The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 Nielsen Property Residential Project Attch 3 (2). ~~~ -~~. ; . ~ . ,.~ . . ~.:. . RE60LIITION NO. _93 • A RSSOLIIT~ON CF T8E CtTY COIINCIL . OF T8E CITY OF DQBLIN RBSOI~OTION ADOPTING T8E RASTERN DOBLIN GBNIItAT, PLAN F~~ p~ORB ~$ABTERa1 DIIBLIN SPECIFIC FL~iN; I~ARING . UANT TO THE CBLIFORNIA EN{TIRONM~~, QIIALITY ACT AND ~DOPTING A STAT~i~NT.OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR TS$ EABTER~T DIIBLIN GBDTS'RA.L PLAN AME NDMENT AND SP$CIFIC P~~; ~~~~'ZNa :A I~iITIGATION MOI~ITORING PROGRI~M ~FOR Tgg . ~ 8AST8RN DIIBLIN GENSRAy P7~T ~ji,iENDMEN~I, AND 6PECIFIC PLAN ' ~ Recitals ~ ~1• In response to a proposal for residential, ~development of the Dublin Ranch propex.t~,~ the City of Dublin undertook the. Eastern . Dublia ~Study to~ plan for the future development of the eastern - Dublin area. 2• The City Council and Planning Commission conducted three joint public study sessions and three workshops relating' to planning issues in eastern Dublin. a• The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land _ use concept report containing four larid use scenarios and the ccnsistency of each land use concept with existin ~ policies. Alternative ~4 was considered the preferredelandpuse concept for environmental study by informal consensus. ~ b. The August 22, i990,. study session considered Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based.on the 1986 annexation agreement with Alameda County). The Town Center~~ conce t t , P , ype's of streets, location and~t y pes of p a r k s w e r e d i s c u s s e d. ~ ~• ~The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments , from the public regarding the existinq and desired life style qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new ccmmunity. d• The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a , similar discussion of desired types of comanercial develapment and discussed circulation systems and parks and~open space. ,~ e• The December lg, 2g90, worksho : preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was eceived non the ~ transit spin~, location of civic'center t location of commercial uses, the concent~rati n rof2 h qh density residential uses, and jobs/housi n g b a l a n c e. ~ 1 ~ ~~r ~ ~g~ ~ f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the location of a hiqh sahool, connection to existing Dublin, size of streets and types of parks. 3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on February 14, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment for approximately 6,920 acres to plan for future development of a mixed use community of single- and multiple-family residences, commercial uses (general commercial, neighborhood commercial, campus office and industrial park), public and semi-public facilities (including schools), parks and open space. Draft General~Plan Amendment 4. The Draft General Plan Amendment; dated May 27, I992, designates the proposed general distribution and general Iocation and extent of the uses of Eastern Dublin for residential, commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other „~ categories of public and private uses of land. ~ 5. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a stateanent of standards of population density and standards of building intensity r for Eastern Dublin. 6. Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recoaunend action on proposed amendinents to the City~s General Plan. 7. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment on October 1, 1992, which hearing was continued t~ October 6, 1992, October 12, 1992, and October 15, 1992. 8. Based on comments received during the public hearing, related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the ~< Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Plarining Commission on December 21, 1992. ' 9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was rev~ewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 10. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony submitted.at the public hearing, adopted of Resolution No. 92-061, recommending City uld ~ -~~- Council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amend~onent, as revised Dacember 21,~1992. • Draft Specific Plan 11. Th~ Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluat,ion of development projects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin covered by the Draft Specific Plan. 12. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan amendment. 13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specif ic Plan on October 6, 1992, which hearing was continued to october 12, 1992, and October 15, 1992 . . 14. Based on comments received during the public hearings, related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning Commission an December 21, 199.2. 15. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a Final Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended certif ication of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 16. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-062, recommending City Counc~.l adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised December 21, 1992. . Council Public HearinQ 17. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific Plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January 21, 1993, February 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993. 18. On April 27, 1993, the City Council, by Resalution No. 45-93, voted to refer Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area ("Alternative 2") with modifications back to the Planning Commission for its recoaimendation, pursuant to Government Code section 65356. ~t ~ ~ 3 ~~~~ ~~ 19. The Planning Commission held a public hearinq on May 3, 1993, to consider Alternative 2 with modifications and has r~ported back to the City Council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 93- 013 . . 20. The City Council considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testi.mony submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the Planning Comaaission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 92-061, 92-062 and 93-013. 21. On May 10, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission~s recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-013. 22. On May 10, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. --~ 51-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete. The Final EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts ~ which can be~mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes or alterations in the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, findings adopting the changes or alterations are required and are contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts ~ cannot be mitigated to a Ievel of insignificance and a statement of overriding considerations is therefore required pursuant t~ CEQA and is also contained in this resolution. 23. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental effects of the project, as described in the Final EIR,.the Council has determined to adopt Alternative 2, as described in the Final EIR, with certain modifications which are described in the Addendum to the Draft EIR ("Alternative 2 With Modifications"}. Alternative 2 With Modifications reduces land use impacts, does not disrupt the existing rural residential community in Daolan Canyon, potentially reduces growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands, reduces certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less demand for infrastructure, reduces the noise impacts for poolan Road to a level of insiqnificance and will have a positive fiscal i_mpact on the City. 24. Alternative.2 was considered by the Planning Commission =" at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR reviewed by the Planning Commission at its hearinqs and in its deliberations. 25. Alternative 2 With Modifications includes several substantial modif ications to Alternative 2, as Alternative 2 is ~ described in the Draft EIR. Although several of these modifications were considered by the Planning Commission at its hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 With 4 ~~~1~ 758~ Modifications and has reported back to the Council with its recommendation reqarding Alternative 2 With Modifications. The Council has determined to follow the Planninq Commission's recommendation as set forth in its Resolution No: 93-U13, except with respect to the width of the Transit Spine and with the addition of the phrase "or other appr~priate agreements„ on page 160 of the Draft Specific Plan (§ 11.3.1; first sentence). Findinas/Overridinq Considerations/ ~ Mitiaation Monitorina Program 26. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to make certain findings if the City approves a project for which an environiaental impact report has been prepared that identifies siqnificant environmental effects. 27. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding considerations if the Council approves a project which will result in unavoida.ble significant effects on the environment. 28. Public Resource Code section 2i085 and section 15092 of the State CEQ.A Guidelines require the City to make certain determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number of housing units considered in the environmental impact report. 29. The Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects. 30. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects can be reduced to a level of insignificance. by changes or alterations in the project. 31. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 32. The Council has selected Alternative 2 identified in the Final EIR with modifications described in the Addendum to the Draft EIR, reducing the number of housing units for such property from the projec~ as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin Genera3. Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. _ 33. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. 34. Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council to adopt a general plan for land outside its boundaries which in the Planning Commission's judgment bears relation to its planning. 5 ~-, ~:_.. .~ ~„- ~~ 5 7~~ ~ ~ 35. The Planning Commission has considered whether land outside the City's boundaries bears relation to the City's planning. ~ 36. The City has referred Alternative 2 With Modifications to the Alameda County Airport Land IIse Commission ("ALUC") pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21676 (b). The City has not received a determination from the ALUC. The 60-day time period for the ALIIC to make a determination has not yet run. ItOW, THERSFORB~.BE IT RE60LVED THAT A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve "Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area" as the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the Modifications described in the Addendtun to Draft EIR, dated May 4, 1993. B. The Dublin City Council finds the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as described in the Final EIR as "Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area," with Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, ta be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, with the Revisions dated Decem.ber 21, 1992, and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4, 1993 and with the revision to page 160 referred to in paragraph 25 above. D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other ~ substantive changes. E. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to _~ edit, format, and print the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive - changes. - 88 IT FIIRTSER RE30LVED TSAT the. Dublin City Council does hereby make the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this _:~ reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specif ic Plan. 8E IT FDRTHER RESOL9ED TBAT the Dublin City Council finds and •~-~ declares that the ratianale for each of the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained in the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding" in Exhibit A. 6 ~~~ Q~~~~ ~, The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each identified impact in Exhibit A make changes to, or alterations tc, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, or are measures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that, once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on the environment. ~ B$ IT FIIRTHSR RESOLOBD TBAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall be•included in the record of the project approval. HB =T FIIRTBER RESOLPED T~T the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific Pl.an/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reportinq and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. H$ IT FIIRTHER RRSOLVED THAT the Dublin City Counci2 does hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Pr'ogram . BS =T FIIRTHER .RESOL4ED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct that ail fees established pursuant to Government Code Section 65456, to recover costs of preparation ot the Specific Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and administration of the Specific Plan plus interest on such costs based upon the City of Dublin's average monthly weighted investment yield calculated for each year or fraction thereof that such costs are unpaid. BE IT FIIRTSER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Counail daes hereby direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination for the' Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project with the Alameda County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research. BE IT FIIRTHBR RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public, within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions dated DeceYnber 21, 1992, and the modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications 7 . ~ ~ y~7~ ~~~ ..~ --~. described in the Addendum to Draft•EIR, all as modified by this resolution. BE IT FORTHER R$80LVBD TSAT this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage. BE IT FIIRTHER A$SOLPSD THAT if, on the effective date of this resolution or wit~in the remaining 60-day period fcr ALUC action, the ALUC has found~that Alternative 2 With Modifications is not consistent with the ALIIC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, the City shall submit all regulations, pernaits or other actions implementing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to the ALUC for review until such time that the City Council revises the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to be consistent with the ALUC's Alameda, County Airport Land IIse Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two- thirds vote that the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public IItilities Code as stated in section 21670 of such Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this lOth day af May, 1993, by the following vote: • AYES: s Hurt~, Houston, H~ward, Nbffatt & Ma~or Snyder NOES: ~e ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None . ~ ` Mayor ATTEST: . ~~ it Clerk 114\RESOL~29\RSSbLQTION 8 ~+i g ~ 7~~ ^, ~ sectioa 1 FINDINGB CONCERNING. SIG~TIFICA~I'1' IMPACTS AND MITIGATIO~T MEABDREB Pursuant to PubZic Resources Code section 21081, the City Council h~reby makes the following findings with respect to..the Project's potential significant environmental i.mpacts and.means for mitigating those impacts. ~Findings pursuant to section 21081, subdivision (c), as they relate~to ~~proj.ect alternatives," are made in Sectian 3. 8ection 3.i~.-- Land IIse IMP~CT 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Aqricultural and~Open Space Lands. Agricultural grazing land and open space in Alameda and Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed projects suc~i as Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, North Livermore, and Eastern Dublin. Because it would result iri the urbanization of a large area of open space, the proposed Project ~rould contribute to this cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space in the Tri-Valley area. This is considered a signifi- car~t unavoidable cumulative i.mpact. Response t~ Comments (~'RC") # 34-9. Findina. No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact to a leve~ flf insignificance. Therefore, a 5tatement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for F~indinQ. The total amount of open space within:the RPA that will be urbanized will be cumulatively significant, in light of numerous other open space areas within:~the region that is also anticipated for urbanization. IMPACT 3.i/G. Potential Conflicts with Land.IIses to tbe West. The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ("Camp Parks") is located due west of:the Specific Plan area. Existinq and future Army training activities, such as the use of high veiocity weapons and lielicopters, could result in noise and safety confli~ts with adjacent open space and single-family residential areas of the Specific Plan. The extent of future army activity is unlaiown and 1The "Project" is Alternative 2 described in the DEIR at pages 4-9 through 4-14 with the modifications described in the May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 calls for development in the Reduced Planning Area (the portion of eastern Dublin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPA"). 114~eastdub~fsad(4) 1 ~ ~`t~-}~~TT ~ 6 : . ~ - E~BHIBiT..~,.. . '~~ ~ «~„ .-. ~-f 1 ~ P7.~~ _ ~ ~ the Army has not yet completed its Camp Parks Master Plan. DEIR ~ page 3.1-13. Mitigation Measure 3.1/1.0. The City of Dublin should coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve campatibility with adjacent Camp Parks land uses, to solve potent~al future conflicts, and to reconcile land use incom- ~ patibilities. The City should consult with the Army for any specific development proposals within the RPA. DEIR pages 3.1-13t -22. . Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially .. lessen ;the significant effect identified i.n. the Final EIR. Rationale fcr Findinq. Coordinated planning activities will ;~ allow the City and Army to identify potential noise and '~" safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific . ' mitigat.ion measures, including redesign, to be incorporated into development in the Project Area.~ 4~« Section 3.3 -- Traffic and Circulation When a mitigation ~easure referenced in this section requires yF~ development.projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate cost of regional transportation programs and/or traffic and circulation~.improvemer~ts, the proportion shall be as determined -- by regionalitransportation studies, such as the current study by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. IMPACT 3.3/g. I-580 Free~ay, Tassajara-Fallon. Year 2.010 growth without the~~.Project would cause cumulative freeway volumes to exceed Leve1~: of Service E on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3. ~ Mitiaation Measure 3.3/1.0. Caltrans, in cooperation with ~local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary 2anes on I- 580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total of ten lanes, which would provide Level of Service D opera- tions, consistent with the Caltrans Route Conc.ept Report for 2-580. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3. Findina. Approval of the construction of the auxiliary lanes,,and cooperatian by jurisdictions other than the City of Dublin, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and sh4uld be taken by other agencies. If taken,!such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ ~ ,5 114~eastdub\fiad(4) 2 `?~(J ~ ~~ ~ . --~. Rationale for Findinct. This mitigation measure provides acceptable Level of Service D operations during peak hours on the . freeway . IMPACT 3.3/8. I-580 Free~ray, I-680 to 8aaienda. Year 2010 growth with the Project wculd cause I-580 between I-680 and Dougherty Road to exceed Level of Service E. This is also a siqnificant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11, 5.0-3. Mitiaation Measure 3.3/2.0. Consistent~with Specif ic Plan Policy 5-21 , all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation Systems.Management (TSM)~ program to reduce the use of single occupant vehicles through strategies including but riot l.imitecl to encouraging public transit use, carpooling, and flexible work hours. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised}, 5.0- 3. ~ ~ . Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.1. All projects within the RPA area shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined by regional transpcrtation studies. Such regional miti- gation~~proqrams may include enhanced public transit service and/or upgrading alternate road corridars.to relieve demand on I-580 or I-680. DEIR page 3.3-21~(as revised). Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these chanqes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findincr. Appraval of Alternative 2 reduces to a leve~ of insignificance the impact on I-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive. DEIR page 4-11. The TSM program strateqies will reduce single car occupancy, thereby reducirig the number of cars expected to use the subject stretc~i of I-580. Regional actions may focus not only on reduc'irlg auto use by reducing single occupant vehicles, but also ori increasing Project area road capacities through Z This policy appears in the Eastern Dublin specific Plan, which plan applies only to the identified Specific Plan area. The provisions of this policy provide useful mitigation outside the Specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the EIR and these findings adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Herei.nafter, those Specific Plan goals, policies, and action programs whose provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these findings will be indicated by an asterisk. ~; .°i ii4~~asta,~~f~a~~~ : 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ construction of routes p~ovidinq convenient alternatives to I-580 and I-680. Given the overall expected increase in traffic, hawever, these measures are not sufficient to reduce;the cumulative impacts on I-580 between I-680 and Doughe~y Road to insignificance. IMPACT 3.3/C. I-580 Free~ay, Tassajara-Fallon-Air~ay. Year 2010 growth with:the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of Serviae E on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. ~This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-21;~(as revised), 5.0-3. , . . Mitiaation Measure 3.3J3.o. The City shall coordinate with Caltraris and tYie City of Pleasanton to construat auxiliary ~ lanes on I-580~ between~Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. Al1 projects'within the RPA shall contribute~a proportionate share of the costs of these improvements. DEIR pages 3.3- 22 (as revised), 5.0-3; RC #7-6 Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or ~ incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially iessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res- ponsib~lity and jurisdiction of Caltrans,'who can and should ~ take such act3ons. If taken, such actions would avoid or substaritially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. „ Rationale for Findina. The auxiliary lanes will provide sufficxent additional capacity on I-580 to provide Leve3: of Service D bet~,reen Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard, and Level of Service E between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Both Level of Service D and E are acceptable during peak ~ freeway hours. DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the auxiliary lane improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the freeway improvements (see, e.a., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113..5, 114) . IMPACT 3.3~~3. I-680 Freeway, North of I-580. Year 2010 growth with the Pr•d,ject would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of Service E oxi I-680 north of the I-560 interchange. This is also . a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4. :~ ~ Mitiaation Measure 3.3/4.0. All projects in the RPA shall ~ contribute a proportionate share of the cnsts of Caltrans' planned improvements at the I-580/I-680 interchange, in- cluding a new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with 114~eastdub\fiad(4) 4 ,~. ya~ ~~ ~~ F"~' related hook ramps to the City of Dublin. DEIR page 3.3-22. (as revised) (see also page 3.3-17 (as revised)). Findin . Changes or alterations have been requixed in, or incorpc~rated into the Project that~avoid or substantially lessen;;the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Freewa~i interchange improvement actions are within the responsibility and•jurisdiction of Caltrans, who can and should~~take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The expected interchanges and related i.mprovements will prcvide sufficient additicnal capacity on I-680 to provide Level of Service D north of the I-580 interchange. Development in the RPA will be required to coatribute its fair share to the intex~change and re~ated improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. ~ACT 3.3/~. Ctimulative FreeWay Impacts. Cumulative buildout with the Pro~ect would cause additional freeway sections, in- cluding I-5$0 east of Airway Boulevard, and the segment of I-580 between Dcuc~herty and Hacienda to exceed level of service E. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as revised), 5.0-4. 4' Mitigation Measure~3.3J5.0. The Project shall contribute a propor~ionate share to the construction~of auxiliary lanes. (for a total of i0) on I-58o east of Airway Boulevard,.for implementation by Caltrans. The City shall coordinate with other local jurisdictions to require that all future de- velopment projects participate in regional transportation mitiqation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley Transportation Council study. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as re- vised), 5.0-4. Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project. Actions by other aqencies and Ca~trans to implement this mitigation measure are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of those other agencies and no~ the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the other agencies. However, even with these change~ the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions zaust be adopted. :~ Rationale for FindinQ. The auxiliary lanes will provide sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level of service on part of I-58o widening to ten lanes is consistent with the Route Concept Report. DEIR page 3.3-22 (as revised). Regional transp~rtation mitiqations can 114~eastdnb~find(4~ 5 ~ ~-. :-, ~a~ . -~~-. ~ reduce cumulative impacts through measures to decrease sinqle occupant vehicle use and increase public transit use t~ further decrease traffic i~apacts. However, even with these iaiprovements, part of I-580 (between I-680 and Hacienda Drive) will still be beyond acceptable LOS E. DEIR pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11. IMPACT 3.3/F. Douqherty Road aad Dubiia 8oulevard. Year 20~0 developmerit.with the Project would cause Level of Service F ; operations at the intersection of Dougherty Road with Dublin Boulevard. ~DEIR page•3.3-25. ' Mitigation Measure 3.3~6.0. The City of Dublin shall ° monit.o~ the intersection and implement construction of additional lanes when required to maintain LOS D operations. All prvjects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate „ share cf the improvement costs. DEIR page. 3.3-25 (as revised). Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or iriaorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The additional lanes at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection will provide sufficient capacity for Level of Service D operations, which is acceptable at street intersections in Dub].in fDEIR pages 3.3-2, -18 (as revised)). Development in the RPA will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection. improvements so tlzat, when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the . need . '~~ ~ • ' ~: IMPACT 3.3/G. 8acien~a Drive and I-580 Eastbound Raatps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive.with the I-580 eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25• (as revised). Miticration Measnre 3.3/7.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the eastbound off-ramp to provide a second left turn lane. All projects in the RPA shall c~ntribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC ,~ 7-9. . ~ Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Off-ra~ttp widening actions are within the ultimate respon- sibili~y and j~arisdiction of Caltrans. Such actions can and should°,be taken by Caltrans. If taken, such actions would ~ ~ . , 114\eastdub~fsnd(4) ~ ( •i ~~~~ ~~~ ,~ Y avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi- fied ii~ the Final EIR. ;, . Ration~le for Findina. The additional lanes at the east- bouand Off-ramp•will provide acceptable Level of Service C operations. Devalopment in the Project area will be • required to oontribute its fair share of the intersection iiaprovements, so that when such improvements are needed, they will be pr~vided by new development generating the ~ need. State~law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.a., Streets & Highways code §§ 113.5, 114). , IMPACT 3.3/8. Tassajara Hoad aad I-580 Westbouad Ramps. Year 2O10 development with the Pro~ect would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the I-58o westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised). ~Iitiqation Measure 3.3/8.0. The City of Dublin shall implem~nt improvements in coordination with Caltrans to widen the I-580 westbound off-ramp and to modify the northbound approach to provide additional turn and through lanes,~ Al1 projects in the RPA shall contribute a pro- porticziate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3- 26 (as`.revised). ~ ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially. lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR~. Coordinati.nq and raatp widening actions are within the ulti- rnate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi- fied in the Final EIR. Rationale far Findina. The reconfigured lanes at the east- bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service B aperations. Development in tha Project area will be required to contribute its €aix share of the intersection improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating-the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a.cooperative agreem~nt with Caltrans to make the off-ramp i.mprovements (see, e.a., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). TMpACT 3.3/I. Santa Rfta Rcad and I-580 Eastbouad Ramps. Year 2010 deve~opinent with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the I-580 eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26. ~ ~ 114\eastdub~find(4) 7 ~ ~ ~ia~ ~5~- ~ ~ Mitiqation Measure 3.3/9.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the I-580 eastbound off- ramp to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to provide Level of Service E at this intersection. All projects in the RPA shall. contribute a proportionate share of the-_improvement ccsts. The City of Dublin shall continue to work with the City of Pleasanton to monitor level of service at this intersection and partici- pate in implementing improvements which may be identified in the future to improve traffic o.perations. DEIR page 3.3-26 (as revised); RC ~ 7-11. ,:, Findinq. Changes or alterations have been =equired in, or incorporated into the Project. Ramp widening actions are within-;the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltra~s, which can and should take such acticns. However, '` even with these chariges and actions:, the impact will not be . ~avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement • of Overriding Consicierations must be adopted upon approval . of the =~Project. ~, . Rationale for Findina. The off-ramp widening will provide ~} - LOS E operations, which is still significant. Development in the•Project area will be rsquired to contribute its fair ,, . ' share of the i,ntersection improvements, so that:when~ such improvements are needed, they will be provided•~by new ~ development generating the need. ~ SMPACT 3.3/K. Airaray 8onlevard aad I-580 Westbouad~.Ramps. Year ~; 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the I- 580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised). Mitiqation Measure 3.3/11.0. The City of Dublin shall ~ implement improvements in coordination with the City of Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway Boul~evard overcrossing .of I-580 and to widen the offramp for additional turn lanes. Al1 projects within the RPA.shall contribute a proportionate share of the i.mprovement costs. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised); RC #17-2 x; Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Road and ramp wideni.ng actions are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 114\eastdub\find(4) 8 ~i~~ o ~ ~ .--~ ~' ~~~ , Rationale for Findina. The Airway Boulevard and I-580 improvem.ents will provide an acceptable Level of Service D. Development in the Project area will•be required to contri- bute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by, new development generating the need. State'law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make tlie road and ramp improvements (see. e.a._, Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). • IMPACT 3.3/L. 81 Charro Road. Project traffic could introduce stops and delays for loaded trucks from the quarries on E1 Charro Road south of I-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised). Mitigation Measure 3.3/12.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans, the City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County to ensure that modifications to the I-580 interchange at Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements to and from El Charro Road. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of irnprovement costs. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised). Findina. Changes or alterations have been requixed in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially •lessen;~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Freewa~r interchange modification actions are wit'fiin the ultima~e responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions ~ would avoid or substantially lessen the siqnifi~cant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Providing unimpeded access for the quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from backinq up behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and stops. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see. e.a., Streets & Highway.s Code §§ 113.5, 114). _ =MPACT 3.3/~. Cumulative Impacts on Dublia Baulevard. Cumulative buildout wi~h the Project would cause Level of Service F opera- tions at th~ intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard and Level of Service E operations at the intersection of Tassa- jara Road with Dublin Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4. '~ ~~ ~ 214~eastdnb~find(4j 9 ~+ ~~`~~ ~ ~~8'. :; . . ~. ~ ii Mitiaation Measure 3.3/13.0. The City shall continue to participate in regional studies of future transportation requirements, i.mprovement alternatives, and funding pro- grams. Buildout of proposed projects outside Eastern Dublin would require the City to build grade-separated interchanges on Dublin Boulevard and/or establish alternate routes to redistribute traffic flow. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of improveinent costs. DEIR pages 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4. Findir~a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporat~ed into the Project. However, even with these ;~, changes, the impact might not be avo.ided or substantially • lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- _~ tiors must be adopted'upon approval of the Project. ~ ~~ Rationale for~Findina. Regional transportation programs will attempt to reduce the amount of future traffic and associated iunpacts. Even with these efforts, however, the ~ cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard might not be reduced to insignificance. IMPACT 3.3/N. Cm~nulative Impacta on Tassajara R'oad. Cumulative aa buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera- tions at the intersections of Tassajara Itoad with Fallon Road, Gleason Road, and the Transit Spine. These impacts:,~would be caused primarily by traffic from the Tassajara cor~nection to Dougherty Valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley. DEIR page 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4'. ~ Mitiaation Measure 3 3,J14 0. The City shall reserve suffi- cient right-of-way to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the Cantra Costa Courity line and moriitor traffic conditions and implement widening pro- jeats as required to maintain LOS D operations on Tassajara Road. ;~All projeats in t13e RPA shall contribute a propor- tionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-28 (as re~ised), 5.0-4 and -5; RC ~5-2, 7-13, 8-2 Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinct. Allowing for the widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the City ~ to maintain an acceptable Los D. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they ' wi11. be provided by new development generating the need. 114~eastdub\fiad(4) ' 1 0 7 ~~' ~ ~ 5~ ~. IMPACT 3.3/O. Transi.t Service ~ctensioas. The Project would introduce significant development in an area not currently served by public transit, creating the need for substantial expansion of existing transit systems. DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-10* requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to pr.ovide transit se.rvice within one quarter mile of 95~ of the population, in accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.)~ DEIR page 3::3-28. Mitiaation Measure 3.3J15.1. Specific Plan Policy 5-11* requires the City of Dublin to coardinate with LAVTA to provide at least~one bus every.30 minutes during pea}~ hours, to 90~~of eaiployment centers with 100 cr more empioyees, in accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28. . Mitiaation Measure 3.3J15.2. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share to the capital and operation costs of transit service extensions. DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.3. The City shall coordinate with BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the.planned BART stations. Until the BART extension is completed~(projected for 1995), the City shall coordinate with BART.to ensure that BART express bus service is available to eastern Dublin~ residents. DEIR page 3.3-28. ~ Findinct: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. Some of the transit service coordination actions a=e within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Bart and LAVTA agencies and not the City of Dublin: Such actions can and should be taken by those agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the signif icant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ Rationale for Findina. The mitigations provide for expansion of existing transit systems to meet Project demand, not only on the local level through LAVTA but also on a locai and regiona~ level through BART. IMPACT 3.3jP. Street Crossinqs far Pedestrians and Bicycles. Pedestrians';~and bicycles would cross maj~r streets with 2zigh projected traffic volumes, such as Dublin Boulevard,~Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, introducing potential safety hazards for pedestrians•and bicyclists. DEIR page 3.3-29. :; ~ l I4 \ea stdub ~f i:n.d ( 4) 11 ..~ ~~ 7~~ ~-~~ ~ Mitiaation Measure 3.3J16.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-15* and Specific Plan Figure 5.3* require a Class I paved bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and trails along other stream corridcrs in the Project area. (*Specific Plari provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.:3-29. Mitigation Measure 3. 1 16.1. The City shall locate pedestrian and bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets at signalized intersections. DEIR page 3.3-29. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Placing a major bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and using trails along other stream corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid traveling on major streets with their high traffic volumes. Where the paths must cross a major arterial street, re- quirina~ the crossing at a signalized intersection minimizes path and traffic conflicts by stopping traffic on a regular basis to let path travelers cross the street safely. Section•3.4•-- Communitp Services and Facilities ,~ =MPACT 3.a/A and H. Demand for increased Police Services and Police S~ervices Accessibility. The Project will increase demand for police services from the Dublin Police Department.'s admini- strative and sworn staff, and wi1.1 require reorganization of the. police operations to provide new patrol beats in the Project area. The hilly.topography of most of the Project site may present some accessibility and crime-prevention problems. DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitiaation Measure 3.4/1.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy.8-4,* the City shall provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as needed in order to establish and~maintain City standards for police protection service in EasterA~Dublin. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted througliout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2. ~ Mitiqation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action:°Program 8D,* the City shall coordinate with the City Police~Department regarding the timing of annexation and proposed development, so that the Department can adequat,ely plan for the necessary expansion of services in the RPA. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2 114~eastdub~find(4) 12 ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Mitiqation Measure 3.4L3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8E,* the City shall incorporate into tbe requirements of project•approval Police Department recommen- dations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throug2iout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitigation Measure 3.4J4.0. IIpon annexation of the RPA, the City of Dublin Police Department will be responsible for police;.`services. The City will prepare a budget strategy to hire tlie required additional personnel and implement a beat system:. DEIR page 3.4-2. ~. , ~ Mitigation Measure 3.4J5.0. As part of the development review'process for residential and non-residential projects, the Police Department shall review development projects~ design~~and circulation for visibility, security, safety, access; and emergency response times and any other police issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the sigriificant effect identified in the Final EIR. . Rationale for Findina. The five mitigations identified will ensure that additional poli.ce will be hired and:that other: administrative measures will be employed to provide adequate protec~ion for-Project area residents. Police~.Department~~ input into design of Project development will .insure that police~;services are efficiently provided. . IMPACT 3.4/C. DemanB fcr =ncreased Fire Services. Buildout of the Project::will substantially expand the DRFA service area and increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel. This will significantly increase response times and reduce service standards unless new facilities and personr~el are added. DEIR page 3.4-5. Mitiaation Measure 3.4I6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-5,* the City shall time the construction of new facilities ta coincide with new service de~and in order to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first statioh will be sited and will begin construction concurrent with initial development in the planning area. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5. Mitigation.Measure 3.4J7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action"~Program 8F,* the City shall~establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital improvements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5. 114\eastdub~fiud(4) 13 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~5~ ~. ,~.. Mitigation Measure 3.4/8.0. Purs~uant to Specific Plan Action;Proqram 8G,* the~City shall coordinate with DRFA to identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations; with the westernmost site in the Specific Plan area assured prior to approval of ariy development plans. (*Specific Plan provisi:ons adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5; RC # 15-26. Mitiaation Measure 3.4/9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8H,* the'City shall incorporate DRFA recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into development approvals. Require compliance with DRFA design standards such as non-combustible roo~ materials, minimum fire hydrant flow requirements, buffer zones along open space areas, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, road access, and parking requirements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) "DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -6. Mitiaation Measure 3.4/10.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan „ Action;Program 8I,* the City shall ensure, as a requirement of Project apprcval, that an assessment district, homeowners association, or some other mechanism is in place that will . pr~vide regular long-term maintenance of the urban~open space interface. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted. throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6. ~ ~ Mitiaatiori Measure 3.4/11.0. pursuant to Speaific~ Plan Action Program 8J,* the City shall ensure that fire trails. and fire breaks are integrated into the open space trail system. And that fire district standards for access roads in these areas are met while environmer~tal impac~s are minimized. (*Specif ic Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.j DEIR page 3.4-6. Mitiaation Measure 3.4/12.0. The City of Dublin, in consultation with DRFA and a qualified wildlife biologist, shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to ' reduce~:open land wildfire risks consistent with habitat , protection and other open space values. The plan sha3.l specify cwnership, maintenance, use, brush control, and .x fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic review:,'of these measures, for RPA open Iands. Any p.ark districts or other open space agencies with jurisdiction over lands within the RPA shall'be encotiraged to participate in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4-6 to -7. MitiQation Measure 3.4/13.0. The City shall consult with - DRFA~to determins the number, location and timing of additional fire stations for areas within tY~e RPA outside 114~eastdnb\find(4) i4 .~ ~?'~ ~5~ .~ ~ ~~ the specific plan when such areas are proposed for annexation to the City. DEIR page 3.4-7. Findina. Changes or alterations have been requised in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Acticns to determine the number and location of fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect irientified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be , canstructed to meet the needs of Project residents; DRFA input into Project design features will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire ~nanagement plan should further li.mit tlie Project fire protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires. =MPACT 3.~t/D. Fue Respoase to Outlping Areas. Based on DRFA's preliminary:=locations for new fire stations, the northern-most portions of:the RPA would be outside the District's standard response area. Development in these areas (especia].ly the north end of Tassajara Road) could experience adverse fire hazard exposure and emergency response im.pacts. DEIR page~3':.4-5. Mitiaation Measvres. Mi.tigation measures 3.4/6~.~0 to 13.0 as described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7. ~, Findinct. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to datermine the number and l~cation of fire stations are within the resp~nsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA and r~ot the City of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Fi.nal EIR. ~~ Rationale for Findina. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of all Proje.ct r~sidents, includinq those in the outerlying areas; DRFA input into project desiqn features will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires. IMPACT 3..~/8. Bxpcsure to wildfire Hazards. Settlement of population arid construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an 114~eastdub~fiad(4) ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r ~~ ~ . ~ -~~ ~`~3 7~' increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas are not maintained for fire safety. This is also a significant~cumulative impact in that increased development in steep grass.;and woodlands around the edges of the Tri-Valley's core communities may reduce respor-se times and.strain fire- fightsng resources for reqional firefighting services, many of whom participate in mutual aid systems. DEIR pages 3.4-5, 5.0= 5 . '.. Mitiaation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0.. Mitiqation measures 3.4/~6.0 to 13.0, as described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7, 5.0-5; RC ,~25-26. Finding. Chariges or alterations have 3~een required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to determine the number and location of fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction o~ DRFA agencies and the City of Dul~lin. Such actions should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. DEIR pages 3.4-4 to -7. ' Rationale for FindinQ. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents, including those near open space areas; DRFA input into project desigr~ features will enable additional~and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan • should:.further limit the Project wildfire exposure impacts . through fire safety planning and open space management. ~ IMPACT 3.~/F, G. Demand for Neat Classroom Space; Demand for Junior Hiqh Bchools. Buildout of the Project will increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities beyond current available capacity. At the junior high school level, classroom demand may exceed both current and planned capacity levels. DEIR paqe 3.4-11 to -12. ~ Mitigation Measure 3.4/13.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-1,* the City sha21 reserve schaol sites within the RPA designated on the Specific Plan and General Plan ~ Amendment Land Use Maps. (*Specific P1an provisions adopted throug~iout RFA.) DEIR page 3.4-12. ; , Mitiqation Measure 3.4/14.0. The City shall ensure that the two proposed junior high schools are designed to~accommodate the projected number of junior high school students. DEIR page 3.:4-12. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially li4\eastdub\fi.nd(4) 16 ~ 34 `~~.~~' ~. ~-.. :.~, .~~ lessen the significant effect~identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to determine junior high school siting and design are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other gublic agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in ttie Final EIR. Rationale for Findincx. Providing elementary, junior hiqh, and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand generated by Project residents. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17:~0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such development. IIdPACT 3.4/H. Overc=o~dinq cf Sahoois. Existing schools may be overcrowded:;if insufficient new classroom space is provided for new residential development.~ DEIR page 3.4-12. Miticxation Measures 3.4j13.0 to 14.0. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13:0 to 14.0, as described above. Mitiaation Measure 3.4/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-2,* the City shall promote a consolidated develop- ment.pattern that supports the logical development of planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro- priate school district(s), ensure that adequate.classroom space is available prior to the development of new homes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout.RPA.) DEIR . page ' 3 :~4-12. • ~r , Findinct. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor~orated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen:;the signif~icant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some a~tions to site and design schools are within the responsibility and jurisdictien of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. Providing elementary, junior high, and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand generated by Project residents, while a consolidated development pattern ensures that the classroom space will be available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0 througli 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient fundinq for such developinent. :1 IMPACT 3.4/I. Impact on school Financinq District Jurisdiction. Development:;;of the RPA under existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area being served by two different school :• 114\eastdub`find(4) 17 *~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ . districts and would adversely affect financing of schools and provision of educational services. DEIR page 3.4-12. Mitiqation Measures 3.4/16.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action.Progrant 8A,* the City shall work with the school districts to resolve the jurisdictional issue to best serve student needs and minimize the fiscal burden of the service providers. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.j DEIR pages 3.4-12 to -13. f~ ' Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, vr incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~~:the ~ignificant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and nct the C~ity of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinct. Resolving the school district jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that school services are efficiently provided. Il~iPACT 3.4/J. FiaanciaZ 8urdea on 8chool Districts. The ccst of providing new school facilities couid adversely impac.t local • school districts by creating an unwieldy financial bixrden unless~ some form of financing is identified. DEIR page 3.4-13. Mitiaation Measures 3.4/17.0 to 19 0. Pursuant to Specific~ Plan Policy 8-3* and Action Program 8B, ensure that adequate school'facilities are available prior to development in the RPA to~~the extent permitted by law, for example, by requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment~of developer fees by new development. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8C,* the City shall work with school districts to establish appropriate funding mechanisms to fund new school development and encourage school districts to use best efforts to obtain state funding for new con- struction. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR p. 3.4-13; RC #15-31. Findinct. Changes or alterations have been rec~uired in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen..the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to fund new school development are within the resp.onsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be - taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. 114~eastdub~fiad(4) lg ~3~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . Rationale for Findincr. Through these mitigations, develop- ment creating school facilities demand will have primary responsibility for accommodatinq that demand, with the school:idistricts b.eing provided Grith back-up financial support from other sources. „ ~ACT 3.4/~E. Demand for Park Bacilities. Without~the addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation facilities resulting from.buildout of the Project would not be met, resulting in deterioration of the City's park provision standard and of the City's ability to maintain existing services .and facilities. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5. Mitiaation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, arid G and Implementinq ~ Policy D require the City of Dublin to provide and maintain parks and related facilities adequate to meet Project and citywide needs and in conformance with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992. Implementing Policy K specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20 parks aesignated in 'rhe RPA with collection of in-lieu fees as reqt~ired by City standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17, 5.0-5.~;: Mitiaation Measures 3.4/25.0 to 27.0. Sufficient parkland shail ~ie designated and set aside in the RPA to~satisfy the City's'~Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and`its park. provision anrl phasing standards. DEIR pages 3.4-17, 5.0-5. Mitiaation Measure 3.4/28. The City shall implement Specific Plan Policies 6-1 to -6* to establish large, continuous natural open space areas with convenient access for users, and adequate access for mainte.nance and manage- ment; to preserve views cf designated open space areas; and to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage- ment, and maintenance. {*Specific Plan provisions adopted througYiout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19. . .s1 Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpqrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen:{the siqnificant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. These mitigations provide added new parks and facilities to meet increased demand from Project residents, and require compl~.ance with phasinq plans in the Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new residential construction. 114 \eastdnb~f irid ( 4 ) 19 - ""' ~~ ~37 -~~~ ~~ II~ACT 3.4/L. Park Facilities Fiscal.Impact. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a financial strain on existing City of Dublin revenue sources unless adequate financing and implementation mechanisms are designed. DEIR page 3.4-18. Mitictation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific ~Plan Policy 4-29* and Action Program 4N,* the City shall ensure~that development provides its fair share of planned open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the City's;,parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific Plan Pi~o.gram 4M,* the City shall develop a Parks Imple- mentation Plan identifying phasing, facilities priorities and location, and design and construction responsibilities. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3::4-18. ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantiaily lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincx. These mitigations ensure that needed park facilities wi11 be provided by developers at the time of development, thereby avoiding the use of existing revenue sources to build new parks for Project area residents. 2MPACT 3.4/M, N. Impact on Regional Trail System and:Impaat:oa Open Space Connections. Without adequate provisions~•for trail easements and without adequate design and implementation, urban development;alo~ng stream corridors and ridgelands would obstruct formation of a regional trail system and an interconnected open space system. DEIR.page 3.4-18 to -19. Mitiaation Measure 3.4J32.0. Pursuant to General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy'H,* establish a trail system with regional and subreqional connections, including a trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout.RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-19. Mitiaation Measures 3.4/23,0 ar~d 33.0 to 36.0. pursuant to General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy I, Implementation Policy D, Specific Plan Policies 6-1,* 6-3,* Action Program 40;* and consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1992, use naturaZ stream corridors and major ridgelines as the basis far a trail system with a conti- nuous,~~integrated open space network, emphasizing convenient user access, pedestrian and bicycle connections between developed and open space areas, and developer dedication of ridgetop and stream corridor public access easements. (*Speci:fic Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3:.4-17, -19. 114\eastdub\fiad(4) 20 ~ 4~ ~. ~ ~ .~, {-~, , ~ 5~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Establishing a Project area trail system~incorporatinq planned regional connections contri- butes to development of a regional trail• system and allows the trail planning to be considered and i~corporated into individual Project area developments in the RPA. By , requiring that open space and trail planning be based on contin~ous physical features such as stream corridors and ridgelines, and that public access be provided along these features, these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space system:: . IMPACT 3.4/O, P. Iacreased Bolid Waste Productioa and =mpact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Increased population and commercial land use will•cause a proportional increase in the total projected amount of solid waste and household hazardous waste generated by the City of Dublin. This increase creates the need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose of the wastes.~ It can create public health risks from improper handlinq. The increased solid waste and houselzold hazardous waste qenerated by the Project may accelerate the closing schedule for Altamont landfill unless additional capacity is developad or alternate disposal sites are identified~.. This impact on trie Altamont landfill is also a potentiall~~ significant cumulative i:unpact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6.:~ Mitic~a~ion .Measures 3. 4/ 37 . 0 to 4 0. 0. Pursuan~• to Specif ~c Plan Action Program 8K* and other'EIR mitigatians, adopt a Solid Waste Management Plan for the RPA, including waste reduct~on programs such as composting and curbside and other collection of recyclables. Include goals, objectives,'and progra~s necessary to.integrate with the diversion targets of the City's Source Reduction and Recyclinq Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element. New development in the RPA shall: demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity for anticipated wastes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3-4.22 to -23, 5.0-6. ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. These mitigations minimize the amountt.of solid waste production and related needs and risks - f~hrough compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning. Reducirig the amount of Project-generated waste will also avoid an accelerated closing schedule for the Altamont ~ landfill. In addition, these mitigati~ns require that new 114~eastdub\fiad ( 4 ) 2 Z _'"~ ,~ ~3~ ~- ~YS~ : ~-._ .~ ~ .. ~ develoRment anticipate and provide for adequate waste ~. disposal before the develcpment is approved. IMPACT 3..4jQ. Demand for IItiZitp Extenaioas. Development of the Project site will significantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. Meeting this demand will require construction of a new Project-wide distribution system. This is a significant growth-inducing i.mpact. DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.0-14 to -15. Mitigation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4. Findina. No changes or alterations are available to avoid or substantially lesseri this impact. Therefore, a Statement " of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the ::Proj ect. . I1~iPACT 3.4/R. Utilitp Bxtension Visual aud Biological Impacts. Expansion of electrical, gas, and telephone lines cauld adversely affect visua~l and bioloqical resources if not appropriately sited. DEI~2 page 3.4-24. Mitigation Measures 3.4I42.0 to 44.0. Pursuant to Specific• Plan Action Program 8L* and other identified xnitigation measures, development within the RPA must document the availability of electric, gas, and telephone service and must place utilities below grade or, preferably, underground and routed away from sensitive habitat and open space lands. A development project service report shall be reviewed by the City prior to improvement plan approval. ~~(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24 to -25. • FindinQ. Changes ar alterations have been required in, or . incorporated into, the Project that avoid~or substantially lessen~~`the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Underqroundinq utilities will avoid ~ visual:?effects by placing the utility extensions where they cannot~%be seen. Routinq the utility extensions away from sensitive habitat and open space areas will avoid impacts on ~ biological res~urces by avoiding the resources themselves. IMPACT 3.4~8. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources. Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of non-renewable natural resources. DEIR page 3.4-25. Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developers in the Project area shall provide demonstration projects on cost-effective energy conservation techniques including but not limited to solar water and space heating, landscaping 114~eastdnb~fiad(4) 22 ~~a ~~~ ~ ~ ~ for water~conservation', and shading. All development projects in the RPA shall prepare an energy conservation plan as part of their pr~posals. The plan shall demonstrate how site planninq, building design, and landscaping will conserve use of energy during construction and long term operation. DEIR page 3.4-25. ~'indina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or inco=porated iato the~Project. Iiowever, even with these~ changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. ~ Rationale for Findina.~Through the demonstration projects, , developers can educate themselves and Project residents ~ about available and feasible techniques to reduce ~ consumption of energy resources. Requiring energy ,,; conservation plans forces both develcpers and the City to actively consider various techniques to reduce energy ~ consumption and to build those techniques directly into the Project. "These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the i.m.pact .° ~, IMPACT 3.4/T. Demand for increased Postal sernice. The Project will increase the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26. .. .. ~ Mitiqa~ion Measures 3.4/47.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-10 and Action Program 8M, the City shall • encourage the U.S.P.S. to locate a new post office in the Easter~ Dublin town center. DEIR page 3.4-26;~.RC # 15-37. '~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially ,~ lessen the signif icant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to site a new post office within the town center are .~~ within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the USPS~and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and '~ should be taken by the IISPS. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. .