Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Arroyo Vista Attch 6 Exh D ..................._ ~<.: Arroyo Vista Project General Plan Amendment Rezoning Site Design Review Subdivision Maps PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2007122066 I Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner January 2009 EXHIBIT D TO ATTACHMENT 6 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Summary of Project Description ................................................................................. 1 1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 3 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 3 1.5 Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 3 1.6 Areas of Known Controversy ..................................................................................... 4 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Purpose of Environmental Review ............................................................................ 6 2.2 Lead Agency ................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Notice of Preparation .................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Impacts Found Less-than-Significant ......................................................................... 7 3.0 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 9 3.2 On-Site and Surrounding Uses ................................................................................... 9 3.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................10 3.4 Site History .............................................................. ...............................................10 ..... 3.5 Project Characteristcs ................................................................................................11 3.6 Other Uses for the EIR ................................................................................................14 4.0 Environmental Analysis ...........................................................................................22 4.1 Aesthetics and Light and Glare .................................................................................24 4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................27 4.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................54 4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................68 4.5 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................70 4.6 Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................50 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................77 4.8 Noise ............................................................................................................................80 4.9 Population and Housing ............................................................................................90 4.10 Public Services ............................................................................................................93 5.11 Transportation and Circulation .................................................................................94 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................139 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ......................................................... ............156 5.1 No Project ..................................................................................................................156 5.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Development .....................................................................158 5.3 Alternative 3: Mixed-Use Development .................................................................163 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................................170 6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects ..............................................................................173 6.1 Significant and Irrtrievable Commitment of Resources ........................................173 6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................173 6.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................174 6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ...........................................175 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ..................................................................177 7.1 Persons and Organizations ......................................................................................177 7.2 References ..................................................................................................................177 ~~. 8.0 Appendices ...............................................................................................................179 Appendix 8.1 .....................................................................................................................180 Appendix 8.2 .................................................................................................................... 181 Appendix 8.3 .....................................................................................................................182 Appendix 8.4 .....................................................................................................................183 Appendix 8.5 .....................................................................................................................184 Appendix 8.6 .....................................................................................................................185 Appendix 8.7 .....................................................................................................................186 List of Tables Table 1.1 Summary of Supplemental Imapcts/Mitigations ......................I-1 Table 3.1 Proposed Dwelling Unit Summary ............................................ ..11 Table 4.2-1. Federal and State Air Quality Standards ................................... ..30 Table 4.2-2. Air Quality Summary for Livermore ......................................... ..31 Table 4.2-3. Project Regional Emissions ......................................................... ..34 Table 4.2-4 Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gasses ................... ..38 Table 4.2-5. Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................... ..46 Table 4.2-6. Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas Reduction .............. ..48 Table 4.5-1. Earthquake Fault Zone Data ....................................................... ..71 Table 4.8-1. Definitions of Acoustic Terms .................................................... ..82 Table 4.8-2. ............ Short-Term Noise Measurement Results ....................... .. Table 4.8-3. Land Use Compatibility Standards ............................................ ..85 Table 4.8-4. Traffic Modeling Results ............................................................. ..87 Table 4.9-1. Proposed Income-Restricted Rental Units ................................. ..91 Table 4.11-1. Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Existing Conditions .................... ..99 Table 4.11-2. Proejct Trip Generation ............................................................... 101 Table 4.11-3. Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Existing + Project ........................ 103 Table 4.11-4. Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Short-Term Cumulative .............. 107 Table 4.11-5. Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Short-Term Cum. + Project ........ 110 Table 4.11-6. Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Long-Term Cumulative .............. 113 Table 4.11-7. Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Long-Term Cum+Proj ................ 114 Table 4.11-8. Year 2015 & Year 2030 PM Peak MTS LOS ................................ 118 Table 4.11-9. Short Term Cumlative Freeway Analysis .................................. 120 Table 4.11-10. Long Term Cumulative Freeway Analysis ................................ 121 Table 4.11-11. Comparison of Required and Provided Parking ...................... 125 Table 4.12-1. Projected DSRSD Water Demand ............................................... 140 Table 4.12-2. Estimated Arroyo Vista Potable Water Demand ...................... 152 Table 4.12-3. Eastimated Wastwater Generation ............................................. 154 Table 5.2-1. Estimated Arroyo Vista Alt. 2 Water Demand .......................... 163 Table 5.2-2. Alternative 2 Estimated Wastewater Generation ...................... 163 Table 5.3-1. Alternative 3 Trip Generation ..................................................... 168 Table 5.3-2. Estimated Arroyo Vista Alt. 3 Water Demand .......................... 169 Table 5.3-3. Alternative 3 Wastewater Generator ......................................... 169 List of Exhibits Exhibit 3-1 Exhibit 3-2 Exhibit 3-3 Exhibit 3.4. Exhibit 3-5. Exhibit 3.6a. Exhibit 3.6b. Exhibit 4.3-1. Exhibit 4.11-1. Exhibit 4.11-2. Exhibit 4.11-3. Exhibit 4.11-4. Exhibit 4.11-5. Exhibit 4.11-6. Exhibit 4.11-7. Exhibit 4.11-8. Exhibit 4.11-9. Exhibit 4.11-10 Exhibit 5.2-1. Exhibit 5.3-1. Regional Location .......................................................................15 Site Context ..................................................................................16 Existing Site Features ..................................................................17 Proposed Stage 2 Development Plan ........................................18 Proposed Landscape Plan ..........................................................19 Proposed Suubdivision Map ......................................................20 Proposed Subdivision Map .........................................................21 Existing Biological Features .......................................................88 Existing Intersection Configurations & Traffic Controls ....... 129 Net Project AM Peak Hour Generation .................................. 130 Net Project PM Peak Hour Generation ................................... 131 Existing + Project Turning Movements .............................. 132 Short-Term Cumulative Turn Movements ............................. 133 Short Term Cumulative Lane Configurations ........................ 134 Short Term Cumulative + Project Turning Movements ........ 135 Long Term Cumulative Tirning Movements ......................... 136 Long Term Cumulative Lane Configurations ........................ 137 Long Term Cumulative + Project Turning Movements ........ 138 Alternative 2 Site Plan .............................................................. 171 Alternative 3 Site Plan .............................................................. 129 1.0 SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Table 1.1, below, summarizes the environmental impacts and mitigation measures which are discussed in detail in the remainder of this Draft Environmental Impact Report. Impact Topic Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation 4.1-1 Aesthetics/Li hg t and lg are. Implementation Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Asa Less-than-Significant of the proposed Project would increase the condition of Site Development Review possibility of light and glare from the Project for the Arroyo Vista Project, the City of Site onto adjacent properties and Alamo Dublin shall require submittal of Creek. lighting plans, including photometric detail, to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure no spill-over of unwanted light onto adjacent properties or Alamo Creek. The lighting plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department and Police Services Department prior to issue of the first building permit. 4.1-2 Aesthetics/Scenic resources. Implementation Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 . Less-than-significant of the proposed Project would result in the a) The final landscape plan shall show loss of.a Heritage Tree and other mature that the existing Heritage Tree non-heritage trees on the Site. Loss of trees which is proposed to be removed as would remove significant scenic resources on apart of the residential the Site. development will be replaced with three 36-inch box size redwood trees on the Site. b) The final landscape plan shall show that the trees planted adjacent to Dougherty Road would be a minimum of 36-inch box size, be of a fast rowin variet and conform a` _.~"1 ~~: ,~` Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation to the City's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. c) Replacement trees shall be provided in the interior of the Project Site, at a minimum ratio of 1 replacement tree for each tree removed. 4.2-1 Air Quality/Demolition and construction Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a. The Less-than-Significant impacts. Demolition and construction following dust control measures shall activities associated with the proposed be followed by contractors during Project would generate construction period demolition of existing structures: exhaust emissions from vehicles and a) Watering shall be used to control equipment as well as fugitive dust that dust generation during demolition would temporarily affect local air quality. of structures and break-up of pavement. b) All trucks hauling demolition debris from the Site shall be covered. c) All demolition activity shall comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which regulates airborne toxic pollutants through inspection and law enforcement during demolition. This regulation requires that the District be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition the District must be rovided information on the Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin 1 1 ~ ~ i Page I-2 January 2009 I i F ;. 1 I ~ I __-1 ,~, ~~ f --~ Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. _ Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b. The Less-than-Significant following dust control measures shall be implemented by all contractors during construction of the proposed improvements. These include but are not limited to BAAQMD Basic and Enhanced measures to reduce construction impacts. According to the BAAQMD, adopting these measures reduces particulate matter impacts (PM10 and PM2.5) to a less-than- significant level. a) All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. b) Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be covered or watered. c) All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d) Pave, a 1 water three times dail , Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page I-3 January 2009 ~~ ='~:. Section I.O: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. e) All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily with water sweepers, including adjoining streets, if soil material is visible. f) Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or a non-toxic soil stabilizer applied. g) Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered or watered at least twice daily. h) Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. i) Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways and Alamo Creek. j) Alternative fueled construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. k) Vehicle idling time shall be minimized (5 minutes maximum) Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin 1 t ~ i Page I-4 January 2009 r.. `_; __ I i i Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation and all equipment shall be properly tuned, 1) The hours of operation of heavy equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use shall be minimized. 4.3-1 Biological Resources/Impacts to nesting Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 -Clearing of - birds. Removal of trees and vegetation to vegetation and the initiation of construct the proposed Project would result in construction shall be limited to the nov- a loss of nesting sites for nesting bird species, breeding season between September including the special-status loggerhead and January. If these activities cannot be shrike, and interfere with normal breeding. done in the non-breeding season, a qualified biologist shall perform pre- construction bird surveys within 30 days prior to construction or clearing of vegetation. If nesting birds, such as loggerhead shrike, are discovered in the vicinity of planned development, buffer areas shall be established around the nest until the nest is vacated. The size and duration of the buffer will depend on the particular species of nesting bird present and shall be established by a qualified biologist. 4.3-2 Biological Resources/Impacts to potential Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. Pre- Less-than-Significant bat habitat. Removal of existing structures, construction bat surveys shall be trees and ve etation on the Project Site would conducted on the Site by a qualified ~-.- Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page I-5 S Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 (~ City of Dublin Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation impact bat roosts. biologist between November 1 and August 31, to include trees, and buildings subject to removal or demolition for evidence of bat use (guano accumulation, or acoustic or visual detections). If evidence of bat use is found, biologists shall conduct a minimum of three acoustic surveys between April and September under appropriate conditions using an acoustic detector to determine whether a Site is occupied. If bats are found, a qualified biologist shall supervise any removal and such removal shall occur only during the fall prior to construction. 4.3-3 Biolo>;ical Resources/Impacts to fish See Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 Less-than-Significant s~ecies• The proposed Project could add urban pollutants into the adjacent Alamo Creek, impacting this habitat of steelhead and other sensitive fish and aquatic species. 4.4-1 Cultural Resources/Impacts to prehistoric, Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. Prior to Less-than-Significant archeological and Native American issuance of a grading permit, a resources. Although no significant historical, program of mechanical subsurface archeological or Native American artifacts presence/absence testing for cultural were encountered on the Project Site, resources shall be completed by a construction of the proposed Project could qualified archeologist approved by the disturb unidentified and unrecorded Dublin Community Development historical artifacts, includin rehistoric, De artment, utilizin a mechanical Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page I-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin i 1 i 1 I Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation archeological and/or Native American core sampler in the open space areas resources or remains. of the existing development to search for potentially buried archaeological deposits. In the event that any such deposits are discovered, Project work in the vicinity of the deposits shall be immediately halted and additional core samples shall be taken if needed to map the extent and depth below the surface of potentially significant cultural materials. If it is determined that new construction activities will impact resource deposits, a plan for the evaluation of the deposit(s) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be submitted to the City of Dublin and other appropriate agencies fo approval. Evaluation shall be completed determine if the resources are eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and/or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If human remains are encounter the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. 4.5-1 Geology and Soils/Soil hazards. Future Site Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Future Site Less-than-Significant improvements could result in moderate to improvements shall be designed and significant damage caused by expansive soil constructed in a manner consistent and/or undocumented fill material. with the Project eotechnical re ort. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page I-7 January 2009 J "°r,, .S'~ ~~ Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation These include but are not limited to: a) Testing and removal of all undocumented fill material on the Site. b) Proper compaction of engineered fill material. c) Installation of proper subdrainage facilities. d) Use of post-tensioned and/or mat slab building foundations. 4.6-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials/Soil contamination with lead. Even though no significant source of lead was identified within soils on open space portions of the Site, potentially significant quantities of lead could be present beneath existing buildings, which could not be easily sampled. Potentially significant concentrations of lead could be released into the environment during grading activities. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1. Prior to grading activities, but after demolition of existing improvements, soil samples shall be collected and analyzed for lead using EPA methods. If actionable levels of lead are found on the Site, a remediation program shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any remediation plan. Less- cant 4.6-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials/Asbestos Mitigation Measure 4.6-2. The Less-than-Significant and lead based paint. Demolition of existing following actions shall be taken before buildin s could result in otentiall issuance of the first demolition ermit, if Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page I-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin f i I t i 1 i 1 Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation significant impacts due to release of asbestos multiple permits are issued by the City: and lead based paint into the atmosphere. a) Asbestos containing material shall be removed by a licensed contractor and disposed of in a landfill licensed to accept this level of contaminated material. If required, a permit shall be obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to commencement of work. b) Testing and analysis for lead based paints shall be conducted, If such materials are found, remediation shal be completed by a licensed contractor Necessary permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of work. 4.7-1 Hydrology and Water Quality/Soil erosion Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. Project Less-than-Significant siltation and violation of water quality Developer(s) shall prepare: standards. The quality of stormwater runoff a) Erosion Control Plan(s) consistent from the Project Site would be expected to with City of Dublin and Regional decline resulting from an increase in the Water Quality Control Board production of non-point source urban standards to minimize run-off from pollutants. Construction impacts would the Site during construction. To include but would not be limited to runoff of ensure that erosion impacts are graded material and construction solvents off reduced to aless-than-significant of the Site. Post-construction (operational) impact to nearby fish and sensitive contaminants would include debris, aquatic species in Alamo Creek and landscaping fertilizers and pesticides, and other bodies of water, Erosion heavy metals, oil and gas residues, tire Control Plan(s) shall be reviewed fra ments and debris normall de osited b and a roved b a biolo ist to Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report Page I-9 January 2009 -. ~ City of Dublin Section f .0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation vehicular traffic. Stormwater runoff from ensure that no impacts will occur to developed areas on the Site would carry non- steelhead and other sensitive point source pollutants into surface waters aquatic species. The Erosion within the City and ACFC&WCD drainage Control Plan shall include exclusion channels, where they would cause a fencing to preclude the potential for cumulative degradation of water quality in California Red-legged Frogs from San Francisco Bay. entering the Project Site. Erosion Control Plan(s) shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. b) A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post- construction conditions. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda County Clean Water Program requirements. The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City of Dublin to avoid spill over of material into Alamo Creek during demolition. The BMPs shall include, but is not limited to incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of filtration devices, coverin of solid waste and Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page I-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ ~ 1 f i i Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation recycling areas and similar features. 4.7-2 H dy rology and Water Quality/Alteration of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. Project Less-than-Significant drainage patterns, flooding and drainage Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage system ca ap city_. Development of the Project and hydrology plan using Regional would introduce new impervious surfaces Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 (primarily buildings, driveways, parking and City drainage criteria which shall structures, roads and hardscape elements) onto indicate that adequate on and off-site the now vacant portions of the Site, increasing capacity exists in local and regional the amount, direction and rate of stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate the runoff. stormwater increases could exceed the direction, rate and amount of increased capacity of local and regional drainage systems stormwater runoff. If necessary, to accommodate such increases potentially developer(s) shall upgrade undersized resulting in localize. drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department and all recommendations for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans. 4.8-1 Noise/Short-term construction noise) Mitigation Measure 4.8-1. Project Less-than-Significant Demolition and construction activities on the Developer(s) shall prepare a Site would generate short-term but significant Construction Noise Management Plan levels of noise that could impact surrounding for approval by the Dublin Planning residents and visitors. Construction noise Manager and Building Official prior to could also otentiall im act on-site residents, issuance of a demolition ermit. The Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page I-11 January 2009 a ~. _~ '~ Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation if the Project is constructed in phases. Construction Noise Management Plan shall contain specific elements to reduce demolition and construction noise to the lowest possible noise level, including but not limited to limiting days and hours of demolition and construction activities, requiring mufflers for gasoline-powered equipment, using electric-powered equipment to the fullest extent possible, and provisions for providing advance notice to surrounding residents for major noise producing events. If the Project is constructed in phases, the Construction Noise Management Plan shall include specific measures to reduce on-site noise for existing Site residents and visitors. 4.8-2 Noise/Traffic noise impacts. Existing and Mitigation Measure 4.8-2. Final Less-than-Significant future cumulative traffic volumes on building plans shall include solid Dougherty Road would subject future barriers adjacent to Project driveways residential dwellings adjacent to proposed at Dougherty Road that would reduce Project driveways on Dougherty Road to exterior noise levels in side and rear exterior noise levels that would exceed yards of dwellings under future City threshold for exterior noise levels, cumulative conditions to a level of 65 ranging from 67 to 72 dBA. dBA or less. 4.8-3 Noise/Mechanical noise impacts. Noise Less-than-Significant generated by HVAC and other on-site Mitigation Measure 4.8-3.Fina1 mechanical noise could exceed Cit or state building plans for the Project shall be Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin F 1 1 1 i 1 I Page I-12 January 2009 Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure and Mitieation Measures Net Impact After Mitigation standards for interior and exterior exposure 4.8-4 Noise/Parks RFTA noise impacts. Future residents and visitors of the Arroyo Vista Project could be subject to intermittent but potentially significant noise generated by activities on Parks RFTA, including but not limited to current and future helicopter flights, weapons training and similar noise. 4.8-5 Noise/Interior noise level impacts. Depending on the type of construction used in Project construction, interior noise level standards (45 decibels) could be exceeded. accompanied by a report from a qualified acoustic consultant indicating that all HVAC and other mechanical equipment used in the Project either meets City and state noise exposure levels, or has been enclosed or screened in a manner that ensures compliance with applicable City and state noise exposure levels. Mitigation Measure 4.8-4. Future residents of the Arroyo Vista Project shall receive written notification at the time of sale, rental or lease of their respective dwelling unit of the potential for helicopter activities, weapons training and similar noise generating activities at Parks RFTA. Written notices shall be approved by the Dublin Community Development Director. L Mitigation Measure 4.8-5. Final building plans shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified acoustical consultant indicating that the Project will include appropriate construction techniques to reduce interior noise levels to a maximum of 45 dBA Ldn. This shall include but is not limited to wall construction techniques, Less-than-S Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page I-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 ..~~ ~~ 4 ^a`~ City of Dublin Section I.O: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation installation of appropriate insulation, the selections of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of forced- airmechanical ventilation systems. Residences located adjacent to Dougherty Road shall also be equipped with a full heating and air-conditioning system because it is unlikely residents would open their windows for ventilation. 4.11-1 Transportation and Circulation/Local traffic Mitigation Measure 4.11-1. The South Less-than-Significant delay at Project driveways. Under Existing Mariposa Road/Dougherty Road Conditions, side-street traffic on South intersection shall be signalized to Mariposa Drive at Dougherty Road would improve operations to an acceptable experience unacceptable LOS F conditions level. Signalization will result in LOS A during the a.m. peak hour. The addition of operations. The signal shall be installed Project traffic would substantially exacerbate prior to the first Certificate of this condition. Occupancy by the City of Dublin. 4.11-2 Transportation and Circulation/Short-term Significant and cumulative traffic impacts). Under Short- Unavoidable term Cumulative (2015) Conditions, the intersection of Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard would operate at unacceptable LOS F conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The addition of project traffic would exacerbate this condition. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin A 1 Page I-14 January 2009 I I T 1 ~ ~ I I l l ~` Section I.O: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 4.11-3 Transportation and Circulation/Short-term _ Significant and cumulative traffic impacts. Under Short-term Unavoidable Cumulative (2015) Conditions, the intersection of Hacienda Drive / I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp would operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the a.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate this condition. 4.11-4 Transportation and Circulation/Impacts on Mitigation Measure 4.11-4. Less-than-Significant side street traffic. Under Short-term Signalization of the South Mariposa Cumulative (2015) Conditions, side-street Road/Dougherty Road intersection traffic on South Mariposa Road at Dougherty would improve operations to an Road experiences unacceptable LOS F acceptable level. Signalization would conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak result in LOS C operations during the hours. The addition of Project traffic would a.m. peak hour and LOS A operations exacerbate this condition. during the p.m. peak hour. 4.11-5 Transportation and Circulation/Amador Mitigation Measure 4.11-5. The Long- Less-than-Significant Valley Blvd./Dougherty Rd. cumulative term Cumulative scenario assumes traffic impacts. The assumed relocation of the that the Dougherty Road Camp Parks access onto Dougherty Road Improvement CIP project is complete. opposite Amador Valley Boulevard results in Additional intersection modifications the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley required to improve operations to LOS Boulevard-Camp Parks intersection operating D or better include the addition of a at an unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. and southbound right-turn lane and p.m. peak hours under Long-term modification of the traffic signal Cumulative (2025) Conditions. The addition system to accommodate split phasing of Project traffic would exacerbate this for the eastbound and westbound condition. a roaches. Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin ...... F Page I-15 ^~ January 2009 ~~` Section 1 .0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Net Impact After Mitigation Mitigation Measure Should the Camp Parks access not be Significant and relocated opposite Amador Valley Unavoidable Boulevard, then this significant Project impact would not occur. Even with the relocation of access to this location, the City does not have the authority to require the Army to construct improvements to the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. Therefore, the potential impact remains significant and unavoidable. 4.11-6 Transportation and Circulation/Dublin Significant and Blvd./Dougherty Rd. cumulative traffic Unavoidable impacts. Under Long-term Cumulative (2025) Conditions, the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic will exacerbate this condition. 4.11-7 Transportation and Circulation/(S. Mitigation Measure 4.11-7. Less-than-Significant Mariposa Dr./Dougherty Rd. cumulative Signalization of the South Mariposa traffic impacts. Under Long-term Drive/Dougherty Road intersection Cumulative (2025) Conditions, side-street would improve operations to an traffic on South Mariposa Drive at acceptable level, LOS B during the a.m. Dougherty Road experiences unacceptable peak hour and LOS A during the p.m. LOS F conditions durin the a.m. eak hour eak hour. This si nal shall be installed Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin t' Page I-16 January 2009 ~. y; 1 f I l _ i 1 1 1 I _ Section 1 .0: Summary of En~-ironmental Impacts and Miti ation Measures Impact Topic/ Impact Mitigation Measure Net Impact After Mitigation and LOS E conditions during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate this condition. prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Dublin. 4.11-8 Transportation and Circulation/Transit Mitigation Measure 4.11-8. Provide Less-than Significant circulation. The proposed Project would alternate bus circulation and transit remove North Mariposa Drive access to amenities necessary to accommodate Dougherty Road and prohibit left turns from demand. A final determination of bus Ventura Drive onto northbound Dougherty routing shall be made through Road. Each of these changes would disrupt coordination between the City of existing transit service. Dublin, LAVTA and the Project applicant and shall be shown on Project improvement plans. The Project applicant shall provide the necessary bus stops and/or bus pullouts and associated amenities required to implement the final bus routes. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin LL~ C,.fe ~_ Page I-17 January 2009 n ivN ~;, 1.0 Project Summary 1.1 Introduction This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed Project, a list of environmental issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each environmental impact and associated mitigation measure. A discussion of the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing Guidelines to the proposed Project is outlined in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains a detailed discussion of the proposed Project. Chapter 4 includes a thorough analysis of Project impacts and mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a range of alternatives to the proposed Project as required by CEQA and a discussion of each alternative. Chapter 6 contains all other CEQA-mandated sections. Finally, Chapter 7 includes the names of the DEIR preparers, individuals and agencies contacted in the preparation of this document and references. Appendices are included as Chapter 8. ~' 1.2 Summary of Project Description The Project Site is located in the central portion of the City of Dublin. More „„ specifically, the Site is located at 6700 Dougherty Road on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, a regional ,w multi-use trail. Alamo Creek forms a portion of the western boundary of the Site, which is a major creek in eastern Alameda County. The Site contains approximately 23.8 acres of land. Existing residents on the Site would be relocated to replacement housing sites consistent with local, state and Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site would be removed. The Project would then consist of constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the Site, as well as a community building, a day care center and related improvements. The Project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the Site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. The proposed Arroyo Vista residential development would be a community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 for sale units with 141 of these being attached and 57 detached dwellings. Up to 14 of the "for sale" units will be set-aside for below market rate (moderate income level) purchase. The remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income- restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 49 1- `~` bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment unit). Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood- frame buildings. The senior apartments would be located in one three-story building '` located near the center of the development, adjacent to the childcare center. A small courtyard will be constructed between the senior building wings. °~" A community building would be constructed near the public loop internal road. The community building would be used in conjunction with the affordable housing Project to serve the needs of those residents. The 3,200 square foot building would ;~ include a community room that could be used for parties, meetings and other events; offices to support the affordable housing Project and a computer room with open computer times as well as educational programs. The childcare facility is proposed to be located near the intersection of the public loop road and public street A. This facility would include approximately 3,400 square feet and would contain a preschool classroom, toddler classroom and offices. The facility would be open to the public. The facility could accommodate up to 48 children and would also include an outdoor play area. The anticipated hours of operation for the facility are 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The total anticipated number of employees for the facility is 8, which includes teachers, administration and maintenance staff. The following land use entitlements must be approved by the City of Dublin to allow implementation of the Project: General Plan Amendment. The Dublin General Plan presently designates the Arroyo Vista Site as Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development between 6.1 and 14.0 dwellings per acre. The proposed Project includes a density of approximately 16 dwellings per acre, which would not be consistent with the current residential density range. Therefore, the applicants have requested an amendment to the General Plan to re-designate the Project Site as Medium/High Density Residential. This designation allows residential development between the ranges of 14.1 and 25 dwellings per acre. If approved, the requested General Plan land use designation would allow the density proposed as part of the Arroyo Vista Project. The General Plan Amendment also includes a request to designate 0.3 acres of the Site as Public/Semi-Public consistent with the City's Semi Public Facilities Policy. The General Plan Amendment includes a text amendment to the Land Use Element to allow attached and detached units in the Medium/High Density Residential land use designation. Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan.. The Arroyo Vista Site is presently zoned PD-Planned Development. The existing PD zoning district only allows the current configuration of buildings, the existing number of dwelling units on the Site, parking, and other Site features. In order to allow the development to be constructed as proposed, a Stage 1 /Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone is required to permit the requested number of dwellings, revised on-site residential density, number of proposed parking spaces, landscaping and similar features. Site Development Review. Site Development Review (SDR) approvals must be granted by the City of Dublin to ensure that building architecture, landscaping, signs and other facilities are consistent with design guidelines and other policies contained in various City land use regulations and guidelines. Tentative and Final subdivision maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the Project Site. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues "° Based on the environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study for this Project (see Appendix 8.1) and responses (see DEIR Appendices 8.2 and 8.3) to the Notice of Preparation issued by the City of Dublin, the following topics are addressed in the DEIR. • Aesthetics and Light and Glare • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazard and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Transportation and Circulation • Utilities and Service Systems 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measure (if required) identified in this DEIR is summarized on Table 1.1. The summary chart has been organized to correspond with the more detailed impact and mitigation measure discussion found in Chapter 4. Table 1.1 is arranged in three columns. The first column identifies environmental impacts by topic area and level of impact(i.e. significant impact, less-than-significant impact or no impact) prior to implementation of any mitigation measures. The second column includes mitigation measures. The third and final column identifies the level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures. This chapter is a summary of the following DEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15123. For a complete description of the environmental setting, impacts associated with this proposed Project and mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DEIR. 1.5 Summary of Alternatives The DEIR analyzes three alternatives, as follows. • Alternative 1: "No Project," which assumes that existing public housing dwellings on the Site would remain, but no additional dwellings would be built, although maintenance, repair and upgrades would occur to ensure code compliance. Alternative 2: Reduced Project. The second alternative assumes that existing buildings and related improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per local, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site would be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per acre. Dwellings under this Alternative would be clustered in the approximate center of the Site, leaving greater setbacks along Dougherty Road and Alamo Creek. Existing Site driveways along Dougherty Road would remain as they currently exist. ~° Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 3 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~ Gi -, This alternative would yield 238 dwellings, plus on-site parking and landscaping. Of these, 150 dwellings would be income-restricted dwellings and 88 would be market dwellings. Alternative 3: Mixed Use Development, which assumes development of five acres of the Site for local serving commercial development, equivalent to approximately 54,500 square feet of development, adjacent to Dougherty Road. On-site parking would also be provided. A second component of this alternative would be the development of the remaining 18.8 acres of the Site at the midpoint of the medium density range (10 dwelling units per acre),. The dwellings would be restricted to low and very low income households. This would be equivalent to 188 attached dwellings, along with on-site parking and open space and recreational amenities. These alternatives are detailed and analyzed in Chapter 5 of the DEIR. 1.6 Areas of Known Controversy The Project Site consists of redeveloping an existing public housing development within an urban area fully served by public services and utilities. There are no known areas of controversy with respect to environmental issues. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 4 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Table 1.1-Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ~- Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 5 Draft Environmenta- Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 1~` _,: ~~}f~ ~'. 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Purpose and Overview of the Environmental Review Process This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (to be known hereafter in this document as the DEIR), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Public Resources Code Sec. 21000 et. seq. (CEQA), as amended, implementing CEQA Guidelines (14 Calif. Code Regulations, Sec. 15000 et. seq.) and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. This DEIR assesses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Arroyo Vista Project, which includes demolition of 150 income-restricted dwellings and construction of up to 378 income-restricted and market rate dwellings, a community center and child care facility on this 23.8-acre Site in the City of Dublin. The Applicants are seeking City approval of a an amendment to the Dublin General Plan, a Planned Development rezoning with a related Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (SDR) approval, and subdivision map(s). U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approval has also been requested to convey the Arroyo Vista Site to the Project applicants. This document describes existing environmental conditions within and adjacent to the proposed development and assesses the potential significant environmental effects of the proposed Project. The DEIR also includes measures that could be incorporated into the Project to mitigate (lessen) anticipated environmental impacts to a level of insignificance or eliminate them entirely, where feasible. Finally, this DEIR identifies and analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed Project, cumulative impacts of this and other projects on the environment, and other mandatory elements as required by CEQA. Responses to comments received regarding this DEIR during the public review period will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Together, the DEIR and FEIR constitute the full Environmental Impact Report for the Project. As provided in CEQA and implementing guidelines, public agencies are charged with the responsibility of avoiding or minimizing significant environmental damage As an informational document to local officials, governmental agencies and members of the public, the purpose of the EIR is to serve as a disclosure document, identifying potential significant impacts, and ways to avoid or substantially reduce those impacts through mitigation measures and alternatives. Certification of the EIR by the lead agency does not constitute approval of the underlying Project, in this instance, the adoption of the proposed Arroyo Vista Project. 2.2 Lead Agency The City of Dublin is the lead agency for preparation of the EIR, as defined by Section 21067 of CEQA. This means that the City of Dublin is the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for approving or carrying out the proposed Project and for assessing the potential environmental effects of the proposal. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 6 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Methodologies used for determining standards of significance for each impact category analyzed in the DEIR are based primarily on CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, and are described in Chapter 4 of this DEIR. By applying appropriate significance criteria, impacts under each environmental topic have been categorized as "significant," "potentially significant," "less than significant" or "no impact." Methods used to determine the level of significance of potential impacts vary depending on the environmental topic, as described in the individual subsections. 2.3 Notice of Preparation The City of Dublin has completed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed °`~ Project and has circulated the NOP to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse, all responsible and trustee agencies, other public agencies and interested citizens as required by CEQA. Additionally, the NOP was sent to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the Project Site, all existing tenants of Arroyo Vista, all tenants of Arroyo Vista who have recently relocated from the Site and all property owners and tenants in the surrounding residential developments which were °* located beyond the 300 foot radius of the Project Site. A copy of the NOP and distribution of the NOP to potentially affected agencies are included in Appendix 8.2 Responses received by the City of Dublin during the NOP review period are included within Appendix 8.3 of this document. 2.4 Impacts Founds to be Less-Than-Significant or No Impact The Initial Study for this Project (see Appendix 8.1) identified the following impacts as less-than-significant or no impacts and these topics are not addressed further in this DEIR: • Aesthetics: no substantial adverse impacts on scenic vistas; • Aesthetics: no substantial degradation of the visual character of the Site and its surroundings; • Air Quality: no creation of objectionable odors; • Agricultural Resources: no conversion of farmland to a non-farm use, no conflicts with Williamson Act Agreements and / or agricultural zoning; • Biological Resources: no conflicts with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans; • Cultural Resources: no adverse impacts related to the significance of a historical resource; • Geology and Soils: no septic tanks are proposed; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: the Site is not listed on the State's Cortese List or the Phase I Environmental Site Analysis as a listed contaminated site. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: no creation of hazards through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: no emission or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: no interference with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: no exposure of people or structures to significant wildfire risk; • Hydrology: no placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or exposure of people to flood hazards; ~~ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 7 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,. / s , (.; • Hydrology: no substantial depletion of groundwater recharge areas or lowering '"' of the water table; • Hydrology: no inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows; • Land Use and Planning: no physical division of an established community; ~~' • Land Use and Planning: no conflict with applicable land use plans or habitat conservation plans; • Mineral Resources: no loss of availability of regionally or locally significant ~` mineral resources; • Noise: no exposure of people or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise; • Population and Housing: no substantial inducement of population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly; • Public Services: no substantial impacts to schools, solid waste or governmental services; • Recreation: no substantial increase in the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require the construction of new recreational facilities; .~ • Transportation and Traffic: no changes to air traffic patterns; • Transportation and Traffic: will not result in inadequate emergency access; • Utilities: compliance with federal, state and local regulations regarding to solid waste. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 8 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 3.0 Proiect Characteristics °~ 3.1 Project Location The Project Site is located in the central portion of the City of Dublin. More specifically, the Site is located on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of s Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, a regional multi-use trail. A portion of the western boundary of the Site is Alamo Creek, a major creek in eastern Alameda County. The Site contains approximately 23.8 acres of land. The current Project Site address is 6700 Dougherty Road and the Alameda County Assessor Parcel Number is 941-0007-001-07. Exhibit 3.1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 3.2 shows the location of the Project Site in context with nearby features, including roadways and Alamo Creek. 3.2 On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses - The Site is presently occupied by the Arroyo Vista housing development, which restricts occupancy to households with certain income limits. The current Arroyo Vista Project "~' includes 150 detached dwellings, on-site parking, a childcare center, recreation facilities and landscaping that is owned by the Dublin Housing Authority. The Site is generally flat with a gradual slope to the west, towards Alamo Creek. A noise barrier wall has been built along the Project's Dougherty Road frontage with a height of approximately six to seven feet. Major open space features on the Site include two undeveloped fields, one at the northern end of the Site (North Field) and one on the western edge of the Site (West Field). In North Field brush piles, wood chips, and litter cover much of the ground, and a mix of mostly non-native weedy plants comprises most of the vegetation. West Field is more manicured in appearance and is surrounded on all sides by a paved foot/bike path. A basketball court borders the eastern edge of this field. The central section of this field has been mowed and a layer of sawdust placed around sections of the perimeter of the mowed area. The topography slopes downward from the north and east edges of West Field towards a low point in the northwestern corner, where a drain is located. Existing land uses adjacent to the Project Site include multi-family dwellings to the north and south. An auto service station/convenience store also exists to the north. Alamo Creek forms the westerly boundary of the Project Site with amulti-family complex located west of Alamo Creek. Directly to the east of the Project Site, on the east side of Dougherty Road, is the 2,700- acre U.S Army Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Center. Camp Parks facilities are characterized by one and two story buildings and vehicle storage and maintenance yards. The Project Site is buffered from Camp Parks by an earthen berm with an estimated height between eight and ten feet along the east side of Dougherty Road. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 9 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ttl {~ V Exhibit 3.3 shows existing Site features. 3.3 Project Objectives Following are the Project Objectives: 1) Provide for a mix of rental and owner-occupied housing on the Project Site as well as income-restricted and market rate dwellings in a seamlessly unified community. 2) Increase the efficiency of the land uses on the Site over and above the current land use pattern by increasing the number of dwellings on an infill site that is currently served by public utilities, public transportation, nearby parks, schools and other services. 3) Assist the City of Dublin in achieving housing objectives established in the City's Housing Element of the General Plan by providing housing at various income levels. 4) Allow a number of market-rate dwellings on the Site in order to assist with funding overall Site improvements and amenities and to promote an economically diverse local community. 5) Ensure that the number of income-restricted dwellings on the Site includes a minimum of 150 units, the same number as currently exists. 6) Upgrade the ADA accessibility, appearance and safety of dwellings on the Site from current conditions. 7) Replace aging and inefficient on-Site infrastructure, especially sewer and water utility lines, with upgraded and more efficient facilities. 8) Replace older dwellings and improvements on the Project Site that require a high level of maintenance with state-of-the art sustainable building materials that will reduce on-going maintenance and repair costs and, at the same time, result in a more efficient use of non-renewable energy resources. 9) Provide on-site amenities and facilities to future residents, including a child care facility, a community building and open space areas. 10) Ensure the protection and preservation of sensitive biological areas immediately west of the Site within Alamo Creek. 3.4 Site History The existing Arroyo Vista public housing development was built in 1982. The complex was developed and initially owned by the Housing Authority of the City of Pleasanton. Ownership of the development was transferred to the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) in 1986. The Arroyo Vista Housing Development is the only public housing development owned by the DHA. The DHA contracts with the County of Alameda Housing Authority to manage the property. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 10 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 3.5 Project Characteristics Overview. The proposed Project includes demolition of the existing 150 dwellings and other structures on the Project Site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the Site. The Project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the Site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. Exhibit 3.4 shows the proposed Stagel & Stage 2 Development Plan. Development concept. The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141 attached and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491-bedroom apartments and one 2- bedroom manager unit which would not be income or age restricted). Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings. This development would replace 150 units of public housing on Site. At the core of the development, the Village Center would include a Community Building with central recreation space and a new Child Care Center. Additional satellite recreational areas, both passive and active, would be scattered throughout the proposed development. Three types of housing are proposed: 49 Senior apartments (including 49 income- restricted units and one manager unit), 130 income restricted family dwellings and 198 market rate dwellings. The unit breakdown is as follows: Table 3.1. Proposed Dwelling Unit Summary Hsng T e Income-restricted Famil Units Income-restricted Senior Units Market Rate Sin le Famil Total Unit Type 121-Bdrm Flats 491-Bdrm Flats 12Bdrm Flat 66 2-Bdrm Townhomes 141 Attached 36 3-Bdrm Townhomes 57 Detached 16 4-Bdrm Townhomes Sub-total 130 Units 50 Units 198 Units 378 Units Source: Project Applicants, 2007 Of the 198 for sale units, 14 units would be sold to buyers whose incomes are between 80 and 120% of the area median income (below market rate). All of the other dwellings proposed to be constructed on the Site would be rental dwellings. The affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between 30% and 60% of AMI. A central loop roadway as shown on Exhibit 3.4 is proposed to link the various community elements and create a unified development. The affordable housing would be located at the heart of the Site while the market-rate units would be split into two Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 11 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , -; areas creating "bookends" around the affordable family and senior units. This layout ' would: Balance the needs of residential management (affordable family and senior housing need a cohesive physical plan to facilitate high-quality property management); Create a Village Center supporting the affordable family, senior and market- rate units; and Integrate market-rate and affordable components of the Project, thus achieving a greater degree of economic diversity. The Village Center, located at the crossroads of the main street and the central entry drive, would contain a concentration of community-based uses: the 3,400 square foot child care facility, the 3,200 square foot Community Building, and two primary large open spaces. The senior housing also would be located at the Village Center to enhance the connection between age groups. Residential buildings are arranged to create satellite recreation areas, enabling all units to have excellent open space access. Larger open space green belts would lead from Alamo Creek into the Site to connect the development to the larger natural environment. A mixture of building types would be developed to create choices for residents and variety for the broader community. The townhomes would have tuck-under parking and parking for other units would be located in adjacent satellite lots. The Community Building would be part of the income-restricted Family Unit portion of the over Arroyo Vista Project, but would be open to all Project residents. The Community Building would be managed by Eden Housing Management, Inc., a division of Eden Housing. The building would be used for a variety of community meetings, social gatherings, after-school programs, adult financial literacy classes, neighborhood watch meetings and similar activities. The building would also include a computer lab with built-in high-speed Internet connections. Area access, parking and circulation. Access into the Site would be provided via three driveways from Dougherty Road instead of the four current driveways. Proposed Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 requires the installation of a traffic signal by the Project applicant(s) at the intersection of South Mariposa Drive/Dougherty Road as part of the Project. On-site circulation would consist of a public roadway paralleling Dougherty Road, identified as Public Street A (in approximately the same location as existing Monterey Drive) and Public Street B (in approximately the same location as Ventura Drive) on Exhibit 3.4. The streets would lead to a public roadway loop in the approximate center of the Site (currently names Mariposa Drive). Driveways into individual areas would branch off of the main public streets. Parking within the development would include a total of 828 spaces, some of which would be located within garages or carports, others would be open parking spaces and some would be located adjacent to public streets within the Project. A number of the proposed spaces would consist of compact spaces as well as handicapped- accessible spaces. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 12 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Infrastructure. The existing Arroyo Vista development is presently served by water, ~~° wastewater, drainage, solid waste, electrical, telecommunication and natural gas facilities. Water service is presently provided from Zone 7 and, as part of the proposed Project, potable and recycled water service would be provided by the °~ Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). All other existing services would continue to be provided to the Site, although portions of existing facilities may need to be replaced or upgraded to service additional dwellings proposed for the Site. Landscaping. Exhibit 3.5 depicts the proposed landscape plan for the Project. Property disposition. The proposed Project includes disposition of the 23.8-acre Site from the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) to the two Project Applicants (Eden Housing and Citation Homes). This action would require approval by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August ~~ 15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer team. With HUD approval of the Disposition Application, the Project would be removed from the public housing program and will no longer be subject to ;~ the Annual Contribution Contract. Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocation plan which has been submitted to the Dublin Housing Authority which is consistent with local, State and Federal relocation guidelines and regulations. Requested entitlements. As described above, a number of land use entitlements and ,~ approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of this Project. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment. The Dublin General Plan presently designates the Arroyo Vista Site as Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development between 6.1 and 14.0 dwellings per acre. The proposed Project includes a density of approximately 16 dwellings per acre, which would not be consistent with the current residential density range. Therefore, the Applicants have requested an amendment to the General Plan to re-designate the Project Site as Medium/High Density Residential. This designation allows residential development between the ranges of 14.1 and 25 dwellings per acre. If approved, the requested General Plan land use designation would allow the density proposed as part of the Arroyo Vista Project. The General Plan Amendment also includes a request to designate 0.3 acres of the Site as Public/Semi-Public consistent with the City's Semi Public Facilities Policy. A General Plan amendment is also requested to change the text of the Land Use Element allow attached and detached units in the Medium /High Density Residential land use designation. Currently, the Element does not allow detached dwelling unit types. The Amendment requires a public hearing by the Dublin Planning Commission to review the application and forward a recommendation to the Dublin City Council. The City Council must then hold a public hearing on the application prior to making a decision. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 13 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan. The Arroyo Vista Site is presently zoned PD-Planned Development. The existing PD zoning district only allows the current configuration of buildings, the existing number of dwelling units on the Site, parking and other Site features. In order to allow the development to be constructed as proposed, the Applicants must apply for a Stage 1 /Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone to rezone the Site from its current Planned Development designation. Similar to the requested General Plan Amendment, the rezoning requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Site Development Review. Site Development Review (SDR) approvals to ensure that building architecture, landscaping, signs and other facilities are consistent with the design guidelines and other policies contained in various City land use regulations and guidelines. Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the Project Site. The Project applicant has filed a master tentative subdivision map for the entire Site. The subdivision map would create individual lots for market-rate single-family dwellings and larger parcels for income-restricted rental apartments. The subdivision map would also created non-buildable lots for landscaping and interior roads. The proposed subdivision map is depicted on Exhibit 3.6a (southern portion of the Site) and 3.6b (northern portion of the Site). 3.6 Other Uses For This EIR It is anticipated that a number of other approvals would be required in order to implement the contemplated Arroyo Vista Project. These approvals may include but are not limited to: • Disposition of Project Site to Project Applicants (HUD) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) • Issuance of demolition, building and grading permits (City of Dublin) • Approval of water and additional connections (DSRSD) • Approval in shift of water service provider from Zone 7 to DSRSD (LAFCO, DSRSD and / or Zone 7) Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 14 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin I p 0 o '~ o U m d m .~ x 0 v C s',p SAh' PA B L /J a Martinez a B A Y San eo Concord Rafael ~u Richmond seo Mill Iol Valley ~ Walnut za Creek Berkeley aeo 0 Oakland seo San Francisco gla~ea~ SAN San ~, Leandro DUBLIN FRANCISCO ~0 ~ Daly A City aAr lol n Hayward ~, , ~ gz teo w, San Mateo n Fremont ea i ~~ Newark ~ ~ v ~~ Redwood City ~., Half ~ O Moon Bay Palo ~O Alto A 85 101 I Z~ Sunnyvale Santa Clara Livermore Pleasanton San Jose CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.1 REGIONAL LOCATION N 0 2 4 6 8 10 miles Blur rlr Awuriates. Berkeley. Caiifomia 7-31-2008 Project Site [CITY OF SAN RAMONJ ~•~ ' / I ~•'~~~. • C .. •~!i / ~`~ .\ / NP~M DA CO N~ Y/ , . - ~~. '•~,, I~•~ `~ I ._._._. PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA i I FEDERAL ~ SANTA RITA CORRECTIONAL REHAB/LITAT/ON INSTITUTION CENTER (CAMP PARKS) I ~L I ~ o D Im o_ w °' O 3I n [CIiY OF PLEASANTON] I I I .~ ~ I 0 n I ~ ; F Exhibit 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION t ~. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ,s -•-•- City Limit N 0 1/4 f/2 3~4 f mile Exhibit 3.3 --~ CITY OF DUBLIN ~,:~; ARROYO visTA EXISTING SITE FEATURES :~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SQCilrcr: Carlsr~~~, t3r~rt~eo & Gibsan, Irtc., fi-27-?C1~8. - - - _. _. __ _ __ ..,~ ... _. ~ W_ . ~ a ~, ~, _ _ _. ~. ~, ~ ~~~ P[nry>~~~EG~~SrrPttAIN11 B KOl'.10:~XE. ,~, ~ ,r., w _ ~ n i ~ m C w n n ~ ~ E ~ [ i glNtgNG 2~[ ~:~ BWLOIXO 2 i @JIIDING 20 i0 I a ,~ 16E A-i N 71P"c FI ~ 11PE t I I ~ w ~' ~ ~~ ~ II m ~ m_ .. k I ~~eav sax >> TNff a-FfEX 5-~EM 6-PID( T4Tu A 0 iJ 2 15 q __ 1 _ 12 _ 0 13 TOTN- 1 25 ? 28 K w ElE4A-CN KEY:. k WIIIELPORARY dAfERIGAN NEST @ CRAFIStIAN f~9R.~ENE;_ Cola. S(SrETIES I-fi C-0RAESPOND N COEINf FA(ETfES ON 1HE d1TAGHFD fYJLIXi g0AR0. ~lll D&Pd atw TrvE t i ! raTk A 5 __ q 7 2D 8 q 6 4 16 C fi 7 8 21 NTAV ti PI 79 57 r, R CQNtEII?aRARY Ab~RICAN WEST d CAAFiSd1AN C CdPE 4~1~ `iCHENr: caac sa~€~ES i-s ctiRRESaona ra cala4 PALETiEi ON 1HE ATTACii£a C~OR BOARD, ~~~~ ~~~ BIIItf11NG 14PE U ~' A B C ..P TOTIL 1 3 2 5 0 8 s 2 ~ t o i 3 3 0 0 2 . 5 NYN. 8 fi { 2 20 n .,..... ,A_.m Wt~' AMD ~~ Ip110 e,4E I,EG)~i~fli ~1KpINC TYI~ PFSpBPTIONS ARE INDICATED IN llff F0.1,OYANO MANOR: [vuN~aD+wiNC rn~7 (El€vAn~t~-[cafaR cc~NBlaE] 'Et1nVAPaN ONLY fRONDEO F>1R FOfl+BfiIE RRDWC75 SOURCE: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., 6-27-2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT %J.. _ r` i Exhibit 3.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~ ~ .£ ~~q I ~:: OPEN SFACE PERIMETER SINGLE FAMILY IGITATICINI HQMES PLANT MATERIAL PAT,Igpp IATq f,OAfrA.MTry ~AC$ @D,tl PNISNVAY ZUNE W61V1%JL£Ui EMRY ZOh~M~-i.U$ ((.'ptJ77NIkD) ,SWAb.,OL Bf31M8C NPLiG, CCArMACNJ t1WdE SYrMA-A. 09TN@G N4A{E CfTIr6M]N N4MF_ §YMOUL HOT'Ahi914MAE CbMMPkI NAME SY7u1606 9p7MV(; WAME GOL1tACN FIAMif _ %J&'JC 1,~ SPACCS (SFAi4ASb CfW.SS'ES - (;WIR,Y.IE-1 ....._.. 8t1PoJB5 & Ca'H,9SCS iCaN11NL~Ul -. _ _ __._.____.._ tIJEES _ ifJEES ~ ___ GFifJUISU vaoEH5 GAOUM7 C(JVEt _____ OF 86" LrF1F,5 EgGCLDF tEMOPI FG?fL7NF~ll L4.i' Fes" BFN ~'~ HOSEAWtr' _. AFI Pf& t AL`tglLl~i w CrUBdEA F+rD FIaf~G IEGTMJT _.. ~ ~ `____ _ NAtN~K.G ~~~ ... _..._ LlNlCXJIJ ~~ ~~ -_ ARG Elaf; -. A>7DTUS(AWll.05 -.___ _... _ IMLTTAIU GAF4Yi __- AFG CCAJ __.~ ARL'TCtiAPYILO5 EDhNI+IUuR LITTLE S..R MAIUANITA ' f, VJRAIJ(iE DFlCPr''3 ' LRI TEtJ PEht;NOF.J'! (3LUL' STGA T€A4A991MA MEXti':nN fEATNET GRM1SN , LN' BJU I AtJERSI(1khW1 N•d[MQA HIFR7!S G+ME. MYHTIF Gi AGk 17 ER(X75 ACRFGtta. CAllF(iFrVla ue'C OAI< t'MERNL C,lVI(~El' fdM!]JUiIA ,AHG WA hACitlSTAf WG} w0.tK '81 BEPkTBCAMf G[ 3~ U~iES R?,EVOaES PORiIV~hli LILT ~ ~4 ULFk EUf~PA "~nN t~p1' SWAN tq (FRIRfLE:~w7 L DINF 11 c qE GU:7tAE', iEt HOU.Y GAh HEL SFA1 I I~'TCiI'Po('.HDN f;Lt~ DAi C!Rhu" AFC fi[Y AFCTgSTkHYLt7;; wA-.LKC~ I~)IM FiYE" BE~fiERP.Y FR. ^af7~K I€JJGT'a173Gk5N t1U1E (tAT CJiASS ' TU1610 11P,.EAL',t;A 1(fLhC,d-h ' :TOCEI'! U4HLIG MI f PA fMfl'QLS'(%A)tA CIVa; r" YHAK!Ai . . PIl'!G"hT'C113M TAFE. P(NJM YLX1 SFVA $1 aE E ' .`EhY'EA4WF.115 PCkM HEYE$ ERVIf~W& SEMF WEa Fr~J TidNCVd ERUi1L77'in Ni~ CUAST firiSEhIIJiY , , { Wi 8 h4 EftV&JGN, fIC;PST REfJWU1NJ LFl' CON IIYMJS LA7hNLhlEIiTUS 'MLU FfIE WEu MfJH Yk:lllillJE~TA FRUfi(~1'aA r OJA'Si P,USEMAP,Y' CViI HEfl GFIYJNA.NTMR~ f~"~ UaDJS WiINF,SF FfpIJ~ THEE fW IrI.CJ PEN FX.SQiS PfMALf~U; FMMELE ",~? PFtJ FV_~Ui F'cIJTPLaBUA RpntiFil ' ' G 9i .73S _ _-._ ___....___ EM[iiaLD GNiPFP EMEW~ID tARRT CNJYDN pFatJCE TafDRPXIV IK,M ShYiLI@S CEA (EDI ;fANU7FBJS GFNTEFNYAI` iML6IAAf: ENTRY ZONE PLANT MA TERIAL PUBLIC U5E SPACES PL ANT MATERIAL F+4i NLS faSQWJTHJ3 PoN€5tS AUA(Kl7 W~ADFNd CRASS CiRgJlB) GO4F_F49 - - ' s c,EA JGI' CFANCtTHUS'JDYCE ,JOYCE C(1LLTfT1 UR(uGli( T OLHt4M HJ3-lEGTNE DC Ar7J,aiaiNr OFEN SPAC.F. 3YIdTJgL F3DTANiC" NAME- G'fkWniN FInMC 5'TR 'pracaa uth 6 E1R 71 i - ahlE HYI) AM?AONE % kIYkYNC1A ~W ANEP,C- PNF7d01~~ Nru s~ NJI M NJ~ci~arJlncu tila REP ANI~^(7?AN7t I[IS FI Av7Y.JS NaluaaHa? Pew NAIJY`~IJtGC1 PANti CIXATH7 t'FIddUTHII^„ _ SYbNaO' U13TAF•A:%I1MhF. COM1AM)IJ NAME Il^~'SE ' ~~~...-..-- A9S r S E ,R51 hd~bEhl STfVCTlS' r M. EME 0.4 WAJIiB ARRTGSfAP17 Afi(:TtJSTN'1N.LlS ' ' G+]F NC rOUFRFA NCJRf BEJ15' aUSTPALNrJ fUCHS41 __ ~,; ------ - ...---~ -- .- AC CIaL ._ AFS(,U LIS GNS'DPI~A ----..- A;KF(C CAJJFO(SNW G' A95 Yah MS'rHiIfJ55NEtXS L4kAl1F MAJ.YN liihSS . f1.K.~TiuD CPl?PET'I FAJEFn.IU i;AY.PET CEA JOY CLAWO FdlS CC,w ,E Ct7LJLYLRY ' JOYCE GCULIL•R f71ND1 FKJIi G(;H FUL CAHIJLp PIN G [LtA aLUmaLwN EuGiow cTA ou r ~,r~ clcar~NrAus WCSTEAN r~ncllU _ . . ",Aru :~,+n' RER r,Rn _ FEFC;trAA C,RAiSFUAJA YANrra; oLmrNt~c [;FU) TEC ~iC>f1"T~I bA TECTGitJM GJOhftA GAPC RUSH tA^,"U' CJNFELI:; . r AEB ,ddi A.tIS X CBRNEA ITEU tNN'2~'CA{6SThAJI R I I.Y:Y GN LEU 5AU'Ih LELM;G~I1Y11a f~PLE uAC~ GLt AOf? ~R~g NiEf(N.w CD!!~'11,tJf. CJA1C CFA CAIJ CtFGS C:ANApENSIS CAS'IEPoV AFITFIIU M1T1 CF,IM M'rR1,Ufr r,DMIdUFPS' MrTtTtG FTtl V,Afi F4V!>FRCJN kaRiNIiIQNJt15 M=%1JCAtJ UPts"( LE-0 I~ I FAN014 tf~NlKkJ•"s L LYJNS A . fORFST~PAN3GY' IJQ' GOR IdC.F1iR0L[FIS C(,~FGUA St7Jl I ICAIV Sw(NLD rfl1N ~ 5Ah! N&#S SAN31NJE11M NdtVfPA DURFEIVf SHP,lA15 - - Lnc~ INU LAG375'~a[MY n~ra+ CRAE£ L KVRnc fwhTi caM M~'FrL~ f1fiMML-N,4 ar,ANC MYRnE CPA.1 MAH -MMDtt4A MARG,nEETEA UYMONOW MI5 6flV MLRUANiI{'}5 ~tVELV;KS JAPANESE 9LVHi f)f245S HPAHE YrgA7E` N~'NDW NiCtDSTAPS@.QS Mag7hCpiA MB(~1~ . CKN.WAi.TA' HEU VIJI HF,U:NNFfin, VAHElES thlT A{YR CDP F,ftRTld4 Cd7hIMJhB3 CApVPAGtI GM'AAF N'Ri1tE PB'JK:- fW.ES 4131,APF'61Aht El'EiA#tTl 61!Fi^;ENT NQw'(V1D AY'MJNhf ftW MAJ F4M'hF'~LERS'AIAJFSiG IhKKNV HA'M1JGi.N FtiN N.D FFJV~'I(AA ALG EGTIfiGV)Eg FGUNtA7W ASS LEY iFd IFTdII° TFYI~a@~S CATfHi'FdG Wd.D RtF NU'• CDR tVEF1IH(AEKiS rLV~'P(7L.N 6l~IfTF~TWJ SYlGP,6 FE(+N i>(itXitJLI CAVtift AFA: hKla ARST(MTnWt75 tlfrr]KF!'J MDNT@HEY MaNLNATa 6EAUTN~ 'I (4Et SAID ', R0F3SAIJGI.,iNELW REU FLC1W'ESt~ GFViENf TM(I S MiT,&b w00LY THYME PGL MNJ Pq.YSfIGiIK,J MJMI4AA WESTFJ~V SN1K1M F6UJ __._ MlL HIG 617t;?q)ETyia P3a1VS ~_.__~__ N 6 5 i QE CSAt PlL CGY4&A FUICkIEL~ NX;IPALIh.N FJJGi„hA ,, (4if{L95 & f#1U:,[S -__ - - - ~ ~ .-_-.~ .. _.._ _-.", PSET~VAALK~"hifJSt~ r'NL LAI PLILDMS taNATa .&}ll~J+JFM SM£-. 3AL fLd , SnLYIA LEJY'.APF1Yf1A 'PpM SPJ.' E Nt PURPLE SALE CA1 ALb 1M~,51DN HFl.l6' GA11,N+hGRO51IS k fJ f i RA I LATNF}i REED GMG i - ALJC ,V~ GAL ACI ._ - ,- . AUCLGt(.NFIN}IJICA GALAAMC~vBTF" Y _ A1CURh PEAT I^71 RE[D GRA3£ ti.a. ,l 'L' -~ ~ -~. ~ _ { ~tl 1 ~ ~~~ i • ` ~" - -/C:-f--~~ ''J IT[3 SAN PoB Nk HTiE.9:SAM~.m1FLVA REFEd VI(3tF11dFi]L&ttd fffD ftf/tVFFRFY.i (-'t1RFFM EVLTILSREF.IJ CIAI&NT A JTI d J 5'N fF3 S4LMaIk7ID9FHYUA SACLi '~AIERA' gENT;EN CENJC91111S+~1JTEIVPML' YV4J) Lq'n0 ~PI]V W,9Uu PFNLA1,Df3L15 PRRId31 E CEA.JtT+' f,~}lCJTHLIS'JDYCE ,RhGf. GUl0.1 L74 ::h JO'r . Y:MF}ieLf7 CNiPEf' I;CYILTGR ffAN0TMIS' PARKWAY ZDNE PLANT MATERIAL Mir ~ ctrl+IEra?EK1>w law;rr:: I?CER GRAfiS Cii( EAE FAThiV7AY RIx7rc a 8i AA.CJf37 a }~. PIANTIIV(; qJ GMNl CIIW"HK'PJC*R G] MM SiMS[JL FC7iWJY NM1C COMM6N IVAidE ~,ruqu -aana t,: AG!IFI:4WA M.kPo- EC~Fi51ER' t~J+NOTW 151pYGE ,IC)Y~ CG:K:(Ff: (:OULTLR ~ Cf.Ah1D1}flAS (1OTONFAB'fHi CDTOIVCA 7EH CLMh7aIIJNTa RU"~H tV.! -.uar ra Rl M(s !!AI?nGFNa U~GLACF.A SU,'If:TI'CeVi1C _ VJ,6 PETi VAiGt~JM PF}#LY ' , 4Y1 C14M YR3lAdJIRA DANDG F_'VFITCf~LN MQ3UIJWLIM SrapY T = Gf1 FACILITIES LECrEND NQTE5' I~r~Lr;11ETLTV FaAn EDEN PLANT MATERIAL ~'-~~".~ EDEN PLANT MATERIAL Fti[i EtJl ml ~1tdl N:: Af'T I K.ATYJN A I"dTER TD LN2 f-OR ENI.!e?t~fi Po Af•I Of-" f.~tJLA4i._ AR >', 559AP,Ol. Fi;TNNY' i'U+bL~ C K.NMXJ NAhPE `~Y~IHI74;: P'rM!ifK B(~7A JL tN.`J,f c CCMI,M.I SItY fE+iT[R Fc71A~N3i Tf-HFa~F >;A! WAlI_ !}FE 74bL[3. cNA,~TPEILf B-'FP [1 ,.,.. F ~ `tY`T'Vr! fj 1 ! IT~EL ~ pL VkR tiL~{:S VhI; .. _ COfiil~'kIi IILY 1"r;F.tiS TEP tart 8 SEFr I ,1 uar,aJC ! ~MIf1C5 TCRMt, >'fT wN-l. C 1TC'NFi~tu)Iti !s^J'd?_N h T I.n.d7 OP f V.N+..l~ Y. , i F1AF 11VG A 2 . C rLN711^h' S Fi'vY~ATk"NV GC:,t3tV WA L EE COhJE aEF , AqR h~ .nRi~1LTG YAiJNt14' v33iTla; __ ... LLP HL1G trPi(!8PFW1tAf'fPJGY C1::M' NEw' ZfA~ll:r TGA 7RE[ A}i5 UI{[ ':A!df:N WI t1LAltllEIgIJ'a ht,lll ~. 4EIi;:FQ:,, .;rr7+F TABLF.~:,, ih:.U.Fr. . Hri PU C If, A;; a~i0'tVh! AC7D1'E 9V ALGOfdJAtF.-~E Wr r •. .n? ~ - ' Y, ' C?-T? 0"G ILI,:f O(Af,.'MJbI. FLANLLHi PF,i z.. , N"5Ji) iL ECriCdAIL IG !MROA1HfN WA1TA NEL,~`i qF APA INF Mfxli$ Ut~C1 (flAAWF,C~7UYY A?[E 1H ""''' hdS.IdJTFILC ;VNLN£ki C~,CLA1t~ .A?4`f F 4 ??MppJl' f-" K. rN Ml!Lit U.°~f.: ll-lf ",f'hr;l I'Jf4 (:Af ' PIAt•IiIMI It ftALp-'(}Pl,llh°. d grM=G'yu' '~., `!?T Cl f,(1TBJl6 (i~x9Ci4A vrVt F SMrJK.[ TPo__ ~`J^n~'' f i5 /_'.tiU Par. ()IT? ACC Iti! lUif WiIH A.~T7NI fD ^P,.e: ':.FI1 I'a'M1F'C+ .rnfti.-d Mrriloi L Yrgl,^rD1.5 Bl 07114lA L~ IJE1M iFEx"VfU F;E 'k 61Y tIF Uf? ~' , ~f('N IrtiiAG-rs C.iNtGJ•!µ5 '~'17~;r[RST.4CIm I,ki .7N IVSCN~ti711~,9d[1P„~i " ' Tt ifil ({tA.:~Y~n~l„MM1 {r ARB r=Fx `'I -~~ . P I W t41i aT't64 WIIJ BE?V" 6Oh AtW E CfiTICtlVSI. (!J(U JkM P i (11 I t I fJ;nY aTHI%iR47C ON f-4.NR UPo~(1;Nd:3 . _ E nL1 ,I:ICA.uS R) RF G GAL £HfA1ff5 .__-__-_. _. _._ HYR C,OM IAYFP.I' GOrdpAGTA CM';d'i~ lv'>TI7L[ ice, nCdl 7 UI::Trt a FCiw,1(YH) IyOyF . NiG t~V, ARC70S'MtVYlAS ass, n TlYH (LiiC r;HCAPJf7 C tirER (~ Ia:Ni , e r,~LJls TREE QUANTITIES whw,HU MI;hNNtV HfTwld II t0 Jrr ' __- -- --_ ' AILUE NI,311 CAJAN'(ir Iona, ;MME :irMt4 '„ANRIR RfTAhaC PINS C +^ : P itiu UN' JE N M€ hRri F l~k,iCaTafpl{Ij WA LH, .'tvln„If~ra C ; INC LrDR A IiIKf L N: ~, - ~_ ... . Dwa I 4kENOMELES Ii14p,HF , I ! I FMFFJd.D ~NKi.t tA,IFhVLl rl+gf Er tt hTF:NJ I ro Cc^Ydl 13ti'J1$ 1 1E. '1' N 1[ fiJY'"."WIC ,f. l1Nf ~ N'A.UTJ", trrl•.,. c tCr - (7 pI~M1'cl' 'JS Ga Ii TMItA f"lT C.f~A N 111.1 Cin IM rFAeSI^CA9,M ~hK)1F_C CHC1nICR(W:14lUM i,JLIl.:E 1 CN`C tiCt7, nFti; liah afA,TCr.TN`!a.%5IMA~i f1.d ;;"rA1KtCT!i('I a114C.Siti ~,. C ~ .-. IPU] J : r PI h N(, ~. F~ fl l/tFA!:, AC'.(,'jF(RJA LECICNAhA ~ FFi~ F"Il ! TALIw;>:, hN. L I3fN ullf tf'.12. , JY; IdLM,4 p I`.-a lu~(.~Lt ;A;[ I?p, tt Nnrrn , 1~1; d9 Nvl nlnLLEli1'AfdA. " _. 1"t1 (L+i (~Ckim:'T l IPiJ.. '. 11C 'i 6J (r., PCIAhNl uVT (lttl; iP HEN HYi(I,Sh+aS REfENS L f~W lSfia_l:?~cLr - 14 Y~.` l l N ..aCl>ii1 4 ~ I 7 P= 31 H.„ 11' f)AK MAFSSL`r DLIF~N' MflNtlJH fPhNr ` ('rA :-7J ~, ..• f I .].e _~ ~ Pp stir _. SOURCE: Keller Mitchell & Co., 6-27-2008. CITY OF DUBLIN aRROVO vista ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT nitr~. lArW ~ I.IAIiN'lLEPL:U.^'~hC 13: %J!i'r' t{i °LPA -'7 . Jl} kn STMrLR.~Vh`.FA9 ya t A YI I x WCILRI`J}0'L(~ t r 1 'A1~I~ Ju)'tiAIN F,:AretrT BFI stkNlR-ffal ''3J1TiHt5+11 ".PRCN:IF& Yj _CiJS7,fi GEANCi1Tp,p' ~"'--------__~~_L_.~I G9MMfiN hflJ.Mi 9~PT~XIS Afx3UClC. UIVI LrCr >TRAWP.ERfp' TAF.E CLTjGS T%LICENIAI.T, VfiTEPtI REin.LAi G 11 I1LC. Cf 'ui'CHI£ vl,R SMOKE iAf.F I E ~uA 1 ra Arena p{In rDraN tNJf „ll; !T',iti:tlNA C.AIfi'lTFif^WI LNIG Oai= 1JCP s ~ Om'+'VJ~.fi HI tA=. Uitila. r l a r ~~ F •r Inu. tea: U PP±.u Lt,~/:L' SaLLFy 4NVr. 11ti' Ctrl{ FJE3i$,vkA'rr .,.,R7IFOLLA WY r 1ik:7 I:M&ILCtJREIn~a fV(~JdR HI AtlJr' tKxN kl&&A kp1NHIMA !~ x4pl FJEiE: 51'1X~"Jk1G1~A G1 LfU GkLJf~t CiA'7PMtlJ.A rib>111' v_Ji_ AP n- ap'GIO lAhnitA^ nrfi-Ili '[MERIlU CAS4wT rv r~` LC40NC~,TF.r=. MW,MLF7 l.iiWY"AS'P _ tO .a+ RIbC.~ APIAAkfCCll!At F $' I'TII klA3U PEflll r ~,~ ~rrn z <IITr' N f.1 aMLyP LEl ~CI r'7LLa `/l1UVY :.~L: :r11~,. ,*J.'/IA IIiXCF'kriLLA i~17&F;J,v' AFn;7ri;,iAP1'A (IS F1iEf:al.fi ~ nf1E`t nLN"41CR~tY e>ilK'tiEEN •;th?fiENl CtF'JARIf. N.FxlC ".aa~~. M p'..1 ;r Cf fY.il7UJi>^• ~~ Exhibit 3.5 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN ~LrclrrJr~l swore rTPrl U'SP; „~c;A3i NESfCfVN `„V4itHL f•EFhI fLC14WTmd3 fJ.Vil'vEWI f~JNfT.E f{A(~ a a SOURCE.• Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, inc., 6-27-2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6a PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MAP O ;°' t 190 A~ 5C ~ ~ ~_ ~ _ an ~ u+w nr m.oo~ , ~ ~~ w i my usmr ~ ~n - pi L(' i 3 218 M 36 .__ '~> ~ ~ ~~ y ~ s ~ ~'Y$ " ' . ~ ~' ~ _ __ ~ ~ .- ~ - t a aa: %~'~ ~ ~, .. _ .m~z-. PARCEL A ~~'~ ~ t ~ ~~ -~ ~~_ ~ 13~ M 50 WCD ACFC1 / / r'` w4 j ~. _ .. c p(I03~69899~ 0 P - ~' te ~ ' 94i" ~ t "~ u k ~ ~ - -'° :w'- may,.. ~-'' - '*~_ ~ > rt t j wvrn,c: t,anson, I3d~OB6 & UIDSO/1, /l1C., b-L/-ZUUtS. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Ir A ~ s ~ ~ Exhibit 3.6b PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MAP ~ ~ ~' ~ .~ 4.0 Environmental Analysis Topics Addressed in the DEIR This section of the DEIR identifies specific environmental areas which maybe affected as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project. The impact areas are discussed individually in subsections 4.1 through 4.12: 4.1 Aesthetics and Light and Glare 4.2 Air Quality 4.3 Biological Resources 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.5 Geology and Soils 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8 Noise 4.9 Population and Housing 4.10 Public Services 4.11 Transportation and Circulation 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Each topic area is covered in the following manner: A. Environmental Issues An overview of issues related to the topic area. B. Environmental Setting A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general environmental conditions on and around the Project Site. C. EnvironmentalImpacts An identification and evaluation of potential impacts on the environment, should the Project be constructed as proposed. Standards of environmental significance will also be listed which set forth the basis on which the identification of environmental impacts will be made. Standards of significance for this DEIR are primarily based on standards listed in the California Environmental Quality Act and implementing Guidelines. Environmental impacts addressed in this document include the following: Significant or potentially significant impact, which means that the identified impact would exceed the environmental standards of significance. Less-than-significant impact, which means that an impact would not exceed the minimum environmental thresholds of significance. No impact, means that no environmental impact would be expected for a particular environmental topic. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 22 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~r ' =.- Significant and unavoidable impact, means that no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the significant impacts of the ,{ proposed project to aless-than-significant level. Approval of the project would require specific findings by the City of Dublin that there are overriding considerations that indicate the project should be ;,,. constructed, even if not all impacts can be mitigated. D. Mitigation Measures and Impacts After Miti ag tion An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be incorporated into the Project to reduce identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance, where feasible. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 23 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin F a~~j ~ ~~~ ~1 "~` r 4.1 AESTHETICS AND LIGHT AND GLARE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the EIR addresses potential visual impacts of the proposed Project, including obstruction of important views or vistas or the creation of an aesthetically offensive view to the public. The potential effects of new light and glare sources are also addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Scenic conditions. The Project is set in an urbanized area of Central Dublin that has been developed with residential, commercial and similar uses for a number of years. The Project Site is relatively flat and has been developed for more than thirty-five years with the Arroyo Vista income-restricted public housing Project. The current Arroyo Vista Project includes 150 residential units, on-site parking, achild-care center, community center and landscaping. Many of the dwellings are single story, but a number of two-story dwellings have also been built in the complex. An approximately six to seven foot tall noise barrier wall has been constructed along the Site's Dougherty Road frontage. A number of mature trees grow throughout the Site with the predominant type being London plane trees. Other typical trees on the Site include Monterey pines and red ironbark (eucalyptus). A grove of coast redwoods has been established along Mariposa Drive in the center of the Site. A number of other ornamental landscaping trees have also been planted throughout the Site, including a mix of crabapples, pistache, magnolia, locust, poplar and pear trees. One tree on the Site qualifies as a "heritage tree" under the City of Dublin's Heritage Tree Ordinance. This tree is a coast redwood located within an existing planter island on the south side of North Mariposa Drive just north of the existing childcare center. The redwood has a trunk diameter of approximately 25.7 inches measured 54-inches above grade, a height of approximately 40 feet and a canopy coverage of approximately 30 feet. Information regarding trees is based on an arborist report prepared for this Project ("An Arborist Report for the Arroyo Vista Housing Project in Dublin California" prepared by Arbor Resources, dated October 10, 2007.") This report is available for review at the Dublin Planning Division at Dublin City Hall during normal business hours and is incorporated by reference into this DEIR. No State or locally designated scenic highways exist adjacent to the Project Site. Light and glare. Since the Project Site is developed with residential land uses, a number of existing sources of light and glare are present. These are parking lot and driveway lighting on poles, building and porch lighting. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 24 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 6 Standards of significance. The following standards of significance are used to assess potential environmental impacts of the proposed project related to view obstruction, aesthetics and light and glare: • Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a state scenic highway; or • Create significant new sources of light and glare. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Should the proposed Project be approved and implemented, the following potential environmental impacts could occur: damage to scenic resources, specifically trees, and potential impacts from new sources of on-site light and glare. Light and glare. Although the Project Site contains a number of light fixtures, these fixtures are older and are likely not equipped with appropriate cut-off lenses or other devices that limit the spill over of light and glare onto adjacent properties and Alamo Creek. The proposed increase in the number of dwellings on the Site would substantially increase the number of lighting fixtures. This would be a significant impact with regard to light and glare. Impact 4.1-1 (light and glare): Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the possibility of light and glare from the Project Site onto adjacent properties and Alamo Creek (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level by requiring light fixtures that would eliminate spill-over of light and glare onto adjacent areas. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 (li hg t and glare): As a condition of Site Development Review for the Arroyo Vista Project, the City of Dublin shall require submittal of lighting plans, including photometric detail, to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure no spill- over of unwanted light onto adjacent properties or Alamo Creek. The lighting plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department and Police Services Department prior to issue of the first building permit. Impacts on scenic resources. Dougherty Road is not designated as a scenic highway, so there would be no impact with regard to damaging scenic resources on properties adjacent to scenic highways. However, the proposed removal of existing trees on the Project Site would result in a potentially significant impact on scenic resources. A number of mature trees grow on the Site with the predominant type being London ~` Plane trees. Other typical trees on the Site include Monterey pines and red ironbark. A grove of coast redwoods has been established along Mariposa Drive in the center of the Site. A number of other ornamental landscaping trees have also been planted throughout the Site, including a mix of crabapples, pistache, magnolia, locust, poplar and pear trees. Many, if not all, of these trees would be removed from the Site with demolition of existing building improvements. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 25 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ^~ a~~ ~~ ~ Existing Eucalyptus trees adjacent to Dougherty Road would be removed as a part of this Project and replaced with trees that are consistent with the City's Streetscape Master Plan. Over time, as the street trees on Dougherty Road are replaced with trees that conform to the Plan, Dougherty Road would have a cohesive streetscape appearance. The plans for the Project also include the replacement of the existing sound wall with a more attractive wall that would improve the appearance of the Site along Dougherty Road. One tree on the Site qualifies as a "heritage tree" under the City of Dublin's Heritage Tree Ordinance. This tree is a coast redwood located within an existing planter island on the south side of North Mariposa Drive just north of the existing child development center. The redwood has a trunk diameter of approximately 25.7 inches measured 54- inches above grade, a height of approximately 40 feet and a canopy coverage of approximately 30 feet. This tree would be removed as part of the development proposal. Information regarding trees is based on an arborist report prepared for this Project ("An Arborist Report for the Arroyo Vista Housing Project in Dublin California" prepared by Arbor Resources, dated October 10, 2007.") This report is available for review at the Dublin Planning Division at Dublin City HaII during normal business hours. The loss of the heritage tree and other trees along the Project frontage and within the interior of the Project would result in a significant impact by removing an important scenic resource on the Project Site. A number of interior trees are visible from the existing bicycle trail adjacent to Alamo Creek. Impact 4.1-2 (impacts on scenic resources): Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the loss of a Heritage Tree and other mature non-heritage trees on the Site. Loss of trees would remove significant scenic resources on the Site (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level by requiring replanting of large replacement trees on the Site. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 (impacts on scenic resources): a) The final landscape plan shall show that the existing Heritage Tree which is proposed to be removed as a part of the residential development will be replaced with three 36-inch box size redwood trees on the Site. b) The final landscape plan shall show that the trees planted adjacent to Dougherty Road would be a minimum of 36-inch box size, be of a fast growing variety and conform to the City's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. c) Replacement trees shall be provided in the interior of the Project Site, at a minimum ratio of 1 replacement tree for each tree removed. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 26 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin y, 4~. ~1,. ~e ~,P , 4.2 AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This EIR section describes the impacts of the proposed Project on local and regional air quality and emission of greenhouse gas. ~v Air quality information contained in this section is based on an air quality analysis prepared by Donald Ballanti, Certified Meteorologist in May 2008. The full text of this ~" report is found in Appendix 8.4 and is incorporated by reference into this DEIR. ;a: 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 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-Amador 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, 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. ,~ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 27 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,"~ Ambient air quality 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 1 found in the full air quality analysis (Appendix 8.4) identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 4.2-1. 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 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 PMlo. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PMz.s)• PM2.5, by definition, is included in PMlo. Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3- butadiene and acetaldehyde. Unlike criteria pollutants, no safe concentration can be specified as a standard. Toxic air contaminants are therefore evaluated in terms of risk, typically for long term cancer or non-cancer effects and for short term adverse health effects." Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage and death. Ambient air quality. The state and national 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 4.2-2 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring Site for the period 2005-2007. Table 4.2-2 shows that the federal ambient air Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 28 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 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 quality 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 PMIO and PM2.5 standards. The term "unclassifiable" implies that there is insufficient data to support an attainment classification, but it is assumed the standard is met. 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 Bav Area Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard. The California Legislature, when it passed the California Clean Air Actin 1988, recognized the relative intractability of the particulate problem with respect to the state ambient standard and excluded it from the basic planning requirements of the Act. In 2003, however, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 656. This legislation seeks to reduce public exposure to PMlo and PMz,s and to make progress toward attainment of State and national PMlo and PM2.5 standards. The bill required the California Air Resources Board (GARB) and air districts to adopt implementation schedules for appropriate GARB and air district measures. To comply with SB 656, the BAAQMD reviewed the list of 103 potential control measures prepared by the Air Resources Board and developed a Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule that was adopted by the District's Board of Directors on November 16, 2005. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 29 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ t~ X13 Table 4.2-1. 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 pg / m3 50 p / rn3 PM2,5 Annual 15 pg/m3 12 fag/m3 24-Hour 35 pg / m3 -- Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 Ng/m3 -- 30 Day Average -- 1.5 ~ / m3 Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/Tn3 -- Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM -- Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM -- PPM =Parts per Million µg/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08) http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 30 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin c~~ ~'~ 'jai ~ ~~ 4.2-2. 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 PMIO Federa124-Hour 0 0 0 PM,o State 24-Hour 0 3 2 PM2,5 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 ffik` chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools ~. playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Residential areas are located near the south, west and northern `" boundaries of the Project Site. The Project itself would be a sensitive receptor. Standards of Significance. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD, June, 1999) establishes thresholds of significance for construction and operation phases of projects. The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emissions of PMlo. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines establishes the following significance criteria for the operation of projects: A project that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon monoxide ~~ concentrations that causes a violation of the most stringent ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour averaging period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 31 January 2009 A significant impact on regional air quality is defined as an increase in emissions of an ozone precursor or PM10 exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The current significance thresholds are 80 pounds per day (or 15 tons/year) for ozone precursors or PMIO• Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PMzS (particulate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For this analysis, PMz.s impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of PMIO exceed 80 pounds per day. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less than Significant impacts. Based on the air quality analysis for this Project, the following impacts have been deemed to be less than significant. These include emission of toxic air contaminants, such as diesel power trucks and stationary equipment, local emissions of carbon monoxide from vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site, the Project's contribution to cumulative to air pollutants and the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Toxic air contaminants. In 1998 the California Air Resources Board identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truckstops) were identified as having the highest associated risk. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde. On-road mobile sources are responsible for about 34% of the TAC cancer health risk in the Bay Area, but this risk is dominated by diesel exhaust, which is responsible for 81% of the total cancer risk (BAAQMD, 2006). Due to the overwhelming importance of diesel exhaust in determining health risks, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies projects that have substantial mobile source diesel exhaust emissions as needing quantified analysis of impacts, but not projects that primarily generate auto traffic." Additionally, construction related sources are mobile and transient in nature, and the bulk of the emission occurs within the Project Site at a substantial distance from most nearby receptors. Using the URBEMIS-2007 program defaults, demolition operations California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 32 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin .~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ t would take approximately 3-4 weeks. Construction of buildings would last *~ approximately 9 months, assuming a 1-year overall construction period. The Site has ,,~, an approximately 200-foot minimum buffer from the closest residences. As applied to this Project, health risks from construction emissions of diesel particulate would be ales-than-significant impact. Permanent local air quality impacts. On the local scale, the Project would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by , Project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document identifies situations where modeling of carbon monoxide concentrations should be conducted to quantify project impacts? They are: 1. Vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide exceed 550 pounds per day, 2. Project traffic would impact signal-controlled intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F, or 3. Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more. Application of the above three thresholds indicates that no intersections require quantitative analysis. An URBEMIS2007 analysis of Project emissions found that Project carbon monoxide emissions would not approach 550 pounds per day, as set forth in Appendix 8.4. Level of Service with the proposed Project would be LOS C or better at all affected signalized intersections, and the Project would not increase traffic volumes on roadways by 10% or more. Project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered to be less-than-significant. Permanent regional impacts. The Project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with Project vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMI52007 emission model. The methodology used in estimating vehicular emissions is described in Appendix 1 of the full air quality analysis (Appendix 8.4). The incremental daily emission increase for vehicular and area sources associated with Project land uses is identified in Table 4.2-3 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PMlo. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established threshold of significance for ozone precursors and PMIo of 80 pounds per day. Proposed Project emissions shown in Table 4.2-3 would not exceed these thresholds of significance, so the proposed Project would not have significant effect on regional air quality. z Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised December 1999). ""` Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 33 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,~ ~I~1 ~j ~: Table 4.2-3. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Oxides PMlo Vehicular Emissions 29.6 36.1 42.2 Area Source Emissions 22.7 3.2 0.1 Total 52.3 39.3 42.3 BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0 Threshold Source: Don Ballanti, 2008 Cumulative air quality impacts. In terms of the Project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts, according the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would have a significant air quality impact individually and cumulatively. Proposed Project emissions shown in Table 4.2.3 would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do provide, however, that projects with individually insignificant impacts could have a cumulatively significant impacts Regional air quality plans are based on local General Plan buildout assumptions, therefore a project that requires a General Plan amendment could have a significant cumulative impact if the project generates more Vehicle Miles Traveled than that anticipated under the previous land use designation. The Project would not change the use of the Site, as it is currently residential and would remain residential in the future. However, the Project would require a General Plan re- designation to allow the proposed density of residential development. The Project, as proposed, would result in a density of approximately 16 dwelling units per acre while the current designation would allow densities from 6.1 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre. The Project would result in 45 dwelling units built on the Site beyond that allowed by the current General Plan designation. The Project is an example of "Smart Growth" which regional agencies like the BAAQMD, MTC and ABAG are committed to promote. Smart growth planning seeks to create and preserve communities based upon compact and efficient use of land, a range of housing opportunities and choices, on-site recreational facilities, and a variety of viable transportation options. s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 {Revised December 1999) Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 34 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin The proposed utilizes a number of Smart Growth strategies that reduce VMT. The Project is an infill development, providing higher density residential development, mixed uses, and a range of housing opportunities within atransit-accessible Site with access to regional bicycle/pedestrian trails and paths. The Village Center providing achild-care facility and Community Building would promote internal pedestrian trips rather than vehicle trips, and commercial facilities are locating within walking distance from the Site. Two transit systems serve the Site, with existing bus stops serving the Site and the potential for on-site bus stops. The adjacent regional trails and bike lanes would provide access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The above features of the Project would be expected to reduce trips and VMT by about 15%. This would more than offset the VMT increase from the 45 additional residential units beyond that allowed by the current General Plan designation. Although the project requires a General Plan amendment, it would not generate more Vehicle Miles Traveled than that anticipated under the current land use designation, and would not have a significant cumulative air quality impact on regional air quality. Potentially Significant Impacts. One potential air quality impact isidentified: ashort- term demolition/construction impact. Demolitionlconstruction impacts. The proposed Project would require demolition of existing buildings. The physical demolition of existing structures and other infrastructure are construction activities with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during demolition, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. Additional dust emissions would be created during the grading phase of the Project. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and carbon monoxide related to construction equipment are already included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans, and thus are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon monoxide standards in the Bay Area. Thus, the effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 and PM2.5 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for degrading air quality at nearby properties. This is considered a significant impact. Sensitive receptors are identified on page 30 of this DEIR. Neighbors are identfied as sensitive receptors as is the Project itself. Outside of construction, no sources of pollutants or odors that would affect these sensitive receptors are anticipated. Impact 4.2-1 (demolition and construction impacts): Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate construction period exhaust emissions from vehicles and equipment as well as fugitive dust that would temporarily affect local air quality. This would represent a significant impact (significant impact and mitigation required. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 35 ~-. Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~, ~. ~ ~ ~, The following measure shall be implemented to ensure this impact is reduced to a less- than significant level by requiring Project contractors to conform to BAAQMD dust control measures and other measures to minimize construction-related pollutants. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a (demolition impacts): The following dust control measures shall be followed by contractors during demolition of existing structures: a) Watering shall be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. b) All trucks hauling demolition debris from the Site shall be covered. c) All demolition activity shall comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which regulates airborne toxic pollutants through inspection and law enforcement during demolition. This regulation requires that the District be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition the District must be provided information on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b (construction impacts): The following dust control measures shall be implemented by all contractors during construction of the proposed improvements. These include but are not limited to BAAQMD Basic and Enhanced measures to reduce construction impacts. According to the BAAQMD, adopting these measures reduces particulate matter impacts (PM10 and PM2.5) to a less-than- significantlevel. a) All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. b) Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be covered or watered. c) All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other Loose materials shall be covered, or trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. e) All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily with water sweepers, including adjoining streets, if soil material is visible. f) Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or a non-toxic soil stabilizer applied. g) Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered or watered at least twice daily. h) Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. i) Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways and Alamo Creek. j) Alternative fueled construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. k) Vehicle idling time shall be minimized (5 minutes maximum) and all equipment shall be properly tuned, 1) The hours of operation of heavy equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use shall be minimized. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 36 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin r ~,. G r~... `d ro`~ W ., ~'e GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts. The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which some of the radiant heat from the sun is captured in the lower atmosphere of the earth. The gases that help capture the heat are called greenhouse gases (GHG). While greenhouse gases are not normally considered air pollutants, these gases have been identified as forcing the earth's atmosphere and oceans to warm above naturally occurring temperatures. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Certain human activities add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. For the purposes of this analysis, the following greenhouse gases will be considered: Carbon Dioxide -Carbon dioxide (C02) is a colorless, odorless gas. C02 is emitted naturally and through human activities. The largest source of C02 emissions from human activities is the combustion of fossil fuels. Methane -Methane (CH4) is a colorless, odorless gas and is the major component of natural gas. It is emitted by natural processes and human activities. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, livestock raising, agriculture, and waste management (landfills). Nitrous Oxide -Nitrous oxide (N20) is a clear, colorless gas, with a slightly sweet odor. N20 is produced by both natural sources and human activities. Primary sources from human activities include agriculture (fertilizer), sewage treatment, and fossil fuel combustion. Hydrofluorocarbons -Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made chemicals used in industrial, commercial, and consumer products, including refrigerants. Perfluorocarbons -Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are colorless, inert, and non-toxic. There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). Sulfur Hexafluoride -Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, and non-toxic. SF6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator by the electric power industry. Each GHG causes a different amount of heat trapping activities in the earth's atmosphere referred to as Global Warming Potential (GWP). High GWP gases are CH4, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than C02, and N20 absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than C02. Estimates of the GWP of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (C02e). Table 4.2-4 shows the GWPs for different GHGs fora 100-year time horizon. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 37 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~~ ~~ ~~ Table 4.2-4. Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gasses Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential Carbon Dioxide (COZ) 1 Methane (CH4) 21 Nitrous Dioxide (Nz0) 310 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 6,500 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 23,900 Source: BAAQMD Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2006. International and Federal Legislation. While there has been increasing attention to GHG in recent years, the potential for global warming effects is not a new issue. In 1988, the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the risk of climate change. In 1994 the United States joined a number of countries in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A result of the UNFCCC efforts was a treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol that commits signees to reduce their emissions of GHG or engage in emissions trading. While more than 160 countries have participating in the Protocol, the United States has not ratified the treaty. Federal legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has been proposed. No federal legislation has been passed by Congress on this issue. California Executive Orders, Legislation, and Regulatory Agency Action Executive Order S-03-05 - In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 19901evels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 19901evels. Under the Order, the Climate Action Team (CAT) was created to develop information on climate change and its impacts, and GHG reduction programs. The CAT is comprised of members from various State agencies and commissions. Assembly Bill 32 - In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq. (AB 32)). AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 19901evels by 2020 (representing about a 30 percent reduction in emissions). AB 32 states that global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. AB 32 establishes a timetable for ARB to adopt emission limits, rules, and regulations designed to achieve the intent of the Act. On or before January 1, 2011, ARB must adopt regulations on GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 38 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit. These regulations are to ""'" become effective beginning on January 1, 2012. ;k.~., ARB staff is recommending a total of 44 early action measures 4. There are nine discrete early action measures that will be enforceable by January 1, 2010. Measures that could become effective during implementation of the proposed Project could pertain to construction-related equipment operations. Some proposed early action measures will require new regulations to implement, some will require subsidies, some have already been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify. Applicable early action measures that are ultimately adopted will become effective during implementation of proposed Project. The Project could be subject to these requirements, depending on its timeline. AB 32 requires ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that contains the main strategies California will use to reduce the GHGs that contribute to climate change. In June 2008, ARB released an initial draft of the Scoping Plans. In October 2008, ARB released a Proposed Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan was adopted by the Air Resources Board on December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan contains a series of recommended actions to reduce GHG emissions that will provide the framework for development of specific regulations that will be adopted by January 2011 and enforceable by January 2012. The key elements of the Proposed Scoping Plan include: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; • Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State's long term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Senate Bill 97 -Senate Bi1197 (SB 97), enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to direct the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop draft CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by July 1, 2009. It directs the Resources Agency to certify and adopt the CEQA guidelines by January 1, 2010. No draft revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to address GHGs had been proposed by OPR at the time this Draft EIR was completed. a California Air Resources Boazd, Draft Exvanded List of Earlv Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration, September 2007. s California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: a framework for change. June 2008. '~ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 39 January 2009 OPR CEQA and Climate Change Technical Advisory - In June 2008, OPR released a technical advisory document6 providing a recommended approach to addressing climate change in CEQA documents. It recommends that lead agencies develop an approach that follows three basic steps for analysis: (1) identify and quantify GHG emissions; (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and (3) if the impact is significant, identify mitigation measures and/or alternatives to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. OPR recommends that lead agencies undertake a good-faith effort, based on available scientific and technical information, to estimate GHG emissions from a project. OPR specifically identifies vehicle traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction as potential sources of GHG emissions. OPR recognizes that establishing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is "perhaps the most difficult part of the climate change analysis." OPR has asked ARB technical staff to recommend a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions. While this statewide threshold is pending, OPR recommends that lead agencies "undertake aproject-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice" to determine the significance of impacts. The Technical Advisory also notes that while "climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment." Most importantly, OPR advises that a significance threshold of no new GHG emissions is not required. OPR recognizes that a significance standard can be qualitative or quantitative. If a lead agency determines a project will have a significant impact due to GHG emissions, it should consider alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or offset project emissions. The OPR Technical Advisory notes that the most difficult part of a climate change analysis is the determination of significance since there are no established regulatory thresholds for GHGs from the state, air districts or any other source. Until the issuance of amended CEQA Guidelines addressing GHG impacts (scheduled for release in January 2009), the determination of a GHG threshold is left to the lead agency. On October 24, 2008, ARB staff released a document entitled: Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal -Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for GHGs under CEQA. This Preliminary Draft document contained guidelines for the development of significance thresholds for certain types of project. The draft proposal identified types of approaches, but did not contain defined standards. For residential projects, the proposal included a mixture of undefined performance standards for energy use, water use, waste and transportation, and an unspecified quantitative threshold for amount of emissions below which impacts would be considered less than significant. At this time, the proposal is out for public review and comment. ARB will hold a public workshop to respond to public comments in December 2008. It is unknown if OPR will include any ARB recommendations on significance thresholds in its proposed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. It also is unknown if the Resources Agency will ultimately adopt the ARB proposed thresholds when and if they are finalized. Senate Bi11375 - SB 375 takes effect on January 1, 2009. SB 375 helps implement AB 32's GHG reduction goals by integrating planning for land use, regional transportation and housing. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans to include a "sustainable 6 Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 40 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,, community strategy" (SCS) plan to meet GHG reduction targets for vehicle travel set by ""' ARB. The deadline for ARB to establish the GHG reduction target for individual regional plans is September 30, 2010. A Regional Transportation Plan will need to incorporate a SCS after October 2010. Projects consistent with a SCS qualify for relief "" from some CEQA requirements (example, exemptions or streamlined review). The bill also provides significant changes to Housing Element law, especially the timing and requirements for Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning. ~` Assembly Bill 1493 - AB 1493 (Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. ARB adopted the standards in September 2004. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009 to 2012) standards would result in a reduction of approximately 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term (2013 to 2016) standards would result in a reduction of approximately 30 percent. To set its own GHG emissions limits on motor vehicles, California must receive a waiver from the EPA. However, in December 2007, the EPA denied the request from California for the waiver. In January 2008, the California Attorney General filed a petition for review of the EPA's decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; no decision on that petition has been made. Thus, California cannot implement AB 1493 at this time. Senate Bill 1368 - SB 1368 requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to establish a greenhouse gas emission performance standard for baseload generation. These standards cannot exceed the greenhouse gas emission rate from a baseload combined-cycle natural gas fired plant. The legislation further requires that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet the standards set by the PUC and CEC. Local Agency Regulations The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has not adopted guidance or regulations for analysis of GHGs or climate change in CEQA documents. In June, 2005, the BAAQMD adopted a resolution establishing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Climate Change Program. The Climate Change Program is to address climate change and climate protection through District activities including outreach and education campaigns, data collection and analysis, technical assistance, hosting a regional conference on climate change, and support and leadership for local efforts in the Bay Area to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change. The BAAQMD also has prepared a GHG emissions inventory for the Bay Area usin~ 2002 as the base year. The BAAQMD estimated that 85.4 million tons of CO2-equivalent GHG gases were emitted from anthropogenic sources in the Bay Area in 2002. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles) accounted for approximately 43 percent. Stationary sources, including industrial and commercial sources, power plants, oil refineries, and landfills, were responsible for approximately 49 percent. Construction and mining equipment was estimated to account for ~ Greenhouse gases are converted into COZ-equivalent values based on their potential to absorb heat in the ~~ atmosphere. For instance, CH4 traps 21 times more heat per molecule than COZ and, therefore, one pound of CH4 has a COZ-equivalent value of 21 pounds. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 41 ~°$ Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin a~~ ~~ approximately two percent (or about 1.7 million tons) of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions. Predicted Global Warming Effects in California. According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report8 (CAT), the following climate change effects are predicted in California over the course of the next century: • A diminishing Sierra snowpack, declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state's water supply. Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35% increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas. • Coastal erosion along the length of California and seawater intrusion into the Delta from a 4- to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in already vulnerable regions. • Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures. • Increased challenges for the State's important agriculture industry from water shortage, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta. • Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section evaluates potential impacts to global climate change resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. The evaluation of environmental effects presented in this section focuses on potential climate change impacts associated with the Project's increase in GHG emissions. There is no CEQA statute, regulation or judicial decision that requires an EIR to analyze the GHG emissions of a project or whether a project will have a significant impact on global warming. Senate Bi1197 directs OPR to develop CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions to be adopted by January 1, 2010. OPR had not issued any formal regulations at the time this Draft EIR was completed. OPR has issued informal guidance in the form of a Technical Advisory in June 2008 on how to address climate change through CEQA review. The recommended approach for GHG analysis included in OPR's Technical Advisory is to (1) identify and quantify GHG emissions, (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and (3) if significant, identify alternatives and / or mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance. Neither the CEQA statute nor guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing a GHG impact analysis. No state agency or BAAQMD has issued any final regulations or standards of significance for the analysis of GHGs under CEQA. Therefore, this issue is left to the judgment and discretion of the lead agency. Currently, there is significant uncertainty as to what constitutes a legally adequate GHG analysis under CEQA. The discussion and analysis contained in this chapter is provided in accordance with the a California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzeneeeer and the Leeislation, March 2006. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 42 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin purpose of CEQA to make a good faith disclosure to the public and decision makers of potential environmental impacts, so they can make informed decisions. ,~ Significance Criteria. Whether there is a direct connection between GHG emissions '"~ from an individual land use project and global climate change is unknown. No scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts and global warming. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which (a) "~° any given development project contributes only an infinitesimally small portion of any net increase in GHGs and (b) growth throughout the world is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs. Therefore, this study addresses climate change as a potential cumulative impact of the project. The analysis of this issue as a cumulative impact is consistent with all proposed regulatory guidance. The issue is what is the appropriate significance threshold for determining whether the project has a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global warming. AB 32 requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020. However, AB 32 does not amend CEQA. No generally applicable significance threshold for GHG emissions has yet been established, nor is formal final State agency regulations on global climate change analysis in CEQA documents anticipated to be available until mid-2009 at the earliest. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the "determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data". An "ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)). Lead agencies have discretion under CEQA to establish significance thresholds. The State CEQA Guidelines further indicate that if thresholds are established, they may include an "identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect ,non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency[.]" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7) Some agencies have suggested that a zero emissions threshold would be appropriate when evaluating GHGs and their potential effect on climate change. However, most agencies believe that a "zero new emissions" threshold would be impractical to implement and would hinder any new development. Further, prior CEQA case law makes clear that the rule that "one additional molecule" could create a significant impact is not consistent with CEQA. Such a rule also appears inconsistent with the State's approach to addressing climate change impacts. AB 32 does not prohibit all new GHG emissions; rather, it requires a reduction in statewide emissions to a given level. Thus, AB 32 recognizes that new GHG emissions will continue to occur. Bearing in mind that CEQA does not require "perfection" but instead "adequacy, '~ completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure," the analysis below is based on methodologies and information available to the City at the time it was prepared. Estimation of GHG emissions in the future does not account for all changes in ~" technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is worse than that which is likely to be encountered. Additionally, as explained in greater detail below, many uncertainties "~ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 43 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ^- ~... ~~~~~ ~ , exist regarding the precise relationship between specific levels of GHG emissions and the ultimate impact on the global climate. Significant uncertainties also exist regarding potential reduction strategies. Thus, while information is presented to assist the public and the City's decision makers in understanding the project's potential contribution to global climate change impacts, the information available to the City is not suffiaently detailed to allow a direct comparison between particular project characteristics and particular climate change impacts, nor between any particular proposed reduction measure and any corresponding reduction in climate change impacts. Because no applicable numeric significance thresholds have yet been defined, and because the precise causal link between an individual project's emissions and global climate change has not been developed, it is reasonable to conclude that an individual development project cannot generate a high enough quantity of GHG emissions to affect global climate change. However, individual projects incrementally contribute toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis in concert with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. This analysis identifies qualitative factors to determine whether this project's emissions should be considered cumulatively significant. Until the City or other regulatory agency devises a generally applicable climate change significance threshold or methodology for analysis, the analysis used in this draft EIR may or may not be applicable to other City projects. In the absence of regulatory agency rules or guidance on thresholds of significance under CEQA, the City will analyze whether the project has a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global warming under the following qualitative standard: • Whether the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 or other state regulations. If a project does not conflict with or obstruct GHG reduction strategies identified in AB 32 or other state regulations, the project would result in a less than significant contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change. Project Impacts Direct Emission of~reenhouse gases. Estimates of carbon dioxide generated by Project traffic and area sources were made using a program called URBEMIS-2007 (Version 9.2.4). URBEMIS-2007 is a program used statewide that estimates the emissions that result from development projects. Land use projects can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial facilities. URBEMIS-2007 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied information can also be used when it is available. Inputs to the URBEMIS-2007 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type and average speed. The daily trip generation rate for the Project was provided by the Project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths and speeds for Alameda County were used. The analysis was carried out assuming a 2009 vehicle mix. URBEMIS-2007 utilizes a standard mix of vehicle types Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 44 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin and ages for each county and it varies with the year specified. The emission rates for '" vehicles changes from year to year as newer, cleaner cars replace older, more polluting vehicles. A year 2009 vehicle mix was assumed for this analysis, which is the earliest the Project could be assumed to be operational. It is a worst case assumption, as emissions rates in later years would be lower. ,~, Area source emissions of carbon dioxide were also quantified by the URBEMIS-2007 program. The URBEMIS program identifies 5 categories of area source emissions: Natural Gas Combustion Hearth Emissions Landscaping Emissions Architectural Coating Consumer Products Natural gas emissions result from the combustion of natural gas for cooking, space heating and water heating. Estimates are based on the number of residential land uses and the number and size of nonresidential land uses. Hearth emissions consist of emissions from wood stoves, wood fireplaces, and natural gas fireplaces related to residential uses. URBEMIS calculates emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel by landscape maintenance equipment. Equipment in this category includes lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used in residential and commercial applications. This category also includes air compressors, generators, and pumps used primarily in commercial applications. Consumer product emissions are generated by a wide range of product categories, including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care products. Architectural coating emissions result from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnish, primers and other surface coatings associated with maintenance of residential and nonresidential structures. In URBEMIS-2007, these sources generate ROG emissions but not carbon dioxide. The URBEMIS-2007 results for carbon dioxide are attached in Appendix 8.4. The output shows annual emissions of carbon dioxide. While URBEMIS-2007 estimates carbon dioxide emissions from land use projects, there are other global warming gases that should be considered. Emissions of methane {CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were estimated separately based on the URBEMIS-2007 estimates of carbon dioxide from vehicles and natural gas combustion. CH4 and N2O emission factors from Table 3 in BAAQMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions" were utilized in a spreadsheet to estimate Project emissions of these gases. Because these gases are more powerful global warming gases, the emissions were multiplied by a correction factor to estimate "carbon dioxide equivalents." CH4 was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 21 times that of CO2, while N2O was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of CO2. The spreadsheet printout included in Appendix Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 45 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin y v. 8.4 shows the estimated calculation of CH4 and N20 carbon dioxide equivalents and the calculation of total estimated C02 equivalent emissions for the Project from all identified sources. Indirect emissions of greenhouse gases. Indirect emissions are related to secondary emissions of global warming gases emitted away from the Site and not directly related to Project activities. The most important of these is that portion of the electricity used by the Project that would be generated by fossil-fueled power plants that generate global warming gases. Global warming gas emissions related to electricity use were estimated using average annual electrical consumption per residential unit and square foot of commercial space recommended by the California Energy Commission. Emission rates for C02, CH4 and N20 per megawatt hour were taken from the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.0. The number of Project residential units was multiplied by the electrical usage factor and emission rates per megawatt hour to obtain annual emissions for C02, CH4 and N20. These emissions were converted to C02 equivalents. The calculation is shown in the spreadsheet contained in Appendix 8.4_. Estimated greenhouse gas emissions. Both construction and operation of the Project would release new GHG emissions. Construction emissions, which are aone-time emissions, have been estimated by the URBEMIS-2007 program as 734.9 metric tons C02 equivalent. Estimated daily operational emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the Project are shown in Table 4.2-5. Emissions are expressed in COZ equivalent metric tons per year. Expressing emission in COZ equivalent tons per year accounts for the greater global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide. The estimated emissions have not been adjusted to account for existing trips, resulting in a worst case analysis that likely overstates the potential emissions from the Project. Table 4.2-5.Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Metric Tons Per Year (COZ Eq.) Vehicles Area Sources Indirect Sources Total 3818.8 665.4 969.3 5553.5 Source: Donald Ballanti, 2008 Analysis of cumulative greenhouse gas impacts Consistency of Project with GHG reduction measures under AB 32 and other State regulations. The California Climate Action Team (CAT) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have developed programs and measures to achieve the GHG reduction targets under AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. These include the CAT's 2006 "Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature," ARB's "Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California," and ARB's "Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: a framework for change." The reports identify strategies to reduce California's emissions to the levels proposed in Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32.Only some of these measures are applicable to the Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 46 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin proposed Project which is a residential development. The strategies that apply to the Project are contained in Table 4.2-6, which discusses the extent to which the Project complies with the strategies to help California reach the GHG emission reduction targets. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 47 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin i' 1 Table 4.2-6. Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Vehicle Climate Change Standards.' AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the ARB in September 2004. in Progress.10 Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to adopt and periodically update its building energy efficiency standards (that apply to newly constructed buildings and additions to and alterations to existing buildings). Energy Efficiency." Maximize energy effiaency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts. Reductions could be achieved through enhancements to existing programs such as increased incentives and even more stringent building codes and appliance efficiency standards. Green buildings offer a comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cross-cut multiple sectors including Energy, Water, Waste, and Transportation. r~ppiiance energy nrnciency aranaaras in Place and in Progress. 12 Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to adopt and periodically update its appliance energy efficiency standards (that apply to devices and equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in California). Measures to Improve Transportation Energy Efficiency.13 Builds on current efforts to provide a framework for expanded and new initiatives including incentives, tools, and information that advance cleaner transportation and reduce climate change emissions. Compliant. The vehicles from the Project will be in compliance with any vehicle standards that the ARB adopts. ~ompuanr. i ne proposea rrolect wui tie regwrea tc comply with the updated Title 24 standards for building construction including exterior lighting requirements. Residential building constructed in 2011 would be required to comply with the 2007 California Green Building Code Standards. As described below, the proposed Project includes other measures which will reduce energy and water use and promote alternative transportation. The Project incorporates Green Building Measures. A Green Building plan will be submitted to the City Building Official for review and all dwellings shall follow the "Build it Green" program with the goal of obtaining 50 points. (Build It Green is anon-profit organization whose mission is to promote healthy, energy- and resource-efficlent building practices in California.) Compliant. Appliances that are purchased for the Project will be consistent with existing energy efficency standards. The proposed Project will, to the extent feasible, include energy effiaent heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems in each residential unit. Such features may include Energy-Star appliances, Energy-Star ceiling fans in living areas and bedrooms, whole house fans with insulated louvers, or an economizer. The Project will also install efficient lighting and lighting control systems as well as using daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in the buildings. c,'ompc:ant. the proposed Project promotes programs which encourage walking, bicycling and public transportation use through Site planning and design elements. The proposed Project includes sidewalks throughout Project Site and incorporates access to sidewalks and trails, including regional trails and bike pathsoff Site to ensure that destinations may be reached by walking or bicycling. The Project Site is served by existing bus routes providing access to local services and to the BART station. 9 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. 10 Ibid. " California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: a framework for change. June. 12 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. is Ibid. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 48 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin '~J~ ~.r*~ Cr 2J '~` Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Compliant. The proposed Project locates residential Systems (ITS).14 Smart land use strategies encourage uses near transit stops on local transportation jobs/housing proximity, promote transit-oriented corridors, which is an important element of smart development, and encourage high-density land use. The proposed Project is an infill project residential/commercial development along transit adjacent to existing development, and it is located corridors. ITS is the application of advanced on Dougherty Road, which is a major transportation technology systems and management strategies to corridor serving both Alameda and Contra Costa improve operational efficiency of transportation counties. An existing bus stop will be systems and movement of people, goods and accommodated on or adjacent to the Site and the services. bus route will be designed to continue to travel through or adjacent to the Site. Also, the Project plans include the construction of a child care center and community center on the Site, which will be easily accessible to residents by foot or bicycle. Water Use Efficiency. Approximately 19`x, of all Compliant. T e proposed Project incorporates electriaty, 30~, of all natural gas, and 88 million water- conservation measures, including water gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distribute efficient fixtures and appliances, water-effiaent and use water and wastewater. Increasing the landscaping and design, the use of water effiaent efficiency of water transport and reducing water use irrigation systems and devices, will be using would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, and will employ water conservation measures required by the City of Dublin (Chapter 8.88) Waste reduction and recycling: Reduce amount of Compliant. T e proposed Project will reuse and waste generated by projects and increase recycling of recycle construction and demolition waste products including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, as required by the City of Dublin Muniapal Code (Chapter 7.30, Waste Management Plan). Additionally, recycling facilities are included in the Project plans which will allow residents ample recycling opportunities on Site. GHG reduction measures applicable to Project. The Project's GHG emissions will be reduced by compliance with existing City policies and regulations and the implementation of mitigation measures under this EIR. The Project also includes certain components that will reduce GHG emissions. All of these measures that will reduce GHG emissions from the Project are described below. City regulations that reduce Project GHG emissions The Dublin Municipal Code, City Ordinances, and standard practices will all contribute to reducing the GHG emissions of the proposed Project. Several city-wide GHG- reducing measures that will apply to the proposed Project are described below: Z. The Project will be required to comply with the Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations), which establishes a sufficient but flexible structure for designing, installing and maintaining water- efficientlandscapes. 2. The Project will be required to comply with Chapter 7.30 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Waste Management Plan), which requires the diversion of at least fifty percent (50%) of all Project-related construction and demolition debris from the landfill. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. ~. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 49 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin '~' ~ ~~> ~~ ~~ 3. The Project will be required to comply with California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. 4. To meet solid waste reduction goals, all multi-family complexes within the City have collection bins for newspaper, mixed paper, glass, aluminum, tin, and most plastics in addition to the standard trash bins. These recyclable materials are collected weekly. In addition to these services, which serve to minimize the amount of waste headed for the landfill, the City also provides for oil filter collection, household hazardous waste drop-off events, household battery recycling, and on-call large item collection. Project components that will reduce GHG emissions In addition to the above City regulations that reduce Project GHG emissions, there are also project-specific measures which are proposed to be incorporated into the Project which will serve to reduce the GHG impacts. The Project Proponents have committed that the Project will incorporate the following measures, which will be included in the Planned Development Zoning Ordinance once the Project is approved. Energy Efficiency 1. Design the site configuration, building orientation, and building features to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, and sun screens to reduce energy use. 2. Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems in each residential unit, which may include such features as Energy-Star appliances, Energy-Star ceiling fans in living areas and all bedrooms, whole house fans with insulated louvers, or an economizer. 3. Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. The buildings are using daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in the buildings by appropriate window location and the use of skylights.. 4. Provide education to home buyers and tenants on energy efficiency in their homes. 5. Incorporate Green Building Measures. A Green Building plan shall be submitted to the City Building Official for review, and all dwellings shall follow the "Build it Green" program with the goal of obtaining 50 points. 6. Flat roof areas will have their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for "Cool Roofs". Water Conservation and Efficiency 7. Create water efficient landscapes including the use of drought-tolerant species. Include plant and tree species that require low water use. 8. Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls, low-flow drip, bubblers and low-flow sprinklers. 9. Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation as available from the water service provider (Dublin San Ramon Services District - DSRSD). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 50 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~~j ~ $t. (s, ~;`~' gyp; 4 10. Design each residential unit to be water efficient and install water efficient "" fixtures and appliances, including water saving fixtures or flow restrictors. 11. Provide education to home buyers and tenants on water conservation and available programs and incentives. 12. Design the project site and infrastructure to maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site through measures such as [insert examples] to manage storm water and protect the environment. 13. The project shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates Best Management Practices appropriate to the project construction activities and erosion control measures (e.g., incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of filtration devices, covering of solid waste and recycling areas and similar features.) . Solid Waste Measures 14. Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard. ~. 15. To the extent practical, include recycled materials in cast in-place concrete, carpet, road base, fill or landscape amendments. ~~' 16. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste as well as adequate recycling containers located in public areas. 17. Provide education to home buyers and tenants on reducing waste and available recycling services. ~ Transportation and Accessibility 18. Create travel routes that allow people to access destinations by public transit as well as by walking and bicycling. a) Sidewalks are provided throughout the project site that connect with the citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle paths, linking schools, parks, and other public destinations. b) The project plans retain a public bus stop either within or adjacent to the Site. The exact design and location will be determined in consultation with the transit service provider (LAVTA). The site will continue to be served by several routes providing access to schools, shopping, services and the BART station. 19. The project plans include achild-care facility within the Site to reduce vehicle trips to this type of facility. 20. The project plans include a community center for the use of project residents, including meeting rooms and computer lab services that can be accessed by bikes or walking. Mitigation measures applicable to Project that will reduce GHG emissions In addition to the City regulations and voluntary project-specific measures that will serve to reduce Project GHG emissions, there are also mitigation measures included in Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 51 January 2009 this EIR for other identified impacts which will serve to further reduce the GHG impacts: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b (construction impacts): The following dust control measures shall be implemented by all contractors during construction of the proposed improvements. These include but are not limited to BAAQMD Basic and Enhanced measures to reduce construction impacts. According to the BAAQMD, adopting these measures reduces particulate matter impacts (PM10 and PM2.5) to a less-than-significant level. a) All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. b) Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be covered or watered. c) All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. e) All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily with water sweepers, including adjoining streets, if soil material is visible. f) Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or a non-toxic soil stabilizer applied. g) Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered or watered at least twice daily. h) Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. i) Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways and Alamo Creek. j) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. [Add? See p. 15 of BAAQMD guides] k) Alternative fueled construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. 1) Vehicle idling time shall be minimized (5 minutes maximum) and all equipment shall be properly tuned, m) The hours of operation of heavy equipment and / or the amount of equipment in use shall be minimized. standards): Project Developer(s) shall prepare: a) Erosion Control Plan(s) consistent with City of Dublin and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards to minimize run-off from the Site during construction. To ensure that erosion impacts are reduced to a less-than- significant impact to nearby fish and sensitive aquatic species in Alamo Creek and other bodies of water, Erosion Control Plan(s) shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist to ensure that no impacts will occur to steelhead and other sensitive aquatic species. Erosion Control Plan(s) shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 52 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin y~.. b) A Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-construction conditions. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda County Clean Water Program requirements. The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City of Dublin to avoid spill over of material into Alamo Creek during demolition. The BMPs "~ shall include, but is not limited to incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped ~, areas, use of filtration devices, covering of solid waste and recycling areas and similar features. "" system ca~acity): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shall indicate that adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional drainage facilities to accommodate the direction, rate and amount of •~ increased stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(s) shall upgrade undersized t drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project drainage. The •~ drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department and all recommendations for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans. Mitigation Measure 4.11-4 (impacts on side street traffic): Signalization of the South Mariposa Road/Dougherty Road intersection would improve operations to ~ an acceptable level. Signalization would result in LOS C operations during the a.rn. peak hour and LOS A operations during the p.m. peak hour. Implementation of this measure will reduce vehicle idling. Mitigation Measure 4.11-8 (transit circulation): Provide alternate bus circulation and transit amenities necessary to accommodate demand. A final determination of bus routing shall be made through coordination between the City of Dublin, LAVTA and the Project applicant and shall be shown on Project improvement plans. The Project applicant shall provide the necessary bus stops and/or bus pullouts and associated amenities required to implement the final bus routes. Conclusion on significance of cumulative impact of Project Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global warming because the Project does not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 or other state regulations. The Project would comply with applicable CAT and ARB GHG Emissions Reductions Strategies. Also, the GHG emissions from the proposed Project would be reduced by compliance with City regulations and, the mitigation measures contained in this EIR, and Project components described above. Therefore, the Project's contribution to the cumulative impact of global warming would be less than significant. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 53 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed Project on biological resources, including regulatory requirements and, plant and wildlife resources. This section of the DEIR is based on a Biological Site assessment prepared by WRA, Inc. in February 2008. This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this DEIR and a copy is located in Appendix 8.5 of this DEIR. Appendix 8.5 also includes a wetland delineation for the Site prepared by WRA that is incorporated by reference into this DEIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Overview. The entire Project Site has previously been disturbed and does not represent ahigh-value habitat. It is a highly modified Site within the City of Dublin, surrounded by other housing developments to the north, south and west and ruderal (weedy) fields, also to the west. On the east side the Site is bounded by Dougherty Road; Amador Valley Boulevard is northwest of the Project Site. Alamo Creek flows past the western edge of the Project Site and is fenced off from the Site along the top of the creek's easterly bank. More than eighty percent of the Site is a housing development. Vegetation throughout the Site consists primarily of landscaped ornamentals. Domestic or feral cats appear to frequent the Site, reducing habitat value for wildlife. Two portions of the Site are occupied by two undeveloped ruderal fields, one at the northern end of the Site (North Field), consisting of approximately one acre, and one on the western edge of the Site (West Field) that contains approximately 2.25 acres. These areas are shown on Exhibit 4.3-1. In North Field brush piles, wood chips, and litter cover much of the ground, and a mix of mostly non-native weedy plants comprises most of the vegetation. A few eucalyptus trees (Eucalytpus sp.) and coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) are growing at the far eastern end of North Field, near Dougherty Road. West Field is more manicured in appearance and is surrounded on all sides by a paved foot/bikepath. A basketball court borders the eastern edge of this field. The central section of this field has been mowed and a layer of sawdust placed around sections of the perimeter of the mowed area. The topography slopes downward from the north and east edges of West Field towards a low point in the northwestern corner, where a drain is located. Shrubs and trees, including willow (Salix sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), and non-native ornamentals are growing along the fence line that borders the western edge of this field. Soils have been disturbed in both of these fields. North Field was disced, and both fields (especially West Field) appear to have been graded and modified with earth-moving equipment. A wide swath of gravel has been laid on top of the soil in the southwestern section of the North Field, serving as what appears to be a temporary roadway/turnaround area. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 54 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,~ ~ ~'a I t l A~ For purposes of this biological analysis, plant and wildlife species maybe protected ' from disturbance or removal under applicable federal, state or local laws and treaties. These species are referred to as "sensitive" or "special-status" species. _ Non-sensitive plants. The predominant biological community present on the Project Site is ruderal herbaceous grassland, which is classified as anon-sensitive community. No sensitive (protected) biological communities are found on the Project Site. Ruderal herbaceous grassland includes areas that have been partially developed or have been used in the past for agriculture. Wildlife within this community may often include such small rodents as mice and voles, as well as snakes, lizards, and foraging songbirds. Ruderal herbaceous grassland can also be used by special status or larger animals depending on proximity to open space and other factors. The two fields on the Project Site can best be described as ruderal herbaceous grassland, particularly North Field, which is not mowed like West Field. Plant species observed in both these fields include non-native plant species such as wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), bristly ox tongue (Picric echioides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and strawberry clover (Trifolium fragiferum). Additional non-natives occurring just in North Field are cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). Plants growing along ,~ the fence line bordering the north portion of North Field include English ivy (Hedera helix), periwinkle (Vinca major), and grape vine (Vitis sp.). The native slender willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum) is also present in North Field. Wildlife use of these areas appears to be limited. Raccoon scat was observed along with several small rodent burrows, likely vole (Microtus sp.) or gopher (Thomomys bottae). Birds in these areas included Wild Turkey (Megeagris gallopavo), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). This community, making up the areas within the Project Site that are not already paved and developed, consists mostly of non-native plants and likely common wildlife species. It is anon-sensitive community. Sensitive plants. Based on a review of the resources and databases, included in the biological reconnaissance report (see Appendix 8.5), thirty-five special status plant species have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project Site. These are listed in Appendix B of the biological reconnaissance report (see DEIR Appendix 8.5). Six of these special status species have been documented to occur within five miles of the Project Site. These are Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana), Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea), saline clover (Trifolium depauperatum var. hydrophilum), and hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber). No plant species requiring protection were observed during the Site assessment. The Site assessment occurred during the blooming period of Congdon's tarplant (which blooms between May and October), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (which blooms between April Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 55 ~° January 2009 and September), and San Joaquin spearscale (which blooms between April and October); however, these species were not observed during the survey. While the survey did not occur during the blooming period of Diablo helianthella and saline clover, suitable habitat does not exist on-site for either of these species. Diablo helianthella was historically found in the hills to the northwest of the Project Site, and saline clover requires marshes, swamps, vernal pools, or valley and foothill grassland with mesic/alkaline soils. Hairless popcorn flower was historically documented in the Project Site, but this native annual herb is now presumed extinct in California. One Northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii) seedling was observed during a Site survey conducted in late September, 2007. This seedling was observed along the fence line on the western edge of West Field. This is a CNPS List 1B species and is usually found in riparian forest and riparian woodland, at elevations between 0 - 440 meters. It blooms between April and May. Since this species is widely naturalized in cismontane California, and since only native stands of this species have protected status, this individual plant does not require any special protection in the Project Site. The remaining species documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Site have no potential to occur on-site, either due to lack of suitable habitat or because the Project Site is outside of the species' elevation range. Sensitive wildlife species. All of the wildlife observed in the Project Site are commonly found species, and many are adapted to occupying disturbed or urban areas. No special status wildlife species were observed during the Site assessment. Thirty-six special status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project Area. These are listed in Appendix B of the biological reconnaissance report (see DEIR Appendix 8.5). No special status species are known to occur or have a high potential to occur on the Project Site. Suitable habitat does not exist on the Project Site for the following species: Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), (CDFG Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern). Burrowing Owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse-shrub land ecosystems. This species prefers annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies; however, they also colonize debris piles and old pipes. In California, Burrowing Owl is found in close association with California ground squirrels. Burrowing Owl exhibits high site fidelity and usually uses the abandoned burrows of ground squirrels for shelter and nesting. Burrowing OwI is unlikely to occur within the Project Site because most of the property has been developed, paved, and/or landscaped with lawn grass and ornamental plants. However, numerous occurrences of this species have been documented in grassy vacant lots and open areas east of the Site. The Project Site is mostly surrounded by urban development and is not contiguous with large expanses of grassland that might encourage owls to disperse to the Site, Only two open areas are present within the Project Site: North Field and West Field. North Field is disced, a management practice that discourages use by wildlife, particularly burrowing owls. West Field is maintained for recreation, and appears to have a high amount of human activity that would deter wildlife use. No ground squirrels or suitable owl burrows were seen anywhere within the Project Site. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 56 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin f 1 ,~ i,% &aa California tiger salamander (Amb~stoma cali{orniense), (Federal Threatened, CDFG Species of Concern). California tiger salamander (CTS) is restricted to grasslands and low-elevation foothill regions in California (generally under 1500 feet) where it uses seasonal aquatic habitats for breeding. The salamanders breed in natural ephemeral "" pools, or ponds that mimic ephemeral pools (stock ponds that go dry), and occupy substantial areas surrounding the breeding pool as adults. CTS spends most of its time in the grasslands surrounding breeding pools. It survives hot, dry summers by '~ estivating (going through a dormant period) in refugia (such as burrows created by :::.: ground squirrels and other mammals and deep cracks or holes in the ground) where the soil atmosphere remains near the water saturation point. During wet periods, '~ salamanders may emerge from refugia and feed in the surrounding grasslands. .. CTS is unlikely to occur on the Project Site. CTS have been documented east of the Project Site, as close as two miles away (CNDDB, 2007). However, similar to Burrowing Owl, this species requires relatively undisturbed grassland for foraging and plentiful rodent burrows for shelter. Sites that have been disturbed by development and earth- moving activities are not likely to contain CTS unless CTS can re-colonize the area through a corridor that connects to an adjacent population. In addition, CTS requires nearby pools that hold standing water for at least a few months in order to breed. None of these components are present within or adjacent to the Project Site, which has been thoroughly disturbed by earth-moving activities and is nearly surrounded by urban development or major roadways. California red-leg eg d frog (Rana aurora dra t~y onii), (Federal Threatened, CDFG Species of Concern). California red-legged frog (CRLF) is dependent on suitable aquatic, estivation, and upland habitat. During periods of wet weather, starting with the first rainfall in late fall, red-legged frogs disperse away from their estivation sites to seek suitable breeding habitat. Aquatic and breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby, riparian vegetation and deep, still or slow-moving water. Breeding occurs between late November and late April. California red-legged frog estivates during the dry months in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels, and large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds. CRLF is unlikely to occur on the Project Site. Alamo Creek, which passes along the western edge of the Project Site, is the only feature that might attract or support this species. However, CRLF has not been documented in Alamo Creek within five miles of the Project Site. The Project Area itself is heavily developed and disturbed, has high human traffic, does not contain aquatic habitat, and does not contain suitable upland estivation habitat or dispersal corridors. The Project Site is nearly surrounded by urban development and is not Likely to ever constitute habitat for this species. Two special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the Project Site: the pallid bat and Loggerhead Shrike based on presence of potentially suitable habitat. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). (CDFG Species of Special Concern, WBWG High Priority.) Pallid bat is found in a variety of low elevation habitats throughout California. It selects a variety of day roosts including rock outcrops, mines, caves, hollow trees, buildings, "" and bridges. Night roosts are usually found under bridges, but also in caves, mines, and buildings. Pallid bat is sensitive to roost disturbance. Unlike most bats, pallid bat Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 57 January 2009 M~ C( primarily feeds on large ground-dwelling arthropods, and many prey are taken on the ground (Zeiner, et al. 1990). Pallid bat has a moderate potential for occurrence within the Project Site. Buildings and other structures within the Project Site may provide marginal habitat for this species. However, most buildings observed during the September 2007 Site visit offered few openings or crevices for bats to utilize. Levels of human activity within the housing development are high, and this would likely discourage bats from roosting in this area. Marginal foraging habitat is present along the creek corridor to the west and over grassy areas east of Dougherty Road. A recent occurrence of pallid bat has been documented two miles southwest of the Project Site (CNDDB, 2007). Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). (CDFG Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern). Loggerhead Shrike is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. It prefers open habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines or other perches. Nests are usually built on a stable branch in adensely-foliaged shrub or small tree and are usually well-concealed The highest densities occur in open-canopied valley foothill hardwood, valley foothill hardwood-conifer, valley foothill riparian pinyon-juniper, juniper, and desert riparian habitats. While this species eats mostly Arthropods, they also take amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals and birds. They are also known to scavenge on carrion. Loggerhead Shrike has a moderate potential for occurrence within the Project Area. Marginal foraging habitat exists in open areas within and adjacent to the property, and a number of trees and bushes would be suitable for nesting. Steelhead-Central California Coast (~ncorh~nchus m~kiss irideus). (Federal Threatened). Central California Coast Endangered Species Unit includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in California streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin. Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending two years in freshwater, though they may stay up to seven. They then reside in marine waters for two or three years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as four- or five-year-olds. Steelhead adults typically spawn between December and June. In California, females typically spawn two times before they die. Preferred spawning habitat for steelhead is in perennial streams with cool to Coldwater temperatures, high dissolved oxygen levels and fast flowing water. Abundant riffle areas (shallow areas with gravel or cobble substrate) for spawning and deeper pools with sufficient riparian cover for rearing are necessary for successful breeding. Steelhead has no potential to occur on the Project Site since there are no creeks within the property. However, Alamo Creek is immediately west of the Site. This creek is a tributary to Arroyo de la Laguna Creek, which has been repeatedly surveyed with virtually no suggestion that this creek constitutes habitat for steelhead (Leidy et al., 2003). Arroyo de la Laguna is a tributary to Alameda Creek, which is thought of as habitat for this species although migration barriers prevent regular spawning (Gunther et al., 2000). Nonetheless, steelhead should be considered in conjunction with land management on properties adjacent to watersheds that could contain this species. Water Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 58 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 4~;?~ quality can be impacted by runoff from these properties, and this decreases habitat value "~' for fish. Wetlands and waters of the United States. The Project Site was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or California Department of Fish and Game were present. A copy of the wetland delineation "~` report prepared by WRA is incorporated by reference into this DEIR and is included .x, in Appendix 8.5 in this DEIR. The assessment was based primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators, but also included observed indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils. Any potential wetland areas were identified as areas ~, dominated by plant species with a wetland indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC as given on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service List of Plant Species that Occur in """ Wetlands (Reed 1988). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include direct evidence (primary indicators), such as visible inundation or saturation, surface sediment deposits, algal mats and drift lines, or indirect indicators (secondary indicators), such *~ as oxidized root channels. Some indicators of wetland soils include dark colored ~, soils, soils with a sulfidic odor, and soils that contain redoximorphic features as defined by the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and Field Indicators ~° of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS, 2002). .~ According to the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1966), two different soil types occur in the Project Area: Diablo clay (DbC) and Clear Lake clay (CdA). The majority of the Site has Diablo clay soils, which are classified as well-drained and occurring on slopes of 7-15%. There is a small inclusion of Clear Lake clay soils in the Project Area encompassing the western half of North Field and just the northwestern tip of West Field. These soils are classified as moderately well drained, occurring on 0-3% slopes. Two small (roughly 250 square feet) areas dominated by wetland-type plants were identified on either side of the foot/bikepath bordering the northwestern edge of West ~, Field within the area mapped as having Clear Lake clay soils. These plants occur along a drain line in the vicinity of the drain, as shown on Exhibit 4.3-3. Plants observed were ~~' tall flat-sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), narrowleaf plantain ,~ (Plantago lanceolata), California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), and rough cockle-bur (Xanthium strumarium). Two sample points were taken within these area One of the '" samples contained no wetland indicators. The second contained a dominance of „~ facultative vegetation (dallies grass) and met the hydrophytic vegetation criteria. However, the second sample point lacked both hydric soils and evidence of wetland hydrology and is not considered potential jurisdictional wetland. Therefore, no wetlands or other waters exist on the Project Site. Tree resources. A discussion of tree resources on the Project Site is contained in Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Light and Glare, of this DEIR. Methods. On September 20, 2007, the Project Site was traversed on foot to determine "` (1) plant communities present on the Site, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 59 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were recorded, and are summarized in a species list on Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. Prior to the Site visit, the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1966) was examined to determine if any unique soil types that could support sensitive plant communities and/or aquatic features were present in the Project Area. Aerial photographs and previous biological reports for the neighboring area were also reviewed. Regulatory context U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Endangered Species Act -The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over species that are formally listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act protects listed wildlife species from harm or "take." The term "take" is broadly defined as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." An activity can be a "take" even if it is unintentional or accidental. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and its applicable regulations restrict certain activities with respect to endangered and threatened plants, fish and wildlife species. The provisions prohibit the removal of, malicious damage to, or destruction of any listed plant species "from areas under federal jurisdiction." Listed plants may not be cut, dug up, damaged or destroyed, or removed from any other area (including private lands) in knowing violation of a state law or regulation. An endangered plant or wildlife species is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The Fish and Wildlife Service also maintains a list of species proposed for listing. Proposed species are those species for which a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened has been published in the Federal Register. In addition to endangered, threatened, and proposed species, the Service maintains a list of candidate species. Candidate (formerly category 1 candidate) species are those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed listing rule. Any activities that could result in take of a federally listed species will require a Section 10 take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before allowing take activities to commence. Should another federal agency, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Clean Water Act, acting as the lead agency be involved with permitting the project, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires the federal lead agency to consult with the Service before permitting any activities that may take listed species. Migratory Bird Treaty Act -The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides for protection for migratory bird species, birds in danger of extinction, and their active nests (including their eggs and young). Habitat features (e.g., trees, shrubs, burrows, and man-made Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 60 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~c.~ s,~, °~?~ ., structures (power poles) along migratory routes provide suitable nesting sites for '~' migratory birds. Contractors are required to obtain a depredation permit from U.S. Fish ~. and Wildlife Service to disturb nesting migratory birds. California Department of Fish and Game California Endangered Species Act -The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over threatened or endangered species that are formally listed by the State under the California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act is similar to the federal Endangered Species Act both in process and substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. The California Endangered Species Act does not supersede the federal act, but operates in conjunction with it. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts (in which case the provisions of both state and federal laws would apply) or under only one act. Under Fish and Game Code 2050 -2068, the California Endangered Species Act policy is to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any threatened or endangered species and its habitat (including acquiring lands for habitat). Compliance with the California Endangered Species Act is required because the project area is within habitats historically or currently occupied by state-listed species. If project field assessments indicate that there is a likelihood of "take" of these species, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game is required to be in compliance with Fish and Game Code 2050 and 2091. The California endangered species laws prohibit the take of any plant listed as threatened, endangered, or rare. In California an activity on private lands (such as development) will violate Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act if a plant species, listed under both state and federal endangered species laws, is intentionally removed, damaged, or destroyed. The Department of Fish and Game maintains informal lists of species of special concern. These species are broadly defined as plants and wildlife that are of concern to the Department because of population declines and restricted distributions, and / or they are associated with habitats that are declining in California. These species are inventoried in the California Natural Diversity Data Base. Streambed Alteration Agreement -The California Department of Fish and Game requires that a proponent of a project notify the Department if project activities would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by the Department under Fish and Game Code Section 1600. A streambed alteration agreement could be required from the Department to conduct steam line construction activities (pouring concrete in augured holes and installing pipe supports) adjacent to and in creeks, channels, sloughs crossed by the linear elements of a project. If development activities are likely to affect areas under California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction, a streambed alteration agreement is required. California Native Plant Society. The California Native Plant Society has developed lists of plants of special concern in California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). A List IA plant is a Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 61 January 2009 species, subspecies, or variety that is considered to be extinct. A List 1B plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. A List 2 plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California but is more common elsewhere. A List 3 plant is a species for which the California Native Plant Society lacks necessary information to determine if it should be assigned to a list or not. A List 4 plant has a limited distribution in California. All of the plant species on List 1 and List 2 meet the requirements of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. Therefore, List 1 and 2 species should be considered under CEQA. Some List 3 plant species also meet the requirements of these portions of the Fish and Game Code and are eligible for state listing. Very few List 4 plants are eligible for listing but may be locally important and their listing status could be elevated if conditions change. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act -The Clean Water Act addresses water pollution through permitting to control and eventually eliminate water pollution. The Clean Water Act establishes regulations and permitting requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and fill material operations, and water quality standards. This regulatory program requires that discharges to surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting requirements. The permitting requirements apply to sources of water runoff, industrial and public facilities. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. The proposed Arroyo Vista Project falls within the San Francisco District of the Corps. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 328.3 (a). The term "waters" includes wetlands and non- wetlandbodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). The definition of "waters of the U.S." includes "...intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams)... the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce..." and tributaries of water defined as "waters of the United States." Areas that meet the definition of "waters of the U.S." or the definition of wetlands would be under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the United States are termed "isolated wetlands" and may be subject to Corps jurisdiction. In addition, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act if project activities affect "waters of the U.S.", a water quality certification waiver is also required from the applicable California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of the U.S. The type of permit depends on the amount of acreage and the purpose of the proposed fill and is subject to discretion from the Corps. There are two categories of Corps permits: individual and nationwide (general) permits. Where specified activities would have minimal adverse impacts, nationwide permits may be used. Eligibility for a nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 62 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin _~ ~~: Nationwide permits cover construction and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of "' routine activities such as minor road crossings, utility line crossings, streambank w protection, recreational facilities and outfall struchxres. To qualify for a nationwide permit, a project must demonstrate that it has no more than a minimal adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem. The San Francisco District of the Corps typically interprets this condition to mean that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or habitat value. This usually results in the need to provide mitigation for the fill of any creek or wetland which will occur. An individual permit is required where a nationwide is not applicable. The consideration of an individual permit includes, but is not limited to, factors such as significant acreage of wetlands or waters of the U.S., areas of high biological or unique value, or length of watercourse affected. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 404(b)(1) guidelines and an applicant must clearly demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose. The guidelines also establish a regulatory presumption that there is a practicable alternative that would have less impact on the aquatic ecosystem. If this presumption is not rebutted, a permit may not be issued. The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines summarizes the hierarchal approach to assessing mitigation under the guidelines. The first priority is to avoid impacts, second to minimize and third is to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Regional Water Quality Control Board. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, projects that apply for a Corps permit for discharge of dredge or fill material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit, must obtain water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) that the project will uphold state water quality standards. Alternatively, the RWQCB may elect to notify an applicant that the State may issue Waste Discharge Requirements in lieu of a Section 401 certification for a project. Cit~of Dublin Municipal Code. The Dublin Municipal Code establishes a 20-foot wide setback from the top of bank of major open stream courses within the community (Ordinance No. 52-87). Chapter 5.60 of the Municipal Code also requires the protection of Heritage Trees in the City, including oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood buckeye and sycamore trees having a diameter of 24-inches or more at breast height. Standards of Significance. Project impacts on biological resources would be considered significant if they resulted in any of the following: A substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A substantial effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 63 January 2009 G~ I ~ U~ ~~6 f" r~ "',« ~ California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A substantial effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. A substantial interference with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor, or impeded use of native wildlife nursery sites. A conflict with any Local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed Project involves the conversion of approximately 23.8 acres of low-income housing units and ruderal plant communities to a higher density housing development. The proposed Project would retain the redwoods circling North Mariposa Drive. Less-than-Significant Impacts. The following impacts have been found to be less- than-significant: impacts to special-status species, impacts to wildlife and fish corridors and impacts to wetlands and other waters. Special-status species. The potential presence of many special status wildlife species on the Site is considered unlikely due to degraded habitat conditions on the Project Site, absence of suitable breeding habitat, and human disturbance in the vicinity of the Site due to surrounding residential development. No significant impacts to special status amphibians, reptiles or invertebrates are antiapated as a result of the proposed Project. Wildlife and fish corridors. In terms of wildlife and fish corridors, the Site is fenced and surrounded by residential development and roadways, meaning that no significant impacts to wildlife migratory corridors are likely to occur. One of the vacant portions of the Project Site (North Field) provides open space between other grassy vacant properties to the east and a narrow wooded creek corridor to the west, beyond which is open grasslands in the north Dublin hills. This is one of the few places where wildlife could potentially migrate between undeveloped properties east of Dougherty Road and open spaces west of a belt of urban development along Dougherty Road. However, based on a field observation of the Site by WRA biologists, this area does not appear to be of high value or a regularly used corridor due to the presence of fencing on both sides of the Alamo Creek bicycle path that extends along the western edge of the Project Site. High levels of vehicular traffic along Dougherty Road combined with high levels of human activity in this area of Dublin and the presence of fencing likely discourage wildlife from using this route. Alamo Creek, west of the Project Site, could be considered a tributary to a native wildlife nursery, since juvenile steelhead may be present further downstream in Alameda Creek. The Project does not include any dams or similar structures that would prohibit or restrict fish migration within Alamo Creek. Less-than significant or no impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to impacts to fish or wildlife migration corridors. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 64 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin •- a > ~', ~~N Wetlands or other waters of the US. Based on a delineation of wetlands on the Site by a qualified biologist following preparation of the Initial Study, no wetlands or other gig. waters exist on the Project Site. The wetland delineation is included as Appendix 8.5 to this document. '"~ Significant Impacts. The Project has the potential to impact one special status bat species and one special status bird species. The Project also has the potential to impact nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and to degrade the quality of a nearby creek that maybe upstream from steelhead habitat. Impacts to heritage trees are also noted. Nesting birds. Nesting birds may be impacted by Project construction during bird breeding season that takes place annually from February through August. Impacts would include loss or significant reduction of existing trees, although replacement trees would be planted as part of the Project. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects almost all species of nesting birds, including common species. Special status birds receive additional protection under the Act. Impact 4.3-1 (impacts to nesting birds): Removal of trees and vegetation to construct the proposed Project would result in a loss of nesting sites for nesting bird species, including the special-status loggerhead shrike, and interfere with normal breeding (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure is recommended to mitigate this impact to a less-than- significantlevel by Limiting disturbance to nests to times when there is a low probability of nesting birds being present on the Site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (impacts to nestin bg irds): Clearing of vegetation and the initiation of construction shall be limited to the non-breeding season between September and January. If these activities cannot be done in the non-breeding season, a qualified biologist shall perform pre-construction bird surveys within 30 days prior to construction or clearing of vegetation. If nesting birds, such as loggerhead shrike, are discovered in the vicinity of planned development, buffer areas shall be established around the nest until the nest is vacated. The size and duration of the buffer will depend on the particular species of nesting bird present and shall be established by a qualified biologist. Bat roosts. Disturbance and/or removal of trees, buildings, and other structures on the Project Site may impact bat roosts, including pallid bat, due to loss of trees and vegetation and other potential roost sites. This would be a significant impact. Impact 4.3-2 (impacts to potential bat habitat): Removal of existing structures, trees and vegetation on the Project Site would impact bat roosts (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure is recommended to mitigate this impact to a less-than- significantlevel byremoving or disturbing bat habitat when bats are not present, or removing such bats consistent with appropriate biological protocols. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 65 } Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin '~` C~ ~ ~ fi~ r` { ;, 3 ~~ ~, Mitigation Measure 4 3-2 (impacts to potential bat habitat): Pre-construction bat surveys shall be conducted on the Site by a qualified biologist between November 1 and August 31, to include trees, and buildings subject to removal or demolition for evidence of bat use (guano accumulation, or acoustic or visual detections). If evidence of bat use is found, biologists shall conduct a minimum of three acoustic surveys between April and September under appropriate conditions using an acoustic detector to determine whether a Site is occupied. If bats are found, a qualified biologist shall supervise any removal and such removal shall occur only during the fall prior to construction. Fish species. Runoff from development of the Project Site may contribute to degradation of a watershed that may comprise habitat for steelhead and other sensitive fish species. Impact 4.3-3 (impacts to fish species): The proposed Project could add urban pollutants into the adjacent Alamo Creek, impacting this habitat of steelhead and other sensitive fish and aquatic species (significant impact and mitigation required). Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 contained in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this DEIR requires Project proponents to prepare and implement a both an Erosion Control Plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accord with standards and practices recommended by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Mitigation Measure requires both plans to be reviewed an approved by a qualified biologist to ensure that pollutant runoff from the Project Site will not impact sensitive fish spies in nearby bodies of water. These actions would minimize pollutant runoff into Alamo Creek and other nearby bodies of water during construction and during the operation of the Project. This would avoid potentially significant impacts to steelhead and other sensitive fish and aquatic species. The measure also requires installation of exclusion fencing in the event California Red-legged Frog are present in the Project vicinity. Impacts to tree resources. Impacts to trees as aesthetic resources are analyzed in Section 4.1 of this DEIR, Aesthetics. Impacts include loss of one Heritage Tree and other non- Heritage trees on the Site. Impacts to trees as biological resources, including but not limited to bat roosts, are analyzed above. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 66 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin . ~~ -; ~' ti~ ~ ~ <~ ~ ,~ I' r ~~ ~. <2. ,. `* _ ~. a. w~ ~~ _ - J C Ah ~ ~~ ~ ~~. «,P-~. ~. Nt Gi C "~ w' ~ ?.. y. : . ~,> q ~ " ` '_ " ~ ~~Y~, ~ ~ , .,fir > t'' ,„ .~ ~- 1. ^ w `~ ~ L ± ~` _ ~ yx ac 1 ,~~, ~ ~ ~~~ j. West Fi~i~ ~~ 3 ~- : ~,~'"'°°'""°'~.`~" ~~.,~„~~ `"~„°: ~ , ... J • ~. ~} `c` r~3 < _` ,. >.. .. '- C' ,`1~~~ .- .~= `~ ~,. ~. .r_. ~. .~ ~ '' ,. , R -_ - ~_ .~' 1wr _ ~n ~~ w : a <~` tl„ - _ ~ Wis. ~ a '1 ~ ~~ ~ Y, ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ W ~~ ~t+ • r M .~ ~= ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ] s1q ,~ ~~.. Yr f ~ a ~:3 ~' } w ~ ~~' j{ .~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ;~~.~ ~~.~.~ :~.._,~ :4 :~ ~m»a~v. . ~.« + 1 i x ~~"""'~'~, ~._ 1~ ~ '~ ~ ~ '~ '' R ,~ ,,» ~: F~- x st` ~ ,~ i~` i ` .a, ,'~ , ~ a ~'$' " e '~ ~ ~` .~ :, . r 2" ~ - °" ~'~ '•M ~ s ~ `"" r ~ i~" ~`~ ~. ~ tt III ~ t ~k. '. SO''RCE; ~JRA Fnvrronmenta/ Consu~7anrs, Octo~er20~?7. ~~. Exhibit 4.3-1 ~" CITY {)F DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ENV'IRaNMEt1TAt IMPACT REPORT C~ S ~ C>~ CI ~ ... 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the EIR addresses potential impacts to historical, archeological cultural resources. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section is based on an analysis of cultural resources on the Project Site conducted by Holman & Associates in October 2007. This report is incorporated by reference into this DEIR and is available for public review at Dublin City Hall during normal business hours. Cultural resource literature search. An archaeological literature review was conducted as part of this EIR at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC, file no. 07-48) to obtain information about recorded archaeological sites in and around the Project area and to obtain formal archaeological studies of the Project area and its surroundings. No recorded prehistoric or historic sites inside the Project area were found. A number of historic structures and some likely archaeological Sites have been recorded to the east near Parks RFTA over the years. Most of these prehistoric resource areas have been re- examined over the years and invalidated as archaeological sites. The current Project Site has been the subject of at least one formal archaeological survey: in 1979 Holman & Associates completed a visual inspection of the proposed 60a-acre KREMCO development area. This development included all of the current Project property, along with acreage to the west and north of the Arroyo Vista Site. In addition to conducting an intensive visual reconnaissance of the riparian corridor along Alamo Creek, a limited number of geotechnical trenches were inspected near the creek to search for evidence of buried archaeological deposits. The actual location of these trenches was not noted in the 1979 report. The 1979 report concluded that, despite negative surface findings and a similar lack of cultural materials found in the limited trenches that were cut near the creek, there was a possibility that future construction activities could uncover archaeological materials buried under silt. By 1979 this author and others working in the Amador Valley had uncovered a series of buried archaeological sites dating back at least 2,500 years. These sites are situated on seasonal high ground near the prehistoric borders of Willow Marsh (now the location of the Hacienda Business Park) and along the drainages that run into and out of the Livermore-Amador Valley. Prehistoric villages have been discovered during construction projects under as much as 10 feet of silts deposited by the creeks and/or by waters backing up in Willow Marsh during extended pluvial periods. Since 1979, additional examples of deeply buried prehistoric deposits have been found along the creeks and arroyos in the general Project vicinity. There is no record that any additional archaeological work was done for the existing Arroyo Vista housing development; archaeological monitoring was not recommended in Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 68 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ ~,- 1979, and apparently was not completed as a precaution whenever the existing buildings were constructed. Site survey. A visual inspection of the Project Site was conducted in July, 2007 by Holman & Associates staff. The existing housing development was surveyed in an attempt to locate open ground not modified by buildings or landscaping which surrounds it. In addition, a visual inspection of the creek bank found north and west of the existing roadway was inspected to search for buried strata that may have contained buried cultural resources. It was evident that the existing public housing development has altered and / or covered the original ground surface inside the development borders with buildings, pavement, concrete and/or landscaping. Vegetation and other imported materials also prevented an inspection of the creek banks that border the property. p, Native American Tribal consultation. Pursuant to SB 18, consultation with Native American Tribal organizations were conducted as part of this EIR. Copies of these letters are contained in Appendix 8.6. No responses were received from the tribes contacted as part of the SB 18 consultation during the comment period. Standards of significance. A significant environmental impact would result to cultural resources if a proposed project were to disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric, historic archeological or Native American Site, disrupt a paleontological site, or impact human remains except as part of a scientific study. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Approval and construction of the proposed Project would require the removal of existing buildings and, at a minimum, grading and trenching for new utility services to the buildings. This activity could result in a potentially significant impact to buried prehistoric cultural resources which may have survived earlier construction activities on the Site, particularly if such resources were covered by alluvial material in prehistoric times. Impact 4 4-1 (prehistoric, archeological and Native American resources): Although no significant historical, archeological or Native American artifacts were encountered on the Project Site, construction of the proposed Project could disturb unidentified and unrecorded historical artifacts, including prehistoric, archeological and/or Native American resources or remains (potentially significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level by requiring more specific site investigations and requiring a specific protocol in the event cultural resources are identified. Mitisation Measure 4.4-1(prehistoric, archeological and Native American resources): Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a program of mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing for cultural resources shall be completed by a qualified .. archeologist approved by the Dublin Community Development Department, utilizing a mechanical core sampler in the open space areas of the existing development to Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 69 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin `~ ass U~ ~~" search for potentially buried archaeological deposits. In the event that any such deposits are discovered, Project work in the vicinity of the deposits shall be immediately halted and additional core samples shall be taken if needed to map the extent and depth below the surface of potentially significant cultural materials. If it is determined that new construction activities will impact resource deposits, a plan for the evaluation of the deposit(s) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be submitted to the City of Dublin and other appropriate agencies for approval. Evaluation shall be completed to determine if the resources are eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and/or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. 4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the DEIR addresses soil conditions and geologic features of the Site as well as potential impacts related to exposure of proposed buildings to seismic risk, soil related hazards and erosion potential. This section of the DEIR is based on the following analysis: " Geotechnical Analysis on the Proposed Residential Development, Arroyo Vista, 6700 Dougherty Road" prepared by Terrasearch, Inc. updated in February 2008. This report is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours and is incorporated by reference into this DEIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Site is within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, a belt of sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic rocks, which extend from southern California to Oregon. The structural geology of the Coast Ranges is complex and dominated by transpressive stress (combined transform and compressional) concentrated along faults within the San Andreas Fault system. On the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay, bedrock geology consists of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks ranging from Cretaceous through Quaternary periods (up to 144 million years to present). The Project Site is located in the East Bay portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, in the central portion of the Amador Valley in Dublin, California, immediately west of Parks RFTA (Camp Parks). Based on published materials by Helley et al. (1979), the materials underlying the Site consist of Holocene fine-grained alluvium (Qhaf). The fine-grained alluvium consists of unconsolidated, plastic, moderately to poorly sorted silt and clay rich in organic matter. This unit was formed in poorly drained areas and in standing floodwaters and has a maximum thickness of 10 feet. Thick sequences of clay, silt, sand and gravel underlie each of these units for several kilometers (km) and Mesozoic and Tertiary sedimentary and meta-sedimentary rocks underlie the thick alluvium. Seismic hazards. The Pleasanton Fault is located approximately 0.5 mile south and the Calaveras Fault is situated approximately 1.2 miles west-southwest of the Project Site. The Pleasanton and Calaveras Faults are considered active according to the Alquist- Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 70 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~z Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Act. The Pleasanton Fault is a thrust fault, while the "" Calaveras Fault is astrike-slip fault with right-lateral motion. The Site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone but is within a Seismic Hazard Zone as identified in the California Building Code. Other faults located within a 66-mile radius of the Site are shown on Table 4.5-1. Table 4.5-1. Earthquake Fault Zone Data Fault Name Fault Type Distance (km) Fault Magnitude (Mw) Pleasanton Reverse 1.0 6.2 Calaveras Strike-Slip 2.2 6.8 Mount Diablo Thrust 6.5 6.8 Ha ward Strike-Sli 14 7.1 Greenville Strike-Sli 16 6.9 Great Valley 6 Blind Thrust 23 6.7 Concord-Green Valle Strike-Sli 27 6.9 Great Valley 7 Blind Thrust 42 6.7 San Andreas (1906) Strike-Sli 45 7.9 San Andreas (Peninsula) Strike-Slip 45 7.1 Monte Vista-Shannon Thrust 45 6.8 San Gre orio Strike-Sli 56 7.3 West Na a Strike-Sli 58 6.5 Great Valley 4 Blind Thrust 64 6.6 Za ante-Ver eles Thrust 69 7.0 Great Valley 8 Blind Thrust 73 6.6 Orti alita Thrust 74 6.9 Point Re es Strike-Sli 85 7.0 Hunting Creek- Berr essa Strike-Slip 86 7.1 Monterey Bay- Tularcitos Strike-Slip 89 7.1 Quien Sabe Strike-Sli 99 6.4 Source: Terraseach, 2007 Previous geotechnical study. A previous geotechnical investigation for the Site, prepared by ENGEO, Inc, produced in 1979, was reviewed. Alameda County approved the project and during Dublin s incorporation approximately four years after the project was constructed records, were submitted to the City. Alameda County Zone 7 also has at least one monitoring well onsite with an associated boring log. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 71 ~~* Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ENGEO, Inc. performed 15 borings to depths of 20 to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) consisting of mainly sandy to silty clays as part of their previous study. The report mentioned a dumping zone where debris was buried just south of the existing child care/management facilities in the approximate center of the Site. Zone 7 indicated that they found 10 feet of aggregate base fill below the basketball court during their monitoring well installation. Subsurface conditions. Subsurface soil conditions on the Site, as encountered in the six (6) borings were found to be fairly consistent across the Site. In all borings, medium to high plasticity, medium stiff clay was encountered to approximately 3 feet to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). This material is underlain by an intermixture of medium dense silty sand, stiff to very stiff sandy/silty clay of varying plasticity, and poorly graded sands with some gravels to maximum depths explored of 31.5 feet. In one boring, gravelly sand was found from approximately 15 feet bgs to approximately 20 feet bgs. Findings in the previous ENGEO Project geology report (1979) are in general agreement with the findings contained in other geotechnical reports. Boring locations were limited to accessible areas. Therefore, the materials beneath the existing buildings and other areas with limited access were not tested and/or sampled. Given the age of the existing development, there is the likelihood that undocumented fill may exist at the Site within landscape areas. Fi11 was encountered in previous geotechnical analyses from 2 to 10 feet bgs prior to development. Erosion potential. The Project Site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek and has the potential to erode earthen material, trash, debris and other material into this creek. Liquefaction, landslide risk and other soil hazards. Since the property is situated on relatively flat topography, the Site is not susceptible to landsliding. The Site is not susceptible to liquefaction, differential compaction and/or ground lurching, due to the nature of the subsurface materials and the distance to active faults. Since the Site is not located near an ocean or lakefront, the risk of tsunamis or seiches is low. The Terrasearch soils report did not, however, identify the presence of medium to highly expansive soils on portions of the Site as well as deposits of undocumented fill within landscaped planter areas on the Site. Standards of Significance. A proposed Project would be considered to result in a significant impact if: People or structures would be exposed to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides; There would be significant increases over present levels of soil erosion or loss of topsoil; or A site is located on soil that is unstable or expansive or would result in potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collapse. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 72 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less-than-Significant impacts. The following less-than-significant impacts are identified in this DEIR. Seismic hazards. The Project Site is not located on or immediately adjacent to a known active fault or fault trace. The closest earthquake fault zone is the Pleasanton Fault, approximately 0.66 mile south of the Site. Under moderate to severe seismic activity on the this or other nearby faults, the Project Site would be subject to groundshaking, which could damage buildings and related improvements. Since the Project would be constructed to the latest edition of the California Building Code that includes stringent seismic requirements governing building foundations, walls and roof assemblies, impacts related to seismic groundshaking would be ales-than-significant. Other improvements, such as roadways and utilities, would be constructed to current seismic engineering requirements required by the Dublin Public Works Department. Additional analysis regarding the potential for ground rupture since preparation of the Initial Study for this Project contained in the Terrasearch report indicates that no known active faults or fault traces are located on or adjacent to the Project Site, so the potential for ground rupture is considered less-than-significant. Erosion potential. The potential for soil erosion from the Site is identified as a potentially significant impact is Section 4.7 of this DEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, which requires the Project Developers to prepare and implement both a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction and post-construction conditions and an Erosion Control Plan. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would reduce the impacts of soil erosion and other debris into Alamo Creek and other nearby bodies of water to ales-than-significant level. Potentially significant impact. One potentially significant impact has been identified, which is hazards to building foundations and other improvements from soil hazards, including expansive soils and undocumented fill material. Based on the most recent geotechnical report (Terrasearch, Inc.) the Site is underlain by medium to highly expansive soils. This expansive clay material is prone to swellings and heaving when moisture is introduced and could result in potentially significant damage to building foundations and drainage systems. Similarly, undocumented fill could result in a potentially significant impact in terms of differential settlement of building foundations, driveways and other utilities. Impact 4.5-1 (soil hazards): Future Site improvements could result in moderate to significant damage caused by expansive soil and/or undocumented fill material (potentially significant impact and mitigation required.) Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level by requiring the design and construction of Site improvements to implement recommendations included in the Project geotechnical report. ' Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 73 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~. ~5~ ~~` r~ Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 (soil hazards): Future Site improvements shall be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the Project geotechnical report. These include but are not limited to: a) Testing and removal of all undocumented fill material on the Site. b) Proper compaction of engineered fill material. c) Installation of proper subdrainage facilities. d) Use ofpost-tensioned and/or mat slab building foundations. 4.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the EIR addresses potential soil and structural contamination. Information in this section is based on a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Project by Terrasearch completed in February 2008 and a Limited Asbestos Site Survey completed in September 2007 by Pro Tech Consultants. Both reports are incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available for review at the Dublin Planning Division during normal business hours. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Site was historically used for agricultural production. Prior to the 1940's several potentially hazardous materials were typically employed as part of agricultural operations, including arsenic, lead and mercury. After the 1940's, organochloride pestiades were used in place of metal pesticides. Any remaining amounts of residual agricultural chemicals in the soil could be released into the atmosphere during Project construction. During the period when Site buildings and related improvements were built, between the late 1970's and early 1980's, typical construction materials included asbestos, used in flooring and wallboard materials and lead based paints. Soil sample analysis. Terrasearch collected 32 soil samples on the Site and transmitted these to aCalifornia-certified testing laboratory for analysis. The laboratory analysis found minor traces of DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethelene), a-chloradane, g- chlordane, dieldrin and hepachlor below screening levels for exposure. Analysis for traces of metals concluded that, with one exception, metals on the Site fall below the Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for these substances. The one exception is arsenic; however, it was determined by Terrasearch environmental professionals that arsenic is a naturally occurring substance in the regional geology of the area and is not specific to this Project Site. No asbestos containing material was detected in soil samples on the Site. Mercury and lead were detected on the Site, but at or below acceptable screening levels. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 74 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~. {~ ~ ~1 ~ ~: Building materials survey. Apre-demolition survey of existing buildings on the Project Site was undertaken by ProTech Consulting Engineering in September 2007. Asbestos was identified as a component of building material within several of the existing residences, including but not limited to floor tile, floor file mastic and other materials. No pre-demolition surveys have been completed for the presence of lead based paints; however, such paints or similar material may have been used when the existing Arroyo Vista complex was built. Public records search. Based on a search of available local, state and federal records, one secondary potential contamination Site was identified approximately 0.25 miles east of the Project Site. This is Parks RFTA a U.S. Army reserve facility located east of the Project Site across Dougherty Road. A visual observation of Parks RFTA by the Phase II environmental assessor did not reveal the presence of above ground storage tanks sumps, drains or pits. The presence of containers of acetone and other solvents, tires, pipes, abandoned appliances and other debris was observed. No evidence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were observed. Helicopter overflights. The Initial Study for the Project notes that there is a possibility of hazards from helicopter overflights on or adjacent to the Project Site. Standards of Significance. A project would be considered to result in a significant impact if there would be: • a reasonably foreseeable hazard due to the release of hazardous materials into the environment; or • a hazard due to the potential for aircraft crash on or near a site. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Although the Project Site is generally free of significant sources or conditions that would release hazardous materials into the environment, recent analyses of the Site indicates that additional testing and possibly remediation of hazardous materials should be undertaken. Specific concerns exist with regard to soil contamination and the possible release of asbestos and lead based paint into the atmosphere. The Project Site may also be subject to helicopter overflights from Parks RFTA that could result in a potentially significant hazard impact. Less-than-significant impacts. Although the Initial Study identified potential hazards from helicopter overflights and potential crashes as a potentially significant impact, further research indicates this would be aless-than-significant impact. Based on the Environmental Noise Management Plan prepared for Parks RFTA, the Project Site is subject to noise from helicopter operations from Parks RFTA (see Figure 42). The text of the document notes that during training operations, helicopter operations typically may fly over the entire training area (page 4-7). However, the same Figure also shows that the primary helicopter entrances and exits from Parks RFTA are from the eastern side of the facility, not the west. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 75 ~~ January 2009 a~~ ~ ~.~., ~~ Section 6-4 contained in the Environmental Noise Management Plan (page 6-3) establishes noise reduction measures to be taken by as a part of military training and operations. The first point identified as a U.S. Army Reserve responsibility for reducing noise is to avoid flying over residences. The Dublin Police Services Department has no record of helicopter crashes or similar incidents on or near the Project Site (pers. comm., Val Guzman, Dublin Police Services Department, 7/29/08). Based on the above information, the risk of hazard from helicopter overflights on the proposed Project would beless-than-significant. Significant impacts. Potentially significant impacts have been identified with regard to soil contamination with lead, and contamination with asbestos and lead based paint building materials. Release of contaminated materials. The following significant impact was identified in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment regarding soil contaminants. Impact 4.6-1 (soil contamination with lead): Even though no significant source of lead was identified within soils on open space portions of the Site, potentially significant quantities of lead could be present beneath existing buildings, which could not be easily sampled. Potentially significant concentrations of lead could be released into the environment during grading activities (significant impact and mitigation required.) The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level by undertaking more focused Site analyses and undertaking appropriate remediation actions, if actionable amounts of contamination are found. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 (soil contamination with lead): Prior to grading activities, but after demolition of existing improvements, soil samples shall be collected and analyzed for lead using EPA methods. If actionable levels of lead are found on the Site, a remediation program shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any remediation plan. Asbestos and lead based paint contamination. The recent Terrasearch analysis has determined that a number of the existing buildings contain asbestos materials, which could result in a significant impact as a result of release into the environment during building demolition, if not remediated. Although not specifically identified in the Terrasearch Site analysis, lead based paints may also be present in existing buildings that would be demolished. Impact 4.6-2 (asbestos and lead based paint): Dernolition of existing buildings could result in potentially significant impacts due to release of asbestos and lead based paint into the atmosphere (significant and mitigation required). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 76 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~'~,%~+,!;~,-x.. '`'~- ~ ~ C: lea The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts from "~ asbestos and lead based paints to a less than significant level by removing asbestos and .. lead based paints prior to building demolition. Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 (asbestos and lead based paint): The following actions shall be taken before issuance of the first demolition permit, if multiple permits are issued by the City: a) Asbestos containing material shall be removed by a licensed contractor and disposed of in a landfill licensed to accept this level of contaminated material. If required, a permit shall be obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to commencement of work. b) Testing and analysis for lead based paints shall be conducted, If such materials are found, remediation shall be completed by a licensed contractor. Necessary permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of work. 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the EIR address potential impacts related to stormwater runoff and water quality. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Project area description. The proposed Project is located in the northerly portion of the Livermore Valley within the City of Dublin. The Valley is a broad alluvial fan that drains southerly and westerly through Niles Canyon to the San Francisco Bay. Rainfall. The region's climate is characterized as Mediterranean, with wet winters and dry summers. In the vicinity of the Project area, mean annual rainfall equals approximately 18 inches, with at least 80% of this total occurring during the October through March rainy season. Peak rainfall intensity fora 20 minute duration, 10 year recurrence interval rainstorm equals 1.05 inches per hour, while fora 24 hour duration, 100 year recurrence interval rainstorm the intensity equals 0.15 inches per hour. This is based on hydrologic criteria published by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFC & WCD). Stormwater runoff is that portion of rainfall that is not absorbed into the ground, taken up by plants, or lost through evaporation. Coarse-grained, permeable soils and heavy vegetative cover reduce runoff, while steep slopes, fine-grained soils, and impervious surfaces (buildings and pavement) increase runoff. The duration, frequency, and total amount of rainfall also affect the volume of runoff; frequent and/ or heavy rains saturate the soil and reduce infiltration, causing the percentage of rain that runs off the land to increase with the severity of a storm. Existing drainage facilities. A portion of stormwater runoff from the easterly portion of the Site is transported via gutters to a number of drainage inlets within existing streets „~ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 77 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin "~ a ~ a ~~ to and then flows in underground pipes to two stormwater outfalls into adjacent Alamo Creek In the westerly portion of the Site, where no streets exist, stormwater flows via a series of open swales into Alamo Creek. Alamo Creek flows to the south, to the Arroyo de la Laguna, into Alameda Creek and eventually discharges regional stormwater runoff into San Francisco Bay near Union City. Water quality. Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francesco 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. 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. The NPDES permit regulations are clear in establishing the need for analyzing and mitigating for adverse impacts to receiving waters downstream of a proposed development, but the criteria for assessing "adverse impacts to beneficial uses", and guidance for acceptable methods for mitigating any potential impacts are not contained in the NPDES permit and are undefined at this time. The Alameda County Clean Water Program, which manages the County permit, has adopted a program relating to hydromodification to the RWQCB. Locally, in the same fashion as described above regarding water quality requirements, the City of Dublin attaches a standard condition to each property's development application to comply with the hydromodification requirements of the Alameda County NPDES permit. Standards of significance. A Project would have a significant impact with regard to hydrology or water quality if it were to: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses and / or increase water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off of the project site; or Create stormwater runoff in excess of drainage system capacity. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following impacts related to hydrology and water quality are analyzed in this section: violation of water quality standards, alteration of drainage patterns and capacity of the existing drainage system to accommodate increased runoff. Soil erosion, siltation and violation of water quality standards. Significant impacts are anticipated with regard to soil erosion and surface water quality. During Project construction, existing improvements and vegetation would be removed and the potential for soil erosion would be at its greatest. Upon completion and occupancy of a Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 78 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ f~, Project, water quality contaminants maybe produced from typical activities. Typical activities that may produce contaminants include landscape chemical application, landscape trimmings, automobile use, automobile fluid spillage, and other similar activities. Impact 4.7-1 (soil erosion, siltation and violation of water quality standards): The quality of stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be expected to decline resulting from an increase in the production of non-point source urban pollutants. Construction impacts would include but would not be limited to runoff of graded material and construction solvents off of the Site. Post-construction (operational) contaminants would include debris, landscaping fertilizers and pesticides, and heavy metals, oil and gas residues, tire fragments and debris normally deposited by vehicular traffic. stormwater runoff from developed areas on the Site would carry non-point source pollutants into surface waters within the City and ACFC&WCD drainage channels, where they would cause a cumulative degradation of water quality in San Francisco Bay (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the Project developer(s) to incorporate state-of-the-art Best Management Practices into the Project during construction and post construction. Measure 4.7-1 (soil erosion, siltatio Project Developer(s) shall prepare: a) Erosion Control Plan(s) consistent with City of Dublin and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards to minimize run-off from the Site during construction. To ensure that erosion impacts are reduced to aless-than- significant impact to nearby fish and sensitive aquatic species in Alamo Creek and other bodies of water, Erosion Control Plan(s) shall be reviewed and approved by a biologist to ensure that no impacts will occur to steelhead and '"'` other sensitive aquatic species. The Erosion Control Plan shall include exclusion fencing to preclude the potential for California Red-legged Frogs from entering the Project Site. Erosion Control Plan(s) shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. b) A stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-construction conditions. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda County Clean Water Program requirements. The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City of Dublin to avoid spill over of material into Alamo Creek during demolition. The BMPs shall include, but is not limited to incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of filtration devices, covering of solid waste and recycling areas and similar features. Alteration of drainage patterns, flooding and drainage system capacity. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Site. A portion of the Site, approximately three to four acres in size, is presently vacant and absorbs rainfall. These areas are located in the northern and western portions of the Site. These areas are depicted on Exhibit 4.3-1. The proposed Project ~" Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 79 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~° ~ b 5 ~~- ~~~ ~` includes construction on almost all portions of the Site, with the exceptions of building setbacks and landscaped areas. The anticipated increase in the amount of impervious surfaces would increase the quantity and rate of stormwater leaving the Site and could change the overall general drainage pattern of Site and larger area. The amount of such increase, rate of flow and the direction of flow could exceed the capacity of the existing system to accommodate such increases and/or could direct stormwater in a different direction. The inadequate existing storm drainage system could be inadequate to accommodate increased rates and/or flows from the Site and localized flooding could occur. This would be a significant impact. Impact 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patterns, flooding and drainage system capacity): Development of the Project would introduce new impervious surfaces (primarily buildings, driveways, parking structures, roads and hardscape elements) onto the now vacant portions of the Site, increasing the amount, direction and rate of stormwater runoff. stormwater increases could exceed the capacity of local and regional drainage systems to accommodate such increases potentially resulting in localize flooding (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a Less-than- significantlevel by ensuring that adequate capacity exists in downstream drainage facilities to accommodate any significant increases in the amount, direction and rate of stormwater from the Project Site and eliminate the potential for on-site, localized flooding. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patterns, flooding and drainage system capacity): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shall indicate that adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional drainage facilities to accommodate the direction, rate and amount of increased stormwater runoff. If necessary, deveIoper(s) shall upgrade undersized drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department and all recommendations for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans. 4.8 NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This sections addresses potential noise impacts of the Project, including short term construction noise, permanent noise and helicopter overflights from Camps Parks. This section is based on an analysis of the acoustic impacts for the proposed Project by Illingworth & Bodkin, January 2008 and is included as Appendix 8.6. This report is incorporated by reference into this DEIR. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 80 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fundamentals of acoustics. Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity maybe compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents aten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10- decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 4.8.1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound /noise descriptor is called Leg. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Len can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night --because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level, Ldn, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm -10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The DaylNight Average Sound Level, DNL, is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 81 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~" Table 4.8-1. Definitions of Acoustic Terms Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20. Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter. Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz. A-Weighted Sound The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level Level, dBA meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. Equivalent Noise The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Level, Leq The hourly Leq used for this report is denoted as dBA Leq[h]• Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained Equivalent Level, after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm CNEL and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Day/Night Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained Level, DNL or Ld„ after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Ln Values The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and Loi, Lio, Lso, Leo 90% of the time during the measurement period. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 82 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ ~ ~~~"""'''jjj ~' tYY 111fff Ambient Noise Level I The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Illingworth & Bodkin, 2007 Existing noise levels. The Project Site is located west of Dougherty Road, south of Amador Valley Road. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area is located east of the Project Site. The Site is currently developed with residential land uses that would be replaced with the Project. A 7-foot noise barrier is located at the property line of the Project Site to reduce noise levels generated by traffic along Dougherty Road. Ambient noise levels, resulting primarily from traffic, were measured at the Project Site from midday July 17, 2007 to the afternoon of July 19, 2007. The noise monitoring survey consisted of one long-term noise measurement (LT-1) and two short-term, attended noise measurements (ST-1 and ST-2). Noise measurement locations are mapped in the full acoustic report (see Appendix 8.6). The long-term noise measurement was made approximately 50 feet from the centerline of Dougherty Road at an elevation approximately 12 feet above the ground. This measurement location was not shielded by the existing noise barrier and quantified the daily trend in noise levels during the approximate two-day measurement period. Daytime hourly average noise levels ranged from 70 to 75 dBA Len, and nighttime hourly average noise levels ranged from 58 to 74 dBA Leg. The day-night average noise level, calculated based on the measured noise data at this location, was 75 dBA Lan. Two short-term noise measurements were made at positions five-feet above the ground to quantify noise levels at residential receivers that are shielded by the existing seven-foot noise barrier. Average noise levels generated by vehicular traffic were 56 to 58 dBA Les. The estimated Ldn at these locations is 59 to 61 dBA. Table 4.8-2 summarizes short-term noise data. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin eJlfi Page 83 °~ January 2009 (f1~'~ o ~.,! °~~ ~'1 a Table 4.8-2. Short-Term Noise Measurement Results Location Leq L(10) L(50) L(90) Ldn ST-1 ~ 65 ft. from the center of Dougherty Road, microphone 5 ft. above the ground, 58 61 57 52 61 shielded by existing 7 ft. noise barrier. ST-2 ~ 95 ft. from the center of Dougherty Road, microphone 5 ft. above the ground, 56 59 55 51 59 shielded by existing 7 ft. noise barrier. Source: Illingwoth & Bodkin, 2007 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) is also a source of noise that affects the Project Site. The Site is located within 1,000 feet of the westernmost boundary of Camp Parks and is subject to audible noise from helicopters. Helicopters are required to enter and exit Camp Parks from the north and east, and although audible, noise levels resulting from distant helicopters are generally at or below ambient traffic noise levels along Dougherty Road. Training activities at the small arms ranges, located approximately one-mile to the northeast, may also be audible and annoying at times. The Environmental Noise Management Plan for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area16 indicates that the Project Site is within the Suggested Noise Disclosure Area but the Site is not subject to incompatible noise levels. Regulatory framework. The City of Dublin General Plan contains a Noise Element and the Municipal Code includes Chapter 5.28, Noise. 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 those indicated by Table 9.1 of the Noise Element. Table 4.8-3 depicts acceptable and unacceptable noise exposure levels by land use type. i6 Environmental Noise Management Plan, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine, December 2000. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 84 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Table 4.8-3. Land Use Compatibility Standards (Ldn dBA) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacce table Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 Over 75 Lodging (60 units 60-70 70-80 Over 80 NA or less) Schools, 60-70 70-80 Over 80 NA churches, nursing homes (60 units or less) Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70 arks Offices, retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 Over 80 commercial Industrial 70 or less 70-75 Over 75 NA Source: Table 9-1, City of Dublin Noise Element of the General Plan. Normally acceptable means that noise compatibility is acceptable, based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal, conventional construction, without any special insulation requirements. Conditionally acceptable means new construction should only be undertaken after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise reduction features included in project design. Normally unacceptable means new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new development or construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and incorporated into design. Clearly unacceptable means that new construction or development should not be undertaken. The 2007 California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11.2), requires that multi-family housing or lodging facilities exposed to an Ldn in excess of 60 dB have an acoustical study prepared to show how interior noise levels will be controlled to 45 dB Ldn or less. This requirement is consistent with City of Dublin General Plan policies. The City's Noise ordinance is located in Chapter 5.28 of the Municipal Code and regulates unreasonable noise. Standards of significance. A noise impact would be considered significant if it would: • Result in the exposure of new land uses to a noise level of Ld„s greater than those considered "conditionally acceptable" as set forth in the Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan. These noise levels are shown on Table 4.8-3. • Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 85 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~ • Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels caused by nearby airports and/or aircraft operations. • Exceed State standards for interior noise levels. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant impacts. The following significant noise impacts have been associated with the proposed Project: temporary construction noise, operational noise that would exceed City standards with regard to increased traffic and mechanical noise, noise related to aircraft operations at Parks RFTA and exceedances of interior noise levels. These are discussed below. Construction noise impacts. Approval of the proposed Project would directly lead to short-term increases in construction noise associated with demolition of existing buildings and improvements, construction of new dwellings, installation of replacement landscaping and paving and trenching for new and upgraded utilities. Most of the above activities would include the use of bulldozers, compactors, large trucks, air compressors and similar equipment. Based on information published by the Federal Highway Administration in 2006 for this noise prediction model, earth compactors typically generate 83 decibels (dBA) 50 feet from the specific site where it is used. Excavators typically generate 81 decibels and bulldozers generate 82 decibels. Therefore, for short periods of time, demolition and construction activities on the Site would exceed the City's "Conditionally Acceptable" exterior noise standards. These short-term impacts would be noticed by adjacent residents and visitors, specifically north, south and west of the Site. Also, depending on phasing of construction, there could be temporary construction noise impacts to other residents on the Arroyo Vista Site, if a portion of the dwellings on the Site would be built and occupied prior to construction of the remainder of the dwelling units. Impact 4.8-1 (short-term construction noise): Demolition and construction activities on the Site would generate short-term but significant levels of noise that could impact surrounding residents and visitors. Construction noise could also potentially impact on-site residents, if the Project is constructed in phases (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than- significantlevel by requiring specific noise reduction measures to be followed during demolition and construction phases of the Project. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 (short-term construction noise): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a Construction Noise Management Plan for approval by the Dublin Planning Manager and Building Official prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The Construction Noise Management Plan shall contain specific elements to reduce demolition and construction noise to the lowest possible noise level, including but Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 86 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~.1 ~,~ .~ `. f: ~,.. not limited to limiting days and hours of demolition and construction activities, "' requiring mufflers for gasoline-powered equipment, using electric-powered : equipment to the fullest extent possible, and provisions for providing advance notice to surrounding residents for major noise producing events. If the Project is constructed in phases, the Construction Noise Management Plan shall include specific measures to reduce on-site noise for existing Site residents and visitors. Operational noise impacts. Two types of long-term operational noise impacts have been identified in this EIR: impacts of existing and projected vehicles using Dougherty Road on future residents and visitors and noise from on-site mechanical equipment. These activities could expose people to noise levels in excess of City noise exposure levels. Traffic Noise. Future (2025) traffic projections were used to calculate the relative increase in traffic noise Levels expected along Dougherty Road, adjacent to the Project Site, as a result of the proposed Project. Future traffic volumes are based on the Project traffic impact analysis prepared by TJICM Associates. Future traffic noise levels are anticipated to be approximately 2 dBA Ldn higher than existing conditions. Exterior noise levels would be as high as 77 dBA Ld„ at the easternmost property line of the Project Site. Future noise levels in private /common exterior use areas were calculated assuming the attenuation provided by a noise barrier at the easternmost property line of the Project Site and the shielding provided by the proposed residential units, assumed to be two- stories high. An existing 7-foot tall wall exists along the easterly property line, although openings exist within the barrier wall for driveway into the Project Site, Calculations were made for receivers located between proposed buildings and for receivers proposed near access roads that would receive less shielding. Traffic noise modeling results are summarized in Table 4.8-4. Table 4.8-4. Traffic Noise Modeling Results (dBA, Ldn) Receiver 7-foot barrier 8-foot barrier 9-foot barrier 1st Row Dwellings - Between Buildin s 63 61 60 2nd Row Dwellings- Between Buildin s 61 61 60 3rd Row Dwellings - Between Buildin s 59 58 58 4th Row Dwellings - Between Buildin s 57 56 56 5th Row Dwellings- Between Buildin s 56 55 54 1st Row Dwellings -Near Access Road 71 71 71 3rd Row Dwellings- Near Access Road 67 67 66 5th Row Dwellings- Near Access Road 62 62 62 Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2008 Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 87 January 2009 As shown in Table 4.8.4, the existing 7-foot noise barrier (relative to the elevation of Dougherty Road) would reduce exterior noise levels to 63 dBA Lan at first-row exterior use areas proposed between the residential units. Exterior noise levels would be 61 dBA Lan at second-row exterior use areas and less than 60 dBA Lan at third-row through fifth-row exterior use areas located between the residential units. The existing noise barrier would provide sufficient attenuation such that exterior noise levels between building rows would be less than 65 dBA Lan meeting the exterior noise threshold for new housing. Exterior noise levels at receivers adjacent to Project driveways along Dougherty Road, where no barriers exist to allow for vehicle access, would receive minimal shielding from the existing noise barrier adjacent to Dougherty Road. Exterior noise levels would range from 62 dBA Lan to 71 dBA Lan at first- through fifth-row receivers adjacent to a Project driveway from Dougherty Road with the existing 7-foot noise barrier. This noise level would exceed the City's threshold noise exposure level of 65 to 70 dBA Lan, and would result in a potentially significant impact. Existing trees along the eastern Project boundary do not provide noise buffering or reduction. Impact 4.8-2 (traffic noise im acts): Existing and future cumulative traffic volumes on Dougherty Road would subject future residential dwellings adjacent to proposed Project driveways on Dougherty Road to exterior noise levels that would exceed City threshold for exterior noise levels, ranging from 67 to 72 dBA (significant impact and mitigation .required). The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than- significantlevel by requiring installation of solid noise barriers adjacent to Dougherty Road to reduce noise to City standards. Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 (traffic noise impacts): Final building plans shall include solid barriers adjacent to Project driveways at Dougherty Road that would reduce exterior noise levels in side and rear yards of dwellings under future cumulative conditions to a level of 65 dBA or less. On-site mechanical noise. Preliminary development plans for the proposed Project do not indicate the type, design or location of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and other mechanical equipment on the Site that could generate significant noise levels near residences and/or outdoor activity areas within the Project. Impact 4.8-3 (mechanical noise impacts): Noise generated by HVAC and other on- site mechanical noise could exceed City or state standards for interior and exterior exposure (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than- significantlevel by ensuring that on-site mechanical equipment is either appropriately located or enclosed to ensure such equipment will meet City noise standards. Mitigation Measure 4.8-3 (mechanical noise impacts): Final building plans for the Project shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified acoustic consultant Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 88 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin indicating that all HVAC and other mechanical equipment used in the Project '~ either meets City and state noise exposure levels, or has been enclosed or screened in a manner that ensures compliance with applicable City and state noise exposure levels. Aircraft noise impacts. Future residences constructed on the Project Site could be subject to noise generated by activities generated by Parks RFTA, including but not limited to helicopter flights, small arms and weapons training and similar noise. It is likely that such noise would be intermittent, but could exceed City of Dublin exterior noise levels. This would be a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.8-4 (Parks RFTA noise impacts): Future residents and visitors of the Arroyo Vista Project could be subject to intermittent but potentially significant noise generated by activities on Parks RFTA, including but not limited to current and future helicopter flights, weapons training and similar noise (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than- significantlevel by making future residents aware of existing and future noise sources. Mitigation Measure 4.8-4 (Parks RFTA noise impacts): Future residents of the Arroyo Vista Project shall receive written notification at the time of sale, rental or lease of their respective dwelling unit of the potential for helicopter activities, weapons training and similar noise generating activities at Parks RFTA. Written notices shall be approved by the Dublin Community Development Director. Interior noise impacts. The easternmost facades of proposed first row units would be exposed to future exterior noise levels of about 76-77 dBA Ldn, assuming a multi- story residential building with an uninterrupted view of Dougherty Road. Exterior noise levels at residential facades of second-row through fifth-row units would be lower assuming increased distance from the roadway and the shielding provided by adjoining buildings. Exterior noise levels would range from 62 to 73 dBA Ldn at second-row through fifth-row units, which would exceed City and state interior noise standards. Interior noise levels with the windows partially open for ventilation are approximately 15 decibels lower than exterior noise levels assuming typical residential construction methods. With the incorporation of mechanical ventilation systems that allow occupants the option of maintaining the windows shut to control noise, interior noise levels are normally 20 to 25 decibels lower than exterior noise levels. Interior noise levels would be approximately 52 to 57 dBA Ldn inside residential units assuming the windows are closed. This level would exceed the State of California interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn. Interior noise levels would vary depending on the specific design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and construction materials and methods. Impact 4.8-5 (interior noise level impacts): Depending on the type of construction used in Project construction, interior noise level standards (45 decibels) could be exceeded (significant impact and mitigation required). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 89 January 2009 The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than- significantlevel by ensuring that appropriate construction methods and materials are used to be consistent with City and State interior noise levels. Mitigation Measure 4.8-5 (interior noise level impacts): Final building plans shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified acoustical consultant indicating that the Project will include appropriate construction techniques to reduce interior noise levels to a maximum of 45 dBA Ldn. This shall include but is not limited to proper wall construction techniques, installation of appropriate insulation, the selections of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation systems. Residences located adjacent to Dougherty Road shall also be equipped with a full heating and air-conditioning system because it is unlikely residents would open their windows for ventilation. 4.9 POPULATION AND HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section addresses the displacement of existing dwelling units and residents on the Project Site. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Site is occupied by 1501ow-income detached single-family dwellings owned by the Dublin Housing Authority. The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq. proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer team. The Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan pursuant to local, state and federal guidelines. The plan provides for relocation benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of applicable law. These include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for disabled and senior residents if requested, security deposits, credit check fees, comparable replacement housing in the form of a Section 8 voucher or, if ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice to move (but only if HUD approves the disposition application). The relocation plan demonstrates that there are adequate available housing resources for the displaced households and that the DHA will provide advisory assistance and relocation benefits necessary to ensure that all households are adequately housed at the time of displacement. Regulatory framework. Federal regulation Section 24 CFR 970.21 requires the Dublin Housing Authority to offer each displaced household comparable replacement housing, to provide a minimum of 90 days advance notification of the displacement date, to pay reasonable relocation expenses and offer of relocation advisory services. The State of California has also adopted Guidelines for the payment of relocation benefits to displaced households (25 Cal Code Regs, 6000 et. seq.). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 90 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Standards of significance. A population and housing impact would be considered '"~' significant if a proposed project would displace a substantial number of dwelling units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed Project would result in a temporary loss in the number of public housing units by the demolition of the existing 150 dwellings on the Site, resulting in the displacement of an estimated 441 residents, based on an average dwelling unit occupancy of 3.0 persons per dwelling (source: Arroyo Vista Relocation Plan, January 2008). The Project Site would be redeveloped with up to 378 dwelling units, 180 of which would beincome-restricted, affordable rental units. The Project would increase the number of affordable units on the Site as compared to the existing number of units on the Site and would include a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom units. The combination of income-restricted, affordable rental units is as follows: Table 4.9-1. Proposed Income-Restricted Rental Units Unit Type No. Current Units Percentage No. Proposed Units Percentage Net Dif- ference 1BR 16 11% 62 (50 Senior units) 34% 46 2BR 78 52% 66 37% <12> 3BR 32 21% 36 20% 4 4BR 24 16% 16 9% <8> Total 150 100% 180 100% 30 Source: City of Dublin Community Development Department, 2008 An additional 14 for-sale units would be reserved for moderate-income households. As shown in the above table, the number of four-bedroom units is projected to decrease from the current 24 units to 16. However, an analysis of the Dublin Housing Authority's occupancy data indicated that as of April 2007, many of the households occupying four- bedroom units did not have sufficiently sized households to warrant occupation of a four-bedroom unit. In other words, they were "over-housed." In fact, 16 of the families occupying the 24 four-bedroom units were in the "over-housed" category in April 2007. The proposal calls for the development to include 16 four-bedroom units, which seems to be ample for the households at Arroyo Vista that actually qualify for such units. The number of two-bedroom units would decrease from 78 in the current Project to 66 in the new development; the number of three-bedroom units would increase from 32 units to 36 units. Thus, the number of two, three and four-bedroom units -units which are appropriate for families with children -would decrease only slightly, from 134 units to 118, while the total number of affordable rental units would increase from 150 to 180. Each of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with extremely low incomes, would be provided with relocation assistance and would have the right to return to the Project, provided their incomes are not higher than the Project's maximum affordability levels. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 91 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~( Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to increase both the number and affordability level of the units on the property. The current units, while operating as public housing units, are available to residents with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The 49 senior units will be available only to households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI. If the developers' planned financing is successful, HUD policy will require that at least 40% of those units be reserved for extremely low income households (below 30% of AMI). The family rental units will be restricted to varying income levels, none of which will exceed 60% of AMI. Thus, all of the affordable rental units will beincome-restricted at levels lower than they are currently, including some for those with extremely low income. The proposal is intended to create amixed-income community that more than replaces the number of low-income units being removed, in compliance with several policies contained in Dublin's Housing Element. The Dublin Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents, as required by applicable Federal regulations. Relocation efforts, as documented in the Relocation Plan, include an outreach program for residents and convening several resident meetings to describe the proposed redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project Site. Relocation specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and would continue to provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for comparable housing opportunities in the Dublin area and referrals regarding governmental and social service agencies, as needed. Relocation payments have been provided to residents and will continue to be provided in accordance with California Guidelines and federal requirements. In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation payments as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale" dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and people from the Site would be less-than- significant. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 92 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section addresses potential impacts to fire and police services. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fire service. Fire, rescue and emergency medical services to the Project is provided by Alameda County Fire Department, under contract to the City of Dublin. The nearest fire station to the Site is Station No. 17, located at 6200 Madigan, approximately 1.5 miles due east of the Arroyo Vista Site. The station houses one engine and one truck company. Police service. Police service to the Arroyo Vista Site is provided by the City of Dublin Police Services Department, headquartered at Dublin Civic Center, approximately 1.0 mile southwest of the Project Site. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Standards of significance. The proposed Project would be considered to result in a °~~ significant impact if there is a demonstrable need for additional fire, police or emergency facilities to serve the proposed Project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following impacts have been identified as less-than-significant. Fire service. Under the proposed Project, fire, rescue and emergency medical services would continue to be provided to the Project by the Alameda County Fire Department. Although the number of calls for service from the Project Site would likely increase, due to the proposed increase in the number of dwellings on the Site, new construction on the Site would include construction materials and features that would reduce fire service impacts, including increased water pressure from an upgraded on-site water distribution system, fire resistant roof materials and interior sprinklers in the proposed dwellings. Based on discussion with representatives from the Alameda County Fire Department staff, the Department could serve the proposed Project from Fire Station 17 without the need for new or expanded fire facilities (Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department, 4/29/08). Aless-than-significant impact is therefore anticipated with regard to this fire services. Police service. Police service to the Site would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin, although the increase in the number of additional dwellings constructed pursuant to the proposed Project would result in greater calls for police service. This anticipated increase would be less-than-significant and could be accommodated by existing Police staffing and capital facilities (Val Guzman, Dublin Police Services 4/30/08). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 93 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin a1~ ~1 ~Y 4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the DEIR is based on a traffic impact analysis prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants dated June 20, 2008. This report (the "traffic report") is hereby incorporated by reference into this DEIR. The full text of the traffic report is contained in Appendix 8.7. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing street network. The Project Site is served by the following streets and roadways: Interstate 580 (I-580) is an eight-lane, east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local Tri-Valley cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional cities such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the City of Dublin, I-580 carries between 195,000 and 218,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans' 2006 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways). I-580 interchanges are located at San Ramon Road /Foothill Road, Dougherty Road /Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and Fallon Road/El Charro Road. Interstate 680 (I-680) is a six-to-eight lane north-south freeway that provides access to the south to Fremont, Milpitas and San Jose, and north to San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek and beyond. In the vicinity of the City of Dublin, I-680 carries between 154,000 and 173,000 vpd (vehicles per pay) (according to Caltrans' 2006 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways). Dougherty Road is a north-south arterial in the City of Dublin. It consists of four lanes between the Alameda/Contra Costa county line and Dublin Boulevard, and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I-580. South of I-580, it continues with six lanes as Hopyard Road in the City of Pleasanton. The Project fronts Dougherty Road with four unsignalized driveways along Dougherty, including North and South Mariposa Drives, Ventura Drive and Monterey Drive. The City has nearly completed widening Dougherty Road to six lanes between Houston Place and Dublin Boulevard and eight lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I- 580. Airway Boulevard/Isabel Avenue (SR-84) is an arterial in the Project vicinity. It provides access to traffic from the I-580/Airway Boulevard interchange to the residential and commercial uses in northwest Livermore and also the Livermore Airport and the Las Positas Golf Courses to the south of I-580 freeway. It connects to I-680 via the extension of Isabel Avenue, Vallecitos Road. Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. Dublin Boulevard, west of Dougherty Road is a four- to six-lane divided road fronted largely by retail and commercial land uses. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 94 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin by residential uses, commercial uses, and vacant land. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Lockhart Street as a four- to five-lane roadway fronted r by new mixed- use development. A future extension to Fallon Road is planned to open when improvements to the I-580/Fallon Road interchange are completed ' by approximately 2010. Hacienda Drive is an arterial that provides access to I-580. North of I-580, Hacienda Drive is a three-to five-lane arterial running in the north-south direction from Gleason Drive southerly to Dublin Boulevard, and six-to-seven lanes from Dublin Boulevard to I-580. It is primarily fronted by commercial, office and residential uses. South of I-580, Hacienda Drive is a divided six-lane major arterial in the City of Pleasanton. Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at I-580 to the south and continues north to the Town of Danville. It is four to six lanes wide between I-580 and North Dublin Ranch Drive. It is named Camino Tassajara north of the Contra Costa County line. Santa Rita Road is a major north-south six-lane divided urban arterial in the City of Pleasanton. It connects with Tassajara Road at I-580 to the north. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park, and provides access to the downtown Pleasanton area. Existing traffic volumes and lane geometry. The existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle turning movement counts at all study intersections were collected in May 2007. The traffic counts were balanced for a few closely spaced intersections to account for differences in the manual counts. The volume balancing is based on a review of traffic count data collected for previous City of Dublin traffic studies. Appendix B of the traffic report (see Appendix 8.7) contains the traffic count sheets. Exhibit 4.11-1 shows the existing intersection lane configurations and traffic controls at all study intersections. Existing transit service. The Project Site is served by the following transit providers. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels). Wheels is the fixed-route bus transit service provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Current bus routes serving the East Dublin area, including the immediate Project vicinity along I-580, are Routes 1, 3, 10, 12, 20X, and 202. Routes 3 and 202 provide service to the Arroyo Vista Site with a bus stop for northbound and southbound service on the west side of the Mariposa Drive loop. Route 1 consists of Routes 1A, 1B, 1C and 1E. Route 1A operates clockwise and Route 1B operates counter-clockwise. Routes 1A and 1B connect the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station with the Santa Rita jail, Hacienda Crossing, and the Rose Pavilion. Routes 1A and 1B operate on weekdays between 5:40 a.m. and 9:OOp.m. Route 1C . operates via the southern part of Routes 1A and 1B during the morning and afternoon peak periods between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. respectively. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 95 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~~ c Route 1E connects Dublin BART to Dublin Ranch via Central Parkway and Tassajara Road during the same periods as Route 1C. Service is provided with 30-minute headways. Route 1 operates on Saturdays between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Route 3 connects the Dublin BART station and Stoneridge Mall along Dublin Boulevard and Foothill Road. Route 3 serves the existing Arroyo Vista housing Site with a bus stop located on the west side of the Mariposa Drive loop. Service is provided from 5:40 a.m. to 8:10 p.m. on weekdays with 30-minute headways. Route 3 operates on Saturdays between 6:20 a.m. and 7:20 p.m. Route 10 provides 24-hour daily service between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and LLNL / Sandia Transit Hub in Livermore at 30-minute headways. Route 12 provides service between the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station and the Livermore Transit Center at 30-minute headways on weekdays between 5:30 a.m. and 9:50 p.m. Weekend service on Route 12 is provided between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. at one-hour headways. Route 20X provides weekday morning and afternoon service at 30-minute headways. Route 20X connects the Dublin BART station with two Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) train stations in Livermore. Route 202 provides school service connecting Dougherty Road to Wells Middle School and Dublin High School with one morning run and one afternoon run. Route 202 serves the existing Arroyo Vista housing Site. Direct Access Response Transit (DART) provides service during off-peak hours when most fixed-route buses are not in operation. Weekday service operates between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. DART operates on Saturdays between 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Dial-a-Ride paratransit is also available seven days a week for passengers with disabilities. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). BART provides regional rail transit service in the study area via the Dublin/Pleasanton station. BART runs at 15- to 20-minute headways between 4:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. on weekdays. Saturday service is available every 20 minutes between 6:00 a.m. and 12:45 a.m. Service is also available on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:45 a.m. with 20-minute headways. A new West Dublin-Pleasanton station is currently under construction and is expected to be operational within about three years. Additionally, Long-range planning studies are currently being conducted to determine the feasibility of extending BART lines to Livermore. The studies also will examine alternative means of improving transit service to Livermore in the BART corridor until funds are available to construct the BART extension. ACE Commuter Train Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) offers an alternative to the automobile for regional commute trips from Livermore to Pleasanton and the South Bay area including Fremont, Santa Clara and San Jose. ACE trains provide westbound service to the South Bay area in the morning and eastbound service in the evening. There is one ACE station in Pleasanton near the intersection of Bernal Avenue and Pleasanton Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 96 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~-~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 'z ~~ Avenue. Livermore has two ACE stations, one in Downtown near the Livermore ~` Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection and the other on Vasco Road, at the Vasco Road/Brisa Street intersection. In the morning, westbound trains stop at Pleasanton at approximately 5:35 a.m., 6:50 a.m., 7:55 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. In the afternoon and evening, eastbound trains stop at Pleasanton at approximately 12:56 p.m., 4:26 p.m., 5:26 p.m. and 6:26 p.m. Existing bicycle and pedestrian circulation. The Project Site is bounded on the west by the Alamo Creek Trail that extends to Amador Valley Boulevard and to the Dublin City Limits to the north and the Iron Horse Trail and the Dublin Civic Center and Dublin Sports Grounds to the south. The Alamo Creek Trail is a multipurpose trail that provides access to the Alamo Creek Villas and Park Sierra Apartment homes located west of the trail. Several direct connections exit to this trail along the length of the Project Site. Currently, a sidewalk exists on the west side of Dougherty Road that borders the Project Site. There are no southbound bicycle lanes in this area, but there is an eight foot shoulder in the southbound direction, not specifically designated for bicycle usage. On the east side of Dougherty Road, a Class I two-way north /south bike path with exclusive right-of-way runs parallel to Dougherty Road between Fall Creek Road just south of the Alameda County Line and Monterey Drive. Southbound cyclists are required to cross Dougherty Road westbound on the south side of the Monterey Drive intersection to continue southbound. A "Bicycle Crossing" warning sign facing northbound traffic exists south of this intersection to warn motorists of this crossing. The northbound bike path begins on Dougherty Road at Scarlett Drive/Iron Horse Trail. Iron Horse Trail is a major north-south multipurpose trail with a Class I bikeway, and also serves pedestrian and equestrian uses. The Iron Horse Trail starts from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and continues north through the San Ramon Valley to Concord. Currently, there are sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets within the Project Site. There are no existing dedicated bicycle lanes on these streets and thus cyclists are expected to share these streets with autos. Parking. A total of 203 parking spaces exist on the Project Site for residents and their guests, plus an additiona122 spaces for staff and public parking. Intersection level of service analysis, existing conditions. Table 4.11-1, below summarizes peak hour levels of service at all study intersections under Existing Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C of the traffic report. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of intersection operations that uses an A through F letter rating system related to travel delay and congestion. LOS A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. Under Existing Conditions, all signalized study intersections currently are operating at acceptable City standards of LOS D or better except Dougherty Road/Dublin Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 97 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin *~ ~.-. ~a ~'. Boulevard (LOS E during the p.m. peak period). A City Capital Improvement Program Project is underway to increase the capacity of Dougherty Road in the vicinity of Dublin Boulevard. Upon commencement of this traffic analysis, a City Capital Improvement Project was underway to increase the capacity of Dougherty Road in the vicinity of Dublin Boulevard. Prior to the publication of this DEIR, construction was completed. As such the results of the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection operations are presented as both with and without the intersection improvements. With completion of the Project, the intersection operates at LOS B or better. Also, under Existing Conditions, all unsignalized study intersections currently are operating at LOS A with an acceptable minor approach service level of LOS D or better, except Dougherty Road / Ventura Drive and Dougherty Road /South Mariposa Drive. The minor approaches of these two intersections are both currently operating at LOS E or worse during the a.m. peak period. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 98 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Table 4.11-1. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Existing Conditions ~` ID d I ti Si li t A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour gna ze n ersec on V/ C LOS V/ C LOS 1 Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard 0.75 C 0.74 C 2 Dougherty Road/ScarlettDrive 0.58 A 0.55 A 3 Dougherty Road/Park Sierra 0.66 B 0.62 B 4 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard' ........~_.__..,._._....~.......,.,_~_...._...~....~_...._......_....._........~._~.._....._._.___._.__..__..__~_.._........_.._..~.~.,.~ ............... Wifh City's Capital Improvement Project 0.67 ........._.......____....~._......_ 0.48 B _...........~..._........_............... A 0.98 ....................~._.........._._......_. 0.63 E _...~...._._..._................~._.... B 5 Dougherty Road/ Westbound I-580 off-ramp 0.58 A 0.56 A 6 Hopyard Road/Eastbound I-580 off-ramp 0.72 C 0.71 C 7 Dublin Boulevard/ScarlettDrive 0.20 A 0.39 A 8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.28 A 0.54 A 9 Hacienda Drive /Westbound I-580 off-ramp 0.34 A 0.44 A 10 Hacienda Drive/Eastbound I-580 off-ramp 0.53 A 0.55 A ID Ll i li d I t ti A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ns gna ze n ersec on Delay LOS Delay LOS 11 Dougherty Road/Ventura Drive 0.2(42.5) A (E) 0.0 (21.6) A (C) 12 Dougherty Road/ N. Mariposa Drive 0.1(27.7) A (D) 0.1(19.5) A (C) 13 Dougherty Road/S. Mariposa Drive 1.2(62.8) A (F) 0.2(22) A (C) 14 Dougherty Road/Monterey Drive 0.1(18.4) A (C) 0.1(12.2) A (B) Notes: LOS =Level of Service V / C =Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection X (X) =Intersection level of service (Level of service for the minor approach) X.X (X.X) =Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall one-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach) Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions 1. The existing a.m. level of service is worse than indicated due to underserved demand ;~ resulting from southbound traffic congestion. Due to the unserved demand on Southbound Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard during the AM Peak period (prior to completion of the ""~ improvements), the traffic counts under-represent actual demand. Without having physically measured delay, the actual intersection delay cannot be confirmed or presented. ,~ Source: TJKM, 2008 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE An impact would be significant if: • An intersection or Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) roadway segment operating at an acceptable level of service would deteriorate to Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 99 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ""` unacceptable levels with the addition of project or cumulative traffic. The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation Element and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy standards require that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency recommends a LOS E for ACCMA facilities. Although the City of Pleasanton September 2008 Draft Circulation Element allows gateway intersections, such as the ramp intersections along I-580 to exceed the City-wide LOS D standard, this document has not yet been approved, so its policies cannot be applied. As such, LOS D standard was also applied for the ramp study intersections along I-580 in Pleasanton; • An ACCMA Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) facility segment would operate unacceptably without the project, the impacts of the proposed project are considered significant if the contribution of project traffic is at least two percent of the total traffic; • A demand for public transit service would be created above that which local transit operators or agencies could accommodate. In addition, an impact would be significant if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. An impact is also significant if the project disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to accommodate transit demand; • A project design feature would be created, such as a sharp curve or potentially hazardous intersection that would not be consistent with City of Dublin engineering design standards or standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or Caltrans; • A project provides insufficient on-site parking; or • A project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, pedestrian facilities and bicycle racks). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section of the DEIR includes an analysis of the Project's anticipated impacts on the local roadway system, regional roads and freeways, public transit, other modes of transit, parking and of any safety hazards that would be created. Traffic impacts of the proposed Project are analyzed below under short term (2015) cumulative and long-term cumulative (2025) scenarios. Local roadway system impacts. This subsection of the analysis includes a discussion of Project trip generation, distribution and impacts on the local roadway system. Project Trip Generation. TJKM estimated Project trip generation based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, shown in Table 4.11-2. The Project is expected to generate approximately 2,868 daily trips, with 198 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 224 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Since the Project is a redevelopment of an existing Site with similar land uses, traffic generated by existing development at the existing Site driveways has been deducted from total trips for the Site. As a result of these discounts, the Project is expected to generate 83 net a.m. peak hour trips and 110 net p.m. peak hour trips. Appendix D, located in the appendix of the Traffic Report, contains a detailed Project trip generation calculation spreadsheet. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 100 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin .:~ ~ i ~~ ~~ ~{ ~k Table 4.11-2. Project Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit Rate Total Trip In:Out In Out Total Trip In:Out In Out Total Rate qo Rate qo Low Rise 1 58 d.u. 11.8 684 0.61 21:79 7 28 35 0.72 65:35 27 15 42 A artment (221) - Rental Townhouse 72 u d 10 5 756 0.70 33:67 17 34 51 0.72 51:49 26 25 51 (224)z . . . Senior Housing - 50 u. d 3.48 174 0.08 45:55 2 2 4 0.11 61:39 3 2 5 Attached (252) . Residential detached 198 d.u. 5.79 1 147 0.45 17:83 15 74 89 0.53 67:33 71 35 104 Condominium / , Townhouse (230)1 Sub Total 2,762 41 138 179 127 77 204 Residential Tri s Day Care Center 48 stu. 4.48 215 0.80 53:47 20 18 38 0.82 47:53 18 21 39 (565) Internalization of Day Care Center -108 -10 -9 -19 -9 -10 -19 Trips (50%u assumed) Net Day Care Trips 107 10 9 19 9 11 20 Total Project Trips 2,868 51 147 198 136 88 224 Existing Site Traffic 48 67 115 62 52 114 Net Project Trips 3 80 83 74 36 110 Notes: d.u. =Dwelling Units stu. =Students/Children 'Rates developed from ITE equations 2Daily equation for code 221 was used to estimate the daily trips for code 224 Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003) & TJKM, 2008 The analysis assumes 50 percent internalization of daycare center trips to account for home-based trips made internally within the Project Site between the residences and daycare center. The daycare center is intended to serve local residents; the home to daycare trip does not leave the immediate Project area and. affect any surrounding streets or intersections. The other 50 percent of the day care trips are expected to originate externally. Trip Distribution and Assignment. Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would travel between a given project site and various destinations outside a given project area. The process of trip assignment determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the estimated trip distribution. The Dublin Traffic Model was used to develop trip distribution and assignment of Project trips to and from the Site. Project trips were assigned to the local street network according to the model's trip distribution. Trips were assigned to the driveways in Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 101 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin r ~:~ _., 4 j proportion to residential unit counts. Exhibits 4.11-2 and 4.11-3 show the distribution of the net Project trips in the study area for the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour respectively. As shown in Exhibits 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, the Project is expected to generate approximately eight net a.m. peak hour trips and three net p.m. peak hour trips to and from San Ramon. Most of the trips to/from the north of the Project Site are made via Dougherty Road. Therefore Project impacts in San Ramon are expected to be less than significant. Project Site Access Assumptions. The following Project Site access was assumed by considering transit circulation, driveway queuing, and a review of the Project Site plan for consistency with the City's design policy guidelines. The existing Project Site access driveways along Dougherty Road would be reconfigured as follows: • Dougherty Road /Monterey Drive will be restricted with aright-in/right-out access traffic control; • Dougherty Road /South Mariposa Drive will operate with full access; • Dougherty Road /North Mariposa Drive will be eliminated; • Dougherty Road / Ventura Drive will have aleft-turn egress restriction. Detailed discussions of the above Site access and recommended traffic controls are presented later in this section. Existing plus Project conditions. This condition is similar to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of net Project traffic to assess any traffic impacts at the study intersections if the Project were to be developed immediately. This analysis scenario evaluates the effect that the Project has on "baseline" (existing) conditions, as required by CEQA. Exhibit 4.11-4 shows the resulting turning movement volumes at the study intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions. Table 4.11-3 summarizes peak hour levels of service at all study intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix E of the Traffic Report. Table 4.11-3 shows slight increases in volume to capacity ratios (v/c) and delay compared with Table 4.11-1 for all signalized and unsignalized study intersections, respectively. The analysis assumes that the current improvements at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road will be completed by the time the Project is developed. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 102 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~ ~~ ~T ~~ ~~~. Table 4.11-3. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Existing plus Project Conditions Existing Conditions Existing + Project Conditions ID Signalized Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour V/ C LOS V/ C LOS V/ C LOS V/ C LOS 1 Doug erty Road Amador Valley 0.75 C 0.74 C 0.76 C 0.75 C Boulevard 2 Dougherty Road /Scarlett Drive 0.58 A 0.55 A 0.62 B 0.61 B 3 Dougherty-Road /Park Sierra 0.66 B 0.62 B 0.68 B 0.64 B Doug erty Road Dublin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Boulevard' 4 ------: --------------------------------------------------------_ Wrth City's Capital Improvement ~ _..-_-------- 0.48 --------- A --------------- 0.63 --------- B --------------- 0.49 -___-- B ---_._------ 0.63 -----_. B Pro ect 5 Doug erty Road Westbound I-580 0.58 A 0.56 A 0.59 A 0.56 A off-ram 6 Hopyard Road Eastbound I-580 0.72 C 0.71 C 0.72 C 0.71 C off-ram 7 Dublin Boulevard /Scarlett Drive 0.2 A 0.39 A 0.21 A 0.4 A 8 Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard 0.28 A 0.54 A 0.26 A 0.51 A 9 Hacienda Drive Westbound I-580 0.34 A 0.44 A 0.34 A 0.44 A off-ram 10 Hacienda Drive Eastbound I-580 0.53 A 0.55 A 0.53 A 0.53 A off-ram A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak ID Unsignalized Intersection Hour Hour Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 11 Dougherty Road / Ventura Drivel 0.2(42.5) A (E) 0.0 (21.6) A (C) 0.2(19.2) (C) (12 6) A (B) 12 Doug3 erty Road N. Mariposa 0.1(27.7) A (D) 0.1(19.5) A (C) - - - - Drive Doug erty Road S. Mariposa Drivel 1.2(62.8) A (F) 0.2(22) A (C} 3.7 (91.4) A (F) 0.8 (23 2) A ~C~ 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ---------- ---------------- - -- ---- -- --------------- ------- -- -- - With Traffic Signals as Mitigation4 - - - - 0.67 B 0.57 A 14 Dougherty Road /Monterey Drivel 0.1(18.4) A (C) 0.1(12.2) A (B) 0.2(20.6) (C} ~ 2 5) A (B) Notes: LOS =Level of Service V / C =Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection X (X) =Intersection level of service (Level of service for the minor approach) X.X (X.X) =Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall one-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach} Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions 1. City's CIP intersection improvement project is assumed to be complete by the time the Project is developed 2. Reconfigured driveway as proposed in Arroyo Vista Project 3. Intersection does not exist with Project 4. Performance measure is v/c Source: TJKM 2008 Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 103 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,~., ~w Under Existing plus Project Conditions, all signalized study intersections are expected to continue operating at acceptable levels of service. Because left turns would be prohibited from existing Ventura Drive (future Public Street B) onto Dougherty Road, operations would improve to an acceptable LOS. There would be a significant impact, however, with increased delays for vehicles attempting to exit the Project Site from South Mariposa Drive, especially turning northbound on Dougherty Road. This would be a significant impact. Impact 411-1 (local traffic dela a~ t Project driveway Under Existing Conditions, side-street traffic on South Mariposa Drive at Dougherty Road would experience unacceptable LOS F conditions during the a.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would substantially exacerbate this condition (significant impact and mitigation required). This impact will be reduced to a level ofless-than-significant with adherence to the following measure that requires signalization at a Project driveway to allow an adequate "gap" in cross traffic so that vehicles can safely exit the Project Site. Mitig,,ation Measure 4.11-1 (local traffic delay at Project driveway The South Mariposa Road/Dougherty Road intersection shall be signalized to improve operations to an acceptable level. Signalization will result in LOS A operations. The signal shall be installed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Dublin. Short term Cumulative (2015) Conditions (without Project). This scenario examines impacts on local roads in the year 2015 that includes existing development in Dublin as well as approved by not yet constructed projects. These other development projects are assumed to be developed by the Year 2015. Dublin Traffic Model (2015) assumptions. The Dublin Traffic Model (DTM) was used for the future 2015 forecasts. In order to forecast traffic generated by land uses, the DTM divides the region into traffic analysis zones (TAZs), which contain information on existing and/or projected land uses that are located within a particular TAZ. Each TAZ is connected to the adjacent street network via a connector, which provides access to and from the TAZ. Depending on the type of land uses allocated to each zone, the TAZ will generate a certain combination of outbound trips (trip production) and inbound trips (trip attraction) during the analysis period(s). For example, a residential TAZ would generate a net production of trips in the a.m. peak hour and a net attraction of trips in the p.m. peak hour. Conversely, a TAZ that contains office development would generate a net attraction of trips in the a.m. peak hour and a net production of trips in the p.m. peak hour. The expected 20151and uses for each TAZ within City of Dublin were developed using a linear interpolation between existing 20041and uses and 2025 Buildout land uses, in consultation with City staff. The land use data from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Mode12025 conditions was conservatively assumed for the 2015 analysis for areas outside the City of Dublin. The TAZ map is contained in Appendix F of the full traffic analysis. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 104 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin '; > . ~,~, ' '' ~'' v' ~} 7', Under Short Term Cumulative conditions, the network used in the analysis included arterial extensions and improvements planned in the Tri-Valley Area, including the following: 1. Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and North Canyons Parkway at Doolan Road (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program). 2. Fallon Road extension between existing terminus at the Dublin Ranch Golf Course and Tassajara Road (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program}. 3. Central Parkway between Arnold Road and east of Fallon Road (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program). 4. Planned improvements to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection and the widening of Dougherty Road from four to six lanes between I-580 to Houston Place (under construction with a completion date in 2008). 5. All improvements identified for the Dublin Transit Center and the Blake Hunt (previously IKEA) retail center (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program). 6. Windemere Parkway connection with Camino Tassajara in Contra Costa County (Now open). 7. El Charro Road between I-580 and Stanley Boulevard (Pleasanton General Plan). 8. Busch Road connection with El Charro Road (Pleasanton General Plan). 9 Stoneridge Drive connection with El Charro Road (Pleasanton General Plan). 10 Jack London Boulevard extension between the Livermore Airport area and El Charro Road (City of Livermore General Plan). 11.Widening of Route 84 (Isabel Avenue and Vallecitos Road) to six lanes north of Stanley Boulevard and four lanes south of Stanley Boulevard and on Vallecitos Road (Fully funded with a target completion date in 2012). In addition, the following freeway and interchange improvements were also included: • The Phase I Fallon Road / I-580 interchange improvements currently planned by the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, and Caltrans (City of Dublin -Now under construction with completion scheduled for 2009). • The I-680/West Las Positas interchange in Pleasanton is not included since Pleasanton has no plans to construct it. "*~ • The Isabel (Rt. 84) / I-580 interchange Stage I and II improvements. This includes .~ the removal of ramps at Portola Avenue (Fully funded -Construction is scheduled to ~~: occur from 2009 to 2012). • Improvements to I-580 interchanges in Livermore identified in the City of •* Livermore General Plan at N. Livermore Avenue, N. First Street, Vasco Road and Greenville Road (City of Livermore General Plan). • Improvement of I-580 between Santa Rita Road /Tassajara Road and Vasco Road ""` to include four mixed flow lanes, one HOV lane and one auxiliary lane in each direction (Fully funded -Construction is scheduled to be complete by 2015). • Construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station (Under construction - "~ scheduled to be complete by 2010). • No extension of BART facilities east of the existing Dublin/Pleasanton station. ~, • The 2015 network does not assume the planned extension of Scarlett Drive from Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard. Therefore Dublin Boulevard /Scarlett Drive is analyzed as a three-leg ("T") intersection. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 105 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin c~ ~' ti~ Exhibit 4.11-5 shows the Short Term Cumulative Conditions traffic volume forecasts using the Dublin Traffic Model. All planned improvements, including the study intersection lane configurations and traffic control under Short Term Cumulative Conditions, is shown on Exhibit 4.11-6. Under Short Term Cumulative without Project Conditions, all study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service except for the following intersections: • The Dougherty Road /Amador Valley Boulevard intersection is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. Improvements to the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection to achieve an acceptable LOS D or better would require widening Dougherty Road to include one additional southbound through lane. There are plans to widen (including an additional southbound and additional northbound through lane) the segment of Dougherty Road between Scarlett Drive and the north City Limits after 2015 under the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), funded by the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees. Without the CIP improvements, the Dougherty Road /Amador Valley Boulevard intersection will operate at an unacceptable level of service. • The Hacienda Drive /Westbound I-580 off-ramp is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. Improvements to the intersection to achieve an acceptable LOS D or better would require widening the off-ramp to include a third left-turn lane and widening the overcrossing to include a fourth northbound lane. There are plans to complete these improvements after 2015, as they are planned for funding by Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees. Without signalization at South Mariposa Road, eastbound motorists exiting the Project along Dougherty Road are expected to experience significant delays due to minimal gaps in traffic needed for safe turns. Table 4.11-4 summarizes peak hour levels of service at all study intersections under Short Term Cumulative Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix G of the Traffic Report. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 106 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Table 4.11-4. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - "~' Short Term Cumulative Conditions ID Signalized Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour V / C LOS V / C LOS 1 Dougherty Road /Amador Valley Boulevard 1.11 F 1.00 F 2 Dougherty Road /Scarlett Drive 0.82 D 0.61 B 3 Dougherty Road /Park Sierra 0.71 C 0.49 A 4 Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard 0.79 C 0.87 D 5 D~ugherty Road /Westbound I-580 off- 0.79 C 0.68 B 6 Hopyard Road /Eastbound I-580 off-ramp 0.86 D 0.83 D 7 Dublin Boulevard /Scarlett Drive 0.36 A 0.59 A 8 Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard 0.70 B 0.68 B 9 aancienda Drive /Westbound I-580 off- 0.99 E 0.82 D 10 Hacienda Drive /Eastbound I-580 off-ramp 0.90 D 0.71 C ID Unsi nalized Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour g Delay LOS Delay LOS 11 Dougherty Road / Ventura Drive 1.5(120+) A(F) 0.1(120+) A(F) 12 Dougherty Road / N. Mariposa Drive 0.5(120+) A(F) 0.5(120+) A(F) 13 Dougherty Road / S. Mariposa Drive 17.9(120+) A(F) 1.6(120+) A(F) 14 Dougherty Road /Monterey Drive 0.1(26.4) A(D) 0.2(16.7) A(C) Notes: LOS =Level of Service V / C =Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection X (X) =Intersection level of service (Level of service for the minor approach) X.X (X.X) =Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall one-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach) Source: TJKM 2008 Short Term Cumulative (2015) plus Project condition. This scenario is similar to Short Term Cumulative Conditions, but with the addition of net Project traffic to assess any traffic impacts at the study intersections. Exhibit 4.11-7 shows the resulting turning movement volumes at the study intersections under 2015 plus Project conditions. Table 4.11-5 summarizes peak hour levels of service at all study intersections under Short Term Cumulative plus Project Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix H of the traffic report. Table 4.11-5 shows little or no change in intersection performance compared with Table 4.11-4 for all study intersections, because the Project is expected to add minimal net trips to the roadway network. The intersection of Dougherty Road /Amador Valley Boulevard would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the addition of the Project. The Project would increase the volume to capacity (v/c) ratios at the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection by 0.01 or less during the a.m. and p.m. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 107 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,~ ~^, ~~1~ ~~ ~f peak periods. The level of service would remain unchanged at LOS F. Although the Project contribution is minor, the Project would degrade an existing unacceptable condition. Therefore, Project impacts would be significant but could be mitigated by widening of Dougherty Road. This is a planned CIP project expected to occur after 2015. Impact 4.11-2 (short-term cumulative traffic impacts): Under Short-term Cumulative (2015) Conditions, the intersection of Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard would operate at unacceptable LOS F conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The addition of project traffic would exacerbate this condition (significant impact and mitigation required). Roadway modifications to improve operations to LOS D or better at the Dougherty Road /Amador Valley Boulevard intersection include the addition of a southbound through lane. Two projects have been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (96850 and 96855) to add an additional through lane in both the northbound and southbound directions on Dougherty Road, including a landscaped median, from the existing six-lane cross-section to Amador Valley Boulevard and from Amador Valley Boulevard to the northern City Limit. The improvements will be funded by fees collected through the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) program and Contra Costa County's Dougherty Valley fee program. The Arroyo Vista Project is not part of the EDTIF program, and as such is not required to contribute toward the Dougherty Road widening improvements. The total cost to widen Dougherty Road is about $8.3 million. The Project applicant could not feasibly pay this amount to complete the full Project to mitigate the impact prior to 2015. With the Project contributing only about 1.5 percent toward future traffic growth at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, the $8.3 million far exceeds a fair share contribution of $125,000. Furthermore, either completion of the full Project or payment of a fair share contribution would introduce excess value or credits in the fee program that are not legally justified. Even partial widening, to add one additional southbound lane only, would require capital improvements far in excess of the project's fair share amount of $125,000 and would introduce excess credits to the fee program. As such, measures for the Project applicant to mitigate the significant Project impact by 2015 are not feasible. While construction of these improvements using funds collected through the EDTIF program would eventually reduce the impact to ales-than-significant level, because the improvements will likely not be complete by 2015, the impact remains sis~nificant and unavoidable. It should be noted that this impact would be temporary until an additional southbound lane is constructed as part of the Dougherty Road Improvements CIP project. Impact 4.11-3 (short-term cumulative traffic impacts): Under Short-term Cumulative (2015) Conditions, the intersection of Hacienda Drive / I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp would operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the a.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate this condition (significant impact and mitigation required). Roadway modifications to improve operations to LOS D or better at the Hacienda Drive/ I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp intersection include the widening of the off-ramp to Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 108 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ 1 G (~ accommodate a third westbound left-turn lane and the widening of the overcrossing to accommodate a fourth northbound lane. These improvements are included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) program and are planned for completion after 2015. The Arroyo Vista Project is not part of the EDTIF program, and as such is not required to contribute toward the interchange improvements. The total cost for these improvements is estimated at $9.4 million. The Project applicant could not feasibly pay this amount to complete the full project to mitigate the impact prior to 2015. With the Project contributing only about 0.06 percent toward future traffic growth at the intersection, the $9.4 million far exceeds a fair share contribution of $5,900. Furthermore, either completion of the full project or payment of a fair share contribution would introduce excess value or credits in the fee program that are not legally justified. As such, measures for the Project applicant to mitigate the significant Project impact by 2015 are not feasible. While construction of these improvements using funds collected through the EDTIF program would eventually reduce the impact to aless-than-significant level, because the improvements will likely not be complete by 2015, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that this impact would be temporary until such time when the improvements funded through the EDTIF are constructed. Another significant impact would result from eastbound motorists exiting the Project Site from the Dougherty Road/South Mariposa driveway. Motorists would experience excessive delays due to minimal gaps in traffic needed for safe turns. Impact 4.11-4 (impacts on side street traffic): Under Short-term Cumulative (2015) Conditions, side-street traffic on South Mariposa Road at Dougherty Road experiences unacceptable LOS F conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate this condition (significant impact and mitigation required). This impact will be reduced to a level of less-than-significant with adherence to the following measure that requires signalization at the Project driveway to allow an adequate "gap" in cross traffic so that vehicles can safely exit the Project Site. Mitigation Measure 4.11-4 (impacts on side street traffic): Signalization of the South Mariposa Road/Dougherty Road intersection would improve operations to an acceptable Level. Signalization would result in LOS C operations during the a.rn. peak hour and LOS A operations during the p.m. peak hour. ~, Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 109 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ ~` 5 ~ ~, f~,. Table 4.11-5. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Short Term Cumulative plus Project Conditions Short Term Cumulative Conditions Short Term Cumulative plus Pro'ect Conditions ID Signalized Intersection A.M. Peak Hour .M. Peak Hou A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Doug erty Road / Amador Valley Boulevard 1.11 F 1 F 1.11 F 1.01 F 2 Dougherty Road /Scarlett Drive 0.82 D 0,61 B 0.82 D 0.63 A 3 Dougherty Road /Park Sierra 0.71 C 0.49 A 0.71 C 0.5 A 4 Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard 0.79 C 0.87 D 0.8 C 0.87 D 5 Doug erty Road Westbound I-580 off-ram 0.79 C 0.68 B 0.81 D 0.68 B 6 Hopyard Road Eastbound I-580 off- ram 0.86 D 0.83 D 0.86 D 0.68 B 7 Dublin Boulevard /Scarlett Drive 0.36 A 0.59 A 0.36 A 0.6 A 8 Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard 0.7 B 0.68 B 0.7 B 0.68 B 9 Haaenda Drive Westbound I-580 off- ram 0.99 E 0.82 D 0.99 E 0.82 D 10 Hacienda Drive Eastbound I-580 off- ram 0.9 D 0.71 C 0.9 D 0.71 C ID li d I i i A.M. Peak Hour .M. Peak Hou A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour gna ze ntersect on Uns Delay LOS Delay LDS Delay LOS Delay LOS 11 Dougherty Road / Ventura Drive' 1.5(120+) A(F) 0.1(120+) A(F) 0.2(28.8) A(D) 0.1(16.9) A(C) 12 Dougherty Road / N. Mariposa Drivel 0.5(120+) A(F) 0.5(120+) A(F) - - - - 13 Dougherty Road / S. Mariposa Drive' - ------------------------------------------------------------ With traffic signals as mitigation' 17.9(120+) - A(F) - 1.6(120+) - A(F) - 57.5(120+) 0.8 F(F) C 12.1(120+) 0.59 B(F) A 14 Dougherty Road /Monterey Drive' 0.1(26.4) A(D) 0.2(16.7) A(C) 0.2(30.7) A(D) 0.1(17.2) A(C) Notes: LOS =Level of Service V / C =Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection X (X) =Intersection level of service (Level of service for the minor approach) X.X (X.X) =Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall one-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach) Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions 1. Reconfigured driveway under Project conditions 2. Intersection does not exist with Project 3. Performance measure is V / C Source: TJKM 2008 Long Term Cumulative conditions (2025) (without Project). This section includes analysis results for 2025 traffic conditions that is the buildout of land uses allowed in the General Plan, and assumes the development of the potential 180-acre Camp Parks Redevelopment Project (Dublin Crossing). The 180-acre Camp Parks site is a portion of the RFTA site bounded by Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Road to the south, Arnold Road to the east and the extension of Central Parkway to the north. At the time of preparation of this report, the most reasonable foreseeable use of the site includes the following mixed-uses: 1,996 residential units, 196,000 square feet of retail, 196,000 square feet of campus office, 117,000 square feet of civic uses, plus provisions for open- Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 110 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin space and school uses. This assumed land use mix is consistent with the Alternative 5 Land Use Plan developed as part of a visioning process for Camp Parks redevelopment ,. completed in 2004. Dublin Traffic Model (2025) Assumptions. The DTM was used for the future 2025 ,._ forecasts. A description of the model development is contained in the Short term Cumulative (2015) Conditions section, above. Both the 2015 and 2025 models have similar roadway networks and assume the above-identified arterial extensions and ;:~, improvements planned in the Tri Valley Area. However, in addition to the 2015 base network, the following improvements are also included in the 2025 network: • Currently, there is only one access to Camp Parks off Dublin Boulevard. Two ~~: gates along Arnold Road are closed for security reasons. Camp Parks plans to relocate the existing Camp Parks access at Dublin Boulevard /Camp Parks Boulevard to the intersection of Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard to ~,, form afour-leg intersection. This traffic study assumes that this relocation will be completed by 2025 concurrent with the Camp Parks Redevelopment project. "~" • The City plans to extend Scarlett Drive from Dougherty Road to Dublin _. Boulevard. The study assumes that this extension will be completed by 2025. Therefore, Dublin Boulevard /Scarlett Drive is analyzed as a four-leg intersection "~ under 2025 Conditions (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program). • It is assumed that Central Parkway would be extended westerly concurrent with the Camp Parks Redevelopment Project. For this analysis, it was assumed that it would connect with Dougherty Road north of where Scarlett Drive intersects Dougherty Road. The intersection will be limited to a right in/right-out access. The actual alignment may differ as future studies for the Camp Parks " Redevelopment Project are prepared. • The widening of Dougherty Road from four to six lanes between Houston Place „•, and the north City Limits (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program). • As described in the Eastern Dublin Property Owners EIR, the Hacienda Road / I- 580 interchange will be widened by adding one lane to the eastbound and •, westbound off-ramps and one northbound lane to the overcrossing (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program). Exhibit 4.11-8 shows the resulting turning movement volumes at the study intersections under the Long Term Cumulative Conditions. Exhibit 4.11-9 shows the lane "~° configurations and traffic controls that are planned/programmed under the City of ~, Dublin Capital Improvement Program (CIP}, and which are consistent with the City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program. V Under Long Term Cumulative Conditions with the completion of the assumed '~ improvements, all study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service except for the following intersections: • Dougherty Road /Amador Valley Boulevard is expected to continue to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Additional ° ` improvements at the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection to achieve an acceptable LOS would require adding an exclusive southbound right turn lane, which requires an additional right-of-way acquisition beyond what is ` planned for the CIP. Without the additional right of way and southbound right- •. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 111 t Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin a~~ turn lane, the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service. Additionally, under a reconfigured Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard four-way intersection, the existing eastbound left-turn lane would need to be restriped as a shared left/through lane to accommodate ingress for Camp Parks. The eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection will need to operate with "split" traffic signal phasing because of the shared eastbound left/through lane. As noted in the introduction to this section, this scenario assumes the addition of a fourth leg to the intersection which would be the relocated Parks RFTA driveway at this location. Because the actual future location of the relocated Parks RFTA driveway has yet to be determined, a separate analysis is presented in the Traffic Report of relocating the driveway opposite South Mariposa Drive. The analysis shows that the Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection would operate acceptably without the fourth (the relocated Parks RFTA) leg, with or without the Arroyo Vista Project, and the southbound right turn lane would not be required. Furthermore, the South Mariposa Drive/Dougherty Road intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B with the Parks RFTA driveway located opposite South Mariposa Drive. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. No additional lanes beyond those in the current construction project are likely to be feasible due to physical constraints. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated forecasts for future years. Such monitoring should be done to assist the City to comply with General Plan policies requiring implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. In addition, current and future phases of the I-580 Smart Corridor Project will likely relieve some congestion at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. • Eastbound motorists exiting the Project driveways along Dougherty Road are expected to experience significant delays due to minimal gaps in traffic needed for safe turns. Table 4.11-6 summarizes peak hour levels of service at all study intersections under Long Term Cumulative Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix I of the Traffic Report. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 112 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin l u Table 4.11-6. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service- Long Term Cumulative Conditions (without Project) ID Si nalized Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour g V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Dougherty Road / Amador Valley Boulevard 0.91 E 0.95 E 2 Dougherty Road / Scarlett Drive 0.57 A 0.73 C 3 Dougherty Road /Park Sierra 0.70 B 0.52 A 4 Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard 0.80 C 0.94 E 5 Dougherty Road /Westbound I-580 off-ramp 0.55 A 0.78 C 6 Hopyard Road /Eastbound I-580 off-ramp 0.87 D 0.88 D 7 Dublin Boulevard / Scarlett Drive 0.78 C 0.81 D 8 Haaenda Drive /Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D 0.82 D 9 Hadenda Drive /Westbound I-580 off-ramp 0.88 D 0.75 C 10 Haaenda Drive /Eastbound I-580 off-ramp 0.81 D 0.71 C ID Unsi nalized Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour g Delay LOS Delay LOS I 1 Dougherty Road / Ventura Drive 0.3(120+) A(F) 0.0(35.6) A(E) 12 Dougherty Road / N. Mariposa Drive 0.1(68.3) A(F) 0.1(31.8) A(D) 13 14 Dougherty Road / S. Mariposa Drive Dougherty Road /Monterey Drive 3.1(120+) 0.1(30.0) A(F) A(D) 0.3(38.4) 0.2(16.8) A(E) AI Notes: Lvs = Levei of Service V / C =Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection X (X) =Intersection level of service (Level of service for the minor approach) X.X (X.X) =Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall one-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach) Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions Source: TJKM , 2008 Long Term Cumulative (2025) plus Project conditions. This scenario is similar to Long Term Cumulative Conditions, but with the addition of net Project traffic. Exhibit 4.11-10 shows the resulting turning movement volumes at the study intersections under 2025 conditions. Table 4.11-7 summarizes peak hour levels of service at all study intersections under Long Term Cumulative plus Project Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix J of the Traffic Report. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 113 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin a~ 4~ ~$= ~~ ~ ~~ .~ Table 4.11-7. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Long Term Cumulative plus Project Conditions Long Term Cumulative Long Term Cumulative + Conditions Pro'ect Conditions ID Signalized Intersection A.M, Peak Hour .M. Peak Hou .M. Peak Hou P.M. Peak Haur V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Doug erty Road Amador Valley 0.91 E 0.95 E 0.91 E 0.96 E Boulevard 2 Dougherty Road /Scarlett Drive 0.57 A 0.73 C 0.58 A 0.75 C 3 Dougherty Road /Park Sierra 0.7 B 0.52 A 0.71 C 0.53 A 4 Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard 0.8 C 0.94 E 0.81 D 0.95 E ,5 Doug erty Road Westbound I-580 off- 0.55 A 0.78 C 0.55 B 0.79 C ram 6 a pyard Road Eastbound I-580 off- 0.87 D 0.88 D 0.87 D 0.88 D n 7 Dublin Boulevard /Scarlett Drive 0.78 C 0.81 D 0.78 C 0.81 D 8 Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D 0.82 D 0.87 D 0.82 D 9 Hacienda Drive Westbound I-580 off- 0.88 D 0.75 C 0.88 D 0.75 C ram 10 Hacienda Drive Eastbound I-580 off- 0.81 D 0.71 C 0.81 D 0.72 C ram A M Peak Hour .M. Peak Hou .M. Peak Hou P.M. Peak ID Unsi nalized Intersection . . Hour g Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 11 Dougherty Road / Ventura Drive' 0.3(120+} A(F) 0.0(35.6) A(E) 0.1(27.8) A(D) 0.1(16.8) A(C) 12 Dougherty Road / N. Mariposa Drivel 0.1(68.3) A(F) 0.1(31.8) A(D) - - - - Dougherty Road / S. Mariposa Drive' 3.1(120+) A(F) 0.3(38.4) A(E) 7.1(120+) A(F) 1.0(38.8) A(E) 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------- ----------------- -------- ----------------- ----- ------------- -------- With traffic signals as mitigationz - - - - 0.6 B 0.45 A 14 Dougherty Road /Monterey Drive' 0.1(30.0) A(D) 0.2(16.8) A(C) 0.1(19.2) A(C) 0.1(13.8) A(B) Notes: LOS =Level of Service V / C =Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection X (X) =Intersection level of service (Level of service for the minor approach) X.X (X.X) =Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall one-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach) Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions 1. Reconfigured driveway under Project conditions; intersection limited to right-in/right-out with the Project. 2. Intersection does not exist with Project 3. Performance measure is V / C Source: TJKM Associates, 2008 This table shows little or no change in intersection performance compared with Table 4.11-6 for all study intersections, because the Project is expected to add minimal net trips to the roadway network. The intersections of Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road and Dougherty Road/S. Mariposa driveway will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E or worse after the construction of improvements programmed and planned. Details of these three intersections follow: Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 114 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin As noted in the Long Term Cumulative scenario, the intersection of Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard operates at an unacceptable LOS E condition during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. With Project traffic added, the v/crating stays the "~ same in the morning (0.91) and increases by 0.01 to 0.96 in the p.m. peak hour. However, as noted previously, this intersection will operate acceptably if the Parks RFTA entrance is not relocated opposite Amador Valley Boulevard but is relocated "~ opposite South Mariposa Drive instead. Impact 4.11-5 (Amador Vallev Blv__d./Dou~herty Rd. cumulative traffic impacts): The assumed relocation of the Camp Parks access onto Dougherty Road opposite Amador Valley Boulevard results in the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard-Camp Parks intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Long-term Cumulative (2025) Conditions. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate this condition (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure will reduce this impact, but not to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.11-5 (Amador Vallev Blvd./Dougherty Rd. cumulative traffic im acts :The Long-term Cumulative scenario assumes that the Dougherty Road Improvement CIP project is complete. Additional intersection modifications required to improve operations to LOS D or better include the addition of a southbound right- turnlane and modification of the traffic signal system to accommodate split phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches. Should the Camp Parks access not be relocated opposite Amador Valley Boulevard, then this significant Project impact would not occur. Even with the relocation of access to this location, the City does not have the authority to require the Army to construct improvements to the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. Therefore, the potential impact remains significant and unavoidable. The unacceptable conditions at the intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard would be exacerbated by traffic generated from the Arroyo Vista Project. No additional lanes beyond those in the current construction project are likely to be feasible due to physical constraints. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.11-6 (Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. cumulative traffic impacts): Under Long- term Cumulative (2025) Conditions, the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic will exacerbate this condition (significant impact and mitigation required). A CIP project was recently completed at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road .~. intersection. Businesses were relocated and right-of-way was acquired to accommodate the improvements, which include the addition of a third northbound left turn lane, a third northbound through lane, two exclusive northbound right-turn lanes, a second eastbound left-turn lane, a third eastbound through lane, a second eastbound right turn lane, a fourth southbound through lane, a third westbound left turn lane, and a third Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 115 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 301 ~= ~ westbound through lane. These improvements are assumed complete under the Short- term Cumulative and Long-term Cumulative scenarios. To improve operations in the future to LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour, a fourth northbound left-turn lane would be required. This modification is considered not feasible because of the potential safety implication of such a configuration. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City shall continue to monitor the operation at this intersection on a periodic basis. Such monitoring will assist the City to comply with General Plan policies requiring implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. Current and future phases of the I-580 Smart Corridor Project will likely relieve some congestion at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) measures and discourage traffic from diverting off of the freeway due to congestion or incidents. A third significant cumulative impact would be impacts to eastbound motorists exiting the Dougherty Road/South Mariposa driveway. These motorists would be expected to experience excessive delays due to minimal gaps in traffic. Impact 4.11-7 (S. Mariposa Dr./Dougherty Rd. cumulative traffic impacts): Under Long-term Cumulative (2025) Conditions, side-street traffic on South Mariposa Drive at Dougherty Road experiences unacceptable LOS F conditions during the a.m. peak hour and LOS E conditions during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate this condition (significant impact and mitigation required). This impact will be reduced to a level of less-than-significant with adherence to the following measure that requires signalization at a Project driveway to allow an adequate "gap" in cross traffic so that vehicles can safely exit the Project Site. Mitigation Measure 4.11-7 (S. Mariposa Dr./Dougherty Rd. cumulative traffic im acts : Signalization of the South Mariposa Drive/Dougherty Road intersection would improve operations to an acceptable level, LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS A during the p.m. peak hour. This signal shall be installed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Dublin. Alameda County CMP Land Use Analysis Program. The recently updated Countywide Transportation Demand Model (CMA Model) was used to forecast traffic volumes for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Analysis. Unlike the Dublin Traffic Model (DTM), which is a refinement of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) model, the CMA model has a more regional focus, larger traffic analysis zones, less elaborate street network, and fewer centroid connectors within the Tri-Valley area. The CMA model volumes were used to analyze the Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions and Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions, as indicated below. MTS arterial impacts. Table 4.11-8 summarizes the results of the analysis of Project impacts on various Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) segments of Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, San Ramon Road, and Dougherty Road in the study area. The analysis consists of measuring LOS on these roadway segments during the p.m. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 116 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ;~-~ peak hour under Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions and Long Term Cumulative '"~ (2030) Conditions with and without the Project as required by the CMA. The LOS results are based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for roadway segments. As shown in Table 4.11-8, all study roadway segments are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS E or better) in the p.m. peak hour under 2015 and 2030 conditions with and without the Project, except the following roadway segments: Dublin Boulevard: • Between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive -eastbound direction • Between Dougherty Road and Village Parkway -both eastbound and westbound directions (LOS F) under 2030 conditions San Ramon Road: • Between I-580 and Amador Valley Boulevard -northbound direction. As shown in the table, there are virtually no increases in v/ c with the addition of Project volumes, which is minimal (i.e. less than one percent) compared with the projected volumes without the Project. Therefore, because the Project contribution is less than two percent on these segments, the Project would have no significant impact on the MTS arterial system in the vicinity of the Project under Short Term Cumulative (2015) and Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions. __ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 117 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ..,>4~ „~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ,YEA Table 4.11-8. Year 2015 and Year 2030 PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Levels of Service ocation m v ~ a ,~~,, c Year 2015 No Project Year2015 plus Project of ~ *~ Year 2030 No Project Year 2030 plus Project o ~ ~ U P.M. Peak Volume V/C LOS P.M. Peak Volume V/C LOS Lanes ~ U P.M. Peak Volume V/C LOS P.M. Peak Volume V/C LOS Dublin Bou levard Between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road Eastbound Westbound 3 3 3,000 3,000 2,269 0.76 C 216 0.07 A 2,271 0,76 C 221 0.07 A 3 3 3,000 3,000 2,429 0.81 D 382 0.13 A 2,431 0.81 D 387 0.13 A Between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive Eastbound Westbound 3 3 3,000 3,000 1,862 0.62 B 1,360 0.45 A 1,864 0.62 B 1,360 0.45 A 3 3 3,000 3,000 3,059 1.02 F 2,869 0.96 E 3,061 1.02 F 2,869 0.96 E Between Dougherty Road and Village Parkway Eastbound Westbound 3 3 3,000 3,000 2,303 0.77 C 2,234 0.74 C 2,320 0.77 C 2,238 0.75 C 3 3 3,000 3,000 3,045 1.02 F 3,039 1.01 F 3,062 1.02 F 3,043 1.01 F Tassajara Road Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard Northbound Southbound 4 4 4,000 4,000 975 0.24 A 961 0.24 A 977 0.24 A 964 0.24 A 4 4 4,000 4,000 2,007 0.50 A 1,652 0.41 A 2,009 0.50 A 1,655 0.41 A Between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive Northbound ----------------- Southbound 3 ----- 3 3,000 ---------- 3,000 1,022 0.34 A ------------------------------- 701 0.23 A 1,022 0.34 A ----------------------------- 701 0.23 A 3 --------- 3 3,000 --------- 3,000 1,742 0.58 A ------------------------------ 1,058 0.35 A 1,742 0.58 A ----------------------------- 1,058 0.35 A North of Gleason Drive Northbound ------------------- Southbound 3 ----- 3 3,000 --------- 3,000 932 0.31 A ------------------------------ 471 0.16 A 932 0.31 A ------------------------------ 472 0.16 A 3 -------- 3 3,000 ---------- 3,000 1,669 0.56 A ------------------------------ 729 0.24 A 1,669 0.56 A ---------------------------- 730 0.24 A San Ramon Road Between I-580 and Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound ------------------- Southbound 3 ---- 3 3,000 --------- 3,000 3,154 1.05 F ---------------------------- 1,763 0.59 A 3,154 1.05 F ------------------------------- 1,763 0.59 A 3 --------- 3 3,000 ---------- 3,000 4,409 1.47 F ------------------------------ 2,404 0.80 D 4,409 1.47 F ------------------------------- 2,404 0.80 D Dougherty Road Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard Northbound ------------------- Southbound 4 ----- 4 4,000 ---------- 4,000 2,965 0.74 C ------------------------------- 2,003 0.50 A 2,986 0.75 C ----------------------------- 2,017 0.50 A 4 --------- 4 4,000 ---------- 4,000 2,965 0.74 C ------------------------------ 2,120 0.53 A 2,986 0.75 C ------------------------------ 2,134 0.53 A Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions Source: TJKM, 2008 Freeway/State Highway Impacts. As required by the 2007 CMP, Project impacts on I-580, I-680, and SR-84 were analyzed during the p.m. peak hour based on freeway capacity standards described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis was also conducted during the a.m. peak hour to satzsfy Caltrans' requirement for assessment during both peak periods. Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10 summarize the Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 118 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~.. ~. results of the analysis of Project impacts on various segments of I-580, I-680 and SR- ~` 84 in the vicinity of the Project. The analysis consists of measuring the levels of service on these freeway and State highway segments under Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions and Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions with and without the Project. The LOS analysis is based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for basic freeway sections and multilane highways. As shown in Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10, specific segments of I-580 and I-680 are expected to operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour under 2015 and 2030 conditions with and without the Project. SR-84 south of I-580 is expected to operate at acceptable LOS C or better in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under 2015 conditions with and without the Project, as shown in Table 4.11-9. Also, SR-84 south of I-580 is expected to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour under 2030 conditions with and without the Project, as shown in Table 4.11-10. With the Project trips added to No Project mainline freeway volumes and SR-84; projected LOS on I-580, I-680, and SR-84 would remain unchanged. Therefore, because the Project contribution is less than two percent on these segments, the Project will have no significant impact on freeway and state highway facilities in the vicinity of the Project under 2015 and 2030 conditions. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 119 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Table 4.11-9. Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions Freeway Analysis ~, Year 2015 (No Project) Year 2015 plus Project Number of Lanes n A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. . V Peak V/C LDS Peak V/C LDS Peak V/C LOS Peak V/C LOS Volume Volume Volume Volume I-580, East of I-680 Eastbound 4 8,000 5,089 0.64 C 8,230 1.03 F 5,089 0.64 C 8,230 1.03 F Westbound 5 10,000 11,169 1.12 F --- 5,879 -- 0.59 --- C ---- 11,185 --- 1.12 --- F ----- 5,886 --- 0.59 --- C I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive --- --- --- --- Eastbound 6 +aux. 13,000 6,365 0.49 B 10,854 0.83 D 6,373 0.49 B 10,856 0.84 D Westbound 4 +aux. 9,000 9,457 1.05 - F ---- 5,974 --- 0.66 --- C ---- 9,457 --- 1.05 --- F ----- 5,975 --- 0.66 --- C I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road --- --- --- --- Eastbound 5 10,000 4,253 0.43 B 10,988 1.10 F 4,261 0.43 B 10,989 1.10 F Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 8391 0.93 E ---- 4,293 --- 0.48 --- B ---- 8391 --- 0.93 --- E ----- 4,295 --- 0.48 --- B I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Eastbound ------ 4+aux. ----- 9,000 ---- 4,469 ---- 0.50 - - B -- 10,025 1.11 F 4,476 0.50 B 10,026 1.11 F Westbound 4 +aux. 9,000 10,082 - 1.12 - F ---- 4,594 --- 0.51 --- B ---- 10,082 --- 1.12 --- F ----- 4,597 --- 0.51 --- B I-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard Eastbound 4+aux. 9,000 -- 4,181 --- 0.46 -- B -- 10,135 1.13 F 4,186 0.47 B 10,136 1.13 F Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 11,891 1.32 - F ---- 4320 --- 0.48 --- B ---- ] 1,891 --- 1.32 --- F ----- 4323 --- 0.48 --- B I-680, Alcosta Boulevard to I-580 - -- --- --- --- Northbound 4 8,000 5,853 0.73 C 7359 0.92 D 5,853 0.73 C 7,360 0.92 D Southbound 4 8,000 7,213 0.90 D 5,473 0.68 C 7,213 0.90 D 5,480 0.69 C I-680, South of I-580 Northbound 3 6,000 4,041 0.67 C 8,272 1.38 F 4,041 0.67 C 8,272 1.38 F Southbound 3 +aux. 7,000 6,583 - 0.94 -- E 4,231 0.60 C 6,585 0.94 E 4,232 0.60 C SR 84, South of I-580 - -- - -- --- Northbound 2 4,000 2,524 0.63 C 1,762 0.44 B 2,524 0.63 C 1,762 0.44 B Southbound 2 4,000 2,260 0.57 C 2345 0.59 C 2,260 0.57 C 2345 0.59 C Source:1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N'`2000+1000) vehicles/hr For SR-84, Table 7-1, LOS Criteria for Multilane Highways (1985 HCM) was used assuming a capacity of 2,000 vehicles/hr/lane Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 120 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin -~, z / Y 4 Table 4.11-10. Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions Freeway Analysis ~, Year 2030 (No Project) Year 2030 plus Project Number of Lanes Q A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Peak V/C LOS Peak V/C LOS Peak V/C LOS Peak V/C LOS Volume Volume Volume Volume I-580, East of I-680 Eastbound 4 8,000 6,464 0.8I D 9,960 1.25 F 6,464 0.81 D 9,960 1.25 F Westbound 5 10,000 15,708 1.57 F 6,674 0.67 C 15,724 1.57 F 6,681 0.67 C I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive Eastbound 6 +aux. 13,000 8,016 0.62 C 12,590 0.97 E 8,024 0.62 C 12,592 0.97 E Westbound 4 +aux. 9,000 13,864 1.54 F 7,066 0.79 D 13,864 1.54 F 7,067 0.79 D I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Eastbound 5 I0,000 6,520 0.65 C 12,027 1.20 F 6,528 0.65 C 12,028 1.20 F Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 12,731 1.41 F 651 0.71 C 12,731 1.41 F 653 0.71 C I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Eastbound ----- 4 +aux. ----- 9,000 - - 644 --- 0.70 - C -- 12,479 139 F 651 - 0.71 - C -- 12,480 -- 1.39 F - Westbound 4 +aux. - - 9,000 - 14,490 -- 1.61 - F ---- 6,708 --- 0.75 --- C - -- 14,490 - - 1.61 - F --- 6,711 --- 0.75 --- C I-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard Eastbound 4 +aux. 9,000 6,632 0.74 C 12,972 1.44 F 6,637 0.74 C 12,973 1.44 F Westbound 4 +aux. 9,000 15,720 1.75 F 6,429 0.71 C 15,720 1.75 F 6,432 0.71 C I-680, Alcosta Boulevard to I-580 Northbound 4 8,000 6,646 0.83 D 9,028 1.13 F 6,646 0.83 D 9,029 1.13 F Southbound 4 8,000 9,591 1.20 F 5,982 0.75 C 9,591 1.20 F 5,989 0.75 C I-680, South of I-580 Northbound 3 6,000 3,791 0.63 C 10,095 1.68 F 3,791 0.63 C 10,095 1.68 F Southbound 3 +aux. 7,000 8,683 1.24 F 4,511 0.64 C 8,685 1.24 F 4,512 0.64 C SR 84, South of I-580 Northbound 2 4,000 3,753 0.94 E 3,198 0.80 D 3,753 0.94 E 3,198 0.80 D Southbound 2 4,000 3,549 0.89 E 2,965 0.74 D 3,549 0.89 E 2,965 0.74 D Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr For SR-84, Table 7-1, LOS Criteria for Multilane Highways (1985 HCM) was used assuming a capacity of 2,000 vehicles/hr/lane Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 121 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 111!? Transit system impacts. BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit). The potential impacts of the proposed Project on BART were evaluated by estimating increased ridership from the Project. Future ridership projections developed for the Eastern Dublin EIR were based on the assumption that the existing East Dublin/Pleasanton station would be the only station located in the Tri-Valley area. However, it is expected that the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, currently under construction, would also be available in the Tri-Valley area by the time the proposed Project is constructed. Riders generated by the residential uses were calculated based on the methodology used in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Dublin Transit Center (July 2001). For the Transit Center, it is assumed that 32.1 percent of households would use BART since the residential portion of that project is located near the Transit Center area (Draft EIR for Dublin Transit Center, SCH No. 20001120395 [July 2001], available at the City of Dublin). However, since the proposed Project would not be in the immediate vicinity of a BART station, it is assumed that approximately two percent of the Project households would commute by BART. This assumption is consistent with current BART ridership estimates within the Tri-Valley area containing the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and part of San Ramon. Approximately seven new riders from the proposed Project are expected to use BART, calculated as follows: Residential: 378 minus 50 senior units= 328 dwelling units x 1 rider/unit x 2% x 2 trips per day = approximatelyl4 trips/day (7 riders inbound to BART during the a.m. peak hour/ 8 riders outbound from BART during the p.m. peak hour) Currently, BART runs four 8-car trains to/from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station per hour during peak commute periods. The average number of annual weekday entries/exits at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is approximately 6,500. The West Dublin BART station currently under construction is projected to have approximately 6,000 daily entries/exits on its opening day in 2009 (BART.gov). Each BART train has a capacity of 560 seats, which translates into 2,240 seats during the peak hour. At the existing station, approximately 1,063 riders enter the station and 325 riders exit the station (total of 1,388 riders) during the a.m. peak hour. BART assumes a maximum load capacity of 1.35 persons per seat during the peak commute periods to account for sitting and standing passengers. During the p.m. peak hour, BART ridership at the station is lower, with a total of 1,266 riders (entering and exiting). Adding seven more entering riders during the a.m. peak hour would result in 1,070 riders traveling in the peak commute direction (westbound). With the added ridership from the proposed Project, the resulting load capacity would be 0.48 persons per seat (1,070 riders/2,240 seats), which is below BART's maximum load capacity. During the p.m. peak hour, the load capacity would be even lower with the additional eight riders generated by the proposed Project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated for the BART system. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 122 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin This analysis is conservative in that it assumes that all of the potential riders would '"` use BART during the peak hour of the morning and evening commutes. ~,- LAVTA (Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority) -Wheels. The number of daily riders expected to originate from the proposed Project and use Wheels service was estimated as part of the analysis. Assuming that two percent of Project residents use Wheels transit, Project ridership is calculated as follows: 328 dwelling units x 2% x 2 trips/day =approximately 13 daily riders. The ridership projection is conservative in that it does not subtract out riders from the existing Arroyo Vista housing. Several Wheels bus routes currently provide service to East Dublin, including lines 3, 12, 10, 1A, 1B, 202 and 20X, which can be used by residents to connect to BART and ACE services to the South Bay. Based on conversations with LAVTA staff, it is expected that LAVTA would continue to provide service after the Site is redeveloped. It is also expected that LAVTA would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate riders as needed. ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) Train. Providing commuter rail service from Stockton to San Jose, ACE train serves the Tri-Valley with one stop in Livermore and another at Pleasanton. ACE currently operates four round trips per day. Based on available data, ACE annual ridership is approximately 600,000. Ridership peaked in 2001 at approximately 930,000 (2006 MTC Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operations). There are no significant impacts anticipated for the ACE system since the Project is expected to marginally contribute riders to ACE train loading and ample capacity exists on the ACE system. On site bus circulation. The proposed Site plan was reviewed to determine the potential for bus circulation impacts resulting from reconfiguring the driveways connecting to Dougherty Road. Currently, Wheels bus Lines 3 and 202 (school days only) provide direct service to the existing Arroyo Vista housing Site from Dougherty Road with a counterclockwise loop via North Mariposa Drive that exits from South Mariposa Drive to Dougherty Road. The bus stop is located near the existing basketball court on the west side of South Mariposa Drive across from the tot lot. North Mariposa Drive would be removed with the redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista Project site. The removal of this roadway together with the proposed eastbound left-turn restriction at the Dougherty Road/ Ventura Drive (Future Street B) intersection would impact bus circulation, especially for northbound operations. Additionally, the proposed layout of the Site plan would require northbound buses to make various maneuvers to exit the Project Site. This would be a significant impact. Various options for alternate circulation have been examined and discussed in the Traffic Report. Impact 4.11-8 (transit circulation): The proposed Project would remove North Mariposa Drive access to Dougherty Road and prohibit left turns from Ventura Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 123 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ""~ Drive onto northbound Dougherty Road. Each of these changes would disrupt existing transit service (significant impact and mitigation required). The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level by requiring the placement of necessary public transit support facilities, such as bus stops, to be located in conjunction with the local service provider, the City and Project Developers. Mitigation Measure 4.11-8 (transit circulation): Provide alternate bus circulation and transit amenities necessary to accommodate demand . A final determination of bus routing shall be made through coordination between the City of Dublin, LAVTA and the Project applicant and shall be shown on Project improvement plans. The Project applicant shall provide the necessary bus stops and/or bus pullouts and associated amenities required to implement the final bus routes. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Impacts. The Site plan of the proposed Project was reviewed for consistency with the City's Bikeways Master Plan, to determine any impacts resulting from changes to existing and proposed bikeways. It was determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan and would preserve the existing alignment of the Alamo Creek Trail, which forms the western boundary of the Project Site. Additionally, the existing Class I bike path located on the east side of Dougherty Road will remain unchanged with the Project since the Site is located west of Dougherty Road. The Site plan includes sidewalks for safe pedestrian circulation within the development. Therefore the Project would have no significant impact on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. On-site parking. The Project sponsor proposes to provide 396 residential garage parking spaces, 261 uncovered surface parking spaces, and 168 covered surface parking spaces. This total of 825 spaces includes 23 spaces for the day care and community center. Table 4.11-11 provides an overview of required parking supply according to the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed parking supply. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 124 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Table 4.11-11. Comparison of Required Parking Supply and Proposed Parking Supply ~' Required Parking per Proposed Parking Project Quantity Zoning (No. of stalls) Ordinance (No. of stalls) den Housin Portion Affordable Apartments 130 units 130 covered 130 covered 130 uncovered 108 uncovered Senior Housing 50 units 50 covered 17 uncovered 38 covered Day Care Center Community 50 c ildren 18 25 Buildin 8 em to ees Eden Housing Subtotal 345 302 Citation Homes Portion Detached Homes 57 units 114 garage 114 garage 57 uncovered 57 uncovered Attached Homes 141 units 282 garage 282 garage 71 uncovered 71 uncovered Citation Homes Subtotal 524 524 Project Total 869 825 44 stall deficit (5%) The community building is a building that would be used by the residents of the Eden Housing portion of the Arroyo Vista Project only. Because of its nature, parking is not required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicants are proposing to provide 10 parking stalls for use by visitors and employees at the community building, which are in excess of what the Zoning Ordinance requires. Additionally, bicycle racks would be located at the community building and pedestrian paths and sidewalks to connect the community building with the dwellings to encourage residents to walk to the building rather than drive. These additiona110 parking stalls may also be used for overflow parking from the senior or affordable housing projects, when not in use, or for the day care facility. Regarding parking for the affordable family apartment portion of the Project, Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations requires apartment complexes to provide one covered or garaged parking stall for each dwelling unit and one uncovered parking stall for guest or unrestricted parking per unit. Based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the affordable apartments would be required to provide 260 total parking spaces (two parking spaces for each of the 130 dwelling units). The Applicants have proposed to include 130 covered parking stalls (under carports) that meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and 108 uncovered guest parking stalls, which are 22 fewer stalls than what is required. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 125 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~~ Eden Housing has constructed several affordable family projects in the Bay Area and has indicated that typically 1.76 parking spaces are provided per unit. They have found this amount to be adequate to serve this type of housing product. The Arroyo Vista Project proposes 1.92 parking stalls per unit which is close to the required ratio (2 parking stalls per unit). The Project Site is served by transit and pedestrian opportunities which reduce the need for vehicles. The Site is located in close proximity to services, including the new Tralee development located on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Additionally, a bus stop would be provided within or adjacent to the development which would provide connections to jobs and services in the City as well as the Tri-Valley area and the BART station. Pedestrian paths and sidewalks would be located throughout the Site and bicycle racks would be provided at each of the apartment buildings to encourage residents to use alternative modes of transportation. Based on these circumstances, the proposed number and ratio of parking space, for the family apartments would not result in a significant impact. Regarding parking for the senior apartment portion of the Project, Chapter 8.76, Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations requires senior complexes to provide one covered or garaged parking stall for each dwelling unit and one uncovered parking stall for guest parking for every three units. Based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the senior apartments would be required to provide a total of 67 parking stalls (equal to 1.34 stalls per unit). The Applicants are proposing to provide 38 covered parking stalls (equal to 0.76 stalls per unit) to support the senior housing Project. This would result in a deficit of 29 parking stalls below what the Zoning Ordinance requires. Eden Housing has constructed several affordable senior projects in the Bay Area (including the senior housing project adjacent to the Dublin Target store) and has indicated that typically, 0.76 parking spaces are provided per unit, and this ratio has not resulted in parking problems at their projects. The proposed parking ratio for the senior housing is 0.76 per unit, which exceeds the published peak demand ratio of 0.5 spaces for senior apartments (source: Parking Generation, Third Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers). In comparison, the senior housing Project located next to the Target store in downtown Dublin was approved with a ratio of 0.56 parking stalls per unit. City of Dublin staff has not observed any parking problems at this Site, nor has Staff received any complaints regarding the number of available parking spaces. Overflow parking could also be accommodated at the childcare facility, during non operating hours, and in the surplus parking spaces provided at the community building. Due to the location of the bus stop, the nature of the Site as an affordable project, services located in walking distance and parking reductions allowed at other senior residential projects; the proposed parking ratio of 0.76 parking spaces per senior unit as part of the Planned Development would not result in a significant impact. Regarding the day care center, Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations requires one parking stall to be provided per employee and one loading space to be provided for each five children served by a daycare center. The childcare facility at Arroyo Vista would have a total of 8 employees and would serve 50 children and therefore 18 parking stalls are required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicants are proposing to provide a total of 25 parking stalls, including a loading zone in front of the facility and 10 parking stalls adjacent to the community building, resulting in a surplus of 7 parking stalls. Because this Site has open parking areas and parking can be Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 126 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin shared between uses, Staff intends to add a condition of approval which would require "~' signage to be installed for 18 of these parking stalls which indicates that the parking stalls are to be used for the childcare facility only during operating hours. When the childcare facility is closed, these stalls may be used as overflow parking for the senior or ~` family apartments. The childcare facility will be open Monday through Friday from 7:00 am unti16:00 pm when most people are at work. These stalls could then be used as people return from work or for visitor parking in the evening or on the weekends when guest parking use peaks. ,ti~< Overall, the Eden Housing portion of the Project would provide 301 parking stalls which will result in a slight deficit of 44 parking stalls. The Citation Homes portion of the Project (market-rate homes), providing 524 total parking stalls, would be parked as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The total Project Site would provide 825 parking stalls, which is 95% of the total parking required by the Zoning Ordinance. This results in an overall parking reduction of 5 percent. The Zoning Ordinance allows the City to approve a parking reduction of up to 10%.This reduction will be incorporated into the Planned Development standards for the Project. In this case, the parking reduction is warranted due to the close proximity of services, on-site (or adjacent) bus stop and shared uses, such as the childcare facility, which would not be in operation when most of the parking on the Site will be needed (evenings and weekends). Vehicular access. According to the City's design policy guidelines, signalized • intersections located on arterials should be spaced at a minimum of 750 feet. The proposed full-access driveway at Dougherty Road /South Mariposa Drive (primary access) is proposed to be signalized to mitigate Project impacts identified in this section ~. of the DEIR. The signal and would be spaced more than 750 feet from Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive to the south. Therefore, the location of Dougherty Road /South Mariposa Drive is expected „~ to meet City design policy guidelines. Although Dougherty Road/South Mariposa Drive does not meet traffic signal warrants on the basis of peak hour traffic volumes (i.e. one vehicle less than the 100 vehicle per hour threshold on the side street), it is recommended to signalize the intersection for the following reasons: signalization is expected to alleviate northbound left-turn and eastbound queuing, facilitate safe bus circulation from the development and also provide asignal-controlled crosswalk for „~ safe pedestrian crossing and bike connectivity between the Class I bike trail located on the east side of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. Currently, there is an approximate 3,000-foot section of Dougherty Road without a controlled crossing and, within this section, southbound bicycles on the Class I trail are required to cross Dougherty Road. Therefore, the installation of traffic signals at the Dougherty Road/South Mariposa Drive Intersection is justified by considering the safety and circulation of all four travel modes (i.e. automobile, bus, bicycle, and pedestrians). The Project would be consistent with the City's design guidelines, so there would be no inconsistency with any guidelines and no significant impacts would result. The City design guidelines do not include similar spacing criteria for unsignalized ~` intersections located on arterials. Currently, there are four unsignalized intersections that provide access from Dougherty Road to the existing Arroyo Vista Site. Of these four, the Ventura Drive and Monterey Drive intersections are located less than 520 "~ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 127 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~'"" feet from the nearby Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive/Dougherty Road intersections, respectively. Consequently, that Venhxra Drive is proposed to be configured as right-in/right-out only and Monterey Drive with a left-turn exit prohibition. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. The Site plan includes five-foot sidewalks along both sides of all internal streets for safe pedestrian circulation within the development. Sidewalks are also provided along Dougherty Road. The sidewalks would provide easy pedestrian access throughout the community and from the Dougherty Road and the bike/pedestrian path on the east side of Dougherty Road. No impacts to pedestrian or bicycle circulation would occur. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 128 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin intersecdon I ~i err nrd RdJEB f-58_0 Off-Ran •~~11 ~~~ ~, tt ~tt~ LL Intersection I I Dougherty RdJVentura Dr. ~1 ~~f~ Intersection 2 ougherty Rd./So;rleu Dc ~1~~ 1~ .r~ ~~~ s Intersection 7 Dublin Bhrd.lSar{ett Dr. ;•- ;.~- ,•- ~~. ~~ -. herty Rd./N. Marip ~1 `~tt Project Site ~ JOHNSON DR. €~ 3 Intersection 3 herty Rd./Sierra Ln. •~11~• ~ -~- ~~~~ ~l Intersection 8 Hacienda DrlDublin Blvd. •- I~ ~~ Dr. Dougherty RdJS. Mariposa Dr. ~1 ** ~~II ga 14 SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consuitanis, 4{X2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OWENS DR. CODER BLVD. SON DR. CENTI B ACIEIy~ ~~'4 9 10 rc Exhibit 4.11-1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS Inaneedon 4 lougherty RdJDu611n BNd. ~11~•~• ~~t~ -- ---- i DrJWB 4580 Off-I ~~11 ,~ ~ ~t tt ~ Intersection 14 1 --~'~tt h Interseeton 5 )oughetty Rd./i/VB 1.580 Oif-p ~~ a~ ttt ~~~ Intersection 10 Hacienda DrJEB i•580 Off-F X11 ~~~ tt• tt~~' to LEGEND Dr. • Study tnterseetion ,~ O Project Site Driveway Traffic Signal -~ Stop Sign ---Future Roadway N.- Not to Scale 0 __ - --.-. - 0 O j ~ t D 00 0 °° i ~~ 0 e 3 Z a ~ i 8 ~ . ^~,~ ~ ~ / ~ o I 0 O ." ~ p, p ~ F,_- r ~ ~ / o o. ~ ~ ~ ' o .r c - 9~ 0 J_,~ ,. °~" ~~ ~ ~ ---~- D, o --- 0 0 0 0 o ~ ~ Project T'~ ~s ~ ~ ~ 0 I ~ b o ~ a o o ~.`" 0 0 * ~. - Site ~ '~. o o o. a o 0 o ~ O o: o u . o o° °o . p 's' ~ D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. v A ~ ~.`~ 0 o- p !Gv ~`n~~~ i 7f o ( . ~ -_ ~ Q ~ ,~j 0 0 0. 0 ''` p 0 0 _ Q 0 a O 0 .. ~ * 4~ ' 0 ~ o b .. ~~ 0 a ~'. 4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ' 1 ~1 . ..: d : 1 0~ + ~ 0 0 ~' 0 o.o Q , o ~ ~O 8 fl. tea, DUBLIN BLVD. ~ 1 .. ~- 8. 8 - v B. 0 6 Q ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 O 1 y. ~ 1 "- g a, fi. ' 3 ~' I1 ~ a o 0. a o. ! 4 0 3 o o ~$~ 0 3 + . b 7 $~ ~ 9 x e o 4 a a x- o °o °` ~ o. o. 0 o A . %a . b' _ q.r-T~.wer~rrt rr.ew.rar,.u~rr~r« . 6 SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7/2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NORTH UJ Not to Scate ~- ~qq --T'-~ Exhibit 4.11-2 _,s,1 NET PROJECT A.M. PEAK HOUR ~'~' TRIP GENERTAION O. ~' _ ~~ 1 ~~ 0 ~ b ~O 1 ' C! ~ .. ~i~ c. , Et p ~ o ^ ~ ~ ° ~~ Project l~'l - --- _ u u Q ~ u ~ u u 3 ~ .. .. Site ~, t uQ b o ~'~ o. 0 0 -~ 0 3 ~ ~_ o o: 7l ~~ ~. ,~ u u o u .00 ti ° 12 11 °' 6' 0 '..0 0 Q 0 ,~~ ~y 0' ..- a' o. m " g ~ 1 1 ~ . 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ .. .- 5 _ ~f i o 1 1 1 p o 0 00 ~ y - 0 ~ d ~, A 0 ~; 0 ~ SI. ~ ... _ ~ 0 0 0~__ ,., 0 a. ~ - ' .. 3 otreuN ~ eLVb, i. ~ 8 ~ ~ o 0 0 o -- ~ ,~. -~, ~ ~ 5 s ; x m~ 2: :2 Z' 5 4. 4' 4- 2 2 1 1 g. ~ R ~~ 1 0 o n 0... Q , ~ _, .x ~ D. f o .- U 0 oy oxV D 0' fi 18 ~. E ~ N ~'_ 6 - ~! ,, - :1 i` y-: D: 3. 3: o t 2 ! '~ D 0 0 0 ~ `~ a yo ~ of 0~ 0 ~:c 0 0 _ 0 0 `b ° b ~ °b ~ d ~' ~' or~lyrsw«fAlMwiRR1! 0 '. a _ . . 0 _ 0 ~ e~ruN~rar*.FssF~. ,«rv^~+~...a SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7/2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~_ 6 NORTH ,~ Not to Scale {~~, `'i Exhibit 4.11-3 NET PROJECT P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERTAION I 1 ~..