HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 10-50 Climate Action Plan Neg Dec RESOLUTION NO. 1Q- 50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNlNG COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
~~,~,~n~,,,,~.. ~..,~m,~~F~,.__ ~ n.w~ ~.~..w,.~.,~.tt~~m~~
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTfON OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07
approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a
Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
adopted CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction, which included
an emission level threshold and an efficiency threshold for GHG emissions for development
projects; and
WHEREAS, alternativefy, under CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds, a City may
prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's
cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as the basis for determining that the
project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions
under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals and Objectives includes as a
high priority goal, the creation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with AECOM to assist Staff in preparing
the Draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects
are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental
documents prepared; and
WHEREAS, an fnitial Study was prepared for the Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan would have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public
review from July 7, 2010 to August 5, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received six comment letters during the public review
period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated
August 5, 2010) raised concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin worked cooperatively with BAAQMD and made minor
modifications to the Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration to address the concerns
outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated August 5, 2010. The minor modifications to the Negative
Declaration do not require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15~73.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration on October 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Councif adopt the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Negative
Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Negative Dec(aration for the
Draft Climate Action Plan, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2010 by the following
vote:
AYES: King, Brown, Swalwelt, Schaub
NOES:
ABSENT: Wehrenberg
ABSTAIN:
~
Pla ning Commi sion C ir
ATTEST:
/
:'`~i
Planning ager
G:IPA#120101Dublin Climate Action P/an & Neg DecIPC Meeting 10.26.101PC Reso 10.26.10 Neg Dec.doc
ZOf2
RESOLUTION NO. XX-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dubiin City Council passed Resolution 139-07
approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a
Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
adopted CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction, which included
an emission level threshold and an efficiency threshold for GHG emissions for development
projects; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, under CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds, a City may
prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's
cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as the basis for determining that the
project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions
under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals and Objectives includes as a
high priority goal, the creation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with AECOM to assist Staff in preparing
the Draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects
are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental
documents prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan would have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public
review from July 7, 2010 to August 5, 2010; and
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received six comment letters during the public review
period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated
August 5, 2010) raised concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin worked cooperatively with BAAQMD and made minor
modifications to the Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration to address the concerns
outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated August 5, 2010. The minor modifications to the Negative
Declaration do not require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration on October 26, 2010 and adopted Resolution 10-
XX recommending that fhe City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft Climate
Action Plan and Negative Declaration on , 2010; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which
constitute the record of proceedings for the Climate Action Plan is the City of Dublin City
Manager's Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Martha Aja.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the
Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit , based on the following findings:
1. The City Council considered the Negative Declaration together with the comments
received during the public review process prior to taking action on the Climate Action Plan.
2. The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no
substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan will have a significant effect on the
environment.
3. The Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to
the potential environmental effects of the Climate Action Plan.
4. The Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and tFie
CEQA Guidelines.
2of3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 2010 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G. I PA#110/OlDublin Climnte Action P[an & Neg Decl PC Mee[ing 10.26/OlDraft CC Reso / 0.26. ! 0 Neg Dec. rloc
3 of 3
Public Review Draft
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration for the
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
October 2010
EXHIBIT B TO
ATTACHMENT 2
Table of Contents
Intro duction ......................................................................................................................3
Contact Person & Sponsor ..............................................................................................3
Project Location and Context ..........................................................................................3
Project Background ................................................................................4
Project Description...........................................................................................................5
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................1 l
Determination ..................................................................................................................11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..............................................................................12
Earlier Analyses ...............................................................................................................13
Discussion of Checklist ...................................................................................................25
1. Aesthetics .................................................................................................25
2. Agricultural Resources .............................................................................26
3. Air Quality ...............................................................................................26
4. Biological Resources ................................................................................27
5. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................27
6. Geology and Soils ...........:........................................................................28
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................28
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................29
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................30
10. Land Use and Planning ...........................................................................31
11. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................32
12. Noise ........................................................................................................32
13. Population and Housing ...........................................................................33
14. Public Services .........................................................................................34
15. Recreation ................................................................................................34
16. Transportation/Traffic .............................................................................35
17. Utilities and Service Systems 36
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................37
Initial Study Preparers ......................................................................................................38
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ..........................................................................38
References ........................................................................................................................3 8
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Context ............................................................................................9
Exhibit 2: City of Dublin Context ....................................................................................10
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I
City of Du61iu
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
The City of Dublin prepared a Draft Climate Action Plan (Draft CAP) using input from City
staff and consultants. This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential
environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial
Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the
environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Project Sponsor & Contact Person
City of Dublin
City Manager's Office/Environmental Services
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833-6650
Attn: Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst
Project Location and Context
The City of Dublin consists of approximately 14.9 square miles of land area lying in eastem
Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-Valley area.
