HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 29-07 Scarlett Dr-Iron Horse Trail Extension
RESOLUTION NO. 29 - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
SCARLETT DRIVE / IRON HORSE TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF A PRECISE PLAN ALIGNMENT
OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, various environmental studies for development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area have recommended the connection of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road as a traffic mitigation
for increased traffic generated as a result of eastern Dublin development; and
WHEREAS, the need for the Scarlett Drive / Iron Horse Trail Extension Project (Project) was
identified for inclusion in the City of Dublin's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, and the Project
was included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program for funding; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Project process, preliminary engineering has proceeded, including a
proposed alignment of the improvements and an environmental document; and
WHEREAS, through these environmental studies and proposed mitigations, the Public Works
Director has determined that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has directed that the recommended mitigations become
part of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a 30-day public noticing review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Document) commenced on December 22, 2006, and is attached hereto as Exhibit lA; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day public noticing review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration has
expired, with the City receiving three written comments and one verbal comment; and
WHEREAS, these comments have been reviewed and responded to, said comments and responses
being attached hereto as Exhibit IB; and
WHEREAS, the comments and responses are now an integral part of the Document; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that the comments and responses did not constitute or require
substantial revisions to the Document, and no subsequent recirculation of the Document was required; and
WHEREAS, the City further determined that during the Mitigated Negative Declaration process,
there was no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project would have a significant
effect on the environment, thus, no subsequent Environmental Impact Report-level review of the
Document was warranted; and
Reso No. 29-07, Adopted 3/6/07, Item 6.2
Page 1 of2
WHEREAS, the Document, the four comments, and the City's responses to the comments,
collectively comprise the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the Document at a noticed public
hearing on March 6, 2007, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after reviewing and considering the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Scarlett Drive / Iron Horse Trail Extension Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
. \.
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST;,
. ~ \\ \ .' . {--\
.. .. ..v\.. , . .<...._.,
"" ~
City Clerk
Reso No. 29-07, Adopted 3/6/07, Item 6.2
Page 2 of2
SCARLETT DRIVE I IRON HORSE
TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEVATIVE DECLARATION,
TOGETHER WITH THE DRAFT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
EXHIBIT M
To the Resolution
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and
INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Dublin City Council will hold a public hearing on the following project and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration:
PROJECT TiTLE:
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTiON:
The City of Dublin is proposing to construct a public street from Dublin
Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and relocate and enhance
the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of
Way in the City of Dublin.
This project is, in part, mitigation to the approval of development within
Eastern Dublin.
The proposed Scarlett Drive improvements will include extending
Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, widening the
existing Scarlett Drive roadway between Dougherty Road and Houston
Place to a four lane facility, modifying the existing signal at Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road, installing a new signal at Houston
Place and Scarlett Drive primarily for pedestrian access to the Iron
Horse Trail, relocating and enhancing the Iron Horse Trail-to the east
of its current alignment, constructing additional turn lanes at three
intersections, installing bicycle lanes on either side of the street, and
incorporating enhanced traffic signal priority for buses accessing the
east Dublin BART station.
PROJECT/SITE LOCATION:
Scarlett Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Dougherty Road
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin
Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study has been completed and
mitigation included in the Project, and it has been determined that with
the proposed mitigation the project WILL NOT have a significant effect
on the environment; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared for this project.
APPLICANT:
City of Dublin; 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
The City will accept comments on the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Mitigated Negative
Declaration during the public comment period. The public comment period begins on Friday, December 22,
2006 and ends on Monday, January 22, 2007 (30 days) at 5:00 p.ni. A copy of this Initial Study, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and all documents associated with it are available for review in the Public Works
Department located in City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. If you have any questions or comments
please contact Lee Thompson, Public Works Engineer at (925) 833-6630.
The City Council hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 in the Dublin Civic Center Council
Chambers, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. Public comment on the project as well as the Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be heard at this meeting. Any interested person may appear and be heard on this
matter.
If you challenge the above-described action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Dublin at, or prior to, the public hearing.
/Z]~~0~ 1
Melis~ Morton . -
Public Works Department
IrI~~~
Oat /
Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Director
G:IMISCPROJIScarlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail ExtensionlEnvironmentallNotice PH-Intent to Adopt MND-Final.doc
:2
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title:
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements
Project Description:
The City of Dublin is proposing to construct a public street from Dublin
Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and relocate and enhance
the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of
Way in the City of Dublin.
This project is, in part, mitigation to the approval of development within
Eastern Dublin.
The proposed Scarlett Drive improvements will include extending
Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, widening the
existing Scarlett Drive roadway between Dougherty Road and Houston
Place to a four lane facility, modifying the existing signal at Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road, installing a new signal at Houston
Place and Scarlett Drive primarily for pedestrian access to the Iron
Horse Trail, relocating and enhancing the Iron Horse Trail to the east
of its current alignment, constructing additional turn lanes at three
intersections, installing bicycle lanes on either side of the street, and
incorporating enhanced traffic signal priority for buses accessing the
east Dublin BART station.
Project Location:
Scarlett Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Dougherty Road
Project Proponent:
Melissa Morton, Director of Public Works, City of Dublin Public Works
Department
Address: 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
Conditions of Approval:
This approval is subject to the conditions of approval listed below and
the specifications of the approved project. The approved project will
include the following mitigation measures to ensure that any significant
impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.
1. Air Quality: The project shall implement the following "Basic Control Measures" that would
minimize potential for elevated levels of dust (i.e. particulates) during construction.
e Water all active construction areas daily.
· Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as
needed (to be determined by resident engineer).
· Sweep street if visible soil material is catTied onto adjacent public streets as needed (to be
determined by resident engineer).
... Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mpli.
o Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
'" Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at anyone time.
2. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) Jurisdiction: The mitigation measures described below
would reduce impacts to the wetland habitat to a less than significant level.
" A wetland delineation will be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site.
" As mitigation for the permanent loss of wetlands, impacted seasonal aquatic habitat would be
replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed wetland impacts associated with
the Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an approved local mitigation bank or adjacent
property. Impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2: 1 (replaced:
impacted). To mitigate impacts to wetlands, approximately four (4) acres of wetlands would be
created. A detailed wetland restoration plan will be prepared in consultation with a qualified
restoration biologist. Such a plan will provide the following:
- Replacement of lost wetland habitat.
- Location of on-site restoration opportunities, complete with an analysis of the technical
approach to create high quality wetlands.
- Prior to construction, the project applicant shall apply for a Section 404 permit from the
Corps and Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
project proponent will comply with the conditions of these regulatory documents.
" In addition to the conditions contained in the regulatory documents, the project proponent
will comply with the following additional recommendations:
- A detailed plan will be created for wetland construction that includes excavation
elevations, locations of hydrologic connections and soil amendments, as necessary.
- Planting, maintenance and monitoring plans will be prepared in consultation with a
qualified habitat restoration specialist.
- Constructed wetlands shall be monitored for a period of five (5) years and the site shall
achieve 80 percent cover by native marsh plant species by Year 5. Specific performance
criteria will be determined and monitored for site success.
" Alternatively to measures stated above, the replacement of lost habitat functions and values of
the seasonal aquatic habitat can be achieved through participation in a nearby mitigation
bank. The appropriate acreage and location would be set in consultation with state and
federal resource agencies.
3. Special.Status Plant Species: To ensure that the project would not significantly impact the
Saline clover and Congdon's tarplant, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into
the proposed project.
" Conduct presence/absence surveys during their blooming seasons: April to June for the Saline
Clover, and May to October for Congdon's tarplant. Presence of either of these species is not
expected to greatly constrain the proposed project.
· If found, prior to site disturbance, the seeds from the species will be collected and sown
among populations that exist in the region, such as Springtown Alkali Sink preserve in
Livermore.
4. Western Pond Turtle (WPT): To minimize the potential impacts to WPT, the proposed project
will include the following mitigation measures. .
.. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to grading and/or fill
of the western drainage. If no WPT are found, then no further mitigation is required. If WPT
are found, then the following measures shall be implemented.
· If WPT are found on-site during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist in consultation
with CDFG will establish a construction-free buffer zone and relocate individual WPT.
')
. Replacement habitat shall be provided for WPT at a nearby mitigation bank, to the satisfaction
of CDFG.
5. Burrowing Owls: Burrowing owls were not observed at the site, however, there have been
several observations of burrowing owls within three miles of the site. Therefore, burrowing owls
are considered present on-site, The following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to
burrowing owls to a less than significant level:
. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted, per California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) guidelines, no more than 30 days prior to start of site grading, regardless of the time
of year in which grading occurs. If no burrowing owls are found, then no further mitigation is
warranted.
. If owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a qualified burrowing owl biologist in
consultation with CDFG will establish a constructioncfree buffer zone of at least 300 feet
around the active burrow. No activities, including grading or other construction work, shall
proceed until the buffer zone is established, or a CDFG approved relocation of the birds has
been performed [such relocations can occur only during the non-reproductive season
(September through January)}. Regardless of the time of year when burrowing owls are
observed on the site, implementation of one of the following two mitigation measures is
required:
- If preconstruction surveys confirm that burrowing owls occupy the site, then avoidance of
impacts to the habitat utilized by these owls would be considered the preferred mitigation
method.
- If preconstruction surveys determine that burrowing owls occupy the site, and avoiding
development of occupied areas is not feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site
mitigation lands shall be implemented.' Off-site mitigation typically entails evicting the
affected owls from the project site and setting aside and managing specific areas for
burrowing owls. The owls may be evicted outside of the breeding season, with the
authorization of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The CDFG
typically only allows eviction of owls outside of the breeding season [only during the non-
breeding season (September 1-January 31)} by a qualified ornithologist, and generally
requires habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands.
A single, large continuous mitigation site is preferable to several smaller, separated sites. The
mitigation site would preferably support owls nesting and be contiguous with or at least
proximal to other lands supporting burrowing owls. Haera and Borges Ranch are two sites in
the Tri-Valley region with a history of burrowing owl use and suitable conditions for occupancy.
. A final report of burrowing owls, including any protection measures, shall be submitted to the
Senior Planner, and completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development
prior to start of grading.
6. Archaeological Resources: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered, all
construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Community
Development shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation.
Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials.
o In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all project related
construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing
and mitigation measures required. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the
remains are Native American, the coroner shall, contact the California Native American
3
Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety
Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be
made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the
provisions of State law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Community
Development shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site
during development.
7. Short.Term Construction Noise:
· Noise generating activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on weekdays unless otherwise approved in writing by the Dublin Building Official for structural
construction and the City Engineer for grading activities.
· All internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
· A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated to be responsible to any local complaints
about construction noise and/or vibration. The disturbance coordinator would determine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted at the construction site and
include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The City shall
be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the individual project
sponsor shall be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction
schedule notices).
Determination:
I hereby find that the above project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the
environment.
7J
Melissa orton
Public Works Department
''1 ?; {-
~
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at the City of
Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925) 833-6630.
Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Director
G:lfvlISCPROJISearlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail ExtensionlEnvironmentallFinal Neg Dee,doe
4
/y
....
'~~t~~;;;,
\\\ !It..-)
\\1' A a: ,
I.' ~."'< !.
)1\ ~~ ! ,t'
\ ,,]0. / "
\\1',I:i I . ,
:'~~I~l
~YjJ !J
'11P\."~I- .
, '.311.
'.;;It \' .i
>;~.fi' t;.
<;',! II
')fiI4 ~
/
/?
::
z
o
({)
z
W
f-
X
W
-1
<(
0:::
f-
w
({)
0:::
o
I
Z
o
0:::
w
>
0:::
o
f-
f-
W
-1
0:::
<(
U
({)
o
w
({)
o
Q..
o
0:::
CL
SCARLETT DRIVE I IRON HORSE
TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT
COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND STAFF RESPONSES
Three written comments were received and one verbal.
Letters received with Staff responses:
1) Department of the Army (Camp Parks)
2) Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, Zone 7
3) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Staff response to verbal comments (via telephone) received from Dublin resident.
EXBJBIT / B.
To the Resolution
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HEADQUARTER, U.S. ARMY COMBAT SUPPORT TRAINING CENTER
790 5TH STREET
CAMP PARKS, CA 94568-5201
January 9,2007
IMSW-CST-PWE
Ms. Melissa Morton
Director of Public Works
City of Dublin Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Morton,
The U.S. AmlY has received the City of Dublin's notice of public hearing and intent to adopt
a mitigated negative declaration for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive improvements project.
The project includes expanding the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive onto property which is
owned by the Am1Y and part of Camp Parks, an installation under the U.S. Army Combat
Support Training Center (CSTC) Garrison. The Anny has not approved or given a right of way
for this project. Furthermore, CSTC has not considered this project under the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEP A) process. Giving approval for the project or indicating a
decision prior to completing NEP A would not follow the required regulatory process and would
be improper.
This project would need to be reviewed under the Endangered Species Act as well as the
National Historic Preservation Act to ensure it is complying with these laws prior to the Army
approving this project. It is possible that federally listed endangered species, the California red-
legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense), may be located in the area under consideration. The CSTC regularly consults
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act regarding
the listed species.
Sincerely,
~J/t/~
W. Scott Wood
Colonel, U.S. Army
Commanding
DAVID J0 POWERS
February 9, 2007
Mr. Lee Thompson
Public Works Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Comment Letter from the U.S. Department of the Army on the Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Iron Horse
Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Dear Lee:
We have received and reviewed the letter you forwarded from the U.S. Army (dated January 9, 2007)
regarding the proposed Scarlett Drive Extension and Widening Project. As you know, the letter
seems to imply that the City of Dublin must complete an analysis of the overall project under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) prior to proceeding with the City's approval process.
Subsequent to our review of this letter, we met with the Department of the Army to discuss the intent
of the letter and resolve any concerns regarding the environmental review for the project.
It is our understanding that, as part of the proposed project, a small linear piece of right-of-way
(approximately one [1.0] acre in size) will be required from Camp Parks at the property/fence line.
Based upon a review ofNEPA requirements and our experience with similar projects, we do not
believe that there would be any environmental impacts associated with the land transfer itself. The
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project is proposed to be completed by the City of
Dublin. The Department of the Army will not be involved in the future construction or
implementation of the project. In addition, there will be no federal funding involved in the
construction of this project. Therefore, it is our opinion that the acquisition of right-of-way from the
Camp Parks property would not result in physical environmental impacts, and therefore, would not
require the City to complete a separate environmental process or document (such as an
Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement) to comply with NEP A.
Based upon the conversation at our meeting with the Department of the Army on Wednesday,
February 7, 2007, it is our understanding that the Army is currently planning to exchange property
(which includes the 1.0 acre of land to be acquired for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive
Improvements Project) with a third party for a future mixed-use development project. The Army is
currently preparing its own NEP A analysis for this land exchange. At our meeting, Gary Houston,
the environmental attorney/consultant to the Army, who drafted the January 9,2007 comment letter,
stated that he did not intend the letter to infer that the City needed to complete a NEP A process at
this time. Mr. Houston clarified that the Army needs to complete its NEP A process for the land
exchange prior to development of the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project.
Tne PiJD.iTieda ~~ S...dtl In.se~
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februwy 9, 2007
Page 2
The City's IS/MND prepared under CEQA addresses the physical impacts of the project (as a whole)
on the environment, including those pertaining to cultural resources and endangered species, No
additional environmental impacts, not already addressed in the IS/MND, would be identified or
disclosed by the completion of a NEP A document/analysis. The City's process as the CEQA Lead
Agency is separate from, and does not conflict with, any process the Army may undertake with
regard to its compliance with NEP A. City approvals that involve permits or approvals from other
agencies are always contingent upon receipt of such permits/approvals. In this case, the City
recognizes that the relocation and construction of the Iron Horse Trail on Camp Parks property could
not occur without the U.S. Arn1Y's approvaL
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this letter, or if you want to
discuss this matter further.
