-'
"11
"0
;Õ
" .
'ã .~
",'"
'"
--' 0
i'æi~
" :Ë ~
==~u
~
.z
-5~
.~ 1ã
",.<0
.J! "
£:E
'5.$
'" ¡;¡
.2 "C
- '"
g¡,,,,
'S iG
.- ~
"'C "¡;;
¡ ~
..,j~
~Æ
!< '"
~]
~Z
>- .
~ "
~.!2
" -;¡
iJ"t:
~ ¡;¡ ~""
.. ¡:¡ >-.5
.. ~ ~ ~
~ .g·~i
= ,£ i:f
"
'"
~
'"
?i
U
g
f'¡
iJ
I>J
...
'"
¡¡¡
11
c...,
E ~
æ t;
'" "
~ö
i:'!
"
'"
1<
c.
Õ
"
~
:s
'"
-=
-¡¡
"
.~
?:
;¡
:c
'"
"
i.-ê
~ '"
j 15
!<
=>
~'Z=.:
§.: 'õ
. E
15-=
.- ."
]3:E
" "
~-=
... .':::
" "
¡,:¡ '"
i:'::I::
c.o
" '"
- ~
" "
-g~
" ...
~>-.
'S ~
"'I--
>-..
E-¡;
~ ''ê
~ ~
o "
o '"
- .-
:s !<
~.E! i5
"000£
æ 'õ §
'" ¡:¡"
u
'"
U
g
:;:
"5
.,,-,.
~ ¡¡,
.- <!
- ...
"''''
]~
"''''-
..!! "
~~
" --
>- "
- "
-~ ""I::
i:'!
"
~
c.
Õ
"
~
:s
"
-=
-¡;;
"
.~
¡:::
;¡
:c
'"
"
&.£
~.¡;;
j 15
'"
-g
Æ¡:;:1o¡....,
~ & 0
..so........
~ w is.
13 ...
'" " '"
~ z ,:
E ~ ;
o~Ë
u ~ :=I
-",-=
Ô .<0 "
E~-g
. 0 ..
'" -
iî"'C t)
.-=: ~ :>
"" " 8
..ê = J..
~~~
>-.-= '"
"'ð) --::: ~
'':::: :: g¡ 23
~ ~,.Q ~
~ -= ~ tIJ
." ¡:¡ "'.S
"¡ ~ "is &:s
'"
~€:=I£
00 :=: 00 0
=CI:I;¡""'tj
~ ¡;¡o:¡ ..s =
::: Ql IõI".I ~
i§!J<:)
!t-¡;;¡;¡1ã
f¡;
U
g
'E §
~'¡;
"E ~
E ¥
l! <!
" ~
's ~ ~
2 ~~
ðë:~
~
:s
'"
-=
i§
-
"
c.
"
.c
"
-
o
""
"
~
-=
'"
i.
..:
'"
:;:
"
~£
_.~
" '"
Z 0
."
.!E
;08
8 " '"
~ ,5 '§
-Eæ..2
.... ~ '"
0"- "
:; c ~ 00
._ ~ J: ~
-i"'ö~tIJ
..c: ::: V,¡ S
"O~~QQ
o ~.- "C
~ ~ é §
12 -= ~ ~
B~1ã_
- ¡'1""
~.... ì!5. m
-5000
g .q ~ .s
.... C QQ.....
>."ü.= ~
~.¡; ~.s.!
m:c~~
:> ¡¡.s ô
.8 0: '" E
11 ~ s¡ ~
_,..c u¡.-
.~ it 2: ~
-bD~~
~ c:..c C:.O
~~.=~
I-
'"
Ii
! ) .:::¡
",,-
ê ~
~'¡;
.- -
-= .., '"
" .- "
~i.-s
'" ""
U.!:;! 1:::1
E ~ :¡
" "....
-~"
<"""
ë!
~
'"
õ
"
~
;õ
.2
13
.~
>-.
I-
"
~
.æ
"
~:~
~ "
o "
... 0
-g
" oI¡
æ =.=
~'3 ~
" 0>'-
~ § ~
8.... t"
3 æ"'C
.:::r/Jæ
9 .,g ~
- - ""
I.. =~
0·- \1)
~~j
'" '"
.s-=~
.~ Ê g
'" - "
E"ii.Q
.- ~-
"""'~
.2 1ã E
~"C m
'a æ e
"- '"
¡¡ ~]
§' ""z
.5 ~ _
-g""¡;'
= :=
& .5>
u
'"
U
g
~
~
"'~
:2 t;
0:';;
-= -
~ ~
8<;:,
" ".
.- :¿;
'" "'-
"'"
" '-'
0._
... ~
'" "
~~
15
~
"
"
'"
[
õ
~
g
~
.c
-¡;;
"
os.
>-.
I-
..:
'"
"
~
~£
z .~
t-~
- ~
" "
E "
" 0
:> -
"'-¡;;
1ã-{¡¡
"'."
í!å
000
·15 ]
..
~ ~
boo
- -
.. ".,
" "
0-
'" "
¡j .5
'" 0
'" '"
;g<
15 ..;
....-g
~.s
"¡j"ij
" >-
.- ~
...."
Pæ
If:
'"
¡
i
~
~
..5
"
~
c.1;
E .S!
] ~
'" "
to';
.- ~
~ 1rl
~;g
~~
'" E
,2",
'"
o
ë!
"
~
c.
Õ
"
~
:s
'"
.c
-¡¡
"
's.
~
-æ
:;:
..
!>.
"S£
z·;¡
'"
1ã
>-.
~
õi
:>
of
i
-¡;;
5
:>
]
= 00
cog
-§ i
u "
l~
'" '"
.- ."
-g ¡
15]
.... "
b"
-æ=
.~ :s
~]
!i:
...
E
- .-
.c '"
'" u
>-."
-,b
.¡¡
...¡¡¡
- '-'
8..~
'"
ï! ~
~ "
~c6
õ
Ï'Ë
"
~
c.
Õ
"
~
:s
.E
13
.~
~
-æ
:;:
..
~
- .
0.£
Z .-
'"
§
;:¡
:>
i§
Ï'Ë
"
"
"
;:;
.5
.!5
"
8-
-¡;;
"
~
"
>
U
æ
'"
.:;
"
""::'!.!
·n
-= '"
'" "
¡:oE
.- "
æt
:>."
~ -5
""'"
" "
-t 5
.- '-
Eo:¡
:a
..
::
¡:::
...
...
=
Q
,::
'"
..
-
J:¡
~
~ .. =
.~ ~ 13
......,5
&3 = ~
"Z!<E
"",
Co"'''
U';J :=:0 .~
- "'Ii
C':I U",;) .-
.¡¡ '-' ~
C{n!.
a;;¡.;
'" ..-
~i~
!ZJ = 13
~ g.....
5 ,,""
i2 .:: ~ .
4-< ~ ~ e:
"E 'Q ~ u.:¡
:;:;:"'1:1"01:
Q. ¡;;: ~--
E~m:E
o 0 u ::;:I
u ¡...... õbO
¡;; ª :;;: =
:.:J~-5£
. ~ = u¡
ò;::¡ g.¡Ïj
=~OUf"l"'¡
.5 0 Õ 0'\
U""52::
~ 2' ... ~
13 ~ ~ ':S
E~:::S",
~;t<:)=
<õ.,s~
cN¡=:8
';¡Oog:
oo¡:'¡'''C_
~ Q ~ .
c;:US"æ
.- "-" =.......
3 ~ 8 ~
H 2 "" "
ð = 8.5
o1;~~
-Q~u
" >.,,;;(
3= .":: õ'b 0'\
o ~ ~_
.f! "!!
e .:= -¡ ~
ð:I Q == «I
¡., e ?"=
o :;;I U ~
~_c=
"Z~·¡;;¡ ~
1! t'~
"0" '"
>,,¡,1., ...... .-
~ Q 5 is
-~~~
"'~-
-= ~.~ ~
~ § 6-g
'r¡ 0':; B
\U U U._
c.ð: ~::C
[I¡""O¡:'¡'¡-
:;:u>.í5.
.f! E 'n "'CI
c....!·u §
"'O<o~
æG)~Æ
~-=-
~ ~Æ(;)
=6E¡:¡"u..
=="O~Q
3: ¡¡.~u
~ 0' ~ t1
_~z""
~ o.~ Õ
- " E ,:;
.~ 5 ~ E
d} ~ :.=: :;;
~¿u8
c.¡
U
Z
~
;;¡
t-j
o
~
~
~
c.¡
¡..
í:
"
"
-::::
"
~
Co
Õ
'"
§
:¡;
,g
1:i
'50
>.
¡..
..-
~
"
..
'"
"S,g¿
Z'oo
E
...
=
-<
:z;:
,~
-::::
"
"
u
~
~
"
u '"
ê]
B 3:
1111
.. :
.. "
'" i2
" ..
~ ~
<E:¡;¡
... -
" ¡¡
00."
oS '"
.- '"
~ "
== N
.c·E
" 0
/Lõ
" co
~.8
:E~
.ß "
.s~
*
¡g
!;;
~
U
'"
¡¡,.
[2
...
~
'"
i.!
"
:3
::¡¡
1D~.1:
~.- ~
¡;¡ :g "
" ., ~
~..
1i5"'C1.Q
8 " 00
.. "
""-",
-~~.5 .~
","5..§{;'
.~ 0 II¡)'-
~-;¡~~
ã
E
"
r!
Q.
Õ
"
§
~
..,
-¡¡;
u
~
i
"
;¡
;;.
~¿
Z'ZS
1:!
., -
:;;;: ¡;;:
g .;:
- "
"'-
.- ..
~i:t
.. '"
" "
õ.9 >..
-= ~.~
.~ In........
~ g.g
00",,,
"g It) =
.. " "
- " co
:2~""O
~ "0 "
.."'"
"'O~þ
~ ::::=
:::: ........-
Oh-
_OJ:!
Q.--
=< æ =
" Q. 3:
.5'E "
"'-
~..,¡;;: >.
&È~
_" 00
:g 'OJ .ß
gi--"1
Ii 11 is
"'''Q.
æ
t'
~ .:¡
.sg ]
"'ij .§
." ~
Ii) "0
'" u
.5 ~
~ ;§
'§ ~
o o..'~
:-::.§ ~
--¡..c: .5
U.,..¡
"
"
'"
~
Co
Õ
"
§
:¡;
..
-=
1:i
'50
,.,
!-
..-
"
~
..
..
Q.
o.s
z-¡;;:;
~
..
¡o.
'"
o
co
00
'g
J:
Iii
'"
"
:;
e
.g
"
3:
"
.f!
.~
;;
"
'"
<:
U
æ
~
"
""
"
"
~
00
~
£
~
~
-B
.~
~: 2
~ ~
~~~
.~ ¡¡:!
oCo ....
"
"
'"
~
Co
Õ
"
E
:¡;
.ß
'ij
'50
,.,
f-
..-
c
11:
"
..
'"
'Sæ
Z'Ü¡
~
-::::
B
~
:¡;¡
o
;;
"
8-
>.
'"
-g
e
¡i
"
:¡¡
.;¡
'"
E
.g ,
>.
~ë
" "
o "
"u
3: S
g ð
:.o:u
U
æ
..
"
>-
'6
~
ë ~
"" "'-
~ -~
.2 .,
, a
11 ~ e
~ ':j ..
BJ:i?
5
.g
"0
"
1;;
]
""
"
"
U
..
h
'"
'¡" r...;
~ "
00 '"
~'i
..--
" Ë.
" '"
;¡ Co
... C
"'3:
~ g
z""
^
.g
;>;.1:
CI:I;':;;:
'" 1)1
C 1;;
-~ ~
" "
'" "
,,'"
';' E
:::.g
¡¡oJ..;
~ c.: §:
" >-ON
'" "' v
. "'.,
'ª E.~
~,.D_-:;;:
,,<f:§
'3 æ ~
8'" ;;
..,~"
¡¡¡ :::: Æ!
'" ~ "
6Ð51:õ:i
_ ~ c
C,,'"
",,""
~·s -5.
<.> E' Q.
~ü$:
t;
t
""
.iII
r:.
..
ð
'5.
J
g
.¡¡ ~
~ ~
'ªt
ð~
5
.g
~
]
""
"
ð
..
..
'¡" VI
00 "
~ ·i
..--
" Ë.
~ &.
... C
"'3:
- 0
:l]
~
.¡;
-S
"
C
..
~
"
'"
~
"
.¡;
'"
..
"
..,
Iii
'"
'"
"
'"
o
'5
E
!!
;J
'"
"
-S
.S
§ ~
.= '§
-'2_
5....6
.£ '5
t
" ..
~ ¡¡
>.""
" .-
:;;;;;:.:;
'" .,
> .~
]1
" .,
ð~
, i!
"',.,
"'-",
" ...
-= <:>
~~
I
e
o
.:::
I
]
..
õ
.~
I
-'"
"
"
u
I
Z!
..
-a> c:f.¡
~ .2
~1;;
~ê..
~&.
!S.~
~ g
z""
I
I
3: 3:
" 0
"¡;;¡
~~~
~,,'"
~~ g
.!:':¡"r;;::
.. Ë ~
;:. ¡¡.¡; oj¡
E~g"=
ë'u et: 5
U 0 . ~
u UJ~ 1.0
c.1 ~ tIl}~
:;~g""
~ >.~_5
.. '" ..
~ cc = :g
~ I:: 11) 0
>="'O'M
¡...~ 5~
"'0 := ""c QQ
¡ cr,¡ .. c
- ~.-
~! 0 i
:;Q''ö[
~ ~ ~ ~
.5-5::6
.9 .9 _~ ~
"ê ~ ~.g
oS = 'S: ~
" " 0 ..
~ 8 e ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
'"
u
~
I
..
i!
.g
,_ f
.. <.>
= "
"" ¡¡
~~
2-::
"-'"
" <.>
E '-
!! §
co 1f
t!]o..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;;-
~
...
...
s::
Q
'"
-
'" . '"
~oo"'O
-- ð) t:.I
--'õoE
.~ é ::;:
"-0""
" '" "
p..,:;;:I .-
'" 0' '"
Cij CI:I'~
-¡;¡ <..:> ¡¡
I..;:; {'.I c..
"-;;¡'"
o ...
1;1) :f +-'
~]::J
'" - ~
;;¡ê.E
E ~"2
"-!N .
I.o.o.c~~
'" "" -
to 'õ ~ IJ,.;
:":"0""0=
"'e " §:::
'" -'"
8 !:! ,2 "
" ",,0
.~ E é E
..... ...."'0 t )
ð) cd :;
i>;5 &.13
§...~\"!'"¡
000&
U~E_
~ m ~ t,,'i
iS~>--s
E,.-..:.:i""O
~:1.u¡;;:
~õ.s~
¡:;;:~~8
!J¡e~~
~ Q e .
~ U £ 16
.- -- Q....
5 ~ 8 ~
u is .:: ! ,,'I
~ ."! ~.5
gé!~~
I=< ~ C):i
~ ::: b{¡~
Ol:c......
~ ~ ~ 00
!:! .- 'i !:'.
r;.o;J .0 ::=I tQ
... -æ 9"::C
o 1-1 d)"I:I
...:- oS c =
:;;: ~ -c !;.Q
~ Z ~ g¡,
>-.f2 B·:
~ Q Ü 2
J:::u~~
.... ~ - ........
jg">;\Jõ'-I
- -.- =
" " 0
C =:I D '=
-..... 0 ¡;;, ~
~ u 'E.~
¡;;:I..,~~:6
~ "'0 O, ,,( =
¡:",..,'"
~Ez"'O
0.. ~.- =
"'<~:
§ ..r~.'i1J
~""i.c ¡-
-- ,,- <..:>
:aE::!Q.,[,¡,.
:-::::="'Od,;¡Q
¡?; ~.!; U
~Qll'!:I:;:¡
_!:!z""
~ 0.$ ë
-EE;:..
.! ~ <oS ~
\! >-:::"
ì5,.'- ~ 0
",¿uu
'"
Æ
.0
..
...
c.¡
U
Z
c.¡
=:
=:
;;¡
U
U
o
~
¡:o,
~
~
c.¡
~
10.
E
~
'"
"
10
s¡
...
~
U
'"
~
'"
.~ ~
~ .~
..:i"3
~ '"
:¡¡ g,
~ "
c."
- 0
o "
z...
~
~
:::
]~
~o..
~ ¿ ~
= E Q
&..2 Z
00-
~ :: ~
:g ~ 8
~ S: .!::
0,,-
u..o"g
¡.oj a is
= 0 c.;. ¡,;
~~~~
e .... ; ~
""0 0 C.J < )
~ ~ - I',I
§::¡; :I ~
",-",~
~.- ~ ä.
~ E 'E._
'E " C.!!
.8 .~~ e:
~'i~'ij
= 0 - 0
~E'Ci::
.E uj 00 £
IE .ê .,g ~
..c ~....... J::
to ::;¡ .E 00
~'Ø]J~
*
'"
~
u
'"
u
ú
f2
'"
¡¡,¡
ü
~
'"
~
-"
"
'-
~
"
-",
] ~
"'~
" "
::: '"
~.~
" '-
.2~
" ,.:;
" '"
..: ob::E
."Ø ~ .
;<'~ .,¡;;;:
" '" 2
Š"'Ccd
:;ail:;
'" ~ "
~ d}--
-¡ ~ ~
.;¡ 0 ~
üõ::i:
'is "
o..::¡¡.;
..;-C ::C
~ ~£
:¡¡ - '"
.." '"
g"..P ~ .
~ i ~ 8
Z";j ~ ~
-,;..
<'"
.;¡;
'"
",'
:=:::
~ë..
;;1<
¡<¡ '"
""E
'" 0
-- 0
.c-
Õ¡C
~ 00
'" ~
~~
,2",
<;10
",,:,
.",
-g~
~ "
'" "
o "
o "
?:ü
'-'.0
zj g¡
" 0
c ...:=
E '"
.~ i)
u-.;
'"
:J
uj¡c
",-
æ
.¡¡¡
.i
=-
-tí
"
" "
" '-
- '"
:gs,
...-"
'"
is ¡;
~ ..
~ ·s
0"'"
<;:: "
, '"
!.',;-
- ~
..5«:
§ ~
~ ~::E
'" " '
.~ '¡:..ï=:
" " "
....."'0;
.f! 13 ;¡;
"i ~ c
:: !I ';"
",ß"
-;: 0 ~
,,- '"
.£2=
&.::¡,.;
,.J 'Q::t:
=M..i>r.
'-'",.0
:¡¡ - '"
.. " '"
=-"Q ~ ~
~;; to
Z';j ~ ~
:E
õ '"
.E e
11 8
",-
",'"
4S ~
~ .£
.¿~
-ª8
]'1
OM
" "
~ E
" "
'§]
~ ¡:¡
"¡J .9
.'¡¡¡
-§ ~
~ -
" "
'"
1:::<';
'" "
:i5-rlJ;
1ag~
~ ";j u
~ a ¡;¡
u ",,;¡;
¡c
~
:J
~
"
"
'5 ..,
"'.-
.- '-
~ "
'ª,§
~ .~
¿~
~-s
¡¡ "
.0«:
, :<
§ æ
J::1
·~·ê~
" " "
- '" "
g '" "
.- ~ ~
-'" >- "
~ t).-
-æ1it'
'Ë 0 ~
£S:t8
æ.~:-:~
_,,' '{);:t ¡>.,
., 15.",':;:
æU¡.o~
~ d ~~
e,..c ""' Q
Q ~ t: æ
z;~ ~ ~
'" ¡:?
æ .£
~Ë
"'0
"0
>-N
.<5-
Es';
~-
s E
'" "
§ £
..0
'" '"
" "
'" 0
r~
~,2
" "
§<
i
'"
-¡:¡
.;
"
'"
]"7
".0
] ¡::
'" '"
1'! ;;,;¡;
~ - '"
"'::: e
¡;..o 8
õ]æ
...
~
:J
~
p.
'"
'"
g s
ê ~
æ~
'"
.~ ~
E ¡¡
t3 r:
:::-.;
ð~
š13g
.- ¡: "
iê~-"
.0 '" "
-æ -g .~
'Ë õ Ë -
uQ~t'o":I
8."':C§
.~ . N
is &~ ,.:;
.-= '" :c .:;:
e - ,..,,,,
-- :=I"t::J !
~,.ol;,'.¡.t::
.:£~~
I:i .- :> ~
!I ~ !;i;¡;
¡¡ i=i 00 10-<
J-j 0 Oil 0
=..~z;;:_
~.~ ~~
,
.c
" "
'" '"
:::.
Ie
_ 8
~EC
~
" .
" r'2
rñ$
'" "
§ e
~o
a!
"""
::;; !j
'5 "
,8]
-g g¡
., 0
>. .=
.oS:! ~
-æ.£
" "
,¡-
....<
!:! ~
...",
~~~
~i~
¡c
'"
;:¡
'-
"
~
~
"" '-
'" "
'-' '"
>- ~
-" ..,
..:!
's g,
7a ~
... -
<;I";:
~
-"'"
.s~C"l:l
:s~~æ
<:'; ~::-;:;:::
..c:: .Q ..-< '-
,,¡ o;;..-.c.
'.;:::::i - '4) ~
c2!t""O
.$:! ~ ¡;;:
o :G:::I:: tI;I
c.. ..... - ~
1Jš.~!;:j
.~ v.¡ x ~
£:"5È'"
:J-"'",~
.w~t'E
1:1'- ~ IV
~~sQ..
aJ ~ v.¡ r¡;¡
... 0 I:lI en
~!a = -:-!;""}
....~.¡:: 00
~~-6~~
'"
"
'"
" "
" ~
"'-0
3<9
E .0
'" ,
,¿"'O:;;:.
E ã ~
;:00<
",""'"
8.§E
g~-ª
,,"'¡c
-5..... .
or] ~
-g-æõ
..! ~ S
00 = V"..
ë¡¡¡¡;;
"""" ,
..!!-æ';;
] i)1 E
- " ~
&:':]
'" 6
=._ v.¡
co; ~§
~ ~&''§
= ~>
'" ., "
;>~1)
'"
-
';I
:::;
]
"È
'"
" "
e t1
e:§.
'" '-
" -
.0«:
:a
..
5
...
...
=
<=
'"
-
¡:¡ ·i
00 00
:.J "
¡.o¡~E
.2 ~ ~
~"'C.......
",,", '"
("J:¡ ::=1'-
O':¡¡
"iI rI'J.-
~ ~ ~
Õ~~
oo-.t
IJ,J .¡:: t;
~]:J
I:r,J ::I ,p
;:02-
e ;a"fi
e .: ~ .
10.., ~ Me::
~ '¡) = íJ.:¡
]."'C~c
e¡§:á
o Ð ~ ::;
U ¡;:. "EÐC
~ ª = =
::5t.g.2
~~ ª"~
1=:4.. iU~
=s C 1-10'\
UO_og,
<:; E-
.g~t~
< ) Ii) ..._
e':':J-c
..!:!;:g:~=
<è5~~
=Mc:8
.!1 C> "~
o;n!.1."C.........
3 Q ~ .
=u~-æ
.- -- =...
3 ; 8 ~
u13...1=ig
g g ~.-
,gQ~~
= >-. ~:;:t
;;: := õi> ð'
g ¡:: c.....
~ ~ ~ rIJ
~ i:5 -¡ ~
"' "..
is Ë 9':>::
-.8 ~1S
~ ~ 'S ~
u Z ;.... ~
u ..._00
o ~ 0 =
~a:. --.-
~ Q f §
cU;,u
- .. =~
~ ~~ ~
- -.- =
~ § §.g
-- 0 ~ 1)
¡¡ U ¡¡._
~~-::c
OCI"'O~==,
'Ë!1 ,,'I>,ø..
~Eü"'C
eo.!! 'S ¡
2!"":,,,1!J
m Q.;\ .-.~
~ãbæ-
i§i!¡;:[t
::"C~Q
~ ~..ð u
~O~t
';I\,)z..:::
t; ~.S! Õ
-¡;; E! E is
'ú t t.E c
IU ~ :.:;:: :=z
~2ðe
'"
..
-
,.Q
«I
...
¡¡.¡
!
U
U
o
=:
~
:::2
¡::
~
..
'"
>.'
,,""
t i:!
(ij Õ ~ ~
",:>::::0
E
.s .~ ~ "'æ
8.:cl x ~
"'0 ¡;:;L >.N
~"-I.c$2:
.", E >',?:i
E ~ r ,,'I .....
"" Æ i:.8
>..- :=z E
~ ~ [f.] ~
> § ~15..
_. UJ ,¡: ~
....-::IV)
:5.;::: "'C-:~
~~]~~
~ :::: $l \U >"
Q~..a¡:;:~
zl!o"::::O
!;
~
-...,
~ :=
" ..
8.::0
"ii Ë
E "
~.!2
"'~
" .
.. ~
:¡.!J
¡:: "
ooE
o
.- g,
..., '"
].;
-g ~
.. -
~.8
= '"
.. "
=-- .S!
~~
2 "
¡¡~
~-<"'
go . "
~ .~~
U5u
..
'"
~
'"
...
1;;
:.J
f'1
o
r.¡
51
¡.;
"
~
"'
"'
"
S
" I
] "
,,~
~ .s.
e ~
u-.:
-¡ "'0 ~ .
.....t:.Is=:('I¡
:Ei:..E;8
~Æ.5~
cQ 0 >.. C<:!
.- "'"
=õ~.c
£=1:':;1"0-
" :¡¡;¡; "
c..._ . «I
:g ~~ ~
5 - '"
.- :=I .c ;¡,.
~~ ~"g
~.siG)E
=..... ;. .£
~ r.r ~ c..
¡¡¡ " '" "
.. 0 00'"
¡¡:::¡".fa ~ ~
... 00'- 0
=.... ~ 0
Z~-ãN
if;:
"
v:I >.. .
""C ~ ~
§"'ij ..g
;;: "" ¡;¡
,,~ U
"'- ,
'" '" '"
" ~ '"
E;;;::O
00 ""I:) 00
-gõiE
!:! ~ 8
~ 'fJ ¡¡;
bD= 00
'" ~
~.5 ~
>.- E!
!:!¡J
"".- 0
.""'"
00 >.,.,
"'- .
1= ...-
",-" "
'ß ¡¡ ¡j
¡!:; ~ ~
.'ö -
'" " "
Õ p.,..o
" 0 ~
c..5o
-æ "5 "i
t ~ t
:;.§-¡¡
'"
-
1;;
;::¡
~
.£~
'"
~~
-=-l'J.
'J:: t:;
-"-.:
~ 8
~ -~~
~ ~§ ~
',,'"N'''
1t,'I~1U":::'
~'"O¡=:"O
.:::""2 ~ æ
.g ~ c: ==
..!: I\,) ';' Q.
-¡;;}J,,<
.'" ° t
5õ~æ
... =::C ¡:Q
&: 00 'N
·!!f-:8
¡¡¡¡¡:>::'"
~ ª,È~
..- -"
... = ~ E
r::;.,.Q ~ ~
~Æi:ë-
Z·;; ª CIj
'"
.§
. ;;
~ ¡¡
.g-¡)
:!-<
IS ~ ¡.;
-"'.8
~ § ,g
o"';J u
oo~o
-æ I.o;±
.. CoO.....
"'- '"
'g::E<
.i!õË
~ ~ 0
'" "
~ § ê5
~ >. "
'" ,,00
-~~
= ÔI' "t:;
~.g~
" ~ N
~ ~ ~
"ð-;;;
] go t
.- " ;;:
~~]
'"
-
:J
.¡; ~
.Ë -~
- "
01 's
00 '"
.5 S!
" ."'-,
8~
""""I.s,
g,>:,
"'-.:
"
o
~ c.t>ô
00 "0
'R'¡:: N
- " "
ij"Oc
.", 13 ..::
-" t "
1! " >.
:!.gË
'5 õ ~ ,
õc:Ctl"'
o..:¡¡¡-:8
._ . N
¡¡¡¡¡:>::>.
~ ª" È~
t -= ~~
I:I,,¡.Q ~ 2
~ .:!:f ~ I:Q
z·v. ~:E
~
'"
", !
¡ !
'd.JS
"
" 00
~ §
~ .¡
"' >-
E "
fõJ
00-<
.¡:¡
;;
"
'"
..,
-á rñ "
,,:¡j'é
.s [ OJ co::I
00"::0
~ .5
!)D ë E
ë-8
:E ~ ¡¡;
~ 600
-g~£
'" 5 "
>..'" e
~6~
>£!
'"
-
1;;
:::¡
.;
§'
-~
~
8 ~
Ë ~
¡J! "
-.~
..8 -".~
~ § &
B ~ 15
~j ~
:Eo:¡"
'to
g
'"
o
~ Qt)Æ
v.J .: E
.~ ~ B
_ '" "'-
.s"'8~
:.s ;> ¡;;:
E t·-
_00>.
",-" "
.'" " t
5õ~
ë"
o..:¡¡¡-:
-oJ .¡¡ ==
''is.>.
~OO-"
t -= ~
g,.,.D ~ .
."N
-£,-Q
~._ .::;;:10
""""' w w N
~
¿,
,.,
"
"
"
'"
'¡¡
-"
'"
.§
;;
"
"
-¡¡
;( ~
-"
"8'2
" u
iO
E '
oob
- "
==~
'ß Ë
,£ 8
2!¡¡;
'" .
~~
- "
~~
'"
-
1;;
:::¡
ci.
~
~
~
"
-= "§
,g "~ t!
""" '"
æ -" ~
- ~
oo~
:.si:Q~
I
I
š"E g
:.õ ~ ::I
"''' ..,
'" 00 c
-=.g ....~
';;;:' +-' ~ 0
cO :t <=>
.£¡;;;C': ~
8._!1;¡; ~
","b::;::
~" .
._ ~::c "'C
E ... ~ §
;;:¡"'"
.c..:.:c
.",; d" ~ c..
£:.-:: :;.<
Q.\ ~ 3-::1
t § en æ
1:Io~ ~.....:
~.~.¡: 0
z~.§~
I
I
I
I
>.¡j
" .!J
~ 6
"0
"'c:è
" ,
1~
" ;;:
'" '¡¡
'¡::..p
¡g,,,,
"¡:; ð
]i~
" ¡;
=Sü
" -
~<
~ -g "
- " "
,,- "
° :2..,
5 ~ '
00 _
..., 'j:
"- ""
'i:E<
~ 'is '"
ê..~ e
1!]-ª
U '" a¡
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a¡
-
1;;
:::¡
I
I
E '"
£..::
,,-
.. "
-:,,"5
<;-':;i
.- '"
.z ~
o _
- ...
-" '"
.! ~
Q"
'"
.-
- "
::0",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
::a
~
==
'þ
C
Q
'"
-
~ ~ ~
.~ ~ 'B
.J..e
~;;..!
.¡¡ -6 <:
'" '" ~
uP; :=I .~
O'¡)
-æ (IJ .-
() ~ ~
l;:; (I'¡ p..
~=o~
o ...
1;1') ~¡;j
~~;:j
\n 5 is
=0,,'-"
~ ...
