Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 215-02 TransitCntrEIR RESOLUTION NO. 215 - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING RELATED MITIGATION FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT PA 00-013 WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority submitted applications for a 90.65- acre high-density mixed-use pedestrian and transit-oriented development located directly north and east of the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The project proposes 1500 high-density residential units, up to 2 million square feet of campus office uses, 70,000 square feet of ancillary commercial uses, an 8.73 acre (net) Neighborhood Park, and a new parking structure to replace existing permanent and temporary surface parking around the BART station. The development includes applications to amend the General Plan; to add the site and related development standards to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; to zone the site as PD-Planned Development and adopt a related Stage 1 Development Plan; and to approve a tentative parcel map; collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project area boundaries include Dublin Boulevard and Parks RFTA to the north, Arnold Road to the east, 1-580 to the south, and the Iron Horse Recreational Trail to the west. Existing uses on the site include the East Dublin-Pleasanton BART station, a major public bus transfer station, associated surface parking lots and other facilities generally near 1-580, and vacant land; and WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation dated November 13, 2000 to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated July 2001 (SCH No. 20001120395) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from July 6, 2001 to August 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared a Final EIR dated September 2002 containing written responses to all comments received during the public review period, which responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, in the course of preparing the written responses to comments, the City identified a new significant impact related to potential traffic impacts on 1-680 that had not been identified in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, the City recirculated analysis of this new impact for a 45-day public review period from July 16, 2002 to August 30, 2002. The City received two comments on the recirculated information; written responses to these comments are included in the Final EIR; and 608845-1 1 WHEREAS, based on discussions with City staff, the applicant proposed minor changes to the project description to replace the proposed Campus Office uses on Site F with an 8.73 acre (net) neighborhood park. The Campus Office uses previously shown on Site F were redistributed onto adjacent sites within the Project area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, City staff reviewed the project revisions and determined that they did not constitute significant new information and would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than already identified and analyzed in the Draft EIR and the recirculated traffic impact, therefore no further recirculation was required; and WItEREAS, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including responses to comments and the recirculated traffic impact) reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis and constitute the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Dublin Transit Center Project; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 22, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the EIR and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the EIR and all written and oral testimony submitted to them at a noticed public hearing on October 22, 2002, and based thereon, adopted Resolution 02-37 recommending certification of the EIR and Resolution 02-38 recommending adoption of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, the Project would have significant effects on the environment, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, some of the significant effects cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit B, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and WItEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report is incorporated herein by reference, and is available for review in the City planning department, file PA 00-13. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. 608845-1 2 C. The Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council who reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report prior to approving the Project. D. The Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental effects of the Dublin Transit Center Project. E. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Dublin Transit Center Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Mike Porto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit A, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit B, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit C, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit D, which exhibits A, B, C and D are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~~ ATTEST: y Mayor ler~ ( K2/G/11-19-02/reso-eir-certify.doc (Item 6.3) g:pa00-013/cc reso certify eir 608845-I 3 EXI:IIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT I1VIPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby · makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and'mitigations. Findings pursuant to section 21081 (c) relating to Project alternatives are made in Exhibit B. Impact 4.1-2: Views and vistas. The project would reduce existing views of Mount Diablo and surrounding ridgelands from some public viewpoints. DEIR p. 38 Mitiaation 4.1-1. During the Site Development Review process for individual projects, encourage breaks and corridors between building clusters to maintain some views of Mount Diablo, taking into account the need to block freeway noise and create a compact transit-oriented development pattern. DEIR p. 39 Finding. 'Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. 'Rationale for Findine. The mitigation measure ensures that views of Mount Diablo and distant ridgelands will be considered and preserved through site planning for each development project. Impact 4.1-5: Light and glare. The project would generate new sources of light and glare from office building and parking structure lighting that could intrude into adjacent residential units. DEtR p. 38 Mitigation 4.1-2. Condition Site Development, Review for individual projects to require that all exterior light fixtures will be oriented downward or be equipped with cut-off lenses to avoid spillover light onto adjacent residential areas. DEIR p. 39 Findin'o~ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that new light and glare sources are directed down or away from adjacent residential areas to prevent spillover into those areas. Impact 4.2-1: Construction impacts. Construction activities could increase dusffall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind. DEIR p. 49 Mitigation 4.2-1. Require construction practices such as watering active construction areas and stockpile areas; covering trucks hauting loose materials; sweeping paved roads, parking and staging areas; installing sandbags to prevent silt runoff; replanting vegetation in disturbed areas, and other similar practices .to control dust and loose materials. DEIR p. 53-54 Finding.. '.Changes or alte?ations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The'mitigation measures ensure that dust generation is avoided or minimized during construction activities; the identified measures are implemented at various stages of construction, providing more effective control of dust and particulates. Impact 4.2-3: Regional air quality impacts. Buitdout of the project would exceed the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for regional impacts on a project and cumulative level. DEIR p. 52 . Finding. The impact is'significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact to tess than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Co~!derstions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. The Project is consistent with BAAQMD policies encouraging compact, infill development near public transit and includes variants of all of the strategies suggested by BAAQMD to minimize regional air quality impacts through accessibility to non-automobile forms of transportation. However, 'even with its transit and pedestrian oriented design, the Project would exceed BAAQMD regional air quality standards and no feasible mitigation measures are identified to further reduce this impact; therefore Project impacts remain significant and unavoidable. DEIR p. 51-53 Impact 4.3-1: Impacts to Congdon's spikeweed. The Project could result in the loss ora population of Congdon's spikeweed (also known as Congdon's tarplant)and potential loss of populations of four other special status plant species. DEIR p. 70, FEIR p. 3 Mitigation 4.3-1. Determine the size of the area occupied by the tarplant. If onsite avoidance is not possible, ensure replacement at a 1:1 ratio through a) a permanent conservation easement or other similar method; or b) harvesting seeds from onsite plants or another Livermore-Amador Valley source and seeding an equal amount of suitable offsite area which shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal o£a tentative map and/or Site Development Review application, project developers shall submit a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to the City demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including steps to ensure that reseeding will be successful. FEIR p. 3 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that' avoid or substantially lessen the significant.effeCt identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that subsequent development projects incorporate protective measures in development applications and fur/her ensures that tarplant are preserved either on-or off-site thereby avoiding the loss of the plant species. Impact 4.3-2: California red-legged frog. The Project could adversely affect California red-legged frog and/or their habitat. DEIR p. 71 " Mitigation 4.3-2. a) Conduct a pre-construction survey to determine if red-legged frogs are on or adjacent to the Project site; include all drainage channels and potential hydration, foraging or cover habitat in the survey; conduct the survey according to current USFWS survey protocols; b) If red-legged frogs are found, the project proponent shall consult with the USFWS to determine appropriate avoidance or mitigation actions and shall obtain any necessary permits. DEIR pp. 72-73 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the ELK. Rationale for Finding. The likelihood of red-legged frogs occurring onsite is Iow as there is no breeding habitat and no frogs were observed, during a reconnaissance survey. However, the mitigation measure ensures that no construction activity that could injure the frogs or their habitat will occur until 'additional surveys are conducted for the presence of the species on or adjacent to the Project site. The measure further ensures that if any red-legged frogs are found, consultation and applicable permits will be obtained from USFWS to avoid or mitigate any impacts. Impact 4.3-3: Burrowing owls. The Project could result in the loss of potential nesting and foraging habitat, for burrowin~ owls. DEIR p. 71 - Mitigation 4.3-3. Conduct pre-construction surveys on and within 500 feet of the Project site. If over-wintering birds are present, no disturbance should occur within 160 feet. of occupied burrows unless the Department ofFish 608863-1 2 and Game gives written consent to relocating the birds. If owls must be moved.away, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG guidelines should be used. If no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nesting season. If removing unoccupied burrows is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season~, maintain a minimum buffer of at least 250 feet around active nesting sites to avoid direct loss of individuals; all active burrows shall be identified. Establish a 250 foot exclusion zone around nests if construction is scheduled when young are not yet fledged, or delay construction. Enhance existing burrows or create new burrows when removal of occupied burrows is unagoidable. Acquire and permanently protect a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird. Prepare a management plan and provide funding for lon g-term management and monitoring of protected lands, including success criteria, remedial measures and an annual report to CDFG. FEIR pp. 3-4 Finding. Changes o~: alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The preconstruction surveys and required buffer zone around known nestin~ and breeding sires will preserve owl burrows by allowing them to be avoided during the construction and devetoCment process. The measures will also ensure that any unaVoidable disturbance will be mitigated in coordination with CDFG. Impact 4.4-1: Historical, archeological and Native. American resources. Construction of the Project could disturb unidentified and unrecorded historical artifacts or archeological and/or Native American resources. DEIR p. 81 Mit/gation 4.4-1. Cease all work if archeol ogical, discrete historical or Native American artifacts are encountered during construction of individual development projects within the Project site. ComPly with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. Contact the County Coroner immediately if any human remains are encountered. DEIR p. 8 I Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into~ the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Ra_tionale fo Fi_ndin__g.. There is no evidence of prehistoric cultural resources in the Project area and no trenching in the area over the last several years has encountered prehistoric or historic materials.' However, should unknown resources be discovered during construction activities, the mitigation measure ensures that such resources will not be inadvertently disrupted or destroyed and that construction activities will cease until the materials are identified and addressed in compliance with the CEQA guidelines section on historical and unique archeological resources. Im pact 4.5-2: .Seismic hazard. Strong shaking during an earthquake could result in ground failure such as soil liquefaction or differential compaction. DEIR p. 86 Mitigation 4.5-2. Require site-specific geotechnical investigations for each individual development project, including the presence of potential liquefiable material.' Design and construct structures in accord with the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code. DEIR p. 87 Findin ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code will be considered at the design stage of development projects so as to anticipate and avoid or reduce pound shaking effects before development occurs. Impact 4.5-3: Expansive soils. Soils in the Project area exhibit the potential for shrink-swell of expansive soils which can result in damage to buildings with improperly designed foundations. DEIR'p. 87 Mitigation 4.5-3. Geotechnical investigations required for each development project shall address expansive soils and provide appropriate engineering and consh~ucti°n techniques to reduce potential damage to buildings and pavement surfaces. DEIR p. 87 608863-1 3 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The design level geotechnicat investigation will identify expansive soils and ensure that special techniques are used in these areas to reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage. Impact 4.6-1: Hazardous materials. Hazardous material or polluted groundwater may be present from past military uses. DEIR p. 90. Mitigation 4.6-1. Phase I and, if required, Phase II level environmental investigations shall be performed for each individual development'projecr prior to any grading or construction activity. Individual developers shall be responsible for performing any necessary cleanup. DEIR p. 91 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The potential for hazardous materials impacts is low; however, the mitigation measure ensures that the presence of such materials will be assessed prior to any grading or construction activity on development sites If any unknown materials are discovered, the mkigation measure ensures that appropriate assessment and cleanup will occur. Impact 4.6-2: Risk of t~pset. Future residential dwellings could be subject to fire, explosion and/or contamination should the petroleum pipeline within the Iron Horse Trail be damaged. DEIR p. 90 Mitigation 4.6-2., a) Flag the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way locations during construction of residential developments on Sites A and C to prevent heavy equipment from crossing over the petroleum pipeline and fiber- optic cable. Construction materials and equipment shall not be stored on top of the right-of-way, b) Maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from