~ Rationale for Findina. A post office cor~venient2y located in the tov~n center area will provide postal service to meet the Project generated demand. IMPACT 3.4/U. Demand for Increased Library Service. Without additional ~ibrary facilities and staff, the increase in ~ population resulting from the Project would adversely affect existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27. 114~eastdub~fiad(4) 23 '"" ~, . ..~.., `1 `'~' ~.Ja . --' ~ : : i~ Mitiaation Measures 3.4/49.0 ta 51.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-il* and Action Program 8N* and other identi- fied mitiqation measures, the City shall encourage and assist the Alameda County Library System to provide adequate library service in eastern Dublin, considering such factors as lxation, phasing, and funding of needed library ' services. (*Specific Plan provisions.adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC ~15-38. Findina. Changes oz alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to provide library facilities are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda ' County:Library system and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the Alameda County Library Systean. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Providing library services to the RPA will.meet Project generated demand. Planning how arid when to provide those services will ensure that they are efficient and convenient to the maximum number of users. Section 3.5 -- Sewer, ~Pater, ana Storm DrainaQe IMPACT 3.5/A. Iadirect Impacts Resulting from tbe Lack of a Wastewater Service Provider. Although Specific P1an:Policy 9-4 (page 127) calls for the expansion of DSRSD's servi.ce boundaries to include the Specific Plan area, the Project does not provide for wastewater service to areas in the RPA outside the specific plan area. ~This could result in uncoordinated efforts by future developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DEIR page 3.5-5, RC #;;32-18. Mitigation Measure 3.5/1.Oa. Pursuant to Specific Plari Policy':9-4,* the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to encompass the entire RPA. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC # 32-18. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially ' lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actians to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.~ 114\eastdub~find(4) 24 ~ y~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~. Rational for Findina. Expanding boundaries to include the entire securing wastewater ses~ices wil. t'~rough one agency. DSRSD's service RPA will ensure that 1 be coordinated. =liPACT 3.5/B. Lack of a Wastewater Collectioa 8pstem. Estimated wastewater flow for the RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the Project area. DEIR page 3.5-5. Mitiaation Measures 3.5L1.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Programs 9P,* 9I,* 90,* 9M,* and 9N,* all development in the RPA shall be connected to public sewers and shall obtain a"will-serve" letter prior to grading permitsF on-site package plants and septic systems shall be discouraged. The Cityshall request that DSRSD update its collection system master plan to reflect Project area proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne by future.development in the RPA. Al1 wastewater systems shall be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3::5-6; RC # 32-19, 32-20. ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Prdject that avoid or substantially lessen ; the significant effect identified in the~~. Eirral EIR. Rationale for Findincr. These mitigations will provide a wastewater collection systexn adeguate to meet Project generated demand, and will ensure the system meets design and construction standards of DSRSD. ~ IMPACT~3.5/C. Estension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to Serve New Developments. Construction of a wastewater collection system could result in development outside the RPA that would connect to the Project~s collection system. This is also a poten~ially ~ignificant growth-i.nducing impact, DEIR pages 3.5- 6, 5.0-15. Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0. The proposed wastewater system shall be sized only for the RPA area. DEIR pages 3.5-6, 4- 11, 5.0-15. ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. By sizing the planned wastewater collection system enly to serve the RPA, growth inducing impacts on lands outside that area are avoided. 214\eastdub~fiad(4) 25 ~ ~ ~y~ ~~:.~5~ ~ II~IPACT 3.5/D. Aliocatioa of DsRSD Treatment and Disposai Capacity. The~e is limited avaiiable capacity at the DSRSD Treatment Plant, limiting the number of sewer permits available for new developments. It is very unlikely that any of the presently remaining DUE's wi11 be available for the Eastern Dublin Area. DEIR page 3.5-7; RC ,~32-21. Mitigation Measure 3.5/T.O: Pursuant to Specific Plan Action P=ogram 9L,* development project applicants in the RPA shall prepare.a design level water capacity investi- qation, including means to minimize anticipated wastewater flows and reflecting development phased according to sewer permit~allocation.. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-7. Mitigation Measure 3.5j7.1. Developme.nt project applicants in the,RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve" letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. RC ~32-22. Findincf. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessenj~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The required investigation will allow development to be phased to ensure there are adequate wastewater facilities available to meet Project:~generated demand. The requirement of a"will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will.=exist for all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve I.etter. RC #32-22.~~ iMPACT 3.5/E. Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Piant Capacity. Development of the Project require an increase in wastewater treatment plant capacity within DSRSD to adequately treat the additional wastewater flows to meet discharge standards. .This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact in tYiat increased demand on area wastewater treatment facilities exceeds current remaining capacity. DEIR page 3.5-7 to -8, 5.0-6. . '7 Mitiqation Measures 3.5(7.1. 8.0. 9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-6* and mitigations identified in the EIR, . ensure:that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available for future development in the RPA through compliance with~DSRSD's master plan to fund, design, and construct wastewater treatment plant expansion once export capacity is available (unless TWA approves export of raw wastewater, in which case DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant expansion will not be necessary). Also; development project applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve" letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. 114~eastdnb\fi.nd(4) 26 ~i i: (*Specific paqes 3~.5-7 ~~~ ~~ ~ ,--~ .- Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR to -8, 5.0-6; RC ,~32-23. F ndin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Compliance with DSRSD's master plan will ensure that adequate wastewater treatment plant capacity will be available in the future to serve Praject generated:demand once export capacity of treated wastewater is provided.(see Mitigation Measure 3.5/li'.0). Alternative- ly, expanded treatment capacity will not be necessary if export.:.of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a "will-serven letter wi7.l insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity is not available,~DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter. ~tC ,~`32-22. ' x =MPACT 3.5/F. Sacrease in $nerqy Usage Throuqh =acreased Aaste~ater Treatment. Development of the Project will result in increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use for treatment of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC ,#32-24. Mitiaation Measure 3.5/~0.0. Include energy efficient treatment systems in any wastewater treatment pkant e~ansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off- peak energy.. DEIR page 3.5--8; RC #32-24. Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this impact~::•will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinc. Use of energy efficient treatment systems and plant aperations will reduce the amount of energy=use but these actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. IMPACT 3.5/G. Zack of ~Iaste~rater Current Disposal Capacity. The increase in wastewater flows from the Project and other sub- regional development will exceed available wastewater disposal capacity until additional export capacity is developed. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-8, 5.0-6. Mitic,~ation Measures 3.5/7.1, 11 to 14.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-5* and Action Programs 9H,* 9s,* and 9R,* ttie City shall support current efforts to develop 114~eastdub~find(4) 27 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ -~~- ~ .~ additional export capacity. The City shall require use of recycled water for landscape irrigation in accordance with DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy and require development within the RPA to fund a recycled water distribution system model to reflect.proposed land uses. Also, development project applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will=serve" letter.from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3:.5-9, 5.0-G to -7, RC ,~32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27. ~ Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in,.or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Fina1 EIR. Actions to develop additional export capacity are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, • and.not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should take by such agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for FindinQ. These mitigations will provide the additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet ~ Project generated demand. The requirement of a"will-serve'~ letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity is not avail- able, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter.~::RC ~32-22.• IMPACT 3.5/H. Increase in Energy IIsaqe Throuqb Increased Wastewater Disp~sal. Development of the Project w.iTl result in increased w~stewater flows and will require increased energy use for disposal of wastewater; more specifically, for (1) pumping raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed project; and/or (2) operation of an advanced treatment and distribution system for recycled water. DEIR page 3-5.9. Mitigation Measures 3.5/15.0 to 16.0. The City shall encourage off peak pumping to the proposed TWA export system. The City shall plan, design, and construct the Project recycled water treatment system for energy efficient operation including use of energy efficient treatment systems, optimal use of storage facilities, and pumping at aff peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-10 to -i1. - Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of - Dublin: Such actiflns can and should be taken by other agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this impact<~will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adoptec~. upon approval of the Project. 114~eastdub~fi:nd(4) 2 $ ~4~ ~~ ~75~`' ~ ~ Rationale for Findinq. The proposed mitigations will reduce ~ the amount of energy used for wastewater disposal but these ,~ actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. Y IMPACT 3.5/=. Potential Failure of Export Dispasal 6Ystem. A failure in the operation of the proposed TWA wastewater pump ~' stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the wastewater collection system for the Tri-Valley subreqion, as well as the Eastern Dublin Project. DEIR page 3.5-10. ~. Mitigation Measure 3.5~17.0. Engineering redundancy will be built into the TWA pump stations, which will also have provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page 3.5-10. ~ Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other aqencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effect identifi.ed in the ginal EIR. ;; R Rationale for Findina. Engineering redundancy will minimize the ri~$k of pump station system failure; providing emergency power generators will ensure that any system failure which does occur will~ be short lived, thereby avoidir~g~the effects of such failure. RC #32-28. IMPACT 3.5/J. Punp Station Ncise and Odors, The pr.oposed TWA wastewater pump stations could generate noise durinq their operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.5J18.0. TWA's pumps and motors will be designed to comply with local noise standards and will be~ provided with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10. „ ` Findincr. Such actions are within the responsibility.and . jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin:• Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. - ` Rationale for Findinct. Requiring compliance with local noise standards will ensure that any noise produced not exceed acceptable levels. Odor control equipment will ensure that odor production effects are avoided. RC ~32-28. IMPACT 3.5/K. Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure. The proposed TWA ESmergency Wastewater Storage Basins eould poten- tially emit odors and/or the basins could have structural failure 114\eastdnb~f~nd(4) 29 ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ ~~~. r-- .~ , due to landslides, earthqnakes, or undermining of the reservoir from inadequate drainage. DEIR page 3.5-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.5/19.0. TWA's basins will be covered, buried tanks with odor control equipment and will be designed to meet current seismic codes. DEIR page 3.5-i1. Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin;~ Such actions can and should be taken by other agenci~s. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in t3~e Final EIR. ~ `~~ Rati~onale for Findina. These mitigations ensure that any odors related to the TWA basi.ns are contained and.controlled within the basins so as not to be detectable beyond the -- basins. Compliance with seismic codes will ensure that the basins are properly constructed to withstand landslides and . earthquakes and are provided with adequate drainage to avoid structural failure. RC ~32-28. i~ACT 3.5/L. Recycled Water System Operation. The proposed recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly "ffi in order to~!prevent any potential contamination or cross- connection with potable water supply systems. DEIR:~:page 3:.5-1i. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0. Construction of the recycled water distribution system will meet all applicable standards of the:Department of Health Services (DHS) and.~•~San.Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). DEIR page 3.5-11: Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Applicable regulations of the DHS and ~ RWQCB are designed to prevent cross-connection contamina- tion; compliance with these regulations will therefore avoid the contamination i.mpact. IMPACT 3.5/M. Recycled Aater Storage Failure. Loss of recycled water storage through structural damage from landslide, earth- quake, and~undermininq of the reservoir through inadequate drainage. DEIR page 3.5-1i. ~ Mitictation Measure 3.5/21.0. The City shall require reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD and other health standards and shall require preparation of soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential 114\eastdnb~fiad(4) 3 0 ~~t g~p ~5~' -~1 landslide and earthquake impaats. Reservoirs shall be designed to meet current seismic codes and to provide adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11. Findina. Changes or alterations have beer~ required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Soils and geotechnical studies will ensur.e that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and other applicable health standards, the purpose of which is•to avoid structural failure. iMPBCT 3.5/N. Loas of xecycied ~ater System Pressure. Loss of pressure in~~`the proposed recycled water distribntion systems could result in the system being unable to meet peak irriqation demand, which could~result in l.oss of vegetatian through lack of irrigation water. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC ~32-30. MitiQation Measure 3.5/22.0. The recycled water pump stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEIR page 3.;5-12; RC #32-31. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. Compliance with DSRSD standards will minimize the risk of pressure being lost. IMPACT 3.5J0. Secoa~arp Impacts from Recycled Aatersystem Operation. Failwce to identify and implernent treatment plant improvements related to recycled water use may. increase salinity in the groundwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12. Mitiaation i~ieasures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall incorporate salt mitigation required by Zone 7. DEIR page 3.5-12:• ~ ~'indinQ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Compliance~with salt mitigation requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water, thereby avoiding the risk of increased salinity in the groundwater basin. IMPACT 3.5/P. Overdraft af Local Groundwater Resources. If the Project area is not annexed to DSRSD and development proj ects are 114 ~eastdub \ f iind ( 4) 31 ~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~~~- ~ ~ not required to connect~to D5RSD's water distribution system, development projects may attempt to drill their own wells, causing overdraft of existing limited groundwater supplies. DEIR page 3.5-17. Niiti~gation Measures 3.5~24.0 to 25.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-2* and other EIR mitigations,, the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to include the Project area and to develop annexation conditions encouraging water conservation and recycling. The City shall~enaourage all developments in the RPA to connect to DSRSD's system and discourage the use of groundwater wells. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-17; RC ,~14-4. Findina. Chanqes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that av~id or sulistantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ' Rationale for Findina. Annexation to DSRSD and connection to its;~water distribution system will eliminat~:the need for development projects to drill their own wells~~:nd will therefore avoid the risk of groundwater overdrafting. : .. I2~ACT 3.5/Q. increase in Demand for Water. Estimated average daily water~demand for the RPA is 6.4 MGD, which demand c~uld exceed available supply. This is also a potentiaZly significant cumulative impact in that ongoing urban development in the Tri- Valley is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand at a < ti.une when water supplies and delivery are uncertain. DEIR page 3.5-18, 5.0-7 to -8. ~ Mitiaation Measures 3.5126.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Programs 9A* and 9B,* the City shall require development projects in the R.PA to include water conserva- tion measures within structures as well as in public and - other improvements. Require developments to comply with DSRSD and Zone 7 reconunendations for developing and using recycled water. Pursuant to other EIR mitigations, implement Zone 7 and DSRSD water supply and water quality improvements and interconnect Project area water systems with existing surroundinq water systems for increased reliability. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA. )~~:DEIR pages 3. 5-18 to -19; 5. 0-9; RC ,#13-9, 32-43 . 114\eastdub~find(4) 32 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ .-~. `~ ~ Find~ina. Chanqes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen;:th~e significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to improve water supply and quality are within the re5ponsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions should l~e taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions can and would avoid or substantially lesseri the significant effect identified i.n the Final EIR. Rationale for F~indina. Through required water.conservation and water recycling mitigations, the Project reduces the magnitude of the impact by reducing the demand for'water using recycled ~rater fo= irrigation reduces the estimated average daily water demand in the RPA to 5.5 MGD. (Rc #32.52.) The remaininq water quality and water supply mitigations will result in an increased water availability from Zone 7 and DSRSD to meet Project generated demand. IMPACT 3.5/R. Additioaal Treatment Plant Capacity. The increase in water demand through de'velopment of the Project will require an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water. DEIR page 3.5-19. Mitiaai~ion Measures 3.5/32.0 to 33.0. Implement Zone 7's planned water treatment system improvements. DSRSD should constn:ict two ~ew chlorination/fluoridation stations at the two proposed Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin;.with the construction phased west to east as anticipated:in the General Plan A~nendment. DEIR page 3.5-19. Findinct. Such actions are within the responsibility.and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the.City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Proposed water treatment system improvements wiZl insure that Project water supply meets all applic~ble water quality requirements. IMPACT 3.5/S. I-ack of a Water Distribution System. •There currently is no water distribution system to provide water service for;~the RPA. DEIR page 3..5-20. :~ Miticration Measures 3.5j34.0 to 38.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-1* and Action Programs 9C,* 9D,* 9E,* and 9G,* the City shall provide an adequate water supply system with related improvements and storage facilities for all develop- ment, in compliance with applicable DSRSD standards. The ,~ 114 ~eastdub \ f iad ( 4) 3 3 ,~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~- ~ City shall request that DSRSD update its water system vi-asterplan to reflect the proposed land uses, and require a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permits for any Project area development. The City shall encourage the propos~d water system to coordinate and combine with existing neighboring water systems. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-20. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Pro~ect that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. These mitigations will provide a water distribution system adequate to meet Project-generated demand, and will insure the system meets design and construction standards of DSRSD. ~s IMPACT 3.5/T. Inducement of Suhstaatial Growth and Conceatration of Populatiea. The proposed water distribution system will induce qrowth in the Project area and has been sized to poten-. tially acco~amodate th~ Dougherty Valley Development to the north. However, if::DSRSD does not provide water to the Douqherty Valley Development;~ the pipes will be sized to only accommodate the RPA. The impact is also a potentially significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR page 3.5-20, 5.0-15, RC ~32-41, 32-55. ~ Findina. N~ feasible mitigation measures are identified:to reduce this impact. Therefore, a Statement of'Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the..Project. IMPACT 3.5/II. Increase in Energp IIsage T3~rough Operation of the i~Tater Distributica 3pstem. Development of the Project will result in increased water demand and will require increased energy use to operate a water distribution system, especially for pumping water to the system and to storage. DEIR paqe 3.5-21. Miti~aa~ion Measure 3.5/40. Plan, design, and construct the water distribution system for energy efficient operation. Designz'pump stations to take advantage of off-peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-21. Findinc~. Changes or alterations have been requi.red in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. Use of energy efficient water distribution systems and operations will reduce the amount of energy used, but these actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. 114\eastdub\fiad(4) 34 ~5~ ~7~~ ~. .-._ .--~. .~~ uiPACT 3.5/9. Poteatial Water Storage Reservoir Failure. Loss of storage in proposed water distribution reservoirs from landslides, earthquakes, and/or undermining of the reservoir through inadequate drainage would adversely affect the..ability of the water supply system to maintain water pressures and to meet fire flows.': DEIR page 3:5-21. Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0. Require water reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD standards. Prepare soils and qeotechnical investigations to determine potential landslide and earthquake impacts. Desiqn the reservOirs to meet current seismic codes, and to provide . adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-21. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or,substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. Soils and geotechnical studies will insure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to aomply.with current seismi.c, DSRSD, and site drai.nage standards, thereby avoiding the risk of structural damage or failure. IHPACT 3.5/W. Potential Loss cf System Pressure. Loss of pressure in:the proposed water distribution systems could resnlt in contamination of the distribution system and wouls~~not allow adequate flows and pressures essential for fire flow. DEIR page 3.5-22. `!~ Mitiaation Measure 3.5/42.0. The proposed wates pump stations shall meet all applicable standards of DSRSD and shall include emerqency power generation back-up. DEIR page 3.5-22. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project tYlat avoid or sul~stantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for FindinQ. Compliance with DSRSD standards will minimize the risk of pressure being lost. Providing emergency power generators will insure the pumps-will continue operating, thereby avoiding tha risk of contamina- tion iii the distribution system and insuring that adequate water flows are available for fire protection. IMPACT 3.5/$. Potential Pump 8tation Noise. Proposed water system pump:~stations would generate noise during their operation that could adversely affect the surrounding community. DEIR page 3.5-22. ~, 114\eastdub\find(4) 35 ,~,; ~. y 5 ~ . ~75~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ a Mitiaation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pwnp stations to reduce sound levels~from operating pump motors and emergency generators. DEIR page 3.5-22. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Reducing sound levels of the mechanical equipment will reduce the amount of noise perceivable by surrounding residents, thereby avoiding the impact. IMPACT 3.5~Y. Potential Floodinq. Development of the Project and development of former agricultural, rural, and open space lands.throughout tZ~e Tri-Valley will result in an increase in runoff to creeks and will result in an increased potential for flooding.~ ~'his is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-25, 5.0-9. Mitiaation Measure 3.5l44.o to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan~Folicies 9-7* and 9-8,* Action Programs 9R* and 9S,* and other EIR mitigations, require a master drainage plan for each development project in the RPA to provide drainage facilities adequate to prevent increased erosion or flood- ing, in.cludinq channel improvements with natur.a~.creek . bottoms, and side slopes with natural vegetation,. This design level plan shall include studies of the development project area hydrology, potential impacts of the development project, and proposed design features to minimize runoff flows and their effects on erosion and riparian vegetation. ~Development projects shall also address potential downstream floodi~g, and shall include retention/detention facilities and/or.~:energy dissipators to minimize and control runoff, dischatge, and to minimize adverse biological and visual effects. Construct storm drainage facilities in accordance with approved storm dxainage master plan. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26, 5.0-9.~• Findincx. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or s~bstantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. Throuqh planning and implementation of storm drainage master plans, development projects will minimize the amount of runoff to creeks and will provide drainage facilities to control the rate and location of runoff.that does discharge into creeks. These measures will minimize the increase in runoff, the.reby avoiding increased flooding potential. :; 114 \eastdub \ f~~:nd ( 4) 3 6 ~~~ 7sg ~ ~._ ;--.. ~~ IMPACT 3.5/Z. Reduced Groundxater Recharge. Increasing the amount of impervious surfaces in the Project area could reduce the area's already minimal groundwater recharge capabilities. This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact, as impervious surfaces increase throughout the Tri-valley. DEIR page 3.5-26;. 5.0-9 to -10. Mitiaation Measure•3.5/49.0 to 50.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-9* and other EIR mitigations, plan facilities and operations that protect and enhance water quality; support Zone 7~s ongoing groundwater recharge program for the nearby Central Basin, which contains the majority of the Tri-Valley's qroundwater resources. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 2.5-26, 5. 0-9. Findinct. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Tllese mitigation measures protect and enhance what minimal groundwater recharge capability . exists'fin the Project area. =MPACT 3.5/AA. Non-Point Souraes of Pollution. Development of the Project'could result in a deterioration of the q~a~lity of stormwater due to an increase in non-point sources of.pollution including (I) urban runoff; (2) non-stormwater discYiarges to storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site runoff (erosion and sedimentation). This is also a~~~..~otentially significant•cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion are developed. DEIR page 3.5-26. Mitigation Measure 3.5~52.0 to 55.0. The City shall develop a community based education program on non-point sources of pollution, coordinating such programs'with current Alameda County programs.` The City shall require all development to meet the requirements of the City's "Best Management Practices", the City's NPDES parmit, and the County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution. DEIR 3:5-27, 5.0-10, Addendum. FindinQ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for FindinQ. Education programs will acquaint all Project area residents with the issue of non-point pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such pollution. Existing City, County, and State regulatory programs will insure that potential impacts of non-point 114\eastdub\fiad(4) 3 7 ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ .._.. sources of pollution or stormwater quality will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 3.6 -- Soils. Geoloqy. and SeismicitY iMPACT 3.6/B. $arthquake Ground 8haking: Primary $ffects. Earthquake ground shaking resulting from large earthquakes on active fault zones in the region, could be strong to violent, and could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and, in extreme cases, loss of life. DEIR page 3.6-7. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/1.0. Use modern seismic design for resistance to lateral force in construction of development projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building Code and applicable county~and city code requirements. DEIR paqe 3.6-7. - Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- " tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for FindinQ. Modern seismic desigr~~and compliance ~ with applicable building codes will reduce the risk of structural failure, major structural damage, anc~ Toss of life from the effects of ground-shaking. Thes~;actions will _ not, however, completely avoid the impact. IMPACT 3.6/C. Eazthquake Graund Shakinq: Secoadary•~Sffects. The secondary effects of ground shaking include seismically-induced landsliding; differential compaction and/or settlement. This is also a significant cumulative i.mpact in that further development in the area:could expose residents to significant safety hazards and could strain emergency response systems. DEIR page 3.6-8~, 5.0-10. ~~ Mitigation Measure 3.6/2.0. In relatively flat areas, development should be set back from unstable and potentially unstable land or these landforms should be removed, stabilized, or reconstructed. Where improvements are located on unstable land forms, use modern design, appropriate foundation design, and comply with applicable codes and~policies. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/3.0. In hillside areas, where development may require substantial grading, require appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable and potentially unstable materials. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10:~ 114\eastdub~find(4) 38 4~ ~~~ ~ .~ .~ .~ .~ Mitiqation Measures 3.6,f4.0 to 5.0. Use engineering techniques and i.mprovements, such as retention structures, surface and subsurface drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and adequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce seismically induced fill settlement. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.4-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/6.0. Design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to acccmmodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts. Remove or reconstruct potentially unstable stock pond emban~ents in development areas., DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0. Require all development ~ projects in the Project area to perform design level geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits. The investigations should include stability analysis of natural and planned engineered slopes, and a displacement analysis to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed in the investigation. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10. Mitigation Measure 3.6/8.0. Earthquake preparedness plans should+,be daveloped by,the City and all Project site residerits and employees should be informed of appropriate measures to take in the event of an earthquake.>'° DEIR page 3.6-9,~5.0-10. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantialiy lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Mitigations 3.6/2.0 to 6.0 provide specific enqineering techniques for reducing the effects of ground shaking throughout development in the Project area. Mitiqation 3.6/7.0 requires development projects to apply these and other available engineering techniques at a design level,.to identify specifically the effects that can occur on a~particular site, to propose mitigations specific to those effects and the site, and to provide a means for evaluati~ng the likely sucaess of those measures. Through these engineering, planning, and design mitigations, deveYopment projects will be able to anticipate and avoid or reduce~ground shaking effects before the development is built. IMPACT 3.6/D. Substantial Aiteration to Project Site Landforms. „~ Development of the Project area could result in permanent change to the Pro~ect site~s existing topography, particularly in ~ hillside areas. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the hillsides and ridgelands of surrounding Tri-Valley cities are '"~ 114~eastdub~find(4) 3g ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~. graded and excavated for development projects. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10. `i Mitigation Measures 3.619.0 to 10.0. Adapt improvements to naturaZ landforms in order to minimize required cuts and fills through such techniques as construction of partial pads and use of retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate and properly designed. Further reduce landform alteration by carefully sitinq individual i.mprovements on specific lots after ider~tifying geotechnically feasible building areas and alignments. Site improvements to avoid adverse geotechnical conditions and , the need for remedial grading and use techniques such as clustering where appropriate to minimize grading and/or avoid adverse geotechnical conditions. DEIR page 3~.6-9. 5 . fl-10 . ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~=~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. These mitigation measures provide designi;and engineering techniques which maintain natural landforms to the greatest degree possible, and thereby minimiae alteration of those landforms. The mitigations also require that qeotechnical conditions be identif ied for development projects, allowing individual projects to identify and reduce, or in some cases completely avc~.d, the condition which might otherwise require alteration. IMPACT 3.6/F, G. Grouadwate= =mpacts. Groun~water 2mpacts Associated with Irriqatica. Shallow groundwater conditions occur in places throughout the RPA and could be caused by irrigation associated with development of the RPA. These conditions can adversel~ affect the performance of foundation and pavements, particularly in areas with expansive soils and bedrock. In addition, sMallow groundwater can cause slope instability, including landsliding and fi~l settlement, and can lead to liquefaction of RPA soils. DEIR page 3.6-10. Mitiaa~ion Measures 3.6/11.0 to 13.0. Prepare detailed. a~ design:.=level geotechnical investigations on development projects within the RPA, to locate and characterize groundwater conditions and formulate design criteria and . measures to mitigate adverse conditions. Control ~ graundwater by construction of subdrain systems, remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs in development areas. (See NII~S 3.6/4, 6, 15, 18, 23, and 27 for additional techniques to control soil moisture and maintain slope stability. DEIR page 3.6-8, -11 through -14.) DEiR page 3.6-10 through -11; RC ,$`15-43. 114 \eastdub \ f iud ( 4) 4 0 ~.~ ~l~~ ---. .--• ~ FindinQ. Changes.or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantiall~ lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The geotechnical investigation will identify area5~which have groundwater, and development will proceed in accordance with measures to protect structures and improvements from slope and soil instability due to shallow groundwater. . 2MPACT 3.6/H. 8hrin]~iaq and 8~rellinq of S$pansive.8oils and Bedrock. The Project site contains expansive soils and bedrock, which tend to shrink upon drying and swell upon wetting. This process can;;cause distress to overlying structures and infra- structure, causing damage to foundations, slabs~, and pavements. DESR page 3:6-11. Mitiqation Measures•3.6~14.0 to 16.0. Prepare design ~evel geotechnica7. investigations for development prajects in the Project area to characterize site-specific soils arid bedrock conditions, and to formulate appropriate design criteria and mitigation measnres for those conditions. Such responsive measures include, but are not limited to, controlliaq. moisture in the soils and bedrock, and designing foundations and payements to be built either below the zone of seasonal moisture change, or upoa structurally supportive floors and after removal of the expansive materials. DESE~ page 3.6-11 to -12 :~ Findincr. Changes or alterations have been requ~ired in, or incorpcrated into, the Project that avaid or substantially lessen;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. The design Ievel geotechnical evaluation will identify expansive soils and bedroc}c and insure that special techniques are used in these areas to reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage. IMPACT 3.6/I. Natural Blope Stability. The Project area contains active and dormant landslides, as well as steep slopes and colluvium-filled swales, which are subject to potential slope instability; and could cause damaqe to structures and infra- structure located in these areas. DEIR page 3.6-12. Mitiaation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 19.0. Development projects within'::the Project area should prepare design level geotec~inical investigations to characterize site-specific slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate design.~criteria and mitigation measuras in response to those conditions. Such design measures and mitigations include siting':devel.opment away from unstable landforms and from ~ ~ 114 \eastdub\f ind ( 4 ) 41 "~ ° ~' ! ~~~ ~ ^. ~ slopes::greater than about 30~, and providing lower density development in steep, unstable areas. Where unstable areas cannot~be avoided, design measures and mitigations include ~ removing the unstable material, reconstructing or repairing the unstable area, or engineering structural responses, including subsurface drainage improvements. (See also NIlri 3.6/26.0, recommending maintenance and inspection p7.ans for drainage systems. DEIR page 3.6-14.}' DEIR page 3.6-12 to -13. ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially . lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The design level geotechnical i.nvestigation will disclose areas which may be susceptible to slope instability. Special techniques, such as siting of• structure and improvements, removing the unstable materials, and providing structural remediation, will improve slope stability.' IMPACT 3.6/J. Cut and fill Slope Stability. Potentially unstable cut and f ill slopes may fail or settle, causinq damage to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3.6-13. Mitiqation Measures 3.6/20.0 to 21.0. Require:'~:~grading plans for hillside areas, which plans minimi2e grading and required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural landforms, steppinq structures down steeper slopes, and. demonstrating compliance with applicable building code and ather applicable City and County requirements. DEIR page 3.6-13. ` Mitiaation Measures 3.6./22.0 to 25.0. Detailed design level qeotechnical investigations such as that required by mitigation measure 3.6/.17.0 should describe and evaluate cut and fill slopes proposed for development projects in the RPA. Retaining structures, reinforcement and drainage measures should be provided on cut slopes as determined by code requirements and the specific conditions identified in the geotechnical investiqatiort. IInretained cut_slopes shouldr~generally not exceed 3:1. Filled slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material and provided with sub~drainage prior to placing engineered fill. DEIR pages 3.16-13 to -14. Mitigation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the Project area should prepare plans for the periodic in- spection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features, and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in surface drains and catch basins. (See also measures 114 \esstdub ~ fi:~ad ( ~ ) 4 2 L~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ described in IrIIrI 3.6/28.0.) The plans should include inspection and dispasal procedures, schedule and reporting requirements, and a responsible party, and should emphasize overall long-term Project monitorinq•and maintenance. DEIR page 3 .; 6-14 . Findina. . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen'.the significant effect identified in~the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. The detailed design level geotechni- caI investiqation will identify areas where cut and fill slopes.are proposed. Specific gicading plans affecting these conditions would be required to show haw each development• ~~ project will minimize cut.and fill sl~pes, and how the remaining slopes will be stabilized through siting or engi- neering features. Long-term monitoring and maintenance plans will ensure that the design facilities and engineered features effectively protect the cut and fill slopes over the long term. . IMPACT 3.6/R, L. Erosioa and Sedimentatioa: Construction-xelated and Lonq-Term. Construction of development projects in the RPA will modify;;the ground surface and its protective vegetative cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns; causing sha~:t-term erosion and sedimentation during:::~~onstruction, and long-term erosion and sedimentation once permanent structures and improvements are in place. The long-term impact.is also a significant.cumulative impact as similar sites are developed throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR page. 3.6-14, 5.0-1:2. Mitigation Measure 3.6 27.0. Time grading activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and implement interim control.measures, including but not limited to, providing water bars, mulch and nat blankets on exposed slopes, straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales, sediment traps, and/or silt fences. DEIR page 3.6-14. Mitigation Measure 3.6128.0. Reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc- tion, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface drainage. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited to, constructing sediment catch basins, adequate storm s.ewer systems, stabilizing creek banks, revegetating and main- taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control drainage and runoff, and emphasizing periodic homeowner/ landowner maintenance. (See also HIl~f 3. 6/26. ) DEIR page 3.6-15, 5.0-11. ~ 114\eastdub~fiad(4) 43 ~~ ~ 7~ ~~~" -'~. ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~.;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. These mitigations include measures to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silts on both a short-term and long-term basis, thereby minimizing the identified impact. SeCtioII 3.7 -- Biological ResourCes I1dPACT 3.7/A. Direct 8abitat I,o9s. Under Alternative 2, the Project will result in the loss, degradation, or disturbance of 1900 acres of existing vegetation. Na unique or rare plant species occur in the Project area; however, urbanization wil~ substantially reduce the habitat and range for botanical and wildlife species which are resident or migratory users of the RPA. The Project contributes to the cumulative~, ongoing ~loss of natural habitat in the Tri-Valley region, and is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0- 11, Addendum. :, Mitiqation Measures 3.711.0 to 3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies s-21* and 6-23,* and Action Program 60,* direct~disturbance of trees or vegetation should be minimized and restricted to those areas actually designated for construction of i.mprovements. Development`.:prejects should:include vegetation enhancement/managemerrt.plans for all open space areas identifying ways to enhance the bielogical potential of the area as wildlife habitat and focusing an such measures as reintroducing native species to increase vegetative cover and plant diversity. Development projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed revegetation/restoration plan, developed by a qualified revegetation specialist, for all disturbed areas that are to remain undeveloped. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11. , Mitic~ation Measure 3.?j4.o. The City shall develop and implement grazing management plans to protect riparian and - wetZanc~ areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage the recoveiy of native plants, especially perenniaL grasses. ~ DEIR p2tge 3.7-9, 5.0-11. FindinQ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or _, incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. Restricting direct disturbance to ~~ actual construction areas will reduce the amount of habitat lost. The vegetation and grazing plans will protect and restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat 114\eastdub~fiad(4) 44 46~ ~',~~ ~ ~ ~ loss and to enhance the value of the habitat area remaining. i~ACT 3.7/B. =adirect =mpacts of vegetation Removal. Construction activities on the Project site may cause dust deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased potential for slope failures, and alteration of surface and subsurface drainaqe patterns. DEIR page 3.7-9 to -l0. Mitigation Measure 3.7~5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy;:6-22,* all disturbed areas should be revegetated as quic]c3.y as possible with native trees, shrubs, herbs, and grasses, to prevent erosion. The City shall.determine specific physical characteristics of proposed revegetation areas to earaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed mitigation and to identify potential conflicts at t2ie site. Plants~.:used for revegetation will be native.to the Tri- Va].].ey . Area~. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) ~DEIR page 3.7-10; RC ,~ 13-18. Mitigation Measures 3 6/18.0 22.0. 23.0, and 3.21j1.0. Development should avoid sitin~ on steep slopes and should observe special design and engineering mitigation features where construction occurs on 3:1 or steeper slopes. The City of Dublin shall require dust deposition mitigations duri:ng construction, including but not limited to, watering the construction site, claily clean-up of mud anc~ dust, replanting and repavinq and other measures to =educe wind erosion. DEIR pages 3.6-12 to -13, 3.7-10, 3.1~1-3 to -4. Findind. Changes or alterations have been reqtrired in, or inaorporated~into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~f.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. >~ Rationale for Findinq. Requirinq construction to avoid siting;on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and reduce=erosion i.mpacts. Where disturbance is necessary, engineering and other.techniques to reduce erosion and ~sedimentation and promote slope stability will also ensure that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more efficient and successful. IMPACT 3.7/C. Loss or Deqradatioa of Botanicalip Seasitive Habitat. Direct l~ss and degradation from grading, road construction, and culvart crossings cou~d adversely affect the Project area's unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest, Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats. Indirect itapacts could result from increased sedimentation or spoil deposition affecting stream flow patterns and damaging young seedlings and the~roots oF woody plants. This impact is also a poteritially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7- 10, 5.0-12...`~ ~ 114\eastdub~find(4) 4 5 '~ ~f~b3 ~~~~. ,,.._ .-~.. ~ Mitiqation Measures 3 7/6 0 7 0, and 11.0. Ri~arian and Wetland Areas. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies 6-9,* 6-10,* and Action Program 6E,* natural riparian and wetland areas shall be preserved wherever possible. Al1 development projects,in the RPA shall consult wit,h the Army Corps of Engine.ers (COE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to determine these agencies' jurisdiction over the riparian or wetland area. These areas shall be incorporated into project open space areas. Any lost ripari~n habitat shall be replaced as required by DFG. Any lost wetlands shall be mitigated per COE's "no net loss" policy. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted thraughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10, and -il, 5.0-12. Mitiqation Measures 3 7/8.0 to 10.0. 12.0 to 3.4.0. Pursuant to.Specific Plan Policies 6-11 to 6-13,* and Action Programs 6F to 6H,* the City shall require revegetation of natural stream corridors with native plant species and'preservation and maintenance of natural stream co=ridors in the Project area, through measures including, but not limited to, avoiding underground drainage systems in favor of natural open-stream channels and retention basins. Tlie City shall establish a stream corridor system (see Specific Plan Figure 6.1) to provide multi-purpose open space cerridors for ` pedestrian and wildlife circulation. The City should aZso work with Zone 7 and DFG to develop a stream ca=ridor restor~tion program, with standards for grading,, stabiliza- •- tion, ~nd revegetation, and long-term management;of RPA stream:;channels. Development projects in the RPA are to be reviewed against, and any approval shall be con~istent with, the program standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted tbroughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12, 5.0-12; RC ,~14- 7, 35-25. ~~ ~ Mitiaation Measure 3.7/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6K,* the City of Dublin shall establish and ~ maintain a liaison with state and federal resource manaqe- ~ ment agencies throughout the planning and development process of individual development projects, in order to avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure that specific issues and concerns are recognized and ~ addressed. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted ~hroughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12. _ Mitigation Measures 3.7~16_0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive ~ habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible. Constnlction near drainages shall take place during the dry season:: DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12. ~ Findine't. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. These changes will avoid or 114~eastdub\fi.nd ( 4 ) 4 6 ~r~~ ~~~~ ~ ~, ~ i; substaritially lessen the Project-related significant effects identified in the final EIR. However, these changes will not avoid the cumulative effects of lost or degraded biologically sensitive habitat.` Therefcre, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon ~approval of the Project. Rationale for Findincr. Requiring compliance with "no net loss„ policies will ensure that the amount of habitat shall remain•constant. By incorporating wildlife corridors into Project~plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will not become isolated because wildlife will be ab2e to migrate throuqh these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of natural stream corrido=s can reduce the habitat value of these areas, but will be minimized by requirements to preserve and maintain these corridors in a natural, open condition, and by requirinq construction to take place in the dry season. Any d'i'sturbed streams shall be rebuilt, reconstructed and reveqetated according to the stream corridpr plan, which will further enhance and protect habita~.values in the RPA. Even with these protections for the RPPs's biologically sensitive resource, the cumulative impact;:cannot be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.7/D. .San Joaquin Rit Fou. Construction of new roads and facilities could adversely impact kit'"tox by destroying potential dens or burying foxes occupying dans at tlie .time of constructian. Modification of natural habitat could~reduce available prey and den sites. Increased vehic].e traffic, the presence of humans and domestic dogs, and resident use~of poison for rodent control could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-12 to -13. . Mitiaation Measure 3.7/18.0. The City shall require all development in the RPA to comgly with the East Dublin San Joaquii~ Rit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEIR Part II. Extensive mitigation measures stress siting urhan development to avoid kit fox habitat w~iere possible, and protecting and enhancing tiie habitat which remains primarily in the~:open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations include measures for pre-construction and construction conditions, and address steps to be taken if potential or known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.?-13, DEIR Appendix E (as revised following RC ,~20-7.) Mitiaation Measure 3.7/18.1. The City of Dublin shall work with other agencies to develop a management plan that identifies measures to protect viable habitat for the kit fox in the Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5. ~ ~ 114 \eastdub`find( 4 ) 4 7 ""~ ~r ~ ~ ~~ ~~.~ ~ ~ , .. ,..~. ~. Mitictation Measure 3.7/19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action:Program 6N,* the City shall restrict rodenticide and herbicide use. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-13. . Findina. Chai~ges or altexations have been required in, or inc~rporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially l~essen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Appendix E provides a comprehensive protection plan addressing several phases of kit fox protection, from avoidance of potential dens to maintenance of habitat. Through this plan, the Project will avoid most direct~':and indi~ect adverse effects on any kit fcx that might be present in the Project area. . :~. IMPACTB 3.7JF to T. xed-legged Frog, California Tiqer Salamaader,~Western Pond Turtle, Tri-COlored Blackbird. The destruction~.:and alteration of water impoundments and stream courses in the RPA threatens to eliminate habitat for these species. Iricreased sedimentation into the riparian areas could reduce water qual.ity arid threaten breeding and larval habitat. Disturbance of the already minimal vegetation in the stream courses could reduce habitat opportunity for adult species. Increased vehicle traffic and new road construction could increase direct mortality. Iiarassment and predation.~..by feral dogs and cats already occurs, and would increase with increased residential development. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14. Mitiqation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Actioh Program~6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop- ment p~ojects in the RPA shall prepare open space plans to enhance and preserve existing habitat and revegetation plans for any disturbed open space or habitat areas and shall preserve and protect riparian, wetland, and stream corridor areas whenever possible. (See 1~Ss 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.) Maintain a minimum buffer of at least 100 feet around breeding sites of the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and Western pond turtle. Development projects in the"RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within sixty .days prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-14. ~~ Findinct. Changes or alterations have been required in, or ~ incoxparated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~; Rationale for Findinct. Open space protection, revegetation, and restoration planning, as weZl as planning to protect and enhance wetland and riparian areas will also protect and 114 \ea stdu)~ ~f iad ( 4) 4 8 r~ , ~I6 6 ~ 5~ ~ ~. ~ ~ mini.mize impacts to the riparian habitat necessary for the species identified in this impact. IMPACTB 3.7/K. Golden Eagle.: The conversion of grasslands and the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Noise and human activity associated with development could also disrupt foraging activities. Eliinination of golden eagle foraging habi- tat is also.a potentially significant cumulative impact which contributes.to the overaZl regional loss of foraging habitat far this species. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-12. ~Mitiaaticn Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of ~land in the Project area as Open Space or Rura1 Residential (including future study areas), providing opea space proteetion and low intensity development that will also provide a suitable foraginq habitat. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-12. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen :the significant effect identified in~ the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinct. Providing a natural open space zone around;:the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of the nesting site; providing an additional buffex.during the golden;eagle reproductive period further protects the integrity of the existing nesting site. The natural open space zone, together with the over acres of open. space and low intensity development across the,~Project site provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging habitat for golden eaqles. IMPACT 3.7/L. Golden Eaqle and Other Raptor Electrocutions. Golden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly into high- voltage transmission lines may be electrocuted. DEIR page 3.7-15. ~ Mitigation Measures 3.7L26.0 and 3 4f42 O. Require all utilitYes to be located below grade where feasible. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6M,* require all ~.~ transmission lines to be undergrounded where feasible. V~here not feasible, design specifications to protect raptor.s from eTectrocution shall be implemented. These specifica- *~" tions include, but are not limited to~ spacing dangerous ~, components; insulating conductors,.using non-conductive materials, or providing perch guards on cross arms; and ~ avoiding grounded steel cross arm braces. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7- `~' 15 to -16. 114~eastdub\find(4) 49 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the sigriificant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Undergrounding utilities, including all transmission lines, avoids the electrocution hazard. ~ Where the hazard cannot be avoided through undergrounding, the design specifications identified in the mitiqations reducer;the electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or coveririg the features that provide opportunities for ~ electrocution. =MPgCT 3.7/H, N. Burro~inq O~al and .American Badqer. Annual grassla~ds in the.F~PA provide suitable habitat for burr~winq owls. Development and related construction activity could destroy both burrowing owl and American badger burrows. Iiarass- ment by feral dogs and cats, as well as use of poisons for rodent control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-16 to -17. Mitiaation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0. Pursuant to Specific P1an.Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop- ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within sixty days prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species. The projects shall maintain a minimum buffer of at least 30d~-~feet around the breeding sites of the American badger during the breeding season (March to September) to avoid d~irect loss of individuals. Also, projects shall maintain a minimum buffer of at Ieast 300 feet around knawn or identifie~~'nesting sites of the burrowing owl, or implement other mitigation actions pur.suant to standardized protocol now under development,.including relocation of nesting sites in coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and -17; RC #15-60. ' Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. The pre-constnaction survey and required buffer zone araund known nesting and breeding sites preserves these species' burrows by allowing them to be avoided during the construction and development process. IMPACT 3.7/O. Prairie Falcoa, Northern Harrier, and Black- Shouldered ~ite. Development in the RPA could cause loss of foraging habitat. DSIR.page 3.7-17. 114\eastdub\fiud(4) 50 ~~g ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Mitiaation Mea~sure 3.7~25.0. Substantial areas of land in the Project area are designated for Open Space and low intensity Rural Residential larid uses (including future study areas). DEIR pages 3.7-15 and -17. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect ic~entified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findiria. The designated open space and low intensity rural residential uses provide adequate foraging habitat for these species. IMPACT 3.?/P. Bharp-Bhinned Hawk and Cooper's 8a~-k. Development in the ~2PA could cause loss of fo=aging habitat. DEIR page 3.7- 17. • Mitiqation Measures 3.7/6.0 through 17.0 and 21.0. Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh- water marsh habitats to protect and enhance sensitive habita~s. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream carridor areas;;:where avoidance of these areas is not feasible, prepare and implement habitat restoration, enhancement and maintenance plans. DEIR pages 3.7-10 to -12, -14, -17. .~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been reqtr3:red in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or•substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the;Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The mitigations provide~• preservation, enhancement and maintenance features for riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which these species rely for forage. Protecting and enhancing this habitat avoids the impact of lost habitat. IMPACT 3.7/s. Special status Invertebrates. Impacts to special status invertebrates cannot be estimated at this time. DEIR page 3.7-18.. ~~' -i i~ Mitiga~ion Measure 3.7J28.0. Species-specif ic surveys shall be conducted.in appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior to appzoval of spe~cific projects in the RPA. DEIR page 3.7- 18, Addendum. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Any potential impacts to Special Status Invertebrates will be addressed during CEQA review of ~ specific development projects in the RPA. 114 ~eastdnb \fiad (4 ) 51 -'~ ~• ~ k~.:. ~f~g ~r~ ~ Section 3.8 -- Visual Resources IMPACT 3.8/A. Staadardised '•Tract~~ Development. Generic "cookie-cutter" development could obscure the specific natural features of the RPA, such as its landforms, vegetation, and watercourses, that make it a unique place with its own identity. DEIR page 3;8-4. ~ Mitiaation Measure 3.8j1.0. Pursuant to the gaal statement in Speeific Plan Section 6.3.4,* establish~a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corrido=s and public spaces:; Implement the extensive design guidelines for development as described in Chapter 7* of the Specific Plan. These guidelines provide a flexible design framework, but do not compromise the community character as a whole. - (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5. Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or ~incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale~for Findina. By protecting key natural and visual elements, the Project anaintains the natural features of the RPA, which make it unique. The general design.guidelines for the Project, including a village center, tawn center, mixed use orientation, and varying lot sizes,;provide a varied~'development pattern, which avoids the lool~ of standard cookie-cutter tract developments. IMPACT 3.8/8. Alteration of Rural/~pen Space 4isual Character. Urban development of the RPA will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize eastern Dublin. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced by urban development. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.10-12. Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0. Implement the land use plan for the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant ~-~ natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and preserves the sense of openness that characterizes Eastern Dublin.; DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.0-12. ,~~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Pr~jeat. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially Iessened. Therefore, a Statement of overridinq Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 114\eastdub\fiad(4) 52 ~7d ~~8 ~ ~ :~ ~ Rationale for F~.ndina. Maintaining predominant natural ~~ features miniinizes the alteration og the RPA's current rural open space character; however, it does not fully mitigate this impact. , IMPACT 3.8/C. Obacuri.ag Distiactive Natural Features. The characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the visual importance of existing trees, watercourses, and other salient natural and cultural features. The Project has the potential to obscure or alter these existing features and thereby reduce the visual uriiqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5. Miticxation Measure 3.8~3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-28,*.preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen;~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Ration~le for Findina. This mitigation measure calls for preservation of the RPA's important visual resources, thereby avoiding the impact of obscured or altered visually important features. ~ . IMPACT 3.8/D. Hlteration of ~'isual Quality of Hillsides. Gradinq and excavation of building sites in hillsid~ areas will severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA...:•DEIR page 3.8-6. Mitiaation Measures 3.8/4.0 to 4.5_. Pursuant to Specific Plan P~olicies 6-32,* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and excavation throughout the RPA should be minimized, by using such grading features as gradual transitions from graded ares to natuzal slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by maintaining natural contours as much as possible and grading only the actual development areas. Buildinq pads in hillsic~e areas should be graded individually or stepped, wherever possible. Structures and roa.dways should be designed in response to the topographical and geotechnical conditions. Structures should be designed to blend in with surrounding slopes and topography and the he~.ght and grade of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever feasible. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-6. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Preject that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 114 ~east.ciub \f ind ( 4) 5 3 ~ , ~7/ ~5g. ~~ ~~ ~ Rationale for Findina. The various grading techniques identified, together with revegetation and sensitive ~ buildinq design will avoid the impact by mi.nimizing physical ~ altexation throughout the RPA. =~iPACT 3.8/$. Aiteration of Visual Quality of Ridqes. - Structures built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile•,of visually-sensitive ridgelines. DEIR page 3.8-6. ~ Mitigation Measures 3.8j5.0 to 5.2. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-29,* development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the Specific Plan area to the north" and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and ___ ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main ' ridgeline by individual building masses may be permitted only where all other remedies have been exhausted. Pursuant ~ to Specific Plan Policy 6-30* and General Plan Amendment -~ Guiding Policy E, structures shall not obstruct scenic views and shall not appear to extend above an identified scenie ridgetop when viewed from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan .. pravisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated.into, ttie Project that avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Prohibiting development along the main ridgeline in the RPA preserves the visual~~~quality oF this.resource. Limiting development.so that structures are not si3:houetted aqainst other scenic ridgetops•h. as well as requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain visible, minimizes the obstruction or fragmentation of visually sensitive ridgelines. _ IMPBCT 3.8/F. Alteratioa of Visual Character of Flatlands. Commercial and residential development of the RPA's flatlands will completely alter the existing visual character resulting from valley grasses and agriculturai fields. DEIR page 3.8-7. Mitigation Measures. None identified. DEIR page 3.8-7. Findina. No changes or alterations are availakile to suY~stantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. Development of the Project site's flatter areas is regarded as a"trade-off" measure desiqned to preserve slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines. 114\eastdub~find(4) 54 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~. IMPACT 3.8/G. Alteration of the Visual Character of 1Pater- coursas. Urban development of the Project site in proximity to watercourses may diminish or eliminate their visibility and function as;;distinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7. Mitigation Measure 3.816.0. PurSuant ta Specific Plan Policy.6-39,* protect the visual character of Tassajara Creek and other stream corridors fzom unnecessary alteratian or disturbance. Adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to the stream corridors. Implement earlier identified mitigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and 13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream corridor restoration program, and to establish dedication of land along both sides of stream corridors. (*Specific Plan pravisions adopted tYiroughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8, 3.7-10 to -11. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorp~orated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Preserving the retain both their visibility and funct; landscape elements. Special attention through revegetation, restaration, and along both sides, will further enhance landscape element. RPA watercourses will ion as distinct to stream corridors dedication- of land this distinct IMPACT 3.8/I. Scenia Vistas. Development on the RPA will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines. DEIR page 3.8-8. Mitiqation Measure 3.8/7.0 to 7.1. Pursuant to Specific Plan policy 6-5* and other EIR mitigations, preserve views _ of designated open space areas. The City will conduct a visual survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of 5CPI11C vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen:.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ Rationale for Findina. Identifying and mapping critical viewsheds allows the City to consider specific ways of preserving those views whan reviewing development projects within~the RPA. IMAGE 3.8/J. Scenia Routes. Urban development of the RPA will significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic 114 \eastdub ~f ind ( 4) 5 5 -"'" ~ 73 -~5~. routes in eastern Dublin. As quiet suburban thoroughfares, foreground obstructed. DEIR page 3.8-8 to -9. rural roads become major and distant views may be Mitigation Measure 3.8f8.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Proqram 6Q,* the City should officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580, and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, should adopt scenic corridor policies, and should establish development review procedures and standards to preserve scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9. ~ Miticiation Measure 3.8/8.1. Pursuant to Specific Plan „ Action Program 6R,* the City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed visual analysis with development project applications. The analysis shall include graphic siunulations and/or sections '' drawn from affected travel corridors and representing typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Establishing scenic car.,ridor policies will insure that the visual experience::.of travelers aZong scenic routes be maintained as much as possible. Requiring visual analyses will allow the City to specifi- cally review development projects for their visual impacts. and to review how locations of structures and assaciated landscaping can be used to adjust the project design to minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes. 8ection 3.9 -- Cultnral Resources IMPACT 3.9/A. Disruption or Destructioa of Zdentified . Prehistoria!~Resources. Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA,z,it is assumed that all prehistoric sites identified in the 1988~inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. DEIR page 3.9-6. Mitigation Measures 3.~ 1.0 to 4.0. Develop a testing program to determine the presence or absence of hidden _~ deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All ~ locations containing these components shall be recorded with - the State of California and their borders will be staked so ~ that professional survey teams may develop accurate location maps. If any of these recorded and mapped locations are affected by future construction or increased access to the areas, evaluative testing, consisting of co~lecting and 114~eastdub\find(4) 56 ~~~~~~~ ~ ._. ~.. ~ analyzing any surface cancentration of materials, shall be undertaken in order to prepare responsive mitigation measures. The City shall hire a qualified archaeologist to develop a protection program for prehistoric sites con- taining significant surface or subsurface deposits of cultural materials in areas where development will alter the current condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 to -7. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or inaorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findincr. Through these mitigations, prehistoric resources can~be identified and mapped, and specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of development projects that will affect the resources. IMPACT 3.9/B. Disruptioa or Destructioa of IInidentified Pre- gistoria Resources. Previously unidentified pre-historic resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption or destruction by construction and development activities associated with the Project. DEIR ~age 3.9-7. • Miticration Measures 3.9/5.0 to 6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 5-25* and Action Program 6P,* cease any grading or construction activity if historic or prehi.storic remains are discovered until the significance and 'extent of those remains can be ascertained by a certified archaealogist. Development projects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo- gical site sensitivity determination and detai~ed research and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, and develop a mitiqation plan. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen fihe significant effect identified in the Fi.nal EIR. Rationale.for Findinct. These mitigations will i.nsure that any significant prehistoric resources which are discovered during'~~development activities are not disrupted or destroyed. - IMPACT 3.9/C... Disruption or Destruction of Ideatified Historic Resources. c~Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA, it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988 inventory w~ll be disturbed or altered in s~me manner. Even cultural resources in the proposed Open Space and Rural Residen- tial areas will potentially be disturbed or altered due to the presence of new residential population in the area. DEIR page 3.9-8. 114~eastdub~fi.nd(4) 57 ~~s -~~;~ Miti.gation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies 6-26* and 6-27* and other mitigations identified in the EIR, all properties with historic resourees and all standinq structural remains shall be evaluated by an architectural historian~as part of in-depth archival research to determine the significance of the resource prior to any alteration. All historic locations in the 1988 inventory shall be recorded on official State of California historical site inventory forms. These records should~'be used to make sure that historical locations are recorded~onto development maps by professional surveyors. Where the disruption of historical resources is unavoidable, encourage the adaptive reuse ar restoration of the struc- tures whenever feasible. A qualified architectural historian shall be hired to develop a preservation program for historic sites found to be significant under Appendix R of the.CEQA guidelines. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ., Rationale for FindinQ. Archival research and.recordation of historical sites on state inventory forms will.insure that historical resources are identified throughout,;:the Project area. ::Encauraging adaptive reuse or restoration of historic structures and development of a preservation program for historic sites will insure that identified resoizrces are not disturbed or destroyed. .. I1dPACT 3.9/D. Disxnption or Destruction of IInideatified Historic Resources. Previousiy unidentified historic resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption or destruction by construction and development activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-8. Mitiaation Measures 3.9/5_0 to 7_0, 9_O, lO.Os_ and_12.0. These previously identified mitigation measures will be used to ascertain the presence of unidentified historic resources on a development project site in the RPA. If a historic resouree is identified, archival research shall-be performed to determine the significance of the resource or structure. The City shall hire a qualified architectural histarian to develop a preservation program for significant historic sites.;: DEIR page 3.9-7 ta -9. Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 1Z4~eastdub\fiad(4) 58 ....~ . ~ .~ ~~~ ~ ~~`- .:; . r; Rationale for Findincr. Mitigations:will ensure that any significant historic resources which are discovered during development activities are not disrupted or destroyed. 8ectioa 3.10 -- Noise =MPACT 3.to/A. Exposure of Proposed 8ousiaq to Future Roadway Noise. Proposed residential housinq along Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road; and.Hacienda Drive will be exposed to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3.10- 2. Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0. Require acoustical studies for all resider-tial development proj~cts within the future.CNEL 60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced to 45 dB. ;. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Praject that avoid or substantially lessen~,°~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. l: Rationale for Findina. The required acoustical studies must show haw interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL, the minimum acceptable noise level. =MPACT 3.10/S. Bgposure of Esistinq Residences to F:titure Roadway Noise. Increased traffic noise on local roads would•.result in significant~cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara.(4 dB), Fallon (6dB), and Hacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a potentially significant cumulative impact in that small indivi- dual Project noise increases considered together and over tb.e long term, will substantially increase overall noise levels. DEIR page 3:~10-3, 5.0-13. MitiQation Measures 3.1Oj2.0. All development projects in the RPA shall provide noise barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR page 3:10-3. ;, ~ Mitiaation Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cwnulative noise impacts, the City shall develop a noise mitigation fee to pay for on- and off-site noise mitigations, including but not limited to, noise barriers, earthen berms, or retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows. DEIR page 5:0-13. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval af the Project. ~ 114 ~ea stdub\fiiid ( 4) 5 9 ~. t~r, ,~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~r :~ ~ Rationale for Findina. Providing noise barriers or berms wi11 reduce noise exposure for existing residences; however, mitigaticn may not be feasible at all locations because of site constraints such~as driveways and proximity tc road- ways. Furthernnore, while developers will provide funding for noise mi.tigations to reduce overall noise levels, funds derived from the experimental program may not adequately mitigate the cumulative i.mpact. Therefore, this noise i.mpact ~.cannot be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.10/D. 8aposure of Proposed Residential Devalopment to Hoise trom Future Military Traiainq activities at Parks Reserve Forcea Traininq Area iCamp Parks RFT~) and the County Jail. Residential develogment on the Project site within 6000 feet of Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be exposed to noise impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights: DEIR page 3.10-4. Miticsation Measure 3.1013.0. The City shall require an acoustical study prior to future development in the Faothill Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and Hacienda Gateway subareas (as defined in Figure 4.2 of the Speci.fic Plan) to determine whether future noise iaipacts from Camp Parks and.the county jail will be within accept- able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all potential noise generating operations, DEIR pa~g~.3.10-4. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially les~sened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. T~e required acoustical study will identify noise sensitive areas in the Project site and noise generating operations at Camp Parks and the jail and will propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptable limits. However, mitigation may not be possi.ble at all critical locations, so the impact may not be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.10~E. Esposure of Egisting and Proposed Residences ta Construction Noise. Construction would occur over years on the Pro7ect site and will be accompanied by n~ise from truck activity on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving, impact noises during structural framing, and pile driving. Construction impacts will be most severe near existing residen- tial uses along Tassajara Road and near existing uses in the southern portion of the Project area. DEIR page 3.10-4. 114\eastdub~fi.nd(4) 6 0 ~ ~~ ~5s ~ _ ,.__.. , ~ 'e ' Mitiaation Measures 3.10/4.0 to 5.0. Development proj~ects in the RPA~shall submit a Constructian Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existinq residents. The Prog=ain shall include a schedule for grading and other major noise-generatinq~activities, limiting these activities to the shortest pcssible number of days. Other noise mitiqation measures include, but are not limited to, restrictinq hours of construction activity, developing construction vehicle access routes which miniiaize truck traffic through residential areas, and developing a mitiqa~ion plan for construct~ion traffic that can~not .be avcided in residential areas... In addition,.all development- related operations should comply with local noise standards, including li.mit.ing activity to daytime hours, muffling stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. DEIR page 3.10- 4 to -5. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~. Rationale for Findincr. Through these mitigation measures, developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise ' exposure experienced by existing residences in'~~.GOnstruction . areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by movinq the noise-generating equipment as far away from residential uses as pos.si.ble. . ~r, IMPACT 3.10,~F. Noise Confliats due to the Adjacenay of Diverse Land IIses Permitted,by Plan Policies 8upportinq Mixed-IIse ' Development: The presence of different land use types within the ~ same deve7.opment creates the possibility of noise impacts between adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land ` uses abut. ;:DEIR page 3.10-5. ~Iit'iaation Measure 3.10/6.0. Development projects in the RPA shal2 prepare noise management plans to be reviewed as part of the development application for all mixed use projects involvinq residential uses and non-residential uses.. To be prepared by a qualified acoustical.consultant, the.plan should aim to provide a high qual'ity acoustic erivironment for residential and non-residential users and should propose steps to minimize or avoid potential noise problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi- dents, non-residential users, and rnaintenance personnel, and shculd •make maximinn use .of site planning to avoid ncise conflicts: DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6. ;: 114~eastdub\fitid(4) 61 """ ~i ~~ `75g ^~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The required noise management plans allcw both the devel.oper and the City to anticipate possible noise conflicts in mixed-use developments and to propose ' specific measures to address the specific conflicts identi- fied. :Occurring at an early stage in the process and reviewed with the development~application, projects can make . use of•:the greatest array ef conflict reducing techniques, including building design and site planning. Compliance with tliese mitigations will lessen or avoid potential noise conf~licts from adjacent mixed uses. . IMPACT 3.11/A. Dnst Deposition 8oilinq Nuisance from eonstruction Activity. Clearing, grading, excavation, and unpaved roadway travel related to project construction will generate particulate matter which may settle out near the construction sites, creating a soiling nuisance. Any additional dust pollution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status for particulates. Dust emissions is therefore also a potentially significant cumulative iinpact. DEIR page 3.11-3, 5.0-13. Mitiqation Measure 3.11/L 0. Require develapment projects in ttie ~Project area to implement dust control :~'measures, including but not limited to, watering construction sites, cleaning up mud and dust carried by construction vehicles, effective covers on haul trucks, planting, repaving•, and other revegetation measures on exposed soil sur€aces, avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment, limiting an-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate matter':levels. These measures will reduce project dust deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.iZ-3 to -4, 5.0-I3. Findine. Changes or alterations have been required in, or -~ incorporated into the Project. However, even with these _ changes, cumulative dust generation impacts will not be - substantially avo'ided. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding ~ Considerations must be adopted upon approval of-the Project. Rationale for Findinq. The mitigation measures identify various feasible and reasonable dust control measures that •a ,develo~ers can take during construction activity. These measures eliminate and/or minimize the amount and effect of dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these .~ measures, however, some small amount of additional pollution will occur. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of dust emissions cannot be fully mitigated. 114~eastdub\find(4) 62 ~ ~I ~' ~- ~T~~? ~": _~' r., IMpACT 3.11,~.8. Constzuction Equipment/Dehicle Emisaions. Construction equipment operation generates daily exhaust emissions. Normally considered a temporary impact, buildout of the Project'~area over the long term will be a chronic source of equipment/vehicle emissions. This is also a potentially signifi- cant cumulative impact due to the non-attainment status of the air basin. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13. Mitication Measures 3.11/2.0 to 4.0. ~ Minimize construction interference with reqional non-Pro~ect traffic movement by scheduling and routing construction traffic to non-peak times and locations. Provide ride-sharing incentives for construction personnel. Require routine low-emission tune- ups for on-site equipment: Require development projects in the Project area to prepare a Construction Impact Reduction Plan incorporating all proposed air quality initiqation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. The mitigations includ~:.canstruction timing and siting measures that will reduce eq~zipment and vehicle emissions over the long-term buildout i~f the Project. Even with these mitigations, however;: neither Project nor cumulative air quality impacts can-,be fu~lly mitigated. IMPACT 3.11/,C. Mobile Seurce Emissians: ROG or NOs. Project implementation at full buildout will generate 500,000 daily automobile trips within the air basin. Mobile source emissions for ROG and~:.NOx associated with these vehicle trips are precursors to azone formation. The emissions associated with this level of vehicle use will far exceed BAAQMD thresholds for significant=effe.ct. This is also a potentially significant cumulative Ympact. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14. Mitictation Measures 3.11/5.0 to 11.0. Exercise interagency cooperation on a subregional and regional basis to integrate local air quality planning efforts with transportation, transit and other infrastructure plans. Implement techni- ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM), shifting travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixad- use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle trips and related emissions and congestion. At the development Project level, maintain consistency between ~,~ 114~eastdub~fi:ad(4) 63 ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ specific development plans and regional transportation and growth manageznent plans, coordinate levels of growth with roadway tr.ansportation facilities and improvements, and ~ require linkage between housing growth and job oppartunities to achieve a positive subregional jobs/housing balance. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14. ~ Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the i_mpact will not be avoided or substantially ~ lessened. Therefore, a Statement of ~verriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. The various techniques described in ~ the mitigation measures provide opportunities to reduce vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions. However, because of the size of this Project, neither • Project nor cumulative impacts can be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.11/8. 8tationary 8ource Emissiens. Specific Plan buildout will create emissions from a variety of sources, including but not limited to, fuel combustion in power plants, evaporative:emissions from paints, and subsurface decay of organic materials associated with solid waste disposal. This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-6, 5.8-14. Mitiaation Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.0. Minimize stationary source~emissions associated with Project development where feasible, with the goal of achieving 10 percent above.the ~ miniinum conservation target levels established in Title 24 of the'.California Code of Regulations. Include solid waste recycling in all development planning. DEIR page 3.11-6, 5.0-14. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes., the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for FindinQ. F~cusirig on reducing eiaissions from various sources will allow an incremental reduction in statioriary source emissions. These reductions will not, however, be sufficient to avoid either Project-related or cumulative impacts. , 114\eastdub~fiad(4) 64 ~~ ~ ~^'` ^ ~ 't' 8@Ct3.0II 2 $I~NIRONlRS11TALLY INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The City Council.finds that all other impacts of the proposed Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. No mitigation is required f~r these insignificant impacts. 114\eastdub\fiad(4) 65 G83 ~7 5~ ~. 8ection 3 FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES The City Council is adoptinq Alternative 2(with minor changes) described in~tlie Final EIR in place of the originally prop4sed Project. TYie City hereby finds the remaining three alternatives identified and described in the Final EIR were considered and are found to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other cansiderations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Section 21081, subdivision (c). The City also declines to adopt the Project as originally proposed for the reasons set forth below. TSL ORIGINALI,Y PROPOS]3D PROJECT. Section 210s1, subdivisicn (c) does nat require the City Council to make findings as to why the originally proposed Project was not adopted. Such findings need only be made as to project alternatives which would mitigate significant environmental effects. A],ternative 2 has no significant.environmental effects which could be avoided by adapting the originally proposed project in its stead. Rather, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 wi11 pose no significant environmental..effects that would not be posed at.least to the same extent (and~~often to a greater extent) by the Project as originally proposed. Public~~Resources Code section 21085 prohibits.gublic agencies from reducing the proposed number of housing units as a project alternative pursuant to CEQA for a particular significant affect on the environmeht if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. The Project as adopted does indeed involve a reduction of the number of housing units than were originally proposed, both because the Project as adopted does not provide for residential development in the Livermore Munici:pal Air.port Protection Zone and because the Project as adopted~only involves residentia~ development ap~roxima~tely two-thirds of the area originally proposed for development. Moreover, these reductions do result in mitigation of some significant environmental impacts, especially impacts on Doolan Canyon. `~ The prohibition of residential development within the Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone is adopted in order to comply with Public Utilities Code section 21676 and the .-. decision of`the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to that action to prohibit residential development in 114\eastdub~find(4) 66 ~~~ ' l~~ ~A .~ ~ ~ the Zone. This prohibition is, thus, not adopted merely as a mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA. The City also finds that no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures will provide the level of mitigation of significant environmental effects as are provided by the adoption of Alternative 2 rather than the project as originally proposed. Alternative 2 will leave Doolan Canyon in its current largely undeveloped state, thereby mitigating significant i.mpacts involving loss of open space, and biologically sensitive habitat in a way that could not be accomplished by any mitigation measure or alternative were Doolan Canyon in fact developed as originally proposed. ALTERNATIVB 1: NO PROJECT. DEIR pages 4-1 to 4-8, 4-20 Findina: Infeasible. This option assiimes the Project as proposed would not be built on the site; instead any developmant would be pursuant to,the existing general plan. Under that plan, a limited amount of business park/industrial development could occur on the 60o acre County property and on the 200 acre portion of the Project area south of the proposed Dublin Boulevard extension. The No Project Alternative is fotind to be.infeasible because the City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublz;n-area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a:Specific Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative fails to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. ALTERNATIVE 3: REDIICSD 7~AND Q3L INT$NSITIEB. DEIR pages 4-14 to 4-19 Finding: Infeasible. This option assumes development of both the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment except that 285 acres of higher traffic generating commercial uses will be replaced with lower traffic qenerating residential uses. The Reduced Lanci Use Intensities alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: - (1) Airport Safetv. This a3.ternative will increase the number of housing units within the Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone. (p. 4-15j. (2) IInavoidable impacts. Even with the reduced intensiti.es of this alternative, all the unavoidable impacts identified for the Project would remain except traffic impacts at I-58o, I- 680/Hacienda, at I-580, Tassajara/Airway, at Airway 114~eastdub~fiad(4) 67 _~ ~ ~g~ %~ ~ --~. ~ Boulevard/Dublin Dublin Boulevard I5. Boulevard and cumulative traffic impacts on (Impacts 3.3/B, C, J, and M). DEIR Page 4- (3) Fiscal impacts. This alternative may have potentially significant fiscal impacts on the City budqet's cost/revenue balance by reducing commercial development which generally generates ~ess service costs and more property tax revenues ~ than housing. These potential impacts can be mitigated. However, any mitigating revenues raised would have to be shared;mitigation for capital facilities, possibly reducinq the amount of revenue available for both the budqet and capital ~facility programs. (page 4-19, 3.12-2 to -4). ALTERNATIQE 4e NO DEVELOPMENT. DEIR page 4-19 Findinq: Infeasible. This alternative asswnes no developmer-t of ~- the Project;site beyonti existing conditions, assumes no annexa- tion and therefore no application of even the current General Plan. The No Development alternative is found to be infeasible because the City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a Specific Plan. In addition, the No Development Alternative fails to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housirig Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan documents of the Ci~y and other jurisdictions in th~ area. (page 4-19 to -20). ~ 114\eastdub~find(4) 68 ~ ~15g "~ .-~. ~ Sectian 4 :~ BTATEMSNT OF OVSRRIDING C~NSIDERATION3 1. Geaeral. Pursuant to~CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of:Dublin makes the following Statement of overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the eastern Dublin Project to the City. of Dublin against the adverse impacts identified in the EIR as significant and potentially significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level af insignificance. The City Council,~acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that the benefits,.of the Project outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved- ~ The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to adopt the Project and to allow urbanization of the eastern;Dublin Project area. Although the City~:Council believes that many of the unavoidable envirorunental:'effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessenecY by mitiga- tion measures incorporated inta the General Plan Amend~nent, Specific Plan, and future development plans as well as future mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations which support approval of the Project. The City Council further f inds that any one of the overriding considerations identified herein- after in subsection 3 is sufficient basis to approve-the Project as mitigated. 2. IInavoidable Sianificant Adverse Im~acts , The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed Project as identified in the Final Environment~l Impact Report for the Project, which consists of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, Parts I and II (Appendix}, dated August 28, 1992; Cornments and Response to Comments, dated ~ ~ 114~eastdub~find(4) 69 ~ ~ ~$~ ~ ~5~ .~. December 7 and December 21, 1992; letter of December 15, 1992 from DKS Associates to Laurence Tong; and the Addendum to draft EIR dated May 4, 1993. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by chanqes or alterations to.the Project. Land Use Impact 3.1J F. Cumulative Loss of Aqricultural and Open Space Lands. Even with mitiqation, the Project would still result in the loss of a large area of open space. This loss is cumulatively significant, given the loss of numerous other•areas of open space in the area. No feasible mitiqation measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development.Alternative, both of which have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). RC #34-9. Traffia and Circulation Impact 3.31B: I-58~ Freeway, I-680- Hacienda. Even with mitigation, the Level of Service on I-580 between I-680 and Dougherty Road could exceed Level~of Service E, the mini.mum acceptable level of service. No feasible mitigatian measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificanca, since the freeway has already been widened to its maximum practical capacity. Project alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see=Sectian 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-21, 5.0-16). ~ Traffic and`~Circulation Impact 3.3/E: Cumulative Fr~ewav Im~acts. Ever~ with mitigation, portions of I-580 will operate~ at Level of Service F~urider the Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance is the No Development Alternative. This altexnative has been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-22, 5.0-16) ,.~ Traffic and Circulation Imt~act 3.3/I: Santa Rita Road and I-580 ~- Eastbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project will cause Level~of Service F operations at this intersection. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact ~'~ to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce this•:.impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These ,, alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 ~ above). (DEIR pages 3.3-26, 5.0-16) . Traffic and~:Circulation Imt~act 3.3/M: Cumulative Impacts on . ~ Dublin Boulevard. Cumulative Buildout with the Pro~ect will cause Level~`:of Service F operations at the Hacienda Drive intersectiori and Level of Service E operations at the Tassajara 114\eastdnb\fiad(4) 7 0 ~-l~ `~ ~'/ 5 ~ C~' ~ ~1` ~ ~. Road intersection. No feasible mitigation measures are available to =educe this impact to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be~xnfeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3- 27, 5.0-16) ~ Utilitv Extensions. The extension of qas, electric and telephone service lines onto the Project site is necessary for development and will require new distribution systems or substantial exten- sions of existinq systems onto undeveloped lands cur=ently in agricultural and open space uses. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this growth inducing impact to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce thi~ inipact to a 2evel of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.U-16). Community Services and Facilities Impact 3 4/S• Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources. Natural Gas and electrical service wouid increase consumption of non-renewable natural resources. ~Requiring energy conservation plans provides partial mitigation.~ However, because energy use will still.increase, the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificanee. Project alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development•Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). DEIR page 3.4-25. Sewer. Water, and Storia Drainaae Impact 3.~ F.H.U: Increases in Enerav Usacte Throuah Increased Water Treatment and Disposal and Thorouqh Operation of the Water Distributi~n System. Increased Wastewater Flows to and from the Project will require increased energy. Using energy efficient water distribution treatment, and disposal systems provides partial mitigation. However, because energy use will still increase, the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce this impact:`to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternatives;and the No Development Alternative. .These alterna- tives have l5een found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). DEIR pages 3.5-8 to -10. water distribution system will induce signi Project area. No feas~ible mitigations are this impaet to a level of insignificance. alternatives which could reduce this impact ulation. The proposed ficant growth in the available to reduce The on ly Proj ect to a level~ of 114 ~eastdub \ f ind ( 4) 71 ~"" ^, insignif icax~ce are the No Development~alternative. be infeasible (see Section 15). Project alternative and These alternatives have 3 above). (DEIR, pages 4~ ~75~ ~ the No been found to 3.5-20, 5.0- Shakina. Primary Effects. Development of the RPA will expose " more residents to the risk of potentially large earthquakes on active fault zones in the reqion, which could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and, in extreme cases, loss of ~. life. Using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral force in construction of clevelopment projects, and building in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and applicable local code requirements will partially mitigate this impact. However, `" the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternative which could zeduce this impact to a level of insignificance is the No Development alternative. This ~-• alternative`has been found to be infeasible (see Section 3. above). {DEIR page 3.6-7.) Bioloqical Resources Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Deqradation of ~ ~ Botanically'Sensitive Habitat. Development of the RPA will result in a'=significant loss and deqradation of biologically sensitive habitat. As described in section 1, mitigation measures will partially reduce this impact. However, because biologically sensitive habitat will still be lost,•::the impact . cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The anly Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance is the Nv Development alternative. ~:~his alternative has been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.7-10,,5.0-11). Project development will permanently alter the existing rural, agricultural character of the Pr~ject area. Although the highest ridgelines will be preserved as open space, the visual character of the rounded Iower foothills along I-580 will be altered by construction of homes and roads. No feasible mitigations are available to reduce these visual impacts to a level of insignifi- cance. The;only Project alternative which could reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance is the No Develapment alternative:= This alternative has been found to be infeasible (see Sectioii 3 above). (pages 3.8-5, -7, 5.0-17). Noise Impact 3.10/B:_Exposure of Existina Residences to Future Roadway Noise. Increased traffic on area roadways will significantly increase noise levels, thus adversely affecting existing residences and population. Mitigation can be achieved to buffer residents from levels that exceed acceptable standards, by providing berms or walls adjacent to outdoor use spaces of 114\eastdub\fiad(4) 72 4~~ ~S~ ~ ~ 1 existing residences.. However, the magnitude of change in the noise environment, from quiet rural raads with little traffic to busy suburban thoroughfares, cannot be avoided. Project alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development~Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.10-3 to 4, 5 . 0-16 ) . . and frcm the Countv Jail.~ Residential development in the specific Plan area would be withiri 6000 feet cf Camp Parks and the C.ounty Jail and could be exposed to noise from gunshots and helicopter overflight. Mitigations calling for noise studies may not be feasible at all locations;. therefo=e this impact might not be reduced ~o a level of insiqnificance. Project a~lternatives which could.~reduce this impact to a level~of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alteriiatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (page 3.10-4, 5.0-16). :.; • Air 4ualitys~Impacts 3.11/A.B,C.E. Project development will have a potentially signif~cant cumulative impact on air quality as a result of dust depositien, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary source emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially mitigate these i.mpacts; the impacts remain potentia,ily signifi- cant, especially given the reqion's existing non-compliance with air quality standards. The only Project alternativ+e~ which could reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance is the No Development alternative. This alternative has been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.11-3 through - 6, 5.0-13 through -I6.) 3. Onerridinq,.Considerations The City Co~incil has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and does determine that approval and implementation of the Project would result in the following substantial;;public benefits. Economic C.onsiderations. Substantial evidence is included in the record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, the Project will result in: ~ a. The creation of about 28,2D0 new jobs in the Specific Plan area alone, and a substantial num.ber of construction 3obs. b. Iricreases in sales revenues for the City. 114\eastdub\find(4) 7 3 ~~> ~ ~< 4~~ ~ -7s~-- ~ c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues. Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record . demonstrati~g the social benefits which the City would derive from the implementation of the Project. Specific~lly, the . Project will result in: ~ a. Increases in housing opportunities in the City and in a region~where housing is costly and in short supply. ~ b. Increases in the amount of affordable housing in the community. c. An arrangement for the City to contribute its fair share of ~~~ regional housing opportunities. ~ d. Provision of upper-end executive housing in the City. _..~ Other Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating other public benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the Project. They include: a. Comprehensive planning incorporating innovative and extensive environmental premitigation measures not usually found in projects of this type. b. Designating substantial areas of land for Open;Space and low intensity Rural Residential uses. This includes a potential regional trail system link through the open space of the Project site. This open space will conserve tbe ecological values''o~ the site and surrounding areas and provide ~ recreational and.open space amenity opportunities for residents of the Project, the City, and the region. 3.4- 15, 3.7-15. ~ . I14\eastdub\find(4) 74 ~~~ ~75~ , ~ ~ MTTIGATION MONITORING PLAN: EASTERN DUBLIN SPECI~~I~ PLAN/GENER.AL PLAN AMENDMENT prepared by WALIIACE ROBERTS & TODD ~ May 7, 1993 ~TtA~.t~M~i~ ~ = .~ ~X~ tF~t"~' 8 ~ . _ .. ,~ ~ .~ 4~3 ~5~ Ea: . Dublin Spec'~ic Pian~GPA EIR City of Dubtin May T, 1993 ~ Mitigation Monitoring Plan . MTTIGATION MONITORING PLAN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The State of California now requires public agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for changes to the project or conditions of approval w}uch have been ident~ed and adopted as methods to reduce environmental impacts. Thus with the certification ~f the Eastem Dublin EIR and adoption of the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the City of Dublin is required to estahlish a mitigation moaitoring program for all approved mitigation measures. In order to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented in a timely fashion, the Mitigation Monitoring Program provides the following information for each measure: • ~ has the mitigation measure been recommende@? ~ • ~ is responsible for implementing the mitigation? • What is the mitigation measure being monitored and how? • When should midgation monitoring be undertaken? What schedule is required? • Comnletion: when should the mitigation measure be in place and monitoring be completed? • Verification: what agency is required to ensure that the mitigation measure was implemented? 2 City of Dnblia Msy T, 1993 ~• SECTION 3:1 LAND USE ~1. ImDacts Reguirine MitiQation This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation: IM 3.1/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West 2. MitiQation Implementation and MonitorinQ Pro~ram Impact 3.1/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West ~T /~ ~ ~~ Ea~ :Dublin Speeific Plaa dz GPA EIR Mtigation ManiLoring Plan 1Vliti~cuion llteasure 3_7/1.0: Coordination of Plannin~ Activities with U.S. Armv Why: To resolve potential land use conflicts between activities at Camp Parks and praposed uses in the Project area Who: Planning Department/IJ.S. Army; Directorate of Engineering and Housing. What: Estahlish a liaison committee between the City and the Army. Establish a schedule for periodic meetings to discuss and provide npdates on planning and development efforts within the Project site and in Camp Parks. The Eity of Dublin Planning Department will send to the base commander a copy of new applications for development adjaceni to Camp Parks for review and comment. Projects will be considered by liaison committee at request of Camp Parks. When: Periodically, pursuant to agreed-upon calendar, and as required for review of specific project proposals. Completion: On-going. Specific project review will be considered complete when City has received written comments from Camp Parks. Verification: City of Dublin Plaaning Director. SECTTON 3.2: POPULATION HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT This section provides base~ine clata related to population, housing and employment and does not identi£y environmental impacts or related mitigation measures. No mitigatioa monitoring program is required. SECT'ION 3.3: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULAT'ION 1. Impacts Requirine Mitigation This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation: IM 3.1/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West IM 3.3/B I-580 Freeway; between I-680 and Hacienda IM 3.3/C I-580 Freeway; between Tassajaxa-Fallon-Airway IM 3.3/D I-680 Freeway, North of the I-580 Interchange IM 3.3/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts (I-580 west of I-680; I-580 east of Airway) IM 3.3/F Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard ~ IM 3.3/G Hacienda Drive and I-580 Eastbound Ramps IM 3.3/H Tassajara Road and I-580 Westbound Ramps 3 ~*. City of Dublin May 7, 1993 ~ g5 ~ ~~ Ea: Dublin Specific Plan dt GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoring Pian IM 3.3/I Santa. Rita Road 8c I=580 Eastbound Ramps IM 33/J Airway Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard IM 3.3/K Airway Boulevard & I-580 Westbound Ramps IM 3.3/L Impediments to Truck Traffic on El Charro Road . IM 3.3/M Cumuladve Impacts on Dublin Houlevard (Dublin/Hacienda; Dublin/Tassajara) IM 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajaxa Road {Tassajara/Fallon; Tassajara/~'allon; Tassajara/Transit Spine) IM 3.3/O Transit Service Extensions IM 3.3/P Street Crossings 2 Miti~ation Im~lementation and Monitoring Program Da.ily Traffic Volume5 (Year 2010 With Project) Impact 33/B I-580 Freeway; hetween I-680 and Ha.cienda Miti~atinn Measure 3_3/2.0: TransDOrtation Svstems Mana~ement (TSM) Why: To reduce project-generated vehicle trips Wbo: All non-residential projects with 54± employees. Whati Require compiiance with BAAQIVID Regulation 13 Transportation Control Measures Rule 1 to satisfaction of BAAQMD or City of Dublin (Public Works Department) When: Prior to occupancy Completion: Upon issuance of Planning Department sign-off on compliance verification: City of Dublin Planning Director Miii~ation Measure 3 3/2 I• Re~ional Tra~DOrtation Miti~ation ProQrams Why. To assist in the funding of improvements to regional transportation system Who: All approved projects Wha~ Froportionaxe monetary contribution to regional transportation mitigation programs as approved by the City of Dublin. When: As a condition of project approval. When applying for a pernait, the applicant developer will be nodfied of this fee assessment: Completion: Payments shaII be made prior to issuance of building permits Verification: City of Dublin Department of Public Works Impact 3.3/C I-580 Freeway; between Tassajara-~allon-Airway Miti.~ation Measure 3.3/3.0: Construction of Auxrliarv Lanes Why: To assist in the funding of the construction of auxiliary lanes on I-580 between Tassajara and Airway boulevards 1Vho: Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department. What: Pa.yment of a regionally-assessed fee for all new development within the Project area as approved by the City of Dublin. . When: As a condition of project approval. When applying for a permit, the applicant developer will be notified of this fee .assessment. 4 ~g~~~r~~ . -.-. City of Dublia Ea Dublin 5peci8e Plaa ds GPA EIR May 7, 1993 ' Ivlitigatioa Monitoring Plaa Completion: Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits Verification: City of Dublin Departm+~nt of Public Works Impact 3.3/D I-680 Freeway; North of the I-580 Interchange Miri~ation Measure 3.3/4.0: I-580/I-680 Interchan~e Improvements Why: To establish funding for construction of future I-580/I-680 Interchange improvements. 1V6o: Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department. Wha~ Payment of a regionally-assessed fee for all new development withia the Project area as approved by the City of Dublin. When: As a condition of project approval, the applicant developer will be notified of this fee assessment. Completion: Payments shall be"made prior to issuance of building permits Verification: City of Dublin Department of Public Works Daily Traffic Volumes (Cumulative Buildout with Project) Impact 3.3/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts Miti~alion Measure 3.3/5.0: TransDOrtation Svste»zs ManaAement (TSM Why: To establish funding for construction of auxiliary lanes on I-580 east of Airway Boulevard Wbo: All approved @evelopment projects in the Project area/City of Dublin. Wha~ 1) Proportionate monetary contribution to regional tra.nsportation mitigation programs as approved by the City of Dublin. 2) City coordination with other local jurisdictions to require that all future development projects participate in regional transportatioa mitigation programs. When: 1) The contribution to regional improvements will be implemented as a condition of project approval. Applicants will be notified of this fee assessment. Completion: 1) Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Coordination will be ongoing. Verification: 1) Fee payments will be verified by the City of Dublin Planning Department. _ 2) Coordination will be the responsibility of the Depart,ment of Public Works Peak Hour Iatersection Operation (Year 2010 with Project) Impact 3.3/F Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard 1VIitiQaiion Measure 3.3/6.d: Constructron of Additional Lanes W.hy: To ensure the funding and construction of improvements to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd. intersection as needed Who: City of Dublin Department of Public Worics/All approved projects. 5 ~. ~ ~ ~ City of Dublin May 7, 1993 wb$~ When: Completion: Verification:. ,.~, ~~7 ~~.~~ ~ ~ Ea~ . Dublin Spec'ific Plan d~ GPA EIR. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 1) Payment of fees towards the construction of additional lanes at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dubli.n Boulevard. 2) Monitoring of the need for intersection improvements and coordination of their construction. 1) Fees will be collected as a condition of project approval. Appiicants will be notified of fees. 2) Monitoring will be ongoing annually. 3) Construction will occur prior to intersection declitting to LOS F. 1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Moaitoring of intersection level of service will be ongoing. 3) Construction will be complete with implementation of specific amprovements or eqwivalent as identified in mitigation rneasure. l) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees. 2) Department of Public Works wiil be responsible for monitoring calculating fees and construction. Ympact 3.3/G Hacienda Drive and i-580 Eastbound Ramps Miti~ation Measure 3.3/7.0: Widenin~ of Eastbound Off-Ramn Why: To provide improvements that will prevenf congestion on the eastbound off- ramps from I-580 at Hacienda Drive. Who: Caltrans/City of Pleasanton/City of Dublin PubIic Works/Pro ject Applicants What: 1) Payment of fee towards widening. 2) Coordination of irnprovement with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton. When: 1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval. 2) Coordination will occur as aeeded prior to implementatioa of mitigadon.. 3) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to uaacceptable . LOS E. 4) Monitoring and coord.ination will begin with deveFopment review processing. Completion: 1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described in m.itigation measure. Yerification: 1) City of Dublia Planning Department will verify payment of fees. 2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for calculating fees and coordination with other agencies. Impact 3.3/H Tassajara Road and I-580 Westbound Ramps MitiAation 11~easure 3.3/8.4: Widenin~ of I-S80 Westbound Ramns Why: To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure the efficient operation of the intersection of Tassajaza Road with the I-580. westbound raxnps. Who: Caltrans/Pleasanton and Dublin Departments of Public Worlcs/Developers What: 1) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements, inciuding widening of the I-580 westbound off-ramp and modification of northbound approach to provide additional turn and through lanes. 2) Moniforing o~' service levels and coordination of construction. 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~--~ City of Dublia May T, 1993 When: Completion: Verificatioa: Eas: ~ublia 3pecific Plan d~ GPA EIR Mitigation Moaitoring Plan 1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval. 2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review processing. 3) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to uaacceptable level (IAS E). 1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of buildiag permits. 2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described in mitigation measure. 1) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees. 2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for coardinating construction. Impact 3.3/I Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbonnd Ramps MitiQation Measure 3.3/9.0: Improvemenis to_I-580 Eastbowid Ram Why: To fund and~implement improvements necessazy to ensure adequate service levels on Santa Rita Road and I-580 eastbound ramps. Who: Caltrans/Pleasantun and Dublin Depastments of Public Works/Developers What 1) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements; inciuding widening of I-580 eastbound off-ramps. 2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction. When: 1) Fees will be assessed as ~a condition of project approval. 2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review processing. ~ 3) Widening of eastbound ramps will occur prior to decline of level of service to unacceptable level (LOS E}. - Comptetion: 1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Mitigation will be complete with impiementation of widea.iag described in mitigation measure. Verificatioa: 1} City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees. 2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for coordinating improvements wi~h the City of Pleasanton Depart~ent of Public Works and Caltrans. Imgact 3.3/K Airway Boulerazd & I-580 Westbound Ramps Mitigation Measure 3.3/11.0: Widenina of Airwav Boulevard Overcrossirtr~ Why: To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure adequate service levels at the intersection of Airway Boulevard and the westbound ramps. Who: City of DublinJCaltrans/City of Livermore/Developers What: I) Payment of fee to fuad design and construction of improvements; including the wideniag or replacement of the Airway Blvd. overcrossing and the widening of the I-58d westbound off-ramp. 2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction. Whea: 1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval. 2} Monitoriag and coordination will be begin with development review process. 3) Improvemenu to ramps and overcrossing will occur prior to decline of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, City of Dublin May T, 1943 Connpletion: Verification: ~ ~ ~ ~ 5~- ~. Ea~. Dublin Spe~e Plan dc GPA EIR bi'itigatioa Moniloring Plan level of service to unacceptable level (LOS E). 1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements described in mitigation measure. 1} City of Dublia Planning Department will verify payment of fees. 2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be respoasible for coordinating improvements with the City of Livermore Department of Public Works and Caltrans. Impact 3.3/L Impediments to Truck Traffic on E( Charto Road Miti~ation Measure 3.3/I2.0: Provisions to Ensure Unimneded ?'ruck Tratfic Why. To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure unimpeded movement of trucks to and from the quarries on El Charro Roa.d south of i-580. Who: City of Dublin/Caltrans/City of Pleasanton/Devetopers/City of Livermore VYhat: 1) Payment of fees to fund design and construction of necessary improvements. 2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of improvements with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton Department of Public Works. When: 1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval. 2) Monitoring and coordination will begin with development review processing. 3) Improvements wi11 occur prior to decline of level o£ service to unaccepta.ble level (LOS E}. Completion: 1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements. Verification: I) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees. 2) ~ity of Dubli.n Department of Public Works will be responsible for coordinating improvements with the City of Pleasanton Departmeat of Public Works and Caltrans and City of Livermore. Impact 3.3/M Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard MitiQation Measures 3.3/13.0: Maintain Adeauate Levels ot Service at Intersections. Why: To idendfy, fund and implement improvements that wilt-maintain adequate service levels at the intersections Dublin Blvd with Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road with buildout of cumulative projects. Who: City of Dublin What 1) The City of Dublin will participate in the regularly-scheduled meetings of the Congestion Management Agency and Tri-Valley Transporta.tion Council to determine long-term mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on Dublin Boulevard. ~ 2) Payment of fees to fund design and construction of necessary improvements. 3) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of improvements with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton Department of Public Works. When: 1) Participation in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is current and on- City of Dublia May 7. 1993 Completion: Yerification: ~ ~ ~~ Eas Dublin Specific Plan dt GPA EIEi Mitigatioa Moaitoring Plaa going. 2) Fees witl be assessed as a condition of project approval. 3) Monitoring and coordina.tion .will be begin with development review process and coritinue through to identification and construction o£ necessary improvements. 4) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to unacceptable level (LOS E). 1) Participation in the Tri-Yalley Transportation Council is on-going. 2) Paymeat of fees shall be made prior to issuance of bwilding permits. 3} Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements. 1) City of Dublin Plaaning Department will verify payment of fees. 2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for coordinating Project area improvements resulting from regional growth. Impact 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road Miti,~ation Measure 3.3/14.0: Widenin,~ of 7'assaiara Road to Six Lanes Why: To reserve sufficient right-of-way aloag Tassajara Road to accommodate cumulative development of projects north of the Project area. Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Department Public Works. Wha~ Reservation of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate six traveI lanes ~n Tassajara Road. When: Reservation of right-of-way to be adopted prior to approval of tentative map. Completion: Dedication of right-of-way requised priqr to filing of Final maps for development projects adjacent to the Tassajara Road corridor. Verification: City of Dnblin Planning Department. Impact 3.3/O Transit Service Extensions Miti~asion Measure 3.3/IS.O: Provision of Transit Service to Meei_LAYTA standards Why: To extend transit service within 1/4 mile of 9595 of the Project area population. Who: City of Dubiin Planning Department/Departnnent of Public FVorks/LAYTA Wha~ 1) Meetings between the City of Dublin and LAV-TA to coordinate extension of bus service to the Project area. 2) Notification to LAVTA of development approvals involving potential for 104 or more employees or residents. When: 1) InitiaF meeting to review the plan and ultimate service needs should be held within one yeaz of plan adoption to allow LAVTA to plan for future expansion. Thereafter, meetings should be held periodically at the reyuest of either the City or LAVTA. Completion: On-going. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~~~ City of Dublia Esa Dublin SpeciSc Plan dc GPA EIR May 7, 1993 lviitigation Monitoring Plan M~t-Q~tinn Measure 3 3/15 1• Bus Service to Emnlovment Centers with IOOf Ernplovees W1,y: To provide transit service at a minimum frequency of one bus every 30 minutes during peak hours, to employment centers with 100 or more employees. Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public Works/LAYTA Wha~ 1) Meetings between the City of Dublin and LAVTA to coordina.te extension of bus service to employment centers. 2) Notification to LAVTA of development approvals involving potendal for ~00 or more employees. WLen: 1) Meetings should be held periodically at the request of either the City or LAVTA. Completion: On-going. Verifica.tion: City of Dublin Planning Department. Miti~eation Measure 3.3/IS.2: Monetar~ Contribution to Suanort Transit Service Extensions Wh~. To provide funding in support of eapansifln of transit service to the Project area. Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public Works/LAVTA/Developers What: Payment of fees or construction of capital improvements to support extension of transit service. VYhen: Fees/improvements will be identified as a condition of project approval. Completion: Prior to approval of Final Map. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Departrnent. Miti~ation Measure 3.3/15.3: Feeder Transit Service to the East Dulilin/Pleasanton BART ts ation Why: To coordinate provision of feeder bus service to the planned BART stations from the Project area. Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public Works/LAYTA/BART What: Meetings with BART and LAYTA to coordinate feeder transit service to BART. When: Initial meeting to revisw the plan and ultima.te service needs should be held within one year of plan adoption to allow BART and LAVTA to plan for future expansion. Thereafter, meetings should be held periodically at the request of the City, BART, or LAYTA. Completion: On-going. Verificatioa: Ciry of Dublin Planning Department. Impact 3.3/P Street Crossings Mitigarion Measure 3.3/16.0: Provision of a Class I bicvcle/aedestrian Dath Why: To provide a paved bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek. Who: Developers in consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Department, 10 ~ S~-.