E ~ :=
12 _ '" -
tr-.....I'=i0O=::
Ü .~: m
..o¿ "
-;5. .,. 11 _5
e~~:E
o ~ u ;:;:I
U 10-< 'i:î)Q
00 g = =
.- " \'! ~
..Jt-c£
;;.. c ~
~;.:J ª"~
§'-e~
o 0 00'1
U"5e~
«I I-< 1-1 (!}
"2fi~-5
e;':.;::¡
~g~~
=:Nc8
~~;~
~Q~-:
~UBç::;
_..... '-'" c ......
~ ~ 8 ~
~ B.,¡;;;: :æ
õ" 1<.-
,,-¡¡ f ~
~ CJ ~
~ þÆ! ~-
é -~ ~g:
~~~::
!:! .- -¡ :.;
ct:I 0 = ~
... -æ 9"'=
O"'"'~"'C
r .3 c: :::
B .;. -ë :
¡s '-' 5~
¡>.,u.. ---
C': Q 5 2
E U =- ~
~,...:;:"=~
-s ~.:= ~
~ ~ "
.~ is 12 'f¡
~u g~
:.:g¡¡J-g
c oJ) i>'I p,..
~Ei$"C
p..~.-t=:
-o<¡s:;
æ Q~.~
~~æ-
;s~¡¡;æ
::::""Cd,)C
~ ~.~ u
~CI!;Qt
=uz£
* õ-! 0
~~E~
= :t: 0 .-
';J ~...... z;;:
r5..:: ~ §
IZJ ¿uu
'"
..
-
,.CI
..
E-
""
u
z
~
I"i
;::>
U
U
o
I"i
~
:;2
¡::
~
!5
II.
.5
"Ed £
<: ~ ~.¡;;
~ u .S2~
-§eæ=
~ o;: ' > ::=J
E -(;1 z;;: c
Æ~:;;~
Q. ~ :;;: =
o~ccE
~o~£
== li·g !.
,g:o¡..!:!e
... 00 :;;;I :=:
~..,¡:;;: c.. 00
..g õ 8:g
~~1§:
~ 0 ¡;;;: ~
5 E ~ ~
~ '¡;;;j U =
t ~ O"i§
II. " !""
~
!
::c
..
"
"
'j¡
¡;
;¡
<: ri
.<0
:å §
.~ ~
.5 b
.. '"
"" "
01....
~ í§
-00
æ.E
-;;;""
í! oJ
"""
="i$
:s E
.E~
'0'
¡-;;
i;'t
:= '"
'" iJ
>.<0
~
!;;
,..
'"
.""
U-
"'~
u.. .-
.J
g¡
e
'"
'"
1,
1
E 1:'
" ~
12-R
E _~
..."
. '"
" "'
o '"
~~
5 t'i
uu
š~~
:E~~
jg ~ .5
-;0>-
~ Õ ~
~ ¡;;: ; .
-8.¡:¡==~
._ .0
]/j"''''
.~ ª,:C ~
.E ~ È~
....J.coo.£
. d ~ i:
-= .~ >
- I\f.I """ {/';
!! ~ :::I "'C
2 0 ~ 1=;
Q,¡ ~ Qf) =
~'ß~~
"2 ~
~]
'"' ~
'" c
" 0
E .",
. "
~ ~
§it)
- ~
::¡<
¡;¡ ."
~';:.8
== ;; E
-=~s
2 .5 ~
'-"iirz¡
"'I:I~~
æ'ii :=i
;>, n...2;
~ e ~
- " E
" -0 0
>~ ç¿' 0
~'O-
:;.",<'Q
,,5.§¡.oJ
"'''~
oo~~
~ "g E
-¡ 6.~
",,-
~~...:..
<'Q
00
;::¡
~
-~
~~
.<0
~~ ~
'E'"
'"
:C..s~
:s!~~
~ð~
.: ~
¡;.~
-õ~~
.f! ,,:I:::;:
'" ~ .
$,~E;"i
Ii ¡¡ == "
--¡¡ ~È~
.-=: -= oo~
E.Q t'1-<
~ ð) ~Æ
to'æ :;;;I ë
~ I ~ Q)
>- = Q,(I-
. ~ ,§ ~
_......=(J:¡
~.~"'C ~
~~"EQ
~Š~~
.....~ d) ~
".<0 E C
Z,g",:::
'"'
c
~ _ t.:
"'<:lS
.g ,0
= """ü
~..sO
E " ,
~ b ~
-g",:>:
" ..
-1200
!5 " E
~ '0 0
bO¡¡.s
-00<'Q
] æ -
- '"
0=;:;
~o~
",ª£E
=§.\I"
,.,..'"
.B~"7
- '"
: rñ c
.'"' "
.<0 ¡ "
"- '"
~t)]
",,"'..
0-0 C
§'æ ,g
'" ."
" c. >
... ~ "
u¡;;¡
"'0:
"'-
w.1i
"'.J
.;:¡
"
.<0
J, ~
'E '"
:s1§
l1R
'ö Oì
]'<5
. ¡:¡
£...
"'{;>
E ..
!.ð
~ ~
~ ~:E
.~ '¡:: '"d
" " "
Š "0 ~
:s13:¡;
" <: '"
.c;:~<
:§ .g .E:
E......õ>.
" " "
- " <:
000"
"',,-
o ---!....
Z !i¡..:
...;::;f.¡:I::
" '0 '"
~;..o
" "..
... £ ,.,
!:a.._ ~ M
- ~ ~ 0
" ~ "'"
Z 0 ~N
~
~
lS
..
-ª
..
>-
"
;¡
:;:
--'
,.,.
If
~
æ=E
" '"
<õ<
'"
'" ~
ª,Š
;5=
o
a ~
-0£
~ Ii
§~
-¡j-
>""
""
-
~
:J
" '-
... ..
- !i
i:s
i:;-'"
"l1
.. -
.~ '"
" s
8 ~
=='-'
! 13 ~
:E t: :;;
'" "....
.c '" c
-=> .-
32t"
~ 0 ~
Co} c ~ .
Õ~::I:S
';-'G ¡..: ¡;:¡
ð) ~ '....
-'§ : ;"lSe
"'''I: :;; "~
-.I~"-ÞE
.wi~~
5 'C¡; i:: en
~ ~ ;;"i
.. 0 ~ ~
~~=-
-S -~ ." 8
Z~.gN
C
"
"
]
~
"
o
'~
¡;
;¡
.;;: -
...
ãÆ
~ð
.,.,
'" "
'" c
.. "
"'....
o ..
-¡ E
" g
E¡;¡¡
"
.s ~
]~
-¡j s
.: VI
.,.00
,,-;'
='"
&~
<'Q
-
;;;
;::¡
'-
'§-
=ï:S
'" 00
12-'::;
Eli
~~
Ë '"
~ .5
;::¡Q
g ~
~ OLI~
~ '"
'5 '¡:: -=
.,¡rË~
~"5~
1š t .:
-., '"
",.<0 "
.", " <:
'" 15 "
š=:J:
c..~~
'È 'g ::I:
!I"''''
¡¡~.<o
~ -= !:.
=.,.c ~ .
~$~a
Z'~ ~ ~
... í§
õ g
0-
~<'Q
'0 .
C ~
'" "
"'iJ
,g E
~~
'00
-g,
,,'"
-'"
~-;;;
~ ~
" -
slS
'" '"
o C
E.S!
~ -
.- "
" >-
. "
-"'- .
2 ~ ~
;;¡<:>:
'8 . ,
Q.] ~
o '" '"
¡:: ~ 2
" í!.<o
Õ ""æ
.
...
;;;
;::¡
<i.
~
..
~ "'
š..~
~1.
.!! ~
..,f';
.5 .,,-¡;.
>- "' ¡¡
.s .:= :-:.:
E.5 ~
""" '"
B. -So ~
~Q ~
:a
a¡
;:I
c
...
-=
<::>
'"
--
\Ø
..
-
..c
«I
!-<
~ oo-§
:J~5
~~~
.- ~ «
Š. -g "
~ &'~
~ CI';¡.-
~~~
Õ~;
'" ""-
~~:j
~ = 0
~ E~
e 5 "5
e .: ~ .
"+--=~o:::
"'O.~ :i."(
"" -
=s.."O "g.:
E¡~:O
o ~ u :=
() ¡.,. ãQO
µ 0 "
.01 E E E
~~"ö.s
. > ~ ~
þ;:¡ g.aJ
i=:1.I...~1"!"'!.
:=I 0 1.-.0'\
U0..,¡;;: 00'\
" E-
-êI ~ ~ ~
CJ ~.~_
E.........~'t;I
.zo;""
<Q-=~
eNc8
~"O'"
v.¡¡¡,,-c'"
~Q~-:
~UB~
='-'c.......
3 ~ 8 ~
U,lS...I::U
g g ~.E
g8~~
~ þ~~
g'~ ~ ~
..:..= ( ) f: I?)
".~ '\iI !:.
æ Q :=I ~
I.. -æ ~:I:
Ol-<~"'C
r a = =
; = '2 ~
HZ ¡;;. g¡,
ð 00 c
;;...~... .~
= Q ¡:;;: =
E U 4) ij
~ ~ ~
~ ..-...-
..c ;;.., U œ
... 'a"¡;¡ §
~ ';::I 0'=
'y 0 ¡,." B
.. U 1:>._
Q,,~~::C:
':"'O~::=I
_~>.,P..
.5e"a)~
CI....!!·õ ~
""01«0I0I':l
= .r.t;¡_
~ Q......~
r¡)-C:-
= ~..=so
:¿; E r:a.. ~
::"C~Q
?:: §.~ u
~OcrJ~
_~Z-"
~ o.! Õ
-¡;¡ E E .6
-..... ~ t8 t:
~ >:=:: ~
,,-" '" 0
I:I';¡ ~uu
""
u
z
¡;¡
êS
u
u
o
=:
~
~
¡:::
~
o
...
, '"
:s '"
$ ~::E
00 " '
.~.~ '2
š:;~
:.6 ~
m ~ c
:: ~ >.
.~ -g ~
e õ ~
"0 =::t:
"-fib
.. .¡¡ =::
5C1.>-,
.."'-=>
.. µ '"
2t.Ë ~ .
-. ooIo ~ ~ I:'/.
=~t-O
z'i ~~
~
~
:¡: ¡:!
õ "
rE!)
... "
"0
"''''
~~
-""'
- "
go :¡¡
'2'ì
-ª.8
g §
" .-
~ -
" '"
i]
- "
~ .:;: '"
.. . '"
-~.~ ;;::
.Q - .
2':':
,,- "
00 'R ~
>i-::;:
i5. í! ..
g..!! "
..8 ~ :3
U s,¡¡¡
*
[g
~
ø¡
-
00
:1
~
o
""
~
§
~
~ ...
" "
""i;¡
.f:! ...
j¡ §
... --
~ ·5
"-'"
;;-9-
~Q
"
-- ...
",,,
" "
,,-
"æg~~
£ .2 ~ -g
g, Š. :I: '"
""0 ~ ~N
u........c$;::
'''.;;;::=1 t;::¡~
E,.Q ~...
:=: ~ t.,g
to·¡ ~ E
", "
;> = bO~
~ -2 ~
..J_:;;¡r.r.
5·~"'C ~~
[~]~~
_.- u ~ i>.
o.cE:=:~
z..êo'::~
§ 5
"
i!
" "
-;;:.c
~ ~
",,0
==< 'g
:§ t
0-
o t1,} ¡.;
....-]
."..:"
" . "
" .. "
",""
'ª Ih~
~~:::
"'0 :;;;I IS.
" "'-
'" ",-
."0'"
-=> = E
;: : 0
~~..S2
0",
1ij",
i ~ ~
.] ~
1j 8.0
i~~
~ ;;.,J....
û-a"=:
..:
'"
:1
ij §
~ã
~
]È
o !.'
::e ~
,. is
i5~
~~
,
ð ~
~ =.o~
., " '
'5'~ ..c
-ä 2
Š ~
:E"'8~
.2 ~';'
Æ.g~
-"§ ..,.. çQ
-g:I:
~~~
.. .¡¡ =::
"'""",
~:-=>
~ " !'<.
=.,..c Q;¡o ,
~Ji~8
Z';j ~ ~
~
«
.",
;;-=
-¡:;::;:
-
...-=
'" "
.!! æ¡
~::;:
E '"
""E
c.;; :3
-"'-
µø¡
.E .
11Ê
" "
",E
j¡o
-0
~~
.¿~
=-
.z "
1M
"
".c
~ ~
" 0
ª 'ij
.~ t
u--;>
N
'"
:1
!.'
"
~~
OJ "'-
IE e
13 :s
¡¡ !.'
" !.'
..,. "
... '-
""g
12~
§
00 "0
'V; ~;
':::2'¡:~
" " 2
~"'",
..11 13 ::;:
.Q " "
.ê t .-
_ 00 '"
OJ-=> "
.= 0 "
" - ¡¡¡
Bg=
¡£.. -
,,~
... -;':¡:t::
i ~Èa
~_~o
~.E t'~
'E i i:= '§..
Z'ç;;s ~ <
......
" 2
" '"
:¡::;:
15'00
- E
~:3
=-
<3'"
~ 00
" "
;;¡a¡
~ E
::iQ
0",
000
"0
" "
OJ "
~ ~
E 'i:
"".c
.- ¡:¡
-" 0
õ'¡
.E "
...~
" "
'" -
"'..: .
" .-
;::;;;= ~'~
'" '" ""
;>"'..:
'"
-
';;
::¡
'ß .§
- '"
ª ~
-90
1ij "'"
] j
-æ ~
õ .~
; ]
o >. ~
" ""'"
" """
:os 8.~
J§13g
:s ~ :;;;
",,'"
..c: u¡ _5
--=>
'" 0 '"
.= ...... ~
::: 0 ~ (O"¡
£=~8
ooo::tc:"l
o...:=! - i»
-0""'",
"8, -.,.
.-==: 00::Z::: ~
E +-' ~ ¡
::¡"-=>..:
-=> ",,,
t ~ >. ~
--"...
li'vJ ~ ~
~ ~ t;]
a;.. 0 1)0 I.'I:
=- ~ I=i.....
- UJ -1::0
o·~ :;;I 0
Z(I)"t;:IÑ
'"
E
o
~..s
Eø¡
"- -,;::
8. II,) ~
._ E "
c: 0 "t
.2., 00 E
"'C ~1.Ij
"- '"
""'"
,,--
0-0 '
",,,0
",,-
'5.."00 ~
-d~~
¡ ~.::
'gc.;;.J5
0-5 00
" 0 "
... £.g
g "0 ~
S ~ t
,,"-
o ","
" " ~
......=< .
....... ~ iP
y > ¿: c:
.. .. -- ~
- "'0 '-I-¡
ê ã'§
«I....... :¡::,,¡;;;:
.c..~ d} (,)
~ðe-æ
U ¡: ~::;:
...
:;;
::¡
..,
1
~-~
= ...
.J5,§
'" '-
¡;;: .~
.- ...
1;;"-
I
I
..:
Š 1$ ~
:6<:::;:
jg] .:
1ij 0
¡;-
-= Õ I:
~ " '"
g,'¡1 :I:
13š.~
.= ~::z::
-5:1 È
.....;¡"'O~M
oW i ~g
~ 'r¡) ¡: N
I:It' C:: ~ ~
.. 0 "" ""
~!::): =<
~.':2'~ "'0
zti-6§
I
I
I
I
]~
'" "
~~
- ¡:
~]
.£00
" "
~ _2
00 ""
"
"
0;
I
I
g
§.:;:
.2 tÛ ~
.= ."= Q.
E .§ ..:
""" .
m 8. ~
¡ ~ ~
o 00 N
~ = i
-óJ!'"
" 0 00
..!__E
'§11g
¡: .z ¡¡;
" ¡:¡ .
¡¡¡ OJ 00
+-" ~ ~
=..... ~
0'" "
E-=o
ð.ê:;;:
I
I
I
I
I
'"
-
';;
::¡
I
I
"
¡:.~
.!!.S2
==~
:.E .~
~ ...
" "
E'i.!
I),CI.-=
" ..
<="-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:;
~
=
'Þ
C
Q
'-'
-
" ."
,§ :;j"'E
-'Õ;¡E
~ " "
-- E;;:
~ ~ ~
U) ~ .-
_ C' ¡j
cI:;'I en --
'{) ~ ~
~CI") p..
'"'::>"
o .".
(J'J ~~
~];:¡
fJ:¡ - a
::>g::;;
E ;; 2
I: _ "" -
......~d)~
ü .~:~
"" -
:s.."'C -g.=
e;~:E
o d} ~ :;; :
ÇJ ¡;,,~o
;; § § E
::¡~.g~
. ,. '.-"
Þ:':¡ 5-W
§...... ~ ~
oOoð\
U"2E-
~ C!:I ~ t:)
"E~~'5
6-.:3"'0
~ '!:t II) =
;;:8-5':
¡:=;Mc8
I... 0 0 C'\
£",,,'"
~o¡::-:
~us"'¡
.- - ¡;::...
5 ~ 23 ~
u.2 ....c;: Co}
g ~ 8-5
oii5~
..... Q Lf.I .~
" ,., " -a;
;. ." õ;¡ '"
gE~"'"
~ ~ ¡.. 1;',1
2 .- 1ð ~
w Q = m:
~ OJ 9"=
01-<0"0
~.acQ
;; =-s ~
g z ~~
~æ 9.5
['; Q = Ë
Eu~~
t;,..;...s-
.c: ..... u [IJ
+-" =:-2 §
~ "0'=
.- 0 ~ 5
& U ¡j:=::
~ m ¡;; .c
....."'O-~
=~>.Q.
~e"ij"'C
Q.~·ü :
"'C«,0!a
¡ ~~-~
~~-ª;
::aæ~!L.
=-=:'"O~Q
~ ¡!.~ U
r.n CI ~ ~
~I ,)Z~
;; a.~ 15
.....ëE;o.:;,
.S I-< 0 .....
c;.I ~: 3
M...- -æ 0
~¿uu
\C
..
-
,.CI
«I
....
r.¡
u
z
r.¡
=:
=:
::>
u
~
æ
:;!
¡:
z
r.¡
¡..
o
....
* "'8
o "
* ~Õ
'þ:2.ê! ~
~-6g
~'O"
:.a 0-'
" ~ "
.(;: ~-;.
Æi.P1\>
_ ,,~ .
~ê~§
'"'. [IJ . N
- ð.} ~ >.
.... - cI:;'I
-¡¡¡¡¡=::.
~ ~£"1:1
E'5~æ
=-~ ~..........
~ .2 ~ .~
Z -rIS ~<
-d ~.:
-é§æ
§"t;~
"8!1
o bD===;
~;::: 6.-
¡¡;¡:s<
" 15 "
~.PE
,,- 0
0"", 0
~§i!i':i
.- ,.,
~.Æ ~
E"'a£
~ ,. "
&-.;; E
.ߧ§
Q::a~
. 0-
t:io6
2~\O
,£ æ !f$
-g -¡: ~
.5 8..;::
co.·"Æ
" .
""'~"
~ "2 §
¡:; ~ ó!.~
.. ........";1 =--
:;J ~ ~~
= ¡c § «:
"
¡g
E
'"
¡c
-
~
;:¡
'"
r.¡
ü
r.¡
=-
'"
¡J
Æ "
"i3 ~
¿:¡ 8
"
]]
o 1Ë
:E .2
~~
"
,.,
"
~
~õ:t
'2 ~ <;;
£' .2 ~ Q
O{):1::N
c>." ,.,
"'C i' È tI:;I
.§ ;; '" ::E
e .D ~ I
;:: i ~ ~
ki'a¡; ~ oê
> i=:< O,()£:;
O.S "'0
'" ~ "
;;: .~.§ cr;
æ~"08
&..0 _ \1)_,
g..s ~ ,...
~:6~21
zß.g~
_0
:ê!J:
õ6
'" "
'0 "
" ~
" -
i;']
'" "
'" 0
,. .-
.'¡;
~""
" "
"-
:= q)
~-
_<t
'"
~ .
" -
"'.- "
'" '" "
"'''=
,;:¡:E-..
C>._ '
."",
'0-2
§ :5 "
'5 co.:::!
<> -¡; '"
<> - ~
" ¡¡ 8
.. ,.
~-õæ
,," -
o!S t::
E"~
'" '"
.- E
U "" E
¡c
::J
uS
'"
'"
'0
--¡¡ "
..:: "
'0 "
"ä"~
~ 8
~ "
u '-
~~
8]
§
~
~ .wª
.~ ~ ,...
- .§ g
.s "'0 ;:;;I
:S~......
" ~ "
'" --
- ~ ,.,
" .B "
'" " ~ .
c;:....... ~~8
.£8::I:
æá'J~~
.J -¡J æ Æ
= ~ ¡:...,,;E
~r.f.¡.Q""O
¡a .... I'T.I C
a.. :=I >.. ~
I:i¡,¡.o ¡ ).........
~ :; ~ .~
Z';:j ~<
'0
æ ~
i)'£
'ê Ii
""0
.2~
~ -
1'1 ,;,
C>.'"
- "
~ ::¡
p
-~
'0 '"
§ "
~'i
o ,.
~Æ
"
1L~ .
"" -,.,
-= ":i
°E -g..,
" '
'" --
.- 00 I::
" ~ co.
'ª ..,«:
t;¡::: Ë
co.", 0
"" õ 0
Õ~ãS
.".
'"
;:¡
"
-~
,>J
"
v.. .~
.Ë g
- "
§ <>
.5.z:
-.s.
~~
]!
-g
"
.5
,.,
"
~
~g=
,,~¡.;
õ '() :i
::g,,.,
,,'" -"
.-:::: :; !!'"
E..o ~
~ i 5; .
>,.- .... 1:"'1
~ '" '" 8
" ,
:> § ~N
..: ~ -§ ~
5 .~ "C ~
'" ",,-
q,I Õ I
....... ...~
Q,:.E r.: [oJ
~~~~
~
g,;,
~ -
" "
"". ::¡
Ii;.
E -
"Æ
;. "
" "
'g.g
"" "
á'J]
'" "
~ -
,,<t
E .
.. ~ ;>..
'" " "
e-~ ::E
~ E '-
-g....~
r;Q --; ~
'" "'::E
~ ¡ I'T.I
]U
"'OiS
" "
.E = ~
- '" ~
]-"
;;: §. ~
0(
~
;:¡
t
"" ..
õ "
<::::""
,,>J
E bQ
8 ~
0...,
~]
~.2
~~
jgE:
.5
,.,
"
~
:¡õ=:
E "
~ iß ~
8"~ æ
"C~È
" -
..... :=I 00
l§.o~
::.!Î ~ .
>...- ~ ~
~ '" "8
" ,
;> § ~N
...J ~"¡:: >"
=,,~.g~
'" ;0
~U~I
!$; Š ~-=
'S~Ë-ª
z-=o~
,.,
..2 '"
-¡;; "
>&.g
;; "
:!! i;
t8 ~ ~
g¡';;:::;:
e . ,
~.~ i::'
.- ~ "
§ E 2
"-~
~",æ
8§.Ë
~-8
ï=:~_
O~¡C
Z ~ .
.,j .12
,,"'" "
ð:I :: i)
-Æe
~~~
""1'
,,-'"
=:2-
~ - "
§ 8 ~
~:;; !
uæ~
.".
;;
;:¡
C>.
"
~
s
~ ::;::
.~ "%
§~
<:r_
" "
'" "
::.:, §
-" "
.s~
"
i;'
~
ÆÕ..$t-"1
-=c.....o
~ ~ ~ ~
15 'ö X ,.,
co." "
"8 ~È::E
....:::;. 00 "'C
E.J: ~;
=,,~-
~:= ,,''''
! ) u¡ ~ Q.
;:.-- ~ aJ;\<
o " ."
.",; çf.¡ .;:: c
~ ~ +=I ð:I
¡¡'" "-'
~u13§
j!.!~N
~:s.!~
z.ßo~
.;
. ~
.~ E
" "
Ii E
~o
'00
;3~
_0
" "
~ ã1
..,;.
- -
- "
:.E~
- .,
o "
.E 0
"'''
" ,.
" "
ã)+13
'ê<
"" -
- "
Ii"§ ¡i
E ~"
~_...
",¡!..:.
"C ~ '¡:
" ,. Q.
" -0(
OO'Ô'r.f.¡
~.5 E
,,-¡; 8
...""-
~ë;a:¡
¡c
~
;:¡
..:
'"
""
51
'2
"
§-
~!51
-§ § ~
-- "--
g ~ ~
.- $,<>
íH:;,p
:a
...
:I
C
'R
....
C
8
-
~ oo-.§
~~~
¡¡ g," '"
-<:; ¡: <
8..] .:
'" 0' ~
"E CI) .9:::
~ ~ 8.
o~.:
'" ""-
~~:J
::n ;:;I ...
~e£
E ~"f
2:: æ .
.... ~::i e:
13 -~ '" ¡,¡
:::.....""C::::
Q. ì=:: =.-
E~«I:C
o u q;¡ ':I
U '"" "EOQ
~ !2 ::;;: ¡;;:
__ .... ~ 1-1
~543B
",.:: g.i;i
..........J O"¡,¡,¡
§õ~:;;
8'=E~
= 2 ... II)
~ W 4.'1..:;:
t:.1 ~ ;> ...
E.-.:..:J"'O
.! :1: e) ~
« 0 £ C': ~
c.N=$2"
:;"00;
t'j¡I;.""C_
~ Q e .
cSª«ì
.- u ii "a)
... I;/] (,) ¡.,
§ ~].~
.9a~N
~ .q-t!
g t §-
~ .... _ Iõ"'!
~ _~ "'0 u
... 0 § ~
~ Ii 9'"=
~=~"C
... 'a$.- c
:;:::; Z z;;: ~
8 t:;> g¡,
° <:> ° "
~~..... ....
'" 0 " "
I:: U ~ E
dEi~..5~
-E Þ.~ ~
00 c ¡:;:: C
,S:? =' 0-=
{) O.þ 5
~u~=
c.;": -.o
~"'C¡:..z.:¡:=I
~u>--.p.
C': E 'i) "C
15., ~.- c
-0<8:
¡: ..r.n_
~ ~ ,:=:.~
~ ØD æ........
.- ,,- '-'
~~o..[,¡"
:-="'OuQ
~ ~.,E; u
~O'cQ~
_~z'"
~ o.! ë
"i; E e ~
.- ~ 8 'Ë
~ ~ :;: "
i!S.'- m C
",¿wu
'"
a¡
1:
~
¡.¡
w
z
:¡
I'll
;:0
W
W
o
!
¡o,
~
~
¡.¡
~
=-
"
o -0
_~ ~ ê
-"¡: .J=
~ .g ~
J§13~
~ t.:
..c=: ~ >"
-¡¡.olt)
_ 0 ¡::
'¡:: õ ~
.£ ¡;;:::I:
æ¡¡¡..:
1! .¡¡ :>::
~ ª" È8
..~ 0
oj ~ ~N
c..~ 1\)_
'S£t"§.
:z -¡ñ ~ 01(
'"
~
"
~
~
-"
'"
.2
;;
¡;
--¡¡
<
-0:-;::
" ~
'" Po
";;1
~.:
!! "
",,-
~
...
~
=
:E ~
] §
o
-gæ¡
'"
~~
- "
~'n
> E
~
E
'"
«:
'"
;.::¡
~
ü
¡.¡
~
"
E ;;
ê-~
..
~~
'8.. 8
e ¡¡;
.; "
E E:-
.; 8
~..g
R"§'
G~
I
I
I
I
I
~
"
ð
of
E
"2
<:
"
J
.:=-
æ
'-'
iJ-
B
II
ft
u
I
I
I
I
~
..
.:
"
" ~
¡¡ 1)
§ @
~ ¡:;
~ m c:
1 .Q æ "
,~ ~
"', ~ Q
= 00 >.. ~ ~
~ ~.&:¡ "§
J: 'Š,] ª .~
II ~-g ð@.;
æ f¡:@ .~ð~
y~ ;g~tQ;;'=~
1:.1 ð: :._ 0=:: ð) ...
=- II ~ E 10-+ ~ m
S U .-::£ 0 ¡:( I
Bll...J~~-d''''''§
~ "", ¡:.,~ " ".'"
",¡:: ~ r _ c: -:;:$
E-iiEß=-,S].c
- !! R 0'- !'! "."
~'=2:eQt:B~
iUE-o ="'¡;;;:CI: '-
"E U C:~'=E-!::"'C
"- g ""..., 13
S=.~iU"Ç!E-_
" "'.- "" 1! ~ .'-
!i: " 8.-!!a e ~] Jj
~¡.... (Jj ~ :;;:I ; ;.\_ 100-.
1!"'''-_~~'''O
..~-d0g~ <:§.!!a
v..~o~oo-[,t,¡ c:
q,¡ QI;I;t.oo u 0 .. .. -g C':I
"g ã ~.~ =~==w5:
r",1~ ¡;:: ì!S...,¡;;;: ....
v..:;;:~CI.J~t':i.~~~
c u.:J "'0 :=I:;j.- --
-.......,ROO ~.~.::2
-fI¡:-iJ--:5",,,,...¡...¡
WQ.).!!C<:~i:o.CI'.Iu:I
,s'9.gw zz<>.<>.
~æ:",,,IIWWZZ
" II "u g " II uu
~~¡'¡"'0<:<t11111
* "-",uz--,,,...
'õ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I B
. ~
c
...
...
I ]
\c.
a¡
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-. -". ..-... .- ---....-.-..---.---.-"..----.-
I
..-
..-- I
..-
I
auNT!
ç05r.ç....- I
~ON~~-OUN'f{
-~ ToAISD.AC
.V-
I
I
UNINCðRPORA.T~O
ALAM,S"DA ÇOI)NrY
---~------ I
CITY OF DI.Jel..IN
I
Approx_ location of proposed I
future TassaJara Creek bridges
I
I
g I
~
"
!
~
8 I
"
~
~
.
! I I Conservation Area I
0
~
ð
J I
SOURCe' H, T. Harvey & Associates, Ecological CDnsultants, 3-3-2003.
I
Exhibit 13
Tassajara Creek I
Conservation Area
N Project Area Boundary I
CITY OF DUBLIN t
DUBLIN RANCH WEST 0 3( () """ 1200feer
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOfIT I . I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
"
I ~
¡¡
~
1:
·
~
I i
.~
·
-<
ð
I ·
,
..
I
I
I
I
UN"
C05~?- --
COÑ~~ r OI,JNít'
":.v"EO^ C
-"
-
-
UNlNCOfiro!MrElJ
ALAMEDA ÇOI.lWTY
---~-~~_.-
~fTY or DUBLIN
_ Congdon's Tarplant
SOURCE: Wetlands RBSliJarch Associates, Inc., August 2004.
Exhibit 14
CONGDON'S TAR PLANT
L:OCATIONS
I
Area Boundary
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
SUPPLEMENTAL I'NVIIIONMENTAlIMPACT IIEPORT
o
I
300
800 12OD_,
I
I
...-
...-" I
...-"'
""
I
UN"
costA C?~__ I
CON~~-OI".lNí'r'
~~ MEDAC
ACi'
I
I
VNINc:.ORPORA~D
AL.AMEDA COO/'fTY I
-~--~~----
çfït OF OUBUN
I
I
I
I
~ I
:¡ D California Red-legged Frog (CRLF)
"
I Associated Upland Habitat (300 ft. buffer
from specific accessible points along creek) I
"
1
~ o Impacted CRLF Associated Upland Habitat
Æ
"~ [:,:,',',:1 Impacted CRLF Dispersal Habitat I
0
.