the petroleum pipeline to the nearest habitable residential structure. DEIR p. 91 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. ' Rationale for Finding. Marking the trail location will ensure that construction activity and equipment is able to avoid disturbance of the pipeline area. The minimum setback for residential structures minimizes the potential for adverse effect by providing a buffer area if there is damage to the pipeline. Impact 4.7-3: Non-point source pollution. The quality of stormwarer runoff could decline with increased production of non-point source urban pollutants. Stormwater runoff would carry non-point source pollutants in to surface waters which could cause a cumulative degradation of water quality in San Francisco Bay. DEIR. p. 96 Mitigation 4.7-1. Project development shall not increase any sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters, in accordance with the City's NPDES general construction permit. Provisions for the proper handling and disposal of fuels and hazardous construction materials shall be included in the erosion control plan required under Mitigation 4.7-3. DEIR p. 96 Mitigation 4.7-2. Each individual development project shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that incorporated Best Management Practices for construction and post-construction conditions, including but not limited to incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of fossil filters, covering solid waste and recycling areas and similar features. DEIR p. 97 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. 608863-1 4 Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that pollution sources related to construction and operation of development projects, such as soil erosion and street debris, are controlled so as prevent pollutants from entering storm drain systems. Control techniques focus not only onprevendng runoff but also on removing or filtering pollutants, for example, through onsite biofi ltration, s-~ that the quality of runoff from urban sites is improved. Impact 4.7-4: Soil erosion. During construction, short-term increases in soil erosion could result as the Project area is stripped of the limited natural vegetation thereby exposing it to wind and water erosion. DEIR p'. 96 Mitigation 4.7-3. Project sponsors shall prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan in accordance with City and RWQCB standards: including measures such as leaving vegetated areas undisturbed until construction commences and revegetating after grading, directing runoff away from alt areas disturbed by construction, collecting runoff into stable drainage channels, and other measures as specified. DEIR pp. 97-98 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that construction sires are properly protected ro reduce soil loss through erosion until disturbed areas are stabilized underneath buildings, pavement, or landscaping. impact 4.9-1: Construction noise impacts. Future residents of the Project could be subject to short-term construction noise. DEIR p. 117 Mitiaation 4.9-I. Prior ro issuance of grading permks, Individual project developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise Management Plan identifying measures ro minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties, particularly residential developments. At a minimum, the measures shall contain a listing of construction hours, muffler use on construction equipment, limitation on onsite speed, identification of haul routes and a noise monitor, and shall be included in appropriate contractor specifications. DEIR p. 118 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. Through the mitigation measure, developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise exposure experienced by surround lng residential and other development. Impact 4,9-2a: Permanent noise impacts for residential uses. Residential dwellings near Dublin Boulevard, the 1-580 freeway, or the BART line would be exposed to conditionally acceptable or normally unacceptable furore noise levels. Employees in campus office buildings ar some locations may also be subject to conditionally acceptable or normally unacceptable future noise levels. DEIR p. 117 Mitiaation 4.9-2a. Site-specific acoustic reports Shall be prepared for alt residential uses and shall identify noise exposure levels'and specific measures to reduce interior and exterior noise levels ro normally acceptable levels. DEIR p. 118 Mitiaation 4.9-2b. For commercial projects where noise levels on a majority of the site are projected to be normally unacceptable (greater than 75dB DNL), individual developers shall submit a site-specific acoustic report at the time of Site Development Review identifying noise exposure levels and specifying measures ro reduce interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels. DEIR p. 119 Mitiaation 4.9-2c. For commercial projects where noise levels on a majority of the site are projected ro be conditionally acceptable or normally acceptable (75dB DNL or less), individual developers shall submit evidence to the City ar Site Development Review that noise reduction features are included in the building desian to ensure acceptable interior noise levels. DEIR p. 119 '- ~ ~ Finding'. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. 608863-I 5 Rationale for Finding. Acoustical mitigation will be identified and incorporated into future new development in the ?rojecr area and wilt ensure compliance with applicable noise standards. Impact 4.9-3: Helicopter overflight noise. Residential dwellings near Dublin Boulevard south of Camp Parks RFTA would be subject to helicopter overflights from Cramp Parks. DEIR p. 118 Mitigation 4.9-3 .' Provide future residents of the Projecr with advance notification of the potential for helicopter overflights from Camp Parks. DEIR p. 119 Finding. Although not identified as a significant effect, the changes or alterations identified above have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project and will avoid or lessen the helicopter overflight noise effect discussed i.n the EtR. Rationale for Finding. The EIR recommends mitigation for helicopter overflight noise, but does not identify it as a s~gniflcant effect. The City wishes to implement the EIR recommendation and has, therefore, included it in these findings. Impact 4.11-1: External intersection impacts. Increased levels of peak hour traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard (AM and PM) and Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound off- ramp (AM) intersections. DEIR p. 152 Mitigation.4.1 I-1. a)-e) Undertake specified roadway improvements for the Scarlett Drive extension, and at the Dougherry/Dublin, Hacienda/I-580 westbound off-ramp~ Dougherty/Scartett and Dublin/Scartett intersections; DEIR pp. 167-68 ': Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. Construction of the identified improvements will result in intersection operations'that comply with applicable LOS standards. Impact 4.11-4: Parking. BART p_atrons could use on-street and nearby private residential, retail and office parking, resulting in insufficient parking for these uses. DEIR p. 156 Mitigation 4.11-2. Post all on-street parking for short-term use. Through Site Development Review, ensure that . onsite parking lots and structures for individual projects discourage unauthorized BART patron use. DEIR p. 168 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Findin ~. Through the mitigation measure, parking will be managed so that on-street parking and residential and office parking structures will beavailabte for residents, viskors and employees. Impact 4.11-5: Cumulative traffic impacts. In 2025, project and cumulative traffic at the. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E and LOS F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. DEIR pp. 160-61 Mitigation 4:11-3. Construct specified improvements at the Dublin/Dougherty intersection. DEIR p. 168 Finding. 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 Overrid(ng _ Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 608863-1 ~ Rationale for Finding. These improvements are not sufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant, however, additional improvements are not feasible due to the physical constraints at the intersection. The City will monitor the intersection to obtain updated volume forecasts; also, implementation of the I-580 Smart Corridor Project will likely relieve some congestion ar the intersection. Impact 4.11-6: Roadway segmeat impacts. Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the two-lane roadway 15,600 ADT volume with existing plus furore base plus project traffic. The future extension of Scarlett Drive between Dublin Boulevard and DoUgherty Road would approach maximum average dait¥ traffic volumes and would carry a significant number of peak hour turning movements. DEli[ p. 165 Mitiaation 4.11-4. Widen Hacienda Drive to four travel lanes and construct the Scarlett Drive extension with four travel lanes prior to buildout of the Project. DEIR p. 168 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the sig'nificant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding, With these improvements, capacity of the roadway segments will be expanded so that the ADT volume complies with the maximum ADT threshold. !mpact 4.11-7: Mainline freeway operation impacts. Proiect traffic will worsen [-580 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County Congesti~on Management Agency's threshoM of significance in 2025 even without the Project. DEIR p. 166 Mitigation. No mitigations identified. Finding. The impact is significant and unavoidable because there are no feasibte mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact to iess than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations ~nust be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Individual developments within the Project will be required to pay applicable regional Transportation Impact Fees, a portion of which will fund freeway improvements; however, freeway improvements are controlled by Cattrans and not the City of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. DEIR pp. 165-66 Im pact 4.11-8: Mainline freeway operations, 1-680. Project traffic will worsen 1-680 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance in 2025 even without the Project. FEIR Appendix A Mitiaation. No mitigations identified. Finding. The impact is significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. · Rationale for Finding. Individual developments within the Project will be ,required to pay applicable TVTD regional traffic improvement fees, which will assist in funding planned auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road. However, these measures will not avoid or substantially reduce the impact to the 1-680 freeway. Furthermore, freeway improvements are controlled by Call:tans and not the City Of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. FEIR Appendix A ImPact 4.12-1: Fire protection. The Project would increase the number of calls for service, for fire protection and emergency medical response. Construction of office buildings greater than six stories Will require specialized fire equipment and fire protection ~rocedures. DEIR p. 178 Mkization 4.12-1. Buildings greater than six stories shall incorporate au~,mented fire protection measures including but not limited to caches of fire fighting equipment on upper floors, and other project-specific measures as identified by the Alameda County Fire Marshal. DEIR p. 184 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures .that fire equipment and fire protection procedures will be provided to meet the specialized needs of Project area development where buildings exceed six stories. Impact 4.12-2: Police services. The Project would increase the number of calls for service, specifically regarding traffic control, burglary, theft and neighborhood and domestic distmZbances from the residential po.rtion of the Project. Coordination of security protocol between future site users and the City Police Services Department would also be a concern. DEIR p. 179 Mitigation 4. t2z2. Individual buildings and or buildings complexes shall submit a safety and security plan for approval by the City Police Chief. Security plans shall include but not be limited to provision for private security measures and methods to achieve coordination with the Dublin Police Services Department. DEIR p. t 84 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that security plans for individual projects, especially when onsite private security is provided, are prepared and coordinated with the CiW's Police Services Department. Impact 4.12-3: Schools. Additional student demand generated at buildout of the Project would require the cumulative construction of new school facilkies: DEIR p. 179 Mitigation 4.12-3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Project proponent shall enter into ~ school mitigation program with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure that future Project uses pay a fair share toward the costs of new school facilities. Developers of individual projects shall pay mitigati6n fees, as specified in the mitigation agreement, at building permit issuance. DEIR p. 184 Finding. Changes or alterati.ons have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Findin{,. The mitigation measure ensures that development in the Project area will contribute to the cost of providing school facilities to serve Project-generated student demand. Impact 4.12-8: Electric power. Until State and local power supply and transmission issues are resolved, it is uncertain whether PG & E can provide a reliable supply of electrical power. DEIR p. 183 Mkigation 4.12-4. Prior to issuing building permits for individual projects, the City' shall require PG & E "will serve" letters indicating sufficient electric power and transmission capacity to serve the proposed project, taking into account any onsite generation facility. DEIR p. 184 Finding, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that there will be an available electrical supply for the Project prior to any development. g:pa00--0[3 Exhibit A mitigation findings 608863-1 8 ential .lding EXHIBIT B · f'CeS~ ',t site FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES tbstantiaI . )t enough ?ransit Center EIR identifies four alternatives: No Project, Same Intensity/Lower Building mpacts, pus Office Development, and Lower Intensity Transit Center. The alternatives analysis, Chapter 5.0 of the EIR, evaluates the comparative merits of the alternatives. Because the :eate a s significant unavoidable impacts for the Project, the analysis also discusses the extent to ative ernatives would attain the Project objectives set forth in the EIR and would avoid or transit reduce the Project's significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council considered the four transit dentified and analyzed in the EIR and hereby finds that they do not avoid the Project's impacts and/or are infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set )ursuant to CEQA section 2108 t (c). ',T ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 188-190. bte asible. This alternative provides for no development beyond existing vacant land and imately :ver no ~g uses. Because no development would occur, impacts identified for the Project would be o the uding significant unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts. :es. ,'ct Alternative is infeasible because it would not attain any of the Project objectives to create 'not to pedestrian oriented'development that takes advantage of the existing BART station and bus >n. Instead, development would take place further.from these major transportation facilities zing the oppommity to provide options to single occupant automobile use. Needed h/gher rog, and increased employment opportunities would not occur. Tax and other revenues or the Project would also not occur nsit ;NSITY/LOWER BUILDiNG. HEIGHT ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 190-192. .s alternative does not avoid or substantially lessen the Proiect's significant unavoidable .s alternative assumes the same amount of development as the Project, but campus office uld be restricted to six stories rather than the Project's ten stories. Reducing the office ;hts would require that the building footprints be increased to accommodate the office mpacts of this altemative would be similar to the Project since the same amount of would occur, and would involve development of the entire Project site. Visual impacts .se since larger building footprints would make it more difficult to maintain view corridors. .urface area would also increase with the larger building footprints thereby reducing ; for onsite biofiltration of stormwater. This alternative would generally meet the Project :cause it provides the same uses and amount of development as the Project. However, with >unt of development as the Project, this alternative would not avoid the Project's regional air alative traffic or freeway mainline unavoidable