~ ~p ~IS~ ... j City of Dublia May 7, 1993 Wha~ When: Completion: Verification: Eaa Dublin Speeifie Plaa Et GPA EIR ~, Mitigatioa Monitoriag Plaa Department of Public Works, and East Bay Regional Park District. Design and construction of a Class I bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek. ' As a condition of approval for development projects adjacent• to the Tassajara Creek corridor. Construetion to occur prior to occugation of first phase of homes responsible for providing the path. ' City of Dublin Depaztment of Public Works. Miti~ation Measure 3.3/16.1: SiQnalized Bicvcle/Pedestrian Intersections Why: To provide for safe pedestrian/bicycle crossings of major arterial streets. Wrio: Developers/Department of Pvblic Works What; Locaie pedestrian and bicycle crossings at signaIized intersections. When: As a condition of project approval. Comgletion: Final approval of detailed improvemeni plans. Verification: Depaztment of Public Works. SECTTON 3.4: COMMUI~TITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES Prior to aonroval of nrezonine.l_ Impacts Reuuirin~ MitiQation This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation: IM 3.4/A Demand for Increased Police Services. IM 3.4/B PoIice Services Accessibility IM 3.4/C Demand for Increased Fire Services IM 3.4/D Fire Response to Outlying Areas IM 3.4/E Ezposure to Wildlands Eiazards IM 3.4/F Demand for New Classroom Space IM 3.4/G Demand for Junior High School Space Ilvi 3.4/H Overcrowding of Schools IM 3.4/I Impact on School District Jurisdiction IM 3.4JJ Financial Burden on School Districts IM 3.4/K Demand for Park Facilities IM 3.4JL Park Facilities Fiscal Impact . IM 3.4/M Impact on Regional TraiI System IM 3.4/N Impact on Open Space Connections IM 3.4/O Increased Solid Waste Production IM 3.4/P Impact on Solid R'aste Disposal Facilities IM 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions IM 3.4/R Utility Extension: Visual and Biological Impacts IM 3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources IM 3.4/T Demand for Increased Postal Service IM 3.4/U Demand for Increased Library Service ~ 11 City of Dublin Maq 7. 1995 2. Mitigation Imniementation and Monitorine Proeraro Police Services Impact 3.4/A Demand for Increased PoGce Services Impact 3.4/B Police Services Accessibiiity ~°3 ~,~ Tl~g. Eas. Dublin Specific Plan dt GPA EIR lviitigation Monitoring Plaa Miti~atron Measure 3.4/I.O: Additional Personnel. Facilities and "Bears" ~Yhy: ~To provide additional personnel, facilities, and procedures to police service standards. Who: City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department. Wha~ I) Police Department will hire'and train new sworn and civilian staff, revise "beat" system to serve eastern Dublin, and estimate and schedule projected facility needs in eastern Dublin. 2) Planning Department to notify Police Department of development approvals to assist the Poiice Department in its annual budget formulation. When: On-going. Completion: Annually as part of the Police Department's planning and budgetary process. Verification: Chief of Police. Mitiealion Measure 3.4/2.0: Coordination of exDansion of Police services Why: To pravide the Poiice Department information needed to adequatelypla.n for ezpansion of services. - Who: Planning Department/City of Dublin Police Department Wha~ Notification to the Police Department of the timing. of annexation and approved development. When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications. Completion: Ongoing. Verification: Planning Department NfitiQCrlinn Measure 3.4/3.0: _Police DeDartment ~teview Why: To provide for Police Department input into the design of pr~posed development. Who: City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department. What: Police Departrnent review ~f proposed development plans for safety issues, and provide the Planning Department with recommendations for inclusion in the final plans. When: During development review process. Completian: Prior to final site plan approval. Yerification: Chief of Police or representative. Mitination Measure 3.4/4.0 • BudQetina for Polic~Services . Why: To prepare a budget strategy to hire the required additional personnel and implement necessary changes in the "beat" system. Who: City of Dublin/City of Dublin Police Department ~ 12 City of DnbGn May 7, 1993 Wh8t: When: Completion: Yerification: ~ _ ~°~~~ ~ ~7'~~ Eas Dublin Sperifie Pian dc GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plaa 1} Police Department will estimate pro jected personnel and facility needs for eastera Dublin and develop a budget straxegy to meet these needs. 2) Plaaning Department will notify Police Department of development approvals in order to assist the Police Department in its annua~ budget formulation. On-going. Annually as part of the Police Department's planning and budgetary process. Chief of Police. Miti~arion Measure 3_4~5.0: Police Deaartment Review Why: To ensure Police Department review of proposed development for safety issues. ~ Who: City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department. Wha~ Police Department review of proposed development plans for safety issues. When: During development review process. Completion: Prior to final site plan approval. Verification: Chief of Police or representative. ~re Protection Impact 3.4/C Demand for Increased Fire 5errices Imgact 3.4/D Fre Respoase to Outlying Areas Impact 3.4/E Exposure to Wildlands Hazards 1lfitination Measure j.4/6.0: Construction of New Fire Facilities Why: To provide for the construction of new facilities coincident with new service demand in eastern Dublin. Who: Developers/Dougherty Regional Fire Authority VlThat Design and Construction of New Facilities Vl~hen: Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval Completion: Construcdon of fire sta.tion(s} will occur concurrently with new service demand not addressed by other agreements. Verification: DRFA/City Planning Department. Miti~ation Measwe 3.4/7.0: FundinQ of New Fire Facilities Why: To establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital improvements. Who: City of Dublin City Manager's Office/DRFA. What: Establish funding mechanism for capital improvements. When: Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval Completion: Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service demand not addressed by other agreements. Verification: City of Dublin City Manager responsible for establishing funding mechanisms; Planning Department responsible for verifying completion prior to project approval. ~ ~ ~ 13 ~ ~: ~~~ ~~. ~.. City of Dubiixt May 7, 1995 iti~ation Measure 3 4/8.0: Sites for New Fire Facilities Eas. :Dublin Specifie Plan & GPA EIR. Mitigation Monitoriag Plan Why: To ensure acquisition of sites for construction of new fire stations. Who: City of Dublin Plaaning Department ia consultation with DRFA. Wha~ Identificatioa and acquisition of sites for new fire stations. When: Condition of tentative map aad/or development review approval Completion: Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service dema.nd not addressed by other agreements. Verificatioa: City of Dublin Planning Department. MitiQation Measure 3.4/9.0: Fire Deaartrnent Review Why: To ensnre DRFA input on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention. Who: DRFA/City of Dublin Planning Department. What~ Review of proposed developments by DRFA for fire safety. Incorporation of DRFA recommendations into pro ject conditions by Planning Departmen~ When: During development review process. Completion: Prior to development review and/or Final Map approval. Yerification: Fire Chief or representative to provide recommendations; Planning Department to verify incorporation of DRFA recommendations as conditions of project approval. Miti~ation Measure 3,~0.0: Urban/Onen Snace fnierface Management Why. To ensure that a mechanism is in place to provide long-term maintenance for the urban/open space interface. Who: Developers/DRFA/City of Dublin Planning Department. Wha~ Establishment of an assessment district or other suitable mechanism to maintain safe fire conditions along the urban/open space interface. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to Final Map approval. Verificatiou: City of Dublin Planning Department. Miti.~ation 1lteasure 3.4/11.4: Fire Trails/Open Snace Svstem Why: To integrate fire traiLs and fire breaks into the open space trail system. Who: City of Dublin Plann.ing Departmeat/City of Dublin Recreation Department/DFRA/Developers. What~ Design and dedication of fire trails and fire breaks. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to Final Map approval. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. 1Vliti~ation Measure 3.4/12.0: Wild fire Mana~ement Plan Why. To prepare a wildfire management plan for the Project area in order to 14 City of Dublin May T, 1993 Who: What: When: Completian: verification: .~~ ~ ~5~ ~ Eas: Dubiin Specific Plaa dt GPA EIR Iviitigation Monitoring Plan reduce the risk of impact related to wildland fire. City of Dublin/DRFA. Prepare a wildfire management plan. During prezoning and aanexatioa application processing. Frior to approval of any development in lands adjacent to land designated for permanent open space or rural residential/agriculture. City of Dublin Planning Department. MitiPation Measute 3,4L13.0_Sites~or Fire Facilities for the GPA Increment Why: To determine the number, locadon and timing of additional fire stations for areas within the Project area yet ontside the 5pecific Plan azea. W6o: I3RFA/City of Dublin Planning Department. Wha~ Identificatioa of future fire station sites: When: During prezoning and annexation application processing. Completion: Prior to development approvals in the azeas outside the Specific Plan area. ~erification: City of Dublin Planning Department. ~ Schools Impact 3.d/F Demand for New Classroom Space Impact 3.4/G Demand for Junior High School Space MitiQaiion 11?easure 3.4/13.0: Dedication oJ_New Sclrool Sites Why: To reserve school sites within the Project area as designated in the Specific Plan and GPA. ~ Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/DUSD/LVJUSD What: Identi~cation of new school sites. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to Final Map approval. Verification: City of Dublin Pta.nning Departrnent. Miligaiion Measure 3 4/14 0' Plannin~ for Additional Junior Hi~h School CanacitY Why: To ensure that adequate capacity is provided for junaor high school age students. Who: DUSD. What Planning for projected junior high school demaud within two proposed sites and/or provide for a third site~in the Future Study Area to the east of the Project area. When: During planning and design of the fint Junior High School site. Completion: Prior to ~nal map approval for the first junior high school. Verification: City of Dublin/DUSD. ~ ~~. ~ 15 ~^ City of Dublin May 7. 1993 IM 3.4/H Overcrowding of Schools ._ ~~ ~ ~.~~' Eas, Dubtin Specific Plan & GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoting Plan Miti~ation Measure 3 4/IS 0• Provision of Adeouate Schools to Serve the Proiect site Why: To ensure that adequate classroom space is provided prior to the development of new homes. Who: DUSD/City of Dublin Planniag Depaztment. Wha~ 1) Coordiaation between City of Dublin and DUSD to monitor available school capacity and proposed development. 2) DUSD sign-off on available capacity to accommodate new development. When: Coordination to occur during development review process, with written sign-off from DUSD submitted prior to tentadve map approval. Completion: Prior to occupancy approval. Yerification: City of Dublin Planning Department. Impact 3.4/I Impact on School District Jurisdiction Miti~ation Measure 3.1I6.0 • Resolution of School District Jurisdiction Issue Why: To resolve the jurisdictional issue of which school district(s) will provide service to the Project area. ~ Wha: City of Dub2in/DUSDJLVJIJSD. Wha~ City will assist with resolution of District boundary dispute. When: Within two years of plan adoption. Completion: Prior to occupancy of residential units within the Project area. Verification: City of Dublin Plann.ing Department. Impact 3.4/3 Financial Burden on School Districts Miti~ation Measure 3.4/17,0: Full miti~atiort of Proiect imnact on school facilities Why: To ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to development in the Project area to the extent permitted by law. Who: City of DublinJDUSD/LVJUSD. Wha~ Establish liaison between City of Dublin and school districts. When: Ongoing as part of develapment review process. Completion: On-going. ' Yerification: City of Dublin Planning Department with inpu# from school districts. Nliti~ation Measute 3 4L18._0_.• Provision of School Sites Why; To ensure that the development of new facilities is provided for through the dedication of school sites and/or payment of development fees by developers. Who: Developers/City of Dublin/DUSD/LVJUSD. Wha~ Dedication of School Sites/Payment of Development Fees. When: Condition of Tentative Map Approval, Completion: Prior to occnpancy approval. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. 16 City of Dublin May 7, 1993 Nlitir~ation Measure 3.4/19.0: FundinQ of New Schools ~'Vhy: Who: Wtia~ VYhen: Comp[etion: Verification: Parks and Recreation Park Facilities ~~. ~ ~5& Eas. . Dubi:n Speafic Piaa ds GPA EIR Mitigatioa Moniloriag Plan To establish appropriate funding mechanisms, such as Mello Roos Commutity Facilities District, development impact fees, or a general obligation bond measure, to fund new school development in eastem Dublin. City of DublinJDUSD/LYJUSD. Creation of funding mechaaism(s). During processing of prezoning and annexation applications. i~rior to occupancy of residential units within the Project azea.. City of Dnblin Plaaning Department. Impact 3.4/g Demand for Park Facilities Miti~ation Measure 3.4/20.0: Exnansion of nark area (Guiding Policv. No monitorinQ aDnlicable or reauired. ) MiiiQation Measure 3.4/21.0: Maintenance and imnrovernent of outdoor facilities in cnnformance with Park and Recrealion Master Plan (Guidin~ Policv No monitoring a~olicable or reouiredJ Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: Provide adeauate active Darks and facilities (Guidinn Policv No monitoring~plicable or reouired. ) 1llitiQation Measure 3.4/23.0_Ac4uire and imnrove Darklands Why: To acquire and improve pazklands in conformance with the priorities and phasing recommended in the City's Pazk and Recreation Master Plan. Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/Dublin Recreation Department. What: Coordination between the Planning Department and Recreation Departinent to ensure adherence with standards of Park and Recreation Master Plan. When: Ongoing as part of the development review process. CompLetion: Ongoing. Verification: City of Dublin Planning I?epartment. - MitiQalion Measure 3.4/24.0: Land dedication and aQrks imnrovements/Collection of in-tieu ark ees Why: To require land dedication and improvements as designated in the GPA and collect in-lieu fees per City standards. Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/Recreation Department. WhaL Require land dedication or payment of in-lieu fees as condition of approval for individual projects. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completivn: Prior to Final Map approval. Yerification: City of Dublin Planning Department. 17 ~ ~, ~ ~ _'"~ ~ ~:. ~ ~-~' ~5~~ ..--... City of Dublin May T, 1998 MitiQation Measure 3.4/25.0: Park Acrea~re Dedication Eas. . Dublia Specific Plaa da GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan Why: To provide an adequate ratio of developed pazklands to population. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Departrnent. Wha~ Park dedication. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: City of Dublia Plaaning Departmeat. ~4litigation Measure_3.4/26.0: Snecific Park Acreage Dedication Why: To provide an adequate ratio of developed parklands to population. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department. - Wha~ Park dedication. VYhen: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Veri~cation: City of Dublin Planning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.4/27.0: Park standards Why: To ensure that park development is consistent with:.:the stand.ards and phasing recommended in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Recreation Depaztment. Wha~ Monitor individual project conformance with standards.in Master Plan. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. T~erification: City of Dublin Recreation Department. Mirigation Measure 3.4/28 0• ImDlemeniation of SnecificPlan Dolicies related tothe Drovision of open s~ace. ~ Why: To ensure the provision of open space, access and areas for public recreation. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department. What: Monitor individual project conformance with open space policies. When: Condition of tentative map approval. ~ Completion: Prior to fina] map approval. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. Pazk Financing Impact 3.4/L Park Facilities Fiscal Impact Miti~ation Measur.e 3.4/29.0: Provision of ~'air Share of Park Snace Why: To ensure that each new development reserves the open space and parkland ., designated in the Plan. 18 ..._ ~ ~ ~5~ ; ~ty of Dublin Eas. . Dublin pecific Plan dc GPA EIR May 7, 1995 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Departnaent What: Review each development proposal against the Specific Plan/GPA to ensure that designated park and open space is set aside. Whea: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to fiaal map approval. Yerification: City of Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 3.4/30.0: Parks Imalementation Plan Why: To de~elop a Parks Implementation Plan for eastern Dublin. Who: Dublin Recreation Department Wha~ ~ Preparation of a Parks Implementation Plan. Whea: Within two years of Plan adoption or prior to any significant residenti3l developmeat, whichever occurs firsG Completion: Prior to final map approval on the first residentia3 projecu. ver~r~~oa: Dublin Recreation Depaztment. MitiQation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculalion and Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees Why: To calculate and assess in-lieu pazk fees. Who: City of Dublin Planning Department VYha~ Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees. When: Noti~cation at time of permit application. Condition of tentative map approva.l. Completion: Payment at time of final map approval. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. Impact 3.4/M Impact on Regional Trail System MitiQation l~feasure 3.4/32.0: Trail LinkaQe and Access Why: To establish a trail system with connections to planned regional and subregional system. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department Wha~ Dedication of trail rights-of-way. Whea: Condition of tentative map approval. Comptetion: Prior to finaI map approval. ~ Verification: City af Dublin Planning Department. Impact 3.4/N Impact on Open Space Connections Miti~ation Measure 3.4/33.~~ Establish a comprehensive trail_ network Why: To establish a comprehensive, integrated trail network that permits safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation Department. • What Provide guidelines to developers on right-of-way alignment and design ~ ~ ~ 19 '~" 5 ~ ~ ~: ~~~ ~ City of DubIin • ' Eas Dublia Specific Plan dc GPA EIIt May 7, 1993 Mitigation MoniLoriag Plan standards, and ensure implementation. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completioa: Prior to final map approval, verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. 1~fiti~otion ~1?easure 3.4/34.0: Establish a c~ntir~cou~oDen snace networ Why: To establish a continuous open space network that integrates large natiiral open space areas, stream conidors, and developed parks and recreation areas. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation Department. What: Ensure dedication/preservation of designated open space areas. When: . Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Veri#ication: City of Dublin Planning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.4/35.0: Provision o~ access to onen sDace areas Why: To provide convenient pedestrian connections between developed areas and designated open space azeas and trails. Who: Davelopers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation Department. Wha~ Ensure designation of appropriately located trails and access points as part of development review. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verificadon: City of Dublin Planning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.4/36.0: Re4uire nublic access easements Why: To require developers to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails aad staging areas. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Depaztment. Wha~ Ensure dedication of public access easements. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. S~lid Waste Impact 3.4/O Increased Solid Waste Pro~uction Impact 3.4/P Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 20 ~ ~a ~ ~~- . ._ City of Dublia Ea9 Dnblia Spe~c Plan ds GPA EIR. lvtay 7, 1993 Mitigatioa Monitoring Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/37.0: Prenaration of Solid Waste Mana.~ement Plan Why: To prepare/update a Solid Waste Management Plan as needed to address eastem Dublin. Who: Dublin City Manager's Office. Wha~ Prepaze plan. Whea: Wiihin two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA, Comptetion: Prior to issuance of building perm.its. Verification: Dublin City Manager's Office. Mitig.~tion Measure 3.13~,0: Revise Waste Genern,tr'~n Projections Why: To revise waste geaeration projections of the City's SRRE/HFiWE as needed to reflect the population and commerciat land use projections of the adopted Projsct. Who: Dublin City Manager's Office. What Rsvise projections and update solid waste generation and disposal capacity characteristics. When: Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific PIan/GPA. Completion: Prior to issuance of building permits, Veri~cation: Dublin City Manager's Office. MitiQation Measure 3.4/39.0: Inte~ration of Eastern Du81in Solid Waste Plan into Citv's SRRE/HHWE Why: To ensure that the Solid Waste Management Plaa for Eastern Dublin addresses and incorporates the goals, objectives, and programs of Dublin's SRRE a.nd HHWE. ~ Who: Dublin City Manager's Office/Public Works Department. Wha~ Updating of SRRE/HHWE to reflect Project. VYhen: Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA. Compietion: Prior to issnance of building permits. Veri~cation: Dublin City Manager's Office. Miti~ation Measure 3.4.40: Assessment of Landfill C~acitv Why: To ensure that adequate landfill capacity is availab7e to accommodate project waste. Who: City Manager's Office/City Planning Department/Aiameda County Solid Waste Management Authority. Wha~ Determine the adequacy of available disposal ca~acity. When: As a condition of Tentative Map approval. Completion: Prior to Final Map approval. Verification: Ciry of Dublin Planning Department. ~ ~ ~ 21 "~ . 5~3 ~7~ ..-~ ..~ City of Dublin ~ Eas Dublin S ' c Plan dc GPA ffit May 7~ 1993 Mitigatioa Monitoriag Plan Electricity, Natural Gas and Telephone Service Impact 3.d/Q Demand for Utility Extensions Impact 3.4/R Uti[ity Extension; Yisual and Biological Impacts MitiQation Mensure 3 4/41 0• Provisron ot documentation that electric. Qas and telenhone service can be nrovided. Why: To require project applicants to provide documentation that electric, gas, and telephone service can be provided to all new development. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department. What Submit docnmentation from utilities providers. When: As a condition of Tentative Map approval. , Completion: Prior to final map approval. Veri~cation: City of Dublin Planning Department. Mitieafion Measure 3.4/42.0: ilnder~2tound~ne of Utilitie Why: To require all utilities to be located below gra.de where feasible and designed to City standards. Who: City of Dubli.n Public Works Department. W~at: Require developers to provide for installation of utilities below grade. When: Prior to issuance of building permits. Completion: ConStruction of infrastructvre improvements. Verification: City of Dublin Public Works Uepartment. MitiQation Measure 3.4/43.0• Avoidance of Infrastructure Imnacts ort Sensiiive Habiiat Why: To mitigate the effects of utilities expansion, the city will work with PGBcE to plan the undergrounding of all new electric lines and to route infrastructure away from sensitive hahitat and open space lands. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department/PG&E. Wha~ Coordinate routing of electric Iines. When: During site design phase. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: City of Dublin Public Works Department. MitiQasion Measure 3.4/44.0: Submittal of Service Reporl Why: To require project applicants to submit a utilities service report to the City prior to Public Improvement Plan approval. VYho: Project Applicants/City of Dublin Planning Department. What: Submittal of utilities service report. When: Prior to approval of Public Improvement Plan. Compietioa: Prior to i~suance of building permits. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Depaztment. 22 --~ ^ ~ ~ ~~' City oi Dublin Eas Dub '~ ' P G isn ~ee~i~ lan & PA EIR May 7, 1993 lvt'iLigatioa Monitoring Plan Impact 3.4/S Consumption of Non~Renewable Natural Resources . 1-~iti¢ation Measure 3.4/45 d• Demonstration Proiects Why: To require the installation of a demonstration project(s) of cost-effective energy conservation techniques. Who: Developers/PG&E/City of Dublin~ Planning Department. Wha~ Meet with major land owners aad PG&E to determine how to set up an Energy Conservation Demonstration Project within the Project area. Whea: Daring development review process. Completioa: Prior to ocCUpancy approval. Verificatioa: City of Dublin Plaaning Departmen~ Mitipation ~feasure 3.4/46.Q• Site Plannfng. BuildingDesBn and Landscapi~ Why: To require developers to demonstrate the incorporation of energy conservation measures into the design, construction, and operation of proposed development. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department. What Preparation of an Energy Conservation Plan. When: Upon filing of tentative map. Completion: Prior to building permit approval. Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. Postal Service Impact 3.4/T Demand for Increased Postal Service MitiPation Measure 3.4/47.0: Provision of a Post Office in Eastern Dublin Why: To provide for the creation of a post office wifh the eastern Dublin Town Center. Who: Developer/City of Dublin Planning Department. Whafi The City will work with developers of Town Center and the U.S. Postal ~ Service to determine need and procedures for implementation. When; Prior to tentative map approval for the Public/Semi-Public designated area in the Town Center subarea. Completion: Prior to approval of Final Map. " Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.4/48.0: Coordination with U.S. Postal Service Why: To provide for the creation of a post office with the eastern Dublin Town Center. Wha: Developer/City of Dublin Planning Department. What: The City will work with developers of Town Center and the U.S. Postal Service to determine need and procedures far implementation. When: Prior to tentative map approval for the Public/Semi-Public designated area in the Town Center subarea. ~ ~ ~ 23 ~ City of DubFsn May 7, 1993 Completion: Verificafiaa: Library Service Prior to approval of Final Map. City of Dublin Planning Department. Impact 3.4/U Demand for Increased Library Service r ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Eaa. Dublin SpeciSc Plan dc GPA EIR Ivfitigatioa Monitoring plaa Miti airon Measiere 3.4/49.0: Provision of Adeazcate Librarv Services Why: To provide a library(ies) and associated services for eastern Dublin. Who: Alameda Couaty Library System/City of Dublin Planning Department. What Assessment of eastern Dublin lihrary needs and farmulation of strategy to meet these needs. When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications. Completion: Prior to Final Map approval. Veri~catioa: City of Dublin Planning Department. Miti~aiion Measure 3.4/50.0: Coordination with Alameda Countv Librarv Svstem Why: To provide a library(ies) and associated services for eastem Dublin. Who: Alameda County Library System/City of Dublin Planning Department. Wha~ Assessment of eastem Dublin library needs and formulation of strateg~y to meet these needs. When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications. Completion: Prior to Final Map approval. Verifica6oa: City of Dub]in.Planning Department. Miti~aiion Measure 3.4/51.0: Saecific Site Selection for New Libra~ Why: To have the City Library Task Force identify appropriate location and timing for development of new library(ies). Who: City Library Task Force. What Assessment of site requirements and timing of projected need. When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications. Completion: Prior to Final Map approval. Verificatioa: City of Dublin Pla.nning Department. SECTION 3.5: SEWER. WATER AND STORM DRAINAGE 1. Imnacts Reauirine Mitieation 'This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation: IM 3.5/B Lack of a Wastewater Collection System IM 3.5/C Extension of Sewer Trunk Line ~ IM 3.5/D Current Limited Treatment Plant Capacity ~ IM 3.5/E Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity IM 3.5/F Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Treatment 24 „~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ .-.... g City of DubIin Eas Dublin Specifc Plaa dc GPA IIR MAy T, lggg Nfitigation Monitoring Plaa "~" IM 3.5/G Lack of Current Wastewater Disposal Capacity LM 3.5/H Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal ~- Ilvi 3.5/I Potential Faiture af Export Disposal System IM 3.5/J Pump Stadon Noise and Odors ~ IM 3.5/K St~rage Basin Odors and Potential Failure IM 3.5/L Recycled Water System Operation ` IIvi 3.5/M Recycled Water Storage Failure „~,, IM 3.5/N Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure IM 3.5/O Secondary Impacts from Recycled Water System Operation IM'.3.5/P Overdraft of Local Grouadwater Resources IM 3.5/Q Increase in Demaad for Water ~ "~ IM 3.5/R Additional Water Treatment Plant Capacity ~~,. IIvI 3.5/S Lack of Water Distribution System ' IM 3.5/T Inducement of Substaatial Growth and Concentration of Population ~_ IM 3.5/U Tncrease in Energy Usage Through Operation of the Water Distribution System IIv! 3.5/V Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure ~~~.. IM 3.5/W Potential Loss af System Pressure IM 3.5/X Potential Pump Station Noise ~"' IM 3.5/Y Potential Flooding ,~,, IM 3.5/Z Reduced Crroundwater Recharge IM 3.5/AA Non-Point.Sources of Pollution „~ 2. Mitigation ImoCementation and MonitorinQ Proeram Impact 3.5/B Lack of a Wastewater Cotlection System Miti~cztion Measure 3,5/1.Oa: ExDansion of DSRSD Service Bourrdaries Why: To provide for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries to include the Project area. Who: DSRSD. What DSRSD will revise its service area boundaries. When: Prior to approval of any development outside the current service boundaries. Completion: Prior to tentative map approval. Veri~catioa: City of Dublin Department of Public Works. MitiQation Measure 3.5/1.0: Connection to Pr~blic Sewers ~ Why: To require that all development within the Project area be connected to ~ public sewers. ~. Who: City of Dublin Department of Public Works/DSRSD. Wha~ Require connection to public sewers. ~... When: Condition of approval for tentative map. Completion: Prior to final map approval. """ Verification: Department of Public Works. _ 25 ~ ~ City of Dublia May 1, 1993 .^ s'~~ ~~ ~.~ Eas, Dublin Spceific Plan ds GPA EIR. Mitigstion Monitoriag Plaa Miti~ati9n~ea.~ure 3.SJ2.4: Wastewater Collection Svstem Master Plan Why: To have DSRSD update its wastewater collection system master plan compnter model to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA. Who: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. Wha~: Public Works will request DSRSD to update Master Plan. DSRSD will be responsible to vpda.te the Master Plan. When: As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific P1anJGPA. Completion: Before approval of any detailed wastewater improvement plans. Veri~cation: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. 1Vlitigation Measure 3.5./3.0: On-site Wustewater 7'teatznent Why: To discourage the use of on-site package plants and septic systems withia the Project azea. Who: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. Wha~ Communicate to project applicants the City's desire that all projects be connected to the DSRSD sewer system. When: Ongoing, as part of the development application process. Completion: Prior to tentative map filing. Verification: Department of Public Works. Miti~ation Measure 3.5/4.0: DSRSD Service Why: To require a°will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for ~ grading. Who: Dep2rtment of Public Works/DSRSD. Wha~ Confirm receipt of a"will-serve" letter for all proposed projects. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Verification: Department of Public Works. 117iti2~ation Measure 3.5/5.0: DSRSD Stundards VF'hy: To require that design and construction of all wastewater systems is in conformance with DSRSD standards. Who: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. - Wha~ Confirm that wastewater system meet DSRSD standards. When: Prior to issuance of building permits. Completion: Approval of improvement plans. verification: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. Impact 3.5/C Extension of Sewer Trunk Line Mitigation Measwe 3.5/6.0: SizinQ ot tYastewater Svstem Why: To ensure that the planned wastewater collection system has been sized to accommodate only the development within the Project area. 26 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~, City of Dublin Eas~ Dubiin SpeeiSc Plaa dc GPA EIR May 7, 1995 Iutitigakion Monitori.ng Plan Who: DSRSD. What Engineer wastewater capacity for Project site capacity only. When: Wastewater system design phase. Completion: Prior to installation of Project area sewer system. Yerification: DSRSD. Impact 3.5/D Cnrrent Limited Treatmeat Plant Capacity Miti~ation Measure 3.5/7.0: DesiQn Level Wastewater Investi~ation Why. To require project applicants to prepare detailed wastewater capacity investigations, including means to mi*_+;m;~p ~tewater flows. Who: Applicants in coordination with DSRSD. Wha~ Prepare a detailed wastewater capacity investigation. When: Prepara.tioa of preliminary Public Improvement Plan. Compietion: Final Public Improvement Plan Approval. Veri~cation: D5RSD/Department of Public Works. MitiQation Measure 3.5/7.1: DSRSD Service Why. To requue a"will serve" letter fram DSRSD prior to permit approval for grading. . Who: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. Wha~ Confirm receipt of a"will-serve" letter for all proposed projects. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Yerification: Department of Public Works. Impact 3.5/E Futnre Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity 1lfitiQation Measure 3.5/8.0: Ensure Adem~cate Wrzstewczter Treatment Ca~~ Why: To ensure that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available to meet the needs of future development in eastern Dublin. Who: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. What DSRSD will prepaze a Master Plan including growth projections and facility ~ expansion aeeds and timing to meet the needs of proje~ted developmeat. When: As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA. Completion: Prior to approval of any development. Verification: Department of Public Works. Miri;2arion Measure 3.5/9.0: Wastewater 2'reatment Plant Exnansion Schedule Why: To ensure that proposed development is consistent with wastewater treatment plant expansion as set forth in DSRSD's master plan. Who: DSRSD/Department of Public `Yorks. Wha~ The City must confirm that proposed deveiopment is consistent with the capacity and timing identified in DSRSD's Master Plan ~ ~ ~ 27 "" City of Dublin May 7, 1995 .~ When: During review of tentative map. Cpmpletion: Prior to approval of Final Map. Verification: Department of Public Works. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ .^. Eas Dublin SpeciSc Plaa dt GPA EIFt Mitigation Monitoring Plan Imgact 3.SJF Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Treatment Miti~ation Measure 3.5/10.0: Use o{ Ener~v-Etficient Treatment Svstem Why: • To include energy efficient treatment systems in any wastewater treatment plant eapansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off-peak energy. Who: DSRSD What Design and construct energy-efficient treatment syatems. When: Design phase for WWTP expansion. Completion: On-going. ' Verification: DSRSD. Impact 3.5/G Lack of Current Wastewater Disposal Capacity MitiQation Measure 3.5/11.0• (Pro~ram 9H1 Exnort PiDeline Why: To support TWA in its current efforts to implement a new wastewater export pipeline system. Who: Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority/Dublin City Manager's Office. What: Support implementation of new export pipeIine. ~ Wl~en: Ongoing. Complefion: Approval of TWA improvement plans. Verification: Dublin City Manager's Office. Miti~ation Measure 3S/12.0: (Policv 9-S) Construction of Recv_cled_Warer Svstem Why: To promote recycied water use for landscape irrigation in eastem Dublin through upgrad.ing of treatment and construction of a recycled water distribution and storage system in eastern Dublin. Wha: DSRSD. What Promote recycled water use. When: During development review process. Completion: Ongoing. - Verification: DSRSD. Mitiguzion Measure 3.5/13.0: (ProQrarn 9J) Recvcled Water D~tribution Svstem Why: To have DSRSD update its proposed recycled water distribution system computer model to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA. Who: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. Wha~ Public Wvrks will request DSRSD to update its computer model. DSRSD will be responsible to update the model. When: As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA. Completion: Before approval of any detailed wastewater improvement plans. 28 ~~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~1. City of Dublin Esa.. . Dublin 3pecific P1an & GPA EIR. May T, 1993 Muagation Moaitoring Plan Verification: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. ttifitiQation Measure 3 5/l4 0•(Program 9K) Wastewater Recvclinsr and Reuse Why: To support the efforts of the Tri-Valley Water Recycliag Task Force Study through Zone 7, encouraging wastewater recycling and reuse for landscape irrigadon. Who: City of Dublin Department of Public Works/Zone 7. Wha~ Encourage wastewater recycling as detailed in the Tri-Valley Water Recycling Task Force Study. When: As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA. Completion: Ongoing. Verificatioa: Department of Public Works. Impact 3.S/H Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal ,'llitigation Measure 3.SLI5.0: En2rgv for Exvvrt Disoosal Why: To encourage LAVWMA to continue its program of off-peak pumping of wastewater to balance electric demands in the PG&E system. Who: City of Dublin/LAVWMA. What Encourage off-peak pumping. V4'hen: Upon adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA. Completion: On-going. Verification: Department of Public Works. Miti~aiion Nleasure 3 5/Ib 0• Ener~v for Disnosal throu~2h Recvcled Water Svstem Why: To ensure that the recycled water treatment system is planned, designed and constrncted for eaergy efficiency in operation. Who: City of Dublin Department of Public Works/DSRSD What Design, construcdon, and operation of energy-efficient system. When: Upon agreement to use a recycled water treaament system. Completion: Qn-going. Verification: DSRSD. Impact 3.5/I Potential Failure of Export Disposal System Miti~ation Measure 3_51~7.0: Redundancv in EnQineerin Why: To avoid potential failure in the operation of the pumps in the TWA wastewater collection system. Who: TWA Wha~ Incorporate engineering redundancy into the design of the pump stations and provide emergency power generators. When: Design and construction phase of export system. ~ Completion: Approval of export system improvement plans. Verification: Department of Public Works. 29 ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~.., ~ ~~ . .~ ~~ ~ ~~~ City ot Dublin Eas. . Dvblu- Speufie Plaa d~ GPA EIR. May 7, 1995 Iv~itigation Mouitoriag Plan Impact 3.5/J Pump Station Noise and Odors Miti~ation Measure 3.5/I8.0: Desi~n of Pumv and Motors Why: To ensure that pump station design minimizes potential for impacts related to noise and odors. Who: TWA Wha~ Design pump and motors to meet local noise standards. Install odor controi equipment. When: Design phase of eaport system. Completian: Approval of export system improvement plans. Verificatioa: Department of Public Works. Impart 3.5/K Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure Mitigation Measure 3.5/i9.0: Desinn/En~ineering of Stora~e Basins Why: To ensure that wastewater storage basins are designed to control odors and minimize the risk of failure in the event of an earthquake. Who: TWA Wha~ Design storage basins to meet seismic codes, and limit odors by burying tanks and incorporating odor control eyuipment. When: Design phase of export system. Completion: ApprOval of ezport system improvement p13ns. Verificatioa: Department of Public Works. Impact 3.5/L Recycled Water System Operation Miti~ation Measure 3.5/20.0: Construction of Recvcled Water Distribution Svstem Why: To require that construction of the recycled water distribution system be in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations. Who: DSRSD Wha~ Require compliance of recycled water distribution system with applicable regulations of the DHS and the SFBRR'QCB. When: Condition of approval f~r recycled water distribution system. Completion: Approval of improvement plans. - Verification: DSRSD. ~ Impact 3.5/M Recycled Water Storage Failure ~ Mitigation Me~ ~" Why: " Who: ~ ~ Wha~ When: ;~~ ure 3.5/21.0: D~ign/En,eineerin,g of Water Storare Basins To ensure that reservoir construction meets all applicable standards of DSRSD and appropriate heaIth agencies. DSRSD/Department of Public Works. Confirm the reservoir design and construction meets a11 applicable standards. Design phase. 30 ~ ,-~, ~C~ o~ ~~ CiLy ot Dublia Eas Dubl~ri Specific Plan ds GPA EIR May 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoriag Pfan Completion: Approval of improvement plans. Verification: Department of Public Works/DSRSD. Impact 3.5/N Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure M'iti~ation Measwe 3.5/22.0: ComDlrance with DSRSD stmzdards Why: To ensure that proposed recycled water pump stations meet aIl applicable sta.ndards of DSRSD and include emergency power generatioa. Who: DSRSD/Department of Public Works. Wha~ Conf'irm compliance of pump station design with DSRSD standards, and include emergency power generators. When: Design phase. Completion: Approval of improvement plans. Verification: Departmeat of Public Works. Impact 3.5/O Secondary Impacts from Recycled Water System Operation Miri~ation Measure 3.5/23.0: Salt R~uction Why: To ensure that recycled wa#er projects meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7. Who: DSRSD. Wha~ Coordinate with Zone 7 to confirm whether or not a recycled water.system in the Project azea would require deaiineralization. ~ When: Design Phase. Completion: Approvai of improvement plans. Verification: DSRSD. Impact 3.5/P Overdraft of Local Grouadwater Resources Miti~ation Measure 3.5/24.0: (Policv 9-2) Arcnexation of Snecific Plan area to DSRSD Why: To expand DSRSD service boundaries to encompass the entire eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA area. Who: DSRSD. What: Development of annexation application. - When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning. Completion: Prior to approval of detailed impravement plans. Ver~fication: DSRSD. it~ation Measure 3,5~25.0: _ Connection to DSRSD Water Svstem Why: To encourage all development in the Project area to coanect to the DSRSD water system. . Wha City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD. Wha~ Inform all project applicants of preference for coanection of new development to the DSRSD system. When: During preparation of tentative map. ~ r~ 31 ~ ~ ~.~ f~ ~5~- ,--, -,. City of Dublin Eas Dvblin Specific Plaa dt GPA EIR May 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoriag Plan Completion: Prior to approval of final map. Verification: City of Dublin Department of Public Works, Impact 3.S~Q Increase in Demand for Water Miti~ation_Measure 3.5126.0: (Pro~ram 9A ) Water Conservation Why: To require water conservation measures to be designed into individual pro jects. Who: Developers/City af Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD. What: Review project applications for incorporation of water conservation measures. . Wlsen: Cond.ition of approval for tentative map. Completion: Prior to approval of ~nal map. Verification: Department of Public Works. Miti~ation Measure 3.5/27.0: (Pro~ram 9B) Water Recvclin~ Why: Ta require water recycling measures be incorporated into individual pro jects. Who: Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD. What: Review projects for incorporation of DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendatious relating to the use of recycled water. When: Condition of approval for tentative map. Completion: Approval oF detailed improvement plans. Verification: DubIin Department of Public Works. Mitigation Measure 3.5128.0: Zone 7_ Imnrovements Why: To ensure that Zone 7 has water supply aeeded ~to meet requirements of the Project. Who: Public Works Department/DSRSD/Zone 7. What Confirm status of Zone 7 water supply improvements. When: Condition of approval for "will serve" letter. Completion: Prior to approval of final map. Veri~cation: DSRSD/Public Works Department MitiQation Measure 3.5/29.0: New Zone 7 Turnouts W~y: To provide far the construction of two addidonal turnouts from the Zone 7 Cross Valley Pipeline to serve the Eastern Dublin area. Who: Zone ?/DSRSD. Wha~ Construction of two additional turnouts. When: As needed to provide adequate service to new deveiopment. Completion: Ongoing. Verification: DSRSD. 32 ~0~~ ~ -~~ :-~ ~.. City of Dublia Eas Dublin Spe 'cstic Plan dc GPA EIR ~~, q~ 1993 Mitigation Monitoriag Plan MitiQalion Measure 3 5/30 • Inlerconnections with Existrn~ Svstems Why: To provide for increased water source reliability, the Project water system should be iaterconnected with existing adjoining systems. Who: DSRSDJPublic Works Departmen~ What; Plan water system to iaterconnect with existing systems. When: Ongoing as system within the Project area is built out. Completion: Ongoing. Verification: Public Works Department. 11#iti~ation Measure 3 5/31 0: Reimburserrtent for New DSRSD Groundwater Wells Why: To provide a backup source of water supply to its Zone 7 source, DSRSD will reimburse City of Pleasanton for construcdon and operation of new grouadwater wells south of the Project area. WI~o: DSRSD/City of Pleasanton. What: DSRSD will reimburse City of Pleasanton for groundwa.ter wells. V4'hen: On schedule to be determined by DSRSD and the City of Pleasanton. Completion: Ongoing. Verification: DSRSD. Impact 3.5/R Additional Water Treatment Piant Capacity Miti~ation Measure 3.5/32.0_-ZQne 7 PhasinQ for Water Treatment Svstem ImDrovement Why: To meet increasing demands on its water system, Zone 7 has established a phasing for water treatment system improvements. Who: Zone 7. Whar Implementation of phased improvements. When: Pursuant to established schedule. Completion: Pursuant to established schedule. Verification: Zone 7. MitiQation Measure 3.SL33.0: Construction_~New Chlorination/Fluoridation Stations ~'Vhy: To meet increased demand resulting from the project, DSRSD should construct two new chlori.nation/fluoridation stations at the two proposed Zone ? turnouts to eastem Dublin. Who: DSRSD/Zone 7. Wha~ Construction of two new stations. When: As needed to provide adequate service, with the western turnout being developed first. The eastern turnout would not be developed until development of the eastern portion of the Project area. Completioa: On schedule to be determined by DSRSD and Zone 7. Verification: DSRSD. 33 ~ ~~ ~ ~# ~:. ~ ~, ~~a.~ ~ ~~ -~ - Cily of Dublin Eas: Jublin SpeciGc Plaa dc GPA EIFi Msy 7, 1998 Mitigation Moniioring Plan Impact 3.5/S Lack of a Water Distribution System MitiQation Measure 3.5/34.0: (Policv 9-I ) Provision of an Adeauate Water SuDnlv Svstem Why: To provide an adequate water supply system and related improvements and , storage facilities for all new development in the Project azea. Who: DSRSD/Developers. What: Require new development to build the water supply system needed per DSRSD. Master Plaa and service standards. When: Condition of approval for tentative map. Completiun: Prior to approval of Fiaal Public Improvements Plan. Yerification: DSRSD/Departmeat of Public Works. MitiQatron Measure 3.5/35.0: (Pro~ram 9C) Water Svstem Master Plan Why: To ensnre that DSRSD updates its water system master plan computer model to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA land uses. Who: City of Dublin/DSRSD V4'hat: Request that DSRSD npdate its water system master plan computer model. When: As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA. Completion: Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any new developmen~ Verification: Public Works Depaztment. Mitigation l~leasure 3.5/36.0: /Program 9D ) Combinin~ ot Water Svstems Why: To consolidate the Camp Parks and Alameda County water systems and turnouts with the DSRSD system. Who: City of Dublin Public Works Department/Camp Parks/Alameda County/DSRSD. ~ What Encourage agencies to combine water systems with DSRSD. When: Ongoing from date of Project adoption. Completion: Ougoing. Verification: DSRSD. Miti~ation Measure 3..~/37.0: DSRSD Standards Why: To require that design and construction of all water system facility improvements be in accordauce with DSRSD standazds. Who: City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD/Developers What: Review each development proposal to verify that all water system facility improvements conform to DSRSD standards. When: Condition of approval for Public Improvements Plan. Completion: Prior to approval of Final Public Improvements Plan. Yerification: Public Works Depaztment. E~ 34 ~ ~a~ ~ ~.~~ Cit7* of Dublia lvlay 7, 1998 MitiQation Me"asure 3.5/38.0: DSRSD Service East Dublin Specifie Plaa d~ GPA EIR Mitigation Moaitoriag Plsa Why: To require a"will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of a grading permi~ . Who: City of Dublin/DSRSD/Developer. Wha~ Conf'irm receipt of a"will-serve" letter from DSRSD. When: Condition of approval for tentative map. ~ Compietion: Prior to approval of fiaal map. Verification: Planning Department. Impact 3,5/T Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration of Popalation Miii;zasion Measure 3.5/39.0: _Sizin~o~Water Distributron Svstem Why: To reduce the growth-inducing potential of water system expansion, the water distribution system will be sized to accommodate only the estimated water demands from approved land uses within the Project. Who: DSRSD. Wha~ Limit capacity of water distribution system to serve only the Project site. V1'hen: Update of DSRSD water system master plan computer model. Campletion: Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any new development in the Project area. verification: Department of Public FVorks. ~ Impact 3S/U Increase in Energy Usage through Operation of the Water Distribution System Miti~ation Measure 3.S/40.0: Ener~v-Efficient Oneration of Water Disrribution Svstem Why: To ensure that the water distribution system is pjanned, designed and constructed for energy-efficient operation. Who: City of Dublin/DSRSD. Wha~ Design and operation of energy efficient water distribution system. When: Ongoing. Com pletioa: On-going. Verification: Public Works DeparUnent Impact 3.5/Y Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure hliti,~ation Measure 3.5~41.0: Desi;~n/En~ineerin~ of Water Stora~e Basins Why: To require all reservoir construction to meet all the applicable standards of DSRSD, ta meet cunent seismic building standazds, and to provide adequate site drainage. W ho: DSRSD. Wha~ Design basins to reduce failure potential. . When: Design phase. Completion: Approval of improvement plans. Verification: DSRSD. ,~.; ~ 35 City ot Dublia May ?, 1993 Impact 3.5/W Potential Loss of 5ystem Pressure ~~ ~ ~5~ Eas: Dublin Sp~'fie Plaa d~ GPA EIFi Mitigation Mosutoring Pian Miti~elion Measure 3_S/42.0: Comnliance With All DSRSD Standards Wl~y: To require the proposed new water pump stations to meet all the applicable standards of DSRSD and include emergency power generators at each pump station. Who: City of Dublin/DSRSD. Wha~ Engineering provisions for emergency conditions. When: Design phase. ~ Completion: Approval of final improvement plans. Verification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.54/X Potential Pump Station Noise Mitigalion Measure 3.S/43.0: Reduction of Potential Noise Why: To include design provisions to pump stations that will reduce saund levels from operating pump motors and emergency generators. Who: DSRSD, Wha~ Incorporate necessary engineering provisions in design of pump statioas to minimize operational noise. When: Design phase. Completion: Approval of final improvement plans. Verification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.5/Y Potential Flooding Miti~ation Measure 3.5144.0: (Policv 9-7) Provision ~f Draina~e Facilities Why: To provide drainage facilities that will minimize any increa.sed potential for erosion or flooding. , Who: Developers/DSRSD. Wha~ Review drainage facilities design to verify that erosion/flooding potential will be minimized. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Approval of final grading and improvement p2ans. Verification: Pablic Works Department. - Miti~ation ll~easure 3.S/45.0: (Policv 9-8) Natural Channel ImArovements Why: To require channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible. Wha DevelopersJZone 7. W6at Review required channeI improvements for their attempt to maintain natural-appearing conditions while addressing the drainage requirements. When: Condition of tentarive map approval. Completion: Prior to final grading plan approvai. Verificatioa: Department of Public Works with input from Zone 7. 36 ~-~ ~ ~5g .~ . ,_. -1 :~~ City of Dublin Eas. ,. Dublin Specific Plan dc GPA EIR May 7', 1993 Mitigaticn Monitoring Pian ~ • ~; ~ Mitrr~ation Measure 3.5/46.0: (Pronram 9R ) Storm Draina~e Master Plan ~ Why: To require the preparation of a Master Drai.nage Plan for each development. Who: Developers. Wha~ Preparation of Storm Draiaage Master P1an. When: Condition of tentadve map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approva,l. Yerification: Public works DepartmenL Mitir~ation Measure 3.5/47.0: (ProQram 9S) Flood Control Why: To require Project azea development to provide facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to Project area development. Who: Developers. Whar Provision of flood control improvements. When: Condition of tentative map approval. ~ Cornpletion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Public Works Departmeat. Mitigalion Measure 3.5/48.0: Construction nf Storm Draina~e Facilities Wby: To require the construction of the backbone drainage facilities c~nsistent with the Storm Drainage Master Plan. Who: Developers. Wha~~ Construction of storm drainage facilities. When: Condition of tentative map approval, ' Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.5/Z Reduced Groundwater Recharge MitiQation Measure 3.5/49.0: (Policv 9-9) Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources Why: To plan facilities and management practices that protect and enhance water quality. Who: City of Dublin Public Works DepaztmentjZone 7. ~ Wha~ Oversight of facilities to protect and enhance water quality. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completioa: Prior to final map approval. Yerification: Public Works Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.5/50.0: Zone ? Groundwater RecFearQe Proeram Why: To protect groundwater resources, Zone ? supports an ongoing groundwater recharge program for the Central Basin. Who: City of Dublin Public Works DepartmenL ' What: Support Zone 7 groundwater recharge program, by encouraging recharge areas within the Project area where feasible. ~- 37 ~` City of Dubtia May 7, 1993 When: Condition of tentative map approval. Campletion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Public R'orks Department. Impact 3.5/AA Non-Poiat Sources of Pollution ~-`~ ~~ Ess.^Dublia S~c Plan ds GPA EIR Pe Mitigatioa Monitoriag Plan Miti~ation Measure 3.5/S1.0: Comrm~nitv Educa~ion ProQrams Why: To develop community-basecl programs to educate local residents and businesses on methods to reduce aon-point sources af pollution, and coordinate such programs with current Alameda County programs. VYho: City of Dnblin Public Works Department. Wha~ Development/dissemination of informatioa to reduc.e non-point sources of pollution. Whea: Condition of #entative map approval Compledon: On-going Veri#ication: Public Works Department. Miti~ation Measure 3,51_53.0: "Besi Martarement Practices" Why: . To require aIl development to meet the requirements of the City of DubIin's °Best Management Practices" to mitigate storm water pollution. Who: City of Dublin Public Works Department. Wha~ Review proposed develapment plans to ensure that "Best Management Practices" have been incorporated t~ reduce pollution. When: During development review processing. Completioa: Prior to building permit approval. Verification: Public Works Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.5/54.0: Nalional Polluti~n Dischar~e E_ limination Svsiem RecTUirements Why: To require a11 development to meet the water quality requirements of the Ciry of Dublin's NPDES permit. Who: City of Dublin Public Works Department. . What: Review proposed development plans to ensure that NPDES requirements have been incorporated to reduce pollution. When: During development review processing. Completion: Prior to building permit approval. - Verification: Public Works Department. Miti~alion Measure 3S/55.0: Urban Runoff Clean_Water Pro~ram Reauirements Why: To require all development to meet the water quality reQuirements of the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. Who: City of Dublin Public Works Department. What: Review proposed development plans to ensure that the requirements of the County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program have been incarporated to reduce poltution. ~Yhen: During development review processing. 38 ~~~~ ~~ ~~ r•. "~ i \ City of Dnblin / Ea. Dubiin SpeciSe Plaa dc GPA EIR May 7, 1993 Mtigation Monitocing Plaa Completioa: Prior to building permit approval. Verification: , Public Works Department. SECTION 3.6: SOILS. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 1. Irnnacts Reauirin~ Miti~ation This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation: IM 3.6/B Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects IM 3.6/C Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary Effects IM 3.6/D Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms IM 3.6/F Groundwater Impacts IM 3.6/G Groundwater Impacts Associated with Imgation IM 3.6/H Shrinking and Swelling of Expaasive Soils and Bedrock IM 3.6/I Natural Slope Stability IM 3.6/J Cut-and-Fili Slope Stability IM 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related IM 3.6/L Erosian and Sedimentation Long-Term 2. MitiPation Implementation and Monttorine Program Impact 3.6/B Eacthquake Ground Shaking: P~imary Effects MisiAation Measure 3.6~1.0: Imnlementation of Currenl Seismic_ DesiQn Standard Why: To require the use of modem seism.ic design in construction of development projects, and build in accorda.ace with Unifornz Building code and applicable county and city code requirements. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Review plans to ensure conformance to UBC and all other applicable codes. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completioa: Prior ta final improvement plan/gra.ding plan approval. Yerification: Public ~4'orks Department. Impact 3.6/C Earihquake Ground Sbaking: Secoadary Effects Miti~ation Measure 3.6/2.0: Desi~t ReQUiremenrs for Flai AreQs Why: To provide setbacks from or modification of uastable and potentially unstable landforms, and use of appropriats design to ensure seismic sa£ety. Who: Developers/Public Works Departmen~ Wha~ Verify that improvements have been located away from unstable landforms; that potentiaily unstable landforms have been stabilized; and that development plans conform to UBC and all other applicable codes. When: Condition of tentative map appravai. Completion: Prior io final improvement plan/grading plan approval. Verification: Public Works Department. ~ ~ 39 ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ City of Dublin Eaa, Dublin Specific Plan dc GPA EIR May ?. 1995 Mitigation Moaitoriag Plaa Miti~ation Measure 3.6/3.0: DesiQn Reouirements for Hillside Areas Why: To require appropriate grading and design to completely remove uastable and potentially unstable materials in hillside azeas where development may require substantial grading. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Verif.y that grading and design will remove unstable materials. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval. Yerification: Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure 3.6/4.0: DesiQn Reauirements for Hillside Fills Why: To use engiaeering techniques and improvements, such as retention structures, drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and a.dequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce seismicaily induce fill settlement. ' Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What Require engineered retentioa ~structures, surface and subsurface drainage improvements. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval, Verification: Public Works Department. MitiQafion Measure 3.6/5.0: Desi.en Reauirements (or Fil1 Settlernent Why: 1'o use engineering techniques and improvements, such as retention structures, dra.inage improvements, properly designed keyways, and adequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce seismically iaduce fill settlement. W~o: Developers/Public Works Department. WI~a~G . Require engineered retention structures, surface and subsurface drainage improvernents. When: Condition of tenta.tive map approval. Completion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval. Verificafion: Public R'orks Department. MitiQation Measure 3.6/6.0: DesiQrr Reauirements (roads, srructural foundations and under,~round utilitres ) for Fill Settlement Why: To design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fiils and cuts, and to remove or reconstruct potentially unstable stock pond embankments in development areas. Who: Developers/Public Works Depaztment. ~ What: Verify the effectiveness of improvements to ensure the stability of proposed ' roads, structural foundations and underground utilities. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval. ~ 40 ~ 5~ ~ ~5~ ~ ~ City of Dublin Esa. Dublia Spe~e Plan de GPA EiFt May 7, 1993 Mitigatioa Monitoriag Plaa ~ Veri~cation: Public Works Department. • . '~ Miti~aiion l1?easure 3.6/7.0: DesiQn-Level Geotechnical Investi~ations *~ Why: To require alt development projects in the Project azea to perform design ~ level geotechnical invesdgations prior to issuing aay permits. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. WLa~ Confirm receipt of geotechnical investigations {ie. sta.bility analysis of significant slopes and displacement analysis of cridcal slopes) in conjunction with final design of improvements. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Complefion: Prior to final improvement pIan/grading plan approval. Yerification: Public FVorks Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.b/8.l~EarthQuake Prenaredness_Plans Why: To provide for the development of earthqnake preparedness plans and the dissemination of appropriate emergency measures to all Project residents and employees. Who: City of Dublin Planning DepartmenL What; Develop earthquake preparedness plan, and prepare public information strategy. ~ When: Within two years of adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA. Comptetion: Prior to substantial development in the Project Area. Verification: Planning Department Impact 3.6/D Substantial Atteration to Project Site Landforms 11liti;~atron Measure 3.6/9.0: Gradin~ Plans to Reduce Land(orm Alteration Why: To reduce alteration to existing landforms through the preparation of grading plans that adapt improvements to natural land forms and unplementa.tion of such techniques as partial pads and retaining structures. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What: Review grading plans to ensure that they do nqt result in unnecessary or avoida.bie alterations~to existing landforms. When: Condition of tentative map approval. " Completion: Prior to issuance ~f grading permit. Verification: Public Works Department. MitiQation Measure 3.6/10~: Siti~_o~rovements Why: To reduce landform a2teration by carefully siting individual improvements to avoid adverse conditions and thus the need for remedial grading. ~Yho: Developers/Public Works Department. What: Review proponents geotechnical investigation to determine if improvements have been sited ta reduce the need for grading. • When: Prior to submittal of tentative map. ~ 41 ~"` City of Dublia May 7, 1993 Completion: Prior to issu3nce of grading permit. Veri~catioa; Public Works~ Department. Impact 3.6/F Groundwater Impacts Impact 3.6/G Groandwater Impacts Associated with Irrigation .~. ~~~.~ ~5~ Eas. . Dublin 8peufie Plan de GPA EIR Mitigatioa Monitoriag Plan Miti;ration Measure 3.6/I1.0: Geotechnical lnvesti~ations to Locate and Charrzcteriae Groundwater Conditions Why: To prepare detailed design level geotechnical invesdgations on development sites within the Project area, to locate and characterize groundwater conditions and formnlate design criteria and measures to mitigate adverse conditions. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Yerify the preparation of geotechnical investigations to locate and chazacterize groundwater conditions. When: One year prior to construction. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Perification: Public Works Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.6/I2.0: Constructi9n of Subdrain Svstem Why: To reduce groundwater impacts, subdrain systems including drainage pipe and permeable materials can be constructed. Who: Developers/Public Works Depaztment Wha~ Construct subdrain systems to control groundwater impacts. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Yerification: Public Works Department. 1V~iti~ution Measure 3.6/13.0: S1o~k Ponds and Resecvoirs Why: To reduce groundwater impacts, stock pond embankments should be . removed and reservoirs drained in development areas. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs within development areas. When; Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior~to final improvement plan/grading plan approval. Yerification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.6/H Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock Miti.~ation Measure 3.6/14.0: Geotechnical InvestiQation Why: T'o prepare design level geotechnical investigations for development projects . in the Project area to chara.cterize site-specific soils and bedrock conditions, and to fornnulate appropriate design criteria. ~ 42 ._... . ~3~., ~ ~.~' City of Dublia Eas. Dnbiia Specific Plan dc GPA EIR May 7, 1993 ~ ' IVI'itigatioa Monitoring Plan Who: Developers/Puhlic Works Department. What: Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to characteriie site- specific soils and rock conditions, and the development of appropriate design solutions. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to fiaal improvemeat plaa/gradiag plan approwal. Yerificatioa: Public Rrorks Department. 1~fitieation Measure 3~LIS.~Moisture Control Measures Whr To reduce the potential for impact resulting from expansive soils and rock, by implsrnenting measures to control moisture in the ground. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Verify the appropriate applicadon of moisture conditioning; construction of surface and subsurface drainage to control infiltration; lime treatmen~ When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of building permits. Verification: Public Works Department. Mrti~ation Measure 3 6116.0: Foundation and Pavement Desi~n Why: To reduce the potential effects of expansive soii and rock through appropriate foundation aad pavement design. Who: Developers/Public Works Department, What: , Verify that structural foundations have been located below the zone of seasonal moisture change; the use structurally supportetl floors; the use of non-expansive fill beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete. When: Prior to submittal of tentative map. Completion: Prior to final improvement planJgrading plan approval. Verification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.6/I Natural Slope Stabi[ity Mitioativn Measure_3.~17.0: Geotechnical Investigations Why: To chazacterize site-specific slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate design criteria, development within the Project area should prepare design level geotechnical invesdgations. Who: Deveiopers/Public V-'orks Department. ~ What: Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigatians to characterize slope stability conditions aad identify appropriate design solutions. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Coinpletion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval. Verification: Public Works Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.6/18.0: Sitin~ of Imnrovements Why: To avoid impacts from unstable slopes by siting development away fro~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 43 ~ ~ty of Dublin Msy 7, 1993 Who: WhaC When:. Completion: Verificatioa: 53~ -75~. ,..._ ~ Eas Dublin Specifu Plan dc GPA EIR Mitigation MoniEoring Plan unstable landforms and from slopes greater than 30°j6, and providing lower density development in steep, unstable areas. Developers/Public Works Departrnent. Co~rm that plans avoic€ siting improvements downslope or on unstable and potentially unstable landforms or on 3096+ slopes. Coadition of submittal of tentative map. Prior to final map approval. Pnblic FVorks Department. Miti.eation Measure 3.6/19.0: Desi~n Measures for Imcrovements on, below, or ad iacent to Unstable Slopes Why: To implement measures such as removing, reconstructing, or repairing unstable areas, or structural engineering, when unstable areas cannot be avoided. . ~ Who: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Review for appropriateness and safety the measures suggested to resolve areas with steep and/or unstable slopes. ~ When: Prior to approval of tentative map. Completion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval. Verification: Public Works Department. ~ Impact 3.6/J Cut-and-Fill Slope Stability Mitieation Measure 3.6/20.0: Minimizin~ Gradin Why: To requue grading plans for hillside areas, which plans minimize grading and required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural landforms and stepping structures down steeper slopes. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What: Revisw plans to deternaine if proposed development has attempted to minimize grading. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Verification: Public W~rks Department. , Miti;2arion Measure 3.6/21.0: Conformance of Gradine Plans to UBC - ~ Why: To require compliance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Bnilding Code and applicable County and City code requirements. ~ Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What: Yerify that grading plans conform to chapters 70 and 22 of the Uniform Building Code and to other applicable codes. ~ When: Condition of tentative map approval. Cumpletion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. • ~ ` Verification: Public Works Department. .~ 44 ~ ~..~ ~ ~~- ~ .-. City of Dnblin Eas Dublin Speeific Plan da GPA EIR May ?, 1993 Ivtitigatioa Moaitoriag Plan MitiQation Measure 3 6/22 0• Avoidance of Unretained Cut Sloaes Greater ?'han 3396 Why: To require that uaretained cut slopes should not exceed 3:1 unless detailed, site-specif'ic geotechnical invesdgations indicate that steeper inclinations are appropriate and safe. Who: ~ Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Confirm that project avoids unretained cut slopes greater than 3:1; uses retaining structures to reduce grading on slopes greater than 3:1; and provides benches and snbsurface drainage on cut slopes where applicable. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Comptetion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Verification: . Public Works Department. Miti~ation_Measure 3.6 /23.0: Measures for Sloaes Greater Than 20R6 Why: To require that slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material and provided with subdrainage, prior to placement of engineered fi1L WI~o: Developers/Public Works Department What Confirm that appro~riate measnres have been taken in azeas where slopes are greater than 2Ug6 are to be disturbed. When: C~ndition of tentative map approval. ' Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Verification: ' Puhlic Works Department. MitiQation Mea~we 3.6~0 ~ Measures for Slopes Greater Than SO% Why: To require that unreinforced fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 and provided with benches and surface drainage, as appropriate. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. VYha~ confirm that appropriate measures have been incorporated where unreinforced fill slopes greater than 2:1 are involved. VYhen: Condition of tentative map appmval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit~ Verification: Public Works Department. MiliQasion Measure 3.6/25,0.~ Comnaction of Fitl Why: To require that fill be engineereti (compacted) to at least 90 percent relative compactioa. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What Ensure that fill will be compacted to at ~east 90 percent relative compaction When: Cond.ition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit Verification: Public Works Department. ~ ~:~: ~ .~ 45 ' ,~ Cily oi Dublia Eas DubIin penfi May ?~ 1993 Mitigation Monitoriag Plaa Miti~ation Measure 3.6/26.0.• Preaaration and Submittal of Subsurface Draina~re Insoection Plans Why: To require that development projects prepare plans for the periodic inspection and maintenaace of subsurface drainage features, and the remowai and disposal of materials c3eposited in surface drains and catch basins. Who: Developers/PubIic Works Department. Wha~ Confirm that plans have be.en prepared and submitted for the periodic inspection and maintenance of subsurface and surface drainage facilities. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading perm.it. Verification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related MitiQatinn Measure 3.b/27.0: TrminQ of Gradin~ Activities Why: To require that grading activities be tuned to avoici the rainy season as much as possible, and that interim control measures be implernented to control runoff and reduce erosion potential. VYho: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Review interim control measures to prevent runoff, control runoff velocity and trap silt for effectiveness. When: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Completioa: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Verification: Public Works Department. Impxct 3.6/L Erosion and Sedimentation: Long-Term 1Vliti,~ation Measure 3.6/28.0: LonQ-Term Control Measures Why: To reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface drainage. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. Wha~ Review adequacy of long-term control measures based upon recommendations.of geotechnical consultants. - ~ When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Verifcation: Public Works Department. ~J~ ~ "~.~G S e Plaa da GPA EIR 46 City of Dubtin May 7, 1893 SECTION 3..7: BIOLOGYCAL RESOURCES • 1. Impacts Reaairint Miti~ation This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation: ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~{ Eas, bublin 3peeifie Plan dc GPA EIR Mitigatioa Monitoriag Plan IIvI 3.?/A Direct Habitat Loss IM 3.7/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal IM 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat IM 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox IM 3.7/F Red-Legged Frog IM 3.7/G California Tiger Sa]amander IM 3.7/H Western Pond Turtle IM 3.7/I Tri-Colored Bla.ckbird IM 3.7/J Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site IM 3.7/K Golden Eagle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat IIvi 3.7/L Cr~lden Eagle and Other R.aptor Electrocutions IM 3.7/M Burrowing Owl IM 3.7/N American Ba.dger IM 3.7/O Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-Shouldered Kite IM 3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk IM 3.7/S Speci.al Status Invertebrates 2. Miti¢ation Imnlementation and Monitoring Program Impact 3.7/A Direct Habitat Loss Mitieation Measure 3.7/1.0: tPolicv 6-21_~ Avoidin~ Disturbance/Removal of Vegetation Why: To ensure that direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vagetation cover should be minimized and be restricted to those areas actually designated for the construction of improvements. Who: Developers/Planning Departmen~ What Review plans to verify that disturbance/removal of vegeration has been kept to a minimum. When: Prior to approval of tentative map. Completion: Prior to approval of final rnap. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.7/2.0: (Policv 6-23) Ve~etation Mana,~e,ment Plans Why: To provide for the preparation of vegetation enhancement/management plans for all open space azeas (whether held publicly or privately) with the intent to enhance the biologic potential of the area as wildlife hahitat. Who: Developers/Planning Departmen~ What: Ensure that vegetation management plans have been prepared f or designated o~en space areas. When: Prior to approval of tentative map. Completion: Prior to approval of final map. ~ Verification: Planning Department. ~ ~ ~ ~ 47 ~' C'ityr of Dnblin D2ay 7, 1993 ~3~ ~~ -~s8~ ^, Eas. Dub[in Specific Plan dt GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plaa Miti~ation Measure 3.T/3.0: (Action_Pto~ram 60~eve.~etatiox Plan Why: To require a detailed revegetation/restora.tion plan to be developed for all disturbed areas that are to rema,in undeveloped. Who: Developers/Planning Department. Wha~ Ensure that revegetation/restoration plans have been prepared for disturbed areas. . When: Prior to approval of final map. Completion: Prior to approval of grading plans. Verification: Planning Department Miti~ation Measure 3.7/4.0: Gra2inQ ManaQernent Plar~ Why: To require the City to develop and implement grazing management plans to protect ripazia.n and wetland areas, increase pla.nt diversity, and encourage the recovery of native plants. Who: Planning Departrnent. Wha~ Prepaze a Grazing Managemeni Plan and develop a strategy for implementation. When: Upon aanexation. Completion: As soon as possible after anaexations. Verificabon: Planning Department. Impact 3.7/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal Miti~ation Measure 3.7/5.0: (Policv 6-22) Reve~etation Why: To ensure that all areas of disturbance are revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent erosion. Who: Developers/Planning Department. What: 1) Planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans include schedule for replanting. ~ Z) Building Inspectors will ensure that revegetation occurs on schedule. When: I) Prior to approval of revegetation plans. 2) After site grading. Gompletion: 1) Prior to approval of final grading plans_ 2) Compledon of revegetation. Verification: Planning Department/Public Works. Impact 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanicapy Sensitive Habitat Miti~ation Measure 3.7/6.O:1Poticv 6-9) Preservation of Hvdrolopic Features Why: To require the preservation of natural stream corridors, ponds, springs, seeps, and wetland areas wherever possible. Who: Applicattts/Ptanning Department. ~ Wha~ Ensure that California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have been consulted to determine jurisdiction and provide recommendations. When: During processing of prezoning and annezation applications. ~ 48 . .~ City of Dubiia May T, 1998 Completion: Prior to approval of ~nal map. Ver.ification: Planning Department. ~~~10 ~ ~~ Eas. Dublin Specifie Plan d~ GPA EIR Mitigatioa Monitori¢g Plan Miti~ation Measure 3 T/~ 0• (Policv 6-101 Preservation of Rinarian and Wetlands Areas Why: To require the incorporation of riparian and wetland areas into project open space areas, and ensure that loss of riparian or wetland habitat will be mitigated per Department of Fish and Crame/Corps of Engineers. Who: Developers/Planning Depaztmen~ Wha~ 1) Planning Department will ensure that riparian and wetland areas are incorporated into open space areas wherever feasible, and that revegetation ~ plans provide appropriate mitigation for Ioss of riparian/wetlands habita~ 2) Planni.ng Depaztment in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensure ~ that mitigation occurs as planaed. When: 1) Prior to approval of revegetation plans. 2) After site grading. Completion: 1) Prior to approval of final grading plans. 2) Completion of revegetation. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3 7/8 0• (Policv 6-II ) Ve~etation of Srream Corridors Why: To require that all stream corridors be revegetated with native plant species to enhance their na.tural appearance and improve habitat values. Who: Developers/Planning Department. What 1) Planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans provide for the revegetation of stream corridors. 2) Planning Department in conjwnction with appropriate agency will ensure that revegeta.tion occnrs as planned. When: 1) Prior to approval of revegetation plans. 2) After site grading. Completion: 1) Prior to approva.I of final grading plans. 2) Completion of revegetation. Verificatioa: Planning Department. Miti~ration Measure 3.7f9.0: (Policv 6-12J En~ineerinQ for Storm ltuno Why: To ensure that storm runoff is carried in natural stream channels wherever possible, rather than replacing with underground drainage systems. Who: Applicants/Public Works Department. What Ensure that storm runoff plans preserve/utilize natural stream channels as effectively as possible. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Final map approval. Verification: Public Works Department. 0 ~.: ~ ~ ~: 49 „~ -~ --` `, ~ ~ ~~~ City of Dublin Eas. Dublia Specific lan dt GPA EIR May 7~ 1993 Mitigatioa Monitoring Plan MiiiQation Measure 3.7/10.0: (Policv 6-I3) ODen SDace Corridor Svstem Why: To establish a stream conidor system that provides multi-purpose open space conidors capable of accommodating wildlife and pedestrian circulation. Who: Developers/Planning Department. What Planniag Depa.rtmeat, with consuitatioa from CDFG, will ensure that plans provide for the effective preservation/enhancement of stream conidors as multi-purpose corridors. Wben: Prior to approval of tentative map. Completion: Prior to approval of final grading plans. . Verification: Planning Departmen~ Miti~ation Measure 3.7/II.O: (Pro~ram 6E) Submiiial of Wetlands Delineation Why: To require all pro ject applicants to submit a multi-parameter wetlands delineation to the COE for verification and jurisdictional establishment, and svbmit ptans for p.roposed alteration to any watercourse to the DFG for their review and approval. Wha: Applicants/Planning Department. What verify submittal of multi-parameter wetlands delineadon to the Corps of Engineers, and submittal of plans streamcourse alteration plans to the Depaztment of Fish and Game. When: Condition of approvat for tentative map. Comptetion: Final map approval. Verification: Pla.nning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.7/12.0 (ProQram 6F) ComDrehensive Stream Corridor ~testoration Pro~ram Why: To provide for the development of a comprehensive stream corridor. restoration progra.m that identifies a detailed set of criteria for grading, stabilization and revegetation of planning area stream channels. Who: Planning Department/Public Works/Zone 7/Department of Fish and Game What Develop a comprehensive stream corridor restoration program. When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications. Completion: Prior to tentative map approval. Verification: Planning Depaztment. _ 11~iti~ation Measure 3.7/13.0: (ProQram 6G) Dedication of Land and ImDrovements Why: To provide for the dedication of Iand and improvements (i.e.., trails, revegetation, etc.) along both sides of stream corridors as a condition of project approval. . Who: Developers/Planning Department. What Require dedication of la.nd and improvements along both sides of stream corridors. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to Fina1 map approval. so ~y~ ~~~' .. ~ --~~ ~ C'ity oi Dublin E~. Dublin Speeific Plan dt GPA EIR May 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Yerification: Planning Department. Miti~ation Measure 3 7/14 0•(Program 6H) Sedimentation Control Ordinance Why: To pravide for the enactment of an erosion and sedimentation conUol ordinance establishiag performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of stream channeL~. Who: Public Works DepartmenL Wha~ Enacunent and enforcement of a sedimentation control ordinance. When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applicatioas. Completion: Prior to tentative map approval of the Project site. Verification: Public Works Department. Miti~ation Measwe 3.7~0: _[P_. ro~2'_ram 6K1 Liaisorr with ~Lesource Mana ement A~encies yVhy: . To establish a liaison between the City and resource management agencies for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Specific Plan policies. Who: Planning Department. Wha~ Fstablish and maintain a liaison with resource management agencies. Set up a meeting with agency representadves to review with them the adopted plan and poiats at which their input will be important. When: As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Pian/GPA. Comp letion: On-going. verification: Planning Department. Mitination lt~easure 3.7/I6.0: Protection of Existine Sensitive Habitats Why: To require that sensitive habitat areas will be avoided and protected wherever feasible. . Who: Developers/Planning Department. What Verify that land nse proposals avoid and protect existing sensitive habitat areas. When: Upon submittal of tentative map. Completion: Condition of finaI project approval. Yerification: Planning Department. 1Vliti~ation Measure 3J/17.0: Construction Near Draina es Durin,e the Drv Season Why: To require construction near drainages to take place during the dry season. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What Require that construction neaz drainages take place anly during the dry season. When: Upon submittal of tentative map. Completion: Condition of approval of building permit or grading permit. Verificatiou: Public Works Department. ~ ~ ~ 51 City of Du61in May 7, 1993 Impact 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox : 5 `~3 ~ ~,~~~ Eas, Dublin Specific Plan da GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plaa Miti~ationMeasure3.7/38.0: USF'i~YSSection7Consultation/CDFGSection2053Consultation Why: To require all development in the Project area to comply with the Eastern Dublin,San Joaquin iCit Fox Protection Plan. Who: Developers/Planning DepartmenL . What: verify that development plans are consistent with the provisions and procedures set forth in the Eastera Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Final map approval. Verification: Planning Departrnent: Miti~ation Measur.e 3.7/18.1: Kil Fox Ha6itat Mana~ement Plan Why: To provide for cooperation between th~ City and other appropriate agencies in the preparation of a Kit Fox Habitat Management Plan. Who: Planning Department. ~ What: Contact Department of Fish and Game about the City's interest in ~ participating in the esta.blishment of a habitat management plan with other jurisdiCtions in the region. When: Upon adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA. Completion: Ongoing. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~atiorr Measure 3.7/19.0: (Pro.~ram 6N) Restrictior~ on use of Rodenticides/Herbicides Why: To restrict the use of rodenticides and herbicides within the Project area in order to reduce potential impacts to wildiife. Who: Public Works/Alameda County Department of Agriculture. What Monitor use of rodenticides/herbicides on Project site. Require any poisoning prograrns to be done in cooperation with and under supervision of the County Department of Agriculture. WF~en: Ongoing as a condition of project approval. Comple ti on: On-gaing. Verificatian: Public Works Department. Impact 3.7/F Red-Legged Frog Impact 3.7/G California Tiger Salamander Impact 3.7/H Wesfern Pond Turtle Impact 3.7/I Tri-Colured Blackbird MitiQation Measure 3.7/20.0: (Pro~ram 6L Pre-Con~truction Surve Why: To require developers to conduct a pre-construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species. Who: Developers/Planning Department Wha~ Review results of pre-construction surveys. 52 ~ ~~~~~ ~~ City of Dublin Eas. . Dubiin Specific Plan dc GPA EIFi. May ?, 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Plan When: 60 da.ys prior to habitat modification. Complefion: Prior to grading plan approval. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~ati9n Measure 3.7/21.0: Nabitat Protection Why: To ensure the pmtection and eahancement of sensitive species habitat areas. Who: Developers/Planaing Department. WLat Review plans to ensure compliance ' with Mitigation Measures 3.7/2.0, 3.7/3.0, and 3.7/6.0-3.7J18/0 inclusive. When: Prior to teatative ma.p approval. • Completion: Prior to grading plan approval. ' Verificatioa: Planning Department Miti~ation Measure_3.~22.0: Bu er Zones Why: To require the maintenance of a buffer around breeding sites of the red- legged frog, Catifomia tiger salamander, and the Western pand turtle. ~ Who: Developers/Public 1~Vorks. Wha~ Maintenance of minimum buffer around breeding sites identified during the pre-construction surveys. When: Condition of grading plan approval. Completion: End of construction. , Verification: Public Works DepartmenL Impact 3.7/d Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site Miti~ation Measure 3J/23.0: (Policv 6-20)_Golden EaPle Prorection Zone Why: To ensure that a natural open space zone (Golden Eagle Protection Zone) is maintained around the golden eagle nest located in the northeast comer of the ptanning area. Who: Developers/Planning DeparUment Wha~ Review development plans to ensure that a protectioa zoae is maintained ~ around the golden eagle nest. Whea: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Final map approvai. - Yerification: Planning Department. Nfitisation Measure 3.7/24.0:_Golden Ea,~le Protection Zone: Addicional TemDOral Bufter Why: To require that during the golden eagle reproductive period, an additional temporal buffer will be established within 250 feet of the Golden Eagle Protectian Zone. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What: Monitor construction activities to ensure that the temporal buffer around golden eagle protection zone is maintained during the period between 7uly and January. ~ ~ ~ ~ 53 ~ ,-,. .-~. ~~ ~5& , City of Dublm I Eas. Dubiia Specific tan & GPA EIR Mar 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoriag Plan When: During construction near the golden eagle protection zone. Completion: Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs first. Verification: Public Works Department. • Impac# 3.7JK Golden Eagle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat Miii~dtiorr Measure 37/15.D: Preservatiox of Fora~in~ Hahitai Why: To provide suitable forage for the golden ea.gles, the Project maintains substantial rural residential/agricultural acreage. Who: Planning Department Wha~ Ensure that future plans do not reduce habitat area. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Final map approval. Verification:. Planning Department. Impact 3.7/L Golden Eagle aud Other Raptor Electrocutions ltlitiQatiox Measure 3.7/26.0: (Pro~ram 6M) UnderQroundinQ o/Trcrosmission Line Why: To require the placement of all transmission lines underground. whenever feasible, to avoid the potential for raptor electrocutions. Who: Public Works Department. What Undergronnding of transmission lines. When: Condition of approval for Public Improvements Plan. Completion: Final Improvements Plan approval. Verification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.7/M Burrowing Owl Impact 3.7/N American Badger Mitigation Measzcre 3.7/27.0: Butfer Zones Why: To require a minimum buffer be maintained around nesting sites of the burrowing awl and breeding sites of the American badger during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals. . Who: Developers/PubIic Works Depaztment. Wha~ . Maintenance of a mia.imum buffer (at least 300 feet) around nesting sites (either known or those identified in the pre-construction surveys) Whea: During canstruction. Completion: Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs first. Verification: Pubiic Works Department. Impact 3.7/O Prairie Fa[con, Northern Harrier, and Black-Shouldered gite Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 mitigates impacts to these species. Refer to monitoting of that ~ 54 .~ ~y~ ~~~ ~~ ,•-~1 ~ ~,:: City of Dublin Eas, Dubiin SpeciSe Plaa da GPA EIR. May 7, 1998 M'itigation Monitoriag Plan ~ ~, 1I11t1g3t10D nl~'dSIITC. ~"'"' Impact 3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk '~ • ~ Mitigativn Measnres 3.7/6.0-3.7/17.0 and 3.7/21.0 are applicable. Refer to monitoring of those mitigation measures. ~p Impact 3.7/S Specia] Status Igvertebrates 1VfitiQation Measu~e 3.7/28.0: Pre-construction Surv Why: To require developers to conduct a pre-construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive speciss. Who: Developers/Planning Department ~ What: Review results of pre-construction surveys. When: . 60 days prior to habitat modification. Completion: Prior to gra.ding plan approval. Verification: Planning Department. SECTION 3.8: VISUAL RESOURCES 3. Imnacts ReauirinQ Miti~ation This section identifies the following impacts requiring nudgation: IM 3.8/A Standardized "Tract" Development IM 3.8jB Alteration of Rural/Open Space Yisual Character IIv! 3.8/C ~bscuring Distinctive Natural Features IM 3.8/D Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides IM 3.8/E Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges IM 3.8 jF Alteration of visual Quality of Flatlands IM 3.8/G Alteration of Visual Quality of Watercourses IM 3.8/H Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City IM 3.8/I Scenic Vistas IM 3.8/J Scenic Routes 2. MitiQation Imnlementation and Monitorine Program ,~„ Impact 3.8/A Standardized "Tract" Development °~ Rfiti ation Measure 3.8/I.O: Visuallv Distinctive Communitv ~"" Why: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining ~ views from major travel corridors and public spaces: . Who: Planning Department/Developers. What Ensure development proposals comply with design guidelines set forth in ~ 55 ,,,,, ,^ ^ 54~ ~ ~s~ City of Dublin ~ Eas. ~Dublin Specific Plan Ea GPA EIR May 7, 1993 bfitigstioa Monitoring Plan Chapter 7: Community Design of the specific Plan. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. Comgletion:• Final map approval. Verificatioa: Planaing Depastment. Impact 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character Miti~ation Measure 3.B/2.0: Imnlementation of Land Use Plan Why: To ensure implementation of the Speci~c Plan/GPA land use plan, which • was developed to retain predominant natural features and a sease of openness. Who: AppIicants/Planning Department. ° Wha~ Ensure that development proposaLs emphasize retention of predominaat natural features and preservation of a sense of openness. When: Prior, to approval of prezoning. Coaipletion: Final map approval. Verificatioa: Planning Department. Impact 3.8/C Ubscuring Distiactive Natural Features MitiQalion Measure 3.8/3.0: (Policv 6-28) Preservation_of natural features Why: To require the preservation of the natura.l open beauty of the hills and other important visuaI resources. Who: Applicants/Planning Department. Wha~ Ensure that development proposals preserve the natural open beanty of the hills and other important visual resources on the site. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. Completion: Final map approval. Verification: PIanning Department. Impact 3.8/D Alterafiou of Visual Quality of Hillsides MitiQrrtion Nfeasure 3.8/4.0: tPolicv 6-32) Reduciion of visual imnacts due to extensive ~radin~ Why: To reduce the visual impact o£ extensive grading through sensitive engineering design that uses gradual transitions from graded areas to natural slopes and revegetation. Who: Davelopers/Planning Department. What Review plans to ensure implementation of sensitive engineering design and revegetation. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. Completion: Prior to final grading plan approval. Verification: Planning Departrnen~ ~~ 56 ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ty of Dublin Ess. Dubiin Specifie Plaa da GPA EIIt May 7, 1993 Mitigation Moaitoriag Platt I~ ~~ Mitieativn Measure 3.8/4.1: (Policv 6-34J Minimization of Contours Alteration "'~ Why: To minimize alterations to exisdag natnral contours. 1~Vho: Developers/Planning Department. Wha~ Review plans to see that they minimize alteration of natural contours. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. Completion: Before ~nai grading plan approval. Verification: Planning Department. Mitigaxion M'easure 3.8/4Z: {Policv 6-35) Avoidance of Fla1 Gradin~ Wh3: To avoid extensive areas of flat development ~~``± Who: Developers/Planning Department: Wha~ Review plans for success at employing alternatives to flat grading including '~" individual gradiag, stepped grading, and design in response to topographical ~, . and geotechnical conditions. When: Prior to approval of prezonin.g. ~ Completion: Before final grading plan approval. VeriCcation: Planning Department. ~' Miti~ation Measure 3.8/4.3: (Policv 6-36) BuildinQ Desi,~n Why: To encourage building design to conform to natural land form as much as possible. Who: Developers/Planning Department. Wha~ Review plans for success at usiag building design that conforms to the natural~ landforms of the Project site. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. - Completion: Before building permit is approved. Verification: Planniag Department. Miti~alion Measure 3.8/4.4: (Policv 6-37) Recontourin~ of Graded Slones „~ Why: To require graded slopes to be re-contoured to resemble existing landforms in the immediate area. Who: Developers/Planning Department. "" Wha~ Review plans to ensure that graded slopes will be recontoured to blend into ~~: eaisting landforms in the immediate azea. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. ~ Completion: Final grading plan approval. ~ Verification: Public Works Department. ~" Miti~ation Measure 3.8/4.5: (Poticv 6-38) Minimization of the Hei~ht ot Cut and Fill Slopes ~- Why: To minimize the height of cut and filI slopes as much as possible. ""~ Who: Developers/Public Works Department. . ~ Wha~ Require that the height of cut and fill slopes be minimized. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. ,~,,. 57 ~ City of Dublia May 7, 1993 . Completion: Prior to issuance af grading permiL Verification: Public Works Department. Impact 3.8/E Alteration of Visaal Quality of Ridges .~ ~~`~ ~ ~5~- Eas. Dublin Specific Plan dc GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoring Pian Miti~atron Measure 3.8/5.0: (Policv 6-29 ) Prohibition A~ainst DeveloDment on Main Rid~eline Why: To minimize visual impacts by prohibiting development on the main ridgeline, and ensuring that development on foreground hills meets certa.in standards. Who: Planning Department/Applicants. What: Review plans to ensure that no development is located on main ridgeline of Speci~c Plan area, and that development on foreground hills mai.ntains a backdrop of natural ridgelines. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. ~ Completion: Prior to final map approval. Yerification: Planning Department. 111iti~ation Measure 3.8/5.1: (Policv 6-301 General 1lfaintenance_of Scen_ic Views Why: To control the location and design of structures so they generally maintain scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic backdrop when viewed from a designated scenic route. Who: Planning Department/Applicants. ~ Wbat Ensure that proposed developmeni minimizes obstruction of scenic views. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~zation 1lqeasure 3.8/5.2: (General Plan ~lmendment Guidin,e_Polic~E) Structures on RidQelines Why. To restrict structures on the hillsides that appeaz to project above major ridgelines. Who: Planning Departmeni/Applicants. Wha~ Ensure that proposed development minimizes obstruction of scenic views. When: Prior to approval of prezoning. Completion: Prior to final map approval. - Verification: Planning Department. Impact 3.8/G Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercoarses Miti,~ation Measure 3.3/6.0: (Policv 6-391 Protection of the Visual Characler of Watercourses Why: To protect the visual character of the stream canidors, unnecessary alteration or disturbance should be avoided and visua2 access to the stream ~ corridors should be maintained from adjoi.ning development. Who: Planning Department/Applicants What Review plans ta ensure that watercourses are protected from unnecessary 58 ~~ ~~ ~ , ~Ly of Dublia : Eaa. : Dublia S " o Plan dc GPA EIR M$y 7~ iggg ~ Mitigation Monitoring Plan alteration or disturbance, and that visual access to the stream conidors is maintained. Wben: Prior to approval of prezoning. ' Completion: Prior to final map approval. verification: Plaan.ing Department Impact 3.8/I Scenic Vistas Miti~ation Measure 38/7 0• ~Policv 6-St Preserve.Views of Desi~nated ODerr SDace Areas Why: To preserve views of designated open space areas. . Who: Planning Department/Applicaats.. What Review plans to ensure that view corridors are maintained between developed and open space areas. • When:. Prior to approval of prezoning. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Planning Department. • Mitipation Measure 3.8/7.1 • Visual Survev of the Pro iect Site Why: To provide for the preparation of a visual survey of the Project azea to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. Who: Planning Department. What Identify and map viewsheds of sceaic vistas. When: During processing of prezoning Campletion: Prior to any development east of Tassajara. Road. Verification: Planaing Department IM 3.8/J Scenic Routes Miti~ation Measur~ 3.818.0:_~ction Pro;~ram 60 ) DesiQnation of Scenic Routes Why: To prflvide for the designation of scenic conidors, and the adoption of scenic corridor policies and review procedures for projects within a scenic corridor viewshed. Who: Planning Depa.rtment. What: Designate Tassajara Road, I-580 and Fallon Road as scenic corridors; draft and adopt scenic corridor policies and review procedures and standards for projects within the sceaic corridor viewshed. When: During processing of prezoning. Completion: Prior to annexation of new areas into the City. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~ation llfeasure 3 8/8 1•(Action Pro~ram 6R l Visual Analvsis of Proiects Why: To require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit detailed visual analysis with development project application. Who: Developers/Planning Department. Wha~ Review visual analysis of projects with potential impacts on scenic conidors ~~ ~ ~ 59 City of Dubiia , E~ May 7, I993 M'itigatioa Monitoring Plan to ensure project conformance with visual quality objectives. When: During processing of prezoning. . ~' Compietion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Planaing Depattment. SECT'ION 3.9: CULTURAL RESOURCES ~ ~ 1. Im~acts Reauirin~ Mitigation This section ideatifies the following impacts requiring mitigation IM 3.9/A Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources IM 3.9/B Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Prehistoric Resources IIv! 3.9JC Dismption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resource5 ~~~' IM 3.9/D Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources 2. MitiQation Imolementation and Monitorin¢ Program Impact 3.9/A Disruption of Identified Prehistoric Resoarces Mitigation Measure 3.9/1.0: Subsurface Testin~ Why: To require mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing on all location of prehistoric resources ta determine the presence or absence of midden deposits. Who: Applicants/Planning Department. ~ Wha~ Require submittal of findings of subsurface testing (mechanical or hand) to determine the presence or absence of midden deposits. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Pla,nning Department. Miti~alion Measure 3.9/2.0: Recordin~ of Archaeolo~ical Materials Why: To require all locations containing either midden components or concentratioas of cultural materials located on the surface to be recorded oa State of California site survey forms. Who: Applicants~Planning Department. VVhat: Record midden components or concentra.tions of cultural materials on State of California site survey forrns. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to grading pla.n approval. Veri~catioa: Planning Department. w~ ~Sl ~~ Ec G A EIR ~Dublin Specifie Plan P 60 s~ ~ ~~ GSty of Dublin ~y ~, i9ss Miti.~ation Measure_3.~3.0: Evaluntive Testin ~n Eas. . Dublin Spe 'cif'ie Plan dc GPA EIR • Mitigation Monitoring Plan .~r Why: To require evaluative testing if proposed development would directty or indirectty impact recorded and mapped locations of resources. Who: Applicants/Plann.ing Department. Wha~ Review the findings of evaluative testing required for recarded and mapped locations that may be impacted by future construction or access. V4'6en: Conditioa of tentative map approvat. Completion: Prior to gradiag pla.n approval. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~tation Measure 3 9/4 D• Protection Pro~ram for Prehistoric Sit Why: To require a qualified azchaeolog3st to develop a protection program for "significaat" resources whose condition will be altered by proposed develapment. Who: Applicants/Planning Depa.rtment. Wha~ Review protection program prepared for prehistoric sites -which contain either a surface or subsnrface deposit of cultural materials, and incorporate recommended mitigation into the conditions of approval for the project. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to grading plan approval. Verification: Planning Department. , Impact 3.9/B Disruption or Destruction of Unidentifled Prehistoric Resources MitiQation Measure 3.9L5.0:1Policv 6-25 ) Discoverv of Historic/Prehistoric Remains Why: To require grading and construction to cease in the event that historic or prehistoiic remains are discovered during such activities. Who: Developers/Planning Depamnent. What Cease grad.ing/construction activities when historic or prehistoric resources are discovered. Reta.in a certified archaeologist to ascertain the significance of the remains. When: During grading/construction. Completion: Before grading/construcdon resume. Verification: Planning Department. MitiQation Measure 3 9/6 0• tActi~n Pro~ram 6P) Additronal Actions Related to Prehistoric Resources Why: To require as part of the development application process that steps be taken to ensure that cultural resources are not impacted. Who: Applicants/Planning Department. Wha~ Prepare site sensitivity determination. If determined to be sensitive, require detailed research and field reconnaissance, and development of a mitigation plan as necessary. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Campletion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. ~ 61 ~ ~,~ 3 ~ ~5~". City of Dublin Eaa, :DubGn SpeciBc Plan da GPA EIR May 7, 1995 • Mitigation Moaitoriag Pian Veri~cation: Planning Departmen~ Impact 3.9/C Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources itipation Measure~ 9~7 0•(Policv 6-26I Archival Research Why: To require a11 properties with historic resources which may be unpacted by development to be subjected to in-depth archival research. Who: Applicaats/Planaing Department. Wha~ Review findings of in-depth archival research on any historic resources potentially~ impacted by future development. Whea: Prior to tentative map approval: Completion: Prior to issuance of gra.ding permit. Verification: Planning Departmen~ MitiQation Measure 3 9/8 0• (Policv 6-27) Adantive Reuse or Restoration of Historic Resources Why: To eacourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures whenever feasible. Who: Developers/Plaaning Department. Wha~ Review development proposals to determine if reasonable considera.tion has been given to the potential to reuse or restore historic sfructures. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~aiion Measure 3.9/9.0: Evaluation o~ Structural Remains Why: To require an architectural historian to assess the significance of all standing structures and other indicators of historic occupation and/or use of the azea. Who: Applicants/Planning Department. Wha~ Review professional evaluation of structural rema.ins to determine significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval. Wben: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. _ Verification: Planning Department. , Miti,~ation Measure 3.9/ID.O: Research of Standin~Structure Locations and Other Indicators o/ Historic Occunation Why: To require archival research and oral interviews to determine the local or regional significance of structures or locations (identified in the 198 8 report) by their association with important persons or events. Wbo: Applicants/Planning Department. What Review professional evaluation of structural remains to determine significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation ~,a 62 ~~ s~~ ~ ~5,~ ...... .~ ~ty of Dublin Eas. , Dublin SpetiSe Plan & GPA EIR Maq 7, 1993 ' ~ Mitigatioa Monitoriug Plan recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to ~nal map approval. Verification: Planning Department ~ Miti~ation 11~easure 3.9/11.0: Record of All Historic Locations in 1988 ReDOrt V4'hy: To require that all previously noted locations (in 1988 report) be recorded on official State of California Historiccall Site Inventory forms. Who: Applicants/Planning Department. Wha~ Verify that all locattions noted in 1988 report have been recorded on State of Califomia Historicat Site Inventory forms. VI'hen: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Planning Department. N~iti~ation Measure 3.9/I2.0: Preservalion Program for Historic Sites ~r• Who: Wha~ When: Completion: Verification: SEGTION 3.10 NOISE To require the preparation of a preservation program for historic sites which qualify under CEQA Guidelines as historically significant. Applicants/Plaaning Departmeat. Review the preservation program prepared for any historic sites, a.nd incorporate any recommended mitigations as a con~dition of project approval. Prior to tentative map approval. . Prior to final map approval. Planning Department. 1. Imuacts Reauirin~ Mitigation This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation: IM 3.10/A Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise - IM 3.10/B'Exposure of Eaisting Residences to Future Roadway Noise '~~~. - I1Vi 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Pazks RFTA) and the County Jail IM 3.10/E Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise IM 3.10/F Noise Conf'licts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development ~ ~ 63 ~. ~ `=~ ,,,~' -75~ ~._, City oiDnbtin ~' Eas ..~Dublin Specific Plan ds GPA EIR May 7, 1993 Asitigation Moaitoriag Plaa 2. Mitigation Imnlementation and Monitoring Proeram Impact 3.10/A Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise Mitieation Measure 3.I0/1.0: Acoustrcal Studv Within Fulure CNEL 60 Contour Why: To require acoustical studies for all residential development projects within the future CNEL 60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced to 45 dB. Who: Applicants/Planning Department. 1Vha~ Verify the preparation of an acoustical study for all residential projects located within the future CNEL 60 noise contour, aad confirm the incorporadon of mitigation measures into the proposed plan. When: Pr.ior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verificatioa: Planning Department. . Impact 3.10/B Exposure of Existing Residences to Futnre Roadway Noise MitiPation Measure 3.10/2.0: Provis~n~N~ise Control Measures Why: To require that all development projects in the Project area provide noise barriers or berms .near existing residences to control no~se in outdoor use ~ spaces. ' Who: Applicants/Planning Depaztment. What: verify that proposed plans provide noise abatement for existing residences or that such mitigadon is not necessary. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to Final map approval. ~ Verification: Planning Departrnent MitiQation Nleasure 3..1017,0: Noise Miti,eation Fee Why: To provide for the establishment of a noise mitigation fee to pay for on- and off-site noise mitigations, including but not limited to, noise baniers, earthen berms, or retrofitting structures with sound-ra.ted windows. Who: Applicants/Planning Department. Wha~ Prepare an ordinance permitting the ]evying of a noise mitigation fee. When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications. Completion: Prior to tentative map approval for projects along Tassajara Road, Hacienda Road, or Fallon Road. Verification: Planning Department. Impact 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Deveiopment to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserre Forces Trainiag Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Jail MitiQation Measure 3.10/3.0: Perform Acoustical Studies Why: To require acousticaI studies prior to future development in the Foothill w~ 64 z~ ~~ ~ ~S~ ~ City of Dublia May 7, 1998 Wbo: VYha~ When: Compietion: Verification: Eas. ,.Dublia Specific Plan dc GPA EIR Mitigation Moaitoriag Plan Residential, Tassajaza Village Center, County Center, and Hacienda Gateway subareas to determine whether future noise impacts from Camp Parks and the county jail will be within acceptable limits. Applicants/Planniag Departmen~ Yerify-that acoustical studies have been prepared for projects proposed in identified subareas, and incorporate recommended midgations as conditions of projecE approval. Prior to tentative map approval. Prior to final map approval. Planning Department: ~ Impact 3.10/E Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise Miti~ation_Mearure ~.IQ14.0: Construction Noise Management Pro~ram Why: To require development projects in the Project azea to submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. Who: Applica.nts/Planaing Department. What Review Construction Noise Management Program to ensure that adequate measures have been taken to protect existing residents. When: Prior to teatative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. ~ Verifica#ion: Planni.ng Department Mitigation 111easure 3.J0/5.0: Comnliance with Locai Noise Standards Why: To minimize construction aoise •impacts, aII operations should comply with local noise standards and be limited to normal daytime hours, and stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. Who: Applicants/Plannang Department. What: Ensure that noise mitigation measures have been included as conditions of project approval. When: During constrnction. . Completion; Following construction. Verification: Planning Department. Impact 3.10/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Direrse Land uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development Miri~ation Measure 3.I0/6.0: Noise Mana~ement Plans Why: To require the preparation of noise management p2ans for a11 mixed-use projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial, office, or other urban non-residential uses. . Who: Applicants/Planning Departrnent. Wha~ Verify the preparation of a noise management plan for mixed-used projects, and review plans for mitigation that should be incorporated as a condition ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 65 ~" CiLy of Dublia May 7, 1998 of approval. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Complefion: Prior to fiaal map approval. Veri~cation: Planning Department. SEGTION 3.11 AIR QUAI,TTY ~~~ -~. ~ ~. Eas. ; Dublia Speeific P1an dc GPA EIR M'i6igation Monitoring Plaa l. Imnacts Reauirin¢ Mitigafion .. . This section identi~es the following impacts sequiring mitigation: IM 3.11 /A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activity IM 3.11/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions ' IM 3.11/C Mobile 5ource Emissions: ROG or NOx IM 3.11 /D Mobile Source Emissions: CO IM 3.11/E Stationary Source Emissions 2. Mitigation Implernentation and MonitorinQ Program Impact 3.11/A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activity Miti~2ation Measure 3.11 /1.0 ~.Constructio-i-Related Dust Abatemeni Measures Why: To require development projects. to implement dust control measures to refluce project dust deposition to acceptable levels. Who: Developers/Public Works Depaztment. Wha~ 1) Require dust abatement measures to be outlined as conditions in the grading plan. 2) Monitor implementation of ineasures during construction. When: 1) Ensure inclusion of abatement measures in grading plan. 2) Monitor implemeatation of ineasures during grading a.nd early phases of construcdon. ~ Completion: Following constructioa. Verification: Planning Department/Public Works Department. Impact 3.11/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions MitiQation Measure 3.Ii/2.0: Minimizalion of Interference o/ Construction ~raffic with Regional Non-Proiect Tratfic 1i~ovement Why: To minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic _ movement. Who: Developers/Public Works Department. What Routing and schednling of construction-related traffic to avoid interference ~ . with non-project traffic movement. ~ When: Prior to approval of building and/or grading permits. Completion: Following completion of construction. ~ . _ 66 City of Dablia May 7, 1993 Verification: Public Works. ~fitigation Measure 3.11 /3.0: Emissions Control ~~$ ~7~' .~ ~ Eas. Jublin Specific Plau dc GPA EIR Iviitigation Monitoring Plaa Why: To require emissions control from on-site equipment through a routine maadatory program of low-emissions tune-ups. Who: Developers/Planning Deparhnent/Public Works Departmen~ Wha~ 1) Yerify the incorporation of this emissions control measure in the conditioas of approval. 2) Monitor construction to verify implementation of coatrol measure. When: 1) Prior to final map approval. 2} During construction. Campletion: Following completion of construction. Verification: Planning Department/Public Works Department. Miti~2ation Measure 3.11 /4.0: Construction Imnact Reduction Plan Why: To require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies. Who: ~ Planning Department/Public Works Depaztment/applicants. What Ensure that the construction impact reduction plan incorporate all proposed a.ir quality mitigation strategies, and clearly defines responsibilities for implementation and supervision. When: 1) Preparation of plan prior to development review approval. 2) Monitoring of implementation during construction. Campletion: Following campletion of construction. Verification: Planning Department/Public Works Department. Imgact 3.11/C Mobile Soarce Emissions:ROG or NOx MitiQalion llleasure 3.11 /5.0- ReQinnal Interagencv CooDeration Why: To encourage cooperation to integrate air quality planning efforts on a regionaI basis. Who: Planning Department/Tri-Valley and Regional Agencies. What: Coordinate interagency cooperation ta integrate air quality pla.nning with transportation, transit and other infrastructure plans. _ When: Establish liaisons and begin coordination concurrent with p]an adoption. Com p le ti on: On-going. Verification: Planniag Department. • Mi£i~2ation Measwe 3.11 /6.0: Plannin:z Consistenc Why: To maintain consistency among specific development plans aud regional transportation and growth mana.gement plans. Who: PIanning Department/Tri-valley and Regional Agencies. What Review plans to ensure consistency between specific development plans for the Project site and regional transportation and growth management plans. ~ ~ , :~ 67 ~. 5~9 ~ 75~~ .~ . ~ty of Dublin • Eas~ Jublin Speeifie Plaa & GPA EIR Msy 7, 1995 Mibigation Monitoring Piaa Wben: Prior to approval of tentative m2p , Completion: Prior t~ #'inal map approval. Verification: Planning Department. Miti~ration _Measure 3! I/7 0• Transnortarion Demand Mana~ement (TDM Why: To implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce mobile source emissions. . Who: Public Rrorks Departmeat. Wha~ Review plans for inclusion of TDM techniques to reduce mobile sonrce emissions. When: Prior to tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to final map approval. Yeri~cation: Public Works. Miti~ation_Measwe 3 Il /8 0• Ontimization of Existin~2 Transportation Svstem Why: To optimiie the eaisting transportation system to reduce congestion and shift travel to non-peak travel periods. W~o: Planning Department/Public Works Department Wha~ Work with LAVTA to development public informatioa programs to encourage use of public transit, and encourage lazge employers to implement measures to shift travel to non-peak travel periods. When: Ongoing. Completion: On-going. Verification: Planaing'Department/Public Works Department Miti~cuion Measure 3 11 /9 0• Coordination of Develooment with Roadwav ImDrovernents VYt-y: To coordinate levels of growth with roadway transportation facilities improvements to accommodate travel demand without inducing demand by providing excess system capacity. Who: Public Works Department. Whati Phase roadway improvements so that they accommodate growth, but avoid "over-building" facility improvements. When: Review schedule of roadway improvements concurrent with submittal of tentative map. _ Completion: Prior to final map approval. Verification: Public Works Department. Miti,~ation Measure_ 3 11 /10 0: Mixed-Use Develonment Why: To encourage mixed-use development that provides housing, jobs, goods and services in close proximity. Who: Planning Department. . What: Encourage developers to consider mixed-use development in their projects as a means to reduce discretionary vehicle trips. When: During pre-application discussions and application process. ~ 68 ~'°D ~ -~~ ~ City of Dublia May 7, 1993 Completion: Verificatioa: Tentative map approval. Planaing Department. Miti~ation Measure 3.11 /11.0: JobslHousin~ Linka;~e Eaa, DubIia SpeciSc Plan ds GPA EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plaa Why: To require linkage between growth of housing and job opportanities ~ consistent with a positive sub-regional contribution to jobs/housing ratio balaaces. ~ Who: Planning Department. Wha~ Keep Planning Commission and City Council aware of snb-regional jobs/housi~g status and the implications of project approvals on that balance. When: Ongoing as part of individual development review process. Completion: Ongoiag. verification: Planning Department. Impact 3.11/E Statioaary Source Emissians MitiQa~ion Measure 3.11 /12.0: Conservatio~ Tar~et Level for StationarY Source Emissions VVhy: To minimize stationary source emissions associated with Project development wherever feasible. Who: Planning Department. Wha~ 1) Establish and implement a conservation target level for sratioaary sonrce emissions at 10 percent above the Title 24 standards. ~ 2) Review individual pro jects to verify attempts to meet:conservation targe~ When: 1) Prior to rezoning and annexation approval. ~ 2) Prior to final map approval. Completion: Final project approval. Verification: Planning Department. MitiQaiion Measure 3.11 /I3.0: Solid Waste Recvclin ~'4'hy: To incorporate solid waste re-cycling in all development planning. Who: Planning Depart~ment. Wha~ Develop a strategy for integrating solid waste recycling into planning for all new development, and work with developers to implement this strategy. When: Prior to rezoning and annexation approval. Completian: Ongoing. , Verification: Planning Department. 69 ~ ~ ,, City+ of Dublin May 7, 1995 SECIION 3 12• FISCAL CONSIDERATTONS 1 Impacts Reauirin~ Miti~ation This secdon identifies the following impact requiring mitigation: ~ ~ ~ ~s~ ~ Eas. Uublin Specific Plaa da GPA EIR 2viitigation Monitoring Plaa iM 3.12/B Fi~cal Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infrastructvre improvements 2 Miti ation Imnlementation and Monitorin~ Proeram' Impacts 3.12/B Impacts Related to the Cost and Prnvision of Project-Related Infrastructure Improvements Mitieation Measure 3 12/10• Develo»ment A~reements Why: To provide for the preparation and adoption of a development agreernent for each project that spells out the precise financial responsibilities of the developer. Who: City Manager's Office/Developers. Wha~ Prepare and adopt a developrnent agreement or the appropriate agreements for each development project that sets forth the. precise financial responsibilities of the applicants. When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval. Cornpletion: Condidon of final project approval. Veri~cation: City Manager. Mitieation Measure 3 I2/2 0• Area of Benefit Ordinance Why: To adopt an Area of Benefit Urdinance and form an Area of Benefit for those proper~ies benefiting from construction of public improvements described in the Specific Plan. Who: City Manager's Office. Wha~ Prepare and adopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance, and define the Area(s) of Benefit. VYhen: Prior to prezoning and annexation a~proval. Completion: Prior to final approval of any development in the Project area. Verification: City Manager. Miti:~ation Measure 3.I2/3 0• Snecial Assessment District or Mello-Roos CFD Why: To create one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment Districts to finance construction of the iafrastructure to serve the Area of Benefit. Who: City Manager's Office. ~ Wha~ Prepare and adopt one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment Districts to finance infrastructure for Areas of Benefit. When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approva]. Completion: Prior to any final project approval. 70 -~°2 7~ ~ ~ City of Dublin May T, 1995 Verificatioa: City Manager, MitiQation Measwe 3,121_4.0: Marks-Roos Bond Poolin East Dublia Specific Plan ds GPA EI$ Ivtitigatioa Moaitoring Plaa Why: To have bond counsel evaluate the benefit to the City, ia terms of savings. of money aad avoidance of undue risk, of pooling bonds under the Marks- Roos Bond Pooling Act. Wha City Manager's Office. ' Wha~ Evaluate options related to bond pooliag for Eastern Dublin pursuant to the provisions of the Marks-Roos Bond Pooling Ac~ When: Prior to prezoning and annezation approva[. Completion: Prior to any final project approval. Verification: City Manager. Miti~ation Meosure 3.12/5.0: Citv-Wide Dev_elo,ver and Builder Imnact Fee Svstems Why. To analyze city-wide infrastructure needs to assess the usefulness of implementing an impact fee program, in compliance with AB 1600, that could draw some funding from new development when final map or buiIding permits are issned. Who: City Manager's Office. Wha~ Evaluate efficacy of implementing of an impact fee system, as provided by AB I640. If found to be useful, draft and adopt an ordinance to implement. VI'hen: Prior to prezon.ing and annexa6on approvaL Completian: Prior to any fiaal project approval. • Verification: City Manager. . Miti~ation Measure 3.12/6.0: School Impact Fees Why: To coordinate City and School District efforts to fund necessary school facilities and collect payable fees. Who: City Manager/DUSD/I,YJUSD. What Meet with school district(s) to coordinate efforts to fund school facilities. When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval. Completion: Prior to any final project approval. Verification: City Manager. 11~rti~atian Measure 3.12/7.0: HiQhwav Interchan~e Fundin,~ Why: To coordinate City and Caltrans efforts to fund necessary freeway improvements and collect developers' share of costs. Who: City Manager's Office/Public Works/Caltrans. What 3vleet with Caltrans to coordinate efforts to fund freeway improvements and collect proportionate share of costs from developers. When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval. Completion: . Prior to any final project approval. Verification: City Manager. 7l .~ .~ ~3 ~ ~~s~ City of Dubiin Fast Jublin Specific P1aa d~ GPA EIR Msy 7~ 1993 • Mitigstion Moaitoring Plsa Miti~ation Measure 3.12/8.0: Utilities Imnact Fees • Why: . To coordinate City and DSRSD efforts to fund utilides services and collect . developers' share of costs. Who: City Manager's Office/Public Works/DSRSD. Wha~ Meet with DSRSD to coordinate efforts to fund urilities services and collect ~ ~ proportionate share of costs from developers. Whea: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval. Completion: Yrior to any.final project approval. ~ - ~ Verificatioa: City Mana.ger. :_~ 72 ~~ ~-~ ~~~ 1 Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR 33 Trafrc and Circulation REVISIONS TO DEIR TEXT ON PAGES 33-14 TO 33-28 • , IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DA~Y TRAFFIC VOLUMES (YEAR 2010 WITHOUT PROJEC'I') ~ Daily traffic volumes on various freeway and street segments were projected for Year 2010 conditions without and with the Project, and for ~umulative buildout conditions with the Project (Fgure 3.3-E). These volumes were compared fo estimated daily capacities of each type of roadway, as descnbed in Table 33-1. The resultant Ievels of setvice were estimated based on the daily traffic voiumes (Table 33-9). . • IM 3.3/A I-S80 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon Year 2010 growth wi[hout the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed level flf service E on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fa11on Road: This is a significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure of the EIR , MM 3.3/1.0' Caltrans, in cnoperation with local jurisdictions, could construct awdliary lanes on I-580 between Tassajara Road and FaIlon Road to provide a tota! of I0 lanes in that section, consisteni witl: tl:e Caltrans Route Concept Report for I-580. ~ Implementation of MM 3.3/1.0 would provide LOS D operati~ns and reduce [he impact to a level of insignificance. ~ . 4 Revised Text 1?lIS/92 ~.M 990 ~¢ . ~. ~~ ~~~. ~ E•rstern Dublin SP/GPA EIR 3.3 TraRc and Circulation ~MppCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DAILY TRAF'FIC VOLUMES (YEAR 2010 WITH PROJECI') IM 3.38 I-580 Freeway, I-680.Hacienda Year 2010 growch with the Project would cause I-580 between I-680 and Fiacienda Drive to exceed level of service E. This freeway seccion has been widened to its maximum practical capacity within Caltrans' right-of-way. This is a signi6cant impact " This , impact ~is also a significant cumulative impact and an unavoidable adverse impact as ~ discussed in Chapter 5. Mitigation Measure of the Specific Plan ~ MM 33/2.0 (Policy 5-21) Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more ' employees within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and . Speci6c Plan area to participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. A TSM program would include strategies to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles svch as on- 1 site distri6ution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle ~ services to and from BART stations, participation in regional ~ ridesharing semces, preferential parking for vanpools and carpooLs, . and flexible or staggered work hours. Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 33/2.1 The Project shall conuibute a proportionate amount to regional ~ transportation mitigation programs as determined by regionr~ transportation studies suclt as the current study by the Tri-Vatley Transportation Council. Regionaf mitigation measures may include implementation of enhanced rail and feeder bus transit services, construction or upgrading oE alternative road corridors to relieve demand on the I-SSO and I-680 freeways. MM's 332.0-332.1 are applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact, but the impact would remain significant. ~ 5 Revised Text 12/15/93 ~~1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ F.asiern Dublin SP/GPA EIR IM 33iC I-580'Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway 33 Tra(Iic and Circulation Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause freeway. volumes to exceed level of service E on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard: This is a significant impact. This impact is also a,signi~icant cumulative impact as discussed in Chapter 5. Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 33/3.0 The. City oj Dublin shall coordinate with Callrans and the Ci1y of Pleasanton to corrstruct ~~ e~ auxiliary lanes on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. The auxiliary lanes would provide a total of 10 lanes on diis section (8 tluougl: lanes and 2 auxiliary lanes), cnnsi.stent with the Caltrans Route Cor~cept Report for I-580. ~ Tl:e Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improveinents, as determined by a r•egional F~a-rsportatioR study such as the current study by the Tri-Yalley Transportation Cnuncil. The auxiliary lanes would provide LOS E operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, and LOS D ~ ~ operatioas between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard. MM 33C3.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance «` ~_"=" "-'"..".. '" ~* ~'..`~-~'c ~ ~' ~ n v . i r ~ «•..nJ :b..:~,. „*. ^~M z (NOTE: MM 33/3.0 would provide LOS E operations between Tassajara and Fallon,. which is considered acceptable according to the Alameda Counry Congestion Management Program. The mitigation measure .would reduce IM 33IC to a level of insignificanee.J ~ 6 Revised Text 13/?S/93 ~ 992 ~ , '~~f~~ ~~~ Fastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR Ilvi 3.3/D I-680 Freeway, North of I-580 3.3 Trafiic and Circul~tion Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed level of service E~ on I-680 north of the I-580 interchange. This is a significant impact. This impact is also a signi~cant cumulative impact as discussed in Chapter 5. Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 3.3/4.0 ~ The Project s~-e~~ shall contnbute a proportionate share to planned ultirnate improvements at the I-580/I-b80 interchange as irnplemented ` by Caltra~rs. The~ assessed costs of freeway interchange improvements shall inrlude the costs oj revised freeway ramp connectivres to Dublin (such as hook ramps) and the associated mitigation on local streets. The proportionnte shdre of r:osts attributable to . the Project shall be ' determirced through a reginnal transportatinre study such as the current study by the Tri-Yalley Tranrsportativn Council. The improvements would provide additional capacity on I-680 north of I-580 and would • provide LOS D operations. ~ MM 33/4.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measvre would reduce the impact to ~a level of insigniEcance. ~ 7 Revised Tert 13/1 S/42 993 ~~~ ~s~ ~ Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR 33 Traffic and Circulation ~ IMPACTS `~ BUILDOUT ~WITH PRO ES~ ES: DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (CUMULA'TIVE . IM 33/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts Cumulative Buildout with the Project wou{d cause additional freeway sections to exceed level of service E compared to Year 2010 With Project, including ~ .~ I-580 east of Airway Boulevard (from E to F~. This is a significant cumulative impact a~ •~~~-~A- a• ~~• as discussed in Chapter 5. ~ ~r~ [NOTE: Caltrans has indicated in their commenu on the DEIR chat I-580 west of I-680 can be evaluated a5 a ten-lane section due to the two auxiliary merging/weaving lanes which sup~lement the eight through lanes. Therefore, the LOS on I-580 would not exceed the LOS E stanciard.] . Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 33/5.0 Tl~e Project sl:all corctribute a proportionate amount to the corrstruction of auxiliary lanes oR I-580 east of Airway Boulevard, as implemented by Caltrans. The irnprnvement would prnvide ten tanes on I-580, ~ consistent witlz the Ccltrares Route Concept Report for I-580. ?'he City of Dubtirt slur!! coordinate with other ~local jurisdictions s~a~~ to require that all future developments participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by regional trarrsportativn studies such cu the current study by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. Implementation of MM 33/5.0 would reduce the impact to a leve! oj i-rsignificance.-~-~ ~ . . ~NO'IE: Widening of I-SSO east of Airway Boutevard, within the City of Livermore, is =~ not cunently programmed for construction by Caltrans. Wielening to ten lanes is consistent with the Rouce Concept Report.J IMppCTS AND MTITGATTON MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECITbN OPERATION Detailed P.M. peak hour turn movement traffic volumes were projected at•intersections which would be significantIy impacted by Project traffic (Figure 33•~. Le~-els of service were evaluated at these. intersections (Table 33-10) and mitigation measures were identiFed for each intersection which is. projected to exceed the LOS D standard. (Projected intersection tum volumes and capacity calculations are on file at the City of Dublin Department of Public Works.) '~ g Revised Text 12J25/92 ~ g9~~ 5~~ ~ ~5~ Fastern Dublin SP/GPA ~IR 3.3 TrafFc and Circulation Ilvlpp,Ci'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATTON (YEAR 2010 WITFi PROJECI') . ~ ~ IM 3.3/F Dougherty Road & Dublin Boulevard ~ Year 2010 development with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the ' intersection of Dougherry Road with Dublin Boulevard. This is a signi6cant impact. Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 3.3/6.0 The City of Dublin shall Eae~a~e monitor tra~c conditions ai this intersection anrl implernent construction of additional lanes on all approaches at the intersection when .required to maintain LOS D operatiorzr. The required lanes on the northbound approach on Dougherty Road include two left-tum lanes, three through lanes (one . more than existing) and one right-turn lane (one more than existing). The required lanes on the southbound approach on Dougherty Road ~~~ , include two left-turn lanes (one more than existing), three through _ lanes (one more than existing) and one right-turn lane. The required . lanes on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include one left-turn lane, three througb lanes (one more than existing) and one ~ right-turn lane. The required lanes on the westbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include two left-turn lanes, three through lanes and one right-turn lane. The Project shall contribute a proportionate sh~re of the improvement costs as determined by. a regional transportrztion study sucli as il:e curreni srudy by tlie Tri-Yalley Trans~rtation Councif. These improvements would provide~LOS D ~,, operations. ~ MM 33/6.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure ~ would reduce the impact to a level of insigniFcance. ~ 9 Revi3ed Tezr 12/15192 ~s ~ ~, ~7~ 7~£~ ~ ~ Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR 33 Tra~c and Circulation IM 33/G Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Ramps Year 2010 development with the Project would cause lewel of setvice F operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with the I-580 eastbound ramps. This is a significant impact Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 33/7.0 The City of Dublin shal! implemerit imProvencents ut co°1d ~~1°n E~a~e with the City oE Pleasanton and Calfrans to ~est~ge the I-580 eastbound off-ramp to provide two leFt-turn lanes ~and e~e two right-turn lanes (e~sting lanes are one left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes). The Project sball contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs as deterrnined by a regional tr'ansPvrtation study such as die currer~t study by tl:e Tri-Valley Transportation Council. The improvements wouid provide LOS C operations. MM 3.3/1•0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. . ~ IM~33/H Tassajara Road & I=580 Westbound Ramps Year 2020 development with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the I-580 westbound ramps. This is a signifcant impact Mitigation Measure ~ of the EIR MM 33/8.0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in cvordination ~~~ with Caltrans to widen the I-580 westbound off ramp to provide two left-turn lanes and two right-tum lanes, and to modify the norchbound approach to pravide three through lanes. The Project shall contnbute a proportionate share of the improvement costs as determined by a regior~al transpnrtation study such cs the current study by the Tri-Yalley Transportation Cvuncil• _'I'he improvements would provide LOS B operatians. MM 3.3/S.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a level of insigni6cance. ) 10 Revised Texr 13/I S/92 ~ ~. 9ss ~ ~~~~ ~~~- Fastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR 3.3 Traffic and Circulation IM 3.3/I Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Ramps Year 2010, development with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the I-580 eastbound ramps. This is a significant impact. This impact is also an unavoidable adverse impact as discussed in Chapter 5. Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 3319.0 The City of Dublin shaU implemerrt improvements in coordination ' ~e~e with the Ciry. of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the I- 580 eastbound off-ramp to provide two left-tum lanes, orie through ~ lane aral one ~e right-tum lane~. ~hese improvements would .provide LOS E operations. -''~ "'-} ''' '°"'~' ~` " ~ • ~ • a .7 D' 1' T ' .7..~:...~ .. ..L .. ~..i.. 'PL.:.. a r~ r~ . „ ...,., . ~ e... e ~~v-aoec.'~5 ~?rri'~e3B6 27~~~E ' ••, •l.i .',ie Tr. .~l ..F .. ~--~p~:~: The Project shall be ~ required to contribute a 1 proportionate share of the improvement costs as .determined by a ~ regional transportation study such as the current study by.the Tri-Ya!!ey Trarrsporlation Council. The City of Dublin shall continue to work with the City of Pleusanton to morcitor level of service at this intersection ared pdrticipate in implementing improvements which may be identifred in the future to improve tra~c operativrrs. [NOTE: Further improvemen[ to the level of service could be provided by prohibiting " left turns fram southbound Santa Rita Road to eastbound Pimlico Drive during the P.Ivi. peak period (4:00 to 6:00 P.M.). This left-turn prohibition would require out-of-direction travel for drivers wishing co access Picalico Drive during the P.M. peak period, but wouId provide level of service D operations. The City of Pleasanton has indicated that such a left-turn prohibition would not be axeptable.J • MM 33/9.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this_ mitigation measure .... ~+r i will reduce the impact but '" ` ` ` a' '' ' "' c"" ~°~" ~~ ~ `'16 6''=' the impact will remain significant. ;;,~ . ~ 1 11 Revised Terr 33/1 S/92 ~~~ s~~ -~~~ ~ ~x ~ Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR IIvt 3.3/J Airway Boulevard & Dublin Boulevard 33 Tr~!'tic and Circulation ~ ` ~. :. ~ year 2010 development with the Project would cause Ievel of service E operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway. This is a signi~cant impac~ Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 33110.0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordinatiorc Eeaf~~a~e with the City of Livermore to modify the intersection to provide three through lanes and a right-turn lane eastbound, and two left-turn, tanes and two through lanes westbound. The Project shall contribute a proportioaate shaFe of the improvement costs as determined by a: regional transportation study such as the current study by tlre Tri-Yalley Transportation Council. These improvements would provide LOS C operations. MM 3311U.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a level of insigni~cance. ,- ~ IM 33JK Airway Boulevard & I-580 Westbound Ramps Year 2010 development with the Project would cause le'vel of service F opeiations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the I-SSO westbound ramps. This is a significant impac~ Mitigation Measure oE the EIR " MM 33/11.0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in .coordinatioR ~~e with the City of Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway Boulevard overcrossing oE .I-580 by 12 feet to provide adequate storage for northbound left-turns, and widen e€ the aff-ramp to provide one left and one left-right lane. The Project shall contribute a proportionate share toward "the cost of these • improvements as determined by a regior~al d'a~rsPortahon stud.Y ~~ ~ the currerst study by the Tri-Valley Transportativn Council. The improvements would provide LOS D operatioris. MM 33/11.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. ) . 12 Revised T"eu 12/1 S/93 ~ - $9~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _,,~~.. Eastern Dubiin SP/GPA EIR 3.3 Tra~c and Circutation IM 33/L El Charro Road ~ Project traffic could introduce stops and delays for loaded trucks from the . quarries on El Charro Road south of I-580. This is a potentially significant impact [NOTE: This impact can be mitigated to a level of insigniFcance through proper design ~ ` of the interchange improvements. AItemative interchange designs prepared by Bissell and ~' . Karn Engineers are currently under review.J : Mitigation Measure of the EIR MM 33/12.0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination ° eae~~~e with Caltrans, t1:e Ci1y of Pleasanton and Alameda County to ensure that modifications to the I-580 interchange~ at Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road indude provisions for unimpeded truck movements to and from El Charro Road. The Project sha11 contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs as deterncined . . by a regiona! tra~rsportation study such as the current study by the Tri- 1 Valley Transportation ~ Council and additionn! studies of relative costs ~ and benefits associated with the special design of this interchange. Implementation of IvIM 33/12.0 would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. ~ 13 Revised Tez712/IS/92~ k~ ~ ~9g ~ ,~7~ -75^S ~ ~ Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR 33 TraRc and Circulation „ ~ IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASUI~ES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATTONS (CUMULATIVE BUILDOUT WITFi PROJEC1~ IM 33/M Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard Cumulative buildout with the Project would. cause level of senrice F operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard and level of service E operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with Dublin Boulevard No further widening oJthese intersections would be feasible. This is a significant cumulative impac~ Mitigation Measure of the EIR ~ MM 3,3113.0 Tl:e City of Dublin sl:all continue to panicipate in regional studies oj ' future ira~rsportation requirements, improvement alternatives and fundircg programs, such as the current study by the Tri-Yalley Transportation . ~ COllllCl~. wr t .t, :,t .. ,.c «t,e..s ..f~....~...:,,.... . ..t.~ ~.~ r......:s.i, .. ~ a ~`" Buildout of proposed non-Project. related development (i.e. outside Eastern Dublin) beyond Year 2010 levels wouid require the construction of grade-separated interchanges on Dublin Boulevard '~ ~ and/or establishment. of alternative routes to redistribute traffic ~ow. The Project shali participate in the implementation and funding of; ' regional transportation improvement programs •. as determined by ' these re~ional studies. ~ Implementation of MM 3.3/13.0 would reduce the impact, but the impact would remain significant. , I ~ 14 Revised Texr 12/I S/93 ~.a ' ~0~ ~ ,~ ~-~ 5~ .~5~r Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR 3.3 ?ratYic and Circulation . IM 33/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road Cumulative buildout with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road, Gleason Road and the Transit Spine. 'T6ese - impacts would be caused primarily by traffic. from the Tassajara connection to Dougherty Valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley. This is a significant cumulative impact a~-a~t as discussed in Chapter 5. Mitigation Measure of the EIR . MM 3.3/14.0 Buildout of proposed non-Project related development (i.e. outside Eastern Dubiin) beyond Year 20101evels would requi~re the widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the , Contra Costa County Iine. The City of Z~ublin shall reserve right-of- ~ way for up tv six lanes on Tassajara Road betweeR Dublin Boulevard anrl the CoRtra Costa County line. Tl:e City of Dublin shall ~rionitor traffic conditions at key intersections and se~ments on Tassajara Road, and impJemer:t wirlening projects as required to maintain the LOS D standard. The Project sliall contribute a proportionate amourtt to the j cosls of improve-nents on Tassajara Road, as determined by a regiona! fransportatioR study such as the current strcdy by the Tri-Yalley Transportation Cauncil. , i.. ,.,~ t.,~.a .~. t«,, r, t.i: ~e e.,t n~., n,... .:a.,,,,~ [NOTE: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan wili be modified to ensure thac right-of-way is reserved for six lanes on Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra Costa County line. The SpeciCc Plan will also ensure that pedestrian and vehicle access can be provided to proposecl commercial development on Tassajara Road in the Town Center area between Dubiin Boulevard and Gieason Road in the evenc that chis seccion is widened to six Janes.] , ~ [NOTE: 1fie Speci6c Plan provides for Project implernentation of road improvemenu including four lanes on Tassajara Road. Regional calculations of funding shares for the ,:~ potential widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes should consider any prior contributions of Eastern Dublin developmencs towarcis the cosu of the four lane roadway.j Implementation of MM 33/14.0 would reduce the impact, '~••• ..'a ~' '~° ~ "';'~'" .:.'~ , to a leve! of iruignificance. ,v~ 1 I 15 Revised ?'ext 12/1 S/93 ~OOI EASTERN DUQLIN G,ENE[tAL PLAN AMENDMENT/SPECIFIC P[AN EIR CIRCULATION Table 3.3-9 ~ • FREEWAY OPERATIONS t991.. 2010 Existln Wlthout Yro ect 2010 ~ Wllh Pro ect Cumolative Buildou/ with Pro ect Locatlon l.anes Volume . LOS Yolume LOS Volume LOS Volume L05 INTERSTATE SS0 ~ West of I-680 10 147 000 D 155 000 D 157 000 D l67 000 D i-680 -_ Dou hert 10~ 152 OOp D l78 000 B 199 OOD F 209 000 F Dou herl - Hacienda 8 10 ~~ 142 000 D 164 000 ~ D 191000 F l94 000 F Haclenda - Tassa ara 10 142 000 C 166 000 D. 184 000 E 189 000 E Tassa ara - Fallon 8 10 131000 D 165 000 F D 185 OOU F E 187 000 F E Fallon - A1twa 8 10 128~000 D 153,000 E 163 000 F D 184~000 F E Fast of Alrwa S 10 127 OQO. D 141000 D 155 000 E 179 000 F E INTERSTATE 680 Norlh oF 1-580 8 10 111000 D 157 000 E 168 OQO F D 177 000 F E South of I-580 6 89,000 - C 95,OOQ D 113,000 E 115~000 E Nota: ' LOS m Level ot utvlce. . O~ Po(enUal lann and LOS with wldenina. . ~ •¢ l.evel o[ setvice [or 10•lene ucllons oonaldets capeclly of 91h snd lOth auxilfary lana at 7346 of :tandard t~eeway lane capacilin. •• a Widening o( I-SB0 between Dougheny and Hacienda irom 8 to 101ana will be compieted prior ~0 2010 as part o[ Ihe eurrenl BART extencion project. ~ ~ ~ '`~ P88~09-05(wp31).IbUA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V, ~ - . ~ . . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ __~ ` ~ <" ~ ~ # ~ : ~~~7 ~' `7S~ Resoonse to Leiter I2: Garv F. Adams. Caitrsns District 4 12-1 ~omment: Methodoiogv for Anaivsis of Trsffic Imoacts. 'i'his report does not analyze the proposed project's impact to traffic on freeway corridors and ramp iniersectioas in an acceptable manner. AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes should be used as a basis in analysis rather than daily traffic volumes. Res~onse to Comment 12-1: Peak hour traf~c yolumes (P.M.) were used in the ana]ysis of all freeway ramp intersections (see Table 3.3-10, page 3.3-24). ~ As shown in Table 3.3-7 on page 3.3-14; 47 percent of the PTOject's trip generation would be attributable to retail land uses. Retail land uses geaerate little of their traffic during the A.M. peak hour; about 25 percent of the traffic they generate during the P.M. peak hour. s Therefore, the overatl Project trip generation would be about 30 percent lower during the A.M. peak hour compared to the P:M. peak hour. It was determined that the P.M. peak hour wouId be the mosi critical period for traff ic aaalysis. . Freeway volumes were evaluated on a daily basis, consistent with the da.ily traffic ~olume data published by Caltrans. Directional peak hour. traffic volumes have not been published by Caltrans for the freeway segments adjacent. to the Eastem Dublia Project. 12-2 Commen~ .I-580 Imnrovements. The fifth auxiliary laae between Dougherty/Hopyard Road in each direction of I-580 has not been added a~ of today. These, auxiliary lanes will be included in BARTs roadway reconstruction which is scheduled to begin in mid-1993. Restionse to Comment 12-2: The ~fth auxiliary lane will be added prior to the 2010 aaalysis ~ year. The aaalysis of prvject impacts in Table 3.3-9 assumed the conect aumber of .Ianes. - The analysis of existing conditions for the segment of I-580 between Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road and• Hacienda Drive is inconect. : The existing level of service on this freeway segmeat would be "D" rather than "C". Conesponding revisions to text aad t~bles are included as an attachment to this Final EIR. • 12-3 Comment: Road SeQmeats. In Table 3.3-2: 1992 Existing Freeway Operations, the number of iaaes .west of Hacienda. Drive should be eight,: not ten. . Res~onse to Comment 12-~: See response to Comment 12-2. 12-4 Commenr Freewav O~erations. In Table 3.3-9: Freeway Operations, the number of lanes just west of I-680 (between San Ramon/Foothill Road) should be ten. West of Hacienda, the number of lanes should be eight. . Resronse to Commeat 12-4: As noted in the comment, a fifth auxiliary laae for merging and weaving is now provided in each direction on I-580 west of I-680 between Foothill/San Ramon and I-680, for a total of ten lanes (eight through lanes, two auxiliary Ianes). Corresponding revisions to Table 3.3-9 are included as aa atrachment to this Fiaal EIR. The revised numbez of lanes on I-580 west of I-680 would not cause a change in Project impacts or midgations. As noted in the comment, there are currently eight lanes on I-580 west of Hacienda between Dougherty/Hopyard and Hacienda Drive. Corres~saadiag revisioas to Table 3:3-9` for the~ ti~,, ezisting condidons are inciuded as aa attachment to this Fiaal EIR. This section of I-580 has • ~ been programmed for construction to provide a total of ten lanes (eight through lanes, two a~ i-~.$sp n u~z~~ 56~ ~~ ~ ~sg ~ ~. auxiliary lanes) as part of the current BART extension construction project. These lanes will be completed prior to 20I0. The aaalysis of Project and Cumulative impacu on this section of I-580 assumesi the correct number of lanes which will ezist at that time. 12-5 ~ommen~ Prn~ortionate Share. The EIR recommends (MM 3.3/4.0) "the project should contribute a proportionate sliare to plaaned ianprovements at the I-580/I-680 interchange...". Please ezplain what the propoftionate s~are would be based on, and also describe the procedure which would ensure.that the Project will coatribute its share. Resnonse to Commeat 1~2-3: The proportions of improvement costs to be paid by various jurisdictions and developments shovld be based oa a regional study of improvement needs, such as the current study by the Tri-valley Transportation Council. The shares of improvement costs should aLso consider prior contributions to regional road improvements. The City of Dublia is participati~g in regional studies of future tra,nsportatioa requiremenu (Tri-Valley, Alameda County) aad wonld establish a fee, strucrure to ensure future development pays for the appropriate share of regional road i~provements based on those regional studies. ~ 12-6 ~''^mmen~ Imnaet of the Proiect oo Exist~ng Intersections. The level of sezvice and average vehicle delay of PM peak hour intersection apetatioas aze listed without mitigation. Because this proposed development is mainly residential, the impact of projected traffic on existing intersections caused by the moraing commute (AM peak) should also be considered. Any intersection in which the LOS will become unacceptable~ during the AM peak will need mitigatioa. Resnonse to Comment 12-6: See the response ta Cominent 12-1. As noted, nearly half of the Project'§ daily trip geaeration would be attributable to retail Iand uses, which generate about 75 percent fewer trips, during the A.M. peak hour compared to the P.M. peak hour. ~ Therefore, the overall Project uaffic generation would be about 30 percent lower during the A.M. peak hour compared to the P.M. peak hovr. It was deteranined that the P.M. peak hour would be more critical for traf~c analysis than the A.M. peak hour. However, recommended road improvements propose balanced lanes in each direction to ~asure that reverse direction traffic flows can be accommodated during other time periods. 12-7 Gommen~ Ramn MeterinQ. T'he operation of at least five interchanges on I-580 and two interchanges on I-680 will be affected by the Projec~ It is recommended that ramp meteriag be co.nsidered for all ttie on-ramps within the Project limits. 'Ihe pr.oposed on-ramp improvements should provide adequate storage to accommodate the ramp metering operation. The improvement of local streets needs to be considered to ~accommodate the ramp metering. Res~onse to Commeat 12-7: Ramp metering would control vehicles entering the freeway on on-ramps, to easure that traffic on the mainline freeway operates smnothly during peak periods. Ramp metering reduces delay on the mainline freeway, bui increases delay for drivers on local streets wishing to access the freeway: If designed properly, ramp metering can reduce the total overall delay for a~l drivers. The City of Dubiin will coordinate with Cattrans on alI interchange improvements to ensure that ramp metering. can be accommodated. 12-8 GQmmen~ Coordiaation• of Si~nal~zstion of Ramos and Intersections. There are sever2l signalized ramp intersections and local street iatersections within the project limits. Usually, the sigaals on local streets are designed and opented independendy by local authorization. However, in order to operate the interchanges which will be affected by th•is project more "~ efficiently, the signal interconnection between ramp iatenections and local street intersections ~., { is essential. The coordi~ation between the State and local authorization so design and.operate . ,~ ~ i-ss.asp rs u/7/~ ~ 55,'? s r ) , ~`~~ ~s~ Stata of Catlfornta 8usiness, Transportatlon and Housing Agency ~Ulemorandurr~ ~ . To: MR. M1KE CHIRIATTI ~ Date: October 9, 1992 State Ciearinghouse Fti~: ALA000479 1400 ~Te~nth Street, Room 121 scH: 91103064 Sacramento, Ca 95.814 p.nn.: 0.0 . ~ ,-~;~: ~..: . . ~.~ . ;::.~ FROM: DEPARTMENT. OF TRANSPORTATlON `'` '~ • ' . . ;., ~ ~ .',.. Transportation Planning Branch-Distr.ict 4 '~° ~`~~• ;' ~• ~ l~ J''~v' !^. ; . SUBJECT: ~ EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMFNt/SPECIFi '~ LAN~•;;;';~ J' . i,:~ '1%• ` ' ' • • ~a% .: . ~ , ..~~~ \;°~ ~ ; _:~ ~ The Califarnia Department of Transportation (Gaitrans) has reviewed the above-referenced document and forwards the foilowing comments: This report does not analyze the proposed project's impact to traffic on freeway corridors and ramp intersections in an acceptab~e manner. AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes should be used as a hasis in • analysis rather than daily traffic volumes. ~ ~~ ~ 3.3 TRAFFIC AND CiRCULATlON EXISTING ROADS . Freewavs The fiifth . auxiliary lane between DoughertylHopyard Ro.ad in each '~ direction of 1-580 has not been added as ofi today.. These auxiliary lanes ~ will be inciuded in BART's roadway reconstruction which is scheduled to begin in mid 1993. EXISTIIVG TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Road ~Seg~ments ~ n~ ~ ~ Table 3.3-2 - 1992 EXlST1NG FREEIIVAY OPERATIONS - The nurnber of Lanes West of Hacienda Drive sfiould be 8 not 10. ~ ~ ~~-~ ~ 12-2 ~ 12-3 J 565 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~5~ ~ ~~.. ~~ti Chiriatti/ALA000079 . ~ ""~ Oc2obert 9, 1992 ' , , Page 3 . . -~. T~ble 3 3-9 - FREEWAY OPERATiONS ~ . . - ~ ~ The number of fanes. just west of i-680 (between San i2-~ Ramon/Foothili Road) should be 10, and west of Hacienda should be 8. I ~ rl • 1MPACTS AND MITIGAT101V ~ ~ MM3.3/4.Q ~~~~ The E1R recommends "the project shouid contribute a proportionate ,~ share to pianned improvements at the 1-580JI-680 interchange and ...." 12-5 ~ Please explain what the proportion would tie based on, and also describe the procedurs which would ensure that the project wil~l contribute its ~= share. ~ ~., Tabie 3.3-1 D . ~ The level of service and average vehicle delay of PM peak hour ~ intersection operations are listed ~ without mitigation: Because this t of projected a i ~ c mp proposed development is mainly residential, the commute (am peak) moming d b 12- ,~ . y traffic on existing intersections cause id afso be considered. Any intersectio~, in h ou from #his new development s which the level of service will become unacceptable during the am peak, will need rnitiga#ion.. ~ ~ The operation of at least five interchanges on Route 580 and two ,~ interchanges on Route 68D will be affected by this praposed project. It is recommended .that ram ~ meterin be considered for all the on-ramps uld h 12-? o he ro'ect limits. The proposed on-ramp improvements s w~thin t p ~ , provide adequate storage to accammodate the ramp meter~ng _operation. - The improvement of local streets need to be considered to accommodate . ~ the ramp me#ering. There are several signalized ramp intersections and local street l . intersections within the project iimits. Usually, the signafs on loca endently by local authorization . d inde t 12-8 , p e streets are designed and opera in order to operate the interchanges av~ictr vv~ill be affected by However . ~ , ~ this project more efficiently, the signal interconnection between ramp r ~ ~ . /AA& 566 "~ ~ . ~ f ~ 75~ Chiriatti/ALA00007~ Ociober 9, 1992 Page 4 intersectio~ns and local street intersections is essential. The coordination 1Z~s between the State and local authorizaiion to design and operate these conta. ~ signals should be arranged. * --1 MAPS AND FIGURES . Fiaure 3 3-B~ Future Raad ImorovemeRts ~ ~ Existing number of Ianes betwesn DoughertylHopyard Road and. 12-9 Hacienda Drive should show 8 not 10. , ~ ~ Fioure 3.3-F. Pro~osed Intersection Lanes ' ~ A~s a mitigation for the project, it is proposed to restripe the existing two right turn ianes and one left turn , lane ai the Eastbound Hacienda Drive off=ramp to two Jeft turn lanes and one right tum lane. 12-ia Justify how the estimated traffic at year 2010 with the project can be accommodated by on~ly one right turn lane (reduc~d from two lanes to one). The proposed improvement ~ at eastbound Route 580 at Airway Bou(evard should be included on the Figure 3.3-F. Us.e estimated peak hour traffic volume~ at these interchange off-ramps to check if the warrant for installation of signals is sa#isfied. Some of the information shown on figure 3.3-F .is not accurate. Revise the lane numbers on the existing intersection to reflect the actual situation. ~ ,~ We appreciat~ the opportunity to comment on this project.. lf you ~ have any questions regarding these comments~ please feel free to contact~ -' Aiice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5587. . ~i~ : ARY F. ADAMS ~ District CEQA Coordinator , cc: Salty Germa'rrt~, ABAG . ~~,- , Susan Pultz, MTC ~~ _ , . <.~ . . . 12-11 ~., . ; ~ ~ 567 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Res~onse to Letter 13 Nolan Sharn President Tassaiara Vallev Pronertv Owners Association. ~3_~ ['nmment• Interiurisdictional Coooeration. East Dublia, Dougherty ValIey aad Tassajara Valley share a common location, a c.ommon need for expansion of iafrastructure, and a common time frame for developmenL Because of these common traits, the planning agencies sbould work together to coordinate expansioa of public services and facilities, and to find solutions to common problems. . Res~onse to Comment 13-1: Comment acknowledged. 13-2 Commen~ Coordinated SubreQional Transit Ptan. TYPOA suggesLS that eastern Dublin developers be required to cooperate with adjacent p=operty owners (TVPOA and Dougherty Yalley) as well as adjaceat business parics (Hacienda and Bishop Ranch) and the nearby regional shopping mall (Stoneridge) to explore the feasibility of a sub-regional transit system to serve the area. TBis effort should be doas in cooperation with the Cenval Contra Costa Transit Authority, Livermore-Amador Transit Authority, and BART. It may be that such an effort can be accomplished in conjunction with the TVTC planning study. Res~onse to Comment 13-2: Comment-acknowledged. Mitigation measures MM 3.3/15.0 thmugh MM 3.3/15.3, page 3.3-28 of the DEIR, recommend that the City of Dublin coordinate with transit service agencies and that the Project contribute a proportionate share to the cost of transit service extensions. The City of Dublin is also participating in the Tri valley Transportation Council study, which will recommend transportation improvemeats on a regional basis. ~ 13-3 Commen~ Land Use AssumQtions for Tassaiara Vallev. The Final EIR should reflect current ~ projections for total buildout and timing of development~ in Tassajara Valley. Curreat plans call for 6,100 dwelling units and 350,000 square feet of commercial/office space wh.ich would yield 700 employees: This update may require modifications to the cumulative traffic analysis in those areas most impacted by trips generated by TassaJara. Valley development, i.e., Tassajara Road. ' ` R~s~onse to Comment 13-3: The analysis of Project t:affic impacts in the DEIR was based on ABAG Projectioas of land use for the Bay Area. These.2010 projections of overall land use in each census tract aze based on an assessment of regional growth and absorption potential of new Iand uses, and would not change significandy as a result of changes in the ultimate pro~ected buildout of each individual development project such as Tassajara Valley. The Cumulative Buildout analysis in the DEIR assumed developmeat levels in Tassajara Valley consistent with the application for a General Plaa Amendment submitted to Contra Costa County, the most current publicly available document at the time of the analysis for the DEiR. Future traffic studies conducted for the ?assajara valley developmeat should address the traffic impacts of changes in potential development levels in Tassajara Yalley compazed to the initial GPA application. 13-4 ~'ommenr Cumuiative Tnffic ImDact on Tassaiara Road. 'rhe Draft EIR concludes that ~ development outside Eastera Dublin, primarily in Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys, will cause .~ level of service F operations at three Tassajara Road intersections in the Eastem Dublin p2anniag ~ area. The Draft EIR determines that this impact can be mitigated by widening Tassajara Road (MM 3.3/14.0, page 3.3-28). Yet, the Draft EIR falls short of recommending ~ this mitigation measure. Instead, the Draft EIR Ieaves apen th~possibi~ity that Tassajara roa~ ~ ~ will remain four lanes despite concludiag that to do so would result in a significant impac~ ~ •~ Attempting to maintain Tassajara Road as a four lane road wouid seem to be inconsistent with ~a. ~ i-n ssp ~ ~ ~~7~~ ~ 5 ~~ ~ ~ ~s~- ~ a regioaal vision of the problem. ~tesoonse to. Cummeat 13-4c Ses Response to Comment S-2. The City of Dublin is considering recommending a revision to the Specific Plan to reserve right-of-way for six lanes on Tassajara Road betweea DubIin Boulevard and Gleason Road. 13-5 Gommenr Extension of Hacienda Drive to Doughertv Vallev. One solution to the traffic `- congesdon problems projected for Tassajara Road is the extension of Hacienda Drive north iato the Dougherty Valley. ~ . Dougherty Road is incapable af handling ffie entire vehicle traffic volume from new ~ " development in Dougherty valley. To help solve this problem, Wiademere Parkway is ezteaded from the east side of Dougherty Valley east to Camino Tassajara in Tassajara Yalley. This'route wiIl provide a primary, yet indirect, access to I-580 via Tassajara~Road, but will `' also increase the voIume of uaffic on ~Tassajara Road and at the I-580 interchange almost to ~ a breaking point assuming development in Tassajara Valley aad East Dublin. An. extens~oa of Fiacienda Drive north into Dougherty Valley would provide direct access routes to I-580 for the west aad east sides of Dougherty Valley aad Tassajara Valley, and thus would balance the traffic loads at the I-580 interchanges and through Dublin and East Dublin. Also, a Hacienda. Drive eztension provides a direct link for the entire Dougherty Va.Iley to the following~ 1 j the new BART station planned near Hacienda Drive and I-580; 2) the heart of Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, and 3) the new commercial and office uses planned ~for the County property in the East Du~lin Specific Plan. ~ Extending Hacienda Drive into Dougherty Valley is a positive step that will alleviate problems on Tassajara Road. This alternative should be reviewed further in the EIR. ResDOnse'to Comment 13-5: Comment ackaowledged. The circulation plaa for the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan dces not precluae the potential extension of Hacienda Drive north to Dougherty Valley. An eatension of Hacienda Drive north is a possibility that has been explored by bath the Dougherty~ Va~ley proponents and by the Eastern Dublia planaing consultantS. The U.S. Army has indicated that such an eztension through Camp Parks would be inconsistent with the Army's plan for the base, and therefore would not be permitted. 13-6 Co.mmen~ .Coordination with the 680/580 Association. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan should include provisions to require property owners and developers to coordinate with the 680/580 Corridor Tra~sportation Assxiation and, if appropriate; to develop remote telecommute ceaters within the Projeci area. A1so, conside;ation might be givea to the development of so-called "smart houses" in the study area to facilitate at-home and/or neighborhood telecommuting. These concepts could be evaluated to determine the potential to reduce peak hour aad/or total Daily Vehicle Trips. ' Res~onse to Comment 13-6: Telecommuting could help to reduce future traffic volumes, and ~~ should be included as one of the potential components of the Traasportation Systems Management progra.ms included as Mitigation Measure MM 3.3/2.0. Since there is inadequate existing. data available to quantify the potential traf~c reductions due to increased .,, telecommuting, the DEIR conservatively assumed no reduction in traffic. 13-7 Commen~ Consistencv of EIIt with Re~ional Traffic Models. The Final EIR should point out the simi'Iarities and differences of the Draft EIR land use assnmptions and trip distributioa " model with regional traff ic models developed by the Contra Costa Traasportation Authority, ~ the Tri-Yalley Transporration Council, and the Alameda County Congestion Maaagement ~~ ~ , a . ~. i-ss.asp ~s =s f~/~ . . 56~ ~ s~g ~ ~ -~~ . ~ Agency, if available. 3tesaonse to Comment 13-7: The traffic model used in the Draft EiR uses the standard methodology for traffic forecasting, as do the other travel demand models currently being ~ ~ used for Tri-Valley studies. The Eastem Dublin anatysis uses essentiallY the same ABAG Projections '90 2010 land use forecasts fof the Tri-valley area as the current studies by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Tri-Yalley Traasportation Council. Tlie Alameda County model also uses ABAG Projections '90, but curreatly uses an earlier disaggregation of laad use data to individual traffic analysis zones. The earlier disaggregation did not consider the most recent development proposals. The Eastern Dublin aaalysis quantifies non-residential laad uses in terms of square footage, while . the other modeLs use employment, so there may be some differences in the reported employment numbers by jurisdiction because of assumptions used in the conversion berween employmeni and square footage. ~ ~ The Eastem Dublin analysis determines traffic generation by relatiag vehicle trips directly to land uses. ~ The other models use a standard procedure to estimate the number of person trips (people coming in and out of each building rather than cars), aad then the persons are allocated to travel modes such as auto driver, auto passenger, or transit passenger. The resulting number of vehicle trips should be the same using either process. All of the models use a standard trip distribution process based on data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Eastern Dublin analysis assumes trip distribution based . on unconstrained travel condidons. The other models assume that future irip distribution will be balanced based on congestion; in other words, in the future, people may choose to work and shop closer to home because congestion has increased. This procedure ~j ~ may result in a more realistic analysis of futuie travel patterns,, but is somewhat less ~ conservative since it will tend to indicate more future trips remaining internal to each development The Eastem Dublia analysis also assumes unconstrained growth of traffic demand over the Altamont Pass to San Joaquia County, while the other models assume some . ty~e of ~constraint an traffic demand ovez the Altamoat Pass. Again, the procedures for trip disfribution t:sed in the Eastern~ Dublin DEIR wilI tend to provide a more conservative aaalysis of future traffic impact~. ~ 13-$ • Comment IM 3 7/B• Indirect Imuacts of Vegetation Removal. The Draft EIR mitigates for vegetation removal aad possibte erosion by calling for revegetation~ with na.tive vegetation (MM 3J/5.0). TYPOA suggesu expansion of this mitigation in the Final EIR by requirin8 verification of physical and biological feasibility of ptanting locations, including topography, aspect, soils, hydrologic condition, and potential competitioa. Also, the native shrubs, herbs, and grasses should also be local to the 'Tri-Valley and the plant communities of eastezn Dublin. Resaonse to Comment 13-8: Comment acknowledged. The following text has been added to MM 3.7/5.0, on page 3.7- l0: Al! areas af dissurbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent erosion. ,~ " Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs: herbs and grasses should ~. be used for revegetaiion oj creas to remain as natural open space. The iniroduction of non-native plant species should be avoided. Spxif~iC physiwl cbaraateristi~s of ~, proposed revegetuion axeu w~l be d~tarmined to evahnnte th~ long term feau'b~ity . ~of t~e proposeci mitigation and tp ideatify pot~atial conflicLs at ffie site. ` Characberis~tics a-ould includ~ but not be limited ~o grouad snd flow bydroloSY. ~ ~,. ~ ~-~ ~ - u~~~~ 5 7 ~~ ~ ~~ ~' 75~ ~ Appendix 8.5 Traffic Impact Analysis Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 149 City of Dublin January 2009 PA #07-057 586 ~~r~-g- TJKM Transportation Consultants Viaion That Mawe~r''lour Communfty April 23, 2008 Robert Nielsen 6407 Tassajara Road Dublin, CA 94588 Email: accounting@hnenterprises.com Subject: Revised Traffic Impact Evaluation for the Proposed 43-Unit Single Family Residential Development in the City of Dublin, California Dear Mr. Nielsen, This revised letter presents the results of TJKM's traffic impact evaluation for the subject development, located at the southeastern corner of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive intersection. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project at four local intersections and three segments of I-580 under Buildout (2025) Conditions and 2030 Conditions, respectively. City of Dublin staff will determine whether this evaluation is sufficient for your development application submittal or a full traffic study is required. Four study intersections in the vicinity of the project were selected for evaluation as follows: I. Tassajara Road/Fallon Road 2. Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive 3. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 4. Fallon Road/Silvera Ranch Drive Ple. sancon 3875 Hopyard Road Suice 200 Pleasancon, CA 94586-8526 925.463.061 I 925.463.3690 fax Fresno 516 W. Shaw Avenue Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93704-2515 559.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax Sacrameneo 980 Ninch Street 16~ Floor Sacramento, CA 95814-2736 916.449.9095 Sanca Rosa 141 Stony Circle Suite 260 Santa Rosa, GA 95401-4110 707.575.5800 707.575.5888 fax cjkm@tjkm.com www.cjkm.com Three I-580 Freeway segments were also selected for evaluation as follows: I. I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive 2. I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 3. I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road The project location and its vicinity are shown in Figure I. The primary vehicle access will be provided via a roadway (Street A) that will form the fourth leg of Silvera Ranch Drive/Brandin Iron Court intersection. In addition, an emergency vehicle access driveway will connect Tassajara Road to the Street `A' cul de sac. The site plan is shown in Figure 2. Project Trip Generation TJKM estimated trip generation for the proposed project based on standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, 7~ Edition. As shown in Table I, the project is expected to generate approximately 412 daily trips, with 33 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 44 trips occurring during the p.m. peal< hour, Table I: Pronosed Proiect Trip Generation U Si Doily A.M. Street Peak P.M. Street Peak se (ITE Code) ze (du) Rate ~ Trips Rate ~ ~~ t In Out Total Rate ~ ~~ t In Out i Total i o Residential (210) 43 9.57 , 412 0.75 0.25 0.75 8~, 25 33 I.01 0.63 ~ 0.37 28 16 44 Note: du= dwelling unit ~~~~~ ~- City of Dublin - Nielsen Property (Single Family Residential Development) Figure Vicinity Map ~ QEP~ ,~~~0~, . m¢ Study Area ~ OUARflY LN. CHOOLDWV. ( o ~ ~ Q o v~ ~¢ ¢ a ~ 2 U' ln ~ ~ N a a ~~ ~~ ~ p,ANC/y0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ N~J~~ R JPPEql00PRD. _` ~~ AMONE~Y S. DUBIIN RANG~'~ ~~ I OQ I MADDEN WY. ~6~~ Y6~, GLEASONDR. / ~ KOHNEN`f~Y. o , ~J`~ ¢ ~ N GLEAS~~~A~ N ti~ O ¢ ~ ~ ¢ ~ / , Z ~ Q LL ~ _~_~ 1 ~ = a ¢ CENiRAIP/ryy~ C~7 ~ '"""'" CENTRALPKWY. > ,°,~'' O ~ O DUBLIN BLVD. `\ Q F~NN~AN byy ,I y Q - ~ a ~ `. ' N N ~''vlqE w WY. ~ `, ~ ~ ~ MARTIN[LLI I U N ~ ~ Y ~ ~ '"'DR." " ~ ~~. i W ~ - ' ' O ~ ¢ .~. /, ~ OF~n~ "~" ' 2 _ NORTH LEGEND rvot to sca~e • Existing Intersection Existing Road ------- Future Road i ~i-u ~ - sis~uo - ur, ~~~~~-~~~ City of Dublin - Nielsen Property (Single Family Residential Development) Figure Site Plan 2 r ~ a u r i 00 c ~ c b i Silvera Ranch Drive m _ -__--_--- -' --"- i --"'_ --- r""""" r""" ~ I r'"""'" ~ i ~ .~~~,~~'~-- ~"""" ~ ~ ~ i _ ___- r'"""' ~ i i ~ -- i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ i""""'_'" ' i ~ ~ i ~i ' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I L"""""'"'i i i~ ~ i i i i~'"'"" ~ , ~ ~ i ~ ~---"-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-----'' ~-'---'' ~ ~" -'-'------ ~ a0, I ----' I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ Street B ' ~ ~ I ------------' I ro --- - --- N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~------------ -----~ ~--- fd I ~ '~__-i ~~ ~ ~ ~ . F "'" _'"' I ~ __ i i I ' """"' I ~ ' ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ' ' "' I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ' ~-" 1 1 """" i i ' i""'""i ~ ~ I ' ~""_""' ' ~ i I ' """'"'""_~ I """"""' "' i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ' _.- ~ I ~ ~ __~-~ `~ ~ I """""' • I i ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' '~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - "---_ ' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _- . a , ., ,, ,. , I 1 1 , 1 _• " i -------- ~ .. -- -~ " ~ -. , , < ~ • -- I y . , ~, , ~ ~ __ . ~ ~ y ~ ~"""""' _ ~ I ~ i i ..-'~ r_ ~ , r- ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -""~ , ~ ~ ~ , I ~ ~ _.--~ r' ~ ` ~ ~ I ' '" " " '" ' ""'""""'- - I ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -"" . . ~ i i ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ' ~ I '""'"" ' ' ~ i "--' _ _ _-"" . - ~--_J - ~' I ," -.--- "~_ ' ~ ~ ~ I ~'~ _ -~ _ N O RT H Not to Scale I 57-210 - 4/22/OS - DM 5~~~ ~5~ TJIQNI Mr. Robert Nielsen Trant~pormtion Apri! 23, 2008 CansulCartt~ Page 4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Based on existing turning movement counts taken in November 2007 at the Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive intersection, and tal<ing into consideration the future extension of Fallon Road south of Silvera Ranch Drive, the following trip distribution was assumed: • Approximately 88 percent will travel to and from the south on Tassajara Road, of which approximately 5 percent will head toward downtown Dublin via the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection. The remaining 83 percent will access the I-580/Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road interchange to go elsewhere. • Approximately 8 percent will travel to and from the north on Tassajara Road. • Approximately 4 percent will travel to and from the south on the future Fallon Road extension, which will connect to the existing Fallon Road to the south. Figure 3 shows the project trip distribution in the study area. Figure 4 shows the resulting project- only volumes and existing volumes at the Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive intersection (shown in the circle). Existing traffic volumes at Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive do not include trips from the full-build Silvera Ranch Development. TJKM obtained daily traffic counts for Tassajara Road from the City. The counts were collected in October 2007. The counts indicate that approximately 308 vehicles per hour (vph) travel in the northbound direction and approximately 662 vph trave~ in the southbound direction during the a.m. peak hour. Also, approximately 504 vph travel in the northbound direction and approximately 303 vph travel in the southbound direction during the p.m. peal< hour. The counts are included in Appendix A. As shown in Figure 4, the project is expected to add minimal traffic to Tassajara Road compared with the existing traffic levels described above. The project is expected to add approximately three vehicles per hour to the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, and approximately 28 a.m. peak hour trips and 39 p.m. peak hour trips to the Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. The Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project Conditions scenarios were not analyzed based on the following reasons: Based on a review of the traffic study for the Fallon Village Traffic Study conducted in August 2005, Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard currently operates at LOS A. Therefore the intersection is expected to operate acceptably with the addition of minimal project traffic. Additionally, traffic levels are currently low at the intersection of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch. It can be asserted that the level of service is expected to remain unchanged with the addition of the project traffic. 2. The Fallon Road/Silvera Ranch Drive intersection currently serves only construction traffic and the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection will be modified with the future Fallon Road extension. The intersection modification will include the ultimate lane configuration and traffic control shown in Figure 5. The intersection is expected to adequately accommodate additional trips from the proposed project. However, the Cumulative or Buildout (2025) Conditions were studied since all four study intersections will have their ultimate lane configurations and traffic controls by 2025. ~ ~ ~ ~`~C? -7.5c~ ~ TJfQ41 Mr. Robert Nielsen T~nspo~lon Aprii 23, 2008 Conwtcams Page 5 Buiidout Traffic Volumes Buildout (2025) traffic volumes at the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection were obtained from the Buildout plus Project traffic volumes of the Fallon Village Traffic Study. Traffic volumes at Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive and Fallon Road/Silvera Drive were derived from the Wallis Property Traffic Study dated August 2002 and the Silvera Property Traffic Study dated October 2000, respectively. Figure 5 shows the resulting volumes under Buildout Plus Project Conditions and the planned lane configurations at the study intersections. Level of Service Analysis Methodologies Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of intersection operations that uses an 'A' through `F' letter rating system to describe 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 bacl<-ups. TJKM evaluated operating conditions at the signalized study intersection using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Level of Service (CCTA LOS) Operations methodology contained in TRAFFIX software. Peal< hour intersection conditions are reported as critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios with corresponding levels of service (LOS). The queuing analysis was conducted using the HCM 2000 methodology contained in TRAFFIX software. The methodology for both HCM 2000 and the CCTA LOS methodologies are described in detail in Appendix A. Significant Impact Criteria According to City of Dublin traffic impact criteria, a significant impact would occur if an intersection operating at an acceptable level would operate unacceptably with the addition of project traffic. The City General Plan Circulation Element and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F require that the City strive for LOS D at City intersections. Therefore, any study intersections exceeding LOS D are considered impacted and will be evaluated for mitigation. ~~~ ~ ~~ City of Dublin - Nielsen Property (Single Family Residential Development) Figure Trip Distribution Assumption 3 8~~0~ ~p~cP~ ~ ~~55 ' ~~~ oQ' R4% ~- Study Area ~ ~ QUARRYIN. CHOOLDWY. t O ~ ¢ ¢ !j w~ a a m' ~ Z o ya1a~ anNCHO / .~ ~. ~ '~ ~'(~ NOJO 8~ ~O JPPER~OOPqp.,, ,. I~ ANTONEWV. I oQ DUBLIN RANC~ ~ ' S. MADDEN WY~ 06~ y GLEASON DR. / ~ KOHNEN WY~ N a6, `~ ¢ U ~ GLEAS~~~- N ¢ ~ / ,~~ O o ~ o~ / Z ~ a Q ¢ Q ~ LL "" = Q CENTRAIP/~~,~, C~7 ~ „""'_ ~ ~ ` CENTRALPKWY. > o / ls%~ ~ F ~ ~ ~--~ n ~NN~AN ~yy ~ ,y DUBLIN BLVD. \ a ' a R~' Q - y ' V ~ ¢ p VIRE MARTINELLI _ 03 ~0 N _'_ ' O I ~ o~ w WY. Y w . "_" ~ Z O O ¢ ~ y DR. Q ~O ~ - J e ~r ~H ~ ~ :1 ` PIMLICO DR. 2 O o 9 z ° er~ ~ p P w 2 SP~ o ~ ¢ w LEGEN D ~ NORTH • Existing Intersection Noc to scaie Existing Road ------- Future Road '(5%) Percent split from 88% IJ/-GIV-J/IY/V8-VI'I ~ ~: ~' #~..i..:-'. ~ L~°~ '~ 75~ ~ City of Dublin - Nielsen Property (Single Family Residential Development) Figure Project Only Pealc HourTurning Movement Volumes ~ 4 LEGEND M ~ XX AM Peak HourVolume ~ ~ -~3 5 (XX) PM Peal< HourVolume ~ ~ ~c-ss (i~~ Existing }f Volumes mN ~ M --- ~ o ~ u° N = ~ ~ ` C C ~ Silvera Ranch Drive 'm 22~14 ~111) 7 (27)~ Silvera Ranch Drive ~ ~ _ __ ~ v~ _-_-- ----'-- I ~ -_. ~ _: ~-_ ~ ~-- _""_ --- ----~ .--- ~ i ,c --- - -- .-- --_~-"~_ r--- - r--- "_~ ~ ' ' i ~~- i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~"""'""" i i i ~ ~ i i i ~ ~ i ~ I I i ~ ~ i ' ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ i i i I ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~~ """ _ ~ "'"""""'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ '"""""'' ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ----' I b ~ ~--'-'------} ~ ._~ 0 I ~ ~-----'' ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; ' Street B i ------------' ro ----~ ~ '~j - N , r----------- ~------ ro I ~ ~'""""~ ~ '"'_' F 1""'"' ' '""- I ,__ ~ ~ , -- , ~ , , ~ ~ I --- ---- I , ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '------' ' I ' ' ' ' ~ ' '------' ' ~ I ~ ~ ~---- ~ ~ '------' I ---------- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ---, I I ---------- I I i I - -------- - " '-- _ __. I I D ~ ------- '- I _' - -- ~ , ----------; ~ ~ I , ~ ~ ~ --'~ - " ~ r' I '"""""_"" ._- r'" i I "'"""'"' - "" ' ' , 1 1 , 1 ; i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ - - _. _ .. i ~ ' ' ' ~ I ~. ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ` ~'" ' ' ""'"""""' ..' ~ ~ _ I " ~ ~ _- - J I _ _ _ -- j , _ -----"- j _ ---- - _ --~- ~ NORTH Not to Scale I 57-210 - 4/21/08 - DM ~~~~~~~ City of Dublin - Nielsen Property (Single Family Residential Development) Figure Buildout Plus ProjectTurning MovementVolumes and Lane Configurations 5 ,~~~, > > ~~ ~~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~ 9\p1 , j ~~~ ~~~~ ~,~,~ Ly`' .~`~~`9~~Ys ~ M`~'~ ~~ 8/A~J2S~ P'~ '~ss ~-.6 'L6~\~~`i'9~1L~,~ / ~ M~55\oc;P~ ~ - 4~2J~-y ~f ~5~2~~3S91 6~` - -- i ~ `^~ • ,~ ~L ~`~~r+ oe ' ti N ~ / ~ - - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~s s Study^' ~~ ~~~ ~ N ~ ~4~~ Area ~ pUARRYLN ~~~~~ ~8~(55~ CHOOLDWY. 4~;;-~~~ttfr' `" ¢ 0 s~s ~z2s~~i'' o ~ ~ ~ < o a ~ y Q Q ON ~ N ~j' N O im tn M ya1a.' r p,ANGy~ '~ ~" ~ JO~~~ R Np JPPEq~00PRD.,,,. ~ ANTONE~~~ I $. DUB~IN RANG~''~ . MADDEN WY~ ~6,~ s~ GLEASON DR. / F KpHNEN `~'Y~ ~b ~~ m d u ¢ i o ¢ a GLEASON~A' N ti. O ~ ~ ¢ LL ~ ~ ~ _ / Q ¢ ~c "'_,, i = a s CENTRAIPK~,Y ~ ~) """" ? ` GENTFALPKWY. a ¢ y 0 DUBLIN BLVD- `\ Q F'NN~ANyyY~l ,y ¢ - rn h ~ ~F''1(qRE w WY. ¢ ~ MARTINELLI _ F N \ y ~ _ "DR. I U o ~ ' "' "' W ¢ w 9~O ~ \ i ~ ~ r~ E F011 ~ i :1 .(,~ PIMLICO DR. ~ 0,~~ Q ~ '9a Z rP ° 9 a ~P ~ ? ¢° o w = 5P o d- "' ~124 (274) ~ ch ~W f w ~ ° N ~1,265 (641) N N N ~1,1AS (1,OBB) ~~~~~~~~ ~ 126 (939)~ ~l~l~l~~~~~ 298 (830)--~- „`D~ ~ ~ LEGEND 226 (~as)~ ~ ~ ^ Overla~l °' ^ `n ~_ ~ Existing Intersection N O R T H Existing Road Noc to s~aie ------- Future Road XX AM Peak HourVolume (XX) PM Peak HourVolume ~~~~ ~~~ T~~ Mr. Robert Nielsen T~~~~ April 23, 2008 Corwultarrp Page 9 Intersection Level of Service Analysis Table II shows the results of the level of service analysis for the study intersections under Buildout Conditions and Buildout plus Project Conditions. The intersections of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road and Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better under both Buildout and Buildout plus Project Conditions. As shown in the table, the LOS and delay results for both study scenarios are similar because of the minimal project traffic that is expected to use the intersections of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road and Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. The intersection of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive is currently a signalized T-intersection. In the future, the intersection will be reconfigured with the addition of a west leg to provide access to the proposed Wallis Ranch development on the west side of Tassajara Road. Therefore, the intersection was analyzed as a four-way intersection for both Buildout scenarios, incorporating traffic volumes from the traffic reports of the proposed Wallis Ranch and the Silvera Ranch developments. As shown in Table II, the intersection of Tassajara Road / Silvera Ranch Drive is expected to operate acceptably at LOS B or better under both Buildout and Buildout plus Project Conditions. Based on the results of the LOS analysis, no mitigation is required at the intersection under buildout conditions. Appendix B contains the TRAFFIX LOS worl<sheets. Additionally, a traffic signal has been installed at the intersection of Fallon Road / Silvera Ranch Drive but has not yet been actuated. It has been planned for signalization and the City has approved traffic signal plans designed by TJKM. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate acceptably at LOS A during both the a.m. and p.m. peal< hours under Buildout and Buildout plus Project Conditions. T.,~,io ~~. R.~ai~t.,~~t l~n251 Pealc Hour Intersection Level of Service . .. ... _....___- .----, - --- Buildout Conditions Buildout + Project Conditions Signalized ti I q,M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ons ntersec VIC LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Tassajara Road / Fallon Road 0.54 A 0.89 D 0.54 A 0.89 D Tassajara Road / Silvera Ranch Drive 0.67 B 0.51 A 0.69 B 0.52 A Tassajara Road / Dublin Blvd 0.89 D 0.80 D 0.89 D 0.80 D Fallon Road / Silvera Ranch Drive 0.41 A 0.40 A 0.41 A 0.40 A Notes: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service; ,:. Queuing Analysis TJKM also conducted a queuing analysis for the intersection of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive to determine whether the existing I 50-foot westbound storage length at the intersection would require extension to accommodate added project trips. The analysis revealed that a maximum of three westbound left-turn vehicles (or approximately 75 feet) are expected to queue during the a.m. peak hour under Buildout Conditions. Even with the addition of project vehicles, adequate westbound left-turn storage is still expected. ~ ~~ ~~ T~EQy~ Mr. Robert Nielsen Transpc~rtati~n Aprit 23, 2008 Gonsultatrta Poge 10 Freeway Segment Level of Service Analysis Table III below shows the results of the LOS analysis of three Interstate 580 segments under 2030 Conditions with and without the project. Caitrans currently uses 2030 as the horizon year for analysis of freeway conditions. Regional commute pattern from the Dublin area are assumed to be approximately 80 percent westbound to the East Bay and 20 percent eastbound to Livermore. The project is expected to contribute approximately 17 westbound trips and 4 eastbound trips during the a.m. peak period from the I-580/Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road Interchange; and I 9 eastbound trips and five westbound trips during the p.m. peal< period. Additionally, less than two project trips are expected to access the I-580/Failon Road interchange during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peal< hour. As shown in Table III, under 2030 Conditions without the project, Westbound I-580 west of Tassajara Road is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS F during both a.m. and p.m. peal< hours. The project is expected to contribute marginal (i.e. less than one percent [I%]) traffic to the congestion on I-580. Table I11: Freeway Segment Analysis Year 2030 (No Project) Yeor 2030 with Project Project No o f Lanes Capacity A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peok P.M. Peak Gontribution ~~~ Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS A.M. P.M. I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive Eastbound 6+ aux. 14,800 I 1,656 D I I,198 D I 1,662 D I 1,217 D 0.05 0.17 Westbound 4+ aux. 10,200 10,537 F 10,931 F 10,554 F 10,942 F 0.16 0.10 I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Eastbound 5 11,500 8,839 D 11,566 F 8,845 D 11,585 F 0.07 0.16 Westbound 4+ aux. 10,200 I 1,253 F 10,503 F I 1,270 F 10,514 F 0.15 0.1 I I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Eastbound 4+ aux. 10,200 8,775 D 10,350 F 8,779 D 10,352 F 0.05 0.02 Westbound N.,ro~ 4+ aux. c„ . ~nn 10,200 n u:_~.. . ~- 8,943 -- D 8,244 D 8,945 D 8,248 D 0.02 0.05 ~~~s111Y67 ~-4N411~7 ~~4~~~d~~ ~-~~apcer ts, txniDtt LS.L, Levels of Service Criteria for Basic freeway Sections; Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2,300 vehicles/hr/lane, aux.=Auxiliary Lane; When number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment=(N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr Pedestrian and Bicycle Access TJKM has reviewed the project site plan for pedestrian and bicycle access. Each internal street will have sidewalks fronting the homes and would allow easy pedestrian access to exit the development. An emergency vehicle access (E.V.A.) has been proposed at the south end of "Street A" connecting it to Tassajara Road. This EVA will be accessible to pedestrians to provide an additional connection between the neighborhood and Tassajara Road and the Quarry Lane School to the south. If removable bollards are not utilized at the ends of the EVA, TJKM recommends that a minimum 3-foot wide pedestrian access be provided at the E.V.A control gate. According to the City of Dublin Bikeway Plan, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road have been proposed with Class II bil<e lanes in either direction. The plan also shows a Class I bil<e path on Fallon Road "'~ adjacent to the development. Residents can access these bike lanes when street improvements are completed on Tassajara and Fallon Roads. "" ~ s~9 ~ ~5g ~ T~~ Mr. Robert Nieisen T~~~~ Aprii 23, 2008 Con~ultanp Page 1 ! Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed project is expected to add minimal traffic to the study intersections and the I-580 freeway under Buildout with project condition. Approximately five percent (5%) of the project trips is expected to head towards downtown Dublin via Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road. The project is expected to contribute margina~ (i.e. less than one percent [ I%]) traffic to the expected congestion on I-580 in 2030. Therefore, the project is not expected to trigger any impact mitigations beyond what has been identified in the East Dublin Specific Plan and the I-580 HOV Study. The proposed E.V.A. access will be accessible to pedestrians from the development to reach Tassajara Road and Quarry Lane School. TJKM recommends that a minimum 3-foot wide pedestrian access be provided at the E.V.A control gate if removable bollards are not utilized at the ends of the EVA. The project traffic does not trigger the need for mitigation measures at the intersections of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road and Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive. However, the developer should contribute to the City of Dublin development fees as identified in the East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program to assist in the fair-share funding of the Fallon Road extension and Tassajara Road frontage improvements. Additionally, the project should contribute its fair share to the Tri- Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee or the Freeway Interchange Fee as determined by the City of Dublin. The developer should also contribute to the City's funding shortfall for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road based on the developer's fair share of the deficit. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this analysis. Please call me with your comments and/or questions. Sincerely, r ._-- David Carl Mahama, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer cc: Lisa Vilhauer, MacKay & Somps Attachments: Appendix A- LOS Methodologies (CCTA and HCM 2000) and Existing Traffic Count Sheets Appendix B - LOS Worksheets J:~~urisdiction\D\Dublin\157-210 43 Unit Single Family\Report\LR031408.docx ~ r~ ~ ( ~/~.+ ~ ets , ~ ~. ~ ,~~- ~ ~~ ~' ~~~ APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE The description and procedures for calculating capacity and level of service (LOS) are found in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000 represents the latest research on capacity and quality of service for transportation facilities. Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. LOS is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each LOS represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of these conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish service levels. A general description of service levels for various types of facilities is shown in Table A-I T bl A-I• Level of Service Description a e . Uninierrupted Flow Interru~ted Flow Freeways Signalized Intersections Facility Type Multi-lane Highways Unsignalized Intersections Two-lane Highways Two-way Stop Control Urban Streets All-way Stop Control LOS q Free-flow Very low delay. B Stable flow. Presence of other users noticeabie. Low delay. C Stable flow. Comfort and convenience starts to Acceptable delay. decline. p High-density stable flow. Tolerable delay. E Unstable flow. Limit of acceptable delay. F Forced or breakdown flow. Unacceptable delay Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Urban Streets The term "urban streets" refers to urban arterials and collectors, including those in downtown areas. Arterial streets are roads that primarily serve longer through trips. However, providing access to abutting commercial and residential land uses is also an important function of arterials. Collector streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential, commercial and industrial areas. Their access function is more important than that of arterials, and unlike arterials their operation is not always dominated by traffic signals. Downtown streets are signalized facilities that often resemble arterials. They not only move through traffic but also provide access to local businesses for passenger cars, transit buses, and trucks. S9~ -~-7.~~ ~ Pedestrian conflicts and lane obstructions created by stopping or standing buses, trucl<s and parking vehicles that cause turbulence in the traffic flow are typicai of downtown streets. The speed of vehicles on urban streets is influenced by three main factors, street environment, interaction among vehicles and traffic control. As a result, these factors also affect quality of service. The street environment includes the geometric characteristics of the facility, the character of roadside activity and adjacent land uses. Thus, the environment reflects the number and width of lanes, type of median, driveway density, spacing between signalized intersections, existence of parlcing, level of pedestrian activity and speed limit. The interaction among vehicles is determined by traffic density, the proportion of trucks and buses, and turning movements. This interaction affects the operation of vehicles at intersections and, to a lesser extent, between signals. Traffic control (including signals and signs) forces a portion of all vehicles to slow or stop. The delays and speed changes caused by traffic control devices reduce vehicle speeds, however, such controls are needed to establish right-of-way. The average travel speed for through vehicles along an urban street is the determinant of the operating LOS. The travel speed along a segment, section or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized intersections. LOS A describes primarily free-flow operations. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operations. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delays at signalized intersections are not significant. LOS C describes stable operations, however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock location may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower travel speeds. LOS D borders on a range in which in which small increases in flow may cause substantiai increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signai timing, high volumes, or a combination of these factors. LOS E is characterized by significant delays and lower travel speeds. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. LOS F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds. Intersection congestion is lilcely at critical signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing. The methodology to determine LOS stratifies urban streets into four classifications. The classifications are complex, and are related to functional and design categories. Table A-II describes the functional and design categories, while Table A-III relates these to the urban street classification. ~ ~. ~~ ~~~-- Once classified, the urban street is divided into segments for analysis. An urban street segment is a one-way section of street encompassing a series of blocks or links terminating at a signalized intersection. Adjacent segments of urban streets may be combined to form larger street sections, provided that the segments have similar demand flows and characteristics. Levels of service are related to the average travel speed of vehicles along the urban street segment or section. Travel times for existing conditions are obtained by field measurements. The maximum-car technique is used. The vehicle is driven at the posted speed limit unless impeded by actual traffic conditions. In the maximum-car technique, a safe level of vehicular operation is maintained by observing proper following distances and by changing speeds at reasonable rates of acceleration and deceleration. The maximum- car technique provides the best base for measuring traffic performance. An observer records the travel time and locations and duration of delay. The beginning and ending points are the centers of intersections. Delays include times waiting in queues at signalized intersections. The travel speed is determined by dividing the length of the segment by the travel time. Once the travel speed on the arterial is determined, the LOS is found by comparing the speed to the criteria in Table A-IV. LOS criteria vary for the different classifications of urban street, reflecting differences in driver expectations. Table A-II: Functional and Desi~n CateQories for Urban Streets Functional Category Criterion Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Mobility function Very important Important Access function Very minor Substantial Points connected Freeways, important activity centers, major principai arterials traffic generators Relatively long trips between major points Trips of moderate length within relatively Predominant trips served and through trips entering, leaving, and small geographical areas passing through city Design Category Criterion High-Speed Subur6an Intermediate Ur6an Driveway access density Very low density Low density Moderate density High density Multilane divided; Multilane divided: Multilane divided or Undivided one Arterial type undivided or two- undivided or two- lane with undivided; one way, way; two way, two lane with shoulders shoulders two lane or more lanes Parking No No Some Usually Separate left-turn lanes Yes Yes Usually Some Signals per mile 0.5 to 2 I to 5 4 to 10 6 to 12 Speed limits 45 to 55 mph 40 to 45 mph 30 to 40 mph 25 to 35 mph Pedestrian activity Very little Little Some Usually Roadside development Low density Low to medium density Medium to moderate density High density Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 ~°a ~~ 7 ~~' Table A-Iil: Urban Street Class based on Function and Design Categories Desi n Cate o Functional Category g g ry Principal Arterial Minor Arterial High-Speed I Not applicabie Suburban II II Intermediate II III or IV Urban III or IV IV Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Table A-IV: Urban Street Levels of Service by Class Urban Street Class 1 11 111 IV Range of Free Flow Speeds (mph) 45 to 55 35 to 45 30 to 35 25 to 35 Typical Free Flow Speed (mph) 50 40 33 30 LOS Average Travel S~eed (m~h) A >42 >35 >30 >25 B >34 >28 >24 >19 C >27 >22 >18 >13 D >21 >17 >14 >9 E >16 >13 >10 >7 F 516 _<13 510 <_7 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Interrupted Flow One of the more important elements limiting, and often interrupting the flow of traffic on a highway is ~_ the intersection. Flow on an interrupted facility is usually dominated by points of fixed operation such as traffic si nals, sto and ield si ns. These all o erate uite differentl and have differin im acts on ~"~ S P Y~ 8 P 9 Y g~ P overall flow. Signalized Intersections The capacity of a highway is related primarily to the geometric characteristics of the facility, as well as to the composition of the traffic stream on the facility. Geometrics are a fixed, or non-varying, characteristic of a facility. At the signalized intersection, an additional element is introduced into the concept of capacity: time ~,,, ailocation. A traffic signal essentially allocates time among conflicting traffic movements seeking use of the same physical space. The way in which time is allocated has a significant impact on the operation of = the intersection and on the capacity of the intersection and its approaches. LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle, typically for a I 5-minute analysis period. Delay is a complex measure and depends on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the ratio of green time to cycle length and the volume to capacity ratio for the lane group. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s~ For each intersection analyzed the average control delay per vehicle per approach is determined for the peak hour. A weighted average of control delay per vehicle is then determined for the intersection. A LOS designation is given to the control delay to better describe the level of operation. A description of levels of service for signalized intersections can be found in Table A-V T~tiip n_v~ np~rrintion of Level of Service for Signalized Intersections • --- LOS - - - ~ - - ---~ - Description Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, and most A vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. There is good progression or short cycle B lengths or both. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of delay. Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Higher delays are caused by fair progression or longer cycle lengths or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure C occurs when a given green phase doe not serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestions becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle p lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Control delay greater than 55 and up to SO seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. High E delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengchs, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival F flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay. Source: Highway Copacity Manua12000 The use of control delay, which may also be referred to as signal delay, was introduced in the 1997 update to the Highway Copacity Manuol, and represents a departure from previous updates. In the third edition, published in 1985 and the 1994 update to the third edition, delay only included stopped delay. Thus, the LOS criteria listed in Table A-V differs from earlier criteria. Unsignalized Intersections The current procedures on unsignalized intersections were first introduced in the I 997 update to the Highway Capacity Manual and represent a revision of the methodology published in the I 994 update to the I 985 Highway Capacity Manual. The revised procedures use control delay as a measure of effectiveness to determine LOS. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference trave~ time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through an unsignalized intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. ~°3.~ ~~- Two-Way Stop Controlled intersections Two-way stop controlled intersections in which stop signs are used to assign the right-of-way, are the most prevalent type of intersection in the United States. At two-way stop-controlled intersections the stop-controlled approaches are referred as the minor street approaches and can be either public streets or private driveways. The approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are referred to as the major street approaches. The capacity of movements subject to delay are determined using the "critical gap" method of capacity analysis. Expected average control delay based on movement volume and movement capacity is calculated. A LOS designation is given to the expected control delay for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through a stop-controlled intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. A description of levels of service for two-way stop-controlled intersections is found in Table A-VI. Table A-VI: Descrintion of Level of Servicp fnr Twn_Wa~ cr.,~ C~nntrnllcrl Intna~ce.~tii.nc LOS Descripiion A Very low control delay less than 10 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay. B Low control delay greater than 10 and up to 15 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay. C Acceptable control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay. D Tolerable control delay greater than 25 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay. E Limit of tolerable control delay greater than 35 and up to 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay. F Unacceptable control delay in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay. ...,........ ..,b.,..,.r ..,.ru~~~r ,.~~,~~~, ~~~~ J:ITJKM AppendiceslLOS-HCM 2000.doc ~ ~ ~. ~fl4~ ~~- DESCRIPTION Or INTERSECTION CAl'ACITY ANALYSIS CCTA SIGNALIZF.D METHODOLOGY I3aclcground `I'he CCTA intersection c~ipacity anzlysis methodolo~y is desci•ibed in detail in tlie Technical Procedures Ma~wal of the CCTA, January, 1~91. It is identicll to thc Circular 212 P12nning iliethodology except that the lane c~pacity has been incre;ased fi~om 1500 vph to between 1650 to 1800 vph based on sattrration flow measurements tal<en ~t four intersections in Contra Costa County. (See following Table 9(i•om the Technical Procedures Manual.) On average, saturation flow r~ttes f'or left-turn lanes were over fen percent lower than for through lanes. However, insufficient data was collected to provide st~tistical accuracy For the averages, 'fhus, saturation flow rates for through lanes are equal Yo those for turn lanes. This methodology determines the critical movement for eacl~ phzse of traffic. it then sums the critical volume-to-capacity r~ttio by phase to determine the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio. Circular 212, on the other h~tnd, sums the crilical movement volwnes themselves and compares them to tl~e total capacity of the intersection to determine, ir~ effect, the volume-to-capacity ratio of the intersecYion as a whole. Levels ot'Service The volume-to-capacity ratio is related to level of service (LOS). The ['ollowing level of service for Signalized Inteesections depicts the relationship between the volume-to-capacity ratio and level of' service. /~n intersection operatin6 at cap•acity would operate at LOS E. Level of Service F' is not possible for existing conditions, but can be forecasted f'or fuYure conditions when volume projcctions cxceed existinb c~ipacities. In~ut Dat~ 'T'he intersection capacity worl: sheets use ~ codc to identify dif'i'erent lane configurations. This nomenclattn~e is described on the following Description of i,ane Confgurltions. Right turn on red adjustments are accottnted for as well as unequal distribution of turn vohunes in double turn lanes. For moce inPormation, see Circullr 212 and the CCTA 1'echnical Procedures Mlnual. T.FVr.r. nr cr.RViCr, RANGI~S VOLUM~ TU yv MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES LOS CAPAC.ITY RATIO 2-Pl~nse 3-Phase 4+-Pl~ase A < 0.60 1,080 1,030 99U ~ o.br -o.~o ~,a~o ~,20o t,i~o C 0.71 -0.80 1,440 1,330 1,320 D 0.81 -0.90 1,620 1,550 1,490 G 0.91 - I.00 1,800 1,720 1,65a F -------------Not Applicable------------ Source: Cuntrn Costa Growlh M1n~gement Program, Technictd Procedures, 'I'able 9. cct~n~c.tiPP ~~~ ~~. D~SCKIPTION OF LANE CONPIGURATION PORMAT The number of lanes and the use of the lanes is denoted ~vith a special nomencl~ture described bclow: Lane Nomenclature X,Y Where X Denotes the total number of lanes available for a particular movement. Y Denotes how the lanes are used. 1VI~en Y is .,. ...The folluwin a~ lies: ~- k. ~.on A lane used exclusively for a particullr movement (i.e., exdusive left-turn I~ne). Q ~..... i.or I ~C ~.oi. .:• ~~~ A lane which is shared, thaf is, either of two difterent movemenls can be made from a 1 ~! . -,.~~ L,.~,_ particular lane (i.e., a I~ne which is sh~red by through and right-turn traffc). .R . z~~' Denotes two or more through lanes in which two lanes are shared, one with left-turn Z ~; : +jr ,,,_ traffic, the other ~vitl~ rigitt-turn h~affic. Denotes 1n ex resswa throu h movement. ~` ''"' Denotes a right-turn movement from a wide outside lane where right-turn vehicles can 4 I ~' - 2' T ~~.o~ bypass through trlffic shnring the l~ne to mal<e ~ ri~;ht-hirn on rcd. I~ R. ti.SF~ penotes ~ right-hu•n movement from an exclusive ri6ht-curn lane with a right-turn airow 5 ~~_• z.or and prohibition on the conflicting U-turn movement. I i,o i ''°" Denotes a right-turn movement from a shared lane with a right-turn arrow and prohibition 6 ~''~ '~ T ~~~ on the conf]icting U-turn movement. Denotes ~i turnin~; movement which has a se arate lanc to tum in[o, as shown below: ~;~:? ~~.;., ~.%~ Tum lane which is shared wich a through lane or left-turn lane and under signal control, 7 'n~-',:~; and which has its own l~ne to turn into. There must bc at fease two thcough lanes. ~+:4 ~ :~: ~,A ~'AR Exclusive turn lane which is under signal control, and which has its own lane.to turn into. g ...,a~ ~~... ~.a ~. r _._ ~?:? ~};~ ~~--,.s„ Exclusive turn lane not under signal control ~nd wl~ich has an exclusive fane to turn into, !-:•,.o~ ofien referred to as a"free" turn. Since the vo(umes in this 11ne do not conflict with other 9 ~__ ~ ~.a~. intersection movements, the V/C ratio of the Free right-turn movement is not included in ~~i} the sum of critical V/C ratios. d.u ecnuwaiv+yycnuwcaw~ i n aiyuauccu incuwuvivyr.uw CCIaVI;.tl~7~ ~ ~:.; ~ ~~ ~ ~s~ MARKS TRAFFIC DATA Page 1 CITY OF DUBLIN TASSAJARA RD. N/O SILVERA RANCH RD. Site Code: f tass_ajaraF 16- Both ~~ Both 18- Both ' Start Oct- NB SB Oct- NB SB Oct- NB SB 3-Day Total Dir. Dir. Dir ; 07 07 07 , n.. T,...,~ ~n~,.a n nn o nn e ~A D ~A Tn+~l Thn 0 M P M A M P M Tntal A M P_M. ~~~~~~ ~. 12:00 .~ ~,.~.~. 1 ~ .~.~. 60 .....~. 1 . ..... 58 ._.... 120 ••-- ....... 9 . .- 55 -- 1 60 125 12 43 3 64 122 27 340 12:15 2 52 0 61 115 6 51 3 'S4 174 4 59 7 77 141 22 348 12:30 2 47 2 69 120 1 61 2 66 130 5 55 3 65 128 15 363 12:45 2 55 2 63 122 3 50 0 60 713 2 57 2 65 126 11 350 01:00 3 60 1 66 130 3 76 4 70 153 2 69 1 58 130 14 399 -01:15 3 40 0 S6 99 2 71 0 70 143 -0 65 0 63 128 5 365 01:30 4 46 1 54 105 2 66 0 70 138 3 72 1 68 144 11 376 01:45 2 60 1 58 12]' : 1 74 0 89 144 ' 0 77 1 B2' 140 5 400 02:00 2 60 0 62 124 0 72 3 50 125 1 63 2 54 120 8 361 02:15 2 43 0 61 106 2 54 1 61 118, 1 68 0 71 140 6 358 02:30 0 75 0 67 142 1 73 0 92 166 0 59 0 88 147 1 454 02 45 0 62 0 69 131 0 b8 0 65 123 9 55 0 73. 131 3 382 03:00 3 72 0 78 153 0 69 2 73 144 2 57 0 62 121 7 411 03:15 3 80 2 81 166 1 83 2 73 159 2 '71 4 68 145 14 456 03:30 5 80 8 80 773 6 82 2 76 166 2 85 3 72 162 26 475 03:45 0 71 , 1 72 144 1 78 1 50 130 5 82 3 66 156 11 419 04:00 0 69 1 54 124 2 68 6 70 146 1 83 2 71 157 12 415 04:15 4 80 10 71 165 1 64 4 68 137 -0 82 6 61 159 25 436 0430 3 108 6 56 173 3 101 7 52 163 4 93 5 73 175 28 ~ 483 04:45 6 143 11 53 21~3 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. '9 ~ . ~ 112 11 57 189 ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~6 ~ 97. . ~ ~ 7 46 156 ~ 50 508 05:00 4 121 11 42 178 4 116 10 59 189 9 129 10 52 200 48 519 05:15 6 118 14 49 187 14 136 14 71 235 14 132 12 64 222 74 570 ^`~30 12 136 22 53 223 ~ 12 118 24 57 211 16 120 28 56 220 114 540 i 6 122 38 50 216 14 122 23 55 214 11 12'/ 21 50 203 113 520 ._..~0 21 127 49 56 253 16 99 31 50 196 23 90 38 49 198 176 471 06:15 25 113 60 46 244 ' 41 107 47 46 241 24 -'109 37 45 215 234 466 06:30 34 87 71 42 234 45 77 49 53 224 50 62 59 39 230 308 380 ,06:45 60 77 81 29 247 50 94 81' 37 262 46 73 78 38 235 398 348 07:00 35 65 105 38 243 50 75 89 36 250 49 68 82 39 238 410 321 07:15 43 63 143 4t 290' • 48 54 109, 43 254 37 51 137 36 261 517 288 07:30 57 51 171 22 301 43 58 143 29 273 58 47 144 26 275 616 233 07:45 60 55 171 15 30t1 75 ' 50 174 22 321 61 `55 160 26 302' 701 223 os:oo 93 41 188 14 . 334 106 as 185 2z 35s 61 sa 151 zz zse 7ez t78 08:15 81 38 1fi2 15 296 98 45 189 _ 29 361 65 35 ` 148 19 267 743 181 08:30 66 38 144 19 267 63 48 144 18 273 70 39 109 15 233 596 177 08:45 63 30 ' 105 27 225 83 42 117 13 255 - 74 37 113 19' 243 555 168 09:00 55 29 88 9 181 57 35 95 30 217 52 26 96 18 194 443 149 09:15 47 ' 34 `94 15 187' 65 34 107 11 217 56 20 74 20 170 440 134 09:30 61 24 74 23 182 50 41 83 13 187 45 16 88 24 175 401 143 09:45 48 22 66 :8 144 54 ' 23 77 13 167 73 20 79 17 189 397 103 10:00 65 21 73 15 174 60 20 76 22 178 53 19 79 11 162 ~ 406 108 10:15 ~~ 52 ~ . 19 - 63 11.~ 145~~ '~~ ., 64~~. , 37 68 12~~~ ~ ~~181~ ., ~~ 45-~. ~ ~ 14.~.~~ 57 10 126 349 1~3 10:30 55 16 61 T ~ 139 57 17 74 7 155 55 21 81 8 165 383 76 10:45 51 20 82 S' 139' - 62 20 73 11 166 55 14 76 5 150 379 76 11:00 38 10 63 7 118 59 11 76 20 '166 49 9 55 5 118 340 62 11:15 60 8' 65 " 9 142 46' 8 56 8 118 54 6 87 3 150 368 42 11:30 50 7 54 3 114 62 4 51 2 119 49 8 55 6 118 321 30 11:45 50 7 65 2 124 59 11 72 6 148 5b 3 62 0 116 359 29 Total 1345 2862 240$ ~96z 8`.~74 ~'J10 1yti~ L3tlU L7Ul tl`JtlL l3OU L8U4 LL09 CU4J 09l1 IIG/V 19/J/ Day 4207 4367 4475 44 87 4164 43 07 26007 Total PerCe 32.0% 66.0% 55.1% 44.9% 33.7% 66.3% 53.2% 46.8% 32.7% 67.3°/a 52.6% 47.4% 43.3% 56.7% nt Peak 08:00 04:45 07:30 03:00 08:00 05:00 07:45 02:30 08:00 05:00 07:30 02:15 Vol. 303 518 690 311 350 492 692 303 270 502 603 294 P.H.F. 0.815 0.906 0.927 0.960 0.825 0.904 0.915 0.823 0.912 0.951 0.942 0.835 ~`~r~j~ ~ ~, C~~'~fi ~a~~ ~~ ~vn~n n~~c~ac~.uv~~ ~u~~l~~ly IvIVVC111C11L.7u1111I1df~/ Project: 157-210 Control Speed Limit Survey Date: 11/13/2007 DAY: Tuesday N-S Approach: Tassajara Road Signal 45 Survey Time: 7:00 AM To 9:00 AM E-W Approach: Silvera Ranch Drive Signal 25 City: Dublin Recorder: Ron PEAK HOUR Tassajara Road ~ Arrival / Departure Volumes 7:30 AM TO 8:30 AM 0 587 1 North PHF = 0.94 .~ 1 ~, 588 zo~ , . ~ ~ 0 L U m ~ ~ ~ > ~ 0 ~~ TOTAL ~ 3 0 845 0 _~ ~_ o -y ~-- ss PHF = #DIV/0! PHF = #DIV/0! ~ I ~ 0 204 14 ~ ~ 623 218 PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.89 Time Period Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound From To Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total SURVEY DATA 7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM p 7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM p 7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM p 7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM p 5:00 AM --- 8:15 AM p 8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM p 8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM p 8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM p TOTAL BY PERIOD 7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 35 3 10 0 0 1 87 0 136 7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 42 3 9 0 0 0 129 0 183 7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 44 3 8 0 1 0 156 0 212 7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 49 4 8 0 0 1 151 0 213 8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 57 1 6 0 2 0 133 0 199 8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 54 6 14 0 0 0 147 0 221 8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 52 7 7 0 0 0 120 0 186 8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 55 8 6 0 1 0 98 0 168 HOURLY TOTALS 7:00 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 170 13 35 0 1 2 523 0 744 7:15 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 192 11 31 0 3 1 569 0 807 7:30 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 204 14 36 0 3 1 587 0 845 7:45 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 212 18 35 0 2 1 551 0 819 8:00 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 21 S 22 33 0 3 0 498 0 774 Lane Configuration Overall Peak Hour Factor #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.89 0.58 0.64 #DIV/0! 0.38 0.25 0.94 #DIV/0! 0.96 b°~ ~ ~7 ~~~ TJKM Intersection ~ urning iwovemeni ~urnrnary Project: 157-210 Controi Speed Limit Survey Date: 11/13/2007 DAY: Tuesday N-S Approach: Tassajara Road Signal 45 Survey Time: 4:00 PM To 6:00 PM E-W Approach: Silvera Ranch Drive Signal 25 City: Dublin Recorder: David PEAK HOUR Tassajara Road ~ Arrival / Departure Volumes 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM North PHF= 0.98 0 243 0 243 396 ,~ 1 ~, > 0 c m ~ m a~ > ~ ~ ~, TOTAL ~ 5 0 , 676 ~_ 0 _ p y ~ 17 1 1 PHF= 0 •_ #DIV/0! 0 --~ PHF= ~- 22 #DIV/0! _~ 20 1 1 260 411 PHF= 0.97 Southbound left Thru ~ 1 ~' 0 391 20 Time Period Eastbound Northbound Westbound From To Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Righ SURVEY DATA 4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM TOTAL BY PERIOD 4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 98 4 3 0 1 4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 101 6 3 0 2 4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 99 5 6 0 2 4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 93 5 5 0 0 5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 75 3 5 0 0 5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 122 9 2 0 0 5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 120 8 3 0 0 5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 4 110 2 3 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 4:00 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 391 20 17 0 5 4:15 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 368 19 19 0 4 4:30 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 389 22 18 0 2 4:45 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 410 25 15 0 0 5:00 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 4 427 22 13 0 0 Lane Configuration Peak Hour Factor #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.97 0.83 0.71 #DIV/0! 0.63 0 60 0 0 62 0 0 61 0 0 60 0 4 38 0 0 39 0 1 38 0 0 45 0 0 243 0 4 221 0 4 198 0 5 175 0 5 160 0 0.98 ~ #DIV/0! I PHF = 0.97 II Total ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 166 174 173 163 125 172 170 164 ~ 676 635 633 630 631 ~ Overall 0.97 ~~~ ~ 75~ ~{ ~. ~ .~3 ~! a ~ 7,.5'~ Buildout A.M. Thu Feb 21, 2008 17:05:00 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Buildout A.M. Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Default Command Cumulative A.M. Future Default Impact Fee Project A.M. Project Default Path Default Route Default Configuration Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ i ~ ~5~ ~ Buildout A.M. Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:06:03 Page 2-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) ,r,r~***,r~+*,r*+*+**++,r*,r,r+~++*+*,r~,r~+,r+*~,r++~~+v.,r*,r**+~*~r**,r**~**w,r****~**+******* Intersection #1 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road ,r*+*~,r*+**a*#***t*,r*+**+*,r+*****~*+*,r~*+~~~~+~**+~+~,r********+~+**++***tt+*~*+*,r Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.542 Loss Time {sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: A ***,r~*~+++* r,r+~*+~~,~+**+~*+****~~*++**,r+*~* r~~~~~**+~~**+ r,r,r~w~***,r~~~**+,r*+~,r,r~ Street Name: Tassajara Road Fallon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Volume Module: Base Vol: 263 29 64 9 56 11 13 1296 1890 18 593 11 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 263 29 64 9 56 11 13 1296 1890 18 593 11 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 263 29 64 9 56 11 13 1296 1890 18 593 11 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 286 32 70 10 61 12 14 1409 2054 20 645 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 286 32 70 10 61 12 14 1409 2054 20 645 12 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 20 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 10 RTOR Vol: 286 32 50 10 61 0 14 1409 2054 20 645 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 286 32 50 10 61 0 14 1409 2054 20 645 2 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4307 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 3300 3000 1650 3300 1650 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.68 0.01 0.20 0.00 Crit Volume: 95 61 704 20 Crit Moves: **** **** **,r~ ~:r~* ,r*~*#*+*,r*,rt*r*,r,r,r,r*+,r,r,r*,t~,r*t,r,r*~~,r+*+*,r***~,r,r,r~*,r*,r*+~~*~++,r**,r*~**,r,r*:r*+,r~#** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ ~. ~ia 75~ ~ Buildout A.M. Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:06:03 Page 3-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) ~,r++,r,r+~*~++,r++~***:r***+++~*,r**~:r*,r**~**~,r*++~+**+~**+*+*+x,r**,r~**,r+***+***+**** Intersection #z Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive +~**++******~****~*~*****~~******~****+**~*+**+*******~*:r,r~***,r**~*+*+~**~*++,r+~ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.672 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 57 Level Of Service: B at*+****,r******t+t**+***,r,r*****x,tt,r+:t~~**~++~:r*~***+t*+**,r*,r*,r+**~+~***+~***+,r** Street Name: Tassajara Road Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~I---------------~ Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Right9: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------~---------------~I---------------~I---------------II---------------~ Volume Module:Buildout AM Base Vol: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 105 353 0 1 1963 0 4 4 375 65 1 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 105 353 0 1 1963 0 4 4 375 65 1 3 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Adjustment: 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.25 0.75 Final Sat.: 3127 5160 1720 1720 5160 1720 1720 18 1702 1720 430 1290 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 Crit Volume: 53 654 379 65 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** **+**,r,r,t+r+*+~~+**t~~,r+*+*~**a+,r*+t+*+tt**+++~+~*++*+*~+++t+,r*,r+t,r***~+**t+,r+**~+ Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~13 ~ ~ ~~ Buildout A.M. ----------------- Thu Mar 6, 2008 15:20:30 --------------------------------------------- ------ Page 2-1 - Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) ----------- Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) ' ----------------- City of Dublin ------------------------------------ --------- Level Of Service Computation Report ------ ------------ CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) r **+****+*~~~~*+** ~*****~+~*****~~*******~*****~~+**+~~*~***~*+*****~~*****~***** Intersection #3 Fallon Rd and Silvera Ranch Drive +***~****+~+~**+* *~~******+~*~**+*~*~~*+*++********~****+**+~***~.** ************ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.411 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: A **+*****~*****~** ***~*~~~**~***~~*****~*~~**+**+*+~**+~~*++~****+**+ +~~~***~+~** Street Name: Fallon Rd Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: No rth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ~ Movement: L ------------I---- - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -----------I ------------ L - T - R Control: P I ---II---------------I rotected Protected Protected I---- P -----------I rotected Rights: Include Include Include Include ~' Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 ------------I---- 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ----------- -------- 0 0 0 0 0 ' Volume Module:Bui II -------II---------------I ldout AM I---- -----------I ,., Base Vol: 19 611 0 0 1365 9 11 0 20 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 14 611 0 0 1365 9 11 0 20 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Initial Fut: 14 611 0 0 1365 9 11 0 20 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 19 611 0 0 1365 4 11 0 20 0 0 0 '"'° Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 611 0 0 1365 4 11 0 20 0 0 0 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 19 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 14 611 0 0 1365 0 11 0 6 0 0 0 '~^ PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 19 ------------I---- 611 0 0 1365 0 11 0 6 ----------- ------ 0 0 0 II ---------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: I---- -----------I ~ Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1720 ------------I----- 3940 0 0 3940 1720 1720 0 1720 ---------- ---- 0 0 0 ~` Capacity Analysis II -----------II---------------I Module: I----- ----------I "' Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Volume: 14 683 11 0 ,~€ Crit Moves: **** **** **** ~*******~*~*****,~~****~++****+*~+~****~~~~~*~*~+~***~~~~~*+*~~+****~~****~~~~** . Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ ~;_: ~ ~1~~~75~ Buildout P.M. Thu Feb 21, 2008 17:07:57 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Buildout P.M. Command : Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Default Command Cumulative P.M. Future Default Impact Fee Project P.M. Project Default Path Default Route Default Configuration Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ b ~ ~ ~~~ ~." Buildout P.M. ----- - Fri Feb 22, - 2008 12:07:53 -------- -- ------ -- ---- Page 2-1 ------------ ---- ------- -------------------- - Nielson Property (Sing ---- - le Fami - - ly Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) ~' ----------------- City of ---------------------- Dublin ------- ------------------ ---- ----- - ----- , Level Of Service Computa tion Report CCTALOS Method (Futur e Volume Alternative) ~ +t,t********,t+t**~* *,t,t*,t+****+**~***~~+r~+ *+,t***,r ~**+++t~~++*****++,t,tx* **~+r*~~*+** Intersection #1 Tassajara Road/Fallon R oad +**~*****~~*~++~+ ++;r****~++r#,r~*++~+*~+ +++a~++ *+*++~~,r+,t**,r***t,t**** *:t**~~,r,r***+ Cycle (sec): 100 Critic al Vol./Cap.(X): 0.888 ~, Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Averag e Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ~~*tt**,+*,r+***,r*,r +,v,r*,r,r**t**t*,r~,r***+~* ~,r*r*,r+ r*,ra+~~~+**~*r~~*~+~t+ ~t,r**,t*t+~** Street Name: Tassajara Road Fallon Road Approach: No rth Bound South B ound East Bound west Bound '"~ Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ,,. ------------~---- Control: P -----------~I--------- rotected Protec ------~ ted ~---------------~~ Protected ---------------~ Protected Rights: Include Incl ude Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 ------------I---- Volume Module: -----------~~--------- ------~ ~---------------~I ---- -----------~ Base Vol: 1731 71 67 4 37 9 19 915 844 64 1257 45 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1731 71 67 4 37 9 19 915 844 64 1257 45 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Initial Fut: 1731 71 67 4 37 9 19 915 844 64 1257 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 """ PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 1882 77 73 4 40 10 21 995 917 70 1366 49 ~° Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1882 77 73 4 40 10 21 995 917 70 1366 49 '~` RTOR Reduct: 0 0 70 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4 RTOR Vol: 1882 77 3 4 40 0 21 995 917 70 1366 45 ~~* PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1882 77 3 4 40 0 21 995 917 70 1366 45 ------------~---------------~~--------- Saturation Flow Module: ------~ ~---------------~~ ----- ----------~ ,.., Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4307 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 3300 3000 1650 3300 1650 "'" ------------~---- Capacity Analysis -----------~~--------- Module: ------~ ~---------------~~ ----- ----------~ ~" Vol/Sat: 0.44 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.04 0.41 0.03 Crit Volume: 627 40 21 683 ~ Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** *+~+*,r~***t*t+~,t+**,t*,t,t,t,t+****,t~***~,r,rt,t,r,t~~*~~r*+~,r**,t***r*,t,r,tt ****t+~,r,rt**,+,r,t,r ,~. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ ~ '~' ~~ ~5 s- Buildout P.M. Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:07:53 Page 3-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) +*,r++a****~*~,r***~tt~*+,r***++*~,t**,rt,r~*t*,t,t*t****,r*~*t**++**~++*~~**+**+**,r++t,r* Intersection #2 Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive *,t,t**,k,t*,ttr,t,t*,t,t,r~,ttir,rtirt,t,t,tir,k,k,t*t+*~*+*,r++****,tir+***,ttt*~*t,t**tirt+,t*~*,t*,t+~a,r++* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.507 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A ~,r**~,r***+***+*+~~****,r~**~~********+~,r***~+,r**,r~*,r*******+~***~,r*t~x+,r+~,r+~+**~r Street Name: Tassajara Road Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Volume Module:Buildout PM Base Vol: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 41 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 408 1804 33 3 942 0 4 1 225 41 4 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 408 1804 33 3 942 0 4 1 225 41 4 5 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------II---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Adjustment: 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.44 0.56 Final Sat.: 3127 5160 1720 1720 5160 1720 1720 8 1712 1720 764 956 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.35 0.02 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.01 Crit Volume: 601 3 226 41 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** *+#+++~****+*#+*~r+**~**+*~~~,r*******:r**,r~*,r*~,r,r*****,r***,r~~~+,r******~***,r*~***+* Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ s ?~' -75~ ~ Buildout P.M. Thu Mar 6, 2008 15:21:32 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) ~ City of Dublin ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- , Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) °'" **,,~+**+*~~+**~~+*+*********~**~+**+~**~~+*++***+*****+*****+***+*+***++**~+**+~ Intersection #3 Fallon Rd and Silvera Ranch Drive +,.~***+~~***~~~***+~****~+**~*~~+*~+*~~«~~*+**~***+**+*+**+*~***+*~*++*+*++*~*+~ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.399 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A ****~~***********~********~****+**+****~****+******+***~,~~~*~~~~~~~~~*~*~+*~~+~ Street Name: Fallon Rd Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include "` Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module:Buildout PM -- Base Vol: 25 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 20 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 25 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 20 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 25 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 20 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 25 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 20 0 0 0 ~ Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 20 0 0 0 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 20 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 25 1359 0 0 951 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 '""' PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - FinalVOlume: 25 1359 0 0 951 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I ,~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 ,., Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1720 3440 0 0 3440 1720 1720 0 1720 0 0 0 ~ ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: ~M Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Volume: 680 0 7 0 !!~"' Crit Moves: **** **** **** ***********************+***************+***********++*****++~+**+**~,*,*****+*+* x Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ ~ fr.:. ~ ~8 ~ ?~~ Buildout+Project A.M. Thu Feb 21, 2008 15:50:29 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Buildout+Project A.M. Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Default Command Cumulative A.M. Future Default Impact Fee Project A.M. Project Default Path Default Route Default Configuration Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~iq~~~ ~ Buildout+Project A.M. Fri Feb 22, 2008 13:19:21 Page 2-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***,r,r*,r*,r**,r***~+,r***~**++*~**++++****,r+,+****~++***+++~~++*~****,r,r+***,r******~*~ Intersection #1 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road *+****~*****t**~*****~~**,r**~***t~,r*,r,r*,r+*****+**~*~+++**~*~*~****,+++~*+*~~*t,t++ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.543 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: A ***+~***+*******~,r*~************~**,r~*~***~~+**,r*,r~**********~*+*****+*****~,r**~ Street Name: Tassajara Road Fallon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Volume Module: Base Vol: 263 29 64 9 56 11 13 1296 1890 18 593 11 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 263 29 64 9 56 11 13 1296 1890 18 593 11 Added Vol: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 265 29 64 9 56 11 13 1296 1891 18 593 il User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 288 32 70 10 61 12 14 1409 2055 20 645 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 288 32 70 10 61 12 14 1409 2055 20 645 12 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 20 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 10 RTOR Vol: 268 32 50 10 61 0 14 1409 2055 20 645 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 288 32 50 10 61 0 14 1409 2055 20 645 2 ------------I---------------~~---------------I~---------------~~---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4307 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 3300 3000 1650 3300 1650 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---- ----------~~---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.69 0.01 0.20 0.00 Crit Volume: 96 61 704 20 Crit Moves: **** **** **'`* ""`* ******~*~*~****+*+~~+*,r**~~***+,+~**~**,r*+*+**++*++*++~:r+*t++*~~~,r+*+**~,r**~*~+*~ Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA a~ s~; er~ a.,; ~' `"~ ~7~ Buildout+Project A.M. Fri Feb 22, 2008 13:19:21 Paqe 3-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (FUture Volume Alternative) **,r,t*,r**,r**t+,t**~+*****,rt,r+*~***~~,r,t*~*,r~,r****++*:rt*,r**,r*t**:r,t*,t**:t,r**+**+**+a** Intersection #2 Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive **t**tv.,t**:r~***a~*,t*t****,r,r**~*+*t+*******+,t*t**+*,t** x,t~,r+*+*****+**+*+****rr~~+* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.685 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: S *~*+~**~,r***~*,++*,r***,r~~++~******+*~,r**~~**,r~*+~,r********+**~,++***,v,r*,r++**+*++** Street Name: Tassajara Road Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R , ------------~---------------~~---------------I~---------------~~---------------~ Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Volume Module:Buildout AM Base Vol: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Snitial Bse: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 Added Vol: 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 105 353 27 2 1963 2 4 4 375 87 1 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Oa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 105 353 27 2 1963 2 4 4 375 87 1 5 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 105 353 27 2 1963 2 4 4 375 87 1 5 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 27 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 105 353 0 2 1963 0 4 4 375 87 1 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0a 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 105 353 0 2 1963 0 4 4 375 87 1 5 ------------~---------------~~---------------I~---------------~~---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Adjustment: 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.17 0.83 Final Sat.: 3127 5160 1720 1720 5160 1720 1720 18 1702 1720 287 1433 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.00 Crit Volume: 53 654 379 87 Crit Moves: **** +,r++ ***+ **** .*,r*,r,r*****,r*****,r*,r,r**,r*,r****~,r,~***~~+,r,r*,r**~~*,r****+~~~+*,r~~+~+*+*~*~******,r** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~~~ ~s~ ~ Buildout+Project A.M. Thu Mar 6, 2008 15:18:57 Page 2-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) ++**+********.+*~+*****,**~**+**********,*******+***.**+*******~~******~~~+**~+* Intersection #3 Fallon Rd and Silvera Ranch Drive **~~~~**+*~~+++*****~+******~.~*+****+**+******+~******+*+********~~~~***~+*~+** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.411 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=9.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: A *++~******,.*~+++****+~*****+*~~~****~~~*******~*~,.~*+«****:r****+****+~****+*,.*+* Street Name: Fallon Rd Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Riqhts: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module:Buildout AM Base Vol: 14 611 0 0 1365 9 11 0 20 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 14 611 0 0 1365 9 11 0 20 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 19 611 0 0 1365 9 11 0 21 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 14 611 0 0 1365 4 11 0 21 0 0 0 Rednct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 611 0 0 1365 4 11 0 21 0 0 0 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 14 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 14 611 0 0 1365 0 11 0 7 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 14 611 0 0 1365 0 11 0 7 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1720 3940 0 0 3490 1720 1720 0 1720 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vo1/Sat: 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Volume: 14 683 11 0 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ~*+*****************~*******~~~~*****~*~******~*~~*~*~+***~~~~~~******~~~~~*~*** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA A~ ~s= ~~~ ~5g ~ Buildout+Project P.M. Thu Feb 21, 2008 15:51:46 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Buildout+Project P.M. Command : Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution Paths: Routes: Configuration: Default Command Cumulative P.M. Future Default Impact Fee Project P.M. Project Default Path Default Route Default Configuration Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~~3,~7~ ~~ ~ Buildout+Project P.M. Thu Feb 21, 2008 15:51:46 Page 2_1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) ~~***~~*****~***~**~***+*******++*,r+**~**~*,r***~+~**x**~+,r,r,r~**~***~++~*+******* Intersection #1 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road ****,r+***+*t***++vr***,r,r,r**~*+t,t,t~*,rt**,t+~*t*~+**~~***~t*****+,t~***xt*****ta~***t Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): ~•88$ Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D .~***~**+*+*~**********+*~,r*+,r*~**+*+~**+,r+v,**~*~r**~+***~,r*+*+,r**~*+***~******~+ Street Name: Tassajara Road Fallon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R --------------~~---------------~~---------------~ ------------~---------------~~- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Volume Module: Base Vol: 1731 71 67 4 37 9 19 915 844 64 1257 45 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1731 71 67 4 37 9 19 915 844 64 1257 45 Added Vol: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Passersyvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1732 71 67 4 37 9 19 915 846 64 1257 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 1883 77 73 4 40 10 21 995 920 70 1366 49 ReduCt Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ a ~ Reduced Vol: 1883 77 73 4 40 10 21 995 920 70 1366 49 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 70 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4 RTOR Vol: 1883 77 3 4 40 0 21 995 920 70 1366 45 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1883 77 3 4 40 0 21 995 920 70 1366 45 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4307 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 3300 3000 1650 3300 1650 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.44 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.04 0.41 0.03 Crit Volume: 628 40 21 683 Crit Moves: **** '"** *'`'`'` **** *+,r++t***+~~**+~**++***~~*~+**~**+~+,r****~+~,r*+~****,r,r*****+**,r****~***+*,r,r,r***,r Traffix 7.9.0415 (C) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA .~s? ~ ~~~ ~~ -~~r:~ Buildout+Project P.M. Fri Feb 22, 2008 13:20:17 Page 3-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) *+,r~****~+,r++,r*+t*a+,r,rt~t+,rtt*,t***:rr~+*~~t*~,ra*****+*,r~*~~*+**+~**,r*+*+~*,r****** Intersection #2 Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive *,tt*****t+r**ir*,t,t*,t*~~r,rfr~t*,k*i.**~***,t*,t,r,t,tie**rir*+*~,r~*+r,t+**,t*t~**t*+t*t~+**,tttr* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.516 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxx~cx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A +**~,r~*~*~*f*+~**,r+,rt**+*~***~,r,r+*,r**++,r*,r*+***,r**+*,r*+**+~~~,r~,r*********,r*,r*,r,r* Street Name: Tassajara Road Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------~I---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Volume Module:Buildout PM Base Vol: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 Added Vol: 0 0 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 408 1804 99 5 942 4 4 1 225 55 4 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 408 1804 99 5 942 4 4 1 225 55 4 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 408 1804 99 5 942 4 4 1 225 55 4 6 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 55 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 408 1804 44 5 942 0 4 1 225 55 4 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 408 1804 44 5 942 0 4 1 225 55 4 6 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Adjustment: 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 3127 5160 1720 1'I20 5160 1720 1720 S 1712 1720 688 1032 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.35 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.01 Crit Volume: 601 5 226 55 Crit Moves: **** *+*+ ~+.,r,r +*++ ,r*,r*,r+t**,r,r+~+~***~~,r+r+,r,r~~,r*+***,r****+~+**,r******+*****+*,r,r*~+****+*****,r**,r*~* Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~as 7~~ ~ ~ . . ~ Buildout+Project P.M. Thu Mar 6, 2008 15:19:4~ Page 2-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) **+*~**~***>**~+***+**~**:r~*~***~~*~***~***+**~**+*+***~**~~**~*****~+**~***~*** Intersection #3 Fallon Rd and Silvera Ranch Drive *,.+*****+******~+**.**********.**.************+**~+***+**+*+~.~+***++*++****+*** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vo1./Cap.(X): 0.399 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=9.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle• 38 Level Of Service: A *****~~+~**,.~+***~*~***~+*+**+~**~***:r+**~*~***+*+*~+*~+**+*+~*~***+~+**~+**~*** Street Name: Fallon Rd Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -- --I ------------- ------------I---------------II--------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module:Buildout PM Base Vol: 25 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 20 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 25 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 20 0 0 0 Added Vol: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 26 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 21 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 26 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 21 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 1359 0 0 951 12 7 0 21 0 0 0 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 21 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 26 1359 0 0 951 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 1359 0 0 951 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1720 3990 0 0 3440 1720 1720 0 1720 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Volume: 680 0 7 0 Crit Moves: **** '`*** '`*** *~**~+*~**~***~*+~*********~********~***~***~~**~*~*~~+*~~*+~~*+~+*~*****+**+*** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~. ~ ~~~r~~s~ MITIG8 - Buildout+Project AFri Feb 22, 2408 14:08:50 Page 1-1 Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ,r*****,t***,t,r**t*,t,t,rt*****~+**~+,r~+,r*~*,r,r~,r,t***++~+r**t,r~~,r*~*******,rt**,r*~~,r*,t,r+ Intersection #2 Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive ,t+,r***+*t*****,rt***,r,t**+tt,t r+r**t~vr*,r~**++t,t**~+*,tt*~a+*~++~+**+o-~*~t,r,r++t*,r~**** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.643 Loss Time (sec): 0(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 1~.0 Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: g *,r+,r*******:r,r*~,r*~+***,r,r,r+,r***~***,r*~*+**,r,+~,r****+**,r~*** r*****#~~+~***++*,r*~~** Street Name: Tassajara Road Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Sound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------~I---------------~~--------- ~~- ~ ------ -------------- Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ -----~~---------------~~--------------- ---------- ~~---------------~ Volume Module:Buildout AM Base Vol: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 105 353 20 1 1963 2 4 4 375 65 1 3 Added Vol: 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 105 353 27 2 1963 2 4 4 375 87 1 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 105 353 27 2 1963 2 4 4 375 87 1 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 105 353 27 2 1963 2 4 4 375 87 1 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 105 353 27 2 1963 2 4 4 375 87 1 5 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.76 0.85 0.85 0.29 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.0o 0.17 0.83 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1444 17 1602 543 277 1385 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ,r~** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.11 0.03 0.11 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.64 0.64 0.44 0.01 0.01 Delay/Veh: 55.3 7.5 7.1 51.7 14.1 8.5 20.3 28.8 2g.g 25.6 20.3 20.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.3 7.5 7.1 51.7 14.1 8.5 20.3 28.8 28.8 25.6 20.3 20.3 LOS by Move: E A A D B A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 2 0 0 15 0 D 10 10 3 0 0 ~******+*~*,r,r*,r~,r*+,r~,r**,r**+**,r**+*~,r,r+~~*~,r*,r*+**+***,r~~+*,r+v,~,r*+***~***,r*+~+** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA C~~ ~-~'S~ ~" ~,~ MITIGB - Buildout+Project PFri Feb 22, 2008 14:09:51 Page 1-1 ------- ----------------- Nielson Property (Single Family Residential) Traffic Analysis (Proj # 157-210) City of Dublin ----------- ------- ---- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ~~***********+~*~*,r***~*+**+**++*****~*+r,r+~**~~*,r~*~+~***~+~****+**++*+********* Intersection #2 Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive ********+**~,r****~**,r******+~******,r~++*+*,v+*~*~+~+*+***,r*,r~*~+**~+*~**+******~* Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.490 Cycle (sec): 100 p(Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.7 Loss Time (sec): g Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: *+**~~**~*~*~**+*******,r*~*++~~+*+,r+~*,r*~~*~***~**~+******~*~*+**+**~r***++**~*~ Street Name: Tassajara Road Silvera Ranch Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L T R L T R ~~---------------~ ~~---------------~~-------------- ------------~------------- Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Control: Include Include Rights: Include Include o p p 0 Min. Green: 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lanes : 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0_ I ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~-------------- Volume Module:Buildout PM Base Vol: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 408 1804 74 3 942 4 4 1 225 41 4 5 Added Vol: 0 0 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 408 1804 99 5 942 4 4 1 225 55 4 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 408 1804 99 5 942 4 4 1 225 55 4 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ~ Reduced Vol: 408 1804 99 5 942 4 4 1 225 55 4 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 408 1804 99 5 942 4 4 1 225 55 4 6I ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.39 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1425 7 1610 741 692 1037I ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.35 0.06 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0*** 0.14 0.07 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.71 0.71 0.01 0.44 0.44 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.49 0.09 0.49 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.26 0.02 0.02 Delay/Veh: 29.7 6.6 4.5 82.3 19.6 16.0 25.6 30.5 30.5 28.3 25.7 25•7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.7 6.6 4.5 82.3 19.6 16.0 25.6 30.5 30.5 28.3 25.7 25.7 LOS by Move: C A A F B B C C C C C C 1 1 7 0 0 6 6 2 0 ~ HCM2kAvgQ: 5 9 +r***+r~**~*+**,tt**t,rt~tt,r,r***+~**~+***~+**,r,trr*+r+*,t***,t**+****,t~**~r**~~+*t*,r***** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ Appendix 8.6 Biological Reconnaissance & Heritage Tree Report Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin Page 150 PA #07-057 January 2009 ~~~ ~~ ~ L /1 ~ I LSA ASSOCIAlFS INC BERKELEY FORTCOLLINS RIVERS~DE J 157 PARK PLACE S1O.236.6810 TEL CARLSBAU IRVINE ROCKLIN PT. RICHMOND, CAI,IFORNIA 94801 510.236.3480 Fnx COLMA PALM SPR~INGS SAN LUtS OBISPO Apri19, 2008 Mr. Robert Nielsen 6407 Tassajara Road Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Results of Biological Reconnaissance Survey Nielsen Property, Dublin Dear Robert: This letter presents the results of our biological reconnaissance survey of your approximately 10 acre property located along the east side of Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, Alameda County. It also incorporates the comments of the City's reviewer of the original draft (12/I 1/07) of this letter. The property is located in a developing area of Dublin. The Quany Lane School borders the property to the south and a new residential subdivision borders the property to the north. Tassajara Road forms the western boundary. A portion of the Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Conservation Area is located adjacent to the southeastem corner of the property. The project site is located in the southwest portion of Township 2 South, Range 1 East in an unsectioned area of the Livermore 7.5 minute quadrangle. The reconnaissance survey provides an analysis of occurring or potentially occurring biological resources on the property that may affect development. This letter includes a description of topographic conditions, plant communities and wildlife habitat present on the property and an analysis of the potential presence of sensitive habitats and special status wildlife species. Biological resources on the property may fall under the jurisdiction and regulations of one or more of the agencies listed below: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Species listed under the State Endangered Species Act (CESA). Species of Special Concern, Streambed Alteration Agreements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Fill of waters/wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Act water quality standards. Prior to conducting fieldwork we searched the most recent update (CDFG 2007) of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for records of special status species in the vicinity of this property. The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS, 2007 online update) was searched for information on special status plants occurring in the site vicinity. We also reviewed the results of biological studies conducted by LSA and other firms for information on special status species and habitats occuning in this area. For the purposes of this report, special status species are defined as follows: 04/09/08 (P:UiNE0701 ~RNielsen_Results of BioRecSurvey_Dublin_April 08.doc) PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL I DESIGN ~ ~"~-~sg LSA ASSOCtATES,INC. • Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA; • Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act; • Plant species on List 1B (rare, threatened, or endangered in Califomia and elsewhere) and List 2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere) in CNPS' Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001, 2007); • Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFG; • Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines; • Species considered to be a taxon of special concern by local agencies. Field surveys were conducted by LSA wildlife biologist Malcolm Sproul and botanist Zoya Akulova- Barlow on October 23, 2007 to assess current habitat conditions and evaluate the study area's potential to support special status plant and/or animal species. All plants and animals observed were recorded in field notes. Vegetative communities in this report are defined, when feasible, according to A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Scientific names of plants follow The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Hiclanan 1993). The project site is located at the base of and on a portion of a west facing hill. Current conditions on the property can be divided into two broad categories; developed and undeveloped. The developed areas have been graded (with attendant cuts and fills), creating four pads and a road connecting the pads. The road generally follows the north property boundary. The lowest pad adjacent to Tassajara Road has a shed/storage building and the pad has been graveled. This area is used for the sale of pumpkins and Christmas trees. The second pad (moving up the slope) has a small house and associated storage sheds located on it. The third pad contains a large fenced corral and several small associated pens for confining livestock. The fourth pad is located on the top of the knoll and contains the primary residence, associated buildings, paved areas, and landscaping. Barbed wire fencing separates developed areas from the adjacent grassland. Developed areas are found on a little less than half of the total property. T'he remainder of the property (a little more than hal fl is in a largely natural condition and supports a vegetative cover of non-native annual grassland. T'he grassland is found almost entirely on the sloping portions of the property. Dominant grass species are Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus) and wild oat (Avena fatua) all of which are introduced. Common introduced broadleaf plants include fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Native plants make up only 20% of the total number of species found on this site (8 of 39). The majority of the grassland areas have been grazed in the last year. Two artificial trees have been installed in the grassland on the slope below the primary residence, camouflaging cell phone antennas. T'his same slope contains a number of planted Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) seedlings, over half of which are dead or dying. ~ Wildlife observed on-site include common grassland species and several species found in the vicinity of residential development. These include western fence lizard, American kestrel, mouming dove, ~ 04i09/08 (P:V~NE0701\RNieisen_Rrsults of BioRtcSurvey_Dublin_ April OB.doc) 2 ~ ~3i ~5~` ~ 1.SA ASSOCIATES,INC. scrub jay, western meadowlark, striped skunk, Califomia ground squirrel and Botta pocket gopher all of which were observed or evidence of their presence detected during the site visit. Turkey wlture and red-tailed hawk were observed soaring over the property. Table A presents a list of specia] status plant species lrnown to occur in the general vicinity of the property and which could occur in the non-native annual grassland. The table also presents the status, habitat and blooming period of each species. T'he table does not include special status plant species found in the region which occur in habitat types not found on the properiy, such as serpentine areas, alkali soils and wetlands. We specifically looked for Congdon's tarplant, a species which in past years has been reported from the field on the west side of Tassajara Road, across the road from the project site. We did not find Congdon's tarplant on the project site. Table B presents a list of special status wildlife species Irnown to occur in the general vicinity of the project site and which are known to use non-native grassland. The table presents information on their status, habitat and an assessment of their likelihood to be present on this site. The property does not contain any streams or wetlands that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board or Department of Fish and Game. Recommendations Based on our field visit, review of background information and the comments of the city's reviewer, additional rare plant surveys are necessary. The property does not contain any stream or wetland areas that would potentially be subject to resource agency jurisdiction and as a result there is no need to conduct a jurisdictional delineation on the property. Four special status bird species (CDFG species of special concem) could potentially occur on this property. Pre-construction surveys will be necessary to prevent the loss of individual burrowing owls or the nests of white-tailed kite, burrowing owls and/or loggerhead shrike. If active nests or occupied burrows are found, setbacks from a burrow/nest site will need to be established and maintained until the young have fledged. If burrowing owls are detected outside of the nesting season they may be passively relocated subject to the authorization of the Department of Fish and Game. T'he fourth bird species, ferruginous hawk, is a wintering species that would forage on the site and pre-construction surveys will not be necessary for it. Please call if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. -r/+..R~-'~t~r,-~-,^H. ~ ~~~,.T-..~l.... ~ Malcolm J. Sproul Principal 04/09/OS ~P:'~HNEO?O1\RNieisrn_Results of BioRecSwvey_Dublin_April OR_Auc) b .~ ~~ ~ LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. DECEMBER 2007 TASSAJARA ROAD WIDENINC EIR IV. SETTINC, IMPACTS AND MITICATION MEASURES I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ~ Table A: Special Status Plant Species Status* (FederaUState/ Suitable Habitat S ecies CNPS Habitat Notes Present on Site Balsamorhiza macrolepis -/-/List 1B Thin, rocky soil on hillsides, No var macrolepis sometimes on serpentine, grasslands Bi -scale balsamroot and woodlands; blooms March-June Blepharizonia plumosa ssp -/-/List 1 B Thin soils in grasslands; blooms Yes plumose July-October . Not detected Bi ta lant Centromadia parryi ssp. -/-/List 1B Alkaline or saline clay soil in Yes congdonii annual grasslands in valleys; Not detected Con don's ta lant blooms June-November. Cordylanthus palmatus FE/SE/List 1B Valley and foothill grasslands in Marginal Palmate-bracted bird's- alkaline soil and in chenopod scrub; beak May-October Madia radiata -/-/List 1B Valley and foothill grasslands; Yes Showy madia blooms March-Ma Trifolium depauperatum -/-/List 1B Valley and foothill grasslands Marginal var. hydrophilum (mesic, alkaline) marshes and saline clover swamps, and vemal pool habitats. Blooms A ril-June ~Status: CNPS List 1B = rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere FE = Federal Endangered SE = State Endangered P:V-INE0701\WLivertnoreSSSPlant_Tabie A.doc (04/09/08) 1 L9A A990CIATHB, INC. DECBYBER R007 TAl9AJARA ROAU W~DENINC EIR 1V. BLTTING, ]YpACT9 AND YITIGATION YEA9UR88 1. BIOLOCICAL RE90URCE9 Table B: Special Status Wildlife Species Species Status* FederaUState Habitat Notes Potential to Occur On-site Ambystoma californiense FT/SC California tiger salamander Grassland/savanna habitats with seas l Grassland with ground squirrel burrows is h' p ysicall ona ponds for breeding y suitable upland habitat. New residential development , Fallon Road construction and Tassajara Road effectively isolate site from nearest breeding ponds Rana aurora draytonii FT/SC located 2,750 feet to northeast and 3,750 feet to east. California red-legged frog Ponds and streams Species present in Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Mitigation Area and Tassajara Creek. Site is physically suitable dispersal habitat. Value as dispersal habitat Buteo regalis -/SC minimal due to surroundin roads, develo ment. Ferruginous Hawk Grassland, savanna Ferruginous hawks winter in this area. Site is marginal foraging habitat. Species is not common in partially Aqtrila chrysaetos BA/SC Golden eagle Large trees, cliffs for nestin • g, develo ed areas. Golden eagles nest approximatel 4 000 f t t h forages over grasslands y , ee o t e east in the "Northern Drainage." May fly over site but is unsuitable for foraging due to development on and ' Elanus leucurus -/CFP White-tailed kite Nests in trees and tall shrubs, forages over a variet of Y ad acent to site. Species is resident in area and could forage on-site. habitats Marginal nesting habitat is present. Speotyto cunicularia hypugea -/SC (nesting) Grassland/pastureland; nest in d Grassland with ground squirrel burrows is physicall Western burrowing owl groun squirrel dens y suitable habitat. No evidence of presence detected Lanius ludovicianus (nesting) -/SC Nests in shrubs and low tr durin field surve . S ecies could occur here. Loggerhead shrike ees Marginal nesting habitat present in o rn a m e n t a l t r e e s. Grassland could be used for fora in . P:UiNE070]\WLivermoreSSSWildlife_Table B.doc (04/09/08) ;~"~ ~ "'"~'~ V+ f~,.. _.~ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. DECEMBER 2007 TASSAJARA ROAD WIDENING EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITtGAT10N MEASURES t. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES S ecies p Status* FederaUState Habitat Notes Potential to Occur On-site Eremophila alpestris (nesting) -/SC Nests in large patches of well Species prefers valley bottoms and ridgetop where California horned lark grazed grassland barren, sparse grasslands occur. Steep hillside grassland such as that found on this property infre uentl used. Taxidea taxus -/SC Grassland, savanna, and other Badgers found in areas of extensive grassland habitat American badger open habitats with low levels of human disturbance. On-site grassland too small and too much human activity to support this species. No sign of badger activity detected durin field surve . Vulpes macrotus rnutica FE/ST Grassland, savanna, and other Small size of property and level of on-site and San Joaquin kit fox open habitats surroundin develo ment recludes use b this s ecies. Status: FE = federally listed as endangered FT = federally listed as threatened BA = Federal Bald Eagle Act ST = California listed as threatened SC = California species of special concern CFP = California fully protected ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P:\HNF0701\WLivermoreSSSWildlife_Table B.doc (04/09/OS) 2 r , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n, ~ ~ ~ ` ~ " ~ " ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~~~Y ~ ~~~~ } ~~ Fr,~.°k~.r. ~.~~~~~~~iJ , r c ~r ~, . ,~ January 28, 2008 Robert Nielsen 6407 Tassajara Road Dublin, CA 94588 Subject: Heritage Trees Evaluation Dear Mr. Nielsen: You asked that we inspect the trees on your property and determine if any Heritage Trees are present. The City of Dublin defines a Heritage tree as: 1. An oak, bay cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of 24" or more in diameter measured at 4.5' above natural grade; 2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map; 3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. We encountered one Heritage trees on the property based on the definition in #1 above. Cork oak (Quercus suber, left photo) is 31" in diameter. It is in excellent condition. Qualifications I am a Board Certified Master Arborist (#WC-0195 International Society of Arboriculture) and a Registered Consulting Arborist (#243 American Society of Consulting Arborists). Please give me a call if you have any questions concerning this report. Sincerely, ~~ti~.~ Nelda Matheny Consulting Arborist • 2150 Rheem Dr., Suite A Pleasanton CA 94588 925 484 0211 FAX: 925 484 5096 HERITAGE TREE Location Map Robert Nielsen Property 6407 Tassajara Rd. Dublin, CA '~: ~ ~ . Prepared by HortScience, Inc. 2150 Rheem Dr., Suite A Pleasanton, CA 94588 January 28, 2008 ~ ~ ~ macuar ~ sa~s ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ ~ £ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~37 ~ --15 ~~. ~ Appendix 8.7 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 151 City of Dublin January 2009 PA #07-057 63~ -~.~~' ~ Donald Ballanti Certified Consulting Meteorologist 1424 Scott Street El Cerrito, Ca. 94530 (510) 234-6087 Fax: (510) 232-7752 June 25, 2008 Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA. 94704 Subject: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impacts of the Nielsen Property Project, Dublin Dear Mr. Haag: This letter presents the results of my air quality and greenhouse gas impact evaluation for the subject development, located at the southeastern corner of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive intersection. AIR QUALITY The project is located within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD has published its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to assist lead agencies with the preparation of CEQA documents for projects within the District. Page 24 of the guidelines states: `The District generally does not recommend a detailed air quality analysis for projects generating /ess than 2, 000 vehicle trips per day, unless warranted by the speci~c nature of the project or project setting." The project's vehicle trip generation is substantially less than 2,000 trips per day, so a detailed air quality analysis is not warranted. The project would not be a source of direct emissions, odors or toxic air contaminants, and the project vicinity is one of low background concentrations of pollutants. The project would, however, be adjacent to a private school and residences, which are sensitive receptors. The project's proximity to sensitive receptors implies a potential for construction-related dust impacts. It is therefore recommended that the following mitigation requirements be applied during construction of the project. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following measures shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project: Air Pollution Meteorology • Dispersion Modeling • Climatological Analysis ~39~ ~~, ~ ~ Jerry Haag June 25, 2008 Page 2 • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Water or coverstockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Coverall trucks hauling soil, sand, and otherloose materials, orrequire all trucks fo 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. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at consfruction 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 tra~c speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install sandbags or other erosion contro/ measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The above mitigation measure would ensure that construction dust impacts on the adjacent private school and other sensitive receptors would be less-than-significant. GREENHOUSE GASES 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 natura~ly 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: ' California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Scharzeneqqer and the LeQislation, March 20006. ~ ~~+ p ~~ 7.~ ~? Jerry Haag June 25, 2008 Page 3 • A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state's water supply. • Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees F underthe higheremission 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 vutnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures. • tncreased 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 [COZ], 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. 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. ~y~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ Jerry Haag June 25, 2008 Page 4 The BAAQMD has prepared a GHG emissions inventory using 2002 as the base year. The BAAQMD estimated that 85.4 million tons of C02-equivalent2 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. 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. 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 2 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. 3 BayArea Air Quality Management District, Source Inventorvof BavArea Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2006. ~ ~ l~ ~a 7s,~- ~ Jerry Haag June 25, 2008 Page 5 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, 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. 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. In URBEMIS-2007, these sources generate 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 inethane (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 ~~~ 3 ~ .~5~ .~ ~ ~ Jerry Haag June 25, 2008 Page 6 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 attached spreadsheet. Results The resulting estimated daily emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the project are shown in Table 1. Emissions are expressed both as tons per year and C02-equivalent tons per year. Expressing emission in COZ-equivalent tons per year accounts for the greater global warming potential of inethane 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. 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 C02 into the atmosphere is not itself an adverse environmental affect. It is the increased concentration of C02 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 C02 into the atmosphere, it is typically not possible to determine whether or how an individual project's ~~ ~~'~ ~ ~~~ Jerry Haag June 25, 2008 Page 7 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 C02 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. Table1: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Metric Tons Per Year (C02 Eq.) Vehicles Area Sources Indirect Sources Total 461.30 113.10 72.56 647.02 Ple e call if you have any questions. ince ly, ~-----~~--_._.,.._. Donald Ballanti Certified Consulting Meteorologist Page: 1 6/25/2008 9:30:19 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Project Name: Nielsen Ranch 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 Repor~; AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES C02 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 110.57 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES C02 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 453.26 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES C02 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 563.83 . ~ L ~ . ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page: 2 6/25/2008 9:30:19 AM Area Source Unmitigafed DeYail ReporY: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Consutner Products Architectural Coatings TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 110.57 Area Source Chanaes to Defaults __ _ _ __. __ __ _ __ _ _ _. _.._ _ __. _ _ _ _ flperational Unmt~igated €Jefail Reporf: _.. OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source CO2 Single family housing 453.26 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 453.26 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips ~ Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips ~ 6~ Analysis Year: 2009 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ~ U+ ~ Page: 3 6/25/2008 9:30:19 AM Land Use Type Single family housing 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 Urban Bus Motorcyde School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) ~ ~ ~ Home-Work 10.8 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 10.67 9.57 dwelling units 32.00 306.24 2,618.26 306.24 2,618.26 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 54.4 1.7 97.9 0.4 12.4 2.4 95.2 2.4 19.7 1.0 98.5 0.5 6.3 0.0 98.4 1.6 0.8 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 1.3 0.0 15.4 84.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.9 72.4 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 ~ ~ ! ~ - ~f ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ --~' V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ' ~ ~ Project: Nielsen Ranch Spreadsheet to CalculateElectrical Power Emissions and Other Greenhouse Gases for Bay Area Projects URBEMISANNUAL C02 EMISSIONS FROM: VEHICLES: CH4 ANNUAL EMISSIONS N20 ANNUAL EMISSIONS Total 509.51 TONSNEAR 0.30 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 1.61 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR AREASOURCES 124.83 TONS/YEAR 0.04 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 0.53 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR ELECTRICITY 80 TONSNEAR 0.01 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 0.'11 C02 EQUIV.TONSNEAR 0.35 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 2.25 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR TOTAL: TONS PER YEAR METRIC TONS PER YEAR VEHICLES 511.42 461.30 AREA SOURCES 125.39 113.10 ELECTRICITY 80.50 72.6~ 717.32 647.02 CH4 and N20 emission fadors /rom Table 3 in BAAQMD's'Source Inventory of BayArea 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 Wartning Potential of 310 times that o( C02. ElecMCal Power Usage Amounts Units/1000 sq. ft ~ UsageNnd Usage mW-hr/year 36 Residences 5.55 ~gg g OKce ~ 1z~~ . ~ Restavrant 35.62 p Retail 73.84 p Grocerv 46.96 p Ref. Warehouse zz 36 ~ Warehouse Schools 6 04 O Collepes 6.82 0 HosPitals 10.44 p - Lodging 21.2 p Misc. cmrcl. 10.87 p 1z p Ibs./MWh (from CCAR Protocol) 199.8 804.54 CO, 0.0067 CH, Residenfiai Rate from Califomia Eledrici Consum Non b Coun 2005 ~Y P Y tY~ (http~liwww enerqv ca oov/electriciN~elecM tt b 0.0037 NO> c v v counN 2005 htmD Commercial Electricity Use, PGBE systemwide; kWH per conditioned sq. ft./yr; from CEC: http://www consumeren t ' Calif. Climate Action Repistry (CCAR) Protocol ver 2.2 . ergycen er.org/pv4newbui ldings/downloads/II-6A.pdf 511.42 125.39 80.50 717.32 TONSNEAR C02 EQ TONNESNEAR 80 80 0.0007 0.01 0.0004 0.11 ~ h~. ~ ~ J ~ ~ 4 ~ ~.~ ~S~ Appendix 8.8 Acoustic Analysis Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 152 City of Dublin January 2009 PA #07-057 C h~ r 1 e s 131b1ay 2008 rcnsu~tar~t.; h, Aa~i.istic5 ;,~~~:i~~>>tn,U_, s~.~<.c::~„ ~;~<;~~~;, rrid Ts)eccmmu~~~iC&4tiona 130 SUII+:r StreE?t. S~if~3 500 ~rn Franc~scc; i..;: !iiCntia 9~i! i;-1 ~re~. -u C, 's97 ~ :-;:' ;-ax. -: IS :397 pd'.id ~~,~~,~:.~~;~,,,,:~F~~~ ~<,~„ ., ~~; :v.cn,sa~;er.c<,v„ ~.,,_;~,... ~,, ~,.a,<:~ ~r: r;: ~.~~; r s~:~:~:•~~~~r r-:v::? .,.,.-~o~,, r ra;~;r: ~r ~ ~,~;~: ~ , ~ .., ~~,,,,~,~~.~. ~~t ~o_,,,,:,i, yc r,~o:,e:, rF_ ~ ~. ~~3~.,,,,,,::~~~ ~~- , _, F. ~~ F ~..<<._„ ,~ ~~ ; .,,E ~~~,~~~~,~:~, .~ c~:~,~a. R:::,s F~ Jn:o:;il .i:,:~~.~ , ~ rt~.r.~ ~,:~~~,, _ Jrry (a n~~,sr:e~o E~n.., r~... ~-;~.~,~,::, „~, ~>_,~~.:~ ,,,:. :;~. ,~,.•~ ~iar~~; p'r1'a~Ue:o~ _.~ ~ n ....clr,t .< <.~..;, I_S'~'srle~. ,,~,, ,;~.,:~,~., ~. ~~~;,~~ ,~,,, ~-~~.,~,<.: ~«~., .,.....~ ~,. , r~,;,r, ,~,..::~ ~ ±::~ ~ s;r;, .,~:au~~~d K,~.1~I~~~ ~~,,~,r:t,~ ~~ , , , ,~, >,_„ ~ , ~ ,~ ..,:t t,,,.~~, ,;~~_. .._:,, r.,.:: ~:~ :~ ti::~a~~,:.,;,,, ~ ~ ~ ~~,~r , ~ _ ~~.....~., ,,~,~,.~ ~~,~,;~>:.~.~ Robcrt Nielsen 6407 Tassajara Road Dublin, CA 94588 Subject: Nielsen Property, llublin -- Acoustical Consulting CSA :Project No. 08-0014 Dear Robert: Tliis letter summarizes aur environmentll noise anatysis for the subject residential community to be located east of Tassajara Road, and north of Quarry Lane School. ~Ve understand that this proposed development woul~l consist of up to 38 single-family homes. In stunmary, we address firture trafCc noise to the baclcyards and balconies, recommending noise barriers in some cases. Wc dete~-~nined that sound-rated wuidows would not be requirecl for any of the homes. ~~e also evaluate other potential noise impacts to and from lhe project. Noise Nleasurements On 15 to 16 January 2008, we conducted a long-term noise measurement along Tassajarl Road to document the current on-site noise exposurc from this roadway. At a distance of approximately 80 feet east of the current Tassajara Road median centerline and at a heigl~t of 38 feet above the road~vay elevation, we determined a noise exposure af CN.EL~ 66 dB based on this measurement. This noisc measurement location is indicated as "1" on the aCtached Figure l. Using thc existing pealc hour traffic data, we were able to co~roborate fhe accuracy of this measured noise level by calculation. Additionally, a short-tcnn noise measurement was conducted at the proposed side yard of Lot 9 at a location ~vhere the future graded elevation would be the same as the current existing elevation. At a distance of 140 feet east ofthe current Tassajara road median centerlinc, ~ve determined a CNEL of GO dB at this location. This noise measurement location is indicated as "2" on rigure 1. I'or tlie sccond 17oor noise exposure, the CN~L is estimated to be ~ulother 2 to 3 dB greater. We notcd that children playing outsicie at the adjacent Quarry Lane School clid not mcasurably contribute to thcse noise levels. Other noise sources, such as mech~inical equipment or schoolyard bell, were not heard during this measuren~ent perioti. ~ Community Noise L~uivalent Level (CNLI,I--A clescriptor t'or the 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. 'The CNLL concept accounts for thc increascd acoustical sensitivity ofpeople to noise durinb the cvening and nighttime liours. Sound levels durinb tlie hours from 7 pm to 10 pm are penalized 5 dB; sound leveis during the hours from 10 pm to 7 am are penalized 10 c1B. A 10-cii3 increase in sound level is perceived by people to be a doubling of loudness. ~~~ ~ -~~g ~ Robert Nielsen 13 May 2008 Page 2 During aur me~surernents, we also did not notice any noise from Parlcs R~TA. ~-Iowever, in 2003 we prepared a noise analysis for Dublin Ranch West, wheee we discussed some seasonal and intermittent noise sources generated from Parks RFTA. These sources inclucied helicopters, gunshoCs at firing ranges, and miliCary trlining exercises. For additianal information, the Army had also prepared an Environmental Noise Managcment Plan for Parlcs RFTA, datecl December 2000. Future Noise Levels We calculated the firture Build-out CNEL's for thc proposed widened and the re-aligned Tassajara Roacl. Tassajara Road would be widened from t~vo to six lanes, and the median centerline wou]d be relocated approrimately 33 feet to the west of the current centerline. The Build-out noise levels for this roadway adjacent to the projecl is based on the recent traffic vohtme predictions sumtnarized in the 'I'JICM Transportation Consultants Tra.ffic Study for the Silveria Ranch Development, dated 8 September 2003. For Tassajara Road, the Build-out CNEL is calculated to be 76 ciB at a distance of 50 feet east of the median centerline. This noise increase reflects the projected quacinipling oftraffic volumes in this future scenario. Incorporating the roadway re-alignment, the Build-out CNEL would be about 4 dB greater than the existing levels m~~sured on-site. The approximate location of the Build-out CN~L 65 d[3 contour, incoiporating the future grading, is also sho~vn on Figure 1. Additionally, the noise contribution due to the subject project only was calct~lated ta be ~.5 dB of the calculated total increase;. ~~ Acoustical Gonis ~» For all resi~lential land uses at the Dublin Ranch area, the indoor noise standard is CNEL 45 dB, ~vllile the o~itdoor noise goal is CN~L 65 dB. Similarly, the State of California and City of DuUlin require that the indoor CN~L be maintained at no more than 45 dB wl~en ~' the outdoor noise environmerlt e,cceeds CNEL 60 dB. Typically for single-family developments in other cities in the San Prancisco bay Area, the outdoor noise goal is applicable at blclcyard areas only, However, we understand Dublin requires that their '~' CNEL GS dB outdoor noise goal be applied to decks and balconies a1so. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines include a checklist of items, ~ some of which related to noise and vibration. One item asl<s if the project will cxceed any established noise standards or substantially increase existing ambient noise l.evels. To address fiiture increase in noise levels, a change of 3 dB or less is considered just ,~ noticeablc and not expected to cause significant community response. A change of 4 to 5 dB is marginal, but could be considered an impact if the resultant noise level exceeds "normally acceptable" leveis. A changc of more than 5 d.B would Ue clearly noticeable ~, and considered a significant impact, especially since it can potentially cause adverse community response. ~ Analysis/Recornmend~~tions Traffic noise outdoors: Tlle outdoor use areas of proposed dwelling units at the project will need to meet the City's outdoor noise goal of CNEL 65 dB. The Build-out CNEL at the baelcyards of ho~nes on Lots 1 to 3 would be a high as G7 dB with out any noise mitigation. This level excceds the City's goal by 2 c1B. For these three backyards, ~harl~~ ~i ~alt~r ~.~s+~~iat~s Irac >~:~~~ ; ~ .,, .~,,., ~~ ,_~,,,: ~,. ~.~~,,:~ ~~.-~~ _.,_. 6~ ~~ ~ Robert Nielsen 13 :May 2008 Page 3 mrnimurn G-foot-tall, property l~ine noise barriers would be required to acoustically shield fiitt-re Tassajara Road traffic cloisc. T11ese noisc ba.rriers could be in the form of a masonry soluld wall or 1n acoustical wood fence, such as the one shown in the attached Figure 2. For any second floor balcony at the homcs on Lots 1 through 9 tlilt would face west, 3- 1/2-foot-tall, solid-railing would be rec~uired to acoustically shield Tassajara Road noise to seated receivers2. Traf~c noise indoors: Facades of tlre proposed dwelling t~nits on Lots 1 to 9 would be localed as ncar as l65 feet east of llie Tassajara Road median centerline, At this setback, tl~e fiiturc CNEL would be approximately 67 dB Zt upper iloor receivers. Based on our calculations, sotuid-rated exterior assemblies 4vi11 not Ue required requirements to acllieve CNEL 45 dB inside tl~e various dwelling unit ty}~es. IIowever, all windows, sliding glass cioors and exterior doors at tlie seeond [lovrs of ciwelling units on Lots 1. to 9, i l and 29, though operable, wotild need to be in t}le closeci position to achieve the indoor noise standard of CNEL 45 dB. This includes the two or three facades per home that would have a line-of=sight to thc Tassajara Road travel lanes. Since the windows could be kept closed for ~coustics, an alternative soucce of ventilation should be considered. It is sugbested that a tnechanical engineer verify that any ventilation requirements will be met in these ~leven dwelling units. Potential noise impacl of Parks RFTA upon tlie pi•oject: We t-ndcrstand that tlie project sitc is located within 1000 feet of Pat•ks RFTA, whicli generatcs some seaso-ial and intermittent noises. Therefore as rec~uired by State Senate I3i11 No. 14G2, all potential homebuye~s are required to be notified ofthe proximityofParks ItFTA. Additionally, disclosurc that thc aforementioncd noise sources and activities could be audible at the project should also be pt•ovided. Parlcs RPTA is aware that disclosure of the noise sow•ces is important, ancl has cleveloped tlle attael~ed Gcneral Disclosure Statement. Potenlial noise impact of ~roject-~lenerated trafPic upon adjacent land uses: The noise contribution due to the project on(y was calculated to be 0.5 dB. This noise contribution is not loud enough to be cousidereci a noticeaUle increase. Potential noise imnlct of Ouarry Lane School unon theproject: Childt•en playi~lg outside was not loud enough to measurably contribute to the existing onsite noisc environment. Other school noise sotu•ces, such as mcehanicll equipment or schoolyard bells, though potential audible onsite, are not expected to increase the overall noise levels either. Therefore, Quarry Lane School is not predicted to acoustically impact the project. Potential noise impact of proicct construction upon Ouarry Lane School and other adjacent land uses: The City oFDublin Municipal Code does not contain any specific noise standards pertaining to construction noise. Generally, most construction noise is often exempt from lypical noise orclinance standards. Typically noise levels from constniction can be as loud as 80 to 90 ciB at a 50 distance feet. Thou~h construction is temporary, the allowable hours of construction is regulated by Thc City if Dublin. These hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.rn. on weekdays, and witll a special perrnit, 8:30 1.m. to 5 p.m, on Saturdays. z Based on a 25 April 2008 teleconference wiU~ Lisa Vilhauer, Erica Fraser, City of Dublin Senior Planner, said it was okay to use a"seated receiver" position for Ualcony noise analyses i.~ ~6 i3 P'~ 8 S ~ il~~~@ Y ~ S 5{$ C 1 c'$ ~ k'3 S Q 1'1 ^L~ ~::~.~ t~ ..... -~i F~ai ...~ _~ i~r-r~ st ;, ,... ...,!;~,i.~ t-„ ~ . .. ~~~~~5~ ~ ~ Robert Nieiseia 13 May 2008 Page 4 ~; 1. All noisy stationary ec~uipmenC should be located away from the school and existing homes. ~- 2. All construction ec~uipment should be in good wocking order and include proper mufflers. ~ ~ 3. .Designate a construction site noise coordinltor who would be available to respond to ~ neighbors' co~nplaints and take appropriate measures to reci~ice noise. :~ * ~: This concilides otrr recornmendations for tlle subject project. If yot~ have ~ny questions, please call. Sincerely, CIIARLI'sS 1VI. $AL'CLR ASSOCIATIsS, INC. ~ t' , f ~,,." ~---~-~_---,-,, Michael D. Toy, P.E. Princi~al Consultant encl: as noled cc: Lisa Vilhauer Connie Goldade NI:~cKay & Somps NlacKay & Somps E-mail: lvilhauer~msce.com E-mail: c~oldade cr,msce.com ~ o~riab P: OS-0014_I3~1ap08_MD'I'_Niciscn Prupeny, Dublin - Acousiical Cm~suliing ~ ~ Z:fza~rles d~ Salter Asst~a:ia~es ls~4 ,, , ~.. ; _:;,.,, .,.. ,,. ,; , ~ `~~~~ ~5g' z~ W ~ ~ Q' - ~ ~~ f (/~~l W .O :_ UC~1 U ~"C ^ W g ~ (~~ ~ ~ ~ $ s ~5 o~l ~ ~- ~0 ~ o~ ~ ~s ~a ~ `• 4 ~ ~~~ --_._ ,: ;~ s -_ Ll , qV ~ C CS ~ ~ ~ g ~ oa ~ '~-•-------•. ~.---°-°---~.•_---- ~ ' r - ----•--•--~•-•~r--; - `'~. ~~ - -- ~ ~ ~ ~ i , . . , ~ i' ~ _ ~~ ~ _ ` _ ~ R i I ' ""' .... l' . Sp ~ ,~ _;• ; ~ Ot~} 3y' ~ f i._..:.: ~ •~ ~ (Y, ~ , ~ \ ~1 ~•__% •~~ \'~i n ~ 1~ ~ _II~ 1~ I ~ O `O ~a t~~ n ~ ~r~s' ~'\ AM'~ r..'.~:= . ~ ~ ~,M~_.!r~.:~_~,-t I ~+`~' i~ L i ~~ ~. >''".' ~~ '",'`" 6 r, -~--'-'" ~ ~ z° ~~i w~-' ~< i /.~ ~ ~ I~ 1 ~' N ~t M ~ x} '1 ~ i. I / , iti ~~ '^•i~ '. ' ( ~i ~i! ~ ~ ~i~N 11 ~~~ ~ 1 x t i ~ ~ 7., u , ,~ . ~~ ~ ^ ~ ° I ~' `. ,ii ~ {Y ~i ~ ^.. %-• .r --•---• I i ~ ~~ :-ry~'~ .... 4... , ~ on~ ~. .,_...~._. I _" ~ ..._9c - ~ ~ ':=~1 ;i~, ~ =. ' o ~ -~ ~,. _:. .,. ` ~ • `L' 1 '~ ~ ! i~~ 1 a i ~;_..~~"'~ ~~ 7 ' g ~ i. 611 ', r4i :u p _L; V> ( ~~ ' ~ ~ - e l1 1 - . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ l 7~ ~ y~ -a • ; ~.) ~ ' .~ ~~ \\ I ~ 1 1. __''~1- ~M~ 1 `' . ~ ~~_a . _._.~. , ~ , „ ~ m ~ ~ ~ _ ----- .__. _ ~---w , ~ ~~ ~_._~.~_~~ , ~ _~. _.... ., , ,, y._ * . ~~ , ~ _ ~ 4 "'__'_~ ~ =. ..1 i C[, ~ 1 ~ ~:__ _.r -~---' _.sa _ ~y ~~~--o "-' i t r ~I' . . . ; ~-•- i `~ ,11 a~', L? I~ I ^ ','~ `~r ~ a ^ j ^ ~ ~ 1 ~ `~ :j ~ ~~~I:a ~ N ~ 1~ ~ i `1~~ ~ r ~ w ,.~ i I ., ~i ,t __ac ,il~i_ _ IJ ~ ~~___~-_ __ 2 _1.----"', ~ ~ ~ L~-,..__+_.__.~1 ~-sir~ I~ -`7 ..__.. _. ___ ,.. ._.~ N "_ 1"' ..... I (~ `~~"~~I '` jl i ' ~ I' Q N ~. ~~~~ 1 y, ~111 It I~1I .l~Yx Ii• ~ j v gi ~ I~I r~ 11 4 I{~1, I ~ i i L I.... -'~ 1 iM~ ~ i~ ~I ~ -~^ I --` ~' _:9:. ~{ J :, I _ .. ~ ~ ~ILL._. 1~,~.. I _,...-"". ....... .._. !~i..•~ _ - ~ - - ~"'" ~~ _~'~~1~ I ~•- _~~ "~-_ - ;~ ~ _.•- - _..- ~ ~ _ „~-.._ _ ~'.If'_._.ru~- ~a i ~ '~'~ i p ~ ' ~ ~..._T...1.^--• ~„l i ~ v~ ~ 1 I ~ ~! ' rv ~ X ~~ ~1 i I ~ 1~ ~ N y h~ 1~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ _.-..~~ ' ai ~ „F~i ~ ~ ' • ' ,t ~ ~ '^ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ -~-""_'~ ~ 1 i ~ __.....-~•-~•-' _ i ~ ~I _.._.~ ~ ~< ~~\ ~` i ~ ..-, " 1 ~ .._ ~,. ._ , ._ ; ",~._ ~ , _1~~~''~ ,, ~ .~, ~~ ; - ~ , ._. . = ~u',1, ~ ` a~ ~ ~ ~i ~ i Ri ~1 ^ i I~ 1~ i i~~ ~ rl~~g~2 -. f i I 8 1, 6Z i „ 1...._~~ , ~~ , ~ , ~ ~ - ~-- ,, _ ; , ~ ~ i' H _!~ ' ~~ . ~ ~---_. I'~ l~ ~ acsa r'I --- ~= , , , ~ . >~ i '~ .. ._._..,. W . `}°..__~_-•-------i~~ i~ ~ `b'r ;~. i ~, ..~-Z ~ . i~_----~1 ~i-.__ fi'~ ; _ ~ ----.. , a ,1 ~ d~ ~ `,~ ~ 't / ,~I ,; f ~, ~ i ~ ; ,' i ' ~ I i ~" i` ~ ! ri^-~ ~ ~' ~~ l tlLfJ ,1 ~ ~ . . .._.---.~ ,, ,, , ____ , ~d ; a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' : `-' -~ i i ~ ~ ~' N~ i " ~j ~' ..~~. ~~ ~ 10` / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~{ ~ rrn dt i ~`~ ~~ ~~,~ r~ 5~ ~ ~ ozsa ~i~ ~'1...._....~ ~~. ~~....... I _1~~~ ~ ~ ~ ..._.. L~~ I 1.....'""" ~ ____-` •^ k 1 1 _~:' _ _. ,~ ~~~ 1 I C~1, f ' ~~~ j ~v~ ,r T J'~ . ~- , ~~r ; ~ , , ~; -~,~___ ,~ , ~ _ a ~.,_ ~ , I , ~ ~ , , ~ _~ ~~ ry __ - _ r~ ~! _ ~II ~~; ~ fl ~:._">-___- }~ Li / 1 ~ ~ ` ~~~ . _._. . i ~_i~ ~ ~ ~~ -_ _- - - ~ -~-----~----_--i r ~ , . ~ '.' ~ ~_ -- c __ ~ . , N, ~ q, ........_ L~ ..._..' ..:~.-.~... 1 1 '` ~ W ~ ~~' I ~ ~ .. __ .._...f i ~ ~ ~ __ {;~ ~~~; a ~ --- ~y.___ ~ V d~721J.S g~ ~~~ ~ Q ----- _ ~__...... - --+- ~ ..__ r :~` ,-_; j ___\ ~ ~ __. i . - ... ~ --- - " ~~ _ v . row ssr~ ~ I u~e ~~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' __ ~F I'~ [{hl_ ~ ~ 6L/d' IYN - ~ . ~H _T6Yd ~~.I ~ '~.l 4Y, LiN ~ ycQ ~ i. L.~ ~~ ~ ~'. ~~..~i r~--~ _ i I s ry I ~rJ"' - z»~ _ .,~f `` . tPi 1 l , 1 ~,~ ~G ~ G i ~' ,a + rr tr rr~ i + i xo 4 i ~ 4r ~._nnry ~ ll~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -' f~ -` ~r° ~ .~'" '~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~° ar~~~ ~ ~-~-~-~--- + _~ I ~~ ~°- r :v~ i^ I~ ; 1 r. ~*e ~ r `` ~.~rf ti.i ~a~6~f i l ~ ~ _ Yb?H,SAffifl4Y~~tLLYItYIIbiSL IIlI3LJY ~~~ I ~~__• ~~ m ~+~s gi VA8 i~ i;~ _ '', ._i._.._.._. ._~..~..- '. ireewuYYYN 'Pf ~) ~-• 1_~_~ ,'I _ _ . ~' ~ / l __ ~-- " --- ~___ • a - •-°•°----~•~-•-`-~'----~-~_ --- -- _ _ ` f I~ '~'~ I I ~~--~ ,,_ ___" " `" . ~,,.._ . ~~~ ~ ~~ ~1 ' TIYM,y -,=~'`~-- ~~~ r .._ ..ti_. _"-'---~..-~..~ ~~~ ~ ~`TR',4 ~_ A . ..__'. . t_._«... ' .~-~ ~- _~ ~~~_ / ' p ~ ~ .._. ....M.S --. ~ , ~ va ~ _. _-_-~ ~m ~; ~ ~ ,a -------_ ___ - -- -•- ~ _-' '-- ._.. +~ . E _'- "_ ..__. _ -_~.__ , t -~:_ 1~------.------•-~a-- ... r __` _~~-~_._._r _ . _..._ .., _ _._ _A_4~~c~t~ ~~v~~~v_ssv_i _ '- • ~ _.a ---..__ w _~`_._. , -----_-_.._._ _._ , _ _ , _ _. _._. --__ _. -- ____- __ _ _._._ . ~ .___, ,.. _._. _._. _...___._a :'-._ . ----____-._.~ . ......_..,.. __._._.~. .. .._ _.... --- ,~ ._._~ _..~~t _..______y ~.-.._,v z . , , -. -._. _. _ ._ j • ~'_'-_---• - r ~ '____._ -• -. -..`. - - ~ _ - --... 1 _ .___.._.. . ._.__._ . . . ___ _..~ _ ~ _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. ?I?.I\~~f CIOOII2.IOEii`_~I"If~' H a (i~ll~i ) I-GiNb"r.i ~;I"i'1'd1'~ 8 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1" 4 X 4 CEDAR OR EQUIVALENT 8' O.C., 6' LONG 2 X ~ CEDAR OR EQUIVALENT 8' LONG 1 X60R1 X8 CEDAR OR EQUIVALENT 1 X 6 REDWOOD, SINK 1" INTO MOUND TO SEAL OFF NOI5E 2 X 6 CEDAR OR EQUIVALENT CAPPING, S' LONG ~`fi 2" MAXIMUM GAP BETWEEN MOUND AND 1 X VERTICAL BOARDS ~ MOUND BOARD ON BOARD CONSTRUCTION p zoc3 CHARLES M. SALIER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ACOUSTICAL DESIGN INFORN,ATION ON~'! ~ EXTERIOR NOISE BARRIER FIGURE 2. i sao A~~ a,„ 7.3 C4.01.03 C h a r I e s M S a 1 t e r A s s o c i a t e s ~ fl C t30 Suttx Straet Sen Frendsco Cetrforr~e 9A10A Tek A15 397 0442 Fex 415 397 OA54 «s, ~ s~ ~(/ ~ ~~? ~, ~ A statement siiniIar to the one below should be included in general disclosures for developments adjacent to the praperty. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Marshall Marik, Environmental Manager, at (925) 803-S6S8. General Dasclosure St~t~ment Sit~nificant Propert~Uses in the Vicinitv o~name vf ~the develvpmentl Parks Reserve Forces Training Area {Parks RFTA). Parks RFTA {a.k.a. Camp Parks) is an U.S. Army Reserve installatian located approximately tdistarice 1'i•om Parks KFTA,~ from ~ncrme oJ'the development). Parks RFTA has approximately 700 acres of adrninistrative facilities and over 2,000 acres of open grassland for year-raund weapons and field training. Activities with the potential to generate significant noise ievels outside of Parks RFTA include: weapons firing; tactical vehicle operation; field power ~enerator operation; and helicapter operations. Helicopters enter and exit from the northern and eastern boundaries of Parks RFTA. The noise from these helicopters directly overhead at an altitude of S00 feet will approach 90 A-weighted decibels (dBA}. Historically, 3S% of the population exposed to 90 dBA are expected to be highly annoyed. Parks RFTA periodically conducts controlled burning activities, which generate large amounts of smoke. Buyers of homes udjaeent to Par{cs RFI'A shauld carefully consider the impact of nuisances includ'eng, but not limited to, noise, smoke, and dust. For more information, contact the Parks RFTA Public Affairs Office at (925} 803-5636. ~f~ar~l~s 11~ ~~9~~w Asss~c"s~~&~~ 6e~c ~,. ;. , ,, ~. _ r , ~: ,:, .,. _ . ~S~ ~'Sk~ ~ Nielsen Develo m p ent Pro'ect J General Plan & Specific Plan Amendments ~ Stage 1 & 2 Rezoning Vesting Subdivision Map ~ t PA 07-057 Final Supplemental h Envi~onmental Impact Repo~t & Mitigat~'on Monito~ing & Repo~ting P~ogram ~~ SCH#2008052117 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner Apri12009 EXHIBIT E TO ATTACHMENT 3 ~ ~S~ ~ --7~ ~ Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................... 2 Project Description ........................................................................................ 2 Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR ........................................... 3 Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ................................. .................... 5 Annotated Comment Letters and Responses .............................................. 6 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) follows the FSEIR ~S`~ a ~5~r ~ Introduction A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated January 2009 was prepared for this Project and distributed for public review in January through March 2009. The Project Site is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning area, more specifically, on the east side of Tassajara Road north of Quarry Lane School and south of the Silvera Ranch property, approximafely 1.5 miles north of the I-580 freeway. The property address is 6407 Tassajara Road. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period. ~ As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a public review period between February 2, 2009 and March 25, 2009. ~ This Comments and Responses document augments the DSEIR and, together with the DSEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for this Project. This documenfi contains all public comments received during the 45-day public review period regarding the DSEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that comment. The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the DSEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated `~ new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR. The City has carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR text, against the recirculation standards of ~ CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information or clarifications/ modifications in this document constitutes significant new information as defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially more severe significant impacts or different ~~~ feasible alternatives or mitigations that the Applicant declines to adopt, therefore the City has determined that no recirculation is required. -~ Project Description The Project includes City approval of amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan to redesignate the Site from "Rural Residential/Agriculture" to "Single Family ~ Residential" and to reduce the width of on-site streets. Other requested approvals include a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning Amendment, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Each of the 34 proposed lots would accommodate a single-family dwelling and a garage. Proposed Lots 15 and 20 could each accommodate a duplex dwelling (for the provision of affordable housing only), so the number of dwellings could be thirty-six (36). If the Nielsen Development Project Final Supplementai EIR Page 2 City of Dublin April 2010 C/~ ~ C/~ ~ ~ `~ ~`,~ ~~` proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) located in the southwest corner of the Site is not needed or relocated, Lot 34 could be developed with a house in the future. Steeper portions of the Project Site, in the northeast corner of the Site, would remain as non-buildable open space. A landscaped setback would also be provided alon Tassa'ara Road. Existing wireless telecommunication facilities (cell towers) on the Site a e ro os to remain, or could be relocated on the Site or eliminated. p p ed Access to the Project Site would be provided by expanding the existing drivewa off of Silvera Ranch Drive to the north. Silvera Ranch Drive in turn intersects with Tassa'ara at a signalized intersection. ) Road Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated b reference into the DSEIR document. y 1) Page 62 is amended to read as follows: .,~----- • - - stormwater runoffl: Project Developer(s) sh 11 prepare a dra age and hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shalI 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) sha11 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 Zone 7 Water A enc . a~ All recommendations for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans." 2) Page 74 is amended to read as follows: plant species): Pre-construction surveys sh 11 be c mpieted for the foux S special-status plant species durin~ e a c h p i a n t's b loomine seas~„• ba lsamroot, big tarpIant, Congdon's tarplant, and showy madia c nsistent with CDFG protocols. If such species are tound, the Project development plan shall be modified to avoid the Iocaiions of such plant(s). If avoidance is not feasible, plants shalI be transplanted (or seed collected and relocated) to a suitable on- or off-site Iocation pursuant to necessary permits from the California Department of Fish and Game and/or other regulatory agencies. Relocation Ians shalI include on- oin monitorin for a eriod of five ears to ensure that trans lantations are established." Nielsen Development Project Final Supplemental EIR City of Dublin Page 3 April 2010 ~ ~~ ~ -~5~ 3) Page 75 is amended to read as follows: "Su~plemental Miti~ation Measure SM-BIO-3 (irn~acts on Heritage Tree : The final landscape plan shall show that the existing Heritage Tree, which is proposed to be removed as a part of the residential development, shall be replaced with three 36-inch box size oak trees on the Site. Avuropriate maintenance shall be ~erformed by the Proiect landscape contractor, similar to other plantin~s in the Project area. Monitorin,g of the three replacement trees' health, undertaken bv a qualified arborist for a one-year period following installation." 4) Page 81, fifth full paragraph, is deleted as follows: „ , . ~ t 1., ,., ,a F a L,; t ~,. ... rQi csrv circcrr Nielsen Development Project Final Supplemental EIR Page 4 City of Dublin April 2010 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties. Commenter Date Federal A encies 1.1 U.S. Fis and Wildlife Service 3 11 09 State A encies 2.1 De artment of Fis and Game 3 25 09 Local A encies 3.1 Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) 3/9 09 3.2 Alameda County Public Works A enc 3 10 09 3.3 Alameda County Congestion Mana ernent A enc 3 10 09 3.4 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 3 23 09 Interested Persons Or anizations 4.1 Mor an Miller Blair 3 19 09 Nielsen Development Project Final Supplemental EIR Page 5 City of Dublin April 2010 ~~3~~~~- Annotated Comment Letters and w Responses (Note: The following comment letters are not paginated) Nielsen Development Project Final Supplemental EIR Page 6 City of Dublin April 2010 ~,b ~ ~ ~S~ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, Califomia 95825-1846 In Reply Refer To: 81420-2009-TA-0436 Kristi Bascom Project Planner Community Development Department ° 100 Civic Plaza ~ Dublin, California 94568 MAR 112009 Letter 1.1 O.S. r~~n a wu.n~.u+r; ~Fnvicr. ~ Subject: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for a the Nielsen Development Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Dear Ms. Bascom: This letter contains the U.S. Fish ancl Wildlife Service's (Service) comments on the January 2009 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Nielsen Development Project (Report) in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The Service received the Report on February 2, 2009. Our comments are provided under the authority of the Endan~ered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). It is our understanding the proposed project consists of the development of up to 34 lots with up •~ to 36 single family and duplex dwellings along with an access road, on-site roads, grading and infrastructure extension on a 10.9 acre site at 6407 Tassajara Road. Requested entitlements include an amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land -~ use designation from "Rural ResidentiallAgriculture" to ``Single Family Residential" and to reduce roadway widths, a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development zoning, a vesting tentative subdivision map, and a development agreement. The Service is concerned about the potential adverse effects of the project on the threatened 1.1.1 California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (red-legged frog), California ti~er " salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (tiger salamander), and the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (kit fox). ' The Califomia red-legged frog is the largest native frog in the western United States. Adult 1.1.2 red-legged frogs typically use dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation closely associated with deep.(>2.3 feet), still, or slow-moving water (Hayes and Jennings 1988). However, individuals also have been found in ephemeral creeks and drainages and in ponds that ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ . ~~ ~ . ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~. ~; ~o.s ~5S" ~ Ms. Kristi Bascom 2 xnay or may not have riparian vegetation. This species disperses upstream and downstream of its breeding habitat to forage and seek sheltering habitat. During other parts of the yeax, habitat includes nearly any area within 1-2 miles of a breeding site that stays moist and cool throughout the summer (Fellers 2005). Potential sheltering habitat for this species is all aquatic, riparian, and upland areas within the range of the species and includes any.landscape features that provide cover. According to CDFG (2009).records, active breeding habitat with egg masses, . tadpoles, sub-adults and adult red-legged frogs is located less than 400 feet west of the action area. In addition, recent records exist for areas less than 0.8 mile east and 0.2 mile north of the action area. Based on the l~iology of the red-legged frog; the close proximity of active breeding habitat, and the juxtaposition of the action area to Icnown foraging habitat, it is highty likely this animal disperses within the action area. The California tiger salamander inhabits low-elevation grassland and oak savanna plant 1.1.3 " communities of the Central Valley, adjacent foothills, and inner coast ranges. Although the . larvae develop in vernal pools and ponds, tiger salamanders are otherwise terrestrial and spend most of their post-metamorphic lives in widely dispersed underground retreats such as small mammal burrows and desiccation cracks in soil. They typically emerge from their underground refugia at night during the rainy season to migrate to their breeding ponds. Following metamorphosis, juveniles leave their pools and emigrate to upland habitat. They have been ~ recorded to disperse as far as 1.3 miles from breeding ponds (Service 2004). This emigration can occur in both wet and dry conditions. Under dry conditions, juveniles may be limited to seeking upland refugia in close proximity to their aquatic larval pool. According to the CDFG (2009), recent tiger-salamander occurrences have been document less than 0.6 mile east and 025 mile west of the action area. Based on the biology of the species and recent nearby records, it is likely this species disperses within the action area . The San Joaquin kit fox is often associated with open grasslands. Adult kit foxes are usually 1.1.4 solitary during late summer and fall. In September and October, adult females begin to excavate and enlarge natal dens (Morrell 1972), and adult males join the females in October or November (Morrell 1972). Typically, pups are bom between February and late March. Juvenile dispersal can be through disturbed habitats, including agricultural fields, and across highways and aqueducts. Land conversions contribute to declines in kit fox abundance through direct and indirect mortalities, displacement, reduction of prey populations and denning sites, ,.w changes in the distribution and abundance of larger canids that compete with kit foxes for resources, and reductions in carrying capacity. San Joaquin kit foxes also exhibit a capacity to utilize habitats that have been altered by man. There is suitable grassland habitat for this _ animal in the action area and an occurrence record of a kit fox at its den is located less than 0.25 mile from the project site (CDFG 2009). Based on the biology of the species and a nearby record of a kit fox at its den, it is likely this species disperses within the action area. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of any federally listed animal species by any person 1.1.5 subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As defined in the Act, take is~defined as "...to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harm has been further defined to include habitat destruction when it ~~6 ~Sg~ ~ ~ Ms. Kristi Bascom injures or kills a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, foraging, or resting. T'hus, not only are the red-legged frog, tiger salamander, and kit fox protected from such activities as collecting and hunting, but also from actions that cause their death or injury through damage or destruction of their habitat. The term "person" is defined as"...an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal government, of any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures. If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting> funding, or carrying out of the project and a " listed species is going to be adversely affected, then initiation of formal consultation between that agency and the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act is required. Such consultation would result in a biological opinion addressing the anticipated effects of the project to the listed ~ species and may authorize a limited level of incidental take: If a Federal agency is not involved in the project, and federally listed species may be taken as part of the project, then an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act should be obtained. The Service may issue such a permit upon completion of a satisfactory conservation plan for the ]isted species that would be taken by the project. " We recommend authorization for incidental take via sections 7 or 10(a)(1)(B) be obtained for the California red-legged frog, California tiger-salamander, and San Joaquin kit fox prior to certificate of the final environmental impact report. ~ ~ Please note that this letter does not authorize take for California red-legged frog, California tiger-salamander, or San Joaquin kit fox. ,~,~ This concludes our comments on the Nielsen_Development Project: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The Service is ~„ interested in working with the City of Dublin in the resolution of these issues to listed species and other wildlife. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Ben Solvesky or Ryan Olah at the letterhead address, telephone (916) 414-6600, or via electronic ~ mail (Ben_Solvesky@fws.gov; Ryan_Olah@fws.gov}. Sincerely, Christo er D. Na Deputy Assistant Fie d Supervisor cc: Janice Gan, California Department of Fish and Game, Tracy, California. . Scott Wilson, Liam Davis, Marcia Grefsrud, California Department of Fish and Game, Ms. Kristi Bascom Yountville, California. Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Berkeley, California. Malcolm J. Sproul, Principal, LS.E3 Associates, Inc., Pt. Richmond, California. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, City of Dublin, Dublin, California. ~,.,~,7 ~~. ~ ~ 4 Ms. Kristi Bascom Literature Cited California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. RAREFIlID. Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. ~J~~ ~~ ~ 5 Fellers, G. 2005. Rana draytonii Baird and Girard, 1852b California red-legged frog. Pages 552-554 in M. Lannoo (editor). Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press. Berkeley, California_ Hayes, M. P., and M. R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana ° boylii): implications for management. Pages 144-158 in R. Sarzo, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton (technical coordinators). Proceedings of the symposium on the management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. United ' States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report (RM-166):1- 458. f Morrell, S. H. 1972. Life History of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game 5 8:162-174. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Detennination of threatened status for the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander and special rule exemption for existing routing ranching activities. Final Rule. 69 Federal Register. 47212-47248. August 4, 2004. Mar 25 2009 3:29PM DFG _ `-' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 707 944-5553 p.2 Califa ia•Na u R ur as A enc ARNOLD SC ARZ Ei~ Gove DEPARTMENT O~F FtSH AND GAME DONALDKOCH, ai,ector ~ Bay Delta Region . . Post Ofrice Bax 47 ~` ~ Yountvilfe, Callfomia 94599 {707j 944-5500 • ' http:/Iwww,dfg.ca.gov , March 25, 20~9 Ms. Kristi Bascom Letter 2.1 City of Dublin ~ 100 Civic Plaza Dublip, CA 9456& Dear Ms. Bascarn: Subject: Nielsen Development Project, Draft Environmentat Impact Repor#, SCH #2008052117, City of Dubtin, Atameda County DepartmEnt of Fish and Game (DFG) staff has received and reviewed the Aliefsen Develnpment Project, Draft Environmental lmp~ct Report (DEIR). The proposed Project is located in the Eastem Dublin ptanning area an the east side of Tassajara Roaci, north of Quarry Lane School and sauth of the Silvera Ranch property. The property address is 6407 Tassajara Road, City of Dublin, in Alameda Count}r; ~ The project proposes demoiition of existing dwellings and improvements on the sife. This will include development of up to 34 lots with up to 36 single family and duplex dwellings along with an access road, an-sife roads, grading and infrastructure extensian an a 10.9-acre site. Requested entitlements inciude an amendment fo the Ge,neral Plan and Eastarn Dublin •Specifc Plan to change the land use designation from Rural ResidentiallAgricufture to Single Family Residential and kfl rectuce roadway widths, a ~ Stage 1 end Stage 2 Planned Development zoning, a vesting tentative subdivision map and a development agreement. ~ Commen~s BIO-1 Im acts to S ecial--status piant S ecies Pa e 1-2 The DE1R states the project has the potentia! to~ impact faur special~status plant species; big-sca(e balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis) California IVative Plant Society (CNPS} 1 B; big tarptan# (Blepharizonia plumose ssp, plumose) CNPS ~lB; Congdon's tarplant {Centromadia parryi ssp, congdonii) CNPS 1B; and the showy madia ~Madia radiafa) CNPS 1B. The CNPS ~ B plants are addressed ur~der the Caiifomia Environmental Quality qct (CEQA) de~nifion {see CEQA Guidelfnes~ Section 1538Q). Canserving CaC~ornia's `~t~ildCife Since .18~0 2.1.1 03/25/2009 WEA 15:37 [TX/RX NO 7841) [~j002 Mar 25 2009 3:29PM DFG Ms. Kristi Bascom Maroh 25, 2Q09 Page 2 707-94~-5553 ~7n ~ ~7~~~ p.3 T~e DEIR p~opases pre-construction surveys. DFG ~inds this is not appropriate in surveyir~g for the presence af annuai flowe~s. We advise a focused plant survey for each of the faur specfes. These surveys should be conducted during each plant's specific blooming period to facilitate recogn ition in the field. We note that the big-seafe ba(samroot reaognized blooming period began this month in Ma~ch. The D~IR assessment should foliflw DFG's "Guidelines for Assessing the Effects af Praposed Projects on R~re, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities" (Revised M~y 20Q0). The Guidelines are availab4e at www dfa.ca.4ov/whdab/quidealt.pdfi. The most recent DFG California Natural Diversity Datab~se shauld be Gonsulted for records identifying any locations for these four plants as well as any other Iocations of any endangered, threatened, and ather loca[ty uniqus p.lant species that could occur on the praposed project site. B I~-2 fmpacts to Special-status Bird Species, Pape 1-3 2 1.2 This section addresses three species which have the potential to be on the proposed project site: westerrt burrawing owl (At`hene cunrcularia}, a State Species of Speciat Concem; Ioggerhead shrike (Lanius ludouiciant~s), a State Species of Special Concem; and white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus), a State fufly protected species. Western Burrowina Ow) (A~hene cunicularial ~State Species af Special Cancem) • A site-specific proposal far Surveys and eviction of western burrowin~ owls frnm the site is to be reviewed and approved by DFG prior to impfementation. To avoid violation of fiish anc{ Game Code sectfons 3503 and 3503.5, any occupied _~ burrows should not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31 }. An initiaf pre-construction survey should be conducted outside af the owl breeding season (from Feh~uary 1 to August 31) but as close as possible to #he date that ground-disturbing activities will begin. Generally, an initiat pre-constn~ction sunrey should be conducted no more than 30 days prfar to ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, clearing, grubbing, grading). Th~ time lapse between the survey and site dlsturbance should be as short as passib[e and wiN be determined by DFG based on -~ specific project conditions but generalfy should not exceed seven days. Addltional surveys will be necessary when the initial disfiurbance is Pollowed by pe~ivds afi inactivity or tha develapment 9s phased spafiially and/or temporally over the propnsed projecf area. if suitab(e habitat is destroyed priar to th~ burrowing owl survey, DFG may assume owts to h~ve been present, and mitigatian shaUld be required by the lead agency in consuitation with DFG. If burrowing ow[s hav~ been dacurnented to occupy burraws at the proposed project site at any time during the previous three years,~the site should be 03/25/2008 WED ] 5 c 37 fTX/RX Nn 7Rd1 t f~ nn~ Mar 25 2009 3:30PM DFG 707-944-5553 Ms. Kristi Bascom March 25, 2009 Page 3 ~7~ ~ ~5~~ p 4 considered .occupied by owls and mitiga#ion should be required. Any project impacting burrowing owis or awl habitat should provide campensation, based on the best available scientific informafion provided above, that is roughly prapartion~l ta the irnpacts of the project [CEQA Guidelines 15126.-0~(a)(4)(B)]. Gumulative/indirect effect assessments shvuld consider the project's proportional share of reasonably fareseeable impacts on burrowing owls that are caused by that project, or in combination with ather projects having impacts on burrowing owls. Mitigation should be based ort the assumption that the acquired lands do or will pravide equa! ar superior habitat value compared to the Impacted lands. This will tikely require habitat enhancement and long-term habitat management, These activities will be crucial when compensatory habitat is not currently occupied by burrawing owls. Direct take of nests outside of the breeding season does nat retluce the irnpact to a level of less-than-significant far birds known to have high site fidelity~such as burrowing owls. if thers wifl be direc# fake of nests on the proposed project site for species known to have high site fideUty, mitigation measures shouid be required to reduce irnpacts to a iess-than-significant levei. These should include pro#ection and enhancement of kno~wn nesting sites at a locatfon acceptable ta DFG in accordan.ce wit~t established protocal, if available. DFG recommends conducting pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors 15 days prior to #ree pruning, tree remvval, sfaging, graund disturbing, or canstruction activities. Surveys should be conducted a minimum of 3 separate days during the ~ 5 days prior to dlsturbance, Lagqerhead Shrike fLanius ludovicianus~ (Californi~ Saecies of Specia! Concem,~ To avotd v~olation of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, a facused survey should be done during the breeding season (March 1#hrough August 3'f), Consultation with DFG would be necessary should an active nest be sited. Whife-tailed Kite (Elanus caeruleusl fGalifomia Fullv Protected~ To avoid violatian of Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 35Q3.5, and 3511, a fvcused survey should be done during the breeding seasan tFebruary 1 through August 31}. Consultation would be necessary with DFG shquld an active nest i~e sited. Plant and Animal Survevs and the Califamia Endanaered S~ecies Act ~ Plsase be advised that a Cafifornia Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtainod if the proposed proj~ct sunreys reveal the potentia) to resulfi in take of species of pfants or animals listed under CESA, either during construc;tion or over the tife of your prvpased project. Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentatian; therefore, tF~e CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if the propased praject will impact CESA fisted 5pecies, early consultati~n is encouraged, as significant modifrcatian to fhe project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Perm+t. 2.1.3 OS/26/2009 WED 15:37 I'1'x/RX NO 7A471 @IQ(14 Mar 25 2009 3:31PM DFG Ms. Kristi Bascam Ma~ch 25, 2009 Page 4 ~~a ~~s~ 707-944-5553 P•S~ r DFG appreciates #he opportunity to comment on the DEIR. W~ remain avaiiable #o work with th~ City of Dublin to effectively address the above aforementioned concerns. If you have any questions or comm~nts please contact Ms. Marcia Grefsn.id, Environmental Scientist, at (707} 644-2812; or M~. Liam Davis, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-55Z9. Sincerely, Charles Armor~ • ~ Regional Manager 6ay Delta Region cc: State Claaringhouse 03/25/2Q09 ~YED 16;37 fTfi/RX NO 78411 f~i1Q05 ~73 ~.~g ~ DUBLIN 8AN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 Phone: 925 828 0515 FAX: 925 829 1180 www.dsrsd.com March 9, 2009 RECEI!/E~ Ms. Kristi Bascom, Project Planner L8ttC1' 3.1 ~Q{~ Q 9 Z~~g City of Dublin- Community Development Department ioo c~~~~ Pt~a DUBLIf~ PLANN1Nf~ Dublin, CA 94568 • ' Subject: Nielsen Development Project - PA 07-057 General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments Stage 1& 2 Rezoning, Vesting Subdivision Map Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Bascom: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has zeviewed the Draft Environmental Tmpact Report and has the following comments: • As pointed out in the Draft Report, the project area is within DSRSD's potable water service area. DSRSD will provide potable water service to this project. A potable water main is located within Tassajara Road adjacent to the project. • The project area is witlrin the sanitary sewer service area of DSRSD. DSRSD will provide sanitary sewer service for this location. A sanitary sewer main is.located within Tassajara Road adjacent to the project. • The pmject area is within the recycled water service area of DSRSD and DSRSD will provide recycled water to the project for both construction and landscaping. Recycled water will be required for landscape irrigation in public areas and in street medians. A recycled water main currently extends to a terminus in Tassajara Road south of the project property. The developer will be responsible for the cost of bringing this recycled water main to the project property, • DSRSD agrees with ihe report's conclusion that the needed increase in potable water demand for the project is reasonably likely to be available. In addition, the potable water facilities needed to serve the project are already existing or planned for construction. • DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that the needed increase in sanitary sewer treatment service for the project will be available with a less than significant impact. • DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that recycled water will be available forthe project. Use of recycled water witlun the project for landscaping will help a great deal in lessening the potable water demand from the increased number of dwelling units with the project. Planning and construction activities should be coordinated with DSRSD to ensure that the proposed activities do not interfere with existing DSRSD facilities, and the installation of new water and sewer lines are completed in "" conformance with all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and DSRSD Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings. Recycled water will be required for landscape irrigation. T'hank you for the opportunity to review this DraB Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Stan Kolodzie at (925) 875-2253. ncere , ~l~'T~lil~ ODORA N. BIAGT Principal Engineer SK/RNB/ST cc: Dave Requa Stan Kolodzie Dublin San Ramon Services Dlavict ia a Publlc Endty 3.1.1 3.1.2 File: DP-07-057; H:~ENGDEP'I\CEQA~Nielsen Property - PA 07-057 Dcaft Supplemental EIR Mar-09.doc ~`74 ~ ?`~. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 951 Turner Court, Room 100 PUBLIC Hayward, CA 94545-2698 WORKS (510) 670-6601 FAX (510} 670-5269 March 10, 2009 Kristi Bascom Project Planner ~ Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Bascom: ~~CEIVED MAR T 2 2009 DUBLIN PLA~V~(ING Letter 3.2 Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Nielsen Development Project (SCH# 2008052117) Reference, is made to your transmittal of January 30, 2009, of the above subject project application, located east of Tassajara Road north of Quany Lane School and south of the Silvera Property, approximately 1.5 miles north of I-580 freeway. Per our cursory review of the transmitted material, we hereby offer the following comments regarding storm drainage that should be considered in the determination of project status: 1. It appears that the entare length of Tassajara Road within Alameda County is to be 3.2.1 annexed by the City of Dublin. Verify that annexation will not leave any short sections of Tassajara Road in the unincorporated County area. 2. Althoagh the project site is located in Zone 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda 3:2.2 Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This flood control facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The District is concemed with augmentation in runoff from the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project and in the watercourses between the site and the Federal Project, as well as the potential for runoff from the project to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses that could cause localized damage and result in d~position of silt in the Federal Project. There should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that will adversely impact downstream drainage facilities. 3. The applicant should provide measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated materials 3.2.3 into public drainage facilities. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with Federal, State, or local water quality standards and regulations. TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY C~7.5 s~ `~5~ Ms. Kristi Bascom 2 March 9, 2009 Please provide a copy of the Fina1 Environmental Impact Report for our file and reference. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project. If you have questions, please call me at (510) 6~0-5209. . Very truly yours, _..... ._ .._.... . ...._ .__...........--- .. --.-.- . __ .._._.. . . _..... . .._ _ ._.__ ._ ... .. .. .... . R s e e Leon ~ A si E gineer Land Development Services ~ 7`~ -~s~- ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESIION ~/IANAGEMENT AGENCY ~' ° C 1333 BROAOWAY, SUITE 220 • OAKLAND, CA 84612 • PHONE; (510) 83fi-2560 • FAX: ~510) 836-2185 ~~~~ E-MAII; mail~accma.ca.gov • WEB SI7E: accma.ca.gw ~'~tivna~ March 13, 2009 ~E~~~~~~ Ms. Kristi Bascoom Letter 3.3 A pp~a" Project Planner ~ MAR ~' 8~20b9 ~'~"~ City of Dublin Alameda Countr Community Development Department DU~LIN PLANNIIV~ s~a~, 100 Civic Plaza Nale Miley s~""B°°e`" Dublin, CA 94568 City ol Afamoda ~,~,~~„~„ SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental l~npact Report for the Neilsen "te1~'` Development Project in the City of Dublin (PA 07-057) City ot Albany cauncumanher - FaridJarandel Dear Ms. Bascoom BART o~~p Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Dublin's Draft EIR for the Neilsen momas e~lodc Devetapment Project on 6407 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin (PA 07-057). The project City ot Berheley site is eas# of Tassajara. Road, north of Quarry Lane School and south of the Silvera property. ~~~~ ""~'""~"fl'"' The project entails developing up to 34 lots on a 10.9 acre site with up to 36 singte family Ciiya(Qublin and duplex dwellings. Required entitlements include; 1} an amendment to the General Plan nmh's ~r and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Rural CityotFmeryville Residential/Agriculture to Single Famity Residential and to reduce roadway widths; 2) Stage R~ ~ 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development zaning; 3) a vesting tentative subdivision map, and 4} a deveiopment agreement. Clty of Fremont CoundNnember ~oba"'"'~`°'''~d The ACCMA respectfully submits the foIlowing comment: Ci4y of Hayward Counclmember ~e~~~ ~ Based on our review of the trip generatio~ analysis for the proposed Neilsen Ciry oi lfvermors Development Project, it does not generate 140 or more P.M. peak hour trips above ~~m~ existing conditions. The project, therefore, is exempt from the Land Use Ana~ysis CityatNewark Progrann o#'#he Congestion Management Prograrn. (bu~Gmambar Luls kelW Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR. Please do not hesitate to c~~~ro~ax~ a contact me at 510/836-2560 ifyou require additional information. larry RelO City of Piedmeot Counclm~nbg John CManp - SIl1CEC8Iy~ Citp of Pleasanlor Vv~ ~ r~~ Maya Jert~la Hosl~rtmn Diane Stark City ot San Leandro ~~,~„~ Senior Transpor~ation Planner Joyce fl. Slarosckk Clty ol Unlon City Mazk~Green cc: Beth Walukas, Manage'r of Planning "~` ~file: CMP - Enviroiimentat Review Opinions - Responses - 2009 Executive ~ircctor oends R. Fsy . b~~~ -~~ FRDM :ZONE 7 FLQQD CQNTROL FAX N0. :9254611765 Mar. 18 2009 04:05PM P2 ~O ,~ ALAML~DA COUNTY rLOOD CONTI~OL AND WAT'L~R CONS~RVATIQN DISTRICT 100 NORT3~I GANYQNS CARKWAY t.NIIRMdR~, CA 9455! PI•tOT1T3 (925) 454~ 5p(~0 T~AX (92S) q5M•5727 Marc.h 19, 2pQ9 Letter 3.4 Ms. KriSti 13~.sc~m City ~f Dub]in . C~mmunity T~evel~pment De~artitu.nt 1~(? Givio Pl~m Dublin, Ga 94Sf,R ~ SYabjec4; Draft Supplerne~stal ~nvii•unmental l~npact Iteport fnr t[ie Neilson nevelopment P~•oject 1~C1r MY. ~iaSCCL~PTI; 'Lone 7 h~~ reviewed the referenced CL~QA dncian~ent in tlie coni~xt of 7.pne 7'S t~1Sfi10,11 l0 pfUV1C~C drinkin~ watcr, no,n-porahic waccr far agricult~,rc/in~ig~ced t~~rf, flvcx~ protec;tion, ancl groundwlter ~nd sn•eam mtu»~ement within r.hc Liver~moru-Arn~~tlc~r V'ti!ley. W~ hi~ve thn f~llowinb c~rnments for your ~~ansiclcrr~ti~n. I. An p.fi2, under the SupriCr,kk=nt.al. W~i.li~r~.k~on Mo~~sure SM-W~1TBIt-2 (incre~~5ed rtarmwlt~r 3.4.1 runoft~, the Prn~cc# T~evr,lppc;r is I.o pr.Cptsrc: a dn~.ina~,R; itnd hyt~rc~Jvgy plttn utiing RW(ZCB, 'Lone 7, und Ciey clr~~~inrigc; exileria. The lust ~entence indicutes thttt the druinnge and hydrpl~~y rl,tp ,yhFiit bc apl~r~vect by the L~ublin Fublic Wnrks Depaitment; pleau: chang~; tbc languagc~ fu intlic~tte that lhe c~r~iiu~~*e and hydrology E~Ian shall alg~ rc~i~irc iip~r«vhf/concurreneH fi•om Gc>ne ~ Wiiter Akency. 2. L1rrd~r the Cily's R~salutioF~ Nn. S:i-~J3 (1y~3 F?~Stcrn nubliu $TR), each project uren is to pir,vidcs 3.4.2 a Sto-•tn Dr~ina~~ Ma~t~r p.l-~n, Ple~sc prvvide clari~ctitian ~-s ta whether th~ di~iny~i: ei~d hydrqlp~,~+y p)r•~n propusctl .iti miti~ution in the DS81R is the ¢ame a5 fihe S44~T1.),Tttlinu~;~: Mfiater I~lun thttt w~~v a reqciire~net~t of th~ T~~,ckcr Dub~9n ~IR, If ~iUi, Zt~nt~ 7 should have the opprn~tnnity ~ to ravi~w aiid commc~~t c-n tlzc Sk~riT~ Drt~in~~o M~stcr I'lttn in ttcldid~t~ to the drnin~ge and hydrologY plan. We Ap~sreci~tte tl~~ ~~~~c~t~Gunity t~ coanmont an thi~ document. tf you ~~ve ~ny quest~~ns rn~ ~uu~t~ix:nt~, pleacr f~ei fre~ la wiitttct me ~it your eau•lietit c~nveniencE ~.t 92,5~454-503G oi• viii e-mail at n~~l i rt~ (;!? ~c.ine:7w.~~1_E.r.cr~r~,. Sincerely, ~~ ~KWn/K~ ~~r Mr,ry J.im Enviro~tmcnhtl Scrvice;, f'mg,i~m Mt~n;t~sx Cc; Jc~ Seto, Jeff T~ng 03/1R/90b4 l4Fn 1r,•A7 r7u~au Nn ~~vai r.i~nno