~ y,, ~> ~_ Intersection ! Inteneetlon 2 imenettion 3 Intersection 4 Irttersecdon 5 Dougherty RdJAmadorVly. Blvd. pougherty RdJSwrlett Dr. Dougherty RdJSierra Ln. Dougherty RdJDubBn Blvd. Dougherty RdJW6!-5B0 Olf ..r° ~-~_ c ~~ N ~e'~i ~~~ ~^.o R_.1 (8) C~:- X183 404 r-~ ~+ m f ~" ~--5 8 v'r~ Z97 f f46 ~~ R..552 579) 7j /~ ~ ~ -r 18 (19) ~ ~ ~ Jr216 (302 ~ + ~-426251) (( ~ O ~ R~7 31 88 ~f 27 107),x/ 330 (312 ~ ~ v~~fr '`~ 7r.~rj~ 2 (4l ~ 209 (8533-- ~ f ~ .~ v~ r~~ `$'~ J 50 (106))' ~ ~ 285 (528 '~ ~ $p' V pp r t~DD ~ O n yQ m nteneetion 6 ntenection ntersectlon Intersectlon nteneo5on Hopyard RdJEB I-580 O(F-Ramp Dublin BIvdJSearlett Dr. Hacienda DrJDubiin Blvd. Hacienda DrJW6 I-5!~ ON Ram Hacienda DrJEB I-580 Off-Ramp S~%e ~o'~i $°~ ;_ Nan k..40 (14) " X300 414. "~` ~^ X95 (20}319) ~+~ -r178 (588) ~ x-531 {304 SS10).~ ~ ~ 43 (238) ~. ~ ~- 894 (898) 1 390 {895 ~ ~N 821 ((1 52B)) 191 ((1,1143. ~ 1,093 (583)- 1 ~ 21~(13"'i~ °~ 119(489~~°~~ ~~ ~$.. m~ ~* Intenecdon 11 Intersection 12 Irrcersection 13 Intersection 14 LEGEND Dougherty Rd.Nenwra Dr. Dougherty RdJN. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty ItdJS. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty RdJMonterey Dr. ~ Study Irrierscction ~ o0 O Project Site Driveway ~m XX AM Peak HourVolume ~~ ~ ()C)C)PM Peak HourVolume ~ i Does not extst whh project _ _ ~ 33 (ZO)O ~i 24 (15)~ Z "' ~ro Roadway ~ (1S)-~I ~,~ es 3B -~ v~ e, * t turn volumes don't Yfh r• N r: e, ~ m go through intersection Nv N~ e0 p ~ OD _ Pt!'Ojf'~Ct N O R T H SI~ & Not to Scale 1 ,y 1 ~~Y 0~~ 12 ~ ST BRODER 84VD. 13 P GLEASON DR. ~~ d ~a ~ fl 2' ' ~ ~_ N ~1 .......................~ ~ CENTRAL PKWY. ~+ a~ ~ ~'. h 8 31ERRALN.'~'•.. ~ERF}A~~' 3 7 ~ ~'~•. DUBLIN BLVD. B 4 ~~ ~~ Acl 5 ti cRO.~, v ct ..... 9 '~' :~ .iOHNSON DR. 8 OWENS DR. ~~ SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7!2008. Exhibit 4.11-4 CITY oi= DuBt_iN EXISTING + PROJECT ARROYO VISTA TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT vi~-y 9 ~~ ~ l i! inursecdon I Inuneetion 2 InurseNon 3 Inuneetion 4 Ineenecrion 5 Dougherty RdJAmadorVly. Bivd. Dougherty RdJSmrictt Dr. Dougherty Rd./Sierra Ln. Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd. Dougherty RdJW6 I~80 08-Ram _vN ~ .-. ~_~_ ~ .~..0 ~e~ ~;~~N aa~~N ~~ ',m~m $ii~ R.51((30) NE5~ ~t.327(398) ~i~ ~t781 805) M ~ ~"' 6 '' N x1,427 1,735) ~ ~ o,~'?~ ~RZ~s ~~~ X51(20) ,~~~ ~r27s e~D) ~i ~c-s52~a1o) 352 (345)-~ ~'~ ~xv/~~ ,~ Jr'~ 40 (100)~f 184 (206 ~ 502 (390) m ~ ~. ~ 2 63 ~~ 71 m ~, ?J ( omo 856(1,158 g°~, ~ ~ ~ 51 (108 ~ `n,~ a 391 (535 '~1 ~~ ,,,, ~ ~ ?~ ~ ~ r., eoA N=n i3o ~~ <~ ~ ~ A Intersection 6 IMenecdon 7 Inunea~ion 8 Inurseetion 9 Intersection 10 Hopyard RdJEB I-580 Off--Ramp Dublin BIvd.ISarlett Dr. Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd. Hadenda Dr./WB 1-580 C~If- Hacenda DrJEB I-580 Off-Ramp ~~ i ~,~ N !~ ... ~j*r ~f-1,430(2,585) ~'~"~ w132~2(7952) ~g X314((488) ~ .Ir70 (70) ~+~ Ir684 (298) ~C'1,883 (1.303 887(876 ~~ i6(16)~~~ 161(250)~'~tjl ~ 1,190(810)...f~ 1,246 (1,77''20))))-- 446 (1,287)) 1,100 (590) 1,575 (1,095 0~ ~n ~ ~ 49 (80 ~ N r, 133 (490 ~1 ~ iii ~ ~ ~ N N ~* ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~M Intersection i I Mtenecdon 12 Inurscction l3 Inursection 14 LEGEND Dougherty~Rd./Ventiira Dr. Dougherty RdJN. Mariposa Dr Dougherty R~dJS. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty RdJMonuroy Dr. ~ SwdY Intersettion ~ ~ m r. O Project Site Driveway ~~ XX AM Peak HourVolume ~,+ ~,+ ~+ ~ (XX)PM Peak HourVolume 8 2 -~ ~. 3 (8)~ ~~ 28 (13)~ ~ 0 (D)PI ~, ---- Puwre Roadway 1 ~1;~ c 3 (6 -~ ~~ 18 (9 -~ v~ 6 (14)~ v~ * Right wrn volumes don't ~ ~ °f ~ go through imxrsection a ~ g l PI"~O•BCtt N O R T H I Sited ~ I Not to Scale 1 BRODER BLVD. EASON DR. ~ ~~' 14 ~ 2 LN.': 7. JOFINSON DR. `'' e OWENS DR. ~. ss+° a sew SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7/2008. Exhibit 4.11-5 ' CITY OF DUBLIN SHORT TERM CUMULATIVE (2015) ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES 3 ~ ~ t ~'r~l, ~ ` ,~i, ~I I ~i '~tt -~ yard RdJEB I-580 0 W C Is ~~~• r' t tt'~ augherty RdJVentura Dr. ~~ ~...~ ~~~ r Intersection 2 ierty RdJSearlea Dr. Dublin BIvdJSrarleu Dr. ~~ i ~- ,~ ~~ Iherty RdJiV. Mariposa Dr. III not exist v+ith project R** "~ I I I F Project Site ~ 1 •11 ~~o• ~-~~• 12 •~•_ 73 inursection 3 Dougherty RdJSiern Ln. ~1~~• ~ ,~ ~tt'P~ Hacienda Or.IDublin Blvd. f~ ,~111~• inuneedon 4 ertv RdJDublin BNd. Inursection 9 enda DrJWB 1-580 OfF ~~~~ r.~~ ~ tt'~ Intersection 5 Daugherty RdJVY81-580 Off ~' ~~~ ~ ~r. ~ ?t Inursecdon 10 Hacenda DrJEB I-5B0 O~fF. ~~ ~ ~ Inursection t3 Inursecdon 14 LEGEND ~ugherty RdJS. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty RdJMontercy Dr. ~ $wdy Intersection ~ Project Site Driveway Traffic Signal /~,1 I~,~, ~- Stop Sign * ~ ~~ e<? ~ ~ ---Ftrcure Roadway ••••-Und®r No Project F F Conditions ..~. N O RT H Not to Scale 14 ~ 2 ODER BLVD. BON DR. __._. 8 JONNSON DR. °o: SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 41712008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 4.11-6 SHORT TERM CUMULATIVE (2015) fNTERSECTiON CONFIGURATIONS &TRAFFIC CONTROLS Intersection I Imxinection 2 interseodon 3 Intersecton 4 Inxrsecdon 5 Dougherty Rd./Amador Vly. Blvd. Dougherty RdJScariett Dr. Dougherty RdJSierra Ln. Dougherty RdJDublin Bivd. Dougherty RdlWB 1-580 Off-Ram ,~ m ~$ m ~~ SY~,o m N.- >> ~ hit / ~ ~'r~~? ~ ~ .- v H 1L•11 S30) aiai~ ~-5 ~ Ir51~20) ~ '" c ~ ~ ~ 8.327 408 .-NtYi 1,42~[1,~5) (65500) ~2 lO•v ~ °D• 8.781 611) ( ) ~+ X552 (410 352 345 ~ ~ ; ~ ~~ y - ~ ( )) ~ 184 (226).~f 502 401 -~ A~ geq ~ ~~/ ~~ ~ 2 (8)-.p 0 51 (108 '~ C~C (p r' 658 (1,1583 ~A,~.r, 391 (535 7( ~ ~? v.. ~ a m~ N n N...N Pf NN ^ ~ h ~~~ LV~~ ~~ n Intersection 6 •Intersection 7 Interaeetion 8 Intarseedon 9 irnersealon 10 Hopyard RdJE6 I-580 Off-Ramp Dublin BIvdJScarlea Dr. Hacienda DrJDubiln Blvd. Hadenda DrJW6 1.580 O1F-Ram Hacienda DrJEB I-580 Off-Ramp p~~ m~ ~' !x1,431 2,577) ,1C'70 (70~ 16~i6 ~ ~ ~ m.. N `~ 'o''O~"i' t~-1~3232(7r~67) /1+~ 1x684 (298) 182 (250 ~ ~+~I ~ ~~ X14 (489)) x-'1,883 (1,3D3) ~.~ ,190 (810 68B (882 ,~ 1,575 1,095 ( ~'i~ ~ ~i 1,247 (t, 20-- ~ 49 (60 71 N.~ 450 1,288 ( i`A 138 (491 "'il ~ a a r ~ 1,101 591 .N..~ ~N ~~ ~ ~mw ~6p~pNp~ 1n OfN ~~ gM ~~Ic Inteneedon I I intersecrion 12 Im~rseetion 13 Interseedon 14 LEGEND Dougherty RdJYenwra Dr. Dougherty RdJN. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty RdJS. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty RdJMonteny Dr. ~ Swdy Intersection S'i u? C ~ ~ ° ~ ~ Project Site Driveway )OC AM Peak HourVolume N N ~N (F)PM Peak HourVolume ~ 24 (15) ~~.. 71 Does not existwidY project Il 33 (20) ~ ~'~ 24 (15)-~ ~ " Fuwre Roadway R~ 68 38 ~ ~ ~ m * Right wrn volumes don't N~ °~,'~ ~ go through irrcersection ~ o PI'OjeCt N O R T H silts ~ Not Yo Scale 1 1 ~~~o 8TH 8T. " BRODER BLVD. ~ ~ ••. 12 •, 13 ~ OLEASON DR. ~Pr a;;•. 14 c ~ a+ o e ~ ~ t' ~ ~ ~ yc _ ~ ---------------------- CENTRAL PKWY. :' ~~ ~ C ~ ~;: S/ RR,q~a' 3 7 ~ ~' , DUBLIN BWD. $ 4 ~~ ~ ~~'•. ~~ 5 o ~ Ac 9 CROSS CT. e.r :1 JOHNSON DR 6 OWENB DR 1 O SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7/2008• CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 4.11-7 SHORT TERM CUMULATIVE (2015) + PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Inuraection) Interseedon 2 Inurseetion 3 Inurseetien 4 inurmdon 5 Dougherty RdJAmador Vly. Blvd. Dougherty Rd./SaMett Dr. Daugherty Rd.lSferrn Ln. Dougherty Rd.IDubiin Blvd. Dougherty RdNVB b580 Off- _ui NN ~ (( )) h~O X252370 ~1 ~ ~25 ~1B6; 380 (350) r) ~ - _ v ~~ ~~~ $ ~ ~$ o~?a its fi9rfi~ ~'r'~~b ~ ~ / r, N~ty C~~ ~~^o X12(32) ~-5 (8) ~~S- Ir53 (113) 41 1112)~t rI ) l+f~ ~oA X102(62) wao .t-1,850 (1,670) ~+5- /x•324 (780) 175 (284 ~ O1`~ ~~ X589 985 ~ + X585 420; 587 (395) ti g ~ ~ 51 (106) 1,226 (1,450 pp ~p P7yyN N ~~ ~~M N1~° ~~ ~ ~~ CO m N N Inurseeeion 6 Intersection 7 inursection B Intersection 9 InurseNon 10 Hopyard Rd.(EB 1.580 Off-Ramp DubNn BF-d.lSrariett Dr. Hacienda DrJDublin Blvd. Hacienda DrJWB Iy*80 OiF Ram Hacienda DrJEB I-580 Off-Ramp * ~ _ ~~qq ~i: ~~ ~' O O~r• . o N'R ~ 8.361 (742 ~'""'~-1,987 2,57) I~ i ~ ~ /~73 (75 N~{~~ ie CM N~~~ n ~ ~ X164 (34 ~"~`D ~-1,B6~i (i 13A) ~ S- /C"'710 (575) ~~ rL ~~ ~809b4( 305) ~' y ~~ ~~ 820 (680) 1,584 (1184). ~I 20 (!0 ~ 2,104 1,8303 -1J-'-- (( ~av~ 52 (8b ~ ~ C 170 (255 ...~ 584 1,438 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 29 (491 7t ~ CC g~ 1,450 (880~.7~ }-~ 1145 (599 ~ ~ ,. o ~~ q Inursecdon I I Intersection 12 Inurseedon 13 Interteedon 14 LEGEND Dougherty AdJVerttura Dr. Dougherty RdJN. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty RdJS. Mariposa Dr. Dougherty RdJMonueey Dr. ~ Study 4nterseetion ~~ ~~ ~ ~e,r ~~ ~,~ ~'- ~~ ~+ O' Project Sits Drivevuay XX AM Peak HourYolume (XX)PMPeakHourVolume ~ ~ ~ "" Fuwl'e Roadway 8 2 ~ ~ 1 ~1;- "~ 3 B ~ '1 T 3 ~e;- 3 28 (13 18 (9;- V 0 (0).~ 8 (14) ~ l ' ~ ° ~ v ~ ~ ~ p ~u Right wrn vo umes don t ~ M ~ °~ ~ °i ~ throw h intersection o ~ N O R T H Project Not to Stale Rgle~~ Site & Camp P~e'ks 1 ~ Aeeass 1 ~~c ~~~ 12 BTH.ST. BRODERBWD. 6~ .,• ~~•. <aLEASON DR. , 3° •• 14 ~ ~ ~i u ~ ,, ~ ~ ___________________ CENTRALPKwY ~ . ~ a SIERRALN~~~._ SrE'Rl~gt.~' 3 7 ` ~'-•. DUBLIN BWD. B 4 ~ ~~ HACIEA/~ h CRO~ 8 cT re :~ JOHNSON DR. B OWENS DR. ~ 0 SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7/2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 4.11-8 LONG TERM CUMULATIVE (2025) TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES 3~.~ ~~ ~' Intersection I herty RdJAmadorViy. BI' ~~ I ~ ~ SPLIT SPLIT ~ ~~ Intersection 6 RdJE81-5801 ~ugherty Rd.Nenwra Dr. ~1~ ** d ~~ InterseNon 2 mrty RdJSearlett Dr. Dublin BIvdJSnrlett Dr. ~orenaP •- '~ ~~ -~• `~~ ~. Intersection 12 ~ugherty RdJN. Mariposa C WIII not exist vrith project X11 ** ~~ I I BTH BT. . \~ 14 °~ '~ Plroje~ Relocated Site & Camp Parks ''~ 1 , ~ Acaess O BRODER Ot VD. 6LEASON OR d QOQ Q __•.r 9 JOHNSON DR. 10 rtt ~ , intersection 10 tam HaciendaWDrJE6 I-580 Off-Ra W ~~~ ~ ~t t~~ LEGEND Dr. • Study Intersection O Project Site Driveway Traffic Signal ~- Stop Sign -•••e•Under No Project Conditions PKWY. N Not to Scale C F SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7/2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT interuedon 3 Dougherty RdJSierra Ln. X11 ~• ~ ---- I ~~~ Itnersecdon 8 Hacienda DrJDublin Blvd. ~1~~~ Dr. Inurseccion 4 intersection 5 ercy RdJDublin Blvd. Dougheny RdJWB M580 ~ ~ ~•a,lla da DrJW6 1-580 OIF W •~~1~~ ~ ~~ ,'t,• tt~ Intersection l4 X11 *** ~l~ ** I I I -71• ~~+~Il ~i I I F Exhibit 4.11-9 LONG TERM CUMULATIVE (2025) INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS &TRAFFIC CONTROLS r, Intenecdon i Dougherty RdJAmadorVly. Blvd. Inarseulon 2 Dougherty RdJSnriett Dr. Intersection 3 Dougherty Rd./Sierra f.n. Irroarsealon 4 Dougherty Rd./Dublin BNd. hrcersecdon 5 Dougherty RdMB 1.580 OIF v =M N ~ c _~~7; ( ~1^ ~ ~25 (188; 380 (350) '~ ~ ~ ~ i % O st.-. ` ~ri~%s~ + <~ y ~,r,~r ~~ err ~,~ ~ `~ I ~ ~ ~ R.. 12 (32) f"5 (B) ~+~ /~53 (113) 41 (113)~f ~, * ~I 2 B +~ M ,"..,.., ~_ ~" k102 (72) t4i _r. aao ~1,B601l{,B70 ~'+t X324 80) 175 (284) i.- 569(901) y~+ 585 (420) -r 15 (103 ~ - ~ 597 (406 ~ v~g ~ j ~ ( ) ~Q, r-~ 51 (108) ~~~, 1,228 (1,450)) g~ 394 (680 "~ ~B"+.~ 'r' N ~ ~~~ N~'O p N~r • ~~ ~ ~i N Y Imeraection 6. irrterseotion 7 Intersection 8 lrrursoction 9 fntersaction 10 Hopyard RdJEB I-580 OIf--Ramp Dublin 81vdJScariett Dr. Hacienda DafDublin Blvd. Hacenda DrJWB 1-580 OfFRam Hacienda DrJEB 1.580 OfF-Ramp ,~ "`'~ ~~ V "' a~~'!~1,19887(2,269) I~ + S-(1~73 (75 ~ V 8..164 (34) ~"tO~ 1,654((1,139) I~ + ~- s: 710 (5r5) ~ r;~i: 11380 (480) I~~ 1890(1, 05) ~ ' ~+c~Y ~ (( ) ~ 5841(i184) 1 (20 (71 ~ ,105 i2(65~ ieY~ 17((1(255 ...7~ ~ o~ 528931(492~7 ev ~ 1,450 (880 1,146 800 ~o ~LS , ~ ~ a ( Interxetion I I Dougherty RdJYentura Dr. Inxrsectlon 12 Dougherty RdJN. Mariposa Dc Irttersection 13 Dougherty RdJS. Mariposa Dr. Intersection 14 Dougherty RdJMonceny Dr. LEGEND • Swdy Irrtersecdon ^~ c ~? ~ ~ ~ O Project Slte Driveway XX AM Peak Hour Volume + ~+ ~N (XX)PM Peak HourVolume ~ 24 (15)-~ ~4 Does not artist widr pro)eu 86 ( 8~~ ~ 24 (15)-y1 -- Fuwre Roadway ~ ~+ ~ ° ~ ~ * Right wrn volumes don't a ~ ~ ~ ~ go through intersection ~ ~ ~ PI'0~0C~ ~ Rebeeted N O R T H Not to Scale Site caunp Perks 1 ~ Access 11 ~~JO ,y 8TH ST. ~~~Y ~ BRODgR BLVD. ~~ 13 ~ GLEASON DR. ~ 14 jr ~~ 2:" ., •. W O0 ~ ~ ,, .................•------- CENTRAL PKWY. S~E'RI1q~' 3 7 ` '•.. DUBLIN BLVD. B ~' 4 c~, '"9q (~ 5 o ~ clElVn cRgss', 9 cT ei~r ~ B ~ :1 JOHNSON DR. 8 OWENS DR. 1O SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 4/7/2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 4.11-10 LONGTERM CUMULATIVE (2025) + PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES !!e^ 4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the EIR discusses provision of utility services to serve the proposed Project, including water and wastewater systems. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water demand and supply. Unlike all other development in the City of Dublin, the Project Site currently receives water service directly from Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), which is the water wholesaler for the Livermore- Amador Valley region. However, the Project area is recognized by Alameda County LAFCO as part of the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water service area. Therefore, DSRSD will provide water service to the proposed Project subject to entering into required agreements and obtaining any necessary approvals from Zone 7 and DSRSD. The City of Dublin and the Dougherty valley portion of San Ramon are supplied by water provided by DSRSD, headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations, reservoirs and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7, which is discussed below. DSRSD was formed in 1953, formerly known as the Parks Community Services District and later as the Valley Community Services District. Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 via four pipelines owned by Zone 7: Cross Valley Pipeline, Santa Rita-Dougherty Pipeline, Santa Rita Pipeline, and Dougherty Pipeline. This water is supplied through five turnouts. Turnout No. 1 is located at the intersection of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail, just south of the Project Site. Turnout No. 2 is located at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. The third turnout is in the vicinity of Arnold Drive and Altamirano Road. The fourth turnout is located on Friesman Road, south of I-580 adjacent to Eastern Dublin. A fifth, seldom used, emergency turnout is located on 4~' Street within Camp Parks. Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout DSRSD's water service area including Dublin via a grid of underground water transmission lines, delivering water to residences, businesses and other customers within the District's service area. Such water transmission facilities are present in Dougherty Road adjacent to the Project Site. The District also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non- potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 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 recycled water pipeline is present in Dougherty Road adjacent to the Project Site, and recycled water is available to serve the Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 139 January 2009 z-~ ~~ ~ ~7 Project. 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. Some of the Project's water needs will be met by recycled water. The City of Dublin has Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.88). DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan (May 2005) (DSRSD UWMP) includes a projection of future potable and reclaimed water use through the year 2030. This projection is shown on Table 4.12-1, following. The DSRSD UWMP is incorporated herein by reference and is available for public review at the City Public Works Department during normal business hours. The analysis of water supply and demand for the DSRSD service area relies on this most recent UWMP as permitted under CEQA. Table 4.12-1. Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable & Reclaimed) (Acre-Feet/Year) Demand Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Potable Water Dublin 9,300 10,600 11,900 13,700 13,700 13,700 Doug erty Valle 1,250 2,800 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 Subtotal 10,550 13,400 15,300 17,100 17,100 17,100 Rec c ed Water 2,000 2,700 3,250 3,700 3,700 3,700 Total 12,550 16,100 18,550 20,800 20,800 20,800 Source: DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update DSRSD is 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 to meet demand. DSRSD's UWMP shows that it has sufficient supply to meet demand through 2030 under all hydrologic conditions (DSRSD UWMP, Tables 7-1- 7-5). Note that the 2005 DSRSD UWMP projected water demand from buildout of Dublin would occur by 2020 in accordance with the City General Plan. Based on more recent information, it appears that buildout would occur at a later date due to the timing and development patterns in the City. However, the amount of development and projected water demand would be similar to that under the General Plan. So, for the purposes of this analysis, the water demand under General Plan buildout is assumed the same as the amount in the DSRSD UWMP (20,800 afy), but the date of buildout is projected to be beyond 2020 (see discussion on Future Water Demand in Section C.3 below). The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. DSRSD has a contract with Zone 7 which establishes the obligations between the parties to meet demand in the DSRSD service area. Under the contract, DSRSD is obligated to purchase all of the treated water it requires from Zone 7, unless Zone 7 is unable to deliver sufficient water. If Zone 7 is unable for a period of time to deliver sufficient water to satisfy DSRSD's needs, DSRSD is permitted to acquire water from other sources during the period that Zone 7 has insufficient water. Zone 7 has indicated that they will endeavor to meet DSRSD's water Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 140 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin needs. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet treated and untreated (i.e., raw """ surface water) water demands. Under Zone Ts most recently adopted UWMP (2005), Zone 7 determined that sufficient water supply existed to serve water demand through buildout of the Livermore-Amador Valley in 2030. The Zone 7 2005 UWMP is incorporated herein by reference and is available for public review at the City Public .,x Works Department during normal business hours. Zone 7 conducts an annual review of its water supply reliability. The most recent review was completed in May 2008 (Zone 7 Annual Review of Sustainable Water Supply dated May 21, 2008 (2008 Annual Review)). The 2008 Annual Review concludes that Zone 7's sustainable water supply is adequate to meet its 100% Reliability Policy for existing and future demand through 2015. However, after 2015, the current estimated sustainable water supply is insufficient to meet Zone 7's 100% Reliability Policy. At buildout, "" projected demand will exceed the estimated sustainable water supply by about 6,000 acre feet a year. The 2008 Annual Review lists the basic assumptions that the analysis used for water sources and amounts, demand growth, and development (2008 Annual "~ Review, p. 1). Any change in those basic assumptions would impact the conclusions. Since the 2008 Annual Review is the most recent information available from Zone 7 on its water supply, this EIR includes and analyzes this information. '~ A. Zone 7 Water Supply Sources and Amounts Identified in 2008 Annual Review Below is a summary of the available water sources and amounts as described in Zone 7's 2008 Annual Review: State Water Project Supplies: In a typical year, Zone 7 receives 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) that has almost 30 years remaining. The current Table A Water under this contract is 80,619 acre-feet a year (afy). 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 (if sufficient capacity is available). 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. With regard to all of these SWP entitlements, actual water deliveries vary from year to year, 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 76% of its SWP entitlement or 60,900 afy. Recently, however, SWP water deliveries have been restricted by an interim federal court order restricting Delta pumping, which is designed to protect the Delta Smelt, an endangered species. The interim court order is in place pending the issuance by USF&WS of a new Biological Opinion addressing the impacts of Delta pumping for the SWP on the Delta Smelt. Additional species-related restrictions on the State Water Project's ability to deliver water from the Delta are possible (See Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 141 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,~~ ~# discussion below in Section C.2). Based on current restrictions in place for Delta Smelt and global warming impacts on water supply (as estimated by DWR in its 2008 Reliability Report), Zone 7 currently anticipates along-term annual average delivery to be approximately 66% of its entitlements or 53,200 afy, a reduction of 7,700 afy from its historical available water supply estimates (2008 Annual Review). The reduction in SWP annual supply delivery is mostly the result of the Delta pumping restrictions under the interim court order (which accounts for 82% of the reduction). Byron-Bethany Irrigation District: Zone 7 has a long-term contract (15 year renewable every 5 years) with the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) for delivery of up to 5,000 afy. Zone 7 has taken up to 4,000 afy in certain years under the BBID agreement. However, for estimating sustainable water supply for planning purposes, Zone 7 estimated only 2,000 afy from this source due to constraints that limit Zone 7's ability to take full delivery, including actual quantity of fallowed lands and conveyance through State Water Project facilities. Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part of the SWP. Zone 7 has rights to water from Lake Del Valle under its water rights permit for the Arroyo Del Valle. This water is made available through operating agreements with the DWR. Zone 7 estimates the future and long-term yield from this source at 9,300 afy based on modeling of historic runoff data and future Zone 7winter-season demands (2008 Annual Review). Local Groundwater: Zone 7 uses the local underground aquifer basin as storage and another source of water. It is estimated that a safe yield of 13,400 afy can be withdrawn from the basin. Recycled Water: Tertiary-treated recycled water is currently distributed for irrigation by DSRSD and the City of Livermore. Zone 7 includes only the current amount of recycled water used for irrigation in its sustainable supply estimate - 3,300 afy. Although, Zone 7 acknowledges that the amount of recycled water used in the Zone 7 district area will increase over time, its estimate of future supply through 2030 assumes no increase. B. Additional Water Which is Reasonably Likely to Be Available for Project The 2008 Annual Review is a water supply planning document which evaluates sustainable water supply based on Zone 7 policies, including its 100% Reliability Policy. Under CEQA, the standard for evaluating available water supply for a project is whether the supply has a "reasonable likelihood" of becoming available (See discussion below under CEQA Standards of Significance). There is additional water that is "reasonably likely" to become available to Zone 7 that was not included in the 2008 Annual Review. DSRSD also has water supplies available to serve the Project. This water and its likelihood of availability to serve the proposed project and buildout are discussed below. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 142 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 3~~ ~~ ~ °~ 1. Additional Water Supplies That are Reasonabl~Likely to Become Available to ~"' Zone 7. Under Zone Ts existing agreement with BBID, there are 3,000 afy which ~~ may become available in the future that were not included in estimated sustainable supply in the 2008 Annual Review. The 3,000 afy were not included '~" in the 2008 Annual Review based on assumptions regarding constraints on ~.. taking full delivery of the water. However, Zone 7 is working with DWR and BBID to allow Zone 7 to take full delivery of its BBID water supply. This water "` supply is considered "reasonably likely" in the long-term given the negotiation efforts and potential change in arcumstances that would result in a change in the assumptions underlying the constraints on taking the extra water. ~° Additionally, Zone 7, as the wholesale water agency in the Livermore-Amador Valley, is committed to providing a reliable supply of high-quality drinking water to its customers. Zone Ts water supply planning process is an on-going and ,, cooperative process with its water retailers, which is continuously reviewed and updated as statewide, regional and local water supply issues and conditions change. Currently, Zone 7 and its retailers are actively working together to address ~, and respond to changing water supply conditions to provide reliable water supplies that will meet future water demands within its service area. This includes a series of actions for increasing the reliability of current water supplies and augmenting the amount of available water supply. Specific actions include the following. Zone 7 is actively engaged in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a long-term planning process to increase reliability of water supply through the Delta by changing water delivery options (ex. dual conveyance facility) and/or restoring Delta habitat. Zone 7 also is currently undertaking a "Delta Supply Reliability Assessment Study" to review augmenting water supply opportunities through interties with other wholesale water agencies and regional water supply expansion projects such as the Las Vaqueros Reservoir expansion. Other statewide efforts include fish protections that rely less on overall water supply as part of the Operational Criteria and Planning Process (OCAP) and interim Delta projects such as the "Frank Tracts, Two-Gate Project" that could protect Delta fishes and enhance water supplies. These various efforts to stabilize and augment available water supply are discussed in the Tri-Valley Water Retailers Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2007/08 (approved October 29, 2008), a copy of which is available for public .~ review at the City Planning Department during normal business hours. The Tri- Valley Water Retailers Annual Report is incorporated herein by reference. Based on these efforts, it is reasonably likely that the estimated long-term water supply ~, shortfall of 6,000 afy estimated in the 2008 Annual Review will be met by increasing the reliability of existing water supplies or augmenting water supplies. 2. DSRSD Available Water Sources and Recycled Water. DSRSD also has water supplies that are "reasonably likely" and would be available to serve the proposed project and other future long-term demands. DSRSD has an agreement with Berrenda Mesa Water District for 5,000 afy of SWP water entitlements. DSRSD has a "right of first refusal" for these water entitlements. Since this water is delivered through the Delta, it would be subject to the current interim restrictions on Delta pumping under the federal court order in the Delta Smelt litigation (see discussion below in Section C.2). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 143 January 2009 ~~~ ~ t r DSRSD, Livermore, and Pleasanton also have significant additional amounts of recycled water and planned recycled water use which are "reasonably likely" and not included in the 2008 Annual Review. The 2008 Annual Review assumes recycled water use Valley-wide (including Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD service area) will not increase over current use of 3,300 afy over next 22 years. However, both Zone 7 and DSRSD state that the use of recycled water is expected to increase in the future. DSRSD has established policies for the use, promotion and priority for recycled water service (DSRSD UWMP, pp. 23-24). Infrastructure is already in place in Dublin (including at the Project Site) to use recycled water in place of potable water, especially for irrigation. The use of recycled water offsets potable water demand and frees up potable water supply. The available recycled water supply is much greater than the 3,300 afy included in the 2008 Annual Review. Currently, DSRSD delivers about 1,800 afy to its service area (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD, personal communication, November 21, 2008). Use of recycled water in DSRSD's service area is expected to increase to 3700 afy by 2030 (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD, personal communication, November 2008). Additionally, DSRSD is seeking to implement other projects which are expected to permanently offset approximately 400 afy of existing potable water demand by using recycled water. Other recycled water sources and users in Zone 7 include the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. Livermore currently provides about 930 afy of recycled water to users within the City (Darren Greenwood, Water Resources Manager, City of Livermore, personal communication, November 18, 2008). Recycled water use in Livermore is expected to expand to 1,650 afy upon buildout in the City's Recycled Water Use Area in the next 6-10 years (2014-2018) (Darren Greenwood, Water Resources Manager, City of Livermore, personal communication, November 18, 2008). For the City of Pleasanton, recycled water is expected to grow to 1,695 afy if implemented as part of the buildout of North Pleasanton (mainly the Hacienda Business Park) (Emily Wagner, Economic Development Fiscal Officer, City of Pleasanton, personal communication, November 20, 2008). Under City plans, recycled water use could grow to 5552 afy upon buildout of the City in 2029/30 (Emily Wagner, Economic Development Fiscal Officer, City of Pleasanton, personal communication, November 20, 2008). So, overall, recycled water use in Zone 7 is expected to increase to at least 7000- 10000 afy by 2030 or earlier, which is 3700-6700 afy more than the amount included in the 2008 Annual Review for 2008 - 2030. The increased recycled water supply will offset potable water demand from current potable water demand projections and free up potable water supply. C. Water Reliability Planning Assumptions in 2008 Annual Review The 2008 Annual Review also has series of assumptions that are used for water reliability planning purposes. The level of reliability used for these planning purposes is much greater than the CEQA standard of "reasonably likely". The assumptions used for these water planning purposes are not required to be used for a CEQA "reasonably likely" analysis. Therefore, under the CEQA standard, there is a "reasonable likelihood" that future water supplies maybe greater and future demand will be less than those assumed in the 2008 Annual Review. The key assumptions that underlie the analysis in the 2008 Annual Review, and are more conservative than the "reasonably likely" standard, are discussed below. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 144 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin .,. 1 Zone 7's 100% Reliability Policy. The 2008 Annual Review analyzed whether Zone 7's sustainable water supply is sufficient to provide 100% reliable supply under specified hydrologic conditions to meet existing and future demand. The standard of 100% reliable supply under specified hydrologic conditions is part of Zone 7's Water Supply Reliability Policy (100% Reliability Policy). The Policy states that Zone 7 will "endeavor to meet" 100% of its treated water customer supply needs "during an average water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years". These hydrologic conditions are further refined in the Policy as conditions chosen by Zone 7 staff based on the historic record (ex. key hydrologic conditions typically used for water supply planning include a critically dry year (1977) and multiple dry years (1928 to 1934 and 1987 to 1992)). Under the 2008 Annual Review, Zone 7 has sufficient water supplies to meet its 100% Reliability Policy through 2015. In other words, all the water demand of projected growth could be met with 100% reliability under specified hydrologic conditions, including worst-case drought years (i.e., 1977 and 1987 to 1992) even with the current Delta pumping restrictions remaining in place through 2015. However, after 2015, Zone 7 may not be able to provide 100% of projected water delivery demands under all specified hydrologic conditions if the current Delta restrictions remained in place and based on other assumptions. The 100% Reliability Policy is a conservative approach taken for water supply reliability planning purposes and is stricter than the CEQA "reasonably likely" standard. Zone 7's 100% Reliability Policy also is different than the level of reliability adopted by other water agencies around California. Most water purveyors recognize that reductions in water delivery will be required in a certain percentage of years and the amount of reductions will vary. The majority of California water purveyors set their reliability standards for planning purposes at 80-90% generally meaning either (a) that in years of hydrological shortfall, the required cutbacks in water delivery would have to be 10-20% or (b) that in 80-90% of the hydrological years, an agency is able to make full deliveries. ("Evaluation of Water Supply Reliability Policies for Other Bay Area and California Water Systems", Memorandum from West Yost Associates to DSRSD, dated November 12, 2008). So, the majority of water purveyors assume as part of their water supply planning that some conservation or reduction in demand will be required from customers to meet water needs in certain hydrologic conditions. An alteration in the 100% Reliability Policy to provide for less than 100% delivery in certain years could be a means for Zone 7 to meet projected demand after 2015. 2. Interim Delta Pumping Restrictions Assumed Permanent. The State Water Project (SWP) is the main source of water for Zone 7. Recently, SWP deliveries have been reduced by restrictions on pumping water from the Delta under Court decisions and regulatory agency action. The 2008 Annual Review assumes that the interim restrictions on Delta pumping imposed by the federal court in the Delta smelt litigation (Wanger decision) will continue long-term. However, the Wanger decision states that these are interim restrictions that will be reviewed upon the completion of a Biological Opinion Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 145 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin on the Delta Smelt by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS). On December 15, 2008, USF&WS released its revised Biological Opinion. It appears that the Biological Opinion will result in similar Delta pumping restrictions to those currently in place under the Wanger decision. Water purveyors and others have expressed some concerns about the Biological Opinion, so it may be subject to challenge or revised. One entity (the Family Farm Alliance) has filed a lawsuit challenging the new Biological Opinion. The final resolution of any long-term restrictions on Delta pumping-due to the Delta Smelt is not known at this time. A second federal court deasion has invalidated the USF&WS Biological Opinion on the impact of Delta pumping on salmon and steelhead trout (Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Association v. Gutierrez, Federal District Court Case # 06-CV-00245). No interim pumping restrictions have been imposed in the litigation relating to the impacts of Delta exports on the salmon and steelhead trout. In that litigation, a request for restrictions was denied by the Court based on findings that (1) evidence seems to show that pumping and export restrictions may not greatly benefit the species and have significant adverse consequences for water users; and (2) there are substantial scientific disagreements about the need for and effectiveness of the remedies on species viability. As part of that litigation, USF&WS is preparing a new Biological Opinion on salmon and steelhead which is anticipated to be completed in March 2009. The resolution of any long-term restrictions on Delta pumping due to the salmon and steelhead trout are not known at this time. The Department of Fish & Game also has adopted regulations to protect longfin smelt that might result in restrictions on Delta pumping. The regulations provide temporary protection for the longfin smelt while the State considers whether to list the fish as an endangered species. Whether and when these restrictions will go into effect is unclear and uncertain. The restrictions take effect only in certain situations. The State Water Contractors have filed a lawsuit challenging the regulations. In light of these litigation and regulatory issues, various federal and state agencies are considering long-term solutions to the Delta pumping issue. Since 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 can be maintained while at the same time protecting species that rely on the Delta habitat. 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- orisolated-conveyance system. Such adual- orisolated-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. As discussed above in Section B.1, Zone 7 and the Tri-Valley Retailers are actively working on various solutions to increase the reliability of water currently delivered through the Delta. Based on the importance to Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 146 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ ~~~~ ~a, the entire State of resolving the Delta pumping situation and the various options available for resolution, it is "reasonably likely" to assume that either the restrictions will be lifted, a solution to the Delta conveyance impacts on species and habitat will be implemented, an alternative source of water will '" be found by Zone 7 to replace the approximately 6,000 afy water "shortfall" by 2030, or new policies will offset the negative impacts of the restrictions (e.g., state legislation (ex. Laird bill (AB 2175) or a revised Zone 7 policy). 3. Future Water Demand Likely Overstated. The water "shortfall" conclusions in the 2008 Annual Review result from very conservative demand assumptions which include no reduction in per capita demand over the next 22 years and no further implementation of conservation measures or requirements. However, recent demand data from DSRSD and Zone 7 show water demand is decreasing. The 2008 Annual Review does not reflect this decrease in demand. In addition, the 2008 Annual Review does not consider future reductions in demand due to State regulations and the implementation of water conservation measures. Based on the following discussion, it appears "reasonably likely" that the growth in potable water demand assumed under the 2008 Annual Review will occur at a slower rate or will be less than that projected at buildout. a. Recent Decreases in Water Demand DSRSD's billing account data shows that per water account demand has decreased 38% over the last 3 years (2005-2008) (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD, personal communication, November 21, 2008). The water demand per account decrease from January -October was 25% in 2005-2006, 4.7% in 2006-2007, and 14% in 2007-2008 (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD, personal communication, November 21, 2008). This decrease maybe attributed to a number of reasons, including but not limited to, increased use of recycled water for irrigation, increased density of developments, lower number of occupants per residential unit, voluntary water conservation efforts, and the current economic slowdown. This data shows a pattern of significant, recent overall demand reduction. As part of DSRSD's next Water Master Planning effort, it is reviewing water demand data and will adjust projections as necessary. Zone's Ts recent 5 year delivery requests show a 3% reduction in potable ~` water requests for 2009 from delivery requests made in 2008 (Zone 7 Five °~ Year Delivery Requests 2009-2013, dated October 15, 2008 (2008 5 Year Delivery Request)). DSRSD reduced their delivery rate by 9% due to the "~ economic slowdown and the reduced rate of growth in their service area (2008 5 Year Delivery Request, p. 3). California Water Service and Livermore each reduced their delivery requests by 2% (2008 5 Year Delivery Request, p. 3). Also, in 2008, some contractors took less of their requested water deliveries due to increased conservation efforts. (2008 5 Year Delivery Request, p. 4). Overestimates of estimated delivery requests have also occurred recently. In 2006, Pleasanton and Livermore actual deliveries were 8-10% below amounts included in Zone 7 plans (2008 5 Year Delivery Request, p. 4). "'~ Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 147 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,~ ? .a ~ ~.~ ~~_., Water demand also seems to be decreasing due to the economic downturn. Within the last year in particular, the DSRSD service area has begun to experience a reduction in requested water connections due to the economic slowdown, especially the significant reduction in construction of new single family homes. The number of new 5 / 8-inch water meter equivalent water connections requests in the first 9 months of 2008 was 67 compared to 1,022 for the first 9 months of 2007, a reduction of 93.4%. The drop in water connections is evidence of an economic slowdown which will result in a slowdown in the rate of growth of future water demand. The recent reduction in water demand documented above could extend available water supplies to meet Zone 7's 100% Reliability Policy beyond 2015 as estimated in the 2008 Annual Review. b. Reductions in Future Water Demand Due to State Regulations and Water Conservation The demand estimates in the 2008 Annual Review do not reflect the mandatory 20% reduction in indoor water use in residential development required in 2011 under the recently adopted 2008 California Green Building Code Standards. The Green Building Code also includes a comparable 20% reduction in commercial development which is currently voluntary, but is expected to be adopted as part of the 2010 California Building Code revisions. A 50% reduction in potable water use in outdoor landscape irrigation will be part of the 2010 California Building Code. Therefore, it is "reasonably likely" that the 200$ Annual Review over-estimated future water demand since it did not assume any reduction in per capita demand in future. A future reduction of demand greater than the 6-9% "shortfall" identified in the 2008 Annual Review seems "reasonably likely" especially in Light of the 20% indoor water use reduction and 50% outdoor water use reduction mandates in the California Green Building Code. The 2008 Annual Review states that a 20% reduction in per capita water use would result in Zone 7 having adequate supplies to meet demand through buildout (2008 Annual Review, p. 1). The 2008 Annual Review also does not include any reduction in demand due to the implementation of voluntary or mandatory conservation measures. Although conservation measures are greatest in drought years, they carry-over to non-drought years, especially structural conservation measures. For example, permanent conservation based on structural changes include replacing existing potable-water landscape irrigation systems with recycled water systems and retrofitting existing structures with water conserving fixtures. Additional water conservation measures and use of recycled water is increasing in new development and could be required. Several proposed programs to offset existing demand (ex. toilet flush retrofit at Alameda County Santa Rita Prison) could free up potable water supplies for future demand. Overall, these measures would significantly reduce future water demand. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 148 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin i DSRSD currently has an extensive water conservation program in place, as described in Chapter 8 of DSRSD's 2005 UWMP. The projected future water demands presented in Table 4.12-1 include continued implementation of DSRSD's water conservation programs. In single dry or multiple dry years, the projected demands would likely decrease as a result of additional mandated water conservation measures and increased awareness by DSRSD's customers. Based on water conservation by DSRSD' s customers in past droughts, a reduction in water demand of up to 25 percent is assumed to occur during single dry or multiple dry years with implementation of mandatory water use restrictions and prohibitions as outlined in DSRSD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Chapter 9 of DSIZSD's 2005 UWMP). The Zone 7 UWMP also sets forth detailed Water Demand Management Measures that reduce water use. Zone 7 reached a voluntary demand reduction of 25% during the critical dry year of 1991 (when Zone 7 received only 30% of its SWP water supply). This demand reduction has been assumed for DSRSD' s City of Dublin service area, but not for the Dougherty Valley service area, due to the nature of the supply agreements for Dougherty Valley. However, some reduction will also likely occur in the Dougherty Valley service area due to increased awareness by DSRSD's customers. Also, both DSRSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for water cutbacks in the event of a drought that are not included in the assumptions in the 2008 Annual Review. ~' 4. Conservative Planning Assum,~tions. The 2008 Arulual Review also states that if any one of the conservative planning assumptions upon which its .~- analysis is based changes, the analysis could significantly change. Zone 7 ~~, has identified the following planning-level assumptions used in their analysis that could be subject to change, which could extend the 100 percent .• reliability of Zone 7 supplies beyond 2015 by reducing the projected demands, and / or increasing the sustainable supply available to Zone 7: a,. • Slow-down in development due to economic or other factors, thus delaying and / or reducing the rate of increase in projected future demands; , • Reduction in projected demand in normal years (including potential reductions in per capita water demand consistent with State legislative or executive proposal's fora 20 percent reduction in per capita water use statewide and / or during dry years (as a result of water conservation by DSRSD and the other retailers); • Increases in recycled water use, thus reducing potable water demands; and • Implementation of near-term and long-term Delta improvements to increase long-term SWP deliveries to Zone 7. Wastewater treatment and disposal. Collection and treatment of wastewater in the Cities of Dublin and the south one-half of San Ramon are the responsibility of Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 149 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin y,. a~ ,' ~ C° ,.~.,~..._ 1 .~ ..J Ui' a:~ ... iA DSRSD. Disposal of treated wastewater is under the jurisdiction of the Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Authority (LAVWMA). DSRSD has constructed a comprehensive grid of sewer trunks, mains and laterals throughout their service area. Near the Project area, a major wastewater main is located in Dougherty Road. Wastewater collected from the DSRSD service area travels by gravity to the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant, which is located near the southeast corner of I-580 and I- 680 in the City of Pleasanton. The plant has a rated dry-weather capacity of 17.0 mgd. Current (June, 2008) dry weather flows into the plant average 10.7 mgd (pers. comm. Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, June 29 2008). DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and collection system capital improvements as well as on-going wastewater system maintenance. Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton is the responsibility of the LAVWMA. LAVWMA currently exports secondary treated wastewater to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA} interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay via a deepwater outfall. The original LAVWMA export pipeline system was constructed in 1979 with abuilt-in capacity limit of 21 million gallons per day (mgd). This original system has been in continuous operation since that time. By the mid-1990s, continuing development in the Livermore-Amador Valley resulted in the need for additional export capacity. In 1997/ 1998, average dry-weather flow in the LAVWMA export system was 14.3 mgd, and peak wet-weather flow was at or near the system capacity of 21 mgd. As of August, 2005, LAVWMA completed construction of the Export Pipeline Facilities project, which included a combination of new and replacement pipes to increase disposal capacity for the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant. Under existing contractual arrangements between LAVWMA and DSRSD, DSRSD is entitled to a maximum average dry weather flow of 10.4 mgd. Standards of significance. The proposed project would be considered to result in a significant impact if new or enlarged facilities are required, including water, wastewater collection, treatment and / or disposal facilities or if there would be insufficient water supplies to serve the Project. Under CEQA standards, the EIR must analyze the "reasonable likelihood" that adequate water supply will be available to serve the Project and other water demand under near-term and long-term conditions. The "reasonably likely" showing does not require certainty of future water supplies through signed, enforceable agreements with providers and already built or approved facilities. An EIR must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water's availability. "Paper water," speculative sources or unrealistic allocations are not "reasonably likely" sources under CEQA. Uncertainty in the form of competition for identified water sources is an Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page i 50 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin s,t' fi a important point that should be discussed, but it does not necessarily render "' development of the planned water supply too unlikely. It is not necessary that the EIR show that total water supply in the long-term would be sufficient to meet total demand, but a discussion of total supply and demand is necessary to evaluate the cumulative '" impacts of development on water supply. There is a level of uncertainty regarding the availability of water supplies that can be tolerated in an EIR. However, the EIR must provide decision makers with information to evaluate the sources of water for the project and their impacts. The EIR can rely on and incorporate analysis of the impacts from water sources performed by the water purveyors. The analysis of replacement or alternative sources is only required if it is impossible to confidently determine that antiapated future water sources will not be available. As long as an EIR discloses potential uncertainties and contains substantial evidence demonstrating that water supplies will likely be available in the future despite uncertainties, an EIR is not required to identify and analyze alternative water supplies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following environmental impacts are anticipated should the proposed Project be approved. Water facility impacts. Water facility impacts. DSRSD staff analyzed whether the potable- and recycled-water facilities are sufficient to serve the Project demand described below (DSRSD Technical Memorandum for Arroyo Vista Housing Project dated February 25, 2008 (Technical Memorandum)). The Technical Memorandum concluded that the integration of the Project into the DSRSD Central Dublin system would require an additional .11 MG of storage capacity to meet DSRSD's storage criterion. Under buildout plus Project conditions, the total additional storage capacity required is 2.85 MG. The Technical Memorandum found that DSRSD's existing and planned buildout facilities would be able to serve Project needs. No new or enlarged facilities are required by the Project. Therefore, there is no significant impact relating to new or enlarged water facilities that are not addressed. Water demand. Construction of proposed improvements on the Arroyo Vista Site would increase demand for potable water for domestic purposes. Unlike the existing use on the Site, the Project will incorporate recycled water for landscaping and low-flow toilets and other similar permanent water conservation mechanisms, both of which will reduce the magnitude of the Project's water demand. Table 4.12-4 provides an estimate of potable water use requirements for the full buildout of the proposed Project. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 151 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 77 7 _. Table 4.12-2. Estimated Arroyo Vista Potable Water Demand in Gallons Per Day (GPD) Land Use Dwellings Generation Factor Est. Water Demand (gallons/day) Pro osed construction Low Density Residential 57 393 22,401 Medium Hig Densi Residential 141 157 22,137 Hig Density + Senior apartments 180 138 24,840 Subtotal 378 69,378 Existin develo ment Existing dwellings (to be removed) 150 393 -53,565 Total 228 net new) -- 15,813 Notes: 1) Number of dwellings based on Project Description 2) Generation factor from West-Yost Associates "Evaluation of Arroyo Vista Housing Project's Integration into DSRSD Potable Water System," February 28, 2008 3) The existing 150 single-family homes have totaled an average actual water demand of 60 acre feet per year, based on Zone 7 billing records. Sixty acre-feet per year is the equivalent of 53,565 gallons per day. 4) This amount is the equivalent of 17.7 acre feet annually. Construction of the proposed Project would therefore increase estimated potable water demand by 15,813 gallons per day or 17.7 afy. This would be an incremental increase in water use for Dublin and surrounding communities served by DSRSD and Zone 7. 17.7 afy constitutes only constitutes only 0.1% of DSRSD's long-term potable water supply of 17,100 afy, and 0.02% of the conservative total sustainable water supply of 81,200 afy, in the 2008 Annual Review. In addition, there would be an increase in demand for non-potable irrigation water. A recycled water distribution main is located adjacent to the Project property. There is a sufficient supply of recycled water available to serve this demand and aless-than- significant impact would result with regard to this topic. DSRSD has indicated that, as of the date of this EIR, potable water is available for this Project and will remain available until at least 2015 without any further considerations. The incremental increase in potable water demand is relatively small and that DSRSD does not believe that the increase will have a significant impact on the District's ability to provide water supplies to its customers in this area. (Memorandum from Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD Staff, 7/3/08.) 17.7 afy constitutes only 0.1% of DSRSD's long-term potable water supply of 17,100 afy. DSRSD also will not issue construction permits for the proposed Project if there is not available water, in accordance with DSRSD Code Section 6.2.01. So, the proposed Project will not be allowed to begin construction under DSRSD regulations unless there is adequate water to serve Project demand. At collection of connection fees Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 152 Draft Environmental Impact Report ,lanuary 2009 City of Dublin ~ ~ ~~" ~z and issuance of a construction permit, a connection to the DSRSD water supply system "' will be made and water provided to the Project in accordance with DSRSD regulations. Zone 7 has determined that it has sufficient supplies to serve projected demand with 100% delivery reliability through 2015 even with the continuation of the current restrictions on SWP water due to restrictions on Delta pumping. The Project is expected to be completed before 2015. Therefore, there is available water to serve the proposed Project if it is completed before 2015 even under the conservative analysis in the 2008 Annual Review. Zone 7 and DSRSD allocate water to users on afirst-come-first-served basis. The analysis of water availability and reliability in the 2008 Annual Review is different and stricter than the CEQA standards. CEQA requires that water supplies are "reasonably likely" to be available to serve the Project in the near and long-term. Under CEQA, the water supply analysis in an EIR may rely on arecently-adopted UWMP. Zone 7's current 2005 UWMP concluded that it had sufficient water to meet existing and future demand under its 100% Reliability Policy through 2030. Zone 7's 2005 UWMP did not consider species-related restrictions on Delta pumping. Zone 7 will update its UWMP in 2010. However, the 2008 Annual Review identifies a potential "shortfall" in supply after 2015 to meet the 100% Reliability Policy. This Review is a "snapshot" based on current conditions taken outside the formal UWMP planning process that takes place every 5 years. As discussed above, under the conservative analysis in the 2008 Annual Review, existing water supplies may prove insufficient to meet demand with 100% delivery reliability after 2015. The "shortfall" of supply to meet the 100% Reliability Policy would equal about 6,000 afy in 2030. Based on the above discussion, adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demand (including the proposed Project) are reasonably likely. The 2008 Annual Review is based on very conservative assumptions. It does not include the full amount of "reasonably likely" water supply available to Zone 7 under existing contracts and potentially new sources of supply being pursued. DSRSD also has existing water supplies available under its contract with BMID and recycled water and additional conservation measures that could be implemented which could be used to meet Project and cumulative demand. In addition, it is reasonably likely that existing and future demand would be at least 15% below that estimated in the 2008 Annual Review after 2015. The recently adopted State Green Building Code requires a 20% reduction in indoor water use in residential development in 2011 and a similar voluntary reduction for commercial development is expected to become mandatory in the 2010 California Building Code. In addition, a 50% reduction in outdoor water use is expected to be part of the 2010 California Building Code. Zone 7 and DSRSD also have current water conservations measures that are in effect during droughts and maybe expanded to address shortages resulting from other causes. Historical figures show that these conservation measures could reduce demand by about 25%. Zone 7 acknowledges that if any of the basic assumptions used in the 2008 Annual Review change, then the results could change. The current 2008 Annual Review assumes: Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 153 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin buildout proceeds in accordance with current General Plans in linear fashion to 2030 without any slowdown due to current economic downtown; no change in its 100% Reliability Policy; and existing interim restrictions on Delta pumping will continue long- term. In summary, it is "reasonably likely" that there are existing and future potential water supplies greater than 6,000 afy that are not included in the 2008 Annual Review. In addition, likely reduction in demand by 2030 will exceed the amount of this identified shortfall. Based on the foregoing, water supplies are reasonably likely to be available to serve the proposed Project and existing demand in the near-term, and Project and cumulative demand in the long-term. Therefore, the proposed Project impact is less than significant. The Project contribution to any significant cumulative impact is less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than significant. Since water supplies are reasonably likely, the EIR is not required to analyze alternative water sources and supplies. Wastewater generation Wastewater generation would be increased should the proposed Arroyo Vista Project be approved and constructed. The following table (Table 4.12-3) is an estimate of increased dry weather sewage generation for the full buildout of the proposed Project, deducting wastewater flows from existing dwellings occupying the Site. Table 4.12-3. Estimated Wastewater Generation Generation Factor Est. Wastewater Land Use Dwelling Units (gallons per day) Generation ( allons er da ) Pro osed develo meat Low Density 57 220 12,540 Residential~l~ Medium High 141 165 23,265 Densit Residential~2~ High Density +Senior 180 145 26,100 a artments~3~ Subtotal 378 61,905 Existin develo ment Existing dwellings (to 150 220 -33,000 be removed) Total 28,905 Notes: (1) identified as single family residential by DSRSD (2) identified as condominium by DSRSD (3) identified as apartment by DSRSD Source: DSRSD, Wastewater Characteristic Factors, Jufy 2008 Construction of the proposed Project would therefore increase wastewater flows from the Project by an estimated 28,905 gallons per day. This would be an incremental increase in wastewater generation based on system-wide capacity for collection and treatment. According to DSRSD officials (pers. comm., Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 154 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 7/29/08), the proposed redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista Site can be accommodated "~ within the existing and planned collection and treatment system and aless-than- significant impact would result. _ Wastewater disposal The proposed Project would increase the amount of treated wastewater leaving the Tri- Valley area. Based on discussions with LAVWMA staff, the completion of the planned wastewater disposal facility from the DSILSD wastewater treatment plant to the East Bay Discharger's Authority outfall pipe to San Francisco Bay would be adequate to accommodate increased wastewater flows from the proposed Arroyo Vista Project and a less-than-significant impact would result with regard to this topic. Based on a discussion with the interim manager of LAVWMA, the existing export pipe system can accommodate wastewater generated by land uses anticipated in the current City General Plan. Although a General Plan Amendment has been requested to increase the number of dwellings on the Site, the number of dwellings and associated incremental increase in the amount of treated wastewater is sufficiently small as to be accommodated in the export pipeline (per. comm., Ed Cummings, LAVWMA Interim Director, 5 / 6 / 08). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 155 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that have the potential to feasibly achieve most of project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project. This EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts: Cumulative (2015) traffic impacts at Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods; Cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods; and Cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts at the Dublin Boulevard(Dougherty Road intersection during the p.m. peak periods. The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed Project, the advantages of each can be weighed and considered by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a range of alternatives "governed by a rule of reason" and requires the EIR to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives selected for analysis in this document include: • Alternative 1: "No Project" (required by CEQA to be considered). • Alternative 2: Reduced Project (Medium Density Residential) • Alternative 3: Mixed Use Development. Alternatives are described and evaluated below. 5.1 No Project CEQA requires an analysis of a "no Project" alternative. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the existing 150 unit public housing complex would remain and no additional development would occur, with the exception of on-going maintenance, repair and replacement of infrastructure to meet applicable building, health and safety code requirements; however, the number of dwellings would not be increased. This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in this document, including: Aesthetics and Light and Glare: There would be no aesthetic change to the Site. Buildings, parking, landscaping and the sound barrier wall would remain as they presently exist, as would current levels of light and glare. Aesthetic and light and glare impacts of this Alternative would be similar to or less than the proposed Project. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page i 56 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Air Quality: Existing sources of air emissions would remain. There would be no short-term air quality impacts associated with demolition of existing dwellings and paved area and construction of new dwellings and other improvements. Emissions related to existing vehicle use would be less than under the proposed development program since no additional vehicles from any additional housing would be associated with the Site. There would be no increase in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from additional dwellings on the Site. Repair and maintenance activities would be limited to existing dwellings, paved areas and landscaped areas. Air quality impacts of this Alternative would be similar to or less than the proposed Project. • Biological Resources: There would be limited or no impacts to existing on-site biological resources compared to the proposed Project, since no additional dwellings or significant ground disturbing activities would occur on the Site. Any construction for repair and/or maintenance would likely not occur adjacent to Alamo Creek since no dwellings presently exist adjacent to this creek. • Cultural Resources: There would be no impacts to cultural resources since no major construction or disruption of the soil-would occur. Geology and Soils: No major excavation, grading or related activities would occur, except for on-going repair of existing utility lines and underground irrigation lines. No significant increases in the amount of erosion from the Site is therefore anticipated. Similarly, there would be no anticppated impacts related with exposing new and additional building improvements, employees and visitors to the potential of seismic hazards since the number of dwellings would not increase. Geologic and soil impacts of this Alternative would be similar to or less than the proposed Project. • Hazard and Hazardous Materials: Existing sources of on-site contamination would remain as they presently exist. There would be no significant demolition of existing dwellings that would release contaminants into the atmosphere. Fewer impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would therefore result under this Alternative than the proposed Project. • Hydrology and Water Quality: Existing hydrologic and drainage patterns on the Site would remain unchanged since no major construction would occur. No increases in the amount of stormwater runoff or associated erosion would occur since there would be no increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on the Site. Noise: Existing major noise generators near the Site would remain, including Dougherty Road, Parks RFTA and on-site noise sources, such as mechanical and HVAC systems. The existing 7-foot noise barrier wall along Dougherty Road would remain. Limited short-term construction noise would result, related to upgrades, maintenance and repair to existing facilities. Noise impacts would be less under this Alternative than the proposed Project Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 157 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin .,,~ • Population and Housing: There would be no removal or displacement of the existing 150 public housing units and their respective residents from the Site. Public Services: There would be no increase in the number of calls for service to the City's police and fire service provider, since there would not be an increase in the on-site population. No increases in either police or fire facilities would be required. Similarly, there would be no additional increases in the number of school-aged children or in the quantity of solid waste or recycling from the Site, since no additional development would occur under this Alternative. Transportation and Circulation: Existing traffic patterns on local and regional roadways would continue as currently exist. The Project would not contribute additional vehicles to anticipated future unacceptable level of service operations during peak hours at the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard and the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersections. A traffic signal system would not be constructed at the main Project driveway and Dougherty Road as required by Mitigation Measure 4.11-1. Existing parking on the Site would remain in its current configuration. Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed Project would not occur under this Alternative. • Utilities and Service Systems: No new demand would be created for new and/or upgraded utilities services. Zone 7 would continue providing water service to existing dwellings and DSRSD would continue to provide wastewater collection and treatment service. No additional services would be required. 5.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Development The second alternative assumes that existing buildings and related improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per local, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site would be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per acre. As shown on the Site plan that illustrates this alternative, it is assumed that the dwellings would be clustered in the approximate center of the Site, leaving greater setbacks along Dougherty Road and Alamo Creek. Existing Site driveways along Dougherty Road would remain as they currently exist. This Alternative is conceptually depicted in Exhibit 5.2-1. This alternative would yield 238 dwellings, plus on-site parking and landscaping. Of these, 150 dwellings would be income-restricted dwellings and 88 would be market dwellings. Dwellings would be generally similar to the proposed Project in terms of appearance and scale. The community building and day care facility would also be included in this Alternative. Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include: Aesthetics and Light and Glare: There would be a slight improvement to aesthetic conditions to the Site over the proposed Project, since greater setbacks would be provided adjacent to Dougherty Road and along Alamo Creek. The existing sound barrier along Dougherty Road would either remain, or a lower barrier built since dwellings would be located further away from Dougherty Road. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 158 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Y ~ ~~ `gyp ~"~ Rli Somewhat lower levels of levels of light and glare would be present on the Site as under the proposed Project, but there would still be streetlights on Dougherty Road as well as interior lights within the Site. Impact 4.1-1 and related Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 would apply to Alternative 2 to reduce light and glare to a less- than-significant level. Many existing trees in the interior of the site would need to be removed to allow for construction of new buildings and related Project improvements so that Impact 4.2-1 and Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 would apply to this Alternative, the same as the proposed Project. Air Quality: Short-term air quality impacts would be of lesser duration than the proposed Project since fewer dwellings would be constructed and there would be a reduced development area. Emissions would be less than under the proposed Project since fewer vehicle trips that cause air pollution would be generated by this Alternative due to fewer dwellings being constructed. Similarly, there would be fewer resident sensitive receptors (typically seniors and minors} present on the Site that would be subject to adverse air quality conditions since there would be a smaller resident population than the proposed Project. There would also be less emissions of greenhouse gasses than the proposed Project, since there would be fewer vehicle trips generated by a smaller project and there would be less combustion of natural gas for heating, cooling and cooking purposes. There would be generation of potentially significant impacts of dust during demolition of existing improvements and grading of the Site to accommodate proposed uses that would be built under this Alternative. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b would continue to apply to Alternative 2. Biological Resources: There would be less severe impacts to on-site biological resources, since a smaller portion of the Site would be redeveloped. A greater setback would be provided adjacent to Alamo Creek where the potential for erosion into the creek would be less and more area would be available to install landscaping to provide water quality protection for Alamo Creek. More existing trees could be retained on the Site. Impacts 4.3-1, impacts to any nesting birds on the Site, would result under Alternative 2 as identified for the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 would be applied to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Similarly, development under Alternative 2 would impact any nesting bats on the Site due to Project construction (Impact 4.3-2) and this impact would be reduced to a less- than-significant impact by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. Development on the Project Site under Alternative 2 would also result in potentially significant impacts to fish species in Alamo Creek (Impact 4.3-3) and to on-site heritage trees (Impact 4.1-2), similar to the proposed Project. These impacts would be reduced to aless-than-significant level by adherence to mitigation measures identified in the Biological Resource and Aesthetics sections of this EIR. • Cultural Resources: There would be a lesser potential for impacts to cultural resources than under the proposed Project since less surface area of the Site Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 159 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~- would be disturbed for construction purposes. Greater undeveloped setbacks along Alamo Creek would be maintained to protect any unrecorded but potentially significant buried cultural artifacts. However, construction of improvements under this Alternative could result in impacts to unrecorded archeological, prehistoric and / or Native American remains, in a similar fashion as the proposed Project. This would be a potentially significant impact as identified for the proposed Project. This is identified as Impact 4.41 in the Culfixral Resource section of the EIR and would be reduced to a less-than- significant impact with adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. Geology and Soils: Fewer residents and visitors on the Site would be subject to seismic ground shaking as compared to the proposed Project, since a smaller on- site population would exist compared to the proposed Project. The potential for erosion would be less than the proposed Project since a smaller portion of the Site would be developed and a greater area of the Site could be used for biofiltration of pollutants. Future construction allowed under this Alternative would be subject to soil hazards from expansive soil and J or undocumented fill material (Impact 4.5-1) and future construction would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Hazard and Hazardous Materials: The same impacts would result under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Project, since existing sources of asbestos and lead based paint would be removed through demolition of existing structures to allow for redevelopment of the Site. These impacts include Impact 4.6-1, which identifies a potential presence of lead in Site soils and the potential presence of lead based paints and asbestos within existing structures. Both impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2. Hydrology and Water Quality: The quality of stormwater leaving the Project Site would be somewhat improved than the proposed Project, since more of the Site would remain open. The City of Dublin would also apply the same water quality control features on development under Alternative 2 as the proposed Project, as required by the Alameda Clean Water Program and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There would still be an impact related to water quality (Impact 4.7-1), similar to the proposed Project, in that there would be an increase in non- point pollution sources over existing conditions. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would be applied to Alternative 2 to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. The amount of stormwater leaving the Site under this Alternative would increase over current conditions, but would be somewhat less than under the proposed Project. This is because less impervious surfaces would be created under Alternative 2 than under the proposed Project. Nonetheless, Impact 4.7-2 identified for the proposed Project (increased stormwater runoff) would also occur under Alternative 2. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would be applied to Alternative 2 to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant impact. • Noise: Construction that would be allowed under Alternative 2 would result in short-term demolition and construction impacts that could be a significant Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 160 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin i .,~ impact on surrounding residents and visitors. Since fewer dwellings would be "' built under Alternative 2, and the location of dwellings and related improvements would be further from surrounding residential properties, the duration of the impacts would be less than the proposed Project. This is "~' identified as Impact 4.8-1. This impact would be reduced to ales-than- ~~ significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.8-1. Fewer residents would be subject to potentially significant levels of traffic noise than under the proposed Project, since there would be a smaller resident population on the Site under Alternative 2, as compared to the proposed Project. Buildings would also be setback further from Dougherty Road than under the proposed Project. The increased setback may reduce the number of residents affected by noise, however, it is likely that traffic noise would also be a potentially significant impact similar to Impact 4.8-2 for the proposed Project. This would be reduced to ales-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.8-2. Under Alternative 2, the Project Site would be subject to helicopter flights and noise generated from Parks RFTA as would be the case under the proposed Project and as currently occurs under existing conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.8-3 would apply to the new dwellings under Alternative 2 similar to the proposed Project. New dwellings constructed under Alternative 2 would also be subjected to potentially significant noise from on-site mechanical equipment (Impact 4.8-4), which would be reduced to ales-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.8-4. Interior noise impacts could be significant under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed Project and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5. Population and Housing: The same number of existing residents would be displaced from the Site as under the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, relocation to suitable replacement housing would occur in compliance with local, state and federal guidelines and requirements. Alternative 2 would provide 150 income-restricted dwellings and would not reduce the City's inventory of this type of housing, Public Services: There would likely be an increase in the number of calls for service to the City's police and fire service providers, since there would be an increase in the on-site resident and visitor population, although the number of increased residents and visitors would be less than the proposed Project. Since no increases in either police or fire facilities would be required under the proposed Project with a larger on-site population, no increases would be required under Alternative 2. Increases in the number of school-aged children would likely occur, although Project developer(s) would be subject to payment of required school impact fees. Although the quantity of solid waste or recycling would increase from the Site due to a larger on-site population adequate disposal capacity exists in local landfills to accommodate such increases, the same as the proposed Project. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 161 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ,. Transportation and Circulation: Alternative 2 would likely result in potentially significant impacts in terms of excessive delays for motorists at Project driveways during peak hour conditions that are currently unsignalized. Development under this Alternative would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-6 to signalize the South Mariposa Drive/Dougherty Road intersection, so that these impacts would beless-than-significant. Similar to the proposed Project, development under Alternative 2 would worsen traffic congestion under short-term conditions at the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard during a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. No feasible Project mitigations were identified for the Project and none are identified under Alternative 2. The gap between the Project's "fair share" and the cost to improve this intersection are discussed in the Traffic and Circulation Section (Section 4.11) under Impact 4.11-2 and would be greater under Alternative 2. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2. This Alternative would result in potentially significant long-term cumulative impacts during peak hour periods at the Dougherty Road / Amador Valley Road and Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersections. Similar to the proposed Project, these would be a significant and unavoidable impacts. No impacts are anticipated to MTS facilities or local freeway operations under this Alternative, the same as the proposed Project. This Alternative would retain Site access driveways as they currently exist; therefore, Impact 4.11-7 that would occur under the proposed Project would not apply to this Alternative, since adequate on-site access would be retained. If on-site circulation impacts are modified from the current configuration, Impact 4.11-7 and associated Mitigation Measure 4.11- 7 could apply to this Alternative.. Utilities and Service Systems: Development that would be allowed under Alternative 2 would result in less use of domestic water and less generation of wastewater than the proposed Project due to fewer dwellings constructed on the Site. The amount of recycled water that would be used would be greater under Alternative 2 than the proposed Project since there would be a greater amount of landscaped open space, although new landscape would include more draught tolerant material and landscape irrigation may be drip irrigation. Table 5.2-1, below, describes the estimated amount of potable water that would be needed under this Alternative. The estimated amount of water needed, 13,816 gallons, compares to an estimated 81, 574 gallons shown on Table 4.12-2.This Alternative would require less water than under existing conditions, primarily due to a different building configuration type. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 162 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~, Table 5.2-1. Estimated Arroyo Vista Alternative 2 Potable Water Demand in Gallons Per Day (GPD) Land Use Dwellings~l~ Generation Factor~2~ Est. Water Demand ( allons/da ) Medium Density 238 157 37,366 Residential Deduct-existing 150 393 -58,950 dwellin s Total 88 (net new) -- -13,816 Notes: 1) Number of dwellings based on Alternative 2 Description 2) Generation factor from DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update Development that would be allowed under Alternative 2 would be subject to Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 that requires the Project developer to obtain awill- serve letter for water prior to issuance of a building permit. In terms of wastewater generation, development that would be allowed under Alternative 2 would generate less wastewater than the proposed Project. The amount of estimated wastewater is shown on Table 5.2-2, below. As with the proposed Project, the net increase in the amount of Project generated wastewater is 6,270 gallons per day. The amount of wastewater that would be generated is not anticipated to be a significant impact. Table 5.2-2. Alternative 2 Estimated Wastewater Generation Generation Factor Est. Wastewater Land Use Dwelling Units (gallons per day) Generation ( allons er da ) Medium Density 238 165 39,270 Residential Existin dwellin s 150 220 -33,000 Total 6,270 Source: DSRSD, Wastewater Characteristic Factors and Unit Sewer Connection Fee, 7/1 io8 5.3 Alternative 3: Mixed-Use Development The third alternative assumes development of five acres of the Site for local serving commercial development, which would generate approximately 54,500 square feet of development. Tenants of the commercial component may include a convenience food store, a small restaurant or coffee shop, dry cleaners and similar local serving uses. On site parking would also be provided. It is likely that the commercial center would be located adjacent to Dougherty Road. A General Plan Amendment to "Neighborhood Commercial" would be required to implement the uses envisioned in Alternative 3 for the commercial portion of the Site. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 163 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 1 A second component of this alternative would be development of the remaining 18.8 acres of the Site at a medium density range, which allows up to 14 dwellings per acre. The dwellings would be restricted to low and very low income households. The midpoint of this designation would be equivalent to 188 attached dwellings (10 units per acre), along with on-site parking and open space and recreational amenities. No childcare or community center would be constructed under this Alternative. Alternative 3 is conceptually depicted on Exhibit 5.3-1. Aesthetics and Light and Glare: Aesthetic conditions on the Site would be significantly different under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project. Under Alternative 3, a commercial building or buildings would front on Dougherty Road and would be visible to motorists and other passersby. There would also be one or more business identification signs and significantly more parking lot and building security lighting. Depending on the location and design of future commercial buildings under this Alternative, there could be a significant impact related to the visual character of the Site that would not occur under the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 would be applied to development allowed under this Alternative to reduce light and glare impacts to a less-than- significantlevel. Since there would be a loss of on-site trees, similar to the proposed Project (Impact 4.1-2), Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 would also be applied to development under Alternative 3 to reduce loss of tree resources to a less- than-significant level. Air Quality: Short-term air quality impacts would likely be the same as the proposed Project, since approximately the same amount of development would occur, although it would be of a different type than the proposed Project. Emissions from vehicles could likely be greater with Alternative 3 than under the proposed Project since the commercial component of the Site would generate more total vehicle trips, resulting in greater air emissions. There would also be greater emissions of greenhouse gasses than the proposed Project since there would be a greater number of vehicle trips generated. There would be generation of potentially significant impacts of dust during demolition of existing improvements, grading of the Site and construction under this Alternative. Mitigation Measures 4.1-2a and 4.1-2b would to apply to Alternative 3 to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. • Biological Resources: There would likely be the same impacts on biological resources as the proposed Project, since approximately the same area of the Site would be disturbed to accommodate buildings, parking areas and similar uses. Impact 4.3-1, impacts to any nesting birds on the Site, would result under Alternative 3 as identified for the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 would be applied to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Similarly, development under Alternative 3 would impact any nesting bats on the Site due to Project construction (Impact 4.3-2) and this impact would be reduced to a less- than-significant impact by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 164 Draft Environmental impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ate; Development of the Project Site under Alternative 3 would also result in '~ potentially significant impacts to fish species in Alamo Creek (Impact 4.3-3) and ~~a to one heritage tree (Impact 4.1-2), similar to the proposed Project. These impacts would be reduced to ales-than-significant level by adherence to related '"` mitigation measures identified in the Biological Resource and Aesthetics sections of this DEIR. Cultural Resources: There would be approximately the same impacts to cultural resources as the proposed Project since the same amount of surface area of the Site would be disturbed for construction purposes. Similar to the proposed Project, construction of improvements under this Alternative could result in ,~, impacts to unrecorded archeological, prehistoric and/or Native American remains, in a similar fashion as the proposed Project. This would be a potentially significant impact as identified for the proposed Project. This is identified as ,q,, Impact 4.4-1 in the Cultural Resource section of the EIR and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.41. • Geology and Soils: A differing mix of residents and visitors would be present on the Site under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project. Specifically, there would be more full-time employees on the Site and patrons for the various commercial uses, in addition to residential residents and visitors that would be subject to seismic ground shaking. The overall impact with regard to groundshaking impacts would be approximately the same as the proposed Project. The potential for erosion would be the same as the proposed Project, since approximately the same amount of the Site would be developed. Future construction allowed under Alternative 3 would be subject to soil hazards from expansive soil and / or undocumented fill material (Impact 4.5-1) and future construction would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Hazard and Hazardous Materials: The same impacts would result with Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Project, since existing sources of asbestos and lead based paint would be removed to allow for redevelopment of the Site. These impacts include Impact 4.6-1, which identifies a potential presence of lead in Site soils and Impact 4.6-2, the potential presence of lead based paints and asbestos within existing structures. Both impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2, which would also apply to Alternative 3. Hydrology and Water Quality: The quality of stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be the same as the proposed Project, since approximately the same amount of the Site would be graded and the City will impose the same water quality control features on development in this Alternative as the proposed Project, as required by the Alameda Clean Water Program and Regional Water Quality Control Board. There would still be an impact related to water quality (Impact 4.7-1), similar to the proposed Project, in that there would be an increase in non-point pollution sources over existing conditions. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would be applied to Alternative 3 to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 165 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin The amount of stormwater leaving the Site under this Alternative would likely be greater than under current conditions and the proposed Project. This is because potentially more of the Site would be devoted to impervious surfaces such as buildings and especially parking areas to support commercial uses and comparatively less to pervious landscaping and other on-site open spaces. The amount of stormwater runoff would also be likely be approximately the same under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project, since approximately the same amount of the Site would be developed. Impact 4.7-2 identified for the proposed Project (increased stormwater runoff) would also occur under Alternative 2. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would be applied to this Alternative to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant impact. Noise: Construction that would be allowed under Alternative 3 would result in short-term demolition and construction noise that would be a significant impact on surrounding residents and visitors. Short-term impacts would be approximately the same as the proposed Project. This is identified as Impact 4.8- 1, that would be reduced to ales-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.8-1. Although there would be fewer residents on the Site under this Alternative, residents would be subject to potentially significant levels of traffic noise compared to the proposed Project. This is because there would be on-site vehicle noise from patrons of commercial uses as well as noise from delivery trucks. Final building plans for development under this Alternative shall be accompanied by asite-specific acoustic report prepared by a qualified acoustic consultant confirming that City of Dublin interior and exterior noise exposure levels are met, such as noise barriers, use of specific construction materials and techniques and similar methods.. Under Alternative 3, the Project Site would be subject to helicopter flights and noise generated from Parks RFTA as would be the case under the proposed Project and as currently occurs under existing conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.8-3 would apply to the new dwellings under Alternative 3 similar to the proposed Project. New dwellings constructed under Alternative 3 would also be subjected to potentially greater significant noise from on-site mechanical equipment (Impact 4.8-4) than the proposed Project due to mechanical noise from commercial uses and activities, which would be reduced to a less-than- significantlevel by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.8-4. Interior noise impacts (Impact 4.8-5) would be greater under Alternative 3 since there would a potentially significant greater number of visitor and commercial vehicles using commercial establishments on the Site than under the primarily residential proposed Project. Mitigation Measure 4.8-5 would be applied to this Alternative to require final building plans to be accompanied by an acoustic analysis demonstrating that interior noise standards are met. • Population and Housing: The same number of existing residents would be displaced from the Site as under the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, relocation to suitable replacement housing would occur in compliance with local, state and federal guidelines and requirements. Construction of off-site Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 166 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin / ~~ `... ~ ~ ~ y_i replacement housing would not be required because all of the dwelling units in '"" Alternative 3 would be income-restricted, not only maintaining but increasing ~: the City's inventory of income=restricted housing. Public Services: There would likely be a decrease in the number of calls for service to the City's police and fire service providers, since there would be a decrease in the on-site resident and visitor population compared to the Project. The commercial component of this Alternative would likely increase police calls for service for robbery and shoplifting. However, the overall scale and intensity of development under Alternative 3 would likely not be significantly greater than the proposed Project. Therefore, since no increases in either police or fire facilities would be required under the proposed Project, no increases would be required under Alternative 3. Increases in the number of school-aged children would likely occur over existing conditions but not as much as the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, payment of required school impact fees could reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. Although the quantity of solid waste or recycling would increase from the Site due to a larger on-site population of residents and commercial patrons, adequate disposal capacity exists in local landfills to accommodate such increases, the same as the proposed Project. Transportation and Circulation: Alternative 3 would result in a greater number of a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips than the proposed Project, as shown in Table 5.3-1. This would result in potentially significant impacts in terms of excessive delays for motorists at Project driveways during peak hour conditions that are currently unsignalized. This would be similar to the proposed Project. Development under this Alternative would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 to signalize one or more driveways so that this impact would be less-than- significant. Similar to the proposed Project, development of the Site under Alternative 3 would worsen traffic congestion under short-term conditions at the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard during a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 would be applied to this Alternative to reduce peak hour short-term impacts to ales-than-significant level. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would also result in a potentially significant cumulative impact during peak hour periods at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. Similar to the proposed Project, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. No impacts are anticipated to MTS facilities or local freeway operations under this Alternative, the same as the proposed Project. Depending on the design of land uses and access roads under this Alternative, Mitigation Measure 4.11-7 may apply to this Alternative. This measure would require cooperation between the transit service provider, the City of Dublin and the Project applicants to provide for adequate on-site transit circulation. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 167 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~~ ~' Table 5.3-1. Alternative 3 Trip Generation Land Use A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour (ITE Code) Size Unit Trip In:Out In Out Total Trip In:Out In Out Total Rate qo Rate qo (221)Rise Apartment 188 d.u. 0.51 20:80 19 77 96 0.64 65:35 79 42 121 Shop in Center g (820) 54.5 k.s.f. 2.00 17:83 19 90 109 7.70 67:33 281 138 419 34% Retail Pass-by Reduction (P.M. Peak -96 -47 -143 Hour) Total Project Trips 38 167 205 264 133 397 Existing Site Traffic 48 67 115 62 52 114 Net Project Trips -10 100 90 202 81 283 Notes: d.u. =Dwelling Units k.s.f. = 1,000 square feet 'Rates developed from ITE equations Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003) Utilities and Service Systems: Development that would be allowed under Alternative 3 would result in less use of domestic water and less generation of wastewater than the proposed Project due to fewer dwellings constructed on the Site. The amount of recycled water that would be used would be greater under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project since there would be a greater amount of landscaped open space. Table 5.3-2, below, describes the estimated amount of potable water that would be needed under this Alternative, which would be approximately 23,424 gallons per day less than under existing conditions. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 168 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Table 5.3-2. Estimated Arroyo Vista Alternative 3, Potable Water Demand in Gallons Per Day (GPD) Land Use Dwellings Generation Factor Est. Water Demand ( allons/da ) Pro osed Uses Proposed-Medium High Density Residential 188 157 29,516 Proposed- Neighborhood Commercial 54,500 sq. ft. 0.19/1,000 sq.ft. 10 Subtotal 29,526 Existin Uses Existin Residential 150 393 -58,950 Total -- -29,424 Notes: 1) Land use based on Alternative 3 Description 2) Generation factor from DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update Development that would be allowed under Alternative 3 would be subject to Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, that requires the Project developer to obtain awill- serve letter for water prior to issuance of a building permit. In terms of wastewater generation, development that would be allowed under Alternative 3 would generate substantially less wastewater than the proposed Project. The amount of estimated wastewater is shown on Table 5.3-3, below, compared to 61,905 gpd that would be generated under the proposed Project. The amount of wastewater that would be generated is not anticipated to be a significant impact. Table 5.3-3. Alternative 3 Estimated Wastewater Generation Land Use Dwellings Generation Factor Est. Wastewater Generation ( allons/da ) Pro osed Uses Medium Density Residential 188 165 31,020 Neighborhood Commercial 54,500 sq. ft. 0.19/1,000 sq.ft. 10 Subtotal 31,030 Existin Uses Existin A artments 150 220 -33,000 Total -- -1,970 Notes: 1) Land use based on Alternative 3 Description 2) Generation factors from DSRSD, Wastewater Characteristic Factors and Unit Sewer Connection Fee, 7/1 /08 Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 169 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin !~" ~, ,~ 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. For the Project analyzed in this EIR, the No Project alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, since none of the anticipated environmental impacts described in Section 4.0 would occur. As between the other two alternatives, Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative. The fewer number of residences proposed in this Alternative would reduce traffic generation and related vehicle miles traveled. The reduced number of dwellings would result in fewer vehicle trips on Dougherty Road and less traffic generated noise than the proposed Project. Increased building setbacks from adjacent Alamo Creek could reduce water quality impacts from construction and post construction pollutants and erosion. The increased setback could also reduce construction and operational noise exposure for surrounding residents. Although Alternative 2 would reduce the intensity of some impacts, it would not avoid the three traffic impacts identified as significant and unavoidable: Impacts 4.11-2, 4.11-4 and 4.11-5. Alternative 3 does not appear to avoid or substantially lessen any Project impacts and could result in new impacts, such as potentially significant internal traffic noise. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 170 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Blue Ox hssaciates, BeAceley, ColAOrnia 12-1-2008 SOURCE: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., 11-13-2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENyIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~ ~ `i Exhibit 5.2-1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 2 ~u~ M F For-Sale Townhouse Residential `-t AR Affordable Family Residential ~ v ~J SA Affordable Senior Residential ---~~ CC Childcare Facility _~ CB Community Building =~`~ ~~~ _ z Open Space /Landscaping 0 80 160 240 320 het ' DOUGHERTY ROAD Slue Ox.4ssoCiateS,Berkeley.CalRornia 12-1-2008 DOUGHERTY ROAD avurlt,c: Hanson, tsarbee t~ Cirbson, Inc., 11-13-2008. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 5.3-1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 3 W J AR Affordable Family Residential SA Affordable Senior Residential CO Commercial Facility _ z ~ Open Space /Landscaping n ~~, 0 80 160 240 320 feet ~.~ ~~~~ 6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects This section of the DEIR addresses the potential long-term effects of implementing the proposed Project, as required by CEQA. 6.1 Significant Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Construction of the proposed Project would directly result in irreversible commitment and use of energy and non-renewable resources for construction and operation of future residential uses, including such resources as sand and gravel, lumber and other forest products, asphalt, petrochemicals and metals. The level and amount of commitment of such resources is commensurate with similar development projects undertaken in the Bay Area and throughout California and the nation and is justified by the benefits of the Project, including but not limited to increased density in an urban area, which is served by adequate utilities, public transit and urban services. The Project would also facilitate construction of a greater number ofincome-restricted public housing opportunities than currently exist on the Site. 6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project All EIRs must consider the potential growth inducement of projects. A project is generally considered to be growth inducing if it will foster economic or population growth or will cause the construction of new housing, either directly or indirectly, within a given geographic area. Projects which remove obstacles to population growth are also deemed to be growth inducing. Increases in population may strain existing community services or utility systems, so consideration must be given to this matter. The characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other growth activities which could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively, must also be discussed. Approval of the proposed Project could be considered growth inducing, since the Project would add up to 228 additional dwellings on the Site above the number of `" dwellings that currently exist. However, the Project Site is located in a largely urbanized area of Dublin and surrounded on three sides by higher density housing types and a major military facility, Parks RFTA on one side. The Project would represent an ~'~ intensification of dwellings on an infill Site that would provide sufficient funding to replace older public housing units that require significant upgrades with a combination '~ of income-restricted and market-rate dwellings. Approval and construction of the ~~ proposed market rate portion of the Project is required to assist in funding upgraded utilities and other improvements on the Site. """` Additionally, construction of the Project would result in an increase in the number of affordable rental and for sale dwelling units in the City. The increase in very low and low-income units for the rental Project will meet Goal B of the Housing Element of the General Plan which strives to increase the provision of housing for low income households within the City. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 173 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ""` ~~ ~. i_:, Extension of localized water mains and wastewater collection f acilities would be sized to serve just the Arroyo Vista Project, since adjacent properties are already presently served by utilities. Based on the above, the proposed Project would not considered to have a growth inducing impact. 6.3 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those which taken individually maybe minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion of cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as that provided for the project alone. Cumulative impacts maybe addressed using one of two methods: • A listing of past, present and probable future projects, within or adjacent to the community containing the Project Site, which could produce related or cumulative impacts; or • A summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related planning documents which evaluated regional environmental conditions contributing to a cumulative impact. For purposes of this EIR the first approach has been chosen to address cumulative impacts. A listing of such projects is included in the Transportation and Circulation Section (Section 4.11), which includes a number of projects in adjacent communities. A summary of expected cumulative impacts follows: • Aesthetics and Light and Glare: Limited cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources would occur, including incremental increases in light and glare. However, since the Site is located in a substantially urbanized area and light and glare impacts would be reduced to aless-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, cumulative aesthetic impacts are considered less than significant. • Air Quality: The Project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emission is discussed in Section 4.2 of this DEIR. No cumulative impacts have been identified with regard to air quality. • Biological Resources: Approval and construction of the Project would have aless- than-significant contribution to cumulative biological resource impacts. There would also be a loss of onsite trees, although replacement trees would be required to ensure that aless-than-significant impact would occur. • Cultural Resources: There could be potentially significant impacts to cultural resources on the Project Site; however, such impacts would be mitigated and are not considered cumulative. Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 174 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~;. !w • Geology and Soils: Potential impacts related to geology and soils are not considered cumulative. • Hazards: Potential impacts related to hazards are site-specific and are required to be mitigated are not considered cumulative. Hydrology and Water Quality: The proposed Project would contribute a limited amount of increased stormwater runoff, due to development of currently vacant portions of the Site. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 to ensure that adequate on- and off-site drainage facilities exist to accommodate any increase in the amount of stormwater runoff and to ensure that any increases in water pollution would not be cumulatively considerable. • Noise The Proposed Project would be a continuation of existing residential land use. There would be an increase in the number of vehicles entering and exiting the Site, due to an increase in the number of dwellings on the Site, that would result in a small and less-than-significant contribution to cumulative noise conditions on Dougherty Road. • Population and Housing: Population and house impacts are not anticipated to be cumulative. The Project would not reduce the City's inventory of income- restricted dwellings and would increase the inventory of this category of housing over current levels. • Public Services and Utilities: No significant Project-related impacts were identified regarding this topic and no cumulative impacts are anticipated. • Transportation and Circulation: Cumulative traffic and transportation impacts are analyzed in Section 4.11 of this DEIR. • Utilities and Service Systems: The Arroyo Vista Site currently receives water from Zone 7. If the Project is approved, water service to the Site would be transferred to DSRSD. Based on the analysis contained in Section 4.12 of this DEIR, the amount of increased water needed to serve the Project would not be cumulatively considerable and the amount of increased wastewater generation would be minimal and could be accommodated within existing collection, treatment and disposal systems. 6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through feasible mitigation measures or Project alternatives. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse environmental impacts maybe considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the project without reducing or eliminating a significant adverse impact, the Lead Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 175 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the substantial evidence in the record. Four impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: • Short-term cumulative (Year 2015) traffic impacts at the intersection of Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (Impact 4.11-2). • Short-term cumulative (Year 2015) traffic impacts at the intersection of Haaenda Drive/I-580 Westbound Offramp during the a.m. peak hour (Impact 4.11-3). • Cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods if the Camp Parks RFTA access road is not relocated to be opposite Amador Valley Boulevard (Impact 4.11-5); • Cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection during the p.m. peak periods Impact 4.11-6). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 176 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~, ~~,~' 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7.1 Persons and Organizations Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Jane Maxwell, report graphics w.. Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this DEIR: City of Dublin "~ Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner Kristi Bascom, AICP, Senior Planner """ Frank Navarro, Associate Civil Engineer ._ John Bakker, City Attorney Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney """ Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney ~~; Val Guzman, Police Services Department Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department '"" Dublin San Ramon Services District Rhodora Biagton, Senior Engineer Aaron Johnson, Assistant Engineer Stan Kolodzie, Associate Engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Kathy Schmidt, Senior Project Developer, Eden Housing Charles McKeag, Vice President, Citation Homes Mike Sullivan, Citation Homes Amador Valley Industries Karen Brighi, service planner 7.2 References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9 / 14 / 06 Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development Arroyo Vista, Terrrasearch, Inc., August 2007 Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin Page 177 January 2009 Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Arroyo Vista Development, Terrasearch, Inc. July, 2007 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, August 2007 California Department of Conservation, Alameda County Important Farmland Map, 2000 Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 178 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin f' ~~4~ ~iQ ~,i~~; p 'j 4.,. r 8.0 Appendices Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 179 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin R~ U~' 3 Appendix 8.1 Initial Study Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 180 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~ ~ ~~ Initial Study Project: Arroyo Vista Project City File No. PA 07-028 Lead Agency: City of Dublin December 2007 ens Table of Contents ..................................................................................... Introduction ..............................2 ` Applicants ......................................................................................................................2 .~ Project Location and Context ......................................................................................2 Project Description ........................................................................................................3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................1 l .~: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................13 Attachment to Initial Study ..................25 "" 1. Aesthetics ....25 ........................................................................................... 2. Agricultural Resources .........................................................................26 ~„ 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................. 26 4. Biological Resources ............................................................................. 27 5. Cultural Resources ........................................:....................................... 28 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................. 28 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................... 29 8. H drolo and Water Quali Y gY ~' ............................................................ 30 9. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 33 10. Mineral Resources ..........:...................................................................... 33 «: 11. Noise ....................................................................................................... 34 12. Po ulation and Housin ................................................ P g ...................... 35 ~' ..................................... 13. Public Services .................................................. 36 ~n; 14. Recreation ............................................................................................... 37 .,~ 15. Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................... 38 16. Utilities and Service Systems ......:........................................................ 39 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................. 40 Initial Study Preparers .................................................................................................. 42 Agencies and Organizations Consulted .. .................................................................. 42 "R References ....................................................................................................................... 42 r .J ~ r~~ ~ f City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Applicants Eden Housing 409 Jackson Street Hayward CA 94544 Attn: Kathy Schmidt, Senior Project Developer (510) 5821460 Citation Homes 404 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 100 Santa Clara CA 95050 Attn: Charles McKeag, Vice President (408) 985 6071 Project Location and Context The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Dublin:'More specifically, the site is located on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, a regional multi-use trail. The western boundary of the site is Alamo Creek, a regionally significant creek in eastern Alameda County. The site contains approximately 23.8 acres of land. The site is presently occupied by the Arroyo Vista housing development, which restricts occupancy to households with certain income limits. The current Arroyo Vista project includes 150 detached dwellings, on-site parking, a childcare center, recreation facilities and landscaping that is owned and managed by the Dublin Housing Authority. The site is generally flat with a gradual slope to the west, towards Alamo Creek. A noise barrier wall has been built along the project's Dougherty Road frontage with a height of approximately six to seven feet. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project site in context with nearby features, including roadways and Alamo Creek. City of Dublin Pa e 2 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project November 2007 PA 07-028 Existing land uses adjacent to the Project site include Parks RFTA (Parks Reserve Forces Trainin Center) to the east, multi-family dwellings and an auto service station convenience store to the north and south and Alamo Creek to the west. Project Description Overview The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 150 dwellings on the project site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the site. The project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. Development concept The proposed Arroyo Vista development is proposed as a community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141 attached and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior income- restricted apartments (with 491-bedroom apartments and 1 2-bedroom manager unit). Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood- frame buildings. This development will replace 150 units of public housing on site. At the core of the development, the Village Center would include a Communifiy Building with central recreation space and a new Child Care Center. Additional satellite recreational areas, both passive and active, would be scattered throughout the proposed development. Three types of housing are proposed: 50 income-restricted Senior Units, 130 income restricted family dwellings and 198 market rate dwellings. The unit breakdown is as follows: Table 1. Proposed Dwelling Unit Summary Hsng T e Income-restricted Famil Units Income-restricted Senior Units Market Rate Sin le Famil Total Unit Type 121-Bdrm Flats 491-Bdrm Flats 12Bdrm Flat 66 2-Bdrm Townhomes 141 Attached 36 3-Bdrm Townhomes 57 Detached 16 4-Bdrm Townhomes Sub-total 130 Units 50 Units 198 Units 378 Units Source; Project applicants, 2007 All of the market rate dwellings would be "for sale" units. All of the other dwellings proposed to be constructed on the site would be rental dwellings. The Affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between 30% and 60% of AMI. .~ City of Dublin Page 3 ;~. Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project November 2007 PA 07-028 „~ 3~ ~ ~~- A central main street is proposed to link the various community elements and create a unified, pedestrian-friendly development. The affordable housing would be located at the heart of the site while the market-rate units would be split into two areas creating "bookends" around the affordable family and senior units. This layout would: Balance the needs of residential management (affordable family and senior housing need a cohesive physical plan to facilitate high-quality property management); Create a Village Center supporting the affordable family, senior and market-rate units; and Integrate market-rate and affordable components of the project, thus achieving a greater degree of economic diversity. The Village Center, located at the crossroads of main street and the central entry drive, would contain a concentration of community-based uses: the 3,000 square foot child care facility, the 3,000 square foot Community Building, and two primary large open spaces. The senior housing also would be located at the Village Center to enhance the connection between young and old. Residential buildings are arranged to create satellite recreation areas, enabling all units to have excellent open space access. Larger open space green belts would lead from Alamo Creek into the site to connect the development to the larger natural environment. A mixture of building types would be developed to create choices for residents and variety for the broader community. The townhomes would have tuck-under parking and parking for the affordable units would be located in adjacent satellite lots. Area access, parking and circulation Access into the site would continue to be provided via three driveways from Dougherty Road. One or more of the driveways may be signalized. On site circulation would consist of a public roadway paralleling Dougherty Road, identified as Public Streets A and B on Exhibit 3. The streets would lead to a public roadway loop in the approximate center of the site. Driveways into individual areas would branch off of the main public streets. Parking within the development would include a total of 828 spaces, some of which would be located within garages or carports, others would be open parking spaces and some would be located adjacent to public streets within the Project. A number of the proposed spaces would consist of compact spaces as well as handicapped-accessible spaces. Infrastructure The existing Arroyo Vista development is presently served by water, wastewater, drainage, solid waste, electrical, telecommunication and natural gas facilities. Water service is presently provided from Zone 7 and, as part of the proposed Project, water service responsibility would be provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). All other existing services would continue to be provided to the site, although portions of existing facilities may need to be replaced or upgraded to service additional dwellings proposed for the site. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project November 2007 PA 07-028 3~ 1 ~° ~~ Property disposition The proposed Project includes sale of the 23.8-acre site from the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) to the two Project applicants (Eden Housing and Citation Homes). This action would require approval by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex will be moved with Section 8 housing vouchers provided by Alameda County, Requested entitlements As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of this Project. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment. The Dublin General Plan presently designates the Arroyo Vista site as Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development between 6.1 and 14.0 dwellings per acre. The proposed Project includes a density of approximately 17 dwellings per acre, which would not be consistent with the current residential density range. Therefore, the applicants have requested an amendment to the General Plan to re-designate the Project site as Medium/High Density Residential. This designation allows residential development between the ranges of 14.1 and 25 dwellings per acre. If approved, the requested General Plan land use designation would allow the density proposed as part of the Arroyo Vista Project. The Amendment requires a public hearing by the Dublin Planning Commission to review the application and forward a recommendation to the Dublin City Council. The City Council must then hold a public hearing on the application prior to making a decision. Stage 1 & 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan. The Arroyo Vista site is presently zoned PD-Planned Development. The existing PD zoning district only allows the current configuration of buildings, the existing number of dwelling units on the site, parking and other site features. A zone change will be required, also to a PD-Planned Development zone, to allow the proposed development concept to be constructed. Similar to the requested General Plan Amendment, the rezoning requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. "~ Site Development Review. Site Development Review (SDR) approvals must be granted by the City of Dublin to ensure that building architecture, landscaping, ""~ signs and other facilities are consistent with the design guidelines and other policies contained in various City land use regulations and guidelines. Tentative and Final subdivision mans. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the Project site. City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 5 November 2007 31a~ ~3S ~.$.A f b:13 G _ -_._ - 4 Martinez a s'x r-' San ~ eeo Concord Rafael Richmond seo Mill t01 Valley ~ Walnut , ~. z4 Creek Berkeley ~`~} ~-~J - ~ eeo o '~ °~ ~~ Oakland e q 580 ~d~~ a; San Francisco a ~ S :a San ,~ ~ _ ,~ Leandro -- ~ ~ DUBLIN ,~ ~;~ A n.N C I S C~fl` eeo Daly ~ ~ Ciry Livermore - ., ~ - .8 >5 P 4~ . ioi Vii` _ a~' - Pleasanton ;- Hayward ~ 92 zeo San Mateo = ~ d Fremont i i°~ ~ :~:. ~'. Newark -- Q ~ Redwood - f City . - . ~ . :. ~ Half e4 Moon _ ,, Bay Palo i ~ Alto ~~ '_-~' eea 680 zao Sunnyvale i Santa Clara San Jose ioi 17 6 0 E U L .~ Exhibit 1 CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA INITIAL STUDY REGIONAL LOCATION N 0 2 4 8 8 10 miles Blue vx Associates, Berkeley, CaHomla 8-28-2007 Project Site [CITY OF 5AN RAMON] ~~` ~•- `~. ~,I PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA RIDI COHRECT~ONAL. ~ REHA&LITATA7N INSTITURON CENTER ~ ~~~'~w ~~~~~~ 6B0 .`.~- .,, - -~ ~`neNa - ..« -~r~ D Im g ~n m O a n •; -^. M `~` ' 1 ~-- ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~.,~.1 ~ ~ I r m ~~ w a n - ' [CITY OF PLEASANTONJ Exhibit 2 PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA INITIAL STUDY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -•--- City Limit N 0 Y4 L2 3~4 1 mde t ~ ~ _ - ... m.+~ 6 J _ - Y - ` ~r'L ~ ~ ~ n me ti ~, ~ ~.~.i ~' A ~y I A Q ~.__ s . .j .w - _ wn..a s o . _ r o n - c .._ _.. _ . .._ . .. oB VroIl xoln ozB .. _ ,. '~ ~ r - rei -- ~ - ....- .. • • _ 4uB1.IC LOpr ~ A - - _ -' _ -: -~ e - • wYCeae ~ - ~. . _ ,• - - PUBLIC 31REfiTA ~ _ PUBLIC 87RELTB _ - _ _ ika ~ _ !.... -- - ~ c ,~ - Y nun ~ c - -- - - uni ~ ~ = -- t ,.:. _ - - _ _ ,. .. , _ :, -.._ .. BatEB16nYYtioAB _ . ._ ' . _ -.- - - . __ ~ _ ,. ,. - - _ PARRM~MIXAND(AUN'C UNffbIDCANDCOUNf YA4IIBPRA7ERB9~IBAL MA4~1'IAlH11pS~f11AL ~ L uWeer eeesCk ,~ a AWE B BAL/t Erof saw rt ~ eA1w _ uuwn (T mewlr wiw _ zmu. .u a eam 1g1a5 ~ oESnm loss .. _ °.. ao n , I. sz AFFBIIDA B18PA-81.YR®6NfUIL -. zone. 1w _ aa)m - 4W A AWE Ile AFIO4DABIdPMB[.Y~900sf1Af. A A _ roru.. ~ mwvs ze BIRAL niF a e c gPNrt s a . 1 A e u a 10~1 M1 a .R a 1z e B qAl IeM n o 0 . A s W o aMrt l sa .z za - - A ozWE e ~~ s ~~ e : o e o o e DAYCAR WAB11MtYSIXWtABMR1 zornE g ' MK >iBZ100.Afl'OBDABIFBtSmPl sIlAt. PUlLR 8I1t~P Ww 111E a1WR 1 EEYWOI .. ... SIWEf • M srEEt e s IOMI. ~ A : eEeeoA oWWZw w1 _.. lOfaL >0 Yl~ip Y~ • t tes x rwU! 1".Y MTR.Elaelna 1e1 SOURCE: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, lnc., 8-6-2007. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA INITIAL STUDY WILL BE 11 X 17 IN THE FINAL Exhibit 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1. Project description: Removal of the existing 150 income-restricted dwellings on the Arroyo Vista site and construction of up to 378 dwellings. Replacement dwellings would include 50 income- and age-restricted senior dwellings (including 1 manager unit), 198 market-rate attached and detached dwellings and 130 income- restricted Family townhouses. The Project also includes a community building, child care center, a central open space, on-site parking and landscaping. The Project also includes relocation of existing residents during Project construction and transfer of ownership of the site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes. Requested entitlements include an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to allow more intensive development on the site, a Stage 1 & Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning and Development Plan, Site Development Review and subdivision maps. The Project also includes the following actions that must be approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development: disposition (sale) of the site to the Project applicants. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Erica Fraser Senior Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: West side of Dougherty Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Iron Horse Trail. Assessors Parcel Number 941-0007-001-07 5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin 6. General Plan designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ ac) 7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development 8. Public agency required approvals: • Disposition of Project site to Project applicants (HUD) • Approval of Amendment to the Dublin General Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of PD-Planned Development Stage 1 & Stage 2 rezoning and Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~. '~ {? ~'"` `` I • Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) • Issuance of demolition, building and grading permits (City of Dublin) • Approval of water connections (DSRSD) City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 3~~ ~~`~` Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. x-: x Aesthetics - Agricultural x Air Quality Resources x Biological x Cultural Resources x Geology/Soils Resources x Hazards and x Hydrology/Water x Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources x- Noise x Population/ Housin x- Public Services - Recreation x Transportation/ Circulation x Utilities /Service x Mandatory Systems Findings of Si nificance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" on the environment. An Environmental Impact Report is required. _ 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 pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 Signature Date: (~ ~ °~'~ I U~ Printed Name: ~~ C ~ G ~'~~~ For: City of Dublin ~ Page 12 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~~~ ~'~ ~~ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, orless-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to aless-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, maybe cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for review. b} Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~". general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. S) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 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: 5) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 7) 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: S) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 5) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use? (Source: 5) 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: 6) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 6) 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/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 15 December 2007 rq Jf .,a ~ +.~ ~ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source:6) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 6) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 6) 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: 6) 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: 5) 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: 5) 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: 5) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 5) 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/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 16 December 2007 ;~ ,. f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1, 5) 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: 5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy'a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 5) 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 (Source: 2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 2) iv) Landslides? (Source: 2, 5) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (5) 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: 5) 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: 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti anon Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 3X1 ~ ~3`~ e} Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 4) 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) 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) 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, 6) 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: 6) 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: 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: 5) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source; 5) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 18 December 2007 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: 5) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 5) 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? (Source: 4} 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: 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: 5) 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: 5) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 5) 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: 4) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 19 December 2007 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 4) 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? (Source: 4) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (Source: 2) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 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, 5) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 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) 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:l) 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? (Source: 6) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 6) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 6) 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/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 20 December 2007 ~~~J ~1 ~~= ~ ~ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source:6) 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? (Source: 6) 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: 5, 6) 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: I) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (5, 6) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 5, 6) 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 rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 4, 6) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 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 21 December 2007 ~~~ ~~` ~~ 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: 6) 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: 6) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Wocsld 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: 6) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 6) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 6) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 6) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (6) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 1) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 22 December 2007 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 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? (Source: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? (Source: 6) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 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? (4) g) Comply with federal, state and Iocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (1) 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? City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 ~:A Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 23 December 2007 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 I. Dublin General Plan 2. Geotechnical Investigation (Terrasearch) 3. Phase I & II ESA (Terrasearch) 4. Discussion with City staff or service provider 5. Site Visit 6. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None have been used in the preparation of this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~~,~~ ~ ~~ Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The Project is set in an urbanized area of Central Dublin that has been developed for a number of years. The Project site is relatively flat and has been developed for more than thirty years with the Arroyo Vista income-restricted housing Project. The current Arroyo Vista Project includes approximately 150 residential units, on-site parking, achild-care center, community room and landscaping. Many of the dwellings are single story, but a number of two-story dwellings have also been built in the complex. A six to seven foot tall noise barrier wall has been constructed along the site's Dougherty Road frontage. Properties to the north and south have also been developed with multi-story multiple family dwellings. Parks RFTA exists to the east, across Dougherty Road, with views into the facility blocked by a tall berm. The Arroyo Vista Project allows for views of local foothills to the north, east and west from various vantage points within the Project area. Some views are blocked by adjacent multi-story developments and mature trees, both on and off the Project site. As a largely developed area many light sources exist on and adjacent to the Project site, including streetlights along Dougherty Road, porch lights and similar light sources within the Arroyo Vista Project and on adjacent properties. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. The Project site has been .bp developed with an income-restricted housing Project and contains common areas on the site that provide significant scenic view or vista, including a tot lot area and outdoor recreation areas. The proposed Project would include similar ,. outdoor gathering places for residents that would not significantly change views of foothills. Therefore, approval and implementation is expected to result in a +•~ less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including resources within a state scenic highway? PS. Although the Project site is not located adjacent to a scenic highway, implementation of the proposed Project would require removal of a number of mature trees on the site, some of which may qualify as heritage trees This would be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings? LS. The Project site has been developed with a similar type use for many years. Although the proposed Project would increase residential density on the site, the overall appearance of the site would not significantly change and City of Dublin Page 25 initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~r~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~" P the proposed Project would be similar in appearance to the three-story apartment project to the south and west (the Park Sierra project) and the multi- story project to the north , so that there would be ales-than-sigmficant impact with regard to degradation of the visual character of the site. d) Create light or glare? PS. Although the Project site and surrounding area contains several light sources, construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in the form of additional dwelling units. This would be a potentially significant impact and will be addressed in the EIR. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting The Project site has been developed for the existing Arroyo Vista residential Project for approximately 30 years and is not used for agricultural production. The site is also not zoned for agricultural production and is not encumbered by a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract. The Arroyo Vista site is depicted as a "Urban and Built Up" area on the California Department of Conservation's Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000). 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 us, including conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts ? NI. The Project site has been developed for residential land uses for more than 30 years and is designated as an urban area on the State Department of Conservation Alameda County Important Farmland Map. Therefore, approval and construction of the proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The Project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-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. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? PS. The proposed Project would increase residential density on the Project site, which may conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? PS. The proposed Project would increase air quality emissions, both during construction and post-construction City of Dublin Page 26 Initial StudylArroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 operations. Therefore, the proposed Project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds currently enforced by the District. This may be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? PS. For the reasons noted in "b", the Project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD "~ significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. The topic of the proposed Project's contribution to global climate change will also be analyzed in the EIR. ~" d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? PS. The proposed Project includes a senior housing component and construction and operation of the. proposed Arroyo Vista Project could have a potentially significant impact on this sensitive receptor. This topic will be assessed in the EIR. Since the proposed Project does not include manufacturing uses, no objectionable odors would be created. e) Create objectionable odors? NI. Since the proposed Project does not include manufacturing or other odor-generating land uses, no objectionable odors would be created and no impact would result. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Settine The Project site is located in a urbanized area and has been developed with multi-family land uses for approximately 30 years. The site does contain a large number of mature trees and is bounded on the west by Alamo Creek that could contain special-status plant or animal species or their respective habitats. In addition, Alamo Creek is considered a wetland feature. Project Impacts a} Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, orspecial-status species? PS. Demolition of the existing housing complex on the site and construction on the same.site could have potentially significant impacts on special-status plant or animal species and/ or their habitats. This topic will be addressed in the EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands? PS. Since he Project site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek, there could be a potentially significant impact on wetlands or waters of the U.S. This topic will be addressed in the EIR. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? PS. The proposed Project could have the potential to interfere with native fish or wildlife species within or adjacent to Alamo Creek This would be a potentially significant impact and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? PS. Approval "~ and construction of the proposed Project could affect native trees and other trees ~~, that could be classed as "heritage" by the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 27 December 2007 I -a or sycamore tree with a trunk or main stem of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at fifty-four inches above the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; and trees planted as replacements for unlawfully removed trees. Permits are required for the removal of any Heritage Tree. The proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact on native and/or protected trees and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The Project area is not located within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Settine The Project site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek, a major regional creek. Typically, prehistoric and Native American settlements were located adjacent to such creeks due to a nearby food and water supply. Therefore, the possibility of encountering Native American, historic or prehistoric resources is anticipated to be moderate to high. Existing structures on the site are less than fifty years old and would not qualify as historic structures pursuant to CEQA or federal regulations. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resource or human remains? NI. Existing improvements on the Project site are less than fifty years old, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to significant historic resources. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological, paleontological resources or human remains? PS. The Project site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek and could contain significant cultural, prehistoric and,/ or Native American resources. Construction of the proposed Project could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources and such impacts will be addressed in the EIR. A Native American tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 will also be undertaken as part of the EIR. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Settine This section of the Initial Study is based on a geotechnical investigation of the Project site by Terrasearch, Inc., August 6, 2007. 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. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 3~1`~ ~~ The Project site does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the Pleasanton, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. 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? PS. The potential for impacts related to ground-based seismic hazards, specifically severe ground shaking, ground rupture or other ground failure could be potentially significant, since several major earthquake faults exist in the Bay Area. The Project site, City of Dublin and the region as a whole are all subject to moderate to severe ground shaking and other seismic ground hazards. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? PS. Refer to Hydrology section 8a for a discussion of this topic. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? PS. Due to its location adjacent to Alamo Creek, the Project site could be subject to liquefaction, subsidence or other soil hazards. These could be potentially significant impacts and will be analyzed in the EIR. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary, sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting A Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the Project by Terrasearch, Inc. (July 23 and 24, 2007). These reports are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and are available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The reports note the presence of a water quality monitoring well on the site operated by Zone 7 and the potential presence of asbestos and lead based paints due to the age of the existing dwellings. The Phase II report did not identify actionable levels of soil contaminants. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed Project involves construction of a residential development Project. There would be no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed development. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 3q = ~~~~` 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? PS. The Phase I and II reports for the site identify the possibility of demolition of existing improvements on the site to release asbestos and/or lead into the atmosphere. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. No public schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the Project site, based on the document entitled "Demographic Study and Facilities Plan," published by the Dublin Unified School District in October 2004 (Shilts Consulting, Inc.). No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to this topic. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The Project site is not listed by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of August 23, 2007. There is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? PS. The Project site is located adjacent to Parks RFTA, which employs helicopters as part of normal operations. The potential for existing or future helicopter operations to pose a safety hazard would be a potentially significant impact to be analyzed in the EIR. g) Interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would include the re-construction of a residential Project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. 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 Project area is located in a substantially urban area so no impacts are anticipated with regard to the risk of wildland fire. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water The Project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay via Alamo Creek. Alamo Creek forms the western boundary of the Project site. 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. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 1 S- Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National 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 policies 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. Existing 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. Groundwater recharge Although the Project Site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek, a regionally significant water body, the Project Site is designated for residential land uses in the Dublin General Plan and the Site is not reserved for groundwater recharge purposes. FIooding Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency the Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood area (Community Panel #060705 0001B). Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? PS. Approval and construction of the proposed Arroyo Vista Project would add impervious surfaces to the Project site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. This would be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. Less- than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since approximately one-half of the Project site is now covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would increase site coverage somewhat to allow for an increased number of dwellings. Also, the proposed water source for this Project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The Project Site is not designated as a groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin General Plan. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? PS. New impervious surfaces would be added to the Project site to accommodate additional new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces. The increase in the amount of stormwater runoff from the Project site could change local and/ or regional drainage patterns that could increase off- site siltation of nearby creeks and streams. This and could result in a potentially significant impact and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? PS. Approval of the proposed Project could result in changed drainage patterns due to an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project site. The potential for on-site or offsite flooding is not known and could result in a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? PS. The ability of downstream drainage facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from the Project site is not known and could be a potentially significant impact. This topic will be addressed in the EIR. Potential impacts related to surface water quality are addressed above in subsections "a" and "c." f} Substantially degrade water quality? PS. This is a potentially significant issue and has been addressed above in item "a." 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 the 100-year flood plain and no impacts are anticipated with regard to placing additional housing units within a 100-year flood plain. 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 area is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. No impacts would therefore result. City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses As identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study, the site has been developed with the Arroyo Vista housing Project for a number of years. Surrounding uses include multi-family dwellings to the north and south, with multi- family housing located to the west, across Alamo Creek. Parks RFTA is located east of the Project site. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? LS. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would cause the removal of 150 existing, income-restricted dwellings on the site and replacement of these dwellings with a mix of market rate and income-restricted dwellings. Removal of the existing dwellings would not divide existing communities, since the existing Arroyo Vista site is aself-contained community and aless-than-significant impact would result with regard to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? LS. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, since the Project density would be greater than that allowed under the Medium Density Residential density range (6.1 to 14.Q dwellings per acre). However, the applicants have requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to redesignate the site to Medium/High Density Residential. This designation allows residential development between the ranges of 14.1 and 25 dwellings per acre, consistent with the proposed Project density. If approved, there would be aless-than-significant impact with regard to conflicts with land use policies and/ or regulations. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. The Project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. See section 4 "f" of this Initial Study. There are no impacts with regard to this Project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The Project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Dublin General Plan. Pro~ct Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The Dublin General Plan does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the Project area, so no impacts would occur. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 X00 ~ 1°~~' 11. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and / or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. Regulatory setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Acce table Conditionally Acce table Normally Unacce table Clearly Unacce table Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools, churches, nursin homes 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Neighborhood arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source: Dubiin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. Major sources of noise near the Arroyo Vista site includes traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from Parks RFTA, and noise generated from on-site uses and activities. An approximate 6 to 7-foot tall noise barrier wall has been built adjacent to Dougherty Road as part of the current Arroyo Vista Project. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? PS. Development of proposed Project could expose additional residents and visitors on the site to significant noise levels from adjacent streets (especially Dougherty Road) and from activities at Parks RFTA. This could be a potentially significant impact and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI. The proposed Project does not include construction or operation elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to vibration. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? PS. Construction of the proposed Project could result in substantial increases in on-site noise levels, based on increases in on-site traffic, HVAC equipment and other sources. This would be "~`~ a potentially significant impact and this topic will be assessed in the EIR. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? PS. Increased levels of short-term construction noise ,,,, generated on the Project site could be potentially significant to on-site and/ or adjacent residents and will be assessed in the EIR. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? PS. There could be potentially significant noise impacts related to existing and / or future aircraft operations at Parks RFTA. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments ~ ,. organization responsible for preparing and tracking population and demographic changes within the Bay Area region anticipates that the Bay Area will continue to grow at a steady rate. Factors contributing to this growth include ,~ a favorable climate, recreational activities, top universities and career opportunities. Over the next 20 years, the population is expected to increase to more than 8 million persons, a 16% increase over the current (2007) population. Population increases are expected to be primarily due to increases in births and '~ longer life expectancies rather than significant in-migration. Table 2 depicts anticipated comparative growth in the'Bay Area, Alameda County and Dublin. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 -~~ ~. ~ X13 Table 2. Regional, County and Dublin Total Population (Pop) & Household (HH) Projections 2000 2010 2020 Po HHs Po HHs Po HHs Region 6,783,762 2,466,020 7,42,500 2,696,580 8,069,700 2,941,760 Alameda Co. 1,443,741 523,366 1,542,400 564,880 1,700,700 6]4,790 Dublin 30,007 9,335 50,000 16,660 62,700 21,310 Source: ABAG Projections 2007 ABAG notes that the Tri-Valley areas are anticipated to experience the highest growth rates in Alameda County over the next 20 years. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. Approval of the proposed Project would increase the population within the central portion of Dublin, since 150 dwellings would be replaced on the same site by up to 378 dwellings. The additional population growth is not anticipated to substantially induce population growth in the area since surrounding properties are largely built out to the south, north and west and Parks RFTA is located to the east. No significant public utilities would need to be extended to serve the proposed Project, so the potential to induce substantial population increase is anticipated to be a less-than-significant impact. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? PS. There would be a loss of approximately 150 dwellings should the proposed Project be approved and constructed. This would be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: 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 City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station No 17, located at 6200 Madigan in central Dublin. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department, headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties in the Project area lying west of Tassajara Road. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities is the responsibility of the City of Dublin. The City and related service providers, including the Dublin Unified School District, also charge impact fees on new development, which is generally collected at the time building permits are issued. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? PS. Approval of the proposed Project and construction of a residential development on the Arroyo Vista site would likely increase the number of calls for fire and emergency service personnel. The impact of this increase on the Alameda County Fire Department could be potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Police protection? PS. Similar to fire protection, there could be potentially significant impacts to the Dublin Police Services Department and this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. c} Schools? LS. There would be aless-than-significant impact to school service should the proposed Project be approved. Payment of statutorily mandated impact fees at ""~ the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational ~~ impacts pursuant to CEQA. .~ d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? LS. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with aless- than-significant impact in regard to this topic. 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 significant impacts. In addition, new development in the community is subject to the City's public facilities fees. e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item 16 "e" and "f," below. .• 14. Recreation Environmental Setting The existing Arroyo Vista Project contains a number of passive and active open spaces and recreation areas, although no public parks are sited within the boundary. The City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 c..~ ~ c.~ .- C nearest City of Dublin maintained park is Alamo Creek park, located north of the Project site. 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 County. Project Im-pacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use of nearby City and / or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site permanent population on the Arroyo Vista site. Although the Project is proposed to contain private, on-site recreation facilities, the Project applicants would be required to pay City of Dublin public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. See item "a," above. 15. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The Project site is served by Dougherty Road, an arterial road that provides access from southern Contra Costa County to the I-580 freeway and southerly into Alameda County south of the I-580 freeway. South of the I-580 freeway, this roadway is known as Hopyard Road. Dublin Boulevard provides primary east-west access. Regional access to and from the Project site is provided by the I-580 and I-680 freeways. On site parking is presently provided by several lots dispersed throughout the site. Emergency vehicle access is provided by three existing driveways along Dougherty Road as well as a paved emergency access drive adjacent to Alamo Creek. Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and street capacity? PS. The proposed Project would contribute additional traffic to local and regional roads due to the increase in the numbers of dwellings on the Project site. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be addressed in the EIR. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? PS. Potential impacts of proposed redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista Project could result in a potentially significant impact on CMA roadways and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed residential development and related entitlements. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? PS. Potential on- or off-site hazards that could be created as a result of Project construction will assessed in the EIR. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. The proposed Project would have three vehicular access points along Dougherty Road was well as maintaining an emergency vehicle access adjacent to Alamo Creek. No impacts are therefore anticipated. f) Inadequate parking capacity? PS. The provision of on-site parking for the proposed development could be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. g) Conflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation plans, or result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? PS. The EIR prepared for this Project will review the potential of the Project to conflict with alternative transportation plans, including but not limited to bus, bicycle and/or pedestrian modes of transit. Such an impact would be potentially significant. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The Project area is currently served by the following service providers: • Water supply: Zone 7 • Sewage collection and treatment: Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries. • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT & T (formerly Pacific Bell). Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? PS. The proposed Project includes an increase in the number of dwellings on the Project site that would likely increase the demand for potable water. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? PS. New and / or upgraded wastewater systems would be required to serve the amount of development proposed in the Arroyo Vista development application. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 Existing dwellings on the site are currently provided domestic water by Zone 7 and new dwellings are proposed to be served water by DSRSD. This increased demand could result in potentially significant impacts that will be analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will also analyze potential impacts of the proposed Project related to the overall water system and wastewater treatment and disposal systems. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? PS. The proposed Project could require new and or upgraded drainage facilities to support proposed development was well as upgraded surface water quality facilities to meet current water quality standards. T s impact could be potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? PS. See item "b," above. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? PS. See response to "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. The Project area is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services within Dublin. Amador Valley Industries would provide solid waste and recycling services to new residents of the Arroyo Vista Project. According to representatives from the provider (K. Brighi, 9 / 18 / 07), adequate capacity exists in the Altamont Landfill and other nearby landfills to accommodate future demand generated by this Project. Any requirement for additional personnel or equipment to serve the Arroyo Vista Project would be offset by service charges levied by the provider. Therefore, this impact would be less-than- significant. 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 development applications 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? Yes. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources and should be addressed in the EIR. 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). Yes. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~~1 ~ ~.~ biological resources, air quality, traffic and similar topics and should be addressed in the EIR. 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 discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 41 December 2007 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Jane Maxwell, report graphics 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 Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner Frank Navarro, Associate Civil Engineer Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Dublin San Ramon Services District Rhodora Biagton, Service Engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) Website Applicant Representatives Kathy Schmidt, Senior Project Developer, Eden Housing Charles McKeag Vice President, Citation Homes Amador Valley Industries Karen Brighi, service planner References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06 Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development Arroyo Vista, Terrrasearch, Inc., August 2007 Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Arroyo Vista Development, Terrasearch, Inc. July, 2007 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, August 2007 California Department of Conservation, Alameda County Important Farmland Map, 2000 City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 Appendix 8.2 Notice of Preparation (NOP) NOP Distribution List Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 181 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, Cafifomia 94568 Website: htto:/Iwww.ci.dublin.ca.us Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Scoping Meeting Lead Agency: Cify of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Contact: Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Division (925) 833- 6610 The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Project Title: Arroyo Vista (PA 07-028) Project Location: Located on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, 6700 Dougherty Road (Assessor's Parcel 941-0007-001-07) Project Description; The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 150 dwellings on the project site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the site, including a mix of market rate and income-restricted dwellings, both single family and multi-family "for-sale" dwellings and rental apartments once complete. Scoping Meeting Pursuant to State Law, the City of Dublin has scheduled a Scoping Meeting for agencies and other interested parties on the proposed EiR as follows: Date: Wednesday January 16, 2008 Time: 6:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers, Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Drive, Dublin Due to time limits mandated by State law, comments on the scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report must be submitted at the earliest possible time but not later than 30 days following receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the contact person identified above. Date: December 20, 2007 Signature: Title: Senior Planner Telephoner (925) 833-6610 Area Code (925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Counci] 833-6650 • Personnel 833-6605 • Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 • Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 US Parks Reserve Forces Training Area: Camp Parks Attn: Commander LCC Parks, RFTA Bldg. 790 Dublin, CA 94568 Department of Housing and Urban Development Attn: Enviro. Review Division 600 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Alameda County Congestion Mgmt. Agency Attn: Jean Hart 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch At#n: Mark D'Avignon 1455 Market Street, 14th Floar San Francisco, CA 94103 Fort Irwin Lt. Colonel Paul D. Cramer Director of Public Works PO Box 105097 Fort Irwin, CA 92310 Alameda County Public Works Dept Attn: Karen Borrmann 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 CalTrans District 4 CEQA East Bay Regional Park District Attn: Steven Yokoi, CEQA Coordinator Attn: Larry Tong 111 Grand Avenue 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94623 Oakland, CA 94605 BART, 1 KB6 Mail Stop IAVTA Attn: Kathy Mayo Attn: Cyrus Sheik Manager of Environmental Compliance 1362 Rutan Court, Ste. 100 PO Box 12688 Livermore, CA 94550 Oakland, CA 94604 California Dept. of Fish & Game Bay Delta Region 3 Attn: Scott Wilson PO Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 Zone 7 Attn: Mary Lim 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 Fort Hunter-Liggett, Parks RFTA Attn: Peter Rubin, Director of PW B790 5th Street Dublin, CA 94568 U.S. Postal Service Attn: Postmaster 4300 Black Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 PG&E 998 Murrieta Blvd. Livermore, CA 94550 15 copies Office of Planning and Research Attn: Terry Roberts 1400 Tenth Street PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 AT&T Attn: Jon Stradford 2600 Camino Ramon, Rm 2N0006 San Ramon, CA 94583 Dublin San Ramon Services District Attn: Dave Requa 7051 Dublin Btvd. Dublin, GA 94568 Citation Homes Attn: Charles McKeag 404 Saratoga Avenue, Ste. 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal Building Attn: Ryan Olah 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Alameda County Planning Dept. Attn: James Sorenson 224 W Winton Avenue, Rm. 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Dublin Unified School District Attn: John Sugiyama 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 LAVWMA Attn: Ed Cummings PO Box 2945 Dublin, CA 94568 BAAQM D Attn: Environmental Review Div. 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 SF Bay RWQCB 1515 Clay Street, Ste. 1400 Oaklad, CA 94612 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Attn: John Rusmisel 23197 Connecticut Street Hayward, CA 94545 Comcast Cable 2333 Nissen Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Amador Valley Industries Attn: Debbie Jeffrey PO Box 12617 Pleasanton, GA 94588 Eden Housing Attn: Kathy Schmidt 409 Jackson Street Hayward, CA 94544 Dublin Housing Authority Attn: Chris Gouig 22941 Atherton Street Hayward, CA 94541 City of Livermore Planning Department Attn: Marc Roberts 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 City of San Ramon Planning Dept. Attn: Phil Wong 2226 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Contra Costa County Planning Department Attn: Dennis Barry 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Rich Ambrose City Manager Paul Rankin Administrative Services Director Melissa Morton Public Works Director Joni Pattillo Assistant City Manager City of Pleasanton Pianning Dept. Contra Costa County, Public Works Attn: Jerry Iserson Attn: Maurice Shiu 200 Old Bernal Avenue 255 Glacier Drive Pleasanton, CA 94566 Martinez, CA 94553 Cpt. Gary Thuman Police Services Jeri Ram, AICP Community Development Director Diane Lowart Parks & Community Services Director Frank Navarro Senior Civil Engineer Mark Lander City Engineer Darren Jones Dublin Fire Prevention Mary Jo Wilson Planning Manager Elizabeth Silver Meyers Nave Kit Faubion Planning File (Erica Fraser) Meyers nave 15 copies ~.~ ~ '~ ;~.;. r ~~ ~' Appendix 8.3 NOP Responses Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 182 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWAR7RNF.GGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 Flex your power! Be energy e,~cient! January 9, 2008 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 ALA580843 ALA-580-19.859 SCH#2007122066 Dear Ms. Fraser: Arroyo Vista Development Project (PA 07-028) -Notice of Preparation (NOP) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the early stages of the environmental review process for the proposed project. The comments presented below are based on the NOP of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Arroyo Vista Development Froject. As lead agency, the City of Dublin is responsible for all project mitigation, including improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures in the DEIR. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. While an encroachment permit is only required when the project involves work in the State Right of Way (ROW), the Department will not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the lead agency ensures resolution of the Department's concerns prior to submittal of an encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Traffic Impact Study Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it znay have to traffic volume and congestion on the State Highway System. We recommend a traffic impact analysis be prepared. The traffic impact analysis should include, but not be limited to the following: Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The: assumptions .and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. 2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intersections. i3E~~1VlEl~ "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ~lQ N 1 4 Z~OU DUBLIN PLANNING ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~ Ms. Erica Fraser January 9, 2008 Page 2 3. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, and 3) cumulative for the intersections in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State Highway facilities being evaluated. 5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Special attention should be given to the development of alternate solutions to -- circulation problems that do not rely on increased highway construction: 6. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. We encourage the City of Dublin to coordinate prepazation of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see the Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" at the following website for more information: http://www. dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/operational systems/reports/ti sguide.pdf We look forward to reviewing the traffic impact study, including Technical Appendices, and DEIR for this project. Please send two copies to the address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN: Lisa Carboni, Mail Stop #IOD. Community Planning Consider developing and applying pedestrian and bicycling performance measures as a means of evaluating project impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists. These could include sidewalk crowding, intersection crossing distances, and speed of traffic. Also, consider modeling pedestrian and bicycle trips that your project will generate, or applying a pedestrian and bicycle subset of the countywide model, so that impacts can be quantified. Mitigations resulting from this analysis could improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit, thereby reducing traffic impacts on state highways. In addition, please analyze secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists that may result from any mitigations for traffic impacts. Please describe any pedestrian and bicycle mitigations that would in turn be needed as a means of maintaining and improving access to transit and reducing traffic impacts on state highways (for example, pedestrian treatments to counteract impacts from widening intersections to accommodate more traffic). Encroachment Permit Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ "Caltrans improves mobility across California" air ~.:,,:~ Ms. Erica Fraser January 9, 2008 Page 3 To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans which clearly indicate State ROW to the address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN: Michael Condie, Mail Stop #SE. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Lisa Carboni at (510) 622- 549 L Sincerely, _e,~ TIMOTHY ~: SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ghee/s „~ r------ Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority January 10, 2008 Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 ItE: Arroyo Vista Development Project Dear Ms. Fraser: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project; the proposed redevelop- ment of 150 units of existing low-income housing into a proposed development of 378 units, including 130 income-restricted family units, 50 income-restricted senior units and 198 market rate single family units. This location is served by Wheels route 3, which provides service to Dublin/Pleasanton BART, the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, Dublin High School, Wells Middle School, Shannon Park, the Dublin Senior Center, and the Stoneridge Mall, at a frequency of 15-60 minutes, in both directions, seven days a week. Route 3 operates in a loop pattern providing service in both directions. All buses enter from Dough- erty Road at North Mariposa, then board and alight at South Mariposa, then return to Dougherty Road. When traveling northbound on Dougherty Road the bus must perform a difficult, unprotected left turn to enter and exit the development. Based on the proposed site plan (exhibit 3 of the initial study), North Mariposa would not be available for entry into the development; therefore, we prefer to move bus service from inside the development to Dougherty Road. LAVTA requests that bus turnouts and bus stops be constructed by the developer on Dougherty Road and North Mariposa and Dougherty Road and 8~' Street; however, Dougherty Road is currently unsafe for pedestrians to cross. We also suggest a trai~c signal and crosswallc at Dougherty Road and 8th Street to ensure pedestrian safety and provide access to the existing bicycle trail. Your consulting with us on this project is highly appreciated. Thank you for allowing us to work with you to ensure that new developments include a safe, attractive infrastructure for users of public trans- portation in our community. Sincerely, Rodrigo Carrasco Transit Analyst Intern 1362 Rutan Court, Suite 100 Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 455-7555 (925) 443-1375 fax wwwwheelsbus.com RE~EilIEr7 Jp,N i 4 2008 DUBLIN PLANNING °~ Frorn: "Erica Fraser" <Erica.Fraser@ci.dublin.ca.us> [;ubjc::ct: FW: Arroyo Vista Date: January 17, 2008 7:23:33 PM GMT To: "Jeri Ram" <Jeri.Ram@ci.dublin.ca.us>, "Mary Jo Wilson" <MaryJo.Wilson@ci.dublin.ca.us>, "Jerry Haag" <jphaag@pacbell.neb ;' 1 Attachment, 1.5 KB FYI From: Jing Firmeza [mailto:jaef0730@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Erica Fraser Cc: Janet Lockhart; Kate Ann Scholz; Tony Oravetz; Tim Sbranti; Kasie Hildenbrand; kschmidt@edenhousing.org Subject: Arroyo Vista Hello Erica; Thank you for the meeting last night regarding Arroyo Vista. It is gratifying to have you listen to our inputs Dublin residents in scoping Arroyo Vista. Overall, your plans are outstanding and well planned. Eden Housing is a great organization to partner with in regards to our seniors. I hope we will invest and partner more ventures with Eden Housing in the future. I have opposed developments in Dublin due to water shortages, home pricing and traffic. I do wholeheartedly support redeveloping Arroyo Vista. We have opportunities with this development to upgrade the standards of families and seniors in Dublin. Please consider my suggestions for Arroyo Vista. 1. I have been in a couple of council meetings regarding child care in our residential neighborhood. The common opposition is noise and traffic. State mandates and supports child care in residential neighborhood. At Arroyo Vista we have an opportunity to provide entrepreneurship to stay at home moms or anyone for that matter to open a child care business. I have no problem with the child care company slated for the Arroyo Vista project. Mayor Lockhart mentioned on one of those meetings that she supports child care in a homey environment. Not a commercial type establishment. Building per say 10 homes at Arroyo Vista and making it available for sale or rent strictly for child care business operated by a mom or a dad. It provides an opportunity for the mother to care for her child and still earn extra income. It also provides us to redirect enterprising Dublin residents to open a child care business where no residents could oppose due to noise or traffic problems. in the middle of the 10 child care housing units is a small library/class and a playground which is enclosed for safety. This is a better deal for Dublin than a commercial type child care establishment. 2. I have known a few situations for a lack of senior care for semi independent seniors. There is a big need for independent and the ambulatory type seniors. Ambulatory seniors are housed at nursing care and are sometimes bed ridden or on wheel chairs. I have encountered a son and a daughter that are struggling to have someone care for their mom who is semi independent. Because they have to work during the day time, they cannot leave their mom at home alone. Their mom can walk with a walker and is susceptible to seizure and falling on her own. She cannot hold a plate or open the microwave to fix her lunch or snack. Though low income she is not qualified for a nursing home care. The county have IHSS which is in-home care funding. With a senior care like this, the son and daughter can drive their mom to the senior day care and pick her up after work. Another senior couple I know is a wife that is blind 100% and an able bodied husband who can still work. The husband loves to work to augment their income. They can get IHSS funding for the blind disabled wife to pay for her day care. We don't have those type of establishment. Arroyo Vista being in the center of Dublin is perfect for this type of senior care. 3. I would also like to extend the affordable housing to a 55 and over seniors who wish to buy down their large equities in their existing homes. Price this homes lower so that seniors can sell their home and still pay a much lower property tax. It is also good for our county and to our city when their homes are sold that new owners will be assessed to the market rate now increasing property taxes collection. With the high inflation .~. rates, seniors are having difficulty financially. Cashing out their home equities they can live out of their interest income on these funds. Let us not disqualify this group of seniors with high equities to have a good living. 4. I hate to see a big sound wall fence at Dougherty. It makes the subdivision look like a fortress. I suggest a ""` half size fence and use the existing trees as sound barriers. 5. I suggest a single street entrance and exit. I find that this type of subdivision encourages zero crime. Burglars hate single exit entrance neighborhoods. They can be easily caught by just blocking the main entrance. It would also minimize traffic at Dougherty. I have seen commuters pass through the existing subdivision now to skip gridlock at Dougherty. 6. Let us keep existing trees at the site. Let us plant more trees and more water conserving landscaping. 7. Low income housing is susceptible to crime. Build a small precinct which is not in the open to be manned by ~ our Dublin Police close to the low income housing. I don't want seniors from Eden housing getting mugged in the open. We need to encourage our seniors to come out on a nice sunny day to exercise walk or do Taichi at that beautiful planned park next to the senior housing. I applaud your efforts in planning this development. It will enhance our city and Dougherty. Good job!!! .Ding Firmeza, Realtor and Mortgage Loan Agent Cel/ 925-296-3456 Fax 925-847-8999 ~~~ = E. ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551-9486 , PHONE (925) 454-5000 Januazy 17, 2008 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development Project Dear Ms. Fraser: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Lone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture/irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. We have the following comments. As stated on pages 42-43 of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), a greater demand for potable water is anticipated once the new development is complete. Currently, Zone 7 provides potable water service to Arroyo Vista directly. The NOP states that once the site has been demolished, and the new units installed with associated site improvements, that water service will be supplied by Dublin San Ramon Services District or DSRSD. Zone 7 applauds this move, as DSRSD is the local water retailer and is the appropriate party to supply this service. 2. Zone 7 requests that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) explore the use of recycled water at this site to minimize any additional demands on Zone 7. Also, Zone 7's current Capital Improvement Program is designed to meet the ultimate potable water demands as stated in the General Plans of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Therefore, the DETR should state whether the increased water demands (if any, after accountirig for planned recycled water use), coupled with other demands within the City of Dublin and the part of Dougherty Valley served by DSRSD, are within the currently-planned ultimate water demands in the City's General Plan. 3. The development is in the vicinity of one of Zone 7's major transmission pipelines. In addition, Zone 7 owns and maintains the Arroyo Vista Turnout. Please provide draft construction plans for review and comment as they become available. Please note that any relocation of Zone 7's pipeline or turnout will be at the developer's expense. 4. With regazds to sub-sections c, d, and e, on page 32, a hydrology study should be performed as part of the EIR process to determine the impacts of additional runoff from the proposed project site. The study should be coordinated with and be made available for review by Zone 7 staff. ~E^EIVEC~ JAiv ~ S 200$ DUBLIN PLANNING Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin, Community Development Department January 17, 2008 Page 2 of 2 ,,a:: :x We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e mail at mlim zone7water.com. Sincerely, ~~ Mary Lim Environme tal Services Program Manager cc: Karla Nemeth, Jim Horen, Y.K. Chan, Joe Seto, Jeff Tang .. ~~~I~ .-~-, San Ramon iycOt*L1~0^NIA,geA ~O II At EO ~~a ~-. ~~ CITY OF SAN RAMON 2222 cnNUxoRaNlox Snx RnHtox, Cnl.rFORxIn 94583 PxoxE: (925) 973-2500 WEE SITE: www.sanramon.ca.gov January 24, 2008 Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 RE Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development Project Dear Ms Fraser: The City of San Ramon appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. The City has completed its review of the Initial Study and is submitting the following comments for consideration in the EIR process. The traffic study to be prepared for the Arroyo Vista Development Project should include an assessment of impact related to new project traffic on both Interstate 680 and 580. In addition, the project will result in increased density and will likely negatively impact intersection and roadway levels of service. While it is anticipated that physical roadway and intersection improvements will be proposed in an effoxt to mitigate project impacts, the City of San Ramon would request the consideration of the following measure to further reduce traffic impacts: - Implementation of a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, similar to the cities of Pleasanton and San Ramon to achieve reduction in the single vehicle occupant trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Dublin should work in concert with neighboring jurisdictions to offer commute alternative incentive programs to residents, commuters, and students. 2. Insist that the Developers finance "seed" money to implement TDM incentive programs to residents, commuters, and merchants located within the project vici~i~~~V~~ EAU z ~ Zoos i~UBLIN PL~-rvNING Cm Couricn.: 973-2530 CrrY Ctexx: 973-2539 Pnntcs ~ ConafuNrrr SERVICES: 973-3200 PLANNING DEr~trrMErrr: 973-2560 CtrvMwNACEA:973-2530 HUMAN RESOURCES: 973-2SO3 POLICE SERVICES: 973-2700 PUBLIC SERVICES: 973-2800 CrrrArrolwEV:973-2549 FtxnrtcEUEPnxrMEnrr 973-2609 Arnunvrrne.mrs..~.,~... ova oece ~-...__---° ~--..._-- .,........,, 3. Continue to monitor intersection to track peak hour volumes and respond accordingly. 4. A transit evaluation should be developed to review and evaluate effectiveness of future transit service for the proposed project. A written and graphical description of existing and planned transit service located near the project should be developed and include: • Transit routes/description/map • Transit station/stop locations • Site access to major regional transit center • Existing and planned transit schedules and headway information Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at. (925) 973-2567. r Sinc re Laure arr, Senior Planner `~~~I ~" c~ ~ r State of Caliromia~usiness, Transportation and Housing Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 4999 Gleason Drive rw"" Dublin, CA 94568.3310 (925) 828-0466 -Office (925) 828-1377 -Facsimile (800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD) (800) 735-2922 (Voice) January 14, 2008 File No.: 390.11767 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Fraser: The Dublin Area office of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) received the "Notice of Preparation" of the Environmental document prepared for the proposed Arroyo Vista Development Project (SCH#2007122066). After reviewing this document, we have a concern with this project. Our concern relates to the impact this proposed project will no doubt have on traffic patterns and public safety in the region. The demolition of 150 existing dwellings, followed by the construction of ~7.$ new dwellings on the site within the city limits will increase traffic volume on local roadways:;whic~i' include Crow .Canyon Road,,Alcosta Goad, .Bollinger, Cany,,~,n Road, Dougherty Road, andyDublin CanyonRoad,` all of which connect to either Interstate 680 or Interstate 580. The increased traffic may ultimately cause delays in emergency response times. Additionally, the proposed project would necessitate additional resources and officers to provide adequate traffic enforcement, emergency incident management, public service, assistance and accident investigation on the surrounding unincorporated roadways and Interstate freeways. Lieutenant S. Latimer will be our Department's contact person for the project. If you have any questions or concerns, she may be reached at the above address or telephone number. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, M. M. MUELLER, Captain Commander Dublin Area G~ California.Highway Patrol--Special Projects.Section,and Golden:.Gate-D'tvision~, . ~~ .,Mate Clearinghouse ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~, ,.. , .. ... ~,` . , t ~... , y _ 6~ .~ 7 w EVi~~9~~ .. _... ... , .. - JAi~ .Z ~ 2008 Safety, Service, and Security DUBLIiV PL~aNVraiNG ~~ ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220. OAKLAND, CA 94612 • PHONE: (510) 836-2560 • FAX: (510) 836-2185 E-MAIL: mail~accma.ca.gov • WEB SITE: accma.ca.gov AC 7ransft DkecNr Greg Haper January 21, 2008 Alameda County Supervisors I ~ Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP ggerty Ha s char Senior Planner City of Atamsda Community Development Department ~„~ `,,,on City of Dublin ,, 100 Civic Plaza cny of Albany Councilmember Dublin, CA 94568 Farld Javandel sapr r ct Di SUBJECT: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental o re Thomas Block Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development Project lIl the City City of Berkeley of Dublin (PA 07-028) CouncNmember Kris Worthington City of t)ublln Dear MS. Fraser: Me9or Janet Lockhart ~` Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Dublin's Arroyo Vista City of Emeryville Vka-Mayor Development Project in the City of Dublin. The 23.8 acre project area is located on `~'"'"""" the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection with Amador Valley City of Fremont Boulevard and north of the intersection with the Iron Horse Trail. The western Vke-Mayor RoberlWleckowskl boundary is Alamo Creek. The Project involves demolition of the existing 150 City of Nsyward dwelling units on site and construction of up to 378 units, both single family and Michas S eney myultOfamily forOsale dwellings and rental apartments. City of Livermore Mayor The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments: Marshau Kamena city et xewark Coundlmembe! . The City of Dublin adopted Resolution 120-92 on September 28, 1992 `°~Ff81'~ establishing guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use decisions City of Oakland consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Counc~member ~Reld Based on our review of the NOP, the proposed project appears to generate at City of PledmoM least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing conditions. If this is the case, `'c ;; ~ ` the CMP Land Use Analysis Program requires the City to conduct a traffic r analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model City of Pleasanton Maya for projection years 2015 and 2030 conditions. Please note the following ~` Jennifer Hosterman p~'agraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling. city of son Leandro Coundlmember Joyce R. Sterosdak o The CMA Board amended the CMP on March 26`h, 1998 so that local City of Union City jurisdictions are now responsible for conducting the model runs themselves Mayor Mark Green or through a consultant. The City of Dublin has not yet returned a signed a Vke Chair Countywide Model Agreement to the ACCMA. A copy of the Model Executive Director Agreement was delivered previously to the City of Dublin. f~EvE1VED Dennis R. Fay JAN 2 ~ 2008 .,. s. ,...,.....,,..,. . ,~ Ms. Erica Fraser January 21, 2008 Page 2 o Before the model can be released to you or your consultant, the agreement must be signed by the City and the ACCMA and a letter must be submitted to the ACCMA requesting use of the model and describing the project. Copies of the Model Agreement and sample letter agreement are attached. o If the City chooses to use a model other than the Countywide Model for traffic impact analysis, then for the purposes of the CMP Land Use Analysis Program, it should be demonstrated that the selected model output traffic volumes are conservative compared with the Alameda Countywide Model, with regard to the MTS roadways that are required to be analyzed. This comparison should be included in the environmental document. • Potential impacts of the project on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) need to be addressed. (See 2005 CMP Figures E-2 and E-3 and Figure 2). The DEIR should address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. These include I-580, I-680, SR 84, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara RoadlSanta Rita Road, Fallon Road/El Charro Road, as well as BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2015 and 2030 conditions. o Please note that the ACCMA does not have a policy for determ>n~ng a threshold of sigzuficance for Level of Service for the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP. Professional judgment should be applied to determine the significance of project impacts (Please see chapter 6 of 2005 CMP for more information). o In addition, the adopted 2005 CMP requires using 1985 Highway Capacity Manual for freeway capacity standards. • The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993, the CMA Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DEIR project mitigation measures: - Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for roadways and transit; - Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate; - Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal fixnds directed by or influenced by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the CMP or the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The DEIR should include a discussion on the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures relative to these criteria. In particular, the DEIR should detail when proposed roadway or transit route improvements are expected to be completed, how they will be funded, and what would be the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these projects were assumed to be built prior to project completion. • Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See 2005 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for bus service and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART ~ ~~ ~~ :~€ Ms. Erica Fraser January 21, 2008 Page 3 during peak hours. The DEIR should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the CMA's policies as discussed above. • The DEIR should also consider demand-related strategies that are designed to reduce the need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of existing facilities (see 2005 CMP, Chapter 5). The DEIR should consider the use of TDM measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attaining acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic trips should be considered. The Site Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the review of the development proposal. A copy of the checklist is enclosed. • The EIR should consider opportunities to promote countywide bicycle routes identified in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, which was approved by the ACCMA Board on October 26, 2006. The approved Countywide Bike Plan is available at http•//www accma ca gov/pases/HomeBicvclePlan.aspx • For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of the project. If the analysis finds. an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., soundwalls) should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Diane Stark Senior Transportation Planner cc: file: CMP -Environmental Review Opinions -Responses - 2008 y ~.~ Appendix 8.4 Air Quality Analysis & Greenhouse Gas Analysis Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 183 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED ARROYO VISTA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, DUBLIN Prepared for: Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 May 2008 ~? ~ ~ ~,~ ~ INTRODUCTION The report was prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended within the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).' In keeping with these guidelines, the report describes existing air quality, construction-related impacts, indirect emissions associated with project operation and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate any identified significant impacts. The proposed project consists of the development of 50 affordable senior units, 130 affordable family units, and 198 for sale housing units on a 23.8 acre site bounded by Dougherty Road to the east, Alamo Creek to the west, Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and the Iron Horse Trail to the south. The development will also include a Community Building and a Child Care Center. The project would replace 150 units of public housing currently on the site. EXISTING CONDITIONS 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 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 subregional 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 lighterwinds 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, air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (Revised 1999) 2 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 Quality 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 which 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 1 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 2. 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 California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and particulate matter (PM~o and PM2.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 PM~o. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). PM2.5, by definition, is included in PM~o. Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important, in terms of health risk, are diesel 3 r-} ~ ~ ~' ~.i ~~`~ particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage and death. Ambient Air Quality The state and national 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 3 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring site for the period 2005-2007. Table 3 shows that the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone and PM~o are exceeded. Attainment Status and Regional Air Quality 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 "nonattainment areas". Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco BayArea as a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PM~o and PM2.s standards. Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a nonattainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PM~o and PM2.5). 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. 4 Table 1: Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Character+stics Health Effects Major Sources Ozone A highly reactive photochemical pollutant !Eye Irritation The major sources ozone precursors are created by the action of sunshine on ozone !Respiratory function impairment. combustion sources such as factories and precursors (primarily reactive hydrocarbons automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and oxides of nitrogen. Often called and fuels. photochemical smog. Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless !Impairment of oxygen transport in the Automobile exhaust, combustion of Monoxide gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the bloodstream. fuels, combustion of wood in incomplete combustion of fuels. !Aggravation of cardiovascular disease. woodstoves and fireplaces. !Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. !Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations. Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors the air, !Increased risk of acute and chronic Automobile and diesel truck exhaust, Dioxide formed during combustion. respiratory disease. industrial processes, fossil-fueled power lants. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a !Aggravation of chronic obstruction lung Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil-powered pungent, irritating odor. disease. power plants, industrial processes. !Increased risk of acute and chronic res iratory disease. Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, !Aggravation of chronic disease and Combustion, automobiles, field burning, Matter aerosols and other matter which are small heart lung disease symptoms. factories and unpaved roads. Also a enough to remain suspended in the air fora result of photochemical processes. long period of time. W W ~~ ~~~ ~' xis Table 2: 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 PM~o Annual Average -- 20 ~g/m 24-Hour 150 /m3 50 /m3 PM2,5 Annual 15 fag/m 12 ~g/m 24-Hour 35 fag/m3 -- Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 ~g/m -- 30 Da Average -- 1.5 ~ /m3 Sulfates 24 Hour 25 fag/m -- Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM -- Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM -- PPM =Parts per Million µg/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08) httg://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aaas2.gdf 6 Table 3: 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 Federal 24- Hour 0 0 0 PM~o State 24-Hour 0 3 2 PM2.5 Federal 24- 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) 7 Sensitive Receptors The Bay Area Air Quality Management District 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, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Residential areas are located near the south, west and northern boundaries of the project site. The project itself would be a sensitive receptor. Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines provide that a projectwould have a significant air quality impact if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region isnon-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors), • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines2 provide the following refinements to the definition of a significant air quality impact: • A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) or PM~o. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant er z Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised December 1999). ,~, 8 cumulative air quality impact. • Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of PM~o exceed 80 pounds per day. The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~o. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. 9 IMPACTS ~"` Impact 1: Construction Dust Emissions. Construction activities associated with the ""~ proposed project would generate construction-period exhaust emissions and fugitive dust that would temporarily affect local air quality. This would represent a potentially significant impact. ~;, The proposed project would require demolition of existing buildings. The physical demolition of ,~ existing structures and other infrastructure are construction activities with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during demolition, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. ""~ According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and carbon monoxide related to construction equipment are already included in the ~* emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans, and thus are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon monoxide standards in the Bay Area. Thus, the effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally ' elevated levels of PM~o downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 1. Require implementation of the following dust control measures by contractors during demolition of existing structures: ~` • Watering should be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. ~t • Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. .~ • Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. Watering should be used to control dust generation during transport and handling of recycled materials. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following measures shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project: ,~ • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. w • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 10 ~~~ ~. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The following are additional mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD to reduce engine exhaust emissions: • Use alternative fueled construction equipment • Minimize idling time (5 minutes maximum); • Maintain properly tuned equipment; • Limit the hours of operation of heavy equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use. The above measures include all feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for large sites. According to the District threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation of the measures would reduce construction impacts of the project to aless-than-significant level. Impact 2: Construction TAC Emissions. During construction various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use on the site. Exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel particulate would represent aless-than-significant impact. In 1998 the California Air Resources Board identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines.3 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy a California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000. 11 and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truckstop) were identified as having the highest associated risk. Health risks from Toxic Air Contaminants are function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a period of weeks at any one location. Additionally, construction related sources are mobile and transient in nature, and the bulk of the emission occurs within the project site at a substantial distance from most nearby receptors. Because of its short duration, health risks from construction emissions of diesel particulate would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 2: None required. Impact 3: Permanent Local Impacts. Project traffic would add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets and intersections providing access to the site. This is a less than significant impact. On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document identifies situations where modeling of carbon monoxide concentrations should be conducted to quantify project impacts.4 They are: 1. Vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide exceed 550 pounds per day, 2. Project traffic would impact signal-controlled intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F, or 3. Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more. Application of the above three thresholds indicates that no intersections require quantitative analysis. An URBEMIS2007 analysis of project emissions found that project carbon monoxide emissions would -not approach 550 pounds per day. Level of Service with the proposed project would be LOS C or better at all affected signalized intersections, and the project would not increase traffic volumes on roadways by 10% or more. Project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered to be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3: None required. Impact 4: Permanent Regional Impacts. Additional trips to and from the project would result in new air pollutant emissions within the air basin. The emissions from these new trips and area sources would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of a Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised December 1999). 12 significance for regional pollutants, and would represent aless-than-significant impact. Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emission model. The methodology used in estimating vehicular emissions is described in Appendix 1. The incremental daily emission increase associated with project land uses is identified in Table 4 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PM~o. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established threshold of significance for ozone precursors and PM~o of 80 pounds per day. Proposed project emissions shown in Table 4 would exceed not these thresholds of significance, so the proposed project would not have significant effect on regional air quality. Mitigation Measure 4: None required. Impact 5: Cumulative Regional Impacts. The project would not require a General Plan re-designation, and would not have a cumulatively significant regional air quality impact. According the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would have a significant air quality impact individually and cumulatively. Proposed project emissions shown in Table4 would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do provide, however, that projects with individually insignificant impacts could have a cumulatively significant impact.5 If a project requires a General Plan amendment it would have a significant cumulative impact if the project generates more Vehicle Miles Traveled than that anticipated under the previous land use designation. The proposed project does not require a General Plan re-designation, and therefore would not have a significant cumulative air quality impact on regional air quality based on the BAAQMD threshold of significance. Mitigation Measure 5: None required. s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (Revised December 1999) 13 Table 4: Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Oxides PM~o Vehicular Emissions 33.4 42.4 53.1 Area Source Emissions 22.9 3.5 0.1 Total 56.3 45.9 53.2 BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0 Threshold 14 ~~~ ~~ APPENDIX 1: NEW VEHICLE TRAVEL EMISSIONS Estimates of construction phase emissions and operational emissions generated by project traffic and area sources were made using a program called URBEMIS 2007 (Version 9.2.4).6 URBEMIS 2007 is a program that estimates the emissions that result from development projects. Land use projects can include residential uses such assingle-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial facilities. URBEMIS 2007 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user- supplied information can also be used when it is available. Default trip lengths and average trip speeds forAlameda County were used. The analysis was carried out assuming a 2009 vehicle mix. Area source emissions were also quantified using the URBEMIS2007 program. The URBEMIS2007 program identifies 5 categories or area source emissions. Four of these categories would be associated with proposed project: Natural Gas Combustion Landscaping Emissions Architectural Coatings Consumer Products Natural gas emissions result from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Estimates are based on the size of project. URBEMIS2007 calculates emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel by landscape maintenance equipment. Equipment in this category includes lawn mowers, roto-tillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used in maintenance of the site. Architectural coating emissions result from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnished, primers and other surface coatings associated with maintenance of structures. This category of emission is associated with operation of project land uses rather than with initial construction of the project. The default assumption is that 10% of structures will be painted each year. The URBEMIS2007 program utilizes VOC (volatile organic compounds) content limits as they have been specified by each air district. Consumer product emissions are generated by a wide range of product categories, including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care produces. Emissions associated with these products primarily depend on the increased population associated with residential development. The URBEMIS2007 program was used to estimate emissions of regional pollutants for 6Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows, Version 9.2, November 2007. 15 .. summer and winter months. Summertime emissions of ROG and NOx were utilized since these pollutants are ozone precursors, and ozone is a summertime pollutant. The winter month emission of PM~owas used. The program output is attached. 16 -1 ,-.' . t' ARROYO VISTA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT GLOBAL WARMING GASES ANALYSIS The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which some of the radiant heat from the sun is captured in the lower atmosphere of the earth. The gases that help capture the heat are called greenhouse gases (GHG). While greenhouse gases are not normally considered air pollutants, all of these gases have been identified as forcing the earth's atmosphere and oceans to warm above naturally occurring temperatures. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Certain human activities add to the levels of most of these natural occurring gases. According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report' (CCAT), the following climate change effects are predicted in California over the course of the next century: • A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state's water supply. • Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35% increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas. • Coastal erosion along the length of California and sea water intrusion into the Delta from a 4- to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in already vulnerable regions. • Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures. • Increased challenges for the state's important agriculture industry from limited water shortage, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta. • Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. In September 2006, the California legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act (CGWSA), which was added to Health and Safety Code Section 38500 (also commonly referred to as AB32). The CGWSA states that global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. Many scientists believe that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) (defined as carbon dioxide [C02], methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N20], hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are having a significant impact on the global environment by accelerating or even causing global warming. ' California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Scharzeneager and the Legislation, March 20006. The CGWSA requires that the state reduce emissions of GHG to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased-in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, CGWSA directs CARB to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emission levels. The CGWSA mandates that CARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to the level to be achieved by 2020. On or before January 1, 2011, CARB must adopt GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit, to become operative beginning on January 1, 2012. The BAAQMD has prepared a GHG emissions inventory using 2002 as the base year. The BAAQMD estimated that 85.4 million tons of C02-equivalentz GHG gases were emitted from anthropogenic sources in the Bay Area in 2002. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles) accounted for approximately 43 percent. Stationary sources, including industrial and commercial sources, power plants, oil refineries, and landfills were responsible for approximately 49 percent. Construction and mining equipment was estimated to account for approximately two percent (or about 1.7 million tons) of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions.3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimate Methodology Direct Emissions Estimates of carbon dioxide generated by project traffic and area sources were made using a program called URBEMIS-2007 (Version 9.2.4). URBEMIS-2007 is a program used statewide that estimates the emissions that result from development projects. Land use projects can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial facilities. URBEMIS-2007 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user- supplied information can also be used when it is available. s Greenhouse gases are converted into C02-equivalent values based on their potential to absorb heat in the atmosphere. For instance, CH4 traps 21 times more heat per molecule than COZ and, therefore, one pound of CH4 has a COZ-equivalent value of 21 pounds. s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bav Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2006. Inputs to the URBEMIS-2007 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type and average speed. Daily trip generation for the project was provided by the project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths and speeds for Alameda County were used. The analysis was carried out assuming a 2009 vehicle mix. Area source emissions of carbon dioxide were also quantified by the URBEMIS-2007 program. The URBEMIS program identifies 5 categories of area source emissions: Natural Gas Combustion Hearth Emissions Landscaping Emissions Architectural Coating Consumer Products Natural gas emissions result from the combustion of natural gas for cooking, space heating and water heating. Estimates are based on the number of residential land uses and the number and size of nonresidential land uses. Hearth emissions consist of emissions from wood stoves, wood fireplaces, and natural gas fireplaces related to residential uses. No emissions from this source are expected from the proposed project. URBEMIS calculates emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel by landscape maintenance equipment. Equipment in this category includes lawn mowers, rotor tillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used in residential and commercial applications. This category also includes air compressors, generators, and pumps used primarily in commercial applications. Consumer product emissions are generated by a wide range of product categories, including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care produces. Emissions associated with these products primarily depend on the increased population associated with residential development. In URBEMIS-2007, these sources generate ROG emissions but not carbon dioxide. Architectural coating emissions result from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnished, primers and other surface coatings associated with maintenance of residential and nonresidential structures. 1n URBEMIS-2007, this source generates ROG emissions but not carbon dioxide. The URBEMIS-2007 results for carbon dioxide are attached. The output shows annual emissions of carbon dioxide. While URBEMIS-2007 estimates carbon dioxide emissions from land use projects, there are other global warming gases that should be considered. Emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) were estimated separately based on the URBEMIS-2007 estimates of carbon dioxide from vehicles and natural gas combustion. CH4 and N20 emission factors from Table 3 in BAAQMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions" were utilized in a spreadsheet to estimate project emissions of these gases. Because these gases are more powerful global warming gases the emissions were multiplied by a correction factor to estimate "carbon dioxide equivalents". CH4 was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 21 times that of C02, while N20 was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of C02. The attached spreadsheet printout shows the estimated calculation of CH4 and N20 carbon dioxide equivalents and the calculation of total estimated C02 equivalent emissions for the project from all identified sources. Indirect Emissions Indirect emissions are related to secondary emissions of global warming gases emitted away from the site and not directly related to project activities. The most import of these is that portion of the electricity used by the project that would be generated by fossil- fueled power plants that generate global warming gases. Global warming gas emissions related to electricity use were estimated using average annual electrical consumption per residential unit and square foot of commercial space recommended by the California Energy Commission. Emission rates for C02, CH4 and N20 per megawatt hour were taken from the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.0. Project residential units and commercial square footage was multiplied by the electrical usage factor and emission rates per megawatt hour to obtain annual emissions for C02, CH4 and N20. These emissions were converted to C02 equivalents. The calculation is shown in the attached spreadsheet. Results The resulting estimated daily emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the project are shown in Table 1. Emissions are expressed as COz-equivalent metric tons per year. Expressing emission in COz-equivalent metric tons per year accounts for the greater global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide. Methane has a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide, while nitrous oxide is 310 times that of the same amount of carbon dioxide. F.p No air district in California, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, has identified a significance threshold for GHG emissions or a methodology for analyzing air quality impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. The state has identified 1990 emission levels as a goal through adoption of AB 32. To meet this goal, California would need to generate lower levels of GHG emissions than current levels. However, no standards have yet been adopted quantifying 1990 emission targets. It is recognized that for most projects there is no simple metric available to determine if a single project would help or hinder meeting the AB 32 emission goals. In addition, at this time AB 32 only applies to stationary source emissions. Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector accounted for over 40% of the total GHG emissions in California in 2004. Current standards for reducing vehicle emissions considered under AB 1493 call for "the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles," and do not provide a quantified target for GHG emissions reductions for vehicles. Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is not itself an adverse environmental affect. It is the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in global climate change and the associated consequences of climate change that results in adverse environmental affects (e.g., sea level rise, loss of snowpack, severe weather events). Although it is possible to generally estimate a project's incremental contribution of COZ into the atmosphere, it is typically not possible to determine whether or how an individual project's relatively small incremental contribution might translate into physical effects on the environment. Given the complex interactions between various global and regional-scale physical, chemical, atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic systems that result in the physical expressions of global climate change, it is impossible to discern whether the presence or absence of COZ emitted by the project would result in any altered conditions. Greenhouse gas impacts of a single project are therefore considered too speculative to allow a determination of significance. While no mitigation measures are required, the energy efficiency aspects of the project would act to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases. Tablet : Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Metric Tons Per Year (CO2 Eq.) Vehicles Area Sources Indirect Sources Total 3918.8 665.4 969.3 5553.5 Project: Arroyo Vista Spreadsheet to CalculateElectrical Power Emissions and Other Greenhouse Gases for Bay Area Projects URBEMIS ANNUAL C02 EMISSIONS FROM: VEHICLES: 4303.07 TONS/YEAR AREA SOURCES 730:18 TONS/YEAR ELECTRICITY 1,067 TONS/YEAR CH4 ANNUAL EMISSIONS N20 ANNUAL EMISSIONS 3.02 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 13.61 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 0.21 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 3.08 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 0.22 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 1.52 C02 EQUIV.TONSlYEAR 3.45 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 18.21 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR TOTAL: Tons/year Metric Tons per year VehiGes 4319.70 3918.81 Area Sources 733.47 665.40 Electricity 1068.47 969.31 6121.63 C02 EQUNTONS/YEAR 5553.51 C02 EQUIV.TONNES/YEAR CH4 and N20 emission factors from Table 3 in BAAOMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions", November 2006. CH4 assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 25 times that of C02. N20 assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of C02. Electrical Power Usage Amounts Unftsl1000 sq. ft. Usage/Unit Usage mW-hdyear 378 Residences 6.92 2615.76 Office 12.84 0 Restaurant 35.62 0 Retail 13.84 0 Grocery 46.96 0 Ref. Warehouse 22.36 0 Warehouse 6.04 0 Schools 6.82 0 Colleges 10.44 0 Hospitals 21.2 0 Lodging 10.87 0 3 Misc. cmrcl. 12 36 lbs./MWh (from CCAR Protocol) 2651.76 804.54 COz 0.0067 CHI 0.0037 NOZ Residential Rate from California Electricity Consumption by County, 2005 (http l/www energy ca gov/electricity/electricity by county 2005.html) Commercial ElecUicity Use, PG&E systemwide; kWH per conditioned sq. ft./yr, from CEC: http:!/www.consumerenergycenter.orglpv4 newbuildings/downloads/ll-6A.pdf `Calif. Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Protocol ver 2.2 TONS/YF1>R 1,067 0.0089 0.0049 --~--- d 1 CO2 7ONSlYEAR 1,067 0.22 1.52 ~~ ~~ , ~. Page: 1 7/25/2008 11:41:01 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Don Ballanti~Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\arroyovista.urb9 Project Name: Arroyo Vista Project Location: Alameda County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 C02 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 4.05 0.58 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 730.18 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 C02 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 5.54 7.59 64.19 0.04 7.70 1.50 4,303.07 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 C02 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 9.59 8.17 65.37 0.04 7.70 1.50 5,033.25 U\ 0 --rt'-~ '~,,'~ 11 Page_ 2 7125/200811:41:01 AM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated urce ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 C02 Natural Gas 0.04 0.57 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 728.62 Hearth Landscape 0.10 0.01 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 Consumer Products 3.37 Architectural Coatings 0.54 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 4.05 0.58 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 730.18 Area Source Changes to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Apartments bw rise 1.28 1.82 Condoftownhouse general 2.29 3.05 Condoftownhouse high rise 1.43 2.01 Retirement community 0.37 0.46 Day-care center 0.17 0.25 TOTALS (tonslyear, unmitigated) 5.54 7.59 CO S02 PM10 PM25 C02 15.41 0.01 1.85 0.36 1,032.17 25.80 0.02 3.09 0.60 1,728.95 17.02 0.01 2.04 0.40 1,140.15 3.92 0.00 0.47 0.09 262.42 2.04 0.00 0.25 0.05 139.38 64.19 0.04 7.70 1.50 4,303.07 Operational Settings: fi-.. l ~~ ~ k ,~ _:'7 ~~ t~ Page: 3 7/25/200811:41:01 AM Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2009 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Apartments low rise CondoRownhouse general Condortownhouse high rise Retirement community Day-care center Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 3.62 11.80 dwelling units 58.00 684.40 5,851.41 12.38 5.79 dwelling units 198.00 1,146.42 9,801.55 1.12 10.50 dwelling units 72.00 756.00 6,463.57 10.00 3.48 dwelling units 50.00 174.00 1,487.65 35.67 1000 sq ft 3.00 107.01 798.03 2,867.83 24,402.21 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 49.0 2.0 97.6 0.4 10.9 3.7 90.8 5.5 21.7 0.9 98.6 0.5 9.5 1.1 98.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 S V ~ 0 --~-t'? Page:4 7/25/2008 11:41:Oi AM Vehicle Type Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) %of Trips -Residential of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.5 77.1 22.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 5.0 2.5 92.5 ~_. a C~_ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ame ,Mail Care 'Of N US Parks Reserve Forces Training Area: Camp Parks Attn: Commander LCC Parks, RFTA Bldg. 790 Dublin, CA 94568 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Attn: Mark D'Avignon 1455 Market Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal Building Attn: Ryan Olah 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Department of Housing and Urban Development Attn: Enviro. Review Division 600 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Alameda County Congestion Mgm#. Agency Attn: Jean Hart 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612 Fort Irwin Lt. Colonel Paul D. Cramer Director of Public Works PO Box 105097 Fort Irwin, CA 92310 Alameda County Public Works Dept. Attn: Karen Borrmann 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 CalTrans District 4 CEQA East Bay Regional Park District Attn: Steven Yokoi, CEQA Coordinator Attn: Larry Tong 111 Grand Avenue 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94623 Oakland, CA 94605 BART, 1 KB6 Mail Stop LAVTA Attn: Kathy Mayo Attn: Cyrus Sheik Manager of Environmental Compliance 1362 Rutan Court, Ste. 100 PO Box 12688 Livermore, CA 94550 Oakland, CA 94604 California Dept. of Fish & Game Bay Delta Region 3 Attn: Scott Wilson PO Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 Zone 7 Attn: Mary Lim 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 Fort Hunter-Liggett, Parks RFTA Attn: Peter Rubin, Director of PW 8790 5th Street Dublin, CA 94568 U.S. Postal Service Attn: Postmaster 4300 Black Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 15 copies Office of Planning and Research Attn: Terry Roberts 1400 Tenth Street PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 AT&T Attn: Jon Stradford 2600 Camino Ramon, Rm 2N000B San Ramon, CA 94583 Dublin San Ramon Services District Attn: Dave Requa 7051 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Alameda County Planning Dept. Attn: James Sorenson 224 W Winton Avenue, Rm. 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Dublin Unified School District Attn: John Sugiyama 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 LAVWMA Attn: Ed Cummings PO Box 2945 Dublin, CA 94568 BAAQMD Attn: Environmental Review Div. 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 SF Bay RWQCB 1515 Clay Street, Ste. 1400 Oaklad, CA 94612 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Attn: John Rusmisel 23197 Connecticut Street Hayward, CA 94545 Comcast Cable 2333 Nissen Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Amador Valley Industries Attn: Debbie Jeffrey PO Box 12617 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PG&E Citation Homes Eden Housing 998 Murrieta Blvd. Attn: Charles McKeag Attn: Kathy Schmidt Livermore, CA 94550 404 Saratoga Avenue, Ste. 100 409 Jackson Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 Hayward, CA 94544 Dublin Housing Authority City of Livermore Planning Department Attn: Chris Gouig Attn: Marc Roberts 22941 Atherton Street 1052 South Livermore Avenue Hayward, CA 94541 Livermore, CA 94550 Contra Costa County City of Pleasanton Planning Dept. Planning Department Attn: Jerry Iserson Attn: Dennis Barry 200 Old Bernal Avenue 651 Pine Street, 4 Floor, North Wing Pleasanton, CA 94566 Martinez, CA 94553 Rich Ambrose City Manager Cpt. Gary Thuman Police Services Paul Rankin Administrative Services Director Melissa Morton Public Works Director Joni Pattillo Assistant City Manager Kit Faubion Meyers nave Diane Lowart Parks & Community Services Director Frank Navarro Senior Civil Engineer Mark Lander City Engineer Planning File (Erica Fraser) 15 copies t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 4, City of San Ramon Planning Dept. Attn: Phil Wong 2226 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 "" Contra Costa County, Public Works ~;, „~ Attn: Maurice Shiu 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Jeri Ram, AICP Community Development Director Darrell Jones Dublin Fire Prevention ,~ Mary Jo Wilson Planning Manager Elizabeth Silver "~ Meyers Nave ~, .eF ,~;, a ~, ~. ~~~c~~r ~ s ~ ~ ~ ..,, :~ Appendix 8.5 Biological Site Assessment & Preliminary Wetland Delineation Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 184 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin lO~QC~ICa~ f~SU~~;S SSSS~ ARR~Y~ 'VISTA 4~Q~1SII~~ PI~~JE~T DUBBIN, AL.AIVIE~A CALIFORNIA Prepared For: ferry Haag 2023 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 3704 Contact: Tam Fraser a raser C~ wra-ca.corr~ Qate: February 200$ m)wra C ell :3t~~"C.~'f+'. Cv'neCv'~fl ~`i 3CJ 2i6a-v past ~r~;t~iscC 31vd., Sera ~G€Qel, ~n ~9'J C~'~; 454-386u #~I (~5) 454-tS'29 fix i~fo~Va=a-rn.e~.f> www.wrn-~~.com ~Ibt ~- `13 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 1NTRODUCTION ......................................................1 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................... 1 2.1 Federal Regulations .............................................. 1 2.2 State Law ......................................................3 2.3 Local Ordinances ................................................5 3.0 METHODS ...........................................................5 3.1 Biological Communities ........................................... 5 3.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities .......................... 6 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................. 6 3.2 Special Status Species ........................................... 6 3.2.1 Literature Review .......................................... 6 3.2.2 Site Assessment ........................................... 7 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................8 4.1 Biologica{ Communities .......................................... . 8 4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities ............................. 10 4.2 Special Status Species .......................................... 12 4.2.1 Plants .................................................. 12 4.2.2 Wildlife ................................................. 12 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 17 5.1 Biological Communities .......................................... 17 5.2 Special Status Plant Species ...................................... 17 5.3 Special Status Wildlife Species .................................... 17 6.0 POTE NTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .................................. 19 6.1 Special Status Species .......................................... 19 6.1.1 Impacts to Special Status Species ............................ 19 6.1.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 20 6.2 Riparian Habitat ................................................ 20 6.2.1 Impacts ................................................ 20 6.2.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 20 6.3 Section 404 Wetlands ........................................... 21 6.3.1 Impacts ................................................ 21 6.3.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 21 6.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat ..................................... 21 6.4.1 impacts ................................................ 21 6.4.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 22 6.5 Local Po{icies .................................................. 22 6.5.1 Impacts ................................................ 22 6.5.2. Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 22 6.6 Conservation Plans ............................................. 23 6.6.11mpacts .................................................. 23 6.6.2 Suggested Mitigation ........................................ 23 7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................... 23 ~ ~a~~ ~~ ~ LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ............................................ 2 Figure 2. Project Area ....................................................... 9 Figure 3. Areas with Wetland Plants ........................................... 11 Figure 4. Special Status Plant Species Occurrences within Five Miles of Project Area ..... 13 Figure 5. Special Status Wildlife Species Occurrences within Five Miles of Project Area .... 14 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A- List of Observed Plant and Animal Species Appendix B- Potential for Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species to Occur in the Project Area Appendix C- Representative Project Area Photographs ~. 1.0 INTRODUCTION On September 20, 2007, WRA, Inc. performed an assessment of biological resources at the 25- acre existing Arroyo Vista housing site (Project Area).in Dublin, Alameda County, California, which is located along Dougherty Road just north of Highway 580 (Figure 1). The purpose of the assessment was to gather information necessary to complete a review of biological resources, including an assessment of any sensitive habitats or special status species under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This information will be used in the development of an Initial Study and an Environmental Assessment document to support CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and analysis of this project. This report describes the results of the site visit, which assessed the Project Area for (1) the presence of special status species; (2) the potential to support special status species; and (3) the presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. This report also contains an evaluation of potential impacts to special status species and sensitive biological resources that may occur as a result of the proposed project, and potential mitigation measures to compensate for those impacts. A biological resources assessment provides general information on the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats, but is not an official protocol-level survey for listed species that may be required for project approval by local, state, or federal agencies. Specific findings on the occurrence of any species or the presence of sensitive habitats may require that protocol-level surveys be conducted. This assessment is based on information available at the time of the study and on site conditions that were observed on the date of the site visit. 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The following sections explain the regulatory context of the biological resources assessment, including applicable laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigation and analysis of potential project impacts. 2.1 Federal Regulations Special Status Species Federal special status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA affords protection to both listed and proposed species. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and sensitive species included in USFWS Recovery Plans are all considered special status species. Migratory Bird Treaty Act In addition to regulations for special status species, most birds in the United States, including non- status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Under this legislation, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. ~'~ U ~ ~~ ~„ , _.-~~ ~~ *~ ram ..; ~ _. ., -- ~' e _~ ___ .. x ~~. ;. o-., ~ `; an .~; ~ ~ L rd ~;. ~ ~ - ~ ~`~- _~ .t y`ti~ ' *.. ~. ~ mil ~~~~1~~` ~•; ~~ U,~~\,~ ''O S ~~ ~ ~~ ~, s ,;. s ~ ~ 1 h ~ i. ~ ~~~a R ~ ..--~ • ~ ! c MAD ~ ~ :~-` ~ \~ ~ 2"~ t c. ~ '. ~~~ , ~; ;, s~~ cu : .~ ~. - F ~ ~s r q, ~ ,.~ - ~ _... ~--~ ~ ~ , . ~, .. r ~\ l . , ~~ ,_ :~ _ J i ~~ ~ 1-~, FF,De3~, .=~ A s ~ . - _ _..-~ ~~ ~. ~ •-1 _ rat \Y ~ ,~. ~ ~*~~ Frb_iect Area ~ ~ ~~; ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,~~--~ ~ ~,~,~,r~ cg•-r~;r ~ .. _ ~' T..~..... ;~ ~ ,~' . ~~~ - N ~ - ` !~,, , ~.~ ~ 7:... ~, ~~ a z ~ _ ~y. "l~ 4 `~I. ^~ jY ~ r y~ . ~~ ~- _. ~~ ~. ~ ~' .,,=- - ~ ~ -,:. ~,,.~r1.~..-- Feet ,~ EF ~ /0 500i,flfl0 2,fl00 ~ i~'-- t ; .~ Figure 1. Project Area Location Map Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment ~x $M 325 •~~. ~ .~ -~, : F era E~:ViRONMEI~f'A. CvSBSULTAN3S Date: September 2007 Hasenup: USGS Topo QuaE Map By: Derek Chart fikpath: t:WcA02000fi{es\36000\Ib142\4a1 ArcMap\figi_LOCMaD PS_200~0925.mxG mw Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species' recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA "jeopardy standard." However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed for the species' recovery, are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. Sensitive Biological Communities Federal sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat., These habitats are regulated under federal regulations including the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates "Waters of the United States" under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. "Waters of the U.S." are defined broadly as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands stated in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated for sufficient duration and depth to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as "other waters" and are often characterized by an ordinary high water line (OHW). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into "Waters of the U.S." (including wetlands) generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 2.2 State Law Special Status Species State special status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CESA affords protection to both listed and proposed species. In addition, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, and CDFG special status invertebrates are all considered special status species. Although CDFG Species of Special Concern generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. 3 In addition, plant species on California Native Plant Society (GNPs) Lists 1 and 2 are also considered special status plant species. Impacts to these species are considered significant according to CEQA. CNPS List 3 plants have little or no protection under CEQA, but are included in this analysis for completeness. Sensitive Biological Communities State sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. These habitats are protected in California under state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the CDFG Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA. Waters of the State The term "Waters of the State" is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes "isolated" wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. "Vllaters of the State" are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact "Waters of the State," are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certificatian determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to "Waters of the State," the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. Streams. Lakes. and R,~arian Habitat Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFG under Sections 1600-1616 of the State Fish and Game Code. Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term stream, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, orstream-dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG ESD 1994). Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, "vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself" (CDFG ESD 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. 4 1. Other Sensitive Bioloaical Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive can be identified by CDFG. CDFG ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its Natural Diversity Database. Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFG on their List of California Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). 2.3 Local Ordinances Sensitive Bioloaical Communities Local sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. These habitats are protected by local ordinances or policies (City or County Tree Ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements). Ordinance No. 52-87 of the City of Dublin establishes requirements for the protection of watercourses, including a 20-foot setback area adjacent to open channel watercourses, such as Alamo Creek. Chapter 5.60 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Ordinances also specifies that Heritage Trees are protected. These include any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree having a diameter of 24 inches or more at breast height. 3.0 METHODS On September 20, 2007, the Project Area was traversed on foot to determine (1) plant communities present within the Project Area, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were recorded, and are summarized in a species list in Appendix A. 3.1 Biological Communities Prior to the site visit, the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1966) was examined to determine if any unique soil types that could support sensitive plant communities and/or aquatic features were present in the Project Area. Aeria{ photographs and previous biological reports for the neighboring area were also reviewed. Biological communities present in the Project Area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified assensitive ornon-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other app{icable laws and regulations. 5 ~~~ ~~ 3.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other state, federal, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. These communities may, however, provide suitable habitat for some special status plant or wildlife species and are identified or described in Section 4.1.1 below. 3. i.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities are defined as those communities that are given special protection under CEQA and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Applicable laws and ordinances are discussed above in Section 2.0. Special methods used to identify sensitive biological communities are discussed below. Wetlands and Waters The Project Area was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFG were present. The assessment was based primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators, but may also include any observed indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils. Any potential wetland areas were identified as areas dominated by plant species with a wetland indicator status' of OBL, FACW, or FAC as given on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include direct evidence (primary indicators), such as visible inundation or saturation, surface sediment deposits, algal mats and drift lines, or indirect indicators (secondary indicators), such as oxidized root channels. Some indicators of wetland soils include dark colored soils, soils with a sulfidic odor, and soils that contain redoximorphic features as defined by the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS, 2002). Other Sensitive Biological Communities The Project Area was evaluated for the presence of other sensitive biological communities, including riparian areas and sensitive plant communities recognized by CDFG. If present in the Project Area, these sensitive biological communities were mapped and are described in Section 4.1.2 below. 3.2 Special Status Species 3.2.1 Literature Review Potential occurrence of special status species in the Project Area was evaluated by first determining which special status species occur in the vicinity of the Project Area through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special status species focused on the Dublin 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles. ' OBL =Obligate, always found in wetlands (> 99% frequency of occurrence); FACW = Facultative wetland, usually found in wetlands (67-99% frequency of occurrence); FAC =Facultative, equal occurrence in wetland or non-wetlands (34-66% frequency of occurrence). 6 ^~ `-~ la~f - ~~i The following sources were reviewed to determine which special status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area: • California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB) (CDFG 2007) • USFWS quadrangle species lists (USFINS 2007) • CNPS Electronic Inventory records (GNPs 2007) • CDFG publication "California's Wildlife, Volumes I-III" (Zeiner et al. 1990) • CDFG publication "Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California" (Jennings 1994) • A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins, R.C. 2003) 3.22 Site Assessment A site visit was made to the Project Area to search for suitable habitats for species identified in the literature review as occurring in the vicinity. The potential for each special status species to occur in the Project Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria: 1) No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime). 2) Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. 3) Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. 4) High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. 5) Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently. The site assessment is intended to identify the presence or absence of suitable habitat for each special status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the Project Area. The site visit does not constitute aprotocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species; however, if a special status species is observed during the site visit, its presence will be recorded and discussed. Appendix B presents the evaluation of potential for occurrence of each special status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area with their habitat requirements, potential for occurrence, and rationale for the classification based on criteria listed above. Recommendations for further surreys are made in Section 5.0 below for species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the Project Area. 7 4.0 RESULTS The entire Project Area has previously been disturbed and does not represent ahigh-value habitat. It is a highly modified site within the city of Dublin, surrounded by other housing developments and ruderal fields. On the east side it is bounded by Dougherty Road; Amador Valley Boulevard is northwest of the Project Area. Alamo Creek flows past the western edge of the Project Area and is fenced off from the site. The elevation of the Project Area ranges from 350 to 372 feet. More than eighty percent of the site is a housing development. Community center buildings, an outdoor basketball court, and a ring of tall redwoods mark the center of the housing development (Figure 2). This development has two main access roads (Monterey Drive and North Mariposa). Houses are clustered on either side of Monterey Drive, both north and south of the loop-shaped North Mariposa road. Houses face inwards towards a shared courtyard consisting of a lawn, parking lot, and pathways. Vegetation throughout the housing subdivision consists primarily of landscaped ornamentals. Domestic or feral cats appear to frequent the Project Area, reducing habitat value for wildlife. The rest of the site is occupied by two undeveloped ruderal fields, one at the northern end of the site (North Field) and one on the western edge of the site (West Field). In North Field brush piles, wood chips, and litter cover much of the ground, and a mix of mostly non-native weedy plants comprises most of the vegetation. A few eucalyptus trees (Eucalytpus sp.) and coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) are growing at the far eastern end of North Field, near Dougherty Road. West Field is more manicured in appearance and is surrounded on all sides by a paved foot/bikepath. A basketball court borders the eastern edge of this field. The central section of this field has been mowed and a layer of sawdust placed around sections of the perimeter of the mowed area. The topography slopes downward from the north and east edges of West Field towards a low point in the northwestern corner, where a drain is located. Shrubs and trees, including willow (Salix sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), and non-native ornamentals are growing along the fence line that borders the western edge of this field. Soils have been disturbed in both of these fields. North Field was disced, and both fields (especially West Field) appear to have been graded and modified with earth-moving equipment. A wide swath of gravel has been laid on top of the soil in the southwestern section of the North Field, serving as what appears to be a temporary roadway/turnaround area. The following sections present the results and discussion of the biological assessment within the Project Area. 4.1 Biological Communities The predominant biological community present in the Project Area is ruderal herbaceous grassland, which is anon-sensitive community. No sensitive biological communities are found in the Project Area, although a small area of wetland plants was found and is discussed below. 4.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities Ruderal herbaceous grassland Although not described in the literature, ruderal herbaceous grassland includes areas that have been partially developed or have been used in the past for agriculture. Wildlife within this 8 ^~ i ...a .~ >;~ r .~ ~SXx~ f ~ ~,, . ` ^ ~ it i ~ •«~ Ste'. ~' ~ ~r ~~~~ ~ . r. «n ~,¢ s „; -' . .~ ~ North Field ~ ~ ` *. ~" # ~.= ~' _ ~ ~ ~ ~. I~.~i Ir ~ . ~ 2j ~ ~ . } k k , t t i~ ~ ]! x L ~ ~« K # .., ~~ West Field ~ r _ ~ : ~,. ~ ~ ~~»~~»,~ w a F_ ,~ _ jr > ~~ ,~ . , ~: ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ = ~ t.Ya ~•"; ~ k 7 - ~ wrf, ~~ ~ - ~ ( j ~ _ ~ ~ ' i Y .'Tt0 ~,... L I Y~~ f X •~ ~ . $~" ~~. {{ r ; i M ~ ~~ ~ - a~ ~; x.. ~;. ~~' r J ~. . ~K x s ~ R ~;: n. ~ . ~'~ - ~~ .. ~. ~ Y ~~~ _ ~ ~.... : X1t q~i ~_ i ... F~ ~ ~ +s rt s ~. x' r ,; ~` - _ _, '- ~ ~0 ?00 200 400 ..- Figure 2. Project Area ~~ ~~ EIVVtFt'JNfl: E~?~'~,L CCt~5U>~A~E75 3ase phaio: TtnaServer, 200a DubEin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment Date:Ocio5er20C~ N,ap &y: Derck Cian ~+~epatn: L:44caC 2000Ftaes\1 600 0116 1a2~pis\ Alameda ~OUn ~all~Ornla arcMapvPfg3_aer,p+._zo09092s.~ze ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~a community may often include such small rodents as mice and voles, as well as snakes, lizards, and foraging songbirds. Ruderal herbaceous grassland can also be used by special status or larger animals depending on proximity to open space and other factors. The two fields within the Project Area can best be described as ruderal herbaceous grassland, particularly North Field, which is not mowed like West Field. Plant species observed in both these fields include non-native plant species such as wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (eromus diandrus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides), curly dock (Rumexcrispus),andstrawberryclover(Trifoliumfragiferum). Additional non-nativesoccurringjust in North Field are cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Italian ryegrass (Lo/ium multiflorum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). Plants growing along the fence line bordering the north portion of North Field include English ivy (Hedera helix), periwinkle (Vinca major), and grape vine (Vitis sp.). The native slender willowherb (Epilobium ci/iatum) is also present in North Field. Wildlife use of these areas appears to be limited. Raccoon scat was observed along with several small rodent burrows, likely vole (Microtus sp.) or gopher (Thomomys bottae). Birds in these areas included Wild Turkey (Megeagris gallopavo), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). This community, making up the areas within the Project Area that are not already paved and developed, consists mostly of non-native plants and likely common wildlife species. It is a non- sensitive community. 4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Wetlands According to the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1966), two different soil types occur in the Project Area: Diablo clay (DbC) and Clear Lake clay (CdA). The majority of the site has Diablo clay soils, which are classified as well-drained and occurring on slopes of 7-15%. There is a small inclusion of Clear Lake clay soils in the Project Area encompassing the western half of North Field and just the northwestern tip of West Field. These soils are classified as moderately well-drained, occurring on 0-3% slopes. Two small (roughly 250 square feet) areas dominated by wetland plants were mapped on either side of the foot/bikepath bordering the northwestern edge of West Field within the area mapped as having Clear Lake clay soils. These plants occur along a drain line in the vicinity of the drain, as shown on Figure 3 and in the photographs in Appendix C. Plants observed were tall flat-sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), narrowleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), and rough cockle-bur (Xanthium strumarium). No other sensitive biological communities are present within the Project Area. 10 ~ ~" ~+13 ~ ti~~ -~ 4.2 Special Status Species 4.2.1 Plants Based on a review of the resources and databases given in Section 3.2.1, thirty-five special status plant species have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project Area (Appendix B). Six of these special status species have been documented to occur within five miles of the Project Area, as shown on Figure 4. These are Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdoni~), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaguiniana), Diablo helianthella (Helaanthella castanea), saline clover (Trifolium depauperatumvar. hydrophilum), and hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber). No plant species requiring protection were observed during the site assessment. The site assessment occurred during the blooming period of Congdon's tarplant (which blooms between May and October), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (which blooms between April and September), and San Joaquin spearscale (which blooms between April and October); however, these species were not observed during the survey. While the survey did not occur during the blooming period of Diablo helianthella and saline clover, suitable habitat does not exist on-site for either of these species. Diablo helianthella was historically found in the hills to the northwest of the Project Area (see Figure 4), and saline clover requires marshes, swamps, vernal pools, or valley and foothill grassland with mesic/alkaline soils. Hairless popcorn flower was historically documented in the Project Area, but this native annual herb is now presumed extinct in California. One naturalized Northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsi-) seedling was observed during the September 20"' survey. This seedling was observed along the fence line on the western edge of West Field. This is a CNPS List 1 B species and is usually found in riparian forest and riparian woodland, at elevations between 0 - 440 meters. It blooms between April and May. Since this species is widely naturalized in cismontane California, and since only native stands ,~ of this species have protected status, this individual plant does not require any special protection in the Project Area. The remaining species documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area have no potential to occur there, either due to lack of suitable habitat or because the Project Area is outside of the species' elevation range. ""` 4.2.2 Wildlife All of the wildlife observed in the Project Area are commonly found species, and many are adapted to occupying disturbed or urban areas. No special status wildlife species were observed during the site assessment. Thirty-six special status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project Area. Appendix B summarizes the potential for each of these species to occur in the Project Area. A map „~, showing 2007 CNDDB occurrences of special status wildlife species is provided in Figure 5. No special status species are known to occur or have a high potential to occur within the Project Area. ~~' Two special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area: the pallid ~, bat and Loggerhead Shrike. Special status wildlife species of particular interest are discussed below. . 12 *~^ -..~ t . ~. --~ - __ ~_,_ . . .e ._ _~_ .. yam. fi ... . t _. _.. ~ e. ~.._ ... H .:. ,~.,r, -.~...-tee, ,.. r -.. _ E ,. _ _-A ,~ > v ~~ _t . - -_ .~./ "- is ~~ .. - -. ~ ~. ~_ ~, e. ~.. .._._._ n ~ ~ ^ _ /-~ _ s . "'~' , .r' ~. I r - .- ~~ ~ %,n,- - r .. ~~ ~~ i e; . K ~_ - r ~ f v ~ n .. .: ~ ' ... ~: ~ I _ _ .. ~ ~ ~ :'~' ~ ~.: ~~~ 4 s- a ~~a ,. ~ _ ~a _ _,. ~ _. ~. _~ _ _ ~ ~.. ..s _ _ .. j •• "--- . - .; ~~ ~~~ _~ ~ ._, J ,~~ 1 ,~ ,~ ~ ~. - _... .. .. ~_ a b ,,,,.,_s_ , 1 ~- - ~. i r-- ~.r ~ ~ ~`~ _ - _ProjecfArea,~, . ~ 1 -~~ ~ , . . m ~. ~ . - ~ -. ... - ,. -~- s , -, 1 Y i ~ __ s_~ ~~ ~~ ~" - ~ ~ - . _ ~ •,, ..~. ~, ~.,., j. ti _..,. ... _ _ .- ., ,~- ...-- ~. =.,~„ ,., __ _- . - - _~r - ~ . - . y .._ ~: - i __ - ,~_ .ti . .., . .. i - - - _ ~ ~ _ - _~ - ~ ., ~ _ . :,. ~ _ ,.~ ~ ~- __ ~.. _ s '~ ~ ti _ __ t ~ „~ __ _ _ .~ ~~ __ R . ~ ~, ~.~ .. <.~ _ _---~ ~,~r -= ~ ~~ ,.,,~ -~. O- ~~~ - - - ~.. ~` ~- x ~. ,_ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - '< c r ~~ .. ~~'~ .. ( ,. ~ ,, ~~ e.. ., ~, ~, w 5-mile Buffer,from_Project Area ~''-~ ~~ - - ~ - - •~; rF~, _- _ Congdon's T~ptani - - . •. .~ •. _ Diab~ Heliar~eNa `` = -- 4~ ~- -, .., _ ..W v.. ... .. _ _ - '. ML DiaDb 6uckwhe3t _ --. 3P~ ~_ _,,...,-~~_. _'s.~ ~ - ____~r_ ~ ~+ F ~~ y~ San.toaquinSpearsrate _ 5s = ~- °~ '"~~<i Hairless Popcorn-!tower "- " ~ s - ®sat~~ ao~e< ~- ~. ~ ~. . 0 1 2 4 .... - ~. ~~ . e ,~ _ ~ _ _ - ~ Nli~s -. ` ~~ __ >r ~~ ._, ,. ~.. Figure 4. Special Status Plant Species Occurrences within Five Miles of Project Area ~~ ~~ e~av~Rt~rve,~~w-,a! cQ~s~iskNas Basemap: tfSGS Topo Quad Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment Date:C'diobCr2~7 Map By: Dtrtk Chan j~ ~ Fikpath: UWcad 2000Fiks\26000\1614Z\9is\ Alame a ountV. alifornia ArU1aa\F;a4 GNDDB efts 20D71DD7.mYd y-~ ~ ~, .r ,~C ~_~~ ^_.. _ . - _ _ -. ~ .. t ~, r m E ~~ _ .,r - - -- ~ ,~ .. . ^+a.c . ~a.-- -~ ti .. _., _ - -, . ., °; ,°' ~~ - ._ _ .~ ~ ~°. ti - -. r _ ^- ~~ ~,-___ . .. _ _ _ _ '~M'~`~+... ~~,._ ro~% ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ a. ~ .. __ ~• "„'`° ~: . _ 4 - _ _ i ~~~.~ ~. t ~ -- ~ ` • >°~ - _ e .r~ ~ ~ ..... ._ s . ,.~. . -.. ~" - __ •_ a "~ s,f`r- __._ ~, - - = -_ - °- ;.. -- . . , ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ - '; "" 1-_ - ~' - e -- r `~ ~ - -~ ~ ", . ~ ~ s ~_ ~ - -. .~_ . ~ _ l _ ~ ,, y • ~~~.; . t:. ,~ - i. . ~~ T ~__ProjeCt Area ~ -' `~ ~ ~+- ~ ~ ~ -_ .~ e _~ ~, _ - ~ - ~ :- ~ ~`- sv - ~,. i _ . -~~ ~ - - _ _ _ e ~ _ „, *s~„ - -~- -~ -„- ...._ ~_ ,.~ -a.,~ ~- _u, - ~ _e r "~. ,. .. . .. --- ~~ ~ "_ ., .. ~,. ~ ~1 _ _ ~ ~ .~ .~- ~. = - ,,~ ~o ,. _ _ ~.. ~t~ r - , - ~- ~ '` • ~ - ~ . . - . _ __ •_ ~,~ a K S y.. w ', 4 S y - i .~_.. ~ ..r T _ ~ .~ .. .~ °- . ' ~a ~ • -~•¢ o.~ .. ~_~i ~. .z- , ~... _ _. _ .. t ,/' '~ - ,~ `~ a - a l ~..,.,. ~ -_ m ~I r ~ ~ ~~~I g. ` w +~ .. <. ... ~ ~• `-P ~~ b~mileBuffer,ftom Project Area"~'~ s _ _. American Badger ~ '' San Joaquin Kit Fox ~ Pallid Sat ,-'~. = _-- California Homed La Ac ~ Yuma Myotis Tricokxed SfadCfird ~ ~ _. _ ,._ _. ,~ . C2Hfornta LirxlerieMa ~ Burrowing Owl ~ Wesiem Poaf Twee ... .`~~ ,,~ Ca6bmia ROdaegged Prog ~ Gdden Eagle ~ Whi9e-tatted fete "., .: b_ E _ _` Cakbmia Tiger salamander Noritrem Harrier `- ~ 0 9 2 4 ~ ~.-. w _. ~ _ ~ _ _ _ ~~~..~- Figure 5. Special Status Wildlife Species Occurrences within Five Miles of Project Area ~~ ~~ E':YIR0~7M£PtiRL GONSiiLTFN$5 Gate: October 2007 Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment BasemaD: VSG57oDOQuaa PfaD By: Derek Chan Rkpatn: 1:\ACaa 2i100Piles\t6~0\161a2\ga\ Alameda Coun California ArcMaD\PigS_CNODB_animats 2007i002.mxd ear Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), CDFG Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Burrowing Owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse-shrub land ecosystems. This species prefers annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies; however, they also colonize debris piles and old pipes. In California, Burrowing Owl is found in close association with California ground squirrels. Burrowing Owl exhibits high site fidelity and usually uses the. abandoned burrows of ground squirrels for shelter and nesting. Burrowing Owl is unlikely to occur within the Project Area because most of the property has been developed, paved, and/or landscaped with lawn grass and ornamental plants. However, numerous occurrences of this species have been documented in grassy vacant lots and open areas just east of the site (Figure 5). The Project Area is mostly surrounded by urban development and is not contiguous with large expanses of grassland that might encourage owls to disperse to the site. Only two open areas are present within the Project Area: North Field and West Field. North Field is disced, a management practice that discourages use by wildlife, particularly burrowing owls. West Field is maintained for recreation, and appears to have a high amount of human activity that would deter wildlife use. No ground squirrels or suitable owl burrows were seen anywhere within the Project Area. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Federal Threatened, CDFG Species of Concern. California tiger salamander (CTS) is restricted to grasslands and low-elevation foothill regions in California (generally under 1500 feet) where it uses seasonal aquatic habitats for breeding. The salamanders breed in natural ephemeral pools, or ponds that mimic ephemeral pools (stock ponds that go dry), and occupy substantial areas surrounding the breeding pool as adults. CTS spends most of its time in the grasslands surrounding breeding pools. It survives hot, dry summers by estivating (going through a dormant period) in refugia (such as burrows created by ground squirrels and other mammals and deep cracks or holes in the ground) where the soil atmosphere remains near the water saturation point. During wet periods, salamanders may emerge from refugia and feed in the surrounding grasslands. CTS is unlikely to occur within the Project Area. CTS have been documented east of the Project Area, as close as two miles away (CNDDB, 2007). However, similar to Burrowing Owl, this species requires relatively undisturbed grassland forforaging and plentiful rodent burrowsfor shelter. Sites that have been disturbed by development and earth-moving activities are not likely to contain CTS unless CTS can re-colonize the area through a corridor that connects to an adjacent population. In addition, CTS requires nearby pools that hold standing water for at least a few months in order to breed. None of these components are present within or adjacent to the Project Area, which has been thoroughly disturbed by earth-moving activities and is nearly surrounded by urban development. California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), Federal Threatened, CDFG Species of Concern. California red-legged frog (CRLF) is dependent on suitable aquatic, estivation, and upland habitat. During periods of wet weather, starting with the first rainfall in late fall, red-legged frogs disperse away from their estivation sites to seek suitable breeding habitat. Aquatic and breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby, riparian vegetation and deep, still or slow- movingwater. Breeding occurs between late November and late April. California red-legged frog estivates during the dry months in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels, and large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds. 15 ~1~ ~ ~~; ~~~~ ~ CRLF is unlikely to occur within the Project Area. Alamo Creek, which passes along the western edge of the Project Area, is the only feature that might attract or support this species. However, CRLF has not been documented in Alamo Creek within five miles of the Project Area. The Project Area itself is heavily developed and disturbed, has high human traffic, does not contain aquatic habitat, and does not contain suitable upland estivation habitat or dispersal corridors. The Project Area is nearly surrounded by urban development and is not likely to ever constitute habitat for this species. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). CDFG Species of Special Concern, WBWG High Priority. Pallid bat is found in a variety of low elevation habitats throughout California. It selects a variety of day roosts including rock outcrops, mines, caves, hollow trees, buildings, and bridges. Night roosts are usually found under bridges, but also in caves, mines, and buildings. Pallid bat is sensitive to roost disturbance. Unlike most bats, pallid bat primarily feeds on large ground-dwelling arthropods, and many prey are taken on the ground (Zeiner, et al. 1990). Pallid bat has a moderate potential for occurrence within the Project Area. Buildings and other structures within the Project Area may provide marginal habitat for this species. However, most buildings observed during the September 2007 site visit were in good repair and had few openings or crevices for bats to utilize. Levels of human activity within the housing development are high, and this would likely discourage bats from roosting in this area. Marginal foraging habitat is present along the creek corridor to the west and over grassy areas to the east. A recent occurrence of pallid bat has been documented two miles southwest of the Project Area (CNDDB, 2007). Cautions taken for pallid bat would also be beneficial for other sensitive bats such as Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius /udovicianus). CDFG Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Loggerhead Shrike is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. It prefers open habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines or other perches. Nests are usually built on a stable branch in a densely- foliagedshrub or small tree and are usually well-concealed. The highest densities occur in open- canopied valley foothill hardwood, valley foothill hardwood-conifer, valley foothill riparian pinyon- juniper, juniper, and desert riparian habitats. While this species eats mostly Arthropods, they also take amphibians, small tomedium-sized reptiles, small mammals and birds. They are also known to scavenge on carrion. Loggerhead Shrike has a moderate potential for occurrence within the Project Area. Marginal foraging habitat exists in open areas within and adjacent to the property, and a number of trees and bushes would be suitable for nesting. Steelhead-Central California Coast (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). Federal Threatened. Central California Coast ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their ^~ progeny) in California streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), excluding the Sacramento- San Joaquin River Basin. Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending two years in freshwater, though they may stay up to seven. They then reside in marine waters for two or three years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as four- orfive-year-olds. Steelhead adults typically spawn between December and June. In California, females typically spawn two times ,~ before they die. Preferred spawning habitat for steelhead is in perennial streams with cool to cold 16 ,_. water temperatures, high dissolved oxygen levels and fast flowing water. Abundant riffle areas (shallow areas with gravel or cobble substrate) for spawning and deeper pools with sufficient riparian cover for rearing are necessary for successful breeding. steelhead has no potential to occur within the Project Area since there are no creeks within the property. However, Alamo Creek is immediately west of the Project Area. This creek is a tributary to Arroyo de la Laguna Creek, which has been repeatedly surveyed with virtually no suggestion that this creek constitutes habitat for steelhead (Leidy et al., 2003). Arroyo de la Laguna is a tributary to Alameda Creek, which is thought of as habitat for this species although migration barriers prevent regular spawning (Gunther etal., 2000). Nonetheless, steelhead should be considered in conjunction with land management on properties adjacent to watersheds that could contain this species. Water quality can be impacted by runoff from these properties, and this decreases habitat value for fish. The quality of runoff that enters creeks from adjacent properties such as the Project Area should be carefully controlled through the use of erosion control plans, best management practices (BMPs), and wastewater containment. 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS No special status plant species of concern and no special status wildlife species were observed during the site assessment. One potentially sensitive plant community was identified within the Project Area. Two special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area. The following sections present recommendations for future studies and/or measures to avoid or reduce impacts to these species and sensitive habitats. 5.1 Biological Communities Most of the Project Area is either paved and developed, or comprised of ruderal herbaceous grassland, which is not a sensitive biological community. However, two small 250 square foot areas in the vicinity of the drain in West Field support wetland plants. This area should be further studied to determine whether or not it falls within the jurisdiction of the Corps under. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and RWQCB under the Porter Cologne Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 5.2 Special Status Plant Species No further special status plant surveys are recommended for the Project Area. Of the 35 special status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area, two species were determined to have some potential to occur in the Project Area. Only one of the two species, California black walnut, was observed in the Project Area, but was a naturalized individual, which does not require protection. Most of the species found in the review of background literature occur in high quality cismontane woodland, chaparral, or valley and foothill grassland habitat, none of which are present in the Project Area. 5.3 Special Status Wildlife Species A small number of wildlife concerns for development within the Project Area can be addressed through the use of mitigation measures. No special status species are known to be present or 17 ~~. have a high potential to occur within the Project Area. Loggerhead Shrike and pallid bat were determined to have a moderate potential for occurrence. Wildlife concerns can be summarized as follows: Nesting birds, including special-status birds such as Loggerhead Shrike, may be impacted by tree and brush removal or development within the breeding season from February to August. Bats such as pallid bat may be impacted by building demolition or tree removal from November through August. Steelhead and other fish could be impacted by a decrease in creek water quality as a result of surface runoff. Nesting birds may be impacted by construction during the bird breeding season from February to August. As mentioned in Section 2.1, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects almost all species of nesting birds, including common species. Special status birds receive additional protection. Ideally, the clearing of vegetation and the initiation of construction can take place in the non- breeding season between September and January. If these activities cannot be done in the non- breeding season, a qualified biologist shall perform pre-construction bird surveys within 30 days of the onset of construction or clearing of vegetation. If nesting birds are discovered in the vicinity of planned development, it will likely be necessary to establish buffer areas around the nest until the nest is vacated. The size of the buffer would be dependent on the particular species of nesting bird. Disturbance of trees, buildings, and other structures in the Project Area may impact bat roosts. As with birds, bat roost sites can change. from year to year, so pre-construction surveys are usually necessary to determine the presence or absence of bat roost sites in a given area. Pre- construction bat surveys do not need to be performed if building demolition work is conducted between September 1 and October 31, after young have matured and prior to the bat hibernation period. However, if it is necessary to disturb potential bat roost sites between November 1 and August 31, pre-construction surveys will be necessary. Pre-construction bat surveys normally involve surveying trees, rock outcrops, bridges, and buildings subject to removal or demolition for evidence of bat use (guano accumulation, or acoustic or visual detections). If evidence of bat use is found, then biologists should conduct a minimum of three acoustic surveys between April and September under appropriate conditions using an acoustic detector to determine whether a site is occupied. If bats are found, they should be excluded from occupied roosts in the presence of a qualified biologist during the fall prior to construction. Runoff from urban development in the Project Area may contribute to degradation of a watershed that may comprise habitat for steelhead and other sensitive fish. In order to avoid sedimentation in the Alameda Creek watershed, thorough erosion control measures should be designed and implemented during construction activities. Such measures are typically required as part of a SWPPP that is submitted while obtaining a grading permit. Protective measures to avoid wildlife impacts can be summarized as follows: Initiation of construction and tree and brush removal should be done during the non- breeding season for birds between September and January. if vegetation removal occurs outside this time period, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist. 18 A ff X~`. // fpf (f/. Initiation of construction, tree removal, and building demolition should be performed in September or October to avoid impacting bats. If all construction activities can not be confined to this period, preconstruction sunreysshall be performed by a qualified biologist. Design and implement a thorough erosion control plan to avoid indirectly impacting steelhead habitat. 6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The proposed project involves the conversion of 25 acres of low-income housing units and ruderal plant communities to a higher density low-income housing development. The proposed conversion project would retain the redwoods circling North Mariposa. The Project Area is completely fenced and surrounded by rural development and roadways, meaning that no significant impacts to wildlife migratory corridors are likely to occur. The potential presence of most special status wildlife species is considered unlikely due to degraded habitat conditions in the Project Area, absence of suitable breeding habitat, and human disturbance in the vicinity of the site due to surrounding residential development. It is likely that no wetlands or potentially jurisdictional waters are present in the Project Area, although the small cluster of wetland plants in West Field (Figure 3) merits further investigation. No significant impacts to special status amphibians, reptiles or invertebrates are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project has the potential to impact one special status bat species and one special status bird species. The project also has the potential to impact nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and to degrade the quality of a nearby creek that maybe upstream from steelhead habitat. The project's potential to impact Dublin heritage trees was addressed in a separate report (gabby 2007). A single heritage redwood tree was identified in the impacted portion of the Project Area. Potential impacts and mitigation measures outlined in a format following the CEQA checklist are discussed below. With the following suggested mitigation measures, impacts to these biological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. 6.1 Special Status Species Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or bythe California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 6.1.1 Impacts to Special Status Species Wildlife Potential impacts to wildlife as a result of development within the Project Area are summarized below. Amore detailed description of these impacts appears in Section 5.3. Nesting birds, including special-status birds such as Loggerhead Shrike, maybe impacted 19 Rr~ by tree and brush removal or development within the breeding season from February to August. Bats such as pallid bat may be impacted by building demolition or tree removal from November through August. Steelhead and other fish could be impacted by a decrease in creek water quality as a result of surface runoff. Plants No special-status plants are determined to be present in the Project Area. Project construction could commence with no further mitigation with respect to special status plants. 6. i.2 Suggested Mitigation Protective measures to avoid wildlife impacts are summarized below. Amore detailed description of mitigation measures can be found in Section 5.3. Initiation of construction and tree and brush removal should be done during the non- breeding season for birds between September and January. If vegetation removal outside this time period cannot be avoided, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualifiied biologist. Initiation of construction, tree removal, and building demolition should be performed in September or October to avoid impacting bats. If all such work cannot be confined to this time period, pre-construction bat surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Design and implement a thorough erosion control plan to avoid indirectly impacting steelhead habitat. 6.2 Riparian Habitat Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on 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 y U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 6.2.1 -mpacts Most of the Project Area is comprised of ruderai habitat which is not considered sensitive habitat under CEQA. The only riparian habitat observed was adjacent to the Project Area on its western flank, where A{amo Creek bends around the site. This riparian area is already fenced off from the Project Area, providing a buffer zone that satisfies the City of Dublin's Ordinance No. 52-87 setback requirements for open channel watercourses. 6.2.2 Suggested Mitigation No significant impacts to riparian habitat are anticipated as a result of the proposed project, thus no mitigation is required. 20 ~~~1~~~ 6.3 Section 404 Wetlands Would the project 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? 6.3.1 Impacts With the possible exception of the small area of wetland plants in West Field, there are no other expected impacts to federally protected wetlands or waters. 6.3.2 Suggested Mitigation Prepare jurisdictional wetland delineation to determine presence or absence of Section 404 wetlands on-site. If it is confirmed that there are no jurisdictional wetlands, then no mitigation will be required. Erosion control measures shall be implemented to reduce or prevent sediment and pesticide run-off from entering Alamo Creek. An Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared for this project. 6.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Would the project 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? 6.4.1 Impacts Development within the Project Area will not substantially impact wildlife habitat or movement corridors. The majority of the Project Area is urban, having been disturbed, graded, developed, landscaped, paved, and otherwise modified and occupied by humans, and therefore does not comprise valuable habitat for wildlife species. The Project Area is also fenced on nearly all sides, so it is unlikely that any wildlife corridors go through the site. A vacant lot in~ the north of the Project Area (North Field), provides open space between grassy vacant lots to the east and a narrow wooded creek corridor to the west, beyond which is open grassland in the north Dublin hills. This is one of only a few places where wildlife could potentially move between open space east of Dougherty Road and open space west of a belt of urban development along Dougherty Road. However, this does not appear to be ahigh-value or regularly used wildlife corridor due to fences on both sides of the bike path that runs along the western edge of the Project Area. High levels of human activity in this area and traffic on Dougherty Road are likely to discourage wildlife from using this route, along with the fact that the corridor is already blocked by fences. Alamo Creek to the west of the Project Area could be considered a tributary to a native wildlife 21 .~, ~~ ~~. ~~~ nursery, as juvenile steelhead may be present further downstream. Polluted surface runoff entering this creek could impact habitat quality for steelhead downstream. As mentioned in Section 6.1.1, the Project Area may also provide rearing habitat for juvenile birds and bats in trees and man-made structures. 6.4.2 Suggested Mitigation Since the open space at the north end of the Project Area does not appear to be a practical or substantial wildlife corridor, no mitigation measures are suggested. Mitigation measures for birds, bats, and steelhead are provided in Section 6.1.2 and 6.3.2. 6.5 Local Policies Woutd the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6.5.1 Jmpacts Some mature native trees .are present in the Project Area that are protected under the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance. This ordinance prohibits tree removal without a permit from any property within the City of Dublin, of any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or greater. The majority of the native trees in the project vicinity occur in the riparian corridor along Alamo Creek that is not part of the Project Area and is fenced off from it. The circle of redwoods lining the west end of North Mariposa will be retained, and there are several heritage-sized trees within this grouping. The project arborist determined that only one heritage tree, a 26-inch dbh redwood, will be impacted by the project. 6.5.2. Suggested Mitigation The project applicant shall submit the arborisYs findings and obtain a tree removal permit from the City for any impacted heritage trees (currently projected to be just a single tree). The applicant shall install replacement trees for the removal of any heritage tree in the Project Area at a ratio to be determined by the City and monitor the survival of the replacement trees for a period of three years. Any trees that die during the monitoring period will be replaced and monitored for three years. Heritage trees preserved in the Project Area shall be surrounded by protective fencing during project construction. This fencing will be installed at least ten feet outside the dripline of the protected trees and no construction material or chemicals will be stored within the protective fencing. The City may require additional mitigation for impacts to other native trees including oaks. These mitigation measures may include but are not limited to compensatory tree replacement for impacts to native oaks and monitoring the success of replacement tree plantings. If such mitigation is required by the City the applicant will comply with such measures. This will reduce impacts to 22 "~ existing native trees to a less than significant level. 6.6 Conservation Plans Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 6.6.1 Impacts No impact. The project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 6.6.2 Suggested Mitigation No mitigation is required as no HCPs, NCCPs, or other conservation plans apply to the Project Area. 7.0 REFERENCES Babby, D. L., 2007. An Arborist Report for the Arroyo Vista Housing Project in Dublin, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento. California Native Plant Society. 2007. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. City of Dublin, California. 2007. City of Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 5.60: Heritage Trees. http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/dublin.html Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Gunther, A.J., J. Hagar, and P. Salop. 2000. An assessment of the potential for restoring a viable steelhead trout population in the Alameda Creek watershed. Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup. Prepared by Applied Marine Sciences LLC and Hagar Environmental Science. Hickman, J.C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California Jennings, Mark R. 2004. An Annotated Check List of Amphibians and Reptile Species of 23 ~'~ ~ California and Adjacent Waters. Third, revised edition. California Department of Fish and Game. Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2003. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), and Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. US EPA and Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, version 5.0. G.W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, eds. USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. Reed, Jr., Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (24). 244 pp. Stebbins, R.C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3'~ Edition. 2003. The ' Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.1966. Soil Survey of Alameda County. ~" California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. >x United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Quadrangle Species Lists, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 24 ' ~~~ n~ APPENDIX A LIST OF OBSERVED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES Appendix A. Lisi of Observed Plant and Animal Species in the Project Area from the site assessment conducted on September 20, 2007. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS Aescuius califomica Cali#omia buckeye Arctotheca calenduta capeweed Argyranthemum sp. daisy, margueri#e Avena fatua wild oat Avena barbata slender wild oat Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Brassica nigra black mustard Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Bromus catharticus rescue grass Carpobrotus eduGs iceplant Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle Convolvuius arvensis field bindweed Conyza sp. horseweed Cotoneaster sp. cotoneaster Cynodon dactyton Bermuda grass .Cyperus eragrostis tall fiat-sedge ©iftrichia graveolens stinkwort Epi/obium ci/iatum slender willowherb f=ucaiyptus sp. .gum Foeniculum vuigare sweet #ennel Fuchsia sp. fuchsia Geranium dissectum dissected geranium Hedera helix English ivy Hordeum marinum Mediterranean badey Juglans caiifomica Catifomia black walnut Lactuca serrioia prickly lettuce Lavandula sp. lavender Liquidambar styracif/ua sweetgum Lolium mu/fiflorum Italian rye grass Lofus cornicu/atus bird's foot trefoil Ma/va nicaeensis bull mallow Medicago polymorpha bur clover Mentha pulegium pennyroyal Mentha sp. mint Paspalum dilatatum dallis grass Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Picris echioides bristly ox tongue Pinus radiata Monterey pine Pinus sp. Pine P/antago /anceo/ata narrowleaf plantain Polygonum arenastrum ova! leaf knotweed Pyracantha sp. firethorn Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Quercus lobata valley oak Raphanus sativus wild radish Rosa sp. rose Rumex crispus curly dock Salix sp. willow, Salsola tragus tumbleweed Scirpus californicus California bulrush Sequoia sempervirens redwood Silybum marianum milk thistle Taraxacum officina/e common dandelion Tribulus terrestris puncture vine Trifolium fragiferum strawberry clover Tropaeolum majus ~ garden nasturtium Vicia sativa common vetch Vinca major periwinkle Vitis sp. grape Xanthium strumarium rough cockle-bur Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily WILDLIFE Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Aphelocoma califomica Western Scrub Jay Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Canis Lupus familiaris domestic dog Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Falco sparverius American Kestrel Fells silvesfris catus domestic cat Megeagris ga1/opavo Wild Turkey Microtus sp. vole {burrows) Picoides nuttallii Nuttail's Woodpecker Pipilo crissalis California Towhee Procyon lotor raccoon {scat) Stumus vulgaris European Starling Thomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher {burrows} Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove L` ~, I o- :~. APPENDIX B POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA ..~~ Appendix B. Potential for Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species to Occur in the Project Area. List compiled from a September 2007 search of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.(USFWS) Species Lists, and California Native Plant Society (GNPs) Electronic Inventory search of the .Dublin, Diablo, Tassajara, Livermore, La Costa Valley, Niles, Newark, Hayward, and Las Trampas Ridge USGS 7.5' quadrangles. A review of other CDFG lists and publications (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Zeiner et al. 1990) was also conducted. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Mammals salt-marsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans halicoetes pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC Salt marshes of the south arm of San Francisco Bay. Medium high marsh 6 to 8 feet above sea level where abundant driftwood is scattered among Salicornia. CSC, WBWG Occupies a variety of habitats at low elevation including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. No Potential. Salt marsh habitat not present within the Project Area. Moderate Potential. This species may be somewhat tolerant of human presence and may find roosting habitat in isolated trees, buildings, or other structures. Townsend's big-eared bat CSC, WBWG Primarily found in rural settings in Unlikely. High levels of Corynorhinus townsendii a wide variety of habitats human activity in and including oak woodlands and around the buildings and mixed coniferous-deciduous general Project Area are forest. Day roosts highly likely to deter this associated with caves and mines. species.. Very sensitive to human disturbance. San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica American badger Taxidea taxus Birds Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii FE, ST, RP Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base. CSC CSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Requires friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Associated with open or interrupted woodland and riparian habitats in the Coast ranges and foothills surrounding the Central Valley. Nest sites mainly in riparian growths of deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains; also nests in live oaks. Unlikely. The Project Area is surrounded by urbanization and does not contain suitable foraging or burrowing habitat for this soecies. Unlikely. The few portions of open ground within the Project Area that might support this species have been disced or heavily modified. Unlikely. This species may utilize the riparian corridor to the west but is unlikely to nest or forage within the Project Area. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Sharp-shinned Hawk CSC This species is a fairly common Unlikely. This species Accipiter striatus migrant and winter visitor may utilize the riparian throughout California and is found corridor to the west but is in a variety of habitats, especially unlikely to nest or forage woodlands. It usually nests in within the Project Area. dense small-tree stands of ~ conifers near water. Preferred roost sites are within intermediate tv high-canopy forest areas. Golden Eagle BCC, CSC, (Nesting and wintering) rolling No Potential. Open, Aquila chrysaetos CFP, CDF foothills mountain areas, isolated habitat for nesting sensitive, sage-juniper flats, desert. or foraging is not present BLM sensitive Cliff-walled canyons provide within the Project Area. ' nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas. Ferruginous Hawk BCC, CSC, (Wintering) Frequents open Unlikely. Typical open Buteo regalis BLM sensitive grasslands, sagebrush flats, foraging habitat for this desert scrub, low foothills species is not present surrounding valleys and fringes of within the Project Area. pinyon-juniper habitats. Preys on lagomorphs, ground squirrels and mice. Population trends may follow lagomorph population cycles. Northern Harrier CSC (Nesting) Nests and forages in Unlikely. Typical Circus cyaneus grassland habitats, usually in grassland/marsh nesting association with coastal salt and and foraging habitat for freshwater marshes. Nests on this species is not present ground in shrubby vegetation, within the Project Area. usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. May also occur in alkali desert sinks. White-tailed Kite CFP Year-long resident of coastal and Unlikely. This species Elanus /eucurus valley lowlands; rarely found away may utilize the riparian from agricultural areas. Preys on corridor to the west but is small diurnal mammals and unlikely to nest or forage occasional birds, insects, reptiles, within the Project Area. and amphibians. Prairie Falcon BCC, CSC (Nesting) inhabits dry, open Unlikely. Typical Falco mexicanus terrain, either level or hilly. breeding and foraging Breeding sites located on cliffs. habitat for this species is Forages far afield, even to not present within the marshlands and ocean shores. Project Area. American Peregrine Falcon FD, SE, CFP, Winters throughout Central Unlikely. Typical Falco peregrinus anatum BCC Valley. Requires protected cliffs breeding and foraging and ledges for cover. Feeds on a habitat for this species is variety of birds, and some not present within the mammals, insects, and fish. Project Area. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Western Snowy Plover FT, CSC, (Nesting) Federal listing applies No Potential. This Charadrius alexandrines BCC, RP only to the Pacific coastal species is generally nivosus population. Found on sandy restricted to coastal areas. beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes. Requires sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting. Burrowing Owl CSC, BCC Frequents open grasslands and No Potential. Burrow Athene cunicu/aria shrublands with perches and habitat not present within burrows. Preys upon insects, the Project Area. small mammals, reptiles, birds, Frequent human, dog, and and carrion. Nests and roosts in cat disturbance is likely to old burrows of small mammals. deter this species. Project Area is fragmented isolated from appropriate habitat. Loggerhead Shrike BCC, CSC Inhabits broken woodlands, Moderate Potential. Lanius ludovicianus savannah, pinyon-juniper, Joshua Marginal foraging and tree, and riparian woodlands, nesting habitat for this desert oases, scrub and washes. species may be present Prefers open country for hunting, within the Project Area. with perches for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting. California Horned Lark CSC Coastal regions, chiefly from Unlikely. Grassland Eremophila a/pestris acfia Sonoma County to San Diego habitat within the Project County. Also main part of San Area is likely too minimal, Joaquin Valley and east to disturbed, and isolated to foothills. Short-grass prairie, be utilized by this species. "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats. Bank Swallow ST Migrant in riparian and other No Potential. Suitable Riparia riparia lowland habitats in western bank habitat not present California. Nests in riparian areas within the Project Area. with vertical cliffs and bands with fine-textured or sandy soils in which to nest. Yellow Warbler CSC Yellow warblers prefer dense Unlikely. This species Dendroica pefechia brewsteri riparian vegetation for breeding. may utilize the riparian Yellow warbler populations have corridor to the west but is declined due to brood parasitism unlikely to nest or forage by brown-headed cowbirds within the Project Area. (Molothrus ater) and habitat destruction. Diet is primarily insects supplemented with berries. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ~t Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat Geoth/ypis trichas sinuosa Alameda Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia pusiUula Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor CSC, BCC BCC, CSC CSC, BCC Frequents low, dense vegetation near water including fresh to saline emergent wetlands. Brushy habitats used in migration Forages among wetland herbs and shrubs for insects primarily. Resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits Salicornia marshes; nests low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to escape high tides) and in Salicornia. Usually nests over or near freshwater in dense cattails, tules, or thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose or other tall herbs. Unlikely. This species may utilize the riparian corridor to the west but is unlikely to nest or forage within the Project Area. No Potential. The Project Area is far from the salt marsh habitat of the South ~ Bay. Reptiles and Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii foothill yellow-legged frog Aana boylii western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata FT, CSC Inhabits annual grass habitat and mammal burrows. Seasonal ponds and vernal pools crucial to breeding. FT, CSC, RP CSC CSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11 to 20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat. Found in or near rocky streams in a variety of habitats. Feed on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat for egg-laying. Unlikely. This species may utilize the riparian corridor to the west but is unlikely to nest or forage within the Project Area due to lack of suitable habitat. Unlikely. Project Area and surroundings have been fragmented, graded, and heavily altered. Suitable burrow and breeding habitat not present. Unlikely. Breeding habitat not present within Project Area. Upland estivation and dispersal habitat not observed. This species has some potential to occur within the creek corridor to the west; however, it is unlikely to ever occur within the Project Area. No Potential. Aquatic habitat not present within the Project Area. No Potential. Aquatic habitat not present within the Project Area. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL.FOR OCCURRENCE Alameda whipsnake Masticophis /ateralis euryxanthus Fishes Central California Coastal steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Invertebrates Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio longhorn fairy shrimp Branchinecta /ongiantenna vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi FT, ST Inhabits chaparral and foothill- hardwood habitats in the eastern Bay Area. Prefers south-facing slopes and ravines with rock outcroppings where shrubs form a vegetative mosaic with oak trees and grasses and small mammal burrows provide basking and refuge. FT, CSC Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool, clear, well- oxygenated streams. Juveniles remain in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean FE, SSI, RP FE, SSI, RP FT, SSI, RP FE, SSI, RP Endemic to the grasslands of the northern two-thirds of the Central Valley; found in large, turbid pools. Inhabit astatic pools located in swales formed by old, braided alluvium; filled by winter/spring rains, last until June. Endemic to the eastern margin of the central coast mountains in seasonally astatic grassland vernal pools. Inhabit small, clear-water depressions in sandstone and clear-to-turbid clay/grass-bottomed pools in shallow swales. Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, central coast mountains, and south coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools. Inhabits vernal pools and swales in the Sacramento Valley containing clear to highly turbid water. Pools commonly found in grass bottomed swales of unplowed grasslands. Some pools are mud-bottomed and highly turbid. No Potential. Grassland habitat with rock outcrops not present within Project Area. Site is isolated and disturbed. No Potential. Aquatic habitat not present within the Project Area. However, the Project Area is within the Alameda Creek watershed, which could be considered steelhead habitat far downstream. No Potential. Seasonal wetland depressions and vernal pools required for this species are not present within the Project Area. No .Potential. Seasonal wetland depressions and vernal pools required for this species are not present within the Project Area No Potential. Seasonal wetland depressions and vernal pools required for this species are not present within the Project Area No Potential. Seasonal wetland depressions and vernal pools required for this species are not present within the Project Area SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE „~ California linderiella SSI Seasonal pools in unplowed No Potential. Seasonal Linderiella occidentalis grasslands with old alluvial soils wetland depressions and underlain by hardpan or in vernal pools required for sandstone depressions. Water in this species are not the pools has very fow alkalinity, present within the Project conductivity, and TDS. Area A valley elderberry longhorn FT, SSI, RP Occurs only in the central valley No Potential. Elderberry beetle of California, in association with host plant not observed Desmocerus californicus blue elderberry (Sambucus within the Project Area. dimorphus mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberrry 2 to 8 inches in diameter; some preference shown for "stressed" elderberry. Bay checkerspot butterfly FT, SSI, RP Restricted to native grasslands on No Potential. Project Euphydryas editha bayensis outcrops of serpentine soil in the Area is fragmented and vicinity of San Francisco Bay. near areas of high human P/antago erecta is the primary traffic. Host plant not host plant; Orthocarpus . observed during densiflorus and O. purpurscens September 2007 site visit. are the secondary host plants. monarch butterfly SSI Winter roost sites extend along Unlikely. Project Area is Danaus plexippus the coast from northern fragmented and near Mendocino to Baja California, areas of high human Mexico. Roosts located in traffic. wind-protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Plants large-filowered fiiddleneck FE, SE, List Cismontane woodland and valley No Potential. The Project Amsinckia grandif/ora 1 B and foothill grassland. 275-550 m. Area does not contain Blooms April-May. suitable habitat for this species. bent-flowered fiddleneck List 1 B Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane No Potential. The Project Amsinckia lunaris woodland, and valley and foothill Area is a developed site; it grassland. 3-500 m. Blooms does not contain suitable March-June. habitat for this species. slender silver-moss List 2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower No Potential. The Project Anomobryum julaceum montane coniferous forest, and Area does not contain North Coast coniferous forest. suitable habitat for this Found in damp rock and soil on species. outcrops- usually roadcuts. 100- 1000 m. Mt. Diablo manzanita List i B Chaparral on sandstone. 135- No Potential. The Project Arctostaphylos auriculata 650 m. Blooms January-March. Area does not contain suitable habitat for this species. t l• ~~ SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Contra Costa manzanita List 1 B Chaparral on rocky soils. 500- No Potential. The Project Arctostaphy/os manzanita 1100 m. Blooms January- Area does not contain ssp. laevigata February. suitable habitat for this species, and is not in the species' elevation range. alkali milk-vetch List 1 B Playas, valley and foothill No Potential. The Project Astragalus terser var. terser grassland (on adobe clay), and Area does not contain vernal pools; often on alkaline suitable habitat for this soils. 1- 60m. Blooms March- species. June. heartscale List 1 B Chenopod scrub, meadows and No Potential. The Project Atriplex cordulata seeps, and valley and foothill Area is a developed site; it grasslands; often on saline or does not contain suitable alkaline soils. 1- 375 m. Blooms habitat for this species. April-October. brittlescale List 1 B Chenopod scrub, meadows and No Potential. The Project Atriplex depressa seeps, playas, valley and foothill Area is a developed site; it grasslands, and vernal pools; does not contain suitable often on alkaline, clay soils. 1- habitat for this species. 320 m. Blooms May-October. San Joaquin spearscale List 1 B Chenopod scrub, meadows and No Potential. The Project Atriplex joaquiniana seeps, playas, and valley and Area is a developed site; it foothill grasslands; often on does not contain suitable alkaline soils. 1- 835 m. Blooms habitat for this species. April-October. big scale balsamroot List 1 B Valley and foothill grasslands and No Potential. The Project Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. cismontane woodland; often on Area is a developed site; it macrolepis serpentinite soils. 90- 1400 m. does not contain suitable Blooms March-June. habitat for this species. round-leaved filaree List 1 B cismontane woodland and valley No Potential. The Project California macrophylla and foothill grasslands; often on Area is a developed site; it clay soils. 15- 1200 m. Blooms does not contain suitable March-May. habitat for this species. Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern List 1 B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No Potential. The Project Calochortus pulchellus riparian woodland, and valley and Area is a developed site; it foothill grasslands.~30- 840 m. does not contain suitable Blooms April-June, habitat for this species. chaparral harebell List 1 B Chaparral; often on rocky and No Potential. The Project Campanula exigua serpentinite soils. 275- 1250 m. Area does not contain Blooms May-June. suitable habitat for this species. Congdon's tarplant List 1 B Valley and foothill grasslands; Unlikely. The Project Area Centromadia parryi ssp. often on alkaline soils. 1- 230 m. is a developed site; this congdonii Blooms May-October; species can be found in uncommonly in November. disturbed areas. ~-~ ~1 ~ ~~ 3 ~` SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR ncr_i iRQ~Nr_c palmate-bracted bird's-beak FE, SE, List Chenopod scrub and valley and No Potential. The Project Cordy/anthus pa/matus 1 B foothill grasslands; often on Area is a developed site; it alkaline soils. 5- 155 m. Blooms does not contain suitable May-October. habitat for this species. western leatherwood List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, No Potential. The Project Dirca occidentalis closed-cone coniferous forest, Area does not contain chaparral, cismontane woodland, suitable habitat for this North Coast coniferous forest, species. riparian forest, and riparian woodland; often on mesic soils. 50- 395 m. Blooms January- March; uncommonly in April. Ben Lomond buckwheat List 1 B Occurs on sandy soils in No Potential. The Project Eriogonum nudum var. chaparral and cismontane Area does not contain decurrens woodland, and in maritime suitable habitat for this ponderosa pine sandhills soils in species. lower montane coniferous forest. 50- 800 m. Blooms June-October. Mt. Diablo buckwheat List 1 B Chaparral, coastal scrub, and No Potential. The Project Eriogonum truncatum valley and foothill grasslands; Area is a developed site; it usually on sandy soils. 3- 350 m. does not contain suitable Blooms April-September; habitat for this species. uncommonly in November and December. fragrant fritillary List 1 B cismontane woodland, coastal No Potential. The Project Fritillaria liliacea prairie, coastal scrub, valley and Area is a developed site; it foothill grassland; often does not contain suitable serpentinite. 3-410 m. Blooms habitat for this species. February-April. Diablo helianthella List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, No Potential. The Project Helianthella castanea chaparral, cismontane woodland, Area is a developed site; it coastal scrub, riparian woodland, does not contain suitable and valley and foothill grassland. habitat for this species. 60- 1300 m. Blooms March-June. Brewer's western flax List 1 B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No Potential. The Project Hesperolinon breweri and valley and foothill grassland; Area is a developed site; it often on serpentinite soils. 30- does not contain suitable 900 m. Blooms May-July. habitat for this species. Santa Cruz tarplant FT, SE, List Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, No Potential. The Project Ho/ocarpha macradenia 1 B and valley and foothill grassland; Area is a developed site; it often on clay, sandy soils. 10- 220 does not contain suitable m. Blooms June-October. habitat for this species. Northern California black List 1 B Riparian forest and riparian Unlikely. The Project Area walnut woodland. 0- 440 m. Blooms does not contain suitable Juglans hindsii April-May. habitat for native stands of this species; however, naturalized individuals may be present. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Contra Costa goldfields FE, List 1 B cismontane woodland, alkaline No Potential. The Project Lasthenia conjugens playas, valley and foothill Area is a developed site; it grassland, and vernal pools; often does not contain suitable on mesic soils. 0- 470 m. Blooms habitat for this species. March-June. Hall's bush mallow List 1 B Chaparral and coastal scrub. 10- No Potential. The Project Malacothamnus hallii 760 m. Blooms May-September; Area does not contain uncommonly in October. suitable habitat for this species. San Antonio Hills monardella List 3 Chaparral and cismontane No Potential. The Project Monardella antonina ssp. woodland. 500 -1000 m. Blooms Area does not contain antonina June-August. suitable habitat for this species. robust monardella List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, No Potential. The Project Monardella villosa ssp. chaparral (openings), cismontane Area is a developed site; it globosa woodland, coastal scrub, valley does not contain suitable and foothill grassland. 100-915 habitat for this species. m. Blooms June-July; uncommonly in August. Mt. Diablo phacelia List 1 B Chaparral and cismontane No Potential. The Project Phacelia phacelioides woodland; often on rocky soils. Area does not contain 500- 1370 m. Blooms April-May. suitable habitat for this species, and is not in the species' elevation range. hairless popcorn-flower List 1A Alkaline meadows and seeps and No Potential. The Project P/agiobothrys glaber coastal salt marshes and Area does not contain swamps. 15- 180 m. Blooms suitable habitat for this March-May. species and this species is presumed extinct in California. rock sanicle List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, No Potential. The Project Sanicula saxatilis chaparral, and valley and foothill Area does not contain grassland; often on rocky soils. suitable habitat for this 620- 1175 m. Blooms April-May. species, and is not in the species' elevation range. most beautiful jewel-flower List 1 B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No Potential. The Project Streptanthus a/bidus ssp. and valley and foothill grassland; Area is a developed site; it peramoenus often on serpentinite soils. 94- does not contain suitable 1000 m. Blooms April-September; habitat for this species. uncommonly in March and October. Mt. Diablo jewel-flower List 1 B Chaparral and valley and foothill No Potential. The Project Streptanthus hispidus grassland; often on rocky soils. Area does not contain 365- 1200 m. Blooms March- suitable habitat for this June. species. saline clover List 1 B Marshes and swamps, valley and No Potential. The Project Trifolium depauperatum var, foothill grassland with mesic/ Area is a developed site; it hydrophilum alkaline soils, and vernal pools. does not contain suitable 0-300 m. Blooms April -June. habitat for this species. ~~ ~ D SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR ~~ OCCURRENCE caper-fruited tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum List 1 B Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline hills). 1- 455 m. Blooms March-April. No Potential. The Project Area is a developed site; it does not contain suitable habitat for this species. oval-leaved viburnum List 2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No Potential. The Project Viburnum ellipticum lower montane coniferous forest. Area does not contain 215-1400 m. Blooms May-June. suitable habitat for this species. * Key to status codes: FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FD Federal Delisted BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern SE State Endangered ST State Threatened CSC CDFG Species of Special Concern CFP CDFG Fully Protected Animal CDF CDF Sensitive: warrant special protection during timber operations WBWG Western Bat Working Group High Priority species BLM Bureau of Land Management sensitive species RP Recovery Plan (species is listed in a local recovery plan) SSI Special Status Invertebrate List 1A CNPS List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California List 1 B CNPS List 1 B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 CNPS List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, bu t more common elsewhere List 3 CNPS List 3: Plants about which CNPS needs more information (a review list) q~ \.A4~ 'G~ ~ ~ ~~ APPENDIX C REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS ~~ ~ '' ~ 3 Above: View of North Field {facing east) Below: View of West Field (fiacing northwest} ~wra Photographs taken Septernber 20, 2007. ~~v,2o~~;-~'F= co~vs~;:=~~_~ ~ ~ ,~w~ ~ ~ , _, ~` ... _. - ,. -~ - , ...: 4 ~ Hr'~~3.i^. i~~ s a C ` ~ . ~y, ~~ ~K~ µ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ r ~ ~ ~,» y ~ ~ s/ 1 ~ t~~~ t'~' yN_~ ~~ ~, r ~ ..r~tk ~ ~T~ ~"~ sn~~ +r y, . ".7w. r~ra s .'x'R ".~.' Wetiand Hants in West Field Al,ove: View €acing northwest showing both clumps o€ giants Below: View €acing north showing drain line and drain EhViRO£SM E'a1iAi Ci34VSUi.'A3k'$ Photographs taken September 20, 2007. Above: Homes landscaped with ornamentals Below: Typical lawn found in courtyard of each housing cluster. Photographs taken September 20,2007. ~ ~~~~~a:.~:E~.~LCO:~su~>A~-s _~~~ v~ Preliminary Section 404 Delineation ARROYO VISTA HOUSING PROJECT DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COE3NTY CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Jerry Haag 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 Contact: Tom Fraser Eraser@wra-ca.com Date: July 2008 - _. :t~ o _ ~~ , L _ ., =:<_ ~~,f ~_-~ _ _ x ~. ~ ,,~, f :,~.~ ~t '"~ __ _ - _ S; ~i L., .:?1. A s ~~ ~. ~. -ate ~ y .~ ~ `'Po''~:~' ~'!~ y ~ t=« w V)wra bNVtr~ONMENFkt C~NS'3liAN?S 2 `59-~ casi ~ron~isco Bwd., San ~atflei, CA 949' (4? 6} 464-$858 "ai (416} 464-0:29 fax i~to~rwvra-cn.com www.vrra-ec_car~ ~ ~~ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 1.1 Project Background ..................................................1 1.2 Regulatory Background ............................................... 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS .......................... 1 3.0 METHODS .............................................................1 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S .. ................................ 3 3.1.1 Wetlands ....................................................3 3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S ......................................... 5 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West ............................... 6 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction ............................... 6 4.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION . .......................................... 7 5.0 RESULTS . ............................................................9 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S .. ... . ... . ........................ 9 5.1.1 Wetlands ....................................................9 5.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S ......................................... 9 6.0 REFERENCES .........................................................11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ............................................. 2 Figure 2. Location of North and West Fields within Project Area ........................ 8 Figure 3. Location of Delineation Sample Points within West Field ..................... 10 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A -Preliminary Section 404 Jurisdictional Data Sheets Appendix B -Representative Photographs of the Project Area r, o ~ ~ ~.-~ ~a 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background On June 24, 2008, WRA, Inc. (WRA) conducted a routine wetland delineation at the 25-acre existing Arroyo Vista housing site (Project Area) in Dublin, Alameda County, California, which is located along Dougherty Road just north of Highway 580 (Figure 1). This delineation was conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of potential wetlands and waters subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This report presents the results of this delineation. 1.2 Regulatory Background Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States". Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U. S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENT{AL .lUR{SD{CT{ONAL AREAS No potential jurisdictional areas were found within the Project Area during the wetland delineation conducted by WRA on June 24, 2008. 3.0 METHODS Prior to conducting field surveys, reference materials were reviewed, including the Soil Survey of Alameda County (USDA 1966), the 2008 USGS 7.5' quadrangle, and aerial photographs of the site. 1 ., ~_ ~, ,~ ;. - ~ m * how C S~hr~. ~: i - _~ ' ~ . d ` ~ •em ; e .~ ~} '~ ~ '~~ ,i ,• ~., , , .f,: '• t If•• •I ~ 1 __ , ~ ~ Sri M1fsrr, ~..`i '•Yt'.. •.i ~ ^ , ; _~~~ ~h ~ .~ .~ o,~ i , ~, ~<<rr ~ ~, fur ,. 7 1 _~~r y , _ ~~^^ ' C.....- .... P ..-. , ;, ,~ ~ al N ~ ~~ J ~7 { ~, ~• .'4~~ 'Ili '~! . •, ~ ~ . { . , f I ;~_ ._.. •~ r ~` ~ !. ~~ I ~ ~II M~A,D Oj~) ', .~ ~ .. ~' ~ ~ ~~ a 1 ~ ~~ .ff~. j' J ~ ~' ~~~ v rte. ~ ~ !'/ --- - I . ,~_ ~l ,r_. t _ ' ~ . _..J ~ ~ ;t ~L ~~` ~ ~. ~1iJ ~,~ r~ ~ \ . :: .L ° ~<7. .wr ~ .F 1J7~ PP _ ttt~ ( yr ,.~. , ~.~~ - - ., .., ~ , ,V,. 'r'xth ~i ^ ,. I _ ~ n. y~ ~' Pi eject area .,;f --~ ~, .r_~._ ~ ~ ~ - ,~ K a` % ~ rf~ '~f"` i~ r ~' ~ ~~` ~ f ~ '!, ~ ,! t~ ry ~ /a' Ya ~ ~ ~~ F ~` ~ } Cfv T Y 5~~} {J ~ ,ll t ~~yLJ I .1 ~ ,~ w ~Y' - 1~ } k :'~. :F rte,, t i~'~ c ~ -.,. r •` ~'"' - ,~' k ~ ~ y, . ~ > r ~ ~~ ~`~ ~ ,. ~ t I t ~. ,N• 1. ~- `~-~; w~ d',y ~ ti r v r ~ _ ~ ~ ~: ~ !, s .~.a P 1 9 •d- ti• ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~:~ ~'- ~~ 11 ~ { ~` +P ~~ : 'max; ~~ `~'\r l r ~ ~'sr • .~ '^'~•. ~ . } ._ ~ ~ ~`,~ ~, _ ~~~i~~' ~~ ~~~ ~ 4 _ .~ -~ .. '' ~` v { :.~ ~ - ~< - .. , afar ,,, ~N~ ~ ¢'{ti ~ I~ ~L~ { `11 E .~ G ~F .,~ . ~ ~ .~ ti F I ~ ~~ ~~~ { H -' r Feet, ~ ~ ; ' ]~ .~ ~0 5001,000 2,000 ~, ~~ ~''~' ~,.~±'~ {, Figure 1. Project Area Location Map I Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment Alameda County, California ~u! ~,+ r1 il' ~ i Itkl _ ukt ~ '' _tIi! T~ • ;~- ~Ln La ~.r.. ~~ i ~:' ~ I '~ i ~ .~ 6 ~, • ~ BM ~: 325 •~ ~}~~ • w _ ~; ~` -~ ~ :_.._ ::_...,_ _.r ,.. •SS =~ ~. +' I '!I,« I h ~, II t. n ,_ . ~,.~. ~~ I~~~, -~. ry r-I, ~I a ~~• r ~. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Date: September 2007 Basemap: USGS Topo Quad Map By: Derek Chan Filepath: L:\Acad 2000 Fltes\16000\16142\gls\ ArcMap\Fi91_LocMap PS_20070925.mxd 51~ ~1 A focused evaluation of indicators of wetlands and waters was performed in the Project Area on June 24, 2008. The methods used in this study to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ("Corps Manual"; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region ("Arid West Supplement"; Corps 2006). The routine method for wetland delineation described in the Corps Manual was used to identify areas potentially subject to Corps Section 404 jurisdiction within the Project Area. A general description of the Project Area, including plant communities present, topography, and land use was also generated during the delineation visits. The methods for evaluating the presence of wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. employed during the site visit are described in detail below. 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 3.9.9 Wetlands The Project Area was evaluated for the presence or absence of indicators of the three wetland parameters described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987} and Arid West Supplement (Corps 2006). Section 328.3 of the Federal Code of Regulations defines wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlandsgenerallyincludeswamps, marshes, bogs, andsimilarareas." EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3 (b) The three parameters used to delineate wetlands are the presence of: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. According to the Corps Manual, for areas not #,~ considered "problem areas" or "atypical situations": "....~EJvidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation) must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination." Data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils collected at sample points during the delineation site visit were reported on Arid West Supplement data forms. Once an area was determined to be a potential jurisdictional wetland, its boundaries were delineated using GPS equipment and mapped on a topographic map. The areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands were measured digitally using ArcGIS software. Indicators described in the Arid West Supplement were used to make wetland determinations at each sample point in the Project Area and are summarized below. Vegetation ~~ Plant species identified in the Project Area were assigned a wetland status according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988). This wetland ~~" classification system is based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as follows: ,a~, 3 ~'~~ ~~ OBL Always found in wetlands FACW(t) Usually found in wetlands FAC Equal in wetland ornon-wetlands FACU Usually found in non-wetlands UPL/NL Upland/Not listed (upland) >99% frequency 67-99% 34-66 1-33% <1% The Arid West Supplement requires that athree-step process be conducted to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. The procedure first requires the delineator to apply the "50/20 rule" (Indicator 1) described in the manual. To apply the "50/20 rule",dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the community. In general, dominant species are determined for each vegetation stratum from a sampling plot of an appropriate size surrounding the sample point. In general, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total cover. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species has an OBL, FACW, or FAC status, ignoring + and -qualifiers, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. If the sample point fails Indicator 1 and both hydric soils and wetland hydrology are not present, then the sample point does not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, unless the site is a problematic wetland situation. However, if the sample point fails Indicator 1 but hydric soils and wetland hydrology are both present, the delineator must apply Indicator 2. Indicator 2 is known as the Prevalence Index. The prevalence index is a weighted average of the wetland indicator status for all plant species within the sampling plot. Each indicator status is given a numeric code (OBL = 1, FACW = 2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5). Indicator 2 requires the delineator to estimate the percent cover of each species in every stratum of the community and sum the cover estimates for any species that is present in more than one stratum. The delineator must then organize all species into groups according to their wetland indicator status and calculate the Prevalence Index using the following formula, where A equals total percent cover: PI = • `OBL + 2"FACW + 3"FAC + 4~ `FACU + "' `UPL ~bBL + ' `FACW + ' `FAC + ' `FACU + ' `UPL The Prevalence Index will yield a number between 1 and 5. If the Prevalence Index is equal to or less than 3, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. However, if the community fails Indicator 2, the delineator must proceed to Indicator 3. Indicator 3 is known as Morphological Adaptations. If more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species have morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, that species is considered to be a hydrophyte and its indicator status should be reassigned to FAC. If such observations are made, the delineator must recalculate Indicators 1 and 2 using a FAC indicator status for this species. The sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion if either test is satisfied. Hydrology The Corps jurisdictional wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied if an area is inundated or saturated for a period sufficient to create anoxic soil conditions during the growing season (a minimum of 14 consecutive days in the Arid West region). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include primary 4 ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 1 indicators, such as visible inundation or saturation, drift deposits, oxidized root channels, and salt crusts, or secondary indicators such as the FAC-neutral test, presence of a shallow aquitard, or crayfish burrows. The Arid West Supplement contains 16 primary hydrology indicators and 10 secondary hydrology indicators. Only one primary indicator is required to meet the wetland hydrology criterion; however, if secondary indicators are used, at least two secondary indicators must be present to conclude that an area has wetland hydrology. The presence or absence of the primary or secondary indicators described in the Arid West Supplement was utilized to determine if sample points within the Project Area met the wetland hydrology criterion. Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) defines a hydric soil as follows: "A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Federal Register July 13, 1994, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Soils formed over long periods of time under wetland (anaerobic) conditions often possess characteristics that indicate they meet the definition of hydric soils. Hydric soils can have a hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odor, low chroma matrix color, generally designated 0, 1, or 2, used to identify them as hydric, presence of redox concentrations, gleyed or depleted matrix, or high organic matter content. Specific indicators that can be used to determine whether a soil is hydric for the purposes of wetland delineation are provided in the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U. S. (USDA 2006). The Arid West Supplement provides a list of 23 of these hydric soil indicators which are known to occur in the Arid West region. Soil samples were collected and described according to the methodology provided in the Arid West Supplement. Soil chroma and values were determined by utilizing a standard Munsell soil color chart (GretagMacbeth 2000). Hydric soils were determined to be present if any of the soil samples met one or more of the 23 hydric soil indicators described in the Arid West Supplement. 3.1.2 Other Wafers of the U. S. This study also evaluated the presence of "Waters of the United States" other than wetlands potentially subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Other areas, besides wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction include lakes, rivers and streams (including intermittent streams) in addition to all areas below the HTL in areas subject to tidal influence. Jurisdiction in non-tidal areas extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHW) defined as: "...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicafed by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impresses on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the 5 ~~ ~'` 9 presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." Federal Register Vol. 51, No. 219, Part 328.3 (e). November 13, 1986 Identification of the ordinary high water mark followed the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (Corps 2005). 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West The Arid West Supplement (Corps 2006) includes procedures for identifying wetlands that may lack indicators due to natural processes (problem areas) or recent disturbances (atypical situations). "Problem area" wetlands are defined as naturally occurring wetland types that periodically lack indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology due to normal seasonal or annual variability. Some problem area wetlands may permanently lack certain indicators due to the nature of the soils or plant species on the site. "Atypical situations" are defined as wetlands in which vegetation, soil, or hydrology indicators are absent due to recent human activities or natural events. The list of difficult wetland situations provided in the Arid West Supplement includes wetlands with problematic hydrophytic vegetation, problematic hydric soils, and wetlands that periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology. In addition, the problem area and atypical situation sections of the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) were utilized to determine if any sample points taken within the Project Area met the criteria for a problem area or atypical situation. If any determination was based on less than three parameters, the rationale for the wetland determination was explained on the data sheets included in Appendix A. Although the Corps Manual and Arid West Supplement were utilized in the wetland determination, they do not provide exhaustive lists of the difficult situations that can arise during delineations in the Arid West. As a result, WRA interpreted the gathered data using best professional judgement and our knowledge of the ecology of the wetlands in the region. 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or Waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man-induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, wetlands resulting from filling of formerly deep water habitats, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a navigable "Waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. 6 4.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The Project Area is approximately 25 acres and is located in Dublin along Dougherty Road north of Highway 580 and near the Highway 680/Highway 580 interchange (see Figure 1). More than eighty percent'of the site is a housing development accessed by two main roads (Monterey Drive and North Mariposa). The rest of the site is occupied by two undeveloped ruderal fields, one at the northern end of the site (North Field) and one on the western edge of the site (West Field) (Figure 2). West Field is surrounded on all sides by a paved foot/bikepath. A basketball court borders the eastern edge of this field. The entire Project Area has previously been disturbed and does not represent ahigh-value habitat. This highly modified site is surrounded by other housing developments and ruderal fields. The elevation of the Project Area ranges from 350 to 372 feet. A biological resources assessment conducted by WRA in September 2007 discovered the presence of wetland vegetation in the northwestern corner of West Field: one obligate wetland species, California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), one facultative wet species, tall flat-sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and three facultative species, dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), narrowleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolafa), and rough cockle-bur (Xanthium strumarium). The June 2008 wetland delineation focused on this site within the Project Area. It was apparent during the September 2007 assessment that soils in West Field have been disturbed, and this field appears to have been graded and modified with earth-moving equipment. The central section of West Field has been mowed and a layer of sawdust placed around sections of the perimeter of the mowed area. The topography slopes downward from the north and east edges of West Field towards a low point in the northwestern corner, where a drain is located. Shrubs and trees, including willow (Salix sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cotoneaster (Cotoneastersp.), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), and non-native ornamentals are growing along the fence line that borders the western edge of this field. Vegetation Vegetation in West Field can best be described as a combination of disturbed/mowed habitat and ruderal herbaceous grassland. Plants observed include non-native species such as slender wild oat (Avena fafua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and strawberry clover (Trifolium fragiferum). Hydrology Natural hydrological sources for West Field include precipitation and surface run-off from adjacent land within the Project Area. Soils The Alameda County Soil Survey (USDA 1966) indicates that two different soil types occur in the Project Area: Diablo clay (DbC) and Clear Lake clay (CdA). While the majority of the Project Area has Diablo clay soils, which are classified aswell-drained and occurring on slopes of 7-1, the area of interest where the wetland plants occur on-site occurs in a small inclusion of Clear Lake clay soils. This Clear Lake clay inclusion encompasses the northwestern tip of West Field. These soils are classified as moderately well-drained, occurring on 0-3% slopes. 7 sis ~ q3~ ~, , - . ~~ ~• .. .' '~`.~r~s"G ~ fi't'::', vt-F~'~' ~=~*'. ~ "^'i ~~# :.~ _ M gig." ~ ..+rL` ~- ` e~- - - West FieEG `.~~°~~ ~~~'~~~ R . "~ - 3 y ! ~ ~' k _ ~ ~ w~, u ~ «~ si ,Y_ j t \ ~.! -tea f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r l _ _ ~ -~ 1R. _ 1k f ~t 3 ~. rY ..ir ~ M ~ ~ t y «.~~~ »~ y ~.~~~ ^` a I,. - ~.. T Win.. ~' ~ V~~~.~~ ~1',: '`~."~ ~-... ~- ~• ':"' 1j '" 'ti ~t ~. r ~ ~-- - _ ~~. "` .~~ ~ ~ Feet. Figure 2. Location of North and West Fields within Project ~~ ~,. f ~~ ~~ Area ~ ~.: x .,. ~:e: CCOber 24u7 Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment use ~~:o~o: -e~-a5erver, ~o< vap By: 4erek Chan Fi;epaL`: t:\acxC 2L~00=ilesi=5C401251.a2~sl Alameda C®unty, California ~:Nxpl~.43_Aera,_C6_25_QB.mxC sip ~ ~3~ 5.0 RESULTS Vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected during the June 2008 delineation site visit are reported on standard Corps Arid West Region data forms in Appendix A and are briefly summarized below. Photographss of representative portions of the ProjectArea and sample points are shown in Appendix B. 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 5.9.9 Weflands Two sample points were taken during the June 24, 2008 WRA delineation conducted in the Project Area. These were taken in the two areas identified in September 2007 as supporting wetland plants (WRA, 2007). Both sample points are located in the northwestern corner of West Field (Figure 3). Sample point 1 (P1) to the east of the paved footpath, and sample point 2 (P2) to the west of the paved footpath, as shown in Figure 3. P1 had no wetland indicators. P2 had a dominance of facultative vegetation (dallis grass), and met the hydrophytic vegetation criteria. However, sample point P2 lacked both hydric soils and evidence of wetland hydrology, and is not considered a potential jurisdictional wetland. Soils were somewhat disturbed at both P1 and P2 with fill material (inclusions of gravel, cement, and bark), but below seven inches the soil was mostly intact. In addition, both P1 and P2 were very small areas- only a few square meters in size. 5.9.2 Other Waters of the U. S. No potential "other waters of the U.S." were observed in the Project Area during the June 2008 delineation conducted by WRA. 9 ~~ s ~~ ~~- _ .sr ~wr..xwww~ ~y~ ~ t ~:aiArea '~ { n s* ~ ~ ~"a ~ s i ~ a ~.~. ~ F, ... :~a:.~.,.._v ~; ~ ~ ~~ t+~ `~ ,fir t ~ NI ~~I~ii a h ~& ~ ~ $ ~ I a ~~ _ ~ " .W `ice' ~ ~ks-t"' ~"``fr».mr ~`J'R"`'~+vr. ~'~1K~ ~~ ~ f_ ,,. ~ . >a « - ~. .: x m ~M ~~ _ O,. " ," "- {' ;i- s ". r. , ~.> ~ ,,. M a ~ , L~ ~j~~ ~* ~~ ' 'r r" 'y~'" a . ~ v" . • _ Y ~ h w t c« +Y. i P. ~ F 3 H• it 1 ~.F n I~ ' 1 ~~ A ~ V° ~ ~~~~~ P i h i R : i ./ ,,yy ~ w ~~ u d ~ ~, '~k _~ > i ,~F ~ Y '~ A i ;-~ ~ ~ s x, ~"A'j ~ ~Y'. ~ ..~py ~ ~~ x~p gar ~, .f~' L iy "..J~ .~~ .% ~ ~ ~.~ .~ ~' u ~ = ~ ~'~- ~ legend F ~` .. ~~ 1'r . ~ ~!~K~^ ~v ~~~ ~ o sLne 2x38 samp+e Poi~x »" " ". . _ Figure 3. Location of Delineation Sample Points within West Field ,5 ` ~ ~!I{ ~~ E^~V1RtJNh9ENT,,=,'"~ CC:"dSULTA^f?S '. Da;¢: June 2WE Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment ~s¢pro.o:~¢~ras¢rv¢~,zooa map 8y: i7¢: ¢k E*an Alameda County, California }~~~.~:z:~~~<~~~-+~¢s~:e~~~,:6:a2,Gi5\ArCM2~\ ~' 3_Aeria:_G5_25._DB.mxd `~~~ ~ ~~ 6.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219; page 41217. GretagMacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised washable edition. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: California (Region 0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.10). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. December. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil Survey of Alameda County, California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2005. Official List of US Hydric Soils. USDA, NRCA. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 6.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Dublin quad. 7.5 minute topographic map. WRA, Inc. 2007. Biological Resources Assessment for the Arroyo Vista Housing Project, Dublin, Alameda County, California. 11 Appendix A -Preliminary Section 404 Jurisdictional Data Sheets Wetland Determination Data Form -Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Arroyo Vista City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 6/24/2008 °~ ApplicantlOwner City of Dublin State CA Sampling Point P1 Investigator(s) Cheryl Vann, WRA, Inc. Section,Township,Range sec 31. T2S, R1 E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) open field Local Relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope(%) 0% Subregion(LRR) LRR C (Medit. CA) Lat: _37°42'57.56" N Long: 121°54'45.10" W Datum: NAD 83 {feet) Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake clan (CdA) NWI classification None Are climaticlhydrologiccondltions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ^ No (If no, explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ^ Vegetation ®Soil ^ Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ®Yes ^ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ^ Vegetation ^ Soii ^ Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) -- CI VIII IIIIA ~V AC CIAIf11 \IP!Q AKwwL...:M .,,. .. L......7ww w .. ~.. « ..• ~...... a:...... •r.......... ~.. ...Lw..i inw~...ws n{w Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No Is the Sampled Area ~ Yes ®No Hydric Soil Present? ^Yes ®No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No Remarks: Sample Point P1 is located in uplands. VEGETATION Tree stratum (use Scientific names) ~~ Dominant Indicator Domtnance Test Worksheet cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 0 (A) 1• that are OBL, FACW, or FAC? 2• Total number of dominant 1 (B) 3, species across all strata? 4. % of dominant species that 0% (q!B) Tree Stratum Total Cover: are OBL, FACW, or FAC? SsaDlino(Shrub Stratum Prevalence Index Worksheet 1. Total % cover of: Multiply bv: 2• OBL species x1 3• FACW species x2 4• FAC species x3 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: FACU species x4 Herb Stratum UPL species x5 1, Avena fatua 95 Yes NL Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Hordeum murinum 3 No NL 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5, ^ Dominance Test is >50% s• ^ Prevalence Index is </= 3.0' 7. ^ Morphological adaptations (provide 8. supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 98 ^ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) Woodv Vine Stratum 1 • 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology y, must be present. Woody Vine Stratum Total Cover: Hydrophytic ^Yes ®No ° ° /° Bare ground in herb stratum 2 /° cover of biotic crust Ve station Present ? g Remarks: During the biological assessment site visit in September 2007 Scirpus californicus was present at this site. It is currently mowed down, as this sample point is within and along the edge of a maintained field. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 11-1-2006 Ski `~j~ ~~~' AIL •ofile description: Sampling Point P1 to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) depth Matrix Redox Featu res ,inchesl Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 7 10YR 3/2 > 99 5YR 4/6 < 1 C M clay loam mixed with fill--gravel, cement, bark 10 10YR 3/1 > 98 2.5Y 7/4 1 C M silty clay no fill mixed in 5YR 416 < 1 C M silty clay no fill mixed in RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix ydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ] Histosol (A1) ^ Sandy Redox (S5) ^ 1cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ]Histic Epipedon (A2) ^ Stripped Matrix (S6) ^ 2cm Muck (A10)(LRR B) ]Black Histic (A3) ^ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ^ Reduced Vertic (F18) ] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ^ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ^ Red Parent Material (TF2) ] Stratified Layers (A5)(LRR C) ^ Depleted Matrix (F3) ^ Other (explain in remarks) ] 1cm Muck (A9)(LRR D) ^Redox Dark Surface (F6) ] Depleted Below Dark Surtace (A11) ^ Depleted Dark Surtace (F?) ] Thick Dark Surtace (A12) ^Redox Depressions (F8) ] Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ^ Vernal Pools (F9) Indicators of hydric vegetation and ] Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. estrictive Layer (if present): type: )epth (inches): Hydric Soli Present ? ^ Yes ®No marks: Top seven inches of soil contained fail material (gravel, cement, bark), but was fairly homogenous and devoid of fill below seven inches. (DROLOGY etland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) imary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ^ Water Marks (61)(Riverine) ] Surface Water (A1) ^ Salt Crust (B11) ^ Sediment Deposits (82)(Riverine) ] High Water Table (A2) ^ Biotic Crust (B12) ^ Drift Deposits (B3)(Riverine) ] Saturation (A3) ^ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ^ Drainage Patterns (B10) ] Water Marks (B1)(Nonriverine) ^ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ^Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ] Sediment Deposits (B2)(Nonriverine) ^ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ^ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ] Drift Deposits (B3)(Nonriverine) ^ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ^ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ] Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ^ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ^ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ] Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks) ^ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ] Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ^ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) eld Observations: artace water present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): ater table present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): jturation Present? ^ Yes ®No icludes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present 7 ^ Yes ®No :scribe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available. :marks:A drain is located in the field roughly 40 feet north of sample point 1. Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 11-1-2006 ~~~~` `~; Wetland Determination Data Form -Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Arroyo Vista City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 6/24/2008 ApplicanUOwner City of Dublin State CA Sampling Point P2 Investigator(s) Cheryl Vann, WRA, Inc. Section,Township,Range sec 31, T2S, R1E ar Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)flat ruderal area Local Relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope(%) 0% Subregion(LRR) LRR C (Medit. CA) Lat: 37°42'57.85" N Long: 121°54'45.28" W Datum: NAD 83 (feet) ~. Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake clay (CdA) NWI classification None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ^ No (If no, explain in remarks) Are any of the follovng significantly disturbed? ^ Vegetation ^ Soil ^ Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ®Yes ^ No "~ Are any of the following naturally problematic? ^ Vegetation ^ Soil ^ Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) cl mnnneov nG G~un~nir_c _ e.a.,..w ~s ..,.,., ~w .....:.............~.. __:_' ~---•°--- ~------•_ °----~--~ °--~•---- -•- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^ No Is the Sampled Area ~ Yes ®N Hydric Soil Present? ^Yes ®No o within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No Remarks: Sample Point P2 is located in uplands, VEGETATION Tree stratum (use scientific names) ~~ Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet cover Species? Status 1' Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) that are OBL, FACW, or FAC? Z' Total number of dominant 1 (B) 3• species across all strata? 4• % of dominant species that 100% (A/B) Tree Stratum Total Cover: are OBL, FACW, or FAC? Salina/Shrub Stratum Prevalence Index Worksheet ~ • Total % cover of: Multiply bv: 2' OBL species x1 3. FACW species x2 4' FAC species x3 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: FACU species x4 Herb Stratum UPL species x5 1. Paspalum dilatatum 90 Yes FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Avena fatua 5 No NL 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ® Dominance Test is >50% s' ^ Prevalence Index is </= 3.0+ 7. ^ Morphological adaptations (provide 8. supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 95 + ^ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation (explain) yVoody Vine Stratum ~' 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology Z• must be present. Woody Vlne Stratum Total Cover: Hydrophytic ®Yes ^ No Bare ground in herb stratum 5 % cover of biotic crust Vegetation Present ? Remarks: Dominated by one facultative species. Not a strong wetland indicator. us Army corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 11-1-2006 ~r+a' ,.~ ^"D 'alt ; 1 ...rf ~.. '~) ~,^*,.,,.a', ,alt, wrr ~Il Sampling Point •ofile description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) depth Matrix Redox Features 'inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc' Texture Remarks 11 10YR 3/1 97 silty clay mixed with some gravel and fill 2.5YR 7/4 1 C M sandy prominent mottle 10YR 6/6 < 1 C M silty clay faint mottle e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. ZLocation: PL=Pore Linin , RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix ydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ] Histosol (A1) ^ Sandy Redox (S5) ^ 1cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ]Histic Epipedon (A2) ^ Stripped Matrix (S6) ^ 2cm Muck (A10)(LRR B) ]Black Histic (A3) ^ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ^ Reduced Vertic (F18) ] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ^ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ^ Red Parent Material (TF2) ] Stratified Layers (A5)(LRR C) ^ Depleted Matrix (F3) ^ Other (explain in remarks) ] 1cm Muck (A9)(LRR D) ^Redox Dark Surface (F6) ] Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ^ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ] Thick Dark Surface (A12) ^Redox Depressions (F8) ] Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ^ Vemal Pools (F9) 'Indicators of hydric vegetation and ] Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. estrictive Layer (if present): type: )epth (inches): Hydric Soil Present ? ^ Yes ®No marks: Evidence of some fill material mixed in with the soil, but not as much as at sample point 1. Hydric soils not present at Sample Point. (DROLOGY etland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ~imary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ^ Water Marks (B1)(Riverine) ] Surface Water (A1) ^ Salt Crust (B11) ^ Sediment Deposits (B2)(Riverine) ] High Water Table (A2) ^ Biotic Crust (612) ^ Drift Deposits (63)(Riverine) ] Saturation (A3) ^ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ^ Drainage Patterns (B10) ] Water Marks (61)(Nonriverine) ^ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ^Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ] Sediment Deposits (62)(Nonriverine) ^ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ^ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ] Drift Deposits (63)(Nonriverine) ^ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ^ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ] Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ^ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils (C6) ^ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ] Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks) ^ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ] Water-Stained Leaves (69) ^ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) eld Observations: irface water present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): ater table present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): 3turation Present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): Wetla nd Hydrology Present ? ^ Yes ®No icludes capillary fringe) 'scribe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available :marks: No indicators of wetland hydrology present at sample point. Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 11-1-2006 ~~~ c~~~ Appendix B -Representative Photographs of the Project Area ~~~ .,~:~ ~ M n}' .~ :, .:.,. ..~ Y~ M wi.n ~V qC l ~ ~ _ ,. _ ft-; ~ _ K l _ h w. +~ r ern \~ _ ., '.~f a 'S 'ff __. d " r:r .w ~ w ~ ~yY ~ ~ ti ~::'M'-Y¢i,L ter... ~" ..'!` ~ . l~.+s ... S"a.. ~ . .:.. ... ~ . .. .... ~+~' .r.~' ~?N'3~~ ~~ ~ ~r~ ,~ r ~ r ~ `C~ ~ Y• ' ~. i '^ ^1F~ ~~~ ._u,. .iii.. t ~ Y ' 4 ~ ~`~...' .. ~r ~'h ~.. ~ _ t. ~y.A. " yK n. .ri . Above: View north from sample point 1 towards drain. Below: View west with sample point 9 in foreground and sample point 2 across path in background. ~~wra ENVIRCN MENTA: CCNSU t7A l4?$ taken June 24, 2008 V O O (O N v w x m c N O O o, ~ ~ ~ ~. o° a. °< .~ ~ ~ m o, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -o ~. o cu ~ -* ~ ~ l' °-~ tQ ~ s~-« q ~ ~ ~_~^`` d W 3 (~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 'O ~ ~ Ai ~ ~_ z O 7_ 'L DI n Q 'L c Z `~1i . ~~~ ~ ~ ;~ r1~1~~i r ~t~ 4r ^zr r rr ~} `, k`~ ~ R~'~ y ~ ~. £ C !Nµ r ~ y~7 it 1.. ~, ~ S h, `< (~ U { vl ~ r tl; F; h g 1.yd:h ~~ ~s ti r~ .. ~~,~ ~.~ f x 'y -r , ~;. ~1~ ~ ~~_,{ r, t ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~~ k S . I t is r ..i `f".~~ 7e ~.tEr - ,. t ~i ~ ' -' t "`° ~` j'am` rU. ~~ { ;~ ILA,?~ ~^ 1~f1 rr ~ i j1 y1G~~ 1 't ! f-i f~i( r ~i 1' ~ l . ~ v tl 1~ J rl fFt ~ I j!~ ~i ~ {~~, ~~ ~ ~~,~f~~~ I' ~~ r.. ;~~}~ty f,r 4~`,:~'~~ t 1~Ja Sr~tt t'..~r ~'i~ 1~ ~' y~f u:: , ~ i~~r 1~~4~74 r~..'t ~i~ ~ y.~ ~ ,~,~, ~ ~ s , , ; ~1' f.}' , , a' , t; ~r ~~ ~_~' ~ ~ sa ., ~I~ ~~ 1ty ~.C } ~ ~ F + ~~ ! ~Y~~s~~R 11 ~E`! c ~^!t ~ G~a~ l t,~ ti Uf~b ~! it~~ Ita. i Y !~ !~ `~i ~.;~yf r 1l~lt~ ~ ~, r y .. r (pY f Y ~ lS ~ ~ S~ d 3 l ~ jii ~.~~~~~~M,'r,~,a i x Yrt ~., .i 1 !'. ~ r 1. ~ r, tr, „~ ~ ~ ,_ j~~ ~' J~t ~ ~ ~. 'F f~ r ~i t rf~ ~" ~, !d Y Ha f1 ;} r ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~'+ ryxi Irr 9,TU i «" ~ f ff+1!'! ~~ ) aj , I~ z , J ~ 1 ~ b Y~ ~ 'r .+ i t !~ r { ~t ~ f` ti i} i ~ lt~1 ° r. t i , .., ~. ~~'; ~Ir 4 d J,i~~ ~ ~. { 1 ~* -~ ~~a s~~ r s Sy tit r I t ~S:P t ,i~ '•l ~ tea l a, 41 i~~ Y ; ~ ~~ '`~ r:, ,r. I_.. F ~~:~ , i [ .'~~ ,,C t 't Oi ~ ~f ~~'' `h! `}/ ,~ f;; W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d"' c ~ ,$ ~' >::~ ~ c. ~w _ '1 ~ " ~. 111 ` `S- z 7 Yf ~ ~ `~. i:.~j. r ti , ^41:; ~ ~~ • , ; ~' F~ M1 rr .~, x,_ .r ~r _ ~4 ~~~y lre•,; .. >_. ~ a ~" ~, , -, ati.~,~:, v `~ '!tom- ~ ~'''~'< j - . '1 ~ a1'~.iP~ s_ ,,, ~ ~ f .- ,,:: ;. -~. , J Above: View south with sample point 2 on the right of the path and sample point 1 on the left. Below: Soil pit for sample point 2, showing predominance of Paspa/um diJafatum vegetation. ~-wra ENV;RONMEM1rAL CO15Et iTAN75 Photographs taken June 24, 2008 ,.- .~n, # ~:`f ~ -~-" `"-~ ms's Appendix 8.6 Acoustic Analysis Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 185 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin /L L /NG W O R T H 8c R O D K/N, /N C. !Jll1 Acoustics • Air Quality •lll SOS Petaluma Boulevard South Petaluma, California 94952 Tel: 707-766-7700 Fax: 707-766-7790 www, illingworthrodkin. com illro@illingworthrodkin. com January 28, 2008 Stephen Christensen Citation Homes 404 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 VIA E-'Mail: schristensen(a2sesdevelonment.com SUBJECT: Arroyo Vista Residential Project, Dublin, California - Environmental Noise Assessment Dear Stephen: This letter presents the results of our environmental noise assessment of the Arroyo Vista Residential Project proposed west of Dougherty Road in Dublin, California. The project would redevelop the site with high-density residential uses. Included in the report are the fundamentals of environmental acoustics, applicable noise regulations and guidelines, and a description of existing noise levels at the project site. The report summarizes the results of calculations of future noise levels at proposed noise sensitive receptors and presents the noise and land use compatibility assessment of the proposed project. Preliminary recommendations aze made to ensure a compatible residential development. Fundamentals of Acoustics Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave, In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents aten-fold increase in ~. ~~ Stephen Christensen January 28, 2008 Page 2 of 15 acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, DNL, is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.