HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-025 EDbPrpPD/Annx09-25-2001 AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 00-025 Eastern Dublin Properties Planned
Development (PD) Prezone, and Annexation Applicatjo, n
(Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner) C~
ATTACHMENTS
/-~r~/~ ?~O~ ~:
.30° 3.
4.
5.
~/.Z 6.
It! 7.
Draft Resolution recommending City Council certify the Eastern
Dublin Properties Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Draft Resolution recommending City Council approve a Planned
Development (PD) Prezone (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached
as Exhibit A-1 and Development Plan attached as Exhibit A-2)
Draft Resolution recommending City Council direct staff to file an
application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo) for annexation
Project area map
East Dublin Property Owners Stage 1 Development Plan
Submission
Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR)
Comments Received on DSEIR
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Hear Staff Presentation
Open Public Hearing
Hear Applicant's Presentation
Question Staff, Applicant and the Public
Close Public Heating
Deliberate
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council
certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
~Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council
approve a Planned Development (PD) Prezone Stage 1
Development Plan (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit
A-1 and Development Plan attached as Exhibit A-2), and
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council
direct staff to file an application with Alameda County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project area is approximately 1,120 acres in size and is located in an unincorporated area of
Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to the west. The
COPIES TO:
Applicant(s)
Property Owners
PA file
ITEM NO.
Project area abuts the eastern Dublin City limit boundary. Approximately 472 acres of the Project area
are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary, while the remainder is within the
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area. The entire Project area is located within the City
of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence (SOI). The Project area consists of
thirteen (13) different parcels of land, under eleven (11) separate ownerships (See Aerial Photo under
Project References contained within Exhibit A-2).
The Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) are the applicants to this proposed annexation and
prezoning. The EDPO consist of the following property owners: Campbell, Branaugh, Anderson,
Braddock and Logan, Chen, and Fallon Enterprises. The table below includes a list of all of the
properties within the Project area and includes the following information: owners, APN's, acreages,
locations, and if the property owner is consenting to the annexation (see the aerial photograph included
under Project References contained within Attachment 5 for locations of APNs).
Assessor Parcel Consent Address Area Property. Owner
No. to
Annex?
905-0001-004-03 Yes North of 1-580, 8.8 ac Campbell
east of Croak Rd.
905-0001-004-04 Yes NorthofI-580, 39.8 ac Branaugh
east of Croak Rd.
905-0001-005-02 Yes North ofi-580, 48.8 ac Righetti Partners
east of Croak Rd.
985-0006-006-03 Yes North ofi-580, 48.9 ac Anderson Second Family Limited
east of Croak Rd. Partnership
905-0002-002 Not at Approx. I mile 164 ac Croak
905-0002-001-01 this north of 1-580, east
time of Fallon Rd.,
north & east of
Jordan Ranch
905-0002-003 Yes Approx. 1 mile 160.9ac Braddock & Logan Group
north of 1-580, east
of Jordan Ranch
985-0006-004 Yes North east 136 ac Chen
Quadrant of I-580
at Fallon Rd.
985-0006-006-02 Not at North ofi-580, .8 ac EBJ Partners, L.P.
this west of Croak Rd.
time
905-0001-006-03 Not at North of 1-580, .2 ac Pleasanton Ranch Investments
this east of Croak Rd.
time
985-0006-010 Not at 4233 Fallon Road 189 ac First American Title Guaranty Co.,
985-0006-009 this (Jordan Charitable Trust)
time
985-0007-002-14 Yes East of Current 313.8 ac Fallon Enterprises
City of Dublin
Limits, North of
Jordan Ranch
2
The proposed Project includes: prezoning the area to the City of Dublin PD-Planned Development
Zoning District and considering a related Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of the
Project Area, annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD), Detachment from Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD), and the
execution of a pre-annexation agreement with the consenting property owners.
Annexation:
The project site is currently within unincorporated portion of Alameda County. In order for the project
to come under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin, and to receive urban services from the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD), armexation of the site to the City and to DSRSD must be approved
by the Alameda County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo), which is a State mandated local
agency that oversees boundary changes to cities and special districts, the formation of new agencies
including incorporation of new cities, and the consolidation of existing agencies. LAFCo requires that a
city prezone an area proposed for annexation, and that prezoning must be consistent with the approved
General Plan and Specific Plan uses for the property. The PD Prezoning proposed for adoption would
address this requirement, and would establish the appropriate land uses to be in effect at the time the
project site becomes a part of the city. (See below.)
LAFCO has established spheres of influence for the City and DSRSD. A "Sphere of Influence" is the
probable physical boundary and service area that a local governmental agency is expected to serve in the
future. Establishment of this boundary is necessary to determine which governmental agencies can
provide services in the most efficient way to the people and property in any given area. The entire
Project area is within the sphere of influence (SOl) of Dublin and has been since LAFCo originally
established the eastern SOI boundary for the City in 1983. The project area is also with the SOI for
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The property immediately to the west of the Project
area was annexed into the City in 1995 and is now being developed in phases and urban infrastructure is
being extended to a point approximately 3000 feet west of the Project area by various developers within
the Dublin Ranch Area.
The current action proposed for the Planning Commission is to consider the draft resolution (Attachment
3) recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to initiate an application to
LAFCo for reorganization. The reorganization proposal includes the annexation of approximately 1,120
acres to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. The project also includes
detachment from Livermore Area Recreation District (LARPD) to be served by the City of Dublin Parks
and Community Services Department.
As mentioned previously, the Project area is proposed for detachment from the Livermore Area
Recreation and Park District (LARPD). The City has received a letter from the LARPD Board of
Directors expressing concern regarding the proposed detachment from LARPD's service area (see
Attachment 8). However, detaching the area from LARPD's service area is consistent with the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan policies that indicate jurisdictional lines should be
revised so that the City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department and other City
departments have jurisdiction over all park land within the Dublin Sphere of Influence, which includes
the project site. In addition, the City has a Park and Recreation Master Plan that addresses park facilities
to meet the demand related to development within the Project Area, including facility financing and
operating methods, for the project site and the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. LARPD's intent
of retaining the area would conflict with the Park and Recreation Master Plan policies and programs
related to park planning, financing and operations. Moreover, during the adjacent 1994 Dublin Ranch
reorganization application, the LARPD Board consented to the detachment.
Public services such as water and sewer for this annexation may not be available immediately upon
approval of annexation. Construction of additional water and sewer infrastrncture will be required to
service to the annexation area, and the project proponents will likely need to enter into agreements with
DSRSD.
The proposed reorganization is appropriate, as it implements Dublin's extensive planning for the area, is
contiguous with the Dublin City limits, and would provide for the logical and orderly extension of urban
services to the eastern portion of Dublin.
Planned Development Prezoning:
Development under the proposed PD prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan would reflect the land
uses specified in the current City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The uses
would include a mix of residential uses at a variety of densities, employment-generating uses such as
retail, service, office and light industrial, parks, open spaces, community facilities, roadways and similar
land uses. The Stage I Development Plan proposes retail, office and light industrial land uses located
primarily within the southern portion of the Project area along the freeway and major arterials, with
residential uses located in the more northern and eastern portions of the Project area. The Project also
would provide a complement of neighborhood parks, school sites, open space, a portion of a community
park, and a multi-use trail system to link the developed areas with the parks and trails within project
open space.
A Planned Development (PD) Prezoning has been prepared for the subject property to establish regulations
for future use. The proposed land uses are as shown on the Prezoning Exhibit, labeled Exhibit A-1 of
Attachment 2 to the staff report. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and General Plan. The draft PD District provisions (Attachment 2) specify the intent, intensity of
use, permitted and conditional uses of the land use designations in accordance with the Specific Plan
sand General Plan. Any future residential development on this property shall conform to the policies
and intent of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan including the design guidelines. Page 4 of Attachment 5
shows the potential development of the area. No development may occur until a Stage 2 Development
Plan is adopted by the City identifying regulations for the improvement and maintenance of the property
in accordance with Dublin's Zoning Ordinance. Properties not currently subject to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan would also need to apply for a Specific Plan prior to or concurrently with the Stage 2
Development Plan.
The Stage 1 Development Plan proposes an "Interim Agricultural" land use that would allow the
existing residential and agricultural uses approved under the Alameda County's Zoning Ordinance to
remain until such time as the property owner applies for a Development Plan to develop the property.
The regulations and standards governing this land use shall be the Agricultural Districts provisions of
the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.16.
Staff finds the project to be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan land use designations and policies and recommends the Planning Commission find the project
consistent with adopted General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project includes the same land uses and densities as approved in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and as analyzed in the related EIR. The City prepared an Initial
Study for the Project to determine if any subsequent environmental review was required beyond the
1993 EIR. The Initial Study concluded that much of the impact analysis in the 1993 EIR continues to
apply to the Project. However, the Initial Study concluded that additional environmental review was
required under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 based primarily on newly identified
4
sensitive biological species, substantially increased regional traffic and related noise and air quality
effects, and on potential power shortages. A Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared and is currently
being circulated for public review. Ihe following environmental issues were analyzed in the Draft
Supplemental EIR.
Agricultural Resources:
The 1993 EIR analyzed conversion of agricultural lands due to development of the Eastern Dublin area,
including the Project site. The Draft Supplemental EIR examined recent changes in the definition of
"prime" agricultural lands under AB 2838 and determined that the new definition would not result in
conversion of more prime agricultural lands than in the 1993 EIR. The Draft Supplemental EIR also
determined that cancellation rather than non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts on the Project area
was not a new significant impact.
Air Quality:
The 1993 EIR identified cumulative air quality impacts as a significant unavoidable impact of
development in Eastern Dublin. In 1998, the EPA downgraded Bay Area air quality to "non-attainment"
for ozone and new, strict standards have been adopted for "precursor" pollutants, which lead to ozone
formation. Even with mitigation, the Project exceeds those standards, therefore the Draft Supplemental
EIR identifies significant unavoidable air quality impacts.
Biology:
Numerous sensitive habitats and protected species potentially occur on the site, as described in the 1993
EIR, which identified the cumulative loss of sensitive habitat as a significant unavoidable impact of
development in Eastern Dublin. The Draft Supplemental EIR identified new sensitive species and
habitats, which could potentially be affected by development of the Project area. It also analyzed the
effect of recent regulatory changes such as USFWS' designation of critical habitat for the California
Red-Legged Frog. The Draft Supplemental EIR updated previously adopted mitigation measures to
ensure implementation of the most current species survey protocols; however even with mitigation,
cumulative loss of sensitive habitat was identified as a significant unavoidable impact.
Noise:
The 1993 EIR concluded that projected increases in noise from development of Eastern Dublin could be
reduced to less than significant through acoustical mitigation, except in the case of existing residences
for which noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Draft Supplemental EIR
concluded that noise from increased regional traffic beyond the 1993 EIR projections would also be
significant and unavoidable for existing homes. Acoustical mitigation would continue to be required for
future residences and businesses in the Project area.
Traffic and Circulation:
The Draft Supplemental EIR concluded that increased regional traffic beyond that anticipated in the
1993 EIR would result in potentially significant impacts on several intersections and road segments.
Mitigation measures in the Draft Supplemental EIR proposed improvements to reduce these impacts to
less than significant except at Cumulative Buildout for 2025 for three Dublin Boulevard intersections
and for 1-580 and 1-680 freeway segments.
Uti_lities and Service Systems:
The Draft Supplemental EIR analyzed whether utility and services impacts have substantially changed
since the 1993 EIR. Substantial changes were identified with respect to water supplies, and electrical
power supply and distribution; mitigation measures were also identified to reduce these impacts to less
than significant.
Environmental Analysis Conclusion:
The project is within the Dublin General Plan's Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area, which was the subject of an Enviromnental Impact Report, certified by the City of
Dublin in 1993. The General Plan/Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which analyzed the
environmental issues related to the land use locations, development plans and policies contained in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The EIR also anticipated several subsequent actions related to future
development in Eastern Dublin.
The EIR did identify some impacts from implementation of the General Plan/Specific Plan that were not
able to be mitigated. Upon certification of the EIR, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for several impacts, some of which relate to this project. The City also adopted a
mitigation monitoring program, which included measures intended to reduce impacts from the
development of Eastern Dublin area. These mitigation measures apply to project approvals and actions
at various stages in the development process, and will be applied to this project as applicable. The
timing of these mitigation measures is indicated in the City's EIR mitigation monitoring matrix (City
Council Resolution # 53-93).
The Initial Study and Draft Supplemental EIR thoroughly and comprehensively assessed the potential
for the Project to cause or contribute to significant impacts beyond those identified in the 1993 EIR.
Where new potentially significant impacts were identified, appropriate mitigation measures were also
proposed to reduce or avoid the impacts. These impacts will be addressed in mitigation findings upon
City Council approval of the Project. Even with mitigation, however, certain new impacts cannot be
reduced to less than significant and any City approval of the Project will require a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. At that time, the City will also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program to
ensure compliance with mitigation measures proposed in the Draft Supplemental EIR.
PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require annexation and new development to
be revenue neutral. Prior to the submittal of the annexation request to LAFCo, the consenting property
owners within the annexation area will be required to enter into a pre-annexation agreement with the
City. The agreement will assure that the financing goals and policies of the Specific Plan are met.
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Dublin General Plan policies state "schools located within the city should be operated by the Dublin
Unified School District". It is the intent of the City that the boundaries of the Dublin School District
should be coterminous with the City limits. The project site is currently located within the Livermore
Valley Joint Unified School District. The detachment of the Project area from the Livermore School
District and annexation to the Dublin School District is not subject to LAFCo approval. The Planned
Development Prezone contains a provision which requires that the applicant cooperate and actively
work with other property owners within the City of Dublin's sphere of Influence to initiate and complete
the annexation process to the Dublin Unified School District.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed Planned Development Prezone and Annexation request for the Project area is consistent
with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The project
will accommodate the logical extension of public services within Eastern Dublin and will provide for
future land uses anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and City of Dublin General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing, deliberate and adopt the
following resolutions:
1. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council Certify the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report;
2. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) reconunending City Council approve a Planned Development
(PD) Prezone/Development Plan for Project area (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit
A-1 and the Development Plan attached as Exhibits A-2), and make all the required findings under
CEQA;
3. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council to direct Staff to file an application
with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for reorganization.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNERS:
James & Dixie Campbell
4141 Mattos Drive
Fremont, CA 94536-5008
Robert & Shirley Branaugh
P O Box 2388
Livermore, CA 94551-2388
Righetti Partners
U S Highway 50 West
Livermore, CA 94550
Anderson Second Family Limited
Partnership
P O Box 273
Pleasant Grove, UT 84062-0273
Francis Croak
1262 Gabriel Court
San Leandro, CA 94577-6821
Braddock & Logan Group
4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle
Danville, CA 94506-4613
Robert & Chi Chen
1499 Bayshore Highway # 132
Burlingame, CA 94010-1708
EBJ Partners LP
550 Hamilton Avenue #329
Palo Alto, CA 94301-2031
Pleasanton Ranch Investments
Croak Road
Livermore, CA 94550
First American Title Guaranty Company
Jordan Charitable Trust
6665 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3335
Fallon Enterprises, Inc.
5781 Fallon Road
Livermore, CA 94550-9601
APPLICANT:
Marshall Torre
Braddock and Logan
4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201
Danville, CA 94506-4613
LOCATION:
Unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by
Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to the
west
EXISTING ZONING:
Alameda County: Agricultural
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN /
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: See Land use Map
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within
300 feet of the proposed project, to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public
notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Herald and posted at several locations throughout the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 0l-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS
ANNEXATION & PREZONING PROJECT FOR PA 00-025
WHEREAS, the owners of approximately 1,120 acres of land in Eastern Dublin submitted
applications for annexation of their properties to Dublin, for prezoning to the Planned Development
zoning district including approval of a Stage 1 Development Plan, and related approvals, collectively
known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project area is within the Eastern Extended Planning Area of the Dublin General
Plan as amended by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, approved in 1993. Portions of the
Project area are also within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area as approved in 1993. The Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are collectively referred to as the GPA/SP Project;
and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council certified a program Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") for the GPA/SP Project and an addendum thereto, dated May 4, 1993 (SCH 91103064).
On August 22, 1994, the City Council approved another addendum to update plans and provide sewer
service. The May 10, 1993 program EIR, the May 4, 1993 addendum and the August 22, 1994 addendum
are collectively referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR; and
WHEREAS, upon approval of the GPA/SP Project, the City Council adopted mitigation findings,
a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring program as set forth in Resolution
53-93, included in the Draft Supplemental EIR referenced below; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the type, location and density of land uses approved
through the GPA/SP Project. All mitigation measures adopted for the GPA/SP Project continue to apply
to implementing projects such as the current annexation and prezoning Project; and all applicable City
development ordinances and standards apply to the Project except as otherwise approved through the
Project prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City completed an Initial Study for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR ("Supplemental
EIR") was required in order to analyze substantial changes in circumstances and new information since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. A Notice of Preparation dated May 25, 2001was circulated with
the Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the
Supplemental EIR; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City
prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated July 2001 and consisting of two bound volumes. Volume 1
I
Attachment 1
contains the Draft Supplemental EIR text; Volume 2 contains appendices, including the Notice of
Preparation and Initial Study. The 2-volume Draft Supplemental EIR (SCH 2001052114) is incorporated
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review
period, from July 31, 2001 through September 14, 2001; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated September 25, 2001 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Draft Supplemental EIR and the Project for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2001, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on
the Project at which time the Commission considered the staff report, the Draft Supplemental EIR, written
comments received during the public comment period, and all other oral and written comments presented
to them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Draft Supplemental EIR and written
and oral comments received thereon. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate, and in
compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September, 2001, by the following
vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Cormnunity Development Director
2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 01 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
PREZONE AND STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1,120 ACRES EAST OF FALLON
ROAD PA 00-025
WHEREAS, the applicant, Braddock and Logan on behalf of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners
(EDPO), has requested approval of a Planned Developmem (PD) Prezoning, Stage 1 Development Plan,
and reorganization of an area of approximately 1,120-acres generally located in an unincorporated area of
Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to the west, located east
of the current City Limits and within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APNs: 985-0007-002-14,
905-0002-003,985-0006-010, 985-0006-009, 905-0002-002,905-0002-001-01,985-0006-004, 985-0006-
006-02, 985-0006-006-03, 905-0001-006-03, 905-0001-005-02, 905-0001-004-04, 905-0001-004-03),
which reorganization includes the annexation of the territory to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San
Ramon Services District and the detachment of the territory from the Livermore Area Recreation and
Parks District.
WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning
Department; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Prezoning and a Stage 1 Planned Development
application to the City as required by Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Unless otherwise
specified, reference to the Prezoning also include the required the Stage 1 Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of this public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council certified a program Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") for the GPA/SP Project and an addendum thereto, dated May 4, 1993 (SCH 91103064).
On August 22, 1994, the City Council approved another addendum to update plans and provide sewer
service. The May 10, 1993 program EIR, the May 4, 1993 addendum and the August 22, 1994 addendum
are collectively referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR; and
WHEREAS, upon approval of the GPA/SP Project, the City Council adopted mitigation findings,
a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring program as set forth in Resolution
53-93, included in the Draft Supplemental EIR referenced below; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistem with the type, location and density of land uses approved
through the GPA/SP Project. All mitigation measures adopted for the GPA/SP Project continue to apply
to implementing projects such as the current annexation and prezoning Project; and all applicable City
development ordinances and standards apply to the Project except as otherwise approved through the
Project prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan; and
Attachment 2
WHEREAS, the City completed an Initial Study for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR ("Supplemental
EIR") was required in order to analyze substantial changes in circumstances and new information since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. A Notice of Preparation dated May 25, 2001was circulated with
the Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the
Supplemental EIR; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City
prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated July 2001 and consisting of two bound volumes. Volume 1
contains the Draft Supplemental EIR text; Volume 2 contains appendices, including the Notice of
Preparation and Initial Study. The 2-volume Draft Supplemental EIR (SCH 2001052114) is incorporated
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review
period, from July 31, 2001 through September 14, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the PD Prezoning and Application for Annexation/Detachment
subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development
Prezone/Development Plan for PA 00-025:
1. The proposed Planned Development Prezone/Stage 1 Development Plan meets the intent and
purpose of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because it provides a comprehensive Development Plan
which will create a desirable use of land and an environment that will be sensitive to surrounding land
uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan; and
2. The Planned Development Prezone will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of
setting forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and
conditionally permitted uses and Development Standards, which will be compatible with existing and
proposed residential and open space uses in the immediate vicinity and will enhance the development of
the Specific Plan Area; and
3. The Planned Development Prezone will provide for the future development of the property.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan specified the Project Area as subareas: D, E, G, and H to be developed
with residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses as well as uses including public schools and
parks; the project is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and will contribute towards implementation of said Plan; and
4. The Planned Development Prezone is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and
Attachment 2
purpose of the PD Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information required by
Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32.010, A through H,
of the Zoning Ordinance; and
5. The Planned Development Prezone will provide efficient use of land and will preserve an area
of open space and undisturbed hillside along the north and primarily the northeast comer of the property;
and will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area; and will create an
attractive, efficient and safe environment; and
6. The Planned Development Prezone will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or
safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public
improvement, as all applicable regulations will be met; and
7. The Planned Development Prezone will not overburden public services or facilities as all
agencies must commit to the availability of Public Services prior to the issuance of any building permits
as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and Mitigation Measures contained within the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Properties Supplemental EIR; and
8. The Planned Development Prezone will be consistent with the policies of the Dublin General
Plan; and
9. The Planned Development Prezone will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general
welfare; and
10.
The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program and the additional
site specific mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin Properties Supplemental EIR
will apply to the Project, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public
Resources Code 21081.6 for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Development Prezoning including a Stage 1
Development Plan for PA 00-025 as depicted on Exhibits A-1 and A-2 attached hereto which constitutes
regulations for the use, improvement, and maintenance of the property. No development shall occur on
this property until a Specific Plan, as applicable, and Stage 2 Development Plan have been adopted by the
City. Except as specifically identified otherwise in the approved Stage 1 Development Plan, development
and operation of land use activities within this PD District shall be subject to the current City of Dublin
Zoning Ordinance, and the following:
1. Pre-Annexation Agreement:
The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require annexation and new
development to be revenue neutral. Prior to the submittal of the annexation request to LAFCo, all
consenting property owners within the annexation area will be required to enter into a pre-
annexation agreement with the City. The agreement will assure that the financing goals and
policies of the Specific Plan are met.
Attachment 2
Dublin Unified School District:
The General Plan Policy 4.1 states, "Schools located within the city should be operated by the
Dublin Unified School District". It is the intent of the City that the boundaries of the Dublin
School District should be coterminous with the City limits. The property owners within this
annexation area shall cooperate and actively work with other property owners within the City of
Dublin's Sphere of Influence to initiate and complete the detachment process from the Livermore
Valley Joint Unified School District and annexation process to the Dublin Unified School District.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2001
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Community Development Director
G:\PA#~2000\00-025\PC PD Reso VER2.doc
Attachment 2
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTIES
(PA 00-025)
This is a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for
the Eastern Dublin Properties project, bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and
Fallon Road to the west and the City Sphere of Influence line on the east (APNs: 985-000%002-14,
905-0002-003, 985-0006-010, 985-0006-009, 905-0002-002, 905-0002-001-01, 985-0006-004, 985-0006-006-02,
985-0006-006-03, 905-0001-006-03, 905-0001-005-02, 905-0001-004-04, 905-0001 ~004-03). This
Development Plan meets all of the requirements for Stage 1 review of the project.
This Development Plan is also represented by the, Aerial Photo, Stage 1 Site Plan, Master
Infrastructure Plan, Phasing Plan, Master Neighborhood Landscape
Plan/Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Plan, Maximum Non-Residential Square
Footage/Residential Units Table, and Street Sections sheets dated November 2000 and
Revised July 2001 labeled Exhibit A-2 to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan
(City Council Ordinance No. O1 - ), and on file in the Planning Department. The Planned
Development District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development
while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied.
Zoning: This PD Planned Development Zoning District is to provide for and regulate the
development of the Eastern Dublin Properties as shown on Exhibit A-2. (General Plan
land use designations include: General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial,
Industrial Park, Rural Residential/Agriculture, Single Family Residential, Medium
Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, High Density Residential,
Schools, Parks, and Open Space)
2. Permitted Uses: The following are uses permitted for this site:
A) PD General Commercial
Intent: General Commercial land use designations are established to: a)
accommodate a range of regional-serving and community-serving retail
and mixed use projects incorporating retail, service and/or office used with
residential used when location and design ensure compatibility: b) provide
appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, service establishments,
amusement establishments, and wholesale businesses to concrete for the
convenience for the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each
other; d) provide space for community facilities and institutions that
appropriately may be located in conunercial areas; d) provide adequate
space to meet the needs of modem commercial development, including
off-street parking and track loading areas; and e) minimize traffic
congestion and to avoid overloading of utilities by preventing the
construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of
land around them.
Exhibit A-1
Intensity of Use: .20 - .60 Floor Area Ratio
Permitted Uses:
Office and service establishments including, but not limited to:
Accounting
Architect
Athletic Club
Cleaner and dryer, not including on-site processing
Communication Technology Development
Employment Agency
Formal wear/rental
Hair/Beauty Salon
Internet Technology Development
Key Shop
Legal
Medical and Dental
Optometrist
Other administrative and professional offices
Real Estate / title offices
Shoe repair
Software Development
Tailor
Technology access center
Tele-commuting center
Tele-marketing center
Travel Agency
Conditional Uses:
Community, religious and charitable institutional facilities
Drive-through establishments (also drive-in)
Eating and drinking establishments
In-patient and out-patient facilities as licensed by the State Department of Health
Services
Other conditional permitted uses which meet the intent of the zone shall be
considered by the Planning Commission on an individual case basis
Public facilities and uses
Retail commercial establishments to serve site users
Veterinary office
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses:
2
Temporary Construction Trailer
Outdoor Sale (on-site) by established business
Festival/Street Fair
Office Trailer
Christmas Tree/Pumpkin sales lot
Arts and Crafts Fair
Farmers Market
Newspaper Recycling Bin
B) PD Neighborhood Commercial
Intent: Neighborhood Commercial land use designations are established to: a)
provide for the creation of community-oriented and neighborhood-oriented
commercial centers to serve local retail, service and entertainment needs;
and b) provide for mixed use projects incorporating combinations of
commemial, service, office and/or residential uses.
Intensity of Use: .25 - .60 Floor Area Ratio
Permitted Uses:
Automobile/Vehicle Brokerage
Banks and Financial Services, including, but not limited to:
Mortgage services
Investment services
Credit unions
Copying (photocopying) and blueprinting
Office:
Administrative
Professional, including, but not limited to:
Medical
Dental
Optometrist
Legal
Counseling
Personal Services, including but not limited to:
Beauty/barber salons
Dry cleaners (no plant on premises)
Florists
Tailor/seamstress
Travel agencies
Repair Shop, including but not limited to:
Jewelry repair
Small appliance repair shops
Shoe
Watch
3
Retail stores, including but not limited to:
Apparel and shoe stores
Art galleries and art supply stores
Book/video stores
Boutiques/gift shops
Drug stores/pharmacies
Grocery stores/delicatessens
Hardware stores
Home d6cor/kitchen supply stores
Office supply/stationery stores
Post office (US or other)
Restaurants (incl. take-out service)
Conditional Uses:
Schools, including but not limited to:
Business
General tutoring
Music or art schools
Trade
Studios, martial arts, dance, general fitness (gymnasiums and health clubs),
etc.
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses:
Temporary Construction Trailer
Outdoor Sale (on-site) by established business
Festival/Street Fair
Office Trailer
Christmas Tree/Pumpkin sales lot
Arts and Crafts Fair
Farmers Market
Newspaper Recycling Bin
C) PD Industrial Park
Intent: Accommodates a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses,
provided these activities do not produce offensive levels of noise, dust,
glare, or odor. Residential uses are not permitted within this designation.
Intensity of Use: Maximum .35 Floor Area Ratio
Permitted Uses:
Ambulance service
Industrial- heavy
Industrial- light including but not limited to:
Laboratory
Office- contractors
Parking lot/garage- commercial
Printing and publishing
Research and development laboratory
Storage of petroleum products for on-site use
Trucking terminal
Warehousing and distribution
Conditional Uses:
Animal sales and service
Auction yard
Automobile/vehicle rental
Automobile/vehicle repairs and service
Automobile/vehicle sales and service
Automobile/vehicle storage lot
Bed and breakfast Inn
Caretaker residence
Cemeteries, columbariums and mortuaries
Community care facility- large
Community facility
Dance floor
Day care center- 15+ children
Equipment and materials storage yard
Housemovers storage lot
Impound yard
Industrial transfer/storage/treatment facility
Outdoor mobile vendor
Recreational facility- indoor
Recreational facility- outdoor
Recycling facility-commercial
Salvage and wrecking yard
Service station
Small scale transfer and storage facility
Temporary outdoor sale not related to on-site established business
Vehicle storage yard- commercial
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses:
Temporary Construction Trailer
Outdoor Sale (on-site) by established business
Festival/Street Fair
Office Trailer
Storage Container
Arts and Crafts Fair
Farmers Market
Newspaper Recycling Bin
D) PD Rural Residential/Agricultural
Intent: Rural residential Agriculture land use designations are established to
accommodate agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range
and watershed management. They are also established to provide space for
and encourage such uses in places where more intensive development is not
desirable or necessary for the general welfare.
Intensity of Use: .01 dwelling unit per acm
Permitted Uses:
Agricultural Accessory Use- Office
Animal Keeping- Residential
Community Care Facility- Small
Mobile Home
Single Family Residence
Small Family Day Care Home
Conditional Uses:
Agricultural Housing
Agricultural Processing
Animal Keeping- Agricultural
Animal Keeping- Commercial
Animal Sales and Services
Bed and Breakfast Inn
Bird Keeping- Commercial
Caretaker Residence
Community Facility
Crop Production
Farm Mobile Home
Horse Keeping
Horse Stable/Riding Academy
Home Occupation
Large Family Day Care Home
Plant Nursery
Recreational Facility- Outdoor
Temporary Uses:
Temporary Construction Trailer
Temporary Mobile Home/Manufactured Home
Arts and Crafts Fair
Festival Street Fair
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
E) PD Single Family Residential
Intent: Single Family land use designations are established to: a) reserve
appropriately located areas for family living at reasonable population
densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b)
ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling; c)
provide space for semi-public facilities needed to complement urban
residential areas and for institutions that require a residential environment;
and d) accommodate single family housing, including a wide range of units
from small-lot and zero-lot line units to large lot estate units.
Intensity of Use: .9 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre
Permitted Uses:
Active adult community
Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as
conditional use)
Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use
only)
Single family dwelling
Small family day care home
Conditional Uses:
Active Adult/Senior community w/group services (centralized meal service, group
activities, etc.)
Ambulance service
Bed and breakfast inn
Day care center
Large family day care home
Parking lot - residential
Religious facility
Second unit, temporary mobile home or permanent structure
School/private
Second unit in accordance with Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses:
Temporary construction trailer
Tract and sales office/model home complex
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
F) PD Medium Density Residential
Intent: Medium Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve
appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of
dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with
sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible
of the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential district while
permitting higher population densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and
avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings
of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary
space for off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off-
street loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties from the
hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic.
Intensity: 6.1 - 14.0 dwelling units per acre
Permitted Uses:
Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as
conditional use)
Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance)
Multi-family dwelling
8
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenants use
only)
Single family dwelling
Small family day care home
Conditional Uses:
Active Adult/Senior community with group and life care services
Bed and breakfast inn
Boarding house
Day care center
Large family day care home
Parking lot - residential
Religious facility
School/private
Community center
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses:
Temporary construction trailer
Tract and sales office/model home complex
G) PD Medium-High Density Residential
Intent:
Medium High Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve
appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of
dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with
sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible
of the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential district while
permitting higher population densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and
avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings
of excessive six in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary
space for off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off-
street loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties from the
hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic.
IntensityofUse: 14.1- 25.0 dwelling units per acre
Permitted Uses:
Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as
conditional use)
Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64)
Multi-family dwelling
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenants use only)
Small family day care home
Conditional Uses:
Active Adult/Senior community with group and life care services
Bed and breakfast inn
Boarding house
Community care facility/large
Day Care center
Large family day care home
Parking lot - residential
Religious facility
School/private
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses:
Sales office/model home complex
Temporary construction trailer
Arts and Crafts Fair
H) PD High Density Residential
Intent: High Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve
appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of
dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with
sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible
of the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential district while
permitting higher population densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and
avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings
of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary
space for off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off-
street loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties from the
hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic.
Intensity of Use: 25.1 dwelling units per acre
10
Permitted Uses:
Accessory structures and uses
Community care facility/small (if required by statute, otherwise it should be a
conditional use)
Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64)
Multi-family dwelling
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenants use
only)
Small family day care home
Conditional Uses:
Active Adult/Senior community with group and life care services
Bed and breakfast inn
Boarding house
Community care facility/large
Community center
Day care center
Large family day care home
Hospital/medical center
Parking lot - residential
Religious facility
School/private
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses:
Sales office/model home complex/rental office
Temporary construction trailer
Arts and Crafts Fair
I) PD Schools
Intent: Provides for the future development of public or private educational
facilities.
Intensity of Use: No Floor Area Ratio Requirements
Permitted Uses:
Middle School
11
Elementary School
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
J) PD Parks
Intent: Provides for the recreation needs of the area.
Intensity of Use: No Floor Area Ratio Requirements
Permitted Uses:
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Square
K) PD Open Space
Intent: Protects areas with important and/or sensitive resources and areas with
natural hazard from development.
Permitted Uses:
Recreational- passive
Trails
L)
M)
PD Rural ResidentiaFAgriculture - Future Study Area
Permitted Uses:
Future land use designations to be determined at a later date. Until then, land
uses under this zone shall abide by those listed under PD Rural
Residential/Agriculture. Existing land uses may continue and shall be
considered to be legal, non-conforming uses subject to the City of Dublin
zoning ordinance regarding such uses.
Intensity of Use: . O1 dwelling unit per acre
PD General Commercial- Future Study Area
Permitted Uses:
The Rural Residential/Agriculture land use designation is established to
accommodate uses designation is established to accommodate uses permitted
under the Rural Residential/Agriculture and Open Space land use designations
12
N)
and also provides for the future study of land use designations to determine
the most appropriate use for these lands prior to future PD rezoning of the
property.
Intensity of Use: . O1 dwelling unit per acre
Existing Agricultural and Residential Uses
To allow all existing residential and agricultural uses that were in existence
prior to the effective date of annexation. These uses shall be allowed to
continue until such time the landowner of this property applies for a
Specific Plan as applicable, and Stage 2 Development Plan in accordance
with Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, to develop the property.
Any minor expansion of any existing uses shall be subject to review and
approval by the Director of Community Development.
Permitted Uses:
Existing residential and agricultural uses in effect prior to the effective date of
annexation
Similar and related uses (to the existing residential and agricultural uses) shall
be determined by the Director of Community Development
Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically
modified by the provisions of this PD District Rezone/Development Plan, all applicable
general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to
the land uses designated in this PD District Rezone.
Phasing Plan. Refer to Exhibit A-2, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan,
Phasing Plan.
5. Landscaping Plan. Refer to Exhibit A-2, Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan.
Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage/Residential Units. Refer to Exhibit A-2
for Table.
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Dublin's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requires
five-percent of all housing to be affordable to those of very low, low, and moderate
incomes or pay an in-lieu fee which would allow the City to facilitate construction of
such housing. It is intended that this project will comply with the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance requirements by paying an in-lieu fee, providing land, constructing such
housing, or executing a combination of these options. The implementation of this
ordinance will be identified when the Stage 2 Development Plan is prepared and
submitted for each individual property.
13
East Dublin Properties
EXHIB_!t
LEGEND
ES - Elementar~ School
JH - Juaior High School .
L- Low-Density Residential
M - Medium Densify Residential
MH - Medium High Density Residential
NS - Neighborhood Square
NP- Neighborhood Park
CP - Community Park
OS - Open Space
RRA - Rural Residential /Agriculture
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
GC - General Commercial
I - Industrial Park
L
L
O5
L
L
East Dublin Properties
5~;a~j~:l,Develop_meh'~iPla n
STAGE 1 SITE'PLAN
-/
O5
o' 200' 400'
EXHIBIT
RRA
I
MS L
M
M
CP
M Lin
M
OS
II
//
L
J' t
GC
CO
CO
GC/CO
]
Doolan West ~
Murhbauscr
- /
L Croa
Croak
:
P~rtnem } Dranau~h
Pa~:nersh'F I J } [
FUTURE STUDY AILEA
AGRICULTURE
East Dublin Properties
5rage I Development Plan
MASTER
INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Vandeweghe
O* 400'
Legend
I Water System (~ omc,'5)
I P. ecycied Water System {L~oL~t5)
I Pump 5~a~lon / Turnout / Tank 5ate
Pro3~c~ 5~t~ Doundary
Not'e: This plan is conceptual and based upon
D~RSD's Master Plan. Size and location of
tilities will be verified as land plans and
demands are developed.
800'
SIS
EXHIBIT A-~-
L
~'15¢r~dock ¢, Lo,Jan GrCu?
O5 /
?mst American
¢:{e Guararfl:y Co./
Croak
L
Croak
O5
East Dublin Properties
.St;ao~ I D~v~lopm~nt; Plan
PHASING PLAN
CP
omPs
EXHIBIT
RP.A
L
L
East Dublin Properties
..%'caO~ I D~v~lo?m~n~; ?lan
MASTER NEIGHBORHOOD
LANDSCAPE PLAN
and PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
CIRCULATION PLAN
L
L
L
L
CP
GC
o' 200' 400'
mAI ICA & omP
EXHIBIT
Maximum number of Residential Units and Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage For the Eastern Dublin
Properties PA 00-025
EXHIBIT A-'~
NORTH
SOUTH
,10', 8' 6'1 8~ 12':1~ 12' I 12' , 28' 12' 12' , 12'
j LANai I~NE ~LANE /LANE TURN ~NES ~NE' ~NE '~NE
~ 58' 62'
148'
PARKWAY STRIP -PARKWAY STRIP
SIDEWALK - SIDEWALK
- PUBLIC SERVICE/
PUBLIC SERVICE/- LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
ROW {OW
East Dublin Properties
5ta~je I Development Plan
STREET SECTIONS
1. DUBLIN BOULEVARD - 148' ROW
N.T.S.
PARKWAY STRIP
SIDEWALK
PUBLIC SERVICE/--
lANDSCAPE EASEMENT
, · j PKG~RAVEL ~RAVE1 MEDIAN/ TRAVE ~RAVE~PKGt ~- : :
LANDLANE ~LANE TURN LANE LANE LAND
j 48' LANES 48'
110'-114'
ROW ROW
t --
PARKWAY STRIP
-- SIDEWALK
-- PUBLIC SERVICE/
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
2. CENTRAL PARKWAY - 110' -114' ROW
N.T.S.
mAt:KAY & SomPs
WEST
EAST
I_10' I 6 ~ 6 i 8 12 12 12 16 12 ~ ~ 12 i. 12 ~ 8 161 .I.10
_/ I ILANE/LANE/IANE I LANE~ TURN ~ IANE/ LANE ' LANE 'LANEl '~_
PUBLIC SERVICE/- 128'
·
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
ROW ROW
PARKWAY STRIP
SIDEWALK
PUBLIC SERVICE/
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
East Dublin Properties
5ta~je I Development Plan
STREET SECTIONS
3. FALLON ROAD (North of Central Parkwey) - 128' ROW
N.T.S.
WEST
EAST
LlO' 1~,_6', 8',1, 12',1, 32' / lZ',l,Z2'
PARKWAY STRIP -- -- "IBIKMTRAVEL~fRAVEIjTRAVEL~RAVEIj
SIDEWALK j' ~ANE LANE ~,ktNE'LANE 'LANE~
PUBLIC SERVICE/-
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
ROW
28'
MEDIAN/
TURN LANES
164'
I 12'_, 12' , 12' I 12',~8':~6~,6_'1 lO'_l
TRAVEl TRAvEL~RAvEL~RAVEL~IKEI ~ -PARKWAY STRIP
LANE ' LANE 'LANE 'LANE IANE . -- - SIDEWALK
68 ~ PUBLIC SERVICE/
· ~--- LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
ROW
4. FALLON ROAD (South of Central Parkway) - 164' ROW
N.T.S.
lllAO Y & SOmPS
EXHIBIT/~~~-
PARKWAY STRIP I--I I~ t_
MULTI-USE TRAIL--'--'J LANE LANE/ TURN ! LANE LANE
PUBLIC SERVICE/~ ' 36' ,I LANE I 36'
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ~'
ROW R0~
PARKWAY STRIP
MULTI-USE TRAIL
PUBLIC SERVICE/
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
East Dublin Properties
~ta~je I Develo?ment: Plan
STREET SECTIONS
Nove. mbcr 2000 19149~)A
5. CLASS H COLLECTOR - 92' ROW
N.T.S.
IPKGITR^Vm TRAVE~ PKGI --
'LANE LANE LANE'LANE ~] ~
36' 36'
'' ~
72'
PARKWAY STRIP ----PARKWAY STRIP
SIDEWALK -- SIDEWALK
PUBLIC SERVICE/__
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT --PUBLIC SERFICE/
?
ROW ROW LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
§' ,5: . 34' OI~ 36' . p' 8'
PUBLICSERVICE/--I~'I. I (,~C-_
SIDEWALK-- -- f, 44'OR46'
ROW ROW
SIDEWALK
PUBLIC SERVICE/
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
6. RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR- 72' ROW
N.T.S.
7. RESIDENTIAL STREET- 44' CUL=DE-SAC
OR 46' STREET ROW
(Public)
N.T.S.
BAOKAY 8r SomPs
EXHIBIT Ao._
RESOLUTION NO. 0l-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISISON
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF
TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE
ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) FOR
ANNEXING 1,110 ACRES EAST OF FALLON ROAD (BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY
INTERSTATE 580 0-580), FALLON ROAD TO THE WEST, AND CITY SPEHRE OF
INFLUENCE LINE ON THE EAST) AND LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN
PLANNING AREA, INTO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON
SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) AND INVOLVED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
PREZONING REQUEST FILED UNDER PA 00-025
WHEREAS, the applicant, Braddock and Logan on behalf of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners
(EDPO), has requested the City to initiate LAFCO proceedings to reorganize an area of approximately
1,120-acres generally located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-
580) to the south and Fallon Road to the west, located east of the current City Limits and within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APNs: 985-0007-002-14, 905-0002-003, 985-0006-010, 985-0006-
009, 905-0002-002, 905-0002-001-01, 985-0006-004, 985-0006-006-02, 985-0006-006-03, 905-0001-
006-03, 905-0001-005-02, 905-0001-004-04, 905-0001-004-03), which reorganization includes the
annexation of the territory to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the
detachment of the territory from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District. To implement this
request, the applicant has requested approval of a Planned Development (PD) prezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request on
September 25, 2001; and
WHEREAS, proper public notice of this public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the Planned Development Prezone and Annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
find that:
The subject property is located within the Sphere of Influence adopted by LAFCO for
the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Attachment 3
2. The proposed annexation of approximately 1,100 acres to the City will be a logical
extension of the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District boundaries.
The City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District can provide high
quality and efficient services to the site.
The proposed reorganization is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council adopt a resolution of application to LAFCo pursuant to Government Code Section 56654
regarding Annexation No. 13 consisting of reorganizing approximately 1,120 acres of territory, including
annexation of the territory to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District and
detachment of the territory from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Community Development Director
G:\PA#\2000\00-025\PC Staff Reporis-Resos~PC Reso lafco 9-6-01 .doc
East Dublin Properties
5rage I Development Plan
VICINITY MAP
DUB~N
1-580
1-580
PLEASANTON
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 5
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Notice of Preparation
Website: http://www c[.dublin ca us
To:
Distribution LiSt (see attached)
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Date: May 25, 2001
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Planning Department
1 O0 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Contact: Anne Kinney, AICP, Planning Department, (925) 833 6610
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope
and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency
may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or
other approvals for this project.
Project Title: East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025).
Project Location: Unincorporated area of Alameda County, adjacent to City of
Dublin eastern city limits, immediately north of Interstate 580 and east of Fallon Road.
See attached project location map. The site encompasses approximately 1,l 20 acres of land.
Project Description: Planned Development Pmzone / Stage 1 Development Plan and
AnnexatiordDetachment application to facilitate the annexation of approximately 1,120 acres
of land to the City of Dublin and attachment to and detachment from various service districts,
The Planned Development (PD) Prezone ! Stage 1 Development Plan would provide zoning
for various land uses including commercial, industrial and residential development, parks,
schools, open space and other uses.
The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be returned at the earliest possible
time but not later than June 27, 2001. Please send your response to the contact person
identified above.
Signature:
Title: 4/~w~:,:~
Telephone:
Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 ' Personnel 833-6605 - Economic Development 833 6650
Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
INITIAL STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
East Dublin Properties
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, as amended), and assesses the potential
environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation
of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is
based on the land use designations, circulation patterns, etc. assigned to the project area
by the City of Dublin's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, this Initial Study
relies upon a Program EIR certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report", State Clearinghouse No.
91103064). That EIR, which is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin
EIR", evaluated the following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing;
Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm
Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources;
Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to
the proposed project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are
included in this Initial Study by reference. However, as indicated in the environmental
checklist, conditions related to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Noise, Public Services (schools), Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities/Service
Systems may have changed enough since the EIR was certified that new potentially
significant environmental impacts may exist for those topics, or a potentially substantial
increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects for those topics may
exist. However, because only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the
Eastern Dublin Eli[ adequate in light of those changed circumstances, a focused
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be prepared for the proposed
project.
Applicant/Contact Person
East Dublin Property Owners
c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt
2580 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
Phone: (925) 245-3600
FAX: (925) 245-8833
Project Location and Context
The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in area and is located in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road
to the west. Exhibit 1 shows the project location in relation to the general Bay Area. The
area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer to Exhibit 2).
The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area
and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also are included
within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit 4). The
project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate
ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7).
The topography of the site ranges from relatively flat at the southern portion near the
freeway, to gently rolling hills at the center of the site, to relatively steep slopes, some
exceeding 30% in some places. A series of low knolls trending from northwest to
southeast bisect the southern portion of the property and provide a backdrop to the flatter
portions of the site near the freeway. A few drainages flow in a north to south
orientation, transecting the project area along its length. Exhibit 3 shows the topography
of the project site. A small number of trees exist beyond those planted around existing
homesteads and scattered in the drainages.
The project properties currently are used primarily for dryland farming and cattle grazing
with rural residences, a horse ranch and associated outbuildings scattered throughout the
site. Improvements to the agricultural lands generally consist of paved and unpaved
roads, fences, barns, corrals, wells, water tanks, ponds, single-family homes and various
outbuildings.
In 1994 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan which
addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central
portion of Dublin. The entire project site is located in the easternmost portion of that
General Plan Amendment area and a portion of the site (approx. 472 acres) is located
within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would implement the easternmost
portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. For the portion of the
project area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the Specific Plan
identifies land uses, circulation patterns, infrastructure requirements, and programs and
policies which. At build-out, this portion of the project's 472 acres would provide
approximately 1,240 dwelling units and almost 1.4million square feet of office,
commercial and industrial floor space at the mid-point densities contemplated by the
EDSP. This represents approximately 10% of the total EDSP residential units and 11%
of the total office, commercial, industrial and institutional floor space (Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, page 16). This portion of the project site also provides 103 acres for
schools, public parks and open space, approximately 11% of the total EDSP acreage
designated for such uses (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, pp. 24-25). The other 637 acres
of the project site have been designated by the General Plan for residential land uses and
would provide 1,286 dwelling units at mid-point densities for Iow density and rural
residential/agriculture uses indicated by the General Plan, with 34.5 acres dedicated to
schools, parks and open space.
Project Description
All of the subject property is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County.
The proposed project consists of: a Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of
Dublin requesting a pre-zoning of the site in accordance with the City's General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); execution of a Pre-Annexation
Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project proponents/property-owners;
detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) upon
annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; and, post-annexation, probable
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project
area. Although not requiring City action, the project proponents also are requesting
detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
(LVJUSD) and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). This Initial
Study evaluates all of those actions.
Stage 1 Planned Development (Prezoning)
State law requires property to be prezoned before annexation can take place. Prezoning is
an action to indicate what city zoning will take effect once the armexed property becomes
part of the city. The City of Dublin uses a Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) under
Chapter 8.32 of its zoning ordinance to prezone property in accordance with the City's
General Plan and, in this case, Eastem Dublin Specific Plan land use designations. Under
the City's zoning ordinance a Stage 1 development plan must establish: a plan of
proposed land use by type and density of use; the maximum number of dwelling un/ts and
commercial/office/industrial areas; a master landscape plan; and a preliminary
development phasing plan. Once the site is annexed, project proponents will apply for a
Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan approval. City approval of a
Stage 2 development plan must be received to complete the PD zoning process.
Table 1 indicates the land uses and development intensities proposed for the project site.
Proposed land uses, residential densities and development intensities are consistent with
the City's recommended midpoint densities of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The project proposes a maximum of 2,526 dwelling units and
3
approximately 1.4 million square feet of neighborhood commercial, general commercial
and industrial park development. Also included in the plan are approximately 32 acres
for school sites, 41 acres for parks, and a minimum of 77 acres of open space.
Residential densities range from Low (0.9 - 6 du/acre) to Medium High (14-25 du/acre),
although 270 acres of the project area is designated for Rural Residential density which
allows only 1 unit for every one hundred acres.
Exhibit 6 shows the proposed land uses and pre-zoning designations for the project area.
Commercial and industrial uses are located generally along the freeway corridor where
noise would overly impact residential uses and where access is easiest for such uses.
Residential uses are located in the northern two thirds of the project area. Parks and
schools are distributed throughout the project site as indicated by the Specific Plan and
General Plan: two elementary schools, one junior high school, four neighborhood parks,
and a neighborhood square with additional acreage to be dedicated to a large planned
community park just west of the proposed project. The EDSP anticipated that the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission might adopt an Airport Protection Area
(APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport which would prohibit residential uses within
5000 feet of the airport runways. Some areas of the EDSP designated for residential land
uses and which were anticipated to be within the future APA, also are designated in the
EDSP as Future Study Area, requiring additional review and action by the City to
determine the most appropriate land use (see also page 16 of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan). This designation affects 92.6 acres of the project site.
As part of the proposed project, the project developers would construct all major
roadways and public infrastructure such as water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm
drainage facilities. Major roadways would be constructed to and through the project area
with project proponents utilizing assessment districts, Mello Roos districts or other
appropriate financing mechanisms to help fund construction.
Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses,
roads and utilities, although the amount of grading will not be established until the Stage
2 Plauned Development when detailed site and grading plans are developed. Water,
sewer and recycled water services would be provided to the area by DSRSD in
accordance with plans formulated by DSRSD and the City's General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. As development in Dublin continues expanding eastward to Fallon
Road and the project site, public utilities will be extended concomitantly. The project
developers would continue the extension of these services throughout the project site as it
is developed.
Water distribution mains are planned to be located in all major streets. Construction of
water storage reservoirs are not anticipated to be part of this project. Sewer service for
the project would be provided through connection to the DSRSD sewer system once it is
extended through Dublin Ranch, located to the west of the project area. Gravity flow
sewer mains would be installed along Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
Temporary pumping stations may be needed in the initial stages of development. When
and where available, DSRSD would provide recycled water for irrigation purposes,
reducing the need for potable water.
4
The storm drainage system would consist of underground pipes and culverts throughout
the site connecting to box culverts and/or open channels that would flow southerly and
westerly along 1-580 to the existing G-3 drainage channel, an Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District facility.
The City of Dublin's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that 5% of a project's
dwelling units must be affordable to very low, Iow and moderate income households.
Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of inclusionary units or
paying an in-lieu fee to the City. The project proponents will be required to comply with
the ordinance, although the specific method generally would not be determined until the
Stage 2 PD and related subdivision maps are reviewed.
The project applicants indicate that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a
number of years to ensure that roads and other infrastructure facilities would be available
to support land uses as they are needed. As indicated in the applicants' Stage 1 PD
submittal to the City, preliminary development of the first phases could commence in two
years with project build-out anticipated to be completed over the ensuing five to ten
years.
Proposed Reorganization (annexations and detachments)
The project site is contiguous with the City of Dublin and all of its 1,120 acres lie within
Dublin's Sphere of Influence and within the Sphere of Influence of the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (which addresses 472 acres of the project area), contemplated the eventual
annexation and development of the project site in accordance with the land use
designations, programs and policies of each Plan. The annexation of the project site by
Dublin would complete the expansion of the City in this area per its current Sphere of
Influence.
Similarly, the project area is within the expected service area of DSRSD and all of
DSRSD's master plans for the provision and distribution of water, wastewater service,
and recycled water include the annexation of, and service to, the project site. Because the
water, wastewater, and recycled water services are provided to the City of Dublin by
DSRSD, the City and DSRSD have concurred in policy that their boundaries and Spheres
of Influence will be coterminous (except for that portion of DSRSD's service area which
extends to portions of Contra Costa County). Hence, annexation of the area to the City
also requires annexation of the area to DSRSD to provide needed services.
One of the City's General Plan Guiding Policies (3.3 A) is to expand park area to serve
new development. Both the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
contemplate the expansion of park services to the project site and indicated preferred park
locations within the project area. However, the project site currently is within the
boundaries of LARPD. Detachment of the project area fi.om the LARPD service area is a
logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured,
particularly since Dublin has planned for the expansion of its park services. A similar
5
detachment was carried out when the properly immediately to the west was annexed to
the City.
The project site is located within the City's General Plan Eastern Extended Planning
Area. A City of Dublin Guiding Policy (4.1 B) promotes cooperation with the Dublin
Unified School District to ensure provision of school facilities in the Extended Planning
Area, thereby ensuring that all incorporated areas of the City are served by one school
district. The General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan have indicated potential
school sites within the project area which are to be offered for dedication to DUSD.
Dublin Unified School District has considered the project area for service since adoption
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. However,
as above, the project area currently is within the boundaries of the Livermore Valley Joint
Unified School District. Deannexation of the project area from the LVJUSD service area
is a logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured,
particularly since DUSD and the City have planned for school service to the project area.
A similar reorganization of school district boundaries occurred when property
immediately to the west was annexed.
A reorganization of school district boundaries, however, does not require a City action or
LAFCO action, but does require approval by the two involved school boards. The project
applicant already has been in contact with the staff's of both school districts and will
make a request for reorganization to the two boards.
Pre-annexation Agreement/Develot~ment Agreements
The City requires that the project proponents and property owners enter into pre-
annexation and development agreements with the City. Pre-annexation agreements
encourage project proponents and the City to meet certain mutual obligations while the
area proposed for annexation is proceeding through entitlement processes and ensure that
the proposed project will not be a financial burden to the City. Development agreements
vest development approvals for a specified period of time so that developers of large,
time extensive projects have the ability to construct such projects in a time frame and
under mutual obligations beneficial to the City and the project proponent. Issues typically
addressed in development agreements include, but are not limited to: density and
intensity of land use; timing of development; financing methods and timing of
infrastructure; determination of traffic, noise, public facility and other impact fees; and
obligations for construction of streets and roads. Development agreements would be part
of a later City action generally occurring with City approval of a Stage 2 Planned
Development, Site Development Review and tentative subdivision map..
Williarnson Act Cancellation
Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act
contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to
limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten
years. In mm, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower
rate based upon its agricultural use rath~ than its real estate market value. To withdraw
6
from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal.
Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value
before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have
been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and
2010. It is anticipated that at least several of the property-owners of these four parcels
will request early cancellation of these contracts upon annexation to the City.
1. Project description
2. Lead agency:
3. Contact person:
4. Project location:
5. Project contact person:
6. General Plan designations:
7. Proposed Pre-zoning:
Application for a Stage t PD (prezoning), request
for annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD,
detachment from LARPD, request to enter into pre-
annexation agreements; and potential
Williamson Act contract cancellation for the four
parcels in Exhibit 8.
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
Anne Kinney, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833-6610
North of I-580 and east of Fallon Road
East Dublin Property Owners
c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt
2580 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 245 3600
Low Density Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Medium
Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac), Medium High
Density Residential (14.1-25.0 du/ac), Rural
Residential/Agriculture (0.01 du/ac), Neighborhood
Commercial (.25-.60 FAR), General Commemial
(.20-.60 FAR), Industrial Park (.35 FAR maximum),
Elementary School, Junior High School, Neighbor-
hood Park, Community Park, Neighborhood Square,
Open Space and Stream Corridor
PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density
Residential, PD-Medium High Density Residential,
PD-Neighborhood Commercial, PD-General
Commercial, PD-Industrial Park, PD - Future Study
Area (Rural Residential/Agriculture and General
Commercial), PD-Elementary School, PD-Junior
7
High School, PD-Neighborhood Park, PD-
Neighborhood Square, PD-Community
Park, PD-Rural Residential/Agriculture, and PD-
Open Space.
8. Other public agency required approvals:
· Annexation (City of Dublin)
· Annexation (DSRSD)
· Referral to Alameda County Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC)
· Detachment (LVJUSD)
· Detachment (LARPD)
· Attachment (DUSD)
· Stage 2 Development Plans (City of Dublin)
· Development Agreement
· Vesting tentative and final subdivision maps
(Dublin)
· Site Development Review
· Grading and building permits (City of
Dublin)
· Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
· Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
· Potentially:
Notice of Intent (Water Resources
Control Board)
404 Permit (US Army Corps of
Engineers)
Streambed Alteration Permit (California
Department ofFish and Game)
Permits from San Francisco Bay Region
Water Quality Control Board
Permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Encroachment or other permits from
CalTrans
8
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
X
Biological Resources
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
X Public Services
X Utilities/Service X
Systems
X Agricultural
Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology/Water
Quality
X Noise
Recreation X
Mandatory Findings
of Significance
X Air Quality
Geology/Soils
Land Use/
Planning
Population/
Housing
Transportation/
Circulation
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and 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 the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project may have a potentially significant effect, or
a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, 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 the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be
addressed.
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 all potentially
9
s~gnificant affects: a) have been analyz~ adequately in an cagier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards; and Co) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EI]L
inclnrling r~s'isiom or mitigation measures t~t are imposed on the proposed project.
Pilate4 N~me: ~q ~,,,,~ ~.,,~,ey for:
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1)
A brief explanstion is r~quited for all answers except "no impgt" answers that are
supported by the information ~ourees a lead agency cites in the pm'en~is
following e~h question, k "no imp~t" amwer is ~dequ~tely suFpor~l if the
r~f~'-~nc, ed intorrrmtion sources show tl~at the ~ap~ simply does not apply to
project~ like the one involved (e.g- the project falls out~ide a ~u.R rupture zone),
or, in this case, there is no impact of the proposed project b~yond thai which
was considered previously In the Eastern Dmblin EIR mid/or for which a
Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by frae City Council at
the lime the E~tern Dublin EIR wm cra-tiffed. A "no impact" answer shouM
be r~.~,lained where it is b~ed on projmt-specifi¢ factors as well m general factors
(e.g. the project will not expose sensi~ve receptors w pollu~ts, based on a
project-~e~ific screening ~malysis).
2)
All answers must take aecoun! of the whole a~tion, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumuhtive as well aa project-l~vel, i,~Hirect as well as direct, Md
construction as well as operational imp~ta.
3)
"Potemially Significant Impact" is appropriate if thcr~ is substantial evidence that
an effect is significant 11 there arc one ~ more "powatially significmt irnpa~t"
entries when the de~ennin~on i~ made, an Ell*, is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Ur~l~ss Mitigation Incorporated"
rmplies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from "poterrtially sigr~ficant effecx" to a "less than ~ignifieant impaef'. The lest
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how thw] reduce
effect to a leas than ignificant level.
Environmental Impacts (Note; Source ofdetera-finagon lisied in pax,,~hesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist,)
10
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
No
Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings,
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
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?
X
X
X
X
11
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
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?
Potentially Les~ Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
No
Impact
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?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
X
X
X
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
12
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department ofFish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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 ofFish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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,
vcn-nal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
13
Potentially Les~ Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
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:
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.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
14
including liquefaction?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation lmpact
Incorporation
X
No
Impact
iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
c) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
15
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
d) 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?
e) For a project ~vithin the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) 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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
X
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
16
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or fiver, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
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?
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 runoff?,
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
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?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significantwith Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
x
x
X
x
No
Impact
X
X
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?
X
17
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
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?
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?
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result
in:
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
x
No
Impact
X
X
x
X
X
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
18
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
lmpact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
x
NO
Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
19
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No
Impact
x
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
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:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public
facilities, including roads?
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?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
X
X
X
X
X
X
2O
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
x
X
No
Impact
X
x
x
21
PotentialLy Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
X
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?
X
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?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
X
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 projects
projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
h) Have sufficient gas and elccthcity
supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources?
X
22
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 to 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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects ora project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
x
x
Impact
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts:
1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised July 7, 1998)
2. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998)
3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final
EIRs, Addenda, etc.)
23
These documents are available for review at:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
XVII. Earlier Analyses
This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether an earlier EIR (the EIR prepared
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse
No. 91103064) may be used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines (Section 15063 (c)(7)).
a)
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1992 Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State
.Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the
Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. As part of the certification the Council adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service),
regional air quality, noise and visual.
The Eastem Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to
this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area.
Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential
impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, several changes in cimumstances in which
the Project will take place have occurred and which could effect the impacts and/or
mitigations analysis of the Project. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not
limited to: 1) additions of species to the California and/or Federal Endangered or
Threatened Species Lists; 2) continued development in the Th-Valley area and beyond
with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect
air quality and noise within or on the project area; 3) changes in California law regarding
annexations (i.e., adoption of AB 2838) which may affect the designation of portions of
the project site as prime agricultural soils; and 4) changes in the provision and
distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater,
storm drainage and gas and electricity).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to
identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of
24
the Project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and which would require
additional environmental review.
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS: Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the
previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin E[R
NI: No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin E1R and/or for which a
Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
I. AESTHETICS
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant except for nine residences and some scattered agricultural
buildings. The Eastern Dublin EI~ classifies the project site mainly as "dry-farming
rotational cropland" covering approximately the southern two-tkirds of the site and "non-
native grassland" covering the northern one third. Where agricultural activity, including
grazing, historically has taken place, the visual image of the land is formed by patterns of
the soil that have been furrowed by mechanical means or livestock.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (pp. 71-72) identifies certain ridgelands and ridgelines
within the Project area as "visually sensitive". The lower spur ridges may be developed
consistent with Specific Plan land use designations as long as they meet certain
requirements specified in the Specific Plan. These include the lower, southern series of
east-west trending foothills and three other ridgelines behind these at a general elevation
of 500 feet. Development is prohibited on other ridgelines further to the east and north
(please refer to Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). The City's General Plan
also identifies an elevation "cap" above which certain development is prohibited and
provides guidelines for sensitive development at certain elevations and slopes.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista ?
LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would alter the character of
existing scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines if not mitigated.
25
This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.8/C, 3.8/D, 3.8/E, 3.8/G
and 3.8/1)) and with implementation of mitigation measures the identified impacts on
scenic vistas are less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures include: 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and
3.8/7.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). These mitigation
measures encourage preservation of important visual resources, minimized grading for
development; grading and building to preserve natural contours; prohibition of
development along identified ridgelines; and preservation of views of designated open
spaces. These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area.
In addition, Policies 6-29 through 6-38 and text discussion within the Specific Plan
provide direction for the type of development which may occur in "visually sensitive"
areas. These policies are directed towards preserving scenic vistas and view corridors and
provide guidelines for grading and building design and apply in addition to the above-
listed mitigation measures, to the 472-acre of the project within the Specific Plan area.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways?
LS. Development of the project site will alter the visual experience of travelers on
scenic routes in eastern Dublin. Interstate 580 has been designated as a scenic corridor by
Alameda County. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipates that the proposed Fallon
Road, which borders the Project area to the west, may be designated by the City as a
scenic corridor.
This potential impact (Impact 3.8/J) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin
ErR and implementation of mitigation measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (page 3.8-9) reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures encourage the City
to adopt certain roads as scenic corridors (including Fallon Road), and encourage the City
to require detailed visual analyses with development project applications (i.e., Stage 2
Planned Development applications). These mitigation measures apply to the entire
project area. Additionally, Policies 6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
provide guidance for areas of the Project visible fi.om a scenic con-idor. These policies, in
addition to the above-listed mitigation measures, apply to the 472-acre of the project
within the Specific Plan area
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin ErR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
26
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site?
NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.8/B - Alteration of
Rural/Open Space Visual Character and Impact 3.8/F - Alteration of Visual Character of
Flatlands). Development of the Project area would alter the existing rural and open space
qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley grasses and agricultural fields.
The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures could be identified to either fully or
partially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded
this impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an irreversible
change and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change the scale of
development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not
change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is
necessary.
d) Create light or glare?
LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare
due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances the additional
lighting could result as perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of
unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to
be lighted. The anticipated light and glare generated by the proposed Project would not
be unique or sufficiently different from other development projects within the City or the
Eastern Dublin planning area. In addition, development within a portion of the proposed
Project area is subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission for the Livermore
Municipal Airport: all potential light sources must meet the criteria established by the
ALUC prior to development. The City of Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the
amount of "spill-over" lighting and conditions of approval also are routinely adopted with
each project which address potential light and glare impacts. The City's zoning
ordinance, adopted site development review guidelines, and conditions of approval
become part of the project, if approved and the project would have impacts that are less-
than-significant.
Because light and glare created by the proposed Project would be typical of development
elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would
be less-than-significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Historically the Project site has been used for grazing, dry-land farming, a horse ranch,
and other non-intensive agricultural endeavors. The Eastern Dublin EIR characterizes the
majority of the area as farmland "of local importance" (Figure 3.l-B), which is defined as
those farmlands which contribute to the local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and
oilseed crops (I3. 3.1-2). The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the discontinuation of
27
aghcultural uses as an insignificant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act
contracts which were non-renewed and the limited value of the non-prime soils. And,
because the farmlands on the Project site were not considered "prime", their loss was
judged to be insignificant.
However, since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the evaluation of soils considered
as "prime" for annexation purposes has been modified through adoption of criteria
established by the Cor/ese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act
(Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). Soils which
previously would not have been considered as "prime aghcultural soils" and land which
was not considered significant or important for agricultural purposes may now be
considered as such by the new law.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which
could result in conversion offarmland to a non-agricultural use?
PS. According to the Agricultural Suitability Map for the Project area prepared by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, much of the site supports farmlands of "local
importance" since it contributes to the production of feed (grazing). Almost 59 acres of
the site are shown as containing Class I and II soils in the Land Use Capability
Classification system of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Under Assembly
Bill 2838, Class I and I/ soils are considered "prime" as long as they have not been
developed xvith non-agricultural uses. Since the proposed Project includes annexation to
the City of Dublin and the Project area contains Class I and 71I soils, the effect of
conversion of the property from grazing use to non-agricultural, planned urban uses may
be a potentially significant environmental impact.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
PS. Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act
contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to
limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten
years. In turn, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower
rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdra~v
from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal.
Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value
before land can be removed fi.om the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have
been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and
2010. It is anticipated that several of the property-owners of these four parcels will
request cancellation of these contracts. With recent amendments to annexation statutes
regarding the definition of prime agriculture lands further investigation of this potential
impact is warranted to determine if this will be significant.
28
IlL AIR QUALITY
Environmental Setting
Dublin is located in the Th-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal
standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other
airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter
(PM4 0) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?
PS. Although the project itself may not contribute any more pollutants than originally
anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR, as a result of more rapid urbanization in the Tri-
Valley area than originally expected, an increase in traffic through the Th-Valley from
other areas, and changing commute patterns, the environment in which the project would
occur may have changed enough such that the project could contribute to emissions
exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance
thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
PS. For the reasons noted above (i.e., changed environmental setting of the project), the
project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This
may be a potentially significant impact.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?
PS. For the reasons noted in a) above (i.e., the changed environmental setting of the
project), the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance
thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact.
d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors?
NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will create emissions from a variety
of miscellaneous stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as fuel combustion in power
plants or water heaters, industrial and commercial uses, evaporative emissions from
paints and cleaning products, etc. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that although such
emissions would be extremely small for any individual resident, they could be substantial
when summed over the entire scope of the project (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 3.11-6). The
Eastern Dublin E1R identified this impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact
which could not be mitigated to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source
emissions needed to meet the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of
Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed
project would not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR
29
for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no
additional discussion or analysis is necessary
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project area is dominated by
dry-farming rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. A small area of arroyo willow
ripar/an woodland is located just to the east of Fallon Road: Several intermittent streams
and stock ponds also are indicated in this figure. Fields utilized for dry-farming typically
are cropped through various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years.
Crops and croplands are not irrigated. The site is traversed generally north to south by
several drainages which may contain sensitive plant and/or animal species.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species, seventeen
special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status
invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin
planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21), based upon the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game Commission listings at that time.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the regulatory status of some of these
species may have changed.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species
(Policies 6-17 and 6-20). Although the proposed Project would adhere to the adopted
mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, changes in regulatory circumstances such
as the adoption of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) critical habitat
area and its recommendations for habitat preservation and creation, could create a
potentially significant environmental impact if not re-addressed.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected
wetlands?
PS. Figure 3.7 - B of the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies areas within the Project area
which potentially contain riparian habitat and springs based upon the location of
intermittent streams, stock ponds, seeps, etc. Utilizing Figure 3.7-B, it is estimated that at
least 14,000 linear feet of potential r/parian habitat could exist within the Project area.
Although the EIR identifies mitigation measures and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
contains policies to address stream corridors and r/parian and wetland areas (Policies 6-9
through 6-13 and 6-15), regulatory standards for such r/parian habitats may have changed
since certification of the EIR (e.g., new standards for the California red-legged frog
30
identified in the recently approved critical habitat designation may require different
treatment of riparian and upland habitats). Although the proposed Project would adhere
to the adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, due to a change in
regulatory circumstances, the Project could have a potentially significant environmental
impact.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species?
PS. As noted above, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of special status
wildlife species. Although mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and policies
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 6-18 through 6-20) address potential
impacts to the movement of wildlife species, and this Project would be required to adhere
to those mitigation measures and policies, the Project may still have a potentially
significant impact due to changed regulatory standards regarding the movement of
wildlife. For example, recent approval of the critical habitat designation for the
California red-legged frog could require refinement of the impacts and/or mitigations
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans?
PS. The Project would be required to comply will all local policies and ordinances
imposed by the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies and
programs intended to protect biological resources and habitat areas and restore and
revegetate habitat where necessary and appropriate (Policies 6-15 through 6-23; Programs
6K~60). However, the Project site lies within the boundaries of the approximately 5.3
million acres in California recently approved as critical habitat for the California red-
legged frog. The proposed designation of the Project area as critical habitat is a changed
regulatory circumstance which could impact local policies and implementation of the
project as contemplated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. Hence, the changed regulatory
cimumstance would result in apotentially significant environmental impact.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural
resources which may be located within the Project area. A field inspection of the entire
Eastern Dublin areas was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of
them isolated locales) and two historic sites were identified within the proposed Project
area (see pp. 3.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). Maps of these sites were not
included in the EIR to protect them from possible vandalism. The Eastern Dublin EIR
mandated additional project-level archeological surveys.
31
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?
LS. Only two historic sites (a 1940's-era barn and an early 20th-century ranch/homestead
complex) were identified in the Project area. Due to the expected level of development
within the Project area, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all historic sites would be
disturbed or altered in some manner, even those located in areas designated for Open
Space. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
Impact 3.9/C) and mitigation measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 (page 3.9-8) will reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require detailed
archival research for each structure to assess the structure's significance; encourage
adaptive re-use where feasible; and encourage the City to develop a preservation program
for historic sites which qualify under CEQA guidelines. Additionally, mitigation
measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 (page 3.9-7) also would apply to the project. These
mitigations require cessation of all construction activities upon discovery of any
previously-unidentified historic sites.
Additionally, Policies 6-26 and 6-27 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of any resource prior to alteration and
encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures whenever feasible.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources?
LS. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological
and/or paleontological resources on the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these
resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were
identified by the EIR within the proposed Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed
that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential
impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EI~ (Impact 3.9/A) and
implementation of mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7)
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such
resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as
"significant" under Appendix K of CEQA. Mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0,
described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously
unidentified pre-historic resources and these mitigation measures reduce the potential
impact to a less-than-significant level.
32
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiting
research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the
significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
d) Disturb any human resources?
LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be
uncovered on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures
of the Eastern Dublin E[R and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for
discovery of human resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites.
With implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures adopted with
certification of the Eastern Dublin E][R (mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 - 12) and adherence
to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies relating to cultural resources (Policies 6-24
and 6-25), this impact is less-than-significant.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Setting
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and
landforms, drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types.
Seismic
The Project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically
active regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby
significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San
Andreas Fault (pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6-A and 3.6-B). The likelihood of a major
seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high.
However, no active faults are known to traverse the Project site and the site is not
identified as located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as determined by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that
may be seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary
rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust,
33
Mount Diablo Domain". Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that
the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low within the Project area.
Site Geology and Soils
The site is underlain by the Tassajara geolog/c formation on the south and extensive
landslide deposits to the north. The Tassajara Formation consists of undifferentiated
claystone and siltstone, locally undifferentiated into sandstone, conglomerate and
siltstone-claystone members.
Landforms and Topography
The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-
Amador Valley. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 350 feet to 910
feet above sea level. Much of the property is gently rolling to almost flat but the extreme
northern and northeastern portions are steeply sloping terrain.
Geotechnical reports cited in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicate a history of landslides on
the site. The more steeply sloping northern and northeastern portions of the site contain
landslide areas. Many of these slides are relatively shallow and it is estimated that all can
be repaired or mitigated in the areas slated for urban development.
Drainage
Existing drainage patterns on the site includes a series of small, unnamed intermittent
streams. These streams are shown in Figures 3.7-A and -B in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
These intermittent streams generally follow a north-to-south direction, consistent with the
overall topography of the Eastern Dublin area. These streams are not delineated
drainages and do not terminate in other local creeks (such as Tassajara Creek) or
modified natural drainages (such as the Arroyo Mocho).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including
loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground
failure or landslides?
LS. Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking
caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events
which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other
improvements constructed in the project area would be subject to damage caused by
ground shaking. However, since the Project area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone, the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground-
shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With
implementation of mitigation measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking
34
(Impact 3.6/B - damage to structures and infrastructure, potential loss of life) are reduced
to a less-than-significant level by using modem seismic design for resistance to lateral
forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major
structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0 will be implemented to reduce the secondary
effects of ground-shaking (Impact 3.6/C - seismically induced landslides, differential
compaction/settlement, etc.), to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require: stabilization of unstable landforms where possible or restriction of improvements
from unstable landforms; appropriate grading in hillside areas; utilization of properly
engineered retention structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure to
accommodate potential settlement; and completion of design-level geotechnical
investigations (pp. 3.6-8 through 3.6-9).
Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new
structures and infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally
recognized seismic safety standards so that effects due to ground shaking will be less-
than-significant.
The majority of the Project area contains gently to steeply sloping hillsides. The northern
and northeastern portions have a history of landslides. As part of the development of the
area the site is proposed to be graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads,
roads, infrastructure, parks, schools, parking areas and other development features. The
Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project site could result in permanent
changes in existing Iandforms, particularly if substantial grading occurs. Two mitigation
measures reduce this impact to less-than-significant.
Mitigation measure 3.6/9.0 states that grading plans which adapt improvements to natural
landforms, use retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate, and
construction of roads on ridges reduce impacts to landforms. Mitigation measure
3.6/10.0 states that specific project lot and infrastructure alignment should be based on
the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas, clustering structures, and
avoiding adverse conditions by utilizing lower density development in the hillside areas.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies aimed at reducing impacts related
to landform changes and reducing potential impacts related to landslides. Policies 6-40
through 6-42 restrict structures on slopes of 10~30% and generally preclude structures on
slopes of greater than 30%.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
35
b) ls the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development of the Project site wilt modify the
existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could
result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities
(Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could result fi.om modification of the ground-surface
and removal of existing vegetation (Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp. 3.6-14 - 3.6-15) these impacts are less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures specify and require the preparation and implementation of
erosion control measures to be utilized on a short-term and long-term basis. In addition
to these measures, the Project would be subject to erosion control and water quality
control measures implemented by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43) which requires that new
development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of
construction activities.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse?
LS. Portions of the Project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell
potential which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement
(Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (pp. 3.6-
11 - 12) and by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to
overcome shrink-swell effects, potential shrink-swell impacts will be less-than-
significant.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that impacts of slope instability are considered to be
potentially significant (Impacts 3.6/1 and 3.6/J), but can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 - 26.0 (pp. 3.6-12
- 3.6-14). These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and
geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of
appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of
surface and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1
cut slopes unless retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched,
keyed or treated with a geo-gfid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform
Building Code and other City requirements for grading.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
36
e)
Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not
available?
NI. All new development within the Project area would be connected to a public sanitary
sewer system installed by the Project developer and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon
Services District which serves all of the City of Dublin. No septic systems are proposed.
Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Setting
The site is primarily open grasslands and currently contains nine single family residences
and some agricultural out-buildings. Historically, the Project site has been used for
agriculture, primarily as grazing land and limited dry-farming of crops. Much of the
Project area currently is utilized for grazing. Some pesticide and organicide use may be
associated with these agricultural uses and some petroleum-based products probably have
been used to mn and maintain farm equipment. Similar types of petroleum-based
products may be in use at a limited trucking and truck storage use located on one of the
parcels. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been performed for each parcel
comprising the Project site and typical levels of organicides, pesticides and lim/ted
amounts of petroleum-based products have been identified in localized areas around
outbuildings. Additionally, one of the parcels was discovered to have been used as a
gasoline service station but this use was discontinued in the 1960's and no stmctures
remain. No parcels within the Project area have been listed as a hazardous site or as a
hazardous materials generator.
Based upon the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed for each
property within the Project area, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would be
required for some of those parcels to further identify any potential hazardous materials.
Policy 11-I of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior to the issuance of
building permits for sites in the project area, such environmental site assessments are
required. If applicable, remediation measures would be recommended and required prior
to development in accordance with State law.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release
or emission of hazardous materials?
LS. Proposed uses of the site would include residential, general and retail commercial,
industrial park, schools, and parks. Only minor less-than-significant quantities of
potentially hazardous materials such as lawn chemicals, household solvents, etc., would
be associated with the majority of the proposed uses. The Project's proposed Industhal
Park designation and the Project's proposed uses relate most closely to the City of
Dublin's M-1 or Light Industrial District, although the types of industrial uses permitted
37
under the zoning ordinance include light and heavier industrial uses with some
manufacturing. Some potentially hazardous materials may be utilized by these industrial
type uses but the storage, use and disposal of such materials would be controlled through
a hazardous materials business plan required to be filed by any such user with the
Alameda County Fire Department which provides such service to the City of Dublin.
With the expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for adhering
to a hazardous materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant.
c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site?
LS. None of the parcels comprising the Project area have been listed as a hazardous
materials site. As noted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been
completed for each individual parcel comprising the Project area. Levels of organicides,
pesticides, and petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses have been
discovered near existing agricultural outbuildings but these levels are less-than-
significant. Should the Project be approved, Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
will be performed on each parcel prior to construction. Remediation measures, if needed,
would be recommended and completed in accordance with State and Federal
requirements. This impact is considered to be less-than-significant.
d)
Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip?
LS. The Livermore Municipal Airport is located to the south of the Project area across 1-
580 and south of the Los Positas Golf Course. The Federal Aviation Administration
classifies the airport as a "general transport" airport and the airport can accommodate
turbojets under 60,000 pounds and general aviation aircraft of lesser weight.
The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted an Alameda
County Airport Land Use Policy Plan in 1986 which defines "General Referral and
Height Referral Areas" for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Portions of the Project area
fall within these referral areas. The General Referral Area extends 4,000 feet north of 1-
580. Proposed land uses and activities subject to review under State ALUC law must be
referred to the County ALUC. The Height Referral area encompasses an area 20,000 feet
from the runways in all directions (approximately 15,000 feet north of 1-580) and 200 feet
above ground level in the Height Referral area.
The ALUC amended the Policy Plan in 1993 to create an Airport Protection Area (APA)
around the Livermore Airport. Development or expansion of residential uses within the
APA is prohibited. At the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR
were adopted, this APA had not yet been established. However, the Specific Plan
anticipated that some residentially-designated land within the Eastern Dublin area would
be located within the future APA. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that
residentially-designated lands so affected by adoption of the APA must be designated
"Future Study Area" (1>.16). The APA does affect approximately 22 percent of the
southern portion of the Project area. Approximately 96 acres of the project area,
originally slated for potential residential development, now are designated as Future
38
Study Area with an underlying designation of rural residential/agriculture, a designation
which essentially will not allow for any intensity of land use ~eater than what is existing.
The project is not proposing any changes to this land use designation and hence, is in
compliance with the established APA. Since the Specific Plan already anticipated land
use changes which might occur as a result of the ALUC's actions, and designated the land
accordingly, this is a less-than-significant impact.
e)
Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within n*o miles of a private
airstrip?
NI. The project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip.
f) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?
LS. The proposed Project would be developed in phases, as is feasible with the
extension of services and utilities to the area. Adequate emergency access to all portions
of the Project site under construction would be required to be provided per the City of
Dublin's ordinances and policies. Emergency access requires that structures and
occupants of structures can be accessed by emergency vehicles and personnel and also
requires that residents are able to evacuate an area in case of some form of hazard or
threat of hazard. Adequate water service for fire-fighting and installation of hydrants or
other approved alternative water supply systems would be required per City policy as the
project develops.
The Eastern Dublin EIR indicated a mitigation measure (3.4/9.0) to address access, water
pressure, fire safety and prevention to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
significant level. This mitigation measure requires that certain design standards are
incorporated into Project approvals such as: available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI
fire flow from project fire hydrants on public mains; installation of a buffer zone along
the backs of homes contiguous with wildland open space areas; and compliance with
minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking requirements, and secondary
access road requirements. Policy 8-6 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also requires
provision of emergency vehicle access from subdivisions to open space areas among
other fire prevention methods to address concerns with emergency access and evacuation.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policy would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
g)
Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
LS. The proposed project includes a significant amount of open space intermixed with
proposed residential uses in accordance with the land use designations of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. However, the relationship ofwildland open space
to urbanized uses has the potential to increase the risk of wildland fires spreading to
39
urban areas. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the risk of constructing new communities
in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas since it would pose an increasing
wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas were not maintained for fire
safety (Impact 3.4/E). Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 - 13.0 (pp. 3.4-5 - 3.4-7) will reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demands; establishment of
funding mechanisms for construction of such facilities; incorporation of Dougherty
Regional Fire Authority (and, implicitly, any other fire authority which would service the
area), requirements into the project design; integration of fire trails and fire breaks into
the open space trail system; and preparation and implementation of a wildfire
management plan for the area.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains two policies (Policy 8-5 and 8-6, p. 125)
which address the construction of new facilities and requirements to minimize the
potential for impacts fi.om wildland fires.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The Project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San
Francisco Bay. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The northern
portion of the site is hilly and transitions to relatively flat areas immediately adjacent to
the 1-580 freeway. Three intermittent streams flowing in a north-south direction transect
the Project area. These drainages appear to orig/nate in the northern, hilly portions of the
site but do not drain into any distinct creek or channel. In some locations these drainages
have been impounded for use as stock ponds. These drainages do not carry water
consistently year-round and are more apparent during the spring season.
Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) [Community Panel No. I15 of 325, 060001-0115-C,
Alameda County, dated September 17, 1997], none of the Project area is located within a
500-year or 100-year flood plain.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements ?
LS. Site grading (cut and fill) will occur to construct roadways, building pads, utilities
connections and similar improvements. Proposed grading could increase the potential of
40
erosion and increase the amount of sediments carried by storm water mn~off into creeks
and other bodies of water, on and off the Project site. These impacts were identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With adherence to mitigation
measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5
- 27) these impacts would be less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures require: drainage facilities to minimize any increased potential
for erosion; channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes
with natural vegetation where possible; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each
development prior to development (Stage 2 Planned Development) approval; facilities
and management practices which protect and enhance water quality; specific water
quality investigations which address water quantity and quality of mn-off; and
community-based programs to educate local residents and business on methods to reduce
non-point sources of pollutants.
Additionally, development of individual parcels within the Project area will be required
to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), listing Best Management
Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and
post-construction activities. These measures can include revegetation of graded areas, silt
fencing and use of biofilters within parks and other landscaped areas. These individual
SWPPPs must conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and City of Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of
grading permits. Both agencies monitor construction and post-construction activities
according to the SWPPP and adjustments are made during project construction as
necessary to erosion control methods and water quality protection as field conditions
warrant. Specific development projects containing five acres of more are also required to
submit a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to
commencement of grading.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies which reflect the mitigation
measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan listed above. Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and
Programs 9T through 9X (pp. 133-134) address the potential for erosion and changes in
water quality, storm water mn-off and storm drainage due to development of the Project
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastem Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater
table?
LS. Current uses of the property depend upon wells (groundwater), irrigation wells
(groundwater) and impounded surface waters (stock ponds) for domestic use and
agricultural uses. As development of the Project area occurs, public water systems would
be extended to serve the area, reducing the direct need for individual wells to service each
41
property. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project could have an
impact on local ground water resoumes and groundwater recharge due to an increase in
the amount of impervious surfaces within the Project site (Impact 3.5/Z). With
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 (page 3.5-26), this impact
is less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also noted that the Project is located in
an area of minimal groundwater recharge stating that groundwater reserves and the
majority of the Tri-Valley's groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the
Project area. Mitigation measure 3.5/50.0 notes that Zone 7 supports on-going
groundwater recharge programs for the Central Basin.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to appty to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
c)
Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that
substantial siltation or erosion wouM occur?
LS. Development of the project site could change existing natural drainage patterns in
the area. Approval of the proposed Project and implementation of individual
development projects within the Project area could increase stormwater runoff from the
site due to construction and post-construction activities and thereby increase the potential
for erosion. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and
3.5/AA) in relation to item a) above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5 - 27)
these impacts are less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains
policies and programs (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-
134) which reduce these impact to a less-than-significant level.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
With implementation of other mitigation measures enacted to reduce erosion due to
grading activities (Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0), these impacts would be less-
than-significant. Please refer to the previous section entitled Geology and Soils for a
discussion of these mitigation measures.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off
the project site?
LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of new housing units and other
land uses envisioned in the proposed project would change drainage patterns within the
project area. This impact was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5Y) and
with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 3.5/48.0 it is less-than-
42
significant. These mitigation measures require drainage facilities to minimize flooding;
channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural
vegetation where possible; a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to
development approval; facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project
development; and the construction of backbone storm drainage facilities.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EI~ and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
e)
Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of l~olluted runoff?
LS. Development of the Project area and post-construction activities unrelated to Project
construction could lead to g~eater quantities of stormwater runoff and could include
pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With implementation of mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-
49.0 and 3.5/51.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant. Policies
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through
9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would be less-
than-significant.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EI~ and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
LS. Construction activities related to development of the Project area and post-
construction activities could degrade water quality through improper construction
practices and poor control of storm water runoff resulting in additional sedimentation and
potential pollutants in on-site or down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-
49.0 and 51.0 adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant.
Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T
through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would
be less-than-significant.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
43
g, i)
Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood
Insurance Rate Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to
flooding or failure of a levee or dam?
NI. None of the project area is located within a 100-year flood plain as mapped by
FEMA and no new dwellings would be located in a flood hazard area. There are no
upstream dams in the Project area which would place people or structures within the
project area in flood danger due to dam failure. There would be no impact in regard to
flooding hazards.
h)
Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flow?
NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, none of the project area is located within a
100 year flood hazard area as defined by FEMA. Development of the Project site is not
expected to impede or redirect flood flows and no impact is anticipated.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows ?
LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or
'tsunami. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low. With mitigation measures
adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR (measures 3.6/17.0 - 28.0, pp. 3.6-12 - 3.6-15),
potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation
impacts which could create mudflows would be less-than significant. These mitigation
measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical studies
minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria;
removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface and subsurface
drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless
retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated
with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code
and other City requirements for grading.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Setting
The Project area abuts the eastem city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer
to Exhibit 2). The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan
Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also
are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit
4). The project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate
44
ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7). The proposed land use designations of the Project
reflect the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the Project area. The
proposed residential densities and non-residential development intensity are consistent
with the mid-point density and development intensity (floor area ratio) ranges listed in the
General Plan and Specific Plan. The proposed land uses associated with each of the
proposed land use designations are consistent with the City zoning districts which would
implement those land uses and they are consistent with the types of uses approved and/or
developed within other areas of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan.
MeasureD
In November of 2000, voters in Alameda County adopted a local land use initiative
known as "Measure D." This initiative created a County Urban Growth Boundary within
the Alameda County East County Planning Area (ECAP). One of the purposes of this
initiative is to "focus urban-type development in and near existing cities where it will be
efficiently served by public facilities, thereby avoiding high costs to taxpayers and users
as well as to the environment". The initiative is designed to prohibit the County
government from considering urban development outside the "Growth Boundary." The
472-acre portion of the project site that is within the City's Specific Plan is located within
the Urban Growth Boundary adopted by Measure D. The remainder of the project site,
although within the City's adopted and recognized Sphere of Influence and within the
City's General Plan Planning Area, appears to lie outside of the Measure D Urban
Growth Boundary Limit. [NOTE: Review of Measure D indicates a discrepancy
between the Urban Growth Boundary Limit Map and the text describing which areas are
within the Urban Growth Boundary Limit. This potential discrepancy does not change
the analysis, below.]
Measure D restricts development in the County, but it does not limit development by
cities that are within the County, nor does it create or impose any urban growth
boundaries on those cities. Because the entire project site is within the City's Sphere of
Influence and the proposed development within the project area is addressed by the
General Plan, the project is not constrained or otherwise limited by Measure D. The
County recognized that, in the case of Eastern Dublin, the area already has been planned
for development and eventual annexation is anticipated. (Alameda County Community
Development Agency Report to Board of Supervisors dated July 25, 2000.)
Measure D also contains language that limits the County's ability to cancel Williamson
Act contracts. Upon annexation of the project area to the City, the Williamson Act
contracts would be assigned to and assumed by the City. The City would then have the
discretion whether or not to cancel the contracts should cancellation be requested for the
proposed Project. Measure D does not restrict the City's actions regarding Williamson
Act contracts, however, any requested cancellation would be processed in accordance
with statutory provisions and procedures.
Measure D provides that the County encourage Zone 7 to pursue new water supply
sources and storage facilities only to the extent necessary to serve the rates and levels of
growth established by Measure D and by the general plans of the cities within the service
45
area. Since the City's General Plan provides for the development proposed, any
additional water supply sources or facilities required to serve the Project are consistent
with Measure D. Measure D's restriction on the County's ability to provide or authorize
public facilities in excess of that needed for permissible development consistent with
Measure D does not limit the ability to provide the services needed to serve the project
area.
Hence, Measure D does not contain any language which would create a changed
circumstance or potential for new impacts not already addressed or analyzed by the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Physically divide an established community?
NI. All parcels which comprise the Project site are contiguous and are not separated by
freeways, arterial roadways, or natural barriers. The Project area is adjacent to the City
of Dublin's eastern boundary and current urban development area; land to the east of the
Project area is as-yet undeveloped. Development of the Project area with the urban uses
designated in the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be a
continuation of Dublin as a community. Development of the project site would not
divide any established communities or neighborhoods and hence, there would be no
impact..
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation ?
NI. The Project as proposed is consistent with the land use designations of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project's proposed "pre-zoning" designations
are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. The Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated the potential land use impacts of the project based upon the
assumption that residential development would occur at the mid-point of the residential
development densities, and commercial, office and industrial development would occur at
the mid-range of the floor area ratios designated for each of those land uses. The project
does not propose densities or land use intensities different from that anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin E1R. The project is required to adhere to all policies and programs of the
General Plan and, as applicable to the 472 acres, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
project is required to adhere to all City ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of
project development.
c)
Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
NI. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been
adopted by the City or other agency. The Project area recently has been included in the
approximately 5.4 million acres in California proposed by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service as critical habitat for the red-legged frog. Although this may not be a
potentially significant land use impact, land uses within the Project area could be affected
46
by this designation and, as such, the location and intensity of land uses indicated in the
City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could be impacted by this changed
circumstance There would be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, but changed circumstances due to other agencies' potential
regulatory action could create an impact. This impact, however, is related to biologic
resources and has been identified as a potentially significant impact under the Biologic
Resources section of this Initial Study.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The subject area currently contains no known mineral resources although a now-defunct
gravel pit is located within the Project area on the Fallon Enterprises property just to the
east of Fallon Road. The gravel pit has not been in operation for a number of years and is
not currently extracting, producing, or processing any resources.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral
resources ?
NI. The former quarry is not currently extracting resources and there is no indication
that the current property-owners wish to renew quarry operations. In any case, the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan land uses designations for the area do not
specifically permit such use. There are no other known significant mineral resources
located within the Project. Development of the Project as proposed (or modified) would
have no impact on mineral resources.
XI. NOISE
Environmental Setting
Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project area include noise generated by
vehicles on 1-580, noise generated by traffic on arterial roadways near the project area,
and aircraft flyovers, mainly from aircraft utilizing the Livermore Airport.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, d)
Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to
substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels?
PS. Vehicle noise from 1-580 would be most apparent to new land uses immediately
adjacent to the freeway. Development of the project as proposed and in accordance with
47
the land use designations of the General Plan and Specific Plan would include the
construction of new arterial roadways and streets. Traffic would be introduced into new
residential neighborhoods and urban noise associated with commercial, industrial and
other uses would be introduced to the Project area. Although the Eastern Dublin ErR
addresses impacts due to this type of noise (Impacts 3.10/A and 3.10/F) and adopted
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation
Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/6.0), changed environmental circumstances related to
urbanization in the Th-valley and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and
increased traffic along 1-580 - may create apotentially significant impact.
b)
Exposure of_people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
PS. Groundbome vibrations could be caused primarily by heavy traffic along the freeway
and along new arterial streets from heavy vehicles traveling primarily to the commercial
or industrial sites within the project area. These ambient vibrations would increase
permanently due to the proposed change in land use from primarily agriculture to urban
uses, and the traffic associated with them. The Eastern Dublin ErR identified permanent
impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly, impacts due to urban noise
and vibration), as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact. The
proposed project would not change the scale or type of development anticipated in the
Eastem Dublin ErR for areas within the project area and would not change the level of
intensity of impact; therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
However, as noted above, development of the Project area according to the General Plan
and Specific Plan includes construction of arterial roads and local streets. These arterial
roadways have the potential to create excessive groundbome noise to the volume of daily
and peak hour traffic. Similarly, construction activities within the Project area could
create temporary vibrations and noise in localized areas. Although the Eastern Dublin
ErR addresses impacts related to ground-borne noise (Impact 3.10/A and F) and indicates
mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level,
changed circumstances due to the level of urbanization within the Th-Valley and beyond
which has changed commute patterns and traffic intensities and could change the
expected level of groundborne noise anticipated by the Eastern Dublin ErR. This
changed cimumstance could result in apotentially significant impact.
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will introduce noise to the Project
area. Ambient noise levels would increase permanently due to the proposed change in
land use from primarily agriculture to urban uses. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
permanent noise impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly urban
noises) as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact; no additional discussion
or analysis is necessary. The proposed project would not change the scale of
48
development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not
change the level of intensity of impact.
e, f) Expose people residing or workn'ng within two miles of a public airport or in the
vicinity ora private airstrip to excessive noise levels?
NI. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no
impact would result. The project area is located near the Livermore Airport and new
residents and workers within the project area could be exposed to aircraft noise from
aimraft traveling to and from the airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that aircraft
noise was a less-than-significant impact (Impact 3.10/C, p. 3.10-4) and no mitigation
measure was proposed.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Setting
Data from Projections 2000, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approximately
1,096,300 new residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16
percent over the 20-year forecast period from 2000 - 2020. ABAG expects
approximately 401,750 new households in the region by year 2020. ABAG estimates
that Dublin's population (including its Sphere of Influence) was 31,500 in the year 2000
and is projected to grow to 66,600 by 2020, and increase of 111%. ABAG estimates that
the increase in new households will create a demand for at least 20,000 new dwellings
each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by the year 2020.
The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastem Dublin area would create 12,458 new
dwelling units (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new resident population of 27,794.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
NI. Development of the project area according to the City's General Plan and as
expected by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would increase population in the project
area but not beyond that anticipated or planned-for according to the City's General Plan
or as anticipated or evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City's General Plan
contains Guiding and Implementing policies (6.3.A, 2.1.2.C, 2.1.3.A, 2.1.4.A, 6.4B, and
6.4E) to provide a range of housing types. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains
policies to provide a diversity of housing opportunities that meets the social, economic
and physical needs of future residents (policies 4-2 through 4-6).
49
b, c) V~ould the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or
people?
NI. The project area contains nine existing residences and various agricultural out-
buildings and land uses. Current residents and uses could remain in place until such time
as development of those particular parcels occurs over time. Due to the limited number
of current residents, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing units or people and no impact is expected.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Setting
Water~ Sewer. The project area currently is located within the jurisdiction of Alameda
County. The County has limited abilities to provide water or wastewater services to the
project area: current residents and land uses rely upon private wells and septic systems
for these services. The City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) have worked jointly to ensure that areas annexed to the City also are annexed to
DSRSD. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
anticipated that the Project area would be serviced by DSRSD. Additionally, DSRSD's
master utilities plans for water, wastewater and recycled watei' include the Project area.
The Project area must be annexed into the DSRSD service area.
Fire Protection. Fire protection services for the project area are provided by the
Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). Since the City of Dublin contracts with
ACFD for services, upon annexation to the City, the ACFD would continue service to the
Project area.
Police Protection. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the California Highway
Patrol (ClffP) currently provide police services to the project area. Upon annexation,
Dublin Police Services would provide services to the area including enforcement of
traffic laws which the CHP currently provides and enforcement of city ordinances and
state law. Dublin Police Services is under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's
office: the City of Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the
personnel are employed by the Sheriff's Office Police and security protection includes
24 hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime
suppression and traffic safety.
Schools. The Livermore Valley Joint Un/fled School District (LVJUSD) provides
educational services to the project area. However, a request is being prepared to detach
from the LVJUSD and attach it to the service area of the Dublin Un/fled School District.
The City of Dublin and the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) prefer that all areas
within the City of Dublin be served by DUSD schools. In this case, the Project area is
more readily served by DUSD than LJVUSD since the project area is adjacent to DUSD.
50
Maintenance. Other than limited County roads within the project area (Fallon Road and
Croak Road), the County provides limited maintenance service to the Project area. Upon
annexation to the City of Dublin maintenance of streets, roads and other public facilities
within the project area would be the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works
Department.
Solid Waste Service. The County does not currently provide solid waste disposal
service: property-owners must dispose of waste at local transfer stations. Upon
annexation to the City of Dublin, solid waste service would be provided by the
Livermore/Dublin Disposal Company.
Other services. The project area utilizes the Alameda County library services and other
government services provided to Alameda County residents. Upon annexation to the City
of Dublin, many of these services would be provided by the City.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the impacts of development of the project
area on services and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to
a less than significant level, some of these impacts still may be potentially significant for
the project area due to changed circumstances.
a) Fire protection ?
LS. The project proposes approximately 2,526 new residences and a little over 1.4
million square feet of commercial and industrial building area to be developed in phases.
The number of new residences and amount of cormnercial, industrial and institutional
floor space was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for
fire services and fire response to outlying areas were considered significant impacts (I/vi
3.4/D and 3.4/E) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 -
MM3.4/11), these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require
construction of new facilities timed to coincide with development; require appropriate
funding mechanisms for capital improvements; identify and acquire new fire station sites;
and incorporate fire safety measures into project design.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
b) Police protection ?
LS. Development of the project as proposed could result in almost 6,000 new residents
and almost 3,000 neTM employees in the Project area. The number of new residents and
amount of commercial, industrial and institutional floor space was evaluated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for police services and police services
accessibility were considered significant impacts (IM 3.4/A and 3.4/B) and with
implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0- MM3.4/ll), these impacts are
51
less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include provision of additional personal
and facilities; coordination of development timing to services can be expanded;
incorporation of police department recommendations into project design; and preparation
of budget strategies for personnel and facilities as annexing areas become served by
Dublin's Police Department.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the project. There are no
impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
c) Schools?
PS. Up to 1,400 new K-12 students could be generated by the project. Changes in
student generation rates due to changed regional economic circumstances may have a
different impact on the number and age distribution of students originally anticipated and
evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the type of schools originally expected
to have been constructed according to the Eastern Dublin EIR may have changed. Also,
the level of funding and amount of school fees which may be charged according to State
law may have changed so that the project could have a different impact on the provision
of school facilities and programs. This could be a potentially significant impact.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
LS. Numerous arterial, collector and local streets and roads will be constructed in the
project area. All such streets and public facilities would be constructed by the project
developers. Maintenance of these facilities was anticipated by the Eastern Dublin
and considered a significant impact (bM 3.12/A and 3.12/B). Implementation of
mitigation measures (MM 3.12/1.0 - 8.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
These mitigation measures encourage development agreements; adoption by the City of
an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos Community
Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks-Roos bond pooling; and consideration of
City-wide developer and builder impact fees.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There
are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
XIV. RECREATION
Environmental Setting
Since the project area is not currently developed with urban uses the area contains no
parks or other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks include
Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin
immediately west of Tassajara Road, and two community parks slated for development
elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. The combined area of the two community parks is
52
126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities and individual
sports as well as for passive recreation. Numerous neighborhood parks and neighborhood
squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
planning areas. The East Bay Regional Park District also has developed a staging area on
the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail system.
The Project proposes adding approximately 14 acres to one of the community parks listed
above and several neighborhood parks and squares to serve the new residents and
employees generated by project development.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks ?
LS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood,
community and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within
the project area. The Eastern Dublin E1R identified the demand for park facilities as a
potentially significant impact (I/vi 3.4/K). Implementation of the mitigation measures as
policies within the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (MM 3.4/20.0 -
28.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures and
policies encourage expanding park areas; maintaining and improving outdoor facilities in
conformance with the City's Park and Recreation master Plan; acquire and improve
parklands; require land dedication and improvements for parks; designate sites in the
General Plan and Specific Plan areas; and implement Specific Plan policies for the
provision and maintenance of open space.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified park facilities as a fiscal impact (1M 3.4/L).
Implementation of the three mitigation measures (MM 3.4/29.0 - 31.0) reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance.
The adopted mitigation measures and General Plan policies would continue to apply to
the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre
portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin E[R and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b)
Does the t~roject include recreational facilities or require the construction of
recreational facilities?
LS. The project includes neighborhood parks, open space and an addition to a planned
community park in accordance with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The Eastem
Dublin EIR identified the construction of park facilities and the cost of those facilities as
impacts (IM 3.4/k and 3.4/L) and, with implementation of the mitigation measures listed
above, these impacts are less-than-significant (please see a) above for a full discussion).
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIX and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
53
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Environmental Setting
The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and
collector roadways, including: Interstate 1-580, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard,
Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and
Fallon Road. Development of the Project as proposed or modified would introduce new
medal roadways and collector streets into the Project area. The Project is proposing a
minor change in the location of one collector street by removing it from a potentially
sensitive intermittent stream area. Other roadways are proposed in the General Plan
planning area which were not considered as part of the Eastern Dublin E[R (residential
collector streets which could occur in the General Plan planning area were not addressed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development
of the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified
impacts to a less than significant level. Due to increased urban development in the Th-
Valley area and beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, there could
be the potential for additional transportation/traffic impacts.
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with the
proposed 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial floor
space, and indicated mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However,
changes in Th-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the
anticipated Project traffic, may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by
the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project
area, or at Project intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize.
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the
County CMA for designated roads?
PS. As noted above, the addition of approximately 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million
square feet of commercial/industrial building area in the project area were anticipated and
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR but the impacts of development on regional freeways
and local roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic intensities
unrelated to the project may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
54
c) Change in air traffic patterns?
NI. The Livermore Airport is located to the south of the project Area. The Airport Land
Use Commission of Alameda County has established land use policies for areas within
the Airport Protection Area and the General Referral and Height Referral area of the
airport. Development of the project area is subject to the policies of the ALUC.
Development of the project area is not expected to create a change in air traffic patterns at
the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards &~e to a design feature or incompatible use?
PS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new
roads, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none
currently exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and addressed these potential
impacts and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in
Tri-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project
traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin
EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at project
intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize, such that traffic-
related hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists using the new roads and other circulation
features could increase.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
PS. The present need for emergency access is low, since there are few current residents
or visitors to the site. Construction of new residences and commercial development
within the project area could increase the need for emergency services and related access
to new residences and commercial establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated
and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in Tri-
Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project
traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin
EIR. For example, potential increased volumes of traffic unrelated to the project may
create a potentially significant impact on emergency access capability on project streets or
intersections during peak traffic hours.
f) Inadequate parking capacity?
NI. Parking for individual projects within the project area would be reviewed by the City
of Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City
parking requirements. No impact is anticipated.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation?
NI. Individual projects within the subject site will be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian
walkways and bicycle routes to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists
and to support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the
55
proposed Project. The City and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan have standards by which
bus turn-outs, bicycle paths, trails and sidewalks must be planned and constructed. Bus
turn-outs are required to be installed by project developers in accordance with City
requirements and bus service plans. These improvements will be confirmed at the time
each individual development project is reviewed by the City.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Setting
The project area currently is served by the Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7
as a regional water supplier and distributor and for storm drain facilities. The Dubli.n San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would serve the project area as the water retailer;
would provide wastewater collection and treatment; and would provide opportunities for
the use of recycled water for landscape purposes. Since the project area is mainly
undeveloped except for nine residences and scattered outbuildings, current services to the
Project area are minimal.
Upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin, project developers would be
required to extend new services to the area to provide a public water supply for domestic
and fire flow use, a recycled water service for irrigation of public medians and parks, and
a public xvastewater treatment system, all of which would connect with existing facilities
maintained and controlled by DSRSD. Project developers would be required to install
new storm drainage facilities which would connect with existing facilities maintained and
controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone
7. Although most of these infrastructure facilities would be installed by Project
developers, all of these systems would be public and would be maintained by public
agencies such as the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Cable
TV utilities also would be extended to the project area.
Gas and Electricity (current settine)
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the
project site. Existing service to the project area includes minor low voltage distribution
feeders at 21 kilovolts (kV) and service within the project vicinity is provide by PG&E
distribution lines along Fallon, Croak, and Collier Canyon roms. There are no
transmission lines within the project area. A natural gas main is proposed to be extended
along Dublin Boulevard eastward from its current terminus to within 2,812 feet of the
Project Site when PG&E and Pacific Bell install a joint trench in Dublin Ranch Area G in
late 2001 or early 2002.
Currently, California is experiencing an energy shortfall. PG&E declared bankruptcy in
April, 2001; it is unknown if this will have any effect on the company's ability to
continue to provide service.
56
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastem Dublin EIR addressed the provision and extension of services and utilities to
the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified
impacts to a less than significant level. However, additional or new potential impacts
may be potentially significant for the Project area due to changed circumstances
(increased urban development in the Th-Valley area, changes in water purveyor and
distributor contracts, changes in the handling and disposal of wastewater, changes in
supply and distribution of gas and electricity, etc.)
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the R WQCB?
PS. Changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and
timing of infrastructure improvements may create a potentially significant impact.
b)
Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
PS. As noted above, changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding
mechanisms and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements may create a
potentially significant impact.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities?
PS. New facilities will be needed as a result of development and may exceed those
previously analyzed. This may be apotentially significant impact.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?
PS. DSRSD, which would provide water service and supply to project area has included
the project within its master plans and projections. However, water supplier contracts
and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water is supplied
to the project. This may be apotentially significant impact.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?
PS. Approval of the proposed project and development of the site could result in an
increased demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Due to increased
and more rapid development in the Tri-Valley area there may be a potential need to
expand the capacity of the treatment plant earlier than originally anticipated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR. This could be apotentially significant impact.
f) Solid waste disposal?
PS. Development of the project as proposed could incrementally increase the generation
of solid waste. Although this impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, changed
circumstances due to more rapid development in the Tri-Valley area in combination with
57
the anticipated project could have a potentially significant impact on the availability of
solid waste disposal services.
g)
Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of
individual projects constructed in the Project area would adhere to federal, state and local
solid waste regulations; therefore, no impact would result.
h) Gas and electricity?
PS. Prior to the current state-wide energy crisis, PG&E had the ability to adequately
serve the Th-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002. PG&E has
proposed the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Project to increase electric service by adding
substations in Dublin and North Livermore, expanding the Vineyard Substation in
Pleasanton and installing approximately 23.5 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission
lines to serve the substations (CPUC, 2000). PG&E is proposing construction of a 5-acre,
230/21 kV substation with four 45 megawatt transformers in eastern Dublin. If the Tri-
Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functional equivalent project is not
constructed, PG&E would be fomed to respond to growing demand by expanding its
existing system to the extent that is possible and by curtailing service if growth in demand
exceeds the transmission system's capacity or reliability requirements for essential
services (such as hospitals). It is possible that if the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase
Project is delayed, then other alternatives would be identified.
However, given that PG&E has declared bankruptcy and the that there is an apparent
energy provision shortfall within the state and from out-of-state providers, it is unclear
whether PG&E would or could pursue the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or,
even if approved and constructed, whether there would be energy available to supply the
new facilities.
The impacts of the project on the consumption of non-renewable resoumes is identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.4/S) and mitigation measures (MM 3.4/45.0 - 3~4/46.0) are
adopted as part of the project in an effort to reduce natural resource consumption and
encourage energy conservation, the impact was determined to be unavoidable and
adverse. Pursuant to CEQA, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by
the City Council for this impact. However, the current uncertainty of the supply of
energy to the state as a whole, the potential bankruptcy of the electricity and gas service
provider, and the potential lack of new energy-providers/power facilities may have a
potentially significant impact.
XV. 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
58
b)
c)
wildlife ]~o]vulation to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range ora rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or jvrehistory?
YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Biological Resources section above
(Section IV) regarding changes regulatory circumstances and the adoption of the
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog..
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of possible future projects.)
YES. The project constitutes about 25 percent of the overall Eastem Dublin
planning area. Other parts of this area have been or are being developed in
accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Although the Eastern Dublin
EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of development of the Project area within
its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area, changed circumstances
mentioned throughout this Initial Study may contribute to changed cumulative
impacts which should be further analyzed.
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the potentially significant adverse
impacts of the proposed Project through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. The Eastern Dublin EIR
suggested mitigation measures which reduce many such impacts to a less-than
significant level and where such impacts could not be reduced or otherwise had a
cumulative adverse impact, the City Council adopted a Statement of Over-riding
Consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
As discussed previously in this document, however, changes in circumstances
since the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified have the potential for significant
effects beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Initial Study Preparer
Anne Kinney, Associate Planner, City of Dublin
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental
59
Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998
City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998
Pro}ections 2000, Association of Bay Area Govermnents, December 1999
Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document
Grassetti Environmental Consulting
City of Dublin, Public Works Department
City of Dublin, Planning Department
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7
MacKay and Somps
60
TABLE 1: PROPOSED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ACREAGES, LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT
Proposed Project
Land Use Type Gross (Midpoint Density per City Policy)
Acres density units or square feet
Low Density Residential 433.5 1,734
(0.9 - 6 du/acre)
Medium Density Residential 9.4 94
(6.1 - 14 du/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential 34.8 696
(14.1 - 25 du/acre)
Rural Residential/Agriculture 269.1 2
(1 du/100 acres or parcel)
Future Study Area1 92.6 0
General Commercial 41.0 446,490
(0.25 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial 10.3 134,600
(0.30 FAR)
Industrial Park 68.9 840,360
(max. 0.28 FAR)
Junior High School 14.6 N/A
Elementary Schools 17.3 N/A
Community Park 14.1 N/A
Neighborhood Parks 24.0 N/A
Neighborhood Square 2.7 N/A
Open Space 76.9 N/A
Totals 1109.2z 2,526 du
1,421,450 sf
Notes;
Future Study Area indicates a land use designation for properties located within the Airport
Protection Area. These areas will require future additional City review and action to determine appropriate
land uses.
2
This acreage total is less than the 1,120 acre project area because it omits acreage utilized for
public dghts of way.
II/ %
lg, ast Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 1
Vicinity Map
San
Francisco
Project Site
Pacific Ocean
San
Francisco
Bay
Livermore
Tracy
0 ~ 10 Miles
Detail]
Santa
San
Jose
(,%
mACKAY&SOaPS
1-580
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 4
Lands within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Lands Within the Eastern }///'/'/~
Dublin Specific Plan Area
R#R ,
FUTURE STUDY AREA
AGRICULTURE
Project Area
L
2743,9 Acres
(Crosby)
~'~ 1\19149~sup-EIR\exhibitf-EDG PA
General Plan
-Eastern Extended Planning Area
LAND USE MAP
Legend
COMMERCIAL
~ Hi~h School
(~) Cily Par~
EASTERN
DUBLIN
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 5
L
L
OS
AGRICIX33.TRE
FD~JRE STUDY AREA
OS
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 6
Stage 1 Site Plan
LEGEND
Fallon Enterprises
Braddock & Logan Group
FirstAmerican
~_..Title Guaranty Co.
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 7
Property Owners
Croak
First American
Title Guaranty Co.
~t
t Chert
\ EBJ Partners, L.P.
Croak
mAOI(A¥& SOmPS
/
] Andem~o. I ! Branaugh
~aited Part~ersl~ip
~ R~ghe~ :
~ Pa~e~ ~
?leasanton ~Ranch
,- lnvestmlnts
1-580
mpbill
ATTACHMENT 7
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
L~w O¢¢ice o¢ S. Fla~hm~n (S10) 6S2-S~7~ 0971~/01 Oi:SgP P.O~:
L~w Ofli~ of
Stuart M. Fhshman
5626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA 94618-1533
10) 652-$373 (voice & FAX)
e-mail: st~flash~aol.com
deliver~ by fax and mail
September 14, 2001
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
RE:
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East
Dublin Properties Staqe 1 Development Plan & Annexation,
SCH #2001052114.
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter is written on behalf of Citizens for Balanced
Growth, Inc. (~CBG") and Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee
("PARC"), Inc. to corament on the above-referenced DSEIR. AS I
am sure you are aware, we have already submitted a comment
letter on the Notice of Preparation for the DSEIR. A copy of
that letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Parenthetically, are disappointed that Dublin has
chosen to ignore the comments contained in that letter, and in a
similar letter written by the City of Livermore. CBG and PARC
believe that Dublin's decisionmakers and the public deserve a
full discussion of the potential impacts of this proposed
project. We believe the best way to provide that information
would have been to prepare a full EIR, rather than the more
narrowly focused Supplemental EIR the Dublin has chosen. CBG
and PARC are also disappointed that Dublin has chosen to ignore
the cormments contained in its earlier letter identifying
additional project impacts. As a result, the DSEIR starts off
from a position of inadequacy for failing to identify numerous
potentially significant impacts identified in the earlier
letter.
Generally, the DSEIR is inadequate for failing to fully
identify and discuss the proposed project's potential impacts,
for falling to adequately mitigate identified project impacts
and for failing to consider an adequate range of alternatives.
The specific deficiencies of the DSEIS/R are discussed in detail
below.
FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS IMPACTS
Of course, under Public Resources Code ~21166, the DSEIR
need only identify those impacts that were not adequately
treated in the prior 1992 EIR, or for which the project,
conditions, or information have changed significantly in a way
that requires reconsideration of the prior EIR's discussion. As
the DSEIR notes, the nature of uses within the project area has
not changed significantly from those discussed in the 1992 EIR.
ATTACHMENT
$EP-14-2001 02:41PM T~)510 652 5373 ID)C1TY OF DUBLIN PAGe002 R=99%
From: Stuart M. Flashman (510) 652-5373 To: Cit~, of Dublin Plann*ng Dep~ Date: 9/17/01 Time: 9:53:26 AM Page 2 of 2
Comment letter
9/17/01
Page 2
on E.Dublin DSEIR
not changed significantly from those discussed in the 1992 EIR.
However, the project itself is a significantly different project
frcm the -992 project. The 1992 EIR was for a general plan
amendment and specific plat. The current EIR ccvers annexation,
prezening, and a Stage 1 Development Plan for the project are~.
It also includes a series of annexations and deannexations
related te the annexation of the property to the City of Dublin.
While all ef the project area was incluted in the 1992
general plan amendment, cnly part ef the project area was
included in the 1992 East Dublin Specific Plan. Consequen_ly,
the current prejeot, which gees well beyond the level included
in the 1992 general plan amendment, is significantly dif-erent
frcm the 1992 project. The 1992 EIR may have considered the
entire project area at a programmatic level for The general plan
amendment, but net at the project level at which this DSEIR is
being prepared. While the current EIR may tier cff cf the prior
prcgrammatlc EIR, it cannot subst~tule that document's program
level analysis for the project level analysis needed in this
EIR. Consequently, at a very basic level the DSEIR is
inadequate for tie part cf the project area extending beyond
that ef the 1992 East Dublin Spec~=ic Plan.
At the level of specific prelect impacts, the DSEIR fails
te identify several significant project impacts net already
adecuately discussed and mitigated al the project level in the
1992 EIR. These include 1) Ail project-level impacts for mhe
area beyond that encompassed by the 1992 East Dublin Specific
Plan, and specifically including and use, 2) agricultural
impacts from conversion cf prime ag-icultural lands to urban
uses, 3) a-r quality impacts, and specifically impacts related
te ozone production, 4) impacts on biological resources,
including specifically less ef wetlands, intermittent streams~
pones, alkali grasslands, and impacts on the rare, endangered
and candidate species, including the California red-legged frog,
fairy shrimp and vernal ~eel tadpole shrimp, San ~oaqu~n Kit
Fox, California tiger salamander~ western pond turtle, the
burrowing and short eared owls, etc., 5) traffic impacts, 6)
utility inpacts~ including specifically impacts on water,
wastewater, electric and natural gas service, 6) land use,
population and housing impacts and hydrology amc water quality
impacts. These deficiencies are d scusset mere specifically
below.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
In addition uo the deficiencies identified abcve, the ESEIR
is cefective in its analysis of alternative. Althcugh the DSEIR
adds one additional alternative to those analyzed in the 1992
EIR, new in-o~matisn has ceveloped over the intervening period,
specifical_y development of what -s commsnly called "smart
grcwth". (See, ABAG materials for 9/8/01 workshop on Sma~_
Grcwth, a copy of which is being forwarded herewith and is
SEP-l?-~'O01 O9:S8~1"1 TEL) ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PfilGE:OOB R=97~, ,2..
Lm~ O??ice o? S. Fl@~hmmn (S10) GS£-SBTB 0~/14/01 Oi:~P P.00~
Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR
9/14/01
Page 3
incorporated herein by this reference.) This concept calls for
reducing the impacts from new development by focusing new
development within already developed areas, densifying
development at public transit hubs and along major transit
corridors, limiting development of new areas to the minimum
necessary and focusing that development at relatively high
densities in public transit-friendly designs. The East Dublin
DSEIR needs to identify, analyze, and discuss additional
alternatives consistent with the "smart growth" strategy.
Specifically, the SEIR needs to include 1) an alternative that
attempts to accommodate the development planned for the Project
Area within the existing city limits of Dublin (and adjoining
cities) through densification of existing zoning and 2) an
alternative focusing development within the project area to
higher density clusters that are designed to be transit friendly
- i.e., are located along major thoroughfares well-served by
public transit, are completely within easy walking distance of
public transit access, and are of sufficiently high density
(e.g., greater than 10 units/acre residential) to financially
support public transit. The latter alternative should also be
planned to avoid areas of significant biological importance,
including wetlands, intermittent streams, ponds, and other
wildlife habitats. There can be little doubt that either of
these alternatives would greatly reduce project impacts from
those analyzed in the DSEIR. (See, CEQA Guidelines Sect.
15126(d) (1-3).)
DETAILF. D DISCUSSION OF IMP~TS & t4ITI~ATION
The following section discusses in more detail the
deficiencies in the DSEIR's discussion of project impacts and
their mitigation.
1) land use, housing and population - see comments in
comment letter on NOP; these comments have not been addressed
adequately in the DSEIR.
2) agricultural impacts - the DSEIR's analysis is contained
in a short report included as a technical appendix. (Volume 2,
Appendix C.) The report summarily concludes that while portions
of the project area contain class I or II soils, irrigation is
not feasible. However, the report ignores the DSEIR's own data
showing that these parts of the project area will be in close
proximity to major recycled water lines. (Figure 2-J.) The
report does not explain why irrigation would not be possible
using water from these lines. Further, while the site may be
far from the main turnout from the South Bay Aqueduct, it is not
far from the nearest Zone 7 turnout for untreated water. The
report does not consider the feasibility of extending irrigation
pipelines from the nearest Zone 7 untreated water facility.
Also, while the DSEIR notes that the land is not located
directly over the main groundwater basin, it is located over a
peripheral basin. The DSEIR doesn't consider the potential use
sEP-14-2001 02:42PM TEL)510 652 5373 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGe003 R=99% '~
Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR
9/14/01
Page 4
of a peripheral basin to irrigate th~se lands, nor does it
consider the possible use of slant wells to access the main
groundwater basin, located just south of 1-580. (See attached
map, taken from Zone 7 1996 F.I.O. Analysis for Dougherty
Valley.) These considerations force the conclusion that the
class I and II soils in the area are in fact irrigable. The EIR
therefore needs to be revised to consider the removal from use
of these prime agricultural lands.
3) Air Quality and Traffic Impacts - The DSEIR acknowledges
significant air quality and traffic impacts beyond those
identified in the 1992 EIR, but it concludes that these impacts
cannot be further mitigated to a significant extent. This
conclusion is unfounded. The DSEIR has failed to consider
numerous feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the
project's traffic and air quality impacts by reducing use of
single occupancy vehicles ("SOV") and encouraging use of
carpools and public transit.
While the DSEIR identifies numerous roadway improvements to
partially mitigate the project's traffic impacts, it puts off
consideration of mitigation measures intended to decrease SOV
use and increase public transit use (e.g., employer-funded free
transit passes for employees, preferential parking for carpool
participants, staggered work hours, etc. - see page 3.6-19) to
the Stage 2 Development Plan. This is an improper deferment of
mitigation, especially when the EIR concludes there are
significant unmitigated cumulative impacts. Further, the DSEIR
totally fails to consider numerous measures that would mitigate
both traffic and air quality impacts. Among these are the
following: 1) establish a transit assessment district for the
project area to fund public transit improvements, including
frequent shuttle service to and from the Pleasanton BART
station. The City of Emeryville has had a similar successful
program for more than ten years. 2) Require employers to
implement fee-based employee parking, with exemption for
employees using carpools or vanpools. 3) Implement congestion
pricing on both residential and commercial parking, with an exit
and entry fee required at parking lots during peak coramute
hours. 4) Implement HOV lanes on major city arterials,
especially those leading to and from 1-580. 5) Support
implementation of HOV lanes on 1-580. These mitigation measures
would all serve to decrease SOV use, simultaneously reducing
both traffic and air quality impacts.
4) Impacts on Biological Resources - The primary problem
with the DSEIR's analysis and discussion of biological resources
is that it improperly relies on reports and mitigation measures
that have yet to be written or fully devised. For example, the
analysis of many of the biological resource impacts is based on
several surveys and reports still in preparation. (See, e.g.,
reference at page 3.3-7 to "Sycamore, in prep". It should be
obvious that the public cannot review or corament on a report
that has not yet been completed. This DSEIR needs to be
SEP-14-2001 02:44PM TEL)510 652 5373 ]D)ClTY OF DUBLIN PAGe004 R=99% ~
Law O~ice o~ S. Flmshmmn (~10) GS£-S~TB 08/14/01 01:~P P.O~
Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR
9/14/01
Page 5
withdrawn and reissued for comment once the referenced reports
have been completed and are available for review and comment.
Of equal importance is that many of the proposed mitigation
measures hinge on the preparation of a Resource Management Plan
("RMP") (SM-Bio-l). While the DSEIR identifies some of the
expected contents of the RMP, it is of course impossible for the
public to comment on the adequacy of a plan that has not yet
been created. This is particularly true when it is not clear a
priori that all biological resource impacts are, in fact, fully
mitigable, despite the DEIR's conclusion that preparation of the
RMP will fully mitigate project impacts. (DSEIR, page 3.3-15.)
It is also to be noted that the discussion of mitigation
measures for biological resource impacts often include the term
"should" instead of the mandatory "shall". (E.g., SM-BIO-1 at
page 3.3-14, SM-BIO-3.) In the court case on the 1992 EIR, the
court concluded that the use of should was intended to be
mandatory. The EIR needs to clarify if in this document as well
"should" is to be considered mandatory. Preferably, those
'~shoulds" need to replaced by language that indicates more
clearly whether the directive is mandatory or not. The DSEIR
also often includes mitigation measures that include provisions
to occur ~if feasible". (E.g., SM-BIO-5, SM-BIO-ii, SM-BIO-14,
SM-BIO-19.) Often, the DSEIR allows for off-site mitigation
without regard to the relative importance of the on-site habitat
being lost and the of-site replacement habitat. Any of-site
replacement habitat needs to have at least equal biological
habitat value to the lost on-site habitat, particularly in
regard to its role in retaining connectivity of habitat for the
species involved. This has been recognized explicitly the the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in its designation of Critical
Habitat for endangered species such as the red-legged frog.
However the DSEIR does not discuss this important aspect of
habitat suitability as a criterion for replacement habitat.
Utilities - water, wastewater & electricity - As the
comment letter of the NOP indicates, the reliability of all of
these utilities is open to question. While DSRSD has submitted
a Preliminary Water Service Analysis for the East Dublin area,
the adequacy of that document has been disputed by both CBG and
the City of Livermore. As you are aware, the parties are now in
a dispute resolution process which may lead to submission of a
revised Final Water Service Analysis. If that revised FWSA
identifies new potential impacts and/or new mitigation measures
which would need to be implemented to avoid significant impacts,
under Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University
of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 [26 Cal. Rptr.2d 231; 864
P.2d 502], Dublin will need to reopen its environmental review
process to take into account this significant new information.
$
SEP-14-2001 02:45PM TEL)510 652 5373 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGe005 R=100%
L~ O~{ice o~ S. Flm~hmmn (Si~) GS£-SB7B 08/14/01 Oi:BSP P.00~
Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR
9/14/01
Page 6
The DSEIR also makes the assumption that a future provision
of a '~will serve" letter is adequate mitigation for the possible
inability of either DSRSD or PG&E to provide reliable service.
However, requiring a will serve letter is not adequate analysis
or mitigation for the possible future inability to provide
service. What will happen if a will serve letter cannot be
provided? Will only half the project be built? If so, what
will be the impacts from not building the other half? These
questions need to be answered now, not at some later date when
the project has already been approved.
CBG and PARC look forward to reviewing a revised EIR that
responds fully to these comments.
Most sincerely,
Stuart M. Flashman
SEP-14-2001 02:46PM TEL)510 652 5373 ID)ClTY OF DUBLIN PAGe006 R=99%
ALAHEDA
COUNTY
Alameda County ia battling t~ffic con-
gestlon and experleecing an alfordable
housing crisis. However~ there are man7
opportunities to change curren~
trends. Options for ~:he future include
revitalization of older downtowns ami
commercial corridors, #nixed-usn
development around B~RT ~tations and
other transit facilities, and smarter
patterns of suburban growr, h.
Development Patterns and Growtl~ T~ends
Alameda is the second most nrbanized county in the
region after ~n Frauchco. Development originally cen-
tered on established cities such as OaMand, Berkeley
and Mameda, with additional town centers in places
such as Hazard, Pleasanton and Livermore. These
communities now feature relatively compact, gridded
street fabrics aod retain shopping districts established
Later development spread southward to cmnmunities
such as Castro Valley, Union City and Fremont, and east
across the hills to Dublin and outlying portions of
Ploasanton and Live~'rnore. These newer areas are chat-
ac~erized by a greater separation of land uses aod dis-
continuous street patterns, making them more ante-
mobile-dependent. ]'hey are currendy the most rapidly
growing parts of the county.
Development intensities wzry rernarkably across cities.
Emeryville, which has been transforming industrial
land to other u~s, now has the highest average residen-
rial density (more than 20 units per acre) of any city in
thc region, including San Fraucisco. in contraat, average
residential densities in the Tti-Vatley cities of Dublin,
Pleasanton and Livermore range front five to six units
per acre.
Streetcar lines and ferries once provided extensive serv-
ice within older Alameda County cities and across the
Bay to San Francisco. Since these were discontinued in
the 1940s and 1930s, automobile in~astruclure has
served as the mainstay of the county's transportation
system. By the 1970s, t?eeways had been constructed
lhroughout the county. Most of these routes have been
widened or otherwise improved in recent years, and now
feature high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. The
Metropolitan Transportation Commissinn is pla,ming
an express bus network usiog these HOV facilities ~
will link parts of Mameda County with Contra Cc ~
San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, m
Since the early 1970s, BART has provided comml
rail service for much of the county. Future extensi
are planned or contemplated to Warm Sprit
Livernrore and even to San los,.~ iu Santa Clara Coug
The Capitol Corridor provides long-distance rail se
ice between Sacramento and San Jos~, and since 1c.
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) trains have ser
the county with trains traveling betwee~ Stockton ~
Silicon Valley. AC Transit and the Livermore-Ama,
x: alle) TranmI Authority operate extensn.e ocal bus ~,
terns. Despite these transit resources, only 5.6 percen
trips iu/alameda Count), are by transit.
Key Challenges
Housing construction has not kept pace with
growth in jobs during the last decade. Consequen
between 1990 m~d 2000, there was an increase nf
30,000 lm~g-distance commuters coming into the cot
t); primarily ti'om ontside the nine-connty Bay Ar
The largest increases were seen in commuters fr~
Stanislaus, San ]eaquin and Merced cuunties.
Althuugh the housing market cooled in :'001, Alame
Cou~ ty bous'ng prices are still rming due to th s she
age and many {ewer-income residents are being fore
to seek affurdable housing elsewhere. According tc
une 2001 study by the California Association of REA
TORS, only 21 percent of Alameda Cnunty househo]
can afford tl'~e median-priced Alameda County ho nae
$369,000, This shortage of housing has nther effects
well. Along with ream estate prices, congestion
Alameda Couuty's streets and freeways is increasi~
which affects all cotmtv residents
E
F
h
lb keep pace with ti:is projected job growth, Alameda
County will need to a&t between 90,000 and 145,000
additional hoosing u fit.', in th.~ next 20 years.
Opportunities
Older downtowns and commerc(al corridors throngh-
out the county present import~tnt opportunities far infill
dex. elopment that also can offer new housing aud
am enities fo~ local residents. Citie; such as Ha,vwa rd, San
Leandro, Fremont, Dublin, 15vermore z~nd Oakland are
focusing planning eflbrts in this direction. Transit-od-
ented development around BART statiam and .around
well-served bus corridors offers Iocatiors for future
"transit villa~e~" such as the or[e Flanned adiacent to the
new West Dublin BA~:T station. This pr([jeer will include
high-density residential development and a full service
hotel
The closure of former military facilities - A}ameda
Point, Oak Knull, Oakland ~rmy Base, the Oakland
Harbor Trar~sportation Center and the Alame&i Naval
Air Station - offers ym anolher set of .:levelc, pment
opt:,ortunities in prime locations in the western part of
the county. Such facilities as wall as o:her cleaned-up
"bt ~wnfield" siles car~ h~tndle many new uses.
Almost 50 percent of new A mreda County housing
units in the ~ext 20 years are t0recast tn be built in the
Tri-Valley ti:les o£ D .Iblim Pleasanton and Livernmre.
This development will offer key opportunities
smarter subdivision design. Ah'early, new developments
in places like E,ublin offer a gremer r~mge of housing
typns within more wa[kable, m ixed-u~ neighborhoods.
But much mot,: can be done to improve suhdiviHon
design in ways that will redu:e driving and use I,md
mine efficier~tly Connecting slreet networks, a greater
mix of land uses and housing t~rpes, more pedestrian-
fricudl7 street environments, and hi~he~ resklential
densities are among the possibilities.
0
0
L~w O~e~s of
Stuart M. Flashman
$626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA ~618-15~
(510) 652-5~73 (voi~ ~ F~)
e-mail: smfl~h~aol.~m
DELIVERY BY FAX TO (925) 829-1180
July 27, 2001
Mr. Bruce Webb, Senior Planner
Dublin San Ramon Services District
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Statement of Ob ections to .Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin
Properties stage 1 Deve opment Plan Annexation Project.
Dear Mr. Webb,
Citizens for Balanced Growth ('CBG") must regretfull~ object to DSRSD's
recently issued Preliminary Water Service Analysis for the East Dublin Properties Stage
1 Development Plan Annexation Project and the accompanying Programmatic Water
Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin. The prior water service analyses for Eastern
Dublin prepared by DSRSD contained numerous unsupported and untenable
assumptions about future water supply. The current documents make a pretense of
providing actual data to support their assertions, but they continue to fall far short of
what is required under the settlement agreement governing their preparation.
It should be noted that most, if not all, of the actual data and analysis is
contained in the Programmatic Water Service Analysis ('PWSA"). The Preliminary
Water Service Analysis for the specific project in question purports to tier off of the
PWSA, and contains little in the way of information or analysis. Consequently, this
critique will focus on the deficiencies in the PWSA~ Obviously, the project-specific water
service analysis can only satisfy the settlement agreement if its supporting
documentation, and specifically the PWSA, does so. Thus, to the extent the PWSA is
inadequate, the project-Specific water service analysis is also.
The current analyses are inadequate in their discussions of both water quality
and water reliability. The data and evidence presented do not support the analyses'
conclusions that there will be no significant impact from the proposed project. If they
are to meet the requirements of the settlement agreement, they will need to be rewritten
extensively to ~jther oJ'ovjde adequate s.~mnort fnr the. nonch iRinn.~ nr tn re, vi,~e the
measures cou~o oe aaoptea m mmgate mose ,mpacts.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
A fundamental error in the PWSA's analysis of water quality impacts is its
assumption that the only water quality impacts are those related to changes in the
quality of water treatment. However, the PWSA itself acknowledges that standard water
treatment technology has only minimal effect on many of the water quality
characteristics of the source water. (PWSA, pages 3-3 and 3-4.) Further, the PWSA
also acknowledges (PWSA, page 3-2) that the long-term source water quality depends
largely on the quality of Delta water. However, the PWSA does not include an adequate
L~w O~ice o~ S. Flmshm~n (~10) 8~-~7B ~714/01 ~i:~P P.01
Mr. Bruce Webb
9/14/01
Page 2
analysis of the potential effects on the quality of DSRSD's water sources, particularly in
drought years, of adding the Eastern Dublin area to DSRSD's service area.
The PWSA acknowledges that the concentration of contaminants in the
DSRSD's Delta source waters varies both seasonally and from year to year. (PWSA,
page 3-3.) However, the PWSA conclusorily states that the only contaminant whose
concentration could be affected by the increase in demand due to annexation of Eastern
Dublin is total dissolved solids (TDS). (PWSA, page 3-5.) This assumption is not
adequately supported.
The data provided in Appendix I shows that seasonal and year-to-year variation
can result in as much as a 5-6 fold variation in both total dissolved solids (shown either
directly or via conductivity; Figures 3-1 through 3-3) and THM-producing organic
constituents (Figures 3-4 through 3-7). Unfortunately, the PWSA contains no
corresponding data for groundwater water quality. All it shows is figures for
groundwater TDS in the 2000-2001 water year. Those figures indicate that the average
groundwater TDS is 344 mg/l. While that figure is higher than the average TDS for
treated surface water during that period, it is considerably lower that 400-500 mg/I
concentrations shown for Delta water during drought periods. No figures are included
for THM-producing organic contaminants in the groundwater but groundwater would
genera ly be expectedto have Iow concentrations of such contaminants.
During as drought, the additional demand due to annexation of Eastern Dublin
would require Zone 7 and DSRSD to draw additional water supplies from the Delta in
such years (e.g., withdrawals of water from SWSD, received as exchanges through the
Delta). Based on the above, such additional Delta supplies would actually significantly
decrease DSRSD water quality, both in terms of TDS and THM precursors. The PWSA
does not provide sufficient data to determine the effects on other contaminants, so it is
impossible, based on the data presented, to determine if there would also be significant
increases in concentrations of other contaminants. During a drought, however levels of
contaminants in Delta water would generally be expected increase due to the
decreased dilution by slowpack runoff. Consequently, such levels would also rise in
DSRSD water as a result of the East Dublin annexations.
Overall, the PWSA does not contain data to support its conclusion that water
quality will not be impacted by the East Dublin annexations. To the contrary, even the
meager data contained in the PWSA tends to indicate that there will be significant water
quality impacts.
WATER RELIABILITY IMPACTS
As with water quality, the data and analysis in the PWSA do not support its
conclusion that there will be no significant water reliability imp. acts from the East Dublin
annexation. To begin with, DSRSD's analysis assumes that its contract with Zone 7
satisfies the SA's requirement for a reliable water supply. This requirement is that
DSRSD hold a water right, contract, or other entitlement that can be relied upon to
provide such supplies for the foreseeable future, and at least until August 23, 2024. By
the very terms of the DSRSD/Zone 7 contract, it does not.
While the DSRSD/Zone 7 contract generally provides that Zone 7 will provide
enough water to meet DSRSD's requested supply, the contract includes a provision
(Paragraph 10) allowing Zone 7 to reduce its deliveries to DSRSD below those that
DSRSD requests. Among the potential reasons for such delivery reductions are
inadequate capacity to meet peak demands (Paragraph 12) and inadequate supply to
SEP-14-2001 02:53PM TEL)510 652 5373 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:011 R=99%
L~w Office ~£ S. Flm~hmmn (S10) ~S2-5~7~ 0~/14/0~ Oi:B~P P.O]
Mr. Bruce Webb
9/14/01
Page 3
meet Zone 7's demand (Paragraph 14). Consequently, the analysis must go beyond
the DSRSD/Zone 7 contract to determine the extent of DSRSD's reliable supplies.
DSRSD's does do some analysis of Zone 7 supplies. However, that analysis
includes future supplies projected to be obtained by Zone 7, but which cannot be relied
upon. For example, the water contract with BBID, while potentially renewable for up to
thirty years, is currently only binding through 2013. Beyond that time, BBID can
withdraw from extensions of the contract. (BBID/Zone 7 Contract Amendment, ¶6.2J
the 2 TAF/yr minimum set by the contract, ¶1.1 .) It cannot therefore be considered a
firm sustainable supply.
The PWSA identifies other new supplies from transfer of entitlements from the
Lost Hills and Belridge Water Districts. These transfers were made under the so-called
Monterey Accords. As DSRSD is well aware, the Monterey Accords have been
invalidated by the courts. Consequently, the status of these transfers is very much 'up
in the air", and they cannot be considered as reliable long-term supplies for Zone 7.
The PWSA identifies 23 TAF of storage as coming from Lake Del Valle. This is
pure speculation, particularly during a drought. If any Lake Del Valle storage is to be
identified as firm supply during a drought, it must be based on analysis of historical data
for rainfall in the Del Valle watershed.
Likewise, DSRSD's analysis assumes that SWP deliveries to Zone 7 will average
75.6% of entitlements. This assumption is unwarranted, given the current status of the
SWP. Further, this assumption would be particularly unwarranted during a worst-case
drought scenario. As the PWSA concedes, SWP deliveries are likely to be reduced due
to additional environmental requirements under the CalFed process and the California
Endangered Species Act. Further, The PWSA must be revised to show realistic figures
for both non-drought and drought deliveries to Zone 7 from the SWP.
While Zone 7 (and indirectly DSRSD) may be able to make up some deficiencies
with water from SWSD, such deliveries will be limited by the amount of storage Zone 7
has accumulated. Of course, under Zone 7's contract with SWSD, the Dougherty Valley
has first call on much of that water. The PWSA provides no analysis of how much of
the SWSD storage would have to be dedicated to meeting Dougherty Valley demand.
Further, in a severe drought, SWP storage north of the Delta is likely to be
greatly reduced. The SWP may therefore be unable to deliver additional water through
the Delta during a severe drought even if SWSD water ware theoretically available.
DSRSD also relies on recycled water to meet long-term demand, but its own
analysis shows that by 2020 it will be unable to fully meet demand for recycled water.
The PWSA is also unrealistic in its projections of demand for Zone 7 water. The
PWSA totally ignores potential future growth in demand for untreated water for
agricultural use. Even Dublin's own General Plan shows future increases in such use.
More importantly, the Livermore General Plan and the South Livermore Specific Plan
call for major increases in agricultural water use, both in South Livermore and North
Livermore. Likewise, the Alameda County General Plan designates large portions of
the East County area for agricultural use. The PWSA totally ignores the demand for
untreated Zone 7 water related to increased agricultural use (e.g., for vineyards). At a
minimum, there is projected to be at least 16 TAF of additional demand for untreated
water. The analysis must be revised to include this additional demand.
SEP-14-2001 02:55PM TEL)510 652 5373 ]I))CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:012 R=100% It
Mr. Bruce Webb
9/14/01
Page 4
Finally,, even DSRSD's overly optimistic analysis shows that projected total Zone
7 demand w~ll exceed projected total Zone 7 supply in a severe drought. When this
happens, Zone 7 will be forced to curtail deliveries to its customers, including DSRSD.
The PWSA argues that because DSRSD and the other agencies served by Zone 7 all
have ~demand management plans", there will be no shortfall in deliveries. However,
demand management is often known by another name - rationing. It is precisely such
rationing that the SA defines as a significant decrease in reliability. DSRSD cannot use
the circular reasoning of invoking "demand management" to avoid implementing
increased rationing.
In short, the PWSA's analysis of water quality and reliability impacts from
annexation of Eastern Dublin to DSRSD is severely flawed. It needs to be entirely
rewritten before it can meet the specifications in the SA. CBG will be happy to meet
with DSRSD to discuss its objections further and consider possible modifications to the
PWSA to meet these objections.
Most sincerely,
City of Dublin
City of Livermore
P~ Rossmann
M. Weinberger
City of Pleasanton
Zone 7 Water Agency
Stuart M. Flashman
SEP-14-2001 02:57PM TEL)510 652 5373 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:013 R=99% I 3_
E
.E
DUBLIN
CAYBIANG
BUB~ABIN-~
VASCO
SUBBASIN
SUB, SIN ~
SPRING
SUBBASIN
%
CASTLE
EXPJ,.~NATION
- GHOUNDWATEH
BASIN BOUNDAHY
.... "' SUBBASIN BOUNDARY
-m. ~ MAIN BASIN BOUNDARY
LAKE
DEL VALLE
THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY GROUNDVATER BASIN
FIGURE 4.10
3000 0 3000 6000
SUBBA$1N
Source: DWR No. 118-2, Figure 2 ~
O
200:3~Wd
NIgBFIO ~0 A±ID(OI
SS~9£80tS[~B±
ALAMEDA COE:NTY
C'ON S mN
Nd8S:£0 tOO~-£~-dBS
September 13, 200l
Mr Eddie Peabody
City of Dublin
Planaing Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin~ CA 94568
SUBJECT:
Conunents on the East Dublin Properties Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report in the City of Dublin
Dea~ Mr. Peabody.:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Dublin's Dratt Supplemental
Environmeatal Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties in the City cffDublin. The
project consists of the future development of up to 1120 acres located in the
unincorporated 'area of Alameda County. The project is bounded by 1-580 to the south
and Fallon Road to the west and abuts the eastern Dublin city limit boundary. The City
of Dublin proposes to annex the land fi.om Alameda County. The project proposes a
maximum of 2,$26 dwelling units and 134,600 square feet of neighborhood commercial,
446,500 square feet of general commercial and 840,400 square feet industrial park
development,
The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments. Where possible page
numbers in the DSEI[R are referenced.
Page 3.6-7 and 8, ~Freeways: The ACCMA does not have eatabli~hed significance
criteria guidelines for freeways or arterials. The LOS E standard referred to in this.
section applies only to the monitoring of'existing conditions that is done every two years
by the ACCMA. The LOSE is not applicable to the Land Use Analysis Prograa and
reference to it in this and future environmental documents mu~ be deleted.
Page 3.6~8, 3~ paragraph: The discussions on use of the Dublin and'Tri-Valley Models
occurred b August 2001 (see attached letter dated August 21, 2001 to Mr. Ray
Kuzbari), The comparison of the traffic volumes among the models and the analysis of
MIS routes and transit systems as specified in the attached letter and our /fly 6a
response to the NOP must be included in the environmental document. The MTS routes
that-are ~bjeet to the C~MP Land Use Analysis Program requirements include: 1-580, 1-
680; SR 84. Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rim ROad, Fallon Road/El Charro
Road, as well as BART ~md LAVTA~
1388 BROADWAY.. SUIlZ 220 "'OAKLAND CA 94~12 · PHONE; (.510) 886-2560 · FAX: (5101 836-2188
E-MAIL: mail@acon~.ca.gov · WEB SITE. accma.cagc>v
EO 39~d ~ND AZNOO9 V(I3N~9~? §BtagE801§ PS:£0 100~/EI/60
~00~=~
NI]800 BO ~±ID(OI
Mr. Eddie Peabody
September 13, 2001
Page 2
S8~29£80~S(93±
WdSfi:£O ~00~-£~-d~S
If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please give me a call at
$10/836-2560 ext. 13.
Sincerely,
Beth Walugu
Senior Transportation Pla~ner
cc: Ray Kuzbad, City of Dublin Public Works Department
file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2001
x00~=~ P00:3~ NI]800 ~0 ~IID(OI S8~9£80~S(]B1
W~8~:£0 ~00~-£~-~BS
.~I,Ai~iEDA .COUNTY
~
AUgUSt 21~ 2001
Mr. Ray Kuzbafi
City of Dublin
· Public Works Department
10o Civ/c Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT:
Dear Ray:
Comments on the CMP Land Use Analysis Program TransPortation
_~malysis for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East
Dublin Properti~
I have reviewed the 2005 and 2025 traffic volume comparison of the Dublin Model, Tri-
Valley Model, and Alameda Countywide Model. Based on this review, the CMP Land
Use Analysis Program analysis can be done using the generally more conservative traflSc
volumes from the other models. The impacts to those MT$ routes listed 6n our
response to the NOP should be analyzed for 2005 and ·2025 conditions and included in
the environmental document. The comparison of traffic volumes among the three
models along with the percent change should also' be included in the environmental
document.
For 2005 conditions, volumes from the Dubhn Model for Hacienda Drive between
Central and Gleason should be provided. For 2005 and 2025 conditions, the following
langu~e should be included in a footnote for the Alameda Countywide Model segments
that have higher volumes than the other two models, '
"The Countywide Transportation Model has a regional focus, has larger traffic analysis
zones and fewer centroid conne~tors. Therefore, it can be expected that traffic loading
onto specific segments of roadways will be more variable than in more retiaod models '
such as the TVTC Model and the Dublin Model. Traffic volum~ generated ;~om the
more refined models are mom eonseavative on surrounding segments and therefore those
volumes should be used,"
These segments include:
I-lacien4a Drive betwcxm Central and Gleason (2005)
Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard (2005)
1-580 between Hadenda and Tassajara (2025)
I~580 betw~n Dougherty and l-lacienda (2025)
l~lgS BROADWAy, SUITE ~g0 o OAKLP~'I), CA 94612 · PHONE: (510) 8g~25~0 * FAX: (510) 8S~-Ilib
E-MAIL: mail~a¢cma, ca ~ox- * WElt .SITE: aecma,cagov
%00~=~ ~00:3~W~ ~B~2~£~C93± N~6~:£0 ~002-£~-~3~
HI98~0 ~0 ~113(0I
August 21, 2001
~age2
Fallon Road between Dublin and Central (2025)
Tassajara Road between Dublin and Central (2025)
Hacienda Drive b~tween Dublin and Central (2025)
Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard (2025)
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 ext. 13 if you require additional
information_
SLuccrely,
Beth Walukas
Senior Transportation Planner
cc: Anne Kinney, City of Dublin
file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2001
§0 39Vd VWD tlNnoo 9aBNVgV 98~9~80~9 Pg:EO I00g/£I/B0 [~
?~
900:~9~d NIqSFIO ~0 AII3(OI SsIEg[80~S£qB±
Wd6S:£0 I00~-EI-d~S
1,170
90 39~d
§ST~9£BOT§ ~§:£0 100~/£T/60
~00~=~
100:B9~ NI~SQO ~0 ~IID[OI S8~9£8_~0~S[~B1 W~6S:£0 ~00~-£~-~BS
W~ ~Dm~-~e,~y
bad
2~,43 2,$79
2,~4,~ 3,00,,
1,165
-
-
gg 30'¢d ~ ~ 'dCI~/~-I~' gglZB£BOTc; gg:Io Tg~g/Og//.O I?
~00~=~
NI~flO JO AilD(OI
S8~89£~SC931 Nd00:~O ~00~-£[-d3S
C~i. ty o? Dublin Pw/~_,.e ~25 820 a~48; 07J37J~OO~ ~:~PE; ~o; Paga 7/7
07/27/20el 1[:~4 9254633~ T. Jt4N ~,o,~: e?
A
39~d
:£0
I00g/~[/BO
SEP-14-2001FRI 04:19 PM FAX NO, 4 P, 02/02
l~ A S T ]1 AY R E G I 0 N A I,
PARK DISTRICT
September 14, 2001
'[~ddic Peabody, Jr., AICP
CouununiW Development Director
City o f Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SENT VIA FACSIMILE: 925/833-6628
East Dt~blin Properties Draft. Supplemental EIR
.~. '0_.
D¢~ r ){('. Peabody:
Thank you for providing us with a copy of the Draft Supplementtd ETlvironmcmtal Impact
Report (EIR)for the East Dublin Properties project (PA 00-025). As we previously commented
(letter dated June 27, 2001% the East Bay Regional Park District is vet~g concerned w/th the
potentiul cnvironmcnlal impacts o£ file proposed project. The two (2) most crucial
environmental concerns for the District are:
1, h'npacts from the increase in demand for new regional park and recreation
fi~cilities; and
2. Impacts on tile ownership, mauagement, anttmaintenanc¢ of open space areas
in lhe project area.
These two potentially significant in,pacts to the environment are not adequately addressed in
the Draft Supplcmental EIR and the District requests the City of Dublin to prepare an
envh'onmenlal document lhat fully addreases these concerns.
Thc Di,qteict would also indicate a willingness to explore cooperating with fl~e City regarding
large contiguous open space areas and habitat protection. Should the City wish to further
e×plor~ this concept or if you have any questiOns regarding this letter, please contact me at
(510) 544-2621, or Brad Olson, Enx, ironxuental Specialist, at (510) 544-2622.
Sincerely,
Inten~geney 'Planning Manager
(I ,T/rb)
cc: BradOIson
.,¢,.v..,..lNt)Lf..fl~ilrfi. i.~lt~,&,.pff 2950 PeraLta Oaks Court P.O. Box 8881 Oakland, GA 9400,5-0:381
U
r,,. 510 63,5-0135 ,~,~' 51(1,669-4319 ro/~ 8 lO $33-0460 www.eb~ark$.org
SEP-14-gBBt B4:a~PM TEL) ID)CITY OF DUBLIN
PAGE: BBB
R=98z ~!
09/li/01 FRI 17:31 FAX 510 413 1375 LAVTA ~001
~A~RT~TO: Andy Byde, Associate Planner, City of Dublin
SUBJECT: Developments
FROM: Virginia Frazier, Transit Planner
DATE: September 12, 2001
DISCUSSION
LAV'I'A received the following plans to review and provided comments
relating to transit improvements.
Project Project Project
Name # Location City Type
East Dublin PA00-025 East Dublin Dublin Annexation
Properties (Eastern Properties
Dublin Specific Plan)
COMMENTS
We are requesting that Dublin Planning consider the need for public transit
as conditions are developed for the East Dublin Specific Plan.
The services we are currently providing in Dublin and the surrounding area
are regular scheduled bus service Fixed Route, Direct Access Response
Transit, Express Buses, Commuter Service and Altamont Commuter Express
(ACE) Shuttle. In addition we provide numerous morning and afternoon
routes that are scheduled to serve middle and high schools.
Providing service to the new areas of East Dublin consider Transportation for
Livable Communities (TLC). The creation of transit friendly areas includes
planning for bus pullouts on major arterial. Feeder and collector streets wide
enough to allow buses to make curb stops where appropriate.
Improvements such as shelters, benches, trash receptacles, schedule
displays and bicycle racks should be required where appropriate as well.
The cost and maintenance of these improvements should be passed along to
the Developers.
Special consideration should be given to school sites, Traffic flow, bus stop
locations are important so that buses can get the students to and from school
safely and efficiently. Another area to consider would be commercial/retail
centers where central bus zones strategically located would aid transit users
by providing convenient ac. cass and limit the number of stops necessary to
serve one area.
I e~n be reached at 455-7557 if you have questions or comments,
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
SEP-14-E~001 05:213PH TEL)510 443 1375 ID)CITY DF DUBLIN PAGE:001 R=99v.
09/12/01 15:29 FAX 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B ~ STATE CLEARINGH0 ~001
S FC IF NI ~ SI A PO TATI NDHOUSING E ¥ G AYD VIS over or
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
(510) 286-4444
TDD (510) 286-4454
September 10, 2001
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
ALA-580-16.7
File #ALA580712
C~1052&14
Dear Mr. Peabody: I_ STAT[ CLEARINGHOUSE
East Dublin Properties (PA 99-025) - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the
environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have examined the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and have the following comments to offer:
We are concerned about the additional traffic volumes that this project will add to Interstate 580 (I-
580). The impacts to State transportation facilities should be discussed in greater detail. We would
like to see the traffic impact data for the on-ramps and off-ramps, to compare conditions without
the project and with the project.
With the proposed project traffic added to the Year 2025 No Project mainline freeway volumes,
both 1-580 and 1-680 are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS). We would
like to see the traffic operations impact, including the LOS and thc delay information for the
conditions without the project, and also with the project.
Impact 3.3/E states that the proposed Eaat Dublin Properties project will have significant and
unavoidable impact on the mainline 1-580 freeway operation, and that mitigation is not feasible
because freeway improvement is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. The Department
is currently planning improvements to 1-580 by installing a ramp metering system at interchanges
along the freeway corridor, as well as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. We urge the City to
meet its mitigation obligations by participating in the development and funding of these projects.
On Page 3.6-13, mitigation measures at the 1-580/Hacienda Drive interchange involving the
westbound loop on-ramp nell to include a ramp metering system and HOV by-pass lane.
On Page 3.6-11, the Santa Ritafrassajara overcrossing is referred to incorrectly as an overpass.
Likewise, the El Charro/Fallon Road overcrossing is referred to as an overpass. Please correct the
term.
09/12/01 15:29 FAX 5102865515 TRANS PLANNING B ~ STATE CLEARINGH0 ~002
Peabody/DE'IR
September 10, 2001
Page ;2
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Paul
Svedersky of my staff at (510) 622-1639.
Sincerely,
HARRY Y. YAHATA
District Director
JEAN C. R. FINNEY
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Katie Shulte Joung, State Clearinghouse
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY Glka, y DAVIS. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS M.S.#40
1120 N STREET
P. O. BOX 942873
SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001
PHONE (916) 654-4959
FAX (916) 653-9531
RECEIVED
SEP 1 ~ ZOO1
DUBUN PLANNING
Septl2,2001
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Re: City of Dublin's Draft Supplemental EIR for East Dublin Properties;
SCH# 2001052114
The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the
above-referenced document pursuant to CEQA. The following comments are offered for
your consideration.
The proposal is for the annexation of the 1,120-acre project area to the City of Dublin and
the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), prezoning the area to the City of
Dublin PD-Planned Development Zoning District, and considering a related Stage 1
Development Plan to guide future development of the project area. Development under
the proposed prezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development would include a mixed density
residential uses, retail, service, office and light industrial, parks, open spaces, community
facilities, roadways and similar land uses.
The proposal also includes four school sites within two miles of the Livermore Municipal
Ai~ort. We do have a school site evaluation on file dated January 15, 1993 (also
enclosed) for several school sites in the general area of the project site. In our January
1993 letter, we stated that a portion of one of the middle schools fell within the airport
protection area (APA) and we recommended that the school be moved north of the APA.
We also expressed concern with potential noise impacts associated with frequent high
single event noise levels due to the proximity of certain school sites to the airport traffic
pattern. However, since school site evaluations are only good for five years, the school
district should be advised to notify the State Department of Education of the need for a
school site evaluation by the Division of Aeronautics in accordance with Education Code
Section 17215 (enclosed). For questions concerning the school site evaluation, the school
district should be advised to contact the Department's Aviation Consultant for Alameda
County, Dan Gargas, at 916/654-5222.
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.
September 12, 2001
Page 2
The southern portion of the project site also lies within Safety Zones A, B and C of the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) modified APA. The proposal
should be submitted to the ALUC for a consistency determination. The proposal should
also be submitted to the Livermore Municipal Airport Manager, Leander Hauri, to ensure
that the proposal will be compatible with future as well as existing airport operations.
The need for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and a
state issue. Along with protecting individuals who reside or work near an airport, the
Division of Aeronautics views each of the 250 public use airports in California as part of
the statewide transportation system, which is vital to the state's continued prosperity. This
role will no doubt increase as California's population continues to grow and the need for
efficient mobility becomes more crucial. We strongly feel that the protection of airports
from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic future.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any
questions, please call me at 916/654-5314.
Sincerely,
SAND~ HESNARD
Environmental Planner
Enclosure
c: State Clearinghouse, Alameda County ALUC, Livermore Muni Airport,
State Dept of Education
Education Code
Section 17215, as amended by AB 747, Chapter 837 of the Statutes of 1999
17215. (a) In order to promote the safety of pupils, comprehensive community planning, and
greater educational usefulness of schoolsites before acquiring title to property for a new
schoolsite, the governing board of each school district, including any district governed by a city
board of education, shall give the State Department of Education written notice of the proposed
acquisition and shall submit any information required by the State Department of Education if
the proposed site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or
a potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site.
(b) Upon receipt of the notice required pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Department of
Education shall notify the Department of Transportation in writing of the proposed acquisition.
If the Department of Transportation is no longer in operation, the State Department of Education
shall, in lieu of notifying the Department of Transportation, notify the United States Department
of Transportation or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the
purpose of obtaining from the department or other agency any information or assistance that it
may desire to give.
(c) The Department of Transportation shall investigate the proposed site and, within 30
working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the State Department of Education a
written report of its findings including recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. As
part of the investigation, the Department of Transportation shall give notice thereof to the owner
and operator of the airport who shall be granted the opportunity to comment upon the proposed
schoolsite. The Department of Transportation shall adopt regulations setting forth the criteria by
which a proposed site will be evaluated pursuant to this section.
(d) The State Department of Education shall, within 10 days of receiving the Department of
Transportation's report, forward the report to the governing board of the school district. The
governing board may not acquire title to the property until the report of the Department of
Transportation has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for
a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board may not acquire title to
the property. If the report does favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an
addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board shall hold a public hearing on the matter
prior to acquiring the site.
(e) If the Department of Transportation's recommendation does not favor acquisition of a
proposed site, state funds or local funds may not be apportioned or expended for the acquisition
of that site, construction of any school building on that site, or for the expansion of any existing
site to include that site.
(f) This section does not apply to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, nor to any additions
or extensions to those sites.
From Internet: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Caltrans Aeronautics Program: January 13, 2000
S~p-14-01 O9:30A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.02
R~:cr~.':i'..m k Park District
~q25~ 37t 5?00. t:ax (925) 447-2754. www.larpd dst.ca.us
September 14, 2001
['~)uglas A, Bell
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
Director of Community Development
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR), East Dublin Properties
Dear Mr. Peabody:
The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
DSEIR.
1 was disappointed to find upon my return from vacation that the City chose not to consider a
ten-day extension request by LARPD for the review of this regionally significant project. This
extension request was based on LARPD' s failure to be notified or to receive the DSEIR for
review and comment. This was communicated to your staffbased on my personal visit as well
as by a letter from District Legal Counsel Michael Kyte (dated August 24, 2001). We simply did
not receive the notice of the release of the DSE1R nor the complimentary copy of the DSEIR
provided to other interested patties and agencies. As a result, we have been significantly delayed
and not afforded the same time to review and respond to this document as provided to other
agencies and interested parties. To date, we have received no indication from the City that the
mailing took place as stated. We have only received a list of agencies that were supposed to
have been sent notifications and/or DSEIR documents. This list, of course, only exhibits your
intent to notify', not any proof of your required action to notify affected parties.
The District was also disappointed to discover that the City did not consider the comments that
LARPD provided in it's letter dated June 26, 2001 in response to the Notice of Preparation for
this DSEIR (letter enclosed). We continue to believe that the proposed project has the potential
to have significant impacts on the District that must be adequately addressed and that the issues
have not been properly considered and analyzed as either a part of this Supplemental EIR or the
original 1993 Program EIR.
As well, we find particularly disconcerting that under Section 6. References. Other ,4gentles and
Organizations Con,rulted, the DSEIR notes no consultation with LARPD, yet appropriately lists
most other agencies and organizations one might expect to be consulted on this type of project.
It is in fact an accurate portrayal of the lack of consultation with the District by the City on this
project. To not have the professional courtesy to contact and discuss these matters with District
Bom'd of Dir~tors
M m3~alicc Fairings
SEP-14-2001 09:54AM TEL)925 44.7 0782
ALice Quire Ernie Roddgues Dale Tur~et
ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PA~E:OOB R=98x
~p-14-01 09:31A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.03
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
Page 2 of 5
September 14, 2001
representatives is most disappointing. The lack of interest or concern for the impacts on this
District are reflected by this apparent failure to discuss the City's desires or intentions with
District staffand is evidenced by its omission in this Section.
Preparation of a Supplemental EIR
LARPD continues to be surprised and disappointed with Dublin's approach for assessing the
potential environmental impacts of this project by utilizing a Supplemental EIR process. We
made note of this concern in our Response to NOP comments.
LARPD has reviewed the City of Livermore's detailed comments on thc DSEIR and we support
their position and reasoning on these matters. As a result, we will not duplicate these clear but
important points except to reiterate that circumstances have dramatically changed since the 1993
EIR was undertaken In addition, the document fails to adequately cover issues such as impacts
on LARPD and its existing and future ~acilities and programs. Anything less than a new
complete and comprehensive review and analysis of the proposed project does not meet the
requirements of CEQA to fully assess environmental impacts using currently available
information for evaluation and consideration. Regretfully, it is apparent that Dublin's approach is
a risk-based avoidance strategy instead of one intended to provide the environmental disclosures
and mitigation required by CEQA.
Parks and Recreation
As noted in our June 26, 2001 letter, LARPD is very concerned about the proposed
impacts of this project on existing and future District parks and programs. The 1993 EIR
and DSEIR have ignored the impacts of the proposed project on LARPD faciliries.
Whereas the documents note the requirements to provide parks and recreation facilities
consistent with the City's 1992 Parks Master Plan, it fails to analyze the requirements of
the City' s Master Plan in the EIR or DSEIR vis-~t-vis the project's proposal and the
timing of the provision of these parks and service facilities to meet expected demand.
This is particularly important in understanding the potential for the project to cause
impacts to LARPD or to other City parks and recreation programs. The EIR and DSEIR
simply state that parks will be provided consistent with the Parks Master Plan. Given the
size and significance of the proposed project, it is essential that the EIR and DSEIR
evaluate how the City is meeting its recreation requirements relative to its planning goals.
The E1R. and DSEIR also fail to evaluate the proximity of the proposed development to
LARPD's core service area and it's potential to increase demands on our parks, services
and programs. To do so requires that a more comprehensive evaluation of these issues be
undertaken.
The 1993 EIR and DSE1R fail to consider several important changes in the provision of
regional parklands in the rd-Valley. Specifically, in 1998, 370 acres of regional
447 0?82 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:003 R=98~
5~p-14-O1 O9:31A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.O4
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
Page 3 of 5
September 14, 2001
parklands were added to LARPD's Sycamore Grove Regional Park, essentially doubling
its size. Additionally in 1994, LARPD purchased 507 acres containing Brushy Peak
(consistent with our Master Plan Goals) north ofl-580. These 507 acres have now
become the nucleus from which East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and LARPD
have created over 2,000 acres of regional parkland in the Brushy Peak area. This is not
even mentioned in the environmental documents. The proposed project and its placement
of 2,526 units or approximmely 7,400 people (2,526 times 2.94 persons per household) in
close proximity to these parks will have impacts on these regional park facilities. This
too has not been considered by the EIR or DSEIR. Any environmental review must
evaluate the impacts of such a large project on these regional parkland facilities.
The 1993 EIR notes that Dublin's ratio of developed parkland to population is below 5-
acres/1000-population, a common standard for determining provision of adequate park
facilities. The DSEIR simply states that it will meet a 5-acre/1000-population
requirement of the 1992 Parks Master Plan (page 2-8). Any lack of park facilities below
this standard could have a significant impact on LARPD as the District provides parkland
in excess of 16-acresdl000-population. Given the proximity of the proposed residential
development to LARPD's existing and potential future (lq. Livermore and
Vasco/Laughlin Planning Areas) facilities, Dublin residents unable to meet their
recreational needs within Dublin's city limits will seek use of the closer LARPD
facilities. They will also seek use of the more convenient and broader services that meet
their needs. This could have significant impacts on our ability to provide adequate
services and programs to our existing and future residents. This impact was not
addressed under the previous EIR nor is it addressed in the DSEIR.
For example, LARPD is currently in the process of developing a $20 million Community
Center that will contain a large variety of services, activities and opportunities for the
Livermore community. The District is very concerned that the proposed project will
impact the demand for services at this facility. Given the proximity of the project to
Livermore, the EIR must comprehensively evaluate the existing and proposed services
provided by Dublin and Livermore and assess the potential impacts this project will have
on services and programs in Livermore. This must cover the full range of services and
programs provided by LARPD including, but not limited to, childcare services; teen and
senior care services and programs; adult recreational programs; outdoor recreational and
environmental programs as well as others. This was not addressed under the previous
ElK The DSEIR reference to the provision of similar facilities (page 2-8) funded by
Public Facilities Fees does not address the potential for impacts as it fails to evaluate the
type of facilities, the level of services and the timing by which these facilities will or can
be provided.
Neither the DSEIR nor 1993 EI1L which noted (Impact 3.4/K and Mitigation Measures)
the plan's requirement to provide sufficient parkland to satisfy the City's 1992 Park and
SEP-14-2001 09:38AH TEL)925 447 0782 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:004 R=gS~,
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
Page 4 of 5
September 14, 2001
Recreational Master Plan, addresses how the plan would meet LARPD's Master Plan
requirements for parkland and recreation should LAFCO not agree to de-annex this
property from LARPD's jurisdiction. Both the EIR and Supplemental DEIR failed to
address the existing jurisdictional authority of LARPD for the provision of park and
recreation services in this area and to provide the required analysis.
The DSEIR (page 2-8) notes discussion of the overlapping jurisdiction of EBRPD and
LARPD in terms of providing regional parks and trails. Unfortunately, no detailed
discussion was included either in the 1993 EIR nor the DSEIR and therefore, its potential
significant environmental impacts have not been ascertained or evaluated. Analysis of
overlapping jurisdictional issues must be discussed as they relate to the impacts of the
project on the provision of services by either LARPD or the City of Dublin.
This section further notes that the City's Public Facilities Fee, which is applicable to the
project, requires payment of fees for "community and neighborhood park land and
improvements, as well as community facilities such as a second community center, a
recreation center, a community theater, a second aquatic center, a senior center and a new
librapf." No discussion or mention of fees for provision of regional parks is noted. It is
apparently assumed by this that the City of Dublin is relying upon LARPD (and EBRPD)
to provide regional park facilities and services to its residents. While future residents will
be paying taxes to the EBRPD to support regional park facilities, LARPD would lose
these residents from our tax roles yet have to carry the burden of increase in demand for
services and impacts of the proposed project on our existing and future facilities. The
District cannot be expected to simply absorb the cost of these impacts. These issues have
not even been discussed or evaluated in the EIR or DSEIR.
LARPD is concerned that the 1993 EIR and DSEIR have not addressed the impact of the
proposed project on these regional parks. Although the project is proposing passive open
space, this kind of resource is not a viable substitute for the unique recreational
opportunities afforded by a regional park containing significant regional views, trails,
cultural/biological resources, and environmental/educational programs and services. The
lack of regional parkland provided by the East Dublin SP/GPA and the supplemental
planning area will have impacts on LARPD regional parkland that must be
comprehensively evaluated and mitigated.
The DSEIR includes de-annexation of the area within LARPD's jurisdictional boundaries
as one of the actions in the project description. However, the EIR or DSEIR failed to
analyze the impacts of de-annexation from LARPD. Furthermore, it fails to evaluate
those impacts vis-/t-vis the impacts of the proposed project on existing and future
LARPD regional parks, community parks, facilities and programs including, but not
limited to, childcare programs provided by the District.
Sip-14-01 O9:47A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.02
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
Page 5 of 5
September 14, 2001
Thank you for the oppottunity to provide these comments. LARPD looks forward to discussing
these very important matters with you. We would appreciate being informed of all matters
related to this proposal including meetings, hearings, written communications, etc. We
respectfully request that all future correspondence on these and related matters be sent by
certified mail or other delivery method that requires a signed receipt. If you have any questions
or comments, I can be reached at (925) 373-5729.
Sincerely/
sKupehnne-e tnhteHn~lent ofCraig planning an ar~s
KHC:sk
Enclosure
LARPD Board of Directors
Mayor Brown and Livermore City Council
Adolph Marfinelli, County of Alameda
Brian Swift. City of Pleasanton
Marc Roberts, City of Livermore
Larry long, EBRPD
Michael Kyle, LARPD Legal Counsel
Mark Weinberger, Attorney for City of Livermore
SEP-14-8001 09:51RM TEL)ga5 447 0780 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:008 a=98z
7I Trevarno Road, Livermore, CA 94550-2277
(925) 373-5700, Fax (925) 447-275zi, www.larpd.dst.za.us
Douglas A. Bell
June 26, 2001
Anne Kinney
City of Dublin Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
Oo p
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
the East Dublin Properties (PA #00-025)
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Thank you for referring the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (DSEI2~) for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project to
the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District for review and comment. Please accept
the following comments regarding the NOP for the DSEIR_:
LARPD is very concerned about the proposed de-annexation of the area within
our jurisdictionaI boundaries and the resultant loss of property tax base. And of
equal concern is the proximity of the proposed development to our core service
area and its potential to increase demands on our parks, services and programs if
comparable parks, services and programs are not available or are not being
provided in the area of these new residences and businesses.
The 1993 EI~ notes that Dublin's ratio of developed parkland to population is
below 5-acres/1000 population, a common standard for determining provision of
adequate park facilities. Any lack of park facilities could have a significant
impact on LARPD. This is particularly true of larger community park facilities
that provide facilities to meet the demands for organized recreational park
activities. Given the proximity of the proposed residential development to
LARPD's existing and future (N. Livermore and Vasco/Lauglin Planning Areas)
facilities, Dublin residents unable to meet their recreational needs will seek use of
the closest LARPD facilities. This could have significant impacts on our ability
to provide adequate services and programs to residents. This was not addressed
under the previous EIR and is a potentially significant impact on this District. For
example, LARPD is currently in the process of developing a $20 million
Community Center that will contain a large variety of services, activities and
opportunities for the Livermore Comraunity. The District is very concerned that
Board of Directors
Larry Faltings Maryalice Faltings Alice Ouinn Ernie Rodrigues Dale Turner
.33
the proposed project will impact the demand for services at this facility. Given
the proximity of the project to Livermore, the EIR needs to look comprehensively
at the existing and proposed services provided by Dublin and Livermore and
assess the potential impacts this project will have on services and programs in
Livermore. This must include the full range of services and programs provided
by LARPD including but not limited to childcare services, teen and senior care
services and programs, adult recreational programs, outdoor recreational and
environmental programs and well as others. This was not addressed under the
previous EIR and must be evaluated in a subsequent EIR.
Section 3.4-14 of the East Dublin SP/GPA EIR incorrectly states that "All
regional parkland in the Th-Valley is owned and operated by the East Bay
Regional Park District 0EBRPD)." In fact, Sycamore Grove Regional Park has
been owned and operated by LARPD since 1978. In 1998, the park doubled in
size to more than 760 acres. In 1994 LARPD purchased 507 acres of Brushy
Peak which has become core parkland area that has now been expanded through
the addition of approximately 1,500 acres including mitigation property owned
and managed by EBRPD.
LARPD is concerned that the East Dublin SP/GPA EIR has not addressed the
impact of the proposed project on these regional parks. Although the project is
proposing passive open space (to address hillside development issues and visual
resource impacts?) this kind of resource is not a viable substitute for the unique
recreational opportunities afforded by a regional park containing significant
regional views, and cultural and biological resources. The lack of regional
parkland provided by the East Dublin SP/GPA and the supplemental planning
area will have impacts on LARPD regional parkland that must be
comprehensively evaluated.
LARPD is surprised and disappointed with Dublin's proposal to assess the
potential for environmental impacts of this project by utilizing a Supplemental
E1]~. As you know, a supplemental EI~ is used when minor revisions are
anticipated or required. A subsequent EIR is prepared if the previous EIR
requires major revisions resulting in significant impacts on the environment.
LARPD agrees with the City of Livermore's comments noting the substantial
changes that have taken place since 1993 in the Th-Valley in such areas as
biological resources, land use, hydrology, agricultural resources, air quality,
traffic/transportation, and affordable housing. These factors, among others,
unequivocally point to the need to re-evaluate the project with a subsequent EIR
that looks at these and other issues (including more comprehensively regional and
community park, program and services issues). Anything less does not meet the
spirit or intent of CEQA.
3~
LARPD is concerned with the inclusion of the 637 acres into this supplemental
EIR. As we understand it, 472 acres is currently within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Planning Area and 637 acres outside the Eastern Dublin Specific
Planning Area. If this EI2R is supplemental to the 1993 City of Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, then no Specific Plan has been required
for the 637 acres (though we understand that your General Plan specifically
requires a Specific Plan to be done). This suggests that you are using a General
Plan level supplemental environmental evaluation to satisfy future project level
environmental review ("Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan
approval") that will be take place without the benefit of Specific Planning.
LARPD is very concerned with this approach and we would like the City of
Dublin to make very clear that this supplemental EIR will not substitute for a
more rigorous project level analysis and evaluation. We also want the City to
implement its General Plan policy to undertake the Specific Plan for this area as is
required.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. LARPD looks forward to
discussing these very important matters with you. We would appreciate being informed
of all matters related to this proposal including meetings, hearings, written
communications, etc. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (925)
373-5729.
/'7
Since~(,~/ , ,f /
~uperintendent of Planning anti'arks
C~
LARPD Board of Directors
Mayor Brown and Livermore City Council
Adolph Martinelli, County of Alameda
Brian Swit~, City of Pleasanton
Marc Roberts, City of Livermore
Larry Tong, EBRPD
Ea.q d ublinann e xati on. hop. It 1
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
FAX: 925 829 1180
925 828 0515
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
September 10, 2001
RECEIVED
SIP 1 1 200!
DUBLIN PLANNING
Subject:
Draft Supplemental EIR for East Dublin Properties,
Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental
lmpact Report for the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. Dublin
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has identified no impacts or necessary mitigations beyond
those identified in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Our comments on the specific areas of our
service to the community in the area of the East Dublin Properties Annexation are detailed below.
Potable Water Supply and Service
As you state in the Draft Supplemental EIR, DSRSD (as part of an agreement to settle a lawsuit
with Citizens for Balanced Growth (CBG) and the City of Livermore) was obligated upon receipt
of a Notice of Preparation of the subject EIR, to prepare and submit to the City a"Programmatic
Water Service Analysis" (PWSA) and "Preliminary Impact Analysis" analyzing the water-related
impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with the November 1999 settlement agreement,
DSRSD completed the PWSA in June 2001, and submitted the document to the City. As you
point out in your report, DSRSD's PWSA demonstrates that Zone 7 has already secured sufficient
supplies to serve the 5,620 AF demands of all of eastern Dublin. Furthermore, the fhcilities
currently planned by DSRSD for this area will be of sufficient capacity to meet the increased
demand at full build out of this project; and this demand will be mitigated somewhat by the
extension of recycled water pipelines through the project area and adherence to Dublin's standard
water conservation measures. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary for obtaining
additional water supply for this project.
Please note that CBG and the City of Livermore have exercised their right under the settlement
agreement to :zhallenge the findings of the PWSA, and all parties of the settlement agreement are
currently participating in the required dispute-resolution process.
2¢
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
September 10. 2001
Page 2 of 2
Recycled Water Supply and Service
As you note in the Draft Supplemental EIR, when available DSRSD will provide recycled water
to the proposed project for irrigation of large landscaped areas. /he facilities will be installed in
accordance with DSRSD's Water Master Plan. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary
for obtaining additional recycled water supply for this project.
Wastewater Services and Wastewater Effluent Disposal
The Draft Supplemental EIR notes that the 1994 eastern Dublin EIR identified mitigation
measures for the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. The mitigation measures were
DSRSD's inclusion of eastern Dublin in its long-range wastewater planning to ensure that limited
treatment plant capacity is not a new significaat impact. Since DSRSD has included this
wastewater demand in the planned capacity expansions of DSRSD's Wastewater Treatment Plant
and LAVWMA's planned increase in volume of wastewater effluent disposal facilities, no further
mitigation appears to be necessary.
As noted above, our agency does not deem any mitigation beyond those specified in the Draft
Supplemental E1R for the areas of our Potable Water, Recycled Water or Wastewater Collection
and Disposal services to the community. We feel that the joint planning effort done between the
City of Dublin and DSRSD has successfully identified those areas of concern and planned
reasonable solutions to those areas. Please note that DSRSD will require all properties within the
project area to obtain pre-development approvals through a Public Facility Agreement, Services
Planning Agreement and/or an Area-Wide Facility Agreement.
SincereIy,
DAVID K. BEHRENS, P.E.
Principal Engineer
DB:jg
Cc:
Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD
Dave Requa, DSRSD
G: ENGDEPTCEQA DSRSD Response to CEQA Documents City of Dubbn Draft Comments to Dublin Supp EIR for E Dublin Annex 901 doc
Dublin U.S.D.
Livermore Airport
(Alameda County)
January 15, 1993
Ms. Jeanne Howland
Governing Board
Dublin Unified School District
7471 Larkdale Avenue
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Howland:
In response to your request of October 13, 1992 and Section
39006 of the Education Code, the California Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has analyzed the school
site proposals by the Dublin Unified School District. The
proposed sites are located one to two miles northwest of the
Livermore Municipal Airport, and are outside the current
approved traffic patterns to the airport.
Our analysis consisted of a thorough review of our files
concerning the Livermore Municipal Airport, including layout
plans and vicinity maps depicting the relationship of the
airport traffic patterns to the proposed sites. In addition,
the airport was offered the opportunity to respond. Their
comments were considered.
Our evaluation revealed that, although most of the sites
may be subject to very occasional overflights by aircraft
maneuvering to establish themselves for approach to the airport,
they would not present an undue safety hazard. However, a
portion of one of the middle schools (see the attached layouts)
falls within the airport protection area (APA) and therefore we
recommend that the school be moved north so as to be located
north of the APA. Some of the sites are close enough to the
traffic pattern to where they will experience frequent high
single event noise levels. Therefore, this should be considered
in the location and design of proposed facilities.
3~
Ms. Jeanne Howland
January 15, 1993
Page 2
The Department cannot guarantee the safety of these (or
any) sites. However, based upon our evaluation of existing
conditions and planned development, these sites (excluding the
middle school previously mentioned) are considered to provide
the level of safety suitable for a school. We, therefore, do
not object to the acquisition of the remaining proposed school
sites. However, if the sites are not acquired by November 30,
1997 another site evaluation will be required.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
bcc: Dottie Odell - District 4
DRG:bp DW4DRG#8(HOWLAND.LTR)
DANIEL R. GARGAS
Aviation Consultant
3~
CITY OF
SPHERE OF
£ALL ON
AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA INITIAL STUDY
DOOLAN
(E4.<'T)
CITY OF LIVERMORE
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
AREA ~.
]-$80
IEXHIBIT IV-14
EAST DUBLIN SPECIFIC pLAN
ADMINISTRATION 1849"
BUILDING
1052 S Liverraore Avenue
Livermm'e. CA 94550 4899
Ph: (925) 373-5100
Fax: 1925) 373-5155
TDD (925) 373-5052
MAYOR ! COUNCIL
373 5149
CITY MAaNAGER
Ph: 373-5140 · Fax: 373 5061
CITY OF LIVERMORE
HAND DELIVERED
Eddie Peabody, Jr.
Director of Community Development
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
September 14, 2001
Re: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
for the East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025)
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Attached to this letter are the City of Livermore's comments on the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) issued by the City of
Dublin for the East Dublin Properties project. As you are aware, Livermore
provided extensive comments in a June 26, 2001 letter responding to Dublin's
Notice of Preparation of the D SEIR. Unfortunately, in Livermore's view the
DSEIR does not appear to address many of the concerns set forth in
Livermore's response to the Notice of Preparation. As Livermore's attached
comments demonstrate, neither the scope nor the content of the DSEIR
comply with the disclosure requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Livermore requests that Dublin defer action
on this project until an environmental document is prepared and circulated for
public comment that fully complies with CEQA.
Preparation of an adequate Environmental Impact Report is especially
important because of the project's numerous potential impacts on Livermore
and its planning area. We hope Dublin will join Livermore in giving priority
attention to the discussion and resolution of Livermore's concerns with the
project and its impacts as outlined in our comments. I will be glad to
coordinate with you in establishing a meeting schedule between
representatives of our two cities.
These comments were prepared with the assistance of Lamphier-Gregory;
Terrell Watt, Planning Consultant; Jones & Stokes (biology); Saracino-Kirby-
Snow (Water Resources); and Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger LLP, Attorneys
at Law.
City of Dublin
Community Development
September 14, 2001
Page 2
If you desire further information concerning these comments, please contact Susan Frost,
Senior Planner, at (925) 373-5200.
Sincerely,
Marc Roberts
Community Development Director
C~
Mayor / City Council
Linda Barton, City Manager
Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County
Brian Swift, City of Pleasanton
Dale Myers, Zone 7
Vivian Housen, LAVWMA
Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD
Ken Craig, LARPD
Brad Olson, EBRPD
Sheila Larsen, USFWS
Carl Wilcox, CDFG
CITY OF LIVERMORE
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES (SCH # 2001 052144)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2001
The City of Livermore hereby provides its comments on the City of Dublin's Draft
Supplemental Environ_mental Impact Report ("DSEIR") for the proposed East Dublin
Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation project. Livermore is disappointed that
the City of Dublin has chosen not to consider the comments that Livermore provided in a letter
dated June 26, 2001, in response to the Notice of Preparation for this Supplemental Draft EIR.
Livermore believes the comments contained in that letter (attached hereto as Attachment #1,
and incorporated herein by reference) provided an approach and scope to this project and its
environmental review that would have greatly enhanced the value of this EIR as a full
disclosure document pursuant to CEQA.
Livermore maintains its concern that the Supplemental EIR approach taken by the City of
Dublin for this project is inadequate for the following reasons:
· The Supplemental DEIR lacks a full and adequate project description.
Circumstances have changed since certification of the 1993 Eastern Dublin Final EIR that
have not been fully addressed in this Supplemental EIR. The City of Dublin has chosen to
focus the supplemental environmental review for this project on a small number of changed
circumstances that have occurred since 1993, rather than recognizing the vastly changed
circumstances surrounding regionally significant issues within the Tri-Valley.
The scope and depth of analysis contained in the Supplemental Draft E1R is inadequate to
fully identify potentially significant cumulative effects, and does not begin to recommend
adequate mitigation measures to reduce or avoid such effects.
Each of these issues is more fully described below in specific comments on the document. The
City of Livermore requests that Dublin conduct a comprehensive environmental review
consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally,
Livermore's following recommendations for reasonable and feasible mitigation of cumulative
and regionally significant effects are consistent with the mitigation measures that this city has
traditionally and historically imposed. It is important that each community within the Tri-
Valley area does its fair share in addressing cumulative impacts that affect all neighboring
jurisdictions.
1
~3
Inadequate Proiect Description
The Supplemental DEIR includes the following actions in the project description:
· A Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin requesting pre-zoning of the
site in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
· Annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services
District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services;
· Execution of a Pre-annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project
proponents/property owners;
· Detachment from Livermore Area Recreation and Park District upon annexation of the
project area to the City of Dublin;
· Post-annexation probable cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the
properties within the project area; and
· Detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and
attachment to the Dublin Unified School District.
However, this Project Description does not address the following issues:
Inconsistency with General Plan Policies for a Specific Plan. The project site is
approximately 1,110 acres in size. The entire project site is within the Eastern Extended
Planning Area adopted by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("EDGPA") in 1994,
but only 472 acres are within the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. Although the Dublin
General Plan designates this Extended Planning Area primarily for residential uses,
Implementing Policy 2.1.4(B) of the EDGPA requires that: "A Specific Plan(s) will be
required for the remainder of the extended planning area to provide similar direction for its
ultimate development." The EDGPA goes on to state that, "Approval of residential
development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area will require determination that.., the
proposed project is consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies."
The project description included in the SDEIR does not include preparation of a Specific Plan
for the approximately 637 acres within the project site but outside the Specific Plan Area,
which is in direct conflict with this General Plan policy. This is of particular concern to the
City of Livermore. According to the EDGPA, a Specific Plan is intended to ensure, among
other issues, that proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands,
and that the timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable
agricultural operations on adjoining lands. Both of these issues are of regional and cumulative
concern.
Additionally, in the last decade there has been a growing recognition of the importance of
"smart growth" planning principles and what constitutes sustainable development. An
adequate definition of such "smart gro~vth" includes intelligently planned communities that
-- 2 4¢
channel growth into existing communities or areas with existing services, that provide for
public transportation, are walk-able and bike-able, include a mix of uses, and provide for
permanent protection of surrounding open space. Presumably, a Specific Plan for this area
would provide an opportunity for Dublin to consider and emphasize the importance of such
"smart growth" strategies in the development of this area.
Need for Greenbelt / Buffer. Related to the issue of impacts to viable agriculture on
adjoining lands, the EDGPA also indicates that the lands immediately to the east of the project
site are identified as a Future Study Area. This designation indicates" ... the City of Dublin's
interest in the area and the need for additional studies of environmental constraints, future land
uses, infrastructure and other issues." The City of Livermore shares ihis interest in the area
and wishes to ensure, in accordance with Livermore's General Plan, that these lands will be
permanently preserved as an agricultural greenbelt / buffer between our two cities. In
Livermore's view, any project proposed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area adjacent to
Dublin's "Future Study Area" must address how this area can be maintained and preserved
into the future, and include safeguards that prevent potential future urban encroachment.
Inadequate Discussion of Future Study Area. Finally, the East Dublin Properties
Stage 1 Site Plan indicates that approximately 126 acres immediately north of the Dublin
Boulevard extension will be designated as "Future Study Area" because these lands are located
within the Airport Protection Area (APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. However, the
EDGPA designates these lands for low and medium density residential use and indicates that,
"If, at the time of pre-zoning, the residential designations are inconsistent with the APA, the
residential designations will convert to Future Study Area with an underlying Rural
Residential / Agriculture designation. The SDIER should provide clarification that, inasmuch
at the property in question is located within the APA and inconsistent with iow and medium
density residential use, these properties should be permanently designated as Rural
Residential/Agriculture, including the 10.4-acre parcel indicated as General Commercial.
Reliance on Programmatic Mitigation for a Pro,[ect EIR
The EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) certified by the City
of Dublin in 1993 was a "Program" EIR, designed to assess the environmental impacts of the
policies contained in these planning documents. As stated on page 1-2 of that Draft Program
EIR, "Once the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are approved, specific
development proposals for the project site may require a Project EIR to assess project-specific
issues." Given the programmatic nature of the 1993 E1R, many of the mitigation measures
contained in that document do not provide the specificity required in a project-level EIR.
Similarly, many of the mitigation measures contained in the 1993 document rely on
subsequent studies to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts not fully disclosed at a project-
level analysis. Examples of such mitigation measures contained in the 1993 E1R include:
MM 3.8/7.1: The City will conduct a visual survey for the project site to identify and map
viewsheds of scenic vistas.
3
4£
MM3.8/8.1:
The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors
submit detailed visual analyses with development project applications.
Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section
drawings from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question,
representing typical views of the parcel from the scenic route. The graphic
depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping
can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize visual impacts·
The City should require dedications of land and improvements along both sides of
stream corridors as a condition of development project.approval. The width of
dedicated corridors will be established in consultation with the regulatory
agencies since these may vary with specific sites.
MM 3. 7/4. O: Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon
after approval of the GPA and Specific Plan. Management plans shall favor
protection of wetland and riparian areas, increased plant diversity, and the
recovery of native plants, in particular perennial grasses.
MM 3.11/4. O: Require preparation o fa construction impact reduction plan that incorporates
all proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities
for plan implementation and supervision.
MM3.6/9.0: While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development,
their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt
improvements to the natural landforms, thus minimizing cuts and fills.
Construction of traditional flat building pads in hillside areas requires more
grading than construction of partial pads, or developing custom lots.
Construction of roads or ridges also minimizes grading in hillside areas· Use of
retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes, where appropriate and
properly designed, also minimizes grading in hillside areas.
MM 3.6/] O:
· . . Specific project lot and infrastructure alignment planning should be based on
the identification of geotechnicallyfeasible building areas by the project
geotechnical consultant. In some hillside areas, clustering structures may be the
best approach to minimize grading and avid adverse conditions.
These examples illustrate the programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR and demonstrate that
mitigation measures contained in that document frequently rely on subsequent studies, pending
coordination with other agencies, follow-up analyses and more detailed investigations.
Reliance on such mitigation measures in this DSEIR do not provide the level of detail and
specific performance-based mitigation needed to assure that impacts can be reduced to less
than significant levels.
4
Changed Circumstances
Lack of Recognition of Changed Circumstances. Significant changes have occurred within
the local area and within the Tri-Valley region since the Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin
GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. A list of
these changes (more fully discussed in later sections of this letter) includes:
The supply of large parcels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing
operations have substantially decreased, and state laws regarding the annexation of lands
defined as prime agricultural soils have also changed. Alameda County lost approximately
3,958 acres of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses between 1'998-2000. Contra Costa
lost nearly 6,000 during the same period.
· Rapid urbanization, increased regional traffic and changed commute patterns have resulted
in significant degradation in the air quality of our region.
New designations of critical habitat for the California red-Iegged frog, and the potential
occurrence of special-status species were not considered in the 1993 EIR (e.g., the
California tiger salamander and Livermore Valley tarweed). New standards have been
applied by state and federal resource agencies that afford greater protection to riparian
corridors than were applicable in 1993.
· Recent efforts by both Contra Costa County and Tri-Valley communities to initiate
regionally based habitat conservation plans may affect the project area.
· Cumulative development within the entire watershed has led to significant increases in peak
downstream flood flows.
· Increased urbanization and irrigation has led to an increased influx of salts into the Main
groundwater basin.
Significant changes in the demographic characteristics of not only the Tri-Valley region,
but also the entire Bay Area, have altered the region's jobs/housing balance and created a
Bay Area commute-shed that stretches beyond the traditional 9-county Bay Area as far
eastward as Sacramento.
· Dramatic increases in housing prices throughout the Bay Area have resulted in a severe
regional housing shortages particularly for affordably priced housing opportunities.
Changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by new
development has substantially exacerbated traffic congestion on the regional freeway
system.
Newly constructed and planned improvements to the transportation system (e.g. Isabel
Parkway, BART access, and other transit opportunities) have occurred since 1993, and have
not been.addressed in the SDEIR.
5
· Water supply contracts and recent litigation regarding the availability of water supplies
have changed the availability of water supplies to serve ne~v development.
· Regional policy, funding mechanisms, and timing ofwastewater infrastructure
improvements have changed significantly since 1993.
Natural gas and electrical service capacity in the region has become increasingly
constrained, combined with increased demand and uncertainty over required electrical
transmission improvements.
· Solid waste disposal needs have increased, combined with reductions in regionally
available permitted disposal capacity.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 provides that, "a lead agency may choose to prepare a
supplement to a previous EIR if... only minor additions or changes would be necessary to
make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed circumstances." Clearly,
in light of the substantial changes in circumstance listed above, more than "minor changes" are
necessary to make the 1993 EIR applicable to the current project.
The City of Livermore recommends that the City of Dublin should fully recognize these
changed circumstances and initiate a fully adequate and comprehensive environmental review
of the proposed project rather than relying on older, outdated and inadequate baseline
information that render this SDEIR inadequate.
Inconsistency With Adopted Land Use Policy
The SDEIR fails to include an adequate analysis of plan consistency. The DSE1R must identify
and discuss potential conflicts between the proposed project and any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Specifically,
the EIR must "discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general
plans and regional plans," including, but not limited to, "air quality attainment or maintenance
plan[si or state implementation plans, area-wide waste treatment and water quality control
plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation
plans, natural community conservation plans, and regional land use plans.''! This "setting"
information will allow the Lead Agency to focus on the changes to the environment with
respect to policy inconsistencies, and identify ways to reduce the inconsistencies. Typically,
Lead Agencies perform this review with a "checklist" or matrix of applicable policies and
regulations and a discussion of project consistency with each policy and regulation.
The SDEIR alone and in combination with the 1993 FEIR fails to adequately analyze the
consistency of the proposed project with the applicable Dublin General Plan, the Livermore
Municipal Airport Land Use Plan, with LAFCO policies, and County General Plan policies for
the area. Specifically, the 1992 DEIR contained sections titled Consistency with Relevant
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d)
6
Land Use Plans and Policies and Other Applicable County, City and Agency Plans. A table
comparing the project to policies is included, but only for policies contained in the Dublin
General Plan. The Sections in the 1992 DEIR are out of date and incomplete. Information
contained in the FEIR and the 1993 and 1994 Addenda do not make up for the defects in the
1992 DEIR sections.
Since 1992, the following changed circumstances with respect to applicable plans and
regulations have occurred:
ABAG issued its revised Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for Alameda
County. The RHNA identified housing goals for the City of Dubhn, indicating a need for
1,327 affordable housing units from a total housing need of 5,436 units. This ABAG
housing goal indicates a need for approximately 24% of all future housing to be made
affordable to low- and very-low income households.
· The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued Recovery Plans for new species, and
designated critical habitat for one of these species, the California red-legged frog.
Measure D passed, which significantly modifies County planning policies and established a
County Urban Growth Boundary generally co-terminus with eastern boundary of the East
Dublin Specific Plan Area.
· The Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Committee is preparing a Draft Airport Land
Use Plan affecting areas within the project site.
· AB 2838, the Hertzberg amendments to the Cortese-Knox Local Reorganization Act, was
approved by the Legislature.
These and other major modifications of applicable plans and regulations warrant the
preparation of a revised and thorough plan consistency section in a revised DEIR.
LAFCO Issues. The SDEIR contains no analysis of the land use, policy and changed
circumstances related to the impacts of the proposed annexation. The SDEIR relies on the
1992 EIR for this analysis. Neither the 1992 DEIR nor FEIR adequately address LAFCO
issues. For example, in response to questions about the probable need for services and other
factors, the FEIR responses were evasive and unsupported by evidence.2 This approach
overlooks significant changed circumstances requiring more in depth consideration of a number
of factors in order for boundary changes to be adopted by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO will rely on the SDEIR for its consideration of the
annexation. While LAFCO will rely on the SDEIR for its consideration of the annexation, key
information necessary for LAFCO consideration of the project is entirely missing.
The project description calls for the annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services.
The project also includes the proposed detachment of the project area from the Livermore Area
See Response to Letter 24, EIR 24-43.RSP
7
Recreation and Park District. This central aspect of the proposed project is governed by state
law as implemented by the LAFCO. LAFCO must approve the annexation. Since LAFCO
must approve these proposed actions, it is essential that the project EIR address issues
necessary for LAFCO's consideration of the project.
As a result of the passage of AB 2838 in 2000, key amendments to the Cortese-Knox Local
Government Reorganization Act took affect on January 1, 2001. The Act is now referred to as
the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. AB 2838 reiterated and
emphasized the Legislature's policies of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and
prime agricultural lands, "efficiently extending government services", and that "providing
housing for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor'in promoting orderly
development"(Section 56001). Section 56001 also provides that the Legislature's policy
should be "effected by the logical formation and modification of, the boundaries of those local
agencies which can best accommodate and provide necessary governmental services and
housing for persons and families of all incomes in the most efficient manner feas~bl .
LAFCO authority was strengthened by the Hertzberg amendments. Specifically, to better
prevent sprawl and enhance orderly development, all LAFCO actions must include new factors
to be considered. Prior to the amendments, the Act listed nine "factors" including a total of 23
mandatory elements for LAFCO to consider before acting on a boundary proposal. LAFCO's
are also authorized to consider other factors, particularly if included in adopted policies. The
new factors to be considered include:
1. the ability of the agency to provide services and sufficiency of revenues for those
services;
2. the timely availability of an adequate water supply;
3. the extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity with its fair share
housing needs;
4. any comments from owners or landowners; and
5. information relating to existing land use designations.
Also~ Section 56668.5 authorizes the consideration of regional growth goals and policies
established by a collaboration of elected officials only, formally representing their local
jurisdictions in an official capacity on a regional or subregional basis. As such, LAFCO's may
now consider such issue when reviewing proposals.
implementation of Section 566680): Service Plans are Now Essential to Review all
Proposals. The analysis of an agency's ability to provide service and sufficiency of revenues
to pay those service costs requires more thorough analysis than prior to AB 2838. Specifically,
service plans are now essential to review ali proposals. New guidelines have just been issues
for LAFCO's mandatory service plan review. If the City had prepared a Specific Plan for the
entire project site, information about delivery of services and ability for the new development
to pay for services without eroding existing service levels would be available.
3 Affordable housing is most effectively and efficiently provided at higher densities, not in the predominantly Iow density
configuration called for in the project.]
Service issues and ability of the new project to pay its own way must be addressed in a revised
DEIR. Information contained in the 1994 Specific Plan is out of date. The limited information
contained in the SDE1R defers both the analysis and resolution of these key issues. For
example, the following mitigation measures all defer the cr/tical issues of whether services are
available and do not address whether the project will pay its own way:
SM UTS-I: Prior to approval of future Subdivision Maps or Site Development Review (SDR)
applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit
"will serve" letters from DSRSD indicating that adequate water is available to serve the
proposed development project. (Page ST-27).
SM UTS-2: Prior to approval of future subdivision maps or Site Development Review
applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit
"will serve" letters from PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas
services are available to serve the proposed development project. (Page ST-27).
Not only does the SDEIR omit analysis of many other essential services which must be
demonstrated to be adequate and available to serve the project (schools, fire, police,...), but it
defers the information needed for LAFCO to make its findings for the few service issues the
SDEIR does address (energy and water). Moreover, no information is available that
demonstrates the sufficiency of revenues for those services. A revised DEIR must include this
information.
Implementation of Section 56668(k) Timely Availability of an Adequate Water Supply.
Recent court decision clearly specify that local agencies including LAFCO specifically review
adequacy of water supply associated with significant new development such as the proposed
project. Availability of water supply includes the fluid water itself(entitlements) and
infrastructure (treatment capacity, storage capacity, regional transmission) and local
distribution systems. LAFCO must also determine whether extending supply to the new area
will reduce the adequacy of service within the agency's existing boundaries and other adjacent
areas. Adequacy of the water supply for the project itself and the effect of the additional
demand on the total system (cumulative impact) must be considered.
As stated above, the limited information contained in the SDEIR defers both the analysis and
resolution of whether there is water and water infrastructure to serve the project area:
SM UTS-1: Prior to approval of future Subdivision Maps or Site Development Review (SDR)
applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit
"will serve" letters from DSRSD indicating that adequate water is available to serve the
proposed development project. Page ST-27.
Clearly, this issue must be addressed in a revised DEIR (see also specific comments regarding
water supply in later sections of this letter).
Implementation of Section 56668(0 Fair Share Housing. In enacting AB 2838, the
legislature also recognized that providing housing for persons and families of all incomes is an
important factor in promoting orderly development (Section 56668). LAFCO's must now
9
.5'1
consider the extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity in achieving its fair
share of the regional housing needs as determined by the local council of governments, in this
case the Association of Bay Area Governments. The SDEIR provides little if any information
to assist LAFCO to make this finding. The City of Dublin's ultimate ability to meet its fair
share will depend on how the area is zoned and the land use designated in the General and
Specific Plans.
A revised DEIR must analyze these issues because they each implicate a potential policy
inconsistency between the project and LAFCO policies, and each implicate potentially
significant impacts, including but not limited to:
1. lack of available public services and infrastructure to serve the project;
2. reduced services for existing development if services are insufficient or the project fails
to pay its own way;
3. a jobs-housing imbalance and/or insufficient housing thereby leading to indirect impacts
to traff~c, air quality.
Airport Compatibility. In preparing EIR's on projects within the purview of an airport
comprehensive land use plan, or within two nautical miles of a public or public use airport, the
Lead Agency must evaluate the impacts of safety and noise by using the handbook prepared by
the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.4 Such an analysis has
not been conducted as part of this SDEIR, and therefore, no conclusions regarding consistency
of the project with these requirements can be made.
The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission created an Airport Protection Area for the
Livermore Municipal Airport in 1993, after the East Dublin EIR was certified. The Airport
Protection Area affects land uses within the southern portion of he project area. Although the
SDEIR states that these affected properties are currently designated as "Future Study Areas", it
is unclear what land uses may be proposed on these properties or how the "Future Study Area"
designation will affect such uses. Additionally, the Airport Protection Area is based on a 1986
Airport Master Plan. Currently the City of Livermore is working toward preparation of a new,
updated Airport Master Plan for the Livermore Municipal Airport, and this new Airport Master
Plan should be considered when proposing new land use in the vicinity.
General Plan Policies. The 1992 EIR evaluated the proposed East Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendments with the City of Dublin General Plan (See Section 3.1 Land Use).
The proposed project is a proposal for a Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation for a
portion of the East Dublin SP and GPA. Thus, an analysis of the consistency of the proposed
project with the relevant East Dublin SP and GPA policies is required.
There are a number of potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and the EDGPA.
The most significant of these is the requirement in the EDGPA for the completion of a specific
plan for the remainder of the area:
Pub. Res. Code sec. 21096; Guidelines sec. 15154
10
"Specific Plan(s) will be required for the remainder of the extended planning
area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." (Policy 2.1.4(B)
of the EDGPA).
In the absence of a specific plan, significant information about the project needed to
demonstrate consistency with other applicable policies and regulations is not provided. For
example, had a specific plan been prepared, information about the provision of public services
and facilities and whether the project pays its own way would be provided. Moreover, the
Specific Plan has been identified by Dublin as the vehicle for ensuring, among other issues, that
the proposed site grading and access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the timing of the
development would not result in premature termination of agricultura'l operations to adjoining
lands. This major General Plan inconsistency must be acknowledged in a revised DEIR and
addressed. The discussion should focus on the information that will not be available if the
Specific Plan requirement is ignored.
Other potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and the EDSP and GPA cannot be
ascertained by reviewing the SDE[R. For example, the project description is vague concerning
project phasing and provision of services:
"Timing for the Project's phasing would depend upon market demand. All necessary
roadways, site grading, and utility backbone improvements would be expected to occur
in a timely manner with each development phase." (DSEIR at page 2-6), and
"A wide range of residential types would be allowed by the proposed residential
densities." (DSEIR at page 2-7),
Given the lack of detail in the project description, a detailed analysis of proposed project
consistency with guiding policies of the ED GPA and SP must be completed which illustrates
how:
· the proposed project will ensure the production of affordable housing within neighborhoods
with character and identity.
· adequate open space will be provided in the proposed project.
the proposed project will meet policies calling for reducing reliance on the single-occupant
vehicle.
· services and facilities will be provided to serve the project in a manner that will not
overburden existing services or facilities., among other major policy requirements.
Because the proposed project is a portion of the GPA and SP areas, it is even more essential
that a plan consistency section in a revised DEIR demonstrate how the project is consistent
with these applicable policies.
11
ABAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The SDEIR fails to address the project's
consistency with and contribution to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The project
description is extremely vague as to how the project ~vill meet the City's Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance, and fails to address how the project will assist the City in meeting its assigned
RI-1NA. The project description alludes to the City's density bonus ordinance, but fails to state
whether the project will include additional density bonus units. It is even further unclear how a
maximum contribution of 5% affordable housing units required of the project (page 2.8 of the
SDErR) will assist in meeting the 24% affordable housing need within the City of Dublin.
Agricultural Resources
The loss of as much a 1,100 acres of agricultural lands, loss of 59 acres of Prime Farmland, and
the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts prior to expiration of renewal should be
considered as significant effects of the project. Livermore also does not believe that the DSEIR
adequately addresses mitigation measures for these impacts.
Appendix "C" of the DSEIR includes an analysis of the project area's potential for being
irrigated, and concludes that the delivery of available water is economically infeasible. This
conclusion fails to recognize the potential delivery of treated/reclaimed water supplies to serve
as a source of irrigation water. Both DSRSD and the City of Livermore have, or anticipate
being able to supply, large mounts of reclaimed wastewater as an alternative to disposal of
these waters into the Bay. The availability of reclaimed water to serve as an irrigation supply
could render an agricultural water supply feasible. This potential is not discussed or addressed
in the DSEIR, and is not mentioned in its Appendix "C". Similarly, Zone 7 is anticipating
construction of the North Valley Pipeline, a water transmission facility carrying water supplies
from its recently approved Altamont Water Treatment Plant across the Livermore-Amador
Valley north of 1-580 and into Dublin. The potential availability of water supplies from this
pipeline could potentially make irrigation of this area feasible, and should be addressed in the
ErR.
Lack of Mitigation Measures. The DSErR does not recommend potential mitigation
measures to address the loss of agricultural lands, although such measures are available and
feasible. An example of such a measure includes, but is not limited to permanent protection of
other agricultural lands, either through direct dedication of easements or payment of mitigation
funds to be used for acquisition by others. Protection of off-site lands should achieve greater
than a 1:1 replacement ratio.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The SDEIR Must Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project's
Impacts on Agricultural and Open Space Lands. Both Alameda County and the City of
Livermore identify lands in the area of the project as high priority for open space preservation.
The proposed project would result in the loss of prime agricultural land and 1,120 acres of open
space lands. The project is also likely to induce growth on adjacent lands that are designated
"Future Study Area," if the project does not include measures that permanently protect these
lands (e.g. urban growth boundary, dedicated greenbelt). The 1992 ErR found that impacts to
agricultural land ~vere insignificant without mitigation. To the contrary, the project's direct
12
5~
impacts to prime agricultural land alone and in combination with the indirect growth inducing
and cumulative impacts will be significant.
Growing evidence suggests that open space conservation is not an expense, but a worthwhile
investment that produces great economic benefits. Open space is a major attraction for
employees, residents and visitors because it increases the attractiveness of an area as a place to
live, work and recreate. As the Trust for Public Land explains in its 1999 publication: The
Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities
Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line:
"Too often we hear that communities cannot afford to 'grow smart' by conserving open
space. But accumulating evidence indicates that open space conservation is not an
expense but an investment that produces important economic benefits. Some of this
evidence comes from academic studies and economic analysis. Other evidence is from
firsthand experience of community leaders and government officials who have found
that open space protection does not 'cost' but 'pays.'"
For example, a 1990 study in New England found that clustered housing designed to preserve
open space appreciated faster than comparable homes on comparable lots. (Id. at 7). Open
space used recreationally as trails can also have significant economic benefits.5 Local
businesses benefit greatly from open space that attracts visitors from other areas.6
New development within the project area and existing development in the City of Dublin would
particularly benefit from the permanent conservation ora greenbelt. Protection of these lands
will have widespread benefits for residents and visitors to the areas, including views,
recreational opportunities and continued agricultural use, and trails.
The City should take the unique opportunity presented by the proposed project to invest in the
permanent protection of open space and agricultural land through effective mitigation
measures. As set forth below, the SDEIR for the proposed project should be revised to
consider the wide variety of options available to mitigate the significant proj ect-related, indirect
and cumulative impacts to open space and agricultural lands.
The SDEIR Does not Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures: "The chief goal of
CEQA is mitigation or avoidance of environmental harm.''7 "The core of an EIR is the
mitigation and alternatives sections? One of the fundamental objectives of CEQA is to
facilitate the identification of"feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will
avoid or substantially lessen" significant environmental effects.9 To effectuate this purpose,
CEQA cautions that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are...
feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant
See Id. at 26-27
See Id. at 27
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents, 47 Cal.3d 376,403. 1988
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553,564. 1990.
Pub. Res. Code section 21002; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 197 CaI.App.3d 1167, 182. 1988
13
environmental effects of such projects.''~° Consequently, an EIR must identify feasible
mitigation measures to mitigate significant environmental impacts.11
The SDE1R and prior EIR fail to identify feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the proposed
project's significant direct and indirect impacts on agricultural land and open space. The
SDE1R and EIR find the loss of 200 acres of prime agricultural land an unavoidable but not
significant impact (see FEIR at page 3). The DEIR finds this impact insignificant "due to the
high percentage of Williamson Act contracts that have been non-renewed and the limited value
of non-prime soils on the Project site." (DEIR at SM-7). The DEIR finds the impact to
alteration of rural/open space visual character potentially significant (SM-26). However, no
true mitigation is proposed for this significant impact. Neither the SDEIR nor the EIR find the
loss of open space a significant impact.
Contrary to CEQA's mandate with respect to both the loss of agricultural and open space land,
the SDEIR and EIR simply fail to consider any mitigation measures. Yet, as set forth below, a
variety of widely accepted feasible measures exist that could reduce the project's significant
impacts to open space and agricultural land.
Feasible Mitigation Measures Exist To Reduce the Proposed Project's Significant
Impact on Agricultural and Open Space Loss. The SDEIR's and EIR's failure to consider
mitigation for the loss of open space and agricultural lands is particularly striking given the
wide variety and number of successful programs that exist to address this issue. Mitigation is
defined by the CEQA Guidelines to include:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments. 12
Here, the proposed project's impact on agricultural and open space lands can be compensated
for by the implementation of programs that provide for such lands on the project site or in other
nearby locations that reduce the impact over time by preservation of such lands. Also, the
establishment ora permanent growth boundary or urban limit line would assist in reducing the
impact, as has been done in Livermore and Pleasanton, among other communities.
The American Farmland Trust has identified a number of feasible mitigation measures for
agricultural land conversion, including:
Pub. Res. Code section 21002
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4
CEQA Guidelines section 15370
14
· Requiring that remaining agricultural land, of an equal or greater amount of agricultural
land be placed under Williamson Act contract.
· Requiting conservation easements to be placed on remaining or alternate agricultural land.
· Requiting that new agricultural land be brought into production.
· Requiring a per-acre mitigation fee on development projects to be used for the acquisition
of development rights on agricultural land nearby.~3
In addition to protecting agricultural land, conservation easements are also effective
mechanisms for preserving habitat, watersheds, viewsheds, and community open space
buffers. 14
In addition to these general forms of mitigation, there are numerous examples of communities
that have required land dedications and/or fees for purchase of land to compensate for the loss
of open space and agricultural lands as mitigation. Examples include, but are not limited to:
City of Davis General Plan and Ordinance 1823. Under Davis Right to Farmland
Preservation Ordinance No. 1823, new development is required to protect an equivalent
amount of agricultural acreage to that lost as a result of development. Agricultural
mitigation can also be satisfied under the Ordinance by the payment of a fee based on the
replacement ration. The City implements these requirements to mitigate for project impacts
to agricultural lands.
South Livermore Specific Plan. New residential and non-residential development in the
South Livermore Valley are required to mitigate the loss of agricultural and open space
lands by agricultural land dedications and planting, and payment of fees.
Cayetano Corporate Campus. In order to mitigate for the loss of open space caused by the
corporate campus, the Business Park paid a mitigation fee of $600,000 to implement an
open space/habitat management program in North Livermore.
Thus, among the feasible mitigation measures the SDEIR and EIR fail to include are the
following:
Clustering of the development to achieve smart growth principles and promote more
affordable housing, as well as to protect on-site open space, habitat and agricultural lands
and provide permanent protection of those lands through an appropriate instrument (e.g.
dedication of lands).
· Payment of a mitigation fee to an appropriate conservation organization for purchase of
mitigation lands (e.g. the proposed fee accepted by landowners for North Livermore was
Excerpt from Saving the Farm, January 1990, at 5
Regional Needs Briefing Book, page 6
15
.5"7
$25,000 per developed acre; the proposed fee accepted by landowners for the Vasco-
Laughlin project was $100,000 per acre with "clustering" of development rights to enhance
overall densities which resulted in increased values of development areas for owners. Both
programs are on-hold for the Livermore Visioning project).
Pumhase in fee title or conservation easement of comparable open space and agricultural
lands in the area and permanent protection of those lands through a dedication to an
appropriate open space conservation entity.
· The establishment of a permanent urban growth boundary in combination with the above-
program.
To provide an adequate assessment of mitigation, a revised DEIR must consider the measures
described above for their feasibly and efficacy in reducing project impacts to open space and
agricultural lands. Adoption of measures such as those identified above would clearly
minimize the proposed project's impact on agricultural and open space lands both within the
project area itself and through agricultural and open space preservation in the area.
A Revised DEIR Must Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Cumulative
Impacts on Agricultural and Open Space Lands. In addition to its significant project-specific
and growth inducing impacts, the proposed project's conversion of agricultural and open space
lands to urban uses contributes to a significant cumulative impact on agricultural and open
space lands. The SDE1R fails to provide current information on the extent of such impacts.
Several additional feasible mitigation measures that could effectively mitigate cumulative
impacts exist.
· The City could evaluate the transfer of development rights to ~vithin its existing boundaries.
· The City could amend its general plan to include programs to generate fees for protection of
open space outside its ultimate boundaries (e.g. Proposition 218),
· The City could participate in regional programs directed at open space and biological
resource protection.
A revised DEIR must consider these and other measures that could clearly off-set the proposed
projects contribution to the cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands in the region.
The SDEIR as currently drafted, in combination with the EIR, is inadequate to provide the
meaningful consideration or feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant
environmental impacts of the project.
Traffic and Circulation
Central Parkway. The DSEIR's analysis of traffic and circulation issues pertaining to Central
Parkway is confusing, internally inconsistent and potentially misleading. The City of
Livermore has long held its concern that the Doolan Canyon area be protected as an open
space/greenbelt corridor that provides a visual and physical separation between our two
16
communities. The extension of two roads into this area (both Dublin Boulevard and Central
Parkway) would not be in keeping with Livermore's understanding of open space protection. It
is unclear from this document what the City of Dublin's plans are for the extension of roadways
(particularly Central Parkway) in to this area.
Internal Inconsistencies Pertaining to the Circulation Network. Internal inconsistencies in
the document regarding Central Parkway include:
The footnote on page 3.6-2 indicates that some maps "erroneously" show Central Parkway
extending easterly and ending at the Sphere of Influence boundar7 (i.e., the eastern edge of
the project area). This footnote goes on to state that, in 1997, the Dublin Council amended
the General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan to show Central Parkway as a 4-lane road
extending easterly of Fallon Road, and turning southward to connect with Dublin
Boulevard within the Eastern Extended Planning Area (i.e., within Doolan Canyon). Two
of these four lanes are part of the proposed project, and rights-of-way for the additional two
lanes are reserved for the ultimate 4-lane width.
Figure 2-D of the SDEIR (the East Dublin Specific Plan) indicates that Central Parkway is
to be extended only mid-way into the project area, terminating just east of the open space
corridor.
Figure 2-F of the SIER (Project Site and Dublin Ranch) indicates that Central Parkway
would terminate at the western edge of the RRA land use designation area. However, this
diagram does not indicate how the proposed elementary school at the edge of the project
area would be accessed without the extension of Central Parkway, nor does it actually show
Central Parkway ending at a cul-de-sac or other type of road terminus.
· Figure 2-I (Eastern Dublin Circulation Network) indicates that Central Parkway would be
extended as a 4-lane road easterly of the project area into Doolan Canyon.
Figure 3.6-D and 3.6-F both show Central Parkway as terminating within the project area
(similar to Figure 2-F), but indicate that volumes of traffic on this roadway may be as high
as 107 vehicles traveling westbound during the peak hour, and as much as 9,200 average
daily trips on this short, 2-lane road segment under cumulative conditions.
This array of confusing information does not allow the City of Livermore to understand just
what is being proposed by way of a circulation system for this area.
1. If Central Parkway is not proposed for extension into Doolan Canyon, then why does the
traffic analysis project such high future volumes for this roadway?
2. If Central Parkway is to terminate within the project area, then how will access to the
school site be provided?
3. If the City of Dublin does propose to extend Central parkway beyond the project area and
into Doolan Canyon, then the SDEIR must address the potential environmental
17
consequences associated with that action. These consequences are not addressed in the
current SDEIR.
Aside from on-the-ground effects of such a roadway extension (i.e., grading of hillsides and
ridgelines, impacts to biological and hydrologic resources, loss of agricultural resources,
etc.), the cumulative and growth inducing effects of extending two roadways into this area
have not been discussed in this SDEIR.
Livermore requests that this SDEIR be revised and re-circulated to clarify the circulation
network proposed for this project, and to comprehensively and adequately analyze the potential
effects associated with that system. This current document accomplis'hes neither of these two
CEQA requirements.
Inadequate Traffic Modeling. Page 3.6-8 of the SDEIR indicates that two traffic
models have been used for this analysis, the TVTC model and the City of Dublin model. To
ensure consistency with regional planning efforts, this EIR should also include a presentation of
the results of the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority (CMA) model. All
cities within the CMA jurisdiction are required to demonstrate the impacts of projects using this
model.
Inaccurate Description of "Funded" Street Network. Page 3.6-10 and -11 indicate a
long list of roadway improvements that are assumed to be complete as part of the traffic
modeling mn analyses. However, it is unclear from this document the extent of actual funding
available for these improvements.
1. Are all of these improvements to be fully funded through the City TIF fee program?
2. When does the City of Dublin anticipate that the fees needed to implement these
improvements will actually be in hand, and when will construction be completed?
If these roadway improvements are needed to accommodate the project, then the funds must be
available now and the improvements implemented prior to project construction. Otherwise, the
SDEIR analysis should be revised and re-circulated to demonstrate the projects' traffic impacts
on the existing and fully funded roadway system. Any improvements shown as needed to
accommodate the project beyond this "funded" system should then be required as mitigation
for the project. Only then would this SDEIR present a true and accurate indication of the likely
traffic implications associated with this project, and the traffic conditions that are anticipated to
occur if approved.
Inaccurate Description of Cumulative Effects. The DSEIR speculates (on page 3.6-12)
that regional traffic traveling through the City of Dublin's intersections is the cause of
unacceptable levels of service along Dublin Boulevard. However, this document presents no
evidence to support that assertion. It seems equally likely that the amount of cumulative
development that is currently being proposed and considered by the City of Dublin throughout
this area (e.g. this project, the Transit Center project, the Cisco project, other commercial and
office development) will contribute to, and result in traffic congestion problems at these
locations, even without an increase in regional through traffic. The DSEIR should be able to
18
demonstrate, based on select link analysis, the origin and destination of all traffic on the
network and thereby determine if development in Dublin alone will cause this unacceptable
traffic condition.
Inaccurate Cumulative Scenario Modeling. The DSEIR (page 3.6-15) suggests that
development of the project would improve traffic congestion at the Dougherty RoadTDublin
Boulevard intersection, even though no improvements at this intersection are proposed as part
of the project. Similarly, traffic volumes on 1-580 are shown to be less under the Cumulative +
Project condition than under the Cumulative-only condition. Is this DSEIR suggesting that
traffic congestion would be worse if the City does not build out this project? If so, then the
analysis must provide some sort of supporting evidence to this conclUSion.
It is Livermore's understanding that the TVTC traffic model ~vill arbitrarily "assign" new
housing opportunities throughout the modeled network in order to achieve a match between job
and housing. If such arbitrary "assigranents" have been made as part of this analysis, the
DSEIR should indicate where these assignments have been made, and discuss the potential
feasibility of such new housing opportunities as part of the cumulative scenario. Livermore
believes that Dublin will find that such assignments are not reasonable or feasible, and that this
analysis is misleading. The cumulative scenarios should be re-mn with the traffic model
accurately estimating the location of needed housing opportunities based on available capacity
in neighboring jurisdiction, and this information presented in a re-circulated document.
This modeling approach used in the DSEIR also serves to obscure the real impacts of the
proposed project on the 1-580 corridor. The DSEIR should analyze how much of the
unacceptably high traffic volumes on 1-580 would be attributable to the project. To service its
function as a full disclosure document, this information must be made available.
Inadequate Mitigation Measures. Intersections on Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda and
Dougherty Valley are shown to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Similarly, 1-580 is
shown to continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. The project would contribute
significant amounts of traffic to these roadways and intersection, exacerbating this condition.
However, no real mitigation measures are proposed for these impacts. Improvements on
Dublin Boulevard are described as infeasible (page 3.6-16 and -17), and improvements to 1-
580 have been identified as the responsibility of another jurisdiction (page 3.6-22). The DSEIR
makes no effort at addressing these cumulative impacts from the perspective of reducing traffic
generation from the project. Nor does it suggest any responsibility for addressing the regional
traffic impacts on a project-specific basis.
There is mention that the City of Dublin may consider transportation demand reduction
measures (TDM) at a "Stage 2 Development Plan"(page 3.6-160. However, the actual impacts
are known at this time. Why wait for some further analysis when the problems are already
known? Measures such as ride-sharing, transit passes, van pools, staggered work hours, and
improved transit infrastructure should be required of the project as part of this DSEIR in order
to mitigate, or at least reduce, its contribution to this cumulative impact.
19
Ct
Additionally, the DSEIR identifies actions to encourage alternative travel modes as
"advocating" needed transit improvements. Advocacy is not a mitigation measure, whereas a
financial commitment to regional solutions is. Such regional solutions include:
· increased financial contributions toward the construction of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes on 1-580, and/or
· providing increased funding for improved transit opportunities.
The EIR should analyze the appropriate level of contribution by the project for the
implementation of these measures. The need for mitigation of increased regional traffic
congestion on a project-by-project basis is evidenced by the list of cumulative development
already approved in the City of Dublin, shown in the Draft EIR for the Dublin Transit Center.
According to this list, the City of Dublin has already approved more than 4 million square feet
of additional commercial/office space and 4,800 new residences. This amount of cumulative
development will have substantial adverse effects on traffic congestion levels on 1-580. Simply
passing the responsibility for transportation improvements needed to accommodate this
cumulative development onto Caltrans or other regional agencies does not address the
responsibility that this cumulative development has toward assisting in regionally-based
solutions.
The City of Livermore has recently adopted a regional component to its.local traffic impact fee
program. The purpose of this regional component is to provide additional sources of funding
that can be used to assist in financing regional transportation and transit improvements needed
to accommodate increased cumulative development. Livermore strongly urges its other local
jurisdictional neighbors within the Tri-Valley to similarly address their responsibility for
funding these needed regional improvements.
Biological Resources
Key Biological Data are Missing from the DSEIR. The SEIR acknowledges in several
places that key biological data are not provided because of on-going survey work that was not
complete at the time the DSEIR was released. These data must be provided to the public to
allow adequate review under CEQA of the potential for the Project to affect biological
resources. The following key data are missing from the DSEIR and must be provided to allow
proper assessment of Project impacts:
Sensitive Habitats. The extent of three sensitive habitats, seasonal wetlands, freshwater
marsh, and alkali grassland, was not quantified in the DSEIR, presumably because field
surveys were not done or were not complete in time for the publication of the DSEIR (page
3.3-2 and 3.3-3). This information is essential to be able to evaluate the impact of the
Project on these sensitive habitats.
Jurisdictional Wetlands. The DSEIR does not include any quantification or estimates of the
extent of waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the Project area. Based on the
presence of ponds, seasonal wetlands, and intermittent streams, it is likely that these
sensitive jurisdictional areas occur on site. On page 3.3-12 the DSEIR acknowledges that a
20
wetland delineation was conducted on the Jordan Ranch property and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on November 16, 2000. However, the results of this delineation
were not included in the DSEIR. The SIER also states that a "Request for Jurisdictional
Determination" was submitted last year, but the preliminary results of that delineation were
also not included. The results of wetland delineations throughout the Project area should be
included in the DSEIR so that potential impacts to these features can be properly evaluated.
Special-status Plants. The DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-4 that the Prgject area
supports potential habitat for 12 special-status plants, including two specie~i the San
Joaquin spearscale and the Livermore Valley tarweed, not considered in the original EIR.
Botanical surveys being conducted by Sycamore Associates must be completed in order for
the public to properly evaluate the potential impacts on these species.
Federally-listed Invertebrates. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 also acknowledges that studies to
determine the status of federally listed invertebrates on the Project site are also on going. It
is unknown whether the site supports species such as the vernal pool fairy shrimp,
Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.
California Red-legged Frog. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 states that site assessments for
California red-legged frog (CRLF) have been completed on the Fallon Enterprises and
Braddock and Logan Group properties, yet the results of these assessments were not
included in the DSEIR. A site assessment is also being conducted on the First American
Title Company property. However, it is unclear if site assessments are being conducted on
the remaining properties (e.g., Croak, Chen, Branaugh, Righetti Partners, Anderson). The
results of surveys in the entire Project Area are essential to evaluating the potential effects
of the project on the CRLF. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 concludes that the entire Project
area provides suitable breeding and dispersal habitat for CRLF. While we concur with the
assessment that the entire Project area provides suitable upland aestivation and dispersal
habitat, the entire Project area clearly does not support suitable breeding habitat. CRLF
only breed in unique aquatic habitats, which do not occur on the entire site. This erroneous
conclusion indicates that site assessments are necessary to properly assess impacts to
California Tiger Salamander. The California tiger salamander is assumed to be present
throughout the Project area (DSEIR page 3.3-7). We concur with this assessment given the
extent of potentially suitable habitat and the known occurrence of this species on the
Anderson property. However, it appears that protocol-level surveys are being conducted by
Jermings and Flohr. The DSEIR should include the results of these surveys so that the
potential impacts to this special-status species can be fully understood and evaluated.
TricoloredBlackbird. On page 3.3-9 the DSEIR states that a tricolored blackbird colony
was discovered in the southern portion of the Project area in 1999 but that "the project area
may provide suitable breeding habitat for this species." These two statements are
inconsistent. The presence ora breeding colony on the site means suitable habitat exists on
the site. The condition and status of the 1999 breeding colony and their habitat are not
described in the DSEIR, so one must assume that the colony still exists. The location of
this and other nearby colonies of tricolored blackbird is not shown on the sensitive species
21
¢3
map (figure 3.3-B). All relevant locations oftricolored blackbird colonies must be shown
on the site and in the project vicinity so that the impacts of the project can be evaluated and
adequately mitigated. The nesting site the colony size, and their foraging habitat (e.g.,
irrigated pasture, unused fields, non-native grassland, vernal pools) 5) should be described
and shown on maps to be able to evaluate the potential impacts to this species from the
proposed Project.
Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects of Direct and Indirect Habitat
Loss. In the methodology section for the impact analysis, the DSEIR claims on page 3.3-12 to
rely on "ongoing surveys for biological resources within the Project area." An analysis carmot
rely on information not yet collected to determine the level of impact 3f a project. All of the
information on which the impact analysis is based must be included in the DSEIR or be
properly referenced. Reports in preparation are not acceptable sources because they are not
available to the public to review and verify.
The DSEIR on page 3.3-12 adds supplemental impact BIO 1 to address direct and indirect
habitat loss not contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR acknowledges that some
impacts would occur to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams, habitats not previously
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. However, the DSEIR does not quantify these effects
(presumably because the surveys were not done) and instead claims that "a small portion of the
newly-identified seasonal wetlands would be accommodated in open space." One must
therefore infer that the majority of the seasonal wetland would be filled by proposed
development. The quality of the seasonal wetlands filled or remaining are not discussed, nor is
their location. Similarly, the DSEIR does not quantify the effects on intermittent streams.
Contrary to the title of the impact, there is no discussion of the potential indirect effects of the
project on seasonal wetlands or intermittent streams. For example, the DSEIR also does not
evaluate whether the functions and values of the remaining seasonal wetlands could be
preserved once development surrounds them. Furthermore, there is no discussion of the
potential indirect effects on intermittent streams once development is built within the stream's
watershed (e.g., runoff effects on aquatic communities, stream flow patterns).
The impact analysis for direct and indirect habitat loss provides no useful data or conclusions
on which to judge whether the impact is significant or not. The conclusion on page 3.3-13 that
the impact is "potentially significant" is thus unwarranted. Without more data, the DSEIR must
conclude that the impact to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams is significant.
Mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 describes a "comprehensive" Resource Management Plan
(RMP) that will be prepared to provide additional mitigation for impacts for direct and indirect
loss of habitats. This measure defers important mitigation until preparation of the RMP.
Because the RMP is deferred, the adequacy and feasibility of the proposed mitigation are not
~ Beedy, Ted, Ph.D. Biologist and tricolored blackbird expert. Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA; Hamilton, William, Ph.D..
Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, U.C. Davis, Davis, CA.
22
stated in the DSEIR and cannot be evaluated. The CEQA Guidelines state that "Formulation of
mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time."~6
Furthermore, one of the key advantages of a Specific Plan is the ability to plan for
development, open space preservation, and mitigation in a more comprehensive fashion than
with individual development projects. Because the DSEIR defers the RMP until later, the
existing Specific Plan includes no comprehensive planning for biological resources. Moreover,
as indicated above, Dublin has not prepared a Specific Plan for the remainder of the project
area, thereby deferring planning for biological resources for this area as well. Resources are
only generally described and shown on maps but are not quantified in the DDSEIR. The
proposed project is not specific at all when it comes to mitigating biological resources. At a
minimum, the following aspects of the RMP should be provided in the DSEIR so that its
adequacy and feasibility can be properly evaluated:
· program goals and objectives
· measures for maintaining on-site mitigation in perpetuity
· Identification of any proposed off-site mitigation and measures for maintaining offsite
mitigation in perpetuity
· mitigation ratios for preservation and creation
· preconstruction and construction avoidance and minimization measures
· onsite avoidance and minimization measures
Without these details of the RMP, the adequacy of mitigation for supplemental impact BIO-1
cannot be evaluated. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines,"...[mitigation] measures may specific
performance standards which would mitigate the significant effects of the project and which
may be accomplished in more than one specified way.''~7 Because mitigation measure SM-
BIO-1 is inadequate, we disagree with the DSEIR that this impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Special-Status Plants.
The DSEIR on page 3.3-15 acknowledges that the Project area supports suitable habitat for at
least five special-status plants, including the federally endangered palmate-bracted bird's-beak
and the newly discovered Livermore Valley tarweed. However, the DSEIR provides no data on
the results of ongoing surveys for these species. Therefore, for some species it is impossible to
evaluate the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. As described above, one of the key
advantages of a Specific Plan is the ability to plan for development, open space preservation,
and mitigation in a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects.
Because the DSEIR defers surveys and presenting survey results until later, presumably during
submissions of development applications, the proposed Specific Plan is no different than
individual development projects.
CEQA Guidelines 15126.4 (a)(1)(B)
15126.4 (a)(1)(B)
23
If a population ofpalmate-bracted bird's-beak was found in the Project area, it would be highly
significant because it would represent the western-most population known to exist (the nearest
population is in the Springtown alkali sink east of the Project area), and only one of seven
populations in the world. A new population of Livermore Valley tarweed on the site would
also be highly significant because it would be only the third population known to exist in the
world. This species is likely to be listed by the state or federal government in the near future as
threatened or endangered.
Mitigation proposed for a population of either palmate-bracted bird's-beak of Livermore Valley
tarweed consists of avoidance, if feasible (SM-BIO-3), or mitigation off-site, including
transplanting (SM-BIO-4). These measures are inadequate because of the extreme rarity of
these two species. If populations of either species are found on the site, they must be preserved
and maintained through long-term management and adequate buffer zones from development
to prevent indirect impacts. Seeding experiments conducted for palmate-bracted bird's-beak by
researchers at Stanford University largely failed to establish new populations i8). Transplanting
mature plants of either species has not been attempted. Transplanting rare plants is not a
feasible mitigation measure because of its high rate of failure.~9
Because of the lack of data on the occurrence of special-status plants on the site and the
inadequacy of proposed mitigation measures, impacts to special-status plant species are not
reduced to a less than significant level and therefore remain significant.
Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Botanically Sensitive
Habitats. The analysis of Project impacts to botanically sensitive habitats in inadequate
because of the lack of appropriate data on the location and extent of these habitats in the Project
area. The impact analysis also ignores potential indirect impacts to these sensitive habitats
through adverse hydrologic impacts (e.g., degredation of water quality, increase in nuisance
runoff from development), disturbance from people in nearby development, and changes in
topography that might affect patterns of surface water flow. Therefore, the DSEIR does not
adequately evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on seasonal wetlands and intermittent
streams.
Mitigation proposed to offset impacts to these habitats is also inadequate to address the
potential impacts. As discussed for special-status plants, one of the key advantages ora
Specific Plan is the ability to plan for development, open space preservation, and mitigation in
a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects. The DSEIR defers
all surveys of seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams until specific development projects
are proposed. Without data on the extent and condition of these resources on the site, or the
magnitude of the impact to these resources, one cannot evaluate the adequacy of proposed
mitigation measures.
18 Center for Conservation Biology (Stanford University). 1994. Conservation of the palmate-bracted bird's-beak,
Cordylanthuspalmatus. Prepared for the Endangered Plant Program, California Department offish and Game. Stanford, CA.
~9 Howald, A. 1996. Translocation as a Mitigation Strategy: Lessons from California. Pp. 293-329 in: Falk, D. A., C. I.
Millar, and M. Olwell, editors. Restoring Diversity: Strategies for Reintroduction of Endangered Plants. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
- 24
Supplemental mitigation measure SM-BIO-6 proposes to mitigate any loss of seasonal wetland
or intermittent streams using a mitigation ratio of 2:1 through creation, restoration, or
enhancement of wetlands or other waters. The DSEIR does not demonstrate that this
mitigation measure is feasible. It is not clear, for example, if enough mitigation acreage is
available onsite or if there are suitable sites nearby that will provide enough suitable mitigation
habitat to replace the lost functions and values of the seasonal wetlands and intermittent
streams (SM-BIO-7).
Because of a lack of appropriate data on existing conditions, an inadequate impact analysis, and
inadequate mitigation measures, impacts to botanically sensitive habi!at remain potentially
significant.
Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to San doaquin Kit Fox. The
DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-6 that the Project area provides suitable habitat for the San
Joaquin kit fox. We concur with this assessment. The DSEIR also states that there are no new
impacts and no increased impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat beyond those identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR fails adequately evaluate the impact of the project on
kit fox in light of recent mitigation policies of regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). In a recent letter to the City of Livermore and Alameda County,
the USFWS recommended mitigation ratios of 3:1 for the loss of unoccupied kit fox habitat
adjacent to the proposed Project2°. However, the DSEIR (and the Eastern Dublin EIR) fails to
provide any clear mitigation for the loss of approximately 550 acres of suitable kit fox habitat2(
Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-11 proposes preservation of mitigation lands at a 1:I ratio or
other suitable ratio determined by the USFWS. However, it is unclear if this mitigation
measure is intended to apply only to occupied habitat or to all potentially suitable but currently
unoccupied habitat. This mitigation measure must be clarified so that it applies to potentially
suitable habitat. Until this mitigation measure is clarified, it is inadequate and this impact
remains significant.
Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to California Red-legged
Frog. The DSEIR states on page 3.3-18 that "Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR,
CRLF have been observed at several locations within the Project area, however the extent of
their distribution within the Project area has not been determined specifically." The impact
analysis is inadequate without including the new data of CRLF locations observed since
publication of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR correctly concludes that the proposed
project "could have a broader impact on CRLF habitat and individual frogs than previously
analyzed." And the DSEIR correctly concludes that this is a potentially significant effect.
Mitigation SM-BIO-13 calls for CRLF habitat to be included in the Resource Management
Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource
Management Plan should be included as part of the project to demonstrate its feasibility and
adequacy.
2o August 1, 2000, letter to Chris Bazar, Senior planner, Alameda County Community Development Department on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the North Livermore Specific Plan Area.
2~ 1,120 acres (total Project area) - 535 acres of dry farming rotational cropland - 35 acres of developed areas = 550 acres.
-- 25
Mitigation BIO-SM-14 states that development of the Project area shall avoid all areas suitable
for CRLF to the extent feasible. These areas should be designated at this time so that the level
of impact and adequacy of the mitigation measure can be evaluated. This mitigation measure
also proposes the use of 600- to 1000-foot-wide open space corridors along streams that
provide CRLF habitat. The DSEIR acknowledges that all streams within the Project area
provide suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF (page 3.3-5). Figure 3.3-B also supports this
conclusion (according to the DSEIR, there are presumably even more locations of CRLF in the
Project area not shown in this figure). Therefore, according to BIO-SM-14, all streams within
the project area should have a buffer zone or open space corridor of 600 to 1,000 feet.
However, the DSEIR on Figures 2-F and 2-G shows r/parian open spaCe corridors of
approximately 100 feet. Thus the proposed project is inconsistent with mitigation measure
BIO-SM-14. In addition, the DSEIR noxvhere discusses why "a reasonable attempt" was not
made to include 600-foot to 1,000-foot-wide corridors in the Specific Plan, as required in
mitigation measure BIO-SM- 14.
Figure 2-G also indicates that a trail would be built within the 100-foot-wide corridor. This is
also inconsistent with mitigation measure BIO-SM-14 because a trail so close to riparian
habitat would be a significant adverse impact on the CRLF (and other species), exceeding the
"minor impact on the habitat" as allowed in mitigation measure BIO-SM-14.
The DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-5 that the entire Project area provides suitable dispersal
habitat for CRLF. Despite this, there is no discussion of the impacts of the project on CRLF
dispersal habitat or to dispersal corridors, and there is no proposed mitigation to offset this
important impact.
Because the impact discussion is inadequate and the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the
proposed mitigation measures, the impact to California red-legged frogs remains potentially
significant.
Inadequate Mitigation for Effects to California Tiger Salamander. In Supplemental
Impact BIO 7, the DSEIR acknowledges that California tiger salamander (CTS) were found in
the southern portion of the Project area and that the entire Project area provides either suitable
breeding habitat, aestivation habitat, dispersal habitat, or a combination of these habitats.
Mitigation SM-BIO-18 calls for CTS habitat to be included in the Resource Management Plan
outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource
Management Plan should be included as part of the current project to demonstrate its feasibility
and adequacy.
Mitigation SM-BIO-19 includes protection of CTS habitat, if avoidance is not feasible, at a
ratio of 1:1. However, there are no provisions in either mitigation measures SM-BIO-18 or
SM-BIO-19 for establishing mitigation sites that will maximize the protection of CTS by:
,, preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels
· linking preserved areas to existing areas of'open space and other high-quality CTS habitat
· excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas to minimize disturbance to CTS
- 26
With adoption of these provisions, implementation of mitigation measure SM-BIO-19 would
reduce impacts to CTS habitat that could not be avoided to a level below significance.
Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Tricolored Blackbird. The
impact analysis on page 3.3-25 does not state whether the known breeding colony of tricolored
blackbird would be preserved or destroyed as a result of development. There is also no
discussion o£the significance of the colony or any potential direct or indirect impacts to it from
the proposed Project. The Point Reyes Bird Observatory is conducting a statewide survey of
tricolored blackbirds. This colony should be put in the context of this regional work.
In general, tricolored blackbirds are very sensitive to construction-related disturbance near their
breeding colonies, especially if their nesting substrate is affected. It may not be sufficient to
just protect the nesting area because they require a large fbraging area near a colony. If their
foraging habitat is removed, the colony will likely be lost. They also require water on or near
their nesting colonies, and if this is diverted or removed they also will not breed?
Mitigation measures SM-BIO-38 and SM-BIO-42 appear to contradict each other. SM-BIO-38
calls for construction within nesting habitat for passerines during the non-breeding season,
while mitigation SM-BIO-42 calls for preservation of nesting habitat. This difference should
be addressed. In addition, the reference in SM-BIO-38 to "Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-42 to
SM-BIO-44, below" appears to be wrong because SM-BIO-43 and 44 deals with bats.
Mitigation SM-BIO-42 calls for habitat for nesting passerines, including tricolored blackbird,
to be included in the Resource Management Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As
discussed above, key components of the Resource Management Plan should be prepared at this
time so that its feasibility and adequacy can be evaluated.
Because of the inadequacy of the impact analysis and mitigation measures, the impact to
tricolored blackbirds remain potentially significant.
Failure to Acknowledge Regional Habitat Planning. Because of the project's large
acreage and lack of proposed open space (less than 7% oft_he project area), the project will
have significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources. These
cumulative impacts could be mitigated through Dublin's participation in regional habitat
planning efforts such as a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which could provide
comprehensive compliance with federal and state laws relating to biological resources. The
City of Livermore is strongly supportive of comprehensive, multi-species habitat planning, and
has initiated discussions with state and federal resources agencies concerning such an effort.
Participation by both cities in regional habitat planning would allow for coordination of
planning and mitigation efforts and compatibility of neighboring land uses. The DSEIR fails to
acknowledge this important regional planning effort and how the proposed Project may affect
this effort.
22 Beedy, pers. comm. 2001
- 27
Inadequate Analysis of and Mitigation for Cumulative Biological lmpacts. The DSEIR on
page 5-2 acknowledges three supplemental cumulative effects related to biological resources:
· BIO 1: Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss
· BIO 2: Loss of Rare Plant Species
· BIO 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats
The analysis of all three of these impacts is inadequate because there is no discussion of the
basis for the cumulative impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impact analyses identify
related projects through a "list" or "projection" approach and summarize the effects of the
related projects for all environmental topics, including biological resources.23 The DSEIR fails
to identify any projects that have been built or proposed since publication of the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR that would cumulatively affect biological resources. There have been numerous
such projects in the area since 1993 that have cumulatively affected biological resources,
including Dublin Ranch in Dublin and the Shea Business Park in Livermore.
The DSEIR claims that supplemental cumulative impacts BIO 1 and BIO 2 would be reduced
to a level below significance through mitigation already proposed in chapter 3. However, as
discussed above, these mitigation measures do not reduce the direct and indirect effects of the
Project below significance, so therefore carmot also reduce the cumulative biological impacts to
a level below significance. Thus, supplemental cumulative impacts BIO 1 and BIO 2 remain
significant without additional mitigation. Mitigation that could reduce these impacts to a level
below significance include participation in or contribution to regional habitat planning
activities.
Water Supply and Wastewater Issues
Inconsistent and Inadequate Water Supply Analysis. The DSEIR expressly relies on
DSRSD's Programmatic Water Service Analysis ("PWSA") for assurance that there are
adequate water supplies to meet the demands of eastern Dublin24. Review of the PWSA raised
considerable questions regarding the analysis contained therein. See correspondence dated July
30, 2001, from Saracino-Kirby-Snow to the City of Livermore (attached hereto as Attachment
#2, and incorporated herein by reference).
In addition to inconsistencies within the PWSA, there are also inconsistencies between this
DSEIR, the 1993 EIR, and the PWSA. For example, the DSEIR relies upon the PWSA's water
demand for the project of 5,620 annually. However, this demand differs from the demand
indicated for eastern Dublin in the 1993 EIR of 8,620 acre-feet annually? The DSEIR states
that "The proposed Project envisions the same type and density of proposed development
assumed in the eastern Dublin EIR. Thus, water use related to potential development of the
Project area is not expected to differ from the eastern Dublin EIR." If the demand in the 1993
EIR is correct, then the project would result in an relative increase in demand of 53% over
CEQA Guidelines 15130(b)
24 SEIR page 3.7-5
25 7.7MGD (from IM 3.5/Q) X 3.07(conversion factor to acre-feet per day) X 365 days = 8,620 ara (rounded down)
28
projections contained in the PWSA. Reliance on the PWSA would result in a deficit of 3,000
acre-feet annually.
The PWSA relies on Zone 7's ability to meet all of its demand as a surrogate for determining
whether DSRSD will be able to provide service to its customers. As stated in the DSEIR,
communications with Zone 7 (V. Wong) affirmed projected demand, and the continued
acquisition of additional supplies to meet that demand, as laid out in Zone 7's recent Water
Supply Planning Study Update. However, annual demand projections in the PWSA are
approximately 17,000 acre-feet lower than estimates provided in Zone 7 documents. As stated
in the DSEIR, "Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0 relies on Zone 7's planning to acquire additional
supplies." Reliance on the PWSA for determination of whether or not adequate supplies will
be available to meet projected demand is inconsistent with MM 3.5/28.0.
As stated in the DSEIR on page 3.7-5, "The level of analysis required by the Settlement
Agreement is significantly more detailed than is required under CEQA or any other state or
local law." This standard, or any standard of showing pursuant to CEQA, has not yet been met.
Because of the inconsistencies in the analysis produced pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
the determination in the PWSA "...that Zone 7 already has secured sufficient supplies to serve
the 5,620 AFA demand of all of eastern Dublin..." cannot be relied upon.
Inconsistent and Inadequate Sewer Analysis. With regards to wastewater treatment and
capacity, the main issue is whether there will be sufficient facilities and capacity to deal with
wastewater treatment and its subsequent disposal. According to the DSEIR, DSDRS through
coordination with the developers, is providing the infrastructure to provide for deal with the
collection and treatment of additional wastewater generated by the east Dublin project. What is
not apparent is how the wastewater will be disposed of. For instance, the DSEIR, on page 3.7-
1 indicates the significant impacts associated with a lack of adequate collection facilities will be
mitigated to an insignificant impact by implementing mitigation measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These
mitigation measures from the 1993 EIR require the developer and DSRSD to ensure adequate
facilities will be provided to serve the additional development prior to issuance of grading
permits. The DSEIR also states that, "Other mitigation measures supported DSRSD, TWA
and, subsequently, LAVWMA in efforts to expand treatment and disposal capacity (along with
recycled water projects)26. TM When comparing the disposal capacity of 14.4 to 16.25 MGD27
with the anticipated capacity at buildout from implementing mitigation measure 3.5/9.0, or 36.0
MGD, there is a shortfall of 19.75 to 21.6 MGD. Mitigation measures 3.5/11.0-14.0 in the
1993 EIR recognize the importance of developing recycled water as a means of wastewater
disposal to make up the difference between treatment and disposal capacity.
It was also envisioned that use of treated wastewater would require the construction of both
storage and transmission facilities.28 Figure 2-J, Major Infrastructure Plan29, only indicates
construction of transmission facilities and not storage facilities. Additionally, the
26 SEIR page 3.7-2
2* The expected disposal capacity in the LAVWMA pipeline that would be available to DSRSD once capacity improvements
have been completed, page 3.7-3
28 93EIR MM 3.5/12.0, "... construction of a recycled water distribution and storage system in eastern Dublin."
29 SEIR chapter 2, project description
29
?/
Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin, June 2001, (PWSA) does not
support the DSRSD demand for recycled water at this level. As described in the PWSA,
DSRSD anticipates a buildout (year 2020) annual demand at 3,910 acre-feet and an annual
supply at 11,026 acre-feet3°. The amount of wastewater associated with 19.75 to 21.6 MGD
that would need disposal if mitigation measure 3.5/9.0 were implemented would be
approximately 22,100 to 24,200 acre-feet annually.3~ Even ifDSRSD were able to realize its
projected annual demand of 3,910 acre-feet, approximately 18,000 to 20,000 acre-feet annually
of treated wastewater would still need disposal.
Even with the implementation of the LAVWMA expansion and repair project, there will be
insufficient capacity allocated to DSRSD for accommodation of peak' wet weather flows. The
DSEIR should quantify this shortfall and identify mitigation measures, including new storage
facilities or other feasible disposal methods, to accommodate these flows.
An additional issue is whether the use of treated wastewater would have an impact on the
ground water basin and those individuals that rely on the ground water basin. There are
specific mitigation measures (3.5/23.0) that require "coordination with any Zone 7 salt
mitigation requirements".32 This mitigation measure was drafted in 1993, and to date Zone 7
has been unable to implement its salt management plan. In the past 8 years the salt
management plan has gone unimplemented, making mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 ineffective.
DSRSD should develop mitigation measures to protect the water quality of the ground water
basin that DSRSD can implement. Due to the large quantity of potential wastewater
application within the valley, an analysis of the impacts on the ground water basin is warranted.
Alteration of Scenic Vistas~ Ridgelines and Viewsheds
Interstate 1-580 is designated as a scenic corridor by Alameda County and by the City of
Livermore. This corridor represents the primary entry into Livermore from the west, and its
scenic quality is of paramount concern and interest.
Inadequate Analysis of Visual Impacts. One of the DSEIR's inadequacies is that it does
not contain any analysis of the potential impacts of the project on scenic vistas, ridgelines and
viewsheds, particularly along this 1-580 corridor. The project's Initial Study recognizes that
development of the project will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in
eastern Dublin, and the East Dublin GPA EIR referenced in the Initial Study identifies this
impact as significant. The inadequate and incomplete Initial Study suggests that mitigation
measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 of the EDGPA EIR would apply to this project, and reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. However, MM 3.8/8.0 calls for the City of Dublin to
"adopt a set of scenic corridor policies,.., and establish review procedures and standards...
so that scenic vistas can be protected." MM 3.8/8.1 requires that "projects with potential
impacts on scenic resources be required to submit detailed visual analyses with development
project applications.., to be used to adjust the project design and minimize the visual impact."
There is no indication in the DEIR that the City of Dublin has adopted scenic corridor policies,
30 PWSA, page 2-10
31 MGD X 3.07(conversion factor to acre-feet per day) X 365 days = acre-feet annually
32 93EIR, page 12
30
?&
or established review procedures and standards to protect scenic vistas. Similarly, the DEIR
does not contain any detailed visual analysis by which to consider potentially necessary
changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant visual impacts. Without such policy basis
and consistency analysis, it is not possible for the environmental review of the proposed project
to conclude that this impact will be reduced to less than significant. In fact, based on the Stage
1 Development Plan shown as Figure 2-G in the DE1R, it would appear that the proposed
project would place substantial amounts of low density- and medium density-residential
development along the 1-580 hillsides, obscuhng ridgelines and hillside forms.
At a minimum, the DEIR should include visual simulations (per MM3.8/8.1) that indicate
whether grading activities proposed within the hillsides would occur fn such a manner as to
alter existing topography. These simulations should also indicate whether proposed new homes
would obscure views of ridgelines, and whether scenic corridors and vistas would be blocked
as a result of the proposed project. Only then can specific mitigation measures be developed to
adjust the project's design in a manner to reduce or avoid these significant impacts. Until such
analysis has been conducted and mitigation measures applied to the project as necessary, this
impact must be regarded as significant and unavoidable.
Livermore's comments on this issue are consistent with what is required of new development
projects along the 1-580 corridor within its community. It has been long-standing policy of the
City of Livermore to protect the scenic value of the ridgelines and hillsides along this corridor
through implementation of restrictive policies on new development. These policies call for the
protection of hillside and ridgeline views by establishing maximum building heights, setbacks,
view corridors and other mechanisms as a part of new development proposals. Analysis of
impacts to visual resources is conducted as part of the environmental review process, and
therefore, open to public comment and review.
Of even greater concern to the City of Livermore is the apparent lack of consideration given by
the City of Dublin to the permanent protection and preservation of the Doolan Canyon area as a
greenbelt and permanent separator between our two cities. For many years, the City of
Livermore has enacted policies and pursued planning programs intended to result in the
permanent protection of biological resources, agricultural lands and open space in this area. In
1993 the City of Dublin's planning efforts ran contrary to Livermore's interests, proposing that
this area be include within Dublin's Sphere of Influence and even considering development
proposals that would have enabled construction of thousands of homes in this area. With the
designation of this area by the City of Dublin in 1994 as a Future Study Area with an
underlying General Plan designation of Agriculture, Livermore had hoped that its concerns for
permanent protection of this area were acknowledged and accepted by Dublin. Livermore
anticipated that any future planning efforts by Dublin for this area would involve mechanisms
to ensure permanent protection for this canyon. The City of Livermore's concerns for this area
have been echoed by the open space designation under the Alameda County East County Area
Plan, and by provisions of Measure "D" which place this area outside of the County's Urban
Growth Boundary.
Despite this regional consensus, it now appears that Dublin intends to develop urban land uses
to the western edge of the Doolan Canyon area, and does not propose any programs or efforts
geared toward providing for the permanent protection of the Future Study Area. In fact, the site
plan contained in the SDEIR suggests that both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway
(northerly of Dublin Boulevard) will be extended into the future study area to the east. While
both cities plan for the extension of Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, the planned
extension of the Central Parkway is inconsistent with the designation of the property as
Agriculture/Future Study Area. At a minimum, the Central Parkway should be designed to
terminate in a manner consistent with an open space / agriculture designation of the Future
Study Area, and other land uses in the project area should incorporate a buffer from the open
space lands to the east. At best, we would hope that the City of Dublin would defer this
development proposal until such time as a multi-jurisdictional program can be put in place for
the protection of the Doolan Canyon area and other regionally import..ap, t habitat and
agricultural areas. With the preparation of such a program, the remaining lands suitable for
development can be successfully planned as efficient and sustainable communities.
Other Environmental Issues
The DSIER does not address a number of significant environmental issues, but instead
references the EIR prepared in 1992/93 for such analysis. Conditions have changes so
significantly since that time that the analyses contained in the 1993 FEIR are no longer
applicable or relevant. Therefore, the DSEIR contains an inadequate analysis of the following
issues, at a minimum:
f, ncreased Regional Emissions. Rapid urbanization within the Tri-Valley area, along
with increased regional traffic and changing commute patterns, have resulted in air quality
conditions that may result in the project contributing to air emissions that would exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. The SDEIR should have identified appropriate mitigation
strategies such as alternative modes of travel, increased transit opportunities, mixed-use land
use patterns and other strategies that would mitigate impacts on air quality.
Exacerbation of Downstream Flooding Conditions: Cumulative development within the
entire watershed over the past ten years has significantly increased peak flood flows at
downstream locations, particularly in the Arroyo de la Laguna at Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton.
The current DSEIR should have evaluated the project's contribution to projected future flood
flows, and identified appropriate fair-share contributions toward the cost of adequate regional
flood control facilities throughout the Zone 7 drainage service area.
Increased Salt Loading to the Main Basin: The DSEIR makes no reference to potential
impacts associated with an increased influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin as a result
of the project's urban irrigation. Salt accumulation resulting from such irrigation degrades the
groundwater quality, which is a component of the drinking water supply for the region. The
DSEIR should have assessed the project's potential contribution to salt loading of the Main
basin, and should identify appropriate and necessary mitigation measures such as a requirement
to participate on a fair share financial basis towards implementation of Zone 7's Salt
Management Program.
Jobs/HousingBalance: The demographic characteristics of the Tri-Valley region have
changed significantly over the past decade, substantially altering the regions' jobs/housing
balance. The DSEIR should have included an analysis of the projects' effects on the
32
cumulative regional and local jobs/housing balance. As part of this cumulative scenario, the
DSEIR should also have taken into account the City of Dublin's recent intention to re-designate
a portion of land within the East Dublin Planning area from residential use to commercial /
office use. This re-designation is intended to accommodate the proposed new Cisco Systems
office park, thereby further lowering the ratio of housing to jobs in the City.
Affordable Housing Availability: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in
housing prices throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional housing shortage
particularly for affordably priced housing opportunities. If a sufficient number of affordable
housing units cannot be provided within the local area, workers are forced to commute to jobs
from outside areas where affordable housing is more readily available2 Generally, high housing
costs can result in very long commutes for workers living in lower-cost areas. The more time
spent commuting, the greater the cumulative air quality and traffic impacts associated with
vehicles moving on the regional roadway network. The City of Dublin's 5% affordable
housing requirement (which includes moderate-income housing as well as low- and very low-
income housing) does not come close to matching the actual projected need for affordable
housing opportunities based on state and ABAG projections for the City or the region. The
City of Dublin's SDEIR should have addressed the impact that this project may have on
exacerbating this housing affordability gap.
Sub-Standard Levels of Service on Isabel Parkway/SR 84from 1-580 to 1-680. At the
time the 1993 EIR was prepared, there was no analysis of the project's potential impacts to
Isabel Parkway/SR 84. The current SDEIR should have assessed the project's contribution of
traffic to this new regional roadway. It should also identify appropriate mitigation measures
necessary to mitigate this traffic impact to levels of less than significant, including making fair-
share contributions toward the widening of Isabel Parkway to 6-lanes between I~580 and
Vineyard, and widening SR 84 to 4 lanes from Vineyard to 1-680.
Parks and Recreation. As noted in the 1993 EIR, the City of Dublin does not maintain
a 5-acres per 1,000 population ratio for developed parkland, and this situation has undoubtedly
changes with the addition of substantial new housing opportunities in Dublin since that time.
The DSEIR should have assessed the potential effects associated with Dublin residents seeking
to use the nearest LARPD facilities should they be unable to meet their recreational needs
locally. The City of Livermore supports the concerns raised by LARPD in their letter to you on
this same issue.
Cumulative Electrical Demands. During the past several years, existing electrical
service capacity in the region has become constrained, and cumulative development in the area
(including the project) will likely require significant electrical transmission improvements to
adequately serve the area. Electrical demand is expected to exceed capacity for the region's
customers during peak hours by mid-2002. The ability of PG&E to provide service to the area
may be further affected by PG&E's recent declaration of bankruptcy. The DSEIR should have
assessed the impacts to the region associated with the project's electrical service demands in
light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation
available. Energy conservation strategies should have been considered as a means of reducing
the project's demand for these services.
33
Cumulative Solid Waste Disposal. Thecapacityofregionalpermitted solidwaste
disposal facilities has changed significantly since 1993, with increased mounts of disposal
needs combined with reductions in permitted disposal capacity. The DSEIR should have
assessed the impacts to the region associated with the project's solid waste disposal demands in
light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation
available. Requirements for recycling and waste reduction should have been considered as a
means of reducing the project's demand for these services.
Alternatives
Comments on Mitigated Traffic Alternative. The City of Dublin's selection of a
Mitigated Traffic Alternative fails to recognize the potential of an alternative that would serve
the CEQA requirements of an alternative that seeks to reduce or avoid potential impacts. This
alternative would be similar in certain respects to the Mitigated Traffic Alternative in that it
would reduce the number of units and the commercial floor area by 25%, but would be
different in several other aspects:
A reduced development envelope could be achieved by simply retaining the same project
densities as proposed by the project, but reducing the total development by 25% overall.
This alternative would reduce the environmental impacts associated with grading, increased
runoffand other area-wide impacts by approximately 25%. By selectively locating
development away from those sites where significant and sensitive resources are located,
additional impacts could be further avoided.
Even greater environmental benefits could be achieved by reducing the development
potential of the project by 25% as suggested by this alternative, but increasing the
development densities (not decreasing densities as described in this alternative). By
clustering development into higher densities, even greater environmental impact avoidance
objectives could be achieved. Such an alternative could reduce, if not fully avoid impacts
to biological resources, geologic hazards, loss of topsoil and agricultural resources.
Lack of ldentification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative. Although the SDEIR
recognizes the CEQA requirement for identifying an environmentally superior alternative, it
does not follow through with this requirement. No environmentally superior alternative is
identified. The City of Livermore believes that a reduced development alternative that not only
reduces the total development potential, but that also reduces the overall extent of the
development envelop as described above would qualify as the environmentally superior
alternative, and should be fully described and discussed in this DSE1R.
Concluding Comments
The City of Livermore recommends that the East Dublin Properties EIR should not be prepared
until a Specific Plan for the remaining portion of the Eastern Extended Planning Area has been
developed. This recommendation is based on Livermore's understanding of changed
circumstances within and surrounding the project area, new information about the
34
BUILDING
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore. CA 94550-4899
Ph: (925} 573-5100
Fax: (925) 373-5135
TDD (925) 373-5052
373-5149
CITY MANAGER
Ph: 373-5140 · Fax: 373-5061
--Ph: 373-5120 o Fax: 373-5 I25
Ph: 373-5130 * Fax: 373-5135
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Ph: 373-5180 o Fax: 373-5183
C#TY ov LIVERMO3 E
June 26, 2001
Via FAX: (925) 833-6628
City of Dublin
Planning Department
Attn: Anne Kinney
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
Re: Notice of Preparation ora Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
the East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025)
Dear Ms. Kinney:
The City of Livermore appreciates the opportunity to provide its comments on the Notice
of Preparation ("NOP") ora Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR")
for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project. As an adjacent jurisdiction, the City of
Livermore is concerned about the potential regionally significant impacts of this proposed
project, and the potential cumulative impacts that affect us all in the Tri-Valley area. The
City of Livermore supports the City of Dublin's decision to require preparation of an E/R
for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project ("proposed project"). Livermore is
concerned; however, that the scope and content of the Supplemental E[R proposed by the
City of Dublin may be inapprophate for the reasons set forth in the following comments.
Of even greater concern to the City of Livermore is the apparent lack of consideration
given by the City of Dublin to the permanent protection and preservation of the Doolan
Canyon area as a greenbelt and permanent separator between our two cities. For many
years, the City of Livermore has enacted policies and pursued planning programs intended
to result in the permanent protection ofbiological resources, aghcultural lands and open
space in this area. In 1993 the City of Dublin's planning efforts ran contrary to our
interests, proposing that this area be include w/thin Dublin's Sphere of Influence and even
considering development proposals that ;vould have enabled construction of thousands of
homes in this area. With the designation of this area by the City of Dublin in 1994 as a
Future Study Area with an underlying General Plan designation of Agriculture, Livermore
had hoped that its concerns for permanent protection of this area were acknowledged and
accepted by Dublin. Livermore anticipated that any future planning efforts by Dublin for
this area would involve mechanisms to ensure permanent protection for this canyon. The
City's concerns for this area have been echoed by the open space designation under the
Alameda County East County Area Plan, and by provisions of Measure "D" which place
this area outside of the County's Urban Growth Boundary.
ATTACHMENT #1
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 2
Despite this regional consensus, it now appears that Dublin intends to develop urban land uses to
the western edge of the Doolan Canyon area, and does not propose any programs or efforts geared
toward providing for the permanent protection of the Future Study Area. In fact, the site plan
contained in the NOP suggests that both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (northerly of
Dublin Boulevard) will be extended into the future study area to the east. While both cities plan for
the extension of Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, the planned extension of the Central
Parkway is inconsistent with the designation of the property as Agriculture/Future Study Area. At
a minimum, the Central Parkway should be designed to terminate in a manner consistent with an
open space / agriculture designation of the Future Study Area. At best, we would hope that the City
of Dublin would defer this development proposal until such time as a multi-jurisdictional program
can be put in place for the protection of the Doolan Canyon area and other regionally important
habitat and agricultural areas. With the preparation o£such a program, the remaining lands suitable
for development can be successfnlly planned as efficient and sustainable communities.
The following sections describe in detail the reasons why the City of Dublin should prepare a new
Specific Plan and EIR to comply with CEQA in connection with the proposed project.
Substantial Changes in Existing Circumstances
Significant changes have occurred xvithin the local area and within the Tri-Valley region since the
Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) was certified by the
City of Dublin in 1993. A list of these changes (more fully discussed in later sections of this letter)
includes:
a substantial decrease in the supply of large parcels within Alameda County necessary to
accommodate grazing operations, and changes in state law regarding the annexation of
lands defined as prime agricultural soils;
· rapid urbanization, increased regional traffic and changed commute patterns that have
resulted in significant degradation in the air quality of our region;
new designations of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, the potential
occurrence of special-status species that were not considered in the 1993 EIR (e.g., the
California tiger salamander and Livermore Valley tarweed), new standards applied by state
and federal resource agencies that afford greater protection to riparian corridors, and the
overall cumulative effects of new development on biological resources;
· recent efforts by both Contra Costa County and Livermore to initiate regionally-based
habitat conservation plans that may affect the project area;
· cumulative development within the entire watershed which has led to significant increases in
peak flood flows;
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 3
· increased urbanization and irrigation which has led to an increased influx of salts into the
Main groundwater basin;
significant changes in the demographic characteristics of not only the Th-Valley region, but
also the entire Bay Area. These changes have altered the region's jobs/housing balance and
created a Bay Area commute-shed that stretches beyond the traditional 9-county Bay Area
as far eastward as Sacramento;
· dramatic increases in housing prices throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional
housing shortages particularly for affordably priced housing opportunities;
changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by new
development that has substantially exacerbated traffic congestion on the regional freeway
system;
· newly constructed and planned improvements to the transportation system (e.g. Isabel
Parkway, BART access, and other transit opportunities);
· changes in water supply contracts and recent litigation regarding the availability of water
supplies available to serve new development;
· changes in regional policy, funding mechanisms, and timing of wastewater infrastructure
improvements;
increasingly constrained natural gas and electrical service capacity in the region, combined
with increased demand and uncertainty over required electrical transmission improvements;
and
· increased amounts of solid waste disposal needs combined with reductions in regionally
available permitted disposal capacity.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 provides that, "a lead agency may choose to prepare a
supplement to a previous EIR if... only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make
the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed circumstances." Clearly, in light of
the substantial changes in circumstance listed above, more than "minor changes" will be necessary
to make the 1993 EIR applicable to the current project. Therefore, a new EIR must be prepared in
order to comply with CEQA.
The changed circumstances listed above are some of the very same reasons that the City of
Livermore and Alameda County chose to prepare a new, comprehensive EIR during preparation of
the Draft North Livermore Specific Plan in 1999-2000 instead ofrelying on the 1993 EI~R prepared
for the North Livermore General Plan Amendment. It is also why Livermore chose to initiate a
new, comprehensive EIR for the Vasco-Laughlin Specific Plan rather than relying on the 1985 Area
??
City o f Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 4
"A" General Plan Amendment EIR. Livermore recommends that the City of Dublin should also
recognize these changed circumstances and initiate a fully adequate and comprehensive
environmental review of the proposed project rather than relying on older, outdated and inadequate
baseline information that would render such an EIR inadequate.
Lack of a Complete Proiect Description
The City of Dublin's NOP and corresponding Initial Study include the following actions in the project
description:
· A Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin requesting pre-zoning of the
site in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
· Annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services
District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services;
· Execution of a Pre-annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project
proponents/property owners;
· Detachment from Livermore Area Recreation and Park District upon annexation of the
project area to the City of Dublin;
· Post-annexation probable cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the
properties within the project area; and
· Detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and
attachment to the Dublin Unified School District.
However, this Project Description does not address the following issues:
The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in size. The entire project site is within the Eastern
Extended Planning Area adopted by the Eastern Dublin General Elan Amendment ("EDGPA") in
1994, but only 472 acres are within the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. Although the Dublin
General Plan designates this extended planning area primarily for residential uses, Implementing
Policy 2.1.4(B) of the EDGPA requires that: "A Specific Plan(s) will be required for the remainder
of the extended planning area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." The
EDGPA goes on to state that, "Approval of residential development in the Eastern Extended
Plarming Area will require determination that.., the proposed project is consistent with all
applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies."
The project description included in the NOP does not include preparation of a Specific Plan for the
approximately 637 acres within the project site but outside the Specific Plan area, which is in direct
conflict with this General Plan policy. This is of particular concern to the City of Livermore.
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 5
According to the EDGPA, this Specific Plan is intended to ensure, among other issues, that
proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the timing of
development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining
lands. Both of these issues are of regional and cumulative concern.
Additionally, in the last decade there has been a growing recognition of the importance of"smart
growth" planning principles and what constitutes sustainable development. An adequate definition
of such "smart growth" includes intelligently planned communities that channel growth into
existing communities or areas with existing services, that provide for public transportation, are
walk-able and bike-able, include a mix of uses, and provide for permanent protection of
surrounding open space. Presumably, a Specific Plan for this area would provide an opportunity for
Dublin to consider and emphasize the importance of such "smart growth" strategies in the
development of this area.
Related to the issue of impacts to viable agriculture on adjoining lands, the EDGPA also indicates
that the lands immediately to the east of the project site are identified as a Future Study Area. This
designation indicates".., the City of Dublin's interest in the area and the need for additional
studies of environmental constraints, future land uses, infrastructure and other issues." The City of
Livermore shares this interest in the area and wishes to ensure that these lands will be permanently
preserved as an agricultural greenbelt / buffer between our two cities. In Livermore's view, any
project proposed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area adjacent to Dublin's "Future Study Area"
must address how this area can be maintained and preserved into the future, and include safeguards
that prevent potential future urban encroachment.
Finally, the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Site Plan (Exhibit 6 of the NOP) indicates that
approximately 126 acres immediately north of the Dublin Boulevard extension will be designated as
"Future Study Area" because they are located within the Airport Protection Area (APA) for the
Livermore Municipal Airport. However, the EDGPA designates these lands for low and medium
density residential use and indicates that, "If, at the time of pre-zoning, the residential designations
are inconsistent with the APA, the residential designations will convert to Future Study Area with
an underlying Rural Residential / Agriculture designation". The City of Livermore requests
clarification from Dublin that these properties are in fact to be designated as Rural Residential/
Agriculture, including the 10.4-acre piece indicated on Exhibit 6 as General Commercial.
Inadequate Mitigation
The EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) certified by the City of
Dublin in 1993 was a "Program" EIR, designed to assess the environmental impacts of the policies
contained in these planning documents. As stated on page I-2 of that Draft Program EIR, "Once
the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are approved, specific development proposals for
the project site may require a Project EIR to assess project-specific issues." Given the
programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR, many of the mitigation measures contained in that document
do not provide the specificity required in a project-level EIR. Similarly, many of the mitigation
measures contained in the 1993 document rely on subsequent studies to ensure adequate mitigation
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 6
of impacts not fully disclosed at a project-level analysis. Examples of such mitigation measures
contained in the 1993 EIR include:
MM3.8/7.1:
The City will conduct a visual survey for the project site to identify and map
viewsheds of scenic vistas.
MM3.8/8.1:
The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors
submit detailed visual analyses with development project applications. Applicants
will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawings from
affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views
of the parcel from the scenic route. The graphic depiction of the location and
massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the
project design to minimize visual impacts.
MM3.7/13:
The City should require dedications of&nd and improvements along both sides of
stream corridors as a condition of development project approval· The width of
dedicated corridors will be established in consultation with the regulatory
agencies since these may vary with specific sites·
MM 3.7/4. O:
Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon
after approval of the GPA and Specific Plan. Management plans shall favor
protection of wetland and riparian areas, increased plant diversity, and the
recovery of native plants, in particular perennial grasses.
MM 3.] l/4.0:
Require preparation o fa construction impact reduction plan that incorporates all
proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for
plan implementation and supervision.
MM3.6/9.0:
While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development,
their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt
improvements to the natural landform& thus minimizing cuts and fills.
Construction of traditional flat building pads in hillside areas requires more
grading than construction of partial pads, or developing custom lots. Construction
of roads or ridges also minimizes grading in hillside areas. Use of retaining
structures and steeper cut and fill slopes, where appropriate and properly
designed, also minimizes grading in hillside areas.
MM3.6/IO:
· . . Specific project lot and infrastructure alignmentplanning should be based on
the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas by the project
geotechnical consultant. In some hillside areas, clustering structures may be the
best approach to minimize grading and avid adverse conditions·
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 7
These examples illustrate the programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR and demonstrate that mitigation
measures contained in that document frequently rely on subsequent studies, pending coordination
with other agencies, follow-up analyses and more detailed investigations. Reliance on such
mitigation measures for this currently proposed Subsequent Project EIR will not provide the level of
detail and specific performance-based mitigation needed to assure that impacts can be reduced to
less than significant levels.
Cumulative Impacts and Assessment of Impacts due to Changed Circumstances in the Region
The City must address the cumulative impact of the proposed project given the past, present, and
probable future development in the region. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1).) The cumulative
analysis must include all other planned, pending and foreseeable projects in the region, including
the currently pending land use applications for the Cisco Systems office complex. The EIR for the
proposed project must analyze cumulative impacts of the proposed project on all environmental
factors, including: aesthetics, biological resources, hazards, public services, utility service, cultural
resources, hydrology, water, noise, recreation, air quality, geology, land use, population/housing,
and transportation/circulation. The cumulative impact analysis for each environmental resource
should consider the following issues at a minimum:
Alteration of Scenic Vistas, Ridgelines and Viewsheds: The NOP suggests that potential visual
impacts associated with this project will be mitigated through implementation of mitigation
measures contained in the 1993 East Dublin EIR. However, a review of these mitigation measures
indicates that, for the most part, these measures call for subsequent studies, the establishment of
review procedures, and "other appropriate measures to minimize visual impacts". The EIR for this
project should provide the detailed analytical evaluation necessary to identify specific impacts to
visual resources that might be associated with implementation of this project. This evaluation
should be based on photo-simulations, montages, or other techniques that can demonstrate how
development impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level.
Loss of Agricultural Uses: On a cumulative basis there has been a substantial change (decrease) in
the supply of large pamels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing operations.
As this land supply diminishes, operation and transportation costs of grazing have increased,
directly affecting the viability of grazing operations in the County as a whole. The removal of large
parcels of agricultural land within the project area from the overall County land supply of active
grazing land should be considered a significant cumulative impact, and adequately addressed in the
ErR. Mitigation measures such as funding assistance for continued grazing and other agricultural
operations in the vicinity, and the permanent protection of adjacent open space and grazing lands
within the adjacent "Future Study Area" should be considered.
Williamson Act Cancellation: The NOP anticipates that the City will consider requests for the
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts on up to four parcels within the project area. Since the
preparation of the i993 ErR a statute has been enacted allowing the rescission in lieu of cancellation
of a ~gilliamson Act contract upon the placement of a permanent conservation easement over lands
of comparable size and value. Government Code Section 51256. The EIR for this project should
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 8
evaluate the use of this program in order to mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative impacts
to agricultural lands.
Increased Regional Emissions: The NOP recognizes that rapid urbanization within the Tri-Valley
area, along with increased regional traffic and changing commute patterns, have resulted in air
quality conditions that may result in the project contributing to air emissions that would exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. The ErR should identify appropriate mitigation strategies such
as alternative modes of travel, increased transit opportunities, mixed-use land use patterns and other
strategies that would mitigate impacts on air quality.
Impacts to Listed and Special Status Species: The NOP acknowledges that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog since publication
of the 1993 EIR. However, the NOP does not acknowledge that the red-legged frog was listed as
threatened in 1996, which is a significant changed circumstance. The EIR should assess the effect
of the species' listing and designation of critical habitat on the project and its adopted mitigation
measures. The EIR should also consider the extensive surveys for federally- and state-listed species
and species with special status that have been performed since 1993. A thorough investigation of
biological resources of the project area is warranted as other special-status species may occur in the
project area that were not considered in the original EIR. One example is the California tiger
salamander, which may be listed in the next year. Another is the Livermore Valley tarweed, an
extremely rare plant discovered in Livermore in 1999.
Riparian Corridors: Standards applied by state and federal resource agencies since 1993 afford
greater protection to riparian corridors than currently required for stream corridors in the project
area. The project area includes high-quality riparian corridors, particularly near Fallon Road. The
proposed width of open space (40-50 feet) is inadequate to maintain this significant regional
resource. Recent requirements by the US Fish and Wildlife Service have called for setbacks of 300
feet from the top of bank where riparian corridors contain special status species. There is also
substantial restoration potential of other stream corridors that have been overgrazed and degraded.
Riparian habitat restoration should be considered as mitigation for the loss of connectivity with
adjacent upland habitat and as an aesthetic amenity to nearby development
Habitat Conservation Planning: Because of the project's large acreage and lack of proposed open
space (less than 7% of the project area), the project will have significant and unavoidable
cumulative impacts on biological resources. These cumulative impacts could be mitigated through
Dublin's participation in a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which could provide comprehensive
compliance with federal and state laws relating to biological resources. Livermore is close to
initiating a comprehensive, multi-species HCP, with a survey area including lands immediately east
of Dublin's project area. Participation by both cities in an HCP process would allow for
coordination ofplarming and mitigation efforts and compatibility of neighboring land uses.
Conflicts with Airport Uses: The NOP recognizes that the Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission created the Airport Protection Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport in 1993, after
the East Dublin EIR was certified. The Airport Protection Area affects land uses within the
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 9
southern portion of he project area. Although the NOP states that these affected properties are
currently designated as "Future Study Areas", it is unclear what land uses may be proposed on these
properties or how the "Future Study Area" designation will affect such uses. Additionally, the
Airport Protection Area is based on a 1986 Airport Master Plan. Currently the City of Livermore is
working toward preparation of a new, updated Airport Master Plan for the Livermore Municipal
Airport, and this new Airport Master Plan should be considered when proposing new land use in the
vicinity.
Exacerbation of Downstream Flooding Conditions: Cumulative development within the entire
~vatershed over the past ten years has significantly increased peak flood flows at downstream
locations, particularly in the Arroyo de la Laguna at Bemal Avenue in Pleasanton. The current EIR
should evaluate the project's contribution to projected future flood flows, and identify appropriate
fair-share contributions toward the cost of adequate regional flood control facilities throughout the
Zone 7 drainage service area.
Increased Salt Loading to the Main Basin: Neither the 1993 EIR nor the NOP makes any reference
to potential impacts associated ~vith an increased influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin as
a result of the project's urban irrigation. Salt accumulation resulting from such irrigation degrades
the groundwater quality, which is a component of the drinking water supply for the region. The
ErR should assess the project's potential contribution to salt loading of the Main basin, and should
identify appropriate and necessary mitigation measures such as a requirement to participate on a fair
share financial basis towards implementation of Zone 7's Salt Management Program.
General Plan Consistency: The ErR must assess whether the proposed project will conflict with any
applicable land use plan or policy, including applicable general plans, community plans, and zoning
ordinances. Since the EDGPA requires preparation ora Specific Plan prior to any development for
portions of the project area outside the current Specific Plan and the project description does not
contain a Specific Plan, the project is not consistent with existing general plan policies. This
inconsistency must be addressed in the EIR. Additionally, the ErR should address the potential land
use incompatibility and growth-inducing effects associated with the proposed extension of Central
Parkway through the Future Study Area / open space / agriculture area.
Community Separation: The exhibits in the NOP indicate an area of approximately 2,750 acres
between the East Dublin Project Area and the City of Livermore as a "Future Study Area".
Livermore's General Plan anticipates that this area will remain as permanently protected open space
providing a separation between the cities of Dublin and Livermore. This area is also identified for
open space uses in the East County Area Plan. The ErR should analyze differences between the
applicable plans for this area and identify means to reconcile them. In particular, the E1R should
explore opportunities for this project to generate funding that can be used to assist in the securing of
these lands as permanent open space. Livermore requests the opportunity to discuss with Dublin
staffoptions for shared open space protection strategies for this area as part of the scoping efforts
for this ErR.
o'S
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 10
Measure D/East Count,/Area Plan Policies: The NOP states that the Measure D's placement ora
portion of the project area outside of the County's Urban Growth Boundary does not directly restrict
development within the cities. However, the EIR must recognize and discuss the inconsistencies
between the proposed project and the County's adopted general plan for the same area as required
by CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d).
Policies of the Alameda County East County Area Plan (ECAP) that are applicable to the proposed
project include:
Policy 26:
The County shall work with the City of Dublin to exclude development from steep
hillsides (shown as Rural Residential in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) and from
Doolan Canyon and establish programs to acquire these areas as part ora
contiguous open space system.
Policy 6]:
The County shah encourage the Alameda County Open Space Land Trust (see
program 23) to acquire fee title or easements on strategic parcels that would
permanently secure the Urban Growth Boundary and complete the continuous open
space system surrounding Eastern Dublin, North Livermore, South Livermore, and
the existing cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore.
Policy 72:
The County shah encourage the City of Dublin to:
1. Re-designate in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area all Rural
Residential (RR) and designated by Dublin easterly of Fallon Road, as well as
Doolan Canyon, as "Resource Management, "consistent with the East County
Area Plan. Allowable uses may include agriculture, grazing, recreational, and
open space uses. This shall not apply the lands with urban designation as
adopted in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
2. Work with the Alameda County Open Space Land Trust to acquire parcels
designated by Dublin as "Rural Residential" in Eastern Dublin, through
purchase offee title or easements with open space fees, by means of dedication
and/or through density transfer or other funding mechanisms.
3. Require that [and use activities conducted within this area adhere to
management guidelines developed for the protection of biological resources.
Program 23:
The County shall work with cities to establish a non-profit Alameda County Open
Space Land Trust to acquire land within the East County open space system to other
public agencies and, where appropriate, convey title or easements to other public
agencies. The Land Trust can use developer dedication, fee purchase, open space or
access easements, and other mechanisms to acquire and permanently preserve an
continuous open space system outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Emphases in
original)
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 11
Jobs/Housing Balance: The demographic characteristics of the Tri-Valley region have changed
significantly over the past decade, substantially altering the regions' jobs/housing balance. The EIR
should include an analysis of the projects' effects on the cumulative regional and local jobs~housing
balance. As part of this cumulative scenario, the EIR should also take into account the City of
Dublin's recent intention to re-designate a portion of land within the East Dublin Planning area
from residential use to commercial / office use. This re-designation is intended to accommodate the
proposed new Cisco Systems office park, thereby further lowering the ratio of housing to jobs in the
City.
Affordable Housin~ Availability: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in housing prices
throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional housing shortage particularly for affordably
priced housing opportunities. If a sufficient number of affordable housing units cannot be provided
within the local area, workers are forced to commute to jobs from outside areas where affordable
housing is more readily available. Generally, high housing costs can result in very long commutes
for workers living in lower-cost areas. The more time spent commuting, the greater the cumulative
air quality and traffic impacts associated with vehicles moving on the regional roadway network.
The City of Dublin's 5% affordable housing requirement (which includes moderate-income housing
as well as low- and very low-income housing) does not come close to matching the actual projected
need for affordable housing opportunities based on state and ABAG projections for the City or the
region. The City of Dublin's EIR should address the impact that this project may have on
exacerbating this housing affordability gap.
Sub-Standard Levels of Service on 1-580: The NOP (page 54) recognizes that changes in Tri-
Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by the project may cause traffic
impacts on the regional freeway system that was not anticipated in the 1993 EIR. In order to
address these issues, the current EIR should specifically assess the project's contribution toward
cumulatively sub-standard levels of service on 1-580. It should also identify appropriate mitigation
measures necessary to reduce the project's contribution towards this impact, such as construction of
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-580, completion of North Canyons Parkway/Dublin
Boulevard extension as a six-lane roadway, and/or providing increased transit opportunities. The
EIR should analyze the appropriate level of contribution by the project for the implementation of
these measures.
Sub-Standard Levels of Service on Isabel Parkwa¥/SR 84 from 1-580 to 1-680: At the time the 1993
E1R was prepared, there was no analysis of the project's potential impacts to Isabel Parkway/SR 84.
The current EIR should assess the project's contribution of traffic to this new regional roadway. It
should also identify appropriate mitigation measures necessary to mitigate this traffic impact to
levels of less than significant, including making fair-share contributions toward the widening of
Isabel Parkway to 6-1aries between 1-580 and Vineyard, and widening SR 84 to 4 lanes from
Vineyard to 1-680.
Demand for Potable Water Supplies: The NOP recognizes that changes in xvater supply contracts
and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water can be supplied to the
project. Pursuant to the settlement of litigation concerning the provision of water to the Dougherty
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 12
Valley project, DSRSD is required to initiate a water service analysis for this project at such time as
this NOP was released. The results of this DSRSD study should be used by the EIR to assess the
project's projected water demand combined with cumulative water demands tkroughout the region.
The EIR should also identify whether the project's water demand would exceed currently available
water supply, and how water supplied to this project may affect water supplies to other cumulative
development throughout the region. Additionally, the EIR should assess the extent of environmental
impacts that will be caused by the procurement of supply, conveyance and storage capacity needed
to meet this project's and other cumulative water demands, including the potential for increased
seasonal storage facilities in the region.
Wastewater Disposal Capacity Impacts: The NOP recognizes that changes in regional policy (e.g.,
restrictions on the injection ofRO-treated wastewater into the groundwater), funding mechanisms
(e.g. non-participation by the City of Livermore in the LAVWMA pipeline expansion project), and
the anticipated timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements have occurred. The EIR should
fully assess how these changed circumstances affect the ability ofwastewater service providers to
meet the demands of the proposed project together with other cumulative demands. The analysis
should include discussion of impacts associated with construction and operation of new facilities for
the treatment, storage, transmission and use of reclaimed and reverse osmosis treated water.
Parks and Recreation: As noted in the 1993 EIR, the City of Dublin does not maintain a 5-acres per
1,000 population ratio for developed parkland, and this situation has undoubtedly changed with the
addition of substantial new housing opportunities in Dublin since that time. The EIR should assess
the potential effects associated with Dublin residents seeking to use the nearest LARPD facilities
should they be unable to meet their recreational needs locally. The City of Livermore supports the
concerns raised by LARPD in their letter to you on this same issue.
Cumulative Electrical Demands: During the past several years, existing electrical service capacity
in the region has become constrained, and cumulative development in the area (including the
project) will likely require significant electrical transmission improvements to adequately serve the
area. Electrical demand is expected to exceed cap~acity for the region's customers during peak
hours by mid-2002. The NOP also recognizes that the ability of PG&E to provide service to the
area may be further affected by PG&E's recent declaration of bankruptcy. The E[R. should assess
the impacts to the region associated with the project's electrical service demands in light of these
changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Energy
conservation strategies should be considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these
services.
Cumulative Solid Waste Disposal: The capacity of regional permitted solid waste disposal facilities
has changed significantly since 1993, with increased amounts of disposal needs combined with
reductions in permitted disposal capacity. The EIR should assess the impacts to the region
associated with the project's solid waste disposal demands in light of these changed circumstances,
and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Requirements for recycling and waste
reduction should be considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these services.
City of Dublin
Planning Department
July 26, 2001
Page 13
Concluding Comments
The City of Livermore recommends that the East Dublin Properties EIR should not be prepared
until a Specific Plan for the remaining portion of the Eastern Extended Planning Area has been
developed. This recommendation is based on our understanding of changed circumstances within
and surrounding the project area, new information about the environmental sensitivity of the region,
and the need for all local jurisdictions in the region to re-evaluate land use planning in the context
of smart growth principles. Preparation of a Specific Plan for this area should start with recognition
of the area's potential intercormection with other regionally based habitat conservation planning
efforts, followed by a specific development plan that addresses the issues of
· regional habitat planning,
· sustainable development patterns including affordable housing opportunities,
· needed transportation and transit facilities,
· viability of agricultural operations in the reg/on, and
· opportunities/mechanisms for the permanent preservation of an agricultural / open space
greenbelt between our communities.
When prepared, the EIR should be a comprehensive one, utilizing updated information and project-
level analysis and mitigation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments. Livermore looks forward to
working with Dublin representatives as the project review process proceeds. Please keep this office
informed of all contracts, notices, hearings, staffreports, briefings, meetings, and other events
related to the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Marc Roberts
Community Development Director
CC:
Mayor / City Council
Adolph Martinelli, County of Alameda
Brian Swift, City of Pleasanton
Dale Myers, Zone 7
Vivian Housen, LAVWMA
Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD
Ken Craig, LARPD
Brad Olson, EBRPD
Sheila Larsen, USFWS
Carl Wilcox, CDFG
Saracino
A Schlumberger Company
July 30, 2001
Mr. Michael H. Miller
Public Services Director
City of Livermore
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
980 Ninth Street
Suite 1480
Sacramento, CA
§5814
916,3:39.§1§9
fax 916.329.9191
Re: Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
Dear Mr. Miller:
Saracino-Kirby-Snow has completed its initial review of the Preliminary Water
Service Analysis (Preliminary WSA) and Preliminary Impact Analysis for East
Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development and Annexation to City of Dublin and
Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 24, 2001 ~and the supporting analysis
contained in the Programmatic Water Service Analysis (PWSA) for Eastern
Dublin, June 2001. The Agreement to Settle Water Litigation By and Bet3veen
Zone 7 Water Agency, DSRSD, City of Livermore and Citizens for Balanced
Growth, November 2, 1999 (Settlement Agreement) requires that a firm
sustainable water supply must be available to meet the projected demands
through buildout of the communities served by DSRSD prior to making the
determination that there will be no impact from providing service to additionally
annexed property in the eastern Dublin sphere of influence. During our review, a
number of issues have been identified that require clarification prior to
concurring with DSRSD that there will be no impact from providing service to
the proposed annexation to eastern Dublin.
It is typical for agencies with the responsibility for water supply planning in the
State of California to match projected demands with projected supplies. In other
words, it is common for water supply purveyors simply to identify a future
source of water supply and plan for its acquisition when the demand arises.
It is evident from the text of the Settlement Agreement that a higher standard of
water resource planning is required to demonstrate adequacy of supply for
ATTACHMENT #2
Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
July 30, 2001
Page 2 of 8
annexations to DSRSD. Section 4(b)(2)t requires DSRSD to prepare a Preliminary Water
Service Analysis that includes, among other things, "an evaluation by DSRSD of ...whether the
total firm sustainable water supplies that reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD
("Projected Supplies") will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed
Project, together with all other existing uses and uses under buildout of the applicable general
plans for all areas lying within DSRSD's water service area, as and when such demand is
expected to arise". The definition provided in section 4(b)(3) for "total firm sustainable water
supplies available to DSRSD" is those water supplies for which "DSRSD (or Zone 7 acting as a
wholesaler to DSRSD) will hold a water right, contract, or other entitlement that can be relied
upon to provide such supplies for the then foreseeable future and at least until August 23, 2024".
The focus of this review is the Preliminary WSA, and the supporting analysis provided in the
PWSA, produced by DSRSD to comply with requirements contained within the Settlement
Agreement. The additional demand projected to be associated with the eastern Dublin
annexation is 1,300 ara of treated water and 950 ara of recycled water. To comply with the
requirements of the Settlement Agreement, and to meet the higher standards for water supply
planning contained therein, DSRSD must provide assurance that the there are sufficient supplies
available to meet this increased demand during the credible worst case drought scenario.
Total Firm Sustainable Water Supplies
DSRSD states that it has met the criteria that projected water supplies will meet the project water
demands because DSRSD has a contract with Zone 72 to provide water supplies. The contract
with Zone 7 does not provide the sought after reliability. While the contract contains provisions
concerning water service, groundwater extraction, and payment, it provides neither contractual
nor factual assurance that firm sustainable water supplies will be available to meet projected
water demand.
The contract between DSRSD and Zone 7 provides that "the Contractor (DSRSD) shall purchase
from Zone 7 all water required by Contractor for use within Contractor's service area...or obtain
water from Other Sources under the conditions in Section 5". One of the conditions under
section 5(c) is "in the case that Zone 7 is unable to deliver the quantity of treated water necessary
to satisfy the requirements of Contractor....". This section provides an affirmative responsibility
for DSRSD to purchase its water from Zone 7 "to the extent Zone 7 can provide it," but does not
obligate Zone 7 to provide water to DSRSD.
DSRSD, in its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) dated May 2000, recognized that Zone
7 might not have the ability to provide additional water. Page 11 of the UWMP, reads; "In
addition, future development will require additional water supplies, which may not be available
from Zone 7". The DSRSD Board of Directors also passed, by resolution3, a water supply
policy that contained as one of its elements: "To cooperate with Zone 7 to obtain the needed
~ Agreement to Settle Water Litigation By and Between Zone 7 Water Agency, Dublin San Ramon Services District,
Alameda County Flood ControI and Water Conservation District, City of Livermore, Citizens for Balanced Growth,
Windemere Ranch Properties, and Shapell Industries, Inc., November 2, 1999.
2 Contract Between Zone 7 Water Agency and Dublin San Ramon Services District fro a municipal and Industrial
water supply, August 23, I994.
3 Dublin San Ramon Services District, Resolution 5-92, February 4, 1992.
Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
July 30, 2001
Page 3 of 8
water but to take the steps necessary to acquire this water from sources other than Zone 7 if
water was not available from Zone 7".
DSRSD asserts that the total firm sustainable supply that can reasonably be relied upon to be
available in 2020 is 84,170 ara (PWSA, Table 2-1). In comparison with Zone 7's Water Supply
Planning Study Update, February I999, DSRSD overstated the amount of long-term sustainable
yield for all sources available to Zone 7 by approximately 4,800 ara, or more than quadruple the
treated water supply needed by the Project. The discrepancy appears to be an inclusion by
DSRSD of an additional 2,300 afa from Lake Del Valle, 2,000 afa from a temporary transfer
agreement, and 500 afa of recycled water.
DSRSD's analysis does not provide assurance that these supplies will be available. Additional
yield from Lake Del Valle is only anticipated, requires additional storage, and must be
coordinated with other users of the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA). Sources for recycled water have
been identified, but there are no current agreements with Zone 7that assure the availability of this
water. Although Zone 7 relies upon extending the contract with BBID throughout the planning
period, the contract with BBID and Zone 7 will expire in August of 2013, and there is no
guarantee that BBID, or Zone 7, will chose to exercise any of the five year options to extend the
contract. Therefore, inclusion of these soumes in the total firm sustainable yield appears to be
inconsistent with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Although additional supplies
from these sources may be available in the future, they cannot currently be relied upon as firm
sustainable supplies.
Additionally, the water transfers to Zone 7 from Lost Hills Water District and Belridge Water
District relied upon by DSRSD as part of the existing imported surface water from the State
Water Project lack certainty due to the current litigation challenging the Monterey Agreement.
Total Projected Demand
Project demand for the annexation that is at issue in the Preliminary WSA is estimated to be
approximately 1,300 acre-feet annually (afa) of treated water, and 950 afa for recycled water.
DSRSD did not specifically provide an analysis of the impact of these additional demands on
DSRSD's existing or future customers as required by the Settlement Agreement. As mentioned
previously, DSRSD inappropriately relies on its contract with Zone 7 to imply there will be
sufficient water to meet the demand. Alternatively, the PWSA is premised on the assumption
that if Zone 7 can meet the projected demands of ail of its customers, then there would be no
impact to DSRSD's current and future customers from annexing the Project. Some
inconsistencies exist regarding this approach and the analyzed demand.
The demand projections, including the 1,300 afa of treated water, used by DSRSD in its analysis
are too low. DSRSD estimates demand at buildout in 2020 to be 84,060 ara. This demand is
inconsistent with previous Zone 74 projections of a 2020 total demand of 100,300 ara. Current
reports by Zone 7 indicate a low estimate based on current untreated demand and a high
estimate based on a modest increase of 17,900 afa. The revised total untreated demand from the
Agricultural Water System Study Vision 2010 Analysis, August 2000, of 96,000 afa indicates this
demand could be much greater. Completely ignoring potential increases in untreated water
Water Supply Planning Update, February 1999
Annual Review of the Sustainable Water Supply, Draft dated April 06, 2001
Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
July 30, 2001
Page 4 of 8
demand artificially reduces expected 2020 demand. By ignoring additional untreated demands,
DSRSD has essentially ignored approximately one half of the water required by the City of
Livermore for buildout in 2020, consistent with its approved General Plan.
DSRSD states in the PWSA that an additional untreated water demand of 950 ara will result
from the Project, and that this demand would be satisfied utilizing recycled water. Whether
recycled water will be available to meet this demand is not only dependent on DSRSD's ability
to produce this water, but also on its ability to provide storage and transmission. DSRSD
provided a table of its projected recycled water demands and supply, and also provided a figure
of proposed transmission and storage facilities for eastern Dublin. DSRSD does not provide an
assessment the impact of providing this service to eastern Dublin will have on its other
customers who rely on recycled water. Furthermore, DSRSD does not demonstrate that it has
the capability to store, transmit, or produce this recycled water.
Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario
Use of average annual supply as an indicator of water supply reliability is not sufficient. DSRSD
does not demonstrate in the PWSA that it would be able to provide water service to the Proposed
Project during a '"'Credible Worst Case Drought Scenario"...using the Projected Supplies,
without significantly and adversely affecting the reliability of service or quality of water
provided to DSRSD's then-existing customers" (Settlement Agreement, section 4c(iii)). As
defined in the Settlement Agreement, "a Proposed Project shall be deemed to so "adversely
affect the reliability of water only if it would cause a significant decrease in DSRSD's ability to
fully meet customer demand at all times without significantly increasing the likelihood, severity
or duration of use by DSRSD of those voluntary or mandatory rationing, conservation, or other
demand reduction or water management measures described in DSRSD's current water use
reduction plan"(Settlement Agreement, section 4c(ii)).
DSRSD analyzed whether Zone 7 could meet its current policy of 100% reliability in all years in
2020. DSRSD recognized the varying nature of average annual supplies, and "instead of using
long-term averages, a continuous 71-year annual hydrologic analysis was conducted of
projected, future, SWP deliveries to determine the ability of Zone7 to meet the treated and
untreated water demands under all hydrologic conditions, as demands increased to projected
buildout demands" (PWSA, page 2-1 I). DSRSD did not provide information regarding
construction of the 71-year annual hydrologic analysis; however, they did draw some
conclusions based on this analysis and provided tables supporting their conclusions in the
appendix. It is not possible to confirm the calculations that lead DSRSD to conclude that "Zone
7 currently has sufficient water supplies to meet 100% of the projected treated and untreated
water demands, under all hydrologic conditions through Year 2015, including the credible worst
case drought scenario assumed to occur in hydrologic Years I929 through 1934" (PWSA page 2-
11). There are inconsistencies on table 7c, projected 2020 conditions6, which cannot be
reconciled without additional information.
a) Column one, Total Zone 7 Valley Demand (AF), does not contain demand numbers that
represent the projected demands put forth by DSRSD in the PWSA.
Programmatic Water Supply Assessment, June 2001, Appendix I - This Appendix, consisting of tables that
represent model output, was provided as support for conclusions made regarding the hydrologic model.
Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
July 30, 2001
Page 5 of 8
b) Columns two and three deal with SWP deliveries, and neither column can be confirmed
using DWR quantities contained in Bulletin 132-99, March 2001, tables B-4 and B-5B.
For instance, DSRSD has stated that delivery from the SWP was lowest in 1977, however
deliveries were lower in 1991 in both quantity of water delivered and percent of
entitlement. In several instances, the table indicates that the SWP delivers the full
entitlement. Again, Bulletin 132-99 cannot confirm this assumption.
c) Columns dealing with the Semitropic banking program do not provide any guidance as to
the rules used to operate the bank. Also, it is assumed that the full 65,000 acre-foot of
storage space has been filled at the beginning of the analysis. If the 65,000 acre-feet of
storage were not filled at the beginning of the analysis there would be further impacts. In
fact, Zone 7 modeling provided in the Water Supply Planning Study Update, February
1999, that sets storage in Semitropic starting at something less than 65,000 acre-feet of
available water, indicates additional impacts to the Main Basin.
d) Rules for the columns representing the Use of Chain-of-Lakes are not provided, and it is
not intuitive from reading the columns how they add to the supply. For instance,
cumulative storage in the Chain-of-Lakes is not reduced when water is extracted (see 4th
row down in spreadsheet). Also, it is not apparent when the full 70,000 acre-feet of
storage would be available in the Chain-of-Lakes because storage is increased to 70,000
in the model year of 1957. According to documents produced by Zone 77, there would
not be 70,000 acre-feet of storage available earlier than 2030.
e) According to the table, the Main Basin is fulI 50 of the 71 years represented by the
hydrologic analysis. In only one year does the Main Basin drop below the historic low
level of 130,000 acre-feet of storage. Zone 7 models indicate that even when the Main
Basin and storage space in Semitropic are full, there are impacts to the Main Basin 15%
of the time due to a lack of dry year yield as well as much needed storage8. DSRSD
incorrectly states that the impact is only 1.4% of the time and that this is not statistically
significant (PWSA, page 2-11).
f) It is not yet possible to ascertain the tree impact of the "Credible Worst Case Drought
Scenario" on DSRSD's customers based on the analysis provided. More information
regarding model construction and operating roles must be made available to assess the
accuracy of the analysis.
g) There is no mention of the 100% reliability of the water supply to Dougherty Valley, and
how this reliability would impact DSRSD's customers. Use of the 7,000 acre-foot
entitlement specified for Dougherty Valley, and the associated 43,000 acre-foot of
Semitropic storage to meet Dougherty Valley's needs first and foremost may impact
DSRSD's other customers in dry years. An analysis of this relationship must be
performed in order to determine whether or not an impact exists.
The Project would be considered to "adversely affect the quality of water" provided to DSRSD's
existing customers only if it would cause a significant ongoing increase in the Post-treatment
concentration of any contaminant for which a maximum contaminant level is specified under the
Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999, Integrated Water System Study, January 2000, etc.
Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999, page 3-31
Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
July 30, 2001
Page 6 of 8
Safe Drinking Water Act to a level that exceeds the Post-treatment concentration of such
contaminant in water then being delivered by DSRSD to its customers" (Settlement Agreement
section 4c(ii)). DSRSD has determined that there would be no significant adverse affect on the
quality of water provided to its customers. DSRSD relies on its contract with Zone 7 for a
treated water supply, and on Zone 7's obligation to meet water quality standards.
This reasoni0g provides no analysis or assurance that there will be no impact to DSRSD's
customers from the increased demand of the project. Analysis provided in Zone 7's Treated
Water Facilities Master Plan, February 2000, indicates that Zone 7 recognizes that water quality
from the Bay-Delta is extremely variable, and that selection of a water treatment process will
need to take this variability into account. Although Zone 7 recognizes this var/ability, it also
recognizes that there is currently not enough capacity to meet the treated needs for 2020. If the
necessary treatment facilities were not constructed, it is uncertain whether the additional demand
would cause a significant adverse affect in the quality of water being delivered, because the
source of water for the Project has not been identified, nor has any analysis been provided.
Because there was no analysis performed regarding the water quality impact associated with
ground water resources, it is not possible to ascertain if there would be an impact to ground water
quality during the "credible worst case drought scenario" caused by the Project.
Meeting Projected (2020) Demands With Current (2001) Supplies
DSRSD did not perform specific analysis regarding whether it could provide water service to the
proposed Project. Instead, DSRSD relies on analyzing whether or not Zone 7 has the current
supplies to meet 2020 demands. DSRSD concludes that Zone 7 currently has adequate supplies
to meet the projected 2020 treated and untreated water supply demand. DSRSD also concludes
that Zone 7 can provide 100% reliability in all years by implementing demand reduction in the
6th year of a 6-year drought after 2015.
By contrast, Zone 7 analysis provided in the Water Supply Planning Study Update, February
1999, and the associated environmental documentation, projects that the water supply will be
sufficient to meet 2009 demand, but that significant additional dry year supplies will be
necessary for Zone 7 to provide 100% reliability in all years9. The additional dry year supply is
needed for the Zone's current customers under current supply conditions without taking into
account demands in 2020. The current firm sustainable yield that DSRSD relies upon is
inadequate to meet DSRSD's projected (2020) demands. Inclusion of additional untreated
demand that is anticipated by Zone 7 will exacerbate this shortfall.
Conclusions
The analytical tools used by DSRSD to determine the reliability of dry year supplies are
confusing and misleading. It is not obvious what operating criteria were applied, what water
supply was available, or what demand was used. Also, data on SWP deliveries should be
consistent with Bulletin 132-99. Clarification is also required concerning the water storage
facilities that are assumed to be available in 2020 to provide dry year supplies, and the basis for
those assumptions.
9 Zone 7 Water Agency Water Supply Planning Update, Program Environmental Impact Report, draft, January 1999,
page 7-4
Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
July 30, 2001
Page 7 of 8
While most water supply planning study efforts in California rely on matching projected
demands with projected supplies, this approach is not adequate under the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement sets a more affirmative standard for addressing whether or not
DSRSD will be able to provide service to the annexed areas. DSRSD must show that the "total
firm sustainable water supplies that reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD...will
meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project...". The performance
standard for malting this determination is that "DSRSD shall consider its Projected Supplies to
be adequate to meet the Projected Demand only if DSRSD would be able to provide water
service to the Proposed Project during a "Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario", using the
Projected Supplies, without significantly and adversely affecting the reliability of service or
quality of water provided to DSRSD's then-existing customers".
The existing analysis provided in the Preliminary WSA and PWSA does not meet the foregoing
standard. We summarize our pr/mary concerns as follows:
1) Total Firm Sustainable Supplies
a) BBID transfer terminates in 2013 and is subject to approval by both parties at 5 year
intervals and cannot be considered finn for the extended term to 2020
b) An additional 2,300 afa from Lake Del Valle is conceptual and would require approvals
from SWRCB, DWR, and other SBA contractors
c) 500 afa of recycled water from Zone 7 is conceptual and would require additional storage
and public acceptance
d) DSRSD's projected recycled water supply quantification and ava/lability needs to be
supported
e) Permanent Transfers from Lost Hills and Belridge may be affected by current litigation
2) Total Projected Demand
a) DSRSD does not demonstrate that it has the capability to store, transmit, or produce 950
afa recycled water, and it is uncertain whether servicing this additional demand would
cause impacts to its other recycled water customers
b) DSRSD ignored a minimum 16,000 afa of additional untreated demand in 2020 with the
possibility for a demand of 96,000 afam
3) Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario
a) Water Quality
i) DSRSD has not analyzed possible impacts due to reliance on Zone 7 meeting the
standards
ii) Zone 7's water treatment capacity is not sufficient to meet demand in 2020. Without
identifying the future water supply source, and any future treatment processes,
determinations regarding water quality impacts are unsupported
t0 Agricultural Water System Study Vision 2010 Analysis, August 2000, Figure ES-2, page ES-7
Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties
July 30, 2001
Page 8 of 8
iii) There was no analysis provided on the water quality impact of additional reliance on
ground water supplies during dry years
b) Dry Year Reliability
i) The 71 year hydrologic analysis needs significant clarification
ii) Zone 7 does not currently have enough storage capacity to meet dry year demands
100% of the time
iii) DSRSD has not analyzed the impact of preferential supply to Dougherty Valley using
the BMWD transfer in conjunction with SWSD storage
4) Meeting Proiected (2020) Demand With Current (2001) Supplies
a) Current supplies are inadequate to meet DSRSD's projected demand
b) Any level of additional untreated demand will exacerbate the shortfall
It is our opinion that the Preliminary and Programmatic Water Supply Analysis fall short of
meeting the higher standard of water supply planning that is required by the Settlement
Agreement. Saracino-Kirby-Snow is available to assist the City of Livermore in worldng with
DSRSD and Zone 7 to address the inadequacies with the current analysis.
Sincerely,
,'Lester A. Snow
Principal