impacts. FFICE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 192-t94 is alternative does not avoid or substantiallv lessen the Proiect's si.znificant unavoidablc is infeasible. This alternative assumes that the Project site would.be developed exclusively ; Office uses. The building intensity would be similar to other campus office uses in Eastern an FAR of 0.6, yielding approximately 1.5 million square feet of office use. The existing EXHiBiT surface parking would remain for the BART station and surface parking lots are assumed for potential office uses. Some Project impacts, such as view obstruction, would be reduced due to lower building heights, feWer buildings and use of surface parking tots. Some impactsi such as biological resources, geology and soils, and hazardous materials would be similar to the Project since the entire Project site would be developed. Development of the site without a housing component would result in a substantial imbalance of jobs and housing. Traffic generated under this alternative would be reduced, bu~ not enough to avoid the Project's unavoidable regional air quality, cumulative traffic and mainline freeway impacts. The Campus Office Alternative is infeasible because it does not attain the Project objectives to create a mixed use transit and pedestrian oriented development near existing transit facilities. This alternative would provide employment opportunities but would provide no housing near the employment or transit sources, and would gain none of the advantages of a complementary mix of uses planned around transit hubs. LOWER DENSITY TRANSIT CENTER ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 194-196. Finding: This alternative does not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's simaificam unavoidable impacts and is infeasible. This alternative assumes a mix of office and residential uses at approximately half the Project densities. Existing surface parking would be replaced by a parking garage, however no ancillary commercial uses would be developed. Impacts would generally be reduced compared to the Project due to the reduced amount of development and the likelihood of more pervious open spaces. Regional air quality, cumulative traffic and mainline freeway impacts would also be reduced, but not to tess than significant. The Lower Density Alternative is not feasible because it does not attain the project objectives of providing an efficient and effective transit oriented development. The reduced densities would not provide a sufficient "critical mass" of employment, shopping and residential uses to support a transit oriented development focused on existing major transit facilities. g:pa00-013 Exhibit B alternative findings 608858-1 2 EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR as sign/ficant and unavoidable. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Although the City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be.substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, and by 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 that support approval of the Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the Dublin Transit Center Project as identified in the EIR. The impacts cannot be fu}ly mitigated by changes or alterations to the Project. Impact 4.2-3: Regional air quality impacts. Buildout of the project would exceed the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for regional impacts on a project and cumulative level. DEIR p. 52. The Project is consistent, with BAAQMD policies encouraging compact, infill development near public transit and includes variants of all of the strategies suggested by BAAQMD to minimize regional air quality impacts through accessibility to non-automobile forms of transportation. However, even with its transit and pedestrian oriented design, the Project would exceed BAAQMD regional air quality standards and no feasible mitigation measures are identified to further reduce this impact; therefore Project impacts remain significant and unavoidable. DEIR p. 51-53 Impact 4.11-5: Cumulative traffic impacts. In 2025, project and cumulative traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unaccePtable LOS E and LOS F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. DEIR pp. 160-61. Improvements adopted as mitigation measures are not sufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant, however, additional improvements are not feasible due to the physical constraints at the intersection. The City will monitor the intersection to obtain updated volume forecasts; also, implementation of the 1-580 Smart Corridor 'Project will likely relieve some congestion at the intersection. However, Project impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.11'7: Mainline freeway operation impacts, 1-580. Project traffic will worsen 1-580 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management AgencY's threshold of significance in 2025 even without the Project. DEIR p. 166. Individual developments within the Project will be required to pay applicable regional Transportation Impact Fees, a portion of which will fund freeway improvements; however, freeway improvements are controlled by . Caltrans and not the City of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. DEIR pp. 165-66 Impact 4211-8: Mainline freeway operations, 1-680. Project traffic will worsen 1-680 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County CongeStion Management C 608849-1 'I _z;HIBIT Agency's threShold of significance in 2025 even without the Project. FEIR Appendix A. Individual developments within the Project will be required to pay applicable TVTD regional traffic improvement fees, which will assist in funding planned auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road. However, these measures will not avoid or~ubst~antially reduce the impact to the.I-680 freeway. Furthermore, freeway improvements are controlled by Caltrans and not the City of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. FEIR Appendix A 3. Overriding.Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Dublin Transit Center Project to the City of Dublin against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the EIR that have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. To the extem that the Project would result in unavoidable significant impacts described in the EIR, the City Council hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of Project as further set. forth below. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that unavoidable impacts of the Project are outweighed by the substantial public benefits of developing a state- of-the-art transit and pedestrian oriented village.. Approval of the Project takes advantage of the unique opportunities presented by a large, infill, single-owner property with no major physical constraints and located directly adjacent to existing transit facilities. The Project's residential, office and ancillary commercial uses provide a complementary mix of uses that facilitates use of transit facilities. The mix of uses and site design will also create a vibrant urban neighborhood with attractive housing at higher densities to encourage transit use as well as. increase the potential for affordable housing. The urban densities will be further complemented by recreational opportunities' from common and private open space, as well as a nearby park and the adjacent Iron Horse Trail. Approval of the Project:advances City policies to provide comprehensive community planning that balances various land uses and encourages higher density housing convenient to shopping, employment centers and transit facilities. In addition, the Project witl result in the following substantial public benefits. Economic Considerations. Substantial evidence is included in the record demonstrating the economic benefits that 'the-City would derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, the Project will result in: a. As many as 7,832 new jobs, as well as a substantial number of construction jobs. b. Potential commercial development that will result in increases in sales tax revenues for the City. c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues. Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits that the City would derive from the implementation of the Project. Specifically, 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. Increased opportunities for the City to contribute its fair share of regional housing. 