"
.
"
, I
~
~
SOURCE: Wetlands AesBarch Assooìates, Inc.. AugUSl2004.
I
exhibit 15
CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED I
FROG HABITAT
N Area Boundary I
CITY OF DUBLIN !
DUBLIN RANCH WEST 0 300 M t2001eet
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMI;NTAlIMPACT REPORT I . , I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4 LAND USE
Land use impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.1, Land Use, of the Eastern Dublin
EIR. Impact areas included Project alterations to existing and planned land use
patterns, land use compatibility with on-site and adjacent land uses and Project
impacts on agricultural lands, including Williamson Act lands. Chapter 3.1 of the
DEIR also discussed planning concerns involving sphere-of-influence changes,
planning areas and special districts. Consistency with relevant local land use
plans and policies were also included.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
On-site land uses
The westerly portion of the Project area contains steep to moderate slopes
adjacent to Parks RFTA. Steep slopes transit to rolling hills and a central
generally flat area in the approximate center of the site. The easterly portion of
the Project area is dominated by Tassajara Creek, which has a well-defined,
incised bank generally paralleling Tassajara Road. A number of scattered single
family residential uses, a historic dairy complex and a historic schoolhouse are
found within the Project area fronting on Tassajara Road (see page 32 of the
Initial Study, Appendix 8.1, regarding a description of the dairy complex).
Section 4.1 of the DSEIR discussed existing and historic cattle grazing on the
Wallis Ranch portion of the proposed Project.
Surrounding land uses
Land uses north of the Project area, within Contra Costa County, contain a mix
of scattered rural residential dwellings, open fields and agricultural uses.
East of the area, lands are generally undeveloped with a number of single-family
residences on large lots. Grading has recently commenced for the Pinn Brothers
single-family development of 247 lots on the Silveria/Haight property
immediately to the east, across Tassajara Road. Another major land use east of
the site is the Quarry Lane School, a private K-12 educational facility that was
approved for construction within Alameda County but has since been annexed
into the Gty of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The
school has proposed an expansion plan to increase student enrollment, which has
been approved by the Gty of Dublin.
South of the area, uses include open, undeveloped properties and Tassajara
Creek. Scattered single family dwellings have also been constructed south of the
Project fronting along Tassajara Road.
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) forms the westerly boundary
of the Project area. The area of Parks RFI'A immediately to the west of the
Project area is identified as Area M in the Parks RFT A Master Plan. Area Muses
include field exercises, primarily mobile tent sites for weeklong periods of time.
Activities typically involve electric generators, vehicle and helicopter operations
and bivouac functions (sleeping, cooking, showering and similar activities) and
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 78
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 79
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
firing of blank weapons for four to 400 people. Area M is also used for the
annual East Bay Stand Down program, where homeless veterans from around
the Bay area receive medical treatment in a field hospital.
Land use regulatory programs
Alameda County East County Area Plan ŒCAP). The Project area lies in
presently unincorporated area of Alameda County. Therefore, the primary
existing land use regulatory document is the East County Area Plan (ECAP),
adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on May 5,1994. The Plan
has subsequently been updated as of November 2000 to address land use
impacts of Alameda County Measure D.
ECAP provides long-term land use regulation for approximately 418 square
miles of unincorporated lands generally located adjacent to Dublin, Pleasanton,
Livermore and a portion of Hayward, extending from the Dublin/ Pleasanton
ridgeline on the west to the Alameda/ San Joaquin County line on the east and
from the Alameda/ Contra Costa County line on the north to the
Alameda/Santa Oara County line on the south.
Figure 4 of the Plan designates the Project area as lying within an Urban Growth
Boundary. ECAP Policy 17 states that "the County shall support the eventual
City annexation or incorporation of all existing and proposed urban
development within the Urban Growth Boundary consistent with the East
County Plan." The Land Use Diagram found in the East County Area Plan
designates the Project area as a combination of "Water Management" along
Tassajara Creek, "Parklands" along a corridor paralleling the Project area
boundary with Camp Parks, and "Medium Density Residential (8.1-12
units/ acre) for the central portion of the Project area. A small pocket of "Low
Density Residential (1-4 units/ acre)" is proposed in the northwest corner of the
Project area. Exhibit 6 shows existing ECAP land use designations for the Project
area.
Unincorporated properties east of the Project area are designated for ""Low
Density Residential," and "Medium-High Density Residential" on the ECAP Land
Use Diagram.
Dublin General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Dublin City
Council adopted the Dublin General Plan in 1985, with several amendments
approved since then. The General Plan contains the long-term vision of the
community in terms of development policy, including but not limited to location
of various land uses, density and intensity of land use types, location and widths
of roads, community appearance standards, health and safety considerations and
similar requirements. The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates Parks
RFTA, immediately west of the Project area as "Public," reflecting U.S. military
ownership and use of this area. Properties located north and east of the Project
area is designated as Rural Residential/ Agriculture on the Eastern Extended
PlaruUng Area General Plan diagram. Properties north of the Project site lie
within Contra Costa County.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As detailed in the DSEIR Project Description (Section 3.0), the Oty of Dublin
adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan in 1993 to
guide the future development of properties lying south of the Alameda/ Contra
Costa County line, east of Camp Parks, north of the 1-580 freeway and west of
the Doolan Canyon area.
The EDSP designates the Project area for a mix of "Low Density Residential (0.9-
6 units/ acre), "Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 units/ acre)," Medium High
Density Residential (14.1c25 units/ acre), " "Neighborhood Park,"
"Neighborhood Square," "Open Space," and "Neighborhood Commercial." An
Elementary school site is also shown within the Project area. Exhibit 9 shows the
existing EDSP land use designations.
Properties lying east of the Project area are designated in the EDSP as a mix of
"Rural Residential," "Medium Density," and "Medium High Density" land use
designations.
Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Although not presently governed by the Oty of
Dublin Zorung Ordinance, the Gty of Dublin has adopted a Zoning Ordinance as
part of the Dublin Municipal Code to implement the General Plan by the
establishment of individual zoning districts by land use type. Zoning districts
regulate permitted land uses, height and setback requirements and similar
development standards.
The Project area is presently subject to Alameda County zoning designations,
which includes an "Agricultural" zoning designation, but an application has been
filed to prezone the area to the City of Dublin to the PD-Planned Development
District.
IMP ACTS AND :MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the substantial alteration of the Eastern Dublin
area from a predominantly rural and agricultural area to a predominantly urban
area. An estimated 53% of the land area governed by the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and 70% of the land proposed by the EDSP would be
converted to urban uses (Impact 3.1/ A). The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that
the alteration of land uses, in and of itself, was an insignificant impact. Specific
environmental impacts associated with the land use alteration manifest
themselves in such areas as traffic, biological resources and air quality and were
discussed separately in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Land use compatibility impacts were also considered in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(Impact 3.1 /B), related to abrupt transitions between single-family development
and higher density development. Policies contained in the EDSP provide for
buffering and other land use compatibility features, so Impact 3.1/B was
identified as an insignificant impact.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 80
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 81
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Impact 3.1/F described insignificant impacts related to areas of the EDSP project
area that adjoin non-urban lands designated for Open Space and Rural
Residential (see EDEIR pages 3.1-18).
Impact 3.1/ G is a potentially significant impact due to the possibility of land use
conflicts if the U.s. Anny increases its training activities at Parks RFTA located
due west of the project area. Adopted Mitigation Measure 3.1/1.0 requires the
City to coordinate planning with the Army.
Impacts 3.1 /H-J outline impacts related to land use compatibility for properties
lying south, east and north of the Eastern Dublin project area, respectively. Each
of these impacts were identified as insignificant impacts.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
An application has been filed for one of the properties comprising the Project
area (Dublin Ranch West) to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan to delete 0.8 acres of Neighborhood Commercial land use (approximately
10,400 square feet of floor area) and to delete an existing 9.7-acre Elementary
School site. The existing Neighborhood Commercial land use designation would
be replaced with an Open Space designation and the existing Elementary School
designation would be replaced with a residential land use designation, so that
proposed development on the Dublin Ranch West property would contain no
Elementary School or Neighborhood COmmercial land uses. The amount of
Neighborhood Park and Neighborhhood Square would also be less than
designated in both the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the City of Dublin Parks
and Recreation Master Plan, which is addressed in Section 4.8, Parks and
Recreation.
The total number of residential units on the Dublin Ranch West site would
increase from 817 dwellings to 1034 dwellings--an increase of 217 dwellings.
Table 7 compares existing and proposed EDSP land use designations for the
Dublin Ranch West Project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 7. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations-Dublin Ranch West
Land Use Designations I Existing Desie:nations Proposed Desie:nations
Gross Ac. Units/ s.f. Gross. Ac. Units
Low Density Residential 20.0 80 18.8 75
Medium Density Residential 64.1 641 55.7 557
Medium High Density 4.8 96 20.2 402
Residential
Neighborhood Park 11.8 n.a. 7.8 n.a.
Neighborhood Square 2.8 n.a 0.0 n.a.
()Pen Space 70.1 n.a. 81.7 n.a.
Elementary School 9.7 n.a. 0.0 n.a.
Neighborhood Commercial 0.8 10,454 0.0 n.a
Subtotal 184.1 817 d.u. 1,034 d.u
10,454 s.f
Source: MacKay and Somps. 2004
No changes to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed
for the two other properties comprising the Project area (the Bragg and
Spersflage properties).
As noted in the Project Description (Chapter 3), prezoning of the entire Project
area to the City of Dublin PD-Planned Development District has also been
requested.
Proposed reorganization
The proposed Project also includes a reorganization to annex Project properties
presently in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County into the City of
Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. The proposed annexation area is
shown in Exhibit 3, located in the Project Description section.
Properties proposed for annexation as part of this Project are substantially
surrounded by lands already within the City of Dublin and lying within the City
of Dublin sphere of influence as adopted by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO). This does not include properties lying north of the
Project, since this area is within Contra Costa County.
Significance Criteria. The following criteria have been used to identify
the significance supplemental land use impacts, if any of the following would
occur to a substantially greater degree than was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR:
. conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project, including but not limited to a
general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance or similar document, adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact;
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 62
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 83
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· result in substantial change in the types of land uses in an area which
could result in conflicts with neighboring land uses or with the established
pattern of development;
· result in the physical division of an established community, as with the
construction of a freeway, railroad, canal or similar barrier;
· conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan.
Supplemental Impacts. Less-than- significant supplemental impacts are expected
from the proposed amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. Under the proposed amendments, implementation of the proposed
development plan for the Dublin Ranch West site would be consistent with the
analysis contained in Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.1/ A, Substantial Alteration to
Existing Land Uses, since the same extent of currently vacant land would be
converted to urban uses as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Although EDSP land use designations are proposed to be changed to eliminate
an Elementary School site, a Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park and a
Neighborhood Commercial site, the type and intensity of the proposed land use
change, to Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential and
Open Space, development standards contained in the EDSP, and the proposed
Stage 1 Development Plan, would not represent an abrupt or significant on-site
land use change as identified in Impact 3.1/B of the Eastern Dublin EIR and
requires no further discussion.
The Project site is not adjacent to the east or south boundaries of the Eastern
Dublin area, so Impacts 3.1/H and II are inapplicable to this Project. Similarly,
the Project site is not adjacent to the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, so Impact
3.1/J is also inapplicable.
With regard to potential conflicts with Parks RFTA operations, this was identified
as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1/G). Since
the proposed Project site has a common border with Parks RFT A to the west,
there could be a potentially significant impact with regard to this topic. Based on
a recent discussion with Parks RFT A staff, the only potential impact of the
proposed Project on long-term operations of the RFTA would be noise impacts
associated with on~going operations in Area M. This impact has been addressed
in Impact 3.10/D, Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from
Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the
County Jail. Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 requires that future residential
development near Parks RFTA submit an acoustical analysis to determine if
future noise from Parks RFT A or the County Jail will be within acceptable limits.
Even with mitigation included in the Eastern Dublin EIR, these impacts would
continue to be significant and the Oty of Dublin adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan. However, no new significant supplemental
impacts have bee identified with regard to this proposed Project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community
Conservation Plans in or near the Project site. However, the Dublin Ranch West
property owner has established a conservation area, known as the Tassajara
Creek Conservation Area. This Conservation Area includes properties within
and along Tassajara Creek through the Project site as well as land to the east
along the Northern Drainage north of Dublin Ranch. The purpose of the
Conservation Area is to provide long-term mitigation for biological impacts on
the Dublin Ranch project to the east. Exhibit 13, contained in Section 4.3
(Biological Resources) depicts the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area as well as a
more complete description of the Area.
The proposed Project would modify existing EDSP and General Plan land use
designations so that current urban-type uses, including but not limited to
Neighborhood Commerdal and Medium High Density Residential, would be
replaced by an Open Space land use designation within the jurisdiction of the
Tassajara Creek Conservation Area. With approval of the requested General
Plan and EDSP Amendments, the proposed Project would be consistent with the
intent of the Conservation Area.
Since the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area is not a recognized Habitat
Conservation Area or a Natural Community Conservation Plan area as
recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U. S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and there would be no conflicts with or impacts with regard to a
Habitat Conservation Plan.
4.5 POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
ENVm.ONMENTAL SETTING
This section updates the Eastern Dublin EIR discussion contained in Chapter 3.2
of the demographic, employment and housing context of the proposed Project.
It contains a general description of expected Bay Area growth as well as more
detailed population and housing development projections for the Tri-Valley
subregion and for the City of Dublin. Population and housing projections for the
Project are described. The physical environmental (secondary) effects associated
with population, employment and housing are addressed as applicable in the
sections 3.3 through 3.12 of the Eastern Dublin ErR, as updated by this
Supplemental DEIR.
Regional Overview
The Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) "Projections 2003" provides
current population, household, income and employment forecasts for the nine-
county San Francisco Bay Area Region. In order to place the proposed Project in
its overall regional context, several findings of ABAG's projections for the years
2000 to 2020 are summarized in this section.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 84
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 85
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Population
ABAG expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approximately 1
million new residents by the year 2020, reaching a total population of 8,168,300.
This represents an increase of about 20 percent over the 20-year forecast period
from 2000 to 2020.
The ratio of population to household growth has differed significantly in the
region over the past several decades. Between 1960 and 1970 household growth
in the Bay Area was approximately one-third of population growth: i.e., an
additional household was added for every three new residents. In the 197Qs, the
number of new residents added was only slightly higher than the number of
new households. In the 1980s, the pattern of the 1960s was reestablished -- one
new household was formed per every three new residents. Housing
affordability affects household size by reducing the household formation rate.
Household size in the Bay Area changed from 2.57 persons per household in
1980, to 2.61 Fersons per household in 1990, and then rapidly increased to 2.68
persons per household in 1995. ABAG expects this trend to continue to the year
2005, with a gradual decline in persons per household occurring between 2005
and 2020.
Table 8. Regional and Tri-Valley Population Projections
Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 % Change
Bay Area 6,783.762 7,193,900 7,527,500 7,840,200 8,168,300 20%
Tri· Valley
Dublin 30,007 39,400 47,500 52,900 59,100 96%
Livermore 73,841 81,400 90,400 93,800 99,500 35%
Pleasanton 65,058 72,600 79,200 82.100 85,200 31%
San Ramon 44,834 53,000 60,100 69,400 78,800 76%
Subtotal 213,740 246,400 277,200 298,200 322,600 51%
Danville 42,958 44,900 45,400 45,300 45,100 5%
Alamo-Bhwk 23,809 24,500 24,900 24,800 24,900 5%
Subtotal 66,767 69,400 70,300 70,100 70,000 5%
Total 280,507 315,800 347,500 368,300 392,600 40%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. Proiections 2003.
Housing
ABAG estimates that the increase of new households expected in the region by
2020 will create a demand for at least 20,000 new dwellings each year. (In the
ABAG projections, households are approximately the same as occupied housing
units.) Tri-Valley and regional area household projections are summarized in
Table 9.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 9. Regional and Tri.Valley Households
Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 % ChaD2e
Dublin 9,335 12,440 15,330 17,320 19,680 110%
Livermore 26,315 28,380 31,490 32,760 34,880 33%
Pleasanton 23,831 26,000 28.340 29,490 30,710 29%
San Ramon 16,981 19,950 22,710 26,370 30,030 77%
Danville 15,266 15,870 16.100 16,110 16,120 6%
Alamo-Bhwk 8,022 8,230 8,380 8,390 8,400 4%
Total 99,750 110,870 122,350 130,440 139,820 40%
Bav Area 2,466,020 2,581,380 2,702,090 2,824,030 2,950,970 17%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Proiections 2003_
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 86
City of Dublin November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 87
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Employment
ABAG predicts that job growth in the Bay Area will be in a broad variety of
sectors located throughout the Bay Area. The region is expected to add
approximately 938,000 jobs by year 2020, an increase of over 47,000 new jobs
annually. Most of this growth is projected to occur in services (business and
professional, health and recreation, social and personal), manufacturing, and
retail trade, with more than 50 percent of new jobs in the services sector. See
Table 10 below.
Table 10. Existing and Projected Employed Residents
Axea 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 % Chanl!:e
Bay Area 3,605.675 3,721,100 3,963,700 4.294,960 4,543,590 26%
Tri- Valley
Dublin 14,365 19,010 24,320 27,960 32,730 56%
Livermore 39,125 42,480 49,380 52,480 57,810 48%
Pleasanton 36,550 40,140 45,840 48,720 52.510 44%
San Ramon 26,965 31,950 37,820 44,440 50,910 89%
Subtotal 117,005 133.500 157,360 173,600 193,960 66%
Danville 23,689 24.840 26,210 26,540 26,720 13%
Alamo-Bhwk 11,958 12,380 13,100 13,280 13,370 12%
Subtotal 35,647 37,220 39,310 39,820 40,090 13%
Total 152,652 170,800 196.670 213,420 234,050 53%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Proiections 2003.
Dublin and the Tri-Valley Subregion
This section describes the existing and projected population, employment and
housing characteristics of the Tri-Valley subregion. This area comprises the cities
of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton in the Livermore-Amador Valley and the
cities of San Ramon and Danville in the San Ramon Valley. In addition, the
unincorporated Contra Costa County area of Alamo-Blackhawk is included as
part of the subregional context for the Project.
Papulation
ABAG estimates that the 2000 population in the Tri-Valley area was 280,507, and
that it will reach 392,600 by the year 2020. The additional approximately 112,100
persons expected to be added to the subregional population during the forecast
period between 2000 and 2020 represent a 39 percent increase for that period.
The City of Dublin's population is projected to increase by 29,100 (96 percent)
during the same period.
The number of households in the Tri-Valley is estimated to increase by 40,070
between 2000 and 2020 to reach a total of 139,820 households (see Table 3.2-2).
This represents an increase of approximately 40 percent during the forecast
period.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Emplayment
In the past two decades, commercial and industrial development has increased
dramatically in the Tri-Valley area, much of it due to the relocation of businesses
from San Francisco possibly seeking relief from land scarcity, high lease rates,
high housing costs, and strict planning controls. ABAG projects a continuation of
this trend.
Employment is sited in various locations the Tri-Valley area, including the Oty of
Dublin. Four major employment centers in the Tri-Valley area - the City of
Dublin; Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton; Bishop Ranch in San Ramon; and
the Crow Canyon area in San Ramon -- are described below.
The City of Dublin had approximately 5.8 million square feet of commercial
space (including retail, office, and industrial) in early 2001. Dublin had an
estimated 21,870 jobs in the year 2000.
Hacienda Business Park in the City of Pleasanton is expected to contain
approximately 11.2 million square feet of commerdal space at buildout in 2005.
Hacienda is approximately 87 percent completed, with a total of 9,720,005 square
feet of mixed-use commercial space. There are presently approximately 21,133
employees within Hacienda and a total of approximately 28,000 employees is
antidpated at buildout.
Bishop Ranch in the Oty of San Ramon contains approximately 7.9 million
square feet of industrial and office space and employs approximately 25,000
people. At buildout in 2002, Bishop Ranch is anticipated to have 8.9 million
square feet of office and light industrial space and 29,000 employees.
The Crow Canyon Corridor area in San Ramon had approximately 4.8 million
square feet of office, retail and industrial space in 2000 (Chamberlain, pers.
comm. 2001).
Regional Housing Needs
The State of California has determined that each local agency must be
responsible for providing their respective fair share of the total statewide
housing need. This includes affordable housing for all income levels, including
very low (below 50% of median County income), low (between 50 and 80% of
median County income), moderate (80-120% of median County income) and
above moderate (120+% of median County income) households. The Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for allocating region-wide fair
share housing goals among member agencies. Housing goals are established for
seven-year periods. Identification of appropriate housing sites and
implementation strategies to assist in the achievement of these targets is to be
carried out through Housing Elements of the General Plan for each commulÙty.
The City's existing Housing Element was adopted in 1985 and was recently
updated to ac:c:ommodate Dublin's fair share housing targets.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 88
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 89
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For the City of Dublin, ABAG has established the total number of new dwellings
within the seven-year period (1999-2006) is 5,436 units. This includes; Very Low
income households (796 dwellings), Low income households (531 dwellings),
Moderate income households (1,441 dwellings), and Above Moderate income
households (2,668 dwellings).
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance includes an inclusionary housing section
(Chapter 8.68), which requires that 12.5% of each new housing development be
devoted to affordable housing units, including households of very low, low and
moderate-incomes.
Jobs/Housing Balance
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan emphasizes the need to provide affordable
housing to assist with maintaining a favorable jobs-housing balance. The Specific
Plan includes the following policies and action programs in support of affordable
housing:
· Policy 4-8: Encourage the development of affordable housing throughout
eastern Dublin, and avoid the concentration of such housing in anyone
area.
· Policy 4-9: Ensure that projects developed in the plan area provide
affordable housing in accordance with the City's Housing Element, the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Density Bonus Ordinance, and the
Rental Availability Ordinance.
· Policy 4-10: Affordable housing in eastern Dublin shall include both
ownership and rental units and a mix of single family and multi-family
units.
· Policy 4-11: Developers shall include affordable housing units within their
developments pursuant to City housing ordinances.
· Program 4F: Develop an inclusionary housing program for Eastern
Dublin which requires a minimum percentage of all approved units to be
affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households.
· Program 4G; Explore the possibility of establishing an in-lieu fee to
support the development of below-market-rate housing.
· Program 4H; Develop a monitoring program that will track residential
growth in Dublin in terms of unit type and price categories. Such a
program will provide City decision-makers with data necessary to make
informed decisions relating to City housing goals and new development.
· Program 41; Develop a specific numeric goal for percentage of affordable
units in Eastern Dublin wl:ùch should be ownership units as opposed to
rental units.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is difficult to maintain a jobs-housing balance within an area, such as the Tri-
Valley, when there are a number of jurisdictions and no comprehensive planning
efforts between them. Given the need for California cities to raise revenue in the
post-Proposition 13 economic climate, jurisdictions often compete for housing or
employment-generating uses without considerations of regional implications.
The Specific Plan attempts to avoid the impacts that can arise from the imbalance
between jobs and housing by establishing a mix of residential and employment-
generating land uses.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin ElR discusses population, regional housing needs and
jobs/housing balance. The EIR identifies an estimated 12,458 dwelling units in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area with a build-out population of 27,794 residents
and 28,288 jobs. These estimates have changed since adoption of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment based on a number of recent
amendments to the Specific Plan, primarily due to the inclusion of the Dublin
Transit Center into the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The Dublin Transit Center project, which is located south of Dublin Boulevard
and west of Arnold Drive was added to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in 2002,
At buildout of the Transit Center, up to 3,000 residents and 7,832 jobs would be
added to the Eastern Dublin planning area in addition to the residents and jobs
cited above.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
An application has been filed for the Dublin Ranch West property within the
Project area to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to delete
a existing Neighborhood Commercial land use designation (approximately
10,400 square feet of floor area) and a 9.7-acre Elementary School site and replace
these with an Open Space and Medium-High Density Residential land use
designations. The total number of residential units on the Dublin Ranch West site
would increase from 817 dwellings to 1094 dwellings. Population and housing
impacts of this proposed change are discussed below. No land use changes are
proposed for the Bragg or Spersflage properties within the Project area.
Significance Criteria. A population and housing impact would be considered
significant if:
. a proposed project would induce substantial population growth, either
directly or indirectly; or
. displace a substantial number of residents.
Supplemental Impacts. No significant supplemental impacts are expected from
the proposed amendment to the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and related land use requests. Under the proposed Project,
implementation of the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan would result in an
Page 90
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 91
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
increase of approximately 550 residents over the current General Plan and
Specific Plan land use designations, as shown on Table 11, below
Table 11. Proposed Dublin Ranch West Population Generation
Residential Persons/DU Existing SP Proposed SP
Type
DUs POP DUs PoP.
Low Density 3.2 80 256 75 240
Residential
Medium
Density 2.0 641 1,282 557 1114
Residential
Medium High
Density 2.0 96 192 402 804
Residential
Totals 817 1730 1034 2,158
Notes: d.u. = dwelling unit (a) 0_24 FAR for sChool uses, per Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Table
4.1, p. 24
PCJfJulation impacts
Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would add an estimated
428 residents on the Dublin Ranch West portion of the Project area at buildout.
With an estimated total population within the EDSP area of over 27,700, the
addition of 428 residents would result in an increase of approximately 1% in the
EDSP area. This is not a significant increase and would result in a less-than-
significant impact. Impacts related to the proposed population increase, such as
additional traffic, air quality impacts and demand for utility services and
community facilities are addressed elsewhere in this DSEIR.
Employment impacts
A reduction of 10,400 square feet of neighborhood commercial land uses would
result in a loss of approximately 21 permanent jobs (assuming 490 square feet of
commercial floor area per jobs for Neighborhood Commercial uses, from Table
3-2.6 of the EDSP). This impact also would be less-than-significant in comparison
with the 28,000+ jobs anticipated within the EDSP planning area.
Jobs/housing balance
The jobs/housing balance for the Eastern Dublin area would not be significantly
affected by the proposed deletion of 21 jobs or the addition of an estimated 428
residents within the Project area. The EDSP noted that the original Specific Plan
was somewhat out of balance between jobs and housing units, with many more
jobs planned than housing units. Since the adoption of the Specific Plan, the Gty
of Dublin recently approved the Dublin Transit Center Amendment to the
General Plan and Specific Plan that would add 2,000,000 square feet of campus
office and 70,000 square feet of retail floor space.
Most recently, the Gty of Dublin approved another amendment to the General
Plan to change the land use designation for approximately 27.5 acres of land on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the northwest corner of the 1-580 freeway and Hacienda Drive to delete a
Campus Office land use designation and replace this with a Community
Commercial land use designation. This amendment allows construction of an
IKEA furniture store and ancillary commercial uses.
These amendments assisted in shifting the overall jobs-housing ratio closer to
balance. Within this overall framework, potential impacts related to the Eastern
Dublin jobs/housing balance by the proposed Project would result in a less-than-
significant impact.
Growth inducement
Approval of the proposed Project would not represent growth inducement. The
Project area has been included in the General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific
Plan since these documents were adopted by the City in 1993. The Project
proposes minor changes to planned uses on one of the three properties
comprising the Project site with no changes proposed on the remaining two
properties. Therefore, there would be no supplemental impact with regard to
growth inducement.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dubli n
Page 92
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 93
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.6 Transportation and Circulation
(Note: Supplemental impacts of the proposed Project have been analyzed
by TJKM Transportation Consultants. A complete copy of their report is
found in Appendix 8.5.)
Traffic and Circulation was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
This supplement to the ElR 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing roadway network
Interstate 580 is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with
local cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and
destinations such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the
proposed Project, 1-580 carries between 184,000 and 196,000 vehicles per day
(vpd) (according to Caltrans' 2002 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways)
with interchanges at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive,
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/EI Charro Road.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the Oty of Dublin. Dublin
Boulevard, west of Dougherty Road, is a four to six lane divided road fronted
largely by retail and commercial uses. Between Dougherty Road and
Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a six-lane divided arterial fronted
primarily by residential, commercial and vacant lands. Dublin Boulevard
extends east of Tassajara Road to Keegan Street as a four-lane roadway
fronted by new residential development.
Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south and
continues north to the Town of Danville. It is four lanes wide between 1-580
and North Dublin Ranch Road. North of the Contra Costa County line, it is
named Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara is used primarily for local traffic
in the Tassajara Valley, with some through traffic.
Central Parkway is a two-to-three lane east-west collector that extends from
Arnold Road to Keegan Street (east of Tassajara Road) and is being planned
for an extension east of Fallon Road as part of the East Dublin Properties
project.
Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. North of 1-
580, Hacienda Drive is a two-to-six-Iane arterial running in the north-south
direction from Gleason Drive southerly to 1-580. It is primarily fronted by
commercial, office and residential uses. South of 1-580, Hacienda Drive is a six-
lane divided road, a major arterial in the Oty of Pleasanton.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
Transit service
Altamont 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 çommuters. The ACE train was not in operation at the time the
Eastern Dublin Spectfiç Plan and General Plan Amendment were approved and
the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified.
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA Wheels). The
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority provides bus serviçe to the
communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. Several bus lines currently
provide serviçe to Eastern Dublin, including lines 12, 12)(, lOA, lA, IB, 20X and
the ACE connector. Lines operate on approximately 30-minute headways. It is
expected that these lines would be expanded further as additional homes and
businesses are constructed in the Eastern Dublin area. There is a Wheels bus
connection between eaçh ACE train and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station
with intermediate stops. Fixed route transit service, DART, (Direct Access
Responsive Transit) is also available in the Dublin area.
BART. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District operates trains between the
Dublin-Pleasanton station near Hacienda Drive and the Oak1and~San Francisco
area. The trains operate on I5-minute headways on weekdays. The Dublin-
Pleasanton station is accessible by private auto, taxi çabs, buses, and private
shuttles as well as by pedestrians and bkyclists. The parking lot has a capacity of
approximately 3,000 parking stalls.
IMPACTS AND MmGA TIONS FROM TIlE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
Freeways
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant, signifkant cumulative, and
significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on 1-580
with and without build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specifiç 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 was
operations that 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 impaçts 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 sçenario of
2010, on other segments of 1-580. Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR
and approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/ SP, the Oty adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant
unavoidable cumulative impaçts (Impacts 3.3/B and E).
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dubiin
Page 94
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 95
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP
continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed
Project.
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 GP A/ SF 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 restripe, widen or modify
on~ramps and off-ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with
Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. The Eastern Dublin projects contribute 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 EI Charro Road
(Impact 3.3/L).
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP
continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed
Project. The individual development projects within the GP A/ SP contribute a
proportionate share to funding these improvements through 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/l-S80
Eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/1), 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 GP A/SP, the Gty 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- 6.1 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with signals at major street crossings. All mitigation measures adopted upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP continue to apply to implementing
actions and projects such as the proposed Project.
Fee program
Prior to approval of any development in Eastern Dublin, in January 1995 the Oty
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 / GP A 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 is
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. 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.
This fee replaced the Category 3 fee. In addition, the City has adopted a Freeway
Interchange Fee to reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain
interchanges on 1-580 that also benefit Eastern Dublin. All development projects
in Eastern Dublin are required to pay these fees at building permit or construct
the improvements included in the fee programs.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Dublin Ranch West development proposal, as outlined in the Project
Description section, includes residential land uses and densities that are generally
consistent with the adopted General Plan and Specific Plan, with the exception
that 10,454 square feet of Neighborhood Conunerc:íal uses and a 9-7-acre
Elementary School are proposed to be deleted from the Land Use Diagram and
217 dwellings units constructed over and above that presently allowed in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Potential impact of these proposed
land use changes are addressed below.
Also, as noted in the Project Description, no land use changes are proposed for
the Bragg and Spersflage properties within the Project area.
Updated existing intersection levels of service. Exhibit 16 shows the location of
the study intersections. The existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volume
counts were conducted at the 17 existing study intersections between December
of 2002 and February of 2003. The existing intersection of Fallon Road/ Antone
Way was not included in the existing condition analysis, because currently it
primarily serves construction traffic in the area.
Updated counts were taken and the subsequently analyzed in this SDEIR to
determine if any changes to local or regional traffic patterns have occurred since
the 1993 EDSP was certified.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 96
November 2004
Table 12 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis for
existing conditions. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix B of the full
traffic report. Currently, aliI? study intersections operate at acceptable service
levels during the peak hours.
Table 12. Exisüng Intersection LOS Levels of Service
ID Signalized Intersections Count A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Date
v/c LOS v/c LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Feb 2003 0.66 B 0.76 C
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Feb 2003 0.48 A 0.51 A
Ramps
3 Hacienda DriveJI-580 Westbound Feb 2003 0.42 A 0.42 A
Ramps
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Feb 2003 0.28 A 0.38 A
5 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway Ian 2003 0.32 A 0.32 A
6 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive Dee 2002 0.11 A 0.08 A
7 Santa RitaJI-580 Eastbound Feb 2003 0.54 A 0.54 A
Ramps/Pimlico Drive ,
8 Tassajara RoadJI-580 Westbound Feb 2003 0.36 A 0.39 A
Ramps
9 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Feb 2003 0.25 A 0.36 A
10 Tassajara Road / Central Parkway Jan 2003 0.29 A 0.23 A
11 Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive Dee 2002 0.33 A 0.36 A
12 Tassajara Road/South Dublin Jan 2003 0.30 A 0.26 A
Ranch Drive
13 Tassajara Road/North Dublin Dec2002 0.24 A 0.17 A
Ranch Drive
15 Tassajara Road/Northem Project (Future Intersection)
Access
16 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road (Future Intersection)
19 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard (Future Intersection)
20 Fallon Road/ Gleason Drive (Future Intersection)
21 Fallon Road/ Antone Way (Primarily Construction Traffic under Existing
Conditions)
22 Hacienda Dr./Martinelli Feb 2003 0.25 A 0.33 A
Way/Hacienda Crossings
ID UnsignaIized Intersections' Count A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Date
Delay LOS Delay LOS
(see/ (see/
veh) veh)
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 97
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14 Tassajara Road/Quarry Lane
School Driveway
- Westbound Quarry Lane School
Driveway
17 EI Charro Road/J-S80 Eastbound
Ramps
- Eastbound 1-580 EB Off-ramp
Approach
18 Fallon Road/I-S80 Westbound
Ramps
- Westbound 1-580 WE Off-ramp
Approach
Note: vie", volume to capacity ratio; LOS", Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) '" Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS).
"HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall Intersection delay for one-way STOP
i.1tersections.
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants. 2004
Dee 2002
-
-
-
-
(18.2)
(C)
(16.9)
(C)
Dee 2002
-
-
-
-
(9.8)
(A)
(10.1)
(B)
¡an 2003
-
.
-
-
(lOA)
(B)
(10.2)
(B)
Existing Plus Approved, Baseline traffic conditions. Traffic from existing land
uses have been added to anticipated traffic from approved projects in Dublin,
Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley. Approved projects consist of developments
that are either under construction, are built but not fully occupied, or are unbuilt
but have final site development review (SDR) approval. City of Dublin staff
provided a list of approved projects wiWn the jurisdiction. The City of
Pleasanton and Contra Costa County were contacted in July 2002 to investigate
probable projects, both north and south of the City of Dublin that potentially
could impact the study intersections. Representative from the City of Pleasanton
provided both land use forecasts and expected buildout traffic forecasts from
their traffic model. Contra Costa County provided information related to
Dougherty Valley development. The list of approved projects that are expected
to generate trips at the study intersections is provided in Tables 1 and 3 of
Appendix C of the Traffic Study.
From Appendix C of the Traffic Study, the identified projects in Tables 1, 2 and 3
are expected to generate a total of 51,096 additional daily trips, with 4,607 trips
occurring during the a.m. peak hour, and 5,365 trips occurring during the p.m.
peak hour.
Table 13 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis for
Baseline projects. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix D of the Traffic
Study. The intersection of Fallon Road/ Antone Way was analyzed beginning
with this scenario. Figure Cl of Appendix C Oocated in the Traffic Study)
contains a figure illustrating lane geometry and intersection control assumptions
for the Baseline conditions based on information provided by the City staff.
Under this scenario, all of the existing intersections are expected to continue to
operate at an acceptable service level. The new intersection of Fallon
Road/ Antone Way is expected to operate acceptably (LOS A) under the Baseline
conditions.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 98
November 2004
Table 13. Existing + Approved (Baseline) Intersection LOS Levels of Service
Signalized Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M Peak Hour
vie LOS vie LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.67 B 0.83 D
2 Hacienda Drive/I-S80 Eastbound Ramps 0.60 A 0"S7 A
3 Hacienda Drive/I-S80 Westbound 0.54 A 0.46 A
Ramps
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.35 A 0.42 A
5 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.38 A 0.41 A
6 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.12 A 0.10 A
7 Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound 0.58 A 0.61 B
Ramps/Pimlico Drive
8 Tassajara Road/I-S8D Westbound Ramps 0.42 A 0.52 A
9 Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard 0.39 A 0.42 A
10 T assajara Road / Central Parkway 0.38 A 0.32 A
11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.37 A 0.41 A
12 Tassajara Road/South Dublin Ranch 0.35 A 0.33 A
Drive
13 Tassajara Road/North Dublin Ranch 0.30 A 0.21 A
Drive
14 Tassajara Road/Quarry Lane School 0.37 A 0.39 A
Driveway
15 Tassajara Road / Northern Project Access (Future Intersection)
16 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road (Future Intersection)
19 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard (Future Intersection)
20 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive (Future Intersection)
21 Fallon Road/ Antone Way 0.03 A 0.04 A
22 Hacienda Drive/Martinelli 0.30 A 0.34 A
Way / Hacienda Crossings
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Unsignalized Intusections' Delay Delay
sec/veh LOS sec/veh LOS
El Charro Road / 1-580 Eastbound Ramps - - - -
17 - Eastbound 1-580 EB Off-ramp (14.0) (C)
Approach (B) (16.6)
Fallon Road/I-S80 Westbound Ramps - - - -
18 - Westbound 1-580 WE Off-ramp (12.1) (11.4) (B)
Approach (B)
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 99
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
X.X (X-X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)_
'HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP
intersections.
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2004
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
Scerdc Highways Guiding Policy F).
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 routes 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 the intersections of, routes of regional significance (Dublin Boulevard,
Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road) or implement
transportation improvements or other measures tl? 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 assuming other jurisdictions are not physically impacted
(General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy E [e.g. Level of
Service D ).
The maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) threshold standards of the General
Plan for four-lane roadways (30, 000 vehicles per day), six-lane roadways (50,000
vpd), and eight-lane roadways (70,000 vpd) are used to determine the through
lane requirements.
Freeway segments. The LOS for a freeway segment can be based on upon peak
hour traffic volumes (number of passenger cars per hour). Similar to intersection
operations, there are six levels, ranging from LOS A being the best operating
conditions, to LOS F being the worst. LOS E represents" at capacity" operation.
When the volume exceeds capacity stop-and-go conditions result, and operations
are designated as LOS F. The standard for freeway impacts is based upon the
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) mordtoring
standards and is established at LOS E (volume to capacity ratio (v / c) = O.
Project Trip Generation and Distribution. The Project trip generation was
estimated based on rates provided in Trip Generation, 6th Edition, published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 14 summarizes the trip
generation estimation for the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin
Ranch West Project. As noted earlier, no land use changes are proposed for other
properties within the Project area, so no traffic analysis has been included for
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 100
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 101
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
these properties in this section of the SDEIR As shown, the proposed Project is
expected to generate 679 a.m. peak hour trips and 889 p.m. peak hour trips.
The Dublin Ranch West portion of the Project site is presently designated for
approximately 721 single-family housing units, 96 multi-family housing units,
10,454 square feet of commercial space and an elementary school in the Eastern
Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. Based on standard rates provided in the
Institute of Transportation Engineer Trip Generation, 6th Edition ,expected trip
generation for such a development would be approximately 746 a.m. peak hour
trips and 957 p.m. peak hour trips (see Table 4 in Appendix C of the Traffic
Study). As shown on Table 14 above, the currently proposed Dublin Ranch West
Stage 1 Planned Development Plan would be expected to generate 679 a.m. peak
hour trips and 889 p.m. peak hour trips. Since the trip generation is less than
existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use desígnations by 67 (=- 746-679)
trips during the a.m. peak hour, and by 68 (=957-889) trips during the p.m. peak
hour, the Project would not be required to provide an analysis of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency's Metropolitan Transportation System
(MIS).
The trip distribution assumptions (shown on Figure 6 of the Traffic Study) were
developed based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the study area and
input from City staff. Trips to and from the Dublin Ranch West residential
development were assigned to the study intersections based on these
assumptions.
Table 14. Proposed Project Trip Generation
Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Tot. Rate Rate In Out Tot. Rate Rate In Out Tot.
In Out In Out
SF/lOR 75 957 718 0.19 0.56 14 42 56 0.65 0.36 49 27 76
SF/MDF 557 9.57 5,330 0.19 0.56 106 312 418 0.65 0.36 362 201 563
MF/ 178 6.63 1,180 .08 0.43 14 77 91 0.42 0.20 75 36 111
MHDR
MF(no 224 6.63 1,485 .08 0.43 18 96 114 0.42 0.20 94 45 139
School)'
Total 1,034 8,713 152 527 679 580 309 889
Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, by ITE
LDR: : Low Density Residential (Single Family Detached, ITE Code 210)
MDR: : Medium Density Residential (Single Family Detached, ITE Code 210)
MHDR: : Medium High Density residential (Apartment, ITE Code 220)
'Assumes that 224 mUlti-family units will be built instead of an elementary school.
Table Source: TJKM Associates
Planned Roadway Improvements. The following roadway improvements are
anticipated by the City of Dublin and are included in the table below.
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road was assumed to consist of the following lane
configurations based on the improvements planned for this intersection:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Northbound Dougherty Road approach would have three left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
· Southbound Dougherty Road approach would have two left~turn lanes,
three through lanes and one shared through/ right-turn lane.
· Eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would include two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes and two right-turn lanes.
· Westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would have three left-turn lanes,
three through lanes and one right-turn lane.
These improvements are included in the City of Dublin's 5-year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and are expected to be implemented by the time the proposed Project is
fully developed. The current OP project to install the improvements at Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road is funded by developments that are required to pay their
pro-rata share of the cost to construct these improvements through payment of the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
Supplemental Impact IRA-I. Impacts to study intersections under the Baseline
plus Project conditions.
With the addition of Project trips to the loc:al roadway network and assuming
buildout of projects approved but not yet completed and completion of planned
roadway improvements, most intersections would generally continue to operate
at similar levels of service as identified under Baseline conditions. This is shown
on Table 15. Some notable differences caused by the proposed Project and
planned roadway improvements are given below; however, none of the
following changes would result in a more significant impact at the study area
intersections and are therefore considered to be less-than-significant and no
supplemental impacts are anticipated.
· El Charro/I-580 Eastbound Ramps - Intersection level of service would
change from LOS B to LOS C during the a.m. peak. hour.
· Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road - The a.m. peak. hour intersection
operations will change from LOS B to LOS A during the a.m. peak hour
and from LOS D to LOS A during the p.m. peak hour.
Table 15. Baseline + Project Conditions Intersection LOS Levels of Service
Signalized Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
vIe LOS vIe LOS
1 Dougherty Road I Dublin Boulevard 0.47 A 0.56 A
2 Hacienda Drivel 1-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.60 A 0.57 A
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound 0.54 A 0.46 A
Ramps
4 Hacienda DrivelDublin Boulevard 0.37 A 0.44 A
5 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.39 A 0.41 A
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 102
City of Dublin November 2004
6 Hacienda Drive / Gleason Drive 0.12 A 0.10 A
7 Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound 0.60 A 0.68 B
Ramps/Pimlico Drive
8 Tassajara Road/ 1-580 Westbound Ramps 0.44 A 0.59 A
9 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.43 A 0.54 A
10 Tassajara Road / Central Parkway 0.47 A 0.45 A
11 Tassajara Road/ Gleason Drive 0.47 A 0.52 A
12 Tassajara Road/South Dublin Ranch 0.42 A 0.48 A
Drive
13 Tassajara Road/North Dublin Ranch 0.44 A 0.36 A
Drive
14 Tassajara Road/Quarry Lane School 0.43 A 0.38 A
Driveway
15 Tassajara Road/Northern Project Access 0.67 B 0.64 A
16 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road (Future Intersection)
19 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard (Future Intersection)
20 Fallon Road/ Gleason Drive (Future Intersection)
21 Fallon Road/ Antone Way 0.12 A 0.13 A
22 Hacienda Drive / Martinelli 0.30 A 0.34 A
Way / Hacienda Crossings
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
m Unsign.aIized Intersections' Delay Delay
sec/veh LOS sec/veh LOS
El Charro Road(I-580 Eastbound Ramps - - - -
17 - Eastbound 1-580 EB Off-ramp (18.9) (C) (20.8) (C)
Approach
Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps - - - -
18 - Westbound 1-580 WB Off-ramp (12.3) (B) (11.9) (B)
Approach
Note: vie"" volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
XX (XX) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS).
'HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP
intersections.
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Supplemental Traffic Impact TRA-2. Impacts to study intersections under
Buildout conditions.
The Buildout scenario includes the Baseline plus Project scenario added to full
buildout of all approved developments and all land uses included in the adopted
General Plans for Dublin, Pleasanton and the Dougherty Valley.
It is estimated that the Buildout projects in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty
Valley, combined, would generate a total of approximately 376,437 additional
DUblin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 103
City of Dublin November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
daily trips, with 27,641 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour, and 36,989 trips
occurring during the p.m. peak hour. These trips include the vehicle trips that are
expected to be generated by the approved but not constructed IKEA project that
is to be located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hadenda Drive.
Trip distribution assumptions for the Buildout projects were developed based on
information from other previous traffic studies, knowledge of the area, an origin
and destination survey conducted in April 2003, and consultation with City staff.
Traffic generated by the developments in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty
Valley was assigned to the roadway system using the software TRAFFIX. The
assigned traffic was added to the Baseline plus Project turning movement
volumes to obtain Buildout traffic forecasts. Traffic assignments used the closest
proximity interchanges to access I~580 while traffic was also distributed more
everùy among the interchanges in a manner consistent with the effects of ramp
metering on traffic patterns in the study area.
The Buildout TRAFFIX model used in this study represents the conditions of
approved, pending and buildout projects (including IKEA) in Dublin, as well as
approved and buildout projects within the City of Pleasanton, and Dougherty
Valley in Contra Costa County. This TRAFFIX model was developed jointly by
Fehr & Peers and TJKM Transportation Consultants to distribute and assign
traffic to the study intersections and analyze projects in Dublin. The 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, such as the 2025 Tri-
Valley Model, does not fully consider. While the TRAFFIX model uses a local
focus approach to forecast traffic within the City of Dublin, the model also takes
into account regional traffic patterns by considering potential traffic diversions
from I~580 to adjacent surface streets within the 1-580 corridor. The output from
the TRAFFIX model is shared with other consultants to maintain consistency in
the City of Dublin. The final traffic forecasts in this study were also compared to
Pleasanton's forecasts at affected interchanges for consistency between models.
Buildout roadway improvements
Additional roadway improvements beyond those discussed previously in this
report are planned within the Eastern Dublin area and are assumed in the
Buildout conditions analysis. They include;
Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road Capadty Improvements; Addition of two
westbound left-turn lanes, one through lane and one right-turn lane; one
northbound left-turn lane and two through lanes; one eastbound left-turn
lane and one through lane; and one southbound left-turn lane. Some of these
improvements have been constructed, but not necessarily opened to traffic
(Eastern Dublin TIF improvement).
Scarlett Drive Extension; Extension of Scarlett Drive from Dublin Boulevard
north to Dougherty Road and associated intersection improvements at
Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive, as
identified in the Transit Center EIR (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement). With the
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 104
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 105
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Scarlett Drive extension, it was assumed that 75 percent of the volumes for
the southbound left turn from Dougherty Road onto Dublin Boulevard and
the westbound right turn from Dublin Boulevard onto Dougherty Road were
assumed to shift to the Scarlett Drive extension.
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive Capacity Improvements: Addition of one
westbound right-turn lane and conversion of a northbound right-turn lane to
a third through lane (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement).
Hacienda Drive Widening: Widening of southbound Hacienda Drive from one
to two through lanes from Gleason Drive to Central Parkway (Eastern Dublin
TIF improvement).
Central Parkway Widening: Widening of Central Parkway from two to four
through lanes between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road (Eastern Dublin TIF
improvement) .
Hacienda Drive/I-S8G Westbound 0ff~ramp Capacity Improvements: Widening of
the northbound Hacienda overpass to four lanes to accommodate an
exclusive lane leading to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp, and addition of
one shared right/left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach (Eastern Dublin TIF
improvement). These improvements are also identified in the Transit Center
and East Dublin Properties EIRs.
Hacienda Drive/I-S80 Eastbound off-ramp capacity improvement: Addition of one
shared right/left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach (Eastern Dublin TIF
improvement). This improvement is also identified in the East Dublin
Properties (EDPO) EIR
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Capacity Improvement: Addition of related
ultimate improvements such as the widening of the 1-580 westbound
diagonal on-ramp at Dougherty Road to two single-..occupanc:y-vehicle lanes,
as identified on pages 159 and 167 of the Transit Center Draft EIR and page
3.6-17 of the East Dublin Properties Draft Supplemental EIR. These
improvements are expected to occur with the development of the Transit
Center project (Eastern Dublin TIF Improvement).
Fallon Road Extension: Extension of Fallon Road north to Tassajara Road to
include four lanes of traffic (Eastern Dublin TIF Improvement).
Under this scenario, Dublin Boulevard (six lanes), Central Parkway (four ùmes) and
Gleason Drive (four lanes) are assumed to be extended to Fallon Road.
Table 16 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis. The detailed LOS
calculations are contained in Appendix F of the Traffic Study.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 16. Intersection Level of Service under Buildout Conditions
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Signalized Intersections
v/c: LOS v/c LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.76 C 0.92 E
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound 0.73 C 0.70 B
Ramps
3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound 0.82 D 0.50 A
Ramps
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.67 B 0.98 E
5 Hacienda Drive/ Central Parkway 0.57 A 0.58 A
6 Hacienda Drive/ Gleason Drive 0.32 A 0.51 A
7 Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound 0.89 D 0.89 D
Ramps/Pinùico Drive
8 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound 0.78 C 0.83 D
Ramps
9 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.65 B 0.82 D
10 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.67 B 0.65 B
11 Tassajara Road/ Gleason Drive 0.67 B 0.73 C
12 Tassajara Road/South Dublin Ranch 0.70 B 0.64 B
Drive
13 Tassajara Road/North Dublin Ranch 0.66 B 0.52 A
Drive
14 Tassajara Road/Quarry Lane School 0.64 B 0.50 A
Driveway
15 Tassajara Road/Northern Project 0.64 B 0.62 B
Access
16 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road 0.27 A 0.47 A
17 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound 0.50 A 0.74 C
Ramps
18 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.51 A 0.73 C
19 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.64 B 0.86 D
20 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive 0.30 A 0.43 A
21 Fallon Road/ Antone Way 0.24 A 0.28 A
22 Hacienda Drive/Martinelli 0.54 A 0.89 D
Way / Hacienda Crossings
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, 2004
Note: vie ~ volume to capaerty ratio; LOS ~ Level of Service;
X.X (XX) ~ Overa/llntersaction Delay Or LOS (Minor Movements
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
Page 106
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page , 07
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As shown in Table 16, twenty of the 22 study intersections are expected to
operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak hours under Buildout. The
remaining two intersections of Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard/Hacienda Drive are expected to operate below LOS D during the p.m.
peak hour despite the planned roadway improvements.
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant
impacts to this intersection based on potential LOS F operations. (Impact 3.3/F.)
Mitigation measure 3.3/6.0 called for future construction of additional lanes to
maintain LOS D operations, with fair share funding contributions from new
development in Eastern Dublin. The City has adopted an Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee in compliance with this mitigation. The Project is subject to this fee,
and other adopted traffic impact fees. As shown in Table 16, above, however, the
intersection is projected to operate at LOS E with planned intersection
improvements. This reduction in intersection operations from the Eastern Dublin
EIR would be a sigr¡ificant supplemental impact.
As mitigation, the Project traffic analysis recommends installation of a fourth
exclusive through lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard. However, this
improvement is not feasible given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Thus, intersection operations would be a supplemental significant unavoidable
impact.
Dublin Boulevard/HadenlÙl Drive. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant
cumulative impacts to this intersection based on potential LOS F operations,
noting that no further widening of the intersection would be feasible. (Impact
3.3/M.) Mitigation measure 3.3/13.0 called for the City to participate in regional
transportation studies and funding programs. The City has so participated, and
the Project will be subject to adopted regional traffic fees.
As shown in Table 16 above, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E
with planned intersection improvements; this is an improved operation
compared to the LOS identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As mitigation, the
Project traffic analysis recommends installation of a fourth exclusive through
lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard. Consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR.-
and as noted above, this improvement is not feasible given the physical
constraints at this intersection. With the slightly improved operation at this
intersection, there are no significant impacts beyond those identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, and thus no sup,plemental impact~ would occur.
Supplemental Impact TRA-:t Cumulative increase of Project related traffic on
adjacent freeways.
Development in Eastern Dublin was identified as a significant unavoidable
cumulative impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (reference impact 1M 3.3/B, 1-580
freeway, I~680 Freeway-Hacienda).
The cumulative daily traffic volumes projected in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(reference Table 3.3-9) on the 1-580, 1-680 freeways are close to the year 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
volumes on the two freeways (per the 2003 Caltrans Traffic Volumes on California
State Highways).
Evaluation of freeway levels of service is a different process than intersection
levels of service. Level of service for freeways is based upon peak hour traffic
volumes (number of passenger cars per hour). In practice as in theory, volume,
density and speed are directly correlated, and the analyst can calc:u1ate anyone of
these factors knowing the other two. Traffic flow is used as the basis for freeway
levels of service and for calculating the impacts of the Project on 1-580 and 1-680
operations in 2025.
The forecasted Year 2025 volumes were based on the 1-580 and 1-680 mainline
freeway operation analysis obtained from the Dublin Transit Center P A 00-013
Final Environmental Impact Report (September 2002), which was certified by the
Dublin Oty Council in November 2002. Table 17 summarizes the forecasted
volumes and expected levels of service for two scenarios in 2025: 1) conditions
without the Project, and 2) conditions with the Project.
Table 17. Summary of Freeway Analysis
Capacity
F
E
D
E
E
D
F
D
F
D
D
E
Even without the proposed Project, the study mainline segments along 1-580 and
I~680 in the vicinity of the Project site would operate unacceptably under Year
2025 conditions. Consistent with the adopted Eastern Dublin mitigation
measures for freeway impacts, the Project will be required to pay for its
proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by payment of Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) Fees to construct planned freeway
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 108
City of Dublin November 2004
Dublin Ranch Weet. Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 109
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange
improvements. The Project will also pay for its proportionate share toward
public transportation improvements to help reduce traffic on the freeways and
other roadways in the Tri-Valley Area, by payment of the TVTD Fee; two of the
improvements to be funded by the TVTD Fees are the West Dublin BART Station
and the Express Bus Service from Uvermore to the East Dublin BART station.
The Project's contribution of additional traffic to local freeways would be less
than originally analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, since fewer trips would be
generated from proposed development than under the approved General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There are no significant freeway impacts
beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and thus no sLtP-plemental
freeway impacts would occur.
Supplemental Impact 'IRA-4.lmpacts on Tassajara Road roadway segments.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant cumulative impacts along Tassajara
Road. (Impact 3.3/N.) Adopted Mitigation Measure 3.3/14.0 called for the Oty of
Dublin to reserve right-of-way for up to six future lanes and called for
development to contribute proportionately to costs of improving the roadway.
In July, 2004, the Oty of Dublin approved an ultimate precise alignment for the
widening of Tassajara Road to six travel lanes between Shadow Hills Drive and
the northerly Dublin Oty limit line. The adopted Eastern Dublin TIF is based on
programmed improvements to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes, including four
inside lanes to be funded through the Eastern Dublin TIF and two outside lanes
to be constructed by adjacent developments as part of their frontage
improvements.
A roadway segment analysis was conducted to determine the number of
through lanes that would be needed to have various segments of Tassajara Road
operate at acceptable levels of service for all study scenarios. The average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes for existing and future scenarios were estimated by
assuming that the p.m. peak hour volumes were 10 percent of their daily
volumes. The following three roadway segments were analyzed;
1. Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern
Access,
Existing ADT- 9,050 vpd
Existing plus Approved ADT- 10,430 vpd
Existing plus Approved plus Project ADT-19,160 vpd
Buildout ADT- 34,490 vpd
2. Tassajara Road between Project Northern Access and Fallon Road
Existing ADT- 8,990 vpd
Existing plus Approved ADT - 10,370 vpd
Existing plus Approved plus Project ADT- 10,980 vpd
Buildout ADT- 24,900 vpd
3. Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and Dublin/County Limit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing ADT- 8,990 vpd
Existing plus Approved ADT-I0,370 vpd
Existing plus Approved plus Project ADT-1O,980 vpd
Buildout ADT- 31.270 vpd
The roadway analysis indicates that roadways near the Project area would not
accommodate Project and Buildout traffic. This would be a potentially significant
supplemental impact.
The roadway segment analysis concludes that Tassajara Road would need to be
widened as follows to accommodate anticipated traffic.
· Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern
Access would need to be widened to four lanes under the Existing plus
Approved plus Project conditions.
· Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern
Aœess would need to be widened to six lanes under the Buildout
conditions. Tassajara Road between Project Northern Access and Fallon
Road would need to be widened to four lanes under the Buildout
conditions. However, this segment of Tassajara Road should be improved
to six lanes under Buildout conditions to provide for continuity of traffic
flow on Tassajara Road to the Dublin/ County limit. Tassajara Road
between Fallon Road and Dublin/ County Line would need to be widened
to six lanes under the Buildout conditions.
The following measure is recommended to reduce the above impact to a less-
than-significant level
SupplemenW Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-l. The Project developer
shall dedicate right-of-way along the Project frontage and widen
Tassajara Road to four lanes between North Dublin Ranch Drive and
Project Northern Access to improve roadway segment s near the Projecl
Supplemental Impact TRA-5. Potential traffic safety impacts.
Proposed development of the Dublin Ranch West site would add additional
traffic onto Tassajara Road. Two access points are proposed as shown in Exhibit
11. The addition of anticipated traffic could result in a potentially significant
supplemental impact with regard to traffic safety and design issues.
Adherence to the following measures would reduce traffic safety issues to a less-
than-significant level.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRA-2. The Stage 1 Development
Plan for the Dublin Ranch West Project shall include the following
safety features.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 110
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page ",
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a) Install traffic signals at the two Project access roadways due to
safety considerations along Tassajara Road.
b) Provide an eastbound right.turn capacity on the Project main access
roadway at Tassajara Road to accommodate vehicles during the a.m.
peak hour.
e) Provide northbound left·turn capacity from Tassajara Road onto the
Project main access roadway, considering anticipated traffic
movements to access the Project site during the p.m. peak hour.
d) Provide an adequate northbound left·turn lane from Tassajara Road
onto the Project southern access roadway, considering anticipated
turning movements during the p.m. peak hour.
e) Provide an appropriate southbound right-turn pocket with an
adequate taper on Tassajara Road at both access roadways due to
safety consideration.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Int8niedign 11
Du"
",_i
",~"
~~ "',79(4d!O)
"111'...=0:"] 600(556)
.6 '*. ,11'1$13 (.331)
31100).jl' "'+1"
336 {B56 ~:;:'~
39S(~~ [ì)i:~
~~$j
Intøræction IT
RItaI1..s80 EB Ramp?lmllC(!
O~~
~
~~~ "-6001010)
~ ~ __145 (1æ)
"21"").jI' +1"
138 {241 fa
$15 (385)"lt ~~
"""
~
IltUirsectiont13
ia arRIN. Dublin Ranch
if
s.;€ ~6 (6)
_Ü'Ít\I 1(0)
¥ '" ,,-101 (39)
0(1 "'+1"
4(4n.. ;1;¡¡¡:
,,~-
ã;
IntersectiQn
FallofIltlt,lÞlin
11
nterseetlC)ll
H.aciendalH~ Crossi
~
~
"'-
.. æ "-23 (42)
+.. ,,137 (35<)
+1"
[i
I!¡!
~
~
~
~
~
~
Æ
g
-.
.
~
ð
.
,
"
,.......
..
North
Not to ScaJ~
Inten¡ect:llm#2
Haclenda/l.58Ø Ee fUnlps
s18
;1;'"
;;-:¡¡
~"
S~l (542)..jf t f'
"I,œ7!361r:.., fX~
~~
"'~
<:!~
Inll!l'!W!CI:iðn~
T..arall-5BO we Ramps
~'"
N~
"e
æ<t
""
6
"-203(334)
,If"5551473ì
*
~!2.
~~
"'~
IrrteϿctlon#14
Taa88J~ny LJr e $ãlOOI
L
i¡ "-2513)
+.. ,,9C 7)
~
~i
\Ii
,-..
FallonlGl8ason
+!
~
"
¡¡¡
LeGEtW
. EJ:i5tinglnt~n
o Future Inttf$octiol'l
lIB .....jOCI
~ Existing floe.d
----- F~ Ji'e Ro.ø:
XX' AM Pll!llllk Hour Vall,lm!
(XX) PM Peak Hour Vallnt!!
Q
"
i
DUlß.II\lm.~
Inter'!Joetiont3
Hlciendali-580 we RB s
¡;;
""-
~~ "-W (202)
JJ ,..-544[239}
+1"
"""
""
~~-
N¡;ì
g"
IntemctiOl'l #9
Ta "ilJ'i/Dublin
¡¡:~
o~g ~2[71
:::iDll1 7(17)
6 .. "-,4(03)
0'12").jI' I"
6(11 ~~'i"
185(B1BPt !l'!tn;::'
-~
æ~
1~0I t15
Tl$$IJRIPfOjtd Dl'Mnr'ay
;¡
¡;¡
Inltl'HCti0l'l121
FallonlAntðÐe
+;f
Ii
"
o
&£~~. 6
.
!i!~~~~ 22
!
SOURC£.- TJKM Trsosportat;oo Coosultsots 9/7/2004.
CITY OF DUBUN
DUBUN RANCH WEST
SUPPI,.EMENTAL ENVlFIONMENTAL IMPACT REPOIIT
II'IttIUdiGl'ltM
HaQéßdalDvblin
'"
~~
~N~ 1It.41 (18)
:::: :::: "'26S(303)
~ ~ 19!;i 14D)
,oroO).jl' +,.
15.(710 îJ~92
lQ9(48~ ~~
¡¡~~
lnt«stction#10
TassajiilillCBITIriII
f
~
;;;"
;;¡;;' "..2(3}
.. ,.-, (0)
'''''' V
œ_Õ"
;;~;-
--
hitsr'1iøc:tiðnlS
Ha~øndalCentral
;t'
iD'~_
:;-~~ \:"'4(6)
~Ç\ _ ....14(8)
6 .Þ'i33 (43)
'1'0).jl' +1"
1{8 ¿..........
7,,00r>. ",~iS.
~-~
~~....
IntBni8ction#11
TiIIiI88þrafG~n
M.
N"
~~
30(236)J1
2B (84~ !B~
-""
~~
~
~
~
InttBtdion #1 ~
T . talFi!lIIonExtefision
InMl'1i«tion'17
EJ Charroll.s8Q EB Ramps
;¡
~
v_
æ
N~
~ì::
BB"O).jl' +1"
S(10 1ð':q
63(18)~ ~!:=.
:¡¡;¡
FuroRE
TA$I$A,I~A
.....1IÕõ,..,q¡N'I'
iÍ
,~ ~~~~
~~~~.~~~~~.
.
.\ I
j: !
...11, '~"".
~' >.ø~~
\
I
"
,/
~~v;'I.
, ,
~""~~"'MIlJ..wY' /
:r II J~~rr_~_~~r~
ñ·--t~~~~\~ \
: i~ ii
10 'C€1om>,¡¡ f'I¡ ,j 8,
:;¡ . ~. ~:
~ ' '
. ~ -k., /
I
~
,
",'
"",-",,,.
IntenIedIQrI#~
H8~eftClalGltuon
+52(.35)
53 (BBll~~ (34)
61'0n.. ~
g¡¡
Inœrsec:llorlf12
tassallralS. Dublin Ranch
'"
"
'-'~Gì
~:.ia~ ~'(a)
;;«J~ 1'""251 (96)
2(O).jl' +1"
'(0 ~~
13(8)'" !1.Si æ
0--
,,~-
~"
I~on~.(
FaU(llt l·580 we RampS
...~
~:=. .....39(19)
~ ':2(6)
" ,,32'7)
t
Ib'"
~iß
"
"
.--
o .~
" '.
~ !!~
~,.
-:.._,~
19 ~~_~,,~.
---
--
..-
Exhibit 16
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 113
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.7 Utilities and Services
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 Gty Council.
SEWER
Sewer issues (also referred to as "wastewater") were 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 the impact on planned
expansion of DSRSD's treatment plant facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastern Dublin EIR thoroughly examined wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal issues for the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed Project area
currently is not served by a wastewater service provider and would require
wastewater collection facilities. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD),
which owns and operates a treatment plant in Pleasanton, is 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 (LA VWMA), 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-VaIley Wastewater
Authority (TW A), a joint powers authority which at the time was planning for
necessary disposal capacity beyond that provided by LA VWMA. At the time of
the Eastern Dublin EIR, TW A was proposing to transport untreated wastewater
through the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District system for treatment and
disposal in Martinez. In 1994, TW A transferred authority over
acquiring / constructing additional disposal capacity to LA VWMA and LA VWMA
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 MITIGA nONS 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 GP A/ SP project. Inadequate treatment plant capacity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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, TW A and, subsequently, LA VWMA in efforts to expand treatment and
disposal capacity (along with recycled water projects). Other impads to the
planned TW A 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 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 insignificance. Even with mitigation measures, significant
impacts related to increased energy use for the sewer systems (Impact 3.5 / F, H,
U) and growth-inducement (Impact 3.5/T) remained significant and unavoidable.
Upon approval of the GP A/ SP, the Oty adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these impacts (Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes approximately 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
proposed Project.
Supplemental Impacts. Since improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will accommodate potential development of the Projed area, no supplemental
significant impacts are anticipated, as further discussed below. LA VWMA is
presently constructing a new treated effluent disposal facility that will adequately
accommodate additional wastewater flows generated by this and other projects
in the Eastern Dublin area. Based on a recent conversation with LA VWMA staff,
the new disposal pipeline is nearly complete and is anticipated to be operational
in approximately November 2004 (pers. comm., Vivian Housen, 9/1/04).
Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity. Wastewater generated within the
DSRSD service area is direded to the District's Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) located north of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The WWTP serves the
cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. Anticipating that additional disposal capacity will
be available following completion of the second LA VWMA pipeline (described
below), DSRSD recently completed the first stage of its planned expansion to
serve additional growth in its service area that added 5.5 mgd ADWF to the
Dublin Ranch Wast Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 114
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page'15
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
treatment plant for a total of 17.0 mgd ADWF (source: Steven Delight, DSRSD
8/31/04). 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. Plant expansion is expected to provide
sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project. 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 supplemental significant impact due to treatment
plant capacity.
DisPQsal Capacity. As was noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the increase in
wastewater flows resulting from the GP A/ SP requires an increase in wastewater
disposal capacity. As noted above, LA VWMA, rather than TW A, is the agency
charged with increasing wastewater disposal capacity for the Tri-Valley area.
LA VWMA needs disposal capacity above and beyond its current pipeline to
serve Eastem Dublin and other development within the Livermore/ Amador
Valley. In addition, LA VWMA's existing pipeline is deteriorating. Therefore,
LA VWMA 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 LA VWMA
system will have a capacity of 41.2 MGD (8.7 Livermore, 16.25 Pleasanton and
16.25 DSRSD). If Livermore decides to pay into the expansion portion of the
pipeline project in the next five years, the Pleasanton and DSRSD allocations
would be adjusted to 14.4 MGD each.
Design of all phases is complete and the project is under construction and is
anticipated to be completed in approximately November 2004. Once the
expansion is completed, the disposal capacity needed to serve the Project area
would be available. Since LA VWMA's capacity expansion project has been
approved by the LA VWMA 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 c:apadty.
WATER
Water service was analyzed in Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin ElR 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No public water service currently is provided to the Project area. The residences
and other land uses in the Project area use locally pumped 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 MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to the supply of
water to the Specific Plan 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 Eastern Dublin 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 additional supplies. Impact 3.5/5 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). Impact 3.5 / T, Inducement of Substantial Growth, was
deemed to be significant even after mitigation. Upon approval of the GP A/ SP,
the Oty adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this significant
unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATON MEASURES
The proposed Project envisions approximately 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
significantly from the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement DEIR examines
whether new water supply contracts and settlement of litigation concerning the
legality of a 1998 amendment to a 1994 water supyly 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 an insufficient water supply 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
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 116
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 117
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
concerning the suffidency of DSRSD's water supplies to serve future
development.
Water Supply CQntracts. 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, construction of wells and pumps from the
groundwater basin that Zone 7 manages, and recyded 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. Zone
7's long-term and drought.year protection water sources are shown in Table 18
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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 18. Zone 7 Water Supply Acquisition Projects
Project Name Amount Funding StatuS Term!
Source Expiration
Long-Term Water
Supplv Sources
Byron-Bethany 2 - 5,000 afa Zone 7 Completed 1998 15 years,
Irrigation District Connection Fee Agt. No. A98- renewable
Program 03-BYR
Berrenda Mesa SWP 7,000 afa (920 Dougherty Completed Dee 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
Livennore
Developers
Drought Year
Protection
Semi tropic Water 3,870 afa. min Dougherty hnplemented Until 12/31/35
Storage Bank (43,000 Valley 1998 Agt. No.
af) Developers A98-07-SEM
sernitropic Water 1,980 afa min Zone 7 hnplemented Until 12/31/35
Storage Bank (22,000 Connection Fee 1999 Agt. No.
af) Program A98-07-sEM
Amendment
5ernitropie Increased 13,000 ata min Zone 7 semitropic: to
Pumpbac:k Project Connection Fee Draft Agreement
Program
Dry~Year Options 15,000 afa Zone 7 May not be
Connection Fee needed w /
Program Semitropie
Pumpback
Import Water
Convevance
First ~/ 22nds of Future 7,000 ata Zone 7 Completed Dee: 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/ S-yr w/ opt out in
Contractor's Share Program opt-out SWC 2005
Amendment 20
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 118
City of Dublin November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 119
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SBA Conveyance 1O~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 Tenn
SBA
hnprovements
($7,035,000)
approved 5-2-01
'Cost excludes
pumping cost into Zone
7 area ($15-20/ af)
SBA = South Bay
Aaueduct
SWC = State Water
Contract
Sources: (1) Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2001
(2) City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Properties Supplemental EIR . January 2002
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 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,
Gtizens for Balanced Growth ("Otizens") and the Oty 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 Oty of Dublin in December 1999.
Although the Oty 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
GP A/ 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, Otizens 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 Oty pursuant to this Settlement Agreement process is intended to
assist the Oty in its CEQA review and land use approval process for
development projects in Eastem 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 Oty land use application review and
LAFCO annexation processes are independent of the requirements of the
Settlement Agreement, which is binding on the parties to the agreement only.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As required by the Settlement Agreement, DSRSD has prepared' and has
submitted to the City a Progranunatic Water Service Analysis ("PWSA") and
preliminary impact analysis for the proposed Dublin Ranch West 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 for 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.
With the submittal of the Water Service Analysis 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.
Water Demand. DSRSD recently commissioned an analysis of anticipated water
use for the proposed Project, with and without proposed amendments to the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The report is entitled "Integration
of Proposed Dublin West Annexation Area into District's Potable and Recycled
Water Systems," dated December 31, 2003. The report concludes that with the
construction of planned infrastructure system elements in the Eastern Dublin
area, adequate potable and recycled water would be available to serve the
proposed Project, with or without the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
Table 19 shows anticipated potable water demand at build out of the proposed
Project compared to DSRSD's 2000 Water Master Plan. Table 19 shows that
anticipated potable water demand for the Dublin Ranch West property, including
the replacement of the Elementary School site with residential uses, would be
somewhat less than anticipated in the District's 2000 Master Plan.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 120
November 2004
DUblin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 121
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 20 shows that the anticipated use of recycled water for the Project area
would be less than anticipated in the Master Plan, even if the currently planned
Elementary School site were to be replaced with residential dwellings.
In sum, there would be no supplemental significant impacts for water demand
for the proposed Project.
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 would 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 to Tassajara Creek which flows southerly to
connect with Zone 7 facilities south of 1-580. South of the Project area, Tassajara
Creek has been improved or has existing capacity to accept the design flow as
determined by Zone 7.
IMPACTS AND MmGATION FROM TIlE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential flooding related to increased runoff
to creeks (1M 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 (1M 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 (1M
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 approximately 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. Pursuant 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Significance Criteria. Storm drainage impacts are considered significant if the
Project area would require new stoml drainage facilities substantially in excess of
those that were anticipated in the Eastern Dublin ElR.
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 significant impacts on the availability of solid waste services beyond those
identified in the Eastern Dublin ElR.
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 Oty of Dublin expires in
2005 and is subject to renewal for three years. 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 5 or 6 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 approximately 23 to 25 additional years of service.
IMPACTS AND MmGA nON 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 Impacts 1M 3.4/0 and 1M
3.4/P.) It was specifically noted that the Eastern Dublin 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 UfÙess 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
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 122
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 123
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed
Project.
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
capadty.
Supplemental Impacts. No sloWplemental impacts regarding solid waste disposal
capacity are anticipated from the rapid development of the Tri-Va1ley 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 GP AI SP, including the current Project area.
LDDS/VWM does not foresee any problems in collecting or disposing of the
solid waste or recyclable materials generated by the proposed Project (Nick
Perata, LDDS personal communication, 6/2/03). In addition, the increase in solid
waste and recyclable materials would be accommodated at the Altamont Landfill
and Resource Recovery Facility (Nick Perata, LDDS personal communication,
6/4/03). Thus, there are no significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin ElR.
ELECTRICITY AND NA1URAL GAS
Elec:tridty and natural gas service was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR analyzes whether the recent energy crisis
and other local factors prevent an adequate supply of electricity.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Padfic Gas & Electric Company (pG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the
Project area. Existing dwellings and other structures within the Project area are
presently receiving service from PG&E. At the statewide level, California
recently went through an energy crisis resulting from its deregulation of
electridty 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 recently
completed a new regional substation in the Tri-Valley which provides necessary
electrical service to new developments in the Eastern Dublin area (source; Buck
Jones, PG&E, 4/'22./04).
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 3.4/5 Consumption of Non~Renewable Natural Resources,
were deemed to be potentially significant impacts that would remain significant
even with mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/ SP, the City
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant
unavoidable impacts (Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGA nON MEASURE
The Project proposes approximately 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
signífkant 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 Impad UTS 1. Local Elecmcal Dismbution Constraints.
Based on a recent discussion with PG&E staff, the substation has been approved
and is anticipated to be operating in December 2004 or soon thereafter (source:
personal communication with Bu.:kJones, PG&E 3/11/ /03).
With construction and operation of the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project
the there would be a less-than-significant impact with providing necessary
electrical resources to the Project site.
Supplemental Impad UTS 2. A vailabiIi'Qr of N amral Gas Supplies.
Recent discussion with PG&E natural gas service planners indicate that adequate
long.tern natural gas supplies exist from PG&E to serve the level of development
that could be allowed in the Project area. Although limited natural gas delivery
systems exist in and near the Project area, Project developers would be
responsible for extending natural gas infrastructure to serve future development
(source: personal communication with Sheila Cebalos, PG&E natural gas service
planner 6/3/03).
Supplemental Information in Response to Notice of Preparation (NOP)
The following information is supplied based on responses received by the City of
Dublin from the Notice of Preparation distributed for this DSElR.
Surface Water Quality Impacts (Regional Water Quality Control Board)
Although any proposed development within the Project area will be subject to
surface water quality mitigation measures adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin
ErR, development projects will also be required to comply with updated surface
water quality standards, included in the Alameda Countywide Oean Water
Program or successor documents as may be adopted by the City of Dublin and
Regional Water Quality Control Board, in effect that the time such specific
individual development projects are submitted to the City of Dublin.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 124
City of Dublin November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 125
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (Zone 7)
The City of Dublin will require developers of future individual projects to submit
hydrology and hydrologic analyses to identify specific increases in storm water
runoff into Tassajara Creek. Such reports will be reviewed by both the City of
Dublin and Zone 7 Water Agency.
Main Basin Salt Loading (Zone 7)
The salt loading from development within the Project area to the main ground
water basin is caused mainly by the use of reclaimed water irrigation systems.
(David Lund, Zone 7). 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 LA VWMA 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 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 within the Project 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
"1::1
I ~
..
~
..
I ..
...
to
::
a¡
I -
.:> £
..
... ..
Q ,5
~
- 11
I ~ i
-e '';;
-"
= .
I .. i
c=: ;¡¡
c
...
-
I ,J:>
::I
~
0\
....
I ..
-
,J:>
to
Eo<
I
I
I
I
I
I
;¡~
¡¡ J !.
-:~~~~a¡;88agg¡;:;g;;
~j lOçiDÐciðOOgCi~dð
- i ~
.! 0. =
:-t;
~'¡J;
i~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~
;¡;iig,..C.:>c>c~~~eo~g
i .. IE
~&15
.
"
.."
,n
~~i~:~"'o~~"'Qo.III'.""~:.1
:. ~..."It"':"'~"';:lIIIio!"iI'i~;:
<.:Ii:. --
....
¡!t
,¡:
.. .
1-:
.JJ
iJi'
;u
.
~~ ~ "'"' iii g
~ _ ell ci tIõÏ ci
H
- "! ~
,¡: .
-"
.It .
- .
.-
.!~
~;:; :_~_~ 4"1___
""~..... '" ....""
. .
;n
"'~;
1~jl:::~~~~~~~q~~H
",Z="'Wlgcoc.:><:>c¡:;¡¡;;¡.~
- ~ ~ .
i . ·
...."
:-~~
CiiIIi~
=~';~~~.~~~~~~~~
!.a=o:.~OðODg.~Ð~o:.d
U~
..1
.!i!
~¡€Ir;~~C':~~~~~I"!~"':
=. .....rf...CCi:IoI6Q....I'\IQv..
-<~..iN_ _
]ž
t.::.
:.
.. .
~9
.. ;
,¡: I .
~~~
. -
,,;
r:¡J þ.~\CI
.." ~ ~ a ~----:~:~-
:0;9
li~
1 ~ ~~
f iii
j
..
~
i
I
"
iE
!î
ggllll' iii
ggg ,g
ð\¢C ð\
d.~ Ð
9
~
~
l
.;:
~
1':
i! i. .
'l:f <i:!i =i!I
~hU~~U;~~!
'¡,~ili<li<li<¡;¡;li<li<ilr1.iI
·¡i;!~~~...!F>....W'!:¡:B¡
a:'2~dii-""~iS::~-ß
!~ -¡ 91i!
.Iii c ð
P
J I
!!
~:~:¡: :
¡~
~S j jE
-! 1. 11
Ihuhl(¡ud
!i!¡;:2:;:~;:¡¡¡¡:¡;:¡;:¡:;:'q¡
J....ÌI;Í....IN.... :.....__f::i
~i -!! !!~
III ~ cô ci d
~~
~i
.:.
-J!,; i2~ 11 ,;~
"~j ~:18 !; x''IIi =;; ¡?j !22 m
.,;.= .. g¡. .. ..!r . to '" :II
;¡R C ;¡;¡i
~
-f ~ 9 -f ~"
'::..g,,!!=¡!! ~.. ~ :: \~~~ ::19 ¡;
1""''':'i'':' :;¡- ~ J~ ...o.Þo ~- :;:
--I ..."II-;;rWl -..I
";Ii - ~ ~ R! - H
~
¡ i.. e,"""= _ ~ ~ -= ,... _ 'oCI _ 1'1
.. t....;z..r:-l"Ie".:oe -ÑIII
u.< -!"- ..
h
~~ !'
. f~
!",æ
i ~H~
f'! -:-;,'!H
~:i.òI li!'¡¡·.
nH~i ..~HH
t~J'iS&:1IJ .§!;:uð~~
-:-~~:i11 ~~d1~~
¡O~,,:C 1..-- 0.
¡o_n ~.:t¡.u n.:::;!
_099 :!o".J!"II.;I....
f.3;¡;¡:;;~k ¡:!..;¡;¡
.\.._.... ~H .,
f .. ""....:'I4:i e, ri"': _...~ I:
a..¡-""'''' -- -
~H
- r· ..
!..l_..e
II' 5. ..
:j ~:) t% 'S -!!
.:;'¡ iÆH..
H~':; ..a';Ii¡¡
Æ;¡Æi-d. 1 !fJ!~E
~'bQ&:VJ ..IIðCl'~ðic
ij1~fP. ~¡:8 ~ ê!
.~ Pit.:-¡;: ni:;!
~IH~HkH'nH
"
c;
::!
h~
'" . -
-:¡~i"s:~r:;·D~e~:!:__olft
.." . _ . ~ .1IõI.: . --' ~ ~ 0 ¥1
..."i!:.ìiDDe>C.c.gg~Qoc.c$.g
-J! ~!. .
~ Iit.. .
:-t"
oj; ¡¡¡ !
.E~1C1~~~~~~~ª~§~
~.IõIlClO:>~ClDDgollÞ""Ø"'¢
· f .
~..1iiI
..1
U
1~;~""I"!Ql.c>c>~o-l>""
e.:¡ ':i 'I"- - 1"I!:t Ci ci N C . .iC!
-<~"I"I ~ 11"'1 fI o r'oI....c ~.
-:..
;:!
) . .
'!i~
wi U~
II -! "" .
i .= i
å a2i= ~~.q;_~_c-.~_
~ ~ H:::: ~ "" iN
"",1 -
I ...
. ,n ~
;- -!~ ~
",j¡;
:i!
-:
ì
~
!
.
!
~
..
..
I
a
~
=>
]
:II .. ,-j
~ fb. _9
! ilH¡¡¡::';~
9
"
z II'f ~..
i'i..q:¡~
t 1;....., _PI!.....
""! H_
~~~
......
â
â
t:haa ~
l:Ídg c:
::!
.!;ii
....
~a j t .
Jludihnd
¡1¡;:82¡¡:~~~.,:;:g:!;
¡:IjjJ""II"'I-::!~ -t!-....
! ¡; Ii! ~
~ f D Ci
¡a
"Iî .
1j
:;:;OGO> ~
r"II ~t"t -. ~
-
~
!:: :J~
~ ±;;; ~ .,.
8
I\o-_NN If'¡"'~ .!,!G:I C\J
c3 =~~=+.DC>:iI'=c>--('o ! tii
-c ~
¡;
¡¡¡
<J
€ ~ <C
rH "@
..lfi >;-
f ¡ fi 1 .! ~
~ Þo.lll~. 'E ~
:;":1 ~ "".IIiJ.
1-:·':; =l':;';¡ z ê
iUt-=i ! -t~iS::>
'=:.I'h.:r ~"'&.f!" ðJ
hUH .,æll!~!
~~ u!§j~jttl~nw'"
-; "'1!"iS";I oil !::
~:~;¡,d~:!~~.; ;¡ ;::
to.,.
"'0
~o
",,,,
"'~
«I '"
(1..0
E
~
o
Z
a:
¡¡¡
~
'"
E
'"
'&
::>
'"
""
~
c:>
-¡¡;
'"
:s:
"5:æ
<:.0
'" ::>
a:o
.5 Õ
:ë>o
:::3~
C:>Q
"0
=
..
e
..
o
..
~
..
-
,.CI
..
...
I;> .
~ -"
== i
Q ,.
Z 'i
... ~
'" §
~
-5
c
..
~
c
.-
-
,.CI
:=
o
~
,Sj
,.CI
~
·
· .
f.. i- '!I' ~ II; )o. f! """ 11\ If)
c.i ~o.",:",.,.;"'!_,.,~...:;:"'I
2: .P] ~ ~ g :¡¡¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :;:¡":::: T,f
_::~CI"It'C~~"¡"".Ifro.'8I1lDIIIII
:æ¡.c: ;- D\p-. I"'I-~:;"" in -.... 'I! a
·
~
=,!"I!I .
~¡;~ .
~ '''8''''''''N~"Òt!ð_8-5
;'Zæ ....~I'4.~"II:....¡~j[~c: ,Q
·l·~c:'c~co.::idool:>=
~~!
¡~J:
i¡;~
.. "iI '1 (¡ I'! \CI 'Ii; ~ II'! II!.., f·.... H.l ~ :¡
5ii':;!:P1;::;-ið~I:>Cigg-::!
..-,;
."
..
i
-=
..
! BU"SjjjP!
liiUdhnd-
~:¡:!H3EEE3!:Ð!3~~
=: ~PI"""'II\""P "''''''fOI..,"
¡ :
it
·
!
i-. iitit~:¡:~:;:~iI!i!¡:1ii
.. eOO-D-OOCDQ....
,:¡:.-.
tP
-,,"
!II: -:1
liE~·'g
!¡~~~~§8~~i888~~~
!=~-~ ,.,~~~~~~~~..,~
~..-..
I 1!#_
I H
i'}.. ..... . -< "''' _ _ ~ ~.. .,
!~..",~....Qi"Ð!::..,...CÎ"OgÐØ::
l.
.
.. ~
U¡HU~HgH¡¡
~ ~ .
lð! -..III.........m ..lit\.
~~~:...:::~~o<g~--;;!
it
f"'l
l!1¡
I~{
~ ¡fv:
-II ~t ....h
'-,!.. .---¡¡
. UHoci .11i!
f; I ba ~112 ..,æf,.H.J!5 b
~H1H miHU¡
i.!in~,¡:.tU¡u~;i
J HnUlr~ n·
.. _I
~ i- ;;;;; ~ ~;!: IÇ po.. ~I
Q ¿~ Q ø .,..¡ w\ g ~ vi ~ '""". 'Iö S'; ....:
I~l~::~~ .¡r:¡:g..ð:Ji!=
~':Oic-I1ð·~_·CN¡¡o.""~a;:~:
...~ 1"11'1" =~ - ...~
-~
~
¡Ii
:;~ O-~"8--O-O-~
IJI"I!!¡;.-g- ..._.;;.gcQ....
~ :OOC~D~.:iCiQCQe
! ~~
~"
ij¡¡
- ~ ~
š~ ~ co i"'!..., "'1. 0 ~ ~ ~ I!Q ""! V. :)
¡o;¡..d~Œi~O;~e.:iO:>...;~
: ô'!
;: ",~
j
1
! ~jj·..n·j"
¡HniiiUhf
5 ·~~;'J::l:'J;;u:z::::::~~
!:!;:;;;:;¡:;;:;:~~;:¡;:¡¡;;¡::;~
I. ..
i
"
-;
;¡¡
j
.
i ~ i ~ i 2 g.=: g ~ ~ ~ ~ 8
:-"r)C;Cg..;.O.....CCi~O...:.
.::..
. t
i1
].
~
i
I
1
'i ~]
~~iË
~ B:; \¡:;~UHuu~
Hj.ì
. '" oS:!!
-è
~
"
..
~
.fi¡,,-=~~'='.C!.::t~-:oI"!"'!'ð~
~5..._....,..Q_...C>ClC>c,
- ..
I.
j!f~HHHHU
;;:\....."il"'l ""IN'tØ G:!
~....,.¡...-.oe--i..;.ci--:.1=
t:I.:ê:....~-.- -
5'f
r-f..
J:lk j
l~j ~
....j i~-~.'~1;
ë_;;'¡¡ ,J ~
¡'j!"" "" i
Hj"- ! i .. -.~~ t:
-t ,! b t l. ~ .:¡ v .!i bJ. "
i Ii .~'1'1 ~'e .~.., a:
jt-¡H~i' - "X:i~¡~"
¡¡¡ c;;¡;: ".::::.:....111 == ~ ""
:; .!i 5 ~ -UJ'" j ~ ~ ;!
1·1i~· j. ~1HS'
-.:!""J'#~¡ž,,;¡<
.. '-
::!!: :n:;=:~ ~~ LI'ò 1"\
" _~] c!lli.... v-i e ".¡ N ~ ~ :D ~
..,. ¢r"'I"ONOON' .-
Æ '''' ê·- ..., ê ...... i8 = ~;-
iii 1..: ~¡;;¡"it :: ~ V'1,...: ...
-~
.=
;¡ jj~ .
~ 'II ii
i~.,;1€::8~8::;!8æ:8¡;::¡
li:ciôciOøQC:~iCÎC>QG;¡.
- ~!
h"
=- ~! ~
"-
. .
r~ ==1" ¡:¡. ~ I " "" g ~....... - "" ~ :;¡..
'III,. C;i.....1IÇi ~ C:'" W'Ì e:i C;i Q"":
"1. - - ~
~.¡
!"tI
..
.Ii
~
J
.
.
.æ
;
~
~
.;
-i ~~
11 i1 ~~!!~~;~!!_
i go.
. '!! -i .=
" ,,-
1 ....
..
!r
~~!i~ ,~
~~~~j~~~5~~~ýi~~
" _ . it
I ~,:.
i ,OJ!!
~
~
~
E
'"
¡¡
~
¡
I
¡r Sits.......
h~ ~;;UH~l
"" Ii¡ 1iililJlilJ1t1iliill
Š "'~rnq;:¡~;;n~::I:q~~~
..:l~ìiÎ;;:;:;¡:¡;;;:::;::¡;::r;;¡¡;;:::
f.
it
J
j.a...-=f'I;"".:II::!~III!.:",*;-=""!""!II:!:J
.5.i"':!:!""V'lD~"'C.CC>CI~
l
~ ~
PIUUgHU¡¡
~ g
"..~Pi"," ytl"!~
i!"'''-'''''~-ê--:1
t$~-V)-....- ~æ
I
iii
Jf ~
;, 'i U)
".!!"g ~
:i. HH~J - ~
...~ ~~:i-;i; ~
1-·-~ ;Iij..a t
'" 1.. i · ~ b-_ g
--..'- ¡¡Ii--.:! :>-
~hH~ ,;"h
hÆ:'U .H~~· 2
'~d1iUU~ ;! 5
~,tf~h~nn :; CI)
[;;g
~o
"''''
C>~
'" '"
c..~
E
g:>
o
Z
c:
ill
$
<:::
'"
E
'"
ì5.
c.
"
en
'"
~
c
t;
'"
5:
.1:.<:
(.'I;:::
<:::J:>.
'" "
c:c
.5õ
ñ>-
:3:=
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.8 Schools
The need for new school facilities was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. This Supplemental EIR examines whether student generation rates
and the need for new school facilities has substantially changed since certification
of the EIR. This supplement also examines the effect of Senate Bill 50, enacted in
1988, on the provision of school facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project area lies within the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD).
Enrollment in DUSD schools was 4,459 K-12 students in October 2003. This is
based on the Dublin Unified School District Study of Demographic Projections
and School Revenue Analysis, Draft, 2004, prepared by Shilts Consulting. Inc,
July 2004.
DUSD maintains five elementary schools, a middle school, a high school and a
continuation high school. District enrollments have steadily increased over the
past 10 years, at an average rate of approximately 2.5% for a ten year growth of
28%.
On April 20, 2004, the District's Board of Trustees adopted Resolution No.
2003 /04-37 declaring that the Elementary School site shown on the Dublin Ranch
West site under the existing EDSP is no longer required as an Elementary School
by the District. The Resolution notes that the Project developer is still required
under the terms of an existing school mitigation agreement for the Dublin Ranch
development Project to construct and dedicate without charge Fallon Middle
School, to construct and dedicate to the District without charge Green
Elementary School and to convey to the District a school site known as E-3
within the Town Center of the Dublin Ranch. This obligation could be met
through credits against development impact fees.
lIMP ACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR projected the demand for school facilities that would be
generated by adoption and implementation of the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, DUSD had
not adopted student generation rates for all levels of school facilities. The
adjoining Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District however, had recently
adopted increased generation rates for single and multi-family development for
all school facilities for grades K~12. These student generation rates were used in
the Eastern Dublin EIR for school impact purposes.
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 and
H). The EIR also identified impacts on financing school facilities (Impacts 3.4/1
and J). Mitigation measures were adopted to reserve school sites within the
Project area, to coordinate new development with school facilities planning and
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 128
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 129
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to encourage the broadest possible funding mechanisms for new school facilities
(MM 3.4/13.0-19.0). These mitigation measures reduced 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 development
projects.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPAcrS AND MmGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project includes approximately the same general type of land use
as included in the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, however, the
GP A/ SPA and the associated Stage 1 Development Plan would eliminate a
planned 9.7-acre elementary school site and replace this land use designation
with Medium High Density Residential that would allow development of up to
224 dwellings and replace a 0.8-acre site designated for Neighborhood
Commercial with an Open Space land use designation.
Significam:e Criteria. School impacts are considered significant if any of the
following conditions were to occur:
· If student generation rates have increased such that the demand for new
school facilities would exceed the projections for new school facilities as
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR;
· If the number of new dwelling units proposed would generate a
significantly greater number of students than anticipated in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, or as identified by DUSD;
· If proposed school financing did not comply with the provisions of SB 50.
Supplemental Impacts. Two potential supplemental impacts are identified based
on the proposed Project: an increase in the number of school-aged students that
could be generated by the proposed development program over and above
student generation anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and loss of an
elementary school that is currently proposed to accommodate students that
would be generated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, including the Project
area.
Supplemental Inwact SCH·l. Additional Student Generation.
Approval and construction of the proposed Project would generate more school
aged students than anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern
Dublin ElR. Table 21 summarizes anticipated school generation based on existing
residential land use designations compared with proposed residential land uses.
Students that could be generated from the Bragg and Sperfslage properties have
not been included in the following table, since no land use changes are proposed
for these properties.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 21. Existing and Proposed Student Generation,
Dublin Ranch West Project
Land Use Gen. Existing SP L¡md Use Proposed SP Land Use
Rate' (mid-point density> (mid-point density>
Units # Students Units # Students
Low Density 0.74 80 59 75 56
Medium 0.25 641 160 557 139
Density
Med. High 0.13 96 13 402 52
Density -
Totals -- 817 232 1034 247
. Student Generation rates provided by Dublin Unified School District. July 2004
Based on conversations with DUSD demographic consultants, an anticipated
increase of 15 K-12 students would result with implementation of the proposed
Dublin Ranch West Development Plan. This increase would be less-than-
§ignj.ficant. Proposed Project students could be accommodated at Fallon Middle
School (K-8) and Dublin High School (9-12). Fallon Middle School is planned by
the District to house K-8 students through the 2007-08 school year, when
additional K-6 schools in the Eastern Dublin area would become operational.
Fallon Middle School is presently being planned to accommodate 1,000 students
and would be located southwest of the Project site. Dublin High School, which
has a current enrollment of approximately 1,270 students, is being planned for
phased expansion to 2,300 students (source: personal communication, Brian Aas,
Shilts Consulting, 3/14/03).
Su.pplementaI Impact SCH-2. Loss of Elementary School site.
As part of the proposed Project, a 9.7-acre elementary school site located in the
approximate center of the site would be converted to housing units. By adopting
Resolution No. 2003/04-37, the Dublin Unified School District has declared that
the planned Elementary School site is not required to provide educational
services on the Project site or within Eastern Dublin and that adequate education
facilities will be provided under an existing agreement with the developer of
Dublin Ranch. Deletion of the Elementary School site would therefore be a ~
than-significant impact.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 130
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 131
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.9 Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation facilities were analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin
EIR. This Supplemental EIR examines whether proposed changes in the number
and size of local parks as part of the proposed Dublin Ranch West Project would
substantially change environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The location of trails in the vicinity of the proposed Project is also addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies existing Oty facilities and park standards and
East Bay Regional Park District facilities.
City facilities and standards
The City of Dublin's inventory of park and recreational facilities is composed of
neighborhood and community facilities, community parks and community
centers. Table 3.4.4 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies parks in the
Oty of Dublin existing at the time the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan was approved. No Oty park or recreational features existed
near the Project area at that time; instead, these facilities existed to the west,
within the then-urbanized portions of Dublin.
Park and open space standards for the Oty was 2.5 acres of active parkland per
1,000 residents at the time the EDSP was adopted.
Regional facilities
Regional parkland and open space facilities in the Tri-Valley and adjacent areas
within Alameda and Contra Costa Counties are provided by the East Bay
Regional Park District (EBRPD). EBRPD owns property just south of the Project
area on the west side of Tassajara Road.
The District controls, through a combination of ownership and easements, the
Tassajara Creek Regional Trail Corridor, which is located south and west of the
Project area. This Corridor currently contains 22.8 acres of land with minimal
facilities, consisting of a picnic table, restrooms, and a bridge over Tassajara
Creek.
The District had originally planned to construct a regional trail just west of the
Project area on Parks RFfA land that would extend from Dublin Boulevard to
the south, extending along the west side of Tassajara Creek and then extending
north just inside the easterly boundary of Parks RFfA. This trail would then run
northward through Contra Costa County to Mt. Diablo. Recently, the District
has modified the proposed trail alignment to extend along Tassajara Creek
within the Project area.
IM:P ACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of impacts related to parks and
recreational facilities. Impact 3.4 / K indicated that increased demand for parks as
a result of buildout of the EDSP would represent a significant impact on the
ability of the City of Dublin to provide park service for future residents. It would
also be a potentially significant cumulative impact for the community due to lack
of sufficient city-wide park facilities that would not meet a standard of 5 acres of
parkland per 1000 population.l\-1itigation Measures 3.4/20.0-28 were included in
the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These
measures call for the acquisition and development of new parks and other
outdoor facilities in Eastern Dublin, requiring land dedication and/ or park in-lieu
fees for new subdivisions and similar techniques to provide for additional park
and recreational features. Implementation of all of the mitigation measures
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of
parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin.
Impact 3.4/ L identified a park facility fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. The
fiscal strain of providing new park facilities would be a potentially significant
impact.l\-1itigation Measures 3.4/29.0-31.0 would require that each new
development in Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space
facilities. Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for, to
identify and prioritize parkland in Eastern Dublin. Finally, adoption of a park in-
lieu fee program was required as a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance. Consistent with these mitigations, the City requires
residential project developers to dedicate parkland at the time of subdivision
approval and pay Public Facility Fees (which includes park in-lieu fees) to fund
both the development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as
other community facilities. Developer(s) of the Dublin Ranch West Project
would pay Public Facility Fees at the time building permits are issued for
individual dwelling units.
Impacts 3.4 / M and N dealt with the regional trail system and open space
connections. Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin
was anticipated to have a potentially significant impact to the construction of a
regional trail system (Impact 3.4/M). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0
would require the establisrunent of a trail system with connections to planned
regional and subregional trails, including the Tassajara Creek north-south trail to
Mt. Diablo and would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Urban development along stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely
impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and
£otentially obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system
(Impact 3.4/N). Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0-36.0 would reduce
this impact to an insignificant level. These measures call for use of natural stream
corridors and major ridgelines to create a comprehensive, integrated trail system
that allows safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to
dedicate public access along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate trail
and staging areas.
Dublin Ranch We$!. Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page,32
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 133
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identifies two neighborhood parks and one
neighborhood square on the Dublin Ranch West property. This totals
approximately 14.6 gross acres of parkland. In addition, the Specific Plan
identifies 70 acres of open space both along the Tassajara Creek stream corridor
through the site and on steep hillside areas within the Project area.
Several parks and recreation regulatory documents have been adopted since
adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
These include an updated Oty of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program and the East Bay
Regional Park District Master Plan.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan
In February 2004, the Oty of Dublin adopted an updated Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. The original Master Plan was adopted in 1994. The purpose of the
Master Plan is to establish goals, long-term policies and standards to guide the
City of Dublin in the acquisition, development and management of Dublin's park
and recreation facilities for the next twenty years following adoption (page 3).
The Master Plan depicts the approximate location of future parks, by type,
design standards for parks and recreation facilities, the location and design of
trail and parks and recreation maintenance and operations. The Master Plan also
establishes standards of 1.5 acres of neighborhood parkland and 3.5 acres of
community parkland (total of 5.0 acres) per 1,000 residents (Master Plan Table 1).
The Master Plan uses net acres, rather than gross, to depict park facilities. Based
on a discussion with the City's Park & Community Services Director, the Dublin
Ranch West site is planned to contain 10.5 net acres of Neighborhood Parks and
Squares (communication with D. Lowart, Dublin Parks and Community Services
Department 11/1/04). A proposed Oass 1 pedestrian/bicycle trail (separate
from roads) is shown along the west side of Tassajara Creek and a Oass 2 Bicycle
Lane (bicycle lane on road) along Tassajara Road.
The Oty has constructed several parks in Eastern Dublin as residential
construction has occurred. Phase II of Emerald Glen Community Park has also
been constructed at the southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Road.
Emerald Glen Park now encompasses approximately 30 acres. A third
development phase of this park is now underway with two additional phases
anticipated for the future.
A second community park is being planned in Eastern Dublin that would be
bounded by Lockhart Lane, Gleason Drive, Fallon Road and Central Parkway.
This is anticipated to include approximately 60 acres of land and would include
primarily active sports fields.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program
As required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City of Dublin prepared a
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program in 1996. The purposes of this
Program include establishment of streambank setbacks adjacent to Eastern
Dublin creeks, provision of interface between development and creekbanks,
provide for trails, connectivity and maintenance access adjacent to creeks,
provisions for plant and animal habitat restoration within and adjacent to creeks,
provision for protection of specimen trees, ensuring flood hazard protection
adjacent to creeks, protection of surface water quality, ensuring channel stability,
promote use of reclaimed water to irrigate restoration plantings and ensuring
compliance with regulatory programs and requirements.
Figure 8 contained in the Stream Restoration Program calls for development of a
combination regional trail and maintenance road along the west side of Tassajara
Creek, extending from the EBRPD park south of the project, along Tassajara
Creek and into Contra Costa County to the north. A wildlife setback of 100 feet
(minimum) is recommended from top of bank of Tassajara Creek. A varying
width hydrological setback is also recommended from the top of creek bank;
however, the regional trail and maintenance road may extend into this setback
area.
Section 5.2 of the Plan (Trails and Maintenance Roads) notes that "trails and
maintenance road planning should encourage a continuous open space network
that integrates large natural open space areas, the stream corridors, and
developed parks and recreation areas. The trails and open space network should
then link regional and local trails, employment centers, residential areas, schools,
parks, commercial centers, neighborhood centers and open space." Design and
construction standards for trails and maintenance roads are provided in the Plan
document.
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan
In 1997, the East Bay Regional Park District adopted a Master Plan to define the
mission and vision of the District. The Master Plan also explains the District's
responsibilities and explains a framework for the decisions of the Board of
Directors and staff.
Accompanying the Master Plan is a map entitled "East Bay Regional Park
District-Existing and Potential Parklands and Trails." The map depicts a future
regional trail along a portion of Tassajara Creek, extending in an east~west
direction along Dublin Boulevard, turning north along Tassajara Road, extending
along the east side of Parks RFTA and then extending north into Contra Costa
County. The District has recently modified the trail location from Parks RFTA to
the Project site along Tassajara Creek.
Significam:e Criteria. Park impacts are considered significant if construction of
the proposed project would result in a demonstrable increase in the use of a local
or community park, playground or recreational facility, or would conflict with an
adopted agency park and recreation regulatory document, such as a park and
recreation master plan.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 134
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 135
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Supplemental Impacts. Potential supplemental impacts identified in this DSEIR
include adequacy of neighborhood parkland within the proposed Dublin Ranch
West project and consistency of the proposed trail location with adopted
regulatory plans.
Adequaçy of nei¡;:hborhood parks. Construction of land uses as shown in the
proposed Project would result in a potential supplemental impact over and
above those addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR dealing with the adequacy of
local neighborhood parks within the proposed development since the Project
includes elimination of planned parkland. There would also be an inconsistency
with the City of Dublin's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan identifies one 8.7-acre (gross)
Neighborhood Park, which is estimated to provide approximately 6.8 net, usable
park acres, and 81.7 acres of open space within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek
and on the western hillside areas. Much of the proposed Open Space-designated
land would include land lying within Tassajara Creek or steeply sloping areas
along the westerly portion of the property adjacent to Parks RFr A and would
not be conducive to active recreation pursuits. No areas devoted to
Neighborhood Squares are proposed.
Based on information provided by the Dublin Parks and Community Services
Department (conversation with D. Lowart, 11 / 1 /04), the applicant for this
Project has agreed to provide an additional 1.8 net acres of Neighborhood Park
within the Dublin Ranch development east of the proposed Project, which would
be over and above the park requirement for that development. The City of
Dublin has agreed to credit this overage to the proposed Dublin Ranch West
Project.
Supplemental Impact PARK-l. Inconsistency with the City of Dublin General
Plan, Eastern. Dublin Specific Plan, and Park and Recreation Master Plan
("Plans') regarding provision of park acreage.
With regard to rroposed parks identified in the Plans, there would be a deficit of
1.04 net acres 0 Neighborhood Parks in the Project area. This is based on a net
requirement of 10.5 acres for Neighborhood Parks, subtracting the proposed
7.66-acre Neighborhood Park proposed for the Project and further subtracting
the 1.8 acres of parkland provided elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. Thus, there
would be a deficit of 1.04 acres of land designated for Neighborhood Park on the
Project site resulting in insufficient total potential parkland under the Plans.
In this instance, inconsistencies with the Plans regarding provision of
neighborhood park facilities would result in a supplemental potentially
significant impact, since the total amount of parkland shown in the Project area
would not be consistent with these regulatory documents. There would be a
shortfall of 1.04 acres (net) of land designated for Neighborhood Park and
Neighborhood Square on the Project site from the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following measure is proposed to mitigate this impact to a less-than-
significant level:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure PARK-I. Prior to tentative map or Stage
2 Development Plan approval, whichever occurs first, the Project developer
shall either:
a) Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
provide an additional 1.04 net acres of Neighborhood Parks land use
designation; or
b) Provide 1.9 net acres of Neighborhood Park land use designation in
dose proximity to the Project site.
Provision of Trails. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project (see
Exhibit 11) would provide for approximately 10 acres of permanent open space
along the Tassajara Creek stream course and elsewhere in the Project area
greater than called for in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Over eighty-one (81)
acres of open space would be provided rather than 70 acres as shown in the
existing Specific Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan would also
provide for a local (subregional) trail adjacent to Tassajara Creek. This would be
in addition to the planned EBRPD regional trail. The location and design of the
local recreational trail would be determined as part of Stage 2 Development Plan
reviews and necessary approvals from all appropriate biological regulatory
agencies would be obtained prior to commencement of trail construction. This
would include but would not be limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with mitigation measures dealing
with the regional trails system and open space connections identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and no supplemental impacts have been identified. The
proposed trail location would also be consistent with the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the recently updated City of Dublin Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream restoration
Program and the East Bay Park District 1997 Master Plan.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 136
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 137
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 Altematives to the Proposed Project
The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and
comparative analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project which have
the potential of achieving most of the project objectives, but would avoid or
substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project.
The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through
comparison of these alternatives to the preferred project, the advantages of each
can be weighed and considered by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA
Guidelines require a range of alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and
require the EIR to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice.
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment
encompassing approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Plan for 3,328
acres within the General Plan Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan (GP A/SP) proposed a variety of types and densities of housing,
as well as employment-generating commercial, campus office and other land
uses. Other portions of the planning area were designated 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
Eastern Dublin 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 Eastern Dublin Project. The
four identified alternatives included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area,
Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development. These are described below;
No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential
development of the GP AI SP area under the then-applicable Dublin General Plan
for the unincorporated portion of the planning area under the Alameda County
General Plan.
Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative
evaluated development of the Specific Plan 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 properties from the project.
Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities
Alternative evaluated potential development of the entire GP A/ SP area, but
reduced some higher traffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased
residential dwellings.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development
would occur in the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar
land uses then in place.
The Dublin Oty Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under
Resolution No. 51-93. The Oty Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use
Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a
modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative rather than the GP A/SP
project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This alternative was approved based
on Oty Council 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 originally proposed Eastern Dublin
Project. Even under this alternative project, however, significant unavoidable
impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the GP A/ SP, the Oty
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-
93).
Alternatives selected for analysis in this supplemental document include:
· Alternative 1: "No Project" (required by CEQA to be considered).
· Alternative 2: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West
under existing Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use
designations
· Alternative 3: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West
with Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Public/Semi-Public (P-SP) land
uses
Alternatives are described and evaluated below.
5.2 No Project
CEQA requires an analysis of a "no Project" alternative. Under this alternative, it
is assumed that all of the properties would remain in the unincorporated portion
of Alameda County and no development would occur on any of the parcels
comprising the Project area. Dwellings and other structures would remain as
they currently exist. However, the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area would be
implemented, since this open space area is a required mitigation for loss of
wetlands and habitat elsewhere in Eastern Dublin.
This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, including:
· Aesthetics and Light and Glare: There would be no aesthetic change to the
Project area. Open spaces views and vistas would remain as they
pres~tly exist. Existing levels of light and glare, although minimal, would
remam.
· Air Quality: Existing source of air emissions would remain. There would
be no short-term air quality impacts associated with construction of new
buildings and other public and private improvements envisioned in the
Dublin RanCh West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page '38
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 139
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Master Plan. The Project's contribution to long-term, cumulative air
quality emissions would not change, since no new auto traffic would be
attracted to the site.
· Biological Resources: There would be less-than-significant impacts to
existing onsite biological resources, since only limited additional
development would occur within the Project area that would be allowed
under the East County Area Plan (ECAP) and Alameda County zoning
standards.
· Cultural Resources: There would be no impacts to cultural resources since
construction and disruption of the soil would not occur.
· Geology and Soils: Limited or no excavation, grading or related impacts
would occur so that significant erosion impacts would not occur. Existing
building improvements would be exposed to the potential for seismic
hazards.
· Water and Hydrology: Existing hydrologic and drainage patterns would
remain unchanged.
· Land Use: Land use within the Project area would remain as presently
constituted, including existing buildings, agricultural and other uses.
Future development within the Project area would be governed by
Alameda County standards, which would be limited to large lot
residential and agricultural.
· Noise: Existing noise generators on and near the Project area would
remain as currently constituted.
· Population and Housing: There would be limited increases in on-site
population over current area population as allowed under the Alameda
County Area Plan and zoning designations.
· Transportation, parking and drculation: Existing traffic generation and use of
nearby streets would continue as currently found. Widening of Tassajara
Road along the Dublin Ranch West Project frontage would be funded by
other projects.
· Utilities and Community Services: No new or increased demand would be
created for utilities and community services, since the existing level of
development would remain.
· Recreation: There would be very limited increased use or demand for local
or regional recreational facilities since the population of the site would not
significantly increase.
The No Project alternative would not meet Project objectives of annexing
presently unincorporated properties into the City of Dublin and Dublin San
Ramon Services area, nor the objective of constructing up to 1,034 dwelling units
on the Dublin Ranch West site within the Project area.
5.3 Alternative 2: Reorganization and Development Under Existing General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The second alternative assumes that all of the properties would annex to the City
of Dublin and DSRSD. Development on the Dublin Ranch West property would
occur as envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would include 817
residential units (a mix of Low Density, Medium Density and Medium High
Density dwellings types), 10,454 square feet of Neighborhood Commerdal floor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
space, two Neighborhood Parks (11.8 acres), a Neighborhood Square (2.8 acres)
and 70 acres of Open Space. No development is anticipated for the Bragg or
Sperfslage properties.
Anticipated impacts of Alternative 2 would be:
· Aesthetics: Anticipated aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of
Alternative 2 would be the same as included in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
With adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, all aesthetic impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced to a
level of insignificance.
· Air Quality: Alternative 2 would generate the same air quality impacts as
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although dust emissions during
construction phases of the Project and mobile sources of CO could be
mitigated to an insignificant level, impacts related to vehicle emissions
from construction equipment, mobile sources of ROG and NOX and
stationary source emissions could not be mitigated to an insignificant
level.
· Biological Resources: The same general type and level of impacts would be
created as the proposed Project since approximately the same area of
development would occur within the Project area. Impacts to upland
species and habitat areas would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
through adherence to mitigation measures set forth in Section 3.7 of the
EDSP EIR and supplemental mitigations that would need to be developed
to apply to the California Tiger Salamander, Congdon's Tarplant and
other species and their habitats that have been state or federally listed
since certification of the Eastern Dublin ElR. Although portions of
T assajara Creek could be impacted to accommodate Specific Plan land
uses, adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin
EIR would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance.
· Land Use: Land use impacts in the Project area and surrounding areas
would be the same as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Significant and
unavoidable land use impacts regarding the cumulative loss of agriculture
and open space lands were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and would
apply to this Alternative.
· Population and Housing: The same amount on-site population and non-
residential (commercial) space would be created under Alternative 2 as
identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. All population and
housing impacts associated with the adoption of the General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan could be reduced to an insignificant level.
· Transportation and Circulation: Proposed development of Dublin Ranch
West under Alternative 2 would be the same as analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. Significant and unavoidable traffic and transportation impacts
would remain under with regard to the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways, 1-580
freeway interchanges at Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Airway
Boulevard, cumulative freeway traffic, Santa Rita Road/I-58D eastbound
intersection ramps, and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road. All other
traffic and transportation impacts could be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 140
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 141
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,.
I
I
· Utilities and Community Services: These impacts were examined in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, with the exception of demand for utility extensions
and consumption of non-renewal natural resources, all utility and
community service impacts could be reduced to a level of insignificance
with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin
ElK
· Recreation: The same type and level of intensity related to park and
recreation impacts would occur under Alternative 2 as discussed in the
Eastern Dublin ElK All recreation impacts could be reduced to a level of
insignificance with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
This alternative would not meet the Project objectives to increase residential
development potential on the Project site and to protect Tassajara Creek by
removing nearby urban-type land uses. This alternative would also retain the
current 9.7-avre planned Elementary School site that the Dublin Unified School
District has determined is no longer needed.
5.4 Alternative 3: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West
with Revised Neighborhood Park Location
Alternative 3 assumes that all of the properties would annex to the City of
Dublin and DSRSD. Development on the Dublin Ranch West property
would include the same uses as the proposed Project, including 1,034
dwellings at varying densities, but would also include relocation of an
approximate 7.76-acre (net) neighborhood park on the southerly portion
of the Project site. The CUITent 8.7 acre (gross) park site would be
designated for residential uses; but as noted above, the designation
"swap" would not increase the number of proposed units. Preliminarily,
the park would be located on either side of Tassajara Creek and could
include softball or soccer fields, a tennis complex, volleyball facilities,
picnic areas and potential off-street parking. This alternative would also
include a 1.2-acre site for a future Public/Semi-Public facility, which is not
specified. The proposed general plan amendment, spedfic plan
amendment and Stage 1 Planned Development prezoning requests would
need to be modified to accommodate Alternative 3.
Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include:
· Aesthetics: Anticipated aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of
Alternative 3 would be the same as the Project, since approximately the
same amount of development would occur. The proposed relocated
neighborhood park would need to be reviewed for consistency with the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. With
adherence to mitigation measures as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and Specific Plan Community Design standards, all aesthetic impacts
would be less-than-significant.
· Air Quality: Alternative 3 would generate the same air quality impacts as
the proposed Project. Although dust emissions during construction phases
of the Project and mobile sources of CO could be mitigated to an
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
insignificant level, impacts related to vehicle emissions from construction
equipment, mobile sources of ROG and NOX and stationary source
emissions could likely still not be mitigated to an insignificant level.
Ozone emissions and the Project's contribution to regional, cumulative air
quality would also be significant and unavoidable impacts.
· Biological Resources: Since the same area of land would be disturbed for
development in Alternative 3 as the proposed Project, impacts to
biological resources would be approximately the same. The design of the
proposed relocated neighborhood park would need to be reviewed to
ensure that storrnwater runoff and use of landscape care products are
limited to minimize runoff and related water quality impacts to Tassajara
Creek.
· Land Use: Land use impacts in the Project area and surrounding areas
would be approximately the same as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
since current land use designations include neighborhood park use. The
proposed park adjacent to Tassajara Creek would likely be more
consistent with the proposed Open Space designation that would be
applied to the Creek corridor than the Project's proposed residential uses.
Additional amendments would be needed to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate the relocated park under this
alternative.
· Papulation and Housing: Population and Housing impacts under Alternative
3 would be the same as the proposed Project, since the dwelling unit count
would be the same.
· Transportation and Circulation: Minimal if any additional traffic would be
expected under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project, since the number
of dwelling units would not change from the proposed Project. Minor but
less-than-significant increases could be expected for the proposed 1.2-acre
Public/Semi-Public use on the site under this Alternative. The Project's
traffic contribution to local freeways would continue to be significant and
unavoidable.
· Utilities and Community Services: Implementation of Alternative 3 would
result in approximately the same impacts as under the proposed Project
since generally the same land use pattern would be implemented.
Demand for utility extensions and consumption of non-renewal natural
resources would likely still be a significant and unavoidable impact as
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
· Recreation: A somewhat lesser impact to local and regional recreational
resources would occur under Alternative as the proposed Project since a
larger park would be provided (7.66-net acres under Alternative 3 versus
6.8 net acres in the proposed Project). The amount of local park deficit
would be reduced from 1.9 acres in the proposed Project to 1.04 net acres
under Alternative 3. The relocated neighborhood park would also provide
for enhanced recreation opportunities near Tassajara Creek and the multi-
use trail. The amount of parkland proposed in this Alternative would still
not comply with the acreage of Neighborhood Park and Neighborhood
Square facilities anticipated for the Dublin Ranch West property in both
the EDSP and City of Dublin Park and Recreation Master Plan and
Supplemental Mitigation P ARK-I would apply to this Alternative.
DUblin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page , 42
November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 143
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This alternative would meet the Project objectives of constructing additional
residential dwelling units within the Project area by using the existing
Elementary School site no longer needed by the school district. This alternative
would provide additional protection and an amenity to Tassajara Creek through
construction of a neighborhood park adjacent to the creek rather than
residences. A greater amount of parkland would also be provided, although a
deficit would still occur. It is generally consistent with the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan intent for urban development on the Project site but
would still require amendments to the General and Specific Plan would be
needed for modified land use types and locations.
5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall
also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives. Alternative 1, the No Project alternative, would result in fewer and
less intensive environmental impacts than either the proposed Project or
Alternatives 2 or 3, and would therefore be the Environmentally Superior
Alternative. As between the remaining alternative, Alternative 2 would result in
slightly less traffic impacts but would not provide protection for Tassajara Creek
by modifying existing land use designations within and adjacent to the creek.
Alternative 3, which would contain an approximate 7.7-acre neighborhood park
on either side of Tassajara Creek, would provide greater protection for Tassajara
Creek and enhance aesthetic qualities adjacent to the Creek. This Alternative
would require modifications to the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments
to implement. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be the next most Environmentally
Superior Alternative.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential cumulative impacts of
implementing the proposed Project, as required by CEQA.
6.1 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2) as
those which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with
similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed
development projects and planned but not built projects, have the
potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that
cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the
discussion describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated
likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion of
cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as that
provided for the Project alone.
A number of cumulative impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. Those related to this Project include:
· 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
freeway 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 303/D)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard and
between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Boulevard (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 (renamed to Central
Boulevard) (Impact 3.3/N)
· Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste
facilities (Impact 3.4 0 and P)
· Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/E)
· Increase in demand for water (Impact 3.5/ Q)
· Direct habitat loss (Imapct3.7/ A)
· Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3/7/ C)
· Construction equipment/vehicle emissions (Impact 3.11/B)
· Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of
nitrogen (Impact 3.11/e)
· Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11/E)
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 144
November 2004
The Project would create one more severe cumulative significant impact
beyond that identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is Supplemental
Impact AQ-3, exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
thresholds of significance for ozone precursors.
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable EnvironmentallInpacts
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a
proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the
Project. If the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable
impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead
Agency. To approve the Project without significantly reducing or eliminating an
adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration
supported by the information in the record.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Project, the Oty Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) Any approval of the current
Project would likewise require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the significant unavoidable supplemental impacts identified in this DSElR, i.e.,
Supplemental Impacts AQ-3 (regional ozone air quality emission), AQ-3 (cumulatively
considerable regional air emissions) and TRA-2 (p.m. peak hour impacts to the
Dougherty Rd/Dublin Blvd. and the Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd. intersections under
Buildout conditions). Pursuant to the recent Citizens for a Better Environment case, the
Statement of Overriding Considerations would also be required to address the
significant unavoidable impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR that are related to the
Proj ect.
Significant and unavoidable impacts identified in this Supplement are all cumulative
impacts. These impacts were also previously identified as cumulatively significant and
unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page '45
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.2 References
The following documents. in addition to those included in the Appendix,
were used in the preparation of this DEIR.
Amphibians and R~tile S..pecies of Special Concern in California. California
Department of Fish and Game. Jennings, Mark R. and M. P. Hayes, 1994
California's Wildlife. Volume I-ill: Amphibians and Reptiles. Birds. Mammals.
California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California
Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. Zeiner, D. C, W. F. Laudenslayer,
Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, 1990
Biological Resources R~orts. Casamira Valley. Dublin. California. Wetlands
Research Associates, 2003
a1;y of Dublin Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
1993, Wallace Roberts and Todd, as amended
at' of Dublin Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
EIR 1993, Wallace Roberts and Todd, including supplements
a1;y of Dublin Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
2002
Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
California Native Plant Society, 2004
Distribution of the San Toaqµin Kit Fox in the North part of its range. H. T.
Harvey & Associates, Inc., 1997
Dublin Ranch West. California Ti~er Salamander survey and salva&"e
~ort. Winter 2003-2004. Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Un c/o Martin
Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc., 2004
Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek Conservation Area Habitat Management Plan.
Prepared for Martin W. Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc., March 2003
Dublin Ranch West Rare Plant Surveys Report (Summer 2002-Summer 2003),
Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Un c/o Martin Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates,
Inc., 2003
Dublin Ranch West Biological Resources R~ort, Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Un
c/o Martin Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc., 2002
Dublin Ranch San Toaquin Kit Fox Survey (Revised). H.T. Harvey & Associates,
Inc., 1997
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
Page 147
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
8.0 Appendices
Page '49
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 8.1
Initial Study
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 150
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Initial Study
Project
Wallis Ranch ReorgalÙzation and Development
P A 02-028
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
February 2003
.~
Table of Contents
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction................................ .......:....................................................... .......................2
Applicant/Contact Person ................................... .... .................................................... .....2
Project Location and Context............................ ..................... ......... ...-.............................2
Project Background and Description ...............................................................................3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.................................................................. 14
Earlier Analyses ..................... .......... ...................................... ........_......... ....... .....25
Attachment to Initial Study ............................................................................._....26
1. Aesthetics ....................................... ......................... ............ .....................27
2. Agricultural Resources.... .........................................................................29
3. Air Quality ...............................................................................................30
4. Biological Resources.. ..............................................................................31
5. Cultural Resources ..... ................ .... .................................... .................. ....32
6. . Geology and Soils...............................................................................;....34
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.........._.._...............................................37
8. Hydrology and Water Quality..........-................................................._.....39
9. Land Use and Planning ...........................................,................................43
10. Mineral Resources............................................... ......................... ............43
II. Noise ................ ............................ ....................... .......... ....................... ....44
12.. Population and Housing...........................................................................45
13. Public Services. ........... .............................. ................... ............................46
14. Recreation ..................................................... ...........................................48
15. T ransportationfTraffic ...................... ..-. ....................... ..............................49
16. Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................51
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance........................................................53
Initial Study Preparer .......................................................................................................54
References ..................................................... ..... ..................................'............ ...............54
Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Docuroent........................................54 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of
implementing the proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief e)(p1anation of the
environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is generally based
on the land use designations, circulation patterns etc. assigned to the project by the City of
Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR
certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Sate Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR,also known in this EIR as the "Eastern Dublin
EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic
and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils,
Geology and Seism city, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Culmral Resources, Noise, Air
Quality and Fiscal Considerations.
Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to the
proposed project and, the¡:efore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are included in
this Initial Smdy by ¡:efe¡:ence, However, as indicated in the environmental checklist, conditions
related to agricult1lral resources, biological resources, noise, public services (schools),
Transportation and Circulation and Utilities and Service Systems may have changed since the
Eastern Dublin EIR was certified.
Applicant/Contact Person
Martin Inderbitzen
7077 Koll Center, Suite 120
Pleasanton CA 94566
Project Location and. Context
The project area consists of 187.7 acres of land located in an unincotporated area of Alameda
County generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north, Camp Parks Reserves
Forces Training Area to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the existing Dublin City limit
line to the south. EJÙ1ibit 1 shows the ¡:egional location of Dublin. E)(hibit 2 shows the project
area in relation to tbe remainder of tbe City of Dublin; EJdlibit 3 shows the proposed
reorganization (anne)(ation) area and current property ownerships. E)(hibit 4 shows the proposed
Sage 1 PD-Planned Development proposal for the Wallis Ranch property witbin the proposed
reorganization area. The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan
Planning Area and Sphere of Influence and consists of three different parcels each with a
different owner.
Page 2
February 2003
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWal1i$ Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
The topography of the site .anges fi-om relatively steep, rolling hills in the north and westerly
portions of the project area to a relatively flat elevation In the approximate center of the project
area transitioning to Tassajara Creek and adjoining areas that generally forms the easterly
boundary of the project area. Tassajara Creek and its immediate environs are wooded with oaks
and other native vegetation.
The largest property comprising the project area, the Lin parcel, is currently used for cattle
grazing with It rural residence, storage yard and associated outbuildings scattered throughout the
site. One of the two remaining properties (Bragg) is undeveloped and one single family residence
has been constructed on the Sperfslage parcel.
In 1994 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan, whic:b
addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central portion
of Dublin. The entire project site Is located in the westerly portion of that General Plan
Amendment area.. The proposed project would implement land uses and other programs included
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At build-out, this portion of the project's approximately 188
acres has been planned for a mixture of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,
Medium High Density Residential, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood
Commercial, and Open Space in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Project Background'and Description
All of the subject property is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County. The
proposed project consists of: an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific
Plan, a Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin requesting a pre-zouing of
the site in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as would
be amended by this application; annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); and execution of a Pre-Annexatîon.Agreement
between the City of Dublin and the project proponents/property-owners.
General PlanlSpecific PÚ1n Amendment
An Amendment has been proposed to the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan for the Un property, also known as Dublin Ranch West. Although the basic
structure of land uses as currently shown on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would remain as
presently planned, the following three major changes have been requested by the applicant:
. Land uses presently shown adjacent to Tassajara Creek in the project area, which include
a Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square and Neighborhood Commercial area, all
comprising 9.9 acres of land, are proposed to be converted to Open Space. This action
would be consistent with a Biological Opinion recently published by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (July 1, 2002), restricting use of Tassajara Creek as open space
for approximately 53 acres of land along a 5,200 linear foot reach of Tassajara Creek
commencing from the confluence of Tassajara Creek and the "Northern Drainage."
. Allowing the potential conversion of a presently planned Elementary School site
presently shown on the Specific Plan to Medium-High Density residential uses. This
portion of the requested Amendment wí1l be based on a determination that the planned
elementary school site is no longer needed by the Dublin Unified School District for
education purposes and that adequate school sites can be provided elsewhere in the
Eastern Dublin area.
City of Dublin
Initial StudyNllallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 3
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Other minor changes to land use patterns within the Lin Property based on newer and
more refmed topographic condiJions of the site.
Overall, there would be a potential increase of up to 277 dwelling units, a decrease of 10,454
square feet of neighborhoOd commercial, deletion of an elementary school site and an increase of
9.9 acres of open space at full buildout of proposed land uses on the Lin property compared with
the existing Specific Plan land use designation. Exhibit 3 shows proposed land uses under the
requested Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment and Stage 1 PD-Planned Development
rezoning for the Wallis Ranch.
No changes to existing General Plan or Specific Plan land use designations are proposed for the
Bragg or Sperfslageproperties included in the project area. Proposed land uses for these
properties are shown on Table 1, below. .
Table 1. Planned Land Uses-Bi-agg and Sperfslage Properties
Ac
Develo ment Potential
1.0
20 units
0.6
7,841 s . ft.
1.0
2.2
10 units
Table 2 below, compares existing and proposed General Plan and Specific Plan designations on
the Lin property. .
Table 2. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations-Wallis Ranch
Land Use Desil!ll8tions ProDosed Desimations Existin2 DeSÚ!Dations
Gross Ac. Units/Sot. Gross. Ac. Units/s.C.
Low Density Residential 19.3 77 20.0 80
Medium Density Residential . 57.9 ·579 64.1 641
Medium High Density 21.9 438 4.8 96
. Residential
Neighborhood Park 5.0 n.a. 11.8 n.a.
Neighborhood Sauare 0.0 n.a 2.8 n.a.
Open Space 80.0 n.a. 70.1 n.a.
Elementarv School 0.0 n.a. 9.7 n.a.
Neighborhood Commercial 0.0 . . 0.0 0.8 10,454
Subtotal 184.1 1,094 du 817 du
10.454 Sot.
._Source: MacKay and Somps, applicant planner and engineer
. Stage 1 Planned Development (Prezoning)
The applicant for the Un Property (Wa11is Ranch) has requested approval of prezoning.
Prezoning is an action to indicate what city zoning will take effect once the annexed property
becomes part of the city. The City of Dublin uses a Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) under
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Wallis Ranch Annexation February 2003
PA 02-028
/
Chapter 8.32 of its zoning ordinance to prezone property in accordance with the City's General
Plan and, in this case, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations. Under the City's
zoning ordinance a Stage 1 development plan must establish: a plan of proposed land use by type
and density of use; the maximum number of dwelling units and commercial/office/industrial
areas; a master landscape plan; and a prelinùnary development phasing plan. Project proponents
will also apply for a Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan approval. City
approval of a Stage 2 development plan must be received to complete the PD zoning process.
Historic feature
Potential historic resources exist on the project site. According to the applicant, the property
owner has taken steps to minimize damage to a school building and has offered to donate the
structure to an appropriate historical group for purposes of preservation and public access. It is
anticipated that, prior to development of this portion of the project site, the school building will
be moved to another site and refurbished. The applicant has performed historic resource surveys
which will be used to assess the potential impact with the follow-on environmental analysis.
Infrastructure
As part of the proposed development portion of the project, project developers would construct
all major roadways and public infrastructure such as water, wastewater, recycled water, and
storm drainage facilities required to support future development. Major roadways would be
constructed to and through the project area with project proponents potentially utilizing
assessment districts, the City's Traffic Impact Fee program" or other appropriate financing
mechanisms to help fund construction.
Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads
and utilities, although the amount of grading will not be established until the Stage 2 Planned
Development when detailed site and grading plans are developed. Water, sewer and recycled
water services would be provided to the area by DSRSD, once the proposed reorganization
(annexation) is complete, in accordance with plans formulated by DSRSD and the City's General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project developers would continue the extension of
these services throughout the project area as it is developed.
Water distribution main¡¡ are planned to be located in all major streets. Construction of water
storage reservoirs are not anticipated to be part of this project, although a water storage tank is
proposed to be constructed near the project area. Sewer service for the project would be provided
through connection to the DSRSD sewer system. When and where available, DSRSD would
provide recycled water for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water. All water and
sewer facilities would be constructed to DSRSD standards.
The storm drainage system for proposed development on the Wallis Ranch would fiow into
Tassajara Creek, located in the westerly portion of the project area and then fiow south into the
Arroyo Macho for ultimate discharge into San Francisco Bay. Future development of the Wallis
Ranch will require additional hydrology and drainage studies as mandated by the eastern Dublin
Specific Plan.
The City of Dublin's inelusionary zoning ordinance requires that 12.5% of a project's dwelling
units must be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Compliance could
consist of constructing the required number of inelusionary units or paying an in-lieu fee to the
City, or a combination of both. The project proponents will be required to comply with the
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 5
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ordinance, although the specific method generally would not be determined until the Stage 2 PD-
Planned Development rezoning and related subdivision maps are reviewed.
The project applicants indicate that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a number
of years to ensure that roads and other infrastrUcture facilities would be available to suppon land
uses as they are needed.
Proposed Reorganization (annexation)
Theproject site is contiguous with the City of Dublin to the west, lies within Dublin's Sphere of
Influence and within the Sphere of Int1uence of the Dublin San RanlOn Services District
(DSRSD). The City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan conÌffi\1Plated the
eventual annexation and development of the project site in accordance with the land use
designations, programs and policies of each Plan.
Exhibit 4 shows the boundary of the proposed reorganization.
Similarly, the project area is within the expected service area of DSRSD and all of DSRSD' s
master plans for the provision and distribution of water, wastewater seIVice, and recycled water
include the annexation of, and service to, the project area. Because the water, wastewater, and
recycled water services are provided to the City of Dublin by DSRSD, the City and DSRSD have
concurred in policy that their boundaries and Spheres of Int1uence will be coterminous (except
for that portion of DSRSD's seIVice area which extends to portions of Contra Costa County).
Hence, annexation of the area to the City also requires annexation of the area to DSRSD to
provide needed urban services as assumed in the City's long tenn plans for the area.
Pre-annexation AgreemenrlDevelopmenr Agreements
The City requires that the project proponents and property owners enter into pre-annexation and
development agreements with the City. Pre-annexation agreements encourage project proponents
and the City to meet certain mutual obligations while the area proposed for annexation is
proceeding through entitlement processes and ensure that the proposed project will not be a
financial burdeh to the City. Development agreements vest development approvals for a
specified period of time so that developers of large, time extensive projects have the ability to
construct such projects in a time frame and under mutual obligations beneficial to the City and
the project proponent. Issues typically addressed in development agreements include, but are not
limited to: density and intensity of land use; timing of development; financing methods and
timing of infrastructure; determination of traffic, noise, public facility and other impact fees; and
obligations for construction of streets and roads. Development agreementS would be part of a
later City action generally occurring with City approval of a Stage 2 Planned Development, Site
Development Review and tentative subdivision map(s).
City Of Dublin
Initial Study/Wallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 6
February 2003
§
~
,;
i
f
~~
o
.
-<
ð
~
Sun~~
Santa Ciaæ
San
Jose
17
Exhibit 1-Regional Context
Wallis Ranch ReorganizationlDevelopment Plan
City of Dublin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Uverrnol"e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
.-'
.-'
.-'
.-'
.-'
.-'
.-'
.-'
--
~
~
i
8
Q
DUBLIN
co~--·
cos~~
~~'-''-''''('J)
.'-
.-
.-'
, .
. .
,....
--
.-'
.--
.-'
.--
.-'
.--
.-'
.--
..-'
~
DUBLIN :S
~
'"
<I>
GlEAsOJv .'¡:¡
1)
'"
BOULEVARD
~~.
Þ-.~
~
~~
..;'
z
~
...
1-580
PLEASANTON
¡~
s
Exhibit 2-Site Location
Wallis Ranch ReorganizationlDevelopinentPlan
City of Dublin
,-- - ..;\~'"'-............
I
MOURA cØ1JÞ.~~' I
'ONITtD STAT£~ I
of A).!ER1ÇA UN
MOu.ER
I
I
MISSION
pEAK I
UN HOIoŒS
I
BRAGG I
I
sn....1ERIA I
I
J41ELStN I
I
i qUAR~"'l LJ.Nt
SCllOOL I
\
\ KO'aOI»
\ I
\
\ KO:E!OLD
\
\ I
\
\.
-.
SPERFSLAGE \ I
\
\
,
,
ç)'Gl ~ I
Exhibit3-Proposed Reorganization Boundary r 1'1'/'_ -
Wallis Ranch ReorganizationlDevelopment Plan mACKAY& SOIllPS I
City of Dublin
ÇI'II.~~__1RIM'fK
_u. '151_~"_
......õIQðJ.- "'1,Iw;H..............~~,o:...._
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FISF
FI'IF
WrrI'D STATES
OF ,w:øIC-Þ.
f<AA
"0"-'""
sn.VEI<IA
f<AA
f<AA
mELS£N
.....
--
...- '"'"
,
I
I
QUAIIRY LANE
scHOOl..
M
SHEA HO"",,¡
. !4SSII PUBLIN
p£VE\.OPWN'r !.LO.
-$
..-.
. I". -
Exhibit 4~Proposed Stage 1 PD PlanlWallis Ranch
Wallis Ranch Reorganizationlpevelopment Plan
City of Dublin
IIIACICAY...
~ v~iIrIfiNCao:.
_1;0 ~_m-
1. Project description
2. Lead agency:
3. Contact person:
4. Project location:
5. Project contact person:
6. General Plan designations:
Application for an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin
General Plan/Specific Plan to modify existing land uses,
Stage 1 PD prezoning, request for reorganization to include
annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD, and request
to enter into a pre-annexation agreement between the City
of Dublin and the Wallis Ranch property owner.
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin. CA 94583
Michael A. Porto, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833-6610
West of Tassajara Road, south of the Alameda-Contra
Costa line and east of Camp Park¡¡ RFf A
Martin Inderbitzen
Low Density Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Medium
Density Residential (6.1-14.0 duJac), Medium High
Density Residential (14.1-25.0 duJac), Neighborhood
Conunercial (.25-.60 FAR), Elementary School, Neighbor-
hood Park, Neighborhood Square, Open Space
PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density
Residential, PD-Mediurn High Density Residential, PD-
Neighborhood Conunercial, PD-Neighborhood Park ,and
PD-Open Space.
8. Other public agency required approvals:
7. Proposed Pre-zoning:
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWaJlis Ranch Annexation
F'A 02-028
· Reorganization to include annexation to City of
Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District
(Alameda County Local Agency Formation
Conunission)
· General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
Amendment for Wallis ranch(City of Dublin)
· Prezoning (City of Dublin)
· Pre-Annexation Agreement (City of Dublin)
· Vesting tentative and final subdivision maps for
Wallis Ranch (City of Dublin)
· Site Development Review for Wallis Ranch (City of
Dublin)
· Grading and building permits, Wallis Ranch (City
of Dublin)
· Sewer and water connections, Wallis Ranch
(DSRSD)
· Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
Potential permits and approvals;
- Notice of Intent (Water Resources Control Board)
Page 11
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA02-028
- 404 Permit (US Army Corps of Engineers)
_ Streambed A!teration Agreement (CDFG)
_ Permits from San Francisco Bay Region
Water Quality Control Board
_ Permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Page , 2
February 2003
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics X Agricultural X Air Quality
Resources
X Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
- Hazards and - Hydro10gyIW ater X Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous Materials Quality
- Mineral Resources - Noise X PopulationIHousing
X Public Services X Recreation X Transportation!
Circulation
X Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings
Systems of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and
the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately
addresses potential impacts and mitigates impacts to a less-than-significant level.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attac:hed sheet have been added to the project A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
----..x... I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier
analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigatec;i." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must
only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
- I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature: ~ -
Printed Name: (ï e-c-,' G..a.........
Date: '2./J?,/~
f
For: (.L.......I 1) -\;-\..:..
\ )
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02,028
Page'3
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault ruprore zone). A "no impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site,
cwnulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant hnpact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when
the deten:nínation is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less -
than significant level.
City 01 Dublin
Initial studylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 14
February 2003
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source; 1,2,4)
b) Substantially damage scenic resoutces,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outc:roppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 1,2,4)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
. character or quality of the site and its
surroundUngs?(Source:2,4)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Source; 4)
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the projecr:
a) Convert Prime Far:mland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide hnportance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
1,2)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source;
1,2)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
1,2)
m. Air Quality (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district
may be relied on to make the following
. determinations). Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source; 2)
City of DUblin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-{)28
PotentiaJ]y Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
. .
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
Page'5
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-anainrnent under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? (2)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutantconcencrations? (Source: 2)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2,5)
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 2)
b) Have a substantia! adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natura!
community identified in loca! or regiona!
plans, policies or regulations or by the
Ca!ifomia Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
2)
c) Have a substantia! adverse impact on
federa!ly protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water At;t
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct remova!,
filling, hydrological interruption or other
means?
(Source: 2)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (Source: 2)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2)
City of Dublin
Initial studylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Signillcant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti aation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page , 6
February 2003
Potentially Less Than Less !ban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti2ation
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 1,2)
. V. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2)
d) Disturb any human retuains, including those
interred outside of a formal cetuetery?
(Source: 2)
VL Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake f311lt, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault (Source: 2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2)
iv) Landslides? (2)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (25)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- andoff·site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 13-1-B of the UnifonnBuilding Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 2)
City of DUblin
In~ial StudyiWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 17
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 2, 5)
vn. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of haZardous materials
(Source: 2, 5)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 2, 5)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 2, 5)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 5)
e) For a project located within an ajrport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 5)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 2)
Potentially Loss Than Los. than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti~ation
.
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
.
X
City Of Dublin _
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA02-028
Page 18
February 2003
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
.
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ii) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Source: 2)
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interrere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume Ot a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?
(Source: 2)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the aeration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (Source: 2)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source:
2)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storrnwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 2)
1) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? (Source: 2)
g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2)
City of Dublin
InltialStudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 19
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h) Place within a lOG-year flood hazard area
structl1res which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(2)
IX. Land Use and planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1,2,4)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 1, 2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (1, 2, 4)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
(Source: 1, 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1,2)
XI. Noise. Would rhe proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in 'excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source: 2)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (Source: 2)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? (Source:
2)
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
P A 02-028
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I·
. X
X
X
Page 20
February 2003
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicilÙty
above levels without the project? (Sourœ:2)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two IlÙles of a public aiIport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2)
xn. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1,2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (2,4)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 4, 5)
XIII. Public Service$. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service rations, response times or other
perfonnance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: I, 2)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
City of DUblin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 21
February 2003
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections)? (2)
b) Exceed, èither individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (2)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. shaq> curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (2) ,
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (2)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(l)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
hnpact With Impact
Miti"ation
X .
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
XIV. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 2)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2)
City 01 Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 22
February 2003
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (2)
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (2, 5)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stonn water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facílíties, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (5)
d) Have suffjcient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (2)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (2)
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to acconunodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
City of Dublin .
Initial studylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Potentially Less 'than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant lntpact
Impact With Impact
Mitiocation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 23
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-susta,ining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restriCt
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
MitiMtion
X
X
Source
1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised July 7, 1998)
2. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998) .
3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final EIRs, Addenda,
EJ .
4. Site Visit
5. Other Source.
These documents are available for review at:
City of Dublin CommunitY Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
City of Dublin
Inítial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 24
February 2003
XVII. Earlier Analyses
This Initial Study is being prepàred to determine whether an earlier EIR (the EIR prepared for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No.
91103064) may be used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section
15063 (c)(7».
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
avallable for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measUreS for this Initial
Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1992 Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental hnpact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a
Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993.
As part of the certification the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas,
electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measUres which apply to this
Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area. Specific
mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are
referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, several changes in circumstances in which the
Project will take place have occurred and which could effect the impacts and/or mitigations
analysis of the Project. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not limited to: 1)
additions of species to the California and/or Federal Endangered or Threatened Species Lists; 2)
continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond with potential changes in commute
patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise within or on the
project area; 3) changes in California law regarding annexations (i.e., adoption of AB 2838)
which may affect the designation of portions of the project site as prime agricultural soils; and 4)
changes in the provision and distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities
(water, wastewater, storm drainage and gas and electricity).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to Identify
the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of the Project which
were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and which would require additional environmental
review.
City of Dublin
Initial studylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02..{)28
Page 25
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attaclunent to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS: Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the
previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR
NI: No Iropact; or No Additional Iropac:t beyond that which was
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and/or for which a
Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
Page 26
February 2003
City of DUblin
Initial Study/Wallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant except for two residences, scattered agricultural buildings and outside
storage of vehicles and construction equipment. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not classify the
project area as containing visually sensitive resources (Fig. 3.8-H).
The City's General Plan also identifies an elevation "cap" above which certain development is
prohibited and provides guidelines for sensitive development at certain elevations and slopes-.
Tassajara Road, from the I-580 freeway to the Alameda- Contra Costa County line, is designated
as a Scenic Route in the County Scenic Route Element of the General Plan, which has also been
adopted by the City of Dublin by reference in the Dublin General Plan.
Program 6Q of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan says that the "the City of Dublin should
officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, adopt a
set of scenic corridor policies and establish review procedures and standards for projects within
the scenic corridor viewshed." In 1996, the City did adopt the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards document prepared by David Gates & Associates. This document
contains more detailed policies that allow future development as envisioned in the Specific Plan
while maintaining the visual character of natural features within the area. Such implementing
polices are in addition to all other goals and polices contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
Proiect ImDact~ and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista?
LS. Approval and construction of the proposed project would alter the character of existing
scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines if not mitigated.
This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.8/A, 3.8/B, 3.8/C, 3.8/D, 3.8Æ,
3.8/G and 3.8/I)) and with implementation of mitigation measures the identified impacts on
scenic vistas are less-than-signific(1T¡t.
These Mitigation Measures include: 3.8/1.0, 3.812.0, 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0,
3.8n.O and 3.8n.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). These mitigation
measures encourage preservation of the natural landscape, preservation of important visual
resources and features, minimized grading for development; grading and building to preserve
natural contours; prohibition of development along identified ridgelines; and preservation of
views of designated open spaces.
In addition, Policies 6-29 through 6-38 and text discussion within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan provide direction for the type of development which may occur in "visually sensitive"
areas. These policies are directed towards preserving scenic vistas and view corridors and
provide guidelines for grading and building.
crty of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
p A 02-028
Page 27
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including Slate scenic highways?
LS. Development of the project site will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic
routes in eastem Dublin. Interstate 580 and Tassajara Road have been designated as a scenic
corridor by Alameda County.
This potential impact (Impact 3.811) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.818.1 (page 3.8-9) reduce this impactto a
less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures encourage the City to adopt certall roads
as scenic corridors (including TaSsajara Road), and encourage the City to require detailed visual
analyses with development project applications (Le., Stage 2 PD-Planned Development
applications). These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area. Additionally, Policies
6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide guidance for areas of the project
visible from a scenic corridor.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site?
NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.81B-Alteration of
Rural/Open Space Visual Character and hnpact 3.8/F-Alteration of Visual Character of
Flatlands). Development of the project area would alter the existing rural and open space
qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley grasses and agricultural fields. The
Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that no mitigation measures could be identified to either fully or
partially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded this
impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an irreversible change and,
pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this
impact. The proposed project would not substantially change the scale of development
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not change the level of
intensity of impact, therefore. no additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
d) Create light or glare?
LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare due to
new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances the additional lighting could
result as perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto
adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended. to be lighted. The anticipated
light and glare generated by the proposed project would not be unique or sufficiently different
from other development projects within the City or the Eastern Dublin planning area. The City of
Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the amount of "spill-over" lighting and conditions of
approval also are routinely adopted with each project which address potentialligbt and glare
impacts. The City's zoning ordinance, adopted site development review guidelines, and
conditions of approval become part of the project, if approved and the project would have
impacts that are less-than-significant.
Because light and glare created by the proposed project would be typical of development
elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Page 28
February 2003
City of DUblin
Initial Study/Wallis Ranch Annexation
_ PA 02-028
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Historically the project site has been used for grazing, dry-land farming, and other non-intensive
agricultural endeavors. The Eastern Dublin EIR characterizes the majority of the area outside of
the Tassajara Creek corridor as farmland "oflocal importance" (Figure 3.1-B), which is defined
as those farmlands which contribute to the local production of food, feed, fiber; forage and
oilseed crops (p. 3.1-2). The Eastern Dublin EIRconsidered the discontinuation of agricultural
uses as an insignificant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts which
were non-renewed and the limited value of the non-prime soils. And, because some of the
farmlands within the Project area were not considered "prime" their loss was judged to be
insignificant.
None of the soils within the project area were identified as Class I or Class II solls in the eastern
Dublin EIR.
However, since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the evaluation of soils considered as
"prime" for annexation purposes has been modified through adoption of criteria established by
the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section
56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). Soils which previously would not have been
considered as "prime agricultural soils" and land which was not considered significant or
important for.agricu1tural purposes may now be considered as such by the new law.
Project Jmpact~ and Mitigation Measures
a, c) Convert primefarmland to a non-agricultural use or involv~ orher changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use?
PS. Based on the revised Figure 3.6ID contained in the Final EIR for the EDSP, there are no
Class I or Class II Prime Agricultural Soils present on the project site. These soils are located in
the flatter alluvial plain area just north of the 1-580 freeway. However, since adoption of AB
2838, criteria for agricultural suitability related to annexations has changed and the effect of
conversion of the property to non-agricultural, planned urban uses may be a potentially
significant environmental impact. This topic will be evaluated in the Supplemental EIR.
b) Conflicr with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
N1 Although the Lin property was identified as having a Williamson Act Land Conservation
Agreement in place at the time of adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Agreement
has since been non-renewed and none of the properties proposed for reorganization ate
encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Preservation Agreement No impacts will therefore
result.
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02·028
Page 29
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Air Quality
Environmental Settinl!
Dublin is located in the Tri-Val1ey Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airbome pollutants,
including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate roatter (PM-I0) are not roet in at
least a portion of the Basin.
Project Imuacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?
PS. Although the project itself may not contribute any more pollutants than originally
anticipated by the Eastem Dublin EIR; as a result of roore rapid urbanization iü the Tri- Valley
area than originally expected, an increase in traffic through the Tri- Valley from other areas, and
changing commute patterns, the environment in which the project would occur may have
changed enough such that the project could contribute to emissions exceeding Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. This may be a potentially
significant impact.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
PS. For the reasons noted above (Le., changed environroental setting of the project), the project
could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. 'This may be a
potentially significant impact.
c) Would thE project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?
PS. For the reasons noted in a) above (i.e., the changed environmental setting of the project), the
project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be
a potentially significant impact.
d, e) Expose sensitive receprors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors?
NI. Development of the project area with urban uses will create emissions from a variety of
miscellaneous stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as evaporative emissions from paints and
cleaning products, etc. The Eastem Dublin EIR noted that although such emissions would be
extremely small for any individual resident, they could be substantial when summed over the
entire scope of the project (Eastem Dublin EIR, p, 3.11-6). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
this impact as a potentially significant cumulative iJJlpact which could not be mitigated to
achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet the insignificant
threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change the scale of development
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not change the level of
intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
City of DUblin
Initial Study/Wallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 30
February 2003
4. Biological Resources
EnvironmentaJ Settin¡¡:
Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the project area is dominated by dry_
farming rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. however, more recent infonnation
supplied by the owner of the Wallis Ranch indicates that this parcel has not been fanned for at
least five years, although cattle is grazed on at least a portion of the property.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species, seventeen special
status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status invertebrate species
which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin planning area (fables 3.7-1 and
3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21), based upon the U.S. Fish and WIldlife Service and the California Fish and
Game Commission listings at that time. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the
regulatory status of some of these species may have changed.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species (Policies 6-17
and 6-20). Although the proposed project would adhere to the adopted mitigation measures and
Specific Plan policies, changes in regulatory circumstances may create a potentially significant
environmental impact if not re-addressed.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact On riparian habitat or federally protected
wetlands?
PS. Figure 3.7-B of the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies areas within the project area which
potentially contain riparian habitat and springs based upon the location of intermittent streams,
seeps, etc. Utilizing Figure 3.7-B, it is estimated that approximately 8,700 linear feet of potential
riparian habitat could exist within the Project area. Although the EIR identifies mitigation
measures and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains polÍcies to address stream conidorsand
riparian and wetland areas (policies 6-9 through 6-13 and 6-15), regulatory standards for such
riparian habitats may have changed since certification of the EIR. Although the proposed Project
would adhere to the adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, due to a change in
regulatory circumstances, the proposed project could have a porentially significant
environmental impact.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species?
PS. As noted above, the Eastern Dublin EJR identified a number of special status wildlife
species. Although mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and policies within the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 6-18 through 6-20) address potential impacts to the movement of
wildlife species, and this project would be required to adhere to those mitigation measures and
policies, the project may still have a potentially significant impact due to changed regulatory
standards regarding the movement of wildlife.
City of DUblin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 31
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances:
LS. Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (Mitigation Measure
3.8/3.0) will ensure that significant local trees are protected. Less"than-significant impacts are
therefore anticipated.
f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopred Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Commtmity Conservation Plans?
NI. There are no Habitat Conservation Plan areas or Natural Community Conservation Plans
located on the project site. No impacts would therefore result
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural resources-
which may be located within the project area. A field inspection of the entire Eastern Dublin area
was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of them isolated locales) and two
historic sites were identified within the proposed Project area (see pp. 3.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the
Eastern Dublin Em). Maps of these sites were not included in the EIR to protect them from
possible vandalism. The Eastern Dublin Em mandated additional project-level archeological
surveys.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?
LS. Only two historic sites (a school and dairy complex) were identified in the Project area in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. A site-specific Historic Evaluation Report was completed on the dairy
complex by William Self Associates in May 2001. Copies of this report are available at the
Dublin Co=unity Development Department. The report notes that the complex consists of an
older dairy complex consisting of 7 buildings, including 2 barns, 2 work sheds and 2 houses
dating to approximately 1910. The Self report concludes that the building complex does not
appear to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, since the buildings do not
appear be associated with local agricultural history. Similarly, the buildings do not appear to
have maintained their original integrity and do not appear to be distinguished examples of the
historic period in which they were constrocted, In addition, the complex was not owned or
occupied by residents of local or regional significance.
Due to the expected level of development within the Project area, the Eastern Dublin EIR
assumed that all historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner, even those located
in areas designated for Open Space. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the
Eastern Dublin Em Impact 3.9/C) and mitigation measures 3.9n.0 through 3.9/12.0 (page 3.9-8)
will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA02-028
Page 32
February 2003
detailed archival research for each strucmre to assess the structure's significance; encourage
adaptive re-use where feasible; and encourage the City to develop a preservation program for
historic sites which qualify under CEQA guidelines. Additionally, mitigation measures 3.9/5.0
and 3.9/6.0 (page 3_9-7) also would apply to the project. These mitigations require cessation of
all construction activities upon discovery of any previously unidentified historic sites.
Additionally, Policies 6-26 and 6-27 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of any resource prior to alteration and encourage
the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structure_s whenever feasible.
As noted in the Project Description section of this Initial Study, an older one-room schoolhouse
has been located on the northerly portion of the Lin property site. The project developers of this
property have weatherproofed the structure and have offered the building to the City of Dublin.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources?
LS. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including
site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or
paleontological resources on the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre-
historic_cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were identified by the EIR within the
proposed project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be
disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and implementation of mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through
3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 ~ 3.9-7) reduce this impact to a œss-than-significant leveL These mitigation
measures require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of
such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as
"significant" under Appendix K ofCEQA. Mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described
above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-
historic resources and these mitigation measures reduce the potential impact to a less-than-
significant leveL
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contaius policies (policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring
tesearch of archaeological resources prior to construction and detennination of the significance
and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction.
d) Disturb any human resources?
LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be uncovered
on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for discovery of human
resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites. With implementation of the
above-mentioned mitigation measures adopted with certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR
(mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 -12) and adherence to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
relating to cultural resources (policies 6-24. and 6-25), this impact is less-Than-significant.
City 01 Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 33
February 2003
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastem Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Settin!2:
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landforms,
drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types.
Seismic
The project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one. of the most seismically active
regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant
faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San Andreas Fault
(pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6~A and 3.6-B). The likelihood of a major seismic event on one
or more of these faµlts within the near future is believed to be high. However, no active faults are
known to traverse the Project site and the site is not identified as located within an Earthquake
Safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) as determined by the California
Division of Mines and Geology.
A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may be
seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of
Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind- thrust, Mount Diablo
Domain." Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that the risk of ground rupture
from this inferred fault is low within the Project area.
Site Geology and Soils
Site soils, based on a recent site-specific geological study performed by Berlogar Geotechnical
Consultants (July 2002), identified a mix of colluvial and alluvial deposits in the project area,
which have been determined to be highly expansive. Three landslides have also been mapped on
the Lin property. Overall, the Berlogar report notes that the Lin property is suitable for the type
aud intensity of development proposed as part of the Stage 1 PD-Planned Development
application.
Landforms and Topography
The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador
Valley. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 405 feet to 705 feet above sea
level. Much of the property is gently rolling to alInost flat but the extreme northern and
northeastern portions are steeply sloping terrain.
Drainage
Existing drainage patterns on the site includes a series of small, unnamed intermittent streams.
These streams are shown in Figures 3.7~A and-B in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These intermittent
City of DUblin
Initial Study/Wallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-{)28
Page 34
Febr1.lary 2003
streams generally follow a north-to-south direction, consistent with the overall topography of the
Eastern Dublin area. These streams are not delineated drainages and do not tenninate in other
local creeks (Tassajara Creek).
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Expose people or strucmres to potential substamial adverse impact$, including
loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground
failure or landslides?
LR Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking caused by
the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable
in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in
the project area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. However, since the
project area is not located within an Earthquake Fan1t Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the
potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary anc;! secondary effects of ground-shaking
(Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of
mitigation measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking (Impact 3.6/B - damage to
structures and infrastructure, potential loss of life) are reduced to a less-than-significant level by
using modem seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce
the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0 will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects
of ground-shaking (Irnpact3 .6IC ~ seismically induced landslides, differentiai
compaction/settlement, etc.), to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require:
stabilization of unstable landforms where possible or restriction of improvements from unstable
landforms; appropriate grading in hillside areas; utilization of properly engineered retention
structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure to accommodate potential settlement; and
completion of design-level geotechnical investigations (pp. 3.6-8 through 3.6-9).
Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new structures and
infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally recognized seismic safety
standards so that effects due to ground shaking will be less-than-significant.
The majority of the project area contains gently to steeply sloping hillsides. The northern and
northeastern portions have a history of landslides. As part of the development of the area the site
is proposed to be graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads, roads, infrastructure,
parks, schools, parking areas and other development features. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that
development of the project site could result in permanent changes in existing landforms,
particularly if substantial grading occurs. Two existing mitigation measures reduce this impact to
less-than-slgnificant.
Mitigation Measure 3.619.0 states that grading plans which adapt improvements to natural
landforms, use retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate, and
constlUCtion ofroads on ridges reduce impacts to landforms. Mitigation Measure 3.6/10.0 states
that specific project lot and infrastructure alignment should be based on the identification of
City of Dublin
Initial StudyNVallls Ranch Annexation
PA 02·028
Page 35
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
geotechnically feasible building areas, clustering structures, and avoiding adverse conditions by
utilizing lower density development in the hillside areas.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies aimed at reducing impacts related to
landform changes and reducing potential impacts related to landslides. Policies 6-40 through 6-
42 restrict structures on slopes of 10-30% and generally preclude structures on slopes of greater
than 30%.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
The applicant for development of the Un property have commissioned a soils and geotechnical
report to conform with adopted mitigation measures contained in the EastemDublin EIR and
polices set forth in the EDSP.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development of the project site would modify the existing
ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-
term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Impact 3.6/K). Long-
term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing
vegetation (Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp.
3.6-14 - 3.6-15) both of these impacts would be less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures specify and require the preparation and implementation of erosion
control measures to be utilized on a short-term and long-term basis_ In addition to these
measures, the project would be subject to erosion control and water quality control measures
implemented by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan also contains a policy (policy 6-43), whIch requires that new development be designed to
provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of constroction activities.
c, d) Is the site located on soil thar is Imstable or expansive or will result in potential
lateral spreading. liquefaction, landslide or collapse?
LS. Portions of the project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential
which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Impact 3.6/H).
-With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (pp. 3.6-11-12) and by requiring
appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink -swell effects,
potential shrink -swell impacts will be lesscthan-significant.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that impacts of slope instability are considered to be
potentially significant (Impacts 3.611 and 3.6/1), but can be reduced to a less-than-significant
level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6117.0--26.0 (pp. 3.6-12-3.6-14). These
mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical studies
" " minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria;
removal/reconstruction of unstable rnaterials;construction of surface and subsurface drainage
improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless retained; maintaining
minimum 2: 1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated with a geo-grid; utilizing
City of Dublin
Initial StudyiWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 36
February 2003
engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for
grading.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
e) Have soils incapable of supporring on-site septic ranks if sewers are net
available?
NI. All new development within the project area would be connected to a public sanitary sewer
system installed by future project developer(s) and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon
Services District which serves all of the City of Dublin. No new septic systems are proposed
within the project area. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The site is primarily open grasslands and currently contains nine single farnily residences and
some agricultural out-buildings. Historically, the project site has been used for agriculture,
primarily as grazing land and limited dry-farming of crops. Much of the project area currently is
utilized for grazing. Some pesticide and herbicide use may be associated with these agricultural
uses and some petroleum-based products probably have been used to run and maintain fann
equipment. Similar types of petroleum-based products may be in use at a limited trucking and
truck storage use located on om; of the parcels. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has
been performed for the Lin property within the project area and typical levels of herbicides,
pesticides and limited amounts of petroleum-based products have been identified in localized
areas around outbuildings.
Based upon the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed for the Un
property, a Phase IT Environmental Site Assessment may be required to further identify any
potential hazardous materials. Policy 11-1 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior
to the issuance of building permits for sites in the project area, such environmental site
assessments are required. If applicable, remediation measures would be recommended and
required prior to development in accordance with State law.
Proiect lrQpacts and Mitil!'ation Measures
a, b) Create a significant hazard through trall$port of hazardous materials or release or
emission of hazardcus materials?
LS. Proposed uses of the projeCt area would include residential, neighborhood commercial, open
space and parks. Only minor less-than-significant quantities of potentially hazardous materials
such as lawn chemicals, household solvents, etc., would be associated with the majority of the
proposed uses. With the expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for
adhering to a hazardous materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant.
City of Dublin
Initial studylWallis Ranch Annexation
P A 02-028
Page 37
February 2003
I-
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materiais site?
LS. None of the parcels comprising the project area have been listed as a hazardous materials
site. As noted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been completed for the
largest property within the project area, the Lin parcel. Levels of petroleum-based products
typical of agricultural uses have been discovered near existing agricultural outbuildings but these
levels are less"than-significant. Should the project be approved, Phase IT Environmental Site
Assessment will be performed to construction. Remediation measures, if needed, would be
recommended and completed in accordance with State and Federal requirements. This impact is
considered to be less-than-signijlcant.
d) Is the site locaied within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip ?
LS. The project area is located outside of the referral area for Livermore Airport, based on
Figure 3.11D of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is considered a less-than-significaTIt impact.
e) Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles of a private airstrip?
LS. The project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. Although portions of the
project area are subject to noise from helicopters operating at Camp Parks and over surrounding
properties near the camp. Adherence to Mitigation Measures identified in the Noise section of
this Initial Study will reduce impacts to a less-than-signifiCaTIt level.
f) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?
LS. The proposed project would be developed in phases, as is feasible with the extension of
services and utilities to the area. Adequate emergency access to all portions of the project area
under construction would be required to be provided per the City of Dublin's ordinances and
policies. Emergency access requires that structures and occupants of structures can be accessed
by emergency vehicles and personnel and also requires that residents are able to evacuate an area
in case of some form of hazard or threat of hazard. Adequate water service for fIre-fighting and
installation of hydrants or other approved alternative water supply systems would be required per
City policy as the project develops. These measures will ensure that impacts related to
emergency evacuation plans would be less-than-significant.
The Eastern Dublin EIR indicated a mitigation measure (3.4/9.0) to address access, water
pressure, fire safety and prevention to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-signijicant
level. This mitigation measure requires that certain design standards are incorporated into
Project approvals such as: available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire
hydrants on public mains; installation of a buffer zone along the backs of homes contiguous with
wildland open space areas; and compliance with minimum road widths, maximum street slopes,
parking requirements, and secondary access road requirements. Policy 8-6 of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan also requires provision of emergency vehicle access from subdivisions to open
space areas among other fire prevention methods to address concerns with emergency access and
evacuation.
g) Expose people and structures to a signijicant risk of loss, injury or death
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 38
February 2003
Specific Plan also contains policies and programs (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T
through 9X, pp. 133-134) which reduce these impact to a less-thall-significant level.
Please refer to item "a" above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
With implementation of other mitigation measures enacted to reduce erosion due to grading
activities (Mitigation Measures 3.6127.0 and 28.0), these impacts would be less-than-significant.
Please refer to the previous section entitled Geology and Soils for a discussion of these
mitigation measures.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern DublinEIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the
project site?
LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of new housing units, other land uses and
infrastructure elements envisioned in the proposed project would change drainage patterns within
the project area. This impact was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (hnpact 3.5Y) and with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 3.5/48.0 it is less-than-significant. These
mitigation measures require drainage facilities to minimize flooding; channel improvements
consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible; a
Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development approval; facilities to alleviate
potential downstream flooding due to project development; and the construction of backbone
storm drainage facilities.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed tlu! capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amc/mts of polluted runciff?
LS. Approval of the proposed reorganization and development of the project area and post-
construction activities unrelated to project construction could lead to greater quantities of
stormwater runoff and could include pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With implementation of
mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-49.0 and 3.5/51.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-
than-significant. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (policies 9-7 through 9-9 and
Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these irnpacts
would be less-than-significant.
Please refer to item "a" above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 41
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
LS. Construction activities related to development of the project area and post-construction
activities could degrade water quality through improper construction practices and poor control
of storm wat",r runoff resulting in additional sedimentation and potential pollutants in on-site 0,
down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin Em (Impacts 3.5fY
and 3.5/AA). With mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-49.0 and 51.0 adopted in the Eastern Dublin
Em this impact is less-than-significant. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7
through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X ,pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as
such, these impacts would be less-than-significant.
Please refer to item "a" above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Em and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
g, i) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Picod Insurance Rate
Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding or failure of a
levee or dam?
NL Portions of the project area that are designated within the 100-year flood plain area are
located within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek. TIùs area has been reserved for future open
space.as required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There would be no impact in regard to
flooding hazards.
h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flow?
NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, none of the developable portions of the project area is
located within a 100 year flood hazard area as defined by FEMA. Development of the project
site is not expected to impede or redirect flood flows and no impact is anticipated.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows?
LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or tsunami.
The risk of potential mudflow is considered low. With mitigation measures adopted in the
Eastern Dublin Em (measures 3.6117.0-28.0, pp. 3.6-12 3.6-15), potential impacts of natural and
engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation impacts which could create mudflows
would be less-rhan significant. These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific
soils and geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of
appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface
and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fil1; maintaining 3: 1 cut slopes
unless retained; maintaining minimum 2: 1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated
with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code and other
City requirements for grading.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Em and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
City of Dublin
Initial study/Wallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 42
February 2003
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Sening
The Project area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin and the entire project
area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence.
The project site consists of three different parcels. The proposed land use designations of the
project generally reflect the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the project
area, with a number of changes as noted in the Project Description section of this Initial Study.
Proiect Imnacts and Mitigation Measures
a) PhysicaUy divide an established commwlity?
NI. Parcels which comprise the project site are contiguous and are not separated by freeways, or
arterial roadways. One natural barrier, Tassajara Creek, flows across the eastern portion of the
Lin Property, however, this Creek and underlying property ownership is acknowledged in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan.
The project area is adjacent to the City of Dublin's eastern boundary and north of current urban
development area. Development within the project area with the urban uses designated in the
City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be a continuation of Dublin as a
community. Development of the project site would not divide any established communities or
neighborhoods and hence, there would be no impact.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan. policy or regulation?
PS. The project Stage 1 PD-Planned Development Rezoning for the WaIlis Ranch property
proposes higher residential densities than identified in the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan.
Proposed changes are discussed in the P!'oject Deseription section of this Initial Study. There
would therefore be a potentially significant land use impact.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
NI. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been adopted by
the City or other agency. There would be 1W impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, but changed circumstances due to other agencies' potential
regulatory action could create an impact. This impact, however, is related to biologic resources
and has been identified as a potentially significant impact under the Biologic Resources section
of this Initial Study.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The subject area currently contains no known mineral resources.
City of DUblin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 43
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Impacts and MitiUation Measures
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral
resources?
NI. There are no known significant mineral resources located within the project area. Annexation
and development of the project as proposed would have no impact on mineral resources.
11. Noise
Environmental Settinl!
Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project area include noise generated by vehicles on
Tassajara Road, aircraft flyovers, mainly from helicopters associated with Camp Parks RFf A
and with other activities carried out at Camp Parks, west of the project area.
Proiect In¡pacts and Mitie:ation Measures
a, d) Would the project expose persorl$ to generation of Mise levels in excess of standards
establisMd by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to substantial temporary
or periodic increases in ambient noise levels?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR addresses impacts due to exposure of housing to furore roadway
noise (IM 3.1O/A and 3.101B) and includes Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 and 3.1012.0 to require
furore developers to prepare site-specific acoustical analyses proper to construction and to follow
'recommendations made in each report to reduce interior and exterior noise to aqopted City and
state standards. Impacts related to future military operations at Camp Parks have been identified
in Impact 3.101D and Mitigation Measure 3.1013.0 will minimize but not reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. This impact was identified as significant and unmitigatable when the
Eastern Dublin EIR was adopted. No further analysis is therefore required.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise
levels ?
LS. Groundborne vibrations could be caused by vehicular traffic along Tassajara Road and along
new streets within future development areas. Since future development is primarily residential in
nature, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated. Short-term groundbome vibration impacts
cowd also reswt -from construction of bridges spanning Tassajara Creek, however. bridges would
be installed early in the development process prior to residential construction
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient Mise levels?
NI. Development of the project area with urban uses wiIl introduce noise to the project area.
Ambient noise levels would increase permanently due to the proposed change in land use from
primarily agriculture to urban uses. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent noise impacts
related to vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly urban noises) as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City
Council for this impact; no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. The proposed project
City of Dublin
Initial StudyIWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 44
February 2003
would not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project
area and would not change the level of intensity of impact.
e, f) Expose people residing or working within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity
of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels?
NL There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no impact would
result. The project area is located near Camp Parks RFr A and new residents and workers within
the project area could be exposed to aircraft noise from military helicopters associated with
military operations at Camp Parks. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that military aircraft
noise was a significant and unmitigatable impact and no further analysis is required.
12. Population and Housing
EnvironmentaJ Setting-
Data from Projections 2000, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approximately 1,096,300 new
residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16 percent over the 20-year
forecast period from 2000 - 2020. ABAG expects approximately 401, 750 new households in the
region by year 2020. ABAG estimates that Dublin's population (indudingits Sphere of
Influence) was 31,500 in the year 2000 and is projected to grow to 66,600 by 2020, and increase
of 111 %: ABAG estimates that the increase in: new households will create a demand for at least
20,000 new dwellings each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by
the year 2020.
The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastern Dublin area would create 12,458 new
dwelling units (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new resident population of 27,794.
Proiect ImDacts and Miti!ration Measures
a) Induce substantial populalion growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
PS. Development of the project area according to the City's General Plan and as expected by the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would increase population in the project area beyond that
anticipated or planned-for according to the City's General Plan or as anticipated or evaluated by
the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City's General Plan contains Guiding and Implementing policies
(6.3.A, 2.1.2.C, 2.1.3.A, 2.1.4.A, 6.4B, and 6.4E) to provide a range of housing types. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies to provide a diversity of housing opportunities
that meets the social, economic and physical needs of future residents (policies 4-2 through 4-6).
b, c ) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or
people?
NI. The project area contains a small number of existing residences and various agricultural out-
buildings and land uses. Current residents and uses' could remain in place until such time as
development of those particular parcels occurs over time. Due to the limited number of current
City of Dublin
Initial StudyM'allis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 45
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
residents, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units
or people and no impact is expected.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
Water and Sewer. The project area currently is located within the jurisdiction of Alameda
County. The County has limited abilities to provide water or wastewater services to the project
area: current residents and land uses rely upon pòvate wells and septic systems for these
services. The City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) have worked
jointly to ensure that areas annexed to the City also are annexed to DSRSD. The Eastern Dublin
Em and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan anticipated that the project area
would be serviced by DSRSD. Additionally, DSRSD's master utilities plans for water,
wastewater and recycled water include the project area. The project area must be annexed into
the DSRSD service area. Such a request has been filed by the largest property owner within the
. project area.
Fire Protection. Fire protection services for the project area are provided by the Alameda
County Fire Department (ACFD). Since the City of Dublin contracts with ACFD for services,
upon annexation to the City, the ACFD would continue service to the project area.
Police Protection. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the California Highway Patrol
(ClIP) currently provide police services to the project area. Upon annexation, Dublin Police
Services would provide services to the area including enforcement of traffic laws which the CHP
currently provides and enforcement of city ordinances and state law. Dublin Police Services is
under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's office: the City of Dublin owns the
department's facilities and equipment but the personnel are employed by the Sheriff's Office
Police and security protection includes 24 hour security patrols throughout the coIIlJ)1.unity in
addition to còrne prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety.
Schools. Public educational services to the project area are provided by the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD). There would be no change to the boundary of the DUSD should be
proposed reorganization be approved.
Maintenance. Other than limited County roads within the project area (Tassajara Road), the
County provides limited maintenance service to the project area. Upon annexation to the City of
Dublin maintenance of streets, roads and other public facilities within the project area would be
the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Solid Waste Service. The County does not currently provide solid waste disposal service:
property--Qwuers must dispose of waste at local transfer stations. Upon annexation to the City of
Dublin, solid waste service would be provided by the LivermorelDublin Disposal Company.
Other services; Residents of the project area use the Alameda County library services and other
government services provided to Alameda County residents. Upon annexation to the City of
Dublin, many of these services would be provided by the City.
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 46
February 2003
Proiect Inmact~ and Mitie:ation Measures
Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the impacts of development of the project area on
services and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to a less than
significant level, some of these impacts still may be potentially significant for the project area
due to changed circumstances.
a) Fire protection?
LS. The project proposes up to 1,094 new residences to be developed in phases. The general
number of new residences was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand
for fire services and fire response to outlying areas were considered significant impacts (1M
3.4/D and 3.4Æ) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 - MM3.4/11),
these impacts are 1es$-than-significant. These mitigation measures require construction of new
facilities timed to coincide with development; require appropriate funding mechanisms for
capita} improvements; identify and acquire new fire station sites; and incorporate fire safety
measures into project design.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
b) Police protection?
LS. Development of the project as proposed could result in approximately 2,400 new residents in
the project area. The number of new residents was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the
project area. Demand for police services and police services accessibility were considered
significant impacts (1M 3.4/A and 3.4Æ) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM
3.4/6.0 ~ MM3.4/11), these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include
provision of additional persona] and facilities; coordination of development timing to services
can be expanded; incorporation of police department recommendations into project design; and
preparation of budget strategies for personnel and facilities as annexing areas become served by
Dublin's Police Department.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts
beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis
is necessary.
c) Schools?
PS. New K-12 students would be generated by implementation of the proposed project. Changes
in student generation rates due to changed regional economic circumstances may have a different
impact on the number and age distribution of students originally anticipated and evaluated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the type and quantity of schools originally expected to have
been constructed according to the Eastern Dublin EIR may have changed. Also, the level of
funding and amount of school fees which may be charged according to State law may have
changed so that the project could have a different impact on the provision of school facilities and
programs. This could be a potenti411y significant impact.
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028 '
Page 47
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including road$?
LS. New streets and roads are proposed be constructed in the project area. All such streets and
public facilities would be constructed by the project developers. Maintenance of these facilities
was anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR and considered a significant impact (1M 3.l2lA and
3.l2Æ). Implementation ofmitigarion measures (MM 3.1211.0----8.0) reduce this impact to a level
of insignificance. These mitigation measures encourage development agreements; adoption by
the City of an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos
Community Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks~Roos bond pooling; and consideration
of City-wide developer and builder impact fees.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no
impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or
analysis is necessary.
14. Recreation
Environmental Settin!¡!
Since the project area is not currently developed with urban uses the area contains no parks or
other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks include Emerald Glen'Park, a
50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin immediately west of Tassajara
Road, and two community parks slated for development elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area.
The combined area of the two community parks is 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow
for organized sports activities and individual sports as well as for passive recreation. Numerous
neighborhood parks and neighborhood squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and General Plan planning areas. The East Bay Regional Park District also has developed a
staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road and south- of the project area as part of a regional
recreational trail system.
The project proposes dedication of a 5.0 acre neighborhood park as well as pennanent open
space within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek and on steeper slopes of the westerly portion of the
project area.
Project Imoacts and Mitil':ation Measures
a) Would the project increase tfæ use of existing neighborhood or regioruzl parks?
" PS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood,
community and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within the
project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the demand for park facilities as a potentially
significant impact (1M 3.4IK). Mitigation Measures have been adopted as policies within the
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (MMs 3.4/20.0 to 28.0) reduce this impact to
a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures and policies encourage expanding park
areas; maintaining and improving outdoor facílíties in confonnance with the City's Park and
Recreation master Plan; acquire and improve parklands; require land dedication and
improvements for parks; designate sites in the General Plan and Specific Plan areas; and
implement Specific Plan policies for the provision and maintenance of open space.
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 48
February 2003
Proposed development on the Lin property would reduce neighborhood park acreage from 11.S
to 5.0 acres. This issue wí1l be evaluated in the Supplemental EIR.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the ElIJJtem Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
b)' Does the project include recreaticmal facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities?
PS. The project includes a neighborhood park and open space land uses. However, part òf the
development application on the Lin Property includes a proposal to reduce Neighborhood Park
acreage from 11.8 to 5.0 acres. This could be a potentially significant impact to be evaluated in a
Supplemental EIR.
15. Transportationfrraffic
Environmental Setting
The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and
. collector roadways, including: Interstate 1-5S0 and TlIJJsajara Road. Development of the proposed
project would introduce new roadways and streets into the project area. No changes to the
number or location of major roadways are proposed in the project than identified in the ElIJJtern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan.
Project ImDact~ and Mitigation Measures
The ElIJJtem Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development of the
project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a
less than significant level. Due to increased urban development in the Tri- Valley area and
beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, there could be the potential for
additional transportation/traffic impacts.
a) Cause an increase m traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity ?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with S17 dwellings,
an elementary school and 18,295 square feet of neighborhood commercial floor space, and
indicated mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However, a proposed increase in
the number of dwellings and changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns in addition to the
anticipated Project traffic, may cause potentiaUy significantimpacts not anticipated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at
Project intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a WS standard established by the County
CMAfor designated roads?
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
P A 02~028
Page 49
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PS. As noted above, the provision of 8 17 dwellings and neighborhood commercial floor space in
the project area were anticipated and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The application for
development on the Wallis Ranch property may exceed this amount of previously analyzed
development and could be potentially significant. Potential impacts of proposed development on
regional freeways and local roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic
intensities unrelated to the project may also cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated
by the Eastern Dublin EIR.
c) Change in air traffic patterns?
NI. Development of the project area is not expected to create a change in air traffic patterns at
the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use?
LS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new roads,
driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist.
Since these facilities will be required to be constructed to design standards established in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and City of Dublin Public Works Department, such impacts are
anticipated to be less-than-significant.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
PS. The present need for emergency access is low, since there are few current residents or
visitors to the site. Construction of new residences and neighborhood comroercial development
within the project area could increase the need for emergency seIVices and related access to new
tesidences and commercial establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and suggested
mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns
and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project traffic may cause potentially
~gnificant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. For example, potential increased
vòlumes of traffic unrelated to the project may create a potentially significant impact on
emergency access capability on project streets or intersections during peak traffic hours.
t) Inadequate parking capacity?
NI. Parking for individual projects within the project area would be reviewed by the City of
Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City parking
requirements. No impact is anticipated.
g) Conflict with adopted policies. pl4ns or programs for alternative transportation?
NI. Individual projects within the project area will be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian
walkways and bicycle rou~ to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists and to
support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the proposed Project. The City
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have standards by which bus turn-outs, bicycle paths, trails and
sidewalks must be planned and constructed. Bus turn-outs are required to be installed by project
developers in accordance with City requirements and bus service plans. These improvements
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 50
February 2003
will be confIrmed at the time each individual development project is reviewed by the City. No
impacts are therefore anticipated.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project area currently is sel'Ved by the Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 as a
regional water supplier and distributor and for storm drain facilities. The Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) would serve the project area upon completion of the reorganization as
the water retailer; would provide wastewater collection and treatment; and would provide
oppottUnities for the use of recycled water for landscape purposes. Since the project area is
mainly undeveloped except for new residences and scattered outbuildings, current services to the
project area are minimal.
Upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and prior to new development, project
developers would be required to extend new services to the area to provide a public water supply
for domestic and fire flow use, a recycled water service for irrigation of public medians and
parks, and a public wastewater treatment system, all of which would connect with existing
facilities maintained and controlled by DSRSD. Project developers would be required to install
new storm drainage facilities which would connect with existing facilities maintained and
controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7.
Although most of these infrastructure facilities would be installed by Project developers, all of
these systems would be public and would be maintained by public agencies such as the City of
Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Cable TV utilities also would be extended .
to the project area.
Project Impacts and Mitie:atÎon Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the provision and extension of services and utilities to the
project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a
less than significant level. However, additional or new potential impacts may be potentially
significant for the project area due to changed circumstances (increased urban development in
the Tri-Valley area, changes in water purveyor and distributor contracts, changes in the handling
and disposal of wastewater, changes in supply and distribution of gas and electricity, etc.)
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB?
PS. Changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and timing of
infrastructure improvements may create a potentially significant impact.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
PS. Iu. noted above, changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding
mechanisms and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements may create a potentially
significant impact.
City of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 5'
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Require new storm drainagefaci/ities?
PS. New facilities will be needed as a result .of development and may exceed those previ.ously
analyzed. This may be a potentially significant impact.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?
PS. DSRSD, which wauld pr.ovide water service and supply ta project area has included the
project within its master plans and projecti.ons. H.owever, since the number .of dwellings
proposed for construction an the Wallis Ranch property could exceed the number of dwellings
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin ElR, this may be a potentially significant impact.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?
PS. Appraval .of the propased project and development .of the area cauld result in an increased
demand far wastewater treatment over present conditians. Due to increased and more rapid
deve1apment in the Tri- Valley area there may be a patential need ta expand the capacity of the
treatment plant earlier than .originally anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. This cauld be a
potentially significant impact.
t) Solid waste disposal?
PS. Development of the project as proposed c.ould incrementally increase the generatian of solid
waste. Although this impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, changed circumstances
due ta mare rapid develapment in the Tri- Valley area in combinatian with the anticipated project
could have a potentiaily significant impact an the availability .of s.olid waste dispasal services.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
NI. The City .of Dublin and the solid waste halder wauld ensure that develapers ar'individual
prajects constructed in the Project area wauld adhere ta federal, state and lacal salid waste
regulations; therefore, no impaCt would result.
h) Gas and electricity?
PS. Prior to the current state-wide energy crisis, PG&E had the ability to adequately serve the
Tri-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002. PG&E has proposed the Tri-
Valley 2002 Capacity Praject ta increase electric service by adding substatians in Dublin and
North Livermare, expanding the Vineyard Substation in Pleasanton and installing approximately
23.5 miles .of 230 kilovalt (kV) transmissian lines to serve the substatians (CPUC, 2000). PG&E
is praposing canstructian of a 5-acIe, 230/21 kV substatian with faur 45 megawatt transf.ormers
in eastern Dublin. If the Tri- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project .or a functional equivalent
project is not constructed, PG&E would be required to respond to grawing demand by expanding
its existing system to the extent that is passible and by curtailing service if growth in demand
exceeds the transmission system's capacity or reliability requirements f.or essential services (such
as hospitals). It is passible that if the Tri- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project is delayed, then
ather alternatives W.ou1d be identified. At the present time, PG&E has c.ommenced work on the
Capacity Increase Pragram
City .of Dublin
Initial StudylWallis Ranch Annexatian
PA 02-028
Page 52
February 2003
The impacts of the project on the consumption of non-renewable resources is identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.4/S) and mitigation measures (MM 3.4145.0 - 3.4/46.0) are adopted as
part of the project in an effort to reduce natural resource consumption and encourage energy
conservation, the impact was detennined to be unavoidable and adverse. Pursuant to CEQA, a
Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City Council for this impact.
However, the current uncertainty of the supply of energy to the state as a whole, the potential
bankruptcy of the electricity and gas service provider, and the potential lack of new energy-
providersfpower facilities may have a potentially significant impact.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to tkgrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the hcbitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
. community. reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endtm.gered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory ?
YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Biological Resources section above_
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connecticn with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of possible future projects.)
YES. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of
development of the project area within its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin
planning area, changed circumstances mentioned throughout this Initial Study may
contribute to changed cumulative impacts which should be further analyzed.
c) Does the project have environmental effects wmch will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the potentially significant adverse impacts of
the proposed project through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and General Plan Amendment. The Eastern Dublin EIR suggested mitigation measures
which reduce many such impacts to a less-than significant level and where sllch impacts
could not be reduced or othetwise had a cumulative adverse impact, the City Council
adopted a Statement of Over-riding Consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
As discussed previously in this document, however, changes in circumstanCes since the
Eastern Dublin EIR was certified have the potential for significant effects beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. .
City of Dublin .
Initial StudyM'allis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-028
Page 53
February 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
Initial Study Preparer
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan. Amendment and Specific Plan Environmenta]
ImDact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Eastern Dublin SDecific Plan, June 6, 1998
City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998
Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999
Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Docum~t
City of Dublin, Public Works Department
City of Dublin, Planning Department
MacKay and Somps
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Wallis Ranch Annexation
PA 02-{)28
Page 54
February 2003