Surrounding jurisdictions include San Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa County to the
north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and the cities of Pleasanton and
Livermore to the south.
Major features in the community include the Interstate 580 freeway, which forms the
southern boundary of Dublin and the Interstate 680 freeway that extends in a north south
direction just east of downtown Dublin. The City is also served by the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (BART), with an existing Dublin/Pleasanton station and a West Dublin
• station currently under construction and anticipated to be completed in 2011.
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and other
major features.
Topographically, the community is generally flat north of the Interstate 580 corridor,
transitioning to rolling hillsides in the northern and western portions of Dublin.
Major land uses comprising Dublin include the older commercial downtown area north of the
Interstate 580 freeway generally located between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway with
predominantly low density, single family dwellings surrounding the downtown area.
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA, also known as Camp Parks) is located in the
approximate center of Dublin and is used for military training purposes.
The newest portion of Dublin is Eastern Dublin, consisting of approximately 4,200 acres of
land located east of Parks RFTA, north of Interstate 580, south of the Alameda County-
Contra Costa County line and west of the unincorporated Doolan Canyon area. Eastern
Dublin has been urbanizing since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan in 1993 and the area now contains a mix of single-family dwellings,
multiple-family dwellings, commercial and government facility land uses. Completion of the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station has facilitated development of high-density housing
complexes in this portion of Dublin.
Project Background
California has adopted a wide variety of regulations aimed at reducing the State's greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. While State actions alone cannot stop global wanning, the adoption
and implementation of this legislation demonstrates California's leadership in addressing this
critical challenge. Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006, requires California to reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32
directs the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations that
reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was
approved by t1RB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the GHG
reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies California
will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MMT COze), or approximately 30% from the State's projected 2020 emissions
level. The Scoping Plan is a functionally equivalent document prepared under CEQA by
ARB which meets the criteria for a certified regulatory program. The potential adverse
environmental effects and identified mitigation measures of the actions in the Scoping Plan
are set forth in Appendix J of the Scoping Plan.
In the Scoping Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for
municipal operations emission and to move forward with establishing similar goals for
community emissions, which parallel the State's commitment to reduce GHG emissions. The
specific role local governments will play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is not
established in the Scoping Plan.
Dublin's Draft CAP articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing community-
wide GHG emissions to further the goals of AB 32. The City's Draft CAP includes a variety
of strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions within the community. The various
reduction measures contained within the Draft CAP have been separated into the following
categories: transportation and land use measures, energy measures and solid waste and
recycling measures. A program or project would be considered consistent with the Draft CAP
if, considering all of its aspects, it would substantially comply with the applicable measures
set forth within the Draft CAP and not obstruct their attainment.
CEQA allows cities to develop climate action or GHG reduction plans to provide
programmatic analysis of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions for future projects in the
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 authorizes the use of these Plans for the analysis of
the cumulative impacts of projects consistent with the Plan. The BAAQMD adopted CEQA
Guidelines and Significance Thresholds for GHGs also authorize the use of these Plans for
CEQA review of future projects. This Draft CAP serves as the City's qualified GHG
Reduction Plan and programinatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for analysis of
impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the
reduction target under the Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Plan to less
than significant under CEQA (i.e., the project will not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact). The substantial evidence to support this
determination is set forth in the CAP, documents referenced in the CAP, this IS/ND, and
other parts of the record relating to the adoption of the CAP. Therefore, this Plan may be used
for the cumulative impact analysis for future projects and development in the City covered by
the Plan. Because the CAP has undergone CEQA environmental review and is intended to
reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts in the City to a less than cumulatively
considerable level, it may be relied upon to address the cumulative impacts for future projects
consistent with the CAP. This approach is consistent with Public Resources Code 210833,
CEQA Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130 and the adopted BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
and Thresholds of Significance, which provide a means for jurisdictions to analyze and
mitigate the significant effects of GHGs at a programmatic level by adopting a plan for the
reduction of GHG emissions. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission
reduction measures identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than
significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
cumulative impact) due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consistent with
CEQA.
Project Description
The proposed project is the adoption of the Draft CAP, a document that provides policies and
measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions within the City. The goal of the Draft CAP is to
reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below the Business-As-Usual
projection of GHG emitted by 2020 which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT COze per
service population per year in 2020. The Draft CAP describes baseline GHG emissions produced
in Dublin, and projects GHG emissions that could be expected if the Draft CAP is not
implemented. The City expects the reduction goal to be achieved through a combination of
efforts at the local, regional and State levels. The reduction measures included within the Draft
CAP, which contribute to the City's reduction goal, include locally-focused activities as well as
regional and State initiatives under the Scoping Plan, such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard,
and implementation of other recent State legislation. The City considers regional efforts as well
as the implementation of State legislation to be a significant contributor to GHG reductions
within the community as a significant portion of the City's GHG emissions come from State-
controlled freeways, which cross or boarder the Dublin community.
Emission Inventory, Baseline and Projections
Chapter II of the Draft CAP, "Emission Inventory," presents a GHG emissions inventory for
2005, which includes an inventory of both community level and municipal level emissions. The
community emissions inventory includes sources of GHG emitted from the residential,
commerciaUindustrial, transportation and waste sectors. The municipal emissions inventory
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
includes those sources that fall under the direct jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin
Municipal Corporation, which includes City facilities, the City's vehicle fleet, public lighting,
municipal water consumption and municipal solid waste generation. The emission inventory was
developed by the City in collaboration with ICLEI - Local Govemments for Sustainability using
Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software. Total community-wide emissions were
determined to be 357,211 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005. Government-related
emissions were estimated to be 1,573 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005.
Chapter III of the Draft CAP, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections of
emissions in 2020. Under a business-as-usual scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's
emissions will grow over the next decade and a half by approximately 31.9% from 357,211 to
471,205 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 20% below
the Business-As-Usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by said year. In other terms, the
City projects that emission reduction measures contained within the Draft CAP will lower the
projected GHG emissions from 2020 from 471,205 metric tons of carbon dioxide to 376,964.
While the City expects significant residential, commercial and industrial growth through 2020,
the total amount of GHGs emitted within the community will not be increasing significantly. The
impact of the emission reduction measures within the Draft CAP is more clearly demonstrated by
comparing per service population emissions (population + employment, which decreases from
5.88 tons per service population in 2005 to 4.22 tons per service population using the projections
for 2020, which represents a 28% decrease in GHG emissions between the base year and forecast
year. Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the 15-year period covered by the CAP,
but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per
service population basis, which is not clearly visible when simply inspecting the BAU scenario.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures
The Draft CAP identifies a variety of ineasures that contribute to the achievement of the City's
GHG reduction target. The inclusion of quantifiable GHG reduction measures is the primary
focus of the Draft CAP, with the anticipated emissions reduction of each measure in metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent being used to contribute to the overall City GHG reduction goal
relative to 2020. Measures that would aid in reducing GHG emissions, but which are not or
cannot be quantified, are also included in the Draft CAP and will result in GHG reductions
beyond those included in the reductions calculation. The various GHG reduction measures are
organized into three categories: transportation and land use, energy (which includes both energy
efficiency and renewable energy) and solid waste management. These categories follow the
major sources of emissions found in the City of Dublin 2005 GHG emissions inventory.
Results oflmplementation
Implementation of the measures in the Draft CAP would result in annual community-wide GHG
emission reductions of approximately 46,737 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (9.92%
total % reduction relative to 2020). The City-controlled measures include transportation and land
use, energy measures and solid waste and recyciing measures. The municipal operations and
public outreach programs are also included as part of the City-controlled measures. The measures
outlined in the Draft CAP represent the City controlled emissions. Additionally, implementation
of statewide initiatives (Renewable Portfolio Standard and AB 1493) would result in annual
GHG emission reductions of an additional 52,263 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(11.09% total % reduction relative to 2020). The Draft CAP measures combined with the
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 99,000 metric
tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing
GffG emission by 20% below the Business-As-Usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by
said year which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT COze per service population per year in
2020.
Potential Environmental Impacts
The overall purpose of the Draft CAP is to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts that these
emissions will have on global climate change and, therefore, benefit the environment. Therefore,
it may not constitute a"project" under CEQA or it may qualify for an exemption under CEQA.
However, as with a proposal involving activities relating to development, implementation of the
Draft CAP theoretically could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment.
Therefore, an Initial Study is being prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether
there are any potential adverse enviromnental impacts of implementing the Draft CAP. The
enviromnental analysis of the Draft CAP will only focus on the new policies or changes in
existing or adopted policies that will be implemented as a result of the Draft CAP. It will not
analyze the impacts of existing or approved programs included in the Draft CAP, which have
already undergone their own environmental review. In particular, the Draft CAP will not result in
any change in land use or permit greater intensity of development than already allowed under the
existing City General Plan, Specific Plans and zoning. The environmental impacts from these
types of activities are already addressed by the CEQA enviromnental review adopted by the City
relating to these actions. This Initial Study includes an analysis of each potential impact
identified in the enviromnental checklist under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines
beginning on page 15.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
1. Project description: Adoption of the Draft Climate Action Plan.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
3. Contact persons: Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst,
925-833-6650
4. Project location: City-wide
5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin
6. General Plan designation: Various
7. Zoning: Various
8. Other public agency required approvals:
None
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Exhibit 1. Regional Context
~
,
5
° . "~j~..,,
Ant~
a ~
San"
~Oaklan
FCc'1i1GISC0
Project Site
Dublin
~ San TraCy
Francisco ;
PaClflC OCeal'1 gay Livermore
Fi e
+1
1m -
37
e_
Sr~tl .~t~S@
0 " 10 Miles ;85f
`t Detail
Sania
\
Cruz ti52;
Califomia`: 5z
a ~
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Exhibit 2. City of Dublin context
co`~ ACo
~
ou»cwxnnt~nwvn DUBLiN RANCH
~ DUBLIN
_ ~
uueuv
~ notn.evnRn - ~
PLEASANTON
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a"potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
- Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
- Greenhouse Gas - Hazards and - Hydrology/Water
Emissions Hazardous Materials Quality
- Land Use/ Planning - Mineral Resources - Noise
- Population/ - Public Services - Recreation
Housin
- Transportation/ - Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings
Circulation Systems of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact
Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ETR pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed proj ect.
Signature: J~92 Date: a& 6
Printed Name: '~512AbiE( For: '
City of Dublin Page 11
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A"no impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"no impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) In some instances, an "LS, Less-than-Significant ImpacY" response may reflect that a
specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA document and
appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a previous CEQA document to
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In a few instances, some previously
analyzed topics have been determined to be significant and unavoidable and mitigation
of such impact to a less-than-significant level is not feasible. In approving the previous
CEQA document, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
For existing or approved programs included in the proposed Draft CAP, the CAP will
not result in any change. Therefore, since such environmental impacts have been
adequately analyzed under prior adopted CEQA environmental documents and the
Draft CAP will not result in any new impacts, no further analysis of these impacts are
required under this document.
3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
4) "Potentially Significant ImpacY" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impacY" entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5) "Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"potentially significant effect" to a"less than significant impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level.
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist).
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIlZ, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIlZ or Negative Declaration.
Reference CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(d).
Portions of the environmental analysis for this Initial Study refer to information contained in one
or more of the EIRs or NDs listed below. This Initial Study will not analyze the impacts of
existing or approved programs included in the Draft CAP which have already undergone their
own environmental review. The Draft CAP does not propose any General Plan ar applicable
Specific Plan land use changes, any rezoning of properties, or changes in the intensity or density
of development. The environmental impacts from these types of activities are already addressed
by the CEQA envirorunental review approved by the City relating to these actions. The
environmental analysis of the Draft CAP will only focus on the new policies or changes in
policies that will be implemented as a result of the Draft CAP.
• Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 91103064),
certified by City Council Resolution No. 51-93 on May 10, 1993.
• Downtown Care Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 226-00 on December 19, 2000.
• West Dublin BART Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 227-00 on December 19, 2000.
• Dublin Transit Center Supplemental EIR (SCH # 20011200395), certified by City
Council Resolution No. 215-02 on November 19, 2002.
• Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2003022082), certified by City Council
Resolution No. 42-05 on March 15, 2005.
• • Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005062010), certified by City Council
Resolution No. 225-05 on December 6, 2005
• Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 71-06 on May 16, 2006.
• Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No.
57-05 on May 1, 2007.
• Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005052146), certified by City
Council Resolution No. 56-07 on May, 1 2007.
• City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 133-07 on July 17, 2007.
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
These documents are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review at the
Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours.
All these documents are collectively referred to in this Initial Study as "Adopted CEQA
Documents."
City of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I
Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No
following the checklist. sign;scanr Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
1. Aesthetics. Would the project.•
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and X
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Sources: 1-9)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime X
views in the area? (Sources: 1-9)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X
or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non- X
agricultural use? (Sources: 1-9)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project.•
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Violate any air quality standard or conh-ibute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Sources: 1-9) X
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable X
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations? (Sources: 1-9)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X
number of people? (Sources: 1-9)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special X
status species in loca] or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or X
regulations or by the California Deparhnent of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected weflands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not ]imited x
to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption
or other means?
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or X
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1-9)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree X
protection ordinances? (Sources: 1-9)
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
fl Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community X
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Sources: 1-9)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined X
in Sec. 15064.5? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource X
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Sources: 1-9)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic X
feature? (Sources: 1-9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those X
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1-9) -
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential X
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a lmown earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault X
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or
based on other substantial evidence of a laiown
fault (1-9)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Sources: 1-9) X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X
liquefaction? ((Sources: 1-9)
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1-9) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- X
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Sources: 1-9)
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significan[ Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or Option wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available X
for the disposal of wastewater? (Sources: 1-9)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would ihe project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant X
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose X
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?
8. Hazards and Aazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use X
or disposal of hazardous materials?
((Sources: 1-9)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? ((Sources: 1-9)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of X
an existing or proposed school? ((Sources: 1-9)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Sources: 1-9, 11)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? ((Sources: 1-9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for X
people residing or working in the project area?
(Sources: 1-9)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
(Sources: 1-9)
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, X
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1-9)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in X
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate
of existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been
granted? (1-9)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner X
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? ((Sources: 1-9)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration X
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? ((Sources: 1-9)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned X
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff? (Sources: 1-9)
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
(Sources: 1-9)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary X
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Sources: 1-9)
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan ' . October 2010
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood X
flows? ((Sources: 1-9, 13)
n Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? ((Sources: 1-9)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (1-9) X
10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
((Sources: 1-9)
b) Conflict with any applicabie land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the X
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1-
9)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? X
(Sources: 1-9)
11. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a Imown
mineral resource that would be of value to the X
region and the residents of the state? (Sources:
1-9)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan X
or other land use plan? ((Sources: 1-9)
12. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or X
applicable standards of other agencies? (1-9)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X
levels? (Sources: 1-9)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing x
levels without the project? (Sources: 1-9)
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan . October 2010
I
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X
above levels existing without the project? (1-9)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use X
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? ((Sources: 1-9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people X
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? ((Sources: 1-9)
13. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement -7-
housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1-9)
14. Public Services. Wou[d the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause sigiificant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? ((Sources: 1-9)
Fire protection X
Police protection X
Schools X
Parks X
Other public facilities X
Solid Waste X
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti arion
15. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Sources: 1-9, 12)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
((Sources: 1-9, 12)
16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the sireet system (i.e. result in a substantial X
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the X
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (Sources: 1-9)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (1-9) X
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1-9) X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting Option transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Sources: 1-9)
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I
Potenrially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control X
Board? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treahnent facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which X
could cause significant environmental effects?
((Sources: 1-9, 10)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1-9)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and X
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Sources: 1-9, 10)
e) Resuit in a determination by the wastewater
treahnent provider which serves or may serve X
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (1-9)
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid X
waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1-9)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1-9)
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, X
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or resirict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin Page 23
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti ation
b) Does the proj ect have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project X
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantiai adverse effects on X
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR
2) Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration
3) West Dublin BART Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration
4) Dublin Transit Center Supplemental EIR
5) Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR
6) Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration
7) Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration
8) Casmir Valley/Muller Ranch Supplemental EIR
9) Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR
10) Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin
11) Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update
12) California Deparhnent of Toxic Substances Control, website, October 2009
13) Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
14) City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2007
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
IVI: No Impact
1. Aesthetics
Project Impacts
a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista, damage scenic vistas (including
a scenic highway) or substantially degrade the visual character of a site? LS.
Proposed measures in the Draft CAP encourage the installation of photovoltaic (PV)
panels on homes and businesses in the City to provide alternative sources of energy.
PV panels could be placed on rooftops, which could potentially alter scenic views.
Installation of these panels would require Building review and approval. Typically PV
panels are placed on existing homes, which have undergone a review process to
ensure that they don't impact scenic vistas within the City. The impact would be less-
than significant.
All other potentially significant impacts on scenic views would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not
result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
Documents and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these
policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
d) Create light or glare? LS. Implementation of the Draft CAP would not result in the
development of major light sources, although installation of PV panels on homes and
businesses is encouraged to reduce Dublin's dependence on energy sources that produce
GHGs. PV panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect sunlight. Thus their
placement and orientation on individual properties would not adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area or create light or glare.
All other potentially significant impacts due to light or glare would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result
in any change in these policies or programs. The environment impacts of these policies
and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and
the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/prograrris, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
2. Agricultural Resources.
Project Impacts
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime
farmland to a non-agricultural use? LS. All potentially significant impacts on
Agricultural Resources would result from development or activities in accordance
with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate
Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or
programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed
in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have
been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not
result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts
are required in this document.
3. Air Quality
Proiect Impacts
a) Wou1d the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The
purpose of the Draft CAP is to reduce GHG emissions within the City to help contribute
to global efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Measures within the Draft CAP
include improving energy efficiency in buildings, using renewable energy, developing
bicycle facilities, enhancing public transit and promoting smart growth principles, such
as transit-oriented development and mixed-use projects. In addition to reducing GHG
emissions, each of the measures noted above would help to reduce criteria air pollutants
and would not conflict with or obstruct the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District's Air Quality Plan. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-
than-significant impact.
b,c) Would the project violate any kir quality or greenhouse gas emission standards or
result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. See item (a) above for
greenhouse gas emissions.
All potentially significant impacts due to emissions of other criteria pollutants would
result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies
and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not
result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document. However, some of the measures
included in the Draft CAP would result in a reduction in the emissions of other criteria
pollutants, especially from measures that reduce emissions from vehicles.
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I
d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? LS. All potentially
significant impacts due to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants would result
from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result
in any change in these policies or programs. The envirorunental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
e) Create objectionable odors? NI. The Project does not propose strategies or measures
that would directly or indirectly result in the creation of objectionable odors. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
4. Biological Resources
Project Impacts
a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, special-status species
riparian habitat or wetlands? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Biological
Resources would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or
approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The
Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The
environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related
Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed
under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes
to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this
document.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS. See items (a-c) above.
Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
e, fl ConfZict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? LS.
See items (a-c) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than
significant impact.
5. Cultural Resources
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. All potentially
significant impacts on Cultural Resources would result from development or activities
in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or
programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in
the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said envirorunental impacts have been
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not result in any
changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in
this document.
b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS.
See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than
significant impact.
6. Geology and Soils
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Geology and Soils would result
from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result
in any change in these policies or programs. The envirorunental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the Zoss of topsoil? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than sigrificant impact.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
All new structures are required by the City of Dublin to connect to the local sewer
system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. No impacts would
therefore result with regard to septic systems.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Impacts
a) Generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment? NI. Implementation of strategies and measures within the Draft CAP
would result in annual community-wide GHG emission reductions of approximately
99,000 metric tons C02e by 2020, which includes the reduction measures within the
Draft CAP as well as implementation of regional and State initiatives such as
Renewable Portfolio Standards and AB 1493 (Pavley). Implementation of the Draft
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
CAP would therefore directly and indirectly reduce community-wide GHGs, which will
' have a beneficial impact on the environment. There would be no significant adverse
impact due to GHGs.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? NI. California has adopted a wide variety
of regulations aimed at reducing the State's GHG emissions. AB 32, the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement
regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan
(Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan
to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the
primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 MM C02e,
or approximately 30% from the State's projected 2020 emissions level. In the Scoping
Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal
operations and move toward establishing similar goals for the community emissions
that pazallel the State commitment to reduce GHGs.
Dublin's Draft CAP articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing
community-wide GHG emissions in a manner to promote AB 32 and to reduce the
impact of potential future GHG emissions to less-than significant cumulative impact
under CEQA. Implementation of ineasures proposed within the Draft CAP would result
in annual community-wide GHG emission reductions of approximately 46,737 MT
C02e by 2020. Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (Renewable
Portfolio Standards and Assembly Bill 1493) would result in annual GHG emission
reductions of an additional 52,263 MT COze. The Draft CAP measures combined with
the statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by
99,000 MT C02e and would be consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan recommendations.
As of this writing, there are no adopted regional or local plans, policies or regulations
other than the, Scoping Plan and the City's Draft CAP which are designed to reduce
emissions of GHGs. There would be no impact.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Impacts
a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal hazardous materials? LS. All potentially significant impacts
on Hazards and Hazardous Materials would result from development or activities in
accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or
programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in
the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said envirorunental impacts have been
analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not result in any
changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in
this document.
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
b, c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment or emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP
would result in a less-than significant impact. Any impact due to potential hazardous
release through retrofit of existing buildings would be reduced to less-than significant
through compliance with all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials.
d) Be Zisted on a site that is included on a[ist of hazardous materials sites complied on the
Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or
environment? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in
a less-than significant impact.
e, fl Is the site located within an airport Zand use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a
less-than significant impact.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Proiect Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. All
potentially significant impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result
in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP wili not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The
primary source of water to development projects is imported surface water supplied by
DSRSD and Zone 7. Neither DSRSD nor Zone 7 relies upon local groundwater. There
would be no impact with lowering of the water table or reducing the amount of
groundwater recharge areas.
City of Dublin Page 30
initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that
substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of
the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project
site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of
the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
fl Substantially degrade water quality? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the
Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
g-i) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance
Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. There are expected to be no
impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since projects would be located
inland from major bodies of water.
10. Land Use and Planning
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The programs and policies in the Draft
CAP are consistent with the City General Plan. Construction of future projects
(including mixed-use development, transit-oriented development and new bike
facilities) under the auspices of the Draft CAP would proceed based on the Dublin
General Plan and other land use regulatory documents, including applicable Specific
Plans and the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan and would not
physically divide an established community. Additionally, the Draft CAP includes
measures to improve connectivity within Dublin and to promote alternative
transportation methods. The Draft CAP does not recommend any measures that would
physically divide the community. No impacts are anticipated.
b) ConfZict with any applicable land use pZan, policy or regulation? IVI. No amendments
are required to the Dublin General Plan and no rezonings are required. Future
developments anticipated in the Draft CAP are required to obtain the required permits,
such as subdivision maps, Site Development Review permits, building permits and
potentially other permits from the City of Dublin.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural communiry conservation plan? IVI.
No such plan has been adopted within the City of Dublin. There would therefore be no
impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
11. Mineral Resources
Proiect Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources?
NI. No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources are
identified in Dublin in the Dublin General Plan.
12. Noise
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standards? LS. While the Draft
CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that would generate excessive
amounts of noise, construction activity associated with energy efficiency retrofits and
installing solar panels in residential and commercial buildings could possibly result in
temporary increases in noise. The noise from these activities is expected to be
minimal and less than-significant. Construction activities will be required to conform
to any applicable project Conditions of Approval and the General Plan policies to
reduce noise to ensure that these impacts are less-than significant.
All other potentially significant impacts due to noise would result from development
or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included
in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any changes in
these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs
were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental
impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP
will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these
impacts are required in this document.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
LS. It is uniikely that implementation of ineasures within the Draft CAP to perform
energy retrofits on existing homes or install solar panels would result in significant
levels of vibration, since normal construction methods would be used. No impacts are
anticipated with regard to this topic.
All other potentially significant impacts due to groundborne vibration or noise would
result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies
and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not
result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in ambient noise Zevels? LS.
Implementation of the Draft CAP could cause a temporary increase in ambient noise
levels as a result of construction activities to perform energy retrofits on existing homes
or install solar panels. The noise from these activities is expected to be minimal and
less-than significant. Construction activities will be required to conform to any
applicable project Conditions of Approval and the General Plan policies to reduce noise
to ensure that these impacts are less than significant.
All other potentially sigiificant impacts on Noise would result from development or
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said envirorunental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not
result in any changes to these policies/programs, no filrther analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
e, fl Be located within an airport land use plan area, within rivo miles of a public or private
airport or airstrip? LS. A number of parcels within the City are located in the General
Airport Referral Area for Livermore Municipal Airport, located south of Interstate 580
within the City of Livermore. Applicable projects within this area are required to be
referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency
determination with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The
Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted the California Office of
Noise Control noise exposure standards for residential uses, which is generally
consistent with City of Dublin noise standards.
All potentially significant impacts due to airport noise would result from development
or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in
the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not
result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
13. Population and Housing
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS.
Implementation of the Draft CAP would not cause substantial population growth in
Dublin, since anticipated dwellings are currently included in the Dublin General Plan.
This would be a less-than significant impact.
All potentially significant impacts due to population increase would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result
in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people
requiring replacement housing? LS. The Draft CAP strategies and measures would not
result in the displacement of a substantial number of homes or people. This would be a
less-than significant impact.
14. Public Services
Environmental IWacts
a) Fire protection? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Public Services would result
from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result
in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said envirorunental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Police protection? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
c) Schools? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a
less-than significant impact.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP
would result in a less-than significant impact. Also, the Draft CAP contains programs
and policies that would reduce solid waste generation.
15. Recreation
Project Impacts •
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. All
potentially significant impacts on Recreation would result from development or
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not
result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of
recreational facilities? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Project Impacts
a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and
street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads?
LS. Implementation of the Draft CAP measures would increase the availability of
transit service for Dublin residents, add additional bicycle facilities and discourage
single-occupancy vehicle use. Achieving each of these goals would result in a reduction
in traffic loads, which would reduce the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity
ratio, and intersection congestion within the City. New mixed-use and transit-oriented
development projects would be designed to reduce vehicle trips and place more people
within walking distance of commercial uses and public transit. Furthermare, no
proposed measure in the Draft CAP would directly increase traffic in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
Additionally, impacts of local and regional traffic from development projects have been
analyzed in the previous CEQA documents adopted by the City and are identified in the
Earlier Analysis section of this document. All other potentially significant impacts on
Transportation/Traffic would result from development or activities in accordance with
existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action
Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The
envirorunental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related
Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed
under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes
to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this
document.
c) Result in a change of air traffc patterns? IVI. The Draft CAP does not include any
strategy or measure that would directly or indirectly affect air traffic patterns. There
would be no impact.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. The
Draft CAP does not include any strategy or measure that would promote the
development of hazardous design features or incompatible uses. Additionally, future
projects that would be proposed in Dublin will be reviewed by City of Dublin staff to
ensure that City public works and engineering standards are met and no traffic or
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
transportation design hazards would be created. This would be a less-than-significant
impact.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. No strategy or measure proposed in the
Draft CAP would result in the development of uses or facilities that would degrade
emergency access; therefore, the impact would be less-than significant with regard to
emergency access.
f, g) Inadequate parking capacity or hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. The Draft
CAP includes measures that would reduce the demand for automobile parking in favor
of biking, carpooling and public transit. New mixed-use and transit-oriented "
development projects would be designed to support the use of alternative transit,
potentially reducing parking requirements and supply both collectively and within
individual projects. It is unlikely that that future projects pursuant to the Draft CAP
would contribute to inadequate parking capacity within the City. This would be a less-
than-significant impact.
All other potentially significant impacts due. to parking capacity or hazards to
pedestrians or bicyclists would result from development or activities in accordance with
existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action
Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The
environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related
Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed in
the related Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not result in any
changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in
this document.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. All potentially
significant impacts on Utilities and Service Systems would result from development or
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not
result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document
b) Require new watet- or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a
less-than significant impact.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
environmental effects? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the
Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
f, g) Solid waste disposal? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a pZant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? LS. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed Project would not
have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or have the potential to restrict
the range of rare or endangered species, beyond impacts previously identified. All
potentially significant impacts in this area would result from development or activities
in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or
programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in
the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been
analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP will not result in any
changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in
this document.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). LS.
Cumulative impacts of the proposed Project have been analyzed in previous CEQA
documents as identified in the Earlier Analysis section of this Initial Study. All
potentially significant cumulative impacts would result from development or activities
in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these policies or
programs. The envirorunental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in
the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been
analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Document and the Draft CAP will not result in any
changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in
this document.
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? LS. Based on the preceding
Initial Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have
been identified. Any potentially significant impacts on human beings would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP will not result
in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these
policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since
said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents
and the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
Initial Study Preparer
Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
City ofDublin
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager
Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst
Tim Cremin, City Attorney's Office
Jordan Figueiredo, Environmental Technician
Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH #
91103064, May 10, 1993.
Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, December 19,
2000.
Dublin Transit Center Supplemental ETR (SCH # 20011200395), November 19,
2002
Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR, (SCH # 2003022082), March 15, 2005.
Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update, Dublin San Ramon Services
District, May 2005
Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration, May 16, 2006.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Vargas Pro,ject Mitigated Negative Declaration, May 1, 2007.
Casamira Vallev/Moller Ranch Supplemental EIlZ (SCH# 2005052146), May 1,
2007.
Fallon Village Proiect Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005062010), March 4, 2008.
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
Bikeways Master Plan, City of Dublin, June 2007
Ciry of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
CITY OF DUBLIN
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Description of Project: The proposed project is the adoption of the Draft CAP, a document
that provides policies and measures aimed at reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions within the City of Dublin. The goal of the
Draft CAP is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions
by 20% below a business as usual scenario by 2020 which results
in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e per service population per
year in 2020. The Draft CAP identifies a variety of ineasures to
achieve the City's GHG reduction target. The Draft CAP describes
baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in 2005, and projects
GHG emissions that could be expected if the Draft CAP is not
implemented. The City expects the reduction to be achieved by a
combination of the reduction measures included in the Draft CAP
and State initiatives, such as Renewable Portfolio Standard and
Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley).
Project Location: City-wide applicability.
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin
Attn: Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist
City Manager's Office/Environmental Services
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
Determination: I hereby find that although the above project could not have a
significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is hereby approved.
/o O
Roger Bradley enior Administrative Analyst Date
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at
the City of Dublin, City Manager's Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling
(925) 833-6650.
Attachments
Date Published:
Date Posted:
Date Notice Mailed:
Considered by:
On:
N.O.D. filed:
Council Resolution No.
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010