608849-1 2 d. Provision of higher density housing opportunities near local and regional public transit facilities-and within a mixed residential/office/commercial use setting that provides goOds and services accessible without automobile travel. g:paO0-Ol3 statement of overriding 608849-1 3 Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-013) Mitigation Monitoring.and Reporting Program September 2002 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.1-1: During the Site Development Review Project Developers Dublin Planning During Site process for individual projects within the Division Development proposed Transit Center, encourage the Review application inclusion of breaks and corridors between reviews for building clusters, especially along the north- individual projects south axis, so that some views of Mount Diablo are maintained, taking into account the need' to block freeway noise and to create ' a compact transit-oriented development pattern 4.1-2: As a condition of Site Development Review for Project Developers Dublin Planning During Site individual projects, the City of Dublin shall require Division Development submittal of lighting plans for all non-residential Review application projects along Iron Horse Parkway to ensure that all reviews for exterior light fixtures will either be oriented individual projects downward or equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure that no spill-over of unwanted light onto adjacent residential areas shall occur. EXHIBIT '~] ~ .¼ Mitigation Measure Implementiug Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.2-1: The following measures are recommended, Project Contractors Dublin Public During Project based on BAAQMD standards, to reduce construction Works Department Construction impacts to a level that is less-than-significant. The following construction practices should be required during all phases of construction on the project site: · Water all active construction areas as needed; · Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; · Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; · Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areasat construction sites; · Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at consh'uction sites; Dublin Transit Center Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule · Sweep streets daily (preferably with wa ter sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; · Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; · Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non- toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); · Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; · Install sandbags or other erosion cont:rol measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; · Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Dublin Transit Center Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program "~ City of Dublin Mitigatiou Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.3-1: The following mitigation measures would Project Developers Dublin Plmming Prior to issuance of ., mitigate the loss of a population of Congdon's Division grading permits spikeweed (CNPS l:ist lB) and potential loss of four (other special-status plant species and their habitat. The size of the area occupied by the tarplant should be determined from the field survey and notes on past on-site distribution, measuring rite entire area from which the plant has been observed. If on-site avoidance is not possible, one of the following options must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 J acreage ratio: a. Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar nmthod, equal amount of off-site acreage that contains the plant; or b. Harvest Seeds from on-site plants to be lost or from another source within the Livermore- Amador Valley, and seed an equal amount of off-site area Suitable for supporting the plant which shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Dublin Transit Center Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin J Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule c. Prior to submittal of a tentative map and/or a Site Development Review (SDR) application, the project developer shall submit a Mitigation and Monitoring plan to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps they will take to ensure that reseeding will be successful. If Option" b' is selected and is not successful, Option "a' shall be implemented. Dublin Transit Center ' ' Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program j · City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.3-2 The following steps shall be taken to reduce Project Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of impacts to California red-legged flogs to a less-than- Developers Division grading permits significant level. a) In order to determine if red-legged frogs occur on or adjacent to the Transit Center project area, a preconstruction survey for red-legged frogs shall be conducted prior to initiation of construction activities on adjacent development sites (Sites A and F). The survey will include all drainage channels and potential hydration, foraging, or cover habitat on or immediately adjacent to the Transit Center (e.g., pool in the northwest corner of Site A drainage charmel along Iron Horse Trail, and flood control channel along northern boundary of Site F. The survey will be conducted according to current USFWS survey protocols by a qualified biologist. Results of the survey will be reported to the City of Dublin. ~ Dublin Transit Center Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule b) If red-legged frogs are 'found on or adjacent to the Transit Center project area, the project proponent will consult with the USFWS to determine a) fire appropriate course of action to avoid or mitigate impacts to red-legged frogs and their habitat, and b) any necessary permits tlia t must be obtained. All mitigation measures and permits will be obtained Prior to initiation of construction activities. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.3-3: The following measures will reduce potential Proiect City of Dublin Prior to issuance of impacts to burrowing owls to a less-than-significant Developers Plmming Division grading permits level. a. Pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist shall be conducted on the entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of the Project area within 30 days prior to any ground disturbance. If ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey, the site shall be resurveyed. b. If over-wintering birds are present (September 1 to January 31) no disturbance should occur within 160 feet of Occupied burrows unless the Departatent of Fish and Game provides a ' letter giving consent to relocate winterhig birds. If owls must be moved away &oin the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nestfl~g season to reduce impacts from noise, dust, and human disturbance to mated pairs. Dublin Transit Center Page 8 h.~ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program -,..% City of Dublin t~.. Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring M onitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule c. If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is ixffeasible and construction nmst occur within the breeding season, maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified by pre- construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (February 1 - September 1). All active burrows shall be identified. d. If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet fledged, a 250-foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by August 31. e. When removal of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a 2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below. Dublin Transit Center Page 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule f. A mininrum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. g. The project proponent shall prepare a managenrent plan and provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success criteria, remedial measures, and an ammal report to CDFG. 4.4-1: If, during construction of individual Project Developers City of Dublin During Project development projects within the Transit Center, Planning Division Construction archeological, discrete historical or Native American artifacts are encountered, work on the project shall cease until compliemce with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Project work may be resumed in compliance with any applicable resource protection plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. Dublin Transit Center Page 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.5-1: Site specific geotechnical investigations shall be Project Developers City of Dublin Prior to issuance of required for each individual development proposed Public Works building permits withht the Transit Center project area. Design and Department construction of structures shall be in accordance with the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which includes construction standards near fault factors. The site-specific geotechnical investigation should further investigate the presence of potentially liquifiable material at the site. Conventional design and engineering techniques should be able to mitigate for minor settlements. 4.5-2: For each building, as well as public streets and Project Developers City of Dublin Prior to issuance of other pavement areas constructed in the project area, Public Works building permits the required site specific geoteclmical investigation Deparhnent and/or approval of shall address expansive soils and provide appropriate street construction engineering and construction techniques to reduce documents potential damage to buildings and pavement surfaces. 4.6-1: Phase I and, if required, Phase II level Project Developers Dublin Platming As part of Stage 2 environmental investigations shall be performed for Division Planned each individual development project within the Development proposed Transit Center prior to any grading or Rezmdng review construction activity. Individual developers shall be responsible for performing any necessary cleanup, as recommended in the environmental investigations and as required by regulatory authorities. Dublin Transit Center Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplemeuting Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.6-2: Project Developers Dublin Public a) During project a. During construction of residential Works Department construction; b) as developments on Sites A and C, the adjacent and Dublh~ part of Stage 2 Iron Horse Trail right-of-way locations shall be Plmming Division Planned flagged to prevent heavy equipment from Development crossing over the petroleum pipeline and fiber rezoning reviews optic cable. Construction materials and equipment shall not be stored on top of the right-of~way.- b. Future residential development within the proposed Transit Center shall maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from the petroleum pipeline to the nearest habitable residential structure 'within the proposed Transit Center. Dublin Transit Center Page 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.7-1: Development projects withh~ the proposed Project Developers Dublin Public Prior to issuance of Transit Center are subject to the City of Dublin's Works Department grading permits for NPDES general construction permit from the State individual projects Water Resources Control Board. The terms of this permit require that project developlnent not cause. any h~crease of sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters. It is expected that implementation of the erosion control plan outlined below under Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would satisfy all NPDES erosion and sedimentation requirements, but additional provisions are needed for the proper handling and disposal of fuels and hazardous construction materials. 4.7-2: Each individual development project withh~ Project Developers Dublin Public Prior to issuance of the Transit Center shall prepare a Stormwater Works Department grading permits for Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates individual projects Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construct/on and post-construct/on conditions. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards in effect at the time SDR permits are requested. The SWPPP shall include, but is not limited to h~corporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of fossil filters, covering of solid waste and recycling areas and similar features. Dublin Transit Center Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.7-3: The project sponsors shall prepare an erosion Project Developers Dublin Public Prior to issuance of and sedimentation control plan for implementation Works Department grading permits for dlroughout project construction. The plan should be individual projects prepared in accordance with City of Dublin and RWQCB design standards. It is recommended that tiffs plan, at a minin~um, include the following provisions: a. Existing vegetated areas should be left undisturbed until construction of improvements on each portion of the development site is actually ready to commence; b. All disturbed areas should be immediately revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind and water erosion upon the completion of grading activities; Stormwater runoff should be collected into stable drainage chmmels, from small drainage bashm, to prevent the buildup of large, potentially erosive stormwater flows; Dublin Transit Center Page 14 ~,.x, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verificatiou Responsibility Responsibility Schedule d.' Specific measures to control erosion from stockpiled earth and exposed soil; e. Runoff should be directed away frorn all areas disturbed by construction; f. Sediment ponds or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded soils before runoff is discharged into on-site or offsite drainage culverts and channels. g. To the extent possible, project sponsors should schedule major site development work involving excavation and earth moving for construction during the dry season. 4.9-1: Individual project developers shall submit a Project Developers Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Construction Noise Management Plan that identifies Division and Public g~rading permits for measures to be taken to minimize construction noise Works Department individual-projects on surrounding developed properties, particularly residential developments. Noise Management Plan shall be approxzed by the City of Dublin Community Development and Public Works departments prior to issuance of grading permits and shall contain, at a minimum, a lisl~ng of hours of construction operations, use of mufflers on construction equipment, limitation on on-site speed limits, identification of haul routes to minimize travel through residential areas and identification of a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in appropriate contractor specifications. Dublin Transit Center Page 15 Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation City of Dublin Mitigation Measure lmple~nenting Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.9-2a: For all residential uses within the Transit Project Developers Dublin Plmming As part of Site Center, site-specific acoustic reports shall be Division Development prepared by qualified acoustical consultants for Review applications individual residential projects at the time Site Development Review applications are filed with the City of Dublh~. The acoustic reports shall include detailed identification of noise exposure levels on the individual project site and a listing of specific measures to reduce both interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels, including but not limited to glazing and ventilation systems, construction of noise barriers and use of buildings to shield noise. 4.9-2b: For commercial projects where noise levels on Project Developers Dublin Plamdng As part of Site a majority of the Site is projected to be Normally Division Developlnent Unacceptable (greater than 75 dB DNL), the Review applications individual developer shall submit to the Cily of Dublin, at the time Site DevelOplnent Review applications are filed, a site-specific acoustic report prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. The acoustic reports shall h~clude detailed identification of noise exposure levels on the individual project site and a listing of specific measures to reduce both interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels, h~cluding but not limited to glazh~g and ventilation systems, construction of ~noise barriers and use of buildings to shield noise. Dublin Transit Center Page 16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program I..~ City of Dublin t.~ Mitigation Measure hnple~nenting Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.9-3: Future residents of dwelling units withh~ the Project Developers Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Transit Center shall be provided with advance Division Certificates of notification of the potential for -helicopter overflights Occupancy for from Camp Parks. The precise language of the individual dwelling notification shall be approved by the City of Dublin units Community Development Director. 4.11-1: The following improvements shall be Project Developer Dublin Public As determined by undertaken to reduce in, pacts to external Works Deparbnent City Traffic intersections to a less than significant level: Engineer a. The Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard shall be constructed to relieve the Dougherty/Dublin intersection of south and east bound AM peak hour traffic and west and north bound PM peak traffic. Dublin Transit Center Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule b. Dougherty/Dublin intersection. The eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard at this intersection shall be widened to include an additional through lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would have one (1) left- turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound left-turn lanes from Dublin Boulevard onto Dougherty Road shall be lengthened to accomlnodate additional txaffic demand safely and efficiently. As part of these intersection improvements, Dougherty Road should be four (4) lanes in the southbound direction between Dublin Boulevard and the 1- 580 westbound on-ramp. These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the 1-580 westbound on- ram p, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the 1-580 westbound on- ramp. These improvements would require widening and re-sNiping the 1-580 westbound diagonal on-ramp. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from E (0.97) to LOS C (0.74) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from E (0.99) to LOS D (0.86). Dublin Transit Center Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibilily Responsibility Schedule c. Haciendafl-580 Westbound Off-Ramp: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach (overcrossing) shall be widened to three (3) northboundtravel lanes. This improvement would require some alignment modifications to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. In addition, the 1-580 westbound off-ramp approach would need to be widened to include three (3) left-turn lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from F (1.17) to LOS D (0.89) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from B (0.61) to LOS A (0.57). Dublin Transit Center P~age 19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program \.h City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility SchedUle d. Dougherty/Scarlett intersection: The southbound Dougherty Road approach shall be widened and re-striped to include hvo (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right- turn lane. The two left- turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound approach should be widened and re-stxiped to include one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The westbound Scarlett Drive approach should have t~vo (2) right-turn lanes and one (1) shared through/left-turn lane. The two right-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS C (0.78) during the PM peak hour. Dublin Transit Center Page 20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L~, City of Dublin % Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule e. Dublin/Scarlett intersection: The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach shall be modified to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened to iuclude one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The two right-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound Scarlett Drive approach would include one (1) left-turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. The southbound Scarlett Drive approach would include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane and one (1) right-turn lane. The two left-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.59) during the PM peak hour. 4.11-2: Post all On-street parking within the Transit Project Developer Dublin Public Site Development Center for short-term (2 or 4 hour) use. Through the Works Department Review applications Site Development Review process for individual and Dublin development projects, ensure that on-site parking Plam~ing Division lots and structures discourage unauthorized BART patron use through security, validation or other meai1s. '-7 Dublin Transit Center Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin i on Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.11-3: The southbound Dougherty Road approach Project Developer Dublin Public As determined by shall be modified to include two (2) left-turn lanes, Works Departlnent City Traffic three (3) through lanes and one (1) shared Engineer through/right-turn lane. The northbound Dougherty Road approach shall be modified to include three (3) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach shall be modified to include three (3) left- turn lanes, two (2) through lanes and one (1) shared through/right turn lane. With these improvements, the intersection would operate at LOS E (0.7) durh~g the AM peak hour and LOS F (1.06) during the PM peak hour. Additional improvements are not feasible given the physical consh'afl~ts at the Dougherty/Dublin intersection. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and contfl~ue toobtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e. Year 2025). In addition, current and future phases of fl~e 1-580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some congestion at the Dougherty/Dublhl intersection through ITS measures and discourage h'affic front diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. : 24 Dublin Transit Center Page 22 '-~.: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 'City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.'11-4: The road segment Of Hacienda Drive between Project Developers Dublin Public As determined by Central Parkway and Gleason Drive should be Works Deparhnent City Traffic widened from three to four travel lanes and the Engia~eer Scarlett Drive extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road shall be constructed with four travel lanes prior to buildout of the proposed Transit Center. 4.12-1 Proposed high rise buildings (greater than 6 Project Developers Alameda County Site Developlnent stories feet in height) shall incorporate augmented Fire Department Review applications fire protection measures, including but not limited to for high rise caches of fire fighting equipment on upper floors buildings and other project-specific measures as identified by the Alameda County Fire Marshal. 4.12-2: Individual buildings and/or complexes of Project Developers Dublin Police Site Development buildings proposed for construction within the Department Review applications Transit Center shall submit a safety and security plan for the approval of the Police Chief. Safety and Security Plans shall include but not limited to provision for private security measures, methods to achieve coordination with the Dublin Police Services Department and other items as deemed important by the Dublin Police Services Department. Dublin Transit Center Page 23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program -~ City of Dublin Mitigation Measure hnplementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.12-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit Project Developers Dublin Plamfing Prior to issuance of within the Transit Center, the project proponent shall Division the first building enter into a school mitigation program with the permit within the Dublin Unified School District to ensure that future Center land uses within the Transit Center pay a fair share towards off-setting costs for new school facilities within the District. Developers of individual projects withh~ the Transit'Center shall be required to pay mitigation fees, as specified in the mitigation agreement, at time of building permit issuance by the City of Dublin. 4.12.4: Prior to issuing building permits for' Project Developers Dublin Plarming Prior to issuance of individual projects within the Transit Center, tlm Division first building permit City of Dublin shall require that "will serve" letter within the Center issued by PG&E indicating that there is sufficient electric power and transmission capacity to serve the proposed project, taking into account any on-site generation facility. Dublin Transit Center Page 24 ~.t'-- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin