Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Neg Decl DBX V Pkwy CITY CLERK File # 0820-20 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 21, 2000 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Improvements Project - Village Parkway to Sierra Court Report Prepared by: Lee $. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration 2) Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project 3) Proposed Negative Declaration 4) Location Map RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) 3) 4) s) 6) Open Public Hearing Receive Staff presentation Receive public testimony Close public hearing Deliberate Adopt Resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Improvements Project - Village Parkway to Sierra Court FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the entire project. Approval of this environmental document is a necessary step in acquiring federal and state funds for the project. DESCRIPTION: On November 16, 1999, the City Council approved the agreement with MK Centennial for preliminary engineering and environmental services for the improvement of Dublin Boulevard between Village Parkway and Sierra Court. This project is Phase II of the Dublin Boulevard Widening project between San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road. This phase will widen Dublin Boulevard to six through lanes from Village Parkway to Sierra Court/Civic Plaza, reconstruct/widen the Alamo Canal bridge and stabilize the slopes of Alamo Canal under the bridge. Bicycle lanes will also be provided on both sides of Dublin Boulevard from Alamo Canal (where the future Alamo Canal Trail will be constructed) easterly to Sierra Court. The City's consultant has prepared the proposed Negative Declaration for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. In addition, progress is being made in obtaining project certification for the National Environmental Policy COPIES TO: G:\miscproj\dublin-vow sierra\hgst pub hearing neg dec dublin blvd widening.doc ITEM NO. 3,ct (NEPA) which will meet federal requirements. The City has to comply with both CEQA and NEPA requirements because of federal and state funds approved for the project. Allocation of these funds for right-of-way acquisition or construction will be made only after documentation of the required CEQA and NEPA environmental clearances. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and Staff has determined that there will not be a significant adverse effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration. Impacts cited in the environmental document include short-term increases in erosion and siltation due to the reconstruction of the Alamo Canal bridge. This will be mitigated by erosion control measures required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Also any new lighting placed on the bridge will require approval from the California Department of Fish and Game so as not to adversely impact animal species utilizing the creek. Short-term increase in dust will be mitigated by implementing twice-daily watering of exposed earth surfaces throughout the construction phase. The project will require removing some trees along the south side of Dublin Boulevard between Clark and Alamo Canal. These are to be replaced with the City's standard landscape street trees. Additional landscaped medians will increase the amount of landscaping in the area. An effort will be made to avoid removal of existing trees along the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Alamo Canal and Clark Avenue. Additional street trees will be planted to enhance the street landscaping in the area. A public informational meeting was held on Wednesday, March 8, 2000. The meeting notice was mailed to property owners, posted in the proposed project area, hand delivered to tenants of businesses impacted by the project, and published in the Tri-Valley Herald. Eight members of the community attended the meeting, with four other community members contacting Staff in person or by telephone. Comments and concerns received were related to the physical design of the proposed project particularly ingress and egress from commercial properties along Dublin Boulevard. The improvement plans will incorporate many of the public comments, including the preservation of critical left turn access into commercial properties. The 30-day public-comment period commenced on February 21, 2000, and will officially terminate on March 20, 2000. As of the writing of this agenda statement, Staff has not received any written comments regarding the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration nor opposition to the project. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Improvements - Village Parkway to Sierra Court. -2- RESOLUTION NO. -9~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN /¥ ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS - VILLAGE PARKWAY TO SIERRA COURT WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has planned to widen Dublin Boulevard between Village Parkway and Sierra Court; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Boulevard Improvements project from Village Parkway to Sierra Court is included in the 1998-2003 City of Dublin Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and a Mitigated Negative DeClaration has been prepared for the project and mitigation measures have been included; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has issued a notice of intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Improvements Project and notice, of public hearing regarding the project, and the City of Dublin has conducted the public hearing on March 21, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received during the public review period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of DUblin does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Improvements Project from Village Parkway to Sierra Court. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 st day of March 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk g:[rniscprofidublin vpw-sierralresonegdec, doc ATTACHMENT1 FEB. iT.2000 3:46PM PUBLIC AFFAIRS MAHAGEMEHT CITY OF DUBLIN RO, Box 2~40, Dublin, California 94~$fl N0.972 P. 2/2 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Du~in, O~llforni~ 945aa Notice of Intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration For the Dublin Boulevard.Widening Project February 18, 2000 The City of Dublin is proposing to widen and overlay Dublin BoUlevard east of Village Parkway to a point east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to provide two additional traffic Janes (existing four lanes to six lanes), Two existing traffic signals will be modified to accommodate the widened street, and may be coordinated with seven other existing signals to improve traffic flow, Bike lanes will be provided and connect with interregional bike paths, The existing bridge over Alamo Creek will be widened to accommodb, te the two additional traffic lanes and a pedestrian walkway. Stabilization of the creek channel Is anticipated to protect existing and future bridge components from further deterioration, Existing overhead utilities will be placed underground along the north side of Dublin Boulevard. Additional streetlights will be installed to deter crime in the area of the bridge and the future Alamo Creek bike path. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are available from the City of Dublin Public Works Department located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568. Written comments on the proposed Negative Declaration must be submitted to Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works, City of Dublin, at the above address, no later than March 20, 2000, There will be a project Informational meeting held on March 8, 2000 at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza in Dublin. The public is invited to attend the meeting to learn more .about the project plans and ask questions of the project design team, The Dublin City Council will hold a Public Hearing on March 21, 2000 at 7:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, to consider approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. If you have any questions regarding this project please contact: Floyd Davis Proiect Engineer, (925) 8:33-6630. ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c), 5.5) Description of Project: This project will widen and overlay Dublin Boulevard east of Village Parkway to east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to provide 2 additional traffic lanes (existing 4 lanes to 6 lanes). Two existing traffic signals will be modified, with the potential of coordinating signals with 7 other existing signals. Bike lanes will be provided to interconnect with interregional bike paths. Bus stops will be integrated into landscape areas to create a free flow traffic condition for through traffic. The existing bridge over Alamo Channel will be widened to accommodate the 2 additional traffic lanes, with pedestrian walkway also provided. Channel stabilization is anticipated to protect existing and future bridge components from further deterioration. Existing overhead utilities will be placed underground along the north side of Dublin Boulevard. Additional street lights will be installed to deter crime in area of bridge and future bike and pedestrian paths. Project Location: Dublin Boulevard, east of Village Parkway to east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza. Name of Proponents: City of Dublin, Public Works Department; 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form" and "Environmental Checklist") documenting the reasons to support the above finding. Mitigation Measures have been included in this project. Dated: /~. ~//-~o~ ~j 2000 ( Attachments ATTACHMENT 3 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study .. Project title: Dublin Boulevard Widening (Phase 2)- East of Village Parkway to east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, Public Works Department- 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 3. Contact person and phone number: Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works; 925/833-6630 4. Project location: North and south side of Dublin Boulevard from east of Village Parkway to east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza 5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): N/A 6. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Dublin, Public Works Department; 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 7. General Plan designation: N/A 8. Zoning: N/A 9. Specific Plan designation: N/A 10. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited' to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) This project will widen and overlay Dublin Boulevard east of Village Parkway to east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to provide 2 additional traffic lanes (existing 4 lanes to 6 lanes). Two existing traffic signals will be modified, with the potential of coordinating signals with 7 other existing signals. Bike lanes will be provided to interconnect with interregional bike paths. Bus stops will be integrated into landscape areas to create a free flow traffic condition for through traffic. The existing bridge over Alamo Creek will be widened to accommodate the 2 additional traffic lanes, with pedestrian walkway also provided. Channel stabilization is anticipated to protect existing and future bridge components from fm'ther deterioration. Existing overhead utilities will be placed under~round along the north side of Dublin Boulevard. Additional street lights will be installed to deter crime in area of bridge and future bike and pedestrian paths. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Surrounding land uses (north and south of existing Dublin Boulevard) include a variety of fast-food restaurants, commercial/retail establishments, office and industrial uses, the Dublin San Ramon Service District's office and Water Conservation Plant Demonstration Area, and the Civic Center. Alamo Creek, which is an improved, channeled water course hms in an approximately north to south direction through and is part of the proposed project. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) · Caltrans · U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · California Regional Water Quality Control Board · California Dept. of Fish and Game · U.S. Fish & Wildlife · Dublin-San Ramon Services District · Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, Zone 7 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 I-~ ~griculture Resources ~Air Quality ~-~ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources ~ GeOlogy/Soils ~-~ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~ Hydrology / Water Quality I-~ Land Use Planning ~ Mineral Resources ~ Noise [-~ Population / Housing ~ Public Services ~ Recreation ~-~ Tr~po~atio~Traffic ~-~ Utilities / Service Systems . L_~ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~/e~x-~ ~ff~/~-----~ Date ~'[~/01~ Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works Printed name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: l) 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 parentheses 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 rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (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 involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" 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 (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for 'potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or 4 outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Environmental Impacts. The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist. A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1, 3) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 3) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 3) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2) II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 9) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X 6 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 9) III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance ' Criteria established by the applicable air quality Management or air pollution control district may be Relied upon 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) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?(Source: 2) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?(Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project: .a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) b) 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 California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2 ) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, 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 a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 2) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2) 8 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation · Incorporation X X X X X X Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation · ' Incorporation X X X X X X X X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? (Source: 9) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (Source: 9) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 10) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 10) i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 2) iv) Landslides? (Source: 2) VI. 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: b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2) 9 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation · ' Incorporation X X X X X X 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- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source: 2, 3) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 3) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source: 9) VII. 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: 9) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 9) 10 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 9) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2) h) 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: 9) VIII. 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 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-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) 11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation -' Incorporation X X X X X X X Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation · Incorporation X X X X X X X X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration 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 area, including through the alteration of the course of a 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 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runof~ (Source: 2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 9) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard'area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 9) j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 9) 12 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 9) 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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 2) 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: 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: 2) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation · Incorporation X X X X X X X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Source: 2)' 13 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ' levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) 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: 9) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 9) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 14 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? (Source: 9) Police Protection? (Source: 9) Schools? (Source: 9) Parks? (Source: 9) Other Public Facilities? (Source: 2) XIV. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational 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) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 15 XV. TRANSPORTATION/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)? (Source: 2) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 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? (Source: 2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 2) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 9) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 2) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation · ' Incorporation X X X X X X X 16 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 9) 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? (Source: 9) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 9) 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 provider's existing commitments? (Source: 9) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 9) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 17 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 t drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number 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? (Source: 2) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a projec are considerable when viewed in connection with the effect of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Source: 2) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 2) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Not applicable. California Historical on location of project. on staff office review. on field review. on the City of Dublin General Plan on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. on the San Ramon Road Specific Plan., on the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. on East Dublin Specific Plan. Resource Information System 18 City of Dublin Explanations for Checklist Form Project Description - Dublin Boulevard widening from east of Village Parkway to east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza This project is necessitated by new traffic generated in Eastem Dublin from new development. The proposed improvements will complete the roadway to its ultimate width of six lanes divided by a landscaped median. It is anticipated that eminent domain may be initiated for acquisition of some of the properties necessary for construction. Designs for this Capital Improvement Project (CIP No. 96920) show a six-lane roadway including a landscaped and lighted center median, curb and gutter, and sidewalks along both sides, with total roadway widths of between 90 and 94 feet. Also included in the project is modification of two existing traffic signals, with the potential of coordinating signals with seven other existing signals. Bike lanes will be provided to connect with the inter-regional bike paths. Bus stops will be integrated into landscape areas to create a free flow traffic condition for through traffic. The existing bridge over Alamo Channel will be widened to accommodate additional traffic lanes, with pedestrian walkways integrated. Existing overhead utility lines along the northern edge of Dublin Boulevard will be placed underground. Additional street lights will be added to the project to deter crime in the area of the bridge and the furore bike and pedestrian paths. This project is proposed to be completed in one phase, starting in late summer/ early Fall of 2000, with completion anticipated for Summer 2001. The area of the future right-of-way includes portions parcels that are currently not owned by the City of Dublin or for which the City has not obtained easements over said property. The .City currently anticipates that for certain properties involved, eminent domain (defined as the right of the government [City of Dublin] to take private property for public use by virtue of superior dominion of the government over all lands within its jurisdiction) may be initiated. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Dublin Boulevard, west of Village Parkway, is currently a four-lane roadway, approximately 90 feet in width. Properties on the north and south sides of this portion of Dublin Boulevard include a mixture of restaurant, commercial, retail, light industrial and office uses. Exhibit 1 indicates the Project Vicinity for the proposed project.' Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96920 Page 20 Exhibit 1 - Project Vicinity H~GH CAMP i PAf~ Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96920 Page 21 Explanations The following section provides narrative responses that correspond with the environmental checklist form. I. Aesthetics a-c - Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west thoroughfare through the City. Views of the surrounding foothills in the distance are visible while travelling along the roadway, with more rural features as one travels easterly. However, this portion of Dublin Boulevard is not designated by the City as a scenic route. Alamo Channel, running perpendicular to Dublin Boulevard, provides the only scenic resource in the project vicinity. Widening of Dublin Boulevard from east of Village Parkway to east of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza is anticipated to have no impacts on scenic vistas. Due to the fact that there is an existing bridge crossing Alamo Channel, impacts to this scenic resource are anticipated to be less than significant. Due to the developed nature of the surrounding environment, impacts on the visual quality of the site/surroundings are anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation is required Extensive landscaping, in the form of 24-inch and 36-inch box-sized street trees, perennial shrubs, groundcovers, special concrete paving and pilaster and lattice features are proposed in the center median and along both sides of Dublin Boulevard. This is in addition to existing street trees or re-planted trees along both sides of Dublin Boulevard. These are beneficial aspects of the proposed project and will serve to improve the aesthetics of the project area. d - New street lights are proposed as part of the landscaping improvements included with the proposed project. Lighting shall be installed per City standards. Any lighting placed on the Alamo Channel Bridge and/or along the proposed pedestrianPoicycle pathways may affect animal (nocturnal) species which utilize the creek. This is apotentially significant impact. The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to mitigate potential light and glare impacts to a level of insignificance. I-1. All new lighting placed on the Alamo Channel Bridge and/or along the proposed pedestrian/bicycle pathways shall be planned in coordination with and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game so as not to adversely impact animal species utilizing the creek. II. Agriculture Resources a-c - The proposed project does not encompass nor would it affect any properties currently in agricultural production. No impacts are anticipated. III. Air Quali _ty a-e - This project is being constructed in response to anticipated build-out conditions for East Dublin, in order to accommodate existing and future vehicle traffic. Therefore, it can be assumed Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96920 Page 22 that any increase in traffic-related air quality has been accounted for and/or has been mitigated through the approval process for the Easter Dublin Specific Plan. This project would not be in violation of any applicable air quality standards. Substantial pollutant concentrations are not anticipated with the roadway widening. Upon completion of construction, no objectionable odors would be created. No impacts are anticipated It should be noted, however, that due to the anticipated earthwork involved for this roadway widening project, short-term increases in particulate matter (PM~0) concentrations can be expected in the project vicinity during the grading operations. This could impact existing businesses and uses on either side of Dublin Boulevard The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to mitigate potential construction- related air quality impacts to a level of insignificance. III-1. Twice-daily watering of exposed earth surfaces shall occur throughout the construction phase. In addition, daily Watering and/or sweeping of affected street surfaces shall take place. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. IV. Biological Resources a-d - The proposed project includes channel stabilization and widening of the existing bridge which crosses Alamo Creek. The creek runs along the eastern side of Dublin, near Dougherty Road. A major portion of the creek is channelized, and remaining sections have mostly been improved as a result of subdivision developments. Even channelized watercourses can provide suitable habitat for plant and animal species, some of which may be protected or listed species in the State of California. A biological survey of Alamo Creek was performed by LSA (included as Appendix A).' The survey concluded that none of the potentially occurring special-status species considered for this project were detected in the study area during the site visit. It should be noted, however, that the survey was conducted in the winter, when the potential to detect a number of species is limited. Four plant species could not be ruled out as absent, because they were undetectable at the time of the survey. However, the potential for these species to occur in the project are is remote and it is unlikely that the project would result in any impacts to special status plant species. Two special status wildlife species were identified as potentially able to use the project area and could not be ruled out as absent. These include the California red-legged frog and the Western pond turtle. These species occur upstream of the study area and could use the project site as a migration corridor to reach suitable habitat downstream. The LSA report concluded that the proposed bridge widening would not impact this potential use. Potential impacts to biological resources are anticipated to be less than signficant. Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96920 Page 23 e-f- There are currently no ordinances or conservation plans currently in place which would affect implementation of the proposed project. No impacts are anticipated V. Cultural Resources a-b - A review of records for the project area was performed by the Northwest Information Center, located at Sonoma State University. The review of records and literature on file at the Center's office indicates that the proposed project area contains no recorded Native American or historical cultural resources listed with the Historical Resources Information System. State and federal inventories list no historic properties within the project area. No known cultural, paleontological, or historical resources exist within the proposed project area. Therefore, no impacts to known resources are anticipated c-d - The review of historical literature by the Northwest Information Center noted that due to the length of time that the roadway had existed1, there is a low to moderate possibility of identifying historic cultural resources in the project area. The earthwork required for the project, especially in the area of the Alamo Channel bridge, will expose the substrate during grading activities. Should previously unknown cultural resources be discovered the following mitigation measure is recommended in order to mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. V-1. In the event that archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are discovered during any construction or excavation, the following procedures shall be followed: · Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the Department of Community Development shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any .such materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act. VI. Geolo~ and Soils a, c-e - Engineering Department staff have indicated that previous geotechnical studies performed during the widening of the eastem portion of Dublin Boulevard, indicate that on-site soils are suitable for the proposed street improvements. (Staff has indicated that a small amount cut may be hauled off-site to Eastern Dublin). The project area is not located within a known earthquake fault zone, and on-site soils are not susceptible to seismic-related ground failure. No mapped landslides exist in the project area. On-site soils are not known to be unstable or expansive. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant or non-existent. 1 The records review indicated that the roadway appeared in a 1906 USGS map, and that an earlier .1868 Govemment Land Office map also indicates a"Road from Oakland to Stockton" that may correspond with the modem road. Dublin Boulevard Widening- CIP 96920 Page 24 b - The proposed project includes widening of the existing bridge over Alamo Channel. Channel stabilization is proposed to protect existing and future bridge components from further deterioration. Due to the work required in and around the creek channel, it is anticipated that development of the new bridge crossing could result in a short-term increase in soil erosion. This is a potentially significant impact. However, upon completion of the bridge widening, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The City anticipates coordination with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for mitigation to a less than significant level of any short- term impacts. The following mitigation measure is recommended in order to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts to a level of insignificance: VI-1. The City shall coordinate with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board during the planning and construction phases of the proposed project. All required permits shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a -h - The proposed project includes widening of an existing roadway. Past land uses of the area include agriculture. Currently, the area to be utilized for roadway widening is unimproved or part of the landscaped right-of-way. The project does not involve the storage or use of hazardous materials. No impacts are anticipated VIII. Hydrolo~ and Water Quali _ty a, f-g, i-j - The proposed project includes widening of an existing roadway and would not affect water quality standards. With the exception of the bridge over Alamo Channel, the remaining portion of Dublin Boulevard is not located within the 100-year floodplain and proposed modifications would not expose people or structures to flooding. As part of the approval process through Caltrans, a Location Hydraulic Study shall be prepared to determine the limits of the flood plain. No impacts are anticipated The existing bridge is located a minimum of 1-foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation. Proposed widening'of the bridge would maintain this level of freeboard. No impacts are anticipated b, e - Although widening of the roadway represents an increase in impervious surfaces in the immediate project vicinity, the project has been designed so as not to impact the existing drainage system. The project site is less than five acres in size, therefore NPDES/SWPPP permitting is not required. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. e - Reconstruction of the bridge may cause short-term increases in erosion or siltation. This is a potentially significant impact. Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96920 Page 25 Mitigation measure VI-1. wouM apply and mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. d - The proposed project will not require substantial alteration of the existing drainage system. New catch basins and manholes to be installed as part of the project. The project has been designed to not result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. h - The bridge crossing Alamo Channel is in FEMA Map Zone 1. The existing bridge has four support piers located within the creek channel. Hydraulic studies indicate that flood flows stay within the channel and do not overflow the banks. The proposed widening of the bridge would maintain the four support piers, thereby maintaining the existing conditions. No impacts are anticipated IX. Land Use and Planning a-c - This proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project is in response to planned and approved developments located in Eastern Dublin. The City's Circulation Element shows this section of Dublin Boulevard ultimately developed as a six-lane major street, which is in keeping with the proposed project. In addition, the Circulation Element shows a proposed Class II bike ronte along Dublin Boulevard. A Class II bike lane is defined as having a striped lane for one- way bike travel on the street. The project area is not included in any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. No impacts are anticipated X. Mineral Resources a-b - The project site is currently developed and is not located in an area identified in the General Plan as a mineral resource area. No impacts are anticipated XI. Noise a - c, e, f- The project vicinity is developed with a mixture of commercial, retail, office, and restaurant uses and a 4-lane divided major roadway. The proposed project is in response to planned and approved development located in Eastern Dublin. Therefore, it is anticipated that any increase in traffic-related noise has been accounted for and/or has been mitigated through the approval process for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and this project would not be in violation of any applicable noise standards. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. d - The proposed project includes grading and roadway construction. Local businesses will be subjected to short-term localized increases in ambient noise levels during the construction phase. The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential short-term noise impacts to a level of insignificance. XI-1. In order to minimize the impact of conStruction noise, all operations shall comply with local noise standards relating' to construction activities. Construction hours Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96920 Page 26 shall be limited to those hours as established by the City. Stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. XII. Population and Housing a-c - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No population and housing impacts are anticipated XIII. Public Services a -The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, or parks are anticipated Due to the fact that the proposed project is a CIP project, any future required maintenance wouM be accounted for in the City's yearly budget. Roadway maintenance impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. XIV. Recreation a - b The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated XV. Transportation/Traffic a-g - The proposed project includes the widening of Dublin Boulevard from four lanes (two lanes in each direction) to six lanes (three lanes in each direction). This additional roadway capacity is needed to accommodate furore average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, which is expected to exceed 40,000 vehicles per day (vpd) with the buildout of East Dublin. Based on methodology presented in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Highway Capacity Mahual, a six-lane roadway is needed to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D when the ADT reaches 30,000 vpd. During construction of the project, staff has indicated that the proposed construction will be phased in a manner such that the existing businesses in the project area should only be minimally impacted. This portion of Dublin Boulevard is designated as a bike path in the Circulation Element. The project does include construction of bike lanes on both the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard from Alamo Channel to Sierra Court, to connect with future and proposed bike paths. Currently, there are no bike lanes or paths existing or proposed from Alamo Channel west on Dublin Boulevard. No impacts are anticipated XVI. Utilities and Service Systems a-g - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. The proposed project will require the relocation of a storm drain pipe, to be accomplished by the improvement plans for the project. No impacts to utilities and service systems are anticipated Dublin Boulevard Widening- CIP 96920 Page 27 APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY City of Dublin Dublin Boulevard Improvements - East of Village Parkway to East of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza (CIP 96920) Mitigation Monitoring Program Impact Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Aesthetics Any lighting placed on the Alamo I-1. All new lighting placed on the Alamo Channel Bridge California Department of Less than Significant. Channel Bridge and/or along the and/or along the proposed pedestrian/bicycle pathways shall Fish and Game proposed pedestrian/bicycle be planned in coordination with and approved by the pathways may affect animal California Department of Fish and Game so as not to (nocturnal) species which utilize the adversely impact animal species utilizing the creek. creek. Air Quality Short-term increases in particulate III-l. Twice-daily watering of exposed earth surfaces shall occur City of Dublin, Director Less than Significant matter concentrations can be throughout the construction phase. In addition, daily of Public Works expected during grading operations, watering and/or sweeping of affected street surfaces shall take place. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Cultural Resources Grading operations could affect V-l.In the event that archaeological resources, prehistoric or City of Dublin, Less than signif, lcant previously unknown cultural historic artifacts are discovered during any construction or 'Department of resources, excavation, the following procedures shall be followed: Community Development · Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the Department of Community Development shall be notified. · A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any such materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental fmds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. City of Dublin Dublin Boulevard Improvements - East of Village Parkway to East of Sierra Court/Civic Plaza (CIP 96920) Mitigation Monitoring Program Impact Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Geology and Soils Due to the work required in and VI-1. The City shall coordinate with the California Regional California Regional Less than significant around the creek channel, it is Water Quality Control Board during the planning and Water Quality Control anticipated that development of the construction phases of the proposed project. All required Board new bridge crossing could result in a permits shall be obtained prior to issuance of building short-term increase in soil erosion, permits. Hydrology and Water Quality Reconstruction of the bridge may Mitigation measure VI-1 would apply. California Regional Less than significant cause short-term increases in erosion Water Quality Control or siltation. Board Noise Local businesses will be subjected to XI-1. In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, allCity of Dublin, Director Less than significant short-term localized increases in operations shall comply with local noise standards relating of Public Works noise during the construction phase, to construction activities. Construction hours shall be limited to those hours as established by the City. Stationary . equipment shall be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. DUBLIN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS VILLAGE PARKWAY TO SIERRA COURT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT