HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attmt 1 Exhibit A Initial Study The Promenade~.e ~_ ~~~y of Dut[in
~' .~ ~'
~ ~~
~~~ ~~~ Q6
~esalo~ ~.: 4 9-28
-~
Resolution Date: T~`j
Initial Study
Project:
The Promenade
City File No. PA 08-006
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
July 2009
~E~EI~E®
JUL 0 8 2009
®UBL~N PLAf~fVIN~
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY'OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G MITIGATED NEGATIVE. DECLARATION
FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
PA 08-006
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to develop an 82,864 sq. ft. commercial center consisting of
a ClubSport fitness center, a Mercantile Building containing retail and office uses and a three story, four
level parking garage on a 3.72 acre parcel on the 23 acre Promenade property. The related applications
include Site Development Review for the principal proposed buildings and related improvements; a
Conditional Use Permit for an indoor fitness center and for minor modifications to the existing PD zoning
to reallocate density within the 23 acre site; a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 23 acre property
into 4 parcels, Parcel 4 of which is the 3.72 acres proposed for development; and a Development
Agreement. The above activities and applications are collectively referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Promenade site is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway along
either side of Grafton Street; the Club Sport/Mercantile Building portion of the Project is located at the
northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report
by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated
herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the
Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a
mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93,
incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration
("2000 MND") for reconfigured land uses to relocate and develop a Village Center in the Dublin Ranch
Area G portion of Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated herein by reference). The City
Council approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area G on March 7, 2000
(Resolution No. 35-00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD-Planned Development zoning
and related Development Plans on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 6-00, incorporated herein by
reference); and
WHEREAS, the adopted PD zoning provides for a Village Center on the 23 acre Promenade
property with a range of neighborhood commercial uses permitted and with a cap of 230,000 sq. ft. of
density, allocated among 6 development sites. The Project proposes to modify the PD zoning to reallocate
the approved density among the development sites, to subdivide the site and to develop one of the sites;
and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed
modifications and development was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the
Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated July 14, 2009 describing the modifications and
development and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. The Addendum and related Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A
and are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIlZ identified significant unavoidable impacts from development
of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project
must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 14, 2009 and incorporated herein by
reference analyzed the Project Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the applications
on July 14, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin
EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the applications. The Planning Commission further used their
independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission makes the following findings to
support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed
Project. These findings are based on information contained in the Addendum, Initial Study, the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND, the Planning Commission Staff Report, and all other information contained
in the record before the Planning Commission. These findings constitute a summary of the information
contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the Addendum,
Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 MND and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in
the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference:
1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previously approved
Eastern Dublin and Area G projects that will require major revisions to the EIR or MND due to new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant
effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same
or less than the impacts for the Eastern Dublin and Area G projects which were previously addressed in
the EIR and MND. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts
than those identified in the prior EIR and MND. All previously adopted mitigation measures will apply to
the proposed Project and project site as applicable.
2. The Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were
not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND.
2 of 3
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes
in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other
standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because
there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections
21166 or 15162/3 are met.
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines
section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or conduct
further environmental review for the proposed Project.
3. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study,
attached as Exhibit A; pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Promenade
Project.
4. The Planning Commission has considered the information in the Addendum, related Initial
Study, Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND and adopted the Addendum prior to approving the land use
applications for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopts the Statement of
Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July 2009 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, Brown, King, Swalwell
NOES:
ABSENT: Schaub
ABSTAIN:
A E
Pl mg a ager
1260531
..,•
m w..
r.,m.. ~ Y
Planning Commissio~`Clra~~-••---
G:IPA#120081PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadelPCMtg 7-14-091resoarloptingcegaaddenrluman~isocforpromenade.DOC
3 of 3
.•
~~c~iv~
JUL 0 8 2009
®UBLIN PLANNING
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT
PA 08-006
July 14, 2009
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR
dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council
adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific. Plan for the
reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993.On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a
second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a
20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been
proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR.
A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 99112041) was prepared for an 87-acre
portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area, known as Dublin Ranch Area G. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration was adopted on Februaryl5, 2000 by City Council Resolution No. 34-
00.
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the
Project, as described below.
Project Description and Prior Approvals
In 1998, an application was filed with the City to approve an amendment to the Dublin
General Plan (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SPA) and a Stage 1 & 2 Planned
Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Area G within Eastern Dublin. The applications,
approved in 2000, reoriented land uses and the local circulation system from an east-west
direction to a north-south Neighborhood Commercial orientation along Grafton Street. The
GPA and SPA was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 34-00, on February 15, 2000.
The Planned Development rezoning with related a Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan was
approved by City Council Ordinance No. 06-00.
The current application includes a request for a Site Development Review (SDR) permit on a
3.72-acre portion of a larger 23 site known as the Promenade. The SDR permit would approve
the architectural design, landscaping, signs and related development details for a commercial
development that encompasses a Club Sport fitness center within atwo-story 47,669 square
foot building, atwo-story Mercantile office and retail building with 35,195 square feet and a
four-level parking garage. The proposed Project also includes consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the Club Sport indoor fitness center as an indoor/outdoor recreation use
and to allow a minor revision of the Planned Development rezoning to provide for a
reallocation of development intensity among the 23-acre Promenade Village Commercial
sites, so long as the existing maximum development intensity is not exceeded. A vesting
tentative parcel map is included within the application to create 4 parcels of land from the 23-
acre Promenade site that includes the 3.72-acre development site. A Development Agreement
is also proposed pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirement.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area, which was the
subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of
.future urban development planned for athen-largely undeveloped area east of the then-
existing city of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous
mitigations adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation
measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site
continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated
herein by reference.
2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. In 1998, the property owner requested modifications to
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Area G of the Dublin Ranch
property. In response to the applicant and consistent with the City's practice for projects in
Eastern Dublin, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the requests would require
additional environmental review beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial
Study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts of the general and specific plan
amendments were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was predictable given
the comprehensive planning for the Eastern Dublin development area and the Eastern Dublin
EIR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations and policies. Similarly, the long-term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR analyses assumed implementation and
related development pursuant to the General and Specific Plans. The Initial Study concluded that
the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed General and Specific Plan Amendments; it also identified the potential for some new
significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastem
Dublin EIR. Based on the findings of the initial study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared by the City. The City Council adopted the 2000 MND, through Resolution No. 3400
as well as a related Mitigation Monitoring Program. The 2000 MND is y incorporated herein by
reference.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the
appropriate CEQA review for the Project, which proposed a minor amendment to the
approved Planned Development density standard and provides design and development details
for a commercial center with a fitness center, a retail .and office building and a parking garage
on a portion of the Promenade site.
Page 2
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated July 14, 2009, incorporated herein by
reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project
Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR, or Negative
Declaration is required for the Planned Development zoning modification or the refined
development details.
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental
review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or
Negative Declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant
impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, or the 2000 MND. The Project proposes a commercial complex comprised of a
fitness center, a building that would contain office, retail and food service use and a multi-
story parking garage. Such uses are consistent with the overall types of land uses and
densities allowed in the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Planned
Development zoning. No changes or modifications have been requested or are required to
the Dublin General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate proposed uses
and activities. The minor modification to the Planned Development standards allows the
maximum development density for the 23-acre Village Commercial to be reallocated
between the development sites, but does not increase the overall amount of allowed
development or change the. range of land uses previously approved. This would not be a
substantial change, as documented in the initial study, Similarly, the subdivision of the 23-
acre site into smaller parcels was previously anticipated and the Development Agreement
is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; neither is a substantial change.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. This is documented in the Initial
Study prepared for this Project dated July 14, 2009.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe;
or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined
to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous
EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt
them? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. The
applicant's plans for The Promenade Project would be consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR
mitigation measures, other mitigation measures previously adopted, as well as the 2000
MND. The project includes proposed development that implements the General Plan, the
Specific Plan and zoning previously approved for this site.
Page 3
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond
those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous MND.
Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on an Initial Study dated July 14, 2009. The Addendum and Initial Study review the. proposed
development activities as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and
related Initial Study, the City determines that the proposed Site Development Review (SDR),
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), vesting tentative parcel map and development agreement do
not require a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The
City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, previous Negative Declarations and this
Addendum/Initial Study adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Project.
As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated
for public review, but shall be considered. with the prior environmental documents before
making a decision on this project.
The referenced resolutions, ordinance, the Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND
are all incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review in the Community
Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA during normal
business hours.
Page 4
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................. ................................................2
.....................
Prior Environmental Impact Reports .................................................
Applicant/Contact Person .......................................................................................5
Project Description ................................................... ................................................5
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................17
Determination ........................................................... ..............................................17
Earlier Analysis /Incorporation By Reference ......................................................19
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................... ...............................................20
Discussion of Checklist ........................................... ............................................... 30
1. Aesthetics ...................................................... ...............................................30
2. Agricultural Resources ................................ ............................................... 37
3. Air Quality .................................................... ...............................................37
4. Biological Resources .................................... ...............................................45
5. Cultural Resources ....................................... ............................................... 48
6. Geology and Soils ........................................ ...............................................49
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............ ...............................................53
8. Hydrology and Water Quality .................... ...............................................54
9. Land Use and Planning ............................... ...............................................58
10. Mineral Resources ...................................... ...............................................59
11. Noise ........................................................... ...............................................60
12. Population and Housing ........................... ...............................................64
13. Public Services ............................................ ...............................................66
14. Recreation ................................................... ............................................... 68
15. Transportation/Traffic .............................. ...............................................69
16. Utilities and Service Systems .................... ...............................................72
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........ ...............................................79
Initial Study Preparers ............................................ ...............................................81
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ................ ............................................... 81
References ................................................................ ............................................... 81
Appendices .............................................................. ...............................................83
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The Promenade Project
City of Dublin
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, §§ 15000-15387).
This Initial Study assesses proposed Site Development Review (SDR), Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) and Development Agreement
applications for development of a fitness center, mercantile building and parking
garage on the Promenade property. The proposed development and the related
applications are further described below in the Project Description and are collectively
referred to herein as the "Project."
Prior Approvals and Environmental Review
The Project site has been the subject of several prior planning approvals and related
environmental reviews. It is located in the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)
area, more specifically within Area G of Dublin Ranch. Previous City land use
approvals regarding the Project site include:
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
(EDGPA) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) project. The approved project
was a modified version of the original EDGPA for the largely vacant 6,920-acre Eastern
Dublin planning area. The original EDGPA proposed to change commercial land use
designations on County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and
agriculture/open space designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban
uses. At the same time, a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres within the larger 6,920-acre
EDGPA. The EDSP supplements the EDGPA with more detailed land use designations,
policies, programs and regulations.
The original EDGPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with amixed-use urban community. At buildout, the EDGPA planning area was
projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres
designated for Rural Residential use with a 100-acre minimum parcel size.
Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres,
571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned. Buildout
was expected to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction.
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGPA planning area.
Seventy percent of the EDGPA residential development and 94% of the new commercial
space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for compact
villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating
commercial uses are generally provided along arterials with transit access. The City
approved a modified project that reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, provided for
buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of the EDGPA area only within the
Dublin Sphere of Influence.
The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report to analyze the environmental
impacts of potential future development in Eastern Dublin. A Program Environmental
Impact Report was certified through Resolution No. 51-93 by the City of Dublin in 1993
(Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064); referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or
"EDEIR." That 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. As
part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin project through Resolution No. 53-93,
the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following
impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service),
consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through
increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution
system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake
ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality,
noise and alteration of visual character. Many mitigation measures were adopted and
continue to apply to development throughout Eastern Dublin, as applicable. The
Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate.
Annexation and prezonin~. The Project site and surrounding properties in Dublin
Ranch were annexed to the City of Dublin on September 28, 1995. The annexation and
reorganization encompassed 1,538 acres of land, approximately 1,111 of which was
located in Dublin Ranch. The annexation areas were prezoned to the PD, Planned
Development zoning district with uses based on the general plan and specific plan land
use designations.
2000 Area G approval. In 1998, applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments, and a PD rezoning with related Development Plans were
filed for Areas F, G and H, a 304-acre portion of Dublin Ranch. The General Plan and
Specific Plan had designated these areas for a wide range of uses, with Areas F and G
providing a "town center" along an east-west "transit spine" and higher density
residential uses nearby. The applications proposed to reconfigure land uses within the
areas so as to move the town center south to create a Village Center in Area G, move
higher density housing from Area F to Area G and replace the relocated uses in Area F
with medium density housing. The applications also proposed to reorient the "village"
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
main street from east-west to north-south, connecting Dublin Boulevard and Central
Parkway. The proposed revisions placed all of the approximately 23 acre Village Center
retail and office area in a Neighborhood Commercial designation within Area G; this
23-acre Village Center area comprises the Promenade site. As approved, the maximum
Village Center commercial development was set at 230,000 sq.ft. across 6 development
sites, a substantial reduction from the 426,888 sq.ft. of Village Center commercial
approved under the EDSP and assumed in the EDEIR. The remainder of the
approximately 86.9 acre Area G site was proposed for the relocated medium high and
high density residential uses, a neighborhood park and other community uses.
Included in the Specific Plan amendment was a revised Town Center Concept Plan
showing conceptual future development of the Village Center (Figure 7.1.1A).
In addition to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use reconfigurations, the
applications included PD rezonings with related Stage 1 Development Plans, except for
Area G, which contained a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan with more detailed
development plans and standards. The Area F, G and H GPA and SPA were adopted
by City Council Resolution No. 35-00 on March 7, 2000; the PD rezoning and related
Development Plans were approved through Ordinance 6-00 on March 21, 2000.
In connection with the proposed reconfigurations and the additional detail provided
through the PD rezoning applications, the City prepared and circulated an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") to examine the potential for site-
specific impacts beyond those previously identified in the EDEIR (SCH # 99112041.)
The MND was approved by the Dublin City Council (Resolution No. 34-00, dated
February 15, 2000) for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment and a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development rezoning for Planning Area G,
within which this Project is located. The MND analyzed all of the environmental topics
recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Based on site-specific analysis,
additional mitigation measures related to light and glare, biological resources, cultural
resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic and circulation, were adopted by
the City. These additional mitigation measures, as well as applicable mitigation
measures from the EDEIR, continue to apply to future development on the current
Project site. The currently proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land uses and policies, and is consistent with and
implements the PD zoning and development plan approved in 2000. The Project
includes no amendments to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
Project does include a minor modification to reallocate the approved Planned
Development density for the 23-acre Village Commercial area, but does not change
permitted land uses or increase the amount of development allowed in this portion of
Eastern Dublin.
This Initial Study addresses the requested development for the Promenade Project as
described more fully below. This Initial Study further examines whether additional
environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The
resolutions, ordinances and prior EIR and MND referenced above are incorporated by
reference, and are all available for review by the public during normal business hours at
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin,
94568.
Applicant/Contact Person
Land Plan Associates
Attn: Dave Chadbourne
450 Main Street, Suite 205
Pleasanton CA 94522
Phone: (925) 846 0084
Project Description
The overall Promenade site includes approximately 23 acres of land comprising the
Village Center, with development proposed for an approximately 3.8-acre (net) portion
of the site located in Eastern Dublin, California. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of
Dublin in relation to the Bay area. Exhibit 2 shows the Project site location in relation to
the City of Dublin. The development site is bounded on the north by Finnian Way, on
the west by Grafton Street, on the south by Dublin Boulevard and on the east by ahigh-
density residential complex, the Terraces.
Dublin Boulevard, which forms the southern boundary of the site, intersects with
Tassajara Road to the west. In turn, Tassajara Road is linked to Interstate 580 via an
existing interchange thus providing regional connections.
Exhibit 3 shows the site in context with other surrounding streets and other features.
The Project site is vacant and contains no buildings, although it has been recently used
for short-term storage of construction trailers. Surrounding land uses include high
density residential uses to the east (The Terraces complex), vacant to the south (on
which the Grafton Plaza Project has been proposed and is being reviewed by the City),
vacant land to the west, and a combination of vacant land and a high density housing
complex to the north.
Site topography for the site is generally flat with a gentle (1% or less) cross slope from
north to the south.
Project Characteristics
The proposed Project includes consideration of a Site Development Review (SDR)
approval, a conditional use permit, a vesting tentative parcel map and a development
agreement to allow construction of The Promenade commercial project. These are
described more fully below.
The proposed Project would permit the development of the 82,864 square foot
Promenade Project on the site as described further below. The proposed development
would include three separate buildings:
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
The Club Sport building would be located on the southern frontage of the site
and would include 47,669 square feet of floor space with two stories. Uses within
the building would include but would not be limited to a weight training room,
aerobics room, a spa, administrative offices and a cafe and outdoor eating area.
An outdoor pool and deck area would also be constructed. Indoor recreational
facilities are a conditionally permitted use in the Area G PD zoning, so the
applicant has submitted a related CUP application. The proposed building also
requires Site Development Review.
A Mercantile Building would be built to the north of the Club Sport facility,
fronting to the west, on Grafton Street. This building would include 35,195
square feet of floor area in atwo-story. Uses within this building would include a
mix of retail, office and a restaurant. Retail, office and restaurant uses are
permitted uses in the Area G PD zoning, subject to Site Development Review.
A three-story, four-level parking garage would be constructed in the northeast
corner of the site that would accommodate 428 vehicles, including a mix of
standard-sized stalls, compact and handicap-accessible parking stalls, and
including parking on the top deck. Fifty-eight open surface stalls would be
provided, along with 16 on-street spaces along Finnian Way and Grafton Street,
for a total of 502 spaces for the development. The proposed garage building
requires Site Development Review.
Details of the proposed Project are described below.
Site Development Review. Site Development Review is required for all principal
structures in the PD-Planned Development zoning district. The Site Development
Review (SDR) portion of the Project implements the adopted PD zoning for the
development site and includes information regarding overall Project design,
architecture, landscaping, signs and related development details.
The Club Sport and Mercantile buildings would be oriented adjacent to abutting streets
(Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street) to create a village center urban appearance. The
parking structure would be located behind and to the east of the Mercantile Building.
Exhibit 4 shows the proposed site development plan.
Architectural designs. The Club Sport building would have two stories with a maximum
height of 41 feet to the main rooftop. The design of the building would be contemporary
California architecture with use of a stone wainscot, stone bands at the cornices as well
as stone accents. The roof design would be flat with projections over adjacent
sidewalks. Ground floor windows would be highlighted by awnings over the sidewalk.
Wall surfaces would be smooth stucco.
The Club Sport building would be designed around a central courtyard that would
contain a swimming pool, outdoor deck and an outside eating area.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
The Mercantile Building, that could contain a mix of retail, restaurant and office space,
would be located just north of Club Sport. Retail and restaurant uses would be on the
ground floor with office space above. This building would have a height of 47 ft. 8
inches and would have a traditional urban architectural design that would be consistent
with the design of the adjacent Club Sport building.
The parking garage would include four levels of parking, which includes parking on
the top deck, so it would actually consist of three stories with a height of 48 feet at the
highest point, which is the top of the elevator towers. The design of the parking garage
would also reflect a traditional urban design. Each of the floors would have openings to
the outside along the north, south and west walls for ventilation. Architectural detailing
would include trellises on upper floors and stone band detailing.
The eastern edge of the parking garage would be located approximately 66 feet from the
eastern property line and approximately 74 feet from the nearest residential units in The
Terraces.
Landscaping. Exhibit 5 shows the preliminary landscape plan for the site. Plantings are
proposed to include street trees along Dublin Boulevard, Grafton Street and Finnian
Way that would include a mix of crape myrtle, London plane, flowering pear and
scarlet oak trees. Other streetscape elements would include a mix of pavers and shrubs.
Street furniture in the form of benches, bicycle racks, drinking fountains and decorative
water fountains would also be provided.
Two major landscape features would include an east-west landscaped pathway
between the two main buildings as required by the Area G Development Plan. This area
would include pedestrian plazas and would be anchored by a large decorative water
fountain. This path would provide primary pedestrian access between the two
buildings and the parking area to the rear of the buildings.
A second feature would include anorth-south pedestrian and bicycle pathway/trail
along the eastern edge of the site that would link Dublin Boulevard and Finnian Way.
The pathway would be accented with a continuous row of crape myrtle trees. This
portion of the trail links all of Dublin Ranch north of the development site (e.g.,
Sorrento, Phase 1 and Area A) to the Promenade and to Grafton Station south of the
development site.
Site access. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by driveways on Dublin
Boulevard and Finnian Way, both located near the eastern property line of the site.
Parking. A total of 486 on-site parking spaces would be provided within the parking
garage and on an adjacent surface parking lot. There would also be 16 street parking
spaces available on adjacent public streets.
Utility services. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would extend domestic
and recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services in
accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
The Project Developer would be required to install local water lines as well as paying
fees to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern
Dublin, consistent with applicable Facility Master Plans.
Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground
sewer lines to transport wastewater to DSRSD's regional treatment plant. Sewer lines
would be gravity flow.
When available, recycled water maybe provided to the Project site for use in irrigation
of common open space areas and other areas. This could reduce the need for potable
water for the proposed Project.
Storm drainage facilities would consist of constructing on-site drainage inlets and
underground drainage pipes to transport storm water runoff off of the site and into
regional drainage facilities south of the site.
Water quality protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management
Practices, such as such as sweeping of the parking area, to ensure water quality
standards are met, as enforced by the City of Dublin. On- or off-site stormwater
treatment for the Project may be required prior to release of drainage flows.
Project grading. The Promenade development site has been rough graded. Additional
trenching, grading and excavation would be required to accommodate the proposed
uses on the 3.72-acre C1ubSport and Mercantile building site. No additional grading on
other proposed parcels of land on the other three proposed Promenade parcels.
Public art. The proposed Project would include on-site public art required by the Dublin
Municipal Code. The approximate location of public art would either be on the
northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street along Grafton Street in front of
the Mercantile building.
Phasing. Development of a commercial center on the 3.72-acre site is shown as Parcel 4
on the proposed Vesting Tentative Map. No development is proposed on Parcels 1-3 of
the overall Promenade site at this time.
Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been requested pursuant
to Chapter 8.32.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to the to modify the existing Stage
2 Development Plan to change the allowable development square footage on Village
Commercial Parcel 6 (VC-6) to 83,000, provided the maximum allowable development
square footage for the entire Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. The applicant has filed a request to subdivide the
approximately 23 acre Village Center portion of Area G into four smaller parcels of
land. This is identified as Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717 and is shown on Exhibit 6.
The vesting tentative parcel map proposal includes property generally located north of
Dublin Boulevard and south of Central Parkway along both sides of Grafton Street.
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Parcel 4 of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is the C1ubSport/Mercantile Building
development site. This is the only proposed parcel for which development is
anticipated. No development is proposed on Promenade Parcels 1 through 3 as shown
on Vesting Tentative Map 9717. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Area G
PD zoning. As noted in the 2000 MND, among the applications in 2000 was a Vesting
Master Tentative Map to establish smaller parcels in Area G for sale to future builders,
consistent with the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans (MND Responses to
Comments, p. 2). At that time, it was anticipated that future subdivision maps would
also be requested "to create individual building sites for residential and non-residential
construction." The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is such a future subdivision
map.
If approved, the applicant would need to prepare a Parcel Map for recordation with the
County Recorder.
Development Agreement. A Development Agreement is proposed to be executed
between the City of Dublin and the applicant, pursuant to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
requirements.
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
0 " 10 Miles
Exhibit 1 -Regional Location
The Promenade -Parcel 4
SDR/CUP
Initial Study
City of Dublin
June 2009
~C SIIiP3
u ~ ~~
San
Francisco
Pacific Ocean
Exhibit 2 -City Context
The Promenade -Parcel 4
SDR/CUP
Initial Study
City of Dublin
June 2009
NOFlTH
~AIKAY ~C 5111Ps
„~, a ^~
Exhibit 3 -Site Context
The Promenade
SDR/CUP
Initial Study
City of Dublin
June 2009
~~-
NOAAR~~TH
IVIJ
~A~KAY ~ SIOPS
u ~ ~~
~,
p
S t ..
aw
~. ~ a ........:....
Exhibit 5 -Preliminary Landscape Plan
The Promena~'e -Parcel 4
SDR/C~TP
Initial Study
City o~'Dublin
June 2009
i ...~ ...._i-;....
~j
1
3 £ .
{
l~
;:I
M"
v
m
Iz
'~
'm
a
t ~a ~' ~ t ~ [ ~ ~~--~ ~ ~'`
~,- ._
,, ,~
,?;
PIRN VIEYY
r
0
Z
mACKAY & SIPS
~ (k,~ Rif' y ~ ~ // ~ ~ `CdCI)~ ~~
b ~
/ / / // /
l l ~ l ~ l^fRS~~E l.R]y'kb'
I l~ Ewsr. r ~ l 1 ~
M.... I ~ (R l PsE 11 / s.6O 111 fR JOE Q sff _./,l r
I / / / //
/{. I / / y/
/ / / / ~e
~~' L'IRpk ` ~ 1 \ ~ ~~~yS
/ C
/ ~
// / / ~' / /~ r_';
/ / / ~/ ~~
// E+,s, „ / / ~ / / ~
/ ~ ==~R„'' ~y / / /
i 1, l l ~i.
`~, / l 7 rE,~r l
/ l I l (R-~~ SgE r~.5' ~/~ l
\\ \ / / / / / d SOES(~ T /.~
/ r / r
\\~ \~/1op~'EgyE /
Jy4J
/
~~ Lam}
~ a.~
~ ~;,
_ L ~r , .~
R.p~,
\ ~~ \ L'pk / / R.~p~
LNY
/
/ ; ,
/~mfmc / /
(RD J P E (~ r' l ,je~~
/ /I
( / /
U ~ ~ l l /l
J I iii'~~~°G~ i f ISS
~ '"~= 15'
~~ / /
_ _ i I i ~ IR_i
/I
_ ~~` ~ ` L;j~AZ•
~1`
~ ~ \
\..
D
/;
~ /
,~
() / //
I /
~'
,~
-~
\~~\
\ \
\~
UBLI ~ ~ - p i
,~~ ~ ~J~~,... BOULEy _ ~-' -
~ ~
r'/I \ ~ __
Exhibit 6 -Tentative Parcel Map
The Promenade -Parcel 4
SDR/CUP
Initial Study
N O R T H
NTS
City of Dublin
June 2009 IMCKAY 8c SOmPS
CKauEfzS xfK tvOFS
PtFA51NICN, W [9}57 345-0690
1. Project description The applicant requests approval of Site
Development Review, Conditional Use Permit
and Vesting Tentative Map applications that
would allow construction of a multi-story
82,864 square foot commercial center
containing a fitness center (Club Sport), an
office and retail commercial building and a
three-story, four-level parking garage. Afour-
parcel subdivision map on 23 acres of land
would create individual parcels in the Village
Center, including a parcel for the proposed
development. A Development Agreement is
also proposed.
2. Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person: Michael A. Porto, Dublin Community
Development Department
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location:
5. Project contact person:
6. Existing General Plan/
Specific Plan Land Use
Designation
7. Existing/Proposed Zoning
North of Dublin Boulevard, east of Grafton
Street
David Chadbourne
Land Plan Associates
NC-Neighborhood Commercial
PD- Village Center
8. Other public agency necessary and/or desired approvals:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/The Promenade Project
PA 08-006
• Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and
Building Permits (City of Dublin)
• Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
• Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources
Control Board)
• Finding of Consistency with Alameda
Co. Airport Land Use Plan (Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission)
Page 16
July 2009
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.
- Aes etics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology Soils
Resources
- Hazards and - Hydrology Water - Land Use
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population
Housin
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation
Circulation
- Utilities Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Si nificance
Determination
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.
X 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 significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
and MND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and MND, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to
the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Dublin Ranch Area G 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
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ 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.
Signature: Date: ~'1~ 5
Printed Name: ..~ P.~h ~/ For: ~i ~f ~"~ ~
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
The following environmental documents have been used in the preparation of the
Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours.
Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial
Study.
• Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH
#91103064)
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning
Area G, November 1999 (SCH# 99112041).
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a} Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Source: 2, 3, 5)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 2, 3, 5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 2, 3, 5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 5)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 1,2, 3)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 3)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2, 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti anon Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I X
X
City of Dublin
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Page 20
July 2009
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?
(2,3)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 2,3)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 5)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 2, 3,7)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2, 3, 7)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2, 3 , 7)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/The Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Page 21
July 2009
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 2, 3)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2, 3)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2, 3)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2, 3)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2, 3)
6. 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 Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 3, 7)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source 2, 3, 7)
iv) Landslides? (Source 2, 3, 5)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 2, 3)
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 similar hazards
(Source: 2, 3,7)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2, 7)
City of Dublin
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 22
July 2009
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or Option wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 2, 3)
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(Source: 3, 7)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 3, 7)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 3, 7)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 3 , 7)
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 of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 3, 5)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2, 3, 7)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Source: 2, 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/The Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Page 23
July 2009
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2, 3)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 3)
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 existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (2, 3, 5)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3, 5)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3, 7)
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?
(Source: 2, 3, 7)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 2, 3, 7)
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
delineation map? (Source: 2, 3, 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Page 24
July 2009
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2, 3, 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (7)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 5)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2, 5)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1, 2, 5)
10. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,
2, 3)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (2, 4)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 2, 4)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (2.4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/The Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Page 25
July 2009
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (4)
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 n the project area to excessive noise
levels? (2, 4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2, 4)
12. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 5)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (5)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Source: 6, 75)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government 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? (Sources: 2, 3, 6)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/The Promenade Project
PA OS-006
Page 26
July 2009
14. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2, 7)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2, 7)
15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Source 2, 3)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2, 3)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(2,3)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (2, 3)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (5)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting Option transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/The Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Page 27
July 2009
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2, 3, 6)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(2, 3, 6)
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? (2, 3, 6)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (2, 3, 6)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (Source: 6)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (Source: 7)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 2)
17. 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, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti anon Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/The Promenade Project
PA 08-006
Page 28
July 2009
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR
3. 2000 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Project-specific Acoustic Report (2009)
5. Site Visit
6. Discussion with service provider
7. Other Source
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The Project is set in a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under
the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, adopted in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the effects of
urbanizing vacant lands and identified significant and unavoidable impacts 3.8/Band
3.8/F regarding alteration of the area's rural, open space character. Visual and aesthetic
impacts on asite-specific were further discussed in the MND for Area G.
The Project site is vacant and is generally flat but is characterized by slight south-
sloping topography of 1% or less.
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the Eastern Dublin area was (at the time of the EIR
preparation) visually dominated by expanses of grasslands and rolling hills. Generally,
at the time the EDSP was adopted, the southerly portion of the EDSP area that contains
the Project site was flat, open and covered with grasslands and agricultural field crops.
In the northerly portions, steeper foothills framed canyons settled with farms and
ranchettes. In 1993, the EDGPA/EDSP planning area was undeveloped at urban levels
and conveyed a distinct rural atmosphere characteristic of the inland coastal valleys of
Northern California. Currently, the southerly and central portions of the EDSP are
primarily developed.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the EDGPA/EDSP, urban
development has proceeded in the Eastern Dublin in accordance with these land use
regulatory documents.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains photographs of visual conditions of the Eastern Dublin
planning area as of 1993. No trees, major rock outcroppings or other natural features
exist on the site, since it was recently filled.
Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway approximately one-quarter mile to
the south and Tassajara Road, approximately one-quarter mile to the west.
Surrounding properties to the northeast and east consist of urban uses, which are
medium-high and high-density residential complexes. Property to the south includes
both developed (Grafton Station) and vacant properties, although mixed-use project is
proposed (Grafton Plaza) south of The Promenade site. There are no public parks on the
site.
As an undeveloped area, no light sources exist on the Project site, although streetlights
have been installed on portions of Dublin Boulevard south of the site.
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Re ug latory framework. Protection of visual resources in the Eastern Dublin area is
provided by the following:
Dublin General Plan. Applicable policies to protect visual resources adopted as part of
the Dublin General Plan are as follows.
Land Use Element (Eastern Extended Planning Area) Policy 2.1.4. C. 2. Proposed site
grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands.
Land Use and Circulation Element. Policy 5.6 A. Incorporate County-designated
scenic routes ..., in the General Plan as adopted City-designated scenic routes and
work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
Land Use and Circulation Element. Policy 5.6 B. Exercise design review of all
projects visible from a designated scenic route.
Alameda County Scenic Route Element. In May, 1966, the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors adopted a Scenic Route Element of the County General Plan. The Element
identifies I-580 as a scenic route within Alameda County. The Scenic Route Element has
been incorporated by reference into the City of Dublin General Plan. The Element
identifies scenic rights-of-way, scenic corridors and areas extending beyond scenic
corridors as being major elements in the Scenic Route Element.
Scenic rights-of-way include paved roadways and adjacent lands required for roadway
protection, storm drain facilities, public utilities, pedestrian travel and roadside
plantings. Rights-of-way may also include roadside rest areas, bicycle paths and hiking
trails.
The Element contains the following principles that apply to scenic route rights-of-way.
• Design scenic routes to minimize grading in rights-of-way;
• Design scenic routes for leisurely rather than high speed travel;
• Enhance scenic route rights-of-way through outstanding design of highway
structures;
• Landscape rights-of-way of existing and proposed routes; and
• Utilize scenic route identification signs.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Section 6.3.4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains
the following goals, policies and action programs regarding visual resources.
Visual Resource Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves
the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other visual resources,
such as creeks and major stands of vegetation.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that
views of the backdrop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually sensitive
ridgelands-no development") are generally maintained when viewed from scenic
corridors.
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all
development visible from designated scenic corridors.
Action Program 6Q: The City should officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580 and
Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, adopt a set of scenic corridor policies
and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic
corridor viewshed.
Action Program 6R: The City should require projects with potential impacts on
scenic corridors to submit detailed visual analysis with development project
applications. Applicant will be required to submit graphic simulations and/ or
sections drawn from affected travel corridor through the parcel in question,
representing typical views of the parcel from these scenic corridor. 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 the visual impact.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin
adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern
Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The purpose of this document is to
implement EDSP visual protection polices as related to individual development
projects.
This document contains the following overall implementing policies for Eastern Dublin
scenic corridors.
1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural landforms
and topography.
2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied features of
the landscape.
3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned and
sensitively sited to respect natural topography.
4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development visible
from designated Scenic Corridors, generally within 700 feet of a Scenic Corridor.
5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridor harmonizes with the
scenic environment.
Previous CEQA documents.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from implementation of the General Plan
and EDSP project. These include:
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/A) to ales-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserve the
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to aless-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B remained
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural
features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) to a
less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of
policies to preserve the natural open beauty of the hills, creeks and major stands
of vegetation.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to ales-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to ales-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but allow development on foreground hills. The measures also limit
development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would
extend above a ridge top.
• Impacts to changes in the visual character of valley flatlands, Impact 3.8/F, was
identified as a significant and unavoidable impact that could not be reduced to a
level of less-than-significant
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced impacts to the visual character of
watercourses to less than significant through careful siting of development and
restoration of stream corridors disturbed by development.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7.1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I)
to ales-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 8.1 reduced impacts on scenic routes from
urban development to less than significant (IM 3.8/J). These measures provide
for designation of I-580, Tassajara and Fallon Roads as scenic corridors and for
submittal of visual analyses for project with potential impacts on scenic
corridors.
2000 MND. Mitigation Measure 1 addressed site specific light and glare impacts for
development of Area G and requires pole-mounted street lights be equipped with cut-
off lenses and oriented downward to minimize spill over of light and glare.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Approval and
implementation of the proposed Project would result in construction of multiple
buildings, landscaping and other associated improvements on the site, which is
currently vacant. The Project site lies outside of the 700-foot area north of the I-
580 freeway and near Tassajara Road that are regulated by the Eastern Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. The height of proposed
structures within The Promenade is well below the 70' maximum height
standard established in the Area G PD zoning for the Village Center. The
proposed buildings are of a similar height as The Terraces and other nearby
high-density residential complexes so as not to significantly block distant views
of Visually Significant Ridgelands north and northeast of the EDSP planning
area.
Overall, there would be no new or more significant impacts with regard to scenic
vistas than analyzed in previous CEQA documents prepared on this site.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic
highway? LS. The proposed Project would convert the site from a vacant
condition to an urbanized area. This impact was addressed as Impacts 3.8/B and
3.8 / F of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that, even
with adherence to Mitigation Measure MM 3.8/2.0, which requires the land use
plan for the Eastern Dublin area emphasize retention of the natural features of
the planning area, this impact remained significant and unavoidable.
The Project site is not located adjacent to scenic corridors, which include the I-580
Freeway and Tassajara Road.
Thus, there would be no new or more significant impacts with regard to scenic
resources than analyzed in previous CEQA documents prepared on this site.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. The Project
site is currently vacant. No visual features exist on the site that would include
hills, creeks, significant stands of trees or vegetation, or major rock formations.
The type, design and character of proposed buildings for the site are consistent
with the design standards and guidelines in the PD zoning for the site and are
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
generally consistent with existing development projects found in the Eastern
Dublin Planning Area.
However, ahigh-density housing complex (The Terraces) has been constructed
east of the Project site and the proximity of the proposed four level parking
garage within The Promenade Project could cast shade and shadows on portions
of The Terraces. To analyze this potential impact, a shade and shadow analysis
has been prepared by the Dahlin Group architects. This study is incorporated by
reference into this initial study and is included as Appendix 1. The study
includes Exhibits M1.0 through D3.2. These are described as follows:
• Exhibits M1.0 through M2.2 show existing and anticipated shadows
during an average day on March 21 and September 21 at noon and 3pm.
These exhibits show that no shadows would be cast from the Project site
and onto adjacent properties.
Exhibits M3.0 though M3.2 show existing and proposed shadow patterns
as they would appear at 6pm on the days of March 21 and September 21.
Exhibit M3.2 shows that in the late afternoon (6 pm), the lower and middle
of the western elevation of The Terraces would be in shadows cast by
buildings within The Promenade. Upper floors and the roof of The
Terraces would be free of any shadows from the proposed Project.
• Exhibits J1.0 through J3.2 depict existing and proposed shadows that
would occur on the longest day of each year, June 21 at noon, 3pm and
6pm. As shown by these exhibits, no shadows would be cast from the
Project site to any adjacent site under any time of day.
Exhibits D1.0 through D 3.1 show existing and proposed shadows on
December 21, the shortest day of the year, at noon, 3pm and 6pm. Exhibit
D.2 shows that small portion of the lower floor of the northwest corner of
The Terraces would be covered by a shadow from the parking garage on
The Promenade project. Exhibit D3.2 shows that most of the lower floor of
The Terraces and a portion of the second floor would be covered by a
shadow cast by proposed Promenade buildings at 4 pm. The roof of the
Terraces would not be covered by any shade or shadow from The
Promenade.
To assess the potential impacts of shade and shadows from the Project site, the
City of Dublin uses the following criteria to determine if a significant impact
would occur:
a) If a project would now or in the future cast shadows on solar collectors in
conflict with the California Public Resources Code Sections 25980-86;
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
b) If a project would cast shade or shadows that would substantially impair
the use of a public or quasi-public park, lawn, playground or similar open
space area;
c) If a project would cast a shadow on a historic resource, as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), such that it would substantially
diminish or impair its eligibility for listing in the National register of
Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources or in any local
register of historic resources as defined by the Public Resource Code.
As depicted in Exhibits M1.0 through D3.2, shade or shadows cast by the
proposed Promenade Project would not extend on any roof area of The Terraces
complex that would block existing or future solar collectors and would not cast
shadows on any open space areas of The Terraces. Since Terraces is a newly
constructed residential complex, it is not considered a historic resource as
defined by section "c," above. Therefore, even though portions of the western
elevation of the Terraces would be subject to shade and shadow during certain
portions of the year and times of day, this impact would be ales-than-
significant impact as defined by the City of Dublin.
Overall, the proposed Project would contribute to the overall alteration of the
rural /open space and visual character of Eastern Dublin (Eastern Dublin EIR
Impact 3.8/B) and alteration of the visual character of flatlands (Eastern Dublin
EIR Impact 3.8/F). Both of these impacts were identified as significant and
unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted.
d) Create light or glare? LS. Site specific light and glare impacts and mitigations were
identified in the 2000 MND. As then, the Project site currently contains no light
sources and construction of the proposed Project would add additional light
sources in the form of parking lot lights, building lights, walkway lights and
similar sources of lighting. Mitigation Measure 1 from the MND requires that
street and other exterior lighting be controlled. A related condition included as
part of the SDR approval requires that all exterior lights be equipped with cut-off
lenses and directed downward to avoid spill over of light off of the Project site.
In addition, the parking garage has been designed with a screening trellis along
its easterly edge to interrupt light escaping the light standards on the top deck of
the parking structure. Also, the light standards on the top deck are of a height so
that they do not extend above the trellis along easterly edge of the structure.
There are no openings to the lower three floors of the parking structure along the
easterly edge (except the ground floor to allow cars to enter and exit) to further
reduce the ability of light to escape from the covered floors of the parking
structure. The project design plus the exterior light control condition implement
the previously adopted mitigation measure and ensure that spillover of light
and glare will be at aless-than-significant level.
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
There will be no new or more significant impacts with regard to light and glare
than analyzed in previous CEQA documents prepared on this site.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project Site as "lands of
locally important farmlands." Impact 3.1 / F found that the cumulative loss of
agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in
the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of
agricultural operations to be less-than-significant.
The Project site is currently vacant and is not used for agricultural production. Existing
zoning is PD-Planned Development. No Williamson Act Land Conservation
Agreements have been recorded on the Project Site based on information contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Figure 3.1-C.)
No additional impacts or mitigation measures regarding agricultural resources were
identified in the 2000 MND.
Project Impacts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to anon-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use? NI. Conversion of the site
to urban uses was planned in the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP, and analyzed in
the EDEIR and 2000 MND.. The Project site is vacant but is not used for
agricultural production, although it was farmed in the past. The site is
surrounded on two sides--northeast and east --with intensive urban
development. The property south of the site is planned for amixed-use or office
complex (Grafton Plaza). Therefore, approval and implementation of the
proposed Project would result in no new or more significant impacts than have
been analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI.
The proposed Project is presently zoned PD-Planned Development for an urban
Village Center and would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning and
would not conflict with a Williamson Act Agreement, since none exist on the
property. Therefore, no impacts would result with regard to these topics.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
Air pollution climatology. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is
determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are
wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub
regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains.
Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San
Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area
has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared
to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly
prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both
morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution
potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall.
High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from
upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between
the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Ambient air duality standards
Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common
pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that
represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each
pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants
because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria
documents. Table 3 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects
and major sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are
summarized in Table 4.
The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related
effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and
particulate matter (PMloand PMZ.s)•
Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and
can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust.
"Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined
as "suspended particulate matter" or PMIO. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5). PM25, by definition, is included in PMio•
Ambient air quality. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide
variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either
due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD
maintains a network of monitoring Sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project site is
in Livermore. Table 5 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring
Site for the period 2005-2007. Table 5 shows that the federal ambient air quality
standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone
and PMlo are exceeded.
Attainment status and regional air quali , plans. The federal Clean Air Act and the
California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air
quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the
differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment
areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as
a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable/ attainment for the federal PMlo and PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is anon-attainment area for ozone
and particulate matter (PMIO and PMz.s). The county is either attainment or unclassified
for other pollutants.
Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air.
Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future
emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that
information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality)
and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in
order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor
vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area
Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone
standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard.
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA OS-006
Table 3. Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone A highly reactive photochemical Eye Irritation The major sources
pollutant created by the action of Respiratory function ozone precursors are
sunshine on ozone precursors impairment. combustion sources
(primarily reactive hydrocarbons such as factories and
and oxides of nitrogen. Often automobiles, and
called photochemical smog. evaporation of
solvents and fuels.
Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, Impairment of oxygen Automobile exhaust,
Monoxide colorless gas that is highly toxic. It transport in the combustion of fuels,
is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of wood
combustion of fuels. Aggravation of in woodstoves and
cardiovascular disease. fireplaces.
Fatigue, headache,
confusion, dizziness.
Can be fatal in the case
of very high
concentrations.
Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors Increased risk of acute Automobile and
Dioxide the air, formed during combustion. and chronic respiratory diesel truck exhaust,
disease. industrial processes,
fossil-fueled power
lants.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle
with a pungent, irritating odor. obstruction lung exhaust, oil-
disease. powered power
!Increased risk of acute plants, industrial
and chronic respiratory processes.
disease.
Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, Aggravation of chronic Combustion,
Matter soot, aerosols and other matter disease and heart/lung automobiles, field
which are small enough to remain disease symptoms. burning, factories
suspended in the air for a long and unpaved roads.
period of time. Also a result of
photochemical
processes.
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.18 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PMIO Annual Average -- 20 Ng/m3
24-Hour 150 Ng / m3 50 ~ / m3
PM2,5 Annual 15 Ng/m3 12 ~g/m3
24-Hour 35 ~g / m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 Ng/m3 --
30 Day Average -- 1.5 N / m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ~g/m3 --
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM --
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM --
PPM =Parts per Million
g/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04 / 01 / OS)
http:/ /www.arb.ca~ov/research/ aags/ aads2.~df
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Table 5. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In:
2005 2006 2007
Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2
Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3
Ozone Federal8-Hour 1 5 1
PM,o Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
PM,o State 24-Hour 0 3 2
PMz.s Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
Carbon
Monoxide State/ Federal
8-Hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http:
//www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart)
Sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where
sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools
playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors are residences located in the Terraces
development east of the Project site.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993, the
issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more
prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no
current statute, regulation, or case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gasses
and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the
2000 MND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR has been certified and the MND adopted, the
determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed
for this proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs
(see discussion under Section XVII, Earlier Analysis). Greenhouse gas and climate
change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new
information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Se.,
15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that
was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was
certified or the MND adopted. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was
widely known prior to the 2000 MND. The United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the
early 1990s. The studies and analyzes of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was
known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993, and
adoption of the Area G MND in 2000. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information
that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No environmental
analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational
impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality
impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures,
many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 / E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
2000 MND. No new air quality impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the
site-specific 2000 MND document.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct irnplernerrtation of an air quality plan? LS. The
Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regarding increased stationary source
air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that would remain
significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0 and 13.0.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such
as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified
cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and unavoidable, even
after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these two impacts.
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan is predicated on
population projections for local agencies within the District based on ABAG's
Projections '07, which, in turn is based on a compilation of local agency general
plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed Project would be
consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, so there would be no new or
more severe impact with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than
has been previously analyzed.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS.
Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / C).
Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact,
including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program,
encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar), any reduction of mobile
source emissions could not be reduced toless-than-significant levels.
Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / C).
Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact,
including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program,
encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction
of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
The 23 acre Village Center area zoning allows a maximum of 230,000 sq.ft. of
future development, well below the maximum 427,888 sq.ft. approved in the
original EDSP and analyzed in the EDEIR. In addition, the Project is an infill site
intended to place complementary neighborhood commercial uses in proximity to
higher density residential development. The Project design provides many
pedestrian and bicycle connections on and offsite to neighboring uses. In these
ways, the Project implements EDEIR mitigations to reduce vehicle trips and
related emissions and congestion. As such, the Project would not result in new or
more severe significant impacts than previously identified. As noted in the EDEIR,
however, the Project reductions would reduce but not avoid the identified
significant unavoidable impact.
Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for
construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air
pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-
significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the
construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction
phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to
adhere to these requirements. Since the BAAQMD has adopted additional and
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
more stringent dust control measures since certification of the Eastern Dublin
EIR, a condition of Project approval will require that Project construction
activities comply with the most recent construction air quality reduction
strategies adopted by the BAAQMD.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? See item "b."
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? NI. The proposed Project would include a commercial development that
would not include manufacturing or similar land uses, so no significant pollutant
concentrations or objectionable odors would be created and no impact would
result.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
The 2000 MND contained an extensive project-specific analysis of biological resources
on the site prepared by H.T. Harvey Associates. This report is included by reference
into this Initial Study and copies of this report are available for review at the Dublin
Community Development Department. A recent letter has been submitted to the City
from H.T. Harvey Associates dated June 5, 2009, indicating that no new special-status
plant or wildlife species or wetlands are present on the 3.72-acre portion of the Project
site where the Promenade Project has been proposed. This letter is attached to this
Initial Study as Appendix 2 and is incorporated by reference within this document.
The Biological Resources section of the 2000 MND identified the presence of two
special-status plant species and special-status wildlife species on the site.
The presence of Congdon s tarplant was identified on the site and it was believed that
San Joaquin spearscale could also exist, although none were observed by qualified
biologists.
Special-status wildlife species observed or believed to be on the site included California
tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, burrowing owl and American badger.
Mitigation Measure 2 contained in the MND required pre-construction surveys for San
Joaquin spearscale and Condgon's tarplant on the site as well as burrowing owl and
American badger. Methods to safely remove and relocate those species, if found, were
included in the mitigation measure.
Required preconstruction surveys were carried out pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR
and the 2000 MND prior to Site grading that was referenced earlier. These included pre-
construction surveys for burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox and American badger and
none of these species were found on the Site. Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin
tarplant seeds were also transplanted as required by the mitigation measure.
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to ales-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7 / 5.0 and 3.11 / 1.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss
of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation
Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as
possible. Mitiation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 requires measures to control dust
deposition during construction activities.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to ales-than-significant level. These
measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (IM 3.7/D) to ales-than-significant level. These measures require
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to ales-than-significant level. This measure requires
completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard.
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND included a number of additional measures to mitigate
biological resources to a level of less-than-significant. These include:
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Mitigation Measure 2 reduced impacts related to San Joaquin spearscale and
Congdon s tarplant to aless-than-significant level by requiring transplantation of
seeds of each of these species to a suitable alternative location. Burrowing owl
and American badger impacts would be reduced by preconstruction surveys and
transplantation of owls and badgers to an alternative site, with issuance of
proper permits by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, orspecial-status species?
NI. The 3.72-acre portion of the overall Project site has been graded as part of an
overall grading plan for this portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Therefore the site has been disturbed and no special-status plant or wildlife
species now occur on the Site, based on the June 5, 2009 H. T. Harvey letter; all
site clearing on the 3.72-acre Promenade site was done in full compliance with
mitigation measures from the EDEIR and 2000 MND. No new or more severe
significant impacts to special-status plant or wildlife species than previously
identified would therefore occur should the Project be approved and constructed
and no further analysis is required.
The proposed Project would contribute to overall loss or degradation of
botanically sensitive habitat, Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/ C. This impact was
found to be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding
considerations was adopted by the City of Dublin when approving the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. This will need to be re-stated should the City approve The
Promenade Project.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
NI. As indicated in the 2000 MND, no wetlands or other waters of the US have
been identified on the site by a qualified biologist. No impacts would therefore
result.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. The close proximity of
urban development to the east and northeast and Dublin Boulevard to the south
precludes movement of wildlife on the site. The lack of creeks, streams or
wetlands also precludes movement of fish species as well. No new or more
severe impacts are anticipated than previously analyzed would occur.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No trees
exist on the Project site that would be affected by construction and
implementation of the proposed Project. The Project site is not located in a
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation area. No new or
more severe impacts than previously analyzed would therefore result.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR contains a comprehensive listing of historic, archeological,
Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern Dublin area.
Chapter 3.9 of the EIR, Cultural Resources, does not identify the presence of identified
archeological or prehistoric resources on the Project site.
The site is vacant and does not contain any structures, so that no above ground historic
resources are present on the Site. The entire site has been disturbed as a result of
previous grading activities.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from implementation of the General
Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are:
Mitigation Measures 3.9/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result
of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (Impact 3.9/A).
These measures require approval of a program for testing for presence or
absence of midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of
such resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to
develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9 B) to a less-than-
significantlevel by requiring that construction activity cease if historical or
prehistoric remains are discovered.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND analyzed the potential for site-specific cultural resources
impacts in Area G. No new or additional resources were identified, however an
additional impact and mitigation measure were identified for unknown resources that
could be discovered during construction activities. Mitigation Measure 3 reduced
impacts to archeological and prehistoric resources to aless-than-significant level by
requiring preparation of a contingency plan in the event potentially significant cultural
resources are discovered.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The Project Site
is vacant and contains no structures of any kind, so there would no impacts
related to planned development with regard to historic resources on the Site. No
such historic resources are identified in Section 3.9, Cultural Resources, of the
Eastern Dublin EIR and none were identified in the 2000 MND.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources or human remains? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a
remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant
archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. Mitigation
Measures 3.9 / 1.0 through 3.9 / 4.0 for Impact 3.9 / A(page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) require
subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site
disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a
protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (then Appendix K). Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0
and 3.9/6.0, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 3.9/B, the potential
disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources. These measures
require cessation of construction activities until uncovered cultural resources can
be assessed by a qualified archeologist and a remediation plan approved by the
City of Dublin consistent with CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure 3
contained in the 2000 MND also requires preparation of a contingency plan to be
implemented during Site construction in the event a cultural resource is
uncovered. No new or more significant impacts with regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts beyond those previously analyzed are therefore
anticipated should the Project be approved.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI.
A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be
uncovered on the Project site during grading and construction activities. At the
time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on unknown
and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist item, as in
current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological
Impacts, specifically addressed human remains, which provisions now have
been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the Project
pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. Mitigation Measure 3 contained
in the 2000 MND reflects this change to the CEQA Guidelines and was adopted
to mitigate potential impacts to human remains that could be disturbed during
Project construction.
No new or more significant impacts beyond those previously identified are
anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains with adherence to
these Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, as well as Mitigation Measure 3
contained in the 2000 MND and no new mitigation measures are required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and reviewed in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2000 MND
was based on a document entitled "Geotechnical Report, Dublin Ranch, Pao-Yeh Lin
Property, Tassajara Road, Dublin California" prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Consultants in August 1999. This document is incorporated by reference into this
Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development
Department during normal business hours.
The 2000 review specific to Area G determined that soils, geologic and seismic
conditions did not present any new potentially significant impacts when compared
with the Eastern Dublin EIR and no new mitigation measures were included in the
2000 document. Applicable geological and soils mitigation measures contained in the
1993 EIR continued to apply to the current Project.
The Site is relatively flat with a gentle slope (1% or less) cross slope from north to
south.
Based on the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND, no Earthquake Safety Zones
have been identified on the Site.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated geology and soils impacts from implementation of the General
Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/ 1.0 partially reduced the impact of the effects of primary
ground shaking (Impact 3.6/B) by requiring conformity with seismic safety
requirements of applicable building codes. Even with adherence to this
mitigation, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of seismic ground shaking to aless-than-significant level (Impact 3.6/C). These
measures require placement of structures set back from unstable land forms,
stabilization of unsuitable land forms, use of engineered retention structures and
installation of suitable subdrains and appropriate design of fill material, and
preparation of design level geotechnical studies.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 11.0-13.0 reduced impacts related to shallow
groundwater to aless-than-significant level (Impacts 3.6/F and G). These
measures require submittal of detailed geotechnical investigations to investigate
possible risks of groundwater conditions to proposed improvements, control of
high groundwater through installation of subdrains and removal of stock ponds
then in the Eastern Dublin area.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/ 14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to shrink-swell soil
hazards to aless-than-significant level (Impact 3.6/H). These measures require
controlling moisture in the soil surrounding individual development projects
and with appropriately designed foundations.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 reduced impacts related to erosion and
sedimentation to a less-than-significant level (Impacts 3.6/K and L). These
measures require general limitations on grading to avoid the rainy season of each
year and require installation of erosion control improvements.
The proposed Project is required to adhere to the above mitigation measures.
2000 MND. No additional site-specific geology or soils impacts or mitigation measures
were identified in this document.
Project Impacts
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? NI. Although the Project is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the
primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts 3.6 /Band 3.6 / C)
could be potentially significant impacts. However, with implementation of
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 1.0 and adherence to the California
Building Code, there would be no impacts related to primary effects of ground
shaking beyond those analyzed in previous environmental documents.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6 / 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of seismic ground shaking
on proposed Project improvements. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0
through 3.6/ 26.0 by the Project developer will ensure that no additional soil
stability impacts would result based on the previously certified Eastern Dublin
EIR and 2000 MND. No new or more severe significant seismic effects are
anticipated beyond those previously identified.
The Dublin City Council included Impact 3.6/B from the Eastern Dublin EIR in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations when approving the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. This impact found that primary effects of earthquake ground
shaking within the Eastern Dublin area as a significant impact even after
mitigation.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Construction of
the proposed improvements on the Project Site would modify the existing
ground surface to allow for the proposed development Project and alter patterns
of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in
erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Impacts 3.6 / K and L
addressed construction and long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts.
Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 will
reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. The developer of this Project
will also be required to comply with provisions of the Alameda County Clean
Water Program to reduce short-term and long-term operational runoff from the
Project site. These provisions require approval of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of site grading and adherence
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
to Best Management Practices during the operational phase of the Project.
Consistency with these erosion control requirements will be made conditions of
Project approval by the Dublin Public Works Department as is normally and
customarily done during the development review process.
With adherence to the above mitigation measures and requirements, no new or
more severe erosion impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NI. Portions of the Project site are
underlain by soil types with high shrink swell potential, which have the
potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin
EIR Impact 3.6 / H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 14.0 through 16.0
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, there would be no significant shrink-swell
impacts beyond those previously identified. These measures require project
developers to use appropriately designed building foundations and to use other
construction techniques to reduce shrink-swell, such as moisture conditioning
prior to construction and installation of app--ropriate surface and subsurface
drainage.
Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/ 7.0, the Project
applicant submitted site-specific soils and geotechnical report for the 3.72-acre
Promenade Project. The report is entitled "Geotechnical Investigation for the
Promenade, Parcel 5, Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard, Dublin California"
prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, dated December 5, 2008. This
report identifies local soil conditions and potential hazards and contains specific
techniques to reduce identified hazards to an acceptable level of risk. The report
concludes that "from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the proposed
project can generally be constructed as planned, provided the recommendations
and conclusions contained in the report are followed" (page 3). This Berlogar
soils report is hereby incorporated by reference into this document and the
document is available for review at the Dublin Public Works Department during
normal business hours.
Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to soil hazards than analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated and no additional analysis is needed.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
Proposed development on the Project site would be connected to sanitary sewers
provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The issues of hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR. However, this topic was addressed in the 2000 MND and was found to be
less-than-significant based on asite-specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment prepared by Berlogar Associates dated September 25, 1997 for the Dublin
Ranch portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area. This report is incorporated by
reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours. The Berlogar report
concluded that no obvious potentially hazardous materials were observed based on soil
sampling. Similarly, no detectable levels of pesticide or herbicide contamination was
encountered.
The Project site was not listed in environmental data bases as a hazardous site, a
hazardous materials generator, hazardous materials transporter or a site containing
underground storage tanks.
The Project site is located within both the General Referral Area and the Height Referral
Area of Livermore Municipal Airport.
Previous CEQA document
The 2000 MND referenced Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
documents completed in 1997 that found no significant amounts of hazardous materials
on Planning Area G.
Project Impacts
a-c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental
release of hazardous materials or emit or handle hazardous materials, substances or wastes
within a quarter mile radius of a school? NI. The 2000 MND found that the potential to
create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials was less-than-significant since
proposed land uses on the Site would include minor and less-than-significant
quantities of potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored on the site.
These would typically include landscape maintenance products, paints, solvents
building repair products and similar normal and customary materials. The
construction of a commercial development on the site would not change the use or
storage of these materials. No changes to conditions on the site have occurred since
2000 with regard to hazardous materials. No schools exist within aone-quarter
mile radius of the site. Therefore, no new impacts related to hazardous materials
than analyzed in the 2000 MND are anticipated and no additional analysis is
required with regard to this topic.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. No properties comprising the Project
site are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
an identified hazardous site as of May 6, 2009. There is therefore no impact with
regard to this topic and no additional analysis is needed.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS.
The 2000 MND noted that the Project site is located northwest of Livermore
Municipal Airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that the site is within the
Airport Referral Area for Livermore Airport. Proposed building heights within the
proposed Project would not exceed typical heights of surrounding buildings
constructed in this area of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. As required by the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy
Plan, development plans for this site will be referred to the Alameda County
Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport
Land Use Policy Plan. No new or more significant impacts with regard to airport
safety beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA documents are anticipated.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would
include the construction of a Neighborhood Commercial development on private
land. The City's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, which provides for
emergency evacuation procedures, would not be affected since no roadways that
could be used for emergency evacuation would be blocked or otherwise impeded.
The Project would also provide access to emergency vehicles as well as pedestrian
and vehicle exits from the site for emergency egress. No impact would therefore
result.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The Eastern
Dublin EIR identified mitigation measures for impacts to fire services generally as
well as in high fire hazard open space areas (Impacts 3.4/C and E). With
adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new
impacts related to wildland fire would result. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0
require measures such as requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire
stations ,requiring use of non-combustible roof materials, maintaining water fire
flow and pressure, establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildland
areas and installing fire sprinklers in buildings. These requirements will be made
conditions of approval for the proposed Project, as appropriate. Therefore, no new
or more severe significant impacts are anticipated that were not analyzed in earlier
CEQA documents and no additional analysis is needed
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local surface water
The Project site is located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, asub-basin of the
Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near
Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City.
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
Surface water quality
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Nal7onal Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the
discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San
Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990
expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges
from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that
disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of
the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local
governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay.
In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that
define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant
control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities,
and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities.
Watershed protection goals are based on polices identified in the San Francisco Bay
Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the
implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with
stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged
into receiving waters. The California stormwater Quality Task Force has published a
series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control
and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin
Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes.
Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing
structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not
limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources.
Flooding
The site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) This is based on a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on May 3,
2007, Case No. 07-09-0840A. This letter is incorporated by reference into this Initial
Study and is available for review at the Dublin Public Works Department during
normal business hours. The LOMR states that the Project has been filled with earth
material and is no longer within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA.
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts from implementation of the
General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are:
Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 reduced the potentially significant impact of
flooding from increased runoff (Impact 3.5 / Y). These measures require storm
drainage master planning (MM 3.5 / 46.0), natural channel improvements
wherever possible (MM 3.5/45.0) and that drainage facilities minimize any
increased potential for erosion or flooding (MM 3.5/44.0), and provision of
facilities to control downstream flooding (MM 3.5 / 47.0). The EIR found that with
the implementation of these mitigation measures potential flooding impacts
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
• Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 49.0 and 50.0 reduced the impact of reduced
groundwater recharge areas to an insignificant level (Impact 3.5/Z). The two
mitigation measures require that facilities be planned and management practices
selected that protect and enhance water quality and that Zone 7 programs for
groundwater recharge be supported.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 -55.OA reduced the impact of non-point source
pollution into local waterways, including urban runoff, non-stormwater
discharges, subsurface drainages and construction runoff (Impact 3.5/AA). With
the implementation of mitigation measures requiring each development to
prepare project-specific water quality investigations addressing this issue, the
development of a community-based non-point-source control education program
and other requirements, this potential impact and potential cumulative impact
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND identified two additional impacts and mitigation measures
related to Hydrology and Water Quality that would be applicable to The Promenade
Project.
Mitigation Measure 4 requires developers within Area G to prepare stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to reduce construction and post-construction water
quality impacts to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 5 requires project
developers within Area G to prepare and submit drainage and hydrology studies to the
Dublin Public Works Department that summarizes historic drainage flows from the site,
estimated increases in the amount of stormwater as a result of project development and
the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate increased drainage flows.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. The issue of
water quality standards was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was Impact
3.5/AA, non-point sources of water pollution. Water quality was also addressed in
the 2000 MND. Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 through
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
55.0 and MND Mitigation Measure 5 ensure that the Project development and
improvements will reflect the most current water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements. No new or more severe water quality impacts beyond
those previously identified will result from the Project.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The
Project Site has been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the 1993
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the Site rezoning
in 2000. Impact 3.5 / Z contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern
Dublin area already has minimal recharge capabilities and that approval of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could reduce the amount of undeveloped land in the
region used for groundwater recharge. Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0
require local water supply agencies to plan facilities and undertake management
to protect and enhance water quality and to support Zone 7's on-going water
recharge efforts. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed development of the Project site
and the related loss of potential recharge area, so the Project would result in no
new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? LS. No streams exist on or adjacent to the Project site
that would be impacted by the proposed Project. Although new impervious
surfaces would be added to the site to accommodate new urban uses plazas,
roadways, driveways and similar surfaces, Eastern Dublin Mitigation EIR Measure
3.5/46.0 requires preparation of a storm drain master plan for each development
proposal to control runoff. Each storm drain master plan must contain a number of
items, including but not limited to hydrologic studies, documenting of existing
conditions, design-level analysis of effects on existing creeks and watersheds and
recommended features to minimize runoff within existing creeks and channels.
The storm drain master plan will be prepared to City of Dublin and Zone 7
standards and will be reviewed and approved by both agencies. The Dublin Ranch
Drainage Master Plan has been updated to include proposed development of the
entire 23-acre site. The proposed Project must also comply with C.3
hydromodification standards as required by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board to minimize peak stormwater flows from development sites. With
adherence to Eastern Dublin mitigation measures and more recent water quality
standards, the Project would result in no new or more severe significant impacts
than previously analyzed.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that
would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. The Project site was
designated for urban development in the prior EIR and MND. As discussed in
subsections "b" and "c" the proposed Project is required to comply with Eastern
Dublin EIR and 2000 MND mitigation measures identified above that will reduce
impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns and runoff to a less-than-
significant level. No new impacts beyond those identified in earlier CEQA
documents would be created.
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. The Project developer is required by
Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 and 2000 MND Mitigation Measure 5
to prepare a storm drain master plan and other studies to ensure that adequate on-
site and downstream drainage facilities can or will be provided to accommodate
any post-construction increases in storm drainage from the site. The Dublin Ranch
Storm Drain Master Plan has been updated as required by prior adopted
mitigation measures. There would therefore not be a substantial increase in the
quantity of stormwater runoff that could not be safely accommodated in drainage
facilities.
Regarding the potential of the proposed Project to substantially increase polluted
runoff on or off the site, refer to subsection "a, above.
With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR and MND mitigation measures, the Project
would result in no new or more severe significant impacts than previously
analyzed with respect to stormwater runoff increases or increases in polluted
runoff from the site.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Refer to item "a," above.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? NI. The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone as identified
in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial Study and no impact would
result with regard to this topic and no additional analysis is required.
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project site is located
well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water that could be
impacted by a tsunami. Therefore, this no impact would result regarding this
impact.
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
Existing Land uses
The Project site is currently vacant and contains no habitable structures.
Regulatory setting
Land use on the Project site is regulated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) which presently designate the Project Site as Neighborhood
Commercial, as part of the Dublin Ranch Village Center. The site is zoned PD-Planned
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Development with a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan providing for a commercial retail
and office Village Center with nearby higher density residential development.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project site is located adjacent to
a high density residential complex (The Terraces, ahigh-density residential project
to the east, vacant land to o the south, although a development project (Grafton
Plaza) has been proposed on property to the south. Based on existing and planned
land uses in the Project vicinity, no established communities would be disrupted
by approval and implementation of the proposed Project, since this type and
intensity of land use has been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
existing Planned Development zoning. No new or more severe impacts would
result that have not been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND.
No additional analysis is required regarding this topic.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. No changes to the
General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations have been
requested as part of the Project. The applicant will be required to comply with all
land use policies and regulations as a condition of Project approval. Minor
modifications to the approved Planned Development zoning have been proposed,
but such modifications, if approved, would not change the types of land uses
proposed or the amount of development intensity allowed for The Promenade
area,
The impact of loss of open space and agricultural lands was found to be significant
and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1 / F) and this impact was
included in the statement of overriding considerations.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
The Project Site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural
community conservation plan area. There are no impacts with regard to this
Project and no additional analysis is required.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
Neither the General Plan, the EDSP, the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the 2000 MND identify
the presence of significant mineral resources on the Site.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable
environmental reviews indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the
Project Site, so no impacts would occur and no additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
11. Noise
Environmental Settin
This section of the Initial Study is based on asite-specific acoustic study of the proposed
Project prepared by the consulting form of Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz. This report
is included as Appendix 3 of the Initial Study and is hereby incorporated by reference
into the Initial Study.
Environmental Noise Fundamentals. Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is
commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level
meter "captures" sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a
sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB).
To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans
perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-
frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The
use of A-weighting is required by most local agencies as well as other federal and state
noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is often
used when the A-weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors
that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone
does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more
accurately represent the noise environment. There are four descriptors that are
commonly used in environmental studies; the Lmax. Leq, L9o and DNL (or CNEL).
The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a
single event such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express the average noise
level, the Leg (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of
time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise
level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is
usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified
with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level
(Ldn/DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors
are averages like the Leg except they include a 10 dBA penalty for noises that occur
during nighttime hours (and a 5 dBA penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to
account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours
In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dBA
change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. For the purposes of this
analysis, a change in the ambient noise level of 3 dBA or more is considered significant.
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially
significant impacts and mitigation measures related to noise. The impacts potentially
applicable to this Project include:
IM 3.10/E (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction
Noise) would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with
construction of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan improvements,
including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts
to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction
Noise Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards.
IM 3.10/F (Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted
by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development) would result from close
proximity of different land use types that may result in potentially significant
impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.10/6.0 requires the preparation of noise
management plans for all mixed-use developments within the Eastern Dublin
area. This measure would reduce noise generated by mixed-use development to
a level of insignificance.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND analyzed potential noise impacts and included no noise
mitigation measures were included in the 2000 MND.
Project Impacts
a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS. The proposed Project includes land
use types and densities consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. Impacts related to generation of noise levels in excess of City
standards was addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. This EIR found
potentially significant impacts related to exposure of proposed and existing
residences to future roadway noise (Impacts IM 3.1 / A and B). Mitigation Measure
3.10/2.0 requires development projects to provide for noise barriers or berms to
protect outdoor use area for existing residential complexes.
The project-specific acoustic report identified the following issues related to noise
with the proposed Project.
Relationship to traffic noise. The existing CNEL at the site and the nearby
residential development (The Terraces) range from 64 to 66 dBA, with the major
noise generator being vehicles traveling on I-580 to the south. Existing traffic
volumes on Dublin Boulevard are relatively low compared to the anticipated
buildout of the Eastern Dublin area. According to recent traffic projections for this
portion of Eastern Dublin, the future peak hour traffic volume is anticipated to be
approximately 4,200 vehicles on Dublin Boulevard (Grafton Plaza traffic report,
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Studylfhe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
May 2009, TJKM Associates). Based on the Federal Highway Administration
Traffic Noise Model, the future CNEL would be 72 dBA at the south facade of the
Club Sport building. The proposed Mercantile building would be further removed
from Dublin Boulevard and would be exposed to a CNEL of 67 dBA from traffic
noise. According to the City's General Plan, a CNEL of 72 dBA is considered
conditionally acceptable for commercial uses and noise insulation will be required.
Conventional construction methods, including closed windows and fresh air
ventilation systems will normally suffice. The CNEL at the Project site will be
normally acceptable.
The primary outdoor use area for the C1ubSport building would be a swimming
pool and patio area. These areas would be located within a courtyard that is
acoustically shielded from surrounding roads by the building along three sides
and a 12-foot tall barrier along Dublin Boulevard, The site design would reduce
outdoor noise levels by approximately 10 dBA to less than a CNEL of 70 dBA,
which is considered normally acceptable. The C1ubSport facility would include air
conditioning and a ventilation system to allow the windows to be closed and the
traffic noise in the pool area will be acceptable.
Increased traffic noise from the Project. The proposed Project would add an
estimated 295 peak hour trips to the roadway network (see Table 6 in the
Transportation section of this Initial Study). Along Dublin Boulevard, traffic noise
levels would increase by less than 1 dBA due to Project traffic. If all of the Project
traffic would use Finnian Way to access the site, the traffic noise level is calculated
to be up to a CNEL of 57 dBA at the existing Terraces complex near the northeast
corner of this site. Since these residences are already exposed to a CNEL of 64 dBA
from freeway noise, the combined noise level would be 65 dBA, which is a 1 dBA
increase and would not be significant.
Noise from on-site activities. On-site noise sources associated with the Project
would include vehicle noise (vehicle use), the use of the outdoor pool area and
mechanical ventilation equipment.
The parking garage would be an estimated 75 feet from the nearest residential
building to the east in the Terraces complex. The garage entrance would be along
the east side of the Project site and vehicles would enter and exit the garage via
driveways connecting to Dublin Boulevard or Finnian Way. The eastern facade of
the garage would be of solid construction (no openings) on the second and third
levels. There would also be a driveway and one row of surface parking between
the garage and the Terraces.
Assuming all vehicles use the parking garage (as opposed to a mix of surface and
garage parking), the CNEL is calculated to be 59 dBA at the nearest residences to
the east. This estimate includes factors for both partial shielding of parking garage
noise provided by the garage wall and roof parapet to the east, as well as potential
acoustic reflections of the noise from cars that that would be traveling between the
parking garage and the adjacent residences. The parking noise would combine
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study~The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
with the existing traffic noise CNEL of 64 dBA and result in a CNEL of 65 dBA, a 1
dBA increase, which would be less than significant.
The ClubSport building would include an outdoor pool, a Jacuzzi and eating area,
The pool would be for adult lap swimming and the surrounding deck would be
used to create a relaxing and re-energizing experience. There is a possibility for use
of the pool area by children. Noise from the pool area would be attenuated by the
actual ClubSport building, which would act as a noise barrier. Maximum
instantaneous noise levels at the adjacent residential use would be approximately
54 dBA from the noisiest activity, which would include children yelling. Since this
is less than the existing ambient background noise level (L90 of 55 to 57 dBA), the
sound would be barely audible at adjacent residences. Overall, noise from pool
activities would not contribute to the average noise levels at the adjacent
residential locations and no new or more severe impact would result from this
source.
Mechanical noise levels. The heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems
would include outdoor equipment to be located on the roofs of the ClubSport and
Mercantile buildings. Some of this equipment would be located at the ground level
in the alley between the Mercantile building and the parking garage, The
Mercantile Building would also have a rooftop m ClubSport building and there
could be ventilation openings in the facade facing existing residences. This
equipment has the potential to be audible at the residences and a condition of
Project approval will require a detailed design-level acoustical analysis of the
proposed HVAC system that demonstrated noise levels at the existing residences
meets the noise limits of the State of California Model Noise Ordinance, which are
60 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA at night. If the HVAC noise contains a
steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum, noise levels shall be reduced
by 5 dBA.
No new or more severe impacts related to noise impacts than were previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and MND are anticipated with approval and
construction of the Promenade Project.
The Eastern Dublin EIR found exposure of existing residents to future roadway
noise (Impact 3.10/B) to be a significant and unavoidable impact and was included
in the statement of overriding considerations.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS.
The topic of significant groundborne vibration was not addressed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The 2000 MND found no anticipated impacts since no sources of
vibration such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads exist in the area. Ground
vibration was addressed in the site-specific acoustic analysis for this Project (see
Appendix 3). The greatest potential for vibration would be during the excavation
and foundation construction activities. Since pile driving would not be necessary,
the use of vibratory rollers would be expected to generate the highest vibration
levels. The nearest vibration sensitive land uses are The Terraces which are
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
approximately 75 feet from the parking structure building and 95 feet from the
C1ubSport building. At these distances, ground vibration from a vibratory roller
would be 76 to 80 VdB at the nearest residential buildings. Though these levels
could be noticeable to residences, they would not exceed acceptability criteria for
annoyance, which is based on a criterion of 80 Vdb (vibration velocity expressed
in decibels in one micro-inch per inch), as adopted by the Federal Transit
Administration. No new significant impact would therefore occur with regard to
this topic.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? LS. The Project is required to adhere to construction
noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize impacts
of construction noise (IM 3.10/E). These are Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0,
which require all project developers to prepare and adhere to Construction Noise
Management Programs, which require limiting grading and other noise generating
activities to the shortest period of time as possible, minimizing truck access
through residential areas and limiting the hours and days of construction
activities. With adherence to these measures, no ne~n~ or more severe significant
impacts would result from construction and no additional mitigation measures are
required.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? LS. The Project site is located within the Livermore Municipal
Airport Influence Area (AIA) .The City of Dublin staff is required to refer this
Project to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission to ensure
consistency with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Plan. A condition of
Project approval will require that that building interior spaces shall comply with
City and state noise level requirements.
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
Section 3.2 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR addressed Population, Housing and
Employment. The EIR included a general description of expected Bay Area and Tri-
Valley population growth, but noted that "[this] section does not analyze these
projections in terms of potential environmental impacts because the physical
environmental effects associated with population, employment and housing are
addressed in the appropriate environmental analysis ..of the this EIR."
This section of the Initial Study updates Section 3.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR that
discussed the demographic, employment and housing context of the Eastern Dublin
project. It contains an updated general description of expected Bay Area growth as well
as more detailed population and housing development projections for the Tri-Valley
subregion and for the City of Dublin. Population and housing projections for the Project
are described. The physical environmental (secondary) effects associated with
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
population, employment and housing are addressed as applicable in Sections 3.3
through 3.12 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, as updated by this Initial Study.
Regional Overview. The Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Projections 2007
provides current population, household, income and employment forecasts for the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Region. In order to place the proposed Project in
its overall regional context, several findings of ABAG's projections are summarized in
this section.
Population. ABAG expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add nearly 1.3
million new residents by the between 2000 and 2020, reaching a total estimated
population of 8,069,700. This represents an increase of over 18 percent over the 20-year
forecast period from 2000 to 2020.
The ratio of population to household growth has differed significantly in the
region over the past several decades. Between 1960 and 1970 household growth
in the Bay Area was approximately one-third of population growth: i.e., an
additional household was added for every three new residents. In the 1970s, the
number of new residents added was only slightly higher than the number of new
households. In the 1980s, the pattern of the 1960s was reestablished -- one new
household was formed per every three new residents. Reduced housing
affordability affects household size by reducing the household formation rate.
Housing. ABAG estimates that the increase of 475,740 new households expected in the
region by 2020 will create a demand for at least 23,000 new dwellings each year.
Employment. ABAG predicts that job growth in the Bay Area will be in a broad variety
of sectors located throughout the Bay Area. The region is expected to add
approximately 527,240 jobs by year 2020, an increase of over 26,000 new jobs annually.
Most of this growth is projected to occur in services (business and professional, health
and recreation, social and personal), manufacturing, and retail trade, with more than 50
percent of new jobs in the services sector.
Previous CEOA documents
The Eastern Dublin EIR discusses population, regional housing needs, and
jobs/housing balance. The 2000 MND addressed the reconfiguration of land uses,
including the Village Center. Growth inducement was identified as a less than
significant impact and displacement was identified as no impact since Area G was
vacant.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The
Project site has been planned for urban uses since adoption of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR
analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact 3.5/T) related to providing water
service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on the Project site and
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Studyll-he Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
surrounding areas was slightly modified in 2000. Proposed land uses that would
accommodate the Project, are envisioned in the Eastern Dublin General Plan and
Specific Plan, as amended in 2000. The proposed Project would slightly reallocate
density of land uses in The Promenade portion of Eastern Dublin but would not
exceed the maximum amount of development allowed by the existing Planned
Development zoning. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts are therefore
anticipated than analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The Project site currently contains no dwelling units and no impact would result
with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. No additional
analysis is needed regarding this topic.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
The following provide essential services to the Project Site:
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 17, located
northwest of the Project site at 6200 Madigan.
• Police Protection. Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area.
• Library Services. Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
• Solid Waste and Recyclin~: Residential and commercial solid waste pick up
and recycling is provided by Amador Valley Industries.
Previous CEQA documents
Impacts and mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and
police protection include:
• Impacts 3.4 / A and B identified a potentially significant impact with police
services demand and accessibility to the Eastern Dublin area. This impact was
reduced to ales-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.4/ 1.0 that provides additional personnel and facilities and revision to police
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police
protection service in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0 also reduces impacts to the Police
Department by requiring incorporation of safety requirements into the
requirements of future development projects, appropriate budgeting of police
services by the City and police review of individual development projects in
the Eastern Dublin area.
Impacts 3.4/C identified a potentially significant impact with regard to
increased demand for fire services in Eastern Dublin. This impact was
reduced to ales-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.4/6.0 through 11.0. These measures require the timing of facilities to
coincide with new serve demand from development, establishment of
appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital fire
improvements, acquisition of future fire stations in Eastern Dublin, and
incorporation of Fire Department safety recommendations into the design of
all future individual development projects in Eastern Dublin.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed the potential for development on Area G and
related increases in services demand. No new or more severe significant impacts or
supplemental mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 CEQA document for
police, fire or other services since the Area G project largely reconfigured rather than
expanded applicable land uses.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures,
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project could result
in an increase in the number of calls for service for fire, rescue and emergency
rescue services since there would be an increase in the number of employees and
visitors to the site. These impacts were analyzed and mitigated in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and no further Area G -specific impacts were identified in the 2000
MND. The Project applicant will be required to meet existing Eastern Dublin EIR
mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/11.0 relating to fire service. The
requirement of each measure is summarized above. With adherence to the above
mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to
fire services than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents.
b) Police protection? LS. Similar to fire protection, there would be an increase in police
calls for service should the proposed Project be approved and constructed. This
impact was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIl2 as Impact 3.4/A and B and no
further Area G -specific impacts were identified in the 2000 MND. With
adherence to Eastern Dublin police protection mitigation measures, summarized
above, no new or more severe significant impacts to police services are anticipated
than have been previously analyzed.
City of Dublin Page 67
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
c) Schools? NI. No impacts would result to school service should the proposed Project
be approved since the Project does not include a residential component that would
generate school-aged children. No additional analysis is needed regarding this
topic.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI. The
2000 MND identified maintenance of public facilities as a less than
significant impact for future development of Area G. Maintenance of public
facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin. New public
facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards,
so that long-term maintenance is not anticipated to result in any new or
more severe significant impacts than analyzed in previous environmental
documents. The Project developer will be required to pay Public Facilities
Fees to the City of Dublin to assist in constructing new and upgraded public
infrastructure to support the proposed Project.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.4/O (demand for utility
extensions) and 3.4/S (consumption of non-renewable natural resources) as
significant and unavoidable impacts when approving the Eastern Dublin
project.
e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 below.
14. Recreation
Environmental Setting
No neighborhood or community parks and / or recreation services or facilities are
located on the Project Site or designated on the Site in the Eastern Dublin area in the
General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest
City of Dublin community park to the Project Site is Emerald Glen Park, located on the
southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project area.
Emerald Glen Park is 48.2 acres with 42 acres of developed park consisting of the
following amenities: children s play areas; baseball, soccer and cricket fields; basketball,
tennis and Bocce courts; skate park; group picnic area; and large grassy open space
areas.
Fallon Sports Park, a 60-acre community sports park, is located east of the Project area.
Construction of Phase 1 (27 acres) will begin in winter 2009 and be complete in summer
2010. This facility is planned to include ball fields, several child play areas, picnic
facilities, basketball, volleyball and tennis courts, a BMX track and bocce ball courts.
Local park facilities near the Project Site include Devany Square, a 1.9-acre
neighborhood square bordered by Finnian Way, Chancery Lane and Parnell Way and
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Bray Commons, a 4.8-acre neighborhood park located on Keegan Street between
Finnian Way and McGuire Way. Bray Commons includes children's play areas, picnic
areas, basketball and volleyball courts, dog park for small dogs and large grassy open
space area.
The City of Dublin also maintains a large number of other park and recreational
facilities within the community and offers an extensive recreation program to residents.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI.
Approval and construction of the proposed Project would not increase the use of
nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it does not include a
residential component that would generate the need for neighborhood and
regional parks. No impacts are anticipated.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. The proposed Project includes a Club Sport fitness center that would
offer a range of private recreational facilities to the community as well as an
extension of a pedestrian and bicycle path along the eastern edge of the site. No
impacts would therefore occur with respect to this topic.
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
Local roadways serving the Project site include Dublin Boulevard, which forms the
southern boundary of the site, Grafton Street, the westerly boundary of the site and
Finnian Way, the northern boundary of the site. Regional roadway access is provided
by Tassajara Road, located to the west of the site, and the I-580 freeway, to the south.
Public transit service to Dublin and surrounding Tri-Valley cities is provided by
WHEELS bus service, operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA).
The Dublin Pleasanton BART station is located west of the Project site. The West Dublin
BART station is under construction west of the I-680 freeway.
Pedestrian access in the Project area is provided by sidewalks located within public or
private rights-of-way of nearby streets.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR including the following impacts and
mitigation measures related to transportation and circulation.
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0 were adopted which reduced impacts
on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a
level of insignificance (Impact 3.3/A and D).
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580 / 680 interchange (Impacts
3.3/B, C and E). Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts
remained on I-580 freeway segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at
the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-580 (Impact 3.3/B and E).
Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts
to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound
Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway
Boulevard /Dublin Boulevard intersections and along El Charro Road to a level
of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at
intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton
and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and
interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain
interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are
also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements through the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program (Impacts 3.6/F, H, J and L).
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact
3.3/M and N). The identified improvements reduced Tassajara Road impacts to
less than significant but Dublin Boulevard impacts remained significant and
unavoidable due to road widening limitations.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 15.0, 15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings (Impact 33/O
and P).
2000 MND. The 2000 MND site-specific analysis identified additional transportation
improvements to reduce additional transportation impacts. Mitigation Measure 7
included a number of roadway improvements to accommodate additional trips from
traffic generated by future development in Areas F, G and H. Mitigation Measure 8
required widening of a portion of Tassajara Road.
Project Impacts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity?
LS. The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads
and streets. Based on the following trip generation table (Table 6), the proposed
Project would add a total of 3,096 daily trips, with 186 trips occurring in the am
peak and 295 trips occurring in the pm peak periods at project buildout.
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Table 6. Project Trip Generation
Land Use
(TTE Code) Size Rate (trips per
ksf) Trips AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips
Health Club
(492) 47,700 32.9 1,570 66 168
Retail (820) 10,900 42.9 470 11 41
Restaurant (932) 7,200 127.2 914 83 80
Pass-by
reductions 5%v -46 0 20
Restaurant
subtotal 868 83 60
Office 17,100 11.0 188 26 25
Total 3,096 186 295
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants 2009
The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads and
streets; however the type and amount of development proposed in The
Promenade Project is the same as assumed in the 2000 MND document and
approved in the PD zoning.
Traffic and circulation impacts of constructing the Project site was analyzed in
both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
determined that Impact 3.3/B (I-580 Freeway, I-680-Hacienda) and Impact 3.3 C (I-
580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway) could not be mitigated to an insignificant
level and would remain significant and unavoidable. Similarly, Impacts 3.3/E,
(cumulative freeway impacts) and 3.3/I (Santa Rita Road/I-580 Freeway
eastbound ramps) and Impact 3.3 / M (cumulative impacts on Dublin Boulevard)
were found to be significant and unavoidable. These significant and unavoidable
impacts would also result with implementation of The Promenade Project.
The Project developer will be required to pay Eastern Dublin Transportation
Improvement Fees to pay the development's fair share of constructing local and
regional transportation improvements.
No new or more severe impacts with respect to increases in local or regional traffic
are anticipated with this Project that have not been previously analyzed.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? LS. See discussion for item "a."
c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air
traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed commercial development.
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. The
proposed Project has been reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works
Department and Alameda County Fire Department and found to be consistent
with City standards for on-site circulation and access, including turning radii,
sight lines, roadway grades and similar topics. No hazards with respect to design
features or on-site uses would be created.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. Approval and construction of the
proposed Promenade Project would not include any barriers or impedances to
local or city-wide emergency evacuation routes as required by the City of Dublin
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan so no impact would result
regarding this topic.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. The amount of parking proposed on the Project site
would comply with the City of Dublin on-site parking requirement; therefore, no
impact is anticipated with regard to this topic.
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project would
include construction of sidewalks on adjacent street frontages to facilitate
pedestrian access as well as construction of a multi-use trail on the eastern side of
the site. Bicyclists could also use adjacent roads as well to access Tassajara Road
and other roads. The Project would create no hazards or barriers for pedestrians
or bicyclists and instead is intended to provide for and facilitate such uses as
alternatives to vehicular travel. No impacts to this topic would result.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
Sewer service. The Eastern Dublin EIR examined wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal issues for the Project area. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) was
identified as the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project area
with disposal provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency
(LAVWMA), a joint powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD.
LAVWMA operates a pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade
and into East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge into
San Francisco Bay.
Wastewater collection system. DSRSD owns and maintains a system of underground
sewer mains throughout its service area, including Dublin. A 30-inch diameter sewer
line currently exists within Dublin Boulevard just south of the Project site.
Wastewater treatment. Wastewater is collected as described above and conveyed to the
District's Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP) located south of Stoneridge Drive in
Pleasanton. The WWTP also treats wastewater from the City of Pleasanton.
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
DSRSD recently completed the first stage of its planned expansion to serve additional
growth in its service area. This expansion added 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of
average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to the treatment plant for a total of 17.0
mgd ADWF. Recent flows into the WWTP as of June, 2008, was approximately 10.7
mgd (Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 7/08).
Wastewater disposal. of treated wastewater generated by the proposed Project.
LAVWMA, the joint powers agency, was created in 1974 by the aties of Livermore and
Pleasanton, and the DSRSD. Effluent from the wastewater treatment plants operated by
the City of Livermore and DSRSD is conveyed to LAVWMA regulating reservoirs in
Pleasanton and then via a 16-mile export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers Authority
(EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro. The EBDA pipeline conveys the effluent for ultimate
discharge to San Francisco Bay.
Water service. Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5,
Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement
analyzes the Project's impacts when evaluated against new information concerning
water supply subsequent to the earlier analyses. including the 2000 MND.
Water demand and supply. The City of Dublin is supplied by water provided by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns
and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations
and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, which is discussed below. DSRSD was formed
in 1953, formerly known as the Valley Community Services District.
Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 from various turnouts in the Dublin
area. Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout Dublin via a grid of
underground water transmission lines, delivering water to residences, businesses and
other customers within the District's service area.
DSRSD maintains potable water distribution mains within Dublin Boulevard, south of
the Project site that provides potable water to The Terraces complex just east of the
Project site.
The District also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-
potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 280 requires recycled water use for approved
customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family
residential and institutional irrigation uses within the DSRSD potable water service
area. New development within the Eastern Dublin area has been required to install
dual water systems and a recycled water distribution system has been installed within
the major streets, including Dublin Boulevard. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(Ord. No. 980) has also been adopted by DSRSD to minimize use of irrigation water.
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
DSRSD and Zone 7 are responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to
meet the anticipated growth in demand. DSRSD plans to use a combination of
potable and recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources.
The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. Zone 7 relies on a combination of
supplies to meet retail water needs. Existing water sources include:
State Water Project Supplies: In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately 70 to 80
percent of its water supply from water conveyed through the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta by the State Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75-year contract with the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State
Water Project (SWP). The entitlement under this contract is 46,000 acre fee
annually. SWP water is delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed
via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This water is then transported to Zone 7
through the California Aqueduct to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle.
Water enters the Zone 7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del
Valle at two Zone 7 treatment plants: the Patterson Pass Treatment Plant and the
Del Valle Water Treatment Plant.
Zone 7 reached its full entitlement of 46,000 acre feet per year in 1997. To meet
anticipated demand, Zone 7 has acquired additional entitlements from other
water agencies equal to 34,619 acre feet annually. With regard to all of these SWP
entitlements, actual water deliveries vary, depending on hydrologic conditions,
requests by other contractors, delivery capacity and environmental /regulatory
requirements.
Historically, for planning purposes Zone 7 anticipated a long-term annual
average delivery of 75.6% of its entitlement. Recently, however, SWP water
deliveries have been restricted by ashort-term federal court order restricting
Delta pumping, which is designed to protect the Delta Smelt, an endangered
species, and additional species-related restrictions on the State Water Project's
ability to deliver water from the Delta are possible. Zone 7 now anticipates a
long-term annual average delivery to be approximately 66% of its entitlements.
Byron-Bethany Irrigation District: Since 1994, Zone 7 has been receiving water
via ashort-term water transfer from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. Zone 7
has made arrangements with this District to make this along-term (15) year
arrangement. The agreement calls for delivery of 2,000 acre- feet per year. As
this water supply is delivered through the South Bay Aqueduct via the Delta, it
could potentially be impacted by court and regulatory restrictions on Delta
pumping.
Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part
of the SWP. However, Zone 7 has rights to 9,300 acre-feet of water per year from
the lake's watershed.
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD use the local underground aquifer basin
as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged
by rainwater falling in the watershed area. It is estimated that a safe yield of
13,400 acre-feet of water per year can be withdrawn from the basin. DSRSD
operates pumping facilities near the intersection of Stoneridge Drive and
Johnson Drive in Pleasanton, although the yield from these pumps is low.
Although the restrictions on State Water Project deliveries from the Delta have
created significant uncertainties about future water supplies, DSRSD and Zone 7
indicate that Zone 7 has sufficient supplies to serve projected demand through 2015.
In the meantime, as a substantial portion of the State's water supplies are derived
from the Delta, various state and federal efforts are underway to ensure that water
deliveries from the Delta are maintained while at the same time protecting species
that rely on the Delta. These efforts include near-term (or interim) projects, such as
the Franks Tract Project, which would install a physical barrier in the Delta that
would serve to reduce the impact of pumping on Delta Smelt, and long-term projects,
such as the construction of dual- or isolated-conveyance system. Such adual- or
isolated-conveyance system would involve the construction of a canal between an
intake at the Sacramento River upstream of the Delta and the SWP pumps at the
southern end of the Delta, which would allow SWP water to be conveyed separately
from the Delta.
Ultimately, if future water supplies prove insufficient to meet demand, Zone 7 and
DSRSD are exploring a number of alternatives to either reduce demand or increase
supply sufficiently to meet projected demand through buildout of their constituent
agencies' general plans. These alternatives include:
Zone 7 acquiring additional SWP entitlements from other water agencies.
Zone 7 altering its 100% Reliability Policy, which requires Zone 7 to have
adequate supplies available to meet 100% of customer demand at all times.
Altering this policy would free up existing water supplies that are presently
set aside to meet the policy.
Permanent conservation, such as replacing existing potable-water landscape
irrigation systems with recycled water systems and retrofitting existing
structures with water conserving fixtures. Offsetting existing demand would
free up water supplies for future demand.
Both DSRSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for water cutbacks in the
event of a drought.
Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge-connection and other fees on new development
within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water
system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission and on-
going system water maintenance and improvements.
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0-33.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area through provision of a water distribution system. The
Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/ 1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new
development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site
wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 / C noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate sewer demand from
the Specific Plan project only. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal
capacity was a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is presently
being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency to
provide adequate disposal capacity. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of future wastewater
treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to
an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/ 8.0, which requires
that wastewater treatment and disposal be made available to meet anticipated
development in Eastern Dublin.
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed water and wastewater issues, and solid waste
disposal for Area G. No additional impacts or mitigation measures with respect to
these topics or utilities or service systems were included in the 2000 MND.
All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to the proposed
Project.
Project Irn~acts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The Project site is
located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project applicants would request
wastewater service from the District in order to serve the proposed Project.
Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to
this Project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that
wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements
mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These Mitigation
Measures include 3.5 / 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. Since the Project would not increase the
amount of development intensity on the site greater than currently designated in
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, no new or more
severe significant impacts are anticipated with regard to exceedances of Regional
Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. No new or more
severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in previous
CEQA documents.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
LS. In terms of wastewater facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts
3.5 / A, B, C, D, E and G associated with the planned development of the largely
undeveloped Eastern Dublin area and wastewater systems. Impact 3.5 / A ated
indirect impacts resulting from lack of a wastewater service provider to the
Eastern Dublin area. Impact 3.5/B noted lack of a wastewater collection system in
the Eastern Dublin area, Impact 3.5/ C found an impact with extension of a sewer
trunk with capacity to serve future developments in Eastern Dublin. Impacts
3.5/D and E noted lack of wastewater treatment capacity to serve proposed
development in Eastern Dublin. Impact G identified a lack of current wastewater
disposal capacity.
Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 1.0 through 9.0 and 10.0 through 14.0 were included to
reduce wastewater treatment impacts to an insignificant level by requiring
extension of a public water system to the Eastern Dublin area, requiring
wastewater collection master plans for new development projects, requiring new
development projects to be connected to a public sewer system and promoting use
of recycled water for irrigation. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the
Project site and the remainder of Eastern Dublin has been annexed to DSRSD, so a
public wastewater system is available in the area.
For The Promenade Project, the developer would construct local sewer laterals and
related facilities to DSRSD specifications in order to connect to the regional DSRSD
City of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
sewer system. This is identified in the Project Description section of this Initial
Study.
With respect to wastewater treatment, Eastern Dublin EIR noted Impacts 3.5/G
and I regarding lack of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. Eastern
Dublin Mitigation Measures 3.5/ 11.0 through 14.0 and 3.5/ 17.0 to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require expansion of the treated
wastewater export pipeline from Eastern Dublin, promote reuse of treated
wastewater for irrigation, require development projects to receive awill-serve
letter from DSRSD, and require engineering redundancy to minimize the risk of
pump station failure. These measures have been implemented and a larger export
pipeline was completed in 2005 under the auspices of the Livermore Amador
Valley Wastewater Treatment Authority (LAVWTA). DSRSD has commenced
construction of a recycled water system in the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed
Project will be required to connect to this system when a recycled pipeline is
constructed near the Project site.
Based on Project compliance with the above Eastern Dublin mitigation measures,
the Project developer will be required to prepare and implement a wastewater
master plan, pay necessary fees and construct local, Project-specific wastewater
facilities to DSRSD standards and specifications.
In terms of a water facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/R that
cited a need for additional water treatment plant capacity and Impact S, lack of a
water distribution system. Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0 and 33.0 reduced this
impact to a level of insignificance by requiring construction of new water
treatment facilities to serve planned development in the Eastern Dublin area,
including upgrades to the Del Valle Water Treatment Plan, installation of ozone
facilities, installation of a water clarifier at the Patterson Pass water treatment
plans by Zone 7 and construction of new water chlorination and fluoridation
stations at Zone 7 water turnouts. Distribution mitigation measures require water
system planning, system improvements designed and built to DSRSD standards
and for development to obtain will-serve letters from DSRSD.
The Project developer will be required to pay water fees to DSRSD to assist in
funding these and other water facility upgrades. With adherence to these
measures, no new or more severe impacts with respect to wastewater or water
facilities not previously analyzed are anticipated.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. See item 8 "e" in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impacts
3.5/Q and T with respect to water supply. Impact Q cited an increase in water
demand based on buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Impact T noted
inducement of substantial growth and population concentration in Eastern Dublin
with development of a water distribution system. The Eastern Dublin EIR included
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 31.0 to assist in reducing the water demand
impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require water conservation and
recycling conditions on development and improvements to the Zone 7 system.
However, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified that Impact IM 3.5/T, inducement
of substantial population growth in Eastern Dublin as a result of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, was a significant and unavoidable impact and could not be
fully mitigated. This impact was included in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations
The proposed Promenade Project will be required to meet all water system
mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce water supply
impacts to an insignificant level; however, the inducement a substantial
population increase based on an increase in the regional water supply will remain
significant and unavoidable. No new or more severe impacts beyond those
previously identified will result from the Project.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. Refer to items "a" and
"b," above.
e, f) Solid waste disposal? NI. The Project area is within the franchise area of Amador
Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste
pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Impacts 3.4 / O and P regarding increased
waste production and increased demand for waste disposal facilities.) Mitigation
Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0 call for solid waste planning and diversion. No new or
more severe significant impacts would result with regard to this topic that have
not been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No
additional analysis is required.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI.
The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid
waste regulations should the proposed Project be approved. No impacts are
anticipated in this regard.
17. 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 of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential
impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their
respective habitats, to reduction of the range or number of endangered plant or
animal species or the elimination of examples of major period of California history
or prehistory in the Eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the
1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The proposed Project would cause no
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
new or substantially more severe significant impacts on biological or cultural
resources beyond those identified in previous environmental reviews.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
No. ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No.
Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR with regard to cumulative air quality, transportation and other issues for the
overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the Promenade Project is a component.
The proposed Promenade Project would not result in additional or more severe
cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been identified
in this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 80
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Project Manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director
Jamie Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer
Val Guzman, Police Services Department
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
Cindy Horvath
Applicant Representatives
Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates
Connie Goldade, MacKay &Somps
Lisa Vilhauer. MacKay &Somps
References
City of Dublin Comprehensive Management Plan, undated
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through September 14,
2006
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Geotechnical Investigation for the Promenade Parcel 5, Grafton Street and
Dublin Boulevard, Dublin California, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants,
December 5, 2008
City of Dublin Page 81
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Initi
erry Haag Urban Planner, November 1999
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, DSRSD, MWH Engineers,
June 2005
Urban Water Master Plan Update, DSRSD, West Yost Associates, May 2005
City of Dublin Page 82
Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
Appendix 1
Shade & Shadow Study
City of Dublin Page 83
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
~~~
V ^
H
j ~
O
H
N
v
.-.
I
~ I I I
~aa
k!
l
Z
~ ~
°
o
N
L~l
~ ®°
Q
o..~
J+dM
~
_
.-~ ~
O ~
O N flC
N ~
.
.v
,~., ;_
I
~ ~
4
b ~,
G
G`
O
M
(/~
7V
i
'®
A~
4..V
W
C/3
[`d
~/}
d
^~
V
~4
.<:_
2~^-
a i a i
4
rWrnn
V
~~
Ll l
Q
W
z
W
Q
U
~ Z
W J
m
~ ~
tl1
r
0
0
°ssk
°~~~
m
r
Z
O
O
^Z
1~
N
~-
I- Q
~ ~
W Lu
c/~ ~
~ W
N ~
~a
(/~
O
0
Q
(/7
V
Z
~_
W
W
Q
Z
W
< Q
O~
~ z
w J
m
_ ~
~--- D
P
O
O
N
O
r
N
0
0
v
N!
rn
0
0
N
Z
O
O
Z
N
N
~ Q
W Q
~ w
N w
~ Q
t/~
0
Q
C/)
0
W
(11
W
Q
Z
W
< Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
F- O
`~
.~ -- ~"
I~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
11TJ YYY
i .I V •
v_ ~
~ ~ Yi
~
____ ~
I ~
i
I I I ~ . ~ ~I
N'dINNI~
N
~_
~a
e<=-
~ --
~~f
€~n
4
Cv
N
.7
J
~A '
}~
~ j
W
V
^e~
V/
1
~tQ~t~
~W
L/ /
'~
V
W
Z
~.~..~
Q
U
~ ~_
w J
m
S ~
t- a
r
CN
G
o 'v
°. S a
~O ~ -
a
0
0
0
n
r '
0
M
N
~ Q
W ~
(~
W
N w
~ Q
>~
0
Q
Z
H
~_
X
W
W
Q
Z
W
< Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
f-- O
N
CN
0
o ~^ o -
N
`~
~ P P
P
O
O
N
O
N
} ~
^`
A
O
O
M
r~
N
I-- }
~ Q
w ~
~ w
N
w
~a
3
O
0
Q
0
W
O
O
w
D
Q
Z
w
~ Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
_ ~
~ ~
O
~- ~~
w ..~w ..rwwn w
/~. ~ _~
,~i -~
i •-
c ~ o
~-.~~ I -~ k' .^
V\J,
~~
L L-. ~
i
n
1~1
r 0
V
~.i~~
~ 1 ~~
.ldAh MdINNI~
1
1
Q
N
C
b
a
G
a
cv~
0
tv
r
c'~
--
~ ~
A~^,
`A/~
1..L
t ~
V
_..1
Z
Q
Z ~
W
V..~
',~
TW
rd+r
Q
J
M
o ~°
~ cS°oc
r
V
~ ~. _
P P
P
O
O
H
O
N
Y ~
`O
V
r
N
~ ~
W Q
tJ~
~ w
C~
N
w
g~ Q
L
O
Q
2
Z
X
w
W
Q
Z
W
G Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
~--- O
N
M
°. 'S~~
- T P
N
N
Y ~
/`
A
O
`O
W
r
N
W 0
(/~
W
N
g~ Q
G
0
Q
Cn
W
0
w
0
Q
Z
~.~..~
Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
~ 0
z
Q
t.--
~ ¢ P
i4
cV
1^
a
3
L
z
~' a
~~
~~
~+ w
~~
~ z
~~
--,
W
Q
~.
w
a
z
w
~ Q
Q U
~ ~_
~ J
r m
..{.
~ 4 0
~ U o
N
~ F
4 ~ P P
N
N
~ ~
Z
O
O
Z
N Q
~ w
w (~
Z Z
~ O
~ J
O
0
Q
2
'Cn
V
Z
~"'
~_
X
w
W
Q
Z
W
~ a
O~
~ z
W J
m
H 0
N
--~
~ wl V o
N
.gyp ~ _~
U
O
O
N
O
N
gr ~
L
Z
O
O
Z
N Q
~ 0
~ ~
N w
w (~
ZZ
~ O
-' J
O
Q
2
Cn
0
W
W
Q
Z
W
Q
O ~
~ z
W J
m
_ ~
~ 0
O
CV
O ~ C
M 1. ,t
~} ~.
Q-
^/
O
n
C
ti
Y ~
1
/~+~
\ 7 +W./ I
---~ J
4
y~
L.1
L1.1
Cfy
/~
t!
W
Z
w
O
W m
Q
N
o ~ ~'
o ~so-
- ~~
.~ ~ ~ -
P
O
O
N
O
N
> ~
O }
M 0
^r
` ~ w
W (~
ZZ
O
~ J
(/~
O
0
Q
,(/~
V
Z
G/~
W
W
Q
Z
W
L Q
O~
~ _z
W J
m
_ ~
H ~
N
N
~~°-
c°V n
c P O
^~
A
O
O
M ~
N ~
w
w ('
Z Z
~ O
~ J
C/~
O
Q
0
W
0
~..~..~
0
Q
Z
W
Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
_ ~
~--- O
0
M
w
z
4
Z
O f
N -
R
U
G
q
C
LV
r
4 ~
.'~
}-
~ ~
W
LLJ (~
Z
-~ J
^~
u
^~
L..1
L1..1
d.
W
~.~..~
~_
J
m
S
M
~a-
a
0
0
0
n
r '
0 }
0
~ ~
N w
w (~
Z z
~ O
~ J
O
0
Q
r~
V
Z
Cn
W
V..~
Q
Z
u..~
Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
_ ~
H ~
N
M
iii
I
O
O
Q
a
O
O
O
N
~'
i~
O
O
~O
N
w
Z
O
0
a
0
w
O
O
w
Q
Z
w
w
I"'
oa
~lS o"
3 c
O
s c o
Q
~-
cn
w
(~
Z
O
Q
U
Z_
J
m
0
w
a
z
r~.
~.- ~`'
O
e
0
}
Q -
c:
L,, -
3
J
n
V .
w
m ~
~ o
~ ~
~~ I (f
~~~~~ Vii'
.~
~I ~ l
i
t
III I(1
J
i
~-
U
0
a
~
N ~
v
.-.z
,~,
s
r
{Z
\I
~A ,
w
c~0
w
V
w
2
w
cr3
C~
W
a
Q
Z
W
t~.
w
~-
cn
w
oc
2
Q
U
Z
J
m
r-
d
Q 4
C
M " [~`
y7 ~i
U
Q
c
~~~ 1.
I
~ iii I
~~
V
Z
N
L!! ~
~ ~
L!J
(~I~
f~
'ti.J
r~
~..!
z
~_
w
d
<C
Z
w
~ Q
a~
~Z
Wm
z~
~- a
N
O
oP
~go_
N /
Z
O
O
Z
~~
N Q
W ~
m ~
W
W
W
C/7
Q
Cn
W
~..~..~
Q
Z
~..~..~
Q
O ~
~ z
W J
m
_ ~
~ ~
O
N
4 -_
N -
et
~ ~,
~~
{vin
.^.,
{v
5
i7
U
,t^~ ~,
Y .
w_
j ~
N
._.~
~dM
L
n~
~y
w
~C
0
~I
rte',
L.FJ
r~
~..s
i~4J
Q
W
(!~
W
Q
z
w
T
U7
W
CC
N
U
Z
J
N
v~
oa
~S°~
;~
o~__
~n a p P
O
O
M
r~
N }-
w ~
m I-
w
w
w O
O ~
O
0
Q
z
x
w
w
a
z
W
~ Q
O~
~ z
W J
m
_ ~
~'-- ~
~~
~~
z
N
c~i
s~-
:~ -
P
0
0
0
n
>
'
0
M
N Q
~ D
W
m ~
c/)
w
W
O
W
0 ~
i
(/7
0
a
0
W
O
,4i' O
w
a
z
w
~ Q
O ~
~ ~ z
W J
pp
T
0
~ ~
w_
~ ~
~ o
N
i
I
- ~ - _..
- I ~ ! I I
~ ~
- ~~ Iii
- ~
- ~ i ~ ___
u~i
.. .
~
o
N flc
~
~~~
,~
O
c~
t~ G of
C'+' -
p
Q
C
ti
T ~
L
I
//'j``~'
.J Q
w ~'
~ ~
z
a ~-
~-
~ Cz p
w ~
m ,~
w ~
w ~
(!~
/~
V
t,I~}
W
~!}
W
a
w
Q
a~
~Z
wm
_~
~o
M
P P
t
^~
1~
O
O
N Q
0/ D
w
OD ~
w
w ~
w ~
~ ~
c/~
Q
2
cn
Z
x
w
W
Q
Z
W
~ a
O ~
~ z
W J
00
f ~-- ~
N
M
0
~o
=BSS
~o^
~ ? O
O
O
Q
MW
~ • ' A
W/
W /"~
W
^~
V
3
O
~2
V ~
'W
v
^O
A
O
W
Z
W
~ a
O~
~ z
W J
m
_ ~
~ 0
Appendix 2
Biological Resource Letter
City of Dublin raga oar
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
5 June 2009
James Tong
Charter Properties
4690 Chabot Drive
Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Subject: Biological Resources Update for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch
Dear Mr. Tong:
H. T. Harvey & Associates was asked to provide an update of the existing biological conditions
on the Promenade at Dublin Ranch site. The purpose of this update and summary is to assist you
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) update for the parcel in light of a
specific development proposal. We have worked on the Dublin Ranch site for over 20 years, and
prepared a series of environmental reports that included this parcel. We revisited the parcel after
your request, and in our opinion there are no new or remaining biological issues that would
require further CEQA analysis for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch site.
We understand the Promenade site has been in use for construction staging and stockpiling for
over 5 years, and that drainage infrastructure has also been constructed. The current disturbed
state of the site reflects this as it is almost vacant (aside from a small area of material storage),
graded, and mowed. The northern half of the site is mowed ruderal/ non-native grassland with
the more ruderal areas dominated by bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides). The southwestern
quarter is more ruderal with little non-native grass and well distributed bristly ox-tongue with
large areas that are partially covered with gravel remnants of staging or stockpiling activities.
The southeastern quarter is bare ground that has been recently graded and there is a concrete path
along the eastern border. No rare or native plants were observed and no sensitive habitats are
present.
There is little wildlife value in this habitat and only suburban adapted bird species and very few
individuals were observed. Two non-native European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and a single
individual each of the native American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and black phoebe
(Sayornis nigricans). Two black-tailed hares (Lepus californicus), typically found in non-native
grassland habitats, were also observed on the site. There were no California ground squirrels
(Spermopholis bechyeei) or any of their burrows observed. The lack of burrows means that there
is no habitat for burrowing owls to nest and no prey or denning opportunities for San Joaquin kit
foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) or American badgers (Taxidea taxus). The sparse or absent
vegetation provides no cover for nesting birds.
There is also little, if any, potential for wildlife other than birds to access the site. During the
original CEQA assessment, the Promenade site itself did not have sensitive habitats or habitats
particularly suited to protected species. However, at that time the surrounding lands had
seasonal wetlands, streams and ponds and the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; listed
as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act [ESA]) and California tiger salamander
983 University Avenue, Building D • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 • F: 408.458.3210 ~.«1
J. Tong
Promenade at Dublin Ranch
5 June 2009
Page 2 of 2
(Ambystoma californiense; listed as threatened under both the state and federal ESAs) were
potentially found in these habitats and in burrows provided by California ground squirrels. Since
that time, and with all appropriate approvals and permits, the surrounding habitats have changed
significantly. To the east and west, the sites are completely developed with high density
residences. To the north and south about half the length of the site boundary abuts residential or
commercial development. There are remaining undeveloped open space areas to the north and
south of the parcel. Most of these areas have already been filled or graded, and have little habitat
remaining for special-status species. In compliance with federal law and will all appropriate
approvals, all California red-legged frogs were removed prior to construction disturbance, and
surveys of all burrows on the site removed the few California tiger salamanders present. Surveys
and squirrel control has minimized or eliminated the potential for burrowing owls and badgers,
and, if ever present, San Joaquin kit fox to use the sites. Therefore, no protected species or
sensitive habitats that could attract protected species are to be found in areas surrounding the
Promenade site.
These facts and observations form the basis for our opinion that there are no new or remaining
biological issues that would require further CEQA analysis for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch
site. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 458-3201 or rduke@harveyecology.com, or
Julie Klingmann of my staff at (408) 458-3225 or jklingmann@harveyecology.com, if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
a
Ron Duke
cc: Jerry Haag,
Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates
JLK/SCR, H. T. Harvey & Associates
File # 3065-01
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Appendix 3
Acoustic Report
City of Dublin Page 85
Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009
PA 08-006
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER 8c
LEWITZ, INC.
ficoust;cal and Audiovisual Consultants
Environmental Noise Analysis
for
The Promenade at Dublin Ranch
Dublin, CA
RGDL project # 09-043
SUBMITTED TO:
Jerry Haag
Urban Planner
2029 University Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94704
PREPARED BY:
Harold S. Goldberg, P.E.
Principal
DATE:
29 June 2009
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
A. Introduction
Page 1
30 June 2009
The Promenade at Dublin Ranch Project includes one parking structure and two
commercial buildings. One of the commercial buildings will house a Club Sport
athletic club and the other will contain office and retail uses. The project site is along
the north side of Dublin Boulevard, west of a recently constructed multi-family
residential development project called The Terraces. To the north and west are
undeveloped parcels designated for "village commercial" uses. To the south is the
site of the proposed Grafton Plaza mixed use development. There are existing multi-
family residences on Finnian Way near the northeast corner of the project site.
This noise analysis identifies the compatibility of the project with the ambient noise
environment and assesses the potential effects of noise generated by the project on
the nearby existing noise sensitive uses. The level of analysis provided in this report
is consistent with that appropriate to address the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since the project and its surroundings are part of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the findings of this noise analysis are
compared with the findings of the EDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified
in 1993.
B. Existing Setting
1. Environmental Noise Fundamentals
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and is commonly measured with an
instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter "captures" sound
with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound
levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB).
To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way
humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-
emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to
human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local agencies as
well as other federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and
HUD). The abbreviation dBA is often used when the A-weighted sound level is
reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken
together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are
four descriptors that are commonly used in environmental studies; the Lmax, Leq,
L90 and DNL (or CNEL).
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER &
LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 01 50 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 2
30 June 2009
The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the
loudness of a single event such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express
the average noise level, the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The LeQ can be
measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15
minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the
sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady
sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor
called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound
Level (Ldn/DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These
descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dBA penalty for
noises that occur during nighttime hours (and a 5 dBA penalty during evening
hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these
hours.
In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A
10 dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
2. Regulatory Setting
a. City of Dublin
i. Noise Element
The Dublin Noise Element is found in Chapter 9 of the City's General
Plan. It contains a guiding policy to mitigate traffic noise levels to the
levels shown in Table 1.1
The Noise Element has policies to help achieve the goal of mitigating
traffic noise impacts. The following policies apply to this project:
Guiding Policv A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels
indicated by Table 9.1 [Table 1 in this report]: Land Use Compatibility
for Community Noise Environments.
Implementing Policv F. Noise impacts related to all new development
shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant.
' City of Dublin General Plan, Noise Element, Table 9.1
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle M375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 41 5 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 3
30 June 2009
Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (d6)
Land Use Category Normally
Acce ble Conditionally
Acceptable Normally
Unacceptable Clearly
Unacceptable
(Noise Insulation)
Features Required
Residential 60 or less 60.70 TO - 75 Over 75
Motels, hotels 60 or less 60 - 70 TO - 80 Over 80
Schools, churches, nursing 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 Over 80
homes
Neighbofiood parks 60 or less 60.65 65 - 70 Over 70
Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70.75 75 - 80 Over 80
Industrial TO or less 70 • T5 Over 75
Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction,
but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
ii. Municipal Code
The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.28 declares that it is unlawful
for any person to cause any noise which annoys or disturbs any
reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. However this
chapter does not have quantitative noise standards that can be applied to
this project for the purposes of this noise impact study.
b. State and County Airport Noise Policies
The current Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan (which includes
Livermore Airport) was adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) on July 16, 1986. The noise and land use compatibility
guidelines specified by the ALUC Plan are generally consistent with the City's
(Table 1).
In 2004, The California Legislature adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires
disclosure of all existing and proposed airports within two statute miles of a
residential subdivision. Since the project does not include residential uses,
this requirement does not apply.
c. Increase in Traffic Noise
The EDSP EIR considers an increase in traffic noise of 3 dBA or less to be
less than significant. An increase of 4 to 5 dBA is potentially significant, and
an increase of 6 dBA or more is considered significant.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sr
I_EWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle $375 ~ larkspur CA 94939 ~ Tel 41 5 464 0150 ~ Fax 415 464 01 55 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 4
30 June 2009
3. Existing Noise Environment
The major noise source that affects the project site is vehicular traffic on
Interstate 580 (I-580) and Dublin Boulevard. The project site is approximately
1400 feet north of the centerline of I-580. Livermore Municipal Airport is to the
southeast and some flights from the airport pass over or near the site. Parks
Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) is located about 7,000 feet to the
northwest of the project site. The County Jail is about 6,000 feet northwest of
the project site.
Noise measurements were made to quantify the existing noise environment on
the project site and at existing noise sensitive land uses that could be affected
by project generated noise. These measurements included two continuous
long-term noise measurement and three short-term noise measurements. The
noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 2. Table 2 shows the results
of the short-term measurements. Figure 3 shows the hourly plot of the
measured noise levels at long-term measurement Location A.
Measurement Location A represents the existing multi-family development to
the northeast of the project site. Locations 1 through 3 represent the existing
multi-family development to the east, The Terraces. Location B quantifies the
24-hour distribution of noise at a location that includes a noise contribution from
traffic on Dublin Boulevard.
During the short-term attended measurements, the dominant noise source was
traffic on I-580 and Dublin Boulevard. No noise from aircraft activity was
observed during the noise measurement site visits. There was construction
activity occurring at The Terraces development, however, the activities were
primarily indoors and the noise measurements were coordinated and analyzed
to minimize the influence of construction related noise sources.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER B~
LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle M375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 5
30 June 2009
Figure 2: Noise Measurement Locations
Existing
~ Multi-Family
Future Village Commercial Residential
._
-_
-~--------------- -xx
~T I i I i' ! 1
FINNIAN WAY
I I ~ ~'~
~ a •-------- --- - ;
I I ~ ~ %~
d~sU U U U U U U UiU U U U u _.._"~ `
I
~.._. ~ ~.
~ ~ _.
.c~_.n~._ ~ RETAIL j ~ ,-- __ ,~_r_ ~
Future
Village
AND PARKING GAC~itAGE ~'
OFFICE .
~ __
®= ~
r ~
•
Commercial - ~ _ -
c~ ~
~ ~ f ~ T
~1
1 _
_
~ ^_...... ~'. it Z~ ~ I
Z
L ~
~ ~ 1 -c ri-_
j cn r ,
_ _
,4.w ~ - p N.
~~
fr t.
..
i _
n
rn
~
_. •
`
, ~
1 ...-_:,r ._~.r ~,
° Existing
Multi-Famil
y
I ~ ~Re~tdential
~ ~ ~ = CLUBSPORT _
I Outdoor ~ Q
, ~~
pp
+,~] II
\i ~
k. ~ ,~ -,~~
~~; y'~
.~ i
r i ~
` .. ei.
:~~' ..:..
! -
___. ..
-
\
~_~
- - ~~
DUBS EYPSD-------- - e ---
---
---
--- A~ ,.}
IVDIIh
- ~
~ ~ I I I
~ I I I
I Proposed Grafton Plaza Mixed Use
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER 8c
LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Glrcle X375 ~ Larkspur CA 94939 ~ Tel 415 464 0150 ~ Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 6
30 June 2009
Table 2: Noise Measurement Results
A-wei hted Sound Level, dBA
Location Time Leq* L,o Leo L9o CNEL
Finnian Way
On light pole in front of 15 June 2009 - ___ 64
A existing multifamily 17 June 2009
residences
Dublin Boulevard 15 June 2009 - ___ _
-
71
B on light pole on 17 June 2009 ___ ___
roadway median
At east property line
adjacent to The
1 Terraces multifamily 15 June 2009 57 59 57 55 64**
residences, 170 feet 4:35 - 4:45 P.M.
from curb of Finnian
Wa
At east property line
adjacent to The
2 Terraces multifamily 15 June 2009 60 62 59 57 66**
residences, 150 feet 4:50 - 5:00 P.M.
from curb of Dublin
Boulevard.
At east property line
adjacent to The
3 Terraces multifamily 15 June 2009 67 66 60 57 66**
residences, 60 feet 5:05 - 5:10 P.M.
from curb of Dublin
Boulevard.
*See Environmental Noise Fundamentals for definitions of noise descriptors
** Estimated based on comparison with long-term noise measurement data.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sr
LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 01 50 • Fax 41 5 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 7
30 June 2009
Figure 3: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results at Locations A and B
90
Location A
Q ~ Location B
~ 80
v
~'
Location B
d ./
--
- --
-- --
J 70 '
~~~
--- - -
m
~ ~ ,.~ ~~
'
'o
z
a~ 60
ca
m
a Location A
~,
L
--
0 50 -
40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO O O r N M O ~ N M V lC) CO I~ 00 ~ O r N C`7 ~ ~ CO f~ CO
r r r ~ r r r
~-- ~ N N N N r r
15 June 2009 Time 16 June 2009
C. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
1. Compatibility of Project with Existing and Future Noise Environment
a. Traffic Noise
The existing CNEL at the site and nearby residential development from traffic
ranged from 64 to 66 dBA. This noise level is dominated by traffic on I-580.
The existing traffic volumes and noise levels along Dublin Boulevard are
relatively low compared to those that would occur after the buildout of the
area. According to the latest traffic data for the area (Grafton Plaza Traffic
Study, May 2009) the future peak hour volume on Dublin Boulevard south of
the project site will be 4,200 vehicles per hour. Based on calculations using
the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) the
future CNEL will be 72 dBA at the south facade of the proposed ClubSport
Building. The proposed retail/office building would be farther from Dublin
Boulevard, and exposed to a CNEL of 67 dBA from traffic noise.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER &
~EWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 ~ Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 41 S 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 8
30 June 2009
According to the City's General Plan, a CNEL of 72 dBA is considered
conditionally acceptable for commercial development and noise insulation
features are required. Conventional construction but with closed windows and
fresh air supply systems orair-conditioning will normally suffice. The CNEL at
the retail/office building would be normally acceptable.
The primary outdoor use area for the ClubSport building is the pool and
surrounding patio areas. These areas are located within a courtyard that is
acoustically shielded from surrounding roadways by the building along three
sides, and by a 12 foot barrier along Dublin Blvd. This site design will reduce
outdoor noise levels in the pool area by approximately 10 dBA to less than a
CNEL of 70 dBA which is considered normally acceptable.
Since ClubSport includes an air-conditioning and ventilation system to allow
the windows to be closed and the traffic noise in the pool area will be
acceptable, this is a less than significant impact.
b. Livermore Municipal Airport
The Livermore Municipal Airport is southeast of the site. The project site is
well outside the CNEL 60 dBA noise contour. As a result, aircraft noise is well
below the "normally acceptable" level of CNEL of 60 dBA at the site.
Therefore, the project is considered compatible with airport noise.
2. Increased Traffic Noise From the Project
The project would add about 295 peak hour vehicle trips to the roadway network
(Trip Generation, TJKM, 2009). For the purposes of this assessment, all traffic
was assumed to either travel on Dublin Boulevard or Finnian Way to provide a
conservative analysis. Along Dublin Boulevard, traffic noise levels would increase
by less than 1 dBA due to project traffic. If all of the project trips use Finnian Way
to access the site, the traffic noise level is calculated to be up to CNEL of 57 dBA
at the existing multifamily residences near the north east corner of the project
site. Since these residences are already exposed to a CNEL of 64 dBA from
freeway noise, the combined noise level will be 65 dBA which is a 1 dBA
increase. These traffic noise increases are less than the 3 dBA threshold and
would not be significant.
3. Noise from On-site Activities
On-site noise sources associated with the project include on-site vehicles
(parking garage and surface parking) the use of the outdoor pool area and
mechanical ventilation equipment. The on-site noise sources are discussed
below.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sr
I.EWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 9
30 June 2009
Parking Garage: The parking garage would be 75 feet from the nearest
residential building to the east, The Terraces. The garage entrance is along the
east side and vehicles would access the garage via Dublin Boulevard or Finnian
Way. The eastern fagade of the parking garage is solid (no openings) on the
second and third floors. There would also be a driveway and one row of surface
parking between the garage and The Terraces.
The project is anticipated to generate a total of 295 vehicle trips during the peak
hour. Calculations of vehicle noise were performed using the Federal Highway
Administration's Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5). Assuming all of the cars
accessing the site use the parking garage, the CNEL is calculated to be 59 dBA
at the nearest residences to the east, The Terraces. This estimate includes
factors for both the partial shielding of parking garage noise provided by the
garage wall and roof parapet to the east as well as potential acoustical reflections
of the noise from cars that are travelling between the parking garage and the
residences. The parking noise would combine with the existing traffic noise
CNEL of 64 dBA, and result in a CNEL of 65 dBA, a 1 dBA increase. This is a
less than significant impact.
Outdoor Pool Area: The ClubSport building includes an outdoor pool, Jacuzzi
and eating area. The pool will be used for adult lap swimming. According to the
ClubSport developerz, the pool deck is being designed to create a relaxing and
re-energizing experience. This is different than what one would find at a more
family and children oriented facility such as the ClubSport in Pleasanton,
California. Nevertheless, there is the potential for children to use the pool.
Noise from pool activities would be attenuated by the ClubSport building which
would act as a noise barrier. Maximum instantaneous noise levels at the adjacent
residential uses would be approximately 54 dBA from the noisiest activity which
would be children yelling. Since this is less than existing ambient background
noise level (Lgo of 55 to 57 dBA), the sound would be barely audible at adjacent
residences. Overall, noise from pool activities would not contribute to the average
noise levels at the adjacent residential locations and therefore is considered to
be a less than significant impact.
Mechanical Ventilation Equipment: The heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning (HVAC) system will include outdoor equipment to be located on the
roofs of the ClubSport building and the mercantile (retail/office) building. Some
HVAC equipment will also be located at the ground level in the alley between the
mercantile building and the parking garage. Additionally, the mercantile buildings
will have a rooftop kitchen exhaust fan. There will be some equipment indoors at
the Club building and there could be ventilation openings in the facade that faces
the residences. This equipment has the potential to be audible at the residences
s Email from David Grove, Director of Development, Leisure Sports, Inc., 17 June 2009.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER 8c
LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle X375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 41 5 464 01 50 • Fax 415 464 01 55 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Page 10
30 June 2009
and cause annoyance. Therefore, the following recommendation is provided to
implement EDSP EIR mitigation measure (MM 3.10/6.0) since the project places
commercial uses abutting residential uses. The noise level limit specified in the
recommendation is referenced in the EDSP EIR (IM 3.10/F page 3.10-5). The
City of Dublin's Municipal Code does not have quantitative noise standards for
regulating HVAC equipment noise.
Recommendation -Mechanical Ventilation Equipment
Require as a condition of approval a noise analysis of the HVAC system
that demonstrates that noise levels at the adjacent residential property
lines will meet the noise limits of the State of California's Model Noise
Ordinance which are 60 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA at night. If
the HVAC noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech,
or hum the noise limits shall be reduced by 5 dBA.
4. Construction Noise and Vibration at Adjacent Land Uses
Construction noise varies depending on the types of equipment being used
during a particular construction phase. In general, the noisiest construction
activities are the grading and foundation work. Since the site is relatively level,
the grading work will be limited. The interior work such as finishes and the tenant
improvement work is generally quiet because the building shell reduces the noise
transfer. Table 3 shows the anticipated construction schedule.
Table 3: Anticipated Construction Schedule
Construction Phase Duration
Sitework 2 months
Foundation & Slab on Grade 2 months
Structural Steel 2 months
Slab on Deck 1 month
Framing 3 months
Wall Finishes 4 months
Tenant Improvement Work 7 months
Close out & commissioning 2 months
Noise levels from construction activities are estimated from published data for
various types of equipment. Table 4 shows typical noise levels at a reference
distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Construction noise levels will decrease
at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receiver.
Since this distance between The Terraces and the nearest proposed buildings
are about 75 to 90 feet, the noise levels at the residences would be about 4 dBA
less than those in Table 4 when the equipment is at the east side of the
ClubSport and Parking Garage buildings.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER 8c
I_EWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle X375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 41 5 464 0150 • Fax 415 4fi4 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com
Promenade, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Analysis
Table 4: Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 ft from Source
Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Roller 74
Saw 76
Scraper 89
Truck 88
Page 11
30 June 2009
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06,
Federal Transit Administration, May 2006
Construction noise was analyzed in the EDSP EIR. The project is required to
adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the EIR to minimize
impacts of construction noise. These are Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0,
which require all project developers in the EDSP area to prepare and adhere to
Construction Noise Management Programs, which require limiting grading and
other noise generating activities to the shortest period of time as possible,
minimizing truck access through residential areas and limiting the hours and days
of construction activities. These mitigation measures will be reflected in the
project's conditions of approval. With adherence to these measures, no new
noise impacts would result from construction activities.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER B~
LEWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 01 50 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacousti~s.com