Best reg~rds, d /. _
/~/~
~n'Scl~warz / .'
Principal Project Manager
/attachment
.......~~~,=..~-~~""--~
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551 ; PHONE (925) 454-5000
January 22, 2007
Ms. Melissa MOtion
Director of Public Works
City of Dublin Public Works
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive
Improvements
Dear Ms. Morton:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7' s mission to provide
drinking water; non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and
stream management within the Livermore-Amador VaHey. We have the following comments:
1. On page 9 of the Initial Study, under Extension of Culvert, the proposed culvert should be extended,
but designed to accommodate the 100 year storm event under ultimate buildout conditions for the
watershed. Also, since the site ofthe culvert extension is presently open-space, what sort of habitat
mitigation is proposed?
2. On page 42, the last sentence in the second paragraph states that the drainage adjacent to the project
site offers storin water runoff drainage and detention. Please describe what sort of detention is
provided by the drainage facilities.
3. The last paragraph on the same page states the proposed project roadway extension is located within
the FEMA floodplain boundary. The initial study does not address the potential impacts of this
proposedroadway extension to the existing. floodplain. A hydrology/hydraulics analysis should be
conducted, in consultation with Zone 7 staff, to determine what type of impact will occur, its
significance, and mitigation for the impact. Presently, the Chabot Canal between 1-580 and Dublin
Blvd. overtops and floods the area. Any new runoff wi1llikely have an impact downstream of the
project site.
4. On page 45, the first paragraph mentions that the proposed roadway expansion and widening of
Scarlett Drive would encroach onto the westem seasonal drainage, creating a permanent impact to the
western drainage of the site. How will the permanent impact be mitigated?
5. The second paragraph on the same page indicates that a slight increase in the amount of impervious
area will result in a minimal increase in runoff rate and volume. Any comments regarding minimal
increase in runoff need to be substantiated with Hydrology/Hydraulics analysis to ensure that runoff
to the drainage channel is not greater than pre-existing conditions. Zone 7's Stream Management
Master Plan did not take into account new drainage from this area. Therefore, it is important to
understand what the downstream impact may be to a drainage channel designed for the I5-year storm
event.
Ms. Melissa Morton, Director of Public Works
City of Dublin Public Works
January 22,2007
Page 2 of2
The second paragraph also mentions that mitigation can reduce the impacts of the new development.
The project proposes to adhere to and incorporate the mitigations/BMPs outlined in the Zone 7 Flood
Control Master Plan for increases in peak flows. Zone 7 is unaware of what type of mitigation that
would be proposed for the roadway project. Please identify which specific measures will be adhered
to and incorporated in relation to the project site. Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan identified
the Chabot Canal as a potential future improvement project, which would include widening and
concrete lining the banks to relieve flooding issues.
6. Zone 7's Santa Rita - Dougherty Pipeline is located within the proposed project area. As a result of
the proposed project, this Zone 7 facility may require relocation. Zone 7 has provided construction
plans for this pipeline and the attached comment letter on this proposed project to the consulting
engineer. Any proposals to relocate Zone 7 facilities will require coordination with Zone 7' s
engineering staff. An approved encroachment permit will also be required. Please provide any
updated draft construction plans ofthe Iron Horse/ Scarlett Drive Improvements for Zone 7 review
and comment as they become available.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or comments,
please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e-mail at
mlim(Q) zone 7water .com.
~:i0~~.11 '
Mar/f!mP (V .
EnvironmeN.-tal Services Program Manager
Attachment
cc: Lee Thompson, City of Dublin (w/attachment)
Karla Nemeth, Environmental & Public Affairs Manager, Zone 7
Jim Horen, Principal Engineer, Zone 7
YK Chan, Principal Engineer, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Principal Engineer, Zone 7
Jolm Koltz, ,Senior Engineer, Zone 7
Jeff Tang, Associate Civil Engineer, Zone 7
DAVID J~ POWEI1S
February 6, 2007
Mr. Lee Thompson
Public Works Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Comment Letter from Zone 7 on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Dear Lee:
We have received and reviewed the letter you forvvarded from the Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), dated January 22,2007, regarding the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Scarlett Drive Extension and Widening Project.
As you know, the Zone 7 letter contains six comments regarding the analysis in the IS/MND. This
letter provides our responses to the substantive issues raised in the Zone 7 letter.
Comment 1:
On page 9 ofthe Initial Study, under Extension of Culvert, the proposed culvert should be extended,
but designed to accommodate the 100 year stonn event under ultimate buildout conditions for the
watershed. Also, since the site of the culvert extension is presently open-space, what sort of habitat
mitigation is proposed?
Response 1:
This comment is noted. The proposed culvert extension will be designed to accommodate
the 100 year storm event. As requested in a prior letter from Zone 7 (dated April 5, 2006),
the proposed culvert extension will be designed to match the existing culvert that is already
in-place in the Chabot Canal (see attached Initial Study Text Revisions).
The impacts to the seasonal aquatic habitat along the east and west sides of the Scarlett Drive
roadway and in the Chabot Canal will be mitigated at the Ohlone Preserve Conservation
Bank mitigation bank, located at 1556 Catalina Court in Livem10re (refer to Section 3.4
Biological Resources of the IS/MND and the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). The
project would not result in a significant loss of public open space,
j: tIe p:JmTle'C!i.i ~tul!T
Jose1 1CP';..
Mr. Lee Thompson
February 6, 2007
Page 2
Comment 2:
On page 42, the last sentence in the second paragraph states that the drainage adjacent to the project
site offers storm water runoff drainage and detention. Please describe what sort of detention is
provided by the drainage facilities.
Response 2:
There are two existing, manmade seasonal drainages at the project site, one along each side
of the Scarlett Drive roadway. These drainages convey over-land surface water flows during
heavy storm events. The text on page 42 of the Initial Study has been revised to clarify this
information (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions).
Comment 3:
The last paragraph on the same page states the proposed project roadway extension is located within
the FEMA floodplain boundary. The initial study does not address the potential impacts of this
proposed roadway extension to the existing floodplain. A hydrology/hydraulic analysis should be
conducted, in consultation with Zone 7 staff, to detelmine what type of impact will occur, its
significance, and mitigation for the impact. Presently, the Chabot Canal between 1-580 and Dublin
Blvd. overtops and floods the area. Any new runoff wi1llikely have an impact downstream of the
project site.
Response 3:
As described on page 45 ofthe Draft Initial Study, the project would result in a slight
increase in the amount of impervious surfaces at the site, thus resulting in an incremental
increase in runoffrate and volume. The project proposes to utilize landscape-based treatment
and control measures to minimize the addition of runoff volume and pollution to the Chabot
Canal, including the'tlse of open vegetated swales and natural depressions, stOlm water
retention or detention basins, or a combination of these practices. The proposed BMPs will
comply with the Alameda County Clean Water Program (ACCWP) NPDES Permit (Order
R2-2003-00211 NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831). The measures will also specifically
comply with provision C.2 of the NPDES permit, which includes numeric sizing
requirements for post-construction BMPs and hydro modification requirements for the
management of stOl1l1water for new development.
During storm events, the proposed swales will be used to store a portion of the peak flows,
and will act as stOlmwater detention areas. Additional site-specific hydrology/hydraulic
analysis will be conducted in coordination with Zone 7 as the project design plans are
finalized. The exact location(s) and size(s) of the detention and retention areas proposed will
be detelmined based on further consultation with Zone 7 staff and will be subject to the
approval of Zone 7. Additional detail regarding the proposed post-construction measures has
been added to the text of the Initial Study (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions).
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 3
Comment 4:
On page 45, the first paragraph mentions that the proposed roadway expansion and widening of
Scarlett Drive would encroach onto the western seasonal drainage, creating a permanent impact to
the western drainage of the site. How will the pernlanent impacts be mitigated?
Response 4:
The proposed ScarlettDrive widening would require permanently filling the existing
drainage ditch along the western side of the roadway. Therefore, the capacity of this ditch to
temporarily store over-land surface runoff and convey this runoff to the Chabot Canal would
be lost as a result of the project. The proposed Scarlett Drive roadway would be designed
and sloped to convey surface runoff to the southwestern and eastern sides of the roadway,
where it would be detained and treated in the proposed vegetated swales prior to discharge
into the Chabot Canal (refer to the response to comments 3 above).
The potential impacts to biological resources likely to result from filling of this drainage are
evaluated in Section 3.4 Biological Resources of the IS/MND. With implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND, these impacts would be reduced to a 1ess-than-
significant level under CEQA (refer to pages 29-33 of the IS/MND and to the attached Initial
Study Text Revisions).
Comment 5:
The second paragraph on the same page indicates that a slight increase in the amount of impervious
area will result in a minimal increase in runoff rate and volume. Any comments regarding minimal
increase in runoff need to be substantiated with Hydrology/Hydraulics analysis to ensure than runoff
to the drainage channel is not greater than pre-existing conditions. Zone 7's Stream Management
Master Plan did not take into account new drainage from this area. Therefore, it is important to
understand what the downstream impact may be to a drainage channel designed for the IS-year storm
event.
The second paragraph also mentions that mitigation can reduce the impacts of the new development.
The project proposes to adhere to and incorporate the mitigations/BMPs outlined in the Zone 7 Flood
Control Master Plan for increases in peak flows. Zone 7 is unaware of what type of mitigation that
would be proposed for the roadway project. Please identify which specific measures will be adhered
to and incorporated in relation to the project site. Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan
identified the Chabot Canal as a potential future improvement project, which would include widening
and concrete lining the banks to relieve flooding issues.
<. _B_______=.....-----~-~=-'-~~~~='="-=
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 4
Response 5:
Refer to the response to comments 1,3, and 4 above. Additional detail has been added to the
text of the Initial Study to clarify the measures proposed to reduce potential hydrology and
water quality impacts of the project (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions).
Comment 6:
Zone 7's Santa Rita - DougheIiy Pipeline is located within the proposed project area. Asa result of
the proposed project, this Zone 7 may require relocation. Zone 7 has provided construction plans for
this pipeline and the attached comment letter on this proposed project to the consulting engineer.
Any proposals to relocate Zone 7 facilities will require coordination with Zone 7' s engineering staff.
An approved encroachment permit will also be required. Please provide any updated draft
construction plans of the Iron Horse/Scarlett Drive Improvements for Zone 7 review and comments
as they become available.
Response 6:
A portion of the Santa Rita - Dougherty Pipeline is within the proposed project limits located
near the Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. This 24-inch pipeline is located
approximately four (4) feet beneath the existing roadway. Because of the depth to this
pipeline, the construction of the proposed roadway and trail improvements would not impact
the pipeline. Therefore, there are currently no plans to relocate the pipeline in the project
area.
As the project design proceeds and becomes finalized, further analysis will confirm whether
the Zone 7 Santa Rita - Dougherty Pipeline needs to be relocated. In the event relocation of
this pipeline is necessary, the City of Dublin and their consulting engineers will coordinate
closely with Zone 7 staff, and an encroachment permit will be obtained prior to any work
near the pipeline.
While the text of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised or expanded to
clarify some of these issues raised in the Zone 7 letter, it is our opinion that none of the comments
received or revisions made to the IS/MND represent "substantial revisions" as described in Section
15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not warranted.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this letter, or if you want to
discuss this matter further.
Best regards,
/"
/7,(
",~~,c:;.":/t;'P~';'~r;.'Ki~;Z:",,,,"<_
Schwarz /'
Principal Project Manager
/attachments
-~~~.~'""""--~=~,~-'===~=-~.,~~~--,.'-=-~~~~-~-----~
~
.\;J
Linda S. Adams
Secretary./i)r
EJ1viro-J1mel1w! Pfo/eCliol1
.California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
f~~j
,:sj~1;:./
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400. Oakland, Calilomia 94612
(510) 622-2)00 . Fax (51 0) 622-2460
hllp ://www waterboards.ca.gov/san franciscobay
Arnold SchwarZCnclll!Cr
(i/)\'t'UIlJr
Date: JAN 0 4 2007
File No. 2198.09 (BKW)
Melissa Morton, Public Works Director
City of Dublin Public Works Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
fe:('~;";~'\gET,
, ! 1\ J~ J J ~, ! 0 fJ /
Re:
'J1'~, .~"... ,j r;~t.: ;~_:':;'/'(.""
~ _______,.,.J' .._ ~...........___
Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH Number: 2006122072
Dear Ms. Morton:
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have reviewed the December
2006, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Mitigated Negative DeclaratioJl
(MND) for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project in the City of Dublin,
Alameda County (Project). The Project includes the construction of a public street from
Dublin Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and the relocation and enhancement
of the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way in the City of
Dublin. Water Board staff have the following comments on the MND.
Comment 1 - Section 3.4.1, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 25 and
20 .
Under the heading, "Regulated Habitats", the MND discusses "u.s. Army Corps of
Engineers Jurisdiction" and the "California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG)".
However, the MND does not discuss waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Water
Board.
The discussions of wetlands and jurisdictional waters under the heading "Regulated
Habitats" should be expanded to clarify that the Water Board has regulatory authority over
wetlands and 'vvaterways under both the federal Clean Water Act (CW A) and the State of
California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code,
Division 7). Under the CW A, the Water Board has regulatory authority over actions in
waters of the United States, through the issuance of water quality certifications
(certifications) under Section 401 of the CW A, which are issued in combination with
permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), under Section 404 of the CW A.
When the Water Board issues Section 40 I certifications, it simultaneously issues general
Waste Discharge Requirements for the project, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act. Activities in areas that are outside of the jurisdiction oftbe ACOE (e.g.,
isolated wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above the ordinary high water mark) are
regulated by the Water Board, under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act. In addition, channels that have either been modified by human activities or
have been created by human activities, but which convey surface runofftbat enter the
Preserving, enhancing, and res/Dring the San Francisco Bay Area '.I' waters/or over 50 years
o Recyct..!<I Paper
Ms. Morton
- 2 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive. Dublin
channel through gravity flow may also be regulated as waters of the State. Activities that
lie outside of ACOE jurisdiction, but within Water Board jurisdiction, may require the
issuance of either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the
Water Board.
The MND should be revised to describe the need to obtain WDRs from the Water Board
for any Project impacts to channels or wetlands at the Project site.
Comment 2 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29)
Under the heading, "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)", the MND refers to the
placement of part of the Chabot Canal (about 170 linear feet, according to text on page 42)
into a box culvert as a temporary impact. This is incorrect; the placement of a channel in a
culvert of any kind is a permanent impact, and must be mitigated as such.
Comment 3 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29)
In the list of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.1 is, "[A] wetland delineation would be
conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of
jurisdictional wetlands on-site," This is a legal requirement; it is not a mitigation measure.
In addition, the Water Board must be contacted to determine if there are non-Corp
jurisdictional waters of the State at the Project site.
Comment 4 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29)
In the iist of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.2 states that, "impacted seasonal aquatic
habitat would be replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed wetland
impacts associated with the Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an approved local
mitigation bank or adjacent property. Impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum
ratio of 2: I (replaced: impacted).'.' The proposed mitigation lacks sufficient detail for
Water Board staff to evaluate whether or not the mitigation would be adequate to mitigate
impacts to a less than significant level. The amount of mitigation required for an impact is
a function of both the proposed mitigation project and distance between the location of the
impact and the location of the mitigation site. The mitigation required for an impact
increases as a function of the distance between the impact location and the mitigation
location. Since the proposed location is not yet identified, the amount of mitigation
required cannot be evaluated. The amount of mitigation required is greater for "out of
kind" mitigation (i.e., mitigation habitats that are different from the type of impacted
habitat). Since no details are provided for the proposed mitigation, it is not clear yet
whether or not the Project is proposing to provide "in-kind" mitigation. The amount of
mitigation required may also be a factor or the likelihood of success at the mitigation site.
Since no details of the proposed mitigation project are provided in the MND, it is not
possible for Water Board staff to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation.
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's watersjor over 50 years
6:Fcled Paper
Ms. Morton
- 3 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive, Dublin
Proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the likelihood that
the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA
requires that mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect be adequate,
timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an adequate CEQA document, mitigation
measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or
other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4). Mitigation
measures to be identified at some future time are not acceptable. It has been determined by
court ruling that such mitigation measures would be improperly exempted from the process
of public and governmental scrutiny which is required under the California Environmental
Quality Act. Based on the information provided in the MND, it is not possible to evaluate
the extent of potential impacts to waters of the State, or the adequacy of mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts of the Project to a less than significant level.
Comment 5 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 29 and
30)
At present, the Project proposes to either purchase mitigation credits at an approved
mitigation bank and/or to create about 4 acres of wetlands. The MND should identify
approved mitigation banks with a service area that includes the Project site. Without thIS
information, the feasibility of using a mitigation bank cannot be evaluated for the Project.
In addition, the only metric proposed for impacts to jurisdiction wetlands and waters is
acreage. For impacts to channels, such as the proposai to culvert 170 linear feet of Chabot
Canal, mitigation must also be provided on a linear foot basis (i.e., impacts to channels
should be mitigated with channels).
Comment 6 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 30)
Mitigation measure 3.4.2.3 requires that the Project proponent obtain Section 40 I
certification from the Water Board; this is a legal requirement, not a mitigation measure.
As noted above, the Project will also require general or individual WDRs from the Water
Board. Although obtaining these permits is not a mitigation measure, the permits will
impose mitigation requirements on the Project. When evaluating applications for
certifications and/or WDRs, the Water Board requires that the Project proponent have
evaluated options for avoiding impacts to waters of the State. Where impacts cannot be
avoided, the Project proponent must demonstrate that unavoidable impacts have been
minimized to the maximum extant practicable. This analysis of avoidance and
minimization of impacts should be submitted with the permit application.
Preserving. enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's watersjor over 50 veal's
~:I'c1('d Papa
Ms. Morton
- 4 - MND, [ran Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive, Dublin
Comment 7 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Special-Status Species (page 31)
The MND concludes that the Project will not have a significant impact on California tiger
salamander (CTS) or California red-legged frog (CRLF). The MND refers to surveys for
these species, but it is not clear from the MND whether or not these were protocol level
surveys conducted during appropriate times of the year. It is also not clear if potential
impacts to dispersal habitat for CTS and CRLF have been evaluated.
Comment 8 - Section 3.8.1, Water Quality (page 43)
The MND mentions the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) and the
NPDES permit that was issued to ACCWP for stormwater discharges, Under the NPDES
Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order R2-2003-0021; NPDES Permit No. CAS002983 I),
all projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are required to
provide post-construction best management practices (BMPs) for storm water management.
Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit specifies the criteria to be used in sizing these BMPs.
The MND does not discuss the proposed post-construction storm water treatment BMPs,
along with proposed locations of these BMPs on the Project site layout. Therefore, it is not
possible to evaluate whether or not the Project can attain the treatment requirements of tht
Alameda County Clean Water Program's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit.
At this stage of the CEQA process, sufficient design detail should be provided to ensure
that the Project has set aside sufficient land area for appropriately sized treatment
measures. As was stated above in Comment 4, proposed mitigation measures should be
presented in sufficient detail for readers of the CEQA document to evaluate the likelihood
that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
CEQA requires that mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect be
adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an adequate CEQA document,
mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4).
Post-construction BMPs are required to provide treatment that meets the maximum extent
practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act. Treatment consistent with
the MEP standard is defined in the NPDES permit. To meet the MEP standard, treatment
BMPs are to be constructed that incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing
design criteria to treat storm water runoff. As appropriate for each criterion, local rainfall
data are to be used or appropriately analyzed for the design of BMPs.
V olume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action
depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration structures,
shaJJ be designed to treat stonnwater runoff equal to:
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area '.\' waters for over 5Uyears
!fJ:vcled Paper
Ms. Morton
- 5 - MND, [ran Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive. Dublin
1. the maximized stormwater quality capture volume for the area, based on
historical rainfall records, determined using the fOffimla and volume capture
coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of
Practice No. 23/ ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87. (J 998), pages 175-178 (e.g.,
approximately the 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or
2. the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture,
determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the
California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook. (1993), using
local rainfall data.
Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends
on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to treat:
1. 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate;
2. or the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the
85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on
historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or
3. the flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per
hour intensity.
Water Board staff strongly encourage the use oflandscape-based stormwater treatment
measures, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff from project sites.
Since landscape-based stormwater treatment measures require that some of the site surface
area be set aside for their construction, the proper sizing and placement of these features
should be evaluated early in the design process to facilitate incorporation of the features
into the site landscaping. Water Board staff discourage the use of inlet filter devices for
stormwater management. Filtration systems require a maintenance program that is
adequate to maintain the functional integrity of the systems and to ensure that improperly
maintained filtration devices do not themselves become sources of stormwater
contaminants or fail to function. Water Board staff have observed problems with the use
of inlet filter inserts, since these devices require high levels of maintenance and are easily
clogged by leaves or other commonly occurring debris, rendering them ineffective.
Research conducted by the California Department of Transportation has demonstrated that
inlet filters can be clogged by a single stOlm event. The study found that these devices
required maintenance before and after storm events as small as 0.1 inch of rain. In
addition, trash, debris, and sediment in the catchment had a significant impact on the
Preserving. enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years
6:vcled Paper
Ms. Morton
- 6 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive, Dublin
frequency of maintenance]. Therefore, adequate maintenance of inlet filters to provide
MEP water quality treatment would be prohibitively expensive and impractically time
consum1l1g.
Water Board staff recommend that the project proponents refer to Start at the Source, a
design guidance manual for storm water quality protection, for a fuller discussion of the
selection of stormwater management practices. This manual provides innovative
procedures for designing structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping to
mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff on receiving waters. This manual may be
obtained from the [Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's
website (www.scvurppp.orq)] or bye-mailing a request to the e-mail address in the last
paragraph of this letter. Additional innovative techniques for incorporating structural
stormwater best management practices (BMPs) into urban design, such as infiltration
planter boxes, can be found in Portland, Oregon's 2002 Stormwater Management Manual,
which can be obtained at www.cleanrivers-pdx.org/techresources/2002swmm.htm.
Comment 9 - Section 3.8.2, Water Quality (page 45)
The MND states that the relocation of the eastern drainage is a temporary impact. This is
not correct. The resource agencies consider temporary impacts to be impacts that can be
mitigated by restoring the impacted water or wetland to its pre-project condition and
location. Relocating a drainage is a permanent impact that is likely to require additional
mitigation measures in addition to re-creating the drainage in a new location.
Comment 10 - Section 3.8.2, Water Quality (page 45)
The discussion of Water Quality in Section 3.8.2 fails to address compliance with the
ACCWP NPDES Pennit (Order R2-2003-0021; NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831 ).
Comment 11
To comply with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration must identify the likely
environmental impacts of the proposed project and identify mitigation measures with a
strong probability of reducing these impacts to a less than significant level. As is
described in the previous comments, the MND does not identify all potential project
impacts on beneficial uses of waters of the State and does not provide sufficient detail to
ensure that adequate mitigation can be provided for Project impacts to waters of the State.
Please do not hesitate to contact Water Board staff for any assistance we can provide in
revising the MND to provide appropriate mitigation for impacts to waters of the State.
I Otbmer, Friedman, Borroum and Currier, November 200 I, Pelforl11unce Evuluation of S/rl/!:tural BMPs:
Drain Inlet Inserts (Fossil Filler™ and StreamGur.mfTM) alld Oil/Water Separa/Ur, Sacramento, Caltrans.
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the SUII Francisco Bay Area's wl1tersjor over 50 years
(!J:vcled Papa
Ms. Morton
- 7 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive, Dublin
If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622-5680 or bye-mail at
bwines@waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
'7]
, \
/{I L.(
l//) /LI\.i.~
Brian Wines
Water Resources Control Engineer
cc State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
USACE, San Francisco District, Attn: Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105 -2197
CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Robert Floerke, Regional Manager, P.O. Box
47, Yountville CA 94599
CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Janice Gan, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA
94599
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Chris Nagano, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-260S,
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Kim Squires, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Preserving. enhancing. and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 .vears
6yc!ed Paper
DAVID Jo POV/~SRS
February 6, 2007
Mr. Lee Thompson
Public Works Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Comment Letter from RWQCB on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Dear Lee:
We have received and reviewed the letter you forwarded from the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (dated January 4,2007) regarding the proposed Scarlett Drive Extension and
Widening Project. As you know, the letter makes several claims regarding the analysis in the Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/J\1ND) prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This letter provides our
responses to the substantive issues raised in the RWQCB letter.
Comment 1:
Section 3.4.1, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 25 and 26):
Under the heading, "Regulated Habitats", the J\1ND discusses "US Army Corps of Engineers
Jurisdiction" and the "California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG)." However, the MND does
not discuss waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Water Board.
The discussions of wetlands and jurisdictional waters under the heading "Regulated Habitats" should
be expanded to clarify that the Water Board has regulatory authOlity over wetlands and waterways
under both the federal Clean Water Act (CW A) and the State of California's Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7). Under the CWA, the Water Board has
regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States through the issuance of water quality
certifications (certifications) under Section 401 of the CW A, which are issued in combination with
permits issued by the AmIY Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under Section 404 of the CW A. \Vhen the
Water Board issues Section 401 certifications, it simultaneously issues general Waste Discharge
Requirements for the project, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities in
areas that are outside of the jurisdiction oflhe ACOE (e.g. isolated wetlands vemal pools or stream
banks above the ordinary high water mark) are regulated by the Water Board, under the authority of
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, channels that have either been modified
by human activities, or have been created by human activities but which convey surface runoff that
enter the channel through gravity flow may also be regulated as waters of the State. Activities that
P'"iarnec;:; ~"uite
(~ ~:~SJ. Jose, Cl-i
Mr. Lee Thompson
February 6, 2007
Page 2
lie outside of ACOE jurisdiction, but within Water Board jurisdiction, may require the issuance of
either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the Water Board.
Response 1:
This comment is noted. This language was inadvertently omitted from pages 25-26 of the
Initial Study, The text of the Initial Study has been revised to include an overview of Waters
of the State and the jurisdiction of the R WQCB (refer to the attached Initial Study Text
Revisions). The text has also been revised to clarify that the project may need to obtain an
individual or general waste discharge requirement from the RWQCB. These text revisions
do not affect the adequacy of the Initial Study under CEQA.
Comment 2:
Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29):
Under the heading, "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)", the MND refers to the placement of
part of the Chabot Canal (about 170 linear feet, according to text on page 42) into a box culvert as a
temporary impact. This is incorrect; the placement of a channel in a culvert of any kind is a
permanent impact, and must be mitigated as such.
Response 2:
This comment is correct. The text on page 29 of the Initial Study was incorrect and has been
revised to clarify that the extension of the proposed box culvert within the Chabot Canal
(approximately 170 linear feet) would be a permanent impact (refer to the attached Initial
Study Text Revisions). Mitigation would be provided for this pmmanent impact in
accordance with the requirements outlined on pages 29-31 of the Initial Study.
Comment 3:
Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29):
In the list of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.1 is, "[A] wetland delineation would be conducted and
submitted to the US Almy Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-
site." This is a legal requirement; it is not a mitigation measure. In addition, the Water Board must
be contacted to detennine if there are non-Corp jurisdictional waters of the State at the Proj ect site.
Response 3:
As pari of the discussion of wetland impacts and mitigation measures, the text of the Initial
Study identifies that a wetland delineation would be conducted and submitted to the U.S.
Anny C011)S of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site. It is
acknowledged that obtaining Corps verification of the jurisdictional wetlands is a legal
requirement. This measure was included in the discussion to illustrate that the Corps would
be contacted to confirm the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands estimated by the biological
Afr. Lee Thompson
FebrualY 6, 2007
Page 3
consultant for this project. The text on pages 29-30 of the Initial Study identifies other
mitigation measures to reduce and offset the impacts to jurisdictional waters.
The RWQCB will also be contacted, as appropriate, to determine whether non-Corps
jurisdictional Waters afthe State are present at the project site.
Comment 4:
Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29):
In the list of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.2 states that, "impacted seasonal aquatic habitat would
be replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed wetland impacts associated with the
Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an approved local mitigation bank or adjacent property.
Impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2: 1 (replaced:impacted)." The proposed
mitigation lacks sufficient detail for Water Board staffto evaluate whether or not the mitigation
would be adequate to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. The amount of mitigation
required for an impact is a function of both the proposed mitigation project and distance between the
location of the impact and the location of the mitigation site. The mitigation required for an impact
increases as a function of the distance between the impact location and the mitigation location. Since
the proposed location is not yet identified, the amount of mitigation required cannot be evaluated.
The amount of mitigation required is greater for "out oflcind" mitigation (i.e. mitigation habitats that
are different from the type of impacted habitat). Since no details are provided for the proposed
mitigation, it is not clear yet whether or not the Project is proposing to provide "in-kind" mitigation.
The amount of mitigation required may also be a factor or the likelihood of success at the mitigation
site, Since no details of the proposed mitigation project are provided in the MND, it is not possible
for Water Board staff to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation,
Proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy
will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that mitigation measures
for each significant environmental effect be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an
adequate CEQA document, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through
permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section
145126). Mitigation measures to be identified at some future time are not acceptable. It has been
determined by comi ruling that such mitigation measures would be improperly exempted from the
process of public and governmental scrutiny which is required under the California Environmental
Quality Act. Based on the information provided in the .t-.1ND, it is not possible to evaluate the extent
of potential impacts to waters of the State, or the adequacy of mitigation measures to reduce the
impacts of the Project to a less than significant level.
.,"_~,_~"_,__~~,~~___~_,_____w~_~~._."'=~~_.~---_......~-'''''''-==~"~-=-==,-=-...-,.~~~,~_......,.
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 4
Response 4:
The project proposes to provide "in-kind" mitigation for any and all wetland impacts. It
should be noted that the mitigation required for an impact is also a function of the nature and
quality of the existing habitat to be impacted. As stated on pages 29-30 of the Initial Study,
approximately four (4) acres of wetlands would be created to mitigate the project's impacts
on wetlands.
At the time the Draft Initial Study was written, the City was proposing to implement one of
two identified options to mitigate the project's impact to wetlands. As described on pages
29-30 of the Draft IS/MND, the impacts to the seasonal aquatic habitat along the east and
west sides of the Scarlett Drive roadway were planned to be mitigated either: 1) on-site near
and along the Chabot Canal; or 2) at an approved mitigation bank in the region. Subsequent
to the preparation of the Draft IS/MND, the City has further investigated these mitigation
options, and has elected to use the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank mitigation bank,
located at 1556 Catalina Court in Livermore. This mitigation bank is approved for wetland
mitigation, At least four (4) acres of wetland mi6gation credit will be purchased at the
Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank to offset the project's impacts upon wetlands at the site
(refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions).
The proposed mitigation measures have identified on pages 29-30 of the Draft Initial Study
and will be made conditions of the project. It is the City's position that the mitigation
measures identified are feasible and will be fully enforceable through conditions of approval
and subject to the regulatory authority of the Corps, the RWQCB, and the California
Department ofFish and Game. The Initial Study evaluates the impacts to biological
resources likely to result from the proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures
needed to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level under CEQA. As noted in the
response to comment 3 above, the RWQCB will be contacted, as appropriate, to determine
whether non-Corps jurisdictional waters of the State are present at the project site.
Comment 5:
Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 29 and 30):
At present, the Project proposes to either purchase mitigation credits at an approved mitigation bank
and/or to create about 4 acres of wetlands. The MND should identify approved mitigation banks
with a service area that includes the Project site. Without this information, the feasibility ofusing a
mitigation bank cannot be evaluated for the Project.
In addition, the only metric proposed for impacts to jurisdiction wetlands and waters is acreage. For
impacts to channels s11ch as the proposal to culvert 170 linear feet of Chabot Canal mitigation must
also be provided on a linear foot basis (i.e. impacts to channels should be mitigated with channels).
~~'~=-'~~~~_.~~",_.....-...-==~-.,,~---~~"'=~-==="'......._~.-"~----~~"~-~._~"'~-----~~^~.~-~
A1.r. Lee Thompson
Februwy 6, 2007
Page 5
Response 5:
As noted in the response to comment 4 above, the project proposes to use the Ohlone
Preserve Conservation Bank to mitigate the project's impacts to wetlands. The text of the
Initial Study has been revised to provide additional detail regarding the Ohlone Preserve
Conservation Bank (refer to attached Initial Study Text Revisions).
Comment 6:
Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 30):
Mitigation measure 3.4.2.3 requires that the Project proponent obtain Section 401 celtification from
the Water Board; this is a legal requirement, not a mitigation measure. As noted above, the Project
will also require general or individual WDRs from the Water Board. Although obtaining these
permits is not a mitigation measure, the permits will impose mitigation requirements on the Project.
When evaluating applications for certifications and/or WDRs, the Water Board requires that the
Project proponent have evaluated options for avoiding impacts to waters of the State. Where impacts
cannot be avoided, the Project proponent must demonstrate that unavoidable impacts have been
minimized to the maximum extant practicable. This analysis of avoidance and minimization of
impacts should be submitted with the permit application.
Response 6:
This comment is noted. Refer to the responses to comments 1 and 3 above (refer to attached
Initial Study Text Revisions). As noted in the response to comment 1 above, the RWQCB
will be contacted, as appropriate, to determine whether non-Corps jurisdictional Waters of the
State are present at the project site. As part of any application for RWQCB certifications
and/or WDRs, the City will be prepared to demonstrate that impacts to Waters of the State
have been avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent practical.
Comment 7:
Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Special Status Species (page 31):
The MND concludes that the Project will not have a significant impact on California tiger
salamander (CTS) or California red-legged frog (CRLF). The MND refers to surveys for these
species, but it is not clear from the MND whether or not these were protocol level surveys conducted
during appropriate times of the year. It is also not clear if potential impacts to dispersal habitat for
CTS and CRLF have been evaluated.
........~~~_=""'""'~~~<="'"'~~..,..,..___~~~~~.-_.._~.,.~H_..___--=-...........~___._~..,-=-______=.~~~~~_..".""*".,"'~~~<==~...~~~.=---""'-=-='"",.~-,-~--'~-"'......."""""_--._'"""'"
.Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 6
Response 7:
Dr. Mark Jennings, herpetologist and noted authority on special-status species in California,
surveyed the project site in May of2006. As described on page 6 of the biotic analysis
completed for the project (Appendix A of the Draft Initial Study):
"Breeding habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) is absent from the site
because in years of normal rainfall the seasonal drainages would not hold water long
enough to support successful breeding. And even in 2006, a year with unusually high
rainfall, the eastern drainage exhibited no pooling and waters within the western
drainage were only 4-6 inches deep in May 2006. "
As also noted in Appendix A, the site is not located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) designated critical habitat for the CTS. While CTS are known to occur on the
northeastern portion of the Camp Parks Military Reserve, these ponds are located more than
two (2) miles northeast of the site. The project site is isolated from any known populations of
CTS. For these reasons, the IS/MND concludes that the project would not result in
significant impacts to CTS.
The project site does not support habitat for California red-legged frog (CRLF) and there are
no records of CRLF occurring at the site. As described on page 5 of the biotic analysis in
Appendix A of the Draft Initial Study, Dr. Jennings has surveyed the general project area for
over 15 years, and does not believe that CRLF would enter the site because the drainages are
seasonal and suitable breeding habitat is absent. For these reasons, the IS/MND concludes
that the project would not result in significant impacts to CRLF.
Comment 8:
Section 3.8.1, Water Quality (page 43):
The MND mentions the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) and the NPDES
permit that was issued to ACCWP for stonnwater discharges. Under the NPDES Municipal
Stonnwater Permit (Order R2-2003-0021; NPDES Permit No. CAS002983I), all projects that create
or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are required to provide post-construction best
management practices (BMPs) for storm water management. Provision C3 of the NPDES Pern1it
specifies the cliteria to be used in sizing these BMPs.
The MND does not discuss the proposed post-construction storn1water treatment BMPs, along with
proposed locations of these BMPs on the Project site layout. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate
whether or not the Project can attain the treatment requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water
Program's NPDES Municipal Stonmvater Pem1it.
~~-~-~~-~"~~'"""""'-----~=---~'=.~~~~~---=--~---'-~~.~,~~_.~,~""",~"""",---=-.-~-~-~,,,..---<->-=~,,..,..,,.,....~~......=,
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 7
At this stage of the CEQA process, sufficient design detail should be provided to ensure that the
Project has set aside sufficient land area for appropriately sized treatment measures. As was stated
above in Comment 4, proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for
readers of the CEQA document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that mitigation measures for each
significant environmental effect be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an
adequate CEQA document, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through
permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4).
Post construction BMPs are required to provide treatment that meets the maximum extent practicable
(MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act. Treatment consistent with the MEP standard is
defined in the NPDES permit. To meet the MEP standard, treatment BMPs are to be constructed that
incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to treat stormwater runoff.
As appropriate for each criterion, local rainfall data are to be used or appropriately analyzed for the
design ofBMPs.
Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on
volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration structures, shall be designed to treat
storm water runoff equal to:
1. the maximized stom1water quality capture volume for the area, based on historical rainfall
records, detem1ined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban
Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No 23 ASCE Manual of Practice No.
87 (1998), pages 175-178 (e.g., approximately the 85th percentile 24 hour storm runoff
event); or
2. the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, detem1.ined in
accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the California Stonnwater Best
Management Practices Handbook, (1993), using local rainfall data.
Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on flow
capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands shall be sized to treat:
1. 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate;
2. or the flow ofnmoffproduced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile
hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall
depths; or
3. the flow of runoffresulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 8
Water Board staff strongly encourage the use oflandscape-based stormwater treatment measures,
such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff from project sites. Since landscape-based
stormwater treatment measures require that some of the site surface area be set aside for their
construction, the proper sizing and placement of these features should be evaluated early in the
design process to facilitate incorporation of the features into the site landscaping. Water Board staff
discourage the use of inlet filter devices for stormwater management. Filtration systems require a
maintenance program that is adequate to maintain the functional integrity of the systems and to
ensure that improperly maintained filtration devices do not themselves become sources of stormwater
contaminants or fail to function. Water Board staff have observed problems with the use of inlet
filter inserts, since these devices require high levels of maintenance and are easily clogged by leaves
or other commonly occurring debris, rendering them ineffective. Research conducted by the
California Department of Transportation has demonstrated that inlet filters can be clogged by a single
storn1 event. The study found that these devices required maintenance before and after storm events
as small as 0.1 inch of rain. In addition, trash, debris, and sediment in the catchment had a
significant impact on the frequency of maintenance. Therefore, adequate maintenance of inlet filters
to provide, MEP water quality treatment would be prohibitively expensive and impractically time
consummg.
Water Board staffrecommend that the project proponents refer to Start at the Source, a design
guidance manual for stann water quality protection, for a fuller discussion of the selection of
stormwater management practices. This manual provides innovative procedures for designing
structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping to mitigate the impacts of stormwater
runoff on receiving waters. This manual may be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program's web site (www.scvurppp.orq) or by mailing a request to the e-mail
address in the last paragraph of this letter. Additional innovative techniques for incorporating
structural stormwater best management practices (BMPs) into urban design, such as infiltration
planter boxes, can be found in Portland, Oregon's 2002 Stormwater Management Manual, which can
be obtained at \vww.cleanrivers-pdx.org/tech _resources/2002 _swmm.htm.
Response 8:
As described on page 45 of the Draft Initial Study, the project would result in a slight
increase in the amount of impervious surfaces at the site, thus resulting in an incremental
increase in runoff rate and volume. The project proposes to utilize landscape-based treatment
and control measures to minimize the addition of runoff volume and pollution to the Chabot
Canal, including the use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions, storm water
retention or detention basins, or a combination of these practices. The proposed BMPs will
comply with the Alameda County Clean Water Program (ACCWP) NPDES Permit (Order
R2-2003-00211 NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831) and will be designed to provide treatment
that meets the maximum extent practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act.
The measures will also specifically comply with provision C.2 of the NPDES pelmit, which
includes numeric sizing requirements for post-construction BMPs and hydromodificatiol1
requirements for the management of sto1111water for new development.
Mr. Lee Thompson
FebruaJ)' 6, 2007
Page 9
The exact location(s) and size(s) of the detention and retention areas proposed will be
determined based on further consultation and subject to the approval ofRWQCB and
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) staff. Additional
detail regarding the proposed post-construction measures has been added to the text of the
Initial Study (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions).
Comment 9:
Section 3,8.2, Water Quality (page 45):
The MND states that the relocation of the eastem drainage is a temporary impact. This is not correct.
The resource agencies consider temporary impacts to be impacts that can be mitigated by restoring
the impacted water or wetland to its pre-project condition and location. Relocating a drainage is a
permanent impact that is likely to require additional mitigation measures in addition to re-creating
the drainage in a new location.
Response 9:
Refer to the response to comment 2 above. The text on page 29 of the Initial Study was
incorrect and has been revised to clarify that the extension of the proposed box culvert within
the Chabot Canal would be a pelmanent impact (refer to the attached Initial Study Text
Revisions),
Comment 10:
Section 3.8.2, Water Quality (page 45):
The discussion of Water Quality in Section 3.8.2 fails to address compliance with the
ACCWP NPDES Permit (Order R2-2003-002l; NPDES Permit No. CAS002983I).
Response 10:
The text on page 45 of the Initial Study has been revised to clarify that the project would
comply with Alameda County Clean Water Program lACCWP) NPDES Permit (Order R2-
2003-00211 NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831) [refer to the attached Initial Study Text
Revisions] .
Comment 11:
To comply with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration must identify the likely environmental
impacts of the proposed project and identify mitigation measures with a strong probability of
reducing these impacts to a less than significant level. As is described in the previous comments, the
MND does not identify all potential project impacts on beneficial uses of waters of the State and does
not provide sufficient detail to ensure that adequate mitigation can be provided for Proj ect impacts to
waters of the State.
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 10
Response 11:
The City's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared under CEQA
addresses the physical impacts of the project on the environment, including those pertaining
to jurisdictional habitats and endangered species, in conformance with Sections 15063 and
15064 of the CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND identifies feasible and enforceable mitigation
measures in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15126.4). Additional detail has
been added to the text ofthe Initial Study to answer the RWQCB's questions regarding the
proposed mitigation measures (refer to the attached Initial Study Te.xt Revisions).
Conclusion/Summary:
The comment letter received from the RWQCB raises questions regarding the conclusions in the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and points out a few enors in the text of the
Initial Study. The text of the Initial Study has been revised in response to the comments above, in
order to provide additional clarification regarding the impacts and mitigation measures required for
the project. However, the IS/MND for this project has been completed in accordance with Section
15063, and Sections 15070-15074 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15073.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines describes when recirculation of an IS/MND is appropriate. Specifically, as stated in
Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines:
(a) "A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be
substantialZv revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant
to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. Notice of recirculation shall comply with
Sections 15072 and 15073.
(b) A 'substantial revision' of the negative declaration shall mean:
(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project
revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or
(2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation 7neasures or project
revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures
or revisions must be required.
(c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to
Section 15074.1
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the
project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new
avoidable significant effects.
(3) ltfeasures or conditions ofproject approval are added after circulation of the
negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new
significant envi7~onmental effects and are not necessmy to mitigate an avoidable
significant effect.
Mr. Lee Thompson
Februmy 6, 2007
Page 11
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies,
amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. n
In addition, as stated in Section 15074.1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines:
"As a result of the public review process for a proposed mitigated negative declaration,
including any administrative decisions or public hearings conducted on the project prior to
its approval, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified in the
mitigated negative declaration are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. Prior to approving
the project, the lead agency may, in accordance with this section, delete those mitigation
measures and substitute for them other measures which the lead agenc}' determines are
equivalent or more effective. "
Y\'bile the text of the Initial Study has been revised or expanded to clarify some of these issues raised
in the RWQCB letter, it is our opinion that none of the comments received or revisions made to the
IS/MND represent "substantial revisions" as described i:i1 Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Therefore, recirculation of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is not warranted.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this letter, or if you want to
discuss this matter further.
Best regards,
//
~? /.:f~?---
~hn Schwarz ~
Principal Project Manager
lattachments
CITY OF I)UBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us
January 24, 2007
Mr. Bill Can-era
6394 Sussex Court
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Dlive Improvement Project
Dear Mr. Carrera:
This letter is in response to your phone call to Ferd Del Rosario regarding the subject project. He passed
this on to me for response as I am presently working on this project.
Your request was for the City of Dublin to provide a break in the proposed Scarlett Drive median at
Kilkenny Drive and install a stop sign or traffic signal at that break.
Our Traffic Engineer reviewed your request and concluded that the break would be unsafe due to the
close proximity to the Dougherty Road intersection, and that there would not be sufficient side traffic
from Kilkenny Drive to warrant a traffic signal. Also, the City of Dublin would not want to stop the
through traffic on Scarlett Drive, as that street will be a major collector with signal controls at the
intersections.
We appreciate the fact that there will be some inconvenience associated with your new access. For you to
get to Dougherty Road north, you will need to turn right onto Scarlett Drive, then right on Houston Place.
To go toward the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, the safest way would be to go southeast
on Scarlett Drive, then right on Dublin Boulevard.
If you have any further questions, please call me at (925) 833-6630.
Very truly yours, /)
\.. j .-.4 j:/
./...../)I c' .Y',-, j ,
C I ,/ /'
{ / /-t.-t... /./ I I" ..I'''-1~/
'......-/ /' ! r.......~ fI
Lee Th~mps.dn
Public V,Torks
LT/dcl
G: \A1ISCP ROJ1Scarlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail Extension \Response-Carrero.doc
/-\rea
d33-.6Ci50 <! ~)E~rSGntlGi 8~3~Gf)05 '" t::Gonorruc Di:;veloprnent 833-e;S50
on